USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

1999 Florida freight stakeholders task force technical report

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
1999 Florida freight stakeholders task force technical report
Physical Description:
VI, 86 leaves : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Mierzejewski, Edward A
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Freight and freightage -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Transportation and state -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Transportation -- Planning -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre:
technical report   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
Statement of Responsibility:
Ed Mierzejewski ... et al.
General Note:
"June 30, 2000."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 029923930
oclc - 45039595
usfldc doi - C01-00115
usfldc handle - c1.115
System ID:
SFS0032228:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1999 Florida Freight Stakeholders Task Force Technical Report Prepared for the . Center for Urban College of Enginccrlilg Universicy of South Flpri!la "' .... Juiie ; '

PAGE 2

Center for Urban Transportation Research USF College of Engineering 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT 100 Tampa, Florida 33620 CUTR Project Team Richard Stasiak, Ph.D Project Director Edward Mierzejewski, Ph.D., P.E. Graduate Research Assistants Suresh Lankalapalli Robert ODonnell GIS Research Assistant Luis Vega Pierfranco'Issa Gary L. Brosch, Director

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS ListofTab1cs ..... ................. ...... ....... ............. ......................................... .... ... m List of Aerial Photographs ........................... .. .................. .................................. IV List of Maps ....... ..... ....... ... . . ....... . ..................... .......... . .............. . ........... v Executive Summary ........... .. .......................... . ......... . ............. ...... ." ................ I OBJECTIVB I PROJECt SBLECIION ..................... ..... ..... . ........ ....... ......... ... .... .. ....... .. ........ 1 0BJECTIVB 2RECOMMENDA"f!ONS ... .. . .. .. . .. .. .. ... ........... ... . ......... ........ ................................ 3 Introduction ........................................... ....... ... ..... ................... . .................. ... 5 Objective One ..... ..... ................................................................. ... ....... .... . ........ ... . ................. 6 Objective Two ............ ............................ ............................ .................... ....... .................... ...... 6 . Primary Objectives ........................................... ................................................ 10 OBJECTIVE ONE ............... .. .. . ...... .... ..... ........................ ...... ..... ..................................... ....... 10 Task l. Inventory Existing Freight Facilities ............. ...................... ......... ...... ....... ..... ..... 10 .!. Define the Freight Network . . ............................ ...................................................... 10 1.2 Identify Major Freight Terminals .......... .... .... . ..... ... . .................................. ... ... .... 11 1.3. Determine Optimum Data Structure .............. ... ..................... ........................ ... ..... 14 1.4. Detennine Location of Terminal Facilities ........................ ... . ......... .... .... .............. 14 1.5. Verification ofTenninal Locations ............ ................. .............. ........... .... .... . ..... .... 15 Task 2. Designation 6f Strategic Network ..... ... ........ ............... . .... . .................................. 16 2 .1. Road and Street Connectors ......................................................................... ............. 16 2 .2. Defining the Rail Freight Netw ork ............................................................................. 18 2.3. Route Selection and Geocoding ........... ....... ............................................................... 18 2.4. Presentation Strate-gy ............. ........ ....... ... ........... ......... ......... .. ....... ...................... ... 21 Task 3. Prioritize hnprovement Projects . ....... ..... . ......... ..... .. . ... .. ... ... .................. .... ...... 23 3.1. Factors in Projec t Evaluation ........................ .......................................... ................ 23 3.1.1 Economic Factors ........ ....... ..... ...... .... ... ............................................. .... ...... . ...... 24 3.1.2. Environmental Factors ........ ... ..................... .... ......... ....................... ...... ... ....... 25 3.1.3. Social/Community Factors . .............. ..... .... .... ........................... .......... ........ . 25 3.2. Project Selection Methods ......................................................................................... 25 3.2.1. Reliance on Economic Analysis ..... ........ ... ................ .... ....................... ........ ... .. 25 3.2.2. Scoring Methods ................................... ... ... ....... ... .... .... .... ... .... ............ ...... ... . 26 3.2.3 Methods Used by Florida's MPOs ......... ... . .... ............ ........ .................. ......... 27 3.2.3. 1 I-4 Multi modal Master Plan Study ........... ......... .... .......... . ... ........ ... ......... .. 28 3.2.3.2 Hillsborough County Major Investment Study .......................................... 32 3.2.3 3 Washington State Study ............ .... ........................................................... 33 3.3 Recommended Framework ........................... ..... ........ .... ...... ....... .......... ...... ..... ..... .. 38 Task 4 Evaluate Specific Projects for "Past-Track" Funding ............................................ .40 4.1. Eva luation Process ... .......... ........ ................ ... ... ... .......... ...... .... .......... ...... ........ ...... .. 40 4.2. Projects Submitted For Funding ........................ ..... ......... ...... ........ . ... . ... ..... ..... ..... 40 4.3. Projects Selected for Funding ............................................. ......... ..... ............... : ... ..... 42 4.4. Projects Recommended for Accelerated Funding ..... ... .... ....................................... 42 4.5 Economic Analysis of Projects Submitted .................... ...... .......... ............ ... ... .. . . . 43 I

PAGE 4

4 .5.1 Basic Tools ... . .......... ...... ........................ ......................................... ....... . ......... 43 4.5.2 C u stomized Solu tion ......... . .......... .. ........ ...... ..... ...... ..... ... ...... ................. ...... ... 44 OBJECTI\'E T\VO .... .... ........ ....... .. .. . .... ; . . ..... .... ; . ..... .. .. .. .... .. .. .. . ...................................... 44 J Establish the Florida Strategic Freight Network as a pan of the Intermodal Systems Plan . .... . ......................... . . ...... ...... ... .......... . . .... ..... ... ... .... ........... .............. ... ..... ......... 44 2 Adopt tbe Freight Task Force process for priorit i zation and selection of future freight projects ............ .... ......... ................... ..... ...... ... ......... ... ........ ............... : ............................. 45 3. Fund Future Research and Plann ing Studies ............. ........ .............................................. 45 4 Conduct a FJorida International Trade and Port Strategy Study ..... .... ...... . ................... ..45 5 Establis h a Florida Freight Advisory Council within FDOT ................................ ........... 46 6 Establish Freight Mobility Committees in the Largest Metropolitan Planning Organizations ................... ...... ....... ...... ....... ........ .... ......................... ............ ......... ....... .... 47 7. Create a Florida Freight Project Investment Bank (FFPffi) ... ................................ .......... 47 REFERENCES ... .. .. .... .. ... .. .... .. .. .................... .. .......... . .. .. . . .. .... ... .... .. ............. .. ..... .. .. .. .. 4 8 APPENDIX I Sample Funding Application ..... .. .. ....... .. ... .. .... ............. . . ......... .... .... 49 APPENDIX 2 FDOT Map Standard .... .... .. ..... ... .. .. .... . ...... . . .. ........ . ................. .53 APPENDIX 3 Aerial Terminal/Port Photography ... .. .. .. .. ............ ........... .. ..... : ........ 56 APPENDIX 4 Freight Facili ty Location Maps ........... .......... .......... .. .. ................... 69

PAGE 5

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Projects Recommended for F unding ........................... .............. : ............... 2 Table 2 Projects Recommended for Accelerated Funding ................. ............................ 3 Table 3. Mi lestones .. .......... .............................................. ............. ........... . ...... 6 Table 4. Committee Meetings and Teleconferences ....... .. ........... . . ......................... ..... 7 Table 5. System Mileage B y Co u nty .......................... . ....................................... . 19 Table 6. Mileage by FDOT District. ............................................ ................ ....... ... 21 Table 7. Mu. lti-Modal Master Plan ............ ............................................................ 29 Table 8. Screening Process PerformanceRating System ................................. .. .......... 32 Table 9. Summary of Screen 3 Evaluation .. ......................................................... : .. 32 Table 10. Summary of Screen 3 Mult i-moda l strategies rating, rating i ndex number and overall rank .......... ............... .. ...................................... ......................... ...... 33 Table 11. Washington State FMPPC Threshold Eligibility Criteria ................................ .. 35 Table 12. Washington S t ate FMPPC Project Priority Criteria ......................................... 36 Table 13. Washington State FMPPC Selection C riteria .............................................. .. 37 Table 14. Recommended E ligibility Criteria ............... ...... .................. .................... 38 Table 15. Project Prioritization Criteria Score ........................................................... 39 Table 16. Projects Submitted to the Task Forc e for "Fast-Track" Funding .................. ........ 41 Table 17. Projects Selected f or ''Fast-Track" Funding .. ................................................ 4 2 Tab le 18. Projects Recommended for Accelerated Funding and Submitted to Governor B ush's "FastTrack" Economic Growth Trnnsportation Ini t i ative .. ............ ............... .43 III

PAGE 6

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS Photo 1. Orlando CSX Auto Distribution Center ....................................... ........ .... ...................... IS Photo 2. Port of Miami .................................................................................................................. 23 3-1 Jacksonville CSX Intermodal ....... ................ ............... ... : ....................... ..................... ....... 56 3-2 Jacksonville CSX Auto Distribution Center ... ............... ... ... .... ................................... ......... 56 3-3 Jacksonville CSX Transflo .................. ...... ...... ...... ................ ...... ........ .................................. 57 3-4 Jacksonville Port Transflo .. ...... .... ............... ..................... : ....... .... ...... .... ...... ...... ....... ... ......... 57 3-5 Jacksonville CSXT Tallyrand Auto Distribution Cente r ............... ................ .... ................... 58 3-6 Jacksonville FEC Intermodal ........................... ............................................ ... ..... ............... 58 3-7 Jacksonville Hec kscher Intermodal ................................. ..... .... ...... .......................... ............ 59 3 8 Jacksonville Heckscher ................................................................ .... ........................ ... ........... 59 3-9 Jacksonville Heckscher .................... ................ ....... ................................... ....... ...... : ............ 60 3-10 Jacksonville lAP ... ......... ... ........ .... ..... ................ ...... : ......... ....... ... ...... ..................... .... ........ 60 3-11 Jacksonville U.S. Postal Service ............................. .... ............. ......................... .... ............. 61 3-12 Jacksonville U.S. Postal Service BMC .......... .................................... .... ....... ...... .... ...... : .... 61 3-13 Jacksonville CSXI-SC .... ... ............................................... ..... ...... .............. ..... ................. 62 3-1 4 JacksonvilleNS West Jax .................. .. ................................... ........................................... 62 3-15 Daytona United States Post Office .......................................................................... ........... 63 3-16 Miami FECRail Intermodal ................................. ........ .................................. ......... ........... 63 3-17 Miami International Airport Fede ral Express ........................ ..................................... .... .... 64 3 18 Miami Internation al Airp ort ................... ........ .................................. ......... .......... ................ 64 3-19 Port ofMiami ............ .......................................... ............. ... .... .... ...... ..... ............ . .............. 65 3 -20 Miarni RPS Medley ........ .............. ................................... ........... ....... ...... .............. ..... . ..... 65 3-21 Tampa Port N Porti o n ...... .................................................... ......... ..... ....... ...... ... .............. 66 3-22 Tampa Port S. Portion .................................... .... ..................................... .. ...... ................ ... .. 66 3-23 Tarnpa CSXT Auto Distribut ion Center ........... ......... ............... .............. .... .............. .......... 67 3-24 Tarnpa CSXTTransflo ...... ...... ........... ....... ............................ .......... ................................... 67 3-25 Tampa CSXT Intermoda1 ...... .......... .... .............. ................. ................... ..................... ......... 68 3-26 Tampa I nternational Airport . ................ .... ............................ ................. ... .... .... ................. 68 IV

PAGE 7

LIS T OF MAP S Map l. USPS Miami F&tiC and Federal Express .......... ................ : ... ......... . ...... .... ... . . ..... .... ..... 12 Map 2. FIHS Freight Loading i n TEUs ......... ......... ............. ..... . .... ...... ... . ... .... .... ................ .... 13 Map 3. Flo ri da Strategic Freight Network (FIHS Terminals, & Connectors) .... .... .... ..... ..... ... 16 Map 4. Tampa Freight Connectors .... ............ . ........ ..... ........... ... ... ... . . ... ... .... . .... ....... . .... . ... .. !? Map 5. Florida's Fre i ght Rail System ............. .... ... .................. . ................. . ... ..... ........ ..... ... ..... 18 Map 6. Gateway Volu m e on Florida's Strategi c Freight Networ k .... . .......... ...... . . ... ....... . ....... 22 4-1 Cleanvater ............... ............................. ................. ... ...... ...... ..... ........ .................... .......... ..... 69 4-2 Daytona USPS P & DC . .... . .......... . .... ........ . .... . ......... ......... ........ .... .... .... .... . .... . ....... ....... 69 4 3 St Petersburg F ederal Express .......... .... .... ....... ... . . ....... .... . ... .......... ......... ...... ....... .... ..... ... 70 4 4 Ft Lau derdale USPS P & D C . ..... ... .............. ......... ........ ...... ..... ... ....... . .... .... ...... ....... ... ..... 70 4 5 Ft Lauderdale South Florida P & DC .. ............ ..... .... .... .... .......... .... . .... ..... . .... ........ ... ........ 71 4 6 Ft Myers USPS P & DC ... . .... . . . ... ..................... ..... ...... ......... . . ... .... .... . ... ... . .... ... .... ... .. 71 4-7 Ft Myers USPS ....... ...... ...... ...... ....... . ............... ....... ..... . ........ . ...... .... . ..... . ....... ... ........... 72 4 8 Gainesvill e USPS P & DC .. ... .... .. . ... ... . ... ....... .......... ...... ... ....... ................. . ... . .............. . 72 4 Jacksonville Federal Express .. .... ............. ....... ....... .......... ......... ....... .......... .......... .... ...... ... .... 73 4 10 Jacksonville USPS . ...... . .... ..... .... ............ ... . . ... .. .......... ........... .... .......... ..... ....... ... ....... 73 4-1 1 Jac ks onville USPS P& DC ..... .... .. ..... . . ... ...... ........ ...... ... . ....... . . ............ . . ....... . ....... 74 4 -12 Lakelan d Discou n t Aut o ...... ..... . ..... ..................... ..... . ......... .... ......... . .... .. .... . ... ...... ... ... 74 4-13 . Lakeland USPS P & DC ..... .... ...... ... ... ... .. ... ... ................. ............ .... . . ......... ......... ...... ... 75 4-14 Manatee Sarasota USPS P & DC . . ..... .......... .... . : ... . .......... .... .... ................ ... ................ 75 4-15 Miami Airport USPS P & DC and Federal Express ...... .... . ... . .......... .. ...... .. ... ....... ... . .... ... 76 4-16 Miami RPS ......................... ................ ..... ... ... ... ..... .. ......... ... ...... ... ... ........... .... .... ............... 76 4-17 Ocala RPS .............. .. ..... ...... .... ...... .............. ...................................... ............... .. ................ 77 4-18 Ocala RPS ............ .... . .... ........... ... ... ... .... . ...... ... .......... ... . . ... . ................ ... .... . ..... ......... 77 4 -19 Orlando Eckerd Drug Distribution and RPS O rlan do ...... .... . ... ........ .... . . .... . ....... ... ...... 78 4 -20 Orlando Ai1port Federal Express and USPS P & DC ....... .................................... ....... ... ... 7 8 4-21 Panama Ci t y USPS P & DC .. ....... .... ... ...... ... ... ............... . . ..... ....... .......... . . ..... . . . ......... 79 4-22 P anama Cit y USP S P & DC .... ... ... .... ... ..... ... .... ...... ......... ............ ... ... ... ... .. . ....... .... ...... 79 4 -23 Pensacola RPS ........ ... ................................... ....... ...... ................. ... .. ..... ................. ......... .. 80 424 Pensaco l a RPS ........... . ... ... .... . ..... .... ....... ......... . . ... ... .... . ... ..... .. ...... ................ ....... .... 80 v

PAGE 8

4-25 Pensacola RPS ... ........ ............ .................. ...... ........ ............... ... ............ ............. ....... ........ 81 Pensacola USPS P & DC ...... .... ...... ........ .... ........ ........................... ...... ...... .................... ...... 81 4-27 St Petersburg RPS ............... ................................................................................................. 82 4-28 West Palm Beach RPS ................ ................ .... ...... . : ................................. ......... ................ . 82 4-29 Tallahassee USPS P & DC and Federal Express ....... ............ ..................... ...... ............... 83 4-30 Tallahassee USPS P & DC .............................. ....................... .... .................... ...... .... ... ....... 83 4-31 Tampa RPS .......... ... .... .................. .................................... ....................... ........ .................... 84 4-32 Tampa Airport USPS P & DC : 84 4-33 Mid-Florida USPS P & DC ................................................ ............ ................................... 85 4-34 St. Petersburg USPS P & DC .............................................................................................. 85 4-35 West Palm Beach USPS P & DC ...... ............... ..................... .... ........... ........ ...................... 86 VI

PAGE 9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Florida Freigh t Stakeholders Task Force was formed as a result of the Governor's Intennodal Transportation Summit held on June 18, 1998 in Jacksonville. The Task Fo rc e was to be a private/public partne rs hip that would address the needs of Florida's intennodal f rei ght transportation The Task Force was organized into five subcommi ttees on August 6 1998, at a meeting in Tallahassee sponsored by the Florida DOT. The s ubcommittee chairs formed an Executive Committee to manage the work of the Task Force. In addition, the Task Force agreed to limit the scope of its work to freight intennodal t ransportation issues and not passenger transportation The following Task Force objectives were defmed: Identify, prioritize and recommend freight uansportation projects for fast-trac k funding. Develop recomm endat ions for the 2020 Florida Statewide Intermodal System s Plan that will addres s F l o rida's freight transportation interests OBJECTIVE 1 -PROJECT SELECTION To identify and prioritize freight projects, it was nece ssary to firs t establish geograph ical boundaries and criteria for project definition. This led to development of the Florida Strategic F reight Netwo rk. Priority freight projects had to be on the defined freight network. This net work includes the Florida Inuastate Highway System (FIRS); primary freight facilities inc l udin g ports, air freight t erminals, rai l interrnod al terminals and highway freigh t terminals; and road connections between the Fll:IS and the freight facilities. The Task Force, working with the Center fo r Urban Transportatio n Research (CUTR), defined the freight network and CUTR developed the freight network mop T h e second step in the p rocess began with development of a prioritization methodology to evaluate freight project s for selection. This method ology, which was developed by CUTR, began w ith the eligibilit y criteria. To be eligible for consideration, proj ects had t o: be located on the Suategic Freight Network facilitate freight movement, and have a publi c benefit to cost ratio greater than one. Once a project was deeme d t o be an eligible freight proje c t, it was then prioritized with other projects using a scoring system that took into acc ount the following criteria: benefit to cost ratio stage of developmen t /environmen tal compliance tim e to complete project current leve l of service (LOS) actua l/critical safety rating neighborhood impacts of the project current freight volume I

PAGE 10

, . . The third step in the process was the identiflthtioil, prioritization, and selection of projects for fast-track funding. In sup port of this effort, the Florida Legislature appropriated $10 million to fund freight projects recommended by the Freight Task Force. This appropriation enabled the Task Force to establish a pilot fast-track program, with the $10 million funding capability as an integral part of thls objective. To identify projects for this fast-track program, the Florida DOT first identif ied "freight" projects currently existing in public sector work programs. In addition, the Task Force solicited applications for fast-track funding from Task Force members, :Ml'Os, ports, and airports. The response included applications for 1 7 projects totaling $101.3 million. Each application was reviewed and then prioritized by CUfR using the methodology outlined above. The Task Force Executive Committee !hen reviewed the projects and made its recommendations. With resources limited to $10 million, the overall-goal was to maximize the value of the projects funded. Table 1 is a summary of projects that were recommended for funding by the Freight Task Force utilizing the $10 million allocation. Table 1. Projects Recommended for Funding PROJECT FACILITY FUNDING LOCATION RECOMMENDED lmprovementsto NW 36th Street NW 67th Avenue Miami $1,500,000 and 67th Avenue {Ludlum Road) at 36th Street Rehabilitadon of railuacks leading to HoolccB Point l.cad Traclc Tampa $2,760.000 Tampa Port Authority's Hookers Point Terminal Air cargo Fron.oge Road Air Cargo Fron.oge Road Tampa $1,000,000 intersection improvements intersection improvements Design and comitruction of cargo Alternate Access Jatksonville S2.500,000 Area Access Road at Jacksonville b>temational AiJport (l!A) Eller Drive FEC/O,erpass Bridge Eller Dri,e Fl. Lauderilale S2,000,000 Additional research studies related to f'Tcight and goods movement in Florida TOTAL S240.000 $10,000.000 Five additional projects were considered highly worthy but could not be funded wi thin the $10 million appropriation. These projects were recommended for acceleration of funding within the nonnal work program process. In addition, these project applications were submitted for consideration in the recently established FDOT "Fast-Track" funding program. Tab le 2 is a summary of these projects. 2

PAGE 11

Table 2. Projects Recommended for Ac:Weroted Funding . Project Facilily Location Fllndlng R ecommended lmpmvcrnent:s '0 NW ZS\h S t reet Vll'dutt NW 2Sth S treet Viaduct Miami $48.500,000 Rebuilding SW 4th A\cnuc in Fort La.ucltnlalc SW 4lh Avenue Port Lauderdale 52,500,000 Widening ofSR-436 from 4 10 61anes SR436 Orlando $10,000.000 Plwe I of access 111\1! Sth and NE lst and 2nd Miami $7,000,000 6ch SU..U /1st and 2lld AvtOU
PAGE 12

. recommended that $240,000 of the $10 million fast -track appropriation be allocated t o CUTR for this research work. Conduct a Florida International Trade and Port .Strategy Study to define specific trade corridor strategies and the supporting port investment priorities. Ten projects totaling $34.9 million were submiued by seven of Florida's fourteen ports. Florida ports compete directly with major ports in neighboring states where funding can be focused on a few key ports. A comprehensive, professionally prepared strat egy study will provide needed guidelines for port infrastructure investment. This will assist in prioritizing port investment to optimize use of available funds. Establish a Florida Freight Advisory Council within FDOT. The blending of private sector and public sector professionals within the Task Force created an effective team for dealing with fTeight transportation issues. This structure serves as a model for the Freight Council of the future in dealing with fast-track projec t selection and development of the freight transportation strategy needed to support future economic development and international trade. Establish Freight Mobility Committees In the largest MPOs. One of the concerns of the private sector members of the Task Force was the difficulty in understanding and participating in the MPO process. A freight mobility committee with members from the freight industry could provide access to the MPO process and act as a sponsor for the projects of the MPO's freight constituents. Create a Florida Freight Project Investment Bank to fund freight projects. The Bank would be the mechanism for identifying funding sources and securing funds for well-justified projects. I t could utilize federal, state, local and private funds. FDOT would develop appropriate expertise to consolidate a variety of funding sources to facilitate funding of projects through the Bank. 4

PAGE 13

INTRODUCTION The Florida Freight Stakeholders Task Force was formed as a result of the Governor's lntermodal Transportation Summit held on June 18, 1998, in Jacksonville. A key outcome of the Summit was the recommendation to form a statewide lntennodal Freight Task Force to assist in the development of the Department of Transportation's plan for intermoda1 facilities of statewide significance. The Task Force was organized August 6, 1998, at a meeting in Tallahassee. Its primary purpose was to be a results-oriented public/private partnership to assist the development of the Florida Department of Transportation's Year 2020 F l orida Statewide Intermodal Systems Plan for intermodal connections, corridors, and facilities of statewide significance. These facilities are required to support Florida's e c onomic growth through intermodal movement of people and freight within the state. Additionally, the Task Force was to develop an inventory of "quick fix" solu t ions that can be implemented in the near term to help give immediate relief to freight movement for both public and private sectors Each finn, MPO, airport, seaport, and agency represented at the Governor's Summit was encouraged to designate a representative to serve on the Task Force Categorical issues and requirements to be addressed by the Task Force will include the following: Institutional issues. These issues pertain to recommended changes to procedures, policies and rules that impact the working relationships among government at all levels, private businesses, and other freight transportation stakeholders Operational iss u es. These pertain to recommended changes or innovative approaches to the way that freight movement can be achieved. Inter modal access infrastructure requirements. lntennodal projects of statewide significance were identified and prioritiz.ed. Funding requirements. Sources of public and private funding for prioritized intennodal access projec t s of statewide significance were to be i dentified. Peter A. Rutski, Vice President for Business Planning CSX lntermodal, was elected to serve as Chair Jeff Koons, Commissioner, Palm Beach County MPO, was elected Vice Chair. The Task F orce was divided into five functionally aligned subcommittees The subcommittee chairs along with the Task Force Chair and Vice Chair formed an Executive Committee to manage the work of the Task Force. Under t heir leadership, the Tas k Force, with assistance from the Florida Department of Transportation and the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR), was ab l e to complete the challenging objective of setting the initia l course f or int ermodal freight transportation improvements in Florida The milestones in Table 3 were established at the June 18, 1998 Summit: 5

PAGE 14

Table 3. Milestones Date August 1, 1 998 Decemb er I 1998 June 1, 1999 December I, 1999 July 1 2000 Task Hold first Freight Stakeholders Task Foroe meeti ng Assess current intermodal transportati on system \\ith a view towards conso lidating existing plans and current projects; I dentify Goals and strategies for desired future intermodal system; Develop initial nocds Jist o f intermodal projects of statewide significance Develop scoring' system to prioritize needs list; Formulate a prioritized list of intermodal projects of statewidesignificance. I dentify public and private funding sources to finance the prioritized list of statewide sign ificant intermodal projects; Develop an intennodal project implem entation schedule Implement work on ''Quick start" intermodal proje cts of statewide significance The Task Force defined two primary objectives as follows. OBJECTIVE ONE Assess the current state of the freight transportation system and recommend freight transportation projects for "fast track" fundili_ g. Fou r steps were required: define and assess existing freight intermodal facilities, designa t e and map the Florida Strategic Freight Network, develop a prioritization methodology to rank intermodal freight projects, and identify prioritize, and select freight tr.msportation projects for fast-track funding. OBJECTIVE Two Develop recommendations for theY car 2020 Florida Statewide Jntermodal Systems Plan that wiiJ' address Florida's freight transportation interests. These include recommendations for: a methodology for prioritizing freight projects, sources of funding for freight related projects, and methods to integrate freight considerations into the transportation planning process 6

PAGE 15

OVERVIEW OF MEETING ACTIVITIES Since the initial meeting Tallai)assee on August 6, 1998, the Florida Freight Stakeholders Task Force has met three additional times as a Full Task Force: on January 14, 1999 in Jacksonville, on July 20. 1999, and November 17 1999 in Tallahassee. The five subcommittees (Rail Air Ocean, Highway and Legislation & Policy) have also met several t imes. The Executi ve Committee, made up of the Chair and the five Subcommittee Chairs have either met or teleconferenced regularly for the past year (Table 4}. Table 4. Committee Meetings and Teleconferences Date Location or Remarks for analysis; mission of task force; Sea Transponation Economic Development Program; port representation on MPOs; project Tasked to work with subconunittees to overall network. meeting held with and involvement the Task Force. New .membership of Transportation Commission was to process 513199 Executive million 7

PAGE 16

Date Committee j or Remarks recommende d the project list b e d ivided into a short term and long term list. Disussed the FIHS and the impact of IE; :;me terminal to highwa y connections; discussed prioritization system and pro j ect evaluatio n factors; subcommittee reportS; preview of Jllly l"'"'" ful; 1 items iT. 17/ 1 of I to the T"'" nd I""'" 1
PAGE 17

freight movement, plotted them on the freight network, and developed a methodology that can be used to prioritize potential freight projects. At the full Task F orce meeting in Tallahassee on July 20, 1 999, Chairman Rutski and staff from CUTR demonstrated significant progress toward achieving the two objectives. The first objective to identify and prioritize freight projects was near completion and the Florida Strategic Freight Network had been identified to include; all roadways on the Florida Intrastate Highway System, connectors to all seaports, connectors to the six (6) largest freight airports. all Class I, n and ill railroads, all statewide significant intermodal facilities (private TOFC/COFC facilities, public seaports, six largest air cargo airports} and certain other roadways that currently carry more than 10 million gross tons of freight annually. Additionally, projects that benefit freight and are currently in public sector work programs were identified. Ten million dollars was appropriated by the 1999 Legislature and was made available to the Task Force to "fast-track" these and other eligible freight projects. Eligible projects included those that improved off-facility access to airports or seaports. Applications for funding were sent to all eligible airport and seaport facility operators, with applications due back to the DOT on August 20. CUTR was tasked to apply the recommended prioritization criteria to the applications and provide the Task Force with a Jist of the results from which the Task Force membership could make a final selecti .on of projects to be funded with the allocated funds. Additionally, initial recommendations to be included in the FY. 2020 Florida Statewide Intermodal System Plan were drafted. These included: I. Establishing the Florida Freight Network in the Plan, including appropriate service standards and providing a process to maintain the network map. 2. Creating a Freight Project Investment Bank (FPffi) to fund Fast-Track freight projects. This would include funding through grants, gifts, loan. s and loan guarantees, utilizing state and federal funding, and consolidating funding sources for freight projects. 3. Establishing a F lorida Freight Council within FDO'i'. This Council would include private sector transportation and financial professionals plus public sector representatives whose duties would include reviewing, prioritizing and select project& annually for Past Track funding through the FPffi, insuring projects are consistent with statewide development strategies and managing FPm capital resources to ensure funding of all high priority high return projects. 4. Adopting and improving upon the Florida Freight Stakeholders Task Force process for prioritization and selection of freight projects. As envisioned by CUTR, this process will include both benefit/cost analysis and analysis of the impact on neighborhoods, the environment and the current stage of project development. 5. Establishing MPO "Freight Advisory Committees" in the largest MPOs. These committees would function as the Community Advisory Committees (CACs) and Technical Advisoty Committees (T ACs) currently do and would include members from the private sector freight 9

PAGE 18

industry who would act as sponsors for freight p rojects. This would also provide privaie sector fTeight facility owners and operators direct access to the MPO process. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES There were two primary objectives established by the Task Force. First, was to assess the current state of the f reig h t transp011ation system and recommend freight transportation projects for "fast-track" funding. Second, to develop recommendations for the Year 2020 Florida Statewide Intermodal Systems Plan. Objective One included assessing the existing freight interrnodal network. This included freight terminals for each of the modes and the network of connecting highways and railways. OBJECTIVE ONE To meet this broad objective, the Task Force, with assistance from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) completed four major s t eps. First, the existing interrnodal facilities were identified and assessed. Second, the Florida Strategic Freight Network was defined as the combination of the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS), major freight facilities, and their roadway connections to the FIHS Once defined, CUTR developed a map of the netwo rk. Third, CUTR developed and applied a prioritization methodology to a list of potential projects for fastt rack" funding Finally, the Task Force members evaluated the prioritized output and selected specific projects for funding. Following is a discussion of each of these four steps. TASK 1. INVENTORY EXISTING FREIGHT FACILmES. 1.1. Defmc the Freight Network. The project team began with the definition of a f reight network for the state of Florida. The first building block the network originally consisted of the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS). The FffiS consists of high volume, high speed, inter-regional and inter-city travel corridors delineated by highway seg ments on the F ederal Inters tate System, the Florida Turnpike, and other designated long-distance travel routes. Since the FIHS 'vas already defined, using it as a s tarting point represen ted enormous time-savings for the project. Individual route segmen ts of road projects identified on a list provided by FDOT were "route selected" (combined into a single route segment) and geocoded The Task Force defined two primary objectives as follows. The Task Force defined two primary objectives as follows. This was a tedious process requi ring two individuals to complete and ensure accuracy. The team also sorted and grouped project s into four categories: ports, airports, rail, and truck. Each segments for each group of projects was "route-selected" and geocoded separately resulting in four sepa rate statewide maps. For example, all of the routes and terminals associated with the ports were combined into one map whi.le the routes for rail connectors and terminals were combined 10

PAGE 19

. into another map. This allowed for the production of separate maps for each category if necessary, as well as a combined terminalfconnector map color coded by category. While duplicating routes was not a significant problem, it was a time consuming one, especially on several long (>10 mile) routes in the Panhandle region. Due to the nature of the programs used for route selection, these long routes took a considerable amourit of time to input. In short, every version of the statewide map resulted in a minimum of one day's work for two people. Additionally, there were several revisions ordered throughout the project that were also time consuming. For example, the exact locations of some of the terminals required revisions and corrections to previously geocoded tables. Another revision required mapping the rail network. Each revision resulted in a shifting of priorities from other project requirements such as data presentation and layout design. 1.2. Identify Major Freight Terminals The next step was to identify major freight terminals around the state. To accomplish this, the modal subcommittees representing the four transportation modes and fre i ght policy covered by the stakeholders were used to solicit the information required on the location of the various terminals. Terminals were identi f ied according to function: Rail Seaports Truck Airports The chair of each of these modal subcommittees was tasked to work within their group to determine a list of priority terminals associated with the mode in question. This approach allowed those with the best information regarding terminal activity to help determine which of the hundreds of freight facilities within the state were most important. The inventory, as well as the entire process that follows; was considered by the project team to be the beginning of a long adaptive process. Future freight activity in the state of Florida will subsequently result in updates and revisions of much of this inventory as patterns of trade and commerce merit. Each of the modal subcommittees thus determined which facilities represented the largest contributors to the freight transportation networ\< in the state The lists of facilities were submitted to the overall Task Force and, ultimately, to the Department ofTranspomition and the project team. Data was received from a variety of sources in highly variable formats. Sources included the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), CSX Rail, the United States Postal Service (USPS), Federal Express, United Parcel Service (UPS), various port and airport authorities, and retail chains such as Publix Supermarkets, and Eckerd's Drugs. Many major highway users failed to provide the locations of their terminals, their annualized truck volume, or their connecter routes. As a result, many terminals and connectors have not been identified and highway freight demand is actually higher than indicated. 11

PAGE 20

Some sources pr ovided detailed and easily interpreted infonnation with routes and terminals clearly highlighted on maps as well as total Truck Equivalent Units (TEUs) for their operations. Others provided written descriptions for the locations of their terminals and connections to major transportation routes. Still others simply provided the addresses of their terminals which require d the team to interpret Lhe most likely connectin g roads to the major transportation routes. Map 1 below is an example of a map used by the project team to determine the locations of the various tenninals. Maps for the remaining facilities can be found in Appendix 3. ....... I I I . -. ___ ... "'!'-.... I l It ... """ Map 1 USPS Miami F&DC lllld Federal Express ......... .. ""oo.. -. --1 .. ..... -. ; 1 ... """ .. ... l .... "t .. l ..... ....... -The sources that provide the least amount of data required team members to first input addresses of the tenninals into a map-plotting program that p inpointed the terminal locations on an area map along with their geographic coordinates. This infonnation was used to determine the most likely connec t ing routes and to geocode the locations into tables used t o produce the map outputs. This additional step required several extra days of processing time because the data trickled in over a two-week period requiri n g interruption of other required tasks to input the new data as it arrived. FOOT provided infonnation on projected road projects in tabular fonnat requiring only that we determine which projects applied to FFSP. Initially every project on the list was a candidate for geocoding. Eventually however, an updated table was received with the pertinent projects highlighted reducing the number of projects that required geocoding. Even though some of the projects were already input they were duplicated as part of the new m3j!ping table. 12

PAGE 21

Truck Equivalent Units (TEUs) were estimated for many tenninals because these locations failed to provide data on actua l or projected TEUs as requested. This information was critical to evaluating the amount of trucks using the connectors to the major transportation routes and evaluating the load on the Florida Intra-Staie Highway System (FIHS). Different methods were employed to calculate TEUs depending on the form of the data provided. For instance, some sources provided TEUs directly requiring no calculations such as the data provided by FDOT on the FffiS and secondary road network. Others provided gross cargo tonnage that was converted to TEUs based on the approximate gross cargo capacity per truck. In the instance of automobile transflo terminals, TEUs were calculated based on the total annual capacity of the terminals divided by the total number of automobiles normally carried on a truck tran sport vehicle. In some cases, only the storage capacity of the terminal warehouse was available to approximate the volume in TEUs. In almost every case, this information had to be ferreted out from the various source documents, converted to TEUs, and manually added to the previously geocoded map browser tables. Map 2. FlliS Freight Loading in TEUs . * J,l,)l) ,._ .. ... .. v.... 0 100 13 ...... ....

PAGE 22

1.3. Determine Optimum Data Structure This task involved determining the best data structure that could be freely exchanged over all transportation modes In a cooperative process, the project team, the assembled task force, and the modal committees determined the best data structure and reporting items for the assembled list of tenninals. Ul timate ly the most important data were. detennined to be the actual location of the tenninal, the volume of freight throughput measured in tonnage, and the volume of truck traffic generated by each of these facilities t o be absorbed by the FffiS Although other data were available, it became clear that this particular subset represented a uniform list of informati on that could be freely exchanged over all of the transportation modes_. At the same time, this data was highly comparable between modes, regions, and different facility scales. 1.4. Determine Location of Terminal Facilities Location was initially detennined by a street address and in some cases, by the nearest intersection. This particular attribute was the most fundamental from the standpoint of geographic analysis particularly in the detennination of connectors to the h ighway system. Having the modal representatives note the location of their facilities both by address, and by marking a map seemed to be the simplest and most d ir ect way to determine location. In some cases, most notably for the rail industry, this was indeed the case. In other situations, street addresses turned out to be the location of office buildings, mail drafts, or the calculated address of a rural mailbox. The most vexing problem occurred when street addresses referred to streets with multiple names or, more frequently, to highways that were not currently covered by the databases generally available for public use. This is a common problem in rapidly expanding parts of the state, especially in newly formed industrial parks, where many freight-forwarding facilities were r elocated. This problem also occurs in previously estab lished areas when new road connections are established and the street address of a facility is shifted to a new point of access. Accurately detennining loca tion was critical in developing the conne cto r network because this established one end of a connection to the existing spine of the freight network such as the Intrastate Highway System. Thus, the project team took extreme care when id entifying trade tenninals with respect to each of the modes. The problems encountered were not exclusive to a particular mode or type of organization. public or private. For example, many a irports around the state where initially identified by the location of the center point of a runway, the center point of the overall property or the location of a passenger terminal or control tower facility. For the purpose of this analysis, it was paramount to make the location of the airport correspond to the actual physicall6cation of the freight facility. The project team took great pains to assure that multiple facilities, such as those located in major airports (Tampa International Airport, MiamiDade International Airport Orlando International Airport and Jacksonville International A irp ort) were clearly identified and separately represented on the final display products. Overall, the develo pment of a tenninals database" proved to be a much more complicated and time consuming effort than originally envisioned by either the Task Force or the project team. The process was often painstaking in terms of detail and required substantial manual effort to identify some locations 14

PAGE 23

1.5. Verification of Terminal Location s Once t h e locations were detennined, they were verified with the p art icipants and with aerial photographs from the U.S. Geo l ogical Survey database. Photo 1 is an example of verification us ing aerial photography to locate a tenninal facility and connec ting roadway . Photo 1. Orlando CSX Auto Distribution Ccntcr Ultimately all o f the m ate rials involved in establishing the facility locat ions were pulled together and are represented as the point loca tions in map materi als such as the FlliS, tenninals and connectors i n Map 3 on page 16. This map was created by combining the individual terminal layers (port, rail, etc.) with layers containing the PIHS, the connector routes, and rail lines : Tables showing level of freight activity and other a ttrib utes were also converted to display maps. Additional public domain aerial representa t ions of the project facilities and areas involved in the study similar to Photo I above can be found in 3. 15

PAGE 24

Map 3. Florida Strategic Freight Network (FIHS, Terminals, & Connectors) -.. -0." ..... -0ooolb' --Q._... ....... FLORID A'S STRATEGIC FREIGHT NETWORK TASK 2. DESIGNATION OF STltA TEGIC NETWORK The next step in the process was t o connect the te. rminal facilities identified in the inventory with the highway, rail, and other tra nsporta tion networks. The U .S. Department of Transportation had previously defined two separate versions of a nationwide system of major roads, railways, and other modes that connected the entire nation to rail tenninals, seaports, and airports. These two efforts -the National Highway Planning Network (NHPN) and the National Highway System (NHS) designation-illustra ted many of the planning concepts that would be useful in the establishment of a Florida freight network. 2.1 Road and Stree t Connectors The effort of the Task Force began with the Florida Intrastate Highway System and the terminals defined in the previous section of this report. A subsequent analysis required by the Federal Highway Administration identified a number of major inter-modal terminals that were carryovers from the earlier National Highway Planning Network and the National Highway System as currently designated. These connectors represented both fre ight and passenger connections to the National Highway System without specific identification of either passenger-only or freight only linkages. A sample map of these connectors for Tampa can be seen in Map 4. Comparison of many of the inte r -modal facilit ies identi fied as part of the National Highway System indicated that although a large number o f these facilities has been accurately detected, other facili t ies had either been excluded completely as in the case of truck terminals, or had been badly situated or misidentified. 16

PAGE 25

Map 4. Tampa FreiaJ!t Connectors FLORIDA'S STRATEGIC F REIG H T NETWORK 1 f : .!"YY" .. L i ; ---.,...,---'Cj TAII'PA ....... ... Road an d s tre e t connec t ions between th e F.ffiS and the freight termi nals were id entified by the Task Force b ased o n t he following criteri a The facilities had to connect freight terminals to the FIHS. Roadways were identified that were clearly in the higher functio n al classes and, wherever possible, did not pass through otherwise residential areas. The analysis placed some degree of emphasis on screening the seleetion of connectors to avoid adverse impacts on the public. As m uch as possible, a strong link between freight connectors and the State Highway System a t l arge were maintained. O p p ortun it i es to include t he Nationa l Highway Systetl) con nec t ors p reviously ident i fie d and to us e r o utes that served the need s of mul tiple termina ls, when ever possible, were act ivel y sought. When e ver possible, the actual travel routes used by their drivers on a routine basis were designated by terminal operators and transportation providers. Thus, routes actually used by truck drivers with the full knowledge of terminal managers were merged into the network. 17

PAGE 26

2.2 Defining the Rail Freight Netwo r k Having defined the FIRS, major freight tenninals. and roadway connectors, the Task Force then set out to complete the surface freight transponailon "picture" via the addition of (private) rail freight lines to the freight network. The Task Force also added state highways with significant truck traffic and freight tonnage to Florida's Strategic Freight Network. Florida Rail Fre ight System 2.3 R o u te Selection and Geocod i n g N Major elements of the Strategic Freight Network (i.e., FIHS, NHS connectors) had previously been reviewed and endorsed by the FDOT Districts and the Metropolitan P l anning Organizations. All projects that were subsequently prioritized by the Task Force came from tho existing FDOT work program and MPO transportation improvement programs. Tenninal operators and transportation providers designated the actual travel routes used by their operators wherever possible. Thus, routes actually used by truck drivers \vith the full knowledge of tenninal managers were merged into the network map. These are real-world travel patterns, even though reported anecdotally. The result was a higher degree of credibility in designatin g those routes when compared to the use of a shortest path algorithm, even if such were based on an accurate detection of the truck-carrying capabilities of local roads and streets. The local s treet system based upon the proprietary BTAK-GDT stree t system for Fl orid a for 1997 was used for select ion and coding. Despite this fact the project team detected a number of missing road links in the street database. The team manually connected the links and coded them into the network. In the initial phases of the analysis, the rpadways that were included in the system as connectors were not identified by the Department of Transportation's traditional 18

PAGE 27

"county-section -mile post" identification b u t rather, were designated with census line identifications, address ranges, street names, and other stree t network i dentification numbers The final portion of the roadway analys i s involved the combination o f individual street segments into continuous roadway section s which u l tima t e l y will be identified with temporary State Highway System identification numbers so that data prepared in this s tudy will b e consistent with other FDOT Highway inventory material. Table 5 below is a breakout of mileages by county of the FIHS, SHS where freight loading is greater than or equal to three; rail network, and t erminal connector roadways. It also includes t he number of major freight terminals located in each county. Total mileage for the entire network including the connectors is 11136 miles. The mileages are based on 1998 data that is consistent with other data used in the economic analysis and project selection process. Additions to the network made in 1999 are not i ncluded in th i s table Table 5 System Mileage By County SHS 101.73 83.72 81.53 0.89 1 25.38 25.38 51.43 0 .00 0 78.07 52.92 55.59 8.05 2 20.32 20 32 20.99 0.00 0 90.64 101.83 91.02 8.50 2 169.33 206 53 48.74 17.31 7 0.00 0 22 0.00 0.00 0 30.71 22 07 50.60 0.00 0 4 9.25 4.1 7 17.96 0 .00 0 5.53 31.23 53.75 0.00 0 63.60 93.78 0.00 0.00 0 51.17 53.92 43.50 0.00 0 189.23 251.5 8 80.38 1 5.9 1 8 57.05 0 .00 3 .04 0.00 0 29.17 29.17 16.66 0.00 0 124.38 224 28 104 86 64. 57 17 23 33 74.69 62.27 2.09 2 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0 18.69 18 .69 0 .00 0 .00 0 0.00 0.00 2 64 0.00 0 33.56 44.93 62.63 0 .00 0 18 32 0.6 1 20.83 0.00 0 41.52 29. 0 0 28.52 0.00 0 19

PAGE 28

HAMILTON 28.77 28.77 25.08 0.00 0 HARDEE 37.96 10.8 7 37.92 0.00 0 HENDRY 46.66 22.64 6.24 0.00 0 HERNANDO 53.04 71.02 0.00 3.06 1 HIGHLAND S 66.57 47.15 90.65 0.00 0 HILLSBOROUGH 144.37 297.63 156.48 2 9 .19 7 [HOLMES 15.32 1 5 .66 48.96 0.00 0 I ND IAN RIVE R 52.09 52.09 38.53 0 .00 0 64 62 65.00 58.56 0.00 0 EFFE RSON 44 57 29.22 26. 17 0.00 0 LAFAYETTE 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 LAK E 59.35 98.60 23.89 0.00 0 LEE 55.81 1 24.89 32.49 2.85 2 EON 36.18 32.06 25.62 12.60 3 EVY 74.97 8.21 26 .81 0.00 0 I BERTY 0.00 0.00 75.62 0.00 0 MADISON 38.68 32,63 78.97 0.00 0 ATEE 56.81 66. 94 33.30 15.89 2 MARION 95.73 60.96 101.33 3.78 2 MARTIN 68.47 59.09 86.72 0.00 0 MONROE 13.03 0 .00 0.00 1.80 1 NASSAU 40.56 46.85 65 .99 28.16 1 OKALOOSA 39 06 30.85 14.98 0.62 1 O KEE C HOBEE 37.35 22.02 13.97 0 .00 0 ORANGE 135.89 208.96 68 .06 15.34 8 OSCEOLA 9 1 .74 1 41.63 20. 70 0.00 0 PAL M BEACH 195.76 1 81.79 139.65 11.08 5 PASCO 45.90 65. 1 5 42.79 0.00 0 PINELLAS 61.67 140.15 35 .73 5 59 3 POLK 165.44 276.15 206 36 5.90 4 PUTNAM 36.22 42.08 37.17 0.00 0 ANTAROSA 44.45 45.16 52 75 0 .00 0 ARASOTA 42.66 62.43 20.18 0.06 0 EM IN OLE 26.61 25.67 29.84 8 .46 2 ST.JOHNS 47.77 38.69 66 .44 0.00 0 63.55 79.11 27.99 11.2() 1 SUMTER 48.10 88.27 41.62 0.00 0 SUWANNEE 29 15 29. 1 5 0.00 0.00 0 4 4 .97 29.86 10.91 0.00 0 UN I ON 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 VOLUS IA 100. 14 87.02 132.71 2.83 1 WAKULLA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0 WALTON 110.09 27.49 0.00 0.00 0 II WASHINGTON 23.22 16.72 0.00 0 0 0 0 !TOTAL 3 7 44.26 4 198.09 2917.98 275.73 83 20

PAGE 29

Table 6. below breaks out the mileage data by FDOT District and includes the District total for major terminals. Table 6. by FDOT District SHS Terminal Freight Total Rail Connect Total District FIHS G.E. 3 1 722.13 779 .95 523.25 24.71 8 2 717.08 723.08 704 .91 93.62 19 3 512.45 434.92 505.69 23.36 8 4 569.19 578.61 341.62 39.59 13 5 666.89 851.62 509.17 38.92 15 6 202.26 251.58 80.38 17.71 9 7 354.25 578.33 252.96 37.84 11 2.4 Presentation Strategy One of the most challenging portions of the project was developing a presentation strategy that accurately reflected the project data. For TEUs for connectors in each of the major cities were calculated for each group of data, port, rai l, etc. A detennination on how to visually present this informaiion in map format then had to be made. E ventually the team seUled on a scheme whereby the capacities of the terminal locations were represented by the size of the location i dentifiers and the capacities of the route s were represented by the thickness of the road or rail lines. However, once the maps were plotted we noted some problems with the route representations such as changing line width (truck volume) with no apparent exp l anation for the change (i.e., a major interchange where the number of trilcks using a route wo)Jid separate reducing the number of trucks on the next segment of the rou te) Instances of these occurrences throughout the state were noted and c orrected using an averaging system weighted toward the most prevalent category. In order to revise the maps, the erroneous route segments had to be individually "re-selected" and the data attached to the segments modified in the browser table. Another presentation challenge was how to represent the contribution of an individual city or area on the state as a whole To accomplish this pic charts where constructed to represent the contribution o f each category, port, rail, etc., on each of the major cities around the state. The charts were then sized based on the contribution o f a particular area, as a whole on the state. Map 6 illustrates this outcome of thi s procedure. Throughout the data presentation process, various layout designs were tried including several complicated layouts incorporating magnif ied cutaways of various ports, and terminals. Numerous revisions were made immed i ately prior to scheduled committee presentations. 21

PAGE 30

Toward the end of the project a major revision was ordered to include the impact of freight movement on the state's rail network This required the calculation of equivalent TEUs for the entire rail system and the construction of a new seri es of t hema tic maps that included the railroad contribution t o freight movement in the state .. ........ -------.. Map 6. Gateway Volume on Florida's Strategic Freight Network FLOR IDA'S STRATEGIC FREIGHT NETWORK JACII$0NvtLLE AA!;A TAJdPAARU. Fi nally aerial sectionals of the major terminals were generated using data from the U.S. Geological Survey database to provide a visual of the terminals in their surroundings. Additional copies of these aerials can be found in Appendix 3. This was a time consuming project due to the nature of the aerial photographs. For example some sectionals required the manual digital overlapping and matching of 10-20 photographs in order provide a s ingle image sectional at the highes t resolution (!-meter). In Photo 2 below, the Port of Miami required the overlapping of 19 images. 22

PAGE 31

TASK 3. PRIORITIZE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS A priority of the Task Force was to create a method to evaluate and prioritize freight improvement projects for potential funding This section describes classical project evaluation factors. It presents several methods for selecting projects, including illustrations of practices of a range of public sector organizations. Finally it presents a recommended framework for the Florida Freight Stakeholders Task Force. 3.1. Factors in Project Evaluation It is common in the planning and evaluation of projects in the public sector to consider a wide range of factors, which can be grouped into these principal areas: Economic Factors-Is the project worthwhile in terms of the public benefits derived from the expenditure of public funds? Environmemal Factors-Does the project negatively, or positively impact environmental resources i.e., air quality, and wetland systems or ambient noise levels? Social and Comm.11nity Factors-Does the project positively or negatively impact the community through which it passes? Has the community endorsed or opposed the proposed project? Each of these principal factors is discussed briefly in the following sections. 23

PAGE 32

3.1.1 Economic Factors The most frequently encountered element in project evaluation is usually an economic analysis. This includes several variations on the general theme of discounting future benefits and costs back to present-day values. The first approach is benefit cost analysis, widely used in the public sector. In this approach, the benefits and costs of a project are measured over time and brought back to present day dollars with an appropriate rate of discount (interest). A project with a benefit-cost ratio of exactly one meet an implicit test of feasibility in that the project's benefits equal out of pocket costs as well as the cost of capital. A benefit cost ratio in excess of one denotes a project that generates a return to capital greater than the rate of discount applied to future benefits and costs. A second approach is net present value analysis, widely used in both the public and private sectors This approach uses t he difference between benefits and costs, both discounted back to current year dollars, to measure the desirability of candidate projects. The decision criterion is the relative size of the difference between discounted benefits and costs for each candidate project. Projects with a net present value of exactly zero meet an implicit test of feasibility in that the project's benefits can cover out of pocket costs as well as the cost of capital. A positive net present value denotes a project that generates an implicit return to capital greater than the rate of discount applied to fu ture benefits and costs. The final category of economic analysis involves the use of internal rate of return, widely used in the private sector. The internal rate of return is the discount r ate for which the net present value of a project is equal to zero. The concept is that the internal rate of return indicates the real return of any project. It is a precise way of expressing a common notion of "return on investment" For evaluation, projects should thus be ranked from the highest internal rate of return on down. When ranking projects, typical benefits considered qy an economic selection process of transportation investments include: Time savings, including vehicle and occupant time, and capital charges on cargo and commercial vehicles Runn ing cost savings including fuel, depreciation, expenditures Crash cost reductions Typical costs that are considered include: Planning Preliminary engineering and environmental studies Design Right of way Construction 24

PAGE 33

Routine maintenance Periodic or cycli cal maintenance. 3.1.2. Environmental Faetors Beyond the economic factor s pr evious l y discussed, th ere are also environmental externalities that need to be considered in making a transportation investment in the public sector. In some ca ses, such as air quality and wat er qua lity, these impacts can be estimated. Obviously, higher leve l s of automotive and truck emissions would lead to diminished environmental quality just as additional amounts of runo f f fwm roadways would also reduce environmental quality. Although economists are able to measure several facets of environmental damage the cost to remediate damage and the indirect cost of avoiding lowered air and water quality, these impacts are often only a beginning point for the assessment of the environmental effects of a transportation investment. Because of t heir i mportance to society th ese environmenta l effects are usually quant ifie d to the extent practical, though they are not commonly converted to economic measures 3.1.3. Social /Community Factors The more diffuse environmen tal impacts actually border on a much wider set of concerns su ch as the social and community impacts of transportation investments. In some cases the social and community impacts of transportation can be positive. This might include the stimulation of eco nom ic activity or enhancing access to new jobs and other opportunities. In other cases, the impa cts can be quite n egative, for example d ividing communities and detracting from the neighborhood e n viro n ment As a resu l t, public sector decision-making embraces widespread social impact analysis and community involvement. 3.2. Project Selection Methods A number of methods are common l y employ ed to sift through the combination of economic env ir onmental and soc i al factors to arrive at project selection. To deal with the complexities of public sector economics, p u blic agencies have used various scoring methods that take into consideration a wide variety of factors including economic, environm e ntal, and community impacts Scoring methods begin with the establishment of a set of criteria against which each altemative will be measured. Once the eva lua tion c rit eria h ave been established, a numerical or descriptive scale can be developed tha t defines t h e degree 9f achiev ement of each altemative with respect to indiv id ual criteria Ultimately, an aggregate score is calculated for each alt ernative. A p p lying weights to various criteria can further refine eit her of these approaches. 3.2.1. Reliance on Economic A naly sis The first approach is the use of economic analysis All values in the analysis, whether they are time, human life, safe t y or commu nity amenities are all converted into d ollars and then applied t o some form of benefit cost, present value, or ra te of return anal ysis There is great skepticism re garding some aspects of th is quantification process, most notab l y in the area of community a nd environme ntal i mpacts. While the economic approach has a strong basis in 25

PAGE 34

:: . both practice and academic research, it is of limited usef u lness outside of a small group of variables. The economic approach can be used to measure the time savings of trave lers, reductions in operating costs, and reduction in accident costs. For these types of factors, economic analysis can be helpful, even in the public sector provided sufficient data are available. As the scope of the economic analysis widens to include different categories of roadways and vehicles, estimating transportation costs and benefits becomes much more problematic. Economic analysis, whether it makes use of benefit cost analysis, net present value, or internal rate of return is an important part of project evaluation. It can help answer the two critical questions: Is the proposed project worthwhile? Does it represent the best project among those being considered? An important element of any economic evaluation is establishing the frame of reference. As individuals or families it is comparatively easy to establish our frame of reference, as we weigh alternatives, deciding whether it is worthwhile to use our l imited resources for a particular good or to withhold those resources until some future time. Similarly, for private firms, i t is usually straightforward to establish the frame of reference. The delineation of costs and benefits as they impact the bottom-line of the private entity is fairly easy to define. For public agencies, the task is much more difficult. Differentiating costs and benefits, as they accrue to different elements of society or to society as a whole, can be a cha llenging task An equally important limitation of economic analysis in the public sector is the inability to assign accurate economic cost and benefit values to many factors of concern in the public sector. For example, assigning economic values to social costs su c h as air pollution, noise pollution, wetland impacts, community disruptions, and other environmental issues is problematic. Although economic analysis techniques can assist, the complexities of public sector project decision making normally result in public agencies including additional factors. 3.2.2. Scoring Methods In order to deal with these complexities, public agencies have widely used various scoting methods. These methods have the advantage of taking into consideration a wide variety of factors including environmental and community impacts. Scoring methods begin with the establishmen t of a set of criteria against which each alternative will be measured Some criteria can reflect economic analysis consideration such as costs and benefits. Others can represent measurable environmental and community impacts i.e., number of residential or business displacements, noise levels in dB A, tons of various criteria air pollutants, or acres of wetlands impacted. Still others may be much quantifiable and are reflected by a 26

PAGE 35

subjective measure. Factors such as degree of community support, reinforcement of community objects, and others may fit this pattern Once criteria are established, one method o f comparison is to rank orde r each alternative in tenns of its relative perfonnancc related to each individual criterion. For each criterion, projects are ranked from one through n, where one is the best and n is the worst. After all criteria have been evaluated and rank order scores appli ed for each alternative, the ranking for each alternative can be summed to arrive at an aggregate score, reflecting the various criteria. Final ly, alternatives are ranked based on their relative aggregate scores. This basic approach can be refined through the application of scaling methods. Once each criterion has been established a numerical or descriptive scale can be developed that defines the degree of achi evement of each alternative with respect to individual criteria. For example, a scale might be defined for residential displacements that equate zero displacements with a score of I, and 500 or more displacements with a score of 5, with intennediate values scaled accordingly. Thus, the quantitative measure of displacement associated with each alternative is converted into a numerical score between one and five Similar scales coul d be applied to other criteria and the performance for each altern at ive measured for each of the individualized criteria. l.ntimately as in the rank ordering case, an aggregate score is calculated for each alternative, based on a summation of the scores for the various criteria. Applying weights to various criteria can further refine either of these approaches. I f some criteria are more important than others, they can be weighted accordingly so th at they are reflected to a greater extent in the aggregate score for each alternative. With the assistance of CUTR, the Task Force considered a number of existing transportation project priority systems to evaluate their applicability to the Florida Freight Stakeholders Task Force. These included: methods used by Florida's Metropolitan Planning Organizations, methods used in a number of major transportation investment studies and the nationally acclaimed work of the State of Washington Freight Mobility Project Prioritization Committee (FMPPC). mustrations of these transportation project selection sy stems follow. 3.2.3 Methods Used by Fwrida's MPOs The Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council furnished the Task Force with samp les tha t demonstrate the methods by which Florida's MPOs select projects for inclusion in their Transportation Improvement Programs. Almost all of the measures and procedures used by MPOs can be categorized as scoring -based priority systems. The approaches taken are based upon the need to meet a large number of complex objectives, including state and federal statutes. They reflect the reality that project selection based only 27

PAGE 36

on benefits and costs is simply not feasible given the wide variety of factors that need to be taken into consideration. In response to a request from the MPO Advisory Council, the MPOs of Lee County, Broward County, Sarasota/Manatee Counties, Charlotte County, Palm Beach County, Polk County Pensacola, Ft. Walton and Panama City Beach, MetroPlan Orlando and Jacksonville pro'vided summary information about their methods of prioritizing projects. Of course, MPOs deal with a wide range of transportation projects; for the most part projects specifically orientated toward freight movement represent a relatively minor part of overall MPO programs. As a result, the specific methods of establishing priorities are not especially relevant to the work of the Freight Stakeholders Task Force. However, there were a number of criteria that may have relevance. Examples of such criteria include: Volume to capacity ratio, both current and projected Current work program status, whereby projects that are further advanced in terms of their stage of development rece ive higher scores than those that are less ad y anced Benefit-cost ratio Pavement management systems rating Bridge management system rating Safety management system rating Congestion management system rating Local project support Consistency with local comprehensive plan Consistency with adopted long-range transportation plan. These examples were drawn from the MPOs that responded to the MPOAC, illustrating specific criteria that are used by some of them in determining project priorities. In addition, several of them noted that special considerations are given to intennodal projects or projects that serve a c lear freight function. 3.2.3;1 1-4 M.ultimodal Master Pla11 Study An interest ing example of a scaling method, as described in one of the previous sections, is provided by the I-4 Multimodal Master Plan Study performed in the greater Orlando area. As indicated in the sample pages that follow, the criteria included environmental benefits, growth management benefits, economic benefits, affordability, and constructability. A series of measures of effectiveness were identified for each of the major category of evaluation criterion. In addition, numerical or qualitative descriptors were specified that related to a rating scale of one through five for each criterion. This method of scaling the degree of attainment of various criteria is quite attractive. While it places all criteria on a common metric of a simple one to five score, it provides clear definition to the scale. 28

PAGE 37

Ta b le 7 Mul ti-M odal Master P lan MULTI-MODAL MAST E R PLAN TIER 2-MEASURES O F EFFECTIVENESS RECOMMEDED REVISIONS POLICY BENEFIT S RA T I!'.'G SCALE(!) I 'fD!R 2 MllASIJRES 011 ' EVALUATION CIUTii:RIA EFFECTIVENESS ( MOE) 1 l 3 4 5 ' Mlnlmhe WeUancl bup a cts Atrt:S of wet land encroachments Significant cocroadlmcnt 650 500 Liioitod cocroadnoc o l 500 350 aaes >650 acres 350a crts acres "'"" Acres ofOF W Wdlaud eocroadum:nt (r.t'll18t but aot Signi(lcaol eacn>ac:b.mmt LlmJted F.mroadune:nl Minimal encr oacll.mt::ot evaluated ) acreage rauge:t t o be clettnni.ned Nvm.btr ot ootse.sensldft $ites Subrtant i al number Some ooisc s ensitive Mlnbnlte Noise lt.npacl' (resi.dmcC'S) by the oC noise sifts 480-38 1 re$ldenoes sites Impacted: 200 noise lensitiv.c altunathe(> 65 dibclS) VC'mlS the impacred: 300-20l r esklene es rC'SikocC'S lmpaCied: < JOO re$l denS b; ueUne altttnat e > 400 restdences in vebkle miltS tt:a'ft:l .ecl Total Auto Trip dJf'ferentiaJ versus baselloe T otal VMT > basdine alternat h-e < 1% reducdou > S% reductJon (Vl\ff, for CO) R tduoo emission ofCOJNOX T otal aut o trip dlffert:ntial v ersus bas:ellne Reduction in 'cold statU" (to r NO X) Tota l trip5 > b asdioe atte :rna.Uvt < 1 reduction. > 5% re duttl.on GROWn! lllANAGElltENT BEN.BiiTl'S Support Activity Number of a-cc:l:tfty centers w/LRT o r AUleSS t o cent ers A$ tO 40%-60%. ACtt$$ to>90% Cen tu/De,'Ciopn)ent thr()ugb MuJiimodal OpporiWlity d.ircct UOV I Bus a.eoess <&bastUoe ()( (eD.l.el'$ ot.eenttts Pro'o'klc Adequa tel.cl'cl of LOS .in cros:Yroads < 80% otHOVatc:t$S roads 40%-60% otnte:rs 80%ofHOV Ser\iee on CorTlcJot Actt:SS Roads @ llOV Ac:oess PoiotS (Stmd.Q.rd.: v/es-1.0) cxctecl '/-t = 1.0 ot nov access toilds vre < = 1.0 at:$$ roads fie< 1.0 29

PAGE 38

. 1-4 MULTI-MODAL MASTER PLAN TIER 2MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS RECOMMEDED REVISIONS JhtloofROV & Transi t.,...... lacrcasc 14 Conkt o t' trips to IOtaJ perSOn trip$ at pt::.t JUdoobulac (Mo>SOV) p,....,. hour, cutUDe aluage: (HOV+ <111% 109!. !1. 15%\11 20% -25\11 >2S% trips Th4mlt')f(S0V +HOV +Transit ) I'OLICY :BEN"'JTS RA TtNG SCAt. tU TIER l M:USURES OF EVALUATION CJUnllUA I!J'1IECTIV.!N!SS (1>101!1 1 l 3 5 GROWI11 BENEFITS (C ONT. ) Number or commonS tics by <= baseUoe 40'JI0-60\II > 80\11 premium tru:slt (stops) of communities in ()(lrti2<1\11 within% mile of or f'tllo-oal Uttsl or regaout tow of rqiooal total of rqiooal Iota I o( rqiooa!IA>Ial onmhu n trusltstadou Aceoc .. ""'Ciatc: m1ts Speed RaD mp. S pc baseiiot ,.,..., ... tnftl tpttd, lliOIIHrtlnsit Cactot'a; GlbaseliJ>< ofboselioc ,,..vtl l\IOBR.lTY D llNEFITS I Pro1'idc s,Atm Mauaacmcnt FAn/Cos& tnrorc emml > SZOO OOG p er )'ell' I $10D,OOO-$200,000 per ytar < $100,00 0 pc:r year Oppot'blnitk$ 3 0

PAGE 39

AC'COillDlOdltel & trarr.e & No ability/ Mochnkll>ililt/ $Jcolllcoot ability / ...........,tA_eln!ro<; No..._......, Modcnk "'-moml sipi/tet.Cit insproft'tlllml bdlilates ill lmiH'Orinc nanaatioft .......... }.b:dnfte Pu$on 1'dp Capacity Uourly person-hip capacity Sca le to be ddennhtd from mockl output (corridor) 1-4 MULT I -MODAL MASTE R TIER 2MEASURES OF EFFECI'IVENESS RECO!'.iME D E D REVISIONS POLicY 8NEFITS TIER lMEASU!\I!S OF EVALUATION CRITERIA EFFECTIVI!NESS ()IIOEJ Pro ACClef'lable Ltvd of General use 1.ane LOS, peak bout Ser ..... (LOS) vi<, wdcltlod a._e) Corrid-ulpLOS,pakboor (ptr.foa.-trlp v/c, ft5&ht.td aftta&e) Miami methodOiau--.tdusin Tbrou&h I llOV lane LOS, pt.ak hour (vtblde vic, ......... } MaxirrUe Transportatioa Nambc:r of Oppoc ruaitfts .... ._t:alioad!Ad""""CU< eo ... irv pcrsoo-trip capad(1 pro,1ded (VfJ'SUs balio 1.5) (VIC = 1.15.1) (VIC -t.o -093J (V/C<893) LOSF++ LOSF+ LOSF LOSE LOS A-D (VIC> l.S) (VIC .25 1.5 ) (VIC 1.2$-1.0) (VIC J.e.0.93) (VIC <0.93) LOSF+ LOSJI LOS toSD LOSA.C (VIC= 1.15 1.0) (VIC=l.O -M3) (VIC< 0.77) RatiocSealotA ................. e .g., < S&'trl p Scale to be. dderllned from roodeJ output aod nllt\3,t n:sults RatiJ>&sakCObodrt ......... BIC< 1 0 Scale to be dderml.l).td trom analylb mabat BIC > 1.0 Modc:rale .. q>Ja Extcasln: neonscrudton Moderate reconstruttioo Minimal Jtecoastrudfon 31

PAGE 40

3 2 3 2 Hillsborough Couraty Mcjjor I nvestment Study The Major Investment Study performed to eva l uate multi-modal alt ernatives for Hill sborough County" s l ong -rang e tra n sportation plan utilized a "Consumer Reports" method of rating variou s criteria. Initially, for each criterion, a rating of good, fair, or poor was symbolized by a dark circle a dark half circle, or an open circle, respectively a s indicated in Table 8 below. Table 8 Screening Process Performance-R oling System M u lti M odal Strate g y Symbol Score Performance R elalive to O thn n 1<7 < 5 60.6 54.1 57.2 $ 71.6 Total Annualized Cost ( 1 997$) 0 0 0 0 .,, n s 103.8 $78.3 $126.6 $ 133. 5 $49.3 $22.4 ., ... ' 0 I i Baseline $16.1 s $59. 5 I N/A 520.14 $25. 23 $26.1 8 s 14.46 $ 15.64 'total Co$t ptr Ann\131 Uset 0 0 0 I c < O.R? ,,.. <6.R1 <7 ... 5 7 .68 .$025 N I A 12.56 'Rati o ' 0 0 0 0 1 1.5 4 0.11 0 0.20 3.24 N/A 0 .85 RccoveJy Ratio (O(leratiog ' 0 0 0 Revcnue/Oper;U.ing Corsi.S) n< ""' '"" n >M on ""' ,_ N / A ,. Per Mile 0 0 0 ' Jlaselioe (l997S) '-0077 '-00&7 I < -tu12 I <-nMn I s-o.o15 <0 n< N/A I < n ""' fot Ibi s G0<1l 2 44 1.18 2 .I I 1.33 1.33 2.44 2.44 1.56 Overall Ran k for this Goat 1 5 4 7 7 1 I 6 32

PAGE 41

. : . . . . Finally, as indicated Table 10 below, the rating index for all five goals were combined and displayed on a single table and an overall rating index was computed for each alternative. Table 10. Summary of Screen 3 Multi-modal strategies rating rating Index number and overall rank ' Goal MSA MSB MS-C MSD MSDl MSF LPV Enhance the Qualit y of I I I I 0 I I Life 1.75 1.75 2.42 2.25 2.17 1.67 1.83 2.33 Create Transporration I I I 0 I supportive Lind U se 'Patterns 1.86 2.00 2.29 2.57 2 .57 1.43 1.71 2.71 Minimize Adverse Bnvirorunental I I I Impacts/Foster Positive 2.43 2.14 1.86 1.71 1.71 2 .29 2.43 Impacts 1.71 Provide Mobility for the Forecasted Travel D eman d I I I 0 I Through and With i n the Studv Area 1.73 2.20 2.07 2.47 2.60 1.53 2.27 2 .73 Provide Cost-Effective and I 0 Efficient Transportation I 0 0 Investments 2.44 1.78 2. 1 1 1.33 1.33 2.44 2.44 !.56 Overall Rating Index Number 10.2 1 9.87 10.74 10.34 10. 40 9.36 10.69 11.04 Overall Ranking 6 7 2 s 4 8 3 I o =poor (less than 1.7) t =fair (between 1.7 and 2.4) =good (greater than 2.4) 3.2.3.3 Washington Stote Study The State of Washington established a Freight Mobility Project Prioritizatio n Committee (FMPPC) whose work has been widely heralded aS a national model. They adopted a thre e -phas e pr ocess that flrst detennine s project eligibility, then deterntines p riority and finally makes funding selections for a state strategic freight investment progra m Elig i bility is detennined based on three criteria, as detailed in the, FMPPC Threshold Eligibili ty Criteria (Table 11). First, eligible projects must be strategic they must be l ocated on corridors of strategic importanc e to the state. Second, eligible projects must be primarily freigh t projects in nature-they must be p rim aril y aimed at improv ing freight movement with only incidental benefits t o genera l or personal mobili t y; or they must be primarily aimed at mitigating the imp act on local communities of i ncreasing freight movement. Third, as an inve stment of public funds, p rojects must return public benefits greater than their public cost. Projects that do not sat isfy all three criteria are ineligi ble and are !!.Q! considered further in the process. FMPPC makes a point of noting that as the eligible network becomes larger it becomes less strategic, less targeted, less a priority. They express a concern that as the eligibility becom es larger available r esources c oul d be spread too thin to address the rea l issues-the movement of freig h t on strategic corridors 33

PAGE 42

Following is a schematic of the recommended FMPPC process. POTENTIAL STRATEGIC FREIGHT INVESTMENT PROJECTS DETERMINE ELIGIBLE PROJECTS L Project must be located on a strategi c freight corridor. 2. Project must be primarily aimed at reducing barriers or increasing capacity for freight movement or primarily aimed at mitigating the impacts on communities of freight movement. 3. Project must have public benefit/public cost ratio equal to or greater tban one based on WS DOT's benefit cost approach. RANK PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER Projects are ranked in a statewide priority lis t based on priority criteria that address: freight mobility in the project area; freight mobility for the re.gion, state and nation; general mobility; safety; freight and economic value; environment; consistency with regional and state plans; cost and special i ssues. SELECT PROJECfS FOR FUNDING 1. State financial support is determined based on a preference for loan guarantees, followed by loans, and followed by grants. 2. Project scages with assured partnership funding are identified. 3 Projects are selected for funding based on statewide project priority and minimum funding allocations to geographical regions PROJECfS RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING BY STRATEGIC FREIGHT INVESTMENT PROGRAM 34

PAGE 43

Table 11. Washington State FMPPC Threshold Eligibility Criteria II Cirl!eJIon#l II EHgi.ble projects must be located on strategic fre.ight corridors. Strategic freight corridors are corridors l.hat: serve international and domestic interstate and intrastate trade; enhance the state's competitive position through regional and global gateways; and carry freight tonnage of 4 million gross tons annually for stale highways, city streets, and county roads; 5 million gross tons annually for railroads; and 2.5 million net tons for waterways. New alignments to, r e alignmcnts of, and new liilks for strategic corridors that enhance freight movement may meet the threshold eligibility criteria, even though no tonnage data exists for yet-to-be built facilities.. Criterion 112 Eligible projects must satisfy one of the following conditions: (1) Primaril y aimed at reducing identified barriers to freight movement with only incidental benefits to general or personal mobility: or (2) Primarily aimed to increasing capacity for the movement of freight with only incidental benefits to general mobility or personal or (3) Primarily aimed a mitigating the impact on communities of freight movement, including roadway/railway conflicts : II Projects meeting the reducing barriers or increasing capacity requirements include: truck climbing lanes; realignment and re-routing projects m avoid excessive trucking climbing grades or general congestion altCrnate truck II truck lanes; access in and/or out of ports, interrnodal freight facilities and freighttenninals; trucks turning lanes; changes in roadway or intersection geometry to better accommodate. trucks; and increasing weight limits on II bridstc.. Projects for HOV lanes and general-purpose lanes do NOT meet the reducing barriers or increasing capacity requirements. Criterion #3 Eligible projects must have a total public benefit/total public cost ra t io equal to or greater than one based on WSDOT's benefit/cost approach Total public benefits are benefits attributed to the public that result from a transponation improvement. Public benefits are calculated for the.users of the tra.nsportation facility, and include them savings benefits (reduced delay) for both people and freight as well as accident reduction benefits. Total public costs are the sum of the costs incurred by all public entities for the construction of the project. Public entities include cities countries, ports, the state and the federal government. The second phase of the FMPPC process invo lves ranking projects based on a multi criteria scoring framework. The system developed for ranking projects is summarized in FMPPC Project Priority Criteria (Table 12). I t makes use of ten individu a l priority categories, each of which defines a maJ<.imum score as well as metrics for evaluating compliance with the criteria. Each i ndividual project is ranked based on its adherence to the various criteria and an aggregate score developed to rank projects. 35

PAGE 44

Table 1 2 Washington State FM P PC P roject Cri t eria Pri ority Category Priority Criterion Measure o r M etric 25 Reduce trllck delays or Reduction in daily uuck dela y in hours. or Freight Mobility for Reduce train or rail car delay reduction i n daily train or rail car delay the Projec t Area 35 o r 1 for peak I Reduction in truck VIC at peak hour. or 10 1 for,., lnlin Reduction in train/rail car delay at peak 10 regional freight system and Frcight flows. industries and employmen t Freight Mobility for Importance to state freight system and the region, Stat e and 30 10 Freight flows. industries and employment Nation 10 Access to pOns or border crossings 10=. to port 10 Redu ce vehicular traffiC delay %dally b lockage X ADT Genera l Mobili t y 7 Reduce queuing and backups A\'erage queue length by Watson equation 25 'del ay from use o Add it i onal dri\'ing time to unobstruc ted RR s I:V A dd.n::ss urban principal arterials 3 = urban p ri n cipal arterial; 0 = otherwise s Reduoe railroad ctossing accidents 5 yr FRA accident history s Reduce non-railroad crossi ng accidents Redllction in number of accidents Safe t y 20 5 Provide emergency v ehlcle access S =essen tial access route; 0 = otherwise s Close additional related railroad crossings S::: two add'l ; 3;:; one add' I ; 0:;;; no add' l s Benefit mainline rail operations Freight and Economic 10 Value 5 Access tQ key employment areas Employment, industry and alternate 30Cess Environment 10 s Reduce vehicle emissions 1.0 x delay in area; 1.5 te 5 5 2 =in state-Jevcl pJan transportation p lans 0 ;:: not :., 7 Reduced dcJay time/project oust Cost 10 Degree t o which least cost altemati'fes are Evidence that least-cost altcllUI.tivcs were 3 considered .. Special Issues 8 8 Addr ess or unique circumstances not Totals 1 78 178 36

PAGE 45

Following the application of project pri(!rity criteria, the third phase of the FMPPC involves the application of selection criieria illustrated in Table 11 below. The first criterion for selection indicates that first preference should be given to request for state loan guarantee assistance. Second priority should be given projects requesting state loan assistance and third priority to projects requesting Ol\tright state grants. The second criterion indicates that only p rojects that have a short partnership funding for their near term stages should be considered for the program. The strategic freight invest ment program should not be expected to commit funds for prospective project stages that do not have assured partnership funding for other partners. The third criterion reflects the philosophy included in the report preamble, noting that the FMPPC advocates the investment of state funding to the highest priority project before considering. where projects may be located. This preference is reflected in the third c rite rion, which requires that 50% of available funds are allocated to projects according to stat ewide.project priority. That minimum funding allocations for specific geographic areas may require adding further projects from the indicated geographic areas and that finally any remaining program funds are allocated again based on statewide project priority. Our belief is that the process developed in the Washington State Study has earned its national reputation and CUTR recommends a similar process to be applied by t he by the Florida Freight Stakeholders Task Force consistent with data that is readily available. Table 13. Washington Stare FMI'PC Selection Criteria Criterion #1 The detennination by the program's governing body of the level and type of state financial assistance offered should be based. in part, on a preference first for state loan guarantee assistance, second for state loan assistance, and third for state grant assistance. Criterion #2 Only projects tllat have assured partnesship funding for their ncar-term stages should be considered for P.OSSible strategic freight investment funding. Cr.ittrion #3 The final selection of projects for possible strategic freight i iwestmen t funding. should be based on statewide project priority and minimum funding allocations to geographic areas. The decision rule is: (I) 50 percent of available funds ar e allocated to projects according to statewide project priority (2) minimum funding allocations for geographic areas are m et by including projects in the initial 50 percent allocatiOn and adding further projects from the geographic areas: and (3) any remaining programs funds are allocated based on statewide project priority. The minimum geographic allocations should be 30 percent for the Puget Sound area, IS pencent for Western Washing excluding the Puget Sound area. and 15 percent for Eastern \Vashington 37

PAGE 46

3.3. Recommended Framework curR recommended and the Florida Freight Stakeholders Task Force adopted a prioritization method that combined some of the best features of the Washington State study, methods used by Flo ri da s Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and several excellent major investment s t udies The process framework is illustrated below. Pote ntial Florida Freight Transportation Proje ct applications submitted Eligibility determined Prioriti z ation method to rank projects applied Projects for funding selected by FOOT Execu t ive Committ ee The Ta s k Forc e adopted a number of project eligibility criteria (Table 14). Pro j ects that met all of the criteria below were eligib l e for considera t ion in the project prioritization system. T a b le 14. Recommended EliglbUity Criteria T he project bad to be located on the F l orida Strategic Freigh t Network. The projccc had tO be primarily aimed at redu cing barriers to freight m ovement o r mitigating the impact o f freight movement on communities. T he project had to demonstrate a total public benefit divided by total public cost equal to or great u than one b ased on the specified benefit cost approach, The Task Force also adopted a method to eval u ate projects to assist in developing priorities for potentia l funding as outlined in Tab l e 15. 38

PAGE 47

Tabl e 15. Proj ect Prlorltbotion C riteria Sco r e Criter ion Weight 1 z 3 4 5 BICRATlO 2 1.0+ 2. 0+ 3 .0+ 4.0+ 5.0+ ,or PD&E Development/ I Planning Programme PD&E PD&E Design Environmental In Process. Completed Completed Ct d TIME TO COMPLETE I < 5 years < 4 years < 3 years <2 years
PAGE 48

for these facilities. Otherwise, the ratio of acwal volume to maximum service volume allowable under level of service standards for the FlHS and other special roadways is used. The safety factor is measured as the ratio of the actual accidellt rate and rhe critical accident rate. The critical accident rate is the 95th percentile accident rate that would be theoretically possible on an "ordinary" piece of roadway, given traffic levels, roadway geometry, speed limits, and other factors This tech nique is currently used by the FOOT Safety Office to identify "hotspots" on the State Highway System Neighbo rhood impacts of project reflect a preference for projects that increase freight movement through predominately industrial areas and disfavors increased freight movement through residential. neighborhoods. Truck trailer equivalent units (TEUs) are used to delineate freigh t traf fic levels. Appropriate scale factors are used to convert truck Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT), rail carloads, or water-bome freight into uniform truck trailer eq uivalen t units. TASK 4. EVALUATE SPECIFIC PROJECTS FOR "FAST TRACK" FuNDING 4.1 Evaluation ProCCS$ The Task Force adopted an application process to allow project sponsors to formally request funding as "fast track" projects, utilizing an initial $10 million made available by the 1999 Florida Legislature to promote freight projects. To be considered, each project sponsor submitted a formal application to the Office of the State Public Transportation Administrator including the following: a complete project description, a specific request for amount and type of financial assistance, documentation that the project meets eligibility criteria, and detailed information regarding attainment of each criterion in the project priotitization table involving benefit-cost and other calculations. Applications were reviewed by CUTR for completeness and accuracy, and a priority-rating list, based on the priori tization criteria, was developed Subsequently, the priority-rating list was reviewed with the Executive Committee of the Florida Freight Stakeholders Task Force, which made specific project allocation recommendations to the FDOT Secretary for final selection. P rior to commitment of funding, projects located within the boundaries of an had to be included in the long-range transportation plan. In addition, projects had to show consistency with the local government plans within the jurisd ictions where they would be 4.2 Projects Submitted For Funding Table 16 is a listing of all of the projects submitted via the app lication process to the Task Force for funding consideration. There was a total of $101.3 million in projects submitted for a portion of the $10 million allocated with several projects approaching the total amount allocated for "fast -track'' funding. 40

PAGE 49

Table 16 Projects Submitted to the Ta5k Fonle tor "Fast-Track" Funding Project Relocation of 0.5 Mile of August Drive 8th SttOOt Acces s Ramp to Haines Street (1-95) 21 Stroot Access Ramp to 20t Slreet Expn:$Sway (1-95) Lime Stteet lntenoction at State Ro.1d A 1 A (8th Stteet) Eller Drive FEC/Overpas.< Bridge New Pon lntc:rchansc with and entrance to AlA & lmprovemcnu to G1K Blvd Phase!, Access lmprovcmeniS at NE 5 and 6th SU'Celi lst and 2nd A venues Air Cargo Fronllee Road flntmoction lmprovemeniS lmprovemenu to NW 25th Sttect Viaduct Improvements to NW 36 St & 67 Ave (Ludlum Road) I n tersection Rebuilding SW 4th A venue in Ft. Lauderda l e 9th A venue Tum Lane Modifications 12th Avenue Modifications foo Port of Pensacola Freight Truck Route Insr
PAGE 50

4.3 Proj ects Selec ted for Fund ing Table 17 shows th e "fast-track" projects sel ected by the Task Force total funding a ll ocated to each project, scheduled completion year, and annual freight volume affected. The Task Force recommended five addi t ional projects for acce le rated funding due to their positive impact on freight movemen t in Florida. The Task Fo r ce a lso recommended the projects should be given high consideration in Governor B ush's "FastTrack" Economic Growth Transportation Initiative. Table1 7 Proj ects Sele<:t ed f o r ''Fast-Track" Fundi ng Pro jed Improvements to 1\".V 3-6ch St and 67th Ave (Lundlum Rd) lnt c rsoction Rehabilitation of railroacllr.lck servicing the Tampa Port A uthority's Hooken Point Tetm. Air Cargo Frontage Road I Intersection improvements Eller Drive I FEC Bridge Design and construai( m of cargo Area Access Road at Ja<>ksonvme lnt'l Airport (flA) Locatio n Miami Tampa Tampa Fort Lauderdale Jaekson\'ille (flA) Additional fC$CIIJ'Ch studies rel a led to CUTR freight and goods movement in Aorida Total f unding selectad proj ects Freight Funding CompteUon Volume Fac ility lleq uesU:d Year T'fl.JS NW 67th Avenue $1,500 ,000 at 36th Street Hookcrt Point Lead Truck $2,760,000 Air cargo frontage $1,000,000 road I intersections Eller Drive and $2,000,000 FECRR Allemate Access $2, 500.000 Road $240,000 $10,0 0 0,000 2003 5 4 7 2000 34,215('98) 35 784(' 9 9) 2002 1.334 cfv 1,612 pfv 2002 3,510 2002 60 4 .4 P rojec t s Recommended f or Acceler a t ed Fun din g Table 18 shows addi tional projects that the Task Force recommend e d to the G overnor's "Fast Track" E c onomic Growth Transporta ti on I n it i ative for accelerated funding because of their immediate impac t on freigh t movement within the state 4 2

PAGE 51

Table 18. Projects Recommended for Accelerated Funding and Submitted to Governor Bush's "FastTrac-k" Economic Growth Transportation Initiative Project Facility Location Improvements to NW 2Sth Str(ct Viaducc NW 2Sth Street Viadua Miami Ri:building SW 4th. A venue in Fort Lauderdale S\V 4th A venue Fort Lauderdale Widening of SR-436 from 4 to 61anes SR 436 Orlando Pbaselofaccess improvements at NE5th and NE 1st and 2nd Avenue Miami 6th Streets /Island 2nd Avenues 8th Street Access R:unp to Haines Street HainC$ Street 6xpressway Jacksonville Expressway 4.5 Economic Analysis of Projects Submitted 4.5.1 Basic Tools Funding Recommended $48,500,000 $2,500 000 $10,000,000 $7,000,000 $4,100,000 MicroBENCOST (MBC) was used to perfonn the economic analysis of candidate projects. MBC is a computer program for anal)'2ing benefits and costs of a variety of highway improvements, including capacity improvement, pavement rehabilitation, bridge improvement, and safety projects. This program is generally thought of as the embodiment of current practice within the context of a computer program. MBC is generaUy thought of as the successor to the benefit/cost analysis system contained in the 1 977 AASHTO Manual on User Benefit Analysis of Highway and Bus-Transit Improvements (usually referred to as the "Red Book"). The Red Book was held in high regard for years as a "calculator and paper" benefit-cost analysis system, but by the early 1990's was showing signs of its age. For example, highway economics were based on the characteristics of a circa 1970 vehicle flee t and the !965 Highway Capacity Manual. Clearly, few persons would be persuaded as to the veracity of an analytic process based on such arcane data. MBC represents an attempt to update both the "message" (modern cost, performance, and other tables ) and the (stand-alone microcomputers) The MBC software aUows the user to describe the details of the problem under investigation and to update most elements of the calculation. In addition the program is also capable of performing a variety of i nvestrnent analyses and reporting the summary measure in terms of benefit-cost ratio, net present value, and internal rate of return. This feature was highly desirable in the current context owing to the mixed public/private sector membership of the Task Force. Public sector participants were more familiar with the benefit-cost ratio; those from the private sector were well-versed in the use of rate-of1:etum. Since the software produced both measures for each scenario and project, the T ask Force very q u ickly became very comfortable with this part of the process. 43

PAGE 52

4.5.2 Customized Solution The MBC software allows the user to customize the details of the analysis and to update or modify most cost elements in the calculation. This feature was of particular utility within the context of roadways that connect freight terminals to major highways. Many of these connectors were essentially local streets with low-traffic volumes, especially compared to signalized arterials. The "stock" version of MBC does not even provide default speed volume tables for the lower functional classes Likewise, MBC does not adjust its speed volume calculations for large changes in the percentage of trucks in the traffic flow. However, it was possible to modify the MBC problem files for candidate projects so that both the effects of congestion and high truck volume could be analyzed. MBC uses the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual to estimate vehicle speeds and delays. This information was supplemented with a customized set of speed-volume tables for the facilities considered here. The need for a speed-volume table was satisfied through the use of the BPR function, T =To (I+ Where "T" is congested travel time, "To" is free-flow travel time, "VC" is the volume-to capacity ratio, and a and bare constants (usually 0.15 and 4 .0 respectively) The capacity and volume values were generated by MBC, and the table derived from the above equation merely added the factor of delay to the user cost equation. High truck volume was compensated for through the use of the capacity factors discussed in Zegeer (1986), who found that from newer data that each heavy vehicle in the traffic flow eq uat es to 1.92 passenger car equivalents-little changed from the traditional 2.00 passenger car equivalents first used in Transportation Research Circular 212. Thus, volume was adjusted from raw traffic counts as follows: VOL,di = VOL..w (l.Otj) + VOL..w (tj) 2.0 Where "VOL" is volume, and "tf' is the truck factor as a decimal. With the exception of these modi fications no other cbanges were made to MBC beyond project-specific adjustments. Default settings were used otherwise. OBJECTIVE TWO The Task Force developed the following recommendations as a conclusion of the work performed on behalf of the State of Florida and the Florida freight industry. The first four recommendations derive from the work done to identify and select projects for "fast-track" funding. The last three support continuation o f the work of the Task Force. 1. EST A BUSH THE FLORIDA STRA TEGJC FREIGHT NETWORK AS A PART OF THE lNTERMODAL SYSTEMS PLAN The Florida Strategic Fre igh t Network definition and network map should be maintained on an ongoing basis to ensure it is up to date and accurate. Further, the Task Force recommends 44

PAGE 53

improving the network definition by including additional data elements such as freight density and operating level of service for key roadway elements. The Task F orce also recommends that the concept of the freight network be expanded to include standards for freight levels of service and highway design standards for freight movement 2. ADOPT THE FREIGHT TASK FORCE PROCESS FOR PRIORJTIZA TION AND SELECTION OF FUTURE FREIGHT PROJECTS The prioritization method adopted by the Task Force provides a combination of financial and non-financial selection criteria, as well as inclusion in MPO long-range transportation plans where applicable. The methodology, along with professional judgment, strategic direction, and geographical fairness, is a decision aid that can be used by decision-makers to assist in project selection. 3. FuND FuTURE RESEARCH AND PLANNING STUDIES The Task Force recommends that FDOT enter into a contract with CUTR to conduct additional research studies re l ated to freight transportation and goods movement in Florida. Among the study objec t ives would be a more accurate quantification of the benefits and costs of projects that improve freight mobility. Additional studies should research the economi c impacts of improved frei ght transportation in terms of jobs creation, personal income. industrial productivity, and economic multiplier effects. 4. CONDUCT A FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND PORT STRATEGY STUDY The Task Force futther recommends FDOT, in cooperation with the Florida Seaport, Transpottation, and Economic Development Council (FSTED), prepare a-strategic plan for Florida's pons. The purpose of the study wou l d be to examine major trade oppottunities and develop an integrated port strategy to maximize Florida's economic trade opportunities. Florida's pons compete directly with p01ts in neighboring states where funds can be focused on a few key potts. As a result, a multimodal strategy for handling the international wat erborne freight moving through our pons that would enable us to focus State funding on those ports should b e deve l oped that will best compete for internationa l trade. This strategy should be documented in a plan for Florida's ports that prioritizes investments in pott and connecting inland transport infrastructure in a way that optimizes investment maximizes efficiency, and minimizes costs to F lorida's businesses and taxpayers. The study should focus on five objectives: Define the current and emerging roles of Florida's deepwater ports and key inland freight corridors handling Florida international trade, sout heast U .S. international trade, and U .S. Midwest and other region's trade. Develop alternative projections of the future demand for port facilities in Florida and their supporting freight corridors to incl ude a baseline analysis by trade route, cargo 45

PAGE 54

type, and port and alternative high and low forecasts based on key micro and macro economic assumptions Projections should be for 10-20 years. Conduct a "needs analysis" to identify gaps between the demand for and the supply of port infrastructure and supporting freight corridors. Tbe purpose of this objective is to identify potential bottlenecks that impede the efficient and economical flow of waterborne freigh t. Conduct an "options analysis" to identify and evaluate the range of practical options available for reducing or eliminating capacity constraints. Finally, the study should recommend the best approaches to implement the preferred options along with a timeand resource-based action plan. 5. ESTABLISH A FLORIDAF'REIGHT ADVISORY COUNCIL WITHINFDOT One of the primary objectives of the Task Force was the identifica t ion and prioritization of intermodal freight projects and the development of recommendations for the Year 2020 Florida Statewide Intermodal System Plan. To accompli sh this, it is recommended that a Florida Freight Advisory Council be established that would implement the objectives of the original Task Force on a continuing basis. The Council should include private sector transportation and financial professionals and public sector representatives. Responsibilities of the Florida Freight Advisory Council should include the following elements: review and prioritize projects for "fast track" funding through the Florida Fre i ght Project Investment Bank (FFPIB); ensure projects are consistent with the Statewide Economic Development Strategy. The Florida Freight Advisory Council should be housed within the Florida Department of Transportation and should consist of persons directly involved or affected by freight operations and goods movement Recommended membership on the Council to include: a member from the existing Florida Freight Stakeholders Task Force Executive Committee; the FDOT Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy; one FDOT District Director for Planning and Programming; a representative of the Florida Office of Trade, Tourism. and Economic Development; the State Public Transportation Administrator or designee; a representative of a Metropo lit an Planning Organization Advisory Council; a representative of the Florida Ports Council; a representative of one of the six largest air freight cargo airports; a representative of the Florida trucking in dustry; and a member representing private sector railroads. 46

PAGE 55

The primary responsibility for the Florida Freight Advisory Council would be an annual identification and prioritization of freight-related intennodal projects Additionally, the Council would be responsible for reviewing the Florida Strategic Freight Network and updating it as necessary to reflect current conditions. The Council would review, prioritize and recommend projects to the FOOT Secretary that are eligible for "fast-track" project funding that enhance freight movement. With the establishment of the Florida Freight Advisory Council, the State of Florida would continue the work begun by the Florida Freight Stakeholders Task Force in addressing critical needs ass\)Ciated with trade, commerce, and freight mobility. It would be imperative that the Council coordinate with local governments and educate the public and the private sectors about the benefits of freight intennodal planning and the process of determining project imp ortance and selection. This would lead to the identification of new partnerships, better communication between the public sector and private freight interests, and a fair evaluation of all projects including freight-related improvements. (i, EsTABLISH FREIGHT MOBILITY COMMITTEES IN THE LARGEST METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS The Florida Freight Stakeholders Task Force has identified improvements to the MPO process that would further integrate freight transportation into the organizational structure of MPOs. Due to the emphasis on intermoda l freight transportation planning established in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21) and recent changes enacted by the Florida Legislature, it is important to provide representatives of the freight industry with a clear voice within the MPO decision-making process. Establishing Freight Mobility Committees i n Florida's 13 largest MPOs, located within federally-designated transportation management areas (areas of over 200,000 population), or a comparable committee structure would ensure that freight interests are fairly represented within the MPO planning and programming process. Therefore, MPOs within federally designated transportation management areas should establish a Freight Mobility Committee or a freight-rel ated function within the MPO planning process to support the priori t i7.ation and selection of freight projects within the MPO's planning area. It is also recommended that a representative of the Freight Mobiliry Committee be seated on MPO technical committees. 7. CREATE A FLORIDA FREIGHT PROJECT INVESTMENT BANK (FFPffi) There is a need to establish a dedicated funding source that assures a predictable pool of funds, both public and private. Another need is to address critical freight-related infrastructure projects proven economically viable and i mmediately required to expedite international and domestic trade and commerce for Florida transportation interests. Florida Statute 339.08 allows the establishment of a revolving l oan program from monies in the S t ate Transporta tion Trust Fund. However, because the Florida Freight Project Investment Bank would have a wider scope for use of funds new statutory language would have to be written to amend F.S. 339.08. This would a llow funding from the Bank to be used for 47

PAGE 56

enhancing eligible trade corridors (roadways and railways) and inte rmodal facilities located on the designated Florida Strategic Freight Network. Sources of revenue for the Bank would include: public appropriations, private gifts, and selfgenerated revenue through interest earn in gs and investments on advances provided by local governments for specific project purposes. Eligible uses of funds from the Bank might include : matching grants, loans, loan guarantees, "seed" capita], and joint ventures including public/private financial participation. Funds would be used for capital improvements or for planning, design, or environmental studies associated with construction of a specific eligible project. Once capita lized, the money would be deposited with the Florida Department of Insurance, Division of Treasury, which would hold the funds in an escrow account. FDOT would ha ve sole authority to authorize withdrawals f rom the account as part of the State Transportation Trust Fund. Finally, general policy directives should be established to give pardllleters for the loan program, and project development guidelines should be developed to ass ist in the project selection process using the prioritizing system recommended in this report. The process should also be consistent with planning processes of MPOs and local governments. REFERENCES Zegeer J.D. (1986). Field Validation of Intersection Capacity Factors. Transportation Research Record 1091. Washington, D C. 48

PAGE 57

APPENDIX 1 SAMPLE FUNDING APPLICATION FLORIDA FREIGIIT STAKEHOLDERS TASK FORCE PROJECT APPLICATION FOR 1999 APPLICANT AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE* PROJECT DESCR.IPTION PROJECT DATA ATTACHED FUNDING REQUEST SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA1WE: FDOT District: MPO: 1. Describe project in detail:* *Include a detailed description of project, total cos t of project, amount of funding requested from the Task Force, source and amount of other funding available 2. Is the projec t located on th e Florida Strategic Freight Network or on a direct connection to the Florida Strategic Freight Network ? *If on the project list supplied to you, answer yes. If this is a new proposal, the Strategic Freight Network will be made up of Florida Intrastate Highway System roadways, connectors 49

PAGE 58

to all seaports, connectors to .the six largest freight airports and certain other roadways that have a volume of freight movement in excess of 10 million gross tons of freight annually. If you're not sure, write in a complete description of the location, including nearest cross streets. 3. Does the project demonstrate a total public benefit divided by tota l public cost equal to or greater than one over the life of the project1 This benefit/cost analysis will be calculated on your behalf using Micro BEN COST software supplied by the Center for Urban Transportat ion Research (CUTR) at the University of South Florida. To perform the analysis, the following variable/inputs are required; please complete all the information requested. a. b. c. d. e. f. Data Needed Facility Name Current Year Area Type Project Type Tota l Project Cost for all phases Y car When Improvement Will Be Completed EXISTING ROUI'E g. h. I. J. k. I. m. n. 0. p. q. r. Route Description Functional Class Percent Trucks (%) Heavy(%) Medium(%) HOY Facility on Route Base Year Initial AADT. Base Year AADT Growth Rate(%) orDesign Year AADT Access Control Segment Le ng th Type of Intersection I Number of Intersection I Interchange I Structure Number of Lanes, Inbound Direction Number of Lanes, Your Data (Example) "Heckscher Drive" "1999" "Rural/Urban" "Added Capacity" "$4,000 ,000" "2000" "Heckscher Drive, 21ane" "Other Principal Arterial" "20%" "10%'' "10%'' "Yes/No" H1999" t'l4,700" '3 .00%" "40,000 in Year 2020" "None" "1.00 mile" "None I Signals 12 Way Stop /4 Way Stop/ Interchange/Grd dc Separation" "2' ; n "1'' 50

PAGE 59

$. t Outbound D irec t ion Design Speed (Ex isting Route ) Speed Limit (Existing) PROPOSED ROUTE u. v. w X. y. Z,. aa. bb. cc. dd. ee. ff. gg. hh. Route Description Functional Class Percent Trucks(%) Heavy(%) Medium (%) HOV f acility on route Completion Year Segment Description Aocess Control Segment Length Type of Intersection I Interchange Interchange/ Struc ture Grade Separ ation" N umber o f In t ersectio n I Interchange I Structure N umber of Lanes, Inbound Direction Number of Lanes, Outbound Direction Des ign Speed (Existing Route ) Speed L imi t (Existing) "60.0 mph" 55.0 mph" "Hecksc h e r Dr. 4 l ane" "Other Principal Arterial" u2Q%H, "10%" ''10%" "Yes I No" "2000" "Hecksber Dr. 4 Lane" "None I Full/ Partial" u l.OO mile" "None I Signals /2 Way Stop /4 Way Stop I "2" "70.0 mph" "55.0 mph" 4. What stage of development (or phase ) is the project in now?* *FOOT uses five general terms for stage of development (o r phase) for highway projects planning, D&E, design, righ t-o f way, and construction. 5. How much time do you estim a t e is needed to comp lete the project?* This question is mean t to reflec t the length of time from present to when it will be open for use. 6. What is th e current LOS on the identi fied roa dway? 7. What is the current Actual/Critical Safety Rating? St

PAGE 60

*Contac t the appropriate FDOT District Safety Engineer to see if a rating has already been calculated for the applicable section of roadway 8. What are the expected neighborhood impacts of the project? 9. What i s the current freight volume in Truck Trailer Equivalent Units (TTEUs)?* *The formula used by CUTR to convert to TIEUs is: From traffic Cou nts: 1 Heavy Truck (per FDOT classi fic ation) = 1 .0 TTEU; I Mediu m Truck (per FDOT classification) = 0.6 TTEU From Tonnage by Type of Fre ight: 20 Net T ons of Air Freight= l.OTTEU; 30 Net Tons of General Freight = 1.0 1TEU; 40 Net Tons of Bulk Fre ight = 1.0 TTEU. 10 What additiona l benefits would this project create? a How many additional jobs, and at what hourly wage? b. What would be the expected annual incremental increase in facility revenues? (if applicable) c What would be the expected annual incremental increase in tax revenue generated from project implementation? (if applicable) d. What would be the expected travel time savings in minutes from the facility gate to the nearest limited access facility? (if applicable) e. What would be the expected incremental decrease in associated transportation costs from project implementation? (if applicable) Contact Information (to answer questions about these responses): N ame: Address: Tele phone: Fax Number : E-Mail Address: 52

PAGE 61

APPEr-.'DIX 2. FDOT MAP STANDARDS FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LINEAGE REPORT DATALAYERNAME: DESCRIPTION: TYPE: SCALE: DATUM: PROJECTION: MAP UNITS: GENERAL AREA COVERED: REPORT PREPARED BY: DATE OF PREPARATION: PROVIDING ORAGANIZA TION AGENCY: CONTACT PERSON: TITLE: PHONE NUMBER: AGENCY DATA NAME: FOOT Roadslbasemap/Linear Referencing Sysaem (LRS) FOOT coverage of state roads Dynamic Segmentation 1: 100,000 (approximate) NAD I927 UTMl7 Meters Statewide Marc Cooper 4116196 Florida Departm ent of T ransportati o n Mar c Cooper GIS Coordinator, Trans portat io n Statistics Office 9()4/488-41 I I Irs DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE MATERIAL (S) SOURCE TITLE: SCALE: DATUM: USGS quads 1:24,000 N AD I927 MAP PROJECTION: MEDIA SOURCE: Lamb. Conformal Conic, Trans. Mere., Polyco ni c mylar DATE OF MATERIAL: various UPDATE SCHEDULE: na CREATOR OF SO URCE OR DATA LAYER AGENCY/ORGANIZATION USGS UNIT/SECTION: Earth Science Information Center CONTACT PERSON: TITLE: PHONE NUMBER: 800/USA-MAPS DERIVATIONMETHOD(S)FORDATA PRE-AUTOMATION COMPll.ATION: COMPUTER HARDWARE USED: DATABASE SOFTWARE AND VERSION USED: GIS/MAPPING SOFTWARE AND VERSION USED: METHOD OF AUTOMATION: RESOULUTION: 53 State rouaes were marked on quads V AXstation 3100 Oracle 6.0 lntergraph and ODS digitizing

PAGE 62

TOLERENCE OF DIOITIZER.SCANNER,ETC.: INITIAL DATE OF AUTOMATION: UPDADE SCHEDULE: SIZE OF DIGITAL FILE: FORMAT OFDIGITALFILE: CONTOL POINTS: NAME OF COORDINATED SYSTEM USED: LIST REGISTRATION POINTS: Explanation of the Procedures Used to Transform The Data .0001 19900NWARD ongoing approx. 12mb for LRS 20m b for RCI disttibuted as ARC/JNFO coverage quad Comers quad comers Locations of state routes were identified on p aper quad sheets and labeled w ith their Roadway Characteristics Inventory (RCI) roadway identification and direction. Each roadway was digitized using Intergraph software from USGS mylar quad sheets using the UTM 17 NAD 27 coordinates for the quad corners to register the digitizer. The Inte rgraph DGN file was imported to ODS where it is currently maintained. Maintenance includes additions, modifications, and deletions of roads and intersections (nodes). The LRS coverage is maintained in UTM17 projection NAD 27 datum at this time. A list of roadways and the coordinates of the ir vertices were generated into ARCJJNFO coverage. Route attributions were added to the coverage to take advantage of dynamic segmentation. An ARCJJNFO export file is the current distribution format. Attribute Description The LRS coverage has attribution in several info files which can be related to RCI data with the roadway' item. ARCJJNFO dynamic segmentation includes a "section" file and a "route" file in addition to the usual info files assoc i ated with an arc coverage. The arc file item "Irs#" links to the section file item "arc/ink#" in a one-to-many relate T he section file it .em "routelinklf links to the route file item "road#" in a many-to-one relate. RCI data may be accessed for each arc or route with the "roadway#" item. In the case of overlapping routes, the primary r oute, by which RCI data is referenced for sections with multiple routes, is the route identified by the arc file "roadway" item, not the route file "roadway" item. A r oute is broken into sections identified by the "roadway," with a "begin_posf' and an "end_posf' measured in miles. The first two characters of the eight character "roadway" item indicate the county of roadway using FDOT' s county numbering system. The next three characters indicate the roadway section (not to be confused with ARC/INFO's "section" file type). The last three characters indicate the roadway sub-section. The RCI contains many tables dealing with RCI road c las sifications, conditions, monitoring, etc. Th e exported INFO tables containing the RCI data are abou t two times as large-as the exported LRS coverage. For more information, contact the FDOT T ransportation Stat i stics Office. Table 19 below contains the arc attribute items including the indexed column, width, output type, number of decimals, and alternate name. 54

PAGE 63

TABJ,.&l9. DATA FORMAT OF ATTRTBUl'ES Col umn llemName Width Output Type :Nomberof. A l t er na t e : Indexed : Decimals ., Name These are ARC attribute items 1 FNODE# 4 5 B . 5 TN ODEll 4 5 B . 9 LPOLY# 4 5 B . 13 Rl'OLY# 4 5 B . 17 LENGTH 4 12 F 3 21 BASEMAP# 4 5 B . 25 BASEMAP-ID 4 5 B . 29 ROADWAY 8 8 c . 37 X 4 1 2 F 3 41 y 4 12 F 3 REDIFINED ITEMS 29 I CO...NUM I 2 I 2 I c I I 1 nese are tile 'road' sectifm attribute items I ROUTELINK# 4 5 B . 5 ARCUNK# 4 5 B . 9 F-MEAS 4 12 F 3 13 T -MEAS 4 12 F 3 17 F-POS 4 12 F 3 2 1 T-POS 4 12 F 3 25 ROAD# 4 5 B . 29 ROADID 4 5 B . 33 oc 2 2 I . Thes e a r e tile 'road' r o ute atlribute i tems I ROAD# 5 5 B . 5 ROAD-ID 4 5 B . 9 ROADWAY 8 8 c . 1 7 BEGIN ...POST 4 1 2 F 3 21 END ...POST 4 1 2 F 3 REDEFINED ITEMS 9 COUNTY 2 2 c . 11 SECTION 6 6 c . Limitations of the DalaI Warnings to the User Note that digitizin g from 1:24,000 quad sheets resu l ts in accuracies much less than 1:24,000. Also note that there is a lag between completion o f highway projects and update of RCI and LRS coverage. 55 ..

PAGE 64

APPENDIX 3 AERIAL TERMINAL/PORT PHOTOGRAPHY 56

PAGE 65

57

PAGE 66

58

PAGE 67

59

PAGE 68

60

PAGE 69

.1.. 6 1

PAGE 70

62

PAGE 71

63

PAGE 72

64

PAGE 73

65

PAGE 74

66

PAGE 75

67

PAGE 76

68

PAGE 77

APPENDIX 4. FREIGHT FACILITY LOCATION MAPS : ' , .. 1 \ .. \ ... \ 4-1 Clearwater 4Z Daytona USPS P & DC \ '. .. 1 \ ... ...-... \ ___ . ... ...... I \ '. , \ ' \ ( 69 .. : . ( : ., .. . . . _,.. /.' . Map Layors ... II u ) 0 llo,ot.te&-.c.. ....... t,.. ....... ,.. _., ...... -Qokl)oob --C) .c; JJ "''"

PAGE 78

i . _.,..,. ..... . ..: . 4-3 St Petersburg Federal Express ; i I 70 i I __ .. ..

PAGE 79

. ...... l ( } ... 4-5 Ft Lauderdale South Florida P & DC . i -........ .,. ...... I I ' 4-6 Ft Myer s US P S P & D C ...... ' , . ...,.. ,. 7 1 \ ;..;,;,. .. / -' f M;iflty'ID ...... I 0 ftwtO.III .... Cit -fiiiiO..W.. -.. ....... .. ...,. -_,_ 0 .. 1$ ..... . M1' Llytrt q .... (lt ..... -.,. -"---IIW --0 .7 u

PAGE 80

\ '\ I ............ . I 4-7 Ft 4-8 Gainesville USPS P & DC I 72 l t i .! ... ,.. .... UeplWtN itt -Oft> Clr All' Corol.,. -r,,. .... .,.,JW. \i'SII -c-fjii'Cifw 0 1 11 I i

PAGE 81

..... i ....... ,. lf 1 h! . .,.I -i '! ;:; ,:p.:, 1 i . ,,,. '"""':'" .. -..,.. ..... """"'''""'"O-il 4-9 Jacksonville Federal Express I i 4-10 Jacksonville USPS j .... \0"''1""' . ... ....... I ) ) !I "' r ... ; VntP"'I! ....... 1 jl'f. r , ) y -' ..... . .. .Y 1 ""'"''" I 73 ------

PAGE 82

I ; ..... i i i I 1 -4-12 Lakeland Discount Auto i ......... I . ... ', f .-"'!;!"-"'.. ; ,.,--. . .. .-. -! ---- I ; l --! --: t 74 I . I ..... I ---_ ..,...,.. 0 .l A ..

PAGE 83

4 13 . Lakeland USPS P & DC i \ .;;.... \ : . ................. ,.: J;: .. j i i ., f I it ...... -! ; -1 :\ n 1 .. i... 1 ...... .... . I \ \ l I ..... I ... ... n j ....... t . -J .. J ----. . ..... Jot i I ; -.-... 4-14 Manatee Sarasota USPS P & DC 75 \ \ l. \ I ... ....... /

PAGE 84

4-15 Miami Airport USPS P & DC and Feder'dl Express ... , . ...... '.' '!!!!!':!,.., '"-- : I .... _, .. i l ......... ' ""'-.:or.-. ./ -. ........ .......... .,. 101 l l ... ... ,. .. I 4-16 Miami RPS . r : ' I ' 7 6 ........ . .. tit> .. "'! If ....... ...... "'' .. .,_. _,.. .... -0 .1 .)

PAGE 85

... , .. .. .. .. '.: .. : : ...,:.. .. _._ .... 4-17 Ocala RPS .. ... . .. . : .. . '1. .... .''" .. : .. I '. I I I j I r@-' .... . / 4-18 Ocala RPS .. I ; .. !! , . \ ; l"' "'" .. !fO '""''! :1, , L ......... /1 4 ... ..... ,...,.... """''f'!'" . . / r 1 .....,. .. II, ,.,..,., . ., f .,........ I ..;. ""' l . : \ \ I I I --"'. t-. -. I 1 I ........ l -... ..,..._ \ ; ..... '!'._ ; \ ll o I \ .. i \ I I 1 1 ,. 10 ,...,,.,.. 1 11\nu..,. i ,; ;t' "'" ''' : .. ___ _: __ ......... l "''P ,f'--: l -I '!!,-,..,.... . I . I I . I r ---; I i l 77 I I ........ -} . ....... . I I r (p. -t;"!'!"!""' ----. y= ( \. Mtp lfiPIS oo. ... o.""" o- -..-. r,. --ll!o -fl ..... ......... -/ l =::;:;::. f ?! ,., .2' . ..... ..

PAGE 86

I l I '"'" .......... --I i -........ .... -. -c __ ... l r: l ri: r I I I/ ..... \ "'" .. Dis tribution and RPS Orland o ---. J -. 1 1 . ..... -........... .. : _......... ,,_ ... 1 l I }-' I ..... I I 1 s .,. _,. .... I O rlando Airport F edera l Express a n d USPS P & D C . ..... .........
PAGE 87

_, ,...... : ,. ,.,.. ........ .. ... .. ......... 4 'I ,, ... ., ... ........ I i '""'''!" u a ........ "'' .. ,_ .... I """' ....... (10 .I., \ l .... l I l \ .. .,;; I 4 Pan ama City USP S P & DC . . . . . ' 4 P anama City USPS P & DC U < If .; . .. .... . . : r .i I .. , .. ,. . . / ...... 1 ( I t i i . ... .. r . i ''" i : 7 9 . . ... lfN.XI : 1 11" _. . ........ l : l . -"' I i e ... f : i ..... . ::;... : . 'TYP ---ulll>
PAGE 88

, .. '' 4-13 Pnsacola RPS ; I f I 'T f .fs i I /.. i p -r, . '' t 1 t _.,._ -::::; .:,: 'C & ,..... ./ l I . ;-::.:: ..t; .......... .. ... l -..... Mo...... ,_,.., I I ... -,-I I I I I .. r. .,, ,, ,!!\!. 0 t, _....... i . { ; : J: ... I l -.... ... I I II i lj I ._...,, / : 11 : ... t ... _,.. . ( .. ..... U f I f . ;_,\ f ....... i , --- f I l o Ow . r"" ..,__ _..... ---. Hi' i I I f u ... ... _... ,...,.... . 'f: ; ... .,a.._ Jj'Jfo .._ ..... .. J l -. i . ---..... __ tl __ __ q":C';../-r=:l:l c=:> -.-:r""i 4 -2 4 Pensacola RPS .. ... -. "V' 80 Mt,LIVWN IJ 'llualo Olohtll .... fto11d1 -.-. ........ utlltiM -lbltiiNt c-tri(Jiu; OA1, t 1

PAGE 89

0 .. --...... ---4-26 Pensacola USPS P & D C -' I I -. .... .. ll .. 8 1 J "'----' lll.,l.,.l'l ....... ----__ ...,. _ ....., o.. ...... ,. .. -

PAGE 90

I i -... -4-27 St Petersburg RPS 4-28 West Palm Beach RPS f l.f .. ....., ... ........ ""! .. ,.. ,, ,,_w 82 ..... ... 1'.. l i l I !' -...... . ... ....... :ttl\'""' .q... J Maphytn c:Jo...rltlftlt>IIUI (!: ri>C!Cwof.,.,. -ScneaSek:ctlo ft Se1S -tor-... t,.. -""'" ... _,. _ ,.,._ > Typa -w- -vtl!)cv.t ... -'

PAGE 91

. ' l I , '. l 4-29 Tallahassee USPS I' & DC and Federal E.xptess .. .:: . r . : :-. ' ;' :, : ... t-\1 . -.: j. . . . . ., , _, : -.; 430 Tallahassee USPS P & DC ,_ .. , ' t IJ'QO''' : 83 : : ' .. .. .. .. .. , .. ) ... . -:.4\ w .. ' ..... ' :. . ' . U a plllyoiS C)-,, .. .... """'' ano-FJ4$C...IW ...,... ,., ___ ..... _..,..,. -II-' _,...,..... . __ ... I

PAGE 92

4-31 'Thmpa RPS . ... . ...... _.......... .. ......... . . . ,_,. ... : .. ....... : ... . ,_., ',.,.,..a:r ......... : .. 'uoo,ft_ ..,....,.Vh'>o .,, \ ,. . .. I "' l ... 1 't'll :I ll 4-32 Tampa A i rport USPS p & DC ""' 84 . ..,., / ! SIJ!i'" Stlealoll S tOI ... .....

PAGE 93

---I ...... co ...... 0. --t \ , I ........ i ; .. . ....... . i .. J ... """'" l ......... .. l ) ........ Ji .. ;J 1 5 : ; ........ -. ........ ....... u ...... ' 4-34 S t. Petersbu _rg USPS P & DC . . : ... . . ... ... :.eo!'!!: s ;J . :; ... = ... 'l!.@"l.l l : ........ : ! ... ''" !"0 ... ; ...... ... ..... . f '\,. ... ; : . ... . .. . .,, ; 1 1'"3 ... -...... _,,. ..... 4 ; l!l .. ..... .... ---. ----, ; ...... ,.. -. : .. -1" .--! .. .. ..,.. --&rw.'---T --=-+-.. .. .. --. . .... l I I l .. r.: .. "' .......... ; t ..... , .. .. '1!"'' .. ;: : . :--;j ; . .!" l I : ';i . . ......... . . "" _,., ..... A :-: -:-:' 0 : :0" ..... .:._ .. 85 '" ... UI!; eotol..., ........ _., _ ...,. .. .. : s .... ""!' ,.. .....

PAGE 94

4,35 Wes t Pal m Beach USPS P & DC I 86 1111$ hwi""" -Typ o --vti*.M -$1Wtlllou:lo .... ,_,


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200277Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029923930
005 20110908174614.0
008 000919s2000 fluab t 000|0 eng d
datafield ind1 ind2 019
subfield code a 45041468
8 024
C01-00115
035
(OCoLC)45039595
040
TRL
c TRL
d CBT
FHM
043
n-us-fl
090
HE199
b .F56 2000
0 245
1999 Florida freight stakeholders task force technical report /
Ed Mierzejewski ... [et al.]
260
Tampa, Fla. :
[University of South Florida], Center for Urban Transportation Research,
[2000]
300
VI, 86 leaves :
ill., maps ;
28 cm.
500
"June 30, 2000."
5 FTS
530
Also available online.
FTS
650
Freight and freightage
z Florida.
Transportation and state
Florida.
Transportation
Florida
x Planning.
1 700
Mierzejewski, Edward A.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.115
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:001444418;
FTS