The progress of the governor’s initiative for a container port at Quonset has passed through several phases without a clear statement of either purpose or need. “I have long believed that a container port at Quonset would benefit the State’s economy,” stated Lincoln Almond in a press release on February 9, 2001. The statement might define a purpose but it does not express a need. Are other alternatives better? Does the port have to be at Quonset?
Now the hope is that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will provide the purpose and need. Sadly, it works the other way round. The purpose and need must be stated before the Army Corps of Engineers starts what seems likely to be an extensive and expensive process. The governor, Economic Development Corporation (EDC) and Economic Policy Council (EPC) have set a deadline of the end of June this year to request funds from the General Assembly to cover the costs of an EIS. Ken Payne, Legislative Policy Director, says the cost of the EIS to taxpayers will be between $3 million and $5 million, but may be more due to additional studies and sure-to-be-filed lawsuits. In a February 27, 2001 letter to the governor, Senate Majority Leader Irons wrote “We should undertake (the EIS review) after a solid, reasonable assessment of what is being proposed…(and) … a clear statement of the purpose of and the need for the port should be developed.” He continued, “I also believe that the port project must be coordinated by your office.” Who has the knowledge and skill to guide the project through this critical phase? EDC head Tom Schumpert told the EPC that, “EDC does not have the expertise and resources.” Tom Ryan, Chairman of the EPC expressed his concerned that the project is drifting.
Rhode Island's Market Has Changed. Developers, Builders, Investors and Sellers Must Change With It.
By Emilio DiSpirito IV License Partner | Engel & Völkers Oceanside Leader | The DiSpirito…
Learn More
The drift over the past three years started with the Quonset Point Partners proposal, then the R.K. Johns review, which was followed by a stakeholders’ process; now a move to an EIS is planned. Federal law requires the process to discover the effect major projects have on the environment and to determine if any adverse impacts are justified. The governor plans to have a request ready for the General Assembly to approve funding by the end of June, the last date for approval of funds in the FY 2002 budget.
As I see it, there are two possible needs for a container port at Quonset. The first is that the state needs the economic benefits that could be derived from the project. The other is that the state needs to establish trade links between the global routes and the domestic trade corridors.
If the target is economic benefits, then the project must find the best means to achieve these. Is a container port at Quonset the preferred choice? The answer must follow a review of the options. These could include activities at Quonset other than a container port and economic development projects at other locations. The request for an EIS must include a clear statement of need, whether the evidence supports the Quonset container port or some other more worthwhile investment. Concerns over the economic benefits have been expressed regarding the economics of a container port and the decrease in number of direct jobs in the automated port system that is currently on the table.
If trade links are a reason to pursue this project, then more than one way of reaching this goal must be considered. Is a container port the best means? If so, where is the best location for it? Again, a clear and sound statement of how and why this project meets this stated objective should be in the evidence submitted for the EIS process. Credible studies by the EPC have shown the benefits of creating trade links between eastern US trade corridors and the primary Atlantic shipping routes. EPC Executive Director Kip Bergstrom contends that “Rhode Island should not be cut off from global trade routes.” Since a large and growing amount of trade is carried in containers, a port capable of moving containers between ships and land transport is favored.
As more than one plan must be considered for the EIS process, options are required. It is not enough to offer slightly different designs for one location. The proposal should review several locations. Narragansett Bay used to have rail links on both shores. The East Bay rail tracks are now bicycle paths and connections to Interstate 195 from potential port areas on Aquidneck Island would need improvement. West Bay offers two locations where both road and rail links are close to the shipping channels. Quonset is a doubtful choice since the road links also need improvement and the various proposed port locations conflict with development of the airport. The Port of Providence may be favored due to the proximity of road and rail to the shipping lanes. Bergstrom says, “Quonset is an ideal location.” This may be so but no evidence supports this statement. The governor should accede to Senator Irons’ request and come up with a clear statement of the need and purpose for this project before investing taxpayers’ money in its pursuit.
(Paul White resides in Wickford and is a consultant in management and engineering.
He may be contacted on WellingtonWhite@netscape.net)
