North Central Texas Council of Governments

Transcription

1 Tower 55 Sketch Plan North Central Texas Council of Governments

2 NCTCOG Executive Board President Director Director Director Oscar Trevino Mike Cantrell Bobbie Mitchell David Dorman Mayor, City of North Richland Hills Commissioner, Dallas County Commissioner, Denton County Mayor, City of Melissa Vice President Director Director General Council Chad Adams Tom Vandergriff Bobby Waddle Jerry Gilmore County Judge, Ellis County County Judge, Tarrant County Mayor Pro Tem, City of DeSoto Executive Director Secretary-Treasurer Director Director R. Michael Eastland John Murphy Linda Koop Becky Miller Mayor Pro Tem, City of Richardson Councilmember, City of Dallas Mayor, City of Carrollton Past President Director Director Wayne Gent Chuck Silcox Ken Shetter County Judge, Kaufman County Councilmember, City of Fort Worth Mayor, City of Burleson Regional Transportation Council Cynthia White, Chair Herbert Gears Rich Morgan Commissioner, Denton County Mayor, City of Irving Citizen Representative, City of Dallas Oscar Trevino, P.E. Vice Chair Paul Geisel John Murphy Mayor, City of North Richland Hills Board Chair Mayor Pro Tem, City of Richardson Fort Worth Transportation Authority Linda Koop, Secretary Mel Neuman Councilmember, City of Dallas Bill Hale, P.E. Mayor, City of Mansfield District Engineer Terri Adkisson Texas Department of Transportation, Mike Nowels Board Member Dallas District Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Dallas Area Rapid Transit City of Lewisville Roger Harmon Bill Blaydes County Judge, Johnson County Ed Oakley Councilmember, City of Dallas Councilmember, City of Dallas Jack Hatchell, P.E. Ron Brown Commissioner, Collin County Chuck Silcox Commissioner, Ellis County Mayor Pro Tem, City of Fort Worth John Heiman, Jr. Dorothy Burton Councilmember, City of Mesquite John Tatum Councilmember, City of Duncanville Citizen Representative, City of Dallas Kathleen Hicks Sheri Capehart Councilmember, City of Fort Worth Maxine Thornton Reese Councilmember, City of Arlington Councilmember, City of Dallas Ron Jensen Maribel Chavez, P.E. Councilmember, City of Grand Prairie Carl Tyson District Engineer Councilmember, City of Euless Texas Department of Transportation, Scott Johnson Fort Worth District Mayor Pro Tem, City of Plano Marti VanRavenswaay Commissioner, Tarrant County Jan Collmer Pete Kamp Board Member Mayor Pro Tem, City of Denton Bill Whitfield Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Mayor, City of McKinney Linda Koop Wendy Davis Councilmember, City of Dallas B. Glen Whitley Councilmember, City of Fort Worth Commissioner, Tarrant County Kenneth Mayfield Bob Day Commissioner, Dallas County Kathryn Wilemon Mayor, City of Garland Councilmember, City of Arlington Becky Miller Maurine Dickey Mayor, City of Carrollton Michael Morris, P.E. Commissioner, Dallas County Director of Transportation, NCTCOG Jack Miller Charles Emery Vice Chair, North Texas Tollway Authority Board Chair Denton County Transportation Authority Surface Transportation Technical Committee Renee Lamb, Chair

3 What is NCTCOG? The North Central Texas Council of Governments is a voluntary association of cities, counties, school districts, and special districts which was established in January 1966 to assist local governments in planning for common needs, cooperating for mutual benefit, and coordinating for sound regional development. It serves a 16-county metropolitan region centered around the two urban centers of Dallas and Fort Worth. Currently, the Council has 233 members, including 16 counties, 165 cities, 23 independent school districts, and 29 special districts. The area of the region is approximately 12,800 square miles, which is larger than nine states, and the population of the region is over 6.2 million, which is larger than 35 states. NCTCOG's structure is relatively simple; each member government appoints a voting representative from the governing body. These voting representatives make up the General Assembly which annually elects a 15-member Executive Board. The Executive Board is supported by policy development, technical advisory, and study committees, as well as a professional staff of 235. NCTCOG's offices are located in Arlington in the Centerpoint Two Building at 616 Six Flags Drive (approximately one-half mile south of the main entrance to Six Flags Over Texas). North Central Texas Council of Governments P. O. Box 5888 Arlington, Texas (817) NCTCOG's Department of Transportation Since 1974, NCTCOG has served as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for transportation for the Dallas-Fort Worth area. NCTCOG's Department of Transportation is responsible for the regional planning process for all modes of transportation. The department provides technical support and staff assistance to the Regional Transportation Council and its technical committees, which compose the MPO policy-making structure. In addition, the department provides technical assistance to the local governments of North Central Texas in planning, coordinating, and implementing transportation decisions. Prepared in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the U. S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration. "The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the opinions, findings, and conclusions presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, or the Texas Department of Transportation."

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Tower 55 Sketch Plan document was developed in cooperation with the Tower 55 Technical Advisory Group (TAG) members and many NCTCOG staff members. The authors wish to especially thank the Sketch Plan Reviewers of the TAG without whose insight and assistance the successful completion of this project would not have been possible: Mohammad Moabed Director of Transportation Operations Texas Department of Transportation Dallas Joe Adams Chairman's Special Representative Union Pacific Railroad Mohammad Al Hweil, P.E. Transportation Engineer Texas Department of Transportation Ft Worth Nancy Amos Sr. Vice President The-T Joe Bearden General Manager Trackage Rights Union Pacific Railroad Numa Bulot Railroad Liason Dallas Area Rapid Transit Colleen Deines General Director, Public Private Partnerships BNSF Railway Steve George Vice President, Operations Planning & Support Fort Worth & Western Railroad Curvie Hawkins Planning Director The-T Jill House, P.E. Assistant Director of Public Works City of Arlington Renee Lamb, P.E. County Engineer Tarrant County Cinde Weatherby-Gilliland City Manager's Office Cit of Fort Worth Mark Rauscher Senior Planner City of Fort Worth Randy Skinner County Transportation Planner Tarrant County Mark Werner, P.E. Rail Engineer Texas Department of Transportation Austin David B. Jodray Transportation and Public Works Department Transportation Development Group Russ Wiles, P.E. Traffic Engineer City of Fort Worth Tim Oster Traffic Operations Engineer City of Fort Worth

5 ABSTRACT TITLE: AUTHORS: Tower 55 Sketch Plan Mike Sims, AICP, Senior Program Manager Chandra Carrasco, Transportation Planner II DATE: May 2007 SUBJECT: SOURCE OF COPIES: Conditions, Analysis, and Potential Solutions for the Freight Rail Bottleneck at the BNSF/UPRR At-Grade Crossing Below the I.H. 30/I.H. 35W Interchange in Downtown Fort Worth Current Status Report for Initial Federal Environmental Review Regional Information Center North Central Texas Council of Governments P.O. Box 5888 Arlington, Texas (817) NUMBER OF PAGES: 200 ABSTRACT: This report summarizes the current situation at the rail intersection in downtown Fort Worth known as Tower 55. The data provided in this report will serve as the starting point for the Federal Environmental Study for the Tower 55 Rail Reliever Project. The purpose of the Tower 55 Rail Reliever Project is to improve the movement of trains within and around the current rail infrastructure corridors that intersect at Tower 55. This includes rail corridors of the Union Pacific Railroad, BNSF Railway, Fort Worth & Western Railroad, and public rail corridors.

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...1 OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS...4 Context...4 Basics...25 Problem...17 Purpose...19 Need...20 Partners...24 Environmental Requirements...27 STUDY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...31 Major Concepts for Evaluation...31 Measures of Effectiveness...35 Safety Issues...36 Construction Phase Operations...40 Funding Options...40 Conclusions...41 APPENDICES Fort Worth Railroad Map Understanding Tower 55 Train Movement Conflicts Tower 55/Tower 60 Schematic Layout Letter to Federal Partners Texas State Representative Letters Concerning Tower 55 Air Quality Federal Highway Administration Letter Designating Lead Agency Memorandum of Understanding with Texas Department of Transportation Federal Regulations Concerning the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Technical Advisory Group Meeting Summaries Initial Coordination Meeting Items Tower 55 Public Meetings Turner, Collie, and Braden Tower 55 Grade Separation Study Turner, Collie, and Braden Tower 55 Grade Separation Engineering Plan Project Committee...146

7 15. Tower 55 Sketch Planning Matrix Bridge Layout Sheets with Accommodations for a Depressed Rail Corridor Texas Transportation Institute Regional Impact Model Aerial Images and Safety Map of the Study Area Peach Street Area Project...182

8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At and around the freight railroad intersection named Tower 55, several different rail movements converge. These include operations by BNSF Railway (BNSF), Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), Fort Worth & Western Railroad (FWWR), Amtrak, and the Trinity Railway Express (TRE). The purpose of the document is to provide a current conditions assessment of the needs at Tower 55, an examination of purposes that may be served by a solution to Tower 55, and a review of potential solutions to begin the upcoming Federal Environmental Study of Tower 55. This document also provides a starting place for the discussion of both what should be done at Tower 55 and who should participate in a financial partnership to improve Tower 55. This discussion should include public as well as private entities and the North Central Texas Council of Governments is committed to involving all interested parties. The current volume of freight and passenger rail movements at and adjacent to Tower 55 makes it the busiest at-grade railroad intersection in the United States. Current wait time for trains using the crossing averages 90 minutes. The lengthy wait times are due primarily to: Intersecting through movements between north/south lines operated by BNSF and UPRR and east/west lines operated by UPRR Complex turning moves by both freight and passenger trains Nearby terminal operations and terminal related train moves 1

9 Projections for the growth in international trade, increases in regional economic activity and changes to the national freight rail network indicate that demand for access to the Tower 55 interchange is likely to increase dramatically over time. If the current rate of traffic growth at Tower 55 continues, all trains needing access in an average 24 hour period will not be able to pass through Tower 55 in a 24 hour period, by Railroads and local agencies including Union Pacific Railroad, Fort Worth & Western Railroad, BNSF Railway, Fort Worth Transportation Authority, the North Central Texas Council of Governments, the Texas Department of Transportation, the City of Fort Worth, Tarrant County, and the City of Arlington are working together to achieve a Tower 55 solution. Any Tower 55 solution must satisfy the demand to reduce freight rail congestion from goods moving across the Dallas-Fort Worth region, improve movements from freight rail operations occurring in the Dallas-Fort Worth region, improve the safety and security of freight rail movements crossing at Tower 55, improve safety and reliability on the roadway system impacted by Tower 55, reduce the negative air quality impacts of Tower 55, and increase passenger rail operating options in and around Tower 55. At this stage in the study process, leading concepts for improving Tower 55 include: 1) At-grade capacity and operational improvements 2) North/south trench/tunnel 3) East/west flyover 4) Commuter rail grade separation 5) Fort Worth & Western Railroad bypass Other options will be considered during the federal environmental study process. Some options may be combined and some improvements may be necessary simply to create 2

10 construction phase options for freight rail operations. This may be necessary to mitigate negative operational impacts during the construction phase. NCTCOG staff is citing $300 million as the best available estimate for the total cost of an on-site, grade separated improvement to Tower 55, at this stage in the planning process. The upcoming in-depth, environmental study will generate a preferred structural option and a cost estimate for that option based on detailed engineering. 3

11 Study Overview and Analysis Context Moving freight creates wealth and development opportunities in the modern economy. The challenge of moving freight efficiently will become greater over time as international trade involves more countries, more people, and more products and services every year. As the global community continues to expand at a rapid pace, freight rail is of increasing importance in the movement of goods. Freight rail carries 16 percent of the nation s cross-border North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) trade and is a significant contributor to U.S. global industry growth in transpacific trade. Five of seven freight rail locations crossing the United States Mexico border are in Texas: Brownsville, Laredo, Eagle Pass, Presidio, and El Paso. One type of freight rail traffic is intermodal shipping, which industry experts expect to have a high rate of long term growth. Intermodal shipping is any shipment that moves from truck to rail or vice versa. Ports may serve as intermodal hubs due to the movement of large containers from ships to either rail or truck. Intermodal hubs such as the Port of Houston and the Port of Long Beach provide access for imports and exports by sea, a large portion of which travels by rail when leaving or arriving at the seaport for shipment. The global economic expansion has contributed significantly to the growth of extended supply chains and more complicated delivery routes for goods. This is compounded by consumer population growth here in the U.S. as well as abroad. The increasing global consumer demand creates a powerful goods movement demand on the roadway which can, in part, be relieved by increased freight rail capacity. According to the PennWorld Tables, the combined national Real Gross Domestic Product per capita of the United States and its five largest trading partners, Canada, 4

12 Mexico, Japan, China, and the United Kingdom has grown from $17,064 in international dollars in 1970 to $98,220 in By 2004, the figure had reached $141, Assuming growth in the future continues at the pace set between 1995 and 2004, the projected 2030 figure would be $410,851. Exhibit 1 shows this trend for the United States major trading partners. The U.S. population alone has grown from 210,111,000 in 1970 to 269,602,000 in 1995 and 300 million today. By 2030, the population of the U.S. is projected to reach 384,692,000. Exhibit 1: Growth of Major Trade Partners Economic Growth of the U.S.A. and its Major Trading Partners Gross Domestic Product (As inflation adjusted local purchasing power, in billions) $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 U.S.A. Great Britan Canada China Japan Mexico $ Year 1 The international dollar is a hypothetical unit of currency that has the same purchasing power that the U.S. dollar has in the United States at a given point in time, i.e. the U.S. dollar converted at purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates. It shows how much a local currency unit is worth within the country's borders. 5

13 Given this growth, the challenge of enhancing freight rail mobility and safety, maintaining essential freight rail services, and promoting connectivity between different modes of transportation, will require a wide variety of both capital and operational improvements to the current freight system. Freight rail capacity improvements, particularly at intersections, train yards, and terminals are necessary in order to facilitate future growth. As freight rail demand begins to exceed freight rail capacity, goods unable to be handled by railroads will be shifted to trucks and onto highways. The AASHTO Bottom Line Report for the U.S. estimates this rail to truck shift will place almost 900 million tons of freight and 31 billion truck vehicle miles traveled to the highways, costing shippers $326 billion, costing highway users $492 billion, and adding $21 billion to highway costs over the next 20 year period. Freight rail capacity growth can not only contribute significantly to a decrease in highway congestion but can increase highway safety and facilitate shipping growth at the federal and local levels. Without significant capital investment in new and improved capacity, freight rail growth will be limited and the highway system will be forced to carry an even larger share of the national goods movement burden. Capital improvements connote construction of new track or the development of improved track. Operational improvements consist of changes in scheduling, routing, or dispatching of freight operations. Growth in the State of Texas outpaces this national dynamic. The State of Texas has grown steadily in both population and employment since Exhibit 2 illustrates the population and employment increase for the State from 1970 to 2005 and the projections for growth between 2005 and

14 Exhibit 2: State of Texas Demographics, Texas Population 11,196,730 22,270,165 31,830,589* Texas Employment 3,625,000 11,094,948 14,285,700** Exhibit 3 illustrates the top ten states in population growth between 2005 and Texas had the largest population growth with Florida ranking a distant second with only 56 percent of growth Texas experienced. Exhibit 3: Top Ten States in Population Growth from mid-2005 to mid Population State Growth Texas 579,275 Florida 321,697 California 303,402 Georgia 231,388 Arizona 213,311 North Carolina 184,046 Washington 103,899 Colorado 90,082 Nevada 83,228 Tennessee 83,058 Rapid economic growth in Texas has increased the volume of freight demanded by businesses and consumers and this has greatly increased goods traffic along the highways and on rail lines. Increased growth is due not only to the unique border proximity but also to the inland-port services. Texas primary growth was led by non-metallic minerals and chemicals, which is Texas largest manufacturing industry. Examples of such industries include the Dow Chemical Company and ExxonMobil. 2 The U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics; About Texas Texas State Library and Archives Commission; and the U.S. Census. * Texas State Data Center 0.5. ** Texas State Comptroller Fall 2006 State Economic Forecast 3 U.S. Census Bureau 7

15 According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, overall freight traffic is expected to grow by 67 percent between 2000 and Coal traffic is expected to grow by 2.2 percent annually through 2025 and this growth may be higher in Texas due to substantially increased energy demand. Exhibit 4 shows the volume of national rail movements (in tons) which had their final destination or trip origin in Texas or at a Texas border crossing in Exhibit 4: Texas Freight Rail Tonnage According to the Texas State Rail Plan, the Texas rail system currently carries more than 40 percent of the nation s intercity through-traffic freight, including 70 percent of vehicles from domestic manufacturers, 64 percent of the nation s coal, and 40 percent of 8

16 the nation s grain. By 2025 the total tonnage is forecasted to double by the AASHTO Freight Rail Bottom Line Report to double, while rail capacity at the current pace is expected to grow at 2 percent annually. This will add 900 million tons of freight by 2025 to the Texas highway system in the next 20 years if no action is undertaken to facilitate rail growth over the 2 percent average. NCTCOG s annual population estimates for January 1, 2007, state that the region has averaged just over 150,000 additional persons per year since the 2000 Census. This rapid growth is expected to continue through the year According to the 2030 Demographic Forecast prepared by NCTCOG s Research and Information Services (RIS) Department and approved by the NCTCOG Executive Board in April 2003, population for the North Central Texas Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) 4 will grow by approximately 70 percent and employment by 67 percent, from 2000 to By 2030, the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) MPA is expected to have nearly eight and a half million residents supporting over five million jobs. On average, the region is expected to add population at a rate of nearly 117,000 persons per year and employment at a rate of approximately 70,000 jobs per year over the 30 years between 2000 and These projections represent a 30-year increase of 3.5 million residents, 1.3 million households, and 2.1 million jobs. According to the 2006 Texas Metropolitan Mobility Plan, the DFW region s extensive transportation network supports a strong goods movement community of more than 600 motor carriers, approximately 100 freight forwarders, key freight rail facilities for three of 4 The North Central Texas MPA is defined as the five full counties of Dallas, Tarrant, Denton, Collin, and Rockwall; as well as portions of Kaufman, Ellis, Johnson, and Parker Counties. 9

17 the nation s Class I railroads, and four foreign trade zones including Dallas/Fort Worth (D/FW) International Airport and Fort Worth Alliance Airport (See Exhibit 5). Exhibit 5: Freight Facilities The region is considered by most economic and logistics experts as the primary truck, rail, and air cargo center in the Southwestern United States, as well as the primary urban gateway between the United States and Mexico. From the region, 98 percent of the U.S. population can be reached by truck or rail within 48 hours and thus the DFW region is the primary economic engine in the State of Texas. Exhibit 6 shows the forecasted truck volumes in the region. Exhibit 7 shows the projected rail volumes in the region. 10

18 Exhibit 6: Mobility 2030 Truck Volumes 11

19 Exhibit 7: Freight Rail Estimated Operating Levels Rail Volumes DA RT BNSF Rail Freight Rail Volume (trains per day) KC S BNSF Unio n Pa cific Legend RT DA TRE Counties Tower 55 Signal Occupancy Minutes Occupied BN SF Un ion Pa cif ic BN SF BNSF Pacific MPA Boundary Pacific Union FW W R ific Pac Union Pacific on Uni Union Tower hours 48 hours hours 0 Current 2025 Transportation Department North Central Texas Council of Governments The Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) region is at the center of an extensive trade hub serving regional, national, and international markets supported by high-quality transportation infrastructure. Freight-Oriented Development is an area that consolidates manufacturing, warehousing, distributing, and freight forwarding operations in an area with ready access to a multimodal transportation network and allows for the efficient and effective movement of goods. By clustering freight transportation services, these developments allow transfer costs to be kept to a minimum and increase reliability in delivery and pick-up times, 12

20 reducing the overall cost of consumer goods. Exhibit 8 shows the benefits of a new major intermodal hub. Exhibit 8: Freight Oriented Development Freight Oriented Development A major intermodal hub means: $100 million private investment in rail intermodal facilities Site selection favored by national and international logistics firms New warehouse, assembly and distribution facility construction 10,000+ direct new jobs over 10 years Long-term tax base stability and economic development opportunity Throughout the North Central Texas region there are many examples of successful freight oriented developments including Fort Worth-Alliance, the South Dallas Logistics District, and the General Motors Plant in Arlington. Overall, freight oriented developments, within the DFW region, contribute to the continued success of the nation s largest inland port, with freight and goods movement accounting for approximately 10 percent of the region s employment base. Rail is the primary mode of goods moving into the region, to and from the west coast according to the Texas State Rail Plan. These goods must pass through Tower 55 before moving throughout the region, the nation, or internationally. 13

21 The current traffic that must pass through Tower 55 currently incurs a 90-minute delay during peak periods. The congestion issues related to Tower 55 will continue to worsen as the region and nation continue to grow and freight traffic increases. Tower 55 will reach capacity with the addition of 30 trains, a situation that could occur as soon as If a remedy is not found, companies located in freight oriented developments throughout the region will be faced with two options: stay in the region and deal with the congestion issues and unreliability of shipments or move out of the region to a more reliable, less congested location. The more rail freight that passes through the region, the more acute and critical Tower 55 issue becomes. The congestion at Tower 55 not only affects regional and national trade, but also international trade and the DFW region s economy. A variety of facilities are necessary for the long-term efficient and safe operation of the region s goods movement system. This includes improvements to the Tower 55 interchange between the BNSF Railway and Union Pacific railroads, capital improvements, and rail and hazardous truck cargo bypasses to the south and west of the region. These enhancements to the transportation network in the DFW region will expand rail access to major freight destinations in and around the Metroplex to keep pace with rising freight and consumer demand. The 2006 Texas Metropolitan Mobility Plan, which is currently being updated, estimates the necessary public and private sector investment in goods movement facilities, prior to 2030, is $6.7 billion. 14

22 Basics At and around the railroad intersection named Tower 55, several different major rail movements converge. These include coal and product shipments on the BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad north/south mainlines; intermodal freight and other goods for assembly on the Union Pacific Railroad east/west mainline; intra-regional goods shipments by the Fort Worth & Western Railroad; local freight rail service by all the freight rail providers; Amtrak interstate passenger service; and local commuter rail service on the Trinity Railway Express. Tower 55 is located beneath the interchange of Interstate Highway 35W and Interstate Highway 30. It is directly between historic downtown Fort Worth and the Fort Worth Southside medical district. Historic 1932 Fort Worth rail lines with grade separation can be seen in Appendix 1: 1932 Fort Worth Railroad Map. Several major social, economic, cultural, and environmental resources are proximate to the study location. Currently, movements on-site at the Tower 55 intersection are controlled by Union Pacific Railroad under standard industry protocol. Movements of the Trinity Railway Express run directly adjacent to the intersection and are controlled jointly by the Fort Worth Transit Authority and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. Exhibit 9 shows the actual historic railroad tower at the crossing which was used for flagmen to direct trains at the crossing. 15

23 Exhibit 9: Tower 55 Looking North from the UPRR Tracks 16

24 Problem The core issue at Tower 55 is the high volume of through and turning movements utilizing the intersecting track. There are two tracks in the north/south direction, two tracks in the east/west direction and a single set of tracks necessary to complete turns in every direction. Each day between 100 and 120 freight trains pass through this location and an additional 70 trains per day pass by on the adjacent Trinity Railway Express. Due to the volume of trains, each train comes to a complete stop prior to crossing and then follows directions from the dispatcher to cross with the corresponding safety clear times and distances. The average time to complete a crossing movement is 15 minutes. Crossings by Amtrak or freight rail contract trains generally cause longer delays to the system. Together with the volume of trains demanding access to the capacity at Tower 55, these factors currently result in wait times of up to 90 minutes per train to cross the intersection. Long freight trains with lengthy wait times at Tower 55 are responsible for several negative impacts to the region. These negative impacts include reducing the efficiency of local freight rail; crowding out of local freight movements by national contract movements; increasing national freight rail congestion; increasing freight rail dwell times throughout the region; increasing congestion and freight rail crowding at local freight rail yards; increasing freight rail idling, capital expenses, labor costs, energy consumption, and air pollutant emissions; increasing automobile wait times at railroad/roadway crossing points; and preventing commuter rail access. Finding a Tower 55 solution that solves these problems in a means that is cost-effective and beneficial for both private and public partners is the goal of the cooperative efforts now addressing Tower 55. A key next step will be to have the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) specifically define 17

25 capacity, delay, and maximum capacity at Tower 55. The technical group will also define the Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) for the project. Such measures will enable members and the public to track the full effect of any changes, developments, or solutions connected with the Tower 55 Rail Reliever project. 18

26 Purpose The purpose of the Tower 55 on-site solution is to improve the movement of trains within and around the current rail infrastructure corridors that converge at Tower 55. This includes rail corridors of the Union Pacific Railroad, BNSF Railway, Fort Worth & Western Railroad, and public rail corridors. The geographic limits for these improvements are defined as Saginaw Railroad Junction to the north, the Trinity Railway Express crossing of the Trinity River to the northeast, the Choctaw Subdivision intersection with the Cotton Belt rail line to the northeast, the Union Pacific Railroad crossing of S.H. 360 to the east, the Biddison Road rail connector on the south, and the Union Pacific Railroad crossing of Bryant Irvin Road on the west. This study area is shown in Exhibit 10. Exhibit 10: Study Area Saginaw Junction 35W Colleyville Grapevine Watauga Saginaw 26 Blue Mound North Richland Hills Hurst Bedford Euless Choctaw Subdivision Haltom City Lake Worth Richland Hills Sansom Park 121 Grand Prairie 183 Fort Worth 360 River Oaks Westworth Village 199 Trinity River Crossing Westover Hills 30 Bryant Irvin Road 180 Arlington S.H Pantego 820 Benbrook Biddison Road 35W Dalworthington Gardens Grand Prairie 360 Legend Tower 55 Tower 55 Project Limits Rail Owners BNSF DART TRE UP FWWR 19

27 Need Intermodal containers, general merchandise, grain, and coal all travel through Tower 55 to and from the West Coast, Midwest, Pacific Northwest, Gulf States, and South Texas. Tower 55 is the busiest at-grade railroad crossing in the nation. The crossing tracks are occupied with train movements for more minutes each day than any other at-grade railroad crossing in the nation. All other railroad intersections in the nation with higher crossing volumes have already been separated with a flyover, trench, tunnel, or bypass structure. Given that current freight train congestion at the intersections causes trains to stop, idle, and wait; these trains block railroad crossings, prevent emergency access to neighborhoods, cause polluting air emissions, prevent commuter rail access, and slow down local economic development opportunities. As shown in Exhibit 11, Tower 55 was occupied for an average of 1,509 minutes each day in November of Of course, there are only 1,440 minutes in a day. However, this value includes parallel concurrent train moves. The exhibit was provided by Union Pacific Railroad and it shows the minimum travel time associated with each directional movement. 20

28 Exhibit 11: 2003 Occupation Times Plus Signal Lead Times The only way to clear trains over a 24 hour period is to devise and stage a maximum number of parallel/concurrent train moves. This allows more than one train to occupy the interchange at a time. The current track configuration only allows a maximum of two trains to occupy the interchange at any given time. Planning and staging for these movements is the responsibility of Union Pacific Railroad. By industry accounts, it is efficiently operated given the current track configuration. See Appendix 2: Understanding Tower 55 Train Movement Conflicts and Appendix 3: Tower 55/Tower 60 Schematic Layout for a detailed explanation of turning movements at Tower 55 and a schematic layout of the area. 21

29 Current freight rail movements at Tower 55 are roughly 60 percent Union Pacific Railroad, 38 percent BNSF Railway and 2 percent Fort Worth & Western Railroad. BNSF Railway provided an analysis to this Sketch Plan effort of delay associated solely with BNSF Railway movements. At Tower 55, BNSF Railway currently experiences hours of weekly delay. Exhibit 12: Weekly Delay Hours for BNSF Railway Weekly Delay Hours Maximum Capacity Exceeded Current Trains Plus 2 BNSF, plus 4 UPRR Plus 4 BNSF, plus 8 UPRR Plus 6 BNSF, plus 12 UPRR Plus 8 BNSF, Plus 10 BNSF, plus 16 UPRR plus 20 UPRR BNSF Delay Hours This congestion will continue to worsen as additional trains move through Tower 55 until, according to BNSF projections, gridlock is reached with just 30 added trains. (See Exhibit 12). Those 30 trains represent only a 28 percent increase over current levels; yet as mentioned before, a 67 percent increase in overall freight traffic is expected in less than 15 years. Thus, capacity at Tower 55 could be reached as early as Exhibit 13, also provided by BNSF Railway, shows this capacity trend. 22

30 Exhibit 13: Tower 55 Capacity Trend Based on BNSF Train counts Jan Sep Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Trains Growth at 3% per year Estimated capacity Growth at 2% per year 21 month trend line The scenario of failing to clear train demand over each day at Tower 55 is not an acceptable outcome. A structural solution is needed to avoid this gridlock scenario. Overall, a solution is necessary at Tower 55 in order to: Reduce freight rail congestion from goods moving across the Dallas-Fort Worth region Improve movements from freight rail operations occurring in the Dallas-Fort Worth region Improve the safety and security of freight rail movements crossing at Tower 55 23

31 Improve safety and reliability on the roadway system impacted by Tower 55 Reduce the negative air quality impacts of Tower 55 Increase passenger rail operating options in and around Tower 55 Partners In order to include all interested public entities in the study process, NCTCOG staff sent a letter of information to the North Central Texas Congressional Delegation and to the North Central Texas Legislative Delegation as shown in Appendix 4: Letter to Federal Partners. Further information concerning air quality was provided, upon request, to State Representative Lon Burnam. See Appendix 5: Texas State Representative Letters Concerning Tower 55 Air Quality. Several public and private partners are included in the Tower 55 study. Each type of organization will have a role or roles as follows: Private Freight Railroads will be given the opportunity to review and comment on any commuter rail options developed during the study. They will also provide detailed operations data on current and future volumes and movements, through Tower 55 and the entire study area. Private Freight Railroads will partner with NCTCOG and the consultant team to report on the benefits of public investment to alleviate freight rail congestion. The freight railroads involved include: 1) Union Pacific Railroad Class I Railroad 2) Fort Worth & Western Railroad Local Railroad 3) BNSF Railway Class I Railroad 24

32 In addition, the freight railroads will assess the pros and cons of any solution concepts generated as part of the study and assist in developing facility use estimates to determine benefits of the project to the rail system. Federal and State Agencies will provide direction and clarity on federal rules and regulations and assign a sponsoring agency who will guide the project through the process to a Record of Decision. See Appendix 6: Federal Highway Administration Letter Designating Lead Agency for the Federal Highway Administration s official letter designating the Tower 55 Rail Reliever Project lead federal agency. Partner federal agencies will include: 1) U.S. Department of Transportation 2) Federal Highway Administration 3) Federal Transit Administration 4) Surface Transportation Board 5) Federal Railroad Administration 6) Department of Interior 7) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 8) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 9) Amtrak State of Texas efforts will be led by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). The signed Memorandum of Understanding between TxDOT and NCTCOG, which includes detailed information concerning each entities roles and responsibilities, can be seen in Appendix 7: Memorandum of Understanding with Texas Department of Transportation. TxDOT will develop a freight rail model using the Rail Traffic Controller (train operations software); review detailed infrastructure plans; provide data from recent 25

33 construction projects; partner with NCTCOG and the consultant team to assist in the review and the development of the final environmental report, and lead a separate detailed off-site bypass study. Local public sector entities include 1) Fort Worth Transportation Authority 2) City of Fort Worth 3) Tarrant County 4) City of Arlington 5) City of Saginaw 6) Haltom City 7) Tarrant Regional Water District 8) North Central Texas Council of Governments Solutions to Tower 55 will be partner dependent. NCTCOG is seeking a partnership that benefits freight rail, passenger rail safety, community concerns and air quality. Partnerships that do not include all railroad owners may need to be developed in the event that one railroad owner elects not to participate. The most feasible partnership scenario would include: 1) NCTCOG, TxDOT, USDOT, local governments, Union Pacific Railroad, BNSF Railway, Fort Worth & Western Railroad, and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority Standard railroad industry protocol calls for each railroad benefiting from a major structural development to participate in its funding. Likely requests for each partnership solution include: zero operating impact on railroad operations during construction, no subsidy to the private sector without public benefit, protection of local freight rail access, and preservation/enhancement of Central Fort Worth quality of life. 26

34 Environmental Requirements As a major capital investment funded in part by public funds, this project is regulated by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the subsequent amendments and regulations related to NEPA. These create a formal public process for making decisions about Tower 55. Listed below is a comprehensive review of the full environmental process. See Appendix 8: Federal Regulations Concerning the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for further information regarding the NEPA process. Some projects may receive a categorical exclusion or may pass through the process with an environmental assessment. In general, a major project that requires new rightof-way (R.O.W.) will use the full process for the future use of federal and State funds. For a major new structure at Tower 55 the future use of federal and State funds for a freight rail project is likely. The formal steps in the federal process include the following: Initiate project Prepare and publish Notice of Intent in the Federal Register and State Register Send invitation to participating agencies Hold an agency briefing/kick off meeting Hold the initial scoping meeting Approve the purpose and need and coordination plan Begin formal comment period Develop build alternatives Conduct public meetings/open house workshops Complete the Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS) document Distribute DEIS to local, State, and federal resource agencies Conduct the first round of public hearings for the DEIS 27

35 Receive and address comments Publish Notice of Availability of DEIS in federal and Texas Registers Conduct the second round of public hearings for the DEIS Receive and address comments Select preferred alternative and prepare Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Publish Notice of Availability of FEIS in federal and Texas Registers Issue a Record of Decision The Record of Decision is a federal document that authorizes public funds on a specific alternative. These steps and the interaction between the environmental process and the activities of the Tower 55 Technical Advisory Group (TAG) are shown in Exhibit 14. See Appendices 9: Technical Advisory Group Meeting Summaries and 10: Initial Coordination Meeting Items for TAG meeting minutes and initial coordination meeting items. Previous public meeting notes concerning Tower 55 can be found in Appendix 11: Tower 55 Public Meetings. 28

36 Exhibit 14: Environmental Clearance Overview Process for Securing Federal Environmental Approval for Tower 55 to be Eligible for Public Funding Freight Bottleneck Study Mobility Plan Updates Tower 55 Policy Published Goods Movement Include Tower 55 Briefing Regional Mobility Initiative SAFETEA-LU Earmark for Tower 55 Study Regional Transportation Council adds Tower 55 Study to Transportation Improvement Program and the Unified Planning Work Program TxDOT and Regional Transportation Council Memorandum of Understanding on Tower 55 Tower 55 Technical Advisory Group Kickoff and Request to USDOT for Federal Lead Agency Tower 55 Pre-Environmental Public Meeting Update to Intermodal, Freight, and Safety Subcommittee Local Match Agreements TxDOT-NCTCOG Funding Agreement Tower 55 Consultant Selection Committee Meetings Technical Advisory Group Reviews Sketch Plan Notice to Proceed # 1 to Consultant Technical Advisory Group-Public Meeting Preparation Public Meeting Technical Advisory Group Meeting-Notice of Intent Preparation Intermodal, Freight, and Safety Meeting Notice of Intent Preparation Prepare Notice of Intent to Initiate Environmental Impact Statement Process Publish Notice of Intent in Federal and Texas Registers Notice to Proceed # 2 to Consultant Public Meeting Conduct Scoping Meeting (Federal Partners and T.A.G.) 29

37 Process for Securing Federal Environmental Approval for Tower 55 to be Eligible for Public Funding Begin Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Statement Develop Build Alternatives Technical Advisory Group Meetings Intermodal, Freight, and Safety Subcommittee Meetings Conduct Public Meetings and/or Open House Meetings Complete Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Statement Federal Highway Administration Review of Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Approval for Circulation (Public and Agency Review) Publish Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in Federal and Texas Registers Distribute Draft Environmental Impact Statement to Local, State, and Federal Resource Agencies (and Other Interested Parties) for 45 Days Technical Advisory Group and Intermodal, Freight, and Safety Subcommittee Meetings Conduct Public Hearing for Draft Environmental Impact Statement Receive Comments Select the Locally Preferred Alternative (Technical Advisory Group; Intermodal, Freight, and Safety Subcommittee; and Regional Transportation Council) Notice to Proceed # 3 to Consultant Refine Alternatives Technical Advisory Group and Intermodal, Freight, and Safety Subcommittee Meetings Public Meetings Federal Highway Administration Review of Final Environmental Impact Study Publish Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Study in Federal and Texas Registers Federal Highway Administration issues a Record of Decision (Final Environmental Approval) Prepare ROW Maps Develop Construction Plans 30

38 Study Findings and Recommendations Major Concepts for Evaluation Previously, a 1993 study carried out by Tuner, Collie, and Braden evaluated grade separation options for Tower 55 rail congestion relief. See Appendix 12: 1993 Turner, Collie, and Braden Tower 55 Grade Separation Study. Additional detail sheets and engineering plans are included in Appendix 13: 1992 Turner, Collie, and Braden Tower 55 Grade Separation Engineering Plan. This study concluded with a partnership of then current owners of rail lines and public partners, shown in Appendix 14: 1992 Project Committee at Tower 55. The effort resulted in a consensus to provide for a north/south depressed corridor for freight railroad trains under the I.H. 35W/I.H. 30 interchange. TxDOT did plan for this trench alternative in preliminary designs for the I.H. 35W/I.H. 30 interchange. However, no trench was constructed and several roadways conflict with the potential route for a trench. The Tower 55 Sketch Plan Matrix provided an initial evaluation of potential projects for the Tower 55 Rail Reliever Study as shown in Appendix 15: Tower 55 Sketch Planning Matrix. At this stage of the study process, leading concepts for improving Tower 55 include: 1) At-Grade Capacity and Operational Improvements: This option includes adding track to maximize concurrent use of the interchange, joint operation of some tracks, moving Amtrak out of Tower 55 or otherwise improving the at-grade capacity of Tower 55. The base case cost scenario for this option is $25 million to start and these improvements may be necessary simply to handle construction stage disruptions of any of the other structural options. 31

39 2) North/South Trench/Tunnel: This project would be a tunnel directly under the Tower 55 interchange in order to preserve the current turning and through options at-grade and it would be a trench in the north and south approaches to Tower 55. Plans for an improvement of this type were developed for Tower 55 in the early 1990s and the Texas Department of Transportation designed the main lanes and ramps of the Interstate Highway 35W and Interstate Highway 30 interchange to accommodate a trench. See Appendix 16: Bridge Layout Sheets with Accommodations for a Depressed Rail Corridor for TxDOT bridge layout and detail sheets for the I.H. 35W/I.H.30 interchange, which was constructed with accommodations for a future depressed rail corridor. Unfortunately, Lancaster Avenue was placed at an elevation under Tower 55 that conflicts with a north/south trench/tunnel. Other arterial and collector roadways around Downtown Fort Worth also conflict with a trench/tunnel. The project would need to be built to fix those roadway conflicts, add north/south uninterrupted capacity and maintain or improve at-grade operations. The cost of this option was estimated at $50 million in Recent analysis estimates the cost could be as high as $850 million. This option could be financed through collecting payments from related railroad operations. 3) East/West Flyover: Union Pacific Railroad recently developed a conceptual layout for a freight rail bridge over the Fort Worth medical district, BNSF Railway and I.H. 35W. This option could cost between $100 and $200 million plus right of way and environmental mitigation. The facility would leave north/south capacity and turning capacity unharmed or improved at-grade and would allow UPRR trains running between Centennial Yard in west Fort Worth and the General 32

40 Motors plant in Arlington to operate without interruption from Tower 55. This option may require additional capacity at the UPRR crossing of the Clear Fork of the Trinity River to fully realize the potential benefit of the investment. This option could be financed through collecting payments from related railroad operations. 4) Commuter Rail Grade Separation: In this option, current and future movements related to the Trinity Railway Express, FWTA passenger services and Amtrak services would be moved to a structure or structures gradeseparated from freight rail movements. This could be a new tunnel structure underneath downtown Fort Worth or an elevated set of tracks. Either option would need to connect the Intermodal Transportation Center, the Texas & Pacific Terminal Building and the Fort Worth Medical District. At-grade capacity owned by the public sector and at-grade operating rights owned by the public sector would be sold to the highest bidder in order to assist with the financing of the commuter rail solution. These surface access rights could be used in combination with other at-grade and operational improvements to create additional capacity at-grade at Tower 55. The cost for this option would vary dramatically based on the type and location of structure selected. 5) Fort Worth & Western Railroad Bypass: This rail line runs from the BNSF Railway intersection at Tower 60 adjacent to the Fort Worth stockyards, west of downtown past the cultural district and through the Trinity River Park, under the existing UPRR East/West mainline and connects to BNSF Railway rail line south of the Fort Worth Medical District. To accommodate the use of this rail line as a bypass for mainline freight railroad operations, a number of upgrades to the 33