NASHUA – With the governor on board, the push to restore commuter rail to the area has gained momentum, according to members of an advisory committee working on the issue.
The next battle for rail proponents will be waged in the state Legislature, they say.
But the largest obstacle remains Pan Am Railways, formerly Guilford Rail System, which owns the tracks and rights of way in New Hampshire.
“The action has moved to the legislative level,” Ward 8 Alderman Dave MacLaughlin said during a recent meeting of the city’s commuter rail advisory committee.
“That is where the battle has to be won now.”
But the 800-pound gorilla in the equation remains Pan Am. Dating to when the company was known as Guilford, it has resisted efforts to revive rail, committee members said.
“We have to have them at the table,” said Steve Williams, executive director of the Nashua Regional Planning Commission.
Ah, leave it to the drive by media to get things wrong. Actually, the story has it backwards. Pan Am is not the 800lb. gorilla. The 800lb. gorilla is the New Hampshire legislature. What? Well, they want to cap liability claims. Does that protect the shareholders of Pan Am? No. If some thing happens, god forbid, then The state only allows for minimal damage awards (by today’s standards) Pan Am could, then be sued for more money over and above what they are insured for. Pan Am cannot stand by and let the next stage of this farce to occur, eminent domain seizure of their rights of way, active or not. They lost their portion of the Connecticut river line from East Northfield MA to Windsor VT back in the '80s to Amtrak which rehabbed the line and then turned it over to Central Vermont (now New England Central) for operation. Pan Am (Guilford in those days) spent a lot of money on appeals and court cases and won. But, they got very inadequate reimbursement for their property. They did not even get back all of their legal fees. There is a sad trend afoot in this land, friends, if you own property and a government, whether it be state, county, municipality, boro, city, village or-god forbid-the feds desire it for their own devious purposes, then kiss your investment good bye! And then if you live on that property call a mover.
I think another close look at that case says PanAm had plenty of chances to fix that line before Amtrak took action.
I quote:
In 1977 Amtrak entered into a trackage rights agreement with B&M under which B&M agreed to maintain its portions of the Conn River Line. Those portions include a 48.8 mile segment of track on the Conn River Line between Brattleboro and Windsor, Vermont. This is the segment of track at issue here. At first the arrangement to maintain the track proceeded well, but in the early 1980’s problems developed. Guilford Transportation Industries, Inc., purchased B&M out of bankruptcy, and purchased also a railroad operating a parallel line. Amtrak’s claim is that neglect of track maintenance resulting from this purchase caused delays in Montrealer service. Maintenance of the Brattleboro Windsor track was so poor that at points the train was slowed to five miles an hour. Negotiations for better maintenance were unsuccessful. In April 1987 Amtrak was forced to discontinue its Montrealer service.
Without power or leverage over the rail giant, the only way to do that is through creating a “political situation” in which there would be such support for commuter rail, it would be in Pan Am’s best interest to come on board with the idea, he said.
A case of depleted critical thinking…duh…lets create a political situation with no power or leverage…propelled by hot air which leaked out of this particular balloon…the dog ate their legislative homework…premature launch…exploded on takeoff…write this down…must do homework…100 times…
Wait–who won the case? Guilford did. Why? Inadequate compensation. Excessive costs forced B&M and Guilford to triage track repair, much like CSX does these days. They just plain did not have the traffic levels to justify the work being done. And, they had the right to refuse to do work for which they would not recieve proper financial return after its completion.
The transportation planner’s rubber-tired roots are showing again. If you can’t get what you want because it is beyond your control or understanding, get the media and the local politicians to do your bidding. PanAm/Guilford, for all its faults, still has the right to call the passenger rail planners’ future designs irrational.
The passenger train proponets are desparately in need of a time-out and reality check.
Where in the text of that decision is such a thing spelled out? What I see in there is things like this:
[quote user=“The Supreme Court of the United States”]
[list][*] The ICC concluded that the presumption of Amtrak’s need for the track contained in § 562(d)(1) was applicable[*]And as to significant impairment of B&M’s ability to carry out its common carrier obligations (subsection (A)), the ICC found that because B&M had been awarded just compensation and could continue to serve its customers under the trackage rights agreement which was part of the transaction, its ability had not been impaired[*]Arguing against the ICC’s interpretation, B&M cites to us cases such as United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230, 243, n. 13 (1946), which suggest that delegations of eminent domain power to private entities are of a limited nature. We do not believe that argument has any relevance here because Amtrak does not exercise eminent domain power under § 562(d). Rather, the statute gives that power to the ICC, a Government agency[*] We also reject B&M’s constitutional objections. B&M claims that § 562(d) as interpreted by the agency violates the “public use” requirement of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, because the transaction leaves unchanged the use made by Amtrak of the con
I am guessing you think the U.S. Supreme Court, and the I.C.C. got it all wrong then eh? Those nine justices, what the hell were they thinking anyways? Those pesky laws just keep getting in the way.