QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2006/02/21/breaker/doc43fbacab9137a989477449.prt "HELENA - Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer Tuesday called on the chairman of the federal Surface Transportation Board to get behind allowing rail competition "HELENA - 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." Hey, not bad! The governor comes out swinging against the STB! However, is the Governor correct in his ascertation that the STB simply has not enforced the competitive caveats (presumbably of the Stagger's Act)?
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas If they want competition so bad why don't they buy or build some of there own track?
QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe How about allowing the UP to solicit business along the BNSF mainline and then have the BNSF move it under a haulage agreement to the nearest interchange point? Railroads seem to be able to work under such an arrangement when it suits their needs. Why should the State of MT be required to build another unnecessary railroad mainline that parallels one currently in service?
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl And I notice the Governor doesn't say HOW the STB isn't "behind allowing rail competition “to the maximum extent possible” as current law requires." Not sure how he's "focusing" on the lack of competition.
QUOTE: Or where the investment is coming from for this "competition."
QUOTE: And granting trackage rights to another railroad on an already clogged rail line? I fail to see how that will help, either.
QUOTE: Have to agree with Paul on the "pandering to voters" statement. (Gee, this wouldn't be an election year for Governor in Montana, would it?)
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl And I notice the Governor doesn't say HOW the STB isn't "behind allowing rail competition “to the maximum extent possible” as current law requires." Not sure how he's "focusing" on the lack of competition. Perhaps he DID say but it didn't get printed. Perhaps the writer of the story thought such details would be too boring for it's readers. Whether or not this governor knows the details or is just pandering is not clear from the article. QUOTE: Or where the investment is coming from for this "competition." Who say't it requires "investment"? Maybe just enforcing the written caveats will be all it takes, huh Tom?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal two things: 1. He's a Democrat like you. 2. No, it's not an election year.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl And granting trackage rights to another railroad on an already clogged rail line? I fail to see how that will help, either. Again, the article isn't clear on which lines if any would be subject to joint use by another rail service provider. But MRL still has available capacity, as well as most of the entire I-15 rail corridor comprised of BNSF, MRL, MW, and UP (some of which is in place but out of service), and the former NP line east of Billings hosts a coal train or two max. Oh, there's viable capacity available should it be drafted into service. No problem here.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl And granting trackage rights to another railroad on an already clogged rail line? I fail to see how that will help, either.
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH If the sovereign state of Montana is willing to file an antitrust suit in this matter, than I will say that the governor is willing to put the state's money where his mouth is. If that isn't the case, he's obviously pandering to the voters. Talk is cheap.
QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas If they want competition so bad why don't they buy or build some of there own track? AMEN!!!! How much out of his own pocket is the governor willing to donate to the kitty to increase competition? That would be a good indicator of how interested he REALLY is.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe How about allowing the UP to solicit business along the BNSF mainline and then have the BNSF move it under a haulage agreement to the nearest interchange point? Railroads seem to be able to work under such an arrangement when it suits their needs. Why should the State of MT be required to build another unnecessary railroad mainline that parallels one currently in service? You mean using all that excess capacity that Dave seems to think BNSF has in this area? If there's no new rail line or expansion of capacity on existing lines, it doesn't matter who solicits the business, the capacity needs to be there before there will be any benefit for the shippers. As far as "unnecessary" we need to go back to capacity of the line as it stands now in comparison to the current traffic.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe How about allowing the UP to solicit business along the BNSF mainline and then have the BNSF move it under a haulage agreement to the nearest interchange point? Railroads seem to be able to work under such an arrangement when it suits their needs. Why should the State of MT be required to build another unnecessary railroad mainline that parallels one currently in service? You mean using all that excess capacity that Dave seems to think BNSF has in this area? If there's no new rail line or expansion of capacity on existing lines, it doesn't matter who solicits the business, the capacity needs to be there before there will be any benefit for the shippers. As far as "unnecessary" we need to go back to capacity of the line as it stands now in comparison to the current traffic. No one has suggested that there is a capacity problem on these lines. Least of all BNSF. It has not only not been alleged, but aside from standard maintenance programs and upgrades, there is no program in place to increase capacity on Montana's BNSF lines. Apparently this is the usual made-up dead fi***hat has nothing to do with the matter discussed by the Governor, which is not a capacity issue, but a pricing issue. This is shown by the simple expedient of noting that the proposal made by the Governor relates to existing traffic already there, and not some new traffic which the poster, who claims to be an "independant" "thinker," confuses with the issue at hand. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol ...the poster, who claims to be an "independant" "thinker,"... Those separate quotes gave me a good laugh here. Cheers.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol ...the poster, who claims to be an "independant" "thinker,"...
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The "made up dead fish" here seems to be the Governor looking for free publicity in an election year. Make it look like you're going to do good things for the voters, then forget it all by Thanksgiving.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The "made up dead fish" here seems to be the Governor looking for free publicity in an election year. Make it look like you're going to do good things for the voters, then forget it all by Thanksgiving. As Dave has already pointed out, the Governor of Montana does not stand for re-election this year. He was elected to office in 2004 and took office in January, 2005. Best regards, Michael Sol
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe The MILW got their Gateways on the BN when that merger happened and they could have forced the BN to haul MILW traffic from Billings under a haulage arrangement but just never seemed to get around to making it work.
QUOTE: Originally posted by wallyworldCalling for competition alone in a capitalist economy without alot of financial clout strikes me as a goofy and half baked example of psycho-babble.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Hate to burst your bubble ... Whenever he actually presents facts instead of "maybes" or "perhaps" he falls right into things that indicate an overtaxed infrastructure. Plans by the BNSF to increase capacity or not wasn't the issue. It's what the Governor is suggesting they do. Of course, his statement was so vague, it sounds more like finger pointing than an actual idea of how to improve the situation.
QUOTE: Original article quoting the Governor of Montana 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. ... “Montana has not been getting a square deal from its rail service provider,” Schweitzer said. “Competition is critical to a resource-based economy like Montana’s. Our rural communities, especially, deserve no less. “I want to focus on the effect the lack of rail competition is having on the economy of the state, which results in both excessive freight rates and poor service,” Schweitzer added. ... “Having a monopoly that takes the profit out of the transaction between our Montana producers and the consumers of Montana goods must be remedied,” Schweitzer said. “The lack of regulatory oversight combined with the lack of rail competition is hurting Montana’s export economy and its ability to compete.”
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Hate to burst your bubble ... Whenever he actually presents facts instead of "maybes" or "perhaps" he falls right into things that indicate an overtaxed infrastructure. Plans by the BNSF to increase capacity or not wasn't the issue. It's what the Governor is suggesting they do. Of course, his statement was so vague, it sounds more like finger pointing than an actual idea of how to improve the situation. QUOTE: Original article quoting the Governor of Montana 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. ... “Montana has not been getting a square deal from its rail service provider,” Schweitzer said. “Competition is critical to a resource-based economy like Montana’s. Our rural communities, especially, deserve no less. “I want to focus on the effect the lack of rail competition is having on the economy of the state, which results in both excessive freight rates and poor service,” Schweitzer added. ... “Having a monopoly that takes the profit out of the transaction between our Montana producers and the consumers of Montana goods must be remedied,” Schweitzer said. “The lack of regulatory oversight combined with the lack of rail competition is hurting Montana’s export economy and its ability to compete.” Best regards, Michael Sol
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.