Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Should the Government Breakup Union Pacific?

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
The bigger question is the lack of competitive rail access most shippers deal with these days due to the unfortunate megamergers of the 1990's. The STB under Linda Morgan was simply a hack agency run vicariously by the Class I giants, and the result was a major squashing of rail competition in the West and East. Only a narrow strip in the Midwest has more than two carriers to access. The UP/SP and BN/SF mergers should never have been allowed, at least not without some captive rail issues dealt with firstly. <br /> <br />So should UP, BNSF. et al, be broken up? Yes, if the breakup is VERTICAL. If the operating divisions are separated from the infrastructure divisions, then the problem of captive shippers is solved. Then UP and BNSF's operating companies can merge for all I care, because it would be relatively easy for a new operating company to provide competition for such a conglomerate. With such an AT&T style breakup, a shipper in Montana could access any of the Class I operators for rate quotes, be it NS, CSX, KCS, CP, CN, UP, or BNSF, or any combination thereof. If no Class I operators want to provide such competition, then that would open the door for a DM&E or MRL to step into the void. <br /> <br />That is the true essence of a capitalistic society. Leaving the quasi-monopolistic status quo as is will only lead to more shipper complaints and eventual government action, thence a sorry trip back in time to an era of re-regulation via the typical knee jerk government response.
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