Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz So let me get this straight......they want to tear out the railway line that was damaged by the hurricane to build a new highway that is needed for evacuation in case of a hurricane, right? Am I missing something, or would not this new fancy highway suffer the same fate as the railroad tracks, should another hurricane hit? Why should our government authorize another 28.9 billion to rebuild that part of OUR country? We have to rebuild Iraq first. What a great way to get the cash-flow energized--first blow it up at our expense, then rebuild it at our expense. It's all about priorities, I guess. The question is: who's priorities are we following? [/quote] Oh, it's got nothing to do with 'rebuilding' anything. And everthing to do with Federal 'priorities'. You Bush haters MMAT. The State of Mississippi wants this and they're using Katrina as an excuse to try to grab some Federal (read yours and mine) dollars to do it. They've got a good opportunity down there. Casino gambling is legal in Mississippi (who'd a thunk it!) The Mississippi Gulf Coast in the only place in the continital US that has good beaches, a warm climate, and casino gambling. It's one Hell of an opportunity to develop as a tourist destination. To do this the State of Mississippi wants to give the beach area over to casinos, move the highway inland to the railroad right-of-way and get the freight trains out of town. Fine. If Mississippi wants to do this, then let Mississippi pay for it. There's certainly no Federal interest in developing casinos on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. I might vacation there, but my vacations are not a Federal responsibility. It's got nothing to do with the storms. And its got nothing to do with Iraq, President Bush, or Secretary Snow. It's not, in any way, a Federal 'priority' and no Federal Government money should be spent on this project. [/quote] An interesting point. One of the reasons I posted these articles in the first place is to ask the simple question: What are our national transportation priorities? Should the federal government at the urging of a state (like MS) be able to simply take a railroad line through eminent domain as is proposed here? Shouldn't there be an inquiry by DOT or DOJ as to whether this is in our national interest? As it stands now, there is no such inquiry. So long as the government wants to condemn the propertyand pays appropriate compensation there is virtually no remedy for the railroad. This is one of the major reasons CSX is not taking a position publicly on this proposal. They have nothing to gain by it and potentially quite a bit to lose depending upon what position they take. It is interesting to see that the reasons to approve or disapprove this proposed government action seem to rest solely upon whether we can pay for it, not whether or not it is the right course to take in balancing local needs against our national interest in a cohesive and efficient national transportation system. Only the real establishment of a national transportation policy with the force of federal law will prevent many of the recent attempts by states and localities to change the way our railroads work. LC
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