BCD Regional Freight Mobility Plan: Final Draft by BCDCOG

BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN

Regional Freight Mobility Plan FINAL REPORT

Prepared by:

January 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1

How Goods Movement and Deliveries Benefit the BCD Region ..................................1-1

1.2

Regional Freight Mobility Planning Objectives ................................................................1-3

1.3

Agency Coordination and Public Engagement Process ...............................................1-6

1.4

Organization of this Regional Freight Mobility Plan .........................................................1-8

FREIGHT PLANNING CONTEXT IN THE BCD REGION ...................................................................... 2-1 2.1

2.2 3.

Population, Employment, and Economic Context .........................................................2-1 2.1.1

Population Growth .................................................................................................2-1

2.1.2

Employment Trends ................................................................................................2-1

2.1.3

Economic Context .................................................................................................2-4

Freight By Mode ...................................................................................................................2-5

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES ................................................................ 3-1 3.1

Development of Goals and Objectives ...........................................................................3-1

3.2

Development of Performance Measures .........................................................................3-3

3.3

BCD Regional Freight Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures .......................3-3

IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS .............................................. 4-1 4.1

4.2

Highways ..............................................................................................................................4-1 4.1.1

Congestion ..............................................................................................................4-3

4.1.2

Safety .......................................................................................................................4-9

4.1.3

Pavement and Bridge Conditions ........................................................................4-9

4.1.4

Truck Parking .........................................................................................................4-15

Railroads .............................................................................................................................4-18 4.2.1

4.3

Port of Charleston ..............................................................................................................4-22 4.3.1

At-Grade Crossing Safety ....................................................................................4-18 Other Port Facilities...............................................................................................4-24

4.4

Air Cargo ............................................................................................................................4-24

4.5

Land Use .............................................................................................................................4-25

FUTURE FREIGHT MOBILITY NEEDS .................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1

Population and Employment .............................................................................................5-1

5.2

Freight Growth .....................................................................................................................5-6

| PAGE i |

| TABLE OF CONTENTS |

5.2.1

Truck Freight Growth ..............................................................................................5-6

5.2.2

Rail Freight Growth .................................................................................................5-8

5.3

COVID-19 Impacts ............................................................................................................5-10

5.4

Freight-Friendly Complete Streets ...................................................................................5-11 5.4.1

Designing for Freight Vehicles .............................................................................5-11

5.4.2

“Complete Corridors” ..........................................................................................5-14

5.4.3

Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) and Demand Management .......................................................................................5-14

PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 6-1

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION ................................................................................................................ 7-1

POLICY AND PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 8-1

HOW TO USE THIS PLAN .................................................................................................................... 9-1 9.1

State and Federal Agencies ..............................................................................................9-1

9.2

Metropolitan Planning Organizations ...............................................................................9-3

9.3

Municipalities, Counties, and Economic Development Organizations ........................9-3

9.4

Private Sector Interests ........................................................................................................9-4

LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1: Freight Advisory Committee .....................................................................................................1-8 Table 3-1: Comparison of Federal, State and Regional Planning Goal Areas ....................................3-2 Table 3-2: Regional Freight Mobility Plan Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures ...............3-4 Table 4-1: BCD Freight Network Pavement Condition Summary, 2018 ................................................4-9 Table 4-2: Roadways Impacted by Mining Operations ........................................................................4-13 Table 4-3: BCD Regional Truck Parking Facilities ....................................................................................4-15 Table 4-4: BCD Top At-Grade Crossing Hotspots (2009-2019) ..............................................................4-22 Table 5-1: 2015–2040 Population Growth, BCD Region ..........................................................................5-1 Table 6-1: Project Recommendations ......................................................................................................6-3 Table 7-1: Freight Project Prioritization Framework ..................................................................................7-2 Table 7-2: Act 114 Freight Filter Criteria .....................................................................................................7-3 Table 7-3: Prioritized Freight Projects .........................................................................................................7-4 Table 8-1: Freight Policy and Programmatic Recommendations .........................................................8-2

| PAGE ii | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| TABLE OF CONTENTS |

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 : Freight Plan Study Area ...........................................................................................................1-2 Figure 1-2: BCDCOG Freight Economic Impacts .....................................................................................1-3 Figure 1-3: Freight Movement in the BCDCOG Region ..........................................................................1-4 Figure 1-4: FHWA Megaregions ..................................................................................................................1-5 Figure 1-5: Importance of Stakeholders in the Planning Process ...........................................................1-6 Figure 1-6: Stakeholder and Public Engagement Approach ................................................................1-6 Figure 1-8: Webpage for BCDCOG Regional Freight Mobility Plan ......................................................1-7 Figure 2-1: Population Density in the BCDCOG Region, 2015 ................................................................2-2 Figure 2-2: Percentage of Regional Employment by County ................................................................2-3 Figure 2-3: BCD Freight Employment Impacts by Industry, 2019 ............................................................2-3 Figure 2-4: Economic Impacts of BCD Freight Movement .....................................................................2-4 Figure 2-5: BCD Freight Movement Tonnage by Mode ..........................................................................2-6 Figure 2-6: Top Commodities by Tonnage and Value, 2016 ..................................................................2-6 Figure 3-1: Definition of Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures .............................................3-1 Figure 4-1: BCD Regional Freight Network ................................................................................................4-2 Figure 4-2: BCD Truck Freight Density, 2016 ..............................................................................................4-4 Figure 4-3: BCD Highway Freight Network Tiers ........................................................................................4-5 Figure 4-4: Daily Truck Vehicle Hours of Delay, 2015 ...............................................................................4-6 Figure 4-5: Regional Freight Network Daily Level of Service, 2015 ........................................................4-7 Figure 4-6: Truck Bottlenecks, 2019–2020 ..................................................................................................4-8 Figure 4-7: Severe Truck Crash Density, 2015–2019 ................................................................................4-10 Figure 4-8: Pavement Condition Rating of the Freight Network, 2018 ................................................4-11 Figure 4-9: Bridge Condition Ratings on the Freight Network, 2018 ....................................................4-12 Figure 4-10: SCDHEC Active Mines in the BCD Region .........................................................................4-14 Figure 4-11: Truck Parking Locations........................................................................................................4-17 Figure 4-12: Rail Tonnage Density and Percent Through Traffic, 2016 ................................................4-19 Figure 4-13: BCDCOG Open Rail Crossings ............................................................................................4-20 Figure 4-14: At-Grade Rail Crossing Safety Hotspots, 2009–2019 .........................................................4-21 Figure 4-15: Wanda Welch Terminal, Port of Charleston ......................................................................4-23 Figure 4-16: Existing and Future Freight Corridors and Generators ......................................................4-26 Figure 5-1: Forecast Population Density, 2040 ..........................................................................................5-2 Figure 5-2: Freight Generating Employment, 2015–2040 ........................................................................5-3 Figure 5-3: Existing and Future Freight Corridors, Clusters, and Generators .........................................5-5 Figure 5-4: Truck Ton Growth by Commodity, 2016–2040 .......................................................................5-6

| PAGE iii | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| TABLE OF CONTENTS |

Figure 5-5: South Carolina Truck Tonnage 2016–2040 and Statewide Distribution of BCD Region Freight ........................................................................................................................5-7 Figure 5-6: Rail Ton Growth by Commodity, 2016-2040 ..........................................................................5-8 Figure 5-7: South Carolina Rail Tons 2016–2040 and Statewide Distribution of BCD Region Freight ..5-9 Figure 5-8: Urban Delivery Truck for Last Mile Parcel Home Delivery ...................................................5-10 Figure 5-9: Examples of Complete Streets Design Elements That Accommodate Freight ...............5-12 Figure 5-10: Sidewalk Delivery Bot ...........................................................................................................5-15 Figure 6-1: Project Recommendations by Location ................................................................................6-2 Figure 7-1: Project Evaluation and Prioritization Process .........................................................................7-1

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A ................................................................................................Public Engagement Summary Appendix B ........................................ Freight Planning Best Practices and Emerging Technologies TM Appendix C .......................................................................................................... Network Assessment TM Appendix D .............................................................................................................................. Land Use TM Appendix E .......................................................................................... Economic Impact Assessment TM Appendix F ............................................................................................................................ Briefing Decks Appendix G… ................................................................................................. Rail Recommendations TM

| PAGE iv | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

1. INTRODUCTION The three-county Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester (BCD) region, serves as a major trade gateway, linking the state and southeastern U.S. markets to the world. This region is also experiencing significant growth, with new industry and residents relocating to the area daily. This growth, however, has come with challenges, such as increased roadway congestion and safety issues, higher vehicle emissions, and inadequate truck parking capacity problems, all of which can have negative impacts on freight mobility. Freight mobility is an important aspect of the area’s transportation system performance and a major driving force for the tri-county economy. The BCD Regional Freight Mobility Plan (Freight Plan) provides the region, illustrated in Figure 1-1, with a blueprint for developing a transportation network that provides for the safe and efficient movement of goods and people, and support economic growth while simultaneously minimizing the negative impacts associated with increased freight movement. The Plan takes an integrated land use-transportation planning approach to identify the area's freight transportation needs, and provides a comprehensive, multimodal mix of infrastructure improvements, and policy and program recommendations to address these issues.

1.1

HOW GOODS MOVEMENT AND DELIVERIES BENEFIT THE BCD REGION

Charleston’s economy has always been dependent on freight and trade, beginning with its founding as a colonial port city in 1670. The same holds true today as the BCD region’s continued economic prosperity and competitiveness depends on the safe, efficient, and reliable movement of goods and people. An important element of this Freight Plan was an economic impact assessment, detailed in Appendix E. Based on this analysis, millions of tons of freight worth billions of dollars traverse the area's multimodal freight transportation infrastructure annually, generating just over a third of the region's economy (38 percent) and around one-fifth of the state’s economy (18 percent), based on the average direct, indirect, and induced impacts of the freight industry on the region’s sales output, gross regional product (GRP), income, and jobs created. This economic impact translates into nearly 200,000 jobs and billions of dollars of income, GRP, and goods and services sold (Figure 1-2). This means that freight contributes 44 percent of the region’s economic output, 36 percent of the GRP, 35 percent of the region’s income, and 37 percent of the region’s jobs. In addition to being a sizeable industry itself, the multimodal freight transportation network also supports other key industries throughout the BCD region, including professional services, accommodation and food services, transportation, and warehousing. The multimodal network provides BCD businesses with access to domestic and global supplies, facilities, and markets.

| PAGE 1-1 |

| 1 | INTRODUCTION |

Figure 1-1 : Freight Plan Study Area

| PAGE 1-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 1 | INTRODUCTION |

Figure 1-2: BCD Freight Economic Impacts

The region's freight infrastructure plays a pivotal role in both the local and state economies as it facilitates the movement of goods to and from many local industries and households, as well as national and international markets. The majority of freight moving along the region’s multimodal network is through freight, meaning it both originates and terminates outside of the BCD area (Figure 1-3). This includes 23 million tons of freight moved via the Port of Charleston which were transferred to truck or rail. The through freight moving on BCD’s transportation network mainly represents interstate trade among states along the eastern seaboard. Ensuring that the region’s freight infrastructure can continue to accommodate the safe, efficient movement of freight now and into the future is critical for the local, state, and national economy.

1.2

REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLANNING OBJECTIVES

BCDCOG focuses on providing multimodal transportation solutions for the three-county area of Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester. The multimodal freight networks serving the region accommodate significant freight volumes moving by highway, rail, water, and air to meet the demands of a diverse range of freight dependent businesses as well as the consumption demands of a growing local population. This freight movement is the driving force behind the economy and local development. BCDCOG developed this Freight Plan to provide an in-depth evaluation of the area’s freight conditions, identify trends, challenges and opportunities, and guide freight investment in the region. The key objectives of the Freight Plan are to:

•

Collect system freight data that supports ongoing regional freight planning

•

Create a framework for analyzing freight performance measures and identifying freightspecific issues on the transportation network to inform a set of strategic recommendations

•

Guide the prioritization and implementation of future investments, policies, and strategies in the short-, mid-, and long-term that improve the safety, security, mobility, operations, and reliability of the freight transportation system and support the economic development goals of the region

•

Develop a baseline planning tool to help incorporate freight mobility into the broader range of planning efforts of the BCD region, reinforcing the regional significance of safe and efficient freight mobility

| PAGE 1-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 1 | INTRODUCTION |

Figure 1-3: Freight Movement in the BCD Region

| PAGE 1-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 1 | INTRODUCTION |

Successful freight planning requires a coordinated multijurisdictional approach, therefore BCDCOG worked in close partnership with the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and other local stakeholders to ensure that the BCD Regional Freight Mobility Plan aligns with other freight planning efforts at all levels of government. It was also conducted in close coordination with the Appalachian Council of Governments (ACOG), which facilitates the transportation planning process for the Upstate region of South Carolina including the six counties of Anderson, Cherokee, Greenville, Oconee, Pickens, and Spartanburg. Both regions are connected via the interstate highway I-26 and a major rail corridor, and are part of the same FHWA Piedmont megaregion. Megaregional coordination recognizes that transportation planning must go beyond traditional planning boundaries to better understand and accommodate the movement of goods and people. FHWA megaregions are illustrated in Figure 1-4. The Freight Plan enhances and expands on other relevant plans in the region, which were used to develop the goals and objectives of the plan. Figure 1-4: FHWA Megaregions

Source: FHWA

Freight planning has also become a required element of the transportation planning conducted by states, metropolitan areas, and local governments. The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act emphasized sound freight planning at the state and regional levels to strengthen economic competitiveness, reduce congestion, improve safety, and reduce the environmental impact of freight movement. States and regions are also increasingly aware of the impact that efficient freight transportation can have on economic development outcomes. The purpose of this Freight Plan is to serve as a strategic planning tool for BCDCOG. The need for a comprehensive strategy to address goods movement in the region results from significant growth in both population and industry that has put pressure on existing infrastructure. Local governments are increasingly aware of the community impacts of freight growth, which include safety concerns, emissions, and unauthorized truck parking. Emerging technology applications—which are being increasingly adopted by the freight industry, sometimes in partnership with public agencies—can mitigate some of these issues. Others require innovative public-private partnerships to deliver infrastructure solutions that benefit both parties. A larger discussion of freight planning best practices and emerging technologies is presented in Appendix B.

| PAGE 1-5 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 1 | INTRODUCTION |

Population growth, congestion issues, land use challenges, logistics issues, and the COVID-19 pandemic have all had significant impacts on freight movement, resulting in increased delivery times and transportation costs. Given the economic importance of freight to both the region and the state, it is important to address the capacity, safety, and technology needs of the transportation system. This Freight Plan develops programs and policies to better integrate freight into land use and transportation planning in an equitable way that supports quality of life.

1.3

AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS

Stakeholders play a critical role in identifying freight Figure 1-5: Importance of Stakeholders in the Planning transportation system Process deficiencies and opportunities, prioritizing projects, and generating buy-in for public policy and future investment in freight infrastructure (Figure 1-5). The original intent of the agency coordination and public engagement program for this Freight Plan was to focus on the needs of stakeholders as well as align plan goals and strategies with regional needs and planning efforts. However, in March 2020, the original approach to this engagement effort was disrupted by the COVID-19, pandemic. With school and government office closures, the engagement approach was revised to meet the intent of the engagement program while following public health protocols and keeping the plan development on schedule under these unusual circumstances. The overall stakeholder and public engagement approach is outlined in Figure 1-6. Figure 1-6: Stakeholder and Public Engagement Approach

| PAGE 1-6 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 1 | INTRODUCTION |

The study's advisory committee met virtually throughout the duration of the project and provided technical feedback on study analyses and guidance on the plan's development. All meetings were recorded and published to the BCD Regional Freight Mobility Plan webpage following the meeting. While industry and agency stakeholders were the primary outreach targets for the Freight Plan, the BCDCOG also engaged the public in the planning process by providing access to study meetings, analyses, findings, and recommendations as well as providing opportunity for public feedback. BCDCOG used a regularly updated project webpage and a strategic social media campaign to communicate this information to the public. Presentation materials and other documents were posted regularly on the Freight Plan webpage which is accessible to the public at https://www.bcdcog.com/transportation/planning/regionalfreight-plan/ (Figure 1-7). The website also included an FAQ section, a link to the public survey, contact information, and all meeting materials and recordings. Figure 1-7: Webpage for BCD Regional Freight Mobility Plan

The FAST Act suggests that a regional Freight Advisory Committee (FAC) be empaneled and continue to function outside of the plan development process. As such, the established Charleston Area Transportation Study (CHATS) FAC served as the FAC responsible for championing the Freight Plan and its project, programmatic, and policy-level elements. Members of the FAC are listed in Table 1-1.

| PAGE 1-7 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 1 | INTRODUCTION |

Table 1-1: Freight Advisory Committee Name Kenny Skipper Christopher Morgan Charles Drayton Steve Thigpen Jason Ward Rick Todd Hampton Lee Tarek Ravenel Coleman Thompson Keith Johnson DJ Mayer John Truluck Brad Morrison David Gray David Caimbeul

Organization City of North Charleston City of Charleston City of North Charleston Charleston County Dorchester County South Carolina Trucking Association South Carolina Ports Authority Palmetto Railways South Carolina Trucking Association Charleston Motor Carriers Association Charleston Motor Carriers Association Dorchester County Economic Development Town of Mount Pleasant South Carolina Department of Transportation Joint Base Charleston

The FAC met monthly during the plan’s development and is responsible for the policy-level elements of the Freight Plan. Meetings were structured to include an educational component which covered freight-related topics, called the Palmetto Freight Series, followed by study-specific updates and discussion. Open discussion, virtual polling, and interactive exercises were used to gather feedback from the FAC throughout the process. Detailed notes on the questions and conversation were taken during the meetings. Additionally, one-on-one interviews were conducted with individual members of the FAC and other stakeholders in the region to identify freight issues that were not captured through the data analyses. The companies interviewed for the Freight Plan represent two significant industry sectors in the region: multimodal freight and automotive. Common themes related to freight movement concerns were identified as a result of these interviews. Common themes identified from the stakeholder interviews included traffic challenges and opportunities, COVID-19 impacts, multimodal transportation, land use challenges, and truck and logistics issues. All these considerations were used to develop the final plan recommendations. A detailed summary of the engagement program can be found in Appendix A - Public Engagement Summary.

1.4

ORGANIZATION OF THE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN

This document provides an overview of the plan development process, high-level summaries of analyses conducted of the region’s freight system, and recommendations for maintaining and improving that system to better support freight mobility in the BCD region for the next several decades. The plan is organized into the following chapters: 1. Introduction – Introduces the BCD Regional Freight Mobility Plan, provides the objectives of the plan, and the agency coordination and public engagement process used to develop the final plan. 2. Freight Planning Context in the BCD Region – Provides the BCD regional population, employment, and economic context as well as an overview of freight movement by mode. 3. Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures – Describes how the goals, objectives, and performance measures were developed and how they align with federal, state, and regional plans and policies.

| PAGE 1-8 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 1 | INTRODUCTION |

4. Identification and Existing Conditions of Freight Assets – Identifies the existing freight assets by mode (highway, rail, air, port) as well as current conditions of these assets. 5. Future Freight Mobility Needs – Forecasts the future levels of demand for the identified freight assets, forecasts future volumes of truck and rail freight, and discusses the impact of COVID-19 on the freight landscape. 6. Project Recommendations – Identifies transportation projects that would improve the safety and efficiency of certain locations on the freight transportation network and outlines the process through which these recommendations were developed. 7. Project Prioritization – Outlines the framework used to evaluate and prioritize project recommendations, which includes a list of prioritization criteria related to each of the freight plan’s goal areas. It also provides the ranked list of projects along with their weighted scores across the prioritization criteria. 8. Policy and Programmatic Recommendations – Details the seven programmatic and 21 policy recommendations identified during the development of this regional freight plan. 9. How to Use This Plan – Provides a guide for agencies at all levels of government as well as the private sector on how to implement this plan. Throughout the development of this Freight Plan, information was presented to the FAC, including initial findings and details of the analyses conducted. This additional information is available as a series of briefing decks, which can be found in Appendix F – Briefing Decks. Technical memoranda were also produced to provide a greater level of detail into the analyses conducted and are provided as appendices to this plan document. The goal of this organization is to succinctly summarize this plan and its recommendations to provide an efficient planning tool to incorporate freight mobility policies, programs, and projects into the overall planning process in the BCD region and to maintain separate analytical documentation for additional reference.

| PAGE 1-9 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

2. FREIGHT PLANNING CONTEXT IN THE BCD REGION 2.1

POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND ECONOMIC CONTEXT

Population growth is a significant factor that affects freight growth and movement in the BCD region because residents consume commodities that must be transported throughout the region and beyond, and they also utilize the same transportation network to satisfy their travel demand for various trip purposes, such as work, school, shopping, etc. In addition to being a sizeable employment industry, the multimodal freight transportation network also supports may companies in other key industries throughout the BCD region. Understanding where people and businesses are located now and where they are likely to be in the future is important to ensure that our transportation networks are providing safe and efficient access where needed.

2.1.1 Population Growth According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 5-year estimates, nearly 775,000 people resided in the BCD region in 2019, which is a 20 percent increase from approximately 641,00 people reported in 2010. By comparison, the populations of South Carolina and the United States grew by roughly 11 and 6 percent, respectively, over the same period. This regional growth was approximately three times the national average from 2010-2019 and translates to roughly 30 new residents moving to the region every day. All three counties experienced similar rates of population growth, with Berkeley County experiencing the largest percent change in population during this period (nearly 27 percent).1 This population growth has been coupled with strong freight and trade expansion driven by the Port of Charleston. Within the BCD region, over half of the population resides in Charleston County, followed by Berkeley County, and then by Dorchester County. The CHATS Travel Demand Model was used to evaluate forecast population and employment levels in 2040 with a 2015 base year. The 2015 population density is shown in Figure 2-1, which illustrates that most of the region’s population is within or along the major highways that connect to the Charleston peninsula, including the I-26, U.S. 52, U.S. 78, and U.S. 17 corridors. Forecast population and employment in 2040 are discussed in further detail in Chapter 5 – Future Freight Mobility Needs.

2.1.2 Employment Trends Over 489,000 people were employed in the BCD region in 2018, earning $27.3 billion in the production of $44.2 billion in GRP which represents nearly one-fifth of South Carolina’s economic activity (18 percent). Within the region, almost three quarters of the employment and production value was generated in Charleston County (Figure 2-2).

1 https://www.crda.org/local-data/population-demographics/#:~:text=Charleston%20%7C%20SC%20%7C%20USA-

,Population%20%26%20Demographics,helping%20to%20boost%20that%20number.

| PAGE 2-1 |

| 2 | FREIGHT PLANNING CONTEXT IN THE BCD REGION |

Figure 2-1: Population Density in the BCD Region, 2015

| PAGE 2-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | FREIGHT PLANNING CONTEXT IN THE BCD REGION |

Figure 2-2: Percentage of Regional Employment by County

Compared to South Carolina as a whole, the area's industry employment is relatively concentrated in mining and construction for goods-related industries. Goods industries predominately produce, and thus move, physical goods, including goods associated with agriculture, mining, utilities, construction, manufacturing, and wholesale and retail trade. Goods industries are responsible for over 120,000 jobs in the region, with freight movement impacting 78 percent of these jobs (Figure 2-3). These industries also account for 25 percent of total employment, 26 percent of total income, 29 percent of total GRP, and 39 percent of total output for the region. Figure 2-3: BCD Freight Employment Impacts by Industry, 2019

| PAGE 2-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | FREIGHT PLANNING CONTEXT IN THE BCD REGION |

2.1.3 Economic Context The region’s economy benefits form a diverse economic base with industries ranging from hospitality and information technology to aeronautical and automotive manufacturing. Both multinational corporations and fast-growing startup companies have taken advantage of the globally competitive business environment of the region. In fiscal year 2018–2019, the Charleston Regional Development Alliance announced corporate expansions and relocations to the area, resulting in a $392 million economic impact. The presence of a major seaport, international airport, freight rail connections, and interstate highway trade corridors has ensured that freight continues to be a major part of the regional and statewide economy. To quantify how freight has impacted the regional economy, regional freight data (Transearch) are compared with economic data (IMPLAN). The direct, indirect, and induced impacts of freight affect all sectors. The total impacts of freight on four different economic dimensions (sales output, GRP, total income earned, and jobs created) are shown in Figure 2-4. Figure 2-4: Economic Impacts of BCD Freight Movement

Trucks handle roughly 63 percent of all freight in North America 2 because of variable length truck trips, providing “last mile” connections, and connecting commodities carried by other modes from intermediate destinations, such as airports, rail terminals, and other freight generators, to their final destinations. The BCD region provides container transfers from the Port of Charleston using Class 1 railroads to Inland Port Dillon and to Inland Port Greer in the Upstate region. In 2019, the Port of Charleston handled approximately 2.44 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) of container freight, which was 9% higher than prior year reported volumes. Forecasts suggest total annual port container volumes could reach nearly 4 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) by 2038.3 The Charleston International Airport (CHS) was the seventy-eighth busiest cargo4 airport in the United States in 2018, moving highly perishable and high value goods. The BCD region is also home to large manufacturing companies like Volvo, Boeing, Mercedes-Benz, and Nucor Corporation, all of which depend on an efficient transportation network to move raw 2 https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/2017-north-american-freight-

numbers#:~:text=Trucks%20carried%2057.7%20percent%20of,the%20value%20(Table%202) 3 Palmetto Railways, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Navy Base Intermodal Container Transfer Facility, retrieved July 31, 2020 from http://palmettorailways.com/intermodal/eis/ 4 https://www.ttnews.com/top100/airports/2019

| PAGE 2-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | FREIGHT PLANNING CONTEXT IN THE BCD REGION |

materials for production and distribute finished goods to consumers. Freight demand is directly related to the amount of economic activity in a region, and businesses and customers depend on all modes to connect them to markets and grow the regional economy. Ensuring that freight dependent development has access to the region’s existing freight infrastructure is critical for the region’s future economic vitality.

2.2

FREIGHT BY MODE

Nearly 113 million tons of freight valued at $249 billion moved along the BCD region’s freight infrastructure in 2016. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center reports that 20 percent (23 million tons) of this freight funnels through the Port of Charleston. Identifying what kind of freight is moving through the region and what modes this freight depends on are both important for planning for future freight growth. This section identifies the regional commodity flows by mode that make up the freight moving into, out of, and through the region. To identify regional commodity flows and forecast future flows, this study analyzed data from the major multimodal freight database: the IHS Markit Transearch. The Transearch database was the main data source for the analysis and forecasting because it is the most comprehensive database for truck and rail surface modes (which are the predominant freight modes in the region). Transearch freight data was supplemented with the Surface Transportation Board Waybill Sample rail data to quantify the freight flows and dimensions. Freight is typically measured by weight (e.g., tons) and/or monetary value and freight movements are categorized as through, outbound, inbound, or intraregional. Truck freight is the dominant mode in the region, with 79 percent of freight tonnage moving through the region via trucks along the roadway network. Most of this truck freight is through-freight (61 percent, including freight originating in ports and intermodal facilities). I-95 in Dorchester County is a bridge connecting interstate trade along the East Coast, but most volumes do not pertain directly to the BCD region. Aside from I-95, regional truck tonnage moves mostly along I-26, connecting with the rest of South Carolina, especially the Columbia capital area, the Pee Dee region, and the Upstate region. Much of the regional truck tonnage pertains to energy and warehousing supply chains. Intermodal petroleum products reflect water to truck transfer. Rail freight makes up about 21 percent of freight movement in the BCD region. Unlike trucks, regional rail freight flows are not comprised mostly of through movements (about one-third), but instead originate/terminate in the region (including at the Port and intermodal transfer facilities). Rail in the BCD region mostly serves the City of Charleston, port connections with the Upstate region and out-of-state markets, inbound coal from the Midwest, container shipping, and the regional energy supply chain. In total, 27 percent of freight from all modes originated or terminated in the region. The breakdown of through freight versus non-through freight by mode is shown in Figure 2-5. Figure 2-6 shows the commodities breakdown by tonnage and by value. By tonnage, bulk commodities dominated tonnage movements, especially nonmetallic minerals (making up 17 percent of the total by tonnage) and inbound coal. Such traffic has a relatively low value per ton ($25). More valuable secondary traffic ($3,300/ton) reflects warehouse repositioning associated with Port of Charleston movements. By value, the leading commodities are transportation equipment (21 percent of the total by value), machinery, and electrical equipment—all with high values per ton ($11,200/ton). Despite only making up 27 percent of freight movement, the non-through freight represents 35 to 44

| PAGE 2-5 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | FREIGHT PLANNING CONTEXT IN THE BCD REGION |

percent of the region’s economy, demonstrating the value that the freight sector plays in the regional, state, and national economy.

Figure 2-5: BCD Freight Movement Tonnage by Mode

Note: Freight originating or terminating in the BCD Region is highlighted in orange

Figure 2-6: Top Commodities by Tonnage and Value, 2016

| PAGE 2-6 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | FREIGHT PLANNING CONTEXT IN THE BCD REGION |

In addition to rail and truck freight, the Seaports in the region move a significant amount of freight. The Port of Charleston facilitates large volumes and values of waterborne freight that connects intermodally to truck and rail, mostly to origins and destinations beyond the BCD region. Significant volumes and value of transportation equipment, manufacturing machinery, textiles, and other heavy-weight/lower-value goods (scrap, iron ore, and nonmetallic minerals) move through the Port. Movement of such relatively large freight volumes and values, connecting via truck and rail, are accommodated by the local infrastructure and carriers, but are not produced or consumed regionally. Regional airborne freight is a very small share of total freight tonnage compared to other modes. Transearch reported 26,559 tons of air cargo moved via the BCDCOG metropolitan statistical area in 2016. Major airborne commodities based on tonnage and/or value include high-end rubber/plastics and transportation equipment. The Charleston International Airport (CHS) freight data yielded similar volumes but lacked the directional detail and values. Freight tonnage through airports and/or other foreign-trade zones comprise less than 1 percent of total freight tonnage moving through this region. Regardless of mode, the freight movement in the region shows the bridge-role played by the region’s transportation infrastructure between the rest of South Carolina, the U.S., and international markets. This identifies for planners, the need to preserve mobility through the region to support those through movements. This also provides insight for land use and transportation planners into the significance of supporting local economic development efforts that provide opportunity for freight generating businesses to locate and grow in the region, boosting the local economic impact of freight and expanding economic opportunity for residents.

| PAGE 2-7 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

3. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Coordinated strategic goals, objectives, and performance measures provide the performancebased planning framework for implementing this Freight Plan consistently in coordination with state, regional, and local planning efforts. These goals and objectives are, together, the cornerstone upon which all plan performance measures, and final recommendations are based. These also provide a transparent framework to illustrate the purpose and performance of recommendations for improvements to the regional transportation network and other initiatives of this planning effort to the public. Figure 3-1 defines goals, objectives, and performance measures and helps illustrates how they differ from each other. Figure 3-1: Definition of Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures

Goals •Broad statement that defines what the region wants to accomplish for the regional freight transportation system as a whole Objectives • Explain how the goals relate to specific aspects of the freight system. Objectives are measurable, but not necessarily quantifiable Performance Measures and Targets • Serve to measure objectives with data and technical analyses and provide metrics for continued system monitoring

3.1

DEVELOPMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The Freight Plan goals were established after reviewing the FAST Act federal freight policy goals, the South Carolina Statewide Freight Plan Update (2020) goals, the 2040 BCDCOG Rural Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) goals, and the CHATS 2040 LRTP goals. A list of each of the plans reviewed is below. Table 3-1 illustrates a comparison of plans’ goals.

| PAGE 3-1 |

| 3 | GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES |

• • • •

FAST Act Federal Freight Goals5 South Carolina Statewide Freight Plan Update (draft)6 2040 BCDCOG Rural LRTP (adopted 2020)7 CHATS 2040 LRTP8 Table 3-1: Comparison of Federal, State and Regional Planning Goal Areas

FAST Act Federal Freight Goals

South Carolina Freight Plan Update (2020) Goals

BCDCOG Rural LRTP Goals

CHATS 2040 LRTP Goals

Congestion Reduction/System Reliability

Mobility and System Reliability

Accessibility and Mobility

Mobility/Reliability

Enhance Transportation Safety Maintain the Existing Infrastructure Condition Infrastructure Condition Transportation Network Freight Movement and Economic and Economic Vitality Economic Vitality Community Vitality Environmental Protect the Environmental Sustainability Environment N/A Equity (new) N/A Safety

N/A

Safety

N/A

Safety System Preservation Community Environment Community Coordination/Best Practices

Source: United States Department of Transportation, SCDOT, BCDCOG, and CHATS

As shown in Table 3-1, the goals across the plans align easily and it is recommended to adopt the South Carolina Statewide Freight Plan Update goals to reinforce local and federal goals while also introducing a new equity goal. Similar to the Freight Plan goal development, objectives included in the federal, state, and local plans were also compared. The objectives were developed to articulate the Freight Plan goals, help define freight transportation system needs, and identify the desired future performance of the freight network. Freight Plan Objectives:

Freight Plan Goals: ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

Alignment with FAST Act, South Carolina Statewide Freight Plan Update Complements CHATS goals Enhances BCDCOG Rural LRTP goals Guides freight objectives and performance measure development

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Complements South Carolina Statewide Freight Plan Update objectives Alignment with similar BCDCOG and CHATS plans’ goals and objectives Related to draft regional freight goals Measurable but not necessarily quantifiable

5 www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/nhfpfs.cfm 6 www.scdot.org/inside/pdf/Combined-Notebook-for-July-16-2020.pdf [page 203 of PDF] 7 https://www.bcdcog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2035-BCDCOG-RLRTP_Final_as-amended-4-15-19_reduced.pdf 8 https://bcdcog.com/long-range-transportation-plan/

| PAGE 3-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 3 | GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES |

3.2

DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES

In the public sector, performance measures provide a means to assess how the transportation system and/or a transportation agency is functioning and operating. Performance measures help inform decision‐making and create better accountability for efficient and effective program implementation and investment decisions. Performance measurements serve the following three functions: 1. Plan Development – Provide a means to quantify baseline system performance and impacts of plan options to support trade‐off decisions and help communicate the anticipated impacts of different investment strategies. 2. Plan Implementation – Support plan implementation by emphasizing agency goals and objectives and integrating them into budgeting, program structure, project selection, and project or program implementation policies. 3. Accountability and Monitoring – Facilitate tracking and reporting on system performance relative to plan goals and objectives to support accountability for plan implementation and results. As part of the federal planning requirements, state department of transportations and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) are required to set performance targets consistent with the established national performance measures for freight, integrate those targets within their planning processes, and report to the United States Department of Transportation on their progress. Beyond federal requirements, freight performance measures will provide the BCDCOG and CHATS with the ability to monitor how well the transportation system is accommodating safe and effective freight movements. These measures will help identify trends or challenges before they become problems and the project partners can be better prepared and responsive to private sector needs. In addition to the comparison of regional, state, and federal plans, the development of the performance measures included a peer review of three similar regional freight plans (Appendix B Freight Planning Best Practices and Emerging Technologies Technical Memorandum). The recommended performance measures listed below include the federally required freight performance measures included in South Carolina Statewide Freight Plan Update for mobility/reliability, safety, infrastructure condition, economic/community vitality, environmental, and equity. Adopting these performance measures will streamline data collection and analysis by aligning with SCDOT’s performance measurement efforts. In addition, region-specific measures, such as complete streets policy and at-grade crossing incidents, are also proposed.

3.3

BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Table 3-2 lists the recommended Freight Plan goals, objectives, and performance measures for the BCD Region.

| PAGE 3-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 3 | GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES |

Table 3-2: Regional Freight Mobility Plan Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures

Objectives Performance Measures

Objectives

Performance Measures

Objective

Performance Measures

Objectives

Performance Measures

Goal 1: Mobility and System Reliability Increase travel time reliability for highway and freight corridors Encourage land development and travel patterns that support freight modes Truck travel time reliability index Data: SCDOT Proportion of South Carolina’s interstate mileage that operates at less than a Level of Service (LOS) E for urban Data: SCDOT areas and LOS C for rural areas Goal 2: Safety and Security Reduce the number and rate of crashes, fatalities, and serious injuries across all modes of travel Collaborate with SCDOT to improve roadway safety in the rural areas of Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester counties Identify hazardous corridors and intersections in the rural areas of Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester counties Number of large trucks reported in crashes (fatal, nonfatal, injury reported, hazardous materials) 5-year Data: SCDOT trends Number of public/private truck parking spaces available Data: SCDOT Number of at-grade crossing crashes Data: SCDOT Goal 3: Infrastructure Condition Maintain regional freight network roadways and bridges in a state of good repair Percent of miles of Interstate and NHS rated at “good” or Data: SCDOT higher condition Percent of miles of non-interstate on regional freight Data: SCDOT network rated at “good” or higher condition Percent of deficient bridge deck area on the regional Data: SCDOT freight network Goal 4: Economic and Community Vitality Create a resilient network by encouraging improvements and access to redundant roadways on the network Provide a regional transportation system that supports the efficient movement of people and freight by addressing freight specific bottlenecks Adopt and apply Complete Streets policy that specifies steps to identify community context, needs, and recommended design criteria for each transportation project, potential user, and every mode of travel, including freight Truck travel time reliability index Data: SCDOT Annual hours of truck delay on freight corridors Data: SCDOT Proportion of system miles on the regional freight network Data: BCDCOG improved in accordance with Complete Streets policy

| PAGE 3-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 3 | GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES |

Objective Performance Measure

Objectives

Performance Measure

Goal 5: Environmental Encourage land use planning that supports and promotes the efficient movement of freight Minimize or mitigate project impacts on natural resources Annual hours of truck delay on freight corridors

Data: SCDOT

Goal 6: Equity Improve or maintain broad based public participation into all planning and project development processes Incorporate freight mobility needs of all modes into prioritization processes Engage typically underrepresented groups, such as emergency response and freight movement stakeholders, during transportation planning processes Number of freight-beneficial projects programmed into MPO’s Transportation Improvement Program

| PAGE 3-5 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

4. IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS The freight transportation network in the BCD Region consists of a major seaport, an international airport, freight rail connections, and highway trade corridors. Together, this multimodal network has ensured that freight continues to be a major part of the regional and statewide economy. To ensure that the freight network continues to provide safe and efficient mobility for goods movement, it is important to identify current needs and opportunities along the regional freight network. The first step is to define the regional freight network. Designating a regional freight network is important because freight often does not observe the same travel patterns as passenger travel. For instance, freight frequently crosses jurisdictional boundaries and does not follow the same time of day distribution as passenger trips. Moreover, defining a freight network allows a region to develop strategic solutions that meet freight needs while preserving regional quality of life. The freight network identified herein will be the focus of this Freight Plan and was used to measure infrastructure performance for freight, identify needs, and compare the needs against BCDCOG’s planned projects to define gaps and new projects. The focus on the identified regional freight network does not suggest that excluded roadways should not carry freight, but rather raises the importance of those carrying most of the freight. The resulting regional highway and rail network is shown in Figure 4-1. It includes major trade corridors of I-95 and I-26, as well as South Carolina Strategic Freight Network/Strategic Corridor Network routes (identified by SCDOT) and local/regional routes that provide last mile connections to the port terminals and other freight generators. All freight railroads are included, given their importance in moving cargo within the region and throughout the United States. Reference the Freight Network Assessment Technical Memorandum (Appendix C) for additional information regarding the identification of the BCD Regional Freight Network.

4.1

HIGHWAYS

As discussed in Chapter 2 – Freight Planning Context in the BCD Region, most freight in this region travels by truck. Identification of the highway freight network relied on existing state and federal network designations (National Multimodal Freight Network, the South Carolina Strategic Freight Network,9 the South Carolina Strategic Corridor Network,10 designated Critical Urban and Critical Rural Freight Corridors in the region,11 and National Highway System intermodal connectors serving freight facilities), Transearch truck flow data, truck volumes from the CHATS regional and SCDOT statewide travel demand models, and stakeholder feedback.

9 The South Carolina Strategic Freight Network is defined in the South Carolina Statewide Freight Plan and consists of routes

the state deems critical to goods movement to, from, within, and through South Carolina.

10 The South Carolina Strategic Corridor Network was defined by SCDOT “to provide a connected, continuous network that

serves the traveling public and movement of freight.’

11 Because Critical Urban and Critical Rural Freight Connectors are periodically updated by SCDOT and MPOs, this freight

network can be used to identify candidate routes for inclusion on those networks in the future.

| PAGE 4-1 |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

Figure 4-1: BCD Regional Freight Network

| PAGE 4-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

Transearch data from 2016 shows that I-95 and I-26 are the major regional trade corridors for truck flows. I-95 handles the largest amount of truck freight, and most of it is through traffic. (Figure 4-2) I-26 and I-526 accommodate port-generated truck traffic, including significant flows between the Charleston and Upstate regions. The identified freight road network was further sorted and tiered as follows (see Figure 4-3):

•

Tier 1 – Interstate Highways and Nationally Designated Routes. These routes are nationally significant and are either designed for long-distance travel and trade (e.g., interstates) or are on another nationally designated freight network (e.g., National Highway System Intermodal Connectors).

•

Tier 2 – Non-Interstate South Carolina Freight Network and South Carolina Strategic Corridor Network. These facilities include routes such as U.S. 78 and U.S. 52 that are strategically important to the state of South Carolina but are not part of the interstate highway system or other national networks.

•

Tier 3 – Local Freight Routes. These roads provide critical last mile connections to key freight facilities or between freight-generating land uses and the rest of the state/national highway network.

Once the freight network was identified, it was evaluated across different dimensions related to safety and mobility. The following subsections discuss factors affecting safety and mobility along the highway network.

4.1.1 Congestion The CHATS travel demand model and the SCDOT statewide model were used to evaluate truck delay and daily LOS on the freight network. The models do not allow for calculating truck LOS, so this measure is provided for all traffic. Figure 4-4 shows the model results for truck vehicle hours of delay in 2015. The model shows extensive truck delays in the I-526 and Clements Ferry Road corridors, which provide truck access to the Wando Welch Terminal and nearby freight-related businesses. The interchange area of I-526 and Clements Ferry Road experiences truck delays of up to nearly 1,300 hours per day. Other segments experiencing significant truck delay include I-526 west of Clements Ferry Road to the I-26 interchange, I-26 north of I-526, and Ashley Phosphate Road west of I-26. There are many more segments of the freight network experiencing poor LOS, see Figure 4-5. In addition to I-526 and Clements Ferry Road, I-26, U.S. 78, SC 41, Septima Clark Parkway, SC 61 and SC 7 in West Ashley, SC 700, U.S. 17A, and SC 642/Dorchester Road all show daily LOS of E or F. Freight bottlenecks were identified using the FHWA National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS) vehicle probe data. The NPMRDS is a national data set of average travel times for use in analyzing highway system performance. The data provided are actual travel times. Truck bottleneck areas were identified using a combination of Planning Time Index (PTI) 95th (calculated using free-flow speed and 95th percentile travel time) and frequency of congestion. The PTI is a measure of congestion intensity while the frequency of congestion is a measure of congestion recurrence. The portions of the congested roadway network, which had a combination of the highest PTI and frequency of congestion, were identified as freight bottlenecks. The results of this process are illustrated in Figure 4-6. I-26, I-526, SC 642, U.S. 52, U.S. 78, U.S. 17, and several streets in downtown Charleston all appear to present significant bottlenecks for trucks. SC 41 data are not provided in the NPMRDS, so it is not included in the map.

| PAGE 4-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

Figure 4-2: BCD Truck Freight Density, 2016

Source: Transearch

| PAGE 4-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

Figure 4-3: BCD Highway Freight Network Tiers

| PAGE 4-5 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

Figure 4-4: Daily Truck Vehicle Hours of Delay, 2015

| PAGE 4-6 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

Figure 4-5: Regional Freight Network Daily Level of Service, 2015

| PAGE 4-7 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

Figure 4-6: Truck Bottlenecks, 2019–2020

| PAGE 4-8 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

4.1.2 Safety Freight-related crashes occur less frequently than many other types of crashes but can be more severe because of the size and weight of the vehicles involved. It is therefore important to understand where such crashes tend to occur as well as the infrastructure conditions that may contribute to them. Figure 4-7 is a heat map showing the density of severe truck-involved crashes from 2015 to 2019. Any crash that includes one or more fatalities or incapacitating injuries is considered severe. High crash concentrations are represented in the red and yellow areas on the map. Commercial vehicle-involved crash hotspots are mostly found along I-26 and parallel routes, like U.S. 78, that serve industrial land uses. There are also localized clusters of crashes along U.S. 17 west of the Ashley, Palmetto Commerce Parkway, and U.S. 17 Alt.

4.1.3 Pavement and Bridge Conditions Poor pavement condition reduces freight efficiency and contributes to increased wear and tear on trucks. Bridges in poor condition may require increased maintenance in the future, especially if truck traffic increases. Bridges that are restricted to less than the standard legal weight limit and those with low vertical clearance can impede commerce by forcing trucks to use alternate, less efficient routes. Some of these routings may be circuitous, adding cost and time to shipments. Figure 4-8 shows SCDOT pavement condition data for the freight network. The mileage and percentage shares by tier are detailed in Table 4-1. The pavement condition ratings are based on the SCDOT Pavement Quality Index (PQI), which is a combination of Pavement Serviceability Index (a roughness/rutting measure) and Pavement Distress Index (a measure of cracking or other distress). PQI scores are given on a five-point scale as:

• • •

Poor – PQI (0.0 to 2.6) Fair – PQI (2.7 to 3.3) Good – PQI (3.4 to 5.0)

Pavement on Tier 1 routes (interstates) is generally performing well, which is expected because interstate highway maintenance is a key priority for SCDOT. Conditions deteriorate somewhat on the lower tier routes. Table 4-1: BCD Freight Network Pavement Condition Summary, 2018 Tier 1 2 3

Good 91.2 miles (82.9%) 228.6 miles (42.1%) 27.7 miles (23.1%)

Fair 16.1 miles (14.6%) 131.9miles (24.3%) 40.7 miles (34.0%)

Poor 2.7 miles (2.5%) 182.3 miles (33.6%) 51.3 miles (42.9%)

Total 110 miles 542.8 miles 119.7 miles

Source: SCDOT, 2018 Note: Some freight network segments lack pavement condition data

Bridges in poor condition were identified and mapped using the 2018 SCDOT bridge condition database. In South Carolina, bridges are in poor condition if the deck, superstructure, or substructure are rated 4 or lower using the National Bridge Inventory rating scale of 0 to 9.12 There are eight bridges on the regional freight network that are rated in poor condition (see Figure 4-9), including one on I-26 over the CSX Railroad in North Charleston. Others are located on U.S. 17, U.S. 17ALT, SC 174, and U.S. 78. Such bridges are more likely to require costly repairs in the future to continue in service.

12 SCDOT, Final Transportation Asset Management Plan, August 2019.

| PAGE 4-9 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

Figure 4-7: Severe Truck Crash Density, 2015–2019

| PAGE 4-10 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

Figure 4-8: Pavement Condition Rating of the BCD Freight Network, 2018

| PAGE 4-11 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

Figure 4-9: Bridge Condition Ratings on the BCD Freight Network, 2018

| PAGE 4-12 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

SCDOT, through implementation of its 10-year Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP), has targeted investments to improve the condition of the state's pavement and bridge infrastructure. Based on the state's priorities, through 2027 the agency plans to improve approximately 140-miles of existing highways under its Interstate Widening program, replace 465 bridges that are insufficient or load-restricted under its Bridge Replacement program, and improve pavement conditions on interstates and major roadways under the state's Road Resurfacing program. Many of the bridges and pavements identified as deficient or in poor condition on the region's freight network, stand to benefit from implementation of the state's asset management plan. The condition of other local first-last mile network connections not addressed by the state can also be addressed through coordination with local county paving programs. Feedback gained from FAC input as well as other stakeholder discussions, highlighted concern for the impact of mining operations and related industries on rural roadways. SCDHEC maintains a database of active mines in the state. A map of the active mines in the BCD Region is shown in Figure 4-10. The predominant type of mines in the region are sand only mines. These mines are located throughout the region but are in clusters in the following areas:

• • • • • •

Ravenel; Johns Island; Awendaw; Near SC 41; Near US 17 Alternate; and Dorchester

Continued use of these rural roadways to transport sand and other materials to construction sites can deteriorate the pavement and condition of the roadways on which they travel. Table 4-2 shows the roadways adjacent to these mining operations that may put a disproportionate strain on the rural roadways in the area. Table 4-2: Roadways Impacted by Mining Operations Roads SC 41 US 17 Alternate Mudville Road Main Road River Road US 17 Highway 165 US 17 Wire Road Sandridge Road US 178

Limits Hoover Road to Rubin Court Pinecrest Drive to Black Tom Road Highway 6 to Old Gilliard Road River Road to Maybank Highway Maybank Highway to Edenvale Road SC 174 to SC 162 US 17 to Hyde Park Road Sewee Road to Doar Road Hatteras Bluff to Old Dam Road Wire Road to US 78 US 78 to Gable Farm Road

| PAGE 4-13 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

Figure 4-10: SCDHEC Active Mines in the BCD Region

Source: SCDHEC

| PAGE 4-14 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

4.1.4 Truck Parking Truck drivers have two major options for parking legally—public or private facilities. Public facilities can be rest areas, truck weigh stations, or truck rest stops. Private facilities usually include truck stops/fueling stations (sometimes with amenities like showers and food), lodging establishments or shopping centers. Truck drivers are subject to hours-of-service regulations that govern how long they may drive before stopping for rest. Legislation mandating the use of electronic hours of service logging devices prohibit drivers from exceeding their hours-of-service limits. Hence, when drivers run out of hours of service, they must pull over regardless of whether there is a safe place to park. Sometimes drivers are forced to park on highway shoulders or other unauthorized locations, resulting in potentially unsafe conditions for the driver, creating safety hazards for other drivers, infrastructure deterioration, and community quality of life issues. Figure 4-11 and Table 4-3 show the location of public and private truck parking in the BCD Region obtained from SCDOT and Allstays.com and sorted by lot capacity. Of the truck parking identified, about 81 percent is privately supplied and is located near I-95 in Dorchester County or along I-26 in Berkeley County. There is comparatively little supply near the Port of Charleston terminals or the major freight generators closer to the urban center of Charleston. Stakeholders indicated that this lack of truck parking near the Port of Charleston facilities is a major concern. Table 4-3: BCD Regional Truck Parking Facilities Name Flying J Kangaroo Express Pilot Kangaroo Express En Market Pilot Shell Flying J Rest Area Weigh Station Weigh Station

Location 799 Jedburg Road, Summerville, SC 1571 N Main Street, Summerville, SC 1521 N Main Street, Summerville, SC 1968 Meeting Street Road, Charleston, SC 2722 U.S. 15, Harleyville, SC 9587 Charleston Highway, St George, SC 6131 W Jim Bilton Boulevard, St George, SC 113 Motel Drive, St George, SC I-26 Eastbound at Mile Marker 204 South Carolina WB Weigh Station South Carolina EB Weigh Station

Number of Spaces 49 49 10 10 50 100 5 118 19 35 35

Public/ Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Public

Source: CDM Smith desktop review of data from SCDOT, Allstays.com, and Google Earth imagery, 2020

SCDOT sponsored the development of a Corridor Management Plan for I-26 in the Charleston region. The study evaluated strategies to better manage corridor traffic, including freight traffic. The study examined parking demand and capacity along I-26 close to Charleston. The study looked at existing conditions on I-26 between Exits 194 (Jedburg Rd) and 218 (Port Access Rd), and on I-526 at Exit 18 (Rivers Ave). Demand was evaluated by counting trucks during the overnight peak truck parking period (12:45 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.) at six locations—five private and one public. Most of the locations assessed were at or above capacity at the time of the survey:

| PAGE 4-15 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

• • • •

The Flying J on Jedburg Road in Summerville was at 200 percent capacity The Kangaroo Express on Main Street in Summerville was at 109 percent capacity The public rest area at I-26 mile 204 was at 100 percent capacity The Pilot Travel Center at I-26 exit 199 was at 210 percent capacity. 13

These results suggest that the BCD Region is not immune to the nationwide truck parking shortage. Regional trends like a growing metro area, increasing land values, industrial expansions, and Port of Charleston cargo growth will contribute to ongoing truck parking shortages.

13 I-26 Corridor Management Plan Freight Mobility Technical Memorandum (CDM Smith), 2018.

| PAGE 4-16 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

Figure 4-11: Truck Parking Locations

| PAGE 4-17 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

4.2

RAILROADS

CSX and Norfolk Southern (NS) railroads are two Class 1 freight railroads that serve the BCD Region. Each railroad operates an intermodal yard in Charleston. The CSX Ashley Junction terminal contains four tracks with trackside storage areas for grounded containers as well as storage for intermodal chassis and containers on chassis. The NS 7-mile intermodal yard includes a single loading track and storage for both grounded and wheeled containers and chassis. Palmetto Railways is a division of the South Carolina Department of Commerce. It provides rail switching services between the Port of Charleston and the CSX and NS railroads. Given their importance in moving freight cargo in the region and the United States, all freight railroads are included in the regional freight network. Transearch flow data was used to analyze rail commodity flows in the region. These flows are presented in Figure 4-12, which shows that the NS and CSX lines handle most of the regional rail freight. As with the highway mode, through movements make up a considerable share of this traffic. There is significant rail intermodal traffic moving between the port terminals and the Upstate. According to South Carolina Port Authority (SCPA) representatives, approximately 25 percent of inbound marine freight at Charleston leaves the Charleston region by rail. This split has grown over time. In 2018, the Port of Charleston’s rail share was just over 22 percent.14 Much of this freight is transferred to truck at inland ports in Greer or Dillon.

4.2.1 At-Grade Crossing Safety Safety is also a concern at rail-highway grade crossings. At-grade crossings present the greatest opportunity for people, automobiles, and trains to collide. Nationwide, 97 percent of all rail-related injuries and fatalities occur because of trespassing or other incidents at at-grade crossings. For BCDCOG, identifying all the at-grade crossings in the study area is the first step to target recommendations aimed at lowering these numbers.15 The BCD study area has 342 at-grade and 47 grade separated railroad crossings that are open and in use. Figure 4-13 provides the location of these 389 total crossings. To determine which intersections, have the most crashes between vehicles and trains, a hotspot analysis was conducted for the region. Federal Railroad Administration grade crossing crash statistics from 2009 to 2019 for each crossing in the three-county region, were compiled and evaluated. For the 10-year period, there were a total of 53 at-grade crossings that had, which averages 7 crashes per year region-wide. For the three most recent years, 2017 to 2019, there was a slight uptick, with an average of 8 crashes per year. Charleston County has the most at-grade crossing crashes with 42 over the 10-year period with six occur in in 2018 and eight in 2019. Berkeley County has 26 crashes while Dorchester County had 14 crashes over the same 10-year period. The hotspot locations of these at-grade rail crossing crashes are shown in Figure 4-14. The top three crossing hotspots are shown in Table 4-4, with three locations tied for the third-highest location, based on the number of crashes experienced at each. Three hotspot crossings are in Charleston County, with one each occurring in both Dorchester and Berkeley Counties.

14 Ashe, Ari, and Hugh R. Morley; ‘US East Coast ports investing to capture more intermodal cargo,’ Journal of Commerce,

January 27, 2020. 15 https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2020-02/Grade%20Crossing%20Business%20Plan.pdf

| PAGE 4-18 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

Figure 4-12: Rail Tonnage Density and Percent Through Traffic, 2016

| PAGE 4-19 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

Figure 4-13: BCD Open Rail Crossings

| PAGE 4-20 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

Figure 4-14: At-Grade Rail Crossing Safety Hotspots, 2009–2019

| PAGE 4-21 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

Table 4-4: BCD Top At-Grade Crossing Hotspots (2009-2019) Street Crossing

Rank

Railroad

CSX

SC 165

North Main Street

Red Bank Road Ashley Phosphate East Montague Avenue

Near

County

Crossing ID

Total Crashes

Year of Last Crash

US 52

Berkeley

631974A

2019

Southrail Road

Charleston

721448L

2019

Gaynor Avenue

Charleston

631981K

2018

Charleston

632410U

2019

Dorchester

721485N

2018

Drayton Street South Railroad Avenue

Source: FRA Accident/Incident Data (2020)

Based on the findings of the crash hotspot analysis, recommendations for both the specific atgrade crossings identified and general rail recommendations were developed. These recommendations can be found in Chapter 6 – Project Recommendations and Chapter 8 – Policy Programmatic Recommendations. More details about the hotspot analysis and the rail-related recommendations can be found in Appendix G – Rail Recommendations.

4.3

PORT OF CHARLESTON

The Port of Charleston currently operates five local marine terminals spanning three municipalities, supporting passenger cruise operations, and generating freight movements to and from these locations that are primarily supported by truck and rail. The Port of Charleston has recorded strong growth over the years, and the committed investments to enhance operation and expand port capacity will support future trade demands and maintain the economic competitiveness of the trade gateway. The Port of Charleston is inexorably tied to the region’s history and economic development, ensuring that it rose as a major center of trade for the state and the southeast region of the country. During stakeholder interviews, several of the companies identified the Port of Charleston as the most significant factor in their decision to locate in the BCD Region. The Port is also boosted by the South Carolina Port Ambassadors, which is a unique program that gives business and community leaders an opportunity to learn more about the Port of Charleston and the important role the port plays in the state’s economy. Once the first phase of the new Hugh Leatherman Terminal (HLT) is complete, the port will have five cargo terminals (HLT, Columbus Street Terminal, North Charleston Terminal, Veterans Terminal, and Wando Welch Terminal [Figure 4-15]) providing a combined 3.5 million TEU capacity. It is expected that the HLT, once fully built out by 2033, will increase the port’s container capacity by 50 percent. The port is also modernizing its existing terminals to absorb the expected increase in container traffic. In addition to containerized and bulk cargo, the port handles shipments of automobile parts and finished cars, an industry sector that has contributed significantly to economic development in the BCD Region and statewide. The port also handles trade bound for Charlotte, Atlanta, and the rest of the southeast.

| PAGE 4-22 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

Figure 4-15: Wanda Welch Terminal, Port of Charleston

Source: SCPA, English Purcell

In fiscal year 2019, the port handled almost 2.4 million TEUs, up nearly 9 percent year over year.16 Forecasts suggest total port container volumes could reach nearly 4 million TEUs by 2038. 17 Until the COVID-19 pandemic, container volumes had been consistently growing at the port since 2010. Early in the pandemic, marine freight volumes decreased internationally and wait times were below normal at several ports, indicting less traffic moving in the ports; however, the Port of Charleston began to see some traffic improvements in late April 2020. The Port of Charleston has applied to USACE to make various improvements, including dredging and a wharf extension at the Wando Welch Container Terminal, to support a proposed containeron-barge service.18 These improvements would allow barges to move about 200 containers at a time between Wando Welch and the new HLT. Intermodal containers could then be transferred to the planned Naval Base Intermodal Facility (NBIF) via the new Port Access Road and proposed drayage connector roads for further distribution by rail or truck. These loads currently must move across the Wando and Cooper Rivers via I-526, which has experienced worsening congestion over the years from continued regional population and economic growth. SCPA estimates the barge

16 https://www.postandcourier.com/moultrie-news/news/business/sc-ports-reports-record-cargo-volumes-9-uptick-in-

fy19/article_333202ee-60c4-5867-ae1e-68546f9a87b7.html 17 Palmetto Railways, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Navy Base Intermodal Container Transfer Facility, retrieved July 31, 2020 from http://palmettorailways.com/intermodal/eis/ 18 https://www.sac.usace.army.mil/Portals/43/docs/regulatory/publicnotices/Dec2018_PN/SAC-201800865_Charleston_%20SCPA_Wando_Welch_Terminal_Container_Barge_Operation.pdf?ver=2019-01-02-092543-470

| PAGE 4-23 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

service could move up to 200,000 containers per year, thus reducing truck demand on the road network. The port is also making other improvements, such as deepening the harbor. Work began in February 2018 to deepen the main navigation channel to 52 feet and the entrance channel to 54 feet, as well as enlarge the turning basins. These improvements will allow the port to handle the larger post-Panamax container vessels which now traverse the Panama Canal from the Pacific Ocean without waiting for high tide. When completed, the harbor deepening will make the Charleston harbor the deepest on the East Coast.

4.3.1 Other Port Facilities The South Carolina Ports Authority operates two inland ports that process port-related intermodal traffic. While not located in the BCD Region, these facilities support multimodal shipments of freight.

•

Inland Port Greer opened in 2013 and is located 212 miles inland from the Port of Charleston. NS provides overnight rail service to and from the Port of Charleston 6-days per week to the terminal, which operates 24-hours per day, 7-days per week. The port recently received a $25 million United States Department of Transportation grant to expand the 50acre port to accommodate additional storage and processing tracks.

•

Inland Port Dillon opened in April 2018 and is located 162 miles inland from the Port of Charleston, off I-95 and U.S. 501 near the North Carolina line. The inland port operates 24hours per day, 7-days per week with CSX providing overnight rail service from the Port of Charleston 6-days per week (Monday to Saturday) and export service to the port 5-days per week (Monday to Friday). Recent nearby industrial developments include a $200 million Harbor Freight distribution center and a manufacturing center for KB Biotech Solutions, indicating the inland port has been a catalyst for new investment.

As of January 2020, the two inland ports reported nearly 106,000 rail moves in the fiscal year to date, an 18 percent increase over the prior fiscal year. It is likely growth has slowed or even reversed since the COVID-19 pandemic, but longer term economic and trade growth suggests these facilities will continue to play an increasing role in container transshipment to/from the Port of Charleston.

4.4

AIR CARGO

The Charleston International Airport (CHS) was the seventy-eighth busiest cargo airport in the United States in 2018, handling about 347 million pounds of freight. Air cargo is not a large share of total regional freight movements by weight, but shipments that do move by air are usually highly perishable or very valuable. High quality landside connections are critical to air freight efficiency. CHS is located near the interchange of I-26 and I-526 and is accessible from both interstates. The demand for air freight is increasing as the region attracts more businesses. Freight by plane climbed nearly 36 percent from 2013 to 2018, according to Charleston County Aviation Authority, which oversees the airport. Much of the cargo boom is related to Boeing Co., the airport’s neighbor, and top private-industry partner. FedEx has also seen substantial growth in the demand for air freight movement. As more manufacturing moves to the region, it is expected that air freight will continue to grow. CHS has also become an increasingly popular destination for air cargo shipments because of the state’s growing automotive industry.19

19 https://www.postandcourier.com/news/taking-off-air-cargo-soars-as-charleston-region-flourishes/article_f6429966-68f6-

11e8-b353-d35d5b4e7721.html

| PAGE 4-24 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

It will be important moving forward to reassess air freight movement, given the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Internationally, significant declines in global commerce and limited international passenger travel caused a major reduction in air freight capacity. The lead time for air cargo increased and some local businesses were forced to move parts and components that normally moved in ocean containers to air cargo to maintain their production requirements, which dramatically increased transportation costs. Shipping parts and components by air enabled these companies to keep their production lines in operation and their skilled workforce employed, a major focus of concern. However, there are increased costs associated with relying on air transportation which could result in shifts to other modes in the future.

4.5

LAND USE

Current and long-range planning activities have impacts on freight mobility and freight dependent land use development patterns. Without integrated planning, the potential disbenefits of freight generating land uses may include air quality issues, greenhouse gas emissions, environmental justice impacts and congestion or other mobility challenges resulting from increased freight volume.20 Successful freight planning balances the needs of freight generating land uses with the sustainable development of freight corridors and clusters. Identifying the local freight network provides a starting point for the BCDCOG and its member governments to encourage freight related land use growth in designated areas that can benefit from the economies of agglomeration. Parcels and tracts of land surrounding the freight network are prime locations where freight related industries should be located and targeted to accommodate future freight growth. A comprehensive land use analysis was conducted to identify the location of both current and future freight intensive land uses in the BCD Region as well as critical corridors or segments of the local freight network that provides direct access to these land uses. These corridors were then vetted by the FAC and adjusted based on the feedback received. The corridor inventory should be used for future transportation planning and design efforts to align mobility needs by land use types, and vice versa. The existing and future corridors are provided in Figure 4-16 and described in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2. Land use considerations were also incorporated into the final recommendations outlined in Chapter 6 – Project Recommendations and Chapter 8 – Policy Programmatic Recommendations. For additional information, reference the Land Use Technical Memorandum (Appendix D).

20 https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop12006/sec_1.htm

| PAGE 4-25 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | IDENTIFICATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FREIGHT ASSETS |

Figure 4-16: Existing and Future Freight Corridors and Generators

| PAGE 4-26 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

5. FUTURE FREIGHT MOBILITY NEEDS To better plan infrastructure needs of the freight network, population, employment, and freight growth were forecast and analyzed. Qualitative feedback from stakeholders about regional freight trends and needs were used to confirm the forecasts and provide additional context where the data might be incomplete. This section provides an overview of the region’s future freight demand. Additionally, land use considerations and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the future of the freight industry are discussed.

5.1

POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT

The CHATS Travel Demand Model was used to forecast population and employment levels in 2040 with a 2015 base year. Between 2015 and 2040, the BCD regional population is expected to grow 87 percent to nearly 1.4 million people. Table 5-1: 2015–2040 Population Growth, BCD Region County Berkeley County Charleston County Dorchester County Total

2015 Population 203,831 392,013 149,034 744,878

2040 Population 504,124 651,420 242,019 1,397,563

Percent Change 147.32% 66.17% 62.39% 87.62%

Source: CHATS TDM Version 1

Population forecasts for the year 2040 show the population expanding away from the urban core of Charleston in all directions along the major highway corridors (Figure 5-1). Areas along the U.S. 17 Alt also show increased population density, compared to 2015. Employment growth was projected for key sectors in the freight industry: manufacturing, wholesale distribution, warehousing, and mining. Job growth of greater than 50 jobs in these industries was considered the threshold for significant growth for all sectors. This freight employment forecast is shown in Figure 5-2.

| PAGE 5-1 |

| 5 | FUTURE FREIGHT MOBILITY NEEDS |

Figure 5-1: Forecast Population Density, 2040

| PAGE 5-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | FUTURE FREIGHT MOBILITY NEEDS |

Figure 5-2: Freight Generating Employment Growth, 2015–2040

| PAGE 5-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | FUTURE FREIGHT MOBILITY NEEDS |

Industrial development related to meeting the increased freight demands of a growing population is likely to be concentrated on the fringe of these densely populated areas, which is evident in the employment forecast map. Intensive growth is projected along the existing network within existing freight land use planning constraints. The Volvo Camp Hall Industrial Campus, in Berkeley County along I-26, is expected to have the highest level of employment growth among the freight industries, with a forecast 5,000 new jobs by 2040. Boeing, in Charleston County strategically located near the Charleston Airport and key highway and rail corridors, will have the second highest job growth with 2,288 jobs. In total, the region should expect over 13,000 new jobs in key sectors within the freight industry. Not yet included in the forecast database, the Ridgeville Industrial Campus area in Dorchester County is also expected to be an area of significant employment expansion with the 2020 announcement of the Walmart Distribution Center and other similar businesses. Using the population and employment forecasts and building on the identified freight generating land use corridors identified in Chapter 4 – Identification and Existing Conditions of Freight Assets, areas of future intensive industrial development and employment growth along the identified freight network, and within the existing and future freight corridors, were identified as shown in Figure 5-3 (“Development Clusters”). This future land use analysis validates that freight-intensive land use growth is occurring or planned along the identified freight network. Summary statistics about the clusters indicate that seven out of the 12 Development Clusters have rail access and five of them are located on the interstate system. This insight on the future land use impacts of expected freight growth provides a starting point for planners to continue to encourage freight-related land use growth in the identified areas to maximize the return on current and future investment in freight transportation infrastructure. Parcels and tracts of land surrounding the freight network are locations where freight-related industries may be located and targeted to accommodate future freight related growth and development.

| PAGE 5-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | FUTURE FREIGHT MOBILITY NEEDS |

Figure 5-3: Existing and Future Freight Corridors, Clusters, and Generators

| PAGE 5-5 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | FUTURE FREIGHT MOBILITY NEEDS |

5.2

FREIGHT GROWTH

Understanding future freight demand also helps identify the future mobility needs of the regional freight network. Future regional freight demand was forecast for the year 2040 for both highway and rail freight. Overall, the region should see an increase in total freight tonnage moving through the region to over 210 million tons in 2040, an 86 percent increase from the 2016 value of 112 million tons. The value of the freight moving along the regional freight network is expected to grow by 128 percent, from $248 billion to $567 billion in 2040.

5.2.1 Truck Freight Growth By 2040, truck freight on the tri-county network is projected to increase to over 170 million tons, a 92 percent total increase (2.7 percent annually). Over half of the growth is in the same top five commodity groups that currently comprise most tons, with outbound volume growing slightly faster than the other directions (inbound, intraregional, and through). Figure 5-4 shows the expected 2040 truck tonnage growth by commodity, compared to the 2016 volumes and Figure 5-5 shows the distribution of that tonnage growth along the highway freight network in South Carolina as well as the percentage of the highway tonnage that relates to the BCD Region. The value of the freight moving along the highway network is expected to grow 133 percent, from $211 billion to $494 billion. Figure 5-4: Truck Ton Growth by Commodity, 2016–2040

Source: Transearch

| PAGE 5-6 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | FUTURE FREIGHT MOBILITY NEEDS |

Figure 5-5: South Carolina Truck Tonnage 2016–2040 and Statewide Distribution of BCD Region Freight

Source: Transearch

| PAGE 5-7 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | FUTURE FREIGHT MOBILITY NEEDS |

5.2.2 Rail Freight Growth By 2040, the horizon year in Transearch, rail freight on the tri-county railroads is projected to increase to almost 40 million tons, a 65 percent total increase, or 2.1 percent annually, with outbound volumes growing slightly faster than the other directions. About half of the absolute volume growth is in miscellaneous mixed shipments and chemicals; coal imports (from Kentucky, Indiana, and Pennsylvania) are not expected to grow. This is likely due to increased focus on renewable energy sources. Figure 5-6 shows the expected 2040 rail tonnage growth by commodity, compared to the 2016 volumes and Figure 5-7 shows the rail tonnage growth on the rail network in South Carolina as well as the percentage of the rail tonnage that relates to the BCD Region. The value of the freight moving along the rail network is expected to grow 100 percent, from $37 billion to nearly $74 billion. Figure 5-6: Rail Ton Growth by Commodity, 2016-2040

Source: Transearch

There is a growing demand for domestic intermodal rail. Palmetto Railways is developing a new intermodal rail terminal on 118 acres in the former Charleston Naval Complex, the Naval Base Intermodal Facility (NBIF). This terminal will also support the new HLT at the Port of Charleston via a private drayage road. The facility will allow for additional port-generated intermodal cargo to move via rail and provide an intermodal transfer hub in North Charleston. The design will provide equal access to both CSX and NS. The final Environmental Impact Statement was approved by USACE in June 2018. A sketch planning analysis for the SCDOT I-26 Corridor Management Plan found that the NBIF could reduce regional truck vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours of delay by 2 and 2.6 percent, respectively, when the facility is fully built out.

| PAGE 5-8 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | FUTURE FREIGHT MOBILITY NEEDS |

Figure 5-7: South Carolina Rail Tons 2016–2040 and Statewide Distribution of BCD Region Freight

Source: Transearch

| PAGE 5-9 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | FUTURE FREIGHT MOBILITY NEEDS |

5.3

COVID-19 IMPACTS

Any discussion of the future freight mobility needs must now account for the impacts caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 has disrupted domestic and global economies and trade alike. Near-term impacts have been catastrophic for several sectors in the BCD Region, including air travel, aviation and aerospace manufacturing, the automotive sector, tourism, and restaurants. Longer-term economic and transportation impacts from the pandemic are difficult to predict and it may take years for these impacts to subside. As a result, the future may be dramatically different, which affects jobs, commuting, and the businesses that drive the economy of this region. COVID-19 disruptions have revealed weaknesses in some supply chains. Significant declines in international commerce affected many companies in the region, resulting in production declines and shifts to more expensive modes of transportation particularly for companies with supply chain linkages to global manufacturers. Companies are evaluating their supply chain vulnerabilities and making decisions to near shore more of their supply chain back to the United States. These changes could create additional stress on the region’s freight networks and services but also creates new economic development opportunities for the region. The pandemic has also caused declines in production. By December 2020, several companies had seen their production decline by almost 50 percent compared to the prior year; however, these companies anticipate demand to improve once the economy stabilizes. This decline in production will affect regional employment, thus affecting future demand for goods beyond the immediate decline in freight moving throughout the region. Trends put in motion or exacerbated by the pandemic will likely affect freight demand and mode in the future. For example, last mile, parcel home delivery services quickly increased during the pandemic and major e-business retailers like Amazon and Walmart repositioned goods inventories and moved more freight to less than truckload services throughout the country, including the BCD Region (Figure 5-8). As the demand for home delivery continues and companies try to reduce delivery and return times, these freight firms are working longer hours and prices for shipping are expected to increase in the region. Figure 5-8: Urban Delivery Truck for Last Mile Parcel Home Delivery A major concern for businesses in the BCD Region is the truck driver shortage exacerbated by COVID-19. The pandemic has affected the transportation industry’s ability to retain drivers because of health concerns and the stresses of the job. Some smaller firms and general freight haulers have shut down their operations,

| PAGE 5-10 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | FUTURE FREIGHT MOBILITY NEEDS |

laid off drivers and parked their equipment. Industry experts anticipate a tightening in trucking capacity that will increase transportation costs which could impact future freight demand and mode choice. COVID-19 impacted all modes of transportation, indicating that a diverse, multimodal network is paramount for weathering the long-term impacts of the pandemic or any future disturbance. The strong multimodal freight transportation assets within this region played a significant role in keeping companies in operation and workers employed during the pandemic.

5.4

FREIGHT-FRIENDLY COMPLETE STREETS

Just as freight movement, and in particular urban deliveries, are increasing, urban communities are also implementing Complete Streets initiatives which could impact urban freight mobility. Complete Streets is a planning and design concept that states that streets should meet the travel needs of all users regardless of travel mode, including pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers, public transit users, and freight. However, solutions that benefit one type of mode can impact other modes and create potential conflict. For example, making intersections narrower helps pedestrians by decreasing the time it takes to cross the street, however it can make it difficult for freight vehicles to make turning movements due to the narrow turning radii. SCDOT adopted a wide-ranging ”Complete Streets” policy for the state-owned highway system in February of 2021.21 The "Complete Streets" policy requires SCDOT to work with the state's regional transportation planning partners and regional transit providers to identify and include walking, bicycling and transit needs as part of their regional visioning plans. Part of this policy also involves updating and modernizing design manuals to include multimodal accommodation, though the new policy does not explicitly call out freight vehicles. It is important to incorporate freight movement in these updated design manuals since freight carriers must be able to safely share the road with other road users while still efficiently delivering the material goods that support the BCD Region’s economy and quality of life. At the same time, it is important to ensure that other road users, particularly more vulnerable users such as pedestrians and bicyclists, are safe and comfortable when using the area's transportation networks. There are several ways that Complete Streets policies and designs can incorporate freight vehicle needs, which are outlined below. These strategies were incorporated into the final project and policy recommendations detailed in Chapter 6 and Chapter 8, respectively.

5.4.1 Designing for Freight Vehicles When designing Complete Streets that are freight-friendly, it is important to consider where conflict areas are likely to occur and how to reduce vehicle speeds without unintended detrimental impacts on operations and safety. Figure 5-9 shows different design strategies that provide increased safety and comfort for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users, while still considering freight vehicle needs. This is not an exhaustive list, but merely a small sample of freight-friendly Complete Street design elements that should be incorporated into planning for and designing the region's transportation network.

21 http://info2.scdot.org/SCDOTPress/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=3102

| PAGE 5-11 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | FUTURE FREIGHT MOBILITY NEEDS |

Figure 5-9: Examples of Complete Streets Design Elements That Accommodate Freight

Wide turning movement and a designated bicycle lane with conflict area clearly marked

Recessed stop line for wide turning movement

Mountable curb for large vehicles

Paint or pavement texturing to delineate conflict areas

| PAGE 5-12 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | FUTURE FREIGHT MOBILITY NEEDS |

Narrow speed cushions for vehicles with wide axles

Flush or mountable mini-roundabout

Convex safety mirror for improved visbility of vulnerable users

Offset bus lane for direct loading/off-loading space at the curb

Source: New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) Complete Streets Considerations for Freight and Emergency Vehicle Operations

| PAGE 5-13 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | FUTURE FREIGHT MOBILITY NEEDS |

5.4.2

“Complete Corridors”

While it is important that all transportation network users can travel safely, efficiently, and comfortably regardless of mode, it is not necessary for all modes to share the same street to accomplish this. While design and demand management strategies can reduce the inherent conflict present between different modes operating in shared spaces, sometimes there may be opportunity to improve the overall mobility, safety, and operation of a corridor if different modes or users are separated from one another. Particularly in rural areas, it may not be feasible or practical to have a complete street that provides infrastructure for each mode option. Instead, it is better to employ a “Complete Corridors” approach which provides parallel or separated facilities for different system users based on travel demand and context. Therefore on-street facilities such as bike lanes, shared lane markings or shoulders, although lower-cost solutions, may not be desired. Instead, facilities such as separated bike lanes, shared use paths or side paths may be more appropriate since they provide vulnerable road users a greater sense of safety since they do not have to share the road with large vehicles traveling at higher speeds. While "Complete Streets" concepts are typically applied within the urban context, planning and design of our transportation network, including highways, should ensure that the needs of all users across all modes are considered.

5.4.3 Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) and Demand Management As described by the FHWA, “TSMO is a set of strategies that focus on operational improvements that can maintain and even restore the performance of the existing transportation system before extra capacity is needed.”22 TSMO can be used to make a street a “Complete Street” without needing to add capacity and without needing infrastructure dedicated for each individual mode. Instead, different management strategies and new technology can be used to ensure to balance the needs of different modes. TSMO strategies help manage how infrastructure is used and by whom to reduce congestion and better serve the needs of all road users. Some strategies that could help reduce congestion and lessen potential conflict for freight vehicles includes:

• • • • •

Managed Lanes Active Transportation and Demand Management (ATDM) Smart Infrastructure and connected vehicles Smart intersections and signalization optimization Curb Access Management

BCDCOG should also work with local stakeholders to encourage the use of smaller freight delivery vehicles, particularly in urban settings. Other ways that we can lessen the inherent conflicts between modes while still ensuring that all road users can move safely, efficiently, and comfortably include employing freight demand management strategies. In urban areas where intermodal conflict is more frequent, freight demand management strategies are focused on urban freight deliveries. When freight vehicles stop to unload or load their vehicles, it often involves parking or blocking the travel lanes for other modes. This can be mitigated by employing one of a combination of the following strategies:

•

Off-hour deliveries

22 https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tsmo/#:~:text=Training-,TSMO,reliability%20of%20the%20transportation%20system.

| PAGE 5-14 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | FUTURE FREIGHT MOBILITY NEEDS |

• •

Urban Consolidation Centers Delivery Lockers

As technology progresses, the modes used by freight carriers may change and Complete Streets policies and designs should try to account for these advancements. In particular, freight carriers are Figure 5-10: Sidewalk Delivery Bot experimenting with the use of delivery drones and sidewalk bots for last-mile deliveries. While delivery drones may reduce the need for freight vehicles on the streets, there may be an additional demand for public space to allow drones to land/take-off. While the FAA is responsible for all airspace in the U.S., NACTO Blueprint for Autonomous Urbanism suggests that “cities should take an active role in shaping drone policy to mitigate potential safety, noise pollution, and space allocation issues.”23 The use of sidewalk delivery bots (Figure 5-10) for urban deliveries may require wider sidewalks or some type of shared-use path so that bots do not impact the safety or mobility of Source: Meg Kelly, NPR pedestrians.

23 https://nacto.org/publication/bau2/

| PAGE 5-15 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

6. PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS Freight project recommendations for the BCD Region are transportation projects that would improve the safety and efficiency of the freight transportation network at specific locations. A twopart process was used to identify the project recommendations described in this chapter. The first step identified existing freight-beneficial transportation project needs previously documented in the South Carolina Freight Plan Update (2020), 2040 BCDCOG Rural LRTP goals, and the CHATS 2040 LRTP. The second step identified potential new freight-beneficial projects that address the needs and deficiencies identified as a result of the system assessments done in the development of this freight plan. Figure 6-1 and Table 6-1 detail the final recommended projects located within the BCD Region. The ID numbers shown in Figure 6-1 correspond to the numbers in the Project ID column in Table 6-1.

| PAGE 6-1 |

| 6 | PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS |

Figure 6-1: Project Recommendations by Location

| PAGE 6-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 6 | PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS |

Table 6-1: Project Recommendations Project ID

Project Name

Project Category

Recommendation

Notes Heavy commercial/industrial use due to proximity to the airport and air cargo facilities. This is also in close proximity to intermodal rail facilities. Due to the heavy interstate congestion that can result in low travel time reliability, this could be a potential location for truck parking, a refuge for drivers to rest safely during peak traffic hours. Corridor Study along Ashley Phosphate Road to identify signal optimization, access management, and other safety improvements needed. Consideration for

Airport District/Palmetto Truck Parking and Land Commerce Parkway Use Subarea Study Freight Subarea Plan

Truck Parking and Land Use Subarea Study for Airport District/Palmetto Commerce Parkway

Ashley Phosphate Road Corridor Study Corridor Improvements

Corridor Study along Ashley Phosphate Road - Pepperidge Dr to transit operations, including access to transit Rivers Ave

**Estimated Time Frame

Implementation Partners

Near Term

BCDCOG, CHATS, City of North Charleston, Charleston County, Development Community

Near Term

BCDCOG, CHATS, City of North Charleston, Charleston County

Near Term

BCDCOG, CHATS, City of Charleston, Berkeley County

Near Term

BCDCOG, CHATS, City of North Charleston, Charleston County

Near Term

BCDCOG, CHATS, City of North Charleston, Charleston County

Near Term

BCDCOG, CHATS, City of Charleston, Charleston County

*Cost Level

stops/shelters should be included.

Corridor Study / Truck Parking and Land Use Subarea Study

Corridor Study / Truck Parking Study and Land Use Subarea Plan for Clements Ferry

Signal Optimization

Signal Optimization and safety improvements on Dorchester Road and Cosgrove Avenue (I-26 to US 78) in North Charleston.

Dorchester Road Corridor Study (I-26 to Wescott Blvd)

Corridor Study

Corridor Study on Dorchester Road from I-26 to Wescott Boulevard

Morrison Drive Corridor Improvements

Corridor Study

Corridor Study for Morrison Drive from E Bay St to I-26 (Evaluate Signals and Curb Radii)

Clements Ferry Road Freight Subarea Plan

Dorchester Road and Cosgrove Avenue Signal Optimization

This corridor is developing with a combination of heavy industrial, distribution, commercial, and residential land uses. Under this development pressure, LOS is projected to fail. Following the completion of the Clements Ferry Road (Phase I and Phase II) widening projects from I-526 interchange to SC-41, an integrated freight land use subarea and corridor plan should be conducted to improve the efficiency of this corridor. Consideration should be given to relevant access management and ITS strategies. This section of the freight network experiences a poor LOS and high bottleneck scores. It is an urban section that would benefit from improved safety design for these intersections. This should include a safety audit for non-motorized vehicles. This section of the freight network experiences poor LOS, safety concerns, and development pressure. Serving the airport, Joint Base Charleston, and manufacturing in this corridor, considerations should be made for freight vehicle efficiencies. This may include signal optimization and access management strategies. Considerations for transit vehicles, and access to transit shelters, should be included. This segment of the freight network serves the last mile connection between I-26 and Downtown Charleston terminals of the Port of Charleston and local deliveries. The adjacent land uses are changing, becoming increasingly high-density residential, adding to the demand for roadway capacity and transit access. This corridor analysis should review the design of roads, sidewalks, transit access, and crossings for all users of this corridor to preserve safe access for freight vehicles.

| PAGE 6-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 6 | PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS |

Project ID

Project Name

Downtown Charleston Freight Subarea Plan

ReThink Folly Road Improvements

Project Category

Truck Parking and Land Use Subarea Study

Signal Optimization and Access Management

I-26 Smart Corridor Study

Smart Corridor Study

Park and Ride Design Criteria Analysis

Design Considerations for Freight

I-26 Dynamic Messaging Dynamic Messaging System Upgrades System

Interchange Improvements in I-526 Lowcountry Corridor (LCC) WEST Study Area

I-526 Corridor EAST

Interchange Improvements

Smart Corridor Study

Notes

*Cost Level

**Estimated Time Frame

Implementation Partners

Benefits the movement of freight between facilities and urban cargo delivery needs within the Downtown Charleston area.

Near Term

BCDCOG, CHATS, City of Charleston, Charleston County

This corridor serves local deliveries to residential and commercial properties. Due to the restrictive geography created by water bodies, Folly Road is the spine that connects most of James Island and Folly Beach. This corridor should be maintained to support safe and efficient movement of all users, including freight vehicles to support this connection in local delivery supply chain.

$$$

Mid Term (Up to 5 Years)

BCDCOG, CHATS, City of Charleston, Charleston County

This principal corridor of the regional freight network not only connects local origins and destinations by also supports the connection of the Port of Charleston and inland destinations, including the manufacturing centers of the I-26 and I-85 Corridors. As congestion increases beyond available widening funding, technologies should be incorporated into this corridor to maximize the efficiency of the available ROW. These studies and recommendations should follow the TSMO approach to planning and design for this corridor and be done in conjunction with SCDOT and local municipalities.

$$$$

Mid Term (Up to 5 Years)

CHATS, SCDOT, ACOG

Design considerations can be integrated into Truck Parking Subarea Plans. Parking Subarea Plan.

Near Term

BCDCOG, CHATS

N/A

Near Term

CHATS, SCDOT

Funded

Mid Term (Up to 5 Years)

CHATS, SCDOT

$$$

Mid Term (Up to 5 Years)

BCDCOG, CHATS, Charleston County, Berkeley County, SCDOT, SCPA

Recommendation Identify and close any first/last mile gaps near major intermodal centers and manufacturing hubs, as well as identify and address urban freight needs. ReThink Folly Road Plan - Includes consideration for Signal Coordination (with annual/biannual review), Access Management and Driveway Consolidation, Traffic Calming and Speed Limit Zones, Transit, Bike, and Ped Improvements - Does not recommend widening

Smart Freight Corridor along I-26 from Charleston to Greenville

Review of park and ride lot design criteria to accommodate overnight truck parking where feasible. Dynamic Messaging System (DMS) Installation along I-26 The I-526 Lowcountry Corridor West Study references improvements at the I-526/I-26 Interchange, the I526/N. Rhett Avenue Interchange, and I-526/Paul Cantrell Blvd Interchange Evaluate applications for smart technologies in the I-526 corridor to incorporate into the design and construction of planned improvements for the Lowcountry Corridor EAST project.

Existing Project Corridor Study.

This is a critical link between the Town of Mount Pleasant, Wando Welch marine terminal and I-26. As SCDOT progresses plan for additional capacity, this project provides an opportunity to integrate TSMO strategies and smart vehicle technology, supporting the onboard technology in use or manage traffic more efficiently.

| PAGE 6-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 6 | PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS |

Project ID

Project Name

Project Category

I-526 Lowcountry Corridor East: Long Point Smart Corridor Study Road Corridor Improvements

Sam Rittenberg Blvd Signal Optimization

Corridor Study and Signal Optimization

SC 41 Corridor Study

Corridor Study

Design Guidelines for Design Considerations for U.S. 52 Corridor (Can be Freight combined with U.S 78)

Design Guidelines for Design Considerations for U.S. 78 Corridor (Can be Freight combined with U.S. 52)

Remount Road Corridor Smart Corridor Study Study

U.S. 78 Widening Project Roadway Improvement

Recommendation

Notes

*Cost Level

**Estimated Time Frame

Implementation Partners

Long Point Road - The I-526 Lowcountry Corridor Study references a study along I-526 which intersects Long Point Road. Improvements at this location made be recommended pending the studies completion. Corridor Study for Signal Optimization Along Sam Rittenberg Blvd

This is a critical link between the I-526 corridor and the Wando Welch marine terminal. While localized improvements are programmed for intersection efficiency and safety, this connection provides an opportunity to pilot smart vehicle technology, supporting the onboard technology in use or manage traffic more efficiently.

Programme d

Mid Term (Up to 5 Years)

CHATS, SCDOT, Town of Mount Pleasant

Mid Term (Up to 5 Years)

BCDCOG, CHATS, City of Charleston, Charleston County

Mid Term (Up to 5 Years)

BCDCOG, CHATS, SCDOT, Berkeley County

Near Term

BCDCOG, CHATS, CARTA, SCDOT, Charleston County

Near Term

BCDCOG, CHATS, CARTA, SCDOT, Charleston County

Near Term

BCDCOG, CHATS, Charleston County, Berkeley County, SCDOT, SCPA

$$$

Mid Term (Up to 5 Years)

BCDCOG, CHATS, SCDOT Dorchester County

N/A

Based on industrial land use and connection SC 41 provides this area with inland Berkeley County, an analysis is recommended to evaluate the safety SC 41 Corridor Safety Study from needs to allow efficient movement of trucks through Jamestown to U.S. 17 this corridor. This corridor also provides redundancy in the regional network, providing an alternative route to the congested I-26 Corridor. US 52 between Charleston and Summerville is a critical corridor within the regional freight network as it serves industrial land uses within the corridor and a regional alternative route to I-26. US 52 is also the Design Considerations for Freight in preferred alignment for the LCRT. As the LCRT project conjunction with the Lowcountry develops, land use planning and transportation Rapid Transit (LCRT) Project improvements will be prepared for this corridor. Freight movements should be included in the analysis and development of ITS, signal optimization, access management, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and pavement types for the entirety of the corridor. US 78 between Charleston and Summerville is a congested regional corridor and has been the Design Considerations for Freight in subject of many transit proposals. This section is conjunction with the Lowcountry expecting to be improved for vehicular traffic, transit Rapid Transit Project and other service, and should also include freight considerations regional improvements; in the design concepts. This segment of the freight incorporation of freight in the U.S. network serves a growing manufacturing base and 78/University Boulevard Widening distribution centers in Dorchester County and provides a relief route for I-26. Remount Road corridor serves as an intermodal connector to the Port's North Charleston Terminal. Evaluate recommended preferred Proposed interstate and interchange improvements alternative for the Lowcountry included in I-526 LLC West project when implemented Corridor projects and conduct a may impact freight access and use of corridor. This follow up corridor study to study should evaluate a complete streets concept understand and address impacts to that uses technology applications to improve safety the Remount Road Corridor. for transit vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, and the freight movements through this corridor. This corridor is under construction for 6 Miles to continue improvements from Orangeburg improved mobility. Road to U.S. 17 Alt

| PAGE 6-5 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 6 | PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS |

Project ID

Project Name

U.S. 78 Design Guidelines and Restriping Plan

Berlin G Meyers Extension Project

I-526 at Paul Cantrell Boulevard Interchange Improvements

Recommendation

Notes

*Cost Level

**Estimated Time Frame

Implementation Partners

Context sensitive design guidelines for freight along this corridor

Incorporate considerations between Orangeburg Rd to Berlin G. Myers. Making these improvements to this segment of the regional freight network improves safety for all users of the corridor. This should be aligned with routine resurfacing program.

Near Term

BCDCOG, CHATS, SCDOT Dorchester County

Trolley Road/Beacons Bridge Rd to U.S. 17A

Berlin G Meyers Extension project, currently programmed, will support safe freight movement through this portion of the regional freight network.

Funded

Mid Term (Up to 5 Years)

BCDCOG, CHATS, SCDOT Dorchester County

Interchange Improvements

I-526/Paul Cantrell Boulevard Interchange Improvements

As this interchange project progresses through the environmental review and conceptual design phases, considerations for freight volumes should be made in the final design and signalization at this interchange and adjacent intersections.

Funded

Mid Term (Up to 5 Years)

BCDCOG, CHATS, SCDOT, Charleston County

Corridor Study

Conduct traffic analysis to provide intersection safety, signalization, and other traffic operational and capacity to connect the Ridgeville Industrial Campus with surrounding roadways.

Evaluate land use development plans and provide transportation solutions to support local connectivity between properties and connectivity to other regional routes for commuting and delivery trips.

Near Term

BCDCOG, CHATS, Dorchester County, Economic Development Partners

Near Term

BCDCOG, CHATS, Berkeley County

Near Term

BCDCOG, CHATS, SCDOT, Charleston County

Project Category

Design Considerations for Freight

Berlin G Meyers Extension from Old

Ridgeville Industrial Subarea Corridor Study

Roadway Improvement

Wayfinding analysis may be appropriate to address truck movements where land uses conflict and routes are to be encouraged or discouraged. Henry Brown Lighting, signal, and wayfinding Phase I and II improvements, as well as I-526 Intersection Improvement improvements to intersection area. Interchange Improvements. This is a critical intersection on the freight network, and improvements to signage will support truck driver safety and efficiency in this area. Based on safety data (9 truck involved fatalities over 5 years), a safety audit should be conducted. This Corridor/Access Management should identify areas where lighting, striping, shoulder Corridor/Access Safety Study for Urban Portion - Rural and lane widths, accommodations for bicycles and Management Study Safety Study for Rural Portion pedestrian, and other geometric features of the corridor should be improved on this portion of the freight network.

N Rhett Ave and Yeamans Hall Road Intersection Area Improvements

U.S. 17 Corridor Improvements

Subarea Land Use Study - U.S. 17 A Corridor Land Use Study (Dorchester County)

Land Use Study

Once Berlin G Meyers Extension is completed to SC 61, area may open to industrial development. Ensure Land Use Plan is updated to accommodate new freight usage.

Mid Term (Up to 5 Years)

Signal Warrant Analysis Palmetto Commerce Signal Warrant Analysis Pkwy

Based on truck volumes, adjacent land uses and Signal Warrant Analysis at Daimler crash data, this intersection should be evaluated to Plant/Palmetto Commerce Parkway determine if volumes warrant a signal.

Near Term

| PAGE 6-6 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

BCDCOG, Dorchester County, Economic Development Partners BCDCOG, CHATS, City of North Charleston, Charleston County

| 6 | PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS |

Project ID

Project Name

SC-165/Givhans Road Corridor Study

Project Category

Corridor Study

I-26 (Berkeley County)

Safety Improvements

Rail Crossing Improvement - Ashley Phosphate Road

Rail Crossing Improvement - Red Bank Road

Rail Crossing Improvement - N. Main Street (Summerville)

At Grade Crossing

Rail Crossing Improvement – SC 165 (Ravenel)

At-Grade Crossing

Rail Crossing Improvement - East Montague Avenue

At Grade Crossing

At-Grade Crossing

*Cost Level $ - Less than $25k $$ - $25k - $150k SSS - $150k - $500k $$$$ - $500k - $2m $$$$$ - Greater than $2m

Recommendation

Notes

Conduct regional traffic study and land use evaluation to use this corridor as a freight connection between U.S. 17 (Ravenel) to Ridgeville via SC 27/Givhans Road

This rural network connection could provide an alternative route for trucks originating or terminating at the Ridgeville Industrial Campus and destinations south of Charleston. This provides an alternative route to the already-congested I-26 Corridor and mitigates the potential increase in traffic using the I-26 Corridor. This corridor is forecast to perform at a failing LOS, so capacity improvements would be necessary to facilitate this freight route.

SCDOT has programmed safety improvements at the Jedburg Tie-in with I-26 Recommendations - Smart Corridor, Road/I-26 Interchange and a safety Incident Management, Ramp Metering Pilot. audit along N Main Street Location identified as regional rail safety hot spot. Improvements to safety gates, pedestrian facilities, Rail at-grade crossing safety approach signals (Queue cutter signal install), improvements at Ashley Phosphate advance warning signs, and vegetation maintenance Road (see notes) recommended. See Appendix G - Rail Recommendations for more detail. Location identified as regional rail safety hot spot. Improvements to safety gates, pedestrian facilities, Rail at-grade crossing safety advance warning signs and signals, and vegetation improvements at Red Bank Road maintenance recommended. See Appendix G - Rail Recommendations for more detail. Location identified as regional rail safety hot spot. Improvements to safety gates, pedestrian facilities, Rail at-grade crossing safety advance warning signs and signals, and vegetation improvements at N. Main Street maintenance recommended. See Appendix G - Rail Recommendations for more detail. Location identified as regional rail safety hot spot. Improvements to safety gates, pedestrian facilities, Rail at-grade crossing safety advance warning signs and signals, and vegetation improvements at SC 165 maintenance recommended. See Appendix G - Rail Recommendations for more detail. Location identified as regional rail safety hot spot. Rail at-grade crossing safety Improvements to safety gates, pedestrian facilities, improvements at E. Montague advance warning signs and signals, and vegetation Avenue maintenance recommended. See Appendix G - Rail Recommendations for more detail. **Estimated Time Frame Near Term – 1 Year Mid Term – Up to 5 Years Long Term – Beyond 5 Years

| PAGE 6-7 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

*Cost Level

**Estimated Time Frame

Implementation Partners

Long Term (Greater than 5 Years)

BCDCOG, CHATS, SCDOT, Charleston County, Dorchester County, Economic Development Partners

Mid Term (Up to 5 Years)

BCDCOG, CHATS, City of North Charleston, Charleston County

Mid Term (Up to 5 Years)

BCDCOG, CHATS, City of Goose Creek, Berkeley County

Mid Term (Up to 5 Years)

BCDCOG, CHATS, Town of Summerville, Dorchester County

Mid Term (Up to 5 Years)

BCDCOG, CHATS, Charleston County, Town of Ravenel

$$$

Mid Term (Up to 5 Years)

BCDCOG, CHATS, Charleston County, City of North Charleston

7. PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Freight project prioritization assists BCDCOG and regional decision makers systematical rank the projects that best meet the region's freight goals and objectives or those most likely to have the greatest impact on the freight transportation system. Since the recommended projects vary widely in terms of scope and the goal areas they address, applying a prioritization scoring system can help even the playing field so projects can be easily compared against each other. The prioritization framework, which is illustrated in Figure 7-1, identified several criteria that determine how well each project addressed the different freight plan goal areas. These criteria are listed in Table 7-1, along with information about whether the evaluation was qualitative, quantitative, or both, and the data source used to make this determination. This framework aligns with the overarching goal areas, supporting objectives, and performance measures identified in Chapter 3. The criteria used either a “yes/no” or “high/medium/low” scoring system intended to provide higher-level qualifiable criteria at the regional level upon which planners can promote project recommendations into further evaluation and consideration in a more quantifiable analysis.

Figure 7-1: Project Evaluation and Prioritization Process

Each project then received a score for each metric, resulting in a total project score. The final scores help BCDCOG staff, and its stakeholders understand how the proposed projects may perform under each criterion and how to prioritize these projects so that the projects that best address the freight plan goals are prioritized higher. These scores do not represent the funding, political, or other factors that may factor into each project when considered for implementation.

| PAGE 7-1 |

| 7 | PROJECT PRIORITIZATION |

Table 7-1: Freight Project Prioritization Framework Goal Area

Evaluation Criteria Address a High Congestion Location

Quantitative

Addresses a Freight Bottleneck

Qualitative

Is Project Located on a critical urban freight corridor (CUFC) or critical rural freight corridor (CRFC)? If Project Located on Designated Freight Corridor? Is Project Located on Tier 1, 2, or 3 Freight Network?

Mobility and System Reliability

Safety and Security

Qualitative Qualitative Qualitative

Separates a Highway AtGrade Rail Crossing

Quantitative

Incorporates Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

Qualitative

Improves Roadway Condition on the State Freight Network (SFN) Improves Roadway on the Regional Freight Network (RFN) Addresses Poor Bridge Condition

Economic and Community Vitality

Qualitative

Addresses a Hot Spot Crash Location

Supports Truck Parking within a Freight Corridor/Cluster

Infrastructure Condition

Qualitative or Quantitative Evaluation

Qualitative

Quantitative and Qualitative Quantitative and Qualitative Quantitative and Qualitative

Supports an Existing or Future Freight Cluster

Quantitative

Supports an Existing or Future Freight Corridor

Quantitative

| PAGE 7-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Data Source BCDCOG Freight Plan GIS LOS Layer BCDCOG Freight Plan GIS Truck Bottleneck Layer SCDOT Statewide Freight Plan SCDOT Statewide Freight Plan BCD Freight Network GIS Layer SCDOT Highway Safety Statistical Services BCD Freight Plan GIS Crossing Hotspots Layer Project Description Project Description and BCD Freight Plan GIS Industrial Sites and Freight Generators Layer SCDOT Statewide Freight Plan SCDOT PQI data BCD Freight Network GIS Layer, SCDOT PQI data SCDOT Statewide Freight Plan SCDOT Bridge Condition GIS BCD Freight Plan GIS Industrial Sites and Freight Generators Layer BCD Freight Plan Freight Corridors GIS Layer

| 7 | PROJECT PRIORITIZATION |

Goal Area

Environmental

Equity

Evaluation Criteria

Qualitative or Quantitative Evaluation

Provides Access to a Freight Generator, Industrial Park, or Intermodal Facility

Quantitative

Project Avoids Sensitive Land Uses such as Agricultural and Preservation Areas

Quantitative

Is Compatible with Surrounding Land Uses

Quantitative

Project Avoids Environmental Justice (EJ) Populations

Quantitative

Improves Public and/or Stakeholder Participation

Qualitative

Data Source BCDCOG Freight Plan GIS Industrial Sites and Freight Generators Layer U.S Environmental Protection Agency Geospatial Resources BCDCOG Land Use Geospatial Resources U.S Environmental Protection Agency Geospatial Resources Project Description

In addition to the freight prioritization framework, an Act 114 24 prioritization freight filter was included to prioritize regional freight projects within the Act 114 prioritization process for BCDCOG. The freight prioritization filter provides an additional point for projects located on the State and proposed regional freight networks, reinforcing the significance of freight prioritization within Act 114 guidance. Table 7-2 lists the criteria for the Act 114 Freight Filter. All the roadway projects provided in this plan would qualify for this additional freight prioritization criteria. Table 7-2: Act 114 Freight Filter Criteria Act 114 Freight Filter Criteria Is project located on a critical rural freight corridor or critical urban freight corridor as defined in the South Carolina Freight Plan Update? Is project located on state designated freight network as defined in the South Carolina Freight Plan Update? Is project located on the tiered regional freight network as defined in the BCDCOG Regional Freight Mobility Plan?

All the project recommendations are shown in Table 7-3 with the different total weighted scores for the different plan goal areas and the final overall ranking.

24 Act 114 is the South Carolina state law that considers criteria such as pavement conditions, traffic, safety as well as

engineering review for prioritization of transportation projects that support the SCDOT’s strategic and 10-year plans.

| PAGE 7-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 7 | PROJECT PRIORITIZATION |

Table 7-3: Prioritized Freight Projects

Project Information Project ID

Project Type

Total Weighted Score

Project Name

Mobility and Reliability

Safety and Security

Infrastructure Conditions

Economic and Community Vitality

Environmental

Equity

Total Score Weighted

Final Ranking

Smart Corridor Study

I-526 Corridor EAST

13.33

0.00

11.11

16.67

8.33

16.67

66.11

Smart Corridor Study

Remount Road Corridor Study

6.67

6.25

11.11

8.33

16.67

12.50

61.53

Smart Corridor Study

I-26 Smart Corridor Study

13.33

8.33

5.56

16.67

0.00

60.56

Design Considerations for Park and Ride Design Freight Criteria Analysis

13.33

8.33

5.56

16.67

0.00

60.56

Truck Parking and Land Use Subarea Study

Ashley Phosphate Road Freight Subarea Plan

10.00

6.25

0.00

16.67

8.33

57.92

Interchange Improvements

Interchange Improvements in I-526 Lowcountry Corridor (LCC) WEST Study Area

13.33

0.00

11.11

16.67

8.33

57.78

Corridor Study / Truck Parking Study

Clements Ferry Road Freight Subarea Plan

10.00

4.17

0.00

13.89

16.67

12.50

57.22

Corridor Study

Ashley Phosphate Road Corridor Improvements

8.33

4.17

0.00

16.67

8.33

54.17

Design Considerations for U.S. 78 Design Guidelines Freight and Restriping Plan

11.67

2.08

0.00

13.89

16.67

8.33

52.64

Roadway Alignment

U.S. 78 Widening Project

10.00

2.08

5.56

11.11

16.67

4.17

49.58

Corridor Study

Dorchester Road Corridor Study (I-26 to Wescott Blvd)

11.67

2.08

0.00

16.67

8.33

47.08

Signal Warrant Analysis

Signal Warrant Analysis Palmetto Commerce Pkwy

8.33

10.42

0.00

11.11

16.67

0.00

46.53

Dynamic Messaging System

I-26 Dynamic Messaging System Upgrades

8.33

4.17

0.00

16.67

0.00

45.83

Design Considerations for Design Guidelines for U.S. Freight 52 Corridor

10.00

10.42

0.00

16.67

8.33

0.00

45.42

Signal Optimization

Dorchester Road and Cosgrove Avenue Signal Optimization

11.67

4.17

0.00

11.11

16.67

0.00

43.61

Roadway Alignment

Berlin G Meyers Extension Project

11.67

0.00

5.56

16.67

4.17

43.61

Design Considerations for Design Guidelines for U.S. Freight 78 Corridor

11.67

6.25

0.00

13.89

8.33

0.00

40.14

At Grade Crossing

8.33

6.25

5.56

11.11

8.33

0.00

39.58

Rail Crossing Improvement - Ashley Phosphate Road

| PAGE 7-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 7 | PROJECT PRIORITIZATION |

Project Information Project ID

Project Type

Project Name

Total Weighted Score Mobility and Reliability

Safety and Security

Infrastructure Conditions

Economic and Community Vitality

Environmental

Equity

Total Score Weighted

Final Ranking

Corridor Study and Signal Sam Rittenberg Blvd Optimization Signal Optimization

13.33

4.17

0.00

8.33

12.50

38.33

Signal Optimization and Access Management

ReThink Folly Road Improvements

11.67

4.17

5.56

0.00

16.67

38.06

Land Use Study

Subarea Land Use Study U.S. 17 A Corridor (Dorchester County)

6.67

2.08

0.00

8.33

12.50

37.92

Corridor Study

Morrison Drive Corridor Improvements

10.00

0.00

11.11

8.33

37.78

Interchange Improvements

I-526 at Paul Cantrell Boulevard Interchange Improvements

10.00

0.00

5.56

16.67

0.00

37.78

Safety Improvements

I-26 (Berkeley County)

1.67

2.08

0.00

11.11

16.67

4.17

35.69

Corridor Study

Ridgeville Industrial Subarea Corridor Study

6.67

0.00

11.11

8.33

0.00

34.44

Corridor/Access Management Study

U.S. 17 Corridor Improvements

10.00

2.08

0.00

5.56

8.33

34.31

Truck Parking and Land Use Subarea Study

Downtown Charleston Freight Subarea Plan

13.33

0.00

5.56

11.11

0.00

30.00

At Grade Crossing

Rail Crossing Improvement - Red Bank Road

11.67

6.25

5.56

0.00

4.17

27.64

N Rhett Ave and Yeamans Hall Road Intersection Improvement Intersection Area Improvements

8.33

2.08

0.00

5.56

8.33

0.00

24.31

Smart Corridor Study

I-526/LCC East: Long Point Road Corridor Improvements

0.00

5.56

0.00

16.67

22.22

Corridor Study

SC 41 Corridor Study

10.00

0.00

8.33

18.33

At-Grade Crossing

Rail Crossing Improvement - East Montague Avenue

0.00

4.17

0.00

5.56

0.00

8.33

18.06

At Grade Crossing

Rail Crossing Improvement - N. Main Street (Summerville)

0.00

4.17

0.00

8.33

12.50

At-Grade Crossing

Rail Crossing Improvement – SC 165 (Ravenel)

0.00

4.17

0.00

4.17

Corridor Study

SC-165/Givhans Road Corridor Study

0.00

| PAGE 7-5 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

8. POLICY AND PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS Unlike project recommendations which include one-time infrastructure improvements or standalone studies, policy and program recommendations address broader, systemic courses of action aimed to achieve the region's freight plan's goals and objectives. Policy recommendations provide guidance for the investment in and maintenance of the region's freight infrastructure to support the efficient movement of goods. Programs are recommendations for short term interventions to improve the regional freight mobility system or other related decision-making processes. Like freight project recommendations, the freight policy and programmatic recommendations also provide guidance to BCDCOG and regional freight stakeholders for maintaining and improving the regional freight network. The recommended freight policies and programs were identified during the development of this Freight Plan from multiple sources including local and regional transportation plan reviews, freight best practices, regional freight land use analysis, freight transportation needs analysis, and stakeholder involvement. Policy and programmatic recommendations are summarized below in Table 8-1. Each policy recommendation includes a short description, the plan goals addressed through the recommendation, and potential implementation owners. Short-term recommendations are those that can be implemented within 5 years, Mid-term recommendations require more coordination, planning, and/or funding and can be implemented within 5 to 10 years, and Long-term recommendations require 10 or more years for implementation.

| PAGE 8-1 |

8 | POLICY AND PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS

Table 8-1: Freight Policy and Programmatic Recommendations ID

POL-1

Type

Policy

Name

Urban Design Criteria Policy for Freight Projects within Downtown Charleston Adoption of Urban (lane width, speed limits, clearly marked facility for bicycle and pedestrian Design Criteria Policy for infrastructure, ITS facilities, etc.) The Master Plan for the Neck Area of Charleston Roadways on the and North Charleston has detailed findings that provide criteria for freight Freight Network infrastructure. (http://www.neckprosperity.org/)

Policy

Retirement of Aging Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Rail Equipment

Support the accelerated retirement of older model year heavy duty vehicles and rail equipment focusing on idle reduction and low emissions technology. Seek opportunities to obtain federal grant funding for local use and establishment of vehicle retrofit programs.

POL-3

Policy

Inspection and Maintenance of Vehicles

Support improved inspection and maintenance of vehicles to minimize emission. While the BCD Region is within EPA attainment status, providing resources and potential economic incentives for maintain efficient vehicles may prevent worsening air quality.

POL-4

Policy

Implementation of Freight Performance Measures

Freight performance measures to track system performance over time. This provides continued monitoring of regional goals and reporting successes to the traveling public, transportation industry, and economic development partners.

Policy

This expands beyond the urban design criteria recommended in POL-1, Design Criteria Policy for supporting infrastructure development throughout the region. This allows all transportation developing rural communities preemptively design corridors that safely improvements on the accommodate all users through design, access management, ITS, and provide regional freight network. safe mobility.

Policy

Work with regional employers to support and implement TDM strategies to promote more efficient travel modes to increase the effective capacity of the existing infrastructure and/or shift travel to off-peak periods to reduce congestion. Strategies may include staggered work shifts at industrial facilities and use of rideshare and regional public transportation options.

POL-2

POL-5

POL-6

Promote Travel Demand Management Options for Employees

Plan Goals Addressed (in bold)

Note

1. Reliability 2. Safety 3. Infrastructure Condition 4. Economic Vitality 5. Environmental 6. Equity 1. Reliability 2. Safety 3. Infrastructure Condition 4. Economic Vitality 5. Environmental 6. Equity 1. Reliability 2. Safety 3. Infrastructure Condition 4. Economic Vitality 5. Environmental 6. Equity 1. Reliability 2. Safety 3. Infrastructure Condition 4. Economic Vitality 5. Environmental 6. Equity 1. Reliability 2. Safety 3. Infrastructure Condition 4. Economic Vitality 5. Environmental 6. Equity 1. Reliability 2. Safety 3. Infrastructure Condition 4. Economic Vitality 5. Environmental 6. Equity

| PAGE 8-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Potential Implementation Ownership

Location

Time Frame

Urbanized Areas

ShortTerm

Regionwide

ShortTerm

✓ SCDOT ✓ SCDPS ✓ SCDMV ✓ SCDHEC ✓ Truck Owners

Regionwide

ShortTerm

✓ BCDCOG ✓ CHATS ✓ SCDOT

Regionwide

ShortTerm

✓ BCDCOG ✓ CHATS ✓ Charleston County ✓ SCDOT

Regionwide

ShortTerm

Regionwide

ShortTerm

✓ City of Charleston ✓ City of North

Charleston ✓ Charleston County ✓ SCDOT

✓ BCDCOG ✓ SCPA ✓ Berkeley,

Charleston, Dorchester Counties ✓ Truck Owners ✓ Rail Operators

✓ Chambers of

Commerce ✓ Economic Development Partners ✓ Private Industry

8 | POLICY AND PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS

POL-7

POL-8

POL-9

POL-10

POL-11

POL-12

POL-13

Type

Name

Policy

Fiber Installation at Roadway Construction Projects

Enables fiber connectivity for SCDOT and regional entities. This provides communications equipment to ready corridors for vehicles equipped with communications technology.

Policy

Truck Parking Requirements in Land Use Plans

Encourage land use updates to address existing and potential truck parking shortages. Review truck parking requirements in land use plans for establishing parking minimums for manufacturing, distribution, and major retail developments.

Policy

Installation of Raised Medians on Freight Network

Install raised medians on freight corridors where required, enhancing safety along freight corridors. Access management and limited turns should also improve through movement mobility.

Policy

Collaboration with Local Jurisdictions to Adopt Access Management Policies

Collaborate with local jurisdictions to adopt access management policies or overlay districts that require installation of inter-parcel connections along regional truck routes during redevelopment or expansion of an existing use, and consolidation of access when adjacent parcels come under common ownership. Overlays or policies could establish standards for the number, density, and spacing of curb cuts to better manage access and seek to provide access via side streets rather than the main line.

Policy

Evaluate Land Uses Along Freight Corridors to Better Accommodate Truck Traffic

Evaluation of land uses along freight corridors to determine ways to better accommodate truck traffic and avoid future conflicts between industrial land uses and others. Strategies can include clustering of manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution centers, encouraging siting of freight facilities along regional truck routes, or incentivizing redevelopment of underutilized properties in lieu or greenfield development.

Identify Vacant Properties for Truck Parking

Work with local governments, property owners, and/or property managers to identify vacant properties that could accommodate truck staging and /or overnight parking on a temporary basis. The temporary repurposing of these properties should be handled on a case-by-case basis and depending on the situation at-hand, management and oversight of the parking lot could be handed by a third-party operator, by the property owner, or local government.

Identify Underutilized Sites for Truck Parking

Identify potential candidate locations and evaluate the feasibility of redeveloping underutilized sites into permanent truck parking with amenities such as secured parking, lighting, and restroom/shower facilities.

Policy

Plan Goals Addressed (in bold)

Note

| PAGE 8-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Potential Implementation Ownership

Location

Time Frame

✓ Berkeley County ✓ Charleston County ✓ Dorchester County ✓ SCDOT

Regionwide

Mid-Term

✓ BCDCOG ✓ Berkeley County ✓ Charleston County ✓ Dorchester County ✓ Municipal Partners

Regionwide

Mid-Term

✓ Berkeley County ✓ Charleston County ✓ Dorchester County ✓ SCDOT

Regionwide

Mid-Term

✓ CHATS ✓ Berkeley County ✓ Charleston County ✓ Dorchester County ✓ Municipal Partners ✓ SCDOT

Regionwide

ShortTerm

✓ BCDCOG ✓ Berkeley County ✓ Charleston County ✓ Dorchester County ✓ Municipal Partners

Regionwide

ShortTerm

✓ BCDCOG ✓ Berkeley County ✓ Charleston County ✓ Dorchester County ✓ Municipal Partners

Regionwide

ShortTerm

✓ BCDCOG ✓ Berkeley County ✓ Charleston County ✓ Dorchester County ✓ Municipal Partners

Regionwide

ShortTerm

8 | POLICY AND PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS

POL-14

POL-15

POL-16

POL-17

POL-18

POL-19

Type

Policy

Note

Plan Goals Addressed (in bold)

One objective of the plan is to encourage an expansion of rail capacity that will enhance freight and economic competitiveness. Key strategies are to provide for truck and rail mobility to and from major freight hubs and consider road improvements that support goods movement between the Port of Charleston and the inland ports.

1. Reliability 2. Safety 3. Infrastructure Condition 4. Economic Vitality 5. Environmental 6. Equity

Maintaining or improving state of good repair for rail elements of the freight network is a goal of the State Rail Plan. This includes ongoing maintenance and operational improvements required to support efficient intermodal freight movement between the Port of Charleston and inland ports, and between port terminals.

1. Reliability 2. Safety 3. Infrastructure Condition 4. Economic Vitality 5. Environmental 6. Equity

As partner agencies (such as SCPA and Palmetto Railways) proceed with projects like the Inland Ports in Greer and Dillon and the NBIF in North Charleston, SC, SCDOT should preserve and enhance the collaborative planning efforts with these agencies.

1. Reliability 2. Safety 3. Infrastructure Condition 4. Economic Vitality 5. Environmental 6. Equity

Assess Mode Shift Options

Continue assessing mode shift options via actual data from the Inland Port Greer, Inland Port Dillon, NBIF as these projects are executed to help estimate growth potential and cost/benefit of new modal options.

1. Reliability 2. Safety 3. Infrastructure Condition 4. Economic Vitality 5. Environmental 6. Equity

Close Highway Rail Crossings

Explore opportunities to close highway rail crossings in close coordination with stakeholders and the community. A strategy aimed at increasing public safety and promoting economic development through selective closure of identified rail crossings. Crossing consolidation can help reduce traffic congestion, noise, and other effects of railroad crossings.

Assess Areas for Quiet Zone Designations

Assess areas disproportionately impacted by train horn nose for potential quiet zone designation. A section of track at least one-half mile long, comprised of one or more consecutive crossings where train horns are not routinely sounded. Quiet zones are established to reduce noise and promote/improve quality of life for residents and businesses.

Name

Expansion of Rail Capacity to Enhance Freight and Economic Competitiveness

Maintain Rail Elements on the Freight Network

Preserve Collaborative Planning Efforts with Partner Agencies

| PAGE 8-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Potential Implementation Ownership

Location

Time Frame

Rail Lines in the BCD Region

LongTerm

Rail Lines in the BCD Region

ShortTerm

Statewide

ShortTerm

Statewide

ShortTerm

Regionwide

LongTerm

Rail Lines in the BCD Region

ShortTerm

✓ Class 1 Railroads ✓ SC Department of Commerce

✓ SCPA ✓ Palmetto Railways ✓ Economic

Development Partners ✓ Class 1 Railroads ✓ SC Department of Commerce ✓ SCPA ✓ Palmetto Railways ✓ Economic Development Partners ✓ Class 1 Railroads ✓ SC Department of Commerce ✓ SCPA ✓ Palmetto Railways ✓ Economic Development Partners ✓ Class 1 Railroads ✓ SC Department of Commerce ✓ SCPA ✓ Palmetto Railways ✓ Economic Development Partners

✓ Class 1 Railroads ✓ SC Department of Commerce

✓ Palmetto Railways ✓ Municipal Partners ✓ SCDOT ✓ BCDCOG ✓ CHATS ✓ Municipal Partners

8 | POLICY AND PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS

Name

Note

Policy

Identify Trespassing Hot Spots

Identify trespassing "hot spots" and implement technology to aid in the monitoring of these areas in coordination with local law enforcement. Rail rightof-way trespassing often stems from a lack of education/knowledge about the dangers of trespassing, lack of enforcement, and poor community planning decisions. Technology is improving the ability of enforcement agencies to monitor right-of-way and dispatch personnel.

Policy

Conduct Assessment of Areas Disproportionately Impacted by Rail Operations

Noise and vibration from passing trains can be extremely detrimental to the public health and economic development of a community. The impacts range from lower land values, creating resident complaints, deteriorating structures, limitations on the type of development that can occur in the vicinity of a rail line.

PRG-1

Ramp Metering Pilot Program Program (I-26 at Ashley Phosphate Road)

Ramp metering is a traffic management strategy aimed at reducing mainline interstate congestion. Ramp Metering Pilot Program for I-26 at Ashley Phosphate Road would allow a temporary evaluation of such an application in the region.

PRG-2

Program

POL-20

POL-21

PRG-3

Type

Urban Delivery Pilot Program

Program Education Outreach

Urban Delivery Pilot Program in King Street corridor, limiting deliveries to King Street between Columbus Street to Broad Street between specified hours.

Regional freight mobility will benefit from perception improvements from the public. Conduct educational efforts to counter public perception that increases in truck size and weight limits will impact roadway quality and compromise safety.

PRG-4

Incident Management Program Program

Incident Management Performance Measure - Average time to clear travel lanes for traffic incidents along Incident Management Zone is 20 minutes or less

PRG-6

Coordinate with Implement range of improvements to benefit travel demand management Recommendations from strategies for freight. These include constructing the NBIF, providing additional Program I-26 Corridor truck parking, and establish partnerships to improve private sector truck trip Management Plan planning and scheduling.

Plan Goals Addressed (in bold)

| PAGE 8-5 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Potential Implementation Ownership

Location

Time Frame

✓ Class 1 Railroads ✓ Palmetto Railways ✓ Municipal Partners

Rail Lines in the BCD Region

ShortTerm

✓ BCDCOG ✓ CHATS ✓ Municipal Partners ✓ Community

Rail Lines in the BCD Region

ShortTerm

✓ CHATS ✓ Charleston County ✓ SCDOT

I-26 Corridor from Downtown Charleston to Ashley Phosphate Road

ShortTerm

✓ CHATS ✓ City of Charleston

Downtown Charleston Roadways

ShortTerm

Regionwide

ShortTerm

Interstate Corridors

ShortTerm

Interstate Corridors

LongTerm

Advocacy Organizations

✓ BCDCOG ✓ CHATS ✓ Municipal Partners ✓ Freight Advisory Committee

✓ BCDCOG ✓ CHATS ✓ SCDPS ✓ SCDOT

✓ BCDCOG ✓ CHATS SCDOT

8 | POLICY AND PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS

PRG-8

Type

Name

Explore facilitation of regional smart parking Program and/or scheduling program

Drawing from the West Coast experience of the DrayFLEX program, seek opportunities to partner with the Freight Advisory Committee and vehicle owners/operators to develop communications tools that facilitate parking, delivery, and other operational needs. Features of this program should be integrated into ITS Master Planning efforts.

Potential Implementation Ownership

Plan Goals Addressed (in bold)

Note

1. Reliability 2. Safety 3. Infrastructure Condition 4. Economic Vitality 5. Environmental 6. Equity

✓ BCDCOG ✓ CHATS ✓ SCPA ✓ SCDPS ✓ Municipal Partners ✓ Charleston Motor

With ongoing investments and enhancements of the freight system, a more Formalize working formal arrangement would enhance the partnerships of local and state relationship between agencies. This partnership and formalized coordination meetings would increase BCDCOG, CHATS, Program the awareness of infrastructure needs, planned improvements, and provide SCDOT and SCPA to greater shared efforts to fund, program, and construct needed infrastructure support integrated improvements in a collaborative manner. This also provides leveraging of the freight mobility planning needs of multiple agencies to reach common goals.

1. Reliability 2. Safety 3. Infrastructure Condition 4. Economic Vitality 5. Environmental 6. Equity

Carriers Association ✓ SC Trucking Association ✓ BCDCOG ✓ CHATS ✓ SCDOT ✓ SCDOC ✓ SCPA ✓ SCDPS ✓ Municipal Partners

PRG-10

The Network Assessment Technical Memorandum identified key grade crossing conflict points in the BCD Region. This is a good starting point for identifying Identify local process for candidates for grade crossing separation or closure, which would promote review and Program safety and more efficient traffic flows. Local standards would identify needed improvement of atimprovements beyond industry standards set by state departments of grade rail crossings transportation and may depend on local priorities, including transit corridors or other context sensitive factors.

1. Reliability 2. Safety 3. Infrastructure Condition 4. Economic Vitality 5. Environmental 6. Equity

✓ BCDCOG ✓ CHATS ✓ SCDOT ✓ Municipal Partners ✓ Class 1 Railroads ✓ Palmetto Railways

PRG-11

Continue engagement of the Freight Advisory Program Committee to enhance regional freight planning

Continue to engage the CHATS Freight Advisory Committee in the implementation of the Plan. Efforts should be made to expand stakeholder representation, pursue grant funding opportunities, and engage private funding partners in regional initiatives.

Prepare Urban Truck Program Platooning Pilot Project

Building upon PRG-11, the FAC and community stakeholders should partner with SCDOT to explore a potential location to conduct a pilot urban truck platooning corridor.

PRG-9

PRG-12

| PAGE 8-6 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Location

Time Frame

Regionwide Statewide

ShortTerm

Regionwide Statewide

ShortTerm

Regionwide

ShortTerm

Regionwide

ShortTerm

Regionwide

Mid-Term

✓

✓ BCDCOG ✓ CHATS ✓ Municipal Partners ✓ Freight Advisory Committee

✓ BCDCOG ✓ CHATS ✓ Municipal Partners ✓

8 | POLICY AND PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS

PRG-13

Type

Name

Partner with SCDOT and ACOG for statewide Program truck parking communications system

Note

Plan Goals Addressed (in bold)

Building upon the ongoing work of the ACOG Regional Freight Mobility Plan and the SCDOT Statewide Truck Parking Plan, a partnership should be created to formalize the development of a communications system to inform drivers of available parking on a statewide basis.

1. Reliability 2. Safety 3. Infrastructure Condition 4. Economic Vitality 5. Environmental 6. Equity

| PAGE 8-7 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Potential Implementation Ownership

✓ ACOG ✓ BCDCOG ✓ CHATS ✓ SCDOT ✓ SCDOC ✓ SCPA ✓ SCDPS ✓

Location

Time Frame

Regionwide Statewide Multi-State

ShortTerm

9. HOW TO USE THIS PLAN Implementation of the plan's freight recommendations requires participation from and coordination between local, regional, state, and national partners, from both the public and private sectors. Although the BCDCOG is not directly responsible for land use planning, the freight plan should serve as a resource to local municipalities and governmental agencies to facilitate their efforts on comprehensive plan updates, mapping updates of the land use and zoning layers, and conducting developmental services. For infrastructure improvements, some of the recommended highway projects are already consistent with the MPO's/COG's, LRTPs and Transportation Improvement Program and will follow the project development process for implementation. Additional recommended highway projects may either be incorporated into future updates to the region's long-range transportation plans and evaluated and prioritized for funding under the respective plans' fiscal constraints or be incorporated into SCDOT programs for implementation. This freight plan should also serve as a planning resource or reference to various stakeholders in the evaluation of rail, port, and airport needs, and selection of improvement projects.

9.1

STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES

Statewide freight plans are used to guide the long-range freight planning investments for each state with a focus on the entire freight network needs and issues. Whereas local and regional freight plans are more geared toward exploring localized freight issues and needs for improving freight and goods movement. Planning at this more regional-scale also allows for greater land usetransportation planning linkages to be made. These local and regional freight plans fill in important pieces of the state’s overall freight puzzle. Freight planning coordination with the state needs to be a two-way dialogue, as the BCD Regional Freight Mobility Plan will inform SCDOT about local freight needs and issues for inclusion in the overall state freight program, and SCDOT will share statewide freight issues and needs that may impact the BCD Region. Just as regional freight plans align with statewide freight plans, the statewide freight plans align with the national freight planning process. Signed into law on December 4, 2015, the FAST Act provides updated federal guidance for transportation funding, including freight planning and investment. The FAST Act requires the development of a National Freight Strategic Plan, which includes mechanisms to monitor the condition and performance of the national freight system. The FAST Act provided a dedicated source of federal funding for freight projects, including multimodal projects, by establishing both formula and discretionary grant programs to fund projects that would benefit freight movements. Discretionary funding totaling $4.5 billion was made available to states, MPOs, local governments, special purpose districts, and public authorities— including port authorities—from 2015 to 2020. A Continuing Resolution that extends the provisions of the FAST Act was passed when the bill was set to expire, providing funding through September 30, 2021. Some opportunities to use discretionary federal funding to fund projects identified in this plan include the RAISE (previously known as BUILD) and INFRA programs, U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) loan programs such as TIFIA and RRIF, and, through the latest Surface

| PAGE 9-1 |

| 9 | HOW TO USE THIS PLAN |

Transportation Bill Reauthorization process, a reintroduction of congressional directed spending requests (earmarks). A summary is provided below.

•

Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grant Program: On April 13th the USDOT published a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) to apply for $1 billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 discretionary grant funding through the Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) grants (previously known as BUILD and TIGER grants). Projects for RAISE funding are evaluated based on merit criteria that include safety, environmental sustainability, quality of life, economic competitiveness, state of good repair, innovation, and partnership. Within these criteria, the Department will prioritize projects that can demonstrate improvements to racial equity, reduce impacts of climate change and create good-paying jobs. The RAISE Grant is highly competitive since it is one of the few DOT discretionary programs for which regional and local governments can directly compete for multimodal transportation funding.

•

Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) Grant Program: In March, the USDOT announced the FY 2021 round of the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) discretionary grant program to fund transportation projects of national and regional significance that are in line with the Biden Administration’s principles for national infrastructure projects that result in good-paying jobs, improve safety, apply transformative technology, and explicitly address climate change and racial equity. The funding available for this year’s grants totals approximately $889 million. Eligible INFRA project costs may include reconstruction, rehabilitation, acquisition of property (including land related to the project and improvements to the land), environmental mitigation, construction contingencies, equipment acquisition, and operational improvements directly related to system performance. The INFRA NOFO also announced the creation of the “INFRA Extra” Program, which will identify competitive INFRA applicants who do not receive an INFRA award and authorize them to seek a Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998 (TIFIA) loan up to 49 percent of their project cost. While the FY’21 round for INFRA grants has passed, projects in this plan could be eligible for future rounds of this grant program.

•

Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) Loan Program: Under this program the Department of Transportation is authorized to provide direct loans and loan guarantees up to $35.0 billion to finance development of railroad infrastructure. Not less than $7.0 billion is reserved for projects benefiting freight railroads other than Class I carriers. Direct loans can fund up to 100% of a railroad project with repayment periods of up to 35 years and interest rates equal to the cost of borrowing to the government. The funding may be used to:

•

−

Acquire, improve, or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or facilities, including track, components of track, bridges, yards, buildings and shops, and including the installation of positive train control systems;

−

Develop or establish new intermodal or railroad facilities;

−

Reimburse planning and design expenses relating to activities listed above;

−

Refinance outstanding debt incurred for the purposes listed above; and

−

Finance transit-oriented development (credit assistance only available until December 4, 2019)

Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Grant Program: provides Federal credit assistance to eligible surface transportation projects, including highway, transit, intercity passenger rail, some types of freight rail, intermodal freight transfer facilities, and some modifications inside a port terminal. The FAST Act continues the authority of the

| PAGE 9-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 9 | HOW TO USE THIS PLAN |

TIFIA program to provide to States (including D.C. and Puerto Rico), localities, or other public authorities, as well as private entities undertaking projects sponsored by public authorities, three distinct types of financial assistance: −

Secured loans: direct Federal loans to project sponsors offering flexible repayment terms and providing combined construction and permanent financing of capital costs.

−

Loan guarantees: full-faith-and-credit guarantees by the Federal Government to institutional investors, such as pension funds, that make loans for projects.

−

Lines of credit: contingent sources of funding in the form of Federal loans that may be drawn upon to supplement project revenues, if needed, during the first 10 years of project operations. [23 U.S.C. 603 and 604].

Another opportunity for federal discretionary funding that could be used for projects identified in this plan are Congressional Member Directed Spending Projects, also known as earmarks. For the first time in in 10 years Congress is accepting earmark requests for both the House T&I committee infrastructure bill and the regular transportation appropriations bills. Members in both House and Senate leadership have indicated they hope member directed projects (known as Community Project Funding (CPF) Requests) will be an ongoing and recurring process in future annual appropriations bills, opening a new line of funding possibilities for State and local governments. It is generally thought that the funding requested should not exceed $1,500,000 (smaller dollar amounts will be more competitive). The total amount of funding in each appropriations bill reserved for CPF will not exceed 1% of the total spending in the bill.

9.2

METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS

The BCD Regional Freight Mobility Plan is an integrated planning effort between BCDCOG and the CHATS MPO. Representatives from the MPO were part of the plan’s steering committee and the adoption of this plan will sustain the ongoing dialogue of supporting freight mobility in the region. By design, the recommendations of this Freight Plan are not given numeric scoring, but rather relative prioritization on a regional level. Those recommendations should be considered for further analysis and inclusion in local prioritization processes.

9.3

MUNICIPALITIES, COUNTIES, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS

Moving freight is critical to the BCD regional economy. As the area anticipates continued growth in the volume of freight traveling through the region, it is equally important to ensure that the transportation infrastructure is adequate to support these flows and freight-dependent or freightintensive land uses are strategically developed in areas that can maximize the productivity of the freight transportation infrastructure. It is recommended that local governments utilize this Freight Plan to better inform the local planning and future land use decision making processes. Prioritizing the development of freight intensive activities at sites located on existing freight corridors or within freight clusters/concentrations that are directly served by the freight network, is crucial in preserving the most strategic areas of land for freight related growth. Locating these activities close to the freight network will minimize freight impact on the community, while also providing direct access to the network. Once these strategic sites are developed for other uses, it will be difficult to convert them to freight uses in the future. As highlighted in the Freight Plan, alignment of land use and transportation planning in the freight context provides for appropriate infrastructure design that supports both efficient and safe movement for all modes of transportation. This also prevents potential conflicts in modes and land uses. Ultimately, the regional freight plan's land use recommendations will need to be a

| PAGE 9-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 9 | HOW TO USE THIS PLAN |

coordinated effort, implemented by local municipalities and counties through adoption into their local zoning, land use planning and development processes.

9.4

PRIVATE SECTOR INTERESTS

As freight volumes in the region are projected to continue to grow, the discussion of regional freight needs, and issues should be kept in the forefront of regional coordination. Several of this plan’s recommendations involve key partnerships with and support from the private sector, such as leveraging public-private partnerships for funding non-highway improvements and developing collaborations between industries. Additionally, while land use designations are decided by local governments, it is also important that the private sector coordinate with local governments to identify the best locations for freight-intensive land development that can lead to the organic development of “freight villages” or “logistics clusters.” Building on the foundation of the Regional Freight Mobility Plan, the continued engagement of the Freight Advisory Committee is important for the plan's implementation and to sustain discussion among regional partners about freight and economic development related issues. As the regional freight program continues to evolve, this group can continue to provide important feedback and direction for future freight developments. Implementation of the plan’s recommendations, championed by BCDCOG, will actively foster stronger relationships between major stakeholders, and highlight the critical role the public and private sector organizations play in providing freight transportation infrastructure. This can be accomplished by reshaping the meeting frequencies and agendas to identify and assign action items by committee members as well as explore new membership to boost the success of the group. By increasing the ownership of this work product, this organization should begin to focus on how the region can build better and smarter infrastructure, support more efficient and sustainable land use decisions that balance economic development with quality of life for residents, and raise the awareness of freight as a regional and statewide driver of economic sustainability.

| PAGE 9-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN

APPENDIX A Technical Memorandum

Stakeholder & Public Engagement Summary

Prepared by:

January 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................1-1 1.1

About The Freight Mobility Plan ................................................................................... 1-2

1.2

Purpose of Stakeholder & Public Engagement ......................................................... 1-2

STAKEHOLDER & PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS ....................................................................2-1 2.1

Stakeholder & Public Engagement Approach and Results ..................................... 2-1

2.2

Freight Advisory Committee ......................................................................................... 2-1

STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH ...........................................................................................................3-1 3.1

Industry Partner Outreach ............................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.1 One-on-One Interviews & Online Surveys ...................................................... 3-1

PUBLIC OUTREACH .......................................................................................................................4-1 4.1

Social Media................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2

Project Webpage .......................................................................................................... 4-2

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: CHATS FAC Members ............................................................................................................. 2-2 Table 2.2: Summary of FAC Meetings and Topics................................................................................ 2-3

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1: Stakeholder & Public Engagement Approach ................................................................. 2-1 Figure 2-2: Stakeholder & Public Engagement Schedule ................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-3: FAC Virtual Meeting .............................................................................................................. 2-3 Figure 4-1: Graphic Examples of Social Media Campaign ................................................................ 4-1 Figure 4-2: BCD Regional Freight Mobility Plan Webpage ................................................................. 4-2

APPENDIX Appendix A: Online Survey Results

Page i

1. INTRODUCTION The three-county Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester (BCD) region, is experiencing significant growth, with new industry and residents relocating to the area daily. With a U.S. Census population of roughly 775,000 as of 2019, the tri-county region is growing by an approximate 30 new residents each day. U.S Census data shows that between 2010-2019, the region's population grow by roughly 20 percent. By comparison, over the same period the populations of South Carolina and the United States grew by 11 and 6 percent, respectively. This regional growth was approximately three times the national average for the same period. This growth, however, has come with challenges as many roadways are operating at or near capacity. Growing congestion negatively impacts the movement of people and goods in the region, degrading quality of life factors. This can result in the loss of existing and potential businesses or residents, thus hurting the economic health of the area. The region’s economy benefits from a diverse economic base with industries ranging from hospitality and information technology to aeronautical and automotive manufacturing. Both multi-national corporations and fast-growing startup companies have been taking advantage of the globally competitive business environment of the region. The Charleston Regional Development Alliance, in FY 2018-2019, announced that corporate expansions and relocations to the area resulted in a $392 million economic impact and created 854 new jobs. The Charleston region serves as a key trade gateway, linking the state and southeastern U.S. markets to the world. Freight mobility is an important aspect of the area’s transportation system performance and a major driving force for the local economy. The region has direct access to two major interstates (I-26 and I-95), various U.S. highways (US 17, US 52, US 78), an International Airport, the Port of Charleston (named the most productive and fastest growing port in North America), two major Class I railways, intermodal facilities, and a diverse and growing mix of logistics companies and warehouse/distribution centers throughout the area. The presence of companies such as Boeing and Volvo have also supported a strong and growing manufacturing base. There are several major freight-related projects, at various stages of planning and development, occurring in the area that would impact the freight transportation system. The South Carolina Ports Authority (SCPA), the State, and other partners have committed approximately $2.4 billion in port-related infrastructure to improve the operations and movement of goods at the Port and throughout the state. The planned SCPA infrastructure investments include the construction of inland port facilities, existing port terminal improvements, and new terminal and intermodal facility construction. The Port of Charleston currently operates five cargo terminals, spanning three municipalities along the Cooper River, and generates freight movements to and from these locations that are primarily supported by truck and rail. The Port has recorded strong growth over the years, and the committed investments will support future trade demands and maintain the economic competitiveness of the trade gateway. SCPA is currently working to deepen the harbor channel of the Port of Charleston from 45 feet to 52 feet to accommodate the growing number of PostPanamax and New Panamax vessels. When completed, the harbor deepening will make the Charleston harbor the deepest on the U.S. East Coast. Other infrastructure projects underway include the construction of the Hugh Leatherman Terminal (HLT), a new 286-acre container

Page 1-1

| 1 | INTRODUCTION |

terminal in North Charleston that will boost port capacity by roughly 50 percent when fully constructed, and the Port Access Road, currently under construction, that will connect the HLT container terminal directly to I-26. Palmetto Railways intends to develop a new intermodal transfer facility adjacent to the HLT facility to allow for near-dock rail service and will also include new rail and road alignments and improvements to existing roadways.

1.1

ABOUT THE FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN

The BCD Regional Freight Mobility Plan (Freight Plan) seeks to provide an in-depth evaluation of the area’s freight conditions, trends, challenges, and opportunities, and guide freight investment in the region. The plan development process builds stakeholder engagement and fosters relationships with the freight community, both public and private. The key objectives of the Freight Plan are to:

•

Collect system freight data, across modes, that support an ongoing regional freightplanning function.

•

Create a framework of analysis for freight performance measures and the identification of freight-specific issues on the transportation network to inform a set of strategic recommendations.

•

Develop a framework for incorporating Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) efforts and emerging technologies into freight planning, modeling, and prioritization processes.

•

Guide the prioritization and implementation of future investments, policies, and strategies in the short-, mid-, and long-term that improve the safety, security, mobility, operations and reliability of the freight transportation system and support the economic development goals of the region.

1.2

PURPOSE OF STAKEHOLDER & PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

Developing and maintaining meaningful relationships between the Berkeley-CharlestonDorchester Council of Governments (BCDCOG) and the public- and private-sector freight communities is critical for both the development and implementation of the Freight Plan. This Stakeholder and Public Engagement Summary outlines the tactics used for establishing and maintaining these relationships. Stakeholders play a critical role in identifying freight transportation system deficiencies and opportunities, prioritizing projects, and generating buy-in for public policy and future investment in freight infrastructure. This summary outlines the strategies used to engage the public and encourage participation in the transportation planning process, highlight the importance of planning for freight and goods movement, and inform the public of the essential role that freight plays in the regional economy.

| PAGE 1-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

2. STAKEHOLDER & PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS 2.1

STAKEHOLDER & PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT APPROACH AND RESULTS

Developing meaningful relationships with private-sector freight industries and public-sector agencies supporting the freight transportation network is the basis for this stakeholder and public engagement approach. (Figure 2-1) This approach also includes high-level communication with the general public about the freight planning process and the role of freight in the economy. The methods of engagement are discussed further below. Figure 2-1: Stakeholder & Public Engagement Approach

Because of the aggressive nature of the study schedule, the inherent overlap between the BCD Freight Plan, the SCDOT Statewide Freight Plan Update, and the I-26 Congestion Management Plan, and the uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, the Stakeholder and Public Engagement Plan emphasized online engagement (webinars, online meetings, and surveys). Each outreach element is identified in the schedule in Figure 2-2.

2.2

FREIGHT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The Federal FAST Act encourages a regional Freight Advisory Committee be empaneled and continue to function outside of the plan development process. As such, the established CHATS Freight Advisory Committee (FAC) served as the FAC and is responsible for championing the Freight Plan and its project, programmatic, and policy-level elements. Members of the FAC are listed in Table 2.1.

Page 2-1

| 2 | STAKEHOLDER & PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS |

Figure 2-2: Stakeholder & Public Engagement Schedule

Table 2.1: CHATS FAC Members Name Kenny Skipper Christopher Morgan Charles Drayton Steve Thigpen Jason Ward Rick Todd Hampton Lee Tarek Ravenel Coleman Thompson Keith Johnson DJ Mayer Brad Morrison John Truluck David L. Gray David Caimbeul

Organization City of North Charleston City of Charleston City of North Charleston Charleston County Dorchester Country SC Trucking Association SC State Ports Authority Palmetto Railways Hunter Transportation Co. Inc. HJ Trucking Southeastern Freight Line, Inc. Town of Mount Pleasant Dorchester County Economic Development SCDOT Joint Base Charleston

| PAGE 2-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | STAKEHOLDER & PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS |

The FAC is responsible for the policy-level elements of the Freight Plan. The FAC met monthly during the development of the Freight Plan. The meetings were structured so the first hour was an educational lunch-and-learn on freight-related topics called the Palmetto Freight Series and the second hour was for study-specific updates and discussion. FAC meetings were held virtually using Adobe Connect throughout the duration of the project due to COVID-19 public health concerns and social distancing needs. (Figure 2-3) In-person meetings and activities were not scheduled, following the guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and SCDHEC to ensure the safety of the committee members and project team. All meetings were recorded and published to the BCD Regional Freight Mobility Plan webpage following the meeting. A summary of the meetings held can be found in Table 2.2. Figure 2-3: FAC Virtual Meeting

Table 2.2: Summary of FAC Meetings and Topics Date June 4, 2020 July 16, 2020 August 13, 2020 September 10, 2020 October 8, 2020 November 12, 2020

Topic Introduction to Freight Planning Best Practices and Network Assessment Land Use Analysis Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures Economic Impact Analysis Draft Plan Recommendations - Policies and Programs

Attendees 19 12 14 18 15 12

Input was received from committee members in a variety of ways throughout the meetings. Open discussion, virtual polling, and interactive exercises were used to gather feedback. Detailed notes on the questions and conversation were taken during the meetings. A summary of each meeting’s engagement is below.

| PAGE 2-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | STAKEHOLDER & PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS |

June 4, 2020, Introduction to Freight Planning

•

Polling Question #1 – What is your interest in the development of a freight mobility plan? −

•

Polling Question #2 – Now that you know what this freight plan is, what are you most excited about? −

•

The majority said they were technical planning professionals, or they were in advocacy representing an organization interested in the plan

The majority of people (50%) noted “fixing the condition and capacity of our highways” is what they are most excited about. “Integrating land use and transportation planning” and “understanding the economic impact of freight mobility” were also top choices. Questions and Comments

Polling Question #3 – What other freight-related topics are of interest to you? Answers included: −

Truck parking needs in region

−

How does Lowcountry Rapid Transit fit into the plan?

−

Truck platooning

−

Better communication of road blockage

−

Automation in the industry

−

Joint Base Charleston Air Base rear gate and Weapons Station Remount Road delivery is impacted by rail lines

July 16, 2020, Best Practices and Network Assessment

•

Polling Question #1 – Do these overall truck and rail patterns look reasonable from your experience? −

•

Polling Question #2 – Do you have suggestions for additional routes that should be included in the draft freight network? −

•

Yes, 100% said these patterns look reasonable

SC 41, US 52, and US 78 were the top responses

Polling Question #3 – Which of these examples do you think is most applicable to the region? −

Miami-Dade ITS Deployment and Golden Glades Travel Center were the top choices

| PAGE 2-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | STAKEHOLDER & PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS |

August 13, 2020, Land Use Analysis

•

Interactive exercise mapping locations of Freight Planning Corridors we may have missed:

•

Interactive exercise mapping where freight related employment growth is anticipated:

| PAGE 2-5 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | STAKEHOLDER & PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS |

•

Interactive exercise mapping cluster areas where freight facilities and infrastructure exist or are planned:

•

Questions and Comments −

Are sand mines included in the mining category? We have many sand mines that are used for construction and they generate a ton of truck traffic in the Ridgeville and Dorchester areas of Dorchester County.

−

Look at SC 27 between I-26 and US 78 that leads to the new Walmart DC. Both US78 and I-26 are included.

−

Consideration the need for truck parking, including wait times, traffic events, delays and detention.

−

Do not see this impacting 41 on any great level.

September 10, 2020, Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures

•

Interactive dot exercise, where committee members were asked to put 3 stars on the draft goals and objectives that they viewed as most important:

| PAGE 2-6 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | STAKEHOLDER & PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS |

•

Questions and Comments −

Is time of day tied to this data? and are at-fault determinations considered?

−

What is the importance of using bridge deck area vs number of bridges?

−

Equity might mean "equal access" for all users. Personal vehicles outnumber trucks, but trucks outweigh personal vehicles. So accordingly, 80% of truck/personal vehicle crashes responsibility is assigned to the personal vehicle, yet trucks are "considered the problem” How should we address that?

−

Equity for freight transportation would be providing lanes throughout the designated freight network that are optimally designed for freight and possibly designated to freight exclusively.

October 8, 2020, Economic Impact Analysis

•

Polling Question #1 – What freight direction has the greatest economic significance? −

•

Polling Question #2 – What industry sector employs most in the region? −

•

Inbound/Outbound – outbound is dependent upon inbound.

Government/ Retail trade and accommodations and food service

Polling question #3 – How will COVID-19 change freight? −

Increased reshoring, shorter supply chains, shifting international trade partners

| PAGE 2-7 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | STAKEHOLDER & PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS |

•

Questions and Comments −

What about fuel sales, other trade and activities from thru traffic?

November 12, 2020, Draft Plan Recommendations - Policies and Programs

•

Questions and Comments −

Can you clarify what “20 minutes to clear an accident” means? ▪

−

Warehouses often restrict trucks from parking on their facilities or queuing up in advance of opening. Shopping centers often prohibit trucks from parking except for un-loading. ▪

−

Part of SCDOT incident management measure so their goal is to clear incidents in their incident management region within 20 minutes.

That is why the policy that we’re looking at is trying to encourage warehouses and others to allow truck parking. Part of this is due to public perception. People seem to think that allowing trucks to do so will cause more littering and require 24/7 security. Public education could encourage more places to allow parking for trucks.

The 511SC system is a good system with inadequate camera coverage, clarity, regular connection issues, and intentional turning off of cameras. I-526 from Daniel Island to I-26 regularly has connection issues. With the ITS systems, who will make decisions regarding visibility, clarity and other issues? ▪

At this time, we cannot say with confidence. That would be part of the decisionmaking process, but this is a conversation that would be a critical piece of the design and implementation of a system.

| PAGE 2-8 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

3. STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH The stakeholder outreach planned for the development of the Freight Plan includes a series of webinars, interviews and online surveys. One round of industry interviews and one online survey was administered during the course of the Freight Plan development. Stakeholders were identified through contacts within BCDCOG, the FAC, and the consulting team. The outreach activities are further described below based on audience.

3.1

INDUSTRY PARTNER OUTREACH

Industry partners include the private and non-profit sectors (universities, research partners, etc.). A series of interviews and an online survey were conducted to better understand the perceived deficiencies in the current freight transportation network and identify potential solutions (both project and policy-based).

3.1.1 One-on-One Interviews & Online Surveys Online Survey The online survey included 16 questions designed to gain feedback on or identify participants' needs and needs and priorities for the regional freight system. A summary of the responses can be found in Appendix A.

Industry Survey GOAL: Understand the Current Condition & Performance of the Freight Transportation Network

Individual Stakeholder Interviews Outreach included interviews with freight industry representatives to solicit input on the current condition and performance of the freight transportation network. Better define the issues and Companies and organizations interviewed for the BCD evaluate potential solutions Freight Plan represent four industry sectors in the region: multimodal transportation and logistics, automotive, advanced materials, and marine manufacturing. These interviews were conducted by the project team as one-on-one phone interviews. Questions were tailored to the particular interviewee based on their mode, geographic reach, size, etc. Four recurring themes emerged from the interviews: Coronavirus (COVID-19) impacts, traffic challenges and opportunities, multimodal transportation, and issues facing trucking and logistics. Industry Interviews GOAL:

Page 3-1

| 3 | STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH |

| PAGE 3-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

4. PUBLIC OUTREACH 4.1

SOCIAL MEDIA

Social media is an effective, low-cost tool to inform a wide range of constituents about a project and invite them to participate. BCDCOG used its established social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) as a vehicle for public information about the Freight Plan. The project team crafted social media campaigns on the following for BCDCOG to deploy on their social media platforms:

•

Project-specific updates and announcements

•

Educational topics such as: − Importance of freight to the regional economy, daily lives − What is freight? − What is the freight network planning process?

•

Opportunities for participation and feedback

Social media posts with suggested text, graphics, and hashtags were developed monthly for the BCDCOG that included a series of educational components and highlights from the monthly Committee Meetings (Figure 4-1). These posts were then published through the alreadyestablished BCDCOG social media channels. Figure 4-1: Graphic Examples of Social Media Campaign

Page 4-1

| 4 | PUBLIC OUTREACH |

4.2

PROJECT WEBPAGE

A project-specific webpage was created and maintained on the BCDCOG’s website (bcdcog.com/) for the duration of the project. The webpage is updated regularly with overall project information and scheduling, frequently asked questions, meeting announcements, educational resources developed as part of the Palmetto Freight Series and advisory committee meeting materials and recordings. The website is responsive in design ensuring the growing number of mobile users can view and interact with its various functions. The website also offers the ability to select a language utilizing the Google translate function, which allows the website to be converted to Spanish. Figure 4-2: BCD Regional Freight Mobility Plan Webpage

| PAGE 4-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

APPENDIX A: ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS

APPENDIX A-1

| APPENDIX A: ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS |

If you use any traffic apps to assist in your daily commute and/or delivery apps, which ones do you use?

18%

27% 28% 18%

SC511

Google Maps

Waze

APPENDIX A-2

Garmin

TruckMap

| APPENDIX A: ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS |

If truck parking is insufficient, which parking areas need to improve?

12% 17%

53%

12%

Summerville Rest Area

North Charleston

More Parking Needed

Mt Pleaseant/Cainhoy

I26

If you have any concerns when parked/resting/waiting for deliveries in your truck, please describe the concern, location, and potential remedy.

13%

25%

12%

50% Need Regular Police Patrol

Safety

Traffic while Unloading/Loading

Need More Truck Parkin

APPENDIX A-3

| APPENDIX A: ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS |

APPENDIX A-4

| APPENDIX A: ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS |

What are the most problematic locations to pick up or deliver freight? Charleston

21%

North Charleston

21%

Dorchester

I-26 Intersection w/I-526

10% West Ashley

11% 5% 11%

Summerville

5% 11%

Wando Port Area

Please list specific roadways or intersections in the area that are especially challenging for trucks traveling in the region? 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

4 3

3 2 1

2 1

APPENDIX A-5

| APPENDIX A: ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS |

What types of improvements would most benefit freight mobility at these locations? (Please list)

10%

20%

40%

Improve Bridges

Add Capacity

Repave/Repair Infrastructure

Law Enforcement for Speeders

Faster Gate Times

APPENDIX A-6

BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN

APPENDIX B

Technical Memorandum

Freight Planning Best Practices and Emerging Technologies

Prepared by:

January 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1-1

PEER CITIES REVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1

Gateway Cities DrayFLEX Program.............................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1 Summary ............................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.2 Regional Freight Planning Best Practices ....................................................... 2-3 2.1.3 Applicability to BCD Region ............................................................................ 2-4

2.2

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) Regional Freight Study ................................................................................................................................ 2-5 2.2.1 Summary ............................................................................................................ 2-5 2.2.2 Regional Freight Planning Best Practices ....................................................... 2-5 2.2.3 Applicability to BCD Region ............................................................................ 2-8

2.3

Smart Columbus ............................................................................................................. 2-8 2.3.1 Summary ............................................................................................................ 2-8 2.3.2 Regional Freight Planning Best Practices ....................................................... 2-9 2.3.3 Applicability to BCD Region .......................................................................... 2-12

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES IN FREIGHT MOBILITY ...................................................................3-1 3.1

Sample of Emerging Technologies .............................................................................. 3-1

3.2

Influential Applications of Emerging Technologies.................................................... 3-3

FUTURE TECHNOLOGY TRENDS.................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1

Connected Vehicles ..................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Case Studies ...................................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.3 Applicability to BCD Region ............................................................................ 4-1

4.2

Automated Vehicle Technologies ............................................................................... 4-1 4.2.1 Positive Train Control ........................................................................................ 4-1 4.2.2 Terminal Automation ........................................................................................ 4-3 4.2.3 Applicability to BCD Region ............................................................................ 4-5

4.3

Truck Gate Appointment Systems ............................................................................... 4-6 4.3.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 4-6 4.3.2 Port of New York and New Jersey Global Container Terminals Appointment System ........................................................................................ 4-7 4.3.3 Applicability to BCD Region ............................................................................ 4-8

PLANNING FOR ITS AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES ..............................................................5-1 5.1

Framework for Regional ITS Implementation .............................................................. 5-2

5.2

Integrating ITS and Emerging Technologies into the Planning Process................... 5-3 5.2.1 Policy Considerations for Emerging Technologies ........................................ 5-4 5.2.2 Framework for Integrating ITS into the Planning Process ............................. 5-5

PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES .........................................................................6-1 6.1

Background .................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2

Case Studies ................................................................................................................... 6-1

Page i

| TABLE OF CONTENTS |

6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 7.

Truck Parking ..................................................................................................... 6-1 Port-Related Intermodal Rail ........................................................................... 6-1 Applicability to BCD Region ............................................................................ 6-2

FREIGHT SAFETY AND SECURITY .................................................................................................. 7-1 7.1

Marine Terminal Safety .................................................................................................. 7-1

7.2

Marine Terminal Security ............................................................................................... 7-1 7.2.1 MTSA Security Plan ............................................................................................ 7-3 7.2.2 Transportation Worker Identification Card (TWIC) ........................................ 7-3

7.3

Railroad Safety ............................................................................................................... 7-3 7.3.1 FRA Highway-Rail Crossing Safety Business Plan ........................................... 7-4 7.3.2 Quiet Zones........................................................................................................ 7-4

FEDERAL DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAMS .........................................................................8-1 8.1

Automated Driving System ........................................................................................... 8-1

8.2

Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment.................................................................................................................... 8-3

8.3

Better Utilizing Investment to Leverage Development.............................................. 8-4

8.4

Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements .................................... 8-5

8.5

Infrastructure for Rebuilding America ......................................................................... 8-6

8.6

Port Infrastructure Development Program ................................................................. 8-7

LIST OF TABLES Table 4-1: Deployment of Truck Parking Technology by State (2020) ............................................. 4-6 Table 7-1: OSHA Incident Factors and Prevention Tools ................................................................... 7-2

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1: DrayFLEX Project Area ........................................................................................................ 2-2 Figure 2-2: Conceptual DrayFLEX Trip Routing ................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-3: Example Performance Dashboard ................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-4: Richmond Express ............................................................................................................... 2-6 Figure 2-5: VIG Dedicated Interchange ............................................................................................. 2-7 Figure 2-6: Grade Separated Crossing in Hampton Roads Region ................................................. 2-7 Figure 2-7: Smart Columbus Truck Platooning and Freight Signal Priority Concept .................... 2-10 Figure 2-8: Smart Columbus Operating System Concept ............................................................... 2-11 Figure 4-1: Connected Vehicles Concept.......................................................................................... 4-2 Figure 4-2: ITS Communication for Freight Signal Priority ................................................................... 4-4 Figure 4-3: Truck Parking Deployment Corridors ................................................................................ 4-5 Figure 4-4: Where Truckers are Parking ............................................................................................... 4-6 Figure 4-5: Information Sharing Between Regional Mid-West Association of Governments ........ 4-1 Figure 4-6: Positive Train Control Infrastructure ................................................................................... 4-2 Figure 4-7: Automated Container Operations ................................................................................... 4-3 Figure 4-8: Automated Container Operations ................................................................................... 4-5

| PAGE ii | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| TABLE OF CONTENTS |

Figure 4-9: Truck Queues at Container Yard Gate ............................................................................ 4-6 Figure 4-10: Trucks Entering GCT Terminal Gate at PANYNJ ............................................................. 4-7 Figure 5-1: Variable Message Sign ....................................................................................................... 5-1 Figure 5-2: Systems Engineering Approach ........................................................................................ 5-3 Figure 5-3: Approach to Integrating ITS into Regional Planning Processes .................................... 5-6 Figure 6-1: Golden Glades Truck Travel Center ................................................................................. 6-3 Figure 6-2: Truck Travel Center Design Build Operate Model ........................................................... 6-1 Figure 7-1: At-Grade Crossing Ashley Phosphate Road .................................................................... 7-4 Figure 7-2: Quiet Zone Roadway Signage .......................................................................................... 7-5 Figure 8-1: VPA Truck Reservation Architecture ................................................................................. 8-4

| PAGE iii | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

1. INTRODUCTION Freight planning has become a required element of the transportation planning conducted by states, metropolitan areas, and local governments. The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act placed emphasis on sound freight planning at the state and regional levels to strengthen economic competitiveness, reduce congestion, improve safety, and reduce the environmental impact of freight movement. States and regions are also increasingly aware of the impact that efficient freight transportation can have on economic development outcomes. Trade growth also comes with costs, however. Local governments are increasingly aware of the community impacts of freight growth, which include safety concerns, emissions, and unauthorized truck parking, among other things. Emerging technology applications – which are being increasingly adopted by the freight industry, sometimes in partnership with public agencies – can mitigate some of these issues. Others require innovative public-private partnerships (P3) to deliver infrastructure solutions that benefit both parties. As a region with a largely trade-driven economy, the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments (BCDCOG) has been proactive in identifying and addressing freight needs while preserving regional quality of life. However, continued growth in freight and passenger movement is contributing to ongoing concerns about congestion, pollution, and safety. Not all these issues are addressable through traditional means given funding constraints and the difficulty in planning and building large infrastructure projects. It’s therefore important to look at best practices from other regional planning efforts, including innovative technology approaches and funding options to help execute critical projects and improve network operations. This technical memorandum provides an overview of freight planning best practices the BCD region can use to promote better freight mobility, improve safety, and meet other regional goals. Freight planning best practices can be thought of as innovative techniques that promote efficient goods movement while also optimizing mobility for all users. More specifically, this memo provides best practice case studies of peer regions that have developed innovative solutions to freight challenges. It also describes future technology trends and applications in Connected and Automated Vehicle Technologies, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) strategies and applications, and P3 solutions to truck parking challenges. The remainder of this document is outlined as follows:

•

Peer Regions Review – Summary of three recent regional freight planning/technology efforts with lessons learned for the BCD region

•

Alternative Project Delivery and Public-Private Partnerships (P3) for Emerging Technologies – Big picture trends related to connected and autonomous vehicles, electrification, and shared mobility, with potential impacts on how infrastructure is planned and financed

•

Future Technology Trends - Discussion on connected/autonomous vehicles, positive train control, intermodal terminal automation trends, and truck gate appointment systems that may impact goods movement planning in the BCD region, with illustrative case studies

Page 1-1

| 1 | INTRODUCTION |

•

Planning for ITS and Emerging Technologies – Overview of federal ITS planning/ deployment guidance and a framework for integrating ITS and emerging transportation technologies into regional planning processes

•

Public-Private Partnership (P3) Opportunities – Review of P3 projects that have improved truck parking and intermodal rail in other parts of the country

•

Freight Safety and Security – Review of marine terminal and railroad safety and security best practices

•

Federal Grant Programs – Summary of key grant programs that are applicable to freight and technology projects, with a selected case study for a rail project that successfully pursued federal funding in the Carolinas

| PAGE 1-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

2. PEER CITIES REVIEW This section presents a best practice review of three peer regions that have developed innovative approaches to freight and transportation planning. The following peer regions were selected based on similar freight/general mobility issues, and innovative technology deployments that BCDCOG may wish to explore:

•

Gateway Cities (Los Angeles/Long Beach) – Although much larger in population and cargo volume, Southern California sees similar issues of freight congestion, safety, and emissions to those found in the BCD region. Expanding infrastructure has become difficult in the Gateway Cities, leading them to deploy new technologies through the DrayFLEX program to mitigate the impacts.

•

Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) Regional Freight Study – HRTPO is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the Hampton Roads, Virginia region. In 2017, the HRTPO developed a regional freight plan that contains best practices in harbor deepening, cross-harbor barge service, a dedicated port access interchange, and mitigating intermodal conflict points.

•

Smart Columbus – As the winner of the 2016 USDOT Smart Cities Challenge, Columbus, OH is developing, testing, and deploying technologies that can improve both freight and passenger mobility. The region is also a model for using partnerships to secure funding, define solutions, and mobilize resources to solve regional problems.

2.1

GATEWAY CITIES DRAYFLEX PROGRAM

2.1.1

Summary

The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach form the biggest port complex in North America and handle two thirds of the country’s containerized imports via 13 container terminals. In fiscal year 2019/2020, this amounted to nearly 8.6 million containers at the Port of Los Angeles; 1 the Port of Long Beach handled over 7.6 million containers in calendar year 2019. 2 This volume of traffic has led to increasing traffic congestion, emissions, and crashes around the two seaports. Meanwhile, expanding infrastructure in Southern California is difficult for cost and environmental reasons. The Drayage Freight and Logistics Exchange (DrayFLEX) program is deploying ITS technology in the region to address these issues. The overall program goals are to:

• • • •

Improve freight movement coordination Improve terminal efficiency Reduce delays and truck queueing Reduce fuel consumption and emissions

1 https://www.portoflosangeles.org/business/statistics/container-statistics/historical-teu-statistics-2020 2 https://www.polb.com/business/port-statistics/#yearly-teus

Page 2-1

| 2 | PEER CITIES REVIEW |

Figure 2-1 shows the DrayFLEX project area where the technology is being deployed. The section of I-710 highlighted in the map connects the port complex with the Interstate highway network and various transportation, logistics, and distribution businesses. Figure 2-1: DrayFLEX Project Area

Source: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Los Angeles/Gateway Freight Technology Program

| PAGE 2-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | PEER CITIES REVIEW |

2.1.2

Regional Freight Planning Best Practices

There are two deployment groups in the DrayFLEX program:

•

DrayFLEX Core efficiently allocates trucks and drivers to appointments at the terminal and provides truck arrival times to terminals for resource planning and dynamic management. The application integrates external public sector and private logistics firm systems to capture, process, and disseminate historical and real-time data that can be used to optimize port truck movements. This requires integration with trucking company and terminal operator management systems, which is resource-intensive but offers the potential to improve the full Figure 2-2: Conceptual DrayFLEX Trip life cycle of port truck operations. Routing

•

DrayFLEX Trip provides in-cab truck traveler information and real-time routing advice. It accounts for traffic, construction, incidents, and truckpermitted routing. It also warns drivers of dangerous traffic slowdowns. Routing is always truck-friendly (see conceptual app view in Figure 2-2) and includes notifications like fuel efficient routes, dangerous slow-downs, and incidents. Truckers enter destination information in a mobile app, with an appointment time at the terminal. The app then generates a recommended departure time and route. The app provides speed recommendations during the trip to avoid incidents, reduce travel time if possible, and minimize pollution. The app also features Freight Queue Warning functionality, which can warn truckers about upcoming traffic slowdowns near congested port terminal gates and along congested freight corridors where sudden slowdowns contribute to rear-end crashes.

Source: CDM Smith

DrayFLEX was designed to integrate with Los Angeles County’s regional ITS. DrayFLEX also features performance dashboards to understand program impacts. Metrics can be tailored to different user groups like agencies and truck drivers (see Figure 2-3).

| PAGE 2-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | PEER CITIES REVIEW |

Figure 2-3: Example Performance Dashboard

Source: CDM Smith

As the largest container port complex in the western hemisphere, LA/Long Beach clearly handles a much larger volume of freight than the BCD region. Still, there are similarities and lessons learned that the BCD region can consider:

•

DrayFLEX is designed to help mitigate some of the same issues (congestion, safety, air quality) that are increasingly occurring in the Charleston region, especially with ongoing truck freight growth on I-26 and I-526. Such growth has created challenges, but it also creates opportunities for innovative solutions. To capitalize on the growing freight volumes moving between Charleston and the Upstate, BCDCOG could partner with SCDOT and other agencies like the Appalachian COG to conceptualize, develop, and deploy a technology solution that improves freight operations.

•

Involving industry to understand their needs is key to a successful project. This will allow for a user needs-based approach that is more likely to be adopted by carriers and drivers. The DrayFLEX program incorporated private terminal and trucking company feedback and needs from project inception. It’s important to work with private sector partners both

| PAGE 2-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | PEER CITIES REVIEW |

in the conceptual stages and when the project moves towards field deployment. Depending on the scope of the project, this may involve integration with private terminal management and logistics company systems. Such buy-in and participation also helps secure federal funding, as a grant application that already has support from private partners is more likely to receive an award.

•

Deployments should be designed to integrate with state and regional ITS resources. The DrayFLEX Trip application was designed to rely on publicly available data and does not require integration with private logistics firm management systems. This approach ensures the application can provide useful information for truckers with minimal deployment effort, thus maximizing participation.

2.2

HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION (HRTPO) REGIONAL FREIGHT STUDY

2.2.1

Summary

HRTPO is the federally designated MPO that funds and plans transportation projects in the Hampton Roads, Virginia region. HRTPO completed a Regional Freight Study in 2017 which looked at best practices including harbor deepening, container on barge service, and a dedicated port access interchange. It also looks at rail best practices, specifically identifying intermodal conflict points (e.g., grade crossings). 3

2.2.2

Regional Freight Planning Best Practices

Harbor Deepening Since the advent of containerized shipping in the 1950s, container ship size and capacity has steadily increased. Today’s largest vessels are 1,300 feet long, require a draft of about 52 feet, and can carry up to 21,000 TEUs. Many ports including Charleston and the Virginia Port Authority (VPA)are deepening their harbors to accommodate such ships. Larger vessels are used to move a greater number of containers and decrease the number of trips traveling across the ocean between ports. While the increased capacity of moving goods is vital, ports must be able to accommodate the larger vessel sizes, ensure efficiency of loading and unloading containers, and maintain functionality of the transportation network surrounding the port. Larger vessels and increased containers per vessel require strategic planning by the Port to ensure efficient operability to turnover their storage areas. Tactics to accommodate larger vessels may include gate or yard automation, truck gate appointment systems, or other operational changes aside from infrastructure changes. To address these concerns, the HRTPO Regional Freight Study emphasized improvement projects such as upgrading handling equipment, optimizing and expanding terminals (including the Richmond Marine Terminal), encouraging critical rail and highway improvements, and promoting the Richmond Express barge service. These types of investments inside and outside the port gates ensure that cargo operations remain efficient as vessel size and total volumes increase.

Container-on-Barge Service VPA leases the Richmond Marine Terminal (RMT) from the City of Richmond, Virginia, one of six terminals that together comprise the Port of Virginia (POV). Operations are handled at RMT by 3 https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/Regional%20Freight%20Study%20Update%202017%20Update%20-

%20FINAL(new).pdf

| PAGE 2-5 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | PEER CITIES REVIEW |

the VPA, and the terminal is sited upon 121 acres of land along the James River. Since 2008, container-on-barge service has operated between Hampton Roads and Richmond. The HRTPO Regional Freight Study discusses the 64 Express, a container-on-barge service, which moved 19,602 containers during 2016 between Hampton Roads and RMT. The 64 Express reduced round-trip truck trips by 39,204 within the region in 2016. The 64 Express served both the POV and other private customers, while its replacement, the Richmond Express container-on-barge service, is solely dedicated to freight moves between the POV’s Hampton Roads terminals and the POV’s RMT (see Figure 2-4). The Richmond Express’ barges have the same container capacity as did 64 Express, but their customized barges used are wider and longer, which assists with loading and unloading operations by providing additional clearance for lift equipment. The new barge also allows stacking capabilities for refrigerated containers. Figure 2-4: Richmond Express

Source: Maritime-Executive.com

Barging containers helps the POV in several ways. In 2007, the last ocean carrier customer cancelled service to RMT, and the terminal was in a state of decline. 4 The barge service provided the opportunity to move freight between terminals which allowed the POV to reinvest in the terminal with new equipment. RMT also reduced diesel emissions from trucks within the Hampton Roads region by shifting those moves to Richmond. The degradation of roadways within the Hampton Roads region is reduced by eliminating roundtrip truck moves. Similarly, container space at the Hampton Roads terminals would become available and can help eliminate a percentage of truck turns that would need to come through the port gates. This reduction in truck turns reduces truck queuing at the port gates and terminal congestion attributed to trucks.

4 https://richmond.com/business/barge-service-and-other-improvements-at-richmond-marine-terminal-sparking-

shipment-growth-new-economic-investments/article_83b68f4c-afc9-51d9-b37c-bff72be58aeb.html

| PAGE 2-6 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | PEER CITIES REVIEW |

Dedicated Interchange The Virginia International Gateway (VIG) is a VPA terminal that operates on 576 acres with a throughput capacity of approximately two million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) per year. The VIG has a dedicated diamond interchange on the Western Freeway (State Route 164) serving as the primary employee and truck access point for the Virginia International Gateway Port facility. The interchange, as shown in Figure 2-5, has access to Interstate 664, US Route 17, and US Route 58. This dedicated interchange moves truck freight in and out of the port expeditiously and prevents freight movement on local roads. Figure 2-5: VIG Dedicated Interchange

Source: NearMap

Identifying Intermodal Conflict Points The HRTPO Regional Freight Study identified rail intermodal conflict points as highway crossings and railroad drawbridges. A conflict point is where a train has the potential to collide with a pedestrian, automobile, or a water vessel. There are 296 highway-railroad at-grade crossings (at-grade crossings) and six railroad drawbridges in the Hampton Roads region. At-grade crossing accidents decreased in the Hampton Roads region between 2007 and 2016. Safety improvements to at-grade crossings in the Hampton Roads regions include eliminating at-grade crossings and upgrading and building grade separated crossings as shown in Figure 2-6.

Figure 2-6: Grade Separated Crossing in Hampton Roads Region

| PAGE 2-7 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | PEER CITIES REVIEW |

2.2.3

Applicability to BCD Region

The HRTPO study contains several best practices potentially applicable to the BCD region:

•

Harbor deepening – The South Carolina Ports Authority is deepening Charleston Harbor to 52 feet to accommodate modern container vessels. This will allow such ships to call at the port’s terminals at any time of day, regardless of tides. While this will improve the port’s competitive position, it will also lead to traffic surges as ships discharge containers, putting strain on landside operations inside and outside the port gates. Stakeholders including BCDCOG, South Carolina State Ports Authority (SCPA), and South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) will need to work together to ensure cargo continues to move efficiently within and outside the port. This may involve operational improvements like gate/yard automation, truck gate appointment systems, upgrades to container handling equipment, encouraging landside road and rail improvements, and investing in alternate modes for moving cargo between terminals (e.g., barge service).

•

Barge service – As noted in the Network Assessment Technical Memorandum, the Port of Charleston is planning for a potential cross-harbor container-on-barge service that would transfer containers between the Wando Welch and Hugh K. Leatherman terminals for further distribution via the new Navy Base Intermodal Facility. This service could move up to 200,000 containers per year, which would reduce truck demand on I-526 and local connecting routes. The Port and BCDCOG could look to the Richmond Express for elements that contribute to a successful service and potential ways to measure benefits (e.g., emissions reduction, reduced road wear, congestion mitigation).

•

Dedicated interchange – As Port of Charleston volumes continue to grow, it will be important to manage and plan for landside road access needs. Having a dedicated interchange to facilitate smooth and efficient truck flows between the port and the road network can ensure continued efficiency and separate truck traffic from local roads as much as possible. The proposed Port Access Road between the Hugh Leatherman terminal and I-26 will fulfill this need for the new container terminal, but other port terminals may benefit from such an improvement if warranted by traffic levels. A direct connection from I-526 to the Wando terminal should be a consideration during the development of the I-526 Lowcountry Corridor EAST project currently in the development of a planning and environmental linkages study by SCDOT.

•

Identifying intermodal conflict points – The Network Assessment Technical Memorandum identified key grade crossing conflict points in the BCD region. This is a good starting point for identifying candidates for grade crossing separation or closure, which would promote safety and more efficient traffic flows.

2.3

SMART COLUMBUS

2.3.1

Summary

In 2016, Columbus, OH won a $40 million USDOT grant through the Smart Cities Challenge. The program included a $10 million match from the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation. Grant funds are being used to deploy new transportation technologies that improve mobility, equity, and environmental outcomes. The program seeks to deploy a holistic approach to improving transportation that considers equity, economic opportunity, and health outcomes rather than just introducing new technologies. Further, Smart Columbus seeks to integrate this approach with other city services like public safety and energy. Key projects include:

| PAGE 2-8 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | PEER CITIES REVIEW |

•

Truck platooning and freight signal priority – Truck platooning is a wireless technology that links two tractor-trailer trucks together such that the following truck mirrors the lead truck’s braking and acceleration, allowing for shorter following distances and a reduction in fuel use and emissions. Freight signal priority reduces truck delays at intersections by enabling dynamically adjustable traffic signal phase timing that assigns priority to trucks when conditions allow.

•

Electric and automated vehicles – Partnering with DriveOhio (a division of the Ohio Department of Transportation), Smart Columbus launched a self-driving shuttle service in December 2018 which provides free rides to destinations in downtown Columbus such as the National Veterans Memorial and Museum, Bicentennial Park, the Center of Science and Industry, and the Smart Columbus Experience Center. A planned second route will deploy 15-passenger automated shuttles in Linden, a disadvantaged neighborhood in Columbus. The route will connect Linden residents to community resources like public transit, affordable housing, recreation, and childcare.

•

Connected vehicles – Columbus is deploying a Connected Vehicle Environment which will allow participating vehicles to communicate with each other and with traffic signals, enabling hazard alerts for drivers, favorable signal timing for buses and emergency vehicles, and enhanced traffic management. The initial deployment includes intersections with the highest collision rates in the city. Alerts will include red light violation warnings, blind spot detection, and rear-end collision warnings. The Connected Vehicle Environment is considered an enabling technology since it leverages technology that can be used for multiple mobility and safety applications.

•

Smart Columbus Operating System – A database that serves as the central repository for all data generated and used by the various deployments. This system is designed to ingest, scrub, aggregate, and publish data about the deployment projects and capture performance data for reporting to USDOT and the public. As such, it will provide baseline and deployment data for measuring project benefits, developing lessons learned, and generating ideas for new deployments or research projects.

2.3.2

Regional Freight Planning Best Practices

Truck Platooning and Freight Signal Priority Smart Columbus developed a Concept of Operations for Truck Platooning and Freight Signal Priority. Truck platooning uses wireless technology to couple the brake and throttle controls of trucks traveling in convoy, typically on limited access highways. The wireless linkage enables the trucks to maintain very close following distances, thereby reducing aerodynamic drag and improving fuel economy and emissions. While most platooning focuses on long-haul highway operations, this concept explored urban platooning. In this scenario, Freight Signal Priority would help keep platooning trucks together until they reach a highway where platooning can begin (see Figure 2-7). Freight Signal Priority technology uses vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) wireless communications to make the traffic signal system aware of trucks approaching properly equipped intersections. The system can then adjust signal phase timing as needed to assign priority to freight trucks, smoothing traffic flows for freight and reducing stop/start cycles, which reduces emissions. Although the Smart Columbus Truck Platooning and Freight Signal Priority project was not deployed in Columbus, it did lay the conceptual groundwork for a platooning system that would incorporate freight-focused signal timing.

| PAGE 2-9 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | PEER CITIES REVIEW |

Figure 2-7: Smart Columbus Truck Platooning and Freight Signal Priority Concept

Source: CDM Smith

Smart Columbus Operating System All projects within the Smart Columbus Program rely on the Smart Columbus Operating System to gather data for performance measures. The Operating System (visualized in Figure 2-8) is the central database for ingesting and sharing open data from deployment projects. It includes more than 3,000 datasets on traffic, infrastructure, parking, weather, emergency response, crash records, and other data of interest for city operations. The system ensures data privacy by adhering to USDOT-approved Data Management and Data Privacy Plans. Releasable data are available to the public, researchers, agencies, universities, developers, and entrepreneurs. The system is collating data on various deployments including autonomous electric vehicles. Open datasets are available for search and download on the Smart Columbus web site. 5 Although the Smart Columbus program does not yet include applications specifically geared toward freight mobility, any smart mobility deployment that relieves urban congestion would also benefit freight.

Partnerships Partnerships with industry, nonprofits, and government agencies were a key reason Columbus won the Smart Cities Challenge. The City of Columbus partnered with One Columbus, an economic development organization for the 11-county region. The One Columbus vision is “to be the most prosperous region in the United States.” 6 One Columbus members include:

•

Columbus Chamber of Commerce – Support and advocacy for businesses in the region; includes the Columbus Regional Logistics Council, which helps organize support and participation from the regional transportation and logistics industry

5 https://www.smartcolumbusos.com/

6 https://columbusregion.com/onecolumbus/

| PAGE 2-10 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | PEER CITIES REVIEW |

Figure 2-8: Smart Columbus Operating System Concept

Source: Smart Columbus

•

Columbus Partnership – Membership organization of CEOs from leading businesses and institutions

•

Smart Columbus – The Smart City program, which is co-led by the City of Columbus and the Columbus Partnership

•

Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission – Voluntary intergovernmental organization for transportation, land use, housing, and economic development planning

•

Rev1 Ventures – Venture capital and business accelerator focused on early-stage company development

•

Local economic development organizations from the 11-county region

•

JobsOhio – Nonprofit that promotes job creation in the state

•

Ohio Development Services Agency – State agency focused on helping Ohio businesses compete in the global economy

This network of regional advocacy groups mobilized resources for the Smart Cities Challenge, including financial contributions that were a key factor in Columbus winning the award. The organizational structure also ensured broad-based support for the program. In addition to the economic development community, Smart Columbus has partnered with Ohio State University as the lead research partner, providing specialized expertise in emerging transportation technologies to support the program. For example, Ohio State staff supported development and testing of the Linden shuttles and partnered with the regional transit agency to develop a navigation app for people with cognitive disabilities. University research arms involved include the Center for Automotive Research, the Center for Urban and Regional Analysis, and the Wexner Medical Center.

| PAGE 2-11 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | PEER CITIES REVIEW |

Finally, Honda and the Transportation Research Center (TRC) are key industry partners for the program. Honda has an automotive plant in Marysville, just northwest of Columbus. The TRC provides lab testing, track driving/proving grounds, research and development services, and crash testing, among other things. TRC recently built a 540-acre autonomous vehicle and connected vehicle testing facility.

2.3.3

Applicability to BCD Region

There are many potential lessons for the BCDCOG in Columbus’s approach to winning and executing the Smart Cities grant. First, agency and private sector coordination is critical for successfully designing and implementing a technology test, whether at the regional, statewide, or multi-state level. The cooperation between local communities, regional businesses, the MPO, and Ohio DOT was a critical factor for winning the challenge and for planning and conducting the Smart Columbus test deployments. The existing automotive industry in Central Ohio – including Honda, TRC, the Ohio State University Center for Automotive Research, and industry suppliers in the region – provided a springboard to create a vehicle automation technology cluster around Columbus. In South Carolina, a potential technology deployment could involve truck platooning on I-26 between the Port of Charleston and the Upstate. This would likely involve the existing industry cluster, e.g., BMW, automotive industry suppliers in Charleston, Clemson University’s International Center for Automotive Research (CU-ICAR), and the South Carolina Technology and Aviation Center. Platoon testing could be carried out initially on a closed track, followed by deployment testing on I-26 with before/after assessment of impacts such as fuel savings, emissions reduction, and effects on other Interstate highway traffic. For congested urban freight arterials, Freight Signal Priority could be used to improve truck operations and keep platooning pairs together until platooning can begin (the Connected Vehicles section below contains a case study of a Freight Signal Priority deployment in South Florida).

| PAGE 2-12 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

3. EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES IN FREIGHT MOBILITY While emerging communication and information technologies are gaining significant ground in the transportation world, it’s important to review emerging transportation technologies opportunities to help identify new approaches to solving freight issues in the BCD Region. The Connected, Autonomous, Shared, Electric concept combines the most prominent and foundational mobility trends into a comprehensive future vision encompassing vehicle automation, vehicle and infrastructure connectivity, shared vehicles, and fleet electrification. The emergence of this mobility concept will change how vehicles are owned and operated and could impact the number of vehicle miles traveled and affect how road usage charges are collected (e.g., toll or per-mile vs. per gallon). The following subsections discuss how each aspect could change freight mobility and the funding of supportive infrastructure.

3.1

SAMPLE OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES

Connected vehicles (CVs) offer an opportunity to improve freight operations for private firms while also mitigating some of the issues that come with increased cargo volumes. CVs enable real-time communications between vehicles and infrastructure that can be used to transmit safety and travel information (e.g., incidents, congestion, construction zones, weather, and travel times), road maintenance needs (e.g., pothole detection, missing signs), and other system aspects that can be used to improve trip planning and increase the capacity and safety of the transportation ecosystem. These involve sensors, devices, and applications as part of a larger connected environment often referred to as the “Internet of Things (IoT),” producing evermore data, often referred to as “Big Data.” The cybersecurity risk profile for the IoT and data will continue to grow and become more complex. To ensure organizations are positioned to take full advantage of the benefits offered by connected technologies and expansion of the IoT, organizations should make certain they are well equipped with information technology resources and specifically qualified staff. The implications of CVs, including Bluetooth enabled on-board units, on roadway capacity and congestion is yet to be determined. Specific considerations to follow in the near future include:

•

The ability for CVs to coordinate their travel speeds and engage in “platooning” or other similar travel behaviors

•

Need for special lanes or roadside equipment needed to accommodate these vehicles

•

Implications for the use of transponders as a means of collecting tolls and concerns regarding interoperability of such vehicles

With CVs not only relaying the location of the vehicle, but also providing data collected by all of the on-board vehicle sensors, including travel speed, fuel efficiency, tire pressure, etc., much can be done to use the data for planning and system management. Planning agencies and departments of transportation may consider leveraging this data using artificial intelligence to predict incidents or prepare drivers for unsafe conditions.

Page 3-1

| 3 | EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES IN FREIGHT MOBILITY |

Automated vehicle technologies (AVs), ranging from existing driver-assistance technologies such as adaptive cruise control to more fully automated systems such as full driver-less vehicles, automated vehicle applications are among the most high-profile emerging innovations. Although vehicles with fully automated capabilities are available, they represent an extremely small share of the overall vehicle market and are currently very expensive. As technologies improve, costs decline, and a regulatory framework for their development and operation evolves, organizations must decide how to adapt. Fully automated vehicles will fundamentally impact how drivers interact with transportation infrastructure. For the toll industry, there is uncertainty on how autonomous vehicles will be incorporated and accommodated on tolled facilities. It is unknown if drivers will be willing to pay tolls for quicker, more reliable travel times if they can do things in their car other than drive. Under AV Level 3, which is currently on the market, vehicles can provide short-term assistance to the driver under autopilot, lane changing, parallel parking and other functions. Under AV Level 4, which is anticipated to be available to the general public within the next 5 to 10 years, vehicles will be able to drive themselves within a geofenced area. It is yet to be determined when these vehicles will saturate the market and to what degree such saturation may occur. Considerations to follow include:

•

Vehicle ownership trends – individual or fleet ownership

•

Driverless operation or human controlled

•

Potential for such vehicles and toll pricing

•

VMT fluctuations if AVs travel between trip segments or return to designated parking locations during off hours

•

AVs usage for freight and transit in origin and destination parking

Electrification of the vehicle fleet will have significant impacts on infrastructure funding in the United States. Highways are funded predominantly with fuel taxes, which a fully electric vehicle does not pay. Adoption is expected to increase as the cost of electric battery systems decline and charging infrastructure becomes more widely available. To the extent that electrification trends continue to impact transportation funding sources, there will be an even more pronounced role for the toll industry in meeting infrastructure needs. Although highway freight may well continue to move mostly by diesel-powered vehicles, declining gas tax revenues resulting from electrification of the overall vehicle fleet could reduce available funding for freight projects. An electrified vehicle fleet will require significantly different fueling (charging) infrastructure, and many emerging technologies offer the opportunity to integrate charging infrastructure in new and innovative ways. Implications to consider for freight fleet electrification include:

•

The schedule to produce electric vehicles

•

The market share of electric vehicles be in five or ten years and what market saturation will mean for fuel revenues

•

The positive impacts of electric vehicles on air quality, noise, or other common perceptions of non-electric vehicles

| PAGE 3-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 3 | EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES IN FREIGHT MOBILITY |

Communications technologies can be used for the transmission of information between vehicles, infrastructure, and other instrumented roadway or railroad elements. Many technologies listed below are well established and have been in use for decades. Others may have limited deployment or current applicability but could impact transportation operations if certain improvements are realized.

•

Sensing & Detection – These are technologies used to detect and identify objects, including vehicles and pedestrians, in a roadway environment. Such technologies are commonly used in existing automated vehicle identification (AVI) applications but subsequent improvements to emerging technologies could enable operational use cases.

•

Data & Analytics – This represents a broad range of data, data processing and analyticsbased applications and encompasses business and operations processes applications that might be used in advanced modeling and simulation efforts.

•

Automation & Connectivity – This includes technologies and applications that automate activities such as driving that connect people, vehicles and infrastructure for improved safety and system performance.

•

Consumer Goods & Services – This includes a broad range of goods and services that are likely to be utilized by consumers over the long term and might be leveraged by agencies for improved operations, maintenance and administration.

•

Transportation Demand Management – These represent established and emerging strategies for managing demand on roadways. It includes strategies such as congestion pricing as well as active traffic management strategies that support the dynamic management of roadway conditions in real time such as speed harmonization and adaptive ramp metering.

3.2

INFLUENTIAL APPLICATIONS OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES

•

Telecommuting: As a result of the government restrictions related to COVID-19 that were imposed in April and May 2020, many employees, particularly professional services, have transitioned work activities from an office to a home environment. Advances in technology, internet bandwidth, personal computing, secure networks, access to cloudbased data-files, telephone and video conference capabilities have enabled companies and employees maintain productivity. It is unclear what proportion of workers will shift more, or even fully, to telecommuting post-COVID and what the potential impacts to travel on the transportation system if telecommuting increases beyond previrus levels. Similarly, as commuting patterns remain uncertain, freight patterns are likely to trend in the routes most desirable and least congested, utilizing capacity previously used by commuting vehicles.

•

E-Commerce: The advent of digitization, network connectivity, and COVID-19 have tremendously influenced e-commerce growth and trends in the United States. The major impacts of e-commerce to supply chains, e-commerce, and goods flow remain unclear for post-COVID conditions. Currently, however, e-commerce continues to increase year over year, only exaggerated by the pandemic.

•

Physical Infrastructure Improvements: These innovations include infrastructure assets such as pavement, asphalt, roadway signs, striping, lighting, etc. Such innovations have the

| PAGE 3-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 3 | EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES IN FREIGHT MOBILITY |

potential to impact how facilities are constructed and maintained and could enable higher-tech applications. This allows for reduced life-cycle costs and lower maintenance when technologies most appropriate for freight facilities are included in infrastructure design and construction.

•

Artificial Intelligence: These innovations include a series of analytical tools that use the availability of big data to forecast information about the transportation system. An example of this includes the use of historical observations of weather patterns, pavement types, safety data, and traffic volumes to forecast the likelihood of incidents or high congestion on a dynamic basis. This not only allows for the preplanning of freight routing by time of day or year but also providing real time forecasts to prepare drivers for potential incidents based on current conditions on their route. This not only supports safer driving and route decisions but prepares vehicles for slower driving conditions, improving the overall safety of the system.

| PAGE 3-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

4. FUTURE TECHNOLOGY TRENDS The National Freight Strategic Plan (NSFP) notes the freight industry is on the cusp of a technological revolution driven by innovations in communication and information technologies. 7 Transportation firms are increasingly using web-enabled devices and “big data” applications to find new supply chain efficiencies and drive down costs. Public agencies, for their part, are seeking ways to partner with freight stakeholders to effectively plan for growth, safety and mitigate community concerns. This section will consist of a review and identification of key emerging technologies trends that could potentially impact freight and transportation mobility to, from, and within the BCD region. This section reviews recent and ongoing real-life case studies that are relevant for the BCD region:

•

Connected vehicles – After defining connected vehicles and their potential applications, the following case studies are profiled: −

Communications: the Miami-Dade ITS deployment

−

Sensing and Detection: the Illinois Tollway Authority CV Pilot

−

Transportation Demand Management: The Truck Parking Information Management System (TPIMS) in the Midwest

−

Automation and Detection: The Automated Driving Systems project in Ohio/Indiana

Automated Vehicle Technologies – The following technologies are described, with potential implications for the BCD region: −

Positive Train Control: Railroads are deploying this safety technology across their networks per a Congressional mandate.

−

Terminal automation – Rail and port terminal operators are increasingly turning to automation technologies to improve efficiency and safety. This section provides general background on emerging gate automation and terminal operating strategies that are mainly driven by the private sector but may have impacts outside the terminal gates.

4.1

CONNECTED VEHICLES

4.1.1

Background

The USDOT defines connected vehicles (CV) as cars, trucks, buses, and other vehicles that use advanced technology to “talk” to each other and to the infrastructure via wireless devices. These devices continuously share safety and mobility information, thus enabling crash USDOT, National Freight Strategic Plan, retrieved on October 8, 2020 from https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-09/NFSP_fullplan_508_0.pdf

Page 4-1

| 4 | FUTURE TECHNOLOGY TRENDS |

prevention, environmental benefits, and continuous real-time data sharing and performance monitoring. 8 These communications are supported by a variety of technologies, though the primary types being Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC) and Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) sensors. Figure 4-1 provides a conceptual view of such wireless connectivity. Figure 4-1: Connected Vehicles Concept

Source: USDOT

Information can be exchanged between different types of vehicles, the infrastructure, and across networks and devices. Applications include:

•

Safety alerts – For example, spot weather impact warnings, forward collision warnings, and work zone information

•

Traffic and traveler information – Such as weather alerts, road conditions, incidents, and speed restrictions

•

Signal priority – Permits certain types of vehicles like trucks or transit buses to receive priority green lights when traffic conditions warrant

•

Distress notifications – Allows a connected vehicle to broadcast a distress signal when systems detect a situation that may require assistance from others

4.1.2

Case Studies

Communications: Miami-Dade ITS Deployment Signal priority is an ITS strategy aiming to reduce traffic delay for targeted types of vehicles, such as freight vehicles, at signalized intersections. This requires communication between the freight vehicles and the traffic signals to alter the signal timings to favor freight operations. The basic concept involves detecting the presence of and predicting the arrival of freight vehicles. Depending on the current traffic conditions and internal system logic, the traffic signal can alter

8 https://www.its.dot.gov/cv_basics/cv_basics_what.htm

| PAGE 4-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FUTURE TECHNOLOGY TRENDS |

and adjust the signal timings. These adjustments are achieved without interrupting the system coordination of green indications between adjacent intersections. Miami-Dade County Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTPW) started testing adaptive signals in 2016 and began installing about 300 smart traffic signals in 2017, with the primary focus being on transit vehicles. 9 In 2018, having upgraded multiple intersections with Caltrans 2070LX Safetran traffic signal controllers, Miami-Dade County noticed the benefits of signal prioritization in terms of improving travel time and providing smoother and more seamless bus services. 10 The DTPW then decided to implement the technology along freight corridors to enhance the movement of freight vehicles, of which phase 1 is currently installing the following technology:

•

Deploy 18 upgraded traffic signals with Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC)

•

Deploy a smart freight mobility application

•

Install 500 DSRC radios

Phase 2 will:

•

Deploy 60 upgraded traffic signals along identified corridors, with dynamic signal priority that accounts for traffic on cross streets, and expanded recruitment of cellular-based users of the smart freight mobility application (September 2020 – October 2021)

The project, which will cost a total of $7.5 Million, was funded through a partnership that included the following agencies:

• • • • •

FDOT Miami-Dade Transportation Planning Organization Miami-Dade Department of Transportation and Public Works City of Doral Florida Trucking Association

Signal controllers receive location, velocity, and destination information from trucks. Information is relayed through Traffic Management Center to the Field Communication Infrastructure, which enables the signals to provide green lights for freight. The features of this technology can be seen in Figure 4-2. Based on analysis conducted, the implementation of the freight signal priority will result in a 7 – 10 percent decrease in delays, and corridors with dynamic signals will experience a 14 – 20 percent decrease in delays. The fuel savings analysis expects a savings of 62.9 thousand gallons of fuel with Freight Signal Priority and 125.8 thousand gallons of fuel saved with dynamic signals along studied corridors. In total, the combined implementation of freight signal priority and dynamic signals along the specified corridors is expected to result in an annual economic benefit of $2.5 million based on a $24.70 hourly wage for truck drivers, an average of 260 workdays per year, and $2.75 per gallon for diesel.

9 https://www.miamidade.gov/releases/2017-07-28-dtpw-300-smart-signals.asp

10 http://www.miamidade.gov/releases/2018-07-18-dtpw-tsp-along-transitway.asp?utm_campaign=2018-07-19-press-

releases.html&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua&elqTrackId=a77084bc3ebc485f820801c6b659d9d1&elq=6651a7 6220794e5e89892468069ba6db&elqaid=475&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=266

| PAGE 4-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FUTURE TECHNOLOGY TRENDS |

Figure 4-2: ITS Communication for Freight Signal Priority

Source: Florida Department of Transportation

Sensing and Detection: Illinois Tollway Authority CV Pilot The Illinois Tollway began a pilot CV program in 2018. This project installed nine roadside units (RSUs) configured to receive messages from any CV-equipped vehicles within about half a mile. Equipped vehicles contain onboard units (OBUs) that generate and broadcast a Basic Safety Message (BSM) with data such as speed, heading, acceleration, location, and travel direction to the roadside units up to 10 times per second. The system collected 1.6 million BSMs in 2019. Eight of the RSUs are located on a 10-mile stretch of I-90; the other RSU is on I-294. Of the messages collected by the end of 2019, 81 percent came from three Tollway-owned vehicles that traverse the two corridors regularly; the remaining 19 percent came from non-Tollway vehicles. While most of the data collected thus far comes from Tollway vehicles, the project is focusing on results from non-Tollway vehicles since they provide more insight into CV market penetration and Tollway travel patterns. In 2019, the pilot reported the following results for non-Tollway vehicles:

•

Average speeds ranged from 62 mph to 73 mph

•

The system detected 429 trips in 2019 (trips are defined as a single vehicle traversing the CV system in one direction, with a maximum gap between messages of 90 seconds)

•

More CV trips were detected on weekends (Friday through Sunday) than weekdays

| PAGE 4-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FUTURE TECHNOLOGY TRENDS |

•

More CV trips were detected on I-294 in only four months than on I-90 for the entire year, indicating that additional RSUs should be constructed on I-294 since it appears to have higher market penetration of CVs

BSMs feature high location accuracy and broadcast frequency, allowing for highly localized operational analysis. Road segments as small as a few feet could be isolated and analyzed for safety issues related to roadway curvature. Highly precise corridor travel time measurement could also be reported back to vehicles using the roadway in the future. The benefits of such analysis and reporting would increase as CV market penetration grows. Although the penetration rate of such vehicles is low at present, it is expected to grow as more vehicle models come standard with “intelligent” features like Wi-Fi and navigation support built-in. road agencies are increasingly partnering with private sector vehicle/device makers to develop and evaluate CV applications for specific use cases.

Transportation Demand Management: MAASTO Truck Parking Information and Management System The Mid-America Association of State Transportation Officials (MAASTO) created the TPIMS to address regional shortages of safe and convenient truck parking options and provide real-time information on parking availability. The states which participated, as well as the corridors where the technology was deployed, are seen in Figure 4-3. Figure 4-3: Truck Parking Deployment Corridors

Source: Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) TIGER Grant Application

Studies show that in 2013, 83 percent of drivers spent more than 30 minutes looking for parking and 39% took more than an hour. Those who don’t find parking often park illegally. Figure 4-4 highlights the locations that truckers typically use for parking. Unauthorized sites like abandoned parking lots, behind shopping centers, and along freeway on/off ramps are all popular choices.

| PAGE 4-5 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FUTURE TECHNOLOGY TRENDS |

Figure 4-4: Where Truckers are Parking

Source: KDOT TIGER Grant Application

The focus of the grant was to create a TPIMS that would enable truckers on the selected Interstate corridors to find safe places to park. Table 4-1 highlights the deployment corridors by state. Table 4-1: Deployment of Truck Parking Technology by State (2020) Corridor

Deployment Coverage

I-35

Minneapolis, MN to Iowa

I-65

Gary, IN to Kentucky/Tennessee border

I-71

Louisville, KY to Cincinnati, OH

I-75

High truck volume areas from Flint, MI to the Kentucky/Tennessee border

I-135

Entire corridor in Kansas

I-64

Entire corridor in Kentucky

I-70

I-70 through Kansas, Indiana, and Ohio

I-80

Iowa from the west side of Des Moines to the Mississippi River

I-94 Moorhead, MN to the Canada/Michigan border at Port Huron, MI Source: KDOT TIGER Grant Application

The total cost of the project was $28 million, of which $25 million was covered by TIGER funds. The remaining funds were supplied by matching state funds, with each of the eight states equally funding the project based on the percentage of the deployed projects in their state. With the implementation, truck drivers spent less time looking for safe parking options. The data structure is operated by each state independently; however, they use the same data standards to allow interoperability across state lines. Technology deployed at parking facilities and roadside signs integrates with each state’s ITS network and software. An Application Programming Interface (API) was developed to exchange parking information between all parties, both public and private. The setup was based on success seen within Michigan’s technology that allowed seamless data exchange information between Michigan Department of Transportation and private project partners. This architecture allows for the technology to be scalable across additional sites, states, and data platforms in the future. An example could be Georgia or North Carolina wishing to adopt the technology later and borrow on what has been created in the BCD region.

| PAGE 4-6 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FUTURE TECHNOLOGY TRENDS |

Figure 4-5 displays the communication matrix between each of the partners for the truck parking deployment. Information can be shared with users in three ways:

•

Dynamic Truck Parking Signage (or Variable Message Signs) – signs upstream of parking locations that identify parking opportunities along the corridor. This was found to be the preferred method by commercial operators in the Midwest.

•

Smart Phones – mobile applications with FMCSA one-touch compliant operations can disseminate information to drivers through subscription services on third-party platforms.

•

Websites – 511 websites and databases that are public facing can share this information as well.

Automation and Detection: DriveOhio Automated Driving Systems DriveOhio (a branch of the Ohio Department of Transportation) recently won an Automated Driving Systems (ADS) grant from the USDOT to deploy autonomous vehicle technologies in rural environments, which have been mostly overlooked in autonomous systems development and testing. The grant will be used to deploy truck platoons and higher levels of freight automation on the I-70 corridor between Columbus, OH and Indianapolis, IN and to test ride-hailing in rural areas, for instance to help disadvantaged populations get to medical appointments and other services. Overall goals are to:

• •

Close data gaps for ADS use in rural/cooperative highway environments, and Deliver safe and integrated ADS tests.

Each deployment in the program is to be supported by a robust system engineering effort, designed to be fully compliant with USDOT requirements for technology deployments. This includes test planning and preparation, data collection and privacy protocols, and testing in a controlled track environment and in the field. It also involves an outreach program designed to educate the public and encourage and promote ADS adoption with the goal of advancing the program objective of expediting the safe and effective integration of ADS into rural Ohio and the national transportation system. DriveOhio will install RSUs to support the rural ride-hailing and truck platooning projects; this infrastructure will be key to gathering data from the ADS deployment tests and building data queries such as travel time and congestion, and potentially providing real-time route decision-making information to the ADS vehicles. Data collection will be governed by a Data Management Plan developed to USDOT standards. Working with project deployment partners, DriveOhio will define a cloud-based system to receive data from vehicles and external sources and perform preliminary analysis to prepare normalized and scrubbed data sets for reporting. For truck platooning/truck automation, key data points will include vehicle speed, hard braking, safety-critical events, fuel use, driver behavior (for instance, when forming a platoon), and behavior of other vehicles around the automated or platooning trucks. Data privacy will be important in the ADS deployments, so the data plans will address how personal identification and competitive or other proprietary information will be protected. This could include a requirement to obtain human use approval from an Institutional Review Board.

| PAGE 4-7 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FUTURE TECHNOLOGY TRENDS |

Figure 4-5: Information Sharing Between Regional Mid-West Association of Governments

| PAGE 4-1 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FUTURE TECHNOLOGY TRENDS |

4.1.3

Applicability to BCD Region

Connected Vehicles The success of connected vehicles within the BCD region will primarily come down to having buy-in from both the public and private sectors. While the how-to can be brought in from either partnering with the USDOT through grants or research opportunities for deploying new technologies or working directly with the technology providers, having the desire from the freight industry for these improvements will be paramount. For the BCD region, this technology would best benefit from implementation across a key freight corridor within the region, which in this case would be route I-26 or I-526. Local jurisdictions would be responsible for any DSRC technology or sensors that may be installed along local corridors. SCDOT would be responsible for DSRC technology or sensors that may be installed along highways. Individual costs, longevity, and life cycle of sensors, DSRC technology, or 511 webpage applications is difficult to discern at this time but further communication with the USDOT and partner agencies may shed light on this. As an example, the Miami-Dade ITS Deployment cost about $75,000 - $125,000 per signal, with DSRC units on trucks incurring an additional cost that would need further exploration.

Truck Parking Technology For the MAASTO truck parking study, the technology used was already shovel-ready, with the only requirement being to implement the technology in the field. The benefit-cost ratio for the project was relatively high (4.27 undiscounted) and showed that the safety benefits from reduced accidents, and environmental benefits from reduced trucks searching for parking, far outweighed the costs of implementing the application. The applicability to the BCD region can be either at the small-scale level or large-scale. Smallscale wise, Dynamic Truck Parking Signage and truck sensing technology at existing truck parking locations can be implemented on a case-by-case basis, or along a portion of a corridor within the region. These projects can be ‘pilots’ that are grown to encompass entire corridors from state line to state line, or even statewide. The large-scale option is to partner with state agencies or regional associations (I-95 Corridor Coalition did a pilot study in Virginia) to implement the technology along a vital corridor, such as I-26. The first step to implementation of truck parking technology would be to identify the most desired locations within the region for implementing the technology. These locations can be identified by looking at areas with high fatigue-related truck crashes or high numbers of trucks ticketed for illegal parking. Travel time analysis from warehouse/intermodal facilities could also be conducted to find the limits for how far truck drivers can travel.

4.2

AUTOMATED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES

4.2.1

Positive Train Control

Positive Train Control (PTC) refers to technology that has been specifically designed to prevent certain train accidents caused by human error. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) states that a PTC system is designed to prevent train-to-train collisions; derailments due to excessive speed; prevent unauthorized incursions by trains onto sections of track currently under

| PAGE 4-1 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FUTURE TECHNOLOGY TRENDS |

maintenance; and prevent trains from moving through a track switch left in the wrong position 11. Implementation of PTC is the result of substantial financial investment and collaboration among railroad industry partners. PTC systems will not prevent accidents caused by track or equipment failure, improper vehicular movement through a crossing, trespassing on railroad tracks, and certain types of operator error. In 2008, Congress mandated that Class I freight railroads implement PTC systems through the Rail Safety Improvement Act. The regulations apply to freight trains on mainlines that transport passengers and toxic-by-inhalation materials. PTC was implemented at the end of 2018 and testing is scheduled to be complete by the end of 2020. According to AAR, as of January 2020, 98.5% of the required Class I route miles are operating under PTC service. Responsibility for installation and maintenance of PTC equipment and monitoring is shared by multiple parties, including the rail infrastructure owner/operator and the equipment owner/operator. PTC systems are comprised of three primary operating components, listed below, and are supported by dispatch operators and networked technology infrastructure. Figure 4-6 further illustrates these connection points:

•

Onboard or locomotive systems track train position and speed, with capability to activate braking for enforcement of speed restrictions and prevent unauthorized train movements.

•

Wayside systems monitor track signals, switches, and individual track circuits to communicate data with the onboard systems; and

•

Back-office servers store and transmit data related to the rail network and operating trains, such as speed restrictions, movement authorities, and train composition to onboard systems. Figure 4-6: Positive Train Control Infrastructure

Source: Amtrak

The rail network in the United States is comprised of both privately and publicly owned rail lines, serving the interests of both freight and passenger and commuter systems. Given the interconnections inherent within the rail industry, ensuring interoperability among various entities is the keystone to a functional PTC system. On any given day, hundreds of locomotives must be 11 https://www.aar.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/AAR-PTC-Fact-Sheet.pdf

| PAGE 4-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FUTURE TECHNOLOGY TRENDS |

able to swiftly and reliably communicate with the PTC system of another railroad, considering thousands of operational variables. The PTC network of technological and human functions must work together seamlessly, regardless of which operating partner owns either the locomotive, or the track. The act of stopping a train requires consideration of train speed, terrain, train weight and length, the number and distribution of locomotives and freight cars comprising the train, as well as additional factors. In January 2019, the AAR characterized the planning, installation, and implementation of the PTC network as a monumental feat. The rail industry partners were tasked with achieving several objectives and are nearly 98.5 percent complete, including:

•

Physical survey and geo-mapping on nearly 54,000 freight route-miles, including more than 450,000 field assets along right-of-way.

•

Installation of more than 28,500 custom wayside infrastructure units (WIU) that transmit information from signal and switch locations to locomotives and rail facilities.

•

Installation of PTC technology on nearly 16,400 locomotives.

•

Development and deployment of new radio systems at tens of thousands of base stations, trackside locations, and locomotives.

•

Upgrades to 2,100 switches in non-signaled territory and signal replacement projects at 14,500 additional locations: and

•

Development and integration of back-office systems and dispatch software.

4.2.2

Terminal Automation

Terminal automation consists of the use of integrated technology when developing solutions for the efficient control of traffic and trade flows at a terminal, resulting in increased capacity on an existing facility’s footprint. Automation integrates intelligent operating equipment with a facility’s existing terminal operating systems and a remote operating station. With the advancements of relevant technologies, new and Figure 4-7: Automated Container Operations better methods of controlling ports and terminals have emerged, leading to a gradual shift towards automation in all process flows and port operations. Implementing automation encompasses port equipment purchases, operations, and civil design choices. More efficiently and densely stacked containers help to increase facility capacity through reduced container dwell time (Figure 4-7). Automation’s reach comes in many forms – material unloading and cargo handling equipment, digital recordkeeping and

Source: felixstowedocker.blogspot.com

| PAGE 4-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FUTURE TECHNOLOGY TRENDS |

inventory management practices, infrastructure, and ship docking, and maintenance are all examples of the big-picture of automation. There are three primary principal areas of port automation, to include:

• • •

Gate Automation; Ship-to-Shore Crane Automation; and Automation of container storage/stacking operations.

Railroads have started seeking opportunities for these infrastructure improvements to gain operational and cost efficiencies as well. The following sections will mainly focus on port discussions; however, Class I railroads have begun implementing automation at their gates and in their cranes. The benefits of a successfully integrated, automated operating environment are far-reaching. The following are just a few examples:

• • •

Increased safety, process predictability, reliability, and container tracking; Reduced operational costs, congestion, and idling time; and Ability to phase port planning of new or existing facilities.

Automation technology has been a critical factor in improving efficiency and productivity at ports. This goal of operational efficiency focuses on limiting the amount of time and physical space resources used to perform a function. Sensors and other electronic equipment increase the productivity rate of conventional process flows. Manual errors and delays are eliminated, to the greatest extent possible, thus increasing the number of ships that a port can handle, while reducing the associated emissions. With fewer manual errors, a more stable container handling environment emerges, allowing for greater predictability and more precise planning and execution. Greater automation also increases the window for operating hours at a terminal.

Gate Automation Gates are the checkpoint for all entities entering or leaving a port. Additional processes may be needed, such as verification, customs, immigration, and quarantine to protect the integrity of the freight by enhancing security protocols. As container traffic throughput volumes increase, these processes strain both the time and resources of a port and its staff. Automation helps alleviate these burdens by using technology to handle tasks associated with entry/exit logs, verification, and docking payments. Implementation of gate automation systems can significantly decrease the amount of time needed to complete a gate transaction as well as reduce queuing outside of the gate. Adoption of an automated, paperless gate system at the VPA marine terminals in the HRTPO region plans to reduce each truck gate entry by four minutes. 12 This reduces the turnaround time for the truck driver as well as idling within the gate area, thereby increasing potential truck turns per day and reducing emissions from idling trucks. In addition, camera systems, installed as part of new automated gate systems, can identify damage to inbound equipment, thereby eliminating charges resulting from damages previously missed by visual inspection alone.

Terminal Equipment and Operating Systems As of March 2018, there were only 30 terminals in the world that could be considered fully automated in terms of container operations. Automated ship to shore cranes take containers off a ship and place them on the ground where a straddle carrier, or an automated guided vehicle 12 https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/atcmtd/2017/applications/portofva/project.htm

| PAGE 4-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FUTURE TECHNOLOGY TRENDS |

(AGV), can then move them to the stacking area (Figure 4-8). At that point, some form of Rubber Tire Gantry (RTG) crane will put the container in the stack Figure 4-8: Automated Container Operations to wait for a truck pick up. It is likely that AGVs will become standard in the future as they are less bulky than straddle carriers. Containers are then classified by cargo type and stacked and loaded to trucks based on algorithms to increase efficiency and lifts per hour. Container handling systems are designed to be predictable and efficient, using a computer-controlled process to achieve the desired ends in the least amount of time possible. Source: heizerrenderom.wordpress.com

Electrified equipment is also playing a major role within the automation spectrum. Electrified rubber-tire gantry cranes (ERTG) are replacing former diesel systems, which are large source polluters at ports. These ERTG systems dramatically reduce fuel consumption and maintenance expenditures, increase flexibility in handling varying volumes, result in higher productivity, improve the working environment for staff and cargo, and reduce emissions. Following the offloading of cargo, terminal operating systems direct cargo handlers and stacking cranes to sort containers based on their specified category. Inventory is often managed according to its date of departure inland. When the container is ready for dispatch for further transport, this equipment is again used for internal container moves. Design of this network should consider safety in terms of the level of human interaction with automated equipment as well as minimizing friction between multiple operational processes.

4.2.3

Applicability to BCD Region

PTC implementation will continue to be driven by the railroads in response to the Congressional mandate. As such, BCDCOG and its partner agencies should focus on collaborating with rail stakeholders to understand implementation status and identify opportunities for partnerships that can improve rail safety. This does not have to be limited to PTC. For instance, BCDCOG could work with railroads and SCDOT to establish a grade crossing safety program that identifies and prioritizes regional grade crossings for safety upgrades, closure, or grade separation. Terminal automation will be mostly driven by private sector port and rail terminal operators. However, since these technologies increase terminal throughput, they can impact the transportation network outside the terminal gates. Improved efficiency may reduce queuing outside the gates and thus congestion on local roads, but it can also mean more trucks traversing such roads which can impact pavement conditions. It will be important for BCDCOG to work with SCPA officials to mitigate issues that may arise from changes to terminal operating procedures.

| PAGE 4-5 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FUTURE TECHNOLOGY TRENDS |

4.3

TRUCK GATE APPOINTMENT SYSTEMS

4.3.1

Background

Dockside operations at container terminals have become very efficient in servicing vessels with high container volumes. However, trucking operations that facilitate the inland movement of goods are largely dependent on a port’s commitment to optimize processes that maintain a consistent flow of goods from the terminal and onto local roadways. According to the US Federal Maritime Commission 13, elimination of the congestion at our nation’s ports is among the most crucial trade-related issues. Bottlenecks in port operations are often the result of extended queues at port gates. Historically, third-party motor carries lined up on local roadways and highways in the vicinity of a facility, impacting commuter congestion and increasing idling emissions. In response, Truck (gate) Appointment Systems (TAS) are being implemented at ports worldwide with these primary objectives:

• • • • •

Minimize the length of the gate queue (Figure 4-9); Increase the effectiveness of container yard equipment; Densify terminal capacity within the same footprint; Reduce truck idling; and Reduce peak-hour traffic congestion on roadway networks. Figure 4-9: Truck Queues at Container Yard Gate

Source: Container-news.com

A TAS encompasses a connected network of technologies allowing truck drivers to request specific pick-up and delivery windows from a facility. A TAS provides drivers’ access to real-time operational data related to truck turn times, visibility to which terminal(s) are accepting empty and export containers, visibility of chassis availability, and more. This access to information facilitates positive operational effects in terms of a more balanced arrival of trucks at entry gates and other operations. Reduction in time spent at terminal gates and increased opportunity for a

13 https://www.trucks.com/2017/03/28/ports-truck-drivers-shipping-container-appointments/

Ports, Truck Drivers Testing Appointment Systems 2.0 for Shipping Container Pickups

| PAGE 4-6 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FUTURE TECHNOLOGY TRENDS |

double-turn (arriving and departing the facility with a container) results in net increases in cargo throughput and profit-per-trip as well as mitigates environmental issues from idling emissions. Port terminals in Seattle, Oakland, Los Angeles, Long Beach, and New Jersey were among the first in the U.S. to adopt TAS, built-on cloud-based services, mobile applications, and other technologies for the purpose of booking container pickup and delivery appointments.

4.3.2

Port of New York and New Jersey Global Container Terminals Appointment System

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a case study for appointment systems at the Global Container Terminals (GCT) facility at the Port of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) 14. The GCT facility at PANYNJ estimated that it handled approximately 25% of the port’s volume (1.7 million TEUs) during 2017. This facility was the first on the East Coast to implement a TAS in conjunction with Figure 4-10: Trucks Entering GCT Terminal Gate significant infrastructure upgrades to at PANYNJ accommodate the largest ships arriving from both the Suez and Panama Canals. The final product was the result of a multiyear collaboration between GCT, Sustainable Terminal Services (STS), and the Council for Port Performance (CPP). The Council is comprised of the six container terminal operators at the PANYNJ. STS provided funding, ensured stakeholder collaboration, and is the owner of the TAS. In January 2017, GCT introduced the TAS in a phased strategy to ease user acclimation and acceptance over time. During phase one, reservations were only mandatory at the terminal for transactions occurring between 6:00AM and 8:00AM. As the number of system subscribers increased, reservation mandates were phased in, one hour at a time. Success of TAS at a given facility is largely Source: Environmental Protection Agency dependent on the ease of use and dependability users experience when interacting with the system. During initial program roll-out, and throughout subsequent enhancements, GCT improved the system’s versatility as a real-time response to the feedback received from carriers, increasing predictability for truckers by standardizing and lowering turn times. With this level of consistency, GCT is better able to meter and manage traffic within its terminal. The gate appointment system at the GCT terminal has positively influenced supply chain dynamics, resulting in economic growth, and improved environmental performance. The EPA case study at GCT Bayonne provides quantitative measures of success for TAS implementation:

14 https://www.epa.gov/ports-initiative/gct-bayonnes-drayage-truck-appointment-system

| PAGE 4-7 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FUTURE TECHNOLOGY TRENDS |

•

Drayage truck turn times during appointment hours improved more than 40%;

•

Turn times improved for transactions occurring outside of the mandatory reservation window;

•

More than 70 percent of total truck transactions at GCT are appointment-based;

•

At the time of the case study, ninety percent of reservations made with the GTC TAS are fulfilled;

•

Fuel cost savings of $5.3 million/year for all peak hour traffic;

•

Based on reduced idling times, carbon dioxide emissions have been reduced by 21,000 tons/year; the equivalent of taking 4,500 passenger cars off the road; and

•

Air pollutants have been reduced by 61,000 kg/year, also due to reduced idling times.

4.3.3

Applicability to BCD Region

Appointment systems enhance the realized benefits of terminal operators seeking increased efficiency in handling containers through optimized crane utilization, eliminating unnecessary moves, and reducing distance traveled on terminal and truck dwell times. Implementing or integrating a TAS at the Port of Charleston to help manage terminal truck flows could improve overall operating efficiency while reducing truck turn times and emissions. However, the port would need to conduct analysis to determine whether deploying such a system would be financially viable. Implementing a TAS requires extensive outreach with the trucking community, including education on how to use the system. Planning and implementation of the GTC TAS relied heavily on a robust outreach and stakeholder involvement strategy that engaged carriers and improved flexibility within the system. Through a phased approach, users of the GTA TAS were able to acclimate and succeed under the new system. Such outreach will be needed should the Port of Charleston elect to deploy a TAS, and BCDCOG could partner with the port to host outreach events and help manage introduction of the system.

| PAGE 4-8 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

5. PLANNING FOR ITS AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES ITS combine leading-edge information and communication technologies to promote and improve the safety, efficiency, and sustainability of the transportation network. These technologies communicate and share real-time information between equipment on the ground, Traffic Management Centers (TMCs), and the users traveling on the transportation network. Traffic data connectors, such as a low-voltage wires that are buried underground, send an electrical pulse once a vehicle traverses them. These electrical pulses are sent to a TMC where the data is stored and disseminated via different methods such as Variable Message Signs (VMS, see Figure 5-1), 511 web sites, or mobile applications. Information provided can include traffic congestion, incidents, road work, travel times, special events, weather, emergencies, and recommendations for alternative routes. Figure 5-1: Variable Message Sign

Vehicles affected by an incident typically can benefit from reduced delays and reduced congestion associated with the incident when ITS solutions are implemented. Other benefits include environmental benefits attributed to a reduction in idling vehicles, increased safety, and improved freight movement efficiency. Many of the technologies profiled in this report (e.g., Connected Vehicles/V2X, terminal automation, gate appointment systems, truck platooning, and freight signal priority) consist of ITS applications or can be integrated with existing regional ITS. It’s therefore important to have a framework for identifying and executing local and regional ITS projects that adheres to relevant federal guidance and can integrate with the statewide ITS architecture.

Page 5-1

| 5 | PLANNING FOR ITS AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES |

5.1

FRAMEWORK FOR REGIONAL ITS IMPLEMENTATION

State, regional, and local governments may develop Regional ITS Architectures that are tailored to their respective geographical boundary. The framework to build a Regional ITS Architecture is clearly defined by FHWA Rule 940.9. To develop a Regional ITS Architecture, the FHWA rule requires inclusion of the following:

•

National ITS Architecture

•

Various stakeholders including highway agencies, public safety agencies (e.g., police, fire, emergency/medical), transit operators, federal lands agencies, state motor carrier agencies, and other operating agencies necessary to fully address regional ITS integration

•

Description of the region

•

Operational concepts that identify the roles and responsibilities of participating agencies and stakeholders who are involved in the implementation and operation of the ITS system

•

Any agreements (existing or new) required for operations, including at a minimum those affecting ITS project interoperability, utilization of ITS related standards, and the operation of the projects identified in the regional ITS architecture

•

System functional requirements

•

Interface requirements and information exchanges with planned and existing systems and subsystems (for example, subsystems and architecture flows as defined in the National ITS Architecture)

•

Identification of ITS standards supporting regional and national interoperability

•

The sequence of projects required for implementation. 15

For instance, the SCDOT developed and continues to maintain the South Carolina Statewide ITS Architecture which accommodates the FHWA rule. 16 Regional entities, like MPOs, can also develop their own ITS architectures to further focus implementation with federal funding for specific localized ITS projects. To integrate ITS at the project level, a systems engineering approach is required if federal funds will be used on the project (Figure 5-2).

15 https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/its_arch_imp/policy_1.htm#940_9

16 https://centralmidlands.org/wp-content/uploads/South-Carolina-Statewide-ITS-Architecture.pdf

| PAGE 5-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | PLANNING FOR ITS AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES |

Figure 5-2: Systems Engineering Approach

Similarly, FHWA Rule 940.11 specifies minimum rules that must be followed for ITS project level implementation:

•

Identification of portions of the regional ITS architecture being implemented, or if a regional ITS architecture does not exist, the applicable portions of the National ITS Architecture

•

Identification of participating agencies roles and responsibilities

•

Requirements’ definitions

•

Analysis of alternative system configurations and technology options to meet requirements

•

Procurement options

•

Identification of applicable ITS standards and testing procedures

•

Procedures and resources necessary for operations and management of the system. 17

5.2

INTEGRATING ITS AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES INTO THE PLANNING PROCESS

Emerging transportation technologies continue to evolve rapidly across many subsectors including electrification, vehicle automation, intelligent transportation systems, and connected vehicles. These changes will also impact how agencies plan, finance, and develop new 17 Ibid

| PAGE 5-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | PLANNING FOR ITS AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES |

transportation infrastructure, but in ways that are not yet clear. Hence, it’s important for agencies to incorporate general policy considerations for emerging technologies into their planning processes. This section offers several policy and outreach tools to help BCDCOG and its partner governments include new technologies in the planning process, followed by a conceptual framework for evaluating ITS assets, needs, and solutions.

5.2.1

Policy Considerations for Emerging Technologies

The following best practices outline ways BCDCOG and its partner agencies and stakeholders can build tools and processes to better incorporate emerging technologies into the planning process:

•

Define the vision – Private firms (e.g., auto manufacturers and shared mobility platforms) are already redefining the way people and goods move, with or without public sector input. It’s therefore important to articulate a regional technology vision that can guide future investments and pilot projects.

•

Develop goals, objectives, and a prioritization framework – The vision needs to be supported by concrete goals and objectives that can be measured to evaluate and prioritize projects. Goals that can be supported by technology include optimizing safety, promoting reliable travel times, coordinating travel information across jurisdictions, and ensuring equitable access to mobility options. New mobility options (e.g., micro and shared mobility) give agencies the opportunity to focus on moving people and goods, not just vehicles.

•

Broaden outreach efforts – The entry of technology players and auto manufacturers into transportation services provision (traditionally dominated by the public sector) means that agencies should incorporate new perspectives in the process. Such outreach will help agencies identify new opportunities or challenges for emerging technologies. From a freight standpoint, trucking company or shipper involvement could identify opportunities for pilot projects.

•

Explore/collect new data – Given the rapidity of technological change (and resulting changes in travel behavior), it is imperative for agencies to collect appropriate data to inform decision making. This will almost certainly involve data sharing across public and private transportation system users, managers, and providers to identify shifts in behavior and plan accordingly.

•

Conduct scenario planning exercises – Technological uncertainty necessitates planning that can account for more than one potential future scenario, with implications for each. Developing “what if” scenarios and exploring implications for freight and passenger mobility is one way to help account for such uncertainty.

•

Develop new prediction tools outside of travel demand models – While travel demand models are a critical tool in planning and programming transportation improvements, there is also a need to predict shorter-term changes in travel that may not be captured adequately by traditional modeling tools.

•

Evaluate the impact of emerging technologies on different populations – Like all technological developments, new transportation technologies will impact different groups in different ways. As an example, BCDCOG could assess the impacts of emerging technologies on elderly or disabled populations. Autonomous vehicles, for instance, may encourage more people to age in place.

| PAGE 5-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | PLANNING FOR ITS AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES |

•

Diversify and re-evaluate project portfolio – Connected and autonomous mobility creates opportunities for agencies to consider projects that might maximize the benefits of these technologies. Examples include re-striping to encourage better computer interpretation of pavement markings, electric vehicle charging stations, and curbside policies to better manage limited curbside space. At the same time, cost estimates may need to be revised considering design impacts for new technologies.

•

Revisit revenue scenarios and funding strategies – Vehicle electrification may force agencies to re-evaluate future revenues and develop new funding strategies since most road infrastructure is financed by gas taxes. Identifying and leveraging innovative funding approaches may position BCDCOG to capture more funding opportunities, as innovation is often a merit criterion for grant programs.

•

Accelerate plan updates – Given the pace of change, annual long-range plan updates may be necessary rather than waiting 4 to 5 years between updates.

5.2.2

Framework for Integrating ITS into the Planning Process

ITS represents a subset of emerging technologies that focuses on gathering/disseminating traveler information and effective management of existing transportation capacity. Public agencies typically have a strong role in planning, funding, and managing ITS. Hence, it’s important to establish a process for planning, funding, and executing ITS projects that is coordinated with agencies’ regular planning processes and the regional vision for emerging technologies. While ITS has demonstrated enormous benefits in many deployments around the country, its application should be tempered with a strong operational concept and focus on functionality. Therefore, the USDOT stresses the importance of a user needs-based approach to ITS and technology planning, meaning the technology application should be designed so it responds to needs identified by system users. Integrating ITS into regional planning processes therefore requires inventorying the area’s existing ITS assets, an understanding of regional issues that might be solved with ITS, and knowledge of non-ITS solutions that could be used or might already be programmed. Figure 5-3 provides a high-level approach to incorporating ITS and emerging technologies into existing regional planning processes:

•

A key first step is to inventory the region’s existing ITS assets (whether they’re being used for ITS applications). This could include traffic detection systems, cameras, weather stations, signal systems, and TMCs, among other items. This step provides a baseline for understanding the capabilities of the current technology infrastructure. This should include considerations for all modes of transportation using the system. Suggested modes include auto, transit vehicles, emergency vehicles, freight vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.

•

The next step is to define the regional transportation needs, goals, and objectives that could be addressed with ITS. This can build upon existing planning efforts that have already identified issues and needs.

•

Next, needs are matched against potential ITS solutions and deployment projects to define a set of potential ITS projects for implementation. This step can involve Requests for Information (RFIs) or ‘Vendor Days’ to help planners understand the current market for technology solutions.

| PAGE 5-5 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | PLANNING FOR ITS AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES |

•

Potential ITS solutions should then be cross-checked with existing planning documents to understand where needs may be addressed by other non-ITS solutions. This follows the traffic engineering principle of applying the simplest solution first, with more complex treatments added as warranted. As an example, for safety concerns sometimes traditional approaches like improving geometrics, implementing signing, and improving road striping are attempted first. ITS solutions are introduced when safety issues persist even after traditional treatments are applied.

•

The final step is to collect detailed user needs (via stakeholder outreach) to better define what users expect the system to do and use this information to define use case scenarios and functional requirements that will inform technology selection and data collection/performance monitoring. Figure 5-3: Approach to Integrating ITS into Regional Planning Processes

Existing/Planned ITS •Identify existing ITS assets and planned projects

Define Needs and Goals •Define regional ITS needs, goals, and objectives

Identify ITS Solutions •Assess ITS solutions that can respond to needs

Cross-check with Existing Plans •Identify whether other projects are already addressing the need

Define Detailed User Needs and System Requirements •Collect user needs and define use case scenarios •Prepare functional, interface, data, and performance requirements Source: CDM Smith

| PAGE 5-6 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

6. PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES 6.1

BACKGROUND

Public-private partnerships (P3s) consist of joint activity related to an agreement between an agency of the government and the private sector for the delivery of goods or services to the public. 18 This alternative procurement method leverages private resources and subject-matter expertise. P3s enable the private sector to take on traditionally public roles in infrastructure projects, while the public sector maintains its capacity of ensuring and enforcing public accountability. This section profiles selected P3 case studies addressing truck parking and portrelated intermodal rail capacity needs.

6.2

CASE STUDIES

6.2.1

Truck Parking

The economic impact of the time spent looking for parking equates to almost $7 billion annually, and thus creates a need for state, regional, and local governments to address. 19 There are many issues that affect the availability of truck parking today, which include:

•

Land Use/Real Estate Issues – Within the urban area, roadway systems must cater to a variety of users which compete for parking capacity, roadside rest areas, and service plazas. These requirements can diverge when considering they must plan for long-haul, short-haul, local distribution, terminal-to-terminal, and other roadway users. At the same time, urban real estate costs have been rising which make it difficult for highway-oriented uses to compete with other retail components that may be more profitable.

•

Congestion – Congestion along the nation’s highways has continued to increase, especially during peak periods, which hampers drivers’ ability to get to their destinations on time. Since restrictions on drivers are time-based rather than distance based, drivers end up needing to pull over to stop frequently between destinations which can at locations without truck amenities, without truck amenities, which causes illegal parking at exit ramps.

•

Safety – With the lack of parking facilities, drivers can become fatigued if they choose not to park illegally and continue to find a suitable parking location. Fatigued driving is a common cause of highway crashes and is avoidable when parking is readily available. Similarly, illegally parking at exit ramps, alongside highway shoulders, and at other locations is dangerous not only for other drivers, but for the drivers themselves should they be robbed at these unmonitored locations.

18 Britannica Online: Public-Private Partnershipshttps://www.britannica.com/topic/public-private-partnership 19 http://www.maasto.net/documents/TPIMS-Grant.pdf

Page 6-1

| 6 | PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES |

To ensure that safe truck parking continues to be supplied throughout freight corridors, the Golden Glades Truck Travel Center in South Florida public-private-partnership (P3) is explored to highlight efforts being taken today to increase truck parking supply.

Golden Glades Truck Travel Center The Golden Glades Interchange connects US 441, Florida’s Turnpike, State Road 826, State Road 9, and I-95. The project is a multimodal facility featuring extensive truck amenities that is to become a gateway for Miami-Dade County and incorporate various modes of transportation, including bicycles, cars, buses, and commuter rail. The truck travel center, which spans 10 acres, is on the east side of the lot. The proposal includes room for a maintenance facility with 53 truck parking spaces, a truck wash, and a gas station. The west plot of land in which the multimodal transportation facility is to be built, currently housing the park-and-ride, stretches 15 acres. The facility will encompass 2,150 general parking spaces, a 4,500 square foot transit hub, direct access to the Tri-Rail Station from the new parking garage, new multi-bay bus terminals, and upgraded and new bicycle paths, sidewalks, walkways, and platforms. Figure 6-1 gives an overview of the facility. The project used the Design-Build-Operate model. The concessionaire designs and builds the facility, while financing the Truck Travel Centers (TTCs). The land is leased from the Florida Turnpike Enterprise (FTE) and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), which also provide management of the project. The Multimodal Transportation Facility (MTF) will be financed through FDOT, while the private concessionaires will pay a portion of their revenues to operate and maintain the TTCs and another portion of their revenues going to FDOT. Miami-Dade County Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTPW) and Miami-Dade Transit (MDT) are responsible for the MTF’s operation. The hierarchy of this model is shown in Figure 6-2. (Note the Dolphin site is another parcel in Miami-Dade County that was assessed for new truck parking capacity but was found to be infeasible for access reasons.) The project improves freight mobility while complimenting other freight investments in the MiamiDade region. In addition, it addresses a severe truck parking shortage in the south Florida area, which benefits the industrial and warehousing businesses in the region. Finally, the project enhances overall multi-modal connectivity for the region while improving corridor safety, security, and aesthetics.

| PAGE 6-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 6 | PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES |

Figure 6-1: Golden Glades Truck Travel Center

Source: Miami-Dade MPO – CTAC

| PAGE 6-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 6 | PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES |

Figure 6-2: Truck Travel Center Design Build Operate Model

Source: Miami-Dade MPO - CTAC

6.2.2

• • • • • •

Port-Related Intermodal Rail

Reduced highway congestion; Increased economic development; Reduced fuel consumption and greenhouse gasses; Leveraging capital; Affordability of freight rail; and Expanded passenger rail capabilities.

The following are two examples of P3s within the railroad industry that have allowed governments as well as private rail entities to realize the benefits of this innovative project delivery method.

Crescent Corridor P3 The Crescent Corridor P3 is a $2.5 billion rail infrastructure project along the Norfolk Southern rail corridor and is part of a strategy to convert domestic freight transportation from highway to intermodal rail. The agreement exists between Norfolk Southern, the Federal government, and the various state governments represented along the corridor. The PPP is a joint financial mechanism between NS, the States of Pennsylvania and Virginia, and the USDOT. NS has contributed $264 million towards property acquisition, design, construction, cranes, route

| PAGE 6-1 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 6 | PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES |

improvements in five states, etc. Virginia has contributed $103 million for track capacity, access roads, and terminals. Pennsylvania has contributed $45 million for the construction of the terminals. USDOT has contributed $300 million in Transportation Investment Generating Economy Recovery (TIGER) grant funds for the project. 20 The Crescent Corridor is the shortest intermodal double-stack route between the South and Northeast and spans 11 states, highlighting the importance of the corridor 21. Independent studies evaluating the impact of the project estimate that when fully complete, the corridor improvements will translate annually into a savings of more than 169 million gallons of fuel; removal of more than 1.3 million long-haul trucks from roadways; save more than $575 million in costs associated with traffic congestion; reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1.9 million tons; and create more than 122,820 jobs by 2030 22.

Alameda Corridor P3

A second public-private partnership, which was also funded through private and public sources, is also one of the most well-known, the Alameda Corridor. The Alameda Corridor, completed in 2002, is a 20-mile rail expressway that connects the Port of Los Angeles, Port of Long Beach, and rail yards near downtown Los Angeles. This corridor has made the area ports more productive, reduced noise and congestion in the surrounding communities, increased safety on the local roadway network, reduced pollution, and, most importantly, made freight rail faster and more efficient. To complete the project, the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority contributed $1.2 billion through revenue bonds, USDOT awarded a $400 million federal loan, the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach contributed $394 million, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority provided $355 million, and the railroads contributed $18 million.

6.2.3

Applicability to BCD Region

Partnerships between public and private entities help to not only share the costs of projects, but the risks of constructing them as well. Through successful implementation, all parties can benefit. For the BCDCOG, leveraging SCDOT, county, or city owned land that is located at desirable areas for truck parking can help attract private entities that wish to build there. These areas can also tie-into future transportation infrastructure projects within the region, such as welcome centers or rest areas, transit stations for the Lowcountry Rapid Transit (LCRT) Bus Rapid Transit system, or park and ride lots. Leveraging participation from multiple agencies can lower the costs for each entity through shared amenities.

20 https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/crescent-corridor/ 21 Norfolk Southern Sustainability Report

http://nssustainability.com/2013_sustainability_report/economic_performance/our_key_public_private_partnerships.html

22 Norfolk Southern Crescent Corridor

http://www.nscorp.com/content/nscorp/en/shipping-options/corridors/crescent-corridor.html

| PAGE 6-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

7. FREIGHT SAFETY AND SECURITY Freight safety and security processes and strategies for US port and railroad owners are intended to protect personnel, property, and the environment, and to prevent operational disruption. Ports and railroad entities have safety and security plans in place that are preventative and responsive. The safety and security plans should provide for unified command structure that allows quick access to obtain expertise to address incidents and restore operations. While the topics of safety and security are vast, the emphasis will focus on discussing any enabling legislation, oversight agencies, and strategies to reduce incidents and modal conflicts.

7.1

MARINE TERMINAL SAFETY

Terminal automation, as referenced in the Future Technology Trends and Application Section, enhances safety for marine terminals by moving employees away from operations. These employees are moved within the command center and out of the way of automated equipment and vehicles. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) provides guidance for traffic safety within marine terminals. These OSHA guidelines are not regulated but provide recommendations for employees to reduce the number of accidents. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) shows that workers for marine terminals and ports have higher injury and fatality rates than other industries:

•

Between 2011 and 2017 fatal injuries occurred at a rate 5 times that of the entire US workforce (15.9 per 100,000 workers); and

•

Between 2011 and 2017 injuries happened at a rate double that of the entire US workforce (4,916 nonfatal injuries per 100,000 workers per year). 23

Many such work-related injuries and fatalities at marine terminals are the result of transportation incidents. As a result, OSHA recommends that marine terminal employers develop and implement traffic safety programs that focus on vehicles and container-handling equipment that travel within marine terminals such as forklifts, top picks, side picks, reach stackers, straddle carriers, yard tractors, utility tractors, hostlers, automobiles, vans, pickup trucks, and semi-trucks. 24 Table 7-1 shows examples of factors that have the potential to create accidents and ideas on how to prevent them. 25 Similar prevention tools are also widely implemented at rail yards to prevent Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) reportable incidents and OSHA incidents.

7.2

MARINE TERMINAL SECURITY

The Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) was passed by the US Congress and signed into law by then President George W. Bush in 2002. The intent of the MTSA was to protect the US maritime industry and the Marine Transportation System (MTS) from any threat. The MTSA conforms to the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is the agency that is responsible for ensuring compliance with the MTSA by way of 23 https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/programs/cmshs/port_operations.html

24 https://www.osha.gov/Publications/3337-07-2007-English-07192007.html 25 Ibid.

Page 7-1

| 7 | FREIGHT SAFETY AND SECURITY |

the US Coast Guard (USCG). A MTSA Security Plan is a critical component that ensures the MTS is secure. Table 7-1: OSHA Incident Factors and Prevention Tools Potential Incident Factors

Examples of Incident Factors

Examples of Accident Prevention

Unsafe equipment

Broken, improperly maintained, or missing safety equipment, such as lights, seat belts, brakes, or horns

Mandatory safety checks preand post-inspection

Inadequate traffic controls

Lack of proper signage and lane markings

Functional traffic controls that are maintained

Driving obstacles

Vehicles, stacked materials, containers, and even repair crews

Driver training and signage that is visible

Weather

Snow, ice, fog, or rain

Grooved pavement or rumble strips

Inadequate illumination

Poor lighting or shadows from large obstacles

Driver training and installation of lighting

Welding

Welding flashes can distract vehicle and crane operators

Arc-welding and cutting operations must be done in separate areas from where normal operations occur

Unsafe vehicle operation

Improperly loaded equipment and speed

Speed traffic controls and driver training

Distracted driving

Cell phones or completing paperwork

Driver training

Improper parking

Improperly parked personal or company-provided vehicles

Designated parking areas

Lack of communication

Technicians, mechanics, and other workers may fail to alert vehicle operators of their location, and employers may fail to notify workers of changes to traffic routes

Hold frequent safety meetings

Shift changes

Marine-terminal employers report that incidents often occur just before the end of a work shift

Hold frequent safety meetings

Fatigue

Fatigue and sleepiness

Employers should provide proper training related to fatigue for all employees

Substance abuse

Drug and alcohol use

Develop, implement, and monitor a drug-free workplace program

| PAGE 7-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 7 | FREIGHT SAFETY AND SECURITY |

7.2.1

MTSA Security Plan

The MTSA Security Plan enables risk-based decision making and the USCG suggests that it include:

• • • • • • • •

Responsibilities and duties for a Facility Security Officer and a Vessel Security Officer; Training requirements; Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) requirements; Drill and exercise requirements; Record keeping requirements; Maintenance of security and communications equipment; Declaration of security procedures; and Requirements for audits. 26

A MTSA Security Plan is divided into two parts, a Facility Security Plan (FSP) and a Vessel Security Plan (VSP). The FSP is based upon the number and type of vessels that interface with the facility. For instance, if the facility receives cargo vessels that are greater than 100 gross registered tons, they would be required to have an FSP. Likewise, a cargo vessel is required to have a VSP if it weighs more than 100 gross registered tons. 27

7.2.2

Transportation Worker Identification Card (TWIC)

A TWIC is an identification card that is required for unescorted access within an MTSA regulated facility. Examples of persons that can be approved for unescorted access are truck drivers, longshoremen, or contractors. A TWIC is a card that is tamper resistant and contains biometric fingerprint information so that it can be linked to the card holder. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) manages the process for an individual to obtain a TWIC. 28

7.3

RAILROAD SAFETY

Moving freight by rail safely is important to protect the public, railroad employees, and the freight that is being transported. To improve the overall transportation network, strategies to reduce incidents and conflict for railroads will focus on at-grade crossings. At-grade crossings present the greatest opportunity for people, automobiles, and trains to collide. An at-grade crossing, as shown in Figure 7-1, is the intersection of a roadway and a rail line that are on level ground. PTC and quiet zone safety information is referenced in the Future Trends and Applications Section. According to the FRA, 97 percent of all rail-related fatalities and injuries occur at railroad crossings or are caused by trespassing. 29 Federal law states that grade crossings and tracks are the responsibility of individual railroads. 30 The FRA has undertaken measures to improve safety for at-grade crossings by developing the Highway-Rail Crossing Safety Business Plan.

26 https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2019-CSSS-USCG-MTSA-101-508.pdf 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid.

29 https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2020-02/Grade%20Crossing%20Business%20Plan.pdf 30 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title49/49cfr234_main_02.tpl

| PAGE 7-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 7 | FREIGHT SAFETY AND SECURITY |

Figure 7-1: At-Grade Crossing Ashley Phosphate Road

Source: NearMap

7.3.1

FRA Highway-Rail Crossing Safety Business Plan 31

The FRA Highway-Rail Crossing Safety Business Plan is actionable and sets a path forward for improving safety by:

•

Enhancing partnerships and expand outreach to build awareness and expand the number of people who can see the problems;

•

Leveraging and improving data to apply to resources effectively and creatively;

•

Using regulatory oversight and enforcement to maintain safe rail operations while engaging partners in the rail industry; and

•

Continuing to support research that helps improve rail safety. 32

7.3.2

Quiet Zones

Official regulations governing the use of locomotive horns at public highway-rail grade crossings are established within the FRA Train Horn Rule (49 CFR Part 222). Among the regulations contained therein, is a requirement that locomotive horns sound 15-20 seconds before entering public highway-rail grade crossings, or no more than one-quarter mile in advance of the crossing. The purpose of this action is to warn motorists and pedestrians that a train is approaching the grade crossing. The concept of the Train Horn Rule was spurred by an increase in train collisions in the late 1980s, particularly in areas where nighttime whistle bans were instituted. Based on the increase in this type of collision, Congress directed the FRA to enact federal regulations requiring train horns to be sounded at highway-rail grade crossings in 1994. In 2005, the final train horn rule, which included regulations on quiet zones, was adopted into the Code of Federal Regulations. A quiet zone is a section of track, at least one-half mile long, which contains one or more consecutive public highway rail at-grade crossings at which horns are not routinely sounded when trains are approaching the crossing(s) (Figure 7-2). Train horns may still be sounded within a quiet zone in instances of emergencies, or when a horn must be sounded to comply with a 31 https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2020-02/Grade%20Crossing%20Business%20Plan.pdf

32 https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2020-02/Grade%20Crossing%20Business%20Plan.pdf

| PAGE 7-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 7 | FREIGHT SAFETY AND SECURITY |

railroad or superseding FRA rule. Only a public authority – the governmental entity responsible for traffic control/law enforcement at the identified crossing, is permitted to create a quiet zone. Figure 7-2: Quiet Zone Roadway Signage

Source: Petaluma pressdemocrat.com

Quiet zones are established to reduce noise and promote/improve the quality of life in each locality, without compromising the safety of motorists, pedestrians, or the train. A 2017 study conducted by the United States General Accountability Office33 states that FRA has analyzed data on crossings within quiet zones and determined that quiet zones are “generally” as safe as crossings where train horns are sounded. However, controls for variables such as train speeds and frequency were not incorporated into this research and have not been fully evaluated at this time. To establish a quiet zone, a community must work with the owner railroad as well as the state transportation authority to assess the risk of collision at each highway rail at-grade crossing that is included as part of the quiet zone. Each designated crossing location must demonstrate that the highway rail at-grade crossing(s) meets one of the following conditions:

•

Risk of implementing the quiet zone, calculated by the Quiet Zone Risk Index (QZRI), is less than or equal to the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold (NSRT), with or without Supplementary Safety Measures (SSMs) or Alternative Safety Measures (ASMs);

•

Risk of implementing the quiet zone, calculated by the QZRI is less than or equal to the Risk Index with Horns (RIWH) with additional safety measures, such as SSMs or ASMs; or

•

Installation of SSMs at every public highway rail at-grade crossing, which represents the best method of reducing potential risk in a proposed quiet zone.

SSMs are pre-approved risk reduction tactics installed at certain public highway rail at-grade crossings within a quiet zone in order to maximize safety benefits while minimizing risk. ASMs are safety systems, exclusive of SSMs, used to reduce risk in a quiet zone. These include improvements that do not fully meet SSM requirements and require written submittal and FRA approval as to their efficacy regarding risk reduction. Examples of SSM strategies include:

33 US GAO Report to Congressional Addressees Railroad Safety: Quiet Zone Analyses and Inspections Could be Improved

https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/688079.pdf

| PAGE 7-5 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 7 | FREIGHT SAFETY AND SECURITY |

•

Temporary Closure – Closure of the crossing to highway traffic during designated quiet periods;

•

Four Quadrant Gate System – Fully blocking highway traffic from entering the crossing when gates are lowered;

•

Permanent Closure – Permanent closure of the crossing to highway traffic;

•

One-Way Street with Gates – Installation of gates in a manner that blocks all approaching highway lanes to the public highway-rail crossing;

•

Gates with Medians or Channelization – Installation of medians of channelization devices on both highway approaches to a public highway-rail grade crossing; and

•

Wayside Horns – Installation of a stationary horn located at the highway rail at-grade crossing designed to provide audible warning to motorists or pedestrians as to the imminent approach of a train (measure is not a true SSM but is viewed as a substitute for a locomotive horn).

Once the community completes all required engineering improvements related to safety, it must certify to the FRA that risk reduction has been completed to a level satisfying all compliance requirements. A quiet zone is not in effect until all safety measures are installed and operational. In the event of a collision at a grade crossing located within an established quiet zone, court rulings will establish liability based upon factual evidence specific to the incident. FRA regulations regarding quiet zones are intended to remove failure to sound the horn as a cause of action in lawsuits involving collisions occurring at crossing within established quiet zone. Prior to crossing through a quiet zone, engineers have no legal duty to sound the train horn. Discretion may be exercised by the engineer during emergency situations. Per Federal regulations, an engineer must sound the horn to warn railroad maintenance or contracted personnel of its impending crossing.

| PAGE 7-6 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

8. FEDERAL DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAMS All the best practices and future technologies outlined herein require funding to execute projects, whether infrastructure or technology related. Hence, federal discretionary grant programs are made available to assist in the planning, design, and construction of projects that promote in the movement of goods and directly benefit the freight industry. This section reviews six of these grant programs including information regarding the purpose of each grant, eligible project types, and specific information for each grant type. The six grants covered below include:

•

Automated Driving System Demonstration Grant Program (ADS)

•

Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment Grant Program (ATCMTD)

•

Better Utilizing Investment to Leverage Development Grant Program (BUILD)

•

Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Grant Program (CRISI)

•

Infrastructure for Rebuilding America Grant Program (INFRA)

•

Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP)

8.1

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEM

Automation offers the potential to improve safety conditions for vehicle occupants and other travelers sharing the road. To address this potential, the USDOT appropriates funding for the ADS Demonstration Grants Program for a “highly automated vehicle research and development program”. 34 Funding is made available for the planning, direct research, and demonstration of ADS and other driving automation systems and technologies. The USDOT has authorized $60 million in funding for the FY 2020 ADS Grant program. Eligible project types include those that demonstrate automation, with preference for those demonstrating Level 3 or greater automation technologies. Level 3 indicates a level of automation where the driver is present to intervene, if necessary, but safety-critical functions can be assigned to the vehicle itself. ADS projects can greatly benefit the freight industry and movement of goods by providing the industry stakeholders with clear information on how to safely implement and benefit from ADS-equipped trucks, as an example. The USDOT ADS Fact Sheet identifies the three primary goals of the ADS program:

•

Safety: Fiscally support projects that demonstrate how challenges to the safe integration of ADS into the Nation’s on-road transportation system can be addressed;

34 https://www.transportation.gov/policy-initiatives/automated-vehicles/ads-grant-overview

Page 8-1

| 8 | FEDERAL DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAMS |

•

Data for Safety Analysis and Rulemaking: Selected projects should be focused on significant data gathering and sharing of project data with USDOT and the public; and

•

Collaboration: Create collaborative project environments that harness the collective expertise, ingenuity, and knowledge of multiple stakeholders. 35

The USDOT has identified ADS program focus areas to help guide the project selection process. The seven primary focus areas include:

•

Significant Public Benefit: Fund a select number of larger-scale projects that result in a significant benefit(s) to the public.

•

Addressing Market Failure and Other Compelling Public Needs: Fund projects where industry lacks adequate incentives to participate. This includes areas where cost, risk, or complexity are too significant for any single private sector entity or where a lack of private sector investment has not proven sufficient to support particular groups.

•

Economic Vitality: Recognizing Executive Order 13788, proposed projects must support economic vitality at the national and regional level, including advancing domestic industry and promoting domestic development of intellectual property.

•

Complexity of Technology: Fund a collection of projects that demonstrate automation, with preference for demonstrating L3 or greater automation technologies.

•

Diversity of Projects: Fund a collection of projects that serve a variety of communities, including urban, suburban, and rural environments, and that serve a variety of transportation markets including freight, personal mobility, and public transportation.

•

Transportation-challenged Populations: Fund projects that test applications with the greatest potential to service transportation-challenged populations, including older adults and individuals with disabilities.

•

Prototypes: Fund projects that include technologies that are, at a minimum, in limited prototype state suitable to support safe demonstrations but do not need to be ready for broader deployment.

Examples of past, industry relevant ADS Grant award recipients include:

•

Virginia Tech Transportation Institute – “Trucking Fleet CONOPS for Managing Mixed Fleets”

•

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation – “Safe Integration of Automated Vehicles in Work Zones”

•

DriveOhio – “Deploying Automated Technology Anywhere”

35 https://www.transportation.gov/policy-initiatives/automated-vehicles/ads-grant-award-fact-sheets

| PAGE 8-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 8 | FEDERAL DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAMS |

8.2

ADVANCED TRANSPORTATION AND CONGESTION MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES DEPLOYMENT

Authorized in the FAST Act, the ATCMTD grant program makes competitive funding available for the deployment of advanced transportation and congestion management technologies to improve the safety of the transportation system. The process flow of these technologies is built upon the collection of real-time data which is relayed to travelers/carriers so that they can make quick, informed travel choices. These types of technological improvements can assist in developing a more reliable and efficient system for the movement of goods by providing users with an accurate and real-time picture of current roadway and intermodal conditions. In 2019, $60 million in Federal funding was appropriated for the ATCMTD program. The purpose of the ATCMTD grant program is to support candidate projects that reduce traffic related injuries and fatalities, reduce congestion, reduce emissions, optimize multimodal system performance, and provide real-time travel information. Candidate model technology deployment projects should help demonstrate how emerging transportation technologies, data, and their applications can be effectively integrated within existing systems, providing access to essential services and other destinations. The ATCMTD grant program projects should also increase connectivity to employment and education services, support workforce development, and contribute to community revitalization. Eligible project types under the ATCMTD grant program include the following examples:

•

Advanced traveler information systems;

•

Advanced transportation management technologies;

•

Infrastructure maintenance, monitoring, and condition assessment;

•

Advanced public transportation systems;

•

Transportation system performance data collection, analysis, and dissemination systems;

•

Advanced safety systems, including vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications;

•

Technologies associated with autonomous vehicles and other collision avoidance technologies, including systems using cellular technology;

•

Integration of intelligent transportation systems with the Smart Grid and other energy distribution and charging systems;

•

Electronic pricing and payment systems; and

•

Advanced mobility and access technologies, such as dynamic ridesharing and information systems to support human services for elderly and disabled individuals [23.U.S.C. 503(c) (4) (E)].

| PAGE 8-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 8 | FEDERAL DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAMS |

Examples of past, industry relevant ATCMTD Grant award recipients include:

•

Virginia Port Authority – “Truck Reservation System and Automated Work Flow Data Model” (see Figure 8-1)

•

City of Seattle DOT – “Multimodal Integrated Corridor Mobility for All” Figure 8-1: VPA Truck Reservation Architecture

Source: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/atcmtd/2017/applications/portofva/project.htm

8.3

BETTER UTILIZING INVESTMENT TO LEVERAGE DEVELOPMENT

The BUILD transportation grant program directs federal funding for surface transportation infrastructure projects that will have a significant local or regional impact. Formerly named the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Grant, The FY 2020 BUILD program appropriated $1 billion, intended for projects that build, repair, and revitalize both freight and passenger transportation networks. This discretionary grant program directs capital investment for road, rail, transit, and port projects that directly achieve national objectives. The following are eligible project types under the BUILD grant program:

• • • • •

Highway, bridge, or other road projects eligible under title 23, U.S.C.; Public transportation projects eligible under chapter 53 of title 49, U.S.C.; Passenger and freight rail projects; Port infrastructure investments (inland port infrastructure and land ports of entry); and Intermodal projects.

| PAGE 8-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 8 | FEDERAL DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAMS |

Given the flexibility of eligible project sponsors (e.g., municipalities, counties, port authorities, tribal governments, MPOs) BUILD grants enable multi-jurisdictional projects that are more difficult to support though the means of traditional USDOT programs. This is significant in that it broadly invites federal participation in port and freight rail projects that play a critical role in the ability to move freight and goods but have limited opportunities for federal funds. BUILD allows traditional partners at the state and local levels to work directly with entities that own operate and maintain much of the Nation’s transportation infrastructure. BUILD grants additionally offer unique consideration for rural applicants. Fifty percent of all FY 2020 BUILD grant awards are reserved for rural projects that align with the merit criteria of the BUILD Grant program. Through BUILD, the USDOT is seeking to invest in rural projects addressing deteriorating conditions and disproportionately high fatality rates on rural transportation infrastructure. Example, projects include those that improve infrastructure condition, address public health and safety, promote regional connectivity, and facilitate economic growth or competitiveness. The City of Charleston recently received an award of grant funding in fiscal year 2019. While not freight related, the Ashley River Crossing project is an example of a local and recent success of the application process to increase modal connectivity within the region. Examples of past, industry relevant BUILD Grant award recipients include:

•

Massachusetts Port Authority – “Conley Terminal Container Storage and Freight Corridor Project”

•

Delaware River Port Authority – “PATCO Franklin Square Station Reopening Project”

8.4

CONSOLIDATED RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS

The CRISI Grant program has been developed to fiscally support safety enhancements and general improvements to infrastructure for both freight and intercity passenger railroads. USDOT recognizes the importance of planning for life cycle asset management related to America’s transportation infrastructure. Over $311 million dollars were made available in FY 2020 for eligible projects under the CRISI Grant program. According to the CRISI Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), the US rail network carries more than 1.8 billion tons of freight, valued at nearly $800 billion, and carries over 31.7 million passengers on intercity railroads annually. These figures demonstrate the critical role that rail infrastructure plays in the functions and growth of the Nation’s economy. Industry depends on the transportation network to move goods and facilitate the movement of workers responsible for their production. Properly functioning highways, railways, and ports reduce the costs of doing business as well as the burdens associated with commuting. CRISI Grants allow for federal investment in a wide range of projects that improve railroad safety, efficiency, and reliability; mitigate congestion for both intercity passenger and freight rail bottlenecks; enhance multi-modal connections; and lead to new or substantially improved intercity passenger rail transportation corridors. Examples of project types that are eligible for CRISI funding include:

| PAGE 8-5 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 8 | FEDERAL DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAMS |

•

Deployment of railroad safety technology;

•

Capital projects, as defined in section 49 U.S.C. § 24401(2) for intercity passenger rail service;

•

Capital projects that: −

address congestion challenges affecting rail service,

−

reduce congestion and facilitate ridership growth along heavily traveled rail corridors, and/or

−

improve short-line or regional railroad infrastructure;

•

Highway-rail grade crossing improvement projects;

•

Rail line relocation and improvement projects;

•

Regional rail and corridor service development plans and environmental analyses;

•

Any project necessary to enhance multimodal connections or facilitate service integration between rail service and other modes; and

•

The development and implementation of a safety program or institute.

The CRISI Grant program enables multiple partners to seek and apply for funding. Eligible applicants include states and groups of states; public agencies; Amtrak and other intercity passenger rail providers; Class II or Class III railroads or their holding companies; and rail carriers or rail equipment manufacturers in partnership with a state, municipality, or public agency. Examples of past, industry relevant CRISI Grant award recipients include:

•

Georgia Department of Transportation – “Heart of Georgia Railroad Upgrade Project”

•

Vermont Agency of Transportation – “Vermonter Amtrak Safety Project for Passenger and Freight Rail Service”

8.5

INFRASTRUCTURE FOR REBUILDING AMERICA

INFRA Grant funding is intended to provide Federal financial assistance for projects improving the safety, efficiency, and reliability of the movement of freight and people; improve connectivity between modes of freight transportation; and address the impacts of population growth on the movement of people and freight. Funding is targeted for improvements of national or regional significance on major highways, bridges, ports, and railroads. In 2020, USDOT authorized $906 million dollars in federal funds for INFRA eligible projects. The INFRA Grant program codifies a commitment to fix our national infrastructure by enabling a pathway for all levels of government and the private sector to use innovative project funding methods for building significant projects. Eligible project recipients include: a state or group of states; metropolitan planning organization with a population of more than 200,000; local government or group of local governments; political subdivision of a state or local government; special purpose district or public authority with a transportation function – port authority; Federal

| PAGE 8-6 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 8 | FEDERAL DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAMS |

land management agency jointly applying with a state; tribal government; or group of public entities. Safety is the top priority for USDOT and a major consideration within the INFRA Grant program. All projects that receive INFRA awards must consider and effectively respond to data-driven transportation safety concerns. Each project must perform detailed safety analysis and incorporate project elements that respond to state-specific safety priority areas. Along with its focus on improving safety, USDOT has identified four primary objectives that INFRA projects should accomplish:

•

Supporting economic vitality at the national and regional level;

•

Leveraging Federal funding to attract non-Federal sources of infrastructure investment;

•

Deploying innovative technology, encouraging innovative approaches to project delivery, and incentivizing the use of innovative financing; and

•

Holding grant recipients accountable for their performance.

Examples of past, industry relevant INFRA Grant award recipients include:

•

Port Tampa Bay – “Capacity Improvements at Port Tampa Bay’s Hooker Point”

•

Port of Houston Authority – “Wharf Restoration and Strengthening and Barbours Cut Container Terminal Upgrade”

8.6

PORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

The PIDP grant appropriates funding for improvements to facilities within, or outside of, and directly related to the intermodal-infrastructure and operations of coastal seaports, inland river ports, and Great Lakes ports. PIDP funds are awarded for projects that will improve the safety, efficiency, or reliability of the movement of goods into, out of, around, or within a port. Under the National Defense Authorization Act FY 2020, $225 million has been appropriated for PIDP grants. The USDOT Maritime Administration has identified projects that support the following objectives as potential candidates for PIDP Grant funding:

•

Advance technology-supported safety design efficiency improvements;

•

Bring facilities to a state of good repair and improve resiliency;

•

Promote efficient trade in energy resources;

•

Promote exports of manufacturing, agriculture, or other goods; and

•

Support the safe flow of agricultural and food products, free of pests and disease, domestically and internationally for the top 15 coastal ports.

The U.S. relies heavily on its maritime services and infrastructure. Ports deliver numerous economic benefits, both directly and indirectly, providing countless jobs for Americans. PIDP funding supports efforts by ports and industry stakeholders to improve facility and freight infrastructure to ensure the freight transportation needs, both present and future, of the U.S. are met. The grant program allocates capital funds and project management assistance to improve the capacity and efficiency of the Nation’s ports.

| PAGE 8-7 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 8 | FEDERAL DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAMS |

Eligible applicants under the PIDP Grant program include the following: port authority; a commission or its subdivision or agent under existing authority; state, local, and tribal governments; a public agency or publicly chartered authority established by one or more states; a special purpose district with a transportation function; a multistate or multijurisdictional group of entities; or a lead entity described above jointly with a private entity or group of private entities. Recognizing that the efficient movement of goods through ports and accompanying intermodal connections depends on rural transportation networks, the USDOT will consider how projects will address the challenges faced by rural areas when selecting PIDP Grant-funded projects. In addition to the funding of the Wando Welch Terminal Wharf Toe Wall and Berth Deepening Project, the following are examples of past, industry relevant PIDP Grant award recipients:

•

Duluth, Minnesota – “Duluth Port Logistics Hub 2020 Revitalization and Expansion”

•

Long Beach, California – “Alameda Corridor South Access: Terminal Island Rail Junction Project”

| PAGE 8-8 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN

APPENDIX C Technical Memorandum

Freight Network Assessment

Prepared by:

January 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................1-1

STATE OF FREIGHT ........................................................................................................................2-1 2.1

Regional Highway and Rail Flows ................................................................................ 2-3

IDENTIFICATION OF THE BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT NETWORK ..................................................3-1

FREIGHT NETWORK OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................4-1 4.1

Freight Safety .................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.1 Truck-Involved Crashes .................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Grade Crossing Safety ..................................................................................... 4-4 4.1.3 Truck Parking ..................................................................................................... 4-6

4.2

Freight Congestion ........................................................................................................ 4-9 4.2.1 Truck Vehicle Hours of Delay and Roadway Level of Service .................. 4-10 4.2.2 National Performance Management Research Data Set ........................ 4-10

4.3

Infrastructure Conditions ............................................................................................. 4-15 4.3.1 Bridge Conditions ........................................................................................... 4-15 4.3.2 Pavement Conditions .................................................................................... 4-17

SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................................5-1

CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................6-1

LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1: Summary Freight Network Data by Tier ............................................................................... 3-7 Table 4-1: Top Truck-Involved Crash Hotspots by Tier, 2015-2019....................................................... 4-3 Table 4-2: Top 2 Rail Crossing Injury Crash Hotspots, 2009-2019 ......................................................... 4-4 Table 4-3: Rail Crossing Fatal Crashes, 2009-2019 ................................................................................ 4-4 Table 4-4: Rail Crossing Crash Hotspots, 2009-2019.............................................................................. 4-4 Table 4-5: BCD Region Truck Parking Facilities ..................................................................................... 4-8 Table 4-6: Truck Parking Interview Responses (2020) ........................................................................... 4-9 Table 4-7: Freight Network Bottleneck Scoring ................................................................................... 4-13 Table 4-8: Bridges in Poor Condition on the BCD Regional Freight Network .................................. 4-15 Table 4-9: Freight Network Pavement Condition Summary, 2018 ................................................... 4-17 Table 4-10: Roadways Impacted by Mining Operations .................................................................. 4-20 Table 5-1: Summary of Safety, Congestion, and Infrastructure Conditions on the Regional Freight Network........................................................................................................... 5-3

Page i

| TABLE OF CONTENTS |

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1: BCD Truck Tonnage Density and Percent Through Traffic, 2016 ..................................... 2-5 Figure 2-2: BCD Rail Tonnage Density and Percent Through Traffic, 2016 ........................................ 2-6 Figure 3-1: BCD Regional Freight Network ............................................................................................ 3-3 Figure 3-2: BCD Freight Network with Tiers ............................................................................................ 3-4 Figure 3-3: BCD Regional Freight Network with Freight Generators .................................................. 3-6 Figure 4-1: Severe Truck-Involved Crashes on the Regional Freight Network, 2015-2019 ............... 4-2 Figure 4-2: Grade Crossing Hotspots, 2009-2019 .................................................................................. 4-5 Figure 4-3: BCD Region Truck Parking Supply ....................................................................................... 4-7 Figure 4-4: Daily Truck Vehicle Hours of Delay, 2015.......................................................................... 4-11 Figure 4-5: Average Daily Level of Service (All Vehicles), 2015 ........................................................ 4-12 Figure 4-6: NPMRDS Truck Bottlenecks (2019-2020) ............................................................................ 4-14 Figure 4-7: Freight Network Bridges in Poor Condition, 2018 ............................................................ 4-16 Figure 4-8: Freight Network Pavement Existing Conditions, 2018 ..................................................... 4-18 Figure 4-9: SCDHEC Active Mines in the BCDCOG Region .............................................................. 4-19

| PAGE ii | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

1. INTRODUCTION This technical memorandum provides a Freight Network Assessment for the BCD region focusing on the roadway and rail networks. This initial step provides baseline regional freight network conditions and performance which can then be used to identify freight-related issues and needs. The remainder of this memo is organized as follows:

•

State of Freight provides an assessment of the three-county region’s multimodal freight infrastructure, recent or planned projects affecting freight flows, and overall tonnage moving across the regional highway and rail networks.

•

Identification of the BCD Regional Freight Network defines the regional freight network using a data-driven process that accounts for existing federal and state networks and identifies critical last-mile connections to intermodal terminals and major freight generators.

•

Freight Network Operational Analysis assesses regional conditions on the previously identified network, looking specifically at freight safety, congestion and truck bottlenecks, and infrastructure as well as pavement and bridge conditions.

Page 1-1

2. STATE OF FREIGHT Charleston’s economy has always been dependent on freight and trade, beginning with its founding as a colonial port city in 1670. The presence of a major seaport, international airport, freight rail connections, and Interstate highway trade corridors has ensured that freight continues to be a major part of the regional and statewide economy. Key regional freight infrastructure includes:

•

The Port of Charleston is a major economic driver not only for South Carolina but for the entire Southeastern United States. Once the new Hugh Leatherman Terminal (described below) is complete, the Port will have 5 cargo terminals (Hugh Leatherman Terminal, Columbus Street Terminal, North Charleston Terminal, Veterans Terminal, and Wando Welch Terminal). In addition to containerized and bulk cargo, the Port handles shipments of automobile parts and finished cars, an industry sector that has contributed significantly to economic development in the BCD region and statewide. The Port also handles trade bound for Charlotte, Atlanta, and the rest of the Southeast. Until the COVID-19 pandemic, container volumes had been consistently growing at the Port since 2010.

•

Major highway freight corridors include I-26 and I-526, which connect the region to the Upstate and other inland markets. These routes also connect to I-95, which is the primary highway trade corridor for the entire Eastern Seaboard.

•

Charleston International Airport was the 78th busiest cargo airport in the United States in 2018, handling about 347 million pounds of freight. 1 Air cargo is not a large share of total regional freight movements by weight, but shipments that do move by air are usually highly perishable or very valuable. High quality landside connections are critical to air freight efficiency.

•

The CSX and Norfolk Southern (NS) railroads are the major Class 1 freight railroads that serve the BCD region. Each railroad operates an intermodal yard in Charleston. The CSX Ashley Junction terminal contains four tracks with trackside storage areas for grounded containers as well as storage for intermodal chassis and containers on chassis. The NS 7Mile intermodal yard includes a single loading track and storage for both grounded and wheeled containers and chassis.

•

Palmetto Railways is a division of the South Carolina Department of Commerce. It provides rail switching services between the Port of Charleston and the CSX and NS railroads.

Recent and ongoing projects focused on freight mobility include:

•

Harbor Deepening – Work began in February 2018 to deepen the main navigation channel to 52 feet and the entrance channel to 54 feet, as well as enlarge the turning basins. These improvements will allow the Port to handle the larger post-Panamax

1 https://www.ttnews.com/top100/airports/2019

Page 2-1

| 2 | STATE OF FREIGHT |

container vessels which now traverse the Panama Canal from the Pacific Ocean without having to wait for high tide.

•

Hugh K Leatherman Terminal (HLT) – Construction is also underway on a new container terminal, which will increase the Port’s container capacity by 50%. The Port is also modernizing its existing terminals to absorb the expected increase in container traffic.

•

Port Access Road – This new road will provide for direct access between the HLT and I-26. This includes a new interchange on I-26, a Bainbridge Connector Road, extending Stromboli Avenue and various improvements to surface streets serving the HLT.

•

Interstate and Major Highway Improvements – SCDOT continues to progress plans to add capacity and improve mobility in the I-26 and I-526 Corridors. Widening projects between Nexton Parkway (Exit 197) and Jedburg Road (Exit 194), between SC27/Ridgeville Road (Exist 187) and Jedburg Road (Exist 194), and between SC 27/Ridgeville Road (Exist 187) and I-95 (Exit 169) are in various phases of permitting, engineering, and construction. The I-526 Corridor, named the “Lowcountry Corridor” is under project development to add capacity to the full length of the existing I-526 Corridor.

•

Inland Ports – The South Carolina Ports Authority operates two inland ports that process port-related intermodal traffic. While not located in the BCD region, these facilities support multimodal shipments of freight. −

Inland Port Greer opened in 2013 and is located 212 miles inland from the Port of Charleston. NS provides overnight rail service to and from the Port of Charleston six days per week to the terminal, which operates 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. The Port recently received a $25 million USDOT grant to expand the 50-acre port to accommodate additional storage and processing tracks.

−

Inland Port Dillon opened in April 2018 and is located 162 miles inland from the Port of Charleston, off I-95 and US 501 near the North Carolina line. The inland port operates 24-hours per day, 7-days per week with CSX providing overnight rail service from the Port of Charleston six days per week (Monday-Saturday) and export service to the port five days per week (Monday-Friday). Recent nearby industrial developments include a $200 million Harbor Freight distribution center and a manufacturing center for KB Biotech Solutions, indicating the inland port has been a catalyst for new investment.2

As of January 2020, the two inland ports reported nearly 106,000 rail moves in the fiscal year to date, an 18% increase over the prior fiscal year.3 It is likely growth has slowed or even reversed since the COVID-19 pandemic, but longer term economic and trade growth suggests these facilities will continue playing an increasing role in container transshipment to/from the Port of Charleston.

•

Navy Base Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (NBIF) – Palmetto Railways is developing a new intermodal rail terminal on 118 acres in the former Charleston Naval Complex. This terminal will also support the new HLT via the new Port Access Road and other improvements to surface streets. The facility will allow for additional port-generated

2 Wren, David. ‘Harbor Freight to expand Dillon distribution site next to Charleston port agency’s inland facility,’

November 17, 2017 (updated September 14, 2020). Retrieved October 12, 2020 from https://www.postandcourier.com/business/harbor-freight-to-expand-dillon-distribution-site-next-to-charleston-portagencys-inland-facility/article_6a019d46-c3c7-11e7-82f3-57aa5a052581.html. 3 http://scspa.com/news/sc-ports-sees-strong-volumes-in-january/

| PAGE 2-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | STATE OF FREIGHT |

intermodal cargo to move via rail and provide an intermodal transfer hub in North Charleston. The proposed design will provide equal access to both CSX and Norfolk Southern. The final Environmental Impact Statement was approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in June of 2018, and Palmetto Railways is currently purchasing property and advancing the project. A sketch planning analysis for the I-26 Corridor Management Plan found that building the NBIF could reduce regional truck vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle hours of delay (VHD) by 2% and 2.6% respectively when the facility is fully built out.4 However, new rail lines required for the project (the Northern and Southern Connections to the NBIF) along with increased train volumes will likely impact local communities in North Charleston.

•

Lowcountry Rapid Transit (LCRT) – I-26 between Charleston and Summerville is a congested regional corridor and has been the subject of many transit proposals over the years. An alternatives analysis identified Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) primarily along US 78 (Rivers Ave) as the preferred transit solution for the corridor. The $361 million project is currently under development with construction expected between 2024 and 2026. This proposed alignment is also a key regional freight corridor. As plans for BRT service advance it will be necessary to consider impacts on freight movements and safety.

•

Potential Cross Harbor Container-on-Barge Service – The Port of Charleston has applied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to make various improvements, including dredging and a wharf extension at the Wando Welch Container Terminal, to support a proposed container-on-barge service.5 These improvements would allow barges to move about 200 containers at a time between Wando Welch and the new HLT. Intermodal containers could then be transferred to the NBIF via the new Port Access Road for further distribution by rail. These loads currently must move across the Wando and Cooper Rivers via I-526, which has experienced worsening congestion over the years from continued regional population and economic growth. The South Carolina Ports Authority (SCPA) estimates the service could move up to 200,000 containers per year, thus reducing truck demand on the road network. By way of comparison, according to the regional travel demand model the Wando Welch and North Charleston terminals generated about 16,450 and 9,406 trucks per day in 2015.6

2.1

REGIONAL HIGHWAY AND RAIL FLOWS

The IHS Markit TRANSEARCH database was queried to identify overall highway and rail freight tonnage moving to, from, within, and through the BCD region. TRANSEARCH is an origindestination commodity flow database providing county-level estimates of freight flows by mode, direction, and commodity. This initial assessment focused on identifying tonnage density by major truck and rail corridors within the region and the share of such traffic consisting of through movements. Note that a through movement includes any move that originates and terminates outside the three-county study area.

4 SCDOT, I-26 Corridor Management Plan Freight Mobility Technical Memorandum, November 2019.

5 https://www.sac.usace.army.mil/Portals/43/docs/regulatory/publicnotices/Dec2018_PN/SAC-2018-

00865_Charleston_%20SCPA_Wando_Welch_Terminal_Container_Barge_Operation.pdf?ver=2019-01-02-092543-470 6 Wando Welch and North Charleston are container terminals and hence more likely to handle the type of cargo that might be diverted to a container on barge service.

| PAGE 2-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | STATE OF FREIGHT |

Figure 2-1 shows truck tonnage density in 2016 per TRANSEARCH data. Unsurprisingly, I-95 and I26 are the major regional trade corridors. I-95 handles the largest amount of truck freight, and most of it is through traffic. I-26 and I-526 accommodate port-generated truck traffic, including significant flows between the Charleston region and the Upstate. Figure 2-2 provides similar data for the rail network. The NS and CSX lines handle most of the regional rail freight. As with the highway mode, through movements make up a considerable share of this traffic. There is significant rail intermodal traffic moving between the port terminals and the Upstate. According to SCPA representatives who attended the July 16th Freight Advisory Committee Meeting, approximately 25% of inbound marine freight at Charleston leaves the Charleston region by rail. This split has grown over time; in 2018, the Port of Charleston’s rail share was just over 22%.7 Much of this freight is transferred to truck in Greer or Dillon. Additional detail on regional commodity flows including tonnage, value, directionality, mode splits, and origin-destination analysis is provided in the supplemental Freight and Economics Technical Memorandum (Appendix E).

7 Ashe, Ari, and Hugh R. Morley; ‘US East Coast ports investing to capture more intermodal cargo,’ Journal of Commerce,

January 27, 2020.

| PAGE 2-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | STATE OF FREIGHT |

Figure 2-1: BCD Truck Tonnage Density and Percent Through Traffic, 2016

Source: TRANSEARCH

| PAGE 2-5 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | STATE OF FREIGHT |

Figure 2-2: BCD Rail Tonnage Density and Percent Through Traffic, 2016

Source: TRANSEARCH

| PAGE 2-6 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

3. IDENTIFICATION OF THE BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT NETWORK A key first step in evaluating freight operations is to identify the regional freight network. This provides a baseline surface transportation infrastructure network for use in identifying needs and monitoring performance over time. The regional freight network should incorporate existing state and national designations while also drilling down to include important local freight corridors and first/last mile connections. This section establishes a BCD regional freight network. The identified network is then used for regional freight network performance mapping. Designating a regional freight network is important since freight often doesn’t observe the same travel patterns as passenger traffic. For instance, freight frequently crosses jurisdictional boundaries and doesn’t follow the same time of day distribution as passenger trips. Moreover, defining a freight network allows a region to develop strategic solutions that meet freight needs while preserving regional quality of life. The freight network identified herein will be used to measure infrastructure performance for freight, identify needs, and compare the needs against BCDCOG’s planned projects to define gaps and new projects. The following methodology was used to develop a BCD regional freight network:

•

Existing state and federal network designations provided the first level of identification. These include the National Multimodal Freight Network, the South Carolina Strategic Freight Network,8 the South Carolina Strategic Corridor Network,9 designated Critical Urban and Critical Rural Freight Corridors in the region,10 and National Highway System Intermodal Connectors serving freight facilities.

•

Key freight-generating businesses from the TRANSEARCH Freight Finder database 11 were overlaid on the highway and rail networks to understand location patterns of regional freight generators and their relationship to the surface transportation network. Other major freight generating facilities such as Volvo Camp Hall, Palmetto Commerce Park, intermodal terminals, Port of Charleston marine terminals, the Ridgeville Industrial Campus, and Charleston International Airport were also mapped.

•

Truck volumes from the 2040 CHATS regional travel demand model and the SCDOT 2045 statewide travel demand model were mapped to assess which roadways carry the most truck traffic and the highest percentage of truck traffic. Network links were identified using a cross classification system based on volume class and percent truck estimates. Roadways with a total volume of less than5,000 vehicles per day and 10% or greater daily truck volumes and roadways with total volumes greater than 5,000 vehicles per day and

8 The South Carolina Strategic Freight Network is defined in the South Carolina Statewide Freight Plan and consists of

routes the state deems critical to goods movement to, from, within, and through South Carolina. 9 The South Carolina Strategic Corridor Network was defined by SCDOT “to provide a connected, continuous network that serves the traveling public and movement of freight.’ 10 Since Critical Urban and Critical Rural Freight Connectors are periodically updated by SCDOT and MPOs, this freight network can be used to identify candidate routes for inclusion on those networks in the future. 11 TRANSEARCH Freight Finder is supplemental to the TRANSEARCH commodity flow data set and includes georeferenced locational data for freight producing and generating businesses categorized by industry and inbound/outbound tonnage.

Page 3-1

| 3 | IDENTIFICATION OF THE BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT NETWORK |

15% or greater truck volumes were considered for inclusion in the regional freight network. Based on this GIS screening of the corridor and land use context, the roadways meeting that criteria with appropriate context were added to the regional freight network as Tier 3 segments, accounting for local deliveries and first-and-last mile connections.

•

The resulting network was visually assessed, in combination with land use data, to ensure connectivity between major freight generators or industry clusters and key road/rail facilities and to add overall network continuity.

•

Additional routes (e.g., SC 41) that are emerging freight corridors were added based on stakeholder feedback.

The resulting regional highway and rail network is shown in Figure 3-1. All freight railroads are included given their importance in moving cargo within the region and throughout the United States. In the screening process described, highway segments were placed into tiers for the purpose of documentation of this identification process. These tiers are to be considered classifications, not prioritization or significance. Tiers 1 and 2, by definition, carry more significance at either the national or statewide level. Tier 3 includes additional roadways that are not only of national or statewide significance but also important to freight mobility at the regional level. The identified freight road network was further sorted and tiered as follows:

•

Tier 1 – Interstate Highways and Nationally Designated Routes. These routes are nationally significant and are either designed for long-distance travel and trade (e.g., Interstates) or are on another nationally designated freight network (e.g., National Highway System Intermodal Connectors).

•

Tier 2 – Non-Interstate South Carolina Freight Network and South Carolina Strategic Corridor Network. These facilities include routes like US 78 and US 52 that are strategically important to the state of South Carolina but are not part of the Interstate Highway system or other national networks.

•

Tier 3 – Local freight routes. These roads provide critical last-mile connections to key freight facilities, or between freight-generating land uses and the rest of the state/national highway network.

Figure 3-2 shows the freight network with the tiering described above. As noted above, all freight railroads are included in the freight network due to their importance in moving cargo to, from, and through the region and state..

| PAGE 3-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 3 | IDENTIFICATION OF THE BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT NETWORK |

Figure 3-1: BCD Regional Freight Network

| PAGE 3-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 3 | IDENTIFICATION OF THE BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT NETWORK |

Figure 3-2: BCD Freight Network with Tiers

| PAGE 3-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 3 | IDENTIFICATION OF THE BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT NETWORK |

The resulting multimodal freight network is shown in Figure 3-3 with freight generators overlaid on the network. Note that ‘non-freight generators’ refers to a category within the Freight Finder data set for businesses that have only inbound cargo, whereas ‘freight generators’ have both inbound and outbound freight. Regional freight stakeholders provided feedback on the network at a Freight Advisory Committee meeting on July 16th. Besides recommending the inclusion of SC 41, participants noted that the new Port Access Road, I-526, connections between port terminals and the Interstate highway network, and the first-mile connection between the Wando Welch terminal and the rail ramps were all critical first/last mile routes. Table 3-1 provides summary information about the tiered network including roadways by tier, corridor mileage, total traffic and truck volumes (minimum and maximum), and intermodal facilities accessed. Additional analysis and data describing network performance (safety, congestion, and infrastructure conditions) is provided in Section 4, followed by a summary high-level needs assessment in Section 5. Section 6 offers conclusions and next steps.

| PAGE 3-5 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 3 | IDENTIFICATION OF THE BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT NETWORK |

Figure 3-3: BCD Regional Freight Network with Freight Generators

| PAGE 3-6 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 3 | IDENTIFICATION OF THE BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT NETWORK |

Table 3-1: Summary Freight Network Data by Tier

Tier

Road Name

Mileage

Min AADT (2015)1

1 1

Banco Rd. Chuck Dawley Blvd.

0.38 0.07

11,185 19,200

33,676 19,200

5,583 1,121

Max AADTT (2015)1 8,583 1,121

East Bay St.

1.96

2,942

15,388

598

I-26

111.65

12,627

68,923

1,012

8,685

I-526

24.17

5,605

46,880

175

11,629

1 1

I-95 International Blvd.

18.82 0.86

20,000 27,425

20,000 36,278

5,000 2,213

6,000 2,671

YES

Long Point Road

0.90

13,172

31,943

7,053

12,844

YES

Meeting Street

0.36

2,914

2,125

YES

Montague Avenue

0.54

22,490

36,015

3,612

5,552

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Morrison Drive Mount Pleasant Street Port Access Road RAMP I-26/I-526 RAMP to I-526 from US-17 Remount Road Septima Clark Pkwy. US-78 Arthur Ravenel Bridge / US-17 Ben Sawyer Blvd. Bohicket Road Carner Avenue

1.55 0.14 1.73 5.48 0.47 3.52 0.19 0.04

7,176 9,829 N/A 23,221 11,487 8,307 32,775 34,940

16,540 10,838 N/A 28,080 11,487 26,774 32,775 34,940

317 847 N/A 3,993 1,687 2,454 2,007 4,059

2,115 1,135 N/A 4,384 1,687 10,073 2,007 4,059

3.76

10,411

41,938

794

2,733

3.25 12.37 0.98

9,546 10,356 1,358

19,867 21,454 3,771

321 390 295

1,424 1,112 829

2 2 2 2

Max AADT Min AADTT (2015)1 (2015)1

| PAGE 3-7 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

NHS Intermodal Connector

Intermodal Facilities Served

Columbus Street/Union Pier Terminals, Navy Base Intermodal Facility Wando Welch Container Terminal Charleston International Airport Wando Welch Container Terminal CSX Ashley Junction Norfolk Southern 7-Mile Yard, CSX Ashley Junction Columbus Street Terminal

North Charleston Terminal

| 3 | IDENTIFICATION OF THE BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT NETWORK |

Tier

Road Name

Mileage

Min AADT (2015)1

2 2 2

2.74 11.16 1.85

20,422 5,783 15,058

25,883 54,441 23,373

1,177 359 2,142

4.57

13,349

19,145

670

1,006

2.71

11,117

27,888

1,064

1,752

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Coleman Blvd. Folly Road Goose Creek/NAD Road Isle of Palms Connector / SC-517 James Island Expwy / SC30 Jasper Blvd. Maybank Highway Meeting Street Old Folly Road Old Town Road Palm Blvd. RAMP to US-17 Red Bank Road

Max AADTT (2015)1 1,742 5,294 3,185

1.99 8.52 4.71 0.12 2.23 1.98 1.79 7.94

6,148 14,290 444 789 1,491 6,148 12,607 4,151

6,148 31,280 28,512 789 22,903 6,148 29,331 28,412

176 660 157 40 23 176 827 1,620

176 2,699 4,433 40 2,232 176 1,906 3,867

Rivers Avenue

11.95

527

34,650

111

3,297

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Sam Rittenberg Blvd. SC-174 SC-402 SC-41 SC-45 SC-6 SC-61 SC-7 Septima Clark Pkwy. US-17 US-17 / Savannah Hwy US-176 US-178

2.18 24.15 18.72 20.58 40.57 29.08 37.26 0.17 1.01 58.33 34.15 30.86 20.93

21,448 3,737 4,971 2,756 594 1,272 3,075 29,042 9,069 3,189 14,798 2,924 266

48,358 5,055 9,499 29,278 6,769 9,842 39,010 29,042 56,965 73,995 52,977 33,096 6,064

2,067 101 312 91 20 186 130 3,421 650 58 573 62 28

4,769 336 441 1,897 374 701 2,817 3,421 3,808 5,120 6,999 2,727 404

2 2

Max AADT Min AADTT (2015)1 (2015)1

| PAGE 3-8 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

NHS Intermodal Connector

Intermodal Facilities Served

Norfolk Southern 7-Mile Yard, CSX Ashley Junction

| 3 | IDENTIFICATION OF THE BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT NETWORK |

Tier

Road Name

Mileage

Min AADT (2015)1

2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

US-17A US-52 US-78 Wesley Drive Albemarle Road Ashley Crossing Ashley Phosphate Road Autonomous Road Aviation Avenue Azalea Drive Bainbridge Avenue Bees Ferry Road Brigade Street Broad Street Burton Lane Bushy Park Road Cainhoy Road Calhoun Street Centre Pointe Drive Chuck Dawley Blvd. Clements Ferry Road College Park Road Columbus Street Cooper Store Road Cosgrove Avenue Courtenay Drive Cross County Road Cypress Campground Road Cypress Gardens Road

61.22 46.70 53.94 0.23 0.10 0.88 5.18 3.57 0.81 3.53 0.62 5.39 0.07 1.17 0.34 8.82 16.12 1.55 0.84 1.34 9.96 1.23 0.63 9.47 1.37 0.50 2.58

N/A 278 794 40,160 73 1,799 25,211 N/A 4,436 2,909 2,574 3,506 1,152 2,404 1,468 1,714 3,252 6,199 7,857 14,848 10,264 16,366 1,061 795 8,947 6,991 12,374

54,247 26,085 40,551 40,160 509 1,799 75,908 N/A 15,363 9,880 2,574 25,967 1,152 9,140 1,468 3,245 7,777 37,286 7,857 17,296 32,670 44,195 3,157 1,254 18,067 9,558 15,086

N/A 97 70 4,207 8 16 2,936 N/A 834 367 504 159 205 17 258 380 320 415 848 944 1,259 3,238 48 3 1,043 680 1,413

Max AADTT (2015)1 7,643 2,984 4,440 4,207 21 16 11,782 N/A 2,085 4,099 504 1,440 205 127 258 1,676 1,662 2,534 848 1,082 12,177 4,441 141 20 1,874 773 2,380

8.78

1,038

1,792

258

9.94

2,322

7,003

333

849

3 3

Max AADT Min AADTT (2015)1 (2015)1

| PAGE 3-9 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

NHS Intermodal Connector

Intermodal Facilities Served

Charleston International Airport

| 3 | IDENTIFICATION OF THE BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT NETWORK |

Tier

Road Name

Mileage

Min AADT (2015)1

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Delemar Highway Dorchester Road Drop Off Drive E.Church Street Farmington Road Fielding Connector Fishburne Street Givhans Road Glenn McConnell Pkwy. Hagood Avenue Heriot Street Hobson Avenue Huger Street Hungry Neck Blvd. International Blvd. James Island Expressway / SC-30 Jedburg Road King Street King Street Extn. Ladson Road Leeds Avenue Lockwood Drive Long Point Road Main Road Mallard Road Maybank Highway McMillan Avenue Meeting Street Michaux Pkwy.

4.19 22.83 2.76 4.42 2.50 0.61 0.31 7.43 15.11 0.41 0.24 1.94 0.62 2.60 2.08

5,623 6,853 1,496 967 2,403 19,595 491 8,423 7,740 2,585 303 700 2,938 4,059 6,524

5,623 45,798 2,498 1,194 5,890 20,154 3,803 10,115 19,250 3,566 2,337 3,221 4,195 13,732 24,769

144 710 515 93 752 545 20 102 687 5 5 175 97 208 330

Max AADTT (2015)1 144 4,271 769 93 2,956 550 46 121 1,229 16 138 850 154 775 3,108

0.54

6,937

25,705

227

1,825

9.10 3.72 2.98 5.57 1.36 1.62 1.22 8.31 1.40 0.39 0.29 5.14 1.16

3,971 1,912 1,566 14,983 5,221 622 17,789 3,911 5,991 5,574 1,589 292 17,827

20,786 13,986 5,001 39,131 14,094 14,783 25,277 17,571 7,707 5,574 3,699 27,203 17,827

228 16 295 1,055 630 30 1,203 264 453 90 233 71 790

6,034 408 755 5,987 1,765 305 7,136 2,024 509 90 318 1,542 790

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Max AADT Min AADTT (2015)1 (2015)1

| PAGE 3-10 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

NHS Intermodal Connector

Intermodal Facilities Served

Charleston International Airport

CSX Ashley Junction Charleston International Airport

| 3 | IDENTIFICATION OF THE BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT NETWORK |

Road Name

Mileage

Min AADT (2015)1

Montague Avenue

0.83

18,510

27,825

3,376

4,004

3 3 3 3 3 3

N. Maple Street N. Rhett Avenue Noisette Blvd. Old Dairy Road Old Orangeburg Road Old Whitesville Road Palmetto Commerce Pkwy. Paul Cantrell Blvd. Pomflant Access Road Red Bay Road Reflectance Drive Remount Road Reynolds Avenue Ridgeville Road Rivers Avenue Royle Road Sam Rittenberg Blvd. Sandlapper Pkwy. Extn. SC-165 SC-27 SC-311 SC-453 SC-61 SC-7 Steed Creek Road Stromboli Avenue US-17

2.14 6.66 1.31 3.78 2.60 3.95

2,215 15,988 1,063 2,215 2,911 1,514

2,215 36,042 2,142 8,989 3,668 3,307

933 1,860 60 933 188 14

933 8,291 265 5,613 219 57

13.27

1,555

9,224

167

2,329

1.45 1.36 3.67 0.69 0.86 0.81 3.73 0.54 1.00 3.87 2.14 7.25 11.98 11.04 1.43 0.49 0.31 14.26 0.78 0.38

4,755 103 3,551 1,949 4,664 781 3,029 962 5,419 13,009 N/A 2,655 3,146 4,246 3,901 6,741 19,461 2,176 263 143

26,114 103 3,551 1,949 18,091 3,302 17,620 2,886 6,187 30,535 N/A 6,263 14,502 5,259 3,901 7,184 36,762 3,074 263 4,389

186 103 2,623 247 450 117 203 91 327 1,331 N/A 156 112 177 288 152 2,837 77 154 19

1,670 103 2,623 247 2,433 633 1,234 294 347 3,856 N/A 192 264 201 288 159 4,781 88 154 122

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Max AADT Min AADTT (2015)1 (2015)1

Max AADTT (2015)1

Tier

| PAGE 3-11 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

NHS Intermodal Connector

Intermodal Facilities Served Norfolk Southern 7-Mile Yard, CSX Ashley Junction North Charleston Terminal

Charleston International Airport

| 3 | IDENTIFICATION OF THE BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT NETWORK |

Tier 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Road Name US-52 Bypass Virginia Avenue Volvo Car Drive Von Ohnsen Road W.Montague Avenue Wappoo Road Weber Drive Wesley Drive Wright Road

Mileage

Min AADT (2015)1

2.47 2.13 5.94 0.94 1.98 1.33 1.00 0.12 3.53

6,471 2,269 N/A 3,978 7,975 6,032 4,908 21,361 N/A

Max AADT Min AADTT (2015)1 (2015)1 9,110 4,898 N/A 4,098 22,898 7,750 4,908 21,361 N/A

419 848 N/A 155 890 282 1,439 2,440 N/A

Max AADTT (2015)1 740 2,834 N/A 255 2,601 488 1,439 2,440 N/A

Sources: 1 CHATS/SCDOT Travel Demand Model (2015) 2 SC Department of Public Safety (2015-2019)

| PAGE 3-12 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

NHS Intermodal Connector

Intermodal Facilities Served

Volvo Camp Hall

4. FREIGHT NETWORK OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS To progress the analysis of the operational performance of the identified BCD freight network, the network identified in the previous section was evaluated on the following metrics:

•

Safety – Locations of severe truck-involved crashes, rail-highway grade crossing safety hotspots, and potential truck parking shortages

•

Freight congestion – Truck vehicle hours of delay, level of service (LOS), and truck bottlenecks

•

Infrastructure condition – Bridges in poor condition or with low vertical clearance, and pavement condition ratings

4.1

FREIGHT SAFETY

Freight-related crashes occur less frequently than many other types of crashes but can be more severe due to the size and weight of the vehicles involved. It’s therefore important to understand where such crashes tend to occur as well as the infrastructure conditions that may contribute to them. The following sections assess CMV-involved crashes in the region, rail grade crossing safety hotspots, and truck parking capacity.12

4.1.1 Truck-Involved Crashes Figure 4-1 is a heat map showing the density of severe truck-involved crashes in the threecounty region from 2015 to 2019. Any crash that includes one or more fatalities or incapacitating injuries is considered severe. High crash concentrations are represented in the red and yellow areas on the map. Commercial vehicle-involved crash hotspots are mostly found along I-26 and parallel routes like US 78 that serve industrial land uses. There are also localized clusters along US 17 west of the Ashley, Palmetto Commerce Parkway, and US 17 Alt. Table 4-1 describes the top truck-involved crash hotspots by freight network tier. Hotspots were identified by dividing the network into 1-mile segments, summing severe truck-involved crashes on each segment, and calculating the CMV-involved crash rate (per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) and the ratio of severe CMV crashes to all CMV crashes on each segment. If more than one segment had the same number of crashes, each such segment is listed. As shown in the table, I-26 segments from Jedburg Rd/SC 16 to Omni Industrial Blvd, Eagle Drive to Aviation Avenue, and near SC 27/Old Gilliard Road have a high number of CMV crashes (42, 67, and 29 respectively) as well as higher crash rates (89.3, 54.7, and 85.7 per 100 million VMT respectively). However, the ratio of severe crashes to all CMV crashes is relatively low on these segments, probably due to the volume of truck traffic they handle. Other locations have lower crash rates but higher ratios, potentially indicating truck safety hotspots that should be targeted for improvement.

12 Truck parking is included with safety since truck drivers must park periodically to comply with federal hours of service

safety regulations.

Page 4-1

| 4 | FREIGHT NETWORK OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS |

Figure 4-1: Severe Truck-Involved Crashes on the Regional Freight Network, 2015-2019

| PAGE 4-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FREIGHT NETWORK OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS |

Table 4-1: Top Truck-Involved Crash Hotspots by Tier, 2015-2019

Tier

Roadway Name I-26 I-26 I-26 I-26

I-26 I-26

I-26 US-17 US-17 US-78 2 US-17A US-17A US-17A S-98 S-136 3

SC-642

Location

I-26 (South of Exit 194) I-26 (Exit 197 at Nexton Parkway) I-26 (North of Exit 211A) I-26 (South of Exit 199A/B) I-26 (Exit 187 at Ridgeville Rd/ Old Gilliard Road) I-26 (South of Exit 172 A/B near White Lemon Road near weigh stations) I-26 (South of Exit 172 A/B near White Lemon Road near weigh stations) US-17 and SC-165 Intersection US-17and W Coleman Blvd Intersection US-78 (Commercial Center Drive to Shipley Street) US-17A (In Clubhouse Road Intersection) US-17A (College Park Road to St James Ave) US-17A (College Park Road to St James Ave) Cainhoy Road Harry E Brown Jr Blvd (Tanner Ford Blvd to Yeamans Hall Road) SC-642 (W Hill Road to Lake Ashley Park) Palmetto Commerce Pkwy (Around Daimler Vans Manufacturing)

194.1

195.1

25,771

6,124

89.3

Ratio of CMV Severe Crashes to All CMV Crashes 9.52%

197.6

198.6

26,620

6,395

30.9

20.00%

209.8 200.2

210.8 201.2

67,120 38,690

8,567 8,125

67 11

2 2

54.7 15.6

2.99% 18.18%

186.5

187.5

18,551

3,836

85.7

6.90%

173.5

174.5

20,000

5,000

13.7

40.00%

172.5

173.5

20,000

5,000

35.6

15.38%

11.7

12.7

17,348

2,912

53.7

17.65%

33.4

34.4

28,871

1,810

43.7

8.70%

4.5

5.5

38,732

4,008

41.0

6.90%

4.3

5.3

11,227

997

19.5

50.00%

4.1

5.1

31,847

2,822

46.5

7.41%

3.1

4.1

33,759

2,959

26.0

12.50%

11.7

12.7

7,777

1,662

21.1

66.67%

4.5

5.5

34,875

3,132

14.1

22.22%

1.5

2.5

39,919

3,020

15.1

18.18%

8,417

1,638

19.5

66.67%

Begin Milepoint

End Milepoi nt

Average Total Daily Traffic

Average Total Daily Truck Traffic

Number of CMV Crashes

Sources: SC Department of Public Safety (2015-2019), BCD and SCDOT Travel Demand Models (2015)

| PAGE 4-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Number of Severe CMV Crashes

CMVInvolved Crash Rate (per 100 mil VMT)

| 4 | FREIGHT NETWORK OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS |

4.1.2 Grade Crossing Safety Safety is also a concern at rail-highway grade crossings. To assess grade crossing safety, the project team collected Federal Railroad Administration grade crossing crash statistics from 20092019 for each crossing in the three-county region, totaling over 500 crossings. There were 71 grade crossing accidents at 48 crossings during this period, an average of about six crashes per year. However, few crashes resulted in injuries or fatalities, as shown in Table 4-2 and Table 4-3, respectively (Table 4-2 lists the top two injury crash locations by number of injuries; Table 4-3 shows all fatal crashes that occurred since each crashed produced one fatality). Since severe crashes are comparatively rare, overall grade crossing safety risk was assessed based on the total number of accidents at each crossing, including those that only resulted in property damage. The results are shown in Table 4-4 and mapped in Figure 4-2. The NS crossing at Ashley Phosphate Road near Southrail Road in Charleston County had the most crashes during the 11-year period, including one that resulted in three injuries. The CSX crossing at Red Bank Road near US 52 in Berkeley County had the second most crashes, one of which was fatal. Table 4-2: Top 2 Rail Crossing Injury Crash Hotspots, 2009-2019 Crossing ID

Rank

Railroad

721448L

720811L

Street Crossing

County

Number of Crashes

Total Injuries

Charleston

Dorchester

Near

Ashley Southrail Road Phosphate Schuman Drive US 78

Source: Federal Railroad Administration, 2009-2019

Table 4-3: Rail Crossing Fatal Crashes, 2009-2019 Crossing ID

Railroad

631974A 631979J 632405X 720806P 721475H

CSX CSX CSX NS NS

Street Crossing

Near

Number of Crashes 1 1 1 1 1

County

Red Bank Road US 52 Hanahan Road Railroad Ave Highway 162 McCombs Road Ann Street Railroad Avenue SW Dearing Drive W. 5th North Street

Berkeley Berkeley Charleston Dorchester Dorchester

Total Fatalities 1 1 1 1 1

Source: Federal Railroad Administration, 2009-2019

Table 4-4: Rail Crossing Crash Hotspots, 2009-2019 Street Crossing

Near

County

Southrail Road US 52

Charleston Berkeley

Gaynor Avenue

Charleston

CSX

Ashley Phosphate Red Bank Road East Montague Avenue SC 165

Number of Crashes 6 4

Charleston

North Main Street

Drayton Street South Railroad Avenue

Dorchester

Crossing ID

Rank

Railroad

721448L 631974A

1 2

NS CSX

631981K

CSX

632410U

721485N

Source: Federal Railroad Administration, 2009-2019

| PAGE 4-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FREIGHT NETWORK OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS |

Figure 4-2: Grade Crossing Hotspots, 2009-2019

| PAGE 4-5 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FREIGHT NETWORK OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS |

4.1.3 Truck Parking Truck drivers have two legal options for parking, public or private facilities. Public facilities can be rest areas, truck weigh stations, or truck rest stops. Private facilities usually include truck stops/fueling stations (sometimes with amenities like showers and food), lodging establishments or shopping centers. Drivers will decide what options they have for parking depending on the haul length, movement type and staging requirements. Truck drivers are subject to hours of service regulations which govern how long they may drive before stopping for rest. Legislation mandating the use of electronic hours of service logging devices prohibit drivers from exceeding their hours of service limits. Hence, when drivers run out of hours of service, they must pull over whether there is a safe place to park or not. Sometimes drivers are forced to park on highway shoulders or other unauthorized locations, creating safety, infrastructure deterioration, and community quality of life issues. Drivers accessing port terminals and warehousing/distribution facilities in the BCD region also require staging areas when picking up or dropping off shipments. Figure 4-3 and Table 4-5 show the location of public and private truck parking in the threecounty region obtained from SCDOT and Allstays.com. Of the truck parking identified, about 81% is privately supplied and lies on or near I-95 in Dorchester County or along I-26 in Berkeley County. There is comparatively little supply near the Port of Charleston terminals or the major freight generators closer to Charleston. However, participants in the July 16 th steering committee meeting indicated some parking is being provided outside the gates of the new HLT. As planned, HLT is expected to accommodate up to 12 tractor-trailers with 40’ containers (20-24 if the trucks double park). In addition, private logistics firms sometimes provide parking for company owned trucks near the port or along major freight corridors like I-26 and US 78. These facilities meet at least some of the demand for regional truck parking, although they are not accessible to all drivers. SCDOT is creating a Corridor Management Plan for I-26 in the Charleston region. The study is evaluating strategies to better manage corridor traffic, including freight traffic. Although the study boundaries don’t extend to all the BCD region, it does examine parking demand and capacity along I-26 closer to Charleston. The study looked at existing conditions on I-26 between Exit 194 and Exit 218, and on I-526 at Exit 18. Demand was evaluated by counting trucks during the overnight peak truck parking period (12:45 a.m. to 2 a.m.) at six locations – five private and one public. Most of the locations assessed were at or above capacity at the time of the survey:

• • • •

The Flying J on Jedburg Road in Summerville was at 200% capacity; The Kangaroo Express on Main Street in Summerville was at 109% capacity; The public rest area at I-26 Mile 204 was at 100% capacity; and The Pilot Travel Center at I-26 Exit 199 was at 210% capacity.13

These results suggest that the BCD region is not immune to the nationwide truck parking shortage. Regional trends like a growing metro area, increasing land values, industrial expansions, and Port of Charleston cargo growth will contribute to ongoing truck parking shortages.

13 I-26 Corridor Management Plan Freight Mobility Technical Memorandum (CDM Smith), 2018.

| PAGE 4-6 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FREIGHT NETWORK OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS |

Figure 4-3: BCD Region Truck Parking Supply

| PAGE 4-7 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FREIGHT NETWORK OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS |

Table 4-5: BCD Region Truck Parking Facilities Name

Location

Number of Spaces

Public/ Private

Flying J

799 Jedburg Rd, Summerville, SC

Private

Kangaroo Express

1571 N Main St, Summerville, SC

Private

Pilot

1521 N Main St, Summerville, SC

Private

Kangaroo Express

1968 Meeting Street Rd, Charleston, SC

Private

En Market

2722 US 15, Harleyville, SC

Private

Pilot

9587 Charleston Highway, St George, SC

100

Private

Shell

6131 W Jim Bilton Blvd, St George, SC

Private

Flying J

113 Motel Drive, St George, SC

118

Private

Rest Area

I-26 Eastbound at Mile Marker 204

Public

Weigh Station

South Carolina WB Weigh Station

Public

Weigh Station

South Carolina EB Weigh Station

Public

Source: CDM Smith desktop review of data from SCDOT, Allstays.com, and Google Earth imagery, 2020

Phone interviews were conducted to collect additional truck parking data from three truck stops in the region. The interviews gathered information about parking capacity, utilization, amenities, and operational patterns. The three stops were the Flying J at 799 Jedburg Road in Summerville, the Kangaroo Express at 1968 Meeting Street Road in Charleston, and the Flying J at 113 Motel Drive in St. George. Data extracted from each interview are provided in Table 4-6. The survey confirms the 49 spaces available at the Flying J on Jedburg Road (also inventoried in the Corridor Management Plan). It also identified capacity at two locations not assessed in the Corridor Management Plan – the Kangaroo Express at 1968 Meeting Street in Charleston, and the Flying J at 113 Motel Drive in St. George. (Note that the desktop review identified 10 spaces at the Kangaroo Express and 118 at the Flying J, both of which differ from capacity reported by interviewees.) None of the respondents reported any changes in utilization due to the COVID-19 pandemic. All three truck stops reported that their peak occupancy occurs mostly during daylight hours – noon for the Flying J on Jedburg, 5 a.m. to 8 a.m. for the Kangaroo Express, and 7 a.m. to 12 noon for the Flying J on Motel Drive. This could indicate staging activity for trucks waiting to access the port terminals or distribution centers in the area.

| PAGE 4-8 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FREIGHT NETWORK OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS |

Table 4-6: Truck Parking Interview Responses (2020) Question What is the Facility Name? Can you please confirm your physical address is _______? What are the hours of operation? How many truck parking spaces are currently at your facility? What is the typical cost of renting a space? What types of trailers can your facility accommodate? What types of amenities does your facility have?

What was the estimated occupancy rate Pre-COVID? Currently? What hour ranges typically see the highest occupancy? Is there a typical length of stay? Do you have plans to add additional spaces or amenities in the future?

799 Jedburg Rd, Summerville, SC 29483 Flying J

Kangaroo Express

113 Motel Drive, St. George, SC 29477 Flying J

Yes

24/7

49 spaces

26 spaces*

20 spaces*

$15/night

No rentals

$15/night

All

Laundry, truck wash, scale, showers, bathrooms

Public bathroom

Laundry, scale, showers, bathrooms

Unaware

Noon

5 A.M. - 8 A.M.; 1 hour

7 A.M. - 12 P.M.

1968 Meeting Street Rd, Charleston, SC 29405

*Survey response differs from data gathered via desktop review. Source: CDM Smith, July 2020

4.2

FREIGHT CONGESTION

Highway congestion impacts shippers’ ability to deliver cargo to destinations within time window commitments. Unreliable travel conditions create inefficiencies and increase costs that are often passed on to the customer and ultimately to consumers. Highway bottlenecks therefore impact not only area traffic conditions and quality of life, but also regional economic competitiveness. The CHATS regional travel demand model was used to assess freight congestion by calculating truck vehicle hours of delay (VHD) and roadway Level of Service (LOS).14 In addition, data from the National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS) were used to identify truck bottlenecks and calculate truck travel time reliability. The following sections describe overall congestion in the region and identify potential truck bottlenecks using the NPMRDS truck travel time data.

14 LOS is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions in a traffic stream based on measures such as speed

and travel time. LOS is categorized into letter grades with A being free-flow conditions and F being gridlock.

| PAGE 4-9 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FREIGHT NETWORK OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS |

4.2.1 Truck Vehicle Hours of Delay and Roadway Level of Service The project team used the CHATS regional travel demand model and the SCDOT statewide model to evaluate truck delay and daily LOS on the freight network. Note that the models don’t allow for calculating truck LOS, so this measure is provided for all traffic. Figure 4-4 shows the model results for truck VHD in 2015. The model shows extensive truck delays in the segments of I-526 near Clements Ferry Road, which provide truck access to the Wando Welch Terminal and nearby freight-related businesses. The intersection of I-526 and Clements Ferry experiences truck delays of up to nearly 1,300 hours per day. Other segments experiencing significant truck delay include I-526 west of Clements Ferry to the I-26 interchange, I-26 north of I526, and Ashley Phosphate Road west of I-26. There are many more segments of the freight network that have poor LOS, see Figure 4-5. Although this metric is not specific to trucks, the fact that these slowdowns occur on the regional freight network (which has generally higher truck volumes) implies they are freight bottlenecks. In addition to I-526 and Clements Ferry Road, I-26, US 78, SC 41, Septima Clark Parkway, SC 61 and SC 7 in West Ashley, SC 700, US 17A, and SC 642/Dorchester Road all show daily LOS of E or F.

4.2.2 National Performance Management Research Data Set Freight bottlenecks in the BCD region were identified using the Federal Highway Administration’s National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS) vehicle probe data. The NPMRDS is a national data set of average travel times for use in analyzing highway system performance. The data provided are actual travel times. No estimates or historical data substitutions for missing data are included. The data used in this analysis cover truck speed data from March 2019 through February 2020, aggregated in 15-minute time periods. The NPMRDS data includes distinct average travel time information for each fifteen-minute-interval for freight and all traffic on the entire National Highway System, organized by Traffic Message Channel segments on roadways to enable mapping of the data. The FHWA Truck Freight Bottleneck Reporting Guidebook provides an analytical framework for identifying and analyzing truck bottlenecks. 15 This analysis follows the FHWA methodology by defining multiple parameters to better understand traffic congestion patterns in the BCD region:16

•

Free-flow Speed – This measure indicates the travel time on a roadway under free-flow conditions, with little to no interaction from traffic. To calculate this measure, the 85 th percentile travel times during weekday overnight hours (10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.) are considered because of low traffic volumes. If data are insufficient (less than 50 percent coverage), the midday data (11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) are added to the sample and the 95th percentile is considered. This measure was calculated based on all vehicles, not only trucks.

15 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/guidance/hop18070.pdf 16 SCDOT also monitors freight performance for statewide planning purposes. The 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan

update uses a Truck Travel Time Reliability Index for Interstates only using a similar methodology.

| PAGE 4-10 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FREIGHT NETWORK OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS |

Figure 4-4: Daily Truck Vehicle Hours of Delay, 2015

| PAGE 4-11 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FREIGHT NETWORK OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS |

Figure 4-5: Average Daily Level of Service (All Vehicles), 2015

| PAGE 4-12 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FREIGHT NETWORK OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS |

•

95th Percentile Travel Time – This measure is derived from travel times on a segment based on multiple observations, usually over a period of months. It indicates that 95% of the time, the travel time on a roadway segment is lower than the 95th percentile value. Therefore, the higher the 95th percentile travel time, the longer it takes to travel on a roadway. This metric departs from the 80th percentile value given in the FHWA Guidebook; this adjustment was made based on guidance found in the FHWA Freight Performance Measure Approaches for Bottlenecks, Arterials, and Linking Volumes to Congestion Report.17

•

Planning Time Index 95th (PTI 95th) – The planning time index (PTI) is computed as the 95th percentile travel time divided by the free-flow travel time. For example, a planning time index of 1.60 means that, for a 15-minute trip in light traffic, the total time that should be planned for the trip is 24 minutes. The higher the PTI, the longer the travel time that should be budgeted to reach a destination on time.

•

Frequency of Congestion – This is expressed as the percentage of time that travel speeds fall below 75% of the free-flow speed during the worst peak period (from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. for the morning peak period and from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. for the afternoon peak period). So, the higher the percentage, the longer the roadway is congested during that period.

Freight bottlenecks were identified using a combination of PTI 95th (calculated using free-flow speed and 95th percentile travel time) and frequency of congestion. The PTI is a measure of congestion intensity while the frequency of congestion is a measure of congestion recurrence. The portions of the congested roadway network which had a combination of the highest PTI and frequency of congestion were identified as freight bottlenecks. Road segments were scored based on their frequency of congestion and PTI scores as shown in Table 4-7. For example, a roadway segment with a frequency of congestion of 70% and a PTI of 4 would receive a score of 8. Table 4-7: Freight Network Bottleneck Scoring Score 1 2 3 4 5

Frequency of Congestion Frequency ≤ 15% 15% < Frequency ≤ 30% 30% < Frequency ≤ 60% 60% < Frequency ≤ 90% Frequency > 90%

Score 1 2 3 4 5

Planning Time Index 95th PTI ≤ 1.50 1.50 < PTI ≤ 2.00 2.00 < PTI ≤ 3.00 3.00 < PTI ≤ 5.00 PTI > 5.00

The results of this process are illustrated in Figure 4-6. I-26 and I-526, SC 642, US 52, US 78, US 17, and several streets in downtown Charleston all appear to present significant bottlenecks for trucks. (Note that SC 41 data are not provided in the NPMRDS, so it is not included in the map.)

17 https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop15033/fhwahop15033.pdf

| PAGE 4-13 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FREIGHT NETWORK OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS |

Figure 4-6: NPMRDS Truck Bottlenecks (2019-2020)

| PAGE 4-14 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FREIGHT NETWORK OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS |

4.3

INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITIONS

Poor pavement condition reduces freight efficiency and contributes to increased wear and tear on trucks. Bridges in poor condition may require increased maintenance in the future, especially if truck traffic increases. Bridges that are restricted to less than the standard legal weight limit and those with low vertical clearance can impede commerce by forcing trucks to use alternate routes. Some of these routings may be circuitous, adding cost and time to shipments. This section identifies potential issues related to bridges and pavement on the regional freight network.

4.3.1 Bridge Conditions Bridges in poor condition were identified and mapped using the 2018 SCDOT bridge database. In South Carolina, bridges are in poor condition if the deck, superstructure, or substructure are rated 4 or lower using the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) rating scale of 0 to 9. 18 There are eight bridges in the BCD region that are on the regional freight network and rated in poor condition (see Table 4-8 and Figure 4-7), including one on I-26 over the CSX Railroad in North Charleston. Others are located on US 17, US 17ALT, SC 97, US 176, SC 174, and US 78. Such bridges are more likely to require costly repairs in the future to continue in service. If they must be posted for load, trucks may have to detour around them, adding cost and time to shipments. The project team consulted the NBI database to assess low-clearance (less than 15 feet) and load-posted bridges on the regional freight network. No such bridges were found. Table 4-8: Bridges in Poor Condition on the BCD Regional Freight Network Bridge ID

County

Route

Crossing

Location N Charleston

75191/75192

Charleston

I-26

S.C.L. RR & Southern Rwy

75625

Dorchester

US 78

Four Hole Swamp

76578

Berkeley

US 17 Alt

75760

Charleston/ Georgetown

US 17

75020

Charleston

SC 174 E

Russell Creek

75021

Charleston

SC 174 E

Sand Creek

75022

Charleston

SC 174 E

Store Creek

75616

Berkeley

S-16 E

75642

Berkeley

S-16 E

Santee Tail Race Canal South Santee River

TRIB TO CYPRESS SWAMP SANDY RUN CREEK

3.8 mi NW of Ridgeville 1 mi N of Moncks Corner 18 mi S Georgetown 8 mi N of Edisto Beach 9 mi N of Edisto Beach 4 mi N of Edisto Beach 12.2MI SW MONCKS CORNER 10.7MI SW MONCKS CORNER

Source: SCDOT Bridge Database, 2018

18 SCDOT, Final Transportation Asset Management Plan, August 2019.

| PAGE 4-15 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Ratin g Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor

| 4 | FREIGHT NETWORK OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS |

Figure 4-7: Freight Network Bridges in Poor Condition, 2018

| PAGE 4-16 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FREIGHT NETWORK OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS |

4.3.2 Pavement Conditions Figure 4-8 shows SCDOT pavement condition data for the freight network; the mileage and percentage shares by tier are detailed in Table 4-9. The pavement condition ratings are based on the SCDOT Pavement Quality Index (PQI), which is a combination of Pavement Serviceability Index (a roughness/rutting measure) and Pavement Distress Index (a measure of cracking or other distress). PQI scores are given on a 5-point scale as:

• • •

Poor – PQI 0.0 to 2.6 Fair – PQI 2.7 to 3.3 Good – PQI 3.4 to 5.0 Table 4-9: Freight Network Pavement Condition Summary, 2018

Tier

Good

Fair

Poor

Total

152.8 miles (87.4%)

20.2 miles (11.5%)

1.9 miles (1.1%)

174.9 miles

222.6 miles (41.1%)

129.4 miles (23.9%)

189.8 miles (35%)

541.8 miles

77.1 miles (32.7%)

66.1 miles (28%)

92.7 miles (39.3%)

235.9 miles

Source: SCDOT, 2018

Note: Some freight network segments lack pavement condition data, so the total mileage by tier is less than that reported in Table 3-1. Pavement on Tier 1 routes (Interstates) is generally performing well, which is unsurprising as Interstate highway maintenance is a key priority for SCDOT. Conditions deteriorate somewhat on the lower tier routes, which include several US and state highways that are important for goods movement in the region, e.g. US 17, US 52, and US 78. One concern discussed in FAC meetings and other conversations has been the impact of mining operations and related industries on rural roadways. SCDHEC maintains a database of active mines in the state. A map of the active mines in the BCDCOG region is shown in Figure 4-9. The predominant type of mines in the region are sand only mines. These mines are located throughout the region but are located in clusters in the following areas:

• • • • • •

Ravenel; Johns Island; Awendaw; Near SC 41; Near US 17 Alternate; and Dorchester

| PAGE 4-17 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FREIGHT NETWORK OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS |

Figure 4-8: Freight Network Pavement Existing Conditions, 2018

| PAGE 4-18 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FREIGHT NETWORK OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS |

Figure 4-9: SCDHEC Active Mines in the BCDCOG Region

Source: SCDHEC

| PAGE 4-19 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FREIGHT NETWORK OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS |

Continued use of these rural roadways to transport sand and other materials to construction sites can deteriorate the pavement and condition of the roadways on which they travel. Table 4-10 shows the roadways adjacent to these mining operations that may put a disproportionate strain on the rural roadways in the area. Table 4-10: Roadways Impacted by Mining Operations Roads SC 41 US 17 Alternate Mudville Road Main Road River Road US 17 Highway 165 US 17 SC 19 Sandridge Road US 178

| PAGE 4-20 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

5. SUMMARY Table 5-1 provides summary information about the tiered network including roadways by tier, corridor mileage, maximum total traffic and truck volumes, intermodal facilities accessed, CMV crash data, freight congestion metrics (truck bottlenecks and level of service on the freight network), and infrastructure condition data (poor condition bridges and pavement quality issues). The Tier 1 corridors constitute the most critical freight routes including Interstates and connections to intermodal freight facilities. Several of these routes are NHS Intermodal Connectors. Land use along almost all these routes is designated as current and/or future industrial, indicating the importance of these routes for regional freight-dependent businesses. Key findings for these corridors include:

•

From a safety standpoint, the most CMV crashes occur on I-26 and I-526. Although the CMV crash rate on these routes is comparatively low, the ratio of severe CMV crashes to all CMV crashes among Tier 1 routes is the highest on I-26, possibly indicating that this route is a key freight safety concern for the region. Other Tier 1 routes have higher CMV crash rates but few severe crashes. Truck parking is available on key Interstate highway routes, but not as much on last-mile routes; still, many freight businesses provide parking for their own fleets/drivers, making it hard to assess parking supply adequacy.

•

Several Tier 1 routes are critical for both freight and regional commuter/passenger traffic, and therefore experience congestion now or in the future. All three of the Interstate routes in the region are expected to show failing LOS by 2040. International Boulevard, Long Point Road, Montague Avenue, Remount Road, and US 52 – all of which are critical last-mile freight routes – are also expected to see failing LOS in the future. Several of these roads also contain truck bottlenecks, e.g. I-26, I-526, and Montague Avenue.

•

Infrastructure is in generally good condition on these routes, although some last-mile connectors have poor pavement quality (Meeting Street, Remount Road, US 52) and there is one poor condition bridge on I-26.

Tier 2 corridors generally have less truck traffic, but are still significant regional routes for freight and passenger traffic. Key findings for these routes include:

•

The number of CMV crashes are generally lower than Tier 1 routes, as are CMV crash rates, but some hotspots do exist. For example, US 17 and US 17A combined had more than 1,100 CMV crashes from 2015-2019, 25 of which were severe (more than any Tier 1 route except I-26). US 52, US 78, and US 176 also had comparatively high numbers of severe crashes, and high ratios of severe CMV crashes to all crashes. (Some other routes had higher ratios but they were based on relatively few crashes.)

•

Some Tier 2 routes show failing LOS in the base and/or future year, including US 17, US 17A, Goose Creek Road, Red Bank Road, SC 171, US 52, and US 78. Many of these routes also contain truck bottlenecks.

Page 5-1

| 5 | SUMMARY |

•

Pavement quality and bridge condition issues are more apparent on these routes. SC 174 has three bridges in poor condition on the regional freight network; US 17, US 17A, US 176, and US 78 have one each. The share of corridor mileage with pavement in poor condition on Tier 2 routes ranges up to almost 80% (SC 402).

Tier 3 routes vary widely in terms of truck volumes but several of them connect to critical intermodal facilities including Charleston International Airport, the Norfolk Southern 7-Mile Yard, and North Charleston Container Terminal. Some carry higher total traffic/truck traffic than Tier 1 and 2 routes, potentially indicating a need to pay special attention to last-mile connectors. Most are also located in existing or future planned industrial land use areas. Key findings for Tier 3 routes are:

•

Ashley Phosphate Road had 326 CMV-involved crashes from 2015-2019, far more than any other Tier 3 route and more than most Tier 1 and 2 routes; although none of these crashes were severe, the route may bear monitoring in the future given the volume of traffic it carries. There is also a grade crossing safety hotspot on Ashley Phosphate (FRA grade crossing ID 631974A). Other Tier 3 routes with potential freight safety concerns are Palmetto Commerce Parkway, Clements Ferry Road, SC 462, Rhett Avenue (connects to North Charleston Container Terminal), and Cainhoy Road.

•

Clements Ferry Road and Ashley Phosphate Road are also severely congested in both the current and future years. Montague Avenue, SC 642, and SC 7 have truck bottlenecks and are expected to have failing LOS by 2040. Many have severe congestion (e.g., Ashley Phosphate Road, Clements Ferry Road), and/or pavement in poor condition (e.g., N. Rhett Avenue accessing the North Charleston Terminal). Of the 37 identified Tier 3 routes, 20 are expected to have failing LOS by 2040.

•

There are no bridges in poor condition on Tier 3 roads, but most of them have at least some segments with poor pavement quality, including many with significant truck traffic like Ashley Phosphate Road, Clements Ferry Road, Rhett Avenue, and Palmetto Commerce Parkway. Absent pavement rehabilitation, conditions on such routes will continue to deteriorate.

| PAGE 5-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | SUMMARY |

Table 5-1: Summary of Safety, Congestion, and Infrastructure Conditions on the Regional Freight Network

Tier

Road Name

Mileage

Max AADT (2015)1

Banco Road Chuck Dawley Blvd.

0.38

33,676

8,583

Severe CMV Crashes (20152019)2 0

0.07

19,200

1,121

Max AADTT (2015)1

East Bay Street

1.96

15,388

598

I-26

111.65

68,923

8,685

I-526

24.17

46,880

11,629

I-95

18.82

20,000

6,000

International Blvd.

0.86

36,278

2,671

Long Point Road

0.90

31,943

12,844

Meeting Street

0.36

2,914

2,125

Montague Avenue

0.54

36,015

5,552

Morrison Drive

1.55

16,540

2,115

CMV Intermodal Crashes Facilities (2015Served 2019)2

Columbus Street/Unio n Pier Terminals, Navy Base Intermodal Facility Wando Welch Container Terminal Charleston Internation al Airport Wando Welch Container Terminal CSX Ashley Junction Norfolk Southern 7Mile Yard, CSX Ashley Junction Columbus Street Terminal

CMV Crash Rate (per 100 mil VMT)

Ratio of Severe to All CMV Crashes 0.00%

Percent Max Freight # of Poor Max LOS Max LOS Roadways Bottleneck Condition (2015)1 (2040)1 with Poor Score3 Bridges5 PQI4 N/A

0.00%

N/A

0.00%

1,143

2.10%

0.00%

381

0.52%

0.00%

162

1.23%

0.00%

N/A

2.22%

N/A

0.00%

N/A

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

| PAGE 5-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | SUMMARY |

Tier

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Road Name

Mount Pleasant Street Port Access Road RAMP I-26/I526 RAMP to I-526 from US-17 Remount Road Septima Clark Pkwy. US-78 Arthur Ravenel Bridge / US-17 Ben Sawyer Blvd. Bohicket Road Carner Avenue Coleman Blvd. Folly Road Goose Creek/NAD Road Isle of Palms Connector / SC-517

CMV Intermodal Crashes Facilities (2015Served 2019)2

CMV Crash Rate (per 100 mil VMT)

Severe CMV Crashes (20152019)2

Ratio of Severe to All CMV Crashes

Percent Max Freight # of Poor Max LOS Max LOS Roadways Bottleneck Condition 1 1 (2015) (2040) with Poor Score3 Bridges5 PQI4

Mileage

Max AADT (2015)1

Max AADTT (2015)1

0.14

10,838

1,135

0.00%

N/A

100.00%

1.73

N/A

5.48

28,080

4,384

147

0.68%

N/A

0.47

11,487

1,687

0.00%

100.00%

3.52

26,774

10,073

100

2.00%

N/A

66.37%

0.19

32,775

2,007

0.00%

N/A

0.04

34,940

4,059

0.00%

N/A

3.76

41,938

2,733

4.88%

0.00%

3.25

19,867

1,424

0.00%

81.68%

12.37

21,454

1,112

4.44%

N/A

17.00%

0.98

3,771

829

100.00%

N/A

2.74

25,883

1,742

0.00%

79.59%

11.16

54,441

5,294

0.00%

2.33%

1.85

23,373

3,185

0.00%

N/A

0.00%

4.57

19,145

1,006

0.00%

North Charleston Terminal

| PAGE 5-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | SUMMARY |

Tier

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Road Name

James Island Expressway / SC-30 Jasper Blvd. Maybank Highway Meeting Street Old Folly Road Old Town Road Palm Blvd. RAMP to US-17 Red Bank Road

Rivers Avenue

Sam Rittenberg Blvd. SC-174 SC-402 SC-41 SC-45 SC-6 SC-61 SC-7 Septima Clark Pkwy. US-17

CMV Intermodal Crashes Facilities (2015Served 2019)2

CMV Crash Rate (per 100 mil VMT)

Severe CMV Crashes (20152019)2

Ratio of Severe to All CMV Crashes

Percent Max Freight # of Poor Max LOS Max LOS Roadways Bottleneck Condition 1 1 (2015) (2040) with Poor Score3 Bridges5 PQI4

Mileage

Max AADT (2015)1

Max AADTT (2015)1

2.71

27,888

1,752

0.00%

13.97%

1.99

6,148

176

N/A

74.54%

8.52

31,280

2,699

2.13%

N/A

0.00%

4.71

28,512

4,433

1.64%

93.85%

0.12

789

N/A

2.23

22,903

2,232

0.00%

91.96%

1.98 1.79

6,148 29,331

176 1,906

2 10

0 2

0.00% 20.00%

5 9

A F

100.00% 8.42%

7.94

28,412

3,867

1.69%

53.45%

254

1.18%

19.89%

Norfolk Southern 7Mile Yard, CSX Ashley Junction

11.95

34,650

3,297

2.18

48,358

4,769

5.56%

0.00%

24.15 18.72 20.58 40.57 29.08 37.26 0.17

5,055 9,499 29,278 6,769 9,842 39,010 29,042

336 441 1,897 374 701 2,817 3,421

25 40 68 8 21 103 4

0 0 1 0 0 1 0

0.00% 0.00% 1.47% 0.00% 0.00% 0.97% 0.00%

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10 N/A

A A F A B F B

A D F A F F F

9.50% 79.76% 0.00% 42.06% 5.62% 32.10% 0.00%

1.01

56,965

3,808

0.00%

58.33

73,995

5,120

280

1.07%

25.48%

| PAGE 5-5 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | SUMMARY |

Tier

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Road Name

US-17 / Savannah Highway US-176 US-178 US-17A US-52 US-78 Wesley Drive Albemarle Road Ashley Crossing Ashley Phosphate Road Autonomous Road Aviation Avenue Azalea Drive Bainbridge Avenue Bees Ferry Road Brigade Street Broad Street Burton Lane Bushy Park Road Cainhoy Road

CMV Intermodal Crashes Facilities (2015Served 2019)2

CMV Crash Rate (per 100 mil VMT)

Severe CMV Crashes (20152019)2

Ratio of Severe to All CMV Crashes

Percent Max Freight # of Poor Max LOS Max LOS Roadways Bottleneck Condition 1 1 (2015) (2040) with Poor Score3 Bridges5 PQI4

Mileage

Max AADT (2015)1

Max AADTT (2015)1

34.15

52,977

6,999

331

2.72%

87.16%

30.86 20.93 61.22 46.70 53.94 0.23

33,096 6,064 54,247 26,085 40,551 40,160

2,727 404 7,643 2,984 4,440 4,207

144 37 358 159 308 16

6 0 11 2 7 0

4.17% 0.00% 3.07% 1.26% 2.27% 0.00%

N/A N/A 10 9 10 N/A

C B E D F E

F C F F F E

75.11% 62.36% 4.12% 43.37% 27.55% 100.00%

0.10

509

N/A

0.88

1,799

0.00%

N/A

0.00%

5.18

75,908

11,782

299

0.00%

N/A

78.76%

3.57

N/A

0.81

15,363

2,085

0.00%

N/A

0.00%

3.53

9,880

4,099

2.38%

N/A

100.00%

0.62

2,574

504

0.00%

N/A

5.39

25,967

1,440

0.00%

N/A

0.00%

0.07 1.17 0.34

1,152 9,140 1,468

205 127 258

1 10 4

0 0 1

0.00% 0.00% 25.00%

N/A N/A N/A

A C A

A F A

N/A 100.00% 0.00%

8.82

3,245

1,676

0.00%

N/A

100.00%

16.12

7,777

1,662

8.33%

N/A

94.74%

Charleston Internation al Airport

| PAGE 5-6 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

1 1

| 5 | SUMMARY |

Tier

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 3

Road Name

Calhoun Street Centre Pointe Drive Chuck Dawley Blvd. Clements Ferry Road College Park Road Columbus Street Cooper Store Road Cosgrove Avenue Courtenay Drive Cross County Road Cypress Campground Road Cypress Gardens Road Delemar Highway Dorchester Road Drop Off Drive E.Church Street

CMV Intermodal Crashes Facilities (2015Served 2019)2

CMV Crash Rate (per 100 mil VMT)

Severe CMV Crashes (20152019)2

Ratio of Severe to All CMV Crashes

Percent Max Freight # of Poor Max LOS Max LOS Roadways Bottleneck Condition 1 1 (2015) (2040) with Poor Score3 Bridges5 PQI4

Mileage

Max AADT (2015)1

Max AADTT (2015)1

1.55

37,286

2,534

0.00%

33.33%

0.84

7,857

848

0.00%

N/A

1.34

17,296

1,082

0.00%

N/A

0.00%

9.96

32,670

12,177

2.78%

N/A

45.61%

1.23

44,195

4,441

0.00%

N/A

100.00%

0.63

3,157

141

14.29%

N/A

100.00%

9.47

1,254

10.00%

N/A

0.00%

1.37

18,067

1,874

5.71%

27.04%

0.50

9,558

773

0.00%

N/A

100.00%

2.58

15,086

2,380

3.33%

N/A

100.00%

8.78

1,792

258

8.33%

N/A

47.20%

9.94

7,003

849

0.00%

N/A

24.04%

4.19

5,623

144

0.00%

N/A

0.00%

22.83

45,798

4,271

221

0.90%

13.75%

2.76

2,498

769

5.26%

N/A

0.00%

4.42

1,194

0.00%

N/A

| PAGE 5-7 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | SUMMARY |

Tier

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Road Name

Farmington Road Fielding Connector Fishburne Street Givhans Road Glenn McConnell Pkwy. Hagood Avenue Heriot Street Hobson Avenue Huger Street Hungry Neck Blvd. International Blvd. James Island Expressway / SC-30 Jedburg Road King Street King Street Extn. Ladson Road Leeds Avenue Lockwood Drive

CMV Intermodal Crashes Facilities (2015Served 2019)2

CMV Crash Rate (per 100 mil VMT)

Severe CMV Crashes (20152019)2

Ratio of Severe to All CMV Crashes

Percent Max Freight # of Poor Max LOS Max LOS Roadways Bottleneck Condition 1 1 (2015) (2040) with Poor Score3 Bridges5 PQI4

Mileage

Max AADT (2015)1

Max AADTT (2015)1

2.50

5,890

2,956

6.56%

N/A

0.00%

0.61

20,154

550

0.00%

0.31

3,803

N/A

100.00%

7.43

10,115

121

0.00%

N/A

0.60%

15.11

19,250

1,229

0.00%

N/A

20.24%

0.41

3,566

0.00%

N/A

100.00%

0.24

2,337

138

0.00%

N/A

0.00%

1.94

3,221

850

0.00%

N/A

0.62

4,195

154

0.00%

N/A

100.00%

2.60

13,732

775

0.00%

N/A

2.08

24,769

3,108

0.00%

N/A

0.54

25,705

1,825

0.00%

10.04%

9.10 3.72

20,786 13,986

6,034 408

58 56

3 1

5.17% 1.79%

N/A 10

F F

0.00% 46.33%

2.98

5,001

755

3.45%

N/A

5.57 1.36

39,131 14,094

5,987 1,765

83 20

1 0

1.20% 0.00%

N/A N/A

E B

F C

0.00% 0.00%

1.62

14,783

305

0.00%

25.95%

Charleston Internation al Airport

| PAGE 5-8 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | SUMMARY |

Tier

3 3 3 3 3 3

Road Name

Long Point Road Main Road Mallard Road Maybank Highway McMillan Avenue Meeting Street

CMV Intermodal Crashes Facilities (2015Served 2019)2

CMV Crash Rate (per 100 mil VMT)

Severe CMV Crashes (20152019)2

Ratio of Severe to All CMV Crashes

Percent Max Freight # of Poor Max LOS Max LOS Roadways Bottleneck Condition 1 1 (2015) (2040) with Poor Score3 Bridges5 PQI4

Mileage

Max AADT (2015)1

Max AADTT (2015)1

1.22

25,277

7,136

0.00%

N/A

0.00%

8.31 1.40

17,571 7,707

2,024 509

98 8

0 0

0.00% 0.00%

N/A N/A

E C

F C

51.02% 77.80%

0.39

5,574

0.00%

N/A

0.00%

0.29

3,699

318

0.00%

N/A

5.14

27,203

1,542

0.00%

N/A

79.19%

0.00%

N/A

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

N/A

100.00%

125

1.60%

N/A

46.73%

CSX Ashley Junction Charleston Internation al Airport Norfolk Southern 7Mile Yard, CSX Ashley Junction

Michaux Pkwy.

1.16

17,827

790

Montague Avenue

0.83

27,825

4,004

N.Maple Street

2.14

2,215

933

N.Rhett Avenue

6.66

36,042

8,291

1.31

2,142

265

0.00%

N/A

3.78

8,989

5,613

0.00%

N/A

100.00%

2.60

3,668

219

0.00%

N/A

37.12%

3.95

3,307

0.00%

N/A

100.00%

13.27

9,224

2,329

7.55%

N/A

3 3 3 3 3

Noisette Blvd. Old Dairy Road Old Orangeburg Road Old Whitesville Road Palmetto Commerce Pkwy.

North Charleston Terminal

Charleston Internation al Airport

| PAGE 5-9 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | SUMMARY |

Tier

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Road Name

Paul Cantrell Blvd. Pomflant Access Road Red Bay Road Reflectance Drive Remount Road Reynolds Avenue Ridgeville Road Rivers Avenue Royle Road Sam Rittenberg Blvd. Sandlapper Pkwy. Extn. SC-165 SC-27 SC-311 SC-453 SC-61 SC-7 Steed Creek Road Stromboli Avenue US-17 US-52 Bypass

CMV Intermodal Crashes Facilities (2015Served 2019)2

CMV Crash Rate (per 100 mil VMT)

Severe CMV Crashes (20152019)2

Ratio of Severe to All CMV Crashes

Percent Max Freight # of Poor Max LOS Max LOS Roadways Bottleneck Condition 1 1 (2015) (2040) with Poor Score3 Bridges5 PQI4

Mileage

Max AADT (2015)1

Max AADTT (2015)1

1.45

26,114

1,670

0.00%

1.36

103

0.00%

N/A

3.67

3,551

2,623

0.00%

N/A

0.69

1,949

247

0.00%

N/A

100.00%

0.86

18,091

2,433

0.00%

N/A

100.00%

0.81

3,302

633

0.00%

N/A

100.00%

3.73

17,620

1,234

0.00%

N/A

92.26%

0.54 1.00

2,886 6,187

294 347

8 10

1 1

12.50% 10.00%

N/A N/A

A B

B F

0.00% 0.00%

3.87

30,535

3,856

0.00%

N/A

52.36%

2.14

N/A

7.25 11.98 11.04 1.43 0.49 0.31

6,263 14,502 5,259 3,901 7,184 36,762

192 264 201 288 159 4,781

24 15 2 3 13 34

3 1 0 0 0 1

12.50% 6.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.94%

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8

B C A A B C

F B B B A F

89.19% 0.00% 29.15% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

14.26

3,074

0.00%

N/A

0.00%

0.78

263

154

0.00%

N/A

0.00%

0.38 2.47

4,389 9,110

122 740

17 4

1 0

5.88% 0.00%

N/A N/A

B B

F F

N/A 100.00%

Charleston Internation al Airport

| PAGE 5-10 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 5 | SUMMARY |

Tier

Road Name

Mileage

Max AADT (2015)1

Max AADTT (2015)1

CMV Intermodal Crashes Facilities (2015Served 2019)2

CMV Crash Rate (per 100 mil VMT)

Virginia 2.13 4,898 2,834 20 Avenue Volvo Car Volvo 3 5.94 N/A N/A 0 Drive Camp Hall Von Ohnsen 3 0.94 4,098 255 10 Road W.Montague 3 1.98 22,898 2,601 36 Avenue Wappoo 3 1.33 7,750 488 14 Road 3 Weber Drive 1.00 4,908 1,439 1 3 Wesley Drive 0.12 21,361 2,440 21 3 Wright Road 3.53 N/A N/A 0 Data Sources: 1 CHATS/SCDOT Travel Demand Model (2015) 2 SC Department of Public Safety (2015-2019) 3 National Performance Management Research Data Set (March 2019-February 2020) 4 SCDOT Pavement Condition Database (2018) 5 SCDOT Bridge Database (2018) 3

Severe CMV Crashes (20152019)2

Ratio of Severe to All CMV Crashes

0.00%

N/A

100.00%

N/A

10.00%

N/A

100.00%

0.00%

68.55%

0.00%

N/A

0.00%

0 0 0

0.00% 0.00% N/A

N/A N/A N/A

A C N/A

F E N/A

N/A 100.00% N/A

N/A Data not available

| PAGE 5-11 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Percent Max Freight # of Poor Max LOS Max LOS Roadways Bottleneck Condition 1 1 (2015) (2040) with Poor Score3 Bridges5 PQI4

6. CONCLUSIONS Developing a regional freight network is the first step in completing the BCD Regional Freight Mobility Plan. The network assessment provides baseline regional freight conditions which can be used to identify freight-related issues and needs. The freight operational analysis evaluates the network by three metrics: safety, freight congestion and infrastructure conditions. These three metrics analyze and monitor performance on the network and help identify freight needs and potential strategies to address them. This network assessment will be used to conduct a land use analysis for the study. The freight network provides a starting point for the BCDCOG and its member governments to encourage freight related land use growth. Parcels and tracts of land surrounding the freight network are prime locations where freight related industry should be located and targeted to accommodate future freight growth. Identifying the freight network and potential corridors of freight development leads to an analysis of network performance to generate system needs. Freight system needs and network gaps will be determined building on the analysis provided herein. Table 5-1 in this memo summarizes the high-level freight performance of the network, categorized by safety, freight congestion, and bridge/pavement condition. Freight needs will then be compared to planned and programmed projects to understand where BCDCOG member projects are addressing freight needs, and where gaps may exist that constitute unmet needs. Such gaps will form the basis for prioritized program, policy, and project recommendations to achieve regional freight network performance goals and objectives.

Page 6-1

BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN

APPENDIX D Technical Memorandum

Land Use

Prepared by:

January 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................1-1

ECONOMIC CONTEXT .................................................................................................................2-1

METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................................................3-1 3.1

Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 3-1

FREIGHT LAND USE ANALYSIS .....................................................................................................4-1 4.1

Existing and Future Freight Corridors............................................................................ 4-1

4.2

Land Use Clusters ........................................................................................................... 4-6

FREIGHT ADVISORY COMMITTEE FEEDBACK .............................................................................5-1

LAND USE OBSERVATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES ......................................................................6-1

LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1: Existing Freight Corridors ............................................................................................. 4-3 Table 4.2: Future Freight Corridors (2040)................................................................................... 4-5 Table 4.3: Development Clusters ................................................................................................ 4-8 Table 4.4: Planning Gaps ............................................................................................................. 4-8 Table 6.1: Key Finding and Planning Recommendations ....................................................... 6-1 Table 6.2: Potential Opportunities to Support Land Use Development ................................. 6-2

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: BCD Regional Freight Network ................................................................................. 2-2 Figure 4.1: Existing Freight Corridors ............................................................................................ 4-2 Figure 4.2: Future Freight Corridors 2040 .................................................................................... 4-4 Figure 4.3: Existing and Future Land Use Clusters (2015-2040)................................................. 4-7 Figure 5.1: Final Freight Committee Feedback ......................................................................... 5-2

Page i

1. INTRODUCTION Freight-generating industries provide many benefits to the local economy. As the BerkeleyCharleston-Dorchester regional population continues to grow, the greater the amount of goods and services are consumed. Freight intensive industry supports the economy in the BCD region by providing direct and indirect employment, increased tax revenue, and contribution to regional and state economic output. A well-functioning transportation infrastructure and network is crucial for the efficient movement of goods. The link between freight, multimodal transportation and land use is essential for supporting growth in the area. This land use technical memorandum considers the importance of multimodal freight transportation to the region by identifying existing and future freight land use planning corridors and clusters. The intent of this document is to describe the methodology of data compilation and analysis, providing input to the larger freight mobility planning effort. This provides a summary of current state of land use data and what insight this provides for the current and forecast trends in freight mobility and freight related development in the region. The recommendations within this technical memorandum should be considered preliminary and will be evaluated further as part of the development and refinement of the comprehensive recommendations of the BCD Regional Freight Mobility Plan.

Page 1-1

2. ECONOMIC CONTEXT The BCD region of South Carolina is home to large manufacturing companies like Volvo, Boeing, Mercedes, and Nucor Steel. Freight demand is directly related to the amount of economic activity in a region and businesses and customers depend on all modes to connect them to markets and grow the regional economy. Charleston’s regional economy, from its beginning, has been dependent on freight and trade. With the Port of Charleston, access to two major Interstate highways (I-95 and I-26), two Class I railroads, an international airport, and a cluster of warehouses, distribution centers, and logistics companies, the tri-county region is a hub for trade. Trucks handle roughly 63 percent of all freight in North America1 due to variable length truck trips, providing “last mile” connections and connecting commodities carried by other modes from intermediate destinations, such as airports, rail terminals, and other freight generators to their final destinations. The BCD region provides container transfers using Class 1 railroads to Inland Port Dillon (IPD) and to the Upstate region by Inland Port Greer (IPG). Forecasts suggest total Port container volumes could reach nearly 4 million TEU by 2038.2 The Charleston International Airport (CHS) was the 78th busiest cargo3 airport in the United States in 2018, moving highly perishable and high value goods. The base map for the land use analysis was comprised of the intermodal facilities, industrial parks and freight network is shown in Figure 2.1.

1 https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/2017-north-american-freight-

numbers#:~:text=Trucks%20carried%2057.7%20percent%20of,the%20value%20(Table%202) 2 Palmetto Railways, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Navy Base Intermodal Container Transfer Facility, retrieved July 31, 2020 from http://palmettorailways.com/intermodal/eis/ 3 https://www.ttnews.com/top100/airports/2019

Page 2-1

| 2 | ECONOMIC CONTEXT |

Figure 2.1: BCD Regional Freight Network

DRAFT – FOR REVIEW

| PAGE 2-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

3. METHODOLOGY This section provides a summary of the methodology used in the freight land use analysis. Data was collected and used to understand the connection between freight mobility and freight generating land use by analyzing industrial parks, available land use classifications, population, employment, and existing and future freight corridors and clusters of freight intensive development. The regional freight network was used to complete this land use analysis in an iterative fashion. First, roadways were identified based on current freight activity illustrated by traffic counts. Second, land uses were examined to locate where freight intensive activities were identified. Where gaps existed in the freight network, additional connections were included in the freight network to provide continuity between freight generating land uses and the remainder of the freight network. Feedback from the Freight Advisory Committee (FAC) was also used to identify any roadway additions to the network, as well as any additional freight intensive land use clusters not captured by available data from this analysis.

3.1

DATA COLLECTION

To identify the freight-related land uses within the BCD region, land use data compiled from counties in the study area were used for geospatial analysis using ArcGIS. CommunityViz, a land use modeling dataset showing future land use suitability, was extracted from the BCDCOG Travel Demand Model. The list below shows the data that was collected for the analysis:

•

County Current Zoning Classifications as of May 2020 (Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester)

•

Municipal Zoning Classifications as of May 2020 (Awendaw, Folly Beach, Goose Creek, Hanahan, Isle of Palms, Lincolnville, McClellanville, Moncks Corner, Mount Pleasant, North Charleston, Ravenel, Seabrook Island, Sullivan’s Island, and Summerville)

•

County Future Land Use Map Classifications as of May 14, 2020 (Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester)

•

BCDCOG CommunityViz 2020 and 2040 datasets (extension of ArcGIS that facilitates the visualization and comparison of alternative growth scenarios)

•

Department of Commerce Industrial Parks inventory (May 2020)

•

BCDCOG Travel Demand Model Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) level population and employment projections from 2015-2040

•

Page 3-1

4. FREIGHT LAND USE ANALYSIS Successful freight planning balances the needs of freight generating land uses with the sustainable development of freight corridors and clusters. The freight land use analysis is presented to provide an inventory of land use patterns and accessibility to transportation infrastructure and propose planning and economic development applications that support efficient and safe freight mobility to the BCD region. This means that the goal of this document is to provide land use and transportation planners the data and information to apply to local planning needs that address the mobility needs of perspective developments.

4.1

EXISTING AND FUTURE FREIGHT CORRIDORS

For this analysis it is important to understand the definition of a freight corridor as a corridor of land influenced freight intensive land uses. The first step in determining the existing freight corridors was to conduct a geospatial analysis of the existing land uses within the BCD regional freight network. Areas of concentration for industrial parks, both with existing facilities and with speculative build-to-suit sites, were highlighted on the freight highway network and buffered two miles to create the existing land use corridors. The two-mile buffer was used to include any first or last-mile connections to freight related land uses. Speculative sites were included as a part of the existing freight corridor identification, as some current planning activities have already taken place to accommodate for their future transition from vacant land to industrial site. This buffer served as a catchment area for capturing concentrations of existing freight intensive development. CommunityViz data for 2020 was used to assist in identifying areas of industrial development. The identified freight corridors are shown in Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1. The future land use corridors were created by applying a desktop survey of future land use maps from the counties in the region, as well as the 2040 CommunityViz land suitability dataset extracted from the BCDCOG travel demand model. Again, a two-mile buffer was created from the freight network to identify future land use corridors or catchment areas for planned future freight intensive development. The future freight corridors are shown in Figure 4.2 and Table 4.2. The results of this analysis showed that current and long-range planning efforts should be focused on addressing mobility needs and concentrated, or clustered, freight related land uses along the freight network. In each table, the corridors are described with their major freight generators as well as vacant or undeveloped/speculative industrial land, illustrating potential areas for freight related development. The properties identified as Potential Freight Development Sites are either available industrial sites or those identified as such by the South Carolina Department of Commerce (DOC).

Page 4-1

| 4 | FREIGHT LAND USE ANALYSIS |

Figure 4.1: Existing Freight Corridors

DRAFT – FOR REVIEW

| PAGE 4-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FREIGHT LAND USE ANALYSIS |

Table 4.1: Existing Freight Corridors Number

Description

SC 45 from SC 41 to Guilliard Lake Rd

Highway 35 near CSX Spur in St. Stephen

I-26 from US 15 Interchange to Exit 172 at US 15

US 78 from I-95 to Short Cut Rd (SC 89)

US 78 from Summerville to NW of Ridgeville Rd

I-26 from Pringletown (Exit 187) to SE of 17 Alt Interchange

US 176 from US 17 Alt to Old Mt. Holly Rd

US 52 Moncks Corner to Goose Creek, Cypress Gardens Rd from US 52 Bushy Park Rd

US 17 Alt from SC 61 to SC 642

10 11 12 13

15 16 17

18 19 20 21

I-26/US

Ladson Rd from I-26 to Palmetto Commerce Pkwy Bushy Park Rd from Bushy Park Boat Landing to W International Cainhoy Rd from Brick Church Rd to Hagan Ave

Potential Freight Development Sites Martin Marietta Aggregates, Chargeurs Wool, USA (old) Russellville Plywood Plant ~200 acres of speculative industrial land identified by DOC ~2,000 acres of speculative industrial land identified by DOC ~1,300 acres of speculative industrial land identified by DOC Fruit of the Loom, TBC Corporation and ~1,000 acres of speculative industrial land identified by DOC Century Aluminum Company Charleston Sheet and Metal, Viva Recycling and ~1,150 acres of speculative industrial land identified by DOC SuperTree Seedlings and ~375 acres of speculative industrial sites Brown Distribution Center, Port City Concrete Symrise Inc and Sun Chemical Corp.

Nucor Steel, Smalls Loading LTD Inc Coastal Glass Distributors, Republic Palmetto Commerce Pkwy from Ladson Rd to Services, Ferguson Waterworks, Soft-Tex Ashley Phosphate Rd, Ashley Phosphate Rd from and ~375 acres of speculative industrial I-26 to SC 642 sites USPS, Bosch Charleston Plant, Dilmar Oil Dorchester Rd from I-26 to Ashley Phosphate Rd, Co, AGM Imports and ~125 acres of including Cross County Rd speculative industrial sites I-26 from of Aviation Ave (Exit 211A) to US 17/I-26 Port of Charleston Columbus Street Interchange, including Morrison Dr to Port of Terminal, Rhodia, Van-Smith Concrete Co Charleston - Columbus Street Terminal and ~5 acres of speculative industrial sites I-526 from Rivers Ave (Exit 18A) to Ashley River Boeing, Cel Oil Products I-526 from Port of Charleston - Wando Welch Port of Charleston Wando Terminal, Terminal to Clements Ferry Rd (Exit 23), including Kontane Logistics, Gildan Charleston and Clements Ferry to Jack Primus Rd ~40 acres of speculative industrial sites Virginia Ave/Noisette Blvd/N Hobson Ave from Kinder Morgan Bulk Terminals, Southeast Port of Charleston-North Charleston to North Bio Diesel, Delfin Group USA, Port of Charleston Coast Guard Port Charleston Veterans Terminal Glenn McConnell Pkwy from I-526 to Bees Ferry Charleston County Landfill Rd, including Bees Ferry Rd from SC 61 to US 17 Steen Enterprises and ~1,050 acres of US 17 from New Rd to SC 174 speculative industrial sites River Rd from Burden Creek Rd to Hut Rd on Royal Labs Cosmetics, Charleston Johns Island near Charleston Executive Airport Executive Airport

Source: South Carolina Department of Commerce Industrial Park Inventory and Google Earth

DRAFT – FOR REVIEW

| PAGE 4-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FREIGHT LAND USE ANALYSIS |

Figure 4.2: Future Freight Corridors 2040

DRAFT – FOR REVIEW

| PAGE 4-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FREIGHT LAND USE ANALYSIS |

Table 4.2: Future Freight Corridors (2040) Number 22

Description I-95 from US 78 (Exit 77) to US 178 (Exit 82)

I-26 from US 15 (Exit 172B) to SC 453 (Exit 177)

I-26 from SC 27 (Exit 187) to Trade Zone Blvd

26 27

28 29 30

32 33 34

US 52 from Moncks Corner to Goose Creek, Cypress Gardens Rd from US 52 to Dak Americas Plant, including Bushy Park Rd to Naval Weapons Station Joint Base Charleston College Park Rd/Ladson Rd from US 17A to Miles Jamison Rd Palmetto Commerce Pkwy from Ladson Rd to Ashley Phosphate Rd, including Ashley Phosphate Rd from I-26 to SC 642

Potential Freight Development Sites I-95 Corridor, vacant land Argos USA and ~200 acres of speculative industrial sites Fruit of the Loom, TBC Corporation and ~1000 acres of speculative industrial sites Symrise Inc, Sun Chemical Corp., Charleston Sheet and Metal and ~1150 acres of speculative industrial sites

Quoizel Inc, Pegasus Steel and ~50 acres of speculative industrial sites Coastal Glass Distributors, Republic Services, Ferguson Waterworks, Soft-Tex and ~375 acres of speculative industrial sites USPS, Bosch Charleston Plant, Dilmar Oil Co, Dorchester Rd from I-26 to Ashley Phosphate AGM Imports and ~125 acres of speculative Rd, including Cross County Rd industrial sites I-526 from Rivers Ave (Exit 18A) to Ashley River Boeing, Cel Oil Products I-26 from NW of Aviation Ave (Exit 211A) to US Rhodia, Van-Smith Concrete Co and ~5 17/I-26 Interchange, including Morrison Dr to acres of speculative industrial sites Port of Charleston-Columbus St Virginia Ave/Noisette Blvd/N Hobson Ave Kinder Morgan Bulk Terminals, Southeast Bio from Port of Charleston-North Charleston Diesel, Delfin Group USA, Veterans Terminal, Terminal to North Charleston Coast Guard Palmetto Railways Naval Base Intermodal Port Facility and Hugh Leatherman Terminal I-526 from Port of Charleston-Wando Welch Kontane Logistics, Gildan Charleston and ~40 to Clements Ferry Rd (Exit 23), including acres of speculative industrial sites Clements Ferry to Wando Cainhoy Rd from Brick Church Rd to French Nucor Steel, Smalls Loading LTD Inc Quarter Creek Rd US 17 from SC 41 to Faison Rd, including Mt Pleasant Regional Airport Area Faison Rd to Mount Pleasant Regional Airport Glenn McConnell Pkwy from I-526 to Bees Ferry Rd, including Bees Ferry Rd from SC 61 Charleston County Landfill, vacant land to US 17 and Main Rd from Bees Ferry Rd to Humbert Rd US 17 from Caw Caw Interpretive Center to Martol Marble and Granite SC 162

Source: South Carolina Department of Commerce Industrial Park Inventory and Google Earth

DRAFT – FOR REVIEW

| PAGE 4-5 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FREIGHT LAND USE ANALYSIS |

4.2

LAND USE CLUSTERS

These clusters of freight intensive land use concentrations were identified using data from the industrial parks inventory, Transearch data, population, and employment growth data from the BCDCOG travel demand model and land use datasets from the tri-county region. Employment was forecast from 2015 to 2040 to give employment growth at the Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) level. This data was compared to employment forecasts and CommunityViz land use data. Manufacturing, wholesale distribution, warehousing and mining were the key employment sectors for employment used in the evaluation. Job growth of greater than 50 jobs was used as the threshold for indicating significant employment growth in the combined employment sectors by TAZ. There is positive employment growth anticipated for all TAZ model outputs for these employment sectors within the region; however, 50 jobs was used as a natural break for locating focused growth, or clustering, is expected to occur within the study area. The resulting analysis concluded with the identification of three types of land use clusters: Development Clusters. Areas where job growth is projected to increase by more than 50 jobs from 2015-2040 within the TAZ on the identified freight network and within the existing and future freight corridors, i.e., job growth experienced within planned freight land use areas. These clusters are shown in Figure 4.3 and in Table 4.3. There are twelve identified development clusters of freight intensive activity in the study area. Seven out of the 12 development clusters have rail access, and five of the 12 development clusters are located on the interstate system. Planning Gaps. Areas where freight generating land uses (industrial parks, truck parking, commercial freight generators) are present where existing or future freight corridors do not exist, i.e., locations of existing freight land use does not appear. These are areas where either land uses are not freight intensive or where the planning team lacked sufficient available data for to identify industrial freight related land use clusters. Three planning gap clusters are shown in Figure 4.3 and detailed in Table 4.4. Employment Growth Gaps. Areas where job growth is projected to increase over 50 jobs from 2015-2040 within the TAZ off the identified freight network and outside of existing and future freight corridors, i.e., job growth experienced outside of planned freight land use areas. There were no employment growth gaps identified as a part of this analysis.

DRAFT – FOR REVIEW

| PAGE 4-6 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FREIGHT LAND USE ANALYSIS |

Figure 4.3: Existing and Future Land Use Clusters (2015-2040)

DRAFT – FOR REVIEW

| PAGE 4-7 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | FREIGHT LAND USE ANALYSIS |

Table 4.3: Development Clusters Letter

Forecast Growth in Employment by TAZ

Description

Volvo Camp Hall

5000

US 17A/US 176 near Wide Awake

633

US 52 near Strawberry

159

US 176 near Century Aluminum

722

US 78/Ladson Rd near Ladson

689

Whitfield Corporate Park/Peppermill Pkwy

916

G H

Joint Base Charleston Clements Ferry Rd near Wando

900 328

Clements Ferry Rd near I-526

371

J K

Boeing Norfolk Southern Rail Yard/US 78 Chem Marine Corporation/Odfjell Terminals

2288 951

281

Freight Development Sites ~4625 acres of undeveloped industrial sites Charleston Steel and Metal, Morco Refrigeration Services Charleston Sheet and Metal CO, Viva Recycling and ~375 acres of undeveloped industrial sites Pegasus Steel, Quoizel Inc and ~50 acres of undeveloped industrial sites Ford’s Redi Mix Concrete, Port City Concrete and ~350 acres of undeveloped industrial sites Coastal Glass Distributors, Bosch Charleston Plant and ~125 acres of undeveloped industrial sites Vacant Joint Base land Vacant Land (Water Access) Kontane Logistics, Gildan Charleston and ~40 acres of undeveloped industrial sites Vacant land near Boeing site Fisherman Flooring Solutions, NS Rail Yard Kinder Morgan Terminals, Chevron, G S Carter and Son Lumber Co

Source: CHATS TDM Version 1.0 - TAZ Employment Growth for Manufacturing, Wholesale Distribution, Warehousing and Mining; South Carolina Department of Commerce Industrial Park Inventory and Google Earth

Table 4.4: Planning Gaps Letter

Description

SC 27 near Ridgeville

N O

US 17 near Summerville US 17 near Jamestown

Freight Development Sites Showa Denko Carbon and ~1125 acres of undeveloped industrial sites SuperTree Seedling, vacant land Martin Marietta-Georgetown II Quarry

Source: South Carolina Department of Commerce Industrial Park Inventory and Google Earth

DRAFT – FOR REVIEW

| PAGE 4-8 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

5. FREIGHT ADVISORY COMMITTEE FEEDBACK The FAC was presented with the draft land use analysis in the form of a briefing deck presentation and work session. Feedback was gathered from the FAC on both the methodology of this analysis and the results of the analyses of existing freight related land uses and future developments within the BCD Region. The FAC was presented a series of three maps and asked to validate findings, bridge data gaps, and incorporate additional known freight intensive land use corridors, clusters, and freight dependent infrastructure, based upon local field knowledge, industry experience, and approved or speculative permitting and siting information. The stakeholders provided feedback for two future freight corridors, one located on County Line Road near SC 165 and the other on State Road S-18-19 in Dorchester County from the sand mines east. Additional mapping and recommendations related to the mining operations in the region were include in the final Regional Freight Mobility Plan. The corridors provided by stakeholders can be seen in Figure 5.1. The freight advisory committee also provided feedback on locations of freight related employment growth which are also illustrated in Figure 5.1. The location near St. George, SC is where the future DHL facility will be located. Comments also incorporated the location of the recently announced Wal-Mart distribution center at the Ridgeville Industrial Campus. The location near the Jedburg exit off I-26 has several undeveloped industrial sites and the Palmetto Commerce Parkway location has several other major generators.

Page 5-1

| 5 | FREIGHT ADVISORY COMMITTEE FEEDBACK |

Figure 5.1: Final Freight Committee Feedback

DRAFT – FOR REVIEW

| PAGE 5-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

6. LAND USE OBSERVATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES Current and long-range planning activities have impacts on freight mobility and freight dependent land use development patterns. The connection between freight mobility and land use planning is visualized throughout this technical memorandum by linking the freight network with the identification of existing and future freight land use corridors and freight intensive land development clusters within the region. Without integrated planning, the potential negative impacts of freight generating land uses may include air quality impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, environmental justice impacts, traffic congestion or other safety and mobility challenges resulting from increased freight volume.4 Based upon the subsequent freight land use analysis, the observations from this land use analysis have been identified at the summary level in Table 6.1. Table 6.1: Key Finding and Planning Recommendations Key Finding

Planning Recommendation Encourage regional and local coordination with SCDOT at the Planning, District and Regional Production Group levels Evaluate the availability and proximity of workforce to support freight generating development and incorporate workforce transportation studies to connect available workers with freight related employment opportunities. Local governments should incorporate traffic impact studies into the permitting process for major freight generating land uses.

Local, regional, and state transportation and land use planning decisions are interdependent and should be better coordinated. Continue to plan for future freight related development along existing Coordination between local freight clusters and corridors. Monitor and improve transportation governments, BCDCOG, connections to appropriately serve commercial vehicles and Charleston Regional intermodal connectors, as appropriate. Development Alliance, Department of Commerce, and Compare local goals and objectives for impacts of growth with state South Carolina State Ports and regional economic development strategies. Authority (SCSPA) on the Zoning and future land use determinations should complement local economic development and industrial recruitment strategy for and regional economic development goals by aligning comprehensive planning, building permitting and local and regional economic the region and its impacts on development marketing strategies. land use can be improved through integrated planning. Local land use decision making should account for regional impacts to the transportation network by aligning local, regional, and state comprehensive land use and economic development strategic plans to the COG and MPO Long Range Transportation Planning (LRTP) process

4 https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop12006/sec_1.htm

Page 6-1

| 6 | LAND USE OBSERVATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES |

Using these observations as a basis, Table 6.2 presents five planning and programming recommendations as valuable opportunities for greater coordination between land use planning and freight mobility planning in the BCD Region. These opportunities will guide subsequent plan development to further identify needs at the project level, as well as develop a mechanism to align the project programming and policy or project delivery processes. Table 6.2: Potential Opportunities to Support Land Use Development Opportunity Sub-Area & Neighborhood Freight Plan Program At-Grade Rail Crossing Program Regional Truck Parking Plan Regional Freight Related Economic Development Study

Regional Supply Chain Resiliency Strategy

Description Develop strategies and design standards to reduce conflicts between freight, auto, transit, and bike/ped for small towns and neighborhoods at the freight corridor level Prioritize and program at-grade crossing project improvements Identify and prioritize sites for future truck parking facilities to support local industry Determine freight related planned acreage to better shape future industry cluster recruitment and marketing strategies, as well as utility and transportation infrastructure planning Develop a strategy to create immunity to local and global impacts to the network supply chain by identifying redundant supplier bases in and around the region

DRAFT – FOR REVIEW

| PAGE 6-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN

APPENDIX E Technical Memorandum

Freight and Economics

Prepared by:

January 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................1-1

FREIGHT DIMENSIONS AND SOURCES ........................................................................................2-1

2.1

Data Dimensions ............................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2

Data Sources .................................................................................................................. 2-2

FREIGHT DATA ..............................................................................................................................3-1 3.1

Transearch ...................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Truck ................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.2 Rail ...................................................................................................................... 3-6

3.2

Other Freight Sources/Non-Surface Modes.............................................................. 3-11 3.2.1 Port of Charleston ........................................................................................... 3-11 3.2.2 Airborne ........................................................................................................... 3-15

3.3

Freight Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 3-15

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................4-1 4.1

IMPLAN ............................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.2

Local Economy .............................................................................................................. 4-2

4.3

Freight Impacts .............................................................................................................. 4-5 4.3.1 Approach .......................................................................................................... 4-6 4.3.2 Impacts .............................................................................................................. 4-7 4.3.3 Impact Summary .............................................................................................. 4-9

APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................................. A-1

LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1: Transearch Summary, 2016 ................................................................................................... 3-1 Table 3-2: Transearch Truck Summary, 2016 ......................................................................................... 3-2 Table 3-3: Transearch Truck Average Miles Traveled, 2016 ................................................................ 3-4 Table 3-4: Transearch Rail Summary, 2016 ............................................................................................ 3-6 Table 3-5: FHWA FAF 4 Charleston District, Foreign Water Growth, 2016-2045 ............................... 3-14 Table 4-1: IMPLAN, BCDCOG Economy by County, 2018 (*in millions) ............................................. 4-3 Table 4-2: IMPLAN, BCDCOG Economy by Industry, 2018 (*in millions) ............................................ 4-4 Table 4-3: IMPLAN, BCDCOG Employment Location Quotients (vs. South Carolina), 2018 ........... 4-5 Table 4-4: BCD Freight Economic Impacts, 2018 (*in millions) ............................................................ 4-7 Table A-1: Transearch Truck, All Directions 2016 ................................................................................. A-1 Table A-2: Transearch Truck, Outbound 2016 ..................................................................................... A-2 Table A-3: Transearch Truck, Inbound 2016 ......................................................................................... A-3 Table A-4: Transearch Truck, Intra-Regional 2016 ............................................................................... A-4 Table A-5: Transearch Truck, Through 2016 .......................................................................................... A-5

Page i

| TABLE OF CONTENTS |

Table A-6: Transearch Truck 2016–2040 Ton Growth ........................................................................... A-6 Table A-7: Transearch Truck 2016–2040 Value (millions) Growth....................................................... A-7 Table A-8: Transearch Rail, All Directions 2016 .................................................................................. A-10 Table A-9: Transearch Rail, Outbound 2016 ...................................................................................... A-11 Table A-10: Transearch Rail, Inbound 2016 ........................................................................................ A-12 Table A-11: Transearch Rail, Intra-Regional 2016 .............................................................................. A-13 Table A-12: Transearch Rail, Through 2016......................................................................................... A-14 Table A-13: Transearch Rail 2016–2040 Ton Growth.......................................................................... A-15 Table A-14: Transearch Rail 2016–2040 Value (millions) Growth ..................................................... A-16

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3-1: Transearch Truck Density, 2016 Tons ................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-2: Transearch Truck Commodities, 2016 Tons, including Through ....................................... 3-5 Figure 3-3: Transearch Truck Commodities, 2016 Tons, excluding Through ...................................... 3-5 Figure 3-4: Transearch Truck 2016–2040 Ton Growth ........................................................................... 3-7 Figure 3-5: Transearch Rail Density, 2016 Tons ...................................................................................... 3-8 Figure 3-6: Transearch Rail Commodities, 2016 Tons, including Through .......................................... 3-9 Figure 3-7: Transearch Rail Commodities, 2016 Tons, excluding Through ......................................... 3-9 Figure 3-8: Transearch Rail 2016–2040 Ton Growth ............................................................................ 3-10 Figure 3-9: USACE WCS Port of Charleston Tons, 2016–18 ................................................................. 3-12 Figure 3-10: USACE WCS Port of Charleston Commodity Tons, 2016 ............................................... 3-12 Figure 3-11: USA Trade Online Port of Charleston Foreign-Borne Value, 2016–18 .......................... 3-13 Figure 3-12: USA Trade Online Port of Charleston Foreign-Born Commodity Value, 2016 ............ 3-14 Figure 3-13: Summary Freight Tonnage by Mode and Direction ..................................................... 3-16 Figure 4-1: IMPLAN, BCD Economy by Industry Group, 2018 .............................................................. 4-4 Figure 4-2: BCD Freight Employment Impacts by Industry, 2018 ........................................................ 4-8 Figure 4-3: BCDCOG Freight Impact, % of Regional Economy, 2018 ................................................ 4-9 Figure A-1: Transearch Truck South Carolina Tons 2016 and BCDCOG-Related ............................ A-8 Figure A-2: Transearch Truck SC Tons 2016–2040 Network Growth ................................................... A-9 Figure A-3: Transearch Rail South Carolina Tons 2016 and BCDCOG-Related ............................. A-17 Figure A-4: Transearch Rail South Carolina Tons 2016–2040 Network Growth ............................... A-18

| PAGE ii | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

1. INTRODUCTION Millions of tons and billions of dollars in freight, which include finished goods and intermediate materials, traverse the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester (BCD) region's transportation infrastructure annually. The following analysis assesses various freight databases, summarizes freight volumes moving on the region's transportation network, identifies regional relevance, and quantifies its economic impacts. Various data sources are used or incorporated in this analysis to explain freight movements within and between modes by volume (tons, value, units), commodity, and direction. While freight data are reported as sourced, it is important to note that each source has limitations. The IHS Markit Transearch (Transerach) reported data serve as the primary source for truck and rail freight flows; however, a major challenge with this data is identifying the share of freight originating and terminating at the Port of Charleston. To overcome this limitation, supplemental data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Port of Charleston were also utilized. Refined freight values by direction (inbound, outbound, internal, and through) and commodity type are used in conjunction with the IMPLAN economic model to identify the direct impacts generated by the production and consumption of regional freight result in direct impacts. The IMPLAN model was also used to estimate the total impacts associated with indirect supplier and induced re-spending effects. The IMPLAN model supplied socioeconomic data that provided baseline regional economic data for select economic measures, such as employment, labor income, value-added, and output, , which facilitated comparison of the freight-related impacts to the overall regional economy.

Page 1-1

2. FREIGHT DIMENSIONS AND SOURCES A universal freight database encompassing all data dimensions is not publicly available. Each database is limited across one or more dimensions; therefore, multiple sources should be considered to comprehensively analyze freight movements.

2.1

DATA DIMENSIONS

Freight data are always characterized relative to a facility and/or an analysis geography (i.e., BCD Region), by direction, within a given timeframe, and by mode, typically measured by weight and/or monetary value in aggregate, or by commodity detail. Geography/Facility – Data are presented relative to the BCDCOG tri-county region (i.e., Berkeley, Charleston, Dorchester) or the individual port facilities in the region, depending on the data source. Direction – Freight is typically delineated by four major movement directions relative to the geography/facility: outbound, inbound, intra, and through. Such directions may be subcategorized depending on geographic resolution (e.g., outbound to South Carolina, foreign exports). Direction is determined from origins and destinations. Time – Freight data from the sources herein are in annual terms, with a historical base year of 2016. Some sources include forecasts, some do not. Mode – Freight is sometimes multimodal; however, most freight databases identify only the primary mode. As such, freight data are typically sorted into modal groups, including truck, rail, water (ports and waterways), airports, pipeline, and sometimes “other.” Volume – Freight is typically measured by weight (e.g., tons) and/or monetary value. Given source disparity, tonnage data are presented mostly herein for comparability. Commodity – Freight comprises all goods movements, which typically entail a mix of commodities—both intermediary and final products. Three commodity conventions are used in the freight databases, most of which do not agree perfectly. Consequently, commodity data are presented within each source’s unique convention. The three conventions used (by source and mode) are:

•

Standard Transportation Commodity Code (STCC) – by Transearch for truck and rail

•

Lock Performance Monitoring System (LPMS) – by USACE for water

•

Standard Classification of Transported Goods (SCTG) – by Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) for air

Page 2-1

| 2 | FREIGHT DIMENSIONS AND SOURCES |

2.2

DATA SOURCES

Two primary multimodal freight data sources used in this analysis include the for-hire Transearch database and the publicly available Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Freight Analysis Framework (FAF). Although each of these sources cover all major modes, some limitations to the datasets required use of additional data sources. The Transearch data was therefore supplemented with the Surface Transportation Board (STB) Waybill rail data, while the USACE Waterborne Commerce Statistics (WCS) were used to supplement waterborne freight. USACE Waterborne Commerce Statistics (WCS) were used to supplement waterborne freight. Transearch – IHS Markit develops a North American freight database based only on North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) focused geography and compiled from various sources, including rail and truck carriers. Base- and future-year estimates are available at a county-level. It establishes production tonnages by industry/commodity—drawn from IHS's Business Markets Insights database and supplemented by trade associations, industry reports, and federal government data. Rail data is further supplemented by the STB Waybill sample. Since Transearch was originally developed for private truck and rail users and the reporting geography is NAFTA-focused (Non-NAFTA water and air freight movements with Europe, Asia, South America, Africa, etc. are excluded), the data is not extensive for modes other than truck and rail. 1 Non-NAFTA water and air movements are excluded. Nonetheless, Transearch provides a comprehensive database of truck and rail freight using the STCC commodity code convention. 0F

STB Waybill – The STB Waybill provides annual freight rail data, using a 2% stratified sample of carload waybills for freight rail traffic submitted by carriers terminating 4,500 or more revenue carloads annually. While STB Waybill data are more robust and accurate than Transearch estimations, they lack forecasts and routing information. Transearch (standard product) incorporates the more robust STB Waybill data and amends it with routing and corresponding forecasts. As such, the rail data presented herein are sourced from Transearch, but stem from the STB Waybill. FHWA FAF 4 – FHWA FAF 4 is an integrated freight database for all primary transportation modes, produced by FHWA in collaboration with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Estimates are based on 2012 Commodity Flow Survey data and international trade Census data. FAF uses the SCTG commodity code convention. However, FAF was not used because of various limitations. Limited routing information precludes freight density mapping and through volumes estimates. Such through volumes are often significant, especially for interstate truck freight. Geography is constrained by state and/or large regional totals that preclude county or specific study area analysis. The SCTG commodity convention differs notably from the STCC used by Transearch. USACE – USACE WCS makes publicly available various waterborne freight tonnage and container data for both foreign and domestic movements, by direction, port, commodity, and year. It compiles domestic waterborne movements, as reported by vessel operators of record on ENG Forms 3925 and 3925b (or equivalent) and approved by the Office of Management and Budget. Foreign-related import, export, and in-transit statistics are derived primarily from Port

1 i.e., excludes freight movement with Europe, Asia, South America, Africa, etc.

| PAGE 2-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 2 | FREIGHT DIMENSIONS AND SOURCES |

Import/Export Reporting Service (PIERS) via the Census and Customs Service using the LPMS commodity code convention. Other – Water and air freight volume data from Transearch are supplemented with facility data from the Port of Charleston and the Charleston and Greenville-Spartanburg regions).

•

Port of Charleston – Details freight volume differently. Instead of summarizing freight tonnage, the Port of Charleston tracks freight volume differently between terminals. Whereas containers and twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU) are tracked at the North Charleston Terminal and Wando Welch Terminal, automobiles are tracked at the Columbus and Veterans piers. Such metrics differ from the broader comprehensive volume metrics (tons, value, units) used by Transearch for all freight. Nonetheless, the Port of Charleston data provided a direct source for comparing/confirming Transearch and USACE volumes.

•

Airports – Airports provide limited air freight volumes (tons and/or value) used to supplement and confirm the limited Transearch data.

| PAGE 2-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

3. FREIGHT DATA The following subsections summarize modal freight data from the various sources. Additional detailed freight data tables and maps are in the appendix.

3.1

TRANSEARCH

Transearch data is presented in Table 3-1 for the two surface modes: truck and rail. Although the database includes additional modes, the NAFTA-level trade restriction limits the usefulness of the water and air freight data. The pipeline and “other” categories 2 are questionable/irrelevant given their relatively minor role. 1F

The multimodal summary is provided below by mode and major direction, with the non-surface modes grayed out. Directional data is relative to the tri-county BCDCOG region, which includes Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester counties. Transearch reports 113 million tons of freight moved across the regional surface network, valued at $249 billion in 2016. Almost 80% of the tons (85% of the value) are carried via truck and the remainder are carried by rail. Through traffic constitutes most regional volumes but pertain almost entirely to interstate truck trade on I-95 in Dorchester County. Table 3-1: Transearch Summary, 2016 Direction Tons Outbound Inbound Intra-Regional Through Total Units Outbound Inbound Intra-Regional Through Total Value, in millions Outbound Inbound Intra-Regional Through Total

Truck

Rail

Water

Air

Other

15,013,564 13,413,669 8,510,723 52,135,754 89,073,711

4,432,478 11,144,727 780,056 7,550,479 23,907,740

8,446 1,645,583 369,270 #N/A 2,023,299

9,391 17,167 #N/A #N/A 26,559

1,036 19,198 #N/A #N/A 20,233

1,138,237 1,085,043 1,190,516 2,971,248 6,385,045

129,716 241,889 7,688 187,008 566,301

#N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0

$46,880 $28,482 $19,640 $116,713 $211,716

$10,086 $13,782 $443 $12,693 $37,005

$28 $154 $89 #N/A $270

$532 $1,498 #N/A #N/A $2,030

$10 $194 #N/A #N/A $204

2 “other” in Transearch is either unspecified “other”, mail, or foreign trade zone-related movements

Page 3-1

| 3 | FREIGHT DATA |

3.1.1 Truck In 2016, Transearch estimated 89 million tons of goods traveling on the tri-county highway network, transported within 6.4 million units and valued at over $211 billion. (Table 3-2) Table 3-2: Transearch Truck Summary, 2016 Direction Outbound Outbound to SC Outbound to non-SC Inbound Inbound from SC Inbound from non-SC Intra-Regional Through Through SC to SC Through non-SC to SC Through SC to non-SC Through non-SC to non-SC Total

Tons Amount Percent 15,013,564 16.9% 4,585,980 5.1% 10,427,584 11.7% 13,413,669 15.1% 3,400,089 3.8% 10,013,580 11.2% 8,510,723 9.6% 52,135,754 58.5% 620,197 0.7% 3,249,517 3.6% 4,005,009 4.5% 44,261,032 49.7% 89,073,711 100.0%

Units Amount Percent 1,138,237 17.8% 420,446 6.6% 717,791 11.2% 1,085,043 17.0% 376,497 5.9% 708,546 11.1% 1,190,516 18.6% 2,971,248 46.5% 56,428 0.9% 275,290 4.3% 260,003 4.1% 2,379,527 37.3% 6,385,045 100.0%

Value (in millions) Amount Percent $46,880 22.1% $5,813 2.7% $41,067 19.4% $28,482 13.5% $4,446 2.1% $24,037 11.4% $19,640 9.3% $116,713 55.1% $604 0.3% $5,484 2.6% $7,465 3.5% $103,159 48.7% $211,716 100.0%

Average Value/Ton $3,123 $1,268 $3,938 $2,123 $1,307 $2,400 $2,308 $2,239 $974 $1,688 $1,864 $2,331 $2,377

Directions – Most truck tonnage (59%) and value (55%) traverses through the region, which is typical of regions situated on a major interstate, such as I-95 in Dorchester County. The tri-county region exhibited a positive truck-bound trade balance, with more outbound than inbound goods, especially by value. Therefore, the region is a net producer of truck-borne freight (produces more than it consumes). This reflects the truck-leg of the Charleston Ports freight that is moved inland. Intra-regional truck movements represent the smaller directional share, but a relatively higher proportion of intra-regional units reflects the repositioning of shipping containers (which have no associated freight tons or value). Network Density – Most trucks travel through the BCD Region on I-95 in Dorchester County (Figure 3-1), reflecting non-South Carolina interstate trade. Such volumes represent half the tons and values of all trucks traversing the regional highways. I-95 aside, the remaining regionally relevant truck volumes are routed mostly along I-26 toward the Upstate region and north along I-95. Transearch-routed tonnage on I-26 is about a third of the volumes on I-95 in Dorchester. Transearch routes trucks on other regional roadways—U.S. 17 and U.S. 52. Other roadways are allocated minor volumes, which is typical for Transearch routing because of the database resolution2F3. As such, roadways like I-526 are under allocated volumes relative to observed reality (e.g., the eastern segment is only routed a few thousand tons from Georgetown County to/from Jasper County and the surrounding counties).

3 Transearch is based on a NAFTA trade network; as such, intra-county and -regional movements are not routed with a

detailed resolution. Specifically, intra-county movement are not routed at all because there is no sub-county origin/destination.

| PAGE 3-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 3 | FREIGHT DATA |

Figure 3-1: Transearch Truck Density, 2016 Tons

| PAGE 3-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 3 | FREIGHT DATA |

Origins/Destinations – Aside from I-95 through traffic, which is almost entirely non-South Carolina interstate trade (e.g., New England/mid-Atlantic to/from Florida), the remaining inbound, outbound, and intra-regional volumes are concentrated in Charleston County. Most inbound and outbound tons are traded with non-South Carolina origins/destinations, mostly from/to North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Truck directional volumes (tons, value, units) are summarized in Table 3-3. Table 3-3: Transearch Truck Average Miles Traveled, 2016 Direction Outbound Outbound to SC Outbound to non-SC Inbound Inbound from SC Inbound from non-SC Intra-Regional Through Through SC to SC Through non-SC to SC Through SC to non-SC Through non-SC to non-SC

Tons 409 111 540 444 116 555 17 828 160 414 404 906

Units 344 110 482 342 108 467 17 784 148 365 374 892

Value 602 138 668 571 136 651 17 841 176 353 490 896

While most non-through BCD tons originated/terminated in other states, each state traded fewer tons with the BCD region than the remainder of South Carolina. Inbound tons from South Carolina are led by Orangeburg County, followed by the Columbia area (Lexington/Richland counties), the Pee Dee (Florence/Horry counties), and then Upstate (Greenville/Spartanburg counties). Outbound volumes are mostly to the same geographies, but with a more heterogenous mix. Commodities by Direction – Various commodity groups traverse the BCD region, including major long-distance interstate trade on I-95, especially secondary traffic (warehousing and distribution center repositioning, drayage, etc.). Tonnage volumes are shown inclusive of the through movements in Figure 3-2. A second perspective, excluding through tonnage in Figure 3-3, provides a clearer picture of economically relevant BCD freight—volumes produced and/or consumed in the region. Regional inbound, outbound, and intra-regional truck volumes pertain mostly to the bulleted STCC groups below. The high proportion of shipping containers and secondary traffic for units represent relatively concentrated warehousing movements.

•

By tons − Nonmetallic minerals (6.6 million tons, 18.0% of total) − Secondary traffic (6.4 million tons, 17.4% of total) − Petroleum or coal products (4.6 million tons, 12.4% of total) − Waste or scrap materials (3.1 million tons, 8.5% of total) − Chemicals or allied products (2.3 million tons, 6.3% of total)

| PAGE 3-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 3 | FREIGHT DATA |

Figure 3-2: Transearch Truck Commodities, 2016 Tons, including Through

Figure 3-3: Transearch Truck Commodities, 2016 Tons, excluding Through

| PAGE 3-5 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 3 | FREIGHT DATA |

•

By units − Shipping containers (1,456,595 units, 42.7% of total) − Secondary traffic (464,681 units, 13.6% of total) − Nonmetallic minerals (272,800 units, 8.0% of total) − Petroleum or coal products (188,573 units, 5.5% of total) − Waste or scrap materials (138,544 units, 4.1% of total)

•

By value − Secondary traffic ($21.5 billion, 22.6% of total) − Transportation equipment ($18.6 billion, 19.6% of total) − Machinery ($10.5 billion, 11.0% of total) − Chemicals or allied products ($6.2 billion, 6.6% of total) − Electrical equipment ($5.2 billion, 5.5% of total)

Growth – By 2040, the horizon year in Transearch, truck freight on the tri-county network is projected to increase to over 170 million tons, a 92% total increase (2.7% annually), as shown in Figure 3-4. Over half of the growth is in the same top five commodity groups that currently comprise most tons, with outbound volume growing slightly faster than the other directions. Summary – I-95 in Dorchester County is a bridge connecting interstate trade along the East Coast, but most volumes do not pertain to the BCDCOG region. Aside from I-95, regional truck tons are mostly along I-26, connecting with the rest of South Carolina, especially the Columbia capital area, the Pee Dee region, and the Upstate region. Much of the regional truck tons pertain to energy and warehousing supply chains. Intermodal petroleum products reflect water to truck transfer.

3.1.2 Rail In 2016, Transearch estimated 24 million tons of goods traveling on the tri-county railroads within 566,300 carloads and valued at over $37 billion. Rail volumes are summarized by direction in Table 3-4. Table 3-4: Transearch Rail Summary, 2016 Direction Outbound Outbound to SC Outbound to non-SC Inbound Inbound from SC Inbound from non-SC Intra-Regional Through Through SC to SC Through non-SC to SC Through SC to non-SC Through non-SC to non-SC Total

Tons Amount 4,432,478 1,625,080 2,807,398 11,144,727 2,687,557 8,457,170 780,056 7,550,479 111,920 1,185,744 771,760 5,481,055 23,907,740

Percent 18.5% 6.8% 11.7% 46.6% 11.2% 35.4% 3.3% 31.6% 0.5% 5.0% 3.2% 22.9% 100.0%

Amount 129,716 48,240 81,476 241,889 88,215 153,674 7,688 187,008 1,160 11,284 8,960 165,604 566,301

Units Percent 22.9% 8.5% 14.4% 42.7% 15.6% 27.1% 1.4% 33.0% 0.2% 2.0% 1.6% 29.2% 100.0%

Value (in millions) Amount Percent $10,086 27.3% $3,512 9.5% $6,574 17.8% $13,782 37.2% $7,356 19.9% $6,426 17.4% $443 1.2% $12,693 34.3% $107 0.3% $334 0.9% $623 1.7% $11,629 31.4% $37,005 100.0%

| PAGE 3-6 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Average Value/Ton $2,275 $2,161 $2,342 $1,237 $2,737 $760 $568 $1,681 $960 $282 $807 $2,122 $1,548

| 3 | FREIGHT DATA |

Figure 3-4: Transearch Truck 2016–2040 Ton Growth

Directions – Unlike trucks, regional rail freight flows are not comprised mostly of through movements (about one-third), but instead originate/terminate in the region (including at the port and intermodal transfer facilities). Inbound is the largest relative direction, at almost half of the tonnage and more than a third of the freight value. Outbound rail comprises about one-fifth of the tonnage and a quarter of the value. Intra-regional rail is a relatively small proportion, as expected, given rail freight is typically long haul. Network Density – Figure 3-5 illustrates rail line densities. Railroad routes with relatively densest freight volumes are the CSX Transportation (CSXT) line serving Charleston and continuing north parallel to U.S. 52 (17 million tons), followed by CSXT line from Charleston continuing south paralleling U.S. 17. However, much of the rail freight volumes on these lines are moving through the region. Transearch allocates some freight to the Northern Southern (NS) line connecting Charleston with Columbia. Like trucks, non-Class 1 railroads are allocated minor volumes, which is typical for Transearch routing because of the database resolution 4. 3F

Origins/Destinations – Aside from non-South Carolina through traffic (e.g., Florida to/from New England, mid-Atlantic), the remaining inbound, outbound, and intra-regional volumes mostly pertain to Charleston and Berkeley counties. Comparatively, Dorchester County is not an origin or destination for rail freight. About a quarter of inbound and a third of outbound tons are from/to the rest of South Carolina, mostly with the Greenville/Spartanburg and Columbia areas. Rail beyond South Carolina includes outbound flows to North Carolina, Alabama, and Tennessee, with inbound mostly from Kentucky, Indiana, and Pennsylvania.

4 Transearch is based on a NAFTA trade network; as such, intra-county and -regional movements are not routed with a

detailed resolution; specifically, intra-county movement are not routed at all because there is no sub-county O/D.

| PAGE 3-7 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 3 | FREIGHT DATA |

Figure 3-5: Transearch Rail Density, 2016 Tons

| PAGE 3-8 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 3 | FREIGHT DATA |

Commodities – The three major commodity groups traversing the region’s railroads by tonnage are coal, miscellaneous mixed shipments (shipping containers), and chemical products. Tonnage volumes are shown in Figure 3-6 (including through) and Figure 3-7 (excluding through). Regional inbound, outbound, and intra-regional rail volumes pertain mostly to the following STCC2 groups. Figure 3-6: Transearch Rail Commodities, 2016 Tons, including Through

Figure 3-7: Transearch Rail Commodities, 2016 Tons, excluding Through

| PAGE 3-9 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 3 | FREIGHT DATA |

•

By tons − Coal (5.4 million tons, 32.8% of total) − Miscellaneous mixed shipments (2.4 million tons, 14.9% of total) − Chemicals or allied products (2.3 million tons, 14.3% of total) − Nonmetallic minerals (1.4 million tons, 8.4% of total) − Primary metal products (1.0 million, 6.3% of total)

•

By units − Miscellaneous mixed shipments (209,160 units, 55.1% of total) − Coal (46,279 units, 12.2% of total) − Transportation equipment (31,188 units, 8.2% of total) − Chemicals or allied products (27,512 units, 7.3% of total) − Nonmetallic minerals (12,782 units, 3.4% of total)

•

By value − Miscellaneous mixed shipments ($12.6 billion, 51.8% of total) − Transportation equipment ($5.6 billion, 23.2% of total) − Chemicals or allied products ($3.0 billion, 12.3% of total) − Primary metal products ($1.5 billion, 6.1% of total) − Pulp, paper, or allied products ($0.5 billion, 2.0% of total)

Growth – Figure 3-8 graphs tonnage growth between 2016 and 2040 by leading commodities. By 2040, the horizon year in Transearch, rail freight on tri-county railroads is projected to increase to almost 40 million tons, a 65% total increase, or 2.1% annually, with outbound volumes growing slightly faster than the other directions. About half of the absolute volume growth is in miscellaneous mixed shipments and chemicals; coal imports (from Kentucky, Indiana, and Pennsylvania) are not expected to grow. Figure 3-8: Transearch Rail 2016–2040 Ton Growth

| PAGE 3-10 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 3 | FREIGHT DATA |

Summary – Rail in the BCDCOG region mostly serves the city of Charleston, port connections with Upstate and out-of-state markets, inbound coal from the Midwest, container shipping, and the regional energy supply chain. Intermodal petroleum products reflect water to rail transfers.

3.2

OTHER FREIGHT SOURCES/NON-SURFACE MODES

Transearch pertains to NAFTA/ United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement countries. Hence, the non-surface modal data (airports and seaports) excludes trade with overseas partners. Given such limitations, airport and seaport data are supplemented with other freight data sources. Seaports – Various public and private sources are available, including:

• • • • •

U.S. Census Bureau’s USA Trade Online USACE WCS Center IHS-produced PIERS American Association of Port Authorities U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration

As with other freight sources, each has limitations. USACE data are presented for tons but do not publish commodity value while USA Trade Online data provide foreign-borne tons and value data primarily, but excludes domestic data. Airports – Fewer, less detailed, alternative sources are available: direct airport records, the U.S. Department of Transportation T-100 dataset, and the U.S. Census Bureau USA Trade Online. Air cargo data directly from the Charleston International Airport and USA Trade Online were reviewed. Other Freight Source Summary – Reporting seaport (water) and airport freight data is important in the context of intermodal transfers. This is especially true for water movements, because most waterborne freight is transferred to trucks or rail and moved through the region to other South Carolina regions or other states. Such distinction is important for the economic impact estimates, as such movements are not directly part of the BCD economy other than the regional carriers and facility operations (i.e., the goods are neither produced nor consumed regionally).

3.2.1 Port of Charleston The USACE WCS provides data on the foreign and domestic waterborne commerce moved at the ports and harbors (i.e., nodes) and on the waterways and canals (i.e., links) of the U.S. This includes comprehensive historical port-specific freight data, which Transearch and FAF do not provide. While the USACE WCS data are facility-specific, data are limited to historical tons; value and forecasts are unavailable. USACE Total Tons – Between 2016 and 2018, the Port of Charleston fluctuated around 25 million freight tons, as shown in Figure 3-9. A significant majority (92%) is foreign borne (in blue) and the remaining is domestic (8%). Directionally, about two-thirds are receipts (inbound, or imports), and the remaining third are shipments (outbound, or exports), with a small fraction pertaining to intraport movements.

| PAGE 3-11 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 3 | FREIGHT DATA |

Figure 3-9: USACE WCS Port of Charleston Tons, 2016–18

USACE Commodity Tons – In 2016, the Port of Charleston facilitated the movement of various commodities, as shown in Figure 3-10. 5 The two major groups include manufactured equipment, machinery, and products (vehicles, parts, textile products, etc.) and other chemicals/related products. Other major commodities include heavy-ton/low-value imported sand, gravel, rock, etc. and iron ore/steel scrap materials. Such waterborne freight movements reflect various types, including bulk (both dry and wet), breakbulk, automobiles, and containers (1.8 million TEUs). 4F

Figure 3-10: USACE WCS Port of Charleston Commodity Tons, 2016

5 Per LPMS2 commodity definition

| PAGE 3-12 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 3 | FREIGHT DATA |

USACE TEUs – Although not measured by tons (and included in the preceding figure), the Port of Charleston facilitated the movement of 1.6 million TEUs in 2016 and 1.8 million in 2018, ranking as the ninth- and eighth-largest container port in the nation for those years, respectively. TEUs are almost entirely foreign trade related, and like tons, include more receipts (inbound, or imports) than shipments (outbound, or exports). USA Trade Online Value – Seaport data from U.S. Census Bureau’s USA Trade Online agrees closely with the USACE foreign-borne tonnage data. USA Trade Online indicates 21 to 25 million foreign tons (imports and exports) between years 2016 and 2018. As noted in the USACE data, this represents a significant majority of all seaport volumes (92%). USA Trade Online also provides dollar values of such foreign-borne freight, which helps identify the value of intermodal movements traveling through the BCD region—especially relevant for the subsequent economic impact analysis. As seen in Figure 3-11, about $70–72 billion worth of foreign-traded goods traverse the Port of Charleston as intermodal transfers to trucks and rail. Like tons, the import values represent about two-thirds of the directional movements, and exports are the remaining third. Figure 3-11: USA Trade Online Port of Charleston Foreign-Borne Value, 2016–18

USA Trade Online Commodity Values – As seen in Figure 3-12, two commodity groups comprise the predominate values traversing the Port of Charleston. Vehicles and parts (more exports than imports) and heavy machinery (more imports than exports) combine to account more than 40% of the foreign trade value. Other notable commodity groups include pharmaceuticals, plastics, rubber, and organic chemicals. All other commodity groups represent a relatively small percent.

| PAGE 3-13 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 3 | FREIGHT DATA |

Figure 3-12: USA Trade Online Port of Charleston Foreign-Born Commodity Value, 2016

Growth – USACE and USA Trade Online do not provide port-specific forecasts; however, the more-aggregated FHWA FAF 4 data for the greater Charleston district includes future-year 2045 forecasts. However, baseline 2016 data differ from historical USACE or USA Trade Online data (which reflect estimates of a larger area beyond the Port of Charleston). As shown in Table 3-5, total waterborne tonnage is projected to almost double (95% or 2.3% annually) by 2045. Imports grow faster than exports, and waterborne value nearly triples (191% or 3.8% annually). Table 3-5: FHWA FAF 4 Charleston District, Foreign Water Growth, 2016-2045 Year 2016 2045 ∆ %∆ CAGR

Imports 15.4 36.1 20.7 135% 3.0%

Tons (millions) Exports Total 17.1 32.5 27.1 63.2 10.0 30.7 58% 95% 1.6% 2.3%

Imports $57.9 $171.4 $113.5 196% 3.8%

Value (billions) Exports Total $40.9 $98.7 $115.8 $287.2 $75.0 $188.4 183% 191% 3.7% 3.8%

Note: Compound annual growth rate (CAGR)

Summary – The Port of Charleston is one of the most important transportation facilities in the BCD region, facilitating relatively large volumes and values that connect intermodally to truck and

| PAGE 3-14 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 3 | FREIGHT DATA |

rail, mostly to origins and destinations beyond the BCD region. Significant volumes and value of transportation equipment, manufacturing machinery, textiles, and other heavy-weight/lowervalue goods (scrap, iron ore, and nonmetallic minerals) move through the Port. Such relatively large volumes and values, connecting via truck and rail, are facilitated by the local infrastructure and carriers, but are not produced or consumed regionally.

3.2.2 Airborne Regional airborne freight is relatively very small volume-wise compared to other modes. Transearch reported only 26,559 tons of air cargo moved via the BCDCOG metropolitan statistical area (MSA) in 2016. Major airborne ton and/or value commodities include high-end rubber/plastics and transportation equipment. Charleston International Airport freight data yielded similar volumes but lacked the directional detail and values.

3.3

FREIGHT CONCLUSIONS

Multiple data sources were used to process the myriad of freight data because no single source captured the entire multidimensional paradigm. Of the various sources evaluated, the Waybillsupplemented Transearch data provide the broadest and most detailed information for truck and rail volume (tons, value, units) by commodity, direction, and year (2016 and 2040). Supplemental USACE and USA Trade Online port data was used to overcome the Transearch port data constraints and estimate total Port of Charleston tonnage and value. Since most port volume is transferred to road and rail, the through volume clarification provided a key element in the following section’s economic impact estimates, which focuses on the freight produced and/or consumed in the region. Lastly, freight volume through airports and/or other foreigntrade zones (FTZ) comprise less than 1% of total volumes. In summary, 113.0 million tons move across BCDCOG roads and railroads. 23.0 million tons (20%) move through the ports—17.2 million (15%) transfers to/from trucks and 5.8 million (5%) transfers to/from rail. 59.7 million tons (53%) transit the region’s surface modes–52.1 million tons (46%) via roads and 7.6 million tons (7%) via rail. The remaining 30.3 million tons (27%) reflect freight produced and/or consumed in the region—19.7 million tons (17%) move via truck and 10.6 million tons (10%) via rail, as illustrated in Figure 3-13. These volumes summarize the region’s net freight movements by eliminating double-counting (i.e., modal transfers). They illustrate the bridge-role played by the region’s transport infrastructure between the rest of South Carolina, the U.S., and abroad. They also summarize the net freight volume moved by local shippers and receivers—the volumes used to estimate the associated economic impacts in the following subsection.

| PAGE 3-15 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 3 | FREIGHT DATA |

Figure 3-13: Summary Freight Tonnage by Mode and Direction

| PAGE 3-16 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

4. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The BCD region freight economic analysis begins with a brief description of the IMPLAN economic model. IMPLAN data is then used to profile study area socioeconomic characteristics (population, employment, income, etc.). Such data provides context for understanding the regional character and freight demands. Freight data previously presented and the IMPLAN model are then used to estimate the relative economic importance of regional freight, using the same baseline socioeconomic measures.

4.1

IMPLAN

IMPLAN is an input-output, social account matrix software used for estimating regional annual economic impacts from assumed industry or commodity changes. A social account matrix reflects economic interrelationships between industries, commodities, households, and governments, measured by impact multipliers and other economic characteristics. Multipliers are developed from regional purchase coefficients, production functions, and socioeconomic data for each geographically specific variable. IMPLAN also provides commodity-to-industry production and absorption relationships that quantify basic industry supply chain relationships underpinning the production of goods and services. IMPLAN is one of the most used models for quantifying economic interactions along various metrics and dimensions and can be evaluated in many ways. Characteristics – IMPLAN data are geographically defined at various resolutions (national, states, counties, zip codes) that can be aggregated, such as the three-county BCD region. IMPLAN models represent a static, single-year economic snapshot. It does not include forecasts (dynamic multi-timeframe feedback effects). Data presented are for year 2018, the latest available. The model defines 544 industries, generally structured by the two- and three-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) framework. Industry data presented are collapsed into the two-digit NAICS structure or further collapsed into goods, services, and transportation/ warehousing industry sectors. Evaluation Measures – All data are in dollar-denominated terms, except employment and baseline demographics (population and households):

•

Population – Resident individuals

•

Households – Population residences

•

Employment (Jobs) – Full-time-equivalent job years

•

Output – Total sales value associated with all levels of economic activity; comprises intermediate inputs and value-added, combined.

Page 4-1

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

•

Intermediary Inputs – The value of goods and services purchased and applied to production processes (e.g., component parts, supplies)

•

Value-Added – Net additional economic activity beyond intermediate inputs in the production of goods and services, synonymous with gross regional product (GRP); includes labor income, other property income types, and taxes −

Labor Income – Includes employee compensation (employee wage/salary earnings) and proprietor income

−

Other Property Type Income – Income from dividends, royalties, corporate profits, rents, and interest income from capital returns

−

Taxes – Various production and import taxes (e.g., sales, property, excise), fines, fees, licenses, permits, etc. resulting from business economic activity; includes all federal, state, and local tax revenues

Impact Types – An industry or commodity change applied to the IMPLAN model yields three impact types that aggregate into a total impact for the above-mentioned measures (except baseline population and households):

•

Direct – Impacts attributable to the changed industry or commodity

•

Indirect – Impacts associated with the suppliers that provide intermediate goods and services to the directly impacted industries; this is a supply-chain effect

•

Induced – Impacts associated with the re-spending of earned income from both the direct and indirect industries in the region; this is a net regional income gain/loss effect

•

Total – Summation of direct, indirect, and induced types

4.2

LOCAL ECONOMY

The socioeconomic profile below outlines current socioeconomics (e.g., population, employment, GRP), regional industry composition data, and industry employment location quotients (LQs). Such data are sourced from the IMPLAN model for year 2018 and provide context for estimating the economic impacts of regional freight. Socioeconomics – In 2018, almost 788,000 people resided in the BCD region, as shown in Table 4-1. Over 489,000 people were employed, earning $27.3 billion in the production of $44.2 billion in GRP. The BCD region represented about a sixth of South Carolina’s population and economic activity. Within the region, over half of the population resided in Charleston County, with almost three quarters of the employment and production value. Berkeley County represented the second-largest population and economic activity, followed by Dorchester County.

| PAGE 4-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

Table 4-1: IMPLAN, BCDCOG Economy by County, 2018 (*in millions) Value-Added

BCDCOG Berkeley Charleston Dorchester BCDCOG % Berkeley Charleston Dorchester BCDCOG % of South Carolina South Carolina U.S.

Population

Households

Employment

787,643 221,091 405,905 160,647 100.0% 28.1% 51.5% 20.4%

304,817 80,416 166,405 57,995 100.0% 26.4% 54.6% 19.0%

489,149 81,282 351,659 56,207 100.0% 16.6% 71.9% 11.5%

15.5% 5,084,127 327,167,424

15.4% 1,975,128 123,459,411

17.4% 2,814,815 198,964,200

Property Income*

Taxes*

$27,288 $4,279 $20,843 $2,166 100.0% 15.7% 76.4% 7.9%

$13,989 $2,720 $10,007 $1,262 100.0% 19.4% 71.5% 9.0%

$2,969 $615 $2,053 $301 100.0% 20.7% 69.1% 10.1%

Total Virginia (GRP)* $44,246 $7,613 $32,903 $3,730 100.0% 17.2% 74.4% 8.4%

19.2% $142,009 $12,530,142

18.5% $75,459 $6,672,690

17.6% $16,911 $1,377,392

18.9% $234,379 $20,580,224

Labor Income*

Output* $83,395 $17,815 $57,406 $8,174 100.0% 21.4% 68.8% 9.8% 17.6% $473,873 $36,684,654

Industry Composition – IMPLAN defines hundreds of industries that are aggregated into NAICS industry sectors, which are then aggregated into general industry groups: goods, transportation and warehousing, and services. Goods industries predominately produce, and thus move, physical goods, including agriculture, mining, utilities, construction, manufacturing, and wholesale and retail trade. Such NAICS2-equivilent industries also include many support services that are relatively freight intensive. Services industries also produce physical goods, but to a smaller relative extent, and include information, finance, management, education, health care, etc. Generally, services industries are relatively less freight intensive. Industry Overview – BCD’s goods-related industries account for 25% of employment, 26% of income, 29% of GRP, and 39% of output. Comparatively, transportation and warehousing industries account for 3 to 4% of regional totals. Services account for a far larger component, ranging from 58% of output to 71% of employment, as summarized in Figure 4-1. Industry Detail – More detailed two-digit disaggregation of goods-related industries (see Table 4-2) indicates that construction, manufacturing, and retail trade industries employ a notable share of industry jobs (6.7, 5.7, and 9.2%, respectively), with manufacturing comprising 21.3% of output, which reflects relatively high output per employee (productivity).

| PAGE 4-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

Figure 4-1: IMPLAN, BCD Economy by Industry Group, 2018

Services

Goods

Table 4-2: IMPLAN, BCDCOG Economy by Industry, 2018 (*in millions) Industry 11 Ag, Forestry, Fish and Hunting 21 Mining 22 Utilities 23 Construction 31-33 Manufacturing 42 Wholesale Trade 44-45 Retail Trade 48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 51 Information 52 Finance and Insurance 53 Real Estate and Rental 54 Professional- Scientific and Tech Svcs 55 Management of Companies 56 Administrative and Waste Services 61 Educational Svcs 62 Health and Social Services 71 Arts- Entertainment and Recreation 72 Accommodation and Food Services 81 Other Services 92 Government and Non NAICS Total Goods Transportation Services

Employment 2,838 0.6% 1,320 0.3% 1,647 0.3% 32,554 6.7% 28,009 5.7% 10,044 2.1% 44,853 9.2% 20,277 4.1% 7,728 1.6% 17,481 3.6% 31,034 6.3% 42,507 8.7% 3,812 0.8% 37,589 7.7% 6,686 1.4% 40,566 8.3% 11,612 2.4% 48,392 9.9% 27,527 5.6% 72,673 14.9% 489,149 100.0% 121,266 24.8% 20,277 4.1% 347,607 71.1%

Labor Income* $34 0.1% $16 0.1% $150 0.6% $2,131 7.8% $2,470 9.1% $854 3.1% $1,501 5.5% $955 3.5% $628 2.3% $1,219 4.5% $1,028 3.8% $3,426 12.6% $237 0.9% $1,283 4.7% $272 1.0% $2,655 9.7% $269 1.0% $1,382 5.1% $1,057 3.9% $5,722 21.0% $27,288 100.0% $7,155 26.2% $955 3.5% $19,178 70.3%

Total VA* $65 0.1% $42 0.1% $664 1.5% $2,880 6.5% $4,724 10.7% $2,006 4.5% $2,303 5.2% $1,242 2.8% $1,484 3.4% $1,550 3.5% $6,693 15.1% $4,168 9.4% $280 0.6% $1,452 3.3% $266 0.6% $3,091 7.0% $435 1.0% $2,117 4.8% $1,275 2.9% $7,509 17.0% $44,246 100.0% $12,684 28.7% $1,242 2.8% $30,320 68.5%

| PAGE 4-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Output* $153 0.2% $303 0.4% $1,763 2.1% $5,175 6.2% $17,761 21.3% $3,238 3.9% $3,852 4.6% $2,810 3.4% $4,062 4.9% $3,876 4.6% $10,659 12.8% $6,753 8.1% $521 0.6% $2,663 3.2% $401 0.5% $4,923 5.9% $751 0.9% $3,629 4.4% $1,968 2.4% $8,134 9.8% $83,395 100.0% $32,246 38.7% $2,810 3.4% $48,339 58.0%

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

Location Quotients – Measure the relative employment within the region (and each county), compared to South Carolina employment. Specifically, LQs are the ratio of local industry employment percentages versus the State. 6 Relatively concentrated local industry employment is in green, low concentration in red, and close to statewide composition in black, as shown in Table 4-3. 5F

Services

Goods

Table 4-3: IMPLAN, BCDCOG Employment Location Quotients (vs. South Carolina), 2018 Industry 11 Ag/Forestry 21 Mining 22 Utilities 23 Construction 31-33 Manufacturing 42 Wholesale Trade 44-45 Retail Trade 48-49 Transp. 51 Information 52 Finance/Insurance 53 Real Estate/Rental 54 Professional Services 55 Management 56 Admin./Waste 61 Educational Svcs 62 Health/Social Svcs 71 Arts/Entertain/Rec. 72 Accom./Food Svcs 81 Other Services 92 Government

BCD 0.39 1.40 0.73 1.11 0.62 0.73 0.96 1.24 1.31 0.87 1.35 1.37 0.85 0.98 1.02 0.97 1.24 1.06 0.82 1.08

Berkeley 0.79 4.88 1.36 1.55 0.91 0.96 1.06 1.68 2.04 0.79 0.99 1.80 0.37 0.86 0.97 0.54 1.04 0.68 0.98 0.82

Charleston 0.17 0.39 0.48 0.97 0.48 0.68 0.91 1.12 1.21 0.89 1.47 1.35 1.04 0.97 1.08 1.10 1.28 1.18 0.77 1.17

Dorchester 1.26 2.63 1.32 1.30 1.02 0.75 1.14 1.41 0.82 0.84 1.11 0.85 0.29 1.25 0.74 0.82 1.24 0.83 0.95 0.88

Compared to South Carolina, BCD’s industry employment is relatively concentrated in mining and construction for goods-related industries; and information, real estate, professional services, and arts/entertainment for services-related industries.

4.3

FREIGHT IMPACTS

Economic impacts associated with freight movements arise from local shippers/receivers who use freight service providers. Freight User Impacts – Associated with the production and/or consumption of locally produced goods and/or materials. Transearch commodity values are bridged and compared with IMPLAN to assess the freight-related interrelationships and freight-dependency. IMPLAN does not identify directionally specific commodity value movements (only the underlying commodity-to-industry structure). Transearch does not provide the economic interrelationships necessary to determine how commodity movements interact within the economy. As such, the two are combined to derive direct freight user-related impacts.

6 LQs greater than 1.0 indicate local industry employment is relatively concentrated; LQs less than 1.0 indicate local

industry employment is less concentrated relative to South Carolina. LQs around 1.0 (+/- 10%) indicate local industry employment is on par with the State.

| PAGE 4-5 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

However, combining/comparing the disparate sources typically identifies data incongruities (typically Transearch) that need to be reconciled. Freight data source dimensions, limitations, and intended purposes can under- or overestimate the true value of goods pertinent movements. 7 Such issues are expounded upon in the freight-users section below. 6F

Freight Service Impacts – Reflect the truckers, railroad workers, stevedores, etc. who physically transport freight to/from/within/through the region. While notable, such service impacts are minor compared with the freight users who produce and/or consume the goods/materials. Such freight service impacts are identified from the baseline IMPLAN data and are estimated via the indirect and induced effects from the shippers/receivers.

4.3.1 Approach Freight user impacts reflect complex supply chain relationships spanning local, domestic, and international movements. Goods industries are mostly freight-dependent, although some are self-supplied intra-industry production. 8 To determine the relative portion of the goods industries that trade (i.e., freight dependent), regional freight data (Transearch) are compared with the regional economic data (IMPLAN). 7F

Origin and/or Destination Freight – Only inbound, outbound, and intra-regional freight values are considered and compared with regional economic data, as through traffic is mostly unrelated to the regional economy. 9 Outbound and intra-regional movements pertain to regional production, and inbound movements reflect regional production inputs or final consumption (direct sales or retail). Certain commodities are economically irrelevant, pertaining to neither consumption (intermediate, or final) or production, such as waste materials and Transearch’s secondary traffic, which encapsulates short-haul intermodal drayage and repositioning by truck from railyards, ports, and warehouses/distribution facilities. 8F

Adjustments – Transearch freight value data (measured in dollars), may misrepresent, or doublecount, actual economic activity associated with freight. Often, many commodity groups in freight databases designated as inbound and/or outbound are through movements, via an intermodal transfer or warehousing facility. Such freight value movements do not necessarily translate into regional freight user-related economic activity. Inbound freight, especially intermediary products, are used in the production processes for locally consumed final products and outbound freight. Given such overlaps between intermodal transfers, warehousing storage, and production components, freight value data is not equivalent to freight-related economic activity. As such, freight data values are adjusted downward to reflect production overlaps and directional misattributions. 10 9F

Interpolation – Lastly, to compare with IMPLAN, year 2016 TRANSEARCH value data were interpolated to year 2018 data based on TRANSEARCH forecasts (by commodity and direction),

7 e.g., inbound and outbound movements that are actually through movements, which results in double-counting

intermediary products as final products, etc. 8 Examples include the farming industry producing and storing seed for the following season, or an equipment manufacturer with a component part supplier collocated in the same commercial complex. 9 Beyond freight transport addressed under the following Freight Service Provider subsection. 10 Typically, agricultural, manufacturing, and wholesale/retail goods in the freight databases are assigned values that exceed actual regional production and consumption, measured via economic data or impact modeling software.

| PAGE 4-6 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

economically irrelevant movements were expunged, downward freight-value adjustments were applied, and the commodities were bridged with IMPLAN industry sectors. Summary – As such, freight data values are adjusted downward to reflect production overlaps and directional misattributions. Typically, agricultural, manufacturing, and wholesale/retail goods in the freight databases are assigned values that exceed actual regional production and consumption, measured via economic data or impact modeling software.

4.3.2 Impacts Reconciling freight data values with the observed economic activity facilitates direct economic output (sales) estimates. These estimates provide inputs into the IMPLAN model to estimate total economic impacts, measured via employment, income, and value-added, as depicted in Table 4-4. Table 4-4: BCD Freight Economic Impacts, 2018 (*in millions) Employment Impact Type Direct Indirect Induced Total % of Region BCDCOG Direct % Indirect % Induced % Total %

Labor Income*

Value-Added*

Output*

96,551 42,865 39,836 179,251

$5,375 $2,257 $1,853 $9,485

$9,084 $3,789 $3,144 $16,018

$23,603 $7,189 $5,492 $36,284

489,149 19.7% 8.8% 8.1% 36.6%

$27,288 19.7% 8.3% 6.8% 34.8%

$44,246 20.5% 8.6% 7.1% 36.2%

$83,395 28.3% 8.6% 6.6% 43.5%

Direct Effects – The three-county BCD region sold $23.6 billion in direct outbound, inbound, and intra-regional freight. Such direct freight sales are associated with 96,551 direct regional jobs, almost 20% of the regional economy. These jobs earn $5.4 billion in income produce and $9.1 billion in GRP. Total Effects – Direct freight-related economic impacts create regional multiplier effects, including the supply-chain related indirect and re-spending induced effects. Many of the indirect and induced multiplier effects include the non-freight intensive goods industry sectors, as well as the freight service providers required to haul such goods. In total, freight-related impacts total 179,251 jobs, $9.5 billion in income, $16.0 billion in GRP (value-added), and $36.3 billion in output. Employment Impacts by Type and Industry – The relationship between direct impacts associated with freight users versus the indirect impacts associated with suppliers (including freight service providers) and the induced re-spending is shown by industry in Figure 4-2.

•

Direct Impacts (orange bar) – Predominantly arise in retail trade, administration/ waste services, manufacturing, construction, and wholesale trade

•

Indirect Impacts (gray bar) – Supplier impacts include transportation and warehousing (i.e., freight service providers), as well as other services

| PAGE 4-7 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

•

Induced Impacts (blue bar) – Reflects jobs associated with income re-spending across most all industries, most notably in health and social services

•

Remaining (white bar) – Reflects the balance of regional employment not associated with freight Figure 4-2: BCD Freight Employment Impacts by Industry, 2018

Freight Service Provider Impacts – Indirect supply chain effects include freight service providers (among other industries), including trucking, railroad, and warehousing. Per Figure 4-2, the multiplier effect from the freight users equates to 6,877 transportation and warehousing related employment in the BCD region, which represents slightly more than half of the entire industry (which also includes non-freight providers). 11 10F

Comparatively, baseline IMPLAN data identified total employment for trucking, railroad, and warehousing/storage industries, at 9,622. This is a reasonable estimate of the freight service provider impacts stemming from the regional shipper and receivers of freight. Compositionally,

11 i.e., passenger rail, transit, scenic/sightseeing transportation, non-freight storage, and couriers/messengers

| PAGE 4-8 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

truck represents the largest relative share at 65%, followed by warehousing/storage (28%), rail (4%), and water (3%).

4.3.3 Impact Summary The 96,551 regional jobs associated directly with freight shippers and receivers represents 20% of the regional employment base. Such direct employment earns 20% regional income, produces 20% regional value-added (GRP), and accounts for 28% of final sales value. The higher sales share reflects the high-value manufacturing products and other high productivity jobs (e.g., automobile production). With the indirect and induced multiplier effects, the total freight related impacts are estimated at 179,251 jobs, earning $9.5 billion in income, producing $16.0 billion in gross regional product in the sales of $36.3 billion. In total, such employment, income, value-added, and final sales represent 37, 35, 36, and 44% of the regional economy, respectively (Figure 4-3). Figure 4-3: BCDCOG Freight Impact, % of Regional Economy, 2018

| PAGE 4-9 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

APPENDIX A Table A-1: Transearch Truck, All Directions 2016 STCC2

Commodity

01 08 09 10 11 13 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 60

Farm Products Forest Products Fresh Fish or Marine Products Metallic Ores Coal Crude Petroleum or Natural Gas Nonmetallic Minerals Ordnance or Accessories Food or Kindred Products Tobacco Products Textile Mill Products Apparel or Related Products Lumber or Wood Products Furniture or Fixtures Pulp, Paper, or Allied Products Printed Matter Chemicals or Allied Products Petroleum or Coal Products Rubber or Miscellaneous Plastics Leather or Leather Products Clay, Concrete, Glass, or Stone Primary Metal Products Fabricated Metal Products Machinery Electrical Equipment Transportation Equipment Instrument, Photo, and Optical Equip. Miscellaneous Manufacturing Products Waste or Scrap Materials Miscellaneous Freight Shipments Shipping Containers Mail or Contract Traffic Freight Forwarder Traffic Shipper Association Traffic Miscellaneous Mixed Shipments Small Packaged Shipments Waste Hazardous Materials Secondary Traffic Unclassified Total

Tons Amount % 4,262,202 4.8% 276,228 0.3% 61,720 0.1% 16,551 0.0% 2,931 0.0% #N/A #N/A 9,606,500 10.8% 34,826 0.0% 9,476,581 10.6% 107,754 0.1% 746,975 0.8% 706,187 0.8% 4,397,015 4.9% 723,925 0.8% 4,557,820 5.1% 430,893 0.5% 5,589,135 6.3% 6,569,442 7.4% 2,381,174 2.7% 92,247 0.1% 9,786,199 11.0% 2,605,377 2.9% 1,871,980 2.1% 2,276,866 2.6% 1,284,148 1.4% 2,948,917 3.3% 273,685 0.3% 350,818 0.4% 7,679,714 8.6% 4,045 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 31,707 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 9,920,147 11.1% #N/A #N/A 89,073,711 100.0%

Page A-1

Units Amount % 227,533 3.6% 11,885 0.2% 2,662 0.0% 652 0.0% 118 0.0% #N/A #N/A 395,161 6.2% 1,555 0.0% 413,045 6.5% 4,863 0.1% 34,955 0.5% 42,942 0.7% 172,094 2.7% 48,019 0.8% 188,821 3.0% 24,156 0.4% 268,815 4.2% 272,909 4.3% 200,348 3.1% 6,253 0.1% 620,054 9.7% 106,429 1.7% 104,225 1.6% 168,546 2.6% 77,150 1.2% 209,790 3.3% 21,679 0.3% 18,105 0.3% 325,629 5.1% 199 0.0% 1,780,334 27.9% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 1,542 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 634,577 9.9% #N/A #N/A 6,385,045 100.0%

Value (in millions) Amount % $5,988 2.8% $585 0.3% $551 0.3% $59 0.0% $0 0.0% #N/A #N/A $216 0.1% $890 0.4% $17,455 8.2% $2,079 1.0% $4,168 2.0% $8,033 3.8% $2,466 1.2% $3,221 1.5% $5,132 2.4% $1,396 0.7% $17,858 8.4% $2,726 1.3% $11,517 5.4% $1,783 0.8% $2,882 1.4% $6,017 2.8% $7,736 3.7% $24,867 11.7% $15,945 7.5% $32,024 15.1% $4,924 2.3% $2,840 1.3% $2,332 1.1% $21 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $150 0.1% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $25,857 12.2% #N/A #N/A $211,716 100.0%

Average Value/Ton $1,405 $2,117 $8,924 $3,540 $139 #N/A $23 $25,546 $1,842 $19,290 $5,580 $11,375 $561 $4,449 $1,126 $3,239 $3,195 $415 $4,837 $19,329 $294 $2,309 $4,132 $10,922 $12,417 $10,859 $17,993 $8,094 $304 $5,264 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $4,715 #N/A #N/A #N/A $2,607 #N/A $2,377

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

Table A-2: Transearch Truck, Outbound 2016 STCC2

Commodity

01 08 09 10 11 13 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 60

Tons Amount % 267,105 1.8% 136,250 0.9% 3,158 0.0% 11,722 0.1% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 2,646,874 17.6% 12,887 0.1% 290,542 1.9% 105 0.0% 241,675 1.6% 226,210 1.5% 403,101 2.7% 164,775 1.1% 143,032 1.0% 9,904 0.1% 1,052,713 7.0% 1,939,493 12.9% 472,929 3.2% 35,592 0.2% 299,817 2.0% 914,241 6.1% 374,011 2.5% 681,304 4.5% 282,035 1.9% 785,381 5.2% 41,565 0.3% 66,353 0.4% 1,354,304 9.0% 3,149 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 2,153,335 14.3% #N/A #N/A 15,013,564 100.0%

Units Amount % 14,351 1.3% 5,862 0.5% 136 0.0% 462 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 108,879 9.6% 575 0.1% 12,652 1.1% 5 0.0% 11,321 1.0% 13,765 1.2% 15,785 1.4% 10,939 1.0% 5,900 0.5% 553 0.0% 51,036 4.5% 79,499 7.0% 39,427 3.5% 2,431 0.2% 17,315 1.5% 38,430 3.4% 20,797 1.8% 50,560 4.4% 17,037 1.5% 55,597 4.9% 3,292 0.3% 3,418 0.3% 57,577 5.1% 156 0.0% 371,417 32.6% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 129,064 11.3% #N/A #N/A 1,138,237 100.0%

| PAGE A-2 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Value (in millions) Amount % $561 1.2% $328 0.7% $30 0.1% $42 0.1% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $34 0.1% $430 0.9% $542 1.2% $1 0.0% $1,445 3.1% $2,243 4.8% $221 0.5% $774 1.7% $191 0.4% $54 0.1% $2,830 6.0% $992 2.1% $2,837 6.1% $787 1.7% $518 1.1% $1,980 4.2% $1,799 3.8% $7,365 15.7% $3,695 7.9% $9,664 20.6% $1,088 2.3% $966 2.1% $305 0.6% $8 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $5,150 11.0% #N/A #N/A $46,880 100.0%

Average Value/Ton $2,101 $2,405 $9,638 $3,621 #N/A #N/A $13 $33,341 $1,865 $13,824 $5,978 $9,915 $547 $4,697 $1,333 $5,455 $2,688 $512 $6,000 $22,108 $1,729 $2,166 $4,811 $10,811 $13,100 $12,304 $26,178 $14,562 $225 $2,592 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $2,392 #N/A $3,123

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

Table A-3: Transearch Truck, Inbound 2016 STCC2

Commodity

01 08 09 10 11 13 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 60

Tons Amount % 459,506 3.4% 2,933 0.0% 2,474 0.0% 2,038 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 2,116,089 15.8% 6,017 0.0% 1,651,411 12.3% 39 0.0% 105,435 0.8% 10,371 0.1% 587,203 4.4% 31,525 0.2% 734,864 5.5% 29,992 0.2% 1,165,311 8.7% 454,574 3.4% 422,175 3.1% 2,639 0.0% 1,137,544 8.5% 380,282 2.8% 293,979 2.2% 254,656 1.9% 123,970 0.9% 747,035 5.6% 21,572 0.2% 15,097 0.1% 1,443,663 10.8% 43 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 153 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 1,211,078 9.0% #N/A #N/A 13,413,669 100.0%

Units Amount % 28,967 2.7% 126 0.0% 107 0.0% 80 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 87,045 8.0% 269 0.0% 71,992 6.6% 2 0.0% 4,936 0.5% 632 0.1% 23,407 2.2% 2,094 0.2% 30,433 2.8% 1,682 0.2% 56,102 5.2% 19,120 1.8% 35,373 3.3% 179 0.0% 70,878 6.5% 15,191 1.4% 16,392 1.5% 18,849 1.7% 7,439 0.7% 53,118 4.9% 1,708 0.2% 779 0.1% 66,626 6.1% 2 0.0% 405,605 37.4% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 7 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 65,904 6.1% #N/A #N/A 1,085,043 100.0%

| PAGE A-3 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Value (in millions) Amount % $268 0.9% $7 0.0% $24 0.1% $7 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $38 0.1% $93 0.3% $3,813 13.4% $1 0.0% $539 1.9% $102 0.4% $275 1.0% $163 0.6% $902 3.2% $97 0.3% $3,103 10.9% $150 0.5% $2,136 7.5% $26 0.1% $348 1.2% $866 3.0% $1,174 4.1% $2,483 8.7% $1,104 3.9% $7,135 25.0% $375 1.3% $101 0.4% $679 2.4% $1 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $1 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $2,472 8.7% #N/A #N/A $28,482 100.0%

Average Value/Ton $584 $2,363 $9,788 $3,663 #N/A #N/A $18 $15,374 $2,309 $18,351 $5,114 $9,788 $468 $5,186 $1,227 $3,232 $2,663 $329 $5,059 $9,766 $306 $2,278 $3,993 $9,752 $8,903 $9,551 $17,395 $6,721 $470 $17,199 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $5,258 #N/A #N/A #N/A $2,041 #N/A $2,123

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

Table A-4: Transearch Truck, Intra-Regional 2016 STCC2

Commodity

01 08 09 10 11 13 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 60

Tons Amount % 7,853 0.1% 1,391 0.0% 387 0.0% 607 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 1,868,887 22.0% 504 0.0% 53,597 0.6% #N/A #N/A 9,914 0.1% 18,444 0.2% 32,336 0.4% 14,576 0.2% 2,705 0.0% 1,172 0.0% 118,054 1.4% 2,195,807 25.8% 18,265 0.2% 1,551 0.0% 353,193 4.1% 98,321 1.2% 78,764 0.9% 60,813 0.7% 44,645 0.5% 98,186 1.2% 5,874 0.1% 7,710 0.1% 351,673 4.1% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 3,065,493 36.0% #N/A #N/A 8,510,723 100.0%

Units Amount % 426 0.0% 60 0.0% 17 0.0% 24 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 76,876 6.5% 22 0.0% 2,320 0.2% #N/A #N/A 465 0.0% 1,124 0.1% 1,254 0.1% 969 0.1% 113 0.0% 65 0.0% 5,762 0.5% 89,955 7.6% 1,534 0.1% 105 0.0% 22,268 1.9% 4,139 0.3% 4,366 0.4% 4,518 0.4% 2,690 0.2% 6,955 0.6% 465 0.0% 398 0.0% 14,340 1.2% #N/A #N/A 679,573 57.1% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 269,714 22.7% #N/A #N/A 1,190,516 100.0%

| PAGE A-4 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Value (in millions) Amount % $14 0.1% $3 0.0% $4 0.0% $1 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $19 0.1% $13 0.1% $117 0.6% #N/A #N/A $54 0.3% $222 1.1% $28 0.1% $74 0.4% $5 0.0% $6 0.0% $314 1.6% $1,069 5.4% $101 0.5% $32 0.2% $97 0.5% $160 0.8% $330 1.7% $640 3.3% $386 2.0% $1,792 9.1% $116 0.6% $66 0.3% $83 0.4% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $13,893 70.7% #N/A #N/A $19,640 100.0%

Average Value/Ton $1,841 $2,351 $9,586 $2,448 #N/A #N/A $10 $26,486 $2,186 #N/A $5,465 $12,019 $851 $5,062 $1,971 $5,313 $2,656 $487 $5,526 $20,951 $275 $1,627 $4,192 $10,526 $8,643 $18,253 $19,776 $8,524 $236 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $4,532 #N/A $2,308

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

Table A-5: Transearch Truck, Through 2016 STCC2

Commodity

01 08 09 10 11 13 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 60

Tons Amount % 3,527,738 6.8% 135,654 0.3% 55,701 0.1% 2,184 0.0% 2,931 0.0% #N/A #N/A 2,974,650 5.7% 15,419 0.0% 7,481,030 14.3% 107,609 0.2% 389,950 0.7% 451,161 0.9% 3,374,375 6.5% 513,049 1.0% 3,677,219 7.1% 389,824 0.7% 3,253,057 6.2% 1,979,568 3.8% 1,467,806 2.8% 52,466 0.1% 7,995,644 15.3% 1,212,534 2.3% 1,125,225 2.2% 1,280,092 2.5% 833,497 1.6% 1,318,315 2.5% 204,674 0.4% 261,658 0.5% 4,530,074 8.7% 854 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 31,554 0.1% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 3,490,240 6.7% #N/A #N/A 52,135,754 100.0%

Units Amount % 183,789 6.2% 5,836 0.2% 2,402 0.1% 86 0.0% 118 0.0% #N/A #N/A 122,362 4.1% 688 0.0% 326,081 11.0% 4,856 0.2% 18,232 0.6% 27,421 0.9% 131,649 4.4% 34,017 1.1% 152,375 5.1% 21,855 0.7% 155,916 5.2% 84,336 2.8% 124,013 4.2% 3,539 0.1% 509,593 17.2% 48,669 1.6% 62,669 2.1% 94,620 3.2% 49,984 1.7% 94,120 3.2% 16,214 0.5% 13,511 0.5% 187,085 6.3% 42 0.0% 323,739 10.9% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 1,535 0.1% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 169,896 5.7% #N/A #N/A 2,971,248 100.0%

| PAGE A-5 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Value (in millions) Amount % $5,144 4.4% $247 0.2% $492 0.4% $7 0.0% $0 0.0% #N/A #N/A $125 0.1% $354 0.3% $12,983 11.1% $2,076 1.8% $2,130 1.8% $5,467 4.7% $1,943 1.7% $2,210 1.9% $4,034 3.5% $1,238 1.1% $11,612 9.9% $515 0.4% $6,442 5.5% $938 0.8% $1,919 1.6% $3,010 2.6% $4,433 3.8% $14,378 12.3% $10,761 9.2% $13,433 11.5% $3,345 2.9% $1,706 1.5% $1,265 1.1% $12 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $149 0.1% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $4,343 3.7% #N/A #N/A $116,713 100.0%

Average Value/Ton $1,458 $1,820 $8,840 $3,295 $139 #N/A $42 $22,970 $1,735 $19,295 $5,463 $12,118 $576 $4,307 $1,097 $3,177 $3,570 $260 $4,389 $17,877 $240 $2,483 $3,939 $11,232 $12,910 $10,190 $16,342 $6,521 $279 $14,519 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $4,713 #N/A #N/A #N/A $1,244 #N/A $2,239

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

Table A-6: Transearch Truck 2016–2040 Ton Growth STCC2

Commodity

01 08 09 10 11 13 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 60

2016 Amount Percent 4,262,202 4.8% 276,228 0.3% 61,720 0.1% 16,551 0.0% 2,931 0.0% #N/A #N/A 9,606,500 10.8% 34,826 0.0% 9,476,581 10.6% 107,754 0.1% 746,975 0.8% 706,187 0.8% 4,397,015 4.9% 723,925 0.8% 4,557,820 5.1% 430,893 0.5% 5,589,135 6.3% 6,569,442 7.4% 2,381,174 2.7% 92,247 0.1% 9,786,199 11.0% 2,605,377 2.9% 1,871,980 2.1% 2,276,866 2.6% 1,284,148 1.4% 2,948,917 3.3% 273,685 0.3% 350,818 0.4% 7,679,714 8.6% 4,045 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 31,707 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 9,920,147 11.1% #N/A #N/A 89,073,711 100.0%

2040 Amount 7,644,494 370,740 147,808 45,114 1,690 #N/A 16,533,977 110,628 17,239,124 68,555 1,623,894 2,551,081 6,162,364 2,864,480 6,336,644 494,377 13,207,366 10,699,657 5,341,903 179,392 19,197,435 4,863,194 3,653,106 6,288,027 3,419,234 4,988,562 843,894 767,646 15,500,394 7,270 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 99,100 #N/A #N/A #N/A 19,365,061 #N/A 170,616,208

Percent 4.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% #N/A 9.7% 0.1% 10.1% 0.0% 1.0% 1.5% 3.6% 1.7% 3.7% 0.3% 7.7% 6.3% 3.1% 0.1% 11.3% 2.9% 2.1% 3.7% 2.0% 2.9% 0.5% 0.4% 9.1% 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.1% #N/A #N/A #N/A 11.4% #N/A 100.0%

| PAGE A-6 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Percent Total 79.4% 34.2% 139.5% 172.6% -42.4% #N/A 72.1% 217.7% 81.9% -36.4% 117.4% 261.2% 40.1% 295.7% 39.0% 14.7% 136.3% 62.9% 124.3% 94.5% 96.2% 86.7% 95.1% 176.2% 166.3% 69.2% 208.3% 118.8% 101.8% 79.7% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 212.5% #N/A #N/A #N/A 95.2% #N/A 91.5%

Percent CAGR 2.5% 1.2% 3.7% 4.3% -2.3% #N/A 2.3% 4.9% 2.5% -1.9% 3.3% 5.5% 1.4% 5.9% 1.4% 0.6% 3.6% 2.1% 3.4% 2.8% 2.8% 2.6% 2.8% 4.3% 4.2% 2.2% 4.8% 3.3% 3.0% 2.5% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 4.9% #N/A #N/A #N/A 2.8% #N/A 2.7%

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

Table A-7: Transearch Truck 2016–2040 Value (millions) Growth STCC2

Commodity

01 08 09 10 11 13 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 60

2016 Amount Percent $5,988 2.8% $585 0.3% $551 0.3% $59 0.0% $0 0.0% #N/A #N/A $216 0.1% $890 0.4% $17,455 8.2% $2,079 1.0% $4,168 2.0% $8,033 3.8% $2,466 1.2% $3,221 1.5% $5,132 2.4% $1,396 0.7% $17,858 8.4% $2,726 1.3% $11,517 5.4% $1,783 0.8% $2,882 1.4% $6,017 2.8% $7,736 3.7% $24,867 11.7% $15,945 7.5% $32,024 15.1% $4,924 2.3% $2,840 1.3% $2,332 1.1% $21 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $150 0.1% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $25,857 12.2% #N/A #N/A $211,716 100.0%

2040 Amount Percent $15,785 3.2% $791 0.2% $1,387 0.3% $164 0.0% $0 0.0% #N/A #N/A $332 0.1% $2,863 0.6% $33,043 6.7% $1,305 0.3% $8,502 1.7% $27,163 5.5% $3,617 0.7% $12,975 2.6% $7,671 1.6% $1,859 0.4% $43,495 8.8% $4,800 1.0% $26,393 5.3% $3,237 0.7% $5,375 1.1% $11,163 2.3% $15,866 3.2% $70,601 14.3% $47,490 9.6% $65,959 13.4% $15,157 3.1% $7,314 1.5% $4,502 0.9% $38 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $467 0.1% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $54,712 11.1% #N/A #N/A $494,026 100.0%

| PAGE A-7 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Percent Total 163.6% 35.3% 151.7% 179.2% -42.4% #N/A 53.6% 221.8% 89.3% -37.2% 104.0% 238.1% 46.7% 302.8% 49.5% 33.2% 143.6% 76.1% 129.2% 81.5% 86.5% 85.5% 105.1% 183.9% 197.8% 106.0% 207.8% 157.6% 93.1% 78.6% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 212.5% #N/A #N/A #N/A 111.6% #N/A 133.3%

Percent CAGR 4.1% 1.3% 3.9% 4.4% -2.3% #N/A 1.8% 5.0% 2.7% -1.9% 3.0% 5.2% 1.6% 6.0% 1.7% 1.2% 3.8% 2.4% 3.5% 2.5% 2.6% 2.6% 3.0% 4.4% 4.7% 3.1% 4.8% 4.0% 2.8% 2.4% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 4.9% #N/A #N/A #N/A 3.2% #N/A 3.6%

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

Figure A-1: Transearch Truck South Carolina Tons 2016 and BCDCOG-Related

| PAGE A-8 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

Figure A-2: Transearch Truck SC Tons 2016–2040 Network Growth

| PAGE A-9 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

Table A-8: Transearch Rail, All Directions 2016 STCC2

Commodity

01 08 09 10 11 13 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 60

Tons Amount % 9,880 0.0% 7,040 0.0% #N/A #N/A 273,176 1.1% 6,752,530 28.2% #N/A #N/A 1,515,402 6.3% 4,720 0.0% 1,342,244 5.6% #N/A #N/A 12,200 0.1% 31,640 0.1% 1,132,996 4.7% 11,640 0.0% 1,586,440 6.6% 1,880 0.0% 3,171,056 13.3% 175,920 0.7% 4,280 0.0% 320 0.0% 1,189,056 5.0% 1,184,948 5.0% 1,000 0.0% 4,024 0.0% 13,600 0.1% 629,880 2.6% 2,920 0.0% 2,760 0.0% 630,548 2.6% 7,120 0.0% #N/A #N/A 3,000 0.0% 81,440 0.3% #N/A #N/A 3,962,920 16.6% 520 0.0% 160,640 0.7% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 23,907,740 100.0%

Units Amount % 720 0.1% 120 0.0% #N/A #N/A 2,528 0.4% 58,107 10.3% #N/A #N/A 14,082 2.5% 280 0.0% 21,928 3.9% #N/A #N/A 960 0.2% 2,560 0.5% 12,876 2.3% 1,080 0.2% 30,040 5.3% 120 0.0% 37,636 6.6% 1,968 0.3% 440 0.1% 80 0.0% 11,280 2.0% 13,356 2.4% 80 0.0% 156 0.0% 280 0.0% 33,436 5.9% 200 0.0% 360 0.1% 8,268 1.5% 800 0.1% #N/A #N/A 480 0.1% 5,480 1.0% #N/A #N/A 304,680 53.8% 40 0.0% 1,880 0.3% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 566,301 100.0%

| PAGE A-10 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Value (in millions) Amount % $7 0.0% $17 0.0% #N/A #N/A $110 0.3% $235 0.6% #N/A #N/A $24 0.1% $129 0.3% $1,224 3.3% #N/A #N/A $69 0.2% $244 0.7% $240 0.6% $51 0.1% $1,416 3.8% $10 0.0% $4,538 12.3% $60 0.2% $21 0.1% $4 0.0% $222 0.6% $1,727 4.7% $2 0.0% $36 0.1% $200 0.5% $5,828 15.7% $22 0.1% $24 0.1% $123 0.3% $25 0.1% #N/A #N/A $9 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $20,392 55.1% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $37,005 100.0%

Average Value/Ton $701 $2,351 #N/A $402 $35 #N/A $16 $27,289 $912 #N/A $5,673 $7,699 $212 $4,386 $892 $5,159 $1,431 $339 $4,890 $12,204 $187 $1,457 $2,482 $8,934 $14,694 $9,252 $7,428 $8,610 $194 $3,482 #N/A $2,969 #N/A #N/A $5,146 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $1,548

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

Table A-9: Transearch Rail, Outbound 2016 STCC2

Commodity

01 08 09 10 11 13 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 60

Tons Amount % #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 25,634 0.6% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 2,320 0.1% 63,840 1.4% #N/A #N/A 680 0.0% #N/A #N/A 15,160 0.3% #N/A #N/A 260,880 5.9% #N/A #N/A 1,683,680 38.0% #N/A #N/A 320 0.0% #N/A #N/A 218,576 4.9% 994,868 22.4% 400 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 75,680 1.7% #N/A #N/A 160 0.0% 10,680 0.2% 3,960 0.1% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 1,035,120 23.4% #N/A #N/A 40,520 0.9% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 4,432,478 100.0%

Units Amount % #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 220 0.2% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 160 0.1% 720 0.6% #N/A #N/A 40 0.0% #N/A #N/A 160 0.1% #N/A #N/A 5,320 4.1% #N/A #N/A 17,960 13.8% #N/A #N/A 40 0.0% #N/A #N/A 2,080 1.6% 11,156 8.6% 40 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 4,580 3.5% #N/A #N/A 40 0.0% 240 0.2% 440 0.3% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 86,040 66.3% #N/A #N/A 480 0.4% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 129,716 100.0%

Value (in millions) Amount % #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $1 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $63 0.6% $51 0.5% #N/A #N/A $5 0.1% #N/A #N/A $2 0.0% #N/A #N/A $252 2.5% #N/A #N/A $2,191 21.7% #N/A #N/A $2 0.0% #N/A #N/A $21 0.2% $1,435 14.2% $1 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $680 6.7% #N/A #N/A $1 0.0% $2 0.0% $14 0.1% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $5,363 53.2% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $10,086 100.0%

| PAGE A-11 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Average Value/Ton #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $35 #N/A #N/A $27,289 $792 #N/A $7,830 #N/A $162 #N/A $968 #N/A $1,302 #N/A $6,172 #N/A $95 $1,443 $2,421 #N/A #N/A $8,983 #N/A $8,610 $190 $3,482 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $5,181 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $2,275

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

Table A-10: Transearch Rail, Inbound 2016 STCC2

Commodity

01 08 09 10 11 13 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 60

Tons Amount % 4,800 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 4,400 0.0% 5,343,465 47.9% #N/A #N/A 1,380,066 12.4% 2,400 0.0% 162,844 1.5% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 716,996 6.4% #N/A #N/A 388,320 3.5% #N/A #N/A 358,136 3.2% 152,880 1.4% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 120,880 1.1% 26,320 0.2% #N/A #N/A 4,024 0.0% 13,040 0.1% 518,840 4.7% #N/A #N/A 200 0.0% 532,596 4.8% 2,360 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 1,320 0.0% #N/A #N/A 1,394,640 12.5% #N/A #N/A 16,200 0.1% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 11,144,727 100.0%

Units Amount % 480 0.2% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 40 0.0% 46,059 19.0% #N/A #N/A 12,782 5.3% 120 0.0% 2,356 1.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 7,716 3.2% #N/A #N/A 5,680 2.3% #N/A #N/A 6,712 2.8% 1,648 0.7% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 1,200 0.5% 280 0.1% #N/A #N/A 156 0.1% 200 0.1% 26,608 11.0% #N/A #N/A 40 0.0% 6,052 2.5% 320 0.1% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 120 0.0% #N/A #N/A 123,120 50.9% #N/A #N/A 200 0.1% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 241,889 100.0%

Value (in millions) Amount % $1 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $16 0.1% $186 1.3% #N/A #N/A $14 0.1% $65 0.5% $66 0.5% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $120 0.9% #N/A #N/A $238 1.7% #N/A #N/A $502 3.6% $41 0.3% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $29 0.2% $50 0.4% #N/A #N/A $36 0.3% $129 0.9% $4,959 36.0% #N/A #N/A $2 0.0% $93 0.7% $8 0.1% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $7,229 52.4% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $13,782 100.0%

| PAGE A-12 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Average Value/Ton $156 #N/A #N/A $3,663 $35 #N/A $10 $27,289 $405 #N/A #N/A #N/A $167 #N/A $613 #N/A $1,402 $265 #N/A #N/A $237 $1,885 #N/A $8,934 $9,927 $9,558 #N/A $8,610 $174 $3,482 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $5,183 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $1,237

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

Table A-11: Transearch Rail, Intra-Regional 2016 STCC2

Commodity

01 08 09 10 11 13 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 60

Tons Amount % #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 264,816 33.9% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 204,840 26.3% #N/A #N/A 9,160 1.2% #N/A #N/A 297,960 38.2% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 3,280 0.4% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 780,056 100.0%

Units Amount % #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 2,448 31.8% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 2,200 28.6% #N/A #N/A 160 2.1% #N/A #N/A 2,840 36.9% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 40 0.5% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 7,688 100.0%

Value (in millions) Amount % #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $92 20.8% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $33 7.4% #N/A #N/A $7 1.6% #N/A #N/A $306 69.1% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $5 1.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $443 100.0%

| PAGE A-13 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Average Value/Ton #N/A #N/A #N/A $348 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $160 #N/A $770 #N/A $1,028 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $1,414 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $568

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

Table A-12: Transearch Rail, Through 2016 STCC2

Commodity

01 08 09 10 11 13 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 60

Tons Amount % 5,080 0.1% 7,040 0.1% #N/A #N/A 3,960 0.1% 1,383,431 18.3% #N/A #N/A 135,336 1.8% #N/A #N/A 1,115,560 14.8% #N/A #N/A 11,520 0.2% 31,640 0.4% 196,000 2.6% 11,640 0.2% 928,080 12.3% 1,880 0.0% 831,280 11.0% 23,040 0.3% 3,960 0.1% 320 0.0% 849,600 11.3% 160,480 2.1% 600 0.0% #N/A #N/A 560 0.0% 35,360 0.5% 2,920 0.0% 2,400 0.0% 87,272 1.2% 800 0.0% #N/A #N/A 3,000 0.0% 80,120 1.1% #N/A #N/A 1,533,160 20.3% 520 0.0% 103,920 1.4% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 7,550,479 100.0%

Units Amount % 240 0.1% 120 0.1% #N/A #N/A 40 0.0% 11,828 6.3% #N/A #N/A 1,300 0.7% #N/A #N/A 18,852 10.1% #N/A #N/A 920 0.5% 2,560 1.4% 2,800 1.5% 1,080 0.6% 18,880 10.1% 120 0.1% 10,124 5.4% 320 0.2% 400 0.2% 80 0.0% 8,000 4.3% 1,880 1.0% 40 0.0% #N/A #N/A 80 0.0% 2,248 1.2% 200 0.1% 280 0.1% 1,976 1.1% 40 0.0% #N/A #N/A 480 0.3% 5,360 2.9% #N/A #N/A 95,520 51.1% 40 0.0% 1,200 0.6% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 187,008 100.0%

Value (in millions) Amount % $6 0.0% $17 0.1% #N/A #N/A $1 0.0% $48 0.4% #N/A #N/A $10 0.1% #N/A #N/A $1,107 8.7% #N/A #N/A $64 0.5% $244 1.9% $85 0.7% $51 0.4% $918 7.2% $10 0.1% $1,538 12.1% $19 0.2% $19 0.1% $4 0.0% $173 1.4% $237 1.9% $2 0.0% #N/A #N/A $70 0.6% $189 1.5% $22 0.2% $21 0.2% $28 0.2% $3 0.0% #N/A #N/A $9 0.1% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $7,800 61.4% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $12,693 100.0%

| PAGE A-14 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Average Value/Ton $1,216 $2,351 #N/A $348 $35 #N/A $77 #N/A $993 #N/A $5,545 $7,699 $435 $4,386 $989 $5,159 $1,850 $829 $4,786 $12,204 $203 $1,477 $2,523 #N/A $125,705 $5,341 $7,428 $8,610 $319 $3,482 #N/A $2,969 #N/A #N/A $5,087 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $1,681

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

Table A-13: Transearch Rail 2016–2040 Ton Growth STCC2

Commodity

01 08 09 10 11 13 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 60

2016 Amount Percent 9,880 0.0% 7,040 0.0% #N/A #N/A 273,176 1.1% 6,752,530 28.2% #N/A #N/A 1,515,402 6.3% 4,720 0.0% 1,342,244 5.6% #N/A #N/A 12,200 0.1% 31,640 0.1% 1,132,996 4.7% 11,640 0.0% 1,586,440 6.6% 1,880 0.0% 3,171,056 13.3% 175,920 0.7% 4,280 0.0% 320 0.0% 1,189,056 5.0% 1,184,948 5.0% 1,000 0.0% 4,024 0.0% 13,600 0.1% 629,880 2.6% 2,920 0.0% 2,760 0.0% 630,548 2.6% 7,120 0.0% #N/A #N/A 3,000 0.0% 81,440 0.3% #N/A #N/A 3,962,920 16.6% 520 0.0% 160,640 0.7% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 23,907,740 100.0%

2040 Amount Percent 13,454 0.0% 9,949 0.0% #N/A #N/A 546,191 1.4% 6,817,274 17.3% #N/A #N/A 3,415,952 8.7% 7,403 0.0% 2,193,104 5.6% #N/A #N/A 23,773 0.1% 91,874 0.2% 2,129,142 5.4% 19,645 0.0% 2,030,724 5.1% 2,401 0.0% 6,499,087 16.5% 189,548 0.5% 11,293 0.0% 910 0.0% 1,997,659 5.1% 2,947,630 7.5% 1,899 0.0% 11,599 0.0% 46,672 0.1% 958,503 2.4% 15,394 0.0% 7,180 0.0% 784,836 2.0% 9,518 0.0% #N/A #N/A 1,393 0.0% 32,103 0.1% #N/A #N/A 8,435,473 21.4% 812 0.0% 222,706 0.6% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 39,475,101 100.0%

| PAGE A-15 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Percent Total 36.2% 41.3% #N/A 99.9% 1.0% #N/A 125.4% 56.8% 63.4% #N/A 94.9% 190.4% 87.9% 68.8% 28.0% 27.7% 105.0% 7.7% 163.9% 184.4% 68.0% 148.8% 89.9% 188.3% 243.2% 52.2% 427.2% 160.1% 24.5% 33.7% #N/A -53.6% -60.6% #N/A 112.9% 56.1% 38.6% #N/A #N/A #N/A 65.1%

Percent CAGR 1.3% 1.5% #N/A 2.9% 0.0% #N/A 3.4% 1.9% 2.1% #N/A 2.8% 4.5% 2.7% 2.2% 1.0% 1.0% 3.0% 0.3% 4.1% 4.5% 2.2% 3.9% 2.7% 4.5% 5.3% 1.8% 7.2% 4.1% 0.9% 1.2% #N/A -3.1% -3.8% #N/A 3.2% 1.9% 1.4% #N/A #N/A #N/A 2.1%

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

Table A-14: Transearch Rail 2016–2040 Value (millions) Growth STCC2

Commodity

01 08 09 10 11 13 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 60

2016 Amount Percent $7 0.0% $17 0.0% #N/A #N/A $110 0.3% $235 0.6% #N/A #N/A $24 0.1% $129 0.3% $1,224 3.3% #N/A #N/A $69 0.2% $244 0.7% $240 0.6% $51 0.1% $1,416 3.8% $10 0.0% $4,538 12.3% $60 0.2% $21 0.1% $4 0.0% $222 0.6% $1,727 4.7% $2 0.0% $36 0.1% $200 0.5% $5,828 15.7% $22 0.1% $24 0.1% $123 0.3% $25 0.1% #N/A #N/A $9 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $20,392 55.1% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $37,005 100.0%

2040 Amount Percent $10 0.0% $23 0.0% #N/A #N/A $224 0.3% $237 0.3% #N/A #N/A $45 0.1% $202 0.3% $2,084 2.8% #N/A #N/A $133 0.2% $687 0.9% $431 0.6% $87 0.1% $1,831 2.5% $12 0.0% $9,788 13.2% $61 0.1% $54 0.1% $11 0.0% $370 0.5% $4,306 5.8% $5 0.0% $103 0.1% $696 0.9% $8,718 11.8% $107 0.1% $62 0.1% $159 0.2% $33 0.0% #N/A #N/A $4 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $43,457 58.8% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A $73,943 100.0%

| PAGE A-16 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

Percent Total 49.7% 41.3% #N/A 104.1% 1.0% #N/A 87.6% 56.8% 70.3% #N/A 92.9% 182.1% 79.7% 70.8% 29.3% 27.7% 115.7% 2.9% 158.3% 184.4% 66.7% 149.4% 88.9% 186.5% 248.4% 49.6% 394.4% 160.1% 29.9% 33.7% #N/A -53.6% #N/A #N/A 113.1% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 99.8%

Percent CAGR 1.7% 1.5% #N/A 3.0% 0.0% #N/A 2.7% 1.9% 2.2% #N/A 2.8% 4.4% 2.5% 2.3% 1.1% 1.0% 3.3% 0.1% 4.0% 4.5% 2.2% 3.9% 2.7% 4.5% 5.3% 1.7% 6.9% 4.1% 1.1% 1.2% #N/A -3.1% #N/A #N/A 3.2% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 2.9%

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

Figure A-3: Transearch Rail South Carolina Tons 2016 and BCDCOG-Related

| PAGE A-17 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

| 4 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |

Figure A-4: Transearch Rail South Carolina Tons 2016–2040 Network Growth

| PAGE A-18 | BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN |

BCD REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN

APPENDIX G Technical Memorandum

Rail Assessment and Recommendations

Prepared by:

January 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 2. 3.

5. 6.

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4 RAIL CROSSING ANALYSIS............................................................................................. 5 STRATEGIES FOR COMMUNITIES .................................................................................... 8 3.1 Quiet Zones ........................................................................................................ 8 3.2 Crossing Consolidation.................................................................................... 11 3.3 Noise and Vibration Impacts .......................................................................... 13 3.4 Trespassing ....................................................................................................... 14 GRADE SEPARATION EXAMPLES .................................................................................. 17 4.1 Claremore, OK Grade Separation Project .................................................... 17 4.2 Olathe, KS Grade Separation Project ............................................................ 18 4.3 Hemphill Lamar Taylor Connector ................................................................. 18 HOTSPOT ANALYSIS...................................................................................................... 19 RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 22 6.1 General Rail Crossing Recommendations ..................................................... 22 6.2 Specific Rail Crossing Recommendations ..................................................... 22 6.2.1 Red Bank Road .................................................................................... 22 6.2.1.1 Ashley Phosphate Road ...................................................................... 29 6.2.2 SC 165 ................................................................................................... 36 6.2.3 East Montague Avenue ...................................................................... 45 6.2.4 North Main Street ................................................................................. 52

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – BCD Region Open Rail Crossings By County ................................................................... 6 Table 2 - BCD Region Closed Rail Crossings by County ................................................................. 7 Table 3 – At-Grade Accidents within the BCD Region, 2009-2019 .............................................. 20 Table 5 – Red Bank Road At-Grade Crossing Planning Level Cost Estimate ............................. 28 Table 6 - Queue Cutter Signal Planning Level Cost Estimate ...................................................... 28 Table 7 – Ashley Phosphate Road At-Grade Crossing Planning Level Cost Estimate .............. 36 Table 8 – SC 165 At-Grade Crossing Planning Level Cost Estimates ........................................... 45 Table 9 – East Montague Avenue At-Grade Crossing Planning Level Cost Estimate .............. 52 Table 10 – North Main Street At-Grade Closure Planning Level Cost Estimate ......................... 57 Table 11 – North Main Street At-Grade Crossing Improvements ................................................. 58

Page i

| 1 | INTRODUCTION |

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - At Grade Crossings at Romney and Hugeunin Streets .................................................. 4 Figure 2 - BCD Open Rail Crossings ................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3- Signage within a Quiet Zone .............................................................................................. 8 Figure 4 - BCDCOG Region Quiet Zones ........................................................................................ 10 Figure 5 – Closed Railway Crossing ................................................................................................. 11 Figure 6 – Railway Noise Barrier ........................................................................................................ 13 Figure 7 – Trespassing Monitoring at Police Dispatch ................................................................... 15 Figure 8 - Claremore Grade Separation Rendering...................................................................... 17 Figure 9 - Olathe Grade Separation Project .................................................................................. 18 Figure 10 - Hemphill Lamar Grade Separated Median ................................................................ 18 Figure 11 - Hemphill Lamar Taylor Connector ................................................................................ 18 Figure 12 - BCD Region Accidents by County 2009-2019 ............................................................. 19 Figure 13 - BCD Region Percent of Rail Crossings with Accidents by County ........................... 20 Figure 14 – BCD Region At-Grade Crossing Hotspots ................................................................... 21 Figure 15 – Red Bank Road Rail Crossing ........................................................................................ 23 Figure 16 - Red Bank Road - Looking Northwest............................................................................ 25 Figure 17 - Red Bank Road Looking Southeast .............................................................................. 26 Figure 18 - Red Bank Road - Looking North .................................................................................... 26 Figure 19 - Red Bank Road - Looking South ................................................................................... 27 Figure 20 - Red Bank Road Crossing Pavement Markings ............................................................ 27 Figure 21 - Ashley Phosphate Road Rail Crossing .......................................................................... 30 Figure 22 – Ashley Phosphate Road Westbound Queuing .......................................................... 30 Figure 23 - Ashley Phosphate Road - Looking East (1) .................................................................. 32 Figure 24 - Ashley Phosphate Looking East (2) ............................................................................... 32 Figure 25 - Ashley Phosphate Road - Looking West (1) ................................................................ 33 Figure 26 - Ashley Phosphate Road - Looking West (2) ................................................................ 33 Figure 27 - Ashley Phosphate Road - Looking North ..................................................................... 34 Figure 28 - Ashley Phosphate Road - Looking South ..................................................................... 34 Figure 29 - Ashley Phosphate Crossing Pavement Markings........................................................ 35 Figure 30 - Ashley Phosphate Crossing Detectable Warning Pad SW quadrant ...................... 35 Figure 31 – SC 165 Rail Crossing ....................................................................................................... 37 Figure 32 – SC 165 South Approach Looking North ....................................................................... 39 Figure 33 - Drayton Street East Approach to Crossing Looking West ......................................... 39 Figure 34 - SC 165 Drayton Street West Approach to Crossing Looking East ............................. 40 Figure 35 - SC 165 Drayton Street West Approach Advance Warning Signs and Pavement Marking Looking East ......................................................................................... 40 Figure 36 - Drayton Street West Approach Railroad Crossing Pavement Marking Looking East ........................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 37 - SC 165 North Approach Looking South ....................................................................... 41 Figure 38 - SC 165 North Approach Looking South (1).................................................................. 42 Figure 39 - SC 165 North Approach Looking South (2).................................................................. 42

| PAGE ii | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 1 | INTRODUCTION |

Figure 40 - Martin Street T intersection with SC 165 Looking West ............................................... 43 Figure 41 - SC 165 Crossing Surface Looking East .......................................................................... 43 Figure 42 - SC 165 Crossing Surface Looking West ........................................................................ 44 Figure 43 - East Montague Avenue Rail Crossing .......................................................................... 46 Figure 44 - East Montague Avenue Crossing Looking East .......................................................... 48 Figure 45 - East Montague Avenue Crossing West Approach Looking East.............................. 48 Figure 46 - East Montague Avenue Crossing Looking West ......................................................... 49 Figure 47 - East Montague Avenue Crossing East Approach Looking West .............................. 49 Figure 48 - East Montague Avenue West Approach Advance Warning Sign Looking East ........................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 49 - East Montague Avenue West Approach Advance Intersection Warning Sign Looking East ........................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 50 - East Montague Avenue Pavement Markings ............................................................. 51 Figure 51 - North Main Street Rail Crossing ..................................................................................... 53 Figure 52 – North Main Street - Looking Northeast ........................................................................ 55 Figure 53 – North Main Street Looking Southwest .......................................................................... 55 Figure 54 – North Main Street Looking Southeast .......................................................................... 56 Figure 55 – North Main Street- Looking Northwest ......................................................................... 56 Figure 56 - North Main Street Crossing Pavement Markings ........................................................ 57

| PAGE iii | RECOMMENDATIONS |

1. INTRODUCTION The Berkeley Charleston Dorchester Council of Governments (BCDCOG) Regional Freight Mobility Plan includes rail recommendations to improve freight movements throughout the region. Recommendations for the BCD region focused on highway-rail grade (at-grade) rail crossings and community strategies intended to improve safety and reduce incidents and conflict on the transportation network. At-grade crossings present the greatest opportunity for people, automobiles, and trains to collide. An atgrade crossing, as shown in Figure 1, is the intersection of a roadway and a rail line that are on level ground. A grade separated crossing would have either the roadway go above or under the rail line where no conflict between modes would occur. Figure 1 - At Grade Crossings at Romney and Hugeunin Streets

NearMap

Page 4

2. RAIL CROSSING ANALYSIS Nationwide, 97 percent of all rail-related injuries and fatalities occur as a result of trespassing or other incidents at at-grade crossings. For BCDCOG, identifying all the atgrade crossings in the study area is the first step to target recommendations aimed at lowering these numbers.1 The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) provides geographic coordinates for all public and private crossings within the United States (US) through the FRA – Safety Map.2 Each crossing data point within the Safety Map contains a unique identifier, the DOT Crossing Inventory Number. The Crossing Inventory Report must be filed with the FRA once every three years by the State Department of Transportation and the primary operating railroad of the crossing.3 The Crossing Inventory Report contains:

• • • • •

Location and Classification Information; Railroad Information; Highway or Pathway Traffic Control Device Information; Physical Characteristics; and Public Highway Information.

Likewise, the Accident/Incident Report must be filed with the FRA no later than 30 days after the end of the month when an accident/incident results in injury, death, or when damage to either equipment or roadbed occurs.4 The Accident/Incident Report describes details on when, how, and who was involved in the accident. It also contains the historical record of all the accidents that occurred at the crossing. This data is compiled by the FRA and then geocoded within the Safety Map for public consumption. The BCD study area has a total of 389 railroad crossings that are open and in use depicted in Figure 2, while Table 1 shows the counts by county. Open crossings consist of both at-grade and grade separated crossings. Within the BCD region, there are 342 at-grade crossings and 47 grade separated crossings.

1 https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2020-02/Grade%20Crossing%20Business%20Plan.pdf 2 https://fragis.fra.dot.gov/gisfrasafety/

3 https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/18855/Crossing_Inventory_Guide_01916.pdf

4 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2018-title49/html/USCODE-2018-title49-subtitleV-partA-chap209-

sec20901.htm

Page 5

| 2 | RAIL CROSSING ANALYSIS |

Figure 2 - BCD Open Rail Crossings

Table 1 – BCD Region Open Rail Crossings By County

Berkeley Charleston

AtGrade Crossings 113 133

Grade Separated Crossings 6 37

Dorchester

100

Totals

342

389

County

Open Crossings 119 170

Source: FRA Highway-Rail Crossing Database Files and Reports (2020)

Closed crossing data is also maintained by the FRA to reflect historical records of crossing infrastructure and accidents. Table 2 breaks down the total number of closed crossings in the study area by county, totaling 122 for the entire region. Closing an atgrade crossing can occur for various reasons, such as consolidating redundant crossings, enhancing safety, road or track adjustments that are made to avoid

| PAGE 6 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 2 | RAIL CROSSING ANALYSIS |

intersections, grade separating either the road or the track, or the removal of a track which is no longer in service. Table 2 - BCD Region Closed Rail Crossings by County

Berkeley Charleston

Closed Crossings 9 107

Dorchester Total

6 122

County

Source: FRA Highway-Rail Crossing Database Files and Reports (2020)

| PAGE 7 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

3. STRATEGIES FOR COMMUNITIES Communities, local governments, and regional planning entities have a variety of strategies available to them to help mitigate the negative externalities that occur from rail operations. These strategies are described below, under the topic headings: quiet zones; crossing consolidation; noise and vibration impacts; and trespassing. Each section will present background information on the topic as well as best practices for implementation.

3.1

QUIET ZONES

The FRA Train Horn Rule (49 CFR Part 222) requires that locomotive horns sound 15-20 seconds before entering public highway-rail grade crossings, or no more than onequarter mile in advance of the crossing. The horn sound warns motorists and pedestrians that a train is approaching the grade crossing. The Train Horn Rule was spurred by an increase in train collisions in the late 1980s, particularly in areas where nighttime whistle bans were instituted. In 2005, the final Train Horn Rule, which included regulations on quiet zones, was adopted into the Code of Federal Regulations. Figure 3- Signage within a Quiet Zone

Source: Daily Independent

| PAGE 8 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 3 | STRATEGIES FOR COMMUNITIES |

A quiet zone is a section of track, at least one-half mile long, which contains one or more consecutive at-grade crossings, at which horns are not routinely sounded when trains are approaching the crossings. Exceptions to this rule include emergencies or when a superseding FRA rule applies. Quiet zones are established to reduce noise and promote and improve the quality of life in a given locality, without compromising the safety of motorists, pedestrians, or the train. Only a public authority, the governmental entity responsible for traffic control/law enforcement at the identified crossing, is permitted to create a quiet zone. In order to establish a quiet zone, a community must work with the railroad as well as the state transportation authority to complete the following process:

•

Step 1: DETERMINE which railroad crossings will be included within the proposed quiet zone;

•

Step 2: IDENTIFY privately owned rail crossings located inside of the proposed quiet zone;

•

A diagnostic review of the crossing must be performed if it allows access to the public or active industrial or commercial sites;

•

Step 3: IDENTIFY any pedestrian crossings located inside of the proposed quiet zone;

•

A diagnostic review must be performed;

•

Step 4: UPDATE the US DOT Crossing Form with the current conditions at each public, private, and pedestrian crossing located within the proposed quiet zone;

•

Step 5: PROVIDE a Notice of Intent to the State agencies responsible for highway safety, rail crossing safety, and all railroads operating over crossings within the proposed quiet zone;

•

Step 6: APPLY to FRA for Alternative Safety Measures that are proposed as part of the project;

•

Step 7: DETERMINE the methodology for establishing the quiet zone using one of four approved FRA criteria;

•

Step 8: COMPLETE the installation of Supplementary Safety Measures, Alternative Safety Measures, and any improvements necessary to satisfy compliance requirements;

Public authorities wishing to institute a quiet zone must submit required documentation throughout the establishment process; the FRA provides guidance and checklists to

| PAGE 9 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 3 | STRATEGIES FOR COMMUNITIES |

follow as technical assistance.5 Additional technical assistance is also available via FRA’s Regional Grade Crossing Managers as well as a State’s department of transportation or rail regulatory agency. Public authorities pursuing a quiet zone should coordinate closely with State agencies responsible for rail crossing safety through the entirety of the process. States may have additional administrative or legal requirements in order to modify a public rail crossing. Communities wishing to establish a crossing quiet zone must send a Notice of Intent and Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment to all railroads operating over the identified public crossing within the quiet zone. Railroad officials should also be included as part of the diagnostic team. There are currently ten crossings where train horns are not routinely sounded, located within the BCD region (Figure 4), all of which are located in Charleston County. The City of North Charleston and the City of Charleston each have five crossings where train horns are not routinely sounded within their jurisdictional boundaries. Figure 4 - BCDCOG Region Quiet Zones

Source: FRA Highway-Rail Crossing Database Files and Reports (2020)

5 https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/how-create-quiet-zone

| PAGE 10 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 3 | STRATEGIES FOR COMMUNITIES |

3.2

CROSSING CONSOLIDATION

The FRA’s Crossing Consolidation Guidelines are a strategy to increase public safety and promote economic development through the selective closure of identified rail crossings.6 This tactic is used to reduce traffic congestion, noise, and other effects of railroad crossings. In 2004, the USDOT Secretary’s Action Plan on Highway-Rail Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention cited “Closing Unneeded Crossings” as one of its nine key initiatives and resulted in an effort to update the FRA crossing consolidation manual.7 This plan developed national standards and guidelines for crossing consolidation to offer clarity, best practices, and technical assistance for consolidation projects. Figure 5 – Closed Railway Crossing

Source: Town of Cary, North Carolina Website

States take varying approaches regarding who possesses the authority to open and close highway rail crossings. In states where this authority is vested with the state department of transportation or a regulatory agency, uniform crossing selection processes are a matter of procedure. In these instances, consolidation projects are typically assigned to areas with the greatest need, and not necessarily to projects with the greatest level of support. However, state agencies have the means to help negotiate cooperation among stakeholders and diffuse opposition. State agencies may also offer more resources and funding to assist with consolidation projects. In

6 USDOT FRA Crossing Consolidation Guidelines “Research Results”, RR 09-12 (2009)

https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/crossing-consolidation-guidelines 7 USDOT Secretary’s Action Plan on Highway-Rail Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/secretarys-action-plan-highway-rail-crossing-safety-and-trespass-prevention-secretary

| PAGE 11 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 3 | STRATEGIES FOR COMMUNITIES |

instances where local governments have jurisdiction and authority over rail crossings, responsibility for leading the crossing selection process typically is entrusted with those with first-hand experience of the crossing and its context within the community. The consolidation process begins with site selection, where the governing agency develops a list of potential crossings for consolidation. A corridor approach can also be undertaken when performing crossing consolidation. The corridor approach seeks to reduce administrative costs, enhance safety and mobility, and engage stakeholders when evaluating multiple crossings along a given rail line. An important consideration when evaluating potential crossings for consolidation is public versus private ownership of the crossing, as private crossings are typically unregulated by state and local governments. In instances of private ownership, close coordination with the private owner is imperative to meet the objectives of all involved parties. Once a crossing is selected as a potential candidate for consolidation, a diagnostic review team is organized, preferably comprised of stakeholders from all parties involved with the effort. The review team will gather data relevant to the crossing, such as accident history, number of tracks and road lanes, average daily traffic, and proximity to other crossings. This information is then compiled for the governing agency to make informed and prioritized decisions. Ranking crossing closure projects by considering factors such as safety, redundancy, and costs helps to efficiently expend limited funding allocations for crossing closure projects. As cited in the FRA Crossing Consolidation Guidelines, the greatest impediment to a successful consolidation initiative is local opposition. Community and public involvement must occur early in the planning process for successful crossing consolidations. Public engagement opens dialogue between residents, state and local officials, and rail owners to increase solidarity for the proposed crossing consolidation. The FRA Crossing Guidelines publication recognizes the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) as having implemented a successful crossing consolidation model that offers best practices for other states. The NCDOT approach incorporates three primary elements as part of their crossing consolidation process: coordination, communication, and consistency. Coordination and communication serve to keep the public aware of the project and further developments, while consistency is achieved through established and predictable criteria for evaluating safety and providing incentives. A recent case study from Calhoun County, South Carolina involves the closure of an atgrade crossing in order to facilitate the development of the Tri-County Global Industrial Park.8 Norfolk Southern policy requires that two crossings are eliminated prior to The Times and Democrat, “Calhoun County Council approves rail crossing closure; change to help industrial park development”, Harris, B., (2020) https://thetandd.com/news/local/government-and-politics/calhoun-county-councilapproves-rail-crossing-closure-change-to-help-industrial-park-development/article_83b023f0-7f72-5d1d-85e10c5143ac754d.html 8

| PAGE 12 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 3 | STRATEGIES FOR COMMUNITIES |

constructing a new crossing. One of the proposed closures will occur at the crossing at Hemlock Road. The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) required Calhoun County to assume maintenance responsibilities for the road, allowing the county to apply to Norfolk Southern for closure. The County Council approved the motion authorizing the application for the closure of the crossing at Hemlock Road.

3.3

NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACTS

Noise and vibration can disturb sleep and impact physical and mental health, interfere with daily activities, lower land value, and structurally damage nearby buildings and infrastructure. In rural settings, noise and vibration can affect nearby ecosystems and land productivity. According to an article published by the National Institute of Health, unwanted noise is the primary complaint related to railroads, switching stations, and rail hubs.9 Figure 6 – Railway Noise Barrier

Source: https://www.guardrailbarrier.net/guardrails/railway-sound-barrier.html

Adverse noise and vibration effects related to rail operations can arise as result of introducing a new rail line into a community, neighborhood expansion adjacent to existing facilities, and changing operations on existing facilities. Increased train movements and extended rail operating hours can also be contributing factors. Track and railcar conditions also play a large role in excess noise and vibration. Slight imperfections in the geometry of the track and wheel surfaces as well as local track defects can lead to increased vibrations. Other factors leading to increased vibration 9 Bunn, F., and Zannin, P. Noise Annoyance through Railway Traffic – a Case Study; Journal of Environmental Health

Science and & Engineering (2014) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3896847/

| PAGE 13 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 3 | STRATEGIES FOR COMMUNITIES |

and noise include sharp curves in the rail line, locomotive engineers breaking or accelerating too hard, and switches and crossings that create gaps and alignment changes. It is critical that the condition of local rail infrastructure be proactively monitored and maintained as a countermeasure to increased noise and vibration. Introduction of new rolling stock and upgraded track infrastructure are also effective in combating noise and vibration effects. Sound barriers can also serve as a solution to undesirable noise effects. While sound barriers will not prevent noise from a train horn, they can help mute wheel and engine noise. Quiet zones and crossing consolidation are both policy-driven strategies to minimize or eliminate the impacts of railway noise and vibration. Additional initiatives to reduce noise and vibration impacts from existing rail operations, including:

•

Noise abatement programs to address existing acute levels of heavy rail noise on a priority basis. These programs should specify agreed-upon methods for assessing and prioritizing requests for mitigation. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) offers additional resources regarding noise abatement via its website.

•

Planning guidelines for new residential, commercial, and mixed-use developments alongside rail lines.

3.4

TRESPASSING

According to the FRA’s National Strategy to Prevent Trespassing on Railroad Property – Report to Congress, more people are struck and killed by trains each year while trespassing, than are killed in motor vehicles collisions with trains at rail crossings.10 Further, 74 percent of all rail line trespasser deaths and injuries (11/2013-10/2017) occurred within 1,000 feet of a rail crossing. Trespassing issues are a result of several factors, including, but not limited to a lack of education/knowledge related to the dangers of trespassing, lack of enforcement, and poor community planning-decisions. To help decrease the number of injury and death-causing accidents on railroad rightof-way, the FRA has developed a National Strategy to Prevent Trespassing on Railroad Property, focusing on four key subject areas: Data Gathering and Analysis; Community Site Visits; Funding; and Develop Partnerships with Stakeholders. By performing data collection and analysis, it will enable the FRA to identify areas with high occurrences of trespassing incidents. Once determined, the FRA is empowered to focus and expend resources on areas of largest need.

10 Federal Railroad Administration National Strategy to Prevent Trespassing on Railroad Property – Report to Congress

(2018) https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/national-strategy-prevent-trespassing-railroad-property

| PAGE 14 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 3 | STRATEGIES FOR COMMUNITIES |

Technology is also being explored and deployed to help decrease the occurrences of trespassing and resulting injuries or fatalities. This section highlights two approaches in the use of technology to combat trespassing on railroad right-of-way. Figure 7 – Trespassing Monitoring at Police Dispatch

Source: FRA National Strategy to Prevent Trespassing on Railroad Property

The first initiative, Trespasser Detection Systems on Railroad Rights-of-Way, put forth by the FRA Office of Research, Development, and Technology, developed a detection system using cameras that were deployed at selected locations with demonstrated trespassing issues in the past.11 A main component of this study was integrating the system with a local law enforcement agency to monitor and enforce violations. The system was deployed in Brunswick, Maine with the cooperation and support of the area’s law enforcement dispatch center. Lessons learned from this study indicate that integration of trespassing detection systems with local law enforcement increases response time and provides consistent monitoring of the location. However, false alarms and technology limitations can hinder the effectiveness of the system. A second study, Artificial Intelligence-Aided Automated Detection of Railroad Trespassing12 recognized the lack of data available related to trespassing incidents. Trespassing incidents are frequently missed, because no bodily harm occurred, and the trespasser was not observed/reported. The lack of relevant data prevents a thorough analysis of risk and mitigation strategies. In recent years, saturation of CCTV systems has provided increased surveillance of railroad infrastructure; however, given the volume of

11 USDOT Federal Railroad Administration: Trespasser Detection Systems on Railroad Rights-of-Way (2020)

https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2020-08/Trespassers%20on%20ROW-A.pdf 12 Zaman, A., Ren, B., and Liu, X: Artificial Intelligence-Aided Automated Detection of Railroad Trespassing (2019) https://cee.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/Zaman%20Ren%20%26%20Liu.pdf

| PAGE 15 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 3 | STRATEGIES FOR COMMUNITIES |

footage available from CCTV systems, using current methods and resources, analyzing this data is a nearly impossible task. This trespassing study sought to integrate an algorithm that would enable detection of trespassing incidents aided by artificial intelligence. Once a region of interest is identified within the system, the algorithm monitors camera feeds to detect unlawful occupiers in the area. In addition to trespassing incidents involving pedestrians, the system is also able to recognize events such as vehicles driving around crossing gates, and other similar infractions. When detected, an alert notification, such as an email or text message is distributed to the end-user for review. This data can also be saved in a database for future use. Technology will be an important tool in monitoring and decreasing the number of rail trespassing incidents. Based on recent studies on the topic, solutions are coming online for both rail operators and law enforcement. Implementing successful detection systems will be driven by advancements in camera and artificial intelligence technologies as well as the integration with human-operated monitoring processes.

| PAGE 16 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

4. GRADE SEPARATION EXAMPLES Highway-rail grade separation projects remove a conflict point between automobiles and trains by building a road over or under a rail line. Likewise, a rail line can be lifted over or channeled under a roadway as well. While there is no way to provide a per unit cost equivalent, similar to highway lane per mile, for a grade separation project, grade separation example projects are given below.

4.1

CLAREMORE, OK GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT

The City of Claremore grade separation project for a BNSF Railway Company line was approximately 3.6 miles long with eight grade crossings, a ninth creek crossing, and a tenth crossing over a Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line. A 2.2Figure 8 - Claremore Grade Separation Rendering mile siding track was also constructed in conjunction with the separation project to address future operational issues associated with the grade separation being limited to single track construction. Estimated Construction Costs $50,000,000 Project Status – Project did not advance past preliminary engineering due to funding constraints.

| PAGE 17 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 4 | GRADE SEPARATION EXAMPLES |

4.2

OLATHE, KS GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT

The City of Olathe owns several at-grade railroad crossings that presented safety hazards and required that trains from the BNSF Railway Company blow their whistles as they pass through. To eliminate the risk of accidents and the need for whistles, the City of Olathe sought to separate the crossing grades. Four grade separations were constructed utilizing an elevated track that minimized disruption to car and truck traffic on the affected roads, while allowing for rail traffic to operate without interruption.

Figure 9 - Olathe Grade Separation Project

Construction Cost - $42,000,000 Completion – December 2010

4.3

HEMPHILL LAMAR TAYLOR CONNECTOR

Hemphill Road, in Fort Worth, TX was constructed as a four-lane roadway with a 400-foot tunnel that was built underneath the railroad tracks and IH-30. The 2,100-foot concrete roadway has a raised median and extensive aesthetic design feature, including etched retaining walls, decorative lighting, and landscaping.

Figure 10 - Hemphill Lamar Grade Separated Median

Construction Cost - $12,000,000 Completion – April 2020 Figure 11 - Hemphill Lamar Taylor Connector

| PAGE 18 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

5. HOTSPOT ANALYSIS The hotpot analysis will examine all at-grade crossings in the study area to determine which intersections have the most accidents between vehicles and trains. The accident data pulled from the FRA is longitudinal, meaning it tracks accidents that occur on atgrade crossings over time. For the purposes of this analysis, a few conditions were established to focus the data on train movements. First, closed crossings were removed from the data set as they might have included recent accident records that would have skewed the results. The implication being closed crossings would no longer present issues for future accidents. Next, a small subset of the entire data was selected to focus on a recent 10-year period between 2009 and 2019. The accident data goes back further than 2009, but a more recent sample was used to identify where accidents were most frequently occurring. The data was reviewed to determine if a warning device upgrade occurred during the analysis period. No substantial upgrades occurred for the crossings selected for detailed analysis; therefore, all accidents were used in the analysis. Lastly, partial year data from 2020 was excluded from the analysis. Figure 12 displays accidents, by county, that occur near at-grade rail crossings between 2009 and 2019. For the 10-year period, there is an average of 7 accidents per year. For the three most recent years, 2017 to 2019, there is a slight uptick, with an average of 8 accidents per year. Figure 12 - BCD Region Accidents by County 2009-2019 13

14 12 10

7 4

4 2 0

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Dorchester

Charleston

Berkeley

Total

Dorchester

Total

Berkeley

Charleston

Source: FRA Accident/Incident Data (2020)

| PAGE 19 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 5 | HOTSPOT ANALYSIS |

Charleston County has the most at-grade crossing accidents with 42 over the 10-year period (Table 3) with six occurring in 2018 and eight in 2019. Berkeley County has 26 accidents while Dorchester County had 14 accidents over the same 10-year period. Table 3 – At-Grade Accidents within the BCD Region, 2009-2019 County

Accidents

Berkeley Charleston

26 42

Dorchester Total

14 82

Source: FRA Accident/Incident Data (2020)

Figure 13 illustrates the total number of at-grade crossings by county in comparison with the at-grade crossings that have had an accident. Charleston County has the highest number of at-grade crossings with accidents (26), while Berkeley County and Dorchester County have 16 and 11 respectively. Figure 13 - BCD Region Percent of Rail Crossings with Accidents by County 140 Crossings 120 Crossings

19.5%, 26 Crossings 14.2%, 16 Crossings

11.5%, 11 Crossings

100 Crossings 80 Crossings 60 Crossings 40 Crossings 20 Crossings Crossings Berkeley

Charleston

# Crossings Without Accidents

# Crossings With Accidents

Source: FRA Accident/Incident Data (2020)

| PAGE 20 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

Dorchester

| 5 | HOTSPOT ANALYSIS |

Between 2009 and 2019 there were a total of 53 at-grade crossings that had accidents within the BCD region. Figure 14 provides the top three crossing hotspots within the region, showing that East Montague Avenue, SC 165, and North Main Street are tied for third position based on the total number of accidents that occurred. Figure 14 also depicts the location of each at-grade crossing hotspot within the region. Three occur in Charleston County, with one each occurring in both Dorchester and Berkeley Counties. Figure 14 – BCD Region At-Grade Crossing Hotspots

| PAGE 21 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

6. RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1

GENERAL RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS

Some general rail crossing recommendations for communities within the BCD region are:

•

On-going monitoring of highway-rail grade crossings to reduce conflicts at priority highway-rail grade crossings;

•

Consider highway-rail grade separations to improve safety;

•

Foster public-private partnerships between railroads and governmental entities to address institutional and infrastructure issues; and

•

On-going monitoring of local and county land use plans to limit the development of land uses that are incompatible with railroad corridors.

6.2

SPECIFIC RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS

A desktop audit was used to examine each at-grade crossing hotspot in the BCD region in more detail. The first step in the desktop audit was to evaluate each individual FRA Inventory Report and Accident/Incident Report. The next step was to evaluate each at-grade crossing hotspot using Google Earth or NearMap imagery for a visual inspection.

6.2.1 Red Bank Road The Inventory and Accident/Incident Reports helped to identify at-grade crossing information for Red Bank Road:

•

Located in Goose Creek, SC, at the intersection of S. Goose Creek Boulevard (Figure 15);

•

Operated by CSX Transportation

•

FRA Crossing Inventory Number 631974A;

•

Inventory report date of 01/20/2020;

•

One Track Crossing (Figure 15);

| PAGE 22 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

•

Not located within a quiet zone;

•

Not documented as being integrated with adjacent intersection traffic signals; and

•

8 reported accidents between 2009 and 2019 with important incidents to note: − March 2019 – Pedestrian fatally struck at crossing; − March 2016 – Pedestrian fatally struck at crossing; − April 2015 – Train struck vehicle stopped on crossing – no injuries reported; and − July 2011 – Train struck vehicle stopped on crossing – one injury reported. Figure 15 – Red Bank Road Rail Crossing

NearMap

Train and Transportation Network During a 2020 train count, there were:

•

19 trains per day: − 6 of those trains occurred during the day; − 11 of those trains occurred during the night; and − 2 were switching trains.

| PAGE 23 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

There is a 79 mile per hour (mph) Maximum Timetable Speed and the typical train speed range was 60-79 mph. The posted speed limit for vehicles is 45 mph. In 2020, there were:

•

Average Annual Daily Trip (AADT) 22,367 vehicles:13 − 12% were trucks, and − 20 daily school buses.

Current Conditions and Recommendations Figure 16 through Figure 20 depict the current conditions at the crossing and were used to make recommendations for improvements, which are described below: Crossing Signal Equipment (Good Condition): Two quadrant protection and cantilever signal masts for Red Bank Road; gate protection for on-coming traffic protection for the S Goose Creek northbound turn lane. Gates are noticeably long and only located at the edge of roadway. Sidewalks are not protected in remaining quadrants. Northbound roadway for Red Bank Road does not have a queue cutter signal prior to the at-grade crossing allowing cars to queue on the crossing surface at red lights. Roadway Surface (Good Condition): Crossing surface consists of concrete gauge panels with flangeway filler outside the rails, notably repaved recently as part of a railroad improvement project for this crossing. Approach pavement appears to be in good condition. Red Bank Road has narrow medians on each crossing approach that appear to be mountable. Railroad Crossing Signs (Good Condition): The Red Bank Road northbound approach and S Goose Creek Boulevard northbound turn lane both have clear passive warning signs. Railroad Crossing Pavement Markings (Poor Condition): Pavement markings are present for all crossing approaches but are cracking and scaling off. Nighttime visibility may be impacted from the deteriorated condition. Drainage (Good Condition): No apparent drainage issues. Crossing surface and ballast approaches appear clear from sand or debris. No apparent erosion or undermining in trackbed or edge of pavement. Track Approach Sightlines (Good Condition): All track sightlines clear of large tress or other obstructions. Pedestrian Access and Curbing (Fair Condition): Sidewalk is present on each side of both approaches to the crossing surface. No detectable warning pads are present at any of the sidewalk approaches to the crossing surface. The southeast sidewalk 13 https://railroads.dot.gov/crossing-and-inventory-data/grade-crossing-inventory/crossing-inventory-dashboards-data-

downloads

| PAGE 24 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

approach appears to be deteriorating and not meeting ADA standards, as it appears relatively thin and to have been temporarily paved. Mountable curbing is present for all approaches. The southeast approach curbing appears to be deteriorating at the crossing surface. Figure 16 - Red Bank Road - Looking Northwest

Google Earth

| PAGE 25 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Figure 17 - Red Bank Road Looking Southeast

Google Earth

Figure 18 - Red Bank Road - Looking North

Google Earth

| PAGE 26 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Figure 19 - Red Bank Road - Looking South

Google Earth

Figure 20 - Red Bank Road Crossing Pavement Markings

NearMap

| PAGE 27 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Planning Level Cost Estimates Planning level cost estimates are detailed in Table 4, understanding that additional costs may arise from a diagnostic meeting and inspection of the existing at-grade crossing. Diagnostic meetings are engagement opportunities for the stakeholders to participate in the process by visiting the site and building consensus on their requested needs. The recommended improvements for the Red Bank Road at-grade crossing are:

• • • • • •

Replace south sidewalk with ADA compliant concrete sidewalk; Install pre-emption with intersection signals to clear queue for train arrival; Remove and replace stop bar and railroad crossing pavement markings; Install pedestrian gates at open sidewalks in three locations; Improve existing signal system for additional gates; and Install detectable warning pads for all sidewalk approaches. Table 4 – Red Bank Road At-Grade Crossing Planning Level Cost Estimate

Crossing Signal Equipment

Item Cost

Unit

Quantity

Total Cost

New Signal Mast with Gate and Flashers

$75,000.00

$225,000.00

Improve Signal System for additional gates

$40,000.00

Install preemption interface between signals

$100,000.00

Unit

Quantity

Railroad Crossing Pavement Markings

Item Cost

Total Cost

RR Crossing Pavement Marking with Lines

$600.00

$3,000.00

Stop Lines

$40.00

100

$4,000.00

Unit

Quantity

Pedestrian Access and Curbing

Item Cost

Remove and install new sidewalk

$50.00

100

Tactile Warning Pad

$400.00

Grand Total

Total Cost $5,000.00 $1,600.00 $378,600.00

Special Consideration A queue cutter signal may be warranted for this crossing, but has a greater cost associated than any of the recommendations as shown in Table 5. A queue cutter signal is an extension of the intersection traffic signal that is placed prior to the at-grade crossing and prevents vehicles from queuing on top of the crossing during a red light. Table 5 - Queue Cutter Signal Planning Level Cost Estimate Crossing Signal Equipment

Item Cost

Unit

Quantity

Total Cost

Preemption Queue Cutter Signal

$500,000.00

Grand Total

| PAGE 28 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

$500,000.00

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

6.2.1.1 Ashley Phosphate Road The Inventory and Accident/Incident Reports helped to identify at-grade crossing information for Ashley Phosphate Road:

•

Located in North Charleston, SC, between Southrail Road and Palmetto Commerce Parkway (Figure 21);

•

Operated by Norfolk Southern Railway Company;

•

FRA Crossing Inventory Number 721448L;

•

Inventory report date of 08/12/2019;

•

Single Track Crossing;

•

Westbound vehicles stopped at signalized intersection of Palmetto Commerce Parkway typically queue across crossing (Figure 22);

•

Not located within a quiet zone; and

•

6 reported accidents between 2009 and 2019, with recent incidents to note: − June 2019 – Train struck vehicle that went around gates – no injuries reported; − March 2018 – Train struck vehicle stopped on crossing – no injuries reported; − December 2014 – Train struck vehicle stopped on crossing – two highway users injured; − September 2013 – Train struck vehicle stopped on crossing – one highway user injured; and − February 2013 – Train struck vehicle that went around gates – no injuries reported.

| PAGE 29 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Figure 21 - Ashley Phosphate Road Rail Crossing

NearMap

Figure 22 – Ashley Phosphate Road Westbound Queuing

Google Earth

| PAGE 30 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Train and Transportation Network During a 2017 train count, there were:

•

15 trains per day: − 5 of those trains occurred during the day; − 4 of those trains occurred during the night; and − 6 were switching trains.

There is a 49 mile per hour (mph) Maximum Timetable Speed and the typical train speed range was 40-49 mph. The posted speed limit for vehicles is 35 mph. In 2013, there were:

•

Average Annual Daily Trip (AADT) 57,339 vehicles: − 15% were trucks; and − 24 daily school buses.

Current Conditions and Recommendations Figure 23 through Figure 30 depict the current conditions at the crossing and were used to make recommendations for improvements, which are described below: Crossing Signal Equipment (Good Condition): Signalized with two-quadrant protection, cantilever signal masts and two-gate roadway protection for each approaching roadway (median and edge of roadway with sidewalk coverage). Sidewalks in opposite quadrants are not protected. Roadway Surface (Good Condition): Consists of asphalt and rubber flangeway filler, notably repaved recently as part of a railroad improvement project for this crossing. Approach pavement appears to be in good condition. Ashley Phosphate Road has a raised median; however, it appears to be mountable. Railroad Crossing Signs (Fair Condition): Advance crossing warning signs are present for both Ashley Phosphate Road approaches. The west approach advance warning appears to be overgrown by adjacent trees (Figure 23). There is no advance warning sign present on Southrail Road. Railroad Crossing Pavement Markings (Fair Condition): Pavement markings appear to be in good/fair condition. Stop Bars and railroad crossing markings are present on each approach Except for Southrail Road. Drainage (Good Condition): No apparent drainage issues. Crossing surface and ballast approaches appear clear from sand or debris. No apparent erosion or undermining in trackbed or edge of pavement. Track Approach Sightlines (Good Condition): Sightlines are clear of trees and other obstructions in all four approach quadrants to the crossing.

| PAGE 31 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Pedestrian Access and Curbing (Fair Condition): Sidewalk is present with mountable curbing on both sides of each approach, with smooth transitions to the crossing surface. The 2020 street view images show that the southwest quadrant detectable warning pad has separated completely from the deteriorated sidewalk (Figure 30), and vegetation is beginning to overgrow the sidewalk approach. Figure 23 - Ashley Phosphate Road - Looking East (1)

Google Earth

Figure 24 - Ashley Phosphate Looking East (2)

Google Earth

| PAGE 32 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Figure 25 - Ashley Phosphate Road - Looking West (1)

Google Earth

Figure 26 - Ashley Phosphate Road - Looking West (2)

Google Earth

| PAGE 33 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Figure 27 - Ashley Phosphate Road - Looking North

Google Earth

Figure 28 - Ashley Phosphate Road - Looking South

Google Earth

| PAGE 34 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Figure 29 - Ashley Phosphate Crossing Pavement Markings

NearMap

Figure 30 - Ashley Phosphate Crossing Detectable Warning Pad SW quadrant

Google Earth

Planning Level Cost Estimates Planning level cost estimates are detailed in Table 6, understanding that additional costs may arise from a diagnostic meeting and inspection of the existing at-grade crossing. Diagnostic meetings are engagement opportunities for the stakeholders to participate in the process by visiting the site and building consensus on their requested needs. The recommended improvements for the Ashley Phosphate Road at-grade crossing are:

• • • • • •

Install Queue Cutter Signal with Crossing Preemption for westbound roadway; Install pedestrian gates in open quadrants; Improve existing system for additional gates; Remove vegetation around west approach advance warning sign; Remove and replace southwest sidewalk at crossing; and Remove remaining detectable warning pads and install new pads.

| PAGE 35 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Table 6 – Ashley Phosphate Road At-Grade Crossing Planning Level Cost Estimate Crossing Signal Equipment

Item Cost

Unit

Quantity

Total Cost

New Signal Mast with Gate and Flashers Improve Signal System (to include pedestrian gates & preemption) Queue Cutter Traffic Mast & Integration Railroad Crossing Signs

$75,000.00

$150,000.00

$60,000.00

$500,000.00 Item Cost

Unit

Quantity

$500,000.00 Total Cost

Remove Vegetation around Signs Advance Warning sign on Southrail Rd Pedestrian Access and Curbing Remove and install new sidewalk Tactile Warning Pad

$300.00 $ 500.00 Item Cost $50.00 $400.00

EA EA Unit SF EA

1 1 Quantity 20 4

$300.00 $500.00 Total Cost $1,000.00 $1,600.00

$100.00

Remove Tactile Warning Pad

Grand Total

$300.00 $713,700.00

6.2.2 SC 165 The Inventory and Accident/Incident Reports helped to identify at-grade crossing information for SC 165:

•

Located in Ravenel, SC between Drayton Street and Martin Street;

•

Operated by CSX Transportation Company and Amtrak;

•

FRA Crossing Inventory Number 632410U;

•

Inventory report date of 05/09/2019;

•

Two Track Crossing (Figure 31);

•

24-hour quiet zone; and

•

3 reported accidents between 2009 and 2019, incidents to note: − November 2019 – Train struck vehicle stuck on track – no injuries reported; − May 2019 – Train struck vehicle that went around gates – no injuries reported; and − April 2014 – Vehicle stopped and then proceeded to drive into train at crossing.

| PAGE 36 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Figure 31 – SC 165 Rail Crossing

Train and Transportation Network During a 2019 train count, there were:

•

20 trains per day: − 6 of those trains occurred during the day; − 12 of those trains occurred during the night; and − 2 were switching trains.

There is a 79 mile per hour (mph) Maximum Timetable Speed and the typical train speed range was 40-49 mph. The posted speed limit for vehicles is 30 mph. In 2013, there were:

•

Average Annual Daily Trip (AADT) 4,582 vehicles: − 6% were trucks, and − 0 daily school buses.

Current Conditions and Recommendations Figure 32 through Figure 42 depict the current conditions at the crossing and were used to make recommendations for improvements, which are described below: Crossing Signal Equipment (Good Condition): Signalized with two-quadrant protection. Gates only extend over approaching lanes. No sidewalks are present at this crossing.

| PAGE 37 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Roadway Surface (Fair Condition): Crossing surface consists of asphalt and rubber flangeway filler. Approach pavement appears cracked, but not deteriorating. Low clearance drag marks are present on the south approach. North approach has a sawcut line through the asphalt immediately north of the crossing surface. Railroad Crossing Signs (Poor Condition): Advanced warning sign present on Drayton Street (SC 165) east approach to the crossing (See Figure 5). Advance warning sign on SC 165 north approach is located far in advance of the crossing (approximately 700 feet), and approximately 300 feet in advance of the railroad crossing pavement marking (See Figure 38 & Figure 39). No advance warning signage is posted on Martin Street or the Drayton Street west approach to the crossing. Railroad Crossing Pavement Markings (Poor Condition): Stop bars and railroad crossing pavement markings appear to be in poor condition with cracking and deterioration (See Figure 36 & Figure 38). Advance warning pavement markings are not present on east approach of Drayton Street and Martin Street (See Figure 33 & Figure 40). Drainage (Good Condition): No apparent drainage issues. Crossing surface and ballast approaches appear clear from sand or debris. No apparent erosion or undermining in trackbed or edge of pavement. Track Approach Sightlines (Good Condition): Sightlines are clear of obstructions in all four approach quadrants to the crossing. Pedestrian Access and Curbing (Not Applicable): Sidewalk and curbing is not present at the crossing surface and immediate approaches. No crosswalks or transitions are present to the crossing surface.

| PAGE 38 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Figure 32 – SC 165 South Approach Looking North

Figure 33 - Drayton Street East Approach to Crossing Looking West

| PAGE 39 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Figure 34 - SC 165 Drayton Street West Approach to Crossing Looking East

Figure 35 - SC 165 Drayton Street West Approach Advance Warning Signs and Pavement Marking Looking East

| PAGE 40 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Figure 36 - Drayton Street West Approach Railroad Crossing Pavement Marking Looking East

Figure 37 - SC 165 North Approach Looking South

| PAGE 41 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Figure 38 - SC 165 North Approach Looking South (1)

Figure 39 - SC 165 North Approach Looking South (2)

| PAGE 42 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Figure 40 - Martin Street T intersection with SC 165 Looking West

Figure 41 - SC 165 Crossing Surface Looking East

| PAGE 43 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Figure 42 - SC 165 Crossing Surface Looking West

Planning Level Cost Estimates Planning level cost estimates are detailed in Table 7, understanding that additional costs may arise from a diagnostic meeting and inspection of the existing at-grade crossing. Diagnostic meetings are engagement opportunities for the stakeholders to participate in the process by visiting the site and building consensus on their requested needs. The recommended improvements for the SC 165 at-grade crossing are:

•

Install 20’ long traffic separator medians with delineator panels and R4-7 “Keep Right” sign at each approach to the crossing to prevent drivers traversing diagonally through the crossing to Martin Street;

•

Install new railroad crossing pavement markings at all approaches;

•

Install new stop bar markings at crossing;

•

Remove and relocate advance warning sign on SC 165 north approach; and

•

Install advance warning on Martin Street and Drayton Street east approach.

| PAGE 44 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Table 7 – SC 165 At-Grade Crossing Planning Level Cost Estimates Crossing Improvements

Item Cost

Unit

Quantity

Total Cost

Curbed Traffic Separator Median Panel or Tubular Delineators Railroad Crossing Signs New Advance Warning Signs New “Keep Right” R4-7 signs New Signpost

$200.00 $50.00 Item Cost $200.00 $200.00 $1,000.00

LF LF Unit EA EA EA

40 40 Quantity 2 2 4

$8,000.00 $2,000.00 Total Cost $400.00 $400.00 $4,000.00

Remove and Relocate Existing Signs Railroad Crossing Pavement Markings RR Crossing Pavement Marking with Lines

$1,000.00 Item Cost $600.00

EA Unit EA

1 Quantity 4

$1,000.00 Total Cost $2,400.00

$40.00

$1,000.00

Grand Total

$19,200.00

Stop Lines

6.2.3 East Montague Avenue The Inventory and Accident/Incident Reports helped to identify at-grade crossing information for East Montague Avenue:

•

Located in North Charleston, SC, between Gaynor Street and Railroad Avenue;

•

Operated by CSX Transportation Company and Amtrak;

•

FRA Crossing Inventory Number 631981K;

•

Inventory report date of 06/25/2020;

•

Two Track Crossing (Figure 43);

•

Not located within a quiet zone; and

•

3 reported accidents between 2009 and 2019, incidents to note: − January 2018 – Train struck vehicle on crossing – no injuries reported; − August 2014 – Train struck vehicle on crossing – no injuries reported; and − June 2017 – Train struck pedestrian who went around gates, pedestrian injured.

| PAGE 45 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Figure 43 - East Montague Avenue Rail Crossing

Google Earth

Train and Transportation Network During a 2020 train count, there were:

•

18 trains per day: − − −

5 of those trains occurred during the day; 10 of those trains occurred during the night; and 3 were switching trains.

There is a 79 mile per hour (mph) Maximum Timetable Speed and the typical train speed range was 40-79 mph. The posted speed limit for vehicles is 35 mph. In 2013, there were:

•

Average Annual Daily Trip (AADT) 15,068 vehicles; − −

14% were trucks, and 8 daily school buses.

Current Conditions and Recommendations Figure 44 through Figure 50 depict the current conditions at the crossing and were used to make recommendations for improvements, which are described below: Crossing Signal Equipment (Good Condition): Two quadrant protection, cantilever signal masts with roadway and sidewalk protection for each approaching roadway. Gates are noticeably long and only located at the edge of roadway. Sidewalks are not protected in remaining quadrants.

| PAGE 46 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Roadway Surface (Good Condition): Crossing surface consists of concrete panels with asphalt between tracks. Crossing area was repaved more recently than the rest of East Montague Ave. Deep cut lines are present on each side of crossing surface. There is a very short median present on the east side of the crossing that was previously used for signal masts. This median is almost completely removed. Railroad Crossing Signs (Good Condition): Signs mounted on the cantilever signal masts at the crossing are in good condition and clearly visible. The west approach advance warning sign is obstructed by trees and is located 180 feet prior to railroad crossing pavement markings (See Figure 48). Prior to the crossing is an additional advance intersection warning sign, placed approximately 110 feet in advance of the crossing (See Figure 49). The east approach advance warning sign is clearly visible. Railroad Crossing Pavement Markings (Fair Condition): Stop bars and railroad crossing pavement markings appear to be in fair condition. Markings are in the early stages of cracking and scaling. Drainage (Good Condition): No apparent drainage issues. Crossing surface and ballast approaches appear clear from sand or debris. No apparent erosion or undermining in trackbed or edge of pavement. Track Approach Sightlines (Poor Condition): The track sightlines for southwest and southeast quadrants are obstructed by large trees. Sightlines are clear of obstructions in the northwest and northeast roadway quadrants. Pedestrian Access and Curbing (Fair Condition): Sidewalk is present on each side of the roadway and through the crossing surface. The southeast quadrant detectable warning pad is missing and the remaining detectable warning pads are present however all are located within the gated area with the northeast and southwest pads immediately below gates.

| PAGE 47 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Figure 44 - East Montague Avenue Crossing Looking East

Google Earth

Figure 45 - East Montague Avenue Crossing West Approach Looking East

Google Earth

| PAGE 48 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Figure 46 - East Montague Avenue Crossing Looking West

Google Earth

Figure 47 - East Montague Avenue Crossing East Approach Looking West

Google Earth

| PAGE 49 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Figure 48 - East Montague Avenue West Approach Advance Warning Sign Looking East

Google Earth

Figure 49 - East Montague Avenue West Approach Advance Intersection Warning Sign Looking East

Google Earth

| PAGE 50 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Figure 50 - East Montague Avenue Pavement Markings

Planning Level Cost Estimates Planning level cost estimates are detailed in Table 8, understanding that additional costs may arise from a diagnostic meeting and inspection of the existing at-grade crossing. Diagnostic meetings are engagement opportunities for the stakeholders to participate in the process by visiting the site and building consensus on their requested needs. The recommended improvements for the East Montague Avenue at-grade crossing are:

•

Install pedestrian gates in unprotected quadrants;

•

Improve existing signal system for additional gates;

•

Remove remaining detectable warning pads and install new detectable warning pads clear of the gates;

•

Remove and reset west approach advance sign in line west advance railroad crossing pavement marking per FHWA’s Manual on Uniform Control Devices (MUTCD); and

•

Remove trees and brush in southwest and northwest quadrants.

| PAGE 51 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Table 8 – East Montague Avenue At-Grade Crossing Planning Level Cost Estimate Crossing Signal Equipment

Item Cost

Unit

Quantity

Total Cost

New Ped. Signal Mast with Gate and Flashers Improve Signal System Railroad Crossing Signs Remove and Relocate Existing Signs Pedestrian Access and Curbing Tactile Warning Pad

$75,000.00 $40,000.00 Item Cost $1,000.00 Item Cost $400.00

EA EA Unit EA Unit EA

2 1 Quantity 1 Quantity 4

$150,000.00 $40,000.00 Total Cost $1,000.00 Total Cost $1,600.00

Remove Tactile Warning Pad Track Approach Sight Lines Remove Trees

$150.00 Item Cost $1,500.00

EA Unit EA

3 Quantity 4

$450.00 Total Cost $6,000.00

$5.00

500

$2,500.00

Grand Total

201,550.00

Clear and remove Obstructions (ground brush)

6.2.4 North Main Street The Inventory and Accident/Incident Reports helped to identify at-grade crossing information for North Main Street:

•

Located in Ridgeville, SC, between N Railroad Avenue and S Railroad Avenue;

•

Operated by Norfolk Southern Railway Company;

•

FRA Crossing Inventory Number 721485N;

•

Inventory report date of 06/01/2019;

•

Single Track Crossing (Figure 51);

•

Not located within a quiet zone; and

•

3 reported accidents between 2009 and 2019, incidents to note: − − −

January 2018 – Train struck vehicle stopped on crossing – three railroad employees injured; June 2012 – Train struck vehicle stopped on crossing – no injuries reported; and October 2009 – Train struck concrete truck stopped on crossing – one highway user and railroad employee injured.

| PAGE 52 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Figure 51 - North Main Street Rail Crossing

Train and Transportation Network During a 2017 train count, there were:

•

15 trains per day: − − −

5 of those trains occurred during the day; 4 of those trains occurred during the night; and 6 were switching trains.

There is a 49 mile per hour (mph) Maximum Timetable Speed and the typical train speed range was 40-49 mph. The posted speed limit for vehicles is 30 mph. In 2013, there were:

•

Average Annual Daily Trip (AADT) 575 vehicles: − −

5% were trucks; and 4 daily school buses.

| PAGE 53 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Current Condition Analysis Figure 52 through Figure 55 depict the current conditions at the crossing and were used to make recommendations for improvements, which are described below: Crossing Signal Equipment (Good Condition): Signalized with two-quadrant protection. Gates only extend over approaching lanes. No sidewalks present at this crossing. Roadway Surface (Fair Condition): Consists of asphalt and rubber flangeway filler. The Rubber flangeway filler appears to be deteriorating and has pockets of sand and debris throughout the crossing surface. Also appears to be scrapes and low clearance drag marks across the crossing surface. Railroad Crossing Signs (Poor Condition): Advance crossing warning sign is only posted on the North Main Street north approach and appears to be unclean and tilted away from the roadway. No advance warning signage is posted on either N Railroad Avenue or S Railroad Avenue. Railroad Crossing Pavement Markings (Poor Condition): Pavement markings appear to be in fair/poor condition with cracking and deterioration. Advance warning pavement markings are not present on N Railroad Avenue or S Railroad Avenue. Drainage (Good Condition): No apparent drainage issues. Crossing surface and ballast approaches appear clear from sand or debris. No apparent erosion or undermining in trackbed or edge of pavement. Track Approach Sightlines (Good Condition): Sightlines are clear of obstructions in all four approach quadrants to the crossing. The southeast corner does have one large tree, but with a high canopy and good visibility from roadways to the track. Pedestrian Access and Curbing (Not Applicable): Sidewalk and curbing is not present at the crossing surface and immediate approaches. Existing sidewalk is present on N Railroad Avenue and S Railroad Avenue, opposite the crossing intersection. No crosswalks or transitions are present to the crossing surface.

| PAGE 54 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Figure 52 – North Main Street - Looking Northeast

Google Earth

Figure 53 – North Main Street Looking Southwest

Google Earth

| PAGE 55 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Figure 54 – North Main Street Looking Southeast

Google Earth

Figure 55 – North Main Street- Looking Northwest

Google Earth

| PAGE 56 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Figure 56 - North Main Street Crossing Pavement Markings

Google Earth

Planning Level Cost Estimates Planning level cost estimates are detailed in Table 9, understanding that additional costs may arise from a diagnostic meeting and inspection of the existing at-grade crossing. Diagnostic meetings are engagement opportunities for the stakeholders to participate in the process by visiting the site and building consensus on their requested needs. The recommended improvements for the North Main Street at-grade crossing are: Due to the close proximity of the Church Street at-grade crossing, North Main being a secondary road crossing, and the accident history at North Main, it is recommended to close the North Main Street at-grade crossing. A planning level estimate for closing the at-grade crossing is shown in Table 9. Table 9 – North Main Street At-Grade Closure Planning Level Cost Estimate Railroad Crossing Closure Costs Remove crossing surface (asphalt & rubber) and signal conduit along track Remove & regrade crossing approaches (asphalt)

Item Cost

Unit

Quantity

Total Cost

$60.00

$2,100.00

$30.00

350

$10,500.00

Seed / landscape crossing approaches Remove advance crossing sign Mill railroad crossing pavement markings

$2,000.00 $100.00 $300.00

LS EA EA

1 1 1

$2,000.00 $100.00 $300.00

Remove existing signal system

$20,000.00

Grand Total

| PAGE 57 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

$20,000.00 $35,000.00

| 6 | RAIL CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS |

Special Consideration Alternatively, due to the low roadway volume, small scale improvements can be implemented to increase safety at the crossing. Including:

•

Replace crossing surface in kind (asphalt and rubber);

•

Placement of signage for North Railroad Ave to be right run only (away from crossing)

•

Remove tree in southwest quadrant;

•

Install 20’ long traffic separator medians with delineator panels and R4-7 “Keep Right” sign at each approach to the crossing to prevent drivers traversing diagonally through the crossing

•

Replace existing advance sign on North Main north approach;

•

Install advance warning signs on all other roadway approaches; and

•

Install railroad pavement markings on all approaches.

Table 10 shows the planning level cost estimates for the recommended improvements. Table 10 – North Main Street At-Grade Crossing Improvements Roadway Surface Rubber and asphalt crossing surface Curbed Traffic Separator Median Panel or Tubular Delineators Railroad Crossing Signs

Item Cost $300.00 $200.00 $50.00 Item Cost

Unit LF LF LF Unit

Quantity 32 40 40 Quantity

Total Cost $9,600.00 $8,000.00 $2,000.00 Total Cost

New Signs New Post Remove Sign Railroad Crossing Pavement Markings RR Crossing Pavement Marking with Lines Track Approach Sight Lines

$200.00 $1,000.00 $50.00 Item Cost $600.00 Item Cost

EA EA EA Unit EA Unit

6 5 1 Quantity 6 Quantity

$1,200.00 $5,000.00 $50.00 Total Cost $3,600.00 Total Cost

$1,500.00

Remove Trees

Grand Total

| PAGE 58 | RECOMMENDATIONS |

$30,950.00