Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Presented by: Howard Wood & Kelly Brooker Scocco Ohio Department of Transportation
General Information • A multi-modal inland port featuring an international air-cargo airport and rail intermodal terminal located on 5,000 acres 20 miles south of Downtown Columbus. • Operated by the Columbus Regional Airport Authority. • Direct industrial park access (9,000 acres) • Within a one day’s truck drive to 50% of the U.S. and Canadian populations.
National Overview Map Ring Population % of US pop 120 Mile 10,167,666 3.43% 240 Mile 33,313,607 11.24% 360 Mile 75,693,062 25.54% 480 Mile 121,449,949 40.97% 600 Mile 151,215,890 51.01% Entire US 296,460,069
The Heartland Corridor To Chicago, Detroit, & Points West OH Columbus Rickenbacker Ashville WV Washington, DC Portsmouth VA Huntington Kenova Prichard Richmond Williamson Welch KY Roanoke Petersburg Bluefield Christiansburg Portsmouth 664 NIT CIMT(Proposed) CIDMMA Norfolk APM 164 Portsmouth PMT 264 664 264 464 CRMSRP Project (Median Rail)
Future Craney Island Marine Terminal Phase 2 – June 2032 Total Acreage: 600 (242.81 hectare)Pier Length: 8000 ft. (2438.4 meters)Depth: 52 ft. (15.85 meters)Cranes: 15Capacity: 5M TEUsCost: $1.06B Phase 1 – June 2017 Total Acreage: 220 (89.03 hectare) Pier Length: 3000 ft. (914.4 meters)Depth: 52 ft. (15.85 meters)Cranes: 6Capacity: 1.5M TEUsCost: $1.2B
The Heartland CorridorRail Service to Chicago Cuts 233 Miles From the Rail Route Between The Port of Virginia and Chicago
Foreign-Trade Zone No. 138 • Located on 5,000 acres of airport and adjacent property. • More than 70 companies are located in the Foreign-Trade Zone. • Area currently has over 30 million sq. ft. of development with 9,000 acres available for growth.
Air Cargo • Two parallel, 12,000-foot runways capable of handling any aircraft in the world. • 3rd largest port of entry in the United States for textiles. • Air Cargo tonnage has increased 22% in the last 4 years. • 130 acres of cargo ramp area featuring an in-ground fueling system. • Existing Air Cargo Terminal Complex encompasses 164,000 sq. ft. of multi-tenant and customizable air cargo facilities.
Intermodal Facility • Located on 300 acres, will provide direct access from existing industrial parks to multiple transportation options. • Expected to handle up to 400,000 container transfers a year. • Expected to help create 9,500 jobs and generate $800 million in state and local taxes over the next 30 years. • Could save shippers ~ $660 million in transportation costs.
Rickenbacker Expansion Plans • Airport Authority is working with Duke Realty to develop 1,300 acres of airport property near the new intermodal terminal. • $20 million Air Cargo Terminal No. 4 – 48,000 sq. ft. multi-tenant facility (2008) • New north campus (229 acres) that includes a 573,696 sq. ft. cross-docked facility expandable to 1,248,00 sq. ft.
Rickenbacker Expansion Aerial View
Rickenbacker Expansion Site Plan
Surrounding Industrial Development • The Rickenbacker area encompasses numerous industrial parks, commercial property owners and more than 150 companies. • Businesses include cargo airlines, freight forwarders, logistics companies, e-tailers, corporate aviation businesses, manufactures and distributors. • Area currently has over 30 million sq. ft. of development with 9,000 acres available for growth.
Surrounding Industrial Development – Forward Air, Inc. • Main trucking hub located at Rickenbacker and is the cornerstone of the company’s entire network. • Recently invested $5 million into its 33 acre Rickenbacker hub. • The facility has 125,000 sq. ft. with 168 dock doors. • Can unload, sort and reload upwards of 3.7 million pounds of cargo in 5 hours. • Company has a second facility located airside at Rickenbacker.
Request for Public Funds ODOT’s Rickenbacker Involvement • 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
ODOT’s Rickenbacker Involvement 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).
Airport Authority and project sponsors seek congressional earmark SAFETEA-LU earmarks for project total $30.4 million ODOT’s Rickenbacker Involvement
ODOT’s Rickenbacker Involvement Key Policy Questions: • What are the transportation benefits of the proposed 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?
ODOT’s Rickenbacker Involvement Transportation Factors • 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
ODOT’s Rickenbacker Involvement 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%
ODOT’s Rickenbacker Involvement Federal Earmarks • Don’t fit very well with Title 23 programs • Seem ad hoc, unreflective of Title 23 planning provisions (long term, deliberative) • Title 23 is not structured very well for administrative purposes • Real Estate, environmental, construction, reimbursement
ODOT’s Rickenbacker Involvement What is Needed? • Addressing the public policy concerns of federal earmarks
ODOT’s Rickenbacker Involvement Addressing Policy Concerns • Number of private beneficiaries (e.g., more is better) • Degree of public use (e.g., reflects public source of funding) • Development through the metropolitan planning process (e.g., ensures local consensus)
ODOT’s Rickenbacker Involvement Addressing Policy Concerns (continued) • Percentage of local public funding (e.g., reflects broader spread of risk) • Degree of identifiable public benefits (e.g., reflects nature of public investment) • Level of private sector investment (e.g., reflects broader spread of risk)
ODOT’s Rickenbacker Involvement Closing Thoughts • Let’s admit we want these projects • FHWA, DOTs, and railroads need to be more flexible • FHWA can be flexible in its administration, with possible changes in Title 23 • DOTs need to acknowledge the public benefits/ desires for intermodal projects • Railroads need to provide more information for the public decision process.