Siding Strangles Waterfront, GPT Application Questioned, Adieu More Amtrak Trains, Casey Jones Loves Coal, RFK, Jr. and More

Part 11

City, Sierra Club, Many Others Question Application

May 16, 2012, was the final day to comment to Whatcom County’s Planning and Development Services (PDS) on the Gateway Pacific Coal Port application. The public could comment on what might be wrong or missing from the application itself or suggest that it was incomplete or just plain stupid, unhealthy or immoral. This public comment period is different from the comments on what should be included in an environmental impact statement (EIS) which will be part of the scoping process which could begin whenever questioning of the application is shrugged off by Whatcom County and a consultant team for the EIS scoping is in place. On May 7 Jean Melious’ getwhatcomplanning.blogspot.com, “Only 9 Days to Comment on Coal Application,” played off John Watts’ bellinghamstertalk.blogspot.com; she wryly reviewed the range of comments already listed at PDS’s website (see posting for link). In addition to the ones listed, several other important comments were received as the deadline approached, including one from the transportation planner for Billings, Montana. Most importantly these included a May 15 letter from the city of Bellingham to Whatcom County State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) official Tyler Schroeder requesting that the county seek additional information about the impacts of the long siding that might be built along Bellingham’s waterfront to accommodate the increased train traffic generated by GPT (see “siding” below). The letter, posted through www.cob.org/features, was signed by Mayor Kelli Linville and Terry Bornemann for the City Council — which had voted unanimously (Snapp and Knutson absent) to send the letter. Thank you Mayor Linville and Councilmembers Bornemann, Weiss, Lilliquist, Fleetwood and Lehman! A well-crafted letter raising numerous questions and issues with the application was submitted by Llyn Doremus on behalf of the Sierra Club. It will be interesting to see if all of the questioning of the GPT application will result in the county’s requesting more information or delving more deeply into the many issues raised about it.

The Siding That Swallowed Bellingham

One of the most interesting coal developments in May was the CommunityWise Bellingham’s commissioned study of potential impacts to Bellingham’s waterfront were rail facilities to be expanded to accommodate the increase of trains necessary to feed the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) proposed for Cherry Point. The study was presented to the Bellingham City Council as part of its May 7 public session. The study, available at communitywisebellingham.org, was performed by a group of highly respected experts. Their report made much technical material accessible to the public, including discussion of how the current Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) mainline from Everett to Blaine and beyond to Vancouver, B.C., was at its effective capacity; any significant rail traffic increases would necessitate major track and siding expansions. Of greatest interest was their finding that, buried in a Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) study was a discussion of how a siding reaching from Fairhaven Station to and perhaps through downtown would be needed to expand rail capacity adequate for the handling of the level of freight train increase proposed for GPT.

The city had only recently learned that BNSF wanted a new downtown bridge big enough to accommodate three rail tracks as part of a waterfront redevelopment and now the city had to digest a siding long enough for an idling mile-and-a-half long coal train to effectively block access to the waterfront from Fairhaven through downtown. Goodbye new development in Fairhaven; goodbye easy access to Boulevard Park. (What will all those fair-weather motorists flooding Boulevard Park do? Walk and use the pedestrian overpass? Enjoy diesel fumes with their picnics and Woods coffee?) The addition of six current coal trains in the past few years has brought the rail line to capacity; BNSF would try to have the public pay for any track and siding expansion that would make room for more passenger service.

Bye, Bye Boulevard Park

This startling news got the attention of the City Council and its transportation committee created a special study session on May 14 to further explore its ramifications. BNSF then quickly counter-spun, trying to assure the public that the huge track and siding expansions were only one among several ways of increasing capacity. These matters were well-covered by John Stark (blogs.bellinghamherald.com/politics), especially his May 13 posting, “Coal train complexities face Bellingham City Council,” as well as his May 8 posting, “Coal trains for Cherry Point terminal would require more rails, limit access to Boulevard Park.” The May 7 presentation sent the wheels spinning in Floyd McKay’s head and he quickly posted two articles at crosscut.com on May 8: “Bellingham park faces big changes from coal-train traffic; Expanding rail capacity would mean shrinking a popular park,” and a very interesting “Coal exports could block passenger-rail expansion: The corporations involved with a proposed Bellingham-area coal export facility could get a nearly free ride on rail upgrades. Or the coal traffic might just kill hopes for a greener form of travel,” a very thorough discussion of the complicated history and complex issues around the relationship between BNSF and public passenger services. McKay did an excellent job of unearthing the great extent to which BNSF has benefitted from picking the public purse, whether for commuter rail in the Seattle region, or for a raft of improvements to its trackage and sidings paid for by public funds in order to gain a tiny bit more access for Amtrak runs. The GPT proposal now puts passenger rail improvements in a serious bind; if public rail funds become available — which is unlikely in the current political environment, they would facilitate massive coal shipments — which may well interfere with passenger rail reliability as they do at present. If public funds do not become available, public passenger rail service increases might be denied by BNSF due to capacity constraints which, in part, have been created by the current extra coal shipping. Well, there are some bicyclists who ride from Vancouver, BC, to Seattle or from Seattle to Portland — start getting in shape now at your local spinning classes so that you can join them.

Seattle’s Mayor Mike McGinn: “a really bad idea.”

The raft of coal terminal proposals appearing almost monthly in Oregon and Washington, with a cumulative increase in freight trains that would strangle many places along their routes, have set the wheels spinning in other political minds as well. On May 10, KOMO’s Jill Blocker (bellingham.komonews.com/news) covered a Seattle Town Meeting where Mayor Mike McGinn addressed the proposed increase in coal trains: “From an economic prospective, getting traffic from the port to the freeway matters, giving movement around our industrial area matters, but this is a really bad idea from a health perspective and global warming perspective.” Undeterred by such political wisdom Mark Lowery of the Northwest Labor Council replied, “It is a dirty commodity, but it’s a commodity that’s legal to mine and ship.”

OR and WA Call for Wider Study of Coal Impacts

Coal export impacts attracted the attention of Oregon’s Gov. John Kitzhaber who sent a letter on April 25 to several key federal officials with varying types of environmental responsibilities calling for a “programmatic and comprehensive environmental impact statement (under NEPA).” The letter goes on to list numerous environmental impacts that need to receive a hard look. Link at: communitywisebellingham.org. Not to be outdone by our neighbor state to the south, on May 7 Washington’s Dept. of Ecology requested a similar wide-ranging review of the impacts of all the coal terminals proposed for our region because “[T]aken together, the terminals would add at least 37 trains to certain rail lines in the state. The additional trains could bring more diesel air pollution and coal dust, more noise, and increased wait times at road crossings for emergency vehicles, according to the comment.” (May 9 Bellingham Herald article by Ralph Schwartz; links to the DOE letter at coaltrainfacts.org) While a few of our region’s congressional representatives have joined the chorus calling for a wide-ranging regional review, noticeably absent has been our local GPT-boosting Congressman Larsen; hello, are you listening Rick?

Whatcom County Tries to Muzzle Public Comment

While the public is welcome to comment on the GPT notice of application, they are not welcome to address the County Council about GPT. According to a May 9 Bellingham Herald politics blog “Comments to the Whatcom County Council during the open comment session on the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal should not be allowed, according to the county prosecutor.” This proved dismaying to many persons who loudly complained in the article’s comments section and on May 10 Jean Melious devoted a humorous blog posting “Coal Port Speech Ban: We Can All Just Get Along” noting that the ban applies narrowly to GPT and slyly suggesting ways that muzzle-resisting citizens could talk about the evils of coal trains, coal terminals, coal ships, etc. without nary a mention of the proposed Cherry Point project. Many interesting, humorous and informative comments followed Jean’s posting.

350 Bellingham March

Not to be muzzled 350 Bellingham organized a May 5 “Climate Impacts Day” march from Bellingham’s city hall through downtown to Maritime Heritage Park where Mayor Kelli Linville again expressed her opposition to the export of coal but, again, did not call out GPT and its accomplices for their role in increasing climate change. Look for 350Bellingham on fa(r)cebook and you’ll find photos and a video of the march worth viewing. The 350 march preceded the annual Procession of the Species which included representations of some long-extinct creatures whose bodies morphed into coal over the millennia. Maybe next year they’ll all march together.

Criticize Coal Trains and Find a Dead Fish on Your Doorstep?

Casey Jones is telling us not to worry about the impacts of coal trains. On April 18 Mike Elliott, the spokesperson for the Washington State Legislative Board of the Brotherhood (What? No sisters?) of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) of the International Brotherhood (Again, no sisters?) of Teamsters issued a press release, “Engineers and Trainmen (why not Trainpersons?): No Health Issues Related to Coal Dust.” The release attacks the Sierra Club and others “about deceptive tactics being used against major infrastructure projects” and “a misinformation campaign” misleading the public about trains and coal. A link to the statement can be found at John Stark’s April 19 blogs.bellinghamherald.com/politics “Railroad union sees no downside to coal trains.” BLET members should be concerned about coal dust and diesel exhaust, as well should all those who work (or live) around coal — at mines, loading and switching facilities, and terminals since those persons have unusually high rates of respiratory and other ailments according to injury attorney John Cooper at railroadaccidentfelalawyers.com.

Worthy of Attention

Follow Ferndale’s Anne Marie Ross’ advice in her May 17 Bellingham Herald letter-to-the-editor, “go to vancouversun.com and search for coal dust to see what a coal dust storm looks like,” and you will find some interesting results: April 13 “Unexpected wind gust stirs up coal dust at Roberts Bank” (with a great photo of the coal dust cloud) and the Agence France-Presse May 16 article, “U.S. issuing its own data on Shanghai air quality” which reports that “The United States consulate in Shanghai has begun issuing its own pollution statistics, giving a much more pessimistic assessment of the city’s air quality than official Chinese data.” So let’s help air quality in Shanghai (and a few days later downwind in our region) by not shipping more coal to them!

“Huffington Post” environment and public health reporter Lynn Peeples’ May 11 article captures Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaking against the export of Montana and Wyoming coal through six proposed ports in Oregon and Washington: “They are not coming here to bring you prosperity and jobs,” Kennedy, president of the Waterkeeper Alliance, told the 400-plus rally attendees. “They’re coming to ship their poison, so that they can poison the people in China, and that poison is going to come back here and poison your salmon and your children. So don’t let it happen.” The article includes a photo of a demonstrator snapped by RE Sources’ Matt Krogh and a link to a video about the demonstration — which looked smaller than some Bellingham anti-coal demonstrations. The video includes encouragement from a Chinese environmental activist.

The Portland area’s South County Spotlight (spotlightnews.net, May 2) published an article by Stover E. Harger that might be of interest to our region: “PGE blocks major Oregon coal export project … Power company refuses to sublease property near Clatskanie to Kinder Morgan over coal dust concerns.”

The May 3 edition of “Scientific American” features “Coal Exports Boost Train Impacts out West: With Asia’s energy demands pulling more U.S. coal to West Coast ports, rail-line communities across Montana fear the effects: More train traffic, health problems, noise and congestion,” by Douglas Fischer. Find the link at coaltrainfacts.org.

The April 30 Salish Law’s Fact Check: “Will the Coal Trains Come Anyway, Without the Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal?” is an excellent analysis of many of the issues and claims around the GPT proposal, which should also inform the EIS scoping and public discussion. Find it at http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/salish-law-pllc-will-the-trains-coming-anyway

On April 28 the Whatcom Democrats passed a “Resolution Regarding the Shipment of Coal from Washington’s Shores” which included much strong language opposing “the permitting of coal terminals in Washington unless and until it is determined that there will be no net negative impact to the environment, human health, and economy of our state” as well as calling on all government permitting agencies involved to do comprehensive programmatic EIS studies as well as environmental and community impacts studies. A link to this resolution is posted at the May 1 blogs.bellinghamherald.com/politics. When Whatcom Watch contacted Mike Estes, the chair of the Whatcom Democrats, he indicated that: “The state party will be voting on resolutions at a convention the weekend of June 2nd. The version that was brought to our (April 28) county convention and passed does not specifically mention the proposal for Cherry Point. We have intentionally not taken a position on this proposal until a thorough analysis of any environmental and economic impacts has been completed. This resolution calls for that to be done.”