Plans for ethanol plant on hold.

[Murphy Siding]

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?

[(-D] Well, you got me there![;)] In the 26 years that I've been a delusional and borderline schitzophrentic in the construction industry, 100% of the time, when a developer was *changed*, he was *changed* the day he was fired. What in the world was I thinking?[:0]

[Anonymous]

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.

[Murphy Siding]

ergo....[(-D] This is a rural are of the country. What isn't corn, is beans. Of course, there is other property available-but they'd have to PAY for it. Read the article, and my posts. My gut instinct is that they were so excited about the property freebee, that no one lokked at the railroad aspect too closely. Our own city accepted a donation of property that was perfect for a park and ball fields. No one thought to see if it was accessable. They then paid $1,000,000+ to build an acccess road under the BNSF tracks.[*^_^*]

[TomDiehl]

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).

True, but the point is that utilities will CHARGE for this infrastructure, they don't provide it for free. This has been pointed out several times above.

The equivalent in this case would be for the developer (or some other party) to pay the UP for the required track upgrades.

[Anonymous]

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.

In a similar case involving the new Toyota truck plant in Austin, TX pressure from the localities, and funding from the state $5Million and the requirement by Toyota that access to a minimum of 2 Class 1s resulted in UP granting direct access to the facility by BNSF over existing UP track and the new spur constructed with the State grant. If the customer is important enough it can happen. An alternative is to locate a site capable of service by two or more Class 1s or short lines connecting to multiple Class 1s. Again, it appears in this case that such options were not explored by the developer(s) working for the industry. It still isn't the fault of the UP.

LC