Report #3 in a Series of Transportation and Trade Studies of the Appalachian Region 

Meeting the Transportation Challenges of the 21st Century: 

Intermodal Opportunities in the Appalachian Region 

Intermodal Case Studies 

Prepared for: 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

Prepared by: 

Rahall Transportation Institute, Marshall University 

And 

Wilbur Smith Associates 

December 2004 
CASE STUDIES OF INTERMODAL OPPORTUNITIES 

This report builds on the companion regional study of commodity movements within and 

between the Appalachian Region and the rest of the world by transportation mode to identify 

exemplary case studies of intermodal initiatives and opportunities in the Appalachian Region. 

The study team consulted closely with ARC staff to select these case studies; nevertheless the 

study team recognizes that these examples represent only a sampling of transportation 

opportunities within the Region. The case studies represent a range of examples, from projects 

that have already been implemented, to projects that are being planned, to project concepts that 

are still being evaluated. Taken together, however, these case studies provide concrete examples 

of how intermodal transportation infrastructure can strategically stimulate and support economic 

development in Appalachia. 

1
Case Study 1: Trans Tennessee Railroad 

Concept 

The Trans-Tennessee Railroad presents a plan to create a major rail freight corridor connecting 

the Tennessee cities of Knoxville, Nashville, and Memphis. The plan would essentially create a 

direct rail corridor between the three cities that roughly parallels I-40 through the center of the 

state. There are essentially two distinct concepts for the development of this railroad, the lowercost Basic Freight Rail Connection and the more ambitious Multi-state East-West Rail 

Connection. The stated objectives of each concept are similar, as are the means of achieving 

them. 

The majority of the proposed corridor is comprised of existing track currently in use by either 

Norfolk Southern in the eastern section of the State or CSX in the central and western sections of 

the state. The completion of the Trans-Tennessee rail corridor is dependant on closing a gap in 

the existing rail line between Algood, Tennessee (approximately midway between Nashville and 

Knoxville along the I-40 corridor) and Oliver Springs, Tennessee (just west of Knoxville). This 

segment, when complete, will create a new cross-state rail corridor to achieve the following four 

primary goals: 

• Relieve congestion on the I-40 corridor 

• Introduce freight rail competition to middle-Tennessee 

• Enhance freight rail service within the Appalachian Region 

• Introduce passenger rail service between Memphis-Nashville-Knoxville 

The low-cost Basic Freight Rail Connection scenario relies heavily on the rehabilitation of 

existing underutilized or abandoned right-of-way between Algood and Oliver Springs. The 

routing would follow I-40 through the communities of Algood, Monterey, Crossville, Crab 

Orchard, Rockwood, Harriman, Everton, Blair, Kelly Town and end in Oliver Springs. Exhibit 1-

1 illustrates the proposed route with the new and rehabilitated track between Algood and Oliver 

Springs highlighted in red. 

The cost estimate for the Basic Freight Rail Connection scenario is approximately $118 million, 

or an average of $1.4 million per mile. Though the strategy of existing track utilization serves to 

2
minimize project cost, it is unable to offer the potential for high speed/high capacity operations. 

When compared to the Multi-State approach, this option will require multiple speed restrictions 

at numerous points along the line, increasing transit time and reducing its overall competitive 

potential. 

The alternative Multi-State East-West Rail Connection scenario is a more ambitious concept on 

two important levels. First, this approach envisions a more direct, efficient and expensive 

connecting route between Algood and Oliver Springs and it expands the corridor’s service, 

connectivity, and project coordination beyond the borders of Tennessee. 

Exhibit 1-1 

Basic Freight Rail Connection

Source: Tennessee Department of Transportation, 2002 Tennessee Rail System Plan 

To achieve its full potential in the 21st century, the speed of railways must be expedited and the 

distance traveled by their trains must be long enough to compensate for the time and cost of 

associated intermodal (truck-to-rail) transfers. The Multi-state East-West Rail Connection 

addresses both points – speed and distance. Exhibit 1-2 illustrates the shorter and more direct 

connection between Algood and Oliver Springs. 

3
4

Source: Tennessee Department of Transportation, 2002 Tennessee Rail System Plan

Exhibit 1-2 

Multi-state East-West Rail Connection 

Additional route adjustments and improvements (as identified in Exhibit 1-2) are planned near 

Bruceton and Pegram, further enhancing the speed and efficiency of the Multi-State approach. 

The Multi-state East-West Rail Connection scenario positions the Trans-Tennessee Railroad as 

part of a larger, multi-state rail corridor offering service to east coast ports (Port of Norfolk), 

northeast rail gateways (Harrisburg, PA), the western rail gateway in Memphis, and Gulf coast 

ports (New Orleans, LA and Houston, TX). Development of the Trans-Tennessee Railroad could 

be completed in conjunction with I-81 corridor improvements from Knoxville to the Virginia 

border and in conjunction with corridor improvements in Virginia (see Exhibit 2, pink rail 

corridor line). Such a scenario would provide Tennessee and the southern Appalachian Region 

with improved access to the Port of Norfolk and other primary northeast destinations, via 

Harrisburg, PA. In addition, central and northern Appalachia will gain improved access to the 

western rail gateway in Memphis. 

The increased scope, benefits, and efficiency of the Multi-state East-West Rail Connection can 

only be achieved through heightened investment. The high-speed connection between Algood 

and Oliver Springs needed to complete the Trans-Tennessee Railroad, coupled with the Bruceton 

and Pegram bypass and enhancement plans, will cost an estimated $842 million. This amount 
will cover completion of the Memphis-Nashville-Knoxville route. For rail connectivity to points 

north and east through Virginia, approximately $399 million of additional improvements will be 

needed from Knoxville to the Virginia state line. 

Progression 

In 1999, the U.S. Congress approved $500,000 in funding to conduct a feasibility study for an 

east-west Trans-Tennessee railroad that would connect Memphis to Knoxville. From this initial 

study, the two scenarios described in the previous section were laid out -- essentially a low-cost 

option and a high performance option. As each scenario developed, it became clear that the 

Multi-state East-West Rail Connection offered important performance capabilities not found in 

the alternative Basic Freight Rail Connection Plan. As an added benefit, the Multi-state EastWest Rail Connection features the development of a new system of passenger rail services 

linking Tennessee’s three major population centers. 

The 2002 Tennessee Rail System Plan examined both concepts in great detail using the State of 

Tennessee’s Strategic Project Evaluation Protocols and Procedures that calculates a proposed 

project’s cost-to-benefit ratio in dollar terms. Infrastructure needs and enhancements along each 

proposed route were identified and associated costs quantified to arrive at the projected project 

cost detailed in the previous section. The next 

step, key in both determining the overall 

effectiveness of each scenario and in assessing 

the cost-to-benefit ratio, was forecasting the 

level of truck traffic diversion from I-40 to the 

new Trans-Tennessee Railroad. The direct, 

high-speed routing and additional destinations 

to eastern ports and northeast rail gateways 

provides the Multi-state East-West Rail 

Connection plan with a strong diversion advantage over the Basic Freight Rail Connection. 

Related financial benefits from truck-to-rail diversion, in terms of reduced shipping charges and 

5
highway maintenance, congestion, and accident savings, also favor the Multi-state East-West 

Rail Connection. 

Projected diversion and related economic benefits (i.e. quantified project benefits), coupled with 

the initial project capital costs, were computed to provide a Benefit to Cost Ratio over the 

anticipated 30-year useful life of the rail infrastructure. The Benefit to Cost Ratio, simply put, 

gives the dollar return (through savings or quantified efficiency gains) that can be expected over 

the project’s life for every dollar initially invested. Exhibit 1-3 provides a Benefit to Cost 

summary for both projects. Note that despite the Multi-state East-West Rail Connection’s much 

greater initial cost, its Benefit to Cost ratio is still greater. This analysis suggests that, dollar for 

dollar, the East-West Rail Connection will provide increased transportation and economic 

benefits ($1.38 return for every dollar invested versus $1.19 return on the Basic Freight Rail 

Connection). 

Exibit 1-3

Trans-Tennessee Railroad Scenario Comparison

Benefit to Cost Summary

Multi-state

Basic Freight East-West Rail

Rail Connection Connection*

Truck Traffic Reduction (2010 estimate) 33,089 223,465

Estimated Shipping and

Highway Related Savings (2010 dollars) 9,036,000 116,325,000

Project Capital Cost (2002 dollars) 118,042,000 841,989,000

Benefit to Cost Ratio (over 30-years) 1.19 1.38

Source: Tennessee Department of Transportation, 2002 Tennessee Rail Plan

* Assumes a conservative 10 percent truck-to-rail diversion rate.

The Multi-state East-West Rail Connection has been identified as an attractive development 

scenario, in terms of regional freight transportation benefits (versus intra-state only), benefit-to6
cost ratio, truck diversion, economic development opportunities, and potential intra-state 

passenger rail connectivity (Memphis-Nashville-Knoxville). 

While the projected cost of the East-West Rail Connection option is the greatest obstacle to the 

plan’s implementation, other project hurdles must also be addressed. The potential funding 

sources for the project have been identified as federal dollars, supplemented by state funding and 

railroad interests. 

Regional Benefits 

Benefits from the Trans-Tennessee Railroad will be realized to the greatest extent by businesses 

within the Appalachian Region and those shipping goods through the Region. In addition to 

increased modal options, it is estimated that shipping freight via the Trans-Tennessee Railroad 

can reduce the current shipping costs by 20 percent. 

Cost efficiencies would be realized by reductions in traffic congestion along the I-40 corridor in 

Tennessee and I-81 corridor in Virginia. The degree of such benefits is dependant on the actual 

level of truck to rail diversion. A reduction in truck traffic may also reduce the need or scope of 

the proposed widening of I-40, which is estimated to cost $4.2 billion. If the Tran-Tennessee 

Railroad proves to divert a substantial amount of truck traffic, the need, scope and timing of the 

I-40 widening could be adjusted, thus diverting funds to other highway projects within the 

region. 

To complement new rail operations, additional and/or expanded intermodal facilities will need to 

be constructed. It is anticipated that these facilities will be financed and built by railroad and 

local community interests associated with the new route. Such new intermodal facilities will 

create localized economic activity within the region through their construction and operation. In 

addition, these facilities can spur secondary economic development in the region by attracting 

freight intensive industry and ancillary transportation service providers to areas surrounding the 

intermodal facility. 

Additional benefits to the Region (economic, environmental, and transportation oriented) as 

identified in the 2002 Tennessee Rail System Plan include the following: 

7
• Reduced overall fuel consumption due to truck to rail diversion 

• Reduction in highway maintenance costs 

• Reduced motor vehicle accident, injury and fatality rate 

• Potential for passenger rail operations (Memphis-Nashville-Knoxville) 

Regional Intermodal Connectivity 

The Trans-Tennessee Railroad can increase the volume of intermodal truck-to-rail transfers at 

existing facilities along the I-40 corridor. Nashville will see the most dramatic spike in 

intermodal activity, if the Trans-Tennessee Railroad stimulates Class I rail competition as 

planned. Nashville is currently served by a single Class I railroad, CSX. With the completion of 

the East-West Rail Connection, and the associated access agreements for the new route, new 

service competition from Memphis to points east can be expected as the five Class I railroads 

operating in Memphis seek to feed their western gateway operations via the new route. 

As discussed in the previous section, new intermodal facilities will be constructed in support of 

the Trans-Tennessee Railroad. The number and location of these facilities will be based upon 

which approach is ultimately chosen, the Multi-state East-West Rail Connection or the Basic 

Freight Rail Connection. The Basic Freight Rail Connection will serve intra-Tennessee freight 

markets, translating into a smaller catchment area and less freight volume for potential 

intermodal facilities. Greater opportunity for new and expanded intermodal facility development 

lies in the Multi-state East-West Rail Connection with its larger catchment area and higher 

projected truck-to-rail diversion. New and/or expanded intermodal facilities will be required at 

both Nashville and Knoxville along the I-40 corridor to handle increased volume, and a new 

facility is proposed at Kingsport in Northeast Tennessee along the I-81 corridor. Exhibit 1-4 lists 

ADHS corridor and interstate highway access in relation to the nearest Trans-Tennessee Railroad 

service points. 

8
Exhibit 1-4

Trans-Tennessee Railroad

ADHS and Interstate Corridors

Knoxville Nashville Memphis

I-75 to Corridor F I-40 I-40

I-40 I-24 I-55

I-81 to Corridor S I-65 US 278

US 25W Corridor J (SR-111)

Needs and Next Steps 

In order for development of the Trans-Tennessee Railroad to progress, the following four areas 

must be addressed: 

• Project Scope – Concept Selection 

• Coordination 

• Funding 

• Public-Private Cooperation 

Project Scope 

Proponents of the Trans-Tennessee Railroad must determine which of the two development 

alternatives is the most viable. Studies completed to date have indicated that the Multi-State 

East-West Connection offers the greatest benefits to the region, yet also demands significantly 

higher investment levels. It must be assessed whether the anticipated $1.2 billion price tag for the 

East-West Connection concept will be too great an obstacle for the plan to procede. 

Coordination 

Coordination of the project entails multiple local, state, and federal government agencies, private 

transportation interests, trade and industry organizations, and public/citizen involvement. 

Collaboration between stakeholders is essential to fully evaluate the various transportation 

development alternatives (such as planned I-40 improvements and Virginia’s I-81 corridor 

study). 

9
Coordination of government agencies, particularly in a multi-jurisdictional, multi-state project 

such as this, will be key in developing the Trans-Tennessee Railroad into a seamless, regional 

freight transportation network Federal government consultation and support is necessary to 

obtain necessary approval and funding for the rail improvements. In addition to attracting the 

support needed to secure funding from federal agencies, addition requirements, such as an 

environmental impact assessment, will be needed to move the project forward. 

Funding 

Identifying funding sources can be considered a subtask of the coordination process, though 

undoubtedly of critical importance to the project. Because federal investment will be critical to 

the success of the project, the importance of gaining U.S. DOT, Surface Transportation Board, 

and applicable rail authority support is critical. At least in the initial planning, design and 

environmental impact stages, the potential exists to combine the I-40 corridor and the TransTennessee Railroad into a single corridor study under FHWA funding. 

Public-Private Cooperation 

Public-Private cooperation will prove critical in the development of the Trans-Tennessee 

Railroad. Funding, track access and agreements, and intermodal facility development are all 

issues that need to be negotiated and clarified. Large sections of the route may be owned and/or 

operated by different rail interests. Line maintenance agreements must be addressed, as well as 

new agreements for the potential launch of intercity rail passenger service along the new 

corridor. 

It is anticipated that new expanded facilities will needed to serve the increased traffic along the 

new route. The location, size, and financing of these facilities will need to be determined as 

project development advances. Cooperation with private rail interests in both the construction 

and operation phase of the Trans-Tennessee Railroad is essential to the success of the overall 

concept. 

10
Case Study 2: Central Corridor Doublestack and Prichard Intermodal Facility

Concept 

Doublestack container service (DS), or the rail transportation of intermodal freight containers, 

one stacked on top of the other, provides intermodal rail operators and users with increased 

efficiency and capacity. Simply put, DS container service allows a shorter train (length and 

number of cars) to carry more freight per run. Compared to Container-on-Flat Car (COFC) and 

Trailer-on-Flat Car (TOFC) container service, doublestack service saves much more convoy 

space than the COFC and TOFC (or piggyback) methods with the added advantage of not to 

have to carry a trailer.1

 Exhibit 2-1 illustrates the piggyback versus doublestack configuration. 

Exhibit 2-1 

Doublestack versus Piggyback 

Source: Transportation, Fourth Edition, Coyle, J.J., E.J. Bardi and R.A. Novack (1994), West Publishing 

Company, p. 262. 

The evolution of the doublestack concept began in 1977 with the Southern Pacific Railroad and 

American Car and Foundry (ACF). By 1979, ACF had manufactured the initial series of DS 

flatcars that were put into service by the Southern Pacific Railroad. Throughout the 1980’s, DS 

flatcar technology was improved, making the cars lighter in weight and more flexible, allowing 

 1 Transportation, Fourth Edition, Coyle, J.J., E.J. Bardi and R.A. Novack (1994), West Publishing Company, p. 262. 

11
them to carry a variety of container types and sizes. Throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s DS 

container service was widely expanded by virtually all major railroads due to the increased 

capacity and efficiency of operations they offered.2

However, certain railroad mainlines 

are not compatible with 

doublestack service because of the 

required height clearance for 

bridges and tunnels (20 feet). This 

restriction is particularly 

pronounced on the U.S. east coast 

where older bridges and tunnels 

present height limitations in the 

greatest numbers. Needless to say, 

converting a rail line to doublestack 

capability can be a very expensive undertaking involving multiple infrastructure redesign and 

improvement efforts along the proposed DS rail corridor. 

Creating doublestack capability along the Norfolk Southern (NS) route through the heart of 

Appalachia (connecting the Region to Columbus, Ohio and Norfolk, Virginia) will require a 

substantial investment to the railroad’s infrastructure. Any investment aimed at providing DS 

capability for this corridor will undoubtedly strengthen the transportation infrastructure of the 

Region, while increasing the efficiency and capacity of area intermodal rail operators and 

businesses who increasingly rely on high speed/high efficiency access to markets worldwide. 

Progression 

A preliminary study of doublestack service for the NS rail corridor entitled “Central Corridor 

Doublestack Initiative” was conducted by the Appalachian Transportation Institute and 

completed in March of 2003. The study offers a comprehensive overview of the challenges and 

 

2 Intermodal Freight Transportation, Fourth Edition, Gerhardt Muller (1999), Eno Transportation Foundation, Inc., 

p. 32 

12
benefits of a doublestack capable rail route through the central Appalachian Region. The initial 

steps of the project are addressed, including route selection, obstruction/tunnel identification, 

regional intermodal terminal facilities (existing and needed), order-of-magnitude project costs, 

and regional transportation and economic benefits. 

The proposed Central Corridor doublestack route, depicted in Exhibit 2-2, is deemed to be the 

most feasible in terms of route efficiency and required infrastructure improvements. Current NS 

doublestack services between Norfolk and Columbus require indirect routings that take DS trains 

either north through Harrisburg, PA or to the south through Knoxville, TN. These routings add 

an additional 36 hours of transit time to that of the proposed “Central Corridor” NorfolkColumbus line, hurting both the competitiveness of the railway and its customers. 

Exhibit 2-2 

Proposed Norfolk-Columbus Doublestack Route

Along the proposed route, all physical obstructions and height restricted tunnels that prevent 

doublestack operations have been identified. These include approximately 25 obstructions such 

as slide fences, overhead wires and bridges, and 28 height-restricted tunnels totaling 

13
approximately 25,000 to 30,000 feet in length. The majority of these modifications (both 

obstruction and tunnels) are located in West Virginia, with the remainder in Ohio, Virginia and 

Kentucky. 

With the assistance of Norfolk Southern, preliminary order-of-magnitude cost estimates were 

prepared for enlarging height restricted tunnels and removal/mitigation of obstructions. 

Addressing height restrictions at the 28 tunnels along the proposed route will represent the bulk 

of the expense, while eliminating the remaining obstructions will account for just 2.5 to 6 percent 

of the total project cost. Exhibit 2-3 summarizes the project cost estimates in terms of lower and 

upper estimate boundaries for both tunnels and obstructions. The difference between the lower 

and upper estimates are due to the varying methods of tunnel heightening that may be employed 

depending upon timing, speed and continuing operations issues that need to be addressed. 

Exhibit 2-3

Norfolk-Columbus Doublestack Route

Summary of Cost Estimates

(in millions)

Cost Lower Upper

Driver Boundry Boundry

Tunnel $43.3 $108.4

Obstructions $2.7 $2.7

Total $46.0 $111.1

Source: Central Corridor Doublestack Initiative, March 2003

Two factors must be considered when addressing the planned modifications to the NorfolkColumbus route. First, the rail line must remain in operation for the entire duration of the 

construction/modification process. This factor will significantly add to the cost, complexity, and 

duration of the project. At the same time, all 25 obstructions and 28 tunnels must be addressed 

before the first doublestack train can utilize the route. A piecemeal approach to the construction 

of this project will protract the process and cost, while delaying the revenue generating and 

transportation/economic benefits to be derived from the project’s completion. 

14
Regional Benefits 

Benefits to the Appalachian Region from the proposed Central Corridor doublestack rail corridor 

would come in two forms; increased capacity and efficiency of intermodal freight movement 

through the Region and important new access to intermodal freight service for businesses located 

within the Region. 

Estimates from the “Central Corridor Doublestack Initiative” study place the transportation cost 

benefits derived from the project at between 201 and 368 million dollars over a 20-year period 

(depending upon intermodal freight growth rates and development of the catchment area for the 

route). These savings will be achieved through increased capacity and expedited transit time, 

coupled with reduced reliance and/or distance of trucking operations. 

Appalachia will achieve direct economic benefits, coupled with new access to intermodal 

services and efficiencies resulting from doublestack capability, only if a truck-to-rail intermodal 

facility along the proposed corridor is constructed. Norfolk Southern has agreed that as a part of 

the overall project, a truck-to-rail intermodal facility would be constructed in West Virginia. The 

search for potential site locations has centered on Prichard in Wayne County, West Virginia, 

though this site selection has yet to be formalized. It is estimated that approximately 11,000 

containers annually will transit the West Virginia facility upon its opening. The anticipated 

benefits of offering competitive truck-to-rail services would extend to surrounding cities and 

towns in the Appalachian Region up to 100 miles distant, depending upon drayage costs and 

back-haul opportunities. The Prichard facility catchment area could include Ashton, Huntington, 

Ironton, Charleston, Williamson, Portsmouth, Logan, Morehead and Pikeville.3

 

Regional Intermodal Connectivity 

The proposed NS intermodal facility 

along the Central Corridor in West 

Virginia (tentatively located in Prichard, 

WV) will open important new 

intermodal access for business 

 

3 Central Corridor Doublestack Initiative, p. E-5 & E-10, March 2003 

15
throughout the Region, improving their efficiency and competitiveness. 

The “Central Corridor Doublestack Initiative” study has listed the following four factors 

bolstering Prichard as the logical site for this truck-to-rail intermodal facility: 

1. NS ownership of much of the necessary property 

2. Access to mainline track 

3. Close proximity to I-64 and US-23 (Corridor B and B1 of the ADHS) 

4. Limited number of nearby residential structures 

Such a facility will provide the central Appalachian Region with direct east-west truck-to-rail 

intermodal connectivity, along with international sea connectivity via rail-to-ship transfers at the 

Port of Norfolk with new access to key Pacific Ports, as well. 

Needs 

Funding for additional engineering studies and, eventually, construction/modification of the 

identified tunnel and obstruction constraints is the primary need for the Central Corridor 

doublestack concept. It is estimated that a full engineering study of the proposed route that 

addressees all tunnels and obstructions along the line will cost approximately four million 

dollars. From the findings of this detailed study, cost estimates for the construction/modification 

elements of the project can be refined, thus providing a more accurate overall cost estimate. 

Next Steps 

Additional study, particularly on the engineering and construction aspects of the proposed route 

is the required next step. As previously mentioned, an additional engineering study would allow 

for more concise cost estimates along with scheduling requirements and project duration. In 

addition to an engineering study, the “Central Corridor Doublestack Initiative” study 

recommended the following next steps to the project’s Steering Committee members: 

• Review the current study outcomes with their respective organizations and work to 

identify available funds that might be used to perform preliminary engineering tasks 

identified in the study (i.e., funds for the engineering study). 

16
• Explore the processes for forming a multi-state compact and other necessary formal 

relationships (i.e., public-private partnerships) necessary to the further pursuit of the 

project. 

• Designees of the Steering Committee should meet with federal Congressional leaders 

from Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia and West Virginia to educate and seek support for the 

project. 

• Continue to refine estimates of costs and benefits of the project so that the decision 

making process is as informed as possible 

17
Case Study 3: Virginia Inland Port

Concept 

An Inland Port is, as the name suggests, an inland facility specializing in the staging and transfer 

of intermodal (containerized) sea-borne freight. The designed objective of an inland port is 

twofold; alleviate container and associated traffic congestion around a given seaport and move 

transportation and distribution infrastructure closer to inland commerce. This concept has been 

successfully put into practice by the Port Authority of Virginia at the Virginia Inland Port (VIP). 

The 161-acre Virginia Inland Port, located 70 miles west of Washington DC in Front Royal, 

Virginia effectively brings the marine terminals of Norfolk, Newport News, and Hampton Roads 

220 miles inland (see Exhibit 3-1). 

Exhibit 3-1 

Virginia Inland Port Location 

18
Operated as an intermodal container transfer facility, the VIP provides a seamless interface 

between truck and rail for the transport of ocean-going containers to and from the Port of 

Virginia (Hampton Roads). The Virginia Inland Port is near Interstates I-81, I-66 (at Rt. 522 and 

Rt. 340) and ADHS Corridor H, on a highway corridor to the Northeast U.S. that is less congested 

than Interstate I-95 and strategically closer to the industrial Midwest. 

Containers that arrive via ship at Hampton Roads are lifted by cranes onto railroad cars, and then 

carried by the Norfolk Southern railroad to the Shenandoah Valley. There the containers are 

lifted off the railroad cars and placed on the chassis of 18-wheeler trucks, which carry the load to 

the final destination. Obviously the railroad would like to carry the load all the way, but in many 

cases the Norfolk Southern does not serve the ultimate destination - and many facilities are not 

on a rail line.4 Land is available at the VIP to steamship lines for container storage and ancillary 

service companies. 

Virginia Inland Port 

 

4

 Virginia Port Authority, 2003 

19
Five parallel tracks totaling 17,820 feet allow for efficient uncongested container handling and 

transfer. Exhibit 3-2 depicts the layout of the VIP.

Exhibit 3-2

Virginia Inland Port – Facility Layout 

Source: Virginia Port Authority 

Scheduled six-day-a-week rail service between the VIP and the marine terminals in Hampton 

Roads allows direct access to the trade routes of 75 international shipping lines. In addition, the 

Virginia Inland Port is a US Customs-designated port of entry and a Foreign Trade Zone, with a 

full range of customs functions is available to customers. 

The Inland Port terminal has a three-door cross-dock warehouse facility for transferring cargo, 

and a maintenance building for vehicle repairs. USDA inspections and light fumigation are 

provided on terminal as needed. 

20
Progression

The VIP concept, based on similar successful facilities in Europe, was first explored in the early 

to mid-1980s, with the project’s main purpose being to capture a larger market share in areas in 

the Ohio Valley Region (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Western Maryland, and West Virginia) and 

Virginia for the Port of Virginia. At that time, cargo from the Ohio Valley was primarily being 

sent through the Port of Baltimore. The envisioned market expansion was intended to be a 

powerful sales tool in convincing additional ship lines to add Virginia to their schedules or to 

increase their business in Virginia. The initial examination of this Ohio Valley market revealed a 

potential for 100,000 containers. The Virginia Port Authority (VPA) determined that one way to 

attract this business was to build an intermodal facility in close proximity to these areas that 

could be linked by rail to the port area. Exhibit 3-3 illustrates the Appalachian Region market 

area for the VIP. 

Exhibit 3-3 

Virginia Inland Port Target Market Area 

21
Planning for the inland port began in earnest in 1984 and involved a series of meetings among 

representatives of all transportation modes, shippers, and brokers. VPA and Norfolk Southern 

(NS) reached and agreement in January of 1987 that the VPA should precede with the inland port 

development. Several sites were examined with NS officials and local area leaders before the 

eventual site in Warren County, VA was selected. This site features easy access to I-66, I-81, and 

ADHS Corridor H, and has 1,400 feet of common boundary with Norfolk Southern. 

The initial concept was to run a dedicated NS train three days per week between the Hampton 

Roads and VIP. It was anticipated that this level of service would attract approximately 20,000 

international containers annually. One advantage that Virginia had was that the funding fell into 

place rather easily and did not require any borrowing to support construction activities at VIP. 

The original expenditure was easier than expected due to a series of fortunate circumstances, 

including: the election of a new Governor committed to transportation infrastructure, a special 

session of the General Assembly, and a report from the citizen advisory Commission on 

Transportation. Legislation was passed in 1986 to create a Transportation Trust Fund. The inland 

port was constructed with money entirely from the Trust Fund. The original $10.75 million and 

subsequent $2.25 million was paid in cash, on a pay-as-you-go basis. Thus, Virginia managed to 

avoid incurring debt in the construction of the intermodal facility. 

The Virginia Inland Port started operations in 1989 with initial annual volumes of 8,000-9,000 

containers. The VIP’s annual throughput volume approached the targeted level of 20,000 

international containers annually in 1999 and has been near that level through 2001. Container 

volumes are expected to almost double within the next few years. About 8,000 empty containers 

were stored at the facility in 2001 at a storage charge of $0.52 per TEU per day. Currently, the 

VIP charges tariffs of $244 per loaded unit COFC (either 20’ or 40’), and $161 per empty unit 

COFC (either 20’ or 40’) for transport from its location in Front Royal to the terminals at 

Norfolk. Turnaround time for truckers at the Port is 30 minutes. 

Regional Benefits 

Since the port opened, it has spurred nearly $600 million in private sector capital investments, 

resulting in 6.25 million squire feet of construction and over 7,000 new jobs. It is estimated that 

22
95 percent of the business generated by the VIP is new business for the Port of VirginiaHampton Roads. The local community expects that the VIP facility be used to stimulate regional 

economic development. This local expectation caused VPA to move from the original targeted 

plan concentrated on international containers to a broader program encompassing domestic rail 

service and regional economic development (increasing jobs, wages and taxes), which is its core 

mission to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Approximately 17 full-time employees conduct 

operations at the VIP. The VIP has been generating operating profits and its establishment is 

credited with strengthening the overall competitive position of Virginia’s ports. 

In recent years, 17 companies have located plants in the counties surrounding the VIP. These 

firms actively take advantage of the VIP to ship a variety of products overseas, including 

plastics, medical supplies, apparel, auto parts, furnishings, food, paper, and four-wheel-drive 

vehicles.5

Regional Intermodal Connectivity 

Through its unique location, the VIP is able to offer the northern Appalachian Region (Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, western Maryland, West Virginia and the northern Shenandoah Valley) excellent 

seaport access. Prior to the operation of the VIP, businesses in the Region were using trucks and 

railroads to move product to ports in Baltimore and Philadelphia because the Port of Virginia 

was simply not cost competitive. Success with these companies hinged on moving the Port closer 

to the market in the form of the VIP. Shippers in the northern Appalachian Region now have the 

option of efficiently moving freight direct to the Port of Virginia-Hampton Roads through the 

VIP truck-to-rail intermodal facility rather than often longer, slower, and more expensive routes 

to Baltimore and Philadelphia. The resulting timesavings alone have led to improved shipper 

service, profitability, and competitiveness.6

The location on the Virginia Inland Port provides excellent Appalachian Development Highway 

System (ADHS) access to the west via Corridor H (SR-55/U.S.-33), eventually connecting to I79, and to the east to Washington DC via I-66. ADHS corridors to the north and south are 

 

5

 Virginia Port Authority, 1999 

6

 Virginia Port Authority, 2003 

23
directly accessed via I-81. As discussed in the previous section, a Norfolk Southern rail line 

provides connectivity to the port at Hampton Roads. Exhibit 3-4 illustrates key VIP road 

connectors within the Appalachian Development Highway System. 

Exhibit 3-4 Key Virginia Inland Port Road Connectors to The Appalachian Development 

Highway System 

24
Exhibit 3-5 details distance and drive time to major highway and interstate connectors to the 

ADHS from the VIP. 

Exhibit 3-5

Virginia Inland Port

ADHS Coridor Proximity

ADHS or Interstate 

Corridor

Distance in Miles 

to Corridor

Drive time to 

Corridor

I-81 9.4 9 minutes

I-66 2.5 2 minutes

Corridor H (WV SR-55) 13 15 minutes

Corridor E (I-70) 52 1 hour

Source: WSA

Long-Term Direction 

The Virginia Inland Port seeks to increase container volume throughput with marketing efforts 

designed to raise awareness of the facility and its benefits to shippers. Marketing efforts are 

conducted in conjunction with economic development initiatives based on the global access that 

the VIP offers the region. In 1995, a long-term VIP Mission and Strategic Plan was created that 

advocated making the inland port the focal point for regional economic activity. To this end, the 

Virginia Port Authority created an Economic Development Center, including an administration 

building and warehouse facilities at the VIP. 

Needs and Next Steps 

Looking to the future, expanding VIP capacity and upgrading its efficiency will require 

investment. However, the VIP will not need to rely solely on public financing for its expansion 

funds, as it has been self-sufficient and operating profitably since 1994. As of this writing, 

expansion is underway. 

Beyond targeting and increasing market-share from within the existing VIP market area, the Port 

of Virginia also seeks to expand the VIP market area and customer base. This plan will involve 

significant area and regional economic development efforts. In conjunction with Washington25
Dulles International Airport, ongoing efforts are underway to develop the corridor between the 

two facilities into a principal freight distribution center/hub. This involves attracting warehouse 

and distribution facilities (and ancillary support infrastructure) to the area. 

Expansion of the Foreign Trade Zone to land and facilities surrounding the VIP is also seen as a 

positive step for the Port. Such an FTZ expansion would include land owned and operated by 

various economic development agencies in the region. 

26
Case Study 4: South Carolina Inland Port 

Concept 

Inland ports are an emerging, and relatively new business concept in America’s freight 

transportation complex. An inland port, as previously discussed in the Virginia Inland Port 

chapter, is a facility specializing in the staging and transfer of intermodal (containerized) seaborne freight. The primary drivers behind inland port development is to position container 

facilities at uncongested inland locations, where rail and truck access are easier, where land use 

conflicts are less, and where economic development is desired. Some of the notable examples 

include the previously mentioned Virginia Inland Port in Front Royal, Port Inland Distribution 

Network in New York State, and North Carolina Inland Port Terminals. 

The primary objective of a South Carolina Inland Port (SCIP) would be to alleviate congestion at 

the Port of Charleston and to assist in accommodating future volume (container throughput) 

growth. As the Port of Charleston has developed, several issues regarding traffic congestion and 

safety, port expansion, compatible land-use, and environmental impact have threatened the Port’s 

future growth potential. Voices calling for alternative waterfront land development and concerns 

of increasing truck traffic and unsightly rail and container storage yards have prompted the 

consideration of developing a South Carolina Inland Port. 

As illustrated in Exhibit 4-1, many of the problematic functions and land-use issues currently 

encountered at the Port of Charleston can be addressed in a properly designed and located Inland 

Port. Warehousing, container storage, excellent highway and rail access, and container staging 

areas, coupled with customs and administration functions, can all be centrally provided at a 

location away from a congested port’s coastal site. 

27
Exhibit 4-1 

Inland Port Generic Layout 

The core principal guiding the discussion of a 

South Carolina Inland Port is supplementing the 

capacity of the Port of Charleston in a manner 

that fosters and accommodates the Port’s 

anticipated growth. As specifically stated by 

South Carolina Ports President, Bernard 

Groseclose in the 2001 State of the Port Address, 

Container Storage 

Port of Charleston Land-Use Conflict

“It is important that we understand the role 

of the inland port as the Department of 

Commerce undertakes its analysis of the 

need and possible locations. Any successful 

inland port or intermodal facility must serve 

the growth of the Port of Charleston, but it 

cannot replace port expansion. If our port 

does not expand, then there is no need 

for such a facility.” 

28
Progression 

South Carolina’s Port of Charleston is currently one of the busiest container ports on the east 

coast. Because South Carolina is a major port state, and the state’s trade and transportation sector 

of the economy is inextricably tied to the efficient functioning of its ports, it has been deemed 

essential that alternatives such as the inland port concept be examined as potential ways to 

support expansion at the Port of Charleston. Initial studies into the feasibility of such a port have 

been commissioned to evaluate the role an inland port can play in lowering congestion along 

high-use corridors linking the Port of Charleston to the inland markets. 

Other reasons to explore this concept in South Carolina include quality of life issues, the need to 

better use existing infrastructure, and enhanced economic development opportunities. For these 

reasons, the South Carolina Inland Port Study Steering Committee – consisting of a diverse 

group of individuals representing institutions such as the South Carolina Department of 

Commerce, the South Carolina Department of Transportation, the South Carolina State Ports 

Authority, South Carolina Transportation Infrastructure Bank, South Carolina Public Railways, 

State and Federal Congressmen’s Offices – was formed to lead the study of a South Carolina 

Inland Port. 

The planning and development of a South Carolina Inland Port is still in the early stages of 

study. A series of questions and issues need to be addressed before the feasibility and full 

potential of an SCIP can be determined. Among the most critical issues that need to be examined 

are the location of the SCIP, the potential throughput (container volume) of the facility, and the 

cost (capital investment and operating costs). 

SCIP Location 

In order to capture market share for the Port of Charleston, the inland port should intercept the 

Port’s major container flows. Exhibit 4-2 illustrates the highest concentrations of origin and 

destination containers utilizing the Port of Charleston. This area could otherwise be identified as 

the Port of Charleston’s catchment area. Note the heavy concentrations within the Appalachian 

Region. 

29
Exhibit 4- 2 

Port of Charleston Container Traffic 

Origin and Destination Concentrations 

In addition to being centrally located along the Port of Charleston’s major container flows, the 

location of the SCIP should allow for easy access to uncongested rail and interstate highway 

networks. To be successful, the inland port should be located in an area characterized by good 

availability of developable land, where conflicts are minimized. The inland port would also 

benefit from being within close proximity of a strong pool of available labor. 

Three areas in South Carolina have been identified as potential sites for the SCIP. Exhibit 4-3 

illustrates their general locations and highlights existing highway and rail connectivity. 

30
Exhibit 4-3: Map of Potential SCIP Generalized Locations 

UPSTATE

SUMMERVILLE 

I-26/I-95 VICINITY

In terms of the relevant factors, these locations can be broadly characterized as the follows: 

The Summerville Vicinity Generalized Location: 

• Has large flows of Charleston originated/destined containers 

• Has very good Interstate highway and rail access 

• Very close to the Port, but outside the dense and congested urban area 

• Rail haul is very short – may not be cost effective 

• Already has sites with FTZ status 

• Not located within Appalachian Region 

31
The I-26/I-95 Vicinity Generalized Location: 

• Can capture strong flows of Charleston originated/destined containers 

• Has superior interstate access in all directions – attractiveness to truckers as a dropoff/pick-up point, and for parking/service facility development 

• Has good rail access, but it is not on the CSXT intermodal line 

• Close to the Port, but outside the dense and congested urban area 

• Rail haul is short - may not be cost effective 

• Not located within Appalachian Region 

The Upstate South Carolina Vicinity Generalized Location: 

• Can capture lessened flows of Charleston originated/destined containers 

• Has good interstate and rail access 

• Further away from the Port than the other two locations 

• Rail haul may be more cost effective 

• Already has sites with FTZ status 

• Located within Appalachian Region 

All three locations offer, through active infrastructure development and programs aimed at 

attracting various institutions, very good economic development opportunities that could take 

place at and around the inland port. However, the densities of the freight flows vary as the 

distance from the Port of Charleston increases. 

It is too early in the SCIP development process to confidently identify which location will offer 

the greatest benefit to the Port of Charleston and thus emerge as the frontrunner site for SCIP 

development. Needless to say, an Upstate South Carolina Vicinity site would offer Appalachia 

the greatest economic benefit, coupled with the highest level of connectivity to the ADHS.

SCIP Throughput 

As noted earlier, the Virginia Inland Port succeeded at generating business for the Ports of Virginia from 

new markets that were previously serviced by the Port of Baltimore. The VIP is also reported to be 

making an operating profit. The current throughput volumes at the VIP are about 20,000 containers 

32
annually. Consequently, this throughput volume has been selected as a reasonable proxy target volume for 

the conceptual South Carolina inland port. 

Initial order-of-magnitude throughput volume projections (annual number of containers) have 

been completed for each of the three potential SCIP locations based on an intermodal scenario 

involving a use of rail transport between the Port of Charleston and the inland port location, and 

truck transport to/from locations beyond (markets). Projected container volume for each of the 

locations is based upon potential truck-to-rail diversion rates, or the amount of truck containers 

utilizing current highway and interstate corridors to the Port of Charleston that may be diverted 

to the SCIP. Exhibit 4-4 details the SCIP throughput projections based upon location and capture 

rate. 

Exhibit 4-4 

Throughput Estimates Summary 

(By diversion scenario and location for year 2020) 

5% 27K - 41K 26K - 39K 8K - 12K

10% 54K - 81K 53K - 79K 16K - 24K

25% 136K - 204K 131K - 197K 40K - 60K

50% 271K - 407K 263K - 394K 80K - 120K

Highway to Rail 

Diversion Rate 

Scenario

2020

Summerville 

Vicinity I-95/I26 Vicinity Upstate SC

 Source: WSA 

Note that to reach the benchmark 20,000 annual container volume of the Virginia Inland Port, 

the Summerville and I-95/I-26 Vicinity sites for the SCIP need to achieve a five percent 

diversion rate, while the Upstate site needs a 10 percent diversion rate to garner similar volume. 

SCIP Cost 

Estimated capital costs associated with an inland port can be subdivided into costs attributable to 

the construction of the terminal and the acquisition of rail equipment for the inland port service. 

33
Construction costs would probably differ somewhat depending on the terminal location within 

the state. Variations would be primarily due to differences associated with varying land values, 

terrain constraints, and distances to closest intermodal line connections. The SCIP is envisioned 

to be initially large enough to accommodate a throughput of about 20,000 annual containers. It 

would have a land size of about 180 acres, efficient rail configuration, space for administrative 

and inspection offices, storage and warehousing. The cost projections are in the range of $26 

million to $31 million depending on the generalized location. The estimates include components 

such as site work, rail track work, track roadbed, buildings, utilities, engineering, inspections, 

property acquisition, and contingencies. 

Separate from the terminal costs, the cost of connecting the terminal (rail track link) to a 

mainline was estimated to be, an average, about $1.2 million per mile. The cost of connecting the 

inland port with the Class I rail lines will depend on the distance of each particular inland port 

site location to the nearest mainline. It needs to also be noted that the costs associated with 

creating rail links between the Port of Charleston and the new inland port have not yet been 

examined. It is anticipated that the most cost effective solution to this issue would be to utilize 

the existing infrastructure of the rail lines with trackage rights and operations in the area. 

Regional Benefits 

There are several potential benefits the SCIP would provide to the Appalachian Region. The 

extent of these benefits will depend upon the final location of the facility – needless to say, the 

Upstate location would be the most advantageous to the development of the Region and the 

ADHS. 

The SCIP would promote direct and efficient access to the Port of Charleston for industry 

located in the central and southern Appalachia. The Port of Charleston is one of America’s 

largest container ports, with port throughput expanding more and more each year. The Port plays 

a significant role as a gateway for imported and exported goods moving not only in South 

Carolina, but beyond state boundaries, as well. The SCIP, by effectively moving the catchment 

area of the Port of Charleston westward, would bring the benefits of this international freight 

gateway directly into the Appalachian Region. 

34
In addition to impacts specific to the Charleston area, an inland port could generate potential 

economic development benefits in other parts of South Carolina and the surrounding 

Appalachian Region. Direct employment growth would arise from various construction, 

operations, and maintenance activities associated with building and sustaining the inland port. In 

addition to becoming an intermodal point for more effectively staging and distributing 

containerized goods to markets, the facility would be expected to attract various logistics 

services providers and associated employment. It would also be utilized for inspections, storage, 

warehousing, parking, as well as other related activities such as equipment maintenance and 

repair. If successfully implemented and operated, this cluster of transportation and logistics 

activity may serve to attract new commerce and employment into the area, similar to Virginia’s 

success at their inland port. . 

Regional Intermodal Connectivity 

While the exact site has yet to be chosen, the SCIP has the potential to become a focal point for 

rail-to-sea and truck-to-sea (indirectly) intermodal freight movements for south and central 

Appalachia. 

Primary connections to the ADHS for all three sites would be provided by I-26 connecting to 

Corridor W just to the west of Greenville. Interstate north-south corridors I-85 in northwest 

South Carolina and I-81 in northeast Tennessee are also accessible via I-26. The Upstate location 

for the SCIP provides excellent connectivity to Corridor W and I-85, depending on the specific 

location of the proposed facility. The nearest east-west corridors of the ADHS are Corridors A 

and K, accessible via I-40 located to the north. Connectivity to I-40 is again provided by I-26. 

Exhibit 4-5 details the ADHS in relation to potential SCIP sites. 

35
Exhibit 4-5 

Potential SCIP Sites – ADHS Connectors 

Needs and Next Steps 

The preliminary findings of the SCIP will be strengthened as the concept is further developed. 

Beyond detailed refinements of throughput forecasts, cost, and the benefits of potential 

scenarios, there are a number of important issues that require examination. These include the 

sources and availability of public investment (e.g., in construction, rolling stock costs, etc.) and 

finding ways to maximize such investment through partnering with the private sector. A detailed 

market assessment and development study (including surveys seeking responses from current 

and future shippers) would also help to understand the need for and success of an inland port in 

the state. 

36
Regardless of the approach to the inland port concept, there is a clear need for a proactive, 

forward-looking strategic package for addressing the different issues associated with the landside 

movement of freight to and from the Port of Charleston. This strategic package should examine 

the impact of a South Carolina Inland Port on relevant issues such as growth in overall traffic 

along the I-26 corridor, the future expansion of the Port of Charleston at the Navy Base, land use 

changes in the City of North Charleston, and the need for separation of highway passenger 

vehicles from freight traffic. 

37
Case Study 5: Port of Huntsville

Concept 

The Port of Huntsville is an inland port comprised of Huntsville International Airport (HSV), the 

International Intermodal Center (IIC), and the Jetplex Industrial Park. This modern intermodal 

complex provides Huntsville with state-of-the-art aviation, rail, road and ocean connectivity. 

The International Intermodal Center (IIC) is an innovative and unique inland port facility. The 

IIC is a single hub location that specializes in a wide range of services including receiving, 

transferring, storing, and distributing air, rail, and highway cargo both domestically and 

internationally. An intermodal rail yard, complete with container handling and storage, is located 

immediately adjacent to the airport’s air cargo facilities. 

The Port of Huntsville 

The IIC is also home to a global air cargo hub that serves the United States, Latin America, and 

Europe with direct Boeing 747 freighter service. The only scheduled international flights in the 

State of Alabama take off and land at Huntsville International Airport. In addition, the IIC offers 

Public Use Foreign Trade Zone No. 83, 24-hour US Customs, USDA inspectors and Freight 

38
Forwarders. The International Intermodal Center is located adjacent to the Huntsville 

International Airport and Jetplex Industrial Park.7 

The primary concept leading to the development of the IIC is to offer access to as many modes 

of freight transport as possible within a single facility. The key to realizing this goal, particularly 

for a location lacking direct seaport access, is attracting substantial airfreight operations. Air 

cargo was a primary goal of Hunstville planners throughout the facility’s development process. 

With the intermodal complex, Huntsville is establishing itself as an important inland port, 

specializing in air, rail, and highway cargo shipments. ''What we're trying to do is become for air 

what the Port of Alabama is for ocean shipping,'' says Dwight Jennings, Vice Chair of the 

Huntsville International Airport Board and Chair of the Alabama Port Authority. ''With the 

expansions which have to be done at Mobile to expand seagoing cargo, we want to do the same 

type of thing for Huntsville to make it a major seaport by air.''8

Progression 

Currently, Huntsville International Airport has two parallel runways, one 10,000 feet and one 

8,000 feet, with a 5,000-foot separation and 1 million square fee of cargo ramp space, allowing 

for simultaneous flight operations during instrument conditions. The facility is equipped for 

Category I aircraft operations. Domestic and international all-cargo carriers serve the local and 

regional high-tech air cargo market. Cargo handling facilities include 200,000 square feet for 

receiving, storing, transferring, and distributing domestic and international air cargo, ground 

support equipment that includes two main deck loaders, and substantial acreage for future 

expansion. 

Rail service is provided by Norfolk Southern for both domestic and international containers. Two 

45-ton gantry cranes are the heart of a newly expanded operation. The rail-mounted crane can 

pivot 360 degrees and load chassis parked perpendicular to the track thereby increasing 

 

7

 Port of Huntsville, 2003 

8 Leaders Share their Vision of Huntsville's Cargo Port Future, Huntsville (AL) Times, August 23, 2000 

39
efficiency. The rubber tire crane can traverse the entire 45-acre yard. Four parallel tracks totaling 

six miles (recently lengthened) ensure congestion-free operation.9 

The International Intermodal Center (IIC) rail facility came online in 1987 with international air 

cargo operations (representing the bulk of HSV air cargo tonnage) following in 1991. In 1991, 

the Port of Huntsville was able to successfully persuade Swiss freight forwarder Panalpina to 

utilize the airport as their North American air cargo hub/gateway. Since initial operations 

commenced with a single weekly B747 freighter flight, growth has been explosive. Panalpina 

currently operates 15 B747’s per week, serving European markets in addition to three weekly 

flights to Mexico. 

Huntsville International Airport has developed into a premier U.S. gateway for international air 

cargo. In 2001, the airport ranked 18th in terms of annual tonnage for international air cargo (total 

inbound and outbound) out of nearly 200 reporting U.S. airports (as tracked by the U.S. 

Department of Transportation through T-100 Reports). In 1991, the initial year of international 

air operations, it ranked 40th. By 1995, the airport was 32nd, and in 2000 it had reached 20th. The 

Huntsville International Airport now handles more international air cargo than many established 

major hub airports, including the following: 

• Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International (Delta, DHL) 

• Indianapolis International (FedEx) 

• Louisville International (UPS) 

• Dayton International (Emery Worldwide) 

• Minneapolis-St. Paul International (Northwest) 

• Detroit International (Northwest) 

• Metropolitan Oakland International (FedEx) 

• Denver International (United) 

• Pittsburgh International (US Airways) 

Growth at the intermodal rail facility, while not as explosive as HSV air cargo, is still substantial. 

In 2002, the International Intermodal Center rail facility conducted over 26,500 (container) lifts. 

 

9

 Port of Huntsville, 2003 

40
With the recent rail yard and container handling equipment improvements, the IIC rail facility is 

now capable of conducting 114,000 lifts per year. 

Regional Benefits 

According to the 1996 Port of Huntsville Economic Impact Study (the most recent available), 

airport tenants and nearby businesses employ nearly 15,000 workers, with a combined payroll of 

$600 million. These jobs, and the spending associated with them, create a multiplied regional 

impact of 28,594 jobs and $971 million in total payrolls. The Huntsville MSA (Madison and 

Limestone Counties) was the home of 10,732 workers counted in the survey. They collectively 

earned over $440 million during the study year. The total multiplied impact of this employment 

was 20,606 jobs, which represents more than 10 percent of the Huntsville MSA labor force. 

The Decatur MSA (Morgan and Lawrence Counties) contained 2,248 workers and had a 

multiplied impact of more than 4,300 jobs, which represents nearly six percent of the labor force 

in that metropolitan area. The Quad Cities (Colbert and Lauderdale Counties) contribute 670 

employees and had a total impact of 1,297 jobs. Other important impacted areas were Marshall, 

Cullman, and Jackson Counties in Alabama and Lincoln County, Tennessee. All of these areas 

benefited significantly from the employment opportunities offered by businesses located at or 

near the Port of Huntsville. 

The large increase in the airport's regional impact can be attributed to two factors. The first and 

most important is the rapid increase of new jobs at or near the airport and the other is the higher 

proportion of better paying jobs.10 

The Port of Huntsville estimates the core market area for rail operations are to businesses located 

within a 50-mile radius of the IIC, with a secondary market extending to a 150-mile radius. As 

Exhibit 5-1 illustrates, the ICC rail market area encompasses portions of a six states – the 

majority of which are in the Appalachian Region. The ICC plays a vital role on connecting area 

industry to the national rail and port system. 

 

10 Port of Huntsville, 2003, 1996 

41
Exhibit 5-1 

Port of Huntsville-IIC Rail Market Area, 150-Mile Radius 

The Port of Huntsville’s air cargo market area, particularly for international cargo, is effectively 

all of North America. International air cargo arriving or departing Huntsville is routinely 

connected via air (e.g., transferred to/from another aircraft) for service to its final destination 

point. Generally, however, air-to-air freight transfers occur only if the final origin or destination 

point of the air cargo is beyond a 600-mile radius from the Port of Huntsville. Air cargo origins 

and destinations within the 600-mile radius are trucked to and from Huntsville. It is estimated 

that 85 to 90 percent of HSV air cargo is truck-to-air versus air-to-air cargo (i.e., within the 600-

mile radius). Exhibit 5-2 illustrates the truck-to-air market area of the Port of Huntsville. As 

Exhibit 5-2 shows, nearly the entire Appalachian Region is included within the market area. 

42
Exhibit 5-2 

Port of Huntsville-IIC Air Cargo Market Area 

600-Mile Radius 

Note that the Port of Huntsville - Huntsville International Airport - is the primary international 

air cargo/freight facility within the Appalachian Region. 

Regional Intermodal Connectivity 

The Port of Huntsville offers road, rail, air and sea connectivity via direct linkages to each mode. 

As discussed in the previous sections, Norfolk Southern provides rail connectivity. The IIC and 

Norfolk Southern effectively tie Huntsville in to the national rail system via direct routings to 

some of the nation’s largest rail hubs. All points west of Huntsville, including key West Coast 

ports, are served through the Memphis gateway via direct Huntsville-Memphis train service. Rail 

service to the east includes the following direct lines: 

• Huntsville - Jacksonville, FL - Miami, FL 

• Huntsville - Savannah, GA 

43
• Huntsville - Charleston, SC 

• Huntsville - Elizabeth, NJ 

• Huntsville – Rutherford, PA 

The rail service to points east provide the IIC and its users direct rail-to-sea connectivity to 

several of the premier east coast ports. 

Excellent highway connectivity is key to the air cargo component of the IIC. Exhibit 5-3 

illustrates key IIC road connectors to the Appalachian Development Highway System (Corridor 

V) and other important interstate highways within the Appalachian Region. Exhibit 5-4 details 

distance and drive time from the Port of Huntsville to major interstate highways and ADHS 

corridors. 

Exhibit 5-3: Key International Intermodal Center Road Connectors to The Appalachian 

Development Highway System 

44
Exhibit 5-4

Huntsville International Intermodal Center

ADHS Connector Proximity

ADHS Corridor or 

Interstate

Distance in Miles 

to Corridor

Drive time to 

Corridor

Corridor V East, I-565 1.5 3 minutes

Corridor V West, SR72 1.2 3 minutes

I-65 8.4 10 minutes

I-24 18 25 minutes

I-75 122 2.4 hours

I-40/I-81 123.8 2.4 hours

Source: WSA

The long-term focus for the Port of Huntsville is concentrated on increasing air cargo operations 

and capturing additional international traffic market share. Huntsville is focusing special 

attention at emerging Asia/Pacific Rim destinations. 

A multimillion-dollar airport improvement program is underway. The plan includes lengthening 

the 8,000 foot runway to 12,600 feet in order to accommodate fully loaded Asia-bound Boeing 

B747s or Airbus A380s; an additional taxiway; a maintenance, repair and overhaul facility for 

large cargo carriers; a new control tower and expanded freight-handling capabilities for the 

intermodal facility.11

Air Cargo growth goals are being carried out in conjuction with Huntsville’s tenant freight 

forwarder, Panalpina. The Port of Huntsville and Panalpina have formed a unique partnership 

with the common goal of increasing Huntsville’s profile as an international cargo hub leader in 

the U.S. market. To this end, both organizations are working to ensure that each of their 

respective needs is met in terms of infrastructure, traffic (freight volume), and business 

development. 

 

11 Port of Huntsville, 2003 

45
Needs and Next Steps 

Obtaining funding to carry out the planned infrastructure improvements is a primary goal of the 

Port of Huntsville. Beyond funding necessary improvements, Huntsville is aggressively 

marketing itself to both freight carriers (particularly air cargo) and to freight intensive industries 

that can benefit from the IIC’s international/intermodal capabilities. Additional air cargo carriers 

are being courted with the goal of supplementing and enhancing existing air operations. In 

addition, the Port of Huntsville’s Jetplex industrial park is actively recruiting additional tenants 

with a high demand for freight mobility. Such industries offer a twofold benefit to Huntsville, 

direct economic stimulus and increased freight and intermodal activity. 

46
Case Study 6: Port of Pittsburgh Container-on-Barge 

Concept 

The Port of Pittsburgh container-on-barge (COB) inland waterway network embraces the 

concept of containerized transport of commodities via flat deck barge that traditionally move via 

road or rail. Currently, commodities transported by barge tend to be low value, bulk goods. 

However, the use of container barges (flat deck), capable of carrying large numbers of containers 

and being loaded and unloaded quickly at port, has the potential to change the dynamics of barge 

transport. Exhibit 6-1 illustrates the inland waterway system with connectivity to the Port of 

Pittsburgh. Theoretically, all points within this waterway network can be served via COB service 

provided the origin and destination ports are equipped with container handling and intermodal 

infrastructure. 

Exhibit 6-1 

Inland Waterway System Connecting the Appalachian Region

 Source: Port of Pittsburgh 

47
The containerization of barge traffic allows for the transport of higher value commodities typical 

of interstate truck traffic. Domestic inland and intercoastal barge freight is no longer limited to 

traditional bulk commodities such as coal and scrap iron. Container barges, coupled with 

efficient intermodal port facilities, will enable the effective transfer of freight from road to water 

and back. The Port of Pittsburgh, the Port of Albany, New York and a handful of inter-coastal 

waterway barge operators on the Gulf of Mexico are pioneering this effort in the U.S. 

Progression 

Currently, there are several COB networks or specific routes operating with success. Inland 

waterways in Europe successfully facilitate containerized barge transport, complete with 

supporting rail and highway intermodal facilities. However, European COB networks may not be 

a valid comparison to an Appalachian Region Container-on-Barge network due to the differences 

in population density and geographic dispersion of industrial centers. Concentrations of 

population and industry along primary inland waterways are more pronounced in European 

markets than in the Appalachian Region (and in the rest of the U.S.). 

There is currently a single, unsubsidized, operator specializing in the transport of container 

traffic along the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast. Osprey Lines, based in Houston, Texas, utilizes 

ocean-going barges along the Gulf Coast and traditional barge runs along connected intracoastal 

waterways. Primary Gulf Coast service is provided between the Ports of Houston and New 

Orleans. Houston-New Orleans 

service moves containerized freight 

that feeds large container ships 

bound for international destinations. 

This Houston-New OrleansHouston round-trip route runs 

approximately once per week 

depending upon the volume and 

ship schedules that drive the traffic. 

For the year ending December 31, 

2002, it is estimated that 50,000 

48
containers have been transported between Houston and New Orleans via barge. Expansion of 

both routes and schedule are planned, eventually developing into a Gulf of Mexico COB network 

running from Brownsville, Texas to Mobile, Alabama and points between. Though this service 

can be considered merely a niche market, it proves the commercial viability of the concept. 

The Port of Pittsburgh COB concept for the Appalachian Region’s inland waterway relies 

primarily on existing inland waterway infrastructure. However, an initial investment in port 

equipment will be necessary to facilitate intermodal transfer of containers. In order to load, 

unload and position the intermodal containers, each port on the proposed COB system will need 

to add or upgrade equipment. Container handling equipment such as spreader bars that attach to 

existing cranes, forklifts and container chassis will be needed. Initial cost estimates for such 

equipment is 750 thousand to one million dollars per port. 

Key destination ports served by Port of Pittsburgh container-on-barge service have been 

identified as the following: 

• Brownsville, TX • Memphis, TN 

• Houston, TX • St. Louis, MO 

• New Orleans, LA • Paducah, KY 

• Baton Rouge, LA • Louisville, KY 

• Little Rock, AR • Cincinnati, OH 

• Tulsa, OK • Huntington, WV 

Regional Benefits 

A successful Port of Pittsburgh container-on-barge network will offer Appalachia expanded 

transportation capacity and important new shipping alternatives and efficiencies. Key to the 

success of the COB program will be the intermodal links between the inland waterway and the 

region’s primary railways and highways, especially ADHS corridors. The following sections 

present a number of advantages that improved and expanded inland navigation service can bring 

to the region: 

49
1. Expanded freight capacity and modal options 

2. Improved fuel efficiency and operating cost savings 

3. Improved Safety 

4. Reduced air and environmental impacts 

Expanded Capacity 

The sheer size and capacity of the flat deck container barge is the primary advantage of this 

mode. Exhibit 6-2 illustrates the capacity of a single barge versus rail and truck equivalents. Note 

that a barge movement (depending on size and weight of cargo) can move up to 300 containers 

in a single run. New intermodal connections with ADHS Corridors, interstate highways, and 

railways will offer businesses within the Region expanded shipping options, increased capacity, 

and streamlined transport costs. 

Exhibit 6-2 

Cargo Capacity Comparison 

One Barge

1, 500 Ton

52, 500 Bu

453, 600 Gal

1 Rail Car

100 Ton

3, 500 Bu

30,240 Gal

100 Car Train Unit

10, 000 Ton

350, 000 Bu

3, 024, 000 Gal

Large Semi

26 Ton

910 Bu

7, 865 Gal

 

 Source: Iowa Department of Transportation, The Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway Development Authority

Efficiency and Cost 

In terms of fuel usage per ton-mile, barge transport can be the most efficient and cost effective 

means of moving container traffic. Exhibit 6-3 illustrates the number of miles a ton of freight can 

be transported per gallon of fuel by truck, rail, and barge. 

Additional factors affecting the efficiency of barge transport is the reduced labor requirement of 

a barge operation. A 300-container barge movement from Pittsburgh, PA to Mobile, AL 

effectively eliminates the cost of 300 long-haul truck operations. 

50
Exhibit 6-3

Efficiency Comparison 

Number of Ton Miles per Gallon of Fuel 

Source: U.S. DOT Maritime Administration, The Tennessee Tombigbee 

Waterway Development Authority

Safety 

Safety remains an important consideration when considering the benefits of Appalachian Region 

barge transport. Again comparing barge transport to truck and rail, Exhibit 6-4 details the 

number of deaths and injuries per billion ton-miles by mode. Note that deaths and injuries 

resulting from barge transport are significantly lower than other modes. 

Exhibit 6-4 

Safety Comparison 

Deaths and Injuries per billion ton-miles 

Mode Deaths Injuries

0.01 0.09

1.15 21.77

0.84 N/A

Source: C. Jake Haulk Ph.D. - Inland Waterways as Vital National Infrastructure: Refuting 

"Corporate Welfare" Attacks, The Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway Development Authority

51
Environmental 

As illustrated in Exhibit 6-5, on a per ton-mile basis, barge transport produces the least amount 

of emissions when compared to rail or truck transport. In an era of growing sensitivity to 

environmental pollutants, barge transport can offer an environmental alternative to existing 

transportation modes. 

Exhibit 6-5 

Emissions Comparison 

Pounds of Emissions per Ton-Mile 

Mode Hydrocarbons

Carbon 

Monoxide

Nitrous Oxide

0. 0009 0. 0020 0. 0053

0. 0046 0. 0064 0. 0183

0. 0063 0. 0190 0. 1017

Source: C. Jake Haulk Ph.D. - Inland Waterways as Vital National Infrastructure: Refuting "Corporate Welfare" Attacks, The 

Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway Development Authority

Regional Intermodal Connectivity 

Intermodal connectivity (barge-to-truck, barge-to-rail) for the Port of Pittsburgh is excellent. 

Pittsburgh is well served by Interstate and ADHS highways, Class I railroads (CSX and Norfolk 

Southern) and Class II railroads )Bessemer & Lake Erie Railroad Company (Great Lakes 

Transportation), Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad, Inc., Mountain Laurel Railroad Company 

Pittsburgh (sic) & Shawmut Railroad and Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Company). Exhibit 6-6 

highlights interstate highway access to the Port of Pittsburgh. Note that I-376 becomes US-22, or 

ADHS Corridor M. Exhibit 6-7 details distance and drive time to ADHS Corridor M and 

interstate highways from the Port of Pittsburgh. Rail connectivity with the listed railroads is 

provided directly at the Port of Pittsburgh. 

52
Exhibit 6-6 

Key Port of Pittsburgh Road and Rail Connectors 

Exhibit 6-7

Port of Pittsburgh 

ADHS Corridor Proximity

ADHS Corridor or 

Interstate

Distance in Miles 

to Corridor

Drive time to 

Corridor

I-279/I-79 1.6 3 minutes

Corridor M (US-22) 5.5 9 minutes

I-376 6.5 8 minutes

I-70 20 26 minutes

I-76 21 30 minutes

Source: WSA

Additional intermodal COB terminals would provide expanded connectivity to the ADHS 

throughout the Appalachian Region. A potential COB terminal in Huntington, West Virginia 

area, for example, would provide connection to ADHS Corridor B and Interstate 64, while a 

Cincinnati, Ohio COB terminal would provide connection to ADHS Corridor D and Interstates 

71 and 75. 

53
Long-Term Direction 

For Port of Pittsburgh COB operations to succeed, COB operations must address the following 

challenges: 

• Door-to-Door Network Development 

• Distance and Transit Time 

• Port Infrastructure 

Network Development 

Shippers are increasingly demanding door-to-door delivery service versus traditional port-to-port 

service. This demand is even more acute when dealing with containerized, intermodal freight. 

Traditional barge operators are currently not equipped to offer door-to-door service. To 

effectively market and appeal to shipper needs, inland waterway operators must expand service 

offerings into intermodal drayage operations, offering single-source door-to-door service. 

In addition, time-definite service must be available and reliable. While delays may be acceptable 

in bulk freight transport, higher value containerized freight must be delivered on schedule. 

Insuring scheduled barge service may involve expanding locks and choke points along the inland 

waterway system to decrease delay. A second strategy is to restrict the size of container barge 

runs to two to three barges per run. This could allow them to sometimes bypass congestion at 

larger lock chambers (required for longer barge runs), by utilizing smaller, less congested 

secondary lock chambers. 

Distance and Transit Time 

Longer distances between origin and destination points make barge traffic more efficient in 

terms of both cost and time. Shorter runs proportionally require more staging, load and unload 

time in relation to actual transit time. If the time a barge spends in port, relative to the time it is 

in transit can be reduced, the barge operation becomes more efficient in terms of distance 

covered in a given time period. This efficiency will also translate into cost savings. Since port 

operations are a fixed cost, a longer run between ports allows the cost to be disbursed over a 

greater distance, creating a lower per mile cost. The Port of Pittsburgh recognizes the need for 

longer-distance port-pairs. 

54
Port Infrastructure 

In order to handle barge container traffic, many traditional barge ports/docks along Appalachian 

Region inland waterways may need infrastructure improvements, expansion, or both. Traditional 

barge facilities are designed to primarily handle bulk commodities (i.e., coal, petroleum, scrap 

iron). To accommodate container traffic and associated barge-to-truck, barge –to-rail, and bargeto-barge transfers, the following improvements must be considered (as briefly addressed in the 

Progression section): 

• On and off-load equipment (cranes, forklifts, Ro-Ro capability) 

• Container storage and staging areas (land requirements) 

• Improved truck and rail access 

• Truck queue/waiting areas (land requirements) 

• Dredging of key inland waterway segments 

Many of these issues, such as dredging and land issues, are currently addressed in the course of 

facilitating the region’s existing inland waterway bulk freight traffic. Still, a variety of lift and 

storage equipment will need to be made available at port facilities that are accessible by barge 

rail, and truck for efficient COB operations. Improved flexibility to change equipment modes is 

important. Either stationary dockside cranes or mobile cranes can be used to load and unload 

containers. Alternatively, the Ro-Ro system (Roll-On, Roll-Off) uses trailers or containers on 

chassis. The choice of equipment and its location depends on a full understanding of local 

conditions, economics, and operation/freight type. 

Needs and Next Steps 

As addressed in previous chapters, shippers are increasingly selecting transportation services 

based on time-definite service and reliability, rather than mode or route. In addition, door-to-door 

service is increasing important. In order to become a viable alternative to door-to-door truck 

service or intermodal door-to-door truck-rail service, COB operators must begin to offer full 

service, time-definite freight transport. The next step for the Port of Pittsburgh is to help incubate 

the expansion of inland waterway service offerings. This is recognized as perhaps the greatest 

challenge facing COB networks. 

55
The increase in COB service (door-to-door and time definite) can be accomplished in two ways. 

First, current barge operators can provide in-house truck service to their customers through either 

contracted carriers or wholly owned trucking operations. Second, third party agents, such as 

freight forwarders, can orchestrate freight movements via COB systems, coordinating door-todoor truck-barge freight movements. 

56
Case Study 7: Erie to Nanticoke Ferry

Concept 

The Erie to Nanticoke Freight Ferry will provide scheduled, containerized waterborne freight 

service between the Port of Erie in northern Pennsylvania and Nanticoke in southern Ontario, 

Canada. The concept is designed to take advantage of increasing trade and associated commodity 

flow between Canada and the United States, driven in part by NAFTA. As trade levels have 

increased between the two countries, levels of truck traffic and congestion have increased 

significantly on the highways and at border crossings connecting the two countries. 

The goal of the Erie-Nanticoke Freight Ferry is twofold. The ferry service will seek to capture 

truck traffic currently traveling from southern Ontario through the Buffalo and Niagara, New 

York border-crossings and on to the south and west via I-90. The service will also seek to tap 

new and niche freight business opportunities that can benefit from a new international gateway. 

A prime example of such a niche market would be large and oversized truck freight that is 

currently banned from New York highways (thus the Buffalo and Niagara border crossings) due 

to the state’s two-axel limitation on truck trailers. 

Exhibit 7-1 illustrates the location of the proposed freight ferry service (and associated 

gateways) in relation to the Appalachian Region and affected ADHS segments. 

57
Exhibit 7-1 

Erie to Nanticoke Freight Ferry 

Locations and ADHS Connectivity 

The Erie-Nanticoke Freight Ferry program differs significantly from intra-coastal container-onbarge (COB) service due its much shorter distance and transit time. Most COB concepts, such as 

the Port of Pittsburgh’s Ohio River 

container on barge network, advocate 

long-distance, multi-state 

containerized freight transport via 

barge. The Erie-Nanticoke Freight 

Ferry will specialize in short distance, 

scheduled service requiring rapid 

vessel turn-times (e.g., the time it 

takes to unload and load containers at 

port). The ferry distance between Erie 

and Nanticoke is 49 miles and is 

Ro-Ro Freight Ferry 

58
expected to take three and a half to four hours each way, with a maximum four-hour turn-time at 

port. With the time and distance between the proposed service points being so short in 

comparison to other COB networks (existing and proposed), the load and unload at port becomes 

a critical factor in maintaining its competitiveness. To insure the necessary turn-times, the ErieNanticoke Freight Ferry will utilize vessels and port facilities that facilitate roll-on, roll-off (roro) loading and unloading of containers/trailers, versus the more time consuming stationary 

and/or mobile cranes method of loading and unloading freight (lo-lo). This method allows trucks 

to drive directly on and off the ferry (or barge) to rapidly deposit and remove freight containers 

without the aid of a crane or lift. The price of the added speed and convenience of ro-ro 

capability, however, is the inability to stack containers, thus limiting ferry capacity in relation to 

COB vessels. 

An initial study of the Freight Ferry program and its associated catchment area has focused 

transport potential on select commodity groups as appropriate for truck-to-ferry diversion. The 

following southern Ontario and northern Appalachian origin and destination freight 

characteristics were examined by commodity type (SIC code) to identify those most suitable for 

diversion: 

• Distance between origin and destination 

• Frequency of travel 

• Freight volume 

• Time sensitivity 

• Seasonality in freight movements 

• Variations in freight movement 

• Industry growth 

Based upon the listed freight and shipper characteristics within the planned catchment area, the 

following six SIC groups, or commodity types, have been identified as the most likely to utilize 

the Freight Ferry service: 

• Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 

• Food and Beverage 

• Light Manufacturing 

59
• Chemicals 

• Heavy Manufacturing 

• Wholesale/Retail Goods 

The market and catchment area within the Appalachian Region is expected to include 

southwestern New York, western Pennsylvania (inclusive of Pittsburgh), northern West Virginia 

and eastern Ohio. 

Progression 

A Canadian interest, the Upper Lakes Group, in conjunction with the Port of Erie has been the 

driving force behind the Erie to Nanticoke Freight Ferry concept. The Upper Lakes Group will 

be the operator of the freight ferry and will have the responsibility of developing the port 

facilities at Nanticoke to support ferry operations. The Port of Erie will be responsible for 

developing its facilities on the U.S. side of ferry operations. Currently, the Port of Erie has the 

capacity to handle initial start-up operations (and associated cargo volume) with existing 

infrastructure. Existing assets include dock facilities, storage and staging yards, rail siding, and 

U.S. Customs. 

Initial service levels will consist of a single ferry operating one and a half to two round-trips 

operations per day (an average of three and a half one-way operations) with the capacity to move 

100 trailers per one-way operation. It is estimated that the service will run six to seven days per 

week with minimal downtime, translating to 340 annual operating days. On average, the ferry is 

anticipated to operate at 75 percent capacity, which over the course of a year’s operation will 

translate to 89,250 trailers transported. 

The start-up cost for the initial single ferry service rests primarily with the Upper Lakes Group, 

in terms of both the purchase and operation cost of the vessel itself and in developing the 

necessary port infrastructure at Nanticoke. The Upper Lakes Group is working with private 

investors and the necessary Canadian government entities to obtain financing and government 

approval necessary to begin port construction. 

60
Regional Benefits 

The Erie to Nanticoke Freight Ferry will provide the Appalachian Region with two distinct 

benefits; an increase in intermodal freight throughput at the Port of Erie and a new international 

gateway to Canada (the United States’ largest trading partner). As with the development of any 

intermodal facility, an increase in 

activity and service offerings will 

translate into increased economic 

activity and job creation. Direct 

economic stimulation and job 

creation will be derived from the 

daily operations of the Port of Erie 

gateway and intermodal facility. It is 

also anticipated that secondary 

benefits will be realized in areas 

surrounding the Port of Erie, as 

commerce is attracted by the new and 

improved transportation and logistics 

services. 

Port of Erie

Providing international gateway service for containerized and trailer freight to Canadian markets 

will also be a tangible benefit and job creation tool for the Erie area. In order to support 

increased demands for international freight, shippers, forwarders, and carriers will need to 

establish or retain customs brokers, customs clearing operations, and in-bond storage facilities to 

support Port of Erie operations. 

Regional Intermodal Connectivity 

The northern Appalachian Region will gain containerized and trailer truck-to-ferry intermodal 

connectivity via the Port of Erie. North-south I-79 provides the primary connection from the Port 

of Erie to Corridor T of the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). From I-79, 

direct access to east-west I-90, Corridor T (via I-90) and I-80 are easily accessible. This section 

of the ADHS network offers superior access to the Port of Erie and freight ferry services. Due to 

61
ADHS connectivity, the Port of Erie has the potential to become a primary Canadian gateway for 

the entire northern Appalachian Region. Exhibit 7-2 details the distance and drive time to the 

Port of Erie’s nearest interstate highways and ADHS corridor. 

Exhibit 7-2

Erie to Nanticoke Freight Ferry

ADHS Connector Proximity

ADHS Corridor or 

Interstate

Distance in Miles 

to Corridor

Drive time to 

Corridor

I-79 3.2 5 minutes

I-90 7.1 9 minutes

Corridor T (I-86) 14 20 minutes

I-80 70 1 hour 20 minutes

Source: WSA

The potential also exists for ship-to-rail intermodal transfer at each port served by the freight 

ferry. The Port of Erie is currently served by rail and has the capacity to meet ferry-to-rail 

intermodal demand with upgrades to existing rail sidings and the addition of container loading 

equipment. Nanticoke land availability also allows for the construction of ship-to-rail 

infrastructure. Multiple railroads have been approached to gauge interest in providing rail service 

(and investment) to each port (Erie and Nanticoke). CSX has expressed interest in providing 

service at both ports and is working with project developers, Upper Lakes Group, and the Port of 

Erie, to establish project needs and market potential. 

Needs and Next Steps 

Planning for future growth, the Port of Erie has identified several infrastructure improvement 

projects that would increase the efficiency and facilitate future expansion of freight ferry 

operations. Among the port improvement identified are the following: 

• Additional rail siding to facilitate direct ferry-to-rail intermodal transfer. 

• Expand current or create additional dock space. 

• Intermodal transfer yard and staging area. 

• New access road to port facilities. 

62
Constructing an additional dock will be the most expensive of the identified improvements. The 

emand 

n additional rail siding, should the market for ferry-to-rail intermodal service materialize, will 

Port of Erie estimates the project will cost an estimated $12.5 million and require environmental 

wetland mitigation measures to complete construction. Note, however, that additional dock 

construction/expansion is not necessary to handle the initial single ferry operation. This 

investment would only be necessary to facilitate multiple ferry operations should future d

warrant. 

A

cost an estimated $1.5 million. CSX has expressed an interest in providing this service, however,

it is currently unclear what level of financial support CSX will provide to upgrade the necessary 

infrastructure. Financing of port growth projects is anticipated to come through a mix of federal 

and state support supplemented by private investment. 

63