BNSF considers cancelling L.A. intermodal project

The status of BNSF Railway’s Southern California International Gateway project, a proposed intermodal rail facility near the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, is “uncertain” following a recent court ruling, the company said.    BNSF Railway Co. is considering cancelling its planned Southern California International Gateway (SCIG) project, an intermodal rail facility near the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, following a recent court ruling, the company said.
   California Superior Court Judge Barry Good ruled last month that an environmental review of a proposed railyard was inadequate as part of a lawsuit filed by the City of Long Beach in 2013, putting the project on hold. Long Beach was joined by several environmental groups in saying the SCIG project did not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.
   As a result, the Port of Los Angeles must now complete a new report that “identifies ways to reduce the project’s environmental impacts,” according to Charles Parkin, the City of Long Beach’s City attorney.
   “After a thorough review of the ruling, BNSF is troubled by what the decision represents and uncertain whether moving forward with the project is feasible at this time,” Steve Bobb, EVP and chief marketing officer, said in a statement. “We will confer with Port of Los Angeles officials, but it is not clear whether or how the project could be built under the framework set by the decision.”
   The Fort Worth, Texas-based Class I railroad spent eight years on the SCIG environmental review, which included a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Recirculated Draft EIR and Final EIR totaling more than 5,000 pages and an administrative record of more than 200,000 pages. BNSF noted that the court acknowledged in its ruling, “the EIR is an impressive piece of work. It is clear that a great deal of careful thought has been given to the environmental impacts of the project.”
   If given the green light, BNSF would have invested $500 million in the regional economy with this facility, including $100 million in green technologies such as electric cranes, ultra-low emission locomotives and solar energy. The company also made significant changes to the project’s design and operations in direct response to community feedback, and committed to allow only clean trucks on designated industrial routes with GPS tracking, support zero or near-zero emissions technologies, a soundwall, intensive landscaping, a local jobs training program and priority hiring for new jobs to qualified local job applicants.
   According to BNSF, the SCIG facility, which would have been located just four miles from the ports between the Terminal Island Freeway, Sepulveda Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway with direct access to the Alameda Corridor, could have eliminated millions of truck miles from the 710 Freeway each year.
   “While this ruling is disappointing for BNSF and the Port of Los Angeles, it is a major loss for both ports, the local community and the region,” said Bobb. “The ports miss the opportunity to have a green, efficient facility that serves their customers and bolsters their competitiveness, while the community and broader region won’t benefit from the traffic reductions, air quality improvements and good jobs SCIG would have brought.
   “It’s notable that this ruling came just before California’s legislature voted to enact the highest minimum wage in the country, since SCIG would provide family-wage jobs with a solid career path,” he added.
   “With this decision, California sends a clear signal to companies interested in investing in the state that their business isn’t welcome, regardless of how green it will be or how it will support the regional and state economy. It sets a chilling precedent for not only the rail industry, but the entire goods movement sector, which employs more than a million Californians.”