(The following editorial appeared on the Post and Courier website on July 11, 2010.)
CHARLESTON, S.C. — The city of North Charleston, CSX Corp. and a private developer have proposed a rail plan that would serve a new port at the old Navy Base, eliminate miles of rail through the city’s residential neighborhoods and remove at least 20 at-grade crossings.
The plan would have beneficial results for neighborhoods and would presumably reduce truck traffic related to port operations. It logically would shift rail operations to an existing industrial area and would preserve the Clemson Restoration Institute at its present location. The institute is expected to play an important role in wind turbine research, which could bring a major new industry to the region.
In short, there’s a lot to like about the plan.
But despite the strong support in North Charleston, there are major hurdles. First and foremost, the area’s other main rail carrier, Norfolk Southern, hasn’t signed off on the proposal, which could limit its access to the port. Neither has the State Ports Authority.
Norfolk Southern’s endorsement has been cited by Rep. James Clyburn as essential to his support. Rep. Clyburn’s backing may be critical for a local project needing federal support. As the majority whip, the 6th District Democrat is one of the most powerful members of the U.S. House.
State Sen. Larry Grooms raises more issues in a column on our Commentary page today. Sen. Grooms, chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, says the state would be better served by a competitive balance between CSX and Norfolk Southern.
Maybe so, but not if it means increasing rail through residential North Charleston. That would hardly be in the best interests of the state’s third most populous city. Nor is a port operation that eschews the use of rail.
The SPA hasn’t involved itself in the discussions of rail at the new port, though chief executive Jim Newsome says the agency supports “any greater Charleston rail solution,” as long as it is backed by CSX, Norfolk Southern and the state Division of Public Railways. Clearly, the North Charleston solution doesn’t meet that criteria — yet.
But it should serve as the basis for discussion, considering the numerous benefits that the rail plan would advance. Eight years into the planning for a port at the former Navy Base, we haven’t seen anything as good as the current proposal.
Rail should be essential to the North Charleston port, if only for its potential to decrease traffic congestion on I-26. If the SPA supports a broad solution for rail service, it ought to get involved in the discussion.