Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
The "trains are a pain" issue in Council Bluffs is an issue that's arising in numerous locations. It's not going to go away. This last year I spent some time talking to two AVP-Government Affairs in Chicago, who represent two of the Class Is there, about this. What they said, in brief, is that railroads can no longer afford to be unpopular, and that arguments of "we were here first, you second, so to hell with you" might win the battle, but it's guaranteed to lose the war. Here's what they said happens when a railroad ignores cities or treats people who live next to the track imperially: 1. When you want to get a zoning variance (EVERY railroad project needs a zoning variance, the city says no. 2. When you want to run more trains, the city says no. This is a case of using your argument "we were here first" against you. The trackside resident says, "Ah! I knew you ran six trains a day when I moved in. No problem! But now you want to run 10 trains a day? You've changed the pre-existing conditions. You've diminished my property value." 3. When a rail-served industry wants a zoning variance, the city says no. 4. When the railroad asks for federal money for a congestion-relief project, like Chicago or Kansas CIty, the city yawns--or fights it. The money goes elsewhere. 5. Instead of the city looking the other way about trash or debris on railroad property, it starts writing citations. 6. When the railroad complains about vandals, trespassers, thieves, etc., the city says, "You have your own police department. YOU handle it." And lastly, the city starts poring through the land records, because chances are there are all sorts of fun little clauses in the patchwork of land that railroads sit on -- reversionary rights, conditional rights, etc., and the next thing the railroad knows, the city is sending it a letter saying that the railroad's use of some critical piece of land is conditional upon the railroad running two passenger trains every day each way, or something like that -- and the city is thinking it should exercise its contractual rights. Will they win? Who wants to find out? No one I know at a railroad who is working with cities, states, and counties is trying to use the "we were here first" argument. They're not trying to rewrite the U.S. Constitution, they're trying to do what's best for the railroad. There are a number of people in the business who have come to the conclusion that the very survival of the business will depend upon government money for infrastructure improvements and maintenance in the not-too-distant future. Right now, the short lines are asking for $7 billion (that's U.S. taxypayer dollars, which means $7 billion in cuts to services to U.S. taxpayers, or $7 billion in new taxes on U.S. taxpayers) to upgrade their track. A request for a government handout, if made by a railroad that has a "we were here first" attitude -- no matter if that argument is true or not -- will have difficulty. I'm not saying railroads should or shouldn't have that attitude. I'm not a stockholder in any of them.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag