Part II: Identify several possible solutions based upon the factual resources (NOT opinion) and discuss them in greater detail.

It was deemed that increased competition was necessary in the rail industry, either mandated by Congress, or the (Surface Transportation Board) STB could exert a more forceful regulatory role, to expand access to smaller producers, to reduce consolidation, and mandate competition.

Part III: Conclusion - Pick one of the solutions and tell why it was chosen, also tell why the others were not chosen.

However, while initiatives by the STB were phrased in pro-competitive language, and it insisted to Congress in December of 1998 that it already had done all it could to solve the problem, regional transportation and development organizations were, on the whole, disappointed in its efforts ("Achieving Rail Competition Requires your Support," 1998, ARC presentation). Ultimately, the STB's policy to address the issue offered no specific standards to determine if mergers would fail to meet expectations of enhanced competition,...

It resolved that a merger should be expected to serve the public before further consolidation was allowed, without specifying what the public interest was precisely. However, Congress did not step in to act in its place ("Achieving Rail Competition Requires your Support," 1998, ARC presentation). The result has been decreased access by small producers to rail transport, as mergers have continued unabated. This resulted in the increased consolidation of the agricultural industry, to the further detriment of small farmers.
Works Cited

Achieving Rail Competition Requires your Support." (1998). ARC (Appalachian Regional Commission) presentation. Retrieved 20 Jan 2007 at http://www.ams.usda.gov/tmd/LATS/ARCpresentation/ARC%20Pres.pdf

Brennan, William. (1998, Jul). "Long-term Capacity Constraints in the U.S. Rail System." The U.S. Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Marketing Service. Retrieved 20 Jan 2007 at http://www.ams.usda.gov/tmd/summit/ch4c.pdf