Solving the transportation puzzle that the port presents

It should be the Charleston region's worst transportation nightmare — the Port of Charleston completes its new Navy Base terminal, the special connector road to Interstate 95 is constructed and the trucks start to roar through — 7,000 daily, one every six seconds during a 12-hour day. From the intimidation of the big rigs to sheer roadway congestion to air quality perils from the diesel fumes, there is a lot to fear.

But breathe easier: There might be a rail way out — or a better truck way out — or both!

First, rail

A soon-to-be released study will show that it is possible to untangle the puzzle of rail tracks in the vicinity of the port expansion, so that trains could take a big share of the load. The study, requested by the mayors of Charleston and North Charleston, was conducted by the major transportation consulting firm Wilbur Smith and paid for by an interested but well-respected party: Robert Clement, developer of Magnolia and a major investor in North Charleston properties including the Macalloy rail yard.

It's far from a done deal. Two separate and highly competitive railroad companies — CSX and Norfolk Southern — own tracks in this zone, and they'd probably have to agree to share some sections of track. But both carriers likely would realize higher profits with cargo moving out on their rail beds — a point Clement stresses with them.

For the community, benefits could be stunning. The study will reportedly show how to eliminate the at-grade rail crossings over Meeting and King streets, constant sources of motorists' irritation. Rerouting would open the door to a gradual restoration of these two historic corridors, letting them be major boulevards entering downtown Charleston, connecting to a revitalizing Neck. And the more that's shipped by rail, the less pollution from auto and truck emissions of vehicles stuck in chronically bad traffic jams.

If fewer trucks than planned today had to pile on to the already overcrowded I-26, does this mean the new port access road is not needed? No, says Ron Mitchum, executive director of the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments. "That's a given at this point," he said. But Mitchum told us he's pleased to see this study and that the COG would be studying it as part of its master plan for development of the Neck.

Second, trucks

And there might be a way to keep all the added big trucks from the port off local roads — a concept developed by Paul Nelson, the now-retired founding head of the College of Charleston's Global Logistics and Transportation Center.

Nelson suggests another kind of "train" — a tractor as the locomotive, a series of standard truck trailers in tow. No one would want that mixing with cars, so Nelson would build a dedicated road for freight-grade trucks.

"They're going to build a connector road anyway," he told us, "so why not just continue that road with its elevation and flyover right into the center median of the interstate?" Within the median, there'd be lanes for the truck-trailer rigs, plus shoulders, going each way, with side walls separating trucks from car traffic. These "truck-trains" would go straight to an intermodal center where cargo could be loaded onto smaller trucks or on rail for longer hauls.

Trucks coming from the existing Wando Welch Terminal use I-526. Nelson suggests they could ramp off at the interchange with I-26 and merge into the truck lane with a similar flyover.

But wouldn't this approach invite double-handling of cargo — a definite "no-no" for a port famous for avoiding delays?

"No," says Nelson, "it might actually be more efficient."

Today, he explained, a ship is off-loaded onto a chassis, where large containers rest in stacks. Under his proposal, those containers would be off-loaded onto chassis that would then be hooked together and pulled by strong "yard horse" tractors capable of getting them to the existing intermodal center or all the way to some inland port facility.

Nelson notes that Rep. James Clyburn has long preferred to have a inland terminal near the intersection of I-95 and I-26, from which cargo could efficiently be directed wherever it needs to go. There's no need to have all that land-consumptive activity in an urbanized Neck area where good land is scarce and pricey.

Nelson admits that his scheme has never been analyzed for cost. But clearly it's an intriguing possibility. One wonders whether electronic tolling of trucking companies' individual loads couldn't cover a significant part of the cost — the companies would be avoiding lots of time lost in highway jams. And if the "yard horse" tractors were built with low-emission engines, the public could be spared dangerous diesel pollution — a critical public health factor.