Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
July TRAINS takes on the captive shipper debate - Best Issue Ever?
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by n012944</i> <br /><br />[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by futuremodal</i> <br /><br />[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by rrandb</i> <br /><br />All I'm saying is if Idaho had wanted the truck/barge traffic there IDOT was that hard to work with. If they did roadblock the border it was not for the benift of BNSF. Idaho had asked for 120,000. A reason is at that weight 120,000 we did 8 mph uphill and 4 mph downhill. Granted it was winter and there was 5" of ice and cinders on the road. The point is the damage to the road at those weights is not that much different. Did the Feds do that maybe to help BNSF. I do not think so but it would fit the DC/railroad colusion theory. <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />It is a generally accepted fact that the rail industry had a major hand in convincing the federal government to cap each state's GVW limits for non-Interstate highways, with each state able to grandfather in their particular weight limit that was in place when the cap was enacted. The Interstate Highway cap has been 80,000 lbs since I can remember. <br /> <br />Most of the grain that was trucked from Montana to Lewiston went via non-Interstate Highways - US Highway 12, Montana Highway 200, etc. <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />Back to that old "its a railroad conspiracy theory' thing again. Give it a break. <br /> <br /> <br />Bert <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />http://www.aar.org <br />http://www.cabt.org <br /> <br />Since you seem to know absolutely nothing about the railroad industry, here's a primer. The AAR is the American Association of Rairoads, the lobbying arm of the rail industry. The AAR has a surogate group it uses called the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks, which is predicated soley on opposing increased GVW for trucks. It was CABT that was the major force in getting the federal cap on weight limits imposed. <br /> <br />Now, whether it is a conspiracy or not is up to your imagination.[D)] <br /> <br />Even in this weeks newspapers, there's an article that states the usual knee-jerk opposition to trucks and highways from the rail industry: <br /> <br />http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/06/14/montana/a08061406_02.txt <br /> <br /><b>Kitzenberg leading caravan for four-lane U.S. Highway 2</b> <br /> <br />Quote of note: "The lone opposition he’s encountered to the “four-for-two” idea has come from BNSF Railway, which Kitzenberg (says) wants to keep its shipping monopoly across the Hi-Line. 'If you’ve got a monopoly and are making money, why would you want competition?' the legislator asked.”
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
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy