Coos Bay needs living-wage jobs. The South Coast deserves investment. But over $200 million has been committed to a project with no independent feasibility study and no committed shipping customers. The 2027 budget cycle decides what comes next.
Oregon has been here before. Simpson's timber empire made Coos Bay one of the most productive ports in America, and left behind a community with nothing when the industry moved on. Jordan Cove consumed seventeen years before collapsing in 2021 without a single permanent job. PCIP is the third attempt. The question is whether Oregon will require proof this time before committing billions more.
All figures come from the project sponsors' own filings. No independent cost analysis has been conducted at any stage.
pcipproject.com has a dedicated "Myth Busting" page that addresses critics. Here is what each claim omits.
"There is no market for shipping to Coos Bay, and the project won't pencil out." [listed as a myth]. Their response: "Asian shipping companies are excited about the opportunity."
As of March 2026, no shipping line has signed a letter of intent to use the port. The Port's own Winter 2026 update confirms the market analysis by Rebel Consulting is still ongoing and not yet complete. The 2022 federal grant application was rejected partly because it lacked demonstrated market demand.
"This is just another boondoggle." [listed as a myth]. Their response: "Unlike projects over the past 40 years, this project meets a significant national need."
Cost estimates have grown from $1B to a worst-case $4.36B in three years. No independent feasibility study exists. $200M+ in public funds committed before a single shipping customer has signed on. These are the defining characteristics of a boondoggle pattern, not refutations of it.
"Channel modifications will destroy the bay." [listed as a myth]. Their response: "Any effects on habitat will be mitigated beyond the minimum requirements."
59% of Pacific Coast eelgrass mitigation projects have failed to achieve zero net loss. The Army Corps estimates 20 million cubic yards of dredging over three years. Estuaries sequester carbon 10 times faster than forests. "Beyond minimum requirements" is a standard the project has not yet been required to define or demonstrate.
"There is no cohesive plan or funding for this project." [listed as a myth]. Their response: "Grants and private investment are funding the permitting and study process."
The FAQ page itself acknowledges: "design and permitting has yet to be completed on the rail and terminal portions of the project." The cost-benefit and environmental analysis for the terminal and rail is not yet done. The project is asking for construction funding before the planning is complete.
"There won't be any long-term jobs." [listed as a myth]. Their response: "2,500+ temporary construction jobs... over 8,000 workers directly and indirectly."
Original 2021 projections were 500 construction and 250 permanent jobs. The current figures are 5 to 10 times higher with no disclosed change in methodology. The 8,000 figure comes from indirect jobs across Coos Bay and Eugene, a category that depends entirely on whether the port attracts sustained cargo volume, which has not been demonstrated.
"This is an out-of-town corporation that doesn't care about us." [listed as a myth]. Their response: "Local Oregonians have ownership stake in the project."
NorthPoint Development is a Kansas City-based real estate company that has never built an ocean shipping terminal. Its primary business is warehouse and logistics real estate. The Port of Coos Bay is Oregon-based and is the land owner. NorthPoint would develop and operate the terminal under a lease agreement.
The 2027 budget cycle decides whether hundreds of millions more are committed. Residents who want accountability measures in place need to act before that window closes.
Click the numbered markers for details. Satellite imagery via OpenStreetMap.
Map data: OpenStreetMap contributors. Marker positions based on: Port of Coos Bay Channel Modification Report (June 2024); pcipproject.com project area documentation; BLM North Spit map.
The Port of Coos Bay and NorthPoint Development project 2,600 temporary construction jobs and over 2,500 permanent positions, with total project cost estimated at $2.3 billion.
The terminal would be the first fully ship-to-rail facility on the U.S. West Coast. Two ship berths would handle up to 1.2 million TEU initially, with capacity for 2 million TEU annually. Containers would travel by rail to Eugene and on to the Midwest.
The 2021 projections were 500 construction jobs and 250 permanent, five to ten times lower than current claims, with no change in methodology disclosed.
The 8,000 indirect job figure cited on the project's own myth-busting page depends entirely on whether the port sustains cargo volume. The comparison to Prince Rupert omits that Prince Rupert operates passenger, grain, petroleum, coal, and wood terminals that PCIP would not have. Of the projected positions, approximately 750 were in ground transportation, a category that does not apply to a rail-only operation.
No major importer or shipping line has committed to using the port. Existing West Coast ports currently have unused capacity. Multiple competitor ports have announced or completed expansion plans since PCIP was first proposed.
20 million cubic yards of dredging over three years. 59% of Pacific Coast eelgrass mitigation projects fail. Estuaries sequester carbon 10 times faster than forests. Damage cannot be undone.
Rail projects carry the highest cost overrun rates of any infrastructure type. Oregon lost $70 million on rail terminals in Millersburg and Nyssa that independent experts had warned would fail.
A study of 560 European regions found port throughput significantly increases regional employment. Spanish port research found 221 to 354 new jobs per million additional tons of cargo handled.
A January 2026 economic analysis by a Cornell-trained economist argues the real competition is East Coast ports for Midwest-bound Asian cargo, not Seattle or LA. The Army Corps projects Far East trade growth of 3.25% annually, creating roughly 1 million additional TEUs per year that West Coast capacity will not be able to absorb by 2035.
A February 2026 market feasibility presentation to the Port Commission (described as Rebel Consulting in the official update) found the West Coast container system is heavily import-driven, limiting empty container access for exporters. PCIP could open global markets for Oregon agriculture, timber, seafood, and manufacturing sectors outside major metro areas.
Unemployment hit 6.2% in July 2025. Healthcare is the only stable sector. The community has been waiting for economic recovery since the timber bust. Supporters understand what is at stake.
It's a lot of money for something that is completely unproven. Economics is like gravity. It always wins in the end.
Larry Gross, intermodal freight consultant, 40+ years in the fieldWe should not forgo a once-in-a-generation opportunity out of fear, particularly when there are multiple off-ramps if the business case fails.
Representative Val Hoyle, Oregon's 4th Congressional DistrictWhile the PCIP carries real risks, it has more promise than its critics suggest, and those risks are calculated ones worth taking in a capable community with dwindling economic options.
Michael Hobson, Cornell economics graduate and Coos Bay native, January 2026 (Substack: "I Hope So, and I Think So Too")This page presents a proposed framework for how Oregon should structure PCIP funding before the 2027 budget cycle. It is not current policy. It is a proposal drawn from the research on megaproject accountability and the specific gaps in PCIP's current evidence base.
The $25 million INFRA grant and $29 million rail grant are scoped for planning and environmental review and should proceed. The proposal is specifically about what should be required before any major construction appropriation is released in 2027 or beyond.
If you support requiring these conditions before construction funding is released, the 2027 budget cycle is the window to say so. Contact your state legislator now.
The 2027 budget cycle is the critical window. Legislators respond to constituent contact, especially from people who live in the affected community.
Go to oregonlegislature.gov and enter your address to find your state representative and senator. Coos Bay is in Senate District 5 and House District 9.
For federal contacts: Congressman Cliff Bentz (R)resents Oregon's 2nd District including Coos Bay, bentz.house.gov/contact. Senator Ron Wyden and Senator Jeff Merkley both represent all of Oregon.
Upcoming public meetings:
Community meeting: March 25, 6 PM, Dolphin Playhouse, Empire
PCIP Commission Meeting: April 7, 8 AM, Port offices, 125 Central Ave, Coos Bay
Email pcipinfo@portofcoosbay.com to schedule a meeting with Port staff.
Subject: Please require accountability milestones for PCIP before 2027 construction funding
Jaquiss, Nigel. "If You Build It, Will They Come?" Oregon Journalism Project, 16 Dec. 2025. | Merrill, Annie, and Ashley Audycki. "The False Solution in Coos Bay." Ridgeline Magazine, 31 Mar. 2025. | Merrill, Annie. "Reflections on the 2025 Legislative Session." Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition, 7 July 2025. | Baerenbold, Rebekka. "Reducing Risks in Megaprojects: The Potential of Reference Class Forecasting." Project Leadership and Society, vol. 4, 2023. | "Coos Bay Channel Modification Project Main Report." Port of Coos Bay, June 2024. | Oregon Employment Department. "Employment in South Coast: July 2025." QualityInfo.org, 19 Aug. 2025. | Hodder, Jan. "An Honest Update on NorthPoint's Fact Sheet." Oregon Legislative Information System, May 2023. | "FAQs" and "Myth Busting." PCIP Project, pcipproject.com, 2025. | "About the Pacific Coast Intermodal Port." pcipproject.com. | NorthPoint Development. Fact Sheet: NorthPoint Development Coos Bay. 2021. | Beckham, Stephen Dow. "Asa Mead Simpson, Lumberman and Shipbuilder." Oregon Historical Quarterly, vol. 68, no. 3, 1967. | Welsh, Michael. Review of Hard Times in Paradise: Coos Bay, Oregon 1850–1986. Environmental History Review, vol. 14, 1990. | Bottasso, Anna, et al. "The Impact of Port Throughput on Local Employment." Transport Policy, vol. 27, 2013. | Hidalgo-Gallego, Soraya, and Ramón Núñez-Sánchez. "The Effect of Port Activity on Urban Employment." Journal of Transport Geography, vol. 108, 2023. | Oregon Governor's Office. "Governor Kotek Releases Statement on $25 Million Award for Port of Coos Bay." Oregon.gov, 17 Oct. 2024. | Oregon International Port of Coos Bay. "Port of Coos Bay Secures $25 Million INFRA Grant." portofcoosbay.com, 17 Oct. 2024. | Oregon International Port of Coos Bay. "Winter 2026 PCIP Project Update." portofcoosbay.com, 11 Mar. 2026. | "Coos Bay, OR." Data USA, datausa.io, 2024. | Hobson, Michael. "I Hope So, and I Think So Too." Substack, 20 Jan. 2026. | Port of Coos Bay Board of Commissioners. PCIP Regular Meeting presentation (Rebel Group). Feb. 2026. | U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Coos Bay Channel Modification Project: Economics Appendix. June 2024. (cited in Hobson 2026) | Oregon International Port of Coos Bay. Facebook posts, March 2026 (D.C. delegation meetings; Empty containers export opportunity). | Cribbins, Melissa / PCIP Executive Director. Winter 2026 PCIP Project Update newsletter. 11 Mar. 2026. | Oregon International Port of Coos Bay. Community Engagement Plan. portofcoosbay.com, 2025. | PCIPinfo.com. "Plans for the Coos Bay Terminal." pcipinfo.com, 2025.
The PCIP team published its Winter 2026 Update on March 11, 2026, ten days before the community meeting in Empire. Here is what the update says, and what context it omits.
The update below is quoted accurately from the official PCIP newsletter. The context notes on the right are drawn from independent reporting, expert testimony, and publicly available project documents.
"Quarterly performance and financial reporting have been completed for both the Rail Crossing Elimination (RCE) and CRISI grants. Work is also underway to finalize contracting for the previously awarded INFRA grant."
The $25M INFRA grant was awarded in October 2024. As of March 2026, which is 17 months later. Contracting is still being "finalized." No construction has begun. No environmental impact statement has been completed. The grant covers planning and engineering only, not construction.
"The project team meets twice monthly with the Build America Bureau to evaluate potential RRIF loan options and other financing tools."
A RRIF loan would be a federal low-interest loan for the rail line, meaning more public debt, not private investment. The project still needs to identify funding for the majority of the $2.3B to $4.36B total cost. Meeting to "evaluate options" is not the same as having secured financing.
"Rebel Consulting remains on schedule with its updated comprehensive market and economic analysis for PCIP... The analysis updates earlier feasibility work."
This is the first mention of an independent market analysis in the public record. It has not been completed or published. Independent freight economists Larry Gross and Steve Hughes both stated in late 2025 that no credible independent feasibility study existed. This study, if published, will be the first one. Its conclusions are not yet known.
"The updated analysis continues to reinforce that PCIP is designed to provide incremental ship-to-rail capacity... does not rely on other ports reaching capacity in order to succeed."
This characterization of the analysis comes from the project team itself, not from an independent summary. The full Rebel Consulting report has not been made public. West Coast ports currently operate with significant unused capacity. No shipping line has committed to using PCIP as of March 2026.
"Some technical questions require additional design and engineering work before definitive answers can be provided."
This sentence appears in the public outreach section as the explanation for why the Port could not fully answer questions submitted at the November 2025 League of Women Voters forum. Over $200 million in public funds have been committed to a project where basic technical questions about the terminal and rail cannot yet be answered.
"Participation in a planning meeting with the Concerned Citizens of Empire in preparation for the upcoming community meeting."
The March 25 community meeting at the Dolphin Playhouse is a direct response to concerns from Empire and Barview residents, the neighborhoods that would be closest to a functioning container terminal. Their concerns include home values, noise, lighting, traffic on the estuary, and cultural site impacts. This meeting is an opportunity to ask those questions directly of Port representatives.
The update describes outreach to "ocean carriers, rail providers, terminal operators." It does not announce a single committed customer. The Rebel Consulting analysis is still being refined.
The last public cost estimate remains $2.3B, with a Corps worst-case of $4.36B. The Winter update does not address the gap between these figures or provide any independent cost verification.
The Environmental Impact Statement has not been completed. The update notes that the INFRA grant contracting (which funds the EIS) is still being finalized, 17 months after the grant was awarded.
Michael Hobson, who grew up in Coos Bay and studied economics at Cornell before working in commercial real estate research, published a detailed response to the Jaquiss article in January 2026. It is the most rigorous publicly available case for the project. Key arguments worth understanding:
"The PCIP isn't competing with Seattle, Oakland, or Los Angeles for the same cargo; it's competing with East Coast ports for Midwest-bound containers from eastern Asia... the region will be ~3 million TEUs short by 2035."
This is the most substantive reframing of the market argument. If accurate, it changes the competitive landscape entirely. However, the USACE projections Hobson cites come from the Port's own Corps filing, not an independent forecast. The Rebel Consulting analysis, not yet publicly released. It is the next piece of evidence that would test this claim.
"NorthPoint's integration of the terminal with its massive nationwide warehouse network under a single operator would enable it to offer clients reliable inventory management throughout their supply chains... a risk mitigator for clients and a differentiator for the PCIP."
NorthPoint's warehouse logistics network is real and large: 170 million square feet, $19 billion in assets. If they can deliver integrated supply chain management alongside port operations, that is a genuine differentiator. However, NorthPoint has no record of building or operating a shipping terminal. The capability claim is plausible but unproven.
"Using USDOT's port performance data, ~3,000 to ~6,000 direct jobs attributable to the project... the Port of Coos Bay's estimate of 2,500 direct jobs is in the ballpark, perhaps even on the low side."
This is a more careful job analysis than anything the Port has published. Hobson acknowledges it is not a robust economic analysis and explicitly calls for an independent economic impact study. Critics have demanded the same thing. His numbers use USDOT aggregate data, not PCIP-specific projections, so they carry real uncertainty. But they are a more credible benchmark than the Prince Rupert extrapolation.
"The PCIP estimates of $2.9 to $4.3 billion fall squarely within the range of typical large port facility projects... with a 6:1 savings-to-project-cost ratio" per the USACE economic analysis.
The cost comparisons to Corpus Christi ($625M) and the new LA terminal ($5.4B) are useful context. However, the 6:1 ratio comes from the USACE analysis commissioned in support of the Port's own permit application, not an independent cost-benefit study. Hobson acknowledges this. The lack of a completed independent analysis remains the central unresolved issue.
I've tried to conduct my reexamination logically, using as much data as I can find, and I believe it reveals a compelling case. But I also remain with my hope.
Michael Hobson, Coos Bay native and Cornell economics graduate. "I Hope So, and I Think So Too," January 2026The March 25 community meeting is the next public opportunity to ask questions directly of Port representatives. The April 7 commission meeting is open to the public.