News:Mass. Lt Gov. blames CSX

Mass. Lt. Gov. Murray blasts CSX for stalemate in commuter rail talks.
Article on the web from Boston.com.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articl ... ed_to_csx/

yup, very smart... Talking trash about the other side is REALLY going to help the negotiations...

sheesh... when will our politicians start to learn from each other's mistakes?

Murray, who expressed optimism about the tenor of the talks last October, recently complained that negotiations had reached a "logjam" because CSX has refused to bend on at least one key demand: requiring the company to face liability if a commuter-rail passenger is injured due to its negligence.

My guess is the state knows its beat on this point, just like Amtrak has been for years. So, they are either:

1. Softening up public opinion for an eventual agreement that includes this provision

2. Softening up public opinion on the lack of an agreement with CSX.

State officials say they could solve the problems by buying tracks owned by CSX and controlling coordination of the freight and commuter trains that share the route.

Um, really?

But wait, it gets weirder:

The dispute could be enough to derail the deal, worth perhaps $300 million to $400 million, to buy some CSX tracks and rights of way. In addition to what it wants to purchase along the Worcester/Framingham line, the state is looking to buy rights of way on CSX tracks through Fall River and along the South Shore, as well as on lines from Allston to Chelsea (also known as Grand Junction).

Kids... this is looney tunes. I'm kind of afraid of my local Worcester buddy-made-good Tim Murray. I thought he had a better grip on reality than this. As we've covered extensively here, the issues w/commuter rail on the Worcester line has almost nothing to do with CSX. It has to do with a lack of investment by the state and the MBTA. Yet for some bizarre reason the state insists on trying to make CSX the "bad guy" in the negotiations, which CSX properly resents... and now they are trying to play the same game with NB/FR? This is degenerating into insanity.

Oh, wait, Mass. politics...

Yeah, everything seems normal.

I went to several commuter rail meetings recently where the politicians who were present substantially outnumbered the other citizens in the audience. Some of the speeches they gave (they get first shot at the microphone because they are more important than the rest of us) were a memorable display of self promotion.

I get the impression that the real risk of injury is if you get between a Massachusetts politician and a TV news crew set up to do interviews. I wonder who accepts the liability for your injuries if the Mayor or State Representative runs over you in their rush to get in front of a camera.

; Latest news, this is really getting out of hand here...taking over the rails
;via eminent domain is being mentioned also
;

http://www.telegram.com/article/2008040 ... 40613/1116

CSX told no-fault is a no-go

Rail liability issue

By Priyanka Dayal TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

While state transportation officials continue negotiations with CSX Corp. to buy the railroad tracks between Worcester and Framingham, the state’s congressional delegation is threatening legislative action if CSX doesn’t accept a liability policy based on fault.

CSX, the company that owns and controls 21,000 miles of railroad across the country, including 22.8 miles that connect Worcester and Framingham, is demanding a liability policy based on property, not fault. State lawmakers and transportation officials say that is unreasonable because it would force the state to pay for accidents caused by CSX negligence.

Every member of Congress representing Massachusetts signed a letter sent Wednesday to CSX President and CEO Michael Ward in Jacksonville, Fla., that says CSX’s conditions “would put taxpayers and fare-payers at undue risk and prevent the MBTA from adequately ensuring safety.”


No-fault liability would unfairly hold taxpayers responsible for CSX’s negligence, according to the letter. The letter adds that if the issue is not resolved soon, lawmakers will consider filing legislation that would regulate freight and commuter rail contracts.

CSX wants a no-fault policy, in which the company and the state would be responsible for its own property, regardless of who is at fault in an accident. The state says setting that kind of gross negligence standard is unreasonable and irresponsible.

“Our hope is we can get the CSX folks to work with the state to avoid congressional action,” Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., said in an interview yesterday. “The economic well-being of our community is really dependent on this kind of public rail system.”

CSX is asking to keep liability on the Worcester-Framingham tracks as it is now, with each party responsible for its own property and passengers. To buy the tracks, the state would have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars.

“If the state purchases the tracks, of course we have a right to demand the situation changes,” Mr. Kerry said.

He said he will wait for CSX’s response before deciding if and when to file legislation that would mandate standards for freight and commuter rail contracts.

In a written statement released yesterday, CSX said the company understands the concerns expressed in the letter from congressmen, and will respond in “a timely manner.”

“A no-fault insurance system… puts the public first by ensuring that payments are made quickly and efficiently when the need arises, rather than having them tied up in litigation as often occurs in at-fault insurance mechanisms,” the statement reads. “This is an industry standard used with other commuter and passenger rail systems and between and among the freight railroads when they operate on each other’s systems.”

Last night, Mr. Kerry’s office had not received a statement from CSX. CSX spokesman Robert Sullivan said the statement was released to the media, not to the congressmen who sent the letter. CSX will send a response to the congressmen later, he said.

In an interview yesterday, U.S. Rep. James P. McGovern, D-Worcester, knocked CSX’s argument that it is simply asking to maintain an industry standard.

“It is bad public policy for the Commonwealth to give no-fault liability to CSX or any other railroad,” Mr. McGovern said.

He pointed to the company’s contracts with Amtrak, which, he said, have forced taxpayers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for liability claims that were caused by CSX negligence.

“CSX is being unreasonable here,” he said. “It’s nuts, it’s crazy to enter into this kind of agreement.”

The letter prodding CSX to rescind its liability clause was the first written message all 12 Massachusetts congressmen have sent to the railroad company. It was signed by Mr. Kerry, Mr. McGovern, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, and U.S. Reps. John W. Olver of Amherst, William D. Delahunt of Quincy, Edward J. Markey of Malden, Barney Frank of Newton, John F. Tierney of Salem, Michael E. Capuano of Somerville, Stephen F. Lynch of Boston, Richard E. Neal of Springfield and Niki Tsongas of Lowell — all Democrats.

The track from Worcester to Framingham is one of the only pieces of railroad used for commuter service that is not under state control. Lawmakers say buying that rail is the only way to increase commuter service between Worcester and Boston, in the long-term, to 20 trains in each direction.

CSX’s priority is freight, and freight trains traveling between Worcester and Boston frequently cause delays to existing commuter service.

State lawmakers from Worcester met with CSX officials last month; after the meeting, they all said the dispute over liability has led to stalemate.

The 20.9-mile railroad between Framingham and Boston is owned by the state, and liability on those tracks is based on fault, according to a 1985 agreement between CSX and the state Executive Office of Transportation.

In 1994, the year before commuter service to Worcester was launched, state officials agreed to give CSX complete indemnity on the Framingham-Worcester tracks as a trade-off for providing commuter service.

In Florida, transportation officials recently struck a deal to buy tracks from CSX to provide commuter service. Several Florida lawmakers have complained about CSX’s liability conditions, which stipulate that in the case of an accident, each side will be liable for damage to its own property and passengers, regardless of fault.

Contact Priyanka Dayal by e-mail at [email protected].

On the local news the other day a politician was saying "the Canton accident is proof we need to take over all CSX lines in Massachusetts and prevent any more accidents". Bizzare to say the least..

frrc wrote:On the local news the other day a politician was saying "the Canton accident is proof we need to take over all CSX lines in Massachusetts and prevent any more accidents". Bizzare to say the least..

I'd say unfounded is the more appropriate term.
There has yet to be any proof of blame for the accident whatsoever, and we won't officially know until the FRA report is released.

Just more examples of why people who know nothing about railroads end up royally messing things up. If I were CSX and I got wind of that claim (and if it proves to be the case) I'd definately demand an apology. [/i]

Mar 16, 2008

Liability the issue in CSX talks

Commuter rail expansion stalled

By Priyanka Dayal TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

Worst-case scenario: An impaired freight-train engineer rams his train into a commuter train, injuring and killing hundreds of passengers.

Implausible as it is, lawmakers and state officials vying to purchase a stretch of railroad from CSX Corp. are worried that if the state buys the tracks under the terms CSX is proposing and a freight train causes an accident, the state could drown in liability costs.

State transportation officials have been negotiating with CSX for several years to purchase 22.8 miles of railroad from Framingham to Worcester, with the goal of increasing commuter service to Worcester. As long as CSX owns and controls that line, commuter service is at the mercy of the $20 billion corporation and its freight.


CSX representatives and members of Worcester’s Statehouse delegation met recently to discuss, among other things, the possible sale of the railroad. But they kept getting stuck on the contentious, though familiar, issue of liability.

CSX wants a no-fault policy, in which the company and the state would be responsible for their own property, regardless of who is at fault in an accident. The state says setting that kind of gross negligence standard is unreasonable and irresponsible.

“They want the state, the taxpayer, to assume all liability, regardless of fault, which to me is just fundamentally wrong,” said state Rep. Robert P. Spellane, D-Worcester, one of the lawmakers who attended a private meeting with CSX March 6. “When in society do we ask some people to take responsibility for other people’s actions?”

He said the example of the impaired freight-train engineer is “a far-flung tragic incident, but that’s how we have to look at it.”

State Sen. Edward M. Augustus Jr., D-Worcester, said the state has been stuck with heavy liability costs before, pointing to steep legal settlements with Big Dig contractor Bechtel-Parsons Brinckerhoff.

He called CSX’s liability policy “a phenomenally bad deal for taxpayers.”

CSX is requesting no-fault indemnity on the basis of precedent, and says what it is demanding from Massachusetts is no different from agreements it has struck with other purchasers.

Lawmakers and state officials, however, insist a non-fault-based agreement would be unfair and risky, and vow not to get involved in that kind of deal.

“It seems like we’re kind of at a stalemate,” Mr. Augustus said.

“(Liability) is the major issue that is keeping the sale of the tracks from happening,” said Sen. Harriette L. Chandler, D-Worcester. “That’s most unfortunate and most unfair … that’s very unacceptable.”

Legislators say acquiring the 22.8-mile piece of railroad is the only way to achieve the long-term goal of doubling commuter service between Worcester and Boston, to 20 trains in each direction.

“We have incredible ridership … we need more flexibility,” Ms. Chandler said. “The only way it can be increased in the long run is if the state owns the track.”

The impasse is familiar to Lt. Gov. Timothy P. Murray; it has frustrated the former Worcester mayor for years.

“The fact of the matter is they want no fault; we have real public policy and public safety concerns about that,” he said in a recent interview. “What incentives are you giving them to be safe?”

CSX essentially is asking for liability policies to stay the same as they are now. The year before commuter rail service to Worcester was launched in 1995, state officials agreed to give CSX complete indemnity, regardless of fault, on the company-owned tracks from Worcester to Framingham. At the time, state transportation officials thought the liability conditions a fair trade-off for providing commuter service.

But if the state purchases those tracks, the situation must change, the lieutenant governor said. He said the state can’t be expected to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars for a railroad, and still be threatened with potentially exorbitant liabilities.

Over the years, CSX has filed some minor claims with the state, according to Mr. Murray.

The 20.9-mile railroad line linking Framingham and Boston is on state-owned land, and liability on those tracks is determined according to fault, said state Executive Office of Transportation spokesman Klark A. Jessen. That policy is detailed in a 1985 trackage rights agreement.

“That’s the position we want for the entire line,” Mr. Jessen said.

Robert Sullivan, a spokesman for CSX, said CSX representatives periodically meet with state officials and legislators to discuss negotiations but declined to go into the specifics of the March 6 meeting.

“We are not asking for anything different than what already exists in the state,” he said about the company’s liability policy. “You take care of what you bring to the railroad.”

Mr. Sullivan said CSX, which owns 21,000 miles of railroad across the country and transports freight as varied as grains and weapons, would not agree to any deal that diminishes freight service. Asked how a fault-based liability policy would diminish freight service, he said, “I’m not going to negotiate in the press. I’ll leave that to the negotiators.”

Twenty passenger trains and about 13 freight trains travel every weekday between Worcester and Boston. Between Framingham and Boston, there are twice as many passenger trains and about six more freight trains.

CSX, a New York Stock Exchange-listed company with a stock value that has soared 150 percent in the last three years, recently struck a deal in Florida: The state agreed to pay $491 million for 61 miles of track to provide commuter service in the Orlando area. The Tampa Tribune has reported that the agreement would protect CSX from liability in any accidents on the commuter lines purchased through the deal, even if the rail company was negligent.

The controversial agreement generated ire in the Florida Statehouse. Some lawmakers claimed the deal had been brokered in secret, and they complained about CSX’s liability conditions.

Mr. Murray said Amtrak, the national passenger-train service, also has been saddled with liability costs, a result of similar agreements with CSX.

State Rep. Vincent A. Pedone, D-Worcester, said he could not attend the March 6 meeting with his colleagues and CSX, but he had a phone conversation the next day with Maurice O’Connell, who represented CSX at the meeting. Mr. Pedone said he asked that CSX put its requests in writing so there is no confusion moving forward.

State Rep. James J. O’Day, D-West Boylston, echoed the concerns of the other lawmakers at the meeting.

“Their argument of ‘this is the way we do it in other states’ didn’t settle well with me,” he said. “Just because you do something one way doesn’t mean this is correct. One thing CSX is quick to point out is they are in the freight business and that is their priority.”

Lawmakers aren’t displeased by everything they hear about commuter service; they lauded CSX and transportation officials for improving punctuality on the Worcester line, from only 66 percent of trains arriving on time last year, to more than 90 percent arriving on time now.

Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad Co., which runs commuter service for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, changed timetables last month to give trains more time in the schedule to reach their destinations.

But while neither CSX nor the state is willing to budge on liability, increased passenger service remains murky for the future.

Ms. Chandler has her fingers crossed.

“I’m hoping there is some sort of miracle that will occur that will move them off this perspective,” she said.

Contact Priyanka Dayal by e-mail at [email protected].

Legislators say acquiring the 22.8-mile piece of railroad is the only way to achieve the long-term goal of doubling commuter service between Worcester and Boston, to 20 trains in each direction.

Oh? What legislators, and what would their clearly deficient reasoning be? Having met the aforementioned Ms Chandler in person, I wouldn't be surprised if it were her, since I think I can charitably say I've run over things on the turnpike that were smarter than she is. I'm not trying to simply bash her, but point out that most of the politicians involved in this issue clearly have no idea what they're talking about.

I would love it if we had some real journalists around -- people who wouldn't just uncritically print the quote above, but would actually, oh I don't know, ask for some kind of factual backing for that statement.

As I've said here before, the Commonwealth buying out CSX from Worcester to Framingham would be a tragic waste of money. I think we've reasonably well determined that the issue here is signalling and track capacity, not CSX per se.

I lived in Worcester while Murray was mayor, and I think he's a good guy who generally has the right idea about things. I expect better from him and his allies than this non-sequitur crap.

Sadly, in this case, and others, the media is clearly 1 sided in the views on the problems. I wrote a few letters to the T&G author of the articles, and got no response, same with Mr. Murray.

jgeary27 wrote:

Legislators say acquiring the 22.8-mile piece of railroad is the only way to achieve the long-term goal of doubling commuter service between Worcester and Boston, to 20 trains in each direction.

Oh? What legislators, and what would their clearly deficient reasoning be? Having met the aforementioned Ms Chandler in person, I wouldn't be surprised if it were her, since I think I can charitably say I've run over things on the turnpike that were smarter than she is. I'm not trying to simply bash her, but point out that most of the politicians involved in this issue clearly have no idea what they're talking about.

I would love it if we had some real journalists around -- people who wouldn't just uncritically print the quote above, but would actually, oh I don't know, ask for some kind of factual backing for that statement.

As I've said here before, the Commonwealth buying out CSX from Worcester to Framingham would be a tragic waste of money. I think we've reasonably well determined that the issue here is signalling and track capacity, not CSX per se.

I lived in Worcester while Murray was mayor, and I think he's a good guy who generally has the right idea about things. I expect better from him and his allies than this non-sequitur crap.

Amen! I would encourage anyone with an interest in setting the record straight write their elected leaders, the Telegram & Gazette, who blindly promotes this mis-guided effort, and reporter Dayal. This seems to be another waste of scarce taxpayer monies which could be used in much more effective ways to achieve the goal of increasing Worcester commuter rail. Does anyone recall, or have access to, the consultant's study done 5-10 years ago, which reached the conclusion that CSX freight service on this line is very important to our regional economy and that infrastructure improvements were necessary to increase commuter service? It cost the Commonwealth app. $150k, IIRC, and reached cogent conclusions, though none of our leaders seem to have heeded the advice. Worcester leaders and media have a history of advocating for/spending monies on misguided projects, and I'm afraid this is another one in the making!

More CSX bashing in the Telegram this morning with an editorial cartoon of a "Worc Rail" train being stopped by a brick wall labeled "CSX" and an Op-Ed piece by US Senator Kerry and State Rep McGovern stating the government should "stand its ground" against CSX the way the "Conductor" of the MBTA train involved in the Canton Jct. crash stood his ground and helped prevent a more serious accident when the "CSX Owned" freight car ran into it.

The article goes on to point out the difference between indemnity in a situation where the company own s the tracks, and this case where the state is proposing to take them over, and concludes with some statements as to how better commuter rail could help Worcester's economic development, which I cannot argue with.

However the unasked question is why state takeover is so essential before these improvements can take place. We only have to look north to Maine and the Downeaster to see an example of a project where public money improved a private railbed benefiting both the Amtrak operation as well as freight operation.

One thing I worry about with state takeover of the CSX line is the likely loss of freight service between Worcester and Boston (Beacon Park) which will put more trucks on the turnpike and connecting local roads, undoing some of the benefits that better commuter rail is supposed to bring.

Jon

[DELETED]

[quote="frrc"] In regards to Beacon Park, it's days are numbered thanks to Harvard and BU's plans to take over most of the property for expansion. Supposedly CSX is looking to build a new yard near Worcester, but imagine the NIMBY's coming out against that idea.

While I suspect we're "closer" to a Beacon Park "solution", this issue has been out there since the late 1980's. Conrail was actively studying alternative sites for the trailvan ramp and flexi-flow facility in 1987-88.
Westboro, where Penn Central had purchased app. 500 acres contiguous to the existing auto site, was the prime focus until environmental issues with the wetlands and a major acquifer shut those plans down. Too bad,
as this site would offer an excellant location with great access to the Pike, I-495, and Rtes. 9 & 20 within the belt around Boston where much of our region's distribution activity takes place.