The Humboldt Herald always enjoys comparing the pipe dreamer’s wish to industrialize Humboldt Bay for international container shipping purposes to the current state of the business.
Take this recent LA Times article: Shipping industry in deep water:
Trade at international ports is on track to drop more than 10% this year, one of the steepest declines ever, according to a new maritime industry report.
Cargo ships will carry 27 million fewer containers by year’s end than they did in 2008 — a reduction roughly equivalent to all of the cargo containers handled by the five busiest U.S. seaports in a typical year.
But hey, it can’t last forever! Soon we’ll be right back to a booming economy as if the recession never happened, right?
The continued slump has dashed the hopes of many in the industry, who had come to believe that the recession had bottomed out and that a recovery was beginning.
“At this moment we can’t see anything particularly positive around the corner,” Dekker said. “We don’t want to be overly negative. That is just the reality.”
Don’t forget that startling photo of the stacked containers in Hong Kong piled higher than housing as they sit useless in an world that no longer needs them. At least, not for shipping.
RSS - Posts
July 10, 2009 at 7:00 am
short term thinking
July 10, 2009 at 7:29 am
Affordable housing units when welded together – think about it because it is becoming an increasingly popular design concept that is economically less expensive than more standardized construction designs. However, government agencies are concerned that they can’t TAX these steel structures at over-inflated values like that which has been ever-increasingly done since the nineteen seventies on standardized activities. Keep it simple = less govt. involved = less costs = less problems = MORE SUCCESS.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
July 10, 2009 at 7:49 am
The teeny tiny problem with saying shipping won’t rebound is that America has next to no manufacturing capacity and no indication that we’re working on it. We MUST ship in goods. It can’t all come from Mexico. As bad as our economy is, it’s still cheaper to import junk from China, and we love cheap Chinese junk.
July 10, 2009 at 8:31 am
But at no time should we ever consider just getting by with less junk!
July 10, 2009 at 9:17 am
To summarize Hopalong:
Step 1. Convince the entire population of the United States to stop buying things.
Step 2. …
Step 3. Profit!
July 10, 2009 at 9:25 am
Still talking about container shipping, eh? Talk breakbuld and bulk shipping and the very real possibility exists. What you folks know about internationbal shipping = just about nothing. The rail may never come back and that would be the end of that, but international shipping has benn going on for, what, 3 or 4 yers, no , decades, no, centuries, yes. Get informed and let us have a real discussion, not the usual no growth here ever because it will ruin my reality.
July 10, 2009 at 9:32 am
Here’s what the so-called Green Port people want for Humboldt Bay:
1. T-shirts for Wal-Mart
2. Chinese car imports (2-5 years away)
3. Military shipments — including tanks
4. “Anything you can pour” or lift with a crane from Asia and Europe
5. Wind towers
6. Products destined for the Central US
July 10, 2009 at 9:45 am
Where do you get the military shipments from? Cite your source.
July 10, 2009 at 9:47 am
Follow the link. This is from the “Green Port” presentation at the Wharfinger last August.
July 10, 2009 at 9:58 am
Thanks Heraldo for that list. Aside from wind towers and Chinese cars, everything else you mentioned is in high demand and will continue to be for decades to come. So, let’s build the port!
July 10, 2009 at 10:00 am
Woo-hoo! Never ending war!
July 10, 2009 at 10:22 am
Buy low, sell high.
July 10, 2009 at 10:22 am
Well, yes, as long as people have religion, they will have war.
July 10, 2009 at 10:28 am
The Harbor District has never had any interest in military shipments. Goldman-Sachs, et al are not local and trying to get a shining gold star on their report. Wht is with the red herring? Why not discuss the spent glowing rods underneath the PG&E plant – a real threat and not some abstract threat?
July 10, 2009 at 10:38 am
Some of you folks would have us wearing only bearskins and carrying clubs.
July 10, 2009 at 10:51 am
And as long as conservatives have strawmen, we will have pointless debates.
July 10, 2009 at 10:52 am
Not a conservative, just knowledgeable about shipping and ports.
July 10, 2009 at 11:13 am
Oldphart “knowledgeable”? More so than the other anonymous’? Why do you think so?
July 10, 2009 at 11:21 am
International Program for Port Planning & Management, University of New Orleans – what is your education in this field?
July 10, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Well, this is supposed to be another jobless economic recovery. Remember the last one? Seems to me that unemployment and lower paying jobs are part of the equation. You are not going to see an expansion of import trade until the rate of unemployment goes down. Wall Street thugs and their D.C. bag men like things just the way they are. Port planning and management is downsizing due to lower import volume. Maybe Oldphart should update his education.
July 10, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Not everyone who disagrees with you is conservative.
July 10, 2009 at 12:18 pm
I would agree. Talk to conservatives. Most of them will tell you port/rail development on Humboldt Bay is a boondoggle a best. The only ones into the idea are longing for the ‘good old days’ or just wanting to be contrary to the progressives that are pushing new ideas for development.
July 10, 2009 at 12:22 pm
the purpose of shipping/rail on the bay should be to get locally produced goods OUT.
relying on the ebbs and flows of one business or industry such as international shipping is foolish.
infrastructure facilitates a diversified economy.
July 10, 2009 at 12:33 pm
coos bay kicked out the shipments of radioactive war scrap- the only reason eka was on the map for a “new” port- would have seen trucks going to nevada and nobody would notice the human toll in eka
west coast shipping tonage reports will be out next week and we’ll know if the trade has bottomed out.
July 10, 2009 at 12:45 pm
to clarify i’m not against “international shipping” but rather large container shipping as a model.
developing a functioning port (again) on Humboldt Bay is a very good idea. It worked great before when there was product going out. Focus on how to increase that piece and you’ll have something.
it is very possible for shipping activity to coexist with a beautiful, natural and accessible bay. in fact i think active business along the water will only help those goals.
oldphart – i’m curious as to what products you think could be shipped through humboldt bay.
July 10, 2009 at 1:10 pm
12 years ago or so a fellow came in and wanted to build a gypsum wall board plant out on the North Spit for export. He was going to bring in the raw materials by rail. Oops. He walked. There are many more examples. Imports are another story which deal with attracting the shipping companies (the folks with the big boats) but getting goods up here by rail is not just some pipe dream. The garbage people really would like the RR to work. Cut costs. The rail is key, without it, nothing will happen. With it, this would be a viable port.
July 10, 2009 at 1:14 pm
” The rail is key, without it, nothing will happen.”
Rail won’t happen. I guess that is the end of the story.
July 10, 2009 at 1:22 pm
The only problem with abandoning the RR is the Federal Gov’t. Right of Way issues, environmental issues, etc. There is way more to the story than just letting the RR die. It will be a oh so slow death, or maybe a phoenix rising from the ashes. Next chapter has yet to be written. If you are truly older than me, don’t hold your breath. Rail to Trail ain’t gonna happen.
July 10, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Hawaii has no rail and several small operating ports.
July 10, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Hawaii is an island last time I looked.
July 10, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Maybe we are too, in many ways.
July 10, 2009 at 2:05 pm
I hereby nominate the following rebuttal by “olphart” for the category “smackdown of the month.”
July 10, 2009 at 11:13 am
Oldphart “knowledgeable”?
More so than the other anonymous’?
Why do you think so?
Oldphart Says:
July 10, 2009 at 11:21 am
International Program for Port Planning &
Management, University of New Orleans – what is
your education in this field?
July 10, 2009 at 2:09 pm
By the way, I agree with those saying that we should try to concentrate on increasing what we produce locally. If, at some point, we are on track to produce enough goods to justify rail and/or port exportation of these products, then we may want to upgrade the port and resuscitate the rail. But as long as we’re just talking about importing a bunch of products from overseas, while only exporting garbage and gravel, that just doesn’t make much sense to me.
July 10, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Skippy: exactly. the value in port infrastructure is in exports.
If we have a functioning and relatively inexpensive port and some rail leading to it (already have the right of ways) then it can serve the wider region. It would also enable more small/light manufacturing to prosper in this area, something Humboldt can do really well.
This region can prosper if we can re-establish links to the outside world. I suggest focusing on the future links, such as redundant high speed internet (and more of it) as well as water and rail shipping, which *is* the future as compared to roads.
I agree with Oldphart that “rail to trail” won’t happen, largely because it’s incredibly short-sighted, almost criminally. Trails? great? Trails at the expense of a rail right-of-way? you gotta be kidding me. Are trails possible WITHOUT eliminating the rail right of way? Of course they are.
July 10, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Your name says it all.
July 10, 2009 at 3:09 pm
“Trails at the expense of a rail right-of-way? you gotta be kidding me. Are trails possible WITHOUT eliminating the rail right of way?”
Yes, absolutely, it is called “Railbanking.” A practical compromise for this situation.
July 10, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Older:
What is the monetary value of the rail right-of-way?
If you include that as part of the cost of the trail, you now have the most expensive trail imaginable.
July 10, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Just to clarify, my point was that rail and port infrastructure only make sense to me if there is going to be a pretty good balance of importing and exporting. At this point it seems to be mostly about importing.
Of course then there’s the chicken-egg problem: should we improve the port and rebuild the rail now, hoping that this would stimulate more light manufacturing or other export-generating industry here in Humboldt, or should we wait until we see some signs of growth in the manufacturing sector (or other sectors that might take advantage of the infrastructure) before we start plopping down billions for the rail and port?
It seems to me that the chicken-egg thing poses a fair question. I guess at this point I just don’t have much faith in the “if we build it, they will come” school of thought. At present, I just don’t think we’re anywhere near a situation where it makes sense to invest billions in transportation infrastructure for which the demand — as far as exports go — seem pretty much limited to timber, garbage, and gravel.
Of course that COULD change over time, and it DOES take time to do the infrastructure work, so therein lies the counter-argument: Some folks think that we should create the infrastructure now, despite the lack of exports (or even market conditions for importing goods here) because they think the infrastructure will be needed in the near future, and/or because they feel that creating the infrastructure will create the business climate that will in turn make the infrastructure worthwhile.
So I think I understand the different points of view, but like I said, I’m just not very sanguine about the wisdom of the “if you build it, they will come” approach.
July 10, 2009 at 3:22 pm
The railroad may or may not be rebuilt. That is up to the State of California or the Federal Government to decide and then fund. There are no votes up here to influence anyone in a position to do someting to accomplish that. But if for some strange reason it does happen, then manufacturing industries could be induced to come here for the cheap land and ability for export. That, of course, goes against the trend of the USA to manufacture anything at all. Hey, we drink water out of plastic bottles – anything can happen.
July 10, 2009 at 3:28 pm
I think that the trail between Eureka and Arcata is a great idea. I predict that it will be used by a large number of bike commuters, many tourists, and also for recreational walks by local residents. It will certainly be a whole lot safer than walking or biking on Hwy 101. So we need to find some way to make this trail happen…but without eliminating the potential for rail to return in the future. In other words, we must find a way to have a trail without creating a situation where we end up pitting the return of the rail against the existence of the trail.
The problem with just saying “railbanking is the answer” is that once the trail is in place on the railroad right-of-way, the argument from some quarters will likely shift to opposing the rail from EVER being rebuilt because now it would “ruin” or “displace” the existing trail.
I’m guessing that this is why the rail folks have been rather (unfortunately) hostile to the idea of a Eureka-Arcata trail located on the rail right-of-way. What’s the solution? Well, I wish I knew! There’s only so much room on the railbed, and in many areas it’s not wide enough to accomodate both a rail and a trail side-by-side. So, widen it? Well, which way…filling the ditch on the highway side (creating flooding problems?) or adding fill on the bay side (impacting the bay)? Hmmmmm, quite a conundrum!
July 10, 2009 at 3:34 pm
“Progressives that are pushing new ideas for development”, show me one that has come to pass. Not being coy, I would like to know. Lots of talk and bad mouthing RA and the “good old boys”, but most of the progressive stuff seen or heard is just talk with no real progress. Where is the meat.
July 10, 2009 at 3:35 pm
If the rail becomes so economically viable that its return up the canyon and to Samoa is eminent then moving the trail will be the least of the issues or costs.
Just like railbainking is a practical compromise today, there will be a new compromise solution when a new future emerges.
July 10, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Let Greenwheels build the Annie & Mary Trail from Arcata to Blue Lake which is already railbanked. After that is proven possible, then talk about other trails.
July 10, 2009 at 3:43 pm
How can “new ideas” already come to pass?
July 10, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Sorry, O-P. Too practical.
July 10, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Arcata’s Aldergrove Industrial Park could qualify as a tasty cut.The Courtyards affordable housing project aint ground round either.
July 10, 2009 at 3:55 pm
3:35,
So you’re counting on some as-yet-unimaginable solution that will magically take shape in the future? ‘Cuz that sure is what it sounds like.
This kind of reminds me of when nuclear power was new, and no one knew what to do with the radioactive waste. Don’t worry, they said, we’ll solve that issue in the future, with even more nifty technology. Of course forty-something years later we’re still waiting for that magical new solution to appear, while continuing to crank out more nuke waste every day.
It seems to me that the question of how to accomodate both a rail and a trail on that section between Eureka and Arcata is a difficult engineering and political problem, and not likely to be solved by some technological magic fix in the future.
So your response seems to me to amount to “we’ll worry about that later,” which is frankly not a very persuasive argument.
July 10, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I wish someone who wants to see the railroad return would point the rest of us to an honest cost estimate for rebuilding and maintaining a freight line along the Eel.
If you can’t do that, there’s really nothing to discuss.
And if you do that, you’ll see that the only way that sort of money will get spent is if we suddenly have incredible political might and a silent environmental community. Neither will happen.
Do you see much pork around Humboldt?
If you want jobs, get redundant broadband. Electrons are light.
July 10, 2009 at 4:01 pm
I hope there IS a solution, because I very much want that Arcata/Eureka trail to be built ASAP. I just don’t want to see us build a trail that will have to be removed in order to rebuild the rail at some point in the future.
So: Trail PLUS Rail…is it possible? How would that work? How much would it cost to build the trail alongside the tracks rather than in place of them? Has there been an engineering plan and cost estimate of that option? I’d really like to know. I don’t think we should have to choose between a trail and the potential for rail service in the future.
July 10, 2009 at 4:03 pm
No it is not a “as-yet-unimaginable solution”. There is a recent study that shows that rail with trail between Arcata and Eureka costs 40 million. Railbanking costs 5 million.
So the point is, do the affordable thing today and when the billion dollar rail line comes, accommodating the trail will be just be a small fraction of the total.
July 10, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Here’s a link for you to look at:
http://www.hcaog.net/docs/
July 10, 2009 at 4:20 pm
O.K., thanks, 4:03. So there IS a plan, and a figure for Trail plus Rail. $40 million is not exactly peanuts, but neither is it all that much in the world of transportation infrastructure. For example, how much are we spending on the new fancy cloverleaf interchange at 101 and 36 (at Alton, by Hanson’s Truck Stop)?
So does that rail with trail figure include the actual costs of rebuilding the rail on that section, or is it just the additional cost of placing the trail *next to* the non-functional rails? Because if the $40 million-dollar figure includes the rail repairs, I’d also like to see an estimate for what it would cost to place the trail *next to* the railroad, without actually rebuilding the rail (yet). This would be “railbanking PLUS” where we create a trail that will not have to be moved in the future.
The idea is that this approach would keep the railroad bed clear and it’s purpose intact, and not create the dynamic where reconstructing the rail will necessitate “ruining” or “removing” the trail.
Of course some folks may actually desire creating exactly this “rail versus trail” dynamic. They’re all for railbanking now, and are careful to say that railbanking would allow the right-of-way to be used for rail in the future, but once the trail is in place, I suspect that some of these same folks will shift their argument to say that we shouldn’t rebuild the rail because that would eliminate, or at least “spoil” the new trail.
Also, I wouldn’t entirely count out the idea of a Eureka – Samoa historical/tourist train, which would have to use those tracks. This seems to me to be more of a short-term possibility than the full rebuild of the railroad, including the tricky sections in the Eel River Canyon. Trail-plus-rail along the Eureka-Arcata section would accomodate the historical/tourist train, which could be a real asset to the local tourist industry, as well as the bike/pedestrian trail, which will certainly be a boon to local tourism as well.
July 10, 2009 at 4:26 pm
And $40 million would be a substantial “stimulus” to the local economy, would it not? Is it too late to apply for our share of the pork — err, I mean stimulus funds? If so, maybe the rumored “second stimulus” will be coming along in a few months?
I mean as long as we’re spending our grandchildren’s money (not really my choice, but hey, it’s happening anyway), we might as well get our share and build something that may be useful to them in the future!
July 10, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Oh Yeah, I checked out phart’s claim to “being educated”, its bogus. That citation is a training center for people who operate ports. The website says: “The program focuses on the general management of port operations”.
Phart was trained (not educated) in operations. Like where to put the cranes and trucks. That’s grunt level stuff, not investment and regional infrastructure. Probably was trained for two weeks and now claims he knows something about finances and development. Well, he doesn’t. All he can do is spout the tired old “Field of Dreams” argument, no facts at all.
Sure, if I provide a company the land, buildings, power, water, and transportation for less than their cost, they might locate here. But its not sustainable, since the upkeep and maintenance will be more than what the company will pay. So the facilities will deteriorate and get dilapidated, just like the railroad already did.
The railroad was built for the lumber companies to haul massive amounts of wood at a time when railroads were high tech, steamboats were primitive, and highways unknown. Southern Pacific and Santa Fe competed to monopolize transportation. When there weas no longer massive amounts of wood to ship, the railroad’s value became zero. And thats what its worth is today.
All the economic studies have concluded that there’s no liklihood that a railroad/port would be a positive to the larger economy. It would just be a subsidy to a small number of local activities. And thats not even considering the environmental impacts.
July 10, 2009 at 4:38 pm
“It would just be a subsidy to a small number of local activities.”
Yes, that’s my concern, too, that it will be a subsidy to timber, gravel and garbage exporting, and, if international trade rebounds, a subsidy to transnational importers.
And like I said, I’m not really a fan of the Field of Dreams approach (“if you build it they will come…”).
At the same time, things may change in the future and even in the short-term there are some potentially more viable options for the Samoa-Eureka section, such as a historical/tourist train. So that’s why I like the idea of Rail PLUS trail (trail *next to* the tracks, not on top of them) more than I like the idea of Rail to Trail, even when it is couched (however sincerely) as “railbanking.”
July 10, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Not sure exactly what your point is, NAN, as oldphart has more knowledge on this subject than many of us here. Plus, it was a nice and for the most part, civil discussion. Then you showed up and spout this:
“Phart was trained (not educated) in operations. Like where to put the cranes and trucks. That’s grunt level stuff, not investment and regional infrastructure. Probably was trained for two weeks and now claims he knows something about finances and development. Well, he doesn’t. All he can do is spout the tired old “Field of Dreams” argument, no facts at all.”
You (nor I) simply do not know if this true or not. You don’t know “phart” yet you claim to have the definitive word on his or her education? Give me a break. You have so much to offer with your posts, but much of it is lost in the vitriol and condscension that flavor your posts.
July 10, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Skippy, maybe you can tell us how this tourist train is going to work. I’m not saying I don’t like a good train ride as much as next guy or gal.
But, let’s add it up (yes, I’m guessing here based on past studies and experience). Fixing the tracks, $15 million. Steam engine, $500,000. Passenger cars, $300,000. Stations $400,000. ADA compliance, $1 million. Identified funding: $0.
Then you have to run the thing. The Tourist train feasibility study done a few years ago showed the county would have to subsidize the train for at least $100,000 a year and it assumes lots of volunteer labor and that track maintenance was free. Add $200,000 a year more for that.
What about the cost of waiting for this to happen as opposed to doing more feasible and productive things. THA has been working on this for 25 years and they have gotten, well, as far as they are now. So when you think this project will be done?
Then there’s the demographics. Tourist train buffs are typically male, over 50 who remember trains in some fond way (or under 8 fans of Thomas). This is not a growing market segment. Tourist trains are struggling even in areas that have access to much larger populations.
Seems if were just going to build something just to sell some tickets and t-shirts we may want to think a bit more about how much we want to invest our limited money and time. Holding up other opportunities for this seems too costly to me.
July 10, 2009 at 5:24 pm
For many reasons rail to trail only works using the railbanking process. I recommend doing a little research about railbanking and talking to some folks that propose this idea before disparaging the idea and the motivations of the people purposing it as a solution for moving forward.
July 10, 2009 at 5:49 pm
So NAN wants to point the fickle finger of blame and digress from the main point – this is not only a viable port (with the rialroad operating) but this area was founded because it was a port. So your point? You have no idea of what went on in New Orleans, now do you? Port managers from Honduras, France, Canada, Yemen, Ghana, Indonesia, and can’t remember the rest but can look them up if you want me to bore you with the details. US Army Corps of Engineers, longshore unions, stevedore companies (do you know the difference?) etc. And yet I ma ignorant. Give me a break. 6 years as a Harbor Commissioner, consultant, etc. And you can contribute to this discussion by ripping into others. Sad.
July 10, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Pontificate and obsfucate, NAN – you go for it.
July 10, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Cal-Trans stated that it cost $39 million plus to clear the unstable Confusion Hill area for the last 10 years and then builds a $65 million bridge to bypass that area. But spending money on the railroad would be a waste? $100 million tax dollars spent on 101. Keep putting those trucks on 101 which is built on the same unstable ground as the railroad and wonder why the road needs so much maintenance. Cal-Trans will not give a figure on the amount of money spent on that stretch north of Ukiah that has underground springs and will never be stable ground, yet the railroad is not a good idea. Plus, one of the ideas of having a railroad is to keep the barge operators honest. Keep it civil.
July 10, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Our anarchist “Black Flag” has it entirely correct.
The reason that our little port is valuable to the global capitalists is that if they can build it, they can use it to ship dangerous cargo through – explosive and corrosive chemicals, nuclear waste, biohazard waste and war materiel. It is much cheaper insurance and liability wise- and much easier to get the permits – to ship through an area with 50.000 potential victims instead of say, 5 million like in the Bay Area or Los Angeles.
Not to mention that global level port facilities will turn our sleepy fishing port into a target for nuclear missles and international terrorism.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
July 10, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Peter Schiff was right!!
July 10, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Jesus Peasus – any port can take chemicals – this area would never stand for that – red herring. Lousiana probably doesn’t want chemicals but that is what they are stuck with. Stick with a rational discussion.
July 10, 2009 at 6:48 pm
FEMA estimated the reconstruction of the rail through the Eel River Canyon to be some $500 million plus back in 1998.
July 10, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Oh ho – now I get moderated! Unwelcome comments?
July 10, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Mike – spending a billion dollars on HWY 101 is econonically feasiable for this small population?
Discuss.
July 10, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Please. That is a red herring if there ever was one.
The RR needs a big time sugar daddy. In the hey day of materialism there might have been hope. But that is no longer in sight. It would take another rush of importing stuff from Asia to even get the west ports back to capacity. Too much has changed. Reconstructing and operating the RR north of Willits won’t be on anyone’s to-do list for a long, long time.
In the meantime lets look at what we can do without a rail connection.
July 10, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Where are you people getting the idea that in a major and growing reccession that there is any chance to develop our port? You are talking off the top of your heads with no support. That is what Heraldo is pointing out. With openings for 67 million containers on ships coming to the USA and that many spaces for them in existing ports, we will be about the last on the list to create more capacity. Either you are not keeping current with the news, the Humboldt fog has clouded your brain, or it is the Humboldt weed is being used too much. What ever it is, do a little research before you talk. What we do have in and around our bay is one of the finest recreation areas on the California coast. We have just been recognized as the oyster capital of CA., producing 70% of all oysters in the state. Aqua culture is a huge industry world wide.
Our tourist industry is the only growth industry in the county, with people coming from all over the world to enjoy what we have. We live in the middle of a very special place, and still many of us fail to recognize it. Pie in the sky ideas are just that, so lets get serious about developing what we do have. That potential has barely been tapped.
As the kick off to celebrating the first 100 years of the National Park system, National Geographic is devoting over 40 pages in the Oct. issue to Redwood National Park. This is where our future is, not a port full of containers.
July 10, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Sorry, it was only a mere 27 million containers.
July 10, 2009 at 10:42 pm
“Mike – spending a billion dollars on HWY 101 is econonically feasiable for this small population?
Discuss.”
So are you suggesting that we now spend 2 billion dollars to have a rail and a road? If we can barley afford one transportation option, how do you suppose we can now ask the state to pay for two?
Limited resources means you have to make choices.
Or maybe we just choose to be accessed only by rail. I’m sure the business community would be in to that. Not.
July 11, 2009 at 6:05 am
July 11, 2009 at 8:54 am
We used to think unlimited fish and trees would be forever too.
July 11, 2009 at 10:42 am
red herrings are unlimited here
July 11, 2009 at 11:13 am
Fish and trees, international shipping. Humm – shoes and ships and sealing wax and cabbages and kings. Make some sense out of the fish and trees realating to shipping and ports please.
July 11, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I still don’t understand who is going to say, “I don’t want my Chinese-made products shipped through Oakland, I’d rather have them unloaded in an isolated town that’s hours from a major highway over treacherous roads that are sometimes closed for slides.”
July 11, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Once again, focus on the export aspect of port shipping. You have a bay, load things into boats and float them elsewhere. That’s shipping.
Once you have that in place other people nearby who want to ship what they have will need to get it to your port.
When the boats come back they’ll back-haul some other goods that need to get to your area.
Etc.
I’m not talking about big container shipping at all. I’m suggesting that relying on that large-scale business is a mistake because the business will not be consistent and will lead us to a boom/bust situation similar to the logging business.
July 11, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Short sea shipping. It is being discussed.
July 11, 2009 at 1:13 pm
I had something to say about all the construction that goes on along highway 101 between Ukiah and Eureka. I was there yesterday and had to wait many times for the guy with the slow/stop sign on a stick to wave me on. I had a dream that I made a post about it last night right here. In my dream I posted right after Highboltage and said that all the people they have to hire to put out cones, hold those signs, drive the pilot cars and the CHP are not involved in railroad repair. The right of way alone is worth half as much as highway 101 as it takes up about half as much land. Why do we accept that the car is the way to travel to and from here? The railroad is getting built at the southern end in Sonoma. Money is being funneled to it. It may take 10 or more years to know if it will ever reach Eureka. It is headed this way with 3 bridges being fixed before the end of the year. A trail would be nice but as Burges Meredith once said ” You can wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one gets filled up first”. They are currently working on the railroad despite the wishes of trail advocates.
July 11, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Of course the southern end is not in the Eel River canyon.
July 11, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Tom, your thoughts make great sense. The problem is not re-laying tracks along the route through the Canyon. It’s who will pay to re-lay them again and again through winter storms to come. The railroad has had no budget for even routine storm repair, let alone flood mitigation every few years. That’s why it was abandoned, after earning its moniker as “the most expensive railroad in the world” back in the day when it had valuable freight to haul.
The railroad’s financial plan is simple: they’ll spange the legislature after every flood. Sometimes that may work. Sometimes it certainly won’t, as it hasn’t for the past 10 years. That’s why we don’t have a railroad. It’s also why shippers don’t want to hear about our dream port relying on a dream legislature to finance our dream railroad. They just want to ship their stuff, while we want to tell them our dreams.
Yes, this is a rotten shame. I too wish we could have a railroad. I’m glad we can still take the Amtrak bus to Martinez. In these times of national transport abandonment, did you know it’s the only public transit from Garberville to the Bay Area? Within 5 years’ time the SMART trains will be running to Larkspur ferries from Cloverdale, maybe even Willits. Just that is a very wonderful thing, let’s count our blessings.
July 11, 2009 at 1:55 pm
The Anonymous comment made at 10:42 reminds me of my favorite blog comment ever. In that one, the writer complains that the other idiots writing to the blog are “barley literate.” And they weren’t discussing agriculture!
July 11, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Tom says,
“Why do we accept that the car is the way to travel to and from here?”
Are you suggesting we replace the road with the rail? OK go for it.
“The railroad is getting built at the southern end in Sonoma. Money is being funneled to it.”
So much so that they might make it to Healdsburg, next year, after 10 years. The money to get to Cloverdale will come from Sonoma and Marin taxing themselves for a commuter train. And the only way that won is because it included a trail. All of that is in constant conflict with NCRA freight.
“It may take 10 or more years to know if it will ever reach Eureka.”
That is what they said 10 years ago! Seriously.
July 11, 2009 at 3:44 pm
The rail will be open to Willits.
July 11, 2009 at 3:46 pm
If Highway 101 can be stabilized, so can the RR – same country, same soil, same rock. Bridges and culverts need maintenance whatever kind of roadbed.
July 11, 2009 at 3:49 pm
And some $500 or $600 million as FEMA stated back in 1998. Or maybe more today.
July 11, 2009 at 3:56 pm
It is not the same. And if it was how can you afford both? We can hardly afford one.
Besides roads are a much more reliable technology in unstable soils than rail. Rail has an extremely low tolerance for earth movement and track geometry is very unforgiving. A few inches of movement and trains can’t run.
Roads on the other hand have much more flexibility in rough and unstable terrain and can tolerate much larger deviations and changes due to shifting. This is why they are more reliable, can stay open longer and be fixed faster after adverse storm events than rail.
Reliability is very important to shippers. Even if you build the rail it will take a very long time before you can convince anyone that the repairs are more than temporary.
July 11, 2009 at 4:00 pm
oldphart, unless you know of a secret pot of money, current funding for NCRA gets them to Healdsberg. This is according to NCRA’s own press releases.
July 11, 2009 at 4:00 pm
If I were king, I would scrap freight and build monorails down the right of way and allow a trail to exist underneath. Pie in the sky but as long as we’re talking hundreds of millions of dollars, why not. Many arguments have been made here against freight ever returning. Monorails would not have all of the problems a steel rail line would have because of the inherent design. The bed is just the right of way and doesn’t have to support the weight and clearance of trains. Up and over.
Of course, I’m not likely to ever have a few extra hundred million dollars and I don’t have royal blood.
I think it is still likely that when the trains get to Willits, there will be an effort to continue north.
July 11, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Tear up the freeway and put the railroad there. Now thats a solution that makes environmental sense.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
July 11, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Bill, trains can’t climb those same gas wasting grades that cars and trucks can. Still, I get your point.
July 11, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Hi Tom
A couple of years ago in Reno they were discussing public transportation options and considered a monorail down the Virginia St. corridor, from downtown to the convention center and the airport. 2 1/2 miles, cost almost 3 billion $.
Yes that’s right $200,000 per linear foot.
Now that is an urban environment and not redwood forest or madrone thickets on rocky hillsides but even at a tenth of the cost for a couple hundred miles, well that is a stimulus package all by itself.
I think monorails are way cool too Tom, but they have been around for 50 years now and haven’t really escaped the confines of Disneyland.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
July 11, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Maybe monorails down the freeway up and over the cars.
Then turn the railroad into a trail.
July 11, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Everyone talks about “energy independence” and carbon dioxide but no one wants to give up their cars.
That is what really has to happen.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
July 11, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Nothing truer has been said here.
July 11, 2009 at 4:17 pm
The problem with municipal monorails is they always try to max out the technology. Disney uses a system that requires drivers or operators instead of automation.
This technology has been around for half a decade and is reliable and cheaper than reinventing the thing.
Another cost to cities is again, the right of way.
July 11, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Think of the money So. Cal had to spend to buy new right of ways for their passenger rail system. They allowed corporations to build over the original ones.
Once the right of way is gone, no technology will stand up to the cost of buying land at modern day prices.
July 11, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Once again, railbanking is the only way of preserving the right of way short of rebuilding the rail line. That is what it was made for. I suggest you read up on it.
July 11, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Maybe a trail is the best way to keep the right of way until and or unless things change financially.
It would be one expensive, world class trail though.
There would have to be trail camps and some vending and restrooms along the way. Access to potable water and park and walk lots.
Either way, doing anything worthy of the right of way will be expensive.
July 11, 2009 at 4:30 pm
.This really isn’t all that crazy. Maybe one would be required to purchase a pass to use the trail and it’s amenities. A redwood trail pass. 25 bucks for a three day weekend and 100 dollars for a one year pass
July 11, 2009 at 4:31 pm
True, Tom, buying rights of way in urban landscapes can be expensive, but that is one reason why monorails are supposed to be cheaper, because they only require air rights.
The situation in Reno ($200,000 a foot!) is most likely explained by the over the top corruption in the State of Nevada.
I laugh when I hear some people here threaten to leave Cali because the “taxes are too high” or “there is too much regulation.” You know, they may be right, taxes may be too high (no one likes taxes) and there may be too much regulation (no one likes being told what to do) but when they move to Nevada they will find a true Republican shithole.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
July 11, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Highboltage, LOL
July 11, 2009 at 5:03 pm
You just need to find some businesses that left Cali for Nevada or Idaho or Missouri and regret it now. They can’t be hard to find.
These red states have “low taxes” but very high hidden costs that greatly increase the cost of doing business and spreads poverty and misery to many.
That is why blue states like Cali and NY are net donors to the federal treasury, while red states are net recipients of federal welfare. They need it more.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
July 11, 2009 at 5:21 pm
More truthiness.
July 11, 2009 at 8:53 pm
No one has come up with the huge volume of products that would warrant the expense of rebuilding the railroad up to Eureka. You have to fill that train both ways to make a buck and I don’t see what that will be. It was timber when the train line was originally built but that timber has already been hauled south decades ago. There is not enough left to cut over a long period to make it pay and under current harvest restrictions, the trains would never be full. Gravel is an idea which, under current environmental restrictions, would never happen. The EPA would never allow it. Can 100,000 people create enough garbage to fill a train, say three times a week? I think not. There is still not enough stuff to fill an empty train coming this way. A passenger line costs almost twice as much to build because of safety regulations. Again, it just doesn’t pencil out. It is all pipe dreams and smoke and mirrors.
The economy is years from getting back to where we were in 2007, and do we really want to be there again anyway. Right now you can buy a 3500 sq. ft. brand new house in Arizona for $135,000. They can’t sell them. Who is going to buy lumber to build more?
We have 27 million containers sitting idle so our new port terminal is going to be built to receive what? The revived train service is going to carry these non existent containers where?
Get Real!
July 11, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Somewhere, over the rainbow, there’s a train
That will, take me to Peta lu lu lu lu ma.
Somewhere, over the rainbow, a crazy firm
That will, spend lots of money, building a rail for me.
No bikes can ride the railroad grade,
if Hali bur ton gets the pork,
then why, oh why, can’t I?
July 11, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Tom,
Here is a link to a great example of a rail-trail that does charge a user fee, just like a park. There are others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Mickelson_Trail
July 11, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Fail. Your link doesn’t even reference a user fee.
However, I do know something of that trail… the user fees are collected through self-service receptacles located in unincorporated areas of the trail.
I’d hate to live in Tom’s world where only the rich get everything nice. The Mickelson day-pass costs $3 and an annual pass is $15, but it’s not like a really enforced thing anyhow. You get dinged by an officer when you’re stopped for some other reason.
July 12, 2009 at 6:53 am
hey bill, i wonder if the “net donor” status has more to do with the population in ca and ny, if that is even true? probably not.
July 12, 2009 at 7:04 am
Just keep “wondering”, 421, it will win you lots of debates.
July 12, 2009 at 7:21 am
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html
have a peaceful day,
Bill
July 12, 2009 at 7:49 am
If California simply insisted on tax “parity”, getting back $1.00 in federal money for each dollar sent to D.C. that would go a long way towards fixing California’s deficit.
Of course, Haley Barbour’s Mississipi and Sarah Palin’s Alaska might end up in deep doo doo, to name a few.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
July 12, 2009 at 9:46 am
“…i wonder if the “net donor” status has more to do with the population in ca and ny, if that is even true? probably not.”
So, if Alabama had a larger population, instead of being an even bigger drain on the federal government, they’ be magically transformed into contributors?
July 12, 2009 at 10:11 am
In short, CPR, no. It’s figured per-capita.
July 12, 2009 at 10:30 am
421, use one of your lifelines and call Sean Hannity for an answer to this red state welfare queen conundrum. Not all who wonder are lost, to paraphrase Frost.
July 12, 2009 at 12:49 pm
read the whole report. it has to do with how many wealthy taxpayers live there, not their political affiliation.
So what explains the distribution of federal taxing and spending? As you can see from the map, states that get the “worst deal”—that is, have the lowest ratio of federal spending to taxes paid—are generally high-income states either on the coasts or with robust urban areas (such as Illinois and Minnesota). Perhaps not coincidentally, these “donor” states also tend to vote for Democrat candidates in national elections. Similarly, many states that get the “best deal” are lower-income states in the mid-west and south with expansive rural areas that tend to vote Republican.
News reports commonly interpret this to mean that “red state” lawmakers are more successful at bringing home federal spending than “blue state” lawmakers. It’s often suggested that the way to correct this imbalance is for “blue state” lawmakers to step up efforts to capture additional spending for their states, and for “red state” lawmakers to pare back their voracious appetite for ever-growing pork-barrel spending.
This interpretation may be appealing, but it’s probably wrong. The much more likely factor driving the persistent imbalance between federal taxing and spending isn’t the relative ability of lawmakers to “bring home the bacon,” but is the fact that higher income states bear a larger fraction of the federal tax burden—an imbalance that is sharply amplified by the progressive structure of the federal income tax.
For whatever reason, so-called “blue states” tend to be high-income areas that pay the vast majority of federal taxes. Some 84 percent of federal individual income taxes—which account for over 40 percent of federal revenue—are paid by the those in the top 25 percent of the income distribution. The majority of these taxpayers live in wealthy, urban, politically “blue” areas like New York, California, and Massachusetts.
Even if federal spending were equal in all states, wealthy states would still send substantially more federal tax dollars to Washington than they received in spending, simply because they earn a majority of the nation’s income. This disparity is greatly magnified by the progressive rate structure of the federal income tax, which taxes higher income states more heavily than low-income states, regardless of the level of spending received.
Still think the problem is not enough federal spending in “donor states”? Consider the table below. In 2004 federal discretionary spending was about $895 billion. How much would the largest “donor states” have had to receive in federal spending to boost their spending-taxing ratio to New Mexico’s 2.0, the biggest “beneficiary state” that year?
As the table makes clear, far more than is realistically possible. California alone would need to receive more than half of the nation’s discretionary spending. The lesson? The distribution of federal taxing and spending is mostly driven by tax burdens, not the ability of lawmakers to divert spending to their home states.
July 12, 2009 at 1:05 pm
A bit late for clarification, but my 10:51 comment was a response to Anonymous at 9:17, who tried to put words in my mouth suggesting that getting along with less junk is the same as everybody stop buying anything at all. People who only see black and white just don’t know what to make of a world that is full of color.
July 12, 2009 at 1:28 pm
“News reports commonly interpret this to mean that “red state” lawmakers are more successful at bringing home federal spending than “blue state” lawmakers.”
The point for me is; why do red states constantly vote against taxes when they are the biggest beneficiary? Are they really that hypocritical? If they don’t like taxes, maybe we should stop giving them ours. And, they seem ungrateful, considering how they speak so poorly of the left leaning states, calling us un-American and the like.