North Charleston City Council approves rail settlement with State of South Carolina - an open letter from Mayor Summey

Citizens of North Charleston,

I am pleased to announce a resolution to the rail dispute that has consumed our community for the past several years.  The fight was at times bitter; however, the strong will of this community has led the state to a compromise that will ensure equitable treatment of our citizens.  We could not have reached this point without you.

Grass roots efforts led to thousands of citizens rallying together in town hall meetings, letters written to Columbia demanding a reasonable solution, and an equal amount of phone calls to public officials expressing concerns.  We fought in every forum, from the court of public opinion to courts of law.

We now have a great opportunity to resolve many of the lingering surface transportation issues which have plagued the greater North Charleston region for many, many years.  I can assure you that I have been relentless in achieving the best possible outcome for the community.

As with any settlement, compromises were required from both sides.  In the settlement, South Carolina Public Railways will establish an intermodal facility on a portion of the property the City gave to Clemson University. The facility will service both Class I railroads and will be operated by South Carolina Public Railways.  

We were able to stop approximately half, but not all, of the rail from being placed on land at the former Navy Base.  We did have to yield and allow northern rail access.  Keep in mind that rail off the base is subject to federal jurisdiction and was never something the City could control.  I believe that rail line reduction on the former Navy Base, along with other concessions made by the South Carolina Department of Commerce, will allow for appropriate mitigation for ill effects of increased rail traffic through our community.

First and foremost, a study will be commissioned to find a solution to many of our area’s surface transportation problems and lessen port traffic impacts on our community.  Anyone driving along our major thoroughfares has at some point been stuck in gridlock traffic or stopped by a train, unfortunately far too often.  This fight has been over rail, but I believe that the city has really objected to the human impact of rail more than to rail itself.

I have fought for a compromise designed to lessen the impact of container movement on our daily lives as much as possible.  If containers can exit our community by rail with less impact than exiting by truck, I believe there will be an improvement to our quality of life.  The study will identify mitigation (overpasses, quiet zones, routing, and sound barriers), determine exactly how we can climb out of our transportation debacle, and finally, paint a true picture of “rail done right.”

As additional parts of the mitigation, the community will receive $8 million.  The City will also receive 104 acres on the former Navy Base for restoration, which includes all of the former officer’s housing area adjacent to our park.  Public Railways has also agreed to assume $6.5 million of bonds that were issued for the construction of Riverfront Park.

To avoid future differences of opinion as to whether these promises to the City and its citizens are binding, this settlement will come as a court order, not a Memorandum of Understanding.  With the involvement of Governor Nikki Haley, Senator and Senate Finance Chairman Hugh Leatherman of Florence, Secretary of Commerce Bobby Hitt and others, this community has been given every possible assurance that Columbia will not turn its back on our community.

When contemplating this settlement, I challenge you to consider the opportunity we have to improve our community.  Also consider the consequences the residents of the City would face absent an agreement.  The result would have been disastrous, even if the City won every court battle and stopped the rail yard. 

We were faced with two options for handling containers from the Post-Panamax cargo ships that will service the new port facility.  One option allowed all containers from the new port to travel through our community by truck, one at a time.  I-26 is already failing in terms of its ability to handle current traffic.  Forcing the exponential increase of containers onto local roads by truck would cause North Charleston roadways to resemble a Los Angeles-like parking lot for hours each day.

The other option was to allow the State to move forward with constructing an intermodal facility to carry the containers away from our community on rail, hundreds of containers at a time.  This plan has obvious appeal, provided that rail routes can be developed in a way that would work around the community instead of rolling over it.

The latter option was chosen.  As a result, we are receiving a number of evenhanded concessions for the improvement of our community and we now have a seat at the table to make real, lasting changes to our region’s transportation system.

I hope you, the citizens of North Charleston, can stand with me.  It is unfortunate that we have had to adapt from our original vision for the former Navy Base.  Unfortunately, times have changed, the economy has changed, and ownership of the majority of the Base has changed.  What has not changed is my commitment to North Charleston.

I believe that North Charleston will emerge as a better community, and that all of the citizens of the State of South Carolina will realize that it was this community that made the tough decisions for their economic growth.  North Charleston is and will always be a great place to live, work, and play, no matter the obstacles we face.

Sincerely,

R. Keith Summey

Mayor

Additional information regarding the rail settlement can be found here, including:

1 – Rail Settlement Agreement NOT SIGNED

2 – Rail Settlement - Press Release from the SC Department of Commerce

3 – Rail Settlement - open letter from Mayor Summey

4 – Rail Settlement - Press Briefing

5 – Rail Settlement - map with key

Flyover comparison of two rail proposals - State plan vs. CSX plan

 

Flyovers following proposed rail tracks of two differing rail plans for intermodal facilities to serve the new North Charleston Port Terminal.

The State plan exits the former navy base from north, while the CSX Plan exits the former navy base from the south. The Memorandum of Understating signed between the City of North Charleston and the State Ports Authority in 2002 would be violated if northern rail access is allowed.

North Charleston rail battle turns to the courts

Late last week, lawsuits were filed by the City over the State of South Carolina’s unwillingness to honor the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in 2002 that promised that rail access to the Port would only travel through the southern end of the former Navy Base.

The Federal suit was filed against the State of South Carolina, several state agencies, and the Army Corps of Engineers alleging that the State has embarked on a project that deviates from the permit application previously studied and approved by the Corps.  The State court suit alleges that the State has impermissibly broken its word.  The City is asking each court for an order prohibiting the State from taking any action to construct a rail yard in any manner that would violate the 2002 MOU.

Additionally, last Friday the Supreme Court of South Carolina denied a request filed by the State of South Carolina that asked for the 2002 MOU to be ruled upon in an expedited fashion by dispensing with normal court procedures.

North Charleston Mayor R. Keith Summey stated, “We believe that this decision made by the Supreme Court and the lawsuits filed in federal and state court are positive steps toward a meaningful outcome to this dispute for the citizens of North Charleston.  The State’s refusal to honor the 2002 MOU has led us to this point. Despite recent events, we would still prefer a solution to be found outside of the court room.  If the State will simply keep its promises I am confident that together we can find a solution.”

Mayor Summey on 1250 WTMA discussing rail lawsuits

Lawsuit filed in Federal Court
Lawsuit filed in State Court

Last minute budget amendment takes direct aim at North Charleston over rail issue

The following is a response from North Charleston Mayor R. Keith Summey regarding Senator Larry Grooms’ last minute budget amendment directed at North Charleston over the ongoing rail issue.

________________

Last night, less than an hour before passing the Senate version of the State Budget, which had been debated for five weeks, Senator Larry Grooms added an amendment to punish the City of North Charleston if legal actions against the State are not halted.  Specifically, the amendment demands that the City return funds received from the State of South Carolina if a lawsuit is filed in federal court against the State. 

Last week, North Charleston sent a Notice and Draft Complaint to the Federal government and several State agencies highlighting likely violations of federal environmental laws by the State of South Carolina as a result of a planned intermodal yard on the northern end of the former Navy Base.  The proposed yard and northern rail access are in clear violation of a 2002 Memorandum of Understanding between the City of North Charleston and the State of South Carolina. 

The City seeks to challenge the State in Court, where disputes are supposed to be settled. Senator Grooms’ threat seeks to stop the City from protecting the rights of North Charleston citizens by cutting funding to the City.  His actions go against the fundamental right to challenge government action and call into question the very Constitution that this Country and State were founded upon. 

This amendment and the State’s efforts to dishonor the 2002 Memorandum of Understanding are clear, yet disappointing efforts to damage the quality of life of the citizens of North Charleston. 

These bully tactics will not deter the City of North Charleston from fighting for the rights of its citizens.  I insist that the State of South Carolina do what it morally obligated itself to do and keep its promises. 

R. Keith Summey, Mayor
City of North Charleston

The amendment passed the Senate 25-12 and can be viewed from the South Carolina General Assembly’s website: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/php/amendments.php?PAGE=PREVIOUS&DATEKEY=981&chamber=S

___________________________

Here is a breakdown of which Senators voted for and against the amendment:

The Senate proceeded to Sect. 86 and 86A, Part 1A and Part 1B, Aid to Subdivisions.
The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 25; Nays 12 AYES

Alexander                 Campbell                  Courson
Cromer                    Davis                     Elliott
Fair                      Gregory                   Grooms
Hayes                     Hutto                     Knotts
Leatherman                Lourie                    Martin, Larry
McGill                    Nicholson                 O'Dell
Peeler                    Rankin                    Reese
Ryberg                    Setzler                   Thomas
Williams

Total--25 NAYS

Bright                    Bryant                    Ford
Land                      Leventis                  Malloy
Martin, Shane             Massey                    McConnell
Pinckney                  Scott                     Sheheen

Total--12Section 86 and Section 86A, Part 1A and Part 1B was adopted.

North Charleston to take further legal action to halt northern rail access

On May 17, 2011, the City of North Charleston sent a Notice and Draft Complaint to various state and federal officials to precede the filing of a lawsuit in federal court over the ongoing rail issue. Unless a resolution that is not detrimental to the citizens of North Charleston can be reached, a lawsuit will be officially filed in 60 days.

Full Notice and Draft Complaint

News coverage

Post and Courier
North Charleston to sue over rail line plan
North Charleston gives notice: Clock ticking on plan to sue over rail issue
Charleston Regional Business Journal
City lawsuit to challenge memorandum with state
WCIV ABC News 4
City plans to file suit in rail argument
WCBD NBC News 2
SC City Says it Will Sue if Rail Terminal Proceeds
Businessweek
SC city says it will sue if rail terminal proceeds

North Charleston Rail Plan Provides Dual Access

By R. Keith Summey

My colleague David Mack and I share some common ground where the North Charleston rail plan is concerned. I agree that the stakes are extremely high and that community involvement is important.

But his recent column in the Post and Courier and the community meeting he convened at Military Magnet High School included many misstatements of fact that need to be clarified.

Since Mr. Mack represents citizens in the southern portion of the city, it's understandable that he would want less of the burden placed on them. Indeed, our LAMC communities are just as important to North Charleston as any other neighborhood.

That’s why before the partnership agreement with CSX and Shipyard Creek Associates was signed, it underwent extensive public review.  We met with the executive board of LAMC, the Chicora-Cherokee neighborhood association, we presented the entire plan in front of hundreds at the Felix C. Davis Community Center, City Council held public hearings, and all information was placed openly online, where it remains today.  The purpose of these meetings was to begin a dialogue that has been ongoing.

Inversely, the South Carolina Public Railways (SCPR) plan was approved behind closed doors, amongst bureaucrats in Columbia with absolutely no public input, and is forcibly being implemented through condemnation with no regard to communities affected.

One important point to keep in mind is we're not just talking trains. The majority of cargo coming from the new port is transported on trucks. If our proposal for an intermodal rail facility utilizing CSX's existing Cooper Yard is selected, trucks would travel through the Macalloy property on the port access road before hitting the interstate. However, if the SCPR plan is allowed to go forward on the condemned Clemson property, trucks would travel through neighborhoods on city streets to get to I-26.

Under the SCPR plan, trains would still run through Union Heights and Accabee; they would not be removed from these neighborhoods. And let us not forget that the SCPR plan calls for the rail yard to be constructed next to senior housing, homes, and apartments in Chicora-Cherokee.

Our plan allows for the LAMC Revitalization Plan to become a reality through providing funds for the redevelopment of the Stromboli corridor, a high priority for LAMC.  In addition, our plan would lead to the abandonment of 3.2 miles of rail line along Spruill Avenue.  Seventeen at-grade crossings would be eliminated, reknitting the community back together.  Despite the claims, the SCPR plan cannot ensure the closing of this rail line, because they do not own it.

Perhaps Mr. Mack's most egregious error was on the topic of dual access. Our plan provides dual access through a unique agreement spelled out by CSX in late January that gives Norfolk Southern access into CSX's rail yard at cost. Consequently, the entire state would realize long-term economic gain. (The Post and Courier reported on this breakthrough amendment to the North Charleston rail plan on Jan. 28.)

Let me repeat: The North Charleston rail plan allows for equal, dual access for both CSX and Norfolk Southern.

Ironically, the SCPR plan requires Norfolk Southern to cross a minimum of two CSX lines, whereas access from the south only requires one.

Another glaring omission in Mr. Mack's assessment of the two plans is that SCPR would own and operate the rail yard.  This is the real competition killer. Having a governmental third-party involved would make the intermodal rail facility less competitive by driving up costs.

Finally, Mr. Mack's assertion that "the city had nothing to show" for our investment in redeveloping the northern half of the old Navy Base is also dead wrong. Today the Navy Base is home to about 85 businesses and nonprofit organizations and nearly 2,500 employees. Horizon Village is a case study in affordable housing.  The City has invested public funds to create Riverfront Park and the Greater Charleston Naval Base Memorial.  Not to mention the huge private investment of residents and businesses surrounding the former base.

"Development is a complicated process and we all need to understand the consequences. Our children and grandchildren will be directly affected by the decisions made this year," according to Mr. Mack.

I couldn't agree more. But it's vitally important that as the rail debate continues, we ought to argue the facts of the case and not rely on the myths and misinformation meant to divide North Charleston’s residents.

To continue the conversation on the two rail plans, I have formally invited SCPR President & CEO Jeff McWhorter to a community forum, at a date and time of his choosing, so the merits of each plan may be discussed openly in a public setting.  I am confident that Mr. McWhorter will accept this invitation to discuss the plan which he so staunchly defends and will not defer these important talks to the Port Review & Oversight Commission.

R. Keith Summey is mayor of North Charleston.

Learn more about the Rail & Community Redevelopment project, here: http://www.northcharleston.org/rail.aspx

RAIL

The former Secretary of Commerce Joe Taylor and South Carolina Public Railways have pushed through, behind closed doors, a plan to place a rail yard on the northern end of the former navy base. The property to be used for this yard was donated by the City of North Charleston to the Clemson University Restoration Institute to facilitate the creation of a renewable energy economy, including wind turbine research. Sixty of the Eighty acres have been condemned. The State, through South Carolina Public Railways, has exercised eminent domain to obtain the property. This rail yard would allow trains to enter and exit the north end of the former Navy Base and create a railroad roundabout of the Greater Park Circle community. Traffic congestion, road blockages, and train noise will drastically increase. Apart from increased heavy rail traffic, trucks carrying cargo containers from other port terminals (Columbus Street, Wando, North Charleston) would traverse city streets to access this rail yard.

This plan is in direct violation of the 2002 State Legislature mandated Memorandum of Understanding between the City of North Charleston and the State Ports Authority (an instrumentality of the State of South Carolina), in which it was agreed upon that the Port would utilize rail access exclusively from the south end of the base.  Relying upon this agreement, homeowners, businesses, industry, and the city have made significant investments to improve the Greater Park Circle community, the East Montague Business District, and the former Navy Base.

If you wish to express your opinion regarding the proposed rail yard on the north end of the former Navy Base, please call and/or email the legislators below.

Thank you for your help in fighting to preserve the quality of life of the residents of North Charleston.

Rail Plan Public Comments - Thursday, August 5

North Charleston City Council convened a Special Committee of the Whole Meeting on Thursday, August 5, 2010 at 5:30 pm in City Council Chambers.  Public comments were heard regarding an ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute a Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement between the City of North Charleston, CSX Transportation, and Shipyard Creek Associates, LLC.

Download the Agenda

MORE ON THIS TOPIC
North Charleston's rail plan
North Charleston's rail plan Maps
Mayor Summey's commentary - "Setting the record straight"
Concerns about northern rail access through North Charleston

NEWS COVERAGE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS
Post and Courier - Summey pushes rail plan
WCBD New 2 - Majority supports alternative plan for rail lines in North Charleston
WCIV News 4 - Full Steam Ahead for North Charleston Rail Plan

Concerns about northern rail access through North Charleston

View full size images here

The South Carolina Public Railway (SCPR) plan, which is almost a carbon copy of Norfolk Southern's rail plan, of allowing northern rail access has enormous hurdles and a number of obstacles to overcome. Realistically, the plan faces numerous condemnations, lawsuits, foreclosure proceedings, destruction of historic districts and buildings, community outrage and mitigation, and increased traffic congestion.



As you can see, the SCPR plan would severely handicap the potential of the wind turbine cluster that Clemson is creating, as well as eliminate retail, office and residential options on the former Navy Base.



There are a number of new and recently re-established developments in North Charleston. Park Circle is located directly north of the former Navy Base, which is immediately north of Clemson. Horizon Village is located to the west of the former Navy Base.

The Navy Yard at Noisette has not developed as quickly as many wanted or expected, but its vision has launched a renaissance over recent years. Residents have invested considerable amounts of money into their homes and businesses because North Charleston’s vision.

In the early 1990’s, just after the Navy Base closed, North Charleston was passing ordinances to prohibit people from parking eighteen wheelers in their yards and wreckers in their driveways. Today, Park Circle is a thriving, diverse neighborhood. Horizon Village is an enormously successful mixed-income project of for-rent and for-sale product with pricing both at and below-market.

The SCPR plan would kill North Charleston's vision, replacing it with rail yards and warehouses. It would also cut off the residents of North Charleston from the Riverfront, substantially diminishing the overall quality of life, and possibly diminish the value of their homes and businesses.



There are many property owners other than the Noisette Company that make up the Noisette Project, many of which would have to be condemned for the SCPR plan to happen. Of the 300 acres that make up the Navy Yard at Noisette, less than 200 acres are owned by the Noisette Company. It is estimated that it would cost the state hundreds of millions to acquire the land, terminate leases, demolish buildings and remediate the land.



These are examples of the historic properties that exist today on the former Navy Base that would be negatively impacted or demolished by the SCPR plan. When the Navy conveyed the land to the Redevelopment Authority, a number of protections were put in place to protect these historic sites, structures, and districts.



Highlighted in green are the three historic districts, two of which are registered with the National Historic Trust. The third district now qualifies to be registered.



Highlighted in red are the 40 historic buildings that would have to be demolished or negatively impacted by the SCPR plan.



You can see what the SCPR plan does to these buildings and the districts. One could say that the warehouses could be dropped from the plan, but an intermodal yard with several sets of rail tracks going out the north would compel most of the land to have an industrial use.

The location of a rail yard adjacent to these existing and developing neighborhoods would be catastrophic.



It is not just neighborhoods and history. For nearly 100 years, the citizens of North Charleston had no public access to the Cooper River. The SCPR plan would cut off the Riverfront Park and Navy Base Memorial from the community. To the residents of North Charleston, their Riverfront Park has become a center for concerts and events. Why should they be asked to give up what they have fought so hard to create?



There are a number of existing lawsuits and others that would most likely arise if the SCPR plan is pursued.

Also, it violates the MOU between the SC State Ports Authority and the City of North Charleston prohibiting rail from leaving Veteran’s or the Navy Terminal out the north.

SCPR contends they are different because they are not the Ports Authority. However, they are both divisions of state government. Taking rail out the north would clearly violate the intent of the MOU and reopen the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Reopening the EIS would create costly delays.



The SCPR Plan identified three sites: Noisette, Clemson, and Macalloy, and stated that Macalloy was the only location capable of providing functional on-dock rail. Unfortunately, SCPR pursued the other two sites at Clemson and Noisette, bypassing the Macalloy site and totally missing the Laurel Island site.

The SCPR plan does not solve the one critical problem, which is the costly dray on public streets and roads. The Navy Terminal containers will have to traverse public roads in order to get to the Clemson site. South Carolina achieves no competitive advantage with their plan.



All trucks would still need to go on public roads to get into a Clemson intermodal yard. This diagram shows the patterns that the trucks would take as they go from each terminal to the Clemson intermodal yard.

It would be easier for trucks from Columbus Street and Wando Terminals to go to the existing yards rather a Clemson yard. This outcome would create another problem because it would split the trains with some portions at a Clemson yard and some at existing yards. The more times a container is handled in the logistical supply train, the more the costs, the less competitive the Port becomes.

The SCPR plan requires an expensive dray from any of the Port’s existing or planned container terminals.



The Port Access Road, as it is currently planned, allows for direct truck access to and from the Macalloy and the Navy Terminal, but not to Clemson or Noisette. The EIS prohibited truck access to the north on the local access road.

SCDOT specifically designed the Port Access Road to prevent truck access to public streets. The only access to Clemson for trucks will be through neighborhoods on City streets.



The domestic cargo would remain at the existing rail yards because there is no room or allocation for it at a Clemson facility. The drays from Wando, North Charleston, and Columbus Street Terminals are faster to the existing facilities than they are to Clemson. Those containers would be drayed to the Ashley and 7 Mile yards. The trains at Clemson would be short trains, which would be pulled to the existing yards where they would be combined with the previously mentioned cargo and larger trains built.

In essence, the SCPR plan solves nothing. It simply adds costs and leaves South Carolina uncompetitive. It simply turns North Charleston’s neighborhoods into a rail roundabout.



To make the SCPR plan feasible, it requires an enormous expenditure of $200M+ for road overpasses alone. The overpasses of Rivers at Durant, Rivers at Harley and North Rhett are required by the MOU.

The overpasses at Attaway, Virginia, Noisette and Cosgrove are required by the SCPR plan. In some instances, even if funds were available, overpasses could not be constructed because the rail line is too close existing elevated roadways to allow for the overpasses to get up and down. Relocating, the rail line would push it further into Park Circle.



In addition to the road overpasses, there would be other large expenses related to rail and road improvements as identified in the SCPR plan.

MORE ON THIS TOPIC
North Charleston's rail plan
North Charleston's rail plan Maps
Mayor Summey's commentary - "Setting the record straight"

Setting the record straight on the North Charleston rail plan

By R. Keith Summey
Mayor, City of North Charleston

Recently I met with a packed auditorium of North Charleston residents to discuss a proposed rail plan that would boost the port’s competitiveness, pump up our state’s economy, and ensure continued success of neighborhood revitalization that is so critical to our city. On August 5, 2010 at 5:30 pm in City Hall, our city council will hold a public comment session on an agreement between North Charleston, CSX Transportation and a local developer to remove rail lines running through our neighborhoods. In doing so, about 77 acres would be transferred to the city for community redevelopment.

Why do I support this plan? First, it delivers the kind of rail connections to the port’s new terminal that has helped competing ports pull ahead of Charleston. Second, it allows both major carriers – CSX and Norfolk Southern – to compete for business. Third, it would substantially change the way CSX moves goods through our city, allowing us to reconnect communities and enhance our citizens’ quality of life.

Critics of the proposal have raised four concerns:

Dual access

The smoke screen of “dual access” has overshadowed discussion about strategies for restoring the port’s competitiveness. The port’s standing as the No. 2 container port on the East Coast has slipped to No. 4, as ports in Norfolk, Va., and Savannah, Ga., have continued to thrive.

How did Savannah do it? In 2001, the Georgia Ports Authority built a taxpayer-funded intermodal facility exclusively served by Norfolk Southern and waited for the volume to increase enough to make it cost effective to build a second terminal. In 2008, the ports authority built a second intermodal facility dedicated to CSX. How did Savannah fare during the eight years when only one railroad operated a near-dock intermodal facility? Container volumes soared.

Similarly, Norfolk Southern handles more than 95 percent of the intermodal container volume in Virginia, yet the port’s container volume vastly surpasses Charleston’s.

No monopoly

Critics of our plan claim that CSX would have a “monopoly” on moving containers. Yet there is nothing in our plan that prevents Norfolk Southern from continuing to move containers just as they do today.

Today, vessels that call on Charleston have the option to dock at one of five terminals. Containers are then trucked (or “drayed”) to either a CSX or Norfolk Southern intermodal facility. Under our proposal, vessels that call on the new port terminal would have the option to dray containers to the CSX facility – or a short distance to the existing Norfolk Southern facility. Vessels calling on the other terminals would continue to truck containers to either intermodal facility.

Switching fees: A common practice

Our critics also claim that switching fees would make the port noncompetitive. However, switching fees are not unusual, and certainly are not unique to Charleston. They happen every day at every port in the country.

A switching fee is a payment made by one railroad operator to another for crossing its tracks or bringing cargo over its lines. For example, Norfolk Southern is the carrier for the BMWs manufactured in Spartanburg and exported through Union Pier. But the final leg of track leading to Union Pier is owned by CSX. For years, the two carriers have worked out an arrangement satisfactory to both for Norfolk Southern to use CSX’s tracks.

What keeps prices competitive in these situations is that the two railroads do business with each other at several ports along the Eastern Seaboard. If CSX were to charge Norfolk Southern an exorbitant fee at one port, Norfolk Southern could retaliate by charging higher fees somewhere else. This interdependency keeps things competitive.

BMW unaffected

BMW has no part of this debate. That’s because BMWs exit Charleston via the Union Pier terminal in downtown Charleston. This roll-on roll-off (or “Ro-Ro”) cargo is not part of the State Ports Authority’s expansion plans for the new port terminal, which will be dedicated to container cargo.

So why bring BMW into the debate now, when it has no relevance to the discussion? We can only assume, as the Golden Goose of South Carolina’s export industry, that creating the impression we could loose BMW’s business would serve to stifle discussion.

Seat at the table

More discussion is exactly what we need to move this plan forward in a transparent, inclusive manner. Yet Norfolk Southern claims it was not brought to the table, and our deal with CSX was made behind closed doors. In fact, Norfolk Southern’s plan reflects no input from the city or the community. As far as I know, only the Department of Commerce had input into their plan. The people who would have to live with the burdens of the Norfolk Southern plan were left out.

By contrast, CSX officials presented their framework for a rail plan with the community in mind. It was clear from their creative ideas and extensive research that their goals were not only to meet the needs of the port, but also to enhance livability in our city. That is why their plan won my ardent support.

Read the details of the North Charleston rail plan here.

North Charleston Rail Plan Maps

Rail lines BEFORE implementing North Charleston plan

Rail lines AFTER implementing North Charleston plan

Rail lines BEFORE & AFTER implementing North Charleston plan

Details of the North Charleston Rail Plan

On Thursday, July 8, 2010, North Charleston Mayor R. Keith Summey publicly presented a three-party Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Agreement between the City of North Charleston, CSX Transportation, and Shipyard Creek Associates, LLC to address the ongoing rail issues surrounding the former Charleston Naval Base and the southern portions of the City.  City Council unanimously agreed to move the MOU forward to Committee of the Whole for additional discussion. Pending City Council's approval, final adoption would be later in August.

Download the full MOU and Agreement here. (Synopsis below)

Slides from Mayor Summey's presentation

The City long ago announced its intention to see Northern rail service to the Navy Base terminated in favor of a new Southern route.  After years of effort, the City of North Charleston has been able to reach an agreement with Shipyard Creek Associates, LLC, and CSX Transportation that would, if seen to fruition, make this a reality.  The MOU and agreement sets forth a long-term, multi-year plan by which CSX Transportation would abandon its rights of way beginning at a mutually-agreed upon location between Clement Avenue and Viaduct Road and extending Northward to just North of the intersection of Braddock Road.  CSX Transportation will discontinue its rail operation over the old routes in favor of a new Southern access route and rail yard.  The new rail yard would not be permitted to operate prior to abandonment of the old lines.

In support of the outlined plan, the City may contribute certain city-owned property and assist CSX Transportation in acquiring other property for use in the Southern access route.  In addition, the City would commit to use TIF money (if available) to purchase from CSX Transportation the rights of way associated with certain portions of CSX Transportation’s old line locations.  The anticipated cost of the City’s purchase obligations would be between $3 and $5 million dollars.  Additional project funding would come from federal grants sought by the developer.  In the event that the TIF and/or federal grants do not generate sufficient funds then the parties would have the option, but not obligation, to contribute other sources of revenue later.

It is important to note that CSX Transportation’s obligations are subject to several contingencies.  One of the more notable of these is funding.  The proposed plan is heavily dependent upon federal grant financing and the existence of sufficient property tax revenues to permit bonding against City TIF districts.  Another is that CSX Transportation must be up and running on the newly-established lines before it would relinquish any rights to the pre existing lines.  Obstacles to the project, whether they are from lawsuit, funding, governmental regulation, or other sources, could mean that the project may have to be abandoned.  If the project failed then any land or TIF money the City previous contributed would be returned to it to the fullest possible extent.  If the project is successful, the City will have succeeded in relocating rail access to the Base and new SPA terminal from the North to the South, thus improving the quality of life within some of North Charleston’s oldest neighborhoods.

City of North Charleston MOU Synopsis

The MOU between the City of North Charleston, CSX and Shipyard Creek Associates can be broken down into three key components which are outlined below.  This document is a win-win for the community, the City and the railroad because they all will be able to see the fulfillment of some of their long-range goals.  This MOU honors and further advances the existing MOU between the City and the State by routing rail out the southern end of the City as opposed to the northern end of the Navy Base through residential neighborhoods.

1. Abandonment of the Rail Along Spruill Avenue

• CSX would abandon through Rails to Trails or by deeding to the City the property the rail occupies along Spruill from approximately Braddock to approximately Viaduct.
• The total acreage that the City will receive is 32+/- acres.
• The City Comprehensive Plan, LAMC Plan and the Noisette Plan all call for the removal of this rail to allow Park Circle, Olde North Charleston, Century Oaks, Horizon Village, Noisette, Union Heights and Chicora-Cherokee neighborhoods to be re-knitted back together.
• No rail would come through Chicora-Cherokee and rail would be shifted out of the Park Circle area.
• Potential for a greenway for pedestrian and bicycle connection to Downtown Charleston.

2. Redevelopment of the Stromboli Corridor

• Through federal grants the City will purchase 40+/- acres of industrial land along the Stromboli Corridor.
• Area has been targeted by LAMC as a redevelopment area to re-knit Union Heights, Windsor Place, Chicora Cherokee and Jacksonville Road Area.
• City will use the land for community revitalization working closely with LAMC.
• A new overflow rail line would be run through the Stromboli Corridor.

3. Redevelopment of the Cooper Yard/Macalloy Site

• The Cooper Yard/Macalloy Site would be redeveloped into an intermodal rail yard and warehousing facility.
• This would be a major job generator for the area.
• A sound wall would be constructed along Spruill Avenue.
• The project would reduce the number of trucks on local streets and roads.
• The Clemson Wind Turbine Cluster would be allowed to move forward, creating more jobs.
• Would not require re-opening the Environmental Impact Statement for the new port terminal.