final report fort bend bypass study - phase 2 bend bypass study final report.pdf · 2016-05-17 ·...
TRANSCRIPT
FINAL REPORTFORT BEND BYPASS STUDY - PHASE 2
June 30, 2015
June 30, 2015 Page ii
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
On the Cover: RLBA photographer, J.D. Ireland, captured images of trains on the three freight railroads involved in this study: Union Pacific Railroad, BNSF Railway and Kansas City Southern Railway.
June 30, 2015 Page iii
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
PREPARED BY:
IN ASSOCIATION WITH:
R.L. Banks & Associates, Inc.
ECONOMICS | ENGINEERING | SERVICE PLANNING
FINAL REPORTFORT BEND BYPASS STUDY - PHASE 2
Funding for this project was provided to the Gulf Coast Rail District by Fort Bend County through grants from the Federal Transit Administration and the Texas Department of Transportation.
June 30, 2015 Page iv
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
TableofContents:Tables,FiguresandAppendicesTable Name PageES‐1 PublicMonetizedBenefitsandCosts,2014–2040.........................................................................ES‐VIES‐2 PublicNon‐MonetizedImpacts,2014–2040,QualitativeComparisons..............................ES‐VIIES‐3 RailroadOperatingBenefitsandCosts,2014–2040..................................................................ES‐VIIIES‐4 RailroadNon‐MonetizedImpacts,2014–2040...............................................................................ES‐IXES‐5 SummaryofMonetizedandNon‐MonetizedImpacts,2014–2040..........................................ES‐X1 WidthsofExistingRailroadRights‐of‐WayUsedinBypassOptions................................................72 BypassCorridorOptions:ImpactMatrix..................................................................................................193 CurrentandProjectedTrainVolumes:BaseCase.................................................................................224 CurrentandProjectedTrainVolumes:BypassCase.............................................................................235 RailroadoperatingImpactMatrix...............................................................................................................246 PublicMonetizedCosts,2014–2040........................................................................................................257 PublicMonetizedBenefits,2014–2040...................................................................................................308 PublicNon‐MonetizedImpactsEvaluationMatrix...............................................................................369 CombinedPublicImpacts,2014–2040....................................................................................................3910 CumulativeEconomicimpactUponRailroadOperations:
ThreeBypassOptionsvs.BaseCase,2014–2040.........................................................................4011 SummaryofPrivateRailroadMonetizedBenefitsandCosts,2014–2040...............................4112 PrivateRailroadNon‐MonetizedImpacts,2014–2040....................................................................4213 UPGliddenSubdivisionProjectedBaseCaseTrainVolumevs.
PracticalCapacity,2014–2040..............................................................................................................4314 BNSFGalvestonSubdivisionProjectedBaseCaseTrainVolumevs.
PracticalCapacity,2014–2040..............................................................................................................4415 CombinedPrivateRailroadImpacts,2014–2040...............................................................................4616 SummaryofMonetizedandNon‐MonetizedImpacts,2014–2040.............................................47Figure Name PageES‐1 FortBendFreightRailBypass:PresentRailLines(BaseCase)...................................................ES‐IIES‐2 FortBendFreightRailBypassCorridorOptions.............................................................................ES‐IV1 HouseholdpopulationGrowthinGreaterHouston,2010–2040......................................................12 Option1detail1..................................................................................................................................................103 Option1detail2..................................................................................................................................................104 Option2,May2,2014.......................................................................................................................................125 Option2,Mary19,2014..................................................................................................................................136 CurrentOption2.................................................................................................................................................147 InitialOption3CorridorLocation................................................................................................................158 CurrentOption3..................................................................................................................................................16Appendix Name PageA Bypass:RailroadRight‐of‐WayTypicalSections....................................................................................50B Long‐TermTrainCountGrowthRate..........................................................................................................51C ImpactUponRailroadOperationsPerformance: ThreeBypassOptionsvs.BaseCase(Table)......................................................................................55D SocietalCostsandBenefitsCalculations....................................................................................................56
June 30, 2015 Page v
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
AdvisoryCommitteeMembers
TheGulfCoastRailDistrictgratefullyacknowledgestheinputandassistanceprovidedbythemembersoftheAdvisoryCommitteeduringthecourseofthisStudy.
Name Organization
ScottElmer,P.E. CityofMissouriCityTrentEpperson CityofPearlandThomasGray Houston–GalvestonAreaCouncilMattHanks,P.E. BrazoriaCountyLenertKurtz CityofRichmondRandallMalik RosenbergDevelopmentCorp.RichardMancilla CityofPearlandCatherineMcCreight TexasDepartmentofTransportationJamesPirie TownofThompsonsHans‐MichaelRuthe Houston–GalvestonAreaCouncilDonSmithers FortBendCountyRickStaigle,P.E. FortBendCountyChrisSteubing,P.E. CityofSugarLandRichardStolleis,P.E. FortBendCountyTravisTanner CityofRosenbergRobertD.Upton CityofMissouriCity
June 30, 2015 Page eS-I
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
ExecutiveSummaryProjectionsoflong‐termhouseholdpopulationgrowthinGreaterHoustonandFortBendCountyaredrivinganeedforenhancedmobilitycapacityamongresidents.TheFortBendBypasswouldaddressthisneedinthreewaysby:
1. DivertingmostfreighttrainsoffUnionPacificRailroad’s(UP)GliddenSubdivisionbetweenRosenbergandHoustontherebyreducingtheimpactoffreightrailoperationsontheadjacentroadwaynetwork;
2. EnablingcommuterrailservicetobeestablishedontheexistingtracksoftheUPGliddenSubdivisionintheUS‐90ACorridorbetweenRosenbergandHoustonand
3. Accommodatinglong‐termgrowthoffreighttrainvolumethroughFortBend
Countyinasealedcorridorwithminimaladverseimpactontheadjacentroadwaynetwork.
TheFortBendBypassStudy–Phase2isabenefit–costanalysisofthreeprospectiveBypasscorridoroptionswhichcalculatestheeconomic(monetized)impactofeachascomparedwithpresentfreightrailroadoperations,theBaseCase.Non‐monetizedimpactsoftheBypassalsowereidentifiedandgradedqualitatively.TheBypassoptionsarethencomparedamongthemselvesbaseduponthemonetizedandnon‐monetizedimpacts.
BaseCaseThegeographicareacoveredbythisStudyistriangularinshape.ItisboundedbyRosenbergonthewest,ArcolaonthesoutheastandPierceJunction(withinHouston)onthenortheast,andisillustratedbelowinFigureES‐1.FourexistingrailroadlineswouldbeimpactedbytheBypassandcomprisetheBaseCaseofthisStudy.AbriefdescriptionofeachfollowsFigureES‐1.
June 30, 2015 Page eS-II
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
FigureES‐1
FortBendFreightRailBypass:PresentRailLines(BaseCase)
Thisim
ageisaplaceholder.A
cleaner,sharperoriginalisinpdfandwillbeinsertedattimeoffinalassem
bly.
KCS
Rose
nber
g Su
b
UP
Popp
Sub
BNSF
Gal
vest
on S
ub
UP
Glid
den
Sub Gu
lf Co
ast R
ail D
istric
t Boa
rd M
eetin
g 4-
14-2
015
1
Rose
nber
g
Arco
la
Pier
ce Ju
nctio
n
Patt
on R
d.
June 30, 2015 Page eS-III
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
UnionPacificRailroad’s(UP)GliddenSubdivision,betweenRosenbergandPierceJunction(Houston),isaportionofUP’smainlinebetweenHouston,NewOrleansandtheWestCoast.Averagetrainvolume(2014)is36trainsperday,comprisedof35UP,BNSFandKCSfreighttrainsandroughlyoneAmtraktrain.ForthepurposesofthisStudy,UP’scurrentprojecttoaddasecondmaintracktothislineisassumedtobecompletebetweenRosenbergandPierceJunction.BNSFRailway’s(BNSF)GalvestonSubdivision,betweenRosenbergandArcola,isaportionofBNSF’smainlinebetweenGalvestonandDallas–FortWorth.Averagetrainvolume(2014)is15trainsperday,allofwhicharefreighttrains.Thislineisasingle‐trackmainlinewithpassingsidingsoverwhichBNSFservestwocustomers,includingtheCentrePoint(Parish)PowerGeneratingStationinThompsons.UP’sPoppSubdivision,betweenArcolaandPierceJunction,isabranchlinebywhichUPservesapproximatelyeightcustomers.Averagetrainvolume(2014)islessthanonefreighttrainperday.Thelineissingle‐trackwithonepassingsiding.KansasCitySouthernRailway’s(KCS)RosenbergSubdivisionisaportionofKCS’mainlinetoandfromMexico.ItconnectswithUPatRosenbergandKCStrainsoperateovertheUPGliddenSubdivisionandotherUPtrackageinordertotraverseHouston.
BypassOptionsTwokeyassumptionsgovernedtheconceptualengineeringofthethreeBypassoptions:
1. TheBypasswillbeasealedcorridor,meaningitwillhavenogradecrossingsand
2. TheBypasswillbegradedandbuilttoaccommodatethreemaintracks,butonlytwomaintrackswillbebuilt,initially,baseduponcurrentandnear‐termtrainvolumeprojections.
ThethreeBypassoptionsevaluatedinthisStudyareillustratedinFigureES‐2,below.DistancespresentedillustratethelengthsofeachBypassoptionbetweenRosenbergandPierceJunction,exceptinOption3,inwhichthewesternendisattheintersectionoftheBNSFGalvestonSubdivision,northwestofRosenberg,andPattonRoad.AbriefdescriptionoftheoptionsfollowsFigureES‐2.
June 30, 2015 Page eS-IV
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
FigureES‐2
FortBendFreightRailBypassCorridorOptions
Thisim
ageisaplaceholder.A
cleaner,sharperoriginalisinpdfandwillbeinsertedattimeoffinalassem
bly.
TBP
E R
EG
. F-1
0460
10,0
005,
000
Feetp
X:\GulfCoastRailDistrict\2275-00_FtBend_Rail_Bypass\03_CADD\BASE\FT_BEND_BYPASS_OPTIONS.mxd
LEG
END
OPT
ION
1
OPT
ION
2
OPT
ION
3
EX
ISTI
NG
RA
ILR
OA
D
E
CEM
ETE
RY
#C
HU
RC
H
! [H
ISTO
RIC
LO
CAT
ION
S
® vH
OS
PIT
AL
^PA
RK
nS
CH
OO
L
LIB
RA
RY
pA
IRP
OR
T
GE
OR
GE
FO
UN
DAT
ION
PR
OP
ER
TY
MAJ
OR
SU
BDIV
ISIO
N
BA
LD E
AG
LE N
ES
TS
STA
TE P
AR
KS
LAN
DFI
LL
THO
MP
SO
NS
OIL
FIE
LD
UP
RR
PR
OP
ER
TY
GEO
RG
E R
ANC
H H
ISTO
RIC
PA
RK
TDC
J D
AR
RIN
GTO
N
WO
RTH
ING
TON
CO
NS
ER
VATI
ON
AR
EA
100-
YR
FLO
OD
PLA
IN
Date: 4/17/2015 User Name: hobsonTime: 3:11:39 PM
SH
EE
T 1
OF
1
THE
SE
DO
CU
ME
NTS
AR
E F
OR
INTE
RIM
RE
VIE
W A
ND
NO
T FO
R C
ON
STR
UC
TIO
N, B
IDD
ING
OR
PE
RM
IT P
UR
PO
SE
S.
RE
SP
ON
SIB
LE E
NG
INE
ER
:B
RO
WN
& G
AY E
NG
INE
ER
S, I
NC
TBP
E F
IRM
RE
GIS
TRAT
ION
NO
. 104
6
GU
LF C
OA
ST
FRE
IGH
T R
AIL
DIS
TRIC
TFO
RT
BE
ND
RA
IL B
YPA
SS
CO
RR
IDO
R O
PTI
ON
S
Not
e:Th
e op
tions
sho
wn
are
repr
esen
tativ
eco
rrido
rs,
and
do n
ot r
epre
sent
fin
alal
ignm
ents
. T
hey
are
show
n fo
r a
conc
ept l
evel
ana
lysi
s on
ly a
nd s
houl
dno
t be
cons
ider
ed fi
nal.
The
info
rmat
ion
show
n re
pres
ents
the
pro
pose
d B
ypas
s ro
utes
rec
omm
ende
d fo
r th
is F
easi
bilit
y S
tudy
. T
hese
Byp
ass
rout
es a
re n
ot c
onsi
dere
d fi
nal a
nd a
ddit
iona
l eng
inee
ring
stu
dies
sho
uld
be p
erfo
rmed
.
Option 3:
50 M
ILES
Option 2:
42 M
ILES
Option 1:
37 M
ILES
Existing UP
Glidde
n Su
b:30
MILES
Rosenb
erg
Arcola
Pierce Ju
nctio
n
Patton
Rd.
Fort Ben
d Freigh
t Rail B
ypass C
orrid
or Options
June 30, 2015 Page eS-V
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Option1–BNSFGalvestonCorridor:Thiscorridorislocatedontheexistingrights‐of‐way(ROW)oftheBNSFGalvestonSubdivisionbetweenRosenbergandArcolaandtheUPPoppSubdivisionbetweenArcolaandPierceJunction.
Option2–BNSFGalvestonplusGreenfield1Corridor:ThewesternsectionofthiscorridortraversestheexistingBNSFGalvestonSubdivisionbetweenRosenbergandThompsons,atwhichpointagreenfieldcorridorwouldbebuiltbetweenThompsonsandArcolabyrunningsouthofSouthSiennaPlantation.TheeasternsectionofthiscorridortraversestheexistingUPPoppSubdivisionbetweenArcolaandPierceJunction,similartotheOption1corridor.
Option3–Rosenberg–ArcolaGreenfieldCorridor:Thewesternsectionofthiscorridorwouldbebuiltasgreenfieldconstruction(31miles)betweenanareawestofRosenberg,inthevicinityofPattonRoad,beginningontheBNSFGalvestonSubdivision,continuingsouthuntilconnectingwiththeUPGliddenSubdivisionandfurthersouthtoconnecttotheKansasCitySouthern’s(KCS)RosenbergSubdivision.Option3wouldtraversecentralFortBendCountytoArcolaandtraversetheexistingUPPoppSubdivisionbetweenArcolaandPierceJunction,similartoOptions1and2.
ThelocationofthegreenfieldsegmentofOption3alsoallowssufficientlateralspacetoaccommodateadouble‐tracklightrail/commuterrailROW.ThegreenfieldsegmentsofBypassOptions2and3arerepresentedwithwiderlinesthanthosewhichillustrateexistingrailroadROW,becauseaspecificalignmentwithinthegreenfieldsegmentshasnotbedetermined.Thatwouldrequiremoredetailedengineeringandfieldworkthanwascalledforinthisstudy. CurrentandProjectedTrainVolumesCurrent(2014)andprojected(2040)trainvolumesontheUPGliddenSubdivision,theBNSFGalvestonSubandBypasswerecomparedwiththepracticalcapacitiesofthelines.Keytakeawaysare:
BaseCase:o Projected2040trainvolumeonUP’sGliddenSubdivision(68trainsper
day),whencomparedwiththeline’spracticalcapacity(75trainsperday)leavesinsufficientcapacity(7trainsperday)toaccommodatecommuterrailservice,whichisprojectedtorequire16trainsperday.
o UP’sGliddenSubdivisionandBNSF’sGalvestonSubdivisioncouldbeginexperiencingcapacityconstraintas2040approaches,becauseprojectedtrainvolumesarewithinninetypercentofthelines’practicalcapacities.Projected2040trainvolumeonBNSFis28trainsperdayascomparedwiththeline’s30trainsperdaycapacity.
1 “GreenfieldCorridor”and“GreenfieldConstruction” meancompletelynewrailroadwouldbebuiltonlandnotcurrentlyusedforrailroadpurposes.
June 30, 2015 Page eS-VI
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
BypassCase:o TherewouldbeplentyofcapacityonUP’sGliddenSubdivisionto
accommodatethe16commutertrainsperday,because57ofthe67freighttrainsperdayforecastedin2040wouldbedivertedofftheUPontotheBypass.
o TheWesternSectionoftheBypass,betweenRosenbergandArcola,wouldlikelyexceeditstwo‐trackcapacity(75trainsperday)in2035,sothethirdmaintrackwouldneedtobeinstalledandoperationalbythen.
Benefit–CostAnalysisandImpactsAssessment
Theaboveinfrastructureandoperationalchanges,whichwouldresultfromimplementationoftheBypass,werethenconvertedintomonetizedbenefitsandcosts,orwererecognizedasnon‐monetizedimpactsforeachofthethreeBypassoptions.Benefits,costsandimpactsinthepublicsectorareanalyzedseparatelyfromtheprivaterailroadsectorandthencombinedtoproducenetoverallvaluesundereachBypassoption.Allrecurringbenefitandcoststreamsarecalculatedoverthe27‐yearperiod(2014–2040)ofthestudyandbroughtbacktonetpresentvaluein2014assumingathreepercentdiscountrate.AllthreeoptionsyieldNetPublicBenefitswhenPublicMonetizedBenefitsandCostsarecombinedandrangebetween$1.3billionunderOption3and$2.0billionunderOption1,asillustratedinTableES‐1below.
TableES‐1PublicMonetizedBenefitsandCosts,2014–2040($millionsin2014)
ThedifferencesamongtheNetBenefitsforthethreeoptionsarecausedbythesignificantdifferencesamongthecapitalcostsofconstructingeachoption,particularlyintheareasofrailroadinfrastructureandgradecrossingseparations.Capitalcostsrepresentover95percentofpubliccostsandvarybyoptiondependinguponeachoption’soveralllengthandtheportionofeachoption’slengththatisgreenfieldconstruction.BenefitsarenearlyidenticalforallthreeBypassoptions,becausethebenefitslargelyarecapitalcostavoidancebenefitsthatdonotvarywiththeoveralllengthsoftheoptionsorthelengthofgreenfieldsegments.ThreeadditionalpublicimpactswereidentifiedaslikelybenefitswhichwouldresultfromtheBypass,butcouldnotbereasonablyquantifiedatthelevelofgeographiccoverage
June 30, 2015 Page eS-VII
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
appropriatetotheBypassproject,orduetotheirnature.Therefore,aconservativeapproachsuggeststhattheybegradedanddiscussedonaqualitativebasis,asinTableES‐2below.
TableES‐2PublicNon‐MonetizedImpacts,2014–2040
QualitativeComparisons
InTableES‐2,thethreeBypassoptionsarecomparedwithabasecasethatismoreappropriatelycharacterizedasa“No‐Build”Option.TheNo‐BuildOptionreferstoabaselinesituationinwhichtheBypasswouldnotbebuilt,whilecommuterrailservicewouldbeimplementedbetweenRosenbergandHoustononanew,separateright‐of‐wayadjacenttotheUPGliddenSubdivisioninsteadofonit.Freighttrainswouldcontinuetooperateontheraillinesonwhichtheycurrentlyoperateandtrainvolumeswouldgrowasprojected.Option3issuperiortoOptions1and2intheabovefourqualitativecomparisons,becauseits31‐mile‐longgreenfieldsegmentwouldtraversealess‐developedportionofFortBendCountythanwouldOptions1and2.Thiswouldtranslateintolessimpactuponresidentialareasandfewernegativegrade‐crossing‐relatedimpactsbecausetherearefewerexisting,andwouldbefewerfutureroadways.Additionally,futureroadwaydevelopmentcouldbeshapedtobeconsistentwiththegradeseparationsthatwouldbebuilt.Fromtheprivaterailroadperspective,allthreeBypassoptionswouldgenerateanetnegativeeconomicimpact(NetCosts)uponrailroadoperations,asillustratedinTableES‐3.TrainswouldtravellongerdistancesviatheBypassthanoperatingovertheircurrentroutes.Sincedistanceisalargerdriverofrailroadoperatingcoststhanrunningtime,the
June 30, 2015 Page eS-VIII
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
longerdistanceswouldgenerateincrementalfuelandmaintenancecoststhatwouldbesignificantlyhigherthanthemodestbenefitswhichwouldarisefrompotentiallyfasterrunningtimes.
TableES‐3RailroadOperatingBenefitsandCosts,2014–2040($millions2014)
FiveadditionalpotentialimpactsupontherailroadswereidentifiedaslikelybenefitsfromtheBypass.TheyaregradedqualitativelyinthisStudybecauseeithertheycouldnotbequantifiedwithcertaintyatthetimeofstudyorquantificationwouldrequiretherealizationofmanysignificantassumptions.Therefore,aswiththepublicsectornon‐monetizedimpacts,aconservativeapproachsuggeststhattheybegradedanddiscussedonaqualitativebasis.BypassOptions2and3areslightlysuperiortoOption1because:
Option2wouldgeneratebenefitsfromtheremovaloftheRosenbergandArcoladiamondswhileOption1wouldonlygeneratebenefitsfromremovaloftheRosenbergdiamondand
ThegreenfieldsegmentsinOptions2and3wouldcreatemorepotentialopportunitiesforrailroadstomitigaterisksassociatedwithencroachmentuponrailroadROWbyadjacentnon‐railroadpropertyowners.
GradingsofthefivepotentialimpactsarepresentedbelowinTableES‐4.
June 30, 2015 Page eS-IX
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
TableES‐4RailroadNon‐MonetizedImpacts,2014–2040
Conclusions
Basedontheprecedingobservationsandanalysis,itisconcludedthattheimplementationofafreightrailBypassthroughFortBendCountyistechnicallyfeasibleand:
WouldproduceTotalNetBenefits(TableES‐5below,line4)between$1.2billionand$1.9billionoverthe27‐yearstudyperiod,dependingupontheBypassoptionchosen.Thismeanstotalpublicandprivaterailroadbenefitswouldexceedtotalpublicandprivaterailroadcosts.
WouldproduceNetPublicBenefitsbetween$1.3billion(Option3)and$2.0billion(Option1)overthe27‐yearstudyperiod(seeTableES‐1),meaningthatpublicbenefitswouldbegreaterthanthepubliccostswhencalculatedonareasonablyconservativebasisand
Wouldproduceanetincreaseinrailroadoperatingcostsbetween$72.5million(Option1)and$176.3million(Option2)overthe27‐yearstudyperiod,whencomparedwithcurrentrailroadoperations(seeTableES‐3).
June 30, 2015 Page eS-X
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
TableES‐5
SummaryofMonetizedandNon‐MonetizedImpacts,2014–2040,($millions2014)
Thereareadditionalpotential“soft”(non‐monetized)publicandprivaterailroadbenefitswhichcouldaugmentthenetpublicbenefits,aswellaspartiallyoffsettheoperatinginefficiencieswhichwouldbeencounteredbytherailroadswhenoperatingviatheBypass.Thesenon‐monetizedimpactshavebeencombinedintoOverallNon‐MonetizedImpactsandarepresentedinthelasttwolinesofTableES‐5,above.Consequently,selectionofthepreferredBypassoptiontoadvanceforfurtherstudywilldependupontheweightgiven,bythePublicandPrivateRailroadstakeholders,tothePublicNon‐MonetizedImpactsandthePrivateRailroadMonetizedImpacts.
June 30, 2015 Page 1
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Section1:IntroductionProjectionsoflong‐termpopulationgrowthinGreaterHoustonandFortBendCountyaredrivinganeedforenhancedmobilitycapacityforresidentsworkinginandaroundHouston.
Figure1HouseholdPopulationGrowthinGreaterHouston,2010–2040
Thisimageisaplaceholder.Acleaner,sharperoriginalisinanotherformatandwillbeinsertedattimeoffinalassembly.
OnesuchmobilityenhancementisestablishingcommuterrailserviceintheUS90‐ACorridorbetweenRosenbergandHoustonbyusingtheexistingrailroadinfrastructureofUnionPacificRailroad’s(UP)GliddenSubdivision.Sincefreighttrainvolumeonthislineinthelongterm(2040)willlikelyexceeditscapacity,evenaftercompletionoftheon‐goingdouble‐trackingproject,thelinewouldnothavesufficientcapacitytoaccommodatecommutertrains.Capacitytoaccommodatethecommutertrainswouldbecreatedbydivertingmost(30trainsperday)oftheexistingfreighttrainsfromtheUPGliddenSubdivisionandontoaFreightRailBypass(Bypass)throughsoutheasternFortBendCounty.ThepurposeofthisstudyistoprepareanevaluationofthefeasibilityofsuchaBypass.ThisnewBypasswouldnotonlyenableimplementationofcommuterrailalongtheUP
June 30, 2015 Page 2
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
GliddenSubdivision,italsowouldcreatetheabilitytoeasilyexpandthecapacityoftheoverallfreightrailnetworkinGreaterHouston.ThisfeasibilityanalysisincludesidentificationandanalysisofpotentialpublicandprivatesectorbenefitswhichcouldarisefromtheimplementationofeachofthreepotentialBypasscorridors.DetailedresearchandanalysisofdataandissuesinthisStudywereconductedunderthreetasksandatechnicalmemorandumwasproducedatthecompletionofeachtask:
Task1.DataCollection; Task2.ConceptualEngineeringand Task3.Benefit–CostAnalysisandBypassProjectImpactAssessment.
ThisFinalReportpresentsafeasibilityassessmentofthreeprospectiveFortBendBypassoptionsinthreesectionswhichfollow:
Section2:CurrentRailroadSituationandThreeBypassOptions; Section3:Benefit–CostAnalysisandImpactAssessmentand Section4:Conclusions.
June 30, 2015 Page 3
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Section2:CurrentRailroadSituation(BaseCase)andThreeBypassOptionsThissectiondescribesthecurrentrailroadsituation(BaseCase)andthethreeBypassoptionswhichwerecomparedwiththeBaseCasetotestthepotentialtechnicalandeconomicfeasibilityofaBypassthroughsoutheasternFortBendCounty.ThegeographicareaencompassedbytheStudyandthephysicalcharacteristicsoftherailroadlinesarepresented.KeyassumptionswhichgovernedconceptualengineeringandassessmentoftheBypassoptionsareoutlined.TrainvolumesandoperationalchangesbetweentheBaseCaseandBypassoptionsareexplained.ThedifferencesillustratedinthissectionbetweentheBaseCaseandtheBypassoptions,intermsofrailroadinfrastructureandtrainoperations,drivethecalculationofthebenefitsandcostsandidentificationofnon‐monetizedimpactsinSection3,Benefit–CostAnalysisandImpactAssessment.GeographicAreaandPhysicalCharacteristicsThegeographicareaoverwhichtheStudywasconductedliesroughlywithinatriangleboundedonthewest/northwestbyRosenberg,onthesoutheastbytheTownofArcolaandonthenorth/northeastbytherailroadjunctioncalledPierceJunction,whichliesinHoustonnearthejunctionofAlmedaRoadandHolmesRoad.ThepreviouslypresentedFigureES‐1illustratestheoverallgeographicareaencompassedbythisStudy,andtheBaseCase,whichisdescribedbelow.TheBaseCaseiscomprisedofcurrent(2014)trainoperationsovertheraillinesillustratedinFigureES‐1.TheBaseCase,asdiscussedinthisStudy,alsoreflectscurrentrail–roadwaygradecrossingimpactsandotherroadwayimpactscausedbythecurrentrailroadoperations,exceptitisassumedthattheon‐goingdouble‐trackingofUnionPacificRailroad’s(UP)GliddenSubdivisioniscompletealongitsentirelengthwithintheStudyarea.ThepresentraillineswhichcomprisetheBaseCaseare:
UnionPacificRailroad’s(UP’s)GliddenSubdivisionbetweenRosenbergandPierceJunction(inHouston),adistanceofapproximately30miles.PierceJunctionisinthevicinityoftheintersectionsofFM‐521,HolmesRoadandW.BellfortAve.inHouston.AtPierceJunction,anotherkeylineinthisStudy,theUPPoppSubdivision,joinstheGliddenSubdivisionfromthesouth.TheGliddenSubdivisioncrossestheBNSFGalvestonSubdivision,at‐grade,atRosenberg.TheGliddenSubdivisionisasegmentofUP’smainlinebetweenHouston,LosAngelesandNewOrleans.Averagetrainvolume(2014)is36trainsperday,comprisedof35UP,BNSFandKCSfreighttrainsandroughlyoneAmtraktrain.ForthepurposesofthisStudy,UP’scurrentprojecttoaddasecondmaintracktothislineisassumedtobecompletebetweenRosenbergandPierceJunction.
BNSFRailway’s(BNSF’s)GalvestonSubdivisionbetweenRosenbergandArcola,
adistanceofapproximately24miles.TheBNSFGalvestonSubdivisioncrossestheUPPoppSubdivision,at‐grade,atArcola,andtheUPGliddenSubdivisionatRosenberg.TheGalvestonSubdivisionisaportionofBNSF’smainlinebetween
June 30, 2015 Page 4
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Galveston,Dallas–FortWorthandSweetwater.WithintheStudyarea,itisasingle‐trackrailroadwithpassingsidings.Averagetrainvolume(2014)is15trainsperday.Therearetwoactivecustomersonthisline:theCenterPoint(Parish)ElectricGeneratingStationinThompsons,andalumberyardinRosenberg.
UPalsooperatesaraillineintheHoustonareawhichitcalls“GalvestonSubdivision”andthatlineisnotpartofthisStudy.
UP’sPoppSubdivisionbetweenArcolaandPierceJunction,adistanceofapproximately13miles.ThePoppSubdivisioncrossestheBNSFSubdivisionat‐gradeatArcolaandconnectswiththeUPGliddenSubdivisionatPierceJunction.ThelineoveritsentirelengthisparalleltoFM‐521/AlmedaRd.Itisasingle‐trackbranchlinebywhichUPservesapproximatelyeightactivecustomersandwhichwouldenableUPtoaccesstheCenterPointElectricGeneratingStation.Averagetrainvolume(2014)islessthanonetrainperday.
KansasCitySouthernRailway’s(KCS)RosenbergSubdivisionextendsbetween
RosenbergandVictoria,TX.EastofRosenberg,KCStrainsoperateovertheUPGliddenSubdivisionandotherUPlinesunderatrackagerightsagreementtoreachBeaumont,TX.KCS’RosenbergSubdivisionanditsoperationoverUP’slinesformaportionofKCS’mainlinetoandfromMexico.
TrainoperationsandpublicroadwayoperationsoverallfouroftheseraillineswouldbeaffectedbyafreightrailBypassalignedtothesouthandeastofRosenbergthroughFortBendCounty,becauseallofthelineswouldconnectwiththeBypassandoneortwoofthelineswouldbecomepartsoftheBypass,dependingupontheoption.TheUPPoppSubdivisionwouldformtheeasternsectionofallthreeBypassoptionsthatareevaluatedinthisStudy.TheBNSFGalvestonSubdivisionwouldformtheentirewesternsectionofOption1andasignificantportionofthewesternsectionofOption2.ThewesternsectionofOption3wouldbecomprisedentirelyofgreenfieldconstruction.ThethreeBypassoptionsevaluatedinthisStudyareillustratedinpreviouslypresentedFigureES‐2.DistancespresentedillustratethelengthsofeachBypassoptionbetweenRosenbergandPierceJunction,exceptinOption3,inwhichthewesternendisPattonRoad–aboutfivemileswestofRosenberg.Theoptionsaresummarizedasfollows:
Option1–BNSFGalvestonCorridor:Thiscorridorislocatedontheexistingright‐of‐way(ROW)oftheBNSFGalvestonSubdivisionbetweenRosenbergandArcolaandtheUPPoppSubdivisionbetweenArcolaandPierceJunction.
Option2–BNSFGalvestonplusGreenfield2Corridor:Thewesternsectionof
thiscorridortraversestheexistingBNSFGalvestonSubdivisionbetween 2 “GreenfieldCorridor”and“GreenfieldConstruction” meancompletelynewrailroadwouldbebuiltonlandnotcurrentlyusedforrailroadpurposes.
June 30, 2015 Page 5
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
RosenbergandThompsons,atwhichpointagreenfieldcorridorwouldbebuiltbetweenThompsonsandArcolabyrunningsouthofSouthSiennaPlantation.TheeasternsectionofthiscorridortraversestheexistingUPPoppSubdivisionbetweenArcolaandPierceJunction,similartotheOption1corridor.
Option3–Rosenberg–ArcolaGreenfieldCorridor:Thewesternsectionofthis
corridorwouldbebuiltasgreenfieldconstructionbetweenanareawestofRosenberg,inthevicinityofPattonRoad,beginningontheBNSFGalvestonSubdivision,continuingsouthuntilconnectingwiththeUPGliddenSubdivisionandfurthersouthtoconnecttotheKansasCitySouthern(KCS)RosenbergSubdivision.Option3wouldtraversecentralFortBendCountytoArcolaandtraversetheexistingUPPoppSubdivisionbetweenArcolaandPierceJunction,similartoOptions1and2.
AllthreeBypassoptions:
1. Areassumedtobecompletely“sealedcorridors”–havingnoat‐gradecrossings;
2. AreassumedtobecomprisedofaROWthatisgradedandbuilttoaccommodatethreefreightmainlinetracks,twoofwhichwouldbebuiltatthetimetheBypasswouldbeconstructed.Thiswouldenablethethirdtracktobebuiltrelativelyeasilywhentrainvolumesgrowthepointwheretheyexceedthecapacityofthedouble‐trackmainline.Thisaddressesrailroadrequirementsthatexistingcapacitybemaintained(doubletrackinprocess)andthataddedcapacitynotbeprecluded;
3. Areassumedtobecomprisedoftwosections:awesternsectionwhichcoverstheterritorybetweentheRosenbergareaandArcolaandaneasternsectionwhichcoverstheterritorybetweenArcolaandPierceJunction.TheBypassisbrokenintothesetwosectionsbecausesignificantdifferencesinthenumberoftrainsoperatingoverthem(“traincounts”)existbetweenthetwosectionsandbecausetrainscurrentlyoperatingontheBNSFGalvestonSubdivisionwouldbedivertedonlyontothewesternsectionoftheBypass,inadditiontomostofthetrainscurrentlyoperatingontheUPGliddenSubdivision.ThelatterincludesBNSFandKCStrains.TheeasternsectionisthesameunderallthreeoptionsandwouldusetheexistingUPPoppSubdivisionright‐of‐way,whichcloselyparallelsFM‐521/AlmedaRd.;
4. Reflecttheassumptionthatthevastmajorityofthefreighttrains(30outof35freighttrains)currentlyoperatingontheUPGliddenSubdivisionwouldbedivertedontotheBypass;
5. ReflecttheassumptionthatallfreighttrainscurrentlyoperatingontheBNSF
GalvestonSubdivisionbetweenRosenbergandArcola,andtheUPPoppSubdivisionbetweenArcolaandPierceJunction,wouldoperateontheBypass,exceptforperiodic,localservicetoaBNSFcustomerinRosenbergontheGalvestonSubdivision;
June 30, 2015 Page 6
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
6. ReflecttheassumptionthatthetotalnumberoftrainsoperatingontheBypasswouldbethesameoneachBypassoption;
7. Reflecttheassumptionthatsixteencommuterrailtrainsperdaywouldoperateon
theUPGliddenSubdivisionbetweenRosenbergandPierceJunction3and
8. Reflectanassumptionthatthemaximumdesignspeedis80mphfortherailroadontheBypass.MaximumoperatingspeedwouldbedeterminedbytherailroadsbaseduponphysicalandoperatingcharacteristicsoftheraillineswithwhichtheBypasswouldconnect,andotherconsiderations,inadditiontothoseoftheBypass.
BypassCorridorDevelopment:Inpreparingtransportationfacilitystudies,thefollowingdefinitionshelpexplainvariouslevelsofdetail:
Corridor:ageneralswathoflandthroughwhichtrackspass,servingageneralarea; Route:amorespecificpathalongwhichtheraillinewouldlie;forexample,a
generalwidthofabout500feetand Alignment:adefinedtrackcenter‐linethathasamorespecifichorizontaland
verticalgeometricdefinitionoftheenvelopethroughwhichthetrainswouldpass;forexample,a230‐foottriple‐trackRight‐of‐Way(ROW).
ThecorridorlevelofdetailwasemployedinthedevelopmentandanalysisofthethreeprospectiveBypassoptions.BypassOptions2and3involveacombinationofgreenfieldcorridorsegmentsandexistingrailroadROWsegments.Option1iscomposedentirelyofexistingrailroadROW.The31‐mile‐longgreenfieldsegmentinOption3providesflexibilitytoaccommodatenewerrailroaddesigncriteria..AssumptionsaboutexistingrailroadROWandgreenfieldROWaffectthe:
Numberofconstraintswhichcanbeavoided; Impactsuponconstraints; CostofacquiringlandtocreatetherailroadROW; Costofconstructingnewrailroadandimprovementstoexistingrailroadand Costofconstructingrailroad–roadwaygradeseparations.
RailroadROWRequirement:ThewidthofrailroadROWissignificanttothediscussionoftheBypassbecauseROWwidthinfluenceslandacquisitioncosts,railroadconstructioncosts,andtheextentofpotentialcommunityandenvironmentalimpactswhichmightarisefromtheconstructionoftheBypass.MostexistingactiverailroadROWswerefirstacquiredbytheoriginalrailroadownersbetween1780and1950,sothewidthofthelandacquired,whichwouldbecometheROW, 3 Regional Commuter Rail Connectivity Study, Houston‐Galveston Area Council, 2008.
June 30, 2015 Page 7
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
waspredominantlyinfluencedbyrailroadcommercialandoperatingneedsandoutlooks,andgovernmentpoliciesofseventytotwo‐hundred‐and‐thirtyyearsago.AllbutonemileoftheexistingrailroadROWthatwouldbeusedineachBypassoption(BNSFGalvestonSubdivisionandUPPoppSubdivision)isatleast100feetwide,4asillustratedbelowinTable1.
Table1WidthsofExistingRailroadRights‐of‐Way
UsedinBypassOptions
BNSFGalvestonSubMileagebyROW
Width: UPPoppSubMileagebyROWWidth:
Mileage Percentage Width(feet) Mileage Percentage Width(feet)2.08 9% 50 0.00 0% 509.59 41% 100 8.93 78% 1000.00 0% 130 0.09 1% 1304.65 20% 150 2.30 20% 1507.08 30% 200 0.00 0% 200
0.19 2% NoteANoteA:UPownsa2,275'x2,275'tractinwhichtheArcolaUP‐BNSF(I&GN‐GC&SF)isthecenter
point.
A100‐footwideROWcanaccommodatethreemaintracksunderrailroadpracticesgoverningtrackcentersandaccessroadswhichwerecommonpriorto2007,whendifferentguidelineswerepublishedbyBNSFandUP5(2007Guidelines).Amongotherrailroadconstructionpractices,theseguidelinesaddressspacingbetweentracks6,accessroads7anddrainage8,whichdirectlyimpactthewidthatwhicharailroadROWistobeconstructed.Theseguidelinesrequirenewlyconstructedtrackbespacedatleast20feetapart(trackcentertotrackcenter).TheexistingrailroadROWinthisstudycanonly 4 BNSF Galveston Sub ROW widths researched in BNSF track charts, 2005. UP Popp Sub ROW width data are from maps which are commonly referred to as ‘valuation maps’ or ‘val maps’ and which were created by railroads to comply with Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) regulations: “Right of Way and Track Map,” International & Great Northern Railway – Gulf Division – Columbia Branch, Office of Chief Engineer, Houston, TX, June 30, 1917; Sheets V‐48/2, V‐4B/3 and V‐V4B‐4; 5 “Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects,” BNSF Railway – Union Pacific Railroad, January 24, 2007, found at: http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/operations/specs/attachments/grade_separation.pdf, accessed March 15, 2014. 6 “Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects,” BNSF Railway – Union Pacific Railroad, January 24, 2007, Section 4.1.2 Track Spacing and Section 4.1.3 Future Tracks, page 17, and Plan 711100, Sheets 1 and 2, Appendix. 7 “Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects,” BNSF Railway – Union Pacific Railroad, January 24, 2007, Section 4.1.4 Access Roads, page 18. 8 “Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects,” BNSF Railway – Union Pacific Railroad, January 24, 2007, Section 4.5 Drainage, pages 19 – 20.
June 30, 2015 Page 8
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
accommodatethreemaintrackswithinthepredominant100‐footwidthifthetracksarespaced15feetapart(trackcentertotrackcenter)whichpreviouslywascommonrailroadpracticeinnewconstruction.Further,theexistingrailROWcanonlyaccommodateoneaccessroad,wheretheslopesofadjacentlandpermit,incontrasttothe2007Guidelineswhichrequiretwoaccessroadsbeprovidedonathree‐trackmainlineROW.Railroads,generally,areplacingmoreemphasisonbuildingaccessroadsintheirROW,andwider(20feetvs.15feet)spacingbetweentracks,toenhancesafetyandproductivityofmaintenance‐of‐way(MOW)employeeswhileworkingonatrackthatisadjacenttooneormoretracksonwhichtrainsareoperating.ThewidertrackspacingandavailabilityofaccessroadsincreasestheamountofareainwhichMOWemployeescanstandclearofatrainmovingonanadjacenttrack.Theavailabilityofsuch‘standclear’spacealsoreducestraindelaysassociatedwithMOWworkbeingperformedonatrackthatisadjacenttooneormoreactivetracks.Withtheabovebackgroundinmind,atypicalsectionwascreatedillustratingdesignssupportingatriple‐trackfreightrailoperationwithintheexisting100‐footROWofOptions1and2.ThistypicalsectionisshowninAppendixA.Thedevelopmentofthissectionconfirmedthattheexisting100‐footROWissufficienttoaccommodatetriple‐trackfreightrailoperations.Option3allowsamuchwider,150‐foot,ROWtomorecloselyadheretoUPandBNSFguidelinesregardingnewrailroadconstruction,becausethegreenfieldsegmentrepresentsoversixtypercentofthisoption’stotallength(31outof48miles).Thepotentialofafuturedouble‐tracklightrailorcommuterraillinealongOption3alsowasreflectedinthetypicalsectionbyanadditional80‐footROWwidthreservedtomeetthosepotentialfutureneeds.These80feetofadditionalROWisnotreflectedinthisStudy’sanalysisofbenefits,costsandimpactsbecauseitwouldnotbepartoftheprospectivefreightoperationsontheBypass.Typicalsectionsofthe150‐footand230‐footwideROWgreenfieldportionsoftheOptionsalsoareshowninAppendixA.GreenfieldCorridorWidth:Inthepreparationofacorridorstudyoftransportationfacilitieswhichinvolvespotentialgreenfieldcorridorsegments,inadditiontoexistingrailroadcorridors,itisnecessarytoalignthelevelofaccuracyanddetailofthestudywiththewidthofthegreenfieldcorridorsegments.Inthecaseofthisstudy,thegreenfieldcorridorwidthwassetsuchthat,whenmoredetailedstudiesareperformed,thegreenfieldcorridorallowsprojectplannerstodevelopreasonableanddistinctalignmentswithinthecorridor,whilestillprovidingflexibilitytoavoidadverseimpacts.Itisnottheintentofthisstudytoprovidethelevelofdetailinherentinchoosinganalignmentofthegreenfieldportionoftheproject.Theintentatthistimeistoprovideacorridoranalysisthatsetsthebasisofmoredetailedanalysesinthefuture.Forpurposesofestimatingthenumberofimpactsuponconstraintsinthisstudy,agreenfieldcorridorwidthof2,500feetwasassumed.Thisallowsalignmentstobesetwithinthecorridorthatavoidorminimizelocalconstraintswhilestilladheringtostandardrailroadconstructiondesigncriteria.
June 30, 2015 Page 9
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Theintentofthecorridordevelopmentprocesswastoapplytheassumptionsdescribedtheprevioussection,describethreefreightrailcorridoroptionsanddescribetheimpactsandconstraintsassociatedwitheachoption.ThewesternsectionsofthethreeBypasscorridorsaretoconformtothefollowinggeneralconditions:Option1onexistingBNSFGalvestonSubdivisionright‐of‐way(ROW),Option2composedofexistingBNSFGalvestonSubdivisionROWplusagreenfieldcorridorandOption3composedentirelyofgreenfieldcorridor.AllthreeoptionsmeetinArcolaandcontinuenorthontheexistingUPROWoftheUPPoppSubdivision,whichformstheeasternsectionofallthreeBypassoptions.Inthisprocess,majorconstraintswereidentified,suchasGeorgeRanchHistoricPark,majorsubdivisionsandBrazosBendStatePark.Initialcorridorsweredevelopedthathadminimalornoimpactsonthemajorconstraints.TheseinitialcorridorswerepresentedtotheprojectAdvisoryCommitteeonMay02,2014.TheAdvisoryCommitteewascomprisedofpublicstakeholderswhosejurisdictionsmaybeimpactedbytheimplementationoftheproject.Atthecommitteemeeting,theprojectteamsolicitedcommentsfromthememberswhichwerethenemployedtorefinetheBypassoptions.Finally,theBypassoptionswereanalyzedusinganimpactmatrixtodepictthecomparativeimpactsofthethreeBypassoptions.CorridorLocation:Thefollowinginformationdetailstheiterationsinvolvedinreachingthefinal,proposedcorridorlocations,includingthedecisionsmadeandthereasoningbehindthem.Thecorridorsweredevelopedusingthedesigncriteriadescribedabove,combinedwithconsiderationsregardingoperationalchallenges,futuremaintenanceandadvisorycommitteememberinput.Thecorridordevelopmentprocessassociatedwitheachoptionisdescribedbelow.Option1–BNSFGalvestonAlignment:TheOption1corridorbeginsonthewestsideofRosenbergontheBNSFGalvestonSubdivisionandcontinuesthroughthecityofRosenberg.NorthofRosenberg,thecorridorcurvessoutheastfollowingtheexistingBNSFROWandrunsparalleltoFM762andFM2759towardsThompsons.SeeFigure2below.
June 30, 2015 Page 10
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Figure2:Option1ThecorridorpassesthroughtheCityofThompsons,whereitconvergeswithanexistingtrackprovidingservicetotheCenterPointW.A.ParishElectricGeneratingStation(ParishGeneratingStation)andcontinuesinaneast‐westdirectionthroughSiennaPlantationtowardsArcolaontheexistingBNSFROW.BetweenThompsonsandArcola,araillinelaysparalleltoandsouthofBNSF’sGalvestonSubdivisionandappearstobetheprimaryrailaccesstotheParishGeneratingStation.ThisROWisownedbytheadjacentlandowners;howeverUnionPacificRailroad(UP)hasaneasementagreementthroughthissection.WithintheeastendofSiennaPlantation,theBNSFROWisonly50feetwideoveradistanceofonemile,sothestudyteamassumedthattheadjacentUPROWcouldbeusedinthisareatotheextentthatlandisneededtomaintaina100‐footwideROWcapableofaccommodatingathree‐track,freightmainline.ThecorridorthencontinuesnorthontheexistingUPPoppSubdivision,runningparalleltoFM521,toPierceJunction.SeeFigure3below.
Figure3:Option1
June 30, 2015 Page 11
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
SincethisalignmentfollowstheexistingBNSFandUPROW,noconsiderationwasgiventoadjustingthepathofthecorridor.TheeffectontheenvironmentwillbeminimalsincetheintentofOption1istoutilizetheexistingrailROWtosupportfutureexpansion.ItistheshortestBypassOptionwithanoveralllength,fromthewestsideofRosenbergtoPierceJunction,of37miles.Thecomplicationsofthiscorridorlieintheconversionofallexistingat‐gradecrossingstobecomeroadwaygradeseparatedoverpassesoreliminatedaltogether.Duetodiversionof30trainsperdayfromtheUPGliddenSub,anincreasednumberoftrainswillbegoingthroughSiennaPlantation–from15trainsperdayto45trainsperdayimmediatelyandupto86trainsperdaywithinthenext25years.Also,withtheexpansionofanexistingsinglefreighttracktoatriple‐trackfacility,theexistingindustrialtrackeastofThompsonsprovidingservicetotheParishElectricGeneratingStationwillbeimpacted,resultinginadditionalbridgesbeingconstructed.
June 30, 2015 Page 12
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Option2–BNSFGalvestonplusGreenfieldCorridor: TheOption2corridor,aswithOption1,beginsonthewestsideofRosenbergontheBNSFGalvestonSubandcontinuesthroughthecityofRosenberg.ThewesternsectionofthisalignmentfollowsthesamecourseasOption1untiljusteastoftheCityofThompsons.IntheoriginalcorridordevelopmentofOption2,thecorridorpassedthroughtheCityofThompsonsonanorthwest‐southeastcourseandshowedpotentialimpactsto42structuresinthedevelopedareaofThompsonsinthesouthwestquadrantoftheFM2759/OilfieldRoadintersection.ThisoptionwaspresentedattheAdvisoryCommitteemeetingonMay2,2014.SeeFigure4below.
Figure4:Option2May2,2014
June 30, 2015 Page 13
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
InputwasreceivedfromtheCityofThompsonsthattheOption2corridorwasnotacceptableduetotheimpactsmentionedabove.Inresponse,thestudyteamrevisedOption2toanorth‐southcoursewestofthedevelopedareaofThompsons.Thisrevisionreducedthepotentiallyimpactedstructurestothree.ThisrevisedOption2corridorcontinuesalongthenorth‐southtrackuntilitturnsapproximately90degreestomeetthetangentsetbythesouthernboundaryofSiennaPlantation.Thiseast‐westtrackbisectedtheactiveareaoftheThompson’sOilFieldandshowedsignificantpotentialimpactstowellheadsthatappearedtobeactive.ThiswaspresentedtoMayorNewsomeattheCityofThompsonsofficeonMay19,2014.SeeFigure5below.
Figure5:Option2May19,2014AfurtherrefinementofOption2haditstartonthenorth‐southcoursewestoftheCityofThompsonsthenturnonanorthwest–southeastcoursesouthoftheBNSFindustrialspurtotheParishElectricGeneratingStation.Thisnorthwest‐southeastcoursecontinuedtojusteastoftheBrazosRivercrossing,whereOption2thenturnstoalignwiththesouthernboundaryofSiennaPlantation.TheresultofthischangetoOption2wasthereductionofpotentialimpactstowellheadswithintheThompson’sOilfieldarea.ThemostcurrentdepictionofOption2ispresentedbelowinFigure6.AfterthiscurrentOption2corridorwaspresentedtoMayorNewsome,herepliedwithaletterendorsingOption3andcontinuingtoopposeOptions1and2duetoperceivedimpactstotheCityofThompsons.
June 30, 2015 Page 14
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
AconnectiontotheexistingBNSFindustrialspurwasaddedjustsouthofThompsonsandeastoftheOilFieldwiththeintentionofcoaltrainsusingtheOption2corridortoaccesstheElectricGeneratingStation.TherearecurrentlynoindustrialcustomersbeingservedbyBNSFintheareabetweenThompsonsandArcola.SeethecurrentOption2corridorinFigure6below.
Figure6:CurrentOption2TheportionsofOption2thatfollowexistingROWwillgenerateminimalenvironmentalimpactsinthoseareassincetheOptionwillutilizetheexistingrailROWtosupportfutureexpansion.ItalsoeliminatestrainoperationsthroughSiennaPlantation,from15trainsperdaytonone.ThetotallengthofOption2,fromthewestsideofRosenbergtoPierceJunction,is42miles,fivemileslongerthanOption1.Option2doeshavepotentialimpactsontheThompsonsOilfield.Also,18milesofthecorridorarelocatedwithinthefloodplain/floodwayandwillrequireanewbridgecrossingtheBrazosRiver.
June 30, 2015 Page 15
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Option3–Rosenberg–ArcolaGreenfieldCorridor:ThewesternsectionofthiscorridorwillbeentirelygreenfieldconstructionstartingwiththeBNSFGalvestonSubinthevicinityofPattonRoad,westofRosenberg,continuingsouthtoconnectwiththeUPGliddenSubdivisionandfurthersouthtoconnectwiththeKCSmainline.AllthreeexistingfreightraillineswillconnecttoOption3inawaywhichenablesefficient“progressive”movestoandfromthewestandnorth.AftercrossingUS‐59,thecorridorfollowspropertylinesinasoutheast‐northwestdirectionthroughcentralFortBendCounty.IntheoriginalcorridordevelopmentofOption3,thecorridorcontinuedthisdirectionandturnedtoaneast‐westdirectiontowardstheexistingUPPoppSubjustsouthofArcola.Atthislocation,Option3showedpotentialimpactsto806structuresandimpactstoagreateramountoffloodplain/floodway.SeeFigure7belowdepictingtheinitialOption3corridor.
Figure7:InitialOption3CorridorLocationFollowingcoordinationwithDistrictstaff,thisoptionwasrefinedtorunparalleltotheGeorgeFoundationproperty,outlinedinredonFigure7,beforeturninginaneast‐westdirectiontowardstheexistingUPPoppSubjustsouthofArcola.TheresultofthischangetoOption3wastoreducepotentialimpactstostructuresandalowerconstructioncostduetolessfloodplain/floodwayintersections.SeeFigure8belowdepictingthemostcurrentconceptofOption3.
June 30, 2015 Page 16
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Figure8:CurrentOption3AlsoshowninFigure8isaconnectiontotheParishElectricGeneratingStationaddedjustsouthofBrazosLakeshousingsubdivisionandwestoftheWorthingtonConservationAreausinganabandonedrailroadROWcorridor.ThisallowstheOption3corridortoaccesstheElectricGeneratingStation.TheexistingBNSFspurbetweentheParishGeneratingStationandtheBNSFGalvestonSubwouldberetainedsoBNSFcouldcontinuetoserveitsexistingcustomersbetweenThompsonsandRosenberg.AsinOption2,trainoperationsbetweenThompsonsandArcola,throughSiennaPlantation,wouldbeeliminated.Therearecurrentlynorail‐servedclientsbeingservedbyBNSFbetweenThompsonsandArcola.TheOption3corridorcontinuesonaneast‐westcourse,southoftheThompsonsOilfieldandnorthoftheTexasDepartmentofCriminalJusticeDarringtonUnittoconnecttotheformerUPPoppSubROWsouthofArcolaandcontinuesnorthtoPierceJunction,runningparalleltoFM521.Thisgreenfieldcorridoroffersflexibilitytoavoidadverseimpactstoenvironmental,historicalandotherconstrains.ItalsogreatlyreducesthenumberoftrainsthroughRosenbergby45trainsperdayandeliminatesthe15trainsperdayoperatingthroughRichmond,ThompsonsandSiennaPlantation.ThetotallengthofOption3,fromwestofRosenbergtoPierceJunction,is50miles,thirteenmileslongerthanOption1andfivemileslongerthanOption2.Eighteenmilesofthe
June 30, 2015 Page 17
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
corridorarelocatedwithinthefloodplain/floodwayandwillrequireanewbridgecrossingtheBrazosRiver.CorridorImpacts:AlistofcommonfeatureswasusedtocomparethethreeprospectiveBypassCorridorsbasedontheindividualROWfootprintdetailedabove.AllofthefollowingfeaturescanbelocatedontheaerialmapwiththeCorridorLocationswhichwaspresentedpreviously(FigureES‐2:FortBendFreightRailBypassCorridorOptions).
LengthofGreenfieldROW:Isthemeasurementofthelengthsoftrackalongagreenfieldsegment;
LengthofExistingROW:IsthemeasurementofthelengthsoftrackalonganexistingrailroadROW;
LengthofBridges:Isthelengthofbridgestructuresnecessarytocrossstreamsandrivers;
ROWNeeded:IstheamountoflandacquisitionrequiredintheconstructionofeachBypassCorridor;
RoadwayGradeSeparations:Reflectsthenumberandtypesofroadwaycross‐streetswhereexistingat‐gradecrossingswillrequirereconstructionintoroadwaygradeseparatedoverpassesandexistingroadwaygradeseparatedoverpassesthatdonotcurrentlyaccommodateatriple‐trackROWwhicharedescribedinmoredetailinsection3ofthistechnicalmemorandum;
RailroadBridges:Reflectsthenumberofrailroadbridgesoverexistingcross‐streetsthatwillrequirereconstructionduetoatriple‐trackdesign;
TotalConstructionCost:ReflectsthetotalestimatedexpenseofeachBypassoptionincludingROWacquisitionandrailroadconstructioncosts;
Cemeteries; Churches; HistoricLocations; Structures:ThenumberofbuildingaffectedbyeachBypassoptionincluding
businesses,homes,barns,etc.; Hospitals; Schools; Airports; Parks; GeorgeFoundationProperty:AlargeportionoflandinFortBendCountyisowned
bytheGeorgeFoundation–aprivatetrustoftheGeorgeFamily; ThompsonsOilfieldacreage; GeorgeRanchHistoricPark; TexasDepartmentofCriminalJustice‐Darrington:Aprisonlocatedjustsouthofthe
PlannedGrandParkway,SH99,alignment; WorthingtonConservationArea; Floodway:Reflectstheacreageofexistingriverorstreamchannelsthatwouldbe
impactedbyeachBypassoption;
June 30, 2015 Page 18
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Floodplain:Reflectstheacreageofareasadjoiningariverorstreamcoveredbya100‐yearfloodthatwouldbeimpactedbyeachBypassoptionand
Wetlands:Reflectstheacreageofmarshes,swampsandothertypesofsaturatedlandthatwouldbeimpactedbyeachBypassoption.
AnimpactwascountedwhenanyoftheabovefeaturesfellwithintheproposedROWfootprintforeachBypassoption.ThevariancebetweeneachBypassoptionillustrateseitherapositiveornegativeimpactoftheproposedROWfootprint.SincethegreenfieldportionsofOption2and3weredesignedtotheprecisionofamuchlargercorridorversusamoredetailedROWfootprint,thenumberofimpactsalongthesegreenfieldsegmentswereestimatedbyapplyingaratioofROWwidthtoCorridorwidth,tothetotalnumberofimpactswithinthe2,500‐footCorridorwidthundereachfeature.Forexample,inOption3thefreightrailROWwidthwillbe150feet.TheOption3corridorwidthis2,500feet.ThustodeterminethenumberofROWimpactsexpectedunderOption3,thenumberofcorridorimpactsundereachfeatureweremultipliedbytheratioof150to2,500,or6%.Thesepotentialimpactsmaybeabletobeavoidedwhenaspecificalignmentisidentifiedwithintheproposedcorridor.Nocemeteries,churches,hospitals,schools,airports,historiclocationsorparkswereimpactedbyanyBypassoption.ThreestructuresarepotentiallyimpactedbyOption2and21and11structuresarepotentiallyimpactedbyOption3freightandfuturecommuterrailrespectively.ThestructurespotentiallyimpactedbyOptions2and3rangefromuninhabitedbarnsandgaragestohomesandbusinessesandarelocatedpredominantlywithinunincorporatedFortBendCounty,PrecinctOne.Option2potentiallyimpactsonestructurewithinthecityofThompsons.Option3potentiallyimpacts2,5and2structureswithinthecitiesofPleak,FairchildsandRosenbergrespectively.ThecompleteImpactMatrixispresentedbelowinTable2.
June 30, 2015 Page 19
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Table2
BypassCorridorOptions:ImpactMatrix
Thisim
ageisaplaceholder.A
cleaner,sharperoriginalisinpdfandwillbeinsertedattimeoffinalassem
bly.
EAST
ERN
SEC
TIO
N
FREI
GHT
COM
MU
TER
LEN
GTH
ON
GRE
ENFI
ELD
ROW
11 M
ILES
1 M
ILE
8 M
ILES
LEN
GTH
ON
EXI
STIN
G RO
W13
MIL
ES24
MIL
ES18
MIL
ES
TOTA
L LE
NGT
H37
MIL
ES42
MIL
ES1
MIL
E8
MIL
ES
LEN
GTH
OF
BRID
GES
1 M
ILE
2 M
ILES
2 M
ILES
ROW
NEE
DED
20 A
CRES
140
ACRE
S20
ACR
ES59
0 AC
RES
320
ACRE
S16
0 AC
RES
ROAD
WAY
GRA
DE S
EPAR
ATIO
N19
1322
RAIL
ROAD
BRI
DGES
22
CEM
ETER
Y
CHUR
CH
HIS
TORI
C LO
CATI
ONS
STRU
CTUR
ES3
2111
HOS
PITA
L
SCH
OOL
AIRP
ORT
PARK
GEOR
GE F
OUN
DATI
ON P
ROPE
RTY
1 AC
RE1
ACRE
50 A
CRES
30 A
CRES
20 A
CRES
THOM
PSON
S OI
LFIE
LD10
ACR
ES60
ACR
ES30
ACR
ES20
ACR
ES
GEOR
GE R
ANCH
HIS
TORI
C PA
RK
TEXA
S DE
PART
MEN
T OF
CRI
MIN
AL JU
STIC
E - D
ARRI
NGT
ON
WOR
THIN
GTON
CON
SERV
ATIO
N A
REA
2 AC
RES
1 AC
RES
40 A
CRES
FLOO
DPLA
IN2
ACRE
S70
ACR
ES20
0 AC
RES
20 A
CRES
300
ACRE
S20
0 AC
RES
20 A
CRES
FLOO
DWAY
1 AC
RE20
ACR
ES70
ACR
ES40
ACR
ES20
ACR
ES
WET
LAN
DS4
ACRE
S10
0 AC
RES
2 AC
RES
80 A
CRES
40 A
CRES
20 A
CRES
LAN
D AC
QUIS
ITIO
N C
OST
$0$1
0,00
0$3
,190
,000
$460
,000
$17,
300,
000
$9,4
00,0
00$2
,260
,000
ROAD
WAY
GRA
DE S
EPAR
ATIO
N C
OST
$235
,000
,000
$114
,000
,000
$181
,000
,000
$0$1
60,0
00,0
00$0
RAIL
ROAD
CON
STRU
CTIO
N C
OST
$116
,000
,000
$439
,000
,000
$723
,000
,000
$15,
200,
000
$1,1
73,0
00,0
00$2
5,40
0,00
0
TOTA
L CO
ST$3
51,0
00,0
00$5
54,0
00,0
00$9
08,0
00,0
00$1
6,00
0,00
0$1
,351
,000
,000
$9,4
00,0
00$2
8,00
0,00
0
CON
STRU
CTIO
N C
OST
5 M
ILES
32 M
ILES
226
2 M
ILES
50 M
ILES
WES
TERN
SEC
TIO
NIM
PACT
MAT
RIX
FORT
BEN
D R
AIL
BYPA
SS C
ORR
IDO
R O
PTIO
NS
GULF
CO
AST
RAIL
DIS
TRIC
T
3 PO
WER
PLA
NT
SPU
R2
POW
ER P
LAN
T SP
UR
21
COM
MO
N
UP-
POPP
SU
BO
PTIO
N3
June 30, 2015 Page 20
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Thisprojectalsomitigatedanypotentialenvironmentalissuesthatmightariseduetothisproject.Thefollowingpotentialenvironmentalissueswereanalyzed:
BrazosBendStateParkandtheGeorgeObservatory BottomlandHardwoodForest BaldEagleNests CrossingtheBrazosRiver WorthingtonConservationArea
TheBrazosBendStateParkispartofthestateparksystemownedandmanagedbytheTexasParksandWildlifeDepartment(TPWD).TheGeorgeObservatorylieswithintheparkandbenefitsfromthearea’sdarknightskiesandproximitytoHouston.Ithousesoneofthelargesttelescopesconsistentlyavailableforpublicviewinginthenation.DuringthedesignofGrandParkway,SegmentC,thelocationofthedesignwasapprovedbytheBrazosBendStateParktobewithinacceptablerangeastonotaffecttheobservatory.TheproposedOption3CorridorrunsparalleltoGrandParkway,SegmentC,onthenorthside,andtherefore,shouldnotaffecttheobservatory,whichissouthoftheproposedGrandParkway.SimilarissueswiththebottomlandhardwoodforestandtheeaglenestsaroseasaresultoftheGrandParkway,SegmentC,routestudies.SincetheproposedOption3CorridorisdesignedtorunincloseproximitytotheproposedGrandParkway,SegmentC,theOption3Corridoralsoavoidsimpactingthebottomlandhardwoodforestandtheeaglenests.TheBrazosRiverispartoftheFederallyProtectedWatersoftheU.S.andusuallyinvolvesenvironmentalclearanceifanyportionoftheconstructioniswithinthehigh‐water‐mark.InthedesignofbothOptions2and3,thiswastakenintoconsiderationandtheproposedCorridorlocationcrossestheBrazosRiverinthemosteconomicalandleastdisruptivelocationswheretheriveralignmentisstraightandnarrow.TheWorthingtonConservationAreaisaprivatelyownedtractoflandwherethelandownershavenegotiatedaconservationeasementwiththeU.S.FishandWildlifeService(USFWS)whichrestrictsdevelopmentoftheproperty.TheproposedOption3CorridorprimarilyfollowsanabandonedrailroadROWandisdesignedtobeasminimallyinvasivetotheexistingconservationareaaspossible.Atotalof43acresarepotentiallyimpacted,themajorityofwhichareabandonedrailroadROW.Roadway–RailroadGradeCrossings(GradeCrossings);89gradecrossingsexistontherailroadlinesthatarethesubjectsofthisStudyandwouldbeimpactedbyconstructionoftheBypass.Thedifferentphysicalimpactsaremosteasilyunderstoodbygroupingthemunderthecurrentraillines:
UPGliddenSubdivision:41gradecrossingswouldremainopen,withsignificantlyreducedtrainvolumeand
BNSFGalvestonandUPPoppSubdivisions:48gradecrossings(18and30,respectively)wouldbecomegrade‐separatedorclosed,becausetheBypass
June 30, 2015 Page 21
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
wouldbeasealedcorridor(havingnogradecrossings).ThisStudymadenodeterminationorrecommendationregardinggrade‐separatingorclosingspecificgradecrossings.Suchdeterminationswouldrequireextensivepublicoutreachandfurtherengineeringinasubsequentstudy.
Theestimatednumberofgrade‐separationsrequiredundereachBypassoption(seeTable2above),includesthosewhichwouldoccurontheBNSFGalvestonandUPPoppSubdivisionsandthosewhichwouldoccuralongthegreenfieldsegmentsofBypassOptions2and3.Theestimatesarebaseduponacountofexistinggradecrossingsandgreenfieldroads,whichweresegmentedbyprojections(year2040)ofaverageannualdailytraffic(AADT)volumesandwereadjustedupwardtoaccommodatefuturedevelopmentandbyallowancestoensureappropriatelevelsofaccessforfirstrespondersandemergencypersonnel.
TheestimatednumberofgradeseparationsprovidesthecountsuponwhichgradeseparationconstructioncostswereestimatedundereachBypassoption.Additionally,eachofthethreedifferentphysicalimpacts(remainopen,grade‐separatedorclosed)wouldinturn,changeroadwaytrafficoperations,whichwould,inturn,generateadifferentcombinationofmonetizedbenefitsandcostsandnon‐monetizedimpacts.Thesebenefits,costsandimpacts,inadditiontothegradeseparationcosts,arepresentedandexplainedinSection3,Benefit–CostAnalysisandImpactAssessment,ofthisStudy.CurrentandProjectedTrainVolumesInadditiontothechangesinrailroadandroadwayinfrastructurewhichwouldariseinbuildingtheBypass,mostorallofthefreighttrainswhichcurrentlyoperateontheUPGlidden,BNSFGalvestonandUPPoppSubdivision(BaseCase)wouldmovetotheBypass.Current(2014)traincountsontheaboveraillineswerecollectedfromtheSugarLandTrainMonitor9(UPGliddenSubdivision)andgatearmactivationstudies(BNSFGalvestonSubdivisionandUPPoppSubdivision)10.Historical(2006)traincountswerecollectedfromtheHoustonRegionFreightStudy.Thedifferencebetweenthe2006and2014traincountsenabledcalculationofaneight‐yearcompoundannualgrowthrate(henceforth“growthrate”),whichisoneofeightlong‐termgrowthrates11thatweregatheredand/orcalculatedinthisStudy.Thesegrowthratesinformedselectionofthe2.53percentlong‐termcompoundannualgrowthratethatwasusedintheprojectionoftraincountsin2040.CurrentandprojectedtraincountsundertheBaseCasearepresentedbelowinTable3.
9 Sugar Land Train Monitor, Houston TranStar, March – April 2014. 10 Gate arm activation counts in Rosenberg and Fresno, March 22 – 28, 2014. 11 Appendix B, Long‐Term Train Count Growth Rates, presents the eight long‐term growth rates and a description of the process by which the 2.53 percent growth rate was selected.
June 30, 2015 Page 22
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Table3CurrentandProjectedTrainVolumes:BaseCase
TwokeyissuesarisewhenProjected(2040)trainvolumesarecomparedwiththepracticalcapacitiesoftheraillines:
1. TheProjected(2040)trainvolumeontheUPGliddenSubdivision,68trainsperday,leavesinsufficientcapacitytoaccommodatecommuterrailserviceontheUS‐90ACorridorwhencomparedwiththisline’spracticalcapacityof75trainsperday.Thecommuterrailserviceisprojectedtorequire16trainsperday.
2. UPandBNSFcouldbeginexperiencingcapacityconstraintontheGliddenandGalvestonSubdivisions,respectively,as2040approaches.TheProjected(2040)trainvolumesfallwell‐within90percentofthelines’practicalcapacities.
Whenthecurrent(2014)andprojected(2040)trainvolumesarere‐allocatedtoreflecttrainoperationsafterimplementationoftheBypass,thevolumesaredistributedamongtheraillinesasillustratedbelowinTable4.
Base Case (Average Trains per Day)
Railroad Lines Train TypeCurrent (2014)
Projected (2040)
Practical Capacity of Main Line Railroad, Assuming Multiple
Train TypesUP ‐ Glidden Sub Freight 35.3 67.5
Amtrak 0.9 0.9Commuter 0.0 0.0
Total UP ‐ Glidden Sub 36.2 68.4 75.0
BNSF ‐ Galveston Sub Freight 14.6 28.1 30.0
UP ‐ Popp Sub Freight 0.9 2.0 ‐‐‐‐‐
June 30, 2015 Page 23
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Table4CurrentandProjectedTrainVolumes:BypassCase
Twokeyresultswerenoted:1. WiththediversionofmostofthefreighttrainsfromtheUPGliddenSubdivisionto
theBypass,plentyofcapacitywouldremainandcouldaccommodatetheprojected16commutertrainsperdayintheUS‐90ACorridor.
2. TrainvolumeontheWesternSectionoftheBypass(Rosenberg–Arcola)would
exceedthepracticalcapacity(75trainsperday)ofthelinein2035–wellbefore2040.Consequently,thethirdmaintrackwouldneedtobeconstructedandoperationalbefore2035.SincethatconstructionwouldoccursignificantlybeyondimplementationoftheBypassandwellintothefuture,thecostsofthatconstructionarenotincludedinthisStudy’sbenefit–costanalysisinSection3.
ImpactUponRailroadOperationsImplementationoftheBypassassumesimplementationofon‐goingandprospectivecongestionreductionandcapacityimprovementprojectswithintheGreaterHoustonrail
Bypass Case (Average Trains per Day)Practical Capacity of Main Line Railroad, Assuming Multiple
Train Types
Railroad Lines Train TypeCurrent (2014)
Projected (2040)
2 Tracks, CTC
3 Tracks, CTC
UP ‐ Glidden Sub Freight 5.2 10.1Amtrak 0.9 0.9Commuter 0.0 16.0
Total: UP ‐ Glidden Sub 6.1 27.0 75.0 133.0
Bypass ‐ Eastern Section (Arcola ‐ Pierce Junction)
Freight from UP ‐ Glidden Sub
30.1 57.4
Freight from UP ‐ Popp Sub
0.9 2.0
Total: Bypass ‐ Eastern Section 31.0 59.4 75.0 133.0
Bypass ‐ Western Section (Rosenberg ‐ Arcola)
Freight from UP ‐ Glidden Sub
30.1 57.4
Freight from BNSF ‐ Galveston Sub
14.6 28.1
Total: Bypass ‐ Western Section 44.7 85.5 75.0 133.0
June 30, 2015 Page 24
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
terminal,suchasthosetestedandrecommendedintheHoustonRegionFreightStudy.12RailroadscontinuallyevaluatetheirnetworksandresultingexpectedchangesintrafficflowsandtrainoperationsmightsuggestchangesbemadetoprospectiveHoustonrailterminalimprovementsandnewimprovementsbeconsidered.UP’splannedconstructionofanewclassificationyardnearHearne,TXisoneexampleofchangestorailroadoperationswhichlikelywillimpactrailfreightoperationswithinHouston,andwhichmightimpactassumptionsaboutrunningspeedsandcapacityontheBypass.ConstructionofthenewBypassandtheresultingchangesintrainsoperations,asdiscussedabove,aremanifestedincommunityimpactsandrailroadimpacts.ThecommunityimpactsweredetailedintheTable2ImpactMatrix.RailroadoperatingimpactsareillustratedinthefollowingTable5andthendiscussed.
Table5RailroadOperatingImpactMatrix
TheanalysesofRunningDistanceandRunTimearebrokenintotwodistinctgroupsoftrainsbecauseeachgroupwouldexperiencedifferentimpactswhenoperatingviatheBypass:1)trainswhichcurrentlyoperateviatheUPGliddenSubdivisionand2)trainswhichcurrentlyoperateviatheBNSFGalvestonSubdivision.AsbecameobviouswhenreviewingthemapoftheBypassoptionsatES‐2andasillustratedaboveinTable5,theRunningDistanceswhichtherailroadswouldexperienceviatheBypasswouldbebetweenfiveand12mileslongerinnearlyeveryinstance.TheoneexceptionarisesunderOption1,becausetheBNSFtrainswhichcurrentlyoperateonBNSF’sownGalvestonSubdivisionwouldcontinuetooperateoverthatsamelinebecauseitwouldbecomepartoftheBypassunderOption1.TheRunningDistancecomparisonsbetweentheBypassoptionsandtheBaseCasearebasedupondistancesthatareslightlydifferentfromthosedepictedinFigure8,becausetheRunningDistancesaremeasuredbetweentwocommonendpointssotheyarecomparable.ForthetrainswhichcurrentlyoperateviatheUPGliddenSubdivision,thewestendisthepointatwhichtheUPlinecrossesPattonRoad,aboutfivemileswestofRosenberg,andtheeastendisPierce 12 “Houston Region Freight Study, Planning Cases 1 and 2,” Texas Department of Transportation, 2007, pp. 7‐10 to 7‐21.
Bypass OptionsImpact 1 2 3
Running Distance vs. Base Case (Miles): Trains from UP Glidden Subdivision 7 12 12 Trains from BNSF Galveston Subdivision 0 5 5
Run Time vs. Base Case (Minutes): Trains from UP Glidden Subdivision ‐8 ‐1 ‐3 Trains from BNSF Galveston Subdivision ‐13 ‐6 ‐8
June 30, 2015 Page 25
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Junction,inHouston.ForthetrainswhichcurrentlyoperateviatheBNSFGalvestonSubdivision,thewestendisthesameandtheeastendisArcola.FasterRunTimes,betweenoneandthirteenminutes,areprojectedfortrainsontheBypassinTable5,despitethelongerRunningDistances,becauseitwasassumedthattrainsoperatingviatheBypasswouldoperateathigheraveragespeeds(40.9mph–42.3mph)thanthosespeedsatwhichtrainscurrentlyoperateontheUPGlidden(30.2mph13)andBNSFGalveston(31.2mph)Subdivisions.Thedistancevalues,timevaluesandcalculationswhichproducetheRunningDistanceandRunTimecomparisonsarepresentedinAppendixC,areproductionfromTechnicalMemorandum1ofRailTable4ImpactUponRailroadOperationsPerformance:ThreeBypassOptionsvs.BaseCase.
13 The average speed on the UP Glidden Subdivision (30.2 mph) that is used in the Run Time comparisons reflects a modest upward adjustment that was made to the actual average train speed (29.0 mph) as calculated from Sugar Land Train Monitor data. This adjustment, 4.17 percent, was made to reflect the improvement in average train speed which would be realized on the UP Glidden Subdivision as a result of hypothetical implementation of the ten capacity and congestion improvements tested in Houston Region Freight Study, Planning Case 2.
June 30, 2015 Page 26
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Section3:ImpactsoftheThreeBypassOptions:Benefit–CostAnalysisandImpactAssessmentThisfeasibilityanalysishasidentifiedpotentialpublicandprivatesectorbenefitswhichcouldarisefromtheimplementationofeachofthreepotentialBypasscorridors,sothissectionisorganizedinthreemajorsub‐sections:
Approach; PublicSectorand PrivateRailroadSector.
Underthelattertwosub‐sections,thecosts,benefitsandnon‐monetizedimpactsidentifiedinthisStudyareillustratedandanalyzed.Keytake‐awaysarisingfromtheseanalysesarethenpresentedinthefinalsectionofthisreport,Section4:Conclusions.ApproachTheinfrastructureandoperationalchangeswhichwouldresultfromimplementationofeachoftheBypassoptions,ascomparedwiththeBaseCase(current(2014)railroadandroadwayoperations)wereconvertedintomonetizedbenefitsandcosts,wherepossible,orwererecognizedasnon‐monetizedimpacts.Changeswereassessedintheareasof:
Monetizedbenefitsandcosts:o Capitalexpendituresavoidedinrelatedprospectiveprojects;o Gradecrossingtraveldelayreduction;o Fuelconsumptionreductionforautomobiles;o Reductioninthenumberofgradecrossingcollisions;o Reductioninairpollutionemissionsfromautomobilesando Freighttrain‐hoursandfreighttrain‐miles;
Non‐Monetizedimpacts:o Economicimpactsofcommercialandindustrialdevelopment;o Trainhornnoise(trainhornandairbornenoise)andvibrationando Trafficaccessandcirculation.
Allofthebenefits,costsandimpactsinthisanalysisapplytotheentirelengthofeachBypassoptionbetweenRosenberg/PattonRoadandPierceJunction(Houston).Wherequantifiable,thevaluesofthebenefitsandcostswereprojectedouttotheyear2040whichplacesthisStudyonaplanninghorizonwhichiscomparablewithothercontemporarytransportationplanningeffortsinGreaterHouston.Thislongplanninghorizonisalsoimportantwhenconsideringlong‐termrailroadandroadwaynetworkcapacitiesandthepotentialneedfortheirexpansion.Allrecurringandone‐timebenefitsandcostsofeachBypassoptionareexpressedin2014dollarsinthisStudy.Recurringbenefitandcoststreamswerecalculatedoverthe27‐yearperiodof2014–2040and2014wasassumedtobethefirstfullyearofoperation.Thesevalueswerethenbroughtbacktonetpresentvalue(NPV)in2014assumingathree
June 30, 2015 Page 27
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
percentdiscountrate.LandacquisitionandconstructioncostswereassumedtooccuronetimeandtobecompletedonJanuary1,2014asasimplifyingassumption.ExpectedandpotentialimpactswerereviewedwithanAdvisoryCommitteecomprisedofelectedofficialsandtheirrepresentativesfromcommunitiesalongthecurrentfreightrailroadlinesandprospectiveBypasscorridors,planningstafffromFortBendCounty,TxDOTandtheHouston–GalvestonAreaCouncil.MeetingswereheldinAugustandDecember2014,atwhichfeedbackwascollectedandintegratedintotheimpactanalysis.AdjustmentstotheprospectiveBypassoptionsweremadeasappropriateandfeasible.TheDistrictofferedBNSFandUPopportunitiestoparticipateinthisStudyandtoprovideinput,andtheydeclined.PublicSectorThepublicsectorwouldleadfinancingandimplementationoftheFortBendFreightRailBypass,soitwouldcarrylargecostburdensandrealizelargebenefitsarisingfromtheproject.Thepubliccostsandbenefitsaresolargethattheyaretheprimarydriversofthepurelyquantitativeresults(benefit–costanalysis)ofthisStudy.Thepublicnon‐monetized(qualitative)impactsarereasonablysignificantpotentialbenefitsandcouldservetodifferentiatethethreeBypassoptions.Intheassessmentofpublicsectorbenefits,costsandnon‐monetizedimpacts,a“No‐Build”optionisalsoconsidered.TheNo‐BuildOptionreferstoabaselinesituationinwhichtheBypasswouldNOTbebuiltandcommuterrailserviceWOULDbeimplementedalongtheUS‐90ACorridoronanew,separateright‐of‐wayadjacenttotheUPGliddenSubdivision,insteadofonit.TheNo‐BuildOptionassumesfreighttrainswouldcontinuetooperateontheUPGliddenandtheBNSFGalvestonSubdivisions,crossingallroadwaysat‐gradeasincurrentoperatingconditions.TrainvolumeswouldgrowasprojectedinSection2.PublicMonetizedCosts:AsillustratedinTable6,totalpubliccostsincreasesignificantlywhenprogressingfromOption1,toOption2andthenOption3,becauseover95percentofeachoption’scostarecomposedoftheCapitalCostsofconstructingtheBypass.ThesizeoftheCapitalCostsineachoptionisdrivenbythe:
Overalllengthofeachoption(Option1isshortestandOption3islongest)and Portionofanoption’slengththatiscomprisedofgreenfieldconstruction(0milesin
Option1,11milesinOption2and31milesinOption3).
June 30, 2015 Page 28
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Table6PublicMonetizedCosts,2014‐2040($millionsin2014)
AbriefdescriptionofPublicCapitalCostsfollows.
RailroadInfrastructureConstructionCost:
Option 1 2 3Present Value $ 554.5M $854.2M $1,198.1M
Option 1 Relative Cost Ratio 1.00 1.54 2.16 RailroadInfrastructureConstructionCostisthelargestcapitalcostintheBypassproject.Itcoversallcomponentsneededtobuildimprovementsonexisting,operatingrailroadrights‐of‐way(ROWs),andtobuildcompletelynewrailroad,whererequired,onlandthatisnotcurrentlyusedforrailroadpurposes.Thelatterisreferredtoasgreenfieldconstruction.ConstructionofnewconnectionstopreserverailaccessbyBNSFandUPtotheW.A.ParishGeneratingStation,inThompsons,isincludedinOptions2and3.ExistingconnectionswillberetainedorslightlymodifiedinOption1.Railroadinfrastructureconstructioncostsalsoincludeinstallationofcommunicationsequipment,signalandPositiveTrainControl(PTC)equipment,drainagestructures,bridgestocarrytherailroadoverrivers,streams,wetlandsandflood‐plainsandaccessroad(s)ontheROWalongthetrack.RailroadinfrastructureconstructioncostsoneachBypassoptionweredevelopedusingunitcostsandquantitieson35‐plusconstructioncomponentsandfunctions.
ThelargestrailroadinfrastructurecostcomponentinallthreeBypassoptionsisbridgeconstructionwhichrepresents53percentofOption1railroadinfrastructurecosts,64percentofOption2and63percentofOption3.BypassOptions2and3incurmorebridgeworkcostthanOption1becausetheytraversesignificantlymoredistanceoverrivers,floodplains,floodwaysandwetlandsterritoriesthandoesOption1.Option3alsofeaturesbridgeworkatitswestendtocarrytheBypassovertheUPGliddenSubdivisionandtheKCSHouston–Mexicomainline.Thebridgeworkcostsincludethecostsofbuildingallbridgeworkneededtocarryafuturethirdmaintrackbecauseitwouldbecheaperto
Bypass Options
Cost Type Cost Item1 2 3
Capital Cost Railroad Infrastructure Construction 554.5$ 854.2$ 1,198.1$ Capital Cost Roadway Grade Separation Construction 347.0$ 378.0$ 369.0$ Capital Cost Land Acquisition ‐$ 3.7$ 19.6$ Sub‐Total: Public Capital Cost 901.5$ 1,235.9$ 1,586.7$
Non‐Capital Cost Travel Delay Costs for the Communities Impacted by Grade Crossing Closures
34.4$ 40.3$ 38.0$
Total Public Costs: 935.9$ 1,276.2$ 1,624.7$
June 30, 2015 Page 29
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
buildthebridgesattheoutsetinsteadofwaitinguntiltrainvolumejustifiesinstallationofthethirdmaintrack.
RoadwayGradeSeparationConstructionCost:
Option 1 2 3
Present Value $ 347.0M $378.0M $369.0M Option 1 Relative Cost Ratio 1.00 1.09 1.06 RoadwayGradeSeparationConstructionCostisthesecondlargestcapitalcostintheBypassproject.Gradeseparationcostsareasignificantcomponentofcapitalcostsbecausethescopeofthisstudycallsforasealedfreightrailroadcorridor,whichmeanstherewouldbenogradecrossingsontheBypass.Asealedcorridorwouldbeachievedbygrade‐separatingorclosingallgradecrossingsontheportionsoftheBNSFGalvestonSubandUPPoppSubwhichwouldbecomecomponentsoftheBypass.ExistingandprospectivefutureroadwayswhichwouldintersectthegreenfieldsegmentsofBypassOptions2and3arepotentialgradecrossingsandhavebeenidentifiedascandidatesforgradeseparationorclosure.Aroadwaygrade‐separatedoverpassconsistsofreconstructingthecross‐streetwithretainingwalls,bridges,pavementandembankmentsinadditiontobuildingtheproposedrailroad.Becausetheroutesarestillconceptual,assumptionsweremadeastothetypesofrailroadgradeseparationsthatareproposedforpurposesofdevelopingcapitalcosts.Conceptualtypicalbridgesectionsbasedonpossiblecrossingsoftherouteoptionsweredeveloped.Toproduceplanninglevelcostestimates,TxDOT’sunitbidpricesofretainingwallsandTxDOT’saverageunitcostsofbridgesstructureswereutilized.Constructioncostswerereducedtoaunitcostpertypicalsection,whichwerethenappliedtoeachBypassOption.
LandAcquisitionCost:
Option 1 2 3
Present Value $ 0.002M $0.6M $3.3M Option 1 Relative Cost Ratio 1.00 300.00 1650.00 LandAcquisitionCostalmostentirelyreflectsthecostofacquiringlandonwhichgreenfieldsegmentsinBypassOptions2and3,includingconnectionstotheW.A.ParishGeneratingStation,wouldbebuilt.Option3required,inadditiontoestimationoflandcostofthethree‐trackfreightROW,theestimationofaseparatecostcoveringthepurchaseoflandwhichwouldaccommodatea2‐trackROWforaprospectivecommuterrail/lightrailcorridorwhichwouldlayadjacenttothefreightBypassROW.ThevaluesinthisanalysisonlyreflectthecostoflandforthefreightROW.WheretheBypasswoulduseexistingrailroad‐ownedROW,thelandvaluesweretreatedaszerocosttotheproject.
OnePublicMonetizedNon‐CapitalCostwasidentifiedduringtheStudyandabriefdescriptionofitfollows.Anotherwaytothinkofthenon‐capitalcostisasarecurringoperatingcost.
June 30, 2015 Page 30
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
TravelDelayCostsfortheCommunitiesImpactedbyGradeCrossingClosures:
Option 1 2 3Present Value $34.4M $40.7M $38.0M
Option 1 Relative Cost Ratio 1.00 1.18 1.10 Thecombinationofclosingsomeexistingat‐gradecrossingswouldresultinaportionofthefuturevehicletripsfromsomecommunitiesalongtheBypassbeinglengthenedinordertoreachagradeseparatedoverpass.Suchtripswouldincuradditionaltraveltimewhichischaracterizedas“delay”time.Theestimatedrangeofadditionaltriptimeisbetween30secondsand4minutes,withtheaverageestimatedatoneminuteforeachtripthatmustdivertitsexistingtravelpathtoreachagradeseparation.Placementofgradeseparationswillbedeterminedinthefutureinamannerthatmanagesthetripdiversiondelaytimesforimpactedareas,withtheseassessmentsmadeinconsultationwithemergencyresponseofficials.
PublicMonetizedBenefits:AsillustratedinTable7,below,TotalPublicBenefitsarenearlyidentical($2.9billion)forallthreeBypassoptions,becauseatleast70percentofthebenefitsineachoptionarecapitalcostavoidancebenefits(orangehighlight)whicharenotassociatedwiththedifferentlengthsoftheBypassoptionsorthedifferentlengthsofgreenfieldsegments–theoppositeofthecasewiththePublicCoststhatwerediscussedabove.Option3generatesslightlymorecommunityimpactbenefits(nohighlight)becausetheseareassociatedwiththenumberofgradecrossingsatwhichcongestion‐relatedimpactswouldbereducedandOption3reducescongestionatmoregradecrossingsthanOptions1and2.
Table7PublicMonetizedBenefits,2014–2040(millionsin2014)
Bypass Options
Benefit Item 1 2 3
Commuter Rail ‐ Avoidance of New Dedicated Right‐of‐Way and Track Construction Costs
1,812.4$ 1,812.4$ 1,812.4$
Grade Crossing Travel Delay Reduction 690.4$ 690.4$ 692.6$ Avoided Capital Costs of New UP Glidden Subdivision Grade Separated Crossings
265.7$ 265.7$ 265.7$
Fuel / Energy Consumption Reductions for Autos
132.2$ 132.2$ 132.8$
Reduced Number of Auto‐Rail (grade‐crossing) Accidents
20.3$ 20.3$ 25.8$
Reduction in Environmental Emissions 23.5$ 23.5$ 23.6$ Total Public Benefits: 2,944.5$ 2,944.5$ 2,952.9$
June 30, 2015 Page 31
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
ThetwocapitalcostavoidancebenefitswouldarisebecauseimplementationoftheBypasswouldeliminatetheneedtomakepublicinvestmentsintwoinfrastructureprojectsrelatedtocommuterrailintheUS‐90ACorridorandtheUPGliddenSubdivision.Bothbenefitsareexplainedbelow.
CommuterRail–AvoidanceofNewDedicatedRight‐of‐WayandTrackConstructionCosts:
Option 1 2 3Present Value $ 1,812.4M $ 1,812.4M $ 1,812.4M
Option 1 Relative Cost Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00
This“costavoidance”benefitaddressestheobjectiveofprovidingcommuterrailservicetoFortBendCountyontheUS‐90ACorridoratthelowestcapitalinvestmentthatcanbefound.ThisobjectivetoprovidecommuterrailserviceiscentraltothepurposeofbuildingthededicatedfreightrailBypassthroughFortBendCounty.A“no‐build”optionfortheBypasshasthereforebeendefinedwhichstillaccomplishesthisoverallobjective,butusesadedicatedcommuterrailright‐of‐way(ROW)optionthatassumesfreightoperationscontinueontheexistingUPGliddenandBNSFGalvestonSubdivisions.ThisoptionhasasignificantcostwhichwouldbeavoidediftheBypasswereconstructedandcommuterrailserviceinitiatedontheexistingUPGliddenSubdivision.TheGulfCoastRailDistricthasbeenstudyingtheviabilityofanewcommuterraillinewithintheUS‐90ACorridorthatwouldbebuiltonnewright‐of‐waywithnewtrackanddedicatedtoFRAcompliantpassengertrains.AseparatestudyoftheNo‐BuildOptioncontemplatesacommuterraillinelocateddirectlyadjacenttotheexistingUPGliddenSubdivisionbetweenthewestsideofFortBendCountyandtheterminusintheimmediatevicinityoftheTexasMedicalCenterwithintheurbancoreofHouston.Estimatedcoststoconstructcommuterrailservicethroughthiscorridorasdescribedabovetotalover$2.2billionassumingabaselinealignmentthatwasstudied.TheprimarycostdriversarethelandacquisitionandtheconstructionoftherailandbridgeinfrastructurewhichwouldbeneedtocreateadedicatedROWinwhichcommuterrailservicecouldoperateseparatedfromfreightrailservice.Thedollarcostofacquiring50‐footwideROWoverthe44milelength,passingthroughfivedifferentcitiesalongtherailcorridor,areverysignificantduetotheincreasinglyurbanizedcontextofthesurroundingdevelopmentthroughwhichthelinewouldpass.Inaddition,theextensivelengthsofaerialstructuresnecessarytothreadthenewdoubletrackpassengerrailfacilitythroughthemostdenselydevelopedsectionsofthecorridorcreatesubstantialconstructionexpense.Further,thelinewouldrequireawhollynewrailroadbridgetobeconstructedovertheBrazosRivereastoftheCityofRichmond.IftheFortBendBypasswereimplemented,thencommuterrailservicecouldbeinitiatedontheUPGliddenSubdivisionoronnewtrackwithintheUPright‐of‐way,thusavoidingthe$2.2billioncostofthisalternativecommuterrailplan.The$1.8billionbenefitamountreflectssubtractingfromthe$2.2billioncostavoidanceanamountof$413millionwhichrepresentstheestimatedcostoftrack,infrastructureandlandthatwouldberequiredtoimplementcommuterrailontheUPGliddenSubdivision.
June 30, 2015 Page 32
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
ThecapitalconstructioncostswhichwouldbeavoidedbyimplementingtheBypasswouldbethesameunderallthreeBypassoptionsbecausethecapitalcostsoftheNo‐BuildOptionareindependentoftheBypassoptionthatmightbechosen.
AvoidanceofCapitalCostsofConstructingUPGliddenSubdivisionGradeSeparations:
Option 1 2 3Present Value $ 265.7M $ 265.7M $ 265.7M
Option 1 Relative Cost Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 Astudyoffreightrailinfrastructureandoperationswasperformedin2007whichincludedthecostestimatesforconstructinggradeseparationsofmajorstreetsandarterialsalongtheexistingrailroadnetworkwithintheGreaterHoustonregion.ThecostsofthegradeseparationsnecessarytoreduceroadwaycongestioninducedbygradecrossingsandoptimizefreightrailoperationsalongtheUPGliddenSubdivisionwerethereforedocumentedwithinthatstudy,the2007TxDOTHoustonRegionFreightStudy.ThatstudyassumedtheFortBendBypasswouldnotbebuilt,andthereforegradeseparationswouldberequiredalongtheUPGliddenSubdivisionduetothenumberandslowspeedoffreighttrainsontheline.HoweveriftheBypasswerebuilt,nearlyall(85percent)ofthefreighttrainscurrentlyoperatingontheUPGliddenSubdivision(35trainsperdayin2014)wouldmovetothatroute,andtheonlytrainsofsignificantnumberwouldbecommuterrailtrains(16perday).Thedelaytimesaresubstantiallylessforthepassageofacommuterrailtrainwhencomparedtoatypicalfreighttrain.Commuterrailtrainscansafelytravelthroughat‐gradecrossingsathigherspeeds14,andthelengthofpassengertrainsisonlyafractionofthoseoftypicalfreighttrains.Asaresult,traveldelaytimesandat‐gradecrossingoperationswouldhaveamuchsmallerimpactontherestofthetransportationsystemandgradeseparationswouldnotberequired.Forthesereasons,theeventualneedtobuildfourteengradeseparationsalongtheUPGliddenSubdivisionbetweenPierceJunctionandRosenbergwouldbeeliminatedbyimplementationoftheBypass.The$265.7millioncostofconstructingthefourteengradeseparationswouldthereforebeavoided.Thisvalueisobtainedwhentheoriginalestimateof$216millionisescalatedto2014atanaverageof3percentannualinflation.ThecapitalconstructioncostswhichwouldbeavoidedbyimplementingtheBypasswouldbethesameunderallthreeBypassoptionsbecausethesecostsareindependentoftheBypassoptionthatmightbechosen.
ThefourcommunityimpactbenefitswouldarisebecauseimplementationoftheBypasswouldreducecongestion‐relatedimpactswhichresultatgradecrossingsbyreducingthenumberofgradecrossingsintheStudyarea.Valuesofthefourbenefitsinthissub‐sectionwerecalculatedbytheTexasA&MTransportationInstitute(TTI)usingitsImpedanceModelincollaborationwiththeStudyTeam.Asummaryofthemethodologyemployedinthesecalculationsandtwotableswhich 14 Commuter trains in the prospective US‐90A Corridor would be expected to operate at faster speeds than freight trains assuming no speed restrictions at grade crossings are requested by local municipalities along the route.
June 30, 2015 Page 33
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
presentthenon‐discounted(i.e.,non‐NetPresentValue)outputsofthefourbenefitsarepresentedinAppendixD.
GradeCrossingTravelDelayReduction:
Option 1 2 3Present Value $ 690.4M $ 690.4M $ 692.6M
Option 1 Relative Cost Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 Oneofthemostcommonsocietalbenefitsthataremonetizedforuseinrailroadgrade‐separation‐relatedbenefit‐costanalysis(BCA)studiesisthatofdelaytimereductionforvehiclestravelingthroughanat‐gradecrossing.Wheneveratrainpassesthroughacrossing,therearedelaysimposedonthevehiclesthatmuststopwhilethecrossinggatearmsaredown.Incalculatingbenefits,thesehoursofdelayaretypicallyconvertedtoadollarvaluebasedonanassumedvalueoftimeforthevehicleoccupantsand/orgoodsmoved.Theforecastedgrowthinfreighttrainactivityduring2014–2040(2.53percentcompoundannualgrowthrate)wouldresultinfreighttrainvolumeincreasingfrom35to68trainsperdayontheUPGliddenSubdivisionandfrom15to28trainsperdayontheBNSFGalvestonSubdivision15.SuchsignificantgrowthintrainactivitydirectlydeterminesthatdelaystoroadwaytrafficatgradecrossingswillincreaseinthefutureandmakesavoidanceofthesedelaysanimportantbenefitoftheBypass.
At‐gradecrossingsthatwereimpactedbytheBypassprojectincludeallofthecrossingsalongtheUPGliddenSubdivisionbetweenRosenbergandPierceJunction(inHouston).MostfreighttrainscurrentlytravelingalongtheUPGliddenSubdivisionwouldbemovedtotheBypass;however,acorrespondingaccountingofthecommuterrailtrainactivitywasaddedbacktotheUPGliddenSubdivision.TheTTIcalculationsofdelaytimetookintoaccountthechangeintrainactivity(bothintrainfrequencyandtrainlength),resultinginanetreductionindelaytimeontheUPGliddenSubdivision.Atothergradecrossings,thosewhichexistalongtheBNSFGalvestonSubdivisionandtheUPPoppSubdivision,theBypasswouldcreategradeseparationsofsomegradecrossingsandwouldcloseothers.InthecaseofOptions1and2,theexistingat‐gradecrossingsthatwerethebasisofthedelaytimecalculationswereidenticalbasedonthecommonplacementoftrainsalongtheBNSFGalvestonalignmentandtheUPPoppSubdivisionalignment.InthecaseofOption3whichincludesamajorgreen‐fieldsegment,thereareelevenadditionalexistingat‐gradecrossingsthathavetrainsremovedasaresultoftheBypasscorridordivertingtrainsfurthertothewestofRosenberg.Asaresultofthisdifference,thebenefitvaluecalculatedforOption3isslightlyhigher($692.6million)thanthetraveltimesavingsofOption1and2(690.4million).Thereareothertraveltimedelaycalculationsthatwereseparatelyperformedtoassesstheadditionalcoststhatwouldresultfromtheclosureofsomeexistingat‐graderoadway
15 See Table 3, Current and Project Train Volumes: Base Case, of this Study.
June 30, 2015 Page 34
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
crossings16.Thesecostsareduetothetripdiversionsthatthevehiclescurrentlyusingthoseimpactedroadways,butthetotalcostsareonlyaboutonetenthofthetraveltimedelaybenefitsdiscussedabove.ThisStudyalsoidentifiedPublicNon‐MonetizedImpactswhicharepresentedinasubsequentsection.Adiscussionofonesuchimpact,Impact#3–TrafficAccessandCirculation,notesthesocietalimpactsontrafficmovingalongUS‐90AwithinSugarLandwhichoccurwitheachpassageofafreighttrain.MostofthetrafficflowingalongtheUS‐90AhighwaydoesnotcrosstheUPGliddenSubdivisionandthereforewasnotincludedintheImpedanceModelcalculations–thereforethosesecondaryimpactswerenotmonetizedandarenotdiscussedhere.
Fuel/EnergyConsumptionReductionsforAutos:
Option 1 2 3
Present Value $ 132.2M $ 132.2M $ 132.8M Option 1 Relative Cost Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 AnotherbenefitofmovingfreighttrainactivityoffoftheUPGliddenSubdivisionisthereductionoffuel/energyconsumptionofautomobilesdelayedwheneverthegradecrossinggatearmsareactivatedbytrainsalongtheline.SomeadditionalsavingswouldresultfromeliminationofautomobileidlingatthosegradecrossingsontheBNSFGalvestonandtheUPPoppSubdivisionsthatwouldbecomegrade‐separatedasaresultoftheBypass.Thisadditionalbenefitisacorollarytothebenefitofreduceddelaytimeandaddressestheout‐of‐pocketcostsofthevehicleoperatorsforfuelthatwouldbeconsumedwhiletheirvehiclesidleatthecrossingwhilewaitingforthetraintopass.TheanalysisincludedtheallowanceforidlingassociatedwithvehicledelaywhencommuterrailtrainoperationswithfasterandshortertrainsareaddedbackontheUPGliddenSubdivision.ThebeneficialimpactofthereductionoffreightoperationsontheUPGliddenSubdivisionintermsoffuel/energysavingswassubstantial.BypassOptions1and2wouldgeneratebenefitsof$132.2millionoverthe27yeartimeperiodoftheStudy.AfewadditionalgradecrossingsimmediatelywestofRosenbergwereimpactedonlyunderOption3andcausedaslightlygreaterbeneficialimpact,withthefuelsavingstotaling$132.8million.
ReducedNumberofAuto–Rail(gradecrossing)Accidents:
Option 1 2 3
Present Value $ 20.3M $ 20.3M $ 25.8M Option 1 Relative Cost Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.27 Animportantaspectofcalculatingmonetizedsocietalbenefitscommonlyperformedduringbenefit‐costanalysisstudiesofprospectiverailroadgradeseparationsisthereductionofaccidentsbetweentrainsandvehiclestravelingthroughat‐gradecrossings.Thevaluationofthesocietalimpactsistypicallycompletedwithrespecttothecostsofpropertydamage,injuriesandfatalities.
16 In this Study see Table 6, Public Monetized Costs, 2014 – 2040, Line item: “Non‐Capital Cost – Travel Delay Costs for the Communities Impacted by Grade Crossing Closures” and subsequent discussion.
June 30, 2015 Page 35
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
WhentheBypassiscreatedwiththesealedcorridorconfiguration,therewillbenoat‐gradecrossingsatanypointalongitslength.Theremovalofthecauseofaccidentsbytheprovisionofgradeseparationsfortheappropriateroadwaycrossingsresultsinadirectandquantifiablebenefittosocietyasasafetyimprovement.TheanalysisincludedtheallowanceforaccidentswhencommuterrailtrainoperationsareaddedbackontheUPGliddenSubdivision.Theresultofthesafetyanalysisisabenefitof$20.3millionunderOptions1and2,and$25.8millionunderOption3–whichis27percenthigherthanOption1or2.ThedifferenceisduetoadifferenceinthepointatwhichtheBypasssealedcorridorwouldbegin,withtheOption3bypassbeginningfurtherwestfromRosenbergthanOptions1and2,andhavingadifferentsetofroadwaysimpactedbythegradeseparations.ThequantificationofgradecrossingaccidentsthatwouldbeeliminatedwasderivedfromstatisticaldatamaintainedbytheFederalRailroadAdministration(FRA)basedontheaccountingofaccidentsasafunctionofaveragedailytraffic(ADT)data.DataforthequantificationandmonetizationcalculationsweresourcedfromreferencetablesfoundintheUSDOTTIGERGrantapplicationguidelines.
ReductioninEnvironmentalEmissions:
Option 1 2 3Present Value $ 23.5M $ 23.5M $ 23.6M
Option 1 Relative Cost Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.01 ThesocietalbenefitwiththelowestmonetaryvaluerelativetotheothermonetizedbenefitsisthatofthereductioninenvironmentalemissionsthatwouldresultalongtheUPGlidden,BNSFGalvestonandUPPoppSubdivisionsiftheBypassprojectwasconstructed.Theemissionsresultprimarilyfromvehiclesidlingatthecrossingwhilewaitingforatraintopass.Environmentalemissionsareexpressedintermsofchangesinairpollutioncomponentssuchasnitrogenoxides(NOx),carbondioxide(CO2)andvolatileorganiccompounds(VOC).TheanalysisincludedtheallowancefordelaywhencommuterrailtrainoperationsareaddedbackontheUPGliddenSubdivisionaftertheoperationsofalmostallfreighttrainswererelocatedtotheBypass.ThebeneficialimpactofremovingmostfreighttrainsfromtheUPGliddenSubdivisionandgradeseparatingallappropriateroadwaycrossingsalongtheBNSFGalveston(whererelevanttoanOption)andtheUPPoppSubdivisionsresultsinatotalpresentvalueof$23.5millionforOptions1and2overthe27yeartimeperiodofthestudy.ThefewadditionalgradecrossingsimmediatelywestofRosenbergthatwerealsoimpactedfortheOption3casestudycausedaslightlygreaterbeneficialimpact,withthefuelsavingstotaling$23.6million.
PublicNon‐MonetizedImpacts:Thereareotherimpacts(e.g.,positiveandnegative)thatmustbeconsideredinthecomparativeassessmentoftheBypassOptions,butsomeoftheseotherimpactsarenotconvenientlyorreasonablymeasuredasmonetaryvaluesunderthelevelofstudythatthis
June 30, 2015 Page 36
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
feasibilitystudyallows.Therefore,theseimpactshavebeengradedonaqualitative/subjectivebasisemployingprofessionaljudgement.Comparativeconsiderationswerethenmadeandtherelativeimportanceofthedifferentimpacts,bothpositiveandnegative,areillustratedbelowinTable8.Theseimpactsarethendiscussed.
Table8PublicNon‐MonetizedImpactsEvaluationMatrix
PublicNon‐MonetizedImpact#1–EconomicGrowth,JobGrowthandEnhancedInvestment/DevelopmentPotential:Theincreasesinlandanddevelopmentvaluation,growthofnewindustryandtheassociatedemploymentgrowtharemajoreconomicdevelopmentaspectsthathavenotbeenpossibletoanalyzewithinthelimitsofthisfeasibilitystudyphaseoftheproject.However,theseprospectsarereasonablypossiblebasedonthelimitedmarketresearchperformed.ThisindustrialdevelopmentpotentialcouldhaveramificationsfornotonlyFortBendCounty,butalsotheregion,theStateofTexasandforthenationasHoustonregionisgrowingatapacewhichcouldmakeitthethirdlargesteconomyintheUnitedStatesoverthenext25years–surpassedonlybyNewYorkCityandLosAngeles.17ThesebenefitswouldbespreadacrossFortBendCountyinabroaderareaofimpactthanwasassumedforthemonetizedbenefitsanalyzedonlywithinthestrictBypassfreightrailcorridors.Futurephasesoftheprojectthataddresseconomicdevelopment,environmentalimpact/preliminaryengineering,andschematicdesignofthenewfreightrailBypassinfrastructuremaybeappropriatetofurtherinvestigatethequantifiableaspectsofthesetypesofimpacts.
17 U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, News Release: Economic Growth Widespread Across Metropolitan Areas in 2013, Table 1. Current Dollar GDP by Metropolitan Area, September 16, 2014, p. 5.
June 30, 2015 Page 37
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Option3hasthegreaternewdevelopmentpotentialandresultingeconomicimpactofthethreeOptionsbecauseitwouldcreatesignificantlymoredevelopablelandthanOptions1and2,givenoversixtypercent(31of50miles)ofOption3wouldtraversegreenfieldland.
PublicNon‐MonetizedImpact#2–NoiseandVibration:Impactsassociatedwithnoise
andvibrationdifferamongthethreeBypassOptions.Thefollowingdiscussionaddressestheimpactsofnoiseandvibrationinanon‐monetized,subjectivemanner18.Therefore,ageneraldiscussionofnoiseandgroundbornevibrationisgivenfirst,followedbycomparisonsamongvarioussegmentsoftheBypassoptionswithbroad,qualitativeassessments.Thecomparisonsaremadewithrespecttocurrentconditionswhereat‐graderoadwayscrossthefreightrailcorridor,versustheprospectivesealedcorridorBypass.NoiseandvibrationfromtrainmovementshavebeenstudiedanddocumentedacrosstheU.S.formanyyears19.AirborneNoiseImpacts–FreighttrainscurrentlyoperateontheexistingBNSFGalvestonSubdivision,UPGliddenandUPPoppSubdivisionalignmentsthroughRichmond,Rosenberg,Arcola,Fresnoandothersimilartownsandcommunities,aswellaspastmasterplannedresidentialcommunities,atspeedscommensuratewithnumerousgradecrossingsconditions.TheconceptofasealedfreightrailBypasscorridoralongwhichallroadwaycrossingsaregrade‐separated(orclosed,asapplicable)wouldsignificantlychangetheoverallnoiseimpacts.UnderfutureconditionswithaBypass,freighttrainsthatwouldbedivertedfromtheircurrentlinesontotheBypasswouldnolongerneedtosoundtheirtrainhornsatgradecrossingsandtheoverallnoiseimpactfromthesetrainswouldbeeliminatedfromtheareaalongtheUPGliddenSubdivision.Additionally,creationoftheBypassasasealedcorridorinessencecreatesa“quietzone”overtheentirelengthoftheBypasscorridor,becausetrainswouldnotsoundtheirhorns.TheremovaloftrainhornssoundingoverthelengthoftheBypasswillprovideabenefittothemanycommunitiesalongtheBNSFandUPfacilities.Withrespecttoairbornenoisefromtrainpassage,thistypeofnoisewillbelimitedtowheel/railandlocomotivenoisegeneration.Itcouldbesubstantiallymitigatedinportionsofthecorridorwhereitispossibletoprovidesoundbuffers,includingberms,bufferzoneswithtreesandsoundwalls(asappropriate).Ground‐BorneVibrationImpacts–Ground‐bornevibrationisaffectedbyboththespeedandweightofatrain.ForthecurrentoperatingconditionsalongtheBNSFGalvestonandtheUPGliddenandPoppSubdivisions,theoperatingspeedsarelowerthanareexpectedtooccurontheBypass.Inthefuture,theexpectedfasterspeedsontheBypasswouldproducehigherground‐bornevibration.Inaddition,thefrequencyoftrainmovementsthroughtheBypasswillincreasethefrequencyofvibrationevents.
18 ThediscussionhereinisasubjectiveassessmentofhowenvironmentalconditionswillchangewiththeimplementationoftheBypass,sincetheconversionofnoiseandvibrationintomonetizedcostshasnoestablishedconversionforuseinBCAcalculations.FuturestudiescouldaddressthisaspectinamoreanalyticalmannerthanwaspossibleinthisFeasibilityStudy. 19 TechnicalMemorandum3:Benefit‐CostAnalysis,AppendixD,ofthisStudy,providesadiscussionofthebasicengineeringaspectsofnoiseandvibration.
June 30, 2015 Page 38
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
However,ground‐bornevibrationsarelikelytobeimperceptibleatadistanceofaquartermileorgreaterundermostconditions.ThereforewhenconsideringthesensitivereceptorstonoiseandvibrationimpactsalongthethreeBypassoptions,theproximityofdevelopmenttothefreightrailcorridorshasthegreatestbearingontheimpacts.ComparisonofNoiseandVibrationImpactsAmongBypassOptions–Overall,Option3issuperiortoOptions1and2becausethelonggreenfieldsection(31of50miles)traversedbythisoptionenablesittoproducethefewestnegativenoiseandvibrationimpactsuponresidentialareas.TheconclusionsofrelativenoiseandvibrationimpactsamongtheoptionsareexplainedingreaterdetailinTechnicalMemorandum320andprovideaframeworkofpotentialenvironmentalimpactsthatcouldbeinvestigatedinahigherlevelofanalysisinsubsequentstudies.
PublicNon‐MonetizedImpact#3–TrafficAccessandCirculation:ThemovementoflongfreighttrainsthroughthedensestareaswithincitiesofFortBendCountyhasbroadimplicationsfortrafficaccessandcirculationwithinthecommunitiesalongtheexistingfreightraillines–communitieswhichareincreasingly“urban”innature.Majortrafficoperationsbenefitswillensueinthesecities,townsandmasterplannedcommunitiesfromthecreationofasealedcorridorfreightrailBypass.Asapointofreference,trafficoperationsstudiesbytheCityofSugarLandindicatethatfreighttrainpassageontheUPGliddenSubdivisionresultsinaveragetravelspeedreductionsofasmuchas10to15percentthroughtheUS‐90Ahighwaycorridorduringtheafternoon/eveningpeaktravelperiod21.Inparticular,trafficsignalcoordinationimpactsandassociatedvehicledelayareexperiencedallalongUS‐90AthroughtheCityofSugarLandwhichamounttoasmuchastwentyminuteswitheachtrainpassageevent,accordingtootheranecdotalinformationfromSugarLandofficials.SimulationstudieshavebeenperformedbySugarLandtoanalyzethesedelayimpacts,andfuturestudiesoftheBypassshouldconsiderincludinginthebenefit‐costanalysisalargertrafficimpactanalysisthataddressestheentireUS‐90ACorridor,encompassingthetrafficoperationsontheparallelhighwayinadditiontothedelayimpactsfortrafficcrossingthetracks.Thesetypesofstudiesoftrafficaccessandcirculationimpactswouldalsobeapplicabletotheothercitiesandtownsthroughwhichthefreightrailtrainspasswhenallroadwaycrossingsareatat‐grade.Richmond/RosenbergandStafford/MissouriCityalongtheUPGliddenSubdivision,aswellasthecommunitiesalongtheBNSFGalvestonSubdivision,wouldlikelyenjoysignificantpositiveimpactswiththecreationoftheBypass.Overall,theimpactontrafficaccessandcirculationwouldbeimprovedthroughouttheBypasscorridorunderallthreeBypassoptionsresultingfromtheprovisionofnumerousgradeseparationsatarterialstreetsandwithaspacingofapproximatelyonemilebetweengradeseparations.Asinthetwopreviouslydiscussedpublicimpacts,Option3issuperiortoOptions1and2becausethelonggreenfieldsection(31of50miles)traversedbythisoptionenablesittoproducemorepositiveimpactsandfewernegativeimpactsthantheothertwooptions.
20 Technical Memorandum 3: Benefit – Cost Analysis, pages 25 – 27. 21 ASeptember26,2013reportbyTexasA&MTransportationInstitutereportedthatinthep.m.peakhourtherewasasmuchasa10to12mphaveragespeedreductionforvehiclesalongtheUS90AcorridorondayswithactivefreighttrainmovementsalongtheUPGliddenSubdivision
June 30, 2015 Page 39
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Thecommunitiesthatexistnow,andthosethatdevelopovertimewilladapttravelpatternsovertimethatderivethegreatestbenefitfromthesepointsofgradeseparation,muchascommunitiesadapttofreewaygradeseparationswhenamajornewroadwayfacilityisconstructed.TherewillbesomeindividuallandparcelsthatarenegativelyimpactedintrafficaccessandcirculationwhentheBypassiscreated,butoveralltheimpactwillbeverypositive22.
SummaryofPublicMonetizedandNon‐Monetizedimpacts:WhenthePublicMonetizedandNon‐Monetizedimpactsareconsideredtogether,itisapparent,asillustratedinTable9below,thatallthreeBypassoptionswouldproducesignificantnetpublicbenefits.ThemagnitudeofthedifferencesamongthenetpublicmonetizedbenefitssuggeststhatOption1wouldbetheoptiontoadvanceforadditionalstudy.However,furtheranalysisofthePublicNon‐MonetizedImpactscoulddeterminewhethersomecouldbeconvertedtoPublicMonetizedBenefits,orcouldprovideguidanceastotheweightofimportancewhichshouldbeassignedtothem.
Table9
CombinedPublicImpacts,2014–2040($millionsin2014)
PrivateRailroadMonetizedBenefitsandCosts:TherelocationoffreighttrainactivitytotheconceptualBypassfacilitywillresultinanetincreaseinrailroadoperatingcostsbetween$72.6millionand$176.3million,dependingupontheBypassoption,overthe27‐yearstudyperiod(2014–2040).Theincreaseddistance‐basedcosts(asmeasuredinFreightTrain‐Miles)wouldsignificantlyoffsettheslightimprovements(benefits)intime‐basedcosts(asmeasuredinFreightTrain‐Hours).TheincreaseinFreightTrain‐Milesdrovetheresultsbecausedirectroadtrainoperatingcostsarepredominantlymileage‐basedasopposedtobeingtime‐based. 22 Technical Memorandum 3: Benefit‐Cost Analysis, Appendix E: Fort Bend Bypass Traffic Impact Assessment provides further discussion of these aspects.
June 30, 2015 Page 40
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
EconomicimpactsuponrailroadoperationswhichmightarisefromimplementationoftheBypasswereidentifiedintheformofincreases(costs)ordecreases(benefits)tofreightrailroadvariableoperatingcosts.Thesecostswerecalculatedbasedupondifferencesinfreighttrain‐milesandfreighttrain‐hoursduring2014‐2040,betweeneachBypassOptionandtheBaseCaseasillustratedinTable10below,columns1and2.Freighttrain‐miles(train‐miles)andfreighttrain‐hours(train‐hours)arecommonlyusedbyrailroadsinproductivityanalysesandbudgeting.Thedifferencesinfreighttrain‐milesandfreighttrain‐hourswerethenmultipliedbyunitcostfactors(costpertrain‐mileandcostpertrain‐hour,Table10,column3)tocalculatetheincreasesordecreasesinrailroadoperatingcost(Table10,columns5–8)23.Theresultingbenefitsfromreducedtrain‐hours(Run‐TimeBenefits)andincreasedcosts,fromincreasedtrain‐miles(LongerDistance(Costs))inTable10,column8,arethensummarizedinthesubsequentTable11.
Table10
CumulativeEconomicImpactUponRailroadOperations:ThreeBypassOptionsvs.BaseCase,2014‐2040
($millions2014)
23 The detailed explanation of the analysis of the economic impact upon railroad operations is at Technical Memorandum 1: Data Collection, Section 2 Railroad Data and Analysis, pages 11 – 23.
Reference Column Numbers ==> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Difference in Performance vs. Base
Case Cumulative Economic Impact Upon Railroad Operations
Present Value of Cumulative Economic Impact
Metric or Input
Entire Bypass vs.
UP ‐ Glidden Sub
Bypass ‐ Western Section vs. BNSF ‐
Galveston Sub
Cost Factors Cost Factor Unit
Entire Bypass vs. UP ‐
Glidden Sub (Annual
Impact) ( 1 )
Bypass ‐ Western Section vs. BNSF ‐
Galveston Sub (Annual
Impact) ( 1 )
Total Cumulative Impact
Assuming a Discount Rate of 3 Percent
Bypass Option 1: BNSF Galveston AlignmentFreight Train‐miles 2,918,309 ‐ 44.64$ Per Train‐Mile 130,273,300$ ‐$ 130,273,300$ 87,107,229$ Freight Train‐hours (54,196) (44,473) 220.54$ Per Train‐Hour (11,952,386)$ (9,808,120)$ (21,760,506)$ (14,550,163)$ Net Total Impact: Option 1 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 118,320,914$ (9,808,120)$ 108,512,794$ 72,557,066$ Bypass Option 2: BNSF Galvestion Plus Greenfield Corridor around SiennaFreight Train‐miles 5,016,714 1,014,462 44.64$ Per Train‐Mile 223,946,100$ 45,285,597$ 269,231,697$ 180,021,740$ Freight Train‐hours (4,166) (20,847) 220.54$ Per Train‐Hour (918,858)$ (4,597,664)$ (5,516,522)$ (3,688,674)$ Net Total Impact; Option 2 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 223,027,242$ 40,687,933$ 263,715,175$ 176,333,066$ Bypass Option 3: Rosenberg ‐ Arcola Greenfield CorridorFreight Train‐miles 5,016,714 1,014,462 44.64$ Per Train‐Mile 223,946,100$ 45,285,597$ 269,231,697$ 180,021,740$ Freight Train‐hours (20,847) (26,402) 220.54$ Per Train‐Hour (4,597,664)$ (5,822,763)$ (10,420,427)$ (6,967,587)$ Net Total Impact: Option 3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 219,348,436$ 39,462,834$ 258,811,270$ 173,054,153$
Notes:( 1 ) A negative value means that the cost of operating a train via the Bypass is lower than the Base Case. A positive value means the cost of operating a train via the Bypass is higher than the Base Case.
June 30, 2015 Page 41
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Table11SummaryofPrivateRailroadMonetizedBenefitsandCosts,2014–2040
($millionsin2014)
Run‐TimeBenefits:FasterrunningtimesontheBypass(between1and13
minutespertrain,dependingontheBypassoption)wouldenabletherailroads(UP,BNSFandKCS)toexpendfewertrain‐hoursintraversingthedistancesbetweenRosenbergandPierceJunction(Houston)andbetweenRosenbergandArcola.Consequently,therailroadswouldenjoyamodestmonetizedbenefitbetween$3.7millionand14.6millionoverthetwenty‐sevenyearsduring2014–2040.Option1producesthehighestRun‐TimeBenefit,becauseitenjoysnearlythesameaveragetrainspeedasOptions2and3,butissignificantlyshorterinlength,thusproducingthefastestrunningtimes.Option3producesgreaterRun‐TimeBenefitsthanOption2,becausethecomparativerunningdistances,asmeasuredfromtheintersectionofPattonRd.(fivemileswestofRosenberg)andtheUPGliddenSubdivision,arethesame(47miles),butOption3assumesafasteraveragetrainspeedthanunderOption2.Option2assumesasloweraveragetrainspeedbecausetrainsunderthisoptionwouldoperateoverfivemilesoftheUPGliddenSubdivisionbetweenPattonRd.andthebeginningoftheBypassattheBNSF–UPdiamondinRosenberg,atasloweraveragespeedthantheaveragespeedontheBypass.
LongerDistance(Costs):ThelongerdistancesoverwhichtrainswouldoperateviatheBypasswouldcausetherailroadstoincursignificantadditionaloperatingexpense,predominantlyinfuel,equipmentandmaintenance‐of‐wayduring2014–2040.Option1hasthelowesttrain‐milecostsbecauseitsrunningdistanceisfivemilesshorterthanOptions2and3.Options2and3producethesameLongerDistanceCosts,becausethecalculationoftrain‐milecosts,aswiththeRun‐TimeBenefitsabove,isbaseduponcomparativedistancesmeasuredfromthecrossingofPattonRd.andtheUPGliddenSubdivision.
June 30, 2015 Page 42
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Whilethenetincreaseinrailroadoperatingcostsisarelativelysmallportion(7to12percent)oftheestimatedtotalcostsoftheBypass,itwouldbeasignificantcosttotheClassIrailroads(UP,BNSFandKCS).AsintheanalysisofthePublicsectorimpacts,non‐monetizedimpactswereidentifiedinthePrivateRailroadsectorandtheyarepresentedbelow.PrivateRailroadNon‐MonetizedImpacts:TheFortBendBypassoffersfivepotentialadditionalbenefitstotherailroadswhich,whilenotquantifiedaspartofthisstudy,couldbereasonablytangiblewhenlookingata2040timehorizon,ascontemplatedinthisstudy.ThefivepotentialNon‐MonetizedImpactsarepresentedbelowinTable12andthendiscussed.
Table12PrivateRailroadNon‐MonetizedImpacts,2014–2040:
QualitativeComparisons
PrivateRailroadNon‐MonetizedImpact#1–EaseofAccesstoCapacity
Expansion:Giventhelong‐termtrainvolumeprojectionsonthesubjectBNSFandUPlines,easeofaccesstoexpansionofmainlinecapacitywouldbevaluabletoBNSFandUP.TheBypasswouldenablesucheaseofaccessbyhavingright‐of‐way(ROW)forathirdfreightmaintrackconstructedwhenthetwo‐trackfreightmainlineisbuilt.TheROWofthethirdfreightmainwouldbegradedandallbridges,drainagestructuresandotherinfrastructurewouldbebuilt,soonlythethirdtrackitselfwouldneedtobebuiltwhentheneedforitarises.
June 30, 2015 Page 43
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
UPcouldbeginexperiencingcapacityconstraintonitsGliddenSubdivisioninYear24(2038)whentrainvolumeisprojectedtoreach64trainsperday.Thisvolumeoftrainswouldbe86percentoftheline’spracticalcapacityof75trainsperday24,assumingthattheUPGliddenSubdivisionwouldbefullydouble‐trackedbythistime.SeeTable13below.
Table13UPGliddenSubdivision
ProjectedBaseCaseTrainVolumevs.PracticalCapacity,2014–2040
24 NationalRailFreightInfrastructureCapacityandInvestmentStudy,Table4.2AverageCapacitiesofTypicalFreightCorridors–TrainsperDay,page4‐7.
June 30, 2015 Page 44
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Likewise,BNSFcouldbeginexperiencingcapacityconstraintonitsGalvestonSubdivisioninYear22(2036)whentrainvolumeisprojectedtoreach25trainsperday.Thisvolumeoftrainswouldbe85percentoftheline’spracticalcapacityof30trainsperday,initscurrentsingle‐track‐with‐passing‐sidingsconfiguration.SeeTable14below.
Table14BNSFGalvestonSubdivision
ProjectedBaseCaseTrainVolumevs.PracticalCapacity2014–2040
June 30, 2015 Page 45
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
This‘easeofaccesstocapacityexpansionbenefit’wouldarisetothesameextentunderallthreeBypassoptions.ThefullrealizationofthisbenefitlikelyisdependentupontheimplementationofallormostofthetencongestionreductionandcapacityimprovementsthatwereevaluatedandrecommendintheHoustonRegionFreightStudy(2007).
Non‐MonetizedRailroadImpact#2‐EliminationoftheBNSF–UPDiamondCrossingatRosenberg:EliminationoftheBNSF‐UPdiamondcrossingatRosenbergwouldlikelyreducetraincongestion.Giventheprojectedgrowthintrainvolumesby2040,theconnectionsbetweentheBypassandexistingrailroadmainlinesinOptions1and2havebeensizedtoaccommodatethatvolumegrowth.TherailroadinfrastructureconstructioncostsonOptions1and2reflectrestructuringoftheconnectionsamongUP,BNSFandKCSatRosenbergandeliminationofthe(at‐grade)crossingoftheUPGliddenSubdivisionandtheBNSFGalvestonSubdivision.Allcurrentroutingoptionsthroughthiskeyjunctionwouldbepreserved.InOption3,therailroadinfrastructurecostsincludeconnectionsbetweentheBypassandUP,BNSFandKCS.TheconnectionwithUPwouldbedouble‐trackandtheconnectionswithBNSFandKCSwouldbesingle‐track.TheBNSFconnectionROWandoverpasseswouldbebuiltassingle‐trackandgradedtoaccommodateasecondmaintrackinthefuture.Option3likelywouldeliminatetheneedfortheRosenbergdiamond.
Non‐MonetizedRailroadImpact#3–EliminationoftheBNSF–UPDiamondCrossingatArcola:BypassOptions2and3wouldenabletheeliminationoftheBNSF‐UPdiamondcrossingandinterlockingatArcolaandwouldlikelyreducemaintenanceexpensetoBNSForUP.TheArcoladiamondwouldberetainedunderOption1soUP’saccesstotheW.A.ParishElectricGeneratingStation,inThompsons,wouldbepreserved.
Non‐MonetizedRailroadImpact#4–ReductionofTrainDelaysResultingfromGradeCrossingAccidents:AllthreeBypassoptionswouldenablediversionofmostofthefreighttrainsfromtheUPGliddenSubdivisionwithitsnumerousgradecrossings,tothesealed‐corridor,grade‐separatedBypass.ThisfacteliminatesthepotentialforthosetrainstobeinvolvedingradecrossingaccidentsbetweenRosenbergandPierceJunction.Further,thecurrentat‐gradecrossingsonBNSF’sGalvestonSubdivisionbetweenRosenbergandArcola,andUP’sPoppSubdivisionbetweenArcolaandPierceJunction,wouldbegrade‐separatedorclosedandsowouldeliminatethepotentialforgradecrossingaccidents.Thiswouldresultineliminatingtraindelaysonthoselines.Option3turnsoffoftheBNSF,UPandKCSmainlinesfurthertothewestofRosenberg,andasaresultactuallyremovesfreighttrainsfromelevenadditionalat‐
June 30, 2015 Page 46
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
graderoadwaycrossingswhencomparedtoOptions1and2.Asaresult,Option3providesagreaterreductionintraindelaysthantheothertwoOptions.
Non‐MonetizedRailroadImpact#5–MitigationofriskofEncroachmentUponRailroadRights‐of‐Way:TheClassIrailroadshaveexpressedconcernaboutencroachmentuponrailroadrights‐of‐way(ROW)byadjacentpropertyowners.CreationoftheBypassasasealedcorridorwouldhelppreventorreducetheriskofencroachmentuponrailroadROW,especiallyalongthegreenfieldsegments.InthosesegmentsoftheBypasswherewhollynewrailroadcorridorswouldbecreated,specificlandusecontrolscouldbeappliedtocreatebufferzonesalongtheBypass.BufferzonescouldbeaccomplishedbyactionofFortBendCountyforOption2inthegreenfieldsegment,andforthemuchmoreextensivegreenfieldsegmentofOption3.CreationofsetbackbufferzonesinwhichdevelopmentisrestrictedincloseproximitytothefreightrailROWispossiblewithappropriatelandusecontrols.Landusecontrolsshouldbeinvestigatedinsubsequentphasesoftheprojecttoassessthisprospectofcreatingbufferzones,andtheuseofmeanssuchasearthenbermsandvegetationtoenhancenoiseandvisualbuffersaroundtheBypassROW.
SummaryofPrivateRailroadMonetizedandNon‐Monetizedimpacts:WhentheRailroadMonetizedandNon‐Monetizedimpactsareconsideredtogether,itisapparent,asillustratedinTable15below,thatallthreeBypassoptionswouldproducesignificantnetadditionaloperatingcoststotherailroads,unlesstherailroadsassignsignificantvaluetothenon‐monetizedimpacts.
Table15CombinedPrivateRailroadImpacts,2014–2040($millionsin2014)
ThisconcludesSection3:Benefit–CostAnalysis.KeyobservationsfromthissectionaresummarizedbelowinSection4:Conclusions.
June 30, 2015 Page 47
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Section4:ConclusionsBasedontheprecedingobservationsandanalysis,itisconcludedthattheimplementationofafreightrailBypassthroughFortBendCountyistechnicallyfeasibleandwouldproduce:
TotalNetBenefits(Table16below,line4)between$1.2billionand$1.9billionoverthe27‐yearstudyperiod,dependingupontheBypassoptionchosen.Thismeanstotalpublicandprivaterailroadbenefitswouldexceedtotalpublicandprivaterailroadcosts.
NetPublicBenefitsbetween$1.3billion(Option3)and$2.0billion(Option1)overthe27‐yearstudyperiod(seeTable9),meaningthatpublicbenefitswouldbegreaterthanthepubliccostswhencalculatedonareasonablyconservativebasisand
ANetIncreaseinRailroadOperatingCostsbetween$72.5million(Option1)and$176.3million(Option2)overthe27‐yearstudyperiod,whencomparedwithcurrentrailroadoperations(seeTable11).Saidanotherway,therailroadswouldexperienceanaveragenetincreaseinoperatingexpensebetween$2.7million(Option1)and$6.5million(Option2)peryear.
Table16
SummaryofMonetizedandNon‐MonetizedImpacts,2014–2040($millionsin2014)
Thereareadditionalpotential“soft”(non‐monetized)publicandprivaterailroadbenefitswhichcouldaugmentthenetpublicbenefits,aswellaspartiallyoffsettheoperatinginefficiencieswhichwouldbeencounteredbytherailroadswhenoperatingviatheBypass.Thesenon‐monetizedimpactshavebeencombinedintoOverallNon‐MonetizedImpactsandarepresentedinthelasttwolinesofTable16,above.
June 30, 2015 Page 48
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Consequently,selectionofthepreferredBypassoptiontoadvanceforfurtherstudywilldependupontheweightgiven,bythePublicandPrivateRailroadstakeholders,tothePublicNon‐MonetizedImpactsandthePrivateRailroadMonetizedImpacts.
June 30, 2015 Page 49
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
APPENDICES
June 30, 2015 Page 50
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
AppendixA
Bypass:RailroadRight‐of‐WayTypicalSectionsThisimageisaplaceholder.Acleaner,sharperoriginalisinpdfandwillbeinsertedat
timeoffinalassembly.
June 30, 2015 Page 51
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
AppendixB
Long‐TermTrainCountGrowthRateEight,prospectivelong‐termgrowthrateswereconsideredbywhichtoestimatetheaveragedailycountoffreighttrainsthatwouldoperateviatheBypassin2040.Fromthese,acompoundannualgrowthrateof2.53percentwasrecommendedandused.Asbackground,itisimportanttonoteasignificantdifferencebetweentwowaysinwhichrailroadactivityismeasured(trainactivityandfreighttrafficactivity)andhowthisdifferenceimpactedtherecommendationofthe2.53percentgrowthrate.Railroadtransportationisaderived‐demandindustry,meaningthatgeneraleconomicactivity(manufacturingofgoods,buyingandsellingofgoods,etc.)inotherindustriescreatesdemandforrailtransportation.Whensuchdemandmanifestsitselfonarailroadtheresultingactivityiscommonlyreferredtoas“freighttraffic”orsimply,“traffic,“andismeasuredincarloads,tonsandrevenueton‐miles.Inrailroadoperations,freighttrafficmanifestsitselfintheformoftrainactivitywhichiscommonlymeasuredinnumberoftrains(traincounts),train‐milesandtrain‐hours.Thedifferencebetweenthechange(growthordecline)intrainactivityandthechangeinrailfreighttrafficactivityisthattrainactivitydoesnotgenerallychangeatthesameratesoverthelongtermbecauserailroadoperationalefficienciescontinuetoevolve.RailFigure1,below,illustratesthedifferenceingrowthoftrainactivity(freighttrain‐miles)andfreighttrafficactivity(revenueton‐miles)onWesternRailroadsovertheperiod1985to2011.
June 30, 2015 Page 52
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
Improvementsintrainhandlingtechniques,locomotiveefficiencyandtheuseofdistributedpowerhaveenabledrailroadstooperatelongertrainsandhandlemorecarspertrain.Additionally,capacitiesofrailcarshaveincreasedrequiringfewerrailcarstohandleagivenvolumeoffreight.GiventhatthepotentialimpactuponrailroadoperationsinthisStudyisdeterminedlargelybythenumberoftrainstobeoperatedovertheBypass(trainactivity),prospectivegrowthrateswhichmostcloselymeasuretrainactivityaremostappropriatetothisstudy.TheeightprospectiveratesarepresentedbelowinRailTable3.
June 30, 2015 Page 53
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
The2.53percent‘Averageof8‐YearTrainCountHistoryand26‐YearAAR‐WestFreightTrain‐MilesHistory’growthrateisrecommendedbecause:
Itiscalculatedusingtwomeasuresoffreighttrainactivity(traincountsandtrain‐miles)andfreighttrainactivitygrowthisakeymetricbywhichtheimpactsoftheBypassuponrailroadoperationsismeasured;
The8‐YearTrainCountHistoryrelatestospecificsegmentsoftheexistingraillines(UP–GliddenSub,BNSF–GalvestonSubandUP–PoppSub)thatformthecoreterritoryofthisstudy,sothedataareHouston‐specificandproject‐territory‐specific;
Rail Table 3
Prospective Long‐Term Train Count Growth Rates and Recommended Rate
Growth Rate ScenarioYear Range
Compound Annual
Growth RateH‐GAC 2013 ( 1 ) 2007 ‐
20351.30%
26‐Year AAR‐West Freight Train‐Miles History ( 2 ) 1985 ‐ 2011
1.69%
TX Statewide Long‐Range Transportation Plan 2035 Tonnage ( 4 ) 2008 ‐ 2035
2.14%
Average of 8‐Year Train Count History and 26‐Year AAR‐West Freight Train‐Miles History Recommended
N/A 2.53%
Greater Houston Partnership, Low End GDP ( 5 ) 2001 ‐ 2012
2.60%
26‐Year AAR‐West Revenue Ton‐Miles History ( 2 ) 1985 ‐ 2011
3.33%
8‐Year Train Count History ( 3 ) 2006 ‐ 2014
3.36%
Greater Houston Partnership, Average GDP ( 6 ) N/A 3.75%
Notes:( 1 ) HGAC Regional Good Movement Plan ‐ June 2013, Calculated from rail tons values, p. 2‐23.( 2 ) AAR Fact Book 2012: Base Year = 1985 and End Year = 2011( 3 ) RLBA: Compound Annual Growth Rate calculated based upon freight train counts in 2006 and 2014, which are sourced from Houston Region Freight Study (2006 values), Sugar Land Train Monitor (2014 values on the UP ‐ Glidden Sub) and grade crossing gate‐arm activation studies (2014 values on the BNSF ‐ Galveston Sub and the UP ‐ Popp Sub).( 4 ) Statewide Long‐Range Transportation Plan 2035, Texas Department of Transportation, Compound Annual Growth Rate calculated from Tons data at Table 2‐31: Texas Freight Summary by Mode, 2008 ‐ 2035, p. 2‐109.( 5 ) Houston ‐ The Economy at a Glance, Greater Houston Partnership, GDP growth rate for Houston Metro Area 2001 ‐ 2012, Vol.23, No. 5, May 2014, p. 2.( 6 ) Houston ‐ The Economy at a Glance, Greater Houston Partnership, GDP growth: Average of 11‐year CAGR 2.60%, expected low end of GDP growth range, and Perryman Group's 4.90% near‐term growth forecast, p. 2, third paragraph.
June 30, 2015 Page 54
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
The2006–2014timeperiodofthe8‐YearTrainCountHistorylogicallywouldcontainsignificantreflectionofcurrentchangesinrailtrafficmixandtrends;
Thelongertimeperiod(1985–2011)ofthe26‐YearAARWestFreightTrain‐MilesHistoryprovidesalong‐termperspectivetotrainactivitygrowthwhenitisaveragedwiththe8‐yearTrainCountHistory.GiventhatthisStudycontemplatesa2014‐2040(26‐year)planninghorizon,integrationofahistoricallong‐termgrowthrateinthegrowthraterecommendationisprudent;
Itisclosetoandslightlylowerthanthe2.6percent‘GreaterHoustonPartnershipLowEndGDP’growthrate,whichisspecifictotheHoustonMetroAreaandiscalculatedoveraneleven‐yearperiod,2001–2012and
Itismoreconservativethanthe3.36percent‘8‐YearTrainCountHistory’growthrate.InRLBA’sexperience,ithasbeenprudenttobereasonablyconservativewhenprojectinglong‐termgrowthofrailtrafficandtrainactivity.
June 30, 2015 Page 55
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
AppendixC
Rail Table 4Impact Upon Railroad Operations Performance: Three Bypass Options vs. Base Case
Reference Column Numbers ==> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Base Case Performance
Bypass Performance
Difference in Performance
Percent Difference in Performance
Run Time Difference Expressed in Minutes
Metric or Input
UP ‐ Glidden Sub
BNSF ‐ Galveston
SubEntire Bypass
Bypass ‐ Western Section
Entire Bypass vs.
UP ‐ Glidden Sub
Bypass ‐ Western Section vs. BNSF ‐
Galveston Sub
Entire Bypass vs.
UP ‐ Glidden Sub
Bypass ‐ Western Section vs. BNSF ‐ Galveston
Sub
Entire Bypass vs.
UP ‐ Glidden Sub
Bypass ‐ Western Section vs. BNSF ‐ Galveston
SubBypass Option 1: BNSF Galveston AlignmentDistance (operating miles) 35.0 29.0 42.0 29.0 7.0 0.0 20% 0%Average Train Speed (MPH) ( 1 ) 30.2 31.2 40.9 40.9 10.7 9.7 35% 31%Average Run Time (Hours) 1.16 0.93 1.03 0.71 ‐0.13 ‐0.22 ‐11% ‐24% ‐8 ‐13Freight Train‐miles per Day 1054.0 423.0 1264.0 423.0 210.0 0.0 20% 0%Freight Train‐hours per Day 34.9 13.6 31.0 10.4 ‐3.9 ‐3.2 ‐11% ‐24%Bypass Option 2: BNSF Galvestion Plus Greenfield Corridor around SiennaDistance (operating miles) 35.0 29.0 47.0 34.0 12.0 5.0 34% 17%Average Train Speed (MPH) ( 1 ) 30.2 31.2 41.0 41.0 10.8 9.8 36% 31%Average Run Time (Hours) 1.16 0.93 1.15 0.83 ‐0.01 ‐0.10 ‐1% ‐11% ‐1 ‐6Freight Train‐miles per Day 1054.0 423.0 1415.0 496.0 361.0 73.0 34% 17%Freight Train‐hours per Day 34.9 13.6 34.6 12.1 ‐0.3 ‐1.5 ‐1% ‐11%Bypass Option 3: Rosenberg ‐ Arcola Greenfield CorridorDistance (operating miles) 35.0 29.0 47.0 34.0 12.0 5.0 34% 17%Average Train Speed (MPH) ( 1 ) 30.2 31.2 42.3 42.3 12.1 11.1 40% 36%Average Run Time (Hours) 1.16 0.93 1.11 0.80 ‐0.05 ‐0.13 ‐4% ‐14% ‐3 ‐8Freight Train‐miles per Day 1054.0 423.0 1415.0 496.0 361.0 73.0 34% 17%Freight Train‐hours per Day 34.9 13.6 33.4 11.7 ‐1.5 ‐1.9 ‐4% ‐14%
Notes:( 1 ) In Options 1 and 2, Average Train Speed (MPH) on the Bypass is lower than Option 3 because Options 1 and 2 assume trains will operate over approximately five miles of the UP‐Glidden Sub at an average speed that is slower than the average speed on the Bypass.
June 30, 2015 Page 56
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
AppendixD
SocietalCostsandBenefitsCalculations25
Asetofcalculationsdirectlyrelevanttothebenefit‐costanalysis(BCA)assessmentsarethesocietalbenefits(orcosts)relativetochangesinthetrainactivitythroughat‐gradecrossingsalongtherailnetworkinthestudyarea.ThesecalculationswereperformedbyTexasA&MTransportationInstitute(TTI),usingitsImpedanceModel,incollaborationwiththeStudyTeam.Thetraveltimedelay,environmentalimpactsandtrain/vehicleaccident‐relatedexpenses(propertydamage,injuryandfatalities)werecalculatedandmonetized26.TheImpedanceModelcalculatesasocietal“cost”foreachat‐gradecrossingunderexistingandprojectedconditions.“Selectedgradecrossings”includelocationsatwhichdatawerecollectedbyfieldinspectionandotherroadwaylocationswhichexhibitaprojectedaveragedailytraffic(AADT)level,inyear2040,ofatleast5,000vehiclesperday.Theseconditionsreflectattributesoftheat‐gradecrossing,railroad,androadway;themostsignificantfactoristheAADT.AreductionincostbetweenexistingandprojectedconditionsoneachBypassoptionequalsabenefitofthatoption.Thenatureandmeasurementofthethreeimpactareasarereviewedbrieflybelow.
TravelDelayismeasuredintermsof“Vehicle‐HoursofDelay”usingtheImpedanceModel,withinputvaluesderivedfromthecombinationofannualaveragedailytraffic(AADT),timedistributionsoftrafficflowsthroughoutperiodsoftheday,thenumberoftrainspassingduringtheperiodofthedayandtheaveragedurationoftrainsoccupyingthecrossing;
GradeCrossingAccidentsaremeasuredincountsofaccidentsandarederivedusingAADTdata,whichinturnarecharacterizedasa)propertydamageonly,b)injuryandc)fatality.DataforwhichweresourcedfromreferencetablesfoundintheUSDOTTIGERGrantapplicationguidelinesandenteredintotheImpedanceModel,and
EnvironmentalImpactsareexpressedintermsofchangesinairpollutioncomponentssuchasnitrogenoxides(NOx),carbondioxide(CO2)andvolatileorganiccompounds(VOC).Fuelconsumptionimpactsalsoareestimated.TheseimpactsarecalculatedbytheImpedanceModelfromtheprimarymetricsofAADT,
25 TechnicalMemorandum3,Benefit–CostAnalysis:AppendixABenefit–CostAnalysisCalculations,SectionA.3,pagesA‐5–A‐9. 26 TechnicalMemorandum1,DataCollection,Benefit‐CostAnalysisAppendixA,providesanexplanationoftheTTIcalculationsusingthe“ImpedanceModel”thathasbeenderivedforthisspecifictypeofBCAcalculation.
June 30, 2015 Page 57
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
theaveragenumberoftrainspassingthroughouttheday,andthedurationthatthegatearmsaredowntoblocktrafficflowacrossthetracks.
TableD‐1showstheresultsoftheImpedanceModelapplicationtoOptions1and2.Theseresultsrepresentbothoptionsbecausethesameat‐gradecrossingsontheUPGliddenSubdivisionandsamenewgradeseparationsontheBNSFGalvestonSubdivisionswouldresultinthesamereliefoffreighttrainimpactsforbothBypassoptions.InthecaseofOption3,thereareadditionalat‐gradecrossingswestofRosenbergthatareaffectedbytheinitiationoftheBypasscorridorfurthertothewest.TableD‐2hastheresultsoftheImpedanceModelapplicationforOption3.Inthesetables,thethreeareasofsocietalimpactsarecharacterizedasfollows:
AreaofSocietalImpact HeadingsinTablesD‐1andD‐2TravelDelay Delay–TravelTimeSavingsGradeCrossingAccidents Safety‐AccidentSavingsEnvironmentalImpacts Sustainability
June 30, 2015 Page 58
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
TableD‐1
Option#1and#2SocietalCostsandBenefitsforasCalculatedbytheImpedanceModel
Note:IndividualBenefitValuesAreNotDiscountedtoNPV;OnlytheTotalBenefitsAreDiscountedtoNPV
Delay
Safety
Sustainability ‐
Redu
ction in
Carbon
Annu
al Travel
Time Savings
Safety /
Accide
nt
Savings
Bene
fit
NOX Savings
Bene
fits
VOC Savings
Benfits
CO2 Savings
Bene
fits
Fuel Saving
Bene
fits
NPV
of C
O2
Bene
fits a
t 3%
SCC
2014
$10,668,383
$778,689
$76,094
$3,085
$219,403
$2,176,018
$13,702,268
$13,702,268
$13,702,268
$219,403
$13,921,671
$13,921,671
2015
$11,749,703
$800,500
$82,805
$3,369
$252,517
$2,386,144
$15,022,521
$14,039,740
$14,584,972
$245,163
$14,284,902
$14,830,135
2016
$12,940,386
$822,863
$90,120
$3,681
$283,402
$2,616,767
$16,473,816
$14,388,869
$15,528,152
$267,133
$14,656,002
$15,795,285
2017
$14,249,628
$845,789
$98,084
$4,021
$317,878
$2,869,610
$18,067,132
$14,748,161
$16,533,985
$290,904
$15,039,065
$16,824,889
2018
$15,690,768
$869,292
$106,761
$4,393
$356,380
$3,147,069
$19,818,283
$15,119,273
$17,608,288
$316,639
$15,435,913
$17,924,927
2019
$17,274,474
$893,382
$116,201
$4,799
$407,990
$3,451,053
$21,739,910
$15,500,255
$18,753,037
$351,936
$15,852,191
$19,104,973
2020
$19,008,693
$918,074
$126,437
$5,241
$456,534
$3,782,770
$23,841,215
$15,886,408
$19,966,642
$382,340
$16,268,748
$20,348,982
2021
$20,911,413
$943,380
$137,559
$5,722
$500,123
$4,145,440
$26,143,515
$16,280,867
$21,257,070
$406,646
$16,687,513
$21,663,716
2022
$22,995,992
$969,313
$149,637
$6,247
$559,139
$4,541,575
$28,662,763
$16,681,989
$22,626,650
$441,390
$17,123,379
$23,068,040
2023
$25,249,204
$995,887
$162,572
$6,810
$636,459
$4,967,389
$31,381,861
$17,069,653
$24,051,584
$487,793
$17,557,446
$24,539,376
2024
$27,681,697
$1,023,114
$176,395
$7,414
$708,726
$5,425,052
$34,313,672
$17,443,331
$25,532,594
$527,359
$17,970,689
$26,059,953
2025
$30,300,973
$1,051,009
$191,116
$8,059
$787,740
$5,915,824
$37,466,982
$17,800,293
$27,066,945
$569,080
$18,369,373
$27,636,025
2026
$33,139,592
$1,079,585
$206,911
$8,754
$874,551
$6,445,868
$40,880,711
$18,151,524
$28,672,908
$613,393
$18,764,917
$29,286,301
2027
$36,170,468
$1,108,858
$223,608
$9,490
$968,752
$7,009,543
$44,521,967
$18,475,033
$30,317,293
$659,673
$19,134,706
$30,976,966
2028
$39,351,514
$1,138,840
$240,845
$10,254
$1,069,311
$7,597,528
$48,338,981
$18,746,690
$31,957,761
$706,941
$19,453,631
$32,664,702
2029
$42,736,258
$1,169,547
$258,845
$11,057
$1,177,702
$8,219,511
$52,395,218
$18,990,438
$33,630,496
$755,922
$19,746,360
$34,386,418
2030
$46,291,350
$1,200,993
$277,280
$11,888
$1,293,041
$8,868,693
$56,650,204
$19,189,384
$35,302,534
$805,780
$19,995,164
$36,108,314
2031
$50,019,716
$1,233,194
$296,089
$12,744
$1,391,481
$9,544,302
$61,106,045
$19,344,609
$36,970,162
$841,869
$20,186,478
$37,812,031
2032
$54,013,087
$1,266,165
$315,996
$13,654
$1,548,122
$10,265,011
$65,873,914
$19,489,714
$38,693,982
$909,358
$20,399,072
$39,603,340
2033
$58,261,775
$1,299,922
$336,890
$14,614
$1,690,976
$11,028,368
$70,941,568
$19,615,935
$40,456,985
$964,340
$20,580,275
$41,421,325
2034
$62,816,745
$1,334,479
$359,051
$15,636
$1,845,823
$11,843,031
$76,368,942
$19,735,186
$42,283,632
$1,021,987
$20,757,173
$43,305,619
2035
$67,691,044
$1,369,853
$382,552
$16,724
$2,013,429
$12,711,673
$82,171,847
$19,845,576
$44,171,417
$1,082,317
$20,927,894
$45,253,734
2036
$72,912,504
$1,406,061
$407,504
$17,883
$2,194,962
$13,639,456
$88,383,407
$19,949,299
$46,126,637
$1,145,534
$21,094,833
$47,272,171
2037
$78,503,000
$1,443,118
$433,964
$19,116
$2,391,414
$14,628,615
$95,027,813
$20,045,821
$48,149,809
$1,211,710
$21,257,531
$49,361,518
2038
$84,423,183
$1,481,042
$461,656
$20,411
$2,601,980
$15,672,024
$102,058,317
$20,120,452
$50,205,929
$1,280,002
$21,400,454
$51,485,931
2039
$90,749,322
$1,519,848
$490,945
$21,787
$2,829,328
$16,783,231
$109,565,133
$20,187,286
$52,328,918
$1,351,303
$21,538,589
$53,680,221
2040
$90,749,322
$1,519,848
$490,945
$21,787
$2,829,328
$16,783,231
$109,565,133
$18,866,622
$50,804,774
$1,311,945
$20,178,567
$52,116,719
Total
$1,136,550,193
$30,482,647
$6,696,861
$288,639
$32,206,491
$216,464,795
$1,390,483,136
$479,414,678
$847,285,424
$19,167,858
$498,582,535
$866,453,281
Total Ben
efits
Discou
nt to
2014 at 3
%Ye
ar
Sustainability
Total Ben
efits
‐Exclud
ing
redu
ction in
Carbon
Bene
fits
Discou
nt to
2014 at 7
% ‐
Exclud
ing
redu
ction in
Carbon
Bene
fits
Discou
nt to
2014 at 3
% ‐
Exclud
ing
redu
ction in
Carbon
Total Ben
efits
Discou
nt to
2014 at 7
%
June 30, 2015 Page 59
FINAL REPORT
FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2
TableD‐2
Option#3SocietalCostsandBenefitsforasCalculatedbytheImpedanceModel
Note:IndividualBenefitValuesAreNotDiscountedtoNPV;OnlytheTotalBenefitsAreDiscountedtoNPV
Delay
Safety
Sustainability ‐
Redu
ction in
Carbon
Annu
al Travel
Time Savings
Safety /
Accide
nt
Savings
Bene
fit
NOX Savings
Bene
fits
VOC Savings
Benfits
CO2 Savings
Bene
fits
Fuel Saving
Bene
fits
NPV
of C
O2
Bene
fits a
t 3%
SCC
2014
$10,699,609
$970,520
$76,706
$3,101
$220,485
$2,185,642
$13,935,577
$13,935,577
$13,935,577
$220,485
$14,156,062
$14,156,062
2015
$11,784,021
$999,035
$83,467
$3,387
$253,754
$2,396,617
$15,266,527
$14,267,782
$14,821,871
$246,363
$14,514,145
$15,068,233
2016
$12,978,105
$1,028,321
$90,835
$3,700
$284,779
$2,628,165
$16,729,127
$14,611,867
$15,768,806
$268,431
$14,880,298
$16,037,238
2017
$14,291,089
$1,058,396
$98,858
$4,042
$319,411
$2,882,018
$18,334,402
$14,966,333
$16,778,575
$292,307
$15,258,640
$17,070,882
2018
$15,736,346
$1,089,278
$107,598
$4,416
$358,087
$3,160,577
$20,098,216
$15,332,832
$17,857,004
$318,156
$15,650,988
$18,175,160
2019
$17,324,582
$1,120,986
$117,107
$4,824
$409,931
$3,465,762
$22,033,261
$15,709,410
$19,006,084
$353,610
$16,063,020
$19,359,694
2020
$19,063,786
$1,153,540
$127,417
$5,268
$458,692
$3,798,788
$24,148,799
$16,091,365
$20,224,239
$384,147
$16,475,512
$20,608,386
2021
$20,971,992
$1,186,960
$138,620
$5,752
$502,472
$4,162,887
$26,466,210
$16,481,826
$21,519,451
$408,556
$16,890,381
$21,928,007
2022
$23,062,607
$1,221,265
$150,785
$6,279
$561,751
$4,560,581
$29,001,517
$16,879,147
$22,894,066
$443,452
$17,322,599
$23,337,517
2023
$25,322,464
$1,256,476
$163,815
$6,845
$639,420
$4,988,097
$31,737,697
$17,263,204
$24,324,302
$490,062
$17,753,266
$24,814,364
2024
$27,762,271
$1,292,613
$177,741
$7,452
$712,015
$5,447,618
$34,687,695
$17,633,465
$25,810,903
$529,806
$18,163,271
$26,340,709
2025
$30,389,598
$1,329,698
$192,573
$8,101
$791,392
$5,940,419
$37,860,389
$17,987,198
$27,351,151
$571,719
$18,558,917
$27,922,869
2026
$33,237,079
$1,367,752
$208,489
$8,799
$878,607
$6,472,678
$41,294,797
$18,335,384
$28,963,340
$616,237
$18,951,621
$29,579,577
2027
$36,277,711
$1,406,798
$225,317
$9,539
$973,254
$7,038,771
$44,958,136
$18,656,028
$30,614,303
$662,738
$19,318,767
$31,277,042
2028
$39,469,499
$1,446,856
$242,696
$10,307
$1,074,308
$7,629,398
$48,798,756
$18,924,999
$32,261,727
$710,244
$19,635,243
$32,971,971
2029
$42,866,069
$1,487,950
$260,849
$11,115
$1,183,247
$8,254,268
$52,880,252
$19,166,237
$33,941,821
$759,481
$19,925,718
$34,701,302
2030
$46,434,183
$1,530,102
$279,452
$11,951
$1,299,193
$8,906,604
$57,162,291
$19,362,846
$35,621,650
$809,614
$20,172,460
$36,431,264
2031
$50,176,888
$1,573,336
$298,441
$12,813
$1,398,190
$9,585,659
$61,647,137
$19,515,905
$37,297,532
$845,928
$20,361,833
$38,143,460
2032
$54,186,050
$1,617,675
$318,545
$13,729
$1,555,693
$10,310,135
$66,446,134
$19,659,013
$39,030,101
$913,805
$20,572,819
$39,943,906
2033
$58,452,126
$1,663,143
$339,652
$14,695
$1,699,373
$11,077,610
$71,547,226
$19,783,404
$40,802,383
$969,129
$20,752,533
$41,771,512
2034
$63,026,247
$1,709,764
$362,046
$15,725
$1,855,135
$11,896,774
$77,010,555
$19,900,991
$42,638,877
$1,027,143
$20,928,134
$43,666,020
2035
$67,921,638
$1,757,563
$385,798
$16,820
$2,023,755
$12,770,338
$82,852,158
$20,009,880
$44,537,117
$1,087,868
$21,097,748
$45,624,985
2036
$73,166,329
$1,806,565
$411,022
$17,988
$2,206,410
$13,703,504
$89,105,408
$20,112,264
$46,503,444
$1,151,509
$21,263,773
$47,654,953
2037
$78,782,414
$1,856,795
$437,779
$19,230
$2,404,107
$14,698,550
$95,794,768
$20,207,608
$48,538,418
$1,218,141
$21,425,749
$49,756,559
2038
$84,730,784
$1,908,279
$465,792
$20,536
$2,616,051
$15,748,400
$102,873,791
$20,281,220
$50,607,088
$1,286,924
$21,568,144
$51,894,012
2039
$91,087,973
$1,961,042
$495,431
$21,923
$2,844,926
$16,866,652
$110,433,021
$20,347,193
$52,743,426
$1,358,752
$21,705,946
$54,102,178
2040
$91,087,973
$1,961,042
$495,431
$21,923
$2,844,926
$16,866,652
$110,433,021
$19,016,068
$51,207,209
$1,319,177
$20,335,246
$52,526,386
Total
$1,140,289,432
$38,761,747
$6,752,264
$290,261
$32,369,362
$217,443,162
$1,403,536,867
$484,439,048
$855,600,466
$19,263,784
$503,702,832
$874,864,250
Total Ben
efits
Discou
nt to
2014 at 3
%Ye
ar
Sustainability
Total Ben
efits
‐Exclud
ing
redu
ction in
Carbon
Bene
fits
Discou
nt to
2014 at 7
% ‐
Exclud
ing
redu
ction in
Carbon
Bene
fits
Discou
nt to
2014 at 3
% ‐
Exclud
ing
redu
ction in
Carbon
Total Ben
efits
Discou
nt to
2014 at 7
%