Copyright 1999 The Baltimore Sun Company
THE
BALTIMORE SUN
May 29, 1999, Saturday ,FINAL
SECTION: EDITORIAL ,15A SATURDAY MAILBOX
LENGTH: 2051 words
BODY:
Proper dealing in port talks
Over the years, critical rail capacity
has been shifted from freight to commuter operations, and today
CSX's ability to move high volume rail freight through
Baltimore suffers as a result.
CSX takes strong exception to Barry
Rascovar's strident May 16 column concerning the Maersk/Sea-Land port decision,
"With port double-cross, CSX shot itself in foot."
The column showed
scant regard for the facts and insulted the intelligence and impressive work of
the Maryland officials involved in the port decision by suggesting they were
merely dupes of CSX.
State of Maryland and Port of Baltimore officials
are to be highly commended for their efforts in making the Port of Baltimore a
highly attractive option for a Maersk/Sea-Land megaterminal.
Gratuitous
charges in Mr. Rascovar's piece would lead the reader to think that Maersk and
Sea-Land did not act in good faith during the bargaining process. That's dead
wrong. It is insulting to officials of both ports and to Maersk, as well as our
own company, to charge that CSX was "using Baltimore as a pawn to leverage a
better deal out of New York and New Jersey."
The decision to locate a
megaterminal, from a container-shipping company's perspective, is market-to-
market based, not port-to-port.
In addition to the port infrastructure,
highway access and railroad infrastructure are also important considerations in
moving a product to market.
In this case, much of the cargo would
ultimately be destined for the New York metropolitan area. That had to be
weighed carefully in making this decision.
In fact, Maersk/Sea-Land made
clear that a substantial portion of the traffic that would have landed in
Baltimore by ship would then have moved by rail to New York, adding additional
time and costs.
Both shipping lines negotiated in good faith and made
these requirements known to state officials from the beginning.
While
the Port of Baltimore offers many superior attributes, these additional inland
costs had to be factored into the final decision.
Maryland's rail
infrastructure is heavily used, not only moving freight to and from the Port of
Baltimore, but serving local industry as well as MARC commuter and Amtrak
trains.
CSX has invested heavily in its Maryland system and has worked
hard to cooperate with Maryland commuter authorities. Over the years, critical
rail capacity has been shifted from freight to commuter operations, and today
our ability to move high volume rail freight through Baltimore suffers as a
result.
Had our decision been to locate in Baltimore, that rail
infrastructure would have required significant enhancements to accommodate a
dramatic increase in rail traffic and ensure efficient rail service for existing
rail customers.
CSX remains committed to Baltimore and Maryland. CSX is
still the primary tenant at the Seagirt Marine Terminal, which under a long-term
lease operates one of the nation's largest intermodal terminals.
And, we
employ nearly 2,000 people statewide, with major rail facilities in Baltimore,
Jessup and Cumberland.
While it is unfortunate that only one port could
have been selected for our megaterminal, the decision to locate in New York/New
Jersey was based solely upon the economic and transportation infrastructure
issues faced by the shipping lines.
Did Maersk and Sea-Land strive for
the best economic deal? Certainly. Did Baltimore put an outstanding package on
the table? Unquestionably.
Was this a very tough decision? Absolutely.
Was it based upon CSX's bias for New York/New Jersey? Absolutely not.
Mark G. Aron, Richmond, Va.
The writer is executive vice
president of the CSX Corporation.
Baltimore ought to change its name to
" Whinemore" because that seems to be the city's response every time it feels
slighted.
Worse still, is whining without having the facts straight: a
case in point is Barry Rascovar's column "With port double-cross, CSX shot
itself in foot."
CSX goes where the business is. Before the Conrail
split, its port service extended to 25 Eastern ports, including Baltimore.
Baltimore is important, but CSX is not the B&O railroad anymore. Its
focus is revenue generation, not Baltimore, and it doesn't care which port
provides it. It goes where the ships go.
One port, however, that CSX
does not consider one of its mainstays is what Mr. Rascovar called, " the
company's huge rail operation in Norfolk."
CSX does not serve Norfolk.
The port at Norfolk is served by Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) and the Norfolk
Port Belt Railroad (NPB). CSX's lines in the Norfolk area end at Portsmouth, Va.
CSX has little infrastructure in Norfolk. What business CSX has in
Norfolk is via the NPB and NS is obviously not predisposed to share the pie with
CSX.
Undoubtedly, CSX likes to play hardball. In the case of NS,
Baltimore will wish it had taken its bat and gone home before the game started.
And now NS is in a position to pit Baltimore (Dundalk) against Norfolk.
Baltimore, wake up, you just "shot yourself in the foot" by letting your
port adversary march right in the door.
J. Joseph O'Donnell, Fruit Cove,
Fla.
Holiday of heroes
Although the formal observance of
Memorial Day or Decoration Day, as it was called for years, dates from 1868,
this nation has always remembered its fallen heroes.
Let us all remember
with gratitude and reverence the Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice.
We remember those brave men and women who made the supreme sacrifice so
that others might live.
We remember and lament the loss of our fellow
Americans who will never see the dawn of a new day or watch the world tiptoe
toward darkness.
We remember the thousands who never had the opportunity
to grow old in time.
It is altogether proper that we as a nation should
remember these dead, for they died to make men free. They have lighted the
eternal flame of freedom.
We remember them today and always as our eyes
turn toward heaven in sober testimonial.
"On fame's eternal camping
ground their silent tents are spread," today and evermore.
John A.
Micklos, Baltimore
The writer is chairman emeritus of Maryland's War
Memorial Commission.
Room for choices on development
Royce
Hanson's letter "On Smart Growth and straw men," (May 22) attempts to refute the
claim that Smart Growth tries to compel people to live where they otherwise
would not. However, his own argument proves otherwise.
Mr. Hanson argues
that Smart Growth is about "organizing development to make the most efficient
and productive use of existing and planned roads, sewers and public services."
Evidently, he believes that planners and bureaucrats will organize our lives to
create efficient, productive and livable communities.
Yet experience
shows that people don't necessarily like what planners consider efficient,
productive or livable.
If it were possible to plan the complex decisions
that create vibrant communities and economies, then Cuba, North Korea and the
old Soviet Union would be the best places to live.
To create livable
communities, governments should promote individual choices, not dole out
subsidies to pet projects.
Instead of arbitrarily restricting
infrastructure in one area and subsidizing it in other areas, as Smart Growth
does, governments should price infrastructure so that development pays for
itself.
When people face the true costs of development, they will make
efficient choices based on the needs and wants of their families.
Some
people will choose to live in high- density areas, while other people will opt
for low-density suburbs.
The important feature of this approach is
choice -- something government limits when planners decide what kind of growth
to subsidize.
Daniel R. Simmons, Washington
The writer is a
research assistant at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington.
After reading Steven Hayward's Opinion Commentary piece "Smart Growth
policy is chock-full of dumb ideas," (May 10) rather than itemize the
inaccuracies and inflammatory innuendoes contained in the article, I'd like to
respond personally -- regarding my status as an "ordinary person. "
Mr.
Hayward claims the ". . . low-density suburban lifestyle is driven . . . by the
overwhelming preferences of ordinary people." He argues that "we're not going to
get people out of their cars, no matter how hard anyone tries."
For the
record: I prefer to live in a high-density neighborhood. I want to live near a
bus stop. I would love to get rid of my car -- or at least be able to get most
places by foot and transit.
Before anyone gets the idea that I think I'm
"extraordinary," think about neighborhoods like the Upper East and Upper West
Side of Manhattan; think about San Francisco; about Bolton Hill in Baltimore and
Dupont Circle in Washington.
These areas have highly concentrated
populations. But neither Gov. Parris Glendening, Vice President Al Gore nor
anyone else is "compelling" residents to "live in high density areas against
their wishes."
In fact, all of these areas are high- priced housing
markets, precisely because the supply of quality urban housing does not meet the
demand.
Governor Glendening, Vice President Gore, "more than half the
nation's governors," and thousands of whom Mr. Hayward calls " sharpies of the
Smart Growth movement" wish to adjust the balance of development in this country
and begin to serve a diversity of needs and lifestyles -- not just the middle of
the market.
If Mr. Hayward wants to sit in gridlock in Northern
Virginia, so be it.
I and many others wish to rub shoulders with my
neighbors.
Hank Goldstein, Baltimore
The writer is director of
the Baltimore Regional Partnership.
UMUC's graduates overlooked
I was extremely gratified to see so many of our sister institutions
given their due in The Sun's coverage of spring commencements.
I'm
always happy to see my friends and colleagues who work so hard to educate
Maryland's citizens get the recognition they so richly deserve.
But I'm
also very disappointed, even appalled, that The Sun neglected even to mention
the more than 1,400 students who marched in the University of Maryland
University College's (UMUC) commencement May 22.
I didn't expect a
mention of the more than 100 graduates at our Tokyo commencement last month, nor
do I anticipate recognition of the countless others we'll graduate in Seoul,
Okinawa or Heidelberg later this spring, or in Irkutsk and Vladivostok, Russia
this fall.
My expectations are low because I've learned from experience
that UMUC is simply not on The Sun's radar screen.
When I asked a Sun
reporter last summer why, with stories of tuition increases flying about, UMUC's
less than 1 percent increase wasn't even mentioned, he responded, "it's because
you're different."
Well, we know that.
Our graduates are very
different. On average, they aren't the young and privileged; they are generally
among the state's current work force, in their mid-30s -- and some are as old as
the 72-year-old man and 70-year-old woman who received their bachelor's degrees
after many years of struggle and sacrifice.
Nearly half of them are from
minority populations; ours is perhaps the most diverse student population in
Maryland higher education. Some came from as far as Alaska, Asia and Europe to
participate in Saturday's ceremonies.
Because they are working adults
balancing the demands of career, family, community service and an education,
every one of our students has an amazing story to tell of sacrifice and
struggle.
In Tokyo, I encountered one of our graduates who struggled for
34 years to get his bachelor's degree.
For many of our graduates, we are
the "University of the Second or Third Chance," providing hope and optimism. And
that hope and optimism was pervasive on Saturday. I know: I shook every one of
the graduates' hands, and I was moved by each and every heartfelt "thank you" as
1,400 of them crossed the stage.
I'm truly sorry The Sun missed that
opportunity.
And I'm sorry your readers were deprived of one of life's
little object-lessons: It's never too late to join the community of educated
women and men.
Robert E. Myers Jr. College Park
The writer is
interim president of University of Maryland University College.
GRAPHIC: PHOTO(S) 1. Port of Baltimore: Moving
on after the loss of the Maersk/Sea-Land expansion proposal.
2. Recruits
bound for boot camp, July 1961.
LOAD-DATE: May 31,
1999 
