Coal exports could block passenger-rail expansion

[CHamilton]

Bellingham becomes ground zero in debate on coal exports

Five ports proposed for Washington and Oregon could ship as much as 140 million tons of coal, mostly from the Rockies, where it could travel by rail through communities such as Seattle, Spokane and Eugene before being loaded onto ships bound for Asia.

The Cherry Point marine terminal would be the largest coal-export port in the U.S., exporting up to 54 million tons of bulk commodities, mostly coal.

With so much at stake, critics and supporters have intensified their pitches in recent weeks.

 

[CHamilton]

Seattle: more coal trains would increase delays

A new city of Seattle report finds that an increase in coal trains through the city would increase delays at railroad crossings and affect emergency response times.

...

The report commissioned by the city estimated that gates would be down at railroad crossings an additional 31 to 83 minutes each day in 2015, and an additional 67 to 183 minutes in 2026. The study says the proposed coal trains would impact emergency vehicle trips to and from the waterfront.

 

[CHamilton]

In related news that will affect BNSF's capacity:

Trains delivering oil to Washington refineries

The oil boom in the Great Plains states is affecting refineries, ports and other businesses in Washington.

...

A 103-car oil train that arrived from North Dakota last week was the first of what's expected to be weekly trains at a new $8 million rail yard at the U.S. Oil refinery in Tacoma, The News Tribune reported ( http://bit.ly/TgG4U1 ) Sunday.

Trains also are delivering oil from North Dakota and Montana to the Tesoro refinery near Anacortes, which recently completed a $55 million rail yard. BP has applied for permits for a $60 million rail yard at its Cherry Point refinery north of Bellingham.

 

[montana mike]

Realistically--what is safer, a dedicated pipeline than is mostly buried dozens of feet below the surface or 103 car tanker trains? Just an interesting question to consider.

 

[danball]

actually, i believe coal is and will be taking a back seat to natural gas thanks to fracking. that would mean fewer coal cars and more gas lines.

 

[CHamilton]

A summary of the coal-export terminal controversy.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/stop-the-coal-trains/Content?oid=15701054

For those outside of Seattle, the Stranger is a weekly newspaper that, despite its penchant for four-letter words and questionable taste in advertising, does some good journalism. They don't pretend to be objective, though.

 

[CHamilton]

Northwest Railroads Will Need Improvements To Handle Coal Trains

The five coal export terminals proposed for Washington and Oregon could add dozens of trains a day to Northwest railways.

Those trains would mean new business for coal companies, railroad companies and the ports. They would create short-term construction jobs and long-term port and railroad jobs. They would generate tax revenue for the states with the ports.

Coal trains also would carry downsides.

Most communities along the coal train route will see no immediate benefits from the new rail traffic. The coal trains will simply be passing through.

People in those communities have raised concerns about the environmental impacts, including coal dust that could escape from the trains. They also are concerned about the impact the dust and diesel emissions from the locomotives will have on their health.

The long, sometimes up to 1.6 mile-long, coal trains could impact other rail traffic, too.

Freight trains already encounter bottlenecks along the same route coal trains will take from the Idaho Panhandle to the coast.
Passenger trains also move over some of those tracks, and many of them have trouble getting people to their destinations on time because of railway congestion.

Meanwhile, the last coal shipper has dropped out of plans for the Port of Coos Bay (OR).

 

[dlagrua]

Sad as it may be, back in the day, it was common for many of the larger railroads (like the Pennsylvania RR) to have two, three and four track mainlines. Coal was the largest customer for the railroads, Railway Express was on the lines, there were less than carload lot services offered, milk shipments and other food was shipped this way, the USPS was there and many other businesses flooded the rails with traffic. Today many of the main lines that handled the vast freight traffic have been cut back to single track operations. Passenger trains no longer receive priority.

Instead of improving rail service over the last 50 years, the USA walked away from it. Now we are seeing the consequences of drastically shrunken main line trackage, and cut back passenger rail service where late arrivals are common. The freight/passenger logjam on the rails today appears to be a manifestation of this neglect.

 

[CHamilton]

Groups to sue BNSF, others over coal in waterways

SEATTLE —

Several conservation groups plan to sue Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway and top U.S. coal producers, claiming they discharge coal into Washington state waterways in violation of federal law.

The groups allege the companies discharge coal, coal chunks, coal dust and other pollutants into state waters from rail cars that transport Rocky Mountain coal throughout Washington.

 

[CHamilton]

This is not an objective summary by any means, but it includes links to the latest news on coal export projects.

http://daily.sightline.org/2013/04/03/coal-exports-two-weeks-of-good-news/

 

[Bus Nut]

To me "global warming" is essentially a side show to the main issue, which is consumption of non-renewable resources and per capita consumption in total. Why do I say sideshow? Because the defined source of global warming, if global warming is real at all, is consumption of non-renewables, and this will eventually end because we will run out of things to burn.e done.

No, I'm afraid it's not a sideshow. Unless the world's climate scientists are very, very wrong, aside from the short-term negative effects we are having now (droughts, wildfires, massive storm systems, marine biota die-offs), global warming becomes an acute crisis when our weather system becomes unstable. That means wild swings in annual global mean temperatures until the climate settles into a new equilibrium. CO2 from ice cores shows that it's happened before.

Essentially at some point bedlam will break loose climatewise and that will become the acute crisis. It's one thing to have an economic dislocation due to fuel prices spiking; it's something else entirely when your cereal crops fail two years in a row.

 

[George Harris]

To me "global warming" is essentially a side show to the main issue, which is consumption of non-renewable resources and per capita consumption in total. Why do I say sideshow? Because the defined source of global warming, if global warming is real at all, is consumption of non-renewables, and this will eventually end because we will run out of things to burn.e done.

No, I'm afraid it's not a sideshow. Unless the world's climate scientists are very, very wrong, aside from the short-term negative effects we are having now (droughts, wildfires, massive storm systems, marine biota die-offs), global warming becomes an acute crisis when our weather system becomes unstable. That means wild swings in annual global mean temperatures until the climate settles into a new equilibrium. CO2 from ice cores shows that it's happened before.

Essentially at some point bedlam will break loose climatewise and that will become the acute crisis. It's one thing to have an economic dislocation due to fuel prices spiking; it's something else entirely when your cereal crops fail two years in a row.

Call back in about 10 years and let's see if it is still the panic of the day or what the latest panic is at that time. Skim back over the responsible media of the last 100 years or so and see how many "scientific" predictions have actually panned out. The world has been on the verge of mass destruction or mass starvation for various and sundry caused for the last 200 plus years. We are still here.

 

[KWBud]

I have tried to hold my tongue, but I do have limits.

No, I'm afraid it's not a sideshow. Unless the world's climate scientists are very, very wrong, aside from the short-term negative effects we are having now (droughts, wildfires, massive storm systems, marine biota die-offs), global warming becomes an acute crisis when our weather system becomes unstable.

I wonder how many climate conferences you have attended. I have been to a few of these conferences and symposiums and the debate is quite lively and interesting. Scientific opinion on climate change is not nearly as unified as the media would have you believe.

That means wild swings in annual global mean temperatures until the climate settles into a new equilibrium. CO2 from ice cores shows that it's happened before.

Are you referring to the Younger Dryas stadial? Full on Ice Age conditions followed in just a few years by a relatively mild interglacial temperatures would be devastating, wouldn't it?

Fortunately none of the theorized causes for the Dryas stadials are based on the climate settling into a new equilibrium. Moreover, none of the theories, except for the impact hypothesis, really apply to our present situation. We could possibly be hit by a meteoroid or asteroid with little warning at any time, but that would not be a result of mankind's activities, would it?

Essentially at some point bedlam will break loose climatewise and that will become the acute crisis. It's one thing to have an economic dislocation due to fuel prices spiking; it's something else entirely when your cereal crops fail two years in a row.

This kind of thinking is probably why so many respondents to the Gallup Poll responded that the "seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated."

As a species, we shouldn't be depleting the Earth's resources and treating the planet as an infinite waste dump. But using climate change as a scare tactic isn't productive either.

Bringing this back to the topic at hand, creating a political environment that encourages the use of public transportation is a good thing.

Also, I would think that loading coal on the East coast would be more economical than shipping it by rail to the West coast.

--

Bud

 

[Ryan]

This kind of thinking is probably why so many respondents to the Gallup Poll responded that the "seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated."

I'm sure a Gallup poll in 1300 would have had shown most people beleived the Earth to be flat.
I'm not sure what the layman's opinion on Global Warming has to do with much of anything.

 

[KWBud]

I'm sure a Gallup poll in 1300 would have had shown most people beleived the Earth to be flat.

All the better for building railroads, right? All those hills do get in the way, don't they?

I'm not sure what the layman's opinion on Global Warming has to do with much of anything.

I wonder whether a Gallup poll showing that 67% of Americans supported federal funding of the expansion of Passenger Rail in the US would get any attention in Congress? I'm using the 2010 Gallup Poll to get this number. Public opinion won't change the facts, but it may well change the response. So creating inflated predictions of doom may hurt rather than help.

--

Bud

 

[CHamilton]

Coal trains could derail Marysville's economy

Marysville runs north-south, through Snohomish County, separated at 16 different points from the economic lifeline of Interstate 5 by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line. These are the tracks that some want to use to ship coal to a proposed new terminal in Bellingham. It would mean thousands of jobs, but at what cost to Marysville?
...
As it stands now, people have to wait through 3 or 4 traffic light cycles when a big trains roll though town. A study by Gibson Traffic Consultants of Everett found an additional 18 coal train crossings would mean an additional two to three hours of sitting in traffic.
...
Making matters worse, city planners because of Marysville's layout, bridges or tunnels are not options.
...
One option is a $1.8 million ramp connecting I-5 and Highway 529. The question is, how to pay for it.

 

[CHamilton]

Officials set 2-year study for coal trains in Washington

SEATTLE (AP) - A consortium of federal, state and local agencies have decided to prepare a 2-year study on the local and statewide impact of exporting coal through a Whatcom County terminal.

Wednesday's announcement says the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Whatcom County will study the impact at the Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point, while the state Department of Ecology will examine the effects of expected rail and vessel traffic, including greenhouse gases, statewide and beyond.

 

[George Harris]

Officials set 2-year study for coal trains in Washington

SEATTLE (AP) - A consortium of federal, state and local agencies have decided to prepare a 2-year study on the local and statewide impact of exporting coal through a Whatcom County terminal.

Wednesday's announcement says the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Whatcom County will study the impact at the Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point, while the state Department of Ecology will examine the effects of expected rail and vessel traffic, including greenhouse gases, statewide and beyond.

Studies or calls for studies are usually used as a way to look like you are doing something when you really are not or as a way to interfere with someone doing something you don't like until they either give up or run out of money to start it.

 

[CHamilton]

From Sightline Institute, which makes no secret of its opposition to the coal trains:

Scope of Gateway Pacific Analysis is Bad News for Coal Industry

Hot off the presses: the three “co-lead” agencies in charge of reviewing the proposed Gateway Pacific coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington have published the scope of their review. The major takeaway is that it’s bad news for the coal industry.

The industry did win an empty victory with the Army Corps of Engineers, the sole federal agency at the table, which opted for a narrow scope of review. But in the end it doesn’t much matter. One of the other lead agencies, the Washington Department of Ecology, is going to require in-depth analysis of four elements that the coal industry had desperately hoped to avoid [including]...A detailed assessment of rail transportation on other representative communities in Washington and a general analysis of out-of-state rail impacts....

Of those, two stand to be particularly damaging for would-be coal exporters: rail impacts and greenhouse gas emissions. There’s not a lot of wiggle room with either of those elements....

moving that much coal to a terminal will create congestion throughout the region. There’s simply no way around the math. In Seattle, for example, both Sightline and the traffic analysis firm Parametrix have confirmed that new coal export shipments would completely close major center city streets by an additional 1 to 3 hours every day, 365 days per year. (Sightline analysis here; Parametrix here.)

 

[Anderson]

Of course, I have to wonder...assuming that those numbers pan out, how much in haulage fees net of expenses would those one to three hours equal for BNSF? If it's enough, I could see BNSF being inclined to kick in for new bridges, etc. to just circumvent some of the affected grade crossings.

 

[RRUserious]

Probably way out of the context of the discussion, but the insatiable appetite of American consumers for crap made by cheap Chinese labor is why China has so much currency with which to buy American coal. People have shrugged for decades now when there were warnings of this Chimerica economy. But over and over we are forced into difficult choices because we simply will NOT break our addiction to China at the retail store. So WHAT if our middle class is bumped from manufacturing into fast food and janitorial jobs? They should have educated themselves more!!! But the merrygoround continues, and it comes back as loss of passenger rail to the cargoes that China wants to buy. When you don't get commuter rail, thank Sam Walton for dragging all retailers to China for sourcing their goods.

 

[CHamilton]

Of course, I have to wonder...assuming that those numbers pan out, how much in haulage fees net of expenses would those one to three hours equal for BNSF? If it's enough, I could see BNSF being inclined to kick in for new bridges, etc. to just circumvent some of the affected grade crossings.

Eliminating the grade crossings in Seattle, especially the ones on "major city streets," would be extremely expensive. I don't have any numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if reopening the Eastside line -- even though it would require a replacement for the old Wilburton tunnel under I-90 -- would be cheaper.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Probably way out of the context of the discussion, but the insatiable appetite of American consumers for crap made by cheap Chinese labor is why China has so much currency with which to buy American coal. People have shrugged for decades now when there were warnings of this Chimerica economy. But over and over we are forced into difficult choices because we simply will NOT break our addiction to China at the retail store. So WHAT if our middle class is bumped from manufacturing into fast food and janitorial jobs? They should have educated themselves more!!! But the merrygoround continues, and it comes back as loss of passenger rail to the cargoes that China wants to buy. When you don't get commuter rail, thank Sam Walton for dragging all retailers to China for sourcing their goods.

I agree with your Main Point but Sam Walton was Big on Selling American Made Goods! Wal-Mart used to prominently display Signs with American Flags and Slogans saying "American Made!" "Buy American!" etc. When Sam passed and the Bean Counters and the Marketing Hustlers took over Wal-Mart it became the Biggest Retail Business in the World by "Stackin' 'em Deep and Sellin' 'em Cheap!"

 

[RRUserious]

And the faithful discount buyers never skipped a beat. Foreign made? Who cares?

 

[CHamilton]

Of course, I have to wonder...assuming that those numbers pan out, how much in haulage fees net of expenses would those one to three hours equal for BNSF? If it's enough, I could see BNSF being inclined to kick in for new bridges, etc. to just circumvent some of the affected grade crossings.

Eliminating the grade crossings in Seattle, especially the ones on "major city streets," would be extremely expensive. I don't have any numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if reopening the Eastside line -- even though it would require a replacement for the old Wilburton tunnel under I-90 -- would be cheaper.

More about the Eastside rail corridor. http://www.king5.com/home/East-217875461.html