Liver cancer?

The Stranger continues to be the only investigative journalist and advocate in the Seattle area...

(should we keep a tally of how many news stories/investigations that started at The Stranger or Slog which was then "picked up" by Seattle Times, KOMO, etc.?)

Keep up the fight!

@2: +infinity. Thank you Cienna and The Stranger!

it's amazing that washington could sacrifice its 21st century sensibilities to facilitate 20th century interests, and the 20th century developing world infrastructure they perpetuate and feed from.

Easily combustible? 1.5 miles long? Open topped? Trundling through remote backwaters? Sounds like a security nightmare.

Proponents tout the tax revenue these coal export terminals would bring in, but these projects are likely to cost local taxpayers much more than any added revenue from the terminals from all the new overpasses,and underpasses local governments would have to build to mitigate having their towns and cities cut in half by the procession of coal trains blocking at grade crossings frequently. Federal courts have ruled that the railroads are only liable for 5% of the costs of needed infrastructural improvements made necessary by heavy train traffic. State and local governments would have to come up with 95% of the money for those needed improvements.

These coal export terminals are a lose/lose proposition for residents of the Northwest even if you ignore the disastrous effects on the global climate.

Meh...

until I saw the check of $7590, I have faith that my mother in law woz realy bringing in money parttime at there labtop.. there uncle started doing this 4 only 23 months and as of now paid the dept on there condo and purchased a brand new Fiat Panda. go to,FLY38.com

A burning coal train would pass through Tacoma without a second glance.

Cienna and the Stranger, thank you so much for doing your part to make more people aware of this dangerous environmental and public health threat.

Please comment on this project at http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-i… by January 21. Your comment is possibly even more important than your vote in the 2012 election because the committee has to read each comment and respond to each of your concerns before determining whether to allow this project. If you raise a new issue, the committee is legally obligated to consider that issue. Even if you think you have the same ideas that everyone else does, your comment is very important because the more people who speak up against the coal trains the more power local government organizations and politicians will have to stand up against the big coal companies.

You do not have to be 18 years old to comment. If you are a teacher (or if you know a teacher), you can ask each student in your entire class to comment for a homework assignment. If you are a parent you can ask your child to comment. This is our chance and the clock is ticking. Speak now (by January 21) or forever hold your breath.

THANK YOU, Cienna Madrid, and The Stranger, for getting this out!!
Coal is backwards, proven to cause lung cancer (black lung), and
you are absolutely spot on, @4 nonotford!!

The idiotic coal train proposal would not only completely destroy what makes Washington State such a desirable place to live, but only "benefits" the Koch brothers and their greedy profit lusting ilk. As for "Good Jobs Now", don't anybody be fooled! Has anyone besides me noticed that the number of "promised" permanent jobs has dwindled down to 200? Like such "jobs" would really boost our economy, while emergency crews and others are left stuck at railroad crossings. how many corpses would the fire, police, and aid cars end up transporting instead to the morgue, provided they can get there?

The coal train idea is a catastrophe of biblical proportions (yes, think about all the increased burning of fossil fuels when we really SHOULD be focusing on saving our planet) straight out of a 1970s disaster movie. We cannot let this happen!

@10: Then Tacoma needs to wake up.

@11 historyteacher: And THANK YOU for your helpfully informative link!

They'll start putting covers on the coal cars pretty quick after someone starts dropping incendiaries into them. That overpass in the Sculpture Garden seems an ideal spot for that.

In the first place get your facts straight. Gilette ia almost due east of Sheridan and the Power River Basin is in Wyoming NOT Montana. And you have No idea what coal means to the economys of these two states.

@16 - The Powder River Basin is in both states, just mainly in Wyoming.

And yes, I'm sure a coastal coal terminal will help the economies of Montana and Wyoming, but it won't do jack-shit for us in Seattle except hurt our own economy.

Maybe these freeloading coal states should put some skin in the game and pay for all the infrastructure changes needed to deal with three hours of coal traffic running through Seattle every day, rather than expecting Seattle to do that.

And maybe these freeloading states should also pay for the extra maintenance on Washington rail lines due to these heavier, more frequent trains, and reimburse us for being the bottleneck in our own rail commerce

It's only good for the economy of Montana and Wyoming if someone else is responsible for the economic consequences along the route. If they had to pay the true cost of getting coal to the coast, they'd lose their shirts.

So many lies in one column I don't know where to start. So lets start with the biggest lie in history. Human released CO2 is not causing global warming. It's the natural cycle that has been happening for millions of years. Nothing has changed to stop they cycle. The warming comes from the sun.
http://wakeup-world.com/2011/09/02/c-e-r…
Coal dust is not toxic and covering the tracks for thousand of miles. I commute to work on a train every day. Coal trains us the same track. I have never seen a speck of coal dust in the station or coming off the trains as they past. The only people that have every had a problem with coal dust are coal miners and modern mining procedures that use water to keep the dust down have greatly reduces that problem.

There also seem to be a lot of selfish attitudes that think there little inconvenience by a train is more important that the thousand of lives that will be helped by the jobs created. But that is a trait of the liberal mindset isn't it.

Let the trains roll.

You statement that coal dust isn't toxic is ridiculous. Coal has high levels of a number of toxics. One of the biggest is mercury. And a visual check of a coal train every day for "specks" of coal dust isn't exactly a scientific method for proving your theory. Try checking with the people who live along the train's route and see if they have higher rates of respiratory problems.

This is easy, stop using rubber, anything with plastic and hair coloring just to name a few items that use coal and coal based products That will stop the coal trains!

Yes, coal has many negative aspects, but is there a alternative energy source? Reducing coal use would most certainly drive the country into an inevitable depression. The far majority of electricity produced comes from coal and green technologies are currently a pipe dream.

Yes, coal has many negative aspects, but is there a alternative energy source? Reducing coal use would most certainly drive the country into an inevitable depression. The far majority of electricity produced comes from coal and green technologies are currently in their infancy.

There is a faction that sees this proposal as a job creator for Washington. I think there's something fundamentally wrong with that point of view. This proposal does nothing for the large number of chronically unemployed in the Eastern two-thirds Washington, a constant drag on the state's economy.

But putting that aside, I strongly oppose the trains because of the damage they will do and the dangerous risks they will pose locally in Western Washington, all along the proposed rail route.

Given all the street level rail crossings north of Seattle, the daily passage of these trains will have a huge negative impact on North Sound commuters as traffic patterns become permanently disrupted (whether you're alone in a car or in a crowded public transit bus, you'll be stuck waiting for a mile long train to clear a crossing at a speed of 25-30 MPH). In some areas, this will back traffic up to I-5 and on I-5, as arterial streets and roads serving the Interstate are blocked by the trains.

Frustrated drivers will increasingly try to beat the train at crossings, leading to an increase in train vs. vehicle accidents. This type of accident is always a major derailment risk. The constant danger of mudslides along a stretch of the rail corridor in Snohomish County also poses a high risk for derailment in the Everett area.

You want to bring this closer to home? Just think about a coal train derailment occurring above Golden Gardens spilling tons of coal onto the beach and polluting Shilshole Bay. That should be enough to make your blood boil.

"Everybody knows that coal trains are bad for our health, our economy, and our planet." Lazy headline.

This is my #1 issue right now because of the disastrous long term environmental, public health and economic consequences of this project. Aside from leaving a public comment at http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-i… by January 21 (which is very important and there is no limit to the number of comments you can leave if you come up with additional concerns and/or ideas), does anyone have any ideas of organizations or campaigns that concerned citizens can volunteer for or get involved with to help protect our city and our state from these dangerous coal trains? Thanks.

So now the "progressives" turn into NIMBYs. And Ciena, were you raped by a coal train?

#15, if we're lucky, they'd blow up a car or two on the train and take out that ugly sculpture park. The tracks would be rebuilt and the trains would resume, but at least that eyesore would be gone.

The author doesn't know the RR continues north of Bellingham to Vancouver, BC? If WA doesn't want a coal port, BC does.

A coal train can lose 25% of the load? Anyone believe it?

I suggest the old Scott Paper property in Everett for a coal port. it could be done with no disruption of traffic in any major city.

#28, they're playing Chicago-style politics on this one. They're throwing claims against the wall in hopes that something will stick. Of course the coal trains don't lose 25% of their loads.

1. Spell Gillette correctly Seatle. It hurts the ego a bit right?
2. This smells like Frasier Crane's toilet backed up because he ate at that new vegan place. SHIT STINKS. a.k.a you can't have your cake and eat it too. Stopping trains that connect to the most efficient places, strangles the hope for better country wide transportation.
3. Stopping coal trains hurts another part of this country, a cleaner part of this country. For example: http://www.homes.com/listing/174577061/4…

you stop coal trains, my hometown becomes a ghost town.

@freelunch

funny name, You assume they aren't mining this off their own land? The states dig, and mine, Washington does not. Is that not fair? Larger cities get to use the offspring that coal produces(your galoshes and raincoats). Communication is key here...maybe a 30/40/50 year plan?

Seattle likes to bitch about traffic. STOP DRIVING.

#31, rest easy. The "progressives" of Seattle will not stop the coal trains. If they're able to keep them out of the city (doubtful), they'll just go somewhere else. This is entirely about appearances for the local pseudo-environmentalists.

#23 mudslide

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Freig…

what if this had been a coal train??

@18, If you think that "thousands of jobs" will be created, you're dreaming! Already Gateway Pacific, who originally "offered" 1,500
permanent "jobs" at the start, is now saying that only 200 will be permanent. Meanwhile, many OTHER existing jobs (i.e., trucking) stand to be lost BECAUSE of projected increases in traffic congestion, and in the fishing industry once our waterways are permanently polluted.
You obviously don't live near train tracks like I do, either. I am not selfish, I am only making sense!

Coal is an outdated 19th century dinosaur that should be made extinct!

@25: Thank you for your link! I emailed Gateway Pacific.

@26 & @33: Did you recently pick your nose, find a 5 lb. bugger, and it turned out to be your brain?

This article may well be totally true and be super important. However, I couldn't get past the obnoxious "Everybody knows that coal trains are bad for our health, our economy, and our planet" subheading.

There is nothing in the world that "everybody knows" and and that kind of annoying presumptuousness drives me crazy.

Thanks Mister G...

Articles like this without proper compromise or will to listen to any other point of view are frustrating.

Dennis Meadows (Club of Rome) had it right:
"The problem that faces our societies is that we have developed industries and policies that were appropriate at a certain moment, but now start to reduce human welfare, like for example the oil and car industry. Their political and financial power is so great and they can prevent change. It is my expectation that they will succeed. This means that we are going to evolve through crisis, not through proactive change."

Acknowledge this and give up the un-winnable battles: the coal will get to China and it will be burned there, regardless of our local protests. Re-focus your energy to do something more useful, like preparing yourself (and your children!) for a comprehnsive reduction in living standards.

(P.S. - you won't need an iGadget or NBA tickets for that)

@40: Don't look at ME, David! I didn't vote for Dubya, nor do I own an IPhone5.

The Koch brothers ad nauseum WANT us to kowtow to the Chinese, because destroying every remaining natural resource left in the United States would make THEM richer.

That DOESN'T mean we suddenly "have" to export coal.

@40 & @42: Sorry, you're not taking me down with you! Washington State is still my beloved home since birth, and I will protest until I'm in my grave.

robertq22 - @18 - The increase in atmospheric CO2 is not natural: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends…
(click on the "Historic" tab on that page)

The increase in atmospheric CO2 is known to come from the burning of fossil fuels: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc…

@18 - The increase in atmospheric CO2 is not natural: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends…
(click on the "Historic" tab on that page)

The increase in atmospheric CO2 is known to come from the burning of fossil fuels: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc…

The argument made in this article is greatly weakened by the complete lack of addressing ANY arguments in favor of allowing the construction of new shipping terminals for coal to be built in the state of Washington. There are exceedingly few issues in this world which are completely one-sided, and this certainly is not one of them.

Factors that NEED to be considered when looking at the COMPLETE picture in this argument include: the fact that China and India are going to not just continue to use vast amounts of coal now, but will increase their consumption of the energy source for the next several decades, regardless of where the coal comes from; coal mined in the United States is extracted in a more environmental manor than in places like China, Mongolia, and other countries where environmental standards are much lower; the extraction and exporting of coal will have some kind of positive economic impact in various places in the United States.

Once the (potentially) positive aspects have been properly and fairly laid out, only then can people balance those against the (potential) costs and decide in favor or against an issue. Refusing to even attempt a balanced argument shows not just poor analytic and debate skills, but immaturity as well (look at most of the comments for this article to see even "better" examples of this kind of self-righteous pigheadedness).

I haven't taken a stand for or against the issue yet because it is very hard to find reliable and balanced information for either side. This article certainly did nothing to change that.

you stated regarding current traffic levels: "This translates to about six coal trains per day (three full, three empty)"

this is inaccurate. first let me say that i agree with the argument that we should not burn this coal, and i share the concerns about global warming voiced in this article. i also think that some of the research done in writing this article is good. but these numbers are inaccurate, and, to be honest, even though they weren;t central to the arguments in this article, their inaccuracy made me question (even as a 'sympathizer') the other figures and statistics that you cite.

it is more accurate to say that there were about 500 coal trains in 2012 sent to roberts bank, BC from the powder river basin, with the spring creek mine in wyoming the biggest contributor. this is the only source of coal coming through washington to be exported at roberts bank. thats about 4 loaded trains every 3 days, or a bit less than 3 per day if you count the empty trains (which dont come through seattle). so you are off by a factor of 2+.

maybe you mis-estimated the tons of coal that each coal train carries, or you just have bad numbers on the total annual tonnage itself.

as a journalist you know as well as i that any slight factual errors can bring other things you are saying into question, especially when it comes to skeptics and/or people who are on the fence.

PS there were about 175 coal trains sent to the Centralia steam plant in 2012, or about 1 every other day. but of course you were talking specifically about coal sent to Canada.

I've read it all, and not just here. I still can't find any convincing argument to support the building of the ports or having the trains run through the state.

In terms of impact on our local environment and our daily lives (and not giving a rat's patoot about about quality of life anywhere BUT here), the whole proposal is either, at worst, a strong negative or, at best, a neutral for the overwhelming majority of Washingtonians.

As usual, Miss Madrid has missed the pertinent point:

If interstate commerce cannot be impeded and the coal facilities are not opened in WA, where will they open? Ans: British Columbia, which has way less environmental regulation than the USA, for both it's land and Puget Sound. This little piece of information is well known among planners, but utterly neglected in print thus far.

Translation: The coal trains will travel through Seattle regardless of whether "we" (the people) want them too or not. And, the only way we, US citizens, can maximize the regulatory safety to both the region and the Sound is insure that terminals are built in the USA and fall under US regulations, which are far stricter than those in B.C.

Sure, coal is terrible. We can all agree on that; however, when Miss Madrid starts addressing the reality of the situation instead of a shameless emotional plea with no analysis of the "what if's" perhaps people might take heed. Miss Madrid: What is your plan to stop the coal from being transported through Seattle and shipped via B.C.?

Thank you for writing this article.

Don't forget about Corporate Welfare and a pro-filthy-fuel economy promulgated by the legislateWHORES! ;D ----- http://www.globalgreens.org

That giant squirrel scares me. More than the coal even.

move over to montana and stop the trains over there, before they get here half empty from wind and rain dissipation or whatever.

http://coalexportaction.org/

@54: Although I'm not about to pack up and move to the Powder River Basin any time soon, I agree with your basic point. If they haven't already, more people in Montana and Wyoming need to protest this insane proposal. Hopefully the majority over there isn't blind-sided by the corporate lie of "Good Jobs Now".

I don't care if China and Southeast Asia are so dependent on coal "they'll go elsewhere" to get it, or, that if coal isn't exported from Cherry Point in Whatcom County, Canada will get the revenue, not us! Oh, darn! This isn't being "NIMBY"---it's preserving what's left of our planet by using good, common sense!

Just say "NO!" to coal.

people need to step up and stop them in Montana before they get here, i am serious. young single people should do this instead of listening to music, smoking killer weed, and fucking, and other stuff. better yet, bands should do benefits and stuff for the groups fighting the coal trains on the ground and through the Montana legislature. get some Subpop benefits going in Montana Tim, that would f'ng rock.

I wonder if the Chinese are into burning filthy, corrupt fat and gristle?
I wouldn't mind exporting Rush Limbaugh and the Koch brothers
one way to Asia, but that would REALLY cause an unbearable global stink.

coal keeps me warm, at half the price of conventional heating. I love it!

@58: Please go back to your cave and stay there.

Oh, yeah, she's raised you right, your Auntie Grizelda,
You only know the things she wants you to know.

I know she's having a fit,
She doesn't like me a bit,
No bird of grace ever lit on Auntie Grizelda.

@60: Glad you like The Monkees, too!

a few of us smoked weed with davy jones in 1992 near washington square park. it was a hoot, that guy was one happy go lucky fellow. he was just bopping down the street like on the tv show.

Why are we sending our coal to China? Might not we need it some day? Maybe we will need it in 50, 100, or 200 years. But what the hell let's enrich a few fat cats now and the future be damned.

@63: Obviously your head is full of coal, weed, or rocks.

Ugghh. I HATE it when the repub right does this, so it's quite embarrassing and upsetting when I see anyone on the left do this as well...
You can't just pick out bits of data and opinion from your sources without giving the context, or telling the whole story in the sentences that surround your cherry-picked quote.
First off, we all agree that coal burning for power is neanderthalic at best. Asia, however, will get their coal, regardless of what we do in our state. It just wouldn't ship out of Washington - we just pass the issue on to someone else's backyard.
Secondly, getting Asia to accept, buy and use lower-sulfur coal(aka "clean coal", as the coal lobby has deviously named it) is a first step of many to make long-term changes in their energy policies. No it's not ideal, but there's also no magic wand or Sustainable Energy Fairy that will bring about this change overnight.

The crux of my issue with this borderline hack job of an article, is the data from the "coal industry group" Utility FPE Group Inc. If you spend 60 seconds on their website, you will see that they are a BUSINESS that sells abatement materials and products to the companies dealing with coal delivery and storage. Risk Engineering, as UFPEG proudly claims as their business, depends on making the case that a RISK EXISTS. Much of the data that they give to prove risk is misleading and in some cases just plain false.
1) Only very rarely does coal spontaneously combust in hopper cars - regardless whether it's smoke or fire. Coal itself is actually NOT easily ignited. If coal sits for a long time, there is some risk, but when a load of coal is put into a hopper, it's commonly out of that car in less than 7 days. The only cases I've heard of coal loads on fire on a railroad have been caused by external sources... i.e. forest fires or field burning depositing embers; or from a "hot box" - where brakes on a railroad car lock up and start smoldering or even catch fire.
It's like worrying about car fires in downtown Seattle. Yes, I'm sure it happens... but it's really not something worth worrying about.

2) Coal dust in a standard hopper dissipates within the first 50 miles of transit. Coal hoppers are not "constantly spewing dust", as stated. It's not even really an issue anymore, as most of the bigger railroads are now spraying their coal loads with a surfactant that cuts down on coal dust emissions by 80-90%. The issue with coal dust destabilizing the railroad's roadbed is true - so the railroads have a vested interest to make sure this is addressed. But the only place where coal dust interaction with a roadbed has caused derailments is in Wyoming, in the Powder River Basin itself.
Other points that are made by Ms Madrid:
- Washington's freight rail system will not be "clogged". They have adequate capacity for these proposed trains, plus some.
- Impact for most communities in Eastern Washington will be minimal. For instance, all existing and proposed coal trains move through Spokane, where the impact to traffic is exactly zero. There are no grade crossings within Spokane city limits that this train will impact, and only 4 total that it will impact within the Spokane metro area.
- Impact to Seattle traffic will only apply to trains that are not routed through Stevens Pass. I don't know the proposed distribution of these trains, but they have 3 potential routes to the Puget Sound from Spokane.
- Claims about fishing being harmed - at least for Cherry Point - are new to me, and from what I can find, unfounded. The Wa Dept of Fish & Wildlife does not list the Whatcom County coast as a recognized "fishing ground", and there are no public objections to Cherry Point from fishermen that I can find. As for the other locations, I did not research those, and wouldn't doubt there would be impact.
- And yes, this will create a bunch of local jobs... not just for the coal terminals, but for the railroads, their subcontractors and infrastructure companies they do business with.

I guess my main point in all this is that to make MEANINGFUL CHANGE, adopting a NIMBY attitude does not help in this case. The coal will just go elsewhere to export - probably California. The countries of Eastern Asia will not suddenly say "Hey, maybe we shouldn't import coal after all" - they will just decide not to get it from the US, and instead get it from countries with a perhaps dodgier set of regulations on coal export.
I'd encourage our state to increase taxes on coal exports - if that is possible - as an initial step. And secondly, our Federal government needs to step in and impose a tariff on exports to countries without environmental controls and protections around the continued use of coal-fired energy production.

I acknowledge that as a progressive, and also a railroad proponent and railfan, I walk this weird tightrope of dichotomy. I've tried to give facts in my post, and not opinion. Facts are the progressive's best friend - facts need to be of utmost importance in our arguments, and I'd very much like to be corrected if any of my "facts" are incorrect.

Ugghh. I HATE it when the repub right does this, so it's quite embarrassing and upsetting when I see anyone on the left do this as well...
You can't just pick out bits of data and opinion from your sources without giving the context, or telling the whole story in the sentences that surround your cherry-picked quote.
First off, we all agree that coal burning for power is neanderthalic at best. Asia, however, will get their coal, regardless of what we do in our state. It just wouldn't ship out of Washington - we just pass the issue on to someone else's backyard.
Secondly, getting Asia to accept, buy and use lower-sulfur coal(aka "clean coal", as the coal lobby has deviously named it) is a first step of many to make long-term changes in their energy policies. No it's not ideal, but there's also no magic wand or Sustainable Energy Fairy that will bring about this change overnight.

The crux of my issue with this borderline hack job of an article, is the data from the "coal industry group" Utility FPE Group Inc. If you spend 60 seconds on their website, you will see that they are a BUSINESS that sells abatement materials and products to the companies dealing with coal delivery and storage. Risk Engineering, as UFPEG proudly claims as their business, depends on making the case that a RISK EXISTS. Much of the data that they give to prove risk is misleading and in some cases just plain false.
1) Only very rarely does coal spontaneously combust in hopper cars - regardless whether it's smoke or fire. Coal itself is actually NOT easily ignited. If coal sits for a long time, there is some risk, but when a load of coal is put into a hopper, it's commonly out of that car in less than 7 days. The only cases I've heard of coal loads on fire on a railroad have been caused by external sources... i.e. forest fires or field burning depositing embers; or from a "hot box" - where brakes on a railroad car lock up and start smoldering or even catch fire.
It's like worrying about car fires in downtown Seattle. Yes, I'm sure it happens... but it's really not something worth worrying about.

2) Coal dust in a standard hopper dissipates within the first 50 miles of transit. Coal hoppers are not "constantly spewing dust", as stated. It's not even really an issue anymore, as most of the bigger railroads are now spraying their coal loads with a surfactant that cuts down on coal dust emissions by 80-90%. The issue with coal dust destabilizing the railroad's roadbed is true - so the railroads have a vested interest to make sure this is addressed. But the only place where coal dust interaction with a roadbed has caused derailments is in Wyoming, in the Powder River Basin itself.
Other points that are made by Ms Madrid:
- Washington's freight rail system will not be "clogged". They have adequate capacity for these proposed trains, plus some.
- Impact for most communities in Eastern Washington will be minimal. For instance, all existing and proposed coal trains move through Spokane, where the impact to traffic is exactly zero. There are no grade crossings within Spokane city limits that this train will impact, and only 4 total that it will impact within the Spokane metro area.
- Impact to Seattle traffic will only apply to trains that are not routed through Stevens Pass. I don't know the proposed distribution of these trains, but they have 3 potential routes to the Puget Sound from Spokane.
- Claims about fishing being harmed - at least for Cherry Point - are new to me, and from what I can find, unfounded. The Wa Dept of Fish & Wildlife does not list the Whatcom County coast as a recognized "fishing ground", and there are no public objections to Cherry Point from fishermen that I can find. As for the other locations, I did not research those, and wouldn't doubt there would be impact.
- And yes, this will create a bunch of local jobs... not just for the coal terminals, but for the railroads, their subcontractors and infrastructure companies they do business with.

I guess my main point in all this is that to make MEANINGFUL CHANGE, adopting a NIMBY attitude does not help in this case. The coal will just go elsewhere to export - probably California. The countries of Eastern Asia will not suddenly say "Hey, maybe we shouldn't import coal after all" - they will just decide not to get it from the US, and instead get it from countries with a perhaps dodgier set of regulations on coal export.
I'd encourage our state to increase taxes on coal exports - if that is possible - as an initial step. And secondly, our Federal government needs to step in and impose a tariff on exports to countries without environmental controls and protections around the continued use of coal-fired energy production.

I acknowledge that as a progressive, and also a railroad proponent and railfan, I walk this weird tightrope of dichotomy. I've tried to give facts in my post, and not opinion. Facts are the progressive's best friend - facts need to be of utmost importance in our arguments, and I'd very much like to be corrected if any of my points are incorrect.

Ugghh. I hate it even more when a comment - especially a lengthy one - posts twice.
No way to delete one, eh?

Reading to be informed.
I would ask what are the economics of sending coal to China? What are the alternatives for China? In terms of social justice I would think it better for China to buy from the US its coal. Better standards. And we should go there have pay to help them build higher quality power plants. They won't do it on their own.

Increased rail traffic seems to be a poor argument to me. That is what the tracks are there for.

I live next to the I-5 and am always cleaning a lot of black soot out of the apartment. I am guessing that driving all these automobiles in a crowded urban area produces a lot more pollution in one day than the trains would produce in one year.

So all I really got out of the article was that people are upset and a bit hysterical about coal trains.

Westshore Vancouver terminal is maxed and already tied in to a long-term contract. The coal ain't going anywhere if we stop the terminals. This is bigger than jobs and trains...anyone see the air quality for Beijing over the weekend? You think those folks want us to subsidize more coal-fired power in Asia with our cheap, dirty coal? China already has schooled the U.S. in solar power production, but economies of scale mean they are burning lots of coal because it is cheap and available(thanks to us!). Do something, anything - even if you start by just pulling your heads out.

I want to give Gregrose karma points, you win.

Alternatives for china include mining and burning far worse locally mined(in china) coal. worse working conditions as well. Powder River Basin has high safety standards. I've seen such a drop in new employees at these mines, along with more regulations, that it is obvious the industry is shrinking. Hopefully with these discussions, coal industry can invest in making the current coalbeds last twice as long as they proudly proclaim. That means alternative energy needs to be rooted in the same land that this coal is coming from, and coal can gradually find its way off the top of the pile.

I sent this comment to:

http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-i…

[You can send your own as well. Why not do it today or tonight; on your own, with a friend, whatever. Just get to it. Yes, Seattle –This is an official call to action.]

I hope to spend my final days in this splendid complexity of human and animal life that is Seattle. It is utterly confounding that a bulk coal conveyance facility site would be under consideration in such fragile ecological environments as is represented from the Oregon coast to Cherry Point, Washington. Contingency and mitigation plans are all well and good, but the historical hazard event record does not bode well for coal production, transportation, storage, nor combustion as fuel.

The various applicants for coal-loading and transportation facilities have abjectly failed to allay the well-founded concerns of current (and future generations) of people living in the debris field (fallout!) zones of the available rail rights-of-way, and fail to garner confidence that sufficient mitigation measures would (or could) be designed and implemented. Of course, when I say "sufficient", I refer to sufficient with respect to the people in the wake of the coal trains –not the coal operators and principals who would substantially profit from the misery of the coal's effects per se.

The "benefits" alluded to by the coal operators, i.e., tax base increases, jobs, etc., are a red herring, given that the vast degradation of natural resources along all rail rights-of-way could not possibly be compensated by the most optimistic estimates of employment as projected by any of the plans under consideration.
It is patently foolish to suggest that renewable resources such as the fishing industry (necessary for much of human life) should be subjugated in favor of the mass extraction and transportation of toxic, non-renewable fossil fuel.

By any objective analysis, the risks-to-benefits are non-commensurate and asymmetric to the point of idiocy, except to those who would personally stand to gain, or those who refuse to observe the dangers, be their motive greed for money or any other.

I live in Dallas, but, seriously considering a move to Washington. I find this very upsetting. This is just the sort of thing I am trying to escape from in Texas. Please don't let this happen. I can't imagine ruining the cleanest air I have ever breathed in my adult life. Not to mention the pristine views. And to have to look at these trains rolling past when walking on the waterfront is appalling. Please "make it stop."

@72: THANK YOU! Can you please spread the word??

Over the past 15 years, WSDOT has spent many, many millions of tax dollars to improve and upgrade the BNSF mainline between Vancouver and Blaine in order to improve passenger rail service (travel time and number of train) for the Cascade Ltd. They have paid the BNSF to add sidings, crossovers and even paid for a new rail yard expansion in Everett. How will the added coal train traffic impact passenger rail traffic? Will the millions the state spent to speed up Amtrak service be lost to congested mainline traffic and increased mainline maintenance? I'm not being pro Amtrak here. Just pointing out that John Q. Public spent a fortune to run faster passenger trains on BNSF tracks and I wonder if more coal trains will make our investment worthless to us (but not to the BNSF).

@ 68 who writes:

"Increased rail traffic seems to be a poor argument to me. That is what the tracks are there for.

I live next to the I-5 and am always cleaning a lot of black soot out of the apartment."

Monty Python auditions are long past, but this would have been great Graham Chapman material.

Kudos to Cienna. Great article, and it certainly brought the astroturfers out in force. I've been reading Slog for a long time and I don't recognize most of the pro-coal usernames. Blech.

I live in Auburn WA only a few hundred feet from the tracks and let me tell you the noise is unbearable as it is now!

Trains are noisiest when they run slowly, the screeching is as loud as a siren and can last for 5 minutes or more.

Trains also park for hours and when the slack is taken up it sounds like thunder crashing all the way down the line and this repeats every minute or so.

What I mention above is a LOT of noise, much more than what most people associate with trains: the whistle.

Gosh, imagine how many babies and old folks and just everyone who will never get a night's sleep again! (Heck, they classify sleep deprivation as torture... correct?)

And to think that this coal will go to China to be burned and rain down more mercury on us, I will no longer buy Washington produce as it is now...

Think about this issue folks, it seems the idea that "This just isn't us!~" really sums it all up.

We certainly deserve better, please don't let this happen!

Thx

@#72,

Just finished the form asking about the noise and also the impact on property values...

Seriously, this is a disaster waiting to happen and I can't believe anyone would consider this egregious proposal.

Thx

Whatever you do, it will not matter if Obama gets his way with the Trans Pacific Partnership and the TAFTA.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/10/4/a_…

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/05/…

"if they don't buy our coal they'll buy someone else's coal"

if we let the coal go through, they will get the coal here AND somewhere else. the more humans burn, the bigger the impact. if we deny power plants this enormous supply of coal, we keep the commodity scarce and deny access to the lower bidders

"if they don't ship coal from WA they'll ship it from somewhere else"

the Pac Rim is where the factories want the coal. BC, OR, and CA are the feasible Pac coast options for coal export. all progressive, as N. America goes. a trend of refusal seems plausible. weed, gays and do gooder consumersim have gone pop out here. in 2011 we saw regime toppling go pop in N. Africa, of all places. BC has already been brave in poo pooing Harper's Pac Rim tar sands pipeline. CA is starting to get riled up about the fracking

if there are only a couple of export outlets on the Pac coast, the longshoremen at those outlets have a strong negotiating position and cut into the per-hopper profitability and thus reduce the volume of export. the longer, the more circuitous, the more heavily trafficked the train route the lower the per-hopper profitability and the lower the volume of exports.

if we can slow them or stop them by denying them tehse points of market entry we achieve a significant reduction vs. what would ship and burn if left unfettered

"if you want to save the planet stop consuming, stop driving etc"

denying fossil fuel energy to the countries with the lowest unit labor costs will effectively make global consumption more expensive and thereby reduce it

"jobs"

selling coal to manufacturing cocuntries facilitates labor arbitrage which lowers the wages of workers here and reduces the number of manufacturing jobs here which are still many, and also generally reduces demand as a loewr share of returns goes to labor over there and labor represents the majority of consumer demand

so basically it fucks with employment

Now that the Boeing Machinists have effectively trashed our economy, we will need the revenue from the coal export facilities. The transportation issues are minimal. What freaking coal dust? Coal trains have been rolling through Seattle for many years and just now we are hearing from the "bandwagon, birkenstock, volvo driving crybabies"that know little or nothing about the elaborate plans for safety and minimizing the pollution hazards from the transport and transfer of coal to the large ships that will carry it far, far away with a tidy compensation for Puget Sound. Read up on it you guys, it ain't as bad as some would have it to be.

Cienna, just looked at your cute little map of the N.W. with the little animals that would CERTAINLY be extinct within minutes of a coal train passing by. Where in the hell did you come up with the B.S. about 500lbs per ton of dust from each rail car? Are you a republican? I don't think I have read so many lies since the last republican convention! You're way off track in your facts.

Attended Tacoma's Freedom Fair July 4; we're from out of town. In walking to the beach area crowds were stopped at the train tracks by a COAL TRAIN with heaven only knows how many cars full of coal -- and you could see the coal clearly piled high -- 40 train cars or so . . . . and no one blinked an eye or seemed to care. Is society really that numb and dumb? Wish I'd known that was going to go through town then and would have loved to have seen protestors or some kind of signage -- would have been a perfect opportunity to educate some folks about this shameful impact to Mother Earth. But then, this Is not the age of Aquarius, it's the age of deceit, destruction and GREED.