------------------
Since yesterday's post, I've discovered several questions which deserve honest and complete answers - without delay!
If these have not been part of the public record, perhaps they will become so now:
---------------------------
I have some questions for you about Council's recent action to purchase Fairhaven Highlands:
1. Since the endowment fund is held in a nonexpendable trust, on what basis did Council determine that the City is permitted to borrow from the endowment fund?
2. What are the terms of the endowment fund loan?
3. When are principal payments due?
4. To have a bona fide loan, there must be a source and intention of repayment. The press release says no general fund money will be used in the deal, so what is the source of loan repayment?
5. When are interest payments due?
6. What is the interest rate?
7. From what source will interest payments be made?
8. Which neighborhoods have the new development that generated the $500,000 in park impact fees Council approved using for the purchase?
9. What is the date of the appraisal being relied on?
10. What effect did foreclosure of the property resulting in bank ownership have on Council's valuation of the property?
11. Prior to 2011, the Greenway Advisory Committee and the Parks Board recommended to City Council $4,145,000 for acquisition of a portion of Fairhaven Highlands. When did GAC and PRAB review and make recommendations to City Council on this current deal?
-------------------------
Since answers to these -and perhaps other questions citizens may have- may be critical to any final deal to be approved behind closed doors, I believe time is of the essence in receiving an official response.
I request that Mayor Dan Pike, Council Members Gene Knutson, Terry Bornemann, Barry Buchanan, Seth Fleetwood, Michael Lilliquist, Stan Snapp and Jack Weiss each individually and publicly acknowledge receipt of this urgent request.
To ensure timely receipt, I am e-mailing each of these individuals a copy of this entire communication, as well as the official offices of both Mayor and City Council.
The trusting public awaits your response!
-------------------------
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Greenways: Largesse From The Public Treasury?
-----------------------
"....a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury." - Attributed to Ronald Reagan, via Professor Alexander Fraser Titler and others
-----------------------
Wikiquotes provides interesting fodder for this blog, citing several quotes on this subject, either sourced, unsourced or misattributed.
You decide which fit better, or maybe just provide your own.
======================================
Over at Northwest Citizen, John Servais' article posted Sep 1 gushes 'A People’s Victory - and a Rare One'.
I beg to differ - maybe, mainly because of the inherent ambiguity.
What does he mean by 'a people's victory'?
Which people?
Certainly, not all the people; particularly the ones who will be stuck with the burden of paying for the $3 Million or so the Council & Mayor agreed to - over the amount they had to spend!
And what does he mean by 'and a rare one'?
Seems to me this type of victory isn't very rare for Bellingham; just look at the many parks, trails, developed playgrounds, open space and the like the citizens of Bellingham have enjoyed over the years as a result of Greenways funding.
Remember, this funding is dedicated to acquiring, developing, maintaining the properties and amenities we've come to expect here; and the kind that attracts others here, regardless of whether their money paid for any of it or not.
So, I don't think its very 'rare' to have a new property added to the City's already excellent collection.
No, I suspect Mr Servais' words are meant to ID a specific type of deal; one that didn't come easily or naturally into being.
One that had a large measure of controversy attached, some legitimate, some manufactured.
That's the kind of 'victory' he seems to prefer and to advocate/agitate for.
So, with these clarifications and within rather narrow parameters, I suppose he is correct.
But, please do not construe Mr Servais view as reflective of our entire community.
It gives me no pleasure in submitting what is to follow, but in the interest of understanding what has transpired in connection with the recent commitment to acquire the Chuckanut Ridge property, the public might like to know about a few little flaws in this particular ointment.
Unfortunately, without calling these out, our electeds might be tempted to remain silent about them, or, worse, attempt to spin them out of credibility.
Don't want that to happen, do we?
These flaws are correctable, but citizens may need to help the Mayor & Council actually MAKE those corrections, otherwise we all will have no choice but to live with them - or just kick them down the road.
That is the entire purpose of this writing.
-----------------------------------
At the time of our last local elections -4 years ago- one new candidate for City Council lamented the impending fiscal crisis this way; 'it won't be much fun serving in office with no money to spend'.
How correct he was!
It certainly was not fun making the painful cuts and layoffs necessary to balance a severely reduced City budget, which 4 years later still remains problematic.
Similar feelings were undoubtedly expressed by the other electeds, including our erstwhile current mayor. who have now burst out of their financial straitjackets with a breathless rush to expend as much Greenways funds as they thought might be possible it acquiring ALL of the highly controversial 'Chuckanut Ridge' property at the very moment it became available and unencumbered.
That must have felt great to these electeds, who have labored so long under fiscal deprivations due to drastically reduced revenues imposed by the reality of our protracted recession, plus a few excesses of the past!
And, how wonderful to have a large war-chest of publicly voted funds just waiting to be spent!
Never mind that the Greenways 3 monies voted in 2006, from which most of the funding must come, almost never made it to the ballot because of the unreasonable demands made by strident advocates of buying this exact property.
A related irony is that the emotional campaign to prevent any development on this property, dove-tailed with a terrible economy to bankrupt both the developer and his bank, in turn causing the property to be valued at one-third its former 'price'.
This, in turn, allowed our current 'Town Fathers' to feel better about venting their pent-up urge to splurge.
Hey, its only natural to try to make people happy, isn't it?
And, the proper, dedicated funding was there, wasn't it?
Wasn't it?
Sadly, the answer is 'most of it was'. The rest -a measly $3 Million or so, plus any accrued interest on inter fund loans (maybe another $500k?)- must be borrowed, begged, or stolen from ...where?
Future Greenways levies?
I don't think so!
This Mayor and Council have not been good stewards of our treasured Greenways Funds on this hasty deal, which were clearly insufficient to responsibly make this $8.23 Million(+) purchase.
They winged it in their fever to please/appease, and in so doing, knowingly committed additional scarce City resources to cover their tracks.
Most troubling, they seem to expect a future [Greenways 4?] levy to rescue their bacon by including these current excesses in it!
How arrogant, ignorant and irresponsible is that?
You know, 'kicking the can down the road' is a tried and true tactic, but only when we let our electeds get away with it!
But, that was not the way Greenways was established, and it is not a good way to enhance its popularity or ensure its continuance.
Many people are no doubt very pleased -even ecstatic- with the Chuckanut Ridge purchase, as evidenced by the large, hastily planned celebration held only days after the announcement -and days before the actual consummation of the deal.
But, likely as many, or maybe more are not happy with the way this has gone down, either.
It's not that some reasonable purchase was made, which was widely expected; but the clear over-reaching, grandstanding and stupid finessing of details likely to reveal flaws that could have been easily corrected.
Think the timing was politically motivated? I do!
Pandering always seems to deliver some votes, but in this case it may subtract some too.
I'm not as much worried about the votes cast this year as I am for the votes cast 4 years from now -on a future Greenways levy.
That's because the best of programs and traditions can be seriously undermined if they are not administered properly.
Mark my words, this hasty and ill-advised Chuckanut Ridge purchase has exactly the type of baggage and potential fall-out to adversely impact future Greenways undertakings.
The 2006 arguments over this same property almost prevented Greenways 3 from even getting on the ballot, for God's sake!
Fortunately, the compromises made then were enough to produce a ballot measure the voters willingly supported.
This unwise action has the potential to reopen those old wounds, but maybe the public won't even notice?
But I noticed, and so have others who have been strong supporters of Greenways for more years than I have!
There are some things the City can do -even now- to rectify the situation and restore essential confidence in the process of fairly evaluating Greenways opportunities, selecting properties for acquisition and allocating funds more responsibly.
Specifically for the Chuckanut Ridge acquisition:
• Require the Responsible Development [RD} organization to honor its promise of raising at least $1 Million privately, to be dedicated to this purchase.
Please recall these extensive discussions, including the failed attempt at establishing a special Parks District to obtain funding.
I and others believed this to be a good faith effort which now needs to be honored.
• Sell sufficient Chuckanut Ridge property to pay the roughly $3 Million in purchase costs not covered by Greenways and related funds.
Some estimate the southern one-third of this property is well-suited for limited development, similar to that existing in the immediate surroundings.
Perhaps, 15 to 20 large homes could be sited there without unreasonably disturbing the heavily treed areas and/or wetlands.
In general:
• Avoid allowing protracted public discussion and debates about ANY specific properties to precede Greenways deliberations.
There was so much smoke & mirrors at work regarding Chuckanut Ridge that reasonable solutions were made so difficult they were essentially obliterated. In this recent case, Mayor Pike could not resist that temptation - an obvious flaw in judgement.
• Ensure illegal shenanigans, especially among electeds are discouraged, and if they occur, are subject to public scrutiny and discipline as appropriate.
The 'promise' of 4 votes by current Council members Knutson, Bornemann and former members Ryan & Beardsley in 2006 ought to have been severely sanctioned then, and should never be allowed to happen again! Good luck with enforcing that.
• Remember the purpose of Greenways is to fairly benefit ALL citizens of he City and not just those that are more vocal, have more resources or are more politically connected.
In 2006, it was thought this policy was clearly and carefully communicated to voters. Turns out, the voters weren't the problem.
• Make sure the administration of Greenways and related funds are always above reproach and do not externalize costs elsewhere.
Remember these do represent 'largesse from the public treasury'!
----------------
In the interest of accuracy, here is what the City posted on its website;
"....a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury." - Attributed to Ronald Reagan, via Professor Alexander Fraser Titler and others
-----------------------
Wikiquotes provides interesting fodder for this blog, citing several quotes on this subject, either sourced, unsourced or misattributed.
You decide which fit better, or maybe just provide your own.
======================================
Over at Northwest Citizen, John Servais' article posted Sep 1 gushes 'A People’s Victory - and a Rare One'.
I beg to differ - maybe, mainly because of the inherent ambiguity.
What does he mean by 'a people's victory'?
Which people?
Certainly, not all the people; particularly the ones who will be stuck with the burden of paying for the $3 Million or so the Council & Mayor agreed to - over the amount they had to spend!
And what does he mean by 'and a rare one'?
Seems to me this type of victory isn't very rare for Bellingham; just look at the many parks, trails, developed playgrounds, open space and the like the citizens of Bellingham have enjoyed over the years as a result of Greenways funding.
Remember, this funding is dedicated to acquiring, developing, maintaining the properties and amenities we've come to expect here; and the kind that attracts others here, regardless of whether their money paid for any of it or not.
So, I don't think its very 'rare' to have a new property added to the City's already excellent collection.
No, I suspect Mr Servais' words are meant to ID a specific type of deal; one that didn't come easily or naturally into being.
One that had a large measure of controversy attached, some legitimate, some manufactured.
That's the kind of 'victory' he seems to prefer and to advocate/agitate for.
So, with these clarifications and within rather narrow parameters, I suppose he is correct.
But, please do not construe Mr Servais view as reflective of our entire community.
It gives me no pleasure in submitting what is to follow, but in the interest of understanding what has transpired in connection with the recent commitment to acquire the Chuckanut Ridge property, the public might like to know about a few little flaws in this particular ointment.
Unfortunately, without calling these out, our electeds might be tempted to remain silent about them, or, worse, attempt to spin them out of credibility.
Don't want that to happen, do we?
These flaws are correctable, but citizens may need to help the Mayor & Council actually MAKE those corrections, otherwise we all will have no choice but to live with them - or just kick them down the road.
That is the entire purpose of this writing.
-----------------------------------
At the time of our last local elections -4 years ago- one new candidate for City Council lamented the impending fiscal crisis this way; 'it won't be much fun serving in office with no money to spend'.
How correct he was!
It certainly was not fun making the painful cuts and layoffs necessary to balance a severely reduced City budget, which 4 years later still remains problematic.
Similar feelings were undoubtedly expressed by the other electeds, including our erstwhile current mayor. who have now burst out of their financial straitjackets with a breathless rush to expend as much Greenways funds as they thought might be possible it acquiring ALL of the highly controversial 'Chuckanut Ridge' property at the very moment it became available and unencumbered.
That must have felt great to these electeds, who have labored so long under fiscal deprivations due to drastically reduced revenues imposed by the reality of our protracted recession, plus a few excesses of the past!
And, how wonderful to have a large war-chest of publicly voted funds just waiting to be spent!
Never mind that the Greenways 3 monies voted in 2006, from which most of the funding must come, almost never made it to the ballot because of the unreasonable demands made by strident advocates of buying this exact property.
A related irony is that the emotional campaign to prevent any development on this property, dove-tailed with a terrible economy to bankrupt both the developer and his bank, in turn causing the property to be valued at one-third its former 'price'.
This, in turn, allowed our current 'Town Fathers' to feel better about venting their pent-up urge to splurge.
Hey, its only natural to try to make people happy, isn't it?
And, the proper, dedicated funding was there, wasn't it?
Wasn't it?
Sadly, the answer is 'most of it was'. The rest -a measly $3 Million or so, plus any accrued interest on inter fund loans (maybe another $500k?)- must be borrowed, begged, or stolen from ...where?
Future Greenways levies?
I don't think so!
This Mayor and Council have not been good stewards of our treasured Greenways Funds on this hasty deal, which were clearly insufficient to responsibly make this $8.23 Million(+) purchase.
They winged it in their fever to please/appease, and in so doing, knowingly committed additional scarce City resources to cover their tracks.
Most troubling, they seem to expect a future [Greenways 4?] levy to rescue their bacon by including these current excesses in it!
How arrogant, ignorant and irresponsible is that?
You know, 'kicking the can down the road' is a tried and true tactic, but only when we let our electeds get away with it!
But, that was not the way Greenways was established, and it is not a good way to enhance its popularity or ensure its continuance.
Many people are no doubt very pleased -even ecstatic- with the Chuckanut Ridge purchase, as evidenced by the large, hastily planned celebration held only days after the announcement -and days before the actual consummation of the deal.
But, likely as many, or maybe more are not happy with the way this has gone down, either.
It's not that some reasonable purchase was made, which was widely expected; but the clear over-reaching, grandstanding and stupid finessing of details likely to reveal flaws that could have been easily corrected.
Think the timing was politically motivated? I do!
Pandering always seems to deliver some votes, but in this case it may subtract some too.
I'm not as much worried about the votes cast this year as I am for the votes cast 4 years from now -on a future Greenways levy.
That's because the best of programs and traditions can be seriously undermined if they are not administered properly.
Mark my words, this hasty and ill-advised Chuckanut Ridge purchase has exactly the type of baggage and potential fall-out to adversely impact future Greenways undertakings.
The 2006 arguments over this same property almost prevented Greenways 3 from even getting on the ballot, for God's sake!
Fortunately, the compromises made then were enough to produce a ballot measure the voters willingly supported.
This unwise action has the potential to reopen those old wounds, but maybe the public won't even notice?
But I noticed, and so have others who have been strong supporters of Greenways for more years than I have!
There are some things the City can do -even now- to rectify the situation and restore essential confidence in the process of fairly evaluating Greenways opportunities, selecting properties for acquisition and allocating funds more responsibly.
Specifically for the Chuckanut Ridge acquisition:
• Require the Responsible Development [RD} organization to honor its promise of raising at least $1 Million privately, to be dedicated to this purchase.
Please recall these extensive discussions, including the failed attempt at establishing a special Parks District to obtain funding.
I and others believed this to be a good faith effort which now needs to be honored.
• Sell sufficient Chuckanut Ridge property to pay the roughly $3 Million in purchase costs not covered by Greenways and related funds.
Some estimate the southern one-third of this property is well-suited for limited development, similar to that existing in the immediate surroundings.
Perhaps, 15 to 20 large homes could be sited there without unreasonably disturbing the heavily treed areas and/or wetlands.
In general:
• Avoid allowing protracted public discussion and debates about ANY specific properties to precede Greenways deliberations.
There was so much smoke & mirrors at work regarding Chuckanut Ridge that reasonable solutions were made so difficult they were essentially obliterated. In this recent case, Mayor Pike could not resist that temptation - an obvious flaw in judgement.
• Ensure illegal shenanigans, especially among electeds are discouraged, and if they occur, are subject to public scrutiny and discipline as appropriate.
The 'promise' of 4 votes by current Council members Knutson, Bornemann and former members Ryan & Beardsley in 2006 ought to have been severely sanctioned then, and should never be allowed to happen again! Good luck with enforcing that.
• Remember the purpose of Greenways is to fairly benefit ALL citizens of he City and not just those that are more vocal, have more resources or are more politically connected.
In 2006, it was thought this policy was clearly and carefully communicated to voters. Turns out, the voters weren't the problem.
• Make sure the administration of Greenways and related funds are always above reproach and do not externalize costs elsewhere.
Remember these do represent 'largesse from the public treasury'!
----------------
In the interest of accuracy, here is what the City posted on its website;
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Coal: A Global Perspective
Every once in a while an article is published that deserves to be publicized more widely, without much added comment.
Here's an example from the latest NRDC publication, onearth, entitled Coal On A Roll:
It will be interesting to see what actions will be effective in helping decide the direction we take on the export of our natural resources taken straight from the ground, then shipped elsewhere without much additional value-added or new American jobs.
Here's an example from the latest NRDC publication, onearth, entitled Coal On A Roll:
It will be interesting to see what actions will be effective in helping decide the direction we take on the export of our natural resources taken straight from the ground, then shipped elsewhere without much additional value-added or new American jobs.
Friday, August 5, 2011
A Rant: Who Broke It & Who Owns It?
--------------------------------------------
“The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.” - Lord Acton
--------------------------------------------
Secretary of State General Colin Powell is famous for making the statement “if you break it, you own it” in regards to the idea of invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Here's what he actually said: 'You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,' he told the president. 'You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You'll own it all.'
Privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it.
Of course, President George W Bush ignored this sage advice, since his mind was already made up, with false propaganda to convince the silly politicos that make up Congress, and gullible US citizens it was a good plan -because of 'WMD' [Weapons of Mass Destruction]. That there were no WMD didn't stop us then, which should be a cause for our continued concern.
Was it -the invasion- a good idea? Despite the current changed status of Iraq, was it really worth the costs?
Time will probably tell, but only if we assess this chapter of history truthfully.
Colin Powell was right; we did break Iraq and have had to own it for several years, with no final end in sight.
But, maybe rather than relying on sage advice and learning from history, we'd rather just do our thing, anyway?
Then, find out for ourselves what the 'unintended consequences' are?
That seems unnecessarily wasteful and risky to me, but hey, this is America! We can do whatever we want, and don't forget it!
Our founders would turn in their graves, if they haven't already.
---------------
A similar perspective can be applied to our struggling economy. If we break it, we own the results.
The expensive wars in Iraq & Afghanistan might have seemed necessary after 9/11, but how has that worked out?
The answer is it hasn't worked out very well, except to saddle the US with enormous debt, casualties and diminished international respect.
Remember, the cost of both wars in the Mid-East were not actually shown in our national budget; they were financed off the books, and contributed enormously to our 'debt ceiling'.
Talk about kicking issues & costs 'down the road'!
That's what the past administration has done to this one, isn't it?
And, of course, its happened before - both ways
All the recent talk about limiting 'spending' in Washington conveniently ignores the egregious excesses of the Republican ideologues who controlled our government for the first 8 years of this century, as well as the legitimate commitments made that need to be honored.
Now, again, the current administration is faced with cleaning up the mess left by others.
I hate that when its done to me, don't you feel the same way?
The major political fights we've seen all too frequently amount to mostly name-calling and finger pointing, without much regard for citizens in general.
The bail-out plans initiated by the Obama crowd have actually worked pretty well, despite the bad-mouthing by those who had no plan of their own.
But, what about TARP? That was Bush's giveaway, without any provision for repayment!
And, the tax cuts that have seriously reduced our ability to pay for other essential services.
It always amazes me how political spin remains so successful at fooling people, even despite the facts and common sense.
While we're at it, where does the so-called 'Tea Party' get to share in blame for the fine state of affairs we're faced with?
Why, they are just so proud of being difficult, even within their own party!
But, being very good at saying 'no' doesn't really help solve anything, does it?
Now that health-care reform has been initiated and the 'debt ceiling' debate is semi-settled for the present, they also relish kicking those cans down the road.
The sad thing is, it's not really about anything but partisan political preferences -and that goes both ways.
Some insist on wishing to impose their will upon the rest of us - the majority for god's sake!
That ain't gonna work out very well for any of these two-bit ideologues, as the polls are beginning to show.
Aren't they accountable, too?
The level of dysfunction that has developed recently will also have repercussions that we won't like down the road.
Just look at what has happened as a result of the 'debt ceiling' posturing and brinksmanship.
Confidence in America has dropped like a rock, by international entities and the financial sector.
Largely because Congress can't be trusted, the stock market experienced its 9th largest daily decline in history -513 points.
Is that an unintended consequence?; I think so!
Who's accountable for that?
And how about the prolonged recession; think that might be partly caused by lack of confidence too?
The jobs situation is genuinely troubling and at the root of many other ills our society faces.
But, we can't get Congress or the Administration to create a jobs program that puts people back to work doing things -like infrastructure construction and repair - that everyone agrees need doing!
Add to that the ridiculous FAA funding debacle, that succeeded in idling almost 80,000 workers and threatened untold impacts on air travel, tourism, and our business economy in general.
What's up with that? Another ideological chasm, that's what.
'I'm sick and tired of this ongoing BS, and I ain't gonna take it anymore!' Who said that? Howard Jarvis of California's Proposition 13 fame?
I wish more people would get so fed up with our dysfunctional system that they demand some meaningful changes in the way our representatives behave.
After all, that is probably the only thing that will get their attention.
And, I'm not talking about another hot-headed Tea-Party clone, either.
That just allows passions to cloud good sense.
I'm talking about good old fashioned righteous indignation, regardless of stupid party affiliations!
Where does the Constitution say anything that authorizes political parties to usurp the power of citizens?
While we're at it, what about all the silly rules and procedures Congress decides to use to do its business?
Some rules are necessary, so use Robert's or Sturgis, but not caucuses, filibusters, riders and clotures and all that baloney.
And do the work out in the open, with up or down votes that everybody can see and understand!
And find a way to get money and influence peddling under control, too.
I hope those games aren't included in any measure of our Gross National Product!
So who broke our system? We did, by degrees of neglect, un-involvement and private agendas.
Who owns it? We do, warts and all.
How does it get fixed? We fix it, by demanding changes and getting engaged and involved ourselves.
As much as I disagree with Tim Eyman on many of his public initiatives, he's got some things right; like the concept of a permanent offense that never lets up.
If he can be successful using that approach with some of his BS beefs, just imagine how successful we, the people, can be with effecting systematic change in our governments at all levels!
But, it ain't automatic, folks, so unless you really mean it, just sit back and quaff whatever you're drinking and hope that helps you stomach this mess we're in.
At least until next rant, have a nice day!
------------------------------------------
Political atheism: End justifies the means. This is still the most widespread of all the opinions inimical to liberty.” - Lord Acton
------------------------------------------
“The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.” - Lord Acton
--------------------------------------------
Secretary of State General Colin Powell is famous for making the statement “if you break it, you own it” in regards to the idea of invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Here's what he actually said: 'You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,' he told the president. 'You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You'll own it all.'
Privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it.
Of course, President George W Bush ignored this sage advice, since his mind was already made up, with false propaganda to convince the silly politicos that make up Congress, and gullible US citizens it was a good plan -because of 'WMD' [Weapons of Mass Destruction]. That there were no WMD didn't stop us then, which should be a cause for our continued concern.
Was it -the invasion- a good idea? Despite the current changed status of Iraq, was it really worth the costs?
Time will probably tell, but only if we assess this chapter of history truthfully.
Colin Powell was right; we did break Iraq and have had to own it for several years, with no final end in sight.
But, maybe rather than relying on sage advice and learning from history, we'd rather just do our thing, anyway?
Then, find out for ourselves what the 'unintended consequences' are?
That seems unnecessarily wasteful and risky to me, but hey, this is America! We can do whatever we want, and don't forget it!
Our founders would turn in their graves, if they haven't already.
---------------
A similar perspective can be applied to our struggling economy. If we break it, we own the results.
The expensive wars in Iraq & Afghanistan might have seemed necessary after 9/11, but how has that worked out?
The answer is it hasn't worked out very well, except to saddle the US with enormous debt, casualties and diminished international respect.
Remember, the cost of both wars in the Mid-East were not actually shown in our national budget; they were financed off the books, and contributed enormously to our 'debt ceiling'.
Talk about kicking issues & costs 'down the road'!
That's what the past administration has done to this one, isn't it?
And, of course, its happened before - both ways
All the recent talk about limiting 'spending' in Washington conveniently ignores the egregious excesses of the Republican ideologues who controlled our government for the first 8 years of this century, as well as the legitimate commitments made that need to be honored.
Now, again, the current administration is faced with cleaning up the mess left by others.
I hate that when its done to me, don't you feel the same way?
The major political fights we've seen all too frequently amount to mostly name-calling and finger pointing, without much regard for citizens in general.
The bail-out plans initiated by the Obama crowd have actually worked pretty well, despite the bad-mouthing by those who had no plan of their own.
But, what about TARP? That was Bush's giveaway, without any provision for repayment!
And, the tax cuts that have seriously reduced our ability to pay for other essential services.
It always amazes me how political spin remains so successful at fooling people, even despite the facts and common sense.
While we're at it, where does the so-called 'Tea Party' get to share in blame for the fine state of affairs we're faced with?
Why, they are just so proud of being difficult, even within their own party!
But, being very good at saying 'no' doesn't really help solve anything, does it?
Now that health-care reform has been initiated and the 'debt ceiling' debate is semi-settled for the present, they also relish kicking those cans down the road.
The sad thing is, it's not really about anything but partisan political preferences -and that goes both ways.
Some insist on wishing to impose their will upon the rest of us - the majority for god's sake!
That ain't gonna work out very well for any of these two-bit ideologues, as the polls are beginning to show.
Aren't they accountable, too?
The level of dysfunction that has developed recently will also have repercussions that we won't like down the road.
Just look at what has happened as a result of the 'debt ceiling' posturing and brinksmanship.
Confidence in America has dropped like a rock, by international entities and the financial sector.
Largely because Congress can't be trusted, the stock market experienced its 9th largest daily decline in history -513 points.
Is that an unintended consequence?; I think so!
Who's accountable for that?
And how about the prolonged recession; think that might be partly caused by lack of confidence too?
The jobs situation is genuinely troubling and at the root of many other ills our society faces.
But, we can't get Congress or the Administration to create a jobs program that puts people back to work doing things -like infrastructure construction and repair - that everyone agrees need doing!
Add to that the ridiculous FAA funding debacle, that succeeded in idling almost 80,000 workers and threatened untold impacts on air travel, tourism, and our business economy in general.
What's up with that? Another ideological chasm, that's what.
'I'm sick and tired of this ongoing BS, and I ain't gonna take it anymore!' Who said that? Howard Jarvis of California's Proposition 13 fame?
I wish more people would get so fed up with our dysfunctional system that they demand some meaningful changes in the way our representatives behave.
After all, that is probably the only thing that will get their attention.
And, I'm not talking about another hot-headed Tea-Party clone, either.
That just allows passions to cloud good sense.
I'm talking about good old fashioned righteous indignation, regardless of stupid party affiliations!
Where does the Constitution say anything that authorizes political parties to usurp the power of citizens?
While we're at it, what about all the silly rules and procedures Congress decides to use to do its business?
Some rules are necessary, so use Robert's or Sturgis, but not caucuses, filibusters, riders and clotures and all that baloney.
And do the work out in the open, with up or down votes that everybody can see and understand!
And find a way to get money and influence peddling under control, too.
I hope those games aren't included in any measure of our Gross National Product!
So who broke our system? We did, by degrees of neglect, un-involvement and private agendas.
Who owns it? We do, warts and all.
How does it get fixed? We fix it, by demanding changes and getting engaged and involved ourselves.
As much as I disagree with Tim Eyman on many of his public initiatives, he's got some things right; like the concept of a permanent offense that never lets up.
If he can be successful using that approach with some of his BS beefs, just imagine how successful we, the people, can be with effecting systematic change in our governments at all levels!
But, it ain't automatic, folks, so unless you really mean it, just sit back and quaff whatever you're drinking and hope that helps you stomach this mess we're in.
At least until next rant, have a nice day!
------------------------------------------
Political atheism: End justifies the means. This is still the most widespread of all the opinions inimical to liberty.” - Lord Acton
------------------------------------------
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Coal Terminal:Whatcom Watch Remembers Cherry Point Agreement
----------------------------
If you would understand anything, observe its beginning and its development. - Aristotle
----------------------------
One of our local treasures, the monthly publication known as Whatcom Watch, has archives that serve as a valuable institutional memory for folks who can't remember, or never knew anyway, about key environmental issues. A recent blog contains links to Whatcom Watch articles by Preston Schiller and Marie Hitchman. The Hitchman article, in turn references earlier articles as described following.
For example, the contentious Cherry Point issue that has recently demanded our attention, isn't really that new. It's roots go back before many current citizens even lived here. The December 1998 issue of Whatcom Watch contained two or three articles that captured the flavor of that time around the issue of how to utilize Cherry Point while preserving its surrounding environs.
Another salient archive is the first article here, also authored by Dave Schmalz in the August/September 1999 issue. It has to do with chronicling a settlement between multiple parties and SSA, which require 18 months to reach. The object was to focus on the one additional marine loading pier that might be permitted at Cherry Point, with special emphasis on safeguarding the shoreline and connected ecologies.
The parties did come agreement on several points, but that is now moot because SSA has decided to unilaterally terminate its part of this good faith effort. Why did they do this? Because they felt -knew- it would interfere with their current plans to build a much larger loading wharf to handle coal -48 million tons of it every year.
Is that OK with you?
Do you even have a voice in the matter?
Those are the questions that SSA would rather not be asked.
Maybe their latest unauthorized clearing and grading of access roads through known wetlands illustrate their preferred method of just doing things because they want to, then accepting a minimal slap on the wrist for it?
This Get Whatcom Planning blog wonders what mitigation might be required to retroactively repair the damage done.
Reading the Whatcom Watch article written by Dave Schmalz in the August/September 1999 issue summarizes what was agreed to back then, and who the parties to the agreement were.
Strange how all the parties, with the sole exception of SSA, want the essence of that agreement to remain in effect.
Maybe it also needs strengthening, too, especially in light of the current, much different SSA proposal.
Also, more stringent regulations have subsequently been adopted to more certainly protect our shorelines and critical areas.
Or, maybe you are one of those who think SSA's original scheme is somehow magically vested, and therefore exempt from further review?
That notion is a pipe dream that could easily turn into a nightmare, and probably ought to.
This article and embedded link was posted today by John Stark on the Herald's Politics blog.
----------------------------
History, to be above evasion or dispute, must stand on documents, not on opinions. - Lord Acton
----------------------------
If you would understand anything, observe its beginning and its development. - Aristotle
----------------------------
One of our local treasures, the monthly publication known as Whatcom Watch, has archives that serve as a valuable institutional memory for folks who can't remember, or never knew anyway, about key environmental issues. A recent blog contains links to Whatcom Watch articles by Preston Schiller and Marie Hitchman. The Hitchman article, in turn references earlier articles as described following.
For example, the contentious Cherry Point issue that has recently demanded our attention, isn't really that new. It's roots go back before many current citizens even lived here. The December 1998 issue of Whatcom Watch contained two or three articles that captured the flavor of that time around the issue of how to utilize Cherry Point while preserving its surrounding environs.
Another salient archive is the first article here, also authored by Dave Schmalz in the August/September 1999 issue. It has to do with chronicling a settlement between multiple parties and SSA, which require 18 months to reach. The object was to focus on the one additional marine loading pier that might be permitted at Cherry Point, with special emphasis on safeguarding the shoreline and connected ecologies.
The parties did come agreement on several points, but that is now moot because SSA has decided to unilaterally terminate its part of this good faith effort. Why did they do this? Because they felt -knew- it would interfere with their current plans to build a much larger loading wharf to handle coal -48 million tons of it every year.
Is that OK with you?
Do you even have a voice in the matter?
Those are the questions that SSA would rather not be asked.
Maybe their latest unauthorized clearing and grading of access roads through known wetlands illustrate their preferred method of just doing things because they want to, then accepting a minimal slap on the wrist for it?
This Get Whatcom Planning blog wonders what mitigation might be required to retroactively repair the damage done.
Reading the Whatcom Watch article written by Dave Schmalz in the August/September 1999 issue summarizes what was agreed to back then, and who the parties to the agreement were.
Strange how all the parties, with the sole exception of SSA, want the essence of that agreement to remain in effect.
Maybe it also needs strengthening, too, especially in light of the current, much different SSA proposal.
Also, more stringent regulations have subsequently been adopted to more certainly protect our shorelines and critical areas.
Or, maybe you are one of those who think SSA's original scheme is somehow magically vested, and therefore exempt from further review?
That notion is a pipe dream that could easily turn into a nightmare, and probably ought to.
This article and embedded link was posted today by John Stark on the Herald's Politics blog.
----------------------------
History, to be above evasion or dispute, must stand on documents, not on opinions. - Lord Acton
----------------------------
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Coal Terminal: Playing Defense
Don't count your bowling balls before they're hatched, Fred - Barney Rubble
----------------------
Boy, these last few days have seen quite a spate of published articles related to the Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal.
The former trickle is turning into a torrent, as citizens' interest has definitely been aroused!
Its good that the public has finally gotten pretty engaged in this discussion, which is now also bringing into question what our State and National policies should reflect in matters involving energy and environment, and not just 'jobs'.
Jobs certainly matter a great deal, but every job is not necessarily very desirable or sustainable for everyone, is it?
Think about migrant workers, menial laborers and service workers of all sorts, and all manner of below minimum wage employment. These do fill some needs and help people survive, and of course they also save us from paying the real costs on many goods and services, but they are not anywhere close to 'livable wage' jobs - which are in great demand and scarce.
So, we have to be careful about what is meant by 'jobs'.
Not all are created equal.
But, back to the real GPT issue; several more articles have appeared today, some covering similar aspects of this issue that have been previously reported. The main difference with these more recent reports is that they further expand our understanding as an integral part of a much larger picture, plus a little corporate graffiti thrown in, meant to distract us from honest discourse.
For example, today's Herald story fits our local issue into the arena of National policy and its global implications. Do we get to claim concern over increased use of non-renewable resources, while allowing -and actually facilitating their export elsewhere?
That's called double-speak at best and other epithets at worst.
Rather than dumbing down the conversation to for & against jobs, the emphasis ought to be on what kind of jobs, how many, and how much value-added content can be incorporated into our exports.
The Herald's Political Blog carried this tardy AFTER THE FACT admission from SSA Marine that it 'had made a mistake'. That's not very comforting is it? If it doesn't enhance my confidence in SSA Marine's ability to get small, preliminary work done, what does it say about their ability -or commitment - to responsibly manage the impacts of a huge export terminal?
At some point, 'mea culpas' aren't nearly enough! That point is now past.
Today's Cascadia Weekly Gristle echoes the Herald Blog, averring SSA Marine has some 'splainin' to do.
But, The Weekly's Lead article is even more troubling since it indicates a persistent attitude of non-cooperation seems to pervade SSA, leading to the undoing of a negotiated agreement with several public interest groups, including Whatcom County, the Washington State Dept of Natural Resources and about a dozen other groups.
You know, if SSA Marine has thumbed its nose at an agreement designed to protect our own natural resources, why should we believe they will act as good corporate citizens once trainloads of coal descend on our community to load mega ships from somewhere else?
Seems to me that trust and good will must be earned and not just arbitrarily dismissed! Maybe SSA just thinks they have the power to impose their will on us, the public? That strategy doesn't work very well around here!
SSA is acting like a bunch of neanderthals who not only want to throw rocks at people, but sell them to other neanderthals as well. And all this time, I had hoped humans had evolved beyond that mentality!
Guess I watched too many cartoon figures like Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble, while I should have been reading more Sun Tzu: 'Invincibility lies in the defence; the possibility of victory in the attack'. and maybe Von Clausewitz.
--------------------------------
This afternoon again produced several more articles, including these:
• The Bellingham Herald reports on a curious telephone 'survey', that I also received on Monday.
• Another Herald report tells us that Whatcom County has fined SSA $2400 for the costs of investigating previous wetlands clearing misdeeds on their Cherry Point property.
• Yet a third Herald article reports that Skagit County has also decided to get involved with the GPT issue.
• From Bob Simmons at Crosscut is this corroboration of SSA's admission? of 'mistakes'.
So, from a late-blooming summer, the temperature has now risen considerably, both literally and figuratively.
'Bout time!
I'll hold off on more updates at least until morning.
Have a good read or two.
--------------------------------
Offense sells tickets, Defense wins championships
--------------------------------
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Coal Terminal: Another Update
--------------------------------
'When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber' - Winston Churchill
--------------------------------
As the ongoing debate continues, more views are being expressed, most of them by folks with names they are willing to reveal.
But, there are still some cowards out there who prefer using 'anonymous' or some other pseudonym as their nom de plume, cloak or shield.
While I can't blame folks for not wanting to paint targets on their backs, I can fault those media which continue to encourage those who seek to disrupt honest exchanges of facts and views.
Why some media promote poor behavior by allowing excessive anonymity and blatantly bad comments, I'll leave for them to explain - if they even care.
I felt strongly enough about this to have posted this blog about it. Embedded in that blog was this more humorous approach for promoting good netizenship.
But, enough on this sub-topic for now.
--------------------------------
Several more postings have occurred regarding the Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal:
• Bob Simmons offers this article in Crosscut. This reaches quite an audience in the Seattle area and beyond.
• Jean Melious has posted this piece in the blog Get Whatcom Planning. The area of discussion is the SSA Property
between Kickervile, Lonseth, Gulf, Henry Roads.
• John Stark published this writing in the Bellingham Herald. This attracted many 'public' responses, quite a few ugly and off-topic, as has become standard of the Herald. [They really do need to review their policy about 'public' responses, don't you think?]
It is apparent that this issue has attracted considerable attention, both locally and elsewhere, and that is good.
That's all for now folks, but stay tuned.....
OOOPS, Another article by Stark in the Herald.
Two more late additions from the August 2011 edition of Whatcom Watch:
• From Preston Schiller this article
• From Marie Hitchman this piece
And a new posting from Jean Melious on Get Whatcom Planning that shows clearly the areas on SSA property in question
--------------------------------
“My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial and beautifully coordinated, there is not much going on” - John F Kennedy
--------------------------------
'When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber' - Winston Churchill
--------------------------------
As the ongoing debate continues, more views are being expressed, most of them by folks with names they are willing to reveal.
But, there are still some cowards out there who prefer using 'anonymous' or some other pseudonym as their nom de plume, cloak or shield.
While I can't blame folks for not wanting to paint targets on their backs, I can fault those media which continue to encourage those who seek to disrupt honest exchanges of facts and views.
Why some media promote poor behavior by allowing excessive anonymity and blatantly bad comments, I'll leave for them to explain - if they even care.
I felt strongly enough about this to have posted this blog about it. Embedded in that blog was this more humorous approach for promoting good netizenship.
But, enough on this sub-topic for now.
--------------------------------
Several more postings have occurred regarding the Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal:
• Bob Simmons offers this article in Crosscut. This reaches quite an audience in the Seattle area and beyond.
• Jean Melious has posted this piece in the blog Get Whatcom Planning. The area of discussion is the SSA Property
between Kickervile, Lonseth, Gulf, Henry Roads.
• John Stark published this writing in the Bellingham Herald. This attracted many 'public' responses, quite a few ugly and off-topic, as has become standard of the Herald. [They really do need to review their policy about 'public' responses, don't you think?]
It is apparent that this issue has attracted considerable attention, both locally and elsewhere, and that is good.
That's all for now folks, but stay tuned.....
OOOPS, Another article by Stark in the Herald.
Two more late additions from the August 2011 edition of Whatcom Watch:
• From Preston Schiller this article
• From Marie Hitchman this piece
And a new posting from Jean Melious on Get Whatcom Planning that shows clearly the areas on SSA property in question
--------------------------------
“My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial and beautifully coordinated, there is not much going on” - John F Kennedy
--------------------------------
Monday, August 1, 2011
Coal Terminal: Update on Developments
Joel Connelly has weighed in on the Coal Terminal issue in the Seattle P-I.
John Stark just posted 2 articles on this subject in the Bellingham Herald.
The first relates to SSA's response to its unauthorized clearing on its property at Cherry Point.
The second announces the breakdown of discussions between SSA and a coalition of public interest groups over modifying an agreement initially completed 12 years ago regarding an earlier terminal proposed for Cherry Point.
Both these developments are troubling, since they seem to reflect a consistent arrogance and disdainful attitude on the part of SSA.
Now, a third posting by Stark reveals Whatcom County communications to SSA's contractor regarding clearing at Cherry Point.
And now, Carl Weimer's request for info from County Planning.
Also, I just got a phone survey call from a number in area code 253.
Two questions; Was I aware of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, and was I in favor of it or against.
That's it, short and sweet.
Think this thing is heating up?
John Stark just posted 2 articles on this subject in the Bellingham Herald.
The first relates to SSA's response to its unauthorized clearing on its property at Cherry Point.
The second announces the breakdown of discussions between SSA and a coalition of public interest groups over modifying an agreement initially completed 12 years ago regarding an earlier terminal proposed for Cherry Point.
Both these developments are troubling, since they seem to reflect a consistent arrogance and disdainful attitude on the part of SSA.
Now, a third posting by Stark reveals Whatcom County communications to SSA's contractor regarding clearing at Cherry Point.
And now, Carl Weimer's request for info from County Planning.
Also, I just got a phone survey call from a number in area code 253.
Two questions; Was I aware of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, and was I in favor of it or against.
That's it, short and sweet.
Think this thing is heating up?
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Coal Terminal: Bulk Carriers & Kayaks
------------------------------------------
"You got to be careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there." - Yogi Berra
------------------------------------------
How'd you like to be out kayaking and look up to see something like this bearing down on you?
Something like that could happen you know, if the proposed Coal Terminal at Cherry Point ever gets built.
In fact, it may have already happened with oil tankers bringing Alaskan crude to a local refinery.
But, much bigger problems could occur should a spill, collision or grounding ever happen with any very large ship plying our local waters.
Beware!
There are plans afoot to bring many more such behemoth ships into our rather pristine Salish Sea.
Between the Coal Terminal proposal and Canadian schemes to export oil sands crude from Alberta, the future is in very serious doubt.
On that cheery note, let's look further at what is happening elsewhere, in a global frenzy of natural resource extraction and trade.
------------------------------------------
Shipping coal to Newcastle was a joke the Brits liked to tell. Of course, Newcastle was where the coal was mined and exported from. There's a new Newcastle, down under in Australia, and it puts the old Newcastle to shame. Here's a short fairly recent report from Bloomberg.
And, here's another more detailed account of what's happening down under.
But, you don't have go all the way to Australia for this type of information. Here's an article describing recent activity around coal exports from the Hampton Roads area in Virginia, which was also mentioned in an earlier blog.
And, here's a good picture of the smaller coal terminal in Seward, Alaska.
Here's a larger coal loading facility in India.
------------------------------------------
How'd you like to see dozens of large ships queued up waiting to be loaded at Cherry Point?
Where would they anchor? Anacortes? Port Angeles?
Exactly where would you prefer to see them wait?
[Supposing, of course, that you had any influence in this matter.]
Who would you appeal to? The Army Corps of Engineers? The US Coast Guard? The State of Washington? The Province of British Columbia? Greenpeace? Who?
Just asking, mind you, but maybe this is a topic for discussion.....
------------------------------------------
Also, just for discussion, here's another website to help comprehend this industry.
And, the types of ships likely to be employed in any coal exporting scheme are described in detail by Wikipedia.
Don't know about you, but to me the ships necessary for this undertaking are the most worrisome part of the entire proposal.
Their presence in our part of the Salish Sea violates every preservation principle we can think of because it puts all our marine ecosystems under direct threat!
Think about it. These huge, foreign-registered vessels -each manned by only 20 to 30 people and drawing 50 feet or more- will be hanging around the Straits of San Juan De Fuca, dodging orcas, ferries, tour boats and all manner of private small craft in the few deep water channels winding through the San Juan Islands, and in the limited approaches to Cherry Point and points north.
Do you think they will not dump bilge waste and ballast while there?
Will escort tugs be required to help them stay safely in these channels?
Will licensed Pilots be necessary to guide them in and out?
What spill protection will be implemented? How many spills and mishaps will it take to befoul our waters and render them undesirable?
Will their presence help our valuable marine life survive and thrive?
Pardon me, but I do have a few doubts, which do not disappear despite hearing about all the potential benefits!
But, maybe that's also not my responsibility, or the County's, or the State's? How about the US Government?
And so, maybe some folks don't think I have the right to publicly question or challenge such things; that we must leave it to 'others', without even trying to influence them with our legitimate concerns?
Still, I do wonder if all these things will be adequately included in the EIS required? Don't you?
While we're thinking about having big ships coming here, how about building a deep water cruise terminal instead, notwithstanding the well-documented problems associated with this idea? One of these ships [about 225,000 DWT] is five times bigger than the Titanic.
At least that way, we could gain some tangible tourist dollars, without the need to endure endless coal trains.
But, seriously, is that such a good idea?
------------------------------------------
Back to trains for a moment;
It almost makes the many additional daily trains required to fill the maws of these gigantic vessels, a small, incidental consideration by comparison.
So, how trains many trains per day?
Let's see, 48 million metric tons per year, divided by 365 days equals what? About 131,500 metric tons [1 MT= 2205 lbs] per day?
One train load equals about 12,000 tons per day; means about an average of 11 train loads would be required per day.
Capesize Bulk Carriers are vessels of 80,000 Dead Weight Tons [DWT] and over, that are so named because they are too large to pass through either the Panama or Suez Canals.
So, assuming timely supply and loading can be achieved, and doing quick math, the equivalent of a ship with about 150,000 DWT would need to be loaded every day.
I don't know if this is actually feasible, affordable, or sustainable, but the numbers do indicate a pretty darn quick turnaround -in all weather conditions- and a likely sizable -20 or more? -queue of ship traffic, waiting to be loaded, plus constantly entering or leaving our inland waters.
Put all together, this type of operation simply can't help but have dramatic impacts on our area, land and sea!
Tell me again, what are the benefits of such a plan? Who gets them and how much?
And, while we're at it, what are the costs? And to whom? Who will pay?
You know, for a real COST/BENEFIT Analysis, both aspects need to be considered and compared!
I'd rather this information be developed & debated BEFORE this scheme gets implemented, not AFTER, wouldn't you?
Methinks, some folks may have to give up kayaking in the San Juan Islands if this scheme comes to pass, but that's just a guess....
------------------------------------------
US Navy Aircraft Carriers like this one weigh in at only about 100,000 DWT. Two are based in Everett and usually only one at a time ties up at a secure wharf, with services provided from shore.
Imagine 20 of these dudes just hanging around, offshore.
------------------------------------------
“So they [the Government] go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful for impotence.” - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965]
Maybe we ought to give the Guv'mint a hand in figuring this out to our mutual benefit?
------------------------------------------
"You got to be careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there." - Yogi Berra
------------------------------------------
How'd you like to be out kayaking and look up to see something like this bearing down on you?
Something like that could happen you know, if the proposed Coal Terminal at Cherry Point ever gets built.
In fact, it may have already happened with oil tankers bringing Alaskan crude to a local refinery.
But, much bigger problems could occur should a spill, collision or grounding ever happen with any very large ship plying our local waters.
Beware!
There are plans afoot to bring many more such behemoth ships into our rather pristine Salish Sea.
Between the Coal Terminal proposal and Canadian schemes to export oil sands crude from Alberta, the future is in very serious doubt.
On that cheery note, let's look further at what is happening elsewhere, in a global frenzy of natural resource extraction and trade.
------------------------------------------
Shipping coal to Newcastle was a joke the Brits liked to tell. Of course, Newcastle was where the coal was mined and exported from. There's a new Newcastle, down under in Australia, and it puts the old Newcastle to shame. Here's a short fairly recent report from Bloomberg.
And, here's another more detailed account of what's happening down under.
But, you don't have go all the way to Australia for this type of information. Here's an article describing recent activity around coal exports from the Hampton Roads area in Virginia, which was also mentioned in an earlier blog.
And, here's a good picture of the smaller coal terminal in Seward, Alaska.
Here's a larger coal loading facility in India.
------------------------------------------How'd you like to see dozens of large ships queued up waiting to be loaded at Cherry Point?
Where would they anchor? Anacortes? Port Angeles?
Exactly where would you prefer to see them wait?
[Supposing, of course, that you had any influence in this matter.]
Who would you appeal to? The Army Corps of Engineers? The US Coast Guard? The State of Washington? The Province of British Columbia? Greenpeace? Who?
Just asking, mind you, but maybe this is a topic for discussion.....
------------------------------------------
Also, just for discussion, here's another website to help comprehend this industry.
And, the types of ships likely to be employed in any coal exporting scheme are described in detail by Wikipedia.
Don't know about you, but to me the ships necessary for this undertaking are the most worrisome part of the entire proposal.
Their presence in our part of the Salish Sea violates every preservation principle we can think of because it puts all our marine ecosystems under direct threat!
Think about it. These huge, foreign-registered vessels -each manned by only 20 to 30 people and drawing 50 feet or more- will be hanging around the Straits of San Juan De Fuca, dodging orcas, ferries, tour boats and all manner of private small craft in the few deep water channels winding through the San Juan Islands, and in the limited approaches to Cherry Point and points north.
Do you think they will not dump bilge waste and ballast while there?
Will escort tugs be required to help them stay safely in these channels?
Will licensed Pilots be necessary to guide them in and out?
What spill protection will be implemented? How many spills and mishaps will it take to befoul our waters and render them undesirable?
Will their presence help our valuable marine life survive and thrive?
Pardon me, but I do have a few doubts, which do not disappear despite hearing about all the potential benefits!
But, maybe that's also not my responsibility, or the County's, or the State's? How about the US Government?
And so, maybe some folks don't think I have the right to publicly question or challenge such things; that we must leave it to 'others', without even trying to influence them with our legitimate concerns?
Still, I do wonder if all these things will be adequately included in the EIS required? Don't you?
While we're thinking about having big ships coming here, how about building a deep water cruise terminal instead, notwithstanding the well-documented problems associated with this idea? One of these ships [about 225,000 DWT] is five times bigger than the Titanic.
At least that way, we could gain some tangible tourist dollars, without the need to endure endless coal trains.
But, seriously, is that such a good idea?
------------------------------------------
Back to trains for a moment;
It almost makes the many additional daily trains required to fill the maws of these gigantic vessels, a small, incidental consideration by comparison.
So, how trains many trains per day?
Let's see, 48 million metric tons per year, divided by 365 days equals what? About 131,500 metric tons [1 MT= 2205 lbs] per day?
One train load equals about 12,000 tons per day; means about an average of 11 train loads would be required per day.
Capesize Bulk Carriers are vessels of 80,000 Dead Weight Tons [DWT] and over, that are so named because they are too large to pass through either the Panama or Suez Canals.
So, assuming timely supply and loading can be achieved, and doing quick math, the equivalent of a ship with about 150,000 DWT would need to be loaded every day.
I don't know if this is actually feasible, affordable, or sustainable, but the numbers do indicate a pretty darn quick turnaround -in all weather conditions- and a likely sizable -20 or more? -queue of ship traffic, waiting to be loaded, plus constantly entering or leaving our inland waters.
Put all together, this type of operation simply can't help but have dramatic impacts on our area, land and sea!
Tell me again, what are the benefits of such a plan? Who gets them and how much?
And, while we're at it, what are the costs? And to whom? Who will pay?
You know, for a real COST/BENEFIT Analysis, both aspects need to be considered and compared!
I'd rather this information be developed & debated BEFORE this scheme gets implemented, not AFTER, wouldn't you?
Methinks, some folks may have to give up kayaking in the San Juan Islands if this scheme comes to pass, but that's just a guess....
------------------------------------------
US Navy Aircraft Carriers like this one weigh in at only about 100,000 DWT. Two are based in Everett and usually only one at a time ties up at a secure wharf, with services provided from shore.
Imagine 20 of these dudes just hanging around, offshore.
------------------------------------------
“So they [the Government] go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful for impotence.” - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965]
Maybe we ought to give the Guv'mint a hand in figuring this out to our mutual benefit?
------------------------------------------
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Coal Terminal: Trains & Infrastructure
---------------------------------
This quotation from the Internet is revealing; "....while railroads have always been conservative and “archaic” in their views they have also have had their reasons, to some degree, being that railroading in its very nature has nearly the highest cost of capital of any industry and relies on economies of scale to be profitable...."
What this doesn't say is that Railroads rely upon governments and 'others' -read you and me- to pay for infrastructure [like bridges & underpasses] that is not strictly needed for their own profit-making.
That would include little things like grade-separated crossings, multiple tracks for sharing, noise abatement, and active civic involvement when proposing projects that carry social & environmental impacts.
It also doesn't say that railroads are habitually opportunistic and secretive, both traits that help them gain competitive advantages.
Part of the "archaic" label has to do with the sense of entitlement granted railroads 200 years ago, when our nation was keen to enable westward migration and needed a way to haul to haul freight and people -in that order- to previously remote areas.
From inception, railroads abused their privileges, often engaging in land promotion swindles and all manner of chicanery to further their own interests. Ironically, James J Hill, the main personality behind what has become Burlington Northern, was perhaps the most responsible Railroad Baron, often doing things for communities that have become unheard of today.
But then was then, and now is now. Now, it is a struggle to even maintain passenger service, like AMTRAK, much less expand its use. In competition with freight hauling, passenger service loses with regularity, which is a shame when the system -or lack of it- we have now is a very poor substitute for what Europe has come to enjoy and rely upon.
What has to happen before the unquestioned benefits of rail passenger service are dramatically improved?
The answer appears to be: dramatic changes in the way we regard railroads, how improvements are funded, and how railroads are regulated. All three are somewhat daunting, even in the face of growing transportation, energy and land use woes.
---------------------
One small example illustrates the above point. This comes directly from BNSF's website, and pertains to Train Horn noise:
Why do trains sound horns?
Train horns are required by federal law to be sounded at all public crossings, 24 hours a day, to warn motorists and pedestrians that a train is approaching.
Train crews may also sound their horns when there is a vehicle, person or animal on or near the track and the crew determines it is appropriate to provide warning. Crews may also sound the horn when there are track or construction workers within 25 feet of a live track, or when gates and lights at the crossing are not functioning properly.
Are there any ways to reduce horn use?
One solution is for a community to look at what is required to qualify for a quiet zone under rules established by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). A quiet zone is a stretch of track where the FRA has agreed that trains are not required to routinely sound the horn at each public crossing except in emergencies, such as someone on the track or workers within 25 feet of the track or at the discretion of the crew, as appropriate.
Another alternative is to close crossings, especially if they are redundant, which automatically reduces the points where trains must blow their horns. BNSF has a special program dedicated to working with communities to close the number of public and private crossings on our network. Good candidates for closure include those that are redundant (other crossings nearby allow access to the same roads or areas), are not designated emergency routes, have low traffic volumes or are private crossings that are no longer needed or used.
Another option is to put in more grade separations (overpasses or underpasses). When communities build roads across rail lines, they have the option of building an overpass or underpass over or under the track. In some cases, when a community works with BNSF on a series of crossing closures on a corridor, a grade separation may be an option for one or more of the remaining crossings.
How can my community establish a quiet zone?
Communities can invest in additional grade-crossing safety devices to qualify for a quiet zone. However, only the FRA can grant a quiet zone. You can learn more about the FRA's quiet zone criteria on its website.
Community leaders who have questions about BNSF's role in the quiet zone process can e-mail Lyn Hartley, BNSF's director, Public Projects.
Does this seem fair or helpful? Sounds to me like the railroads are still claiming their turf, and requiring the burden of cost for safety, nuisance and access to be borne by 'others' -you & me. Wow, 200 years of history brings us to the point where the railroads are still claiming unusual privilege and externalizing all the problems created by the very growth they were chartered to help achieve.
Nice work, if you can get it!
--------------------------
Keeping things in perspective, railroads do play a critical role in our freight transportation, something necessary for our economy.
And, they do need some kind of immunity from the sometimes arbitrary, and always expensive, acts of municipalities through which rights of way pass.
But, it doesn't seem like these immunities are always justified, particularly when major, potentially harmful impacts are proposed - like the one currently under consideration at Cherry Point that requires a dramatic increase in train traffic through established areas and sensitive ecologies.
Maybe the required new Environmental Impact Study [EIS] will consider these things in a much wider scope than the coal terminal advocates want, but don't count on it.
The result is still very much in doubt, despite reasoned opposition.
Do not expect that railroads will give up their favored position easily, or spend dollars they don't absolutely have to spend.
[BTW, "PRB" means Powder River Basin]
-------------------
The following details describe our likely situation should the coal terminal be approved and rail traffic increased to supply it:
Factors affecting rail car design specifications include railway beds, curves, track, railway gauge, bridges and tunnels, and condition of the system as a whole.
Railway Requirements
• The quality, composition and condition of railway beds affect the weight and speed of a railway car.
• Railway curves affect turning radius requirements.
• Railway track type determines wheel requirements.
• Railway gauge determines the width between wheels.
• Bridges and tunnels determine maximum height.
• The condition of the railway system determines gross weights and load limits for rail car configurations.
----------------------------------
Note from the system map below, the three routes that BNSF has between Spokane and Coastal Washington. Of these, the most southern route along the north bank of the Columbia River to Vancouver, WA seems the preferred one. At least that would have allowed a coal terminal near Longview, which was earlier proposed -and rejected by local authorities for its devious and deceitful approach of grossly understating its size & purpose.
If BNSF were to use their route along the Columbia' perhaps two factors influence the choice of location for a coal terminal; proximity to a deep water port and competition with established grain & mineral trade from river barges.
And, while Longview area does provide deep water port sites, crossing the Columbia River bar to enter the Pacific Ocean might be problematic for the very large vessels [Cape class] expected to haul coal to Asian markets.
Now, using these same very large vessels is expected if the proposed Cherry Point Coal Terminal comes to fruition!
No Columbia Bar to cross here, just narrow channels weaving through ecologically sensitive waters & surroundings that are meccas for tourism and fishing.
Stay tuned for a future blog touching on this very problematic aspect.
-----------------------------------
Supplying a proposed 48 MMT/Y coal terminal at Cherry Point requires 18 additional trainloads per day [two full & 2 empty] to traverse essentially a single track south of Bellingham, which is already subject to periodic congestion, landslides and controversy. So, borrowing from a vendor's web page, let's look at aspects of what this would entail:
Hopper Cars, The "Coal Car"
Modern open-top hopper cars are a bit more sophisticated than what they might look. While these railroad freight cars today almost always haul coal or varying forms of aggregates, such as ballasting (a term which refers to the crushed rock used under the railroad tracks that acts as support and cushioning), coal, or iron ore they have a number of different drop-bottoms to empty their cargo.
“What are the differences between gondolas and hoppers?” The drop-bottoms are basically what separate the two car types. Whereas gondolas can look just like hoppers, right down to their size, length, commodity, and even a basic form of drop-bottoms as well (which discharges material straight down), the difference that separates them, is that hoppers contain some type of angled or sloped drop-bottom chutes or hatches, which use the force of gravity to quickly unload their cargo without having to tilt or turn the car upside down in any way.
The hopper car can trace its roots all the back to the very beginning of the railroad industry itself, being used as early as the late 1820s by the Delaware & Hudson Canal Company to move coal, which hasn’t changed too much over the last three centuries! Back then, however, the cars were not known as hoppers but jimmies, although they did carry all of the basic features that differentiate the car from its companions of today.
Over the years, as with all railroad freight cars, the hopper became larger and stronger (moving from wood and wood-steel construction to all-steel construction) able to haul heavier and heavier loads (which allowed for better efficiencies and thus, better ROI). For instance, during the United States Railroad Association’s reign during World War I, as with the 40-foot boxcar the hopper became standardized with the 55-ton version.
As the hopper became larger so did the number of drop-bottom chutes it carried; from two, to three, and now today most carry four chutes (more chutes allow for faster unloading times). Similarly, what has allowed the increased number of chutes on a hopper is mostly the result of its increase in size from 50 tons to today’s 100-ton capacity, which is the size most commonly used by the railroads today.
Today’s hopper car has come a long way, even from the USRA 55-ton standardized car of the early 20th century.
Not only are the current cars carrying 100-tons but also many now have rotary couplings to literally spin the car 360 degrees while still attached to the train to empty its cargo.
In future, the hopper car will undoubtedly become larger and more sophisticated. However, regardless of the changes it will go through, the car will be just as recognizable 50 years from now as it was 50 years ago, a platform capable of discharging a product quickly through bottom, angled chutes.
===========================================
Hopper Car
Use
• Hopper cars are designed to transport free flowing dry bulk commodities.
• Common commodities transported include grains, industrial minerals, plastic pellets, crushed rock, gravel and sand.
Features and Options
• Hopper cars are available in both covered and uncovered configurations.
• Hopper cars have the advantage of bulk loading from the top and bulk unloading through hoppers on the bottom.
• Special interior linings are available to protect specialty commodities.
Notes
• Different railcar manufacturers worldwide produce a variety of models designed for different container and stacking configurations.
• Weight and capacity data are a function of railcar manufacturer, railcar model, and rail system requirements.
• The following Dimensions, Weight/Capacity, and Curve Negotiability Radius data are valid for the Greenbrier Covered Hopper for Grain Service.

Dimensions:
Length over couplers - 58' 0"
Length between truck centers - 52' 101/8"
Length, inside - 45' 51/2"
Height, extreme - 15' 6"
Height, rail to center line coupler - 341/2"
Width, extreme - 10' 8"
Weight/Capacity Light weight - 61,500 lbs [30.75 tons]
Gross rail load - 286,000 lbs
Load limit - 224,500 lbs [112.25 tons]
Capacity - 5,250 cu ft
Curve Negotiability Radius
-Uncoupled - 150'
-Coupled to like car - 199'
-Coupled to base car - 197'
Illustration and specifications courtesy The Greenbrier Companies, Inc.
--------------------------
So, putting this information together can produce an estimate of what we may expect, should the proposed coal terminal become a reality.
A typical, dedicated coal train might consist of 120 or more coal hopper cars and multiple -say three- diesel-electric locomotives, plus sufficient fuel to last for 1000 to 1500 miles, sand for increasing traction as needed, water and crew.
Each hopper car is 58-feet long and carries a 100-ton load of coal.
So, 58 times 120 equals 6960 feet, or about 1.32 miles total length.
Each locomotive is about 60 feet long and weighs about 150 to 200 tons, with Horsepower ranging between 2000 and 6000.
So, 3 times 60 equals 180 feet, or 0.034 miles, for a total train length of about 1.35 miles.
At a speed of 10 MPH, it takes about 8 minutes for a 1.35 mile-long train to pass any set point.
At 20 MPH, about 4 minutes
At 30 MPH, about 3 minutes
At 40 MPH, about 2 minutes
Most trains passing through Bellingham don't exceed about 30 MPH, and sometimes less.
BNSF tracks closely follow Bellingham's shoreline, which extends about 10 miles from City Limits, North & South.
So, the leading locomotive engine [with Horn] might require about 20 minutes to traverse the entire City, leaving about 8 minutes for the rest of the train to pass, with its track noise.
Of course, the Horn gets blown before reaching the City and can be heard after it leaves the City.
But, if we say each additional train will be heard by City residents for 20 minutes, then nine additional trains will be heard for 180 additional minutes [3 hours] per day.
Remember, this is in addition to the number of trains -about 9- that are already traversing the City. Adding existing and additional trains may total over 4 hours per day of Horn noise, allowing that some existing trains -think AMTRAK- are much shorter than 1.35 miles.
The point is, what may be tolerable at current levels may become much less tolerable at elevated levels, particularly at night.
If I can hear the train Horns from 2+ miles away, I'm pretty sure those living closer to the BNSF tracks will hear them too, and at higher decibels.
And NOISE is only one part of the potential impacts of additional trains carrying heavy loads.
Maybe lots of train traffic was believed to be desirable 100 years ago, but is it today?
============================================
For those still wishing to sing train songs, here's a great list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_train_songs
------------------------------------------
This quotation from the Internet is revealing; "....while railroads have always been conservative and “archaic” in their views they have also have had their reasons, to some degree, being that railroading in its very nature has nearly the highest cost of capital of any industry and relies on economies of scale to be profitable...."
What this doesn't say is that Railroads rely upon governments and 'others' -read you and me- to pay for infrastructure [like bridges & underpasses] that is not strictly needed for their own profit-making.
That would include little things like grade-separated crossings, multiple tracks for sharing, noise abatement, and active civic involvement when proposing projects that carry social & environmental impacts.
It also doesn't say that railroads are habitually opportunistic and secretive, both traits that help them gain competitive advantages.
Part of the "archaic" label has to do with the sense of entitlement granted railroads 200 years ago, when our nation was keen to enable westward migration and needed a way to haul to haul freight and people -in that order- to previously remote areas.
From inception, railroads abused their privileges, often engaging in land promotion swindles and all manner of chicanery to further their own interests. Ironically, James J Hill, the main personality behind what has become Burlington Northern, was perhaps the most responsible Railroad Baron, often doing things for communities that have become unheard of today.
But then was then, and now is now. Now, it is a struggle to even maintain passenger service, like AMTRAK, much less expand its use. In competition with freight hauling, passenger service loses with regularity, which is a shame when the system -or lack of it- we have now is a very poor substitute for what Europe has come to enjoy and rely upon.
What has to happen before the unquestioned benefits of rail passenger service are dramatically improved?
The answer appears to be: dramatic changes in the way we regard railroads, how improvements are funded, and how railroads are regulated. All three are somewhat daunting, even in the face of growing transportation, energy and land use woes.
---------------------
One small example illustrates the above point. This comes directly from BNSF's website, and pertains to Train Horn noise:
Why do trains sound horns?
Train horns are required by federal law to be sounded at all public crossings, 24 hours a day, to warn motorists and pedestrians that a train is approaching.
Train crews may also sound their horns when there is a vehicle, person or animal on or near the track and the crew determines it is appropriate to provide warning. Crews may also sound the horn when there are track or construction workers within 25 feet of a live track, or when gates and lights at the crossing are not functioning properly.
Are there any ways to reduce horn use?
One solution is for a community to look at what is required to qualify for a quiet zone under rules established by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). A quiet zone is a stretch of track where the FRA has agreed that trains are not required to routinely sound the horn at each public crossing except in emergencies, such as someone on the track or workers within 25 feet of the track or at the discretion of the crew, as appropriate.
Another alternative is to close crossings, especially if they are redundant, which automatically reduces the points where trains must blow their horns. BNSF has a special program dedicated to working with communities to close the number of public and private crossings on our network. Good candidates for closure include those that are redundant (other crossings nearby allow access to the same roads or areas), are not designated emergency routes, have low traffic volumes or are private crossings that are no longer needed or used.
Another option is to put in more grade separations (overpasses or underpasses). When communities build roads across rail lines, they have the option of building an overpass or underpass over or under the track. In some cases, when a community works with BNSF on a series of crossing closures on a corridor, a grade separation may be an option for one or more of the remaining crossings.
How can my community establish a quiet zone?
Communities can invest in additional grade-crossing safety devices to qualify for a quiet zone. However, only the FRA can grant a quiet zone. You can learn more about the FRA's quiet zone criteria on its website.
Community leaders who have questions about BNSF's role in the quiet zone process can e-mail Lyn Hartley, BNSF's director, Public Projects.
Does this seem fair or helpful? Sounds to me like the railroads are still claiming their turf, and requiring the burden of cost for safety, nuisance and access to be borne by 'others' -you & me. Wow, 200 years of history brings us to the point where the railroads are still claiming unusual privilege and externalizing all the problems created by the very growth they were chartered to help achieve.
Nice work, if you can get it!
--------------------------
Keeping things in perspective, railroads do play a critical role in our freight transportation, something necessary for our economy.
And, they do need some kind of immunity from the sometimes arbitrary, and always expensive, acts of municipalities through which rights of way pass.
But, it doesn't seem like these immunities are always justified, particularly when major, potentially harmful impacts are proposed - like the one currently under consideration at Cherry Point that requires a dramatic increase in train traffic through established areas and sensitive ecologies.
Maybe the required new Environmental Impact Study [EIS] will consider these things in a much wider scope than the coal terminal advocates want, but don't count on it.
The result is still very much in doubt, despite reasoned opposition.
Do not expect that railroads will give up their favored position easily, or spend dollars they don't absolutely have to spend.
[BTW, "PRB" means Powder River Basin]
-------------------
The following details describe our likely situation should the coal terminal be approved and rail traffic increased to supply it:
Factors affecting rail car design specifications include railway beds, curves, track, railway gauge, bridges and tunnels, and condition of the system as a whole.
Railway Requirements
• The quality, composition and condition of railway beds affect the weight and speed of a railway car.
• Railway curves affect turning radius requirements.
• Railway track type determines wheel requirements.
• Railway gauge determines the width between wheels.
• Bridges and tunnels determine maximum height.
• The condition of the railway system determines gross weights and load limits for rail car configurations.
----------------------------------
Note from the system map below, the three routes that BNSF has between Spokane and Coastal Washington. Of these, the most southern route along the north bank of the Columbia River to Vancouver, WA seems the preferred one. At least that would have allowed a coal terminal near Longview, which was earlier proposed -and rejected by local authorities for its devious and deceitful approach of grossly understating its size & purpose.
If BNSF were to use their route along the Columbia' perhaps two factors influence the choice of location for a coal terminal; proximity to a deep water port and competition with established grain & mineral trade from river barges.
And, while Longview area does provide deep water port sites, crossing the Columbia River bar to enter the Pacific Ocean might be problematic for the very large vessels [Cape class] expected to haul coal to Asian markets.
Now, using these same very large vessels is expected if the proposed Cherry Point Coal Terminal comes to fruition!
No Columbia Bar to cross here, just narrow channels weaving through ecologically sensitive waters & surroundings that are meccas for tourism and fishing.
Stay tuned for a future blog touching on this very problematic aspect.
-----------------------------------
Supplying a proposed 48 MMT/Y coal terminal at Cherry Point requires 18 additional trainloads per day [two full & 2 empty] to traverse essentially a single track south of Bellingham, which is already subject to periodic congestion, landslides and controversy. So, borrowing from a vendor's web page, let's look at aspects of what this would entail:
Hopper Cars, The "Coal Car"
Modern open-top hopper cars are a bit more sophisticated than what they might look. While these railroad freight cars today almost always haul coal or varying forms of aggregates, such as ballasting (a term which refers to the crushed rock used under the railroad tracks that acts as support and cushioning), coal, or iron ore they have a number of different drop-bottoms to empty their cargo.
“What are the differences between gondolas and hoppers?” The drop-bottoms are basically what separate the two car types. Whereas gondolas can look just like hoppers, right down to their size, length, commodity, and even a basic form of drop-bottoms as well (which discharges material straight down), the difference that separates them, is that hoppers contain some type of angled or sloped drop-bottom chutes or hatches, which use the force of gravity to quickly unload their cargo without having to tilt or turn the car upside down in any way.
The hopper car can trace its roots all the back to the very beginning of the railroad industry itself, being used as early as the late 1820s by the Delaware & Hudson Canal Company to move coal, which hasn’t changed too much over the last three centuries! Back then, however, the cars were not known as hoppers but jimmies, although they did carry all of the basic features that differentiate the car from its companions of today.
Over the years, as with all railroad freight cars, the hopper became larger and stronger (moving from wood and wood-steel construction to all-steel construction) able to haul heavier and heavier loads (which allowed for better efficiencies and thus, better ROI). For instance, during the United States Railroad Association’s reign during World War I, as with the 40-foot boxcar the hopper became standardized with the 55-ton version.
As the hopper became larger so did the number of drop-bottom chutes it carried; from two, to three, and now today most carry four chutes (more chutes allow for faster unloading times). Similarly, what has allowed the increased number of chutes on a hopper is mostly the result of its increase in size from 50 tons to today’s 100-ton capacity, which is the size most commonly used by the railroads today.
Today’s hopper car has come a long way, even from the USRA 55-ton standardized car of the early 20th century.
Not only are the current cars carrying 100-tons but also many now have rotary couplings to literally spin the car 360 degrees while still attached to the train to empty its cargo.
In future, the hopper car will undoubtedly become larger and more sophisticated. However, regardless of the changes it will go through, the car will be just as recognizable 50 years from now as it was 50 years ago, a platform capable of discharging a product quickly through bottom, angled chutes.
===========================================
Hopper Car
Use
• Hopper cars are designed to transport free flowing dry bulk commodities.
• Common commodities transported include grains, industrial minerals, plastic pellets, crushed rock, gravel and sand.
Features and Options
• Hopper cars are available in both covered and uncovered configurations.
• Hopper cars have the advantage of bulk loading from the top and bulk unloading through hoppers on the bottom.
• Special interior linings are available to protect specialty commodities.
Notes
• Different railcar manufacturers worldwide produce a variety of models designed for different container and stacking configurations.
• Weight and capacity data are a function of railcar manufacturer, railcar model, and rail system requirements.
• The following Dimensions, Weight/Capacity, and Curve Negotiability Radius data are valid for the Greenbrier Covered Hopper for Grain Service.

Dimensions:
Length over couplers - 58' 0"
Length between truck centers - 52' 101/8"
Length, inside - 45' 51/2"
Height, extreme - 15' 6"
Height, rail to center line coupler - 341/2"
Width, extreme - 10' 8"
Weight/Capacity Light weight - 61,500 lbs [30.75 tons]
Gross rail load - 286,000 lbs
Load limit - 224,500 lbs [112.25 tons]
Capacity - 5,250 cu ft
Curve Negotiability Radius
-Uncoupled - 150'
-Coupled to like car - 199'
-Coupled to base car - 197'
Illustration and specifications courtesy The Greenbrier Companies, Inc.
--------------------------
So, putting this information together can produce an estimate of what we may expect, should the proposed coal terminal become a reality.
A typical, dedicated coal train might consist of 120 or more coal hopper cars and multiple -say three- diesel-electric locomotives, plus sufficient fuel to last for 1000 to 1500 miles, sand for increasing traction as needed, water and crew.
Each hopper car is 58-feet long and carries a 100-ton load of coal.
So, 58 times 120 equals 6960 feet, or about 1.32 miles total length.
Each locomotive is about 60 feet long and weighs about 150 to 200 tons, with Horsepower ranging between 2000 and 6000.
So, 3 times 60 equals 180 feet, or 0.034 miles, for a total train length of about 1.35 miles.
At a speed of 10 MPH, it takes about 8 minutes for a 1.35 mile-long train to pass any set point.
At 20 MPH, about 4 minutes
At 30 MPH, about 3 minutes
At 40 MPH, about 2 minutes
Most trains passing through Bellingham don't exceed about 30 MPH, and sometimes less.
BNSF tracks closely follow Bellingham's shoreline, which extends about 10 miles from City Limits, North & South.
So, the leading locomotive engine [with Horn] might require about 20 minutes to traverse the entire City, leaving about 8 minutes for the rest of the train to pass, with its track noise.
Of course, the Horn gets blown before reaching the City and can be heard after it leaves the City.
But, if we say each additional train will be heard by City residents for 20 minutes, then nine additional trains will be heard for 180 additional minutes [3 hours] per day.
Remember, this is in addition to the number of trains -about 9- that are already traversing the City. Adding existing and additional trains may total over 4 hours per day of Horn noise, allowing that some existing trains -think AMTRAK- are much shorter than 1.35 miles.
The point is, what may be tolerable at current levels may become much less tolerable at elevated levels, particularly at night.
If I can hear the train Horns from 2+ miles away, I'm pretty sure those living closer to the BNSF tracks will hear them too, and at higher decibels.
And NOISE is only one part of the potential impacts of additional trains carrying heavy loads.
Maybe lots of train traffic was believed to be desirable 100 years ago, but is it today?
============================================
For those still wishing to sing train songs, here's a great list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_train_songs
------------------------------------------
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Coal Terminal: A Pit & Pendulum Exercise?
I have been through some terrible things in my life, some of which actually happened. - Mark Twain (1835 - 1910) -----------------------
It's always interesting to see politicians react to proposals. Often they say things that they come to regret, aren't very accurate, are based upon whatever particular biases they may have, or seem popular at the time.
Some are cynical enough to know that citizens aren't paying that much attention, or can be readily influenced by an early dose of propaganda that sounds good.
Of course, the memories of voters is pretty poor at times, which means politicians can often get away with ridiculous statements without much worry about later voting contests.
A disturbing number of today's politicians are also insidiously biased, but avoid divulging their bias by dodging questions or using clever language that avoids answering questions that might clarify their real stand on issues.
That behavior is deceptive and dishonest, but likely as not, not illegal.
Too bad, for a country that was built upon truth and idealism that works for everyone, born or not yet born.
Why not require members of Congress to take the same oath that witnesses in civil & criminal trials must take?
But, I digress....
This opening paragraph could apply to any number of issues, both local and national, but this particular blog focuses upon the so-called coal train terminal proposal for Cherry Point, Whatcom County, Washington.
We are fortunate to have among our community, journalists with both skill & integrity, to help us sort through the myriad ideas, impacts, costs & benefits that will come to play in determining the eventual outcome of the major proposal that is now on the table and awaiting resolution.
---------------
In particular, the journalists I am referring to are seasoned, respected professionals and veterans of their trade;
• Floyd McKay, a WWU Journalism professor & a regular contributor to Crosscut, a regional blog publication focused on issues of regional significance.
• Bob Simmons, a seasoned journalist with a long career in both Seattle & Bellingham, also a regular contributor to Crosscut, a regional blog publication focused on issues of regional significance.
• John Stark, senior reporter of the Bellingham Herald.
All of these individuals are to be commended for their dedication to informing the general public on an issue that is very complicated and with potential seriously impacts to our community and region.
Of course, there are others to whom we owe a debt of gratitude for positively contributing to and informing this dialogue, as well, including RE Sources, CommunityWise, The Cascadia Weekly, the City of Bellingham and others.
---------------
To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day. - Sir Winston Churchill
---------------
Claims of bias seem rampant, particularly from among those whose ox seems to have been gored. But, hey, that's the way things are supposed to work in America!
Time will tell the outcome of this episode, but isn't it fun to be an actual part of the discussion?
Maybe 'fun' isn't the exact right word, but what's a better one?
Anyway, here's a few thoughts on how this particular issue is now being touted, debated and discussed:
----------------
As early as January 07, 2011, Floyd Mckay alerted us to this issue, with a log entitled 'How great corporate power shadows Gregoire on coal shipments to China' on Crosscut.
Check it out for its historical context and prescience.
One telling phrase was 'There will be debate as to whether a coal port is an opportunity or a long-range sacrifice to short-term jobs.'
Another is; 'It is difficult to see a scenario in which Amtrak could substantially increase its passenger trains north of Seattle at the same time that BNSF a dozen coal trains of a mile or more in length-all on a single track.'
And, a third; 'The nation's railroad infrastructure, one of the worst in the industrial world, has been neglected for decades and now plays a big role in how we create an industrial and energy policy in a time of shifting global economics, climate change and environmental degradation. Our neglect of basic investment in transportation may save us from hasty decisions with repercussions far down the road.'
On March 04, 2011, Bob Simmons posted this article on Crosscut, entitled 'Bellingham: Back to coal with planned shipping terminal?'
This piece is also notable for its perspective, typified by this statement; “This is like a tale of two Bellinghams ....one reaching for a sustainable, clean future, the other clawing its way to the past.”
Back on February 2, 2001, John Stark published this article in the Bellingham Herald.
It's interesting to see what has happened since then, and particularly how the Mayor's position has strengthened and shifted in response to hearing citizens' views.
Earlier reports may also have been made, but these certainly did not do much to raise public awareness, since key politicos and likely supporters were mainly targeted.
------------
The techniques used for promoting, reporting and questioning the coal terminal proposal are interesting to observe by themselves:
------------------
Politics is like football; if you see daylight, go through the hole. - John F. Kennedy
------------------
Promotion has been largely revealed on a Progressive Disclosure model, first popularized in the 1980's using a presentation technique designed to guide the audience through stages of information. Except, in this case, the audience itself was also controlled, thinking an initial groundswell of commitment might steamroll the idea into reality, bypassing some problematic 'hoops' the promoters would rather not jump through. This scheme seems to have failed, as it should have.
Reporting by the seasoned journalists has been nicely done following the inverted pyramid technique, used frequently in the media. This starts with the six basic questions; who?, what?, when?, where?, why?, how?
Questioning has always been the wild card, as is usually the case with the public. Each citizen is motivated by unique factors, ranging from single logical concerns, to multiple fears, rumor, hearsay, personal bias, influence from others, or just a desire to be heard and participate in the melee.-------------
“If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins.” -Benjamin Franklin
-------------
But, whatever the method employed, the important thing is that all the important information is drawn out into public scrutiny. Only then can a fair analyses be made and reasonable practical decisions made. The process does depend on facts, but not only facts but feelings, interpretations, judgements and politics. It is inherently messy! But, hey, isn't that what our democracy is about?
----------------
It is entirely possible that this coal issue will be resolved to most people's expectations and satisfaction, but don't count on it!
Things could get scary and turn out in a way different than we think. The Pit & the Pendulum comes to mind.
A brief description & synopsis for those interested, courtesy of Wikipedia:
"The Pit and the Pendulum" is a short story written by Edgar Allan Poe and first published in 1842 in The Gift: A Christmas and New Year's Present for 1843. The story is about the torments endured by a prisoner of the Spanish Inquisition, though Poe skews historical facts. The narrator of the story describes his experience of being tortured. The story is especially effective at inspiring fear in the reader because of its heavy focus on the senses, such as sound, emphasizing its reality, unlike many of Poe's stories which are aided by the supernatural. The traditional elements established in popular horror tales at the time are followed, but critical reception has been mixed. The tale has been adapted to film several times.
Plot
The story takes place during the Spanish Inquisition. At the beginning of the story an unnamed narrator is brought to trial before various sinister judges. Poe provides no explanation of why he is there or for what he has been arrested. Before him are seven tall white candles on a table, and, as they melt, his hopes of survival also diminish. He is condemned to death and finds himself in a pitch black compartment. At first the prisoner thinks that he is locked in a tomb, but he discovers that he is in a cell. He decides to explore the cell by placing a hem from his robe against a wall so he can count the paces around the room; however, he faints before being able to measure the whole perimeter.
When the prisoner awakens he discovers food and water nearby. He gets back up and tries to measure the prison again, finding that the perimeter measures one hundred steps. While crossing the room he slips on the hem of his robe. He discovers that if he had not tripped he would have walked into a deep pit with water at the bottom in the center of the cell.
After losing consciousness again the narrator discovers that the prison is slightly illuminated and that he is bound to a wooden board by ropes. He looks up in horror to see a painted picture of Father Time on the ceiling; hanging from the figure is a gigantic scythe-like pendulum swinging slowly back and forth. The pendulum is inexorably sliding downwards and will eventually kill him. However the condemned man is able to attract rats to his bonds with meat left for him to eat and they start chewing through the ropes. As the pendulum reaches a point inches above his heart, the prisoner breaks free of the ropes and watches as the pendulum is drawn back to the ceiling.
He then sees that the walls have become red-hot and begun moving inwards, driving him into the center of the room and towards the brink of the pit. As he gazes into the pit, he decides that no fate could be worse than falling into it. It is implied by the text that the narrator fears what he sees at the bottom of the pit, or perhaps is frightened by its depth. The exact cause of his fear is not clearly stated. However, as the narrator moves back from the pit, he sees that the red-hot walls are leaving him with no foothold. As the prisoner begins to fall into the pit, he hears human voices. The walls rush back and an arm catches him. The French Army has taken Toledo and the Inquisition is in the hands of its enemies.
========================
Let's hope we don't have such a nightmare before the coal terminal issue is resolved.
Maybe this experiment will be more palatable?
---------------------------------
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -- Aristotle
---------------------------------
Monday, July 18, 2011
Are Cities Bipolar?
--------------------------
What is the city but the people? ~ William Shakespeare
In Rome you long for the country; in the country - oh inconstant! - you praise the distant city to the stars. ~ Horace, Satires
--------------------------
Map of Haarlem, the Netherlands, of around 1550. The city is completely surrounded by a city wall and defensive canal. The square shape was inspired by Jerusalem.
--------------------------
Wikipedia's definition of 'City' provides interesting details about why & how cities were first formed and what distinguishes them from rural areas.
A few excerpts:
...'In 1995, Kanter argued that successful cities can be identified by three elements: good thinkers (concepts), good makers (competence) or good traders (connections). The interplay of these three elements, Kanter argued, means that good cities are not planned but managed.' ....
....'Modern anti-urban attitudes are to be found in the United States in the form of a planning profession that continues to develop land on a low-density suburban basis, where access to amenities, work and shopping is provided almost exclusively by car rather than by foot or transit..' ...
.... 'However, there is a growing movement in North America called "New Urbanism" that calls for a return to traditional city planning methods where mixed-use zoning allows people to walk from one type of land-use to another. The idea is that housing, shopping, office space, and leisure facilities are all provided within walking distance of each other, thus reducing the demand for road-space and also improving the efficiency and effectiveness of mass transit.' ...
... 'Cities generally have complex systems for sanitation, utilities, land usage, housing, and transportation. The concentration of development greatly facilitates interaction between people and businesses, benefiting both parties in the process. A big city or metropolis usually has associated suburbs and exurbs. Such cities are usually associated with metropolitan areas and urban areas, creating numerous business commuters traveling to urban centers of employment.'
"Cities could persist—as they have for thousands of years—only if their advantages offset the disadvantages" .... two similar attracting advantages known as increasing returns to scale and economies of scale, which are concepts normally associated with firms. Their applications are seen in more basic economic systems as well. ....."one of the oldest reasons why cities were built: military protection". ....'The Neolithic revolution brought agriculture, which made denser human populations possible, thereby supporting city development'.
------------------------
Panorama of New York City
--------------------------
Wikipedia's definition of 'bi-polar' largely has come to mean an illness of the psyche in which mood swings between melancholy and mania occur. But that is a relatively modern term with origins around the 1850"s.
Earlier, the definition of bi-polar was also an adjective with several related meanings, as –having two poles, as the earth; or of, pertaining to, or found at both polar regions; or characterized by opposite extremes, as two conflicting political philosophies.
But, all these definitions seem somehow related, don't you think?
It seems to me that people -including me- often think of cities with two minds; one good and one not so good.
That is normal about many things, but cities do engender such strong feelings that they may have become almost a metaphor for political schizophrenia.
As veritable scapegoats for the ills of society, cities must somehow defend themselves in a more balanced way, by also emphasizing all the good they should and do provide.
That's what this blog is about, at least in my intent, but judge it for yourself.
--------------------------
I believe it was the 1920 US Census that first showed more people lived in urban areas than rural. At the time, this caused concern among politicians who were afraid city issues & politics might begin to dominate national priorities and policy.
Why, the idea of the ignorant masses imposing their will upon our entire country was downright repugnant to some then in influence. That was the time when the number of House Representatives was limited at a maximum of 435, which was to be reapportioned after each subsequent Census to reflect some sort of delayed and diluted geographical balance.
The persuasive arguments at the time included concerns over the actual size of Congress, which were supposed to limit its ability to effectively legislate, although similar bodies in other counties seem to function every bit as well as ours.
You tell me if this particular 'concern' was legitimate. or simply a ploy to limit or delay the trend toward the spread of a truer democracy.
I believe that argument was largely disingenuously cosmetic, but it cleverly played upon the uninformed trust of some and the concealed desperation of others to become the reality we still are dealing with today. So it is a our system of government that has become something of a parody of its former high-sounding ideals.
The same forces -and reasons- that defined and fixed the individual States representation at two each in the Senate were essentially applied to the House as well, making the historic bi-cameral compromise reached to enable our Constitution to be adopted a shadow of its former intent.
So it is with history; stuff gets changed, whether we notice or not.
But, why should this matter to us now?
Because the anti-urban bias still exists and is hurting our society and economy.
Just look at all the subjects of political rhetoric that pass for 'debate' these days, like 'the city' did this, or neglected to do that, etc.
Of course, not all of this rhetoric pertain to ONLY cities or urban areas, but some of them do.
Yet, the ones that don't apply are often blamed on cities & urban areas anyway.
It's almost like the rural and thinly populated areas are trying to act like the innocent victims of all life's ills!
But, how can this be true? After all, it is primarily the cities that provide most jobs AND markets for the goods & services we need and want.
So, without the cities & population centers, how can we -as a country or as individuals- truly prosper?
--------------------------
As a recovering politician, having served a serious stint in city government as an elected legislator, I feel somewhat qualified to defend cities and the roles they uniquely provide.
A couple of recent articles in Crosscut came to my attention since they both converge on what are basically city problems.
The first captures an argument made by the former mayor of two Washington cities, that job creation needs to strongly involve cities. That should go without saying, and largely had, before this particular former mayor said it.
The second article chronicles the 6-year tenure of Tacoma's former City Manager, who transitioned from being hailed as a super hero saviour to someone deserving to be fired -a trajectory that seems almost inevitable these days.
To me, these articles are also notable for the issues and political dynamics they tell.
But, I do realize that for those without some experience in office, or those disinterested in observing trends and commonalities among municipalities, they may not hold much more than passing interest.
That is part of the problem our political system suffers -disconnection between citizens and the mechanisms that allow them to gain corrections for the public good.
Making a democracy work well is not an easy task; and it requires an engaged populace.
Fortunately, there are resources that help us understand common problems and those solutions likely o be effective.
One excellent website is maintained by the Association of Washington Cities [AWC] of which the City of Bellingham is a member and benefits from its staff and elected officials taking its training.
The National League of Cities [NLC} is another valuable resource with a broader charter and perspective.
These sources of information are available for public use, and can serve as valuable learning aids for anyone- candidates included.
As a short example, here is the agenda and session materials for the latest AWC conference, showing a range of current topics involving cities.
Think that could be valuable?
So, there is good news and bad news from this; the good is we don't have to always rediscover the wheel; the bad is we have to actually study and use the information available.
I must conclude that cities probably are, or can become, bipolar, because they reflect the problems, triumphs, hopes, fears of people, and the inevitable clashes of opinions, aspirations, facts and law.
In fact, maybe the term multi-polar may be more descriptive, because it is rare when only two clear choices are the only ones available.
No, Cities are not simple or easily managed, because they are made up of people -many different people- who are not simple or easily managed either.
To expect otherwise is misguided, or maybe even just stupid.
--------------------------
Panorama of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
--------------------------
A great city is not to be confounded with a populous one. - Aristotle
Washington is a city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm. - John F. Kennedy
--------------------------
What is the city but the people? ~ William Shakespeare
In Rome you long for the country; in the country - oh inconstant! - you praise the distant city to the stars. ~ Horace, Satires
--------------------------
Map of Haarlem, the Netherlands, of around 1550. The city is completely surrounded by a city wall and defensive canal. The square shape was inspired by Jerusalem.--------------------------
Wikipedia's definition of 'City' provides interesting details about why & how cities were first formed and what distinguishes them from rural areas.
A few excerpts:
...'In 1995, Kanter argued that successful cities can be identified by three elements: good thinkers (concepts), good makers (competence) or good traders (connections). The interplay of these three elements, Kanter argued, means that good cities are not planned but managed.' ....
....'Modern anti-urban attitudes are to be found in the United States in the form of a planning profession that continues to develop land on a low-density suburban basis, where access to amenities, work and shopping is provided almost exclusively by car rather than by foot or transit..' ...
.... 'However, there is a growing movement in North America called "New Urbanism" that calls for a return to traditional city planning methods where mixed-use zoning allows people to walk from one type of land-use to another. The idea is that housing, shopping, office space, and leisure facilities are all provided within walking distance of each other, thus reducing the demand for road-space and also improving the efficiency and effectiveness of mass transit.' ...
... 'Cities generally have complex systems for sanitation, utilities, land usage, housing, and transportation. The concentration of development greatly facilitates interaction between people and businesses, benefiting both parties in the process. A big city or metropolis usually has associated suburbs and exurbs. Such cities are usually associated with metropolitan areas and urban areas, creating numerous business commuters traveling to urban centers of employment.'
"Cities could persist—as they have for thousands of years—only if their advantages offset the disadvantages" .... two similar attracting advantages known as increasing returns to scale and economies of scale, which are concepts normally associated with firms. Their applications are seen in more basic economic systems as well. ....."one of the oldest reasons why cities were built: military protection". ....'The Neolithic revolution brought agriculture, which made denser human populations possible, thereby supporting city development'.
------------------------
Panorama of New York City--------------------------
Wikipedia's definition of 'bi-polar' largely has come to mean an illness of the psyche in which mood swings between melancholy and mania occur. But that is a relatively modern term with origins around the 1850"s.
Earlier, the definition of bi-polar was also an adjective with several related meanings, as –having two poles, as the earth; or of, pertaining to, or found at both polar regions; or characterized by opposite extremes, as two conflicting political philosophies.
But, all these definitions seem somehow related, don't you think?
It seems to me that people -including me- often think of cities with two minds; one good and one not so good.
That is normal about many things, but cities do engender such strong feelings that they may have become almost a metaphor for political schizophrenia.
As veritable scapegoats for the ills of society, cities must somehow defend themselves in a more balanced way, by also emphasizing all the good they should and do provide.
That's what this blog is about, at least in my intent, but judge it for yourself.
--------------------------
I believe it was the 1920 US Census that first showed more people lived in urban areas than rural. At the time, this caused concern among politicians who were afraid city issues & politics might begin to dominate national priorities and policy.
Why, the idea of the ignorant masses imposing their will upon our entire country was downright repugnant to some then in influence. That was the time when the number of House Representatives was limited at a maximum of 435, which was to be reapportioned after each subsequent Census to reflect some sort of delayed and diluted geographical balance.
The persuasive arguments at the time included concerns over the actual size of Congress, which were supposed to limit its ability to effectively legislate, although similar bodies in other counties seem to function every bit as well as ours.
You tell me if this particular 'concern' was legitimate. or simply a ploy to limit or delay the trend toward the spread of a truer democracy.
I believe that argument was largely disingenuously cosmetic, but it cleverly played upon the uninformed trust of some and the concealed desperation of others to become the reality we still are dealing with today. So it is a our system of government that has become something of a parody of its former high-sounding ideals.
The same forces -and reasons- that defined and fixed the individual States representation at two each in the Senate were essentially applied to the House as well, making the historic bi-cameral compromise reached to enable our Constitution to be adopted a shadow of its former intent.
So it is with history; stuff gets changed, whether we notice or not.
But, why should this matter to us now?
Because the anti-urban bias still exists and is hurting our society and economy.
Just look at all the subjects of political rhetoric that pass for 'debate' these days, like 'the city' did this, or neglected to do that, etc.
Of course, not all of this rhetoric pertain to ONLY cities or urban areas, but some of them do.
Yet, the ones that don't apply are often blamed on cities & urban areas anyway.
It's almost like the rural and thinly populated areas are trying to act like the innocent victims of all life's ills!
But, how can this be true? After all, it is primarily the cities that provide most jobs AND markets for the goods & services we need and want.
So, without the cities & population centers, how can we -as a country or as individuals- truly prosper?
--------------------------
As a recovering politician, having served a serious stint in city government as an elected legislator, I feel somewhat qualified to defend cities and the roles they uniquely provide.
A couple of recent articles in Crosscut came to my attention since they both converge on what are basically city problems.
The first captures an argument made by the former mayor of two Washington cities, that job creation needs to strongly involve cities. That should go without saying, and largely had, before this particular former mayor said it.
The second article chronicles the 6-year tenure of Tacoma's former City Manager, who transitioned from being hailed as a super hero saviour to someone deserving to be fired -a trajectory that seems almost inevitable these days.
To me, these articles are also notable for the issues and political dynamics they tell.
But, I do realize that for those without some experience in office, or those disinterested in observing trends and commonalities among municipalities, they may not hold much more than passing interest.
That is part of the problem our political system suffers -disconnection between citizens and the mechanisms that allow them to gain corrections for the public good.
Making a democracy work well is not an easy task; and it requires an engaged populace.
Fortunately, there are resources that help us understand common problems and those solutions likely o be effective.
One excellent website is maintained by the Association of Washington Cities [AWC] of which the City of Bellingham is a member and benefits from its staff and elected officials taking its training.
The National League of Cities [NLC} is another valuable resource with a broader charter and perspective.
These sources of information are available for public use, and can serve as valuable learning aids for anyone- candidates included.
As a short example, here is the agenda and session materials for the latest AWC conference, showing a range of current topics involving cities.
Think that could be valuable?
So, there is good news and bad news from this; the good is we don't have to always rediscover the wheel; the bad is we have to actually study and use the information available.
I must conclude that cities probably are, or can become, bipolar, because they reflect the problems, triumphs, hopes, fears of people, and the inevitable clashes of opinions, aspirations, facts and law.
In fact, maybe the term multi-polar may be more descriptive, because it is rare when only two clear choices are the only ones available.
No, Cities are not simple or easily managed, because they are made up of people -many different people- who are not simple or easily managed either.
To expect otherwise is misguided, or maybe even just stupid.
--------------------------
Panorama of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil--------------------------
A great city is not to be confounded with a populous one. - Aristotle
Washington is a city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm. - John F. Kennedy
--------------------------
Friday, July 15, 2011
Making Tracks To Where?
-----------------------
"Make Tracks To Washington's Side Of The Gorge" is the slogan used by the Skamania County Chamber of Commerce on a useful promotional flyer and map of Stevenson, WA.
A recent short vacation outing to the Columbia River Gorge brought me to Skamania County and it's seat at the scenic little town of Stevenson, hard by the well-used [24/7] triple tracks of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, which separate it from the river.
Across those tracks to the south, lies access to the riverfront and its attractions, including a Port of Skamania pier and cruise vessel [stern-paddle steamboats] landing, lodging places, a modest industrial complex, an eatery, and stretches of public parks and launching points for small boaters, fishing and the various wind-surfing arts for which the Gorge is internationally famous.
On the other side of the river, Oregon enjoys its own suite of scenic delights, tourist havens and small business and population centers, again, mostly separated from the river by multiple, main-line railroad tracks, and, again well-used, literally around-the-clock.
The Columbia Gorge provides a natural corridor for commerce, and it has been accepted and welcomed as such for a long time. The inhabitants of the area welcome the jobs and the essentials provided by both water & land-based traffic, despite any inconvenience of access or noise that in-transit commerce carries with it.
But, as a visitor, I was somewhat irritated by having to wait for trains to pass at regular intervals, plus being disturbed at night by startlingly loud train whistles close at hand - and, even across the river [sound travels easily over water]. BTW, earplugs didn't work very well for me.
My displeasure can be easily remedied by not visiting the Gorge again, at least for overnights; and the locals have long since a tolerance for such distractions. The point is, tolerance for frequent train traffic must either developed or tolerated, since in most places it is not all that common.
Out of curiosity, I measured the time it took for one, 120-car [+ 3 engines] train to pass at an estimated speed of 35 to 40 MPH. From crossing arms being lowered, then raised, it took 2 minutes. Of course, the warning whistles took a few minutes longer, approaching and leaving.
Much larger Bellingham shares some commonalities with little Stevenson, including significant tourism, business & residential areas near transportation corridors, and a waterfront that is largely separated from populated areas by railroad tracks. Except, in our case, BNSF has a single track that has a small fraction of the traffic routinely experienced along the Columbia Gorge.
Now, maybe our local Chamber of Commerce wants a slogan similar Skamania's? Something like "Make Tracks To Washington's Side Of Puget Sound & The San Juan Islands"? Think that would work for this area? I don't, but maybe I could be persuaded by cogent arguments that actually make good sense.
The problem is that our local & vocal C of C is mostly about slogans, and little else except the Ski to Sea annual event and begging grants from the same local governments & elected officials they love to criticize. OK, maybe that's unfair and is being changed for the better, but I don't yet see much evidence of it.
Maybe, our CoC could take a lesson from Skamania County and co-locate its office with a [non-profit] Economic Development Council, right down there close to the railroad tracks, where they can enjoy its full benefits -noise, inconvenience and all.
But, you know the Port of Bellingham is already there, and both the Whatcom County Courthouse & Bellingham City Hall aren't that far away either.
------
I was pleased to see these two new articles posted today on Crosscut, by Floyd MacKay & Bob Simmons, respectively, which update important developments on the controversial Coal Terminal proposal.
-------------------
"Make Tracks To Washington's Side Of The Gorge" is the slogan used by the Skamania County Chamber of Commerce on a useful promotional flyer and map of Stevenson, WA.
A recent short vacation outing to the Columbia River Gorge brought me to Skamania County and it's seat at the scenic little town of Stevenson, hard by the well-used [24/7] triple tracks of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, which separate it from the river.
Across those tracks to the south, lies access to the riverfront and its attractions, including a Port of Skamania pier and cruise vessel [stern-paddle steamboats] landing, lodging places, a modest industrial complex, an eatery, and stretches of public parks and launching points for small boaters, fishing and the various wind-surfing arts for which the Gorge is internationally famous.
On the other side of the river, Oregon enjoys its own suite of scenic delights, tourist havens and small business and population centers, again, mostly separated from the river by multiple, main-line railroad tracks, and, again well-used, literally around-the-clock.
The Columbia Gorge provides a natural corridor for commerce, and it has been accepted and welcomed as such for a long time. The inhabitants of the area welcome the jobs and the essentials provided by both water & land-based traffic, despite any inconvenience of access or noise that in-transit commerce carries with it.
But, as a visitor, I was somewhat irritated by having to wait for trains to pass at regular intervals, plus being disturbed at night by startlingly loud train whistles close at hand - and, even across the river [sound travels easily over water]. BTW, earplugs didn't work very well for me.
My displeasure can be easily remedied by not visiting the Gorge again, at least for overnights; and the locals have long since a tolerance for such distractions. The point is, tolerance for frequent train traffic must either developed or tolerated, since in most places it is not all that common.
Out of curiosity, I measured the time it took for one, 120-car [+ 3 engines] train to pass at an estimated speed of 35 to 40 MPH. From crossing arms being lowered, then raised, it took 2 minutes. Of course, the warning whistles took a few minutes longer, approaching and leaving.
Much larger Bellingham shares some commonalities with little Stevenson, including significant tourism, business & residential areas near transportation corridors, and a waterfront that is largely separated from populated areas by railroad tracks. Except, in our case, BNSF has a single track that has a small fraction of the traffic routinely experienced along the Columbia Gorge.
Now, maybe our local Chamber of Commerce wants a slogan similar Skamania's? Something like "Make Tracks To Washington's Side Of Puget Sound & The San Juan Islands"? Think that would work for this area? I don't, but maybe I could be persuaded by cogent arguments that actually make good sense.
The problem is that our local & vocal C of C is mostly about slogans, and little else except the Ski to Sea annual event and begging grants from the same local governments & elected officials they love to criticize. OK, maybe that's unfair and is being changed for the better, but I don't yet see much evidence of it.
Maybe, our CoC could take a lesson from Skamania County and co-locate its office with a [non-profit] Economic Development Council, right down there close to the railroad tracks, where they can enjoy its full benefits -noise, inconvenience and all.
But, you know the Port of Bellingham is already there, and both the Whatcom County Courthouse & Bellingham City Hall aren't that far away either.
------
I was pleased to see these two new articles posted today on Crosscut, by Floyd MacKay & Bob Simmons, respectively, which update important developments on the controversial Coal Terminal proposal.
-------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
