Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
"Railroads can't maintain pace of coal demand"

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="YoHo1975"]Finally on public monies.  Spending money on projects that support the public good is the government's job. Railroad infrastructure has always been part of the public good. Or perhaps you think we'd be better off if none of the western railroads existed at all? If you don't like the way your elected officials are spending your money, make it a campaign issue and vote them out. You may be out of luck though. in California, the government has put a lot of money into rail infrastructure and the Public has specifically voted for this. [/quote] First of all  YoHo, welcome to the forum, it is always good to detect (ahem) "new" members jumping aboard. [:P]  I would  find it very challenging, personally, to endorse the comment that it is the government's JOB to spend the taxpayer's money. (supporting the public good or otherwise) absent a  caveat that they must do so wisely. From that challenge comes uncertainty, and a host of questions.  People are being sold on the idea that the end run of this deal will be cheaper utilities.  Where's the proof of that? I've yet to see any hard promises  The arguments that i see here that I find more believeable are that DME will run as many trains as possible, charging just as much as they possibly can, as all good little capitalists are expected to do.   What is the maximum % of market share that DME can hope to capture, and can they turn that into pricing influence they can wield over their senior competitor(s)? My gut instinct tells me that with that whopping loan to repay, the motivation to start a price war with two leviathons that could spit upon and drown the upstart  at will, likely will be very minimal. If at all So where is the hard promise of "public good"?  The cynic in me tells me that even if DME does cut transportation cost for coal to the utilities, that savings will most likely be passed along to their stockholders as profit, with very little trickling back to joe taxpayer ...absent a binding promise up front, which there is none. SO, I am forced to ask myself who the tangible beneficiaries of such an arrangement would actually be. A handful of farmers in S Dakota and the principals of DME are  the most conclusive answers I can come up with. If that proves to be the case, is that still the taxpayers responsibility?  Not if BNSF and UP can do so more efficiently.
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