QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton The right most column on the table verifies that the RVC's on the Montana rates are far greater than those from Nebraska. I assume that the Nebraska points were selected because they represent origins that are in competition with Montana farmers for export over the PNW. Interestingly, the column second to the right has the freight cost per bushel. For the Nebraska origins the freight cost per bushel ranges from a low of $1.08 to a high of $1.52. For the Montana rates the range is $.98 to $1.05. If I had a choice, I guess I'd go to Montana. http://rscc.mt.gov/docs/White_Paper_Meeting_10_05.pdf Montana pays $1.05 per bushel, for the total mileage of 884 miles. Nebraska pays $1.08 per bushel ... to ship 1491 miles. The Nebraska "high" rate is for a shipment of 2,206 miles. The average Montana rate is for a shipment of about 900 miles. The "Nebraska Rate" of $1.08/ bushel is not a BNSF rate. It is a UP rate. Sol usualy leaves some relavent detail like this out. Check page 16 of the Whiateside Study.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton The right most column on the table verifies that the RVC's on the Montana rates are far greater than those from Nebraska. I assume that the Nebraska points were selected because they represent origins that are in competition with Montana farmers for export over the PNW. Interestingly, the column second to the right has the freight cost per bushel. For the Nebraska origins the freight cost per bushel ranges from a low of $1.08 to a high of $1.52. For the Montana rates the range is $.98 to $1.05. If I had a choice, I guess I'd go to Montana. http://rscc.mt.gov/docs/White_Paper_Meeting_10_05.pdf Montana pays $1.05 per bushel, for the total mileage of 884 miles. Nebraska pays $1.08 per bushel ... to ship 1491 miles. The Nebraska "high" rate is for a shipment of 2,206 miles. The average Montana rate is for a shipment of about 900 miles.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton The right most column on the table verifies that the RVC's on the Montana rates are far greater than those from Nebraska. I assume that the Nebraska points were selected because they represent origins that are in competition with Montana farmers for export over the PNW. Interestingly, the column second to the right has the freight cost per bushel. For the Nebraska origins the freight cost per bushel ranges from a low of $1.08 to a high of $1.52. For the Montana rates the range is $.98 to $1.05. If I had a choice, I guess I'd go to Montana. http://rscc.mt.gov/docs/White_Paper_Meeting_10_05.pdf
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb All I'm saying is if Idaho had wanted the truck/barge traffic there IDOT was that hard to work with. If they did roadblock the border it was not for the benift of BNSF. Idaho had asked for 120,000. A reason is at that weight 120,000 we did 8 mph uphill and 4 mph downhill. Granted it was winter and there was 5" of ice and cinders on the road. The point is the damage to the road at those weights is not that much different. Did the Feds do that maybe to help BNSF. I do not think so but it would fit the DC/railroad colusion theory. It is a generally accepted fact that the rail industry had a major hand in convincing the federal government to cap each state's GVW limits for non-Interstate highways, with each state able to grandfather in their particular weight limit that was in place when the cap was enacted. The Interstate Highway cap has been 80,000 lbs since I can remember. Most of the grain that was trucked from Montana to Lewiston went via non-Interstate Highways - US Highway 12, Montana Highway 200, etc. Back to that old "its a railroad conspiracy theory' thing again. Give it a break. Bert http://www.aar.org http://www.cabt.org Since you seem to know absolutely nothing about the railroad industry, here's a primer. The AAR is the American Association of Rairoads, the lobbying arm of the rail industry. The AAR has a surogate group it uses called the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks, which is predicated soley on opposing increased GVW for trucks. It was CABT that was the major force in getting the federal cap on weight limits imposed. Now, whether it is a conspiracy or not is up to your imagination.[D)] Even in this weeks newspapers, there's an article that states the usual knee-jerk opposition to trucks and highways from the rail industry: http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/06/14/montana/a08061406_02.txt Kitzenberg leading caravan for four-lane U.S. Highway 2 Quote of note: "The lone opposition he’s encountered to the “four-for-two” idea has come from BNSF Railway, which Kitzenberg (says) wants to keep its shipping monopoly across the Hi-Line. 'If you’ve got a monopoly and are making money, why would you want competition?' the legislator asked.” Digging a bit further into the AAR link that YOU provided leads us to: http://www.aar.org/GetFile.asp?File_ID=281 Most interesting is the third paragraph under "Issue Overview." You should really read your own links before you post them. The noted paragraph blows your supposed "conspiricy" out of the water. [:o)] Dave, I really love how you seem to make a habit of acting all smug in your responses, and then have them thrown in your face. Did you read the link? The trucking industy opposed the weight increase. Let me say that again, the TRUCKING industy. Now I know you will put your usual spin on it, the railroads bribed them with all there money. But at the end of the day it shows that YOU are the one that knows nothing about the railroad industry. Bert Hmmmmm. Quothe Bert "The trucking industy opposed the weight increase. Let me say that again, the TRUCKING industy." Question for Bert: Who was it then that proposed the GVW increase? C'mon, it is an easy answer, no spin required. Here's a hint: You are batting 1.000 in eschewing internal polar opposition.
QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb All I'm saying is if Idaho had wanted the truck/barge traffic there IDOT was that hard to work with. If they did roadblock the border it was not for the benift of BNSF. Idaho had asked for 120,000. A reason is at that weight 120,000 we did 8 mph uphill and 4 mph downhill. Granted it was winter and there was 5" of ice and cinders on the road. The point is the damage to the road at those weights is not that much different. Did the Feds do that maybe to help BNSF. I do not think so but it would fit the DC/railroad colusion theory. It is a generally accepted fact that the rail industry had a major hand in convincing the federal government to cap each state's GVW limits for non-Interstate highways, with each state able to grandfather in their particular weight limit that was in place when the cap was enacted. The Interstate Highway cap has been 80,000 lbs since I can remember. Most of the grain that was trucked from Montana to Lewiston went via non-Interstate Highways - US Highway 12, Montana Highway 200, etc. Back to that old "its a railroad conspiracy theory' thing again. Give it a break. Bert http://www.aar.org http://www.cabt.org Since you seem to know absolutely nothing about the railroad industry, here's a primer. The AAR is the American Association of Rairoads, the lobbying arm of the rail industry. The AAR has a surogate group it uses called the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks, which is predicated soley on opposing increased GVW for trucks. It was CABT that was the major force in getting the federal cap on weight limits imposed. Now, whether it is a conspiracy or not is up to your imagination.[D)] Even in this weeks newspapers, there's an article that states the usual knee-jerk opposition to trucks and highways from the rail industry: http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/06/14/montana/a08061406_02.txt Kitzenberg leading caravan for four-lane U.S. Highway 2 Quote of note: "The lone opposition he’s encountered to the “four-for-two” idea has come from BNSF Railway, which Kitzenberg (says) wants to keep its shipping monopoly across the Hi-Line. 'If you’ve got a monopoly and are making money, why would you want competition?' the legislator asked.” Digging a bit further into the AAR link that YOU provided leads us to: http://www.aar.org/GetFile.asp?File_ID=281 Most interesting is the third paragraph under "Issue Overview." You should really read your own links before you post them. The noted paragraph blows your supposed "conspiricy" out of the water. [:o)] Dave, I really love how you seem to make a habit of acting all smug in your responses, and then have them thrown in your face. Did you read the link? The trucking industy opposed the weight increase. Let me say that again, the TRUCKING industy. Now I know you will put your usual spin on it, the railroads bribed them with all there money. But at the end of the day it shows that YOU are the one that knows nothing about the railroad industry. Bert
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb All I'm saying is if Idaho had wanted the truck/barge traffic there IDOT was that hard to work with. If they did roadblock the border it was not for the benift of BNSF. Idaho had asked for 120,000. A reason is at that weight 120,000 we did 8 mph uphill and 4 mph downhill. Granted it was winter and there was 5" of ice and cinders on the road. The point is the damage to the road at those weights is not that much different. Did the Feds do that maybe to help BNSF. I do not think so but it would fit the DC/railroad colusion theory. It is a generally accepted fact that the rail industry had a major hand in convincing the federal government to cap each state's GVW limits for non-Interstate highways, with each state able to grandfather in their particular weight limit that was in place when the cap was enacted. The Interstate Highway cap has been 80,000 lbs since I can remember. Most of the grain that was trucked from Montana to Lewiston went via non-Interstate Highways - US Highway 12, Montana Highway 200, etc. Back to that old "its a railroad conspiracy theory' thing again. Give it a break. Bert http://www.aar.org http://www.cabt.org Since you seem to know absolutely nothing about the railroad industry, here's a primer. The AAR is the American Association of Rairoads, the lobbying arm of the rail industry. The AAR has a surogate group it uses called the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks, which is predicated soley on opposing increased GVW for trucks. It was CABT that was the major force in getting the federal cap on weight limits imposed. Now, whether it is a conspiracy or not is up to your imagination.[D)] Even in this weeks newspapers, there's an article that states the usual knee-jerk opposition to trucks and highways from the rail industry: http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/06/14/montana/a08061406_02.txt Kitzenberg leading caravan for four-lane U.S. Highway 2 Quote of note: "The lone opposition he’s encountered to the “four-for-two” idea has come from BNSF Railway, which Kitzenberg (says) wants to keep its shipping monopoly across the Hi-Line. 'If you’ve got a monopoly and are making money, why would you want competition?' the legislator asked.” Digging a bit further into the AAR link that YOU provided leads us to: http://www.aar.org/GetFile.asp?File_ID=281 Most interesting is the third paragraph under "Issue Overview." You should really read your own links before you post them. The noted paragraph blows your supposed "conspiricy" out of the water. [:o)]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb All I'm saying is if Idaho had wanted the truck/barge traffic there IDOT was that hard to work with. If they did roadblock the border it was not for the benift of BNSF. Idaho had asked for 120,000. A reason is at that weight 120,000 we did 8 mph uphill and 4 mph downhill. Granted it was winter and there was 5" of ice and cinders on the road. The point is the damage to the road at those weights is not that much different. Did the Feds do that maybe to help BNSF. I do not think so but it would fit the DC/railroad colusion theory. It is a generally accepted fact that the rail industry had a major hand in convincing the federal government to cap each state's GVW limits for non-Interstate highways, with each state able to grandfather in their particular weight limit that was in place when the cap was enacted. The Interstate Highway cap has been 80,000 lbs since I can remember. Most of the grain that was trucked from Montana to Lewiston went via non-Interstate Highways - US Highway 12, Montana Highway 200, etc. Back to that old "its a railroad conspiracy theory' thing again. Give it a break. Bert http://www.aar.org http://www.cabt.org Since you seem to know absolutely nothing about the railroad industry, here's a primer. The AAR is the American Association of Rairoads, the lobbying arm of the rail industry. The AAR has a surogate group it uses called the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks, which is predicated soley on opposing increased GVW for trucks. It was CABT that was the major force in getting the federal cap on weight limits imposed. Now, whether it is a conspiracy or not is up to your imagination.[D)] Even in this weeks newspapers, there's an article that states the usual knee-jerk opposition to trucks and highways from the rail industry: http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/06/14/montana/a08061406_02.txt Kitzenberg leading caravan for four-lane U.S. Highway 2 Quote of note: "The lone opposition he’s encountered to the “four-for-two” idea has come from BNSF Railway, which Kitzenberg (says) wants to keep its shipping monopoly across the Hi-Line. 'If you’ve got a monopoly and are making money, why would you want competition?' the legislator asked.”
QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb All I'm saying is if Idaho had wanted the truck/barge traffic there IDOT was that hard to work with. If they did roadblock the border it was not for the benift of BNSF. Idaho had asked for 120,000. A reason is at that weight 120,000 we did 8 mph uphill and 4 mph downhill. Granted it was winter and there was 5" of ice and cinders on the road. The point is the damage to the road at those weights is not that much different. Did the Feds do that maybe to help BNSF. I do not think so but it would fit the DC/railroad colusion theory. It is a generally accepted fact that the rail industry had a major hand in convincing the federal government to cap each state's GVW limits for non-Interstate highways, with each state able to grandfather in their particular weight limit that was in place when the cap was enacted. The Interstate Highway cap has been 80,000 lbs since I can remember. Most of the grain that was trucked from Montana to Lewiston went via non-Interstate Highways - US Highway 12, Montana Highway 200, etc. Back to that old "its a railroad conspiracy theory' thing again. Give it a break. Bert
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb All I'm saying is if Idaho had wanted the truck/barge traffic there IDOT was that hard to work with. If they did roadblock the border it was not for the benift of BNSF. Idaho had asked for 120,000. A reason is at that weight 120,000 we did 8 mph uphill and 4 mph downhill. Granted it was winter and there was 5" of ice and cinders on the road. The point is the damage to the road at those weights is not that much different. Did the Feds do that maybe to help BNSF. I do not think so but it would fit the DC/railroad colusion theory. It is a generally accepted fact that the rail industry had a major hand in convincing the federal government to cap each state's GVW limits for non-Interstate highways, with each state able to grandfather in their particular weight limit that was in place when the cap was enacted. The Interstate Highway cap has been 80,000 lbs since I can remember. Most of the grain that was trucked from Montana to Lewiston went via non-Interstate Highways - US Highway 12, Montana Highway 200, etc.
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb All I'm saying is if Idaho had wanted the truck/barge traffic there IDOT was that hard to work with. If they did roadblock the border it was not for the benift of BNSF. Idaho had asked for 120,000. A reason is at that weight 120,000 we did 8 mph uphill and 4 mph downhill. Granted it was winter and there was 5" of ice and cinders on the road. The point is the damage to the road at those weights is not that much different. Did the Feds do that maybe to help BNSF. I do not think so but it would fit the DC/railroad colusion theory.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Furniture at retail has a 100% markup.
23 17 46 11
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard So, you are saying that because Nebraska is farther from the destination, they should pay an even higher price than they already do? Or that because Montana is closer, they should get a even bigger break on the price, for the same basic service, (hauling rail cars)? Looks like Montana is already getting a better price, for even less distance, which should mean they have a faster turnaround, therefore should be able to ship even more product at the lesser rate, faster....which means they should be making more profit than the Nebraska farmers. Oh, I get it...the guys in Nebraska are willing to pay more, in a effort to encourage the service provider to provide better, more consistent service, and the Montana guys are not willing to pony up the bucks for the same thing, and then feel justified to whine and complain about the lack of a service they are not willing to pay for. Ok, so I forgot about the nationwide railroad conspiracy.... Let’s see, Montana is closer, already pays less that their competition for the same basic service, and the problem is? QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton The right most column on the table verifies that the RVC's on the Montana rates are far greater than those from Nebraska. I assume that the Nebraska points were selected because they represent origins that are in competition with Montana farmers for export over the PNW. Interestingly, the column second to the right has the freight cost per bushel. For the Nebraska origins the freight cost per bushel ranges from a low of $1.08 to a high of $1.52. For the Montana rates the range is $.98 to $1.05. If I had a choice, I guess I'd go to Montana. http://rscc.mt.gov/docs/White_Paper_Meeting_10_05.pdf Montana pays $1.05 per bushel, for the total mileage of 884 miles. Nebraska pays $1.08 per bushel ... to ship 1491 miles. The Nebraska "high" rate is for a shipment of 2,206 miles. The average Montana rate is for a shipment of about 900 miles.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol You're playing statistical games now. Why don't you just read the paper, instead of toying with the data.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb All I'm saying is if Idaho had wanted the truck/barge traffic there IDOT was that hard to work with. If they did roadblock the border it was not for the benift of BNSF. Idaho had asked for 120,000. A reason is at that weight 120,000 we did 8 mph uphill and 4 mph downhill. Granted it was winter and there was 5" of ice and cinders on the road. The point is the damage to the road at those weights is not that much different. Did the Feds do that maybe to help BNSF. I do not think so but it would fit the DC/railroad colusion theory. It is a generally accepted fact that the rail industry had a major hand in convincing the federal government to cap each state's GVW limits for non-Interstate highways, with each state able to grandfather in their particular weight limit that was in place when the cap was enacted. The Interstate Highway cap has been 80,000 lbs since I can remember. Most of the grain that was trucked from Montana to Lewiston went via non-Interstate Highways - US Highway 12, Montana Highway 200, etc. Back to that old "its a railroad conspiracy theory' thing again. Give it a break. Bert http://www.aar.org http://www.cabt.org Since you seem to know absolutely nothing about the railroad industry, here's a primer. The AAR is the American Association of Rairoads, the lobbying arm of the rail industry. The AAR has a surogate group it uses called the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks, which is predicated soley on opposing increased GVW for trucks. It was CABT that was the major force in getting the federal cap on weight limits imposed. Now, whether it is a conspiracy or not is up to your imagination.[D)] Even in this weeks newspapers, there's an article that states the usual knee-jerk opposition to trucks and highways from the rail industry: http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/06/14/montana/a08061406_02.txt Kitzenberg leading caravan for four-lane U.S. Highway 2 Quote of note: "The lone opposition he’s encountered to the “four-for-two” idea has come from BNSF Railway, which Kitzenberg (says) wants to keep its shipping monopoly across the Hi-Line. 'If you’ve got a monopoly and are making money, why would you want competition?' the legislator asked.” Digging a bit further into the AAR link that YOU provided leads us to: http://www.aar.org/GetFile.asp?File_ID=281 Most interesting is the third paragraph under "Issue Overview." You should really read your own links before you post them. The noted paragraph blows your supposed "conspiricy" out of the water. [:o)] Dave, I really love how you seem to make a habit of acting all smug in your responses, and then have them thrown in your face. Did you read the link? The trucking industy opposed the weight increase. Let me say that again, the TRUCKING industy. Now I know you will put your usual spin on it, the railroads bribed them with all there money. But at the end of the day it shows that YOU are the one that knows nothing about the railroad industry. Bert Hmmmmm. Quothe Bert "The trucking industy opposed the weight increase. Let me say that again, the TRUCKING industy." Question for Bert: Who was it then that proposed the GVW increase? C'mon, it is an easy answer, no spin required. Here's a hint: You are batting 1.000 in eschewing internal polar opposition. He's quoting something from a link YOU originally provided in a vain attempt to prove a conspiricy. The only "spinning" here seems to be yours.
An "expensive model collector"
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Seems to me the choice is between lower freight charges or better service. I don't think you get both.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Seems to me the choice is between lower freight charges or better service. I don't think you get both. Well, if anyone bothers to actually read the paper, and many like it, that's the point, these shippers are paying a higher rate, and getting worse service.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 I think we are at the point of splitting hairs. The farmer doesnt pay dollars per bushel mile to move wheat, he pays dollars per bushel. That is the economic reality. Nebraska is paying more per bushel to move their wheat to PNW. Slice it, dice it, blend it, chop it, it is still more. I
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton I read the entire paper several days ago and just reread the discussion on car supply. In spite of the fact that the usual harvest peak shipping activity came along with a surge in shipping out of storage, the car supply situation was quite bad. I didn't note any evidence that it was any worse than any other grain origin areas.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton My question is how does reducing revenue and cash flow improve that situation?
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton I read the entire paper several days ago and just reread the discussion on car supply. In spite of the fact that the usual harvest peak shipping activity came along with a surge in shipping out of storage, the car supply situation was quite bad. I didn't note any evidence that it was any worse than any other grain origin areas. I have in other threads posted the discussions of how the car supply is diverted to competitve shippers first, so as not to lose the business, and then when all is taken care of, finally given over to the captive shippers who have incurred storage costs, operating loan extensions and interest charges, and in many cases where storage is inadequate for an entire crop, losses in the crop as well. Extra costs compared to their competitors that they cannot recover.
QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 Many COOPs in across the midwest have bought their own cars. Maybe that should be something that the Montana farmers consider.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Sorry that I didn't get the rate/price thing. Old habit. For thirty years I and my peers used "rate" as the term for the dollar amount when multiplied times the number of units in a shipment-pounds,cwt, tons, trailer loads, car loads, trainloads or whatever produced the charge for the shipment. I guess that is what you mean when you speak of price.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 Is Duluth not a market for Montana? If not, I can see the point of wanting to keep it at V180.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 [My only caution is that not knowing how to determine the variable costs...and I am not going to read the Staggers Act to determine how, I would be extremely careful about using VC ratios without having a basis for determining those costs.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb All I'm saying is if Idaho had wanted the truck/barge traffic there IDOT was that hard to work with. If they did roadblock the border it was not for the benift of BNSF. Idaho had asked for 120,000. A reason is at that weight 120,000 we did 8 mph uphill and 4 mph downhill. Granted it was winter and there was 5" of ice and cinders on the road. The point is the damage to the road at those weights is not that much different. Did the Feds do that maybe to help BNSF. I do not think so but it would fit the DC/railroad colusion theory. It is a generally accepted fact that the rail industry had a major hand in convincing the federal government to cap each state's GVW limits for non-Interstate highways, with each state able to grandfather in their particular weight limit that was in place when the cap was enacted. The Interstate Highway cap has been 80,000 lbs since I can remember. Most of the grain that was trucked from Montana to Lewiston went via non-Interstate Highways - US Highway 12, Montana Highway 200, etc. Back to that old "its a railroad conspiracy theory' thing again. Give it a break. Bert http://www.aar.org http://www.cabt.org Since you seem to know absolutely nothing about the railroad industry, here's a primer. The AAR is the American Association of Rairoads, the lobbying arm of the rail industry. The AAR has a surogate group it uses called the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks, which is predicated soley on opposing increased GVW for trucks. It was CABT that was the major force in getting the federal cap on weight limits imposed. Now, whether it is a conspiracy or not is up to your imagination.[D)] Even in this weeks newspapers, there's an article that states the usual knee-jerk opposition to trucks and highways from the rail industry: http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/06/14/montana/a08061406_02.txt Kitzenberg leading caravan for four-lane U.S. Highway 2 Quote of note: "The lone opposition he’s encountered to the “four-for-two” idea has come from BNSF Railway, which Kitzenberg (says) wants to keep its shipping monopoly across the Hi-Line. 'If you’ve got a monopoly and are making money, why would you want competition?' the legislator asked.” Digging a bit further into the AAR link that YOU provided leads us to: http://www.aar.org/GetFile.asp?File_ID=281 Most interesting is the third paragraph under "Issue Overview." You should really read your own links before you post them. The noted paragraph blows your supposed "conspiricy" out of the water. [:o)] Dave, I really love how you seem to make a habit of acting all smug in your responses, and then have them thrown in your face. Did you read the link? The trucking industy opposed the weight increase. Let me say that again, the TRUCKING industy. Now I know you will put your usual spin on it, the railroads bribed them with all there money. But at the end of the day it shows that YOU are the one that knows nothing about the railroad industry. Bert Hmmmmm. Quothe Bert "The trucking industy opposed the weight increase. Let me say that again, the TRUCKING industy." Question for Bert: Who was it then that proposed the GVW increase? C'mon, it is an easy answer, no spin required. Here's a hint: You are batting 1.000 in eschewing internal polar opposition. He's quoting something from a link YOU originally provided in a vain attempt to prove a conspiricy. The only "spinning" here seems to be yours. You guys make me laugh! The links to AAR and CABT were to refute Bert's allegation that the railroad industry had nothing to do with pushing legislation to limit GVW. Should be pretty straightforward. Did Bert then acknowledge his mistake? Of course not. Then Bert uses the AAR and CABT links to "prove" that the trucking industry opposes increasing GVW standards, an allegation about as out of context as you can get. The AAR and ATA made a pact that the ATA would not push for increased GVW in return for the AAR not pushing for a decrease in GVW. Now that capacity issues have made that pact superfluous, not to mention having no positive impact on the railroad industry, the trucking industry is ready to ditch the pact and push for increased GVW and LCV standards to aid in keeping the US economy from slipping back into a recession, something to which the rail industry seems oblivious. But, just so Tom gets a refresher course in forum participation, here's the link to a previous thread from a few months ago in which we discussed the ATA's recent support for increasing GVW and LCV standards: https://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=61093 I'll give Bert a pass on this one since I don't remember him being around for that discussion. Now, is everybody happy?[:)]
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb All I'm saying is if Idaho had wanted the truck/barge traffic there IDOT was that hard to work with. If they did roadblock the border it was not for the benift of BNSF. Idaho had asked for 120,000. A reason is at that weight 120,000 we did 8 mph uphill and 4 mph downhill. Granted it was winter and there was 5" of ice and cinders on the road. The point is the damage to the road at those weights is not that much different. Did the Feds do that maybe to help BNSF. I do not think so but it would fit the DC/railroad colusion theory. It is a generally accepted fact that the rail industry had a major hand in convincing the federal government to cap each state's GVW limits for non-Interstate highways, with each state able to grandfather in their particular weight limit that was in place when the cap was enacted. The Interstate Highway cap has been 80,000 lbs since I can remember. Most of the grain that was trucked from Montana to Lewiston went via non-Interstate Highways - US Highway 12, Montana Highway 200, etc. Back to that old "its a railroad conspiracy theory' thing again. Give it a break. Bert http://www.aar.org http://www.cabt.org Since you seem to know absolutely nothing about the railroad industry, here's a primer. The AAR is the American Association of Rairoads, the lobbying arm of the rail industry. The AAR has a surogate group it uses called the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks, which is predicated soley on opposing increased GVW for trucks. It was CABT that was the major force in getting the federal cap on weight limits imposed. Now, whether it is a conspiracy or not is up to your imagination.[D)] Even in this weeks newspapers, there's an article that states the usual knee-jerk opposition to trucks and highways from the rail industry: http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/06/14/montana/a08061406_02.txt Kitzenberg leading caravan for four-lane U.S. Highway 2 Quote of note: "The lone opposition he’s encountered to the “four-for-two” idea has come from BNSF Railway, which Kitzenberg (says) wants to keep its shipping monopoly across the Hi-Line. 'If you’ve got a monopoly and are making money, why would you want competition?' the legislator asked.” Digging a bit further into the AAR link that YOU provided leads us to: http://www.aar.org/GetFile.asp?File_ID=281 Most interesting is the third paragraph under "Issue Overview." You should really read your own links before you post them. The noted paragraph blows your supposed "conspiricy" out of the water. [:o)] Dave, I really love how you seem to make a habit of acting all smug in your responses, and then have them thrown in your face. Did you read the link? The trucking industy opposed the weight increase. Let me say that again, the TRUCKING industy. Now I know you will put your usual spin on it, the railroads bribed them with all there money. But at the end of the day it shows that YOU are the one that knows nothing about the railroad industry. Bert Hmmmmm. Quothe Bert "The trucking industy opposed the weight increase. Let me say that again, the TRUCKING industy." Question for Bert: Who was it then that proposed the GVW increase? C'mon, it is an easy answer, no spin required. Here's a hint: You are batting 1.000 in eschewing internal polar opposition. He's quoting something from a link YOU originally provided in a vain attempt to prove a conspiricy. The only "spinning" here seems to be yours. You guys make me laugh! The links to AAR and CABT were to refute Bert's allegation that the railroad industry had nothing to do with pushing legislation to limit GVW. Should be pretty straightforward. Did Bert then acknowledge his mistake? Of course not. Then Bert uses the AAR and CABT links to "prove" that the trucking industry opposes increasing GVW standards, an allegation about as out of context as you can get. The AAR and ATA made a pact that the ATA would not push for increased GVW in return for the AAR not pushing for a decrease in GVW. Now that capacity issues have made that pact superfluous, not to mention having no positive impact on the railroad industry, the trucking industry is ready to ditch the pact and push for increased GVW and LCV standards to aid in keeping the US economy from slipping back into a recession, something to which the rail industry seems oblivious. But, just so Tom gets a refresher course in forum participation, here's the link to a previous thread from a few months ago in which we discussed the ATA's recent support for increasing GVW and LCV standards: https://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=61093 I'll give Bert a pass on this one since I don't remember him being around for that discussion. Now, is everybody happy?[:)] So what you're saying is the links you offered here refute a link you offered on an earlier post. Talking in circles again, I see. More evidence you're not even looking at the links you offer as "proof" of your position.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol If you agree so strongly with the Whiteside Paper, then you have to take it as a whole. If you don't, that's cherry picking. And again, for the umpteenth time, I don't like the way Whiteside presents things, because it can be confusing, and misunderstood. This paper is no exception. The point -- yes, the apparently inscrutible point -- is that Montana shippers are forced to pay a substantially higher cost per mile of transportation to ship its products to the market, than a shipper a thousand miles further away, even though over the same railroad line. Now, I see on this thread the innovative idea that shippers only ship bushels, that the heretofore important role of transportation to cover miles is irrelevant. Well, that is interesting. It is the cost per unit per mile that defines whether a market area is viable or not because that is what defines the market area. The point is the opposite of what you contend. Whitside is not contending that Nebraska shippers are shippng wheat to Portland more cheaply -- what they are contending is by using Nebraska rates as a comparison it is demonstrably true that Montana shippers are charged a much higher rate to move the same commodity over the same rail line to the same destination -- that is, the variable costs of the move should be the same -- for the component of the move that has to do with miles traveled. That is, the comparison shows that BNSF will indeed charge shippers a much lower rate if those shippers are located in areas of transportation competition. Since the rate charged over the mileage traveled presumably covers costs, Whiteside is attempting to show that the cost of the service -- per mile of service provided -- is considerably lower to other shippers, and that BNSF presumably sets those rates likewise to generate a profit.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.