George Andrews Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am very impressed with the comments of Rep.
> DeFazio, and agree completely. BTW, doesn't the
> FRA/STB have authority over the ENTIRE railroad,
> tunnels included ???

Interesting. I would disagree with DeFazio 99% of the time on most other issues, but I do have a sympathetic ear for the somewhat radical idea of a state taking over a rail line via eminent domain to ameliorate shipper concerns. Why not? Is there any precident for the use of eminent domain to takeover a privately-owned corridor (which itself may have started life via eminent domain!)?

I think that's where the states of Washington and Montana may have missed an opportunity to rectify their respective rail vs shipper problems. Washington (e.g. the state's taxpayers) would have been better off if the State had just taken over the WATCO lines via eminent domain right from the start rather than trying to negotiate protracted buy-outs. Montana's situation would be a little more dicey, since their problem is the captive rates being charged by BNSF's monopolistic attitude toward the State and not an immenent loss of rail service. It seems to me it would be alot harder for a state to try to take over active heavy duty lines via eminent domain than it might be to do the same for embargoed or underutilized lines.