Montana Gov. Schweitzer argues for rail competition

[arbfbe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

It doesn't have to be an election year for a politician of any ilk to be pandering to the voters. The Governor of Montana has made a general statement of lack of railroad competition and lack of action by the STB without presenting too many particulars. Competition to railroads does exist and you can find it on US 2, among other places. The farmers may not like truck rates, but the trucks do provide competition.

Truck competition is just an non starter here. There are not enough trucks in the area to move the volumes we are talking about. The states and counties probably do not have the funds to repair and upgrade the highways to handle such volumes.

There is just no way to reconstruct the MILW rights of way in the area and on to the Pacific ports. The land has been sold and developed in too many places to be available for a railroad line.

Railroad deregulation allows remedies for "captive shippers", note how the chemical plants in the Gulf coast corridor have been able to wrangle plant access by both major railroads as merger protections. Either by haulage or trackage rights these shippers have a competitive railroad freight situation. That does not exist in Montana. It is time to make the STB do it's job to protect shippers in Montana just like they do in other parts of the country. The last 12 years of republican governorship in the state was kowtowed to the whims of the BN. Remember Gov Judy Martz announced she "was proud to be known as a lapdog for industry" and Gov Marc Rasciot (SP) is/was on the BNSF board of Directors after leaving office. Now the governor is a grain grower and pertinent questions are being asked of the STB.

[NW_611]

I don't know diddly about grain---coal's my local commodity---so can you really ship raw grain by truck with efficiency? I was under the (flimsily constructed) impression that grain was one of these things that to ship efficiently, you had to ship more than the road weight limits or the limits of the trailer were.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
You're 14 years old, right? That is the only explanation for these trolling expeditions throughout Trains forums, substittuing, as you admit, "sarcasm" for knowledge of something.

Yet another thread dies a ridiculous death because of TomDiehl.

Over and out.

Mchael Sol

So, you're the one with no info about where you're from, what you do, what expeience you have as related to railroading.

Sounds like the definition of "troll" to me.

Your lack of recognition of sarcasm is the problem. So I'd guess you to be about 8.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

It doesn't have to be an election year for a politician of any ilk to be pandering to the voters. The Governor of Montana has made a general statement of lack of railroad competition and lack of action by the STB without presenting too many particulars. Competition to railroads does exist and you can find it on US 2, among other places. The farmers may not like truck rates, but the trucks do provide competition.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Nobody, including the Governor, has any idea HOW to do it. Nor has he stated just what the STB is or isn't doing. Questions that come from an independant, non prejudiced mind.

Your interest in the PNW is admirable. Do you spend as much time asking questions about things in your neck of the woods? Stuff you might be more familiar with? What's Ed Rendell's take on rail competition?

You seem to know an awful lot about what this Governor knows, or what he "has stated" from one brief news article even to the extent of accusing the Governor of being vague in an article he did not write.

No doubt your knowledge comes from a subscription to a Montana Daily where he has been quoted at more length? Which one?

Perhaps from one of the engineering or econometric studies done by the state government in the past two years and which the Governor happens to have on his desk and has been reviewing?

I am curious as to your ultimate source of what this Governor knows, and what you claim he doesn't know, and why you are so confident in asserting that he "just discovered" railroads in Montana?

Best regards, Michael Sol

Actually I have more interest in local rail issues. If rebuilding the former Lackawanna Cutoff is any indication of how quickly things can be done with EXISTING right of ways, you may not see any meaningful rail competition up your way in this lifetime.

My "knowledge" comes from the link provided by another poster from the PNW, offered as proof that the governor is arguing for rail competition. Since he felt this was proof enough of the point, it can be used as basis for debate.

Obviously, you have no idea what sarcasm is.

If this poster felt there was more info to be presented in this debate, he would have added those links. The only additional things we've see so far is some "pehapsing" and "maybeing" on his part.

As far as expertise, according to your profile: you're nobody, live nowhere, do nothing for a living, and have no connection with railroading.

You're 14 years old, right? That is the only explanation for these trolling expeditions throughout Trains forums, substittuing, as you admit, "sarcasm" for knowledge of something.

Yet another thread dies a ridiculous death because of TomDiehl.

Over and out.

Mchael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Nobody, including the Governor, has any idea HOW to do it. Nor has he stated just what the STB is or isn't doing. Questions that come from an independant, non prejudiced mind.

Your interest in the PNW is admirable. Do you spend as much time asking questions about things in your neck of the woods? Stuff you might be more familiar with? What's Ed Rendell's take on rail competition?

You seem to know an awful lot about what this Governor knows, or what he "has stated" from one brief news article even to the extent of accusing the Governor of being vague in an article he did not write.

No doubt your knowledge comes from a subscription to a Montana Daily where he has been quoted at more length? Which one?

Perhaps from one of the engineering or econometric studies done by the state government in the past two years and which the Governor happens to have on his desk and has been reviewing?

I am curious as to your ultimate source of what this Governor knows, and what you claim he doesn't know, and why you are so confident in asserting that he "just discovered" railroads in Montana?

Best regards, Michael Sol

Actually I have more interest in local rail issues. If rebuilding the former Lackawanna Cutoff is any indication of how quickly things can be done with EXISTING right of ways, you may not see any meaningful rail competition up your way in this lifetime.

My "knowledge" comes from the link provided by another poster from the PNW, offered as proof that the governor is arguing for rail competition. Since he felt this was proof enough of the point, it can be used as basis for debate.

Obviously, you have no idea what sarcasm is.

If this poster felt there was more info to be presented in this debate, he would have added those links. The only additional things we've see so far is some "pehapsing" and "maybeing" on his part.

As far as expertise, according to your profile: you're nobody, live nowhere, do nothing for a living, and have no connection with railroading.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Nobody, including the Governor, has any idea HOW to do it. Nor has he stated just what the STB is or isn't doing. Questions that come from an independant, non prejudiced mind.

Your interest in the PNW is admirable. Do you spend as much time asking questions about things in your neck of the woods? Stuff you might be more familiar with? What's Ed Rendell's take on rail competition?

You seem to know an awful of about what this Governor knows, or what he "has stated" from one brief news article even to the extent of accusing the Governor of being vague in an article he did not write.

No doubt your knowledge comes from a subscription to a Montana Daily where he has been quote at more length? Which one?

Perhaps from one of the engineering or econometric studies done by the state government in the past two years?

I am curious as to your ultimate source of what this Governor knows, and doesn't know, and why you are so confident in asserting that he "just discovered" railroads in Montana?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Seriously Tom, what is it about the prospect of intramodal rail competition that worrys folks like you? You know, you being an "independent thinker" and all...........

Nothing "worries" me about any level of rail competition. Nobody, including the Governor, has any idea HOW to do it. Nor has he stated just what the STB is or isn't doing. Questions that come from an independant, non prejudiced mind. And if he DOES manage to get Washington (DC)'s attention on this matter, he'll have to answer that.

[Anonymous]

Seriously Tom, what is it about the prospect of intramodal rail competition that worrys folks like you? You know, you being an "independent thinker" and all...........

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

Hate to burst your bubble Michael, but Dave is the one in other posts that's suggested this, then followed up with statements that the trains move an average of 50 miles a day through here.

Sorry there Bubba, but I never said anything of the sort. Perhaps it was one of you other personalities.

Our two phantom posters are easy to confuse in here.

And that's "Our" as in belonging to all of us, note the names at the bottom of the page. And they're just the one's reading the post at the moment.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

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?

A lot of "perhapsing" and "maybeing" there. Too bad we don't hear any facts.

"We"?! So you do have split personalities then? [:D]

Seriously, if you have a problem with percieved vagueness in the article, I suggest you contact the journalist who wrote it. Perhaps he will make a special effort on your behalf to provide you with some details.

"We" as in I'm not the only one reading this post.

I have no problem with the vagueness (not perceived) of the article, just people reading somthing into it that's not there, like you try to do all the time.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

Hate to burst your bubble Michael, but Dave is the one in other posts that's suggested this, then followed up with statements that the trains move an average of 50 miles a day through here.

Sorry there Bubba, but I never said anything of the sort. Perhaps it was one of you other personalities.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

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?

A lot of "perhapsing" and "maybeing" there. Too bad we don't hear any facts.

"We"?! So you do have split personalities then? [:D]

Seriously, if you have a problem with percieved vagueness in the article, I suggest you contact the journalist who wrote it. Perhaps he will make a special effort on your behalf to provide you with some details.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Didn't the State of Montana put in a tax on coal mines that killed the proposed Tongue River Railroad ?

The Coal Tax Trust fund was created in 1977, whereas the first incarnation of the TR railroad was proposed in 1981, although something like the idea had been around since the 1960s and notwithstanding no coal tax then, nothing happened.

The formal Tongue River Railroad STB application filed April 27, 1998 has been through the federal court system and is, I believe, back before the STB on environmental impact statement assessments.

The tax was in place before the TRR proposal and had nothing to do with "killing" it, if it is indeed dead.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[nanaimo73]

Didn't the State of Montana put in a tax on coal mines that killed the proposed Tongue River Railroad ?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Equals "vague."

Perhaps to you.

You're in Pennsylvania, right? Not Montana?

You're not in the rail industry and you're not in the grain industry.

You're not involved in agriculture and you're not involved in the political process of representing constituency interests, and you're not one of those constituency interests, either.

There are plenty of reasons why this would be vague to you.

Indeed, there is no good reason to suggest that you would know anything about it at all. That is why any discussion on this topic would be vague to you.

Best regards, Michael Sol

A string of "buzzwords" is vague to ANYBODY, ANYWHERE.

He's stated the things we've talked about in here for at least a year, and with much less detail or understanding.

The only thing not "vague" about that is that somebody woke the Governor of Montana up to the fact that there's railroads in his state.

And no good reason to believe that you would have any idea what a solution to a problem was, or how to go about finding it.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Equals "vague."

Perhaps to you.

You're in Pennsylvania, right? Not Montana?

You're not in the rail industry and you're not in the grain industry.

You're not involved in agriculture and you're not involved in the political process of representing constituency interests, and you're not one of those constituency interests, either.

There are plenty of reasons why this would be vague to you.

Indeed, there is no good reason to suggest that you would know anything about it at all. That is why any discussion on this topic would be vague to you.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

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

“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."

And do what about it?

“The lack of regulatory oversight combined with the lack of rail competition is hurting Montana’s export economy and its ability to compete."

Same question.

Equals "vague."

[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

[MichaelSol]

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.

The Sherman Antitrust Act is now 116 years old. It was used successfully against the Northern Securities Company, the Standard Oil trust, the American Tobacco Company and American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T).

The Clayton Antitrust Act (1914), the Robinson-Patman Act and the Hart-Scoss-Rodino Antitrust Improvement Act (1976) were enacted by subsequent Congresses..

Although railroads are to some degree exempt, or covered differently, your statement reads quite broadly, and condemns over a century of opinion by the democratic agency charged with putting such matters into law.

Psycho-babble?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

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.

Hi Alan, Billings involved two "Conditions" under the BN Merger order.

The Billings "Gateway" condition wasn't particularly successful for Milwaukee -- that business amounted to a couple hundred carloads a year. But, the Billings "Entry" condition that you describe generated about $1.2 milion per year for Milwaukee, and BN did all the actual carload handling for Milwaukee under contract, delivering the traffic to Milwaukee at Miles City, Bozeman, or Judith Gap. Great Western Sugar was a big user of Milwaukee airslides under that Condition. It wasn't huge, but $1.2 million was nothing to sneeze at either. That is just about $5 million in today's dollars. It required no additional infrastructure investment by Milwaukee to obtain the business.

That was one of the instances, you might recall, of "Conditions" compliance that the "merger review committee" looked at.

Armed with an order from the ICC, they examined BN records and found a whole program of threats to lessees of BN property that their leases might be re-examined if they used Milwaukee services, strong-arming of shippers, and alarmingly, a whole slew of records on the subject that were simply missing -- records required to be kept by the ICC.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[wallyworld]

Like most political pronouncements this one is long on verbiage and short on details.
Montana is a beautiful state with wonderful people but it is a political backwater with not alot of industry which has more real world clout than vague pronouncements wishing another governmental agency would turn a wheel without providing them a bill of lading. Calling for competition alone in a capitalist economy without alot of financial clout strikes me as a goofy and half baked example of psycho-babble.

[TomDiehl]

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

Since there was so much "supposing" and "maybeing" in the same post, it put the other info in doubt.

[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

[TomDiehl]

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.

Attempts at altering the meaning of things seems to be "standard procedure" with him.

Or would that be "standard" "procedure?"

[TomDiehl]

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

Hate to burst your bubble Michael, but Dave is the one in other posts that's suggested this, then followed up with statements that the trains move an average of 50 miles a day through here. I wonder why that is? 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.

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.

And "independant thinker" was one term. The only thing that supposedly "confuses" me is Dave's contradictions.

[tormadel]

Yeah true, but the point is what does the gov. want done about it? Just hold a gun to BNSF's head and regulate it? I don't like that, I'm pretty convienced the regulating is bad bad thing.

[kenneo]

Re-create the MILW and "sell" it to the KCS as a safe-harbor operator. The torn-up part and the South Dakota used-to-be owned lines including south to Kansas City would do the trick. And how! Direct export competition to Portland, Seattle, Houston and New Orleans! The MILW came ever-so-close to forcing the GN and NP into recievership before the BN merger -- think of what they could do with a management that really wanted to beat the competition.

The MILW had either a main line or well sited branch lines throught the productive areas of the NP and GN in eastern Montana.

[tormadel]

And Montana can feel free to fund the rebuilding of the Old Milwaukee mainline if he's really that concerned about it. From what I've read in Trains about the old towns left behind I'm sure alot of voters would appreciate it.

[tormadel]

What's he going to do? Require the BNSF to divest itself of one of the routes? Forcing a recreation of a 2nd northern rail corridor? They wouldn't have to go through this trouble if the Milwaukee had not been economically torpedo'd.