final submitted comments on fdeir for bnsf scig project 3 6 2012

Professor

University of Southern California • 2001 N Soto Street, M/C 9237 • Los Angeles, CA 90089-9237 • Tel: (323) 442-3077 • Fax: (323) 442-3272

VIA EMAIL March 6, 2013 Mr. Christopher Cannon Director of Environmental Management Port of Los Angeles 425 South Palos Verdes Street San Pedro, CA 90731 Re: Final Environmental Impact Report: Southern California International Gateway (SCIG) Dear Mr. Cannon: The Community Outreach and Engagement Program of the Southern California Environmental Health Sciences Center based at Keck School of Medicine of USC submits the following comments on the Port’s responses to comments included in the Final EIR (FEIR) in this matter. Although we thank POLA staff for entering new information into the FEIR about the carcinogencity of diesel exhaust and the fact that ultrafine particles are toxic and are not covered by current standards (as had been previously claimed), we consider unresponsive many other POLA responses to my comments on the DEIR and RDEIR. Four of my concerns about the FEIR are:

1) Proximity to traffic related air pollution and its health impacts on children and adults is ignored in DEIR, RDEIR and FEIR

In all of our previous comment letters and oral testimony, we have requested that the Port describe and consider the large body of evidence showing that children who live near busy roads, freeways or other sources of traffic pollution are more likely to develop lung function problems and asthma, and that adults also suffer health effects from living or working near traffic pollution. USC and UCLA investigators have published dozens of such studies, and the USC studies include children living in Long Beach, CA. Despite our request that these studies and the body of evidence be described in the EIR, they are not.

Professor


2) The baseline used by the POLA for the “project” completely underestimates future emissions and air pollution impacts from the Hobart Yard.

As many commenters have noted, the claimed “removal of trucks from the I-710” that would have gone to Hobart Yard if SCIG is built provides a reduction in air pollution in the project’s CEQA baseline. But the future emissions from Hobart as more and more transloading occurs and as Hobart fills up are not considered in the “purview” of the EIRWe cite here the South Coast AQMD comments on the DEIR which appropriately challenge the methods used by POLA to develop its CEQA baseline with regard to Hobart Yard. The AQMD wrote: “In short, much of the DEIR (including its health impacts and needed mitigations) is based on a fundamental but unsubstantiated assumption that constructing SCIG will eliminate truck trips to Hobart. But nothing in the SCIG project approval would limit capacity at Hobart, and BNSF has stated no intention to reduce operations there. There is a direct tie between building SCIG and opening up capacity at Hobart, and the EIR must analyze how much of that capacity will be filled, e.g. by domestic freight. Only then can a valid assessment of truck and locomotive traffic and emissions impacts of SCIG be developed. The EIR is fundamentally deficient under CEQA without a thorough analysis of this issue.” {SCAQMD letter with comments on DEIR dated February 2, 2012 to Chris Cannon, POLA}.

3) The public was refused access to the detailed explanation of the complex 52 pages of Excel sheets in Appendix G4 during the period of comment for the RDEIR – and was denied access to a report by the consulting firm that produced Appendix G4

In all of my previous comment letters, I have discussed the failure of the Port to develop accurate statistics on transloading. In the RDEIR, suddenly 52 pages of Excel sheets appeared, produced by Cambridge Systematics (CS). Since there was no accompanying section in the FEIR about the methodology used by CS to produce the Excel sheets – in fact, the RDEIR did not even a legend for the dozens of abbreviations used, I requested a report by CS report dated August 2012 on transloading that was cited in the references. During the period of time when comments were open for the RDEIR, this commenter did not receive the CS report, which the Port actually claimed did not exist, nor did she receive the legend for abbreviations or any other information about CS’s methodology in developing the 52 pages of Excel sheets. The Port allowed a phone call with Gill Hicks of CS to help the commenter understand one of the tables in the document. As a result, no member of the public had any information about the CS calculations and CS methodology or CS abbreviations until the FEIR was released in February 2013, at which time

Professor


four full pages of explanation about Appendix G4 was added. It was too late for the public to analyze the Appendix or otherwise have any input. I called Cambridge Systematics directly to see if I could get a copy of the consulting firm’s August 2012 report that Chris Cannon said did not exist. The person said that the report could only be released by the Ports – but that CS’s understanding was that the Ports were not planning to “make the report public.”

4) It is unconscionable to claim that the impact of twice as many locomotives to be serviced at the Sheila Yard in Commerce, CA is not an impact of the BNSF SCIG Project, when the locomotives to be serviced would be arriving at the Sheila Yard from the BNSF SCIG.

This is yet another example of the faulty analyses and assumptions in the entire BNSF SCIG FEIR. Please see my oral comments at the FDEIR hearing of March 7, 2013, attached, and attached documentation provided. The refusal of the POLA to provide this information on such a controversial project during an active comment period resulted in a great disservice to the public. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely,

Andrea Hricko, MPH Professor of Clinical Preventive Medicine Keck School of Medicine University of Southern California Director, Community Outreach and Education Program Southern California Environmental Health Sciences Center 2001 N. Soto Street, MC 9237 Los Angeles, CA 90089 Phone: 323-442-3077

Andrea Hricko, USC. [email protected], Comments on the FEIR for the BNSF SCIG Project

I work with the scientists at USC who conduct the Children’s Health Study. For the past 6 years, I and others have submitted for the record USC and UCLA research findings showing that children who live or go to school near traffic pollution are more likely to have lung function deficits and develop asthma. I have repeatedly asked for a discussion of these research findings in the draft EIR and its revised versions, all to no avail. If this project is built, there will be children and youth playing at schoolyards several hundred feet from the rail yard, yet there is no discussion of the hundreds of papers documenting what the proximity to traffic pollution may do to their health. None of the environmental documents produced by the POLA even mention the words “lung function” – even though reduced lung function is one of USC’s key findings in a study that includes hundreds of children from Long Beach schools.

Meanwhile, for 6 years, both the Port and BNSF have consistently claimed that the SCIG project would take more than a million trucks off the I‐710 that otherwise would have gone to the Hobart Yard in Commerce, arguing that building the SCIG will somehow reduce air pollution. In February 2005, before the environmental review even started, then‐Mayor Hahn proclaimed that the SCIG would eliminate one million truck trips a year, without even doing any calculations!

The rhetoric has not changed in 6 years. But during that time there have been major new industry trends. By 2011, industry journals did major stories about “transloading,” in which the imported goods inside three 40‐foot ocean‐going containers are transferred into two 53‐foot containers, which big‐box retailers have grown to prefer. Much of this transferring of goods occurs between the Ports and the Commerce rail yards, and it and involves trucks traveling on the I‐710 to get to the rail yards. The trend is so popular that trade journals report that 25‐30% of all the imported containers coming in the Ports of LA and Long Beach are handled this way. But the Port ignored all those statistics in its draft EIR in 2011, claiming a figure of only 8%. (DEIR at 1‐21).

Why does any of this matter? Because BNSF claims that only 40‐foot containers will be handled at SCIG. But the more transloading there is, the more 53‐foot containers there are that need to get onto rail. BNSF can send those 53‐foot containers to Hobart, which, BNSF says will expand even if the SCIG is built. The Port says that Hobart’s expansion is “beyond the purview of the SCIG RDEIR.” That’s right, thousands more trucks on the I‐710 carrying 53‐foot containers heading north to Hobart after SCIG is built – but it is beyond the purview for evaluating SCIG’s impacts.

14 days after the draft EIR for the SCIG was released, and 6 years after the NOP, the Port commissioned a new study of transloading. In its work order, the Port refers to studies showing that transloading of imported containers from the Ports is at 29% ‐‐ three times higher than it admitted in the DEIR. When the newly commissioned report by Cambridge Systematics came out, it also concluded that 27% of loaded import containers are now transloaded to rail. Despite these new statistics, the revised EIR and the Final EIR all still claim that the SCIG will take more than a million trucks off that I‐710 Freeway.

When the revised revised EIR came out in September 2012, many of us had a hard time understanding Appendix G4, a complex set of 52 pages of Excel sheets with calculations by Cambridge Systematics. There was no explanation, no methodogy was provided and abbreviations on the Excel sheets had no legend. I asked Chris Cannon for a copy of the CS August 2012 report, since it was cited as a reference in the DEIR. He said there was no report, that CS had only produced charts and Tables for the revised EIR. I asked again, explaining that I needed the actual report dated August 2012 to understand the Appendix.

He agreed to let Gill Hicks answer a few questions for me, but I never received either a legend for the critical abbreviations nor the requested report before the revised DEIR comment period ended.

After the comment period was over, someone else sent me the “non‐existent” August 2012 report. It is about 60‐pages long. Learning that I had the report in hand, Chris apologized for any so‐called “miscommunication” that might have caused confusion with me or the public.

The report details how the Ports embrace transloading, why major big box retailers like it, how the practice is on the rise. It even suggests that the Ports allow the SCIG to accept transloaded containers and urges building more transload centers between the 110 and 710 Freeways. None of that language, which raises some very interesting questions about air pollution, traffic and health, is in the final EIR.

The final EIR, which is now out, contains the first PUBLIC explanation for the abbreviations in the critical Appendix charts, a full 5 months after I requested them.

Besides raising questions of trust, what this means is that no one had the Cambridge Systematics report to review before comments were due on the RDEIR. I wonder, are there other important reports like this one sitting on the Port’s shelves, out of public sight?

We need to be able to trust what the Port says, to have it be transparent in its calculations on truck trips and air pollution, rather than putting obstacles in the public’s way that reduce understanding of complex subjects. And we need a Port that recognizes the latest research findings on air pollution and children’s health – on that acts to protect those who are vulnerable.

Thank you.

Environmental Review Chronology

for BNSF SCIG Project

September 20, 2005. NOP released.

September 23, 2011. DEIR released.

February 1, 2012. Comments due on DEIR.

September 27, 2012. RDEIR released.

November 13, 2012. Comments due on RDEIR.

February 22, 2013. FDEIR published.

March 7, 2013. Harbor Commissioners consider the FEIR.

Attachments to Andrea Hricko’s oral comments on the FDEIR for the BNSF SCIG Project

Andrea Hricko, USC, [email protected]

Emails are in chronological order.

Requests are for a copy of the Cambridge Systematics (CS) transload report commissioned by the Ports. Having the report and an explanation of Appendix G4’s methodology and legend of abbreviations was critical to understanding the complicated Excel sheets created by CS for the BNSF SCIG Project’s RDEIR.

CS Report came out in August 2012.

Cited as August 2012 Report with that date in the RDEIR.

Slightly revised report came out in December 2012.

No versions received from POLA until February 2013 – after comments were due on the RDEIR.

1

Andrea Hricko

From: Cannon, Chris [[email protected]]Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 4:38 PMTo: 'Andrea Hricko'Subject: RE: Cambridge Systematics report

Okay, so I’ve looked into the reference you refer to. The reference ‐ Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (CS) and Starboard Alliance LLC 2012 Transloading of Marine Containers in Southern California. August 2012 – should have been a reference to data. CS prepared a couple of Chapter 1 tables, Tables 1‐2 and 1‐5, which cite “Transload data from Cambridge Systematics and Starboard Alliance (2012).” That is the correct reference. Regarding your detailed follow up questions, consistent with our public CEQA process, we provide everyone with the same EIR, appendices and references and can really only answer limited basic questions before the end of the comment period. If we offered individual explanation sessions for one person, we would have to do it for everyone. Your questions would require technical explanations that go beyond what we can do. Instead, you are welcome to raise them in a comment letter. When public comments are received we will respond to them and post the responses in the Final EIR for everyone to see. Sorry I can’t be of any further help. Christopher Cannon Environmental Management Division Port of Los Angeles 425 South Palos Verdes Street San Pedro, CA 90731 310‐732‐3763 ph 310‐547‐4643 fx

From: Andrea Hricko [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 1:18 PM To: Cannon, Chris Subject: Cambridge Systematics report Dear Chris: I am having a very hard time understanding part of the RDEIR. Having the Cambridge Systematics report is critical to any understanding of page 1‐24 of the RDEIR. That page’s footnotes say that Transload to Rail (eastbound) is estimated at 27% of loaded imports. THEN the table uses ½ that figure (13.5%). WHY??? The 27% figure is nearly identical to the percentage that John Doherty at ACTA claims are currently transloaded import containers. That is, of all containers coming into the ports, 27% are transloaded to rail. On page 1‐9, the RDEIR uses the figure of 13.5% transloaded now and 16% transloaded by 2016. On page 1‐22, the 27% figure is again given for transloaded import containers to rail. These discrepancies make the RDEIR impossible to understand with regard to what will happen at Hobart. I hope that you can send the CS report asap, in hopes it clears this up. It should have been on the disk, but I cannot find it. Andrea Andrea M. Hricko Prof of Prev Med Keck School of Med, USC & Director, Community Outreach and Education Southern CA Env Health Sciences Ctr 2001 N. Soto Street, MC 9237, Los Angeles, CA

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

1

Andrea Hricko

From: Gill Hicks [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 9:58 AMTo: Andrea HrickoSubject: Re: question re your report in the RDEIR of the BNSF SCIG

Hello Andrea: Thanks for your inquiry. The POLA has asked me to respond as follows: “We are unable to respond to questions outside of the CEQA process. Please submit a public comment letter to: Chris Cannon, Director of Environmental Management Port of Los Angeles 425 South Palos Verdes Street San Pedro, CA 90731 Or via email to: [email protected] Thank you for your cooperation.” Gill Gill V. Hicks Director, Southern California Operations Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 445 S. Figueroa Street Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Main Office Phone: 213-612-7755 Direct Line: 213-612-7756 Fax: 213-612-7758 Cell: 310-403-6274 From: "Andrea Hricko" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: "'Andrea Hricko'" <[email protected]> Date: 10/12/2012 08:37 PM Subject: question re your report in the RDEIR of the BNSF SCIG

Dear Mr. Hicks: I hope you can answer a couple of simple technical questions about the Cambridge Systematics work in the BNSF SCIG RDEIR. 1.) On page 1‐22 of the RDEIR, a footnotes states that transload to rail (eastbound) is 27% of loaded imports. This figure is what John Doherty of ACTA cites and also what you cite in several recent presentations. Questions: What does “eastbound” mean in that footnote? My understanding is that at this point in time 27% of imported containers, those that come INTO the Ports, are subsequently transloaded to RAIL. (not direction mentioned). Second, why is that figure “halved” in the table, where it says that 13.5% of the imported containers are transloaded? Can you explain that to me?

ahricko

Highlight

2

2). Something seems to be incorrect with the headings in Appendix G4. Both the 8.5 x 11 inch sheets and the 11 x 17 inch sheets say that they are “TEU” numbers. But the numbers on the longer sheets are 1.85 times higher than the shorter sheets, meaning that one of the sets is containers and the other is TEUs. Can you advise which is which? 3. Many thanks for your help in making the work of Cambridge Systematics more understandable. Best wishes, Andrea Hricko, USC Andrea M. Hricko Prof of Prev Med Keck School of Med, USC & Director, Community Outreach and Education Southern CA Env Health Sciences Ctr 2001 N. Soto Street, MC 9237, Los Angeles, CA Zip: 90089 for regular mail Zip: 90032 for FedEx -- and for map directions to our location Phone: 323-442-3077

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

1

Andrea Hricko

From: Andrea Hricko [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 10:27 AMTo: 'Gill Hicks'Cc: 'Cannon, Chris'Subject: RE: question re your report in the RDEIR of the BNSF SCIG

Dear Gill: Thank you for your response. I assume you understand how impossible it is to understand an Appendix with Excel sheets that have conflicting units in their headlines, no legends, and no accompanying text to explain what the sheets mean. Of course, Cambridge Systematics should never have submitted a document like that to POLA, and of course, POLA should never have included it in the REDIR without an explanation, legends and correct units. As a result, including Appendix G4 in the RDEIR without the above is a disservice to the public; the Port’s refusal to explain Appendix G4 is even worse. Transparency is what the CEQA process is supposed to be about. Tx. A. Andrea M. Hricko Prof of Prev Med Keck School of Med, USC & Director, Community Outreach and Education Southern CA Env Health Sciences Ctr 2001 N. Soto Street, MC 9237, Los Angeles, CA Zip: 90089 for regular mail Zip: 90032 for FedEx -- and for map directions to our location Phone: 323-442-3077

From: Gill Hicks [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 9:58 AM To: Andrea Hricko Subject: Re: question re your report in the RDEIR of the BNSF SCIG Hello Andrea: Thanks for your inquiry. The POLA has asked me to respond as follows: “We are unable to respond to questions outside of the CEQA process. Please submit a public comment letter to: Chris Cannon, Director of Environmental Management Port of Los Angeles 425 South Palos Verdes Street San Pedro, CA 90731 Or via email to: [email protected] Thank you for your cooperation.” Gill Gill V. Hicks Director, Southern California Operations Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 445 S. Figueroa Street Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90071

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

1

Andrea Hricko

From: Cannon, Chris [[email protected]]Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 9:30 AMTo: Andrea Hricko; Knatz, Geraldine; [email protected]: RE: Pls provide the August 2012 Cambridge Systematics ReportAttachments: CambridgeTransloadingEstimates2012.pdf

Good morning Andrea, The August 2012 reference you have requested is attached. As you may recall, and as I pointed out to David, the August 2012 reference is not a report. It was data that was used to develop Appendix G4. At that time, the full report had not been completed. The full report was finalized in December 2012 and you now have that too, which confirms the August 2012 data. Feel free to give me a call if you have any questions. Christopher Cannon Environmental Management Division Port of Los Angeles 425 South Palos Verdes Street San Pedro, CA 90731 310-732-3763 Dir 310-547-4643 Fax

From: Andrea Hricko [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 10:20 PM To: Knatz, Geraldine; Cannon, Chris; [email protected] Subject: Pls provide the August 2012 Cambridge Systematics Report

Dear Geraldine, Chris and Kerry: Thank you for sending David Pettit the December 2012 CS transloading report. Please send me asap the August 2012 CS transloading report requested last week. Thank you. Andrea Hricko, USC Andrea M. Hricko Prof of Prev Med Keck School of Med, USC & Director, Community Outreach and Education Southern CA Env Health Sciences Ctr 2001 N. Soto Street, MC 9237, Los Angeles, CA Zip: 90089 for regular mail Zip: 90032 for FedEx -- and for map directions to our location Phone: 323-442-3077

-----------------------------------Confidentiality Notice-------------------------------------------------- This electronic message transmission contains information from the Port of Los Angeles, which may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the content of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message and any attachment without reading or saving in any manner.

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

TO: Amnon Bar-Ilan THIS IS THE ATTACHMENT THAT CHRIS CANNON TOLD ME WAS THE AUGUST 2012 REPORT FROM: Gill Hicks SUBJECT: Transloading estimates DATE: August 20, 2012 John Isbell of Starboard Alliance LLC has developed the following estimates of transloading in Southern California. This table is part of the draft report on transloading.

Estimated Annual Import Rail and Truck Transload Volume in Southern California, FY 2011

IANA Data1

IMC Market Share

Average

Percentage of SPBP Volume2

Low Percent High Percent

Number of 53-Foot Domestic Rail Containers 641,696 702,703 619,048 654,482

Equivalent Number of TEU by Rail 1,926,069 2,109,184 1,857,948 1,964,400 27%

Equivalent Number of TEU by Truck 911,749 911,749 911,749 911,749 13%

Total Transload Volume 2,837,818 3,020,933 2,769,697 2,876,149 40%

1 53-foot container volume from July 2010 to June 2011 for Pacific Southwest adjusted for import products from Southern California per TTX formula (80 percent originate in California; of that total 90 percent originate in Southern California; of which 90 percent are import products).

2SPBP Import TEU Volume July 2010 to June 2011 7,255,285 TEUs

�

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

1

Andrea Hricko

From: Andrea Hricko [[email protected]]Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2013 3:26 PMTo: 'Andrea Hricko'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; 'Sanfield, Phillip'Cc: 'Cannon, Chris'; '[email protected]'; 'Arley Baker'Subject: RE: Request re Cambridge Systematics report

Dear Kerry: I have in hand a copy of the August 2012 Transload Report marked “FINAL” by these contractors, despite ongoing claims by Chris Cannon that no August 2012 transload report exists. Please, I would like to have a copy of the SCOPE OF WORK or other contractual agreements with the contractors listed below commissioning this report. What did you ask them do DO for the Port of L.A. and Long Beach? You need to let me know if you will not respond to this ongoing request unless I submit a CPRA request. I urgently need this information for the upcoming week’s hearing on the BSNF SCIG DEIR. Thank you. Andrea Hricko ‐‐‐‐‐ Earlier message on 2/25/2013: Dear Kerry: hope this finds you well. I am wondering if you can please send me the description of work that the Ports submitted to Cambridge Systematics and Starboard Alliance for the work that it

wanted these consulting firms to do with regard to their completion of the 2012 transload report. Presumably, the consulting firms were paid under an existing 3-year contract from 2011, according to Harbor Commission transcripts (http://www.portoflosangeles.org/Board/2011/May/05-19-11_RegAgenda_Item6_Transmittal_2A.pdf). I need this asap because it is relevant to my review of the FEIR for the BNSF SCIG. Many thanks. Andrea

From: Andrea Hricko [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 8:21 PM To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; 'Sanfield, Phillip' Subject: Request re Cambridge Systematics report Kerry, I know it is only one day after my request, but I need this information asap for comments on the FEIR on the BNSF SCIG. The Ports of LA and Long Beach commissioned a transload study by Cambridge Systematics and Starboard Alliance (CS), and as I understand it, the report was commissioned by you (Kerry) and, I assume, under a 2010 approved services agreement with POLA, as authorized by the POLA Harbor Commissioners. Please send me the scope of work that you requested from these contractors. Thank you. Andrea

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

1

Andrea Hricko

From: Cannon, Chris [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 5:50 PMTo: 'Andrea Hricko'; Cartwright, Kerry; Knatz, Geraldine; Sanfield, PhillipCc: [email protected]; Baker, Arley; Crose, Joy; Sidley, JannaSubject: RE: Request re Cambridge Systematics reportAttachments: POLA Transload Isbell Project Scope Statement.pdf; SCIG-Environ-Cambridge

Subcontract.pdf; POLA Directive #1_Amendment_Fully Executed 043012.pdf; POLA Transload Integrated Scope of Work 120511.pdf

Hi Andrea, I am responding to your email request for documents because Kerry is not in the office today. I have attached a series of documents that hopefully respond to your email request for Scope of Work for the the Transloading Report that was done as a joint port project for the ports of LA and Long Beach:

(1) A short summary of the scope of work for Cambridge/Starboard Alliance for development of the Transloading Report,

(2) A longer more detailed version of the scope of work for Cambridge/Starboard for the same work (3) The Port of Los Angeles Project Directive providing a notice to proceed for development of the Transloading

Report. At the same time that Cambridge and Starboard were preparing the Transloading Report, Cambridge was under contract with the Port of Los Angeles to provide support in development of the transportation analyses for the SCIG EIR. I have also included the subcontractor agreement between ENVIRON and Cambridge for performance of that SCIG EIR work. As you know, Cambridge’s work was used to develop Appendix G4 of the Recirculated Draft SCIG EIR, which was released in September 2012. Finally, it appears that I have provided some confusing communications to you regarding the Cambridge work. Please excuse me for that. Cambridge and Starboard prepared a final draft of their Transloading Report for both ports review in August. The document shouldn’t have had the words “final” on it, as it was submitted for comments. POLA staff did have a few questions and input for the consultants and the final report was not completed until the publication of the Final Report in December 2012. However, we just learned last week, that POLB actually released the report to a third party when they saw the word “final” written on it. We were not aware of this. When POLA received your request in October for copies of the Transloading Report, POLA responded that it was not yet a final report for release,** which was an accurate statement as to POLA. Cambridge at that time was still revising the document. After POLA received the Final Report in December, it was cited in the Final EIR and is available to the public. **POLA told Hricko there was no report. POLA does not usually release draft documents that are superseded by final versions. Typically, we just release final documents to avoid confusion. In this case, if POLA staff had known that POLB had released the August draft, it would have made that version available as well but with the explanation that it was a draft. The draft and final versions of the report are very similar and the findings do not materially change. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused you or the public. ** Not having the report and the methodolgy/legends for App. G4 made it impossible for the publicto appropriately respond to that critical part of the RDEIR. The methodology and legend of abbreviations was supplied5 months later, in the FDEIR (response from Andrea Hricko). Feel free to call me if you have any questions.

Christopher Cannon Environmental Management Division Port of Los Angeles 425 S. Palos Verdes Street San Pedro, CA 90731

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

RESPONDING TO ANDREA HRICKO’S REQUEST FOR AN EXPLANATION OF APPENDIX G4 (see next page for one page of Appendix G4 as it appeared in the RDEIR) Hricko made the request of Chris Cannon in October 2012, saying that Appendix G4 was incomprehensible without an explanation. Chris Cannon had Gill Hicks answer a few questions, but Hricko never received any text, any report, or any list of abbreviations, nor an explanation of the methodology used to create Appendix G4. FEIR came out in February 2013 (five months later) with FOUR PAGES of explanation about methodology and the abbreviations, none of which were available to the public during the comment period. Here is an example of one paragraph from the 5-page introduction that was added to the FEIR to help readers understand Appendix G4.: The starting point for the analysis was to estimate 2010 baseline volumes by railyard and market. These results are shown under Scenario 1 (Baseline 2010) in the following table. Volumes in TEUs are shown for IPI containers (loads and empties), transloaded (TL) containers (loads only), and pure domestic (DOM) containers and trailers (loads and empties). In the table, these three market segments are designated with the following column headings, respectively: “IPI L + E”, “TL L”, and “Dom L + E”. Total TEUs are also shown in the table and they are the sum of the values for the three separate markets. There is no evidence that there is any westbound (or exported) transload volumes from rail to marine container. The transload volumes shown in the table are all eastbound loads (imports). These 53-foot containers return either as empties or as westbound domestic cargo loads. Those volumes are counted in the Dom L + E column. IPI, direct intermodal volumes in lifts are updated annually by the railroads and provided to the ports, as well as total lifts at railyards. The analysis assumed that 27% of loaded imports through the ports are transloaded to rail (Cambridge, 2013), and therefore the pure domestic volumes were estimated as the difference between the (IPI + transloaded) lifts, and the total lifts. Marine containers loaded or unloaded on-dock are shown in the “IPI L +E” column only, since on-dock yards do not handle transloaded or pure domestic containers. The tables show volumes in both lifts and TEUs, marked as “Demand in Lifts” and “Demand in TEUs.” SEE NEXT PAGE FOR AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT APPENDIX G4 LOOKED LIKE IN THE RDEIR. THERE WASNO METHODOLOGY, NO LEGEND, NO EXPLANATION OF ABBREVIATIONS, ETC. AND POLA WOULD NOT PROVIDE ANY OF THIS INFORMATION UNTIL FIVE MONTHS LATER WHEN THE FEIR CAME OUT. THIS APPENDIX IS CRITICAL FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THE CLAIMS MADE ABOUT THE BNSF SCIG PROJECTTAKING TRUCKS OFF THE I-710 FREEWAY.

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

1

Transloading of San Pedro Ports Containerized Imports and Exports: Integrated Scope of Work

December 4, 2011 (first two pages only)

Table of Contents Problem Statement/Purpose of Study Step 1: Literature review and evaluation of existing secondary data.

Step 2: Surveys of beneficial cargo owners, logistics service providers, and intermodal marketing companies.

Step 3: Surveys of ocean carriers.

Step 4: Spreadsheet estimates of the current and future volume of transloading and related trip tables.

Step 5: Draft and final reports

Attachment A: Scope of Work for Starboard Alliance LCC

Attachment B: Scope of Work for Global Business Advocates LLC

Attachment C: Proposed Budget

Attachment D: Summary of TTX Transload Study, 2011

ahricko

Highlight

2

Transloading of San Pedro Ports Containerized Imports and Exports: Integrated Scope of Work

December 4, 2011

Problem Statement/Purpose of Study The transloading of containerized imports from 40-foot ISO1 marine containers to 53-foot domestic containers or trailers is an important yet poorly understood component of the international logistics market in Southern California. There is considerable uncertainty about the exact volume of transloading, but recent estimates suggest that nearly 30% of all loaded imports, or about 2 million TEUs in 2010, were transloaded to 53-foot containers for later movement by rail out of the region.2

Why do shippers transload? Transloading can help reduce shipping costs, depending on the differential rates of moving containers in 40-foot and 53-foot containers. A rough rule of thumb is that the cargo in three 40-foot high-cube marine containers can fit into two 53-foot domestic containers.

Transloading is contrasted with “intact” rail shipments which involve the movement of marine boxes by rail without any deconsolidation of the cargo. A smaller number of export shipments (currently not estimated) involve transloading from 53-foot containers or trailers to 40-foot marine containers.

3

Transloading has important implications for transportation planning in the port area and in the SCAG region as whole. The amount of transloading affects the number of truck trips generated by the ports as well as by transload facilities and rail yards. In evaluating port-related land-side traffic it is important to identify the constituent market segments that exhibit different travel patterns. Rail and truck are the two basic markets, but they are inter-related and not mutually exclusive categories.

Transloading also plays an important role in inventory management. Cargo can be stored in local warehouses and then shipped later as the market dictates. This helps the shipper manage seasonal or unexpected variations in demand and also allows for “value added” services to be done at the warehouse, such as labeling, adding price tags, placing clothing on hangars, etc.

The locations of the transload facilities in relation to the ports and the rail yards also have important implications for trip generation, vehicle miles of travel, and emissions (including greenhouse gas emissions.) Transloading involves “secondary trips”, i.e., the trips from warehouses to rail yards in addition to the “primary trip” from the ports to the warehouses. Most regional models have focused on the primary trips. New 1 International Standards Organization 2 TTX, Trade Flow Study, February 2011. 3 More precise conversion factors can be computed using actual interior capacities of different-sized containers. www.nationalintermodal.com/equipment.htm.

http://www.nationalintermodal.com/equipment.htm�

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

ahricko

Highlight

Southern California International Gateway Recirculated Draft EIR September 2012

Appendix G4: Intermodal Rail Analysis

CONFIDENTIAL WORK PRODUCT: ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE

SCIG DEIR Scenarios* TEUs & Trains Summary

No. Title Description SCIG included

?

ICTF Imps

included?

Other rail projects (e.g., APL, Pier B,

Pier S) included?

Off-dock rail capacity

assumptions ***

Transload permitted at

SCIG and ICTF? (Domestic not permitted at

ICTF and SCIG)

Yard % Lifts Capacity

Utilization

IPI L+E TEUs

TL L TEUs Dom L+E TEUs

Total TEUs 12K 10K 8K 6K Total 12K 10K 8K 6K Total 12K 10K 8K 6K Total 12K 10K 8K 6K Total

1 Baseline 2010 2010 conditions No No No 2010 conditions On-Dock Yards Total 3,312,578 3,312,578 0.0 6.6 8.8 6.6 22.1 0.0 6.6 8.8 6.6 22.1 On-Dock Yards BNSF Total 1,866,821 1,866,821 0.0 3.7 5.0 3.7 12.5 0.0 3.7 5.0 3.7 12.5 On-Dock Yards UP Total 1,445,756 1,445,756 0.0 2.9 3.9 2.9 9.6 0.0 2.9 3.9 2.9 9.6

Off-Dock Yards Total 1,642,151 1,917,754 3,195,640 6,755,545 0.0 3.3 4.4 3.3 11.0 0.0 3.8 4.7 0.9 9.4 0.0 4.4 12.0 4.3 20.7 0.0 11.4 21.1 8.5 41.1BNSF Off-Dock Yards Total 807,466 915,349 1,853,853 3,576,668 0.0 1.6 2.2 1.6 5.4 0.0 1.8 2.3 0.5 4.5 0.0 2.1 8.0 3.2 13.3 0.0 5.5 12.4 5.3 23.2 Hobart & Commerce Yards 56.9% 807,219 505,585 1,004,236 2,317,040 0.0 1.6 2.2 1.6 5.4 0.0 1.0 1.2 0.2 2.5 0.0 1.1 4.4 1.8 7.3 0.0 3.7 7.8 3.6 15.2 San Bernardino Yard 64.8% 247 409,764 849,617 1,259,628 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.2 2.0 0.0 1.0 3.6 1.4 6.0 0.0 1.8 4.6 1.6 8.0 SCIG Yard N/A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Additional BNSF Yard Capacity Needed 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

UP Off-Dock Yards Total 834,685 1,002,405 1,341,787 3,178,877 0.0 1.7 2.2 1.7 5.6 0.0 2.0 2.5 0.5 4.9 0.0 2.3 4.0 1.1 7.4 0.0 6.0 8.7 3.3 17.9 East L.A. Yard 63.3% 66,352 440,252 676,923 1,183,527 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.9 1.1 0.2 2.2 0.0 1.2 2.0 0.5 3.7 0.0 2.2 3.3 0.9 6.3 ICTF Yard 51.3% 752,386 7,356 3,900 763,642 0.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 5.0 City of Industry Yard 99.7% 185 333,828 359,698 693,711 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.8 0.2 1.6 0.0 0.7 0.9 0.2 1.8 0.0 1.4 1.7 0.4 3.5 LATC Yard 54.1% 15,763 220,968 301,267 537,998 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.4 1.1 0.4 1.9 0.0 0.9 1.7 0.5 3.1 Additional UP Yard Capacity Needed 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Additional Yard Capacity Needed 0 0 0 0Total including Additional Yard Capacity Needed 4,954,729 1,917,754 3,195,640 10,068,123 0.0 9.9 13.2 9.9 33.1 0.0 3.8 4.7 0.9 9.4 0.0 4.4 12.0 4.3 20.7 0.0 18.1 29.9 15.2 63.2Total excluding Additional Yard Capacity Needed 4,954,729 1,917,754 3,195,640 10,068,123

2 Baseline 2010 Yes No No 2010 conditions On-Dock Yards Total 3,312,578 3,312,578 0.0 6.6 8.8 6.6 22.1 0.0 6.6 8.8 6.6 22.1With Project On-Dock Yards BNSF Total 1,866,821 1,866,821 0.0 3.7 5.0 3.7 12.5 0.0 3.7 5.0 3.7 12.5

On-Dock Yards UP Total 1,445,756 1,445,756 0.0 2.9 3.9 2.9 9.6 0.0 2.9 3.9 2.9 9.6

Off-Dock Yards Total 3,755,738 1,917,754 3,195,640 8,869,132 0.0 1.9 18.8 1.7 22.4 0.0 3.8 4.7 0.9 9.4 0.0 4.4 12.0 4.3 20.7 0.0 10.1 35.5 6.9 52.5BNSF Off-Dock Yards Total 2,921,053 915,349 1,853,853 5,690,255 0.0 0.3 16.6 0.0 16.8 0.0 1.8 2.3 0.5 4.5 0.0 2.1 8.0 3.2 13.3 0.0 4.1 26.8 3.6 34.6 Hobart & Commerce Yards 35.1% 146,053 505,585 1,004,236 1,655,874 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.0 1.2 0.2 2.5 0.0 1.1 4.4 1.8 7.3 0.0 2.4 6.2 2.0 10.6 San Bernardino Yard 64.8% 0 409,764 849,617 1,259,381 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.2 2.0 0.0 1.0 3.6 1.4 6.0 0.0 1.8 4.6 1.6 8.0 SCIG Yard 100.0% 2,775,000 0 0 2,775,000 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 16.0 Additional BNSF Yard Capacity Needed 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

UP Off-Dock Yards Total 834,685 1,002,405 1,341,787 3,178,877 0.0 1.7 2.2 1.7 5.6 0.0 2.0 2.5 0.5 4.9 0.0 2.3 4.0 1.1 7.4 0.0 6.0 8.7 3.3 17.9 East L.A. Yard 63.3% 66,352 440,252 676,923 1,183,527 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.9 1.1 0.2 2.2 0.0 1.2 2.0 0.5 3.7 0.0 2.2 3.3 0.9 6.3 ICTF Yard 51.3% 752,386 7,356 3,900 763,642 0.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 5.0 City of Industry Yard 99.7% 185 333,828 359,698 693,711 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.8 0.2 1.6 0.0 0.7 0.9 0.2 1.8 0.0 1.4 1.7 0.4 3.5 LATC Yard 54.1% 15,763 220,968 301,267 537,998 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.4 1.1 0.4 1.9 0.0 0.9 1.7 0.5 3.1 Additional UP Yard Capacity Needed 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


3 2016 No Project No Yes No On-Dock Yards Total 5,866,291 5,866,291 0.0 11.0 22.3 0.0 33.3 0.0 11.0 22.3 0.0 33.3 On-Dock Yards BNSF Total 2,933,146 2,933,146 0.0 5.5 11.1 0.0 16.6 0.0 5.5 11.1 0.0 16.6 On-Dock Yards UP Total 2,933,146 2,933,146 0.0 5.5 11.1 0.0 16.6 0.0 5.5 11.1 0.0 16.6

Off-Dock Yards Total 1,268,463 2,770,349 4,179,682 8,218,494 0.0 2.4 4.8 0.0 7.2 6.5 3.2 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 6.3 12.8 0.0 19.2 6.5 11.9 17.7 0.0 36.0BNSF Off-Dock Yards Total 634,231 1,385,175 2,089,841 4,109,247 0.0 1.2 2.4 0.0 3.6 3.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 3.2 6.4 0.0 9.6 3.2 5.9 8.8 0.0 18.0 Hobart & Commerce Yards 39.7% 634,231 969,622 1,462,889 3,066,742 0.0 1.2 2.4 0.0 3.6 2.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 2.2 4.5 0.0 6.7 2.3 4.5 6.9 0.0 13.7 San Bernardino Yard 51.9% 0 415,552 626,952 1,042,505 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.9 1.9 0.0 2.9 1.0 1.4 1.9 0.0 4.3 SCIG Yard N/A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Additional BNSF Yard Capacity Needed 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

UP Off-Dock Yards Total 634,231 1,385,175 2,089,841 4,109,247 0.0 1.2 2.4 0.0 3.6 3.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 3.2 6.4 0.0 9.6 3.2 5.9 8.8 0.0 18.0 East L.A. Yard 37.9% 31,712 692,587 1,044,920 1,769,219 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.6 3.2 0.0 4.8 1.6 2.4 3.3 0.0 7.4 ICTF Yard 21.7% 602,520 0 0 602,520 0.0 1.1 2.3 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.3 0.0 3.4 City of Industry Yard 98.5% 0 138,517 208,984 347,502 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.4 LATC Yard 50.8% 0 554,070 835,936 1,390,006 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.3 2.6 0.0 3.8 1.3 1.9 2.6 0.0 5.8 Additional UP Yard Capacity Needed 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


4 2016 With Project 2016 Cumulative Yes Yes No On-Dock Yards Total 5,866,291 5,866,291 0.0 11.0 22.3 0.0 33.3 0.0 11.0 22.3 0.0 33.3 On-Dock Yards BNSF Total 2,933,146 2,933,146 0.0 5.5 11.1 0.0 16.6 0.0 5.5 11.1 0.0 16.6 On-Dock Yards UP Total 2,933,146 2,933,146 0.0 5.5 11.1 0.0 16.6 0.0 5.5 11.1 0.0 16.6

Off-Dock Yards Total 1,268,463 2,770,349 4,179,682 8,218,494 0.0 1.2 6.2 0.0 7.5 6.5 3.2 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 6.3 12.8 0.0 19.2 6.5 10.8 19.1 0.0 36.3BNSF Off-Dock Yards Total 634,231 1,385,175 2,089,841 4,109,247 0.0 0.1 3.8 0.0 3.9 3.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 3.2 6.4 0.0 9.6 3.2 4.8 10.2 0.0 18.3 Hobart & Commerce Yards 28.4% 31,712 969,622 1,462,889 2,464,222 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 2.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 2.2 4.5 0.0 6.7 2.3 3.4 4.6 0.0 10.3 San Bernardino Yard 51.9% 0 415,552 626,952 1,042,505 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.9 1.9 0.0 2.9 1.0 1.4 1.9 0.0 4.3 SCIG Yard 21.7% 602,520 0 0 602,520 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 3.7 Additional BNSF Yard Capacity Needed 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0



IPI L+E IM Trains TL L IM Trains Total IM Trains

Modified Maximum Practical

Capacities at HOB&COM, ELA,

LATC and COI Yards



LATC and COI Yards

Small actual volume at ICTF in 2010: 3,752 lifts

48+ foot containers

Small actual volume at ICTF in 2010: 3,752 lifts

48+ foot containers

Dom L+E IM Trains

2010 conditions with 2035 SCIG

volumes.**

as POLA assumed in deriving at

demand for 2016

as POLA assumed in deriving at

demand for 2016

considering only positive increases in TEUs that take place entirely at BNSF Off-Dock Yards

assuming equal BNSF-UP IPI market shares


Southern California International Gateway Recirculated Draft EIR G4-1 September 2012




?

ICTF Imps

included?


Pier S) included?


assumptions ***



ICTF and SCIG)


Utilization

IPI L+E TEUs


Total TEUs 12K 10K 8K 6K Total 12K 10K 8K 6K Total 12K 10K 8K 6K Total 12K 10K 8K 6K TotalIPI L+E IM Trains TL L IM Trains Total IM TrainsDom L+E IM Trains

5 2023 No Project No Yes Yes No On-Dock Yards Total 8,276,066 8,276,066 0.0 15.5 31.4 0.0 46.9 0.0 15.5 31.4 0.0 46.9 On-Dock Yards BNSF Total 4,138,033 4,138,033 0.0 7.7 15.7 0.0 23.5 0.0 7.7 15.7 0.0 23.5 On-Dock Yards UP Total 4,138,033 4,138,033 0.0 7.7 15.7 0.0 23.5 0.0 7.7 15.7 0.0 23.5

Off-Dock Yards Total 1,794,661 3,932,406 5,560,661 11,287,728 0.0 3.4 6.8 0.0 10.2 9.2 4.5 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 8.4 17.1 0.0 25.5 9.2 16.3 23.9 0.0 49.4BNSF Off-Dock Yards Total 897,330 1,966,203 2,780,331 5,643,864 0.0 1.7 3.4 0.0 5.1 4.6 2.3 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 4.2 8.5 0.0 12.7 4.6 8.1 11.9 0.0 24.7 Hobart & Commerce Yards 54.5% 897,330 1,376,342 1,946,231 4,219,904 0.0 1.7 3.4 0.0 5.1 3.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 2.9 6.0 0.0 8.9 3.2 6.2 9.4 0.0 18.8 San Bernardino Yard 70.3% 0 589,861 834,099 1,423,960 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.3 2.6 0.0 3.8 1.4 1.9 2.6 0.0 5.9 SCIG Yard N/A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Additional BNSF Yard Capacity Needed 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

UP Off-Dock Yards Total 897,330 1,966,203 2,780,331 5,643,864 0.0 1.7 3.4 0.0 5.1 4.6 2.3 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 4.2 8.5 0.0 12.7 4.6 8.1 11.9 0.0 24.7 East L.A. Yard 57.6% 44,867 983,101 1,390,165 2,418,133 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 2.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 2.1 4.3 0.0 6.4 2.3 3.3 4.4 0.0 10.0 ICTF Yard 30.7% 852,464 0 0 852,464 0.0 1.6 3.2 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 3.2 0.0 4.8 City of Industry Yard 100.0% 0 196,620 278,033 474,653 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.0 1.3 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.0 2.0 LATC Yard 68.7% 0 786,481 1,112,132 1,898,613 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 1.7 3.4 0.0 5.1 1.8 2.6 3.4 0.0 7.8 Additional UP Yard Capacity Needed 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


6 2023 With Project 2023 Cumulative Yes Yes Yes No On-Dock Yards Total 8,276,066 8,276,066 0.0 15.5 31.4 0.0 46.9 0.0 15.5 31.4 0.0 46.9 On-Dock Yards BNSF Total 4,138,033 4,138,033 0.0 7.7 15.7 0.0 23.5 0.0 7.7 15.7 0.0 23.5 On-Dock Yards UP Total 4,138,033 4,138,033 0.0 7.7 15.7 0.0 23.5 0.0 7.7 15.7 0.0 23.5

Off-Dock Yards Total 1,794,661 3,932,406 5,560,661 11,287,728 0.0 1.8 8.8 0.0 10.6 9.2 4.5 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 8.4 17.1 0.0 25.5 9.2 14.7 25.9 0.0 49.8BNSF Off-Dock Yards Total 897,330 1,966,203 2,780,331 5,643,864 0.0 0.1 5.4 0.0 5.5 4.6 2.3 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 4.2 8.5 0.0 12.7 4.6 6.5 14.0 0.0 25.1 Hobart & Commerce Yards 38.5% 44,867 1,376,342 1,946,231 3,367,440 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 3.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 2.9 6.0 0.0 8.9 3.2 4.6 6.1 0.0 14.0 San Bernardino Yard 70.3% 0 589,861 834,099 1,423,960 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.3 2.6 0.0 3.8 1.4 1.9 2.6 0.0 5.9 SCIG Yard 30.7% 852,464 0 0 852,464 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 5.2 Additional BNSF Yard Capacity Needed 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

UP Off-Dock Yards Total 897,330 1,966,203 2,780,331 5,643,864 0.0 1.7 3.4 0.0 5.1 4.6 2.3 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 4.2 8.5 0.0 12.7 4.6 8.1 11.9 0.0 24.7 East L.A. Yard 57.6% 44,867 983,101 1,390,165 2,418,133 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 2.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 2.1 4.3 0.0 6.4 2.3 3.3 4.4 0.0 10.0 ICTF Yard 30.7% 852,464 0 0 852,464 0.0 1.6 3.2 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 3.2 0.0 4.8 City of Industry Yard 100.0% 0 196,620 278,033 474,653 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.0 1.3 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.0 2.0 LATC Yard 68.7% 0 786,481 1,112,132 1,898,613 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 1.7 3.4 0.0 5.1 1.8 2.6 3.4 0.0 7.8 Additional UP Yard Capacity Needed 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0



Off-Dock Yards Total 4,059,494 6,162,460 8,242,338 18,464,292 0.0 7.6 15.4 0.0 23.0 14.4 7.1 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 12.5 25.3 0.0 37.8 14.4 27.1 40.7 0.0 82.3BNSF Off-Dock Yards Total 2,029,747 3,081,230 4,121,169 9,232,146 0.0 3.8 7.7 0.0 11.5 7.2 3.5 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 6.2 12.7 0.0 18.9 7.2 13.6 20.4 0.0 41.1 Hobart & Commerce Yards 96.1% 2,029,747 2,156,861 3,065,538 7,252,146 0.0 3.8 7.7 0.0 11.5 5.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 4.6 9.4 0.0 14.0 5.0 10.9 17.1 0.0 33.1 San Bernardino Yard 100.0% 0 924,369 1,055,631 1,980,000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 1.6 3.2 0.0 4.8 2.2 2.7 3.2 0.0 8.1 SCIG Yard N/A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Additional BNSF Yard Capacity Needed 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

UP Off-Dock Yards Total 2,029,747 3,081,230 4,121,169 9,232,146 0.0 3.8 7.7 0.0 11.5 7.2 3.5 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 6.2 12.7 0.0 18.9 7.2 13.6 20.4 0.0 41.1 East L.A. Yard 100.0% 101,487 1,540,615 2,044,811 3,686,913 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.6 3.6 1.8 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 3.1 6.3 0.0 9.4 3.6 5.1 6.7 0.0 15.3 ICTF Yard 69.5% 1,928,260 0 0 1,928,260 0.0 3.6 7.3 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 7.3 0.0 10.9 City of Industry Yard 100.0% 0 308,123 608,850 916,973 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.9 1.9 0.0 2.8 0.7 1.3 1.9 0.0 3.9 LATC Yard 100.0% 0 1,232,492 1,467,508 2,700,000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 2.2 4.5 0.0 6.7 2.9 3.6 4.5 0.0 11.0 Additional UP Yard Capacity Needed 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


8a 2035 With Project 2035 Cumulative Yes Yes Yes No On-Dock Yards Total 11,683,706 11,683,706 0.0 21.9 44.4 0.0 66.3 0.0 21.9 44.4 0.0 66.3 On-Dock Yards BNSF Total 5,841,853 5,841,853 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1 On-Dock Yards UP Total 5,841,853 5,841,853 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1

Off-Dock Yards Total 4,059,494 6,162,460 8,242,338 18,464,292 0.0 4.0 20.0 0.0 24.0 14.4 7.1 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 12.5 25.3 0.0 37.8 14.4 23.5 45.3 0.0 83.2BNSF Off-Dock Yards Total 2,029,747 3,081,230 4,121,169 9,232,146 0.0 0.2 12.3 0.0 12.4 7.2 3.5 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 6.2 12.7 0.0 18.9 7.2 10.0 24.9 0.0 42.1 Hobart & Commerce Yards 59.9% 101,487 2,156,861 3,065,538 5,323,886 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.6 5.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 4.6 9.4 0.0 14.0 5.0 7.3 9.8 0.0 22.1 San Bernardino Yard 100.0% 0 924,369 1,055,631 1,980,000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 1.6 3.2 0.0 4.8 2.2 2.7 3.2 0.0 8.1 SCIG Yard 69.5% 1,928,260 0 0 1,928,260 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 11.9 Additional BNSF Yard Capacity Needed 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0





LATC and COI Yards



LATC and COI Yards



LATC and COI Yards



LATC and COI Yards

assuming projected IPI demand for SCIG and equal BNSF-UP IPI market shares








?

ICTF Imps

included?


Pier S) included?


assumptions ***



ICTF and SCIG)


Utilization

IPI L+E TEUs



8b 2035 With Project 2035 Cumulative Yes Yes Yes No On-Dock Yards Total 11,683,706 11,683,706 0.0 21.9 44.4 0.0 66.3 0.0 21.9 44.4 0.0 66.3 On-Dock Yards BNSF Total 5,841,853 5,841,853 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1 On-Dock Yards UP Total 5,841,853 5,841,853 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1






UP Off-Dock Yards Total 2,029,747 3,081,230 4,364,684 9,475,661 0.0 3.8 7.7 0.0 11.5 7.2 3.5 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 6.6 13.4 0.0 20.0 7.2 13.9 21.1 0.0 42.2 East L.A. Yard 100.0% 101,487 1,540,615 2,044,811 3,686,913 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.6 3.6 1.8 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 3.1 6.3 0.0 9.4 3.6 5.1 6.7 0.0 15.3 ICTF Yard 69.5% 1,928,260 0 0 1,928,260 0.0 3.6 7.3 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 7.3 0.0 10.9 City of Industry Yard 100.0% 0 308,123 852,366 1,160,489 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.3 2.6 0.0 3.9 0.7 1.6 2.6 0.0 5.0 LATC Yard 100.0% 0 1,232,492 1,467,508 2,700,000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 2.2 4.5 0.0 6.7 2.9 3.6 4.5 0.0 11.0 Additional UP Yard Capacity Needed 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


10a 2046 With Project 2046 Cumulative Yes Yes Yes No On-Dock Yards Total 11,683,706 11,683,706 0.0 21.9 44.4 0.0 66.3 0.0 21.9 44.4 0.0 66.3 On-Dock Yards BNSF Total 5,841,853 5,841,853 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1 On-Dock Yards UP Total 5,841,853 5,841,853 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1




10b 2046 With Project 2046 Cumulative Yes Yes Yes No On-Dock Yards Total 11,683,706 11,683,706 0.0 21.9 44.4 0.0 66.3 0.0 21.9 44.4 0.0 66.3 On-Dock Yards BNSF Total 5,841,853 5,841,853 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1 On-Dock Yards UP Total 5,841,853 5,841,853 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1






LATC and COI Yards



LATC and COI Yards



LATC and COI Yards



LATC and COI Yards

assuming projected IPI demand for SCIG and equal BNSF-UP IPI market shares

assuming maximum demand equal to capacity of SCIG giving BNSF higher IPI market share


assuming maximum demand equal to capacity of SCIG giving BNSF higher IPI market share





?

ICTF Imps

included?


Pier S) included?


assumptions ***



ICTF and SCIG)


Utilization

IPI L+E TEUs




Off-Dock Yards Total 1,612,966 3,399,900 4,930,446 9,943,313 0.0 3.0 6.1 0.0 9.1 7.9 3.9 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 7.5 15.1 0.0 22.6 7.9 14.4 21.3 0.0 43.6BNSF Off-Dock Yards Total 806,483 1,699,950 2,465,223 4,971,656 0.0 1.5 3.1 0.0 4.6 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 3.7 7.6 0.0 11.3 4.0 7.2 10.6 0.0 21.8 Hobart & Commerce Yards 46.9% 806,483 1,189,965 1,725,656 3,722,104 0.0 1.5 3.1 0.0 4.6 2.8 1.4 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 2.6 5.3 0.0 7.9 2.8 5.5 8.4 0.0 16.6 San Bernardino Yard 63.1% 0 509,985 739,567 1,249,552 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.1 2.3 0.0 3.4 1.2 1.7 2.3 0.0 5.2 SCIG Yard N/A 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Additional BNSF Yard Capacity Needed 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0




Off-Dock Yards Total 1,612,966 3,399,900 4,930,446 9,943,313 0.0 1.6 7.9 0.0 9.5 7.9 3.9 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 7.5 15.1 0.0 22.6 7.9 12.9 23.1 0.0 44.0BNSF Off-Dock Yards Total 806,483 1,699,950 2,465,223 4,971,656 0.0 0.1 4.9 0.0 4.9 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 3.7 7.6 0.0 11.3 4.0 5.8 12.4 0.0 22.2 Hobart & Commerce Yards 33.1% 40,324 1,189,965 1,725,656 2,955,945 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 2.8 1.4 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 2.6 5.3 0.0 7.9 2.8 4.1 5.5 0.0 12.3 San Bernardino Yard 63.1% 0 509,985 739,567 1,249,552 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.1 2.3 0.0 3.4 1.2 1.7 2.3 0.0 5.2 SCIG Yard 27.6% 766,159 0 0 766,159 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 4.7 Additional BNSF Yard Capacity Needed 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0













LATC and COI Yards




LATC and COI Yards




LATC and COI Yards




LATC and COI Yards



CONFIDENTIAL DATA: ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGESCIG Scenarios Lifts/TEUs Data from Train Builder Intermodal Rail Analysis Module embedded in Quick Trip - Train Builder Integrated ModelPrepared for the Port of Los Angeles by Cambridge Systematics on August 13, 2012

Scenario #1 - Baseline 2010DEMAND in Lifts IPI L+E TL L Dom L+E Total Lifts Util. %On-Dock Yards Total 1,840,321 1,840,321

% Market Split 100% On-Dock Yards BNSF Total 1,037,123 1,037,123 On-Dock Yards UP Total 803,198 803,198

Off-Dock Yards Total 912,306 639,251 1,091,004 2,642,561% Market Split 35% 24% 41%

BNSF Off-Dock Yards Total 448,592 305,116 640,338 1,394,046 Hobart & Commerce Yards 448,455 168,528 349,491 966,474 56.9% San Bernardino Yard 137 136,588 290,847 427,572 64.8% SCIG Yard 0 0 0 0 Additional BNSF Yard Capacity Needed 0 0 0 0

UP Off-Dock Yards Total 463,714 334,135 450,666 1,248,515 East L.A. Yard 36,862 146,751 227,856 411,469 63.3% ICTF Yard 417,992 2,452 1,300 421,744 51.3% City of Industry Yard 103 111,276 119,900 231,279 99.7% LATC Yard 8,757 73,656 101,610 184,023 54.1% Additional UP Yard Capacity Needed 0 0 0 0

Total Additional Yard Capacity Needed 0 0 0 0Total including Additional Yard Capacity Needed 2,752,627 639,251 1,091,004 4,482,882Total excluding Additional Yard Capacity Needed 2,752,627 639,251 1,091,004 4,482,882


CONFIDENTIAL DATA: ATTORNEY CLISCIG Scenarios Lifts/TEUs Data from Train Builder Intermodal RaiPrepared for the Port of Los Angeles by Cambridge Systematics o

DEMAND in LiftsOn-Dock Yards Total

% Market Split On-Dock Yards BNSF Total On-Dock Yards UP Total

Off-Dock Yards Total% Market Split

BNSF Off-Dock Yards Total Hobart & Commerce Yards San Bernardino Yard SCIG Yard Additional BNSF Yard Capacity Needed

UP Off-Dock Yards Total East L.A. Yard ICTF Yard City of Industry Yard LATC Yard Additional UP Yard Capacity Needed

Total Additional Yard Capacity NeededTotal including Additional Yard Capacity NeededTotal excluding Additional Yard Capacity Needed

Scenario #2 - Baseline 2010 w. 2035 BNSF volumesIPI L +E TL L Dom L+E Total Lifts Util. %

1,840,321 1,840,321100%

1,037,123 1,037,123803,198 803,198

2,042,661 639,251 1,091,004 3,772,91654% 17% 29%

1,578,947 305,116 640,338 2,524,40178,947 168,528 349,491 596,966 35.1%

0 136,588 290,847 427,435 64.8%1,500,000 0 0 1,500,000 100.0%

0 0 0 0

463,714 334,135 450,666 1,248,51536,862 146,751 227,856 411,469 63.3%

417,992 2,452 1,300 421,744 51.3%103 111,276 119,900 231,279 99.7%

8,757 73,656 101,610 184,023 54.1%0 0 0 0

0 0 0 03,882,982 639,251 1,091,004 5,613,2373,882,982 639,251 1,091,004 5,613,237









Scenario #3 - 2016 No ProjectIPI L+E TL L Dom L+E Total Lifts Util. %

3,170,968 3,170,968100%

1,585,484 1,585,4841,585,484 1,585,484

685,655 923,450 1,393,227 3,002,33223% 31% 46%

342,828 461,725 696,614 1,501,166342,828 323,207 487,630 1,153,665 38.5%

0 138,517 208,984 347,502 52.7%0 0 0 0 N/A0 0 0 0

342,828 461,725 696,614 1,501,16617,141 230,862 348,307 596,311 47.7%

325,686 0 0 325,686 21.7%0 46,172 69,661 115,834 49.9%0 184,690 278,645 463,335 51.5%0 0 0 0

0 0 0 03,856,624 923,450 1,393,227 6,173,3013,856,624 923,450 1,393,227 6,173,301









Scenario #4 - 2016 w. ProjectIPI L+E TL L Dom L+E Total Lifts Util. %

3,170,968 3,170,968100%

1,585,484 1,585,4841,585,484 1,585,484

685,655 923,450 1,393,227 3,002,33223% 31% 46%

342,828 461,725 696,614 1,501,16617,141 323,207 487,630 827,978 27.6%

0 138,517 208,984 347,502 52.7%325,686 0 0 325,686 21.7%

0 0 0 0

342,828 461,725 696,614 1,501,16617,141 230,862 348,307 596,311 47.7%

325,686 0 0 325,686 21.7%0 46,172 69,661 115,834 49.9%0 184,690 278,645 463,335 51.5%0 0 0 0

0 0 0 03,856,624 923,450 1,393,227 6,173,3013,856,624 923,450 1,393,227 6,173,301










4,473,549 4,473,549100%

2,236,774 2,236,7742,236,774 2,236,774

970,087 1,310,802 1,853,554 4,134,44323% 32% 45%

485,043 655,401 926,777 2,067,221485,043 458,781 648,744 1,592,568 53.1%

0 196,620 278,033 474,653 71.9%0 0 0 0 N/A0 0 0 0

485,043 655,401 926,777 2,067,22124,252 327,700 463,388 815,341 65.2%

460,791 0 0 460,791 30.7%0 65,540 92,678 158,218 68.2%0 262,160 370,711 632,871 70.3%0 0 0 0

0 0 0 05,443,636 1,310,802 1,853,554 8,607,9925,443,636 1,310,802 1,853,554 8,607,992










4,473,549 4,473,549100%

2,236,774 2,236,7742,236,774 2,236,774

970,087 1,310,802 1,853,554 4,134,44323% 32% 45%

485,043 655,401 926,777 2,067,22124,252 458,781 648,744 1,131,777 37.7%

0 196,620 278,033 474,653 71.9%460,791 0 0 460,791 30.7%

0 0 0 0

485,043 655,401 926,777 2,067,22124,252 327,700 463,388 815,341 65.2%

460,791 0 0 460,791 30.7%0 65,540 92,678 158,218 68.2%0 262,160 370,711 632,871 70.3%0 0 0 0

0 0 0 05,443,636 1,310,802 1,853,554 8,607,9925,443,636 1,310,802 1,853,554 8,607,992










6,315,517 6,315,517100%

3,157,758 3,157,7583,157,758 3,157,758

2,194,321 2,054,153 2,747,446 6,995,92031% 29% 39%

1,097,160 1,027,077 1,373,723 3,497,9601,097,160 718,954 1,021,846 2,837,960 94.6%

0 308,123 351,877 660,000 100.0%0 0 0 0 N/A0 0 0 0

1,097,160 1,027,077 1,373,723 3,497,96054,858 513,538 681,604 1,250,000 100.0%

1,042,302 0 0 1,042,302 69.5%0 102,708 202,950 305,658 131.7%0 410,831 489,169 900,000 100.0%0 0 0 0

0 0 0 08,509,838 2,054,153 2,747,446 13,311,4378,509,838 2,054,153 2,747,446 13,311,437









Scenario #8a - 2035 w. Project (Equal BNSF-UP IPI Share)IPI L+E TL L Dom L+E Total Lifts Util. %

6,315,517 6,315,517100%

3,157,758 3,157,7583,157,758 3,157,758

2,194,321 2,054,153 2,747,446 6,995,92031% 29% 39%

1,097,160 1,027,077 1,373,723 3,497,96054,858 718,954 1,021,846 1,795,658 59.9%

0 308,123 351,877 660,000 100.0%1,042,302 0 0 1,042,302 69.5%

0 0 0 0

1,097,160 1,027,077 1,373,723 3,497,96054,858 513,538 681,604 1,250,000 100.0%

1,042,302 0 0 1,042,302 69.5%0 102,708 202,950 305,658 131.7%0 410,831 489,169 900,000 100.0%0 0 0 0

0 0 0 08,509,838 2,054,153 2,747,446 13,311,4378,509,838 2,054,153 2,747,446 13,311,437









Scenario #8b - 2035 w. Project (BNSF Higher IPI Share)IPI L+E TL L Dom L+E Total Lifts Util. %

6,315,517 6,315,517100%

3,157,758 3,157,7583,157,758 3,157,758

2,194,321 2,054,153 2,747,446 6,995,92031% 29% 39%

1,578,947 1,027,077 1,373,723 3,979,74778,947 718,954 1,021,846 1,819,747 60.7%

0 308,123 351,877 660,000 100.0%1,500,000 0 0 1,500,000 100.0%

0 0 0 0

615,374 1,027,077 1,373,723 3,016,17330,769 513,538 705,693 1,250,000 100.0%

584,605 0 0 584,605 39.0%0 102,708 178,861 281,568 121.4%0 410,831 489,169 900,000 100.0%0 0 0 0

0 0 0 08,509,838 2,054,153 2,747,446 13,311,4378,509,838 2,054,153 2,747,446 13,311,437










6,315,517 6,315,517100%

3,157,758 3,157,7583,157,758 3,157,758

2,194,321 2,054,153 2,909,790 7,158,26431% 29% 41%

1,097,160 1,027,077 1,454,895 3,579,1321,097,160 718,954 1,103,018 2,919,132 97.3%

0 308,123 351,877 660,000 100.0%0 0 0 0 N/A0 0 0 0

1,097,160 1,027,077 1,454,895 3,579,13254,858 513,538 681,604 1,250,000 100.0%

1,042,302 0 0 1,042,302 69.5%0 102,708 284,122 386,830 166.7%0 410,831 489,169 900,000 100.0%0 0 0 0

0 0 0 08,509,838 2,054,153 2,909,790 13,473,7818,509,838 2,054,153 2,909,790 13,473,781









Scenario #10a - 2046 w. Project (Equal BNSF-UP IPI Share)IPI L+E TL L Dom L+E Total Lifts Util. %

6,315,517 6,315,517100%

3,157,758 3,157,7583,157,758 3,157,758

2,194,321 2,054,153 2,909,790 7,158,26431% 29% 41%

1,097,160 1,027,077 1,454,895 3,579,13254,858 718,954 1,103,018 1,876,830 62.6%

0 308,123 351,877 660,000 100.0%1,042,302 0 0 1,042,302 69.5%

0 0 0 0

1,097,160 1,027,077 1,454,895 3,579,13254,858 513,538 681,604 1,250,000 100.0%

1,042,302 0 0 1,042,302 69.5%0 102,708 284,122 386,830 166.7%0 410,831 489,169 900,000 100.0%0 0 0 0

0 0 0 08,509,838 2,054,153 2,909,790 13,473,7818,509,838 2,054,153 2,909,790 13,473,781









Scenario #10b - 2046 w. Project (BNSF Higher IPI Share)IPI L+E TL L Dom L+E Total Lifts Util. %

6,315,517 6,315,517100%

3,157,758 3,157,7583,157,758 3,157,758

2,194,321 2,054,153 2,909,790 7,158,26431% 29% 41%

1,578,947 1,027,077 1,454,895 4,060,91978,947 718,954 1,103,018 1,900,919 63.4%

0 308,123 351,877 660,000 100.0%1,500,000 0 0 1,500,000 100.0%

0 0 0 0

615,374 1,027,077 1,454,895 3,097,34530,769 513,538 705,693 1,250,000 100.0%

584,605 0 0 584,605 39.0%0 102,708 260,033 362,740 156.4%0 410,831 489,169 900,000 100.0%0 0 0 0

0 0 0 08,509,838 2,054,153 2,909,790 13,473,7818,509,838 2,054,153 2,909,790 13,473,781










3,847,478 3,847,478100%

1,923,739 1,923,7391,923,739 1,923,739

871,874 1,133,300 1,643,482 3,648,65624% 31% 45%

435,937 566,650 821,741 1,824,328435,937 396,655 575,219 1,407,811 46.9%

0 169,995 246,522 416,517 63.1%0 0 0 0 N/A0 0 0 0

435,937 566,650 821,741 1,824,32821,797 283,325 410,871 715,992 57.3%

414,140 0 0 414,140 27.6%0 56,665 82,174 138,839 59.8%0 226,660 328,696 555,356 61.7%0 0 0 0

0 0 0 04,719,351 1,133,300 1,643,482 7,496,1334,719,351 1,133,300 1,643,482 7,496,133










3,847,478 3,847,478100%

1,923,739 1,923,7391,923,739 1,923,739

871,874 1,133,300 1,643,482 3,648,65624% 31% 45%

435,937 566,650 821,741 1,824,32821,797 396,655 575,219 993,671 33.1%

0 169,995 246,522 416,517 63.1%414,140 0 0 414,140 27.6%

0 0 0 0

435,937 566,650 821,741 1,824,32821,797 283,325 410,871 715,992 57.3%

414,140 0 0 414,140 27.6%0 56,665 82,174 138,839 59.8%0 226,660 328,696 555,356 61.7%0 0 0 0

0 0 0 04,719,351 1,133,300 1,643,482 7,496,1334,719,351 1,133,300 1,643,482 7,496,133










5,919,971 5,919,971100%

2,959,985 2,959,9852,959,985 2,959,985

1,553,110 1,803,900 2,431,113 5,788,12327% 31% 42%

776,555 901,950 1,215,557 2,894,062776,555 631,365 850,890 2,258,810 75.3%

0 270,585 364,667 635,252 96.3%0 0 0 0 N/A0 0 0 0

776,555 901,950 1,215,557 2,894,06238,828 450,975 607,778 1,097,581 87.8%

737,727 0 0 737,727 49.2%0 90,195 121,556 211,751 91.3%0 360,780 486,223 847,003 94.1%0 0 0 0

0 0 0 07,473,081 1,803,900 2,431,113 11,708,0947,473,081 1,803,900 2,431,113 11,708,094










5,919,971 5,919,971100%

2,959,985 2,959,9852,959,985 2,959,985

1,553,110 1,803,900 2,431,113 5,788,12327% 31% 42%

776,555 901,950 1,215,557 2,894,06238,828 631,365 850,890 1,521,082 50.7%

0 270,585 364,667 635,252 96.3%737,727 0 0 737,727 49.2%

0 0 0 0

776,555 901,950 1,215,557 2,894,06238,828 450,975 607,778 1,097,581 87.8%

737,727 0 0 737,727 49.2%0 90,195 121,556 211,751 91.3%0 360,780 486,223 847,003 94.1%0 0 0 0

0 0 0 07,473,081 1,803,900 2,431,113 11,708,0947,473,081 1,803,900 2,431,113 11,708,094


CONFIDENTIAL DATA: ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGESCIG Scenarios Lifts/TEUs Data from Train Builder Intermodal Rail Analysis Module embedded in Quick Trip - Train Builder Integrated ModelPrepared for the Port of Los Angeles by Cambridge Systematics on August 13, 2012

Scenario #1 - Baseline 2010DEMAND in TEUs IPI L+E TL L Dom L+E Total TEUsOn-Dock Yards Total 3,312,578 3,312,578

% Market Split 100% On-Dock Yards BNSF Total 1,866,821 1,866,821 On-Dock Yards UP Total 1,445,756 1,445,756

Off-Dock Yards Total 1,642,151 1,917,754 3,195,640 6,755,545% Market Split 24% 28% 47%

BNSF Off-Dock Yards Total 807,466 915,349 1,853,853 3,576,668 Hobart & Commerce Yards 807,219 505,585 1,004,236 2,317,040 San Bernardino Yard 247 409,764 849,617 1,259,628 SCIG Yard 0 0 0 0 Additional BNSF Yard TEUs to be handled 0 0 0 0

UP Off-Dock Yards Total 834,685 1,002,405 1,341,787 3,178,877 East L.A. Yard 66,352 440,252 676,923 1,183,527 ICTF Yard 752,386 7,356 3,900 763,642 City of Industry Yard 185 333,828 359,698 693,711 LATC Yard 15,763 220,968 301,267 537,998 Additional UP Yard TEUs to be handled 0 0 0 0

Total Additional Yard Capacity Needed 0 0 0 0Total including Additional Yard Capacity Needed 4,954,729 1,917,754 3,195,640 10,068,123Total excluding Additional Yard Capacity Needed 4,954,729 1,917,754 3,195,640 10,068,123



DEMAND in TEUsOn-Dock Yards Total



BNSF Off-Dock Yards Total Hobart & Commerce Yards San Bernardino Yard SCIG Yard Additional BNSF Yard TEUs to be handled

UP Off-Dock Yards Total East L.A. Yard ICTF Yard City of Industry Yard LATC Yard Additional UP Yard TEUs to be handled


Scenario #2 - Baseline 2010 w. ProjectIPI TL L Dom L+E Total TEUs3,312,578 3,312,578

100%1,866,821 1,866,8211,445,756 1,445,756

3,755,738 1,917,754 3,195,640 8,869,13242% 22% 36%

2,921,053 915,349 1,853,853 5,690,255146,053 505,585 1,004,236 1,655,874

0 409,764 849,617 1,259,3812,775,000 0 0 2,775,000

0 0 0 0

834,685 1,002,405 1,341,787 3,178,87766,352 440,252 676,923 1,183,527

752,386 7,356 3,900 763,642185 333,828 359,698 693,711

15,763 220,968 301,267 537,9980 0 0 0

0 0 0 07,068,316 1,917,754 3,195,640 12,181,7107,068,316 1,917,754 3,195,640 12,181,710









Scenario #3 - 2016 No ProjectIPI L+E TL L Dom L+E Total TEUs

5,866,291 5,866,291100%

2,933,146 2,933,1462,933,146 2,933,146

1,268,463 2,770,349 4,179,682 8,218,49415% 34% 51%

634,231 1,385,175 2,089,841 4,109,247634,231 969,622 1,462,889 3,066,742

0 415,552 626,952 1,042,5050 0 0 00 0 0 0

634,231 1,385,175 2,089,841 4,109,24731,712 692,587 1,044,920 1,769,219

602,520 0 0 602,5200 138,517 208,984 347,5020 554,070 835,936 1,390,0060 0 0 0

0 0 0 07,134,754 2,770,349 4,179,682 14,084,7857,134,754 2,770,349 4,179,682 14,084,785









Scenario #4 - 2016 w. ProjectIPI L+E TL L Dom L+E Total TEUs

5,866,291 5,866,291100%

2,933,146 2,933,1462,933,146 2,933,146

1,268,463 2,770,349 4,179,682 8,218,49415% 34% 51%

634,231 1,385,175 2,089,841 4,109,24731,712 969,622 1,462,889 2,464,222

0 415,552 626,952 1,042,505602,520 0 0 602,520

0 0 0 0

634,231 1,385,175 2,089,841 4,109,24731,712 692,587 1,044,920 1,769,219

602,520 0 0 602,5200 138,517 208,984 347,5020 554,070 835,936 1,390,0060 0 0 0

0 0 0 07,134,754 2,770,349 4,179,682 14,084,7857,134,754 2,770,349 4,179,682 14,084,785










8,276,066 8,276,066100%

4,138,033 4,138,0334,138,033 4,138,033

1,794,661 3,932,406 5,560,661 11,287,72816% 35% 49%

897,330 1,966,203 2,780,331 5,643,864897,330 1,376,342 1,946,231 4,219,904

0 589,861 834,099 1,423,9600 0 0 00 0 0 0

897,330 1,966,203 2,780,331 5,643,86444,867 983,101 1,390,165 2,418,133

852,464 0 0 852,4640 196,620 278,033 474,6530 786,481 1,112,132 1,898,6130 0 0 0

0 0 0 010,070,726 3,932,406 5,560,661 19,563,79310,070,726 3,932,406 5,560,661 19,563,793










8,276,066 8,276,066100%

4,138,033 4,138,0334,138,033 4,138,033

1,794,661 3,932,406 5,560,661 11,287,72816% 35% 49%

897,330 1,966,203 2,780,331 5,643,86444,867 1,376,342 1,946,231 3,367,440

0 589,861 834,099 1,423,960852,464 0 0 852,464

0 0 0 0

897,330 1,966,203 2,780,331 5,643,86444,867 983,101 1,390,165 2,418,133

852,464 0 0 852,4640 196,620 278,033 474,6530 786,481 1,112,132 1,898,6130 0 0 0

0 0 0 010,070,726 3,932,406 5,560,661 19,563,79310,070,726 3,932,406 5,560,661 19,563,793










11,683,706 11,683,706100%

5,841,853 5,841,8535,841,853 5,841,853

4,059,494 6,162,460 8,242,338 18,464,29222% 33% 45%

2,029,747 3,081,230 4,121,169 9,232,1462,029,747 2,156,861 3,065,538 7,252,146

0 924,369 1,055,631 1,980,0000 0 0 00 0 0 0

2,029,747 3,081,230 4,121,169 9,232,146101,487 1,540,615 2,044,811 3,686,913

1,928,260 0 0 1,928,2600 308,123 608,850 916,9730 1,232,492 1,467,508 2,700,0000 0 0 0

0 0 0 015,743,200 6,162,460 8,242,338 30,147,99815,743,200 6,162,460 8,242,338 30,147,998









Scenario #8a - 2035 w. Project (Equal BNSF-UP IPI Share)IPI L+E TL L Dom L+E Total TEUs

11,683,706 11,683,706100%

5,841,853 5,841,8535,841,853 5,841,853

4,059,494 6,162,460 8,242,338 18,464,29222% 33% 45%

2,029,747 3,081,230 4,121,169 9,232,146101,487 2,156,861 3,065,538 5,323,886

0 924,369 1,055,631 1,980,0001,928,260 0 0 1,928,260

0 0 0 0

2,029,747 3,081,230 4,121,169 9,232,146101,487 1,540,615 2,044,811 3,686,913

1,928,260 0 0 1,928,2600 308,123 608,850 916,9730 1,232,492 1,467,508 2,700,0000 0 0 0

0 0 0 015,743,200 6,162,460 8,242,338 30,147,99815,743,200 6,162,460 8,242,338 30,147,998









Scenario #8b - 2035 w. Project (BNSF Higher IPI Share)IPI L+E TL L Dom L+E Total TEUs

11,683,706 11,683,706100%

5,841,853 5,841,8535,841,853 5,841,853

4,059,494 6,162,460 8,242,338 18,464,29222% 33% 45%

2,921,053 3,081,230 4,121,169 10,123,452146,053 2,156,861 3,065,538 5,368,452

0 924,369 1,055,631 1,980,0002,775,000 0 0 2,775,000

0 0 0 0

1,138,441 3,081,230 4,121,169 8,340,84056,922 1,540,615 2,117,079 3,714,616

1,081,519 0 0 1,081,5190 308,123 536,582 844,7050 1,232,492 1,467,508 2,700,0000 0 0 0

0 0 0 015,743,200 6,162,460 8,242,338 30,147,99815,743,200 6,162,460 8,242,338 30,147,998










11,683,706 11,683,706100%

5,841,853 5,841,8535,841,853 5,841,853

4,059,494 6,162,460 8,729,369 18,951,32321% 33% 46%

2,029,747 3,081,230 4,364,684 9,475,6612,029,747 2,156,861 3,309,053 7,495,661

0 924,369 1,055,631 1,980,0000 0 0 00 0 0 0

2,029,747 3,081,230 4,364,684 9,475,661101,487 1,540,615 2,044,811 3,686,913

1,928,260 0 0 1,928,2600 308,123 852,366 1,160,4890 1,232,492 1,467,508 2,700,0000 0 0 0

0 0 0 015,743,200 6,162,460 8,729,369 30,635,02915,743,200 6,162,460 8,729,369 30,635,029









Scenario #10a - 2046 w. Project (Equal BNSF-UP IPI Share)IPI L+E TL L Dom L+E Total TEUs

11,683,706 11,683,706100%

5,841,853 5,841,8535,841,853 5,841,853

4,059,494 6,162,460 8,729,369 18,951,32321% 33% 46%

2,029,747 3,081,230 4,364,684 9,475,661101,487 2,156,861 3,309,053 5,567,402

0 924,369 1,055,631 1,980,0001,928,260 0 0 1,928,260

0 0 0 0

2,029,747 3,081,230 4,364,684 9,475,661101,487 1,540,615 2,044,811 3,686,913

1,928,260 0 0 1,928,2600 308,123 852,366 1,160,4890 1,232,492 1,467,508 2,700,0000 0 0 0

0 0 0 015,743,200 6,162,460 8,729,369 30,635,02915,743,200 6,162,460 8,729,369 30,635,029









Scenario #10b - 2046 w. Project (BNSF Higher IPI Share)IPI L+E TL L Dom L+E Total TEUs

11,683,706 11,683,706100%

5,841,853 5,841,8535,841,853 5,841,853

4,059,494 6,162,460 8,729,369 18,951,32321% 33% 46%

2,921,053 3,081,230 4,364,684 10,366,967146,053 2,156,861 3,309,053 5,611,967

0 924,369 1,055,631 1,980,0002,775,000 0 0 2,775,000

0 0 0 0

1,138,441 3,081,230 4,364,684 8,584,35656,922 1,540,615 2,117,079 3,714,616

1,081,519 0 0 1,081,5190 308,123 780,098 1,088,2210 1,232,492 1,467,508 2,700,0000 0 0 0

0 0 0 015,743,200 6,162,460 8,729,369 30,635,02915,743,200 6,162,460 8,729,369 30,635,029










7,117,834 7,117,834100%

3,558,917 3,558,9173,558,917 3,558,917

1,612,966 3,399,900 4,930,446 9,943,31316% 34% 50%

806,483 1,699,950 2,465,223 4,971,656806,483 1,189,965 1,725,656 3,722,104

0 509,985 739,567 1,249,5520 0 0 00 0 0 0

806,483 1,699,950 2,465,223 4,971,65640,324 849,975 1,232,612 2,122,911

766,159 0 0 766,1590 169,995 246,522 416,5170 679,980 986,089 1,666,0690 0 0 0

0 0 0 08,730,800 3,399,900 4,930,446 17,061,1468,730,800 3,399,900 4,930,446 17,061,146










7,117,834 7,117,834100%

3,558,917 3,558,9173,558,917 3,558,917

1,612,966 3,399,900 4,930,446 9,943,31316% 34% 50%

806,483 1,699,950 2,465,223 4,971,65640,324 1,189,965 1,725,656 2,955,945

0 509,985 739,567 1,249,552766,159 0 0 766,159

0 0 0 0

806,483 1,699,950 2,465,223 4,971,65640,324 849,975 1,232,612 2,122,911

766,159 0 0 766,1590 169,995 246,522 416,5170 679,980 986,089 1,666,0690 0 0 0

0 0 0 08,730,800 3,399,900 4,930,446 17,061,1468,730,800 3,399,900 4,930,446 17,061,146










10,951,946 10,951,946100%

5,475,973 5,475,9735,475,973 5,475,973

2,873,254 5,411,700 7,293,339 15,578,29318% 35% 47%

1,436,627 2,705,850 3,646,670 7,789,1471,436,627 1,894,095 2,552,669 5,883,391

0 811,755 1,094,001 1,905,7560 0 0 00 0 0 0

1,436,627 2,705,850 3,646,670 7,789,14771,831 1,352,925 1,823,335 3,248,091

1,364,796 0 0 1,364,7960 270,585 364,667 635,2520 1,082,340 1,458,668 2,541,0080 0 0 0

0 0 0 013,825,200 5,411,700 7,293,339 26,530,23913,825,200 5,411,700 7,293,339 26,530,239










10,951,946 10,951,946100%

5,475,973 5,475,9735,475,973 5,475,973

2,873,254 5,411,700 7,293,339 15,578,29318% 35% 47%

1,436,627 2,705,850 3,646,670 7,789,14771,831 1,894,095 2,552,669 4,518,595

0 811,755 1,094,001 1,905,7561,364,796 0 0 1,364,796

0 0 0 0

1,436,627 2,705,850 3,646,670 7,789,14771,831 1,352,925 1,823,335 3,248,091

1,364,796 0 0 1,364,7960 270,585 364,667 635,2520 1,082,340 1,458,668 2,541,0080 0 0 0

0 0 0 013,825,200 5,411,700 7,293,339 26,530,23913,825,200 5,411,700 7,293,339 26,530,239


CONFIDENTIAL DATA: ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE

SCIG Scenarios Trains Data from Train Builder Intermodal Rail Analysis Module embedded in Quick Trip - Train Builder Integrated ModelPrepared for the Port of Los Angeles by Cambridge Systematics on August 13, 2012

IPI L+E TL L Dom L+E TotalIM Trains 12K 10K 8K 6K TOTAL 12K 10K 8K 6K TOTAL 12K 10K 8K 6K TOTAL 12K 10K 8K 6K TOTALOn-Dock YardsTotal 0.0 6.6 8.8 6.6 22.1 0.0 6.6 8.8 6.6 22.1

On-Dock Yards BNSF Total 0.0 3.7 5.0 3.7 12.5 0.0 3.7 5.0 3.7 12.5 On-Dock Yards UP Total 0.0 2.9 3.9 2.9 9.6 0.0 2.9 3.9 2.9 9.6

Off-Dock Yards Total 0.0 3.3 4.4 3.3 11.0 0.0 3.8 4.7 0.9 9.4 0.0 4.4 12.0 4.3 20.7 0.0 11.4 21.1 8.5 41.1

BNSF Off-Dock Yards Total 0.0 1.6 2.2 1.6 5.4 0.0 1.8 2.3 0.5 4.5 0.0 2.1 8.0 3.2 13.3 0.0 5.5 12.4 5.3 23.2 Hobart & Commerce Yards 0.0 1.6 2.2 1.6 5.4 0.0 1.0 1.2 0.2 2.5 0.0 1.1 4.4 1.8 7.3 0.0 3.7 7.8 3.6 15.2 San Bernardino Yard 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.2 2.0 0.0 1.0 3.6 1.4 6.0 0.0 1.8 4.6 1.6 8.0 SCIG Yard 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Additional BNSF Yard Capacity Needed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

UP Off-Dock Yards Total 0.0 1.7 2.2 1.7 5.6 0.0 2.0 2.5 0.5 4.9 0.0 2.3 4.0 1.1 7.4 0.0 6.0 8.7 3.3 17.9 East L.A. Yard 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.9 1.1 0.2 2.2 0.0 1.2 2.0 0.5 3.7 0.0 2.2 3.3 0.9 6.3 ICTF Yard 0.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 5.0 City of Industry Yard 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.8 0.2 1.6 0.0 0.7 0.9 0.2 1.8 0.0 1.4 1.7 0.4 3.5 LATC Yard 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.4 1.1 0.4 1.9 0.0 0.9 1.7 0.5 3.1 Additional UP Yard Capacity Needed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

All Rail Yards Total 0.0 9.9 13.2 9.9 33.1 0.0 3.8 4.7 0.9 9.4 0.0 4.4 12.0 4.3 20.7 0.0 18.1 29.9 15.2 63.2

Scenario #1 - Baseline 2010


CONFIDENTIAL DATA: A

SCIG Scenarios Trains Data from TPrepared for the Port of Los Angeles by Ca

IM TrainsOn-Dock YardsTotal

On-Dock Yards BNSF Total On-Dock Yards UP Total

Off-Dock Yards Total



All Rail Yards Total

IPI L+E TL L Dom L+E Total12K 10K 8K 6K TOTAL 12K 10K 8K 6K TOTAL 12K 10K 8K 6K TOTAL 12K 10K 8K 6K TOTAL0.0 6.6 8.8 6.6 22.1 0.0 6.6 8.8 6.6 22.1

0.0 3.7 5.0 3.7 12.5 0.0 3.7 5.0 3.7 12.50.0 2.9 3.9 2.9 9.6 0.0 2.9 3.9 2.9 9.6

0.0 1.9 18.8 1.7 22.4 0.0 3.8 4.7 0.9 9.4 0.0 4.4 12.0 4.3 20.7 0.0 10.1 35.5 6.9 52.5

0.0 0.3 16.6 0.0 16.8 0.0 1.8 2.3 0.5 4.5 0.0 2.1 8.0 3.2 13.3 0.0 4.1 26.8 3.6 34.60.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.0 1.2 0.2 2.5 0.0 1.1 4.4 1.8 7.3 0.0 2.4 6.2 2.0 10.60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.2 2.0 0.0 1.0 3.6 1.4 6.0 0.0 1.8 4.6 1.6 8.00.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 16.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 1.7 2.2 1.7 5.6 0.0 2.0 2.5 0.5 4.9 0.0 2.3 4.0 1.1 7.4 0.0 6.0 8.7 3.3 17.90.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.9 1.1 0.2 2.2 0.0 1.2 2.0 0.5 3.7 0.0 2.2 3.3 0.9 6.30.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 5.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.8 0.2 1.6 0.0 0.7 0.9 0.2 1.8 0.0 1.4 1.7 0.4 3.50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.4 1.1 0.4 1.9 0.0 0.9 1.7 0.5 3.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 8.6 27.6 8.3 44.5 0.0 3.8 4.7 0.9 9.4 0.0 4.4 12.0 4.3 20.7 0.0 16.7 44.3 13.5 74.6

Scenario #2 - Baseline 2010 w. 2035 BNSF volumes











0.0 5.5 11.1 0.0 16.6 0.0 5.5 11.1 0.0 16.60.0 5.5 11.1 0.0 16.6 0.0 5.5 11.1 0.0 16.6

0.0 2.4 4.8 0.0 7.2 6.5 3.2 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 6.3 12.8 0.0 19.2 6.5 11.9 17.7 0.0 36.0

0.0 1.2 2.4 0.0 3.6 3.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 3.2 6.4 0.0 9.6 3.2 5.9 8.8 0.0 18.00.0 1.2 2.4 0.0 3.6 2.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 2.2 4.5 0.0 6.7 2.3 4.5 6.9 0.0 13.70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.9 1.9 0.0 2.9 1.0 1.4 1.9 0.0 4.30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 1.2 2.4 0.0 3.6 3.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 3.2 6.4 0.0 9.6 3.2 5.9 8.8 0.0 18.00.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.6 3.2 0.0 4.8 1.6 2.4 3.3 0.0 7.40.0 1.1 2.3 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.3 0.0 3.40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.3 2.6 0.0 3.8 1.3 1.9 2.6 0.0 5.80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 13.4 27.1 0.0 40.5 6.5 3.2 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 6.3 12.8 0.0 19.2 6.5 22.9 39.9 0.0 69.3

Scenario #3 - 2016 No Project











0.0 5.5 11.1 0.0 16.6 0.0 5.5 11.1 0.0 16.60.0 5.5 11.1 0.0 16.6 0.0 5.5 11.1 0.0 16.6

0.0 1.2 6.2 0.0 7.5 6.5 3.2 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 6.3 12.8 0.0 19.2 6.5 10.8 19.1 0.0 36.3

0.0 0.1 3.8 0.0 3.9 3.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 3.2 6.4 0.0 9.6 3.2 4.8 10.2 0.0 18.30.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 2.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 2.2 4.5 0.0 6.7 2.3 3.4 4.6 0.0 10.30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.9 1.9 0.0 2.9 1.0 1.4 1.9 0.0 4.30.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 3.70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 1.2 2.4 0.0 3.6 3.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 3.2 6.4 0.0 9.6 3.2 5.9 8.8 0.0 18.00.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.6 3.2 0.0 4.8 1.6 2.4 3.3 0.0 7.40.0 1.1 2.3 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.3 0.0 3.40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.3 2.6 0.0 3.8 1.3 1.9 2.6 0.0 5.80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 12.2 28.5 0.0 40.8 6.5 3.2 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 6.3 12.8 0.0 19.2 6.5 21.7 41.4 0.0 69.6

Scenario #4 - 2016 w. Project











0.0 7.7 15.7 0.0 23.5 0.0 7.7 15.7 0.0 23.50.0 7.7 15.7 0.0 23.5 0.0 7.7 15.7 0.0 23.5

0.0 1.8 8.8 0.0 10.6 9.2 4.5 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 8.4 17.1 0.0 25.5 9.2 14.7 25.9 0.0 49.8

0.0 0.1 5.4 0.0 5.5 4.6 2.3 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 4.2 8.5 0.0 12.7 4.6 6.5 14.0 0.0 25.10.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 3.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 2.9 6.0 0.0 8.9 3.2 4.6 6.1 0.0 14.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.3 2.6 0.0 3.8 1.4 1.9 2.6 0.0 5.90.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 5.20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 1.7 3.4 0.0 5.1 4.6 2.3 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 4.2 8.5 0.0 12.7 4.6 8.1 11.9 0.0 24.70.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 2.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 2.1 4.3 0.0 6.4 2.3 3.3 4.4 0.0 10.00.0 1.6 3.2 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 3.2 0.0 4.80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.0 1.3 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.0 2.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 1.7 3.4 0.0 5.1 1.8 2.6 3.4 0.0 7.80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 17.3 40.3 0.0 57.5 9.2 4.5 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 8.4 17.1 0.0 25.5 9.2 30.2 57.3 0.0 96.7












0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.10.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1

0.0 7.6 15.4 0.0 23.0 14.4 7.1 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 12.5 25.3 0.0 37.8 14.4 27.1 40.7 0.0 82.3

0.0 3.8 7.7 0.0 11.5 7.2 3.5 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 6.2 12.7 0.0 18.9 7.2 13.6 20.4 0.0 41.10.0 3.8 7.7 0.0 11.5 5.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 4.6 9.4 0.0 14.0 5.0 10.9 17.1 0.0 33.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 1.6 3.2 0.0 4.8 2.2 2.7 3.2 0.0 8.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 3.8 7.7 0.0 11.5 7.2 3.5 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 6.2 12.7 0.0 18.9 7.2 13.6 20.4 0.0 41.10.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.6 3.6 1.8 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 3.1 6.3 0.0 9.4 3.6 5.1 6.7 0.0 15.30.0 3.6 7.3 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 7.3 0.0 10.90.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.9 1.9 0.0 2.8 0.7 1.3 1.9 0.0 3.90.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 2.2 4.5 0.0 6.7 2.9 3.6 4.5 0.0 11.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 29.5 59.8 0.0 89.3 14.4 7.1 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 12.5 25.3 0.0 37.8 14.4 49.0 85.1 0.0 148.5












0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.10.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1

0.0 4.0 20.0 0.0 24.0 14.4 7.1 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 12.5 25.3 0.0 37.8 14.4 23.5 45.3 0.0 83.2

0.0 0.2 12.3 0.0 12.4 7.2 3.5 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 6.2 12.7 0.0 18.9 7.2 10.0 24.9 0.0 42.10.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.6 5.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 4.6 9.4 0.0 14.0 5.0 7.3 9.8 0.0 22.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 1.6 3.2 0.0 4.8 2.2 2.7 3.2 0.0 8.10.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 11.90.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 3.8 7.7 0.0 11.5 7.2 3.5 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 6.2 12.7 0.0 18.9 7.2 13.6 20.4 0.0 41.10.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.6 3.6 1.8 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 3.1 6.3 0.0 9.4 3.6 5.1 6.7 0.0 15.30.0 3.6 7.3 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 7.3 0.0 10.90.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.9 1.9 0.0 2.8 0.7 1.3 1.9 0.0 3.90.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 2.2 4.5 0.0 6.7 2.9 3.6 4.5 0.0 11.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 25.9 64.4 0.0 90.2 14.4 7.1 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 12.5 25.3 0.0 37.8 14.4 45.4 89.7 0.0 149.4

Scenario #8a - 2035 w. Project (Equal BNSF-UP IPI Share)










Scenario #8b - 2035 w. Project (BNSF Higher IPI Share)











0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.10.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1

0.0 7.6 15.4 0.0 23.0 14.4 7.1 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 13.2 26.8 0.0 40.0 14.4 27.9 42.2 0.0 84.5

0.0 3.8 7.7 0.0 11.5 7.2 3.5 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 6.6 13.4 0.0 20.0 7.2 13.9 21.1 0.0 42.20.0 3.8 7.7 0.0 11.5 5.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 5.0 10.2 0.0 15.2 5.0 11.3 17.9 0.0 34.20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 1.6 3.2 0.0 4.8 2.2 2.7 3.2 0.0 8.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 3.8 7.7 0.0 11.5 7.2 3.5 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 6.6 13.4 0.0 20.0 7.2 13.9 21.1 0.0 42.20.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.6 3.6 1.8 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 3.1 6.3 0.0 9.4 3.6 5.1 6.7 0.0 15.30.0 3.6 7.3 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 7.3 0.0 10.90.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.3 2.6 0.0 3.9 0.7 1.6 2.6 0.0 5.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 2.2 4.5 0.0 6.7 2.9 3.6 4.5 0.0 11.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 29.5 59.8 0.0 89.3 14.4 7.1 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 13.2 26.8 0.0 40.0 14.4 49.7 86.6 0.0 150.7












0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.10.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1

0.0 4.0 20.0 0.0 24.0 14.4 7.1 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 13.2 26.8 0.0 40.0 14.4 24.3 46.8 0.0 85.4

0.0 0.2 12.3 0.0 12.4 7.2 3.5 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 6.6 13.4 0.0 20.0 7.2 10.3 25.7 0.0 43.20.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.6 5.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 5.0 10.2 0.0 15.2 5.0 7.7 10.5 0.0 23.30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 1.6 3.2 0.0 4.8 2.2 2.7 3.2 0.0 8.10.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 11.90.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 3.8 7.7 0.0 11.5 7.2 3.5 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 6.6 13.4 0.0 20.0 7.2 13.9 21.1 0.0 42.20.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.6 3.6 1.8 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 3.1 6.3 0.0 9.4 3.6 5.1 6.7 0.0 15.30.0 3.6 7.3 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 7.3 0.0 10.90.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.3 2.6 0.0 3.9 0.7 1.6 2.6 0.0 5.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 2.2 4.5 0.0 6.7 2.9 3.6 4.5 0.0 11.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 25.9 64.4 0.0 90.2 14.4 7.1 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 13.2 26.8 0.0 40.0 14.4 46.1 91.2 0.0 151.7

Scenario #10a - 2046 w. Project (Equal BNSF-UP IPI Share)











0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.10.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1 0.0 10.9 22.2 0.0 33.1

0.0 2.4 20.9 0.0 23.3 14.4 7.1 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 13.2 26.8 0.0 40.0 14.4 22.7 47.7 0.0 84.7

0.0 0.3 16.6 0.0 16.8 7.2 3.5 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 6.6 13.4 0.0 20.0 7.2 10.4 30.0 0.0 47.60.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.8 5.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 5.0 10.2 0.0 15.2 5.0 7.8 10.7 0.0 23.50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 1.6 3.2 0.0 4.8 2.2 2.7 3.2 0.0 8.10.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 16.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 2.1 4.3 0.0 6.5 7.2 3.5 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 6.6 13.4 0.0 20.0 7.2 12.3 17.7 0.0 37.20.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 3.6 1.8 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 3.2 6.5 0.0 9.7 3.6 5.1 6.7 0.0 15.40.0 2.0 4.1 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.1 0.0 6.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.2 2.4 0.0 3.6 0.7 1.5 2.4 0.0 4.60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 2.2 4.5 0.0 6.7 2.9 3.6 4.5 0.0 11.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 24.3 65.3 0.0 89.5 14.4 7.1 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 13.2 26.8 0.0 40.0 14.4 44.6 92.1 0.0 151.0

Scenario #10b - 2046 w. Project (BNSF Higher IPI Share)











0.0 6.7 13.5 0.0 20.2 0.0 6.7 13.5 0.0 20.20.0 6.7 13.5 0.0 20.2 0.0 6.7 13.5 0.0 20.2

0.0 1.6 7.9 0.0 9.5 7.9 3.9 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 7.5 15.1 0.0 22.6 7.9 12.9 23.1 0.0 44.0

0.0 0.1 4.9 0.0 4.9 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 3.7 7.6 0.0 11.3 4.0 5.8 12.4 0.0 22.20.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 2.8 1.4 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 2.6 5.3 0.0 7.9 2.8 4.1 5.5 0.0 12.30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.1 2.3 0.0 3.4 1.2 1.7 2.3 0.0 5.20.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 4.70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 1.5 3.1 0.0 4.6 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 3.7 7.6 0.0 11.3 4.0 7.2 10.6 0.0 21.80.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.9 3.8 0.0 5.6 2.0 2.9 3.9 0.0 8.80.0 1.4 2.9 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.9 0.0 4.30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 1.1 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 1.70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.5 3.0 0.0 4.5 1.6 2.3 3.0 0.0 6.90.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 14.9 35.0 0.0 49.9 7.9 3.9 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 7.5 15.1 0.0 22.6 7.9 26.3 50.1 0.0 84.3












0.0 10.2 20.8 0.0 31.1 0.0 10.2 20.8 0.0 31.10.0 10.2 20.8 0.0 31.1 0.0 10.2 20.8 0.0 31.1

0.0 5.4 10.9 0.0 16.3 12.6 6.2 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 11.0 22.4 0.0 33.4 12.6 22.6 33.3 0.0 68.6

0.0 2.7 5.5 0.0 8.1 6.3 3.1 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 5.5 11.2 0.0 16.7 6.3 11.3 16.7 0.0 34.30.0 2.7 5.5 0.0 8.1 4.4 2.2 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 3.9 7.8 0.0 11.7 4.4 8.7 13.3 0.0 26.40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 1.7 3.4 0.0 5.0 1.9 2.6 3.4 0.0 7.80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 2.7 5.5 0.0 8.1 6.3 3.1 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 5.5 11.2 0.0 16.7 6.3 11.3 16.7 0.0 34.30.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.4 3.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 2.8 5.6 0.0 8.4 3.2 4.4 5.9 0.0 13.50.0 2.6 5.2 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 5.2 0.0 7.70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.6 1.1 0.0 1.7 0.6 0.9 1.1 0.0 2.60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 2.2 4.5 0.0 6.7 2.5 3.4 4.5 0.0 10.50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 25.9 52.5 0.0 78.4 12.6 6.2 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 11.0 22.4 0.0 33.4 12.6 43.1 74.9 0.0 130.7












0.0 10.2 20.8 0.0 31.1 0.0 10.2 20.8 0.0 31.10.0 10.2 20.8 0.0 31.1 0.0 10.2 20.8 0.0 31.1

0.0 2.8 14.1 0.0 17.0 12.6 6.2 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 11.0 22.4 0.0 33.4 12.6 20.1 36.5 0.0 69.2

0.0 0.1 8.7 0.0 8.8 6.3 3.1 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 5.5 11.2 0.0 16.7 6.3 8.8 19.9 0.0 34.90.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.4 4.4 2.2 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 3.9 7.8 0.0 11.7 4.4 6.2 8.1 0.0 18.70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 1.7 3.4 0.0 5.0 1.9 2.6 3.4 0.0 7.80.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 8.40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 2.7 5.5 0.0 8.1 6.3 3.1 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 5.5 11.2 0.0 16.7 6.3 11.3 16.7 0.0 34.30.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.4 3.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 2.8 5.6 0.0 8.4 3.2 4.4 5.9 0.0 13.50.0 2.6 5.2 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 5.2 0.0 7.70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.6 1.1 0.0 1.7 0.6 0.9 1.1 0.0 2.60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 2.2 4.5 0.0 6.7 2.5 3.4 4.5 0.0 10.50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 23.3 55.7 0.0 79.1 12.6 6.2 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 11.0 22.4 0.0 33.4 12.6 40.6 78.1 0.0 131.3



final submitted comments on fdeir for bnsf scig project 3 6 2012

Documents