Brian Bergtold Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OPRRMS Wrote:
>
> > For clarity, the sale of the Santa Cruz branch
> > property to the county is not contingent on its
> > operation by a third-party rail operator.
>
> While technically true regarding the STB, having a
> 3rd party operator in place was indeed a reported
> stipulation in the agreement between the county
> and UP for the sale. This is why there was a
> scramble to find one when it appeared things were
> coming to a close 2+ years ago. Obviously the
> playing field has changed in the meantime as price
> and terms have been renegotiated over and over.

Here's a link to the text of the STB's decision [.pdf format] which clearly indicates that Union Pacific will retain the common carrier obligation for service on the line if it's indeed purchased by the county: [www.stb.dot.gov]

To that end, the sale to the county would not expressly require UP to lease the line to a third-party operator. That the UP entered into an agreement with SERA certainly indicates a willingness and desire to do so. Now SERA is threatening to vacate the lease. Maybe Mr. Hart is seeing the proverbial handwriting on the wall. If SERA does indeed bail, UP is free to seek bids from other operators like they've done in the past. Rail American, for example, evaluated the line several years ago and turned it down.

What'll really be interesting is to see what UP does if no new operator steps forward.