final report fort bend bypass study - phase 2 bend bypass study final report.pdf · 2016-05-17 ·...

FINAL REPORTFORT BEND BYPASS STUDY - PHASE 2

June 30, 2015

June 30, 2015 Page ii

FINAL REPORT

FORT BenD BYPASS STuDY - PHASe 2

On the Cover: RLBA photographer, J.D. Ireland, captured images of trains on the three freight railroads involved in this study: Union Pacific Railroad, BNSF Railway and Kansas City Southern Railway.

June 30, 2015 Page iii

FINAL REPORT


PREPARED BY:

IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

R.L. Banks & Associates, Inc.

ECONOMICS | ENGINEERING | SERVICE PLANNING

FINAL REPORTFORT BEND BYPASS STUDY - PHASE 2

Funding for this project was provided to the Gulf Coast Rail District by Fort Bend County through grants from the Federal Transit Administration and the Texas Department of Transportation.

June 30, 2015 Page iv

FINAL REPORT


TableofContents:Tables,FiguresandAppendicesTable Name PageES‐1 PublicMonetizedBenefitsandCosts,2014–2040.........................................................................ES‐VIES‐2 PublicNon‐MonetizedImpacts,2014–2040,QualitativeComparisons..............................ES‐VIIES‐3 RailroadOperatingBenefitsandCosts,2014–2040..................................................................ES‐VIIIES‐4 RailroadNon‐MonetizedImpacts,2014–2040...............................................................................ES‐IXES‐5 SummaryofMonetizedandNon‐MonetizedImpacts,2014–2040..........................................ES‐X1 WidthsofExistingRailroadRights‐of‐WayUsedinBypassOptions................................................72 BypassCorridorOptions:ImpactMatrix..................................................................................................193 CurrentandProjectedTrainVolumes:BaseCase.................................................................................224 CurrentandProjectedTrainVolumes:BypassCase.............................................................................235 RailroadoperatingImpactMatrix...............................................................................................................246 PublicMonetizedCosts,2014–2040........................................................................................................257 PublicMonetizedBenefits,2014–2040...................................................................................................308 PublicNon‐MonetizedImpactsEvaluationMatrix...............................................................................369 CombinedPublicImpacts,2014–2040....................................................................................................3910 CumulativeEconomicimpactUponRailroadOperations:

ThreeBypassOptionsvs.BaseCase,2014–2040.........................................................................4011 SummaryofPrivateRailroadMonetizedBenefitsandCosts,2014–2040...............................4112 PrivateRailroadNon‐MonetizedImpacts,2014–2040....................................................................4213 UPGliddenSubdivisionProjectedBaseCaseTrainVolumevs.

PracticalCapacity,2014–2040..............................................................................................................4314 BNSFGalvestonSubdivisionProjectedBaseCaseTrainVolumevs.

PracticalCapacity,2014–2040..............................................................................................................4415 CombinedPrivateRailroadImpacts,2014–2040...............................................................................4616 SummaryofMonetizedandNon‐MonetizedImpacts,2014–2040.............................................47Figure Name PageES‐1 FortBendFreightRailBypass:PresentRailLines(BaseCase)...................................................ES‐IIES‐2 FortBendFreightRailBypassCorridorOptions.............................................................................ES‐IV1 HouseholdpopulationGrowthinGreaterHouston,2010–2040......................................................12 Option1detail1..................................................................................................................................................103 Option1detail2..................................................................................................................................................104 Option2,May2,2014.......................................................................................................................................125 Option2,Mary19,2014..................................................................................................................................136 CurrentOption2.................................................................................................................................................147 InitialOption3CorridorLocation................................................................................................................158 CurrentOption3..................................................................................................................................................16Appendix Name PageA Bypass:RailroadRight‐of‐WayTypicalSections....................................................................................50B Long‐TermTrainCountGrowthRate..........................................................................................................51C ImpactUponRailroadOperationsPerformance: ThreeBypassOptionsvs.BaseCase(Table)......................................................................................55D SocietalCostsandBenefitsCalculations....................................................................................................56

June 30, 2015 Page v

FINAL REPORT


AdvisoryCommitteeMembers

TheGulfCoastRailDistrictgratefullyacknowledgestheinputandassistanceprovidedbythemembersoftheAdvisoryCommitteeduringthecourseofthisStudy.

Name Organization

ScottElmer,P.E. CityofMissouriCityTrentEpperson CityofPearlandThomasGray Houston–GalvestonAreaCouncilMattHanks,P.E. BrazoriaCountyLenertKurtz CityofRichmondRandallMalik RosenbergDevelopmentCorp.RichardMancilla CityofPearlandCatherineMcCreight TexasDepartmentofTransportationJamesPirie TownofThompsonsHans‐MichaelRuthe Houston–GalvestonAreaCouncilDonSmithers FortBendCountyRickStaigle,P.E. FortBendCountyChrisSteubing,P.E. CityofSugarLandRichardStolleis,P.E. FortBendCountyTravisTanner CityofRosenbergRobertD.Upton CityofMissouriCity

June 30, 2015 Page eS-I

FINAL REPORT


ExecutiveSummaryProjectionsoflong‐termhouseholdpopulationgrowthinGreaterHoustonandFortBendCountyaredrivinganeedforenhancedmobilitycapacityamongresidents.TheFortBendBypasswouldaddressthisneedinthreewaysby:

1. DivertingmostfreighttrainsoffUnionPacificRailroad’s(UP)GliddenSubdivisionbetweenRosenbergandHoustontherebyreducingtheimpactoffreightrailoperationsontheadjacentroadwaynetwork;

2. EnablingcommuterrailservicetobeestablishedontheexistingtracksoftheUPGliddenSubdivisionintheUS‐90ACorridorbetweenRosenbergandHoustonand

3. Accommodatinglong‐termgrowthoffreighttrainvolumethroughFortBend

Countyinasealedcorridorwithminimaladverseimpactontheadjacentroadwaynetwork.

TheFortBendBypassStudy–Phase2isabenefit–costanalysisofthreeprospectiveBypasscorridoroptionswhichcalculatestheeconomic(monetized)impactofeachascomparedwithpresentfreightrailroadoperations,theBaseCase.Non‐monetizedimpactsoftheBypassalsowereidentifiedandgradedqualitatively.TheBypassoptionsarethencomparedamongthemselvesbaseduponthemonetizedandnon‐monetizedimpacts.

BaseCaseThegeographicareacoveredbythisStudyistriangularinshape.ItisboundedbyRosenbergonthewest,ArcolaonthesoutheastandPierceJunction(withinHouston)onthenortheast,andisillustratedbelowinFigureES‐1.FourexistingrailroadlineswouldbeimpactedbytheBypassandcomprisetheBaseCaseofthisStudy.AbriefdescriptionofeachfollowsFigureES‐1.

June 30, 2015 Page eS-II

FINAL REPORT


FigureES‐1

FortBendFreightRailBypass:PresentRailLines(BaseCase)

Thisim

ageisaplaceholder.A

cleaner,sharperoriginalisinpdfandwillbeinsertedattimeoffinalassem

bly.

KCS

Rose

nber

g Su

b

UP

Popp

Sub

BNSF

Gal

vest

on S

ub

UP

Glid

den

Sub Gu

lf Co

ast R

ail D

istric

t Boa

rd M

eetin

g 4-

14-2

015

1

Rose

nber

g

Arco

la

Pier

ce Ju

nctio

n

Patt

on R

d.

June 30, 2015 Page eS-III

FINAL REPORT


UnionPacificRailroad’s(UP)GliddenSubdivision,betweenRosenbergandPierceJunction(Houston),isaportionofUP’smainlinebetweenHouston,NewOrleansandtheWestCoast.Averagetrainvolume(2014)is36trainsperday,comprisedof35UP,BNSFandKCSfreighttrainsandroughlyoneAmtraktrain.ForthepurposesofthisStudy,UP’scurrentprojecttoaddasecondmaintracktothislineisassumedtobecompletebetweenRosenbergandPierceJunction.BNSFRailway’s(BNSF)GalvestonSubdivision,betweenRosenbergandArcola,isaportionofBNSF’smainlinebetweenGalvestonandDallas–FortWorth.Averagetrainvolume(2014)is15trainsperday,allofwhicharefreighttrains.Thislineisasingle‐trackmainlinewithpassingsidingsoverwhichBNSFservestwocustomers,includingtheCentrePoint(Parish)PowerGeneratingStationinThompsons.UP’sPoppSubdivision,betweenArcolaandPierceJunction,isabranchlinebywhichUPservesapproximatelyeightcustomers.Averagetrainvolume(2014)islessthanonefreighttrainperday.Thelineissingle‐trackwithonepassingsiding.KansasCitySouthernRailway’s(KCS)RosenbergSubdivisionisaportionofKCS’mainlinetoandfromMexico.ItconnectswithUPatRosenbergandKCStrainsoperateovertheUPGliddenSubdivisionandotherUPtrackageinordertotraverseHouston.

BypassOptionsTwokeyassumptionsgovernedtheconceptualengineeringofthethreeBypassoptions:

1. TheBypasswillbeasealedcorridor,meaningitwillhavenogradecrossingsand

2. TheBypasswillbegradedandbuilttoaccommodatethreemaintracks,butonlytwomaintrackswillbebuilt,initially,baseduponcurrentandnear‐termtrainvolumeprojections.

ThethreeBypassoptionsevaluatedinthisStudyareillustratedinFigureES‐2,below.DistancespresentedillustratethelengthsofeachBypassoptionbetweenRosenbergandPierceJunction,exceptinOption3,inwhichthewesternendisattheintersectionoftheBNSFGalvestonSubdivision,northwestofRosenberg,andPattonRoad.AbriefdescriptionoftheoptionsfollowsFigureES‐2.

June 30, 2015 Page eS-IV

FINAL REPORT


FigureES‐2

FortBendFreightRailBypassCorridorOptions

Thisim

ageisaplaceholder.A


bly.

TBP

E R

EG

. F-1

0460

10,0

005,

000

Feetp

X:\GulfCoastRailDistrict\2275-00_FtBend_Rail_Bypass\03_CADD\BASE\FT_BEND_BYPASS_OPTIONS.mxd

LEG

END

OPT

ION

1

OPT

ION

2

OPT

ION

3

EX

ISTI

NG

RA

ILR

OA

D

E

CEM

ETE

RY

#C

HU

RC

H

! [H

ISTO

RIC

LO

CAT

ION

S

® vH

OS

PIT

AL

^PA

RK

nS

CH

OO

L

LIB

RA

RY

pA

IRP

OR

T

GE

OR

GE

FO

UN

DAT

ION

PR

OP

ER

TY

MAJ

OR

SU

BDIV

ISIO

N

BA

LD E

AG

LE N

ES

TS

STA

TE P

AR

KS

LAN

DFI

LL

THO

MP

SO

NS

OIL

FIE

LD

UP

RR

PR

OP

ER

TY

GEO

RG

E R

ANC

H H

ISTO

RIC

PA

RK

TDC

J D

AR

RIN

GTO

N

WO

RTH

ING

TON

CO

NS

ER

VATI

ON

AR

EA

100-

YR

FLO

OD

PLA

IN

Date: 4/17/2015 User Name: hobsonTime: 3:11:39 PM

SH

EE

T 1

OF

1

THE

SE

DO

CU

ME

NTS

AR

E F

OR

INTE

RIM

RE

VIE

W A

ND

NO

T FO

R C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N, B

IDD

ING

OR

PE

RM

IT P

UR

PO

SE

S.

RE

SP

ON

SIB

LE E

NG

INE

ER

:B

RO

WN

& G

AY E

NG

INE

ER

S, I

NC

TBP

E F

IRM

RE

GIS

TRAT

ION

NO

. 104

6

GU

LF C

OA

ST

FRE

IGH

T R

AIL

DIS

TRIC

TFO

RT

BE

ND

RA

IL B

YPA

SS

CO

RR

IDO

R O

PTI

ON

S

Not

e:Th

e op

tions

sho

wn

are

repr

esen

tativ

eco

rrido

rs,

and

do n

ot r

epre

sent

fin

alal

ignm

ents

. T

hey

are

show

n fo

r a

conc

ept l

evel

ana

lysi

s on

ly a

nd s

houl

dno

t be

cons

ider

ed fi

nal.

The

info

rmat

ion

show

n re

pres

ents

the

pro

pose

d B

ypas

s ro

utes

rec

omm

ende

d fo

r th

is F

easi

bilit

y S

tudy

. T

hese

Byp

ass

rout

es a

re n

ot c

onsi

dere

d fi

nal a

nd a

ddit

iona

l eng

inee

ring

stu

dies

sho

uld

be p

erfo

rmed

.

Option 3:

50 M

ILES

Option 2:

42 M

ILES

Option 1:

37 M

ILES

Existing UP

Glidde

n Su

b:30

MILES

Rosenb

erg

Arcola

Pierce Ju

nctio

n

Patton

Rd.

Fort Ben

d Freigh

t Rail B

ypass C

orrid

or Options

June 30, 2015 Page eS-V

FINAL REPORT


Option1–BNSFGalvestonCorridor:Thiscorridorislocatedontheexistingrights‐of‐way(ROW)oftheBNSFGalvestonSubdivisionbetweenRosenbergandArcolaandtheUPPoppSubdivisionbetweenArcolaandPierceJunction.

Option2–BNSFGalvestonplusGreenfield1Corridor:ThewesternsectionofthiscorridortraversestheexistingBNSFGalvestonSubdivisionbetweenRosenbergandThompsons,atwhichpointagreenfieldcorridorwouldbebuiltbetweenThompsonsandArcolabyrunningsouthofSouthSiennaPlantation.TheeasternsectionofthiscorridortraversestheexistingUPPoppSubdivisionbetweenArcolaandPierceJunction,similartotheOption1corridor.

Option3–Rosenberg–ArcolaGreenfieldCorridor:Thewesternsectionofthiscorridorwouldbebuiltasgreenfieldconstruction(31miles)betweenanareawestofRosenberg,inthevicinityofPattonRoad,beginningontheBNSFGalvestonSubdivision,continuingsouthuntilconnectingwiththeUPGliddenSubdivisionandfurthersouthtoconnecttotheKansasCitySouthern’s(KCS)RosenbergSubdivision.Option3wouldtraversecentralFortBendCountytoArcolaandtraversetheexistingUPPoppSubdivisionbetweenArcolaandPierceJunction,similartoOptions1and2.

ThelocationofthegreenfieldsegmentofOption3alsoallowssufficientlateralspacetoaccommodateadouble‐tracklightrail/commuterrailROW.ThegreenfieldsegmentsofBypassOptions2and3arerepresentedwithwiderlinesthanthosewhichillustrateexistingrailroadROW,becauseaspecificalignmentwithinthegreenfieldsegmentshasnotbedetermined.Thatwouldrequiremoredetailedengineeringandfieldworkthanwascalledforinthisstudy. CurrentandProjectedTrainVolumesCurrent(2014)andprojected(2040)trainvolumesontheUPGliddenSubdivision,theBNSFGalvestonSubandBypasswerecomparedwiththepracticalcapacitiesofthelines.Keytakeawaysare:

BaseCase:o Projected2040trainvolumeonUP’sGliddenSubdivision(68trainsper

day),whencomparedwiththeline’spracticalcapacity(75trainsperday)leavesinsufficientcapacity(7trainsperday)toaccommodatecommuterrailservice,whichisprojectedtorequire16trainsperday.

o UP’sGliddenSubdivisionandBNSF’sGalvestonSubdivisioncouldbeginexperiencingcapacityconstraintas2040approaches,becauseprojectedtrainvolumesarewithinninetypercentofthelines’practicalcapacities.Projected2040trainvolumeonBNSFis28trainsperdayascomparedwiththeline’s30trainsperdaycapacity.

1 “GreenfieldCorridor”and“GreenfieldConstruction” meancompletelynewrailroadwouldbebuiltonlandnotcurrentlyusedforrailroadpurposes.

June 30, 2015 Page eS-VI

FINAL REPORT


BypassCase:o TherewouldbeplentyofcapacityonUP’sGliddenSubdivisionto

accommodatethe16commutertrainsperday,because57ofthe67freighttrainsperdayforecastedin2040wouldbedivertedofftheUPontotheBypass.

o TheWesternSectionoftheBypass,betweenRosenbergandArcola,wouldlikelyexceeditstwo‐trackcapacity(75trainsperday)in2035,sothethirdmaintrackwouldneedtobeinstalledandoperationalbythen.

Benefit–CostAnalysisandImpactsAssessment

Theaboveinfrastructureandoperationalchanges,whichwouldresultfromimplementationoftheBypass,werethenconvertedintomonetizedbenefitsandcosts,orwererecognizedasnon‐monetizedimpactsforeachofthethreeBypassoptions.Benefits,costsandimpactsinthepublicsectorareanalyzedseparatelyfromtheprivaterailroadsectorandthencombinedtoproducenetoverallvaluesundereachBypassoption.Allrecurringbenefitandcoststreamsarecalculatedoverthe27‐yearperiod(2014–2040)ofthestudyandbroughtbacktonetpresentvaluein2014assumingathreepercentdiscountrate.AllthreeoptionsyieldNetPublicBenefitswhenPublicMonetizedBenefitsandCostsarecombinedandrangebetween$1.3billionunderOption3and$2.0billionunderOption1,asillustratedinTableES‐1below.

TableES‐1PublicMonetizedBenefitsandCosts,2014–2040($millionsin2014)

ThedifferencesamongtheNetBenefitsforthethreeoptionsarecausedbythesignificantdifferencesamongthecapitalcostsofconstructingeachoption,particularlyintheareasofrailroadinfrastructureandgradecrossingseparations.Capitalcostsrepresentover95percentofpubliccostsandvarybyoptiondependinguponeachoption’soveralllengthandtheportionofeachoption’slengththatisgreenfieldconstruction.BenefitsarenearlyidenticalforallthreeBypassoptions,becausethebenefitslargelyarecapitalcostavoidancebenefitsthatdonotvarywiththeoveralllengthsoftheoptionsorthelengthofgreenfieldsegments.ThreeadditionalpublicimpactswereidentifiedaslikelybenefitswhichwouldresultfromtheBypass,butcouldnotbereasonablyquantifiedatthelevelofgeographiccoverage

June 30, 2015 Page eS-VII

FINAL REPORT


appropriatetotheBypassproject,orduetotheirnature.Therefore,aconservativeapproachsuggeststhattheybegradedanddiscussedonaqualitativebasis,asinTableES‐2below.

TableES‐2PublicNon‐MonetizedImpacts,2014–2040

QualitativeComparisons

InTableES‐2,thethreeBypassoptionsarecomparedwithabasecasethatismoreappropriatelycharacterizedasa“No‐Build”Option.TheNo‐BuildOptionreferstoabaselinesituationinwhichtheBypasswouldnotbebuilt,whilecommuterrailservicewouldbeimplementedbetweenRosenbergandHoustononanew,separateright‐of‐wayadjacenttotheUPGliddenSubdivisioninsteadofonit.Freighttrainswouldcontinuetooperateontheraillinesonwhichtheycurrentlyoperateandtrainvolumeswouldgrowasprojected.Option3issuperiortoOptions1and2intheabovefourqualitativecomparisons,becauseits31‐mile‐longgreenfieldsegmentwouldtraversealess‐developedportionofFortBendCountythanwouldOptions1and2.Thiswouldtranslateintolessimpactuponresidentialareasandfewernegativegrade‐crossing‐relatedimpactsbecausetherearefewerexisting,andwouldbefewerfutureroadways.Additionally,futureroadwaydevelopmentcouldbeshapedtobeconsistentwiththegradeseparationsthatwouldbebuilt.Fromtheprivaterailroadperspective,allthreeBypassoptionswouldgenerateanetnegativeeconomicimpact(NetCosts)uponrailroadoperations,asillustratedinTableES‐3.TrainswouldtravellongerdistancesviatheBypassthanoperatingovertheircurrentroutes.Sincedistanceisalargerdriverofrailroadoperatingcoststhanrunningtime,the

June 30, 2015 Page eS-VIII

FINAL REPORT


longerdistanceswouldgenerateincrementalfuelandmaintenancecoststhatwouldbesignificantlyhigherthanthemodestbenefitswhichwouldarisefrompotentiallyfasterrunningtimes.

TableES‐3RailroadOperatingBenefitsandCosts,2014–2040($millions2014)

FiveadditionalpotentialimpactsupontherailroadswereidentifiedaslikelybenefitsfromtheBypass.TheyaregradedqualitativelyinthisStudybecauseeithertheycouldnotbequantifiedwithcertaintyatthetimeofstudyorquantificationwouldrequiretherealizationofmanysignificantassumptions.Therefore,aswiththepublicsectornon‐monetizedimpacts,aconservativeapproachsuggeststhattheybegradedanddiscussedonaqualitativebasis.BypassOptions2and3areslightlysuperiortoOption1because:

Option2wouldgeneratebenefitsfromtheremovaloftheRosenbergandArcoladiamondswhileOption1wouldonlygeneratebenefitsfromremovaloftheRosenbergdiamondand

ThegreenfieldsegmentsinOptions2and3wouldcreatemorepotentialopportunitiesforrailroadstomitigaterisksassociatedwithencroachmentuponrailroadROWbyadjacentnon‐railroadpropertyowners.

GradingsofthefivepotentialimpactsarepresentedbelowinTableES‐4.

June 30, 2015 Page eS-IX

FINAL REPORT


TableES‐4RailroadNon‐MonetizedImpacts,2014–2040

Conclusions

Basedontheprecedingobservationsandanalysis,itisconcludedthattheimplementationofafreightrailBypassthroughFortBendCountyistechnicallyfeasibleand:

WouldproduceTotalNetBenefits(TableES‐5below,line4)between$1.2billionand$1.9billionoverthe27‐yearstudyperiod,dependingupontheBypassoptionchosen.Thismeanstotalpublicandprivaterailroadbenefitswouldexceedtotalpublicandprivaterailroadcosts.

WouldproduceNetPublicBenefitsbetween$1.3billion(Option3)and$2.0billion(Option1)overthe27‐yearstudyperiod(seeTableES‐1),meaningthatpublicbenefitswouldbegreaterthanthepubliccostswhencalculatedonareasonablyconservativebasisand

Wouldproduceanetincreaseinrailroadoperatingcostsbetween$72.5million(Option1)and$176.3million(Option2)overthe27‐yearstudyperiod,whencomparedwithcurrentrailroadoperations(seeTableES‐3).

June 30, 2015 Page eS-X

FINAL REPORT


TableES‐5

SummaryofMonetizedandNon‐MonetizedImpacts,2014–2040,($millions2014)

Thereareadditionalpotential“soft”(non‐monetized)publicandprivaterailroadbenefitswhichcouldaugmentthenetpublicbenefits,aswellaspartiallyoffsettheoperatinginefficiencieswhichwouldbeencounteredbytherailroadswhenoperatingviatheBypass.Thesenon‐monetizedimpactshavebeencombinedintoOverallNon‐MonetizedImpactsandarepresentedinthelasttwolinesofTableES‐5,above.Consequently,selectionofthepreferredBypassoptiontoadvanceforfurtherstudywilldependupontheweightgiven,bythePublicandPrivateRailroadstakeholders,tothePublicNon‐MonetizedImpactsandthePrivateRailroadMonetizedImpacts.

June 30, 2015 Page 1

FINAL REPORT


Section1:IntroductionProjectionsoflong‐termpopulationgrowthinGreaterHoustonandFortBendCountyaredrivinganeedforenhancedmobilitycapacityforresidentsworkinginandaroundHouston.

Figure1HouseholdPopulationGrowthinGreaterHouston,2010–2040

Thisimageisaplaceholder.Acleaner,sharperoriginalisinanotherformatandwillbeinsertedattimeoffinalassembly.

OnesuchmobilityenhancementisestablishingcommuterrailserviceintheUS90‐ACorridorbetweenRosenbergandHoustonbyusingtheexistingrailroadinfrastructureofUnionPacificRailroad’s(UP)GliddenSubdivision.Sincefreighttrainvolumeonthislineinthelongterm(2040)willlikelyexceeditscapacity,evenaftercompletionoftheon‐goingdouble‐trackingproject,thelinewouldnothavesufficientcapacitytoaccommodatecommutertrains.Capacitytoaccommodatethecommutertrainswouldbecreatedbydivertingmost(30trainsperday)oftheexistingfreighttrainsfromtheUPGliddenSubdivisionandontoaFreightRailBypass(Bypass)throughsoutheasternFortBendCounty.ThepurposeofthisstudyistoprepareanevaluationofthefeasibilityofsuchaBypass.ThisnewBypasswouldnotonlyenableimplementationofcommuterrailalongtheUP


FINAL REPORT


GliddenSubdivision,italsowouldcreatetheabilitytoeasilyexpandthecapacityoftheoverallfreightrailnetworkinGreaterHouston.ThisfeasibilityanalysisincludesidentificationandanalysisofpotentialpublicandprivatesectorbenefitswhichcouldarisefromtheimplementationofeachofthreepotentialBypasscorridors.DetailedresearchandanalysisofdataandissuesinthisStudywereconductedunderthreetasksandatechnicalmemorandumwasproducedatthecompletionofeachtask:

Task1.DataCollection; Task2.ConceptualEngineeringand Task3.Benefit–CostAnalysisandBypassProjectImpactAssessment.

ThisFinalReportpresentsafeasibilityassessmentofthreeprospectiveFortBendBypassoptionsinthreesectionswhichfollow:

Section2:CurrentRailroadSituationandThreeBypassOptions; Section3:Benefit–CostAnalysisandImpactAssessmentand Section4:Conclusions.


FINAL REPORT


Section2:CurrentRailroadSituation(BaseCase)andThreeBypassOptionsThissectiondescribesthecurrentrailroadsituation(BaseCase)andthethreeBypassoptionswhichwerecomparedwiththeBaseCasetotestthepotentialtechnicalandeconomicfeasibilityofaBypassthroughsoutheasternFortBendCounty.ThegeographicareaencompassedbytheStudyandthephysicalcharacteristicsoftherailroadlinesarepresented.KeyassumptionswhichgovernedconceptualengineeringandassessmentoftheBypassoptionsareoutlined.TrainvolumesandoperationalchangesbetweentheBaseCaseandBypassoptionsareexplained.ThedifferencesillustratedinthissectionbetweentheBaseCaseandtheBypassoptions,intermsofrailroadinfrastructureandtrainoperations,drivethecalculationofthebenefitsandcostsandidentificationofnon‐monetizedimpactsinSection3,Benefit–CostAnalysisandImpactAssessment.GeographicAreaandPhysicalCharacteristicsThegeographicareaoverwhichtheStudywasconductedliesroughlywithinatriangleboundedonthewest/northwestbyRosenberg,onthesoutheastbytheTownofArcolaandonthenorth/northeastbytherailroadjunctioncalledPierceJunction,whichliesinHoustonnearthejunctionofAlmedaRoadandHolmesRoad.ThepreviouslypresentedFigureES‐1illustratestheoverallgeographicareaencompassedbythisStudy,andtheBaseCase,whichisdescribedbelow.TheBaseCaseiscomprisedofcurrent(2014)trainoperationsovertheraillinesillustratedinFigureES‐1.TheBaseCase,asdiscussedinthisStudy,alsoreflectscurrentrail–roadwaygradecrossingimpactsandotherroadwayimpactscausedbythecurrentrailroadoperations,exceptitisassumedthattheon‐goingdouble‐trackingofUnionPacificRailroad’s(UP)GliddenSubdivisioniscompletealongitsentirelengthwithintheStudyarea.ThepresentraillineswhichcomprisetheBaseCaseare:

UnionPacificRailroad’s(UP’s)GliddenSubdivisionbetweenRosenbergandPierceJunction(inHouston),adistanceofapproximately30miles.PierceJunctionisinthevicinityoftheintersectionsofFM‐521,HolmesRoadandW.BellfortAve.inHouston.AtPierceJunction,anotherkeylineinthisStudy,theUPPoppSubdivision,joinstheGliddenSubdivisionfromthesouth.TheGliddenSubdivisioncrossestheBNSFGalvestonSubdivision,at‐grade,atRosenberg.TheGliddenSubdivisionisasegmentofUP’smainlinebetweenHouston,LosAngelesandNewOrleans.Averagetrainvolume(2014)is36trainsperday,comprisedof35UP,BNSFandKCSfreighttrainsandroughlyoneAmtraktrain.ForthepurposesofthisStudy,UP’scurrentprojecttoaddasecondmaintracktothislineisassumedtobecompletebetweenRosenbergandPierceJunction.

BNSFRailway’s(BNSF’s)GalvestonSubdivisionbetweenRosenbergandArcola,

adistanceofapproximately24miles.TheBNSFGalvestonSubdivisioncrossestheUPPoppSubdivision,at‐grade,atArcola,andtheUPGliddenSubdivisionatRosenberg.TheGalvestonSubdivisionisaportionofBNSF’smainlinebetween


FINAL REPORT


Galveston,Dallas–FortWorthandSweetwater.WithintheStudyarea,itisasingle‐trackrailroadwithpassingsidings.Averagetrainvolume(2014)is15trainsperday.Therearetwoactivecustomersonthisline:theCenterPoint(Parish)ElectricGeneratingStationinThompsons,andalumberyardinRosenberg.

UPalsooperatesaraillineintheHoustonareawhichitcalls“GalvestonSubdivision”andthatlineisnotpartofthisStudy.

UP’sPoppSubdivisionbetweenArcolaandPierceJunction,adistanceofapproximately13miles.ThePoppSubdivisioncrossestheBNSFSubdivisionat‐gradeatArcolaandconnectswiththeUPGliddenSubdivisionatPierceJunction.ThelineoveritsentirelengthisparalleltoFM‐521/AlmedaRd.Itisasingle‐trackbranchlinebywhichUPservesapproximatelyeightactivecustomersandwhichwouldenableUPtoaccesstheCenterPointElectricGeneratingStation.Averagetrainvolume(2014)islessthanonetrainperday.

KansasCitySouthernRailway’s(KCS)RosenbergSubdivisionextendsbetween

RosenbergandVictoria,TX.EastofRosenberg,KCStrainsoperateovertheUPGliddenSubdivisionandotherUPlinesunderatrackagerightsagreementtoreachBeaumont,TX.KCS’RosenbergSubdivisionanditsoperationoverUP’slinesformaportionofKCS’mainlinetoandfromMexico.

TrainoperationsandpublicroadwayoperationsoverallfouroftheseraillineswouldbeaffectedbyafreightrailBypassalignedtothesouthandeastofRosenbergthroughFortBendCounty,becauseallofthelineswouldconnectwiththeBypassandoneortwoofthelineswouldbecomepartsoftheBypass,dependingupontheoption.TheUPPoppSubdivisionwouldformtheeasternsectionofallthreeBypassoptionsthatareevaluatedinthisStudy.TheBNSFGalvestonSubdivisionwouldformtheentirewesternsectionofOption1andasignificantportionofthewesternsectionofOption2.ThewesternsectionofOption3wouldbecomprisedentirelyofgreenfieldconstruction.ThethreeBypassoptionsevaluatedinthisStudyareillustratedinpreviouslypresentedFigureES‐2.DistancespresentedillustratethelengthsofeachBypassoptionbetweenRosenbergandPierceJunction,exceptinOption3,inwhichthewesternendisPattonRoad–aboutfivemileswestofRosenberg.Theoptionsaresummarizedasfollows:

Option1–BNSFGalvestonCorridor:Thiscorridorislocatedontheexistingright‐of‐way(ROW)oftheBNSFGalvestonSubdivisionbetweenRosenbergandArcolaandtheUPPoppSubdivisionbetweenArcolaandPierceJunction.

Option2–BNSFGalvestonplusGreenfield2Corridor:Thewesternsectionof

thiscorridortraversestheexistingBNSFGalvestonSubdivisionbetween 2 “GreenfieldCorridor”and“GreenfieldConstruction” meancompletelynewrailroadwouldbebuiltonlandnotcurrentlyusedforrailroadpurposes.


FINAL REPORT


RosenbergandThompsons,atwhichpointagreenfieldcorridorwouldbebuiltbetweenThompsonsandArcolabyrunningsouthofSouthSiennaPlantation.TheeasternsectionofthiscorridortraversestheexistingUPPoppSubdivisionbetweenArcolaandPierceJunction,similartotheOption1corridor.

Option3–Rosenberg–ArcolaGreenfieldCorridor:Thewesternsectionofthis

corridorwouldbebuiltasgreenfieldconstructionbetweenanareawestofRosenberg,inthevicinityofPattonRoad,beginningontheBNSFGalvestonSubdivision,continuingsouthuntilconnectingwiththeUPGliddenSubdivisionandfurthersouthtoconnecttotheKansasCitySouthern(KCS)RosenbergSubdivision.Option3wouldtraversecentralFortBendCountytoArcolaandtraversetheexistingUPPoppSubdivisionbetweenArcolaandPierceJunction,similartoOptions1and2.

AllthreeBypassoptions:

1. Areassumedtobecompletely“sealedcorridors”–havingnoat‐gradecrossings;

2. AreassumedtobecomprisedofaROWthatisgradedandbuilttoaccommodatethreefreightmainlinetracks,twoofwhichwouldbebuiltatthetimetheBypasswouldbeconstructed.Thiswouldenablethethirdtracktobebuiltrelativelyeasilywhentrainvolumesgrowthepointwheretheyexceedthecapacityofthedouble‐trackmainline.Thisaddressesrailroadrequirementsthatexistingcapacitybemaintained(doubletrackinprocess)andthataddedcapacitynotbeprecluded;

3. Areassumedtobecomprisedoftwosections:awesternsectionwhichcoverstheterritorybetweentheRosenbergareaandArcolaandaneasternsectionwhichcoverstheterritorybetweenArcolaandPierceJunction.TheBypassisbrokenintothesetwosectionsbecausesignificantdifferencesinthenumberoftrainsoperatingoverthem(“traincounts”)existbetweenthetwosectionsandbecausetrainscurrentlyoperatingontheBNSFGalvestonSubdivisionwouldbedivertedonlyontothewesternsectionoftheBypass,inadditiontomostofthetrainscurrentlyoperatingontheUPGliddenSubdivision.ThelatterincludesBNSFandKCStrains.TheeasternsectionisthesameunderallthreeoptionsandwouldusetheexistingUPPoppSubdivisionright‐of‐way,whichcloselyparallelsFM‐521/AlmedaRd.;

4. Reflecttheassumptionthatthevastmajorityofthefreighttrains(30outof35freighttrains)currentlyoperatingontheUPGliddenSubdivisionwouldbedivertedontotheBypass;

5. ReflecttheassumptionthatallfreighttrainscurrentlyoperatingontheBNSF

GalvestonSubdivisionbetweenRosenbergandArcola,andtheUPPoppSubdivisionbetweenArcolaandPierceJunction,wouldoperateontheBypass,exceptforperiodic,localservicetoaBNSFcustomerinRosenbergontheGalvestonSubdivision;


FINAL REPORT


6. ReflecttheassumptionthatthetotalnumberoftrainsoperatingontheBypasswouldbethesameoneachBypassoption;

7. Reflecttheassumptionthatsixteencommuterrailtrainsperdaywouldoperateon

theUPGliddenSubdivisionbetweenRosenbergandPierceJunction3and

8. Reflectanassumptionthatthemaximumdesignspeedis80mphfortherailroadontheBypass.MaximumoperatingspeedwouldbedeterminedbytherailroadsbaseduponphysicalandoperatingcharacteristicsoftheraillineswithwhichtheBypasswouldconnect,andotherconsiderations,inadditiontothoseoftheBypass.

BypassCorridorDevelopment:Inpreparingtransportationfacilitystudies,thefollowingdefinitionshelpexplainvariouslevelsofdetail:

Corridor:ageneralswathoflandthroughwhichtrackspass,servingageneralarea; Route:amorespecificpathalongwhichtheraillinewouldlie;forexample,a

generalwidthofabout500feetand Alignment:adefinedtrackcenter‐linethathasamorespecifichorizontaland

verticalgeometricdefinitionoftheenvelopethroughwhichthetrainswouldpass;forexample,a230‐foottriple‐trackRight‐of‐Way(ROW).

ThecorridorlevelofdetailwasemployedinthedevelopmentandanalysisofthethreeprospectiveBypassoptions.BypassOptions2and3involveacombinationofgreenfieldcorridorsegmentsandexistingrailroadROWsegments.Option1iscomposedentirelyofexistingrailroadROW.The31‐mile‐longgreenfieldsegmentinOption3providesflexibilitytoaccommodatenewerrailroaddesigncriteria..AssumptionsaboutexistingrailroadROWandgreenfieldROWaffectthe:

Numberofconstraintswhichcanbeavoided; Impactsuponconstraints; CostofacquiringlandtocreatetherailroadROW; Costofconstructingnewrailroadandimprovementstoexistingrailroadand Costofconstructingrailroad–roadwaygradeseparations.

RailroadROWRequirement:ThewidthofrailroadROWissignificanttothediscussionoftheBypassbecauseROWwidthinfluenceslandacquisitioncosts,railroadconstructioncosts,andtheextentofpotentialcommunityandenvironmentalimpactswhichmightarisefromtheconstructionoftheBypass.MostexistingactiverailroadROWswerefirstacquiredbytheoriginalrailroadownersbetween1780and1950,sothewidthofthelandacquired,whichwouldbecometheROW, 3 Regional Commuter Rail Connectivity Study, Houston‐Galveston Area Council, 2008.


FINAL REPORT


waspredominantlyinfluencedbyrailroadcommercialandoperatingneedsandoutlooks,andgovernmentpoliciesofseventytotwo‐hundred‐and‐thirtyyearsago.AllbutonemileoftheexistingrailroadROWthatwouldbeusedineachBypassoption(BNSFGalvestonSubdivisionandUPPoppSubdivision)isatleast100feetwide,4asillustratedbelowinTable1.

Table1WidthsofExistingRailroadRights‐of‐Way

UsedinBypassOptions

BNSFGalvestonSubMileagebyROW

Width: UPPoppSubMileagebyROWWidth:

Mileage Percentage Width(feet) Mileage Percentage Width(feet)2.08 9% 50 0.00 0% 509.59 41% 100 8.93 78% 1000.00 0% 130 0.09 1% 1304.65 20% 150 2.30 20% 1507.08 30% 200 0.00 0% 200

0.19 2% NoteANoteA:UPownsa2,275'x2,275'tractinwhichtheArcolaUP‐BNSF(I&GN‐GC&SF)isthecenter

point.

A100‐footwideROWcanaccommodatethreemaintracksunderrailroadpracticesgoverningtrackcentersandaccessroadswhichwerecommonpriorto2007,whendifferentguidelineswerepublishedbyBNSFandUP5(2007Guidelines).Amongotherrailroadconstructionpractices,theseguidelinesaddressspacingbetweentracks6,accessroads7anddrainage8,whichdirectlyimpactthewidthatwhicharailroadROWistobeconstructed.Theseguidelinesrequirenewlyconstructedtrackbespacedatleast20feetapart(trackcentertotrackcenter).TheexistingrailroadROWinthisstudycanonly 4 BNSF Galveston Sub ROW widths researched in BNSF track charts, 2005. UP Popp Sub ROW width data are from maps which are commonly referred to as ‘valuation maps’ or ‘val maps’ and which were created by railroads to comply with Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) regulations: “Right of Way and Track Map,” International & Great Northern Railway – Gulf Division – Columbia Branch, Office of Chief Engineer, Houston, TX, June 30, 1917; Sheets V‐48/2, V‐4B/3 and V‐V4B‐4; 5 “Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects,” BNSF Railway – Union Pacific Railroad, January 24, 2007, found at: http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/operations/specs/attachments/grade_separation.pdf, accessed March 15, 2014. 6 “Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects,” BNSF Railway – Union Pacific Railroad, January 24, 2007, Section 4.1.2 Track Spacing and Section 4.1.3 Future Tracks, page 17, and Plan 711100, Sheets 1 and 2, Appendix. 7 “Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects,” BNSF Railway – Union Pacific Railroad, January 24, 2007, Section 4.1.4 Access Roads, page 18. 8 “Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects,” BNSF Railway – Union Pacific Railroad, January 24, 2007, Section 4.5 Drainage, pages 19 – 20.


FINAL REPORT


accommodatethreemaintrackswithinthepredominant100‐footwidthifthetracksarespaced15feetapart(trackcentertotrackcenter)whichpreviouslywascommonrailroadpracticeinnewconstruction.Further,theexistingrailROWcanonlyaccommodateoneaccessroad,wheretheslopesofadjacentlandpermit,incontrasttothe2007Guidelineswhichrequiretwoaccessroadsbeprovidedonathree‐trackmainlineROW.Railroads,generally,areplacingmoreemphasisonbuildingaccessroadsintheirROW,andwider(20feetvs.15feet)spacingbetweentracks,toenhancesafetyandproductivityofmaintenance‐of‐way(MOW)employeeswhileworkingonatrackthatisadjacenttooneormoretracksonwhichtrainsareoperating.ThewidertrackspacingandavailabilityofaccessroadsincreasestheamountofareainwhichMOWemployeescanstandclearofatrainmovingonanadjacenttrack.Theavailabilityofsuch‘standclear’spacealsoreducestraindelaysassociatedwithMOWworkbeingperformedonatrackthatisadjacenttooneormoreactivetracks.Withtheabovebackgroundinmind,atypicalsectionwascreatedillustratingdesignssupportingatriple‐trackfreightrailoperationwithintheexisting100‐footROWofOptions1and2.ThistypicalsectionisshowninAppendixA.Thedevelopmentofthissectionconfirmedthattheexisting100‐footROWissufficienttoaccommodatetriple‐trackfreightrailoperations.Option3allowsamuchwider,150‐foot,ROWtomorecloselyadheretoUPandBNSFguidelinesregardingnewrailroadconstruction,becausethegreenfieldsegmentrepresentsoversixtypercentofthisoption’stotallength(31outof48miles).Thepotentialofafuturedouble‐tracklightrailorcommuterraillinealongOption3alsowasreflectedinthetypicalsectionbyanadditional80‐footROWwidthreservedtomeetthosepotentialfutureneeds.These80feetofadditionalROWisnotreflectedinthisStudy’sanalysisofbenefits,costsandimpactsbecauseitwouldnotbepartoftheprospectivefreightoperationsontheBypass.Typicalsectionsofthe150‐footand230‐footwideROWgreenfieldportionsoftheOptionsalsoareshowninAppendixA.GreenfieldCorridorWidth:Inthepreparationofacorridorstudyoftransportationfacilitieswhichinvolvespotentialgreenfieldcorridorsegments,inadditiontoexistingrailroadcorridors,itisnecessarytoalignthelevelofaccuracyanddetailofthestudywiththewidthofthegreenfieldcorridorsegments.Inthecaseofthisstudy,thegreenfieldcorridorwidthwassetsuchthat,whenmoredetailedstudiesareperformed,thegreenfieldcorridorallowsprojectplannerstodevelopreasonableanddistinctalignmentswithinthecorridor,whilestillprovidingflexibilitytoavoidadverseimpacts.Itisnottheintentofthisstudytoprovidethelevelofdetailinherentinchoosinganalignmentofthegreenfieldportionoftheproject.Theintentatthistimeistoprovideacorridoranalysisthatsetsthebasisofmoredetailedanalysesinthefuture.Forpurposesofestimatingthenumberofimpactsuponconstraintsinthisstudy,agreenfieldcorridorwidthof2,500feetwasassumed.Thisallowsalignmentstobesetwithinthecorridorthatavoidorminimizelocalconstraintswhilestilladheringtostandardrailroadconstructiondesigncriteria.


FINAL REPORT


Theintentofthecorridordevelopmentprocesswastoapplytheassumptionsdescribedtheprevioussection,describethreefreightrailcorridoroptionsanddescribetheimpactsandconstraintsassociatedwitheachoption.ThewesternsectionsofthethreeBypasscorridorsaretoconformtothefollowinggeneralconditions:Option1onexistingBNSFGalvestonSubdivisionright‐of‐way(ROW),Option2composedofexistingBNSFGalvestonSubdivisionROWplusagreenfieldcorridorandOption3composedentirelyofgreenfieldcorridor.AllthreeoptionsmeetinArcolaandcontinuenorthontheexistingUPROWoftheUPPoppSubdivision,whichformstheeasternsectionofallthreeBypassoptions.Inthisprocess,majorconstraintswereidentified,suchasGeorgeRanchHistoricPark,majorsubdivisionsandBrazosBendStatePark.Initialcorridorsweredevelopedthathadminimalornoimpactsonthemajorconstraints.TheseinitialcorridorswerepresentedtotheprojectAdvisoryCommitteeonMay02,2014.TheAdvisoryCommitteewascomprisedofpublicstakeholderswhosejurisdictionsmaybeimpactedbytheimplementationoftheproject.Atthecommitteemeeting,theprojectteamsolicitedcommentsfromthememberswhichwerethenemployedtorefinetheBypassoptions.Finally,theBypassoptionswereanalyzedusinganimpactmatrixtodepictthecomparativeimpactsofthethreeBypassoptions.CorridorLocation:Thefollowinginformationdetailstheiterationsinvolvedinreachingthefinal,proposedcorridorlocations,includingthedecisionsmadeandthereasoningbehindthem.Thecorridorsweredevelopedusingthedesigncriteriadescribedabove,combinedwithconsiderationsregardingoperationalchallenges,futuremaintenanceandadvisorycommitteememberinput.Thecorridordevelopmentprocessassociatedwitheachoptionisdescribedbelow.Option1–BNSFGalvestonAlignment:TheOption1corridorbeginsonthewestsideofRosenbergontheBNSFGalvestonSubdivisionandcontinuesthroughthecityofRosenberg.NorthofRosenberg,thecorridorcurvessoutheastfollowingtheexistingBNSFROWandrunsparalleltoFM762andFM2759towardsThompsons.SeeFigure2below.

June 30, 2015 Page 10

FINAL REPORT


Figure2:Option1ThecorridorpassesthroughtheCityofThompsons,whereitconvergeswithanexistingtrackprovidingservicetotheCenterPointW.A.ParishElectricGeneratingStation(ParishGeneratingStation)andcontinuesinaneast‐westdirectionthroughSiennaPlantationtowardsArcolaontheexistingBNSFROW.BetweenThompsonsandArcola,araillinelaysparalleltoandsouthofBNSF’sGalvestonSubdivisionandappearstobetheprimaryrailaccesstotheParishGeneratingStation.ThisROWisownedbytheadjacentlandowners;howeverUnionPacificRailroad(UP)hasaneasementagreementthroughthissection.WithintheeastendofSiennaPlantation,theBNSFROWisonly50feetwideoveradistanceofonemile,sothestudyteamassumedthattheadjacentUPROWcouldbeusedinthisareatotheextentthatlandisneededtomaintaina100‐footwideROWcapableofaccommodatingathree‐track,freightmainline.ThecorridorthencontinuesnorthontheexistingUPPoppSubdivision,runningparalleltoFM521,toPierceJunction.SeeFigure3below.

Figure3:Option1

June 30, 2015 Page 11

FINAL REPORT


SincethisalignmentfollowstheexistingBNSFandUPROW,noconsiderationwasgiventoadjustingthepathofthecorridor.TheeffectontheenvironmentwillbeminimalsincetheintentofOption1istoutilizetheexistingrailROWtosupportfutureexpansion.ItistheshortestBypassOptionwithanoveralllength,fromthewestsideofRosenbergtoPierceJunction,of37miles.Thecomplicationsofthiscorridorlieintheconversionofallexistingat‐gradecrossingstobecomeroadwaygradeseparatedoverpassesoreliminatedaltogether.Duetodiversionof30trainsperdayfromtheUPGliddenSub,anincreasednumberoftrainswillbegoingthroughSiennaPlantation–from15trainsperdayto45trainsperdayimmediatelyandupto86trainsperdaywithinthenext25years.Also,withtheexpansionofanexistingsinglefreighttracktoatriple‐trackfacility,theexistingindustrialtrackeastofThompsonsprovidingservicetotheParishElectricGeneratingStationwillbeimpacted,resultinginadditionalbridgesbeingconstructed.

June 30, 2015 Page 12

FINAL REPORT


Option2–BNSFGalvestonplusGreenfieldCorridor: TheOption2corridor,aswithOption1,beginsonthewestsideofRosenbergontheBNSFGalvestonSubandcontinuesthroughthecityofRosenberg.ThewesternsectionofthisalignmentfollowsthesamecourseasOption1untiljusteastoftheCityofThompsons.IntheoriginalcorridordevelopmentofOption2,thecorridorpassedthroughtheCityofThompsonsonanorthwest‐southeastcourseandshowedpotentialimpactsto42structuresinthedevelopedareaofThompsonsinthesouthwestquadrantoftheFM2759/OilfieldRoadintersection.ThisoptionwaspresentedattheAdvisoryCommitteemeetingonMay2,2014.SeeFigure4below.

Figure4:Option2May2,2014

June 30, 2015 Page 13

FINAL REPORT


InputwasreceivedfromtheCityofThompsonsthattheOption2corridorwasnotacceptableduetotheimpactsmentionedabove.Inresponse,thestudyteamrevisedOption2toanorth‐southcoursewestofthedevelopedareaofThompsons.Thisrevisionreducedthepotentiallyimpactedstructurestothree.ThisrevisedOption2corridorcontinuesalongthenorth‐southtrackuntilitturnsapproximately90degreestomeetthetangentsetbythesouthernboundaryofSiennaPlantation.Thiseast‐westtrackbisectedtheactiveareaoftheThompson’sOilFieldandshowedsignificantpotentialimpactstowellheadsthatappearedtobeactive.ThiswaspresentedtoMayorNewsomeattheCityofThompsonsofficeonMay19,2014.SeeFigure5below.

Figure5:Option2May19,2014AfurtherrefinementofOption2haditstartonthenorth‐southcoursewestoftheCityofThompsonsthenturnonanorthwest–southeastcoursesouthoftheBNSFindustrialspurtotheParishElectricGeneratingStation.Thisnorthwest‐southeastcoursecontinuedtojusteastoftheBrazosRivercrossing,whereOption2thenturnstoalignwiththesouthernboundaryofSiennaPlantation.TheresultofthischangetoOption2wasthereductionofpotentialimpactstowellheadswithintheThompson’sOilfieldarea.ThemostcurrentdepictionofOption2ispresentedbelowinFigure6.AfterthiscurrentOption2corridorwaspresentedtoMayorNewsome,herepliedwithaletterendorsingOption3andcontinuingtoopposeOptions1and2duetoperceivedimpactstotheCityofThompsons.

June 30, 2015 Page 14

FINAL REPORT


AconnectiontotheexistingBNSFindustrialspurwasaddedjustsouthofThompsonsandeastoftheOilFieldwiththeintentionofcoaltrainsusingtheOption2corridortoaccesstheElectricGeneratingStation.TherearecurrentlynoindustrialcustomersbeingservedbyBNSFintheareabetweenThompsonsandArcola.SeethecurrentOption2corridorinFigure6below.

Figure6:CurrentOption2TheportionsofOption2thatfollowexistingROWwillgenerateminimalenvironmentalimpactsinthoseareassincetheOptionwillutilizetheexistingrailROWtosupportfutureexpansion.ItalsoeliminatestrainoperationsthroughSiennaPlantation,from15trainsperdaytonone.ThetotallengthofOption2,fromthewestsideofRosenbergtoPierceJunction,is42miles,fivemileslongerthanOption1.Option2doeshavepotentialimpactsontheThompsonsOilfield.Also,18milesofthecorridorarelocatedwithinthefloodplain/floodwayandwillrequireanewbridgecrossingtheBrazosRiver.

June 30, 2015 Page 15

FINAL REPORT


Option3–Rosenberg–ArcolaGreenfieldCorridor:ThewesternsectionofthiscorridorwillbeentirelygreenfieldconstructionstartingwiththeBNSFGalvestonSubinthevicinityofPattonRoad,westofRosenberg,continuingsouthtoconnectwiththeUPGliddenSubdivisionandfurthersouthtoconnectwiththeKCSmainline.AllthreeexistingfreightraillineswillconnecttoOption3inawaywhichenablesefficient“progressive”movestoandfromthewestandnorth.AftercrossingUS‐59,thecorridorfollowspropertylinesinasoutheast‐northwestdirectionthroughcentralFortBendCounty.IntheoriginalcorridordevelopmentofOption3,thecorridorcontinuedthisdirectionandturnedtoaneast‐westdirectiontowardstheexistingUPPoppSubjustsouthofArcola.Atthislocation,Option3showedpotentialimpactsto806structuresandimpactstoagreateramountoffloodplain/floodway.SeeFigure7belowdepictingtheinitialOption3corridor.

Figure7:InitialOption3CorridorLocationFollowingcoordinationwithDistrictstaff,thisoptionwasrefinedtorunparalleltotheGeorgeFoundationproperty,outlinedinredonFigure7,beforeturninginaneast‐westdirectiontowardstheexistingUPPoppSubjustsouthofArcola.TheresultofthischangetoOption3wastoreducepotentialimpactstostructuresandalowerconstructioncostduetolessfloodplain/floodwayintersections.SeeFigure8belowdepictingthemostcurrentconceptofOption3.

June 30, 2015 Page 16

FINAL REPORT


Figure8:CurrentOption3AlsoshowninFigure8isaconnectiontotheParishElectricGeneratingStationaddedjustsouthofBrazosLakeshousingsubdivisionandwestoftheWorthingtonConservationAreausinganabandonedrailroadROWcorridor.ThisallowstheOption3corridortoaccesstheElectricGeneratingStation.TheexistingBNSFspurbetweentheParishGeneratingStationandtheBNSFGalvestonSubwouldberetainedsoBNSFcouldcontinuetoserveitsexistingcustomersbetweenThompsonsandRosenberg.AsinOption2,trainoperationsbetweenThompsonsandArcola,throughSiennaPlantation,wouldbeeliminated.Therearecurrentlynorail‐servedclientsbeingservedbyBNSFbetweenThompsonsandArcola.TheOption3corridorcontinuesonaneast‐westcourse,southoftheThompsonsOilfieldandnorthoftheTexasDepartmentofCriminalJusticeDarringtonUnittoconnecttotheformerUPPoppSubROWsouthofArcolaandcontinuesnorthtoPierceJunction,runningparalleltoFM521.Thisgreenfieldcorridoroffersflexibilitytoavoidadverseimpactstoenvironmental,historicalandotherconstrains.ItalsogreatlyreducesthenumberoftrainsthroughRosenbergby45trainsperdayandeliminatesthe15trainsperdayoperatingthroughRichmond,ThompsonsandSiennaPlantation.ThetotallengthofOption3,fromwestofRosenbergtoPierceJunction,is50miles,thirteenmileslongerthanOption1andfivemileslongerthanOption2.Eighteenmilesofthe

June 30, 2015 Page 17

FINAL REPORT


corridorarelocatedwithinthefloodplain/floodwayandwillrequireanewbridgecrossingtheBrazosRiver.CorridorImpacts:AlistofcommonfeatureswasusedtocomparethethreeprospectiveBypassCorridorsbasedontheindividualROWfootprintdetailedabove.AllofthefollowingfeaturescanbelocatedontheaerialmapwiththeCorridorLocationswhichwaspresentedpreviously(FigureES‐2:FortBendFreightRailBypassCorridorOptions).

LengthofGreenfieldROW:Isthemeasurementofthelengthsoftrackalongagreenfieldsegment;

LengthofExistingROW:IsthemeasurementofthelengthsoftrackalonganexistingrailroadROW;

LengthofBridges:Isthelengthofbridgestructuresnecessarytocrossstreamsandrivers;

ROWNeeded:IstheamountoflandacquisitionrequiredintheconstructionofeachBypassCorridor;

RoadwayGradeSeparations:Reflectsthenumberandtypesofroadwaycross‐streetswhereexistingat‐gradecrossingswillrequirereconstructionintoroadwaygradeseparatedoverpassesandexistingroadwaygradeseparatedoverpassesthatdonotcurrentlyaccommodateatriple‐trackROWwhicharedescribedinmoredetailinsection3ofthistechnicalmemorandum;

RailroadBridges:Reflectsthenumberofrailroadbridgesoverexistingcross‐streetsthatwillrequirereconstructionduetoatriple‐trackdesign;

TotalConstructionCost:ReflectsthetotalestimatedexpenseofeachBypassoptionincludingROWacquisitionandrailroadconstructioncosts;

Cemeteries; Churches; HistoricLocations; Structures:ThenumberofbuildingaffectedbyeachBypassoptionincluding

businesses,homes,barns,etc.; Hospitals; Schools; Airports; Parks; GeorgeFoundationProperty:AlargeportionoflandinFortBendCountyisowned

bytheGeorgeFoundation–aprivatetrustoftheGeorgeFamily; ThompsonsOilfieldacreage; GeorgeRanchHistoricPark; TexasDepartmentofCriminalJustice‐Darrington:Aprisonlocatedjustsouthofthe

PlannedGrandParkway,SH99,alignment; WorthingtonConservationArea; Floodway:Reflectstheacreageofexistingriverorstreamchannelsthatwouldbe

impactedbyeachBypassoption;

June 30, 2015 Page 18

FINAL REPORT


Floodplain:Reflectstheacreageofareasadjoiningariverorstreamcoveredbya100‐yearfloodthatwouldbeimpactedbyeachBypassoptionand

Wetlands:Reflectstheacreageofmarshes,swampsandothertypesofsaturatedlandthatwouldbeimpactedbyeachBypassoption.

AnimpactwascountedwhenanyoftheabovefeaturesfellwithintheproposedROWfootprintforeachBypassoption.ThevariancebetweeneachBypassoptionillustrateseitherapositiveornegativeimpactoftheproposedROWfootprint.SincethegreenfieldportionsofOption2and3weredesignedtotheprecisionofamuchlargercorridorversusamoredetailedROWfootprint,thenumberofimpactsalongthesegreenfieldsegmentswereestimatedbyapplyingaratioofROWwidthtoCorridorwidth,tothetotalnumberofimpactswithinthe2,500‐footCorridorwidthundereachfeature.Forexample,inOption3thefreightrailROWwidthwillbe150feet.TheOption3corridorwidthis2,500feet.ThustodeterminethenumberofROWimpactsexpectedunderOption3,thenumberofcorridorimpactsundereachfeatureweremultipliedbytheratioof150to2,500,or6%.Thesepotentialimpactsmaybeabletobeavoidedwhenaspecificalignmentisidentifiedwithintheproposedcorridor.Nocemeteries,churches,hospitals,schools,airports,historiclocationsorparkswereimpactedbyanyBypassoption.ThreestructuresarepotentiallyimpactedbyOption2and21and11structuresarepotentiallyimpactedbyOption3freightandfuturecommuterrailrespectively.ThestructurespotentiallyimpactedbyOptions2and3rangefromuninhabitedbarnsandgaragestohomesandbusinessesandarelocatedpredominantlywithinunincorporatedFortBendCounty,PrecinctOne.Option2potentiallyimpactsonestructurewithinthecityofThompsons.Option3potentiallyimpacts2,5and2structureswithinthecitiesofPleak,FairchildsandRosenbergrespectively.ThecompleteImpactMatrixispresentedbelowinTable2.

June 30, 2015 Page 19

FINAL REPORT


Table2

BypassCorridorOptions:ImpactMatrix

Thisim

ageisaplaceholder.A


bly.

EAST

ERN

SEC

TIO

N

FREI

GHT

COM

MU

TER

LEN

GTH

ON

GRE

ENFI

ELD

ROW

11 M

ILES

1 M

ILE

8 M

ILES

LEN

GTH

ON

EXI

STIN

G RO

W13

MIL

ES24

MIL

ES18

MIL

ES

TOTA

L LE

NGT

H37

MIL

ES42

MIL

ES1

MIL

E8

MIL

ES

LEN

GTH

OF

BRID

GES

1 M

ILE

2 M

ILES

2 M

ILES

ROW

NEE

DED

20 A

CRES

140

ACRE

S20

ACR

ES59

0 AC

RES

320

ACRE

S16

0 AC

RES

ROAD

WAY

GRA

DE S

EPAR

ATIO

N19

1322

RAIL

ROAD

BRI

DGES

22

CEM

ETER

Y

CHUR

CH

HIS

TORI

C LO

CATI

ONS

STRU

CTUR

ES3

2111

HOS

PITA

L

SCH

OOL

AIRP

ORT

PARK

GEOR

GE F

OUN

DATI

ON P

ROPE

RTY

1 AC

RE1

ACRE

50 A

CRES

30 A

CRES

20 A

CRES

THOM

PSON

S OI

LFIE

LD10

ACR

ES60

ACR

ES30

ACR

ES20

ACR

ES

GEOR

GE R

ANCH

HIS

TORI

C PA

RK

TEXA

S DE

PART

MEN

T OF

CRI

MIN

AL JU

STIC

E - D

ARRI

NGT

ON

WOR

THIN

GTON

CON

SERV

ATIO

N A

REA

2 AC

RES

1 AC

RES

40 A

CRES

FLOO

DPLA

IN2

ACRE

S70

ACR

ES20

0 AC

RES

20 A

CRES

300

ACRE

S20

0 AC

RES

20 A

CRES

FLOO

DWAY

1 AC

RE20

ACR

ES70

ACR

ES40

ACR

ES20

ACR

ES

WET

LAN

DS4

ACRE

S10

0 AC

RES

2 AC

RES

80 A

CRES

40 A

CRES

20 A

CRES

LAN

D AC

QUIS

ITIO

N C

OST

$0$1

0,00

0$3

,190

,000

$460

,000

$17,

300,

000

$9,4

00,0

00$2

,260

,000

ROAD

WAY

GRA

DE S

EPAR

ATIO

N C

OST

$235

,000

,000

$114

,000

,000

$181

,000

,000

$0$1

60,0

00,0

00$0

RAIL

ROAD

CON

STRU

CTIO

N C

OST

$116

,000

,000

$439

,000

,000

$723

,000

,000

$15,

200,

000

$1,1

73,0

00,0

00$2

5,40

0,00

0

TOTA

L CO

ST$3

51,0

00,0

00$5

54,0

00,0

00$9

08,0

00,0

00$1

6,00

0,00

0$1

,351

,000

,000

$9,4

00,0

00$2

8,00

0,00

0

CON

STRU

CTIO

N C

OST

5 M

ILES

32 M

ILES

226

2 M

ILES

50 M

ILES

WES

TERN

SEC

TIO

NIM

PACT

MAT

RIX

FORT

BEN

D R

AIL

BYPA

SS C

ORR

IDO

R O

PTIO

NS

GULF

CO

AST

RAIL

DIS

TRIC

T

3 PO

WER

PLA

NT

SPU

R2

POW

ER P

LAN

T SP

UR

21

COM

MO

N

UP-

POPP

SU

BO

PTIO

N3

June 30, 2015 Page 20

FINAL REPORT


Thisprojectalsomitigatedanypotentialenvironmentalissuesthatmightariseduetothisproject.Thefollowingpotentialenvironmentalissueswereanalyzed:

BrazosBendStateParkandtheGeorgeObservatory BottomlandHardwoodForest BaldEagleNests CrossingtheBrazosRiver WorthingtonConservationArea

TheBrazosBendStateParkispartofthestateparksystemownedandmanagedbytheTexasParksandWildlifeDepartment(TPWD).TheGeorgeObservatorylieswithintheparkandbenefitsfromthearea’sdarknightskiesandproximitytoHouston.Ithousesoneofthelargesttelescopesconsistentlyavailableforpublicviewinginthenation.DuringthedesignofGrandParkway,SegmentC,thelocationofthedesignwasapprovedbytheBrazosBendStateParktobewithinacceptablerangeastonotaffecttheobservatory.TheproposedOption3CorridorrunsparalleltoGrandParkway,SegmentC,onthenorthside,andtherefore,shouldnotaffecttheobservatory,whichissouthoftheproposedGrandParkway.SimilarissueswiththebottomlandhardwoodforestandtheeaglenestsaroseasaresultoftheGrandParkway,SegmentC,routestudies.SincetheproposedOption3CorridorisdesignedtorunincloseproximitytotheproposedGrandParkway,SegmentC,theOption3Corridoralsoavoidsimpactingthebottomlandhardwoodforestandtheeaglenests.TheBrazosRiverispartoftheFederallyProtectedWatersoftheU.S.andusuallyinvolvesenvironmentalclearanceifanyportionoftheconstructioniswithinthehigh‐water‐mark.InthedesignofbothOptions2and3,thiswastakenintoconsiderationandtheproposedCorridorlocationcrossestheBrazosRiverinthemosteconomicalandleastdisruptivelocationswheretheriveralignmentisstraightandnarrow.TheWorthingtonConservationAreaisaprivatelyownedtractoflandwherethelandownershavenegotiatedaconservationeasementwiththeU.S.FishandWildlifeService(USFWS)whichrestrictsdevelopmentoftheproperty.TheproposedOption3CorridorprimarilyfollowsanabandonedrailroadROWandisdesignedtobeasminimallyinvasivetotheexistingconservationareaaspossible.Atotalof43acresarepotentiallyimpacted,themajorityofwhichareabandonedrailroadROW.Roadway–RailroadGradeCrossings(GradeCrossings);89gradecrossingsexistontherailroadlinesthatarethesubjectsofthisStudyandwouldbeimpactedbyconstructionoftheBypass.Thedifferentphysicalimpactsaremosteasilyunderstoodbygroupingthemunderthecurrentraillines:

UPGliddenSubdivision:41gradecrossingswouldremainopen,withsignificantlyreducedtrainvolumeand

BNSFGalvestonandUPPoppSubdivisions:48gradecrossings(18and30,respectively)wouldbecomegrade‐separatedorclosed,becausetheBypass

June 30, 2015 Page 21

FINAL REPORT


wouldbeasealedcorridor(havingnogradecrossings).ThisStudymadenodeterminationorrecommendationregardinggrade‐separatingorclosingspecificgradecrossings.Suchdeterminationswouldrequireextensivepublicoutreachandfurtherengineeringinasubsequentstudy.

Theestimatednumberofgrade‐separationsrequiredundereachBypassoption(seeTable2above),includesthosewhichwouldoccurontheBNSFGalvestonandUPPoppSubdivisionsandthosewhichwouldoccuralongthegreenfieldsegmentsofBypassOptions2and3.Theestimatesarebaseduponacountofexistinggradecrossingsandgreenfieldroads,whichweresegmentedbyprojections(year2040)ofaverageannualdailytraffic(AADT)volumesandwereadjustedupwardtoaccommodatefuturedevelopmentandbyallowancestoensureappropriatelevelsofaccessforfirstrespondersandemergencypersonnel.

TheestimatednumberofgradeseparationsprovidesthecountsuponwhichgradeseparationconstructioncostswereestimatedundereachBypassoption.Additionally,eachofthethreedifferentphysicalimpacts(remainopen,grade‐separatedorclosed)wouldinturn,changeroadwaytrafficoperations,whichwould,inturn,generateadifferentcombinationofmonetizedbenefitsandcostsandnon‐monetizedimpacts.Thesebenefits,costsandimpacts,inadditiontothegradeseparationcosts,arepresentedandexplainedinSection3,Benefit–CostAnalysisandImpactAssessment,ofthisStudy.CurrentandProjectedTrainVolumesInadditiontothechangesinrailroadandroadwayinfrastructurewhichwouldariseinbuildingtheBypass,mostorallofthefreighttrainswhichcurrentlyoperateontheUPGlidden,BNSFGalvestonandUPPoppSubdivision(BaseCase)wouldmovetotheBypass.Current(2014)traincountsontheaboveraillineswerecollectedfromtheSugarLandTrainMonitor9(UPGliddenSubdivision)andgatearmactivationstudies(BNSFGalvestonSubdivisionandUPPoppSubdivision)10.Historical(2006)traincountswerecollectedfromtheHoustonRegionFreightStudy.Thedifferencebetweenthe2006and2014traincountsenabledcalculationofaneight‐yearcompoundannualgrowthrate(henceforth“growthrate”),whichisoneofeightlong‐termgrowthrates11thatweregatheredand/orcalculatedinthisStudy.Thesegrowthratesinformedselectionofthe2.53percentlong‐termcompoundannualgrowthratethatwasusedintheprojectionoftraincountsin2040.CurrentandprojectedtraincountsundertheBaseCasearepresentedbelowinTable3.

9 Sugar Land Train Monitor, Houston TranStar, March – April 2014. 10 Gate arm activation counts in Rosenberg and Fresno, March 22 – 28, 2014. 11 Appendix B, Long‐Term Train Count Growth Rates, presents the eight long‐term growth rates and a description of the process by which the 2.53 percent growth rate was selected.

June 30, 2015 Page 22

FINAL REPORT


Table3CurrentandProjectedTrainVolumes:BaseCase

TwokeyissuesarisewhenProjected(2040)trainvolumesarecomparedwiththepracticalcapacitiesoftheraillines:

1. TheProjected(2040)trainvolumeontheUPGliddenSubdivision,68trainsperday,leavesinsufficientcapacitytoaccommodatecommuterrailserviceontheUS‐90ACorridorwhencomparedwiththisline’spracticalcapacityof75trainsperday.Thecommuterrailserviceisprojectedtorequire16trainsperday.

2. UPandBNSFcouldbeginexperiencingcapacityconstraintontheGliddenandGalvestonSubdivisions,respectively,as2040approaches.TheProjected(2040)trainvolumesfallwell‐within90percentofthelines’practicalcapacities.

Whenthecurrent(2014)andprojected(2040)trainvolumesarere‐allocatedtoreflecttrainoperationsafterimplementationoftheBypass,thevolumesaredistributedamongtheraillinesasillustratedbelowinTable4.

Base Case (Average Trains per Day)

Railroad Lines Train TypeCurrent (2014)

Projected (2040)

Practical Capacity of Main Line Railroad, Assuming Multiple

Train TypesUP ‐ Glidden Sub Freight 35.3 67.5

Amtrak 0.9 0.9Commuter 0.0 0.0

Total UP ‐ Glidden Sub 36.2 68.4 75.0

BNSF ‐ Galveston Sub Freight 14.6 28.1 30.0

UP ‐ Popp Sub Freight 0.9 2.0 ‐‐‐‐‐

June 30, 2015 Page 23

FINAL REPORT


Table4CurrentandProjectedTrainVolumes:BypassCase

Twokeyresultswerenoted:1. WiththediversionofmostofthefreighttrainsfromtheUPGliddenSubdivisionto

theBypass,plentyofcapacitywouldremainandcouldaccommodatetheprojected16commutertrainsperdayintheUS‐90ACorridor.

2. TrainvolumeontheWesternSectionoftheBypass(Rosenberg–Arcola)would

exceedthepracticalcapacity(75trainsperday)ofthelinein2035–wellbefore2040.Consequently,thethirdmaintrackwouldneedtobeconstructedandoperationalbefore2035.SincethatconstructionwouldoccursignificantlybeyondimplementationoftheBypassandwellintothefuture,thecostsofthatconstructionarenotincludedinthisStudy’sbenefit–costanalysisinSection3.

ImpactUponRailroadOperationsImplementationoftheBypassassumesimplementationofon‐goingandprospectivecongestionreductionandcapacityimprovementprojectswithintheGreaterHoustonrail

Bypass Case (Average Trains per Day)Practical Capacity of Main Line Railroad, Assuming Multiple

Train Types

Railroad Lines Train TypeCurrent (2014)

Projected (2040)

2 Tracks, CTC

3 Tracks, CTC

UP ‐ Glidden Sub Freight 5.2 10.1Amtrak 0.9 0.9Commuter 0.0 16.0

Total: UP ‐ Glidden Sub 6.1 27.0 75.0 133.0

Bypass ‐ Eastern Section (Arcola ‐ Pierce Junction)

Freight from UP ‐ Glidden Sub

30.1 57.4

Freight from UP ‐ Popp Sub

0.9 2.0

Total: Bypass ‐ Eastern Section 31.0 59.4 75.0 133.0

Bypass ‐ Western Section (Rosenberg ‐ Arcola)

Freight from UP ‐ Glidden Sub

30.1 57.4

Freight from BNSF ‐ Galveston Sub

14.6 28.1

Total: Bypass ‐ Western Section 44.7 85.5 75.0 133.0

June 30, 2015 Page 24

FINAL REPORT


terminal,suchasthosetestedandrecommendedintheHoustonRegionFreightStudy.12RailroadscontinuallyevaluatetheirnetworksandresultingexpectedchangesintrafficflowsandtrainoperationsmightsuggestchangesbemadetoprospectiveHoustonrailterminalimprovementsandnewimprovementsbeconsidered.UP’splannedconstructionofanewclassificationyardnearHearne,TXisoneexampleofchangestorailroadoperationswhichlikelywillimpactrailfreightoperationswithinHouston,andwhichmightimpactassumptionsaboutrunningspeedsandcapacityontheBypass.ConstructionofthenewBypassandtheresultingchangesintrainsoperations,asdiscussedabove,aremanifestedincommunityimpactsandrailroadimpacts.ThecommunityimpactsweredetailedintheTable2ImpactMatrix.RailroadoperatingimpactsareillustratedinthefollowingTable5andthendiscussed.

Table5RailroadOperatingImpactMatrix

TheanalysesofRunningDistanceandRunTimearebrokenintotwodistinctgroupsoftrainsbecauseeachgroupwouldexperiencedifferentimpactswhenoperatingviatheBypass:1)trainswhichcurrentlyoperateviatheUPGliddenSubdivisionand2)trainswhichcurrentlyoperateviatheBNSFGalvestonSubdivision.AsbecameobviouswhenreviewingthemapoftheBypassoptionsatES‐2andasillustratedaboveinTable5,theRunningDistanceswhichtherailroadswouldexperienceviatheBypasswouldbebetweenfiveand12mileslongerinnearlyeveryinstance.TheoneexceptionarisesunderOption1,becausetheBNSFtrainswhichcurrentlyoperateonBNSF’sownGalvestonSubdivisionwouldcontinuetooperateoverthatsamelinebecauseitwouldbecomepartoftheBypassunderOption1.TheRunningDistancecomparisonsbetweentheBypassoptionsandtheBaseCasearebasedupondistancesthatareslightlydifferentfromthosedepictedinFigure8,becausetheRunningDistancesaremeasuredbetweentwocommonendpointssotheyarecomparable.ForthetrainswhichcurrentlyoperateviatheUPGliddenSubdivision,thewestendisthepointatwhichtheUPlinecrossesPattonRoad,aboutfivemileswestofRosenberg,andtheeastendisPierce 12 “Houston Region Freight Study, Planning Cases 1 and 2,” Texas Department of Transportation, 2007, pp. 7‐10 to 7‐21.

Bypass OptionsImpact 1 2 3

Running Distance vs. Base Case (Miles): Trains from UP Glidden Subdivision 7 12 12 Trains from BNSF Galveston Subdivision 0 5 5

Run Time vs. Base Case (Minutes): Trains from UP Glidden Subdivision ‐8 ‐1 ‐3 Trains from BNSF Galveston Subdivision ‐13 ‐6 ‐8

June 30, 2015 Page 25

FINAL REPORT


Junction,inHouston.ForthetrainswhichcurrentlyoperateviatheBNSFGalvestonSubdivision,thewestendisthesameandtheeastendisArcola.FasterRunTimes,betweenoneandthirteenminutes,areprojectedfortrainsontheBypassinTable5,despitethelongerRunningDistances,becauseitwasassumedthattrainsoperatingviatheBypasswouldoperateathigheraveragespeeds(40.9mph–42.3mph)thanthosespeedsatwhichtrainscurrentlyoperateontheUPGlidden(30.2mph13)andBNSFGalveston(31.2mph)Subdivisions.Thedistancevalues,timevaluesandcalculationswhichproducetheRunningDistanceandRunTimecomparisonsarepresentedinAppendixC,areproductionfromTechnicalMemorandum1ofRailTable4ImpactUponRailroadOperationsPerformance:ThreeBypassOptionsvs.BaseCase.

13 The average speed on the UP Glidden Subdivision (30.2 mph) that is used in the Run Time comparisons reflects a modest upward adjustment that was made to the actual average train speed (29.0 mph) as calculated from Sugar Land Train Monitor data. This adjustment, 4.17 percent, was made to reflect the improvement in average train speed which would be realized on the UP Glidden Subdivision as a result of hypothetical implementation of the ten capacity and congestion improvements tested in Houston Region Freight Study, Planning Case 2.

June 30, 2015 Page 26

FINAL REPORT


Section3:ImpactsoftheThreeBypassOptions:Benefit–CostAnalysisandImpactAssessmentThisfeasibilityanalysishasidentifiedpotentialpublicandprivatesectorbenefitswhichcouldarisefromtheimplementationofeachofthreepotentialBypasscorridors,sothissectionisorganizedinthreemajorsub‐sections:

Approach; PublicSectorand PrivateRailroadSector.

Underthelattertwosub‐sections,thecosts,benefitsandnon‐monetizedimpactsidentifiedinthisStudyareillustratedandanalyzed.Keytake‐awaysarisingfromtheseanalysesarethenpresentedinthefinalsectionofthisreport,Section4:Conclusions.ApproachTheinfrastructureandoperationalchangeswhichwouldresultfromimplementationofeachoftheBypassoptions,ascomparedwiththeBaseCase(current(2014)railroadandroadwayoperations)wereconvertedintomonetizedbenefitsandcosts,wherepossible,orwererecognizedasnon‐monetizedimpacts.Changeswereassessedintheareasof:

Monetizedbenefitsandcosts:o Capitalexpendituresavoidedinrelatedprospectiveprojects;o Gradecrossingtraveldelayreduction;o Fuelconsumptionreductionforautomobiles;o Reductioninthenumberofgradecrossingcollisions;o Reductioninairpollutionemissionsfromautomobilesando Freighttrain‐hoursandfreighttrain‐miles;

Non‐Monetizedimpacts:o Economicimpactsofcommercialandindustrialdevelopment;o Trainhornnoise(trainhornandairbornenoise)andvibrationando Trafficaccessandcirculation.

Allofthebenefits,costsandimpactsinthisanalysisapplytotheentirelengthofeachBypassoptionbetweenRosenberg/PattonRoadandPierceJunction(Houston).Wherequantifiable,thevaluesofthebenefitsandcostswereprojectedouttotheyear2040whichplacesthisStudyonaplanninghorizonwhichiscomparablewithothercontemporarytransportationplanningeffortsinGreaterHouston.Thislongplanninghorizonisalsoimportantwhenconsideringlong‐termrailroadandroadwaynetworkcapacitiesandthepotentialneedfortheirexpansion.Allrecurringandone‐timebenefitsandcostsofeachBypassoptionareexpressedin2014dollarsinthisStudy.Recurringbenefitandcoststreamswerecalculatedoverthe27‐yearperiodof2014–2040and2014wasassumedtobethefirstfullyearofoperation.Thesevalueswerethenbroughtbacktonetpresentvalue(NPV)in2014assumingathree

June 30, 2015 Page 27

FINAL REPORT


percentdiscountrate.LandacquisitionandconstructioncostswereassumedtooccuronetimeandtobecompletedonJanuary1,2014asasimplifyingassumption.ExpectedandpotentialimpactswerereviewedwithanAdvisoryCommitteecomprisedofelectedofficialsandtheirrepresentativesfromcommunitiesalongthecurrentfreightrailroadlinesandprospectiveBypasscorridors,planningstafffromFortBendCounty,TxDOTandtheHouston–GalvestonAreaCouncil.MeetingswereheldinAugustandDecember2014,atwhichfeedbackwascollectedandintegratedintotheimpactanalysis.AdjustmentstotheprospectiveBypassoptionsweremadeasappropriateandfeasible.TheDistrictofferedBNSFandUPopportunitiestoparticipateinthisStudyandtoprovideinput,andtheydeclined.PublicSectorThepublicsectorwouldleadfinancingandimplementationoftheFortBendFreightRailBypass,soitwouldcarrylargecostburdensandrealizelargebenefitsarisingfromtheproject.Thepubliccostsandbenefitsaresolargethattheyaretheprimarydriversofthepurelyquantitativeresults(benefit–costanalysis)ofthisStudy.Thepublicnon‐monetized(qualitative)impactsarereasonablysignificantpotentialbenefitsandcouldservetodifferentiatethethreeBypassoptions.Intheassessmentofpublicsectorbenefits,costsandnon‐monetizedimpacts,a“No‐Build”optionisalsoconsidered.TheNo‐BuildOptionreferstoabaselinesituationinwhichtheBypasswouldNOTbebuiltandcommuterrailserviceWOULDbeimplementedalongtheUS‐90ACorridoronanew,separateright‐of‐wayadjacenttotheUPGliddenSubdivision,insteadofonit.TheNo‐BuildOptionassumesfreighttrainswouldcontinuetooperateontheUPGliddenandtheBNSFGalvestonSubdivisions,crossingallroadwaysat‐gradeasincurrentoperatingconditions.TrainvolumeswouldgrowasprojectedinSection2.PublicMonetizedCosts:AsillustratedinTable6,totalpubliccostsincreasesignificantlywhenprogressingfromOption1,toOption2andthenOption3,becauseover95percentofeachoption’scostarecomposedoftheCapitalCostsofconstructingtheBypass.ThesizeoftheCapitalCostsineachoptionisdrivenbythe:

Overalllengthofeachoption(Option1isshortestandOption3islongest)and Portionofanoption’slengththatiscomprisedofgreenfieldconstruction(0milesin

Option1,11milesinOption2and31milesinOption3).

June 30, 2015 Page 28

FINAL REPORT


Table6PublicMonetizedCosts,2014‐2040($millionsin2014)

AbriefdescriptionofPublicCapitalCostsfollows.

RailroadInfrastructureConstructionCost:

Option 1 2 3Present Value $ 554.5M $854.2M $1,198.1M

Option 1 Relative Cost Ratio 1.00 1.54 2.16 RailroadInfrastructureConstructionCostisthelargestcapitalcostintheBypassproject.Itcoversallcomponentsneededtobuildimprovementsonexisting,operatingrailroadrights‐of‐way(ROWs),andtobuildcompletelynewrailroad,whererequired,onlandthatisnotcurrentlyusedforrailroadpurposes.Thelatterisreferredtoasgreenfieldconstruction.ConstructionofnewconnectionstopreserverailaccessbyBNSFandUPtotheW.A.ParishGeneratingStation,inThompsons,isincludedinOptions2and3.ExistingconnectionswillberetainedorslightlymodifiedinOption1.Railroadinfrastructureconstructioncostsalsoincludeinstallationofcommunicationsequipment,signalandPositiveTrainControl(PTC)equipment,drainagestructures,bridgestocarrytherailroadoverrivers,streams,wetlandsandflood‐plainsandaccessroad(s)ontheROWalongthetrack.RailroadinfrastructureconstructioncostsoneachBypassoptionweredevelopedusingunitcostsandquantitieson35‐plusconstructioncomponentsandfunctions.

ThelargestrailroadinfrastructurecostcomponentinallthreeBypassoptionsisbridgeconstructionwhichrepresents53percentofOption1railroadinfrastructurecosts,64percentofOption2and63percentofOption3.BypassOptions2and3incurmorebridgeworkcostthanOption1becausetheytraversesignificantlymoredistanceoverrivers,floodplains,floodwaysandwetlandsterritoriesthandoesOption1.Option3alsofeaturesbridgeworkatitswestendtocarrytheBypassovertheUPGliddenSubdivisionandtheKCSHouston–Mexicomainline.Thebridgeworkcostsincludethecostsofbuildingallbridgeworkneededtocarryafuturethirdmaintrackbecauseitwouldbecheaperto

Bypass Options

Cost Type Cost Item1 2 3

Capital Cost Railroad Infrastructure Construction 554.5$ 854.2$ 1,198.1$ Capital Cost Roadway Grade Separation Construction 347.0$ 378.0$ 369.0$ Capital Cost Land Acquisition ‐$ 3.7$ 19.6$ Sub‐Total: Public Capital Cost 901.5$ 1,235.9$ 1,586.7$

Non‐Capital Cost Travel Delay Costs for the Communities Impacted by Grade Crossing Closures

34.4$ 40.3$ 38.0$

Total Public Costs: 935.9$ 1,276.2$ 1,624.7$

June 30, 2015 Page 29

FINAL REPORT


buildthebridgesattheoutsetinsteadofwaitinguntiltrainvolumejustifiesinstallationofthethirdmaintrack.

RoadwayGradeSeparationConstructionCost:

Option 1 2 3

Present Value $ 347.0M $378.0M $369.0M Option 1 Relative Cost Ratio 1.00 1.09 1.06 RoadwayGradeSeparationConstructionCostisthesecondlargestcapitalcostintheBypassproject.Gradeseparationcostsareasignificantcomponentofcapitalcostsbecausethescopeofthisstudycallsforasealedfreightrailroadcorridor,whichmeanstherewouldbenogradecrossingsontheBypass.Asealedcorridorwouldbeachievedbygrade‐separatingorclosingallgradecrossingsontheportionsoftheBNSFGalvestonSubandUPPoppSubwhichwouldbecomecomponentsoftheBypass.ExistingandprospectivefutureroadwayswhichwouldintersectthegreenfieldsegmentsofBypassOptions2and3arepotentialgradecrossingsandhavebeenidentifiedascandidatesforgradeseparationorclosure.Aroadwaygrade‐separatedoverpassconsistsofreconstructingthecross‐streetwithretainingwalls,bridges,pavementandembankmentsinadditiontobuildingtheproposedrailroad.Becausetheroutesarestillconceptual,assumptionsweremadeastothetypesofrailroadgradeseparationsthatareproposedforpurposesofdevelopingcapitalcosts.Conceptualtypicalbridgesectionsbasedonpossiblecrossingsoftherouteoptionsweredeveloped.Toproduceplanninglevelcostestimates,TxDOT’sunitbidpricesofretainingwallsandTxDOT’saverageunitcostsofbridgesstructureswereutilized.Constructioncostswerereducedtoaunitcostpertypicalsection,whichwerethenappliedtoeachBypassOption.

LandAcquisitionCost:

Option 1 2 3

Present Value $ 0.002M $0.6M $3.3M Option 1 Relative Cost Ratio 1.00 300.00 1650.00 LandAcquisitionCostalmostentirelyreflectsthecostofacquiringlandonwhichgreenfieldsegmentsinBypassOptions2and3,includingconnectionstotheW.A.ParishGeneratingStation,wouldbebuilt.Option3required,inadditiontoestimationoflandcostofthethree‐trackfreightROW,theestimationofaseparatecostcoveringthepurchaseoflandwhichwouldaccommodatea2‐trackROWforaprospectivecommuterrail/lightrailcorridorwhichwouldlayadjacenttothefreightBypassROW.ThevaluesinthisanalysisonlyreflectthecostoflandforthefreightROW.WheretheBypasswoulduseexistingrailroad‐ownedROW,thelandvaluesweretreatedaszerocosttotheproject.

OnePublicMonetizedNon‐CapitalCostwasidentifiedduringtheStudyandabriefdescriptionofitfollows.Anotherwaytothinkofthenon‐capitalcostisasarecurringoperatingcost.

June 30, 2015 Page 30

FINAL REPORT


TravelDelayCostsfortheCommunitiesImpactedbyGradeCrossingClosures:

Option 1 2 3Present Value $34.4M $40.7M $38.0M

Option 1 Relative Cost Ratio 1.00 1.18 1.10 Thecombinationofclosingsomeexistingat‐gradecrossingswouldresultinaportionofthefuturevehicletripsfromsomecommunitiesalongtheBypassbeinglengthenedinordertoreachagradeseparatedoverpass.Suchtripswouldincuradditionaltraveltimewhichischaracterizedas“delay”time.Theestimatedrangeofadditionaltriptimeisbetween30secondsand4minutes,withtheaverageestimatedatoneminuteforeachtripthatmustdivertitsexistingtravelpathtoreachagradeseparation.Placementofgradeseparationswillbedeterminedinthefutureinamannerthatmanagesthetripdiversiondelaytimesforimpactedareas,withtheseassessmentsmadeinconsultationwithemergencyresponseofficials.

PublicMonetizedBenefits:AsillustratedinTable7,below,TotalPublicBenefitsarenearlyidentical($2.9billion)forallthreeBypassoptions,becauseatleast70percentofthebenefitsineachoptionarecapitalcostavoidancebenefits(orangehighlight)whicharenotassociatedwiththedifferentlengthsoftheBypassoptionsorthedifferentlengthsofgreenfieldsegments–theoppositeofthecasewiththePublicCoststhatwerediscussedabove.Option3generatesslightlymorecommunityimpactbenefits(nohighlight)becausetheseareassociatedwiththenumberofgradecrossingsatwhichcongestion‐relatedimpactswouldbereducedandOption3reducescongestionatmoregradecrossingsthanOptions1and2.

Table7PublicMonetizedBenefits,2014–2040(millionsin2014)

Bypass Options

Benefit Item 1 2 3

Commuter Rail ‐ Avoidance of New Dedicated Right‐of‐Way and Track Construction Costs

1,812.4$ 1,812.4$ 1,812.4$

Grade Crossing Travel Delay Reduction 690.4$ 690.4$ 692.6$ Avoided Capital Costs of New UP Glidden Subdivision Grade Separated Crossings

265.7$ 265.7$ 265.7$

Fuel / Energy Consumption Reductions for Autos

132.2$ 132.2$ 132.8$

Reduced Number of Auto‐Rail (grade‐crossing) Accidents

20.3$ 20.3$ 25.8$

Reduction in Environmental Emissions 23.5$ 23.5$ 23.6$ Total Public Benefits: 2,944.5$ 2,944.5$ 2,952.9$

June 30, 2015 Page 31

FINAL REPORT


ThetwocapitalcostavoidancebenefitswouldarisebecauseimplementationoftheBypasswouldeliminatetheneedtomakepublicinvestmentsintwoinfrastructureprojectsrelatedtocommuterrailintheUS‐90ACorridorandtheUPGliddenSubdivision.Bothbenefitsareexplainedbelow.

CommuterRail–AvoidanceofNewDedicatedRight‐of‐WayandTrackConstructionCosts:

Option 1 2 3Present Value $ 1,812.4M $ 1,812.4M $ 1,812.4M

Option 1 Relative Cost Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00

This“costavoidance”benefitaddressestheobjectiveofprovidingcommuterrailservicetoFortBendCountyontheUS‐90ACorridoratthelowestcapitalinvestmentthatcanbefound.ThisobjectivetoprovidecommuterrailserviceiscentraltothepurposeofbuildingthededicatedfreightrailBypassthroughFortBendCounty.A“no‐build”optionfortheBypasshasthereforebeendefinedwhichstillaccomplishesthisoverallobjective,butusesadedicatedcommuterrailright‐of‐way(ROW)optionthatassumesfreightoperationscontinueontheexistingUPGliddenandBNSFGalvestonSubdivisions.ThisoptionhasasignificantcostwhichwouldbeavoidediftheBypasswereconstructedandcommuterrailserviceinitiatedontheexistingUPGliddenSubdivision.TheGulfCoastRailDistricthasbeenstudyingtheviabilityofanewcommuterraillinewithintheUS‐90ACorridorthatwouldbebuiltonnewright‐of‐waywithnewtrackanddedicatedtoFRAcompliantpassengertrains.AseparatestudyoftheNo‐BuildOptioncontemplatesacommuterraillinelocateddirectlyadjacenttotheexistingUPGliddenSubdivisionbetweenthewestsideofFortBendCountyandtheterminusintheimmediatevicinityoftheTexasMedicalCenterwithintheurbancoreofHouston.Estimatedcoststoconstructcommuterrailservicethroughthiscorridorasdescribedabovetotalover$2.2billionassumingabaselinealignmentthatwasstudied.TheprimarycostdriversarethelandacquisitionandtheconstructionoftherailandbridgeinfrastructurewhichwouldbeneedtocreateadedicatedROWinwhichcommuterrailservicecouldoperateseparatedfromfreightrailservice.Thedollarcostofacquiring50‐footwideROWoverthe44milelength,passingthroughfivedifferentcitiesalongtherailcorridor,areverysignificantduetotheincreasinglyurbanizedcontextofthesurroundingdevelopmentthroughwhichthelinewouldpass.Inaddition,theextensivelengthsofaerialstructuresnecessarytothreadthenewdoubletrackpassengerrailfacilitythroughthemostdenselydevelopedsectionsofthecorridorcreatesubstantialconstructionexpense.Further,thelinewouldrequireawhollynewrailroadbridgetobeconstructedovertheBrazosRivereastoftheCityofRichmond.IftheFortBendBypasswereimplemented,thencommuterrailservicecouldbeinitiatedontheUPGliddenSubdivisionoronnewtrackwithintheUPright‐of‐way,thusavoidingthe$2.2billioncostofthisalternativecommuterrailplan.The$1.8billionbenefitamountreflectssubtractingfromthe$2.2billioncostavoidanceanamountof$413millionwhichrepresentstheestimatedcostoftrack,infrastructureandlandthatwouldberequiredtoimplementcommuterrailontheUPGliddenSubdivision.

June 30, 2015 Page 32

FINAL REPORT


ThecapitalconstructioncostswhichwouldbeavoidedbyimplementingtheBypasswouldbethesameunderallthreeBypassoptionsbecausethecapitalcostsoftheNo‐BuildOptionareindependentoftheBypassoptionthatmightbechosen.

AvoidanceofCapitalCostsofConstructingUPGliddenSubdivisionGradeSeparations:

Option 1 2 3Present Value $ 265.7M $ 265.7M $ 265.7M

Option 1 Relative Cost Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 Astudyoffreightrailinfrastructureandoperationswasperformedin2007whichincludedthecostestimatesforconstructinggradeseparationsofmajorstreetsandarterialsalongtheexistingrailroadnetworkwithintheGreaterHoustonregion.ThecostsofthegradeseparationsnecessarytoreduceroadwaycongestioninducedbygradecrossingsandoptimizefreightrailoperationsalongtheUPGliddenSubdivisionwerethereforedocumentedwithinthatstudy,the2007TxDOTHoustonRegionFreightStudy.ThatstudyassumedtheFortBendBypasswouldnotbebuilt,andthereforegradeseparationswouldberequiredalongtheUPGliddenSubdivisionduetothenumberandslowspeedoffreighttrainsontheline.HoweveriftheBypasswerebuilt,nearlyall(85percent)ofthefreighttrainscurrentlyoperatingontheUPGliddenSubdivision(35trainsperdayin2014)wouldmovetothatroute,andtheonlytrainsofsignificantnumberwouldbecommuterrailtrains(16perday).Thedelaytimesaresubstantiallylessforthepassageofacommuterrailtrainwhencomparedtoatypicalfreighttrain.Commuterrailtrainscansafelytravelthroughat‐gradecrossingsathigherspeeds14,andthelengthofpassengertrainsisonlyafractionofthoseoftypicalfreighttrains.Asaresult,traveldelaytimesandat‐gradecrossingoperationswouldhaveamuchsmallerimpactontherestofthetransportationsystemandgradeseparationswouldnotberequired.Forthesereasons,theeventualneedtobuildfourteengradeseparationsalongtheUPGliddenSubdivisionbetweenPierceJunctionandRosenbergwouldbeeliminatedbyimplementationoftheBypass.The$265.7millioncostofconstructingthefourteengradeseparationswouldthereforebeavoided.Thisvalueisobtainedwhentheoriginalestimateof$216millionisescalatedto2014atanaverageof3percentannualinflation.ThecapitalconstructioncostswhichwouldbeavoidedbyimplementingtheBypasswouldbethesameunderallthreeBypassoptionsbecausethesecostsareindependentoftheBypassoptionthatmightbechosen.

ThefourcommunityimpactbenefitswouldarisebecauseimplementationoftheBypasswouldreducecongestion‐relatedimpactswhichresultatgradecrossingsbyreducingthenumberofgradecrossingsintheStudyarea.Valuesofthefourbenefitsinthissub‐sectionwerecalculatedbytheTexasA&MTransportationInstitute(TTI)usingitsImpedanceModelincollaborationwiththeStudyTeam.Asummaryofthemethodologyemployedinthesecalculationsandtwotableswhich 14 Commuter trains in the prospective US‐90A Corridor would be expected to operate at faster speeds than freight trains assuming no speed restrictions at grade crossings are requested by local municipalities along the route.

June 30, 2015 Page 33

FINAL REPORT


presentthenon‐discounted(i.e.,non‐NetPresentValue)outputsofthefourbenefitsarepresentedinAppendixD.

GradeCrossingTravelDelayReduction:


Option 1 Relative Cost Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 Oneofthemostcommonsocietalbenefitsthataremonetizedforuseinrailroadgrade‐separation‐relatedbenefit‐costanalysis(BCA)studiesisthatofdelaytimereductionforvehiclestravelingthroughanat‐gradecrossing.Wheneveratrainpassesthroughacrossing,therearedelaysimposedonthevehiclesthatmuststopwhilethecrossinggatearmsaredown.Incalculatingbenefits,thesehoursofdelayaretypicallyconvertedtoadollarvaluebasedonanassumedvalueoftimeforthevehicleoccupantsand/orgoodsmoved.Theforecastedgrowthinfreighttrainactivityduring2014–2040(2.53percentcompoundannualgrowthrate)wouldresultinfreighttrainvolumeincreasingfrom35to68trainsperdayontheUPGliddenSubdivisionandfrom15to28trainsperdayontheBNSFGalvestonSubdivision15.SuchsignificantgrowthintrainactivitydirectlydeterminesthatdelaystoroadwaytrafficatgradecrossingswillincreaseinthefutureandmakesavoidanceofthesedelaysanimportantbenefitoftheBypass.

At‐gradecrossingsthatwereimpactedbytheBypassprojectincludeallofthecrossingsalongtheUPGliddenSubdivisionbetweenRosenbergandPierceJunction(inHouston).MostfreighttrainscurrentlytravelingalongtheUPGliddenSubdivisionwouldbemovedtotheBypass;however,acorrespondingaccountingofthecommuterrailtrainactivitywasaddedbacktotheUPGliddenSubdivision.TheTTIcalculationsofdelaytimetookintoaccountthechangeintrainactivity(bothintrainfrequencyandtrainlength),resultinginanetreductionindelaytimeontheUPGliddenSubdivision.Atothergradecrossings,thosewhichexistalongtheBNSFGalvestonSubdivisionandtheUPPoppSubdivision,theBypasswouldcreategradeseparationsofsomegradecrossingsandwouldcloseothers.InthecaseofOptions1and2,theexistingat‐gradecrossingsthatwerethebasisofthedelaytimecalculationswereidenticalbasedonthecommonplacementoftrainsalongtheBNSFGalvestonalignmentandtheUPPoppSubdivisionalignment.InthecaseofOption3whichincludesamajorgreen‐fieldsegment,thereareelevenadditionalexistingat‐gradecrossingsthathavetrainsremovedasaresultoftheBypasscorridordivertingtrainsfurthertothewestofRosenberg.Asaresultofthisdifference,thebenefitvaluecalculatedforOption3isslightlyhigher($692.6million)thanthetraveltimesavingsofOption1and2(690.4million).Thereareothertraveltimedelaycalculationsthatwereseparatelyperformedtoassesstheadditionalcoststhatwouldresultfromtheclosureofsomeexistingat‐graderoadway

15 See Table 3, Current and Project Train Volumes: Base Case, of this Study.

June 30, 2015 Page 34

FINAL REPORT


crossings16.Thesecostsareduetothetripdiversionsthatthevehiclescurrentlyusingthoseimpactedroadways,butthetotalcostsareonlyaboutonetenthofthetraveltimedelaybenefitsdiscussedabove.ThisStudyalsoidentifiedPublicNon‐MonetizedImpactswhicharepresentedinasubsequentsection.Adiscussionofonesuchimpact,Impact#3–TrafficAccessandCirculation,notesthesocietalimpactsontrafficmovingalongUS‐90AwithinSugarLandwhichoccurwitheachpassageofafreighttrain.MostofthetrafficflowingalongtheUS‐90AhighwaydoesnotcrosstheUPGliddenSubdivisionandthereforewasnotincludedintheImpedanceModelcalculations–thereforethosesecondaryimpactswerenotmonetizedandarenotdiscussedhere.

Fuel/EnergyConsumptionReductionsforAutos:

Option 1 2 3

Present Value $ 132.2M $ 132.2M $ 132.8M Option 1 Relative Cost Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 AnotherbenefitofmovingfreighttrainactivityoffoftheUPGliddenSubdivisionisthereductionoffuel/energyconsumptionofautomobilesdelayedwheneverthegradecrossinggatearmsareactivatedbytrainsalongtheline.SomeadditionalsavingswouldresultfromeliminationofautomobileidlingatthosegradecrossingsontheBNSFGalvestonandtheUPPoppSubdivisionsthatwouldbecomegrade‐separatedasaresultoftheBypass.Thisadditionalbenefitisacorollarytothebenefitofreduceddelaytimeandaddressestheout‐of‐pocketcostsofthevehicleoperatorsforfuelthatwouldbeconsumedwhiletheirvehiclesidleatthecrossingwhilewaitingforthetraintopass.TheanalysisincludedtheallowanceforidlingassociatedwithvehicledelaywhencommuterrailtrainoperationswithfasterandshortertrainsareaddedbackontheUPGliddenSubdivision.ThebeneficialimpactofthereductionoffreightoperationsontheUPGliddenSubdivisionintermsoffuel/energysavingswassubstantial.BypassOptions1and2wouldgeneratebenefitsof$132.2millionoverthe27yeartimeperiodoftheStudy.AfewadditionalgradecrossingsimmediatelywestofRosenbergwereimpactedonlyunderOption3andcausedaslightlygreaterbeneficialimpact,withthefuelsavingstotaling$132.8million.

ReducedNumberofAuto–Rail(gradecrossing)Accidents:

Option 1 2 3

Present Value $ 20.3M $ 20.3M $ 25.8M Option 1 Relative Cost Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.27 Animportantaspectofcalculatingmonetizedsocietalbenefitscommonlyperformedduringbenefit‐costanalysisstudiesofprospectiverailroadgradeseparationsisthereductionofaccidentsbetweentrainsandvehiclestravelingthroughat‐gradecrossings.Thevaluationofthesocietalimpactsistypicallycompletedwithrespecttothecostsofpropertydamage,injuriesandfatalities.

16 In this Study see Table 6, Public Monetized Costs, 2014 – 2040, Line item: “Non‐Capital Cost – Travel Delay Costs for the Communities Impacted by Grade Crossing Closures” and subsequent discussion.

June 30, 2015 Page 35

FINAL REPORT


WhentheBypassiscreatedwiththesealedcorridorconfiguration,therewillbenoat‐gradecrossingsatanypointalongitslength.Theremovalofthecauseofaccidentsbytheprovisionofgradeseparationsfortheappropriateroadwaycrossingsresultsinadirectandquantifiablebenefittosocietyasasafetyimprovement.TheanalysisincludedtheallowanceforaccidentswhencommuterrailtrainoperationsareaddedbackontheUPGliddenSubdivision.Theresultofthesafetyanalysisisabenefitof$20.3millionunderOptions1and2,and$25.8millionunderOption3–whichis27percenthigherthanOption1or2.ThedifferenceisduetoadifferenceinthepointatwhichtheBypasssealedcorridorwouldbegin,withtheOption3bypassbeginningfurtherwestfromRosenbergthanOptions1and2,andhavingadifferentsetofroadwaysimpactedbythegradeseparations.ThequantificationofgradecrossingaccidentsthatwouldbeeliminatedwasderivedfromstatisticaldatamaintainedbytheFederalRailroadAdministration(FRA)basedontheaccountingofaccidentsasafunctionofaveragedailytraffic(ADT)data.DataforthequantificationandmonetizationcalculationsweresourcedfromreferencetablesfoundintheUSDOTTIGERGrantapplicationguidelines.

ReductioninEnvironmentalEmissions:


Option 1 Relative Cost Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.01 ThesocietalbenefitwiththelowestmonetaryvaluerelativetotheothermonetizedbenefitsisthatofthereductioninenvironmentalemissionsthatwouldresultalongtheUPGlidden,BNSFGalvestonandUPPoppSubdivisionsiftheBypassprojectwasconstructed.Theemissionsresultprimarilyfromvehiclesidlingatthecrossingwhilewaitingforatraintopass.Environmentalemissionsareexpressedintermsofchangesinairpollutioncomponentssuchasnitrogenoxides(NOx),carbondioxide(CO2)andvolatileorganiccompounds(VOC).TheanalysisincludedtheallowancefordelaywhencommuterrailtrainoperationsareaddedbackontheUPGliddenSubdivisionaftertheoperationsofalmostallfreighttrainswererelocatedtotheBypass.ThebeneficialimpactofremovingmostfreighttrainsfromtheUPGliddenSubdivisionandgradeseparatingallappropriateroadwaycrossingsalongtheBNSFGalveston(whererelevanttoanOption)andtheUPPoppSubdivisionsresultsinatotalpresentvalueof$23.5millionforOptions1and2overthe27yeartimeperiodofthestudy.ThefewadditionalgradecrossingsimmediatelywestofRosenbergthatwerealsoimpactedfortheOption3casestudycausedaslightlygreaterbeneficialimpact,withthefuelsavingstotaling$23.6million.

PublicNon‐MonetizedImpacts:Thereareotherimpacts(e.g.,positiveandnegative)thatmustbeconsideredinthecomparativeassessmentoftheBypassOptions,butsomeoftheseotherimpactsarenotconvenientlyorreasonablymeasuredasmonetaryvaluesunderthelevelofstudythatthis

June 30, 2015 Page 36

FINAL REPORT


feasibilitystudyallows.Therefore,theseimpactshavebeengradedonaqualitative/subjectivebasisemployingprofessionaljudgement.Comparativeconsiderationswerethenmadeandtherelativeimportanceofthedifferentimpacts,bothpositiveandnegative,areillustratedbelowinTable8.Theseimpactsarethendiscussed.

Table8PublicNon‐MonetizedImpactsEvaluationMatrix

PublicNon‐MonetizedImpact#1–EconomicGrowth,JobGrowthandEnhancedInvestment/DevelopmentPotential:Theincreasesinlandanddevelopmentvaluation,growthofnewindustryandtheassociatedemploymentgrowtharemajoreconomicdevelopmentaspectsthathavenotbeenpossibletoanalyzewithinthelimitsofthisfeasibilitystudyphaseoftheproject.However,theseprospectsarereasonablypossiblebasedonthelimitedmarketresearchperformed.ThisindustrialdevelopmentpotentialcouldhaveramificationsfornotonlyFortBendCounty,butalsotheregion,theStateofTexasandforthenationasHoustonregionisgrowingatapacewhichcouldmakeitthethirdlargesteconomyintheUnitedStatesoverthenext25years–surpassedonlybyNewYorkCityandLosAngeles.17ThesebenefitswouldbespreadacrossFortBendCountyinabroaderareaofimpactthanwasassumedforthemonetizedbenefitsanalyzedonlywithinthestrictBypassfreightrailcorridors.Futurephasesoftheprojectthataddresseconomicdevelopment,environmentalimpact/preliminaryengineering,andschematicdesignofthenewfreightrailBypassinfrastructuremaybeappropriatetofurtherinvestigatethequantifiableaspectsofthesetypesofimpacts.

17 U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, News Release: Economic Growth Widespread Across Metropolitan Areas in 2013, Table 1. Current Dollar GDP by Metropolitan Area, September 16, 2014, p. 5.

June 30, 2015 Page 37

FINAL REPORT


Option3hasthegreaternewdevelopmentpotentialandresultingeconomicimpactofthethreeOptionsbecauseitwouldcreatesignificantlymoredevelopablelandthanOptions1and2,givenoversixtypercent(31of50miles)ofOption3wouldtraversegreenfieldland.

PublicNon‐MonetizedImpact#2–NoiseandVibration:Impactsassociatedwithnoise

andvibrationdifferamongthethreeBypassOptions.Thefollowingdiscussionaddressestheimpactsofnoiseandvibrationinanon‐monetized,subjectivemanner18.Therefore,ageneraldiscussionofnoiseandgroundbornevibrationisgivenfirst,followedbycomparisonsamongvarioussegmentsoftheBypassoptionswithbroad,qualitativeassessments.Thecomparisonsaremadewithrespecttocurrentconditionswhereat‐graderoadwayscrossthefreightrailcorridor,versustheprospectivesealedcorridorBypass.NoiseandvibrationfromtrainmovementshavebeenstudiedanddocumentedacrosstheU.S.formanyyears19.AirborneNoiseImpacts–FreighttrainscurrentlyoperateontheexistingBNSFGalvestonSubdivision,UPGliddenandUPPoppSubdivisionalignmentsthroughRichmond,Rosenberg,Arcola,Fresnoandothersimilartownsandcommunities,aswellaspastmasterplannedresidentialcommunities,atspeedscommensuratewithnumerousgradecrossingsconditions.TheconceptofasealedfreightrailBypasscorridoralongwhichallroadwaycrossingsaregrade‐separated(orclosed,asapplicable)wouldsignificantlychangetheoverallnoiseimpacts.UnderfutureconditionswithaBypass,freighttrainsthatwouldbedivertedfromtheircurrentlinesontotheBypasswouldnolongerneedtosoundtheirtrainhornsatgradecrossingsandtheoverallnoiseimpactfromthesetrainswouldbeeliminatedfromtheareaalongtheUPGliddenSubdivision.Additionally,creationoftheBypassasasealedcorridorinessencecreatesa“quietzone”overtheentirelengthoftheBypasscorridor,becausetrainswouldnotsoundtheirhorns.TheremovaloftrainhornssoundingoverthelengthoftheBypasswillprovideabenefittothemanycommunitiesalongtheBNSFandUPfacilities.Withrespecttoairbornenoisefromtrainpassage,thistypeofnoisewillbelimitedtowheel/railandlocomotivenoisegeneration.Itcouldbesubstantiallymitigatedinportionsofthecorridorwhereitispossibletoprovidesoundbuffers,includingberms,bufferzoneswithtreesandsoundwalls(asappropriate).Ground‐BorneVibrationImpacts–Ground‐bornevibrationisaffectedbyboththespeedandweightofatrain.ForthecurrentoperatingconditionsalongtheBNSFGalvestonandtheUPGliddenandPoppSubdivisions,theoperatingspeedsarelowerthanareexpectedtooccurontheBypass.Inthefuture,theexpectedfasterspeedsontheBypasswouldproducehigherground‐bornevibration.Inaddition,thefrequencyoftrainmovementsthroughtheBypasswillincreasethefrequencyofvibrationevents.

18 ThediscussionhereinisasubjectiveassessmentofhowenvironmentalconditionswillchangewiththeimplementationoftheBypass,sincetheconversionofnoiseandvibrationintomonetizedcostshasnoestablishedconversionforuseinBCAcalculations.FuturestudiescouldaddressthisaspectinamoreanalyticalmannerthanwaspossibleinthisFeasibilityStudy. 19 TechnicalMemorandum3:Benefit‐CostAnalysis,AppendixD,ofthisStudy,providesadiscussionofthebasicengineeringaspectsofnoiseandvibration.

June 30, 2015 Page 38

FINAL REPORT


However,ground‐bornevibrationsarelikelytobeimperceptibleatadistanceofaquartermileorgreaterundermostconditions.ThereforewhenconsideringthesensitivereceptorstonoiseandvibrationimpactsalongthethreeBypassoptions,theproximityofdevelopmenttothefreightrailcorridorshasthegreatestbearingontheimpacts.ComparisonofNoiseandVibrationImpactsAmongBypassOptions–Overall,Option3issuperiortoOptions1and2becausethelonggreenfieldsection(31of50miles)traversedbythisoptionenablesittoproducethefewestnegativenoiseandvibrationimpactsuponresidentialareas.TheconclusionsofrelativenoiseandvibrationimpactsamongtheoptionsareexplainedingreaterdetailinTechnicalMemorandum320andprovideaframeworkofpotentialenvironmentalimpactsthatcouldbeinvestigatedinahigherlevelofanalysisinsubsequentstudies.

PublicNon‐MonetizedImpact#3–TrafficAccessandCirculation:ThemovementoflongfreighttrainsthroughthedensestareaswithincitiesofFortBendCountyhasbroadimplicationsfortrafficaccessandcirculationwithinthecommunitiesalongtheexistingfreightraillines–communitieswhichareincreasingly“urban”innature.Majortrafficoperationsbenefitswillensueinthesecities,townsandmasterplannedcommunitiesfromthecreationofasealedcorridorfreightrailBypass.Asapointofreference,trafficoperationsstudiesbytheCityofSugarLandindicatethatfreighttrainpassageontheUPGliddenSubdivisionresultsinaveragetravelspeedreductionsofasmuchas10to15percentthroughtheUS‐90Ahighwaycorridorduringtheafternoon/eveningpeaktravelperiod21.Inparticular,trafficsignalcoordinationimpactsandassociatedvehicledelayareexperiencedallalongUS‐90AthroughtheCityofSugarLandwhichamounttoasmuchastwentyminuteswitheachtrainpassageevent,accordingtootheranecdotalinformationfromSugarLandofficials.SimulationstudieshavebeenperformedbySugarLandtoanalyzethesedelayimpacts,andfuturestudiesoftheBypassshouldconsiderincludinginthebenefit‐costanalysisalargertrafficimpactanalysisthataddressestheentireUS‐90ACorridor,encompassingthetrafficoperationsontheparallelhighwayinadditiontothedelayimpactsfortrafficcrossingthetracks.Thesetypesofstudiesoftrafficaccessandcirculationimpactswouldalsobeapplicabletotheothercitiesandtownsthroughwhichthefreightrailtrainspasswhenallroadwaycrossingsareatat‐grade.Richmond/RosenbergandStafford/MissouriCityalongtheUPGliddenSubdivision,aswellasthecommunitiesalongtheBNSFGalvestonSubdivision,wouldlikelyenjoysignificantpositiveimpactswiththecreationoftheBypass.Overall,theimpactontrafficaccessandcirculationwouldbeimprovedthroughouttheBypasscorridorunderallthreeBypassoptionsresultingfromtheprovisionofnumerousgradeseparationsatarterialstreetsandwithaspacingofapproximatelyonemilebetweengradeseparations.Asinthetwopreviouslydiscussedpublicimpacts,Option3issuperiortoOptions1and2becausethelonggreenfieldsection(31of50miles)traversedbythisoptionenablesittoproducemorepositiveimpactsandfewernegativeimpactsthantheothertwooptions.

20 Technical Memorandum 3: Benefit – Cost Analysis, pages 25 – 27. 21 ASeptember26,2013reportbyTexasA&MTransportationInstitutereportedthatinthep.m.peakhourtherewasasmuchasa10to12mphaveragespeedreductionforvehiclesalongtheUS90AcorridorondayswithactivefreighttrainmovementsalongtheUPGliddenSubdivision

June 30, 2015 Page 39

FINAL REPORT


Thecommunitiesthatexistnow,andthosethatdevelopovertimewilladapttravelpatternsovertimethatderivethegreatestbenefitfromthesepointsofgradeseparation,muchascommunitiesadapttofreewaygradeseparationswhenamajornewroadwayfacilityisconstructed.TherewillbesomeindividuallandparcelsthatarenegativelyimpactedintrafficaccessandcirculationwhentheBypassiscreated,butoveralltheimpactwillbeverypositive22.

SummaryofPublicMonetizedandNon‐Monetizedimpacts:WhenthePublicMonetizedandNon‐Monetizedimpactsareconsideredtogether,itisapparent,asillustratedinTable9below,thatallthreeBypassoptionswouldproducesignificantnetpublicbenefits.ThemagnitudeofthedifferencesamongthenetpublicmonetizedbenefitssuggeststhatOption1wouldbetheoptiontoadvanceforadditionalstudy.However,furtheranalysisofthePublicNon‐MonetizedImpactscoulddeterminewhethersomecouldbeconvertedtoPublicMonetizedBenefits,orcouldprovideguidanceastotheweightofimportancewhichshouldbeassignedtothem.

Table9

CombinedPublicImpacts,2014–2040($millionsin2014)

PrivateRailroadMonetizedBenefitsandCosts:TherelocationoffreighttrainactivitytotheconceptualBypassfacilitywillresultinanetincreaseinrailroadoperatingcostsbetween$72.6millionand$176.3million,dependingupontheBypassoption,overthe27‐yearstudyperiod(2014–2040).Theincreaseddistance‐basedcosts(asmeasuredinFreightTrain‐Miles)wouldsignificantlyoffsettheslightimprovements(benefits)intime‐basedcosts(asmeasuredinFreightTrain‐Hours).TheincreaseinFreightTrain‐Milesdrovetheresultsbecausedirectroadtrainoperatingcostsarepredominantlymileage‐basedasopposedtobeingtime‐based. 22 Technical Memorandum 3: Benefit‐Cost Analysis, Appendix E: Fort Bend Bypass Traffic Impact Assessment provides further discussion of these aspects.

June 30, 2015 Page 40

FINAL REPORT


EconomicimpactsuponrailroadoperationswhichmightarisefromimplementationoftheBypasswereidentifiedintheformofincreases(costs)ordecreases(benefits)tofreightrailroadvariableoperatingcosts.Thesecostswerecalculatedbasedupondifferencesinfreighttrain‐milesandfreighttrain‐hoursduring2014‐2040,betweeneachBypassOptionandtheBaseCaseasillustratedinTable10below,columns1and2.Freighttrain‐miles(train‐miles)andfreighttrain‐hours(train‐hours)arecommonlyusedbyrailroadsinproductivityanalysesandbudgeting.Thedifferencesinfreighttrain‐milesandfreighttrain‐hourswerethenmultipliedbyunitcostfactors(costpertrain‐mileandcostpertrain‐hour,Table10,column3)tocalculatetheincreasesordecreasesinrailroadoperatingcost(Table10,columns5–8)23.Theresultingbenefitsfromreducedtrain‐hours(Run‐TimeBenefits)andincreasedcosts,fromincreasedtrain‐miles(LongerDistance(Costs))inTable10,column8,arethensummarizedinthesubsequentTable11.

Table10

CumulativeEconomicImpactUponRailroadOperations:ThreeBypassOptionsvs.BaseCase,2014‐2040

($millions2014)

23 The detailed explanation of the analysis of the economic impact upon railroad operations is at Technical Memorandum 1: Data Collection, Section 2 Railroad Data and Analysis, pages 11 – 23.

Reference Column Numbers ==> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Difference in Performance vs. Base

Case Cumulative Economic Impact Upon Railroad Operations

Present Value of Cumulative Economic Impact

Metric or Input

Entire Bypass vs.

UP ‐ Glidden Sub

Bypass ‐ Western Section vs. BNSF ‐

Galveston Sub

Cost Factors Cost Factor Unit

Entire Bypass vs. UP ‐

Glidden Sub (Annual

Impact) ( 1 )


Galveston Sub (Annual

Impact) ( 1 )

Total Cumulative Impact

Assuming a Discount Rate of 3 Percent

Bypass Option 1: BNSF Galveston AlignmentFreight Train‐miles 2,918,309 ‐ 44.64$ Per Train‐Mile 130,273,300$ ‐$ 130,273,300$ 87,107,229$ Freight Train‐hours (54,196) (44,473) 220.54$ Per Train‐Hour (11,952,386)$ (9,808,120)$ (21,760,506)$ (14,550,163)$ Net Total Impact: Option 1 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 118,320,914$ (9,808,120)$ 108,512,794$ 72,557,066$ Bypass Option 2: BNSF Galvestion Plus Greenfield Corridor around SiennaFreight Train‐miles 5,016,714 1,014,462 44.64$ Per Train‐Mile 223,946,100$ 45,285,597$ 269,231,697$ 180,021,740$ Freight Train‐hours (4,166) (20,847) 220.54$ Per Train‐Hour (918,858)$ (4,597,664)$ (5,516,522)$ (3,688,674)$ Net Total Impact; Option 2 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 223,027,242$ 40,687,933$ 263,715,175$ 176,333,066$ Bypass Option 3: Rosenberg ‐ Arcola Greenfield CorridorFreight Train‐miles 5,016,714 1,014,462 44.64$ Per Train‐Mile 223,946,100$ 45,285,597$ 269,231,697$ 180,021,740$ Freight Train‐hours (20,847) (26,402) 220.54$ Per Train‐Hour (4,597,664)$ (5,822,763)$ (10,420,427)$ (6,967,587)$ Net Total Impact: Option 3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 219,348,436$ 39,462,834$ 258,811,270$ 173,054,153$

Notes:( 1 ) A negative value means that the cost of operating a train via the Bypass is lower than the Base Case. A positive value means the cost of operating a train via the Bypass is higher than the Base Case.

June 30, 2015 Page 41

FINAL REPORT


Table11SummaryofPrivateRailroadMonetizedBenefitsandCosts,2014–2040

($millionsin2014)

Run‐TimeBenefits:FasterrunningtimesontheBypass(between1and13

minutespertrain,dependingontheBypassoption)wouldenabletherailroads(UP,BNSFandKCS)toexpendfewertrain‐hoursintraversingthedistancesbetweenRosenbergandPierceJunction(Houston)andbetweenRosenbergandArcola.Consequently,therailroadswouldenjoyamodestmonetizedbenefitbetween$3.7millionand14.6millionoverthetwenty‐sevenyearsduring2014–2040.Option1producesthehighestRun‐TimeBenefit,becauseitenjoysnearlythesameaveragetrainspeedasOptions2and3,butissignificantlyshorterinlength,thusproducingthefastestrunningtimes.Option3producesgreaterRun‐TimeBenefitsthanOption2,becausethecomparativerunningdistances,asmeasuredfromtheintersectionofPattonRd.(fivemileswestofRosenberg)andtheUPGliddenSubdivision,arethesame(47miles),butOption3assumesafasteraveragetrainspeedthanunderOption2.Option2assumesasloweraveragetrainspeedbecausetrainsunderthisoptionwouldoperateoverfivemilesoftheUPGliddenSubdivisionbetweenPattonRd.andthebeginningoftheBypassattheBNSF–UPdiamondinRosenberg,atasloweraveragespeedthantheaveragespeedontheBypass.

LongerDistance(Costs):ThelongerdistancesoverwhichtrainswouldoperateviatheBypasswouldcausetherailroadstoincursignificantadditionaloperatingexpense,predominantlyinfuel,equipmentandmaintenance‐of‐wayduring2014–2040.Option1hasthelowesttrain‐milecostsbecauseitsrunningdistanceisfivemilesshorterthanOptions2and3.Options2and3producethesameLongerDistanceCosts,becausethecalculationoftrain‐milecosts,aswiththeRun‐TimeBenefitsabove,isbaseduponcomparativedistancesmeasuredfromthecrossingofPattonRd.andtheUPGliddenSubdivision.

June 30, 2015 Page 42

FINAL REPORT


Whilethenetincreaseinrailroadoperatingcostsisarelativelysmallportion(7to12percent)oftheestimatedtotalcostsoftheBypass,itwouldbeasignificantcosttotheClassIrailroads(UP,BNSFandKCS).AsintheanalysisofthePublicsectorimpacts,non‐monetizedimpactswereidentifiedinthePrivateRailroadsectorandtheyarepresentedbelow.PrivateRailroadNon‐MonetizedImpacts:TheFortBendBypassoffersfivepotentialadditionalbenefitstotherailroadswhich,whilenotquantifiedaspartofthisstudy,couldbereasonablytangiblewhenlookingata2040timehorizon,ascontemplatedinthisstudy.ThefivepotentialNon‐MonetizedImpactsarepresentedbelowinTable12andthendiscussed.

Table12PrivateRailroadNon‐MonetizedImpacts,2014–2040:

QualitativeComparisons

PrivateRailroadNon‐MonetizedImpact#1–EaseofAccesstoCapacity

Expansion:Giventhelong‐termtrainvolumeprojectionsonthesubjectBNSFandUPlines,easeofaccesstoexpansionofmainlinecapacitywouldbevaluabletoBNSFandUP.TheBypasswouldenablesucheaseofaccessbyhavingright‐of‐way(ROW)forathirdfreightmaintrackconstructedwhenthetwo‐trackfreightmainlineisbuilt.TheROWofthethirdfreightmainwouldbegradedandallbridges,drainagestructuresandotherinfrastructurewouldbebuilt,soonlythethirdtrackitselfwouldneedtobebuiltwhentheneedforitarises.

June 30, 2015 Page 43

FINAL REPORT


UPcouldbeginexperiencingcapacityconstraintonitsGliddenSubdivisioninYear24(2038)whentrainvolumeisprojectedtoreach64trainsperday.Thisvolumeoftrainswouldbe86percentoftheline’spracticalcapacityof75trainsperday24,assumingthattheUPGliddenSubdivisionwouldbefullydouble‐trackedbythistime.SeeTable13below.

Table13UPGliddenSubdivision

ProjectedBaseCaseTrainVolumevs.PracticalCapacity,2014–2040

24 NationalRailFreightInfrastructureCapacityandInvestmentStudy,Table4.2AverageCapacitiesofTypicalFreightCorridors–TrainsperDay,page4‐7.

June 30, 2015 Page 44

FINAL REPORT


Likewise,BNSFcouldbeginexperiencingcapacityconstraintonitsGalvestonSubdivisioninYear22(2036)whentrainvolumeisprojectedtoreach25trainsperday.Thisvolumeoftrainswouldbe85percentoftheline’spracticalcapacityof30trainsperday,initscurrentsingle‐track‐with‐passing‐sidingsconfiguration.SeeTable14below.

Table14BNSFGalvestonSubdivision

ProjectedBaseCaseTrainVolumevs.PracticalCapacity2014–2040

June 30, 2015 Page 45

FINAL REPORT


This‘easeofaccesstocapacityexpansionbenefit’wouldarisetothesameextentunderallthreeBypassoptions.ThefullrealizationofthisbenefitlikelyisdependentupontheimplementationofallormostofthetencongestionreductionandcapacityimprovementsthatwereevaluatedandrecommendintheHoustonRegionFreightStudy(2007).

Non‐MonetizedRailroadImpact#2‐EliminationoftheBNSF–UPDiamondCrossingatRosenberg:EliminationoftheBNSF‐UPdiamondcrossingatRosenbergwouldlikelyreducetraincongestion.Giventheprojectedgrowthintrainvolumesby2040,theconnectionsbetweentheBypassandexistingrailroadmainlinesinOptions1and2havebeensizedtoaccommodatethatvolumegrowth.TherailroadinfrastructureconstructioncostsonOptions1and2reflectrestructuringoftheconnectionsamongUP,BNSFandKCSatRosenbergandeliminationofthe(at‐grade)crossingoftheUPGliddenSubdivisionandtheBNSFGalvestonSubdivision.Allcurrentroutingoptionsthroughthiskeyjunctionwouldbepreserved.InOption3,therailroadinfrastructurecostsincludeconnectionsbetweentheBypassandUP,BNSFandKCS.TheconnectionwithUPwouldbedouble‐trackandtheconnectionswithBNSFandKCSwouldbesingle‐track.TheBNSFconnectionROWandoverpasseswouldbebuiltassingle‐trackandgradedtoaccommodateasecondmaintrackinthefuture.Option3likelywouldeliminatetheneedfortheRosenbergdiamond.

Non‐MonetizedRailroadImpact#3–EliminationoftheBNSF–UPDiamondCrossingatArcola:BypassOptions2and3wouldenabletheeliminationoftheBNSF‐UPdiamondcrossingandinterlockingatArcolaandwouldlikelyreducemaintenanceexpensetoBNSForUP.TheArcoladiamondwouldberetainedunderOption1soUP’saccesstotheW.A.ParishElectricGeneratingStation,inThompsons,wouldbepreserved.

Non‐MonetizedRailroadImpact#4–ReductionofTrainDelaysResultingfromGradeCrossingAccidents:AllthreeBypassoptionswouldenablediversionofmostofthefreighttrainsfromtheUPGliddenSubdivisionwithitsnumerousgradecrossings,tothesealed‐corridor,grade‐separatedBypass.ThisfacteliminatesthepotentialforthosetrainstobeinvolvedingradecrossingaccidentsbetweenRosenbergandPierceJunction.Further,thecurrentat‐gradecrossingsonBNSF’sGalvestonSubdivisionbetweenRosenbergandArcola,andUP’sPoppSubdivisionbetweenArcolaandPierceJunction,wouldbegrade‐separatedorclosedandsowouldeliminatethepotentialforgradecrossingaccidents.Thiswouldresultineliminatingtraindelaysonthoselines.Option3turnsoffoftheBNSF,UPandKCSmainlinesfurthertothewestofRosenberg,andasaresultactuallyremovesfreighttrainsfromelevenadditionalat‐

June 30, 2015 Page 46

FINAL REPORT


graderoadwaycrossingswhencomparedtoOptions1and2.Asaresult,Option3providesagreaterreductionintraindelaysthantheothertwoOptions.

Non‐MonetizedRailroadImpact#5–MitigationofriskofEncroachmentUponRailroadRights‐of‐Way:TheClassIrailroadshaveexpressedconcernaboutencroachmentuponrailroadrights‐of‐way(ROW)byadjacentpropertyowners.CreationoftheBypassasasealedcorridorwouldhelppreventorreducetheriskofencroachmentuponrailroadROW,especiallyalongthegreenfieldsegments.InthosesegmentsoftheBypasswherewhollynewrailroadcorridorswouldbecreated,specificlandusecontrolscouldbeappliedtocreatebufferzonesalongtheBypass.BufferzonescouldbeaccomplishedbyactionofFortBendCountyforOption2inthegreenfieldsegment,andforthemuchmoreextensivegreenfieldsegmentofOption3.CreationofsetbackbufferzonesinwhichdevelopmentisrestrictedincloseproximitytothefreightrailROWispossiblewithappropriatelandusecontrols.Landusecontrolsshouldbeinvestigatedinsubsequentphasesoftheprojecttoassessthisprospectofcreatingbufferzones,andtheuseofmeanssuchasearthenbermsandvegetationtoenhancenoiseandvisualbuffersaroundtheBypassROW.

SummaryofPrivateRailroadMonetizedandNon‐Monetizedimpacts:WhentheRailroadMonetizedandNon‐Monetizedimpactsareconsideredtogether,itisapparent,asillustratedinTable15below,thatallthreeBypassoptionswouldproducesignificantnetadditionaloperatingcoststotherailroads,unlesstherailroadsassignsignificantvaluetothenon‐monetizedimpacts.

Table15CombinedPrivateRailroadImpacts,2014–2040($millionsin2014)

ThisconcludesSection3:Benefit–CostAnalysis.KeyobservationsfromthissectionaresummarizedbelowinSection4:Conclusions.

June 30, 2015 Page 47

FINAL REPORT


Section4:ConclusionsBasedontheprecedingobservationsandanalysis,itisconcludedthattheimplementationofafreightrailBypassthroughFortBendCountyistechnicallyfeasibleandwouldproduce:

TotalNetBenefits(Table16below,line4)between$1.2billionand$1.9billionoverthe27‐yearstudyperiod,dependingupontheBypassoptionchosen.Thismeanstotalpublicandprivaterailroadbenefitswouldexceedtotalpublicandprivaterailroadcosts.

NetPublicBenefitsbetween$1.3billion(Option3)and$2.0billion(Option1)overthe27‐yearstudyperiod(seeTable9),meaningthatpublicbenefitswouldbegreaterthanthepubliccostswhencalculatedonareasonablyconservativebasisand

ANetIncreaseinRailroadOperatingCostsbetween$72.5million(Option1)and$176.3million(Option2)overthe27‐yearstudyperiod,whencomparedwithcurrentrailroadoperations(seeTable11).Saidanotherway,therailroadswouldexperienceanaveragenetincreaseinoperatingexpensebetween$2.7million(Option1)and$6.5million(Option2)peryear.

Table16

SummaryofMonetizedandNon‐MonetizedImpacts,2014–2040($millionsin2014)

Thereareadditionalpotential“soft”(non‐monetized)publicandprivaterailroadbenefitswhichcouldaugmentthenetpublicbenefits,aswellaspartiallyoffsettheoperatinginefficiencieswhichwouldbeencounteredbytherailroadswhenoperatingviatheBypass.Thesenon‐monetizedimpactshavebeencombinedintoOverallNon‐MonetizedImpactsandarepresentedinthelasttwolinesofTable16,above.

June 30, 2015 Page 48

FINAL REPORT


Consequently,selectionofthepreferredBypassoptiontoadvanceforfurtherstudywilldependupontheweightgiven,bythePublicandPrivateRailroadstakeholders,tothePublicNon‐MonetizedImpactsandthePrivateRailroadMonetizedImpacts.

June 30, 2015 Page 49

FINAL REPORT


APPENDICES

June 30, 2015 Page 50

FINAL REPORT


AppendixA

Bypass:RailroadRight‐of‐WayTypicalSectionsThisimageisaplaceholder.Acleaner,sharperoriginalisinpdfandwillbeinsertedat

timeoffinalassembly.

June 30, 2015 Page 51

FINAL REPORT


AppendixB

Long‐TermTrainCountGrowthRateEight,prospectivelong‐termgrowthrateswereconsideredbywhichtoestimatetheaveragedailycountoffreighttrainsthatwouldoperateviatheBypassin2040.Fromthese,acompoundannualgrowthrateof2.53percentwasrecommendedandused.Asbackground,itisimportanttonoteasignificantdifferencebetweentwowaysinwhichrailroadactivityismeasured(trainactivityandfreighttrafficactivity)andhowthisdifferenceimpactedtherecommendationofthe2.53percentgrowthrate.Railroadtransportationisaderived‐demandindustry,meaningthatgeneraleconomicactivity(manufacturingofgoods,buyingandsellingofgoods,etc.)inotherindustriescreatesdemandforrailtransportation.Whensuchdemandmanifestsitselfonarailroadtheresultingactivityiscommonlyreferredtoas“freighttraffic”orsimply,“traffic,“andismeasuredincarloads,tonsandrevenueton‐miles.Inrailroadoperations,freighttrafficmanifestsitselfintheformoftrainactivitywhichiscommonlymeasuredinnumberoftrains(traincounts),train‐milesandtrain‐hours.Thedifferencebetweenthechange(growthordecline)intrainactivityandthechangeinrailfreighttrafficactivityisthattrainactivitydoesnotgenerallychangeatthesameratesoverthelongtermbecauserailroadoperationalefficienciescontinuetoevolve.RailFigure1,below,illustratesthedifferenceingrowthoftrainactivity(freighttrain‐miles)andfreighttrafficactivity(revenueton‐miles)onWesternRailroadsovertheperiod1985to2011.

June 30, 2015 Page 52

FINAL REPORT


Improvementsintrainhandlingtechniques,locomotiveefficiencyandtheuseofdistributedpowerhaveenabledrailroadstooperatelongertrainsandhandlemorecarspertrain.Additionally,capacitiesofrailcarshaveincreasedrequiringfewerrailcarstohandleagivenvolumeoffreight.GiventhatthepotentialimpactuponrailroadoperationsinthisStudyisdeterminedlargelybythenumberoftrainstobeoperatedovertheBypass(trainactivity),prospectivegrowthrateswhichmostcloselymeasuretrainactivityaremostappropriatetothisstudy.TheeightprospectiveratesarepresentedbelowinRailTable3.

June 30, 2015 Page 53

FINAL REPORT


The2.53percent‘Averageof8‐YearTrainCountHistoryand26‐YearAAR‐WestFreightTrain‐MilesHistory’growthrateisrecommendedbecause:

Itiscalculatedusingtwomeasuresoffreighttrainactivity(traincountsandtrain‐miles)andfreighttrainactivitygrowthisakeymetricbywhichtheimpactsoftheBypassuponrailroadoperationsismeasured;

The8‐YearTrainCountHistoryrelatestospecificsegmentsoftheexistingraillines(UP–GliddenSub,BNSF–GalvestonSubandUP–PoppSub)thatformthecoreterritoryofthisstudy,sothedataareHouston‐specificandproject‐territory‐specific;

Rail Table 3

Prospective Long‐Term Train Count Growth Rates and Recommended Rate

Growth Rate ScenarioYear Range

Compound Annual

Growth RateH‐GAC 2013 ( 1 ) 2007 ‐

20351.30%

26‐Year AAR‐West Freight Train‐Miles History ( 2 ) 1985 ‐ 2011

1.69%

TX Statewide Long‐Range Transportation Plan 2035 Tonnage ( 4 ) 2008 ‐ 2035

2.14%

Average of 8‐Year Train Count History and 26‐Year AAR‐West Freight Train‐Miles History Recommended

N/A 2.53%

Greater Houston Partnership, Low End GDP ( 5 ) 2001 ‐ 2012

2.60%

26‐Year AAR‐West Revenue Ton‐Miles History ( 2 ) 1985 ‐ 2011

3.33%

8‐Year Train Count History ( 3 ) 2006 ‐ 2014

3.36%

Greater Houston Partnership, Average GDP ( 6 ) N/A 3.75%

Notes:( 1 ) HGAC Regional Good Movement Plan ‐ June 2013, Calculated from rail tons values, p. 2‐23.( 2 ) AAR Fact Book 2012: Base Year = 1985 and End Year = 2011( 3 ) RLBA: Compound Annual Growth Rate calculated based upon freight train counts in 2006 and 2014, which are sourced from Houston Region Freight Study (2006 values), Sugar Land Train Monitor (2014 values on the UP ‐ Glidden Sub) and grade crossing gate‐arm activation studies (2014 values on the BNSF ‐ Galveston Sub and the UP ‐ Popp Sub).( 4 ) Statewide Long‐Range Transportation Plan 2035, Texas Department of Transportation, Compound Annual Growth Rate calculated from Tons data at Table 2‐31: Texas Freight Summary by Mode, 2008 ‐ 2035, p. 2‐109.( 5 ) Houston ‐ The Economy at a Glance, Greater Houston Partnership, GDP growth rate for Houston Metro Area 2001 ‐ 2012, Vol.23, No. 5, May 2014, p. 2.( 6 ) Houston ‐ The Economy at a Glance, Greater Houston Partnership, GDP growth: Average of 11‐year CAGR 2.60%, expected low end of GDP growth range, and Perryman Group's 4.90% near‐term growth forecast, p. 2, third paragraph.

June 30, 2015 Page 54

FINAL REPORT


The2006–2014timeperiodofthe8‐YearTrainCountHistorylogicallywouldcontainsignificantreflectionofcurrentchangesinrailtrafficmixandtrends;

Thelongertimeperiod(1985–2011)ofthe26‐YearAARWestFreightTrain‐MilesHistoryprovidesalong‐termperspectivetotrainactivitygrowthwhenitisaveragedwiththe8‐yearTrainCountHistory.GiventhatthisStudycontemplatesa2014‐2040(26‐year)planninghorizon,integrationofahistoricallong‐termgrowthrateinthegrowthraterecommendationisprudent;

Itisclosetoandslightlylowerthanthe2.6percent‘GreaterHoustonPartnershipLowEndGDP’growthrate,whichisspecifictotheHoustonMetroAreaandiscalculatedoveraneleven‐yearperiod,2001–2012and

Itismoreconservativethanthe3.36percent‘8‐YearTrainCountHistory’growthrate.InRLBA’sexperience,ithasbeenprudenttobereasonablyconservativewhenprojectinglong‐termgrowthofrailtrafficandtrainactivity.

June 30, 2015 Page 55

FINAL REPORT


AppendixC

Rail Table 4Impact Upon Railroad Operations Performance: Three Bypass Options vs. Base Case

Reference Column Numbers ==> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Base Case Performance

Bypass Performance

Difference in Performance

Percent Difference in Performance

Run Time Difference Expressed in Minutes

Metric or Input

UP ‐ Glidden Sub

BNSF ‐ Galveston

SubEntire Bypass

Bypass ‐ Western Section

Entire Bypass vs.

UP ‐ Glidden Sub


Galveston Sub

Entire Bypass vs.

UP ‐ Glidden Sub

Bypass ‐ Western Section vs. BNSF ‐ Galveston

Sub

Entire Bypass vs.

UP ‐ Glidden Sub

Bypass ‐ Western Section vs. BNSF ‐ Galveston

SubBypass Option 1: BNSF Galveston AlignmentDistance (operating miles) 35.0 29.0 42.0 29.0 7.0 0.0 20% 0%Average Train Speed (MPH) ( 1 ) 30.2 31.2 40.9 40.9 10.7 9.7 35% 31%Average Run Time (Hours) 1.16 0.93 1.03 0.71 ‐0.13 ‐0.22 ‐11% ‐24% ‐8 ‐13Freight Train‐miles per Day 1054.0 423.0 1264.0 423.0 210.0 0.0 20% 0%Freight Train‐hours per Day 34.9 13.6 31.0 10.4 ‐3.9 ‐3.2 ‐11% ‐24%Bypass Option 2: BNSF Galvestion Plus Greenfield Corridor around SiennaDistance (operating miles) 35.0 29.0 47.0 34.0 12.0 5.0 34% 17%Average Train Speed (MPH) ( 1 ) 30.2 31.2 41.0 41.0 10.8 9.8 36% 31%Average Run Time (Hours) 1.16 0.93 1.15 0.83 ‐0.01 ‐0.10 ‐1% ‐11% ‐1 ‐6Freight Train‐miles per Day 1054.0 423.0 1415.0 496.0 361.0 73.0 34% 17%Freight Train‐hours per Day 34.9 13.6 34.6 12.1 ‐0.3 ‐1.5 ‐1% ‐11%Bypass Option 3: Rosenberg ‐ Arcola Greenfield CorridorDistance (operating miles) 35.0 29.0 47.0 34.0 12.0 5.0 34% 17%Average Train Speed (MPH) ( 1 ) 30.2 31.2 42.3 42.3 12.1 11.1 40% 36%Average Run Time (Hours) 1.16 0.93 1.11 0.80 ‐0.05 ‐0.13 ‐4% ‐14% ‐3 ‐8Freight Train‐miles per Day 1054.0 423.0 1415.0 496.0 361.0 73.0 34% 17%Freight Train‐hours per Day 34.9 13.6 33.4 11.7 ‐1.5 ‐1.9 ‐4% ‐14%

Notes:( 1 ) In Options 1 and 2, Average Train Speed (MPH) on the Bypass is lower than Option 3 because Options 1 and 2 assume trains will operate over approximately five miles of the UP‐Glidden Sub at an average speed that is slower than the average speed on the Bypass.

June 30, 2015 Page 56

FINAL REPORT


AppendixD

SocietalCostsandBenefitsCalculations25

Asetofcalculationsdirectlyrelevanttothebenefit‐costanalysis(BCA)assessmentsarethesocietalbenefits(orcosts)relativetochangesinthetrainactivitythroughat‐gradecrossingsalongtherailnetworkinthestudyarea.ThesecalculationswereperformedbyTexasA&MTransportationInstitute(TTI),usingitsImpedanceModel,incollaborationwiththeStudyTeam.Thetraveltimedelay,environmentalimpactsandtrain/vehicleaccident‐relatedexpenses(propertydamage,injuryandfatalities)werecalculatedandmonetized26.TheImpedanceModelcalculatesasocietal“cost”foreachat‐gradecrossingunderexistingandprojectedconditions.“Selectedgradecrossings”includelocationsatwhichdatawerecollectedbyfieldinspectionandotherroadwaylocationswhichexhibitaprojectedaveragedailytraffic(AADT)level,inyear2040,ofatleast5,000vehiclesperday.Theseconditionsreflectattributesoftheat‐gradecrossing,railroad,androadway;themostsignificantfactoristheAADT.AreductionincostbetweenexistingandprojectedconditionsoneachBypassoptionequalsabenefitofthatoption.Thenatureandmeasurementofthethreeimpactareasarereviewedbrieflybelow.

TravelDelayismeasuredintermsof“Vehicle‐HoursofDelay”usingtheImpedanceModel,withinputvaluesderivedfromthecombinationofannualaveragedailytraffic(AADT),timedistributionsoftrafficflowsthroughoutperiodsoftheday,thenumberoftrainspassingduringtheperiodofthedayandtheaveragedurationoftrainsoccupyingthecrossing;

GradeCrossingAccidentsaremeasuredincountsofaccidentsandarederivedusingAADTdata,whichinturnarecharacterizedasa)propertydamageonly,b)injuryandc)fatality.DataforwhichweresourcedfromreferencetablesfoundintheUSDOTTIGERGrantapplicationguidelinesandenteredintotheImpedanceModel,and

EnvironmentalImpactsareexpressedintermsofchangesinairpollutioncomponentssuchasnitrogenoxides(NOx),carbondioxide(CO2)andvolatileorganiccompounds(VOC).Fuelconsumptionimpactsalsoareestimated.TheseimpactsarecalculatedbytheImpedanceModelfromtheprimarymetricsofAADT,

25 TechnicalMemorandum3,Benefit–CostAnalysis:AppendixABenefit–CostAnalysisCalculations,SectionA.3,pagesA‐5–A‐9. 26 TechnicalMemorandum1,DataCollection,Benefit‐CostAnalysisAppendixA,providesanexplanationoftheTTIcalculationsusingthe“ImpedanceModel”thathasbeenderivedforthisspecifictypeofBCAcalculation.

June 30, 2015 Page 57

FINAL REPORT


theaveragenumberoftrainspassingthroughouttheday,andthedurationthatthegatearmsaredowntoblocktrafficflowacrossthetracks.

TableD‐1showstheresultsoftheImpedanceModelapplicationtoOptions1and2.Theseresultsrepresentbothoptionsbecausethesameat‐gradecrossingsontheUPGliddenSubdivisionandsamenewgradeseparationsontheBNSFGalvestonSubdivisionswouldresultinthesamereliefoffreighttrainimpactsforbothBypassoptions.InthecaseofOption3,thereareadditionalat‐gradecrossingswestofRosenbergthatareaffectedbytheinitiationoftheBypasscorridorfurthertothewest.TableD‐2hastheresultsoftheImpedanceModelapplicationforOption3.Inthesetables,thethreeareasofsocietalimpactsarecharacterizedasfollows:

AreaofSocietalImpact HeadingsinTablesD‐1andD‐2TravelDelay Delay–TravelTimeSavingsGradeCrossingAccidents Safety‐AccidentSavingsEnvironmentalImpacts Sustainability

June 30, 2015 Page 58

FINAL REPORT


TableD‐1

Option#1and#2SocietalCostsandBenefitsforasCalculatedbytheImpedanceModel

Note:IndividualBenefitValuesAreNotDiscountedtoNPV;OnlytheTotalBenefitsAreDiscountedtoNPV

Delay

Safety

Sustainability ‐

Redu

ction in

Carbon

Annu

al Travel

Time Savings

Safety /

Accide

nt

Savings

Bene

fit

NOX Savings

Bene

fits

VOC Savings

Benfits

CO2 Savings

Bene

fits

Fuel Saving

Bene

fits

NPV

of C

O2

Bene

fits a

t 3%

SCC

2014

$10,668,383

$778,689

$76,094

$3,085

$219,403

$2,176,018

$13,702,268

$13,702,268

$13,702,268

$219,403

$13,921,671

$13,921,671

2015

$11,749,703

$800,500

$82,805

$3,369

$252,517

$2,386,144

$15,022,521

$14,039,740

$14,584,972

$245,163

$14,284,902

$14,830,135

2016

$12,940,386

$822,863

$90,120

$3,681

$283,402

$2,616,767

$16,473,816

$14,388,869

$15,528,152

$267,133

$14,656,002

$15,795,285

2017

$14,249,628

$845,789

$98,084

$4,021

$317,878

$2,869,610

$18,067,132

$14,748,161

$16,533,985

$290,904

$15,039,065

$16,824,889

2018

$15,690,768

$869,292

$106,761

$4,393

$356,380

$3,147,069

$19,818,283

$15,119,273

$17,608,288

$316,639

$15,435,913

$17,924,927

2019

$17,274,474

$893,382

$116,201

$4,799

$407,990

$3,451,053

$21,739,910

$15,500,255

$18,753,037

$351,936

$15,852,191

$19,104,973

2020

$19,008,693

$918,074

$126,437

$5,241

$456,534

$3,782,770

$23,841,215

$15,886,408

$19,966,642

$382,340

$16,268,748

$20,348,982

2021

$20,911,413

$943,380

$137,559

$5,722

$500,123

$4,145,440

$26,143,515

$16,280,867

$21,257,070

$406,646

$16,687,513

$21,663,716

2022

$22,995,992

$969,313

$149,637

$6,247

$559,139

$4,541,575

$28,662,763

$16,681,989

$22,626,650

$441,390

$17,123,379

$23,068,040

2023

$25,249,204

$995,887

$162,572

$6,810

$636,459

$4,967,389

$31,381,861

$17,069,653

$24,051,584

$487,793

$17,557,446

$24,539,376

2024

$27,681,697

$1,023,114

$176,395

$7,414

$708,726

$5,425,052

$34,313,672

$17,443,331

$25,532,594

$527,359

$17,970,689

$26,059,953

2025

$30,300,973

$1,051,009

$191,116

$8,059

$787,740

$5,915,824

$37,466,982

$17,800,293

$27,066,945

$569,080

$18,369,373

$27,636,025

2026

$33,139,592

$1,079,585

$206,911

$8,754

$874,551

$6,445,868

$40,880,711

$18,151,524

$28,672,908

$613,393

$18,764,917

$29,286,301

2027

$36,170,468

$1,108,858

$223,608

$9,490

$968,752

$7,009,543

$44,521,967

$18,475,033

$30,317,293

$659,673

$19,134,706

$30,976,966

2028

$39,351,514

$1,138,840

$240,845

$10,254

$1,069,311

$7,597,528

$48,338,981

$18,746,690

$31,957,761

$706,941

$19,453,631

$32,664,702

2029

$42,736,258

$1,169,547

$258,845

$11,057

$1,177,702

$8,219,511

$52,395,218

$18,990,438

$33,630,496

$755,922

$19,746,360

$34,386,418

2030

$46,291,350

$1,200,993

$277,280

$11,888

$1,293,041

$8,868,693

$56,650,204

$19,189,384

$35,302,534

$805,780

$19,995,164

$36,108,314

2031

$50,019,716

$1,233,194

$296,089

$12,744

$1,391,481

$9,544,302

$61,106,045

$19,344,609

$36,970,162

$841,869

$20,186,478

$37,812,031

2032

$54,013,087

$1,266,165

$315,996

$13,654

$1,548,122

$10,265,011

$65,873,914

$19,489,714

$38,693,982

$909,358

$20,399,072

$39,603,340

2033

$58,261,775

$1,299,922

$336,890

$14,614

$1,690,976

$11,028,368

$70,941,568

$19,615,935

$40,456,985

$964,340

$20,580,275

$41,421,325

2034

$62,816,745

$1,334,479

$359,051

$15,636

$1,845,823

$11,843,031

$76,368,942

$19,735,186

$42,283,632

$1,021,987

$20,757,173

$43,305,619

2035

$67,691,044

$1,369,853

$382,552

$16,724

$2,013,429

$12,711,673

$82,171,847

$19,845,576

$44,171,417

$1,082,317

$20,927,894

$45,253,734

2036

$72,912,504

$1,406,061

$407,504

$17,883

$2,194,962

$13,639,456

$88,383,407

$19,949,299

$46,126,637

$1,145,534

$21,094,833

$47,272,171

2037

$78,503,000

$1,443,118

$433,964

$19,116

$2,391,414

$14,628,615

$95,027,813

$20,045,821

$48,149,809

$1,211,710

$21,257,531

$49,361,518

2038

$84,423,183

$1,481,042

$461,656

$20,411

$2,601,980

$15,672,024

$102,058,317

$20,120,452

$50,205,929

$1,280,002

$21,400,454

$51,485,931

2039

$90,749,322

$1,519,848

$490,945

$21,787

$2,829,328

$16,783,231

$109,565,133

$20,187,286

$52,328,918

$1,351,303

$21,538,589

$53,680,221

2040

$90,749,322

$1,519,848

$490,945

$21,787

$2,829,328

$16,783,231

$109,565,133

$18,866,622

$50,804,774

$1,311,945

$20,178,567

$52,116,719

Total

$1,136,550,193

$30,482,647

$6,696,861

$288,639

$32,206,491

$216,464,795

$1,390,483,136

$479,414,678

$847,285,424

$19,167,858

$498,582,535

$866,453,281

Total Ben

efits

Discou

nt to

2014 at 3

%Ye

ar

Sustainability

Total Ben

efits

‐Exclud

ing

redu

ction in

Carbon

Bene

fits

Discou

nt to

2014 at 7

% ‐

Exclud

ing

redu

ction in

Carbon

Bene

fits

Discou

nt to

2014 at 3

% ‐

Exclud

ing

redu

ction in

Carbon

Total Ben

efits

Discou

nt to

2014 at 7

%

June 30, 2015 Page 59

FINAL REPORT


TableD‐2

Option#3SocietalCostsandBenefitsforasCalculatedbytheImpedanceModel

Note:IndividualBenefitValuesAreNotDiscountedtoNPV;OnlytheTotalBenefitsAreDiscountedtoNPV

Delay

Safety

Sustainability ‐

Redu

ction in

Carbon

Annu

al Travel

Time Savings

Safety /

Accide

nt

Savings

Bene

fit

NOX Savings

Bene

fits

VOC Savings

Benfits

CO2 Savings

Bene

fits

Fuel Saving

Bene

fits

NPV

of C

O2

Bene

fits a

t 3%

SCC

2014

$10,699,609

$970,520

$76,706

$3,101

$220,485

$2,185,642

$13,935,577

$13,935,577

$13,935,577

$220,485

$14,156,062

$14,156,062

2015

$11,784,021

$999,035

$83,467

$3,387

$253,754

$2,396,617

$15,266,527

$14,267,782

$14,821,871

$246,363

$14,514,145

$15,068,233

2016

$12,978,105

$1,028,321

$90,835

$3,700

$284,779

$2,628,165

$16,729,127

$14,611,867

$15,768,806

$268,431

$14,880,298

$16,037,238

2017

$14,291,089

$1,058,396

$98,858

$4,042

$319,411

$2,882,018

$18,334,402

$14,966,333

$16,778,575

$292,307

$15,258,640

$17,070,882

2018

$15,736,346

$1,089,278

$107,598

$4,416

$358,087

$3,160,577

$20,098,216

$15,332,832

$17,857,004

$318,156

$15,650,988

$18,175,160

2019

$17,324,582

$1,120,986

$117,107

$4,824

$409,931

$3,465,762

$22,033,261

$15,709,410

$19,006,084

$353,610

$16,063,020

$19,359,694

2020

$19,063,786

$1,153,540

$127,417

$5,268

$458,692

$3,798,788

$24,148,799

$16,091,365

$20,224,239

$384,147

$16,475,512

$20,608,386

2021

$20,971,992

$1,186,960

$138,620

$5,752

$502,472

$4,162,887

$26,466,210

$16,481,826

$21,519,451

$408,556

$16,890,381

$21,928,007

2022

$23,062,607

$1,221,265

$150,785

$6,279

$561,751

$4,560,581

$29,001,517

$16,879,147

$22,894,066

$443,452

$17,322,599

$23,337,517

2023

$25,322,464

$1,256,476

$163,815

$6,845

$639,420

$4,988,097

$31,737,697

$17,263,204

$24,324,302

$490,062

$17,753,266

$24,814,364

2024

$27,762,271

$1,292,613

$177,741

$7,452

$712,015

$5,447,618

$34,687,695

$17,633,465

$25,810,903

$529,806

$18,163,271

$26,340,709

2025

$30,389,598

$1,329,698

$192,573

$8,101

$791,392

$5,940,419

$37,860,389

$17,987,198

$27,351,151

$571,719

$18,558,917

$27,922,869

2026

$33,237,079

$1,367,752

$208,489

$8,799

$878,607

$6,472,678

$41,294,797

$18,335,384

$28,963,340

$616,237

$18,951,621

$29,579,577

2027

$36,277,711

$1,406,798

$225,317

$9,539

$973,254

$7,038,771

$44,958,136

$18,656,028

$30,614,303

$662,738

$19,318,767

$31,277,042

2028

$39,469,499

$1,446,856

$242,696

$10,307

$1,074,308

$7,629,398

$48,798,756

$18,924,999

$32,261,727

$710,244

$19,635,243

$32,971,971

2029

$42,866,069

$1,487,950

$260,849

$11,115

$1,183,247

$8,254,268

$52,880,252

$19,166,237

$33,941,821

$759,481

$19,925,718

$34,701,302

2030

$46,434,183

$1,530,102

$279,452

$11,951

$1,299,193

$8,906,604

$57,162,291

$19,362,846

$35,621,650

$809,614

$20,172,460

$36,431,264

2031

$50,176,888

$1,573,336

$298,441

$12,813

$1,398,190

$9,585,659

$61,647,137

$19,515,905

$37,297,532

$845,928

$20,361,833

$38,143,460

2032

$54,186,050

$1,617,675

$318,545

$13,729

$1,555,693

$10,310,135

$66,446,134

$19,659,013

$39,030,101

$913,805

$20,572,819

$39,943,906

2033

$58,452,126

$1,663,143

$339,652

$14,695

$1,699,373

$11,077,610

$71,547,226

$19,783,404

$40,802,383

$969,129

$20,752,533

$41,771,512

2034

$63,026,247

$1,709,764

$362,046

$15,725

$1,855,135

$11,896,774

$77,010,555

$19,900,991

$42,638,877

$1,027,143

$20,928,134

$43,666,020

2035

$67,921,638

$1,757,563

$385,798

$16,820

$2,023,755

$12,770,338

$82,852,158

$20,009,880

$44,537,117

$1,087,868

$21,097,748

$45,624,985

2036

$73,166,329

$1,806,565

$411,022

$17,988

$2,206,410

$13,703,504

$89,105,408

$20,112,264

$46,503,444

$1,151,509

$21,263,773

$47,654,953

2037

$78,782,414

$1,856,795

$437,779

$19,230

$2,404,107

$14,698,550

$95,794,768

$20,207,608

$48,538,418

$1,218,141

$21,425,749

$49,756,559

2038

$84,730,784

$1,908,279

$465,792

$20,536

$2,616,051

$15,748,400

$102,873,791

$20,281,220

$50,607,088

$1,286,924

$21,568,144

$51,894,012

2039

$91,087,973

$1,961,042

$495,431

$21,923

$2,844,926

$16,866,652

$110,433,021

$20,347,193

$52,743,426

$1,358,752

$21,705,946

$54,102,178

2040

$91,087,973

$1,961,042

$495,431

$21,923

$2,844,926

$16,866,652

$110,433,021

$19,016,068

$51,207,209

$1,319,177

$20,335,246

$52,526,386

Total

$1,140,289,432

$38,761,747

$6,752,264

$290,261

$32,369,362

$217,443,162

$1,403,536,867

$484,439,048

$855,600,466

$19,263,784

$503,702,832

$874,864,250

Total Ben

efits

Discou

nt to

2014 at 3

%Ye

ar

Sustainability

Total Ben

efits

‐Exclud

ing

redu

ction in

Carbon

Bene

fits

Discou

nt to

2014 at 7

% ‐

Exclud

ing

redu

ction in

Carbon

Bene

fits

Discou

nt to

2014 at 3

% ‐

Exclud

ing

redu

ction in

Carbon

Total Ben

efits

Discou

nt to

2014 at 7

%

final report fort bend bypass study - phase 2 bend bypass study final report.pdf · 2016-05-17 ·...

Documents