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

2. 2 INTERSTATE 710–TYPICAL DAY

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

4. 4

5. 5

6. 6 Freight Movement (2020)

7. 7

8. 8 GMAP Background The Action Plan is a response to: Severe congestion at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach that occurred in 2004 (and continued GROWTH!). Public concern regarding community, health and environmental impacts of goods movement. Importance of goods movement to the State’s economy and global competitiveness.

9. 9 Goods Movement Action Plan The Plan was developed in two phases: Phase I was the ‘what’ and the ‘why’: Trade trends, freight/maritime industry changes Inventory of state’s goods movement infrastructure needs Growing evidence of the severity of goods movement activities on the environment and public health Phase II is the ‘who’, ‘when’ and ‘how’: Phase II outlined the strategies, policies and potential projects to address the issues identified in Phase I.

10. 10 Goods Movement Action Plan Principles Undertake simultaneous and continuous improvement in infrastructure and mitigation. Consider the 4 port-to-border corridors as an integrated system  San Diego, LA-Inland Empire, Central Valley, Bay Area  Don’t forget the rest of the state! Pursue excellence through technology, efficiency, and workforce development. Develop partnerships to advance goals. Promote trust, provide for meaningful public participation, address environmental justice concerns.

11. 11 Project Challenges/Meeting the Needs How do we meet the need? September 2005 Phase I Report identified 180 projects or groups of projects, totaling $47.3 billion. January 2007 Phase II Report reflected 24 of the original 180 as “TCIF Bond Funding Recommendations” (GMAP, Phase II Report, Table I-2, page I-22).  Total project costs: $10.3 billion  Total available TCIF: $2 billion

12. 12 Strategic Growth Plan California’s Strategic Growth Plan (SGP) is intended to lay the foundation for long-term investments in the State’s critical infrastructure needs. It is a ‘down payment’ to jump start delivery of critical projects. More resources, including public investments and public/private joint ventures--will be needed over the long term.

13. 13

14. 14 Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 This act (Proposition 1B) provides $19.9 billion for transportation and related improvements, including: Highway upgrades to reduce congestion State highway rehabilitation and operational improvements Trade corridor infrastructure and emission reduction Expansion of intercity rail and public transit Local street, road, and bridge repair Port anti-terrorism security improvements

15. 15 Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF) $2 billion trade infrastructure program contained in Proposition 1B. For highway, freight rail, seaport, and airport and border access improvement projects. Key allocation principles include: Addressing the state’s most urgent needs in partnership with both the public & private sector Balancing both the needs of large and small ports, and providing reasonable geographic balance Concurrent mobility improvement and emissions reductions Programming for deliverability, maximum benefit and optimum performance

16. 16 The GMAP and the TCIF The California Transportation Commission will consider the GMAP as it identifies and selects projects funded by the TCIF. The California Marine and Intermodal Transportation System Advisory Council (CALMITSAC) port master plan, and Regional Transportation Plans and goods movement studies of the MPOs/RTPAs will also be considered. Development of the TCIF Guidelines is targeted for a June or July completion. The latest target for investment decisions is March 2008.

17. 17 TCIF Legislative and Guideline Issues Program/project priorities – system, mode, project, performance outcomes Project selection criteria – consideration of diverse sources, other programs coordination Geographic balance Match eligibility – Other State funds Project initiation (delivery) deadline Authority to fund/deliver rail freight projects Due dates – Guidelines, program

18. 18 Partnerships—the key to effective planning Regional and Local Governments – Metropolitan Planning Organizations (e.g., SCAG), County Transportation Commissions (e.g., LACMTA, SANBAG), local cities, counties and planning agencies. Private Industry – Carriers (shipping lines, railroads, trucking firms), terminal operators, shippers, receivers, interest groups. General public, including community based organizations and advocacy groups.

19. 19 Public-Private Partnerships “P3” is an emerging and critical aspect of California’s innovative approach to funding needed infrastructure projects. There are a number of proposed joint venture projects that will utilize innovative partnerships approaches. Some projects will be primarily funded by the public sector, with private sector contributions. Some projects will be primarily funded by the private sector, with public sector contributions.

20. 20 Potential Goods Movement Public-Private Partnership Projects Gerald Desmond Bridge (Port of Long Beach) Port - highway project Otay Mesa East Port of Entry (near San Diego) International gateway Truck toll lanes in the Los Angeles (SCAG) region Highway corridors Tehachapi Double Track (near Bakersfield) Rail corridor improvement Oakland Outer Harbor Terminal Port terminal

21. 21 Goods Movement Planning Principle: Build the program of action based on overall policy, desired outcomes, system analysis, project evaluation and selection, and performance measurement. Principle: The planning approach must be flexible, that is a balancing of federal, state, regional and local objectives and individual needs. No one size fits all. Planning must also be done in a cooperative, inclusive and open fashion, involving all interested freight interests, public and private. It must be continuing, and it must be comprehensive.

22. 22 District Planning Program Elements Develop/enhance goods movement stakeholder partnerships and dialogues – infrastructure providers, users, and impacted communities. Develop goods movement system studies/analyses, including the identification of: Goods movement transportation network, including major generators/receivers; Performance of that network (i.e., including design, operational, safety, maintenance, access and capacity deficiencies and other issues);

23. 23 District Planning Program Elements Factors/variables that are driving system performance changes (e.g, international trade growth, truck/rail industry changes, goods movement land-use development); System deficiencies; and Improvement alternatives, including project evaluation and selection. Develop goods movement improvement project lists, priorities, and PIDS.

24. 24 District Planning Program Elements Advocate study and project programming in OWPs, RTPs, RTIPs/FTIPs, the ITIP, and the SHOPP. Work with local planning agencies to consider goods movement requirements. Monitor land-use and system changes that may impact system performance. Expand goods movement data resources, information and expertise.

25. 25 Performance Measurement Principle: To determine how the system is performing, to guide decision-makers and analysts in recommending appropriate action; Proposed freight performance measures: Travel time reliability (% on-time performance; variance in travel times for interregional and intraregional trips); Modal facilities inventory; Truck volumes by axle/percent of corridor capacity; Total emissions and rates (by ton-mile) measured at statewide and regional air basin levels; Percent increase in goods movement over baseline.

26. 26 Future Directions Greater recognition of goods movement planning as separate, distinct, planning subject and discipline. Significantly expanded focus on environmental, community and public health impacts and mitigation measures. Increased multimodal policy, planning and funding analysis and commitment. More creative funding partnerships and arrangements.

27. 27 Case Studies The Alameda Corridor 20-mile rail cargo corridor that runs from the San Pedro Bay Ports north to downtown Los Angeles. The Corridor opened in April 2002, after 20 years of planning and development that involved a broad spectrum of stakeholders. The project cost $2.4 billion, funded through a unique blend of public and private sources. Revenues from user fees paid by the shippers will be used to retire the debt. Adjacent communities received additional benefits, including community beautification, job training and technical consulting for local import-export businesses.

28. 28 ALAMEDA CORRIDOR—LOS ANGELES

29. 29 Case Studies—Alameda Corridor East Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Project This project will construct 131 grade separations along the three east/west rail corridors radiating from downtown Los Angeles (Redondo Junction), to Barstow and Indio), operated by the UP and BNSF railroads. Major stakeholders include 4 county transportation commissions, the Alameda East Construction Authority, Caltrans, and the Orange North- American Trade Rail Access Joint Powers Authority (OnTrac).

30. 30 Alameda Corridor East Like the Alameda Corridor, the ACE project has taken many years of commitment by a wide variety of stakeholders. The total cost of the project is estimated to be approximately $4.3 billion. A variety of funding sources will be used: regional STIP funds, local sales taxes, contributions from the two Class I railroads (up to 10%) and SAFETEA LU earmarks. Proposition 1B funds are another potential funding source. The project is expected to be completed by 2020.

31. 31

32. 32 Conclusions California has major goods movement challenges. But, we are addressing them through a dynamic process that includes a State vision, focused planning, diverse joint ventures and other governmental investments, and collaborative partnerships.

33. 33 Office of Goods Movement-Your Partner in Planning Richard Nordahl Michele Fell-Casale Dan McKell Todd LaCasse Jeff Spencer Marcus Evans

34. 34 QUESTIONS AND CONTACT INFORMATION Richard Nordahl916-653-0426 Michele Fell-Casale916-653-4287