Update, 3:20 p.m.: In a follow-up email to the Journal, the Humboldt Bay Harbor Group's citizen leader, Susana Munzell, confirmed that the data now being used to promote the east-west railroad project is from a 15-year-old study that operated under a very different set of hypotheticals:
As I recall, the information came from a study by a professor at UC Berkeley for the Harbor District's harbor deepening project. More info later if I can locate it.
Yesterday we reported on the "rah rah rail" resolution that will appear before the Eureka City Council tonight, and we wondered about the "economic modeling" cited therein. The "summary" that precedes the resolution paints a colorful picture, casting the battle over Humboldt Bay's future as a fight between Ayn Randian leaders whose economic visions are grounded in hard data and, on the other hand, nay-saying, no-growth whiners whose motives are nigh unfathomable.
One major thrust of this treatise, which is being presented by the Humboldt Bay Harbor Working Group, is that local governments and citizens should support the construction of an east-west rail line connecting Humboldt Bay to the national rail system in the Sacramento Valley.
No source is given for the "economic modeling" cited in the document as evidence that a "revitalized harbor" could:
In an email to the Journal, the group's citizen leader, Susana Munzell, said:
The modeling, figures and projections for harbor jobs and funds are listed in documents from the Harbor Commission, among them Waterfront Revitalization Plan; The 2003 Harbor Revitalization Plan; 2009 Economic Development Plan and Draft Strategic Plan; the Shore-Based Aquaculture Terminal Project, and county documents such as the Harbor Revitalization Plan, the Local Coastal Plan, etc.
The Journal so far hasn't found the figures in any of those studies, but we did come across a close fit in a 15-year-old economic impact report commissioned by the harbor district. Back then, U.C. Berkeley economist John Quigley attempted to predict the economic benefits of a series of major infrastructure improvements to the harbor, starting with a deepening project.
The report was used in an attempt to sell voters on the creation of a harbor assessment district -- a proposal that was rejected by voters in 1997. Regardless, using estimates provided by harbor district staff, Quigley estimated that, with major investments from both local taxpayers and the federal government, a series of major infrastructure projects could, among other things:
Is this the economic modeling being used today by the Humboldt Bay Harbor Working Group? If so, it's more than a little bit problematic. As Munzell herself notes, there have been numerous studies and reports since Quigley's, none of which have agreed with his robust predictions. Even at the time they were greeted with skepticism. For example, in this 1998 memo to local business leaders, Gregg Foster, then with the Humboldt Area Foundation, noted that, "The cargo shipping assumptions used in the Quigley report significantly exceed any other projection made to date."
Another problem: The major component of Quigley's assumptions was not a rail connection but the harbor deepening project -- which has already been completed.
Also: It's not 1997. As justification for building an east-west rail, which is how it's being used here, Quigley's analysis is both off-topic and hopelessly obsolete.