Coal train impacts feared along the Sound
Like many other cities, Seattle, Edmonds and Marysville are alarmed at the prospect of massive coal trains and their effects on communities. Compounding it all, tracks are already reaching capacity or nearing it.
(Page 2 of 2)
"We don't stand to get any of the benefits (of added rail traffic)," Nehring told Crosscut, "we just take all the hits." He admits the railroad was here before Marysville's growth, "but life changes, circumstances change."
A few miles south, the much tonier suburb of Edmonds faces a different rail challenge, where Main Street, the Kingston Ferry and the BNSF mainline come together near a senior center, Amtrak station and a city park. The congestion, says Mayor Dave Earling, is "an old problem unsolved and it would be much worse if Gateway Pacific is built."
The Edmonds City Council passed a resolution opposing the coal shipments, and Earling is working to line up support for an expensive underpass that would route ferry traffic under the railroad to the dock. He wants BNSF to help pay for the $60 to $80 million project and is lobbying state and federal officials. Earling told an "underpass rally" earlier this year, "Rail traffic is projected to increase to up to 100 trains per day by 2030. Some of these trains will be more than a mile long. This situation would impose unacceptable limits on waterfront access and be catastrophic for our town."
Edmonds is on the Sound Transit line and about 42 trains a day now use the rail tracks in the city. Paula Hammond, head of the Washington State Department of Transportation, told the Everett Herald that Earling's "notion is right. I think that as our economy recovers and our ports increase the work they're doing, we can only expect more train traffic. It's a good problem to work on."
Hammond and elected officials will hear more appeals as added rail traffic comes on line. A host of local governments and agencies are lined up to express concerns, and the impacts on road-rail congestion add up to billions of dollars. A long siding in Bellingham, which has been cited by transportation consultants as a likely impact if the Gateway Pacific Terminal is built, would cut access to a popular city park; a remedy would cost several millions. A suggested replacement of the Skagit River rail bridge, which appears to be primarily flood-related, is estimated at $500 million. Overpasses or underpasses to replace at-grade crossings cost in the tens of millions apiece.
Gibson Traffic Consultants of Seattle did studies of several Northwest Washington communities and found critical infrastructure needs in all. "While grade separation is desirable particularly because of the already complicated I-5 interchanges . . . these improvements are typically multi-million dollar solutions and funding is not yet planned," Gibson noted in its Mount Vernon study.
As if to underscore the issues of train traffic on small-city crossings, a BNSF southbound freight broke down in Mount Vernon Thursday morning, stalling traffic for 45 minutes on three streets, including busy College Way. The railroad blamed a locked wheel for the problem and closed College Way for 48 hours to fix a section of track. The College Way crossing had been under discussion for some time with the railroad, city officials said. Three downtown Mount Vernon crossings are at-grade and most susceptible to shutdowns.
WSDOT's current rail freight study, published in 2009, pegged state needs at $2 billion, calculated before the surge of energy-related rail traffic. The study concluded:
The greatest obstacle to implementation of this plan is the lack of a dedicated reoccurring funding source at both the state and federal levels. With 90% of the $2.0 billion in rail needs identified in this plan unfunded, the state will have to pursue federal funding, as well as boost state spending, and establish public-private partnerships to close the gap between available resources and freight rail needs.
WSDOT is working on a new rail-freight plan to be completed in 2013, and costs will certainly be higher. Federal regulations limit to 5 percent the amount that can be assessed to a railroad for safety or traffic improvements to crossings. The railroad is allowed to spend more if it wishes, but that rarely happens.
Contributions to mitigate the effects of added rail traffic could be part of an environmental review, particularly if done on an area-wide basis. Developers of export terminals, for instance, could be required to contribute to a pool to deal with major transportation problems caused or exacerbated by added rail traffic, a form of mitigation that likely is without precedent. BNSF has been upgrading its tracks in anticipation of the additional traffic, although it is quoted in the 2009 state survey as telling WSDOT, "From a freight perspective, BNSF believes sufficient capacity exists for the foreseeable future. Indeed, BNSF's planning staff sees nothing in this corridor as 'freight driven' with the current volumes at this time. Increased volumes may require capacity improvements."
Seemingly both BNSF and much of the public was caught unaware of the demand for energy in Asia and the intense push on the part of coal and oil producers to service that demand. But the pressure is real from all sides — including those who worry about global warming, life in the shadow of train horns and diesel fumes, and the very nature of the regions livability. Of necessity not everything can run at capacity without enormous costs in public funds and private lives. The process of sorting it out will take years.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Mon, Dec 10, 9:20 a.m. Inappropriate
Yes, heaven forbid that we have to pause in our (mostly single occupancy) vehicles to let some additional unit trains pass by hauling oil, coal, wheat, lumber, cars, etc. Let's continue to ignore in this debate that trains are roughly 4x as efficient as trucks in hauling the freight that makes this region economically competitive. Why isn't the environmental community arguing as vehemently for an EIS every time a trucking company expands its shipping facilities or expands its fleet of trucks? Rail should be the comparative darling given its significantly more efficient/"green" attributes.
Posted Mon, Dec 10, 9:54 a.m. Inappropriate
Amazing that all articles in Papers along the route only talk about impacts on their community. Everyone is focused on the trains, traffic and jobs.... But the 700 new coal plants in China, and the 170% increase in coal powered plants in China over the last decade, is never mentioned. Somehow everyone can keep a clear conscious because they aren't mining the coal, nor are they burning it. Fits in nicely with our denial on climate change. Why are we following Cananda that was just rated the worse carbon producing country in the world? Why does any regional attempt at conservation fail? Because all anyone cares about is their backyard... The Evergreen State? Really... More like the Evergreed State. Greed in that we continue to live beyond the lands means.
Posted Mon, Dec 10, 11:03 a.m. Inappropriate
How about this, the at grade crossing space is of a higher benefit to the public good, than a rail line, at the Edmonds crossing and several other state highways. The people of the State of Washington legally take that at grade crossing property by eminent domain. We then offer the railroad to generously help with 5% of the cost if they would like to build a rail bridge over our roadway.
I only offer this to show how absurd or archaic the crossing and safety funding system is. When was this formula devised, 1890, before the interstate highway system was built?
Every time a train goes over a busy state road, it needs to pay a per use impact fee. That is a better funding system.
Posted Mon, Dec 10, 12:22 p.m. Inappropriate
Of course there'll be an impact. The trouble is 67% of the state's population live in the Puget Sound area and as a general rule we're very selfish. If it ain't good for Seattle, go away. This applies to up and down the sound. Coal just happens to be the latest poster child for icky.
I'm surprised that there isn't a move afoot to turn the all rails to bike trails movement. That would solve the coal port problem with a local solution.
Posted Sat, Dec 15, 12:25 a.m. Inappropriate
By Jove, you've got it, Djinn.
I'm sure that Cascade Bike Club will be in touch, as will all the computer/hi-tech companies that only hire the very young who can actually still ride a bike.
Posted Mon, Dec 10, 4:13 p.m. Inappropriate
"let some additional unit trains pass by hauling oil, coal, wheat, lumber, cars, etc."
Except that the only things that anyone is actually talking about hauling are Coal and Oil. The oil is for refineries in the region, but the coal is all for export,
The coal profiteers approach is quite traditional: privatize the profits and socialize the cost. They get the profit. We get the cost. In transportation impacts, health impacts (pollution from burning this coal in Asia is carried here); and the Brontosaurus (Gorillas and Elephants are way too small) in the living room - global overheating. Hey. its the American way. Its traditional. But we don't have to let them do this to us.
I like the idea of taking the crossings via eminent domain.
Posted Mon, Dec 10, 4:24 p.m. Inappropriate
To expand on the idea of condemning the crossings for the purpose of making the RR's and their Coal Buddies pay for crossings that infringe on everyone else's rights and ability to travel freely:
Short of requiring the construction of adequate elevated crossings, another option is to simply impose schedules when the trains can use any particular crossing. For example, to assure that 1 out of 3 crossings in an area is always available for use by emergency vehicles. Or that 10,000 commuters can get home in a timely fashion. You get the idea. This is no different than metering vehicles entering an interstate highway or imposing congestion pricing. Its simply a traffic management strategy. Perfectly constitutional.
Posted Tue, Dec 11, 5:20 a.m. Inappropriate
Barge it out of Longview and be done with it.
Posted Sat, Dec 15, 12:29 a.m. Inappropriate
Chehalis does have the coal plant just off I-5. I knew it in the back of my head, but Thursday I saw that long tunnel cloud, and realized it was a white cloud, shaped much like a funnel, that came down to the ground. That's it, nothing dramatic.
The coal comes from Wyoming.
You don't like it? Then go out, invent something clean, and that is an improvement.
Complaining won't work. Cure the problem.
Posted Wed, Dec 12, 3:15 a.m. Inappropriate
If these coal trains, and coal ports are allowed, don't come talking to me about the need to reduce carbon emmissions.
Posted Sat, Dec 15, 12:22 a.m. Inappropriate
Why? If another country ships their coal to asian markets, we're still going to need the same carbon emmission trades.
At least this way, if we're the shippers, we keep the profits at home. And control more than just the steering of the train.
Posted Sat, Dec 15, 12:22 a.m. Inappropriate
Why? If another country ships their coal to asian markets, we're still going to need the same carbon emmission trades.
At least this way, if we're the shippers, we keep the profits at home. And control more than just the steering of the train.
Posted Fri, Dec 14, 6:20 p.m. Inappropriate
Ah, Sightline. These are the same people who hurl the "NIMBY" epithet at anyone who opposes any development that Sightline's favorite billionaries support. Not that they're pseudo-"progressive" hypocrites or anything like that.
Posted Sat, Dec 15, 12:20 a.m. Inappropriate
RR transportation. Federally funded, seems like we're goign to allow the coal trains.
Seems also like it makes sense. When we know where it goes, we control the safety of how it arrives.
For us as well as 'them uns'. It's not like we don't already use a massive amount of coal here at home either. We do.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.