My error. I read the first part of the filing which used the term "intent to abandon rail service" and took it to mean "abandonment" of the line. Perhaps the word abandonment should not have been used in the filing?? Also, perhaps I should have read the entire filing with the same interest as i read the first line! Anyway, apparently I was incorrect in my assumption that the line is going to be abandoned. I personally do not think it will be rebuilt again, but i do hope that the coastal section continues to draw folks to that operation.
Regards,
Rolland A. Meyers