QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear FM - You can't make a railroad a monopoly by saying so. The railroad market share is effectively policed by trucks and other railroad competition unlike the electric or gas utility which has no effective competition. Sioux City is also served by BNSF and Baard is free to nergotiate with them. Of course, given their track record with the UP the result is likely to be the same... LC Sioux City is also served by CN. If neither of the three want to *donate* $2-3 million in track infrastructure, would it still be fair to blame the railroad(s) for the deal falling apart? You have to remember, just because Sioux City might have a second or third railroad within the city limits does not mean that there is the opportunity for effective intramodal rail compeition at that particular piece of property. It sounds as if UP is the only railroad within a stone's throw of the property, wherein the spur build out can be facilitated. What would it take for BNSF or CN to get to that piece of property? Bulling a line down a residential street? Cutting through a local elementary school? Nah, that wouldn't cause any local commotion, would it? Unless someone can verify to the contrary, that fact remains that this site is captive to UP, ergo UP is a natural monopoly for this piece of property.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear FM - You can't make a railroad a monopoly by saying so. The railroad market share is effectively policed by trucks and other railroad competition unlike the electric or gas utility which has no effective competition. Sioux City is also served by BNSF and Baard is free to nergotiate with them. Of course, given their track record with the UP the result is likely to be the same... LC Sioux City is also served by CN. If neither of the three want to *donate* $2-3 million in track infrastructure, would it still be fair to blame the railroad(s) for the deal falling apart?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear FM - You can't make a railroad a monopoly by saying so. The railroad market share is effectively policed by trucks and other railroad competition unlike the electric or gas utility which has no effective competition. Sioux City is also served by BNSF and Baard is free to nergotiate with them. Of course, given their track record with the UP the result is likely to be the same... LC
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal I said it once and I'll say it again - If the utilities (with their restricted ability to raise rates)can manage to come up with agreements to provide the necessary infrastructure to facilitate a positive service connection to a prospective industrial customer, so to should the railroads (who can then jack the customer at 400% R/VC).
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Murphy - Now you're saying the original developer was "fired" even though the article only mentions that there was a change in developers. So why am I wrong to cast the shadow of doubt over UP (given the rail industry's long track record of similar about faces), yet you are rock solid in saying the developer was fired? Again, it sounds as if you are taking mudchicken's POV that the railroad is right and everyone else is wrong. Don't you think that is rather delusional and borderline schitzophrentic?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Murphy - read my last statement in the previous post. Do you agree that it is bad business for UP or any railroad to conduct a perception of a Jeckle 'n Hyde approach to customer relations? Last time I checked, the "good cop, bad cop" routine was better utilized in an actual police setting, not a railroad's customer service division. Why was UP so reticent to providing all relevent information in the initial understanding? #1 * Perception* might be influenced by the point of view of who is doing the talking-news media, disappointed development boosters, Sioux City officials, ethanlol plant developers, etc. Heck, I bet even the fired developer has an interesting *perception* of what happened.[;)]. I just don't see enough in the articles to place a heap of blame on the railroad-in this case UP. #2 Maybe they were never asked? WE don't really know.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Murphy - read my last statement in the previous post. Do you agree that it is bad business for UP or any railroad to conduct a perception of a Jeckle 'n Hyde approach to customer relations? Last time I checked, the "good cop, bad cop" routine was better utilized in an actual police setting, not a railroad's customer service division. Why was UP so reticent to providing all relevent information in the initial understanding?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal You notice there is nothing in that article about the utilities reneging on an upfront promise to provide connecting infrastructure. Nope, just the railroad. Was that in the article? Of course not, the article had nothing to do with utilities. Just FM trying to bend the discussion to his will... LC I was thinking more along the line of the railroad "reneging on an upfrony promise to provide connecting infrastructure" That is nowhere in the article. I read it as, nobody asked the railroad beforehand. From the subsequent article as posted by LC: "Don Willoughby, the city's business development coordinator, told the Journal Thursday, 'Baard's initial discussions with Union Pacific had led them to believe the only problem might be on rail charges.'" ....and.... "Baard officials have been talking to Union Pacific representatives throughout the planning stages on rate charges. Willoughby said those discussions took place with UP's rate division and not its industrial development division." Now, do you want to split hairs and state that since the initial arrangement was through UP's rate division and not UP's so-called "industrial development" division, that UP is exonerated in it's about-face on that initial agreement to provide service to the proposed plant? Paaaaleaz! Fact: UP did initially agree to provide service to this plant contingent on a rate agreement. The fact that you grant UP internal disfunctional deniability 'cause UP's left hand didn't know what it's right hand was doing is irrelevent. If I shoot you with my right hand, it ain't just my right hand that goes to jail, it's all of me, right? Why not expect that same level of embodied responsibility to a corporate entity? As for LC's take on your post, it is true that railroads embody some of the same characteristics of utilities e.g. the "natural" service area monopoly. As such, is it really that much of a stretch to suggest that the railroad should conform to the same general expectations of service as is ascribed to other de facto utilities? What is funniest about this sad saga is that, if indeed it was all predicated on a rate agreement, why didn't UP just include the upgrade cost in the upfront rate quote to begin with, instead of avering an agreement contingent on subsequent rate agreements? Why go with an agreement in principle beforehand, and then renege due to internal disfunctional denials? The UP has never reneged on anything. There was never a deal inked in the first place. Getting a rate is simply that, learning what a certain shipment will cost. It is not a contract for carriage and it certainly has no weight as an industrial development agreement. Remember that all contracts affecting an interest such as an easement or an improvement agreement to be recorded in real property MUST be in writing to comply with the Statute of Frauds. I'm sure Baard has attorneys that represented them on this deal. They have done other deals. You are trying to create the impression that they wouldn't know. Sorry, no sale. UP couldn't breach a contract that did not exist. I find the argumernt that Baard which alredy has two other ethanol plants doesn't know that you need to make a deal and have agreements with the railroad setting forth the essential terms and conditions. Also note that Baard switched developers in midstream. Hmmm. Do ya think that maybe the original developer working for Baard was clueless?? Perhaps that is why Baard caught on and fired them perhaps?? How is negligence on Baard's part in hiring a incompetent developer the fault of UP??! ! It isn't... Further, as I have already pointed out, a RAILROAD IS NOT A UTILITY. You can say that it is all day, but the businesses are significantly different. In the competitive environment that the railroads have, customers often get rail only to leverage their trucking rates and ship little or nothing by rail. The railroads, even Class 1s, cannot afford seven figure investments that don't pay. They just won't do them no matter how much you villify them. LC
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal You notice there is nothing in that article about the utilities reneging on an upfront promise to provide connecting infrastructure. Nope, just the railroad. Was that in the article? Of course not, the article had nothing to do with utilities. Just FM trying to bend the discussion to his will... LC I was thinking more along the line of the railroad "reneging on an upfrony promise to provide connecting infrastructure" That is nowhere in the article. I read it as, nobody asked the railroad beforehand. From the subsequent article as posted by LC: "Don Willoughby, the city's business development coordinator, told the Journal Thursday, 'Baard's initial discussions with Union Pacific had led them to believe the only problem might be on rail charges.'" ....and.... "Baard officials have been talking to Union Pacific representatives throughout the planning stages on rate charges. Willoughby said those discussions took place with UP's rate division and not its industrial development division." Now, do you want to split hairs and state that since the initial arrangement was through UP's rate division and not UP's so-called "industrial development" division, that UP is exonerated in it's about-face on that initial agreement to provide service to the proposed plant? Paaaaleaz! Fact: UP did initially agree to provide service to this plant contingent on a rate agreement. The fact that you grant UP internal disfunctional deniability 'cause UP's left hand didn't know what it's right hand was doing is irrelevent. If I shoot you with my right hand, it ain't just my right hand that goes to jail, it's all of me, right? Why not expect that same level of embodied responsibility to a corporate entity? As for LC's take on your post, it is true that railroads embody some of the same characteristics of utilities e.g. the "natural" service area monopoly. As such, is it really that much of a stretch to suggest that the railroad should conform to the same general expectations of service as is ascribed to other de facto utilities? What is funniest about this sad saga is that, if indeed it was all predicated on a rate agreement, why didn't UP just include the upgrade cost in the upfront rate quote to begin with, instead of avering an agreement contingent on subsequent rate agreements? Why go with an agreement in principle beforehand, and then renege due to internal disfunctional denials?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal You notice there is nothing in that article about the utilities reneging on an upfront promise to provide connecting infrastructure. Nope, just the railroad. Was that in the article? Of course not, the article had nothing to do with utilities. Just FM trying to bend the discussion to his will... LC I was thinking more along the line of the railroad "reneging on an upfrony promise to provide connecting infrastructure" That is nowhere in the article. I read it as, nobody asked the railroad beforehand.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal You notice there is nothing in that article about the utilities reneging on an upfront promise to provide connecting infrastructure. Nope, just the railroad. Was that in the article? Of course not, the article had nothing to do with utilities. Just FM trying to bend the discussion to his will... LC
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal You notice there is nothing in that article about the utilities reneging on an upfront promise to provide connecting infrastructure. Nope, just the railroad. Was that in the article?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal You notice there is nothing in that article about the utilities reneging on an upfront promise to provide connecting infrastructure. Nope, just the railroad.
QUOTE: .....railroads embody some of the same characteristics of utilities e.g. the "natural" service area monopoly.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear "Baard's initial discussions with Union Pacific had led them to believe the only problem might be on rail charges. Union Pacific said they were not going to spend the $2 million to $3 million necessary to upgrade the Wickham Spur, which serves all of That Wickham Spur was designed and built for smaller loads than what we were going to be putting on it.
QUOTE: That's where our due diligence fell down."
QUOTE: Baard switched developers mid-project, which resulted in the rail spur issue not being checked thoroughly.
QUOTE: "That probably was a piece of information that didn't get handled real well. That's why you do these things," Conner noted".
QUOTE: Willoughby explained. "They said it would take a minimum of 80 acres to put in the necessary trackage because of the rail curvatures.
QUOTE: "They said a unit train would block four intersections at a time as it came into the Bridgeport West area," he said of a train transporting grain to the ethanol plant.
QUOTE: The city had planned to buy about 60 acres .......... The city's no-cost offer of the shovel-ready land, which has a market value of about $35,000 per acre, played a major role in Baard's decision to locate in Sioux City.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Well, the irony is that those "evil" regulated entities almost always are willing to engage in build outs to new customers, especially industrial customers, while the partially deregulated "angelic" railroads almost always balk at building new spurs, as is evidenced by the content of the article posted. You notice there is nothing in that article about the utilities reneging on an upfront promise to provide connecting infrastructure. Nope, just the railroad. Something to think about.
QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken FM's Question: Why can these other service providers build infastructure on the customer's property, but the railroad can't? Where do I send all the homeowners that are pissed-off at utilities for paying for sewer tap fees, service connection fees, water tap fees ($11,000 around here, if you can get one), electric pole line construction fees to get to the ranch and so on. In FM's warped little world, those things are provided "gratis" by the utilities. Where's my rebate FM? and a couple million others will be lining up at your door with their hands out, palms up.....[(-D][(-D][(-D] Whadya mean that it only applies to "your" utility cuz it's special? (remember "Socialism, thinly veiled?")[}:)]
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeffhergert Iowa has set up a program for low interest loans or grants for rail projects to foster economic growth. Two other ethanol projects have received some low interest loans to build track. One would think making sure all transportation infrastructure issues would be resolved early on. Jeff
QUOTE: Originally posted by falconer Combustion Engine manufacturers have known about alternative fuels for over 20 years, but why have they been so slow to implement them while they are so quick to increase horsepower? Andrew F.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.