Waterfront and the Railroad

The Port of Bellingham Commission has not taken a formal position on the SSA project because I asked that we take a long, careful look at what the proposal means. While we have been asked and encouraged to support the Gateway Pacific Terminal and each of your three Commissioners has his own opinion, the bottom line is that there are many questions requiring answers before we weigh in.

For decades the Port of Bellingham has been supportive of the heavy industrial area at Cherry Point. In June of 2010 the Port once again offered an official letter of support for heavy industrial users at Cherry Point, specifically those with a shipping element needing deep water access. While I was away and did not sign onto that letter, I agree completely with the language and intent of that letter. It did not address SSA nor their proposal.

After many conversations with our Executive Director, Charlie Sheldon, I felt it appropriate to address the issue of rail traffic on the waterfront. As Commission President I will be writing a short editorial on the Port's official position regarding the Bellingham waterfront and rail, this will be presented to the County's papers and will be posted on the Port's website.

The Port's response at this time is warranted because I think we now have a reasonable idea of what SSA is proposing. The issue as I see it is both logistical and emotional. The increase in lengthy trains along the Bellingham waterfront can produce a few logistical issues for access to waterfront properties. The coal cargo on those trains is an emotional issue because it forces us to question the morality of shipping dirty fuel to other countries. I have a blog post here - http://mikeattheport.blogspot.com/2011/03/latest-dredging-info.html - on my own position, the Commission will not be addressing the emotional issues.

The Commission is concerned about rail traffic as it pertains to noise and potential delays along the Bellingham waterfront. Nearly all of Bellingham's waterfront property is owned by you and me. Our City and Port are charged with stewardship of those properties on behalf of the public. Some of that land is set asides for habitat, some of it is for public access such as parks and some of that land is set aside for commerce. All of those activities can be impacted by rail traffic.

Bellingham's Mayor has come out aggressively against BNSF and the SSA proposal. While I admit his position regarding the morality of coal as an electric generation fuel is one I share, I do not share his fear of the increased rail traffic jeopardizing waterfront redevelopment.

The areas in Fairhaven near the shipyard and cruise terminal, as well as the areas along Roeder Avenue can be impacted . Roeder mostly from the downtown side at F St, C St and Central by Jalapenos; although, the Roeder truck route goes under the tracks at Squalicum Parkway thereby remaining available to heavy commercial traffic and it connects to downtown at Bay and Commercial Streets.

The waterfront redevelopment that most folks seem to be talking about, however, is the area on land formerly known as GP West, that's where the paper factory was and where our shipping terminal still is. Charlie has been quoted by John Stark at the Bellingham Herald as saying that the GP West properties have been planned to work with BNSF rail lines.

Up until last year plans have been worked on that assumed a relocated rail line. After many conversations with City Council, Bellingham's Mayor and Port staff I became convinced that we needed a Plan B. Port staff, lead strongly by Charlie, responded with careful, new plans that assume the rail will remain in place for some indefinite period.

I want to state categorically that this is the most responsible and careful stewardship you can and should expect from your public servants. The clean up and remediation of the waterfront properties will continue as planned but we now have the institutional awareness and responses necessary to remain as flexible as possible in regards to the railroad's location.

I support this flexibility and, while it may seem a bit too flexible for some people who want hard answers up front, I hope that you will support my position. As the latest recession has shown us all it was those individuals, companies and institutions that could "roll with the punches" that have best weathered the storm.

Is the rail relocation still a priority? Yes, Port staff will continue working with BNSF, the City, State and Federal delegations to seek funds for its eventual move and Cornwall Bridge reconstruction.

Is the rail line not relocated a problem? Not really at this time. The GP West properties are currently accessed at 3 points - Wharf St, Cornwall Avenue and Central St. Wharf St is the only street blocked by the rail. About half of the properties are accessible via Cornwall, but admittedly the water side access via Laurel St. would be blocked during rail use. Central St. is not blocked by rail traffic.

The bottom line? The original waterfront plans assumed a rail line relocated. Current plans assume an eventual relocation but we can and will work with the rail as is. I do not believe that jobs and redevelopment on the former GP West properties are at risk due to rail traffic.

I will reiterate that there are multiple issues relating to the SSA proposal - rail traffic, noise from wheels and horns and the ethics of coal exports. At this stage of the process, the commission will only be weighing in on Bellingham waterfront redevelopment as it pertains to crossing delays and access, as well as supporting quiet zones through Bellingham.

I have asked to meet with BNSF officials in order to understand exactly what any particular commodity train will look like - length, passage time, risks, opportunities, etc. When I have the facts from BNSF, on the record, I will post them here.