Trains.com

$700Million for CSX Relocation in doubt

3015 views
39 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Raymond, MS, CSA
  • 94 posts
Posted by beefmalone on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:58 PM
Screw new orleans. Everyone forgets that, although it flooded, there are still structures & buildings left. There is almost NOTHING left on the MS gulf coast. It's all GONE. The sensible thing to do would be to relocate the line north of I-10 like they originally propsed. That would leave a vital rail link, make way for a new highway, and everyone would be happy. Yes, they're going to put a HIGHWAY in there. The old one (us 90) ran right along the beachfront. A new one would be much better protected from anything but another Cat 5. I could care less if the casinos all floated away & stayed gone, but the rest of the gulf coast NEEDS the money.
  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: St.Catharines, Ontario
  • 3,770 posts
Posted by Junctionfan on Monday, May 29, 2006 6:55 PM
Instead of spending $700 million on a line relocation that isn't necessary in my opinion, why don't they use that money to strengthen the ***s against future +3 category hurricanes. You need to protect the bathtub city of the U.S.
Andrew
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Monday, May 29, 2006 3:37 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

DM&E isn't having trouble getting the money approved

Yes Dave, DM&E IS having trouble getting the money. They couldn't get it in the open market. Now they have federal guarantees, and yet, no one seems to be knocking down their doors with a bucket of cash. The Rochester group is latching onto this financing "glitch"(?) as the DM&E's achilles heel.


How do you know that? Seems to me that the Rochester coalition in their zeal to run the world were demanding that the DME open the books to them so they could see who's investing. The DME responded that was not how they ran their business. Why doesn't the Mayo clinic open THEIR books and see where all these federal subsidies are going to? The fact is that no one knows who has invested in this or who isn't. The obvious characters like the power plants have been slow to sign on, but that may be for political/legal reasons. The fact that all kinds of ag business organizations as well as several state governments are 100 percent behind this as an opportunity to reign in the BNSF should tell you that someone out there must be willing to throw some money at the PRB expansion.

I'm not sure which part of my post you're asking about. The fact that DM&E has been trying for a number of years to get financing, and is still *trying*, means they're "having trouble getting the money approved". As far as the Rochester group-they don't want this (DM&E) to happen. I'm not saying I agree with them, at all. I'm saying that they will seize any opportunty to *derail*. The financing, being the most high-profile, and easy target makes it DM&E's achilles heel, in my mind.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Monday, May 29, 2006 11:44 AM
Personally I have no trouble with big ticket infrastructure projects, if they make sense.

How much would $700M go the providing HST dedicated ROW thru the entire NE corridor? or using a local issue here, providing a HST service between Los Angeles and San Diego, or San Francisco and Sacremento or San Jose? certainly any of these would benifit far more taxpayers than a few already wealthy casino owners...

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 29, 2006 11:28 AM
Caught this from the Mobile paper. More ideas on how CSX should spend the $700 Million it doesn't have yet...

Anybody know this Railfan/"railroad historian"?

http://www.al.com/search/index.ssf?/base/opinion/114638853359890.xml?mobileregister?oinsight&coll=3
  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: SE Wisconsin
  • 1,181 posts
Posted by solzrules on Monday, May 29, 2006 10:57 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

DM&E isn't having trouble getting the money approved

Yes Dave, DM&E IS having trouble getting the money. They couldn't get it in the open market. Now they have federal guarantees, and yet, no one seems to be knocking down their doors with a bucket of cash. The Rochester group is latching onto this financing "glitch"(?) as the DM&E's achilles heel.


How do you know that? Seems to me that the Rochester coalition in their zeal to run the world were demanding that the DME open the books to them so they could see who's investing. The DME responded that was not how they ran their business. Why doesn't the Mayo clinic open THEIR books and see where all these federal subsidies are going to? The fact is that no one knows who has invested in this or who isn't. The obvious characters like the power plants have been slow to sign on, but that may be for political/legal reasons. The fact that all kinds of ag business organizations as well as several state governments are 100 percent behind this as an opportunity to reign in the BNSF should tell you that someone out there must be willing to throw some money at the PRB expansion.
You think this is bad? Just wait until inflation kicks in.....
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Monday, May 29, 2006 9:53 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

DM&E isn't having trouble getting the money approved

Yes Dave, DM&E IS having trouble getting the money. They couldn't get it in the open market. Now they have federal guarantees, and yet, no one seems to be knocking down their doors with a bucket of cash. The Rochester group is latching onto this financing "glitch"(?) as the DM&E's achilles heel.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: SE Wisconsin
  • 1,181 posts
Posted by solzrules on Monday, May 29, 2006 1:13 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by beefmalone

I don't think the whole thing is a very good idea, but some of you are getting a little too "holier than thou" when it comes to pork projects. Everyone ***es about what goes on in other states, but those same people get awful quiet when their state is getting a few mil for a bean museum or some other crap.

The logical relocation for the traffice would be over the MS Export RR then the IC line to hattiesburg then down the NS line to N.O. Why they'd want to run all the way up to Meridian I have no idea. Plenty of less-used trackage that would be perfect for an upgrade.

Personally, I wi***he casinos would float away, but they're here now to stay. The Gulf Coast is gone so now we'll end up with lots of "development." The reason CSX isn't objecting is because they have nothing to lose. There aren't any major industries along the way so they end up with $700mil+ in benefits with very little cost to them.


Rest assured I reject pork barrel spending anywhere, be it my state or somewhere else. Let me keep my tax dollars and I will throw it into my own pork barrel project. I've always wanted a solid gold toilet. Maybe with this little expense I would be able to get it. Anyone want to support my toilet fund?
You think this is bad? Just wait until inflation kicks in.....
  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Raymond, MS, CSA
  • 94 posts
Posted by beefmalone on Friday, May 26, 2006 7:34 PM
I don't think the whole thing is a very good idea, but some of you are getting a little too "holier than thou" when it comes to pork projects. Everyone ***es about what goes on in other states, but those same people get awful quiet when their state is getting a few mil for a bean museum or some other crap.

The logical relocation for the traffice would be over the MS Export RR then the IC line to hattiesburg then down the NS line to N.O. Why they'd want to run all the way up to Meridian I have no idea. Plenty of less-used trackage that would be perfect for an upgrade.

Personally, I wi***he casinos would float away, but they're here now to stay. The Gulf Coast is gone so now we'll end up with lots of "development." The reason CSX isn't objecting is because they have nothing to lose. There aren't any major industries along the way so they end up with $700mil+ in benefits with very little cost to them.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, May 25, 2006 8:30 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

$700 million? That'd pay for a nice rail link between the DM&E and MRL. Add a little more and MRL can be extended west to a logical West Coast port,

And how much is a little more to get from Spokane to tidewater? At any rate, if DM&E is having plenty of trouble in getting $2.5 billion loaned to them to get to the Powder River Basin, what makes you think that connecting with MRL would be any cheaper or easier, let alone build a West Coast extension from Spokane?


DM&E isn't having trouble getting the money approved, they're having trouble getting the NIMBY's off their back so they can get started ASAP. There is no reason to believe that MRL couldn't get a similar loan to build into Montana's PRB (and in the process connect to DM&E). And luckily, there's no high falutin clinic between Rapid City and Billings to stall that idea.

Spokane to tidewater, say Tacoma, for the most part woud involve relaying the PCE and connecting to Tacoma's city owned rail line. The State of Washington is already involved in rail ownership and maintenance responsibility, and the State does own most of the PCE corridor.
  • Member since
    July 2002
  • From: A State of Humidity
  • 2,441 posts
Posted by wallyworld on Thursday, May 25, 2006 6:14 PM
Which credit card are we using today? Bank of Japan? Bank of China? National debt ceiling aka our card limit recently raised. Is this the fourth or fifth time we had to do this?
Ah..never mind-sure, lets throw in some high speed trains too.

Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, May 25, 2006 5:05 PM
HSR would provide a lot for the and hopefully a start for a Future HSR Network in America.
  • Member since
    October 2002
  • From: US
  • 78 posts
Posted by CB_Fan on Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:56 PM
Several of you who posted on this thread did not provide contact information. If you would like to learn more about the proposed CSX relocation, send me a note and I'll forward a copy of our newsletter, The Hummingbird, which is dedicated to making sure folks give this a lot of thought before they tear up the tracks along the Gulf Coast. We think it would be bad news for our part of the country (except, perhaps, for the casinos and condos on the Mississippi Gulf Coast -- even then, just think what modern high speed passenger rail transportation could do for that area).
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Monday, May 22, 2006 3:11 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed

Nah easy solution is just let the casino's pay if they want the land so badly. Surely they have more money then us poor taxpayers[:o)]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

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?


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.


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


In which case we might as well federalize the railroads. This proposal is a bunch of garbage. I agree 10000000% with an earlier post. IF Mississippi wants it, let 'em pay for it. The feds have no business getting involved with this, especially if the whole reason is to build more casinos. That has to be the stupidest reason I have ever heard.



Because Casino owners are like Football teams, why spend your own money when you can get someone else (Feds, State, City) to pay for your new shiny stadium, or casino.

This is the worst kind of pork barreling I've seen in decades, $700M in OUR money going to the eventual benifit of casino owner's who'll take even more money from the stupid schlep's that go there and will like evey other casino in this country give back the absolute minimum (if anything) back to the states that were stupid enough to allow them to build there in the first place.

I agree, if the casino's are so good for Mississippi shouldnt they already be rollling in dough? Let them pay for it, afterall they got all that casino tax revinue coming in, dont they?

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Austin TX
  • 4,941 posts
Posted by spbed on Monday, May 22, 2006 12:32 PM
Nah easy solution is just let the casino's pay if they want the land so badly. Surely they have more money then us poor taxpayers[:o)]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

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?


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.


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


In which case we might as well federalize the railroads. This proposal is a bunch of garbage. I agree 10000000% with an earlier post. IF Mississippi wants it, let 'em pay for it. The feds have no business getting involved with this, especially if the whole reason is to build more casinos. That has to be the stupidest reason I have ever heard.

Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR  Austin TX Sub

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, May 22, 2006 12:21 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

$700 million? That'd pay for a nice rail link between the DM&E and MRL. Add a little more and MRL can be extended west to a logical West Coast port,

And how much is a little more to get from Spokane to tidewater? At any rate, if DM&E is having plenty of trouble in getting $2.5 billion loaned to them to get to the Powder River Basin, what makes you think that connecting with MRL would be any cheaper or easier, let alone build a West Coast extension from Spokane?
The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: SE Wisconsin
  • 1,181 posts
Posted by solzrules on Sunday, May 21, 2006 10:38 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

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?


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.


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


In which case we might as well federalize the railroads. This proposal is a bunch of garbage. I agree 10000000% with an earlier post. IF Mississippi wants it, let 'em pay for it. The feds have no business getting involved with this, especially if the whole reason is to build more casinos. That has to be the stupidest reason I have ever heard.
You think this is bad? Just wait until inflation kicks in.....
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, May 21, 2006 5:42 PM
$700 million? That'd pay for a nice rail link between the DM&E and MRL. Add a little more and MRL can be extended west to a logical West Coast port, and abracadabra, we finally get some intramodal rail competition here in the Northern Tier, something the South already has plenty of. And frankly, that last thing this nation needs right now is more casinos. If Mississippi wants to squander investment in low life casinos, let them spend their own money for such. We up here are growing grain and wood to feed the world and provide homes. Katrina or no Katrina, we deserve that extra $700 million more than them.

What's that you say? This is *contingent* on Katrina rebuilding, not any add on building? Fine, we'll just wait for that Yellowstone bulge to blow, they we'll finally get ours!
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, May 21, 2006 1:40 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed

Dont worry us taxpayers will wind up footing the bill for this boondoggle since GWB Secy of the $$$$$$$$ is ex CSX CEO Snow [:(!]



Besides the only thing Snow really cared about with CSX was the $71 Million he got for leaving to become Secretary of the Treasury....just think what he will want to leave that position????

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, May 21, 2006 1:29 PM
Recent statements by Secretary Mineta seem to indicate that at least part of our transportation policy is to reduce congestion. How does putting a new Interstate Highway (I-69?) parallel to existing I-10 along the Mississippi Coast rate in congestion relief? Is it worth the loss of a RR main line? Are these questions even being asked?

LC

5/18/2006 Congestion Relief
USDOT sets strategy for reducing bottlenecks on nation’s transportation network

U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta has unveiled a plan that addresses what he calls the single-largest threat to the economy: freight, highway and aviation congestion.

On Tuesday, he introduced a national initiative designed to reduce freight bottlenecks and prevent shipment delays, which cost the nation $200 billion annually, according to Mineta.

Under the National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America’s Transportation Network, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) will seek urban partnership agreements with communities that can demonstrate new congestion-relief strategies and encourage states to pass legislation that promotes private investment in transportation. The USDOT also will seek widespread deployment of new operational technologies and practices that can reduce traffic tie-ups, and reduce port and border congestion, and solicit recommendations from the Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission.

“The bottom line is that every person and every business in America has a vested interest in reducing congestion,” said Mineta in a prepared statement.

From Progressive Railroading Site

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, May 21, 2006 1:22 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

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?


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.


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
  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
Posted by zardoz on Sunday, May 21, 2006 12:52 PM
I don't "hate" Bush; I just question his priorities compared with the priorities of most of the citizens of the US.

And originally the $700 million was to come out of the $28.9 billion Katrina rebuilding fund--THAT makes it a Federal program. If the state want's to do it on their own, and the majority of Mississippi is for it, then I agree with you, good for them. I wi***hem well.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, May 21, 2006 12:48 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed

Ah but as a Secy in GWB Cabinet he has tons of other goodies to offer our elected officals in DC which I think you have completely overlooked to obtain there favorable vote[:o)]


QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

Snow won't have anything to do with the passage of this legislation or its signing in to law. That would be Congress and the President. As it has already passed the Senate, that leaves the House of Representatives and the W.

LC



Except that Snow's boss the W has already come out against this bill as extra spending and Bush has indicated he will veto it. So, why would Snow go against his boss by offering anything to anyone? He is already rumored to be leaving the administration anyhow...

LC
  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Sunday, May 21, 2006 12:41 PM
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?


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.
"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
Posted by zardoz on Sunday, May 21, 2006 12:05 PM
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?
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Austin TX
  • 4,941 posts
Posted by spbed on Sunday, May 21, 2006 8:36 AM
Ah but as a Secy in GWB Cabinet he has tons of other goodies to offer our elected officals in DC which I think you have completely overlooked to obtain there favorable vote[:o)]


QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

Snow won't have anything to do with the passage of this legislation or its signing in to law. That would be Congress and the President. As it has already passed the Senate, that leaves the House of Representatives and the W.

LC

Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR  Austin TX Sub

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, May 21, 2006 12:33 AM
Ralph -

Here is a repost of the Mobile Register Article. I think it explains a few things.

LC

CSX rerouting proposal could cost Mobile jobs
Freight trains coming from New Orleans would be sent north to Meridian and then to Montgomery, bypassing Mobile
Saturday, April 29, 2006
By ANDREA JAMES
Business Reporter
CSX Transportation Inc. documents obtained Friday by the Press-Register reveal new details about a plan to abandon the railroad's Gulf Coast artery connecting New Orleans and Mobile -- a $765 million project that Mississippi lawmakers are pushing as part of hurricane recovery.

Freight trains that now travel due east from New Orleans would instead be routed north to Meridian, Miss., and then hook a right into Montgomery, according to documents that CSX prepared for government officials. Upgrades on existing tracks and new infrastructure would make up more than half of the project's price tag.

But the plan, which has become a target of Washington conservatives who want it eliminated from a growing emergency spending bill, could cost Mobile jobs.

IPSCO Inc. has sent a letter to Alabama lawmakers expressing concern about the plan, said Greg Maindonald, vice president of operations services for the steelmaker, which has a mini-mill in north Mobile County that employs about 370 people.

Losing the rail service would kill Mobile's chance for a pipe plant that could create 200 new jobs, he said.

"If that rail line is abandoned, that would take Mobile out of our selection criteria for expansions," he said. "It's going to really hurt us."

IPSCO said changes proposed by CSX at the urging of Mississippi's Republican senators, Trent Lott and Thad Cochran, would quadruple the distance trains have to travel to reach New Orleans from Mobile. The company ships up to 30,000 tons per month of heavy plate steel from its Mobile mill to New Orleans, where it is then routed to California or Texas, Maindonald said.

Easy rail access to the west was a key reason that Lisle, Ill.-based IPSCO built the mill in Mobile, he said.

"We're going to have to have about 100 more cars in our pool just to ship the material," Maindonald said.

The current CSX route between New Orleans and Mobile hugs the Mississippi Gulf Coast, pushing trains through tourist towns and past lucrative casinos.

Hurricane Katrina's storm surge destroyed about 100 miles of the coastal route on Aug. 29. Five months and $250 million later, CSX reopened the line.

But Lott and Cochran have added a $700 million appropriation to an emergency war spending bill that would allow CSX to abandon the rebuilt tracks in favor of shifting freight to existing rail lines further north.

Supporters of the project, including Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, say that the new route is needed so the state can improve coastal evacuation routes and expand U.S. 90 to handle more traffic.

A CSX spokesman said Friday that inland service would also be more reliable because it would avoid hurricane flood zones.

Opposition to the plan continues among fiscal conservatives, who want what has become a $106.5 billion emergency spending measure trimmed back to the $92 billion range initially proposed by the White House.

Alabama's two senators appear to be split on the issue. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Mobile, backs removing the railroad funding from the war bill, while Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, thus far has supported Cochran and Lott.

As of Friday, the railroad provision remained a part of the emergency spending bill pending Senate approval.

"Senator Shelby believes at this point it's difficult to assess the overall impact that this may have because we do not know which path will be chosen," spokeswoman Katie Boyd said. "The senator and his office are working to put CSX in touch with all impacted parties."

Sessions had concerns about the project's impact on the Port of Mobile, according to a report published in The Hill.

When the CSX line was down following last year's hurricane, trains had to travel through Birmingham to reach Mobile. That clogged rail lines and delayed shipments to the state docks.

The CSX documents reveal a diversion plan that includes no new rail routes.

An existing CSX and smaller line that connects Montgomery to Meridian would get $250 million in upgrades. The Norfolk Southern line from New Orleans to Meridian would get $125 million in upgrades, plus Norfolk would get a $200 million payment for use of the line.

Other improvements over the new route include 50 mph speed upgrades, a $25 million Meridian connector, and $90 million worth of improvements in and around Montgomery, the documents reveal.

Eighteen freight trains would be added to the alternate route, increasing freight capacity over the line, according to the documents.

CSX would not comment Friday on the specifics it generated for lawmakers, but did try to assure that Mobile would not be abandoned.

"Our commitment to Mobile and its business growth remains very strong," CSX spokesman Gary Sease said. "We have important clients at the port and other industries that certainly are critical to our growth. It's a good relationship and one that we want to continue."

Addressing concerns that CSX employees in Mobile could potentially lose their jobs, Sease said that CSX has been hiring at a rate of as many as 1,500 people per year to operate trains, and demand remains high. A switching terminal in Mobile would remain in place, he said.

Routing CSX's east-west traffic away from Mobile might benefit the port, state docks Director Jimmy Lyons said Friday. CSX represents 65 percent of the state docks' rail traffic, but the trains are routed either north or east. Eliminating the through traffic on the line could ease congestion, he said.

Lyons also said that trains might be able to travel faster over the inland routes. "A lot of this is hypothetical," Lyons said. "I don't think any modeling has been done."


  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, May 20, 2006 11:16 PM
Can someone tell me what route CSX traffic would actually use between NOL and FL, should this change actually come to pass? NS? NS and some other lines?
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, May 20, 2006 1:14 PM
Snow won't have anything to do with the passage of this legislation or its signing in to law. That would be Congress and the President. As it has already passed the Senate, that leaves the House of Representatives and the W.

LC

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy