Shipyard Creek aims to join fight

Discussion had fallen silent about a developer's plan to build a rail yard in the Neck Area, but a recent court decision has reawakened the deal.

Shipyard Creek Associates is seeking to join a lawsuit filed by the Coastal Conservation League alleging federal regulators did not thoroughly study all of the environmental consequences, namely traffic, of a new shipping terminal being built on the former Charleston Naval Base.

The company is pushing to realign a proposed access road that would link Interstate 26 and the new port. As permitted, the elevated artery runs through part of Shipyard Creek's land and would interfere with the cargo-handling equipment the developer wants to place on its property.

"We want a seat at the table because if anybody's got a vested interest in this, it's us," said Robert Clement, one of the company's owners.

In denying the Coastal Conservation League's request to halt work on the terminal last month, U.S. District Judge Weston Houck agreed to include the Federal Highway Administration as a defendant in the case.

Clement said his group interpreted that decision and accompanying remarks as an indication that Houck would be willing to hear how its plans factor into the lawsuit. Shipyard Creek owns the Macalloy property, where it hopes to double-stack shipping containers from the Port of Charleston onto train cars.

"We're not coming in on anybody's side. It's all about rail," Clement said. "All these decisions and all these discussions are going to be about our property."

Building the so-called intermodal yard at Macalloy would require moving the port access road about 500 feet.

The State Ports Authority and the state Transportation Department argue that a change of plans would reopen a timely and costly environmental impact study and further delay progress on the new terminal. Shipyard Creek's attorneys dispute that point.

Blan Holman, an attorney representing the Coastal Conservation League, said he would not oppose Shipyard Creek's request to join its case as a defendant.

Holman added that "a central point of this lawsuit is to compel consideration of rail as a means to reduce truck traffic on I-26 and make Charleston competitive with Savannah and Norfolk."

"In our view, the port access road is integrally related to the issue of rail," he added.

SPA Director of Public Relations Byron Miller disagreed.

"The ports authority did not consent to this motion and believes it is out of place," Miller said, adding that the lawsuit was filed over environmental matters not a real estate dispute. He also said all of the necessary parties are represented in the case.

"This is not the venue to argue over property rights," Miller said. "Nor is it appropriate to change permits made more than two years ago."

Shipyard Creek said the SPA and the Transportation Department have begun the condemnation process on the part of the Macalloy site they need for the planned access road. Without speedy legal action, "the opportunity to develop rail alternatives will become moot," the company said in a court filing this week.

By its second phase, the proposed rail yard would be able to handle the equivalent of nearly 800,000 20-foot-long containers a year and cut truck trips by 386,000 per year. That translates into 1,500 fewer trucks on local roads every day, according to Shipyard Creek.

Clement said a firm that Shipyard Creek hired found the cost of building the road in its preferred location would be the same as in the permitted spot and would not affect additional wetlands. Clement called the 135-acre Macalloy site an opportunity to reduce pollution, congestion and wear on roads and bridges.

"It's unbelievable you can't move a road on property you own or control 500 feet to make something so important for the state happen," Clement said.

Reach Allyson Bird at abird@postandcourier.com or 937-5594.