Friday, 09 July 2010
By Daniel Brock
NORTH CHARLESTON -- Mayor Keith Summey’s play to eliminate northern rail service to the former Navy base in favor of a line from the south has come under criticism from longtime opponents, who claim the plan isn’t in the region’s best interest and say they have been shut out of negotiations.
Summey, development firm Shipyard Creek and railroad operator CSX Transportation have drafted a memorandum of understanding that, if approved by the North Charleston City Council, would basically greenlight an intermodal rail facility that designed to service the $600 million S.C. State Ports Authority terminal under construction at the base.
Summey’s push for southern rail stems from a desire to preserve redevelopment efforts in North Charleston’s neighborhoods and on the base, which he says a northern line would negatively affect.
But a rival rail line and state agencies say that they’ve been frozen out of the proceedings and that they disagree with the plan.
“We have not been involved in this,” said Robin Chapman, a spokesman for Norfolk Southern, Charleston’s other Class 1 railroad. Chapman said the company hasn’t participated in talks because it wasn’t invited.
“We don’t believe it’s in the right spot. We believe the best solution is a single consolidated terminal served by both Norfolk Southern and CSX,” he said.
Norfolk Southern would have to pay a switching fee for use of the CSX-owned track that would service a proposed intermodal yard on the Macalloy property, which is owned by Shipyard Creek. That charge can run into the hundreds of dollars per car.
Though it is common for rail companies to charge switching fees, Chapman said in this instance it would put Norfolk Southern at a competitive disadvantage in Charleston.
Summey addressed that issue in an interview on Wednesday.
“If the state was running it, they’d charge both of them a fee,” Summey said. “That’s the way it works in just about every location across the country. Now if Norfolk Southern wants a yard, they can build a yard somewhere else.”
S.C. Public Railways President Jeff McWhorter echoed Chapman’s sentiments, saying that his agency has not been consulted and that it prefers a facility that “would be accessible by both” rail lines.
The ports authority, which has long tried to distance itself from the debate, is not part of any specific plan, according to Jim Newsome, the agency’s president and CEO. The SPA was also not involved in the drafting of the proposed agreement.
“Whatever solution is implemented doesn’t require our buy-in,” Newsome said.
SPA spokesman Byron Miller said the SPA has concerns about Shipyard Creek’s plan for the Macalloy land. One of those concerns pertains to a port access road that would run across part of the Macalloy property.
A clause in the current memorandum calls for North Charleston to “assist and support the effort to cause” the port access road to be relocated.
If the road is moved, permits pertaining to both the road and the terminal could be reopened. Newsome said a reopening of the permits would likely be both time-consuming and costly, and could delay the terminal’s construction.
By Daniel Brock
NORTH CHARLESTON -- Mayor Keith Summey’s play to eliminate northern rail service to the former Navy base in favor of a line from the south has come under criticism from longtime opponents, who claim the plan isn’t in the region’s best interest and say they have been shut out of negotiations.
Summey, development firm Shipyard Creek and railroad operator CSX Transportation have drafted a memorandum of understanding that, if approved by the North Charleston City Council, would basically greenlight an intermodal rail facility that designed to service the $600 million S.C. State Ports Authority terminal under construction at the base.
Summey’s push for southern rail stems from a desire to preserve redevelopment efforts in North Charleston’s neighborhoods and on the base, which he says a northern line would negatively affect.But a rival rail line and state agencies say that they’ve been frozen out of the proceedings and that they disagree with the plan.
“We have not been involved in this,” said Robin Chapman, a spokesman for Norfolk Southern, Charleston’s other Class 1 railroad. Chapman said the company hasn’t participated in talks because it wasn’t invited.
“We don’t believe it’s in the right spot. We believe the best solution is a single consolidated terminal served by both Norfolk Southern and CSX,” he said.
Norfolk Southern would have to pay a switching fee for use of the CSX-owned track that would service a proposed intermodal yard on the Macalloy property, which is owned by Shipyard Creek. That charge can run into the hundreds of dollars per car.
Though it is common for rail companies to charge switching fees, Chapman said in this instance it would put Norfolk Southern at a competitive disadvantage in Charleston.
Summey addressed that issue in an interview on Wednesday.
“If the state was running it, they’d charge both of them a fee,” Summey said. “That’s the way it works in just about every location across the country. Now if Norfolk Southern wants a yard, they can build a yard somewhere else.”
S.C. Public Railways President Jeff McWhorter echoed Chapman’s sentiments, saying that his agency has not been consulted and that it prefers a facility that “would be accessible by both” rail lines.
The ports authority, which has long tried to distance itself from the debate, is not part of any specific plan, according to Jim Newsome, the agency’s president and CEO. The SPA was also not involved in the drafting of the proposed agreement.
“Whatever solution is implemented doesn’t require our buy-in,” Newsome said.
SPA spokesman Byron Miller said the SPA has concerns about Shipyard Creek’s plan for the Macalloy land. One of those concerns pertains to a port access road that would run across part of the Macalloy property.
A clause in the current memorandum calls for North Charleston to “assist and support the effort to cause” the port access road to be relocated.
If the road is moved, permits pertaining to both the road and the terminal could be reopened. Newsome said a reopening of the permits would likely be both time-consuming and costly, and could delay the terminal’s construction.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment