Study urges rail changes for Charleston Neck

Wade Spees
The Post and Courier

Removing this railroad across King Street Extension near Discher Street is among the possible changes in the Neck area of Charleston.

If the outdated rail system in the Charleston Neck isn't corrected, it could very quickly become a crossroads for problems: traffic backlogs, more air pollution and a growing industry left flailing without proper infrastructure to support it.

The same consulting firm tapped to develop a statewide rail plan recently presented a smaller-scale report looking just at that key area between Charleston and North Charleston.

Wilbur Smith Associates' Charleston Neck Rail Study calls for two key modifications: consolidating rail crossings on Meeting Street and eliminating the crossing at King and Discher streets.

The first change would eliminate the crossing at Cherry Hill Lane, so trains would cross Meeting Street only at Milford Street. The estimated cost of the project is between $3 million and $8 million.

The second change would move the King Street track connection further north and off King at a cost of $2.5 million.

Charleston Mayor Joe Riley and North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey requested the study, which was funded by Shipyard Creek Associates, owners of the Macalloy Industrial site. Shipyard Creek's interest in the study stems from its hope that its property will become a rail access point for a new container terminal being built on the former Navy base.

Richard Taylor of Wilbur Smith Associates said the primary change could make King Street into a majorthoroughfare and Meeting Street a local access road.

“What we try to do was evaluate the rail system and minimize any impact on residential areas and still serve anybody that needs to be served,” he said.

The study took about a year of work with the cities and interest groups, according to Taylor. It will become part of the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments master plan for the neck, he said.

Though the study’s proposals seem simple, any rail system modifications face scrutiny of a host of groups with a history of conflict. Even Taylor conceded, “There’s not really any one solution that’s satisfactory from all standpoints.”

Take, for instance S.C. Public Railways, which is caught in the middle of a potential turf war between CSX and Norfolk Southern. CSX, which owns the track that would serve the new Navy Base terminal, could exclude Norfolk Southern from serving the site. Public Railways wants dual access to the terminal.

“The problem I have with (the study) is the fact that it still does not get Norfolk Southern onto the Navy Base and into the terminal,” said S.C. Public Railways President Jeffrey McWhorter. “It doesn’t achieve what we ultimately hope to.”

Taylor stressed that the study is preliminary and said it's best to move forward with as few conflicts as possible.

The Wilbur Smith proposal allows for rail from both the existing Veterans Terminal on the Navy base, where non-containerized freight is handled, and the new terminal nearby.

And that, perhaps, is the greater issue: There are no rail-expansion plans for the port yet.

That especially concerns some maritime businesses because Savannah and Norfolk, Va. — the two ports that bumped Charleston from second busiest in the country to No. 4 — have an array of improvements planned while South Carolina has none.

“Our operations are not built around rail. They’re built around trucks,” McWhorter said. “So everyone needs to re-evaluate how we do business.”

But it’s not as simple as just throwing down tracks and sending cargo on its way by train. Trucks mean easier scheduling and handling, especially for shorter distances. Most cargo moving fewer than 500 miles from the Port of Charleston moves by truck.

About 19 percent of cargo moves from the port by train, according to State Ports Authority spokesman Byron Miller. But the SPA sees companies paying more attention rail these days, he said.

“There’s increased interest in rail because of fuel costs, the availability of truckers and volume,” Miller said. “Our largest markets are inside of 500 miles.”

Of the Port of Charleston’s five terminals, only North Charleston and Columbus Street have on-dock rail. And little cargo moves to and from those terminals by rail because the time it takes to build up a train makes it so much less efficient, Miller said.

The new terminal under construction at the former Navy Base will not have on-dock rail. And the Wando Welch terminal, which accounts for the majority of port traffic, never will have rail because of a legal settlement during the terminal’s construction that bars it, Miller said.

The study comes as property redevelopments near the rail lines - the Magnolia project on the Ashley River and the Promenade development on the Cooper River - are expected to redefine the Neck area.

Simultaneously, industry lurches forward, both with the new terminal and private ventures.

Kinder Morgan, for one, hopes to expand its Shipyard River Terminal and increase the amount of coal it handles from 3.5 million tons to 10 million tons per year.

Riley, who chairs the Charleston Commuter Task Force, said the Wilbur Smith study marks the first real scrutiny of the rail lines.

The report’s findings “could remove some unnecessary impediments both to motorists using the road and also to redevelopment opportunities,” Riley said. “It’s important to see where all the rail lines are — ones that are needed and ones that really aren’t needed — to make some adjustments and consolidate.”

Reach Allyson Bird at 937-5594 or abird@postandcourier.com.