Talking Freight Seminar Series Integrating Freight in Project Selection Ohio Case Study Examples

1
Talking Freight Seminar Series Integrating
Freight in Project SelectionOhio Case Study
Examples
Richard S. Martinko, P.E. Director Intermodal
Transportation Institute University
Transportation Center Wednesday July 16, 2008
Jim Hartung, Chairman President/CEO,
Toledo- Lucas County Port Authority Richard S.
Martinko, P.E. Director, UT University
Transportation Center / Intermodal
Transportation Institute Christine
Lonsway Asst. Director, Intermodal
Transportation Institute
2
Ohio Circle of Influence
3
Talking Freight Seminar Series

• Ohio Freight Profile

4
State of Ohio

• 4th largest interstate network
• 5th highest volume of truck traffic
• 3rd highest in value of truck freight
• 5.5 of all US freight (tons) is carried by
  Ohios transport system
• 13 by value of all freight traveling in the
  United States has touched Ohios transportation
  system

5
Ohio Economic and Travel Indices
6
Macro Corridor Update

• 2004 Ohio transportation plan reviewed and
  confirmed original macro corridor analysis
• In addition, routes were added
• Freight Relievers
• High Freight Growth Routes

7
Talking Freight Seminar Series

• Ohio Project Selection

8
TRAC Investment Policy
Criteria Scoring Factors Percent
Transportation ADT Truck ADT V/C Ratio Roadway Class. Macro Corridor Completion 70
Safety Crash rate, frequency, and severity 70
Econ Development Job Creation, Private Investment 30
Local/Private Participation Non-state or federal investment in the project 15
Multi-modal Impacts Projects that connect to other transportation modes 5
Urban Revitalization Projects supporting reinvestment in an urban core 10
9
Talking Freight Seminar Series

• Ohio Freight Projects

10
Ohio TRAC-funded Projects

• Approximately 30 rail grade sep projects
• Wilmington Bypass (air freight)
• US 24 Fort-to-Port (truck freight)
• US 30 (truck freight)
• Cuyahoga River Valley Intermodal (water freight)
• Also, urban and rural corridor projects
• Rickenbacker Intermodal (air freight)

11
Case Study Financing Freight Intermodal
Infrastructure

• Case of
• NS Rickenbacker Global Logistics Park
• Columbus, Ohio
• Freight System Capacity Issues
• Financing Freight Infrastructure
• Who Pays For What and Does It Matter?

12
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
13
Case Study Rickenbacker Intermodal Facility

• Sponsor Columbus Regional Airport Authority
• Norfolk Southern RR, rail-truck transfer facility
• Existing NS intermodal facility is over-capacity
  (140,000 lifts/year)
• Need for 243,000 lifts/year by 2015
• Part of NS Heartland Corridor

14
Heartland Corridor
Rickenbacker Global Logistics Park
15
Rickenbacker Layout

• Rickenbacker is NS first integrated logistics
  park
• Located 18 miles from downtown Columbus
• Over 15,000 acres of existing or planned
  development
• Anchored by NS new 300 acre intermodal facility
  and the Rickenbacker airport
• Integrates intermodal, carload and logistics
  capabilities
• Close to numerous industrial parks, several
  individual commercial property owners, more than
  150 companies and over 35 million sf. of
  development.

North Campus 116 Acres
Rail Campus 460 Acres
Air Cargo Campus 350 Acres
Intermodal Terminal 300 Acres.
Intermodal Campus 420 acres
16
Site Map
17
(No Transcript)
18
Request for Public Funds

• In 2003 Rickenbacker Port Authority applied for
  49.6 million in ODOT transportation funding for
  intermodal facility
• 10 million match from NS RR
• Cited public benefits
• Air quality
• Reduced highway congestion
• Economic Development

19
The Good
20
The Good Public Benefits of the Project

• FIRST TEN YEARS OF OPERATION
• 660 million in transportation cost savings to
  shippers.
• A reduction of 49 million truck miles in Ohio.
• Significant reduction of emissions.
• OVER THE NEXT 30 YEARS OF OPERATION
• 9,500 direct jobs.
• 10,900 indirect jobs.
• 34 million additional square feet of
  industrial-building development.
• 1.2 billion of building construction.
• 1.37 billion invested in machinery and
  equipment.
• 15.1 billion economic impact.
• 800 million in direct local, state and school
  district tax revenues.
• 1.26 billion of indirect tax revenues

21
The Bad
22
ODOT Initial Response Was A No

• Proportion of public funds (75) for a project
  with a private beneficiary (NS)
• How can ODOT determine real NS statement of
  need?
• If the project cannot pay for itself, why is it a
  good project?
• Why should public highway funds be diverted to
  one company and not to a publicly shared project?
• Transportation benefits of the project are not
  the primary project benefit
• If ODOT sets precedent, how does it respond
  fairly to other private companies seeking similar
  investments?
• The primary, immediate job creation appeared to
  be only 140 jobs
• Lack of local financial contributions

23
What Is The Highest Use of Public Dollars?

• Highway accident, congestion locations numerous
• Opportunity cost of 49 million is high
• Nearby I-70/I-71 split has 800 crashes annually,
  not fully funded

24
Airport Authority Changed Funding Request

• Scope of project request changed to more
  conventional transportation project
• NHS connector road
• ODOT approved and programmed 8.2 million in
  fiscal year 2008 (first year that capital funds
  were available).

25
The Ugly
26
Process Of Title 23 Rail Earmark

• Airport Authority and project sponsors seek
  congressional earmark
• SAFETEA-LU earmarks for project total 30.4
  million

27
Key Policy Questions
28
Key Policy Questions

• What are the public transportation benefits of a
  private project?
• Are economic development benefits a valid purpose
  and need for federal-aid funding?
• Is the public investment in a rail intermodal
  facility superior to alternative transportation
  investments?

29
Cited transportation benefits

• Shift in traffic to rail-intermodal will reduce
  truck volume from public roads
• Truck VMT/congestion reduction
• Reduction in road maintenance costs
• Possible public safety benefit(?)
• Air quality benefit

30
Rickenbacker Intermodal Transportation Benefits

• Reduction in Franklin County annual truck VMT of
  912,500
• Annual Franklin County truck VMT 438,443,647
• Reduction in total annual truck VMT 0.21
• Might an intermodal facility increase an
  urbanized areas truck VMT?
• Road Maintenance Costs
• Too small to measure

31
Rickenbacker Benefits Air Quality
Pollutant Regional Emissions (kg/day) Rickenbacker Intermodal Emission Reduction (kg/day) Reduction from Rickenbacker Intermodal
VOC 40,649 0.85 0.0021
NOx 50,412 33.75 0.0669
PM2.5 (Fine Particles) 2,132 0.69 0.032
32
The Ugly Issues

• Rail and intermodal earmarks in Title 23 dont
  fit very well
• Air quality benefits minimal
• Reduced VMT open to debate
• Little data to make investment tradeoffs
• Not in Long Range Plan or Transportation
  Improvement Plan
• Contracting, maintenance difficult

33
Need For A New Federal Approach

• Have federal language acknowledging intermodalism
  is a goal and benefit in its own right
• Create program like Sec. 646 (Recordkeeping,
  investigation, and enforcement) which
  acknowledges RR contracting realities such as
  labor force account agreements

34
New RR approach Give the public answers

• Provide data to make sensible investment
  tradeoffs
• Own up to the need to participate in short and
  long-range planning process with DOT and MPO
• Acknowledge public contracting constraints and
  oversight

35
New approach Encourage the following

• More private beneficiaries the better
• Encourage public use or benefit, such as grade
  separation or reduced network delay
• Develop through the metropolitan planning process
  (e.g., ensures local consensus)
• Percentage of local public funding (e.g.,
  reflects broader spread of risk)
• Degree of identifiable public benefits
• Level of private sector investment (e.g.,
  reflects broader spread of risk)

36
Into The Sunset Of The Of The Intermodal Frontier

• Few regulations fit this new frontier
• A flexible sheriff needs to bring law and order
• RRs', states and FHWA must bend
• Regulations must reflect the wild life of the new
  frontier

37
Talking Freight Seminar Series Integrating
Freight in Project SelectionOhio Case Study
Examples
Richard S. Martinko, P.E. Director Intermodal
Transportation Institute University
Transportation Center Wednesday July 16, 2008
Jim Hartung, Chairman President/CEO,
Toledo- Lucas County Port Authority Richard S.
Martinko, P.E. Director, UT University
Transportation Center / Intermodal
Transportation Institute Christine
Lonsway Asst. Director, Intermodal
Transportation Institute