DOCSLIB.ORG

Statewide Freight Study, Appendix D Sections

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Kansas Statewide Freight Study Existing Freight System 4.0 Waterways Network Description Water freight movements in Kansas are dominated by the Missouri River. The Missouri River runs along a 140-mile stretch through the northeast corner of Kansas, where it forms the natural boundary between Missouri and Kansas. The River leaves Kansas near Kansas City, where it continues for another 375 miles before flowing into the Mississippi River near St. Louis, Missouri. The Missouri River is the most dominant waterway network in Kansas in terms of transporting goods and people. The flow of water on the Missouri is controlled through a series of engineered dams controlled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In general, the dams are used to ensure that the River is navigable by freight traffic between spring (April 1st) and early winter (December 1st). The U.S. Coast Guard maintains and coordinates with State Departments of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration to establish and maintain navigational clearances for bridges crossing over the Missouri River. The Coast Guard also maintains a facility at Leavenworth, Kansas. There are numerous public and private ports, docks, launching ramps and marinas along the Missouri River. Though there are some freight movements between the municipal docks, boat ramps, or marinas, they are very limited movements. Mostly, freight moves by river barges, (commonly referred to as tows) that are loaded and unloaded at private dock facilities. The private dock facilities are often owned, operated, and maintained by a private firm or a cooperative, such as a group of farmers, in the case of grain loading and unloading facilities. The Kansas River was considered commercially navigable for only a brief period during the early to mid-1800s. In 1864 the State Legislature of Kansas declared the Kansas River nonnavigable and allowed for construction of bridges, primarily railroad, and dams without restriction. This was the status of the Kansas River until 1913 when the State Legislature restored the Kansas River to navigable status. Today, the U.S. Coast Guard, which has jurisdiction for bridges over navigable waterways, has determined that the Kansas River is not a waterway over which it exercises jurisdiction for bridge administration purposes and due to dam and water intake constraints it is not navigable today. Exhibit 4.1 shows the public ports and docks along the Missouri River. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. D-51 Kansas Statewide Freight Study Existing Freight System 4.1 Public Ports Kansas does not have the extensive networks of Port Authorities that other states, such as its neighbor to the east, Missouri, has. The Leavenworth County Port Authority does not have any port facilities but has been instrumental in developing industrial sites in the cities of Tonganoxie and Leavenworth. There are municipal docks at several locations along the Missouri River. These are in Atchison, Leavenworth, and Kansas City, Kansas, as well as St. Joseph and Kansas City, Missouri. There is a public port in Kansas City, Kansas and three in Kansas City, Missouri. Due to proximity, information on two of the Missouri Port Authorities has been included below. These are the Kansas City Port Authority and the St. Joseph Regional Port Authority. The Port of Kansas City is the largest storage and distribution center in this subreach of the Missouri River. The Port is located at the confluence of the Missouri River and the Kansas River. The Port is a multimodal facility in that freight may be transferred among river barges, railroads and trucks as well as a barge distribution facility. This terminal also sees the highest volume of freight of any in Kansas. In 2004, it handled 3.6 million tons of freight, ranking it 92nd on a list of U.S. ports based on total tonnage received.3 An aerial photograph is shown below, which demonstrates the proximity of the port facilities to the other modes of transport and the Kansas City metropolitan area regional transportation network. There is 60,000 tons of covered bulk materials available at the on site storage facilities at the dock site and rail transfer point. Additional storage facilities are available on site and on both sides of the state line. The products handled include fertilizer, grain, corn, bark, rock clinker, salt, rolled and coiled steel, H beams, plate steel, rebar and petroleum coke. Offloading equipment on site includes three 25 ton cranes, eight front end loaders, and portable conveyor systems. The Port is served by the Union Pacific Railroad system. The Port of Kansas City has its own set of truck scales for weighing inbound or outbound truck traffic. 3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Navigation Data Center, 2004, http://www.ndc.usace.army.mil. D-52 Cambridge Systematics, Inc NE To Omaha To Des Moines Sub-Reach 1 White Cloud Grain Co. !"`$ MO Buffalo Hollow Quarry Ik Wolf Creek Quarry Dock Ik Ik I| Aî Iw ?Ñ Mount Vernon Quarry Dock ?Ã Az ?Á !"`$ Mount Vernon ?ÿ ?é Quarry Dock ?Ã Iz ATCHISON Ii AÃ ?È KS GOODLAND Ii Ii ?Ç Ix !"a$ I¨ Exhibit 4.1 ?¿ Ip KANSAS ?Ê I{ MANHATTAN Ii I¥ ?Æ TOPEKA CITY !"a$ ?Ê !"a$ !"a$ Studer (Westlake) Quarry Dock HAYS ?¿ ?Á CO Il ?å LAWRENCE Kansas Freight ?Î To St. Louis Ay SALINA Io Io !"`$ Waterway Network ?¿ %&d( ?¿ Aº Io ?í ?¿ ?¿ ?Ç AÀ Public and ?ý Kº Io !"`$ Private Ports Sub-Reach 2 Sub-Reach 3 I£ Iu St. Joseph Boat Ramp I| Io EMPORIA MO and Piers ?Ï #* I¥ %&b( Im ?Ó ?Ñ Scholz (Roundy) (Westlake) Quarry DockI¨ !"`$ Ix on the MO Bromely and Sons QuarryIo Dock HUTCHINSON ?Ó Missouri River KS GARDEN CITY Aº Maczuk Inc. Iz KS Im 2008 Holiday Sand and GravelIm Co. Elders Grain Co. Dock ?ÿ ?ç ?ý Bartlett and Company Inc. ?É In I£ Ip AG Processing DODGE CITY Atchison Municipal DockI¥ WICHITA K» I¡ Aw Io In Iu Chemical Operations #* ?ß Atchison Dock ?Á Farmland Industries Inc.?Ï ?Û MO PARSONS I In ?Æ I¡ #* Atchison County?Ö CO-OP Dock #* I¡ 02550 #*#* ?Î Boldridge Quarry Dock ?½ I£ LIBERAL ?à I¢ Miles To Oklahoma City May 2009 Sub-Reachs Defined Sub-Reach 1 river miles 453-500 Source: Sub-Reach 4 Sub-Reach 5 MO Sub-Reach 6 Kansas City KS. Public Terminal Sub-Reach 2 river miles 433-453 MO OK USACE Missouri River MO Bartlett and Company Inc. Sub-Reach 3 river miles 413-433 Massman Construction Co. Inc. !"b$ Sub-Reach 4 river miles 387-413 Division. Williams Brothers Sub-Reach 5 river miles 372-387 Bennett-Rogers Pipe Coating Inc. Dock Sub-Reach 6 river miles 359-372 Kansas City MO Dock Oak Mills #* West Lake Union Equity CO-OP Dock #* #* Quarry Dock Quarry Dock Property of Kansas City Mo. Holiday Sand and Gravel Co. #* Side Type AR #* MO KS Cargill Inc. #* #* KS KS #* Chemical, Fuel, Fertilizer Hull Quarry Dock Smoot Grain Co. Dock #* Kansas City #* General Dock LEAVENWORTH Holiday Sand and Gravel Co. Midwest Terminal #* Grain #*#* #* Inactive U.S. Coast Guard Facilities KS Kansas City #* #* Borchers Oil Co. Texico Oil Co. Dock #*#*#* #* Rock,Sand,Gravel Leavenworth Municipal Dock Intercontinental ENGR. And MFG. Dock Cargill Inc. #* public Missouri Valley Steel Shipyards Dock Kansas City KS Public Terminal Note: Recreation docks and ramps American Compressed Steel INC. not shown Kansas Statewide Freight Study Existing Freight System The Port of Kansas City The St. Joseph Regional Port Authority is located in St. Joseph, Missouri, about 50 miles upstream from Kansas City, Missouri. The Port Authority is a multimodal transfer point, transferring products among barge, truck, and rail facilities which come together at the Port Authority. There are two crawler cranes which are, rated at 51 ton and 31 ton capacity, as well as loaders, forklifts and under car offloading pit with conveyor which are available on site. The UP and BNSF Railroads serve this area. The Air National Guard home base, Rosecrans Memorial Airport, is able to accommodate most aircraft cargo transfers or transferring products. The St. Joseph Port Authority has no covered storage facilities at the dock site or rail transfer port. Storage facilities are noted as being available near by. The public ports and docks are included in Table 4.1 along with private docks. Half of the facilities along the Missouri River, both in Kansas and across the River in Missouri handle either grain products or sand/gravel/rock. By far, the most commonly carried commodity on the Missouri River up stream from Kansas City would be sand and gravel. Most of the docks handling grain products are along the Missouri River in Subreaches 5 and 6, which includes the Kansas City Metropolitan Area. The sand/gravel/rock docks tend to be more dispersed along the Missouri River in both Kansas and Missouri and several were noted as inactive D-54 Cambridge Systematics, Inc Kansas Statewide Freight Study Existing Freight System in the USACE Navigation Charts. The classifications were obtained from the USACE Missouri River Navigation Charts. 4.2 Private Ports Generally speaking, nearly all the docking facilities along the Missouri River in Kansas are owned by private entities. The Navigation Charts for the Missouri River show the location and owner of the loading docks and private port facilities on the Missouri River. There are additional ports on the Missouri side of the Missouri River and bridge crossings over the Missouri River allow for some Kansas products to be shipped from port or dock facilities located in Missouri and vice-versa. Private ports are shown on Table 4.1. A summary of private ports and docks by county and types of goods transported is provided in Table 4.2.
Recommended publications
  • MISSOURI’S You Can Get Involved INFRASTRUCTURE

    MISSOURI’S You Can Get Involved INFRASTRUCTURE

    REPORT CARD FOR HowMISSOURI’S You Can Get Involved INFRASTRUCTURE 2018 G.P.A. “Don’t wait. The time will never be just right.” –Mark Twain Missouri Infrastructure 2013 Report Card 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 4 Aviation ............................................................................................................................... 6 Bridges ...............................................................................................................................12 Dams ..................................................................................................................................16 Drinking Water ................................................................................................................ 21 Energy ...............................................................................................................................24 Inland Waterways ............................................................................................................. 28 Levees ...............................................................................................................................34 Ports ................................................................................................................................... 38 Rail ....................................................................................................................................42 Roads
  • Port Comprehensive Market Study 2020

    Port Comprehensive Market Study 2020

    Heartland Port Project Comprehensive market study 2020 May 2020 Title 0 Contents Executive summary ............................................................................................................................1 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................7 1.1 Objective ............................................................................................................................................. 8 1.2 Structure of the report ........................................................................................................................ 8 1.3 The Heartland Port—project location and study area ........................................................................ 9 2. Freight transportation system in Central Missouri ......................................................................... 10 2.1 Missouri’s freight network ................................................................................................................ 10 2.2 Highways ........................................................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Railroads............................................................................................................................................ 13 2.3 Waterways and public and private ports, marine terminals, and docks .......................................... 13 2.3.1 Marine Highways ......................................................................................................................
  • Baltimore State Center Site Alternative Land Use Study

    Baltimore State Center Site Alternative Land Use Study

    Baltimore State Center Site Alternative Land Use Study Prepared for: Prepared by: and Final Report January 2018 ALTERNATIVE LAND USE STUDY BALTIMORE STATE CENTER SITE Table of Contents Item Page Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................................................. i 1. Introduction and Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Site Area Review ............................................................................................................................................................................ 11 3. Peer City Case Studies ................................................................................................................................................................ 23 4. State Center Site – Land Use Concepts ................................................................................................................................ 86 5. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 92 Page i ALTERNATIVE LAND USE STUDY BALTIMORE STATE CENTER SITE 1. Introduction and Executive Summary Project Background The Maryland Stadium Authority retained Crossroads Consulting Services, LLC (Crossroads), in association with Valbridge
  • Salt Lake Inland Port Market Assessment Authored By: Natalie Gochnour I Director, Kem C

    Salt Lake Inland Port Market Assessment Authored By: Natalie Gochnour I Director, Kem C

    Research Brief August 2016 Salt Lake Inland Port Market Assessment Authored by: Natalie Gochnour I Director, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Table of Contents Executive Summary Executive Summary . 1 The World Trade Center Utah contracted with the Kem Background and History . 5 C . Gardner Policy Institute to prepare a preliminary as- Research Scope and Limitations . 6 sessment of the practicality and market context for the Essential Characteristics of an Inland Port . 6 development of an inland port in Salt Lake County . The Key Findings from Scoping Interviews . 7 Gardner Policy Institute researched background informa- Port Governance . 9 tion, reviewed past local studies, inventoried inland ports Public Incentives . .. 11 of interest, conducted scoping interviews, and prepared Market Characteristics .. 12 summary information on the technical feasibility of cre- Foreign Trade Zone Status and Privileges . 14 ating an inland port in Salt Lake County . This Executive Right to Work Laws . 14 Summary includes a summary of the key findings from Labor Market Conditions . 15 the data, research, and interviews . Required Infrastructure Improvements Key Findings and off-site Improvement Costs . 16 Next Steps . 18 Our research confirmed that Salt Lake County meets many of the essential criteria for developing an inland REFERENCES . 19 port . However, there are numerous issues that will require APPENDIX A . 20 additional data collection, analysis, public discussion, Summary of past studies and, ultimately, investment . APPENDIX B . 21 We have distilled our research down into 17 key findings: History of inland port policy discussion in Utah APPENDIX C . 22 1 . Significant nationwide interest in inland port de- Salt Lake County Global Cities Initiative and velopment—Logistics hubs that combine container - Regional Export Plan ized rail, trucking interchange, and warehousing and APPENDIX D .
  • Marine Highways and Marine Freight Development in the MAFC´

    Marine Highways and Marine Freight Development in the MAFC´

    Marine Highways and Marine Freight Development in the MAFC´ Source: NTAD 2012 Working Session ■ MAFC Annual Meeting ■ April 22-25, 2014 ■ Chicago, Illinois MAFC Marine Highways L A K E S U P E R ´ I O n| R n| Û ¤£M90 n| n|n| ÛÛ n| n| Û Legend n| L MN n| n| A n| Major Port n| K n| E Û Lock H U L R ÛÛn| Mega Region A Û n| O K Û ¤£M35 N E Urban Area Û Û Û Û WI Û Û M Û Û MAFC Hi Volume M Û I C MI I ¤£M77 Û H Freight Network S n| n| S I n| E I I Û G S n| R Major Rail Corridor A E S IP E N n| n| Û £M75 K n| P ¤ A Û L n| I n| R Û n| n| n| n| ¤£M71 IV n|Û n|n| Û E Ûn|n| £M29 IA Û n| ¤ R Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û Û M R Û I E OH S Û IV IN S Û R O Û¤£M70 U Û ¤£M55 IS R O Û I Û IN R Û L Û I Û V IL Û E Û n|OHIO RIVER R Û Û IL Û Û Û n| Û Û Û n| n|Û KS Û MO n| n| Û Û KY Û Û n| ¤£M40 ¤£M65 Source: NTAD 2012; US Army Corps of Engineers State DOTs and their planning partners in the public and private sector are taking steps to better understand, advocate for, and integrate maritime freight into their state and regional transportation and economic development systems.
  • Inland Ports and Waterways in the SLC Member States

    Inland Ports and Waterways in the SLC Member States

    INLAND PORTS AND SOUTHERN WATERWAYS IN THE LEGISLATIVE SLC MEMBER STATES CONFERENCE A REGIONAL RESOURCE FROM THE SLC OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS © Copyright January 2016 Photo courtesy of by Sujit CanagaRetna, Fiscal Policy Manager Georgia Ports Authority “A silent workhorse that supports our great cities, inland water- that an efficient and effective marine transportation system ways transportation is critical to Alabama’s and to the nation’s was critical for the nation’s economic success, an attribute supply chain. It benefits farmers, shippers, manufacturers, steel that remains valid even in the contemporary context. In producers, coal miners and producers, agribusinesses, towboat 1779, the United States created what is now the U.S. Ar- operators and just about every American consumer.” my Corps of Engineers (Corps) when engineer officers and companies of sappers* and miners were formed into - Tim Parker, Jr., Chair, a corps of engineers. In 1824, the U.S. Congress assigned Parker Towing Company, Inc., Alabama the Corps its first major public works project, the onerous responsibility of constructing a comprehensive inland wa- According to June 2015 statistics released by the U.S. Army terway system connecting key regions of the United States. Corps of Engineers, 40 of the top 100 U.S. ports (coastal, Congress also appropriated funds to the Corps for the cre- Great Lakes and inland) in terms of tonnage are located ation of this navigable inland waterway system, a funding in states belonging to the Southern Office of The Coun- mechanism—with some variations—that prevails to this cil of State Governments (CSG), the Southern Legislative day.