QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 Do you mind discussing what the Gateway conditions were for the merger and how it affected the Milw?Specifically, was BN required to funnel traffic to the MILW? I do not have the resources to go check on the conditions of the merger and the affect.
QUOTE: CSSHEGEWISCH - most local governments can be made to understand the link between a loss of rail infrastructure and a resultant domino effect on other industries. When presented as an option of either continuing to have viable rail service without being able to assess property taxes on the rail ROW, or losing the rail service and a bunch of local industries with THEIR property tax contributions, then they understand that exempting the railroad ROW from property taxes is the lesser of two tax base erosion scenarios. If anything, a percieved guarantee of long term rail service will result in industrial additions to the tax base in the long run.
QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox It is my belief the only area where the anit-trust laws do not apply is with mergers. Anti-trust is certainly an issue when developing marketing strategies. Do we have any lawyers out there who no of areas besides mergers where anti-trust does not apply? Baseball, the national defense industry, legalized prostitution, and gambling. We do have the best Congress money can buy!
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox It is my belief the only area where the anit-trust laws do not apply is with mergers. Anti-trust is certainly an issue when developing marketing strategies. Do we have any lawyers out there who no of areas besides mergers where anti-trust does not apply? Baseball, the national defense industry, legalized prostitution, and gambling.
QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox It is my belief the only area where the anit-trust laws do not apply is with mergers. Anti-trust is certainly an issue when developing marketing strategies. Do we have any lawyers out there who no of areas besides mergers where anti-trust does not apply?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [brAlso, regarding Milwaukee's Gateway conditions, I will stand by my belief that the Milwaukee made a mistake in not including full access rights over the SP&S lines and the entire I-5 corridor, and access to Lewiston ID in addition to the Billings haulage agreement, to fully cover the PNW. I don't know if such inclusions would have made THE difference, but they certainly would have put the Milwaukee on a more even playing field.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [Michael Sol - Isn't the right to private action against alleged monopolistic abuses the heart and soul of all antitrust laws? Without that right to private action, antitrust laws are frankly impotent, otherwise Congressman Green wouldn't need to have introduced his legislation in the first place. Makes a big difference if all a monopolist has to do is to lobby DC vs having to lobby against private interests. If I read this legislation correctly, this will allow those affected industries to bypass an impassive Congress and take direct action regarding the rate abuse.
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH I'm not sure that Community High School District 200 would appreciate the loss of tax revenue if the property taxes on Clearing Yard were abated. There is not a whole lot of vacant land suitable for industrial development within the school district's boundaries so any offset of lost taxes by increased valuations due to industrial development would be minimal. In most urban areas, vacant land suitable for industrial development is relatively rare and much of it is being rezoned residential or commercial anyway. Shipping by truck is a viable option for many of the remaining industries, too.
QUOTE: Question for FM: In your scenario for open access, the infrastructure would be owned by a separate firm, which presumably would be responsible for its maintenance and possible upgrading. Since this firm would have a monopoly on the rail infrastructure, what devices would be in place to prevent this firm from charging whatever it pleases for access to operate over its line?
QUOTE: Originally posted by mark_in_utah QUOTE: Originally posted by up829 Shared access to utilities is a joke and does the opposite of what's intended. For example in my area we have power outages about twice a month, the power company has never heard of ANSI or any of the Power Quality organizations and makes up it's own standards instead. Next year we will be able to 'buy' electricity from another company but they will be using the same rotten infrastructure so my service will be no different. It's also likely that competitive rates will result in even less maintenance to the system. Thanks to power company deregulation we got Enron. Congratulation on having some stupid management (along with most of the rest of the US) for your power company. As I noted before, ALL of the deregulation talk was to deregulate the generators, but NOT to deregulate the wires. Most all companies cut line work to SUBSIDIZE the cuts in the generation rates. This was a grossly stupid thing to do, as it actually CUT the allowable rate of return for their stockholders, and cripled the system. The quicker they start to understand this simple fact, the sooner they'll start to invest again into the infrastructure to better serve their customers. This is ALSO where the money is to be made. They did this in Australia (deregulation), and those companies that kept the wires are making money, and those that are generating power are scratching out a living. Same thing goes for RR's. In a deregulated environment the money to be made is in the rails, and NOT in the freight they haul. Surprise!!!!! Want to make more money? Build more rails to relieve the congestion and improve through-put. Run as many trains as possible over the rails as quickly as possible. Keep a few of your own trains on the tracks to compete, but keep the two parts of the business seperate. Make the rails AND the trains both pay their seperate way. You'll be surprised how quickly management thinking changes. Mark in Utah
QUOTE: Originally posted by up829 Shared access to utilities is a joke and does the opposite of what's intended. For example in my area we have power outages about twice a month, the power company has never heard of ANSI or any of the Power Quality organizations and makes up it's own standards instead. Next year we will be able to 'buy' electricity from another company but they will be using the same rotten infrastructure so my service will be no different. It's also likely that competitive rates will result in even less maintenance to the system. Thanks to power company deregulation we got Enron.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Future Model: Would you entertain the idea of a seperate thread started to calmly discuss the ideas and challenges that pertain to any kind od open access system?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Geez, so many off the wall retorts, so little time..... Mark in utah - was that plant built pre-Staggers or post-Staggers? Makes a huge difference, since most rail dependent plants were built back when rates were still regulated, thus the investors believed they would retain relatively low shipping costs.
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe 7. Railroads have always been subject to anti-trust principles, through Congressional directives beginning with the Transportation Act of 1920. Taking railroads out of the jurisidiction of the Sherman Anti-trust Act only removed the private cause of action therein, it did not remove anti-trust oversight. I am not sure where this point leads me; but I will note that this is a really good point that adds a lot to my understanding of the debate. Gabe
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Oh, yeah, regarding the "moral obligation" statement I made - On reflection I admit it is in error for me to say that the railroad companies have a moral obligation to provide payback to the public in exchange for the land grants into perpetuity. Corporations are amoral, thus not inclined to moralisms one way or the other. For that statement I deserve the criticism. What I should have said (and will probably still get criticism) is that the government has a moral obligation to the public to make sure railroads give payback to the public in exchange for the land grants, and should do so into perpetuity, e.g. there is no time limit for return consideration. The land is gone from the public coffers forever, why shouldn't the return favor also last forever?
23 17 46 11
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard RE: The "numbers" thing - As I've stated before, I don't believe there are any publicly accessable studies that analyze the prospective comparison of converting the current U.S. rail picture into some form of open access vs leaving things as they are and/or reregulating railroad rates and services. I have scanned all the Class I websites, the AAR website, the FRA website, the STB website, and have not found any studies on the issue.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.