Legislation intoduced to make railroads subject to antitrust laws.

[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)

[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

[Murphy Siding]

FM: thanks for the clarification.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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]

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?

[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

[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.

[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.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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

Murphy - Waterways are already open access, thus you wouldn't need to build a new canal/waterway to access a new barge line.

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

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!

jeaton - Can you name your "industry insiders"? Most independent finance analysts say the opposite, aka Smith & Barney's latest report on railroads. But I guess what you're really saying is that volume does not make up for select captive markup. I think the trucking industry would say differently, at least from a macro basis. I ask you this, what is your approach to returning railroading to a 70% market share. I say true head to head competition and customer choice, you may say either (A) it can't be done (B) yes, if railroads are allowed to extend the monopolistic reach via more mergers, or (C)[fill in the blank].

Bob - You are correct, the hypothetical debate over open access has nothing to do with the antitrust legislation being considered. However, it is my contention that if this bill becomes law, the resulting legal actions may be the necessary pu***o finally bring open access to be debated on the floor of Congress.

ed - No, I don't have any pro forma numbers, nor have I ever claimed to have had pro forma numbers, because what we are discussing (the concept of open access) is still at the theoretical/philosophical level(s) when applied to railroads, although there are some countries which have adopted the concept. Granted, it would be hard to draw a comparison of Britain pre-open access vs former nationalized operations with what may or may not happen if a proprietary closed access system is evolved into a proprietary open access. I have searched and at this time have found no transportation studies which could provide real numbers for you. But, I percieve that you are a person of above average intelligence, so I assume you can take a self analysis of comparing U.S. railroad infrastructure in its current form with all other modal infrastructure in terms of access, and look at all other transporter operations and compare them to rail transporters, and take a look at proprietary open access with regards to electricity transmission and anaylyze how that has affect the energy markets (up or down?), and take a look at open access of telecommunications at analyse whether that sector has more or less investment today than if AT&T still was a monopoly, and compare Australia pre-open access vs post open access, etc., etc., etc., and after all that come up with your own set of theoretical constructs for applying open access to U.S. railroading. You cannot deny the successes of open access in other modes, and as of yet not one person on this forum can supply any solid argument as to why that success would not translate to U.S. railroads. Come to think of it, no one from the opposition has supplied pro forma numbers to prove open access will not work in the U.S. Could be that is because the arguments in opposition to open access are just as theoretical as the arguments for open access. As I stated before, the concept (open access on U.S. railroads) is way to new to have provided any substantial numerical analysis one way or the other.

Gabe - the statement of mark in utah regarding potential overdemand for access to transmission lines is if anything a rebuttal of your conclusion. Demand for a service is usually seen as a good thing, because as you know when demand exceeds supply it forces more investment into the sector to meet the demand. The problem was well enumerated as to the need for MORE transmission capacity to handle this increased demand, and the market will eventually meet this demand. What it shows is that there has been much more investment in power generation than would have otherwise happened under closed access. This is a good thing for the economy, all we have to do is to weather the transition. Whereas the railroads do not respond to market demand, choosing instead to turn away business. Trucks do take some of that rejected market, barge lines take another portion, but in all likelyhood the majority of that rejected market either ends up overseas or simply not existing at all. It's an undeniable contrast: You never see a transmission line being torn down to reduce capacity, never see a pipeline taken out to reduce capacity, only railroads engage in that kind of self destructive behaviour. Transmission lines and pipelines are open access, railroads are not. Hmmmm, do you thing there's a connection between access status and purposeful capacity reductions? Or do you want pro forma numbers before you will believe in what is actually happening out there?

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.

[dinwitty]

railroads had plenty of competition against other railroads.
those lines either vanished or merged into the bigger lines.

The major railroads competition is trucking companies, and well, from the looks of that bill, it might be biased for trucking companies...who would be complaining about railroads about a "monopolistic environment"?
The truckers would be happy to bust the railroads.

that wont happen.

[bobwilcox]

Perhaps the power company should get a new management or due you expect the UP to pay for their stupidity?

Several large power companies have made it a policy to: (1) never locate a plant on one railroad and (2) build out to competing railroads when and existing plant is served by only one railroad.

[gabe]

Thank you for the very insightful information, but I think you are making my point. Your contention that shared access for powerlines hampers the industry, makes things less efficient, and costs U.S. consumers more if it were not for shared access. That is more or less why I am saying shared access for rail is a bad idea.

Unless your argument is power companies have to undergo this so railroads should to, I think everything you said demonstartes the deleterious consequences of open access.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

Power plants are built according to where they CAN be built. Too many NIMBY's out there. You think people don't like railroads, try power plants..... They're psychotic. You've got transmission line access, water availability, air quality issues, coal availability (fuel), etc. I've seen natural gas-powered power plants turned down that would have been quieter and caused less polution that the warehouse they were to replace.

The rail line to IPP was built specifically for IPP, it didn't exist before the plant was built.

As for the usage of powerlines.... If you run 100 MW's down my line, then I can't use my line for my core business by that same 100 MW's. If you're running power down my line, then system stability is affected (or can be), reducing reliability to my customers. If you're running power down my line, who supplies VAR support for maintaining voltage or voltage stibility on my system? How abouit transient stability in case this line trips out and I have to instantaneously handle the resulting influx of power onto my system? That's how the big east coast power outage was propogated. Did anyone like that? That's also how several LARGE outages in the west have occurred. The electric transmission system simply was not designed for those large continuous power transfers. People also don't want additional powerlines built, anywhere at any time - especially the big ones. It's estimated that the US economy could save over $10 billion dollars a year (that's net) if sufficient lines and associated substations could be built. The electric utility industry has been called the most capital intensive business in the country. I'm not sure where RR's match up, but I bet they're right in the mix as well. Typical 345 kV line construction cost over bare ground is around $500,000 per mile alone. The substation (switching only) will cost about $12 million on for each end. If you need a step-down transformer plan on at least $4 million for a 750 MW unit, you'll need 3 or 4 of them. Upwards of 75% of your electric bill is for equipment.

Mark in Utah

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

QUOTE: Originally posted by mark_in_utah

Here's from the perspective of someone that has seen the direct consequences of a RR stonewalling competition:

Intermountain Power Project, a very large power plant in central Utah gets most all of its coal by rail. UP refuses to allow anyone but UP to use its rails to the plant. While it is POSSIBLE to ship the coal by truck, it simply isn't practical. We're talking about close to 1 million tons of coal a year required for this plant fellas.

When negotiations broke down once they DID shipt the coal by truck for 6 months, but it was an absolute disaster for everyone involved, especially the roads and the public. UP STILL charges per mile rates MUCH higher for that last stub of line than for any other section of their line for hauling the coal. Competition is available for hauling the coal 80% of the way, so the rates are low, but not on that section of line. It's a csh cow for UP, and they refuse to allow anyone else to use it.

Sure if you're shipping only one car of soy beans you can consider going by truck, but not if you need to ship 250,000 tons of coal.

As for the arguement that you'd destroy the RR by requiring them to allow anyone to use the rails, that's bull honky. Guess what the electric utilities have had to do? We have to allow anyone to run power over our transmision lines, and we can't charge more for them than we have to charge ourselves. It gets you into a TRUE cost of service plan for each route. No longer can you subsidize rates on one route only to make it up on another. It levelizes the playing field, and the final customer has to pay much closer to the actual cost of doing business.

Lets face it, the RR's don't want to change how they're doing business. Those executives that are afraid of going out of business don't know HOW they will have to be running their business in the future.

Mark in Utah
Been there, done that, life's still O.K.

So who was the genius who built the power plant without multiple railroads serving it? I hate to go back to my proverbial McDonalds that is the only practical place for me to eat on the way home and costs 25% more than any other McDonalds because it takes advantage of its prime location, but every industry that has prime location takes advantage of that location.

As for other companies using other companies power lines, can you explain to me how the use of power lines equates to the use of rails in terms of wear and tear on the physical plant?

I have to thank Jay for pointing out that railroads are nearing cost of capital contrary to other assertions. The last I heard CN was there and NS was close.

Finally, as for the anti-trust taking issue, last I heard, anti-trust divestiture was subject to purchases by the highest bidder.

Gabe

The only argument is that UP should have to sell trackage rights (to any part of the route) to anyone for the same price. This is not always a good thing. It could cause price wars loss leaders and put some railroads out of business. That is how telephone lines work any one can start their own phone company using the existing lines for a fee. This might be the idea for the railroads. Does any one know where I could get a copy of the bill?
James[C):-)]

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mark_in_utah

Here's from the perspective of someone that has seen the direct consequences of a RR stonewalling competition:

Intermountain Power Project, a very large power plant in central Utah gets most all of its coal by rail. UP refuses to allow anyone but UP to use its rails to the plant. While it is POSSIBLE to ship the coal by truck, it simply isn't practical. We're talking about close to 1 million tons of coal a year required for this plant fellas.

When negotiations broke down once they DID shipt the coal by truck for 6 months, but it was an absolute disaster for everyone involved, especially the roads and the public. UP STILL charges per mile rates MUCH higher for that last stub of line than for any other section of their line for hauling the coal. Competition is available for hauling the coal 80% of the way, so the rates are low, but not on that section of line. It's a csh cow for UP, and they refuse to allow anyone else to use it.

Sure if you're shipping only one car of soy beans you can consider going by truck, but not if you need to ship 250,000 tons of coal.

As for the arguement that you'd destroy the RR by requiring them to allow anyone to use the rails, that's bull honky. Guess what the electric utilities have had to do? We have to allow anyone to run power over our transmision lines, and we can't charge more for them than we have to charge ourselves. It gets you into a TRUE cost of service plan for each route. No longer can you subsidize rates on one route only to make it up on another. It levelizes the playing field, and the final customer has to pay much closer to the actual cost of doing business.

Lets face it, the RR's don't want to change how they're doing business. Those executives that are afraid of going out of business don't know HOW they will have to be running their business in the future.

Mark in Utah
Been there, done that, life's still O.K.

So who was the genius who built the power plant without multiple railroads serving it? I hate to go back to my proverbial McDonalds that is the only practical place for me to eat on the way home and costs 25% more than any other McDonalds because it takes advantage of its prime location, but every industry that has prime location takes advantage of that location.

As for other companies using other companies power lines, can you explain to me how the use of power lines equates to the use of rails in terms of wear and tear on the physical plant?

I have to thank Jay for pointing out that railroads are nearing cost of capital contrary to other assertions. The last I heard CN was there and NS was close.

Finally, as for the anti-trust taking issue, last I heard, anti-trust divestiture was subject to purchases by the highest bidder.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

Here's from the perspective of someone that has seen the direct consequences of a RR stonewalling competition:

Intermountain Power Project, a very large power plant in central Utah gets most all of its coal by rail. UP refuses to allow anyone but UP to use its rails to the plant. While it is POSSIBLE to ship the coal by truck, it simply isn't practical. We're talking about close to 1 million tons of coal a year required for this plant fellas.

When negotiations broke down once they DID shipt the coal by truck for 6 months, but it was an absolute disaster for everyone involved, especially the roads and the public. UP STILL charges per mile rates MUCH higher for that last stub of line than for any other section of their line for hauling the coal. Competition is available for hauling the coal 80% of the way, so the rates are low, but not on that section of line. It's a csh cow for UP, and they refuse to allow anyone else to use it.

Sure if you're shipping only one car of soy beans you can consider going by truck, but not if you need to ship 250,000 tons of coal.

As for the arguement that you'd destroy the RR by requiring them to allow anyone to use the rails, that's bull honky. Guess what the electric utilities have had to do? We have to allow anyone to run power over our transmision lines, and we can't charge more for them than we have to charge ourselves. It gets you into a TRUE cost of service plan for each route. No longer can you subsidize rates on one route only to make it up on another. It levelizes the playing field, and the final customer has to pay much closer to the actual cost of doing business.

Lets face it, the RR's don't want to change how they're doing business. Those executives that are afraid of going out of business don't know HOW they will have to be running their business in the future.

Mark in Utah
Been there, done that, life's still O.K.

[MP173]

I am still awaiting the pro-forma numbers from Futuremodal for the open access concept.

In the other thread we discussed this, I requested his numbers, but havent seen them yet.

Dave...are you about done with the projections?


ed

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

I recently heard from some very knowledgeable industiy watchers that three or four of the Class I's may have earnings for 2005 that will meet the cost of capital ROI. This is a key factor in advancing projects to deal with capacity problems.

Although I consider it to be extremely unlikely, let's assume that this all leads to a full open access environment. Unless the managers of the "new" railroads are as dumb as a box of rocks, they will go after the business with the highest margins. Now, there will surely be issues of quality of service, but the key element of competition will be price. One cannot say it is bad for the shippers, but rates will certainly drop and so will margins. It can be assumed that lower rate will attract more business, but the question becomes, "Will the increase in new business be sufficient to bring total margins back to existing levels?" Answer: Doubtful.

It is typically assumed that competition will encourage the development of greater efficiency and a reduction in unit costs. In the case of railroading, I find that iffy. What elements of cost would be reduced? I can't see any special oppurtunities for significant reductions in the cost of rolling stock, track materials, signal systems or fuel. Maybe labor, but if the Class I's get the flexibility they are seeking for crew size, that cost will not be that easy to reduce.

The bottom line is a lower totals on the bottom line. So how does that do anything to relieve capacity problems?

Jay

I do not think open access is a anti-trust issue. Since Staggers an application to build into a facility on another railroad has never been turned down.

[jeaton]

I recently heard from some very knowledgeable industiy watchers that three or four of the Class I's may have earnings for 2005 that will meet the cost of capital ROI. This is a key factor in advancing projects to deal with capacity problems.

Although I consider it to be extremely unlikely, let's assume that this all leads to a full open access environment. Unless the managers of the "new" railroads are as dumb as a box of rocks, they will go after the business with the highest margins. Now, there will surely be issues of quality of service, but the key element of competition will be price. One cannot say it is bad for the shippers, but rates will certainly drop and so will margins. It can be assumed that lower rate will attract more business, but the question becomes, "Will the increase in new business be sufficient to bring total margins back to existing levels?" Answer: Doubtful.

It is typically assumed that competition will encourage the development of greater efficiency and a reduction in unit costs. In the case of railroading, I find that iffy. What elements of cost would be reduced? I can't see any special oppurtunities for significant reductions in the cost of rolling stock, track materials, signal systems or fuel. Maybe labor, but if the Class I's get the flexibility they are seeking for crew size, that cost will not be that easy to reduce.

The bottom line is a lower totals on the bottom line. So how does that do anything to relieve capacity problems?

Jay

[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!

[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.

[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?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The Honorable Mr. Green has an incredibly narrow definition of competition. Rail and trucks definitely compete with each other even if the Representative from Wisconsin says that they don't. He's obviously pandering to the voters and the contributors with this bill. In the current political climate, the bill will be lucky to get out of committee.

[Anonymous]

Friends, Rail fans, Country lend me your ears. This is important; this could kill the railroads if this goes through. We need to raise hell about this, now before it is too late.
E-mail Congressman Green at [e-mail]
I have already done so. Please (I'm pleading) send your congressman a letter tell him that will kill the railroad industry, that truck lines and others offer competition to railroads that are fighting to survive. Ask what happened to the Uncle Sam that supported the railroads. Use your power granted to you in the 1'st amendment of the US constitution. Let them hear you.[soapbox]

[Murphy Siding]

So, If a grain producing area is being "taken advantage of " by a barge company,will we expect taxpayers to dig another river to provide equal competition?[:D] No,wait, that would only be a duopoly-still not competion, according to some theories. We would need to dig two more rivers to get true competition.[:o)]
In your grand plan, trains from the Murphy Southern would have to be allowed to run over the Futrure Model Pacific lines, for a certain price-probably determained by some government agency. What's to stop the governing agency from determining that MS could run FMP trains over FMP lines for a certain price. As soon as The Murphy Southern purchases the right politicians,the owners could make someone else do all the work, and sit back to collect all the riches.[;)] I'm on my way to world domination! When I'm king of the world, there will be a smilie for tounge-in cheek!