Legislation intoduced to make railroads subject to antitrust laws.

[Anonymous]

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.

Last mile high speed intenet service has also been held up for years while the courts sort out the lawsuits. Companies who own the local infrastructure have been unwilling to spend on needed improvements with the possibility they would have to give access away. That makes it impossible to even prepare a cost benefit study, and without that there are no legitimate investors. With last mile access delayed, the long distance telecom system was overbuilt and we ended up with Worldcom.

[jeaton]

I am at a bit of a loss as to where the railroads will find room on their tracks for a 10% growth in business let alone getting to a 70% market share. Can we assume that the "new" railroads are going to put cash up front for any new capacity? Is that the way it works in the telephone and electric power business?

Jay

PS Get a new Broker.

[MP173]

Dave:

Thanks for your complement on my intellegence...or maybe it was a lefthanded complement!

What I dont have is time, plus my slide rule just fell apart, so I am a bit challenged at this time. I personally would rather interprate the data presented rather than gather all the numbers. I have no idea where to start on that, plus keep the day job and the night job of being single dad.

So, I will continue to trust you to make the case for open access. I do believe, however it is time to take this from a subjective overview to objective.

I hereby appoint you and Michael Sohl as the co - chairs of the open access committee. Let's meet in Chicago in the fall with preliminary findings.

Seriously, crunch some numbers, or at least write a serious plan for this. I am sure you have it. If not, you certainly have the concept. Formalize it and put it out there for us to pick apart. I have an open mind to open access....that is a pretty good title for your paper.


We have some great minds on this forum. Lets get this rolling.

ed

[Anonymous]

Ed,

I think what you are asking for is a dedicated study or two, which takes both time and money. If you want me to perform such a study, it will require some up front cash, not to mention my having to arrange some time off from my current position. As far as Mr. Sol, as far as I know he has not taken a stand one way or the other on open access, and it is probably better for him that he doesn't since he provides so much valuable information anyway, and I would hate to see his credibility discounted by others if he took a stand on the issue. I also meant what I said, you seem to have more of a perceptive and open mind toward these issues than others on this forum. In the meantime, one of the earliest open access proposals was written by former railroad financial analyst Isabel H. Benham (now retired) in the November 1990 issue of TRAINS magazine. If you can find a copy of this issue, I would strongly urge you to get it.

BTW, Chicago's no good for me. How about Boise or Spokane?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

I am at a bit of a loss as to where the railroads will find room on their tracks for a 10% growth in business let alone getting to a 70% market share. Can we assume that the "new" railroads are going to put cash up front for any new capacity? Is that the way it works in the telephone and electric power business?

Jay

PS Get a new Broker.

One way this capacity goal could be approached to a certain degree is by running shorter faster trains over the current network.

On the financing of new physical capacity, there is already such investment taking place in the electric power markets. Both private utilities and public power entities are expanding transmission capacity to guarantee they can meet future growth projections. What needs to be done (and this is where the analogy with railroads comes into play) is to better synchronize the disparate long distance transmission capabilities. Since we are talking about needing the cooperation of several entities to do this, the approach being taken is to have that work done on a regional public level. The cost of this transmission synchonization will be borne by the rate payers as a tax on top of the utility's rates, e.g. a pay as you go user fee. This has long been the way public utilties have financed new capacity, they raise the necessary funds via the rates they charge before they begin the actual project.

The same can work for railroads once access limitations are eliminated. However, since railroads have more in common with highways than transmission lines, what I propose is to have the Highway Trust Fund converted into an Intermodal Trust Fund, have all fuel users (including railroads and barge lines) pay the federal fuel tax, and while each mode would be able to keep a majority of what it pays in, it should also allow a certain degree of cross funding of projects to better reflect today's intermodal realities. This type of funding would address the bottleneck issues. For new rail capacity and the upkeep of existing rail lines, what I feel is ideal is to take the maintenance tax credit just passed for shortlines and extend it to all open access rail lines. In addition, for new rail capacity contructed by private entities, federal loan guarantees would be appropriate.

I would also like to see (but know it is very doubtful) targeted land grants to aid in financing open access rail projects in those areas of the country where large amounts of federal land still exist today. It is my view that no state should have more than 25% of its land under federal control, so any land in excess of this percentage would be elibible for these land grants. This idea would work well for an expansion of the Alaska RR south toward Canada, as well as the several projects proposed for Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Colorado, and Montana.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal



Lotus - You are what you eat. Tell us how competition would kill railroading. The only thing competition kills is inefficiency.

You seem to have misunderstood my post. Competition the driving factor of the capitalist free market is a great thing. I believe that the government forcing the break up of a railroad that has worked it's way up to the top is a bad thing since; no monopoly laws have been violated. I think the way the founders of our country did: That the government should keep its nose out of as much as possible. I don't argue with a lot of the trust busting done by good old Teddy Roosevelt this kept the free market from working as the company could force their competitors out of business by not doing business with them unless they charged a certain price. If the railroads have done this please let me know. How do railroads violate anti-trust laws?
James[C):-)]
PS here is a link to the site with a full copy of the bill. Sorry it is 23 pages, because the congress can't make anything simple.http://www.house.gov/transportation_democrats/rrcomp05_001_xml.pdf

Lotus,

Sorry I misunderstood.

Railroads are currently exempted from standard antitrust laws. This is probably the key which has allowed them to engage in differential pricing borne upon captive shippers, and that is clearly a violation of the spirit of antitrust. This new bill simply addresses that antitrust expemption, putting railroads on the same level as other industries.

BTW, thanks for the link.

BTW2, are you north of the 45th parallel, or are you down in the captive part of the state?

[Murphy Siding]

Future Model: I am a little bit confused.(understatement). In a post some time back, I thought I understood you saying BNSF should be willing to lower rates in Montana because way back then, they had been "given" government land by land grants; and somehow "owed" it to the people to pay them back. Now I see you mention "targeted land grants" in a post above. Wouldn't that be the same thing? Also, I'd have to kind to question the real value of some land in sparsley populated areas.

[MP173]

Dave:

I will take a look at the article, as I have complete collection from about 1970 on.

Ok, if you do not have the time and $$$ to undertake this project, then write up a short one page or so proposal. Address several issues, or at least open the discussion with issues that would have to be addressed such as financing, scheduling, inclusion (which lines would be included....which I think is critical), simple fee structure,local operations (who will make the switches at local industries), line haul operations, yard ownership and control, etc.

I realize that you will not be able to propose finances on this, but at least get a concept out.

time for church.

ed

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Future Model: I am a little bit confused.(understatement). In a post some time back, I thought I understood you saying BNSF should be willing to lower rates in Montana because way back then, they had been "given" government land by land grants; and somehow "owed" it to the people to pay them back. Now I see you mention "targeted land grants" in a post above. Wouldn't that be the same thing? Also, I'd have to kind to question the real value of some land in sparsley populated areas.

Some clarification is in order:

1. If I said anything about BNSF being willing to lower rates in Montana on their own, it has nothing to do with the moral obligation of the land grants, rather I believe such a move would be wise for BNSF if for no other reason than to get the regulators off their backs, not to mention better customer relations. Of course, they won't take such action, because it is irrational for a monopolist to do so. Only competition or regulation will result in such action.

2. What I said about BNSF's (and other railroads') land grants is that they are an equivalent of any government support for highways and waterways outside of applicable user fees. Since non-user fee support for highways and waterways is predicated on open access competition for use of those modal infrastructures e.g. accessable by the people, there should be some caveat of similar degree for those railroads who received land grants. Some would say that the reduced rates for hauling government stuff was a satisfactory "repayment" to the people for the land grants, I say that the moral obligation inherent in the land grants goes on into perpetuity. Not to be pendantic, but since an open access railroad is open access and presumably would be open access into perpetuity (or until the Left has completely emasculated our nation into the dust bin of history), any moral obligation with new land grants would already be met by the open access caveat. That's why these land grants would not be quite the same as past land grants, the return obligation is "hard wired" into the new land grants' charter.

[Murphy Siding]

FM: thanks for the clarification.

[gabe]

FM,

I am kind of dizzy, as your contention is incommensurate to Mark-in-Utah's contention, who happens to be an industry insider.

Gabe

[mudchicken]

Nothing here convinces me to even contemplate changing my opinion that the open access people are wearing blinders ( and borderline insane) as well as the fact that the Ag and Power people are still just looking for a way to hide their ineptitude and poor business practice.

Reality says Green and Burns have already lost. I don't want to be in the shoes of a track maintenance official if they ever got their way. (1960's revisited)

[MP173]

Dave:

Ok, so address this please...

As an advocate of open access, would it apply to all lines? In other words, would all rail lines be owned by the "rail toll roads"?

It is very easy to make a case for the high tonnage lines such as BNSF Transcon, UP Overland, and others. However, at what point does the open access system cease to apply.

Lets say you have the following lines:

CN's ex Grand Trunk Western line from Canada to Chicago. It generates very little on line business, at least in Indiana. In essence it would be a tollway.

The EJE line in Indiana generates and terminates HUGE amounts of trafffic, thanks to the steel mills. It's roll would be much differnent than the CN line.

What about the EJE branch that serves only a couple of customers, perhaps only twice a week?

Do you think the "toll road" will want to purchase this line and maintain it?

Further, if you guarantee open access for some customers, doesnt it mean that all customers would therefore be given the right to service? How would lines be abandoned? Lets say a company moves away from rail service, but wants to keep it's options open...wouldnt they be given "open access", albeit in a form of required service by the "toll road"?

ed

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Geez, so many off the wall retorts, so little time.....

CSSHEGEWISCH - For the umpteenth time, trucks are best at shorthaul, railroads best at medium to long haul of bulk commodities, intermodal combines the two aspects, thus railroad's true competition is other railroads........wait a minute, I just realized I'm kicking a dead horse!

This all sounds quite nice in theory and it may be true but that's not how it's working out in the real world. Long-haul trucking, efficient or not, is a reality and, short of regulatory restrictions, is not going to go away. FedEx uses team drivers on its double bottoms to provide competition for UPS intermodal trains, again the FedEx operation may be as theoretically efficient as the UPS operation, but it is the competition and they do have a share of the market.

Insisting that long-haul trucking is less efficient than rail does not mean that it isn't real competition to rail for business.

Also remember, the Laffer Curve was an interesting economic theory, but the reality proved to be quite different.

[edblysard]

"Moral obligation"?

Ha ha ha....
Whew...if there ever was one, it was paid in full the first time a railroad carried a train load of settlers across the Mississippi....
The very farms, ranches and cities you folks live in are the direct result of railroads and their ability to carry huge amounts of product, and people.


Moral obligation.....thats a hoot!
I guess Verizon has a moral obligation to provide cell phone service?

Ha ha ha ...wait...thats also a double ding!

Ed

[Anonymous]

Hey Ed,

Didja git yer elk yet?

[edblysard]

Several,
In many different shapes, sizes and colors...
Overnight shipping is extra...
Ed[:D]

[Anonymous]

Gabe,

The power industry has had more investment due to deregulation than would otherwise have occured. The macro economy has benefited by allowing power marketers to use existing capacity rather than each being obligated to build their own lines, e.g. there has been a much more efficient use of capital. Without this energy open access, there would be much less power generation, thus much higher energy prices, and there would be no current incentives to expand and synchronize the once disparate transmission lines. What mark in utah was pointing out regarding the irksomeness of demand for transmission over his company's lines which sometimes results in maxed capacity, is clearly a situation which is tendable and will be absolved when new transmission capacity comes on line. You have to remember, energy regulation is still in it's infancy, yet if we had not had it, the supply intended to meet today's surging demand would be much smaller, and rate increases/blackouts would be much more prevalent.

Do you have a better idea for meeting energy demand? Let me guess, solar, wind, biomass, and above all, government imposed energy rationing aka "conservation". I'll let you in on a not so secret - these feelgood solutions make nice PC headlines and fill the fodder of detached academia, but in reality will only lead to a major recession.

The electric utility for which I am currently consulting has taken advantage of their available capacity (both on a constant basis and demand basis) and resultant cash inflow coming in from the other users of their transmission lines, and using that ca***o upgrade their transmission lines (which should be online by early next year). If not for open access, they would have to raise that cash via a rate increase imposed upon it's members. I would venture a guess that mark in utah's firm is also taking advantage of their available capacity and selling "time" on it's lines for some nice revenues.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Geez, so many off the wall retorts, so little time.....

CSSHEGEWISCH - For the umpteenth time, trucks are best at shorthaul, railroads best at medium to long haul of bulk commodities, intermodal combines the two aspects, thus railroad's true competition is other railroads........wait a minute, I just realized I'm kicking a dead horse!

This all sounds quite nice in theory and it may be true but that's not how it's working out in the real world. Long-haul trucking, efficient or not, is a reality and, short of regulatory restrictions, is not going to go away. FedEx uses team drivers on its double bottoms to provide competition for UPS intermodal trains, again the FedEx operation may be as theoretically efficient as the UPS operation, but it is the competition and they do have a share of the market.

Insisting that long-haul trucking is less efficient than rail does not mean that it isn't real competition to rail for business.

Also remember, the Laffer Curve was an interesting economic theory, but the reality proved to be quite different.

CSSHEGEWISCH,

Consider this - Is trucking really "competition" for railroads, or is trucking in fact the primary feeder system for today's railroads? If not for trucks, what besides coal could be moved independently by railroads from source to destination? Grain? Gotta get it from the farm to the unit train facilty somehow. Containers? Worthless unless you can back them up to the loading dock. Chemicals? Perhaps in industry to industry moves, but probably not for retail applications beyond the occassional carload. Maybe auto parts, etc. but the point is that trucks are not the competition for moving auto parts or industrial chemicals, instead they are the feeders for just about everything but coal. Independent of the role as feeder for railroads/barges, trucks are mostly moving time sensitive cargos and/or small lot shipments and/or filling in the gaps left by railroad retrenchment/service denials. Truckers are not out there trying to bid for commodities currently being moved by railroads between nominal railroad terminals. They are bidding for such in combination with barge lines and/or other railroads, but certainly not head to head independently.

Put away you AAR manifesto, because the idea that trucks are THE competition for railroads is just patently false.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

Nothing here convinces me to even contemplate changing my opinion that the open access people are wearing blinders ( and borderline insane) as well as the fact that the Ag and Power people are still just looking for a way to hide their ineptitude and poor business practice.

Reality says Green and Burns have already lost. I don't want to be in the shoes of a track maintenance official if they ever got their way. (1960's revisited)

Not just Ag and Power people, but also domestic manufacturers/industrys e.g. just about everyone in the USA involved in providing home-grown value-added output for domestic consumption and/or export, in other words the "meat and potatos" of the US economy (including the remaining members of the AFL-CIO) are being screwed by monopolist railroad policy. It's amazing that such a large segment of the economy is "inept" while the railroads (an infinately miniscule segment of the economy) are hosting Mensa conventions in their union halls. If indeed U.S. producers are engaged in poor business practices, I guess the worst decision of all is to even try to build up a value-added business within the borders of the country.

Got news for you Mudchicken, it ain't that U.S. producers are inept or engaged in poor business practices, it's that the current closed access rail system is a major source of unnecessary inhibitance to their success potential. Railroads seem to go out of their way to screw U.S. producers, all the while rolling out the red carpet for Communist Chinese imports.

Doesn't it amaze you that railroads are "reinvesting" those skinflint revenues from intermodal operations into making it even easier to import into this country, while at the same time ***-slapping the U.S. producers who provide the greater revenue margins? If it doesn't, they perhaps you're the one who's making time toward the border of insanity.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173

Dave:

Ok, so address this please...

As an advocate of open access, would it apply to all lines? In other words, would all rail lines be owned by the "rail toll roads"?

It is very easy to make a case for the high tonnage lines such as BNSF Transcon, UP Overland, and others. However, at what point does the open access system cease to apply.

Lets say you have the following lines:

CN's ex Grand Trunk Western line from Canada to Chicago. It generates very little on line business, at least in Indiana. In essence it would be a tollway.

The EJE line in Indiana generates and terminates HUGE amounts of trafffic, thanks to the steel mills. It's roll would be much differnent than the CN line.

What about the EJE branch that serves only a couple of customers, perhaps only twice a week?

Do you think the "toll road" will want to purchase this line and maintain it?

Further, if you guarantee open access for some customers, doesnt it mean that all customers would therefore be given the right to service? How would lines be abandoned? Lets say a company moves away from rail service, but wants to keep it's options open...wouldnt they be given "open access", albeit in a form of required service by the "toll road"?

ed

I probably won't be able to answer to your satisfaction, but here't goes....

First, as stated elsewhere I would prefer the fuel tax/maintenance tax credit method of financing open access lines rather than the toll idea, but since you focused on the toll concept.....

I am not familiar with the example lines you mentioned, but I expect that one of them is preferable to the other in terms of point to point transit. I'll sidestep the online traffic question for now. Since railroad "slots" are a much rarer commodity than the available slots for highways and waterways, it is likely a bid process would determine who uses what slots when. Say you have three transport companies who want to leave Point A with a consist at 8 am, and it takes five hours to transit from Point A to Point B via the prefered line vs seven hours via the secondary line. Each company bids for the "prime" slot, but only one company gets it. What do the other two transport companies do? They can either bid for the 8 am slot on the secondary line, move their departure time earlier for the prefered line ahead of the 8 am prime departure time, or bid for a second section slot right behind the first.

If one infrastructure entity owns both lines, they may want to offer a discount on the secondary line if the primary line is nearing capacity. If two separate entities own one line each, the owner of the lesser line may want to provide similar incentives and/or a different operating format that favors their load factor costs over the load factor costs of the transporter. If the prime line is predicated for long heavy trains, the owner of the secondary line may want to host shorter faster consists, and make up for the lesser premium with more trains per time period. Perhaps one infrastructure company will find that the prefered maximum axle weight is 66,000 lbs per (spreading the consist's weight over more axles) while the other may prefer 78,750 lbs per (concentrating the most weight on the fewest axles possible), it all would depend on rail weight, curvature, track profile, relative superelevation, etc. It is my belief that the free market in this case will not designate one winner and one loser with regard to the infrastructure companies (as has been expounded by TRAINS staff when referencing why certain lines survived while others were torn out), but will rather force the "lesser" lines to adjust to differing market aspects, and thus survive and prosper with creative cognitive adjustments. Since you now have a number of transporters needing lines to traverse, rather than having one transporter owning it's own infrastructure, the economic laws regarding absolute advantage and comparative advantage would guarantee all lines would find sufficient clients.

Throw in the differential of online traffic or the lack thereof, and now you have additional concerns for doling out slots. I would think that through traffic would get preference over local traffic, but I may be wrong depending on how the local traffic affects the total revenue picture. Still, the highest bidder would get the most leeway.

So I guess to answer your question, for the toll concept there would be two avenues of revenue - the fixed revenue of the slot, and the variable revenue via a ton/mile fee predicated on allowable weight per axle. The fixed revenue portion is something that would be unique for railroads compared to highways and waterways, which have no such concerns. Depending on how much of the cost is borne by the public via tax credits, federal loan guarantees, or a receipt of a larger porportion of an intermodal trust fund outlay than what was paid in, the fixed revenues would vary thuswise, and the degree of the variable revenues likewise.

Take a look at the TrackShare link. They have devised a way of accounting for usage of track for open access (or some other shared use) which is predicated on full ownership financial responsibility, e.g. no public aid for supporting infrastructure costs. Their program would be a good basis for determining both fixed and variable revenue adequacy.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I think that I just might toss in the towel at this point since in FM's opinion I am making the mistake of seeing the world as it is rather than as he feels it ought to be. I have a friend who was a traffic manager, and most of their traffic went by truck, even on long hauls, because they provided better service for the rate they charged. This may not fit with FM's view of the world, but it IS reality.

[Murphy Siding]

I'm not computer savy enough to know how to quote things off the forum.so.....
CSSHEGEWISCH: I feel your pain! My city is at the crossroads of two busy interstate hiways. I can't for the life of me figure out why all these non-competitive semi trucks are wizzing by at all times of the day and night? The lumber yard I work for gets about half of it's material from un-competitive suppliers that ship on un-competitve semi trucks. What's the world coming to?

edblysard: I'm glad you got a laugh out of "moral obligation". Just remember,that wasn't my thought, I just "borrowed" it from a local wiz.[;)]

Future Model: You're never at a loss for words.

[Anonymous]

How would "open access" handle something like when train operater A gets the bid to run down the track at 8 o'clock so operater B settles for an earlier departure at 7. Train B breaks down out on the mainline for several hours, train A who is your major compeditor can't get around you. Boats and trucks can easily just drive or sail around (usualy), but a train can't. Wouln't this type of thing be a major problem in a highly compedative environment? Or what if train B runs at a slower more ecconomical speed then track speed?

At least the way things are right now it would be CSX own fault for delaying another CSX train on a CSX line.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who doesn't think elements of competition are involved between truckers and other modes of transportation should dig up an article about three months ago in THE NEW YORKER--sorry I can't be more specific but the folks in editorial are usually very nice about locating these things. The article dealt at length with two Canadian lobstermen whose job it was to get live lobsters from Nova Scotia to the UPS hub in Lexington, KY. They knew EXACTLY how long air freight took (it included a change, I believe) and the cost comparisons pro and con. By sleeping in tandem and using a U.S. all-Interstate route, they remained competitive. Note that they are driving over partially subsidized roads (I'm not sure but that the Ohio Turnpike exacts its pound of flesh in terms of tolls), and competing with subsidized airlines considering building of air terminals, etc. But note also that the federal government doesn't have to worry about bailing out FedX's or UPS's airlines--they are quite solvent!

Now, however level or steep the playing field is, if that isn't competition I don't know what is.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

I think that I just might toss in the towel at this point since in FM's opinion I am making the mistake of seeing the world as it is rather than as he feels it ought to be. I have a friend who was a traffic manager, and most of their traffic went by truck, even on long hauls, because they provided better service for the rate they charged. This may not fit with FM's view of the world, but it IS reality.

You're looking at the world as you think it is rather than as it really is. It is a facile conclusion to say that your friend's firm shipped by truck because the truck rates were the best rates. As has been discussed elsewhere, railroads are now infamous for their refusal to provide carload service, and it is this refusal to provide carload service that has created a whole new market for trucks. If you had read my post carefully, I pointed out that trucks are only taking up the business railroads have rejected, or business for which railroad service simply does not exist. This is hardly the type of example you should be using to extoll the claim that trucks are railroads' competition.

Tell me this if you have the information: Did your friend's firm ship out 100's of truckloads from the plant to the same specific destination every few days? If so, then your claim of trucks being competition for trains would be legitimate, because then the trucks would be vying for something for which railroads are superior. But I doubt that's what your friend's firm did. Did they formerly ship out a few carloads by long haul rail, only to have a trucking firm or two come in and offer lower rates or more expedient service to the same destinations? If so, then my ascertion would be faulty, because then you'd have an example of an established long haul rail carload service being replaced by long haul truckload service. But I doubt that's what happened, more than likely such an example would only come about by a change in railroad service levels.

In every single instance of trucks taking over traffic that formerly moved by rail, it only came about because the railroad stopped providing the service for some reason, e.g. no longer wanting to provide the service at the logical rate, change in operating priorities, "pre-abandonment" tactics used to oust traffic from lesser used lines, actual abandonments that end up increasing the rail mileage between two points to the effect of negating the rail efficiency advantage, aging equipment that the railroad did not wi***o replace, or simply no longer wanting the "hassle" of dealing with small lot customers.

If you can provide me with an example of a situation in which both a railroad(s) and trucking firm(s) bid competitively for a service between two long distance points (at the same relative mileage for both the railroad and highways), and the trucking firm won out, I'd appreciate the information. Then and only then will I grant you a nod of legitimacy regarding the claim of trucks being the competition for railroads.

[edblysard]

Murphy,
Wasn’t poking fun at you, but at the open access holy man...
Moral obligation...and free land...funny, but if you ever get the chance to read one of the land grants, and see what the railroads had to do, what they were obligated to create and the money they were required to spend, you would realize quite quickly that none of it was free land at all.
Any you are correct, Dave is never at a loss for words, in fact, he seems to have made up a few of his own along the way.
He is a socialist in sheep’s clothing, and I bet if he does actually "consult" for any business, they would be rather aghast at some of his concepts on how the market works.
He has public utilities and railroads confused with each other, and assumes that some where along the line, business should be "fair"... for all parties.
I am also quite sure he bears some personal grudge against one or more of the railroads in his area...maybe he worked for one and got canned for his off the wall concepts.

Either way, its fun to read his attempts to mask his socialist views in extended verbiage, and his ability to never really answer the questions on how he would accomplish all of his “concepts” is astounding.
Note in his last posting where he was asked to produce solid figures, and a firm proposal, he begged off….and has done so every time he is asked.
He will, on the other hand, point you towards someone else’s work or concept, from which he gathers his hodge podge grab basket of ideas for “open access”, and quote them in great length.
I think he believes this makes him seem more of an expert on the idea, even though I have yet to read an original idea about it that can be credited to him directly.
He never really explains how it would work in the real world, only goes on and on about how it should be implemented to give some special interest groups a “fair” deal on railroad shipping cost.

Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

I'm not computer savy enough to know how to quote things off the forum.so.....
CSSHEGEWISCH: I feel your pain! My city is at the crossroads of two busy interstate hiways. I can't for the life of me figure out why all these non-competitive semi trucks are wizzing by at all times of the day and night? The lumber yard I work for gets about half of it's material from un-competitive suppliers that ship on un-competitve semi trucks. What's the world coming to?

edblysard: I'm glad you got a laugh out of "moral obligation". Just remember,that wasn't my thought, I just "borrowed" it from a local wiz.[;)]

Future Model: You're never at a loss for words.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by goat

How would "open access" handle something like when train operater A gets the bid to run down the track at 8 o'clock so operater B settles for an earlier departure at 7. Train B breaks down out on the mainline for several hours, train A who is your major compeditor can't get around you. Boats and trucks can easily just drive or sail around (usualy), but a train can't. Wouln't this type of thing be a major problem in a highly compedative environment? Or what if train B runs at a slower more ecconomical speed then track speed?

At least the way things are right now it would be CSX own fault for delaying another CSX train on a CSX line.

Assuming the breakdown causes financial loss for the other entities, then whomever is found responsible for the breakdown would be liable to the other entities. If the fault lies with the track owner, they will have to compensate B and A. If the fault lies with transporter B, they will have to compensate A and the track owner. This is why you carry liability insurance. You could conciebably have the same situation on a highway, wherein a wreck caused by trucking firm A that blocks traffic long enough to cause financial harm to trucking firm B, could result in firm B filing a claim against firm A. Only the government and an Act of God are exempt from liability.

[jeaton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal


Some clarification is in order:

1. If I said anything about BNSF being willing to lower rates in Montana on their own, it has nothing to do with the moral obligation of the land grants, rather I believe such a move would be wise for BNSF if for no other reason than to get the regulators off their backs, not to mention better customer relations. Of course, they won't take such action, because it is irrational for a monopolist to do so. Only competition or regulation will result in such action.



(or until the Left has completely emasculated our nation into the dust bin of history),

If you paid money to someone to teach you that rational pricing will only occur in a competitive environment, you should ask for a refund.

Don't you have your directions confused? I rather doubt that you will find a conservative economist that will argue for anti-trust laws. Those kinds of laws are usually proposed by the "Left". The only reason Green, a Republican, would but a bill like his into the hopper is for a little grandstanding for his constiuency, who don't like the fact that a "foreign" railroad owns the track in the district. And if you think he put the bill in without an OK from House Republican Leaders, let me show you a nice little bridge, cheap.

Jay Eaton

[Anonymous]

To Ed B:

Enjoy your sour grapes, and revel in your ignorance.

PS - just because a word is more than two syllables doesn't mean it's made up. Have someone look up the hard words for you in a big book of words we call a dictionary (pronounced DIK-SHUN-AIR-EE). Of course, it will be harder to explain to you how a root word can be changed from a noun to an adjective, verb to an adverb, etc.

BTW - One cannot be an espouser of market based solutions to remedy socio-fascist monopolism, and at the same time be a de facto socialist. "A house divided against itself..........", etc. Given your rabid opposition to the idea of railroads actually engaging in true head to head competition, methinks it is you who bears the likeness of furrow-browed socialist.