Edinburgh Napier University

  This paper compares port hinterland access strategies in the form of intermodal freight corridors connecting ports and inland intermodal terminals. Interviews and site visits were conducted at a number of locations in the United States in order to compare strategies of stakeholder management, planning and policy issues and access to private and public funding.
Detailed case studies on the Alameda Corridor, Alameda Corridor East, Norfolk Southern’s Heartland Corridor and CSX’s National Gateway are presented. The various projects represent corridors of different sizes, objectives and challenges relating to stakeholder management. Furthermore, as government policy in the United States has developed over recent years, ports and railroads have needed to alter their approach to project planning in order to attract public funding of various types, from national to state and local.
Results indicate the importance of aligning stakeholder objectives with funding sources and planning schedules. Of particular importance to the development of hinterland access is recent US policy towards the provision of public funding through discretionary funding programmes. These developments are discussed in the context of US transport policy and the difficulties of government involvement in a traditionally privately owned and operated rail industry. Such issues need to be understood in order to limit their constraints on port development options