Page 26: of Maritime Reporter Magazine (July 2020)

Ofshore Wind

Freight Planning

What About Offshore Wind?

By Tom Ewing t the end of 2019 – December 27, to be ex- under consideration for wind-port development. Ditto for New act – the US Department of Transportation, Jersey offcials, who are similarly planning imminent invest-

Offce of the Secretary – fled a request for ments in OSW port facilities.

information regarding the development of For a freight system and freight activities, OSW demands sin-

A a National Freight Strategic Plan (NFSP), gular attention. OSW ports require large tracts of land. Manu- required by the multi-year federal trans- facturing, assembly and storage logistics will require access, portation bill, passed in 2015, called the maybe new or upgraded access considering the size and weight

FAST Act – “Fixing America’s Surface Transportation.” of turbines and support structures. Road and highway projects

By the close of the public comment period (Feb. 10) DOT are usually paid for via federal and state gas taxes. Addition- had received 82 comments. Importantly, for the maritime in- ally, local projects require local approvals and sometimes a lo- dustry, maritime businesses and trade groups, as well as many cal funding match. Some maritime projects are subsidized by

State DOTs, stepped up and emphasized how critical it is for a MARAD and DOT grants, but most port upgrades are paid for national freight plan to be multimodal, that such a plan needs either by a port’s private sector tenants or fnanced through the to build on the strengths of each transport mode, so that, hope- rent from those tenants. For an OSW port, all bills due may be fully, a fnal plan is greater than the sum of its parts. paid largely by taxpayers and ratepayers; all costs and project

Interestingly, though, DOT didn’t receive any comments fo- fnancing need to be very clear, upfront. Rail, of course, largely cused on the new and diffcult freight issues presented by off- depends on private railroads.

shore wind (OSW). Critically, OSW ports will require specifc This is not easy work. And there are details that most Ameri- and deliberate attention across all modes – rail, truck, marine. can cities aren’t familiar with. Consider, for example, the ex-

This will be the big stuff, too, not just a designated turn lane. tent of freight planning that occurs in some European cities.

These investments will be expensive. It’s not too far-fetched “Even local governments have played a signifcant role. For to think that in some states transportation infrastructure for example, in manufacturing and port areas, streets are designed offshore wind might need its own dedicated funding. Timing to facilitate the passage of turbine blades and other large parts is critical, too. New York’s OSW schedule, for example, is with street poles that fold fat and with traffc circles that have aggressive. Port projects need funding sooner, really, right wide, straight shortcuts through the middle.” now, not later. New York has high-level estimates for some That’s a description of wind-freight logistics and infrastruc-

OSW port upgrades. A January 2019 study estimates it will ture in Denmark, captured in a report by Robert Collier for the take $314.4 million to upgrade the Port of Albany-Rensselaer. University of California at Berkeley Labor Center. Is there a

That excludes, however, some important work, from utilities MARAD discretionary grant program to pay for folding utility (not defned) to “public access” (roads, highways…?), to envi- poles at urban intersections?

ronmental mitigation. The estimate for another port, the South These exact moves may not be required in towns in Staten

Brooklyn Marine Terminal: $297 million, again excluding crit- Island or Humboldt Bay, CA or Cleveland, OH. But if people ical project line items. are thinking about a National Freight Strategic Plan, freight

NY’s state energy agency plans to make $200 million avail- has to move – effciently, safely, dependably. Otherwise, why able for help with port requirements. That’s a lot of money but plan? Again, the demands for offshore wind are new and they keep in mind New York offcials want the social and economic will present within America’s most populated and congested benefts from OSW investments to impact large sections of the regions – from Virginia to Maine and along the Pacifc coast.

state, at least from Staten Island to Albany. Demands from nu- It would seem, then, that in states where offshore wind is an merous ports could use up that $200 million pretty quickly. urgent priority, there might be an effort to anticipate and coor-

In its comments to USDOT, New York State offcials do not dinate the planning, fnancing and construction that new OSW mention OSW development and ports. Likewise, there’s no ref- ports will require. It would be unfortunate if a National Freight erence to wind energy port requirements from the Capital Dis- Strategic Plan were fnalized without referencing the complex trict Transportation Committee (Albany), a region supposedly demands presented by building this new energy source.

26 Maritime Reporter & Engineering News • July 2020