Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
DM&E Denied $2.5 Billion Taxpayer Backed Loan

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="RRKen"] Hating Union Pacific or BNSF is not any reason for lending the DM&E money.   If we the public can be convinced that DM&E could actually pay off the FRA loan, not to mention the investors, then I have no issue with it.   But a total of $6 billion is a lot to pay back, based upon what they (DM&E) projected in traffic.   Consider also, with that amount of debt, how can their rates be any better than UP or BNSF's?Again I say, if this had been such a hot prospect, we would  not even be having this discussion as investors would be jumping at the chance.   But thus is not the case.   Instead they went to the U.S. Government.   [/quote]So you think the entire DM&E loan justification was based on "hating" UP and BNSF?FYI - no one "hates" UP and BNSF.  I personally detest the creation and federal defense of large oligarchies - this goes back to the 1990's and the horrid mistake made by Linda Morgan et al in allowing the mega-mergers of the 1990's, mergers that still may violate the competitive caveats of the Stagger's Act.  The STB/FRA et al are supposed to be representing the public interest as it relates to railroads, not the railroads themselves.  And in this case, the public interest is manifested in the ideals of reintroducing intramodal competition among the railroads, and in expanding badly needed capacity for the service of domestic rail shipping interests, including PRB coal.Clearly, the FRA has failed the public interest.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag