> Blaming entities like the environmentalists, the ranchers, and the Mayo Clinic for the failure of the DM&E expansion is a popular position.

> Seems like many prefer the role of the victim, rather than to acknowledge the shortcomings of the proposal.

The point was that the DM&E expansion into the coal fields of Wyoming never was never really tested in the investor market. And could have not been, until all the political uncertainty was settled. No rational investor is going to put his money on a project that will end up being forbidden by gov't, or otherwise at risk to being hamstrung with onerous side conditions; no matter how financially meritorious the project might have otherwise been. That is a sure road to investor hell.

That lesson is clearly shown by the wreck of the Penn Central. Very onerous conditions were imposed, such as the requirement to absorb the bankrupt New Haven, which was nearing total financial collapse. But the investors in the two railroads, both of which were becoming financially non-viable themselves, were desperate enough to go along. But even if they didn't go along and just dropped the Penn Central merger, one wonders if they would have been forced to absorb NH anyway. The ICC certainly was desperate enough (to keep NH running) to force these absurdities. It was a huge mistake. Why anybody thought that two non-sustainable businesses plus one financially collapsing business could ever equal a functional company. . . . .

But railroad investors had learned that lesson already by the time the D&ME expansion came alone. If ever these NIMBY squabbles and the right o' way eminent domain issues could have been settled, we then would have had a fair test of what investors thought of the project's merits. The state legislatures were about to settle the eminent domain issues, but who could ever settle with all those various environmental groups.

But since that in fact did not happen, and such settlement never will happen (it will be one NIMBY or environmental vigilante group after another to have to settle with); no grandiose project of this sort will ever succeed in the private market - good idea or not. I'm all for the private market doing these things, and all for enforcing good environmental law; but the only way such projects (public or private) will ever have a ghost of a chance, is to end all the legal chaos.

1st, all legal enforcement decisions must be vested only in elected or duly appointed officials charged with that duty; so that one united voice properly represents all of us; just exactly the same way all other laws are enforced. What kills these projects is the current cacophony of myriads self appointed private environmental enforcers (vigilantes).

2nd, the Federal gov't must stop funding these groups; most of whom would have no basis for legal action anyway, under normal legal parameters. They're often just a bunch of lawyers milking it for the money anyway. Well, in the case of the D&ME (and many others); they milked the cow dry, before any real chance for market viability could reasonably be determined.

I see no reason to "acknowledge" anything not in evidence. And merit or lack of merit is not in evidence in this case. Now, if you think that advocating for solutions as to why we could never uncover any such evidence, is merely playing the victim; We are simply going to have to dis-agree.

OPB