# 3 Case Studies

> Forty-nine state departments of highways/transportation (Hawaii was
> excluded) were contacted to collect information. As a result of survey
> research and other research sources, over 40 case studies were
> compiled of infrastructure development projects that, to some degree,
> help facilitate freight shipment. For purposes of analysis, the
> projects are divided to separate federally supported projects from
> those with significant local support or initiative.

## 3.1 Federal Level of Involvement

> Case studies indicate a tendency for two types of federal support:
> large-scale package projects and gap funding for small-scale projects.
> Case studies are listed in Exhibit 3.1 in order of greatest federal
> funding involvement. Key features of these studies are summarized in
> the exhibit. A description of each case study follows the exhibit.

**Exhibit 3.1**

**Federal Funding Case Study Summary Table**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           **Name**        **Size of   **Direct      **Federal   **Modal         **Mechanisms**
                           Project**   Funding       Share**     Application**   
                                       Source**                                  
  -------- --------------- ----------- ------------- ----------- --------------- ----------------
  1        Alameda         \$2.4 b.    Direct        \$608 m +   Port B Rail     Loan and Federal
           Corridor                    Federal loan,             Access          B Aid APackage@
                                       STP                                       

  **2**    The Central     \$10.8 b.   Federal-Aid   \$600 m.    Highway         GARVEE Bonds
           Artery                                                                

  **3**    New Mexico      \$295 m.    Federal-Aid   \$287 m.    Highway         GARVEE Bonds
           Corridor 44                                                           

  **4**    San Joaquin     \$1.45 b.   Direct        \$120 (9.6) Highway         Standby line of
           Hills Corridor              Federal loan  m.                          credit

  **5**    Spring B        \$116 m.    Federal-Aid   \$70 m.     Highway         GARVEE Bonds
           Sandusky                                                              
           Interchange                                                           

  **6**    Laredo, Texas   \$66.5 m.   SIB, toll     \$49 m.     Highway         SIB loan,
           International               revenue                                   STP,NHS, ISTEA
           Bridge                                                                Demo,
                                                                                 tax-exempt,
                                                                                 taxable bonds

  **7**    Indiana Burns   \$77 m.     US Dept. of   \$40 m.     Port            Grants
           Harbor                      Commerce, EDA                             

  **8**    State Route 99  \$36 m.     NHS, sales    \$36 m.     Highway         Federal-Aid
           Airport Access              tax                                       

  **9**    Butler County   \$150 m.    SIB, TID      \$35 m.     Highway         SIB loan
           Regional                                                              
           Highway                                                               

  **10**   Port of Hueneme \$64 m.     ISTEA/ TEA-21 \$24 m.     Highway         Demo/HPP
           Highway Access                                                        APackage@

  **11**   Philadelphia    \$13 m.     TEA-21 Demo.  \$13 m.     Highway         Federal-Aid
           International                                                         
           Airport                                                               

  **12**   Port of         \$14.3 m.   Army Crp. of  \$10.4 m.   Port            Revenue Bonds
           Humboldt                    Eng                                       
           dredging                                                              

  **13**   Stark County    \$8 m.      CMAQ          \$8 m.      Intermodal      Grants/ Line of
           Intermodal                                            Facility        Credit
           Facility                                                              

  **14**   Red Hook Ferry  \$9.7 m.    CMAQ          \$7.7 m.    Ferry boat      Federal-Aid

  **15**   Port of Hueneme \$8.7 m.    STP           \$7.7 m.    Rail            Federal-Aid
           Port Access                                                           

  **16**   Port of         \$7.2 m.    STP           \$6.55 m.   Rail            Federal-Aid
           Anchorage                                                             

  **17**   Immunex Project \$14.5 m.   US Dept. of   \$4.5 m.    Port B Highway  Federal-Aid/
                                       Commerce, EDA             Access          Property Taxes
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -------- ------------- ------- ------------ -------- ------------ ----------------
  **18**   Columbia      \$6 m.  CMAQ, ISTEA  \$3.1 m. Rail         Federal-Aid/
           Slough                                                   Private Funding
           Expansion                                                
           Bridge Port                                              
           access                                                   

  **19**   Bensenville   \$35 m. CMAQ         \$2.1 m. Rail         Federal-Aid/
           Rail Yard                                                Private Funding

  **20**   Port of       \$2.4   US Dept. of  \$1.4 m. Intermodal   Federal-Aid/
           Battle Creek  m.      Commerce,             Yard         Revenue Bonds
                                 EDA                                

  **21**   Auburn        \$2.3   CMAQ         \$3 m.   Intermodal   Federal-Aid
           Intermodal    m.                            Facility     
           Facility                                                 

  **22**   Stockton      \$1.8   AIP          \$1.4 m. Highway      Grants/ Private
           Airport       m.                                         Funding
           access                                                   

  **23**   Blythe        \$1.2   CMAQ         \$1.2 m. Intermodal   Federal-Aid
           Intermodal    m.                            Yard         
           Yard                                                     

  **24**   Port of       \$1.7   US Dept. of  \$0.85   Port         Federal-Aid
           Toledo        m.      Commerce,    m.                    
                                 EDA                                

  **25**   Kedzie        \$3.5   CMAQ         \$0.72   Highway      Federal-Aid/
           Stoplight     m.                   m.                    Private Funding

  **26**   Gilford       \$0.7   CMAQ         \$0.7 m. Private      Private terminal
           Intermodal    m.                            Intermodal   Equipment lease/
           Yard                                        yard         Federal-Aid
  -------- ------------- ------- ------------ -------- ------------ ----------------

### 1. The Alameda Corridor

### Project Type: Port B Rail Access

> **Description:** The Alameda Corridor will consolidate the operations
> of the freight railroads that serve the Ports of Los Angeles and Long
> Beach. Upon completion, rail movements by the major western Class I
> railroads will shift to a single 20-mile, high-capacity rail corridor.
> With on-dock intermodal rail yards to be built as part of an overall
> port expansion, the corridor will remove the inefficient and
> time-consuming need for trucks to haul containers several miles
> between the port and existing rail yards. Ten miles of the new
> corridor will be built below grade in an open trench, and all at-grade
> rail crossings along Alameda Street will be eliminated.
>
> **Cost:** \$2.4 billion
>
> **Financing/Funding**:

-   \$400 million U.S. DOT loan from FRA

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   \$394 million: Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   \$347 million (appropriated by the LA Metropolitan Transportation
    Authority from:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   \$84m. ISTEA B State Proposition C-25 (dedicated sales tax for
    freight)

-   \$40 m. ISTEA B flexible congestion relief

-   \$1.4 m. State TSM matching funds

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   \$72 m. State Regional Surface Transportation Plan

-   \$150 m. ISTEA - MTA Long Range Plan

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   \$104 million

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   \$2 m. EDA

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   \$7m. State rail program

-   69 m. interest on bond proceeds

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   \$8.1 m. port reimbursable

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   \$17.5 m. private rail corporation (track reimbursement)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   \$1.16 billion: revenue bonds have been issued through four series:

A Series B tax exempt senior

B Series B tax-exempt junior

C Series B (smaller) taxable senior

D Series B taxable subordinate

> The Direct Federal U.S. DOT Loan was guaranteed through the Direct
> Loan Financing Program under the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations
> for Fiscal Year 1997, an amendment of Section 505 of the Railroad
> Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976. Minor adjustments
> were made to fulfill all requirements of Section 505. The loan is
> subordinate to the senior debt, a structure that was only permitted
> through the appropriations act. Through this agreement, the federal
> government assumes only \$59 million of budgetary costs. This is a
> taxable loan with a 6.52 percent interest rate for years 1 through 5
> and a 6.8 percent interest rate for the remainder of the 30 years. The
> source of payment for the loans is the revenue generated by port
> surcharges and a rail corridor use fee. The ports acquired the
> right-of-way with cash payment. The repayment schedule is tied to
> volume, and is subordinated to the senior debt service. The US DOT
> loan took a junior lien on repayment to all operating costs, any other
> indebtedness, and contributions to the renewal and replacement fund.
>
> The repayment schedule is based on the revenues from corridor use.
> Rail cars are charged \$30 for every loaded 40-foot container. The
> distribution of expenditures for the Alameda Corridor project is as
> follows: 72 percent for construction, design, and engineering; 22
> percent for right-of-way acquisition; and 6 percent for administrative
> and legal costs.

### 2. The Central Artery B Boston=s ABig Dig@

> **Project Type:** Highway (tunnels)
>
> **Description:** The Central Artery project, also known as the ABig
> Dig@ includes two large-scale tunnel projects in downtown Boston. An
> elevated portion of Interstate 93, the Central Artery, is
> reconstructed as a tunnel. Interstate 90 is extended to Boston=s Logan
> Airport via a second tunnel under the Boston Harbor.
>
> **Cost:** \$10.8 billion
>
> **Financing/Funding:** The Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued \$600
> million of grant anticipation notes in June 1998 with authority from
> the legislature to issue up to a total of \$1.5 billion. The \$600
> million issue matures in 8 to 17 years and has received ratings of
> Aa3, AA, and AAA by Moody=s, Fitch IBCA, and Duff & Phelps,
> respectively. The Commonwealth intends to pay interest from state
> highway funds but retire the principal with federal-aid
> reimbursements.
>
> Debt service payments will address interest only until calendar year
> 2005, at which point the Commonwealth will start repaying principal.
> From 2005 forward, average annual debt service on the first \$600
> million issued will be approximately \$60 million. By comparison,
> Massachusetts' average annual federal-aid apportionment's, throughout
> the life of TEA-21 are expected to be approximately \$524 million.
>
> **Credit Enhancement:** Massachusetts will direct 10 cents of its
> 21-cent fuel tax to the GAN Trust Fund for the purpose of paying debt
> service on the Central Artery instruments. This limited backstop is
> triggered only if: 1) annual federal-aid highway funding falls to less
> than \$17.1 billion nationwide; *and* 2) Massachusetts' share of such
> funding is projected to provide less than 120 percent coverage of
> aggregate debt service on the GANs in the following year.

### 3. New Mexico Corridor 44

> **Project Type**: Highway
>
> **Description:** New Mexico's Corridor 44 is a 140-mile, two-lane
> principal arterial extending between Bernalillo and Bloomfield in the
> northwest corner of the state. The New Mexico State Highway and
> Transportation Department will acquire necessary right-of-way and
> contract with a private developer to design and manage construction
> associated with expanding the highway from two to four lanes, and
> provide a long-term warranty for preventative maintenance activities.
>
> **Cost:** \$295 million
>
> **Financing/Funding:** The New Mexico Finance Authority expects to
> issue approximately \$287 million of GARVEE bonds in four series
> beginning July 1998. The bonds will amortize over 15 years, with final
> maturity in 2015. The debt will be insured. Average annual debt
> service will be approximately \$28 million. By comparison, New
> Mexico's average annual highway apportionments throughout TEA-21 are
> expected to be about \$256 million. These GARVEE bonds will be issued
> without backstop financing from the state.
>
> **Credit Enhancement:** New Mexico is purchasing municipal bond
> insurance.

### 4. San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC)

> **Project Type**: Highway
>
> **Description:** The new six-lane toll road is designed to relieve
> congestion on the heavily traveled I-405, I-5, and Pacific Coast
> Highway, as well as other major arterial roads in the county. It
> should be noted that trucks couldn't use the toll-road, due to the 6.5
> percent grade.
>
> **Cost:** \$1.45 billion
>
> **Participants**:

-   \$1 billion: Senior-lien Revenue Bonds

-   \$91 million: Junior-lien Revenue Bonds

-   \$38 million: Project Revenue Certificates

-   \$31 million: Advance Funding Impact Fees

-   \$40 million: California Transportation Commission Grant

-   \$71 million: State and Local Transportation Partnership Program

-   \$106 million: Interest Earnings

> **Financing/ Funding:** The Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) are
> multi-jurisdictional authorities charged with the construction of new
> toll road facilities in Orange County, California. To finance
> construction, the TCA sold two separate bond issues, one of which paid
> for the construction of SJHTC. Project financing was supported with
> Federal credit enhancement in the form of a standby line of credit.
> State and local funding support for the project was provided through
> the 1992 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the
> California State and Local Transportation Partnership Program (SLTPP).
> Approximately \$40 million was allocated under the STIP for the
> purpose of funding a portion of the construction costs of connecting
> the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corporation to I-5. THE SLTPP
> contributed approximately \$71 million.
>
> In Fiscal Year 1993, Congress appropriated \$9.6 million to fund the
> subsidy costs of a \$120 million Federal line of credit available to
> TCA to help cover debt service, if necessary. The Federal line of
> credit is available in the event toll revenues and standard reserves
> are not sufficient to cover debt service, cost of extraordinary repair
> and replacement, cost of complying with unexpected federal or state
> environmental restrictions, and operation and maintenance expenses.
> The federal government provided a \$120 million line of credit, at a
> budgetary cost of \$9.6 million, to help advance a \$1.4 billion
> transportation facility.

### 5. Spring B Sandusky Interchange

> **Project Type**: Highway
>
> **Description:** Ohio's Spring-Sandusky Interchange project will
> improve connections and traffic flow in downtown Columbus through
> relocation of U.S Route 33; new construction of Interstate 670 and
> State Route 315; and related paving, grading, and drainage work.
>
> **Cost:** \$116 million
>
> **Financing/Funding:** The state of Ohio issued \$70 million in GARVEE
> bonds in May 1998. The bonds will mature in 10 years. The bonds
> received ratings from Moody's and AA- from both Standard and Poors and
> Fitch IBCA. Average annual debt service will be slightly less than \$9
> million. By comparison, Ohio's average annual highway apportionment's,
> throughout TEA-21 are expected to be about \$887 million.
>
> **Credit Enhancement:** the SIB's bond service fund and a moral
> obligation secure Debt for the Ohio DOT to seek appropriations from
> the state assembly. This provides the backstop financing to mitigate
> appropriation risk.

### 6. Laredo, Texas International Bridge

> **Project Type:** Highway bridge, border crossing inspection
> facilities
>
> **Description:** Laredo, Texas, International Bridge, Bridge #4 toll
> bridge connects Laredo, Texas, with Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, and will be
> an 8-lane vehicular and pedestrian bridge. The bridge will be owned
> and operated by the City of Laredo and consists of a toll plaza,
> import-export lot, customs station, and related roadways. The project
> will alleviate congestion on the existing toll bridge system and
> within the city of Laredo.
>
> **Cost:** \$66.5 million
>
> **Financing/Funding:** Financing consists of a package of loans.
> Repayments are scheduled to begin in October 2005. The total payback
> on the loans is over \$43 million structured with two maturity
> periods. The short-term \$4.2 million SIB loan has a 5 year term and
> the other \$25.2 million SIB loan has a 23-year term. In addition, the
> City of Laredo issued \$8.9 million in taxable bonds and \$21.3
> million in tax-exempt bonds to match SIB funding.
>
> The total project cost for all three pieces C the bridge, a 2-mile
> connector, and an interchange at I-35 C is close to \$150 million and
> is supported by a combination of federal, state, and local funding.
> Sources of federal grant funds include ISTEA demonstration funding,
> NHS, and STP.

### 7. Indiana Burns Harbor

> **Project Type**: Port
>
> **Description:** Indiana state enabling legislation fostered the
> development of Indiana's three largest ports, created the Indiana Port
> Commission, and allocated significant general funds to the development
> of these ports. Port projects included building an overpass, crossing
> over several rail lines and a state highway, and dredging and
> breakwater construction. The Burns Harbor International Port, one of
> the initial three state ports is located at Portage, Indiana, on the
> south shore of Lake Michigan. Just 30 lane miles and 18 nautical miles
> from Chicago, the Port offers access to world trade routes from the
> Great Lakes via the St. Lawrence Seaway. Twelve modern ship berths are
> available.
>
> **Cost:** approximately \$106 million
>
> **Financing/Funding:** The port opened in 1970 and was financed
> through a combination of state appropriations, port revenues, and
> federal grants, including the following federal contributions:

-   EDA - \$ 3 million

-   Army of Corps of Engineers - \$23 million

### 8. State Route 99 Airport Access Road

> **Project Type:** Airport access highway
>
> **Description:** Still in the planning stages, this project provides
> better access to Chandler Executive and Fresno Yosemite International
> Airports in Fresno, California, and improves urban mobility in the
> Fresno metropolitan area. There are five alternatives under
> consideration for the construction of an auxiliary lane on State Route
> 99 to increase the facility from 6 lanes to 8 lanes in the Fresno
> area.
>
> **Cost:** Between \$36 and \$71 million
>
> **Financing/Funding:** The project cost varies to such a great extent
> due to the alternative design features. Ultimately the project cost
> will be determined by the amount of NHS funding allocated by the
> California Transportation Commission, a state-governing body that
> decides federal grant funding allocations between projects and areas.
> The City of Fresno is currently considering a 7.5 percent Fresno sales
> tax to support this project, in the event that the project is delayed
> or does not receive sufficient NHS funding. The Auxiliary Lane project
> has already been folded into the 20-year LRP by the Fresno MPO. The
> next step is to gain California Transportation Commission's (CTC)
> funding approval. Upon approval from the CTC, the project will be
> programmed into the STIP. This project qualified for consideration due
> to its overall impact on the transportation system.

### 

### 9. Butler County Regional Highway

> **Project Type**: Highway
>
> **Description:** Butler County Regional Highway involves new
> construction of a 10.7 mile, four-lane, limited access toll road. The
> project connects an intersection in Hamilton Ohio to Interstate 75 in
> Liberty Township, Ohio.
>
> **Cost:** \$150 million
>
> **Financing/Funding:** The Butler County Transportation Improvement
> District (TID) is financing and building the project, and will own the
> project until 2017. Butler TID borrowed \$35 million in three separate
> loans from the SIB. Each loan carries a 6 percent interest rate. The
> term for each loan was three months following issuance of bonds, or
> 2-years in the event that no bonds were issued. Upon issuance of
> \$158.5 million in revenue bonds, the TID used a portion of the bond
> proceeds to repay the Ohio SIB \$35 million in principal, plus \$1.5
> million in interest.

### 10. Port of Hueneme Highway Access

> **Project Type**: Highway
>
> **Description:** Port of Hueneme highway access project includes
> constructing a highway facility to connect the port with State Route
> 101, the primary highway arterial in Ventura County connecting the Los
> Angeles basin to the south and Santa Barbara County and northern
> California to the north. Currently port access is hindered and
> congested by use of local streets. This project is intended to
> specifically move truck traffic off of neighborhood streets.
>
> **Cost:** approximately \$64 million
>
> **Financing/Funding:** \$24 million ISTEA Demonstration funding and
> TEA-21 High Priority funding. The California Transportation Commission
> has approved this project for the budget, programming \$40 million in
> STIP. However, the actual Federal program funds and levels of state
> resources have not been specifically identified.

### 11. Philadelphia International Airport

> **Project Type**: Highway
>
> **Description:** Philadelphia International Airport (PIA) access
> improvements
>
> **Cost:** \$13 million
>
> **Financing/Funding:** PIA received TEA-21 Demonstration Funding under
> three separate airport access projects. Combined Demonstration grant
> funds amount to \$13 million and include the following earmarks:[^1]

-   Improve access and interchange from I-95 to International Airport B
    \$5 million

-   Construct I-95 access ramps at and around PIA B \$5 million

-   Improve access and interchange from I-95 to the international
    terminal at PIA B \$3 million.

### 12. Port of Humbolt

> **Project Type**: Port
>
> **Description:** Channel dredging at the Port of Humboldt, Humboldt
> California.
>
> **Cost:** \$14.3 million
>
> **Participants**:

-   \$10.4 million: Army of Engineers, Harbor Maintenance Fund

-   \$2.9 million: CMIB tax-exempt private placement bonds

-   \$1 million: City of Eureka

> **Financing/Funding:** The Port of Humboldt had never issued bonds
> before. They used CMIB as the Abank of last resort@ to generate the
> local match for the federal share for dredging. The U.S. Army Corps
> required \$4 million to match the federal grant of \$10.4 million. The
> City of Eureka funded \$1million in combination with the CMIB bond
> issuance. The Port of Humboldt used CMIB to issue the remaining share
> for the local match, \$2.9 million in tax-exempt revenue bonds for
> private placement. CMIB worked with a local bank to buy the bonds.

### 13. Stark County Intermodal Facility

> **Project Type:** Intermodal Facility
>
> **Description:** Stark County Intermodal facility construction
> included building three rail spurs and connecting rail track to
> Wheeling and Lake Rail Company's main line. In addition, the project
> cost also included acquisition of cranes and an entry gate system for
> automated electronic entry clearance.
>
> **Cost:** \$8 million
>
> **Financing/Funding:** A line of credit from CMAQ was used to fund the
> project. The County donated the land. The \$8 million CMAQ loan was to
> be paid by operating profits; however, there was a provision in the
> agreement between the Ohio DOT and the Stark Development Board (SDB)
> releasing SDB from financial payment responsibility in the event of
> operating deficits. Loan repayments were to be remitted to three
> parties: 1/3 B Ohio DOT CMAQ revolving fund; 1/3 B Ohio's Erie Canal
> Heritage Account (established under the National Heritage Corridor
> program); and 1/3 B Stark County Area Transportation Study (the MPO).
> Instead of a 20 percent direct local match, OH DOT used toll revenue
> credits from tolls generated by the Ohio Turnpike Authority under
> provisions of Section 1044 of ISTEA.
>
> Operating deficits are due in part to the market changes brought about
> by the rerouting of Class I Rail shipments. Original facility revenue
> projections were tied to market forecasts and based on Conrail routes.
> Once NS and CSX acquired Conrail assets, Wheeling and Lake Erie, the
> primary regional rail system using the Stark County facility, was not
> able to connect to the new shipping routes and schedules or use the
> facility to the extent originally anticipated.
>
> The challenges of this project raise two key issues for future federal
> and state participation in intermodal facility development: To what
> extent should the private sector commit to a facility to gain public
> sector support? Without private sector commitment and private sector
> participation, public sector planning and funding is not likely to be
> directed to the most critical projects.

### 14. Red Hook Ferry Barge

> **Project Type**: Ferry Boat system
>
> **Description:** Design and implementation of a ferry barge system
> connecting New Jersey to the Red Hook Port Terminal in Brooklyn. This
> new ferry boat system is intended to carry containers across the
> Hudson River between New Jersey and New York, reducing truck traffic
> on the George Washington and Verazzano Narrows Bridges. Due to the
> projected reduction in air emissions, this project qualified for CMAQ
> funding.
>
> **Cost:** approximately \$9.7 million
>
> **Participants**:

-   \$7.7 million CMAQ

-   \$2.2 million New York local match, New Jersey is expected to
    provide a local share as well

### 15. Port of Hueneme Rail Access

> Project Type: Rail
>
> **Description:** Port of Hueneme railroad connection in Ventura
> County, California. The Ventura County Transportation Commission
> purchased two partially abandoned rail corridors with plans for
> expanding one for freight use to connect to the Port of Hueneme.
>
> **Cost:** \$8.7 million
>
> **Financing/Funding**:

-   \$4.2 million: STP funds

-   \$3.5 million: STP Enhancement funds

-   \$1 million: local funds

> Rail abandonment projects, particularly for conversion to passenger
> use, are eligible for STP enhancement funds. In this case, the
> passenger and bike trail project components cross-subsidized the rail
> freight project component.

### 16. Port of Anchorage

> **Project Type**: Rail
>
> **Description:** Port of Anchorage Grade Crossing project eliminated
> five rail crossings along a single corridor that connects the Town of
> Anchorage to the port. The project was identified in a prior
> intermodal study, an initiative supported under an ISTEA
> intermodal-planning program. The project cost includes design, ROW,
> and construction for moving railroad track.
>
> **Cost:** \$7.2 million
>
> **Financing/Funding:** The project was funded with STP funding (91
> percent federal, 9 percent state DOT, per federal land provisions).
> Unlike most states, Alaska DOT matching funding is provided by state
> legislative general fund appropriations.

### 

### 17. Immunex Project

> **Project Type:** Port B Highway Access
>
> **Description:** A grade-separated vehicle access road is to be built
> to lead to various Port terminals and Elliott Bay (public) access
> points. This project is designed to allow major land development to
> occur in the area with future plans to build a new plant for Immunex
> Corporation.
>
> **Cost:** \$14.5 million.
>
> **Participants:**

-   \$1 million: ISTEA

-   \$3.5 million: Economic Development Authority grant

-   \$10 million: Alliance between King County, the City of Seattle, and
    the Port of Seattle. The funds will be generated through property
    tax revenues.

### 18. Columbia Slough Intermodal Expansion Bridge

> **Project Type**: Rail
>
> **Description:** The Columbia Slough Intermodal Expansion Bridge. This
> rail bridge project connects to the Port in Portland, Oregon to inland
> rail yards and eliminates the need for truck drayage from the port.
>
> **Cost:** \$6 million
>
> **Participants**:

-   \$2.1 million: ISTEA Demonstration funding

-   \$1 million: CMAQ

-   \$1.5 million: Port of Portland

-   \$1.5 million: Private railroad

### 19. Bensenville Rail Yard

> **Project Type**: Rail
>
> **Description:** The Bensenville rail yard project improved rail
> access and egress in the yard and rerouted trains from an east route
> to a west route. The construction cost included new track,
> interlockings, and signals to raise train speeds and reduce
> rail/traffic conflicts at grade crossings.
>
> **Cost:** \$35 million
>
> **Financing/Funding:** \$2.1 million from CMAQ, at CATS
> recommendation. The remainder was provided by Canadian Pacific.
> Technical analysis provided by CATS concluded that the project would
> generate \$2.6 million in public sector benefits. This project
> provides an example of best practices for developing and applying a
> freight project analysis framework and cost-benefit evaluation
> process.

### 20. Port of Battle Creek

> **Project Type:** Intermodal Yard
>
> **Description:** The Port of Battle Creek is an rail/truck intermodal
> yard funded under the Economic Development Council of the City of
> Battle Creek, and has been operational for the past 20 years.
>
> **Cost:** \$2.4 million
>
> **Participants**:

-   \$1.4 million: EDA Public Works Grant

-   \$1 million: EDC Revenue Bonds

> **Financing/Funding:** Battle Creek Unlimited was created in 1972 as
> an IRS 5018(3) tax exempt, nonprofit corporation to market and manage
> the industrial park under contract with the City of Battle Creek. The
> Battle Creek County/Kalamazoo County/Calhoun County Inland Port
> Develop Corporation (BC/KAL/Cal Inland Port), also a nonprofit
> corporation, was created in 1978 to market the port of entry and to
> administer foreign trade zone #43. The City of Battle Creek Economic
> Development Corporation issued tax-exempt revenue bonds. Since the
> opening of the port in 1978, BC/Kal/Cal Inland Port has financed its
> day-to-day operations and capital needs through office space leases
> and contractual work at the facility. All profits cover the expenses
> incurred by the facility, and additional profits beyond yearly
> operating expenses are given to the City of Battle Creek. If the
> Inland Port runs at a loss for any given year, the losses are
> subsidized through Battle Creek Unlimited.

### 21. Auburn Intermodal Facility

> **Project Type:** Truck-rail intermodal yard
>
> **Description:** The Auburn Intermodal Facility was built in 1993 in
> Auburn, Maine. A private company leases the facility and 37 acres of
> land from the City of Auburn. The transfer facility is expected to
> attract substantial truck traffic from highway to rail, by
> facilitating 36-hour service between Auburn and Chicago with
> intermodal cargo trains. The project will result in reduced emissions
> and congestion along the route, as well as reduced need for highway
> maintenance.
>
> **Cost:** \$3 million
>
> **Participants**:

-   \$2.3 million: CMAQ

-   \$0.5 million: City of Auburn

-   \$0.2 million: St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railroad Company

### 22. Stockton Airport

> **Project Type:** Airport freight terminal and highway access
> improvements
>
> **Description:** Development of an air freight terminal at Stockton
> Airport, Stockton, California. This includes airport apron
> improvements, the relocation of Webber=s Slew (a small stream running
> through the airport), and access road (shoulder) improvements.
>
> **Cost:** \$1.8 million.
>
> **Participants**:

-   \$1.4 million: FAA/AIP Grant

-   \$200,00: Local match

-   \$73,000: State match

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   \$70,000: Farmington Fresh, a local consortium of produce growers
    that ship product overseas.

> **Financing/Funding:** With the County's support, Farmington Fresh
> built a \$6.5 million airfreight terminal and cargo handling facility
> improvements on a County-owned airport. These facilities were built to
> meet the shipping needs for Farmington Fresh. No public funds aided in
> the construction of the terminal. Public funding was directed at the
> airport apron and road improvements. At the end of the 49-year lease
> on the airport land, the county will own the Farmington Fresh
> terminal. The County can then lease terminal at market prices.
>
> The project gained approval and funding through the MPO TIP
> programming process and gained approval from the California
> Transportation Commission, the state-transportation governing body
> responsible for approving projects for the California STIP.

### 23. Blythe Intermodal Yard

> **Project Type:** Intermodal yard
>
> **Description:** A rail-truck transfer facility was built in Blythe,
> California, for loading containers from trucks onto rail cars. Some of
> the freight passes through Southern California seaports. The project
> reduces truck traffic into the urban Los Angeles and San Diego areas.
>
> **Cost:** \$1.2 million
>
> **Financing/Funding**:

-   \$0.96 million: CMAQ

-   \$0.24 million: Local air district funds

### 24. Port of Toledo

> **Project Type**: Port
>
> **Description:** Port of Toledo, Ohio, refurbished a shipyard,
> including building a small tugboat harbor for winter months. In
> addition to the building, the project included dredging, pilings, and
> constructing the dock and wall.
>
> **Cost:** \$1.7 million
>
> **Financing/Funding**:

-   \$0.85 million grant from EDA

-   \$0.85 million 50 percent match from the Port

### 25. Kedzie Stoplight

> **Project Type:** Highway intersection (at BNSF rail yard entrance)
>
> **Description:** The Kedzie Stoplight includes redesigning and
> building signalization systems to address the 1,800 heavy truck
> movements associated with the BNSF Corwith Intermodal Terminal in
> Chicago, Illinois. What began as a simple traffic signal installation
> project graduated to a full reconstruction and re-pavement of Kedzie
> Avenue between the Corwith entrance and the expressway, and included
> traffic signal installation.
>
> **Cost:** \$3.5 million
>
> **Financing/Funding:** \$0.72 million CMAQ, Chicago DOT provided local
> match to other state DOT funding. An additional \$4 million was
> provided by the state DOT for ancillary work including drainage
> improvements. Private funding contributed to improvements Ainside the
> fence.@
>
> According to the TRB Policy Options for Intermodal Freight Report, the
> Kedzie project is the AISTEA Poster Child,@ demonstrating that it is
> very difficult to undertake small projects in isolation, however
> simple or cost-beneficial, because they become part of a more complex
> traffic and transportation system.[^2]

### 26. Gilford Intermodal Yard

> **Project type:** Intermodal yard equipment acquisition
>
> **Description:** Gilford Transportation used public funding to improve
> a truck-rail intermodal yard, including equipment purchase.
>
> **Cost:** \$0.7 million
>
> **Funding/Financing:** Maine DOT used CMAQ funding to lease port
> packer lift equipment to support the operations of a private
> intermodal yard in Waterville, Maine. This project was sponsored by
> Gilford Transportation, a regional rail company supporting CSX and NS
> shipments. Since this project was built on private land, CMAQ funding
> could only be applied under a leaseback arrangement with the
> intermodal operator. A total of \$0.7 million of CMAQ funding was used
> to buy the equipment, which the operator leases through the useful
> life of the equipment with the option to purchase at the end of the
> lease.

## 3.2 State Level of Involvement

> These projects demonstrate institutional solutions to addressing
> freight infrastructure development within the confines of state
> resources and state-level economic development goals. The following
> project descriptions were developed through state institutional and/or
> funding mechanisms and are listed in the summary table in Exhibit 3.2.
>
> State Level of Support Summary Table

  -------- --------------- ----------- ---------------- ----------- ------------- ---------------
           Name            Size of     Funding          State Share Modal         Mechanism
                           Project     Source(s)                    Application   

  1        Port of San     \$115 m.    CMIB             \$115 m.    Port          Taxable Bonds
           Diego land                                                             
           acquisition                                                            

  **2**    Conrail double  \$100 m.    General Fund     \$38 m.     Rail          Public/ Private
           stack                       Appropriations                             grants
           improvement                                                            
           project                                                                

  **3**    West Terminal   \$90 m.     CMIB             \$90 m.     Airport       Tax-exempt COPS
           Airport                                                                
           Expansion                                                              

  **4**    Kansas City     \$70 m.     Revenue bonds    \$0         Rail          State
           Fly-over                                                               Incorporation

  **5**    Clark Maritime  \$35m.      General Fund     \$25m.      Intermodal    State General
           Intermodal                  Appropriations               Center        Fund
           Center                                                                 

  **6**    Palm Beach      \$43.5 m.   Revenue bonds    \$19.6 m.   Port          State Port
           Skyway                                                                 Bonds, port
                                                                                  revenues

  **7**    Belt Railway    \$3 m.      IRFP             \$3 m.      Rail          Loan
           Rail Yard                                                              

  **8**    Riemier Lumber  \$423,000   ORDC, City of    \$359,000   Rail          Loan/Grants,
           Company Rail                Cincinnati, OH,                            tax credits
           Spur                        BNSF                                       

  **9**    Port of Astoria \$125,000   OPRF             \$62,500    Port          Loan
           breakwater                                                             
           repair                                                                 

  **10**   Port of Astoria \$110,000   OPRF             \$110,000   Port          Loan
           tugboat repair                                                         
  -------- --------------- ----------- ---------------- ----------- ------------- ---------------

### 

### 1. Port of San Diego Land Acquisition

> **Project Type**: Port
>
> **Description:** The Port of San Diego used California Maritime
> Infrastructure Bank (CMIB) financing to purchase land. CMIB issued
> taxable bonds to be repaid under a leaseback arrangement between the
> Port of San Diego and Duke Power. Duke Power contracts with the Port
> to operate and sell power for a 10-year contract, after which the
> power plant will be dismantled and used by the Port for other
> purposes.
>
> **Cost:** \$115 million
>
> **Financing/Funding:** CMIB issued taxable short-term bonds that still
> qualified for a lower rate of 6 percent than private capital sources
> available to Duke Power. Under the Industrial Development Act, the
> project did not qualify for tax-exempt status because of the extent of
> benefit to be derived by the private-sector, Duke Power. By using CMIB
> to issue debt instead of issuing debt itself, the Port was able to
> avoid a lengthy internal Board of Commission review process that is
> required for any major financing activity undertaken by the Port.

### 2. Conrail Double Stack Improvement Project

> **Project Type:** Rail
>
> **Description:** The 3-year Conrail double stack improvement project
> included infrastructure improvements to make a number of different
> lines accessible to double-stacked container trains.
>
> **Cost:** \$100 million.
>
> **Financing/Funding:** This was a large-scale package of doublestack
> improvement projects. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania negotiated with
> Conrail to share the costs of doublestack improvements, and to a
> lesser extent with CSX and NS to complete the last few pieces. Where
> common use areas were identified, the State match was as high as 50
> percent; for exclusive use segments, Conrail provided the majority of
> funding, up to as much 100 percent. Of this \$100 million, the state
> provided \$38 million and Conrail, the company that owned the
> rights-of-way that received the improvements, provided \$60 million.
> The rest of the funding was provided by local sources and
> state-sponsored bonds. Numerous highway bridge improvements that
> coincided with the double-stack clearance needs were put on the STIP
> and TIP and then accelerated to support this project, demonstrating a
> high level of departmental coordination between PennDOT\'s rail and
> highway departments.[^3]

### 3. West Terminal Airport Expansion

> **Project Type**: Airport
>
> **Description:** The Port of San Diego undertook major expansion of
> the west terminal, mainly to accommodate increased passenger traffic
> along with proportionate increases in cargo shipment.
>
> **Cost:** \$90 million
>
> **Financing/Funding:** The Port of San Diego used California Maritime
> Infrastructure Bank (CMIB) to expand the San Diego Airport, as with
> the land acquisition project, to avoid lengthy commission approval
> activities. CMIB issued Certificates of Participation (COPS) to
> finance long-term borrowing. Qualifying for tax-exempt status, the
> COPS were issued at 5.1 percent. COP debt was secured by net airport
> revenues, which protected general port revenue.

### 4. Kansas City Fly-over

> **Project Type**: Rail
>
> **Description:** The Kansas City Fly-over is a rail grade-crossing
> project involving the construction of a rail bridge fly-over to
> separate east-west rail traffic from north-south traffic.
>
> **Cost:** \$70 million
>
> **Financing/Funding:** Class I (e.g., BNSF, UP) railroads formed a
> transportation corporation, the Kansas City Intermodal Transportation
> Corporation (KCTR), for the purpose of issuing debt for construction
> and accessing tax exempt status from property tax. Bonds are repaid
> from fees collected from the railroads. Due to the exceptionally low
> interest rates in 1998, the Transportation Corporation was able to
> issue debt at nearly the same interest that would have been available
> with the federal line of credit.
>
> **Credit Enhancement:** State highway trust fund revenues as well as
> federal funding were deemed ineligible for use as a line of credit to
> improve bond ratings. The railroads pledged their assets in the event
> that user charges were not sufficient.
>
> **Institutional Arrangements:** The Fly-over project affects three
> cities, all within one county. No one city could afford to take
> responsibility for funding the entire project. The county did not have
> the ability to issue bonds for non-county owned property. These
> jurisdictional constraints forced the project sponsors to incorporate
> under Missouri statute to form a Transportation Corporation.
>
> Once incorporated, the Kansas City Intermodal Transportation
> Corporation was permitted to issue bonds and gain tax exemption status
> from property taxes. KCTR entered into an agreement with Missouri DOT
> to issue bonds for the purpose of constructing the Fly-over to
> Missouri DOT standards. KCTR entered into a subsequent agreement, the
> Facilities Use Agreement, with the Kansas City Terminal Railway
> Company to assign the respective responsibilities for managing,
> maintaining and operating the Fly-over and for billing the users.

### 5. Clark Maritime Intermodal Center

> **Project Type:** Intermodal Center
>
> **Description:** The Clark Maritime Intermodal Center was built on the
> Ohio River across from Louisville, Kentucky. This facility connects
> the river port to truck and rail.
>
> **Cost:** \$35 million
>
> **Financing/Funding:** The state general fund provided the initial
> \$25 million for construction. Though initially funded with
> state-appropriated general funds, the facility is now self-sufficient.
> This private intermodal terminal corporation issued an additional \$10
> million to fund additional infrastructure improvements, repaid by land
> leases and port revenues, which were also used as collateral.

### 6. Port of Palm Beach Skyway

> **Project type:** Highway and rail access to port, highway-rail grade
> crossing elimination
>
> **Description:** Port of Palm Beach Skyway includes ROW acquisition
> and elevated highway construction to improve existing connections to
> highway and rail systems, including eliminating a grade crossing.
>
> **Cost:** \$43.5 million
>
> **Finance:** Cities affected, as well as the MPO, could not identify
> sufficient grant funding for the project. With the support of FSTED,
> the Florida Ports Financing Commission issued \$19.6 million in
> combination with \$23.9 million issued by the Port of Palm Beach.
> FSTED requires a 50 percent matching grant to cover a project cost.
> The project sponsor, typically the port, provides the other 50
> percent. Other federal and state funding sources supported ancillary
> state highway construction.

### 7. Belt Railway Rail Yard

> **Project Type:** Rail yard rehabilitation
>
> **Description:** Belt Railway Company of Chicago applied for funding
> from the Illinois Rail Freight Program to rehabilitate two rail yards
> in Chicago. This project involves complete rebuilding of rail, ties,
> and ballast.
>
> **Cost:** \$3 million
>
> **Financing/Funding:** IRFP provided a loan to cover total project
> costs at 3 percent for 20 years. Belt Railway offered track and other
> rental properties as collateral.

###  

### 8. Riemier Lumber Company Rail Spur

> **Project Type:** Rail spur construction
>
> **Description:** Riemier Lumber company applied to the Ohio Rail
> Development Commission (ORDC) for both a grant and a loan to help
> build a rail spur to a new lumber facility.
>
> **Cost:** \$423,000
>
> **Partners**:

-   ORDC (\$100k grant, \$259k loan at 2 percent for the last 3 years of
    total 5-year loan period)

-   \$54k Norfolk Southern to invest in switches

-   City of Cincinnati 10-year tax abatement on property taxes (est.
    value of \$480,000 over 10 years)

-   Ohio Department of Development job creation tax credit, (est. value
    of \$100,000 over 8 years)

> **Financing/Funding:** ORDC and NS provided the initial capital. Only
> the ORDC loan of \$259,000 is repaid. Other agencies are providing
> financial incentives for Riemier to develop at this specific location.
> NS handles a significant amount of Riemier products, and for this
> reason, is also rebating \$75/car to Riemier.[^4]
>
> **Credit Enhancement:** Bonds are expected to be backed by a private
> commercial bank, either through purchasing a letter of credit or bond
> insurance.

### 9. Port of Astoria Breakwater Repair

> **Project Type**: Port
>
> **Description:** Port of Astoria breakwater repair and additional
> improvements to the Quick Stop marine service center.
>
> **Cost:** \$125,000
>
> **Financing/Funding:** The ORPF loan was used to provide the local
> match, under a 50/50 split with a state grant from the Oregon State
> Marine Board. Additional match was provided by the port with in-kind
> services. The loan terms are for 10 years at 5 percent interest, to be
> paid in quarterly payments.

### 10. Port of Astoria Tugboat Repair

> **Project Type**: Port
>
> **Description:** Port of Astoria tugboat repair and marine service
> center repairs. Funds were used to transport the tugboat (purchased
> under a Federal surplus equipment program) and repair the engine. The
> tugboat is planned to be used in conjunction with the development of
> Quick Stop Marine Service Center B facility for refueling and service
> repairs for outgoing ships.
>
> **Cost:** \$110,000
>
> **Financing/Funding:** 10-year loan from the OPRF at 5 percent
> (statutes tie interest rates to the U.S. Treasury bill rates).
>
> **Credit Enhancement:** The loan was secured by a first mortgage on
> real property.

## 3.3 Other Levels of Involvement

> This section describes activities and projects that were initiated
> with significant levels of support outside of Federal programs,
> including a bi-national freight corridor project and local MPO
> activities. These programs and projects depict innovative approaches
> to supporting freight transportation. Exhibit 3.3 summarizes local
> funding and finance mechanisms to support freight infrastructure
> projects.
>
> Exhibit 3.3
>
> **Local Levels of Involvement Summary Table**

+---+-----------------+-----+---+-------------+----------+-----------------+
|   | Name            | S   |   | Funding     | Modal    | Mechanism       |
|   |                 | ize |   | Source(s)   | App      |                 |
|   |                 | of  |   |             | lication |                 |
|   |                 | P   |   |             |          |                 |
|   |                 | roj |   |             |          |                 |
|   |                 | ect |   |             |          |                 |
+---+-----------------+-----+---+-------------+----------+-----------------+
| 1 | Hyundai         | \$  | P |             | Port     | Revenue bonds,  |
|   | Terminal        | 241 | o |             |          | lease           |
|   |                 | m.  | r |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | t |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | o |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | f |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | T |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | a |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | c |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | o |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | m |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | a |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | , |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | H |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | y |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | u |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | n |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | d |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | a |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | i |             |          |                 |
+---+-----------------+-----+---+-------------+----------+-----------------+
| * | Denver          | \   | C |             | Airport  | Revenue bonds,  |
| * | International   | $75 | i |             |          | lease           |
| 2 | Airport Cargo   | m.  | t |             |          |                 |
| * | Facility        |     | y |             |          |                 |
| * |                 |     | o |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | f |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | D |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | e |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | n |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | v |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | e |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | r |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | , |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | P |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | r |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | i |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | v |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | a |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | t |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | e |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | d |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | e |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | v |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | e |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | l |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | o |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | p |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | e |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | r |             |          |                 |
+---+-----------------+-----+---+-------------+----------+-----------------+
| * | Cascadia        | T.B | T |             | Hig      | Bi-national     |
| * | Corridor        | .D. | . |             | hway/ITS | funding         |
| 3 |                 |     | B |             |          |                 |
| * |                 |     | . |             |          |                 |
| * |                 |     | D |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | . |             |          |                 |
+---+-----------------+-----+---+-------------+----------+-----------------+
| * | Freight Task    | O   | F |             | Highway  | Public/Private  |
| * | Force           | ngo | H |             |          | survey          |
| 4 |                 | ing | W |             |          |                 |
| * |                 |     | A |             |          |                 |
| * |                 |     | P |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | l |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | a |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | n |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | n |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | i |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | n |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | g |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | L |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | o |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | c |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | a |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | l |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | / |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | S |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | t |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | a |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | t |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | e |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | f |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | u |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | n |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | d |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | s |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     |   |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | P |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | r |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | i |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | v |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | a |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | t |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | e |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | f |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | u |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | n |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | d |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | s |             |          |                 |
+---+-----------------+-----+---+-------------+----------+-----------------+
| * | Delaware Valley | O   | F |             | High     | Freight Ranking |
| * | Regional        | ngo | H |             | way/rail | Criteria        |
| 5 | Planning        | ing | W |             |          |                 |
| * | Commission      |     | A |             |          |                 |
| * |                 |     | P |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | l |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | a |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | n |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | n |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | i |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | n |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | g |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | L |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | o |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | c |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | a |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | l |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | / |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | S |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | t |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | a |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | t |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | e |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | f |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | u |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | n |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | d |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | s |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     |   |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | P |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | r |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | i |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | v |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | a |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | t |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | e |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | f |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | u |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | n |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | d |             |          |                 |
|   |                 |     | s |             |          |                 |
+---+-----------------+-----+---+-------------+----------+-----------------+

### 1. Hyundai Terminal

> **Project Type**: Port
>
> **Description:** Port of Tacoma Hyundai terminal construction and
> equipment purchase.
>
> **Cost:** \$241 million
>
> **Financing/Funding:** The Port of Tacoma partnered with the Hyundai
> Corporation to build the Hyundai Terminal, a \$241 million facility
> under a 5-year capital improvement program. The project is mainly
> financed with tax-exempt private activity bonds. The Port is paying
> for new terminal construction and a new pier; the Hyundai Corporation
> is providing four new cranes and other lifting equipment. The Hyundai
> Corporation will contribute a total of \$45 million in return for a
> leasehold interest in the new terminal.

### 2. Denver Airport Cargo Facility

> **Project Type**: Airport
>
> **Description:** 77-acre ground leases to a third-party developer, who
> will design, construct, and operate a cargo handling facility on DIA
> property.
>
> **Cost:** \$75 million
>
> **Financing/Funding:** The City of Denver, which owns the airport,
> will issue special facility bonds to finance construction. Special
> facility revenue bonds are repaid solely from revenues generated by
> the facility, in this case, leases. This protects general airport
> authority revenues. Bond repayment will be collected from the
> third-party developer who will collect rents from sub-leases with
> cargo airlines, freight forwarders, and the U.S. Departments of
> Agriculture and Treasury (Customs operations).

### 3. Cascadia

> The Cascadia project is developing into a corridor program that
> crosses multiple jurisdictions, most notably, the national border
> between the U.S. and Canada. Initial planning study efforts are
> supported by a private foundation. However, as specific project level
> funding requirements emerge, the Cascadia program will have to pull
> together several national, state, and local funding sources to support
> the corridor's development.
>
> One key element to the program is to develop a clearinghouse for
> trucking companies to manage dispatch communication and maximize
> revenue miles. The clearinghouse would be responsible for reducing
> backhaul by alerting backhaul drivers to potential pick-ups,
> regardless of trucking company affiliation. Once developed, this
> system would operate similarly to air traffic control systems or
> multi-owner cab company dispatch systems.

### 4. Use of Freight Task Force

> Several metropolitan planning organizations have formed freight task
> forces to focus on freight planning and development issues. These task
> forces are employed in several major metropolitan areas where urban
> goods movement is significant parts of traffic congestion. A few
> examples of typical task force activities are listed below:

-   The Intermodal Advisory Task Force has helped CATS identify
    bottlenecks, write the intermodal freight element of the TIP, and
    complete an inventory of the region's intermodal facilities.[^5]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Baltimore Metropolitan Council has targeted freight as top
    priority.[^6] They established a Freight Movement Task Force to meet
    on a regular basis to accomplish three objectives: 1) educate
    planners and freight community members about their respective
    concerns and perspectives, 2) identify freight movement strategies
    and approaches to evaluating freight projects, and 3) coordinate
    special studies. Their most recent study investigated the extent of
    truck parking shortages along major shipping routes such as
    Interstate-95. By partnering with local truck stop companies, the
    BMC was able to collect parking data. Data revealed that while there
    was not an actual shortage, parking could be better distributed if
    truckers were given more accessible information regarding the
    availability of parking in the area of private truck stops.

### 5. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) Rating Criteria

> Ranking projects is a critical process for systematically
> appropriating public funding. The DVRPC has developed several criteria
> to rank freight projects. This system helps freight projects compete
> against neighborhood and commuter projects for limited public funding
> resources.

[^1]: ^.^ *Pennsylvania Highway Projects (As passed by the U.S. House
    and Senate B 5/22/98)*. DVRPC internal memo.

[^2]: ^.^ TRB 252, page 207.

[^3]: ^.^ ibid, pg. 169. *Intermodal Freight Transportation*. Volume II
    page 2-9.

[^4]: ^.^ Mike McClasky, 614-644-0291

[^5]: ^.^ TRB, page 167.

[^6]: ^.^ TRB page 167.