Passenger Rail and Roller Coasters

High speed, passenger rail from Vancouver to Tijuana?

I think the best way to approach passenger rail should be to hire the people who build roller coasters.

Now when you stop laughing........... imagine a flat, super high speed rail line that is as simple as an overhead, tubular steel frame, that's lightweight, reliable, cheap, doesn't displace surface users and uses lightweight cars.

Cars would be short like a bus, haul maybe 30 people or whatever seems best based on destinations and would have their own electric propulsion systems capable of pushing a car in front that has broken down. Broken down cars would be pushed to the next station/stop where they would be shunted to a maintenance track.

After ya got a basic design, go talk to the people who build and operate chair lifts and gondolas at ski resorts - they will tell you how to operate and time the system.

Our current inter-city, passenger rail approach uses heavy cars that aren't all that different than a boxcar, displaces freight and costs WAY too much because it's too overbuilt from roadbed to car.

Passenger rail today is built as if every single person needs their own 6000 pound SUV when all that's needed is a 1600 pound SMART car.

Thoughts?

Rail Improvements as a System

I've been a huge supporter of rail for environmental reasons and found this comment on the West Coast Corridor Coalition website:

1. To encourage freight systems approaches rather than a project-level focus in making infrastructure investments. http://www.westcoastcorridors.org/about_us.html

Now that sounds like a great plan. While we debate the merits or faults in the Cherry Point plan we should also be focusing on our regional rail and water connections.

For example, we have a great deal of eastern Washington hay coming to Whatcom County on trucks, why isn't that on a barge or rail car? Of course, there would need to be significant storage, probably in Lynden or thereabouts, but other than that what problems are there?

Or what about a completed rail line to Alaska for fish and freight shipments?

Cornwall Avenue Landfill Remediation

This will flesh out more with some additional research, in the meantime:

Check here for info from state:

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/gsp/Sitepage.aspx?csid=220

Port link:

http://www.portofbellingham.com/index.aspx?NID=93

More info from WHO: In view of the uncertainties in establishing a single, most appropriate LOAEL )(low adverse effect level) for derivation of a TDI (tolerable daily intake), the consultation concluded that the range of estimated human daily intakes of 14 - 37 pg/kg/day provided a reasonable basis for the evaluation of the health risk of dioxin-like compounds.

The consultation emphasized, that the TDI represents a tolerable daily intake for life-timeexposure and that occasional short-term excursions above the TDI would have no health consequences provided that the averaged intake over long periods is not exceeded. In addition, it recognized that certain subtle effects may be occurring in some sections of the general populations of industrialized countries at current intake levels (2-6 TEQ pg/kg bw/day) andbody burdens (4-12 TEQ ng/kg bw), but found it tolerable on a provisional basis as these reported subtle effects were not considered overtly adverse and there were questions as to the contribution of non-dioxin-like compounds to the observed effects. The consultation therefore stressed that the upper range of the TDI of 4 pg TEQ/kg bw should be considered a maximal tolerable intake on a provisional basis and that the ultimate goal is to reduce human intake levels below 1 pg TEQ/kg bw/day. (TEQ=Toxic Equivalent”)

6.3 A Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) of 1 to 4 pg I-TEQ per kg body weight per day has been established fordioxins by the World Health Organization (WHO). The upper limit of 4 is provisional: the ultimate goal is to reduce human intake levels below 1 pg I-TEQ per kg body weight per day. This value was derived from the lowest doses causing adverse effects in experimental animals, divided by a safety factor of 10. This Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) should be seen as an average over a life-time, implying that this value may be exceeded occasionally for short periods without expected health consequences.

Human exposure to PCDDs, PCDFs, and PCBs may occur through background (environmental) exposure, and accidental and occupational contamination. Over 90 percent of human background exposure is estimated to occur through the diet, with food from animal origin being the predominant source. PCDDs and PCDFs contamination of food is primarily caused by deposition of emissions from various sources (e.g. waste incineration, production of chemicals) on farmland and waterbodies followed by bioaccumulation up terrestrial and aquatic foodchains. Other sources may include contaminated feed for cattle, chicken and farmed fish, improper application of sewage sludge, flooding of pastures, waste effluents and certain types of food processing.

The available information derived from numerous studies in industrialized countries indicates a daily intake of PCDDs and PCDFs in the order of 50-200 pg I-TEQ/person/day, or 1-3 pg I-TEQ/kg bw/day for a 60 kg adult. This results in average human background levels in the range of 10-30 pg I-TEQ/g lipid, equivalent to a body burden of 2-6 ng I-TEQ/kg body weight. If thedioxin-like PCBs (non-ortho and mono-ortho PCBs) are also considered, the daily TEQ intake can be a factor of 2-3 higher. Special consumption habits, particularly one low in animal fat or consumption of highly contaminated food stuffs may lead to lower or higher TEQ intake values, respectively. The intake of PCDDs/PCDFs and PCBs increases during childhood and stabilizes in adults of about 20 years of age.

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/dioxins/l-3/dioxins-99.htm#3p1

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/dioxins/toolboxes/dioxin-intake.htm

95% of dioxin intake occurs from dietary ingestion.

EPA info: Should I stop eating particular foods?

No, we do not recommend avoiding particular foods because of dioxins.

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FoodContaminantsAdulteration/ChemicalContaminants/DioxinsPCBs/ucm077524.htm#f1

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.

Green Washing corporate marketing

The results of the following national survey are disappointing and clearly show that corporate green-washing is working well in this country. I hope that folks will personally dig a little deeper then make changes in their own lives. Given that the PNW is a lot more in tune with environmental actions than the majority of the US we have to be careful about assumptions in our own lives and where everyone else is.

This year I am making further inroads on bringing the local Clean Tech discussion to the fore. Stay tuned.

The link will take you to a pdf file showing results for 8 nations, including the US.

http://www.landor.com/pdfs/k9/2011IPGBS_TopTenGlobal.pdf

vey-2007-2011.htm

Follow up to "Git er done"

Want to see how process is killing us? Read the following published this year, note the dates, note the use of the wording "high priority" and then note that we haven't dug up a single bucket of muck.

From Section 1.1 Background and Overview in the document linked here: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/sites/blhm_bay/sites/harris_ave_shipyard/HarrisRIFSworkplanFINAL011911.pdf

"This document presents the Site-Wide Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (Draft Site-Wide RI/FS) Work Plan for the Harris Avenue Shipyard Site (Site) in Bellingham Bay, an active shipyard located in Bellingham, Washington (Figure 1.1). The Site is one of twelve sediment cleanup sites around Bellingham Bay (the Bay) coordinated by the Bellingham Bay

Demonstration Pilot Project. The Site was identified as high priority by the Washington State

Department of Ecology (Ecology) in 2000 in a comprehensive strategy developed in cooperation

with the Bellingham Bay Demonstration Pilot Team.

'Git er done' ? What's that?

If the Great Recession has taught us anything it is that economic diversification continues to be the best way for any region to survive. Which is why when I was campaigning in 2009 many of you would have heard me talking about a Clean Tech Campus on the old GP mill site.

I want our waterfront, urban land reused for triple-bottom line, sustainable, local jobs that may have international implications but even I am stymied at my own efforts. After a year or so of doing my part to help move the waterfront process forward, I have decided new tactics should be employed.

My problems with these constant delays stems from a bit of cultural baggage. I grew up in Lewis County, we moved quite a bit so, although I lived all over the county, I finished high school in Centralia. I spent 8 years working on a farm and just about everyone I knew, including my family, worked in the woods or some primary industry.

The cultural baggage I carry is one of getting things done. We all like to laugh at the 'git er done' attitude made popular by Larry the Cable Guy, but inside that little joke is some real truth about what makes humans so powerful - we get things done. That's both good and bad, but that's not the point of this post. The point is that we do get things done but we now have so many layers of process it takes too much precious time, energy and resources. These things aren't free.

Let me describe for you what I mean about process. For decades local folks, notably George Dyson, have been working to have a hand-launch boat put-in/take-out along the Whatcom Waterway. The public has owned nearly every property adjoining the Waterway for many years and with GP gone and little traffic in the waterway today, what would seem to be the biggest obstacles have gone. So I thought, "Hey, let's get some small-boat access." It's cheap and easy and won't get in the way, right? Well, no - because of process it is neither cheap nor easy.

What I've proposed is to open the gate behind the granary, move a few existing ecology blocks, add 100 feet of chain link fence, remove 60 feet of chain link fence and drag a float over to tie up at the wooden bulkhead below Central St. The street is still there, the parking lots are still there, the float is free and we could do this for probably less than $10k for fence repairs and a gangway, certainly not a small amount but not a deal breaker either.

So what's the hold up? We would need a permit and so many permissions it's a challenge just to figure out who to call first. Now help me out here. The float is already floating in the waterway, just on the wrong side. The streets are already built. The bulkhead is already built. It is legal to tie up a boat or barge of any size just 30 feet from the proposed location. And, yet, we can't cut a hole in a fence so folks can touch the water downtown? Really?

I understand resource and environmental protection. I've spent the last 18 years of my life immersed in the study and active participation in the 'green movement' so I get it, I really do. What I don't get is how we have allowed ourselves to throw so much process in our own way that we can only get even little things done after years of process. And I'm talking about our cleanups, too, not just a little float on the waterway. Grrrr....

Where I grew up I worked with and heard stories from people who did 'git er done' in the woods every day. We know better now about the down side of crappy road building in our forest lands but, bear with me here, if you needed a road to a stand of trees you had a Cat on the low boy Sunday morning and by Wednesday you had trucks on a landing unloading equipment. I know, I know, this wasn't the best way to do it but my point is that the problem was identified and attacked.

Loggers then, and now, don't sit around mired in process. Many people and organizations "get it" so why don't our governing bodies? Please don't get me wrong, I live by a personal philosophy that I will work to limit my own environmental impact and not harm others so I am not advocating for weaker environmental protections, in fact, I think we can do much better if we really try.

So, why is it that a multi-month process is needed to drag a float across the Whatcom Waterway, secure it to an existing bulkhead and remove a fence so a gangway can be installed? This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm completely and legitimately dumbfounded.

What I AM saying here is that you, dear voter, have no downtown waterfront access in Bellingham because of process. The same process that has thwarted George Dyson's small boat launch on the waterway not only stops that idea in its tracks but also means our waterfront cleanup has faced the same long delays.

Staff at the Port have some ideas on how to speed the waterfront process while keeping all the same protections in place so I'm supporting that effort - remember, the process is slowing the clean up as well as the reuse.

I hope that if I need your help I can also call on all of you to write letters and call people to get off the dime and help us 'git er done." Stay tuned....