views
Should public funds be used to study an East-West rail line? NO
YES
By John Murray
By Lance Madsen
S
ome years back, when I called the North-South railroad and its backers Idealistic Dreamers Involved in Our Transportation System (IDIOTS for brevity), you might have thought that I was anti-railroad. Such is not the case. A railroad would do wonders for our local economy. What I am against is using public funds on an endeavor like that one, which had two studies done, each showing the line would lose public money! When the East-West (EW) proposal first surfaced at the Eureka City Council over a year ago, I went to participate in the discussion. Bill Barnum caught me off-guard when he pitched the proposal, and he stated that this was a project to be undertaken by the private sector. I have no qualms with what people want to do with their own money, so I told the council a railroad would be nice — but keep a tight hold on your tax dollars. Something changed! Now the EW proponents want a $300,000 Caltrans grant to do a feasibility study. That is not private financing; that is our tax money. This process, now that public funds are being sought, rankles me on a couple of fronts: First, why are public monies being sought to find out if some Rich Opportunistic Businessman (ROB for short) can make money? The ROB should use his own money. A prime example of this arose in 1982, when Exxon was considering Humboldt Bay as a location to build oil platforms for the Santa Barbara Channel. The oil company paid the county about $2 million to do a lot of the work required. It did not ask the public to check things out and let Exxon know if it will work. In the end, it had the platforms constructed in Korea. Second, before anyone invests even seed money, it is prudent for either the public or private sector to prepare a
quickie pre-feasibility study to see if this project even has a chance of succeeding. I have sat through one of the presentations asking for people to support an expensive feasibility study. What will be hauled, what route will you take, what will it cost .... the answer is the feasibility study will tell us. Currently all we have is a line on a map and a request for money. We have been told it will not be containers or coal as a cargo, but once a railroad is in place I don’t think anyone but the ROB has a say in what is hauled. You definitely do not want to build it and hope they will come. Not seeing a pre-feasibility study from the proponents ( I can’t even get a return call from the chairman and vice-chairman of the East-West committee to find out when its next meeting is going to occur in this transparent public process), I phoned a friend with 40 years’ experience in giant port/rail projects, and he roughed one out. The line is 130 miles long, at a track cost of $1,000 per foot. We need additional money for environmental documents, earthwork, drainage, bridges, ample sidings for two-way rail traffic, signals and right of way acquisition; so we are using $3,000 per foot for the main line. In round numbers that is $2 billion. We still need port development, locomotives, design, permits, and because we are early in the project, a hefty contingency fund. So we are looking at $3 billion to get this running. With the limitations of our port, it could handle an estimated 50 million tons per year of commodities if freight and ships were available 100 percent of the time. A rail car holds about 100 tons. That means we could see 500,000 train cars per year, one way. That equates to 1,370 cars per day, one way. If we convert to going in both directions and estimate 100-car trains, we have in excess of a 1.5 continued on page 8
6 NORTH COAST JOURNAL • THURSDAY, MAY 2, 2013 • northcoastjournal.com
O
n the issue of an East-West rail line, there are those who promote the notion of “no public funding for the feasibility study at all,” or “if there is a need, let the private sector do the study.” Those comments suggest that no state or federal funds should be used in a feasibility study. If this is to save taxpayers money, it must be noted that state and federally funded programs already exist. They are competitive and were designed to help local entities develop solutions to local and regional issues. The taxpayer funds will be spent either in or out of our region. By not competing for these funds, we are actually promoting other regions of the state or nation instead of our own. It is probable that a wholly privately funded feasibility study could be completed with little or no public input. In that case, the first time the public might get to review and comment on the private work product would be after information has been collected, analysis completed and a plan developed. In addition, it is entirely probable that information generated by a privately generated study would be proprietary and thus not available for public review. I would venture to predict that the same individuals or groups who do not want to spend public monies on this study would then complain loudly about the lack of transparency and accountability of a private study that might lead to an actual project. Public funding for all or part of the feasibility study is desirable to ensure public transparency and accountability. From the beginning of public discussion about funding an East-West rail feasibility study, there has been a very clear message: “There would be no expenditure of local general fund money spent on the study.” That message is at the heart of the memorandum of agreement that formed the UpState RailConnect Committee. The committee
consists of the city of Eureka, the counties of Humboldt, Trinity and Tehama, and others dedicated to the feasibility study process. A minor amount of staff time by all member agencies was used to establish the UpState RailConnect Committee, which first met in November 2012. By design, the committee has used volunteers, a nonprofit organization and a small state grant to coordinate regionwide support, provide public education presentations, assist in the public process and research public funding. A partially or wholly publicly funded study using guidelines being developed by the UpState RailConnect Committee will guarantee public involvement throughout, from crafting the scope of work to reviewing data and draft and final reports. As proof of the sincerity of this public process, the UpState RailConnect Committee has proposed approximately 23 public meetings during the feasibility study process. Elected officials create and shape public policy during their service on policymaking bodies. To form good policy, every elected official should seek out and use factually based information. With a publicly funded study, elected officials and the public are guaranteed access to study information. The UpState RailConnect Committee was formed specifically to ensure that the feasibility study process was as open as possible and that it was funded with the minimal financial impact to these local agencies. Thus far, it has been successful on both counts. “Do not spend public monies” is not a new argument. The feasibility studies and designs of many fully or partly publicly funded projects have been subject to the same objections. They range from the redevelopment of Old Town and downtown Eureka to the Wharfinger Building and the public marina. All have benefited Eureka, creating and sustaining longterm jobs and continued on page 8