Business
Boise City Continues Quest For Train
May 18, 2010 
In yet ANOTHER attempt at playing trains, Mayor Dave Bieter has entered into a secret negotiation with the Boise Valley Railroad–the shortline that runs through town–to explore building a freight facility on land owned by Boise citizens.
Seems that Team Dave can’t get support for a trolley. They also can’t get a downtown “transit center” going and recently incurred the public wrath of a developer who has threatened to leave town if a transit center is built near his land.
They failed to get AMTRAK to stop here despite expenditure of millions of dollars in public funds and manpower to get a route through Boise.
The latest attempt to manipulate public opinion will be a Wednesday media event at the Depot (which is closed to the public most of the time) announcing a deal with BVRR.
Boise City will pay the private railroad company public tax dollars to maintain and service the stretch of rail currently owned by the city and leased to Union Pacific as a parking lot for empty rail cars.
Ultimately Boise wants to provide public land for a private transfer facility for those containers that haul freight on ships, trains, and trucks. Expect to hear that it will be great for the environment, jobs, the economy, and of course “the children.”
Boise has owned several hundred acres of land south of Gowen Field and has been in the land speculation business for several years, even going so far as to get a Federal license to own and operate a railroad.
A previous plan to “sell rail service” to warehouses and create a switching system failed after a $113,000 survey was conducted by the city government. The Union Pacific reportedly balked at that pipe dream.
Although the office of Mayor Dave Bieter refuses to provide press releases to the GUARDIAN, we feel this info is pretty accurate and worth sharing with citizens in advance of any manipulated media photo ops.
FROM POET PAUL–
The trolley idea came and fell
Now the mayor has a new track to sell
If Dave must have a train
Let’s avoid taxpayer pain
And buy Bieter a Lionel!
To insure more advertising-free Boise Guardian news, please consider financial support.
Comments & Discussion
Comments are closed for this post.
May 18, 2010, 8:57 pm
These jamokes will never learn! Although they deserve credit for being persistent. Unfortunately, they are persistent with OUR money!!
Star light, Star bright, First star I see tonight. Wish I may, Wish I might, grant this wish I wish tonight! (Hell, it can’t hurt. Nothing else seems to be working)!!!
May 18, 2010, 11:32 pm
Sounds like a good idea. A good use for the land and its nexus with rail and the freeway.
May 19, 2010, 12:01 am
Wonder what’s the scrap value of all that old rail (tracks) … and those parked railcars too. The railroad could just pick it up as they work their way to the pier in Portland.
May 19, 2010, 8:19 am
It would be much cheaper to simply buy Mayor Bieter one of those railroad hats and a pair of Payday Pinstripe biboveralls. Let’s not forget a nice gold pocket watch to go along with the outfit.
Whatever happened to the notion if something has profit potential private enterprise would step in and seize the moment.
Tax bribes and other “incentives” and entitlement money from the local govt. would have to sweeten the deal as it has become expected.
May 19, 2010, 8:23 am
On another note I will say I would rather have freight moving on steel wheels rather than big trucks destroying the interstate highways.
Ton mile tax paid by truckers doesn’t begin to pay for the cost of rebuilding our highways. Cars just won’t do the damage big trucks inflict on the roadways.
EDITOR NOTE–Couldn’t agree more on efficiency of rail. However, just because we gave the railroads The West doesn’t mean government today needs to share the cost of private rail yards. If the corporation can’t afford to do it, citizens certainly can’t afford it.
May 19, 2010, 1:39 pm
Public/private partnerships(PPP) exist all over this country but should be done with in the realm of laws and common sense. We all know that Urban Renewal Districts are not the solution in handling PPPs either, as they are not accountable to anyone. Idaho has a law that would let Boise get the funds needed for this rail yard or the downtown trolley while staying accountable to the citizens.
A Port District could be created by the citizens for the purpose of transportation and economic development. It’s commissioners are elected by the citizens also. TITLE 70 Chapters 11-18. This creates a taxing district and a levy rate for property taxes for the properties within the boundaries but does not take away from the tax base.
http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title70/T70.htm
The Port of Lewiston operates under this set of codes and provides everything from the usual port activities(air,water) to an industrial, business and tech park. Washington State also has a robust port system that operates in the same way.
http://www.portoflewiston.com/index.html
http://www.washingtonports.org/default.asp
There is another provision in Idaho code for County Intermodal Authority but those function much like URD’s with appointed commissioners. TITLE 70 Chapter 22.
May 19, 2010, 4:37 pm
You didn’t really get the facts right here. Study rail economics and what the real plan and where the money is coming from and then write a news report on a planed intermodal facility.
EDITOR NOTE– Northern, please don’t keep the info from us. We have no problem with rail, our objection is using citizen’s dollars to fund a private railroad. Please explain the details and we will gladly publish your report. This deal was never presented in any public forum as far as we know.
May 19, 2010, 7:33 pm
Most if not all of the money that will be used for this feasibility study and track repairs will come from the $915,000 the city made after leasing the tracks to the Union Pacific Railroad for car storage. If built, Clancy’s comment above me shows how it could be done.
As for why the depot is not open 24/7, Taxpayer dollars are used to open it up and pay the employees. In an effort to keep costs down its not opened all the time which save taxpayer dollars. It can be rented at any time if people want inside.
Take note that Union Pacific never supports any new facility unless someone else pays all or almost all of any expenses. They are in the business of making money not new small time customers. That is why they have had shortline railroads take over operations of most all their branches in the country. Shortlines do a better job of servicing customers.
May 19, 2010, 10:00 pm
Railroad companies are notoriously greedy and uncooperative.
If the city is making $915,000.00 from renting the tracks, leave well enough alone. (If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it)
City owned land that isn’t slated for a city-owned building of some kind, soon, should be sold. The city shouldn’t be in the land speculation business.
May 20, 2010, 8:57 am
There are a few fundamental issues related to railroad operations and economics that don’t seem to make sense for the City to pursue some type of transfer facility for rail containers, particularly with a shortline. I would be very cautious as a city to pursue this with a shortline instead of a major railroad. Maybe they know something we don’t, but:
– Such transfer facilities are a mixed bag of success because their promise to relieve congestion for container transfers at seaside ports is greatly over-stated. The Ports of Seattle and Tacoma do have some congestion issues, but the amount of processing a facility in Boise would handle would be equivalent to less than 1% of what Sea-Tac handles on an annual basis. They could drop that many containers in the ocean and not notice a difference.(See the defunct Port of Montana, near Butte, that was built with this promise and never materialized. This was also tried in Quincy, Washington, to mixed success.)
– Union Pacific is the only Class I railroad that goes through the Boise area and southern Idaho. This means UP would build the facility if they have the need to provide a storage area or transfer facilities for containers and they would do it along their main line. They are not likely to contract with a shortline to move empty or loaded containers over a short distance as they would still have to transfer to mainline trains.
– The reason UP doesn’t have this need is that there are no major manufacturers in the Boise region or Southern Idaho that produce enough containers for export to Asia to keep them on-hand waiting for shipment. Microchips don’t take up that much space; frozen spuds, maybe.
– Boise is probably too remote to store empty containers to carry them back to Sea-Tac or other west coast ports.
– A storage yard for empty containers or minor transfers does not generate measurable jobs or tax revenue. They are only slighty better than distribution centers, which have the same negligible employment and tax benefits.
– Funny this is, the more freight use the line owned by Boise receives the less likely it will be able to have joint usage for anything such as light rail in the future.
Here’s a link to case studies on these types of facilities.
http://www.floridailc.com/PDF/SCAG-InlandPortCaseStudies063006.pdf
May 20, 2010, 1:22 pm
Speckled Hen brings up some great points. Maybe the intermodal proposal is not the best model for a regional rail facility and maybe Boise is not the best place. The plan as proposed here only works, if the BVRR finds new customers for its new services. Why not try to solve an ongoing problem?
The Western United States does not consume enough as much as it produces for the East Coast. Procuring truck freight to the East Coast can be extremely difficult to move both potatoes,onions, processed food products and other items produce along the I-84 corridor in Idaho.
Why not try to emulate/franchise an already successful business model? Railex is the result of a public/private partnership that provides a “private” train to the east coast hauling wine, nursery stock, fruits, and vegetables to the East Coast from the Tri-Cities area in WA. http://www.railexusa.com
May 20, 2010, 9:25 pm
Right on, Clancy. Finding the right niche market could be the way to go.
May 22, 2010, 9:21 pm
To answer your questions Speckled Hen.
“There are a few fundamental issues related to railroad operations and economics that don’t seem to make sense for the City to pursue some type of transfer facility for rail containers, particularly with a shortline. I would be very cautious as a city to pursue this with a shortline instead of a major railroad. Maybe they know something we don’t, but:”
Do some research into Class I railroads desires to do business with anything less than a full train load. You will find they don’t do it, shortlines do. Remember this won’t be just a container terminal, other car kinds will be loaded/unloaded.
“– Such transfer facilities are a mixed bag of success because their promise to relieve congestion for container transfers at seaside ports is greatly over-stated. The Ports of Seattle and Tacoma do have some congestion issues, but the amount of processing a facility in Boise would handle would be equivalent to less than 1% of what Sea-Tac handles on an annual basis. They could drop that many containers in the ocean and not notice a difference.(See the defunct Port of Montana, near Butte, that was built with this promise and never materialized. This was also tried in Quincy, Washington, to mixed success.)”
This isn’t just planed to be a container terminal. Box, hopper, tank, and many other car shipments will be loaded/unloaded.
“– Union Pacific is the only Class I railroad that goes through the Boise area and southern Idaho. This means UP would build the facility if they have the need to provide a storage area or transfer facilities for containers and they would do it along their main line. They are not likely to contract with a shortline to move empty or loaded containers over a short distance as they would still have to transfer to mainline trains.”
Learn about rail operations! Union Pacific already has “contracted out” the movement of freight trains in the Boise area. That is what makes Boise Valley Railroad what it is. Also Union Pacific doesn’t want to build a contaner storage yard anyplace. They try to have local port authorities build them.
“– The reason UP doesn’t have this need is that there are no major manufacturers in the Boise region or Southern Idaho that produce enough containers for export to Asia to keep them on-hand waiting for shipment. Microchips don’t take up that much space; frozen spuds, maybe.”
This isn’t just a container terminal. Car loads of grain, lumber, ethanol, used oil, sand, trash, paper, anything could be shipped to/from the industrial park.
“– Boise is probably too remote to store empty containers to carry them back to Sea-Tac or other west coast ports.”
Where did the idea come that there would be container storage?
“– A storage yard for empty containers or minor transfers does not generate measurable jobs or tax revenue. They are only slighty better than distribution centers, which have the same negligible employment and tax benefits.”
I know for a fact there are several businesses who would like to ship by rail but are unable to find a track to lease that would service their needs. Jobs would be created also, not hundreds but there would be more and then better paying than opening a new restaurant.
“– Funny this is, the more freight use the line owned by Boise receives the less likely it will be able to have joint usage for anything such as light rail in the future.”
The tracks owned by the City of Boise are out in the desert and ARE NOT a place that one would want to ever build light rail. Light rail trains can NOT share the same tracks as a normal train. There is plenty of room along the right-of-way of the Boise Valley Railroad’s tracks to build a light rail line.
And just a note, the section of track that this is planed to be built along was never used to store cars, they were further south on the line.