2/2/13
Humboldt promoters of major railroad or port development mean well. But independent, unbiased analyses agree the cost is incredibly high. Getting even a tiny fraction of the required funding is extremely unlikely, especially in this economy. I and many others believe railroad/port promotion should be shifted to promoting smaller, quicker-to-happen, and much easier to fund economic development. We ask government agencies to support this change in strategy, for these reasons:
Enormous global and U.S. economic crises exploded in 2008 and continue to damage small and large economies around the world. Humboldt County's economic prospects were also damaged. So it makes no sense for the supervisors to use an outdated 1997 study to justify paying $250,000 (or even $1!) for yet another study of port or railroad options. Past studies showed the enormous cost of major rail and port projects couldn't be funded even during boom times. An experienced Caltrans Division of Rail manager, experienced investment bankers, the 2006/2007 Humboldt County grand jury, and the North Coast Railway Authority's own 2002 $126,000 study showed railroad/port expansion couldn't justify the tens of millions of dollars it would cost. Even a supposedly “much cheaper” East-West rail line would still require tens (maybe hundreds!) of millions of dollars. We don't have that money, and state and federal money is locked up by huge deficits, federal political deadlock, and continued economic instability. If we spend money to study economic development options, let's study different, realistic, “right now” options -- there ARE such options!
In addition, railroad/port true believers have made it clear they want only a study showing funding, construction, and profitable operation are easily achieved; that study wouldn't have an unbiased, thorough analysis of costs, uncertainties and risks. For example, a 2002 NCRA/port study costing taxpayers $126,000 showed that spending $46 million and then another $250 million over 20 years would produce a small profit after five years, which would slowly shrink for the next 20 years. The NCRA's response was “you have to believe in something more” (than our costly study) “to justify what we're doing here.” That “something more” is blind faith. Today's economic prospects are much worse and construction much more expensive that the hundreds of millions required in 2002. An East-West rail option is just as unlikely, so funding sources for a study, including the Headwaters Fund, shouldn't be convinced by blind faith to even study a project costing this much and already studied so many times.
Taxpayer dollars are scarce, and desperately needed for “right now” jobs, police and fire protection, education, health, and emergency preparedness. Let's not waste money. Let's not distract elected officials and staff with studying dead ends -- we need their expertise studying ways for economic development to happen much sooner and more reliably than a major rail or rail/port dream.
Jeff Knapp resides in Arcata.
