PrintPrintThe S.C. State Ports Authority has largely distanced itself from the fracas over commercial rail access to its terminal on the former Navy base, an issue that has nagged at the project practically since its inception. The maritime agency says it has one requirement: Any plan must offer access to both major rail carriers.
By Daniel Brock
dbrock@scbiznews.com
Published July 19, 2010
The S.C. State Ports Authority has largely distanced itself from the fracas over commercial rail access to its terminal on the former Navy base, an issue that has nagged at the project practically since its inception. The maritime agency says it has one requirement: Any plan must offer access to both major rail carriers.
“We cannot be a single-rail-served,” SPA President Jim Newsome said. “The reason is, our customers, the container lines, like to have competition between the railroads.”
Other than that, “We don’t really have a position on it,” he said. “Whatever solution happens doesn’t require our buy-in.”
Critics such as the Coastal Conservation League were incensed that plans for the $600 million Navy base terminal didn’t include direct rail access. They say the estimated 11,000 daily truck trips made into and out of the facility will have a devastating effect on the region’s atmosphere and traffic.
SPA officials said their reason for not seeking on-dock rail was threefold:
“That’s been the plan from Day 1,” SPA spokesman Byron Miller said. “It was acknowledged by everyone from the governor to members of the elected offices to the permit application itself that was filed in 2003.
“Everybody thinks we’re stupid, but nobody wants to really dig in to making this make sense,” Miller said.
But the 2008 State Rail Plan Update noted that current intermodal facilities are “near capacity and will not be able to absorb projected long-term growth.”
That was before the economic swoon and accompanying volume crash at the port. The report acknowledged the turbulent situation but concluded that many think “rail service demand will come back even stronger once the economy recovers.”
SPA officials say that they’re content with any intermodal plan providing dual rail access and that the current situation satisfies permits.
If the pair of yards in use today were abandoned for the Macalloy and Laurel Island sites, it one moved and one stayed, or if a single site materialized, it wouldn’t matter, as long as the Ports Authority can offer both rail lines to its customers at competitive prices.
Newsome said the Port of Charleston will always be primarily served by truck because of a dearth of major rail destinations with intermodal capabilities in the region.
Another reason: The port’s largest terminal, Wando Welch, is 11 miles from existing rail line, and future rail access is all but impossible. Demand for direct rail access to the new, three-berth terminal has been loud in many circles, but Miller said it’s not in the permits, and that won’t change.
The Macalloy site is located practically adjacent to the new facility, and the terminal’s access road actually runs across part of the property. While it’s not on-dock rail service, it’s about as close as you can get.
Container moves from the terminal to the Macalloy site would be made by environmentally friendly yard trucks, as opposed to their over-the-road counterparts, according to Shipyard Creek Associates, which owns the property. They said the facility would remove more than 830,000 truck miles from area roads and interstates each year.
“That’s 33 trips around the world saved,” said Robert Clement, one of the company’s owners.
But those numbers clash with figures in the state rail plan, which found that relocation to an intermodal center on the Macalloy property or at the Clemson University Restoration Institute would add 320,000 and 430,000 truck miles, respectively, on an annual basis.
“How does increasing mileage increase competitiveness?” Miller said.
What is a problem for the SPA, at least at the moment, is that it needs permitting from the Federal Highway Administration to connect the terminal access road to Interstate 26.
A 2007 analysis by the S.C. Department of Transportation — which will build the road and is essentially working on behalf of the port to acquire permitting — found that portions of I-26 would descend into gridlock irrespective of traffic from the new terminal.
But a study the DOT released earlier this year concluded that I-26 not only would operate at an acceptable level of service even with port traffic, it could do so with no modifications to accommodate the extra vehicles.
The Coastal Conservation League and Southern Environmental Law Center say terminal traffic would greatly hasten I-26’s inability to handle traffic.
In March, Robert L. Lee, a Highway Administration official, rejected the DOT’s latest permit application, took the agency to task for its about-face.
“Because this conclusion is significantly different than the previous analysis included in the environmental analysis dated April 20, 2007,” Lee wrote, “additional scrutiny and documentation will be required to further assess the traffic assumptions and methodology used.”
In the meantime, the league is pushing for further study of on-dock rail and hoping to have the permits reopened, which could mean more review of nearly all aspects of the terminal’s construction.
Print