Appendix A – Intermodal Projects Considered for Development as Case Studies
Part I – Projects advanced as case studies
| Project Name and Mode | Geography | Federal Funding or Permit? | Involvement of Intermodal Freight? | Project Development Status | Type and Magnitude of Impacts or Public Controversy | Advance as a case study? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alameda Corridor Los Angeles area Rail/Highway |
West | Federal funding. Numerous federal permits and federal EIS. | Yes, facilitates highway and rail connections and access to maritime facilities | Under construction | Project involved brownfields, archaeological issues, Native Americans, probably local traffic and noise impacts during construction. Started as a CEQA document, because it was not in the SIP. FHWA wanted to streamline the NEPA document, but were unable to. Had one NEPA suit and several CEQA suits. | Yes |
Oakland Marine Terminal Berths 55-58 Oakland Port/Rail/Highway |
West | Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404 permit. Federal Environmental Assessment conducted. | Yes | Phase I under construction or complete. Later phases pending. | Dredging impacts. Local truck traffic, air quality, and noise. Endangered species issues. | Yes |
West Hayden Island Marine Terminal Portland, Ore. Port/Highway |
West | Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404 permit. Possible FHWA funding for new bridge. Draft EIS underway. | Yes | Environmental review is being conducted, having been reinitiated in 1998 following a revision to ACOE processes. | Local truck traffic, air quality, and noise. Potential endangered species issues. Potential wetland issues. | Yes |
Logan Airport – Bird Island Flats Cargo Area Boston Rail/Aviation |
Northeast | The Bird Island Flats cargo project involved FAA funding and federal environmental permits, as well as a federal Environmental Assessment. | Yes – Air cargo operations and trucks; local transportation impacts on airport access. | Project effectively completed | Noise and vibration; air quality; socio-economics and neighborhood impacts. | Yes |
Sears Island terminal development and access Sears Island, Maine Rail/Highway |
Northeast | Required an EIS and probably other permits | Yes – port with rail and truck connections | The project was stopped in court by EDF, NRDC, and others six years ago after an EIS had been prepared and several million dollars spent on construction. | Impacts to eel grass were apparently involved in stopping the project. Public concern over coastal development probably played a role as well. | Yes |
FAST-Corridor Puget Sound, WA Port/Rail/Highway |
West | Federal funding | Yes – Improved truck access to ports and grade separations involving port, rail, and highway. | Various stages of analysis and implementation | Appears to have positive air quality effects through reduced congestion. Positive safety impacts from grade separating highway/rail at-grade crossings. Appears to have neighborhood impacts. | Yes |
Long Beach Naval Base Re-Use Long Beach, CA Port/Rail |
West | Army Corps of Engineers permits for landfill, dyke work, use of dredged material. Is also a brownfield. | Yes. The new terminal will include an on-dock rail facility. | In construction | All sorts of environmental issues and considerations. Also relates to reuse of military terminals. | Yes |
Part II – Projects strongly considered but not advanced as case studies
| Project Name and Mode | Geography | Federal Funding or Permit? | Involvement of Intermodal Freight? | Project Development Status | Type and Magnitude of Impacts or Public Controversy | Advance as a case study? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OE&J Cherokee, Woodbridge, NJ Truck/Rail/Barge and Warehousing |
Northeast | Army Corps of Engineers and other environmental permits | Yes. The site is being redeveloped as an intermodal distribution center with truck, rail, barge and warehousing. | Project is in preliminary stages. | Brownfields; private developer of an intermodal yard – reuse of dredged materials; neighborhood noise/light impacts (from current rail yard – Port Reading Yard on the site). | No |
Red Hook Barge, NY Barge/Rail/Truck |
Northeast | The project is funded in part with CMAQ grants. Only required a categorical exclusion under NEPA. | Yes. The barge transports containers from the Red Hook Container Terminal in Brooklyn to Port Newark, where it is moved inland by truck and rail. | Acquisition of two new barges and mobile cranes is nearly completed. The project is now several years old. | Air quality (reduction of VMT and truck emissions) – Was one of the first freight projects funded under CMAQ. | No – Only required a categorical exclusion under NEPA. |
CSX 59th St Intermodal Yard Chicago |
Midwest/Plains | Reviewed under NEPA because of Conrail acquisition, but no Federal permit or funding | Yes | Operational | Mitigation for noise, traffic, and community impacts were identified in the EIS and City of Chicago permit. EIS said residences were 375 feet away but did not indicate the magnitude of the noise impacts. Project is located in an environmental justice community | No |
| Marine Cargo Terminal Complex Development, Daniel Island, Charleston, SC | South | Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404 Permit and Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. USCG (for two bridges), Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. US Forest Service (construction). Surface Transportation Board for rail construction | Yes | Army Corps of Engineers to issue Final EIS in near future. Too early to characterize the review process. | EIS covering "23 key issues," including water quality, aquatic sediments, endangered species, light, parks and recreational opportunities, and environmental justice | No – High level of sensitivity due to on-going and anticipated litigation and political issues precludes necessary interviews |
The EDC Sunset Park project Brooklyn, NY |
East | Yes – Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404 Permit | New, state-of-the-art container terminal in Brooklyn with sprint trains and reduced need for trucks to come to terminal. | Concept and planning were completed. NYCEDC going to next steps now. | Numerous potential impacts. | No. The project is not advanced enough to fully identify environ-mental impediments to the development. |
Cross Harbor Tunnel New York/New Jersey |
Northeast | Federal permits are anticipated to be required. | Yes – rail, truck, maritime. | Early planning. DEIS is the next stage | Increase in rail movements in neighborhoods, removal of trucks from NYC and trans-Hudson routes, etc. | No – project is too early in the planning stage. |
BNSF Alliance Intermodal Facility Fort Worth, Texas |
Midwest/Plains | Could not be determined | Yes | Operational | Aside from possible site specific impacts, rural facility that may have avoided adverse impacts at alternative locations. | No – Insufficient information to judge applicability |
Part III – Projects initially considered, but not advanced as worthy of consideration as case studies
Denver UPS project
Des Moines, UPS project
East-west corridor, Maine Judith
Western Transportation Trade Network (WTTN) project
Tucson, AZ intermodal NAFTA project
I-35 NAFTA Corridor – improvements through urban areas
PennDOT bridge replacement projects
Connecticut railroad bridge replacement
Bethlehem, PA – CSX or NS yard expansion
Reno, Nevada grade separation rail project
Other Chicago projects
Lackawanna Valley Industrial Highway
previous | next
