freight system plan - wsdot.wa.gov

i APPENDIX A: FREIGHT INVESTMENT PLAN

2017 WASHINGTON STATE FREIGHT SYSTEM PLAN

WASHINGTON STATE

FREIGHT SYSTEM PLAN

Appendix A: 2017 Washington State

Freight Investment Plan

December 2017

Rail, Freight, and Ports Division

Contents

1.1 National Highway Freight Network ................................................................................. 1

1.1.1 Critical Urban and Rural Freight Corridor Designation Criteria and Process .......... 3

1.1.2 Designated Critical Urban and Rural Freight Corridors ........................................... 6

1.2 National Highway Freight Program ............................................................................... 12

1.2.1 Legislative requirements for preservation ............................................................. 15

1.2.2 Development of the 2016 freight project list .......................................................... 16

1.2.3 Validation of the 2016 freight project list ............................................................... 17

1.3 Unconstrained Freight Project List ............................................................................... 23

1.3.1 Projects validated in stage two .............................................................................. 23

1.3.2 Projects validated in stage one ............................................................................. 29

1.3.3 Projects not validated ............................................................................................ 31

1.3.4 Projects no longer seeking NHFP funding ............................................................ 36

1.3.5 Projects ineligible for NHFP funding ...................................................................... 38

1.4 Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects Program...................................... 43

ii APPENDIX A: FREIGHT INVESTMENT PLAN


Exhibits

Exhibit 1-1 : Critical Urban Freight Corridor Criteria ..................................................................... 3

Exhibit 1-2 : Critical Urban and Rural Freight Corridor Designation Process ............................... 4

Exhibit 1-3: Critical Rural Freight Corridor Criteria ........................................................................ 5

Exhibit 1-4: National Highway Freight Network in Washington ..................................................... 6

Exhibit 1-5: Critical Rural Freight Corridors Designated by WSDOT ............................................ 7

Exhibit 1-6: Critical Urban Freight Corridors Designated by WSDOT ........................................... 9

Exhibit 1-7: Critical Urban Freight Corridors Designated by PSRC ............................................ 11

Exhibit 1-8: Summary of National Highway Freight Program Funding by Federal Fiscal Year ... 13

Exhibit 1-9: Projects Funded by the National Highway Freight Program, FFY 2016-2020 ......... 13

Exhibit 1-10: Criteria and Measures for Evaluating Freight System Benefits ............................. 19

Exhibit 1-11: Projects Validated in Stage Two ............................................................................ 24

Exhibit 1-12: Projects Validated in Stage One ............................................................................ 29

Exhibit 1-13: Projects Not Validated ........................................................................................... 32

Exhibit 1-14: Projects No Longer Seeking NHFP Funding ......................................................... 37

Exhibit 1-15: Projects Ineligible for NHFP Funding ..................................................................... 38

Exhibit 1-16: Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects Program Funded Projects .... 44

Exhibit 1-17: Projects Submitted to WSDOT in 2016 for FASTLANE Funding ........................... 44

Title VI Notice to Public

It is the Washington State Department of Transportation’s (WSDOT) policy to assure that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin or sex, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise discriminated against under any of its federally funded programs and activities. Any person who believes his/her Title VI protection has been violated, may file a complaint with WSDOT’s Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO). For additional information regarding Title VI complaint procedures and/or information regarding our non-discrimination obligations, please contact OEO’s Title VI Coordinator at (360) 705-7090.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information

This material can be made available in an alternate format by emailing the Office of Equal Opportunity at [email protected] or by calling toll free, 855-362-4ADA (4232). Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may make a request by calling the Washington State Relay at 711.


1 APPENDIX A: FREIGHT INVESTMENT PLAN

APPENDIX A: FREIGHT INVESTMENT PLAN This 2017 Washington State Freight Investment Plan was developed to guide investments that benefit freight transportation in Washington and to track recent freight funding investments. Federal law1 requires that each state freight plan include a freight investment plan that:

Includes a list of priority projects and describes how National Highway Freight Program2 (NHFP) funds made available would be invested and matched.

Is fiscally constrained and includes a project, or an identified phase of a project, only if funding for completion of the project can reasonably be anticipated to be available for the project within the time period identified in the freight investment plan, which is five years.

Many sources are available and used to fund projects that benefit freight transportation in Washington. Some of these are described in Appendix D. This freight investment plan focuses on the two freight-intensive programs developed by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act3: the NHFP and the National Significant Freight and Highway Projects4 (NSFHP) program. The FAST Act created the first dedicated funding program that may be used for a wide range of freight projects on the designated highway freight network. The NHFP provides $6.3 billion apportioned to states by formula. The funds may be used for a wide range of freight projects to improve the movement of freight on the National Highway Freight Network.

1.1 National Highway Freight Network The National Highway Freight Network5 (NHFN) was established in the 2015 FAST Act to strategically direct federal resources and policies toward improved performance of this network. The NHFN is used to determine project eligibility for NHFP and NSFHP program funding. For the NSFHP program, eligible projects include those on the NHFN, NHS, or other project types, such as intermodal freight projects.

The NHFN includes the following components:

Primary Highway Freight System (PHFS); Other portions of the Interstate Highway System not on the PHFS; Critical Rural Freight Corridors (CRFCs); and Critical Urban Freight Corridors (CUFCs).

In 2016, WSDOT worked with urban and regional partners to identify CUFCs and CRFCs to meet federal requirements and eligibility requirements for NHFP and NSFHP.

1 49 USC 70202. State Freight Plans. http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title49-section70202&num=0&edition=prelim 2 23 USC 167. National Highway Freight Program. http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:23%20section:167%20edition:prelim) 3 Public Law 114-94. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/legislation.cfm 4 23 USC 117.Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects. http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:23%20section:117%20edition:prelim) 5 23 USC 167. National Highway Freight Network. http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:23%20section:167%20edition:prelim)



CRFCs are public roads outside an urbanized area with populations greater than 50,000, according to Census Bureau population estimates. They must meet one of the following seven characteristics:

Must be a rural principal arterial with a minimum of 25 percent of the annual average daily traffic of the road measured in passenger car equivalent units from trucks;

Provide access to energy exploration, development, installation, or production areas; Connect to the PHFS or Interstate Highway System to facilities that handle at least

50,000 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU) or 500,000 tons per year of bulk commodities;

Provide access to a grain elevator, agricultural, mining, forestry, or intermodal facility; Connect to an international port of entry, Provide access to significant air, rail, water, or other freight facilities in the state; or Important to freight movement as determined by the state.

CUFCs are public roads inside an urbanized area with populations greater than 50,000, according to Census Bureau population estimates. They must meet one of the following four characteristics:

Connects an intermodal facility to the PHFS, the Interstate Highway System, or an intermodal facility.

Is located within a corridor of a route on the PHFS and provides an alternative highway option important to goods movement.

Within a corridor of a route on the PHFS and provides an alternative highway option important to goods movement.

Important to freight movement as determined by the MPO or state.

In 2015, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) designated the first two components of the NHFN; these designations will not be updated again for five years. Responsibility for designating CUFCs and CRFCs in Washington was given to WSDOT and regional partners. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in urbanized areas with a population of 500,000 or more are responsible for designating CUFCs in consultation with the state; only the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) meets this population threshold. In urbanized areas with a population of less than 500,000, WSDOT has the responsibility to designate CUFCs in consultation with the MPO. In non-urbanized areas, WSDOT is responsible for designating CRFCs.

Mileage limitations are specified for corridor designations in the state. Washington is limited to 81.66 centerline miles for CUFCs and 163.31 centerline miles for CRFCs. States and MPOs (for urbanized areas over 500,000) are responsible for jointly determining how to distribute the CUFC mileage among the urbanized areas.

WSDOT and PSRC are required to certify with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrator that the designated corridors meet the applicable CRFC and CUFC requirements. The FHWA Division Office, acting on behalf of the FHWA Administrator, is responsible for reviewing the certifying designations, and forwarding on to FHWA Headquarters.



1.1.1 Critical Urban and Rural Freight Corridor Designation Criteria and Process PSRC served as the lead for CUFC designation within its urbanized areas, and WSDOT served as the lead for CUFC designation in other urbanized areas. PSRC and WSDOT agreed to a cooperative process that resulted in a statewide CUFC designation that did not exceed the mileage limit as required in federal guidance,6 and they signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in February 2016. The MOU set forth the principles and criteria PSRC and WSDOT agreed upon for corridor designation, and both agencies were committed to work in close consultation to develop corridor designations that enhance Washington’s position on the NHFN. The following CUFC criteria were specified in the MOU and adopted by both agencies to move forward:

High truck volume/tonnage. Close connectivity to the NHFN, major freight intermodal facilities, and large

industrial/warehouse centers. Scalable to limit Washington’s total candidate mileage to the maximum allowable limit

(the CUFC mileage limit for Washington is 81.66 miles).

To apply the second criteria listed above, WSDOT and PSRC used different datasets:

PSRC screened corridors using the region’s nine designated Manufacturing and Industrial Centers (MICs), as well as connections to ports in the region.

WSDOT screened corridors using major clusters of industrial parcels based on a statewide land use dataset, as well as connections to major freight intermodal facilities.

Lastly, both agencies examined locations with active freight projects as the last screening criteria. This was done to narrow corridor selection and choose the locations with critical needs for improvements. Exhibit 1-1 shows the data sources, and specific threshold used by WSDOT to implement those criteria and identify candidate CUFCs.

Exhibit 1-1 : Critical Urban Freight Corridor Criteria

Criteria Data Source Threshold

High truck volume/tonnage WSDOT Freight and Goods

Transportation System

T-1 and T-2 Freight Corridors (freight routes carrying more than 4 million gross truck tons annually)

Connectivity to major freight intermodal facilities

Same facilities identified in 2014 State Freight Plan

Serves as first/last mile connectors between intermodal facilities and Primary Highway Freight Network

Connectivity to large industrial/warehouse centers

2012 Statewide land parcel data

A minimum of 200 acres for a cluster of industrial parcels (land use classified as manufacturing or wholesale trade use) within a 1/4-mile distance.

6 Federal Highway Administration. Designating and Certifying Critical Rural Freight Corridors and Critical Urban Freight Corridors. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/crfc/sec_1116_gdnce.htm



WSDOT and PSRC started the process in February 2016, completing the designation and certification in September 2016. Exhibit 1-2 shows the process used to designate corridors. WSDOT engaged and consulted with following key stakeholders through the process:

Washington State Freight Advisory Committee (WAFAC): WSDOT held three meetings with WAFAC to establish the process, discuss draft corridors for review, and discuss the final corridor list for confirmation.

MPOs/RTPOs: WSDOT consulted with all MPOs and Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs) using the following approach: 1) discussion of corridor designation with MPO/RTPO/WSDOT Coordinating Committee at quarterly meetings; 2) formation of a small technical working group including representatives from MPOs and RTPOs to reach consensus on the criteria and to review and revise draft corridor list and maps; and 3) individual discussions with each MPO and RTPO to understand their critical needs for freight investment and to verify proposed corridors.

FHWA Division Office: WSDOT engaged the division office to provide updates on the process and seek clarifications on federal guidance. WSDOT submitted the final designation for certification in August 2016; FHWA’s Division Office verified the corridors in September 2016.

Exhibit 1-2 : Critical Urban and Rural Freight Corridor Designation Process

Partners Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

FMSIB/WAFAC Consultation

Discuss

the process

Present

draft Maps

Present final

map for approval

MPO/RTPO Consultation

Start the

process

Draft Maps for Review

Confirmation Present

final map

Technical Workgroup

Form the

group

Agreement on

Principles and

Criteria

Review draft maps

Revisit and adjust the corridor

designation

Others Federal Guidance

FHWA Certification

Due to the differences in key stakeholders, PSRC employed a separate process for CUFC designation:

PSRC consulted with the FAST Freight Advisory Committee7 to develop the process and seek input from stakeholders.

PSRC held individual meetings or discussions with ports, counties and cities with designated MICs.

7 Puget Sound Regional Council. FAST Freight Advisory Committee. https://www.psrc.org/committee/fast-freight-advisory-committee



The PSRC Transportation Policy Board and Executive Board provided final designation approval before submission to FHWA.

PSRC also participated with WSDOT on the technical working group for corridor designations.

WSDOT served as the lead for CRFC designation in non-urbanized areas in Washington. WSDOT consulted with all 14 RTPOs within the state and established the following criteria for CRFC identification:

Rural principal arterials with at least 25 percent of truck volume or high truck volume corridors.

Roadways providing access to agricultural or forestry facilities, intermodal ports of entry, large industrial/warehouse centers, or significant intermodal freight facilities.

Scalable to limit Washington’s total candidate mileage to the caps written into the FAST Act (CRFC mileage limit for Washington is 163.31 miles).

To implement these criteria, WSDOT used a two-step approach: 1) initial screening based on criteria, by using the data sources and specific thresholds as shown in Exhibit 1-3 to identify candidate corridors; and 2) secondary screening to scale down and identify locations with active freight projects.

Exhibit 1-3: Critical Rural Freight Corridor Criteria

Criteria Data Source Threshold

Rural principal arterials with 25% of truck volume or high volume corridors

WSDOT Traffic volume data

collected on state highways, and

Highway Performance

Monitoring System for local

roads; WSDOT Freight and

Goods Transportation System

T-1 and T-2 Freight Corridors – freight routes carrying more than 4 million gross truck tons annually;

Or 25 percent of the annual daily traffic from trucks in passenger car equivalent units

Connectivity to major freight intermodal facilities

Same facilities identified in 2014 State Freight Plan

Serves as first/last mile connectors between intermodal facilities and Primary Highway Freight Network

Access to agricultural and forestry facilities

Data sets from state and federal agencies (USDA, WSDA, Dept. of Ecology, and DNR), including Public Grain Warehouses, Fruit Packers, Dairy Processing Plants, Meat and poultry processing facilities, and Wood mills.

Identify major clusters based on

the concentration of facilities

WSDOT consulted with key stakeholders through the same outreach process for the CUFC designation. A small technical working group was formed including representatives from several MPOs and RTPOs across the state. The group met four times to reach consensus on the selection criteria, and to review and provide input on candidate corridor selections. Based on working group input, WSDOT developed several iterations of the draft corridors. To meet the mileage limit, WSDOT had individual discussions with each MPO and RTPO to narrow the



corridor selection by prioritizing corridor segments with active freight projects. These discussions also helped in reaching a balance of corridor designations between geographical areas. 1.1.2 Designated Critical Urban and Rural Freight Corridors

WSDOT and PSRC submitted the final lists of CUFCs and CRFCs to the FHWA Division Office in August 2016; the corridor designations were verified by FHWA in September 2016. WSDOT was the first state and PSRC was the first MPO in the nation to complete certification of Critical Urban and Rural Freight Corridors as part of the NHFN. A map of the NHFN in Washington is shown in Exhibit 1-4, including all CUFC and CRFC designations. Exhibit 1-5 lists the Critical Rural Freight Corridors designated by WSDOT. Exhibit 1-6 lists the Critical Urban Freight Corridors designated by WSDOT. Exhibit 1-7 lists the Critical Urban Freight Corridors designated by PSRC. A total of 163.24 miles of CRFCs were designated in the state; 38.54 miles of CUFCs were designated within PSRC urbanized areas, and 43.10 miles of CUFCs designated in other urbanized areas outside PSRC.

Exhibit 1-4: National Highway Freight Network in Washington



Exhibit 1-5: Critical Rural Freight Corridors Designated by WSDOT

County Route Name Start Point End Point Length

(mi.) Corridor

Type

Adams SR 17 North of West Rankin Rd Adams/Grant County line

1.33 T-2

Chelan US 97 National Forest Development Road 7200

Kittitas/Chelan County line

15.79 T-2

Chelan US 97 US 2 National Forest Development Road 7200

5.18 T-2

Franklin SR 17 North of SR 260 South of Adam/Franklin County line

3.97 T-2

Grant O NE I-90 3 Northeast 2.58 T-2 & T-3

Grant 3 NE 3 Northeast E Wheeler Rd 0.99 T-2 & T-3

Grant SR 17 1.3 mile south of Rd 3 Southeast

1 mile north of Rd 6 Southeast

1.55 T-2

Grant SR 281 I-90 SR 28 10.55 T-2

Grays Harbor

US 101 SR 105 (Aberdeen) Aberdeen Couplet 3.87 T-2

Grays Harbor

US 101 Couplet South H St US 101 in Hoquiam 3.99 T-2

Grays Harbor

US 101 Couplet South G St E Wishkah St 0.13 T-2

Grays Harbor

US 12 US 101 South Fleet St 0.6 T-2

Grays Harbor

US 12 Couplet South G St US 12 0.35 T-2

King SR 18 South of Issaquah Hobart Rd South

I-90 8.11 T-1

Kittitas US 97 SR 970 Kittitas/Chelan County line

14.29 T-2

Klickitat Hood River Bridge SR 14 (Milepost 65.08) Oregon State Line 0.45 Not classified

Klickitat The Dalles Bridge on US 197

US 197 Oregon State Line 0.24 Not classified

Klickitat US 97 Sam Hill Memorial Bridge

US 97 Milepost 0 Oregon State Line 0.21 T-1

Mason SR 3 SR 302 Mason/Kitsap County line

4.97 T-3

Skagit Cook Rd I-5 Green Road 0.22 T-2

Skamania Bridge of the Gods SR 14 (Milepost 41.55) Oregon State Line 0.23 Not classified



County Route Name Start Point End Point Length

(mi.) Corridor

Type

Spokane Bigelow Gulch Rd Jensen Rd Forker Rd 3.76 T-2

Spokane Bigelow Gulch Rd (Planned route)

West of Palmer Rd Bradley Rd 1.18 New alignment

Spokane Bigelow Gulch Rd (Realignment)

Bradley Rd Jensen Rd 0.85 T-2

Spokane Forker Rd Bigelow Gulch Rd Proposed Sullivan Rd

0.74 T-2

Spokane SR 290 Starr Road 0.36 mile east of Starr Road

0.36 T-2

Spokane US 395 0.3 mile north of Crawford St

0.45 mile south of Burroughs Rd

2.5 T-2

Stevens US 395 Williams Lake Road Vanesse Road 5.42 T-2

Walla Walla

US 12 Boise Cascade Rd US 730 2.93 T-1

Walla Walla

US 12 US 730 Nine Mile Hill 9.75 T-2

Whatcom SR 539 SR 546 Canadian Border 2.62 T-3

Whatcom SR 9 West Garfield St Canadian Border 0.17 T-2

Whitman SR 26 Adams/Whitman County line

SR 127 20.04 T-3

Whitman SR 26 SR 127 Penawawa Rd 5.08 T-2

Whitman US 195 Colfax Pullman 12.19 T-2

Yakima LaRue Rd US 97 SR 22 0.93 Not classified

Yakima LaRue Rd (Planned route)

SR 22 Meyers Rd 0.62 New alignment

Yakima Meyers Rd L St I-82 1.92 T-3

Yakima L St Meyers Rd Meyers Rd 0.3 T-3

Yakima Meyers Rd South Track Rd L St 0.46 T-3

Yakima US 97 LaRue Rd SR 22 0.67 T-2

Yakima US 97 SR 22 South of Yakima UA Boundary

11.15 T-2



Exhibit 1-6 Critical Urban Freight Corridors Designated by WSDOT

Urbanized Area Route Name Start Point End Point Length

(mi.) Corridor

Type

Kennewick/Pasco/ Richland

US 395 North Boundary of Urbanized Area

0.5 mile south of Foster Welles Rd

1 T-1


US 395 I-182 I-82 7.54 T-1


US 12 A St Tank Farm Rd 0.93 T-1

Lewiston/Clarkston Fleshman Way

SR129 underpass Idaho State Line 0.15 T-2

Lewiston/Clarkston US 12 2nd St Idaho State Line 0.2 T-3

Longview/Kelso SR 432 I-5 SR 433 4.51 T-1

Olympia/Lacey/Tumwater Henderson Blvd

I-5 Plum St Southeast 0.43 T-2

Olympia/Lacey/Tumwater Plum St Southeast

Henderson Blvd State Ave 0.63 T-2

Olympia/Lacey/Tumwater East Bay Dr Northeast

Plum St Southeast Olympia Ave Northeast

0.06 T-3

Olympia/Lacey/Tumwater Olympia Ave Northeast

East Bay Dr Northeast

Marine Dr Northeast

0.13 T-3

Olympia/Lacey/Tumwater US 101 Black Lake Blvd Southwest

Kaiser Rd 1.08 T-1

Spokane/Spokane Valley North Freya St

East Empire Ave East Francis Ave 1.53 T-3

Spokane/Spokane Valley North Market St

North Greene St North Haven PI 0.83 T-1

Spokane/Spokane Valley North Greene St

East Illinois Ave East Mission Ave 0.9 T-1

Spokane/Spokane Valley North Freya Way

East Mission Ave North Freya St 0.34 T-1

Spokane/Spokane Valley North Freya St

North Freya Way Sprague Ave 0.74 T-1

Spokane/Spokane Valley South Freya St

Sprague Ave I-90 0.26 T-1

Spokane/Spokane Valley South Thor Pl/South Thor St

Sprague Ave I-90 0.31 T-1

Spokane/Spokane Valley North Argonne Rd

North of East Empire Ave

SR 290 0.57 T-1

Spokane/Spokane Valley Argonne Rd SR 290 Mullan Rd 0.38 T-1

Spokane/Spokane Valley Argonne Rd Mullan Rd I-90 0.2 T-1

Spokane/Spokane Valley Mullan Rd Argonne Rd I-90 0.21 T-1



Urbanized Area Route Name Start Point End Point Length

(mi.) Corridor

Type

Spokane/Spokane Valley Sullivan Rd BNSF grade crossing south of SR 290

North City Limit of Spokane Valley

0.63 T-3

Spokane/Spokane Valley Sullivan Rd (Planned route)

Forker Rd North City Limit of Spokane Valley

0.81 New alignment

Spokane/Spokane Valley Appleway Ave

Liberty Lake Rd Molter Rd 0.84 T-2

Spokane/Spokane Valley Airport Dr Spotted Rd Airport Dr (loop) 0.25 Not classified

Spokane/Spokane Valley Spotted Rd Airport Dr WB Airport Dr EB 0.14 Not classified

Spokane/Spokane Valley Spotted Rd Airport Dr EB Flightline Blvd 0.77 Not classified

Spokane/Spokane Valley Flightline Blvd

Spotted Rd Grove Rd 0.44 Not classified

Spokane/Spokane Valley Grove Rd Flightline Blvd I-90 0.22 T-2

Spokane/Spokane Valley Barker Rd SR 290 Flora Road 0.07 T-3

Spokane/Spokane Valley SR 290 0.4 mile west of Starr Rd

Starr Road 0.39 T-2

Vancouver/Camas/Battle Ground

SR 14 I-205 (Vancouver) Southeast 164th Ave

2.45 T-1


SR 14 Port St 32nd St (Washougal)

2.04 T-2


SR 501 I-5 (Vancouver) Fourth Plain Blvd 1.94 T-1


501 Couplet Franklin St I-5 onramp 0.55 T-1

Wenatchee/East Wenatchee

SR 285 North Miller St US 2 1.99 T-2 & T-3

Yakima/Selah/Union Gap North 1st St US 12 I St 0.81 T-3

Yakima/Selah/Union Gap I St 1st St 5th Ave 0.32 T-3

Yakima/Selah/Union Gap I St 5th Ave 6th Ave 0.06 Not classified

Yakima/Selah/Union Gap 6th Ave I St River Rd 0.25 Not classified

Yakima/Selah/Union Gap

South Union Gap Beltway/ Westside Connector (Planned route)

West Ahtanum Rd I-82 ramp 1.98 New alignment



Exhibit 1-7: Critical Urban Freight Corridors Designated by PSRC

Jurisdiction Route Name Start Point End Point Length

(mi.) Port of Everett 41st St 41st Pacific Ave 0.559

Port of Everett Rucker Ave 41st Pacific Ave 0.914

City of Everett SR 526 MP 0.76 MP 4.52 3.76

Seattle/BNMIC West Emerson Pl

21st Ave W West Emerson St 0.197

Seattle/BNMIC West Emerson St

West Emerson Pl 15th Ave West 0.233

Seattle/BNMIC West Nickerson St

15th Ave West 13th Ave West 0.278

Seattle/BNMIC Elliott Ave West South Galer St Grade Crossing

15th Ave West 0.113

Seattle/BNMIC 15th Ave Northwest

Elliott Ave West Ballard Bridge Draw Span

1.869

Seattle/BNMIC 15th Ave West Ballard Bridge Draw Span

Northwest 50th St

0.362

Seattle/BNMIC West Galer St Grade Separation

15th Ave West Alaskan Way West

0.295

Seattle/Duwamish MIC SR 99 - East Marginal Way South

MP 28.26 at Diagonal Ave South

MP 28.73 at East Marginal Way South

0.47

Seattle/Duwamish MIC East Marginal Way South

SR 99 - East Marginal Way South

Alaskan Way South

1.292

Seattle/Duwamish MIC Alaskan Way South

East Marginal Way South

South Atlantic St 0.253

Seattle/Duwamish MIC South Atlantic St Alaskan Way South

1st Ave South 0.152

Seattle/Duwamish MIC SR 519 - Edgar Martinez Dr South

MP 0.00 at 4th Ave South

MP 0.24 at 1st Ave South

0.24

Seattle/Duwamish MIC South Hanford St

East Marginal Way South

1st Ave South 0.274

Seattle/Duwamish MIC 1st Ave South South Hanford St South Lander St 0.293

Seattle/Duwamish MIC South Lander St 1st Ave South 4th Ave South 0.239

Seattle/ Duwamish MIC 6th Ave South South Spokane St South Industrial Way

0.357

Seattle/Duwamish MIC South Industrial Way

4th Ave South Airport Way South

0.372

Seattle/Duwamish MIC 4th Ave South South Lander St Edgar Martinez Dr South/SR-519

0.725

Sea-Tac/International Air Cargo

South 154th SR 518 off-ramp 24th Ave South 0.542

Sea-Tac/International Air Cargo

South 160th Air Cargo Road Airport Expressway

0.088



Jurisdiction Route Name Start Point End Point Length

(mi.) Tukwila Southwest 27th

St Renton/Tukwila C/L

Oaksdale Ave South

0.385

Tukwila Strander Blvd SR 181 Renton/Tukwila C/L

0.164

Tukwila SR 181 MP 10.87 at Strander Blvd

MP 11.37 at I-405

0.5

Kent/Kent MIC South 212th SR 167 SR 181 1.363

Sumner/Pacific MIC SR 410 SR 167 Traffic Ave 0.48

Sumner/Pacific MIC 142nd Ave East Tacoma Ave 24th St East 1.263

Sumner/Pacific MIC 24th St East 142nd Ave East 136th Ave East 0.4

Sumner/Pacific MIC 24th St East 136th Ave East SR 167 0.158

Sumner/Pacific MIC Stewart Rd SR 167 Stewart at 8th 0.678

Pierce County/ Frederickson MIC

70th Ave East 48th St East North Levee Rd 0.09


Canyon Rd (Proposed)

North Levee Rd Canyon Rd (Existing)

1.257


Canyon Rd Canyon Rd (Proposed)

SR 512 3.237

Tacoma/Port of Tacoma MIC

Eells St Portland Ave Fife city limits 0.556

Tacoma/Port of Tacoma MIC

Portland Ave Lincoln Lincoln Ave 0.713

WSDOT SR 509 SR 509 mainline SR 99 2.07

WSDOT SR 167 SR 99 SR 161/Existing SR 167 Valley Freeway

4.29

WSDOT SR 509 I-5 Existing SR 509 Burien Freeway

2.82

Kitsap County/SKIA MIC SR 3 MP 33.82 MP 36.68 2.86

Kitsap County/SKIA MIC SR 16 MP 27.81 MP 29.19 1.38

1.2 National Highway Freight Program The National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) provides $6.3 billion in formula funds over five years for states to invest in freight projects on the NHFN. Up to 10 percent of these funds may be used for intermodal projects. The amount available to Washington under the NHFP over five years is estimated at $89 million8 from federal fiscal years 2016 to 2020, which serves as the basis for this 2017 Washington State Freight Investment Plan.

8 WSDOT Capital Program Development and Management Office estimate



Generally, NHFP funds must contribute to the efficient movement of freight on the NHFN. The eligible uses of program funds include 23 project types, ranging from development phase activities to construction, rehabilitation, or any other surface transportation projects improving the flow of freight into and out of a freight intermodal facility.

Exhibit 1-8 shows a summary of NHFP funding by federal fiscal year (FFY). Obligation limitation is calculated as a percentage of apportionment received based on formula distribution to Washington state. This summary table also shows the total amount of NHFP funding allocated each year to freight projects, and the amount from other federal sources, and non-feral match for those investments. For FFY 2018, the obligation limitation is based on the daily rate, as described in the revised distribution of federal-aid highway program obligation limitation notice N4520.249.9

Exhibit 1-8: Summary of National Highway Freight Program Funding by Federal Fiscal Year

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Obligation Limitation $19,297,000 $18,335,000 $17,947,000 $20,288,000 $13,624,000 NHFP Funding Allocation $6,991,000 $30,641,000 $17,947,000 $20,288,000 $13,624,000

Other Federal $0 $5,028,000 $67,320,000 $1,666,000 $1,369,000

Non-Federal Match $0 $2,095,000 $102,348,000 $19,792,000 $34,155,000

Total $6,991,000 $37,764,000 $187,615,000 $41,746,000 $49,148,000

Note: amounts are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars in exhibits 1-8 and 1-9.

Exhibit 1-9 shows the details of freight projects funded by the NHFP by federal fiscal year. This table shows how NHFP funds have been invested and matched with other federal and non-federal funding sources.

Exhibit 1-9: Projects Funded by the National Highway Freight Program, FFY 2016-2020

Funding 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Project Owner

Project Name and Description

*NHFP Other Federal Non-Federal Match Total

$6,991,000

$6,991,000

$4,524,000 $0

$235,000 $4,759,000

WSDOT I-90: Adams Co Line to Spokane Co Line -Grind existing asphalt surface and resurface with Hot Mix Asphalt.


$3,650,000 $0

$75,000 $3,725,000

WSDOT I-5 SB 88th St to SR 531 - Mill and fill the roadway and ramps on this section of I-5 with HMA from MP 199.11 to MP 205.27. Required minor safety work will be included.


$22,308,000 $4,816,000

$585,000 $27,709,000

WSDOT I-90 / 468th Ave SE to W Summit Rd EB –Replacing severely deteriorated panels, and grinding the concrete surface full width, this project

9 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/n4520249/



will extend the pavement life and provide a smoother ride. The project will also restore delineation.


$159,000

$159,000

$5,770,000 $1,577,000

$253,000 $7,600,000

WSDOT I-90/Floating Bridges - Replace Anchor Cables – Replace anchor cables on the Lacey V Murrow floating bridge (90/25S) and on the Homer M Hadley floating bridge.

NHFP Other Federal Non-Federal Match Total

$1,812,000 $10,000,000 $27,665,000 $39,477,000

Port of Everett

South Terminal Modernization Project Phase II - Strengthen the remaining 560-feet of the South Terminal, install 700-feet of crane rail to support 2, 100-foot gauge gantry cranes, and construct a double rail siding to support the cargo operations.


$3,000,000 $54,595,000 $65,405,000

$123,000,000

City of Seattle

S Lander St Grade Separation and Railway Safety Project - Build an east-west bridge over the north-south BNSF rail line.


$2,000,000 $400,000

$6,862,000 $9,262,000

City of Fife Pacific Highway E/54th Ave E Intersection Improvements -Construct a 2nd westbound left-lane turn lane, new signal poles, illumination and other intersection improvements.


$4,707,000 $748,000 $963,000

$6,418,000

City of Sumner

142nd Ave & 24th St. - This project resurfaces 142nd Ave E and 24th St E in phases. This corridor connects the north and south sections of the Sumner/Pacific Manufacturing Industrial Center to SR 167.


$212,000

$1,200,000 $1,412,000

$658,000 $0

$1,200,000 $1,858,000

$5,214,000 $0

$1,200,000 $6,414,000

Spokane County

Bigelow Gulch - Forker Road Connecter - This project will construct a structure for Bigelow traffic to pass over Forker traffic to eliminate left turning traffic on Bigelow Gulch Road.


$1,500,000 $0

$1,500,000 $3,000,000

Northwest Seaport Alliance

Port Community Technology System (PCTS) - This project will implement a neutral and open electronic platform for the intelligent and secure exchange of information between public and private stakeholders.


$8,895,000 $1,384,000

$11,106,000 $21,386,000

City of Tacoma

Taylor Way Rehabilitation: Reconstruct roadway (Taylor Way) to heavy haul standards, remove/upgrade rail crossings, widen SR509/Taylor Way intersection, install fiber/ITS/signal improvements, new sidewalks and curb ramps, street lighting and channelization.


$1,769,000 $282,000

$45,000 $2,096,000

WSDOT SR 501/I-5 to SW 26th St Ext Vic Including Couplet: Paving - Resurfaces the deteriorating pavement with a hot mix asphalt overlay to extend the life of the existing pavement.



**NHFP Other Federal **Non-Federal Match **Total

$1,990,000 $0

$5,341,000

$7,331,000

City of Union Gap

Union Gap Regional Beltway Connector - This project will provide a direct route from Interstate 82/US 97 South Union Gap Interchange to the industrial area and serve as the east/west freight corridor.


$920,000 $0

$600,000 $1,520,000

$4,380,000 $0

$3,600,000 $7,980,000

City of Longview

SR 432 Corridor Improvements: Phase II - This 2 phase project will improve the SR 432 Corridor at two locations: SR 411/432 on-ramp and off-ramp interchange and California Way/SR 432 intersection.


$1,300,000 $0

$400,000 $1,700,000

Port of Pasco

Big Pasco Intermodal Rail Reconstruction: Reconstruct 12,300 LF of WWII era Port-owned rail which is actively used for intermodal transloading and bulk deliveries.

NHFP Other Federal Non-Federal Match ***Total

$6,000,000 $720,000

$8,998,000 $18,738,000

City of Spokane Valley

Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation Project – Replace an at-grade crossing with an overpass of BNSF’s railroad and ties into SR290 to the north with an at grade intersection.


$1,944,000 $649,000

$21,157,000 $23,750,000

City of Kennewick

US395/Ridgeline Drive Interchange: Construct grade separated interchange at US395/Ridgeline Drive, with Ridgeline Drive to go over US395.

Note: * project utilized toll credits for match.

** the NHFP fund allocated to this project and its non-federal match are for the Preliminary Engineering

and Right of Way phases only.

*** the total project cost includes a funding gap of $3.02 million, which is expected to be secured by FFY

2020.

1.2.1 Legislative requirements for preservation Beginning in FFY 2016, WSDOT identified projects eligible for NHFP funds using requirements set forth by the Washington State Legislature. In June 2015, state law10 included language that stated: “Any federal funds gained through efficiencies, adjustments to the federal funds forecast, additional congressional action not related to a specific project or purpose, or the federal funds redistribution process must then be applied to highway and bridge preservation activities.” Furthermore, the 2016 Legislature provided federal appropriation authority for the 2015-2017 biennium that reinforced funding asphalt and concrete preservation projects, in keeping with the previous year’s requirement to fund highway and bridge preservation activities. This legislative direction reflects the importance of the NHFP goal to improve the NHFN’s state of good repair. When FHWA provided the FFY 2017 apportionment, WSDOT followed this legislative direction

10 Washington State Legislature. Second Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1299 Chapter 10 Laws of 2015 Section 307(2). https://app.leg.wa.gov/ReportsToTheLegislature/Home/GetBillPdf?displayNumber=1299-S&biennium=2015-16



and obligated the funds to complete the construction of three preservation projects. These projects are shown in Exhibit 1-9 for 2016 and 2017.

Following passage of the 2016 Washington State Transportation Budget, the governor convened an advisory group of legislators, local government entities and various users of the transportation system to review current distributions of federal highway formula funds to the state and local governments under the FAST Act. This FAST Act workgroup recommended that the new National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) funding be allocated to the state with project prioritization recommendations made by WAFAC.

1.2.2 Development of the 2016 freight project list In 2016, state law11 specified that: “The department [WSDOT], in conjunction with the stakeholder group, must provide a list of prioritized projects for consideration for funding in the 2017-2019 fiscal biennium. The prioritized list must have approval from all impacted stakeholders. The prioritized list must be submitted to the office of financial management and the transportation committees of the Legislature by November 1, 2016.”

With guidance from WAFAC, WSDOT collaborated with the Washington State Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) and coordinated with the MPOs and RTPOs across the state in developing the solicitation process, recommendations for consideration, and prioritized project list. During four meetings between May and October 2016, WSDOT consulted with WAFAC on the solicitation process, schedule and prioritization criteria for developing a freight project list.

On May 31, 2016, WSDOT and FMSIB initiated a call for NHFP eligible projects with an Aug. 31 submission deadline. Cities, counties, ports, and tribes were encouraged to coordinate with MPOs and RTPOs in submitting freight projects. WSDOT also identified freight priority projects on the state highway system.

In September 2016, WSDOT and FMSIB reviewed all projects submitted based on completeness of project information and the following eligibility screens:

o Regional screen consisting of regional plan support or letter of support from MPO/RTPOs;

o Network screen consisting of eligible project type and eligible component of the National Highway Freight Network;

o Schedule screen consisting of year scheduled for preliminary engineering, right-of-way, and construction activities; and

o Funding screen consisting of project cost and funding gap. On Sept. 27, 2016, a verified project list was provided to WAFAC for review and

consideration, with projects ready for funding in the 2017-2019 biennium. WAFAC requested several prioritization criteria be sorted for further analysis and organization of projects.

On Oct. 11, 2016, WAFAC reviewed the sorted projects and approved a prioritized freight project list for submission.

11 Washington State Legislature. House Bill 2524 Section 218 (4) (b). http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/LegReports/15-17/2016PrioritizedFreightProjectList.pdf



WAFAC recommended all submitted projects be listed to ensure transparency in the process. NHFP funding for the 2017-2019 biennium is forecast at approximately $38 million, and is intended to improve the efficient movement of freight on the National Highway Freight Network. WAFAC made the following recommendations for prioritizing the freight project lists:

Use 10 percent of NHFP funding for Tier 1 eligible freight multimodal projects as permitted under the FAST Act and the remainder to fund roadway projects.

Prioritize Tier 1 freight multimodal and roadway projects based on the following criteria: o Sort projects based on their project phase: projects ready for construction

activities first, projects ready for right-of-way activities second, and projects ready for preliminary engineering activities third.

o Sort projects within the same phase based on funding match: projects with a partial funding match first, and projects without a funding match second.

o Sort projects within the same phase and with a partial funding match based on their funding gap, from low to high.

Include Tier 2, Tier 3, and ineligible projects based on percent of funding request to total project cost, low to high.

On Oct. 31, 2016, WSDOT submitted the freight project list12 to the state Senate and House Transportation Committees for funding consideration. As a result of WAFAC recommendations, the prioritized freight project list was provided in three parts:

Tier 1 Freight Multimodal Projects: The first freight project list contained multimodal projects eligible for the FY 2017/2019 biennium.

Tier 1 Roadway Projects: The second freight project list contained roadway projects eligible for the FY 2017/2019 biennium. WAFAC recommends funding projects from this list with the remaining NHFP funding.

Tier 2, Tier 3, and Ineligible Projects: The third freight project list included projects ready for funding beyond the 2017-2019 biennium, and projects ineligible for NHFP funding. WAFAC did not recommend funding projects from this list.

When the 2016 freight project list was submitted, WSDOT committed to working with WAFAC to improve project screening and validation as part of the 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan.

1.2.3 Validation of the 2016 freight project list In 2017, state law13 appropriated $43.8 million in federal NHFP funds to WSDOT to allocate to eligible freight projects. However, WSDOT anticipates receiving only $38.24 million from the NHFP during the 2017-2019 biennium and will allocate that level of funding. The bill specifies the following: “The department shall validate the projects on the list. Only tier one projects on the prioritized freight project list that are validated by the department may receive funding under this subsection. The department shall continue to work with the Washington state freight advisory committee to improve project screening and validation to support project prioritization

12 WSDOT. Prioritized Freight Project List. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/LegReports/15-17/2016PrioritizedFreightProjectList.pdf 13 Washington State Legislature. Engrossed Senate Bill 5096, Section 311(5). http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/Budget/Detail/2017/ctbillaspassed_0421.pdf



and selection, including during the freight mobility plan update in 2017. The department may compete for funding under this program and shall provide an updated prioritized freight project list when submitting its 2019-2021 budget request. To the greatest extent practicable, the department shall follow the Washington state freight advisory committee recommendation to allocate ten percent of the funds in this subsection to multimodal projects as permitted under the fixing America's surface transportation (FAST) act.”

To accomplish these requirements, WSDOT adopted a two-stage approach to validate the Tier 1 projects by determining project readiness, evaluating freight system benefits, and allocating the 2017-2019 NHFP funding. The two-stage approach was discussed with WAFAC members and is as follows:

Stage one validation: WSDOT requested additional information from project owners between June and August 2017, and validated Tier 1 roadway and multimodal construction projects. WSDOT allocated FFY 2018 NHFP funds to six projects after consultation with the Washington State Freight Advisory Committee (WAFAC);

Stage two validation: WSDOT requested additional information from project owners between mid-August and early September, and validated projects eligible for FFY 2019 and 2020 NHFP funding between September and November 2017. WSDOT allocated FFY 2019 and 2020 NHFP funds to seven projects after consultation with WAFAC.

Stage one: Freight Project Validation for FFY 2018 NHFP funding In June 2017, WSDOT requested additional project information from project owners identified on the Tier 1 construction project list. WSDOT reviewed and validated the submitted information to ensure the projects meet state and federal requirements, and are ready for construction:

Inclusion in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) approval, right-of-way certified, etc.

Federal authorization of construction before Nov. 30, 2017. NHFP project amount cannot exceed original request in 2016. All other sources of funding secured. Meet local match commitment and requirements for federal funding.

To prioritize between projects ready for FFY 2018 funding and meeting all above requirements, WSDOT developed a methodology for ranking projects based on freight system benefits. Projects were reviewed and scored based on how well they meet National Highway Freight Program goals and how they benefit the freight system at a statewide, regional, and local level. The benefit evaluation was a qualitative analysis, using the following approach:

A five-point scale was used for each benefit category (i.e., statewide, regional, local). Total benefit score is the sum of points assigned to each benefit category;

Points were assigned for projects based on their benefits to the freight system, including:

o Projects on major truck routes (e.g., T-1 or T-2 Truck Freight Economic Corridors14) were assigned higher scores;

14 WSDOT. Washington State Freight Economic Corridors. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Freight/EconCorridors.htm



o Projects that serve major freight generators (e.g., ports, distribution and manufacturing clusters, freight land uses) were assigned higher scores;

o Projects where infrastructure failure would result in a significant safety or mobility issue (e.g., bridge closure) were assigned higher scores;

o Projects in areas without alternative route availability (e.g., mountain passes) were assigned higher scores;

o Projects demonstrating freight benefits with supporting data and facts (e.g., number of jobs created, hours of truck delay reduced) were assigned higher scores.

WSDOT ranked the validated freight projects ready for FFY 2018 funding, based on their total benefit score, from high to low. Geographical distribution was also considered by limiting one project per owner. Two prioritized project lists were presented to WAFAC for discussion and feedback, and six projects were then selected in August 2017 to receive FFY 2018 NHFP funding. The total funding request for these six projects was approximately $23.2 million, which was greater than the estimated funding available for FFY 2018. WSDOT allocated approximately $17.9 million in FFY 2018, and $5.2 million anticipated from FFY 2019 to these six projects in order to balance the list financially.

Stage two: Freight Project Validation for FFY 2019-2020 NHFP funding To prioritize projects for the remaining NHFP funding, WSDOT sent a request for information in August 2017 to project owners with unfunded freight projects on the 2016 freight project list, asking for updated project information including scope, budget, schedule, and benefits to the freight system. Between September and November 2017, WSDOT validated unfunded projects for freight system benefits that are eligible for FFY 2019 and 2020 NHFP funding based on the following program requirements to ensure projects meet all federal requirements and are ready to move forward to construction:

Projects must obligate the NHFP funds by Sept. 1, 2019, for FFY 2019 funds, and Sept. 1, 2020, for FFY 2020 funds;

Minimum of 13.5 percent of non-federal fund match required for non-interstate projects for each phase, and 9.33 percent match required for interstate projects;

The total NHFP funding requested may not exceed the original request in the 2016 freight project list.

To further prioritize eligible projects ready for FFY 2019 and 2020 funding, WSDOT developed an improved freight system benefit evaluation methodology based on the six state transportation system goals. The methodology is aligned with NHFP goals, and is also consistent with the trends, issues, needs, and strategies identified in the 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan. Specific measure areas and evaluation criteria were developed for each state transportation system policy goal, and the evaluation criteria includes both quantitative measures and qualitative measures as shown in Exhibit 1-10.

Exhibit 1-10: Criteria and Measures for Evaluating Freight System Benefits

Transportation System Policy

Goals

Measure Areas

Evaluation Criteria Measures

Economic Vitality

Local,

regional, and

state

Support economy (e.g., improved

freight movement to domestic and

international markets in terms of

High: High economic and employment

benefits



economy and

employment

products, industries, direct

employment) and promotes

employment (e.g., number of jobs

affected by the improved access to

employment centers).

Medium: Medium economic and

employment benefits

Low: Low economic and employment

benefits

No: No economic and employment

benefits

Project located on or providing

connection to state designated freight

economic corridors (truck, freight rail,

or waterway)

High: T1 Freight Economic Corridor

Medium: T2 Freight Economic Corridor

Low: Alternate route

Lowest: First or last mile

No: Not on a Freight Economic Corridor

Intermodal

connectivity

between

different

freight modes

Improve intermodal connectivity

between different freight modes (i.e.,

freight movement between truck, port,

rail, or airport)

High: High connectivity benefits

Medium: Medium connectivity benefits

Low: Low connectivity benefits

No: No connectivity benefits

Connectivity analysis of projects

providing to freight intermodal facilities

(proximity to project location)

High: High number of facilities within 5

miles

Medium: Medium number of facilities

within 5 miles

Low: Low number of facilities within 5

miles

No: No facilities within 5 miles

Preservation

State of good

repair of

freight

infrastructure

Improve the state of good repair of

freight infrastructure (e.g., roadways,

bridges, railroads, marine system, air

cargo system)

High: High preservation benefits

Medium: Medium preservation benefits

Low: Low preservation benefits

No: No preservation benefits

Assessment of existing pavement,

bridge, or infrastructure condition data

of project locations

High: On a segment of poor or very poor

pavement

Medium: On a segment of fair pavement

Low: On a segment of good or very good

pavement

No: No data

Safety

Fatalities or

Serious

Injuries on

freight facility

Prevent incidents, or reduces fatalities

and serious injuries on a freight facility

High: High safety benefits

Medium: Medium safety benefits

Low: Low safety benefits

No: No safety benefits

Hotspot analysis of projects on

roadway segments with serious

injuries/fatalities in the 5-year period

High: High number of serious

injuries/fatalities

Medium: Medium number of serious

injuries/fatalities

Low: Low number of serious

injuries/fatalities

No: No serious injuries/fatalities

Truck Parking Improve truck parking (e.g.,

operational enhancement to existing

facilities, use traveler information

High: High truck parking benefits

Medium: Medium truck parking benefits

Low: Low truck parking benefits



system to provide truck parking

information to drivers, increase

number of truck parking spaces)

No: No truck parking benefits

Conflict

between

freight modes

or between

truck traffic

and other

roadway

users

Reduce conflicts between freight

modes, or between freight and

passenger modes (i.e. build grade

separation to reduce truck/rail

conflicts, construct truck climbing lanes

or pedestrian overpass to reduce

conflict between truck traffic and other

roadway users)

High: High reduction of conflicts

Medium: Medium reduction of conflicts

Low: Low reduction of conflicts

No: No reduction of conflicts

Freight

system

security

Analysis of projects on federally

designated Strategic Highway Network

(STRAHNET) or Strategic Rail

Corridor Network (STRACNET)

Yes: On STRAHNET/STRACNET

No: Not on STRAHNET/STRACNET

Mobility

Freight

congestion

and

bottlenecks

Reduce congestion and reduce truck

bottlenecks

High: High congestion/bottleneck

reduction benefits

Medium: Medium congestion/bottleneck

reduction benefits

Low: Low congestion/bottleneck

reduction benefits

No: No congestion/bottleneck reduction

benefits

Analysis of projects using mobility

screening results to identify whether a

project is on a congested corridor,

roadway, or segment

Yes: On a congested segment

No: Not on a congested segment

Environment

Diesel

emissions

from modal

shift or

improving

traffic flow

Reduce diesel emissions (e.g., shift

truck traffic to trains or ships, improve

traffic flow and alleviate congestions

on existing corridors, reduce truck

queuing or idling within/outside

intermodal terminals)

High: High emissions reduction benefits

Medium: Medium emissions reduction

benefits

Low: Low emissions reduction benefits

No: No emissions reduction benefits

Analysis of projects in close proximity

to communities identified as vulnerable

(e.g., Environmental Justice

Communities)

Yes: In an EJ area (PM2.5 EJ Index)

No: Not in an EJ area

Climate

Impacts

Vulnerability

Assessment

Reduce vulnerability of climate impacts

(e.g., sea level rise, flooding,

landslides

High: High reduction of vulnerability

Medium: Medium reduction of

vulnerability

Low: Low reduction of vulnerability

No: No reduction of vulnerability

Analysis of projects on routes

identified as vulnerable for climate

change (Climate Impact Vulnerability

Assessment results)

High: High vulnerability

Medium: Moderate vulnerability

Low: Low vulnerability

No: No data



Stewardship

Freight

system

resiliency

Improve freight system resiliency (i.e.,

strengthen infrastructure to reduce

likelihood of failure/closure due to

severe weather, natural disaster, or

other disruptions)

High: High improvement to resiliency

Medium: Medium improvement to

resiliency

Low: Low improvement to resiliency

No: No improvement to resiliency

Financial

support by

project

owners

Analysis of percent of project cost with

a funding match (other than NHFP

fund)

High: 40% or greater non-federal match

Medium: 20% to 40% non-federal match

Low: Minimum (13.5% for non-

Interstates, 9.33% for Interstates) to 20%

non-federal match

No: Less than minimum non-federal

match

Lowest cost/

lifecycle cost

consideration

Focus on the specific project need and

look for lowest cost solutions/lifecycle

cost

High: High consideration of lowest cost

Medium: Medium consideration of lowest

cost

Low: Low consideration of lowest cost

No: No consideration of lowest cost

WSDOT used the following approach and process to evaluate and score projects for freight system benefits in stage two, and to select projects for FFY 2019-2020 NHFP funding:

Qualitative and quantitative analyses were used to evaluate how well a project improves performance in the measure areas:

o Information and supporting data for qualitative measures were requested directly from project owners through the project validation form. Qualitative assessment was conducted based on the responses to project evaluation criteria questions; yes/no or high, medium, or low values were assigned to those evaluation criteria.

o Analysis for quantitative measures were conducted by WSDOT based on available data as well as analysis completed in the 2017 Plan. GIS analysis was conducted based on project locations and applicable values were assigned based on data analysis results.

o Values assigned to each evaluation criteria were converted to point scores in order to compare and rank projects.

A project ranking tool was developed by incorporating scores for the qualitative and quantitative measures and providing flexibility for weighting and ranking projects under different scenarios. The tool allows for the evaluation and prioritization of projects and supports robust freight stakeholder discussions to collaboratively work toward meeting critical freight goals, priorities, and policies, including informed decision making.

WSDOT hosted a webinar on Aug. 30, 2017 with project owners to help answer project validation questions. The primary goal was to clarify material contained in the Request for Information memo sent to project owners on Aug. 14. The webinar described the background, validation process, freight benefit evaluation methodology, program requirements, and how to complete the Project Validation submittal form.

WSDOT consulted with WAFAC members on Oct. 3, 2017, to present the freight project benefit evaluation tool and discussed several scenarios for sorting the projects.



Based on WAFAC feedback, WSDOT developed three weighted scenarios and met with MPOs and RTPOs on Oct. 10, 2017, to have further discussion on those scenarios.

Considering feedback and comments received from the WAFAC and MPOs/RTPOs, WSDOT applied the following guidelines when selecting projects for FFY 2019 and FFY 2020 funding:

o Select projects in the order of highest rank from Scenario A (Economic Vitality: 30 percent, Mobility: 25 percent, Preservation: 15 percent, and all remaining goals at 10 percent).

o Use 10 percent of the funding for multimodal projects. o Apply geographic equity across the state to ensure the NHFP funds aren’t all

spent in one region. o Select project owners that have not received previous funding in a region. o Fund construction-ready projects. o For projects requesting funding for all three phases (preliminary engineering,

right of way, and construction), fund priority phases based on owner input, needs, and project readiness.

o Partially fund the request if the request is large relative to the funding available, in order to spread the available funds to a larger number of projects.

The final freight project list for FFY 2019-2020 was shared with WAFAC on Nov. 13, 2017, before it was incorporated into the freight investment plan.

1.3 Unconstrained Freight Project List Projects identified in the fiscally unconstrained freight project list are based on the 2016 list of freight projects submitted to the Legislature,15 current as of December 2017, and have not been funded with the NHFP. The unconstrained freight project list is organized into five categories to illustrate the validation and assessment conducted on the projects in response to state requirements described in the previous section of this plan, and those not validated, no longer seeking funding, and ineligible for NHFP funding as follows:

1.3.1 Projects validated in stage two 1.3.2 Projects validated in stage one 1.3.3 Projects not validated 1.3.4 Projects no longer seeking funding 1.3.5 Projects ineligible for NHFP funding

1.3.1 Projects validated in stage two Projects validated in stage two are shown in Exhibit 1-11.

NOTE Projects listed are based on the 2016 list of freight projects submitted to the Legislature,

current as of December 2017 Shows updated project information submitted to WSDOT under stage two validation

described in section 1.2 of this plan

15 WSDOT. 2016 freight project list. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/LegReports/15-17/2016PrioritizedFreightProjectList.pdf



Shows projects scored and ranked under stage two validation and evaluation process, as well as projects validated but not scored due to match requirements (see comment column)

Exhibit 1-11: Projects Validated in Stage Two

Project Name Project Owner

Project Type

Project Description NHFP

Funding Request

Total Project Cost

Comment

I‐5 and 54th Avenue E Interchange Improvement Project

City of Fife

Roadway Rebuild the western half of the interchange to improve traffic operations and safety, and maintain the existing bridge over I‐5 and the eastern half of the interchange.

$3,000,000 $53,000,000 Rank 1, Score 82

POT Road Interchange Modification ‐ Phase II (formerly Phase III, see below)

City of Fife

Roadway Reconstruct interchange, including a new 34th Ave E bridge over I‐5, reconstruct I‐5 NB off‐ramp and on‐ramp, connection of the interchange to 20th St E, 20th St E improvements and installation of six new traffic signals and one northbound on‐ramp meter.

$10,000,000 $42,000,000 Rank 3, Score 70

I‐5/NB I‐90 to SR 520 ‐ Active Traffic Management

WSDOT Roadway Install metering on the Cherry St to NB I‐5 ramp and the NB I‐5 collector‐distributor ramp, and extend the Active Traffic Management System on NB I‐5 to SR 520.

$10,558,865 $13,895,873 Rank 6, Score 64

I‐5/NB Seneca St to Olive Way ‐ Mobility Improvements

WSDOT Roadway Provide an additional NB lane between Seneca St and the Olive Way off ramp.

$4,789,939 $6,613,564 Rank 7, Score 63

Terminal 5 Improvements

NWSA Multimodal

Upgrade the terminal's dock, berth, power supply, and establish a railroad quiet zone.

$100,000,000 $278,900,000

Rank 9, Score 61

North Sea‐Tac Cargo Facility Access

Port of Seattle

Multimodal

Rehabilitation of existing arterials and ground‐support equipment (GSE) tug bridge access to airfield.

$42,500,000 $50,000,000 Rank 10, Score 56

Stewart Road Bridge

City of Sumner

Roadway Replacement of undersized bridge and adding travel lanes across the White River and railroad crossing.

$20,500,000 $42,810,000 Rank 11, Score 55

Tideflats Area ITS backbone

City of Tacoma

Roadway ITS improvements include a communications backbone and branch facilities to serve ITS deployments.

$3,200,000 $3,700,000 Rank 12, Score 55



Portland Ave Corridor Improvements

City of Tacoma

Roadway Replacement of asphalt surface with concrete, new signals at the SR‐509 ramps and interconnection of four existing traffic signals, new and upgraded lighting, added lane capacity at the interchange with I‐5, and improved access/safety.

$7,000,000 $8,200,000 Rank 13, Score 53

E Marginal Way / S Hanford St Intersection Improvements

Seattle DOT

Roadway Upgrade the signal, lengthen the NB right‐turn lane, improve the railroad crossing pavement, evaluate the need for railroad crossing gates, and rebuild the intersection and approaches to Heavy Haul route requirements.

$7,462,000 $8,628,000 Rank 14, Score 53

Terminal 5 Access Improvements

NWSA Multimodal

Reconfiguration of Terminal 5’s truck gate, and signal improvements along Spokane Street.

$1,600,000 $5,980,240 Rank 15, Score 51

8th St E/54th Ave E Intersection Improvements

City of Fife

Roadway Add westbound left turn lane and reconstruct west leg (eastbound approach) to a 3‐lane roadway.

$1,246,134 $1,984,028 Rank 16, Score 51

SR 167/Northbound Pierce County Line to 15th St SW ‐ Paving

WSDOT Roadway Resurface SR 167 Northbound Mainline and the SR 167 Northbound to Ellingson Rd Off‐ramp.

$1,464,164 $1,618,400 Rank 18, Score 49

I‐5/Northbound SR 104 Vicinity to 212th St SW Vicinity ‐ Paving

WSDOT Roadway Resurface this section of I‐5 including approximately 8 on and off ramps within the project limits.

$3,244,996 $3,546,049 Rank 19, Score 49

6th Ave S / Industrial Way Intersection Reconstruction

Seattle DOT

Roadway Replace damaged/failing concreate panels and enhance intersection design, coordinated with nearby railroad crossing improvements.

$800,000 $1,000,000 Rank 20, Score 49

Kalama Methanol Manufacturing and Exporting Facility (KMMEF) ‐ Dock

Port of Kalama

Multimodal

The new export dock is designed to accommodate both the existing fleet and future generations of methanol carriers.

$10,750,000 $21,500,000 Rank 21, Score 48

Terminal 91 Uplands Access

Port of Seattle / City of Seattle

Multimodal

Arterial and intersection spot improvements to support traffic access to the uplands.

$8,650,000 $10,000,000 Rank 22, Score 47



Industrial Rail Corridor Expansion

Port of Longview

Multimodal

Relocate rail corridor to the north to accommodate three new through tracks, six new sidings, and to allow for increased train clearance lengths.

$7,300,000 $62,600,000 Rank 23, Score 47

SR 410 Traffic Ave/E Main

City of Sumner

Roadway Reconfigure two intersections and adding travel lanes and multimodal access across SR 410 to the Sumner/Pacific MIC.

$12,800,000 $20,700,000 Rank 24, Score 47

Blair Hylebos Rail Improvements

NWSA Multimodal

Create a new 96‐acre intermodal rail yard, and rail track improvements specific to a new intermodal facility for international cargo at the Port of Tacoma.

$1,500,000 $38,899,965 Rank 25, Score 46

Argonne Rd & I‐90 IC Bridge Widening


Roadway Replace existing 2‐lane bridge with a concrete superstructure and 3 lanes of travel, a 6‐foot wide shoulder, and a 10' wide sidewalk.

$6,920,000 $8,000,000 Rank 29, Score 43

Southway Bridge

Asotin County

Roadway Design and reconstruction of the Southway Bridge.

$659,388 $1,524,596 Rank 30, Score 42

Argonne Road Concrete Pavement, Indiana to Montgomery


Roadway Reconstruct 7 lanes of traffic starting at Indiana through Montgomery intersection. Rebuild with a new gravel base and reinforced portland cement concrete pavement.

$3,220,395 $3,723,000 Rank 31, Score 42

Spotted Road Realignment and Interchange Project

Spokane Airports

Multimodal

Realign road outside the Runway Protection Zone & include an interchange to separate airport traffic and freight traffic.

$8,000,000 $14,500,000 Rank 32, Score 42

Improvements to Tradewinds and Eastwind Roads required to support the development of the Kalama Methanol Manufacturing and Exporting Facility

Port of Kalama

Multimodal

Construct a new road to provide access to existing facilities and emergency response access to the methanol plant. Improve an existing gravel road.

$700,000 $1,320,000 Rank 33, Score 41

South Terminal Expansion Project ‐‐ Yard and Wharf Improvements

Port of Everett

Multimodal

Create a 1,400‐foot berth to support larger vessels, including investment in utilities, additional on‐dock rail, and a new fender system.

$15,000,000 $30,200,000 Rank 34, Score 40



Bigelow Gulch/Forker Connector‐Project 2; CRP 2620

Spokane County Public Works

Roadway Reconstruct and realign existing 2‐lane road with widening and realignment to 4‐lane with median an 8' wide shoulders.

$7,999,000 $13,164,000 Rank 35, Score 39

Bigelow Gulch Road ‐ Project 4; CRP 2989


Roadway Stage 1 will widen to 2‐lanes with a median and 8' wide shoulders. Additional capacity up to a 4‐lane roadway will be added in future stages as conditions warrant.

$4,191,493 $13,155,493 Rank 36, Score 38

Bigelow Gulch/Forker Connector ‐ Project 5; CRP 2990


Roadway Replace and existing 2‐lane road with substandard vertical alignment with widening and realignment to 4‐lanes with median and 8' shoulders.

$5,545,193 $12,847,193 Rank 37, Score 36

I‐90/North Bend to Thorp Vic ‐ Rehab Concrete

WSDOT Roadway Rehabilitate select areas of concrete pavement to extend the life of the roadway.

$10,422,281 $11,114,981 Rank 38, Score 35

Hood River Bridge Replacement

Port of Hood River

Roadway Build a new bridge that crosses the Columbia River between White Salmon, Washington and Hood River, Oregon and removal of the existing Hood River Bridge.

$1,000,000 $308,500,000

Rank 39, Score 35

Sullivan Road Bridge


Roadway Replace and widen existing BNSF and Trent Road (SR‐290) bridges along Sullivan Road.

$17,602,750 $20,350,000 Rank 40, Score 35

I‐90/Yakima River Bridge W of Ellensburg WB ‐ Deck Rehabilitation

WSDOT Roadway Repair and resurface the existing bridge deck to maintain structural integrity, continue safe operation of the highway, and extend the life of the bridge.

$11,597,316 $12,842,866 Rank 41, Score 35

Bigelow Gulch/Forker Connector ‐ Project 6; CRP 2991


Roadway Replace and existing 2‐lane shouldered road with a realigned 5‐lane urban arterial with curb and sidewalk.

$6,970,000 $9,338,000 Rank 42, Score 34

Bridge and 2nd Street Intersection

City of Clarkston

Roadway Road widening and realignment of the 5‐point intersection; adding lanes and updating signal to reduce congestion.

$732,800 $732,800 Rank 43, Score 33

I‐90/George East ‐ Paving

WSDOT Roadway Resurface the existing roadway pavement. This will prolong the life of the roadway at the least life cycle cost and provide for a smoother roadway for the public.

$9,958,686 $10,169,772 Rank 44, Score 33



West Marine View Dr. (SR 529) Bulkhead Rebuild

Port of Everett

Multimodal

Rebuild the aging bulkhead that is supporting the Southbound lanes of SR 529, critical to the ingress and egress of Naval Station Everett and the Port of Everett.

$1,000,000 $1,697,000 Rank 45, Score 32

I‐90/East of Snoqualmie Pass Interchange ‐ Paving

WSDOT Roadway Pave the ramps and crossroad, necessary to extend the life of the roadway, prevent potholes, and continue safe operation of the interchange.

$4,188,401 $5,642,160 Rank 46, Score 32

I‐90/Moses Lake West WB Lanes ‐ Paving

WSDOT Roadway Resurface the existing roadway pavement. This will prolong the life of the roadway at the least life cycle cost and provide for a smoother roadway for the public.

$4,896,988 $5,275,126 Rank 47, Score 32

Freya Street in The Yard

City of Spokane

Roadway Construct full‐depth pavement reconstruction of this poor‐condition strip‐paved roadway and widen an appropriate section to include a two‐way left hand turn lane.

$1,585,713 $3,250,000 Rank 48, Score 31

I‐90/Cle Elum River Bridge EB & WB ‐ Bridge Painting

WSDOT Roadway Clean and paint the existing steel surface to preserve the structural integrity of the bridge.

$6,457,825 $6,599,957 Rank 49, Score 26

''I' Street and 6th Avenue Construction

City of Yakima

Roadway Rebuild the roadway, installing curb, gutter and sidewalk and rehabilitating the trolley track that runs down a center of a portion of 6th Avenue.

$3,460,000 $4,000,000 Rank 50, Score 21

US 97/2 Miles N of Upper Tronson Road ‐ NB Passing Lane

WSDOT Roadway Restripe the existing three lane section with a SB passing lane to a three lane section with a NB passing lane.

$349,100 $349,100 not scored due to not meeting match requirement

SR 97 8 Miles South of US 2/97 ‐ Passing Lane

WSDOT Roadway Construct new passing climbing lane for northbound traffic in the vicinity of Ingalls Creek.

$1,861,160 $1,861,160 not scored due to not meeting match requirement



SR285 North Wenatchee Avenue Corridor Improvements: Extend Conduit and Fiber for ITS Communications

WSDOT Roadway Complete the extension of conduit and fiber optics to enable ITS communications along SR285; work to be timed with upcoming SR285 pavement preservation.


US 97/Campbell Road Vicinity ‐ Passing Lane

WSDOT Roadway Widen the road to accommodate the construction of a passing lane.


East Aberdeen Mobility Project

Grays Harbor Council of Governments

Roadway Pre‐Engineering study to construct grade separation along US 12 in East Aberdeen.

$500,000 $500,000 not scored due to not meeting match requirement

1.3.2 Projects validated in stage one Projects validated in stage one are shown in Exhibit 1-12.


current as of December 2017 Shows updated project information submitted to WSDOT under stage one validation

described in section 1.2 of this plan Shows projects scored under stage one validation and evaluation process, as well as

projects validated but not scored due to project readiness requirements (see comment column)

Excludes projects resubmitted for stage two validation

Exhibit 1-12: Projects Validated in Stage One


Project Type

Project Description NHFP

Funding Request

Total Project Cost

Comment

Nickerson St. Reconstruction

City of Seattle

Roadway Reconstruct with cement concrete panels from 15th Ave. W to 13th Ave W. Mill and fill Nickerson St. with asphalt from 13th Ave. W. to Etruria St.

$1,400,000 $7,736,000 Score 11

I‐90/EB Winery Rd Bridge ‐ Deck Overlay

WSDOT Roadway Overlay the bridge deck of the EB Winery Rd Bridge 90/80S to preserve the structure.

$828,083 $922,658 Score 9



I‐405/SB SR 900 to Coal Creek Pkwy SE ‐ Paving

WSDOT Roadway Resurface I‐405 SB mainline and selected ramps, and rehabilitate the bridge decks of Br 405/23W and 405/25W.

$1,395,072 $1,512,615 Score 9

I‐5/SR 532 & 300th St NW Interchange Ramps ‐ Paving

WSDOT Roadway Mill and fill the ramps at I‐5/SR 532 and I‐5/30th St NW interchanges, and striping and upgrading the existing guardrail as needed.

$2,533,102 $2,664,419 Score 9

I‐182/SR 240 and George Washington Way Interchange ‐ Paving

WSDOT Roadway Pave the road to extend the life of the pavement and to restore delineation.

$2,571,877 $2,725,977 Score 9

I‐5/Stillaguamish River Br to Hill Ditch Br ‐ Concrete Pavement Rehab

WSDOT Roadway Rehabilitate the concrete pavement of the NB and SB lanes of I‐5, including diamond grinding and panel replacement.

$18,236,042 $19,113,259 Score 9

Appleway Ave. Signalization at Madson St.

City of Liberty Lake

Roadway Construct a new traffic signal to reduce congestion and improve local/regional freight access and mobility.

$378,900 $741,417 Score 5

Appleway Ave. Signalization at Signal Dr.

City of Liberty Lake

Roadway Construct a new traffic signal to reduce congestion and improve local/regional freight access and mobility.

$378,900 $741,417 Score 5

I‐5/1.7 miles S of Todd Road to Kalama River Rd ‐ Deck Repair

WSDOT Roadway Remove and replace the HMA deck and replace the deck membrane of bridges 5/105W, 5/107E, 5/107W, 5/112E and 5/112W.

$1,190,160 $1,353,519 Not scored due to not meeting project readiness requirement for FFY 2018

SR 432/Cowlitz River Bridge ‐ Painting

WSDOT Roadway Clean and paint the steel surfaces, to prevent corrosion and preserve the structural integrity of this bridge.


I‐5/Martin Way Overcrossing ‐ Special Repair

WSDOT Roadway Replace the strip seal expansion joints to extend the service life of the structures.

$797,401 $939,565 Not scored due to not meeting project readiness requireme



nt for FFY 2018

I‐5/SB S Lucile St to Spring St ‐ Pavement Repair

WSDOT Roadway Provide pavement repair through select panel replacements and diamond grinding concrete pavement surfaces full width. Maintain roadway drainage and pave 2 mainline ramps and 6 SBCD ramps.


I‐5/Todd Rd Vic to 3/4 Mile N of Ostrander Rd ‐ Paving

WSDOT Roadway Resurface the deteriorating pavement with a hot mix asphalt grind and inlay to extend the life of the existing pavement.


Tideflats Area Transportation Study Update

City of Tacoma

Roadway Develop an updated plan for the areas surrounding the Port of Tacoma to address current conditions and challenges, and provide a prioritized list of capital investments.

$400,000 $500,000 Not scored due to not meeting project readiness requirement for FFY 2018

I‐90/West of Snoqualmie Pass Interchange ‐ Paving

WSDOT Roadway Rehabilitate (or repave) the roadway per recommendations from the materials report to extend the life of the pavement.


Terminal 18 Truck Access Improvements


Multimodal

Reconfigure the southern edge of terminal and adjacent public right‐of‐way by relocating the current security check booth and the gate entrance, Optical Character Reader (OCR) booth to a new location.

$500,000 $3,400,000 Not scored due to not meeting project readiness requirement for FFY 2018

1.3.3 Projects not validated Projects not validated for freight system benefits are shown in Exhibit 1-13.




current as of December 2017 Projects were not submitted to WSDOT for validation (see comment column)

Exhibit 1-13: Projects Not Validated


Project Type

Project Description Total Project Cost

Total Funding Gap

Comment

Port of Longview Multi‐Cargo Modernization Project (Berth 6/7)

Port of Longview

Multimodal

Installation of a dual wastewater and storm water collection system, strengthening decking and piling to withstand dual pick, breakbulk heavy loads, upgrading on‐dock rail systems, and deepening the berths.

$31,400,000

$10,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

Bridgeview Terminal (Berth 1/2) Project

Port of Longview

Multimodal

Redevelopment of facilities into one leased terminal. Project development will be in coordination with private development, and may include storage, dock construction, and rail infrastructure improvements.

$20,000,000

$20,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

Arrival/Departure Tracks


Multimodal

Extend a number of SR‐509 rail corridor tracks 1,300' east, construct a new rail bridge across Wapato Creek, and relocate utilities.

$45,000,000

$30,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

North Intermodal Yard Alignment


Multimodal

Align North and South Intermodal Yards

$50,000,000

$45,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

Barlow Point Terminal Entry Road Development

Port of Longview

Multimodal

Develop Barlow Point terminal entrance off SR432 to provide safe entrance/exit for future private terminal development.

$4,000,000

$4,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

Duwamish Rail Corridor Project


Multimodal

Create improved direct rail access from the Port marine terminals T‐5 and T‐18 to UP and BNSF mainlines

$16,000,000

$16,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

T‐5 Rail Improvements


Multimodal

Intermodal yard and rail enhancements

$40,000,000

$40,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

Barlow Point Terminal Railway Entry Development

Port of Longview

Multimodal

New rail infrastructure development from the terminus of the BNSF Reynolds Lead into the Barlow Point property to include two inbound and two outbound tracks.

$43,000,000

$43,000,000

Not submitted for

validation



Berth 4 Terminal Redevelopment Project (including rail infrastructure support)

Port of Longview

Multimodal

Redevelopment of facilities into a leased terminal. Project development will be in coordination with private development and may include storage, dock construction, and rail infrastructure improvements.

$20,000,000

$20,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

Barlow Point Terminal Development

Port of Longview

Multimodal

Development would include dock structures, utility backbone, roadways, storm water systems, etc. on the site to support 1 to 3 future private terminal developments.

$227,000,000

$227,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

Industrial Way / Oregon Way Intersection Project

Cowlitz County

Roadway Intersection is currently operating close to Level of Service (LOS) E and is projected to fail (LOS F) in 2040.

$95,000,000

$7,559,304

Not submitted for

validation

E Marginal Way Reconstruction and Safety Enhancements

City of Seattle

Roadway Reconstruct to heavy haul standards, add advanced traffic management systems, and incorporate separated bicycle and pedestrian facilities while maintaining freight efficiency.

$60,000,000

$55,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

I‐5/East Fork Lewis River Bridge

WSDOT Roadway Replace Bridge $50,000,000

$50,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

US 101/West Olympia Access Project

City of Olympia in partnership with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)

Roadway A new westbound off‐ramp and eastbound on‐ramp at Kaiser Road, new westbound off‐ramp to Yauger Way, auxiliary lanes between Black Lake Boulevard and the new Kaiser Road ramps and local street improvements.

$3,989,675

$1,863,550

Not submitted for

validation

Interstate 82/SR 97 Freight Express Route

City of Toppenish and Yakima County

Roadway Widen two‐lane rural roadway to state highway quality with alignment improvements and grade separation over the BNSF mainline rail corridor.

$21,796,000

$11,056,000

Not submitted for

validation

I‐90/Cle Elum vicinity ‐ Replace Concrete Panels

WSDOT Roadway Replace select concrete panels to extend the life of the roadway.

$3,044,275

$3,044,275

Not submitted for

validation

I‐205, 28th St. to SR‐500 Auxiliary Lanes

WSDOT Roadway Add northbound and southbound lanes

$23,000,000

$23,000,000

Not submitted for

validation



I‐205, Padden Interchange with 72nd Av. Slip Ramp

WSDOT Roadway Reconstruct Interchange with northbound slip ramp to 72nd Av.

$30,000,000

$30,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

I‐205, SR‐500 to Padden Parkway

WSDOT Roadway Add northbound and southbound lanes

$30,000,000

$30,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

SR‐14, I‐205 to 164th Av. Add Lanes

WSDOT Roadway*

Add lanes and modify ramps $38,000,000

$38,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

SR‐14, 15th/27th/32nd Street Interchange Project

WSDOT Roadway Add lanes and construct Interchanges

$80,000,000

$80,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

I‐5/SR 500 Build Direct Connection

WSDOT Roadway Construct connection from SR‐500 to I‐5 north of interchange

$140,000,000

$140,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

SR 539/Bay‐Lyn Dr to SR 546 ‐ Paving

WSDOT Roadway The project will mill & fill SR539 from MP 10.40 to MP 12.57. Required safety work will be performed as needed.

$2,519,612

$2,519,612

Not submitted for

validation

I‐90/468th Ave SE to W Summit Rd WB ‐ Replace Concrete Panels

WSDOT Roadway Replace select concrete panels to extend the life of the pavement.

$3,240,923

$3,240,923

Not submitted for

validation

US 395/Pioneer Memorial Bridge ‐ Bridge Painting

WSDOT Roadway Clean and paint the existing steel surface to preserve the structural integrity of the bridge.

$38,845,697

$38,845,697

Not submitted for

validation

Ballard Bridge Seismic Improvements

City of Seattle

Roadway Ensure seismic resiliency for existing structure on regionally significant freight route facility

$8,800,000

$3,500,000

Not submitted for

validation

S. 212th Street BNSF Railroad Grade Separation

City of Kent

Roadway Provides a critical, grade‐separated link through the commercial/industrial/central area of Kent. Links the valley warehouse/industrial center to SR 167 and I‐5.

$40,000,000

$24,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

SR 167/SR 410 to SR 18 ‐ Congestion Management

WSDOT Roadway*

Re‐stripe the existing roadway to create a NB HOV lane, install lane control signing, CCTV cameras, data stations, ramp meters, variable message sign and illumination.

$13,015,000

$8,000,000

Not submitted for

validation



Lower Spokane St Freight‐Only Lanes Pilot

City of Seattle

Roadway Pilot project to design, implement, and evaluate freight‐only lanes on the corridor.

$450,000

$300,000 Not submitted for

validation

S Hanford Railroad Crossing Rehabilitation

City of Seattle

Roadway Reinforce active rail crossings with concrete grade crossing systems.

$2,000,000

$1,800,000

Not submitted for

validation

Ballard Bridge Replacement

City of Seattle

Roadway Replace structure to increase capacity and improve access.

$520,000,000

$518,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

W Emerson St Freight Safety Improvements

City of Seattle

Roadway Redesign and construct interchange improvements to reduce modal conflicts.

$4,800,000

$4,800,000

Not submitted for

validation

SR 519 / Edgar Martinez Dr S Freight Operations Improvements

City of Seattle

Roadway Reconstruct intersections for optimized freight operations.

$900,000

$900,000 Not submitted for

validation

4th Ave S ITS Implementation

City of Seattle

Roadway Provide adaptive traffic signalization for optimized freight operations.

$2,500,000

$2,500,000

Not submitted for

validation

S Atlantic St / SR 519 / Edgar Martinez Dr S Corridor ITS Implementation

City of Seattle

Roadway Provide adaptive signal control for optimized freight operations following Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement project.

$5,000,000

$5,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

W Galer St Interchange Ramp

City of Seattle

Roadway Construct additional ramp to improve access over BNSF mainline tracks and storage yard.

$23,000,000

$23,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

S Atlantic St Reconstruction

City of Seattle

Roadway Replace damaged/failing concrete panels.

$3,700,000

$3,700,000

Not submitted for

validation

South Access POS Roadway Construct a 2‐lane ltd access arterial connecting the planned S Airport Link roadway to the planned extension of SR509 to I‐5.

$247,203,000

$247,203,000

Not submitted for

validation

I‐5 Bridge Over Columbia River

WSDOT/ODOT

Roadway Replace I‐5 Bridge over the Columbia River and associated interchanges.

$3,300,000,000

$3,300,000,000

Not submitted for

validation



I‐5/13th Street to Mellen Street ‐ ATIS

WSDOT Roadway Install communication lines, traffic cameras, and variable message signs to monitor traffic congestion and incidents, and communicates highway conditions to the public.

$1,710,000

$1,710,000

Not submitted for

validation

I‐5/Marysville Vicinity ‐ Ramp Meters

WSDOT Roadway Install ramp meter systems on the northbound and southbound on‐ramps from 4th St. and 88th St. to ease congestion.

$1,790,000

$1,790,000

Not submitted for

validation

I‐5/SB Corson Ave to Mercer St ‐ Mobility Improvements

WSDOT Roadway Provide dynamic operation of the SB HOV Lane, install electronic signing to display the HOV lane status, add ramp metering to southbound I‐5.

$5,200,000

$5,200,000

Not submitted for

validation

I‐5/I‐90 Truck Parking

WSDOT Roadway Identify and implement expanded truck parking needs in the Central Puget Sound and Vancouver vicinities by leveraging state funds with private contributions.

$3,000,000

$3,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

I‐5/WB SR 512 to NB I‐5 On Ramp ‐ Mobility

WSDOT Roadway Widen the on ramp to two lanes and construct an auxiliary lane on SR 512 from E Steele St.

$17,500,000

$17,500,000

Not submitted for

validation

I‐5/NB Express Lanes Northgate Vic. ‐ Merge Revision

WSDOT Roadway Construct new ramp from the Express Lanes to NB I‐5 just north of NE 92nd St and eliminating the exit at its current location at NE 103rd St.

$22,600,000

$22,600,000

Not submitted for

validation

I‐205/SR 500 to Padden Parkway ‐ Add Lanes

WSDOT Roadway Widen the interstate to three lanes in each direction between SR 500 and Padden Parkway.

$25,000,000

$25,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

SR 167/8th St E to 15th St SW ‐ Northbound HOT Lanes

WSDOT Roadway*

Construct new High Occupancy Toll lane in the northbound direction.

$33,000,000

$33,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

I‐90/Greenacres Rd to Harvard ‐ Additional Lanes

WSDOT Roadway Reconstruction adding lanes and capacity.

$39,000,000

$39,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

Maintenance Priority ‐ Complete Seismic Upgrades to Area Bridges

WSDOT Roadway*

Seismic upgrade $24,000,000

$24,000,000

Not submitted for

validation

Note: * project is partially located on the NHFN.

1.3.4 Projects no longer seeking NHFP funding Projects no longer seeking NHFP funding are shown in Exhibit 1-14.




current as of December 2017 Projects have been funded by other sources (see comment column)

Exhibit 1-14: Projects No Longer Seeking NHFP Funding


Project Type

Project Description Total Cost Comment

I‐5/SB Cowlitz River Bridge ‐ Repair Bridge

WSDOT Roadway Repair the I‐5 SB Cowlitz River Bridge structure, which includes a damaged vertical truss member in Span 4 and a sway brace as a result of unknown third parties.

$294,499 Project advertised and no longer seeking funding

I‐90/3rd Ave Bridge ‐ Special Repair ‐ EB

WSDOT Roadway Remove, prepare and repair failing concrete, expansion joint and pavement seat to preserve the structural integrity of the bridge and extend its service life.


I‐5/SB Cowlitz River Bridge ‐ Known third party ‐ Repair Bridge

WSDOT Roadway Repair the I‐5 SB Cowlitz River Bridge structure that has a damaged vertical truss member as a result of a known third party.


I‐5/SB North Fork Lewis River Bridge ‐ Resurfacing

WSDOT Roadway Rehabilitate the existing bridge deck and joints to maintain the integrity of the roadway surface.


I‐90/S Fork Snoqualmie Bridge E of North Bend EB ‐ Deck Rehabilitation

WSDOT Roadway Repair and resurface the existing bridge deck to maintain structural integrity, continue safe operation of the highway, and extend the life of the bridge.


I‐90/Lacey V Murrow Bridge ‐ Electrical Rehabilitation

WSDOT Roadway Replace the electrical switchgears and five pairs of transformers, separating the neutral and grounding conductors. Reinstall the three submersible fuses. Perform fault current and arc flash hazard analyses on all medium voltage equipment.

$1,419,339 Project advertised and no longer seeking funding

I‐5/Koontz Road Overpass ‐ Repair Bridge

WSDOT Roadway Repair the I‐5/Koontz Road undercrossing structure that has two damaged exterior

$926,846 Project advertised and no longer



girders when struck by a third party.

seeking funding

1.3.5 Projects ineligible for NHFP funding Projects ineligible for NHFP funding are shown in Exhibit 1-15.


current as of December 2017 Projects do not meet NHFP eligibility requirements, or lack regional support (see comment

column)

Exhibit 1-15: Projects Ineligible for NHFP Funding


Project Description Total

Funding

Total Project Cost

Comment

US 12/SR 128 Vicinity to Snake River Bridge ‐ Paving

WSDOT Grind and resurface the existing roadway to extend the life of the pavement and restore delineation.

$1,051,154 $1,051,154 Project type or location does not meet eligibility requirements

Kalama Methanol Manufacturing and Exporting Facility (KMMEF ) ‐ Fire Loop

Port of Kalama

Construction of Fire Loop to support fire suppression at the facility

$500,000 $500,000 Project type or location does not meet eligibility requirements

Kalama Methanol Manufacturing and Exporting Facility (KMMEF ) ‐ Storm Water Enhancements

Port of Kalama

Storm water system enhancements to support industrial facilities adjacent to the KMMEF facility


Kalama Methanol Manufacturing and Exporting Facility (KMMEF) ‐

Port of Kalama

Construction of Security Infrastructure to secure the facility

$526,000 $526,000 Project type or location does not meet eligibility



Security Infrastructure

requirements

Dredge Spoils Disposal Sites

Port of Kalama

Property purchase $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Project type or location does not meet eligibility requirements

Spencer Creek Business Park‐ Pre‐loading Site

Port of Kalama

Pre‐loading required for building construction


Property Purchases

Port of Kalama

Waterfront industrial property (Central Port)


Deep Water Terminal Berth Dredging

Port of Kalama

Dredge deep water berth to maintain access for grain terminal export


Spencer Creek Business Park‐ Enhance Surface Streets

Port of Kalama

Surface street enhancements $5,000,000 $5,000,000 Project type or location does not meet eligibility requirements

Kalama River Industrial Park ‐ Building Construction

Port of Kalama

Light industrial building construction




Kalama Methanol Manufacturing and Exporting Facility (KMMEF) ‐ Well

Port of Kalama

Construction of well to provide water for the facility


Spencer Creek Business Park ‐Road and Utility Improvements to the Business Park

Port of Kalama

Utilities and roads $12,000,000 $12,000,000 Project type or location does not meet eligibility requirements

Spencer Creek Business Park ‐ Installation of floating Light Industrial Dock, in support larger freight movement

Port of Kalama

Installation of floating light industrial dock, in support larger freight movement


Connell Rail Interchange

City of Connell

Improve multi‐modal safety and freight mobility


EMVD/ SR 529 Interchange Improvements

City of Everett

Correct the height restriction with East Marine View Drive


E Marginal Ave S / 8th Ave S / S Myrtle St Intersection Improvements

City of Seattle

Improve intersection geometry, revise signalization, upgrade drainage, rehabilitate pavement at railroad tracks, and install streetscaping




Pines Road (SR 27)/BNSF Grade Separation Project


Replaces an at‐grade crossing with an underpass, lowers the intersection and adds lanes, closes the at‐grade crossing of University Road at the BNSF railway.


166th Ave E & SR 410

WSDOT Adding a signal at the west bound SR 410 ramps and widening 166th Ave north to 64th St.


Dredge Material Management Plan

USACE/Washington State Sponsor Ports; and Oregon Sponsor Port, Port of Portland.

Complete a management plan of sufficient detail to ensure unimpeded maintenance of the 43‐foot Columbia River federal navigation channel for the next 20 years.


US 12 White Pass corridor hardening plan

WSDOT Develop a preservation and improvement plan to improve the long‐term viability and sustainability of the corridor for freight.


Freight Connected Vehicle Technology ‐ statewide

WSDOT Establish a grant program to leverage state funds for the implementation of freight CV technology projects.


Statewide Bridge Hit Prevention

WSDOT Identify and implement a technology based approach for establishing an active or passive advance warning system at selected bridges throughout the state.




Statewide ITS enhancements

WSDOT Implement operational ITS improvements at priority locations statewide to facilitate the movement of freight.


Edmonds Multimodal Grade Separation

City of Edmonds

Provide grade‐separated access to the Edmonds Waterfront.

$850,000 $1,000,000 Project type or location does not meet eligibility requirements

Duwamish Local Freight Access Improvements

City of Seattle

Reconstruct roadway with drainage, curb, sidewalks and landscaping.


Oak Street Overpass Modification

Port of Kalama

Access / egress to overpass $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Project type or location does not meet eligibility requirements

1st Ave S Viaduct Replacement

City of Seattle

Replace viaduct structure spanning Class I railroad and UP Argo Yard at the end of its useful life, increasing vertical clearance and optimizing yard operations


4th Ave S Viaduct Replacement

City of Seattle



SODO Rail Corridor Grade Separation

City of Seattle

Improve access to manufacturing and industrial center and Port of Seattle facilities. May include non‐

$145,000,000 $145,000,000

Project type or location does not



motorized grade separation to increase safety and reduce modal conflicts

meet eligibility requirements

US 101/Port Industrial Road ‐ Alternate Route

WSDOT Intersection control improvements at 4 locations (2 intersections with signals and channelization and 2 intersections with left turn channelization).


SR 18/I‐5 to SR 169 ‐ ITS Improvements

WSDOT Expanding the NWR Active Traffic Management system.


Puyallup Bridge Rehabilitation (F16C, F16D, F16E)

City of Tacoma

Bridge Replacement for segments F16C, D, E and F16.

$150,000,000 $150,000,000

Project not supported by regional plan

1.4 Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects Program

The FAST Act established the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects (NSFHP) program,16 a competitive and nationwide freight program. The grant program provides dedicated, discretionary funding for projects of regional and national significance that address critical infrastructure issues. This program allows states, MPOs, local governments, tribal governments, special purpose districts, public authorities (including port authorities), and other parties to apply for funding to complete projects that improve safety and hold the greatest promise to eliminate freight bottlenecks and improve critical freight movements. Funding is authorized from 2016 to 2020, averaging $900 million annually, and totaling $4.5 billion over the life of the bill. In 2016, FHWA administered the program as Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of National Efficiencies17 (FASTLANE). The

16 23 USC 117.Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects. http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:23%20section:117%20edition:prelim)

17 U.S. Department of Transportation. https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/FASTLANE%20Project%20Awards_9_16_0.pdf



program is now being administered by the Build America Bureau as the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) program.18 INFRA advances the pre-existing grant program, by updating project criteria, leveraging capital and allowing innovation in project delivery. Projects in Washington that received funding to date from this program are shown in Exhibit 1-16

Exhibit 1-16: Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects Program Funded Projects

Year Project Project Owner FASTLANE

Funding Totals

2016 South Lander Street Grade Separation and Railroad Safety

City of Seattle $45 million $140 million

2016 Strander Boulevard Extension and Grade Separation Phase 3

City of Tukwila $5 million $38 million

2017 Northern Columbia Basin Railroad

Port of Moses Lake $9.9 million $32 million

Projects submitted to WSDOT in 2016 for FASTLANE listing are shown in Exhibit 1-17. Projects may be eligible for INFRA and other programs through 2020.

Exhibit 1-17: Projects Submitted to WSDOT in 2016 for FASTLANE Funding


Project Description Total Project

Cost

SR 167/New Freeway

WSDOT Construction of new four lane alignment on SR 167 between SR 509 in Tacoma and SR 161 in Puyallup.

$932,900,000

Industrial Way / Oregon Way Intersection Project

Cowlitz County

Intersection is currently operating close to Level of Service (LOS) E and is projected to fail (LOS F) in 2040.

$95,000,000

SR 509/New Freeway

WSDOT This project will widen SR 509 between SR 516 and 28th/24th Ave. South and add toll lanes.

$530,220,000

West Vancouver Freight Access

Port of Vancouver

Rail improvements at Port of Vancouver $275,000,000

South Terminal Modernization Project III

Port of Everett

Cleanup action plan for the South Terminal Mill A

$135,000,000

18 INFRA. https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/infragrants



Port of Longview Multi‐Cargo Modernization Project (Berth 6/7)

Port of Longview

Installation of a dual wastewater and storm water collection system, strengthening decking and piling to withstand dual pick, breakbulk heavy loads, upgrading on‐dock rail systems, and deepening the berths.

$31,400,000

Northern Columbian Basin Railroad Project

Port of Moses Lake

Improve rail service to businesses in Moses Lake.

$30,300,000

Terminal 5 Improvements


Truck gate, ITS and intersection improvements in the S. Spokane St/East Marginal Way/Hanford corridor, container movement and power supply improvements.

$275,000,000

Bigelow Gulch Road ‐ Project 5

Spokane County

Widen to 4‐lanes with a median and 8' wide shoulders

$12,722,193

Kalama Methanol Manufacturing and Exporting Facility (KMMEF) ‐ Dock

Port of Kalama

The new export dock is designed to accommodate both the existing fleet and future generations of methanol carriers.

$21,500,000

US 12/Wallula to Frenchtown ‐ Build new highway

WSDOT Construct a four‐lane, limited access divided highway from Nine Mile Hill to Frenchtown vicinity to reduce the risk of collisions and improve economic vitality.

$384,807,000

Connell Rail Interchange

City of Connell

Improve multi‐modal safety and freight mobility

$23,940,302

SR 285 North Wenatchee Avenue Corridor Mobility and Safety Improvements

City of Wenatchee

Access management and ITS improvements $15,500,000

Bigelow Gulch/Forker Connector‐Project 2

Spokane County

Widen to 4‐lanes with a median and 8' wide shoulders

$13,161,000

Spotted Road Realignment and Interchange Project

Spokane Airports

Realign road outside the Runway Protection Zone & include an interchange to separate Airport traffic and freight traffic.

$13,000,000

SR 410 Traffic Ave/E Main

WSDOT Reconfigure two intersections and add travel lanes and multimodal access across SR 410 to the Sumner/Pacific MIC.

$26,411,500



Arrival/Departure Tracks


Extend a number of SR‐509 rail corridor tracks 1,300' east, construct a new rail bridge across Wapato Creek, and relocate utilities.

$43,500,000

POT Road Interchange Modification ‐ Phase III

City of Fife

New 34th Avenue E bridge over I‐5, reconstruct northbound I‐5 exit and entrance ramp connectors with POT Road, 20th St E improvements, and two new signal installations (Phase 3).

$27,500,000

Stewart Road Bridge

City of Sumner

Replacement of undersized bridge and adding travel lanes across the White River and railroad crossing.

$25,000,000

Combined Gate Complex


Gate expansion, updated gate technology, relocated parking, and circulation improvements.

$30,000,000

Port of Longview Industrial Rail Corridor (IRC) Expansion Project

Port of Longview

Adding one to two additional through tracks into the Port with up to four sidings to accommodate current and future growth and market demand.

$35,000,000

Broadway Corridor Improvements

City of Everett

Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes, sidewalks, new bridge

$42,000,000

North Intermodal Yard Alignment


Align North and South Intermodal Yards $50,000,000

Port of Quincy Intermodal Terminal Infrastructure Expansion Project

Grant County Port District No. 1 (Port of Quincy)

installation of three additional intermodal tracks, a new track to allow trains of up to 8000’, a 7,500’ long set out/pick up track, and expanding the terminal surface area to provide for more container storage.

$18,000,000

E Marginal Way Reconstruction and Safety Enhancements

City of Seattle

Reconstruct to heavy haul standards, add advanced traffic management systems, and incorporate separated bicycle and pedestrian facilities while maintaining freight efficiency.

$60,000,000

Pines Road (SR 27)/BNSF Grade Separation Project


Replaces an at‐grade crossing with an underpass, lowers the intersection and adds lanes, closes the at‐grade crossing of University Road at the BNSF railway.

$19,765,000

I‐5 and 54th Ave E Interchange

City of Fife

Rebuild I‐5 Interchange and nearby intersections.

$53,000,000



Improvement Project

Portland Avenue City of Tacoma

Upgrade pavement, rehabilitate bridge deck, install signal at SR‐509 ramp terminal

$8,200,000

Terminal 18 Truck Access Improvements


Reconfigure the southern edge of terminal and adjacent public right‐of‐way by relocating the current security check and optical character recognition equipment.

$5,000,000

Blair Hylebos Rail Improvements


Track improvements specific to future dry bulk export terminal requirements and connection to arrival/departure track infrastructure and direct mainline infrastructure.

$7,000,000

Kalama River Industrial Park‐ Building Construction

Port of Kalama

Light industrial building construction $8,000,000

Duwamish Rail Corridor Project


Create improved direct rail access from the Port marine terminals T‐5 and T‐18 to UP and BNSF mainlines

$16,000,000

T‐5 Rail Improvements


Intermodal yard and rail enhancements $40,000,000

Spencer Creek Business Park ‐Road and Utility Improvements to the Business Park

Port of Kalama

Utilities and roads $12,000,000

Bridgeview Terminal (Berth 1/2) Project

Port of Longview

Redevelopment of facilities into one leased terminal. Project development will be in coordination with private development, and may include storage, dock construction, and rail infrastructure improvements.

$20,000,000

Columbia Gateway Connector

Port of Vancouver

Extension into Port of Vancouver $30,000,000

Berth 4 Terminal Redevelopment Project (including rail infrastructure support)

Port of Longview

Redevelopment of facilities into a leased terminal. Project development will be in coordination with private development and may include storage, dock construction, and rail infrastructure improvements.

$20,000,000



Barlow Point Terminal Railway Entry Development

Port of Longview

New rail infrastructure development from the terminus of the BNSF Reynolds Lead into the Barlow Point property; to include two inbound and two outbound tracks.

$43,000,000

I‐5/East Fork Lewis River Bridge

WSDOT Replace bridge $50,000,000

I‐5/NB SR 528 to SR 531 ‐ Peak Use Shoulder Lane

WSDOT Widening the outside shoulder (right shoulder) by 1' and re‐striping NB I‐5 to create a peak use shoulder lane and installing an Active Traffic Management system

$84,469,240

S Atlantic St / SR 519 / Edgar Martinez Dr S Corridor ITS Implementation

City of Seattle

Provide adaptive signal control for optimized freight operations following Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement project

$5,000,000

E Marginal Way / S Hanford Street Intersection Improvements

City of Seattle

Upgrade the signal, lengthen the northbound right‐turn lane, improve the railroad crossing pavement, evaluate the need for railroad crossing gates, andrebuild the intersection and approaches to Heavy Haul route requirements

$8,600,000

SR 522/Paradise Lake Rd to Snohomish River ‐ Widening & Construct New Interchange

WSDOT Add two additional lanes on a separate alignment to create a four‐lane divided highway. Construct a new interchange at Paradise Lake Rd.

$180,263,200

SR‐14, 15th to 32nd Street

WSDOT Improve access to SR‐14 using roundabouts. $25,000,000

Everett Ave Extension and Overcrossing (E. Grand)

City of Everett

Extend Everett Avenue and construct an unobstructed grade divided railroad overcrossing

$14,800,000

Argonne Rd & I‐90 IC Bridge Widening


New SB Argonne Road Bridge, widening to 3 lanes, a 10' breakdown lane, and a new 6' wide sidewalk.

$8,000,000

Sullivan Road Bridge


Replace existing BNSF and Trent Road (SR‐290) bridges along Sullivan Road. Widen

$20,350,000

SR‐14, I‐205 to 164th Av. Add Lanes

WSDOT Add lanes and modify ramps $38,000,000

I‐5/SR 500 Build Direct Connection

WSDOT Construct connection from SR‐500 to I‐5 north of interchange

$140,000,000



Puyallup Bridge Rehabilitation (F16C, F16D, F16E)

City of Tacoma

Bridge Replacement for segments F16C, D, E and F16.

$150,000,000

Barlow Point Terminal Development

Port of Longview

Port terminal development to include dock structures, utility backbone, roadways, stormwater systems, etc. on the site to support 1 to 3 future private terminal developments.

$227,000,000

I‐205, 28th St. to SR‐500 Auxiliary Lanes

WSDOT Add Northbound and Southbound lanes $23,000,000

I‐205, Padden Interchange with 72nd Av. Slip Ramp

WSDOT Reconstruct Interchange with northbound slip ramp to 72nd Av.

$30,000,000

I‐205, SR‐500 to Padden Parkway

WSDOT Add northbound and southbound lanes $30,000,000

S. 212th Street BNSF Railroad Grade Separation

City of Kent

Provides a critical, grade‐separated link through the commercial/industrial/central area of Kent. Links the valley warehouse/industial center to SR 167 and I‐5.

$40,000,000

Everett Arterial Access Improvements (US 2 and I‐5)

City of Everett

Arterial access improvements to US 2 and I‐5 in Everett

$39,000,000

I‐5 @ 100th South Everett Interchange Improvements

City of Everett

Construct a new undercrossing and I‐5 access $55,000,000

Ballard Bridge Replacement

City of Seattle

Replace structure to increase capacity and improve access

$520,000,000

SR‐14, Marble Rd. to Salmon Falls Rd.

WSDOT Realign curves $8,000,000

SR‐14 Tunnels WSDOT Improve clearance at restricted height tunnels

$10,000,000

SR‐97/Brooks Park Passing Lane

WSDOT Truck passing lane $10,000,000

SE/NE 162th Avenue – SE 1st Street to NE 9th Street

City of Vancouver

Upgrade to seven lane arterial standard. $13,000,000



Highway 99 Corridor

Clark County

Widen portal and improve clearance $15,000,000

SR‐14 Half Bridge to Prindle

WSDOT Extend WB climbing lane $18,000,000

SR‐14 Improvements, SR‐141 Alt. to Dock Grade

WSDOT Improve width, grade, and add shoulders $20,000,000

SR‐97/Little Klickitat River Passing Lane

WSDOT Truck passing lane $20,000,000

SR‐14 Shoulders WSDOT Improve non‐standard shoulder width $25,000,000

SR‐14, E. of Stevenson to Carson

WSDOT Realignment to remove sharp curves $25,000,000

SR‐14/Columbia Shores Portal, underneath the BNSF line adjacent to SR‐14 interchange

City of Vancouver

Rail trestle, widen portal and improve clearance

$25,000,000

SR‐500/SR‐503/Fourth Plain Intersection

WSDOT Grade separation $60,000,000

SR‐14/SR‐97 WSDOT Grade separation $80,000,000

SR‐500 Interchanges (42nd/54th)

WSDOT Grade separation $80,000,000

SR‐14 Rockfall WSDOT Rockfall protection $100,000,000

Hood River Bridge Replacement

Port of Hood River

Replace bridge over Columbia River $250,000,000

W Galer St Interchange Ramp

City of Seattle

Construct additional ramp to improve access over BNSF mainline tracks and storage yard

$23,000,000

1st Ave S Viaduct Replacement

City of Seattle


$55,000,000

4th Ave S Viaduct Replacement

City of Seattle


$55,000,000

SODO Rail Corridor Grade Separation

City of Seattle

Improve access to manufacturing and industrial center and Port of Seattle facilities.

$145,000,000



May include non‐motorized grade separation to increase safety and reduce modal conflicts

US 101 Truck Route Alternative EIS

Grays Harbor Council of Governments

Re‐evaluate & update Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (FHWA and WSDOT et al. 2000)

$5,000,000

Maintenance Priority ‐ Complete Seismic Upgrades wo Area Bridges

WSDOT Seismic upgrades $24,000,000

i APPENDIX B: MARINE PORTS AND NAVIGATION PLAN


WASHINGTON STATE

FREIGHT SYSTEM PLAN

Appendix B: 2017 Washington State

Marine Ports and Navigation Plan

December 2017

Rail, Freight, and Ports Division

Contents

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1

1.1.1 Purpose of this plan .............................................................................................. 1

1.1.2 Ports are global gateways ..................................................................................... 1

1.2 The Marine Freight System .......................................................................................... 3

1.2.1 Pacific Ocean........................................................................................................ 3

1.2.2 Salish Sea ............................................................................................................ 4

1.2.3 Columbia-Snake River System ............................................................................. 5

1.2.4 Waterway Freight Economic Corridors .................................................................. 7

1.3 Marine Freight Forecast ............................................................................................... 7

1.4 Marine System Partners............................................................................................... 9

1.4.1 Industry and Associations ..................................................................................... 9

1.4.2 Federal Agencies .................................................................................................10

1.4.3 Tribal Governments .............................................................................................12

1.4.4 State of Washington.............................................................................................12

1.4.5 Regional and Local Government ..........................................................................14

ii APPENDIX B: MARINE PORTS AND NAVIGATION PLAN


1.5 Funding .......................................................................................................................14

1.5.1 Federal funding ....................................................................................................14

1.5.2 State funding........................................................................................................16

1.5.3 Local funding .......................................................................................................16

1.6 Outreach and Survey ..................................................................................................18

1.6.1 Outreach ..............................................................................................................19

1.6.2 Port survey ..........................................................................................................19

1.7 Economic Vitality ........................................................................................................20

1.8 Preservation................................................................................................................26

1.9 Safety .........................................................................................................................28

1.10 Mobility .......................................................................................................................29

1.11 Environment................................................................................................................34

1.12 Stewardship ................................................................................................................36

1.13 System Improvements ................................................................................................39

1.14 Plan Development and Next Steps .............................................................................42

Exhibits

Exhibit 1-1: Ports on the Pacific Ocean ...................................................................................... 4

Exhibit 1-2: Ports on the Salish Sea ........................................................................................... 4

Exhibit 1-3: Deep draft ports on the Columbia-Snake River System in Washington ................... 6

Exhibit 1-4: Shallow draft ports on the Columbia-Snake River System in Washington................ 6

Exhibit 1-5: Marine Freight Economic Corridors ........................................................................ 7

Exhibit 1-6: Summary of Marine Freight Forecast ...................................................................... 8

Exhibit 1-7: Marine Freight Shipment by Direction in Washington .............................................. 9

Exhibit 1-8: 2017 Capital Projects .............................................................................................17

Exhibit 1-9: 2017 Revenues ......................................................................................................18

Exhibit 1-10: Port Projects .........................................................................................................39

iii APPENDIX B: MARINE PORTS AND NAVIGATION PLAN


Title VI Notice to Public

It is the Washington State Department of Transportation’s (WSDOT) policy to assure that no

person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin or sex, as provided by Title VI of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be

otherwise discriminated against under any of its federally funded programs and activities. Any

person who believes his/her Title VI protection has been violated, may file a complaint with

WSDOT’s Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO). For additional information regarding Title VI

complaint procedures and/or information regarding our non-discrimination obligations, please

contact OEO’s Title VI Coordinator at (360) 705-7090.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information

This material can be made available in an alternate format by emailing the Office of Equal

Opportunity at [email protected] or by calling toll free, 855-362-4ADA (4232). Persons

who are deaf or hard of hearing may make a request by calling the Washington State Relay at

711.

mailto:[email protected]


1 APPENDIX B: MARINE PORTS AND NAVIGATION PLAN

APPENDIX B: WASHINGTON STATE MARINE

PORTS AND NAVIGATION PLAN

1.1 Introduction

Marine transportation provides cost-effective, fuel-efficient, and safer movement for many kinds

of freight. Increased use of the marine system – by way of modal diversion – can reduce

demand on the highway and rail systems, and thereby provide social, economic, and

environmental benefits to the region. Washington is one of the most trade-dependent states per

capita in the United States. Trade is reliant on the safe and efficient movement of goods,

making ports important to Washington’s economic competitiveness. Many states are also

dependent on the ports in Washington to import and export freight.

1.1.1 Purpose of this plan

The goal of the Marine Ports and Navigation Plan is to assess the transportation needs of

marine ports in Washington, including navigation, and to identify transportation system

improvements needed to support the international trade and economic development role of

marine ports in Washington. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)

developed this plan to meet state law requirements,1 and to support the preservation and

enhancement of the marine freight system in Washington.

This plan primarily focused on freight transportation. It also generally covers passenger and

recreational port and marine topics. The plan explains the economic context of marine

transportation, while defining the marine freight system. Additionally, the plan includes analysis

of the condition and performance; volumes and forecast; and trends and issues of the system.

Lastly, the plan provides strategies to address the trends, issues, and needs.

WSDOT developed this plan in consideration of Results Washington,2 the statewide

performance management initiative. WSDOT’s work on the marine system contributes to

Results Washington’s “Goal 2: Prosperous Economy” by improving travel and freight reliability

on strategic corridors. This work also supports Results WSDOT’s3 “Goal 2: Modal Integration”

and “Goal 5: Community Engagement.” Results WSDOT provides the vision, mission, values,

goals, priority outcomes, and strategies to guide the work of the agency.

1.1.2 Ports are global gateways

Compared to many other ports in the U.S., some marine ports in Washington have several

significant advantages, including natural deep-water harbors on the coast, a West Coast

1 RCW 47.06.070. Marine Ports and Navigation Plan. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=47.06.070 2 Results Washington. http://www.results.wa.gov/ 3 WSDOT. Results WSDOT. February 2017. https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2017/03/06/ResultsWSDOT2016ProgressReportExecutiveSummary.pdf

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=47.06.070

http://www.results.wa.gov/

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2017/03/06/ResultsWSDOT2016ProgressReportExecutiveSummary.pdf

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2017/03/06/ResultsWSDOT2016ProgressReportExecutiveSummary.pdf



location close to Asian markets, and strong connections to Freight Economic Corridors. Ports in

Washington serve as important intermodal facilities for international and regional trade, and the

Puget Sound ports function as gateways for containerized commerce between North America

and the rest of the world.

Washington is a gateway state, connecting Asian trade to the U.S. economy, Alaska to the

Lower 48 states, and Canada to the U.S. West Coast. On a per capita basis, Washington was

the second most trade-dependent state in the nation in 2016, behind Michigan, with total

imports and exports valued at $126.8 billion. In this context, WSDOT has defined trade

dependence as the total per capita value of the state’s international imports and exports. In

2016, $79.6 billion in U.S. international trade was exported from or through Washington, of

which $47.9 billion was related to transportation equipment (mostly aircraft) and $10.2 billion

was agricultural products.4 In the same period, $47.2 billion in U.S. international trade was

imported to or through Washington.5 Approximately 81,000 employees work in the

transportation/warehousing sector in Washington, which produced $1.4 billion in gross business

income. Imports support U.S. manufacturers and provide goods to consumers, while agricultural

exports support farms throughout the Pacific Northwest and Midwest. Goods coming into

Washington by container ship are often headed to the Midwest and East Coast. The highways,

rail corridors, and waterways serve to transport goods to locations in Washington and beyond.

In 2015, the maritime industry in Washington supported 69,500 direct jobs and 121,600 indirect

and induced jobs. The total economic impact of the maritime sector in 2015 includes $12.5

billion in labor income and $37.8 billion in business revenue across Washington.6 Maritime

logistics and shipping is the largest subsector of the maritime industry, and is critical to the

state’s trade-dependent economy. Ports in Washington handled a total of 19 million metric tons

of international waterborne container trade in 2015, and the ports of Seattle and Tacoma handle

most of the international container exports and imports.

Together the ports of Seattle and Tacoma, known collectively as the Northwest Seaport Alliance

(NWSA), rank fourth among North American ports in total container traffic, behind Los

Angeles/Long Beach, New York/New Jersey, and Savannah.7 The ports of Seattle and Tacoma

move breakbulk cargo – cargo moved as separate pieces rather than in containers -- as well.

International trade moving through these two seaports exceeded $74.7 billion in 2015. The top

three commodities exported through the two seaports are agricultural products, industry

machinery, and aircraft and parts. The top three commodities imported through the two seaports

are industrial machinery, electric machinery, vehicles and parts.

The ports of Vancouver USA, Kalama, Olympia, Longview, Grays Harbor, Pasco, and Everett

handle mostly bulk goods. The Port of Grays Harbor and several along the Columbia River,

4 U.S. Department of Trade of Commerce, International Trade Administration, Export Product Profile to a Selected Market. http://tse.export.gov/tse/TSEReports.aspx?DATA=SED 5 U.S. Census Bureau. Foreign Trade. https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/state/data/imports/wa.html 6 Washington State Maritime Sector Economic Impact Study, 2017 Update. http://leg.wa.gov/JointCommittees/Archive/ERMM/Documents/2014-9-30/b%20Economic%20Impact.pdf 7 American Association of Port Authorities. 2016 Port Rankings by TEUs. http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/Statistics/NAFTA%20REGION%20CONTAINER%20TRAFFIC%20PORT%20RANKING%202016_T3.pdf

http://tse.export.gov/tse/TSEReports.aspx?DATA=SED

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/state/data/imports/wa.html

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/state/data/imports/wa.html

http://leg.wa.gov/JointCommittees/Archive/ERMM/Documents/2014-9-30/b%20Economic%20Impact.pdf

http://leg.wa.gov/JointCommittees/Archive/ERMM/Documents/2014-9-30/b%20Economic%20Impact.pdf

http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/Statistics/NAFTA%20REGION%20CONTAINER%20TRAFFIC%20PORT%20RANKING%202016_T3.pdf





including the ports of Kalama, Vancouver, and Longview, play a major role in the movement of

exported agricultural products to foreign markets. Kalama is the largest grain port on the West

Coast. Some of these ports handle more than bulk. Breakbulk and roll-on/roll-off freight are also

major lines of business for ports in Washington. The Port of Everett directly serves the Boeing

Company assembly plant in Snohomish County.

Ports affect local, regional, state, national, and international economies. Smaller ports have a

modest effect on state economy as a percentage of the whole, but for the local economy, the

effect is as great as or even greater than the NWSA to the Puget Sound. Ports are economic

drivers that attract businesses and industries. Businesses can locate near a port for synergies

that can lower supply chain costs, reduce transit times, and provide access to multiple vendors.

The concept of a cluster of interacting, competing, and cooperating businesses with a port at the

core is apparent when examining a port, such as the NWSA, with the many direct vendors and

suppliers, such as warehouses, stevedore and trucking companies. The indirect beneficiaries of

a port are less apparent, but include those businesses that ship and receive via the port and

benefit from the business community that arises. Ports also support jobs, benefiting the local

economy as employees spend their wages. The average maritime laborer in Washington made

almost $67,000 a year in May 2016; a captain, mate, or pilot made almost $84,000.8

1.2 The Marine Freight System

The marine freight waterways in Washington consist of the Pacific Ocean, the Salish Sea, and

the Columbia-Snake River System. These waterways and their channels, combined with

commercial ports, terminals, locks/dams, and vessels, comprise the marine system. In addition,

the marine system also includes the intermodal landside connections of ports, which allow the

roadway and railway systems to move freight to and from the water.

1.2.1 Pacific Ocean

The Pacific Ocean forms most of Washington’s western border. All commercially navigable

waters in Washington lead to the Pacific Ocean, where freight can be transported globally from

ports and terminals. Both ships and barges traverse the Pacific Ocean.

This part of Washington is on the M-5 Corridor, one of the Marine Highway Routes that

comprise America’s Marine Highway System. The system is part of America’s Marine Highway

Program, led by United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Maritime Administration.

The M-5 Corridor includes the Pacific Ocean coastal waters, connecting commercial navigation

channels, ports, and harbors from San Diego, California to the U.S.-Canada border north of

Seattle. It spans Washington, Oregon, and California along the West Coast. At the Canadian

border, it connects to the M-5 Alaska Marine Highway Connector.

As shown in Exhibit 1-1, there is one deep-draft port directly on the Pacific Ocean in

Washington capable of handling ocean-going vessels, which is in Grays Harbor. For navigation,

the Port of Grays Harbor depends on twin jetties (17,200 feet and 13,734 feet) to secure the

mouth of the harbor with a deep-draft 22-mile channel from the Pacific Ocean to Aberdeen. The

8 U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. May 2016 State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for Washington. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_wa.htm#53-0000

https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_wa.htm#53-0000



deep-draft channel is 350 feet wide, increasing to 1,000 feet over the bar. Channel depth is 36

feet up to the major port docks at Cow Point and then 32 feet from there to the last dock at

South Aberdeen.

Exhibit 1-1: Ports on the Pacific Ocean

Port Primary Commodities

Grays Harbor Autos, soybeans, compressed natural gas

1.2.2 Salish Sea

The Salish Sea is composed of three large bodies of water (the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the Strait of Georgia, and Puget Sound), as well as several smaller bodies of water (e.g., Elliott Bay, Commencement Bay, Bellingham Bay, Hood Canal, Haro Strait, Rosario Strait) that are connecting channels and adjoining waters.

The Strait of Juan de Fuca is a large channel of water that begins at the Pacific Ocean between

Vancouver Island, British Columbia, and the Olympic Peninsula of Washington. It extends

95 miles easterly to the San Juan Islands.

The U.S. portion of the Strait of Georgia extends north from Rosario Strait and Haro Strait at the

San Juan Islands approximately 15 miles to the International Boundary.

Puget Sound is a partly enclosed coastal body of water. It is a system of interconnected

waterways and basins, beginning with its major connection to the Strait of Juan de Fuca at

Admiralty Inlet and extending approximately 100 miles south to its southern end at Olympia.

Additionally, the Salish Sea marine corridor includes connected bays, inlets, and other

commercially navigable waterways including, but not limited to, Lake Washington and the

accompanying Lake Washington Ship Canal, Hood Canal, Possession Sound, the Blair

Waterway, and the Lower Duwamish Waterway. The system extends eastward from Cape

Flattery on the Pacific Ocean to include the San Juan Islands, north from there to the

International Boundary, and south to Olympia.

The Lake Washington Ship Canal contains the only lock system on the Salish Sea. The U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) completed the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks in 1917.

Connecting the waters of Lake Washington, Lake Union, and Salmon Bay to the tidal waters of

Puget Sound, the canal and locks allow recreational and commercial vessels to travel to the

docks and warehouses of Seattle's busy freshwater harbor. The complex includes two locks.

As shown in Exhibit 1-2, there are eight deep-draft public ports capable of handling ocean-going

vessels in the Salish Sea, at Shelton, Olympia, Seattle/Tacoma, Bremerton, Everett,

Bellingham, Anacortes, and Port Angeles. There are also private industrial terminals at

Anacortes, Ferndale, and Cherry Point.

Exhibit 1-2: Ports on the Salish Sea


Shelton Lumber

Olympia Lumber, logs, breakbulk, grain, livestock, heavy lift

NWSA (ports of Tacoma and Seattle) Dry containers, refrigerated containers, breakbulk,



Port Primary Commodities roll-on/roll-off, grain, seafood, logs

Bremerton Military, fuel

Everett Aircraft parts, logs

Bellingham Bulk and break bulk

Anacortes Shipbuilding and repair

Port Angeles Logs and lumber

International container shipping provides access to distant markets. Approximately

20 international container carriers provide regular weekly service between the NWSA harbors of

Seattle and Tacoma and key markets in Asia, Europe, Central America, and the Oceania

geographic region.9 In early 2017, the top shipping carriers around the world regrouped to form

new shipping alliances. Three alliances now represent 96 percent of all east-west ocean freight

trades.

The route from Washington to Alaska is one of the nation’s most important routes for domestic

waterborne commerce with Alaska. Almost all of the supplies necessary to meet the everyday

needs of Alaska’s residents and businesses move by water from Seattle and Tacoma. Crude oil

is the most significant commodity carried to Washington from Alaska by weight, and nearly

295,000 barrels of crude oil moved south from Alaska to refineries in Washington every day in

2011. In 2014, the ports of Seattle and Tacoma jointly handled 870,733 domestic TEU. Much of

this volume was generated by Alaska. A twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU) is the standard

measurement of volume, and is an approximate unit of cargo capacity based on the volume of a

20-foot-long intermodal container.

Ocean-towing tugs provide barge-towing services for both short and long distances from

Washington. These tugs tow cargo, such as container barges, oil rigs, retired military vessels, or

mineral extracts from remote mines. Six major barge terminals are located in Seattle on the

Lower Duwamish Waterway, providing common carrier and contract-carrier service primarily to

Alaska, Hawaii, Canada and coast-wise to Oregon and California. Weekly barge service to and

from Harbor Island in Seattle carries rail cars for the Alaska Railroad, connecting it to the rest of

the U.S. rail system.

Two companies operating out of Tacoma provide ocean container carrier service between

Washington and the domestic markets of Alaska and Hawaii. Container vessels carry over

50 percent of goods traveling between Puget Sound and Alaska. Roll-on/roll-off and breakbulk

services are available on ocean-going ships as well.

1.2.3 Columbia-Snake River System

The Columbia-Snake River System is composed of the two connected rivers that facilitate

commercial navigation. The Columbia-Snake River Barge Channel extends 360 miles from

Lewiston, Idaho to Vancouver, and flows into the 105-mile long Columbia and Lower Willamette

River Channel that continues west to the Pacific Ocean near Ilwaco. The upper river system has

eight lock and dam facilities that allow barges to serve ports and terminals on the waterway; the

9 Northwest Seaport Alliance. Ocean Carriers. https://www.nwseaportalliance.com/operations/ocean-carriers

https://www.nwseaportalliance.com/operations/ocean-carriers



lower river system, from Vancouver to the Pacific Ocean, does not have lock and dam

infrastructure. A 14-foot deep channel is maintained from Lewiston, Idaho to Vancouver; a 43-

foot deep channel is maintained from Vancouver to the Pacific Ocean.10

The USDOT Maritime Administration (MARAD) has designated the Columbia-Snake River

System as the M-84 Corridor, one of the Marine Highway Routes that comprise America’s

Marine Highway System. The M-84 Corridor includes the Columbia, Willamette and Snake

rivers, connecting commercial navigation channels, ports, and harbors. It spans Oregon,

Washington, and Idaho from Astoria, Oregon to Lewiston, Idaho and a 26-mile portion of the

Willamette River from Willamette Falls to the confluence with the Columbia River.

There are three deep-draft ports in Washington currently handling ocean-going vessels on the

Columbia River, at Vancouver, Kalama, and Longview. Exhibit 1-3 shows the primary

commodities handled by these ports. An additional nine shallow draft ports in Washington

handle barges at Clarkston, Whitman-Wilma, Whitman-Almota, Garfield-Central Ferry,

Whitman-Central Ferry, Benton, Pasco, Walla Walla, and Klickitat. Exhibit 1-4 shows the

primary commodities handled by these ports. There are other ports not currently handling cargo

that have the capability and infrastructure for handling marine freight, and private terminals in

operation outside port districts. Shippers and receivers in Washington also use marine freight

facilities and terminals on the Columbia-Snake River System outside the state, including

Portland and Morrow in Oregon and Lewiston in Idaho.

Exhibit 1-3: Deep draft ports on the Columbia-Snake River System in Washington


Vancouver Grain, auto, steel, heavy lift

Kalama Grain, steel

Longview Grain, bulk, heavy lift, general cargo, petroleum coke, logs

Exhibit 1-4: Shallow draft ports on the Columbia-Snake River System in Washington


Clarkston Forest products, heavy lift, containers

Whitman-Wilma Grain

Whitman-Almota Grain

Garfield-Central Ferry Grain

Whitman-Central Ferry Grain

Benton Military, heavy lift

Pasco Containers, refrigerated, heavy-lift

Walla Walla Grain, refrigerated

Klickitat Logs

10 Pacific Northwest Waterways Association. Columbia-Snake River System Facts. http://www.pnwa.net/factsheets/CSRS.pdf

http://www.pnwa.net/factsheets/CSRS.pdf



1.2.4 Waterway Freight Economic Corridors

WSDOT classifies marine corridors based on the volume of freight carried by corridor. The

Freight Economic Corridors system is used to identify and map supply chains, identify system

condition and capacity issues, and to develop performance measures to improve freight

mobility. A map of the Waterway Freight Economic Corridors is shown in Exhibit 1-5. The

Waterway Freight Economic Corridors are classified with the following structure:

W1: more than 25 million tons per year

W2: 10 million to 25 million tons per year

W3: 5 million to 10 million tons per year

W4: 2.5 million to 5 million tons per year

W5: 0.9 million to 2.5 million tons per year

Exhibit 1-5: Marine Freight Economic Corridors

1.3 Marine Freight Forecast The national freight volumes presented in this section are based on the Freight Analysis

Framework (FAF) that is produced through a partnership between the Bureau of Transportation

Statistics (BTS) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Starting with data from the 2012



Commodity Flow Survey and international trade data, FAF Version 4 (FAF4)11 integrates data

from a variety of sources to create a comprehensive picture of freight movement nationally by all

modes of transportation. The FAF4 provides estimates for tonnage and value, commodity type,

and mode. Data are available for the base year of 2012, the recent years of 2013 to 2015, and

forecasts from 2020 to 2045 in 5-year intervals. FAF4 forecasts are a reasonable exploration of

current trends, but do not reflect major shifts in the national economy, future capacity limitations,

or changes in transportation costs and technology.

Forecasts from FAF4 indicate that freight tonnage moved exclusively by the marine modes (i.e.,

ships and barges) is projected to increase from 24.6 million in 2015 to 28.7 million in 2035. That

translates to a total increase of 17 percent over a 20-year period, and an annual growth rate at

0.8 percent. The total freight ton-miles moved is anticipated to increase 19 percent from 26.9

billion in 2015 to 32.1 billion in 2035, at an annual growth rate of 0.9 percent.

Exhibit 1-6 shows tonnage and ton-miles, a measurement of one ton of freight carried one mile,

for the marine system in Washington. The marine forecast from FAF4 is for freight moved

exclusively by water, and does not include multimodal shipments, such as truck-water or rail-

water shipments.

Exhibit 1-6: Summary of Marine Freight Forecast

2015 2035 % Change % Annual Growth Rate

Tonnage (million tons) 24.6 28.7 17% 0.8%

Ton-Miles (billion ton-miles) 26.9 32.1 19% 0.9%

Exhibit 1-7 shows marine freight shipment by direction in Washington for 2015 and 2035. In

2015, inbound shipment accounted for 46 percent, outbound shipment accounted for

14 percent, and intrastate shipment accounted for 40 percent. In general, shipments for all

directions are expected to grow at a similar pace over a 20-year period.

11 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Federal Highway Administration, Center for Transportation Analysis. Freight Analysis Framework Version 4. http://faf.ornl.gov/fafweb/

http://faf.ornl.gov/fafweb/



Exhibit 1-7: Marine Freight Shipment by Direction in Washington

1.4 Marine System Partners

A variety of private and public sector organizations play important roles in the marine system in

Washington.

1.4.1 Industry and Associations

Seattle and the Salish Sea are the home to a significant part of the U.S. commercial fishing

fleet. The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations represents many of the

underlying associations. A large number of fish processors are located in Seattle to support the

fishing fleet. The Pacific Seafood Processors Association represents the interests of the

processors of the catch.

Beneficial Cargo Owners (BCOs) are the shippers and receivers that are the ultimate customer

and determine what ports and carriers are used. Most of the BCOs are global and sophisticated

with significant experience with multiple foreign and domestic ports.

Pilot associations represent marine, or maritime, pilots who ensure the safety of ships, crews,

passengers, and cargoes by guiding large ships through dangerous or congested waters, such

as harbors and river mouths. Ships on the Salish Sea and the Columbia River are required to

use pilots. They are regulated by boards in Oregon and Washington established by Public Utility

Commissions.

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) is a labor union that primarily

represents dockworkers, such as clerks, foremen, and longshoremen.

The Pacific Maritime Alliance represents terminal, vessel, and stevedore operations in West

Coast ports in negotiations with the ILWU concerning work rules, hours, wages, etc. Ports lease

space to terminal operators.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Inbound Outbound Intrastate Total

Tonnage (

mill

ion t

ons)

2015 2035



The Washington Public Ports Association (WPPA)12 promotes the interests of the port

community in Washington through government relations, education, and advocacy. WPPA also

produces the Marine Cargo Forecast, which projects the volume of cargo moving through public

and private facilities.

The Pacific Northwest Waterways Association (PNWA)13 is a collaboration of ports, businesses,

public agencies and individuals who combine their economic and political strength in support of

navigation, energy, trade, and economic development throughout the Pacific Northwest.

Railroads and truck operators are also important port partners, playing key roles in moving

cargo in and out of Washington ports. The state rail system consists of the mainline system

operated by the two Class I railroads in Washington (BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad)

and a number of short-line railroads. The mainline system is the primary link for large volume

import and export cargo moving by rail through ports in the state. Some short-line railroads act

as key connections between ports and the mainline system.

1.4.2 Federal Agencies

Maritime Administration

The Maritime Administration (MARAD)14 is an agency within the U.S. Department of

Transportation that promotes the use of waterborne transportation. MARAD coordinates with

partners in many areas involving ships and shipping, shipbuilding, port operations, vessel

operations, national security, environment, and safety. MARAD is responsible for maintaining

the health of the merchant marine (U.S. civilian mariners and vessels), as it is vital for

supporting national security and trade.

The America’s Marine Highways program15 works to incorporate marine corridors more into the

greater U.S. transportation system. The U.S. Secretary of Transportation designates Marine

Highways. Benefits of this program include creating and sustaining jobs on U.S. vessels and in

U.S. ports and shipyards; reducing maintenance costs on roads and bridges; and increasing

economic competitiveness, environmental sustainability, public safety, system resiliency, and

national security.

MARAD periodically holds a call for projects that represent new or expanded Marine Highway

services. Designated Marine Highway Projects receive preferential treatment for any future

federal funding assistance from the USDOT and MARAD.

America’s StrongPorts Program is an effort by MARAD to improve infrastructure in ports

throughout the United States and to ensure they are capable of meeting our future freight

transportation needs. By addressing planning, stakeholder engagement, operational and capital

financing, and project management, this program provides support to ports working to increase

their capacity and efficiency. As part of the StrongPorts initiative, MARAD worked with the

American Association of Port Authorities to develop the Port Planning and Investment Toolkit.

12 Washington Public Ports Association. http://washingtonports.org/ 13 Pacific Northwest Waterways Association. http://www.pnwa.net/ 14 Maritime Administration. About Us. https://www.marad.dot.gov/about-us/ 15 Maritime Administration. America’s Marine Highway Program. https://www.marad.dot.gov/ships-and-shipping/dot-maritime-administration-americas-marine-highway-program/

http://washingtonports.org/

http://www.pnwa.net/

https://www.marad.dot.gov/about-us/

https://www.marad.dot.gov/ships-and-shipping/dot-maritime-administration-americas-marine-highway-program/

https://www.marad.dot.gov/ships-and-shipping/dot-maritime-administration-americas-marine-highway-program/



The Toolkit walks ports through the required analysis, planning, and funding requirements to

complete projects.

U.S. Coast Guard

The U.S. Coast Guard16 (USCG) provides safety and security duties for the marine system. It is

a military, multi-mission maritime force with military, law enforcement, humanitarian, regulatory

and diplomatic capabilities. It has three broad roles: maritime safety, maritime security, and

maritime stewardship.

Marine freight transportation is dependent on the USCG to provide port and waterway security

by protecting marine resources and maritime commerce from internal and external threats

through law enforcement. USCG protects these interests in U.S. ports and inland waterways,

along the coasts and on international waters.

In addition, the USCG maintains maritime aids to navigation and is responsible for ensuring the

network of signs, symbols, buoys, markers, lighthouses, and regulations is up to date and

functioning properly so recreational and commercial boaters can safely navigate the maritime

environment.

The USCG has jurisdiction over bridges that cross navigable bodies of water, including movable

bridges. The USCG is also responsible for the 68 anchorages on the Salish Sea, as well as

those on the Columbia. They are also responsible for the Maritime Transportation Security Act,

which provides safety within the domestic ports.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)17 is responsible for dredging and maintaining

federal navigation channels. Maintenance of navigation channels includes related critical

infrastructure – breakwaters, jetties, pile dikes, and groins. These structures provide passive

maintenance functions, help lock the navigation channels in place, and minimize active

maintenance, such as dredging. The USACE also maintains the lock and dam system to

support the movement of critical commodities.

Another responsibility of the USACE is administration of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund

(IWTF), which funds new construction and major rehabilitation of priority navigation projects on

the nation’s inland waterways system. The IWTF has partially funded projects in Washington,

including the construction of the Bonneville Lock and Dam on the Columbia River, a Plan of

Study laying out the scope, schedule, and budget to complete technical studies, and a decision-

making process concerning breaching the lower four Snake River dams.18

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)19 has a complex mission at ports of entry with

broad law enforcement authorities tied to screening all foreign visitors, American citizens

returning home and imported cargo that enters the U.S. at more than 300 land, air, and sea

16 United States Coast Guard. https://www.gocoastguard.com 17 US Army Corps of Engineers. About Us. http://www.usace.army.mil/About/ 18 US Army Corps of Engineers. Trust Fund Projects. http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/Inland-Waterways-Users-Board/Trust-Fund-Projects/ 19 US Customs and Border Protection. https://www.cbp.gov/

https://www.gocoastguard.com/

http://www.usace.army.mil/About/

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/Inland-Waterways-Users-Board/Trust-Fund-Projects/

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/Inland-Waterways-Users-Board/Trust-Fund-Projects/

https://www.cbp.gov/



ports. An important part of the CBP mission includes facilitating legitimate trade. CBP has

undertaken a number of initiatives, such as the use of non-intrusive inspection technology, to

increase its ability to examine cargo effectively without slowing the flow of trade, which plays a

significant part in the U.S. economy.20

U.S. Navy

The U.S. Navy has a major presence in Puget Sound. Naval Base Kitsap is the third-largest

Navy base in the U.S. The base includes three major port facilities: Puget Sound Naval

Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility at Bremerton, Submarine Base Bangor, and

Manchester Fuel Department. The Manchester Fuel Department is the largest underground

Navy fuel storage facility on the West Coast. It averages a yearly throughput of 2.3 million

barrels of fuel to its various customers, which include U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, Department of

Homeland Security, and U.S. Coast Guard. Manchester receives fuel by tanker ship and

distributes it out by barge and truck.

Naval Station Everett is also a major Navy port facility in Puget Sound.

Navy vessels move cargo and personnel to and from these port facilities. Supplies come to the

bases by truck on highways, including I-5, I-90, SR 16, and SR 3, and by rail.

1.4.3 Tribal Governments

Tribal interests on waterways in Washington revolve primarily around historical fishing rights

recognized in treaties. Freight activities that could affect their ability to harvest salmon and other

species, or damage the habitat of those species, are of concern to the tribes. Tribes are also

participating in the review of the 1964 Columbia River Treaty with Canada, which has a wide

reaching effect on the management of the river.

1.4.4 State of Washington

Washington State Legislature

The Washington State Legislature creates new laws, changes existing laws, and enacts

budgets for the state. The Joint Transportation Committee of the House and Senate (JTC)

conducts studies related to freight as one of its duties. One of the upcoming studies planned by

the JTC will research best practices for marine pilotage and make recommendations for

improvements.

Washington State Department of Transportation

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is a cabinet-level state agency,

with the Secretary of Transportation appointed by the governor. WSDOT was created by the

Washington State Legislature21 to address statewide transportation issues and structures. The

agency’s core mission is to keep people and business moving by operating and improving the

state’s transportation systems. WSDOT’s newly adopted strategic plan goals include effectively

managing strategic investments, optimizing modal integration, promoting environmental

stewardship, strengthening community engagement, and improving smart technology. WSDOT

is responsible for maintaining, preserving, and improving the statewide, multimodal freight

transportation system.

20 US Customs and Border Protection. Cargo Examination. May 15, 2017. https://www.cbp.gov/ 21 Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 47.01.011

https://www.cbp.gov/



Washington State Ferries is the largest ferry system in the nation. . Its routes are part of the

state highway system. In addition to moving passengers, Washington State Ferries also moves

freight.

Within WSDOT, the freight program of the Rail, Freight, and Ports Division is responsible for:

Developing the Washington State Marine Ports and Navigation Plan and Washington

State Freight System Plan to meet federal and state requirements.

Building regional participation and support for the plan and other freight efforts by

strengthening relationships and coordination efforts within WSDOT and with external

freight partners.

Aligning strategic goals with those of WSDOT and the Governor's Office and providing

counsel to WSDOT executives, the Governor’s Office and the Legislature on freight

policies and programs.

Promoting freight safety through research, public education, outreach, and freight

projects.

Identifying, pursuing, and administering freight funding sources.

Supporting freight operations, priorities, and initiatives by pursuing implementation of

recommendations.

Developing cross-functional solutions to meet the performance goals of freight carriers,

shippers, and goods receivers.

WSDOT receives state funds (including taxes and fees), bonds, federal funds, and local funds.

WSDOT’s portion of the state transportation budget pays for operating expenses and capital

costs, including maintaining, preserving, and improving the highway system, operating ferries,

as well as debt service.

WSDOT administers two programs that support freight rail in the state: The Freight Rail

Investment Bank (FRIB) and the Freight Rail Assistance Program (FRAP). Funding for these

programs comes from the Washington State Legislature. Ports are eligible to use these funding

sources to improve their rail infrastructure. In the 2017-2019 biennium, the Port of Everett –

South Terminal Modernization Project II – received a $5 million loan from the FRIB program.

Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board

The Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB)22 was created by the Legislature in

1998 (RCW 47.06A.030) to implement the state's freight mobility strategic investment program.

The Legislature directed FMSIB to solicit, review, evaluate, and prioritize freight projects from

public entities. FMSIB is comprised of 12 members representing various aspects of the state

and transportation system including cities, counties, ports, railroads, trucking, shipping, the

general public, the Office of Financial Management, and WSDOT. Funding for FMSIB is

included in the state’s transportation budget. FMSIB is the administering agency for two freight

mobility accounts in the State Treasury: the Freight Mobility Investment Account and the Freight

Mobility Multimodal Account.

In January 2013, FMSIB created the Washington State Freight Advisory Committee (WAFAC),

as directed by Section 1117 in the federal Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act

22 Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board. http://www.fmsib.wa.gov/

http://www.fmsib.wa.gov/



(MAP-21). WAFAC is responsible for participating and advising WSDOT in the development of

the state freight plan. WAFAC consists of representatives from a cross-section of public and

private sector freight stakeholders, including ports, shippers, carriers, freight-related

associations, the freight industry workforce, the state transportation department, and local

governments. WAFAC also actively seeks input from retail, wholesale, service industry,

manufacturing, agricultural, and environmental stakeholders to help inform and shape the

committee’s understanding of freight issues and recommendations.

1.4.5 Regional and Local Government

Ports

The 75 port districts in Washington are authorized by RCW 53.04, and each port is governed by

three to five elected commissioners. Specific authorities granted by the state Legislature make

public ports the only public agencies whose primary purpose is economic development. Ports

create jobs and economic growth by owning and operating or leasing shipping terminals,

marinas and docks, airports, industrial sites, railroads, and parks and recreational facilities. Not

all ports in Washington are located on waterways or handle cargo.

Ports in Washington have the authority to levy property taxes on land within their port districts

as well as issue revenue bonds to provide funds for carrying out all port district powers. They

can use their funds for a variety of activities including property acquisition, construction,

reconstruction, maintenance, repair, additions and operation of port properties and facilities,

engineering, inspection, accounting, fiscal, and legal expenses.

1.5 Funding

The American Association of Port Authorities identified a need of $29 billion for 125 port freight

projects nationwide. West Coast ports are investing $4.7 billion in terminals and infrastructure

through a combination of revenues, fees, and revenue bonds.

1.5.1 Federal funding

Maritime Administration

The USDOT Maritime Administration (MARAD) administers Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery23 (TIGER), Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of National Efficiencies24 (FASTLANE), and Marine Highway grants for port projects, often working with other USDOT agencies including highway and rail. MARAD’s goals include expanding marine capacity – $1.3 billion for port infrastructure modernization including $5 million in grant money available most years for port improvements including crane and barge.

The MARAD administers America’s Marine Highways Program to develop and expand the

marine highway corridor system and to facilitate its integration into the U.S. surface

23 United States Department of Transportation. TIGER Discretionary Grants. Updated January 20, 2017. https://www.transportation.gov/tiger

24 U.S. Department of Transportation. https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/FASTLANE%20Project%20Awards_9_16_0.pdf

https://www.transportation.gov/tiger

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/FASTLANE%20Project%20Awards_9_16_0.pdf

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/FASTLANE%20Project%20Awards_9_16_0.pdf



transportation system to ensure that reliable, regularly scheduled, competitive, and sustainable

services are a routine choice for shippers. The program receives funding periodically. The most

recent funding was $5 million in 2016. To be eligible for this funding, projects need to be on an

identified corridor, and must be submitted for funding during a call for projects. Projects are

required to show a potential to reduce air pollution and traffic congestion along surface

corridors, as well as provide jobs for skilled mariners and shipbuilders. No projects in

Washington have been funded from this program. The focus of the program is on encouraging

port to port freight transportation with ports already engaged in marine cargo. MARAD identified

eight Pacific corridors.

MARAD also administers the Small Shipyard Grant Program. In 2017, $9.8 million in grant

funding was available to support capital improvements and employee training at small U.S.

shipyards. The grants help eligible shipyards modernize operations, improve efficiency and reap

the benefits of increased productivity by investing in emerging technologies and a highly skilled

workforce. Dakota Creek Industries in Anacortes received funds from the 2017 program to

purchase equipment.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) administers federal funds for harbors, waterways,

navigation channels, locks, jetties, breakwaters in the U.S. USACE has differing funding

agreements with the various ports depending on the enabling legislation in place at the time of

the agreement. Some ports have cost sharing requirements with the USACE on routine

maintenance – dredging, breakwater, jetties, for instance – while other ports are not required to

share in the costs.

The Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF) is designed to pay for half the cost of USACE inland

waterway construction and major rehabilitation projects. The IWTF is funded through a $0.20

per gallon tax on diesel fuel consumed on the inland waterways called the Inland Waterways

Fuel Tax. Improvements on the upper Columbia and Snake Rivers are eligible for funding from

the IWTF.

The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) supports USACE harbor maintenance and

development projects. The HMTF is funded by the Harbor Maintenance Fee (HMF), a

0.125 percent fee assessed on the value of imports, domestic shipments, and Foreign-Trade

Zone admissions loaded on or unloaded from a commercial vessel at designated ports. Ports in

Washington subject to the harbor maintenance fee are Aberdeen, Bellingham, Everett, Port

Angeles, Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia, Anacortes, Kalama, Longview, and Vancouver. Congress

may appropriate funds from the HMTF to pay for harbor maintenance and development projects

undertaken by USACE.

U.S. Department of Commerce

The Economic Development Administration (U.S. Department of Commerce) has supplied

grants to the Port of Port Angeles, Port of Woodland, and Port of Chehalis. Grants are awarded

with consideration given to economically depressed communities and creation of family wage

jobs. Grants require a 50 percent match that includes no federal funds and also requires

participation of government entities.



1.5.2 State funding

In 2015, the Legislature approved the Connecting Washington revenue package, funding

$16 billion of designated transportation construction, including highways and ferries. The

Legislature also selects projects to be funded from all federal funding sources, including the

National Highway Freight Program (NHFP). In 2016, WSDOT submitted a prioritized list of

freight projects eligible for the NHFP to the Legislature for funding consideration.

The Legislature funds the state rail programs and projects funded from these programs

sometimes directly benefit ports. The Freight Rail Investment Bank (FRIB) program is a loan

program available to the public sector. This program is intended for either smaller projects or as

a small part of a larger project, where state funds would enable the project to be completed. The

Freight Rail Assistance Program (FRAP) is a grant program open to applicants in both the

public and private sector. This program is directed toward larger projects where it is difficult to

gain a contribution and where the rail location or the project is of strategic importance to the

local community and the state.

Another source of state funding that benefits ports is the Remedial Action Grant (RAG) program

administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology).25 The program is

Ecology's primary tool for helping local governments, including ports, pay for the cleanup of

contaminated sites. This program helps finance and speed up the cleanup process and allows

more sites to be cleaned up through grants that provide up to 75 percent of project cost. RAG

funding helps protect public and environmental health, creates jobs, and promotes economic

development by allowing contaminated properties to be redeveloped. Ports often use these

funds to repurpose unused or underused brownfield industrial sites, returning them to a

beneficial use. These sites are typically located near existing transportation infrastructure.

1.5.3 Local funding

Local funding for the marine system in Washington comes from port districts. Ports are

independent government bodies and primarily self-financing through a mix of port district taxes,

port issued bonds, fees and leases. They also compete for regional, state and federal grant

funds to fund specific projects.

Port Districts in Washington are senior property taxing districts. They are subject to the one

percent property tax limit that restricts increases in taxes by individual taxing districts to

one percent annually. Their other sources of revenue are user fees, which range from leases for

land to industrial or commercial tenants, airport and marina facilities and can also include larger

facilities and equipment. Exhibit 1-8 shows planned expenditures for port capital projects in

2017. Exhibit 1-9 shows expected revenue for 2017.

25 Department of Ecology. Toxics Cleanup Remedial Action Grants and Loans. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/grants/explore-tcp.html

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/grants/explore-tcp.html



Exhibit 1-8: 2017 Capital Projects



1.6 Outreach and Survey

To develop this plan, WSDOT met with marine system partners through outreach events and

meetings, and used an online survey of ports in Washington. WSDOT also conducted industry

research. The information gained was used to assess the condition of the marine freight system

and to identify the trends, issues, and needs affecting the system. This information is organized

Exhibit 1-9: 2017 Revenues



by the state’s six transportation system policy goals, which are defined by state law.26 The

remainder of this plan is structured around these goals.

1.6.1 Outreach

Outreach conducted for this plan by WSDOT was done concurrently with the outreach

performed for the 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan. That outreach included

meetings with the Washington Freight Advisory Committee (WAFAC), a standing committee of

the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board that includes members representing the private

sector, airports, cities, counties, metropolitan planning organizations, federal agencies, freight

shippers, maritime businesses, ports, railroads, and other freight transportation partners. These

meetings included discussion of freight issues and trends, many of which were related to marine

ports and navigation.

WSDOT also met with Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Regional Transportation

Planning Organization (RTPO) Policy Boards and Technical Committees around the state.

Feedback from several of these groups pertained to marine port and navigation issues.

In addition, WSDOT gave presentations to the 2017 Washington Public Ports Association

Spring Meeting in May and the 2017 Pacific Northwest Waterways Association Summer

Conference in June. WSDOT staff also met with several freight system partners who had

information relevant to the development of this plan. This included USDOT Maritime

Administration (MARAD), the Northwest Seaport Alliance, and Boyer Towing (a barge towing

company based on the Duwamish River in Seattle).

1.6.2 Port survey

As part of its outreach for this plan, WSDOT conducted an online survey in 2017 of marine ports

in the state, receiving responses from 29 ports. Some of the key points from the survey results

are described below.

Economic vitality: Nearly 40 percent said global competition was a major trend for their

port. Some ports cited encroachment of non-compatible land uses as a concern.

Preservation: Multiple ports responding to the survey identified preservation issues

among their concerns. Waterway and dock infrastructure, along with port-owned rail

lines and roads, were listed as preservation needs.

Safety: Half of ports identified safety and security as a major trend.

Mobility: Nearly half of the ports said limited or inadequate road and rail connections

were a significant issue for them and 25 percent identified congestion on the road and

rail networks as an issue. Almost 45 percent listed harbor enhancements as a significant

need, with 40 percent saying they needed road improvements. Some ports also

mentioned concerns about clearance and weight restrictions on corridors connecting to

the ports limiting the mobility of oversize/overweight loads.

26 RCW 47.04.280 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=47.04.280

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=47.04.280



Environment: When asked to select major trends their port is experiencing, 77 percent of

ports cited regulations as a major trend. Regulatory requirements are also a concern for

many ports, with nearly 60 percent of them saying they are a significant challenge.

Lengthy permitting timelines were listed as an issue by several ports. Some Columbia

River ports expressed concern about potential changes to the Columbia-Snake River

System, like dam breaching and operational changes based on environmental concerns.

Stewardship: Many of the surveyed ports, 80 percent, responded that inadequate

funding for waterways and ports was a major challenge for them. Both the amount and

predictability of funding are concerns.

Ports were also asked how they see WSDOT’s role in the marine system. Key themes in their

responses were:

Collaboration with WSDOT on transportation network improvements is important to port

operations. Ports appreciate the opportunity to continue working together and would like

to collaborate more.

Ports desire a direct liaison for port issues and needs.

Several ports have rail capacity issues and would like more assistance from WSDOT to

address them.

Some ports would like to see WSDOT get more involved in waterway infrastructure

issues.

Ports would prefer more advance notification when WSDOT conducts construction or

maintenance activities that may disrupt operations.

1.7 Economic Vitality

The ports, terminals, and marine navigation system in Washington ensure prosperous state,

regional, and local economies by supporting, stimulating, and enhancing the movement of

people and goods.

Competition between ports brings new challenges and opportunities

Ports in Washington not only compete with one another but also with other West Coast ports,

depending on the commodity and services required. This has led to ports specializing to take

advantage of investments in infrastructure and other advantages. Economic changes, inherent

advantages, specific skill sets, and the need to make significant investments resulted in

commercial ports specializing to handle specific types of cargo, like bulk, breakbulk, RORO (roll

on/roll off), containers, and oversized items. Puget Sound ports at Seattle and Tacoma compete

directly with the ports of Prince Rupert and Vancouver, British Columbia and San Pedro Bay

(the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, California) for container shipments destined east of

the Mississippi River. The Port of Kalama competes for bulk grain volumes with the Port of

Portland as well as other ports. The Port of Vancouver USA competes with the Port of Grays

Harbor for auto-carrier volume and with other Pacific Northwest ports for other

commodities/shippers. The inland waterway ports on the Columbia-Snake River System

compete for barge business and industrial/business development. The Port of Portland’s loss of

regularly scheduled container service in 2016 increased container volume through the NWSA,

but also resulted in the Port of Portland increasing its competition for bulk commodities. The

Port of Portland hopes to attract scheduled container service again in the future. The port is



developing a business model with Pacific Northwest companies that would benefit from the

restoration of container shipping. If successful, that would cause container shippers in Oregon,

those on the Columbia River, and, potentially, those in southwest Washington to again ship

through the Port of Portland.

Ports in Washington have some competitive advantages and disadvantages compared to other

West Coast ports that shape their roles in international trade. One advantage is they are closer

to major North Pacific trading partners (like China, Japan, Korea, and Russia) than other United

States ports and have good connections to the upper Midwest. This makes them particularly

competitive for the bulk movement of agricultural products. The ports of Seattle and Tacoma are

both natural deep-water ports and require minimal dredging relative to other ports in the United

States. They also have extensive distribution center capacity nearby for transloading freight to

and from domestic containers. A disadvantage for ports in Washington is the relatively light

population density of the Pacific Northwest, with significant distances from other major

population centers. The adjacent twin ports at Los Angeles and Long Beach are able to serve

the significant California population, as well as nearby Southwest states with large populations.

The Los Angeles area also has ample rail capacity to the Midwest and southern states, though

the overall vessel/rail travel time is longer to the Midwest than through ports in Washington.

British Columbia ports benefit from the exchange rate, shortest combined vessel/rail distance

between Asia and the Midwest, implications of the Jones Act (ships can berth in there and then

go to the Los Angeles area ports, but can’t berth at a Puget Sound port and then go to a

California port), and other factors. For cargo not transferred to and from domestic containers,

the British Columbia ports are well positioned. Both British Columbia ports and the Los Angeles

area ports are planning on significant container capacity expansion.

The Panama Canal expansion completed in 2016 has realigned the competitive landscape for

U.S. ports. Larger container vessels up to 13,000 twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU) capacity and

comparable bulk cargo vessels can now use the Panama Canal between the Pacific Ocean and

eastern U.S. ports, reducing the cost of transportation per container. With the ability of the

Panama Canal to handle larger vessels, the breakeven cost (where it is equally expensive to

ship via a West Coast or East Coast port) has expanded west. More U.S. markets are now

competitively accessible via an East Coast or Gulf Coast port, increasing the competition ports

in Washington face to hold or grow their market share.

Another factor affecting the competitive position of ports is the effect of labor costs on the

location of manufactures. This is likely to influence shipments to and from Asia and, especially,

China. Manufacturing is moving west from China to lower cost countries where the Suez Canal

allows direct access to East Coast U.S. ports. Beginning in 2011, the labor cost in Mexico was

cheaper than that in China. Labor is just one of many factors that determine where

manufacturing occurs. Technology, including robotics, is allowing for the relocation of some

manufacturing back to North America. Railroads and marine shipping lines consider whether a

port is sufficiently competitive when determining the level of service they provide. If there is

excess capacity, ships and railroads will service those ports that offer the best service/cost ratio.

Ports are working to enhance their competitive position by increasing the efficiency of their

operations, moving equal or greater amounts of freight with fewer resources. Containerization

with gantry cranes and stack loaders have replaced many port positions. Autonomous vehicles

that take containers from the gantry crane to the stacks are already in place in some



international ports. The ports of Seattle and Tacoma joined forces as the Northwest Seaport

Alliance to unify management of marine cargo facilities and business with the goals of

strengthening the Puget Sound gateway and attracting more marine cargo and jobs for the

region.

Maintaining the status of Puget Sound ports as a national gateway for imports is important for

the economy of Washington. A prosperous Washington economy depends heavily on goods

imported by container through marine and landside transportation infrastructure. Imports

support the infrastructure needed by companies in Washington to export their products

overseas. Without a high volume of goods from Asia — either for local delivery or destined for

the Midwest — producers in Washington face either higher operating costs or fewer options as

they would need to seek other port gateways to export their products.

Improving the competitiveness of ports

Ports are considering operational enhancements to remain competitive. To address

growing competition with West Coast ports, the ports of Seattle and Tacoma partnered

to create the Northwest Seaport Alliance (NWSA), a combined port authority. The two

separate seaports were competitive rivals for most of the 20th century. The combined

port authority, formed in 2015, is now the fourth largest cargo port in the United States

by container volume. Under the agreement, properties from both ports were placed in a

common pool. Both port commissions oversee operations, ending decades of

competition. NWSA will continue to manage the port facilities in Seattle and Tacoma,

making strategic terminal investments (like the current Pier 4 reconfiguration and

planned Terminal 5 modernization) and implementing operational efficiencies to stay

competitive in the global marketplace.

Ports are developing technological improvements to be more efficient. Efficiencies have

been found by using more sophisticated online systems to track cargo. Customs can be

handled online, allowing multiple parties to be involved at once and decreasing the time

it takes to clear customs. Additionally, the development of Terminal Operating Systems

(TOS) has improved the efficient handling of cargo through a port once it has cleared

customs. A TOS provides real-time status of cargo, tracks cargo in a port to show

available port capacity, and then catalogs associated paperwork efficiently. Northwest

Seaport Alliance is developing and deploying a Port Community System that will provide

real-time network visibility to shipment information, such as container location, vessel

schedules, and terminal conditions within a single, shared platform.

Ports must keep pace as container shipping lines pursue economies of scale

The ocean shipping industry is seeing the continuation of a long-term trend of increasingly

larger container ships. These larger ships help shipping lines drive down their costs, using less

fuel and fewer people to move more containers. While the shipping lines do not assign their

largest ships to routes serving West Coast ports, the new ships do displace ships to lower

volume routes and ultimately result in larger ships assigned to some trans-pacific routes that call

on Seattle or Tacoma. Few ports in the U.S. are capable of handling both the drafts and length

of the largest vessels and their container volumes. Factors, such as channel depth, storage yard

space, berthing facilities, and landside productivity (i.e. container turnover rates), determine how

much throughput a port can potentially handle each year. Larger vessels can unload and load

more containers during a single port call, thereby resulting in longer time in port. This increases



pressure on terminal infrastructure, truck and rail networks, and intermodal load centers to

handle higher volumes in more compressed time periods.

The increase in the size of container ships has produced an abundance of capacity and helped

keep shipping rates generally low. To increase efficiency and lower costs, shipping lines have

consolidated to create a few large alliances. These alliances are vessel-sharing agreements: all

carriers within an alliance pool together their ship fleets, moving containers on one another’s

behalf to expand their service offerings and geographic coverage. The goal of the alliances is to

reduce empty space on ships, and to achieve other efficiencies, such as reducing the number of

ships calling at the same port. Alliances let shipping lines offer more sailings with fewer vessels.

There are now three major alliances: 2M Alliance, Ocean Alliance, and THE Alliance. Together,

they account for more than 95 percent of the container capacity on trans-pacific routes. The

consolidation of shipping lines into a few large alliances gives the carriers an advantage in

negotiating with ports and stevedore companies, due to the amount of cargo they control and

reduced competition with other shipping lines. Alliances also limit any individual carrier’s

reliance on any particular port or terminal. Some terminals will likely experience increased

volume at the expense of other terminals that may become idle. This concentration of activity

could result in congestion during loading and unloading of ships. It also results in underused

infrastructure and real estate at idle terminals.

Preparing ports for larger ships

Ports across Washington are delivering capital projects to remain competitive. To

accommodate larger ships, ports are looking at all aspects of their infrastructure,

including: cranes, dredging, wharves, bridges, on dock rail, peak trucks per day, on

dock staging areas and turning basins. A longer ship requires not only a longer berth,

but also more cranes. A wider ship needs a longer crane and will take more time to bring

containers from one side of the ship to the dock if the containers move at current

speeds. To keep pace with export volumes, ports and railroads have had to scale up.

Stack trains move 200 containers at a time to and from ports or yards near ports.

Additionally, unit trains of 110 cars or more, that previously were primarily limited to coal,

have become common for other commodities bound for export. Ports across Washington

are updating to remain competitive. The Port of Longview is actively pursuing

redevelopment of Berth 4, the former Continental Grain Terminal. At the Port of

Vancouver USA, the West Vancouver Freight Access project is a decade-long effort

consisting of 21 individual projects to improve freight rail movement through the port and

along the BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad mainlines. This work will connect

the Pacific Northwest to major U.S. rail hubs, and from Canada to Mexico. At the Port of

Everett, terminal rail enhancements are underway, which will allow freight arriving and

departing the terminals to use rail instead of truck. The Port of Grays Harbor is

redeveloping land for unloading and storage of potash, as well as a ship loader and new

berth facility for shipment to international markets. These are just a small set of

examples of projects underway that will improve the ability of ports to compete in global

trade.

Ports will continue to monitor changes to supply chains for opportunities to remain

competitive, to guide facility investments, and to identify new market opportunities on the

marine system, including new and expanding commodity markets.



Land use encroachment threatens port operations

Ports, in addition to their role in transportation, provide land and buildings via leases or, in some

cases, outright sales. How the port develops and uses its property depends on the long-term

alternatives and the cost to maintain transportation infrastructure, such as the connections to

highways, harbor depth, rail access, rail sidings, and dock improvements. The value, availability,

and demand for property forces ports to consider whether there is an alternative to industrial or

marine tenants, including commercial, residential, or recreational interests. Ports also need to

balance freight transport with livability in the form of marinas, boat launches and water access.

Recreational boaters and commercial vessels want safe access to the same water resulting in

necessary compromises. Ports are concerned about mixed-use designation in an industrial area

with bike/pedestrian paths sharing the same roadway facilities with trucks and heavy industry.

Ports are often affected by Growth Management Act concerns, congestion and environmental

responsibilities. Congestion issues for metro area ports negatively affect relations with the larger

community, as well as those who move goods to and from the port. Communities less reliant on

the industrial port are more likely to criticize traffic congestion than a port-reliant community.

Critical freight-intensive land uses near ports need to be preserved in urban areas throughout

Washington.

The Governor’s Ports Initiative,27 passed by the Legislature in 2009, requires Seattle and

Tacoma to include a container ports element in their respective comprehensive plans. This is

designed to ensure industrial properties adjacent to rail and other port infrastructure are

protected and available for future use. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are

required or encouraged, depending on population, to plan for ports in regional land use and

transportation planning activities. Cities with large container ports must include a container port

element in their comprehensive plans, and the law also recommends plans include a marine

industrial port element.28 This law provides detail on process and components that will improve

coordination of land use planning near port areas. Land use planning that is inclusive of the

needs of trucking, rail, marine, air cargo, and pipeline systems can reduce conflicts that

pressure freight-oriented sites in the future. Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, and Vancouver now

include port elements in comprehensive planning, but encroachment is still a concern for some

ports.

Protecting industrial land uses around ports

Regional and local partners should preserve freight-dependent land for freight use. Land

that is adjacent to irreplaceable infrastructure (e.g., rail, port terminals and waterways,

and airports) should be preserved for those uses, when appropriate. Cities, counties,

ports, and tribal governments are responsible for land use decisions. MPOs, local

governments, and port authorities should preserve existing water-adjacent port land for

water-dependent industries. WSDOT and the Washington Public Ports Association

(WPPA) can collaborate with local governments to preserve waterfront land with

strategic importance for the marine freight system in existing or new locations. Ports will

27 Governor’s Container Ports Initiative Main Report. https://app.leg.wa.gov/ReportsToTheLegislature/Home/GetPDF?fileName=ContainerPorts_0809cb94-fa2f-47f9-aa82-812c72dc0da0.pdf 28 RCW 36.70A.085. Comprehensive plans—Port elements. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.085

https://app.leg.wa.gov/ReportsToTheLegislature/Home/GetPDF?fileName=ContainerPorts_0809cb94-fa2f-47f9-aa82-812c72dc0da0.pdf

https://app.leg.wa.gov/ReportsToTheLegislature/Home/GetPDF?fileName=ContainerPorts_0809cb94-fa2f-47f9-aa82-812c72dc0da0.pdf

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.085



also need to work with local governments in comprehensive and transportation planning

activities.

Regional and local partners should include ports in comprehensive planning. The Puget

Sound Regional Council (PSRC) designates Manufacturing and Industrial Centers,

which are employment areas with intensive, concentrated manufacturing and industrial

land uses that cannot be easily mixed with other activities. These areas are intended to

continue accommodating a significant amount of regional freight related employment

growth. In its regional transportation plan, PSRC has committed to supporting

Manufacturing and Industrial Centers, and ensuring industrial and freight-related land

uses are supported in local plans. Other metropolitan areas and cities also should

consult freight stakeholders to ensure their comprehensive land use plans and

transportation plans support freight-related land uses. As part of its mission, WSDOT will

encourage and assist with the incorporation of freight transportation planning into local

land use and transportation plans, including developing policies and strategies to

support and enhance freight transportation. These efforts will ensure appropriate land

use planning for freight-oriented sites. WSDOT regularly produces the Local Planning

Guide, a document that details transportation-related requirements, recommendations,

and resources for local planning. WSDOT will continue to encourage inclusion of freight

elements in local planning by regularly updating the guide.

The marine industry faces a labor shortage The marine workforce in Washington, which includes captains, pilots, engineers, shipbuilders,

dock workers, deck hands, and other workers, is headed for a mass retirement. Nearly a third of

the more than 5,800 marine transportation workers in Washington are older than 55. Young

people entering the workforce do not work in the marine industry as much as previous

generations did, and retirements in the industry are occurring at a higher rate.29 Approximately

40 percent of vessel employees with the Washington State Ferries, and around 88 percent of

the captains, are eligible for retirement in the next 5 to 10 years.30 About 70 percent of WSF’s

chief engineers are eligible for retirement within 10 years, as are nearly 90 percent of captains.31

Addressing the labor shortage in the maritime industry

Transportation partners can continue to recruit and train workers with needed skills. The

maritime industry needs well-trained, skilled workers. To meet this need, Vigor Industrial

Shipyards partnered with South Seattle College to form the Harbor Island Training

Center, the Classroom-In-A-Shipyard. Designed to meet the needs for all maritime

companies in Puget Sound, the goal of the program is to strengthen Seattle's maritime

industry and to produce marketable graduates who are ready to fill the needs in the

marine industry. The Port of Seattle has several workforce development initiatives aimed

at ensuring skilled workers are available for the maritime industry. In 2017, the port

29 U.S. Census Bureau. QWI Explorer. https://qwiexplorer.ces.census.gov/static/explore.html?s=fddfe&v=bar&t=ac0&fc=true&st=WA#x=0&g=0

30 U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_wa.htm#53-0000 31 Seattle Times. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/washington-state-ferries-looks-to-train-workforce-of-its-future-as-retirements-loom/

https://qwiexplorer.ces.census.gov/static/explore.html?s=fddfe&v=bar&t=ac0&fc=true&st=WA#x=0&g=0

https://qwiexplorer.ces.census.gov/static/explore.html?s=fddfe&v=bar&t=ac0&fc=true&st=WA#x=0&g=0

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/washington-state-ferries-looks-to-train-workforce-of-its-future-as-retirements-loom/

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/washington-state-ferries-looks-to-train-workforce-of-its-future-as-retirements-loom/



offered 150 paid internships for high school and college students.32 The Department of

Commerce supports employment in the marine industry by working with industry and

existing training and education resources to address gaps in the system, and to develop

a clear career pathway to jobs in the marine economic sector. MARAD provides grant

funding for training that fosters employee skills and enhances productivity at small U.S.

shipyards. The grants, provided through the Small Shipyard Grant Program, help eligible

shipyards invest in emerging technologies and a highly skilled workforce. The

Legislature’s Joint Transportation Committee plans to conduct a study of marine pilotage

in the 2017-2019 biennium with a goal of recommending best practices for pilot

recruitment, training, review, and selection.

1.8 Preservation

Transportation partners must work to maintain, preserve, and extend the life and utility of prior

investments in transportation systems and services.

Navigation channels and infrastructure require regular maintenance

The infrastructure of the marine system requires regularly scheduled maintenance and

replacement to preserve the navigability of the system for ships and barges carrying freight. The

lock and dam structures on the Columbia-Snake River System and in Ballard require regular

inspection and maintenance to prevent a failure or unplanned closure. The eight navigation

locks on the Columbia-Snake River System need funding for critical repairs ranging from

replacement of mechanical gear to new gates. Navigation infrastructure also needs

maintenance, such as the rubble-mound jetties at the mouth of the Columbia River. These

structures help maintain the depth and orientation of the navigation channel. Dolphins,

structures used to cushion ship impacts, need to be refurbished or replaced. Priority locations

for preservation work include Ft. Rains, just above Bonneville Dam, and the Hard Rock Dolphins

above Ice Harbor Dam. These vital pieces of infrastructure ensure the most efficient movement

of cargo through the dams on the Columbia-Snake River System.

A major factor in marine system performance is maintaining adequate water depth. Dredging to

maintain the channel depth requires continuous investment. As sediment deposits in the

navigation channel and in harbors, it needs to be dredged and relocated to a location that does

not affect commercial navigation. Dredging will continue to be required to maintain existing

navigable channels and waterways on the marine system. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE) maintains federal navigation channels. The Columbia River Channel Improvement

Project deepened the channel to 43 feet. However, sustained high river flows have made

maintaining the 43-foot depth a challenge. Priority projects along the Snake River include

maintenance dredging for the 14-foot federal navigation channel depth to maintain safe and

efficient navigation and completion of the Lower Snake River Programmatic Sediment

Management Plan. USACE estimates for dredging in these areas was $87.7 million in 2016. In

2016, USACE dredging costs in the Portland district were $34.8 million, and $52.9 million in the

Seattle District, which includes the Salish Sea and Grays Harbor. The Ports of Seattle and

32 Port of Seattle. Workforce Development Programs. http://www.portseattle.org/Supporting-Our-Community/Economic-Development/Pages/Workforce_Development.aspx

http://www.portseattle.org/Supporting-Our-Community/Economic-Development/Pages/Workforce_Development.aspx

http://www.portseattle.org/Supporting-Our-Community/Economic-Development/Pages/Workforce_Development.aspx



Tacoma are both natural deep-water ports and have minimal dredging relative to other ports in

the United States.

Preserving navigation channels and infrastructure

Transportation partners should continue to preserve navigation channels, as needed.

Channel maintenance and navigation aids are important for commercial navigation of the

marine system. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for maintaining the

federal navigation channel and structures. Adjacent landowners are responsible for

maintaining areas adjacent to the channel if needed for commercial navigation. USACE

will continue to maintain and improve the federal navigation channels on the marine

freight system.

Ports and terminal owners will maintain and improve the harbors, berths and other areas

outside the federally managed channels. WSDOT and other partners will support

USACE in maintaining the federal marine navigation system by writing letters of support,

and participating on committees and associations, as necessary. WSDOT will consider

options for using dredged material in land-side infrastructure projects, if dredge material

disposal sites are not meeting current or future needs.

Port infrastructure needs ongoing renewal

Public ports and private terminals maintain other marine infrastructure. Dredging outside of the

federal navigation channel is an ongoing maintenance need; additionally, changes in the

shipping industry challenge some ports with the need to accommodate larger vessels by

creating longer and deeper berths and turning basins. Other ongoing maintenance needs

include upkeep of docks, piers, bulkheads, anchorages, dolphins, and other infrastructure.

Terminals need infrastructure in adequate condition to maintain and improve freight activities.

Infrastructure has aged, in some cases, for several decades without significant preservation

activities. Ports also have land-side infrastructure in need of preservation. This includes

roadways, highways, and rail infrastructure that directly serves ports. For instance, the Port of

Benton has rail that will need to be replaced over time and Port of Whitman County also has

maintenance needs on rail lines it owns. Some infrastructure has aged to the point where

regular maintenance is inadequate and ports need to replace it. Some ports lack the funding to

rehabilitate or replace their infrastructure. There is currently not a statewide inventory of port

infrastructure condition to assess preservation needs comprehensively.

Preserving port infrastructure

Ports and terminal owners should continue to preserve infrastructure condition, as

needed. Ports and terminal owners are typically responsible for maintaining their own

infrastructure. Capital investments are important to all port operations in order to sustain

and grow business. To meet this need, ports and terminal operators can improve system

conditions, as needed, on an individual basis. This may include programmatic repairs to

improve infrastructure, but the cost of emergency repairs and upgrades present financial

challenges. Publicly owned ports are increasingly prioritizing asset management as a

means to efficiently sustain their infrastructure. WSDOT will continue to address aging

and inefficient rail and highway infrastructure in public ports in Washington through the

FRIB/FRAP programs and the new National Highway Freight Program, though demand

greatly exceeds the available funds.



WSDOT will consider compiling a statewide marine ports infrastructure needs inventory.

Part of this work may include collaboration with the Washington Public Ports Association

and individual ports to compile individual infrastructure needs inventories. In addition, a

statewide inventory will help champion the role of port preservation to the state

economy.

1.9 Safety

Transportation partners must work to provide for and improve the safety and security of

transportation customers and the transportation system.

Maintaining port safety and security requires vigilance and investment

Port safety is primarily concerned with the prevention of accidental damage to ports, facilities,

and ships in order to protect the environment and facilitate commerce. The United States Coast

Guard (USCG) responsibilities include the protection of ports, harbors, vessels, and waterfront

facilities against accidents, negligence, and sabotage. To address port safety concerns, the

USCG conducts monitoring of liquid and hazardous cargo transfers, and inspections of

containers and facilities.

While port safety is concerned with accidents that harm people or property, port security (as a

part of maritime security) is concerned with deliberate acts intended to harm people or property.

To address port security concerns, the USCG conducts harbor patrols and surveillance, as well

as drills and exercises. The SAFE Port Act of 2006 requires 100 percent of U.S.-bound ocean

containers to be scanned through non-intrusive inspection and radiation detection equipment in

a foreign port prior to being loaded on a U.S.-bound ship. The original deadline for achieving

this goal was in 2012, but the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has now delayed

implementation until 2018. Industry experts believe that implementing across-the-board

container inspections are unrealistic due to the large volume of containers moving through U.S.

ports each year. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated it would cost $22 billion to

outfit foreign ports with the necessary equipment. Freight that is transshipped (e.g., ship-to-ship,

rail-to-ship) has to be handled multiple times to go through inspection stations, and most ports

and railyards do not have on-site capacity for inspection equipment and truck queueing. To

broaden freight security, the DHS is now considering 100 percent scanning for both

containerized and non-containerized (e.g., dry/liquid bulk, breakbulk, roll-on/roll-off, etc.)

maritime cargo bound for the U.S.

Ensuring port safety and security

Transportation partners should strive to achieve an appropriate balance between safety

and security at ports and promote efficient supply chains. Port partners continue to play

an important role in security with implementation of Transportation Worker Identification

Credential (TWIC) programs that limit access to ports. The TWIC is used at all U.S.

Coast Guard regulated marine facilities throughout the Pacific Northwest. Ports also

implement safe and efficient cargo screening processes. The role ports play in freight

security enhances security of the larger community.



Navigation safety and security requires consistent coordination

Various maritime systems working together ensure the safety of the system.33 The ship security

reporting system is an alert system, which helps in sending distress signals from the ship

directly to the maritime security center. Likewise, the Automated Mutual Assistance Vessel

Rescue System is a vessel safety system, which was introduced by the USCG to provide

immediate assistance to vessels that are in emergency situations. The Automatic Identification

System is a ship navigation and tracking system, which helps to pinpoint the exact location of

the ships along with other navigational statistics. The Automated Manifest System is a freight

tracking system, which requires ships to enter the details of the cargo carried by them. This

system was first adopted in 2004 to increase the security level at maritime ports. Another cargo

security program is the Container Security Initiative. Administered by the U.S. Bureau of

Customs and Border Protection, its purpose is to increase security for container cargo shipped

to the United States.

Ensuring navigation safety

The Committee on the Marine Transportation System (CMTS) is a federal effort to

coordinate the myriad of transportation partners. The committee is addressing a number

of important issues that affect the safety, security, air and water quality, and the efficient

movement of freight and people at our nation’s coasts, waterways, and associated port

facilities.

Ports support national security

Ports also have a role in supporting overseas military logistics. In 2004, the military began using

the Port of Olympia for shipments out of Fort Lewis. In response, the Port of Olympia spent

$1.4 million to add a rail line on its docks closer to where ships berth. The Port of Tacoma is

designated as a strategic seaport, part of the National Port Readiness Network. One of the

major responsibilities of strategic seaports is to be prepared to make the port and its facilities

available within short notice for the deployment of military forces and. MARAD administers the

Strategic Port Program and facilitates the movement of deploying military forces through

strategic ports while minimizing commercial disruptions.

Supporting military logistics

Ports will continue to work with the military to ensure they are effectively able to fulfill

their role in supporting military logistics.

1.10 Mobility

Transportation partners must work to improve the predictable movement of goods and people

throughout the state, including congestion relief and improved freight mobility.

Marine capacity and congestion is concentrating

The marine system generally does not experience congestion, other than at ports, terminals,

and through lock structures. At these locations, some areas experience capacity limitations, due

33 Marine Insight. 8 Maritime Systems That Ensures Ship Safety And Security. http://www.marineinsight.com/marine-safety/8-maritime-systems-that-ensures-ship-safety-and-security/

http://www.marineinsight.com/marine-safety/8-maritime-systems-that-ensures-ship-safety-and-security/

http://www.marineinsight.com/marine-safety/8-maritime-systems-that-ensures-ship-safety-and-security/



to a lack of available anchorages, docks, piers, and other loading or storage capacity. Delay

data at ports and terminals is not centrally located.

Ports continue to become efficient, moving the same and greater amount of freight with fewer

people. Some ports face capacity limits, as marine freight volumes increase and available land

at terminals and in ports diminishes. Marine container ports are looking to partner with inland

satellite port facilities to meet capacity concerns. In 2016, the NWSA received the largest

container ship in its history, the Ben Franklin, with a capacity of 18,000 TEU. This single ship

can move nearly one percent of the NWSA’s 2015 international container volume. While Puget

Sound ports are not likely to have regular visits by the very largest of cargo vessels, they still

require adjustments. As new, extremely large ships enter service they trigger a cascading effect

of large ships displacing smaller ships on other routes. Instead of a dozen vessels per month,

ports expect fewer but larger ships to dock each month. This will result in spikes of activity to

unload/load ships, potentially affecting highway congestion as trucks move to service at less

frequent arrivals. This may also require the need for longer trains and space, and the ability to

load and unload longer trains efficiently.

Due to congestion, volume growth, land costs and other issues, marine container ports are

looking to partner with inland ports as satellite facilities to offer economical solutions to the

needs of shippers. Inland ports have several advantages, including generally less expensive

land and less competition for the existing transportation infrastructure. An inland seaport, as a

satellite facility, receives export cargo and transfers it to another mode, typically rail, to move the

cargo to a marine port. This would allow trucks to avoid long trips through congested areas and

make more trips per day. Receiving cargo dockside by rail that otherwise would be arriving by

truck alleviates congestion on the last mile roadway segments around the marine port. Inland

seaports have been developed in the eastern United States. Some examples include Front

Royal (Virginia), and Inland Port Greer and Port Dillon (South Carolina). A location for an inland

seaport in Washington has not been identified, but Northwest Seaport Alliance is exploring the

concept with potential partners. A major issue that would need to be addressed is that, except

for certain commodities and volumes, hauls of less than 500 miles are often difficult for railroads

to financially justify. Most satellite ports being considered are half that distance.

Another concept that could address congestion affecting containers moving in and out of ports

is domestic container service on coastal and inland waterways. MARAD has been supporting

trial services in other parts of the country as part of its America’s Marine Highways program.

Such services must comply with the Jones Act, which requires use of U.S.-built ships and

American crews.

Washington ports that do not handle containers also have mobility needs. For instance, the Port

of Vancouver USA has identified the need to improve north-south access for trucks and other

vehicles. The Port of Woodland is developing a new dock facility on the Columbia River, which

may require highway improvements to accommodate additional traffic. The Port of Bellingham

would benefit from improved access to its shipping terminal and improvements to truck routes

connecting it to I-5. Several ports that specialize in oversize/overweight loads have concerns

about clearance and weight restrictions on corridors connecting to their facilities.

At river bridges, commercial vessels are required to navigate between narrow passages

between piers in the navigation channel. In some locations, the commercial navigation channel



passes underneath two nearby structures, creating navigation challenges that relate to mobility

and safety. One such location is on the Columbia River in Vancouver, where barge traffic must

pass underneath a highway bridge and a rail bridge in close proximity, resulting in a sharp S-

curve maneuver if the lift section on the primary channel is lowered.

At waterway locking structures, commercial and recreational traffic can sometimes be greater

than the capacity of the locks to handle traffic, resulting in delay. The USACE monitors and

reports delay using its Lock Performance Monitoring System.34 Lock queue data is available by

waterway and lock structure, showing the number of vessels, number of barges, and delay

minutes.

Ensuring mobility for marine cargo

Port and terminal operators should continue to improve terminals to enhance efficiency.

For example, the Port of Tacoma is considering funding a new maintenance crane to

work on straddle carriers in 2017. This will improve operational efficiency.

Marine fleet owners continue to identify new logistical efficiencies on the marine system.

As markets change, carriers work with shippers and forwarders to meet new demand.

For example, global retailer Amazon has been in the marine freight forwarding industry

for less than one year, yet has now become a non-vessel operating common carrier for

international freight to and from China. In the company’s first month, it shipped

150 containers.35

Ports and local jurisdictions can work to identify and address bottlenecks that affect

mobility in and out of ports.

WSDOT will continue to invest in infrastructure that benefits economic competitiveness

of ports, such as the Puget Sound Gateway Program (SR 167 and SR 509) in the Puget

Sound region.

WSDOT will coordinate investment with the FRIB/FRAP programs, and with the new National Highway Freight Program to support the development of needed port infrastructure.

WSDOT can work with Northwest Seaport Alliance and their potential partners to

evaluate the viability of developing inland seaports within the state.

Transportation partners can investigate opportunities in Washington to establish and expand use of container shipping on the Marine Highway System.

Automation and technology are advancing

The ability to obtain real time integrated information and disseminate that information among the

marine freight supply chain has transformed the industry. The information gained by using

geospatial technology, such as the Global Positioning System (GPS), enables safer and more

efficient marine operations. GPS allows vessels to know their exact location and communicate

their position, reducing the risk of collision. Radio-frequency identification (RFID) or other

tracking technologies provide the ability to track the location of containers, allowing the terminal

operator to manage more inventory in a smaller space and better coordinate with carriers.

34 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. http://corpslocks.usace.army.mil/lpwb/f?p=121:3:0::::: 35 Flexport. https://www.flexport.com/blog/amazon-ocean-freight-forwarder/

http://corpslocks.usace.army.mil/lpwb/f?p=121:3:0

https://www.flexport.com/blog/amazon-ocean-freight-forwarder/



Efficiencies have also been found by using more sophisticated online systems to track cargo.

Customs can be handled online allowing multiple parties to be involved at once, decreasing the

time it takes to clear customs. Additionally, the development of Terminal Operating Systems

(TOS) has improved the efficient handling of cargo through the port once it has cleared

customs. A TOS tracks cargo in the port to continually understand available port capacity, real-

time status of cargo, the potential for congestion, and efficiently catalogs associated paperwork.

Congestion at terminal gates leads to inefficiencies, as truck drivers wait to gain entry to drop or

pick up freight. The NWSA is deploying a system to display wait times and turn times at the

ports of Seattle and Tacoma. This data is available to truckers and dispatchers via the DrayQ

mobile device app. The technology works by tracking truck wait and turn time at the ports via

Bluetooth or Wi-Fi readers. The availability of real-time information should increase efficiency

and reduce truck idling at the ports. Because drivers will be able to know how long wait times

are at the terminals, this information could help them better plan their parking options in

advance of departing for the terminals. WSDOT assisted in securing Freight Advanced Traveler

Information System (FRATIS) funding for this project and is committed to partnering with the

ports to ensure this system is beneficial to the freight industry.

Mobile cranes, driverless trucks and stackers are the latest technologies to affect terminal

operations. The container itself was a relatively recent change that replaced the loose loading

and unloading of ships and barges. These systems require significant investment and can be

best justified by the largest ports with the greatest throughput. Two terminals at the ports of Los

Angeles and Long Beach in California have invested in robotic cranes to stack containers.

Investment in these automated systems will be encouraged as ships increase in size, as they

will be needed to handle greater freight volumes more efficiently. Automation within the ports

continues to become more prevalent as ports use driverless dray vehicles to move containers

from one part of the terminal to another, replacing drivers or the operator of stackers.

Implementing automation and technology to improve efficiency

Ports should continue to implement automation and technology to take advantage of

new opportunities to reach new markets or to find efficiencies in operations. For

example, the Port of Tacoma is considering funding a new maintenance crane to work

on straddle carriers in 2017. This will improve operational efficiency. Marine fleet owners

continue to identify new logistical efficiencies on the marine system.

Ports rely on rail service Some ports in Washington are dependent on the railroad system. The distance from other major

markets requires rail transport to be competitive. The ability to move grain, either by rail or in a

combination with barge, to the deep-water ports provides growers in Washington competitive

transportation. Over 3,000 miles of rail in Washington is served by both the Union Pacific

Railroad (UP) and the BNSF Railway Company (BNSF). UP has trackage rights over BNSF on

the west side of the state, between Tacoma and Portland, Oregon. On the east side, UP

primarily operates on its own lines. The ports on the west side have access to both either

directly, via a switching agreement or via one of the short-line railroads in Washington. BNSF

and UP have switching yards in both Tacoma and Seattle. Longview is served by a terminal

railroad owned jointly by the Class I railroads. The Port of Tacoma is served by Tacoma Rail,

which is owned and operated by the City of Tacoma. The Port of Grays Harbor is served by the

Puget Sound and Pacific Railroad, which is owned by Genesee and Wyoming Inc.. The ports of



Benton, Royal Slope, and Columbia own track with the operator outsourced. The Port of Pend

Oreille owns and operates its own railroad.

The BNSF Great Northern Corridor, along with the Montana Rail Link route, are important for

the movement of grain, containers, and other freight from the plains and Midwest to the deep-

water ports. Those routes and UP’s route via Oregon, allow for the competitive movement of

containers to and from eastern population centers. The UP route paralleling the I-5 corridor

allows for the double stacking of containers between California and Washington. The three

BNSF rail lines that serve the Puget Sound allow the BNSF to operate heavy westbound trains

loaded with bulk commodities destined for export via the relatively flat Columbia River route,

and send the empty trains back east on the Stevens Pass and Stampede Pass lines. Double-

stack container trains go to and from Puget Sound ports on the BNSF Stevens Pass line.

BNSF’s three major east/west lines and UP’s single line via Oregon, have prompted discussions

of whether short haul container shipments might be a possibility from eastern Washington to the

ports in Tacoma and Seattle.

The rail routes in the Pacific Northwest compete for capital within the railroads. Depending on

the return, BNSF or UP might invest more in infrastructure in California than in Washington. The

responsibility for the last mile rail connections to the ports and within the port rail, loop tracks, at-

grade crossings and sidings depend on various agreements. The rail infrastructure supporting

the ports requires ongoing maintenance and funding. Multiple ports highlighted this as an issue

of concern in responses to the WSDOT 2017 Port Survey.

Access to rail service is a key concern of nearly all the non-recreational ports. Rail is a service

that companies with transportation needs look for when selecting a location. The BNSF and UP

provide an alternative to trucks for access to distant domestic and international markets. For

some bulk commodities, rail is an absolute requirement. Many ports work closely with short-line

railroads in Washington that service their industries and connect with BNSF and UP. Access to

equipment, competitiveness of rates, and consistency of service and transit times will partially

determine whether the port’s industries will be viable. Rail also links ports together. Grain can

move from a port district near the harvest, to a port offering barge service to a deep-water port

offering access to international bulk vessels.

The ability to handle longer trains, either through on-dock or loop tracks, is another issue for the

deep-water ports. The number of trains is expected to increase, which may require additional

capacity improvements and increases the risk of safety at highway-rail crossings. The

Legislature’s Joint Transportation Committee conducted an analysis of highway-rail crossings

across the state and provided a ranking based on various weighted inputs. The analysis found

there are prominent road-rail conflicts in areas served by ports, due to the high level of traffic on

the roadways and railroads.

Maintaining and improving rail access to ports

Railroads will continue to serve ports. Rail service, including condition, will be

maintained and improved on corridors by railroads servicing ports, as needed.

WSDOT will improve connections between the rail system and ports through the

FRIB/FRAP programs.



Ferries are important connections to island communities The Washington State Ferries (WSF), a division of WSDOT, moves significant amounts of

freight by truck. In 2016, WSF served over 46,500 freight truck trips. A very high percent of the

vehicles longer than 50 feet are commercial freight trucks. The four busiest freight routes in the

system are the San Juan Domestic, Mukilteo-Clinton, Edmonds-Kingston, and Port Townsend-

Coupeville. WSF is working on a long-range plan that will coordinate with other state

transportation plans.

Maintaining freight connections to island communities

WSDOT will continue to carry freight trucks on its ferry system, and make improvements,

as necessary, to maintain freight service to communities that rely on that service.

1.11 Environment

Transportation partners must work to promote energy conservation, enhance healthy

communities, and protect the environment.

The marine system is vulnerable to climate impacts Washington has developed an integrated state climate change response strategy,36 which

identifies several potential risks to transportation infrastructure:

Sea-level rise and storm surge will increase the risk of major coastal impacts, including

temporary and permanent flooding of roads and transportation facilities in low-lying

areas.

More intense downpours will increase the risk of flooding, erosion, landslides, and

damage. Travel disruptions and delays could increase and have serious impacts to the

state’s economy and public safety.

An increase in extreme heat could negatively affect rail tracks and other materials in the

summer, but warmer winters could offer benefits from reduced road closures and snow

and ice removal costs.

Larger and more severe wildfires could cause temporary road closures and increased

risk of erosion due to loss of vegetation, which stabilizes soil.

WSDOT has examined climate risks to state transportation assets using climate projections

from the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group. WSDOT completed a statewide

qualitative risk assessment37 to identify which state-owned roads, bridges and other facilities

throughout the state are most vulnerable.

Understanding and addressing climate impact risks

WSDOT will use results of the 2011 Climate Impacts Vulnerability Assessment38 to

inform corridor studies and plans and continue to assess potentially vulnerable

36 Department of Ecology. Climate Change. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/2012ccrs/infrastructure.htm 37 WSDOT. Climate Change - Adapting and Preparing. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/SustainableTransportation/adapting.htm 38 WSDOT. Climate Impacts Vulnerability Assessment. https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/B290651B-24FD-40EC-BEC3-EE5097ED0618/0/WSDOTClimateImpactsVulnerabilityAssessmentforFHWA_120711.pdf

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/2012ccrs/infrastructure.htm

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/SustainableTransportation/adapting.htm

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/B290651B-24FD-40EC-BEC3-EE5097ED0618/0/WSDOTClimateImpactsVulnerabilityAssessmentforFHWA_120711.pdf

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/B290651B-24FD-40EC-BEC3-EE5097ED0618/0/WSDOTClimateImpactsVulnerabilityAssessmentforFHWA_120711.pdf



transportation infrastructure. WSDOT staff will also evaluate potential risks during the

design phase of projects and identify ways to address those risks.

Ports and adjacent jurisdictions are encouraged to conduct similar assessments of the

vulnerability to climate impacts of their critical transportation infrastructure and identify

ways to address those risks.

Environmental issues affect freight operations Ports provide stewardship of the Columbia-Snake River System, the Salish Sea, the Pacific

Ocean, and the navigable bays and inlets. Stormwater control, estuary restoration, water

quality, and many other projects are outside of the scope of this report. The environmental

areas of interest to freight include dredging to deepen channels, anchorages and the transport

of cargo that pose risk in case of spills.

The regulatory requirements for permitting projects, especially those on waterways, can be

complex. Federal, state, and local regulators have to approve permits needed for construction.

Tribal governments often need to be consulted as part of the process. Extended permitting

timelines and associated uncertainty is a concern of multiple ports in Washington.

The West Coast Ports Sustainable Design and Construction Guidelines is an effort of the

America Association of Port Authorities and the Global Environment and Technology

Foundation to establish best practices to address air and water quality, renewable energy, and

other environmental issues.

Diesel emissions come from a variety of sources including marine vessels, trucks and on-dock

equipment and trucks. The Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma and Port Metro Vancouver, Canada

have jointly developed and carried out the Northwest Ports Clean Air Strategy (NWPCAS) to

reduce emissions. More recently, the NWSA (ports of Seattle and Tacoma) has worked with the

state to reduce emissions from trucks idling at gates with DrayQ, so that drivers would be able

to avoid lines.

The Columbia-Snake River System is an important marine freight corridor, but it can be difficult

to manage the competing needs and functions involved, such as flood risk management,

hydropower, irrigation, fish and wildlife, and recreation functions. In 2016, The U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation and Bonneville Power Administration began preparing an

environmental impact statement (EIS) on the Columbia River System operations and

configurations for 14 federal projects in the interior Columbia Basin. Changes to the operation of

the Columbia River System could have a dramatic effect on navigation.

The Columbia River Treaty, signed in 1964, also affects management of the river system. The

treaty covers hydropower, reservoirs, flooding, irrigation, navigation and other issues on the

Columbia River system. A provision in the treaty allows for a review of the agreement after

50 years. This review will address tribal and environmental issues to a greater degree than

occurred in the early 1960s. Transportation and navigation potentially are affected directly by

any changes concerning the release of water, velocity and sediments. Navigation could be

indirectly affected by other changes to the treaty.

Addressing environmental issues

The Northwest Seaport Alliance is working to reduce seaport-related air emissions

through the Northwest Ports Clean Air Strategy. The aim is to reduce diesel particulate

https://www.epa.gov/salish-sea






emissions per ton of cargo 80 percent by 2020, and greenhouse gas emissions per ton

of cargo 15 percent by 2020. The NWSA is one of seven port authorities in the U.S.

recognized in 2017 for its efforts to reduce seaport-related emissions.39

Marine fleet owners will continue to improve the fleet through engine efficiency

improvements and conversion to cleaner fuels for propulsion.

Transportation partners have provided comments on the scope of the Columbia River

System operations and configurations EIS, including the Port of Lewiston. WSDOT will

monitor the EIS process and participate, as needed, to support commercial navigation

needs and use of the Columbia-Snake River System.

Energy sector cargo is growing Changes in the energy sector have resulted in different methods and routes for the movement

of petroleum products in Washington. Alaska has traditionally been the primary source for crude

oil used by refineries in Washington, delivered by ships. As oil production in Alaska has

declined, refineries in Washington are receiving less oil from there, delivered by ship. Oil

deliveries from North Dakota and Canada have increased, primarily delivered by rail and

pipeline. Oil from North Dakota and Canada can also move by barge. In recent years, shippers

have transported some of this oil by rail to a facility on the Columbia River near Clatskanie,

Oregon and transferred it to barges for delivery to refineries. The proposed Tesoro Savage

Vancouver Energy Project in Vancouver could increase the movement of oil moving by water,

generating up to 365 vessel trips annually on the lower Columbia River.40

The Washington Department of Ecology's greatest concern regarding marine transportation of

oil is that vessels could be involved in an accident resulting in a spill of oil or bunker fuel (the

fuel used by the ship) in the Salish Sea or in the Columbia-Snake River System. Risks include

collisions with other vessels, grounding, structural failure of the vessel, or fire/explosion. To

reduce the risk, they encourage Best Achievable Protection, such as improvements in

navigation, the training and use of pilots, the resources and ability to respond swiftly, and, in the

case of the Salish Sea, anchorages. Though occurrences are infrequent, the potential for

severe ecological damage from even one event makes this a critical concern.

Addressing changes in the transportation of energy products

Transportation partners will monitor changes in the energy sector to identify

opportunities and threats.

1.12 Stewardship

Transportation partners must work to continuously improve the quality, effectiveness, and

efficiency of the transportation system.

39 Northwest Seaport Alliance. Environmental Stewardship. https://www.nwseaportalliance.com/stats-stories/environmental-stewardship 40 Access Washington. Tesoro Savage Vancouver Energy Project Draft EIS. http://www.efsec.wa.gov/Tesoro%20Savage/SEPA%20-%20DEIS/DEIS_PAGE.shtml

https://www.nwseaportalliance.com/stats-stories/environmental-stewardship

http://www.efsec.wa.gov/Tesoro%20Savage/SEPA%20-%20DEIS/DEIS_PAGE.shtml



Federal trust funds for inland waterways and harbors need improvements The Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF)41 is designed to pay for half of construction and major

rehabilitation costs on the nation’s inland waterways. It is currently financed through a 20 cent

per gallon diesel tax used in commercial transportation on inland waterways. Improvements on

the upper Columbia-Snake River System are partially funded through the IWTF. From its

inception, the IWTF contained a surplus, with collections exceeding expenditures. Beginning in

2009, the fund contained less than was needed, even with changes enacted in 2014.

Collections are expected to be below need for the foreseeable future.42 As a result, additional

funding is provided from the general fund. In addition, while it is expected that projects in

Washington will be funded in later years, much of the funding is currently allocated to major

projects on the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers.

Progress has been made ensuring the IWTF remains solvent. In December 2014, tax extension

legislation, supported by industry, included a 9 cent per gallon increase to IWTF collections. As

of April 1, 2015, towboaters transiting the inland waters of the U.S. started contributing 29 cents

per gallon to the fund.43 In addition, all U.S. geographic areas are now represented in the

USACE’s Capital Development Plan, a step towards geographic equity. The plan will be

reviewed every five years, providing an opportunity for including projects that may arise over

time. As a result, rehabilitation or new construction projects on the inland Columbia-Snake River

System are more likely to receive IWTF funding in the future.

The Harbor Maintenance Fee (HMF)44 is intended to require those who benefit from

maintenance of U.S. ports and harbors to share the cost of the maintenance. Freight loaded on

or unloaded from a commercial vessel is subject to a port use fee of 0.125 percent of its value

on imports, domestic shipments, and Foreign-Trade Zone admissions. The ports subject to the

harbor maintenance fee in Washington are Aberdeen, Bellingham, Everett, Port Angeles,

Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia, Anacortes, Kalama, Longview, and Vancouver. Fees collected by

CBP are deposited into the Harbor Maintenance Trust fund, from which Congress may

appropriate amounts to pay for harbor maintenance and development projects and related

expenses.45 Some ports are considered “donors” to the fund because the taxes collected

exceed the amount invested on projects, so the surplus is potentially used for projects at other

ports, including ports outside the Pacific Northwest that compete with ports in Washington. The

ports of Seattle and Tacoma get just over a penny for every dollar of the HMF that shippers pay

on cargo moving through those ports.46 The HMF is not assessed on U.S. imports that arrive in

a foreign port (e.g., Prince Rupert, British Columbia) and later transported into the U.S. by truck

41 26 USC 9506. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title26/html/USCODE-2011-title26-subtitleI-chap98-subchapA-sec9506.htm 42 https://www.waterways.org/2010%20Website/IWTF/IWTF%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf 43 Pacific Northwest Waterways. Inland Waterways Trust Fund. http://www.pnwa.net/factsheets/IWTF.pdf 44 19 CFR 24.24 - Harbor maintenance fee. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title19-vol1/xml/CFR-2011-title19-vol1-sec24-24.xml 45 U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Harbor Maintenance Fee. https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/283/~/what-is-the-harbor-maintenance-fee-%28hmf%29%3F 46 Port of Seattle. Harbor Maintenance Tax. https://www.portoftacoma.com/sites/default/files/HMT%201%20Pager.pdf

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title26/html/USCODE-2011-title26-subtitleI-chap98-subchapA-sec9506.htm

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title26/html/USCODE-2011-title26-subtitleI-chap98-subchapA-sec9506.htm

https://www.waterways.org/2010%20Website/IWTF/IWTF%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

http://www.pnwa.net/factsheets/IWTF.pdf

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title19-vol1/xml/CFR-2011-title19-vol1-sec24-24.xml

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title19-vol1/xml/CFR-2011-title19-vol1-sec24-24.xml

https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/283/~/what-is-the-harbor-maintenance-fee-%28hmf%29%3F

https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/283/~/what-is-the-harbor-maintenance-fee-%28hmf%29%3F

https://www.portoftacoma.com/sites/default/files/HMT%201%20Pager.pdf



or rail. This creates an unintended incentive for international importers to divert cargo through

non-U.S. ports.

The ports support reforming the HMF to ensure U.S. tax policy does not disadvantage U.S.

ports and maritime cargo, and to provide greater equity for donor ports. In addition, the HMF

has generated a surplus. Since 2003, HMF collections have far exceeded funds appropriated for

harbor maintenance. It is estimated that in FY2018 the surplus of collections over expenditures

will grow to over $9 billion. Rather than being used for their intended purpose, these user fees

are used to balance the federal budget. As part of the 2014 Water Resources Reform and

Development Act, Congress included language in Section 2106 authorizing up to $50 million in

HMF transfers—subject to appropriation—to donor ports and energy ports. This can be used for

customer rebates, berth maintenance and in-water environmental remediation. Congress has

appropriated $25 million for this purpose in the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the

Nation (WIIN) Act.

Addressing issues with existing federal funding mechanisms

Transportation partners will continue to address funding levels and equity. Inland

waterway users may be responsible for the costs of constructing and operating the

inland waterway systems that make their business possible. Currently, inland waterway

users pay less than 10 percent of the total costs of operating the system. WSDOT will

support PNWA in partnership with the Portland and Walla Walla Districts of the USACE

to meet the needs of our inland waterway system. Two bills have been introduced in

2017 with additional reforms to the HMF, both of which aim to fully use available funding.

WSDOT will support marine partners in pursuing changes to the HMF that benefit the

marine freight system in Washington.

Labor agreements affect system efficiency

The Pacific Maritime Alliance (PMA) represents terminal, vessel, and stevedore operations for

the West Coast ports, including 11 ports in Washington, in negotiations with the ILWU

concerning work rules, hours, wages, etc. The ILWU is a labor union that primarily represents

dockworkers, such as clerks, foremen, and longshoremen. Terminal operators and stevedore

companies hire dockworkers based on seniority and skill set, and compensate ILWU members

based on the established labor agreements. Most of the positions are daily and subject to bid. In

2015, there were 14,224 registered West Coast port workers (Class A and B). Of those

registered workers, 2,257 are in Washington and 1,091 in Oregon. In addition to the registered

members, there are casual workers, selected through a lottery system, who work when there

are insufficient registered workers.

In some cases, the ports operate as a terminal operator and work directly with the ILWU. The

port dispatches crews and assigns work. If there is a delay, the port is responsible for four hours

of pay, even when there is no work to be done. Longshoremen also have privileges allowing

them to find work at other ports when there is no work at one port.

Prior to the 1950s, most cargo was loose and the loading/unloading of vessels involved a

significant number of dockworkers. The introduction of the container and cranes replaced many

longshore jobs, reducing the number of direct positions working the ships. If a position becomes

redundant, the contract requires compensation to the ILWU. The continuance of innovation to

improve efficiency at ports may continue to decrease the need for dockworkers in the future.



The 2014-2015 strike by the ILWU was a pivotal event that may have lasting effects on West

Coast trade. The strike coincided with the expansion of the Panama Canal and resulted in

shippers/receivers reconsidering their supply chain and reducing their reliance on West Coast

ports. Instead of bringing imports through a West Coast port, shippers may find it more

economical to import via Canadian, Gulf Coast, and East Coast ports. PMA and ILWU recently

extended the waterfront contract for another 3 years, to 2022.

Addressing labor agreements

The PMA will continue to negotiate and administer maritime labor agreements with the

ILWU.

1.13 System Improvements

In 2016, WSDOT responded to a state legislative requirement, ESHB 2524, Section 218 (4) (b),

which required “The department, in conjunction with the stakeholder group, must provide a list

of prioritized projects for consideration for funding in the 2017-2019 fiscal biennium. The

prioritized list must have approval from all affected stakeholders. The prioritized list must be

submitted to the office of financial management and the transportation committees of the

Legislature by November 1, 2016.” This 2016 freight project list was intended to also identify

needs in the state freight investment plan, when developed. To maintain consistency between

this plan and the 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan, the 2016 freight project list is

carried over to this plan, and is not fiscally-constrained or prioritized for freight system benefits.

The solicitation process, overview, and recommendations are described in the submittal letter.47

The multimodal projects listed in the 2016 freight projects list are shown in Exhibit 1-10.

Exhibit 1-10: Port Projects

Project Description Location

Improvements to

Tradewinds and East

Wind Roads

Improvement to local roads to include: Road “A” will

be a new, 680-foot long road that will provide access

to Air Liquide, an existing Port tenant, and to the

Port’s wastewater treatment plant.

Port of

Kalama

Port Community

Technology System

Implement an electronic platform that allows for the

secure exchange of information between the NWSA

and private, as well as public, sector stakeholders to

improve the efficiency of the NWSA-related supply

chain. This will cover NWSA terminals, trucks, rail

and waterways, and their interactions with each

other.

Northwest

Seaport

Alliance

Terminal 5 Access

Improvements

The project includes truck gate, intelligent

transportation systems (ITS), and intersection

improvements in the South Spokane St/East

Northwest

Seaport

Alliance

47 WSDOT. Prioritized Freight Project List. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/LegReports/15-17/2016PrioritizedFreightProjectList.pdf

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/LegReports/15-17/2016PrioritizedFreightProjectList.pdf

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/LegReports/15-17/2016PrioritizedFreightProjectList.pdf



Marginal Way/Hanford corridor to facilitate truck

access and minimize traffic impacts.

Port of Longview Multi-

Cargo Modernization

Project (Berth 6/7)

Project will rehabilitate and modernize 1,500 lineal

feet of Berth 6 & 7 bulk and breakbulk cargo facilities

to optimize increased cargo handling omni-dock

operations.

Port of

Longview

Kalama Methanol

Manufacturing and

Exporting Facility

(KMMEF) - Dock

The new export dock is designed to accommodate

both the existing fleet and future generations of

methanol carriers.

Port of

Kalama

South Terminal

Modernization Project II

Strengthen the remaining 560 feet of the South

Terminal, install 700 feet of crane rail to support two

100-foot gauge gantry cranes, and construct a

double rail siding to support the cargo operations.

Port of

Everett

Port of Longview

Industrial Rail Corridor

(IRC) Expansion Project

The project consists of expansion of its existing

industrial rail corridor by adding one to two additional

through tracks into the Port with up to four sidings to

accommodate current and future growth and market

demand. The running tracks will be approximately

9,500 feet and the sidings up to 7,500 feet.

Port of

Longview

Terminal 18 Truck

Access Improvements

This project will reconfigure the southern edge of the

NWSA's Terminal 18, and adjacent public right of

way, to relocate the terminal truck entrance's security

check and optical character recognition equipment. It

will increase the capacity of the security check and

eliminate truck queues on public streets.

Northwest

Seaport

Alliance

Blair Hylebos Rail

Improvements

Track improvements specific to future dry bulk export

terminal requirements and connection to

arrival/departure track infrastructure and direct

mainline infrastructure.

Northwest

Seaport

Alliance

Bridgeview Terminal

(Berth 1/2) Project

Redevelopment of the Berth 1 and Berth 2 facilities

into one leased terminal. Project development will be

in coordination with private development. Project

may include storage, dock construction, and rail

infrastructure improvements.

Port of

Longview

North Sea-Tac Cargo

Facility Access

Rehabilitation of existing arterials to support new

cargo land uses north of Sea-Tac Airport.

POS/City of

SeaTac

Arrival/Departure

Tracks

In order to increase cargo velocity through terminals,

it is necessary to arrive and depart longer trains of

8,000-feet intact. This project would extend a number

of SR 509 rail corridor tracks 1,300 feet east,

construct a new rail bridge across Wapato Creek,

Northwest

Seaport

Alliance



and relocate utilities. This phase provides two track

connections from existing support yard to future Bulk

Export facility and connects the easterly end of the

existing Pierce County Terminal Intermodal Yard to

the SR 509 corridor arrival and departure tracks.

North Intermodal Yard

Alignment

Align North and South Intermodal Yards. Northwest

Seaport

Alliance

Terminal 5

Improvements

The completed project will upgrade the terminal's

dock and power supply to accommodate larger

cranes, additional refrigerated container storage and

future shore power, and increase the depth of the

berth to accommodate larger ships. The grant

requested portion of this project includes truck gate,

ITS and intersection improvements in the South

Spokane St/East Marginal Way/Hanford corridor,

container movement and power supply

improvements to facilitate truck access and minimize

traffic effects.

Northwest

Seaport

Alliance

Barlow Point Terminal

Entry Road

Development

Develop Barlow Point terminal entrance off of

SR 432. Project is to provide safe entrance/exit for

future private terminal development.

Port of

Longview

Duwamish Rail Corridor

Project

Create improved direct rail access from the Port

marine terminals T-5 and T-18 to UP and BNSF

mainlines.

Northwest

Seaport

Alliance

T-5 Rail Improvements Intermodal Yard and Rail Enhancements. Northwest

Seaport

Alliance


Railway Entry

Development

New rail infrastructure development from the

terminus of the BNSF Reynolds Lead into the Barlow

Point property; to include two inbound and two

outbound tracks. Project is to provide rail backbone

to the property for future private terminal

development.

Port of

Longview

Big Pasco Intermodal

Rail Reconstruction

Reconstruct 12,300 linear feet of WWII-era Port-

owned rail actively used for intermodal transloading.

Port of

Pasco

South Terminal

Modernization Project

III

The Port of Everett is exploring a cleanup action plan

for the South Terminal Mill A site that restores the

health of the Puget Sound, while also modernizing

the Port of Everett Seaport to meet 21st Century

Infrastructure Needs. The net result would be a

Port of

Everett



minimum of a 1,100-foot berth and -45 mean lower

low water (MLLW) operational depth.

Berth 4 Terminal

Redevelopment Project

(including rail

infrastructure support)

Redevelopment of the Berth 4 facilities into a leased

terminal. Project development will be in coordination

with private development. Project may include

storage, dock construction, and rail infrastructure

improvements.

Port of

Longview


Development

Port terminal development on 285+ acres. Site is

considered a "green field" development; no previous

development has occurred. Project would include

dock structures, utility backbone, roadways, storm

water systems, etc., on the site to support 1 to 3

future private terminal developments.

Port of

Longview

1.14 Plan Development and Next Steps WSDOT developed this 2017 Washington State Marine Ports and Navigation Plan with

partnership from the marine freight industry, including shippers and carriers. In addition,

WSDOT worked with federal, state, and local partners who provided additional perspectives.

The plan was circulated for public review as an appendix to the 2017 Washington State Freight

System Plan. The draft was released on Aug. 15, 2017, for a review period ending on Sept. 14,

2017. Reviewers representing seven organizations provided more than 70 comments on the

plan. Prominent themes among the comments are highlighted below.

Provide more descriptive and more accurate information about the marine system and

ports.

Include examples of Washington marine industry successes and competitive

advantages.

Expand the discussion of funding and related issues, especially the Harbor Maintenance

Trust Fund.

Include information from the Marine Cargo Forecast.

Add more information about oversized freight (superload) corridors.

WSDOT addressed these comments in the final version of the plan.

WSDOT intends to update this plan consistent with state freight plan update requirements

described in state law. That plan update will be informed by the planning work conducted to

implement this 2017 Washington State Marine Ports and Navigation Plan. WSDOT will work

with transportation partners in these implementation activities.

i APPENDIX C: POLICIES, REQUIREMENTS, AND PLANNING


WASHINGTON STATE

FREIGHT SYSTEM PLAN

Appendix C: Policies, Requirements, and

Planning

Contents

1.1 Federal Planning Requirements and Policies ................................................................. 1

1.1.1 Freight Plan Requirements ...................................................................................... 1

1.1.2 National Multimodal Freight Policy .......................................................................... 2

1.1.3 National Highway Freight Program ......................................................................... 3

1.2 State Planning Requirements and Policies .................................................................... 4

1.2.1 Freight Plan Requirements ...................................................................................... 4

1.2.2 Marine Ports and Navigation Plan Requirements ................................................... 5

1.2.3 Transportation System Policy Goals ....................................................................... 5

1.3 Related State Planning Activities and Policies ............................................................... 6

1.3.1 Results Washington ................................................................................................ 6

1.3.2 Results WSDOT ...................................................................................................... 6

1.3.3 Practical Solutions ................................................................................................... 7

1.3.4 Washington Transportation Plan ............................................................................. 7

1.3.5 Strategic Highway Safety Plan ................................................................................ 7

1.3.6 Washington Aviation System Plan .......................................................................... 8

1.3.7 Joint Transportation Committee Road/Rail Study ................................................... 9


1 APPENDIX C: POLICIES, REQUIREMENTS, AND PLANNING

APPENDIX C: POLICIES, REQUIREMENTS, AND PLANNING

1.1 Federal Planning Requirements and Policies Federal law places requirements on Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to conduct freight transportation planning activities. These requirements are listed below.

1.1.1 Freight Plan Requirements

This 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan is subject to federal requirement, as described in 49 U.S.C. 70202.1 For a state to receive funding under the National Highway Freight Program,2 a state freight plan must be developed that comprehensively addresses the state’s freight planning activities and investments, both immediate and long range. Also, a state freight plan must cover a 5-year forecast period and be updated at least every five years. In addition, there are 10 required elements that all state freight plans must address for each of the transportation modes. These 10 requirements, and how they are addressed within this plan, are as follows: 1) An identification of significant freight system trends, needs, and issues with respect to

the state; a. Trends and issues are addressed in Chapter 6; needs are identified in Chapters

4 and 5. 2) A description of the freight policies, strategies, and performance measures that will guide

the freight-related transportation investment decisions of the state; a. Policies are described in Chapter 1; strategies are described in Chapter 8;

performance measures are described in Chapter 4. 3) When applicable, a listing of: a) multimodal critical rural freight facilities and corridors

designated within the state under section 70103 of title 49 (National Multimodal Freight Network); b) critical rural and urban freight corridors designated within the state under section 167 of title 23 (National Highway Freight Program);

a. These facilities and corridors are discussed in the 2017 Freight Investment Plan. 4) A description of how the plan will improve the ability of the state to meet the national

multimodal freight policy goals described in section 70101(b) of title 49, United States Code and the National Highway Freight Program goals described in section 167 of title 23;

5) A description of how innovative technologies and operational strategies, including freight intelligent transportation systems that improve the safety and efficiency of the freight movement, were considered;

a. This is discussed in Chapters 6 and 8.

1 49 USC 70202: State freight plans. http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title49-section70202&num=0&edition=prelim 2 23 USC 167: National highway freight program. http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:23%20section:167%20edition:prelim



6) In the case of roadways on which travel by heavy vehicles (including mining, agricultural, energy cargo or equipment, and timber vehicles) is projected to substantially deteriorate the condition of the roadways, a description of improvements that may be required to reduce or impede the deterioration;

a. This is discussed in Chapters 6 and 8. 7) An inventory of facilities with freight mobility issues, such as bottlenecks, within the state,

and for those facilities that are state owned or operated, a description of the strategies the state is employing to address those freight mobility issues;

a. This is discussed in Chapters 6 and 8. 8) Consideration of any significant congestion or delay caused by freight movements and

any strategies to mitigate that congestion or delay; a. This is discussed in Chapters 6 and 8.

9) A freight investment plan that, subject to 49 U.S.C. 70202(c), includes a list of priority projects and describes how funds made available to carry out 23 U.S.C. 167 would be invested and matched;

a. This information is contained within the 2017 Freight Investment Plan. 10) Consultation with the State Freight Advisory Committee, if applicable.

a. WSDOT consultation with the Washington Freight Advisory Committee is briefly described in this appendix.

1.1.2 National Multimodal Freight Policy

The National Multimodal Freight Policy, as described in 49 U.S.C. §70101,3 is to maintain and improve the condition and performance of the National Multimodal Freight Network (NMFN) to ensure that the network provides a foundation for the United States to compete in the global economy. The goals associated with this national policy are related to the condition, safety, security, efficiency, productivity, resiliency, and reliability of the NMFN, as well as reducing the adverse environmental effects of freight movement on the NMFN. This state freight plan is required to include a description of how the plan will improve the ability of the state to meet the national multimodal freight policy goals. The goals of the national multimodal freight policy, and how they are addressed in this plan, are shown below:

1) to identify infrastructure improvements, policies, and operational innovations that: a) strengthen the contribution of the NMFN to the economic competitiveness of the United States; b) reduce congestion and eliminate bottlenecks on the NMFN; and c) increase productivity, particularly for domestic industries and businesses that create high-value jobs;

a. The 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan will improve the ability to meet this goal by identifying freight projects in the Freight Investment Plan and providing strategies to address congestion and other issues.

2) to improve the safety, security, efficiency, and resiliency of multimodal freight transportation;

a. The 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan will improve the ability to meet this goal by taking actions on strategies to address safety, security, efficiency, and resiliency of multimodal freight transportation.

3 49 U.S.C. Chapter 701—Multimodal freight policy. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2015-title49/html/USCODE-2015-title49-subtitleIX-chap701.htm



3) to achieve and maintain a state of good repair on the NMFN; a. The 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan will improve the ability to meet

this goal by identifying freight projects in the Freight Investment Plan and taking actions on strategies to address system condition.

4) to use innovation and advanced technology to improve the safety, efficiency, and reliability of the NMFN;

a. The 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan will improve the ability to meet this goal by taking actions on strategies that include innovation and advanced technology to improve the safety, efficiency, and reliability of the NMFN.

5) to improve the economic efficiency and productivity of the NMFN; a. The 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan will improve the ability to meet

this goal by taking actions that improve the economic efficiency and productivity of the NMFN.

6) to improve the reliability of freight transportation; a. The 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan will improve the ability to meet

this goal by taking actions on strategies to address reliability of the freight transportation system.

7) to improve the short- and long-distance movement of goods that: a) travel across rural areas between population centers; b) travel between rural areas and population centers; and c) travel from the nation's ports, airports, and gateways to the NMFN;

a. The 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan will improve the ability to meet this goal by taking actions on strategies to improve mobility on designated freight networks.

8) to improve the flexibility of states to support multi-state corridor planning and the creation of multi-state organizations that increase the states’ ability to address multimodal freight connectivity;

a. The 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan will improve the ability to meet this goal by taking actions on strategies that address multi-state partnerships.

9) to reduce the adverse environmental impacts of freight movement on the NMFN; a. The 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan will improve the ability to meet

this goal by taking actions on strategies that address air quality and noise caused by freight movement on the NMFN.

10) to pursue the goals described in this subsection in a manner that is not burdensome to state and local governments;

a. The 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan will improve the ability to meet this goal by streamlining planning and programming processes with partners.

1.1.3 National Highway Freight Program

The National Highway Freight Program is a new formula program for freight projects created by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. It is the policy of the United States to improve the condition and performance of the National Highway Freight Network (NHFN) to provide the foundation to compete in the global economy. State freight plans are required to include a description of how the plan will improve the ability of the state to meet the goals of the National Highway Freight Program. The goals of the program, and how they are addressed in this plan, are:

1) to invest in infrastructure improvements and to implement operational improvements on the highways of the United States that: a) strengthen the contribution of the NHFN to the economic competitiveness of the United States; b) reduce congestion and bottlenecks



on the NHFN; c) reduce the cost of freight transportation; d) improve the year-round reliability of freight transportation; and e) increase productivity, particularly for domestic industries and businesses that create high-value jobs;

The 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan will improve the ability to meet this goal by identifying freight projects in the Freight Investment Plan providing strategies to address congestion and other issues.

2) to improve the safety, security, efficiency, and resiliency of freight transportation in rural and urban areas;

The 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan will improve the ability to meet this goal by taking actions on strategies that address safety, security, efficiency, and resiliency of multimodal freight transportation.

3) to improve the state of good repair of the NHFN; The 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan will improve the ability to meet

this goal by identifying freight projects in the Freight Investment Plan and taking actions on strategies that address system condition.

4) to use innovation and advanced technology to improve the safety, efficiency, and reliability of the NHFN;

The 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan will improve the ability to meet this goal by taking actions on strategies that include innovation and advanced technology to improve the safety, efficiency, and reliability of the NHFN.

5) to improve the efficiency and productivity of the NHFN; The 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan will improve the ability to meet

this goal by taking actions that improve the efficiency and productivity of the NHFN.

6) to improve the flexibility of states to support multi-state corridor planning and the creation of multi-state organizations that increase the states’ ability to address highway freight connectivity;

The 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan will improve the ability to meet this goal by taking actions on strategies that address multi-state partnerships.

7) to reduce the environmental impacts of freight movement on the NHFN; The 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan will improve the ability to meet

this goal by taking actions on strategies that address air quality and noise caused by freight movement on the NHFN.

1.2 State Planning Requirements and Policies Washington state law requires WSDOT to conduct freight transportation planning activities. These requirements are listed below. In addition, several policies that direct transportation are listed in this section.

1.2.1 Freight Plan Requirements

RCW 47.06.0454 requires that “the state-interest component of the statewide multimodal transportation plan shall include a freight mobility plan which shall assess the transportation needs to ensure the safe, reliable, and efficient movement of goods within and through the state

4 RCW 47.06.045. Freight mobility plan. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=47.06.045



to ensure the state’s economic vitality.” This plan is aligned with the Washington Transportation Plan, the state’s multimodal transportation plan, which includes freight elements.

1.2.2 Marine Ports and Navigation Plan Requirements

RCW 47.06.0705 states that “the state-interest component of the statewide multimodal transportation plan shall include a state marine ports and navigation plan, which shall assess the transportation needs of Washington's marine ports, including navigation, and identify transportation system improvements needed to support the international trade and economic development role of Washington's marine ports.” The Marine Ports and Navigation Plan is included in Appendix B.

1.2.3 Transportation System Policy Goals

RCW 47.04.2806 establishes policy goals for the planning, operation, performance of, and investment in the state's transportation system. It states that public investments in transportation should support achievement of these policy goals:

1) Economic vitality: To promote and develop transportation systems that stimulate, support, and enhance the movement of people and goods to ensure a prosperous economy;

2) Preservation: To maintain, preserve, and extend the life and utility of prior investments in transportation systems and services;

3) Safety: To provide for and improve the safety and security of transportation customers and the transportation system;

4) Mobility: To improve the predictable movement of goods and people throughout Washington state, including congestion relief and improved freight mobility;

5) Environment: To enhance Washington's quality of life through transportation investments that promote energy conservation, enhance healthy communities, and protect the environment; and

6) Stewardship: To continuously improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of the transportation system.

The 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan was created to meet state and federal legal requirements; to align with the state’s six transportation system policy goals; and to support freight-related strategies and recommended actions in the Washington Transportation Plan 2035,7 currently under development. This plan also incorporates key points and findings from the 2013 Washington State Rail Plan,8 the draft WSDOT Highway System Plan9, and the 2017

5 RCW 47.06.070: Marine ports and navigation plan. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=47.06.070 6 RCW 47.04.280: Transportation system policy goals. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=47.04.280 7 2017 Washington Transportation Plan. https://washtransplan.com/ 8 2013 Washington State Rail Plan. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/F67D73E5-2F2D-40F2-9795-736131D98106/0/StateRailPlanFinal201403.pdf 9 WSDOT. Highway System Plan. https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/hsp.htm



Washington Aviation System Plan10 by highlighting the essential role that these modes play in the multimodal freight system.

1.3 Related State Planning Activities and Policies The state is engaged in a variety of planning activities that shape current and future planning policies. The following sections summarize the activities and the policies they inform.

1.3.1 Results Washington

Results Washington11 sets the state’s vision and mission, as well as the expectation of all state agencies to achieve goals collaboratively. This initiative provides policy leaders and the public with detailed information about progress toward the governor’s goals. The five focus areas for Results Washington are:

World-Class Education Prosperous Economy Sustainable Energy and a Clean Environment Healthy and Safe Communities Efficient, Effective and Accountable Government

Transportation is directly aligned with the governor’s plans. To build a more prosperous economy, the following four freight-related tactics are identified: improving infrastructure condition, improving freight reliability, increasing state gross domestic product, and increasing exports.

1.3.2 Results WSDOT

Results WSDOT,12 the agency's strategic plan for 2014-2017, provides the vision, mission, values, goals, priority outcomes and strategies to guide the work of the agency. The strategic plan has three overarching focus areas.

Getting the most out of the multimodal transportation system’s capacity, leveraging limited funding and engaging with communities and partners.

Emphasizing working across all modes, with improvements designed to enhance operations.

Ensuring safe, reliable, and cost-effective transportation options to improve livable communities and economic vitality for people and businesses.

WSDOT's strategic plan aligns with the governor's strategic framework Results Washington.

Six goals, 19 priority outcomes, 26 strategies, and more than 200 tasks make up the work of Results WSDOT, the agency’s strategic plan for 2014-2017. Three new strategies were added in 2016 to highlight the agency’s emphasis areas: practical solutions, workforce development,

10 WSDOT. 2017 Washington Aviation System Plan. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/SystemPlan/default.htm 11 Results Washington. http://www.results.wa.gov/ 12 WSDOT. Results WSDOT – Our Strategic Plan. https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/about/secretary/results-wsdot



and inclusion. The six goals include strategic investments, modal integration, environmental stewardship, organizational strength, community engagement, and smart technology.

1.3.3 Practical Solutions

Practical Solutions13 is a performance-based approach WSDOT uses for transportation decision making. This data-driven approach uses the latest tools and performance measures to seek efficiencies in operating highways, ferries, transit and rail, reduce travel demand that save money, and reduce the need for building costly new infrastructure expansion. Characteristics of Practical Solutions involve:

Moving to a performance-based approach to solving transportation needs; Using data, new tools and best practices to preserve and maintain existing assets so

that they last longer; Using more comprehensive tools and performance measures to support decision

making, rather than using limited data such as the volume of current traffic or safety history;

Establishing a multidisciplinary, multijurisdictional, collaborative approach to decision making so that WSDOT doesn’t just consider highways, but looks at the entire transportation system of local roads and streets, arterials, transit, bike and pedestrian facilities, rail, air and marine;

Enhancing community engagement efforts to craft least-cost solutions within the context of land use;

Considering operational and demand management strategies before high-cost capital projects are committed;

Implementing low-cost solutions sooner, rather than waiting years for a high-cost project to be funded; and,

Using sustainable transportation practices to preserve the environment, promote transportation system efficiency, seek fiscally efficient solutions, improve and protect public health, conserve energy, and reduce greenhouse gases.

1.3.4 Washington Transportation Plan

The Washington Transportation Plan (WTP)14 is a 20-year vision for the development of the statewide multimodal transportation system. The WTP is being conducted in two phases: Phase 1 – Policy, adopted January 2015 to meet state requirements for a policy plan; and Phase 2 – Implementation to be completed by December 2017 to meet federal requirements for a long-range statewide transportation plan. Phase 1 and Phase 2 are policy-level plans that guide decision-makers on how to resolve key statewide issues raised in local, tribal, metropolitan, regional, and modal plans.

1.3.5 Strategic Highway Safety Plan

A Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) is a major component and requirement of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) (23 U.S.C. § 148). The plan provides a comprehensive

13 WSDOT. Moving Washington forward Practical Solutions. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/PracticalDesign/ 14 2017 Washington Transportation Plan. https://washtransplan.com/



framework for reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The 2016 Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Target Zero,15 was developed through a collaboration of traffic safety professionals and stakeholders from many different organizations and disciplines, including WSDOT, the Washington State Patrol, the Washington State Department of Licensing, public health agencies, medical professionals, emergency medical services personnel, local governments, and many other traffic safety specialists. The plan includes heavy trucks as a road user type. This data-driven plan includes a list of projects, including projects that improve truck safety.

Target Zero identifies the state's key safety needs and guides investment decisions towards strategies and countermeasures with the most potential to save lives and prevent injuries. The plan was developed by WSDOT in a cooperative process with local, state, federal, tribal and other public and private sector safety stakeholders. It is a data-driven, multi-year comprehensive plan that establishes statewide goals, objectives, and key emphasis areas and integrates the four E's of highway safety: engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services. The plan allows highway safety programs and partners in the state to work together to align goals, leverage resources, and collectively address the state's safety challenges. Truck parking is an eligible project type for the HSIP, if identified as a needed safety improvement in Target Zero.

1.3.6 Washington Aviation System Plan

The Washington Aviation System Plan16 (WASP) provides WSDOT with analysis of the aviation system needs in the state. It provides information about existing facilities, estimates of future demand, an evaluation of future needs, and policy recommendations to support the system’s future development. The priorities of the WASP are to:

Identify issues and evaluate effects to determine needed airport and system improvements.

Develop performance goals and metrics to better meet the aviation needs of communities and the aviation system as a whole.

Serve as an effective decision-making tool for the development of policies and recommendations that will advance Washington’s aviation system.

Of the goals identified in the plan, Economic Development and Vitality is most directly related to the freight system. The objectives for this goal include supporting and increasing the opportunity of the transportation of goods and passengers utilizing air service, enhancing collaboration between the airport and its community to maintain and support economic growth and development, and increasing tenant revenues by promoting in-airport aerospace manufacturing jobs. Following are the system performance measures for the Economic Development and Vitality goal:

Airports with documented air cargo activity (by type and strategy/market) and airports with growing (greater than 1 percent per year) commercial airline service.

15 Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2016. http://www.targetzero.com/PDF2/targetzero.pdf 16 WSDOT. 2017 Washington Aviation System Plan. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/SystemPlan/default.htm



Airports with active development partnerships with chambers of commerce, tourism bureaus, service organizations, industries, governments, and recreational user groups.

Airports with business parks or landside real estate development (existing and available) and those with on-site aerospace manufacturing leases.

1.3.7 Joint Transportation Committee Road/Rail Study

In 2016, the Joint Transportation Committee of the Washington State Legislature completed a report, Prioritization of Prominent Road/Rail Conflicts in Washington State,17 to evaluate the impacts of prominent road-rail conflicts and develop a corridor-based prioritization process for addressing the impacts on a statewide level. Key findings include:

The road-rail conflicts at the Top 50 at-grade crossings are substantial, and there are few funding sources to address them.

The prioritization results point to a significant need for additional funding to address crossing improvements.

The database and prioritization process provide a mechanism to compare and understand the magnitude of crossing improvement needs on a statewide basis.

In some cases, projects prioritized locally did not rank high when evaluated on a statewide basis.

Safety data serves as a contributor towards mobility impacts, but further analysis is needed to confirm specific safety needs.

The database and prioritization tool would benefit from future enhancements. Corridor evaluation and prioritization are most useful when defining projects to address

crossing impacts. Some jurisdictions have not yet identified and prioritized needed crossing

improvements.

17 Joint Transportation Committee. Prioritization of Prominent Road/Rail Conflicts in Washington State. http://leg.wa.gov/JTC/Documents/Studies/Road%20Rail%20Study%202016/FinalReport_Road%20RailConflicts_January%202017.pdf

i APPENDIX D: FREIGHT SYSTEM PARNTERS AND FUNDING SOURCES


WASHINGTON STATE

FREIGHT SYSTEM PLAN

Appendix D: Freight System Partners and

Funding Sources

Contents

1.1 Freight Industry and Associations .................................................................................. 1

1.1.1 Trucking ................................................................................................................... 2

1.1.2 Railroads ................................................................................................................. 2

1.1.3 Marine ..................................................................................................................... 3

1.1.4 Air cargo .................................................................................................................. 4

1.1.5 Pipelines .................................................................................................................. 4

1.2 Federal Agencies ............................................................................................................ 4

1.2.1 United States Department of Transportation ........................................................... 6

1.2.2 Federal Highway Administration .............................................................................. 6

1.2.3 Federal Railroad Administration ............................................................................ 11

1.2.4 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ......................................................... 11

1.2.5 Maritime Administration ......................................................................................... 12

1.2.6 Federal Aviation Administration ............................................................................. 12

1.2.7 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ...................................... 12

1.2.8 Surface Transportation Board ............................................................................... 13

1.2.9 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ............................................................... 13

1.2.10 US Coast Guard .................................................................................................... 13

1.2.11 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .............................................................................. 14

1.2.12 U.S. Customs and Border Protection .................................................................... 14

1.3 The State of Washington .............................................................................................. 14

ii APPENDIX D: FREIGHT SYSTEM PARNTERS AND FUNDING SOURCES


1.3.1 Washington State Legislature ............................................................................... 15

1.3.2 Washington State Department of Transportation .................................................. 16

1.3.3 Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board .......................................................... 19

1.3.4 Transportation Improvement Board ....................................................................... 20

1.3.5 Washington State Patrol ........................................................................................ 20

1.3.6 Washington State Transportation Commission ..................................................... 20

1.3.7 Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission ........................................... 21

1.3.8 County Road Administration Board ....................................................................... 21

1.4 Regional and Local Governments ................................................................................ 22

1.4.1 Tribal Governments ............................................................................................... 22

1.4.2 Metropolitan Planning Organizations .................................................................... 22

1.4.3 Regional Transportation Planning Organizations .................................................. 23

1.4.4 Counties ................................................................................................................ 24

1.4.5 Cities ..................................................................................................................... 24

1.4.6 Ports ...................................................................................................................... 24

1.5 Organizational Partnerships ......................................................................................... 25

1.5.1 Washington State Freight Advisory Committee ..................................................... 25

1.5.2 The Western Association of State Highway Transportation Officials .................... 25

1.5.3 The Great Northern Corridor Coalition .................................................................. 25

1.5.4 The North/West Passage Coalition ....................................................................... 26

1.5.5 The International Mobility and Trade Corridor Program ........................................ 26

1.5.6 The FAST Corridor Partnership ............................................................................. 26

Exhibits

Exhibit 1-1: Highway Trust Fund Revenue Sources ..................................................................... 5

Exhibit 1-2: Washington State Funding Apportionments Under the FAST Act in 2017................. 6

Exhibit 1-3: Estimated NHFP Funding Apportionment for Washington ......................................... 7

Exhibit 1-4: Estimated CMAQ funding in Washington (FY 2017) .................................................. 9

Exhibit 1-5: FASTLANE Funding Awarded in Washington ......................................................... 10

Exhibit 1-6: TIGER Funding Awarded in Washington ................................................................. 10

Exhibit 1-7: Summary of Freight Roles and Responsibilities by Agency .................................... 14

Exhibit 1-8: Key WSDOT Freight Responsibilities ...................................................................... 16

iii APPENDIX D: FREIGHT SYSTEM PARNTERS AND FUNDING SOURCES


Exhibit 1-9: Connecting Washington Programs .......................................................................... 17

Exhibit 1-10: Freight Rail Investment Bank Projects in 2017-2019 Biennium ............................. 18

Exhibit 1-11: Freight Rail Assistance Program Projects in 2017-2019 Biennium ........................ 18

Exhibit 1-12: CRAB Grant Programs .......................................................................................... 21

Exhibit 1-13: Summary of Freight Roles and Responsibilities by Agency................................... 22


1 APPENDIX D: FREIGHT SYSTEM PARNTERS AND FUNDING SOURCES

APPENDIX D: FREIGHT SYSTEM PARNTERS AND FUNDING SOURCES Many public and private sector organizations must both fulfill their roles and cooperate with each other to meet performance goals for the multimodal freight system. These organizations include federal agencies, state agencies, local governments, regional freight organizations, and freight industry participants. Following is a description of some of the key freight system players, including their responsibilities and funding sources at both the federal and state level for freight transportation projects. This section also contains a short summary of the limitations on what state revenue can be collected and how it can be expended to maintain and improve freight systems.

Washington state law1 recognizes that many stakeholders must work together in order to maintain and improve transportation systems and facilities of statewide significance. State law defines transportation facilities of statewide significance, which include a subset of the state-owned highway transportation system, the Interstate Highway System, freight railroad system, Columbia-Snake River System, marine port facilities, and services related to marine activities affecting international and national trade, including key freight transportation corridors serving these marine port facilities. By considering the needs of freight in planning activities, partners across the state can help to support the multimodal freight system and economic vitality. WSDOT is committed to helping partners integrate freight into the mainstream transportation discussion.

The Washington state transportation budget2 pays for the operations and capital costs of maintaining, preserving, and improving the highway and ferry systems and enforcement on the state highway system. With budgets tightening, WSDOT is focusing its resources on the maintenance and preservation of existing transportation assets. Revenues available for transportation purposes include federal funds, state funds (including taxes and fees), bonds, and local funds. A portion of the budget goes to local governments. State agencies supported by the state transportation budget include WSDOT, the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB), the Washington State Patrol (WSP), the County Road Administration Board (CRAB), the Washington State Transportation Commission (WSTC), the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB), and others.

1.1 Freight Industry and Associations Shippers and receivers are businesses that require the pick-up and/or delivery of goods, most of which is done via truck. Therefore, shippers and receivers are responsible for the generation of truck trips on the roadway systems in Washington. Shippers and receivers may include manufacturers, agricultural producers, and retail stores, among others. Some shippers and

1 RCW 47.06.140: Transportation facilities and services of statewide significance. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=47.06.140 2 WSDOT. Current budget. https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Finance/budget.htm



receivers have loading docks developed to facilitate the delivery or pick-up of goods, while others, particularly those in urban areas, do not.

Many terminals in Washington are leased facilities on lands controlled by port districts and therefore are not privately owned. There are a few notable exceptions, like the proposed Millennium Bulk Terminal in Longview, petroleum refineries on the Salish Sea, and several of the grain exporting terminals located along the Columbia-Snake River System. These terminals are often responsible for making improvements to transportation infrastructure located directly onsite.

1.1.1 Trucking

Trucking companies are usually private businesses that specialize in moving freight cargo. Trucking companies are essential to managing the forwarding of freight and moving cargo between terminals and/or shippers and receivers. Trucking companies vary greatly in size and structure, but most own a fleet of trucks and employ truck drivers. Some will contract with independent owner-operators. Approximately 90 percent of the trucking industry in the United States consists of small business trucking companies that have six or fewer trucks; however, some companies, such as UPS, are much larger. While some trucking companies provide long-haul services, others provide solely regional or drayage trips. Long-haul drivers carry freight across the country and even across national borders. Regional drivers travel within multi-state areas. Drayage drivers carry freight short distances between ports and terminals.

The American Trucking Association (ATA) advocates for policies that promote highway safety, security, environmental sustainability, and profitability for the trucking industry. The ATA works with the Washington Trucking Association to educate policymakers and the general public about the essential role trucking plays in the economy, promotes responsible policies to improve highway safety, and advances the trucking industry’s environmental goals.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) is the international trade association representing the interests of independent truck owner-operators and professional truck drivers. OOIDA advocates the views of professional truckers through interaction with local, state, and federal governments, other associations, and private businesses to advance highway safety, transportation policy, and an equitable environment for truck drivers.

The National Association of Truck Stop Owners (NATSO) represents travel plaza and truck stop owners and operators. NATSO lobbies the federal and local governments for laws favorable to their members. NATSO advances the industry’s interests by influencing government action and public opinion on highway issues, such as rest area commercialization, tolling, and truck parking, while representing the industry on environmental and energy issues, primarily related to diesel fuel.

1.1.2 Railroads

The Association of American Railroads (AAR) advocates for the safety, security, and efficiency of the railroad industry. AAR advances public policies, and establishes safety, security, and operating standards AAR also supports continued research and development projects, and prepares statistical reports that support the interests of the freight rail industry. There are over



3,000 miles of railroad lines in Washington. Two Class I railroads, BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad, as well as 23 short-line railroads, operate through communities in Washington.

1.1.3 Marine

The marine freight waterways in Washington consists of the Pacific Ocean, the Salish Sea, and the Columbia-Snake River System. These waterways and their channels, combined with commercial ports, terminals, locks/dams, and vessels, comprise the marine system. The marine freight system also includes ports, the intermodal landside connections that allow the roadway and railway systems to move freight to and from the water. Marine freight supports international trade by providing safe, efficient, and cost effective transportation options for shippers.

The Pacific Ocean forms most of the western border of Washington. All commercially navigable waters in Washington lead to the Pacific Ocean, where freight can be transported globally from ports and terminals. Both ships and barges traverse the Pacific Ocean. Grays Harbor is the only deep-draft port capable of handling ocean going vessels located directly on the Pacific coast in Washington.

The Salish Sea is composed of three large bodies of water (the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the Strait of Georgia, and the Puget Sound), as well as several smaller bodies of water (e.g., Elliott Bay, Commencement Bay, Bellingham Bay, Hood Canal, Haro Strait, Rosario Strait) that are connecting channels and adjoining waters. There are seven deep-draft ports capable of handling ocean going vessels in the Salish Sea, located at Port Angeles, Bellingham, Anacortes, Everett, Seattle, Tacoma, and Olympia. There also private terminals in operation outside port districts.

The Columbia-Snake River System is composed of the two connected rivers that facilitate commercial navigation. There are three deep-draft ports in Washington currently handling ocean-going vessels on the Columbia River, at Vancouver, Kalama, and Longview. An additional nine shallow draft ports in Washington handle barges at Clarkston, Garfield-Central Ferry, Whitman-Central Ferry, Whitman-Wilma, Whitman-Almota, Walla Walla, Benton, Pasco, and Klickitat. There are other ports not currently handling cargo that have the capability and infrastructure for handling marine freight, and private terminals in operation outside port districts. Shippers and receivers in Washington also use marine freight facilities and terminals on the Columbia-Snake River System outside the state, including Portland and Morrow in Oregon and Lewiston in Idaho.

The Washington Public Ports Association (WPPA)3 promotes the interests of the port community in Washington through government relations, education, and advocacy. WPPA also produces the Marine Cargo Forecast, which projects the volume of cargo moving through public and private facilities.

The Pacific Northwest Waterways Association (PNWA)4 is a collaboration of ports, businesses, public agencies and individuals who combine their economic and political strength in support of navigation, energy, trade, and economic development throughout the Pacific Northwest. PNWA works to ensure that our waterways are efficient, reliable, and environmentally sustainable.

3 Washington Public Ports Association. http://washingtonports.org/ 4 Pacific Northwest Waterways Association. http://www.pnwa.net/



Membership includes public ports, tug and barge companies, steamship operators, grain elevator operators, agricultural producers, forest products manufacturers, electric utilities, irrigation districts, other businesses, public agencies, and individuals throughout Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Northern California.

Pilot associations represent marine pilots who guide large ships through dangerous or congested waters, thus ensuring the safety of ships, crews, passengers, and cargoes. Ships on the Salish Sea and the Columbia River are required to use pilots. Columbia River Bar Pilots are responsible for ships at the mouth of the Columbia, while Columbia River Pilots take responsibility for ships upstream of Astoria, Oregon. Puget Sound Pilots guide ships through the Salish Sea. These groups are overseen by boards in Oregon and Washington established by the Public Utility Commissions in each state. The commissions are composed of members appointed by the governor and approved by the senate, and represent the public, pilots, and industry. They establish rates, certification requirements and other conditions.

1.1.4 Air cargo

Air cargo consists of both air freight and air mail. There 134 public-use airports in Washington, 24 of which report air cargo activity. Most airports are privately owned, but some are managed by the state. Of the 16 state managed airports in Washington, nine are state-owned, three are operated by special use permit, three are leased and one is operated through a right of entry.5 WSDOT’s Airport Aid Grant Program provides financial assistance to public-use airports. Any city, county, airport authority, political subdivision, federally recognized tribe, public corporation, or person(s) that owns and operates a public-use airport included in the Washington Aviation System Plan (WASP) is considered an eligible airport sponsor and may apply for WSDOT Airport Aid grant funds. In 2016, WSDOT awarded $1.8 million in state funds to 28 airports.6 This state funding was supplemented with $55.4 million in federal investment and $6.8 million in local investment to preserve and improve airport pavement as well as address safety and security concerns and fund maintenance, property acquisition, and planning initiatives.

1.1.5 Pipelines

The three major pipelines in Washington are privately owned and include the Olympic, Chevron, and Yellowstone. The Olympic pipeline runs north-south through western Washington from Portland, Oregon to Blaine. The Chevron pipeline runs from Salt Lake City, Utah to Pasco and connects to Spokane. The Yellowstone pipeline runs from Billings, Montana to Spokane and Moses Lake.

1.2 Federal Agencies There are many federal agencies with roles and responsibilities related to freight transportation. Federal agencies provide stewardship of freight assets, conduct research, assist state and local agencies, and allocate freight funds. These organizations are housed under the umbrella of the U.S. Department of Transportation and are discussed in further detail below.

5 Washington Department of Transportation. WSDOT Managed Airports. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/Airports/ 6 Washington Department of Transportation. WSDOT Aviation Grant Recipients 2016. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/Grants/2016.htm



At the federal level, the main source of funding for transportation is the Federal Gasoline Tax; other funding sources include the Federal Diesel Tax and the Federal Vehicle Taxes, among others. Exhibit 1-1 below is a summary of current revenue sources for Federal Fiscal Year 2015. Federal funds can be allocated to state or local projects. Washington state has been awarded federal funds to complete freight projects.

Exhibit 1-1: Highway Trust Fund Revenue Sources

Highway Trust Fund Revenue Sources

Description Revenue FFY 20157

Federal Gasoline Tax 18.40 cents/gal $25 billion ($21 billion Highway Account, $3.9 billion Transit Account)

Federal Diesel Tax 24.40 cents/gal $9.6 billion ($8.5 billion Highway Account, $1.1 billion Transit Account)

Federal Vehicle Based Taxes Includes a tax based on tire weight, a retail tax on trucks weighing more than 33,000 pounds, and a heavy vehicle use tax.

$6.2 billion (Highway Account)

Miscellaneous Includes fines and penalties, federal loans, interest income, etc.

$26 million ($25.5 million Highway Account, $0.5 million Transit Account)

Total Revenue ~$40.8 billion

Source: Federal Highway Administration

Federal tax rates are flat rates that are not indexed to inflation and remain constant unless action is taken by Congress. The current tax rates on fuel are too low to meet the long-term needs for service improvements and congestion relief on the Federal Aid Highway System. As vehicles become more fuel-efficient and drivers are able to go further using less fuel, less fuel tax revenues are collected from states, worsening the Highway Trust Fund solvency problem. Taxes on tires, truck and trailer sales, and heavy vehicles are levied on oil companies, tire manufacturers, truck and trailer retailers, and the owners of heavy vehicles. Highway users, including operators of freight vehicles, generally pay these types of taxes indirectly, as they become part of the purchase price of the taxed items.

A portion of federal gasoline and diesel taxes is diverted away from the Highway Account to other purposes, primarily to the transit account. Freight needs are funded primarily through the Federal Highway Account. The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act transferred about $71 billion, mostly from the general fund of the Treasury, to the Highway Trust Fund. Of those amounts, roughly $52 billion were credited to the highway account for the 2016 to 2018 period. Under current law, the trust fund cannot incur negative balances, nor is it permitted to borrow to cover unmet obligations presented to the fund. The highway account ended in 2016

7 Federal Highway Administration. Status of the Highway Trust Fund. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2015/fe210.cfm



with a balance of approximately $47 billion. However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts that, by 2026, the cumulative shortfall will grow to $80 billion.8

1.2.1 United States Department of Transportation

The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) was established by the U.S. Congress with the mission of ensuring a fast, safe, efficient, accessible and convenient transportation system that meets national interests and improves quality of life. Many agencies operate within the USDOT and contribute to the safety, mobility, and efficacy of the national freight system.

1.2.2 Federal Highway Administration

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) supports state and local governments in the design, construction, and maintenance of the nation’s highway system, including bridges and tunnels, which supports the majority of freight movement within the United States.

FHWA administers several programs (listed below), which provide the opportunity for eligible projects and entities to receive freight funding. The recent passage of the FAST Act continued key funding sources and added new programs with freight applications. Washington state’s apportionments of FAST Act funds for federal fiscal year 2017 total $684.2 million; a breakdown is found in Exhibit 1-2.

Exhibit 1-2: Washington State Funding Apportionments Under the FAST Act in 2017

Program Apportionment

National Highway Freight Program $18.3 million

Surface Transportation Block Grant $186.0 million

Highway Safety Improvement Program + Railway-Highway Crossings Program

$57.1 million

Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement $36.6 million

Metropolitan Planning $7.4 million

National Highway Performance Program $365.0 million

Statewide Planning & Research $13.7 million

Total $684.2 million Source: Office of Financial Management, Transportation Revenue Forecast Council 9

The FAST Act established the National Highway Freight Program (NHFP)10 to improve the efficient movement of freight on the National Highway Freight Network. NHFP eligible projects must contribute to the movement of freight on the National Highway Freight Network and be identified in a freight investment plan included in the state’s freight plan. The FAST Act directs

8 Congressional Budget Office. Status of the Highway Trust Fund Based on CBO’s August 2016 Baseline. September 9, 2016. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52307 9Office of Financial Management. June 2017 Transportation Economic and Revenue Forecasts Volume II: Detailed Forecast Tables http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget/info/June17transpovol2.pdf 10 National Highway Freight Program. 23 U.S.C. § 167 http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:23%20section:167%20edition:prelim)



FHWA to apportion funding as a lump sum for each state, then divide that total among apportioned programs. For the 2016 federal fiscal year, $1.150 billion in total funding was authorized.

WSDOT published a prioritized freight project list in October 2016.11 WSDOT reviewed each submitted project for eligibility, and categorized projects into three tiers based on scheduled year of preliminary engineering, right of way, or construction activities. Tier 1 is composed of projects scheduled from July 2016 to June 2018 and includes 101 projects amounting to $1.89 billion in funding requests. WSDOT validated this project list during the development of the 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan and published the project list in the 2017 Freight Investment Plan, found in Appendix A. For fiscal year 2017, FHWA apportioned $18.3 million in NHFP funds to Washington.12

Exhibit 1-3: Estimated NHFP Funding Apportionment for Washington

Year Funding

2016 $19.3 million

2017 $18.3 million

2018 $17.9 million

2019 $20.3 million

2020 $13.6 million

The Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program provides flexible funding that may be used by states and localities for projects to preserve and improve conditions and performance on any federal-aid highway, bridge and tunnel projects on any public road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects, including intercity bus terminals. The movement of freight benefits from improved roadway, bridge, and tunnel conditions and performance.

The FAST Act directs FHWA to apportion STBG funding as a lump sum for each state, then divide that total among apportioned programs. For fiscal year 2017, FHWA apportioned approximately $186 million in STBG funds to Washington.13 WSDOT allocates funds from the STBG program to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) and county lead agencies for prioritizing and selecting projects that align with their regional priorities, which can include freight projects. WSDOT also sets delivery targets for each MPO and county lead agency. In fiscal year 2016, WSDOT allocated $98.5 million in STBG funds to eligible agencies.14

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), also part of the FAST Act, is a federal aid program with the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious

11 WSDOT. Prioritized Freight Project List. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/LegReports/15-17/2016PrioritizedFreightProjectList.pdf 12 Office of Financial Management. June 2017 Transportation Economic and Revenue Forecasts Volume II: Detailed Forecast Tables http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget/info/June17transpovol2.pdf 13 Ibid 14 WSDOT. 2016 Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program – Final. April 26, 2016. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/1CF6C4A7-5860-4351-A9E8-CBF9BE4293B1/0/FinalFFY2016STBG.pdf



injuries on all public roads, including non-state-owned roads and roads on tribal lands. Included in HSIP are funds for the Railway-Highway Crossings Program, which provides for the elimination of hazards and the installation of protective devices at railway-highway crossings. Washington received $35.4 million in HSIP funds in 2016.

WSDOT Local Programs administers Washington’s share of local HSIP funds for local jurisdictions, which includes three federal safety funding programs: the county safety program, the city safety program, and the innovative safety program. In 2016, WSDOT awarded funding to 33 innovative safety program projects (20 projects in 16 cities and 13 projects in nine counties), totaling $24.8 million.15 For fiscal year 2017, FHWA has apportioned $53 million in HSIP funds to Washington, with half of those funds going to local jurisdictions, and an additional $4.2 million for railway-highway crossings. 16

The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program17 provides funding to transportation-related environmental projects for states, metropolitan planning organizations, and other sponsors. The FAST Act provides $2.3 to $2.5 billion in CMAQ funding each year to areas in nonattainment or maintenance status for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. FHWA has apportioned $36.6 million in CMAQ funding to Washington for fiscal year 2017. 18 WSDOT allocates CMAQ funds to the five MPOs representing maintenance areas in Washington.19 Exhibit 1-4 represents the estimated funding allocation for fiscal year 2017.

15 WSDOT. Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program Funding. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/Traffic/FedSafety.htm 16 Office of Financial Management. June 2017 Transportation Economic and Revenue Forecasts Volume II: Detailed Forecast Tables http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget/info/June17transpovol2.pdf

17 Federal Highway Administration. CMAQ Program. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/ 18 Office of Financial Management. June 2017 Transportation Economic and Revenue Forecasts Volume II: Detailed Forecast Tables http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget/info/June17transpovol2.pdf 19 WSDOT. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality. https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/ProgramMgmt/CMAQ.htm



Exhibit 1-4: Estimated CMAQ funding in Washington (FY 2017)

Metropolitan Planning Organization

Total Funding Percent of Funding

Puget Sound Regional Council $25,903,842 79%

Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council

$3,019,044 9%

Spokane Regional Transportation Council

$3,333,999 10%

Thurston Regional Planning Council

$364,325 1%

Yakima Valley Council of Governments

$350,847 1%

Total $32,972,057* 100% Source: Washington State Department of Transportation20 Notes: *Total does not match the amount apportioned by FHWA in FY 2017 because the data in the table represents an estimate based on prior history. Funding will be allocated based on the final total CMAQ funding apportioned to the state.

The Metropolitan Planning program establishes a cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive framework for making transportation investment decisions in metropolitan areas. The program institutes metropolitan planning requirements that affect freight, including identifying funding strategies to meet transportation infrastructure needs, considering system resiliency, and identifying congestion management opportunities. In federal fiscal year 2017, FHWA apportioned $7.4 million in metropolitan planning funds to Washington. 21

The FAST Act continued the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP), which provides support for the condition and performance of the National Highway System, which supports freight movement. NHPP funds can also be used for construction of new facilities on the National Highway System, and to ensure that progress continues toward achieving performance targets established by the state’s asset management plan. FHWA apportioned $365.0 million in NHPP funds to Washington for federal fiscal year 2017. 22

Established by the FAST Act, the Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of National Efficiencies (FASTLANE) grant program23 is competitive and nationwide, and specific to freight projects. It provides dedicated, discretionary funding for projects that address critical freight issues. Funding is authorized from 2016 to 2020, averaging $900 million annually. In 2016, FHWA administered the program as Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of National Efficiencies (FASTLANE). The program is now being administered by the Build America Bureau as the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) program. INFRA advances the pre-existing grant

20 WSDOT. 2017 Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) – Estimate. February 2, 2017. https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/AC24283B-9EDD-4B68-8443-53B32CC339FF/0/EstimatedFFY2017CMAQ.pdf 21 Office of Financial Management. June 2017 Transportation Economic and Revenue Forecasts Volume II: Detailed Forecast Tables http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget/info/June17transpovol2.pdf 22 Ibid 23 United States Department of Transportation Build America Bureau. FASTLANE Grants. https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/FASTLANEgrants



program, by updating project criteria, leveraging capital and allowing innovation in project delivery. Projects in Washington that received funding to date from this program are shown in Exhibit 1-5.

Exhibit 1-5: FASTLANE Funding Awarded in Washington

Year Project Project Owner FASTLANE Funding Totals

2016 South Lander Street Grade Separation and Railroad Safety

City of Seattle $45 million $140 million

2016 Strander Boulevard Extension and Grade Separation Phase 3

City of Tukwila $5 million $38 million

2017 Northern Columbia Basin Railroad

Port of Moses Lake $9.9 million $32 million

Source: United States Department of Transportation Build America Bureau24

The Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program25 is a competitive and nationwide program, which leverages matching funding from private sector partners, states, local governments, metropolitan planning organizations and transit agencies. The 12 projects with freight benefits in Washington that received funding from this program are shown in Exhibit 1-6.

Exhibit 1-6: TIGER Funding Awarded in Washington

Project Fiscal Year TIGER funding

US-395 North Spokane Corridor 2009 $35 million

Mercer Corridor Redevelopment 2009 $30 million

South Park Bridge Replacement (Seattle) 2010 $34 million

West Vancouver Freight Access 2010 $10 million

East Foster Wells Road Extension (Franklin County) 2010 $1 million

I-5 Lewis-McChord Area Congestion Management 2011 $15 million

Mercer Corridor West Reconstruction 2012 $14 million

North Spokane Corridor Railroad Realignment 2012 $10 million

Tacoma Trestle Replacement 2013 $10 million

Port of Seattle Terminal 46 Rehabilitation 2014 $20 million

Makah Tribe Oil Spill Response Access Dock Plan 2014 $1 million

Port of Everett South Terminal Modernization 2016 $10 million Source: United States Department of Transportation26

24 United States Department of Transportation Build America Bureau. FASTLANE Grants Awarded. Updated September 7, 2016. https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/fastlanegrants/fastlane-grants-awarded 25 United States Department of Transportation. TIGER Discretionary Grants. Updated January 20, 2017. https://www.transportation.gov/tiger 26 United States Department of Transportation. TIGER Discretionary Grants. Updated January 20, 2017. https://www.transportation.gov/tiger



1.2.3 Federal Railroad Administration

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)27 is concerned with the safe, efficient, and reliable transport of people and goods via rail, including freight rail transportation. FRA issues, implements and enforces safety regulations; selects investments in rail corridors nationwide; and conducts research and technology development.

FRA supports freight railroads through a variety of grant and loan programs to develop safety improvements, relieve congestion, and encourage expansion and upgrades of freight rail infrastructure and services. The following grant programs have opportunities for freight rail applications.

Administered jointly between FRA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Positive Train Control (PTC) grant program28 funds the installation of PTC systems required under the Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2008, and amended by the PTC Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015. There is $199 million available for eligible projects. Of the $199 million authorized by the federal government, $197 million was awarded to 17 projects in 13 states, of which Washington was not included. FRA reviewed and selected applications for funding, while the FTA administers and manages the grants.29

The Railroad Safety Infrastructure Improvement grant program30 makes $25 million in discretionary funding available for safety improvements to railroad infrastructure. States, local governments, and passenger and freight railroad carriers are eligible applicants for funding. Eligible projects include those that make safety improvements to railroad infrastructure and include the acquisition, improvement, or rehabilitation of intermodal or rail equipment, or facilities.

1.2.4 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)31 aims to prevent commercial motor vehicle-related fatalities and injuries. FMCSA is responsible for regulating and providing safety oversight of commercial motor vehicles in order to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities. FMCSA partners with a variety of organizations to improve safety through regulation, education, enforcement, research, and technology. FMCSA also administers a variety of grant opportunities for applicants working on commercial motor vehicle safety activities.

27 Federal Railroad Administration. About FRA. https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0002 28 81 FR 50047. Notice of Funding Opportunity for FY 2017 Positive Train Control Grant Funds, July 29, 2016. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/07/29/2016-17943/notice-of-funding-opportunity-for-fy-2017-positive-train-control-grant-funds 29 Progressive Railroading. “FRA, FTC to award $197 million in PTC grants.” June 1, 2017. http://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/FRA-FTC-to-award-197-million-in-PTC-grants--51756 30 Federal Railroad Administration. FY 2016 Railroad Safety Infrastructure Improvement Grant Program. https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0935 31 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Who We Are. Updated September 30, 2016. https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mission/who



1.2.5 Maritime Administration

The Maritime Administration (MARAD)32 is an agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation that promotes the use of waterborne transportation. MARAD coordinates with partners in many areas involving ships and shipping, shipbuilding, port operations, vessel operations, national security, environment, and safety. MARAD is charged with maintaining the health of the merchant marine sector, as it is vital for supporting national security and trade.

The America’s Marine Highways grant program33 works to further incorporate marine corridors into the greater U.S. transportation system. Marine Highways are designated by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation. Benefits of this program include creating and sustaining jobs on U.S. vessels and in U.S. ports and shipyards; reducing maintenance costs on roads and bridges; and increasing economic competitiveness, environmental sustainability, public safety, system resiliency, and national security. The first round of Marine Highway Grants was awarded in 2010. MARAD periodically holds a call for projects that represent new or expanded Marine Highway services. Designated Marine Highway Projects receive preferential treatment for any future federal funding assistance from the USDOT and MARAD. MARAD also administers funds for marine projects awarded through USDOT grant programs like the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program. The most recent is the Port of Everett South Terminal Modernization Project, awarded $10 million through the TIGER program in 2016.

1.2.6 Federal Aviation Administration

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)34 supports and regulates safe, efficient air transportation, including the transportation of air cargo. FAA also administers grant programs to aid in the maintenance and improvements of the air transportation system.

FAA administers the Airport Improvement Program (AIP),35 which primarily provides grants to public agencies for the purpose of planning and development of public-use airports. To be eligible, an airport must be publicly owned, be designated by the FAA as a reliever airport, or have scheduled service and at least 2,500 enplanements. The airport must also be included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems. In fiscal year 2017, four airports in Washington are eligible for cargo airport entitlements, making for a total of $1.3 million in cargo airport entitlements. In fiscal year 2016, airports in Washington received $66.4 million in AIP grants.

1.2.7 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)36 advances the safe transportation of energy and other hazardous materials through pipelines. The agency establishes national policy, sets and enforces standards, educates, and conducts research to prevent incidents.

32 Maritime Administration. About Us. https://www.marad.dot.gov/about-us/ 33 Maritime Administration. America’s Marine Highway Program. https://www.marad.dot.gov/ships-and-shipping/dot-maritime-administration-americas-marine-highway-program/ 34 Federal Aviation Administration. https://www.faa.gov/ 35 Federal Aviation Administration. Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Grant Data https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grantapportion_data/ 36 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/



PHMSA provides grant opportunities to improve damage prevention, develop new technologies, and improve pipeline safety. Pipeline Safety Base Grants support up to 80 percent of the cost of carrying out inspections and enforcement activities on interstate pipelines.37 In 2014, Washington was awarded $1.12 million in Pipeline Safety Base Grants. The PHMSA also administers the One Call Grant Program, which provides funding to state agencies in promoting damage prevention. In 2015, Washington was awarded nearly $40,000 in One Call Grant funds. The State Damage Prevention Program awards states funding to form education and outreach programs to reinforce the importance of the “Call Before You Dig” message. Washington received approximately $71,000 to put towards these efforts in 2016.

1.2.8 Surface Transportation Board

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) is an independent adjudicatory and economic-regulatory agency. The agency has jurisdiction over railroad rate and service issues and rail restructuring transactions (mergers, line sales, line construction, and line abandonments); certain trucking company, moving van and non-contiguous ocean shipping-company rate matters; and rates and services of certain pipelines not regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The agency has authority to investigate rail service matters of regional and national significance.38

1.2.9 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is an independent agency that regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas and oil. FERC also reviews proposals to build liquefied natural gas terminals and interstate natural gas pipelines and licensing hydropower projects.39

1.2.10 US Coast Guard

The United States Coast Guard (USCG)40 is a military, multi-mission maritime force with military, law enforcement, humanitarian, regulatory and diplomatic capabilities. The USCG is responsible for an array of maritime duties, from ensuring safe and lawful commerce to performing rescue missions in severe conditions. Marine freight transportation is dependent on the USCG to provide port and waterway security by protecting marine resources and maritime commerce from internal and external threats through law enforcement. USCG protects these interests in U.S. ports and inland waterways, along the coasts and on international waters.

In addition, the USCG maintains maritime navigation aids and is responsible for ensuring the network of signs, symbols, buoys, markers, lighthouses, and regulations is up to date and functioning properly so recreational and commercial boaters can safely navigate the maritime environment.

37 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Grants. http://phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/grants 38 Surface Transportation Board. Overview of the STB. https://www.stb.gov/stb/about/overview.html 39 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. About FERC. February 3, 2017. https://www.ferc.gov/about/about.asp 40 United States Coast Guard. https://www.gocoastguard.com/



1.2.11 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)41 is responsible for dredging and maintaining federal navigation channels and maintaining the lock and dam system to support the movement of critical commodities. In addition, the USACE works diligently to strengthen the nation’s security by building and maintaining America’s infrastructure and providing military facilities where service members train, work, and live.

Administered by the USACE, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF) funds new construction and major rehabilitation of priority navigation projects on the nation’s inland waterways system. The IWTF has partially funded projects in Washington, including the construction of the Bonneville Lock and Dam on the Columbia River and a Plan of Study laying out the scope, schedule, and budget to complete technical studies and a decision-making process concerning breaching the lower four Snake River dams.42

1.2.12 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)43 has a complex mission at ports of entry with broad law enforcement authorities tied to screening all foreign visitors, American citizens returning home, and imported cargo that enters the U.S. at more than 300 land, air, and sea ports.

An important part of the CBP mission includes the facilitation of legitimate trade. In addition to its own regulations, CBP enforces over 400 laws on behalf of over 40 other U.S. government agencies. A large number of these import restrictions and requirements are designed to protect the American people from dangerous and illegal goods. CBP has undertaken a number of initiatives, such as the use of non-intrusive inspectional technology, to increase its ability to examine cargo effectively without slowing the flow of trade, which plays a significant part in the U.S. economy.44

1.3 The State of Washington State level agencies and organizations have roles in freight transportation. Exhibit 1-7 summarizes the main roles and responsibilities of freight-related institutions in Washington.

Exhibit 1-7: Summary of Freight Roles and Responsibilities by Agency

Agency Infrastructure Grant Programs Policy/Regulatory Enforcement

State Legislature X X

Washington State Department of Transportation

X X X

Freight Mobility X X

41 US Army Corps of Engineers. About Us. http://www.usace.army.mil/About/ 42 US Army Corps of Engineers. Trust Fund Projects. http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/Inland-Waterways-Users-Board/Trust-Fund-Projects/ 43 US Customs and Border Protection. https://www.cbp.gov/ 44 US Customs and Border Protection. Cargo Examination. May 15, 2017. https://www.cbp.gov/



Agency Infrastructure Grant Programs Policy/Regulatory Enforcement and Strategic Investment Board

Transportation Improvement Board

X

Washington State Patrol

X X

Washington State Transportation Commission

X

Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission

X X X

County Road Administration Board

X

State funds help maintain, preserve, and enhance the freight transportation system in Washington. More than 80 percent of state transportation revenue is from the motor vehicle fuel tax and licenses, permits, fees and abstracts, all of which have set rates. While these revenue sources respond to changes in population, use of fuel, vehicle ownership, or other factors, they do not change with inflation. The state receives approximately 80 percent of the total transportation revenues collected; while the other 20 percent of the transportation tax revenues are distributed directly to cities, counties, and other agencies for roadway programs that are not part of the state highway system. The Washington State Legislature instituted two gasoline tax increases over the past decade: the 7-cent increase in 2015 and the 4.9-cent increase in 2016. The total gasoline tax rate has been 49.4 cents per gallon since July 1, 2016.

State transportation revenues are limited, committed, and do not keep up with inflation and growing demands on the system. Current funding levels are not adequate to meet basic maintenance and operation needs in Washington. When adjusted for inflation, the purchasing power of state fuel tax revenues has decreased significantly over the past decade.

1.3.1 Washington State Legislature

The Washington State Legislature creates new laws, changes existing laws, and enacts budgets for the state. The Joint Transportation Committee of the House and Senate (JTC) conducts studies related to freight. The Legislature has adopted Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 489-14-380, which defines hours-of-service (HOS) requirements for intrastate drivers.

The 2017-2019 transportation budget operational appropriation for JTC is $3.79 billion.. As a condition of funding in this bill, the JTC must study best practices for marine pilotage that includes recommendations for improvements. The JTC must also study air cargo movements in the state that examines capacity and congestion.



1.3.2 Washington State Department of Transportation

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is a cabinet-level state agency, and the Secretary of Transportation is appointed directly by the governor. WSDOT is charged with operating and improving the state’s transportation systems (RCW 47.01) and the agency’s core mission is to keep people and business moving. WSDOT’s newly adopted strategic plan goals include effectively managing strategic investments, optimizing modal integration, promoting environmental stewardship, strengthening community engagement, and improving smart technology. WSDOT is responsible for maintaining, preserving, and improving the statewide, multimodal freight transportation system, which includes key freight responsibilities listed in Exhibit 1-8.

Exhibit 1-8: Key WSDOT Freight Responsibilities

Highways and Bridges Rail: Freight & Passenger Program ● Nearly 18,500 state highway lane miles

and over 2,000 lane miles of ramps and special use lanes

● 244 lane miles of a planned 369-mile HOV freeway system

● Over 3,800 bridges and structures

● Freight Rail Grant & Loan Program ● Palouse River and Coulee City (PCC) railroad

system in Eastern Washington ● Washington Grain Train Program ● Amtrak Cascades state passenger rail program

Ferries Aviation ● 23 ferry vessels, 20 terminals, 450 daily

departures ● 16 WSDOT-managed airports (nine state-owned,

three operated by special use permit, three leased, one operated through a right of entry)

Within WSDOT, the freight program of the Rail, Freight, and Ports Division is responsible for:

Developing the 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan to meet new federal and state requirements.

Building regional participation and support for the plan and other freight efforts by strengthening relationships and coordination efforts within WSDOT and with external freight partners.

Aligning strategic goals with those of WSDOT and the Governor's Office and providing counsel to WSDOT executives, the Governor’s Office, and the Legislature on freight policies and programs.

Promoting freight safety through research, public education, and outreach and freight projects.

Identifying, pursuing, and administering freight funding sources. Supporting freight operations, priorities, and initiatives by pursuing implementation of

recommendations in the 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan. Developing cross-functional solutions to meet freight carriers’, shippers’, and goods

receivers’ performance goals.

WSDOT receives state funds (including taxes and fees), bonds, federal funds, and local funds. WSDOT’s portion of the state transportation budget pays for operating expenses and capital costs, including maintaining, preserving, and improving the highway system, operating ferries, as well as debt service.



The 2017-2019 transportation budget operational appropriation for WSDOT is $10.5 million. Freight-related conditions and limitations include the following:

Update the state freight plan. Improve signage for low-height bridges as a high priority. Develop low-cost enhancement projects that improve safety or provide congestion

relief.

The 2017-2019 transportation budget capital appropriation for WSDOT is $3.79 billion. Funding is identified for specific transportation corridors and bridges important for freight. Freight-related conditions and limitations include the following:

Administer the freight rail funding rail programs Administer a rail crossing safety program Validate projects on the 2016 Freight Project List

The Connecting Washington45 program is a multimodal transportation system investment funded primarily by the gas tax increases that occurred in 2015 and 2016 and totaled an 11.9- cent increase. In addition to fuel tax increases, the 2015 revenue package also increased certain licenses, permits and fees. The 2015 Connecting Washington funding package is a $16 billion investment over the next 16 years. Freight projects in this investment package are included in the following: $9.4 billion for state highways and local roads; $1.4 billion for state highway maintenance, operations, and preservation; $1.3 billion for non-highway projects such as bike paths, walkways, rail, and transit; and $602 million for ferries and terminals. An additional $300 million was provided for fish barrier improvements.

Connecting Washington is funding, and will fund, a variety of impactful projects, many with freight benefits. Exhibit 1-9 shows how funding is currently allocated to different project programs. There are multiple projects funded within each project program, which represent the interests of diverse transportation stakeholders across the state.46

Exhibit 1-9: Connecting Washington Programs

Project Program Total Funding

Highway Management & Facilities $52 million

Highway Improvements $9.2 billion

Highway Preservation $1.3 billion

Washington State Ferries Capital Program $319 million

Rail Program $174 million

Freight Rail - Track Improvements $107 million

Freight Rail - Track Preservation $300 thousand

Freight Rail - Grant Program $31 million

Passenger Rail - Track Improvements $35 million

45 WSDOT. Connecting Washington. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Funding/CWA/ 46 Washington State Legislature. Connecting Washington Projects. http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/budget/leapdocs/2015LEAPTranspoDoc2015NL1.pdf



Project Program Total Funding

Local Programs $689 million

WSDOT administers two programs that support freight rail in the state47: The Freight Rail Investment Bank (FRIB) and the Freight Rail Assistance Program (FRAP). Funding for these programs comes from the state Legislature. When funding becomes available, WSDOT solicits a call for projects and selects the freight projects that will be funded.

The FRIB program is a loan program available to the public sector, including cities, counties, and ports. This program is intended either for smaller projects or as a small part of a larger project, where state funds would enable the project to be completed. This loan program is open to organizations in the public sector only, as loans to the private sector are not allowed by the state constitution. The loan maximum is $250,000, but could be higher depending on the amount of qualifying applications received and the caliber of proposed projects. Additionally, all applicants must provide a minimum 20 percent match. In the 2017-2019 biennium, Gov. Jay Inslee and the Washington State Legislature allocated $5 million for the FRIB program. The call for projects received one application from the Port of Everettt; that project was awarded $5 million. Exhibit 1-10 shows the project that received this funding.

Exhibit 1-10: Freight Rail Investment Bank Projects in 2017-2019 Biennium

Recipient Funding

Port of Everett $5,000,000

The FRAP is a grant program open to applicants in both the public and private sector. This program is directed toward larger projects where it is difficult to gain a contribution and where the rail location or the project is of strategic importance to the local community and the state. It is not restricted in the size of award. The Legislature determines how those funds will be spent based upon the applications submitted through WSDOT. The Legislature may choose to increase or decrease the actual funding made available. This grant program is open to cities, county rail districts, counties, economic development councils, port districts, and privately or publicly owned railroads. Projects must be shown to maintain or improve the freight rail system in the state and benefit the state's interests. Gov. Jay Inslee and the Washington State Legislature allocated $7.04 million for freight rail assistance projects during the 2017–2019 biennium. Exhibit 1-11 shows prior projects that were awarded FRAP grant funding during the 2015-2017 biennium budget.

Exhibit 1-11: Freight Rail Assistance Program Projects in 2017-2019 Biennium

Recipient Funding

Clark County Chelatchie Prairie RR $400,000

Tidewater $1,611,657

Yakima Central Railway $405,000

47 WSDOT. State Rail Grant and Loan Programs. https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Freight/Rail/GrantandLoanPrograms



Recipient Funding

Washington and Idaho Railway $698,800

Port of Pend Oreille $571,725

Columbia Basin Railroad $600,000

Central Washington Railroad

– Gibbon to Sunnyside

– Sunnyside to Granger

$700,000*

Puget Sound and Pacific Railroad $338,628

Kennewick Terminal $304,740

Kettle Falls International Railway $1,000,000

Eastern Washington Gateway

Railway

$409,450

* Only part of the request was granted.

1.3.3 Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board

The Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB)48 was created by the Legislature in 1998 (RCW 47.06A.030) to implement the state's freight mobility strategic investment program. FMSIB was directed to solicit, review, evaluate, and prioritize freight projects from public entities. FMSIB is comprised of 12 members representing various aspects of the state and transportation system including cities, counties, ports, railroads, trucking, shipping, the general public, the Office of Financial Management, and WSDOT. FMSIB is the administering agency for two freight mobility accounts in the State Treasury: the Freight Mobility Investment Account and the Freight Mobility Multimodal Account. Both accounts receive a statutory transfer of $6 million each biennium.

Gov. Jay Inslee and the Washington State Legislature supported an increase in funding for FMSIB as part of the recent transportation package. An estimated $10 million will be available in 2017-2019 and $18 million to $23 million is anticipated in 2019-2021. After selection, FMSIB works with project sponsors to assist them with partnership development and agreements.49

FMSIB is scheduled to receive an additional $123 million through 2031 from the Connecting Washington transportation revenue package passed in 2015. FMSIB currently maintains an active project list of 20 projects worth $378.4 million with the FMSIB contribution at $70.9 million. FMSIB also has a deferred project list of 18 projects, some of which date back to the inception of FMSIB in 1998.

Funding for FMSIB is included in the state’s transportation budget. The capital funding supports the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Program, a competitive grant program. The 2017-2019 transportation budget operational appropriation for FMSIB is $818,000. As a condition of funding

48 Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board. http://www.fmsib.wa.gov/ 49 House Bill Report HB 2599. http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/2599%20HBR%20PL%2016.pdf



in this bill, FMSIB must manage and update the road-rail conflicts database produced by a recent JTC study.

The 2017-2019 transportation budget capital appropriation for FMSIB is $50.7 million. FMSIB issues a call for projects every two years to maintain a 6-year list of active projects. These freight corridor projects are cross-jurisdictional and often serve cities, counties, port districts, and freight carriers, including railroads and trucking companies. FMSIB’s grant program can also help fund WSDOT projects.

1.3.4 Transportation Improvement Board

The Legislature created the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB)50 in 1988 (RCW 47.26.121) to foster state investment in quality local transportation projects. TIB provides both grant funding and technical assistance to local governments. TIB is a 21-member board composed of six city members, six county members (member from County Road Administration Board, or CRAB, is ex officio), two WSDOT officials, two transit representatives, a private sector representative, a member representing the ports, a governor’s appointee, a member representing non-motorized transportation, and a member representing special needs transportation. Board members are appointed by the Secretary of Transportation, with the exception of the CRAB representative and the governor's appointee.

Funding for TIB is included in the state’s transportation budget and comes from the revenue generated by three cents of the statewide gas tax, directed to cities and counties for transportation projects. The 2017-2019 transportation budget operational appropriation for TIB is $4.08 million. The 2017-2019 transportation budget capital appropriation for TIB is $93.4 million. TIB grants fund high priority transportation projects in communities throughout the state to enhance the movement of people and goods. Each grant program has its own set of criteria used to rate project applications.

1.3.5 Washington State Patrol

The Washington State Patrol (WSP)51 is a cabinet-level state agency whose core mission is public safety on the highway system. The WSP chief is appointed by the governor. The WSP enforces state law on highways and investigates crashes. The Commercial Vehicle Division of the WSP is responsible for enforcement of truck safety regulations in the state. WSDOT works closely with the WSP on truck and passenger safety programs and policies. The WSP operates the system of weight and inspection stations in Washington.

The WSP is funded from the state transportation and general fund budgets. The 2017-2019 transportation budget operational appropriation is $500 million. As a condition of funding, WSP and WSDOT are tasked with developing a prioritized list of weigh station projects.

1.3.6 Washington State Transportation Commission

The Washington State Transportation Commission (WSTC)52 consists of seven members appointed by the governor for 6-year terms. The Secretary of Transportation and a

50 State of Washington Transportation Improvement Board. http://www.tib.wa.gov/ 51 Washington State Patrol. http://www.wsp.wa.gov/ 52 Washington State Transportation Commission. http://wstc.wa.gov/



representative from the Governor's Office are ex-officio members. The Commission provides a public forum for transportation policy development, reviews and assesses how the transportation system is working, and develops the 20-year Washington State Transportation Plan. The Commission also acts as the state tolling authority, responsible for adopting all state highway and bridge tolls and setting fares for Washington State Ferries.

Funding for the Commission is included in the state’s transportation budget. The 2017-2019 transportation budget operational appropriation for WSTC is $2.53 million. The Commission does not fund transportation projects or programs.

1.3.7 Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission

The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC)53 is a 3-member commission appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate. The mission of the UTC is to protect consumers by ensuring that utility and transportation services are fairly priced, available, reliable, and safe. The UTC’s freight-related responsibilities include regulation and safety issues related to railroads and pipelines.

The 2017-2019 transportation budget operational appropriation for UTC is $1.6 million. These funds are directed to the Grade Crossing Protective Fund that provides grants to railroad companies, local governments, and other agencies that propose to make safety improvements at a railroad crossing or along a railroad right of way. The UTC is primarily funded through the state public service revolving account, along with the pipeline safety account and state general funds. The UTC also receives federal funding in the form of grants, such as through the State Damage Prevention Program.

1.3.8 County Road Administration Board

The County Road Administration Board (CRAB)54 was created by the Legislature in 1965 to provide statutory oversight of the 39 county road departments in Washington (RCW 36.78.030). CRAB’s oversight and distribution of motor fuel tax revenues ensures that these funds are used exclusively for highway purposes, per the state constitution’s 18th Amendment. The 9-member board meets quarterly and is comprised of six county commissioners/council members and three county engineers all appointed by the Board of Directors of the Washington State Association of Counties. The board establishes and maintains "Standards of Good Practice" to guide and ensure consistency and professional management of county road departments.

Funding for CRAB is included in the state’s transportation budget. The 2017-2019 transportation budget operational appropriation for CRAB is $5.06 million. The 2017-2019 transportation budget capital appropriation for CRAB is $94.3 million. CRAB administers the programs shown in Exhibit 1-12.

Exhibit 1-12: CRAB Grant Programs

53 Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission. https://www.utc.wa.gov/Pages/Default.aspx 54 County Road Administration Board. https://www.crab.wa.gov/



Program 2017-2019 Funding

Rural Arterial Program55 $64.7 million

County Arterial Preservation Program $35.4 million

County Ferry Capital Improvement Program (Pierce, Skagit, Wahkiakum, Whatcom)

Can be initiated every four years

1.4 Regional and Local Governments At a regional and local level, many different governments and agencies have responsibilities related to freight movement. Exhibit 1-13 summarizes the roles of these local governments and agencies. These agencies may choose to allocate funding toward freight related activities, or apply for grants to fund freight projects.

Exhibit 1-13: Summary of Freight Roles and Responsibilities by Agency

Agency Infrastructure Grant

Programs Policy/Regulatory Enforcement

Counties/Cities Yes Yes Yes Yes

Tribes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ports Yes Yes Yes Yes

MPOs/RTPOs Yes Yes

1.4.1 Tribal Governments

There are 29 federally recognized tribes in Washington. Of the 5,700 miles of road within or providing access to Indian Reservations and communities, 1,729 miles are under the jurisdiction of a Tribe or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Tribes are responsible for the planning, construction, maintenance, and management of their transportation and transit facilities. Tribes also coordinate project development and construction in partnership with state and local jurisdictions for roads within or providing access to reservation or tribal communities.

A total of 23 tribes have fuel tax agreements with the State of Washington. Through these agreements, the state refunds a portion of the fuel tax sold by tribally owned stations on the reservation or tribal trust lands. In accordance with their agreements, Tribes may only expend fuel tax proceeds on: planning, construction, and maintenance of roads, bridges, and boat ramps; transit services and facilities; transportation planning; public safety; or other highway-related purposes.

1.4.2 Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are federally mandated transportation planning organizations made up of representatives from local government and governmental

55 County Road Administration Board. Rural Arterial Program. http://www.crab.wa.gov/Funding/Grants/Projects/spSpendPlan.cfm



transportation authorities in urbanized areas with populations of 50,000 or more. There are 12 MPOs in Washington: six in eastern Washington and six in western Washington. Three of the MPOs are bi-state: one with Idaho and two with Oregon.

Statewide and metropolitan transportation planning processes are governed by federal law (23 U.S.C. §§ 134–135). The metropolitan planning process includes development of a transportation plan, with at least a 20-year planning horizon, that includes both long- and short-range strategies leading to development of an integrated multimodal transportation system. MPOs are also required to develop regional Transportation Improvement Programs that must contain all projects utilizing federal transportation funds, as well as any regionally significant projects in the area covered by the MPO, regardless of funding source. State law (RCW 47.80.020) requires that Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs) be the same organization as that designated as the MPO. As a result, MPOs and RTPOs serve the same basic transportation planning functions – develop a long-range plan, coordinate within a region, and prepare a transportation improvement program. The lead agency for a RTPO is also the lead agency for the MPO within the region.

USDOT provides funding to the MPOs for transportation planning purposes. The funding is appropriated to states through FHWA (metropolitan planning funding) and Federal Transit Administration (5303 funding) and is allocated by the state to the MPOs by formula. MPOs with urbanized populations over 200,000 also receive federal Surface Transportation Program funding as well as federal Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) funding, which are both allocated by WSDOT as required by federal statute. Federal CMAQ funds are also allocated by WSDOT as required by federal statute to five MPOs representing air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas for transportation projects and programs that help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. MPOs are responsible for selecting projects to receive these federal funds and ensuring that transportation projects in each region are meeting regional policies and federal and state requirements.

1.4.3 Regional Transportation Planning Organizations

There are 14 RTPOs in Washington, authorized by the Washington State Legislature as part of the 1990 Growth Management Act to ensure local and regional coordination of transportation plans.56 They are formed through the voluntary association of local governments within a county or within geographically contiguous counties. RTPO duties include preparing and periodically updating a transportation strategy for the region addressing alternative transportation modes and transportation demand management measures in regional corridors. Each RTPO prepares a regional transportation plan and develops a regional transportation improvement program that proposes regionally significant transportation projects and programs and transportation demand management measures.

RTPOs are partly funded through the state’s transportation budget, with funding amounts allocated as follows:

56 WSDOT. Regional Transportation Planning.

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/Regional/Default.htm



A base amount per county for each county within each RTPO, to be distributed by the lead planning agency;

An amount to be distributed to each RTPO lead planning agency on a per capita basis; and

An amount to be administered by WSDOT as a discretionary grant program for special regional planning projects, including grants to allow counties with significant interests in common to participate in another region’s planning efforts.

RTPOs receive federal TAP funding allocated by WSDOT.

1.4.4 Counties

There are 39 counties in Washington responsible for managing 80,618 lane miles of roads and approximately 3,264 bridges in the unincorporated areas across the state. Counties may operate airports, ferries, rail districts and provide transit services. Counties may have other responsibilities that influence freight, such as law enforcement, land use planning, and zoning.

Counties receive their share of the state motor vehicle fuel tax through CRAB. A large share of county transportation funding comes from local revenues, primarily the county road levy, which is a property tax.

1.4.5 Cities

Cities and towns are responsible for almost 38,000 lane miles of streets and approximately 676 bridges in the 281 incorporated municipalities of the state. Cities with populations of less than 5,000 often have very limited local resources and rely on state assistance to preserve their system. Cities with populations over 25,000 are responsible for signalization, general maintenance, and capacity improvements to state highways serving as their main streets. Freight policy for most cities is incorporated into the transportation planning goals and tied to level of service standards established by each city.

State gas tax revenues are distributed to cities on a per capita basis; the city share is 2.96 cents per gallon. Approximately 20 to 25 percent of city transportation funds come from state gas tax, state transportation grant funds, and federal grant funds. The remaining 75 to 80 percent of a city transportation budget comes from general purpose local revenue sources, such as property taxes, sales tax, and business and utility taxes. Transportation needs compete with other general fund priorities, such as fire and police, for limited local resources.

1.4.6 Ports

The 75 port districts in Washington are authorized by RCW 53.04, and each port is governed by three to five elected commissioners. Specific authorities granted by the Legislature make public ports the only public agencies whose primary purpose is economic development. Ports create jobs and economic growth by owning and operating or leasing shipping terminals, marinas and docks, airports, industrial sites, railroads, and parks and recreational facilities.

Ports in Washington have the authority to levy property taxes on land within the port districts as well as issue revenue bonds that can be used to provide funds for carrying out all port district powers. Funding is used to improve port operations, and can be used for a variety of activities



including: acquisition, construction, reconstruction, maintenance, repair, additions and operation of port properties and facilities, engineering, inspection, accounting, fiscal, and legal expenses.

The port districts operate 11 deep draft ports, seven inland marine ports on the Columbia-Snake River System served by barge, and 32 airports. Three of the 32 airports (Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, King County International Airport/Boeing Field, and Spokane International Airport) handle over 99 percent of air freight cargo in the state.

1.5 Organizational Partnerships WSDOT leads and actively participates in several regional organizations that are improving freight mobility. Some of these partnerships are listed below.

1.5.1 Washington State Freight Advisory Committee

In January 2013, FMSIB created the Washington State Freight Advisory Committee (WAFAC) as directed by Section 1117 in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). WAFAC is responsible for participating and advising WSDOT in the development of the state freight plan. WAFAC consists of representatives from a cross-section of public and private sector freight stakeholders, including ports, shippers, carriers, freight-related associations, the freight industry workforce, the state transportation department, and local governments. WAFAC also actively seeks input from retail, wholesale, service industry, manufacturing, agricultural, and environmental stakeholders to help inform and shape the committee’s understanding of the issues and recommendations.

1.5.2 The Western Association of State Highway Transportation Officials

The Western Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (WASHTO) is made up of 18 member states located in the western United States. WASHTO contributes to national policies on transportation issues, advocating for legislation that supports efficient and effective transportation systems, economic competitiveness, and the environmental integrity of member states. It also provides a forum for exchanging ideas and exploring and adapting techniques, promoting quality and best practices for implementation.

1.5.3 The Great Northern Corridor Coalition

The Great Northern Corridor Coalition was awarded funding from FHWA through the Multistate Corridor Operations and Management program in 2012 and 2013. The goal of the coalition is to develop a seamless multistate freight corridor consisting of road and rail networks that promote economic growth for neighboring communities and accommodate the demand for efficient and environmentally sound transportation services. The Montana Department of Transportation is the lead agency, and Coalition members in Washington include: The Washington State Department of Transportation, Washington Public Ports Association, Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma, Port of Everett, Port of Quincy, Port of Pasco, Port of Grays Harbor, Port of Vancouver USA, and Port of Longview. The Coalition published a report in 2014 that outlined the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the Great Northern Corridor and is working on a planning level analysis of these results.



1.5.4 The North/West Passage Coalition

The North/West Passage Coalition is made up of state departments of transportation responsible for Interstates 90 and 94 between Wisconsin and Washington, which function as major corridors for commercial and recreational travel. Extreme winter weather conditions prevalent in the northern states, pose significant operational and travel-related challenges. The vision of the North/West Passage Corridor is to focus on developing effective methods for sharing, coordinating, and integrating traveler information and operational activities across state borders. The Coalition’s initiatives include a freight task force and exploring options for truck platooning on the North/West Passage.

1.5.5 The International Mobility and Trade Corridor Program

The International Mobility and Trade Corridor Program (IMTC) identifies and promotes improvements to mobility and security for the border crossings that connect Whatcom County and the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. Since 1997, IMTC has provided regional coordination on border issues and has helped assemble over $38 million (USD) from U.S. and Canadian partners to pursue shared goals. In February 2017, the IMTC published the 2015-2016 Border Freight Operations Study, which assesses the state of commercial vehicle and goods movement through the Cascade Gateway.57

1.5.6 The FAST Corridor Partnership

The FAST Corridor Partnership, administered by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), is a partnership intent on solving freight mobility problems with coordinated solutions. Membership consists of cities; counties; ports; federal, state, and regional transportation agencies; railroads; and trucking interests. Since 1998, the partners have leveraged more than $333 million in federal funding, combined with approximately $317 million in state, local, and private funds to complete 20 strategic infrastructure improvements valued at more than $650 million. The partnership currently is working to complete the five remaining FAST Corridor projects.

57 International Mobility & Trade Corridor Program. 2015-16 IMTC Border Freight Operations Study: Data Collection Report. February 2017. http://theimtc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015-16_Border_Freight_Operations_Study.pdf

i APPENDIX E: PLAN DEVELOPMENT


WASHINGTON STATE

FREIGHT SYSTEM PLAN

Appendix E: Plan Development

Contents

1.1 State freight advisory committee .................................................................................... 1

1.2 Technical work groups .................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Outreach meetings ......................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Tribal outreach ................................................................................................................ 3

1.5 Minority and low-income populations outreach .............................................................. 3

1.6 Document review ............................................................................................................ 3

Exhibits

Exhibit 1-1: Outreach meetings by region ..................................................................................... 2


1 APPENDIX E: PLAN DEVELOPMENT

APPENDIX E: PLAN DEVELOPMENT Washington’s first-ever freight plan, the 2014 Washington State Freight Mobility Plan, created a framework for freight transportation planning in the state. New requirements and opportunities were established in 2015. This plan builds upon the 2014 plan and included new networks, strategies, and investments. Outreach for this plan supplemented the relatively recent outreach performed for the 2014 Washington State Freight Mobility Plan.

1.1 State freight advisory committee The Washington State Freight Advisory Committee (WAFAC) was established as a standing committee of the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) and consists of members that represent the range of freight modes and other interests across the state.

The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) encourages states to establish a state freight advisory committee, to consist of a representative cross-section of public and private freight stakeholders. USDOT guidance states that “State Freight Advisory Committees, with comprehensive representation by public and private freight interests, are a highly effective means of gathering information on system needs and potential solutions to be included in State Freight Plans and for other planning processes at interstate and local levels.” Per federal requirements (49 USC §70201), the role of a state freight advisory committee is to:

advise the state on freight-related priorities, issues, projects, and funding needs; serve as a forum for discussion for state transportation decisions affecting freight

mobility; communicate and coordinate regional priorities with other organizations; promote the sharing of information between the private and public sectors on freight

issues; and participate in the development of the freight plan of the state.

WAFAC serves these roles in Washington.

WAFAC includes members representing the private sector, airports, cities, counties, metropolitan planning organizations, maritime businesses, ports, and railroads. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and FMSIB expanded WAFAC in 2016, based on USDOT guidance which “strongly encourages states to establish, continue, or expand membership in State Freight Advisory Committees”. The new members added to WAFAC after this guidance included federal agencies, additional ports, shippers, freight forwarders, freight carriers (i.e., short line railroads, trucking companies, and barge operators), third party logistics providers, safety partners, environmental agencies, academic organizations, and additional freight-related associations.

1.2 Technical work groups In addition to WAFAC, WSDOT reached out to other existing transportation work groups to solicit input on the 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan. Staff working on the 2017 plan gave presentations at the quarterly meetings of WSDOT’s internal freight working group. The WSDOT freight working group includes staff from all the regions around the state and headquarters staff whose work involves the freight system. At the January 2017 meeting, staff



shared the scope of work for the new plan and provided an overview of freight issues and trends from 2014 to get feedback. At the March 2017 meeting, staff shared the draft issues and trends for the 2017 plan.

WSDOT gave presentations to the WSDOT/Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)/Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) Coordinating Committee, the PSRC FAST Freight Advisory Committee, and the Seattle Freight Advisory Committee.

1.3 Outreach meetings To supplement the extensive outreach performed during development of the 2014 plan, WSDOT conducted outreach to specific organizations as staff prepared the 2017 plan.

To learn about current freight issues and trends around the state, WSDOT reached out to policy boards and technical committees of the MPOs and RTPOs across Washington. WSDOT staff working on the 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan gave joint presentations with WSDOT staff working on the Washington Transportation Plan 2035. Exhibit D-14 shows the outreach conducted to date, and future outreach planned, by region and date. Common comments and questions were related to the development of the Freight Investment Plan, freight forecasts, and truck parking.

Exhibit 1-1: Outreach meetings by region

Agency Date

QUADCO RTPO 6/1/2017

Thurston Regional Planning Council Policy Board 6/14/2017

Palouse RTPO 7/11/2017

Whatcom Council of Governments 7/12/2017

Benton-Franklin Council of Governments PAC 7/13/2017

Spokane Regional Transportation Council 7/13/2017

Yakima Valley Council of Governments 7/17/2017

Skagit Council of Governments 7/19/2017

Northeast Washington RTPO 7/26/2017

Island County RTPO 7/26/2017

Cowlitz-Wahkiakum County Council of Governments

7/27/2017

Walla Walla Valley Policy Board 8/2/2017

Chelan-Douglas Transportation Council 8/10/2017

Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council – TAC

8/18/2017

Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council – Policy Board

9/5/2017

Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council 9/7/2017

Puget Sound Regional Council 9/14/2017



Peninsula RTPO 9/22/2017

WSDOT gave presentations on the 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan to the 2017 Washington Public Ports Association Spring Meeting in May and the 2017 Pacific Northwest Waterways Association Summer Conference in June. WSDOT met with FHWA Washington Division staff regularly during development of the 2017 plan to discuss how WSDOT was developing the plan and to clarify USDOT requirements and expectations. WSDOT staff also met with several freight system stakeholders to supplement and expand upon the interviews done during preparation of the 2014 Washington State Freight Mobility Plan.

USDOT Maritime Administration (MARAD) Northwest Seaport Alliance Port of Seattle (air cargo) Boyer Towing (a barge towing company based on the Duwamish River in Seattle)

1.4 Tribal outreach WSDOT staff provided a brief overview of the 2017 Washington State Freight System Plan to the Washington Tribal Transportation Planning Organization at their quarterly meeting in January 2017 and solicited feedback from tribal representatives. In June 2017, WSDOT staff gave a presentation to the Washington Indian Transportation Policy Advisory Committee (WITPAC) and requested feedback. WSDOT distributed the draft plan to Washington tribes for their review.

1.5 Minority and low-income populations outreach WSDOT distributed the draft plan to organizations that support minority and low-income populations for feedback on how the freight system affects their constituents.

1.6 Document review WSDOT released the draft plan on Aug. 15, 2017, for a review period ending on Sept. 14, 2017. Reviewers representing 17 organizations provided more than 470 comments on the plan. WSDOT addressed these comments in the final version of the plan. Prominent themes among the comments are shown below.

Economic Vitality:

Highlight recent successes and discuss strategies to address port competitiveness Explain land use and freight transportation compatibility issues in more detail

Preservation:

Discuss oversize/overweight freight movement and its effect on the economy Include more discussion of strategies to address infrastructure funding needs

Safety:

More work needed to identify and prioritize truck parking solutions Expand at-grade crossing and road-rail conflict discussion



Mobility:

Update air cargo information and discuss factors influencing demand for air cargo services

Environment:

Consider safety rest area truck parking electrification

Stewardship:

Improve freight transportation data