1 1
Wednesday July 16,2008
Talking Freight Seminar Series Integrating Freight in Project Selection
Ohio Case Study Examples
Richard S. Martinko, P.E.Director
Intermodal Transportation Institute & University Transportation CenterWednesday July 16, 2008
2 2
Wednesday July 16,2008
Ohio Circle of InfluenceOhio Circle of Influence
3 3
Wednesday July 16,2008
Talking Freight Seminar SeriesTalking Freight Seminar Series
Ohio Freight Profile
4 4
Wednesday July 16,2008
State of OhioState 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 Ohio’s
transport system• 13% by value of all freight traveling in the United States
has touched Ohio’s transportation system
5 5
Wednesday July 16,2008
Ohio Economic and Travel IndicesOhio Economic and Travel Indices
6 6
Wednesday July 16,2008
Macro Corridor UpdateMacro 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 7
Wednesday July 16,2008
Talking Freight Seminar SeriesTalking Freight Seminar Series
Ohio Project Selection
8 8
Wednesday July 16,2008
TRAC Investment PolicyTRAC Investment PolicyCriteria Scoring Factors Percent
Transportation ADT; Truck ADT; V/C Ratio; Roadway Class.; Macro Corridor Completion 70%
Safety Crash rate, frequency, and severity
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 9
Wednesday July 16,2008
Talking Freight Seminar SeriesTalking Freight Seminar Series
Ohio Freight Projects
10 10
Wednesday July 16,2008
Ohio TRAC-funded ProjectsOhio 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 11
Wednesday July 16,2008
Case Study: Financing Freight Intermodal InfrastructureCase 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 12
Wednesday July 16,2008
The Good, the Bad, and the UglyThe Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
13 13
Wednesday July 16,2008
Case Study: Rickenbacker Intermodal FacilityCase 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 14
Wednesday July 16,2008
Heartland CorridorHeartland CorridorRickenbacker
Global Logistics Park
15 15
Wednesday July 16,2008
Rickenbacker LayoutRickenbacker Layout
Intermodal Terminal
300 Acres.
Intermodal Campus
420 acres
Air Cargo Campus
350 Acres
RailCampus
460 Acres
NorthCampus
116 Acres
• 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.
16 16
Wednesday July 16,2008
Site MapSite Map
17 17
Wednesday July 16,2008
18 18
Wednesday July 16,2008
Request for Public FundsRequest 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 19
Wednesday July 16,2008
The GoodThe Good
20 20
Wednesday July 16,2008
The Good: Public Benefits of the ProjectThe 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 21
Wednesday July 16,2008
The BadThe Bad
22 22
Wednesday July 16,2008
ODOT Initial Response Was A “No”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 23
Wednesday July 16,2008
What Is The Highest Use of Public Dollars?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 24
Wednesday July 16,2008
Airport Authority Changed Funding RequestAirport 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 25
Wednesday July 16,2008
The UglyThe Ugly
26 26
Wednesday July 16,2008
Process Of Title 23 Rail EarmarkProcess Of Title 23 Rail Earmark• Airport Authority and project
sponsors seek congressional earmark
• SAFETEA-LU earmarks for project total $30.4 million
27 27
Wednesday July 16,2008
Key Policy QuestionsKey Policy Questions
28 28
Wednesday July 16,2008
Key Policy Questions: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 29
Wednesday July 16,2008
Cited transportation benefitsCited 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 30
Wednesday July 16,2008
Rickenbacker Intermodal Transportation BenefitsRickenbacker 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 area’s truck VMT?
• Road Maintenance Costs– Too small to measure
31 31
Wednesday July 16,2008
Rickenbacker Benefits: Air QualityRickenbacker 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 32
Wednesday July 16,2008
The Ugly IssuesThe Ugly Issues• Rail and intermodal earmarks in Title 23 don’t 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 33
Wednesday July 16,2008
Need For A New Federal ApproachNeed 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 34
Wednesday July 16,2008
New RR approach: Give the public answersNew 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 35
Wednesday July 16,2008
New approach: Encourage the followingNew 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 36
Wednesday July 16,2008
Into The Sunset Of The Of The Intermodal Frontier…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 37
Wednesday July 16,2008
Talking Freight Seminar Series Integrating Freight in Project Selection
Ohio Case Study Examples
Richard S. Martinko, P.E.Director
Intermodal Transportation Institute & University Transportation CenterWednesday July 16, 2008