1. 11 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 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. 22 Wednesday July 16,2008 Ohio Circle of Influence

3. 33 Wednesday July 16,2008 Talking Freight Seminar Series Ohio Freight Profile

4. 44 Wednesday July 16,2008 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 Ohio’s transport system 13% by value of all freight traveling in the United States has touched Ohio’s transportation system

5. 55 Wednesday July 16,2008 Ohio Economic and Travel Indices

6. 66 Wednesday July 16,2008 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. 77 Wednesday July 16,2008 Talking Freight Seminar Series Ohio Project Selection

8. 88 Wednesday July 16,2008 TRAC Investment Policy CriteriaScoring FactorsPercent TransportationADT; Truck ADT; V/C Ratio; Roadway Class.; Macro Corridor Completion 70% SafetyCrash rate, frequency, and severity Econ DevelopmentJob Creation, Private Investment30% Local/Private ParticipationNon-state or federal investment in the project + 15 Multi-modal ImpactsProjects that connect to other transportation modes + 5 Urban RevitalizationProjects supporting reinvestment in an urban core + 10

9. 99 Wednesday July 16,2008 Talking Freight Seminar Series Ohio Freight Projects

10. 10 Wednesday July 16,2008 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. 11 Wednesday July 16,2008 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. 12 Wednesday July 16,2008 The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

13. 13 Wednesday July 16,2008 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. 14 Wednesday July 16,2008 Heartland Corridor Rickenbacker Global Logistics Park

15. 15 Wednesday July 16,2008 Rickenbacker Layout Intermodal Terminal 300 Acres. Intermodal Campus 420 acres Air Cargo Campus 350 Acres Rail Campus 460 Acres North Campus 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 Map

17. 17 Wednesday July 16,2008

18. 18 Wednesday July 16,2008 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. 19 Wednesday July 16,2008 The Good

20. 20 Wednesday July 16,2008 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. 21 Wednesday July 16,2008 The Bad

22. 22 Wednesday July 16,2008 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? 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 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 Ugly

26. 26 Wednesday July 16,2008 Process 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 Questions

28. 28 Wednesday July 16,2008 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 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 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 Quality Pollutant Regional Emissions (kg/day) Rickenbacker Intermodal Emission Reduction (kg/day) % Reduction from Rickenbacker Intermodal VOC40,6490.850.0021 % NOx50,41233.750.0669 % PM 2.5 (Fine Particles) 2,1320.690.032 %

32. 32 Wednesday July 16,2008 The 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 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 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 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… 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 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