Officials grapple with port rail lines
Columbia meeting ends without an agreement
By Schuyler Kropf
Updated 01:03 p.m., May 8, 2009
Pressure to find a solution to the North Charleston port and rail line debate is under a two-week window, spurred on by the likely decision to end the Statehouse session early.
North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey said Thursday he was "skeptical but hopeful" an agreement could be reached that kills a legislative proposal that would clear the way for rail lines through the north end of the former Navy base.
The Post and Courier
North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey
The proposed railway would serve the area near a new ship terminal the State Ports Authority is building on the south end. Barring an agreement, the issue could end up in a protracted legal fight.
Summey met with representatives of Norfolk Southern Railroad and three senior state senators Thursday in Columbia to try to find a path that would make everyone happy. He is steadfast against reintroducing rail from the north, something that would favor Norfolk Southern, saying it would gut 12 years of redevelopment in the former industrial area.
Summey's stance comes as leading political and business interests want both of the region's major rail carriers, CSX and Norfolk Southern, both to have access to the new port on the base's southern end. The current southern set-up seemingly favors CSX.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Hugh Leatherman said the meeting was worthwhile, though at this point there are no agreements to point to. He did say it is critical that all sides come together.
Previous story
Port railroad fight gets hotter, published 05/07/09
"I am going to absolutely insist that we have two rail lines serving our port," said Leatherman, R-Florence. "I am not willing to let one railroad have control of the shipping into and out of our port."
Leatherman hoped the rail companies would work with one another to make that happen, saying it would be in their best interest. When the ports authority aided in the location of BMW in the Upstate, the railroads, among many other industries, benefited, he said.
"What's good for our state is good for the rail lines," Leatherman said.
A major stumbling block is that the two major carriers don't want to share or cross lines.
"We're not trying to run over anybody," added state Sen. Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston. "The railroads have got a problem. The state's got a problem. The city of North Charleston's got a problem. How do we solve three different parties' problems with the most consensus?"
The timing pressure for an agreement comes as lawmakers are looking at a May 21 adjournment this year because of state finances and a date far short of the normal adjournment time in June. They do, however, have the option of dealing with port business when they return in June to handle vetoes.
One Statehouse effort with major implications to both the port and North Charleston is an amendment in the State Ports Authority restructuring bill. It would require local officials to transfer the rail line and right of way at the north end of the base to the state's Division of Public Railways, opening service from the north.
Amending the port bill isn't the only option but is the most plausible given the running clock.
State Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Bonneau, said the meeting was an opportunity to hear Summey's concerns while dealing with the logistical problems Norfolk Southern has with southern rail access.
"We've got one chance to get this right, and if we don't, our state will be suffering the economic consequences for the next half century," he said.
Summey said groups outside of North Charleston should bear the most burden, saying rail lines in other states have been forced to share lines and space before. He argued it could be done here with both train lines having access to the base's southern end.
He also questioned the need to move on the rail issue this session, saying the time pressure could do more harm than good.
Everyone is pushing agendas about the base and rail, Summey said, "even though we are the people feeling the effect."
Reach Schuyler Kropf at 937-5551, or skropf@postandcourier.com.
Editor's note: Earlier versions of this story need clarification with respect to the location of the proposed railway. It would not reach into the new SPA container terminal on the south end of the Navy base.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
truthseeker (anonymous) says...
Let's see- the ill-planned Global Gateway was never going to tie into the NS railroad .
Every legislator should have known 5 years ago the navy base terminal was never going to tie into the NS railroad either.
Hats off to Mayor Sumney for demanding the SPA live up to their agreements - Mayor Sumney just might save our state from building another terminal that would just sit idle.
May 8, 2009 at 7:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dawhetsell (anonymous) says...
All these "Officials" are so near sighted that it is not even funny. I say use BARGES to Hwy 601 neat Fort Motte and to Augusta. You DO NOT NEED RAILROADS,bridges, roads or anything else. The river maintance cost are 90% less than the rest. Create real inland ports for low cost frieght. Water is 90% cheaper than trucks and 60% cheaper than trains.
May 8, 2009 at 8:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wjhamilton3 (anonymous) says...
Water isn't that cheap for the short haul. SC built a barge canal as part of the Santee Cooper System in the 1940s, but it's never been used. Apparently the cost of loading and unloading the containers is too high for the minimal savings on a 60 mile trip to cover it.
Some containers do end up getting barged up and down the coast, but I've never heard of anything being sent inland from Charleston.
The port has to have rail and all these people's full time job is to run a port that can compete. Obviously the trucking interests are against it, but rail will pollute less, congest the roads less and make the court more competitive.
I'll bet the SPA has intended to have rail the whole time and all of this has been engineered as some sort of distraction smokescreen for something else.
May 8, 2009 at 12:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CaptPete (anonymous) says...
Barges will disturb recreational boating in the upper rivers and lakes. Commerical craft have the right of way. Since the waterway is small in the upper Cooper River wrecks with small craft will occur. It also may not be good for the enviroment stiring up the water around rice fields. Rail and trucks make the best sense.
May 8, 2009 at 12:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MartinAVanderHorst (anonymous) says...
Chemical tankers head to BP-Amoco just past the Weapons Station and coal and scrap iron barges regularly travel up the Cooper to the GE plant and Nucor Steel. Ships over 500ft and drafting about 25ft can make it safely up to Nucor, and that's 18.5 nautical miles above the Battery. Any traffic past there would have to utilize the old WWII-era bargeway and locks, which the small pushboats currently pushing those coal and iron barges could easily navigate. Moving bulk cargoes would not be much of an issue, but containers would be a different story. In terms of safety and ease it would be the same, though the time spent loading and discharging the containers would be ineffective compared to timely rail service.
Railways are much more efficient than roadways. I doubt the SPA has any hidden objectives here, other than they were screwed over (pardon the language) by the citizens and reps of Daniel Island and are now dealing with the bureaucratic dog and pony shows of rival politicians. On a separate note, the SPA needs to be dissolved into an oversight committee and the terminals ought to be sold to private companies in order to boost competition, pride, and growth... like all the other "major" U.S. ports.
May 8, 2009 at 2:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justjerry (anonymous) says...
There is a real simple solution to this. Tell Norfolk Southern and CSX to play nice and make them both run out of the south end of the port. What is so hard about that?
May 8, 2009 at 3:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Moontree (anonymous) says...
My thoughts EXACTLY justjerry. Not that difficult.
May 8, 2009 at 3:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MartinAVanderHorst (anonymous) says...
The issue is that there are already railroad right-of-ways in the north end, that have been established for decades. To construct tracks at the south end bridges would have to be built over Shipyard Creek, a number of marshy areas bridged or filled, and land would have to be purchased/buildings condemned. The Chessie line and Norfolk Southern have the land and existing railbeds at the north end of the old navy yard. Most are either rarely used or no longer used at all. Summey's issue is that reopening them up to use could potentially cause massive traffic delays and locomotive noise in the new up-and-coming Park Circle and Old North Chasn districts.
May 8, 2009 at 4:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wtpd4444 (anonymous) says...
The Mayor does not want to block his way to Aunt Bea's.
May 8, 2009 at 8:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justjerry (anonymous) says...
I honestly hope that the SPA will stick to it's original agreement that rail will only be run out of the South end of the base. There is no reason to run it from the North end if CSX and NS are just told to play nice and work out an arrangement. The destruction to all of the hard work and investment that has been made by individuals, companies and governments into the Noisette project would be irreparable and a horrible waste.
May 8, 2009 at 11:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full Terms and Conditions.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Shared
- Missing woman's fiance found dead in his home
- Isle of Palms wants to patch beach
- Local woman pleads guilty in tax fraud case
- Foxes' field of dreams: Ashley Ridge's award-winning athletic fields a labor of love
- Local homeowners seek foreclosure relief
- Sullivan's man seeks all school records
- Veterans Job Fair set for Feb. 22 in North Charleston
- Mom charged in baby's choking
- Boeing powering up first local jet
- S.C. to get nearly $34 million in mortgage deal
