1. Presented by: Howard Wood & Kelly Brooker Scocco
Ohio Department of Transportation

2. Rickenbacker’s Location

3. General Information
A multi-modal inland port featuring an international air-cargo airport and rail intermodal terminal located on 5,000 acres 20 miles south of Downtown Columbus.
Operated by the Columbus Regional Airport Authority.
Direct industrial park access (9,000 acres)
Within a one day’s truck drive to 50% of the U.S. and Canadian populations.

4. National Overview Map Ring Population % of US pop
120 Mile ,167, %
240 Mile ,313, %
360 Mile ,693, %
480 Mile ,449, %
600 Mile ,215, %
Entire US ,460,069

5. CRMSRP Project (Median Rail)
The Heartland Corridor
COMPONENT
LEGEND
Central Corridor Double-Stack Initiative
Prichard Intermodal Terminal
Roanoke Region Intermodal Terminal
Rickenbacker Intermodal Terminal
Commonwealth Railway Mainline Safety Relocation Project (CRMSRP)
664
NIT
CIMT (Proposed)
CIDMMA
Norfolk
APM
Columbus
Rickenbacker
Ashville
Huntington
Kenova
Prichard
Williamson
Welch
Bluefield
Roanoke
Petersburg
Richmond
Washington, DC
Christiansburg
Portsmouth
To Chicago, Detroit, & Points West VA OH WV KY
164
Portsmouth
PMT
264
664
264
464
CRMSRP Project (Median Rail)

6. The Heartland Corridor – The Port of Virginia

7. The Heartland Corridor – The Port of Virginia

8. Future Craney Island Marine Terminal
Phase 2 – June 2032
Total Acreage: 600 ( hectare) Pier Length: ft. ( meters) Depth: 52 ft. (15.85 meters) Cranes: 15 Capacity: 5M TEUs Cost: $1.06B
Phase 1 – June 2017
Total Acreage: 220 (89.03 hectare) Pier Length: ft. (914.4 meters) Depth: 52 ft. (15.85 meters) Cranes: 6 Capacity: 1.5M TEUs Cost: $1.2B

9. The Heartland Corridor Rail Service to Chicago
Cuts 233 Miles From the Rail Route Between The Port of Virginia and Chicago

11. Foreign-Trade Zone No. 138
Located on 5,000 acres of airport and adjacent property.
More than 70 companies are located in the Foreign-Trade Zone.
Area currently has over 30 million sq. ft. of development with 9,000 acres available for growth.

12. Air Cargo Operations

13. Air Cargo
Two parallel, 12,000-foot runways capable of handling any aircraft in the world.
3rd largest port of entry in the United States for textiles.
Air Cargo tonnage has increased 22% in the last 4 years.
130 acres of cargo ramp area featuring an in-ground fueling system.
Existing Air Cargo Terminal Complex encompasses 164,000 sq. ft. of multi-tenant and customizable air cargo facilities.

14. New Intermodal Facility

15. New Intermodal Facility

16. Intermodal Facility
Located on 300 acres, will provide direct access from existing industrial parks to multiple transportation options.
Expected to handle up to 400,000 container transfers a year.
Expected to help create 9,500 jobs and generate $800 million in state and local taxes over the next 30 years.
Could save shippers ~ $660 million in transportation costs.

17. Rickenbacker Expansion Plans
Airport Authority is working with Duke Realty to develop 1,300 acres of airport property near the new intermodal terminal.
$20 million Air Cargo Terminal No. 4 – 48,000 sq. ft. multi-tenant facility (2008)
New north campus (229 acres) that includes a 573,696 sq. ft. cross-docked facility expandable to 1,248,00 sq. ft.

18. Rickenbacker
Expansion

19. Rickenbacker
Expansion
Aerial View

20. Rickenbacker
Expansion
Site Plan

21. Surrounding Industrial Development

22. Surrounding Industrial Development
The Rickenbacker area encompasses numerous industrial parks, commercial property owners and more than 150 companies.
Businesses include cargo airlines, freight forwarders, logistics companies, e-tailers, corporate aviation businesses, manufactures and distributors.
Area currently has over 30 million sq. ft. of development with 9,000 acres available for growth.

23. Surrounding Industrial Development – Forward Air, Inc.
Main trucking hub located at Rickenbacker and is the cornerstone of the company’s entire network.
Recently invested $5 million into its 33 acre Rickenbacker hub.
The facility has 125,000 sq. ft. with 168 dock doors.
Can unload, sort and reload upwards of 3.7 million pounds of cargo in 5 hours.
Company has a second facility located airside at Rickenbacker.

24. ODOT’s Rickenbacker Involvement

25. ODOT’s Rickenbacker Involvement
Request for Public Funds
In 2003 Rickenbacker Port Authority applied for $49.6 million in ODOT transportation funding for intermodal facility
$10 million match from NS RR
Cited public benefits
Air quality
Reduced highway congestion
Economic Development

26. Airport Authority Changed Funding Request
ODOT’s Rickenbacker Involvement
Airport Authority Changed Funding Request
Scope of project request changed to more conventional transportation project
NHS connector road
ODOT approved and programmed $8.2 million in fiscal year 2008 (first year that capital funds were available).

27. ODOT’s Rickenbacker Involvement
Airport Authority and project sponsors seek congressional earmark
SAFETEA-LU earmarks for project total $30.4 million

28. Key Policy Questions: ODOT’s Rickenbacker Involvement
What are the transportation benefits of the proposed project?
Are economic development benefits a valid purpose and need for federal-aid funding?
Is the public investment in a rail intermodal facility superior to alternative transportation investments?

29. Transportation Factors
ODOT’s Rickenbacker Involvement
Transportation Factors
Shift in traffic to rail-intermodal will reduce truck volume from public roads
Truck VMT/congestion reduction
Reduction in road maintenance costs
Possible public safety benefit(?)
Air quality benefit

30. Rickenbacker Intermodal Transportation Benefits
ODOT’s Rickenbacker Involvement
Rickenbacker Intermodal Transportation Benefits
Reduction in Franklin County annual truck VMT of 912,500
Annual Franklin County truck VMT = 438,443,647
Reduction in total annual truck VMT = 0.21%

31. Federal Earmarks ODOT’s Rickenbacker Involvement
Don’t fit very well with Title 23 programs
Seem ad hoc, unreflective of Title 23 planning provisions (long term, deliberative)
Title 23 is not structured very well for administrative purposes
Real Estate, environmental, construction, reimbursement

32. What is Needed? ODOT’s Rickenbacker Involvement
Addressing the public policy concerns of federal earmarks

33. Addressing Policy Concerns
ODOT’s Rickenbacker Involvement
Addressing Policy Concerns
Number of private beneficiaries (e.g., more is better)
Degree of public use (e.g., reflects public source of funding)
Development through the metropolitan planning process (e.g., ensures local consensus)

34. Addressing Policy Concerns (continued)
ODOT’s Rickenbacker Involvement
Addressing Policy Concerns (continued)
Percentage of local public funding (e.g., reflects broader spread of risk)
Degree of identifiable public benefits (e.g., reflects nature of public investment)
Level of private sector investment (e.g., reflects broader spread of risk)

35. Closing Thoughts ODOT’s Rickenbacker Involvement
Let’s admit we want these projects
FHWA, DOTs, and railroads need to be more flexible
FHWA can be flexible in its administration, with possible changes in Title 23
DOTs need to acknowledge the public benefits/ desires for intermodal projects
Railroads need to provide more information for the public decision process.