February 19, 2013

Pan Am rail crossing fees hike takes State House stage on Thursday

By Matt Hongoltz-Hetling mhhetling@centralmaine.com
Staff Writer

BELGRADE — A battle between area residents and Pan Am Railways will reach the State House on Thursday, when legislators hold a public hearing on a bill designed to address the issue. 

click image to enlarge

Snow covers the railroad crossing on Dustin Drive in Belgrade Tuesday. PanAm Railways is planning a rate hike for maintenance on private railroad crossings like this one.

Staff photo by Michael G. Seamans


LD 154, "An Act To Amend the Laws Governing Limited Liability for Recreational or Harvesting Activities," will have a public hearing before the Judiciary Committee at 1:30 p.m. Thursday in room 438 of the State House.


The outcome will affect anyone in the state who crosses railroad tracks to reach their private land.

The bill limits railroad liability for those who are injured on private crossings, a measure Pan Am said will allow it to craft friendlier agreements with those who use such crossings.

Some residents said they want those friendlier agreements to be included in the bill, rather than relying on Pan Am’s assurances.

The issue began in February 2012, when Pan Am sent new temporary crossing agreements to residents in Belgrade and Oakland, along with letters that informed them that crossing fees were going up — in some cases, dramatically.

Thomas and Kathleen Cassidy, a Winslow couple that owns a camp on Dustin Drive in Belgrade, received a letter that included a fee hike from $130, set in 1972, to $1,470.

Kathleen Cassidy said crossing the tracks is the only reasonable way to get to the land on the shores of Belgrade Lake.

“The only other way to get to my camp is by boat,” she said.

Cassidy said she supports the principle of paying a maintenance fee to cover Pan Am’s crossing maintenance costs.

“I don’t have a problem to pay a crossing fee. It’s only fair. It is their land that we are crossing,” she said.

However, the Cassidys said the amounts are too high and are applied inconsistently, with some residents asked to pay less than a third of what the Cassidys were assessed.  

“It should be reasonable and it should be equitable and it should be the same fee for everyone,” she said.

Cassidy said she was speaking only on behalf of herself and her husband.

Other property owners involved in the dispute have said that they oppose any kind of crossing fee.

The Cassidys said the proposed agreement also requires property owners to buy $10 million in insurance coverage for accidents that might happen at the crossing. 

A group of residents expressed anger about the new agreements at a public meeting with Pan Am and state legislators in August, after which the railroad temporarily suspended the process. 

In an effort to address the concerns, Rep. Dennis Keschl, R-Belgrade, introduced the bill, which is the subject of a public hearing at 1:30 p.m. Thursday in the State House. 

The bill is cosponsored by Sen. Tom Saviello, R-Wilton, and Rep. Robert Nutting, R-Oakland, among others. 

If the bill passes, private railroad crossings would join recreational and logging areas as places where the railroad is not liable for accidents. 

Keschl said the railroad still would be liable if an accident was demonstrably caused by its negligence, but the bill would reduce its insurance costs. 

Pan Am Vice President Cynthia Scarano said that if the railroad doesn’t have to insure itself against accidents at the crossings, then it won’t pass along those insurance costs to private landowners.

“This would alleviate the camp owners’ requirement for that insurance,” she said.

The issue of increases in crossing maintenance fees is separate, said Scarano, and would not be affected significantly by the legislation as written.

However, Cassidy said she wants the bill to address both issues at once so property owners are protected from both the insurance costs and from the increased maintenance fees.

“I’m opposed to the legislation the way it’s drafted simply because it gives them everything they want,” she said. “If the law reduces or removes their liability, there’s no motive or reason for Pan Am to act in good faith with the property owners.”

(Continued on page 2)

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors

Further Discussion

Here at OnlineSentinel.com we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)