Montana Gov. Schweitzer argues for rail competition

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Ho Hum, the usual. from Tom Diehl. Valiantly flitting from thread to thread challenging everyone who doesn't offer his solution to problems he knows nothing about. On and on, providing refereneces to studies he faked, and findings he plagarized.

Note that the Governor suggested that the Staggers Act be enforced. Well, that's one solution.

Well, since the great Michael, who has no background in railroading, freight, or anything, according to his profile, but can find obscure reports to pull small excerpts from them for his "opinions" disagrees with me, I suppose that would be "ho hum" to him. Of course, my profle show some railroading background, but then, "anything" is more than "nothing."

The supposed "solution" that the governor offers, what part of the act was he suggesting was violated?

From the linked article (so Michael doesn't get confused again and think I'm "plagerizing"or "faking" something):
"The lack of regulatory oversight combined with the lack of rail competition is hurting Montana’s export economy and its ability to compete.”
...is a statement of a problem. There is no mention of what caused the lack of rail competition, what can be done about it, who will pay for it, or what "regualtory oversight" wasn't exercised.

You need to move on past Step one, the problem has been identified. Now you need to define it.

[MichaelSol]

"Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer Tuesday called on the chairman of the federal Surface Transportation Board to get behind allowing rail competition “to the maximum extent possible” as current law requires."

As usual, your question was answered in the original post.

The problem really is that you don't know what the current law requires, correct? And so here you are, once again, trolling about something you know nothing about, about a problem you don't understand, commanding a form of discussion you feel appropriate, and demanding a proposed solution that has been discussed in great detail and depth on these forums in the past, of which you are obviously ignorant, and for which you have zero to offer yourself.

You have a railroad background, huh? Which railroad?

Mine was partially discussed at some length a while back. You missed that too.

Now, we are on page four of this thread, and it is shaping up to be the typical TomDiehl-hijacked thread.

Nothing offered about the topic, but plenty of sarcastic remarks about the posters and what he thinks of them.

That's really the excuse for posting at all, isn't it TomDiehl? You could care less about Produce shippers in Washington State, WATCO's plans, Wheat Farmers in Montana, Dieselization, what the Governor of Montana said in a short news article, or any of the other long list of things you have no actual experience or information about. You have nothing to offer about the thread topics, but you're really not here for the thread topics.. Why don't you use your time for something productive for yourself.?

Or is this the best you can do?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

That being said, what if we kept it at it's simplest form? Assuming DM&E does make it into the PRB, it might also work for them or MRL to purchase the Wind River Canyon route from BNSF from Laurel MT to Olin WY. This line also has available capacity for someone willing to use it, and it might work just as well if not better than the old PCE line to Terry and the ex-NP from Terry to Huntley, if for no other reason than it has more direct western access to the PRB.

But going through Wyoming would do nothing for wheat traffic.
Isn't most of the wheat grown in eastern Montana ?
Where does that Governor grow his wheat ?

It would to some degree, given the realities of rail terminal consolidation which force longer truck hauls to the railhead, regardless of intramodal rail competition or the lack thereof. MRL has access to a shuttle or unit grain facility in Billings, and there may also be one in Bozeman, so grain from the upper most portions of Eastern Montana could be trucked there. And that's a better situation than the one that now dominates Montana, wherein it's either BNSF or trucking to the Port of Lewiston Idaho, one that might actually affect a rate decrease. It should be noted that the option of trucking to Lewiston ID only represents a small fraction of the grain shipping market anymore, and thus does not provide competitive rate adjustments per BNSF's pricing policies.

But I see your point, so maybe we should add the Yellowstone River lines and the Great Falls - Helena lines to the mix? But beyond that, there's not much that can be done for the High Line and Judith Basin grain growers unless new rail capacity is built, and so far we are only focused on utilizing existing capacity. Maybe MRL can find a way to get the Great Falls - Helena line from BNSF as it is currently out of service. That would penetrate the Great Falls market.

As for Governor Schweitzer and the Kalispell grain growers, they are in the same situation as Southern Idaho grain growers, namely neither group has ever had access to rail competition unlike the growers in Cental and Eastern Montana who once had NP, GN, and Milwaukee competing for their business. The Kalispell area has always been the sole domain of GN/BN/BNSF, and Southern Idaho has always been the sole domain of UP.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

"Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer Tuesday called on the chairman of the federal Surface Transportation Board to get behind allowing rail competition “to the maximum extent possible” as current law requires."

As usual, your question was answered in the original post.

Or is this the best you can do?

As usual, I see your reading ability hasn't improved. What the law requires is not the question. The question is, what is the STB doing or not doing to "get behind allowing rail competition “to the maximum extent possible” as current law requires." (that area in the quotes is cut and paste from the linked article, so you don't get confused again).

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

And so here you are, once again, trolling about something you know nothing about, about a problem you don't understand, commanding a form of discussion you feel appropriate, and demanding a proposed solution that has been discussed in great detail and depth on these forums in the past, of which you are obviously ignorant, and for which you have zero to offer yourself.

You have a railroad background, huh? Which railroad?

Mine was partially discussed at some length a while back. You missed that too.

Or is this the best you can do?

OMG Michael, now you're getting too funny.

Let's look at the facts:

1. Go to any of TomDiehl's entries.

2. Click on the "Profile" icon at the bottom left of the entry.

3. Notice what is listed there.

Now:

1. Go to any of MichaelSol's entries.

2. Repeat step 2 above.

3. Note the lack of information.

Internet Troll (Note: this is a cut and paste from the Wilkepedia, just so Michael doesn't get confused again):

From the "Identity" heading:
"Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they — and the troll — understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group.

From the "Usage" heading:
"The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument ad hominem. Likewise, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives that may be incorrect. Regardless of the writer's motives, controversial posts are likely to attract a corrective or patronizing or outraged response by those who do not distinguish between real physical community (where people are actually exposed to some shared risk of bodily harm by their actions), and epistemic community (based on a mere exchange of words and ideas). Customs of discourse, or etiquette, originating in physical communities are often applied naively to online discourse by newcomers who are not used to the range of views expressed online, often anonymously. Hence, both users and posts are commonly, and sometimes inaccurately, labelled as trolls when their content upsets people — ironically, the accusatory labeling of a troll may be more disruptive than the original alleged offense itself."

(BTW, this is the end of the cut and paste section,so Michael doesn't get confused again)

On one hand, we have a user that tells us he has a background in railroad preservation and restoration, as well as technical and historical societies and modelling railroads.

On the other hand, we have a user that tells us nothing.

So which one fits the definition of "troll?"

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

That's really the excuse for posting at all, isn't it TomDiehl? You could care less about Produce shippers in Washington State, WATCO's plans, Wheat Farmers in Montana, Dieselization, what the Governor of Montana said in a short news article, or any of the other long list of things you have no actual experience or information about. You have nothing to offer about the thread topics, but you're really not here for the thread topics.. Why don't you use your time for something productive for yourself.?

Or is this the best you can do?

Obviously, I care more about them than you do. You seem satisfied to state that somebody in government says that the STB should "get behind allowing rail competition “to the maximum extent possible” as current law requires." (That section in the quotes is cut and paste from the linked article, just so Michael doesn't get confused again). How much help does that give to the state's lumber, mining, and agricultural businesses? None. He's stated the obvious to get some free press and make it sound like he's doing things for the voters in his state.

First, if he's going to accuse someone, the STB in this case, of not doing their job, he'd better be ready to give specifics when they confront him on this statement. Second, he'll have to move beyond finger pointing and rhetoric before he'll do any actual good for the businesses in question.

Answering the above question would be more productive than just rehashing the same thing over and over again like you seem to like to do.

[arbfbe]

Given all the rancor now evident in this post I am surprised it has not been locked. I suppose it is the usual Trains.com weekend grace period.

So why all the demand for the Governor to come up with a big plan to present to the STB? It looks like he has done what needs to be done. He has presented the STB with his assessment that BNSF's grain rates in Montana follow monopolistic practices. He then asks the STB if they can provide relief to grain shippers in the state under current law. Now the ball is in the STB's court. The next action should be from them. As I see it they have four options.

A) The STB can ignore the Governor's request. Don't scoff at this since the red party in control in D.C. would be very happy to clip the wings of a popular blue party western governor before he proves himself to be a problem solver. He has already garnered national attention in many arenas from the national media to Rolling Stone.

B) The STB can deny there is monopolistic price gouging going on in Montana and do nothing.

C) The STB can admit to monopolistic price gouging but announce there is nothing they can legally do about it.

D) The STB can admit to monopolistic price gouging and offer possible options of redress.

In any case it will then be up to the state to review the findings from the STB and proceed.

You can leave MRL out of the picture entirely. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose by making aggressive gestures towards BNSF's private Montana candy store. MRL upper management learned a stark lesson about big time railroading when they made a viable proposal to operate the Central Corridor as competition to the UP/SP/WP merger after the Class 1's had already split up the pie. After the dust settles they are still in the same sandbox with the big boys who can play very harsh when they have been challenged. The big boys have very long memories.

Bringing up any topic containing the trip words "Montana Grain" or "Milwaukee demise" is like painting a target on your back and hanging a big sign with the words 'Kick Me Hard' that can bring out attacks from people who have no comprehension of the situation in Montana nor the geography nor the grain markets up here.

I have assumed some risks by posting on a public forum such as this and lately the returns seem hardly worth it. I can find other places and activities which offer me greater rewards. So if you are looking for information, commentary or analysis of the 3Ms of Montana, Milwaukee or MRL you will have to find someone else account I am outa here.

Best wishes to you all.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe
I have assumed some risks by posting on a public forum such as this and lately the returns seem hardly worth it. I can find other places and activities which offer me greater rewards. So if you are looking for information, commentary or analysis of the 3Ms of Montana, Milwaukee or MRL you will have to find someone else account I am outa here.

Best wishes to you all.

I agree Allan. See you at the Deer Lodge picnic.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe

Given all the rancor now evident in this post I am surprised it has not been locked. I suppose it is the usual Trains.com weekend grace period.

So why all the demand for the Governor to come up with a big plan to present to the STB? It looks like he has done what needs to be done. He has presented the STB with his assessment that BNSF's grain rates in Montana follow monopolistic practices. He then asks the STB if they can provide relief to grain shippers in the state under current law. Now the ball is in the STB's court. The next action should be from them. As I see it they have four options.

A) The STB can ignore the Governor's request. Don't scoff at this since the red party in control in D.C. would be very happy to clip the wings of a popular blue party western governor before he proves himself to be a problem solver. He has already garnered national attention in many arenas from the national media to Rolling Stone.

Best wishes to you all.

Very simple Art, the Governor needs to move to the next step. Because he has accused the STB of essentially not doing their job, they may put on the proverbial armor and go into "defensive" state, rather than look into the problem. It would depend on how the STB perceives the governor's statement.

The "big plan" isn't the next step in problem solving. Since the Governor feels this is the problem, the next step would be defining why there's no rail competition. Was there ever rail competition in this region? Did the STB allow it to slip away while they could have prevented it? Did the competition go bankrupt? Is there enough business to support a second rail service provider in the region in question? is the problem caused just by this region's rail service (or lack thereof), or is it a domino effect of other service problems or limitations in other regions? These are intended as a few examples of the questions that may be asked as this stage.

Once these questions are answered, along with the myriad of questions these will bring up, then, they will be able to move to the planning stage. What CAN be done to correct the problem. And it's not unusual at this stage of the process to realize that you have a completely different problem than the one you thought at the beginning of the process.

And as you said in example "A" this could easily become a political party-line contest to blame each other rather than look for real solutions, regardless of who does the looking. THAT would do no good for the shippers.

[bobwilcox]

I think the MT wheat growers have run up against the Achilles heal of regulation in a democracy under the rule of law. We all have a right to due process before the STB and in the courts. This means everybody gets to argue and counter argue their case before the STD. This takes years and millions and dollars. On the whole my vote is for due process. Secondly, the STB must apply the law to the entire nation not just MT wheat growers. It is not wise to protect one small group, even though the may have legitimate complaints, if you tra***he entire nations freight transportation system in the process.

[Anonymous]

Tom,

As the topic starter, I will respectfully request that you delete all your posts which have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

I think the MT wheat growers have run up against the Achilles heal of regulation in a democracy under the rule of law. We all have a right to due process before the STB and in the courts. This means everybody gets to argue and counter argue their case before the STD. This takes years and millions and dollars. On the whole my vote is for due process. Secondly, the STB must apply the law to the entire nation not just MT wheat growers. It is not wise to protect one small group, even though the may have legitimate complaints, if you tra***he entire nations freight transportation system in the process.

Bob, your last statement is fallacious. You are making an assumption that if the STB enforces the competition caveats of Staggers, it would hurt the entire nationwide transportation system. This is preposterous.

1. Enforcing the competition caveats of Staggers would aid the entire spectrum of domestic procucers, who are the sole victims of so-called differential pricing. Most importers into the US are already the recipients of price competition for transportation within US borders, so the net effect of enforcing the competition caveats of Staggers would be to put US producers on an equal footing with non-US producers, for both domestic and international markets.

2. The only persons who could concievably be hurt by enforcing existing STB law would be the foreign and anti-American stockholders of BNSF, since price competition on grain and coal deliveries could very well cut into the monopoly profits of BNSF, and could result in a delay of double-tracking those import intermodal corridors. Wah, wah, boo hoo! In the meantime watch our trade deficit shrink as a result of such action.

In the long run, BNSF might actually gain by such enforcement since it may very well prevent the onset of re-regulation.

So the railroads might be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century free market. It's for their own good.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Tom,

As the topic starter, I will respectfully request that you delete all your posts which have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Thank you.

If I find some, I will.

[Murphy Siding]

Tom can you give it a rest please? Your energies could certainly be put to good use elsewhere. Please, give it some consideration. Thanks

[nanaimo73]

Futuremodal,
Did you watch this ?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/24/60minutes/main1343604.shtml

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Futuremodal,
Did you watch this ?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/24/60minutes/main1343604.shtml

No, I haven't watched "60 Minutes" since they did the slam piece on the Snake River dams a few years ago (and that one was by Leslie Stahl too). But a printed transcript is as good as a view. Thanks for the link.

Here's my thoughts: For all intents and purposes, the governor is right, but utilizing the Fischer-Tropsch with Montana coal is a few commercial steps behind the Alberta oil sands, ANWR, and even Wyoming PRB coal reserves. The Alberta oil sands are in Canada (thus fewer environmental roadblocks to it's development) and I believe converting oil sands to crude then to diesel is cheaper than converting coal to gas then to diesel. Of course ANWR is pure petroleum, all we have to do is drill pump and ship it south. And Wyoming has the rail infrastructure and pipeline system to be able to ship synthetic diesel, whereas Montana's PRB is without much in the way of rail or pipeline. If only DM&E had listened to me and proposed their PRB extension by way of Colony into Montana and the Wyoming PRB mines.

What Schweitzer should be pusing is synthetic natural gas derived from coal, which is what North Dakota is doing with it's lignite reserves via the Great Plains Gasification site. Right now, it is cheaper to make synthetic natural gas from low rank coals than it is to buy natural gas on the open market, and the differential between synthetic natural gas and wellhead natural gas is greater than the price differential between natural petroleum and synthetic petroleum products. E.g. the risk is the same for both, but the potential payoff favors synthetic natural gas over synthetic petroleum products.

One other thing about Schweitzer which keeps me off his bandwagon for now. On the one hand, he is absolutely correct to be pushing development of Montana's coal reserves. On the other hand, he is also quoted as saying that "we" must cut back on "our" emissions of CO2 to "reduce" global warming.[%-)][banghead]

Hmmmm. Memo to the Governor's office: You can't simultaneously promote the development of coal and at the same time promote the fantasy of anthropogenic global warming. That's the epitome of trying to have your cake and eat it too!

Please read "State of Fear". Then stick with the coal development, and tell the global warming idiots to stick their collective head where the sun don't shine.