SH-225 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

Transcription

1 SH-225 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements November 2017

2 SH-225 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements Was an INFRA application for this project submitted previously? If yes, what was the name of the project in the previous application? Previously Incurred Project Cost $0 Future Eligible Project Cost $230,500,000 Total Project Cost (Sum of the two previous rows) $230,500,000 INFRA Request $58,000,000 Total Federal Funding (including INFRA) $58,000,000 Are matching funds restricted to a specific project component? If so, which one? Is the project or a portion of the project currently located on National Highway Freight Network? Is the project or a portion of the project located on the National Highway System? Does the project add capacity to the Interstate system? Is the project in a national scenic area? Do the project components include a railway-highway grade crossing or grade separation project? Do the project components include an intermodal or freight rail project, or freight project within boundaries of a public or private freight rail, water, or intermodal facility? No NA No Yes Yes No No No No If answered yes to either of the two component questions above, how much of requested INFRA funds will be spent on each of these projects components? NA State(s) in which project is located. Texas Small or large project Large Urbanized Area in which project is located, if applicable. Houston Population of Urbanized Area. 4,944,332 Is the project currently programmed in the: TIP? Yes STIP? Yes MPO Long Range Transportation Plan? Yes State Long Range Transportation Plan? Yes State Freight Plan? Yes ES-1 FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

3 Executive Summary The Houston Ship Channel, in Houston, Texas, is part of the Port of Houston, one of the US's busiest seaports. The channel is the conduit for ocean-going vessels between Houston-area terminals and the Gulf of Mexico, and it serves an increasing volume of inland barge traffic. Beltway 8 (BW 8), also known as the Sam Houston Parkway, along with the Sam Houston Tollway, is an 88-mile (142 km) beltway around the city of Houston, Texas, lying entirely within Harris County. BW 8, a state highway, runs mostly along the frontage roads of the tollway, only using the main lanes where they are free between Interstate Highway 45 (North Freeway) and Interstate Highway 69/U.S. 59 (Eastex Freeway). The main lanes elsewhere are the Sam Houston Tollway, a toll road owned and operated by the Harris Figure ES-1: SH 225 at BW 8 County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA). East of Houston, the Tollway crosses the Houston Ship Channel on the Sam Houston Ship Channel Bridge, a toll bridge; this forms a gap in BW 8 between Interstate Highway 10 (Baytown-East Freeway) and State Highway 225 (La Porte Freeway). Both SH 225 and BW 8 are major freight corridors connecting to the Port of Houston and major industries along the Ship Channel. The HCTRA recently opened the new $962 million Houston Ship Channel Bridge to connect I-10 to SH 225. At this point in time, a full directional interchange does not exist. As a result of these recent activities and the significant growth in the freight traffic along the BW 8 and SH 225 corridors, HCTRA, Harris County, the Port of Houston, TxDOT, and other major stakeholders in the region support the development of this full directional interchange. TxDOT has recently completed an assessment of a fully directional interchange at BW 8 with SH 225. The recently completed feasibility study evaluated the phasing for the addition of the most beneficial direct connectors (DC) to implement. The direct connector combination that was determined to be the most beneficial for improving safety and delay, was the southbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound direct connectors. Those two movements have the greatest impact on reducing delays during the peak hour travel ES-1 FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

4 patterns, as well as improving safety conditions at one of the most dangerous interchanges in the region. Based on the results of a Benefit Cost Analysis model, the completion of this critical project will provide for $1.90 in public benefits for every $1 spent (discounted at 7%). With this INFRA Grant application, TxDOT is requesting $58 million in federal funding to supplement the $172.5 million in State and Local funding for this $$230.5 million project. A summary of the BCA model results is provided in Table ES-1. Table ES-1: BCA Results Project Evaluation Metric 7% Discount Rate 3% Discount Rate Total Discounted Benefits $264.1 $510.0 Total Discounted Costs $139.3 $174.9 Net Present Value $124.8 $335.0 Benefit / Cost Ratio Internal Rate of Return (%) 14.3% Payback Period (years) 7 years ES-2 FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

5 Contents 1. Project Description Project Details Eligibility Project Location Project Parties Grant Funds and Sources and Uses of all Project Funds Merit Criteria Support for National or Regional Economic Vitality Benefit Cost Analysis Leveraging of Federal Funding Potential for Innovation Performance and Accountability Project Readiness Technical Feasibility Project Schedule Required Approvals Project Risks and Mitigation Strategies Large/Small Project Requirements Federal Wage Certification Letter Standard Form 424 (Application for Federal Assistance) Standard Form 424C (Budget Information for Construction Projects) List of Figures Figure 1-1: SH 225 at BW 8 Interchange... 1 Figure 1-2: Direct Connector Phasing... 3 Figure 1-3: Traffic Analysis Area of Focus... 4 Figure 1-4: Existing Geometry at BW 8 and SH Figure 1-5: Crashes on the Frontage Roads (between )... 5 Figure 1-6: Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes... 6 List of Tables Table 1-1: Southbound to Eastbound, Westbound to Northbound, and Northbound to Westbound Connector... 7 Table 3-1: Project Parties Table 4-1: Sources of Funding Table 4-2: Uses of Funds...Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 5-1: Estimates of Economic Benefits, 2016 Dollars Table 5-2: Overall Results of the Benefit Cost Analysis, Millions of 2016 Dollars Table 6-1: Project Risks and Mitigation i FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

6 Appendices Appendix A. Letters of Support Appendix B. Benefit Cost Analysis Appendix C. Federal Wage Certification Letter ii FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

7 1. Project Description The Houston Ship Channel, in Houston, Texas, is part of the Port of Houston, one of the US's busiest seaports. The channel is the conduit for ocean-going vessels between Houston-area terminals and the Gulf of Mexico, and it serves an increasing volume of inland barge traffic. The channel currently has five vehicle crossings: Washburn Tunnel, Sidney Sherman Bridge, Sam Houston Ship Channel Bridge (popularly known as the Beltway 8 Bridge); Fred Hartman Bridge; and the Lynchburg Ferry. Beltway 8 (BW 8), also known as the Sam Houston Parkway, along with the Sam Houston Tollway, is an 88-mile (142 km) beltway around the city of Houston, Texas, United States, lying entirely within Harris County. BW 8, a state highway, runs mostly along the frontage roads of the tollway, only using the main lanes where they are free between Interstate Highway 45 (North Freeway) and Interstate Highway 69/U.S. 59 (Eastex Freeway). The main lanes elsewhere are the Sam Houston Tollway, a toll road owned and operated by the Harris County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA). East of Houston, the Tollway crosses the Houston Ship Channel on the Sam Houston Ship Channel Bridge, a toll bridge; this forms a gap in BW 8 between Interstate Highway 10 (Baytown-East Freeway) and State Highway 225 (La Porte Freeway) as shown in Figure 1-1. Figure 1-1: SH 225 at BW 8 Interchange The HCTRA recently opened the new $962 million Houston Ship Channel Bridge to connect I- 10 to SH 225. Both SH 225 and BW 8 are major freight corridors connecting to the Port of Houston and major industries along the Ship Channel. At this point in time, a full directional interchange does not exist. As a result of these recent activities and the significant growth in the freight traffic along the BW 8 and SH 225 corridors, HCTRA, Harris County, the Port of 1 FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

8 Houston, TxDOT, and other major stakeholders in the region support the development of this full directional interchange. In 2003, TxDOT conducted a Major Corridor Feasibility Study (MCFS) for the SH 225 travel corridor in Harris County, Texas ( The purpose of this MCFS was to answer critical questions about future transportation options within the study corridor. A MCFS is a decision-making process designed to identify transportation needs for the corridor; evaluate alternative, multi-modal solutions; and garner public confidence and support for the recommended alternative. There were several key problems and needs in the SH 225 Corridor illustrated through the 2003 study, as follows: Existing conditions in the corridor showed that mobility and safety improvements were warranted, including but not limited to reducing the number of accidents. There was recurring traffic congestion, particularly at key intersections and interchanges. Connectivity, particularly at Beltway 8, should be improved. The relationship of truck volume to other traffic, including a time-of-day, and directional assessment should be ascertained to determine the need for managed lanes or other truck lane treatment. The corridor study and any recommended improvements must be attentive to air quality and emissions levels, as well as other environmental variables. The full range of conceptual alternatives was derived from the corridor goals and objectives along with the physical constraints identified and input from the public and elected officials. The Interchange/Ramp Improvements alternative was ranked as being the preferred alternative, which would involve major modifications to the Beltway 8/SH 225 interchange. TxDOT has recently completed an assessment of a fully directional interchange at BW 8 with SH 225. The recently completed feasibility study evaluated the phasing for the addition of the most beneficial direct connectors (DC) to implement. The traffic analysis consisted of evaluating the BW 8 at SH 225 interchange and one interchange to the east (Deerwood Glen Drive) and west (Preston Avenue) of BW 8 and one interchange south (Greenshadow Drive) of SH 225. The feasibility study identifies the implementation phasing of those DCs. To do this, TxDOT utilized VISSIM for traffic modeling and simulating the roadway network in the area of the BW 8 at SH 225 interchange. VISSIM is a microscopic multi-modal simulation program that enables a very realistic replication of real-life driver behavior by modeling the traffic flows of cars, trucks, buses, and other modes of transportation as a complete system of freeways and crossroads. VISSIM was utilized to provide qualitative insight and quantitative 2 FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

9 measures of effectiveness (MOEs) of the operations of various direct connectors implemented at the BW 8 at SH 225 interchange. This analysis included the evaluation of five possible direct connectors operating by the year 2020, as well as the year 2020 traffic operations with only the BW 8 main lane improvements constructed both north and south of SH 225 with no direct connectors. The focus of this analysis is based on the movements, at the at-grade intersections, with the estimated highest traffic volumes that can possibly justify direct connectors. This analysis was used to compare the operations of the year 2020 network with main lane improvements without direct connectors to various year 2020 scenarios that include individual or combined direct connectors. This study also considered the other solutions to improve the traffic operations within the network, which included at-grade intersection improvements, ramp reversals, and ramp relocations. Using the VISSIM model network performance results and engineering evaluation criteria, TxDOT is considering implementing three to four DCs in the following order: 1) SB to EB (green) 2) WB to NB (red) 3) NB to WB (purple) 4) NB to EB1 (blue) The direct connector phasing is also illustrated on Figure 1-2. Figure 1-2: Direct Connector Phasing 3 FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

10 1.1 Project Details The traffic analysis completed for the project was based on analyzing BW 8 and SH 225, including the main lanes, frontage roads, interchanges and atgrade intersections, in order to assess the complete network in the vicinity of the BW 8 at SH 225 interchange. Figure 1-3 depicts the traffic analysis area of focus. Within the study area, BW 8 is a northsouth facility with two lanes in each direction. There is a three-level interchange at BW 8 and SH 225, with atgrade frontage roads, SH 225 main lanes on the second level, and BW 8 main lanes on the third level. Figure 1-3: Traffic Analysis Area of Focus Congestion at the at-grade intersections has been observed during the course of this study. Currently there are no direct connectors at the interchange of BW 8 and SH 225; connections between the freeways are made via the frontage roads with four signalized intersections. There are dual left-turn lanes at three of the four intersections to accommodate heavier traffic movements as shown in Figure 1-4. Figure 1-4: Existing Geometry at BW 8 and SH FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

11 At the BW 8 and SH 225 at-grade signalized intersections, there have been several crashes in the past. Figure 1-5 illustrates the locations of the crashes on the frontage roads for a three-year period, Approximately 20 crashes were reported at the intersection by the Harris County Constable s Incident Management System (IMS) during the three-year period. These crashes likely occurred due to peak hour congestion and the various traffic movements at the at-grade signalized intersections. Vehicles exiting the freeway ahead of an at-grade intersection generally have short weave segments before approaching the traffic signal. These short weave segments between entrance and exit ramps create points of conflicts and congestion due to vehicles changing lanes. Figure 1-5: Crashes on the Frontage Roads (between ) Due to growth in traffic, development in the area, and the proposed widening of the BW 8 main lanes, congestion is expected to escalate. To reduce the traffic volume moving through the at-grade signalized intersections, critical movements can be removed by constructing direct connectors from freeway to freeway. For the purposes of this study, VISSIM was utilized to provide qualitative insight and quantitative measures of effectiveness (MOEs) of the operations of various direct connectors implemented at the BW 8 at SH 225 interchange. VISSIM does this by modeling the freeways and crossroads together, enabling engineers to see how each impacts the other. This analysis included the evaluation of five possible direct connectors operating by the year 2020, as well as the year 2020 traffic operations with only the BW 8 main lane improvements constructed with no direct connectors. The focus of this analysis is based on the movements, at the at-grade intersections, with the highest traffic volumes that can possibly justify direct connectors. This VISSIM analysis is intended to compare the operations of the year 2020 network with main lane improvements without direct connectors to various year 2020 scenarios that include individual or combined direct connectors. 5 FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

12 Based on the model results, the traffic counts indicate heavy left-turn volumes for the northbound to westbound movement and the southbound to eastbound in the AM peak hour and the westbound to southbound movement in the PM peak hour, as shown on Figure 1-6. The northbound to eastbound movement has a heavy right-turn volume in the AM peak hour and the westbound to northbound and eastbound to southbound movements have heavy-right turn volumes in the PM peak hour, as shown on Figure 1-6. Figure 1-6: Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes Traffic volumes across the Ship Channel Bridge have increased almost 10 percent each year since 2012 and some forecasts indicate that it may grow another 15 percent by The growth rate for BW 8 was determined by considering the incremental growth rates identified in the Draft Final Report: Systemwide Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study (HCTRA, 2014). Using the year 2014 existing conditions and the year 2020 models with main lane improvements only, TxDOT was able to identify the areas of severe congestion which may be relieved through the addition of a direct connector. The direct connectors would remove heavy traffic volumes from the at-grade intersections, allowing the other movements to travel more freely and allowing more green time at the signalized intersections. Once the locations of congestion for the year 2020 peak hours were identified, various direct connectors were applied to the model to determine potential benefits in overall network delay. The following individual direct connectors and combinations were evaluated for year 2020 AM and PM peak hours: Single Connector Two Connectors Three Connectors Four Connectors SB to EB NB to EB NB to WB WB to SB WB to SB and WB to NB NB to EB and SB to EB NB to EB and WB to NB NB to WB and SB to EB NB to EB, WB to NB, and SB to EB NB to WB, WB to NB, and SB to EB NB to EB, WB to NB, SB to EB, and NB to WB WB to NB SB to EB and WB to NB 6 FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

13 The direct connector combination that was determined to be the most beneficial for improving safety and delay, was the southbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound direct connectors. Those two movements have the greatest impact on reducing delays during the peak hour travel patterns. The southbound to eastbound direct connector improves the AM peak hour and the westbound to northbound director connector improves the PM peak hour. Using the same criteria that was used to evaluate BW 8 widening alternatives for the project, nine criteria were applied to the implementation and construction phasing of the direct connectors, as show in Table 1-1. Table 1-1: Southbound to Eastbound, Westbound to Northbound, and Northbound to Westbound Connector Rating 1 Criteria At-grade- SB to Notes signalized EB, WB intersections to NB, & NB to WB DCs Safety 2 5 Not having a connector may result in back-ups on the main lines which impacts safety. Building the NB to EB connector will remove the traffic queue that vehicles on SHTE currently experience when taking the exit ramp. This improves safety by eliminating the risk of read end collisions between vehicles traveling downhill and queued traffic. As for the WB to NB connector, safety will be improved by eliminating the need for vehicles to weave across the frontage road to access the right turn lane. As a result, this will minimize crashes that may otherwise occur along the frontage road. Not having a connector on the northbound main lanes at the SH 225 interchange may also result in back-ups on the main lanes. Building the NB to WB connector will remove the traffic queue that may develop in 2020 for vehicles taking the exit ramp. This will also reduce the risk of read end collisions between vehicles traveling on the main lanes. Design N/A N/A Long Term Maintenance 4 3 Building the direct connectors will require routine maintenance in addition to the existing maintenance of pavement, pavement markings, and signals. Aesthetics N/A N/A 7 FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

14 Rating 1 Disruption 5 3 Construction of connector may disrupt traffic for short duration along SH 225. Hanging the beams at the interchange will be standard construction. No improvements to the at-grade intersections are proposed, so no construction would disrupt operations. Constructability N/A N/A ROW 5 5 The three connectors can be constructed within existing ROW. Construction Duration 5 4 Standard construction of a connector is between 12 to 18 months. During construction there will be impacts on existing traffic movements, the impacts are for the duration of the construction and are not long term. Life Cycle Cost 4 2 Although the connector will last for years, there is a high initial cost that may not be recouped without tolling the connector. As for the at-grade intersections, it will require continuous maintenance of signals as well as replacement of signals, maintenance of existing pavement, pavement markings, etc. since the facility is over 30 years old. The cost would be low compared to the construction of a connector. Delays 2 5 The direct connectors will allow toll users to by-pass traffic signals. The at-grade intersection include a signal that toll users are currently subject to use as well as subject to delays if the signal malfunctions. The benefits in reduction of delay will mainly be experienced at peak hour and during times of intersection malfunction. Total Score Note: 1 Rating 1-5 is going from bad to best. Purely based on delays and travel time savings, the recommended direct connectors would improve traffic flow at the interchange. 1.2 Eligibility TxDOT is an eligible applicant for INFRA Grant funds per the criteria specified in the NOFO and is requesting $58 million in INFRA Grant funds to fill a funding gap in this critical project. 2. Project Location 8 FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

15 SH-225 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements project is located in Harris County, TX, within the City of Houston. 3. Project Parties The new interchange project is a true partnership between several state and local agencies. The parties include TxDOT (as the eligible applicant), HCTRA, Harris County, Port Houston, and others. Letters of Support for this project can be found in Appendix A. Brief descriptions of these key project parties are provided below. The project s INFRA grant recipient will be the TxDOT Houston District, which is responsible for executing the regional responsibilities of TxDOT. TxDOT, in partnership with local and regional officials, is responsible for planning, designing, building, operating and maintaining the state s transportation system. This includes acquiring ROW for state highways and other modes of transportation; researching issues to solve transportation problems and save lives; constructing roads and bridges; and improving and maintaining roadways, bridges, airports, and other transportation infrastructure. HCTRA was created by Harris County Commissioners Court in 1983 after Harris County voters approved a referendum to release $900 million in bonds to construct, maintain, and operate toll roads in the rapidly growing Greater Houston Metropolitan area. HCTRA is one of three engineering departments that make up Harris County Public Infrastructure: Harris County Toll Road Authority Harris County Engineering Department Harris County Flood Control District HCTRA is an Enterprise Fund of Harris County and relies on charges from users of the toll road system to fund operations, debt service, and future projects. 9 FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

16 The Port of Houston is a 25-mile-long complex of 150-plus private and public industrial terminals along the 52-mile-long Houston Ship Channel. The eight public terminals are owned, operated, managed or leased by the Port of Houston Authority and include the general cargo terminals at the Turning Basin, Care, Jacintoport, Woodhouse, and the Barbours Cut and Bayport container terminals. Each year, more than 241 million tons of cargo move through the greater Port of Houston, carried by more than 8,200 vessels and 223,000 barges. The port is consistently ranked 1st in the United States in foreign waterborne tonnage; 1st in U.S. imports; 1st in U.S. export tonnage and 2nd in the U.S. in total tonnage. It is also the nation s leading breakbulk port, handling 41 percent of project cargo at Gulf Coast ports. The port has been instrumental in the city of Houston s development as a center of international trade. It is home to a multi-billion petrochemical complex, the largest in the nation and second largest in the world. Carrier services on all major trade lanes link Houston to international markets around the globe. The ship channel also intersects a very busy barge traffic lane, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Centrally located on the Gulf Coast, Houston is a strategic gateway for cargo originating in or destined for the U.S. West and Midwest. Houston lies within close reach of one of the nation s largest concentrations of 142 million consumers within 1,000 miles. Ample truck, rail and air connections allow shippers to economically transport their goods between Houston and inland points. The port is vital to the local, state and national economy and the maintenance and improvements of the public facilities ensures its continued economic impacts. Keeping the port secure so that business can flow freely is also an essential responsibility. As the local sponsor of the Houston Ship Channel, the Port Authority plays an important role in the management and environmental stewardship of this important waterway. 10 FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

17 Harris County, Texas, is one of the largest counties in the U.S. As of the 2015 Texas Population Estimate Program, the population of the county was 4,530,268, making it the most populous county in Texas and the third-most populous county in the United States. Its county seat is Houston, the largest city in Texas and fourth-largest city in the United States. The project parties have agreed to manage the project activities according to Table 3-1 below. Table 3-1: Project Parties Project Party Plan Development ROW Acquisition/Utilities Construction O&M TxDOT X X HCTRA X X X Harris County X 4. Grant Funds and Sources and Uses of all Project Funds The SH-225 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements project represents a significant surface transportation infrastructure investment to improve freight and passenger vehicle mobility. Accordingly, the requested INFRA grant funds will be utilized throughout construction to balance project needs against the broader fiscal constraints of TxDOT s statewide construction program. Table 4-1: Sources of Funding Source Tables 4-1 and 4-2 shows the planned sources and uses of project funds, which assume a $58 million INFRA grant to be used to cover construction funding shortfall for the interchange connectors. Viability and Completeness of the Project s Financing Table 4-1 shows that the INFRA grant request will meet the requirement that it cover no more than 60 percent of the total project costs, since State and local funding will cover 75% of the total project costs. The 25% of the total project costs represented by the INFRA Grant funds will cover a critical funding gap in the project s funding. Cost INFRA (Grant) $58,000,000 Other Federal Funds $0 State Funding (TxDOT) $66,700,000 HCTRA $71,000,000 Shared (HCTRA/TxDOT/Harris County) $34,800,000 TOTAL SOURCES $230,500, FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

18 Stable and Reliable Fund Commitments TxDOT annually oversees $7.5 billion in the state highway fund (35 percent), $3.4 billion in state bond proceeds (16 percent), $1.8 billion in other funding mechanisms (tolls, mobility fund, concession fees), and over $8.6 billion in federal funds (40 percent) to construct, maintain, and operate approximately 197,100 miles of state highway system. Contingency Reserves Despite the strong funding plan that is in place, TxDOT recognizes the need for contingency funding in the event of funding interruptions. The possibility of federal or state transportation dollars being unavailable for project expenditures is remote. Historically, periodic short-term interruptions in federal reimbursements have been successfully managed through cash management practices. In 1946, language was added to the Texas Constitution requiring three- fourths of all net revenue generated by motor fuels taxes to be used only for acquiring ROW; constructing, maintaining, and policing public roadways; or for the payment of principal and interest on certain road district bonds or warrants. In the unlikely event that federal and state dollars are both unavailable, Texas has a contingency solutions ranging from short term cash management techniques to longer term access to credit and capital markets. Financial Condition of the Project Sponsor As a 100-year-old organization, TxDOT has the financial wherewithal to see the SH-225 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements project through to completion. TxDOT oversees a biennial budget of $8.6 billion and can access capital markets by selling general obligation debt backed by the full faith and credit of the state government. This debt is rated triple-a by all three national rating agencies. Ability to Manage Grants TxDOT has a long and successful track record of managing several types of federal grants and hundreds of federal contracts, both as a recipient and a pass-through agency for subrecipients. TxDOT complies with all federal government expenditure and reporting requirements, including the general requirements of the Office of Management and Budget s Super Circular and the transportation specific guidance outlined in the Stewardship and Oversight Agreement between TxDOT and FHWA. Future Eligible Cost The future eligible cost of this project, $230,500,000, is comprised of design, permitting, construction, ROW, and utilities, which are deemed as eligible costs under this funding program, as shown in Table 4-2. Availability and Commitment of Funds As previously described, funding commitment and availability is shown in Table FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

19 Federal Funds Already Provided The project has not received any federal funds to date. 5. Merit Criteria 5.1 Support for National or Regional Economic Vitality With HCTRA recently opening the new $962 million Houston Ship Channel Bridge to connect I-10 to SH 225, the SH 225 and BW 8 interchange has become heavily congested, as described in the project details section of this application. Both SH225 and BW 8 are major freight corridors connecting to the Port of Houston and major industries along the Ship Channel. At this point in time, a full directional interchange does not exist. As a result of these recent activities and the significant growth in the freight traffic along the BW 8 and SH 225 corridors, HCTRA, Harris County, the Port of Houston, TxDOT, and other major stakeholders in the region support the development of this full directional interchange. The proposed directional interchange will relieve this regional chokepoint, provide a major improvement in safety, and allow this major freight corridor to more efficiently move goods and people, allowing for continued economic growth in gulf region Benefit Cost Analysis A Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) of the SH-225 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements project was conducted in conformance with Federal guidance regarding evaluation criteria, discount and monetization rates, and evaluation methods recommended by the U.S. DOT in the July 2017 Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance for TIGER and INFRA Applications. The BCA model incorporated the parameter updates in accordance with the above reference USDOT guidance, including the value of travel time, the values of statistical life (VSL), injuries and property damage only (PDO) crashes, damage costs by emission type, and other factors. The U.S. DOT recommended default values are used unless otherwise stated. The real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent, consistent with U.S. DOT guidance and OMB Circular A-45 are used to compute net present value (NPV) of benefits and costs. A summary of the BCA results is provided in this section and more detail regarding data inputs, sources, and estimation of each benefit category is provided in Appendix XX. All monetary values are presented in 2017 dollars, the default value of the U.S. DOT Benefit- Cost Analysis (BCA) Resource Guide (November 2016). In instances where certain values are expressed in dollar values in other (historical) years, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) is used to adjust them. Table 5-1: Estimates of Economic Benefits, 2016 Dollars Over the Project Lifecycle In Constant Dollars Discounted at 7 Percent 13 FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

20 Over the Project Lifecycle In Constant Dollars Discounted at 7 Percent Travel Time Savings $752,748,245 $224,388,741 Emission Cost Savings $3,453,589 $1,115,978 Vehicle Operating Cost Savings $35,102,543 $10,568,621 Accident Cost Savings $98,312,133 $31,910,170 Incremental O&M -$12,148,685 -$3,836,157 Total $877,467,825 $264,147,353 Table 5-2: Overall Results of the Benefit Cost Analysis, Millions of 2016 Dollars Project Evaluation Metric 7% Discount Rate 3% Discount Rate Total Discounted Benefits $264.1 $510.0 Total Discounted Costs $139.3 $174.9 Net Present Value $124.8 $335.0 Benefit / Cost Ratio Internal Rate of Return (%) 14.3% Payback Period (years) 7 years As shown in the above summary tables, this project will result in $1.90 in public benefits for every $1 spent. The BCA details are provided in Appendix B. 5.2 Leveraging of Federal Funding As shown in Table 4-1, TxDOT and their project partners HCTRA and Harris County are contributing $172.5 million to this project, or 75% of the funding, in leveraging the requested $58 million in federal funding. 5.3 Potential for Innovation TxDOT utilized an innovative methodology to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of numerous alternatives for improving mobility at the SH 225 and BW 8 interchange. TxDOT utilized VISSIM for traffic modeling and simulating the roadway network in the area of the BW 8 at SH 225 interchange. VISSIM is a microscopic multi-modal simulation program that enables a very realistic replication of real-life driver behavior by modeling the traffic flows of cars, trucks, buses, and other modes of transportation as a complete system of freeways and crossroads. VISSIM was utilized to provide qualitative insight and quantitative measures of effectiveness (MOEs) of the operations of various direct connectors implemented at the BW 8 at SH 225 interchange. 14 FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

21 This analysis included the evaluation of five possible direct connectors operating by the year 2020, as well as the year 2020 traffic operations with only the BW 8 main lane improvements constructed both north and south of SH 225 with no direct connectors. Using the year 2014 existing conditions and the year 2020 models with main lane improvements only, TxDOT was able to identify the areas of severe congestion which may be relieved through the addition of a direct connector. The direct connectors would remove heavy traffic volumes from the at-grade intersections, allowing the other movements to travel more freely and allowing more green time at the signalized intersections. Once the locations of congestion for the year 2020 peak hours were identified, various direct connectors were applied to the model to determine potential benefits in overall network delay. Based on delays and travel time savings from the modeling efforts, the recommended direct connectors were shown to improve traffic flow at the interchange. 5.4 Performance and Accountability In order to maximize public benefits from INFRA funds and to promote local activity that will provide benefits beyond the INFRA-funded project, TxDOT will utilize funds on specific, measurable outcomes, and provide accountability for project performance. TxDOT understands that USDOT is exploring strategies for potential conditioning of INFRA funds for appropriate projects. The proposed structure of conditions on funding above advances INFRA program goals by providing specific, measurable outcomes that achieve transportation performance objectives supporting economic vitality and improved safety, all while assuring timely delivery of the SH-225 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements project. 6. Project Readiness 6.1 Technical Feasibility The SH-225 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements project is ready to begin concurrent design and construction within 18 months of receipt of the INFRA grant funding. TxDOT has completed schematic-level drawings, as described in the Project Details section of this application and the project is scheduled to let by TxDOT in 09/2020 (FY 2021). The project design criteria follow the TxDOT Roadway Design Manual, TxDOT Bridge Design Manual, Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and other state and federally approved design standards. The cost estimate, which includes agency, financial, design, construction costs, and contingency, is based on a detailed review of the preliminary design drawings, experience on similar projects, and concessionaire information. A 10 percent project contingency is included in the cost estimate. 15 FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

22 6.2 Project Schedule The project is ready to begin concurrent design and construction within 18 months of receipt of the INFRA grant funding. Standard construction of a connector is between 12 to 18 months. Construction activities for the INFRA grant meet all identified schedule requirements. 6.3 Required Approvals In August of 2003, TxDOT conducted a Major Corridor Feasibility Study (MCFS) for the SH 225 travel corridor. The MCFS was a decision-making process designed to identify transportation needs for the corridor; evaluate alternative, multi-modal solutions; and garner public confidence and support for the recommended alternative. The MCFS also considered regulatory approvals that would be needed for the directional interchange improvements. Since all of the project construction elements are located within TxDOT, HCTRA, or Harris County-owned right of way, minimal additional permitting action will be required. 6.4 Project Risks and Mitigation Strategies A table has been developed assessing the risks that may potentially pose a threat to the ability of the SH-225 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements Project to meet its objectives and schedule along with proposed mitigation actions. Table 6-1 below shows the general categories of risk assessed and mitigation strategies. 16 FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

23 Table 6-1: Project Risks and Mitigation 1 = Low 2 = Minor 3 = Moderate 4 = Significant Risk # Risk Category Risk Description Likelihood Impact Mitigation Strategies Name Cost Schedule 1 Financial Loss of Public or Private Funding Loss of funding because of unforeseen circumstances Given public and private benefits, this project will need both Federal and State sources to be completed in a timely manner. If a funding source does not materialize, the project will be delayed. 2 Management Stakeholders Stakeholders may have varying procedures and objectives TxDOT has successfully worked numerous times with the groups involved, and feels all obstacles could be overcome with stakeholder communication to address potential concerns. 3 Contracting & Administrative TxDOT will TxDOT will administer all Procurement Burden manage all contracts. It has contracts successfully completed many capital projects, in the past, with a similar scope. 4 Contracting & Availability of Project involves TxDOT has experience Procurement Qualified specialized delivering capital projects. Contractors construction, It will manage resources and is being in line with the funding undertaken in a requirements and rural area established time requirements. 5 Construction Traffic Roadway traffic congestion resulting from Project phasing will reduce impact. Coordination by TxDOT 17 FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

24 Risk # Risk Category Risk Description Likelihood Impact Mitigation Strategies Name Cost Schedule 6 Construction Business Disruption 7 Environmental State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO) construction and site infrastructure The Port of Houston s existing businesses may be impacted by construction Historic/ archaeological/ cultural resources discoveries with the local jurisdiction, HCTRA, and other highway users and stakeholders will occur prior to scheduling work and any potential outages or road closures or detours in order to minimize potential impacts Project phasing and stakeholder coordination will reduce impact. Coordination with customers will occur to minimize business disruption Required regulations will be followed and responded to accordingly by TxDOT and other stakeholders, if any such resources are found in the area. 8 Environmental Wetlands Project impact on existing wetlands Required environmental regulations will be followed and responded to accordingly. 9 Environmental Endangered Species Impact to any endangered species within the project area Required environmental regulations will be followed and responded to accordingly, if any known threatened or endangered species are discovered within the project area. 10 Environmental NEPA Compliance with Identify lead agency and 18 FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

25 Risk # Risk Category Risk Description Likelihood Impact Mitigation Strategies Name Cost Schedule 11 Real Estate Property acquisitions 12 Utilities Utility Relocations NEPA because of federal funding Need for property acquisition Need for some utilities to be relocated as a result of project cooperating agencies that can use the project s NEPA clearance document as their decision document. Potential environmental issues include environmental justice, community impacts, noise analysis, cultural resources, habitat and biota, water resources, and hazardous materials Property acquisitions are required per preliminary design Coordination is ongoing with affected utility companies to relocate utility lines as necessary. 7. Large/Small Project Requirements The SH-225 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements project is considered a Large Project under the INFRA Grant program requirements. As such, this project meets the criteria listed in the NOFO as follows. The project generates national or regional economic, mobility, safety benefits With HCTRA recently opening the new $962 million Houston Ship Channel Bridge to connect I-10 to SH 225, the SH 225 and BW 8 interchange has become heavily congested, as described in the project details section of this application. Both SH225 and BW 8 are major freight corridors connecting to the Port of Houston and major industries along the Ship Channel. At this point in time, a full directional interchange does not exist. As a result of these recent activities and the significant growth in the freight traffic along the BW 8 and SH 225 corridors, HCTRA, Harris County, the Port of Houston, TxDOT, and other major stakeholders in the region support the development of this full directional interchange. The proposed directional interchange will relieve this regional chokepoint, provide a major 19 FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

26 improvement in safety, and allow this major freight corridor to more efficiently move goods and people, allowing for continued economic growth in gulf region. The project will provide a significant improvement to local safety The SH-225 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements project will provide the following safety improvements: Not having a connector may result in back-ups on the main lines which impacts safety. Building the NB to EB connector will remove the traffic queue that vehicles on SHTE currently experience when taking the exit ramp. This improves safety by eliminating the risk of read end collisions between vehicles traveling downhill and queued traffic. As for the WB to NB connector, safety will be improved by eliminating the need for vehicles to weave across the frontage road to access the right turn lane. As a result, this will minimize crashes that may otherwise occur along the frontage road. Not having a connector on the northbound main lanes at the SH 225 interchange may also result in back-ups on the main lanes. Building the NB to WB connector will remove the traffic queue that may develop in 2020 for vehicles taking the exit ramp. This will also reduce the risk of read end collisions between vehicles traveling on the main lanes. The project is cost effective As shown in Table 4-1, TxDOT and their project partners HCTRA and Harris County are contributing $172.5 million to this project, or 75% of the funding, in leveraging the requested $58 million in federal funding. This project will result in $1.90 in public benefits for every $1 spent. The project contributes to one or more of the Goals listed under 23 USC 150 Safety The proposed connectors for this project will remove the traffic queue that vehicles on BW 8 currently experience when taking the exit ramp. This improves safety by eliminating the risk of rear end collisions between vehicles traveling downhill and queued traffic. As for the WB to NB connector, safety will be improved by eliminating the need for vehicles to weave across the frontage road to access the right tum lane. As a result, this will minimize crashes that may otherwise occur along the frontage road. Not having a connector on the northbound main lanes at the SH 225 interchange may also result in back-ups on the main lanes. Building the NB to WB connector will remove the traffic queue that may develop in 2020 for vehicles taking the exit ramp. This will also reduce the risk of rear end collisions between vehicles traveling on the main lanes. The project will provide $98,312,133 in accident cost savings according to the BCA. Congestion Reduction The direct connectors will allow users to by-pass traffic signals. The at-grade intersection include a signal that users are currently subject to use as well as subject to delays if the signal malfunctions. The benefits in reduction of delay will mainly be experienced at peak hour and during times of intersection malfunction. Purely based on delays and travel time savings, the recommended direct connectors would 20 FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

27 improve traffic flow at the interchange. The project will provide $752,748,245 in travel time savings according to the BCA. System Reliability/Freight Movement and Economic Vitality The proposed project will improve freight movement to and from the Port of Houston and their many tenants within the region, enabling stronger system reliability and economic development initiatives in the region. The project will provide $35,102,543 in Vehicle Operating Cost Savings according to the BCA. Environmental Sustainability The proposed project will reduce the amount of idling time, decreasing air emissions in the area. The project will provide $3,453,589 in Emission Cost Savings as a result. Reduced Project Delivery Delays TxDOT proposes to utilize a critical path schedule timeline for procurement, environmental review, right-of-way acquisition, and utility adjustments which will allow the project to go to construction two years earlier. The project is based on the results of preliminary engineering TxDOT has completed conceptual engineering for the project and is continuing to develop the bid documents for the project. The project has one or more stable and dependable funding or financing sources TxDOT annually oversees $7.5 billion in the state highway fund (35 percent), $3.4 billion in state bond proceeds (16 percent), $1.8 billion in other funding mechanisms (tolls, mobility fund, concession fees), and over $8.6 billion in federal funds (40 percent) to construct, maintain, and operate approximately 197,100 miles of state highway system. Despite the strong funding plan that is in place, TxDOT recognizes the need for contingency funding in the event of funding interruptions. The possibility of federal or state transportation dollars being unavailable for project expenditures is remote. Historically, periodic short-term interruptions in federal reimbursements have been successfully managed through cash management practices. In 1946, language was added to the Texas Constitution requiring three- fourths of all net revenue generated by motor fuels taxes to be used only for acquiring ROW; constructing, maintaining, and policing public roadways; or for the payment of principal and interest on certain road district bonds or warrants. In the unlikely event that federal and state dollars are both unavailable, Texas has a contingency solutions ranging from short term cash management techniques to longer term access to credit and capital markets. The project cannot be easily and efficiently completed without other federal funding Without the INFRA Grant funding, this project would need to compete for traditional and available state funding with other much needed projects in Texas with the actual implementation of this project s work completed in piecemeal fashion over time. The project is reasonably expected to begin construction no later than 18 months from obligation 21 FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

28 TxDOT is ready to begin concurrent design and permitting for the project over the next 18 months. Construction will begin within 18 months of receipt of the INFRA grant funding, with a letting date of September Federal Wage Certification Letter Signed certification stating that TxDOT will comply with the requirements of Subchapter IV of Chapter 31 of Title 40, United States Code (federal wage rate requirements) as required by the FY2016 Appropriations Act is completed and attached as Appendix C. 9. Standard Form 424 (Application for Federal Assistance) TxDOT has completed the Standard Form 424 and has uploaded it to grants.gov. 10. Standard Form 424C (Budget Information for Construction Projects) TxDOT has completed the Standard Form 424C and has uploaded it to grants.gov. 22 FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

29 Appendix A. Letters of Support FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

30 Appendix B. Benefit Cost Analysis FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

31 Appendix C. Federal Wage Certification Letter FY17-18 INFRA: SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

32 Appendix B. Benefit Cost Analysis SH 225 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

33 SH 225 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements Benefit Cost Analysis November 2017

34 Executive Summary The Benefit-Cost Analysis conducted for this grant application compares the costs associated with the proposed investment to the benefits of the project. To the extent possible, benefits have been monetized. Where it was not possible to assign a dollar value to a benefit, efforts have been made to quantify it. A qualitative discussion is also provided when a benefit is anticipated to be generated, but is not easily monetized or quantified. Beltway 8 (BW 8) along with State Highway 225 (SH 225) serve as a major freight corridor to the Port of Houston, one of the US's busiest seaports. The Port of Houston includes the Houston Ship Channel, a conduit for ocean-going vessels between Houston-area terminals and the Gulf of Mexico. The Ship Channel is serving an increasing volume of inland barge traffic, which results in rapid growth in traffic along the freight corridors connecting the Port of Houston to industries. The Harris County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA) recently opened the new $962 million Houston Ship Channel Bridge, which connects the Sam Houston Tollway (toll managed lanes along BW 8) from I-10 to SH 225, further improving connectivity along the freight corridor. Due to growth in traffic, development in the area, and the proposed widening of the BW 8 main lanes, congestion is expected to escalate rapidly. The current facilities will be unable to handle the expected future traffic, creating gridlock on the roadways and preventing the efficient movement of goods along the freight corridor. To improve traffic flow, critical movements can be removed by constructing direct connectors between freeways which will reduce the traffic volume through at-grade signalized intersections. Due to the recent construction along the corridor and the significant growth in the freight traffic in the region, HCTRA, Harris County, the Port of Houston, TxDOT, and other major stakeholders in the region support the development of this full directional interchange. Table ES-1 summarizes the changes expected from the project and associated benefits with both monetized and non-monetized benefits. B-ES-1

35 Table ES-1: Merit Criteria and Cost-Effectiveness - Summary of Infrastructure Improvements and Associated Benefits, in Discounted 2016 Dollars Current Status or Baseline & Problems to be Addressed Changes to Baseline / Alternatives Type of Impacts Economic Benefit Summary of Results Page Reference The SH 225 and Beltway 8 will be unable to handle the capacity required under the expected traffic growth conditions, resulting in major delays. Constructing eight direct connectors will alleviate traffic at intersections, providing motorists the opportunity to bypass signalized intersections to access the corresponding highways. Reduced travel time costs from increases in average traffic speed Avoided emission costs from increases in average traffic speed Reduced vehicle operating costs from increases in average traffic speed Reduced Travel Time Costs Avoided Emission Costs Reduced Vehicle Operating Costs $184,429,102 Pg. 13 $917,242 Pg. 16 $8,686,538 Pg. 14 Avoided crash costs from allowing traffic to avoid signalized intersections Avoided Crash Cost Savings $23,194,886 Pg. 18 Increased O&M from the installation of Incremental O&M Dissavings -$3,836,157 Pg. 19 B-ES-2

36 Current Status or Baseline & Problems to be Addressed Changes to Baseline / Alternatives Type of Impacts Economic Benefit Summary of Results Page Reference eight direct connectors Remove bottleneck in freight corridor to and from the Port of Houston Reduced delays improve consistency of travel times for all motorists Freight Resiliency Travel Time Reliability N/A Pg. 19 N/A Pg. 19 In addition to benefits that can be monetized and quantified, a number of qualitative benefits are also likely to be generated by this improvement. Traffic in the area is expected to grow nearly 2% per year creating significant delays. As part of a major freight corridor connecting the Port of Houston and major refineries, the interchange between SH 225 and Beltway 8 is essential to maintain efficient and reliable movement of goods. In addition, improvements will improve travel time reliability by reducing delays in the network. The period of analysis used in the monetization of benefits and costs corresponds to 23 years, including 3 years of construction and 20 years of operation. The total project costs are $208.8 million dollars, excluding operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, and are expected to be financed by Federal, State, and local funds according to the distribution shown in Table ES-2. B-ES-3

37 Table ES-2: Summary of Project Costs and Anticipated Funding Sources, in Undiscounted 2016 Dollars Funding Source Capital Costs Operation & Maintenance Costs Total Project Costs Federal $58,000,000 $58,000,000 26% State $78,300,000 $78,300,000 35% Local $72,500,000 $12,148,685 $84,648,685 38% Private $0 0% TOTAL $208,800,000 $12,148,685 $220,948, % Percent of Total Cost Financed by Source A summary of the relevant data and calculations used to derive the monetized benefits and costs of the project are shown in Tables ES-3 and ES-4 in 2016 dollars. As requested in the INFRA benefit-cost analysis (BCA) guidance, incremental O&M costs have been included in the BCA as disbenefits. Table ES-5 provides additional pertinent data. Based on the analysis presented in the rest of this document, the project is expected to generate $213.4 million in discounted benefits and $139.3 million in discounted costs, using a 7 percent real discount rate. Therefore, the project is expected to generate a net present value of $74.0 million and a benefit-cost ratio of In addition to the monetized benefits presented in Table ES-4, the project would generate other benefits that are difficult to monetize. These benefits are listed below, as qualitative benefits of the project. Freight Resiliency: Future planned construction of the Houston Ship Channel Bridge will increase freight traffic in the region and the interchange is required to prevent a bottleneck in the freight corridor to and from the Port of Houston. Improved Travel Time Reliability: The expected growth in traffic in the region will result in significant delays, especially during the peak period. Construction of the connectors will reduce delays and improve the consistency of travel times. B-ES-4

38 Table ES-3: Summary of Pertinent Data, Quantifiable Benefits and Costs Calendar Project Total Benefits (Undiscounted) Total Costs (Undiscounted) Undiscounted Net Benefits Discounted Total Benefits (7%) Discounted Total Costs (7%) Discounted Net Benefits (7%) $69,600,000 -$69,600,000 - $49,623,838 -$49,623, $69,600,000 -$69,600,000 - $46,377,419 -$46,377, $69,600,000 -$69,600,000 - $43,343,382 -$43,343, $21,791,601 - $21,791,601 $12,682,910 - $12,682, $23,239,770 - $23,239,770 $12,640,895 - $12,640, $24,699,620 - $24,699,620 $12,556,034 - $12,556, $26,149,031 - $26,149,031 $12,423,216 - $12,423, $27,593,821 - $27,593,821 $12,251,987 - $12,251, $29,042,623 - $29,042,623 $12,051,656 - $12,051, $30,493,402 - $30,493,402 $11,825,867 - $11,825, $31,877,522 - $31,877,522 $11,553,881 - $11,553, $33,322,696 - $33,322,696 $11,287,550 - $11,287, $34,767,641 - $34,767,641 $11,006,545 - $11,006, $36,212,351 - $36,212,351 $10,713,928 - $10,713, $37,656,822 - $37,656,822 $10,412,425 - $10,412, $39,068,029 - $39,068,029 $10,095,921 - $10,095, $40,510,204 - $40,510,204 $9,783,744 - $9,783,744 B-ES-5

39 Calendar Project Total Benefits (Undiscounted) Total Costs (Undiscounted) Undiscounted Net Benefits Discounted Total Benefits (7%) Discounted Total Costs (7%) Discounted Net Benefits (7%) $41,943,291 - $41,943,291 $9,467,153 - $9,467, $43,384,493 - $43,384,493 $9,151,824 - $9,151, $44,825,951 - $44,825,951 $8,837,285 - $8,837, $46,266,626 - $46,266,626 $8,524,588 - $8,524, $47,707,026 - $47,707,026 $8,214,935 - $8,214, $49,147,146 - $49,147,146 $7,909,268 - $7,909,268 Total $709,699,666 $208,800,000 $500,899,666 $213,391,612 $139,344,639 $74,046,973 B-ES-6

40 Table ES-4: Summary of Project Benefits by Benefit Type, in Undiscounted 2016 Dollars Calendar Project Reduced Travel Time Costs Reduced Vehicle Operating Costs Avoided Crash Costs Reduced Emissions Costs Incremental O&M $17,970,032 $879,349 $3,323,744 $118,476 -$500, $19,334,751 $938,498 $3,349,988 $126,534 -$510, $20,699,469 $1,008,287 $3,376,231 $135,832 -$520, $22,064,188 $1,068,911 $3,402,475 $144,062 -$530, $23,428,907 $1,125,626 $3,428,719 $151,785 -$541, $24,793,625 $1,186,083 $3,454,963 $159,993 -$552, $26,158,344 $1,248,481 $3,481,206 $168,452 -$563, $27,523,063 $1,309,036 $3,507,450 $112,315 -$574, $28,887,781 $1,369,592 $3,533,694 $117,458 -$585, $30,252,500 $1,430,148 $3,559,938 $122,602 -$597, $31,617,219 $1,490,703 $3,586,181 $127,745 -$609, $32,981,937 $1,551,259 $3,612,425 $132,888 -$621, $34,346,656 $1,581,342 $3,638,669 $135,484 -$634, $35,711,375 $1,640,227 $3,664,913 $140,493 -$646, $37,076,093 $1,690,979 $3,691,156 $144,801 -$659, $38,440,812 $1,749,441 $3,717,400 $149,774 -$672, $39,805,531 $1,808,164 $3,743,644 $155,006 -$686, $41,170,249 $1,866,629 $3,769,888 $159,981 -$700,121 B-ES-7

41 Calendar Project Reduced Travel Time Costs Reduced Vehicle Operating Costs Avoided Crash Costs Reduced Emissions Costs Incremental O&M $42,534,968 $1,925,094 $3,796,132 $164,956 -$714, $43,899,687 $1,983,558 $3,822,375 $169,931 -$728,406 Total $618,697,188 $28,851,405 $71,461,191 $2,838,567 -$12,148,685 B-ES-8

42 Table ES-5: Summary of Pertinent Quantifiable Data Calendar Project Person Hours Saved Gasoline Consumption Avoided Diesel Consumption Avoided Accidents Avoided Injuries Avoided Damaged Vehicles Avoided ,176, ,483 67, ,265, ,656 72, ,354, ,854 77, ,444, ,724 81, ,533, ,816 86, ,622, ,610 90, ,712, ,288 95, ,801, , , ,890, , , ,980, , , ,069, , , ,158, , , ,247, , , ,337, , , B-ES-9

43 Calendar Project Person Hours Saved Gasoline Consumption Avoided Diesel Consumption Avoided Accidents Avoided Injuries Avoided Damaged Vehicles Avoided ,426, , , ,515, , , ,605, , , ,694, , , ,783, , , ,873, , , Total 40,493,304 12,755,208 2,216,852 2, ,788 B-ES-10

44 Contents 1 Introduction... B-1 2 Methodological Framework... B-1 3 Project Overview... B-3 Base Case and Alternatives... B-3 Types of Impacts... B-4 Project Cost and Schedule... B-4 INFRA Merit Criteria... B-5 4 General Assumptions... B-6 5 Demand Projections... B-7 Model Observations... B-8 Methodology... B-9 Assumptions... B-9 Demand Projections... B-10 6 Estimation of Economic Benefits... B-11 Benefits Measurement, Data and Assumptions... B-11 List of Benefits Analyzed... B-11 Methodologies Used to Estimate Benefits... B-11 Assumptions Used to Estimate economic benefits... B-11 Methodologies Used to Estimate Travel Time Benefits... B-12 Assumptions Used to Estimate travel time benefits... B-13 Travel Time Benefit Estimates... B-13 Methodologies Used to Estimate Vehicle Operating Cost Benefits... B-13 Assumptions Used to Estimate Vehicle Operating Cost benefits... B-14 Vehicle Operating Cost Benefit Estimates... B-14 Methodologies Used to Estimate Emission Benefits... B-15 Assumptions Used to Estimate Emission benefits... B-15 Emission Cost Benefit Estimates... B-16 Methodologies Used to Estimate Crash Cost Benefits... B-16 Assumptions Used to Estimate Crash Cost Benefits... B-16 Crash Cost Benefit Estimates... B-18 Aggregation of Benefit Estimates... B-19 Comparison of Benefits and Costs... B-19 7 Summary of Findings and BCA Outcomes... B-20 8 Aggregate Annual Benefits and Costs... B-21 B-i

45 List of Tables Table 1: Cost Summary Table, 2016 Dollars... B-4 Table 2: Expected Effects on Benefit Categories... B-6 Table 3: Assumptions Used in the Estimation of Demand... B-9 Table 4: Demand Projections... B-10 Table 5: Assumptions Used in the Estimation of Economic Benefits... B-12 Table 6: Assumptions Used in the Estimation of Travel Time Benefits... B-13 Table 7: Estimates of Travel Time Benefits, 2016 Dollars... B-13 Table 8: Assumptions Used in the Estimation of Vehicle Operating Cost Benefits... B-14 Table 9: Estimates of Vehicle Operating Cost Benefits, 2016 Dollars... B-15 Table 10: Assumptions Used in the Estimation of Emission Benefits... B-15 Table 11: Estimates of Emission Benefits, 2016 Dollars... B-16 Table 12: Assumptions Used in the Estimation of Crash Cost Benefits... B-17 Table 13: Estimates of Crash Cost Benefits, 2016 Dollars... B-18 Table 14: Estimates of Economic Benefits, 2016 Dollars... B-19 Table 15: Overall Results of the Benefit Cost Analysis, Millions of 2016 Dollars*... B-20 Table 16: Benefit Estimates for the Full Build Alternative... B-20 Table 17: Annual Monetized Estimates of Total Project Benefits and Costs... B-22 Table 18: Annual Monetized Estimates of Total Project Benefits by Category... B-24 Table 19: Pertinent Quantifiable Impacts (1 of 2)... B-26 Table 20: Pertinent Quantifiable Impacts (2 of 2)... B-28 Table 21: Travel Time Savings and Pertinent Quantifiable Impacts... B-30 Table 22: Vehicle Operating Cost Savings and Pertinent Quantifiable Impacts, 2016 Dollars... B-32 Table 23: Emission Cost Savings, 2016 Dollars... B-34 Table 24: Crash Cost Savings and Pertinent Quantifiable Impacts... B-36 Table 25: Annual Total Demand Forecast... B-38 B-ii

46 Table 26: Annual Vehicle-Miles Traveled by Speed Bin - No Build (1 of 2)... B-40 Table 27: Annual Vehicle-Miles Traveled by Speed Bin - No Build (2 of 2)... B-42 Table 28: Annual Vehicle-Miles Traveled by Speed Bin - Build (1 of 2)... B-44 Table 29: Annual Vehicle-Miles Traveled by Speed Bin - Build (2 of 2)... B-46 Table 30: Annual Vehicle-Hours Traveled by Speed Bin - No Build (1 of 2)... B-48 Table 31: Annual Vehicle-Hours Traveled by Speed Bin - No Build (2 of 2)... B-50 Table 32: Annual Vehicle-Hours Traveled by Speed Bin - Build (1 of 2)... B-52 Table 33: Annual Vehicle-Hours Traveled by Speed Bin - Build (2 of 2)... B-54 Table 34: Annual Average Speed by Speed Bin - No Build (1 of 2)... B-56 Table 35: Annual Average Speed by Speed Bin - No Build (2 of 2)... B-58 Table 36: Annual Average Speed by Speed Bin - Build (1 of 2)... B-60 Table 37: Annual Average Speed by Speed Bin - Build (2 of 2)... B-62 B-iii

47 1 Introduction This document provides detailed technical information on the economic analyses conducted in support of the Grant Application for the SH 225 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor project. Section 2, Methodological Framework, introduces the conceptual framework used in the benefit-cost analysis (BCA). To the extent possible, and as recommended in the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), monetized benefits and costs are estimated through a benefitcost analysis (BCA) framework, which is described in this section. Section 3, Project Overview, provides an overview of the project, including a brief description of existing conditions and proposed alternatives; a summary of cost estimates and schedule; and a description of the types of effects that the SH 225 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor is expected to generate. Monetized, quantified, and qualitative effects are highlighted. Section 4, General Assumptions, discusses the general assumptions used in the estimation of project costs and benefits, while estimates of travel demand and traffic growth can be found in Section 5, Demand Projections. Specific data elements and assumptions pertaining to the merit criteria are presented in Section 6, Estimation of Economic Benefits, along with associated benefit estimates. Estimates of the project s net present value (NPV), its benefitcost ratio (BCR) and other project evaluation metrics are introduced in Section 7, Summary of Findings and BCA Outcomes. Additional data tables are provided in Section 8, Aggregate Annual Benefits and Costs, including annual estimates of benefits and costs to assist USDOT in its review of the application. 1 2 Methodological Framework The BCA conducted for this project includes the monetized benefits and costs measured using USDOT guidance, as well as the quantitative and qualitative merits of the project. A BCA provides estimates of the anticipated benefits that are expected to accrue from a project over a specified period and compares them to the anticipated costs of the project. Costs include both the resources required to develop the project and the costs of maintaining the new or improved asset over time. Estimated benefits are based on the projected impacts of the project on both users and non-users of the facility, valued in monetary terms. 2 1 While the models and software themselves do not accompany this appendix, they are provided separately as part of the application. B-1 2 USDOT, Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance SH 225 at for Beltway TIGER 8 and Freight INFRA Corridor Applications. Improvements - Appendix B

48 While BCA is just one of many tools that can be used in making decisions about infrastructure investments, USDOT believes that it provides a useful benchmark from which to evaluate and compare potential transportation investments. 3 The specific methodology developed for this application was developed using the BCA guidance developed by USDOT and is consistent with the INFRA program guidelines. In particular, the methodology involves: Establishing existing and future conditions under the build and no-build scenarios; Assessing benefits that align with those identified in the INFRA BCA guidance; Measuring benefits in dollar terms, whenever possible, and expressing benefits and costs in a common unit of measurement; Using DOT guidance for the valuation of travel time savings, safety benefits and reductions in air emissions, while relying on industry best practice for the valuation of other effects; and Discounting future benefits and costs with the real discount rates recommended by the DOT (7 percent, and 3 percent for sensitivity analysis). The BCA was primarily conducted using a modified corridor version 4 of the California Lifecycle Benefit/Cost Analysis Model (Cal-B/C v6.0 Corridor). The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) developed the original Cal-B/C model in the mid-1990s. It has been used to evaluate capital projects proposed for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) since As part of a 2009 Cal-B/C revision, Caltrans developed a suite of tools for conducting benefit-cost analysis. While the original model retains a sketch planning format, Cal-B/C Corridor supports BCA after user impacts are modeled in a planning or engineering tool. Cal-B/C Corridor estimates benefits using changes in vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle-hours traveled (VHT) from travel demand or micro-simulation models. The model has a flexible design that supports a variety of input data. Cal-B/C Corridor uses analysis methods consistent with the procedures outlined in the Federal Highway Administration s (FHWA s) Economic Analysis Primer (2003). For this INFRA Grant Application, the standard Cal-B/C Corridor assumptions and economic values were modified to adhere to the requirements stipulated by the US DOT. The resulting values are consistent with the guidance found in the supplemental TIGER and INFRA BCA Resource Guide (July 2017). Cal-B/C Corridor was run to monetize the costs and benefits 3 Ibid. B-2 4 Cal-B/C Corridor estimates annual SH 225 benefits at Beltway over 8 Freight a standard Corridor 20-year Improvements lifecycle. - Appendix B

49 estimated using the travel demand model results. Information pertaining to the travel demand model is provided in Section 6. Using Cal-B/C Corridor, the following three primary categories of user benefits were quantified for the Project: travel time savings, vehicle operating cost savings, and emission reductions. Cal-B/C Corridor does not estimate safety benefits of the project directly. The monetized safety benefits were estimated using the safety calculations in Cal-B/C v6.0. The resulting benefits were then inputted into the Final Calculations page of Cal-B/C Corridor to be included in the BCA. 3 Project Overview SH-255 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements project is located in Harris County, TX, within the City of Houston. Beltway 8 (BW 8) along with State Highway 225 (SH 225) serve as a major freight corridor to the Port of Houston, one of the US's busiest seaports. The Port of Houston includes the Houston Ship Channel, a conduit for ocean-going vessels between Houston-area terminals and the Gulf of Mexico. The Ship Channel is serving an increasing volume of inland barge traffic, which is resulting in rapid growth in traffic along the freight corridors connecting the Port of Houston to industries. BW 8, a state highway, runs mostly along the frontage roads of the Sam Houston Tollway, only using the main lanes where there are no tolls between Interstate Highway 45 (North Freeway) and Interstate Highway 69/U.S. 59 (Eastex Freeway). Elsewhere, the main lanes are the Sam Houston Tollway, a toll road owned and operated by the Harris County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA). East of Houston, the HCTRA recently opened the new $962 million Houston Ship Channel Bridge, which connects the Tollway from I-10 to SH 225, further improving connectivity along the freight corridor. Due to growth in traffic, development in the area, and the proposed widening of the BW 8 main lanes, congestion is expected to escalate rapidly. The current facilities will be unable to handle the expected future traffic, creating gridlock on the roadways and preventing the efficient movement of goods along a freight corridor. To improve traffic flow, critical movements can be removed by constructing direct connectors between freeways, reducing the traffic volume moving through the at-grade signalized intersections. Due to the recent construction along the corridor and the significant growth in the freight traffic in the region, HCTRA, Harris County, the Port of Houston, TxDOT, and other major stakeholders in the region support the development of this full directional interchange. Base Case and Alternatives The base case, also referenced as the no build case, is defined as maintaining the status quo at the SH 225 and Beltway 8 intersection. None of the proposed direct connectors are constructed in the no build scenario and traffic passes through signalized intersections. Traffic is split into 15 speed bins, at 5 mile per hour increments. B-3

50 In the build scenario, eight direct connectors are installed between Beltway 8 and SH 225, one for every turning movement. Traffic is able to bypass signalized intersection with direct connectors, reducing delays and travel time. Traffic is expected to grow at the same rate as in the no build scenario, though traffic is expected to move faster as referenced in the demand projection section below. Types of Impacts The SH 225 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor project is expected to have significant impacts in travel time savings and crash cost savings. The construction of the direct connectors will allow traffic turning at the section to avoid congested signalized intersections, significantly reducing the vehicle-hours spent travelling. Over the lifecycle of the analysis, the project will save an estimated 40.5 million person-hours in the peak period. Vehicle operating costs will diminish from the increases in average speeds reducing gasoline and diesel consumption. Avoided emissions will be realized as vehicle speeds increase throughout the duration of the project lifecycle. Crash cost savings will result from diverting traffic away from signalized intersections, where crash rates have historically been higher than at typical grade separated interchanges. Project Cost and Schedule 5 The project will cost $208.8 million in 2016 dollars, excluding operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. The majority of those funds, $174 million are allocated for construction, and another $34.8 million is allocated for project support costs. Construction is expected to begin in 2021 and will take three years, resulting in the project opening in Table ES-2 outlines the distribution of spending between involved parties. Table 1: Cost Summary Table, 2016 Dollars Calendar Capital Expenditures Incremental O&M Expenditures 2021 $69,600, $69,600, $69,600, $500, $510, $520, $530,604 5 All cost estimates in this section SH are 225 in undiscounted at Beltway 8 Freight 2016 dollars. Corridor Improvements - Appendix B B-4

51 Calendar Capital Expenditures Incremental O&M Expenditures $541, $552, $563, $574, $585, $597, $609, $621, $634, $646, $659, $672, $686, $700, $714, $728,406 Total $208,800,000 $12,148,685 INFRA Merit Criteria The main benefit categories associated with the project are identified in the table below and align with Criterion #1 (Support for National or Regional Economic Vitality) as stated in the INFRA program s NOFO. B-5

52 Table 2: Expected Effects on Benefit Categories Benefit of Impact Categories Travel Time Savings Avoided Emission Cost Savings Vehicle Operating Cost Savings Crash Cost Savings Travel Time Reliability Freight Resiliency Description Reduced vehicle-hours traveled due to avoided delays at intersections Avoided emissions from increases in average traffic speed Reduced costs from increases in speeds Reduced crash costs from reducing traffic at intersections, where a significant number of crashes occur Reduced delays on the facility network, improving consistency in travel times Elimination of bottleneck in freight corridor from expected delays in no build case Monetized Quantified Qualitative Yes - - Yes - - Yes - - Yes Yes - - Yes 4 General Assumptions The BCA measures benefits against costs throughout a period of analysis beginning at the start of construction and including 20 years of operations. The monetized benefits and costs are estimated in 2016 dollars with future dollars discounted in compliance with INFRA requirements using a 7 percent real rate, and sensitivity testing at 3 percent. The methodology makes several important assumptions and seeks to avoid overestimation of benefits and underestimation of costs. Specifically: B-6

53 Input prices are expressed in 2016 dollars; The period of analysis begins in 2021 and ends in It includes project development and construction years ( ) and 20 years of operations ( ); A constant 7 percent real discount rate is assumed throughout the period of analysis. A 3 percent real discount rate is used for sensitivity analysis; Opening year demand is an input to the BCA and is assumed to be fully realized in 2024, the first year of operations (no ramp-up); and Unless specified otherwise, the results shown in this document correspond to the effects of the Full Build alternative (the installation of features indicated in the build case description). 5 Demand Projections The intersection of Sam Houston Toll Expressway (SHTE) and SH 225 currently operates as a diamond interchange with service roads meeting at coordinated traffic signals. The traffic on SHTE and SH 225 are expected to grow at annual rates of 2.79% 6 and 1.89% 7 respectively. At these growth rates, the intersection is expected to experience severe congestion in the near future. To mitigate such congestion, a full-service interchange with eight direct connectors is warranted. A traffic analysis was conducted using a VISSIM micro-simulation model to evaluate and quantify the benefits of the proposed full-service interchange. Demand projections and traffic impacts for this project were estimated from a VISSIM model of traffic at the Beltway 8 and SH 225 intersection, over a peak hour in the morning and evening in 2020 and In addition to the SH 225 and SHTE interchange, the impacts of merging, weaving and diverging due to the surrounding ramps were evaluated. The VISSIM model included the interchanges to the west (Preston Road) and east (Deerwood Glen Drive) along SH 225, as well as the interchange to the south (Green Shadows Drive) along SHTE. The northern boundary of the model was the Ship Channel Bridge approach. A total of eight VISSIM models were generated to represent traffic conditions with and without the proposed interchange during AM and PM peak hours in 2020 and The traffic volumes were incorporated into the VISSIM models in the form of vehicle inputs and routing decisions. The speed limits along the roadways and reduced speeds along ramps were coded to represent travel conditions accurately. The signal timings were adjusted to match the traffic flows and provide coordination between adjacent intersections year average growth rate from H-GAC B-7 7 SH 225 Major Corridor Feasibility Study SH 225 Final at Beltway Report, 8 TXDOT Freight November Corridor Improvements Appendix B

54 The travel outputs such as vehicular speed, traffic volume and density associated with individual links of the model network were extracted and used to calculate the total VMT and VHT by speed bin. A comparison of the VMT and VHT among 2020 and 2040 models with and without the proposed interchange was used to estimate benefits due to proposed interchange. Total demand was not captured in the model. The model captured only traffic demand during a peak hour in the morning and the evening. Based on traffic counts from the Sam Houston Tollway East Houston Ship Channel Bridge Direct Connector Feasibility study, it was assumed that the peak period lasts for two hours in the morning and evening. This is a conservative assumption as the data in the feasibility study show that congestion lasts longer than two hours in many cases. In addition, traffic in the off-peak period was not modeled. The results in the Estimation of Economic Benefits, found in Section 7, reflect only traffic in the peak period. In addition, growth in traffic indicated in the Direct Connector Feasibility Analysis led to unrealistic delays in the micro-simulation model as the network currently does not have the capacity to support the full expected demand. In order to accommodate realistic traffic flows, average growth in traffic was reduced. This results in a conservative estimate of benefits. Model Observations The westbound SH 225 traffic projected for the AM peak hour during 2040 causes at or near capacity conditions. Despite a full-service interchange, this results in heavy queuing along the mainline and frontage road in the westbound direction that reaches the northbound and southbound frontage roads. Similarly, there is queuing expected in the 2040 PM peak model along the westbound frontage road due to the backing up of heavy northbound traffic as well as the weaving caused by the traffic exiting the Jefferson City Road and other driveways located on the north of westbound frontage road. The analysis shows that a full-service interchange with direct connectors in all directions result in significant benefits to the traffic operations. However, the weaving segments along mainline and frontage roads can deplete the benefits. Therefore, it is important that the weaving segments be minimized or avoided with the aid of auxiliary lanes and appropriate lane configuration to extract maximum benefit of the proposed interchange. B-8

55 Methodology The micro-simulation model was run to generate output for both the no build and build case in the years 2020 and Traffic volumes were estimated for all incremental years between the base year (2020) and the forecast year (2040) by speed bin, using the results from the VISSIM model. TxDOT also provided information on average vehicle occupancies and percentage of trucks. Assumptions Based on the micro-simulation data shown in Table 4, traffic growth, measured in both vehicle-miles traveled and vehicle-hours traveled, was calculated and assumed to be growing annually at rates varying across different speed bins in both the build and no build case. Due to the uncertainty in years past 2040, traffic growth was assumed to be nonexistent to present a conservative estimate of benefits. Table 3: Assumptions Used in the Estimation of Demand Variable Name Unit Value Source VMT Growth ( ) VHT Growth - No Build ( ) VHT Growth - Build ( ) VMT Growth (2040+) % 0.76% Calculated based on microsimulation model, broken out by speed bins. For breakdown see tables in section 10. VMT growth in build and no build cases identical. Assumed to be growing at a rate of 0 mi after 2040 due to uncertainty. % % 4.21% 3.21% Calculated based on microsimulation model, broken out by speed bins. For breakdown see tables in section 10. Assumed to be growing at a rate of 0 hrs after 2040 due to uncertainty. % 0.00% Assumed to be constant after 2040 due to uncertainty, B-9

56 Variable Name Unit Value Source VHT Growth (2040+) % 0.00% allowing for conservative estimate of benefits. Trucks % 9.00% TxDOT Passenger Vehicles % 91.00% Demand Projections Table 4 offers a brief summary of VMT and VHT throughout the project lifecycle. The project opens in 2024, at which time it is expected that nearly 1 million vehicle-hours traveled can be avoided in the peak period. By 2043, the project is expected to save 2.4 million vehiclehours annually. Annual demand projections by speed bin, including VMT, VHT and average speed, are shown in Table 24 through Table 36. Table 4: Demand Projections Project Opening (2024) No Build Build Annual Vehicle- Miles Traveled (mi) Annual Vehicle- Hours Traveled (hrs) Annual Average Speed (mph) Annual Vehicle- Miles Traveled (mi) Annual Vehicle- Hours Traveled (hrs) Annual Average Speed (mph) 84,398,255 91,062,210 97,059,770 2,779,152 4,196,888 5,472, ,398,255 91,062,210 97,059,770 1,799,047 2,472,450 3,078, B-10

57 6 Estimation of Economic Benefits Benefits Measurement, Data and Assumptions This section describes the measurement approach used for each benefit or impact category identified in Section 4 (Types of Impacts) and provides an overview of the associated methodology, assumptions, and estimates. List of Benefits Analyzed The benefits assessed for the SH 225 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor project are the following: Travel Time Savings: captures the reduced travel time for automobiles and trucks under the build scenario as a result of installing direct connectors to avoid signalized intersections. Vehicle Operating Cost Savings: captures the reduced vehicle operating costs for automobiles and trucks under the build scenario as a result of reduced fuel consumption due to increases in traffic speeds. Emission Cost Savings: captures the reduced emissions from automobiles and trucks under the build scenario as a result of increases in traffic speeds. Crash Cost Savings: captures the expected reduction in crash cost savings under the build scenario as a result of diverting traffic to a grade separated interchange. Methodologies Used to Estimate Benefits Using results from micro-simulation model, benefits were estimated for the peak period, which was assumed to last only two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon. Travel time savings were calculated for motorists on SH 225 and Beltway 8, as direct connectors will reduce travel time by allowing motorists to bypass delays caused by traffic signals. The decrease in vehicle-hours traveled will benefit both trucks and automobiles, while increases in vehicle speeds will reduce vehicle operating costs and emissions for motorists. Crash cost savings are also realized by motorists due to improvements to the highway infrastructure. Assumptions Used to Estimate economic benefits The assumptions used in the estimation of economic benefits for the SH 225 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor project are summarized in the tables below. The benefits were annualized B-11

58 using 300 days a year because the VISSIM model was calibrated to AADT data representing weekdays and reduced volume on weekends and holidays, as referenced in the SHTE Houston Ship Channel Bridge Direct Connector Feasibility Analysis. Table 5: Assumptions Used in the Estimation of Economic Benefits Variable Name Unit Value Source Discount Rate % % US DOT Guidance 2017 Days/ days Assumption in original VISSIM calibration in Sam Houston Tollway East Houston Ship Channel Bridge Direct Connector Feasibility Study; adjusted weekends and holidays due to reduced demand. Construction Begins year 2021 TxDOT Project Opens year 2024 Percent Trucks % % Percent Automobiles % % Methodologies Used to Estimate Travel Time Benefits Travel time savings are calculated based on the vehicle-hours traveled reported in the microsimulation model runs. Annual vehicle-hours were separated for trucks and automobiles to account for the differences in the value of time for the different types of vehicles. The vehicle-hours traveled were converted to person-hours, based on the vehicle occupancy provided by TxDOT. Annual person-hours were monetized using the US DOT guidance for the value of time. B-12

59 Assumptions Used to Estimate travel time benefits In addition to the economic variables listed above, the following assumptions were used in the estimation of travel time benefits. Table 6: Assumptions Used in the Estimation of Travel Time Benefits Variable Name Unit Value Source Average Vehicle Occupancy people/veh icle TxDOT Value of Time - Auto Value of Time - Truck 2016 $/hr $/hr Revised Departmental Guidance on Valuation of Travel Time in Economic Analysis fficepolicy/transportationpolicy/reviseddepartmentalguidance-valuationtravel-timeeconomic Travel Time Benefit Estimates The table below shows the benefit estimates calculated over the lifecycle of the project, due to a reduction in vehicle-hours traveled. At a 7% discount rate, travel time benefits total $184.4 million over the project lifecycle. Table 7: Estimates of Travel Time Benefits, 2016 Dollars Over the Project Lifecycle Travel Time Benefits In Constant Dollars Discounted at 7 Percent Discounted at 3 Percent $618,697,188 $184,429,102 $358,079,970 Methodologies Used to Estimate Vehicle Operating Cost Benefits Vehicle operating cost savings were calculated based on the VMT and VHT data extrapolated from the micro-simulation model over the lifecycle of the project. Speed was automatically B-13

60 calculated and used to determine fuel consumption rates. Additional exogenous inputs include average vehicle occupancy and percentage of trucks. Assumptions Used to Estimate Vehicle Operating Cost benefits The following assumptions were used to estimate the vehicle operating cost benefits. Table 8: Assumptions Used in the Estimation of Vehicle Operating Cost Benefits Variable Name Unit Value Source Non-Fuel Operating Cost - Auto Non-Fuel Operating Cost - Truck Gasoline Retail Price Diesel Retail Price 2016 $/mi 2016 $/mi 2016 $/gallon 2016 $/gallon US DOT Guidance 2017, AAA Your Driving Costs value of $0.40/mile less fuel costs. Fuel costs net of taxes calculated separately US DOT Guidance 2017, American Transportation Research Institute value of $0.96/mile less fuel costs. Fuel costs net of taxes calculated separately. Value inflated from 2015 $ to 2016 $ EIA Annual Energy Outlook Forecast 2017, net price of fuel less taxes Vehicle Operating Cost Benefit Estimates The table below shows the benefit estimates calculated over the lifecycle of the project, broken out by fuel and non-fuel cost savings. Fuel cost savings were a result of increases in average speeds the project creates, while non-fuel costs remain unchanged due to no change in the number of vehicles or miles driven. The micro-simulation model resulted in slight differences in VMT due to variations in model runs. VMT was held constant because the difference were due to an artifact of the model rather than expected changed in demand. At a 7% discount rate, vehicle operating cost benefits total $8.7 million over the project lifecycle. B-14

61 Table 9: Estimates of Vehicle Operating Cost Benefits, 2016 Dollars Over the Project Lifecycle In Constant Dollars Discounted at 7 Percent Discounted at 3 Percent Vehicle Operating Cost Savings $28,851,405 $8,686,538 $16,770,551 Methodologies Used to Estimate Emission Benefits Emission cost savings were calculated based on speeds in the build and no build case. These emission factors for carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, fine particulate matter, sulfur oxides, and volatile organic compounds were applied to the vehicle-miles traveled, broken out by automobile and truck, to determine the short tons produced in each case. The value of each greenhouse gas was then applied based on the US DOT guidance. Assumptions Used to Estimate Emission benefits The following assumptions were used to estimate the emission cost benefits. Emission rates are dependent on speed. Table 10: Assumptions Used in the Estimation of Emission Benefits Variable Name Unit Value Source Volatile Organic ,872 Corporate Average Fuel Economy Compounds (VOC) $/short ton 2043 for MY2017-MY2025 Passenger Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Fine Particulate Matter (PM) 2016 $/short ton 2016 $/short ton , ,459 Cars and Light Trucks (August 2012), page 922, Table VIII16, Economic Values Used for Benefits Computations (2010 dollars) Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 2016 $/short ton ,600 ulemakin g/pdf/cafe/fria_ pdf. Carbon Dioxide Domestic Adjustment % % Calculated based on US proportion of World GDP based on World Bank values from Carbon Dioxide Interagency on the Social Working Price $/short ton 2043 Cost of Capital, Values B-15

62 Variable Name Unit Value Source adjusted using carbon dioxide domestic adjustment to account for domestic value only. Prices assumed constant in Cal-B/C model, accounting for benefits conservatively. Emission Cost Benefit Estimates The table below shows the benefit estimates calculated over the lifecycle of the project, broken out by emission type. Emission cost savings were a result of increases in average speeds. At a 7% discount rate, emission cost benefits total $0.9 million over the project lifecycle. Table 11: Estimates of Emission Benefits, 2016 Dollars Over the Project Lifecycle In Constant Dollars Discounted at 7 Percent Discounted at 3 Percent Emission Benefits $2,838,567 $917,242 $1,700,352 Methodologies Used to Estimate Crash Cost Benefits Crash costs were estimated to be reduced in the build case as the connectors provide safer routes for traffic performing turning movements. Crash data for the project location between 2014 and 2016 were gathered from TxDOT to calculate the crash rates per million vehiclemiles. For the build case, crash rates were calculated to have decreased through the use of crash modification factors from CMF Clearinghouse. Holding VMT constant between the build and no build scenario, the number of crashes was estimated for each case. The number of fatalities, injuries and damaged vehicles are estimated through Cal-B/C, and were then monetized through values provided by U.S. DOT. Assumptions Used to Estimate Crash Cost Benefits The following assumptions were used to estimate the crash cost benefits. B-16

63 Table 12: Assumptions Used in the Estimation of Crash Cost Benefits Variable Name Unit Value Source Cost of a Fatality 2016 $/crash Cost of a Severe Injury (A) Cost of a Major Injury (B) Cost of a Minor Injury (C) 2016 $/crash 2016 $/crash 2016 $/crash Cost of a PDO 2016 $/crash Crash Modification Factor - Fatalities Crash Modification Factor - Injuries Crash Modification Factor - PDO Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in U.S. Department of Transportation Analyses (2016) epolicy/transportationpolicy/reviseddepartmentalguidance-on-valuation-of-astatisticallife-in-economic-analysis Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in U.S. Department of Transportation Analyses (2016) epolicy/transportationpolicy/reviseddepartmentalguidance-on-valuation-of-astatisticallife-in-economic-analysis % ,600, , , ,90 0 4,252 The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, CMF Clearinghouse: CMF for converting at-grade intersection to grade-separated interchange (CMF 459) 0.43 CMF Clearinghouse: CMF for converting at-grade intersection to grade-separated interchange (CMF 460) 0.64 CMF Clearinghouse: CMF for converting at-grade intersection to grade-separated interchange (CMF 461) B-17

64 Variable Name Unit Value Source Fatal Accident Rate - No Build crashes / Million VMT Calculated based on estimated VMT and crashes between at the project location Injury Accident Rate - No Build crashes / Million VMT Property Damage Only Accident Rate - No Build crashes / Million VMT Fatal Accident Rate - Build crashes / Million VMT Calculated based on crash modification factors applied to rates from no build case Injury Accident Rate - Build crashes / Million VMT Property Damage Only Accident Rate - Build crashes / Million VMT Crash Cost Benefit Estimates The table below shows the benefit estimates calculated over the lifecycle of the project, broken out by crash type. Crash cost savings were a result of altering traffic patterns to lower risk facilities. At a 7% discount rate, crash cost benefits total $23.2 million over the project lifecycle. Table 13: Estimates of Crash Cost Benefits, 2016 Dollars Over the Project Lifecycle Crash Cost Savings In Constant Dollars Discounted at 7 Percent Discounted at 3 Percent $71,461,191 $23,194,886 $42,912,196 B-18

65 Aggregation of Benefit Estimates The table below identifies the values of monetized benefits, based on the assumptions presented above. The project is estimated to produce benefits valued at $213.4 million at a 7% discount factor over the project lifecycle. Travel time savings are by far the largest and most significant benefit, accounting for just over 85% of the total benefits. Crash cost savings and vehicle operating cost savings provide the majority of the remaining benefits. Throughout the analysis period, a total of 15 million gallons of fuel are saved compared to the no build scenario, and an estimated 2,365 crashes are avoided. Table 14: Estimates of Economic Benefits, 2016 Dollars In Constant Dollars Over the Project Lifecycle Discounted at 7 Percent Travel Time Savings $618,697,188 $184,429,102 Emission Cost Savings Vehicle Operating Cost Savings $2,838,567 $917,242 $28,851,405 $8,686,538 Crash Cost Savings $71,461,191 $23,194,886 Incremental O&M -$12,148,685 -$3,836,157 Total $709,699,666 $213,391,612 Comparison of Benefits and Costs The monetized benefits of the project are significantly greater than the costs. It is estimated that every dollar spent on this project will generate $1.53 in benefits from monetized impacts during the peak period. Additional non-monetized benefits from the microsimulation model will increase the total societal benefits, including all benefits examined in this analysis during the off-peak period, and additional travel time savings from higher expected traffic growth rates than assumed in this analysis. Other non-monetized benefits include travel time reliability due to a significant decrease in delays and freight resiliency from the elimination of a bottleneck in the freight corridor to and from the Port of Houston. B-19

66 7 Summary of Findings and BCA Outcomes The tables below summarize the BCA findings. Annual costs and benefits are computed over the lifecycle of the project (23 years). As stated earlier, construction is expected to be completed by Benefits begin to accrue during the full operation of the project. Table 15: Overall Results of the Benefit Cost Analysis, Millions of 2016 Dollars* Project Evaluation Metric 7% Discount Rate 3% Discount Rate Total Discounted Benefits $213.4 $412.3 Total Discounted Costs $139.3 $174.9 Net Present Value $74.0 $237.3 Benefit / Cost Ratio Internal Rate of Return (%) 11.6% Payback Period (years) * Unless Specified Otherwise 8 years When all monetized benefits and costs are considered, the estimated internal rate of return of the project is 11.6 percent. With a 7 percent real discount rate, the $139.3 million investment would create $213.4 million in total benefits and the project would have a benefit-cost ratio of approximately With a 3 percent real discount rate, the net present value of the project would increase to $237.3 million for a benefit-cost ratio of Table 16: Benefit Estimates for the Full Build Alternative Benefit Categories 7% Discount Rate 3% Discount Rate Travel Time Savings $184,429,102 $358,079,970 Vehicle Operating Cost Savings $8,686,538 $16,770,551 Crash Cost Savings $23,194,886 $42,912,196 Emissions Reduction Benefits $917,242 $1,700,352 Incremental O&M -$3,836,157 -$7,206,713 Total Benefit Estimates $213,391,612 $412,256,357 B-20

67 8 Aggregate Annual Benefits and Costs This section reports annual, aggregate benefits and costs associated with the SH 225 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor project and an annual breakdown of benefits by category. Detailed information and calculations by benefit category are provided in the spreadsheet used to conduct the BCA. B-21

68 Table 17: Annual Monetized Estimates of Total Project Benefits and Costs Calendar Project Total Benefits ($2016) Total Capital Costs ($2016) Undiscounted Net Benefits ($2016) Discounted Net Benefits at 7% Discounted Net Benefits at 3% $69,600,000 -$69,600,000 -$49,623,838 -$60,037, $69,600,000 -$69,600,000 -$46,377,419 -$58,288, $69,600,000 -$69,600,000 -$43,343,382 -$56,591, $21,791,601 - $21,791,601 $12,682,910 $17,202, $23,239,770 - $23,239,770 $12,640,895 $17,811, $24,699,620 - $24,699,620 $12,556,034 $18,378, $26,149,031 - $26,149,031 $12,423,216 $18,890, $27,593,821 - $27,593,821 $12,251,987 $19,353, $29,042,623 - $29,042,623 $12,051,656 $19,776, $30,493,402 - $30,493,402 $11,825,867 $20,159, $31,877,522 - $31,877,522 $11,553,881 $20,460, $33,322,696 - $33,322,696 $11,287,550 $20,765, $34,767,641 - $34,767,641 $11,006,545 $21,034, $36,212,351 - $36,212,351 $10,713,928 $21,270, $37,656,822 - $37,656,822 $10,412,425 $21,475, $39,068,029 - $39,068,029 $10,095,921 $21,631,021 B-22

69 Calendar Project Total Benefits ($2016) Total Capital Costs ($2016) Undiscounted Net Benefits ($2016) Discounted Net Benefits at 7% Discounted Net Benefits at 3% $40,510,204 - $40,510,204 $9,783,744 $21,776, $41,943,291 - $41,943,291 $9,467,153 $21,889, $43,384,493 - $43,384,493 $9,151,824 $21,982, $44,825,951 - $44,825,951 $8,837,285 $22,051, $46,266,626 - $46,266,626 $8,524,588 $22,097, $47,707,026 - $47,707,026 $8,214,935 $22,121, $49,147,146 - $49,147,146 $7,909,268 $22,125,507 Total $709,699,666 $208,800,000 $500,899,666 $74,046,973 $237,338,712 B-23

70 Table 18: Annual Monetized Estimates of Total Project Benefits by Category Calendar Project Travel Time Savings Benefits (Undiscounted $2016) Vehicle Operating Costs Benefits (Undiscounted $2016) Crash Cost Benefits (Undiscounted $2016) Emissions Reduction Benefits (Undiscounted $2016) Incremental O&M (Undiscounted $2016) Total Benefits (Undiscounted $2016) $17,970,032 $879,349 $3,323,744 $118,476 -$500,000 $21,791, $19,334,751 $938,498 $3,349,988 $126,534 -$510,000 $23,239, $20,699,469 $1,008,287 $3,376,231 $135,832 -$520,200 $24,699, $22,064,188 $1,068,911 $3,402,475 $144,062 -$530,604 $26,149, $23,428,907 $1,125,626 $3,428,719 $151,785 -$541,216 $27,593, $24,793,625 $1,186,083 $3,454,963 $159,993 -$552,040 $29,042, $26,158,344 $1,248,481 $3,481,206 $168,452 -$563,081 $30,493, $27,523,063 $1,309,036 $3,507,450 $112,315 -$574,343 $31,877, $28,887,781 $1,369,592 $3,533,694 $117,458 -$585,830 $33,322, $30,252,500 $1,430,148 $3,559,938 $122,602 -$597,546 $34,767, $31,617,219 $1,490,703 $3,586,181 $127,745 -$609,497 $36,212,351 B-24

71 Calendar Project Travel Time Savings Benefits (Undiscounted $2016) Vehicle Operating Costs Benefits (Undiscounted $2016) Crash Cost Benefits (Undiscounted $2016) Emissions Reduction Benefits (Undiscounted $2016) Incremental O&M (Undiscounted $2016) Total Benefits (Undiscounted $2016) $32,981,937 $1,551,259 $3,612,425 $132,888 -$621,687 $37,656, $34,346,656 $1,581,342 $3,638,669 $135,484 -$634,121 $39,068, $35,711,375 $1,640,227 $3,664,913 $140,493 -$646,803 $40,510, $37,076,093 $1,690,979 $3,691,156 $144,801 -$659,739 $41,943, $38,440,812 $1,749,441 $3,717,400 $149,774 -$672,934 $43,384, $39,805,531 $1,808,164 $3,743,644 $155,006 -$686,393 $44,825, $41,170,249 $1,866,629 $3,769,888 $159,981 -$700,121 $46,266, $42,534,968 $1,925,094 $3,796,132 $164,956 -$714,123 $47,707, $43,899,687 $1,983,558 $3,822,375 $169,931 -$728,406 $49,147,146 Total $618,697,188 $28,851,405 $71,461,191 $2,838,567 -$12,148,685 $709,699,666 B-25

72 Table 19: Pertinent Quantifiable Impacts (1 of 2) Calendar Project Person-Hours Saved Gasoline Consumption Avoided (gallons) Diesel Consumption Avoided (gallons) Accidents Avoided Injuries Avoided Damaged Vehicles Avoided ,176, ,483 67, ,265, ,656 72, ,354, ,854 77, ,444, ,724 81, ,533, ,816 86, ,622, ,610 90, ,712, ,288 95, ,801, , , ,890, , , ,980, , , ,069, , , B-26

73 Calendar Project Person-Hours Saved Gasoline Consumption Avoided (gallons) Diesel Consumption Avoided (gallons) Accidents Avoided Injuries Avoided Damaged Vehicles Avoided ,158, , , ,247, , , ,337, , , ,426, , , ,515, , , ,605, , , ,694, , , ,783, , , ,873, , , Total 40,493,304 12,755,208 2,216,852 2, ,788.5 B-27

74 Table 20: Pertinent Quantifiable Impacts (2 of 2) Calendar Project Annual Emissions Avoided - CO₂ (short tons) Annual Emissions Avoided - NOx (short tons) Annual Emissions Avoided - PM (short tons) Annual Emissions Avoided - SO₂ (short tons) Annual Emissions Avoided - VOC (short tons) Vehicle-Hours Saved , ,054, ,128, ,203, ,277, ,352, ,426, ,501, ,575, ,650, ,724, ,798,871 B-28

75 Calendar Project Annual Emissions Avoided - CO₂ (short tons) Annual Emissions Avoided - NOx (short tons) Annual Emissions Avoided - PM (short tons) Annual Emissions Avoided - SO₂ (short tons) Annual Emissions Avoided - VOC (short tons) Vehicle-Hours Saved ,873, ,947, ,022, ,096, ,171, ,245, ,319, ,394,337 Total 125, ,744,420 B-29

76 Table 21: Travel Time Savings and Pertinent Quantifiable Impacts Calendar Project Vehicle-Hours Saved Person-Hours Saved Travel Time Savings (Undiscounted) Travel Time Savings (Discounted 7%) Travel Time Savings (Discounted 3%) ,105 1,176,126 $17,970,032 $10,458,722 $14,185, ,054,538 1,265,446 $19,334,751 $10,516,823 $14,818, ,128,972 1,354,766 $20,699,469 $10,522,561 $15,402, ,203,405 1,444,086 $22,064,188 $10,482,537 $15,939, ,277,838 1,533,406 $23,428,907 $10,402,715 $16,432, ,352,271 1,622,726 $24,793,625 $10,288,473 $16,883, ,426,705 1,712,046 $26,158,344 $10,144,657 $17,293, ,501,138 1,801,365 $27,523,063 $9,975,625 $17,666, ,575,571 1,890,685 $28,887,781 $9,785,291 $18,001, ,650,004 1,980,005 $30,252,500 $9,577,167 $18,303, ,724,438 2,069,325 $31,617,219 $9,354,394 $18,571, ,798,871 2,158,645 $32,981,937 $9,119,781 $18,809, ,873,304 2,247,965 $34,346,656 $8,875,829 $19,016,911 B-30

77 Calendar Project Vehicle-Hours Saved Person-Hours Saved Travel Time Savings (Undiscounted) Travel Time Savings (Discounted 7%) Travel Time Savings (Discounted 3%) ,947,737 2,337,285 $35,711,375 $8,624,764 $19,196, ,022,171 2,426,605 $37,076,093 $8,368,562 $19,349, ,096,604 2,515,925 $38,440,812 $8,108,970 $19,477, ,171,037 2,605,245 $39,805,531 $7,847,526 $19,581, ,245,470 2,694,564 $41,170,249 $7,585,585 $19,663, ,319,904 2,783,884 $42,534,968 $7,324,330 $19,723, ,394,337 2,873,204 $43,899,687 $7,064,793 $19,763,159 Total 33,744,420 40,493,304 $618,697,188 $184,429,102 $358,079,970 B-31

78 Table 22: Vehicle Operating Cost Savings and Pertinent Quantifiable Impacts, 2016 Dollars Calendar Project Gasoline Consumption Avoided Diesel Consumption Avoided Fuel Cost Savings Non-Fuel Cost Savings Vehicle Operating Cost Savings (undiscounted) Vehicle Operating Cost Savings (7%) Vehicle Operating Cost Savings (3%) ,483 67,812 $879,349 - $879,349 $511,789 $694, ,656 72,335 $938,498 - $938,498 $510,481 $719, ,854 77,394 $1,008,287 - $1,008,287 $512,562 $750, ,724 81,992 $1,068,911 - $1,068,911 $507,832 $772, ,816 86,334 $1,125, $1,125,626 $499,792 $789, ,610 90,920 $1,186,083 - $1,186,083 $492,182 $807, ,288 95,634 $1,248,481 - $1,248,481 $484,182 $825, , ,228 $1,309,036 - $1,309,036 $474,455 $840, , ,821 $1,369,592 - $1,369,592 $463,928 $853, , ,414 $1,430,148 - $1,430,148 $452,748 $865, , ,007 $1,490,703 - $1,490,703 $441,045 $875,631 B-32

79 Calendar Project Gasoline Consumption Avoided Diesel Consumption Avoided Fuel Cost Savings Non-Fuel Cost Savings Vehicle Operating Cost Savings (undiscounted) Vehicle Operating Cost Savings (7%) Vehicle Operating Cost Savings (3%) , ,601 $1,551, $1,551,259 $428,936 $884, , ,741 $1,581, $1,581,342 $408,649 $875, , ,245 $1,640, $1,640,227 $396,136 $881, , ,282 $1,690, $1,690,979 $381,676 $882, , ,761 $1,749,441 - $1,749,441 $369,039 $886, , ,362 $1,808, $1,808,164 $356,473 $889, , ,843 $1,866,629 - $1,866,629 $343,925 $891, , ,323 $1,925,094 - $1,925,094 $331,492 $892, , ,804 $1,983,558 - $1,983,558 $319,215 $892,976 Total 12,755,208 2,216,852 $28,851,405 $0 $28,851,405 $8,686,538 $16,770,551 B-33

80 Table 23: Emission Cost Savings, 2016 Dollars Calendar Project Emission Cost Savings Emission Cost Savings (7%) Emission Cost Savings (3%) $118,476 $68,954 $93, $126,534 $68,826 $96, $135,832 $69,050 $101, $144,062 $68,443 $104, $151,785 $67,394 $106, $159,993 $66,391 $108, $168,452 $65,329 $111, $112,315 $40,708 $72, $117,458 $39,787 $73, $122,602 $38,813 $74, $127,745 $37,795 $75, $132,888 $36,745 $75, $135,484 $35,012 $75,014 B-34

81 Calendar Project Emission Cost Savings Emission Cost Savings (7%) Emission Cost Savings (3%) $140,493 $33,931 $75, $144,801 $32,684 $75, $149,774 $31,594 $75, $155,006 $30,559 $76, $159,981 $29,476 $76, $164,956 $28,405 $76, $169,931 $27,347 $76,501 Total $2,838,567 $917,242 $1,700,352 B-35

82 Table 24: Crash Cost Savings and Pertinent Quantifiable Impacts Calendar Project Accidents Avoided Fatalities Cost Savings ($2016) Injury Cost Savings ($2016) PDO Cost Savings ($2016) Crash Cost Savings (undiscounted) Crash Cost Savings (7%) Crash Cost Savings (3%) $2,970,050 $353,694 $3,323,744 $1,934,449 $2,623, $2,993,501 $356,486 $3,349,988 $1,822,171 $2,567, $3,016,952 $359,279 $3,376,231 $1,716,305 $2,512, $3,040,403 $362,072 $3,402,475 $1,616,491 $2,458, $3,063,854 $364,865 $3,428,719 $1,522,392 $2,404, $3,087,305 $367,657 $3,454,963 $1,433,687 $2,352, $3,110,756 $370,450 $3,481,206 $1,350,072 $2,301, $3,134,207 $373,243 $3,507,450 $1,271,261 $2,251, $3,157,658 $376,035 $3,533,694 $1,196,984 $2,202, $3,181,109 $378,828 $3,559,938 $1,126,985 $2,153, $3,204,561 $381,621 $3,586,181 $1,061,022 $2,106, $3,228,012 $384,414 $3,612,425 $998,866 $2,060,116 B-36

83 Calendar Project Accidents Avoided Fatalities Cost Savings ($2016) Injury Cost Savings ($2016) PDO Cost Savings ($2016) Crash Cost Savings (undiscounted) Crash Cost Savings (7%) Crash Cost Savings (3%) $3,251,463 $387,206 $3,638,669 $940,301 $2,014, $3,274,914 $389,999 $3,664,913 $885,124 $1,970, $3,298,365 $392,792 $3,691,156 $833,143 $1,926, $3,321,816 $395,584 $3,717,400 $784,174 $1,883, $3,345,267 $398,377 $3,743,644 $738,047 $1,841, $3,368,718 $401,170 $3,769,888 $694,599 $1,800, $3,392,169 $403,963 $3,796,132 $653,677 $1,760, $3,415,620 $406,755 $3,822,375 $615,136 $1,720,792 Total 2, $63,856,701 $7,604,491 $71,461,191 $23,194,886 $42,912,196 B-37

84 Table 25: Annual Total Demand Forecast Calendar Project VMT VHT Average Speed VMT VHT Average Speed No Build No Build No Build Build Build Build ,684,544 2,779, ,684,544 1,799, ,495,325 2,920, ,495,325 1,866, ,306,106 3,062, ,306,106 1,933, ,116,887 3,204, ,116,887 2,001, ,927,669 3,346, ,927,669 2,068, ,738,450 3,488, ,738,450 2,135, ,549,231 3,629, ,549,231 2,203, ,360,012 3,771, ,360,012 2,270, ,170,793 3,913, ,170,793 2,337, ,981,575 4,055, ,981,575 2,405, ,792,356 4,196, ,792,356 2,472, ,603,137 4,338, ,603,137 2,539, ,413,918 4,480, ,413,918 2,607, ,224,700 4,622, ,224,700 2,674, ,035,481 4,763, ,035,481 2,741, B-38

85 Calendar Project VMT VHT Average Speed VMT VHT Average Speed No Build No Build No Build Build Build Build ,846,262 4,905, ,846,262 2,809, ,657,043 5,047, ,657,043 2,876, ,467,824 5,189, ,467,824 2,943, ,278,606 5,331, ,278,606 3,011, ,089,387 5,472, ,089,387 3,078, Total 2,207,739,306 82,520,021 2,207,739,306 48,775,601 B-39

86 Table 26: Annual Vehicle-Miles Traveled by Speed Bin - No Build (1 of 2) Calendar Project 0-5 mph 5-10 mph mph mph mph mph mph mph ,270,249 3,912,944 2,318,005 2,800,719 2,204,502 1,471,811 1,646,382 2,133, ,415,421 4,270,999 2,530,009 3,176,289 2,476,348 1,547,925 1,741,259 2,120, ,560,593 4,629,053 2,742,014 3,551,859 2,748,194 1,624,039 1,836,135 2,106, ,705,764 4,987,108 2,954,018 3,927,430 3,020,039 1,700,153 1,931,012 2,093, ,850,936 5,345,163 3,166,023 4,303,000 3,291,885 1,776,267 2,025,889 2,079, ,996,108 5,703,218 3,378,028 4,678,570 3,563,731 1,852,381 2,120,765 2,066, ,141,280 6,061,273 3,590,032 5,054,140 3,835,577 1,928,495 2,215,642 2,052, ,286,452 6,419,328 3,802,037 5,429,711 4,107,423 2,004,609 2,310,518 2,038, ,431,623 6,777,383 4,014,041 5,805,281 4,379,269 2,080,723 2,405,395 2,025, ,576,795 7,135,438 4,226,046 6,180,851 4,651,115 2,156,837 2,500,271 2,011, ,721,967 7,493,492 4,438,051 6,556,422 4,922,960 2,232,951 2,595,148 1,998, ,867,139 7,851,547 4,650,055 6,931,992 5,194,806 2,309,065 2,690,024 1,984, ,012,311 8,209,602 4,862,060 7,307,562 5,466,652 2,385,179 2,784,901 1,970, ,157,483 8,567,657 5,074,064 7,683,133 5,738,498 2,461,293 2,879,777 1,957, ,302,654 8,925,712 5,286,069 8,058,703 6,010,344 2,537,407 2,974,654 1,943, ,447,826 9,283,767 5,498,074 8,434,273 6,282,190 2,613,521 3,069,530 1,930,269 B-40

87 Calendar Project 0-5 mph 5-10 mph mph mph mph mph mph mph ,592,998 9,641,822 5,710,078 8,809,843 6,554,035 2,689,635 3,164,407 1,916, ,738,170 9,999,876 5,922,083 9,185,414 6,825,881 2,765,749 3,259,283 1,903, ,883,342 10,357,931 6,134,087 9,560,984 7,097,727 2,841,863 3,354,160 1,889, ,028,514 10,715,986 6,346,092 9,936,554 7,369,573 2,917,977 3,449,036 1,875,971 Total 52,987, ,289,300 86,640, ,372,730 95,740,750 43,897,882 50,954,186 40,098,575 B-41

88 Table 27: Annual Vehicle-Miles Traveled by Speed Bin - No Build (2 of 2) Calendar Project mph mph mph mph mph mph ,971,978 6,612,189 2,547,248 4,925,651 29,212,010 17,370, ,925,198 6,368,573 2,771,123 4,954,768 28,894,631 16,871, ,878,417 6,124,956 2,994,999 4,983,886 28,577,253 16,372, ,831,636 5,881,340 3,218,875 5,013,003 28,259,874 15,874, ,784,856 5,637,724 3,442,750 5,042,120 27,942,495 15,375, ,738,075 5,394,108 3,666,626 5,071,237 27,625,116 14,876, ,691,294 5,150,492 3,890,502 5,100,355 27,307,738 14,377, ,644,514 4,906,876 4,114,378 5,129,472 26,990,359 13,878, ,597,733 4,663,260 4,338,253 5,158,589 26,672,980 13,379, ,550,953 4,419,644 4,562,129 5,187,706 26,355,601 12,880, ,504,172 4,176,027 4,786,005 5,216,823 26,038,223 12,381, ,457,391 3,932,411 5,009,880 5,245,941 25,720,844 11,882, ,410,611 3,688,795 5,233,756 5,275,058 25,403,465 11,384, ,363,830 3,445,179 5,457,632 5,304,175 25,086,087 10,885, ,317,049 3,201,563 5,681,508 5,333,292 24,768,708 10,386, ,270,269 2,957,947 5,905,383 5,362,410 24,451,329 9,887,401 B-42

89 Calendar Project mph mph mph mph mph mph ,223,488 2,714,331 6,129,259 5,391,527 24,133,950 9,388, ,176,707 2,470,715 6,353,135 5,420,644 23,816,572 8,889, ,129,927 2,227,098 6,577,010 5,449,761 23,499,193 8,390, ,083,146 1,983,482 6,800,886 5,478,879 23,181,814 7,891,859 Total 110,551,245 85,956,709 93,481, ,045, ,938, ,625,408 B-43

90 Table 28: Annual Vehicle-Miles Traveled by Speed Bin - Build (1 of 2) Calendar Project 0-5 mph 5-10 mph mph mph mph mph mph mph , ,417 1,668, , , , ,231 1,801, , ,570 2,062, , , , ,570 1,872, ,901 1,061,723 2,456, , , ,896 1,057,909 1,943, ,146 1,208,875 2,850, , , ,113 1,119,248 2,014, ,392 1,356,028 3,244, , , ,330 1,180,587 2,085, ,637 1,503,180 3,638, , , ,548 1,241,926 2,156, ,883 1,650,333 4,032,647 1,008, , ,765 1,303,265 2,227, ,128 1,797,485 4,426,645 1,098, , ,982 1,364,604 2,298, ,373 1,944,638 4,820,644 1,188, , ,200 1,425,943 2,369, ,619 2,091,790 5,214,642 1,278, ,278 1,018,417 1,487,282 2,440, ,864 2,238,943 5,608,641 1,368, ,184 1,063,634 1,548,621 2,511, ,110 2,386,095 6,002,639 1,458, ,090 1,108,852 1,609,960 2,582, ,355 2,533,248 6,396,638 1,548, ,996 1,154,069 1,671,299 2,652, ,601 2,680,401 6,790,636 1,638,750 1,052,901 1,199,286 1,732,638 2,723, ,846 2,827,553 7,184,635 1,728,722 1,105,807 1,244,504 1,793,977 2,794, ,091 2,974,706 7,578,633 1,818,694 1,158,713 1,289,721 1,855,316 2,865,717 B-44

91 Calendar Project 0-5 mph 5-10 mph mph mph mph mph mph mph ,337 3,121,858 7,972,632 1,908,667 1,211,619 1,334,939 1,916,655 2,936, ,582 3,269,011 8,366,630 1,998,639 1,264,525 1,380,156 1,977,994 3,007, ,828 3,416,163 8,760,629 2,088,611 1,317,431 1,425,373 2,039,333 3,078, ,073 3,563,316 9,154,627 2,178,583 1,370,336 1,470,591 2,100,672 3,149,428 Total 5,094,831 43,307, ,232, ,476,950 17,354,623 20,820,515 30,359,028 49,512,278 B-45

92 Table 29: Annual Vehicle-Miles Traveled by Speed Bin - Build (2 of 2) Calendar Project mph mph mph mph mph mph ,786,179 5,727,143 5,617,038 8,175,272 25,521,376 23,795, ,823,504 5,791,388 5,827,275 8,020,303 25,366,398 23,587, ,860,829 5,855,633 6,037,513 7,865,335 25,211,420 23,380, ,898,154 5,919,877 6,247,750 7,710,367 25,056,442 23,173, ,935,480 5,984,122 6,457,988 7,555,398 24,901,464 22,966, ,972,805 6,048,367 6,668,225 7,400,430 24,746,486 22,758, ,010,130 6,112,612 6,878,463 7,245,461 24,591,508 22,551, ,047,456 6,176,857 7,088,701 7,090,493 24,436,530 22,344, ,084,781 6,241,102 7,298,938 6,935,525 24,281,552 22,137, ,122,106 6,305,347 7,509,176 6,780,556 24,126,574 21,930, ,159,431 6,369,592 7,719,413 6,625,588 23,971,596 21,722, ,196,757 6,433,837 7,929,651 6,470,620 23,816,617 21,515, ,234,082 6,498,082 8,139,888 6,315,651 23,661,639 21,308, ,271,407 6,562,327 8,350,126 6,160,683 23,506,661 21,101, ,308,733 6,626,572 8,560,363 6,005,715 23,351,683 20,893, ,346,058 6,690,817 8,770,601 5,850,746 23,196,705 20,686,670 B-46

93 Calendar Project mph mph mph mph mph mph ,383,383 6,755,062 8,980,838 5,695,778 23,041,727 20,479, ,420,708 6,819,307 9,191,076 5,540,810 22,886,749 20,272, ,458,034 6,883,552 9,401,313 5,385,841 22,731,771 20,064, ,495,359 6,947,797 9,611,551 5,230,873 22,576,793 19,857,772 Total 182,815, ,749, ,285, ,061, ,981, ,528,078 B-47

94 Table 30: Annual Vehicle-Hours Traveled by Speed Bin - No Build (1 of 2) Calendar Project 0-5 mph 5-10 mph mph mph mph mph mph mph , , , , ,027 54,862 51,744 57, , , , , ,871 57,617 54,800 56, , , , , ,715 60,371 57,856 56, , , , , ,559 63,126 60,911 56, , , , , ,403 65,881 63,967 55, , , , , ,247 68,636 67,022 55, , , , , ,091 71,391 70,078 55, ,527 1,013, , , ,935 74,145 73,134 54, ,349 1,068, , , ,779 76,900 76,189 54, ,172 1,123, , , ,623 79,655 79,245 53, ,995 1,177, , , ,467 82,410 82,300 53, ,818 1,232, , , ,311 85,164 85,356 53, ,640 1,287, , , ,155 87,919 88,412 52, ,463 1,342, , , ,999 90,674 91,467 52, ,286 1,396, , , ,843 93,429 94,523 52, ,013,109 1,451, , , ,687 96,184 97,579 51,830 B-48

95 Calendar Project 0-5 mph 5-10 mph mph mph mph mph mph mph ,055,931 1,506, , , ,531 98, ,634 51, ,098,754 1,561, , , , , ,690 51, ,141,577 1,615, , , , , ,745 50, ,184,399 1,670, , , , , ,801 50,419 Total 15,551,671 23,011,820 7,302,702 7,522,092 4,480,908 1,620,646 1,615,454 1,075,419 B-49

96 Table 31: Annual Vehicle-Hours Traveled by Speed Bin - No Build (2 of 2) Calendar Project mph mph mph mph mph mph , ,281 49,396 85, , , , ,038 53,777 85, , , , ,795 58,158 86, , , , ,552 62,539 86, , , , ,308 66,920 87, , , , ,065 71,301 87, , , , ,822 75,681 88, , , , ,579 80,062 88, , , , ,336 84,443 89, , , ,786 95,093 88,824 89, , , ,677 89,849 93,205 90, , , ,567 84,606 97,586 90, , , ,457 79, ,967 91, , , ,347 74, ,348 91, , , ,237 68, ,729 92, , , ,128 63, ,110 92, , ,305 B-50

97 Calendar Project mph mph mph mph mph mph ,018 58, ,491 93, , , ,908 53, ,872 93, , , ,798 47, ,253 94, , , ,688 42, ,634 94, , ,908 Total 2,624,628 1,849,421 1,820,295 1,803,422 8,379,529 3,862,014 B-51

98 Table 32: Annual Vehicle-Hours Traveled by Speed Bin - Build (1 of 2) Calendar Project 0-5 mph 5-10 mph mph mph mph mph mph mph , , ,662 29,125 16,901 22,772 28,902 48, , , ,717 34,788 19,390 24,436 30,791 50, , , ,772 40,451 21,878 26,099 32,680 51, , , ,827 46,113 24,366 27,762 34,569 53, , , ,882 51,776 26,855 29,426 36,458 55, , , ,937 57,439 29,343 31,089 38,347 57, , , ,992 63,101 31,832 32,753 40,237 59, , , ,047 68,764 34,320 34,416 42,126 61, , , ,102 74,427 36,809 36,079 44,015 63, , , ,157 80,089 39,297 37,743 45,904 65, , , ,212 85,752 41,785 39,406 47,793 67, , , ,267 91,415 44,274 41,070 49,682 69, , , ,321 97,077 46,762 42,733 51,571 70, , , , ,740 49,251 44,397 53,461 72, , , , ,402 51,739 46,060 55,350 74, , , , ,065 54,227 47,723 57,239 76,644 B-52

99 Calendar Project 0-5 mph 5-10 mph mph mph mph mph mph mph , , , ,728 56,716 49,387 59,128 78, , , , ,390 59,204 51,050 61,017 80, , , , ,053 61,693 52,714 62,906 82, , , , ,716 64,181 54,377 64,795 84,239 Total 1,628,541 6,117,300 8,803,682 1,658, , , ,971 1,323,997 B-53

100 Table 33: Annual Vehicle-Hours Traveled by Speed Bin - Build (2 of 2) Calendar Project mph mph mph mph mph mph , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,603 B-54

101 Calendar Project mph mph mph mph mph mph , , ,544 99, , , , , ,734 96, , , , , ,924 93, , , , , ,115 90, , ,220 Total 4,314,000 2,766,706 2,926,130 2,337,932 7,687,004 6,692,612 B-55

102 Table 34: Annual Average Speed by Speed Bin - No Build (1 of 2) Calendar Project 0-5 mph 5-10 mph mph mph mph mph mph mph B-56

103 Calendar Project 0-5 mph 5-10 mph mph mph mph mph mph mph B-57

104 Table 35: Annual Average Speed by Speed Bin - No Build (2 of 2) Calendar Project mph mph mph mph mph mph B-58

105 Calendar Project mph mph mph mph mph mph B-59

106 Table 36: Annual Average Speed by Speed Bin - Build (1 of 2) Calendar Project 0-5 mph 5-10 mph mph mph mph mph mph mph B-60

107 Calendar Project 0-5 mph 5-10 mph mph mph mph mph mph mph B-61

108 Table 37: Annual Average Speed by Speed Bin - Build (2 of 2) Calendar Project mph mph mph mph mph mph B-62

109 Calendar Project mph mph mph mph mph mph B-63

110 Appendix A. Letters of Support SH 225 at Beltway 8 Freight Corridor Improvements

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121 MAYOR ANA DIAZ 1301 MERCURY DRIVE PHONE (713) FAX (713) JACINTO CITY, TEXAS COUNCIL MEMBERS MARIO GONZALES CARMELA GARCIA ALLEN LEE JIMMY "JJ'' RI VAS GREGG ROBINSON CITY MANAGER LON D. SQUYRES CITY SECRETARY JOYCE RAINES October 23, 2017 CITY ATTORNEY JIM DEFOYD The Honorable Elaine Chao Secretary U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington, DC RE: TxDOT's FY INFRA application for SH 225/BW 8 in Harris County, Texas Dear Secretary Chao, I would like to express Jacinto City's support for the Texas Department of Transportation's INFRA Grant application for the State Highway 225 at Beltway 8 Directional Interchanges project in Harris County, Texas. TxDOT's INFRA funding request would provide gap funding of $58 million, allowing TxDOT and the Harris County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA) to partner on constructing eight direct connectors to facilitate full directional interchange movement at the intersection of SH 225 and BW 8. TxDOT, HCTRA and Harris County will participate in right of way acquisition and share utility adjustment costs; TxDOT will oversee construction and HCTRA will operate and maintain the interchange once construction is complete, making the project a true regional collaborative effort. This project will provide operational improvements to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of traffic in one of the nation's busiest freight mobility corridors by eliminating the bottleneck of the existing signalized intersection. In addition, the SH 225/BW 8 project will tie directly into the new Houston Ship Channel Bridge, a $962 million HCTRA project slated to begin construction in The Houston Ship Channel is home to the world:s second largest petrochemical complex and is also a leading industrial, maritime and logistics center for the Gulf Coast region. The channel area impacts over one million jobs and contributes $178.8 billion to the US economy. Both SH 225 and BW 8 are major transportation facilities servicing the Port of Houston. The

122 Secretary Elaine Chao 2 improvements proposed by TxDOT will serve to improve goods movement into and out of the Port and the greater Houston area. We emphasize our support of this regionally and nationally important project, and thank you for your consideration and hopeful selection of the SH 225/BW 8 project for the INFRA program. ' I

123

124

125 S EABROOK October 23, 2017 The Honorable Elaine Chao Secretary U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington, DC RE: TxDOT s FY l8 INFRA application for SH 225/BW 8 in Harris County, Texas Dear Secretary Chao, I, the Mayor for the City of Seabrook, Texas, would like to express my support for the Texas Department of Transportation s INFRA Grant application for the State Highway 225 at Beltway 8 Directional Interchanges project in Harris County, Texas. TxDOT s INFRA funding request would provide gap funding of $58 million, allowing TxDOT and the Harris County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA) to partner on constructing eight direct connectors to facilitate full directional interchange movement at the intersection of SH 225 and BW 8. TxDOT, HCTRA and Harris County will participate in right of way acquisition and share utility adjustment costs; TxDOT will oversee construction and HCTRA will operate and maintain the interchange once construction is complete, making the project a true regional collaborative effort. This project will provide operational improvements to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of traffic in one of the nation s busiest freight mobility corridors by eliminating the bottleneck of the existing signalized intersection. In addition, the SH 2251BW 8 project will tie directly into the new Houston Ship Channel Bridge, a $962 million HCTRA project slated to begin construction in The Houston Ship Channel is home to the world s second largest petrochemical complex and is also a leading industrial, maritime and logistics center for the Gulf Coast region. The channel area impacts over one million jobs and contributes $178.8 billion to the US economy. Both SH 225 and BW 8 are major transportation facilities servicing the Port of Houston. The improvements proposed by TxDOT will serve to improve goods movement into and out of the Port and the greater Houston area.

126 I emphasize my support of this regionally and nationally important project, and thank you for your consideration and hopeful selection of the SH 2251BW 8 project for the INFRA program. Sincerely, Thomas G. Kolupski Mayor cc: Chad Burke Economic Alliance Houston Port Region Raquelle Lewis TXDOT

127 TxDOT INFRA Grant Project FY17 18 SH 225 at Beltway 8 Interchange; Houston Region, Harris County Total Project Cost: $230.5 million INFRA Grant Request: $53 million The intersection of State Highway 225 and Beltway 8 lies east of Houston in Harris County. SH 225 and SW 8 are major freight corridors connecting to the Port of Houston and major refineries. The Houston Ship Channel is home to the world s second largest petrochemical complex and is also a leading industrial, maritime and logistics center for the Gulf Coast region. The Houston Ship Channel area impacts over one million jobs and contributes $178.8 billion to the U.S. economy. SH 225 and BW 8 are two major transportation facilities servicing over 109,000 and 54,000 vehicles per day respectively, with truck volumes accounting for approximately 9% of the overall volumes. SH 225 and SW S are both identified as freight mobility corridors, and the proposed interchange would eliminate the bottleneck of the existing signalized intersection. The INFRA Grant award would supply gap funding to be used to construct eight direct connectors at the SH 225 and BW 8 intersection where full directional interchange currently does not exist. More importantly, this ultimate configuration will tie in with Harris County Toll Road Authority s (HCTRA) construction of a new $962 million Houston Ship Channel Bridge at 1-10 and SW 8. TxD0T, HCTRA and Harris County will partner on this project by sharing right of way acquisition and utility adjustment costs. HCTRA and TxDOT will each assume one third of the $174 million construction costs with INFRA funding supplying the last third. TxDOT will oversee construction and HCTRA will operate and maintain the interchange once finished. HCTRA, Harris County, the Port of Houston and other major stakeholders support this project l~rjuo...~rj Pr op~i~i ~ H 2 SIB~ 5 erti~. ~,.

128

129

130 CITY OF BAYTOWN STEPHEN DONCARLOS, MAYOR 2401 Market Street P.O. Box 424 Baytown, Texas (281) (281) Fax October 20, 2017 The Honorable Elaine Chao Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington, DC RE: LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR TXDOT S FY INFRA APPLICATION FOR SH 225/BW 8 IN HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Dear Secretary Chao, As the Mayor for the City of Baytown, Texas, I would like to express my support for the Texas Department of Transportation s INFRA Grant application for the State Highway 225 at Beltway 8 Directional Interchanges project in Harris County, Texas. TxDOT s INFRA funding request would provide gap funding of $58 million, allowing TxDOT and the Harris County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA) to partner on constructing eight direct connectors to facilitate full directional interchange movement at the intersection of SH 225 and BW 8. TxDOT, HCTRA and Harris County will participate in right of way acquisition and share utility adjustment costs; TxDOT will oversee construction and HCTRA will operate and maintain the interchange once construction is complete, making the project a true regional collaborative effort. This project will provide operational improvements to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of traffic in one of the nation s busiest freight mobility corridors by eliminating the bottleneck of the existing signalized intersection. In addition, the SH 225/BW 8 project will tie directly into the new Houston Ship Channel Bridge, a $962 million HCTRA project slated to begin construction in The Houston Ship Channel is home to the world s second largest petrochemical complex and is also a leading industrial, maritime and logistics center for the Gulf Coast region. The channel area impacts over one million jobs and contributes $178.8 billion to the US economy. Both SH 225 and BW 8 are major transportation facilities servicing the Port of Houston. The improvements proposed by TxDOT will serve to enhance goods movement into and out of the Port and the greater Houston area. I emphasize my support of this regionally and nationally important project, and thank you for your consideration and hopeful selection of the SH 225/BW 8 project for the INFRA program. Sincerely, Stephen DonCarlos Mayor

131 PO Box Webster, TX p October 19, 2017 The Honorable Elaine Chao Secretary U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington, DC RE: TxDOT s FY INFRA application for SH 225/BW 8 in Harris County, Texas Dear Secretary Chao, The Bay Area Houston Transportation Partnership (BayTran) would like to express our support for the Texas Department of Transportation s INFRA Grant application for the State Highway 225 at Beltway 8 Directional Interchanges project in Harris County, Texas. TxDOT s INFRA funding request would provide gap funding of $58 million, allowing TxDOT and the Harris County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA) to partner on constructing eight direct connectors to facilitate full directional interchange movement at the intersection of SH 225 and BW 8. TxDOT, HCTRA and Harris County will participate in right of way acquisition and share utility adjustment costs; TxDOT will oversee construction and HCTRA will operate and maintain the interchange once construction is complete, making the project a true regional collaborative effort. This project will provide operational improvements to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of traffic in one of the nation s busiest freight mobility corridors by eliminating the bottleneck of the existing signalized intersection. In addition, the SH 225/BW 8 project will tie directly into the new Houston Ship Channel Bridge, a $962 million HCTRA project slated to begin construction in The Houston Ship Channel is home to the world s second largest petrochemical complex and is also a leading industrial, maritime and logistics center for the Gulf Coast region. The channel area impacts over one million jobs and contributes $178.8 billion to the US economy. Both SH 225 and BW 8 are major transportation facilities servicing the Port of Houston. The improvements proposed by TxDOT will serve to improve goods movement into and out of the Port and the greater Houston area.

132 PO Box Webster, TX p BayTran emphasizes our support of this regionally and nationally important project, and thanks you for your consideration and hopeful selection of the SH 225/BW 8 project for the INFRA program. Sincerely, Theresa Rodriguez President cc: Quincy Allen, Texas Department of Transportation Raquelle Lewis, Texas Department of Transportation

133 October 18, 2017 The Honorable Elaine Chao Secretary U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington, DC RE: TxDOT s FY INFRA application for SH 225/BW 8 in Harris County, Texas Dear Secretary Chao, The Economic Alliance Houston Port Region (it s 12 member cities and over 250 private member companies), would like to express our support for the Texas Department of Transportation s INFRA Grant application for the State Highway 225 at Beltway 8 Directional Interchanges project in Harris County, Texas. The Houston Ship Channel is home to the world s second largest petrochemical complex and is also a leading industrial, maritime and logistics center for the Gulf Coast region. There has been $50 billion in announced petrochemical projects over the last 4 years in the region. Container volumes of resins are projected to almost triple in the next three years from 500k annually to almost 1.5 million. Houston Ship Channel activity accounts for 16% of states GDP, 1.2 million jobs in Texas and local taxes and $265 billion of total economic activity. TxDOT s INFRA funding request would provide gap funding of $58 million, allowing TxDOT and the Harris County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA) to partner on constructing eight direct connectors to facilitate full directional interchange movement at the intersection of SH 225 and BW 8. TxDOT, HCTRA and Harris County will participate in right of way acquisition and share utility adjustment costs; TxDOT will oversee construction and HCTRA will operate and maintain the interchange once construction is complete, making the project a true regional collaborative effort. This project will provide operational improvements to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of traffic in one of the nation s busiest freight mobility corridors by eliminating the bottleneck of the existing signalized intersection. In addition, the SH 225/BW 8 project will tie directly into the new Houston Ship Channel Bridge, a $962 million HCTRA project slated to begin construction in Ivy Avenue, Suite 200 Deer Park, Texas (281)

134 We emphasize our support of this regionally and nationally important project, and thank you for your consideration and hopeful selection of the SH 225/BW 8 project for the INFRA program. Sincerely, Chad Burke President & CEO Economic Alliance Houston Port Region 203 Ivy Avenue, Suite 200 Deer Park, Texas (281)