A proposed intermodal transfer yard that would link trucks to trains near a new container terminal at Charleston has become entangled in a fight between state agencies and private companies. Shipyard Creek Associates wants to build an intermodal yard on 135 acres it owns near a site where the South Carolina State Ports Authority has started construction on a 280-acre terminal on a former naval base in North Charleston. Under the plan, electric-powered lift equipment would use a new bridge to shuttle boxes between the intermodal facility and the new container terminal. The company also envisions a network of distribution centers and warehousing facilities and rail service by CSX Transportation. The idea, which the company touts as a major reducer of harmful air emissions and a progressive step toward rail, sounds simple enough. But it would require shifting the path of a yet-to-be-built port access road for the new terminal, a project that’s finally moving forward after spending years mired in the permitting and planning process. Moving the access road would reopen the permitting process and stall the road by a year or more, according to the South Carolina Department of Transportation. The state DOT and the port authority adamantly oppose any further delays that would push back the opening of the North Charleston terminal, which is currently scheduled for 2013. In addition, the partnership with CSX — and the exclusion of the rail operator’s only local competitor, Norfolk Southern — is a deal breaker for some state leaders. Robert L. Clement III, a local developer who is one of the Shipyard Creek Associates’ owners, contends the intermodal project is necessary to keep up with competing ports, especially as the new North Charleston terminal comes on line. “What we’ve got designed for that port right now is a 1960s terminal: if you build it, they will come,” Clement said. “That’s not the philosophy in today’s world.” By its second phase, the intermodal facility would have capacity to handle the equivalent of nearly 800,000 TEUs a year and the potential to cut truck trips by 386,000 annually. That translates into 1,500 fewer trucks on local roads every weekday, according to the company. The controversy over the intermodal yard comes at a time when Charleston faces increasingly stiff competition for container traffic. Charleston used to be the second-busiest container port on the East Coast, but it now ranks fourth. Its container volume dropped nearly 10 percent in the most recent fiscal year, while nearby Savannah’s grew 15 percent. South Carolina port officials attribute that disparity largely to Savannah’s near-dock network of distribution centers, which during the last decade have attracted new services from container lines. Although the percentage of cargo that Savannah handles by intermodal rail is about the same as what Charleston does now, Savannah is moving to increase its use of rail. The Georgia Ports Authority recently expanded its James D. Mason intermodal facility and will soon finish its Chatham intermodal yard. But when CSX and Shipyard Creek representatives presented their concept and their request to move the access road at a recent public meeting, the reception was chilly. State Rep. Wallace Scarborough didn’t hide his aggravation at the possibility of further delays for the North Charleston terminal. “The more we delay, the farther we fall behind in the ability to handle traffic at the port. The more we delay, the farther we fall behind in getting the port itself completed,” Scarborough said. “The more we delay, the more expense the project is going to have.” State Commerce Secretary Joe Taylor and Jeffrey McWhorter, president of South Carolina Public Railways, which provides rail service to the port, worry that Shipyard Creek Associates’ partnership with CSX to the exclusion of Norfolk Southern could hurt South Carolina’s ability to lure and keep businesses. Clement said the state could construct a separate yard for Norfolk Southern, especially since competing Class 1 railroads typically do not share intermodal facilities. That’s an ideal solution, McWhorter agrees, but it’s not as simple as it sounds. “I just don’t know that we have the real estate to do this at the terminal or in close proximity to the terminal,” he said. More information is available at www.port-of-charleston.com and www.csx.com.