CALIFORNIA FREIGHT ISSUES: Senior Forum Palm Springs, CA October 29-31, 2007

1. CALIFORNIA FREIGHT ISSUES: Senior Forum Palm Springs, CA October 29-31, 2007 Michele Fell-Casale Senior Transportation Planner Office of Goods Movement California Department of Transportation

2. INTERSTATE 710–TYPICAL DAY

3. California is facing a significant infrastructure shortfall. Interstate 710 is a dramatic example, but it is not the only one. Today, I will be sharing information about California’s approach as we address current and future impacts of dramatic increases in trade to and through the state. It is about a focused planning, a State vision, innovative financial approaches, and collaborative partnerships. Senior planners are uniquely positioned to play a key role. Introduction

7. GMAP Background • The Action Plan is a response to: • Severe congestion at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach that occurred in 2004 (and continued GROWTH!). • Public concern regardingcommunity, health and environmental impacts of goods movement. • Importance of goods movement to the State’s economy and global competitiveness.

8. Goods Movement Action Plan • The Plan was developed in two phases: • Phase I was the ‘what’ and the ‘why’: • Trade trends, freight/maritime industry changes • Inventory of state’s goods movement infrastructure needs • Growing evidence of the severity of goods movement activities on the environment and public health • Phase II is the ‘who’, ‘when’ and ‘how’: • Phase II outlined the strategies, policies and potential projects to address the issues identified in Phase I.

9. Goods Movement Action Plan Principles • Undertake simultaneous and continuous improvement in infrastructure and mitigation. • Consider the 4 port-to-border corridors as an integrated system • San Diego, LA-Inland Empire, Central Valley, Bay Area • Don’t forget the rest of the state! • Pursue excellence through technology, efficiency, and workforce development. • Develop partnerships to advance goals. • Promote trust, provide for meaningful public participation, address environmental justice concerns.

10. Project Challenges/Meeting the Needs • How do we meet the need? • September 2005 Phase I Report identified 180 projects or groups of projects, totaling $47.3 billion. • January 2007 Phase II Report reflected 24 of the original 180 as “TCIF Bond Funding Recommendations” (GMAP, Phase II Report, Table I-2, page I-22). • Total project costs: $10.3 billion • Total available TCIF: $2 billion

11. Strategic Growth Plan • California’s Strategic Growth Plan (SGP) is intended to lay the foundation for long-term investments in the State’s critical infrastructure needs. • It is a ‘down payment’ to jump start delivery of critical projects. More resources, including public investments and public/private joint ventures--will be needed over the long term.

13. Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, andPort Security Bond Act of 2006 This act (Proposition 1B) provides $19.9 billion for transportation and related improvements, including: • Highway upgrades to reduce congestion • State highway rehabilitation and operational improvements • Trade corridor infrastructure and emission reduction • Expansion of intercity rail and public transit • Local street, road, and bridge repair • Port anti-terrorism security improvements

14. Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF) • $2 billion trade infrastructure program contained in Proposition 1B. • For highway, freight rail, seaport, and airport and border access improvement projects. • Key allocation principles include: • Addressing the state’s most urgent needs in partnership with both the public & private sector • Balancing both the needs of large and small ports, and providing reasonable geographic balance • Concurrent mobility improvement and emissions reductions • Programming for deliverability, maximum benefit and optimum performance

15. The GMAP and the TCIF • The California Transportation Commission will consider the GMAP as it identifies and selects projects funded by the TCIF. • The California Marine and Intermodal Transportation System Advisory Council (CALMITSAC) port master plan, and Regional Transportation Plans and goods movement studies of the MPOs/RTPAs will also be considered. • Development of the TCIF Guidelines is targeted for a June or July completion. The latest target for investment decisions is March 2008.

16. TCIF Legislative and Guideline Issues • Program/project priorities – system, mode, project, performance outcomes • Project selection criteria – consideration of diverse sources, other programs coordination • Geographic balance • Match eligibility – Other State funds • Project initiation (delivery) deadline • Authority to fund/deliver rail freight projects • Due dates – Guidelines, program

17. Partnerships—the key to effective planning • Regional and Local Governments – Metropolitan Planning Organizations (e.g., SCAG), County Transportation Commissions (e.g., LACMTA, SANBAG), local cities, counties and planning agencies. • Private Industry – Carriers (shipping lines, railroads, trucking firms), terminal operators, shippers, receivers, interest groups. • General public, including community based organizations and advocacy groups.

18. Public-Private Partnerships • “P3” is an emerging and critical aspect of California’s innovative approach to funding needed infrastructure projects. • There are a number of proposed joint venture projects that will utilize innovative partnerships approaches. • Some projects will be primarily funded by the public sector, with private sector contributions. • Some projects will be primarily funded by the private sector, with public sector contributions.

19. Potential Goods Movement Public-Private Partnership Projects • Gerald Desmond Bridge (Port of Long Beach) • Port - highway project • Otay Mesa East Port of Entry (near San Diego) • International gateway • Truck toll lanes in the Los Angeles (SCAG) region • Highway corridors • Tehachapi Double Track (near Bakersfield) • Rail corridor improvement • Oakland Outer Harbor Terminal • Port terminal

20. Goods Movement Planning • Principle: Build the program of action based on overall policy, desired outcomes, system analysis, project evaluation and selection, and performance measurement. • Principle: The planning approach must be flexible, that is a balancing of federal, state, regional and local objectives and individual needs. No one size fits all. Planning must also be done in a cooperative, inclusive and open fashion, involving all interested freight interests, public and private. It must be continuing, and it must be comprehensive.

21. District Planning Program Elements • Develop/enhance goods movement stakeholder partnerships and dialogues – infrastructure providers, users, and impacted communities. • Develop goods movement system studies/analyses, including the identification of: • Goods movement transportation network, including major generators/receivers; • Performance of that network (i.e., including design, operational, safety, maintenance, access and capacity deficiencies and other issues);

22. District Planning Program Elements • Factors/variables that are driving system performance changes (e.g, international trade growth, truck/rail industry changes, goods movement land-use development); • System deficiencies; and • Improvement alternatives, including project evaluation and selection. • Develop goods movement improvement project lists, priorities, and PIDS.

23. District Planning Program Elements • Advocate study and project programming in OWPs, RTPs, RTIPs/FTIPs, the ITIP, and the SHOPP. • Work with local planning agencies to consider goods movement requirements. • Monitor land-use and system changes that may impact system performance. • Expand goods movement data resources, information and expertise.

24. Performance Measurement • Principle: To determine how the system is performing, to guide decision-makers and analysts in recommending appropriate action; • Proposed freight performance measures: • Travel time reliability (% on-time performance; variance in travel times for interregional and intraregional trips); • Modal facilities inventory; • Truck volumes by axle/percent of corridor capacity; • Total emissions and rates (by ton-mile) measured at statewide and regional air basin levels; • Percent increase in goods movement over baseline.

25. Future Directions • Greater recognition of goods movement planning as separate, distinct, planning subject and discipline. • Significantly expanded focus on environmental, community and public health impacts and mitigation measures. • Increased multimodal policy, planning and funding analysis and commitment. • More creative funding partnerships and arrangements.

26. Case Studies • The Alameda Corridor • 20-mile rail cargo corridor that runs from the San Pedro Bay Ports north to downtown Los Angeles. • The Corridor opened in April 2002, after 20 years of planning and development that involved a broad spectrum of stakeholders. • The project cost $2.4 billion, funded through a unique blend of public and private sources. • Revenues from user fees paid by the shippers will be used to retire the debt. • Adjacent communities received additional benefits, including community beautification, job training and technical consulting for local import-export businesses.

27. ALAMEDA CORRIDOR—LOS ANGELES

28. Case Studies—Alameda Corridor East • Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Project • This project will construct 131 grade separations along the three east/west rail corridors radiating from downtown Los Angeles (Redondo Junction), to Barstow and Indio), operated by the UP and BNSF railroads. • Major stakeholders include 4 county transportation commissions, the Alameda East Construction Authority, Caltrans, and the Orange North-American Trade Rail Access Joint Powers Authority (OnTrac).

29. Alameda Corridor East • Like the Alameda Corridor, the ACE project has taken many years of commitment by a wide variety of stakeholders. • The total cost of the project is estimated to be approximately $4.3 billion. • A variety of funding sources will be used: regional STIP funds, local sales taxes, contributions from the two Class I railroads (up to 10%) and SAFETEA LU earmarks. Proposition 1B funds are another potential funding source. • The project is expected to be completed by 2020.

31. Conclusions California has major goods movement challenges. But, we are addressing them through a dynamic process that includes a State vision, focused planning, diverse joint ventures and other governmental investments, and collaborative partnerships.

32. Office of Goods Movement-Your Partner in Planning • Richard Nordahl • Michele Fell-Casale • Dan McKell • Todd LaCasse • Jeff Spencer • Marcus Evans

33. QUESTIONS AND CONTACT INFORMATION • Richard Nordahl 916-653-0426 • Michele Fell-Casale 916-653-4287