Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
112 Background The Port of Baltimore is planning to relocate the existing on-dock rail transfer facility from its Seagirt Terminal (Figure 7-1) inland. The Port Authority had expressed an interest in review- ing alternative technologies for potential application between Seagirt and the chosen site. The research team applied the study method to the Baltimore container movement issue to see how advanced transport options might apply in the long term. As of mid-2014 the project is stalled and the future of the project is unresolved. In Septem- ber 2013 the project was presented to the Mount Clare neighborhood and received significant neighborhood opposition over social and environmental issues. The project stakeholders, led by MDOT, are working to resolve matters at this time. A case study involving the Port of Baltimore is appropriate because it provides a contempora- neous illustration of similar drayage issues at a port in a context very different from Los Angeles and Long Beach: ⢠There is only one major container terminal at Baltimore (as opposed to 13 at LA/LB) and it would be linked to one off-terminal rail facility (as opposed to 2 to 3 at LA/LB). ⢠Capacity, efficiency, traffic reduction, and local impacts are probably the key evaluation criteria. ⢠Although important, emissions impacts are not such an overriding consideration as in LA/LB. ⢠The scale of container transport is much smaller in Baltimore, but many of the same issues are important. Context Baltimore is primarily a bulk coal export port, currently ranking second in coal exports and sixth among U.S. ports in total export tonnage.20 Baltimore leads all U.S. ports in exports of autos, light trucks, and farm and construction machinery, and in imports of iron ore, gypsum, forest products, and sugar. Baltimore ranks 16th among U.S. container ports, handling 678,000 TEU in 2012.21 Port Facilities The portâs major facilities are illustrated in Figure 7-2. The primary container terminal is Seagirt. Dundalk is primarily a general cargo handling facility. Baltimore Case Study C H A P T E R 7 20 The data is from 2012, the latest year for which statistics are available from the Association of American Port Authorities. http://www.aapa-ports.org/Industry/content.cfm?ItemNumber=900&navItemNumber=551 21 Maryland Port Administration facilities only.
Baltimore Case Study 113 The Portâs overall purpose is to provide freight transportation infrastructure that promotes the growth of business in Maryland. In 2009, Ports America Chesapeake signed a 50-year lease with the Maryland Transportation Authority to operate Seagirt Terminal (Figure 7-1). The proj- ect required Ports America to develop a 50-foot berth and acquire four new cranes as well as provide funds for related highway, bridge, and tunnel projects near the port. To that end, Seagirt has been reconstructed to permit handling of 12,000 TEU container ships. These changes should allow the port to remain competitive for the larger ships that serve the Suez trade and that are expected on completion of the new Panama Canal. In anticipation of growing container traffic, the Maryland Port Administration (MPA) has also been working to improve landside rail access to Seagirt. Those actions have been a major driver for the new CSX National Gateway and Baltimore Intermodal Terminal projects. National Gateway Project The CSX National Gateway is an $850 million public-private partnership to improve rail traf- fic flow via a new double-stack rail corridor that connects Baltimore and other key mid-Atlantic ports to markets in the Midwest and the South, as illustrated in Figure 7-3. Figure 7-1. On-dock rail terminal at Seagirt. Figure 7-2. Port of Baltimore. Seagirt Marine Terminal Dundalk Marine Terminal
114 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers Two key elements of the project are the major new sorting hub in Northwest Ohio, which will forward and receive cargo to/from cities in the Midwest and West, and a new Baltimore area international terminal. Other aspects include bridge and tunnel projects to create double-stack clearances along the route. The North Baltimore terminal is the key sorting hub of the CSX intermodal network. Inter- modal trains move to North Baltimore from cities and ports throughout the nation. The con- tainers are sorted between inbound and outbound trains using wide-span rail-mounted gantry cranes. Outbound trains deliver the cargo throughout North America. A key feature of this operation is that it bypasses the heavily congested Chicago rail center. The facility was completed in 2011 at a cost of $175 million. Since October 1988, CSX Intermodal (CSXI) has provided domestic and international inter- modal freight service between the Port of Baltimore and Midwestern points from Seagirt, at the Portâs on-dock intermodal rail terminal. In 1991, the operation was significantly expanded. CSXI consolidated its operations from Potomac Yard in Alexandria, VA, into Seagirt, adding two primar- ily domestic north/south (Northeast to Florida, Northeast to Atlanta) train pairs, to daily operations. At Seagirt, this means that marine terminal land and labor are being used to perform domes- tic transportation work that could be done with less costly resources at other locations. This matter has become more important in the face of anticipated growth in international container volumes. As a result, both the Port and CSX have an interest in relocating domestic intermodal Figure 7-3. National Gateway Project.
Baltimore Case Study 115 operations. About 90% of Baltimore intermodal movements served by CSX are associated with domestic shippers. The remaining 10% are international, associated with ships calling at the Port of Baltimore. Howard Street Tunnel A fundamental problem for the Seagirt intermodal terminal is its location on the north side of the Howard Street Tunnel (Figure 7-4). The 1.7-mile single-track tunnel is the only direct freight rail route between Washington and Philadelphia and is one of the oldest railroad tunnels in the United States. Replacing the tunnel is considered prohibitively expensive because of the web of buildings, sewers, water lines, electrical lines, and internet fiberoptic cables that surround it. Moreover, Baltimoreâs major light-rail passenger line runs on Howard Street above the tunnel, and the cityâs subway line lies beneath. The tunnel does not provide clearance for double-stack intermodal freight cars and is an insoluble bottleneck for efficient container movement between Seagirt and points west and south. For these reasons, both the Port and CSX have only consid- ered new domestic terminal sites south of the Howard Street Tunnel. Container Movements Approximately 10,000 international containers would move between the Seagirt and the Mount Clare intermodal facility in its first year of operation. Containers would move directly by truck or, if volume warrants, through the Howard Street Tunnel using single-stack rail car. The Seagirt rail loading facility would remain, but would serve international cargo exclusively. Figure 7-4. Baltimore local map, including Howard Street Tunnel. CSX to/from Midwest and South Seagirt Marine and CSX Intermodal Terminal Howard Street Tunnel CSX Mount Clare Yard CSX to/from New Jersey
116 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers The number of trucks moving over the highway system between Seagirt and Mount Clare would remain relatively small until business levels increase. CSX is obligated by agreement to operate a single-stack rail service between the two locations through the Howard Street Tunnel when cargo activity generates a 3000-foot train, about 120 TEU or 60 40-foot containers. It is reasonable therefore to expect that frequency of meeting the minimum volume threshold for rail shuttle operations will be a direct function of the number of ships (particularly the larger 8,000 to 12,000 TEU ships) handled at the Port of Baltimore. Project History Figure 7-5 shows the general route between Seagirt Marine Terminal (container facility in Baltimore) and the original proposed new CSX terminal sites. Figure 7-6 shows the approximate location of the original candidate sites. The distances from Seagirt are ⢠BARC/Beltsville: 34 miles ⢠Race and Hanover Road: 15 miles ⢠Jessup Correctional Facility: 24 miles ⢠Montevideo Road: 19 miles The operative questions for the stakeholders were ⢠Can any of the alternative container transport technologies be applied to the movement between one or more of the potential terminal sites and Seagirt? ⢠What advantages would alternative transport technologies have over either conventional or advanced drayage options? ⢠Would application of an alternative transport technology favor one site over another, or change the Portâs choice? Figure 7-5. Seagirt link to CSX terminal sites.
Baltimore Case Study 117 Figure 7-6. Potential terminal sites (approximate only). In the last 2 years, however, the project has changed materially. The four candidate sites in Figure 7-6 were eliminated on the grounds of cost and local opposition, and a site at Mount Clare (Figure 7-7) about 6 to 8 miles from Seagirt, selected instead. Community concern around the Mount Clare site (as well as around alternative sites) has focused on local truck traffic, noise, disruption, and emissions. It is not certain that the Mount Clare project can be implemented over social, environmen- tal, and political objections. Planners would be interested in container transport options, such as advanced-technology fixed guideways or electrified trucks, that could reduce the adverse impacts and increase the chances of long-term project success. The problem facing the Maryland Port Authority, the Port of Baltimore, and CSX is trans- porting containers between the Seagirt Marine Terminal and the new off-dock rail intermodal terminal. The on-dock rail terminal at Seagirt has handled both international and domestic rail intermodal business. Much of the land occupied by the on-dock rail facility is being reclaimed for added marine terminal capacity. The domestic rail intermodal business will be relocated to Mount Clare on CSX southwest of Baltimore (Figure 7-7). International containers moving to and from Seagirt via rail intermodal service must be moved between Seagirt and Mount Clare. The project to develop an intermodal terminal on the National Gateway route south of the How- ard Street Tunnel is a public-private partnership between MDOT and CSX. The public sectorâs inter- est is the promotion of economic activity and job creation. The project partnership was negotiated in 2009 at the depth of the recent recession.22 The City of Baltimore joined the effort more recently. 22 The unemployment rate peaked in October 2009. http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2012/recession/pdf/recession_bls_spotlight.pdf
118 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers Initial Candidate Sites Initially, CSX and MDOT were considering the location for the facility in Howard, Anne Arundel, and Prince Georgeâs counties, south of Baltimore. The cost estimate for building a suburban site was between $140 million and $325 million, which was much more than had been planned and budgeted. In addition, these sites generated strong opposition from local residents. In contrast, the mayor of Baltimore sought to keep the facility and related economic activity within the City of Baltimore and formally asked CSX not to move out of the city. Mount Clare Site The Mount Clare site is the single remaining location which may be viable. The Morrell Park/ Violetville Neighborhood is resisting the development. A report prepared by the National Center for Healthy Housing (NCHH), a national nonprofit organization based in Columbia, Maryland, is an example of the type of analytical work required to identify and measure social criteria. It describes the neighborhood as follows:23 The Morrell Park/Violetville Community has a greater population of white residents and residents age 65 or older than that of the city, Baltimore County, and the state as a whole. The median household income for the area is $39,931âslightly higher than the city as a whole, but substantially lower than Baltimore County ($65,411) and the state ($72,419). Figure 7-7. Baltimore local map, including Howard Street Tunnel. CSX to/from Midwest and South Seagirt Marine and CSX Intermodal Terminal Howard Street Tunnel CSX Mount Clare Yard CSX to/from New Jersey 23 Baltimore-Washington Rail Intermodal Facility Health Impact Assessment: Preliminary Report August 2013 available at http://nchh.org/Portals/0/Contents/Intermodal-Facility-HIA_Preliminary-Report_August-2013.pdf
Baltimore Case Study 119 The residents living in the CSA have higher rates of age-adjusted mortality and heart disease, all cancer and lung cancer deaths, and deaths linked to chronic diseases of the lower respiratory system (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma) compared with City of Baltimore and Maryland residents as a whole. Geospatial maps indicate that residents living in the Morrell Park/Violetville CSA (and other residents liv- ing along freeways that traverse Baltimore) may already be disproportionately burdened by transportation- related air pollution. The report goes on to identify social issues and suggest remedies. As a result, after consideration of four City of Baltimore locations, CSX proposes to locate the new terminal at the existing Mount Clare Yard in southwest Baltimore. Mount Clare Yard is south of Interstate 95 where it crosses over Washington Boulevard, as shown in Figure 7-8. The site is less than 70 acres, much smaller than the proposed suburban locations, and the cost would be much less because the area is already a rail facility. No federal funds would be needed. Instead, the state would pay $30 million of the project cost and CSX would contribute the remainder, $60 to $65 million. Mount Clare is the northern I-95 corridor terminus of the National Gateway, so several new double-stack intermodal transportation options would become available to shippers and receiv- ers in Maryland. The terminal would feature two 100-foot, zero-emission electric cranes that are nearly silent in operation. These cranes would significantly reduce GHG emissions typically associated with diesel cranes that serve older, more traditional intermodal facilities. An esti- mated 350 jobs would be created during terminal construction. In regular operation the facility will generate 50 to 60 direct jobs and 200+ indirect jobs. In addition to the advantages that accrue from the zero-emission cranes and the overall regional benefits associated with use of the rail mode, the Port of Baltimore Clean Diesel Pro- gram would provide $20,000 each toward the cost of newer drayage trucks that meet or exceed Figure 7-8. CSX Mount Clare Yard site.
120 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers the 2007 EPA engine standard. The program rules require the scrapping of the truck being replaced, thus ensuring that it will be permanently removed from service. MPA would like the project to be complete in 2015 when the new Panama Canal locks are expected to be finished and operating. The TRLs of advanced-technology fixed-guideway and electric trucks technologies are far too low for such solutions to be implemented by 2015, or even within a few years of that target. These technologies are thus not being considered for short-term implementation. Instead, the question for this case study is whether such technologies could be successfully applied to the container transport problems in a longer time frame. Evaluation Objective For this case study, the research team has defined the decision question as: Can advanced technologies play a long-term role in container movement between Seagirt and Mount Clare? The preferred Mount Clare site is less than 10 highway miles from Seagirt. In the initial phases of the project, sites were reviewed at a distance of up to 33 miles from Seagirt. The preferred technology for container movement is conventional drayage services, at least in the initial stages. The transportation mode is expected to evolve with a greater share of the business moving via a conventional, single-stack rail shuttle service as volume increases. It is clear that advanced technologies are insufficiently developed to play a role in the short- term development of the new terminal at Mount Clare. Given that success with the Mount Clare project is not certain and rests on the ability of planners to meet community concerns while maintaining transport efficiency, advanced technologies may have a role to play in the long-term viability of the project. Defining Goals In the Baltimore case, the container transport system is only one element of a much larger, comprehensive multi-party arrangement meant to restructure freight, transit, and port opera- tions in Baltimore. The agreement involves providing more land for the port, more service for the transit system, and the opportunity for CSX to increase business by improving freight rail service while reducing cost. Stated goals of CSX, the state, and the port are included in the various con- tracts and memoranda of understanding dating back to 2009. These contracts provide for CSX to transfer land to the port, which will give space for cargo growth, in exchange for assistance from- MDOT and the Maryland Congressional Delegation in obtaining federal funding and support for CSXâs National Gateway Initiative. The public goals were further articulated in a community meeting in September 2013. For the City of Baltimore, the relevant goals include ⢠Retaining jobs and business tax base in Baltimore. ⢠Tying into the double-stack rail network to support local growth and development. ⢠Upgrading and modernizing an existing CSX facility. ⢠Creating more opportunities for CSX to support and enhance the community. ⢠Solidifying the future of the Port of Baltimore. For the State of Maryland the relevant goals include ⢠Meeting the freight demands of growing communities and a growing economy. ⢠Connecting Marylandâs businesses and consumers to new markets in the Midwest and the South via double-stack rail service.
Baltimore Case Study 121 ⢠Modernizing the Stateâs rail infrastructure to compete with other mid-Atlantic states. ⢠Creating economic growth and jobs by supporting local business growth and development. ⢠Supporting planned expansion and growth at the Port of Baltimore. ⢠Re-asserting Marylandâs competitive advantage in the freight industry. ⢠Allowing the State to leverage private dollars for public good. ⢠Carrying forward priorities identified in Marylandâs Statewide Freight Plan. Most of these goals would be met by developing the new Mount Clare terminal and con- necting it to Seagirt by truck and conventional rail as proposed. If local opposition prevents the Mount Clare development, however, these goals would be much harder to meet. The goals of the Maryland Statewide Freight Plan, which were included by reference, are important because they add the social and environmental elements which round out the goal set. The Goals of the Statewide Freight Plan include ⢠Quality of Service Enhancing customer experience and service Providing reliable and predictable travel time across modal options for people and goods Facilitating coordination and collaboration with agency partners and stakeholders ⢠Safety and Security Reducing the number and rate of transportation-related fatalities and injuries Securing transportation assets for the movement of people and goods Coordinating and refining emergency response plans and activities ⢠System Preservation and Performance Preserving and maintaining the existing transportation network Maximizing operational performance and efficiency of existing systems ⢠Environmental Stewardship Coordinating land use and transportation planning to better promote Smart Growth Preserving and enhancing Marylandâs natural, community, and historic resources Supporting initiatives that further our commitments to environmental quality ⢠Connectivity for Daily Life Providing balanced, seamless, and accessible multimodal transportation options for people and goods Facilitating links within and beyond Maryland to support a healthy economy Expanding network capacity to manage growth These goals and objectives extend the decision scope beyond container transport technol- ogy and efficiency to encompass direct and indirect community impacts. Moreover, the objec- tives go beyond mitigation of future project impacts to include remediation of existing adverse impacts and positive steps toward community enhancement. This broader set of goals generates interest in advanced zero-emissions transport technologies. Container Transport Goals Of this broad set of project goals only a few relate directly to container transport between Seagirt and a new CSX intermodal terminal. This is an element which cannot be taken in isola- tion, and in fact the overall project goals may have greater weight for decisionmakers than the specific transportation goals. Economic Goals. In this project there is a greater than ordinary need to maximize the effi- ciency of the Seagirt-CSX transportation segment in order to âensure Marylandâs economic competitivenessâ for the benefit of the stateâs âproducers, consumers, shippers, and receivers.â Competing ports, Norfolk and New York, are served by on- or near-dock rail intermodal facilities,
122 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers which is inherently more efficient than an off-dock intermodal rail solution. Near-dock solutions are not possible in Baltimore because of the physical constraints of the Howard Street Tunnel. Mitigating the economic and competitive disadvantage of the Howard Street Tunnel bottleneck in the most efficient manner possible is a high priority. Transportation Goals. Transportation goals include efficiency, capacity, reliability, safety, stability, predictability, flexibility, and compatibility with existing and planned operations and infrastructure. In addition, Maryland values policies and solutions that preserve infrastructure and reduce demand on the transportation network. Unless there were some means of prohib- iting truck drayage, an alternative transport system would need to offer a superior cost and service combination to attract business from the highway. Operating costs are thus critically important. Social and Environmental Goals. The major, sometimes conflicting, social goals driving this decision include ⢠The desire to promote economic activity and generate jobs, wealth, and tax revenue. Within its context, the CSX Intermodal Terminal Facility will be an economic generator creating jobs and economic advantage for freight and logistics industry firms choosing to locate in its proxim- ity. For this reason, the City of Baltimore is exerting influence to have the facility located within the city. ⢠The desire to âProtect Marylandâs environment and communities by minimizing negative impacts associated with freight facilities and operations.â In the context of the state plan this means promotion of âsmart growthâ and preservation of natural, community, and historic resources. These goals relate directly to the potential advantages of alternative technologies. Decisionmakers The terminal project decisionmakers are contributing both financial and political capital. The terminal project is being undertaken by a public-private partnership between MDOT and CSX. Both organizations are contributing funds for the project. The City of Baltimore has advocated for the project to be completed within the city and has become an important stakeholder. Fed- eral funding is not a part of this project. The users of the proposed evaluation method, therefore, would be Maryland DOT, CSX, and the City of Baltimore. Because the project is a public-private partnership, the voice of industry is provided by CSX. CSX represents their customers, the domestic and international shippers. In addition, the Port of Baltimore is an agency under MDOT. As such the interests of the port community are also represented by an element within MDOT. Interests of the local communities and private citizens of the state and those living near the proposed site are represented by the public agencies and by ad hoc community groups. Political sensitivity to the interests of these stakeholders is often high and can result in project delays if community concerns are not satisfactorily addressed. Responsiveness to local concerns, environmental justice issues, and the potential adverse impacts of freight movement have become central concerns for public-sector decisionmakers. Project plans must therefore include measures that give local communities a voice and that not only mitigate project impacts, but reduce the impacts already occurring. This is a clear example of the âsocial licenseâ concept and related to the TBL concept discussed below in the context of evaluation criteria.
Baltimore Case Study 123 Evaluation Criteria Performance Criteria Operational Criteria. In this instance, the minimum technical container transportation system performance requirements have been defined by contract. Conventional drayage will provide baseline service over the existing highway system, with conventional rail service pro- vided for volumes over 60 per day. For import containers the performance criteria would be delivery at the new terminal in time for the next available westbound or southbound train. The service standard for export containers is delivery at Seagirt before the cut-off time for the chosen outbound voyage. An alternative transport system would have to provide capacity and service comparable to truck drayage. The highway distance between Seagirt and Mount Clare is about 8 miles, implying a transit time of less than 20 minutes, even with relatively conservative truck speed assumptions. Allowing about 15 minutes to exit Seagirt and 15 minutes to enter Mount Clare, a southbound trip by truck would take less than an hour. A northbound trip would likely require an additional 15 to 30 minutes for queuing at the Seagirt gate, giving a maximum of about 90 minutes. Given these short distances and overall transit times, speed does not appear to be a significant perfor- mance criterion. At the start of operations, an average of only about 20 containers per day would move between Seagirt and Mount Clare, or about 3 per hour during the day shift. System capacity would not be an important criterion at this level of traffic. Planning documents anticipate that about 10,000 containers per year would move between Seagirt and Mount Clare in 2015. At a nominal annual growth rate of 5%, the total would reach 20,790 by 2030, the equivalent of 83 containers per day or 10 to 12 per hour during the day shift. Given that the nominal capacity of most advanced fixed-guideway technologies is at least 60 per hour (1-minute headways), even by 2030, capacity would not be an important criterion. Economic Criteria. Except for the Maryland DOT contribution, facility users, shippers, and receivers will ultimately fund the costs associated with establishing the service through rates primarily paid to CSX and drayage providers. These costs include the direct operating cost of the service, the capital costs of building the facilities, and the financial costs associated with miti- gating the social impacts. Shippers will use the service only to the extent that it provides better service and/or lower costs than other options. An important cost criterion is the total cost of owning and operating the terminals used to service this traffic. Each system and terminal combination will have a unique financial cost based on the mixture of land, labor, and capital cost inputs. Suburban sites were rejected partly because of construction cost estimates of $140 to $325 million. The current cost estimate for the Mount Clare site is about $90 to $95 million. Transport system development costs that raised the total to $325 million or more would exceed the same budget threshold as the suburban sites, implying that the transport option should not have capital costs of more than $230 million and preferably much less. The baseline transport cost criterion for the service is the total cost charged by drayage car- riers to serve the facility. This is highly dependent on the site selection, and for international cargo would likely be minimized by the location nearest Seagirt. However, because international cargo is a small share of the total to be handled at the CSX facility, the site with the lowest total transport cost may not be the same as the site with the lowest international transport cost. Truck drayage cost is a function of travel time and mileage. The operating cost of a transport alternative should at least be close to the truck drayage cost to remain competitive.
124 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers Environmental Criteria. Environmental criteria would include standard measures of anti- cipated PM, SOx, and NOx emissions at key locations within the community. CO2 emissions are important, but are of broader scope than a local issue. Social Criteria. The social criteria are essentially encompassed by the need to reduce or miti- gate the impact of trucks on the Mount Clare community. Precedents based on Southern Califor- nia experience would indicate that projects should be planned to include measures that not only mitigate project impacts, but also reduce the impacts already occurring. Drayage to and from the new terminal will have social impacts and therefore consideration should be given not only to making improvements in air quality, traffic, and noise an element in the container transportation decision, but also to improving environmental and social conditions in the neighborhood as a result of this development. Community impacts and related quantifiable measures include ⢠Neighborhood resources as measured by estimated prospective property values. ⢠Traffic and traffic safety as measured by anticipated accidents and traffic volume and congestion ratings at truck access route intersections. ⢠Noise as measured in decibels at key neighborhood locations. ⢠Light as measured in lumens at key neighborhood locations. These measures are all objective and able to be quantified and/or modeled. The more difficult aspect is developing a consensus regarding weighting factors on the measures, particularly because the stakeholders have divergent interests. Technology Readiness The desire of the stakeholders to implement a solution by 2015 requires a high TRL and SRL. Even if the 2015 goal is relaxed to 2020, any technology used must be effectively mature to be incorporated in infrastructure planning, financing, contracting, and construction. No serious consideration would be given to options that are technologically immature. This would eliminate any technology that has not advanced beyond the prototype stage and any site for which federal financial participation would be required. The federal process would necessarily extend beyond the desired implementation date. For purposes of this study however, this criterion has been waived. Otherwise, no advanced transport technologies (e.g., fixed-guideway, LSM, or electric truck) would pass the initial screening and the proposed evaluation method would go untested past the screening step. Minimum Requirements For this project to proceed, each of the key stakeholders has minimum requirements. For CSX, the motivation is quantifiable, increased profit. CSX likely sees some competitive advantage from a new terminal, particularly if double-stack rail intermodal access can be provided. To accomplish this goal, the intermodal terminal must be located south of the Howard Street Tun- nel. Direct rail access to the National Gateway Corridor is mandatory, as is convenient access to the Interstate Highway System. The land parcel must be of sufficient size and shape to permit the terminal to process the required volume of traffic. The Mount Clare site is relatively small, about 70 acres, but can serve the required throughput using the latest, costliest, high-density container terminal technologies. Marylandâs motivation is job creation, and MDOT is willing to spend public funds and political capital for this project in a measure consistent with the increase in the commonwealth of the state. The current contracts limit the stateâs direct investment to $30 million. The jobs and economic development would (presumably) remain in Maryland, regardless of the final site and transport
Baltimore Case Study 125 choice. MDOT would therefore likely support any transport option that would allow the terminal project to proceed, advance the stateâs freight plan goals, and not require direct state investment over $30 million. The City of Baltimoreâs contribution is political capital, and it faces a complex balance of politi- cal priorities and divergent social and environmental interests. The City must balance the value of local job preservation and expansion and promotion of the Port of Baltimore with the social/ environmental needs of one of the cityâs neighborhood communities. The City of Baltimore is not making a financial investment in the facility, but stands to gain/lose tax revenue based on the location decision. If CSX and the state were to seek to locate outside Baltimore, not only would Baltimore object, but any local community would face similar social and impact issues. The City would likely favor a transport solution acceptable to the Mount Clare community and would thereby retain the facility in Baltimore. These observations together imply that community acceptance of the Mount Clare terminal development is the critical issue. The minimum requirement for a container transport option is that it increase community acceptance. Transport options that reduce community acceptance compared to default truck drayage would not be of interest to stakeholders or decisionmakers, regardless of other features. To improve community acceptance over truck drayage, an alterna- tive transport option must ⢠Reduce the number of trucks moving through the Mount Clare community. ⢠Reduce local emissions and noise. ⢠Minimize the need for new, potentially objectionable infrastructure. The effectiveness of a proposed system in increasing community acceptance of the Mount Clare terminal development is therefore the critical minimum requirement for screening. Pro- posals that would not significantly increase community acceptance of the terminal project would be screened out, because they would not solve the problem facing the decisionmakers. Weighting. As with the LA/LB case, it was determined that neither the need for criteria weighting nor the necessary information for criteria weighting existed in the Port of Baltimore case. With increasing community acceptance of the Mount Clare terminal as an overriding objective, the evaluation tends to become a yes/no dichotomy, rather than a ranking or rating exercise. If two or more transport options had clear potential to increase community acceptance there might have been a need to weight criteria and consider tradeoffs; however, that was not the evaluation outcome. Defining the Baseline The default or baseline alternative is truck drayage via public highway using 2007- or 2010-compliant âcleanâ trucks (diesel or alternative fuel). CSX has tentatively agreed to operate conventional rail intermodal shuttle trains between Seagirt and Mount Clare when there is suf- ficient volume for an efficient train size. The 1.7-mile Howard Street Tunnel in central Baltimore lacks sufficient clearance for double-stack rail cars or for the installation of catenary to electrify the line. With expansion prohibitively expensive and perhaps infeasible, CSX is limited to con- ventional or third-rail electric single-stack rail operations. Air Quality. Air quality is an important criterion and the baseline for highway drayage is evolving. The evaluation process must consider that the air pollution levels of 2015 will be reduced over the life of the facility as the current fleet of drayage tractors and locomotives is rebuilt or replaced.
126 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers A similar evolution is occurring in the rail industry. Post 2015, diesel locomotives manufac- tured or remanufactured in the United States will use high-efficiency catalytic after-treatment technology to meet mandated âTier IIIâ standards. EPA estimates that when fully implemented, the rule will cut PM emissions from these engines by as much as 90 percent and NOx emissions by as much as 80 percent.24 The rail industry is testing prototypes of locomotives that operate on various combinations of diesel and LNG. For example, General Electric and CSX have been testing low-pressure natural gas technology since the spring of 2013. The firms are working with other industry partners to use natural gas to maintain high engine performance while reducing emissions and fuel cost. According to CSX, âAn Evolution Series locomotive equipped with the NextFuel Natural Gas Retrofit Kit meets US EPA Tier 3 emission standards.â25 GHG Emissions. GHG emissions are basically a function of fuel use. The baseline system for moving containers between Seagirt and Mount Clare would be diesel trucks, with diesel locomo- tives taking over after a given volume threshold, so baseline GHG use would correspond to the diesel fuel used in those trips. Community Impacts. Community impact emerged as the single most critical criterion. With no existing rail intermodal facility in the affected community, the baseline for container truck trips and congestion is effectively zero. Candidate Technologies Truck Drayage Scenarios An option available to stakeholders is to seek to accelerate drayage technology adoption ahead of EPA standards. This will likely require continued and perhaps increased funding of programs such as the Port of Baltimoreâs âClean Dieselâ conversion effort. At this time several technologies are competing and it is unclear which technology will emerge as superior: ⢠Conventional truck tractor drayage using 2010-compliant diesel engines (base case). ⢠Conventional truck tractor drayage using LNG or hydrogen-hybrid engines. LNG technology is being tested operationally at present. Hydrogen-hybrid technology is in the prototype stage at present. ⢠Electrically powered truck tractor drayage using wayside power and battery power in com- bination. Battery-powered drayage tractors are in the prototype stage at present. Wayside power would require an additional investment to establish the capability along the truck route. Rail Shuttle Scenarios As with drayage tractors, rail locomotives are getting cleaner. Prospective rail options include ⢠Conventional rail intermodal service using Tier III diesel or LNG locomotives. ⢠Electric rail intermodal service (zero-emissions). Catenary would require an extensive invest- ment to electrify the route. Vertical clearances in the Howard Street Tunnel may be a techni- cal problem. The LSM system could be established in the existing track infrastructure. This technology has not yet been successfully prototyped. 24 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/locomotives.htm 25 http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/media/press-releases/csx-and-ge-transportation-partner-to-pilot-liquefied-natural-gas- locomotives/
Baltimore Case Study 127 Advanced Fixed-Guideway Scenario The research team used a generic fixed-guideway system concept for the Baltimore case study because there have been no actual fixed-guideway proposals. Features of the concept were com- piled from the data assembled in the LA/LB case study and presented in Appendix C. The most salient aspects of a fixed-guideway technology in this case study are ⢠Zero tailpipe emissions and reduced GHG emissions. ⢠Nominal capacity of 60 containers per hour in each direction (1-minute headways). ⢠The need for a new exclusive right-of-way between Seagirt and Mount Clare. Screening Candidates The goal of the screening process is to efficiently eliminate options with fatal flaws or which do not meet the minimum requirement of improving community acceptance of the Mount Clare site. For both screening and more detailed analysis, the research team used the same sources and data compilation as in the LA/LB case study. The technical, performance, and cost factors devel- oped by the research team and presented in Appendix C were applied and adjusted as necessary to fit the Baltimore case study circumstances. As the following section illustrates, the inputs to the screening process were primarily the fundamental technology and systems characteristics of the potential solutions. The influx of additional drayage trucks is a major stumbling block to community acceptance of the Mount Clare site. An option that reduces emissions but does not reduce the number of trucks fails to satisfy the minimum requirement. For a truck drayage scenario to be more acceptable to the community, the scenario would have to divert the trucks to a new roadway, off the city streets. Cost and feasibility will then become binding constraints. Shifting all movements to rail would remove international drayage trucks from Mount Clare. If the rail movements were more acceptable than the truck movements, there would be a net improvement. Tier III diesel or LNG locomotives would have lower emissions, but would be (presumably) just as noisy and just as disruptive to the community (assuming current disrup- tion). Electric rail shuttles would both divert trucks from the streets and reduce noise. Cost and feasibility of electrification would then become the critical concerns. In common with rail shuttles, these options would take trucks off streets and highways and divert them to a separate guideway. Electric power would eliminate local emissions and reduce noise. The critical issues for advanced fixed-guideway systems would be cost, feasibility, and community acceptance of the additional infrastructure. The three options that passed the screening step above were considered to be the evaluation candidates. Analyzing Candidates Advanced Drayage Technology If free-running drayage using conventional technology is unacceptable, can advanced drayage technology be part of a program of mitigation and remediation that would address the social concerns of the neighborhood? Advancing drayage technology can yield material improvements in both air quality and noise reduction.26 26 Noise reduction in vehicles generates new safety issues for pedestrians. See Professional Safety Article: https://www.asse.org/ professionalsafety/docs/Fender_0111.pdf
128 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers The first and easiest option available to stakeholders is to seek to accelerate drayage technol- ogy adoption ahead of EPA standards. This will likely require continued funding of programs such as the Port of Baltimoreâs âClean Dieselâ conversion effort. The 2010-compliant diesel engines are dramatically cleaner than the models they replace. CSX has identified its support for a voluntary clean truck program. CSX could go further and make commitments similar to those being made by BNSF in Southern California in the effort to develop the Southern California Intermodal Gateway (SCIG) project as follows:27 . . . only trucks meeting the Portâs CAAP goal of 2010 or newer will be used to transport cargo between the marine terminals and the facility. In addition, BNSF is going beyond the CAAP and will also require that by 2023, 75% of the trucks moving cargo between the marine terminals and SCIG will be LNG or equivalent emissions vehicles, and by 2026, 90% of the truck fleet serving SCIG will meet this requirement.28 The BNSFâs commitment allows for emergence of new technologies over the next decade; such technologies may be superior to LNG-powered drayage. New Road Infrastructure. Free-running drayage options using existing public streets and highways cannot address community concerns over traffic congestion, emissions, and noise. Nor do highway drayage options address MDOTâs concern with minimizing VMT. Adding capacity to existing roads in the vicinity of the Mount Clare site and between Mount Clare and Seagirt, if feasible, would reduce congestion but not emissions or noise. Moreover, community stakehold- ers are unlikely to be receptive to street and road projects designed to accommodate more trucks. Although the Mount Clare terminal development would likely include road and intersection improvements on the approach and entry routes, road infrastructure improvements alone are unlikely to satisfy stakeholder objections. An electric truck option would require new roadway, as well as electrification, to divert trucks from existing streets. In the absence of actual right-of-way studies, the research team used the same I-95 alignment shown in Figure 7-9. Capital Cost. The capital cost was estimated from the cost model compiled by the research team. From that cost model, two lanes of elevated freeway over the 6.5 miles shown would cost roughly $410 million, not including the extra cost of widening the Fort McHenry Tunnel. Catenary would add another $33 million, for a total of at least $430 million. This total exceeds the $225 mil- lion top-end threshold by a large margin, making this option financially infeasible. Conventional Rail Technology The most straightforward way to keep drayage trucks off the highways is to move all contain- ers by conventional rail. If the rail lines in question would otherwise have excess capacity, or suf- ficient capacity for other expected traffic in addition to the international containers, then there would be no need for additional infrastructure or capital investment. Existing international containers are already moving over those lines and CSX has agreed to run shuttle trains when justified by volume, so it appears that the lines have the required capacity. Zero-emissions solutions are available or on the horizon either through a system of electrifica- tion or LSMs. An overhead catenary system may not be feasible because of the vertical clearances of the Howard Street Tunnel. However, a âthird railâ solution would appear to be operation- ally feasible. The advantages would include improvement in air quality and reduction in noise 27 http://bnsfconnects.com/pages/faq1/ 28 BNSF has also gone beyond CSXâs current commitments regarding terminal operations promising ultra-low emissions switching locomotives, and low-emission yard equipment in addition to electric cranes.
Baltimore Case Study 129 associated with an electrified system without impeding the rest of the rail traffic that uses the tunnel. The cost would include fencing the electrical right-of-way to mitigate the safety risks. This technology is mature. Several firms are developing systems using linear synchronous motors (LSM) retrofit within existing rail tracks to move containers on railroad flatcars. The system does not have the special safety risks associated with the third rail. As the LA/LB case study notes, however, the technical feasibility of LSM retrofits to conventional rail systems has not been demonstrated, and there are serious doubts. Capital Cost. Based on the research teamâs research, the cost of catenary and associated elec- trical supply and control infrastructures would be roughly $1.8 million per mile for the 6.5-mile route or $12 million total. To that would be added the costs of at least two electric locomotives at approximately $2 million each, bringing rough capital costs to around $16 million. This total is within the low end of the sponsorâs cost threshold. At a nominal 3% interest rate on $16 mil- lion in bonds, the annual debt service would be $.48 million, or about $23 per container trip for 20,780 trips in 2030. Fixed-Guideway System The third option is to construct a new dedicated fixed-guideway for advanced-technology propulsion (e.g., Maglev, LIM, and LSM). This option faces myriad obstacles of geography and legacy infrastructure. These new systems would need to connect directly to the Mount Clare terminal to avoid city streets. The most dramatic of the possible new technologies, an advanced-technology fixed-guideway system, would require the development of a new right-of-way. For the Seagirt to CSX Inter modal Figure 7-9. Fixed-guideway routing option.
130 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers terminal service, Baltimore and the Chesapeake Bay present formidable barriers. In addition, the 3,200 acre Baltimore Washington International Airport is a major barrier south of the city. The same methods used for more than a century in Baltimore and in large cities through- out the world would be required: a combination of bridges, elevated freight guideways, sub- ways, trenches, and tunnels. Baltimoreâs existing transportation infrastructure has examples of each of these approaches applied in previous generations. Unlike dedicated passenger rail infrastructure, these ways will need to carry heavily loaded freight containers. One fully loaded international container can weigh up to 85,000 lb, as much as 500 150-lb passengers. The social issues associated with elevated railways and highways are significant, primarily related to the physical barriers they create within cities and neighborhoods. Elevated systems are often viewed as unsightly. Social opposition has substantially impeded the development of elevated urban transportation infrastructure of all types, and over the past 60+ years there have been many cases where previously developed elevated infrastructure has been removed. Examples include removal of the 6th Avenue elevated in New York City prior to World War II, removal of elevated freeways in the San Francisco Bay Area after the 1989 earthquake, and the âBig Digâ project in Boston that replaced an elevated highway system with a tunnel system. One option for a new right-of-way is illustrated in Figure 7-9, paralleling I-95. As with I-95, this would likely need to be a combination of a tunnel to avoid the Ft. McHenry historical site and an elevated system similar to that which is present today. For the Mount Clare site this means service via a second elevated right-of-way. The advantage is that neighborhood streets would be avoided. In this particular case, developing a new guideway would be as, or more, complex and costly than simply dealing directly with the challenges of expansion of the Howard Street Tunnel, which would have to be reconsidered in conjunction with a new set of possible sites on the north side of Howard Street. Advanced propulsion technology on a separate fixed-guideway faces multiple barriers in application to container transport between Seagirt and Mount Clare. Infrastructure Cost. At an estimated cost of around $196 million per mile, including facilities and vehicles, the 6.5-mile route described above would cost roughly $1.28 billion. The other route options, which involve bridges, would likely cost even more. A cost of this rough magnitude greatly exceeds the threshold cost increment of $230 million established above. The four original suburban sites were eliminated from consideration at costs far below this estimate. Feasibility. Even assuming technical feasibility of an advanced fixed-guideway system, the feasibility of construction between Seagirt and Mount Clare is questionable. The path shown in Figure 7-9 follows the alignment of Keith Avenue, which is elevated between Seagirt and the east- ern entrance of the I-95 tunnel. Between there and the western tunnel opening, the alignment would have to cross an arm of Chesapeake Bay near Fort McHenry, necessitating a new tunnel at very high cost if feasible at all. From there to Mount Clare the alignment follows I-95, which for much of the route is elevated without a median or shoulders. Other routes would encounter similar obstacles. Terminal Integration. Unless the new technology could be efficiently integrated in the Mount Clare terminal design, the fixed-guideway system would need its own loading/unloading capabilities there. This requirement would strain the already tight footprint (70 acres) and add significant capital and operating cost.
Baltimore Case Study 131 Capacity Utilization. The nominal capacity of most conceptual fixed-guideways is 60 con- tainers per hour in each direction (1-minute headways). About 10,000 containers per year are expected to move between Seagirt and Mount Clare in 2015â5,000 in each direction. At a nomi- nal 5% annual growth rate, that number would reach 20,790 by 2030, the equivalent of 83 con- tainers per day over a 250-workday year. A fixed-guideway system would therefore be used at a small fraction of its potential capacity. Moreover, at a nominal 3% annual interest on bonds, a $1.28 billion investment would have annual debt service costs of about $38 million, or about $1,850 per container trip in debt service alone. Operating Cost. As shown in Table 6-9, the estimated operating cost for a comparable Southern California fixed-guideway system is $315 million annually with a volume of 1.8 to 2.5 million annual containers. This estimate implies a unit cost range of $106 to $143 for the 6.5-mile Seagirt/Mount Clare trip, if the operations could be scaled to the much lower Baltimore annual volume. In contrast, the estimated cost of conventional truck drayage is about $80 for the one-way trip. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that Baltimore customers would be willing to use a much more costly fixed-guideway system. An advanced fixed-guideway system is therefore unlikely to divert many trucks from the streets. To the line-haul cost estimate of $106â143 above must be added the costs of loading a con- tainer onto the train on one end of the trip and unloading it at the other. Research team esti- mates suggest a range of $50â100 per lift, or $100â200 for the Seagirt-Mount Clare trip. The lift cost above exceeds the estimated truck drayage cost (which explains CSXâs preference for truck drayage, especially at low volumes). A rail shuttle, then, would be unable to compete with truck drayage, even ignoring capital costs. It is unlikely, therefore, that a rail shuttle could attract sig- nificant truck traffic from city streets in a competitive market. Evaluating Candidates Although the three options analyzed here could all ameliorate community concerns over the Mount Clare terminal, none could do so cost-effectively. Of the three options, only electrifica- tion of existing rail operations is remotely financially feasible. The infrastructure required to divert containers from truck drayage on city streets to electric truck drayage on new roadways or advanced fixed-guideway systems is far too costly for the stakeholders and the resources they are willing to commit. Debt service on infrastructure bonds alone would exceed the competitive cost of truck drayage. The operating costs of the rail shuttle and advanced guideway options exceed the competitive cost of truck drayage by a substantial margin. These options would be unable to attract container movements from truck drayage in an open market. The feasibility of the additional roadway for electric trucks and new guideway for advanced- technology systems is highly questionable. Linking Seagirt and Mount Clare involves either crossing an arm of Chesapeake Bay at Fort McHenry or finding a new path through urban Baltimore. In this connection it is instructive to observe that if a new right-of-way could be found, the Howard Street Tunnel might be bypassed and the terminal location problem solved. A common limitation on the ability of any option for Seagirt-Mount Clare container trans- port is that international containers account for only 10% of those handled now at Seagirt and would likely account for no larger share at Mount Clare. The community concerns over the proposed Mount Clare terminal development are attributable more to the 90% of the traffic that will be domestic and that will not be ameliorated by any of the options dis- cussed here.
132 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers With only one reasonable candidate solution for the problem, there was no need to rank or rate alternatives. Findings Based on the information available and on the established positions and policies of the stake- holders and decisionmakers, there is no new technology or transport system that can by itself reduce community impacts to a point where the Mount Clare terminal development would be clearly acceptable to the community. None of the technologies or systems makes the trucks or terminal go away. Use of the existing rail right-of-way for international cargo moving between Seagirt and CSX Intermodal is already part of the project proposal. As has been mentioned, air quality could be improved in parallel with the implementation of ever cleaner locomotives. Also, more frequent operation of the rail shuttle system would reduce the number of trucks on streets of the impacted neighborhood. Conclusions Infrastructure issues were paramount in the Baltimore case study. Advanced technologies that require new fixed-guideways face substantial barriers: ⢠Guideway feasibility. At legacy ports, particularly those set in developed urban areas, the feasibility of locating and developing right-of-way for a new guideway is often questionable. In the Baltimore case, a new guideway would require bridges, tunnels, or building through dense urban areas. ⢠Infrastructure cost. The very high unit cost of new, elevated, high-technology infrastructure puts the initial system investment in the same realm as a new passenger transit system. The cost estimates show that it would be impossible to recover the capital cost from revenues in a competitive environmentâa circumstance also shared by transit systems. ⢠Capacity. The high initial cost of advanced fixed-guideway systems can only be justified by very high throughputs, which may not be achievable. The relatively low expected volume of container trips in the Baltimore case would leave such a system seriously underutilized. Fundamentally, advanced technologies are unsuited for moving a low volume of containers through a developed area with inherently high infrastructure costs. The Baltimore case study suggests a more promising role for technologies, such as in-track LSM or wayside electrification (for trucks or trains) that could be retrofit to existing rail or high- way infrastructure. Where the primary goal is to reduce emissions, GHG, and noise, rather than to increase capacity, electrification of existing infrastructure could become a competitive option. Of these options, only conventional rail electrification (via catenary or third rail) is a mature tech- nology, with truck electrification at a lower TRL and LSM retrofits lower still. These technologies would face some specific implementation issues related to safety and clearances, which in the Baltimore case are exemplified by the Howard Street Tunnel.
