A whole lot of money and a whole lot of cargo. That’s what a draft report says is necessary to build and pay for a railroad between the Samoa Peninsula and the national rail system in the Central Valley. Restoring the north-south line would also cost a bundle — more than $600 million, according to the report. And in order to maintain a viable railroad, Humboldt Bay would have to be transformed into one of the busiest ports on the West Coast.
Commissioned by the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District and financed with $19,500 in Caltrans money, the report is still in draft stage. In it, BST Associates and Burgel Rail Group, of Washington and Oregon respectively, say constructing an east-west railroad would cost $1.07 billion to $1.24 billion, depending on the route.
Three possible routes are identified. One arcs north of Blue Lake then down toward State Route 36. The second snakes south through Eureka, Loleta and Fortuna to Alton, where it turns east. And the third heads south along 67 miles of existing rail lines before punching east through the mountains near Fort Seward.
The ground underneath all three routes would be problematic. “The geology of the North Coast Range presents significant challenges for the sufficient siting of a railroad alignment,” the report notes. The authors spotted numerous landslides along the proposed routes and warn, “If an active or ancient (inactive) slide is discovered, then mitigation must be proposed and implemented. Even then, a slide can be reactivated with devastating and costly consequences.”
Among the report’s findings:
For the east-west rail to be economically feasible, Humboldt Bay would need to export at least 11.5 million to 18.5 million metric tons of bulk cargo per year — more than Seattle, Tacoma, Vancouver, Stockton, Long Beach or Los Angeles.
Humboldt Bay would likely need a deeper navigation channel to handle that much cargo. “Such a deepening project would likely be costly.”
The Samoa Peninsula would probably need new rail infrastructure, a bulk terminal, a new dock, storage facilities and handling equipment.
The annual maintenance cost for the east-west rail could range from $18 million to $20 million.
For the most part, rail distances from the Sacramento Valley to Humboldt Bay don’t offer shippers an advantage over existing ports.
“In conclusion,” the report says in something of an understatement, “development of rail service to Humboldt County is likely to be both high cost and high risk.”
The final report will be presented at Thursday’s Harbor District meeting.
Note: This story has been modified from a previous version to clarify that statistics refer to bulk exports.
This article appears in Run Out on a Rail.
“For the east-west rail to be economically feasible, Humboldt Bay would need to ship 11.5 million to 18.5 million metric tons per year — more than Seattle, Tacoma, Vancouver, Stockton, Long Beach or Los Angeles.”
Long Beach October 2012 to February 2013: 65.4 metric tons (in 5 months)
http://www.polb.com/civica/filebank/blobdl…
Seattle 16.1 metric tons Containerized in 2012. 20 metric tons Bulk in 2012
http://www.portseattle.org/About/Publicati…
Port of Los Angeles 18.9 Short tons in 1923 (90 years ago): 175.3 million metric revenue tons in 2012.
http://www.portoflosangeles.org/maritime/t…
Without reviewing the actual report it’s not clear if the tonnage indicated for Humboldt Bay is outbound only. The reports cited above are for total tonnage handled (inbound as well as outbound).
It appears that the quoted text from your article is not true, particularly the reference that Humboldt Bay would have to handle more cargo than the ports you cited. Was the reference to other ports in the report?
In fact, 20 million metric tons in Humboldt Bay would be about 5% of the totals from these three ports. Consider the volumes handled by the other ports you cited, and some other big ports like Oakland, and it’s more likely Humboldt Bay would need to handle well under 1% of the total tonnage of the West Coast to be economically feasible.
Economic development in Humboldt County of anything other than the illegal cultivation and marketing of marijuana (and its associated environmental damage) is a major threat to the status quo and power structure of the “progressive” North Coast.
Sam’s confused, or he’s being deliberately confusing. He should maybe read the report.
11.5-18.5 million metric tons/yr is the low-end estimate for volume of rail traffic needed to support an E-W route. It reflects construction costs of $1.066 billion and a very low 3% discount rate on borrowing that money. But note, just above Table 9 on page 31, the authors say “For a project of this scale and risk, the higher discount rate is most appropriate.” Volumes would need to be somewhere between 24 and 42 million tons at a 7% discount rate – or 56.5 to 100 at a 15% rate (depending, again, on the construction costs). ***The biggest volume port on the West Coast – Portland – does somewhere between 11 and 13 million tons a year of dry bulk.***
To finance the estimated $600 million dollar cost of rebuilding the N-S NCRA line through the Eel River Canyon (over my dead body), the authors calculate the line would need to carry between 5.6 and 9.1 million tons at a 3% discount rate, or 11-18 at 7%, or 26 to 42 at a 15% rate. Again, at the very lowest end that would have the NCRA shipping as much dry bulk as the port of Tacoma. (It is, to say the least, telling that we have never seen this kind of analysis from the NCRA or Doug Bosco and John William’s NWP Co.)
This report looks just at dry bulk exports because that’s where the high volumes of traffic are. The authors said imports are very unlikely to provide anything like the volumes needed to finance such construction costs. But whether it’s imports or exports, freight _volume_ is the key variable because rail shipping rates don’t flex.
The authors were able to look at the conclusion of the 2009 Drewry report commissioned by Rob Arkley’s Security National on containerized imports, but not the report itself. (No doubt that’s because it’s full of compelling data about how likely Humboldt is to capture a big chunk of containerized imports that peaked in 2005 and are now the focus of intense competition all over the west coast.)
Note that those construction estimates are all low-end. They leave out port facilities, connections with the national lines, environmental mitigation, landslide mitigation, sidings. So a real number is probably in the range of 2-3 billion for the whole package, and volumes would have to reflect that.
Sam is also confused about who is in charge around here when he whines about “the status quo and power structure of the ‘progressive’ North Coast.” He should become acquainted with the “rails first” Eureka City Council, and the Board of Supervisors that also voted 4-1 in favor of a redundant $300,000 feasibility study.
Guess I’m just a choo-choo supporter.
Note, I was not calling out the substance of the claims of the volume of freight required to be handled, but the veracity of the claim that an East-West Humboldt Line would require the Eureka to handle more freight tonnage than Long Beach, etc.
Being a product of North Coast schools, including CR and Humboldt State, I guess I’m just too stupid to realize that 18.5 million metric tons is actually greater than 175 million metric tons. I always was confused by this metric stuff.
I remain confused. And whining! As I watch the South Fork of the Eel River go dry…
Is there a non-biased repor t on Feasibility of investment which would benefit the common good if rails were
restored?What are the alternatives? Raging Granny
Name one legit investor, company, corporation or port authority that has shown interest in connecting Humboldt Bay to rail…………………………………………………………………..
Hmmm.
Eureka was established in 1851 and still, to this date, no one has attempted to develop it into a shipping hub.
Hmmm.
Look at Humboldt Bay on Google Maps and compare it to the Bay Area. Small, isolated, surrounded by unstable geography and it has a risky entrance. Doesn’t appear to be suited for the shipping business.
Hmmm, being an elected official and or having high credentials doesn’t seem to mean you’re not a moron.
So, that Blue Lake profile is the one that Magical Rob Arkley and his faith-based fans are going to take on their hour and a half magic train trip to Red Bluff? You know, they criticize marijuana all the time, but what the hell are they on? It’s hard to tell if they’re really dumb or really crazy. Tunnels, bridges, a whole new alignment……I was under the impression that they had worked on an actual project before, but clearly those were pretend projects. Did I say magical?
Look Everybody ! This thread is improving ! There are actually three folks who are discussing the details of the opinion piece (aka Feasibility Study) which Wilson and Higgins commissioned. The rest of this group of illustrious contributors seem to continue in the typical form of dogs pissing on the fire hydrant, (“see who can shoot higher”) but confuse delivery of opinion with analysis. It is a common ailment of “trolls”, such as the characters you commonly see here, and force us to tolerate. This phenomenon also occurred around the question of having WalMart come in, or highway 101 widened – which the NCJ also spent ALOT of ink on. Hey, how did THOSE horrendously important issues wind up? Walmart came in – ho hum and yawn- and we all fell asleep because there was no collapse of local the merchants. The plan to safely expand the highway without disturbing the energy fields around the 9 redwood trees (of which there are ONLY 41,000 in that little park) continues to move forward, too. I expect, when these (same?) knee jerk reactionary jokers finally understand that the question of financing this proposed railroad is NOT the question, you may actually come up with questions worth thought or substantive discussion. In the meantime, keep pissing on yourselves by mixing personal comments into relevant discussion. It certainly adds to the perception that Humboldt is for Stoners Only, (and “so called” staff writers who can’t even recognize syntax and grammatical failure when it is pointed out.) Don’t concern yourselves that the REAL 250K USD feasibility study will be paid by public funds. It has already been funded, moves forward, and, like the Drury Report, will only be seen by the end users who ordered it. Why otherwise ? To paste your name in this liberal, biased rag run by befuddled old ladies and “writers” who get company stock instead of wages? But, just so you know – Rob Arkely does NOT have a cent in it, he is BROKE, so get off of his case and go get a life. The railroad study is coming, folks, but NOT to you.
“Hihoe Silver” complains about trolls and then, anonymously compares those who question the tactics of rail zealots to “dogs pissing on the fire hydrant.” I suppose that he’d be an expert on the latter, judging from his profile photo.