Public ports are economic engines that maintain fixed assets that are accessed by river, road, and rail to move goods nationally and, eventually, internationally as they connect to maritime ports. Inland barges carry approximately 15 percent of American freight at the lowest unit cost and lowest carbon footprint.1 A barge can transport one ton of goods 514 miles on one gallon of fuel compared to 59 miles and 202 miles for truck and rail, respectively. One 15-barge tow is the equivalent of 1,050 large semi-tractor-trailers, per the National Waterways Foundation. It is also a safer way to transport hazardous materials, as trucks and rail each had over 200% more spill incidents over 1,000 gallons than barges between the years 2001 to 2019.
Buckeye Hills has partnered with the Southeastern Ohio Port Authority and American Structurepoint Inc. to conduct a feasibility study and create a preliminary site plan for a public inland port in Washington County, Ohio. The subject site, a former power plant, is located approximately three miles west of the City of Marietta in a hub of industrial development, such as Eramet and Synesgo. The site lies on the Ohio River between mile markers 176 and 177, which connects to the coastal ports of Louisiana via the Mississippi River going south and to the Port of Pittsburgh going north. On-site is a railroad spur of the Belpre Industrial Parkersburg Railroad, which interchanges with the CSX Transportation network and was formerly part of the Baltimore & Ohio Rail System (B&O). Additionally, the site has highway access on State Route 7, which connects to Interstate 77.
Through shift-share, location quotient, and other economic base analyses, it was determined that Washington County is competitive in manufacturing and other industries that would support port function, particularly in the target area of blue fuels. Further comparison was made to operational ports. The proposed site is well-positioned to be an economic engine as a public port.
Two site alternatives were developed for the proposed port. Cost differences between the options were minimal; however, Site Alternative 1 is recommended for its ease of development phasing and material movements on site.
Key implementation steps include permitting, supporting infrastructure development, and project stakeholder engagement.