research report: guidance on mitigating impacts of large ...€¦ · case studies – dc site...
TRANSCRIPT
Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. FHWA/TX-10/0-5335-1
2. Government Accession No.
3. Recipient's Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle RESEARCH REPORT: GUIDANCE ON MITIGATING IMPACTS OF LARGE DISTRIBUTION CENTERS ON TEXAS HIGHWAYS
5. Report Date September 2009 Published: January 2010
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s) Brian Bochner, P.E., Laura Higgins, and William Frawley, AICP, and Ruey Long Cheu, Ph.D., P.E.
8. Performing Organization Report No. Report 0-5335-1
9. Performing Organization Name and Address Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843-3135
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 11. Contract or Grant No. Project 0-5335
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Texas Department of Transportation Research and Technology Implementation Office P. O. Box 5080 Austin, Texas 78763-5080
13. Type of Report and Period Covered Technical Report Sept. 2007 - Aug. 2009 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes Research performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Research Project Title: Guidance on Mitigating the Impacts of Large Distribution Centers on Texas Highways, URL:http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5335-1.pdf 16. Abstract Numerous distribution centers (DCs) have been built in Texas over the past 20 years. They serve retail, grocery, oil, motor vehicle, manufacturer, and other types of business. These DCs vary in size and truck traffic. Depending on the type of DC and roads providing access, a DC will have some level of traffic operations, safety, and pavement wear impact on those roads. DC site selection often involves the DC site selector/owner/operator/developer negotiating with local agencies, including economic development agencies, to identify potential sites and obtain the best incentives. TxDOT is typically brought into the process very late and is then asked to accommodate local agency and DC owner requests without having prior input. This project assessed the DC site selection and development process as it affects TxDOT. The project also developed tools, guidelines, and strategies for gaining early collaboration with DC owners and local agencies in planning and engineering the DCs and their access and funding improvements to state highways. This project analyzed obstacles resulting in TxDOT not being involved earlier in the DC site selection process. Research products included in this report summarize the research performed and present a handbook containing tools and recommendations for working with proposed DC site selectors, developers, and others. 17. Key Words Distribution Centers, Site Selection, Highways, Site Location, Impacts, Pavements, Geometric Design, Trip Generation
18. Distribution Statement No restrictions. This document is available to the public through NTIS: National Technical Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161 http://www.ntis.gov
19. Security Classif.(of this report) Unclassified
20. Security Classif.(of this page) Unclassified
21. No. of Pages 156
22. Price
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
RESEARCH REPORT: GUIDANCE ON MITIGATING IMPACTS OF LARGE DISTRIBUTION
CENTERS ON TEXAS HIGHWAYS
by
Brian Bochner, P.E. Senior Research Engineer
Texas Transportation Institute
Laura Higgins Associate Research Scientist
Texas Transportation Institute
William Frawley, AICP Research Scientist
Texas Transportation Institute
and
Ruey Long Cheu, Ph.D. Associate Professor – Center for Transportation Infrastructure Systems
The University of Texas at El Paso
Report 0-5335-1 Project 0-5335
Research Project Title: Guidance on Mitigating the Impacts of Large Distribution Centers on Texas Highways
Sponsored by the
Texas Department of Transportation In Cooperation with the
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
September 2009 Published: January 2010
TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE
The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843-3135
v
DISCLAIMER
This research was performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The contents of this report reflect
the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented
herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official view or policies of the FHWA or
TxDOT. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
This report is not intended for construction, bidding, or permit purposes. The engineer in
charge of the project was Brian Bochner, P.E. #86721.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank the members of the Project Monitoring Committee who
collaborated on this project. Guidance was provided by Lonnie Gregorcyk (Program
Coordinator), Gary Moonshower (Project Director), and Project Advisors Duncan Stewart, Maria
Burke, Billy Goodrich, Roy Parikh, and Mark Wooldridge. The authors thank these individuals
for sharing their experience and expertise in the form of input and reviews and thank the Texas
Department of Transportation for its support of this project. The authors also wish to thank the
following researchers for their contributions to this report, including Kay Fitzpatrick, Edwin
Hard, Ryan Longmire, Dan Middleton, Curtis Morgan, and Andrew Wimsatt.
This project was conducted in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation
and the Federal Highway Administration.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... x LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xi 1. BACKGROUND AND INITIAL INTERVIEWS ...................................................... 1
FUNCTIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF DISTRIBUTION CENTERS ......................... 1 DC SITE SELECTION CRITERIA ........................................................................................... 2
Proximity to Market ................................................................................................................ 4 Site Characteristics .................................................................................................................. 4 Site Access Needs ................................................................................................................... 4 Labor Pool ............................................................................................................................... 5 Site and Infrastructure Costs ................................................................................................... 5 Incentives ................................................................................................................................ 5 Community Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 8 Annual Surveys of Corporations and Consultants by AreaDevelopment.com ....................... 9
2. LARGE DISTRIBUTION CENTERS IN TEXAS .................................................. 11 3. SITE SELECTION/NEGOTIATION EXPERIENCES IN TEXAS ...................... 17
DC OWNER RELIANCE ON TXDOT ................................................................................... 19 DC REQUESTS TO TXDOT ................................................................................................... 20 DC TRANSPORTATION ISSUES AND CONCERNS .......................................................... 21 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 23
4. CASE STUDIES – DC SITE SELECTION, IMPACTS, AND LESSONS LEARNED ................................................................................................................................... 25
CASE STUDY – ACADEMY SPORTS, KATY ..................................................................... 25 Description of Distribution Center ........................................................................................ 25 Selection of DC Sites ............................................................................................................ 27 Roadway Needs and Improvements during Development .................................................... 27 Current Access and Roadway Issues .................................................................................... 27 Lessons Learned and Potential Best Practices ...................................................................... 28 Practices to Avoid ................................................................................................................. 29
CASE STUDY – IGLOO CORPORATION, KATY ............................................................... 29 Description of Distribution Center ........................................................................................ 29 Selection of DC Site.............................................................................................................. 31 Roadway Needs and Improvements during Development .................................................... 31 Current Access and Roadway Concerns ............................................................................... 32 Lessons Learned and Potential Best Practices ...................................................................... 34 Practices to Avoid ................................................................................................................. 34
CASE STUDY 3 – BREAK-OF-BULK FACILITY IN NORTH TEXAS .............................. 35 Description of Distribution Center ........................................................................................ 35 Selection of DC Location...................................................................................................... 35 Roadway Needs and Improvements during Development .................................................... 37 Current Access and Roadway Concerns ............................................................................... 37 Lessons Learned and Potential Best Practices ...................................................................... 38
viii
Practices to Avoid ................................................................................................................. 38 CASE STUDY 4 – RETAIL DC IN NORTH TEXAS ............................................................ 38
Description of Distribution Center ........................................................................................ 38 Selection of DC Location...................................................................................................... 38 Roadway Needs and Improvements during Development .................................................... 39 Current Access and Roadway Concerns ............................................................................... 40 Lessons Learned and Potential Best Practices ...................................................................... 40
CASE STUDY 5 – MANUFACTURER DISTRIBUTION CENTERS IN NORTH TEXAS .......................................................................................................................... 40
Description of Distribution Center ........................................................................................ 40 Selection of DC Site Location .............................................................................................. 41 Roadway Needs and Improvements during Development .................................................... 41 Current Access and Roadway Issues .................................................................................... 41 Lessons Learned and Potential Best Practices ...................................................................... 41 Practices to Avoid ................................................................................................................. 42
CASE STUDY 6 – RETAIL DC IN WEST TEXAS ............................................................... 42 Description of Distribution Center ........................................................................................ 42 Selection of DC Location...................................................................................................... 42 Roadway Needs and Improvements during Development .................................................... 43 Current Access and Roadway Concerns ............................................................................... 44 Lessons Learned and Potential Best Practices ...................................................................... 44 Practices to Avoid ................................................................................................................. 44
CASE STUDY 7 – CONFIDENTIAL DISTRIBUTION CENTER, SOUTHEAST TEXAS .......................................................................................................................... 44
Site Selection and Site Selection Criteria ............................................................................. 44 Requested Improvements ...................................................................................................... 45 TxDOT Concerns .................................................................................................................. 48 Current Operations and Conditions ...................................................................................... 48 Lessons Learned .................................................................................................................... 48 Potential Best Practices ......................................................................................................... 49 Practices to Avoid ................................................................................................................. 49
CASE STUDY CONCLUSIONS AND BEST PRACTICES .................................................. 49 Consistent Overriding Finding .............................................................................................. 49 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 50 Best Practices ........................................................................................................................ 51 Practices to Avoid ................................................................................................................. 55
5. YEAR-LONG DC TRAFFIC COUNT ..................................................................... 57 COUNTS COLLECTED .......................................................................................................... 57 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................ 58
Caution .................................................................................................................................. 58 Monthly Variations ............................................................................................................... 58 Daily Variations .................................................................................................................... 59 Hourly Variations.................................................................................................................. 60 Hourly Traffic Volume Profiles ............................................................................................ 62
OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................................... 64
ix
6. DC TRIP GENERATION .......................................................................................... 67 TRAFFIC COUNTS ................................................................................................................. 67 TRIP GENERATION RATES ................................................................................................. 67 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................... 72 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CAUTION ............................................................................. 72
7. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLEMENTATION .......... 73 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................... 73
Impacts .................................................................................................................................. 73 Site Selection and Access ..................................................................................................... 73 Advance Notice ..................................................................................................................... 74 Getting Involved Early .......................................................................................................... 74 Selecting Sites that Are Already Truck-Accessible .............................................................. 74
RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 75 IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................... 75
APPENDIX A – GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SITE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS FORM .................................................................................. 77 APPENDIX B – INTERVIEW SUMMARIES – DISTRIBUTION CENTERS .................. 85 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 143
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Page Figure 1. Overhead View of Academy DC Facility prior to Latest Expansion, Katy, Texas
(Source: Google Earth). ........................................................................................................ 26 Figure 2. Overhead View of Academy DC and Access to I-10. (Source: Google Earth). ........... 26 Figure 3. Overhead View of Igloo Facility (Source: Google Earth). ............................................ 30 Figure 4. Wider View of Igloo Facility and Access Routes prior to Construction of Igloo Road
Interchange (Source: Google Earth). .................................................................................... 30 Figure 5. Insufficient Turning Radius and Pavement Failure with Some Patching, Igloo Road
and US 90. ............................................................................................................................. 32 Figure 6. Pavement Failure at Igloo Road and US 90. ................................................................. 33 Figure 7. Igloo Repaved Igloo Road with Concrete Adjacent to DC Property to Protect against
Deterioration due to Tire Scraping in Tight Turns. .............................................................. 33 Figure 8. Overhead View of DC and Access Roads. .................................................................... 36 Figure 9. Wider View of DC and Access Roads. ......................................................................... 37 Figure 10. North Texas Retail DC while under Construction and Its Principal Access (Source:
Google Earth). ....................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 11. Overhead View of DC and Access Prior to Construction of New Interchange at
Intersection Just to Left of DC (Source: Google Earth). ...................................................... 43 Figure 12. DC Site Location and Access Routes (Photo Source: Google Earth). ........................ 46 Figure 13. DC Site Layout and Access Driveways (Photo Source: Google Earth). ..................... 46 Figure 14. Site Access Improvements Adjacent to Site. ............................................................... 47 Figure 15. Monthy Variations – Trucks. ....................................................................................... 58 Figure 16. Daily Variations – Truck Volumes. ............................................................................. 59 Figure 17. Daily Variations – Employee and Visitor Traffic Volumes. ....................................... 59 Figure 18. Daily Variations – Total DC Traffic Volumes. ........................................................... 60 Figure 19. Hourly Variations – Inbound and Outbound Trucks. .................................................. 61 Figure 20. Hourly Variations – Inbound and Outbound Employee/Visitor Vehicles................... 61 Figure 21. Hourly Variations – Combined Traffic. ...................................................................... 62 Figure 22. Annual Profile of Hourly Truck Traffic. ..................................................................... 63 Figure 23. Profile of Total Hourly Traffic. ................................................................................... 64 Figure 24. Daily Weekday Vehicle Trip Generation versus Gross Square Feet of DC Floor
Area.Figure 25. Weekday AM Street Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation versus Gross Square Feet of DC Floor Area. ............................................................................................. 69
Figure 25. Weekday AM Street Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation versus Gross Square Feet of DC Floor Area....................................................................................................................... 70
Figure 26. Weekday PM Street Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation versus Gross Square Feet of DC Floor Area....................................................................................................................... 70
Figure 27. Weekday AM Peak Hour of Generator Vehicle Trip Generation versus Gross Square Feet of DC Floor Area. ......................................................................................................... 71
Figure 28. Weekday PM Peak Hour of Generator Vehicle Trip Generation versus Gross Square Feet of DC Floor Area. ......................................................................................................... 71
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Page Table 1. Selected Distribution Center Site Location Factors (, ). ................................................... 3 Table 2. Selected State and Local Incentives Available for DCs in Texas (, ). .............................. 7 Table 3. Top 10 Factors in Site Selection. ...................................................................................... 9 Table 4. Selected Texas Distribution Centers over 500,000 Square Feet. .................................... 12 Table 5. Selected Large Texas Distribution Centers by TxDOT District. .................................... 15 Table 6. Distribution Center Location Types. .............................................................................. 15 Table 7. Distribution Center Access Types. ................................................................................. 15 Table 8. Trip Generation Traffic Count Summary – 7 DCs. ........................................................ 68 Table B-1. Interview Summaries – Distribution Center Representatives. .................................... 86 Table B-2. Interview Summaries – TxDOT Representatives. .................................................... 104 Table B-3. Interview Summaries – Local Agency Representatives. .......................................... 125
1
1. BACKGROUND AND INITIAL INTERVIEWS
Numerous distribution centers (DCs) have been built in Texas over the past 20 years. They serve retail, grocery, oil, motor vehicle, manufacturer, and other types of business. These DCs vary in size and truck traffic. Depending on the type of DC and roads providing access, a DC will have some level of traffic operations, safety, and pavement wear impact on those roads. DC site selection often involves the DC site selector/owner/operator/developer negotiating with local agencies, including economic development corporations, to identify potential sites and obtain the best incentives. TxDOT is typically brought into the process very late and is then asked to accommodate local agency and DC owner requests without having prior input. This report summarizes findings of a research project that provided TxDOT with an assessment of the DC site selection and development process as it affects TxDOT. The project also developed tools, guidelines, and strategies for gaining early collaboration with DC owners and local agencies in planning and engineering the DCs and their access and funding improvements to state highways. This project analyzed obstacles resulting in TxDOT not being involved earlier in the DC site selection process. Research products included this report summarize the research performed and present a handbook containing tools and recommendations for working with proposed DC site selectors, developers, and others. Information on DCs, the processes involved in site selection and development, and the experiences of local communities and TxDOT districts were collected through a review of existing resources (published reports, articles, and government documents) and telephone interviews with representatives from distribution centers located in Texas, representatives from local communities, and TxDOT district engineers and staff. Initial telephone interviews were conducted with:
• representatives of 14 distribution centers (some from the companies’ corporate offices or real estate branches, some local DC managers); some requested that individual DCs not be identified for security or confidentiality purposes;
• 11 local government representatives, plus the Governor’s Office of Economic Development; and
• 14 TxDOT representatives (district engineers, area engineers, and other staff) from 8 districts having distribution centers and from TxDOT’s Government and Public Affairs office.
Appendix A provides the Governor’s Office of Economic Development Site Location Requirements form. Individual responses to the interview questions are provided in Appendix B. FUNCTIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF DISTRIBUTION CENTERS Globalization of many parts of our economy has resulted in some fundamental changes in the supply chain for the goods we consume. Distribution and transportation have undergone major changes, especially for large retailers, but also for manufacturers and even grocery chains.
2
Goods are often transported by container, carload, or truck load from across the country and the world to major distribution centers where the loads are broken down to less than truckload lots, combined with other goods to form truckloads destined for a single retail store, and then shipped as a full truckload to retail outlets. Distribution centers are widely used in many types of high volume businesses including retail, grocery, oil, motor vehicle, and manufacturing. There are several components of distribution that interface with or are handled in the distribution system:
• Transportation – shipments into and out of distribution center; • Repackaging – breaks large quantities truckloads of similar goods or goods from one
source and repackages into smaller quantities for individual stores; • Value added – adds features to products before repackaging (e.g., apparel monograms);
and • Product dedication – may handle only selected types of products, such as refrigerated
products or tires (1). The role of DCs in the supply chain is to receive bulk shipments and process the products for shipping to retail stores as efficiently as possible (2). While DCs may serve a short-term warehousing role, most DCs are not intended to serve a major long-term warehouse function. Many DCs are hubs for just-in-time delivery to retail stores. Hence, truck movements to and from the DC can be expected to exceed those at a similar sized warehouse. Efficiency of access—both regional and local—are important for the successful site selection and operation of a DC. Information on DC site selection, transportation and infrastructure needs, and transportation issues associated with DC operation was collected via a resource review and from telephone interviews with DC representatives, local community officials, and TxDOT district and area office personnel. DC SITE SELECTION CRITERIA Major DCs may be located within metropolitan areas, in small cities, or in rural areas. Location is usually determined by the market served and other factors. Table 1 shows many of those factors.
3
Table 1. Selected Distribution Center Site Location Factors (3, 4).
• Land/site • Tract size • (Low) land cost • Taxes • Operating costs • Geographic location in proximity to:
• Retail stores served • Suppliers • National point of origin (near port, border, or other entry point) • Reliable, high speed, uncongested roadways to provide access (major or minor) • Other intermodal facilities (rail or air) • Free Trade Zone
• Needed Utilities • Electricity (e.g., major transmission lines) • Telecommunications infrastructure • Gas • Water • Waste disposal • Installation costs and utility rates
• Site access to interstate highway system and markets (some also need rail, air) o Major east-west and north-south highways (may specify interstate highway) o No congestion along access routes o Good road maintenance o Adequate (wide) shoulders o Access route flexibility (multiple routes)
• Transportation costs • Local construction and building materials costs
• No truck noise restrictions • Not adjacent to residential area • No complicating conditions along access routes
• Schools • Railroad crossings • Truck restrictions
• Workforce • Availability of qualified/trained personnel (full-time and temporary) • Local employee amenities (housing, schools, shopping, etc.) • Commute time to site (usually less than ½ hour)
• Incentives/Public Sector Partnerships • Short- or long-term tax abatements • Public subsidy/assistance with land purchase (sometimes donated) • Public commitment to share costs or pay outright for needed infrastructure improvements • Public provision of utilities or other financial incentives • Other incentives
4
Based on information gathered, the four most important factors that affect the DC location decisions are:
1. Proximity to customers and suppliers; 2. Infrastructure and labor costs; 3. Community and site characteristics; and 4. Incentives offered to select a particular area or site.
The proximity to customers and suppliers is basically determined by the travel time by truck or railroad. Community characteristics include the availability of labor force as well as support from agencies at the city, county, and sometimes state levels. Site characteristics are the geographical factors such as topography and access to major highways. Infrastructure cost depends largely on the connection to the available water, electricity, and sewer networks.
Proximity to Market In DC site selection, the first step in the decision making process is to determine the geographic area to be served by the DC, then determine the approximate DC site location that can conveniently serve that area. Most of the companies associated with Texas DCs use logistics network modeling that take into account current and potential store locations, sales volumes, and supplier characteristics. DCs need direct or very convenient access to the state highway/freeway system and/or to intermodal transfer terminals. Companies that rely on imported goods and materials want access to seaports (generally the Port of Houston) and/or the Mexican border. Timely delivery to the local store network is an across-the-board criterion, with 24-hour delivery being the norm. Because of this requirement, potential DC sites are mostly near the centroid of the retail stores to be served. Once the network models identify ideal locations, the companies begin their site searches in a number of ways. Some identify a radius, ranging from 30 to 100 miles out from the ideal location. Some look throughout a particular metropolitan region, such as the Houston or Dallas-Fort Worth areas. Others look up and down particular interstate corridors (e.g., I-35 or I-45) or for intersections of major corridors giving them direct access to the DC service area (e.g., Dallas-Ft. Worth intersections of I-20 or I-30 with I-35 or I-45). Desirable DC sites may also be in rural areas, at the edge of a small town or city, or in a high accessibility location in a metropolitan area—usually toward the periphery.
Site Characteristics DC companies consider land parcel size, shape, and grade/slope (for new construction) or facility size (for DCs that planned to move into an existing facility); the availability or the ease/cost of adding/upgrading utility infrastructure, as well as utility costs in the area; and lease costs. Proximity or availability of utilities is often critical since that can affect development costs. Adjacent land uses can also be critical since compatibility can become a major issue when a DC of 500,000 to 1,000,000 square feet and 100 truck bays is proposed.
Site Access Needs The companies interviewed generally prefer to locate DCs along (or close to) major highways. This may mean direct connections to a highway or (especially in the case of DCs located in business parks) quick and reliable arterial access to the highways via other major roadways.
5
However, some DC operators are willing to locate on county roads or 2-lane FM routes—usually within about 2 miles of a freeway—to secure lower cost sites. Other desired roadway assets mentioned in the course of the DC interviews included:
• 4-lane access roads, wide shoulders; • proximity to major east-west and north-south highways; • away from heavily congested roads, retail areas, school zones, and other traffic-related
obstacles; • traffic signals to facilitate ingress and egress from the site; and • transportation capacity and flexibility (direction and mode).
Some Texas DCs also need quick access to rail yards or to major intermodal terminals where containers leave rail for trucks. Rail access is becoming more important for many retailers because of rising fuel prices. Other factors were also reported. For example, existence of at-grade railroad crossings along an access route can be viewed as an impediment to efficient DC access. DC driveway access and also local accessibility for large heavy duty trucks are considered critical.
Labor Pool Labor, which is typically the second highest cost element in a DC, may have an influence in the location decision. Major DCs typically employ 500 to 800 people (with some DCs in Texas employing up to 1,500). The characteristics of the local labor force are also considered; DC operators examine local demographics to determine the availability, cost, and quality of the potential labor force they will be able to attract. One DC respondent also mentioned that his company prefers locations with no unionization. DC operators look for a reasonable commute radius for their future employees; two of the companies interviewed specified an employee base within a 20-mile commute. Others indicated travel times of 30 minutes or less.
Site and Infrastructure Costs Once the target area has been identified, the next step in the decision process is to examine several potential sites within the target area by comparing several characteristics including site size and accessibility as well as the expected land, infrastructure, and utility costs. The several candidate sites within the target area may be located in the different jurisdictions (cities or counties). Other site specific factors considered are adjacent land uses and environmental impacts. Weather may also be a factor; a company may avoid an area prone to flood, hurricane, or snow due to the potential disruption of operations (5). Even frequent high winds may cause a company not to consider a site.
Incentives Incentives usually play a significant role in site selection, especially those involving small municipalities outside the major metropolitan areas. The large DCs may bring a few hundred to over 1,000 jobs as well as additional property tax base. This can be a powerful attraction to an area that has economic development as a high priority. For example, Corsicana’s former K-Mart
6
DC employed 8 percent of the local workforce (850 jobs) before corporate downsizing caused its closure (subsequently reopened as a Home Depot DC) (6). In many states including Texas, even the political leaders up to the governors’ offices and state economic development agencies are involved in the process of providing economic incentives. Table 2 lists some of the incentives that are often used in Texas to attract DCs.
7
Table 2. Selected State and Local Incentives Available for DCs in Texas (7, 8). Incentive Type Definition
State Incentive Programs Texas Enterprise Zone Program
Refunds of state sales and use taxes, ranging from $2500 to $7500 per job created or retained.
Texas Capital Fund Infrastructure Program
Grant ($50K to $750K) for public infrastructure (water, sewer, roads) needed to assist a business, in exchange for jobs created or retained in the community.
Tax Increment Finance District (TIFD)
Allows debts to be incurred to fund capital investments needed for the DC and that will be paid back via future tax revenues generated by the new development.
Texas Capital Fund Real Estate Development Program
Grant ($50K to $750K) for real estate development needed to assist a business, in exchange for jobs created or retained in the community.
Freeport/Foreign Trade Exemption
Exemption on taxation of merchandise, goods, etc. that are kept in the state for 175 days or less.
Texas Smart Jobs Program; Skills Development Fund
Job training grants for new employees
Local Incentive Programs Local Property Tax Abatement
Reduction or exemption of taxes granted by local government (county, city, special district) on a piece of property for a specified length of time. Tax abatements have been granted for DC properties and for DC inventories for varying periods.
Tax Credits/Rebates Local tax credits can be awarded in various amounts, usually in exchange for local jobs created by the new business. Examples of such credits are job creation tax credits, property tax abatements, inventory tax abatements, and county tax abatements.
Infrastructure Costs Local agency(s) pay portion or full cost to extend utility, roadway, drainage, or other infrastructure to DC site. In some cases the DC developer may pay the cost and recover all or a portion of the cost through tax rebates.
Site Costs Local agency may pay a portion of full cost of DC site in return for long term commitment from DC company.
Section 380.001 of Municipal Code – Loans and Grants
Under this code, municipalities can provide loans and grants of city funds, as well as low- or no-cost use of city staff, services, or facilities.
Goodwill Incentives Varies but can include discounted moving costs, discounted banking costs for DC company employees (managers, supervisors) moving into the community.
Incentives were mentioned as a site selection factor by almost all of the DC respondents. One company considers incentives a little differently—as accommodations to make a DC site viable rather than most attractive among candidates.
8
Some of the most common incentives are tax credits or abatements; depending on the characteristics of the company and the community, these incentives could include the following:
• job creation tax credits, • property tax abatements, • inventory tax abatements, • county tax abatement, • Freeport zone, and • port credits.
However, one company reported that it will not accept certain tax abatements (e.g., school property tax) due to the image of the impact of loss of those funds to the community. Other incentives offered to DCs by local communities in Texas included workforce training programs or training grants, such as the Texas Smart Jobs Program and funding or work to build roads or other infrastructure. The other principal category of incentives is assistance in providing infrastructure. Usually this takes the form of utility extensions, drainage improvements, or road improvements. However, at least one Texas DC was built and leased to the operator to improve the cash flow of the company. Incentives received by Texas DC developers included:
• free site, • 10-year property tax abatements (city, county), • 10-year inventory tax abatements, • utility extensions to site, • drainage improvements, • Freeport zone designation, • training grants, • state tax abatements (site outside Texas), • grants for funding utilities, power, and • local tax rebate for hiring local residents.
Community Characteristics Characteristics of the surrounding community is another factor in site selection. The company opening a new DC will often bring some of that company’s existing employees—generally management and administrative staff—into the area. Therefore, another plus for a potential site is an attractive community close by. One DC respondent mentioned that a site needed to be attractive to the company’s investors; another that a good local economy was a factor. General compatibility of a DC with the community is another consideration. It often ties into the community’s willingness to support the development of the DC.
9
Annual Surveys of Corporations and Consultants by AreaDevelopment.com The project surveys of DC owners, local agencies, and TxDOT district offices were conducted in the fall of 2007 and the early spring of 2008, prior to the economic downturn that became evident later in 2008. The online magazine AreaDevelopment.com conducted an annual survey of corporate representatives and consultants in August of 2008, prior to the severe financial crisis of the late fall but during a time period when signs of a market adjustment were likely beginning to affect industries. The survey’s respondents are from a larger spectrum of industries; only 14 percent of respondents to the corporate survey are involved in distribution operations (64 percent of respondents are involved in manufacturing), and 47 percent of the consultants responding to the consultant survey serve distribution operations. However, the survey has general value because it seeks information on factors important in selection of industrial sites with substantial inbound and outbound flows of goods. Because of the survey’s timing, it is likely that respondent answers regarding site selection considerations reflect industry priorities that may be somewhat affected by the downturn. The responses may be of value even if not all of the responses apply to distribution centers. Approximately 35 percent of the survey’s corporate respondents indicated that their companies plan to open new facilities during the next two to three years. Approximately 25 percent of the planned new facilities will be warehouses and/or distribution centers. Among the consultants who responded, half had clients with plans for new facilities during the next two years (with distribution centers accounting for 27 percent of planned new facilities). Site selection factors were rated in importance by respondents as “very important,” “important,” “minor consideration,” or “of no importance.” Overall rankings for the factors were then calculated based on the combined percentages of respondents that ranked each factor as “very important” or “important.” Table 3 lists the top 10 factors for site selection as ranked by corporate and consultant respondents in 2008.
Table 3. Top 10 Factors in Site Selection. Corporate Representatives Consultants
1. Highway accessibility 1. State and local incentives 2. Labor costs 2. Highway accessibility 3. Occupancy/construction costs 3. Availability of skilled labor 4. Tax exemptions 4. Energy availability and costs 5. Energy availability and costs 5. Tax exemptions 6. Availability of skilled labor 6. Occupancy/construction costs 7. State and local incentives 7. Corporate tax rate 8. Corporate tax rate 8. Proximity to major markets 9. Low union profile 9. Availability of land 10. Availability of land 10. Labor costs
Source: http://www.areadevelopment.com The top two priorities for corporate representatives in 2008 were the same as in the 2007 survey—highway accessibility and labor costs. Building costs and tax exemptions rose in
10
importance during 2008, while availability of land became less important. Other survey results indicated that more companies in 2008 may be looking for existing sites and facilities to reduce construction costs. In conclusion, these surveys indicate that highway accessibility and costs of labor, infrastructure, and energy are among the most important site selection criteria. That means that there is a place for TxDOT to play an even bigger role in attracting new distribution centers to Texas. At the same time, incentives are also highly valued. Since some view highway improvements to be incentives, TxDOT could also find itself being courted for improvements to make sites more accessible. This presents TxDOT with both a need and an opportunity to help DC owners, developers, and agents find sites that are already highly accessible, with little or no need for highway improvements.
11
2. LARGE DISTRIBUTION CENTERS IN TEXAS Table 4 shows the locations of Texas retail, manufacturing, and grocery DCs of 500,000 square feet and larger. Most are located close to interstate highways or other freeways within or close to the “Texas Triangle.” Several others are located along I-30 east of Dallas-Ft. Worth. While a few of these DCs are older, most are less than 15 years old and many are less than 10 years old. Table 5 shows the distribution of the Table 3 DCs by TxDOT district. Over half of the 62 DCs listed in Table 3 are in the Dallas and Ft. Worth districts of TxDOT. This is likely the result of having access to the interstate highway system going in almost all directions plus having almost all of the rest of the Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arkansas market area within one day’s drive by truck. About 20 percent of these DCs are in the Houston District. A few serve as entry processing facilities for the Port of Houston while most of the others serve a regional function. Of the other 22 TxDOT districts, only the Waco and Tyler districts, both near the Dallas-Ft. Worth area, have more than two of the large DCs; about 90 percent of the large DCs are in the Waco-DFW-Tyler region within about 100 miles of the intersections of I-35 and I-45 with I-30 and I-20 intersections or in the Houston area. Those areas combine the best regional access in Texas with one-day proximity to high concentrations of population. Despite the size of Texas, it is notable that other than Wal-Mart, no company has more than two large DCs and nearly all have just one. Because of the location and interstate highway access available to the Dallas-Ft. Worth region, it seems likely that many companies with only a single distribution center in the region will continue to seek locations near Dallas-Ft. Worth. The literature implies that large DCs tend to be located in rural areas. However, 27 of the 62 large Texas DCs listed in Table 4 are in urban areas and 25 more are on urban fringes. Seven of those are located in or on the fringes of small cities and towns. Only 10 DCs are located in rural areas. Hence, the challenge to successfully accommodate large DCs without adverse impacts on TxDOT highways includes urban areas as well as small towns and rural locations. As shown in Tables 6 and 7, almost half of these large DCs are located in industrial parks. Eight have direct access to TxDOT highways, and five more have direct access to frontage roads. The other 49 DCs have direct access only from county or municipal roads so the driveway-related issues tend to be under local jurisdiction. Nevertheless, all 62 DCs are located on or close to state highways and all but a few rely on freeways and interchanges for most of the truck travel they generate.
12
T
able
4. S
elec
ted
Tex
as D
istr
ibut
ion
Cen
ters
ove
r 50
0,00
0 Sq
uare
Fee
t.
Dis
tribu
tion
Cen
ter1
Add
ress
C
ity
Size
(s
q. ft
.) Jo
bs
Site
Tr
uck
Acc
ess
Aer
ial
Phot
o O
n Fi
leTx
DO
T D
istri
ct
Urban
Fringe
Rural Industrial Park Free standing Front Rd. Distance to Interchange
State Hwy.
County Road City Arterial/ Collector Street Local Street
Ret
aile
rs
99 C
ents
Onl
y St
ores
(E
x-A
lber
tson
s)
2362
3 C
olon
ial P
arkw
ay
Kat
y 74
1,00
0-
●
●
3 bl
ks
●
Y
es
HO
U
Aca
dem
y 18
00 N
. Mas
on R
oad
Kat
y 1,
500,
000
1400
●
●
5
blks
●
Yes
H
OU
B
lock
bust
er
3000
Red
bud
Blv
d.
McK
inne
y 81
8,00
014
15
●
●
1 bl
k
●
Y
es
DA
L C
onta
iner
Sto
re
500
Free
port
Park
way
C
oppe
ll 72
5,00
040
0 ●
●
7
blks
●
Yes
D
AL
Dill
ards
45
01 N
. Bea
ch S
treet
Fo
rt W
orth
71
6,00
080
0 ●
●
3
blks
●
Yes
FT
W
Do-
It-B
est (
u.c.
) 80
1 H
ewitt
Ave
nue
Wac
o 50
0,00
0-
●
●
0.6
mi
●
Vic
inity
WA
C
Fam
ily D
olla
r 31
01 E
. I-2
0 O
dess
a 90
7,00
050
0
●
●
●2
blks
Yes
O
DA
H
ome
Dep
ot (E
x-K
Mar
t) 22
00 S
. US
Bus
45
Cor
sica
na
1,45
3,00
025
0 sm
all
●
1
mi.
●
Yes
D
AL
Hom
e D
epot
61
15 F
M 1
405
Bay
tow
n 75
5,00
035
0
●
●
7
mi.
●
Yes
H
OU
H
ome
Dep
ot (u
.c.)
8103
Fal
lbro
ok D
rive
Hou
ston
53
5,00
0-
●
●
0.8
mi
●
Yes
H
OU
H
ome
Inte
riors
16
49 W
. Fra
nkfo
rd R
d.
Car
rollt
on
659,
000
616
●
●
3 bl
ks
●
Y
es
DA
L JC
Pen
ney
1701
Inte
rmod
al P
arkw
ay
Has
let
1,20
0,00
051
7
●
●
2½
mi
●
Vic
inity
FTW
K
ohl’s
16
00 I-
45
Cor
sica
na
540,
000
225
sm
all
●
2½ m
i●
Y
es
DA
L Lo
we’
s 95
5 Lo
we's
Lan
e ( I
-30
W)
Mt.
Ver
non
1,10
0,00
0-
sm
all
●●
Adj
ac.
Yes
PA
R
Mer
vyn’
s (ex
) 16
00 P
lano
Par
kway
Pl
ano
533,
000
- ●
●
¾
mi
●
Yes
D
AL
Mac
y’s (
ex-F
oley
’s)
2103
Ern
estin
e H
oust
on
810,
000
600
●
●
2 bl
ks
●Y
es
HO
U
M.J.
Des
igns
/Mic
hael
s 50
0 A
irlin
e D
rive
Cop
pell
504,
000
-
●
●
½ m
i
●Y
es
DA
L R
adio
Sha
ck2
900
Term
inal
Roa
d Fo
rt W
orth
1,
142,
000
3337
●
●
7
blks
●
Yes
FT
W
Roo
ms t
o G
o 35
00 S
. Wat
son
Roa
d A
rling
ton
851,
000
185
●
●●
3 bl
ks
V
icin
ityFT
W
Sear
s 27
75 M
iller
Roa
d G
arla
nd
878,
000
400
●
●
1 m
ile
●
Y
es
DA
L St
age
Stor
es
506
Bea
ll B
lvd.
Ja
ckso
nvill
e 50
0,00
043
9 sm
all
●
35
mi
●
Yes
TY
L Ta
rget
13
786
Har
vey
Roa
d Ty
ler
1,63
0,00
095
0
●
●
1
blk
●
Yes
TY
L Ta
rget
43
33 P
ower
Way
M
idlo
thia
n 1,
350,
000
750
●
●
5 bl
ks
●Y
es
DA
L To
ys R
Us
3800
Rai
lpor
t Par
kway
M
idlo
thia
n 84
6,00
020
0
●
●
3
blks
●
Yes
D
AL
Trac
tor S
uppl
y (e
xp. u
.c.)
2801
Cor
pora
tion
Park
way
W
oodw
ay
654,
000
-
●
●
30
0 ft.
●
Yes
W
AC
Tr
ue V
alue
Har
dwar
e 26
01 E
. SH
31
Cor
sica
na
775,
000
185
●
●
2½ m
i●
ye
s D
AL
Wal
gree
ns
710
FM 6
64 (O
vila
Rd.
) W
axah
achi
e 65
0,00
075
0
smal
l
●
A
djac
.●
Y
es
DA
L W
al-M
art #
7042
45
54 E
. Gre
enw
ood
St.
Bay
tow
n 2,
000,
000
600
●
●
7 m
i.
●V
icin
ityH
OU
13
Dis
tribu
tion
Cen
ter1
Add
ress
C
ity
Size
(s
q. ft
.) Jo
bs
Site
Tr
uck
Acc
ess
Aer
ial
Phot
o O
n Fi
leTx
DO
T D
istri
ct
Urban
Fringe
Rural Industrial Park Free standing Front Rd. Distance to Interchange
State Hwy.
County Road City Arterial/ Collector Street Local Street
Wal
-Mar
t #60
68
2120
N. S
tem
mon
s Sa
nger
1,
200,
000
800
●
●
1 bl
k
●
Y
es
DA
L W
al-M
art #
7036
31
62 B
rast
Roa
d Se
aly
1,10
0,00
084
0
●
●
2
mi.
●
Yes
Y
KM
W
al-M
art #
6036
14
868
FM 6
45
Pale
stin
e 1,
000,
000
1,50
0
●
●
26
mi
●
Yes
TY
L W
al-M
art #
6012
31
00 N
. Qui
ncy
Rd.
Pl
ainv
iew
1,
000,
000
1,50
0 sm
all
●
2
blks
●
Yes
LB
B
Wal
-Mar
t #60
16
3900
N I-
35
New
Bra
unfe
ls98
0,00
01,
200
●
●●
¾ m
i.
Y
es
SAT
Wal
-Mar
t #70
10
2013
1 G
ene
Cam
pbel
l Roa
dN
ew C
aney
89
0,00
0-
●
●
4½ m
i
●
Y
es
HO
U
Wal
-Mar
t #60
83
9605
NW
H.K
. Dod
ge L
oop
Tem
ple
800,
000
750
●
●
2 m
i ●
Y
es
WA
C
Wal
-Mar
t #60
56
591
Apa
che
Trai
l Te
rrel
l 75
0,00
022
5
●
●
2
blks
●
Yes
D
AL
Wal
-Mar
t #60
05
201
Old
Elk
hart
Roa
d Pa
lest
ine
660,
000
350
smal
l
●
35 m
i
●Y
es
TYL
Man
ufac
ture
rs/D
istr
ibut
ors
Arm
y-A
ir Fo
rce
Exch
ange
180
1 Ex
chan
ge P
arkw
ay
Wac
o 62
5,00
0-
●
●
0.4
mi
●
Yes
W
AC
B
ridge
ston
e A
mer
ica
600
Gat
eway
Par
kway
R
oano
ke
608,
000
180
●
●
2½ m
i
●V
icin
ityD
AL
Cat
erpi
llar (
u.c.
) Ex
chan
ge P
arkw
ay
Woo
dway
(7
50,0
00)
140-
180
●
●
1½ m
i
●V
icin
ityW
AC
G
ener
al M
ills (
u.c.
) 49
01 H
enrie
tta C
reek
Roa
d R
oano
ke
670,
000
-
●
●
4½
mi
●
Vic
inity
DA
L H
agga
r Clo
thin
g C
o.
5401
N. R
iver
side
Driv
e Ft
. Wor
th
665,
000
- ●
●
1
mi
●
Yes
FT
W
Iglo
o Pr
oduc
ts2
777
Iglo
o R
oad
Kat
y 1,
400,
000
1560
●
●
1/
3 m
i
●
Y
es
HO
U
LG E
lect
roni
cs
1370
0 In
depe
nden
ce P
kwy
Has
let
500,
000
-
●
●
1¼
mi
●
Yes
FT
W
Mat
tel
501
Mea
cham
Roa
d Fo
rt W
orth
1,
000,
000
120
●
●
1 bl
k
●
Y
es
FTW
M
iche
lin
8800
City
Par
k Lo
op
Hou
ston
66
3,00
050
●
●
2
blks
●
Yes
H
OU
O
rgill
(u.c
.) 70
01 E
lder
Lak
e R
oad
Kilg
ore
530,
000
300
●
●
2½ m
i
●V
icin
ityTY
L N
estle
13
600
Inde
pend
ence
Pkw
y.H
asle
t 52
5,00
0-
●
●
1¼ m
i
●Y
es
FTW
Ph
illip
s Ele
ctro
nics
30
0 Fr
eedo
m D
rive
Roa
noke
77
6,00
0-
●
●
3 m
i.
●V
icin
ityD
AL
Solo
Cup
s (ex
-Circ
uit C
ity)
3737
Dun
canv
ille
Roa
d D
unca
nvill
e 51
0,00
0-
●
●
4 bl
ks
●
Y
es
DA
L W
hirlp
ool (
ex-G
M P
arts)
110
1 Ev
erm
an P
arkw
ay
Fort
Wor
th
852,
000
150
●
●
3 bl
ks
●
Y
es
FTW
W
hirlp
ool
1490
0 Fr
ye R
oad
Fort
Wor
th
500,
000
15
●
●
1½ m
i
●Ye
s FT
W
Gro
cery
A
lber
tson
s 75
50 O
ak G
rove
Roa
d Fo
rt W
orth
1,
030,
000
600
●
●
4 bl
ks
●
Y
es
FTW
A
ldi (
u.c.
) 25
00 W
estc
ourt
Roa
d D
ento
n 50
0,00
012
0
●
●
2
mi
●
Yes
D
AL
Gro
cers
Sup
ply
(Ex-
Flem
ing,
Sa
few
ay; n
ot n
ow D
C)
2600
McC
ree
Roa
d G
arla
nd
1,08
0,00
031
0 ●
●
2
blks
●
Yes
D
AL
Gro
cers
Sup
ply
3131
E. H
olco
mbe
Blv
d.
Hou
ston
95
9,00
0-
●
●
2 bl
ks
●
Y
es
HO
U
HEB
47
10 N
. IH
-35
San
Ant
onio
1,
380,
000
- ●
●
●1
blk
Yes
SA
T
14
Dis
tribu
tion
Cen
ter1
Add
ress
C
ity
Size
(s
q. ft
.) Jo
bs
Site
Tr
uck
Acc
ess
Aer
ial
Phot
o O
n Fi
leTx
DO
T D
istri
ct
Urban
Fringe
Rural Industrial Park Free standing Front Rd. Distance to Interchange
State Hwy.
County Road City Arterial/ Collector Street Local Street
HEB
23
01 H
unte
r Roa
d Sa
n M
arco
s ~6
50,0
0054
0 ●
●
6
blks
●
Yes
A
US
Kra
ft 10
06 R
ailh
ead
Dr
Has
let
650,
000
238
●
●
2 m
i
●Y
es
FTW
K
roge
r 70
1 G
ellh
orn
Driv
e H
oust
on
880,
000
- ●
●
2
blks
●
Yes
H
OU
M
cLan
e So
uthw
est
2828
Indu
stria
l Blv
d.
Tem
ple
500,
000
830
●
●
1.3
mi
●
Yes
W
AC
R
anda
ll’s
1070
0 Te
lge
Roa
d H
oust
on
646,
000
- ●
●
1
blk
●
Yes
H
OU
R
anda
ll’s/
Tom
Thu
mb
743
Hen
rietta
R
oano
ke
1,26
0,00
044
0
●
●
4
blks
●
Yes
D
AL
1 u.c
. – u
nder
con
stru
ctio
n
Sour
ce: T
exas
Tra
nspo
rtatio
n In
stitu
te
2 In
clud
es so
me
man
ufac
turin
g
15
Table 5. Selected Large Texas Distribution Centers by TxDOT District.
District Distribution Center Type
Total Retail Manufacturer/ Distributor Grocery Dallas 14 4 3 21 Houston 7 2 3 12 Ft. Worth 4 6 2 12 Waco 3 2 1 6 Tyler 4 1 0 5 San Antonio 1 0 1 2 Austin 0 0 1 1 Lubbock 1 0 0 1 Odessa 1 0 0 1 Paris 1 0 0 1 Yoakum 1 0 0 1
Total 37 15 11 63 Source: Table 4
Table 6. Distribution Center Location Types.
DC Type
Area Type Location Type
Urban Fringe Rural Industrial
Park Free
Standing Retail 15 13 9 14 23 Manufacturer/ Distributor 6 8 1 13 2 Grocery 7 4 0 7 4
Total 28 25 10 34 29 Source: Table 4
Table 7. Distribution Center Access Types.
DC Type
Access Type Frontage
Road State
HighwayCounty Road
City Major Local
Retail 4 8 4 10 11 Manufacturer/ Distributor 0 0 1 4 10 Grocery 1 0 0 5 5
Total 5 8 5 19 26 Source: Table 4
17
3. SITE SELECTION/NEGOTIATION EXPERIENCES IN TEXAS The research team interviewed representatives from DCs, local communities in which they are located, and TxDOT district offices about DC site selection processes. This chapter describes the findings from the interviews. TxDOT districts learned about potential new DCs in one of several ways:
• from TxDOT’s Government and Public Affairs Office, which is referred DC contacts by the Governor’s Office of Economic Development (GOED) if they are contacted by a company seeking a DC site;
• from local economic development agencies or cities that have been contacted by a company wanting to build a DC in the specific or general area; or
• by the DC developer or an agent, seeking information (rarely), access, or improved highways.
The search may begin with a call to the Texas Governor’s Office of Economic Development. Those calls may seek general information, or may request assistance in locating sites meeting stated criteria. GOED may gather data or other information to help the DC developer find communities or counties meeting certain criteria. On behalf of the DC developer, GOED may even request site proposals from interested agencies. In the case of transportation, GOED has weekly meetings with a member of GPA staff (currently Helen Havelka) to pass on transportation requests. However, because DC operators usually prefer anonymity and confidentiality, the identity of the DC is not passed on. Site selection and development experiences tended to fall into one of three categories:
• DCs that needed negligible or no transportation/infrastructure improvements to begin operations. Some of these moved into existing facilities or built facilities in existing business parks. Others built along highways where the needed access (ramp, driveway) already existed or was previously planned by TxDOT.
• DCs that needed transportation improvements that were provided or paid for by the local community (via community development or other funds) and/or the DC company. TxDOT involvement was sometimes sought during the process for data, traffic studies, or permits/approvals. In one case, TxDOT was initially asked to build an overpass to provide access for a new DC. Since TxDOT could not fund this improvement, the TxDOT area engineer worked with the DC site engineer to identify feasible alternative access points for the site.
• DCs that needed transportation improvements for which TxDOT performed the work and provided at least part of the funding. Most of these involved traffic signals, deceleration lanes, highway on-ramps, overpasses or underpasses, interchanges, highway extensions, or pavement improvements.
18
Some (but not all) of the more significant infrastructure improvements were already-planned projects that were moved up on TxDOT’s program schedule; one was a programmed road widening that was simply performed on a different segment of the same road to accommodate the DC access needs. However, a few were previously unanticipated and required reprogramming or use of TxDOT discretionary funds. The degree of TxDOT involvement notwithstanding, most site searches and negotiations followed a similar timeline. The interviewed companies generally begin site searches for new distribution centers one to two years in advance of construction. Local communities that are being considered find out about the possibility of a new DC in their area fairly early in the process, though they may not always know the identity of the company until later. Companies usually make initial contact with state and/or local economic development agencies, depending on how broad the search area is.
The Governor’s Office of Economic Development (GOED) handles initial responses from DC developer representatives. These usually come at the beginning of the site selection process. Inquiries may come after Texas has been selected as a site location or may involve consideration of sites in multiple states. Some inquiries are for basic information (demographics, state laws, regulations, policies, programs, labor force information) and some are for assistance to identify candidate locations meeting specified DC criteria. Some assistance requests extend to arranging visits to candidate sites or communities, or to having the GOED request proposals from local agencies for specific sites. GOED also receives requests for incentives. Inquiries may come from DC developers, but frequently start with real estate brokers, consultants, or developers. GOED’s role is to attract business—including DC sites—to Texas. GOED normally first contacts local economic development offices (LEDO) in areas of interest to the DC. The LEDO responds to specific needs and any requests for site proposals. The LEDO may involve other agencies, but usually does so on an as-needed basis. A “Site Location Requirements” form provided by the GOED collects general information on the type of business and project being proposed, planned financing, projected employment, markets to be served, expected environmental impacts, and site and building needs. The complete form is included in this report as Appendix A. The form includes a short section concerning the transportation modes that will be utilized for incoming and outgoing goods, but does not otherwise address transportation requirements of planned DCs. GOED refers transportation requests to TxDOT. TxDOT has a designated representative (currently Helen Havelka, Government and Public Affairs Office) who works directly with GOED. She passes requests on to appropriate districts if the desired area is known. However, some inquiries are kept confidential at DC developer request. Traffic, access, and road improvement requests are not normally received or handled at this level. That normally happens after a site has been selected (or tentatively selected) and is handled by a TxDOT district or area office.
19
However, early explorations are often made through third parties (e.g., commercial real estate brokers, site selection consultants) so that the DC company will remain anonymous. Once the search is narrowed down to one or more sites or local areas, DC developers (the companies themselves or a firm doing at least some portion of the development) involve other state and local agencies (city/county departments, utility companies, tax assessors, Texas Workforce Commission, TxDOT) as needed. Local area negotiation teams often include representatives from the LEDO, the city manager’s or mayor’s office, city departments, county commissioners, utility providers, banks, and local industrial commissions. The Texas Department of Agriculture, as well as TxDOT, has been part of some negotiation teams. Depending on the DC, local areas within Texas may be competing with other Texas locations as well as with sites in other states, usually along the same transportation corridor or within a set distance radius. As described previously, roadway improvements are often a potential incentive that local areas offer to attract a DC. However, as one DC company stated, roadway improvements are often viewed as being necessary to make a site viable for further consideration rather than as an incentive. DC OWNER RELIANCE ON TXDOT There were a variety of responses from DC operators and local community representatives regarding when TxDOT involvement is customarily sought during the site selection and development process. The responses to this question received from DC companies are as follows:
• Involve TxDOT from the beginning. • Due-diligence process always includes TxDOT and equivalent agencies, so they are
involved early in the process. • TxDOT is involved after the site is identified (based on the desire to keep site exploration
confidential). • Involve TxDOT on most sites, typically once a site plan is established. • TxDOT is involved when needed. • Only involve TxDOT if infrastructure changes or permits are needed. • Where road improvements are needed, TxDOT is involved as early as possible. • Only involve state DOTs if needed for access or road improvements.
The above responses generally refer to sites located on or near state highways. TxDOT is often not involved if it appears that access will not rely on state highways. Answers from local communities about TxDOT involvement in the process were similar:
• TxDOT is a critical player; needs to be involved from day one (this referred to development of a business park containing DC sites);
• from the very beginning of the process; • as soon as site is in competition; • as soon as they know about the type of proposed facility and its transportation
requirements; • as soon as negotiations/interest become serious; • about one month into the selection process; • as needed; not until there is a real chance that a DC will locate here; • when necessary improvements are identified;
20
• after site is selected; TxDOT did not appear to be needed for site selection (this was a site where the local TxDOT district believed it had been contacted far too late); and
• when transportation question or need arises. TxDOT district and area office personnel had a variety of experiences regarding their initial involvement in or awareness of DC site development. Depending on the site/DC, TxDOT offices were contacted:
• during the site selection and planning phase; • in conjunction with city developing site with which to attract DCs; • close to beginning of site design; • at site plan approval phase; • after DC site was selected; • when a special tax district was formed to finance improvements; • after hearing by word of mouth; • when access permits were required; • when traffic signal was requested; • when road improvements were requested (by developers or local agencies); • very late; after land clearing had started (1.5 years too late for improvements to be
complete for the scheduled DC opening); and • in conjunction with road damage by overweight trucks;
TxDOT’s involvement in site selection and planning has been limited, based input from both TxDOT and others involved in the process. Some DCs have set site plans, including access points, and TxDOT suggestions for alternate access points are not often accepted. Local agencies developing a site for potential DCs tend to be more willing to collaborate with TxDOT on site locations and plans. Three of the TxDOT representatives interviewed said that their office would prefer to be involved as early as possible in a site selection process, to be able to participate in decisions regarding the site plan and access points, to help plan the best road improvements to serve traffic needs, and to have more time to identify funding sources. Other TxDOT offices said that they do not necessarily need to be involved in the early negotiation processes, but are also very clear about what is required to qualify for improvements that they will fund. Hence, different districts have different views about when they would like to become involved. This may derive from different roles and experiences they have had in the past. DC REQUESTS TO TXDOT Requests made of TxDOT by the DC companies interviewed varied widely, from no requests at all to requests for significant infrastructure improvements. Examples of requests made include:
• driveway permits; • access route improvements and extensions; • traffic impact analysis to determine needs; • deceleration lanes; • traffic signals;
21
• moving up already-planned improvements; • new interchange or ramp; and • interchange modification.
TxDOT has also occasionally received requests from local area agencies for improvements to attract a DC to a particular site. These improvements generally involve improved access to highways. Examples of improvements requested to attract a DC include:
• adding traffic signals to an intersection; • adding or redesigning ramps at an existing overpass; • widening an overpass; • adding a grade separation; • adding turn lanes at intersection; • improving intersection geometrics to accommodate heavy trucks; • reconstructing an FM road connecting to the highway, to accommodate heavy trucks;
and • building a new FM road to connect to the highway.
TxDOT responses to DC and local area requests also varied, depending on circumstances. In some instances, TxDOT has declined to make an improvement if an analysis determined that the improvement was not actually necessary for safety or access purposes. In others, TxDOT simply grants permits for improvements that are then funded and performed by the DC or local agencies. Because TxDOT is not usually able to make substantial unprogrammed improvements quickly enough for DC developer needs, some improvement requests initially made of TxDOT end up being handled by local agencies on local roads (or on the DC’s own property). TxDOT does not usually fund unprogrammed improvements; again, local agencies are sometimes willing to provide front-end funding for improvement that they can recover over time from the DC owners. In other cases, the DC developers provide funding directly for the needed improvements. TxDOT has, on occasion, moved up a planned improvement to complete it earlier than it was originally scheduled, or used unallocated discretionary district or statewide funds (available though TxDOT Administration) for part or all of a project’s cost. This is not a frequent practice. DC TRANSPORTATION ISSUES AND CONCERNS Most major urban roads in Texas are designed to accommodate large trucks in at least moderate volumes. However, local streets, rural roads, and some older rural highways are not designed for high volumes of large trucks. Even some major urban roads may not be designed to accommodate the truck volumes generated by large DCs (reported to be up to 1,000 per day per direction). Some of the characteristics of large trucks—as large as WB72 (trailers up to 59 feet long) instead of the previous norm of WB50 (with 42.5 foot trailer)—are much more demanding and difficult to safely and efficiently accommodate on roads that have not recently been upgraded. Turning movements and queues created by these trucks create access issues that can have detrimental impacts on adjacent roads. Some of the problems that typically accompany large volumes of large trucks on rural or local roads plus unimproved highways can include (9, 10, 11, 12, 13):
• Traffic and geometrics o Acceleration/deceleration (e.g., highways, ramps, driveways), weaving sections
22
o Congestion o Turning radii, swept paths, encroachment o WB50 superseded by WB62 – WB72 trucks o Sight lines and distances o Low speeds for tight turns
• Pavements o Rutting and cracking (increase in 18KESALs, average vehicle weights, frequencies
above design) o Shoulder needs and deterioration o Faster deterioration/shorter service life o Poor ride quality o Base failures
• Bridges o Faster deterioration/shorter service life o Weight limits
• Demands for improvements (additional or reprogrammed) o Interchanges (additional, upgraded, truck geometrics) o Intersections o Ramp modifications o Acceleration/deceleration lanes o Passing lanes o Increased sight distances o Widening o Shoulders o Stronger pavements o Traffic control o Signing (additional to overcome sight line blockage)
Specific to Texas, TTI found in interviews of users—truck drivers and Department of Public Safety (DPS) officers—the following concerns and perceived deficiencies (14):
• Freeway entrance and exit ramps o Ramps too short o Not enough merging or weaving distance o Traffic does not yield to ramp traffic
• Secondary road lane widths not wide enough • Shoulders
o Too narrow o Cannot accommodate safe truck stopping/parking o Intersections inadequately designed to accommodate trucks
The interviews with DC representatives identified some transportation issues similar to those specified above, though most of those interviewed have not experienced any significant difficulties since their facilities opened. Post-opening transportation issues identified by a very few of the DC representatives included:
• occasional difficulties with traffic congestion;
23
• safety conflicts (one now shares a highway on-ramp with a local high school); • maintenance needs due to potholes and other road wear; and • tight geometrics at (older) frontage road intersection and U-turn lanes.
One DC has discovered that its own business growth over the last several years (more trucks going in and out than when it opened) was resulting in long queues of trucks trying to enter the highway on-ramp and blocking part of the access road. As a solution, the DC has instituted “appointment-only,” scheduled truck pickups and drop-offs at the facility to control the number its trucks on the interchange at any one time. Another of the interviewed DC companies follows a practice of “stepping up” operations during the first three years following the opening of a new DC; the DC will operate at half capacity during the first year, at two-thirds capacity during the second year, and expand to full capacity in the third year. This allows the surrounding community to adjust to the increased traffic volume resulting from the DC. Most of the local community representatives reported no negative impacts to the local transportation system as a result of the DCs. Some problems with traffic congestion on local streets in two of the communities were solved once planned roadway and/or interchange improvements were completed. Two of the TxDOT districts reported problems with a roadway or interchange that were later upgraded to support heavy truck traffic from a DC. Another saw some minor changes in travel characteristics at a nearby highway interchange. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The interviews and case studies identified some of the issues that TxDOT may face pertaining to distribution center development and operations, as well as pointing the way to some potential solutions.
• TxDOT is not always drawn into the DC site selection process when local agencies are first contacted. Sometimes this is to heed DC developer requests for confidentiality. However, other times it is a result of a local agency not feeling there is a need for TxDOT (until the need arises).
• Some local agency contacts to TxDOT go to the district office, directly to the district engineer, or to the local area office. It appears that communications between the district and area offices are incomplete or may not occur in a timely manner.
• Earlier, better, or more regular communication may be needed between TxDOT district (or area) offices and local economic development offices. While most of the local communities represented in the interviews indicated that TxDOT is a regular partner in their economic development activities, in practice some communities involved the local TxDOT district or area office after specific transportation needs arose.
• One of the TxDOT respondents observed that while most Texas city officials know that road improvement funding is limited, some small town officials still think that TxDOT has unlimited funds. Most push for construction faster than TxDOT can deliver. Inability to complete TxDOT improvements on time (i.e., when desired by DC owner) is a frequent claim.
24
• Given TxDOT’s project programming cycle, what is considered early in the site selection process for DCs and local communities still does not provide much lead time for TxDOT. With only 12-24 months to go from site search to a site and plan for infrastructure needs, there is not much time to plan for and build transportation improvements, particularly those that need to locate funding sources that are programmed on a TxDOT funding cycle.
Two of the DC representatives interviewed suggested that TxDOT should work with economic development agencies (state and/or local level) up front to help to attract desired business into the state and to prime local communities for potential business development. TxDOT is already involved with the Governor’s Office of Economic Development, but not in that manner. This could also be a way for TxDOT to encourage site selection in locations where improvements are already planned. If possible, TxDOT could then stay involved with the DC companies to see if needs are being serviced and to potentially partner on future expansions and additional business. A DC representative described the proactive involvement of the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) during a recent DC site search: GDOT, working with the state economic development office, supplied detailed information on infrastructure plans for numerous sites in the state. This information helped the company to locate several potential site options in Georgia and make their selection. Another company with DCs in several states said that almost all state DOTs have the same funding delay challenges. One state (Oklahoma) seems to have overcome the timing problem although he did not know what the solution was.
25
4. CASE STUDIES – DC SITE SELECTION, IMPACTS, AND
LESSONS LEARNED The research team conducted several case studies of Texas DCs to ascertain experiences associated with site selection and experiences associated with requests for access improvements, and impacts on the road system. The purpose of the case studies was to identify lessons learned and potential best practices. This chapter summarizes findings from the case studies. Each case study concludes with a list of lessons learned, best practices, and also practices to avoid. CASE STUDY – ACADEMY SPORTS, KATY
Description of Distribution Center Academy Ltd. is a privately held company. The Academy DC in Katy, Texas, has approximately 1.5 million square feet, including a recent expansion. Academy is a retail sports and outdoors retailer. This DC also houses the company’s corporate headquarters. There are over 100 Academy Sports and Outdoors retail stores in 11 Southeastern states; in addition to the Katy DC that serves the current stores, a new DC is under construction outside Jeffersonville, Georgia, that was scheduled to be completed in 2009. The facility operates seven days per week, from 4:30 or 5:00 a.m. until 1:00 a.m. There are several peak seasons throughout a typical year, including the periods preceding Christmas holidays, spring break, and hunting season. Some value-added services are performed at the distribution center, including ticketing and security-tagging merchandise. The Katy facility is located on the southeast corner of Mason Road (a 4-lane divided north-south county road that connects to I-10) and Franz Road (4 lanes divided). Primewest Parkway (2-4 lane local street) parallels Mason Road and runs behind the DC. DC truck access is via this street. Access to the offices of the DC and headquarters is via Mason Road. Figure 1 shows an overhead view of the facility and its access points. Figure 2 shows a wider view of the facility and its connection to I-10.
26
Figure 1. Overhead View of Academy DC Facility prior to Latest Expansion, Katy, Texas
(Source: Google Earth).
Figure 2. Overhead View of Academy DC and Access to I-10. (Source: Google Earth).
27
Selection of DC Sites Academy opened this DC in the early 1980s, taking over an old General Electric facility to be a distribution center and corporate office. Current management is unaware of the criteria used to select that site. However, at the time, the Academy chain was much smaller and centered around the Houston area. The search for a site for the new facility in Georgia began approximately two years before construction, with a logistical analysis of inbound and outbound shipping needs for Academy’s stores and vendors. This analysis yielded a search region with an approximate 100-mile radius spanning three states. Within this region, Academy worked with state economic development corporations, local consultants, and state DOTs to identify potential locations. State DOTs in the three states provided information on current and planned infrastructure at the various sites that were considered. Academy evaluated potential sites according to the following criteria:
• site size (sufficient land for current needs and for predicted future expansion); • workforce availability; • cost and quality of the land parcel; • central location for stores to be served, vendors, and import ports; • road infrastructure, including the condition of surrounding roads, the suitability of roads
and interchanges for heavy tractor-trailer combinations, and access to north, south, east, and west corridors; and
• traffic patterns around nearby major cities, with the goal of avoiding heavy/congested traffic.
All three states offered incentives, including tax abatements, grant funding for utility and power infrastructure, and port credits.
Roadway Needs and Improvements during Development A highway interchange near the selected site for the Georgia DC was old and already scheduled for improvements. The fact that the needed roadway improvements for this location were already planned by the state and would require no special accommodations for the new DC was a major factor in Academy’s decision to locate there.
Current Access and Roadway Issues The existing Academy facility has benefited from TxDOT’s improvements to I-10; these improvements were already planned and are proceeding according to TxDOT’s original schedule. Academy considered installing a traffic signal at one of the DC’s egress points, due to the levels of both truck and commuter traffic at the intersection. After discussing the signal with TxDOT and assessing costs, Academy opted not to install the signal. Academy has also added additional left turn lanes adjacent to its own property and modified access to accommodate expansions of the DC and office spaces.
28
The facility has not created additional work or maintenance problems for TxDOT, according to the West Harris County Area Office. Since the facility is located in a well-developed area, the existing roadway network is mostly adequate for the level of traffic generated.
Lessons Learned and Potential Best Practices Academy’s site search in the southeastern U.S. demonstrated the valuable role a state DOT can play in bringing businesses to its state. The Georgia DOT worked in partnership with the state and local economic development agencies to provide information about transportation infrastructure—existing, planned, and feasible—of sites under consideration. This proactive engagement with the development process enabled GDOT to assist and encourage economic development and its location in Georgia. Continued involvement with the businesses after DCs or other major facilities are built may provide opportunities to partner on future expansions. Potential best practices associated with both the existing and new DCs include:
• Site location—both general and specific—may involve a number of criteria or advantages. In the cases of the two Academy DCs, criteria or advantages of interest included:
o proximity to an interstate highway interchange, o existing and planned infrastructure (in Katy, the existing facility and the
expansion of I-10; in Georgia, the roadway network at the new site), o location within distribution network, o availability of suitable workforce, and o establishment of tax abatements, grant funding for utility and power
infrastructure, and port credits (Georgia location); • Locate DCs near regional highways to limit the improvements needed to roadways; • Locate the DC near an interchange or other highway access that is:
o designed to handle large and heavy trucks and o has capacity to handle a large number of additional trucks;
• Establish communication between TxDOT and the DC owner or developer well in advance of any location decision to discuss and agree on access or other improvements that are needed. During site selection for the Georgia DC, both the company and the Georgia DOT benefited from:
o early information from the DOT on existing and planned roadway network at multiple sites within the state and
o collaboration in the site selection process among DC owner, DOT, and other state and local agencies;
• Continue communication between TxDOT and DC owner concerning transportation-related needs and issues; and
• Roadway improvements provided by the DC on its own property and/or connecting to TxDOT roads (such as the additional left turn lanes at the Katy DC) further improved the DC’s access.
29
Practices to Avoid Potential practices to avoid associated with the existing DC include:
• Installation of a traffic signal solely to facilitate site traffic to enter and exit the site (plan abandoned).
CASE STUDY – IGLOO CORPORATION, KATY
Description of Distribution Center Igloo is a manufacturer of water coolers and ice chests. The company headquarters is located on Igloo Road in Waller County outside Katy, Texas. The facility includes a new factory/distribution center (805,000 square feet) plus the original distribution center, which was enlarged at the time of the new building’s construction and now also houses both factory and DC functions (500,000 square feet). Total size of the Igloo facility, including the corporate office, is almost 1.4 million square feet. It is situated on 105 acres. The DC serves at least 250 retailers nationwide and employs a total of 1300 people, some full-time, some seasonal. The facility includes space used to manufacture some Igloo products. Igloo products are primarily purchased by consumers during the summer, which determines the manufacturing and shipping schedules for the company. The shipping season for Igloo begins in late December (after Christmas), with the highest-volume shipping occurring in January through April. Product shipping tapers off from May through July and decreases further in late summer and early fall. October and November are the lowest shipping months. Truck pickup appointments during the shipping seasons range from 7:00 in the morning until 4:00 in the afternoon (until 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. during the busiest months). Some retailers leave trailers at the facility to be loaded at night (loading continues until midnight) and pick them up the next day. The site is located at the intersection of Igloo Road and Old Katy Road (US 90), just off I-10. Access to the site is by way of a highway interchange connecting Igloo Road to I-10. An existing rail spur is being upgraded to further increase shipping capabilities. Two driveways on the east side of the complex serve truck traffic, two additional driveways serve employee traffic; these all connect to Igloo Road. Another driveway provides access to US 90 to the north. Figures 3 and 4 show the facility and its access points, though the images precede the construction of the Igloo Road/I-10 interchange.
30
Figure 3. Overhead View of Igloo Facility (Source: Google Earth).
Figure 4. Wider View of Igloo Facility and Access Routes prior to Construction of Igloo
Road Interchange (Source: Google Earth).
31
Selection of DC Site Igloo’s distribution center has been located at the current site since 1979. When the previous facility’s lease for this site was close to expiring, the company needed to consider sites on which to expand the DC and factory. In addition to the existing Katy site, Igloo looked at alternative sites in Missouri, Florida, and California as well as Arlington, Texas. The distribution center, as well as the previous Igloo factory on I-10 in west Houston, had the advantage of a substantial and long-term employee base, proximity to an interstate highway and to the Port of Houston, and a nearby source of one of the primary materials used in their product manufacturing (plastic resin, manufactured in Houston). The backhaul rate is also favorable to Igloo: a larger number of trucks enter than leave the Houston area loaded with consumer goods. Because more goods come into the area than leave, many of these trucks would need to leave empty; as a result, Igloo generally pays a lower rate to ship its products out of the Houston area than it would in many other locations. Waller County authorized a Freeport zone and also a county tax abatement. Finally, Igloo was offered a very favorable lease renewal. Due to the above criteria, the decision was made to expand the existing distribution center and build manufacturing facilities at the Katy site. Construction began in 2003 and the new facility opened in November 2004.
Roadway Needs and Improvements during Development Igloo communicated with TxDOT for several years prior to the planned facility expansion about TxDOT’s plans for the area, including a widening of I-10. The planned highway widening was a significant factor in Igloo’s decision to remain and expand at the current site. An interchange at the intersection of Igloo Road and I-10 had been planned in 1979 but ramps had not been constructed; Igloo asked TxDOT to move up the construction of this interchange that had originally been planned for 2018. The new interchange was to resolve some potential capacity and safety issues connected with the heavier truck traffic expected from Igloo and from other businesses along that portion of I-10. TxDOT designed the new interchange and construction costs were paid by Igloo and the land owners on the other side of the highway. The interchange was completed in September of 2007. The only difficulty faced in the design and construction of the interchange was the refusal by one landowner to sell or donate land for the interchange. This was resolved by designing a three-legged interchange at Igloo Road with no westbound onramp. The westbound on-ramp will be built in the future. The I-10/Pederson Road interchange to the east of Igloo Road, which previously served as access to I-10, does have a westbound onramp that provides access to the Igloo Site. Before the Igloo Road interchange was completed, Igloo’s trucks and employees used Pederson Road to reach US 90 and then US 90 to reach Igloo Road. Igloo asked for a traffic signal to be installed at the intersection of Pederson and US 90 due to the increase in local traffic (and potential traffic safety issues) generated by the Igloo plant. TxDOT performed a signal warrant study and determined that a signal was not warranted. Now that the Igloo Road interchange is complete, the Pederson Road intersection is not used heavily by Igloo, so any traffic and safety concerns associated with that intersection have been resolved.
32
Current Access and Roadway Concerns There have been no unusual maintenance problems or needs; the Igloo Road interchange on I-10 was designed to handle truck traffic. Igloo Road adjacent to the DC is paved with concrete and has stood up well to truck traffic and turns. No other roadway improvements have been made by TxDOT in the vicinity of the site. Igloo has experienced no subsequent problems with access to or from its site. Igloo Road has some damage at its intersection with US 90, as shown in Figures 5 and 6. There has been some deterioration (broken pavement edges) in the corner radii at the mainly due to insufficient radii. The intersection is asphalt. There is also damage to the asphalt at its joint with the Igloo Road concrete pavement on the south side of that intersection (see Figure 6). This damage has apparently not caused significant access problems for the distribution center. Figure 7 shows Igloo Road, including the concrete section adjacent to the DC.
Figure 5. Insufficient Turning Radius and Pavement Failure with Some Patching,
Igloo Road and US 90.
33
Figure 6. Pavement Failure at Igloo Road and US 90.
Figure 7. Igloo Repaved Igloo Road with Concrete Adjacent to DC Property to Protect
against Deterioration due to Tire Scraping in Tight Turns.
34
Lessons Learned and Potential Best Practices The Igloo DC was originally built about one mile from an existing highway interchange that was capable of handling truck traffic. The new I-10 interchange adjacent to the Igloo DC was also designed to handle truck traffic and was funded by the business owners (Igloo and others) rather than requiring TxDOT funds. This demonstrated the value of interchange proximity to DCs. Other lessons learned that could be considered best practices include:
• Site location—both general and specific—may involve a number of criteria or advantages. In this case, criteria or advantages of interest included:
o proximity to an interstate highway interchange, o location of customers, o location of the primary manufacturing material used to make the product at the
combined factory-DC, o shipping rates for finished products, o availability of what was perceived to be adequate (safe and efficient access), o willingness of TxDOT to work with DC owner to upgrade access, o county establishment of a Freeport zone and tax abatements, and o location where qualified, experienced labor force was present (in this case, long
term existing employees). • Locate DCs near regional highways to limit the amount of improvements needed to roads
connecting the DC to the regional highways. • Locate the DC near an interchange or other highway access that is:
o designed to handle large and heavy trucks and o has capacity to handle a large number of additional trucks.
• Location of the DC on one or more roads that do not require further improvement to accommodate large or heavy trucks to reach the DC.
• Establish communications between TxDOT and the DC owner or developer well in advance of any location decision to discuss and agree on access or other improvements that are needed. Agree on:
o improvements to be made and o scheduling for improvements to be completed.
• Use concrete to pave roads that carry large volumes of large trucks or have high volumes of turning trucks.
• Providing funding and/or donations for right of way and construction can help both the DC owner/developer and TxDOT better respond to scheduled need for road improvements. In this case, it also helped to have other nearby property owners that were willing to participate (for their own access benefits).
Practices to Avoid Lessons that demonstrate practices or conditions to be avoided:
• Provide adequate corner turning radii to avoid deterioration of corner pavement edges; consider using either concrete paving or flush concrete curbs where trucks may occasionally drive beyond the pavement edges.
• Avoid butt joints of asphalt and concrete where truck traffic is frequent.
35
CASE STUDY 3 – BREAK-OF-BULK FACILITY IN NORTH TEXAS
Description of Distribution Center This break-of-bulk facility serves 13 distribution centers (called Store Support Centers) across the country. Its distribution region overlaps with other break-of-bulk facilities in its retail company’s network. Each of the Store Support Centers in turn serves approximately 100 retail outlets. The facility has about 1 million gross square feet with 85 truck bays. The DC operates six days per week (Monday-Saturday), three shifts per day, with a peak employee shift from early morning to early afternoon. Nearly all types of merchandise sold by the retail company pass through this DC, except for salon and furniture items. Most items are cross-docked from an inbound truck directly to an outbound trailer without spending any time in storage at the facility, but some items are warehoused for short periods of time. Few items are kept in residual or other long-term storage.
Selection of DC Location This DC is located in a DC park on a county road, near an intersection with an FM road. It is approximately 2.5 miles from I-35W (See Figures 8 and 9). The DC park houses several other operating DCs. Other DC facilities are being constructed on speculation for future lease. This DC company was attracted to this site because of the proximity not only to the interstate highway, but also to a BNSF intermodal facility, through which the DC receives most of its products. Additional incentives for the DC company included tax credits for hiring employees from the surrounding urban area and a location in a Free Trade Zone, though the zone’s benefits do not currently apply to this facility. The company had no formal contact with TxDOT during the location search.
36
Figure 8. Overhead View of DC and Access Roads.
37
Figure 9. Wider View of DC and Access Roads.
Roadway Needs and Improvements during Development There were no roadway improvements needed to serve this distribution center. The DC is located in a well-developed area with many similar facilities and much of the needed infrastructure already in place. TxDOT has planned future improvements to I-35W in the vicinity of the DC park.
Current Access and Roadway Concerns The DC has experienced some issues with street blockages at the at-grade rail crossing west of the DC (off the aerial photos to the left), and some highway traffic congestion close to the Texas Motor Speedway. The DC owners are looking forward to the planned I-35W corridor improvements. They are also anxious to see if a new corridor around the Dallas-Ft. Worth area might include a spur into the area. There have been some maintenance problems with the roads within the DC park (broken pavement).
38
Lessons Learned and Potential Best Practices This break-of-bulk facility in North Texas is located in an area with already-existing infrastructure, which eliminated the need for roadway or access improvements by TxDOT. Other lessons learned that could be best practices include the following:
• Site location—both general and specific—may involve a number of criteria or advantages. In this case, criteria or advantages of interest included:
o proximity to regional controlled access highway, o proximity to rail intermodal facility, o availability of what was perceived to be adequate (safe and efficient) access, o location of labor force, and o location within the company’s distribution network.
• Site located in a DC park already provided with essential access and street infrastructure, including access to a nearby interstate highway interchange and limited the amount of improvements needed to roads connecting the DC to the regional highways.
• Regarding improvements to the regional access system, maintain good communications between TxDOT and the DC community in order to provide input and be familiar with plans.
Practices to Avoid Potential practices to avoid associated with the existing DC include:
• Location of the DC on a roadway that is not suited to a large number of large trucks. The DC is located near a suitable highway interchange, but some of the roadways within the DC park (not TxDOT-maintained) may not be suited for the truck traffic that it carries and may be deteriorating as a result.
• Avoid access routes dependent on crossing at-grade rail crossings with significant numbers of daily trains.
CASE STUDY 4 – RETAIL DC IN NORTH TEXAS
Description of Distribution Center This retail DC covers 650,000 square feet on a 149 acre site. The DC serves over 750 stores in a 500 mile radius. In 2008, the facility employed 745 employees, 115 of them truck drivers, and operates seven days per week, 24 hours per day. The peak hour for shipping was reported to be around three in the afternoon, Monday through Saturday. In 2008 the operator estimated that approximately 54 trucks left and arrived at the DC each day; each truck generally leaves and returns the same day. Besides the distribution operation, limited truck maintenance (washing and oil changes) is performed on facility grounds.
Selection of DC Location The DC is located on an FM road, close to an intersection with a non-interstate freeway and approximately one mile from an Interstate highway. The facility is in a mostly undeveloped area at the edge of a small city on the outskirts of a metropolitan area. The primary criteria for this DC’s site location were its geographic position within the retailer’s store network, followed by the size of the land parcel. Other attractions of this location were the nearby freeway and
39
Interstate highway and the lower traffic congestion at the outskirts of the metropolitan area. Figure 10 shows the location of the DC relative to the non-interstate freeway.
Figure 10. North Texas Retail DC while under Construction and Its Principal Access
(Source: Google Earth). Incentives were provided by the Texas Department of Economic Development (about $1.37 million—including about $400,000 in loans) to build and improve access roads and intersections and to install water and sewer infrastructure. The city offered a 60 percent tax abatement for seven years (the city stood to annually receive about $1 million in taxes and the school district $2 million). The DC operator also gained access to the Texas Smart Jobs workforce training program. With this DC projected to be the largest employer in a small city, the city was willing to offer financial incentives to attract the DC. TxDOT was involved fairly late in the process, when a driveway permit was needed. If improvements had been needed on TxDOT roads, the DC company said they would have involved TxDOT earlier.
Roadway Needs and Improvements during Development Other than a driveway permit, no roadway improvements on TxDOT roads were needed during site development. Improvements were needed to the intersection and the access roads serving the DC. These improvements were provided by the city.
40
Current Access and Roadway Concerns The DC company currently reports no roadway concerns, either on TxDOT roads or on access roads.
Lessons Learned and Potential Best Practices This retail DC in North Texas is located in a relatively undeveloped area, but close to roads that are designed to handle the truck traffic it generates. Lessons learned that could be considered best practices include:
• Site location criteria or advantages of interest included: o location within the company’s distribution network, o land parcel size, o proximity to regional highway and Interstate Highway system, o availability of what was perceived to be adequate (safe and efficient) access, and o location of labor force.
• Locate DCs near regional highways to limit the amount of improvements needed to roads connecting the DC to the regional highways
CASE STUDY 5 – MANUFACTURER DISTRIBUTION CENTERS IN NORTH TEXAS This case study covers two DCs operated by the same company. The owner requested that the locations and identity be kept confidential, so no aerial photos are included in this summary.
Description of Distribution Center This product manufacturer has two distribution centers located in North Texas. One is a factory distribution center that stores newly made products and ships to the manufacturer’s trade partners’ DCs as well as to its own regional distribution centers. The second is a regional distribution center that ships to the manufacturer’s local distribution centers around the country. The two DCs are within the same county. The regional distribution center (RDC) operates five to seven days per week, 24 hours per day. It has over 800,000 square feet of gross floor area and employs approximately 150 employees over several shifts, with approximately 80 to 90 people at the peak shift (beginning late morning). The operator reports that an average of 70 to 80 of the company’s own trucks leave the facility per typical day. A one week count showed that a total of 275 trucks entered and departed each weekday that week. The RDC serves some local customers, as well as a network of 17 local distribution centers (LDCs). The radius of its service area is several hundred miles, serving seven other major cities in Texas and cities in seven other states. In addition to its distribution operations, the RDC provides some product customization and final assembly. The factory distribution center (FDC) operates four days per week, 10 hours per day, with one shift of 15 employees. It has about 500,000 square feet of gross floor area. According to the company, approximately 50 trucks enter and leave the facility on an average day. Week long counts showed similar truck volumes. The FDC’s service area is smaller than that of the RDC; the FDC primarily serves local trade partners/retailers and is served by suppliers.
41
Both DCs generally experience peak shipping toward the end of each fiscal quarter (March, June, September, and December).
Selection of DC Site Location Both the regional and the factory DCs are located close to Interstate Highways in well-developed business parks, and were already-existing facilities when taken over by the operator. One of the nearby Interstate Highways provides a reasonably direct connection to one of the company’s factories in another city. The locations also take advantage of a large employee base in the surrounding area. Selection criteria for the company’s distribution centers include the following:
• location within distribution network, • sufficient property/site size (allowing for future growth), • existing infrastructure, • good road access, • proximity to Interstate and/or major highways, • proximity to rail, and • attractiveness of site to investors (developers).
If future DCs are planned for Texas, site selection will also take into account the eventual location of significant new or improved travel corridors; the previously proposed Trans Texas Corridor was of interest to this company.
Roadway Needs and Improvements during Development There were no roadway improvement needs associated with this company moving into these two distribution centers in North Texas. The company selected existing facilities at least partially to avoid the need to pursue infrastructure improvements. Any improvements had been previously made. Both DCs are located in well-developed areas that had adequate roadway infrastructure for the DC needs at the time and had plans for additional improvements in future years.
Current Access and Roadway Issues These two DCs have experienced no access or roadway issues with TxDOT roads or interchanges. There have been some currently unresolved road maintenance issues on some local roadways within one of the business parks, including pot holes and broken concrete slabs. Some of the roadway sections and railroad crossings on the truck routes between the DC and the highway are rough enough to cause freight damage as trucks roll over them. Other roadway and access concerns include occasional delays from rail traffic at the at-grade rail crossings and traffic congestion close to a major activity center nearby. The DC owners are eager for the planned improvements along one of the nearby Interstate Highways and hope that some other proposed transportation network improvements in the state are completed so that the DC network will benefit from them.
Lessons Learned and Potential Best Practices This company’s two DCs in north Texas are located in areas that already had existing infrastructure (including buildings/facilities), which eliminated the need for roadway or access
42
improvements by TxDOT or (at least initially) by local agencies. Reuse of existing DC buildings removed many of the typical needs and negotiation items. Other lessons learned that could be considered best practices:
• Site location—both general and specific—may involve a number of criteria or advantages. In this case, criteria or advantages of interest included:
o proximity to regional highway, o availability of what was perceived to be adequate (safe and efficient) access, o location of labor force, o shipping rates for finished products, and o location within the company’s distribution network.
• Selection of existing DC buildings in an existing business or industrial park normally eliminates the need to obtain infrastructure improvements since they often have already been made.
• Locate DCs near regional highways to limit the amount of improvements needed to roads connecting the DC to the regional highways.
• The level of maintenance on local jurisdiction or industrial park roads (in one case) may not be up to TxDOT standards. This could cause some operators to prefer to locate along TxDOT highways.
Practices to Avoid Lessons learned that would be desirable to avoid include:
• As part of the site selection process, to avoid access roadways developing pot holes or other pavement condition problems, check the roadway design to make sure they can accommodate the anticipated volume of large or heavy trucks over an extended period.
• Avoid locations that depend on access routes with existing or anticipated congestion or frequent interruptions (e.g., at-grade railroad crossings).
CASE STUDY 6 – RETAIL DC IN WEST TEXAS
Description of Distribution Center This retail DC facility is 907,000 square feet, and in 2004 served 550 stores in Texas, New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona. The DC is eventually expected to serve up to 800 stores in its region. Employment at the facility has ranged between 375 and 450, partially due to competition with a recently booming oil industry in the area.
Selection of DC Location The DC is located on the frontage road of an Interstate Highway, adjacent to an interchange. The DC site is on an urban fringe, but is surrounded by other development including a soft drink DC, a call center, and several hotels. Criteria for choosing this site included its proximity to the retail chain’s existing stores, as well as to the chain’s planned expansion. One criterion for the site was a location west of I-35, in order to serve future stores in the Western United States. The fact that this DC would be a “big fish in a small pond” in this urban area, without significant competition for transportation and
43
employees, was also attractive to the chain. The DC company chose a site immediately off an east-west interstate highway, at the location of a proposed highway interchange that has since opened. Additional incentives provided by the local community included various financial, road, and development assistance from the local economic development corporation, tax abatements from the local taxing entities, and a fire suppression system for the DC installed by the county. Figure 11 shows the DC and its connections to the Interstate Highway.
Figure 11. Overhead View of DC and Access Prior to Construction of New Interchange at
Intersection Just to Left of DC (Source: Google Earth).
Roadway Needs and Improvements during Development The highway interchange/overpass that would serve DC traffic was planned, but not yet constructed when the DC was being built. There was no direct communication between the DC company and TxDOT; local agencies that had negotiated to bring the DC to the area contacted TxDOT after the site location decision was made to discuss the upcoming highway interchange and to request help in maintaining access to the DC via nearby interchanges until the new overpass was built. Funding to build the new interchange came from TxDOT district discretionary funds. TxDOT became involved with the project as the site was being platted, reviewing driveway locations and designs as well as drainage. The city reserved right of way for right-turn lanes, and the local economic development corporation (EDC) paid for relocation of billboards that would normally have been TxDOT’s responsibility.
44
Current Access and Roadway Concerns The DC reports no current concerns with highway access or roadway conditions. The TxDOT district reported some deterioration of pavement on frontage roads. Resulting traffic volumes required a traffic signal at the highway interchange to the west of the facility (an access point that was used more heavily by the DC before the new interchange/overpass was completed). TxDOT improved frontage road pavement and rebuilt sections of the frontage roads during the construction of the new interchange.
Lessons Learned and Potential Best Practices Lessons learned that could be considered best practices include:
• This DC was located in a relatively undeveloped area, but close to roads designed to handle the truck traffic it generates. This reduced the amount of improvements needed.
• Site location criteria included: o proximity to regional highway, o availability of what was perceived to be adequate (safe and efficient) access, o location of labor force, o location within the company’s distribution network, and o local financing of infrastructure improvements.
• Locate DCs near regional highways to limit the amount of improvements needed to roads connecting the DC to the regional highways.
• An additional lesson learned was the advantage of involving TxDOT early in the site selection process to avoid road improvement delays (which can in turn lead to DC construction or opening delays).
Practices to Avoid Lessons learned that represent practices to avoid include:
• Selecting a location needing an additional freeway interchange that is not scheduled to be constructed before the DC is scheduled to open.
• Wait until site or design plans are complete before contacting TxDOT to request major improvements. Doing so usually results in DC construction being completed prior to when the TxDOT improvements can be constructed.
CASE STUDY 7 – CONFIDENTIAL DISTRIBUTION CENTER, SOUTHEAST TEXAS A general merchandise distribution center is located at the intersection of two FM roads outside a small city in southeast Texas. At the request of the owner, the company name is withheld. This DC has approximately 1.1 million gross square feet of building floor area on a site of approximately 100 acres. It opened in 2005. It operates 24 hours per day, seven days per week. There is no other development other than rural farms nearby. At maturity, this DC will serve about 100 stores. Maturity was expected to occur in the 2008-2009 timeframe. Interviews were conducted in 2007.
Site Selection and Site Selection Criteria When the site search was initiated, the company was seeking a site generally on the west side of Houston. The search area was within 50-100 miles of what had been identified as an ideal
45
logistical location. The other final contenders for this DC were located within about 75 miles of the selected location. Site selection started with contact with the Governor’s Office of Economic Development through an agent in order to keep the owner’s identification confidential. Information sought from the GOED included labor force and demographic information, general economic conditions, likelihood of available sites, and good residential locations nearby for management relocations. The GOED assisted the agent to involve several local economic development agencies or departments to propose sites meeting additional criteria. Site selection criteria generally included:
• adequate labor force, • access via state highways or acceptable county roads from Interstate Highway, • site size and dimensions to accommodate standard site plan, • adequate facilities and drainage, • no railroad crossings or schools along access routes, • not adjacent to residential development or in an industrial park, and • improvements to provide adequate utility service and site access.
The city’s Economic Development Corporation represented the local area in the site search. The Sealy City Manager led negotiations on behalf of local agencies, but ultimately the county, TxDOT and the Texas Department of Agriculture were involved to address specific needs (TxDOT for roadway infrastructure). This DC owner considers local agency assistance and funding as what is necessary to make a site viable and competitive rather than pure “incentives.” This company does not seek local tax abatements other than to recover costs they might front end instead of waiting for public funds to come available for public improvements. The owner started site selection about one year prior to desired construction initiation. Site selection and negotiations for improvements took 2 to 3 years.
Requested Improvements In addition to the general site selection criteria listed above, to make the selected site viable for the DC, access improvements were needed as were utility extensions and site drainage. The DC owner front ended the drainage improvement costs that were then to be recovered over time through tax abatements. The city and county used Texas Capital Funds to help pay for other infrastructure improvements. Figure 12 shows the location of the DC and the primary access routes that now exist. Figure 13 shows the site plan that the DC owner developed. Prior to negotiations, the only access between I-10 and the site was via an existing interchange with a state highway and along the state highway to an FM road and then to the site. Truck traffic on the interchange was already heavy for a rural interchange with tight geometrics.
46
Figure 12. DC Site Location and Access Routes (Photo Source: Google Earth).
Figure 13. DC Site Layout and Access Driveways (Photo Source: Google Earth).
Employees
Trucks
47
The DC owner commissioned a traffic impact analysis (TIA) to determine access and roadway improvement needs. The TIA identified needs for left turn and deceleration lanes to serve the proposed site driveways plus improvements and a traffic signal at the intersection of the state highway and the FM road. Improvement of a county road that later became an FM road as a result of improvements made by TxDOT was also needed between the existing FM road and the site driveway (see Figure 14). Ultimately, because the state highway interchange could not be improved for higher truck volumes due to right-of-way constraints, TxDOT decided to create a new full interchange about one mile west at an existing grade separation over an abandoned rail line. There were already ramps to and from the west; the additional ramps were added to complete the interchange. The county road in front of the DC site was designated as an FM road and was improved and extended as a two-lane road to the new interchange about two miles from the DC.
Figure 14. Site Access Improvements Adjacent to Site. TxDOT was brought into the negotiations after the site plan was set and access improvements had been identified. TxDOT representatives stated that had they been brought in earlier, the site plan (site access) could have been adjusted to facilitate access. There was no funding programmed for the requested TxDOT improvements, and TxDOT did not have sufficient lead time to secure funding and construct the improvements. The TxDOT district engineer approached TxDOT’s administration seeking unprogrammed funds to cover the TxDOT portion of the cost of these improvements. Due to the late entry of TxDOT into the process, the DC opened prior to completion of the TxDOT improvements. Fortunately, this DC owner typically starts operations at about half the ultimate volume and ramps up to full operation over a period of
48
about three years. This reduced the impact of the new operation prior to completion of the access improvements.
TxDOT Concerns TxDOT concerns through this process were:
• brought in too late to either assist with or influence the site location or access plan; • not enough time to secure funding through the normal programming process; and • not enough time to complete improvements before the DC opened.
Certainly in this case, with the extent and types of improvements needed, the lead time was inadequate. The city policy of involving other agencies was similar to that of most others contacted—involve other agencies when need for their assistance arises. This DC owner, for reasons of confidentiality needed to avoid instigating higher site land prices, typically does not want to involve any more agencies than necessary. However, the DC owner was also concerned about the necessary lead time and duration to complete improvements. With both parties concerned, there may be ways to increase the lead time with the right strategy.
Current Operations and Conditions Once the road improvements were all completed, traffic operations improved. There have been no concerns about current operations. Conditions improved at the SH 36 interchange on I-10 due to relief provided by the new FM 3538 interchange. There had been no road maintenance issues identified by TxDOT or the DC operator as of the time of the interviews.
Lessons Learned Several lessons may be taken from this example include:
• Unless TxDOT is able to provide reasons to local agencies and DC owners to involve TxDOT earlier, it is likely that the same situation will continue to be repeated. In some cases, where few or only minor improvements are needed, the short lead time may be sufficient, especially if the DC owner will front end or pay improvement costs.
• A TIA can be helpful to identify what site access and road improvements are needed. • This DC owner prefers to rely on local agencies for improvements, including access
improvements, due to their ability to respond faster. TxDOT could encourage the Governor’s Office of Economic Development to encourage DC owners wanting quick DC construction to seek sites on local roads. That will not end requests for TxDOT improvements on state highways between major highways and the local roads, but it could reduce the number of requests.
• Some DC sites will need major access improvements and commitments by other agencies may limit ability for TxDOT to ignore the requests. Since TxDOT cannot count on funds being available, it would be beneficial to TxDOT to find a way to inform local agencies (and possibly the GOED) as to what can be counted on from TxDOT.
• TxDOT funds for unprogrammed improvements may be available through TxDOT’s administration (unprogrammed funds). District engineers also have small amounts of unprogrammed funds.
• Some DC owners will front end improvement costs if they can recover those costs later.
49
• DC owners want accessible sites. If TxDOT could assist identification of easily accessible sites, it might provide reasons to involve TxDOT earlier (possibly at the initial stages where GOED assists DC owners to find candidate areas).
• Improvements that benefit new DCs may also benefit other users and relieve existing problematic conditions.
Potential Best Practices From this case study, a few notable practices were identified that could be designated as best practices:
• Request a TIA as standard practice for any DC adjacent to a state highway or requesting improvements to state highways.
• If TxDOT funding is not readily available for requested improvements, negotiate for other agencies to contribute a portion of the cost.
• Request the DC owner (or local agency) to front end portions of the cost for which funding cannot be obtained in time to meet the DC opening schedule; this will require a repayment arrangement.
• If funding is not available for the TxDOT share of improvement costs, seek unprogrammed funds from TxDOT Administration.
Practices to Avoid Practices to avoid when possible include:
• Avoid selecting a location needing major road improvements to achieve the desired accessibility.
• Do not select a location that depends on interchanges that are not really designed for high volumes of large trucks.
• When major state highway improvements are needed, understand that the DOT’s processes usually require several years before a project can be completed. Under such circumstances, the DC developer and DOT district engineer should agree on a workable lead time for the funding scenario selected.
CASE STUDY CONCLUSIONS AND BEST PRACTICES Many of the findings from the case studies mirror what was found in the background review and the initial interviews. Many of the findings apply to TxDOT, but many also apply to DC site selectors and developers and to local economic development agencies and other local interests. As a result of the repeated findings, some credible conclusions can be drawn. The same is true for potential best practices and practices to be avoided. Fortunately almost all findings should help all parties work in similar directions since the goals are generally the same or mutually supporting.
Consistent Overriding Finding DC site selectors and developers consistently do not involve TxDOT in actual site selection. TxDOT is usually not contacted unless the DC developer needs highway improvements or driveway permits, and that usually occurs after site plans and often building designs are complete. This is so late in the DC development process that major improvements cannot be completed prior to the DC opening.
50
By the time TxDOT becomes aware of the need for improvements to state highways, if improvements are major, there often is not sufficient time to use the normal programming process and still meet the desired opening date for the DC. Finding sufficient funding can be just as challenging. It is much easier if TxDOT becomes involved early in the site selection process so TxDOT can help avoid sites that will need major road improvements, and if improvements are needed, more time will be available to seek and secure funds, if available.
Conclusions While past and current practice by DC site selectors and developers has been not to seek TxDOT involvement until late in their planning and design process, there can be advantages to all parties to involve TxDOT early. However, to achieve this, TxDOT will need to demonstrate to DC site selectors, developers, and local agencies the value of TxDOT being involved early. This subject is described in detail in Chapter 2 of the accompanying handbook titled Guidelines For Successful Location And Accommodation Of Major Distribution Centers On Texas Highways (15). Many DCs are located on city streets and county roads, but all depend on state highways (Interstate and regional freeways) for access. DC site selectors and developers—and TxDOT—can save both time and costs by selecting DC sites that are already served by truck-ready interchanges and access routes and are not subject to congestion. TxDOT can help to identify such areas along the state highway system. Hence, early TxDOT involvement can help DC site selectors and the local economic development agencies that seek to attract DCs to their areas. The seven case studies revealed some consistent patterns that are also consistent with findings in prior chapters. These include:
• DC site selectors and TxDOT desire to see DCs located where there is good truck-ready access and where the additional truck traffic will not lead to congestion.
• DC site selectors and developers and TxDOT desire to see safe efficient DC access where no undue delays result to DC or passing traffic. As a result, most DCs are located in rural areas, on the peripheries of urban areas, or in industrial parks provided with good truck access.
• Other site selection criteria that have been used for DCs in Texas include: o General location:
proximity to the destinations for the DCs goods (both current and anticipated); and
proximity to suppliers, vendors. o Site:
site size and dimensions (sufficient land to fit standard site plan to accommodate current needs and for predicted future expansion);
cost and quality of the land parcel; favorable site and facility costs; adequate existing infrastructure and drainage; and attractiveness of site to investors (developers).
o Access: access to north, south, east, and west corridors;
51
access via state highways or acceptable county roads from Interstate Highway;
proximity to an Interstate Highway or regional freeway; site immediately off an Interstate Highway at the location of an existing or
pending highway interchange; traffic patterns around nearby major cities, with the goal of avoiding
heavy/congested traffic; good road access; no railroad crossings or schools along access routes; proximity to rail; proximity to an intermodal facility; proximity to a major seaport; and eventual location of significant new or improved travel corridors.
o Qualified local workforce available; o Tax credits for hiring employees from the surrounding urban area; o Favorable shipping rates; o Location in a Free Trade Zone; o No adjacent to residential development; and o Improvements to provide adequate utility service and site access.
• Most DC site selectors wish to locate their facilities on the periphery of an urban area, in a rural area, or in an industrial park to avoid congestion, high land costs, and nearby residential development.
• Some DC owners prefer industrial parks where access and infrastructure already exists. Some are also willing to use existing buildings.
• Most DC developers seek and are given financial incentives tied to specific locations. This usually covers part or most of the infrastructure costs, but may also include tax abatements or other payments or costs.
• DC owners take advantage of the positive economic benefits to be realized by cities and counties where the DC locates (e.g., jobs, property taxes) and use them to leverage incentives and/or development costs from local or state agencies.
• A few DC owners are willing to pay or front end the cost for key access or other improvements.
• Only one DC owner interviewed for case studies or in the earlier general interviews mentioned their own use of traffic impact studies to assess access and needs for other roadway improvements.
Best Practices • For DC site selectors, developers, and owners:
o Site location—both general location and specific site—may involve a number of criteria or advantages. Appropriate criteria or advantages typically included:
location within distribution network; location of the primary vendors, suppliers and/or manufacturing materials
used at the DC; land parcel size and dimensions to accommodate site plan that will meet
current and anticipated needs; proximity to an Interstate Highway or regional freeway interchange;
52
location of the DC on one or more roads that do not require further improvement to accommodate large or heavy trucks to reach the DC—normally with 4 lanes or 2 lanes with shoulders;
availability of what is perceived to be adequate (safe and efficient access) existing and planned road and utility infrastructure; willingness of TxDOT and/or other transportation agencies to work with
DC owner to upgrade access; proximity to rail intermodal facility; local availability of suitable qualified workforce; provision of local agency funds to pay for infrastructure improvements
and other development costs; tax abatements; Freeport zone and port credits; and shipping costs for finished products.
o Locate DCs near regional highways to limit the improvements needed to roadways.
o Locate the DC near an interchange or other highway access that is: designed to handle large and heavy trucks and has capacity to handle a large number of additional trucks.
o Consider a site located in a DC park already provided with essential access and street infrastructure, including access to a nearby interstate highway interchange; limited the amount of improvements needed to roads connecting the DC to the regional highways.
o Locate DCs near regional highways to limit the amount of improvements needed to roads connecting the DC to the regional highways.
o Use traffic impact studies (TIA) to help locate DCs and their site access in locations where they can be successfully accommodated with no or limited additional roadway improvements (see TIA checklist in Chapter 3 of accompanying handbook, Guidelines For Successful Location And Accommodation Of Major Distribution Centers On Texas Highways.
o Establish communication with TxDOT and other transportation agencies well in advance of any location decision to discuss and agree on access or other improvements that are needed:
Obtain early information from TxDOT on existing and planned roadway network serving areas and specific of interest; and
Collaboration among DC owner, TxDOT, and other state and local agencies about improvements affecting site selection; agree on:
• improvements to be made; • scheduling for improvements to be completed; and • sources of funding for improvement.
o Continue communication with TxDOT (and other transportation agencies) owner concerning transportation-related needs and issues.
o When major state highway improvements are needed, understand that TxDOT’s processes usually require several years before a project can be completed. Under such circumstances, the DC developer and TxDOT district engineer should agree on a workable lead time for the funding scenario selected.
53
o To expedite funding for highway improvements, consider partnered funding. This may included shared funding, funding by the DC developer or local agency, or the DC owner front ending costs and being repaid over time or when funds become available.
o Provide funding and/or donations for right of way and construction to help TxDOT better respond to scheduled need for road improvements.
o Before selecting a location, check the design of roads to be used for DC access to make sure they can accommodate the anticipated volume of large or heavy trucks over an extended period.
• For local economic development and other agencies:
o Encourage DC site selectors and developers to follow the site selection criteria listed in the DC best practices.
o Establish communication with TxDOT well in advance of any location decision (involving the DC owner or developer as early as possible) to discuss and agree on access or other improvements that are needed:
early information from TxDOT on existing and planned roadway network serving areas and specific of interest; and
collaboration on improvements affecting site selection among DC owner, TxDOT, and other state and local agencies; agree on:
• improvements to be made and • scheduling for improvements to be completed.
o Continue communication with TxDOT and DC owner concerning transportation-related needs and issues.
o Provide funding and/or donations for right of way and construction to help TxDOT (and/or other transportation agencies) better respond to scheduled need for road improvements.
o Promote potential sites for DCs that are near regional highways to limit the amount of improvements needed to roads connecting the DC to the regional highways.
o Consider use of existing DC buildings in an existing business or industrial park; that normally eliminates the need to obtain infrastructure improvements since they often have already been made.
o To expedite funding for highway improvements, consider partnered funding. This may included shared funding, funding by the DC developer or local agency(s), or the DC owner front ending costs and being repaid over time or when funds become available.
• For TxDOT (and other transportation agencies):
o In support of TxDOT’s goal to support economic development, increase the visibility of TxDOT support of economic development efforts by providing briefings to local economic development agencies and community leaders about TxDOT projects, plans, and how TxDOT can help.
o Present a “TxDOT is Here to Help” approach, consistent with agency policies and procedures.
54
o TxDOT could also participate with presentations in the GOED briefings for site selectors, describing assistance TxDOT can provide and potential benefits to DC interests.
o Maintain ongoing communications with local economic development offices regarding how TxDOT can assist in the consideration of potential DC sites and provision of adequate access. Encourage those offices to notify TxDOT when site selectors first start looking for specific DC sites in their area so TxDOT can help them, too.
o Establish early communication with DC site selectors and prospective DC owner or developer well in advance of any location decision to discuss and agree on access or other improvements that are needed:
Early information from TxDOT on existing and planned roadway network serving areas and specific of interest; Offer assistance through provision of information about the highway system; current, programmed, or planned highway improvements; areas served by underutilized but truck ready interchanges; locations subject to congestion (existing or projected), etc.
Identify ways to provide safe and efficient access to candidate DC sites; Suggest a TIA to help identify access options and the best way to
accommodate the DC and passing traffic in near a candidate site; Discuss and compare state highway improvements needed for alternative
sites and site plans and the costs associated with those improvements; Provide information on timing, funding, construction of state highway
improvements’ communicating within TxDOT to explore other questions or requests;
Collaboration on improvements affecting site selection among DC owner, TxDOT, and other state and local agencies; agree on:
• improvements to be made and • scheduling for improvements to be completed.
Encourage DC site selectors and developers to follow the site selection criteria listed in the DC best practices list above.
o Continue communication between TxDOT and DC owner concerning transportation-related needs and issues.
o Request TIAs and use site plan reviews to help locate DCs and their site access in locations where they can be successfully accommodated with no or limited additional roadway improvements.
o Employ TxDOT access management policies and guidelines as described in the TxDOT Access Management Manual (16).
o To expedite funding for highway improvements, consider partnered funding. This may included shared funding, funding by the DC developer or local agency, or the DC owner front ending costs and being repaid over time or when funds become available.
o If funding is not available for the TxDOT share of improvement costs, seek unprogrammed funds from TxDOT Administration.
o Request the DC owner (or local agency) to front end portions of the cost for which funding cannot be obtained in time to meet the DC opening schedule; this will require a repayment arrangement.
55
o Use concrete to pave roads that carry large volumes of large trucks or have high volumes of turning trucks.
o Follow other recommendations contained in Chapter 3 of accompanying handbook Guidelines For Successful Location And Accommodation Of Major Distribution Centers On Texas Highways.
Practices to Avoid Some practices were identified that result in less than desired DC operation. Some problems are associated with site access that was insufficient upon the opening of the DC or became that way over time. Others required the expenditure of funds (transportation agency, economic development, or other local agency and/or the DC developer) for improvements that might have been avoided at another location. Some of these practices are listed below
• For DC site selectors, developers, and owners: o Waiting to contact TxDOT and other transportation agencies until the site has been
selected and site or design plans are complete, then requesting major roadway improvements. The frequent result is for the roadway improvements not to be complete on the DC’s opening date (often much later).
o Failure to consider the need for truck-ready access until after the site has been selected. This has resulted in the need for major improvements when another site might have already had suitable access or require only minor improvements.
o Selecting a location needing an additional freeway interchange that is not scheduled to be constructed before the DC is scheduled to open.
o Location of the DC on a roadway that is not suited to a large number of large trucks. The DC is located near a suitable highway interchange, but some of the roadways within the DC park (not TxDOT-maintained) may not be suited for the truck traffic that it carries and may be deteriorating as a result.
o Sites that depend on access routes with congestion that existed or was anticipated during certain periods of the day or week and resulted in delays to inbound and outbound trucks.
o Selection of a site where access routes depend on crossing at-grade rail crossings with significant numbers of daily trains. Delays to inbound and outbound trucks result.
o Overlooking or not checking on underdesigned or deteriorating access roads that developed pot holes or other pavement condition problems over time.
o Installation of a traffic signal solely to facilitate site traffic to enter and exit the site (due to poor access location).
o Insufficient corner turning radii causing broken pavement or trucks running off the pavement
o Butt joints of asphalt and concrete where truck traffic is frequent, resulting in pavement failures and potholes.
• For economic development agencies:
o Waiting to contact TxDOT and other transportation agencies until the site has been selected and site or design plans are complete, then requesting major roadway improvements. The frequent results are:
56
selection of a site needing improvements when sites in a nearby area might not have needed any or as many improvements;
no funding available for the requested improvements; and insufficient time to complete the needed roadway improvements by the DC’s
opening date (often much later).
• For TxDOT and other transportation agencies: o Waiting for DC interests to approach TxDOT and assuming that the normal project
development and funding processes will suffice in an economic development process. Proactive development of relationships with local economic development agencies and familiarization of them with TxDOT funding and scheduling can lead to fewer unrealistic expectations and earlier involvement of TxDOT.
o Insufficient corner turning radii causing broken pavement or trucks running off the pavement. Where short radii cannot be avoided, use concrete pavement or flush concrete curbs with asphalt pavements.
o Butt joints of asphalt and concrete where truck traffic is frequent, resulting in pavement failures and potholes. Use different joint designs that will withstand truck traffic loadings.
57
5. YEAR-LONG DC TRAFFIC COUNT
A year-long count of inbound and outbound traffic was conducted at a general merchandise distribution center at a confidential location in Texas. During the early stages of this project there were questions about how much traffic is generated by a DC and when the peak periods occur and how big they are. The purpose of the year long count was to obtain a general idea about the traffic generation patterns of DCs, such as hourly, daily, and monthly traffic variations. Little has been documented regarding such characteristics for DCs. The surveyed DC is located just outside a small town along an Interstate Highway just beyond the fringes of a major metropolitan area. The DC operates 24 hours per day and seven days per week. It has two driveways. One serves DC trucks plus a very small number of other vehicles servicing the back side of the building. The second driveway serves employees and visitors plus a very few additional vehicles that service the building (including virtually no large trucks). The owner of the DC agreed to permit the counts to be made, provided that no damage would result to any facilities and that the DC staff would not have to be involved with the count or the equipment. No modifications to on-site facilities were to be made. With those requirements, the count equipment had to be durable, safe from vandalism, self-powered, be able to transmit the data without use of land lines, and not store identifying information about vehicles or the site. The best available option given financial resources available was direct current-powered video imaging detectors using solar power, batteries, and a cellular modem. The detectors were capable of monitoring the two-lane (one per direction) driveways. They were mounted on light poles about 25 feet above the driveway and about 10 feet from the edge of pavement. Although the detectors were designed to distinguish between three vehicle class types, experience showed that the classification technology was not accurate at the slow speed of operation on the driveways. However, manual counts confirmed that for periods of several hours, the detectors were fairly consistent for total vehicles. COUNTS COLLECTED Accumulation of count data started in July 2008 and extended through early July 2009. The data reported here is for the year between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2009. Data were fairly complete for the truck driveway. In a few cases hourly counts were not recorded during maintenance of the equipment. In such cases when the equipment was returned to service, volumes stored in memory were downloaded, but recorded as the latest hour’s volume. Hence, for this driveway there are a few artificially high counts and some hours with no reported volumes. This covers an insignificant portion of the 8,760 hours counted. Data for the employee/visitor driveway are less complete. The detector stopped functioning at one point and had to be replaced. At another time the battery went dead and had to be returned to the factory for replacement. In the end, data were available for all or parts of seven of the twelve months. However, since these counts are being used to examine variations, only monthly variations were lost. The daily and monthly counts we do have are consistent on a monthly basis
58
so this shortfall is not viewed as seriously detracting from the findings as will be discussed below. FINDINGS
Caution The findings reported below are for one general merchandise DC in Texas. While it should provide an example of traffic characteristics of a DC, other DCs may experience different variations due to such factors as climate differences, location with respect to stores served and locations of suppliers, location relative to metropolitan areas, and types of stores and businesses served.
Monthly Variations Figure 15 shows the monthly variations of total trucks entering and leaving the DC. The data are for average daily trucks entering the DC during the month shown; these are not based on average trucks per month. November is the highest month as might be expected since it begins the Christmas season when retail activity peaks. The November volume is about 15 percent above average. Other peak months are July (readying for return to school season) and May (pre-summer). The monthly exiting volume pattern is the same as for entering.
Figure 15. Monthy Variations – Trucks.
As mentioned above, the data available show that employee/visitor vehicles were quite similar for the months counted. The highest month was less than 5 percent above average.
59
Daily Variations Figure 16 illustrates the daily variations in truck activity. These are consistent through the year. Friday is the peak day at about 115 percent of average. However, Tuesdays through Fridays are very similar in terms of total truck volumes. Because this DC has a 24/7 operation, even Saturdays and Sundays experience significant truck volumes at about 80 percent of average.
Figure 16. Daily Variations – Truck Volumes.
Figure 17 shows the hourly variations for employee and visitor vehicle volumes. On a daily basis this peaking is just slightly more pronounced than for trucks. The highest day is about 20 percent above average. Like with trucks, Tuesday-Friday volumes are very similar.
Figure 17. Daily Variations – Employee and Visitor Traffic Volumes.
60
Figure 18 shows the hourly variations for all traffic combined. On the average, the employee/visitor vehicles make up about 60 percent of this DC’s daily generated trips. Since the patterns of both trucks and other vehicles are almost the same, the combination is also about the same. The highest days for total trips—Wednesday and Thursday—are about 16 percent above average. The average weekday volume for total trips averages about 110 percent of average day trips for the complete week.
Figure 18. Daily Variations – Total DC Traffic Volumes.
Hourly Variations Traffic also varies with time of day. Figure 19 shows the inbound and outbound variations by time of day for trucks. The figures shown are the hour’s percentage of the daily directional total. The highest inbound hours are typically 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. The highest outbound hours are a little later, generally between 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. The outbound peaking is also a little more pronounced. The inbound peak hour averages about 6 percent of daily inbound traffic. The corresponding outbound volume is a little less than 7 percent. Of course, these are average trends, so volumes for specific days may look a little different. The inbound peak tends to be earlier since DC activity peaks during the day and inbound trips bring merchandise into the DC and outbound trucks take it away. However, some trucks enter empty after having delivered merchandise to a store; others leave empty after delivering merchandise to the DC.
61
Figure 19. Hourly Variations – Inbound and Outbound Trucks.
Figure 20 shows similar variations for employee/visitor traffic. The peaks are much more pronounced due to the scheduling of work shifts. At this particular DC, shifts vary during the week and not all workers start a shift at the same time (i.e., shifts are staggered). Furthermore, shift starting and ending time varies during the year. Hence, the average patterns shown in Figure 20 may understate some of the peaking that would occur at a DC with concurrent starting and ending times for similar shifts.
Figure 20. Hourly Variations – Inbound and Outbound Employee/Visitor Vehicles.
62
The highest inbound peak (which shows in Figure 20 as 6 a.m. to 7 a.m. but is often 5 a.m. to 6 a.m.) makes up over 20 percent of the daily inbound total. Since shifts appear to be somewhat staggered, the peaks spread somewhat over a few hours, although some of the spreading effect is due to averaging several months’ worth of data (individual day count data may be more helpful in establishing a percentage for the highest hour). There is also an evening inbound peak that follows the departure of the daytime shift. This shows to be about 5 p.m. to 6 p.m., but field observations indicated that the spread effect was due to multiple shifts starting between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. The outbound peaks correspond to the ends of work shifts. The night shifts end between about 2 a.m. to 4 a.m., while day shifts end anywhere between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. The highest outbound peak is only about half of the inbound peak. Figure 21 shows the peaking for the total traffic. Even with the steady truck volumes added in, the inbound morning shift peak still dominates with about 20 percent of the inbound traffic. The outbound peak averages about 12 percent. However, the midday traffic portion is higher than for employee/visitors.
Figure 21. Hourly Variations – Combined Traffic.
Hourly Traffic Volume Profiles In addition to the monthly, daily, and hourly variations, the hourly count data were sorted to show the profile of hourly volumes in terms of percent of average. Figure 8 shows the hourly percentages of average sorted in descending order for the 8,760 hours of the year. Transportation agencies use this type of profile to determine the design volume to use. Generally, the most cost-effective way to design is to accommodate the volumes up to a sharp break in the curve. In Figure 22, the break appears at about 250 to 300 percent of average.
63
Transportation agencies often use the 30th highest hour for design when a pronounced curve is not present. The 30th highest hour for truck volumes is about 275 percent of average which falls in the truck volume curve area.
Figure 22. Annual Profile of Hourly Truck Traffic.
As a result, if one knows about how many trucks—on average—are expected to be generated by a DC of this type, one could use 275 percent of that for a design level for access. That would cover nearly all peak hours. However, this may not be the correct volume to use for the purposes of a traffic impact analysis (TIA). TIAs should use hourly volumes that coincide to street peak hours, although for access, if those hours do not coincide with DC peaks, additional hours of analysis may be appropriate. Figure 23 shows a profile for total traffic based on the approximately 3,800 hours of data available for both driveways at the same time. This profile shows two distinct break points. One is at about 135 percent of average and is exceeded by about 20 percent of the hours. If the percentage was used, it would be exceeded about 20 percent of the time—too much for use in design. The next break appears at about 350 percent and is exceeded about 2.5 percent of the time. Beyond that, the curve becomes very steep. The equivalent to the 30th highest hour (prorated for number of hours in sample) is about 550 percent which is just below the top break. This volume is close to what was counted during the highest hour on three days in one week in July. It may be close to what should be used for design if the shift change occurs during the a.m. or p.m. street peak hour.
64
Figure 23. Profile of Total Hourly Traffic.
OBSERVATIONS
These variations show several things about the trip generation characteristics this general merchandise DC:
• Daily truck traffic volumes are fairly consistent throughout the year. Average daily vehicle trip generation was as much as about 15 percent above average during November and as low as about 15 percent below average in April. For this DC, November, July, and May were the highest months.
• Daily employee/visitor traffic volumes were quite steady throughout the months for which count volumes were available.
• Daily total vehicle trip generation at this DC peaked Wednesday through Friday at about 16 percent above the average day. Night shifts appeared to be scheduled Sunday evening through Friday morning. Truck volumes were slightly higher on Friday with Tuesday – Friday being the highest days. Volumes may vary at other DCs based on employee shift schedules.
• Truck traffic at this 24/7 DC peaked between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. Peaking was quite flat. The inbound peak preceded the outbound peak by one to two hours. At this DC the outbound peak for trucks averaged just over 6.5 percent of the outbound daily volume and the inbound peak averaged about 6 percent of the daily inbound volume.
65
• Employer/visitor trip peaking was much more pronounced, due primarily to traffic associated with shift changes at this DC, which had some staggering of work schedules. About 23 percent of the inbound trips occurred during the inbound peak hour. The outbound peak hour was much less pronounced at about 11 percent of daily outbound volumes. The shift ends at this DC appeared to be staggered.
• For total traffic, the employee/visitor volumes comprised just under 60 percent of the daily total. Since employee/visitor trips were both larger in number and more sharply peaked, the hourly variations more closely resemble the employee/visitor variations. About 20 percent of total daily inbound trips were associated with the start of the main daytime shift. Another 10 percent of the inbound trips occurred with the start of the main evening shift. Outbound peaking was more spread and peaked at about 11 percent of total outbound trips.
• Over the full year, hourly truck volumes were relatively consistent with nearly all hours having average plus or minus about 100 percent. The profile showed a pronounced break at about 250-275 percent of average, which is also about where the 30th highest hour falls for trucks.
• The profile was less clear for total trips; however, due to missing employee/visitor volumes for some months the profile also only covers about half of the days of the year. It may also be due to the high employee/visitor peak hours associated with shift changes that may substantially exceed other variations. Breaks occur in the profile at 150, 350, and 550 percent of average hourly nondirectional volume. The 550 percent approximately matches the peak hour volume counted during a July week and may be appropriate for access design (but not for use in traffic impact studies that normally use average weekday volumes which are about 110 percent of average total daily).
67
6. DC TRIP GENERATION The number of trips that enter and leave a development is referred to as trip generation. Trip generation is most frequently expressed in either rates per development unit (e.g., vehicle trips per 1,000 gross square feet of building floor area) or as regression equations using development units as the independent variable. Trip generation rates and equations are used in estimating traffic expected to enter and depart from proposed developments. Those estimates are used in traffic impact analyses that are used by developers and public agencies to assess the impacts that development-related traffic will have on the surrounding street system and what access and roadway improvements will be needed to satisfactorily accommodate the proposed development. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has the largest database of trip generation data in its Trip Generation report (17). Although this report contains trip generation data for over 160 land uses (including some subgroups of major land use categories), there are no data for distribution centers. As part of this project driveway traffic counts were made at seven major distribution centers in Texas. Several DC owners granted permission for these counts contingent on remaining anonymous. All seven have at least 500,000 gross square feet. Most are retailers’ DCs, but two belong to a manufacturer and one includes some value added activity within the DC. One also includes corporate headquarters. TRAFFIC COUNTS Traffic counts were conducted at most sites over a full week. Most counts were made using tube counters with the count data adjusted per manual counts. One site was counted using video detectors. Another site was counted manually only during the morning and evening street peak periods. Traffic counts were summarized into standard ITE trip generation rates for each site. Where week long counts were available, the weekday average was determined. The same was done for Saturdays and Sundays. TRIP GENERATION RATES Table 8 shows the trip generation rates for each of the seven DCs counted and for the periods counted. Cells that are blank or shaded out indicate those periods for which no data are available. The table also contains notes indicating the special characteristics of some DCs. The right three columns of the table contain the weighted average rates for each period. The averages are weighted by development units, that is, gross square feet of building area. This means that for each period, the total vehicles in or out are divided by the number of square feet of the counted DCs. This is consistent with the ITE method for determining average trip generation rates.
68
Tab
le 8
. Tri
p G
ener
atio
n T
raff
ic C
ount
Sum
mar
y –
7 D
Cs.
Perio
d D
irect
ion
Nor
th T
exas
R
etai
l DC
1
Nor
th T
exas
R
etai
l DC
2
Nor
th T
exas
R
etai
l DC
3
Nor
th T
exas
Fa
ctor
y D
C
Nor
th T
exas
R
egio
nal D
C
SE T
exas
Ret
ail
DC
11
SE T
exas
Ret
ail
DC
2
Wei
ghte
d A
vera
ge
Veh
icle
s
Tota
l V
ehic
les
Truc
ks
Tota
l V
ehic
les
Truc
ksTo
tal
Veh
icle
sTr
ucks
Tota
l V
ehic
les
Truc
ksTo
tal
Veh
icle
s Tr
ucks
Tota
l V
ehic
les
Truc
ksTo
tal
Veh
icle
sTr
ucks
Tota
l /1
,000
Sq
. Ft.
Perc
ent
Inbo
und
Perc
ent
Truc
ksW
eekd
ay
Dai
ly
In+O
ut
1394
30
8 28
10
371
169
106
895
558
1528
59
3 1.58
0 50
%
28%
A
M st
reet
pea
k ho
ur
In
85
2 26
5
110
8 5
4 20
9
359
13
33
16
0.09
6
59%
9%
Out
36
0
11
6 67
6
5 3
12
5 41
9
23
13
0.02
9
In+O
ut
121
2 37
11
17
7 14
10
7
32
14
400
22
56
29
0.12
5 A
M p
eak
hour
of
gen
erat
or
In
131
0 16
4
292
6 7
4 26
5
147
10
0.12
0
96%
5%
Out
53
0
30
6 10
7 8
6 4
15
13
6 3
0.04
2
In+O
ut
184
0 46
10
39
9 14
13
8
41
18
153
13
0.16
2 PM
stre
et p
eak
hour
In
11
1 2
9 7
26
8 4
4 34
23
18
5 18
10
5 9
0.07
1
42%
15
%
Out
10
7 4
40
9 17
8 7
5 4
23
12
554
9 14
5 16
0.15
8
In+O
ut
218
6 49
16
20
4 15
9
8 57
35
73
9 27
25
0 25
0.
229
PM p
eak
hour
of
gen
erat
or
In
111
2 90
10
22
7 9
5 3
23
21
105
105
0.10
9
42%
27
%
Out
10
7 4
126
14
33
6 12
4
29
19
145
145
0.08
8
In+O
ut
218
6 21
6 24
26
0 15
17
7
52
40
250
250
0.19
7 Sa
turd
ay
Dai
ly
In+O
ut
198
123
2814
92
65
50
29
2 17
2 89
5 31
2 0.99
1 50
%
18%
Pe
ak h
our o
f ge
nera
tor
In
25
0 9
8 10
9 4
3 2
16
14
146
10
0.06
0
92%
12
%
Out
13
6 7
13
11
14
0 6
3 20
14
12
4
0.03
9
In+O
ut
161
7 22
19
12
3 4
9 5
36
28
158
14
0.09
9 Su
nday
D
aily
In
+Out
15
6 42
27
95
55
54
44
236
191
802
326
0.94
0 50
%
16%
Pe
ak h
our o
f ge
nera
tor
In
103
4 26
2
190
2 3
3 18
18
14
0 6
0.09
3
93%
7%
Out
24
1
8 6
17
2 5
5 9
9 10
1
0.01
4
In+O
ut
127
5 34
8
207
4 8
8 27
27
15
0 7
0.10
7 1 In
clud
es c
orpo
rate
hea
dqua
rters
and
val
ue a
dded
/pro
duct
enh
ance
men
t sec
tion
69
The summary table also shows the portion of traffic made up of large trucks. These are SU 30 (approximately 30 foot wheelbase single unit trucks) or larger trucks. Nearly all are tractor-semi-trailer combinations. An attempt was also made to develop stable regression equations for the rates. However, the coefficient of determination (R2) was too low in each case to support an acceptable regression equation. Figures 24 through 28 show the results in terms of trips plotted against gross floor area as well as the resulting regression equations. Even elimination of DCs with differing characteristics (factory DC, value added facilities, corporate headquarters) did not result in significantly better statistical fits. The results for weekdays show a general trend although one site exhibits a consistently high rate across most periods. The weekend day trends are inconsistent because some operate all seven days during the week while others are closed or have limited operation on one or both weekend days.
Figure 24. Daily Weekday Vehicle Trip Generation versus Gross Square Feet of DC Floor Area.
70
Figure 25. Weekday AM Street Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation versus Gross Square Feet of DC Floor Area.
Figure 26. Weekday PM Street Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation versus Gross Square
Feet of DC Floor Area.
Average Rate
71
Figure 27. Weekday AM Peak Hour of Generator Vehicle Trip Generation versus Gross Square Feet of DC Floor Area.
Figure 28. Weekday PM Peak Hour of Generator Vehicle Trip Generation versus Gross Square Feet of DC Floor Area.
The a.m. and p.m. street peak hours and the peak hours of generator are the periods of most importance for assessment of access needs and traffic impacts. The street peak hours are the highest consecutive hours for street traffic between 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. on weekdays. Those are the times when traffic is heaviest on adjacent streets serving the development site. The peak hours of generator are the highest hours of development site trip generation between midnight
Average Rate
Average Rate
72
and noon (a.m. peak hour of generator) and noon and midnight (p.m. peak hour of generator). Those periods are when traffic to and/or from the site is heaviest and is often used for driveway and turn lane design. In addition to the regression lines that were attempted, Figures 24 through 28 also each show a dashed line representing the weighted average trip generation rates shown in the summary table. These lines are shown for reference purposes. Given the scatter of data shown, it is clear that there is not a strong relationship between trips for any period and gross floor area. This may be due to the variability of operations associated with the sample DCs or it may just be the small sample size. The variability in operations of the various DCs consists of differences in operating days and hours, shift time changes, and staggering shift change times. There may also be differences in DC maturity—the percent of planned capacity that the DC handled at the time of the counts. There may also be seasonal differences as demonstrated in the previous chapter. CONCLUSIONS The trip generation counts for the seven DCs did not yield a statistically consistent trip generation relationship between vehicle trips and gross square feet of floor area, the most common independent variable usually used for estimating trip generation. While approximate employment was available for some of the sample DCs, those estimates were said to be very rough. Employment is not always known at the time that TIAs are usually performed and are often estimated based on square feet of floor space. Hence, the employment estimates were not judged to be appropriate for use as an independent variable. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CAUTION If TxDOT desires to use a trip generation rate for a TIA or other purpose, the best available basis is the average rates contained in Table 8. However, caution is urged since the sample variability is significant. If TxDOT finds frequent need for such trip generation rates, additional sample DC should be selected and counted.
73
7. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLEMENTATION
This project sought to determine the process and factors by which large distribution centers are located as well as what impacts they create on the state highway system and how best to address any adverse impacts. This project also developed a strategy for helping TxDOT be more effective in addressing its role in both the economic development and access provisions associated with these distribution centers. This chapter presents some overall, high level conclusions and recommendations and refers to more details recommendations described elsewhere in this report and in the accompanying handbook titled, Guidelines For Successful Location And Accommodation Of Major Distribution Centers On Texas Highways. This chapter also recommends actions to be taken immediately to place TxDOT in the position to attract requests for involvement in DC site selection and access—something TxDOT desires greatly. CONCLUSIONS At the outset of this project there was concern that the impacts of trucks that travel to and from DCs might be causing accelerated deterioration of the roadways providing access. There was also concern that many DCs were being located on sites that were rural and did not have the necessary roadway infrastructure to provide the needed access. Thirdly, concern was expressed that TxDOT was finding out about new DCs too late to either influence site selection or respond to requests for highway improvements to provide the needed access.
Impacts Contacts with maintenance and area engineers in several districts with large DCs yielded a strong conclusion that state highways serving large DCs are not experiencing accelerated deterioration or wear. DC trucks are typically within the permissible weight limits for state highways. There were reports of pavement damage due to repeated use by overweight trucks, but these were described as mostly trucks serving oil fields. Any concerns about DCs and their truck traffic concerned the site selection and planning process the DC owners and developers used.
Site Selection and Access It was confirmed during this project that TxDOT is rarely involved in the DC site selection process. TxDOT receives occasional requests for information about highways, traffic volumes, improvement projects, and construction schedules, but those involved in DC site selection keep all information very close to the vest—essentially confidential until the site has been selected and many of the local agency decisions and negotiations completed. Part of the reason is competition among cities for these sources of major employment—often 500 or more jobs per DC. However, the other main reason is to help negotiations between DC developers and local agencies competitive so the DC owners can secure an advantageous deal for locating in a particular city. DC developers also do not want land owners to boost land prices upon hearing a DC might be coming.
74
Once the site has been selected and secured, and once site design starts, DC developer attention shifts to the design. By the time the DC developer seeks an access permit or approaches TxDOT for a state highway improvement, design is well underway or even just about complete. It is often too late to influence access locations, let alone site alternatives. Hence, while TxDOT might in some cases be able to point out areas and sites that might offer better access and need no or fewer highway improvements, it is often too late. Additionally TxDOT often does not have sufficient time to go through its normal project development and funding process to get the improvement to construction. Many DCs open well in advance of completion of highway improvements—if funds can be found to pay for them. In some cases TxDOT funding may not be available for multiple years.
Advance Notice This points to the third concern—insufficient advance notice to properly respond. TxDOT, like most government agencies, has a set of processes it must go through to take a project from conceptualization to completion. Those processes take time—often 6 to 12 years for major projects. On the other hand, DC site selection usually starts about two years before desired construction initiation and about three years before desired opening. TxDOT often is contacted for improvements with less than half that time to work with. As stated above, that is not long enough lead time. To be more effective at (1) reducing the number and extent of highway improvements (by helping DC developers find truck-ready underused accessible locations) and (2) having a chance to provide improvements on a more timely basis, TxDOT does need to become involved earlier. The rest of this chapter addresses how TxDOT can get involved earlier and help DC site selectors and developers and local economic development agencies have accessible DC sites without undue improvements to state highways.
Getting Involved Early While past and current practice by DC site selectors and developers has been not to seek TxDOT involvement until late in their planning and design process, there can be advantages to all parties to involve TxDOT early. However, to achieve this, TxDOT will need to demonstrate to DC site selectors, developers, and local agencies the value of TxDOT being involved early. This subject is described in detail in Chapter 2 of the accompanying handbook titled Guidelines For Successful Location And Accommodation Of Major Distribution Centers On Texas Highways.
Selecting Sites that Are Already Truck-Accessible Many DCs are located on city streets and county roads, but all depend on state highways (Interstate and regional freeways) for access. DC site selectors and developers—and TxDOT—can save both time and costs by selecting DC sites that are already served by truck-ready interchanges and access routes and are not subject to congestion. TxDOT can help to identify such areas along the state highway system. Hence, early TxDOT involvement can help DC site selectors and the local economic development agencies that seek to attract DCs to their areas. The conclusions and best practices sections at the end of Chapter 4 of this report and Chapters 2 and 3 of the accompanying handbook can help TxDOT, DC site selectors and developers, and
75
local economic development (and other) agencies find accessible sites and to understand the implications associated with requesting state highway improvements. RECOMMENDATIONS In short, the overview of the recommendations is to:
Consistent with TxDOT’s goal to support economic development in Texas, work with the Governor’s Office of Economic Development to provide information about how TxDOT works, the process of requesting and obtaining highway improvements, and funding implications as well as providing useful information on highways and accessibility that will be useful to DC interests (e.g., projects under construction, programmed or planned; truck-ready underutilized interchanges, congested highway segments, etc.).
Proactively develop relationships with local economic development agencies since they are often involved in both site selection and in securing improvements of various types. Educate those agencies and others about access, state highways, and the highway improvement and funding process so they can communicate them to DC interests.
Adopt a “TxDOT is here to help” posture. Assist the DC interests with beneficial information including site selection criteria that benefit both the DC owners and developers and TxDOT.
Provide information on funding, the process needed to get it from TxDOT, and options available to DC developers to fund projects and even to accelerate them.
Also describe the normal lead times associated with different types of improvements and how scheduling occurs.
Offer assistance to DC site selectors and to local economic development agencies to help them find mutually beneficial sites (highly accessible; minimal state highway improvements needed).
Offer to assist with developing the DC site access plan. Encourage a traffic impact analysis to identify or confirm the need for specific access improvements or to evaluate alternatives. Review site plans before design begins to identify potential for improved site access or to reduce impacts on adjacent roads.
IMPLEMENTATION The following steps are suggested to put TxDOT in a position to pursue these actions. These could be completed by TxDOT staff. If needed, some could be provided under an RTI implementation contract.
Supply the brochure being developed as part of this project to all TxDOT district and area offices, especially those where there are significant numbers of DCs. Priority districts are:
o Dallas; o Fort Worth; o Houston; o Waco; o Tyler; and o San Antonio.
76
Provide the PowerPoint presentation being supplied as part of this project to the Governor’s Office of Economic Development, TxDOT’s Government and Public Affairs (GPA) office, and all district engineers to use in briefings to site selectors, economic development agencies, and local community leaders to help explain the opportunities and needs associated with the DC site selection and design process.
Distribute the TIA checklist and the site plan review guidelines to district and area engineers in at least the six districts listed above for use in working with proposed DCs.
Provide briefings to each of at least the six districts listed above so they better understand the issues, implications, opportunities, strategy, and resources available. Invited staff would ideally include at least:
o district engineers, o director of Transportation Planning and Development, o public information officer, o area engineers, o site plan reviewers, and o staff responsible for issuing access permits.
Develop and maintain current information of value to DC site selectors and developers, such as:
o state highway and local road traffic volumes; o congested locations or segments of state highways; o programmed improvements (already shown on the “project tracker” on this
website); o planned improvements not yet programmed; o access policies, design requirements, and permit procedures; o procedures for requesting and obtaining state highway improvements; and o how and where to seek more information.
Maintain and expand the TxDOT “project tracker” website to include programmed projects in addition to those under construction.
77
APPENDIX A – GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SITE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS FORM
Source: http://www.texaswideopenforbusiness.com/site-search-assistance.html
79
O F F I C E O F T H E G O V E R N O R
E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T & T O U R I S M
Site Location Requirements Form
To assist you in identifying areas in Texas most suitable to your objectives, please provide the information requested as specifically as possible. Check all blocks as applicable to assure proper handling.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The Economic Development & Tourism division typically works closely with regional and community economic development groups to obtain site specific information for projects. Unless otherwise specified, the following procedure will apply.
The Economic Development & Tourism division will advise selected community development professionals or volunteers as deemed appropriate for the purpose of providing assistance and/or information requested herein and in other communications.
Communities will correspond directly with your company and keep the Economic Development & Tourism division informed of progress.
Please specify here, any special confidentiality requirements your company may have:
The Office of the Governor, Economic Development & Tourism division, as a state agency, must comply with the Texas Public Information Act (the “Act”). The agency will use best efforts to maintain the confidentiality of the name of and other information related to a company seeking to locate in the state until after the location negotiations are completed. In the event that a public information request related to the company is submitted to the agency, the agency will (i) promptly notify the company of the request, (ii) take all possible and appropriate actions with the Attorney General of Texas to prevent release of the information, including asserting exemptions under the Act (including the Economic Development Negotiations exception of section 555.131 and the Trade Secrets/Commercial Information exception of section 555.110) and (iii) provide the company with full information and opportunity to participate in such process. To assist us in determining whether an exemption exists, please check the box below if you believe the information you are providing is exempt from disclosure and explain why.
The enclosed information is exempt from disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act because:
Signed Date Title Phone Please return completed form to: Office of the Governor Economic Development & Tourism Domestic Expansion & Recruitment P.O. Box 12428 Austin, TX 78711-2428
The Office of the Governor Economic Development & Tourism division does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age or disability in employment or provision of services.
Telephone: 512/936-0534 TDD: 512/936-0555 Fax: 512/936-0080
80
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Corporate Information - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Company Contact Address Title City Phone State/Province Fax Zip/Postal Code/Country E-Mail
Parent Company Website Address Location Ownership: Private Public
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project Timeline - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Immediacy of need: Information only at this time Initial site visit expected in months Preliminary decision date Proposed final decision date Decision dependent upon External Financing Identified Board approval of internal project funding Product contracts pending Other Business Type Project Type Distribution Consolidation Fabrication Expansion, new location Assembly Expansion, existing location Service Relocation Headquarters Start-up company Other Please identify your North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code___________________________________ (Find you NAICS code at www.naics.com)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Most Critical Needs- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(In order of importance) 1. 2. 3. 4.
81
5. Comments: Is the project: resource driven Yes No market driven Yes No other Do these factors limit your search to specific areas of Texas? Yes No Regions of interest: Statewide Specific area(s):
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Financing- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Capital Investment: Estimated Total Investment $ Plant $ Land $ Equipment $ Does your company have the funds necessary to finance this project? Yes No If no, please explain __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Personnel - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - Projected employment within first year of operation Peak employment Estimated time period to reach peak employment: 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-5 years Other Number of personnel to be transferred to new location: In-state transfers Out-of-state transfers Types of labor required in local area: Unskilled % of workers Average wage________________________________________ Skills: % of workers. % of workers. % of workers. % of workers. Prefer non-union Prefer union Union not a factor Training Assistance Important Training not a factor
82
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Environment- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Permit/license assistance needed Not a factor
Facility will have no environmental impact
Facility will affect the environment in the following manner: Content Volume Air Water Sewer Odor Noise Other Is recycling applicable? Yes No Type of feed stream needed Type of feed stream available
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Market - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Product(s) of proposed facility: Raw materials: origin Market areas to be served from project facility (indicate three largest metropolitan areas to be serviced within each market area): 1 2 3
Texas
U.S. Region (other than Texas)
National
International
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Transportation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Production materials arrive via: Air % Truck % Rail % Barge % Ship % Finished products distributed via: Air % Truck % Rail % Barge % Ship % List related requirements: International air service United parcel service Corporate aircraft facilities Common carriers (trucks) Rail Inter-modal
Other:
83
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Special Services - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Support services:
Machine shop Metal fabrication Heat treating Plating Painting Sterilization/Laboratory
Other?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Site/Building - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Site preference: Location preference: Industrial park Enterprise Zone Suburban Campus setting Foreign trade zone Rural Freestanding site Port site Urban Incubator site Major highway access North South East West Rail siding Interstate access Southeast Southwest Northeast Commercial airport within miles Northwest All considered Private airport within miles College/university within miles Population density /square mile within a radius of miles Other: Size of site: minimum acres preferred Parking for cars An existing building is: Required Preferred Unnecessary Desire: Lease Lease with option Purchase Build-to-suit Under single roof Multiple buildings acceptable Office sq. ft. Production sq. ft. Warehouse sq. ft. Outside storage sq. ft. Other sq. ft. Total under roof sq. ft. Other building requirements: Type of construction Preferred Mandatory Ceiling heights Floor specifications/type
84
Sprinkler Air conditioning Loading docks - how many
Overhead crane capacity Bay widths Special building requirements:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Utilities- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Electricity: Monthly peak demand (kW) Monthly kilowatt-hours (kWH) or Annual peak demand (kW) Annual kilowatt-hours (kWH) Number of shifts ____________________ (e.g. 3 shifts) Days of operation____________________(e.g. 24/7) If available: Anticipated power factor: power being used (kWH/(Power supplied from the line (KVA) Anticipated load factor: annual kWH/(Demand – kW x 8760 hrs in a year) Gas: Natural gas is: Essential Preferred Not used Estimated cubic foot usage per month
For what purpose: Can alternate fuel be used? No Yes Type Water: Water usage per month G.P.D. required For what purpose: Sewer: Volume per month Content Special requirements:
Thank you for your interest in Texas! If you have any questions regarding this form please call (512) 936-0534
Fax completed forms to 512/936-0080
Rev. 10/3/2003
85
APPENDIX B – INTERVIEW SUMMARIES – DISTRIBUTION CENTERS
86
Tab
le B
-1. I
nter
view
Sum
mar
ies –
Dis
trib
utio
n C
ente
r R
epre
sent
ativ
es.
Com
pany
, N
ame,
Titl
e,
Con
tact
In
form
atio
n
Dis
trib
utio
n C
ente
r L
ocat
ion
Con
str.
Pe
riod
O
peni
ng
Dat
e H
ow fa
r in
ad
vanc
e do
es
sear
ch b
egin
?
Initi
al S
earc
h A
rea
Bas
ic c
omm
unity
ch
arac
teri
stic
s sou
ght
How
do
you
sele
ct a
si
te?
Ret
aile
r #1
Wax
ahac
hie
~199
9 to
20
01
(27
mon
ths)
2001
12
-18
mon
ths
once
a re
gion
is
iden
tifie
d;
entit
lem
ent
and
perm
ittin
g pr
oces
s may
ta
ke 2
yea
rs.
Okl
ahom
a bo
rder
dow
n to
Hou
ston
, I-3
5 an
d I-
45 c
orrid
ors.
• Lo
catio
n re
lativ
e to
st
ore
netw
ork
that
the
DC
will
serv
e (m
odel
ed to
opt
imiz
e di
stan
ces)
•
Site
of a
t lea
st 1
00
acre
s •
Tran
spor
tatio
n in
fras
truct
ure;
clo
se to
in
ters
tate
, maj
or st
ate
road
s •
Avo
id h
eavi
ly
cong
este
d ar
eas,
reta
il ar
eas,
othe
r tra
ffic
-re
late
d ob
stac
les.
• Pr
oxim
ity to
maj
or
east
-wes
t and
nor
th-
sout
h hi
ghw
ays
Ret
aile
r #2
Seve
ral
V
ario
us
1980
s to
pres
ent
1 ye
ar +
. St
arts
by
look
ing
for
idea
l log
istic
al
loca
tion.
50-1
00 m
iles f
rom
idea
l lo
gist
ical
loca
tion.
M
ost D
Cs s
erve
abo
ut
100
stor
es.
Labo
r for
ce d
emog
raph
ics
fit d
esire
d em
ploy
ee
char
acte
ristic
s; a
dequ
ate
road
net
wor
k al
read
y av
aila
ble;
goo
d re
side
ntia
l lo
catio
n w
ithin
20
mile
co
mm
ute
for e
mpl
oyee
s (in
clud
ing
supe
rvis
ors
who
are
tran
sfer
red
from
ot
her D
Cs)
incl
udin
g go
od lo
cal e
cono
my.
Onc
e ar
ea is
foun
d to
be
acce
ptab
le, c
hara
cter
istic
s in
clud
e si
te p
roxi
mity
to
idea
l loc
atio
n, u
tiliti
es,
acce
ss, n
eces
sary
road
im
prov
emen
ts to
fa
cilit
ate
road
acc
ess,
no
scho
ols o
r RR
cro
ssin
gs
alon
g ac
cess
rout
es, n
ot
next
to re
side
ntia
l are
a,
usua
lly n
ot in
indu
stria
l pa
rk.
87
Com
pany
, N
ame,
Titl
e,
Con
tact
In
form
atio
n
Dis
trib
utio
n C
ente
r L
ocat
ion
Con
str.
Pe
riod
O
peni
ng
Dat
e H
ow fa
r in
ad
vanc
e do
es
sear
ch b
egin
?
Initi
al S
earc
h A
rea
Bas
ic c
omm
unity
ch
arac
teri
stic
s sou
ght
How
do
you
sele
ct a
si
te?
Site
sele
ctio
n co
nsul
tant
Se
vera
l site
s an
d co
mpa
nies
; di
scus
sion
m
ore
gene
ral
than
site
sp
ecifi
c.
NA
; pr
ojec
t de
ferr
ed
due
to
dow
ntur
n in
co
mpa
ny’s
pr
oduc
ts.
Was
to
have
bee
n 20
07-8
3 ye
ars t
o op
enin
g •
For S
egui
n si
te, t
hey
wan
ted
near
H
oust
on, b
ut d
id n
ot
wan
t con
gest
ion,
hu
rric
anes
; Seg
uin
was
firs
t city
to w
est
with
ade
quat
e la
bor
forc
e.
• U
sual
ly w
ant l
ess
than
100
mile
s fro
m
logi
stic
al id
eal.
• La
bor f
orce
with
in 2
0 m
iles
• U
tiliti
es
• M
otiv
ated
loca
l go
vern
men
t (in
cent
ives
)
• G
ood
arte
rial a
cces
s •
4-la
ne a
cces
s roa
ds
• N
o bo
ttlen
ecks
•
No
high
win
ds o
r ot
her s
imila
r wea
ther
de
terr
ents
•
Goo
d ro
ad
mai
nten
ance
•
Wid
e sh
ould
ers
• N
o sc
hool
s zon
es o
n ac
cess
rout
es
• Tr
affic
sign
als
• N
o to
lls (i
gnor
ed b
y on
e re
taile
r)
• Sh
ippi
ng lo
catio
ns
(sto
res)
•
Labo
r ava
ilabi
lity
• U
nion
izat
ion
(no)
•
Cos
t of s
ite, b
uild
ing
• Tr
ansp
orta
tion
cost
s •
Taxe
s •
Ope
ratin
g co
sts
• U
tility
cos
ts
88
Com
pany
, N
ame,
Titl
e,
Con
tact
In
form
atio
n
Dis
trib
utio
n C
ente
r L
ocat
ion
Con
str.
Pe
riod
O
peni
ng
Dat
e H
ow fa
r in
ad
vanc
e do
es
sear
ch b
egin
?
Initi
al S
earc
h A
rea
Bas
ic c
omm
unity
ch
arac
teri
stic
s sou
ght
How
do
you
sele
ct a
si
te?
Ret
aile
r #3
Kat
y 20
03-2
004
2004
A
cou
ple
of
year
s;
prep
arin
g fo
r ex
pira
tion
of
old
faci
lity
leas
e in
200
4
Site
s und
er
cons
ider
atio
n in
clud
ed
St. L
ouis
, MO
; Kan
sas
City
; Flo
rida
and
Cal
iforn
ia (p
aire
d si
tes)
, Arli
ngto
n, T
X.
Exis
ting
site
of o
rigin
al
build
ing
was
in K
aty,
bu
t was
n’t a
“sl
am
dunk
.”
• Em
ploy
ee b
ase,
bot
h ex
istin
g an
d po
tent
ial
• H
ighw
ay a
nd ra
il ac
cess
•
Port
acce
ss
• C
onsi
der c
osts
to
acqu
ire ra
w m
ater
ials
an
d sh
ip o
ut fi
nish
ed
prod
ucts
•
Ease
of
addi
ng/u
pgra
ding
ut
ilitie
s •
Leas
e co
sts
• A
cces
s im
prov
emen
t co
sts;
exi
stin
g si
te h
ad
begi
nnin
gs o
f an
inte
rsec
tion
to I-
10
that
nee
ded
to b
e fin
ishe
d.
Ret
aile
r #4
A
rling
ton
n/a
2002
1-
2 ye
ars
Var
ies;
in th
at c
ase
they
w
ere
repl
acin
g an
old
er
war
ehou
se in
the
sam
e ar
ea.
• La
bor f
orce
•
Cen
tral l
ocat
ion
rela
tive
to st
ore
netw
ork
• M
ajor
hig
hway
Sam
e as
pre
viou
s
Ret
aile
r #5
Bay
tow
n,
Cor
sica
na
Bay
tow
n:
2001
-200
2 (7
mon
ths)
C
orsi
cana
: ex
istin
g bu
ildin
g
Bay
tow
n:
2002
C
orsi
cana
: 20
05
Usu
ally
15-
18
mon
ths a
head
D
epen
ds o
n th
e st
ores
th
at w
ill b
e se
rved
. B
ayto
wn
DC
is a
n im
port
faci
lity,
so
need
ed p
ort a
cces
s.
Cor
sica
na is
a su
ppor
t fa
cilit
y fo
r Bay
tow
n,
whi
ch a
ffec
ted
loca
tion
deci
sion
s.
Goo
d-si
ze la
bor p
ool
with
in a
reas
onab
le
com
mut
e di
stan
ce; a
cces
s to
inte
rsta
tes.
Pref
er b
eing
nea
r in
ters
tate
s, m
ultip
le
inte
rsta
tes i
f pos
sibl
e.
Ret
aile
r #6
McK
inne
y Ja
nuar
y-
Dec
embe
r 19
97
1997
n/
a (h
e w
asn’
t th
ere
at th
e tim
e)
Fairl
y la
rge;
any
whe
re
from
DFW
trad
e to
A
llian
ce A
irpor
t.
Loca
tion
with
a fa
vora
ble
tax
situ
atio
n.
n/a
89
Com
pany
, N
ame,
Titl
e,
Con
tact
In
form
atio
n
Dis
trib
utio
n C
ente
r L
ocat
ion
Con
str.
Pe
riod
O
peni
ng
Dat
e H
ow fa
r in
ad
vanc
e do
es
sear
ch b
egin
?
Initi
al S
earc
h A
rea
Bas
ic c
omm
unity
ch
arac
teri
stic
s sou
ght
How
do
you
sele
ct a
si
te?
Ret
aile
r #7
Fort
Wor
th
n/a;
was
an
exi
stin
g bu
ildin
g
n/a
D
epen
ds o
n th
e ty
pe o
f D
C:
fact
ory,
regi
onal
, or
loca
l. N
etw
ork
mod
elin
g is
use
d to
de
term
ine
gene
ral
loca
tions
.
For r
egio
nal D
Cs,
site
that
he
lps t
hem
serv
ice
a gr
oup
of lo
cal D
Cs i
n 24
hou
rs.
Tran
spor
tatio
n ne
twor
k im
porta
nt.
Empl
oyee
bas
e.
Goo
d tra
nspo
rtatio
n ca
paci
ty a
nd fl
exib
ility
(in
dire
ctio
n an
d m
ode)
, si
ze o
f lan
d pa
rcel
, at
tract
iven
ess o
f site
to
thei
r inv
esto
rs.
Ret
aile
r #8
Kat
y (e
xist
ing)
; al
so
cons
truct
ing
new
DC
in
Geo
rgia
Kat
y D
C
was
ex
istin
g bu
ildin
g;
new
GA
fa
cilit
y be
gan
cons
tr O
ct
2007
Kat
y:
early
19
80s
G
A:
will
op
en e
arly
20
08
18 m
onth
s to
2 ye
ars
100-
mile
radi
us (f
or
new
faci
lity,
en
com
pass
ed th
ree
stat
es) d
efin
ed fr
om
logi
stic
al a
naly
sis o
f st
ores
and
ven
dors
.
Site
/land
par
cel s
ize
(for
cu
rren
t nee
ds a
nd fu
ture
ex
pans
ion)
; wor
kfor
ce
avai
labi
lity,
cos
t, an
d qu
ality
; log
istic
al
cent
ricity
for s
tore
s, ve
ndor
s, im
port
ports
; ro
ad in
fras
truct
ure
and
cond
ition
(bot
h m
ajor
hi
ghw
ays a
nd lo
cal r
oads
le
adin
g to
them
); in
terc
hang
e ac
cess
to
faci
lity;
ingr
ess/
egre
ss to
fa
cilit
y fo
r bot
h tru
cks
and
empl
oyee
s.
See
prev
ious
resp
onse
.
Ret
aile
r #9
Fort
Wor
th
8 m
onth
s 20
02
18 m
onth
s to
2 ye
ars
Look
initi
ally
at e
ntire
U
.S.,
base
d on
yea
rly
sale
s vol
umes
. Lo
oked
w
ithin
30
mile
radi
us o
f D
FW fo
r thi
s one
.
Tran
spor
tatio
n; ra
il se
rvic
es in
the
area
; lab
or
forc
e; g
oing
ave
rage
pay
fo
r cer
tain
type
s of j
obs;
ot
her D
Cs/
tem
p ag
ency
th
at o
pera
te in
the
area
.
Clo
se to
a fr
eew
ay;
pref
erab
ly 1
0 m
iles o
r cl
oser
to a
n in
ters
tate
.
Ret
aile
r #10
M
idlo
thia
n 4
mon
ths
or m
ore
June
200
1 A
bout
12
mon
ths
Sout
h D
alla
s to
Mid
loth
ian
to A
llian
ce
to C
oppe
ll
Tran
spor
tatio
n is
mai
n co
nsid
erat
ion;
wan
ted
to
be c
lose
to I-
35 a
nd I-
45,
acce
ss to
maj
or ro
adw
ays
and
conn
ecto
rs.
Faci
lity
is o
n H
ighw
ay 6
7.
See
prev
ious
; he
was
n’t
invo
lved
in th
e si
te
sele
ctio
n so
doe
sn’t
have
al
l the
det
ails
.
90
Com
pany
, N
ame,
Titl
e,
Con
tact
In
form
atio
n
Dis
trib
utio
n C
ente
r L
ocat
ion
Con
str.
Pe
riod
O
peni
ng
Dat
e H
ow fa
r in
ad
vanc
e do
es
sear
ch b
egin
?
Initi
al S
earc
h A
rea
Bas
ic c
omm
unity
ch
arac
teri
stic
s sou
ght
How
do
you
sele
ct a
si
te?
Ret
aile
r #11
R
oano
ke
(for
mer
ov
erflo
w
faci
lity,
ex
pand
ed in
20
06) a
nd
Fort
Wor
th
Not
sure
R
oano
ke:
expa
nsio
n co
mpl
eted
20
06.
Fort
Wor
th:
1995
Loca
tion
proc
ess
gene
rally
ta
kes s
ever
al
mon
ths;
fu
nctio
n of
w
hole
di
strib
utio
n sy
stem
.
For m
ain
war
ehou
se,
took
pro
posa
ls fr
om
seve
ral 3
rd-p
arty
lo
gist
ical
con
sulta
nts,
who
se in
itial
sear
ch
was
U.S
. wid
e. F
or
over
flow
faci
lity,
lo
oked
in 5
-mile
radi
us
arou
nd m
ain
war
ehou
se
in F
ort W
orth
. A
ntic
ipat
ion
of
grow
th/c
usto
mer
re
quire
men
ts d
rives
the
dist
ribut
ion
syst
em a
nd
its lo
catio
ns –
e.g
., fo
r ap
plia
nces
, the
ir cu
stom
er si
tes n
ow
plac
e or
ders
by
2 p.
m.
for d
eliv
ery
the
follo
win
g m
orni
ng.
Look
for d
istri
butio
n ar
eas t
hat a
re w
ell-s
erve
d by
truc
k an
d ra
il. M
uch
of p
rodu
ct im
porte
d by
co
ntai
ners
from
Far
Eas
t.
Wan
t to
be c
lose
to m
ajor
te
rmin
als w
here
co
ntai
ners
leav
e ra
il fo
r tru
cks (
if no
t dire
ctly
on
rail
line)
.
See
prev
ious
resp
onse
s.
Ret
aile
r #12
A
llian
ce
(Has
let)
Abo
ut 1
.5
year
s 20
00
Abo
ut tw
o ye
ars
Not
sure
(he
was
n’t
ther
e at
the
time)
; re
taile
r wan
ted
a lo
catio
n in
cen
tral U
.S.
near
a la
rge
rail
hub
with
goo
d in
ters
tate
hi
ghw
ays.
See
prev
ious
. Se
e pr
evio
us.
Ret
aile
r #13
M
ount
V
erno
n A
bout
1
year
19
96
1.5-
2yea
rs
Dep
ends
on
a nu
mbe
r of
fact
ors.
Inte
rsta
te a
nd m
ajor
hi
ghw
ay a
cces
s, m
ajor
th
orou
ghfa
res,
labo
r av
aila
bilit
y an
d w
ages
.
Roa
d in
fras
truct
ure,
co
mm
itmen
ts fr
om st
ate
and
loca
l com
mun
ities
an
d ag
enci
es, g
eogr
aphi
c lo
catio
n ba
sed
on st
ores
, la
bor a
vaila
bilit
y.
91
DC
Sum
mar
y Pa
ge 2
C
ompa
ny,
Nam
e, T
itle
How
do
you
deci
de w
hat
road
to lo
cate
on
?
Whi
ch a
genc
ies d
o yo
u fir
st a
ppro
ach,
and
for
wha
t inf
orm
atio
n?
Wha
t rol
e di
d yo
u pl
ay in
the
nego
tiatio
n pr
oces
s?
Who
els
e w
as
invo
lved
in th
e ne
gotia
tion
proc
ess?
Wha
t req
uest
s wer
e m
ade
of T
xDO
T
and
why
?
Wha
t inc
entiv
es
wer
e of
fere
d?
Ret
aile
r #1
See
prev
ious
re
spon
se.
• Lo
cal m
unic
ipal
ities
fo
r bui
ldin
g co
des
and
requ
irem
ents
•
Loca
l com
mun
ities
, as
sess
ors r
egar
ding
po
ssib
le in
cent
ives
•
Reg
iona
l util
ities
for
avai
labi
lity
of
pow
er, e
tc.
• Lo
cal/s
tate
DO
Ts
only
if in
fras
truct
ure
chan
ge is
nee
ded
or
if pe
rmits
nee
ded
for
driv
eway
s, et
c.
Cam
e on
afte
r sea
rch
was
star
ted,
was
in
volv
ed in
en
title
men
ts, l
and
acqu
isiti
on.
Onc
e co
nstru
ctio
n be
gins
, re
spon
sibi
lity
shift
s to
desi
gn/c
onst
ruct
ion
grou
p. C
onsu
ltant
s us
ually
ass
ist w
ith
ince
ntiv
es,
entit
lem
ents
, etc
.
• Te
xas D
epar
tmen
t of
Eco
nom
ic
Dev
elop
men
t •
Wax
ahac
hie
Econ
omic
D
evel
opm
ent
• W
axah
achi
e bu
ildin
g, fi
re, a
nd
othe
r city
de
partm
ents
Non
e th
at sh
e re
calls
. M
ay h
ave
need
ed a
dr
ivew
ay p
erm
it bu
t th
at w
as a
ll.
Impr
ovem
ents
mad
e to
inte
rsec
tion
by th
e C
ity o
f Wax
ahac
hie.
• $1
.367
M to
bui
ld
road
s, in
stal
l w
ater
/sew
er
infr
astru
ctur
e
($40
0K lo
an; r
est
gran
t) •
60%
tax
abat
emen
t for
7
year
s •
Acc
ess t
o Te
xas
Smar
t Job
s Pr
ogra
m
(wor
kfor
ce
train
ing
prog
ram
)
Ret
aile
r #2
Goo
d ro
ad, n
o sc
hool
s, R
R
cros
sing
s or
resi
dent
ial
alon
g ac
cess
ro
ute.
• St
art w
ith st
ate
econ
omic
de
velo
pmen
t de
partm
ent
(con
fiden
tially
; ofte
n th
roug
h 3rd
par
ty);
stat
e in
volv
es lo
cal
ED a
genc
y.
• U
sual
ly st
art w
ith
abou
t 6 si
tes (
may
be
in m
ore
than
one
st
ate)
, the
n in
volv
e lo
cal p
ublic
wor
ks,
plan
ning
dep
artm
ents
af
ter s
elec
ting
pote
ntia
l site
(usu
ally
af
ter t
akin
g op
tion
to
purc
hase
.)
Rea
l est
ate
depa
rtmen
t do
es n
egot
iatio
n;
desi
gn te
am p
rovi
des
muc
h of
the
spec
ific
info
rmat
ion
need
ed.
Ta
lk to
real
est
ate
depa
rtmen
t if w
e do
an
y ca
se st
udie
s.
Dep
ends
on
infr
astru
ctur
e ne
eds.
If
little
nee
ded,
then
ne
gotia
tions
go
thro
ugh
perm
ittin
g pr
oces
s. If
maj
or,
rele
vant
age
ncy
is
invo
lved
– a
fter o
ptio
n is
obt
aine
d on
site
.
• R
oad
impr
ovem
ents
if
need
ed; o
ther
wis
e ac
cess
at
perm
ittin
g tim
e.
• R
arel
y se
ek
spec
ific
safe
ty
impr
ovem
ents
. •
Som
etim
es u
se
traff
ic im
pact
st
udie
s to
dete
rmin
e ne
eds.
• Th
is c
ompa
ny
cons
ider
s in
cent
ives
to b
e fe
asib
ility
en
hanc
ers (
need
s to
mak
e si
te v
iabl
e –
usua
lly
infr
astru
ctur
e)
• Jo
b cr
eatio
n ta
x cr
edits
•
Prop
erty
tax
abat
emen
ts (n
ot
usua
lly p
ursu
ed
due
to im
pact
on
com
mun
ity)
92
Com
pany
, N
ame,
Titl
e H
ow d
o yo
u de
cide
wha
t ro
ad to
loca
te
on?
Whi
ch a
genc
ies d
o yo
u fir
st a
ppro
ach,
and
for
wha
t inf
orm
atio
n?
Wha
t rol
e di
d yo
u pl
ay in
the
nego
tiatio
n pr
oces
s?
Who
els
e w
as
invo
lved
in th
e ne
gotia
tion
proc
ess?
Wha
t req
uest
s wer
e m
ade
of T
xDO
T
and
why
?
Wha
t inc
entiv
es
wer
e of
fere
d?
Site
sele
ctio
n co
nsul
tant
Se
e si
te
sele
ctio
n cr
iteria
.
Loca
l eco
nom
ic
deve
lopm
ent a
genc
y Fa
cilit
ator
; wor
ked
alon
g w
ith re
taile
r’s
repr
esen
tativ
es.
For D
C in
Seg
uin:
•
City
•
TxD
OT
• G
over
nor’
s off
ice
(Phi
l Wils
on, c
hief
of
staf
f),
wat
er/s
ewer
au
thor
ity, p
ower
co
mpa
ny
• Te
xas W
orkf
orce
C
omm
issi
on
For D
C in
Seg
uin:
•
Dec
eler
atio
n la
nes
• Tr
affic
sign
al
TxD
OT
com
mitt
ed to
do
thes
e.
• Fr
ee si
te
• 10
-yea
r loc
al
prop
erty
tax
abat
emen
ts
• 10
-yea
r inv
ento
ry
tax
abat
emen
t •
Util
ity e
xten
sion
s •
Dra
inag
e im
prov
emen
ts
• O
ther
min
or
ince
ntiv
es
Ret
aile
r #3
Exis
ting
faci
lity
was
ad
jace
nt to
I-
10, c
lose
to
rail
spur
that
cr
osse
s H
wy
90.
Wal
ler C
ount
y an
d R
oyal
ISD
, reg
ardi
ng
prop
erty
tax
abat
emen
ts.
TxD
OT,
rega
rdin
g in
ters
ectio
n im
prov
emen
t/ co
mpl
etio
n on
I-10
.
Invo
lved
in e
ntire
ne
gotia
tion
and
deci
sion
pro
cess
.
Vic
e Pr
esid
ent o
f co
mpa
ny is
a m
embe
r of
loca
l CO
C.
Wal
ler C
ount
y, o
ther
pr
oper
ty o
wne
rs
adja
cent
to p
lann
ed
high
way
inte
rsec
tion.
To m
ove
up
cons
truct
ion
of I-
10/
acce
ss ro
ad
inte
rsec
tion
(was
sc
hedu
led
for 2
018)
. A
lso,
to in
stal
l tra
ffic
lig
ht a
t int
erse
ctio
n of
Hw
y 90
and
a
seco
nd a
cces
s roa
d,
whi
ch w
as th
e m
ain
entra
nce
to th
e si
te
prio
r to
I-10
in
ters
ectio
n.
Cou
nty
tax
abat
emen
t, Fr
eepo
rt zo
ne
Ret
aile
r #4
Look
for m
ajor
hi
ghw
ay.
Rea
l est
ate
brok
ers f
or
initi
al se
arch
. Fo
und
pote
ntia
l site
s an
d ne
gotia
ted
the
entir
e de
al.
Econ
omic
de
velo
pmen
t dire
ctor
s, lo
cal p
lann
ing
agen
cy
Poss
ibly
app
rova
ls
for c
urb
cuts
; not
hing
si
gnifi
cant
.
Tax
abat
emen
ts
(som
etim
es g
et jo
b cr
edits
; can
’t re
mem
ber i
f thi
s site
qu
alifi
ed fo
r tho
se)
Ret
aile
r #5
See
prev
ious
re
spon
se
(inte
rsta
te
acce
ss).
Rea
l est
ate
brok
er to
re
sear
ch p
oten
tial s
ites
that
mee
t siz
e re
quire
men
ts.
Bay
tow
n si
te se
lect
ion
had
been
mad
e w
hen
he g
ot th
ere;
was
in
volv
ed fr
om
begi
nnin
g fo
r C
orsi
cana
site
.
Bay
tow
n: E
cono
mic
de
velo
pmen
t age
ncy
C
orsi
cana
: lo
cal
mun
icip
ality
Bay
tow
n: a
ppro
vals
fo
r sig
naliz
atio
n an
d de
cele
ratio
n la
nes
near
faci
lity
C
orsi
cana
: no
ne
Tax
cred
its, t
rain
ing
gran
ts, a
bate
men
ts
93
Com
pany
, N
ame,
Titl
e H
ow d
o yo
u de
cide
wha
t ro
ad to
loca
te
on?
Whi
ch a
genc
ies d
o yo
u fir
st a
ppro
ach,
and
for
wha
t inf
orm
atio
n?
Wha
t rol
e di
d yo
u pl
ay in
the
nego
tiatio
n pr
oces
s?
Who
els
e w
as
invo
lved
in th
e ne
gotia
tion
proc
ess?
Wha
t req
uest
s wer
e m
ade
of T
xDO
T
and
why
?
Wha
t inc
entiv
es
wer
e of
fere
d?
Ret
aile
r #6
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Not
sure
; not
hing
do
ne to
road
s or
acce
ss th
en o
r sin
ce.
Tax
abat
emen
ts,
tripl
e Fr
eepo
rt zo
ne
Ret
aile
r #7
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Non
e th
at h
e kn
ows
of.
n/a
Ret
aile
r #8
Look
for r
oads
th
at a
re
capa
ble
of
carr
ying
larg
e am
ount
s of
heav
y tru
ck
traff
ic a
nd th
at
prov
ide
quic
k ac
cess
to
inte
rsta
te
trave
l.
For G
A D
C:
appr
oach
ed S
tate
Eco
. D
ev. A
genc
ies i
n th
ree
stat
es w
ith c
riter
ia; t
he
stat
e ag
enci
es th
en
star
ted
a se
arch
am
ong
loca
l ED
age
ncie
s.
Hea
ded
proj
ect u
p fr
om b
egin
ning
. Ec
o. D
ev. A
genc
ies
and
loca
l con
sulta
nts
help
ed to
iden
tify
loca
tions
. St
ate
DO
Ts
(GA
DO
T m
entio
ned
spec
ifica
lly) p
rovi
ded
info
rmat
ion
on c
urre
nt
and
plan
ned/
pro
pose
d fu
ture
tran
spor
tatio
n in
fras
truct
ure
at th
e si
tes b
eing
con
side
red.
Kat
y fa
cilit
y is
on
a co
unty
road
. H
ave
talk
ed w
ith T
xDO
T ab
out g
ettin
g a
traff
ic
light
at o
ne o
f the
eg
ress
poi
nts;
im
prov
emen
ts to
I-10
ha
ve b
een
proc
eedi
ng (a
lread
y pl
anne
d) a
nd th
ose
have
ben
efite
d th
e K
aty
faci
lity.
Fo
r GA
faci
lity,
one
in
terc
hang
e w
as o
ld
and
need
ed
impr
ovem
ents
(tha
t w
ere
alre
ady
plan
ned)
; tha
t was
on
e of
the
thin
gs th
at
the
reta
iler l
ooke
d at
(th
e fa
ct th
at th
e in
fras
truct
ure
was
in
plac
e or
in p
roce
ss).
All
thre
e st
ate
offe
red
ince
ntiv
es; t
ax
abat
emen
ts, g
rant
fu
ndin
g fo
r in
fras
truct
ure
(util
ities
, pow
er),
port
cred
its.
94
Com
pany
, N
ame,
Titl
e H
ow d
o yo
u de
cide
wha
t ro
ad to
loca
te
on?
Whi
ch a
genc
ies d
o yo
u fir
st a
ppro
ach,
and
for
wha
t inf
orm
atio
n?
Wha
t rol
e di
d yo
u pl
ay in
the
nego
tiatio
n pr
oces
s?
Who
els
e w
as
invo
lved
in th
e ne
gotia
tion
proc
ess?
Wha
t req
uest
s wer
e m
ade
of T
xDO
T
and
why
?
Wha
t inc
entiv
es
wer
e of
fere
d?
Ret
aile
r #9
Clo
se to
fr
eew
ay/
inte
rsta
te
Star
t at s
tate
leve
l; lo
ok
at c
ities
and
regi
ons.
In
tere
sted
in c
omm
unity
de
velo
pmen
t in
form
atio
n; lo
okin
g at
co
st o
f liv
ing,
etc
.
Non
e in
sele
ctin
g lo
catio
n; h
e w
orke
d on
the
deve
lopm
ent
side
but
got
the
loca
tion
info
rmat
ion
and
deci
sion
from
el
sew
here
in th
e co
mpa
ny.
Not
sure
Si
te w
as se
lect
ed
beca
use
it w
as in
a
grow
ing
area
whe
re
high
way
im
prov
emen
ts w
ere
goin
g to
be
mad
e an
yway
.
Not
sure
but
pro
babl
y in
cent
ives
wer
e of
fere
d.
Ret
aile
r #10
C
lose
to I-
35
and
I-45
and
ot
her m
ajor
ro
adw
ays
Loca
l eco
nom
ic
deve
lopm
ent;
TXI
Rai
lpor
t gro
up (f
acili
ty
is lo
cate
d in
bus
ines
s pa
rk d
evel
oped
by
TXI)
none
TX
I N
one
that
he
know
s of
for t
his f
acili
ty.
Not
sure
; tax
ab
atem
ents
of s
ome
sort.
95
Com
pany
, N
ame,
Titl
e H
ow d
o yo
u de
cide
wha
t ro
ad to
loca
te
on?
Whi
ch a
genc
ies d
o yo
u fir
st a
ppro
ach,
and
for
wha
t inf
orm
atio
n?
Wha
t rol
e di
d yo
u pl
ay in
the
nego
tiatio
n pr
oces
s?
Who
els
e w
as
invo
lved
in th
e ne
gotia
tion
proc
ess?
Wha
t req
uest
s wer
e m
ade
of T
xDO
T
and
why
?
Wha
t inc
entiv
es
wer
e of
fere
d?
Ret
aile
r #11
Pr
efer
on
maj
or
high
way
s or
near
hig
hway
s w
ith g
ood
acce
ss;
gene
rally
in a
n in
dust
rial p
ark.
In se
arch
for o
verf
low
sp
ace,
they
had
to a
ct
quic
kly
in re
spon
se to
su
dden
ove
rflo
w o
f pr
oduc
ts in
war
ehou
se.
They
did
not
talk
to
EDA
s, th
ough
pro
babl
y sh
ould
hav
e. C
hose
m
ain
war
ehou
se si
te
12 y
ears
ago
for i
ts
posi
tion
in re
latio
n to
m
anuf
actu
ring
site
s (d
ista
nce
for a
min
imum
co
st sh
ipm
ent;
in th
ose
days
, a 5
00-m
ile
min
imum
ship
ping
co
st).
Had
one
m
anuf
actu
ring
plan
t in
Juar
ez, o
ne in
Rey
nosa
. Fo
rt W
orth
was
a
natu
ral D
C lo
catio
n.
For o
verf
low
faci
lity,
ta
lked
to c
urre
nt
land
lord
(Alli
ance
are
a)
and
foun
d su
itabl
e sp
ace.
Con
side
red
som
e ou
tsid
e si
tes,
but t
heir
best
bet
(par
ticul
arly
on
such
shor
t not
ice)
was
A
llian
ce.
N
ot su
re a
bout
mai
n si
te; f
or o
verf
low
site
, de
alt m
ainl
y w
ith
curr
ent l
andl
ord
at
Alli
ance
.
No
requ
ests
mad
e.
The
need
ed ro
ads
and
acce
ss e
xist
ed
alre
ady.
Non
e. T
his r
etai
ler’
s w
areh
ouse
s typ
ical
ly
don’
t hav
e a
larg
e em
ploy
men
t bas
e,
whi
ch is
the
mai
n re
ason
for l
ocal
are
as
to p
rovi
de in
cent
ives
.
96
Com
pany
, N
ame,
Titl
e H
ow d
o yo
u de
cide
wha
t ro
ad to
loca
te
on?
Whi
ch a
genc
ies d
o yo
u fir
st a
ppro
ach,
and
for
wha
t inf
orm
atio
n?
Wha
t rol
e di
d yo
u pl
ay in
the
nego
tiatio
n pr
oces
s?
Who
els
e w
as
invo
lved
in th
e ne
gotia
tion
proc
ess?
Wha
t req
uest
s wer
e m
ade
of T
xDO
T
and
why
?
Wha
t inc
entiv
es
wer
e of
fere
d?
Ret
aile
r #12
R
oad
that
pr
ovid
es g
ood
acce
ss to
in
ters
tate
, ra
ilyar
d.
Don
’t kn
ow
none
H
illw
ood
Dev
elop
men
t, C
ity o
f Fo
rt W
orth
Not
aw
are
of a
ny
spec
ial r
eque
sts
mad
e.
Tax
reba
te fo
r hiri
ng
Fort
Wor
th re
side
nts.
A
llian
ce a
irpor
t is
also
a fr
ee tr
ade
zone
, th
ough
reta
iler i
s not
a
desi
gnat
ed fr
ee
trade
site
at t
his t
ime.
R
etai
ler #
13
Dec
isio
n is
not
ro
ad-s
peci
fic.
Stat
e an
d lo
cal
Econ
omic
Dev
elop
men
t A
genc
ies
n/a
TxD
OT,
loca
l in
dust
rial f
ound
atio
n se
cure
d la
nd, C
OC
, Sw
epco
(pow
er
com
pany
), ut
ilitie
s/w
ater
Ther
e w
as a
lread
y an
un
derp
ass a
t the
site
; Tx
DO
T in
stal
led
an
entra
nce
and
exit
ram
p on
eac
h si
de o
f I-
30.
n/a
97
DC
Sum
mar
y Pa
ge 4
C
ompa
ny,
Nam
e, T
itle
Did
TxD
OT
pr
ovid
e im
prov
emen
ts/
appr
oval
s as
prom
ised
? If
not
, w
hat d
id n
ot
happ
en?
At w
hat p
oint
w
ould
it h
ave
been
mos
t be
nefic
ial f
or
TxD
OT
to
beco
me
invo
lved
?
Wha
t tr
ansp
orta
tion
conc
erns
do
you
now
hav
e w
ith th
is si
te?
Any
traf
fic,
safe
ty, r
oad
cond
ition
s, ot
her
conc
erns
?
Act
ions
bei
ng
take
n to
res
olve
co
ncer
ns
Oth
er c
omm
ents
C
ase
Stud
y Si
te?
Ret
aile
r #1
Non
e ne
eded
. Tx
DO
T w
asn’
t in
volv
ed w
ith
this
one
; in
situ
atio
ns w
here
ro
ad
impr
ovem
ents
ar
e ne
eded
, re
taile
r inv
olve
s D
OTs
as e
arly
as
poss
ible
.
Non
e
Non
e
•
•
98
Com
pany
, N
ame,
Titl
e D
id T
xDO
T
prov
ide
impr
ovem
ents
/ ap
prov
als a
s pr
omis
ed?
If n
ot,
wha
t did
not
ha
ppen
?
At w
hat p
oint
w
ould
it h
ave
been
mos
t be
nefic
ial f
or
TxD
OT
to
beco
me
invo
lved
?
Wha
t tr
ansp
orta
tion
conc
erns
do
you
now
hav
e w
ith th
is si
te?
Any
traf
fic,
safe
ty, r
oad
cond
ition
s, ot
her
conc
erns
?
Act
ions
bei
ng
take
n to
res
olve
co
ncer
ns
Oth
er c
omm
ents
C
ase
Stud
y Si
te?
Ret
aile
r #2
• U
sual
ly w
ill m
ake
road
im
prov
emen
ts,
but v
ery
slow
(o
nly
Okl
ahom
a D
OT
is ti
mel
y).
•
They
try
to a
void
lo
catio
ns o
n st
ate
high
way
s nee
ding
m
ajor
road
im
prov
emen
ts
due
to sl
ow
resp
onse
by
stat
e D
OTs
.
• Lo
cal a
genc
ies
mor
e tim
ely.
•
This
com
pany
w
illin
g to
fron
t en
d co
sts o
f im
prov
emen
ts
and
reco
ver o
ver
time.
Afte
r site
is
iden
tifie
d (b
ased
on
des
ire to
kee
p si
te e
xplo
ratio
n co
nfid
entia
l).
Occ
asio
nally
hav
e fa
cilit
y or
road
co
nstru
ctio
n de
ficie
ncie
s tha
t ha
ve to
be
rem
edie
d.
Som
etim
es
incr
ease
in tr
uck
traff
ic v
olum
es
adde
d to
ex
istin
g tra
ffic
.
As n
orm
al
prac
tice,
they
in
itiat
e op
erat
ions
ov
er th
ree
year
s:
Yea
r 1 –
½
cap
acity
Y
ear 2
–
2/3
capa
city
Y
ear 3
– fu
ll ca
paci
ty
• Th
ey u
se o
wn,
sh
ippe
r, an
d 3rd
pa
rty tr
ucki
ng; m
ay
com
e fr
om
anyw
here
(cou
ld g
o fr
om D
C to
stor
es
to m
anuf
actu
rer t
o D
C).
• D
C se
rvic
e ar
ea
usua
lly a
bout
12
5 m
iles b
ut c
an
be u
p to
250
mile
s. •
Usu
ally
serv
e ab
out
100
stor
es
• H
ave
gen’
l m
erch
andi
se, f
ood,
sp
ecia
l DC
s •
Typi
cal D
C
nom
inal
ly
gene
rate
s 900
dai
ly
truck
trip
s.
Sugg
este
d 3
site
s;
aske
d fo
r w
ritte
n re
ques
t if
we
wis
h to
do
.
Site
sele
ctio
n co
nsul
tant
Im
prov
emen
ts
com
mitt
ed b
ut D
C
cons
truct
ion
defe
rred
5
year
s;
impr
ovem
ents
not
ye
t mad
e.
Whe
n ne
eded
N
A
NA
N
A
One
reta
iler w
ante
d al
l co
mm
itmen
ts m
ade
with
out t
ime
limits
(s
ince
DC
con
stru
ctio
n de
ferr
ed).
City
de
clin
ed.
99
Com
pany
, N
ame,
Titl
e D
id T
xDO
T
prov
ide
impr
ovem
ents
/ ap
prov
als a
s pr
omis
ed?
If n
ot,
wha
t did
not
ha
ppen
?
At w
hat p
oint
w
ould
it h
ave
been
mos
t be
nefic
ial f
or
TxD
OT
to
beco
me
invo
lved
?
Wha
t tr
ansp
orta
tion
conc
erns
do
you
now
hav
e w
ith th
is si
te?
Any
traf
fic,
safe
ty, r
oad
cond
ition
s, ot
her
conc
erns
?
Act
ions
bei
ng
take
n to
res
olve
co
ncer
ns
Oth
er c
omm
ents
C
ase
Stud
y Si
te?
Ret
aile
r #3
Yes
to I-
10
inte
rsec
tion
at a
cces
s ro
ad, w
ith fi
nanc
ing
from
reta
iler a
nd
othe
r bus
ines
s ow
ners
. N
o to
st
oplig
ht (c
ondu
cted
st
udy
and
foun
d th
at
inte
rsec
tion
did
not
need
ligh
t).
From
the
begi
nnin
g, a
s th
ey w
ere.
Som
e sa
fety
co
ncer
ns w
ith th
e in
ters
ectio
n at
H
ighw
ay 9
0; n
ot a
hu
ge is
sue
now
that
I-
10 in
ters
ectio
n is
op
en.
Logi
stic
al
diff
icul
ty w
ith I-
10
inte
rsec
tion;
no
wes
tbou
nd e
xit d
ue
to o
ne la
ndow
ner’
s re
fusa
l to
sell
or
dona
te la
nd fo
r it.
I-
10 in
ters
ectio
n op
ened
Sep
tem
ber
2007
.
ye
s
Ret
aile
r #4
No
impr
ovem
ents
ne
eded
. In
this
cas
e, n
o m
ajor
act
ion
was
ne
eded
; ho
wev
er, t
he
due-
dilig
ence
ap
prov
al p
roce
ss
alw
ays i
nclu
des
TxD
OT
and
equi
vale
nt
agen
cies
, so
they
ar
e in
volv
ed
early
in th
e pr
oces
s.
none
no
n/
a
no
100
Com
pany
, N
ame,
Titl
e D
id T
xDO
T
prov
ide
impr
ovem
ents
/ ap
prov
als a
s pr
omis
ed?
If n
ot,
wha
t did
not
ha
ppen
?
At w
hat p
oint
w
ould
it h
ave
been
mos
t be
nefic
ial f
or
TxD
OT
to
beco
me
invo
lved
?
Wha
t tr
ansp
orta
tion
conc
erns
do
you
now
hav
e w
ith th
is si
te?
Any
traf
fic,
safe
ty, r
oad
cond
ition
s, ot
her
conc
erns
?
Act
ions
bei
ng
take
n to
res
olve
co
ncer
ns
Oth
er c
omm
ents
C
ase
Stud
y Si
te?
Ret
aile
r #5
Yes
, TxD
OT
prov
ided
app
rova
ls.
Ret
aile
r pai
d fo
r the
im
prov
emen
ts.
As n
eede
d; in
th
is c
ase,
onl
y fo
r app
rova
ls.
none
no
n/
a R
etai
ler p
ays f
or
road
way
/infr
astru
ctur
e im
prov
emen
ts in
som
e ca
ses (
like
Bay
tow
n);
som
e co
mm
uniti
es c
an
help
with
fund
ing,
w
hich
is a
val
uabl
e in
cent
ive.
doub
tful
Ret
aile
r #6
n/a
n/a
Not
a te
rrib
le
prob
lem
; the
y ru
n 24
-hou
rs, s
o tru
cks
are
spre
ad o
ut.
Som
e gr
owth
in
imm
edia
te a
rea
(mos
tly re
tail)
; so
me
cong
estio
n.
He’
d gi
ve th
e ac
cess
a 3
, may
be
2, o
n a
scal
e of
1
(bad
) to
5 (g
ood)
.
Trai
lers
ofte
n ja
ckkn
ife o
r bl
ock
that
in
ters
ectio
n,
shar
es th
e ex
it w
ith a
hig
h sc
hool
, whi
ch is
a
safe
ty
prob
lem
.
Dis
cuss
ed w
ith
TxD
OT,
city
, for
ye
ars a
bout
po
tent
ial t
o up
grad
e hi
ghw
ay
and
inte
rsec
tion.
Fu
ndin
g is
sue;
up
grad
e is
on
TxD
OT’
s pla
n,
but n
ot h
igh
prio
rity.
Gen
eral
gro
wth
pa
ttern
aro
und
McK
inne
y si
nce
1997
is
par
t of t
he p
robl
em;
also
, Hw
y 75
is
esse
ntia
lly a
subu
rban
hi
ghw
ay.
In h
inds
ight
, sh
ould
hav
e pu
t DC
al
ong
one
of th
e in
ters
tate
s.
May
be
Ret
aile
r #7
n/a
n/a
Not
hing
maj
or;
traff
ic c
onge
stio
n lik
ely
to g
et w
orse
as
are
a co
ntin
ues t
o gr
ow.
M
aybe
101
Com
pany
, N
ame,
Titl
e D
id T
xDO
T
prov
ide
impr
ovem
ents
/ ap
prov
als a
s pr
omis
ed?
If n
ot,
wha
t did
not
ha
ppen
?
At w
hat p
oint
w
ould
it h
ave
been
mos
t be
nefic
ial f
or
TxD
OT
to
beco
me
invo
lved
?
Wha
t tr
ansp
orta
tion
conc
erns
do
you
now
hav
e w
ith th
is si
te?
Any
traf
fic,
safe
ty, r
oad
cond
ition
s, ot
her
conc
erns
?
Act
ions
bei
ng
take
n to
res
olve
co
ncer
ns
Oth
er c
omm
ents
C
ase
Stud
y Si
te?
Ret
aile
r #8
TxD
OT
appr
oved
ne
w tr
affic
ligh
t; re
taile
r will
nee
d to
pa
y fo
r it.
Early
; e.g
., G
eorg
ia D
OT
was
ver
y in
volv
ed a
nd
proa
ctiv
e in
su
pply
ing
info
rmat
ion
on
infr
astru
ctur
e pl
ans f
or si
tes i
n G
eorg
ia.
Not
hing
maj
or;
adde
d in
fras
truct
ure
on th
eir o
wn
prop
erty
(add
ition
al
lane
s, et
c.);
TxD
OT
is u
sual
ly v
ery
easy
to
dea
l with
; the
y ar
e in
volv
ed in
m
any
of th
e tra
nspo
rtatio
n in
fras
truct
ure
oper
atio
ns fo
r re
taile
r’s s
tore
s.
Get
invo
lved
with
eco
de
v up
fron
t to
help
ge
t peo
ple
into
the
stat
e to
beg
in w
ith.
Stay
invo
lved
with
the
com
pani
es to
see
if ne
eds a
re b
eing
se
rvic
ed a
nd to
po
tent
ially
par
tner
on
futu
re e
xpan
sion
s and
ad
ditio
nal b
usin
ess.
Yes
, pr
obab
ly
Ret
aile
r #9
n/a
n/a
n/a
No
n/a
Look
out
in th
e fu
ture
; if
an a
rea
is st
artin
g to
gr
ow, w
hat w
ould
be
the
impa
ct o
f a b
unch
of
DC
s wan
ting
to
loca
te th
ere?
Wha
t if
an a
rea
grow
s by
30%
? T
xDO
T sh
ould
w
ork
with
loca
l are
as
to fi
gure
out
how
to
“prim
e” a
n ar
ea fo
r po
tent
ial D
Cs o
r oth
er
desi
red
busi
ness
es.
Poss
ibly
Ret
aile
r #10
n/
a n/
a N
othi
ng si
gnifi
cant
; ra
ilroa
d oc
casi
onal
ly c
ause
s de
lays
.
no
n/a
Pr
obab
ly
not
102
Com
pany
, N
ame,
Titl
e D
id T
xDO
T
prov
ide
impr
ovem
ents
/ ap
prov
als a
s pr
omis
ed?
If n
ot,
wha
t did
not
ha
ppen
?
At w
hat p
oint
w
ould
it h
ave
been
mos
t be
nefic
ial f
or
TxD
OT
to
beco
me
invo
lved
?
Wha
t tr
ansp
orta
tion
conc
erns
do
you
now
hav
e w
ith th
is si
te?
Any
traf
fic,
safe
ty, r
oad
cond
ition
s, ot
her
conc
erns
?
Act
ions
bei
ng
take
n to
res
olve
co
ncer
ns
Oth
er c
omm
ents
C
ase
Stud
y Si
te?
Ret
aile
r #11
n/
a n/
a O
ne c
once
rn;
reta
iler i
s de
velo
ping
a n
ew
man
ufac
turin
g pl
ant i
n M
exic
o to
sh
ip e
xclu
sive
ly b
y ra
il; w
ould
hav
e be
en h
elpf
ul to
ha
ve ra
il di
rect
ly to
w
areh
ouse
but
do
n’t h
ave
that
w
here
they
are
in
Texa
s.
no
n/a
(See
inte
rvie
w
docu
men
t for
full
com
men
ts.)
Big
im
pact
for i
mpo
rters
is
cust
oms d
epar
tmen
t; hu
ge c
hang
es in
pr
oces
s in
rece
nt y
ears
be
caus
e of
secu
rity
need
s; im
porta
nt to
un
ders
tand
wha
t’s
happ
enin
g w
ith
insp
ectio
ns, s
ecur
ity
proc
esse
s. C
ompa
nies
ne
ed fr
ee tr
ade
zone
s, co
mpa
ny
certi
ficat
ions
/sta
tus
that
hel
p to
stre
amlin
e th
at p
roce
ss:
CTP
AT-
certi
fied
(see
cus
tom
s fo
r req
uire
men
ts).
May
be
103
Com
pany
, N
ame,
Titl
e D
id T
xDO
T
prov
ide
impr
ovem
ents
/ ap
prov
als a
s pr
omis
ed?
If n
ot,
wha
t did
not
ha
ppen
?
At w
hat p
oint
w
ould
it h
ave
been
mos
t be
nefic
ial f
or
TxD
OT
to
beco
me
invo
lved
?
Wha
t tr
ansp
orta
tion
conc
erns
do
you
now
hav
e w
ith th
is si
te?
Any
traf
fic,
safe
ty, r
oad
cond
ition
s, ot
her
conc
erns
?
Act
ions
bei
ng
take
n to
res
olve
co
ncer
ns
Oth
er c
omm
ents
C
ase
Stud
y Si
te?
Ret
aile
r #12
n/
a n/
a M
aint
enan
ce is
sues
–
poth
oles
, etc
. Tr
ying
to w
ork
thro
ugh
Hill
woo
d to
get
road
s fix
ed;
one
conc
ern
is
rout
e of
TTC
–
curr
ent p
lan
is to
bu
ild T
TC e
ast o
f D
alla
s with
spur
to
Wes
t (to
A
llian
ce/F
t. W
orth
ar
ea);
conc
erne
d no
w th
at th
e w
est
spur
(and
Alli
ance
) w
ill b
e le
ft ou
t of
TTC
pla
n (if
it g
ets
built
at a
ll).
Inte
rest
ed in
I-
35W
im
prov
emen
t pr
ojec
t (al
read
y pl
anne
d); w
ould
be
nic
e if
TxD
OT
or
som
eone
fixe
d so
me
of th
e ro
ads a
roun
d th
e Te
xas M
otor
Sp
eedw
ay
(traf
fic
cong
estio
n is
cu
rren
tly a
co
ncer
n).
Non
e at
the
mom
ent t
hat
reta
iler i
s aw
are
of.
Po
ssib
ly
Ret
aile
r #13
Yes
, we
do
invo
lve
the
stat
e D
OT
on m
ost
site
s. W
e w
ill
typi
cally
get
th
em in
volv
ed
once
a si
te p
lan
is e
stab
lishe
d.
Not
hing
serio
us.
Som
etim
es g
et
heav
y tra
ffic
; ram
ps
are
grea
t but
now
fin
d th
at th
ey c
ould
ha
ve u
sed
long
er
entry
way
s to
acco
mm
odat
e tru
ck
volu
mes
dur
ing
certa
in ti
mes
of t
he
day;
if to
o m
any
truck
s at o
nce,
they
ba
ck u
p al
l the
way
on
to th
e ac
cess
ro
ad.
A
s ret
aile
r doe
s m
ore
just
-in-ti
me
inve
ntor
y, tr
ucks
ar
e as
sign
ed
arriv
al a
nd
depa
rture
tim
es to
m
inim
ize
queu
ing
on e
ntra
nce
ram
p.
Tran
spor
tatio
n is
se
cond
big
gest
cos
t for
D
Cs.
Als
o ne
ed to
in
clud
e ra
il;
com
pani
es w
ill o
ften
look
to R
R fi
rst a
nd
TxD
OT
seco
nd,
espe
cial
ly w
ith fu
el
cost
s clim
bing
. C
lose
pr
oxim
ity to
con
tain
er
hub
(rai
l to
truck
and
vi
ce v
ersa
).
Poss
ibly
104
Tab
le B
-2. I
nter
view
Sum
mar
ies –
TxD
OT
Rep
rese
ntat
ives
. T
xDO
T S
umm
ary
Page
1
Dis
tric
t Are
a O
ffic
e, N
ame,
T
itle
Maj
or D
C(s
) in
Are
a (c
ompa
ny,
city
)
At w
hat p
oint
in th
e de
velo
pmen
t pro
cess
di
d yo
u le
arn
of D
C’s
po
ssib
le lo
catio
n in
th
e ar
ea?
Wha
t was
TxD
OT
D
istr
ict’
s ini
tial
appr
oach
upo
n he
arin
g ab
out
poss
ible
DC
?
Did
DC
dev
elop
er
appr
oach
TxD
OT
be
fore
star
ting
cons
truc
tion?
Abo
ut
wha
t?
Wha
t rol
e (if
any
) di
d yo
u pl
ay in
ne
gotia
tion
proc
ess?
Wha
t age
ncy/
title
go
t you
invo
lved
?
TxD
OT
G
over
nmen
t &
Pub
lic
Aff
airs
, Hel
en
Hav
elka
, (5
12) 4
75-1
812
Stat
ewid
e re
sour
ce
invo
lved
with
G
over
nor’
s O
ffic
e of
Ec
onom
ic
Dev
elop
men
t
She
is th
e Tx
DO
T lia
ison
with
the
Gov
erno
r’s o
ffic
e an
d at
tend
s wee
kly
econ
omic
dev
elop
men
t m
eetin
gs.
Rec
eive
s ca
lls in
bet
wee
n m
eetin
gs if
tra
nspo
rtatio
n qu
estio
n or
nee
d ar
ises
. Sh
e th
en li
nks u
p ap
prop
riate
dis
trict
of
fices
. Sh
e al
so te
lls
DC
repr
esen
tativ
es
wha
t to
expe
ct fr
om
TxD
OT.
Dis
trict
s are
ask
ed to
do
all
wor
k sp
ecifi
c to
a
dist
rict o
r site
.
NA
O
n oc
casi
ons s
he m
ay
help
with
requ
ests
for
fund
ing
of p
revi
ousl
y un
plan
ned
or
unfu
nded
pro
ject
s (as
fa
cilit
ator
at
adm
inis
trativ
e le
vel).
Gov
erno
r’s O
ffic
e of
Eco
nom
ic
Dev
elop
men
t
Lub
bock
D
istr
ict
Stev
e W
arre
n,
TPD
Dire
ctor
Wal
-Mar
t, Pl
ainv
iew
B
uilt
over
20
year
s ag
o, n
o lo
cal
know
ledg
e of
pro
cess
Tyl
er D
istri
ct
Ran
dy
Red
mon
d, T
PD
Dire
ctor
Targ
et, L
inda
le
(nea
r Tyl
er)
Whe
n ro
ad
impr
ovem
ents
wer
e re
ques
ted
– ve
ry la
te
in th
e pr
oces
s (D
E w
as
invo
lved
to a
t lea
st
som
e po
int e
arlie
r in
the
proc
ess)
How
muc
h w
ill D
C, e
t al
. con
tribu
te.
105
Dis
tric
t Are
a O
ffic
e, N
ame,
T
itle
Maj
or D
C(s
) in
Are
a (c
ompa
ny,
city
)
At w
hat p
oint
in th
e de
velo
pmen
t pro
cess
di
d yo
u le
arn
of D
C’s
po
ssib
le lo
catio
n in
th
e ar
ea?
Wha
t was
TxD
OT
D
istr
ict’
s ini
tial
appr
oach
upo
n he
arin
g ab
out
poss
ible
DC
?
Did
DC
dev
elop
er
appr
oach
TxD
OT
be
fore
star
ting
cons
truc
tion?
Abo
ut
wha
t?
Wha
t rol
e (if
any
) di
d yo
u pl
ay in
ne
gotia
tion
proc
ess?
Wha
t age
ncy/
title
go
t you
invo
lved
?
Tyl
er D
istri
ct
Ran
dy
Red
mon
d, T
PD
Dire
ctor
Wal
-Mar
t on
US
79,
Pale
stin
e
Mai
n is
sue
was
ex
pans
ion
of U
S 79
(w
iden
ing
from
2 to
4-
lane
and
new
in
terc
hang
e) –
TxD
OT
offe
red
to b
uild
a
turn
arou
nd a
t new
in
terc
hang
e if
Wal
-M
art w
ould
pay
for i
t (4
-5 y
ears
ago
) at c
ost
of ~
$100
,000
; Wal
-M
art r
efus
ed; n
ew D
C
man
ager
now
– w
ants
to
kno
w w
hy n
o tu
rnar
ound
bei
ng b
uilt
as p
art o
f int
erch
ange
San
Ant
onio
D
istr
ict
Cla
y Sm
ith,
TPD
Dire
ctor
(2
10) 6
15-5
920
Non
e Sp
ecifi
c,
but m
entio
ned
Wal
-Mar
t DC
in
New
B
raun
fels
, To
yota
pla
nt,
Sout
hwes
t In
term
odal
fa
cilit
y, R
ack
Spac
e hi
gh te
ch
faci
lity,
and
Lo
we’
s in
Segu
in th
at w
as
not b
uilt
Var
ies –
can
be
clos
e to
the
begi
nnin
g,
parti
cula
rly if
larg
er
DC
N/A
– n
o sp
ecifi
c D
C
refe
renc
ed
N/A
– n
o sp
ecifi
c D
C
refe
renc
ed
Typi
cally
non
e –
we
sim
ply
tell
wha
t we
can
do
N/A
– n
o sp
ecifi
c D
C re
fere
nced
106
Dis
tric
t Are
a O
ffic
e, N
ame,
T
itle
Maj
or D
C(s
) in
Are
a (c
ompa
ny,
city
)
At w
hat p
oint
in th
e de
velo
pmen
t pro
cess
di
d yo
u le
arn
of D
C’s
po
ssib
le lo
catio
n in
th
e ar
ea?
Wha
t was
TxD
OT
D
istr
ict’
s ini
tial
appr
oach
upo
n he
arin
g ab
out
poss
ible
DC
?
Did
DC
dev
elop
er
appr
oach
TxD
OT
be
fore
star
ting
cons
truc
tion?
Abo
ut
wha
t?
Wha
t rol
e (if
any
) di
d yo
u pl
ay in
ne
gotia
tion
proc
ess?
Wha
t age
ncy/
title
go
t you
invo
lved
?
Yoa
kum
D
istr
ict
Lonn
ie
Gre
gorc
yk,
Dis
trict
En
gine
er
Wal
-Mar
t, Se
aly
Ver
y la
te; p
roba
bly
1
½ y
ears
late
N
/A
Yes
. R
oad
impr
ovem
ents
A
cces
s, ro
ad
impr
ovem
ents
C
ity –
wan
ted
traff
ic
volu
mes
Hou
ston
D
istr
ict
Jim
Hea
cock
, A
sst D
irect
or
Proj
ect
Dev
elop
men
t
Aca
dem
y -
Kat
y N
ever
real
ly b
ecam
e in
volv
ed; n
o di
rect
ac
cess
to st
ate
high
way
s; n
o im
prov
emen
t to
stat
e hi
ghw
ays r
eque
sted
; no
impa
cts o
bser
ved;
Im
prov
emen
ts w
ere
bein
g m
ade
to n
earb
y IH
10
anyw
ay, n
othi
ng
requ
ired
by D
C
Hou
ston
D
istr
ict
Jim
Hea
cock
, A
sst D
irect
or
Proj
ect
Dev
elop
er;
Man
ny
Fran
cisc
o;
Stua
rt C
orde
r
99 C
ent O
nly
(orig
inal
ly b
uilt
as A
lber
tson
s)
Nev
er re
ally
bec
ame
invo
lved
; no
dire
ct
acce
ss to
stat
e hi
ghw
ays;
no
impr
ovem
ent t
o st
ate
high
way
s req
uest
ed;
no im
pact
s obs
erve
d Im
prov
emen
ts w
ere
bein
g m
ade
to n
earb
y G
rand
Par
kway
and
IH
10 a
nyw
ay, n
othi
ng
requ
ired
by D
C
107
Dis
tric
t Are
a O
ffic
e, N
ame,
T
itle
Maj
or D
C(s
) in
Are
a (c
ompa
ny,
city
)
At w
hat p
oint
in th
e de
velo
pmen
t pro
cess
di
d yo
u le
arn
of D
C’s
po
ssib
le lo
catio
n in
th
e ar
ea?
Wha
t was
TxD
OT
D
istr
ict’
s ini
tial
appr
oach
upo
n he
arin
g ab
out
poss
ible
DC
?
Did
DC
dev
elop
er
appr
oach
TxD
OT
be
fore
star
ting
cons
truc
tion?
Abo
ut
wha
t?
Wha
t rol
e (if
any
) di
d yo
u pl
ay in
ne
gotia
tion
proc
ess?
Wha
t age
ncy/
title
go
t you
invo
lved
?
Hou
ston
D
istr
ict
Jim
Hea
cock
C
an fo
llow
up
with
M
ontg
omer
y C
o A
rea
– ha
ve
tried
, but
hav
e no
t bee
n ab
le
to ta
lk w
ith y
et
Wal
-Mar
t, N
ew
Can
ey
Wal
-Mar
t and
/or
Mon
tgom
ery
Cou
nty
requ
este
d ro
ad
impr
ovem
ents
Hou
ston
D
istr
ict
Jim
Hea
cock
Iglo
o,
Bro
oksh
ire
Exis
ting
DC
; in
last
fe
w m
onth
s, pu
t ram
ps
at IH
10
@ Ig
loo
Roa
d; ra
mps
pla
nned
fo
r IH
10
@ W
oods
R
oad
Ode
ssa
Dis
tric
t G
ary
Law
, TP
D D
irect
or
and
Mik
e M
cAnn
aly,
TR
F D
irect
or
Fam
ily D
olla
r -
Ode
ssa
Afte
r it w
as a
don
e de
al.
We
are
happ
y yo
u ar
e co
min
g; h
ow m
uch
mon
ey a
re y
ou
brin
ging
to th
e ta
ble
to
help
with
the
cost
s?
No.
Tx
DO
T re
view
ed
driv
eway
loca
tions
an
d de
sign
s, as
wel
l as
drai
nage
.
City
of O
dess
a
108
Dis
tric
t Are
a O
ffic
e, N
ame,
T
itle
Maj
or D
C(s
) in
Are
a (c
ompa
ny,
city
)
At w
hat p
oint
in th
e de
velo
pmen
t pro
cess
di
d yo
u le
arn
of D
C’s
po
ssib
le lo
catio
n in
th
e ar
ea?
Wha
t was
TxD
OT
D
istr
ict’
s ini
tial
appr
oach
upo
n he
arin
g ab
out
poss
ible
DC
?
Did
DC
dev
elop
er
appr
oach
TxD
OT
be
fore
star
ting
cons
truc
tion?
Abo
ut
wha
t?
Wha
t rol
e (if
any
) di
d yo
u pl
ay in
ne
gotia
tion
proc
ess?
Wha
t age
ncy/
title
go
t you
invo
lved
?
Fort
Wor
th
Jim
my
Bod
iford
, Tr
ans O
ps
Dire
ctor
; Th
eres
a Lo
pez,
A
sst D
irect
or
Tran
s Ops
; R
onal
d R
obin
son,
Jo
hnso
n C
o A
E;
Ric
hard
Sc
hille
r Mai
nt
Dire
ctor
; B
ill R
iley,
TPD
D
irect
or
Mat
tel,
Fort
Wor
th
Whe
n ci
ty w
ante
d to
m
ove
mon
ey a
roun
d.
This
is a
n M
PO is
sue.
N
o N
one
N/A
Fort
Wor
th
Ron
ald
Rob
inso
n,
John
son
Co
AE
Wal
-Mar
t, C
lebu
rne
Whe
n Ta
x In
crem
ent
Fina
nce
(TIF
) or
gani
zatio
n be
gan
– fo
rmed
by
John
son
Cou
nty;
firs
t hea
rd
abou
t it b
y w
ord
of
mou
th; l
ater
, a c
ount
y co
mm
issi
oner
cal
led
me
and
told
me
abou
t D
C.
We
wan
ted
a tra
ffic
im
pact
ana
lysi
s; “
They
w
ill h
ave
to p
ay fo
r an
y ro
ad
impr
ovem
ents
they
w
ant”
(the
y in
clud
es
DC
com
pany
and
loca
l ag
enci
es).
Yes
– tu
rn la
nes o
n SH
17
1 at
Win
dmill
Rd
Non
e Jo
hnso
n C
ount
y co
mm
issi
oner
Fort
Wor
th
Ther
esa
Lope
z,
Ass
t Dire
ctor
Tr
affic
Ops
Mou
ser
Elec
troni
cs,
Man
sfie
ld; B
us
US
287
@ F
M
157
Sign
als w
ere
requ
este
d by
City
of M
ansf
ield
–
This
is a
muc
h sm
alle
r D
C ty
pe fa
cilit
y; w
e ca
n fo
llow
up
if ne
cess
ary.
109
Dis
tric
t Are
a O
ffic
e, N
ame,
T
itle
Maj
or D
C(s
) in
Are
a (c
ompa
ny,
city
)
At w
hat p
oint
in th
e de
velo
pmen
t pro
cess
di
d yo
u le
arn
of D
C’s
po
ssib
le lo
catio
n in
th
e ar
ea?
Wha
t was
TxD
OT
D
istr
ict’
s ini
tial
appr
oach
upo
n he
arin
g ab
out
poss
ible
DC
?
Did
DC
dev
elop
er
appr
oach
TxD
OT
be
fore
star
ting
cons
truc
tion?
Abo
ut
wha
t?
Wha
t rol
e (if
any
) di
d yo
u pl
ay in
ne
gotia
tion
proc
ess?
Wha
t age
ncy/
title
go
t you
invo
lved
?
Fort
Wor
th
Jim
my
Bod
iford
, Tr
ans O
ps
Dire
ctor
; Th
eres
a Lo
pez,
A
sst D
irect
or
Tran
s Ops
; R
onal
d R
obin
son,
Jo
hnso
n C
o A
E;
Ric
hard
Sc
hille
r Mai
nt
Dire
ctor
; B
ill R
iley,
TPD
D
irect
or
Saltw
ater
di
spos
al si
tes a
t va
rious
lo
catio
ns
thro
ugho
ut th
e FT
W D
istri
ct;
ther
e ar
e at
leas
t 6-
8 ar
ound
Jo
hnso
n C
ount
y,
incl
udin
g on
e no
rth o
f City
of
Gra
ndvi
ew o
n I-
35W
; ano
ther
ne
ar W
al-M
art
DC
in
Cle
burn
e.
We
typi
cally
hea
r ab
out t
hese
whe
n dr
ivew
ay re
ques
ts a
re
mad
e; c
halle
nge
is th
at
we
have
to b
e re
actio
nary
to th
ese
and
drill
site
s; m
any
over
load
ed tr
ucks
tear
up
road
s not
des
igne
d fo
r tho
se lo
ads;
som
e dr
ill si
tes a
re
prod
uctiv
e an
d re
sult
in c
ontin
ued
traff
ic –
w
e ha
ve to
reac
t to
thos
e; o
ther
s are
not
pr
oduc
tive
and
truck
s do
not
retu
rn.
Pari
s Dis
tric
t Ea
rnes
t Tea
gue
Are
a En
gine
er
Sulp
hur
Sprin
gs
(903
) 885
-951
4
Low
e’s,
Mou
nt
Ver
non
In th
e pl
anni
ng a
nd
site
sele
ctio
n ph
ase.
R
espo
nded
to L
owe’
s re
ques
ts fo
r ram
ps a
t ex
istin
g ov
erpa
ss o
n IH
30.
Yes
, req
uest
ing
ram
ps
at a
n ov
erpa
ss o
n IH
30.
No
role
in th
e ne
gotia
tions
to b
ring
the
DC
to M
ount
V
erno
n, o
ther
than
pr
ovid
ing
info
rmat
ion
for t
he si
te se
lect
ion
proc
ess w
hen
it w
as
narr
owed
to S
ulph
ur
Sprin
gs a
nd M
ount
V
erno
n.
Fran
klin
Cou
nty
(to
best
of m
emor
y).
Dal
las D
istri
ct
Bill
Pie
rce
Are
a En
gine
er
Wax
ahac
hie
(972
) 938
-157
0
Targ
et a
nd T
oys
R U
s, R
ailp
ort
Indu
stria
l Par
k,
Mid
loth
ian
Beg
an ta
lkin
g ab
out
deve
lopi
ng th
e in
dust
rial p
ark
(bef
ore
it w
as k
now
n w
ho
wou
ld lo
cate
ther
e)
App
rove
d th
e si
gnal
th
at w
as to
be
inst
alle
d (a
t no
TxD
OT
expe
nse)
at U
S 67
@
Rai
lpor
t Pkw
y
Yes
, the
sign
al a
t U
S 67
@ R
ailp
ort
Pkw
y
No
role
in n
egot
iatio
ns
to b
ring
DC
s to
Mid
loth
ian.
City
of M
idlo
thia
n,
Ellis
Cou
nty,
loca
l de
velo
pmen
t au
thor
ity
110
Dis
tric
t Are
a O
ffic
e, N
ame,
T
itle
Maj
or D
C(s
) in
Are
a (c
ompa
ny,
city
)
At w
hat p
oint
in th
e de
velo
pmen
t pro
cess
di
d yo
u le
arn
of D
C’s
po
ssib
le lo
catio
n in
th
e ar
ea?
Wha
t was
TxD
OT
D
istr
ict’
s ini
tial
appr
oach
upo
n he
arin
g ab
out
poss
ible
DC
?
Did
DC
dev
elop
er
appr
oach
TxD
OT
be
fore
star
ting
cons
truc
tion?
Abo
ut
wha
t?
Wha
t rol
e (if
any
) di
d yo
u pl
ay in
ne
gotia
tion
proc
ess?
Wha
t age
ncy/
title
go
t you
invo
lved
?
Dal
las D
istri
ct
Bill
Pie
rce
Are
a En
gine
er
Wax
ahac
hie
(972
) 938
-157
0
Wal
gree
ns,
Wax
ahac
hie
App
aren
tly fa
irly
late
in
to th
e pr
oces
s
Wal
gree
ns a
sked
if a
sh
ort s
ectio
n of
FM
664
, a lo
ad z
oned
ro
ad, w
ould
be
rebu
ilt
to h
andl
e tru
cks;
Tx
DO
T re
plie
d no
and
W
algr
eens
and
/or C
ity
of W
axah
achi
e pa
id to
ha
ve it
don
e
No
role
in n
egot
iatio
ns
to b
ring
DC
to
Wax
ahac
hie
Wal
gree
ns, C
ity o
f W
axah
achi
e
111
TxD
OT
Sum
mar
y Pa
ge 2
D
istr
ict A
rea
Off
ice,
Nam
e,
Titl
e
Maj
or D
C(s
) in
Are
a (c
ompa
ny,
city
)
At w
hat p
oint
did
you
be
com
e in
volv
ed in
th
e ne
gotia
tion
proc
ess?
Who
els
e (a
genc
ies,
nam
es) w
as in
volv
ed
in th
e pr
oces
s?
Wha
t spe
cific
re
ques
ts w
ere
mad
e of
TxD
OT
rel
ated
to
attr
actin
g th
e D
C to
th
e ar
ea o
r lo
catin
g a
site
?
Wha
t inp
ut d
id y
ou
prov
ide?
W
here
els
e w
as th
e D
C c
ompa
ny
cons
ider
ing
loca
ting
this
DC
?
TxD
OT
G
over
nmen
t &
Pub
lic
Aff
airs
, Hel
en
Hav
elka
, (5
12) 4
75-1
812
Stat
ewid
e re
sour
ce
invo
lved
with
G
over
nor’
s O
ffic
e of
Ec
onom
ic
Dev
elop
men
t
Onl
y as
faci
litat
or a
t ad
min
istra
tive
leve
l for
un
plan
ned
or
unpr
ogra
mm
ed
proj
ects
.
Dis
trict
s han
dle
deta
ils
of re
ques
ts a
nd
dete
rmin
e w
hat
impr
ovem
ents
are
to
be p
ursu
ed a
nd w
hen.
D
istri
cts h
andl
e ne
gotia
tions
.
NA
Se
e ot
her r
espo
nses
. N
A
Tyl
er D
istri
ct
Ran
dy
Red
mon
d, T
PD
Dire
ctor
Targ
et, L
inda
le
(nea
r Tyl
er)
N/A
C
ity o
f Lin
dale
Im
prov
e ex
istin
g in
terc
hang
e at
ad
jace
nt c
ount
y ro
ad
– re
build
wid
er b
ridge
N
ot a
war
e
San
Ant
onio
D
istr
ict
Cla
y Sm
ith,
TPD
Dire
ctor
(2
10) 6
15-5
920
Non
e Sp
ecifi
c,
but m
entio
ned
Wal
-Mar
t DC
in
New
B
raun
fels
, To
yota
pla
nt,
Sout
hwes
t In
term
odal
fa
cilit
y, R
ack
Spac
e hi
gh te
ch
faci
lity,
and
Lo
we’
s in
Segu
in th
at w
as
not b
uilt
N/A
– n
o sp
ecifi
c D
C
refe
renc
ed
N/A
– n
o sp
ecifi
c D
C
refe
renc
ed
N/A
– n
o sp
ecifi
c D
C
refe
renc
ed
N/A
– n
o sp
ecifi
c D
C
refe
renc
ed
N/A
– n
o sp
ecifi
c D
C re
fere
nced
Yoa
kum
D
istr
ict
Lonn
ie
Gre
gorc
yk,
Dis
trict
En
gine
er
Wal
-Mar
t, Se
aly
~1 ½
yea
rs in
to th
e pr
oces
s; th
ey h
ad
star
ted
clea
ring
the
land
Cou
nty;
Eco
nom
ic
Dev
elop
men
t C
orpo
ratio
n
Initi
ally
, “yo
u ne
ed to
do
all
of th
is .
. .”;
Tu
rn la
nes a
t FM
301
3 @
SH
36;
ne
w F
M ro
ad (3
538)
–
resu
lt of
vol
umes
@
I-10
ram
p in
Sea
ly
Ana
lyze
d si
gnal
; vo
lum
es; t
old
them
w
hat F
M d
esig
n sh
ould
look
like
Seve
ral c
ities
in
YK
M a
nd o
ther
di
stric
ts, i
nclu
ding
El
Cam
po, p
ossi
bly
Wha
rton
– al
ong
US
59 a
nd IH
10
112
Dis
tric
t Are
a O
ffic
e, N
ame,
T
itle
Maj
or D
C(s
) in
Are
a (c
ompa
ny,
city
)
At w
hat p
oint
did
you
be
com
e in
volv
ed in
th
e ne
gotia
tion
proc
ess?
Who
els
e (a
genc
ies,
nam
es) w
as in
volv
ed
in th
e pr
oces
s?
Wha
t spe
cific
re
ques
ts w
ere
mad
e of
TxD
OT
rel
ated
to
attr
actin
g th
e D
C to
th
e ar
ea o
r lo
catin
g a
site
?
Wha
t inp
ut d
id y
ou
prov
ide?
W
here
els
e w
as th
e D
C c
ompa
ny
cons
ider
ing
loca
ting
this
DC
?
Hou
ston
D
istr
ict
Gab
e Jo
hnso
n,
TPD
Dire
ctor
Aca
dem
y -
Kat
y
Hou
ston
D
istr
ict
Jim
Hea
cock
C
an fo
llow
up
with
M
ontg
omer
y C
o A
rea
– ha
ve
tried
, but
hav
e no
t bee
n ab
le
to ta
lk w
ith y
et
Wal
-Mar
t, N
ew
Can
ey
Turn
lane
s on
FM 1
314,
FM
148
5,
and
Gen
e C
ampb
ell
Roa
d
N
ot a
war
e
Ode
ssa
Dis
tric
t G
ary
Law
, TP
D D
irect
or
and
Mik
e M
cAnn
aly,
TR
F D
irect
or
Fam
ily D
olla
r -
Ode
ssa
Site
pla
n ap
prov
al –
dr
ivew
ay lo
catio
ns a
nd
desi
gn
City
of O
dess
a,
Ode
ssa
Dev
elop
men
t C
orpo
ratio
n (O
DC
)
OD
C w
ante
d to
kno
w
whe
n th
e IH
20-
JBS
Park
way
inte
rcha
nge
(adj
acen
t to
the
site
) w
ould
be
built
, so
they
cou
ld te
ll Fa
mily
D
olla
r
Rep
lied
that
it w
ould
be
bui
lt w
hen
ther
e is
a
need
and
mon
ey is
av
aila
ble
TxD
OT
resp
onse
–
didn
’t kn
ow;
prev
ious
inte
rvie
w
with
Mik
e G
eorg
e of
Ode
ssa
Cha
mbe
r of
Com
mer
ce
indi
cate
s tha
t San
A
nton
io w
as th
e ot
her s
hort
list c
ity.
113
Dis
tric
t Are
a O
ffic
e, N
ame,
T
itle
Maj
or D
C(s
) in
Are
a (c
ompa
ny,
city
)
At w
hat p
oint
did
you
be
com
e in
volv
ed in
th
e ne
gotia
tion
proc
ess?
Who
els
e (a
genc
ies,
nam
es) w
as in
volv
ed
in th
e pr
oces
s?
Wha
t spe
cific
re
ques
ts w
ere
mad
e of
TxD
OT
rel
ated
to
attr
actin
g th
e D
C to
th
e ar
ea o
r lo
catin
g a
site
?
Wha
t inp
ut d
id y
ou
prov
ide?
W
here
els
e w
as th
e D
C c
ompa
ny
cons
ider
ing
loca
ting
this
DC
?
Fort
Wor
th
Jim
my
Bod
iford
, Tr
ans O
ps
Dire
ctor
; Th
eres
a Lo
pez,
A
sst D
irect
or
Tran
s Ops
; R
onal
d R
obin
son,
Jo
hnso
n C
o A
E;
Ric
hard
Sc
hille
r Mai
nt
Dire
ctor
; B
ill R
iley,
TPD
D
irect
or
Mat
tel,
Fort
Wor
th
Did
not
get
invo
lved
N
/A
Faci
litat
e m
ovin
g th
e m
oney
to th
e sp
ecifi
c pr
ojec
t; w
e le
t the
pr
ojec
t
N/A
D
o no
t kno
w
Fort
Wor
th
Ron
ald
Rob
inso
n,
John
son
Co
AE
Wal
-Mar
t, C
lebu
rne
Did
not
get
invo
lved
Jo
hnso
n C
ount
y, C
ity
of C
lebu
rne
(not
aw
are
of sp
ecifi
c pe
ople
)
Non
e N
/A
Do
not k
now
Fort
Wor
th
Ther
esa
Lope
z,
Ass
t Dire
ctor
Tr
affic
Ops
Mou
ser
Elec
troni
cs,
Man
sfie
ld
Traf
fic si
gnal
requ
est
City
of M
ansf
ield
Tr
affic
sign
als
Rev
iew
ed si
gnal
re
ques
t D
o no
t kno
w
Pari
s Dis
tric
t Ea
rnes
t Tea
gue
Are
a En
gine
er
Sulp
hur
Sprin
gs
(903
) 885
-951
4
Low
e’s,
Mou
nt
Ver
non
Site
sele
ctio
n an
d pl
anni
ng p
roce
ss
Fran
klin
Cou
nty,
City
of
Sul
phur
Spr
ings
, C
ity o
f Mou
nt V
erno
n
Low
e’s a
sked
for
ram
ps a
t an
exis
ting
over
pass
ove
r IH
30;
it
was
an
unna
med
co
unty
road
Firs
t res
pons
e w
as th
at
TxD
OT
coul
d no
t bu
ild th
e ra
mps
, be
caus
e th
ere
was
no
traff
ic to
supp
ort t
hem
.
Sulp
hur S
prin
gs,
appr
oxim
atel
y 20
mile
s to
the
wes
t.
Not
aw
are
of o
ther
po
tent
ial s
ites
furth
er a
way
.
114
Dis
tric
t Are
a O
ffic
e, N
ame,
T
itle
Maj
or D
C(s
) in
Are
a (c
ompa
ny,
city
)
At w
hat p
oint
did
you
be
com
e in
volv
ed in
th
e ne
gotia
tion
proc
ess?
Who
els
e (a
genc
ies,
nam
es) w
as in
volv
ed
in th
e pr
oces
s?
Wha
t spe
cific
re
ques
ts w
ere
mad
e of
TxD
OT
rel
ated
to
attr
actin
g th
e D
C to
th
e ar
ea o
r lo
catin
g a
site
?
Wha
t inp
ut d
id y
ou
prov
ide?
W
here
els
e w
as th
e D
C c
ompa
ny
cons
ider
ing
loca
ting
this
DC
?
Dal
las D
istri
ct
Bill
Pie
rce
Are
a En
gine
er
Wax
ahac
hie
(972
) 938
-157
0
Targ
et a
nd T
oys
R U
s, R
ailp
ort
Indu
stria
l Par
k,
Mid
loth
ian
Was
nev
er in
volv
ed in
ne
gotia
tions
N
o sp
ecifi
c na
mes
pr
ovid
ed; b
est o
f his
re
colle
ctio
n –
City
of
Mid
loth
ian,
Elli
s C
ount
y, a
nd
Mid
loth
ian
Dev
elop
men
t A
utho
rity
Not
so m
uch
rela
ted
to a
ttrac
ting
a sp
ecifi
c D
C, b
ut m
ore
in
rega
rds t
o de
velo
ping
th
e in
dust
rial p
ark
– gr
ade
sepa
ratio
n to
ta
ke U
S 67
ove
r R
ailp
ort P
kwy;
re
ques
ted
$6 m
illio
n in
pas
s-th
roug
h fu
nds;
th
ey a
re p
ayin
g th
e re
mai
nder
of c
osts
Hel
ped
proc
ess t
he
appl
icat
ion
for t
he
pass
-thro
ugh
fund
s (P
ierc
e no
ted
that
this
w
as to
com
e fr
om
Texa
s Tra
nspo
rtatio
n C
omm
issi
on
disc
retio
nary
fund
s, bu
t tha
t tho
se fu
nds a
re
now
“ta
pped
out
”)
Not
aw
are
Dal
las D
istri
ct
Bill
Pie
rce
Are
a En
gine
er
Wax
ahac
hie
(972
) 938
-157
0
Wal
gree
ns,
Wax
ahac
hie
Was
nev
er in
volv
ed in
ne
gotia
tions
N
o sp
ecifi
c na
mes
; C
ity o
f Wax
ahac
hie
Not
dire
ctly
rela
ted
to
attra
ctin
g th
e D
C, b
ut
Wal
gree
ns a
sked
for
segm
ent o
f FM
664
to
be re
built
to h
andl
e la
rge
truck
s; p
ossi
bly
aske
d fo
r rig
ht-tu
rn
lane
on
US
287
fron
tage
road
Told
them
TxD
OT
wou
ld n
ot b
e ab
le to
pa
y fo
r tho
se
impr
ovem
ents
Not
aw
are
115
TxD
OT
Sum
mar
y Pa
ge 3
D
istr
ict A
rea
Off
ice,
Nam
e,
Titl
e
Maj
or D
C(s
) in
Are
a (c
ompa
ny,
city
)
Wha
t rol
e (if
any
) did
yo
u pl
ay in
loca
tion
and
desi
gn
nego
tiatio
n pr
oces
s?
Wha
t aut
hori
ty d
id
you
have
in
cons
ider
ing
and/
or
gran
ting
thos
e re
ques
ts?
Wha
t con
cern
s did
th
e D
C d
evel
oper
ex
pres
s abo
ut a
site
in
you
r ar
ea?
Abo
ut
the
site
bein
g pr
opos
ed o
r co
nsid
ered
?
How
did
you
add
ress
th
e ro
ad/tr
affic
co
ncer
ns?
Wha
t req
uest
s w
ere
mad
e th
at
wer
e no
t pr
evio
usly
pl
anne
d? W
hat
did
you
do in
re
spon
se?
TxD
OT
G
over
nmen
t &
Pub
lic
Aff
airs
, Hel
en
Hav
elka
, (5
12) 4
75-1
812
Stat
ewid
e re
sour
ce
invo
lved
with
G
over
nor’
s O
ffic
e of
Ec
onom
ic
Dev
elop
men
t
Non
e N
one
NA
N
A
NA
Tyl
er D
istri
ct
Ran
dy
Red
mon
d,
TPD
Dire
ctor
Targ
et, L
inda
le
(nea
r Tyl
er)
N/A
– p
ossi
bly
DE
had
som
e in
volv
emen
t
Bui
ldin
g ne
w, w
ider
br
idge
at e
xist
ing
inte
rcha
nge;
bui
lt it
(City
of L
inda
le
cont
ribut
ed
~$10
0,00
0 ou
t of
$2 m
illio
n re
quire
d)
San
Ant
onio
D
istr
ict
Cla
y Sm
ith,
TPD
Dire
ctor
(2
10) 6
15-5
920
Non
e Sp
ecifi
c,
but m
entio
ned
Wal
-Mar
t DC
in
New
B
raun
fels
, To
yota
pla
nt,
Sout
hwes
t In
term
odal
fa
cilit
y, R
ack
Spac
e hi
gh te
ch
faci
lity,
and
Lo
we’
s in
Segu
in th
at w
as
not b
uilt
N/A
– n
o sp
ecifi
c D
C
refe
renc
ed
N/A
– n
o sp
ecifi
c D
C
refe
renc
ed
N/A
– n
o sp
ecifi
c D
C
refe
renc
ed
N/A
– n
o sp
ecifi
c D
C
refe
renc
ed
Typi
cally
ram
p co
nfig
urat
ions
, dr
ivew
ay a
cces
s, tru
ck tr
avel
pat
tern
s, in
ters
ectio
n im
prov
emen
ts.
We
conv
ey o
ur
limits
, sug
gest
pas
s-th
roug
h an
d ot
her
loca
l fin
ance
op
tions
.
116
Dis
tric
t Are
a O
ffic
e, N
ame,
T
itle
Maj
or D
C(s
) in
Are
a (c
ompa
ny,
city
)
Wha
t rol
e (if
any
) did
yo
u pl
ay in
loca
tion
and
desi
gn
nego
tiatio
n pr
oces
s?
Wha
t aut
hori
ty d
id
you
have
in
cons
ider
ing
and/
or
gran
ting
thos
e re
ques
ts?
Wha
t con
cern
s did
th
e D
C d
evel
oper
ex
pres
s abo
ut a
site
in
you
r ar
ea?
Abo
ut
the
site
bein
g pr
opos
ed o
r co
nsid
ered
?
How
did
you
add
ress
th
e ro
ad/tr
affic
co
ncer
ns?
Wha
t req
uest
s w
ere
mad
e th
at
wer
e no
t pr
evio
usly
pl
anne
d? W
hat
did
you
do in
re
spon
se?
Yoa
kum
D
istr
ict
Lonn
ie
Gre
gorc
yk,
Dis
trict
En
gine
er
Wal
-Mar
t, Se
aly
Had
staf
f rev
iew
des
ign
deta
ils; Y
KM
did
PS
&E
for t
urn
lane
s
Was
TPD
Dire
ctor
at
the
time;
kep
t D.E
. in
form
ed; w
as a
ble
to
tell
wha
t Tx
DO
T/di
stric
t cou
ld
do –
up
to c
erta
in
amou
nt o
f $ -
reco
mm
ende
d to
D.E
. –
he a
ppro
ved
afte
r m
eetin
g w
ith st
ate
repr
esen
tativ
e
Acc
ess t
o IH
10
or
US
59
Dis
cuss
ion
of
pote
ntia
l new
FM
ro
ad to
IH 1
0
Turn
lane
s. To
ld th
em h
ow
muc
h Tx
DO
T w
ould
pay
Hou
ston
D
istr
ict
Jim
Hea
cock
Aca
dem
y -
Kat
y
Hou
ston
D
istr
ict
Jim
Hea
cock
C
an fo
llow
up
with
M
ontg
omer
y C
o A
rea
– ha
ve
tried
, but
hav
e no
t bee
n ab
le
to ta
lk w
ith y
et
Wal
-Mar
t, N
ew
Can
ey
Turn
lane
s on
thre
e ro
ads
Ode
ssa
Dis
tric
t G
ary
Law
, TP
D D
irect
or
and
Mik
e M
cAnn
aly,
TR
F D
irect
or
Fam
ily D
olla
r -
Ode
ssa
Dire
ct su
gges
tions
re
gard
ing
driv
eway
lo
catio
ns a
nd d
esig
n
Full
auth
ority
to
appr
ove
driv
eway
lo
catio
ns a
nd d
esig
n
117
Dis
tric
t Are
a O
ffic
e, N
ame,
T
itle
Maj
or D
C(s
) in
Are
a (c
ompa
ny,
city
)
Wha
t rol
e (if
any
) did
yo
u pl
ay in
loca
tion
and
desi
gn
nego
tiatio
n pr
oces
s?
Wha
t aut
hori
ty d
id
you
have
in
cons
ider
ing
and/
or
gran
ting
thos
e re
ques
ts?
Wha
t con
cern
s did
th
e D
C d
evel
oper
ex
pres
s abo
ut a
site
in
you
r ar
ea?
Abo
ut
the
site
bein
g pr
opos
ed o
r co
nsid
ered
?
How
did
you
add
ress
th
e ro
ad/tr
affic
co
ncer
ns?
Wha
t req
uest
s w
ere
mad
e th
at
wer
e no
t pr
evio
usly
pl
anne
d? W
hat
did
you
do in
re
spon
se?
Fort
Wor
th
Jim
my
Bod
iford
, Tr
ans O
ps
Dire
ctor
; Th
eres
a Lo
pez,
A
sst D
irect
or
Tran
s Ops
; R
onal
d R
obin
son,
Jo
hnso
n C
o A
E;
Ric
hard
Sc
hille
r Mai
nt
Dire
ctor
; B
ill R
iley,
TP
D D
irect
or
Mat
tel,
Fort
Wor
th
Non
e N
/A
N/A
N
ot in
volv
ed
Roa
d im
prov
emen
t pr
ojec
t – w
iden
ing
of M
each
am R
d fr
om G
old
Spik
e to
M
ain
and
an
inte
rcha
nge
at M
ain
to b
e bu
ilt in
stea
d of
pr
evio
usly
pla
nned
w
iden
ing
on a
noth
er
segm
ent o
f the
M
each
am R
oad;
we
faci
litat
ed m
ovin
g fu
nds a
nd le
t the
pr
ojec
t.
Fort
Wor
th
Ron
ald
Rob
inso
n,
John
son
Co
AE
Wal
-Mar
t, C
lebu
rne
Non
e N
/A
Do
not k
now
N
/A –
oth
er th
an
faci
litat
ing
impr
ovem
ents
on
SH
171
– bu
ilt b
y W
al-
Mar
t
Non
e
Fort
Wor
th
Ther
esa
Lope
z,
Ass
t Dire
ctor
Tr
affic
Ops
Mou
ser
Elec
troni
cs,
Man
sfie
ld
Rev
iew
ed si
gnal
w
arra
nts
Mar
k Pr
ice
of S
outh
Ta
rran
t Cou
nty
Area
O
ffice
– c
an d
iscu
ss
furt
her w
ith h
im
Traf
fic si
gnal
s, re
view
ed w
arra
nts
Pari
s Dis
tric
t Ea
rnes
t Tea
gue
Are
a En
gine
er
Sulp
hur
Sprin
gs
(903
) 885
-951
4
Low
e’s,
Mou
nt
Ver
non
We
nego
tiate
d ac
cess
(d
rivew
ay) l
ocat
ions
an
d th
ey to
ok o
ur
reco
mm
enda
tions
.
I wor
ked
out t
he
agre
emen
ts w
ith L
owes
an
d th
eir c
onsu
ltant
en
gine
er/a
rchi
tect
, the
n pa
ssed
it u
p to
the
Dis
trict
for r
evie
w.
Acc
ess t
o IH
30,
pr
imar
ily; a
lso
acce
ss
to S
H 3
7 fo
r rou
ting
to T
yler
and
poi
nts
sout
h.
Ther
e w
as n
ot
anyt
hing
we
had
to
do.
118
Dis
tric
t Are
a O
ffic
e, N
ame,
T
itle
Maj
or D
C(s
) in
Are
a (c
ompa
ny,
city
)
Wha
t rol
e (if
any
) did
yo
u pl
ay in
loca
tion
and
desi
gn
nego
tiatio
n pr
oces
s?
Wha
t aut
hori
ty d
id
you
have
in
cons
ider
ing
and/
or
gran
ting
thos
e re
ques
ts?
Wha
t con
cern
s did
th
e D
C d
evel
oper
ex
pres
s abo
ut a
site
in
you
r ar
ea?
Abo
ut
the
site
bein
g pr
opos
ed o
r co
nsid
ered
?
How
did
you
add
ress
th
e ro
ad/tr
affic
co
ncer
ns?
Wha
t req
uest
s w
ere
mad
e th
at
wer
e no
t pr
evio
usly
pl
anne
d? W
hat
did
you
do in
re
spon
se?
Dal
las D
istri
ct
Bill
Pie
rce
Are
a En
gine
er
Wax
ahac
hie
(972
) 938
-157
0
Targ
et a
nd
Toys
R U
s, R
ailp
ort
Indu
stria
l Par
k,
Mid
loth
ian
Did
not
par
ticip
ate
in
loca
tion
or d
esig
n ne
gotia
tion
proc
esse
s
App
rove
d si
gnal
re
ques
t for
US
67 @
R
ailp
ort P
kwy
Not
aw
are
of a
ny
Ther
e w
ere
no
spec
ific
conc
erns
to
addr
ess.
Gra
de se
para
tion
for
US
67 to
go
over
R
ailp
ort P
kwy
Dal
las D
istri
ct
Bill
Pie
rce
Are
a En
gine
er
Wax
ahac
hie
(972
) 938
-157
0
Wal
gree
ns,
Wax
ahac
hie
Did
not
par
ticip
ate
in
loca
tion
or d
esig
n ne
gotia
tion
proc
esse
s
Cha
nged
FM
664
@
US
287
fron
tage
road
fr
om tw
o-w
ay st
op to
fo
ur-w
ay st
op
Not
aw
are
of a
ny
Ther
e w
ere
no
spec
ific
conc
erns
to
addr
ess
Cha
nge
two-
way
st
op c
ontro
l to
four
-w
ay; p
ossi
bly
right
-tu
rn la
ne o
n U
S 28
7 fr
onta
ge ro
ad
119
TxD
OT
Sum
mar
y Pa
ge 3
D
istr
ict A
rea
Off
ice,
Nam
e,
Titl
e
Maj
or D
C(s
) in
Are
a (c
ompa
ny,
city
)
Wha
t inc
entiv
es
wer
e of
fere
d to
lo
cate
loca
lly (b
y an
y en
tity)
?
Did
req
uest
s req
uire
T
xDO
T p
oten
tial
fund
ing
that
had
not
pr
evio
usly
bee
n pr
ogra
mm
ed?
At w
hat p
oint
wou
ld
it ha
ve b
een
mos
t be
nefic
ial f
or y
ou to
ha
ve b
ecom
e aw
are
of e
ffor
ts to
lo
cate
/att
ract
the
DC
?
At w
hat p
oint
wou
ld
it ha
ve b
een
mos
t be
nefic
ial f
or y
ou to
ha
ve b
ecom
e in
volv
ed in
ne
gotia
tions
to
loca
te/a
ttra
ct th
e D
C?
Was
TxD
OT
co
nsul
ted
on si
te
loca
tion,
ince
ntiv
es,
acce
ss, r
oad
impr
ovem
ents
, sa
fety
con
cern
s, co
nges
tion
pote
ntia
l, ot
her?
T
xDO
T
Gov
ernm
ent
& P
ublic
A
ffai
rs, H
elen
H
avel
ka,
(512
) 475
-181
2
Stat
ewid
e re
sour
ce
invo
lved
with
G
over
nor’
s O
ffic
e of
Ec
onom
ic
Dev
elop
men
t
NA
Se
vera
l are
refe
rred
to
adm
inis
tratio
n as
un
prog
ram
med
nee
ds.
NA
A
s nee
ded
to fa
cilit
ate
dist
rict i
nvol
vem
ent o
r ad
min
istra
tive
appr
oval
of f
undi
ng
Don
e at
dis
trict
leve
l w
hen
requ
este
d.
San
Ant
onio
D
istr
ict
Cla
y Sm
ith,
TPD
Dire
ctor
(2
10) 6
15-5
920
Non
e Sp
ecifi
c,
but m
entio
ned
Wal
-Mar
t DC
in
New
B
raun
fels
, To
yota
pla
nt,
Sout
hwes
t In
term
odal
fa
cilit
y, R
ack
Spac
e hi
gh te
ch
faci
lity,
and
Lo
we’
s in
Segu
in th
at w
as
not b
uilt
N/A
– n
o sp
ecifi
c D
C
refe
renc
ed
N/A
– n
o sp
ecifi
c D
C
refe
renc
ed
Early
as p
ossi
ble
wou
ld a
lway
s be
best
Ea
rly in
the
plan
ning
, so
we
can
resp
ond
– en
viro
nmen
tal,
RO
W,
iden
tify
fund
ing.
M
ost w
ill le
t TxD
OT
in o
n co
nfid
entia
lity
– of
ten
will
hav
e m
eetin
g w
ith c
ompa
ny
rep
and
loca
l ele
cted
of
ficia
l.
N/A
– n
o sp
ecifi
c D
C re
fere
nced
120
Dis
tric
t Are
a O
ffic
e, N
ame,
T
itle
Maj
or D
C(s
) in
Are
a (c
ompa
ny,
city
)
Wha
t inc
entiv
es
wer
e of
fere
d to
lo
cate
loca
lly (b
y an
y en
tity)
?
Did
req
uest
s req
uire
T
xDO
T p
oten
tial
fund
ing
that
had
not
pr
evio
usly
bee
n pr
ogra
mm
ed?
At w
hat p
oint
wou
ld
it ha
ve b
een
mos
t be
nefic
ial f
or y
ou to
ha
ve b
ecom
e aw
are
of e
ffor
ts to
lo
cate
/att
ract
the
DC
?
At w
hat p
oint
wou
ld
it ha
ve b
een
mos
t be
nefic
ial f
or y
ou to
ha
ve b
ecom
e in
volv
ed in
ne
gotia
tions
to
loca
te/a
ttra
ct th
e D
C?
Was
TxD
OT
co
nsul
ted
on si
te
loca
tion,
ince
ntiv
es,
acce
ss, r
oad
impr
ovem
ents
, sa
fety
con
cern
s, co
nges
tion
pote
ntia
l, ot
her?
Y
oaku
m
Dis
tric
t Lo
nnie
G
rego
rcyk
, D
istri
ct
Engi
neer
Wal
-Mar
t, Se
aly
Tax
abat
emen
ts,
utili
ty e
xten
sion
s, po
ssib
ly a
nnex
atio
n
Stat
e le
vel a
nd d
istri
ct
disc
retio
nary
fund
s w
ere
use.
D
oesn
’t w
ant t
o sa
y th
at a
ny sp
ecifi
c pr
ojec
t was
del
ayed
du
e to
this
issu
e –
but
poss
ibly
wer
e.
Prio
r to
site
pla
n de
velo
pmen
t – w
e co
uld
have
hel
ped
with
ac
cess
opt
ions
. Th
ey
cam
e to
us w
ith a
set
site
pla
n.
Early
as p
ossi
ble,
to
help
with
pla
nnin
g is
sues
.
Site
loca
tion
– ve
ry
little
(wor
ked
som
e w
ith E
l Cam
po –
pr
imar
ily b
ecau
se o
f ex
istin
g w
orki
ng
rela
tions
hip)
. R
oad
impr
ovem
ents
, ge
omet
ric
impr
ovem
ents
, sa
fety
con
cern
s (D
C
wan
ted
sign
al; c
ity
conc
erne
d w
ith
entra
nce
ram
p an
d tru
cks m
ergi
ng o
nto
IH 1
0.
Hou
ston
D
istr
ict
Gab
e Jo
hnso
n,
TPD
Dire
ctor
Aca
dem
y -
Kat
y
Ode
ssa
Dis
tric
t G
ary
Law
, TP
D D
irect
or
and
Mik
e M
cAnn
aly,
TR
F D
irect
or
Fam
ily D
olla
r -
Ode
ssa
Not
aw
are
of lo
cal
ince
ntiv
es
Yes
– fu
ndin
g fo
r ad
jace
nt in
terc
hang
e ca
me
from
Dis
trict
D
iscr
etio
nary
fund
s –
seve
ral y
ears
wor
th
“I w
ould
just
as s
oon
stay
out
of i
t; th
e pl
attin
g pr
oces
s is
prob
ably
the
best
” tim
e to
get
invo
lved
; te
ll th
em w
hen
you
com
e, d
o im
pact
s st
udie
s bef
ore
you
expe
ct to
mak
e im
prov
emen
ts.
“don
’t ca
re”
No
121
Dis
tric
t Are
a O
ffic
e, N
ame,
T
itle
Maj
or D
C(s
) in
Are
a (c
ompa
ny,
city
)
Wha
t inc
entiv
es
wer
e of
fere
d to
lo
cate
loca
lly (b
y an
y en
tity)
?
Did
req
uest
s req
uire
T
xDO
T p
oten
tial
fund
ing
that
had
not
pr
evio
usly
bee
n pr
ogra
mm
ed?
At w
hat p
oint
wou
ld
it ha
ve b
een
mos
t be
nefic
ial f
or y
ou to
ha
ve b
ecom
e aw
are
of e
ffor
ts to
lo
cate
/att
ract
the
DC
?
At w
hat p
oint
wou
ld
it ha
ve b
een
mos
t be
nefic
ial f
or y
ou to
ha
ve b
ecom
e in
volv
ed in
ne
gotia
tions
to
loca
te/a
ttra
ct th
e D
C?
Was
TxD
OT
co
nsul
ted
on si
te
loca
tion,
ince
ntiv
es,
acce
ss, r
oad
impr
ovem
ents
, sa
fety
con
cern
s, co
nges
tion
pote
ntia
l, ot
her?
Fo
rt W
orth
Ji
mm
y B
odifo
rd,
Tran
s Ops
D
irect
or;
Ther
esa
Lope
z,
Ass
t Dire
ctor
Tr
ans O
ps;
Ron
ald
Rob
inso
n,
John
son
Co
AE;
R
icha
rd
Schi
ller M
aint
D
irect
or;
Bill
Rile
y,
TPD
Dire
ctor
Mat
tel,
Fort
Wor
th
Not
aw
are
Yes
– d
esire
d pr
ojec
t w
as b
uilt
in p
lace
of
prev
ious
ly p
lann
ed
proj
ect o
n an
othe
r se
gmen
t of t
he sa
me
road
Did
not
mat
ter m
uch,
m
ainl
y an
MPO
issu
e D
id n
ot m
atte
r muc
h N
o
Fort
Wor
th
Ron
ald
Rob
inso
n,
John
son
Co
AE
Wal
-Mar
t, C
lebu
rne
Do
not k
now
N
o N
/A
As e
arly
as p
ossi
ble,
so
we
can
give
the
pros
and
con
s of
impa
cts o
n ro
ad w
ay
syst
em; w
hen
loca
ls
first
met
with
Wal
-M
art
Onl
y ab
out t
he tu
rn
lane
s on
SH 1
71
Fort
Wor
th
Ther
esa
Lope
z,
Ass
t Dire
ctor
Tr
affic
Ops
Mou
ser
Elec
troni
cs,
Man
sfie
ld
Do
not k
now
N
o
C
ity o
f Man
sfie
ld
brou
ght T
IA a
nd
sign
al re
ques
t to
TxD
OT
122
TxD
OT
Sum
mar
y Pa
ge 4
D
istr
ict A
rea
Off
ice,
Nam
e,
Titl
e
Maj
or D
C(s
) in
Are
a (c
ompa
ny,
city
)
Wer
e T
xDO
T’s
advi
ce,
reco
mm
enda
tions
, re
ques
ts fo
llow
ed?
If
not,
why
not
?
Wha
t im
pact
s has
D
C h
ad o
n st
ate
high
way
syst
em?
Any
traf
fic, s
afet
y,
road
con
ditio
n,
othe
r co
ncer
ns
asso
ciat
ed w
ith th
e D
C?
Wha
t act
ions
hav
e or
are
bei
ng ta
ken
to r
esol
ve th
em?
Oth
er c
omm
ents
TxD
OT
G
over
nmen
t &
Pub
lic
Aff
airs
, Hel
en
Hav
elka
, (5
12) 4
75-1
812
Stat
ewid
e re
sour
ce
invo
lved
with
G
over
nor’
s O
ffic
e of
Ec
onom
ic
Dev
elop
men
t
NA
N
A
NA
N
A
Whe
n D
C
repr
esen
tativ
es in
quire
at
the
Gov
erno
r’s
offic
e, H
elen
is th
e fir
st T
xDO
T co
ntac
t.
If D
C re
ps st
art
loca
lly, s
he ra
rely
is
invo
lved
. Sa
n A
nton
io
Dis
tric
t C
lay
Smith
, TP
D D
irect
or
(210
) 615
-592
0
Non
e Sp
ecifi
c,
but m
entio
ned
Wal
-Mar
t DC
in
New
B
raun
fels
, To
yota
pla
nt,
Sout
hwes
t In
term
odal
fa
cilit
y, R
ack
Spac
e hi
gh te
ch
faci
lity,
and
Lo
we’
s in
Segu
in th
at w
as
not b
uilt
N/A
– n
o sp
ecifi
c D
C
refe
renc
ed
N/A
– n
o sp
ecifi
c D
C
refe
renc
ed
N/A
– n
o sp
ecifi
c D
C re
fere
nced
N
/A –
no
spec
ific
DC
re
fere
nced
N
one
Yoa
kum
D
istr
ict
Lonn
ie
Gre
gorc
yk,
Dis
trict
En
gine
er
Wal
-Mar
t, Se
aly
DC
dev
elop
er –
No,
site
pl
an w
as a
lread
y se
t. Lo
cal a
genc
y –
Yes
.
Som
e ch
ange
s in
trave
l cha
ract
eris
tics –
IH
10
& S
H 3
6; th
ere
was
alre
ady
lots
of
truck
traf
fic.
New
FM
road
– o
pene
d up
la
nd fo
r dev
elop
men
t.
Turn
ing
issu
es –
tru
cks.
Red
esig
ned
inte
rsec
tion
– SH
36
@ F
M 3
013;
new
FM
353
8 bu
ilt.
TxD
OT
need
s to
be
brou
ght i
nto
the
proc
ess e
arly
, bef
ore
site
pla
ns a
re se
t so
that
TxD
OT
can
wor
k w
ith th
e D
C c
ompa
ny
to g
et th
e be
st ro
ad
impr
ovem
ents
/des
igns
. H
oust
on
Dis
tric
t G
abe
John
son,
TP
D D
irect
or
Aca
dem
y -
Kat
y
123
Dis
tric
t Are
a O
ffic
e, N
ame,
T
itle
Maj
or D
C(s
) in
Are
a (c
ompa
ny,
city
)
Wer
e T
xDO
T’s
advi
ce,
reco
mm
enda
tions
, re
ques
ts fo
llow
ed?
If
not,
why
not
?
Wha
t im
pact
s has
D
C h
ad o
n st
ate
high
way
syst
em?
Any
traf
fic, s
afet
y,
road
con
ditio
n,
othe
r co
ncer
ns
asso
ciat
ed w
ith th
e D
C?
Wha
t act
ions
hav
e or
are
bei
ng ta
ken
to r
esol
ve th
em?
Oth
er c
omm
ents
Ode
ssa
Dis
tric
t G
ary
Law
, TP
D D
irect
or
and
Mik
e M
cAnn
aly,
TR
F D
irect
or
Fam
ily D
olla
r -
Ode
ssa
N/A
D
eter
iora
tion
of
pave
men
t on
fron
tage
ro
ads a
nd v
olum
es
that
requ
ired
a si
gnal
at
the
IH 2
0 –
Gra
ndvi
ew
inte
rcha
nge
(~1½
mi
to th
e w
est)
Sam
e as
pre
viou
s qu
estio
n Im
prov
ed fr
onta
ge
road
pav
emen
t dur
ing
cons
truct
ion
of JB
S Pa
rkw
ay in
terc
hang
e;
rebu
ilt se
ctio
ns o
f fr
onta
ge ro
ads
Fort
Wor
th
Jim
my
Bod
iford
, Tr
ans O
ps
Dire
ctor
; Th
eres
a Lo
pez,
A
sst D
irect
or
Tran
s Ops
; R
onal
d R
obin
son,
Jo
hnso
n C
o A
E;
Ric
hard
Sc
hille
r Mai
nt
Dire
ctor
; B
ill R
iley,
TP
D D
irect
or
Mat
tel,
Fort
Wor
th
N/A
N
one
No
N/A
W
e w
ould
like
to b
e in
volv
ed; t
he c
ities
do
n’t w
ant u
s in
volv
ed, b
ecau
se w
e w
ill te
ll th
em h
ow
muc
h it
will
cos
t (an
d th
at w
e w
on’t
pay
for
it).
The
othe
r seg
men
t of
Mea
cham
Roa
d st
ill
has n
ot b
een
wid
ened
.
Fort
Wor
th
Ron
ald
Rob
inso
n,
John
son
Co
AE
Wal
-Mar
t, C
lebu
rne
N/A
Th
e pa
vem
ent a
t the
ne
arby
US
67/S
H 1
71
inte
rcha
nge
was
not
de
sign
ed fo
r hea
vy
truck
traf
fic.
No
Reb
uilt
conn
ectio
ns
from
US
67 to
SH
17
1 –
used
M
aint
enan
ce fu
nds
Wal
-Mar
t pai
d fo
r all
turn
lane
im
prov
emen
ts,
incl
udin
g co
nsul
tant
s, pl
ans,
and
cons
truct
ion.
124
Dis
tric
t Are
a O
ffic
e, N
ame,
T
itle
Maj
or D
C(s
) in
Are
a (c
ompa
ny,
city
)
Wer
e T
xDO
T’s
advi
ce,
reco
mm
enda
tions
, re
ques
ts fo
llow
ed?
If
not,
why
not
?
Wha
t im
pact
s has
D
C h
ad o
n st
ate
high
way
syst
em?
Any
traf
fic, s
afet
y,
road
con
ditio
n,
othe
r co
ncer
ns
asso
ciat
ed w
ith th
e D
C?
Wha
t act
ions
hav
e or
are
bei
ng ta
ken
to r
esol
ve th
em?
Oth
er c
omm
ents
Dal
las D
istri
ct
Bill
Pie
rce
Are
a En
gine
er
Wax
ahac
hie
(972
) 938
-157
0
Targ
et a
nd
Toys
R U
s, R
ailp
ort
Indu
stria
l Par
k,
Mid
loth
ian
N/A
N
one
No
N/A
Th
e M
idlo
thia
n D
evel
opm
ent
Aut
horit
y is
ver
y go
od
to w
ork
with
.
Dal
las D
istri
ct
Bill
Pie
rce
Are
a En
gine
er
Wax
ahac
hie
(972
) 938
-157
0
Wal
gree
ns,
Wax
ahac
hie
N/A
N
one
No
N/A
“P
retty
goo
d ex
perie
nce”
; no
TIA
re
quire
d; th
ere
are
no
prob
lem
s the
re to
day.
Not
es:
A
lso
aske
d FT
W g
roup
abo
ut N
estle
, Alb
erts
ons,
Rad
io S
hack
, and
Whi
rlpoo
l DC
; the
y di
d no
t kno
w a
bout
thei
r dev
elop
men
t; so
me
didn
’t ev
en k
now
one
or m
ore
of th
em e
xist
– th
is se
ems t
o sp
eak
to th
e va
ryin
g im
pact
s of D
Cs i
n la
rger
or s
mal
ler a
reas
. Tx
DO
T de
velo
ped
fron
tage
road
s for
SH
170
and
DC
s (N
estle
and
LG
Ele
ctro
nics
) fol
low
ed; C
ity o
f For
t Wor
th a
dded
traf
fic si
gnal
s at
SH 1
70 @
Par
k V
ista
afte
r DC
s wer
e bu
ilt.
FTW
gro
up n
oted
that
City
of F
ort W
orth
has
leve
rage
to re
ques
t TIA
if D
C d
oes n
ot
have
dire
ct a
cces
s to
stat
e hi
ghw
ay; C
ity g
ets T
xDO
T re
view
and
inpu
t. T
he F
TW g
roup
men
tione
d th
at B
each
Stre
et w
as w
iden
ed
near
the
Dill
ards
DC
, but
was
goi
ng to
hap
pen
rega
rdle
ss o
f the
DC
con
stru
ctio
n; th
ere
wer
e co
ncer
ns re
late
d to
acc
ess a
fter c
hang
es
to th
e IH
35W
/IH 8
20 in
terc
hang
e B
ill P
ierc
e (A
E –
Ellis
Cou
nty)
als
o br
ough
t up
the
Ster
ilite
faci
lity
in E
nnis
; sai
d th
at C
ity o
f Enn
is re
ques
ted
a tra
ffic
sign
al;
war
rant
s for
sign
al w
ere
not m
et, s
o fla
shin
g lig
ht in
stal
led
(pai
d fo
r by
City
and
Wal
gree
ns);
City
of E
nnis
is q
uick
er to
ask
for
impr
ovem
ents
that
oth
er c
ities
. B
ill P
ierc
e al
so m
entio
ned
a tru
ck d
rivin
g sc
hool
in P
alm
er; C
ity o
f Pal
mer
wan
ted
TxD
OT
to p
ay fo
r so
me
road
impr
ovem
ents
; TxD
OT
polit
ely
told
them
they
wou
ld h
ave
to fu
nd it
; mos
t citi
es se
em to
kno
w th
is, b
ut so
me
smal
l tow
ns
still
thin
k Tx
DO
T ha
s unl
imite
d fu
nds.
Som
e in
terv
iew
ees w
ere
relu
ctan
t to
shar
e in
form
atio
n ab
out a
ll or
abo
ut c
erta
in su
bjec
ts.
125
Tab
le B
-3. I
nter
view
Sum
mar
ies –
Loc
al A
genc
y R
epre
sent
ativ
es.
Loc
al A
genc
y R
epre
sent
ativ
es S
umm
ary
Page
1
Age
ncy,
Nam
e,
Titl
e, C
onta
ct
Info
rmat
ion
DC
C
ompa
ny,
Loc
atio
n O
peni
ng
Dat
e
How
far
in
adva
nce
wer
e yo
u aw
are
of
poss
ible
DC
lo
catio
n?
Did
you
or
anot
her
loca
l ag
ency
try
to
attr
act D
C?
H
ow?
Whe
re e
lse
was
DC
co
mpa
ny
cons
ider
ing
loca
ting
the
DC
?
Wha
t con
cern
s did
DC
de
velo
per
expr
ess a
bout
a
site
in y
our
area
? H
ow d
id y
ou a
ddre
ss
traf
fic/r
oad
conc
erns
? G
over
nor’
s O
ffic
e of
E
cono
mic
D
evel
opm
ent,
Scot
t Sm
ith,
Loca
tion
Spec
ialis
t, (5
12) 9
36-0
278
All
that
in
quire
; thi
s of
fice
hand
les
stat
ewid
e or
in
itial
in
quiri
es.
NA
A
t ini
tiatio
n of
si
te se
arch
To
Tex
as.
They
han
d of
f to
loca
l are
as
of in
tere
st fo
r si
te p
ropo
sals
on
ce c
riter
ia
are
know
n.
Can
be
in o
r ou
tsid
e Te
xas;
so
me
DC
s se
rve
mul
tiple
st
ates
.
Inte
rest
s are
mos
t fre
quen
tly
for s
ite o
n in
ters
tate
hig
hway
or
4-la
ne st
ate
high
way
. So
me
also
wan
t rai
l acc
ess.
La
bor f
orce
and
ince
ntiv
es a
re
also
soug
ht d
urin
g in
itial
in
quiri
es to
stat
e.
Not
usu
ally
dis
cuss
ed a
t th
is le
vel,
but a
re o
nce
DC
repr
esen
tativ
es a
re
hand
ed o
ff to
loca
ls.
Tyl
er
Cha
mbe
r of
C
omm
erce
an
d E
con.
D
evel
. Cor
p.
Tom
Mul
lins
(903
) 593
-200
4
Targ
et,
Lind
ale
June
199
8 C
onta
cted
19
94, s
elec
ted
in 1
995
No,
they
wer
e ap
proa
ched
by
Tar
get
initi
ally
.
Wac
o N
eede
d a
site
that
did
n’t h
ave
mor
e th
an 1
0% e
leva
tion
and
was
at l
east
100
acr
es (l
ater
ex
pand
ed to
150
-acr
e si
te);
foun
d fo
ur su
itabl
e si
tes i
n Ea
st T
exas
Reb
uilt
over
pass
brid
ge
and
exte
nded
ent
ranc
e ra
mps
on
Har
vey
Roa
d.
Wax
ahac
hie
Eco
nom
ic D
ev.
Dep
t. D
oug
Bar
nes
(972
) 937
-733
0
Ext.
276
Wal
gree
ns,
Wax
ahac
hie
2000
(con
st.
bega
n in
19
99)
One
yea
r ahe
ad
of
cons
truct
ion.
Yes
; city
ke
eps a
n in
form
atio
n pa
cket
up
date
d to
ci
rcul
ate
to
pros
pect
ive
deve
lope
rs.
Don
’t kn
ow
spec
ific
com
petin
g lo
catio
ns;
Wal
gree
ns
wan
ted
to b
e cl
ose
to I-
35
and
to D
/FW
m
etro
plex
No
conc
erns
exp
ress
ed;
selli
ng p
oint
s wer
e pr
oxim
ity
to I-
35, D
/FW
and
Hw
y. 2
87
Not
muc
h to
add
ress
; si
te w
as a
lread
y on
H
wy
287
clos
e to
its
inte
rsec
tion
with
I-35
. U
pgra
ded
entra
nce
ram
p to
Hw
y 28
7 to
ac
com
mod
ate
wei
ght o
f tru
cks.
126
Age
ncy,
Nam
e,
Titl
e, C
onta
ct
Info
rmat
ion
DC
C
ompa
ny,
Loc
atio
n O
peni
ng
Dat
e
How
far
in
adva
nce
wer
e yo
u aw
are
of
poss
ible
DC
lo
catio
n?
Did
you
or
anot
her
loca
l ag
ency
try
to
attr
act D
C?
H
ow?
Whe
re e
lse
was
DC
co
mpa
ny
cons
ider
ing
loca
ting
the
DC
?
Wha
t con
cern
s did
DC
de
velo
per
expr
ess a
bout
a
site
in y
our
area
? H
ow d
id y
ou a
ddre
ss
traf
fic/r
oad
conc
erns
? N
ew B
raun
fels
Cha
mbe
r of
C
omm
erce
R
usty
B
rock
man
, Ec
o. D
ev. D
ir.
(830
) 625
-238
5
Wal
-Mar
t, N
ew
Bra
unfe
ls
1993
N
ot su
re
Yes
; tax
ab
atem
ent
ince
ntiv
es.
Ther
e w
as
com
petit
ion
in
Sout
h Te
xas;
do
n’t k
now
de
tails
.
Non
e th
at h
e’s a
war
e of
; w
hen
free
way
feed
er ro
ads
chan
ged
from
2-w
ay to
one
-w
ay, (
follo
win
g D
C o
peni
ng)
it be
cam
e sl
ight
ly m
ore
inco
nven
ient
for D
C’s
truc
ks
to e
nter
hig
hway
, but
not
hing
m
ajor
.
No
prob
lem
s to
fix.
Segu
in
Eco
nom
ic
Dev
el. C
orp.
, R
amon
Loz
ano,
(8
88) 4
73-
4846
; Seg
uin
City
Pla
nner
D
on S
mith
, (8
30) 4
01-2
306
Low
e’s,
Segu
in
Proj
ect
defe
rred
by
Low
e’s
afte
r all
appr
oved
Abo
ut 1
-1½
ye
ars b
efor
e in
tend
ed
cons
truct
ion
Yes
. O
ffer
ed
num
erou
s in
cent
ives
Was
look
ing
east
Lyt
le w
as
last
oth
er c
ity;
Low
e’s w
as
look
ing
Hou
ston
or
wes
t
Giv
en a
rea,
wan
ted
acce
ss to
bo
th I-
10 a
nd fu
ture
SH
130
. Si
te si
ze w
as a
lso
impo
rtant
to
acco
mm
odat
e pr
opos
ed
2 m
illio
n sq
. ft.
DC
serv
ing
80 st
ores
in so
uth
Texa
s and
w
este
rn L
ouis
iana
.
Loca
ted
and
acqu
ired
site
on
stat
e hi
ghw
ay
clos
e to
I-10
and
futu
re
SH 1
30.
No
sign
ifica
nt
impr
ovem
ents
wer
e ne
eded
.
City
of S
ealy
, Jo
hn M
arsh
, C
ity M
anag
er,
(979
) 885
-351
1 Ex
t. 0.
Wal
-Mar
t, Se
aly
Apr
il 20
05
2-3
year
s Y
es
Oth
er la
te
alte
rnat
ives
w
ere
Wha
rton,
R
osen
berg
Wan
ted
site
on
FM ro
ad, s
ite
larg
e en
ough
and
righ
t sha
pe
for D
C p
lan
(infle
xibl
e),
requ
ire n
o R
R c
ross
ing,
ut
ilitie
s ava
ilabl
e. N
ot
conc
erne
d w
ith v
isib
ility
. Fo
und
outly
ing
site
that
was
la
rge
enou
gh a
nd m
et o
ther
ne
eds.
Wal
-Mar
t co
mm
issi
oned
a tr
affic
im
pact
stud
y;
127
Age
ncy,
Nam
e,
Titl
e, C
onta
ct
Info
rmat
ion
DC
C
ompa
ny,
Loc
atio
n O
peni
ng
Dat
e
How
far
in
adva
nce
wer
e yo
u aw
are
of
poss
ible
DC
lo
catio
n?
Did
you
or
anot
her
loca
l ag
ency
try
to
attr
act D
C?
H
ow?
Whe
re e
lse
was
DC
co
mpa
ny
cons
ider
ing
loca
ting
the
DC
?
Wha
t con
cern
s did
DC
de
velo
per
expr
ess a
bout
a
site
in y
our
area
? H
ow d
id y
ou a
ddre
ss
traf
fic/r
oad
conc
erns
? C
lebu
rne
Off
ice
of
Eco
nom
ic
Dev
elop
men
t, Je
rry
Cas
h,
Dire
ctor
, (81
7)
645-
8644
Wal
-Mar
t, Tr
ee o
f Life
, se
vera
l co
mbi
natio
n m
anuf
actu
re-
DC
s in
Cle
burn
e.
Wal
-Mar
t -
2002
18
-24
mon
ths
Led
by
econ
omic
de
velo
pmen
t of
fice
or C
ity
man
ager
.
Eldo
rado
was
fin
alis
t. M
ost
com
pani
es
wan
t <1
mile
to
4-la
ne
high
way
and
<1
0 m
iles t
o in
ters
tate
hi
ghw
ay.
Top
sele
ctio
n cr
iteria
he
hear
s ar
e: 1.
U
tility
ava
ilabi
lity
2.
Labo
r for
ce
3.
Ince
ntiv
es
Impr
ove
mai
n co
unty
ro
ad p
rovi
ding
acc
ess t
o SH
171
; add
de
cele
ratio
n la
nes o
n SH
171
.
Cor
sica
na
Dep
artm
ent o
f E
cono
mic
D
evel
opm
ent,
Lee
McC
lear
y,
Dire
ctor
,1 (9
03) 6
45-4
806
Hom
e D
epot
, K
ohl’s
, Tru
e V
alue
H
ardw
are
HD
– 2
005
(rep
lace
men
t fo
r dep
arte
d K
-Mar
t K
ohl’s
–
2003
TV
H –
199
8
Usu
ally
12-
16
mon
ths
Star
ts w
ith
econ
omic
de
velo
pmen
t of
fice;
oth
ers
invo
lved
as
need
ed.
Usu
ally
DFW
re
gion
and
al
ong
I-45
or
US
187.
Usu
ally
with
in c
erta
in n
umbe
r of
mile
s of I
-45
and
alon
g a
good
hig
hway
.
Was
not
ther
e at
tim
e;
wou
ld se
arch
file
s if w
e do
cas
e st
udy.
McK
inne
y E
cono
mic
D
evel
opm
ent
Cor
pora
tion,
C
hris
Pot
ter,
Dire
ctor
of
Mar
ketin
g,
(972
) 562
-543
0
Blo
ckbu
ster
Fa
ll 19
97
Fall
1996
Y
es; o
ffer
ed
ince
ntiv
es
unkn
own
n/a
n/a
1 R
ecen
tly re
plac
ed d
ecea
sed
pred
eces
sor w
ho h
andl
ed th
e th
ree
DC
list
ed.
McC
lear
y w
as p
revi
ousl
y D
irect
or o
f Eco
nom
ic D
evel
opm
ent i
n En
nis w
here
he
was
in
volv
ed in
attr
actin
g D
Cs t
here
(CV
S an
d ot
hers
). S
ome
info
rmat
ion
show
n is
bas
ed o
n hi
s tot
al e
xper
ienc
e.
128
Age
ncy,
Nam
e,
Titl
e, C
onta
ct
Info
rmat
ion
DC
C
ompa
ny,
Loc
atio
n O
peni
ng
Dat
e
How
far
in
adva
nce
wer
e yo
u aw
are
of
poss
ible
DC
lo
catio
n?
Did
you
or
anot
her
loca
l ag
ency
try
to
attr
act D
C?
H
ow?
Whe
re e
lse
was
DC
co
mpa
ny
cons
ider
ing
loca
ting
the
DC
?
Wha
t con
cern
s did
DC
de
velo
per
expr
ess a
bout
a
site
in y
our
area
? H
ow d
id y
ou a
ddre
ss
traf
fic/r
oad
conc
erns
? A
rlin
gton
C
ham
ber
of
Com
mer
ce,
Orla
ndo
Cam
pos,
Seni
or
Dire
ctor
B
usin
ess
Dev
elop
men
t, (8
17) 4
59-6
652
Roo
ms t
o G
o 20
02
Not
sure
; was
no
t the
re w
hen
DC
was
bui
lt
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Kat
y E
DC
, La
nce
LaC
our,
Pres
iden
t,
(281
) 396
-220
0
99 C
ents
O
nly,
A
cade
my,
ne
w p
roje
ct
TRG
(cod
e na
me)
Fall
2009
(T
RG
; all
rem
aini
ng
answ
ers a
re
abou
t thi
s D
C)
Sum
mer
200
6;
if se
lect
ed,
cons
truct
ion
will
beg
in
sprin
g 20
08
Yes
; co
mpa
ny a
lso
look
ed a
t se
vera
l site
s in
Hou
ston
Con
roe,
Pe
arla
nd,
Hou
ston
urb
an
area
Nee
ded
fron
tage
road
to
conn
ect t
o I-
10
Hav
e a
new
I-10
in
terc
hang
e, w
hich
pl
ayed
a p
art i
n TR
G’s
se
lect
ion
of si
te.
Will
ha
ve to
bui
ld a
fron
tage
ro
ad, p
roba
bly
with
lo
cal f
unds
. D
evel
oper
cr
eate
d a
road
im
prov
emen
t dis
trict
in
the
area
to fu
nd th
e in
terc
hang
e, w
hich
Tx
DO
T is
bui
ldin
g.
Dev
elop
ers f
unde
d di
stric
t; ta
x in
dis
trict
w
ill re
imbu
rse
deve
lope
rs.
Mid
loth
ian
Cor
pora
tion
for
Eco
nom
ic
Dev
elop
men
t, Fr
ank
Vis
o,
(972
) 723
-380
0
Targ
et, T
oys
R U
s Ta
rget
: 20
03
Toys
R U
s:
2001
?
10 m
onth
s to
a ye
ar
Yes
; alw
ays
mar
ketin
g to
re
al e
stat
e de
velo
pers
Fort
Wor
th
Labo
r for
ce; M
idlo
thia
n is
a
smal
l city
(~13
,000
).
How
ever
, the
exc
elle
nt
road
way
/hig
hway
net
wor
k br
ings
them
wor
kers
from
so
uthe
rn T
arra
nt a
nd D
alla
s C
ount
ies –
labo
r bas
e cl
ose
to
500,
000.
Put i
n st
oplig
ht a
t RR
cr
ossin
g an
d w
orke
d to
co
ordi
nate
RR
tim
ing,
cu
rren
tly d
esig
ning
ov
erpa
ss.
129
Loc
al A
genc
y R
epre
sent
ativ
es S
umm
ary
Page
2
Age
ncy,
N
ame,
Titl
e D
C
Com
pany
, L
ocat
ion
Wha
t roa
d im
prov
emen
ts w
ere
requ
este
d? W
hat w
as
done
?
Wha
t inc
entiv
es w
ere
offe
red?
W
hat r
ole
did
you
play
in th
e ne
gotia
tions
?
At w
hat p
oint
did
yo
u an
d yo
ur
agen
cy b
ecom
e in
volv
ed in
the
proc
ess?
Who
els
e w
as
invo
lved
in th
e ne
gotia
tion
proc
ess?
Gov
erno
r’s
Off
ice
of
Eco
nom
ic
Dev
elop
men
t, Sc
ott S
mith
, Lo
catio
n Sp
ecia
list,
(512
) 936
-027
8
All
that
in
quire
. O
ffic
e ro
le is
to
attr
act D
Cs
to T
exas
(and
no
t a sp
ecifi
c si
te).
Whe
n D
C in
tere
sts t
urn
to (s
tate
hig
hway
) roa
d im
prov
emen
ts o
r an
ythi
ng e
lse
asso
ciat
ed
with
TxD
OT,
this
off
ice
calls
TxD
OT
GPA
(a
lway
s Hel
en H
avel
ka
who
atte
nds w
eekl
y ED
m
eetin
gs w
ith th
is
offic
e) to
resp
ond.
See
H
elen
Hav
elka
in
terv
iew
und
er T
xDO
T in
terv
iew
s.
The
stat
e ha
s a st
anda
rd se
t of
ince
ntiv
es it
can
off
er u
nder
law
. M
ost i
ncen
tives
lie
with
loca
l ag
enci
es.
See
this
off
ice’
s “S
umm
ary
Of S
tate
Ince
ntiv
es
& P
rogr
ams”
plu
s (20
06) T
exas
Ec
onom
ic D
evel
opm
ent
Han
dboo
k.2,
3
Mos
t ofte
n so
licits
pr
opos
als f
or
cand
idat
e si
tes f
rom
lo
cals
. M
ay a
lso
arra
nge
site
vis
its,
link
up D
C
repr
esen
tativ
es w
ith
loca
l ED
off
ices
, he
lp w
ith (s
tate
) in
cent
ives
(s
omet
imes
se
curin
g th
em).
At v
ery
begi
nnin
g.
May
be
cont
acte
d by
DC
ow
ner’
s rea
l es
tate
rep,
a
deve
lope
r, re
alto
r, or
site
sele
ctio
n co
nsul
tant
.
Firs
t, lo
cal E
D
agen
cies
who
th
en in
volv
e th
ose
agen
cies
th
at n
eed
to
resp
ond
to
spec
ific
need
s.
TxD
OT
is a
lso
invo
lved
onc
e tra
nspo
rtatio
n qu
estio
ns o
r ne
eds a
rise.
Tyl
er C
OC
an
d ED
C
Tom
Mul
lins
(903
) 593
-200
4
Targ
et,
Lind
ale
Reb
uilt
over
pass
brid
ge
and
exte
nded
ent
ranc
e ra
mps
on
Har
vey
Roa
d.
$14M
ince
ntiv
e pa
ckag
e,
incl
udin
g re
build
ing
Har
vey
Roa
d ov
erpa
ss a
nd e
ntra
nce
ram
ps (o
ne m
ile fr
om U
S 69
and
I-
20) h
ighw
ay in
terc
hang
e)
Tyle
r CO
C a
nd
EDC
led
nego
tiatio
ns, s
ough
t as
sist
ance
from
C
ity o
f Tyl
er
(uns
ucce
ssfu
l), th
en
from
City
of
Lind
ale
(suc
cess
ful).
Res
pond
ed to
in
itial
inqu
iry fr
om
Targ
et th
roug
h th
e G
over
nor’
s off
ice
in 1
994.
Sev
eral
m
onth
s lat
er, w
ere
cont
acte
d by
Tar
get
dire
ctly
.
City
of T
yler
in
itial
ly; w
hen
that
did
n’t w
ork
out,
then
City
of
Lind
ale.
2 “
Sum
mar
y of
Sta
te In
cent
ives
& P
rogr
ams”
Gov
erno
r’s O
ffic
e of
Eco
nom
ic D
evel
opm
ent,
Stat
e of
Tex
as, A
ustin
, Tex
as, u
ndat
ed (o
btai
ned
Sept
embe
r 25,
20
07).
3 E
cono
mic
Dev
elop
men
t Han
dboo
k, O
ffic
e of
the
Atto
rney
Gen
eral
, Aus
tin, T
exas
, 200
6.
130
Age
ncy,
N
ame,
Titl
e D
C
Com
pany
, L
ocat
ion
Wha
t roa
d im
prov
emen
ts w
ere
requ
este
d? W
hat w
as
done
?
Wha
t inc
entiv
es w
ere
offe
red?
W
hat r
ole
did
you
play
in th
e ne
gotia
tions
?
At w
hat p
oint
did
yo
u an
d yo
ur
agen
cy b
ecom
e in
volv
ed in
the
proc
ess?
Who
els
e w
as
invo
lved
in th
e ne
gotia
tion
proc
ess?
Wax
ahac
hie
Eco
nom
ic
Dev
. Dep
t. D
oug
Bar
nes
(972
) 937
-733
0
Ext.
276
Wal
gree
ns,
Wax
ahac
hie
Upg
rade
to H
wy
287
entra
nce
ram
p.
• Ta
x ab
atem
ent p
rogr
am fo
r m
anuf
actu
rers
/DC
•
Gra
nt fr
om T
exas
Cap
ital
Fund
(inf
rast
ruct
ure
gran
t) •
Skill
s dev
elop
men
t gra
nt fr
om
Texa
s for
trai
ning
of
empl
oyee
s (w
ent t
o N
avar
ro
Com
mun
ity C
olle
ge to
trai
n W
algr
eens
em
ploy
ees)
$1
500/
empl
oyee
•
Free
port
exem
ptio
n –
any
good
s shi
pped
out
of s
tate
w
/in 1
75 d
ays q
ualif
y
Eco.
Dev
. Dep
t led
ef
forts
. W
hen
Wal
gree
ns
first
star
ted
look
ing
at si
tes,
Wax
ahac
hie
prep
ared
a
spre
adsh
eet
sum
mar
izin
g av
aila
ble
land
, w
orkf
orce
, tra
nspo
rtatio
n co
rrid
or in
fo,
infr
astru
ctur
e an
d fa
cilit
ies.
• In
dust
rial
team
: in
sura
nce,
ba
nkin
g,
utili
ties,
othe
r C
ity
depa
rtmen
ts
• In
dust
rial
Com
mis
sion
–
3-pe
rson
bo
ard
that
re
view
s tax
ab
atem
ents
New
B
raun
fels
C
OC
R
usty
B
rock
man
, Ec
o. D
ev. D
ir.
(830
) 625
-23
85
Wal
-Mar
t, N
ew
Bra
unfe
ls
Non
e ne
eded
; po
sitio
ned
alon
g ex
istin
g I-
35 fr
onta
ge
road
.
Ten-
year
tax
abat
emen
t with
all
thre
e ta
ent
ities
: city
, cou
nty,
sc
hool
dis
trict
(thi
s was
whe
n it
was
lega
l to
prov
ide
scho
ol ta
x ab
atem
ent)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Segu
in
Eco
nom
ic
Dev
el. C
orp.
, R
amon
Lo
zano
, (88
8)
473-
4846
; Se
guin
City
Pl
anne
r D
on
Smith
, (83
0)
401-
2306
Low
e’s,
Segu
in
1 si
gnal
, 2 d
ecel
erat
ion
lane
s, (th
ose
for a
bout
$8
00,0
00),
site
acc
ess
to S
H 7
8.
Virt
ually
all
loca
l inc
entiv
es th
ey
had
to o
ffer
. In
clud
ed fr
ee si
te,
10 y
ear l
ocal
pro
perty
tax
abat
emen
ts, 1
0 ye
ar in
vent
ory
tax
abat
emen
t, ut
ility
ext
ensi
ons,
drai
nage
impr
ovem
ents
, oth
er
min
or in
cent
ives
. R
ezon
ing
was
app
rove
d w
ithou
t op
posi
tion
(rur
al si
te).
Invo
lved
in a
ll of
th
em; c
ity m
anag
er
and
EDC
boa
rd
pres
iden
t did
muc
h of
neg
otia
ting.
Ver
y be
ginn
ing;
fa
cilit
ated
it a
ll.
Prim
arily
city
m
anag
er a
nd
EDC
boa
rd
pres
iden
t.
131
Age
ncy,
N
ame,
Titl
e D
C
Com
pany
, L
ocat
ion
Wha
t roa
d im
prov
emen
ts w
ere
requ
este
d? W
hat w
as
done
?
Wha
t inc
entiv
es w
ere
offe
red?
W
hat r
ole
did
you
play
in th
e ne
gotia
tions
?
At w
hat p
oint
did
yo
u an
d yo
ur
agen
cy b
ecom
e in
volv
ed in
the
proc
ess?
Who
els
e w
as
invo
lved
in th
e ne
gotia
tion
proc
ess?
City
of S
ealy
, Jo
hn M
arsh
, C
ity M
anag
er,
(979
) 885
-35
11, e
xt. 0
.
Wal
-Mar
t, Se
aly
Nee
ded
left
and
right
tu
rn d
ecel
erat
ion
lane
s an
d fla
shin
g si
gnal
s on
FM 3
013.
All
wer
e pr
ovid
ed b
y Tx
DO
T.
Impr
ove
coun
ty ro
ad to
em
ploy
ee e
ntra
nce
(cou
nty)
. La
ter T
xDO
T to
ok o
ver
and
exte
nded
cou
nty
road
as F
M 3
538
to I-
10
and
built
new
in
terc
hang
e (a
lread
y gr
ade
sepa
ratio
n).
See
City
web
site
for c
ity ta
x in
cent
ive
polic
y. T
exas
Cap
ital
Fund
(city
/cou
nty)
for
infr
astru
ctur
e; ro
ad im
prov
emen
t fu
nds;
tax
abat
emen
ts to
pay
for
off-
site
dra
inag
e im
prov
emen
ts
paid
for b
y W
al-M
art;
coun
ty
impr
oved
road
to e
mpl
oyee
en
tranc
e (s
econ
d ac
cess
road
)
City
Man
ager
led
nego
tiatio
ns fo
r ci
ty.
Onc
e ci
ty b
ecam
e in
volv
ed in
pr
opos
ing
site
s.
TxD
OT,
Cou
nty,
4B
Eco
nom
ic
Dev
elop
men
t, Te
xas D
ept.
or
Agr
icul
ture
Cle
burn
e O
ffic
e of
E
cono
mic
D
evel
opm
ent,
Jerr
y C
ash,
D
irect
or, (
817)
64
5-86
44
Wal
-Mar
t, Tr
ee o
f Life
, se
vera
l co
mbi
natio
n m
anuf
actu
re-
DC
s in
Cle
burn
e.
Impr
ove
mai
n co
unty
ro
ad p
rovi
ding
acc
ess t
o SH
171
; add
de
cele
ratio
n la
nes o
n SH
171
.
City
-cou
nty
prop
erty
tax
abat
emen
ts (f
unct
ion
of si
ze o
f ca
pita
l inv
estm
ent a
nd F
TE jo
bs)
– up
to 7
5%; T
IFD
to p
ay fo
r in
fras
truct
ure
impr
ovem
ents
($
2.5M
); st
ate
ince
ntiv
e pr
ogra
m,
Texa
s cap
ital F
und.
Invo
lved
in a
lmos
t al
l. O
nce
Wal
-Mar
t w
as in
tere
sted
in
cons
ider
ing
Cle
burn
e.
ED o
ffic
e fa
cilit
ated
for
othe
r age
ncie
s.
Cor
sica
na
Dep
artm
ent
of E
cono
mic
D
evel
opm
ent,
Lee
McC
lear
y,
Dire
ctor
, (90
3)
645-
4806
Hom
e D
epot
, K
ohl’s
, Tru
e V
alue
H
ardw
are
Was
not
ther
e at
tim
e;
wou
ld se
arch
file
s if w
e do
cas
e st
udy.
For t
hese
DC
s, he
was
not
ther
e at
tim
e; w
ould
sear
ch fi
les i
f we
do c
ase
stud
y. U
sual
ly c
onsi
st o
f TI
FD o
r Tex
as C
apita
l Fun
d to
co
ver i
nfra
stru
ctur
e ne
eds,
prop
erty
tax
abat
emen
ts b
ased
on
size
of c
apita
l inv
estm
ent a
nd
num
ber o
f FTE
jobs
, ent
erpr
ise
zone
loca
tion,
and
stat
e in
cent
ive
prog
ram
s opt
ions
.
Was
not
ther
e at
tim
e; w
ould
sear
ch
files
if w
e do
cas
e st
udy.
Lead
ing
role
C
ity m
anag
er,
othe
r age
ncie
s
132
Age
ncy,
N
ame,
Titl
e D
C
Com
pany
, L
ocat
ion
Wha
t roa
d im
prov
emen
ts w
ere
requ
este
d? W
hat w
as
done
?
Wha
t inc
entiv
es w
ere
offe
red?
W
hat r
ole
did
you
play
in th
e ne
gotia
tions
?
At w
hat p
oint
did
yo
u an
d yo
ur
agen
cy b
ecom
e in
volv
ed in
the
proc
ess?
Who
els
e w
as
invo
lved
in th
e ne
gotia
tion
proc
ess?
McK
inne
y E
cono
mic
D
evel
opm
ent
Cor
pora
tion,
C
hris
Pot
ter,
Dire
ctor
of
Mar
ketin
g,
(972
) 562
-54
30
Blo
ckbu
ster
n/
a M
EDC
ince
ntiv
es (u
nspe
cifie
d),
Free
port
tax
exem
ptio
n N
one;
hap
pene
d be
fore
his
tim
e.
1996
C
ity o
f M
cKin
ney
Arl
ingt
on
Cha
mbe
r of
C
omm
erce
, O
rland
o C
ampo
s, Se
nior
D
irect
or
Bus
ines
s D
evel
opm
ent,
(817
) 459
-66
52
Roo
ms t
o G
o N
one
that
he
know
s of.
Mos
t lik
ely
ince
ntiv
es (o
ffer
ed to
si
mila
r com
pani
es/fa
cilit
ies)
: ta
x ab
atem
ent a
nd tr
iple
Fre
epor
t ex
empt
ion.
Non
e; h
appe
ned
befo
re h
is ti
me
n/a
n/a
133
Age
ncy,
N
ame,
Titl
e D
C
Com
pany
, L
ocat
ion
Wha
t roa
d im
prov
emen
ts w
ere
requ
este
d? W
hat w
as
done
?
Wha
t inc
entiv
es w
ere
offe
red?
W
hat r
ole
did
you
play
in th
e ne
gotia
tions
?
At w
hat p
oint
did
yo
u an
d yo
ur
agen
cy b
ecom
e in
volv
ed in
the
proc
ess?
Who
els
e w
as
invo
lved
in th
e ne
gotia
tion
proc
ess?
Kat
y E
DC
, La
nce
LaC
our,
Pres
iden
t, (2
81) 3
96-
2200
99 C
ents
O
nly,
A
cade
my,
ne
w p
roje
ct
TRG
(cod
e na
me)
New
fron
tage
road
/ in
terc
hang
e, b
eing
bui
lt by
TxD
OT
with
loca
l fu
nds.
Prop
erty
tax
abat
emen
t; ap
plie
d fo
r ent
erpr
ise
proj
ect d
esig
natio
n fr
om th
e st
ate;
fore
ign
trade
zon
e;
Cha
pter
3 A
-1 a
gree
men
t (p
rope
rty ta
x re
bate
on
infr
astru
ctur
e); l
ocal
Fre
epor
t ex
empt
ion
from
em
erge
ncy
serv
ice
dist
rict a
nd ro
ad
impr
ovem
ent d
istri
ct; s
tate
skill
s de
velo
pmen
t fun
d gr
ant;
Wor
kfor
ce C
omm
issi
on w
ill h
elp
scre
en a
pplic
ants
for j
obs;
smal
l gr
ant f
und
deve
lope
d by
ED
C;
good
will
ince
ntiv
es (d
isco
unte
d m
ovin
g co
sts,
bank
ing
cost
s for
TR
G su
perv
isor
s and
man
ager
s th
at w
ill m
ove
to K
aty)
.
Prov
ided
in
form
atio
n an
d G
IS il
lust
ratio
n of
po
tent
ial s
ite
acce
ss, u
tiliti
es.
Sinc
e th
ey st
arte
d se
arch
pro
cess
; TR
G c
ompa
ny h
as
a re
al e
stat
e br
oker
th
at K
aty
EDC
w
orks
with
ex
tens
ivel
y.
Wal
ler c
ount
y co
mm
issi
on;
deve
lope
r’s
engi
neer
ing
com
pany
; di
scus
sion
s with
lo
cal T
xDO
T di
stric
t but
Tx
DO
T ha
sn’t
been
dire
ctly
in
volv
ed in
pr
oces
s.
Mid
loth
ian
Cor
pora
tion
for
Eco
nom
ic
Dev
elop
men
t, Fr
ank
Vis
o,
(972
) 723
-38
00
Targ
et, T
oys
R U
s R
ed li
ght i
nsta
lled
at
railw
ay c
ross
ing;
by
pass
con
stru
cted
for
truck
s in
2005
. 28
7 co
nstru
ctio
n ha
s bee
n on
goin
g to
mak
e it
4-la
ne d
ivid
ed; 3
60
serv
ice
road
s co
nstru
cted
dow
n to
28
7. S
ome
proj
ects
m
ay h
ave
been
mov
ed
up, b
ut b
ypas
s has
bee
n pl
anne
d fo
r 35
year
s –
in fa
ct, t
he b
ypas
s is
basi
cally
in th
e m
iddl
e of
the
tow
n as
a re
sult.
Tax
abat
emen
ts; T
exas
cap
ital
fund
s for
infr
a; fo
rgiv
able
loan
s;
BU
T tra
nspo
rtatio
n sy
stem
was
th
e bi
g se
lling
poi
nt (j
ust a
few
m
iles f
rom
I-35
E an
d W
, few
m
iles f
rom
I-20
). F
rom
Mid
, Ta
rget
can
serv
e w
hole
met
ropl
ex
area
with
out t
raff
ic c
onge
stio
n.
They
put
the
nego
tiatio
n pa
cket
to
geth
er, g
ot c
ount
y an
d ci
ty to
pro
vide
in
cent
ives
; wor
ked
with
Mid
loth
ian
Dev
elop
men
t A
utho
rity.
From
beg
inni
ng o
f pr
oces
s M
idlo
thia
n D
evel
opm
ent
Aut
horit
y (r
espo
nsib
le fo
r R
ailp
ort t
ax
rein
vest
men
t zo
ne; i
nfra
fu
nded
thro
ugh
tax
base
that
the
infr
a cr
eate
s –
self-
sust
aini
ng;
MD
A m
anag
es
mon
ey a
nd
proj
ects
; TX
I is
land
selle
r; M
DA
al
so in
clud
es
scho
ol d
istri
ct,
coun
ty).
134
Loc
al A
genc
y R
epre
sent
ativ
es S
umm
ary
Page
3
Age
ncy,
N
ame,
Titl
e D
C
Com
pany
, L
ocat
ion
Wha
t req
uest
s wer
e m
ade
of T
xDO
T?
Wha
t req
uest
s wer
e m
ade
of T
xDO
T th
at
wer
e no
t pre
viou
sly
plan
ned?
Did
req
uest
s req
uire
fu
ndin
g th
at h
ad n
ot
been
pre
viou
sly
budg
eted
?
At w
hat p
oint
w
ould
it h
ave
been
be
nefic
ial f
or
TxD
OT
to h
ave
beco
me
invo
lved
?
In th
e fu
ture
, whe
n sh
ould
TxD
OT
idea
lly
beco
me
invo
lved
?
Gov
erno
r’s
Off
ice
of
Eco
nom
ic
Dev
elop
men
t, Sc
ott S
mith
, Lo
catio
n Sp
ecia
list,
(512
) 936
-02
78
All
that
in
quire
A
t the
ear
ly st
ages
w
hen
this
off
ice
is m
ost
invo
lved
, usu
ally
ac
cess
nee
ds.
Not
usu
ally
han
dled
th
roug
h th
is o
ffic
e. I
f ne
ed a
rises
, Hel
en
Hav
elka
is c
alle
d an
d sh
e lin
ks u
p D
C
inte
rest
s with
TxD
OT
dist
rict e
ngin
eer o
r ot
her s
taff
.
NA
W
hen
trans
porta
tion
ques
tion
or n
eed
aris
es.
Sam
e
Tyl
er C
OC
an
d ED
C
Tom
Mul
lins
(903
) 593
-20
04
Targ
et,
Lind
ale
Har
vey
Roa
d im
prov
emen
ts (b
ridge
re
built
, ram
ps
exte
nded
). T
hese
wer
e on
TxD
OT’
s sch
edul
e fo
r im
prov
emen
t, bu
t m
oved
up
sign
ifica
ntly
to
attr
act D
C.
See
prev
ious
resp
onse
. Se
e pr
evio
us
resp
onse
. Tx
DO
T w
as w
illin
g to
mov
e up
Har
vey
Roa
d im
prov
emen
ts; C
ity o
f Li
ndal
e pr
ovid
ed lo
cal
mat
ch v
ia sa
les t
ax.
TxD
OT
was
ap
proa
ched
as s
oon
as th
e si
te w
as “
in
com
petit
ion,
” w
hich
w
orke
d ou
t ver
y su
cces
sful
ly.
At t
he sa
me
poin
t, as
so
on a
s a si
te is
look
ing
like
it m
ight
be
com
petit
ive.
Wax
ahac
hie
Eco
nom
ic
Dev
. Dep
t. D
oug
Bar
nes
(972
) 937
-73
30
Ext.
276
Wal
gree
ns,
Wax
ahac
hie
Impr
oved
ram
p to
H
wy
287
See
prev
ious
resp
onse
. Fu
nded
via
Tex
as
Cap
ital F
und.
A
s soo
n as
they
kn
ow a
bout
the
type
of
pro
pose
d fa
cilit
y an
d its
tran
spor
tatio
n re
quire
men
ts (t
his
was
the
case
in th
is
inst
ance
).
See
prev
ious
resp
onse
.
New
B
raun
fels
C
OC
R
usty
B
rock
man
, Ec
o. D
ev. D
ir.
(830
) 625
-23
85
Wal
-Mar
t, N
ew
Bra
unfe
ls
Don
’t kn
ow
n/a
n/a
TxD
OT
is in
volv
ed
any
time
a ne
w, l
arge
bu
sine
ss/fa
cilit
y is
in
the
wor
ks, f
rom
the
very
beg
inni
ng o
f the
pr
oces
s.
See
prev
ious
resp
onse
.
135
Age
ncy,
N
ame,
Titl
e D
C
Com
pany
, L
ocat
ion
Wha
t req
uest
s wer
e m
ade
of T
xDO
T?
Wha
t req
uest
s wer
e m
ade
of T
xDO
T th
at
wer
e no
t pre
viou
sly
plan
ned?
Did
req
uest
s req
uire
fu
ndin
g th
at h
ad n
ot
been
pre
viou
sly
budg
eted
?
At w
hat p
oint
w
ould
it h
ave
been
be
nefic
ial f
or
TxD
OT
to h
ave
beco
me
invo
lved
?
In th
e fu
ture
, whe
n sh
ould
TxD
OT
idea
lly
beco
me
invo
lved
?
Segu
in
Eco
nom
ic
Dev
el. C
orp.
, R
amon
Lo
zano
, (88
8)
473-
4846
; Se
guin
City
Pl
anne
r D
on
Smith
, (83
0)
401-
2306
Low
e’s,
Segu
in
Not
hing
rela
ted
to
eval
uatin
g al
tern
ativ
e si
tes.
Req
uest
ed 1
si
gnal
, 2 d
ecel
erat
ion
lane
s, si
te a
cces
s to
SH 7
8.
Low
e’s s
poke
ear
ly
with
TxD
OT.
TxD
OT
dist
rict e
ngin
eer a
nd
area
off
ice
was
ver
y re
spon
sive
.
Impr
ovem
ents
not
m
ade
sinc
e D
C
cons
truct
ion
has b
een
defe
rred
.
All.
A
bout
one
mon
th
into
site
sele
ctio
n pr
oces
s. A
rea
Engi
neer
Gar
y M
alat
ec w
as
invo
lved
as s
oon
as
aske
d.
See
prev
ious
resp
onse
.
City
of S
ealy
, Jo
hn M
arsh
, C
ity M
anag
er,
(979
) 885
-35
11, e
xt. 0
.
Wal
-Mar
t, Se
aly
Non
e fo
r site
loca
tion.
FM
301
3 im
prov
emen
ts li
sted
ab
ove.
All
Yes
Tx
DO
T w
as
invo
lved
afte
r site
w
as se
lect
ed.
Seem
ed ri
ght.
Did
not
app
ear t
o be
ne
eded
for s
ite
sele
ctio
n.
Cle
burn
e O
ffic
e of
E
cono
mic
D
evel
opm
ent,
Jerr
y C
ash,
D
irect
or,
(817
) 645
-86
44
Wal
-Mar
t, Tr
ee o
f Life
, se
vera
l co
mbi
natio
n m
anuf
actu
re-
DC
s in
Cle
burn
e.
See
abov
e. A
fter t
hose
w
ere
com
plet
ed,
addi
tiona
l nee
ds a
rose
fo
r a tr
affic
sign
al,
dece
lera
tion
lane
s for
tru
cks g
oing
to
oilfi
elds
.
Dec
eler
atio
ns la
nes a
nd
sign
al; s
till p
endi
ng
afte
r lon
g w
hile
.
Yes
A
s nee
ded.
N
ot u
ntil
ther
e is
a re
al
chan
ce th
at D
C w
ill
loca
te in
city
.
Cor
sica
na
Dep
artm
ent
of E
cono
mic
D
evel
opm
ent,
Lee
McC
lear
y,
Dire
ctor
, (9
03) 6
45-
4806
Hom
e D
epot
, K
ohl’s
, Tru
e V
alue
H
ardw
are
Was
not
ther
e at
tim
e;
wou
ld se
arch
file
s if w
e do
cas
e st
udy.
Was
not
ther
e at
tim
e;
wou
ld se
arch
file
s if w
e do
cas
e st
udy.
Was
not
ther
e at
tim
e;
wou
ld se
arch
file
s if
we
do c
ase
stud
y.
Was
not
ther
e at
tim
e; w
ould
sear
ch
files
if w
e do
cas
e st
udy.
Whe
n ne
cess
ary
impr
ovem
ents
are
id
entif
ied.
136
Age
ncy,
N
ame,
Titl
e D
C
Com
pany
, L
ocat
ion
Wha
t req
uest
s wer
e m
ade
of T
xDO
T?
Wha
t req
uest
s wer
e m
ade
of T
xDO
T th
at
wer
e no
t pre
viou
sly
plan
ned?
Did
req
uest
s req
uire
fu
ndin
g th
at h
ad n
ot
been
pre
viou
sly
budg
eted
?
At w
hat p
oint
w
ould
it h
ave
been
be
nefic
ial f
or
TxD
OT
to h
ave
beco
me
invo
lved
?
In th
e fu
ture
, whe
n sh
ould
TxD
OT
idea
lly
beco
me
invo
lved
?
McK
inne
y E
cono
mic
D
evel
opm
ent
Cor
pora
tion,
C
hris
Pot
ter,
Dire
ctor
of
Mar
ketin
g,
(972
) 562
-543
0
Blo
ckbu
ster
n/
a n/
a n/
a n/
a n/
a
Arl
ingt
on
Cha
mbe
r of
C
omm
erce
, O
rland
o C
ampo
s, Se
nior
Dire
ctor
B
usin
ess
Dev
elop
men
t, (8
17) 4
59-6
652
Roo
ms t
o G
o N
one
that
he
is a
war
e of
. n/
a n/
a n/
a n/
a
Kat
y E
DC
, La
nce
LaC
our,
Pres
iden
t, (2
81) 3
96-
2200
99 C
ents
O
nly,
A
cade
my,
ne
w p
roje
ct
TRG
(cod
e na
me)
Dev
elop
er ta
lked
with
Tx
DO
T fo
r app
rova
l fo
r fro
ntag
e ro
ad; n
ow
goin
g to
put
road
on
priv
ate
prop
erty
inst
ead
of st
ate
RO
W to
si
mpl
ify p
roce
ss; n
o sp
ecifi
c re
ques
ts m
ade
of T
xDO
T;
See
prev
ious
; no
requ
ests
mad
e of
Tx
DO
T.
n/a
Not
aw
are
of T
xDO
T w
antin
g to
be
invo
lved
, at l
east
m
ore
than
they
are
on
this
(TxD
OT
does
n’t r
eally
wan
t to
be
in th
e fr
onta
ge
road
bus
ines
s)
Dep
ends
on
type
of
proj
ect;
prob
ably
as
soon
as
nego
tiatio
ns/in
tere
st
beco
mes
serio
us.
Mid
loth
ian
Cor
pora
tion
for
Eco
nom
ic
Dev
elop
men
t, Fr
ank
Vis
o,
(972
) 723
-38
00
Targ
et, T
oys
R U
s R
ed li
ght a
t int
erse
ctio
n 67
& R
ailp
ort P
arkw
ay;
turn
lane
s dev
elop
ed;
plan
s for
eve
ntua
l gra
de
sepa
ratio
n (n
ot b
uilt
yet).
See
prev
ious
. Y
es; b
ut M
DA
is a
lso
cont
ribut
ing.
Crit
ical
pla
yer;
need
s to
be
invo
lved
(and
w
as) f
rom
day
one
of
deve
lopm
ent o
f the
bu
sine
ss p
ark.
137
Loc
al A
genc
y R
epre
sent
ativ
es S
umm
ary
Page
4
Age
ncy,
Nam
e,
Titl
e D
C
Com
pany
, L
ocat
ion
Impa
cts o
f DC
on
stat
e hi
ghw
ay
syst
em?
Tra
ffic
, saf
ety,
roa
d co
nditi
on, o
r ot
her
conc
erns
ass
ocia
ted
with
DC
?
Wha
t act
ions
ar
e be
ing
take
n to
res
olve
th
em?
Oth
er c
omm
ents
R
ecom
men
ded
cont
act f
rom
DC
(if
any
)
Gov
erno
r’s
Off
ice
of
Eco
nom
ic
Dev
elop
men
t, Sc
ott S
mith
, Lo
catio
n Sp
ecia
list,
(512
) 936
-027
8
All
that
in
quire
N
A
NA
N
A
Con
vers
atio
ns a
t ear
ly st
ages
are
of
ten
conf
iden
tial a
nd fr
eque
ntly
in
volv
e 3rd
par
ties t
o sh
ield
the
DC
co
mpa
ny.
This
off
ice
has a
smal
l re
sear
ch st
aff t
o he
lp a
nsw
er
ques
tions
abo
ut d
emog
raph
ics a
nd
othe
r pre
limin
ary
data
to h
elp
DC
si
te se
lect
ion
get s
tarte
d. H
owev
er,
mos
t of d
ata
com
es fr
om lo
cal E
D
offic
es.
Off
ice
web
site
is
ww
w.te
xasw
ideo
penf
orbu
sine
ss.c
om
NA
Tyl
er C
OC
an
d ED
C
Tom
Mul
lins
(903
) 593
-200
4
Targ
et,
Lind
ale
No
nega
tive
impa
cts
that
they
kno
w o
f; be
caus
e of
im
prov
emen
ts to
ra
mps
and
ove
rpas
s br
idge
, oth
er th
ree
corn
ers o
f the
in
ters
ectio
n ar
e al
read
y “p
rimed
” as
fu
ture
DC
site
s, if
the
oppo
rtuni
ty a
rises
.
No
acci
dent
s or o
ther
pr
oble
ms a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith D
C.
I-20
has
an
over
all h
igh
acci
dent
ra
te, b
ut n
othi
ng
asso
ciat
ed w
ith th
e D
C,
to h
is k
now
ledg
e. 2
00
truck
s in
and
200
out
per 2
4-ho
ur d
ay; n
o no
ticea
ble
impa
ct o
n lo
cal t
raff
ic.
N
E Te
xas r
egio
n ha
s bee
n ID
’d a
s a
prim
e D
C lo
catio
n; p
lace
s DC
s clo
se
to w
here
pro
duct
s are
com
ing
from
an
d cl
ose
to g
row
ing
popu
latio
ns in
th
e So
uthw
est.
Big
gest
cha
lleng
e: a
s ene
rgy
pric
es
esca
late
, mor
e co
mpa
nies
are
lo
okin
g at
rail
to m
ove
good
s, w
hich
is
not
ava
ilabl
e in
suff
icie
nt c
apac
ity
in th
eir a
rea.
Wou
ld li
ke to
see
a m
ajor
inte
rmod
al fa
cilit
y in
thei
r ar
ea.
Coo
pera
tion
need
ed fr
om
TxD
OT,
Uni
on P
acifi
c, p
rivat
e in
dust
ry to
bui
ld th
is.
Wad
e Tr
oxel
l; (9
03) 8
81-1
000;
m
gr. o
f DC
Wax
ahac
hie
Eco
nom
ic D
ev.
Dep
t. D
oug
Bar
nes
(972
) 937
-733
0
Ext.
276
Wal
gree
ns,
Wax
ahac
hie
No
sign
ifica
nt
impa
ct.
Wal
gree
ns
DC
has
40
truck
s in
and
out p
er d
ay;
over
all t
raff
ic c
ount
at
287
/I-35
in
ters
ectio
n is
80K
pe
r day
.
Non
e th
at th
ey k
now
of.
H
as b
een
an a
sset
to th
e co
mm
unity
, br
ingi
ng jo
bs w
ith g
ood
wag
es a
nd
an o
vera
ll po
sitiv
e ec
onom
ic im
pact
. To
attr
act a
DC
, nee
d to
hav
e an
ex
celle
nt tr
ansp
orta
tion
corr
idor
. M
ost c
ompa
nies
are
look
ing
alon
g th
e I-
35 a
nd I-
45 c
orrid
ors.
138
Age
ncy,
Nam
e,
Titl
e D
C
Com
pany
, L
ocat
ion
Impa
cts o
f DC
on
stat
e hi
ghw
ay
syst
em?
Tra
ffic
, saf
ety,
roa
d co
nditi
on, o
r ot
her
conc
erns
ass
ocia
ted
with
DC
?
Wha
t act
ions
ar
e be
ing
take
n to
res
olve
th
em?
Oth
er c
omm
ents
R
ecom
men
ded
cont
act f
rom
DC
(if
any
)
New
Bra
unfe
ls C
OC
R
usty
B
rock
man
, Eco
. D
ev. D
ir.
(830
) 625
-238
5
Wal
-Mar
t, N
ew
Bra
unfe
ls
No
sign
ifica
nt
impa
ct.
Non
e.
Po
sitiv
e ef
fect
on
surr
ound
ing
area
; ar
ea a
roun
d W
al-M
art D
C is
now
gr
owin
g.
Hav
e a
coup
le o
f DC
s/ot
her l
arge
fa
cilit
ies a
nd th
ey’v
e al
l bee
n go
od
neig
hbor
s, no
serio
us is
sues
that
ha
ven’
t bee
n re
solv
ed.
Segu
in
Eco
nom
ic
Dev
el. C
orp.
, R
amon
Loz
ano,
(8
88) 4
73-
4846
; Seg
uin
City
Pla
nner
D
on S
mith
, (8
30) 4
01-2
306
Low
e’s,
Segu
in
NA
; not
yet
bui
lt N
A; n
ot y
et b
uilt
NA
; not
yet
bui
lt C
onta
ct L
owe’
s DC
con
sulta
nt
Bry
an M
cClu
re.
Low
e’s D
C
cons
ulta
nt B
ryan
M
cClu
re w
ho
was
invo
lved
in
alm
ost
ever
ythi
ng.
City
of S
ealy
, Jo
hn M
arsh
, C
ity M
anag
er,
(979
) 885
-35
11, e
xt. 0
.
Wal
-Mar
t, Se
aly
Muc
h tru
ck a
nd
empl
oyee
traf
fic o
n SH
36,
FM
301
3 (m
ost n
ot W
al-M
art)
was
con
gest
ing
SH 3
6 at
I-10
in
terc
hang
e. I
-10
inte
rcha
nge
poor
de
sign
for t
ruck
s.
TxD
OT
took
ove
r co
unty
road
, mad
e it
FM 3
538,
and
ex
tend
ed it
to n
ew
inte
rcha
nge
on I-
10
that
cou
ld b
ette
r ha
ndle
truc
ks.
FM 3
538
and
new
in
terc
hang
e, p
lus
orig
inal
impr
ovem
ents
m
et n
eeds
and
solv
ed
prob
lem
s.
NA
Tr
affic
impa
ct st
udy
(TIS
) rea
lly
help
ed to
def
ine
trans
porta
tion
need
s. T
xDO
T re
spon
ded
very
wel
l on
ce th
ey u
nder
stoo
d an
d ac
cept
ed
TIS.
Inq
uirie
s and
neg
otia
tions
st
arte
d w
ith T
xDO
T Y
oaku
m
Dis
trict
Eng
inee
r.
Ther
e is
now
a sh
orta
ge o
f em
ploy
ees f
or W
al-M
art.
John
Hay
(now
w
ith A
cade
my)
w
as re
al e
stat
e le
ad, P
atric
ia
Bag
gett
hand
led
gove
rnm
ent
rela
tions
; Joe
Lo
ethe
n w
as
proj
ect e
ngin
eer.
139
Age
ncy,
Nam
e,
Titl
e D
C
Com
pany
, L
ocat
ion
Impa
cts o
f DC
on
stat
e hi
ghw
ay
syst
em?
Tra
ffic
, saf
ety,
roa
d co
nditi
on, o
r ot
her
conc
erns
ass
ocia
ted
with
DC
?
Wha
t act
ions
ar
e be
ing
take
n to
res
olve
th
em?
Oth
er c
omm
ents
R
ecom
men
ded
cont
act f
rom
DC
(if
any
)
Cle
burn
e O
ffic
e of
E
cono
mic
D
evel
opm
ent,
Jerr
y C
ash,
D
irect
or, (
817)
64
5-86
44
Wal
-Mar
t, Tr
ee o
f Life
, se
vera
l co
mbi
natio
n m
anuf
actu
re-
DC
s in
Cle
burn
e
Mor
e tru
cks o
n hi
ghw
ay
Not
due
to th
is D
C;
mor
e re
late
d to
oth
ers.
New
DC
man
ager
is
conc
erne
d ab
out s
afet
y co
mpl
etio
n of
dec
al
lane
and
sign
aliz
atio
n pr
ojec
ts.
NA
Tx
DO
T is
“bo
gged
dow
n” a
nd
unab
le to
qui
ckly
resp
ond
to (s
afet
y)
need
s lik
e a
sign
al fo
r a h
igh
acci
dent
loca
tion
Tak
es to
o lo
ng
even
with
loca
l fun
ding
. SH
121
th
ere
still
not
bui
lt af
ter b
eing
pr
omis
ed fo
r ove
r 5 y
ears
. ED
off
ice
gets
mos
t lea
ds fr
om
Gov
erno
r’s O
ffic
e of
Eco
nom
ic
Dev
elop
men
t and
Gre
ater
Dal
las
Cha
mbe
r of C
omm
erce
.
Car
ter &
Bur
gess
ha
ndle
d si
te
nego
tiatio
n fo
r W
al-M
art.
Cor
sica
na
Dep
artm
ent o
f E
cono
mic
D
evel
opm
ent,
Lee
McC
lear
y,
Dire
ctor
, (90
3)
645-
4806
Hom
e D
epot
, K
ohl’s
, Tru
e V
alue
H
ardw
are
Non
e N
one
NA
W
as in
volv
ed w
ith th
ree
DC
s in
Enni
s (C
VS,
Low
e’s,
Ster
ilite
-DC
an
d m
anuf
actu
ring
plan
t). T
wo
DC
ow
ners
han
dled
neg
otia
tions
by
selv
es; C
VS
used
3rd
par
ty E
rnie
V
eal.
CV
S an
d St
erili
te a
long
U
S 28
7. S
teril
ite n
eede
d tra
ffic
si
gnal
on
US
287
that
city
pai
d fo
r.
Oth
ers n
eede
d no
impr
ovem
ents
on
TxD
OT
road
.
Was
not
ther
e at
tim
e; w
ould
se
arch
file
s if w
e do
cas
e st
udy.
McK
inne
y E
cono
mic
D
evel
opm
ent
Cor
pora
tion,
C
hris
Pot
ter,
Dire
ctor
of
Mar
ketin
g,
(972
) 562
-543
0
Blo
ckbu
ster
n/
a n/
a n/
a U
nfor
tuna
tely
not
a lo
t of
info
rmat
ion,
as p
eopl
e w
ho w
ere
invo
lved
in th
is D
C n
egot
iatio
n ha
ve
mov
ed o
n. A
vaila
ble
info
is w
hat h
e co
uld
find
in th
e re
cord
s.
140
Age
ncy,
Nam
e,
Titl
e D
C
Com
pany
, L
ocat
ion
Impa
cts o
f DC
on
stat
e hi
ghw
ay
syst
em?
Tra
ffic
, saf
ety,
roa
d co
nditi
on, o
r ot
her
conc
erns
ass
ocia
ted
with
DC
?
Wha
t act
ions
ar
e be
ing
take
n to
res
olve
th
em?
Oth
er c
omm
ents
R
ecom
men
ded
cont
act f
rom
DC
(if
any
)
Arl
ingt
on
Cha
mbe
r of
C
omm
erce
, O
rland
o C
ampo
s, Se
nior
D
irect
or
Bus
ines
s D
evel
opm
ent,
(817
) 459
-665
2
Roo
ms t
o G
o N
one
that
he
is
awar
e.
n/a
n/a
Arli
ngto
n ha
s are
as fo
r ind
ustri
al
deve
lopm
ent;
som
e de
velo
pers
bui
ld
“spe
c” b
uild
ings
; dis
tribu
tion
is o
ne
of th
e ta
rget
ed in
dust
ries t
hat
Arli
ngto
n w
orks
with
, unf
ortu
nate
ly
they
’re
runn
ing
out o
f lan
d, so
ther
e pr
obab
ly w
on’t
be a
lot m
ore
larg
e ce
nter
s bui
lt; n
ow lo
okin
g to
fill
in
smal
ler s
ites.
Mos
t DC
s bui
lt on
G
reat
Sou
thw
est I
ndus
trial
Cor
ridor
(I
-30
to I-
20 a
long
SH
360
). A
bout
2.
5 m
illio
n sq
ft le
ft. O
ne p
rope
rty
is b
eing
look
ed a
t by
a m
ajor
m
anuf
actu
rer.
Don
’t th
ink
that
tra
nspo
rtatio
n w
ill b
e an
issu
e fo
r re
mai
ning
site
s; th
ey a
re a
long
I-20
an
d SH
360
with
fairl
y di
rect
acc
ess
to th
e hi
ghw
ay.
Jeff
Fin
kel
(678
) 475
-049
9
141
Age
ncy,
Nam
e,
Titl
e D
C
Com
pany
, L
ocat
ion
Impa
cts o
f DC
on
stat
e hi
ghw
ay
syst
em?
Tra
ffic
, saf
ety,
roa
d co
nditi
on, o
r ot
her
conc
erns
ass
ocia
ted
with
DC
?
Wha
t act
ions
ar
e be
ing
take
n to
res
olve
th
em?
Oth
er c
omm
ents
R
ecom
men
ded
cont
act f
rom
DC
(if
any
)
Kat
y E
DC
, La
nce
LaC
our,
Pres
iden
t, (2
81)
396-
2200
99 C
ents
O
nly,
A
cade
my,
Ig
loo,
new
pr
ojec
t TR
G
(cod
e na
me)
Too
soon
to sa
y n/
a n/
a ED
C h
as re
ache
d ou
t to
loca
l Tx
DO
T di
stric
t off
ice
to k
eep
them
ap
pris
ed o
f wha
t’s g
oing
on
and
keep
com
mun
icat
ions
ope
n.
Aca
dem
y D
C; t
ruck
ing
term
inal
that
em
ploy
s 300
peo
ple;
safe
ty a
cces
s co
ncer
n w
ith ro
ad w
here
they
are
(s
choo
l acr
oss s
treet
); ED
C is
w
orki
ng w
ith th
em o
n th
at.
Iglo
o is
ac
ross
the
inte
rsta
te fr
om T
RG
pr
ojec
t; th
ey p
ut $
750K
into
in
terc
hang
e.
Tryi
ng to
targ
et m
ore
bulk
di
strib
utio
n ce
nter
s to
the
sam
e ar
ea.
Thes
e ar
e to
ugh
proj
ects
to m
anag
e;
alw
ays w
ant t
o lo
cate
whe
re th
ere’
s no
infr
astru
ctur
e. I
n lo
ng ru
n,
how
ever
, goo
d fo
r the
com
mun
ity.
TRG
will
hav
e a
larg
e re
tail
outle
t ce
nter
atta
ched
to it
as w
ell.
No
one
at th
is
poin
t fro
m T
RG
pr
ojec
t; m
aybe
in
Nov
embe
r.
From
Aca
dem
y,
Mic
helle
M
cKin
ney.
99
Cen
t: V
P of
C
orp
Rea
l Est
ate-
- Ric
hard
Fric
k.
Iglo
o: J
im
Vau
ghan
.
142
Age
ncy,
Nam
e,
Titl
e D
C
Com
pany
, L
ocat
ion
Impa
cts o
f DC
on
stat
e hi
ghw
ay
syst
em?
Tra
ffic
, saf
ety,
roa
d co
nditi
on, o
r ot
her
conc
erns
ass
ocia
ted
with
DC
?
Wha
t act
ions
ar
e be
ing
take
n to
res
olve
th
em?
Oth
er c
omm
ents
R
ecom
men
ded
cont
act f
rom
DC
(if
any
)
Mid
loth
ian
Cor
pora
tion
for
Eco
nom
ic
Dev
elop
men
t, Fr
ank
Vis
o,
(972
) 723
-380
0
Targ
et, T
oys
R U
s B
ecau
se o
f the
byp
ass
(they
wer
e th
ere
befo
re th
e by
pass
was
co
mpl
eted
), tru
ck
traff
ic h
as b
een
miti
gate
d w
ithin
the
city
. M
ore
truck
s on
the
high
way
s now
; no
t a n
egat
ive
to th
e co
mm
uniti
es b
ecau
se
of a
ll th
e ne
w tr
ansp
in
fras
truct
ure;
not
a
dang
er o
r a p
robl
em
to th
e ci
tizen
s.
Not
sinc
e by
pass
co
nstru
cted
(with
in
tow
n); a
nd th
e ab
unda
nce
of h
ighw
ays
lead
ing
in a
nd o
ut
disp
erse
s tra
ffic
with
in
a co
uple
of m
iles o
f M
idlo
thia
n.
H
ave
the
capa
city
to d
o m
ore.
In
nego
tiatio
n w
ith a
cou
ple
mor
e D
Cs.
Th
ey a
ttrac
t the
larg
e-bo
x op
erat
ors;
th
ey a
ttrac
t buy
ers r
athe
r tha
n pe
ople
w
ho w
ant t
o le
ase.
The
y at
tract
bu
sine
sses
that
wan
t to
serv
e Te
xas.
Lo
op 9
is g
oing
to c
ome
dow
n an
d im
prov
e th
e tra
nsp
syst
em e
ven
mor
e. W
ould
love
to se
e 36
0 co
mpl
eted
as a
hig
hway
(not
just
a
serv
ice
road
) – in
Man
sfie
ld a
nd
Gra
nde
Prai
rie, l
ots o
f com
mut
e tra
ffic
con
gest
ion
goin
g no
rth to
D
FW fr
om re
side
ntia
l are
as
bottl
enec
ks a
t cur
rent
end
of 3
60.
Targ
et –
Dav
e Sa
rten
(972
) 351
-54
53
dave
.sarte
n@ta
rget
.com
To
ys –
How
ard
Gur
en (9
72) 7
75-
7730
gu
renh
@to
ysru
s.co
m
MD
A –
Jim
my
Lou
McC
lure
, pr
esid
ent
(fem
ale)
(972
) 72
3-00
09
Mar
y M
cDon
ald
(adm
in a
sst f
or
City
of M
id (9
72)
775-
3481
143
REFERENCES
1 Lahsene, Susan, “Planning for Urban Freight Movement,” Port of Portland,
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/download/hep/frieghtplanning/talkingfreight11_10_03sl.ppt, Accessed January 31, 2007.
2 “Retail Distribution Centers: How New Business Processes Impact Minority Labor Markets,” Office of Research, Information and Planning, U.S. Equal Employment, Washington, DC, Opportunity Commission, http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/reports/retaildistribution/index.html, Accessed January 31, 2007.
3 “Northwest Pennsylvania as a Location for a Distribution Center,” Carter & Burgess, Ft. Worth, Texas, January 2005, http://www.nwcommission.org/images/pfds/dcreport.pdf , Accessed January 31, 2007.
4 “Development Profiles for Warehouse/Distribution/Logistics Center Sites,” The Governor’s Office of Regulatory Reform, State of New York, Albany, New York, March 2006, http://www.gorr.state.ny.us/BNNYIV_warehouse_profiles-vfinal.pdf, Accessed January 31, 2007.
5 Kowalkoski, S. “Automotive Site Guide: Site Selection: Getting Closer to Automotive Manufacturers,” http://www.areadevelopment.com/specialPub/auto06/autoManufacturers.shtml.
6 “Binswanger Conducts Largest Industrial Sale In Texas: Home Deport to Lease Former K-Mart Distribution Center in Corsicana, Texas,” BNET, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ein/is_2005_March_28/ai_n13480158, Accessed February 18, 2007.
7 “Summary of State Incentives and Programs”, Governor’s Office of Economic Development, State of Texas, Austin, Texas, undated (distributed September 2007).
8 Economic Development Handbook, Office of the Attorney General, State of Texas, Austin, Texas, 2006.
9 Fancher, Paul S. and Gillespie, Thomas D., Truck Operating Characteristics, Synthesis of Highway Practice 241, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1997.
10 Harwood, Douglas, Torbic, Darren, Richard, Karen, and Glauz, William, Review of Truck Characteristics as Factors in Roadway Design, NCHRP Report 505, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2003.
11 Prozzi, Jolanda, Guo, Runhua, and Harrison, Rob, Rural Truck Traffic and Pavement Conditions in Texas, Report 0-4169-1, Center for Transportation Research, Austin, Texas, October 2003.
12 Prozzi, Jolanda, Harrison, Rob, and Prozzi, Jorge, Defining and Measuring Rural Truck Traffic Needs in Texas, Report 0-4169-2, Center for Transportation Research, Austin, Texas, June 2006.
13 Gillespie, T.D., et al, Effects of Heavy Vehicle Characteristics on Pavement Response and Performance, NCHRP Report 353, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1993.
144
14 Middleton, Dan, Clayton, Alan, Quiroga, Cesar, and Jasek, Debbie, Truck Accommodation
Design Guidance: Final Report, Report 0-4364-1, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas, October 2003.
15 Bochner, Brian; Higgins, Laura; and Frawley, William, Guidelines For Successful Location And Accommodation Of Major Distribution Centers On Texas Highways, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas, 2009, http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5355-P1.pdf.
16 Access Management Manual, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas, http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/acm/acm.pdf.
17 Trip Generation, 8th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC, 2008.