“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.

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

– 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.