by Alaska_geo » Sat 03 Jan 2015, 17:05:52
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', 'I') expect there will be "anti-rail" groups too;
Indeed there are. There was an interesting article in the NYT a few days ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/28/us/race-to-build-on-river-could-block-pacific-oil-route.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A9%22%7D&_r=0In Vancouver WA, environmental groups are supporting a large real estate development as a way block construction of an oil train terminal on the Columbia River.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')But here in southern Washington, some environmental groups are
quietly pushing a builder to move even faster with a $1.3 billion real estate
project along the Columbia River that includes office buildings, shops and
towers with 3,300 apartments.
The reason is oil.
Two miles west of the 32acre project, called the Waterfront, one of the
biggest proposed oil terminals in the country is going through an
environmental review, with plans to transfer North Dakota crude from rail
cars to barges. Up to four trains, carrying 360,000 barrels of oil, would pass
every day through this city’s downtown, only a few hundred feet from the
Waterfront’s towers, westbound from the Bakken shale oil fields..
“We have a very large project that is directly pitted against the oil
terminal,” said Brett VandenHeuvel, the executive director of Columbia
Riverkeeper, a watchdog group for the river, and an opponent of the oil
terminal.
The result is a sort of race to the crossing: If the Waterfront can get its
bricks and mortar in the ground before the terminal is approved — possibly
late next year, with litigation likely to follow — more people would be living and working near the oiltrain line. Compounding what opponents, led by the city, say are the dangers of spills or derailments, would make the
terminal’s path to approval steeper.
The surge of fossil fuels delivered by rail that is wending its way across
many corners of America is hitting the Pacific Northwest — the closest
straight line from North Dakota to the Pacific Ocean — with a fury, and a
complex new calculation of strategy for both sides.
I'm sure part of the equation is who benefits from moving the oil via rail. Certainly the oil producing states and provinces benefit greatly from having improved rail routes to ship the oil. For the local folks in Vancouver the benefits may not be as much. They get a small number of local jobs, and property taxes on the new facilities. Whether this outweighs the risks associated with the terminal is not so clear. For Vancouver WA it gets even more complex. Washington has a state sales tax, but no state income tax. Oregon has a state income tax, but no state sales tax. Lots of people choose to live in Washington and do their shopping in across the river in Portland, Oregon. Each region in the west will have it's own local reasons to either support or resist developments aimed at transporting oil.