Paid for with what traffic base? And, connecting with the national rail grid at Red Bluff....at a place on the UP, that is between sixty and over a hundred miles from the nearest "east-west" connecting rail freight line? I suppose that for another couple of billion they could reconnect the McCloud?

There is no real identifiable economic demand for this proposed railroad served port at Eureka, nor for this "$10 billion" rail connection, from "nowhere to nowhere".

There is plenty of readily available port capacity on the west coast, with over a dozen existing ports of various sizes, all better than Eureka. There are a dozen ports that are cheaper to operate and add capacity to, these ports are also more accessible to the large nearby "end" markets of there own, with excellent access to distant markets by interstate highways and the existing national rail grid, which has plenty of capacity.

So, given those "pesky" facts, this is not a scheme I would advise one to invest ones 401(k) into. This proposal has always seemed like another "build it and they will come" investment "opportunity/scheme". And, this latest round of even "bigger is better" BS sounds more like it is aimed at loosening up potential investors wallets, than at making those investors any money, from any realistic possibilities of potential rail haulage, through the Port of Eureka.