Route 7 Not Near Capacity
Rutland Herald, Thursday, August 27, 1998
Commentary by David J. O'Brien
I continue to appreciate the depth and breadth of
your coverage of transportation related issues facing
Rutland County. You have done a tremendous job in
both your news and editorial coverage, and it is
appreciated.
I, unfortunately, have to disagree with some
portions of your editorial of August 16 regarding OMYA
Inc. and their ongoing permit challenges. First, I
disagree with your assertion that the District 9
Environmental Commission had jurisdiction over impacts
in Brandon. Brandon is in District 1, not District 9.
Second, any assertion that Route 7 is "near
capacity" is simply wrong. The Vermont Agency of
Transportation testified in the District 9 hearings
that there was no capacity issue on Route 7. District
9 agreed, concluding that OMYA's proposed level of
truck traffic would not cause unreasonable congestion
or unsafe conditions. District 9 further determined
that there were also no substantial noise or
historical impacts from OMYA's proposal.
In fact, District 9's decision to limit OMYA
truck trips was based solely on criterion 8,
aesthetics. They evidently based their decision on
the "unpleasant" nature of trucks. They determined
that OMYA needed to conduct further study of rail
transportation. They acted as if OMYA is unfamiliar
or unwilling to use rail transportation for its
products. To the contrary, OMYA has studied the
specific question of establishing a rail link between
East Middlebury and Florence as recently as 1996 and
found it not only too expensive, but also having
potentially adverse impacts on important wetland
areas.
In terms of the increasing state focus on
fostering rail usage, OMYA should be upheld as the
number one model for the rest of Vermont's businesses.
OMYA is the single largest user of rail in the state.
They own over 1,000 rail cars and are responsible for
60 percent of all traffic on Vermont Railway's system.
They understand rail and are committed to rail. If
rail worked for their current expansion, they would
pursue it. However, it doesn't. For the purpose of
the expansion that is presently contemplated, no
amount of study or wishful thinking is going to change
that.
As a practical matter District 9 did acknowledge
that the economies of rail didn't make sense when they
recommended that OMYA pursue federal funding for
construction support. Unfortunately, the potential
federal funding source referenced by the commission
doesn't even exist.
A rational person would have to wonder how the
commission could make the determination that rail
needed more study given the available information and
the time crunch the company is facing. Given the
logic disconnect of the decision, was the commission
reaching a conclusion based on the merits of the case,
or simply attempting to substantiate an ill-conceived
decision?
If this decision is allowed to stand, what about
the next business which wants to locate or expand in
Vermont? If their plans could result in increased
truck traffic on Routes 7 and 4 or any other federal
highway, what is to prevent their Act 250 permit
application from being declined because some community
doesn't like the aesthetics of trucks on highways?
With that kind of uncertainty, we should be concerned
about the possible effect on business decision-making
going forward.
Economics teaches us that business investment is
entirely reliant on prevailing conditions, taxes,
regulation, quality of available labor,
transportation, and REDC continually monitors the
prevailing business climate in Rutland County.
A good portion of our current employment base
requires truck access into and out of our region. We
must consider this decision in the context of how
Rutland County can compete for quality jobs in the
future.
This issue is real. Don't kid yourself with
statements like "luckily, OMYA cannot pack up and move
its marble elsewhere." Once upon a time officials in
West Rutland were convinced they could tax the Vermont
Marble Co. to whatever degree necessary to support
their town government. They ignored the complaints of
the Vermont Marble Co. right up until the day they
moved out. I believe the common belief in the area at
the time was that the marble was not going anywhere so
of course the company would not. The rest as they say
is history. I would prefer that we do not replicate
our past mistakes or allow history to repeat itself.
Real people's lives hang in the balance.
(David J. O'Brien is executive director of
the Rutland Ecomonic Development Corp.)