Letter
Transportation – September 2007 – Colorado Central Magazine – No. 163 – Page 37
Dear Mr. Quillen,
I was surprised to learn recently that Amtrak has the power of eminent domain — including over other rail carriers. Interestingly, Amtrak actually did condemn a railroad line once and then quickly sold it to a different carrier, with the following provisions: the original railroad (Guilford transportation) could continue to serve its existing customers on the line, but the new railroad (Central Vermont) could go after new business.
Amtrak did this because Guilford steadfastly refused to maintain the track in adequate condition for passenger service (at that time, the route of the Montrealer). Guilford also owned a parallel line, so they had no reason to maintain the redundant route. Rather than cancel the train, Amtrak opted to condemn the line and convey it to a railroad they felt would be better able to maintain the track. Amtrak also provided funds (appropriated by Congress) for repairs to the line. Guilford fought this action in court, and lost.
Reading about this case triggered lots of thinking. Basically, in American law, Congress can set up all kinds of interesting powers, when it so chooses. I have always thought that the Tennessee Pass line (and the former Missouri Pacific connection to the East) should be in the hands of the equivalent of a Montana Rail Link sort of operation, which should be granted trackage rights all the way to Salt Lake City. I think you can imagine how this would give Union Pacific a run for its money! While this should have been a condition of the UP-SP merger, the Amtrak story illustrates that Congress can pretty much assign power to condemn railroads as it pleases.
UP is sitting on the Tennessee Pass line, I suspect, specifically to block this sort of threat from competition. If they were to abandon, legally, another buyer could take over the line rather than have it abandoned. If Amtrak can condemn an active freight line, I imagine it would not really take all that much legal work to set up a situation where the TP could be taken away from UP (which has no use for it) and conveyed to someone who does, especially if UP is granted trackage rights for current customers (snicker). The public purposes could be several:
1. to promote industrial development along the line.
2. to provide railroad competition
3. as part of an overall Colorado rail transportation plan designed to reduce pressure on the Moffat line so as to improve passenger service there.
4. to provide passenger service to mountain communities (using tilting trains for higher speeds).
I can imagine lots of scenarios that Colorado could follow to pursue these goals — though I suspect the state won’t pursue them. It is time, perhaps, for the state to get organized with regards to rail and develop win-win proposals (such as the front range rail bypass project) as well as legislation to give the government a better bargaining position.
Consider that the Denver-area Regional Transportation District is at a disadvantage in negotiations with the railroads because it has no power of eminent domain over them as Amtrak does. The state was forced to completely indemnify the railroads for passenger service just to implement Fastracks. Maybe this was the best way to go, but an alternative approach would be to simply amend the U.S. code to allow other designated passenger rail carriers (not just Amtrak) the same powers as Amtrak, which can operate on any railroad subject to terms agreeable to both parties. If they can’t agree — arbitration. Voila. RTD would have a much better bargaining position.
Anyway, you get the idea. The major steps might be:
1. Create a state freight railroad plan to improve rail service, promote competition, and develop new markets.
2. Create a state passenger rail plan to provide new service statewide, making efficient use of existing infrastructure.
3. Draft legislation to provide greater power to promote rail competition through condemnation of idle rail lines.
4. Begin negotiations to set up a rail carrier that could provide service on the TP route.
5. Propose a capital plan whereby public investment in rail infrastructure (such as main line capacity upgrades) leads to public benefits, including acquisition of TP.
All strictly fantasy, but not really so difficult to imagine. Perhaps the chief problem with rail planning in this country, though, is that the feds don’t do any of it. The states, not realizing they must “join or die,” are left to their own devices.
Regards,
Name withheld by request
