Cooperation vital to advance needed rail access at new port

Two legislators who are attempting to advance a plan for improved rail access at the new port at the former Navy Base have stirred up a hornet's nest in North Charleston. So far acrimonious, the debate is nevertheless overdue.

Critics of the port expansion plan have long urged that rail be included in the planning. They cite existing congestion on the interstate that will serve the new port, and contend that the situation will deteriorate with additional truck traffic. As designed, the port would primarily be served from land side by trucks hauling container cargo.

Neighborhood groups and environmental advocates also cite unhealthy levels of air pollution that already exist in the area, and insist that pollution will only get worse with higher levels of truck exhaust.

Rail could alleviate congestion and pollution. It also could make the port more competitive.

But the proposal from Sen. Larry Grooms, chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, and former House Majority Leader Rep. Jim Merrill is strongly opposed by North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey and other North Charleston officials.

Last week, Charleston County Council followed the lead of Councilman Elliott Summey, the mayor's son, and adopted a resolution opposing the legislative plan to allow rail access from the north part of the new port.

That doesn't mean local jurisdictions can tell the Legislature what to do on the rail issue or that the legislative advocates of the plan will back off. Rep. Merrill, R-Daniel Island, says access by both rail lines that serve the port is essential to improve its competitive edge.

But the local opposition does signal potentially lengthy court challenges to a rail plan deemed unacceptable. That could slow the ongoing development of the Navy Base to provide needed capacity for the port of Charleston.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for the State Ports Authority says it "has nothing to do" with the rail plan. And if you need elaboration on what that flat denial means, SPA official Byron Miller explains that the agency "was not involved in drafting, developing, sponsoring or encouraging in any way" the plan.

But clearly, the SPA should be taking part in a discussion on the contentious rail issue. So should the two railroads, Norfolk Southern and CSX, that serve the port of Charleston.

Mayor Summey wrote in a recent column on our Commentary page that the city of North Charleston doesn't oppose rail access from the southern portion of the port, but that allowing rail from the north would diminish the city's ongoing renewal efforts in North Charleston. His son made a similar point in comments quoted by our reporter.

"The intent of the resolution is to say that, first of all, the port needs rail in order to survive," said Councilman Summey. "We also need to respect the quality of life for our citizens."

The resolution supports development of intermodal rail yards south of the port.

Sen. Grooms tells us that the joint access issue could be resolved if CSX would agree to allow Norfolk Southern to cross one of its rail lines to gain southern access. That seems a simple solution but the senator says efforts toward that end have been unsuccessful so far.

This dispute underscores the need for a concerted effort involving the SPA, local government, the state rail agency, the Legislature, and the railroads. The belated effort to provide rail service to the new port needs cooperation to succeed and to ensure that North Charleston's ongoing redevelopment efforts aren't derailed in the process.