Charleston port officials should seek greater rail accessBy Neal peirce and Curtis Johnson
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Every major port in the United States is moving as fast as possible toward loading long-haul cargo on to railroad lines. Since 2000 railway owners have spent more than $10 billion improving tracks and adding freight-yards. Now they are doubling down on that investment. The key driver: moving cargo by rail costs about a third of moving it by truck. Every day diesel prices rise, so does the rail advantage. There are already intermodal facilities for both CSX and Norfolk Southern railways within a few miles of each Port of Charleston terminal. The share of imported cargo headed for a rail trip is approaching 20 percent, according to a port spokesman. When we ask what it would take to kick that percentage up dramatically, we hear first that it's the ocean shippers, along with the customer companies, that decide whether cargo will head inland by truck or rail. But nearly everyone agrees that the long-standing standard of shifting to rail only if the destination is 500 or more miles away is, in the face of rising diesel prices, fast becoming obsolete. The core problem is that rail tracks need realignment. CSX and NS each own pieces of the tracks and would have to collaborate — including sharing track use. These competitors so far seem to be throwing any collaboration under the train. Meanwhile a private company has taken over the Macalloy property, adjacent to the site where the new port is to be built. That group is interested in turning Macalloy into a rail access point for the port. It looks like an opportunity for a public-private partnership. Byron Miller of SPA tells us the port is encouraging a shift to rail. But with the terminals spread over multiple sites, it's more complicated. Still, there's no technical reason why CSX and Norfolk Southern could not improve and share track access. Track improvements could end the irritating at-grade crossings at Meeting and King streets. Let's concede that South Carolina, given the strategic importance of the Charleston port expansion, should spend the $300 million to build a truck access road to Interstate 26. But that doesn't mean that 7,000 additional trucks have to barrel out on to I-26 every day, even if the port assures us that they'll limit the number at peak traffic times. Commuters in cars along with freight trucks have already damaged the quality of air people have to breathe. The Coastal Conservation League will rightly hammer away on this issue until some strategy emerges that is less polluting. Consider, too, how the whole "Neck" area is being transformed from its industrial past into superior residential communities, with jobs and housing and retail mixed together. Already the Magnolia and Mixon and Noisette initiatives show where things are going. Would the region allow a daily torrent of trucks to run over these promising possibilities? Other ports are moving faster than Charleston toward rail. Southeast competitor ports at Norfolk, Savannah and Jacksonville are slated to invest nearly $500 million over the next five years to upgrade intermodal rail capacity. They see the next generation of wide-load gantry cranes that can straddle up to six rail lines. They see the advantage of getting rail access directly on the docks, so that there's no double-handling cost liability. In Los Angeles, host to the nation's largest port, billions have been spent already to put trains in a dedicated trench and now the port will build a dedicated road that will thrust trucks beyond the perimeter of that region's terrible congestion. It was air quality that drove officials to make these investments. Charlotte is building a major intermodal center to capitalize on its rail connections. Is it sensible for the Charleston region, where the port is an economic driver, to be the slower moving player in a now obvious shift to rail for the majority of freight shipment? Neal Peirce of Washington D.C., and Curtis Johnson of Minneapolis, Minnesota, were the authors of the Citistates Report on the Charleston region published over five successive Sundays by The Post and Courier last fall. |
Article tools Write a letter to the Editor |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 4 comment(s)
Posted by Horratio on June 29, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Insightful opinion.
All the more reason for major Port expansion at Jasper County.
--Already has Rail access nearby with room for major rail terminal
--Already on I-95
--Closer to the dense population centers(where cargo goes)
--Room for the massive acreage needed for distribution warehouses. This is why Sav. is going to continue to kick Chas"s butt on container volume. They had the room for Costco and Wallmart/Sams/Target/all the rest to build distribution/storage centers that these companies now must have to operate. There was just not room for that here.
--No population Air Quality issues
--No competition with Georgia. Since it would be a joint venture the price could be set and the ports would not have to try to underbid each other.
--Less operation costs. The infrastructure costs could be shared by the two states.
Charleston could be a jam up niche port. That is essentially what we are now and always have been. With an eye toward service instead of just massive wharehouse volumes--Effecient, clean, fast.
Charleston will never be a hub center port no matter how much money we have to dump into it for the reasons outlined above. To be a hub port you need to be a hub of rail, a hub of interstates, a hub of wharehousing. And it needs to be more proximal to population densities. Charleston isn't and can't be that.
Jasper could be all that at the least environmental and real cost.
Why must we continue to try unsuccessfully to make Charleston something its not. Instead lets make the SPA-Charleston into what its best potential should be. A jam up Niche port nestled appropriately in the heart of our city like it has always been.
Not a spaghetti of industry and asphalt serpenting around all three counties and stangling the quality of life from our town.
Posted by truthseeker on June 29, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is the reason our Charleston container volume is dropping so fast because our port management has no sensible rail solution?
Norfolk and Savannah and Long Beach ship containers by rail into the huge markets of Chicago and Columbus Ohio- to our heavily populated areas where there is manufacturing.
They are able to market boxes all over the country because they have rail infrastructure and they know how to use it.
Maersk built a new terminal in Norfolk -with on dock rail - and are dramatically reducing their volume in Charleston - while the SPA makes up feeble excuses to dismiss their declining volume. Look up the Heartland Corridor Project to see why Maersk is putting their money in their new port in Norfolk-
http://www.vaports.com/Media_Room/2005/h...
Savannah is the fastest growing port in the U.S. - and they have on dock rail too and are using it.
Charleston's largest container terminal - Wando- does not even have rail .EVERY container has to be handled by trucks.
We are locking our future in as a truck only port capable of serving a very limited geographic area due to management's short sightedness.
We need new management that is capable in dealing with the 21st century -able to understand how higher diesel costs affect intermodal moves and also able to understand the real costs of more pollution in Charleston.
Thank you Neal Peirce and Curtis Johnson for pointing out the obvious to us and hopefully our elected leaders are reading and will begin to think and ask better questions of our port leaders before spending our limited tax dollars on a poorly conceived plan.
Posted by zoomru on July 1, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Two great posts...maximize the rail we have but don't go overboard in expanding.
What about this though...why don't we have the BEST, CLEAN, GREENEST, NEW Technological...OIL REFINERY right here in Charleston since we now have the BRIDGE for the supertankers? If could be at the dredgefill area being filled in there across from the HESS area. What are they going to use that land for anyway. Pipe all that product right up the GUT of South Carolina along I-26, 1-77, and 1-20. When are we going to permit another refinery here in the USA...why not here?
Posted by Spartan on July 10, 2008 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We are seeing how commuter rail while desirable to relieve traffic off the interstate is a big drain on the taxpayers. Rail for our port brings up the same concerns. The Port of Charleston has five terminals with a sixth one under way. With our divergent access points, a rail yard is really a stretch. Where do you put it? Virginia Ave? Columbus Street? Wando Welch? The Port of Savannah has one terminal and the rail there is still questionable as far as making financial sense. I like rail for Charleston's Port but would someone please show me the numbers?