Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Well, I think you have to look at the serial nature of Mr Hemphills appeals. "UP into S.Cal" is just the latest example he has used. In the overall, the longterm approach he seems to sponsor is one of proclaiming that RR capacity is maxxed out all over, hence "a taxpayer funded solution" is to be our only salvation.... And my counterpoint is, just how much "redundancy" had to, (will have to) be auctioned off to the recyclers before *that* becomes a true statement? Surely it COULD happen, if the taxpayer is willing to play the sap enough to let the RR's get away with it. Before we run in and decide how much the taxpayer is expected to suck up enhancing UP's "sunset" portfolio, lets first look at the capacity it is abandoning up in the colorado hills, to see if "one from column A can suffice for one in column B". I think on a macro level what is hidden under the nutshell is taxpayer funding of the optimization of RR assets, allowing them to forsake (example) a fuel intensive route for one they can ru n more profitably.....so, wheres MY divided check? you know the one that will result from my (the taxpayer) investment? Same goes for the BNSF facility in Remington. Don't come crying to me (the taxpayer) that dire need exists in coping with the Chicago "bottleneck" when alternative infastructure in place and conveniantly nearby, is abandoned (yet fully lit with yard lights, at 5 pm, 3 hours before sundown) Is the taxpayer equally expected to subsidize the stupidity of lighting an abandoned yard in broad daylight? where does one draw the line? "need" vs "want" can be a precarious animal to analyze,
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