Re: Docket No. DOT-OST , Establishment of Interim National Multimodal Freight Network

Similar documents
Critical Rural and Urban Freight Corridors August 2016

Multimodal Freight Transportation Policy Overview

Overview of the Draft Highway Primary Freight Network. November 20, :00 2:30 pm ET Coral Torres Ed Strocko

KICK-OFF MEETING April 2, 2014 Topeka, Kansas

Connectivity North and Beyond Nevada s I 80 Corridor

Virginia Critical Rural and Urban Freight Corridor Designation WebEx Discussion. September 28, 2017, 10:30 12:00

CRITICAL RURAL FREIGHT CORRIDORS SWRPC Transportation Advisory Committee May 7, 2018

Freight Provisions in the FAST ACT

MULTIMODAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT

FHWA Programs Supporting Freight

Chapter 9: Vision Plan. Chapter 9. Vision Plan. Lake Loveland. Image 179 Credit: City of Loveland

Chapter 1 Introduction

BOSTON REGION METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

Corridors of Statewide Significance: Introduction

MAP 21 Freight Provisions and Seaports

PROJECTS. The KIPDA MPO s Central Location

Chapter 3 Missouri Freight System

FREIGHT CORRIDORS AND GATEWAYS: DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND EVALUATION CRITERIA COMPARISON IN NORTH AMERICA AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

IX. Approach to Implementation

Texas Freight Mobility Plan. Chapter 1: Introduction

TEXAS FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN: PRIORITIZING FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS

GIS-based Modeling for Statewide and Corridor Freight Planning

LOUISIANA FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN Donald Vary. March 1, 2016

TEXAS FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 2017

AAPA Comment: FHWA s Primary Freight Network Should Include Connectors to All Trade Gateways and Freight Corridors

NC State Freight Plan

TEXAS FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN: DRAFT KEY POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Florida Transportation Plan and Strategic Intermodal System Plan Updates

STATEWIDE ANALYSIS MODEL (SAM-V3) June 5, 2014 Janie Temple

This plan document is available at: Oklahoma Department of Transportation Planning and Research Division 200 NE 21 st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105

MAP-21 themes. Strengthens America s highway and public transportation systems. Creates jobs and supports economic growth

AAPA Executive Management Conference May 4, 2017 Rickey Fitzgerald, FDOT Freight & Multimodal Operations Office Manager

Multi-State Planning Proposal

2016 Mid-Continent Transportation Research Symposium, October 24-25, Donna Brown-Martin, Director Bureau of Planning and Economic Development

2014 Minnesota Statewide Freight Summit

MULTIMODAL NETWORK ANALYSIS FOR COAL FREIGHT IN KENTUCKY SESSION 6.2.3

1.0 INTRODUCTION Federal Mandate for State Rail Plans Stakeholder Consultation Ongoing Planning Process...

Rail Freight and Passenger

Freight Plans Planning, Preparing Staying Ahead. MAASTO July, 2013

AASHTO Policy Papers Topic IX: Freight

Estimating Freight Activity on Major Highways with the Freight Analysis Framework (FAF)

Chapter 8 - The Decision-Making Process


Crystal Jones. Office of Freight Management and Operations. USDOT Federal Highway Administration

Southern Arizona Leadership Council

Freight and Rail Stakeholder Webinar. January 7, 2014

2018 MIAMI-DADE COUNTY

New Mexico Statewide Model

VTrans2040 Multimodal Transportation Plan Corridors of Statewide Significance Needs Assessment Western Mountain Corridor (L)

I-10 Master Plan Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties TPO Meetings. Tier II June 11 th & 13 th, 2012

How Freight Moves: Estimating Mileage and Routes Using an Innovative GIS Tool

MAP 21 Interim Guidance. State Freight Advisory Committee & State Freight Plan

Chapter 1 Introduction

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROCEDURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE

2017 Freight System Plan

Corridor Planning Organizations and Ports I-95 Corridor: A Marine Highway Corridor

TEXAS FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN: INTEGRATING ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

State of Idaho Profile

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR HOUSTON DALLAS HIGH SPEED RAIL (TEXAS CENTRAL)

Abstract. 1 Definition of Intermodal Transportation

NEW YORK TRANSPORTATION FACTS ECONOMIC IMPACTS

MOBILITY AND ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

CHAPTER 6 FREIGHT MOVEMENT

SECTOR ASSESSMENT (SUMMARY): LOGISTICS 1

Canaveral Port Authority: Rail Extension Update

KEEPING GOODS MOVING IN AMERICA'S HEARTLAND MAY

Exploring Florida s Transportation Future

PA Freight Discussion Transportation Engineering & Safety Conference December 6, Brian D. Hare, P.E. PennDOT Program Center

GULF COAST RAIL DISTRICT VISION FOR REGIONAL RAIL

Rail Freight Service Review. Submission of the New Brunswick Department of Transportation

ARIZONA STATE RAIL PLAN

Freight Planning and Performance Measures: Historical Context and Statewide Perspectives

New Approaches to Public Collaboration

IDENTIFYING INDIANA'S PORTION OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM

TRB Panel on the Future of the Interstate

Regional Mobility Authorities in Texas

U.S. 220 Multimodal Corridor

Economic Development Planning, Summary 30

7. FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Transportation Committee

Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan

Business Item Transportation Committee Item

Transportation Consortium at the Center for Transportation February 14, 2014

draft report Minnesota Statewide Freight System Plan Task Minnesota's Principal Freight Network Minnesota Department of Transportation

Critical Commerce Corridors: A New Vision & Mission for the Federal Surface Transportation Program

GNC Coalition Update. Washington Public Ports Association Trade and Transportation Committee November 18, 2015

Rail - What Does the Future Bring?

North Carolina Statewide Freight Plan

GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

Welcome. Greater Charlotte Regional Freight Mobility Plan Steering Committee Kick off Meeting #1

SIS 2045 Multimodal Unfunded Needs Plan: FDOT District Four Projects. Project Review with Metropolitan/ Transportation Planning Organizations

FTP/SIS Steering Committee Work Plan and PPI Update

Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) and Shared Use Non Motorized (SUN) Trail Program Update

P4.0 Highway Quantitative Scoring Workgroup Recommendations

Trans-Texas Corridor Rural Development Opportunities: Ports-to-Plains Case Study

INDIANA S INTERMODAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Stephen C. Smith Planning Manager, Transportation Planning Division Indiana Department of Transportation

Transportation Advisory Board May 21, 2014

American Association of Port Authorities Spring Meeting March 24, 2009

Draft for Public Review

Statewide Bluetooth Data Collection

Transcription:

az September 6, 2016 Re: Docket No. DOT-OST-2016-0053, Establishment of Interim National Multimodal The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) appreciates the opportunity to provide input to the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Office of the Secretary and other relevant agencies for Docket No. DOT-OST-2016-0053, Establishment of Interim National Multimodal. CDOT agrees with USDOT that freight movement plays a significant role in the United States economy and that a well-functioning, reliable, multimodal freight system is essential. CDOT encourages USDOT to designate a Final National Multimodal (NMFN) which promotes the goals of (1) improving network and intermodal connectivity; and (2) using measurable data as part of the assessment of the significance of freight movement, including consideration of points of origin, destinations, and linking components of domestic and international supply chains. With these goals in mind, CDOT respectfully submits the following comments: 1. CDOT joins other states in expressing concern with the extent of the highway mileage included in the Interim NMFN. At 51,000 miles, the highway portion of the Interim NMFN is only slightly larger than the interstate system, representing less than 1.5% of the nation s more than 4 million miles of public roads. Such a limited network excludes a significant amount of highway freight movement. This stands in contrast to other modes, where the Interim NMFN captures the majority of freight movement. The limited extent of Interim NMFN highway mileage is especially recognizable in large western states such as Colorado, with significant distances between the highway facilities included in the Interim NMFN. Western highways are fewer and farther between and therefore carry a greater need for reliability and resiliency. These highways are critical for the connectivity of metropolitan and urban areas, as well as rural areas which supply the nation with necessary commodities. Although freight volumes on north/south facilities in the west are lower than east/west facilities, greater north/south connectivity should be included on the Final NMFN in western states. These corridors are important for regional, interstate, and international freight movement; specifically with two of our most important trading partners; Canada and Mexico. CDOT recommends that the Final NMFN include significantly more highway mileage than the 51,000 miles currently included in the Interim NMFN, and more than the 65,000 miles included in the draft Multimodal released in October 2015. CDOT recommends that state DOTs be given the flexibility in deciding which and/or how many facilities and/or corridors to propose as additions to the network. By removing the 20 percent limitation, states would have the flexibility to add facilities and corridors to the network that serve not only national interests, but statewide and regional interests as well, while promoting a seamless multimodal network. CDOT recommends, at a minimum, including Congressional High Priority Corridors (Attachment A) in the designation of the Final NMFN. Specifically, in Colorado these include: The Heartland Expressway (Corridor 14) The Ports-to-Plains Corridor (Corridor 38) The High Plains Corridor (Corridor 48) In addition to the Congressional High Priority Corridors, the following corridors are critical connections between Colorado and our neighboring states that should also be included in the Final NMFN: Tier 1 (Attachment B) 4201 E. Arkansas Ave., Room 262, Denver, CO 80222-3400 P 303.757.9525 F 303.757.9656 www.codot.gov

o US 85, WY Border to I-76 o US 287/SH 14 WY Border to I-25 o US 491, (160) NM Border to UT Border Tier 2 (Attachment C) o US 34, NE Border to I-76 o US 40, SH 131 to UT Border o US 385, I-76 to US 40 o US 550, US 160 to NM Border o SH 13, WY Border to US 40 Additionally, the following intrastate corridors provide important access from agricultural, mining, or energy areas to the Interstate system (Attachment D). CDOT recommends that these also be included in the Final NMFN: US 24, I-70 (MP 359) to I-25 (MP 135) US 34, I-76 to I-25 US 50, I-25 to SH 9 US 50, SH 9 to US 550 US 50, US 550 to I-70 US 85, I-25 (MP 207) to Titan Road US 85, Titan Road to I-25 (MP 184) US 160, I-25 to US 285 SH 14, I-76 to I-25 SH 52, I-76 to I-25 2. Shortline railroads play an important role in connecting Class 1 Railroads to freight hubs. CDOT recommends that greater emphasis be placed on shortline railroads and their importance to the multimodal freight system. Specifically, CDOT recommends the inclusion of the following shortline railroads in the Final NMFN: Great Western Railway (Attachment E) The Great Western Railway is located in the highest production agricultural area of Colorado. It connects to both Class 1 Railroads in the state and is critical to farm-to-market operation in the region and the nation. Kyle Railroad (Attachment F) The Kyle Railroad is located in Eastern Colorado and is a key connection to Kansas and its vast rail and agricultural facilities. It also connects to the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Colorado. 3. CDOT has identified some facilities on the interim NMFN in Colorado in need of correction and recommends the following corrections be made prior to the designation of the Final NMFN: E-470 be replaced with Pena Boulevard (Attachment G) The route identified in the Primary Highway Freight System (PHFS) as S470 from CO22A to I70 with a distance of 7.33 miles is known as E-470. This segment was intended to connect I-70 to Denver International Airport. E-470 is public highway authority and collects tolls to use the facility. E-470 has virtually no freight movement as the cost of the toll is financially prohibitive. Commercial carriers choose to use Pena Boulevard to access Denver International Airport (DIA) as there is little or no additional mileage and no toll. CDOT recommends the designation of E-470 be removed and Pena Boulevard be designated in its place. The City of Denver and DIA are in agreement with this change and are providing similar comments. Remove Boulder Branch (Attachment H) The rail line known as the Boulder Branch was formerly owned by UPRR, a Class 1 railroad. However, the line is now owned by the Regional Transit District (RTD), a transit authority in the Denver metropolitan area. This line will no longer be used for freight service but rather for passenger service. CDOT recommends the removal of this line from the Final NMFN. 4201 E. Arkansas Ave., Room 262, Denver, CO 80222-3400 P 303.757.9525 F 303.757.9656 www.codot.gov

4. USDOT did not specifically request comments on the Intermodal Connectors identified as part of the National Highway (NHFN), however CDOT believes this a critical element of a multimodal freight network. The Intermodal Connectors identified as part of NHFN were produced using out-of-date information and contain numerous inaccuracies. CDOT recommends USDOT conduct a thorough review of the Intermodal Connectors with opportunity for state review. These updated Intermodal Connectors should be included in the Final NMFN and replace the dated information in the NHFN. Specifically, CDOT recommends the following changes to the Intermodal Connectors: Facility ID CO12R (Attachment I) In recent years many infrastructure improvements have been made in order to directly improve truck access to a rail intermodal facility at York Street and 40th Avenue. Trucks now have improved access to I-70 at the York/Josephine Exit, rather than traveling more than double the miles along 40th Avenue. CDOT recommends Intermodal Connector CO12R be replaced with York Street from I-70; south to 41st Avenue; east to Josephine Street; North to I-70. Materials in support of our comments are attached and include maps corresponding with the recommendations above (Attachments A through I), and Attachment J, which provides additional information on each of the recommended corridor additions. Questions can be directed to jason.wallis@state.co.us. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Debra Perkins-Smith Director, Division of Transportation Development 4201 E. Arkansas Ave., Room 262, Denver, CO 80222-3400 P 303.757.9525 F 303.757.9656 www.codot.gov

Attachment A - Congressionally Designated High Priority Corridors $% 318 $% 127 $% 113 385 23 64 41 $% 139 $% 340 0 7 $% 140 85 287 25 64 $% 330 $% 348 62 0 2 $% 325 $% 347 2 $% 317 $% 151 82 $% 135 $% 134 82 $% 114 1 $% 112 15 285 $% 368 $% 371 $% 291 $% 142 5 $% 150 $% 370 $% 159 $% 159 12 $% 120 78 ]\^225 83 21 45 $% 392 79 4 86 $% 207 71 $% $% 266 109 10 39 $% 144 $% 389 4 $% 194 $% 109 63 63 $% 101 61 $% 196 $% 116 89 Congressional High Priority Corridors 20 10 0 20 40 60

Attachment B - Multistate Significance Corridors, Tier 1 $% 318 $% 127 $% 113 385 23 64 41 $% 139 $% 340 0 7 $% 140 85 287 25 64 $% 330 $% 348 62 0 2 $% 325 $% 347 2 $% 317 $% 151 82 $% 135 $% 134 82 $% 114 1 $% 112 15 285 $% 368 $% 371 $% 291 $% 142 5 $% 150 $% 370 $% 159 $% 159 12 $% 120 78 ]\^225 83 21 45 $% 392 79 4 86 $% 207 71 $% $% 266 109 10 39 $% 144 $% 389 4 $% 194 $% 109 63 63 $% 101 61 $% 196 $% 116 89 Tier 1 20 10 0 20 40 60

Attachment C - Multistate Significance Corridors, Tier 2 $% 318 $% 127 $% 113 385 23 64 41 $% 139 $% 340 0 7 $% 140 85 287 25 64 $% 330 $% 348 62 0 2 $% 325 $% 347 2 $% 317 $% 151 82 $% 135 $% 134 82 $% 114 1 $% 112 15 285 $% 368 $% 371 $% 291 $% 142 5 $% 150 $% 370 $% 159 $% 159 12 $% 120 78 ]\^225 83 21 45 $% 392 79 4 86 $% 207 71 $% $% 266 109 10 39 $% 144 $% 389 4 $% 194 $% 109 63 63 $% 101 61 $% 196 $% 116 89 Tier 2 20 10 0 20 40 60

Attachment D - Intrastate Significance Corridors $% 318 $% 127 $% 113 385 23 64 41 $% 139 $% 340 0 7 $% 140 85 287 25 64 $% 330 $% 348 62 0 2 $% 325 $% 347 2 $% 317 $% 151 82 $% 135 $% 134 82 $% 114 1 $% 112 15 285 $% 368 $% 371 $% 291 $% 142 5 $% 150 $% 370 $% 159 $% 159 12 $% 120 78 ]\^225 83 21 45 $% 392 79 4 86 $% 207 71 $% $% 266 109 10 39 $% 144 $% 389 4 $% 194 $% 109 63 63 $% 101 61 $% 196 $% 116 89 Intrastate Significance Corridors 20 10 0 20 40 60

Attachment E - Great Western Railway $% 392 $% 392 $% 257 60 7 56 85 66 66 7 72 $% 119 Great Western Railway Railroads 5 2.5 0 5

Attachment F - The Kyle Railroad Kyle Railroad Railroad 5 2.5 0 5

Attachment G - Pena Boulevard 85 470 25 121 270 Pena Boulevard 470 95 225 470 Pena Boulevard 2 1 0 2

Attachment H - Boulder Branch 52 52 7 470 93 470 72 270 Boulder Branch 2 1 0 2 Railroads

Attachment I - Facility ID COR12 6 265 270 53 N York N Josephine 40th 2 1 0.5 0 1 Proposed Intermodal Connector Current Intermodal Connectors ^ Boulder Branch

Attachment J: List of Recommended Highway Additions and Tier Criteria Corridor Congressionally Designated High Priority Corridors The Heartland Expressway (Corridor 14) The Ports-to-Plains Corridor (Corridor 38) The High Plains Corridor (Corridor 48) Multi-State Significance, Tier 1 Multistate Connectivity, and Min 750 AADTT, and Min 10% Truck Multi-State Significance, Tier 2 Multistate Connectivity, and Min 750 AADTT, or Min 10% Truck Intrastate Significance Min 500 AADTT, or Min 10% Truck with min 100 AADTT Weighted AADTT Weighted Percent Truck 263 21% 130.46 1,575 45% 185.74 1,121 11% 151.95 US 85, WY Border to I-76 1,591 10% 82.46 US 287/SH 14 WY Border to I-25 839 11% 43.05 US 491, (160) NM Border to UT Border 758 14% 69.35 US 34, NE Border to I-76 671 17% 101.2 US 40, SH 131 to UT Border 304 12% 136.28 US 385, I-76 to US 40 222 18% 160.97 US 550, US 160 to NM Border 577 5% 16.36 SH 13, WY Border to US 40 323 11% 130.40 US 24, I-70 to I-25 550 7% 69.73 US 34, I-76 to I-25 581 18% 97.63 US 50, I-25 to SH 9 893 4% 45.32 US 50, SH 9 to US 550 361 8% 176.50 US 50, US 550 to I-70 1,258 9% 53.31 US 85, I-25 (MP 207) to Titan Road 1,349 2% 12.52 US 85, Titan Road to I-25 (MP 184) 782 4% 18.13 US 160, I-25 to US 285 629 10% 89.62 SH 14, I-76 to I-25 1,881 2% 4.09 SH 52, I-76 to I-25 729 4% 60.08