Rail or no rail? That is the question
Agency hard-pressed to please all parties with new terminal plan
By Allyson Bird
The Post and Courier
A Norfolk Southern train brings cargo to the State Ports Authority's Columbus Street Terminal on Friday. As the State Ports Authority moves forward on constructing its new container terminal at the former Charleston Naval Base, interested parties bring plans for rail service nearby - or reasons why there should be none.
The Post and Courier
Workers unload BMW automobiles Friday at the State Ports Authority's Union Pier. Many are calling for more port-driven rail yards and suggesting that more cargo be moved by train while North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey says a rail line on the former Navy base property would violate an agreement between the city and the SPA.
Previous stories
Battle over rail yard heats up, published 05/01/09
Officials grapple with port rail lines, published 05/08/09
One reason why the State Ports Authority ditched plans to build its massive Global Gateway container terminal on Daniel Island still haunts the agency: Residents rallied against the idea of a new rail line that would serve it.
From there, the SPA turned its sights on the former Charleston Naval Base in North Charleston, and they didn't include rail in that plan.
That was nearly seven years ago and, according to port officials, none of the maritime agency's customers seemed to mind at the time. Surveys deemed train service unnecessary.
SPA interim chief executive officer John Hassell, who was a board member then, said that only made the Navy base more attractive. After all, trucks were expected to haul any rail-bound cargo — as much as 25 percent of the total — from the new port to existing CSX and Norfolk Southern yards in North Charleston.
But in recent months, the game changed. Calls intensified for moving containers by train, and proponents identified several potential new sites for more port-driven rail yards. Others argued why there should be none.
The rail issue, however it plays out, could have far-reaching effects for Charleston-area residents and the economy. Environmental and neighborhood groups said that putting more port cargo on trains would cut the number of trucks on local roads and reduce pollution. Others worry about further delaying the expansion of the Port of Charleston, an economic powerhouse that said it needs more dock space to attract new business and stay competitive with other ports. And the city of North Charleston wants to protect its ongoing revitalization efforts.
If new rail enters the equation now, the SPA could face more studies and permitting delays. The agency plans to open its new terminal in 2014, with the heavy lifting beginning now.
"We are interested in what's good for South Carolina," Hassell said. "We can't be a part of what we're doing beyond the plan we've approved. We don't want to risk any delays in the Navy base terminal."
North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey said the rail route for two of the sites violate an agreement between the SPA and his city that prohibits trains from going through the northern end of the old base.
While lawmakers in Columbia introduced legislation that essentially would override that agreement, Summey said he will sue to stall the entire project in response.
That puts the SPA in a strange position.
"We're concerned that you can't lump all parties together under the heading of 'the state,' " Hassell said, adding that the SPA plans to proceed with its terminal as originally intended, despite third-party interests. "I'm very hopeful it will not impede our progress or endanger our permit."
Whose property?
When a state Commerce Department-sponsored rail plan named possible locations for "intermodal" facilities to link trucks to trains, it came as a surprise to some of the property owners. One site belongs to the Noisette Co., another to Shipyard Creek Associates and a third is designated for Clemson University.
Noisette estimates $300 million in demolition costs, plus some 80 canceled leases, if trains are allowed to run through its property at the north end. That translates into a direct hit to North Charleston's tax base and a primary reason for Summey's ire.
The mayor has pointed out that if rail comes through the Noisette tract or the Clemson site that it would violate the SPA agreement. He called that "putting the burden of the entire state of South Carolina on the back of one city" and said such a maneuver will undo the redevelopment progress made in that part of the city.
The tract that received the highest recommendation in the study for a train facility, though, belongs to Shipyard Creek Associates, a group that has elevated the discussion about trains and the port over the past few months.
Local developer Robert L. Clement III, one of Shipyard's partners, said he didn't anticipate the findings of the state rail report. But that doesn't mean he won't use them to promote his plan.
Back in the fall, his group unveiled a proposal to turn the 135-acre Macalloy site in the Neck Area into a terminal for lifting and transferring shipping containers from trucks onto trains, sometimes stacking them two high on rail cars. The facility, as the group envisions it, would include a network of distribution centers and warehouses.
The pluses include fewer trucks on the road and efficient cargo movement as volume grows. The obstacles include a yet-to-be-built port access road that, as planned, would run through Macalloy and interfere with the container-lifting cranes he wants to put on the property.
Another negative is that the facility would not offer port users a choice. CSX would serve the yard to the exclusion of competitor Norfolk Southern.
To the first quandary, Clement said the access road project would require only minor repositioning. The changes would not require a new environmental impact study — an expensive and time-consuming process — but merely a partial study, he said.
As to the question of dual access, Clement provides a more complex answer.
Just a pipe dream?
Last week, he revealed to The Post and Courier an ambitious plan that would turn a former landfill off Morrison Drive in Charleston into a second intermodal facility — this one dedicated to Norfolk Southern.
Originally planned as a mixed-use development with hotels and condominiums, the tract known as Promenade instead could redefine the port system, according to Shipyard Creek.
One side of the 200-acre plot would house the train facility, providing enough container space to double the SPA's Columbus Street Terminal operations, according to Clement. The other side would create a new location for the port's roll-on/roll-off cargo operations, now based at Union Pier near Charleston's historic district.
The advantages, as Shipyard Creek sees it, include providing service to the second major rail carrier without violating the SPA-North Charleston agreement and potentially easing traffic on the lower peninsula by moving the Union Pier operations and their accompanying rail needs north.
The Promenade plan hinges on Norfolk Southern's willingness to partner. The railroad operator originally balked at the plan but, after a meeting Thursday with Shipyard Creek and lawmakers, the company "came away with a commitment to take another look at it." Norfolk Southern Public Relations Manager Robin Chapman said.
But even if Norfolk Southern welcomes the partnership, competing carrier CSX owns the track that runs alongside the Promenade property. And CSX would have to agree to concede the facility to its top competitor in the area.
Shipyard Creek consultant John Vickerman suggested that CSX wants the Macalloy facility and might, in exchange, grant Norfolk Southern exclusive access.
Though the mayors of North Charleston and Charleston support the Promenade plan, S.C. Public Railways President Jeff McWhorter calls it a near impossibility. Even if CSX agrees to back off, intermodal trains that stretch 8,000 feet would create a traffic nightmare in the area, he said. And the project would require constructing new tracks across marshland to reach the Promenade site.
"You're talking about building a bridge," McWhorter said. "With the current state of our economy and our budget, I just don't see it happening."
McWhorter's agency falls under the Commerce Department, whose rail study supports bringing CSX and Norfolk Southern through the northern end of the base.
"There is no viable alternative from the south," McWhorter said. "We've studied it. It's just not there."
But lawmakers and rail players will spend the next few weeks giving rail one more look — putting aside all studies, potential lawsuits and years of port planning.
Reach Allyson Bird at abird@postandcourier.com or 937-5594.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
justjerry (anonymous) says...
Rail through the south end. Do it and stop being morons.
May 10, 2009 at 12:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zoomru (anonymous) says...
LOL.....LOL !!!
Think ...citizens...!!!
Its taken how many years to get this far...!?!?
Pull up Google Earth and THINK for yourself.....
What a raping by parties on both sides at the detriment of the Entire state of South Carolina............
May 10, 2009 at 1:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justjerry (anonymous) says...
Zoomru - if you wrote with normal paragraph structure and without riddles a lot more people would understand and read your posts. No offense, just my opinion.
May 10, 2009 at 2:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lazy2009 (anonymous) says...
Go port! Go rail! Charleston needs to be an industrial city. Let the Jersey swarms vacation elsewhere!
May 10, 2009 at 2:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sdr35hw (anonymous) says...
Rail exits three ways. Through NC/Hanahan/Goose Creek, Across the Ashley/down 17 or through Summerville. That battle hasnt been discussed.
May 10, 2009 at 6:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ODIrony (anonymous) says...
Lazy2009:
Yes, "Go port! Go rail!" Let's let it happen where it originally was planned and agreed to happen - Daniel Island. Remember, all those nice Northerners and others who bought property were told, and signed agreements that they knew and accepted, that the port expansion would also take place there. That this would include rail should not come as a surprise.
The bottom line is that the current move to expand in North Charleston is a matter of race, class and money. North Charleston is poorer with a "darker" complexion than Daniel Island. The quaint Hollywood movie set neighborhoods of Daniel Island _count_ more than the numbers in North Charleston.
Tragic....
May 10, 2009 at 7:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
truthseeker (anonymous) says...
What is the hurry to build this new terminal? Only a fool would rush this very expensive project to completion the way it is permitted today and in today's global environment.
Does the SPA have any guaranteed shipping contracts to cover the cost of this proposed new terminal (with or without rail service) or is it simply being built on the simplistic moronic notion that if we build it, magically steamship lines will come?
Please show us the contracts the SPA has negotiated for this terminal Mr. Hassell, including the companies, the volumes they are guaranteeing, and rates they will be paying.
Let's look at the shipping market today. How much(or how little) will we end up charging Maersk to handle containers to keep Maersk from leaving? 20 bucks per box - 10 bucks per box- or will we handle their business for free?
If the SPA gang that pushed for the navy base terminal didn't even have the rail picture figured out, and can't keep our other 3 terminals running at anywhere near capacity, it is safe to say they haven't figured out how to make this terminal economically viable either.
May 10, 2009 at 8:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
karmann (anonymous) says...
I went to a meeting about the expansion of the SPA several years at a North Charleston Council meeting. At that time the mention of rail service was presented as an option. That was when Daniel Island was being considered the best choice, and the presenter, a now former state legislature, talked about expanded rail service in North Charleston to handle the extra freight. I am not sure where this surprise comes from on the part of the Mayor of North Charleston. In addition, when is North Charleston City Council going to push for revitalizing the schools vs allowing them to continue to deteriorate. North Charleston needs to put more pressure on CCSD. I will continue to push this as my agenda, properly educating students.
May 10, 2009 at 8:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dawhetsell (anonymous) says...
"You're talking about building a bridge," McWhorter said. "With the current state of our economy and our budget, I just don't see it happening."
McWhorter's agency falls under the Commerce Department, whose rail study supports bringing CSX and Norfolk Southern through the northern end of the base.
"There is no viable alternative from the south," McWhorter said. "We've studied it. It's just not there."
But lawmakers and rail players will spend the next few weeks giving rail one more look - putting aside all studies, potential lawsuits and years of port planning.
ITS BARGES STUPID! Every thing else will cost $100's of millions more and have everyone unhappy.
May 10, 2009 at 8:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zekemire (anonymous) says...
BUILD THE RAIL! BETTER YET, REVIVE THE GLOBAL GATEWAY ON DANIEL ISLAND AND BUILD THE RAIL TO IT! ENOUGH OF PEOPLE BUYING CHEAP LAND FOR HOMES NEAR AIRPORTS, RAILROADS AND THE LIKE AND THEN COMPLAINING ABOUT THOSE VITAL INDUTRIES! THEY KNEW THAT THE VARIOUS FACILITIES WERE THERE OR AS IN THE CASE OF DANIEL ISLAND WERE PROJECTED, AND, THEY BOUGHT THE LAND ANYWAY! SO NOW, STOP COMPLAINING!
May 10, 2009 at 8:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JohnS (anonymous) says...
I like to see John Knotts breakdown of the 300 million. Very little has been done to the Old Navy base vs what was promised by John Knott.
May 10, 2009 at 9:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
commonsence (anonymous) says...
Surely there is a solution to be found that can work for all the parties - if all the political posturing could be put on hold. Don't be surprised when a last minute, backroom deal is announced within 6 months - SC politics at it's worst.
May 10, 2009 at 9:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
stationkeeper (anonymous) says...
TruthSeeker:
"Please show us the contracts the SPA has negotiated for this terminal Mr. Hassell, including the companies, the volumes they are guaranteeing, and rates they will be paying."
Something tells me the SPA's clients would take a rather dim view of this.
May 10, 2009 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
truthseeker (anonymous) says...
Stationkeeper,
I was really joking about the contracts for the new terminal. It is obvious to anyone except our legislators and politicians that no private company has any interest in locking up future container handling demand.
May 10, 2009 at 12:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
stationkeeper (anonymous) says...
TruthSeeker,
Your correct, they have to pay for guaranteed capacity whether used or not.....and the current market is terrible (ask Maersk). But carriers are still looking hard at 2014 when the P.C. expansion is complete and Charleston has 45' of water and Savannah has only 42'.
May 10, 2009 at 12:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RailFan12 (anonymous) says...
Does Mr. Summey not realize there are already trains running in the north end of the old base? Both CSX and NS deliver cars on almost a daily basis to the gate there by Virginia Ave. I see cars there almost everyday when I am heading home.
What's next Mr. Mayor? You plan on moving the Hess Station and Kinder Morgan? What about Neal Brothers and the other businesses on the Navy Base?
That part of North Charleston has always been an industrial area and always will! Those homes are over priced anyways!
May 10, 2009 at 1:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CWL922 (anonymous) says...
Daniel Island does not want the jobs on their island. North Charleston does not want any new jobs in their town either. And I thought there was a shortage of jobs out there. Appearantly there are too many open jobs if they are fighting to keep jobs away from the areas.
May 10, 2009 at 1:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
realamerican (anonymous) says...
The SPA could care less about what happens after the port is built. They will get to that when the port is finished.
BUILDING the port and handing out the construction contracts to the good ol boys is what this is all about. Almost a billion dollars to curry power and make back door deals to enrich themselves is the only reason this boondoggle is being under taken.
May 10, 2009 at 7:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
truthseeker (anonymous) says...
Stationkeeper,
I wonder what is the big deal about having a deeper harbor.We dredged to 45 feet quite a few years at a cost of over 140 million taxpayer dollars .
We might as well have dumped the money in the river for all the good it did.
Since then, Savannah has kicked our ass. They are shallower and way up the river. The big ships have never arrived in Charleston.
Just another example of a poorly thought out strategy for the Port of Charleston. A deep draft with no decent railroad access is no recipe for success.
May 10, 2009 at 7:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justjerry (anonymous) says...
Railroad access through the south end for NS and CSX is an easy and workable solution. There is some rail traffic coming out of the North end of the base but it is not cutting through the entire development that has happened on the old base and the revitalizing Park Circle area. The Noisette development tenants have thousands of people working on the base every day and more are coming mainly due to the promise of any port traffic would be through the south end.
The SPA committed several years ago that the North end would not have rail from the port traveling through it and that is what has allowed the tremendous redevelopment activity on the old base. Reneging on this agreement would only destroy what thousands of folks have work hard to achieve over the last 5+ years. North Charleston is happy to take the port and the jobs that come with it, just not at the expense of ruining all of the hard work bu governments, businesses and individuals that has gone into revitalizing the Noisette development and Park Circle.
Karmann, although I believe in your point that NC has serious issues with education (which they are working on through the liason between NC and CCSD and several other programs) the schools fall under the county's leadership. The problems with NC schools will not be fixed in a year or even 5 years. Until folks who care about the quality of the schools move into the area and start to balance out those who don't or can't there will be little progress made. As long as there are programs like No Child Left Behind (and probably pretty soon vouchers) there will a deep divide between really bad schools and really good ones. I understand the individual desire for those types of programs, but no one needs to delude themselves into thinking that they do anything other than make struggling schools worse. What needs to happen is instead of spending all of the effort on trying to figure out ways to get the good kids out, figure out how to make the bad kids good.
May 10, 2009 at 8:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smp (anonymous) says...
Truthseeker so true about savannah v Charleston. On paper and in theory we should be dominating them. But in execution, there is some reason that they are eating our lunch. Well, I am confident it is a huge management issue. The good ole boy network on the third floor of 176 Concord.
But anyhooooo...back to this issue. Lets run the rail through ION village in Mt P? Or how about through the Market in downtown? Daniel Island?? Well if you answered no to all of those, then why is the answer "yes" to the Park Circle resident who bought homes based on the expectations and promises of a redeveloped Noisette area? And their expectations where wholly reasonable because the Port's rail plan was consistent with the Noisette development plans.
I don't believe that Park Circle residents or North Charleston residents should subsidize the incompetence of the executives of the port. So start your EIS over. Who cares what it costs the port. If they can afford bonuses for those idiots they can afford a new Environmental Impact Study.
May 10, 2009 at 9:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justjerry (anonymous) says...
smp - well put
May 10, 2009 at 10:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
truthseeker (anonymous) says...
Back in 2003, the SPA said this new navy base terminal would be able to ship to both the CSX and the NS railroads.
Looking back at a P&c article dated 2.01.03, former President Groseclose is quoted as saying the following,
"He said the new terminal will be able to handle 1,000-foot-long ships, including some too large to fit through the Panama Canal, and that the facility will have rail links to Norfolk Southern and CSX railroad networks."
Now a reasonable person, back in 2003, would conclude that the new navy base terminal would be able to ship to both railroads from this terminal.
Yet in todays article above, we find out rail never was anything but a powerpoint talking point.
"From there, the SPA turned its sights on the former Charleston Naval Base in North Charleston, and they didn't include rail in that plan."
May 10, 2009 at 10:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
charlestonnative1963 (anonymous) says...
If we dn't want it Savannah does...this is $$$$$ and this is jobs and guess what WE NEED THEM....let the good people of DI move to...oh let them move to Mississippi.
May 10, 2009 at 11:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justjerry (anonymous) says...
Rail was not meant to be left out as an option for North Charleston as long as it went through the South end of the base and would not disrupt the Noisette development that centered mainly at the North end of the base.
May 10, 2009 at 11:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tillman (anonymous) says...
Everyone needs to see the Robt Clemnet presentation on the most recent thinking on the southern access solution. There is inescapable logic, and far more capacity for the port besides solving the rail thing. It is lightyears ahead of what Norfolk Southern has caused the Commerce Dept and the politicians to jump up to support.
May 11, 2009 at noon ( permalink | suggest removal )
charlestonbill (anonymous) says...
Run the rail line and put an inland port around I26/I95 interchange. Less trucks on the downtown area and more jobs for the ports. No brainer to me.
Sounds like too much politics involved.
GET OVER IT and run the lines!
May 11, 2009 at 12:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CaptPete (anonymous) says...
Putting the rail yard on the South end would displace hundreds of low income families in the Howard Heights area. These folks have been living with bad air for years. This would be too much to ask living with loud trains. Run the rail out of the North end and spare these folks.
May 11, 2009 at 12:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PalmettoDP (anonymous) says...
charlestonbill - there are plans for something like an inland port near the I-95/I-26 interchange. You can google "Jafza Orangeburg" to find out more about it. Exciting project for that area.
May 11, 2009 at 1:32 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.
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!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- S.C. losing port traffic to other states
- Water — 'The smell is gone'
- Cart gives Buddy new lease on life
- Out with old ...
- Schools plan to update visitor-security system
- Tough times have taught comedian's sister to love life
- GenPhar site 'red-tagged'
- Off campus
- Historic manor house used by Girl Scouts is among buildings that might be torn down to make way for future
- Man, 17, killed in motorcycle wreck
