Because JAWBZ

Goldy: if coal trains are bad for freight mobility, then why aren't arenas bad for freight mobility? Answer: because you personally want one, but not the other.

How can we possibly approve this environmental fiasco with a clear conscience?

well, we can't. so that's why the loudest shrieking tends to be economy based rationalizations. most commonly: if we don't ship it, someone else will! followed by theytookerjobs!

if a deal with the devil has to be struck, better it be the keystone pipeline than this nightmare.

@2 Both arenas and coal trains create traffic in Sodo, though I would argue that the trains create worse East-West problems. But that's not my main concern. If you actually clicked through the link I provided, you'd read:

But increased rail traffic presents a more existential threat. According to a 2006 report from the Washington State Transportation Commission, "chronic choke points" and "frequent stoppages" along the I-5 rail corridor are causing delays throughout the system. Freight tonnage was projected to increase 60 percent by 2025 even before the coal terminals were proposed, and the report warns that this shift toward high-volume rail could be "problematic for Washington State's manufacturers and agricultural shippers." Faced with increased competition from trains assembled in Montana and unloaded in Bellingham, Seattle shippers would pay higher prices while suffering further delays.

We simply don't have the freight rail capacity in WA state to accommodate both the coal traffic and the rest of the projected freight demands. Shippers will be competing for a scarce resource.

Also, prevailing upper atmospheric currents will continue to bring pollution from China across the Pacific Ocean - global climate change will be affected, yes, but there will be a more concentrated air quality impact locally over time as China continues to burn massive amounts of coal.

I overwhelmingly agree with you on this matter, Goldy.

The notion that China's coal-burning or climate change will be reduced by stopping this project is appealing, but I'm not sure it's supported by enough facts to hold it up. As I mentioned in a thread to one of yesterday's coal posts, a fairly prominent Stanford prof concludes that shipping China U.S. coal has a very good chance of hurrying China's transition away from coal while improving the U.S.'s own contribution to climate change. I don't see evidence that they're shills or anything.
In this piece, the crux of NRDC's questioning of the theory is whether Chinese demand is as "inelastic" as the prof suggests.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/janua…

Fuel cells now.

The arena's traffic problems would be highly localized and only on certain days. The coal trains would be each and every day, until the Chinese find cheaper coal, and we are stuck with a big stupid coal terminal and the associated clean up costs. And don't think that won't happen. In the meantime, we want to create a 21st century version of the Anaconda Smelter just to satisfy a few corporations and a communist dictatorship who should be able to figure this problem out on their own.

The BNSF should be forced to, as part of the mitigation of this stupid, stupid, project, fund the construction of viaducts over Lander, Holgate and Forest streets. This would help with the arena traffic problems as well.

Please remember that I don't care about the arena one way or another. If I had my way, they'd just use the Key Arena and not have some silly new glamor thing built. But trying to compare the impact of a new arena in SODO to continuous coal train traffic is just silly. At least make the BNSF pay for the problems this is going to create.

Block user "tipuasher" @10 for spam, please.

I agree, Goldy, but the enviro argument is a non-starter, unfortunately. Nobody in America gives a shit about pollution in China, and mentioning "global warming" is like mentioning "gun control" -- it leads to instant mobilization and stasis, and absolutely guarantees that the trains will come.

The freight argument is a winner, though. These trains are job killers, not job winners, and ultimately benefit Long Beach, California, not Washington, as they get all the container traffic while we get the infinite lump of coal.

How about Nuclear?

@9, those are great ideas for lipsticking this pig if it does come to town. I agree with Fnarf's suggestion yesterday that the opposition drop the environmental veneer and build meaningful opposition by focusing on the prospects for it being a sporting-event traffic and shipping nightmare.

The environmental stuff has already won over those whom it can win over. Now reach the rest, the majority who don't oppose the project yet: make the resistance about sports fans getting stuck and existing shippers losing jobs, and you get their attention.

Yes, it means some enviro-dabblers drawn to the opposition will have to seek common cause with - gasp! - car drivers and industrial interests. It can be done!

But even if "we" don't ship it out, the trains will likely roll through. If Cherry Point is not selected, or Longview, in most likelihood, the coal will be sent by rail up to BC to ship to China.
Preventing export from Washington ports will not necessarily prevent the trains from rolling through Washington.

If it goes to China via BC no one can mitigate impacts, not even in Seattle. Simple.

@16 No one can mitigate the impact in Seattle, period. Neither BNSF or the coal companies have any legal obligation to mitigate impacts in the communities through which those trains run. None. Zero. Nada.

So don't buy the story that if we ship it from WA we can at least mitigate the impacts. Maybe at the coal terminal itself, but not along the train routes. Won't happen.

You'd think if anyone could power their society with something other than the dirtiest fossil fuel in existence, it would be China's command economy. There really is no hope for us as a species.

You can bike to an arena. You can skateboard there too. You can even ride light rail or walk.

Same is not true of the child-killing pollution and coal dust from coal exports.

What about the mitigation provided by dropping lit smoke bombs into the open coal cars as they pass by on their way to the Great Northern Tunnel through Seattle? Every train has to pass through that tunnel, which is literally inches from some downtown office building basements. And that Powder River coal is notoriously flammable; it's been known to burn for days, and even self-combust.

If a three-hour traffic jam doesn't get people riled up, how about a huge coal fire directly underneath Fourth and Seneca? Think that would get anybody's attention?

Someone with a good arm might be able to hit one of those trains from the walkway at CenturyLink.

@20: Yes, it always seemed to me that open topped coal trains were a huge sitting target for some sort of low-tech firebomb attack--molotov cocktails dropped from bridges, etc. Cheap, portable, a horrible homeland security issue.

@7 - I don't have a comprehensive criticism of Wolak's argument but some of the assumptions he makes appear to be flawed. I note that he buys uncritically that US CO2 emissions decreased thanks to increased use of natural gas whereas the main drop in CO2 emissions is concurrent with the post-2008 drop in total energy use, which suggests that CO2 emissions would increase again during economic recovery. Some of the drop in CO2 emissions is undoubtedly due to natural gas replacing coal but unaccounted for methane leaks during natural gas mining may make total GHG emissions worse than when using coal. Second, there are several reasons to question the belief that natural gas prices will stay low since the reserves are vastly overestimated (by a factor of ~2 or more between USGS versus industry estimates) and since the economics of shale gas extraction are dubious at best insofar investors are losing their pants and this bubble appears about to burst.

Not to mention decreased waterfront property values generating less property tax revenue negatively impacting public school revenue. Historically rail mitigation has been paid at a 95/5% split. 95% paid by taxpayers and 5% by rail.

Outlaw coal trains to pass through Washington. Post the Washington State national guard at the Idaho border. If the coal is going to a Canadian port ship it from Montana directly to Alberta. Let the Canadians suffer.