Section 2.0 Methodology

FHWA employed a case study methodology to examine the ways that the environmental review process and environmental factors can affect the development and expansion of intermodal facilities. Projects were reviewed across the nation for all modes of transportation. FHWA's interests include both projects that had encountered delays as well as those that had succeed in getting through the environmental review process in a timely or expeditious manner. An attempt was also made to identify additional success stories where the environmental review process or environmental factors worked to the advantage of the project's funding, timing, or scope.

Project Selection

The project team began by reviewing available intermodal project lists and conducting a brainstorming session to generate an initial list of projects for consideration. A table and listing indicating the universe of projects that were considered is included in Appendix A. To narrow the list of projects for further study, FHWA applied two screening phases. The first phase involved a set of minimum requirements, including:

• Needing either federal funding or a federal permit;
• Having a clear relationship to intermodal freight terminals and/or operations;
• Being far enough into the planning and development process that the project proponents and reviewing agencies were able to discuss the potential or actual impacts, the level of public concern, and any issues associated with agency consultation/permitting; and
• Having the potential to affect (either negatively or positively) environmental resources across one or more (natural and/or human) environment dimensions. The project could be included if it lacked these impacts but had substantial public opposition.

The second screening phase was applied to projects passing the initial screening criteria and was based on information availability. A series of initial inquiries were made to identify projects for which appropriate individuals could be found who were knowledgeable and willing to speak about the project. Individuals who understood the perspectives of the agencies and stakeholders were sought. Study constraints did limit time in finding individuals. Table 1 presents the case studies and Figure 1 shows their locations.

Table 1. Completed Case Studies

Facility Type (by Mode)	Region
	Eastern U.S.	Western U.S.
Rail/Highway	Waterville (Maine)
Rail/Highway/Port	Sears Island/Mack Point (Maine)	FAST Project (Seattle-Tacoma); Port of Oakland
Port/Rail		Alameda Corridor (Los Angeles); Port of Long Beach
Port/Highway		West Hayden Island (Portland, Oregon)
Airport/Highway	Logan Airport (Boston)

Figure 1. Locations of Selected Intermodal Projects

Initial Project Evaluation and Investigation

While the project selection process was underway, a matrix was developed to map projects by mode, geography, environmental factors, and other criteria. Geography was represented as: Northeast, South, Midwest/Plains, and West regions, although FHWA also considered whether projects had either urban or rural locations, and whether they were in residential or non-residential settings. Modes and connections were categorized as ports/highway/rail, rail/highway, and airport/highway/rail facilities. Intermodal facilities were further characterized by the type(s) of commodities transferred: dry bulk, trailer/container, liquid bulk, perishable, or hazardous materials. Environmental factors included:

• Noise and vibration,
• Land use compatibility/zoning,
• Local transportation impacts,
• Socio-economics,
  • Environmental justice
  • Community impacts
• Air quality,
• Water quality,
• Hazardous waste contamination,
• Natural resources,
  • Wildlife habitat,
  • Vegetation,
• Cultural resources,
  • Historic structures,
  • Archaeological sites,
  • Landscapes, traditional cultural properties, etc.

This comprehensive matrix is presented in Appendix B.

Following project selection, the matrix was refined and simplified. Summary Table 2 illustrates the degree to which the selected projects are representative of different modes and environmental factors.

Table 2. Matrix of Selected Characteristics for Case Study Projects

Mode	Project	Environmental Factors
		Air Quality	Cultural Resources	Land Use Compatibility	Local Transportation	Natural Resources	Noise, Vibration	Haz. Waste Contamination	Socio- Economics	Water Quality
Rail/ Highway	Waterville (Maine)
Rail/ Highway/ Port	Oakland Marine Berths
Rail/ Highway/ Port	Sears Island/Mack Point (Maine)
Rail/ Highway/ Port	FAST Corridor (Seattle/Tacoma)
Port/Rail	Long Beach Naval Base Re-Use
Port/Rail	Alameda Corridor (Los Angeles)
Port/ Highway	West Hayden Island Terminal (Portland, Oregon)
Airport/ Highway	Logan Airport (Boston)

The project team employed a variety of means to collect the information to characterize the projects. We identified initial contact persons (usually an individual representing the project sponsor) and asked questions (See Appendix C) to collect the basic information on projects that allowed us to apply the site selection criteria. The project team's previous knowledge of many intermodal projects, information provided by FHWA, and initial telephone and internet inquiries provided a first cut of information regarding which projects to investigate further.

Implementation of Case Studies

After we selected the case studies, it was necessary to collect additional information on the environmental review process beyond information typically contained in public documents. We developed a questionnaire and interviewed sponsoring agencies and the associated planning and regulatory agencies. Appropriate interviewees were selected both through the recommendations of FHWA and the existing knowledge of the project team, and from referrals obtained in previous interviews or through other contacts. Interviewed individuals included: those responsible for the NEPA process for the projects in question at the applicable lead agency, project sponsor agencies, FHWA field offices, EPA Regions, local MPOs, and other involved agencies. Interviewees were also identified through contact lists in NEPA documents. For the more detailed interviews, the project team sent the interviewees information regarding this study, including a description of the study's goals and scope, as well as an advance copy of the interview questions to facilitate the interview. Appendix D contains a copy of the questionnaire that was developed to ensure comprehensive, consistent coverage of the applicable issues.

Preparation of Case Study Summaries

Based on the results of the interviews and information gathered from public documents, project summaries were prepared. These summaries were structured in a formal and consistent format to maximize their usefulness. The full set of these project summaries is provided in Appendix E.

previous | next