Murphy Siding wrote:Didja' ever notice............how some threads take on the tone of an election campaign? (insert *head spinning* smilie here)
tiskilwa wrote: Murphy Siding wrote:Didja' ever notice............how some threads take on the tone of an election campaign? (insert *head spinning* smilie here)No. Election campaigns involve negative attack ads, smear campaigns, and claiming your opponent is unkind to puppies. That would never happen here.
What would you have me do? Just ignor it when the man puts false words in my mouth?
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:While adding capacity could increase income, it would also increase expenses since the additional track would have to be maintained, additional property taxes would have to be paid (it's difficult to hide a new track from the county assessor), etc, etc, etc. If the track owner is satisfied with his current rate of return on existing investment, why should he invest more money which may not improve the rate of return? Additional income doesn't always add to the bottom line.
You need to go back and research just how utilities function. Since premium pricing with few customers is out due to regulation, they must constantly expand their customer base to increase income. Yes, there are investments in additional infrastructure pretty much for each new customer, but somehow they manage to include the cost of that new infrastructure into the overall rate structure.
futuremodal wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:While adding capacity could increase income, it would also increase expenses since the additional track would have to be maintained, additional property taxes would have to be paid (it's difficult to hide a new track from the county assessor), etc, etc, etc. If the track owner is satisfied with his current rate of return on existing investment, why should he invest more money which may not improve the rate of return? Additional income doesn't always add to the bottom line. You need to go back and research just how utilities function. Since premium pricing with few customers is out due to regulation, they must constantly expand their customer base to increase income. Yes, there are investments in additional infrastructure pretty much for each new customer, but somehow they manage to include the cost of that new infrastructure into the overall rate structure.
Really? Well here in Chicago, Comed, the major utility company in the area is about to raise rates up to 55% to pay for new infrastructrure. With the housing boom of the last ten years or so,Comed has gotten many new customers, so under your theory, rates should not have to be raised at all. But as usual, there are many holes in your ideas.
Bert
An "expensive model collector"
greyhounds wrote: MichaelSol wrote:We know he's biased and frequently misinterpets data as well as simply being argumentative -- after all, he claimed that air resistance did not affect train speed and horsepower needs, and that trains and train cars were getting lighter not heavier -- but is there any reason to conclude that an ALJ, and then the full ICC, were biased?That after five years of hearings and argument by educated, experienced experts from both sides, that the ICC knew less about this than Ken Strawbridge? Hardly. See, this presents me with a delima. Sol went on and on about the ICC decision against the railroad in the McCarty Farms case. Indicating that it's decisiion against the BN proved his points. But he totally left out the fact that the decision was reversed in court and remanded back to the ICC. The 2nd time around the regulators ruled in favor of the railroad. And this time the decision, which was in favor of the railroad and adverse to Sol's way of thinking, was upheld on appeal. Sol left all that out for some reason or another. So, when I pointed out that the decision he was citing was reversed, he went off like a cheap firecracker. What's really troubling is that he's trying to discredit me by falsely claiming I said things that I never said.
MichaelSol wrote:We know he's biased and frequently misinterpets data as well as simply being argumentative -- after all, he claimed that air resistance did not affect train speed and horsepower needs, and that trains and train cars were getting lighter not heavier -- but is there any reason to conclude that an ALJ, and then the full ICC, were biased?That after five years of hearings and argument by educated, experienced experts from both sides, that the ICC knew less about this than Ken Strawbridge? Hardly.
Hardly.
See, this presents me with a delima.
Sol went on and on about the ICC decision against the railroad in the McCarty Farms case. Indicating that it's decisiion against the BN proved his points. But he totally left out the fact that the decision was reversed in court and remanded back to the ICC. The 2nd time around the regulators ruled in favor of the railroad. And this time the decision, which was in favor of the railroad and adverse to Sol's way of thinking, was upheld on appeal.
Sol left all that out for some reason or another.
So, when I pointed out that the decision he was citing was reversed, he went off like a cheap firecracker. What's really troubling is that he's trying to discredit me by falsely claiming I said things that I never said.
Strawbridge: The stardard initially used by the "administrative" law judge was a simple revenue to variable cost ratio. That standard got knocked in the head by a U.S. Court of Appeals. But Mr. Sol keeps trying to use that same standard as the sole test of a shipper being captive. Why? I guess it serves his purpose.
The free enterprise, competitive market, economic model is based upon four ASSUMPTIONS to work. The one that seems to get passed over in this forum is the "Complete ease of entry and exit into the market (industry)" portion of the model. That assumption means anyone with an interest can open shop and begin a viable business. In the transportation industry this works pretty good in the trucking segment. It may even describe the barge segment. Unless you are talking about commercial service in Alaska the assumption gets tenuous when describing the airlines. Railroading? Forget it. Account capital costs associated with right of way acquisition there is no freedom of entry and exit into the market or industry. The freedom of entry assumption is in the economic model to balance the trend towards monopoly. If that feature of the model is missing then the railroads follow the model perfectly, the tend towards the monopoly position. I think that pretty much describes the railroad/captive shipper situation in the US. Yes, folks, the economists have great models. They can get an outstanding view of how it is going to shake out. The problem is the unwashed glom on to the model and treat the assumptions as facts. Just because the US has a free market economy it is not true all the needed assumptions are truths in each segment. That is just too far a stretch.
Futuremodal believes the answer is to grant open access on rail lines and build entirely new lines to make competition a reality. Sure that would work according to the economic model. The capital cost realities of new construction work against that solution. The political realities of new construction or existing owners allowing tenants onto their nicely functioning monopoly property are not promising either. Trucks, barges, airplanes, ox carts and back packs are all competitive with railroads in a very limited sense. For specific products in specific instances each could blow the doors off a railroad and in most of these cases I would bet they are now the primary mode of transport having relegated the railroads irrelevant.
So if we cannot provide ease of entry and exit into the industry by making capital free, and who knows where capital would flow under that circumstance, we have to deal with the reality of the economics. One only has to look at the problems faced by the DM&E in their quest to provide competition in the Powder River Basin to imagine the cost and challenge to provide competition to the myriad of captive shippers across the rest of the country. Since that is not likely going to happen soon it falls on the STB to provide fairness to the captives. Now the railroads will defind fairness far differently than the captives will and so far then have been able to keep the STB at bay even to the point of blunting their rulings so far. The econimic model can predict how that will work but cannot predict how the politics will play out.
greyhounds wrote: Now why is he doing this? Was he unable to follow the arguement? Is he just being dishonest? I don't know. But I do know he's putting false words in my mouth in an effort to discredit me. Niether did I say trains were getting lighter.
Niether did I say trains were getting lighter.
Strawbridge: 8/24,06 9:20 p.m.: To understand why weight is a much more critical factor than "air resistance" ...
Strawbridge: It's more important to reduce train weight - ... Tom was/is right. The lightweight equipment was more important than the cosmetic streamlining. BTW, it also could be accelerated/decelerated faster.
Tom was/is right. The lightweight equipment was more important than the cosmetic streamlining. BTW, it also could be accelerated/decelerated faster.
Strawbridge, 8/26/06, 12:42 a.m.; If you don't understand that grades and curvature are significant factors in rail operations and that "Wind Resistance" is an afterthought, you're beyond any possible reason.
Strawbridge: The most significant resistance factor is the grade. You can either pile on the power or reduce the tare weight to deal with the grades.
Strawbridge, 8/26/06, 2:05 a.m.: But they pale in comparison to reducing the weight you have to drag up a hill.
Strawbridge: 8/26/06, 11: 22 p.m. : No, you're wrong agiain. They've reduced weight. What do you think aluminum gondolas do? .... They did this to reduce train weight.
arbfbe wrote: The free enterprise, competitive market, economic model is based upon four ASSUMPTIONS to work. The one that seems to get passed over in this forum is the "Complete ease of entry and exit into the market (industry)" portion of the model. That assumption means anyone with an interest can open shop and begin a viable business. In the transportation industry this works pretty good in the trucking segment. It may even describe the barge segment. Unless you are talking about commercial service in Alaska the assumption gets tenuous when describing the airlines. Railroading? Forget it. Account capital costs associated with right of way acquisition there is no freedom of entry and exit into the market or industry. The freedom of entry assumption is in the economic model to balance the trend towards monopoly. If that feature of the model is missing then the railroads follow the model perfectly, the tend towards the monopoly position. I think that pretty much describes the railroad/captive shipper situation in the US. Yes, folks, the economists have great models. They can get an outstanding view of how it is going to shake out. The problem is the unwashed glom on to the model and treat the assumptions as facts. Just because the US has a free market economy it is not true all the needed assumptions are truths in each segment. That is just too far a stretch. Futuremodal believes the answer is to grant open access on rail lines and build entirely new lines to make competition a reality. Sure that would work according to the economic model. The capital cost realities of new construction work against that solution. The political realities of new construction or existing owners allowing tenants onto their nicely functioning monopoly property are not promising either. Trucks, barges, airplanes, ox carts and back packs are all competitive with railroads in a very limited sense. For specific products in specific instances each could blow the doors off a railroad and in most of these cases I would bet they are now the primary mode of transport having relegated the railroads irrelevant. So if we cannot provide ease of entry and exit into the industry by making capital free, and who knows where capital would flow under that circumstance, we have to deal with the reality of the economics. One only has to look at the problems faced by the DM&E in their quest to provide competition in the Powder River Basin to imagine the cost and challenge to provide competition to the myriad of captive shippers across the rest of the country. Since that is not likely going to happen soon it falls on the STB to provide fairness to the captives. Now the railroads will defind fairness far differently than the captives will and so far then have been able to keep the STB at bay even to the point of blunting their rulings so far. The econimic model can predict how that will work but cannot predict how the politics will play out.
Actually, that's a very succinct synopsis, very well put.
To correct something though, what I believe as you stated needs clarification. What I want for the US rail network is to facilitate some form of comprehensive intramodal competition. Whether that's open access or some variation of the concept is left to debate. The utility/transmission model seems appropriate for the US rail system - allow competitors overhead rights on the rails. At least that's a start. But keep in mind, if all Class I's could access all Class I trackage via current trackage rights protocols, then half the battle is won. The new infrastructural requirements then would be focussed on the bottlenecks, not on long stretches of redundancy, so it's not like there'd be a sudden need of doubling of the US rail network (and the subsequent decades long delays). And with competitive access, you now open the door for regional and state consortiums to fill the gaps using fuel tax revenues - after all, it is the regional and state interests that are most concerned with eliminating bottlenecks so their little part of the world is most attractive to economic investment capital.
Public capital is used to build highways, why not bottleneck-eliminating OA rail lines? At least with public capital we can direct the rail infrastructural investment to the places WE need it, aka those areas that would serve the interests of US producers and exporters, and not the places that only seem to serve the purposes of Asian importers (think Santa Fe).
You are well aware of the current rail bottlenecks we have here in the PNW - The Funnel, Stampede Pass, Stevens Pass, Deadman's Pass, the Columbia Gorge - as well as the embargoed lines that would work great if the subsequent owners would cooperate to get things moving, aka the I-15 corridor in Montana. Public investment to fluidize these bottlenecks in exchange for some form of public access across the rail spectrum wouldn't seem to be an objectionable idea, would it?
MichaelSol wrote: greyhounds wrote:Now why is he doing this? Was he unable to follow the arguement? Is he just being dishonest? I don't know. But I do know he's putting false words in my mouth in an effort to discredit me. Niether did I say trains were getting lighter. OK, let's look at "false words":Strawbridge: 8/24,06 9:20 p.m.:To understand why weight is a much more critical factor than "air resistance" ...Strawbridge:It's more important to reduce train weight - ... Tom was/is right. The lightweight equipment was more important than the cosmetic streamlining. BTW, it also could be accelerated/decelerated faster. Strawbridge, 8/26/06, 12:42 a.m.; If you don't understand that grades and curvature are significant factors in rail operations and that "Wind Resistance" is an afterthought, you're beyond any possible reason.Strawbridge:The most significant resistance factor is the grade. You can either pile on the power or reduce the tare weight to deal with the grades.Strawbridge, 8/26/06, 2:05 a.m.:But they pale in comparison to reducing the weight you have to drag up a hill.Strawbridge: 8/26/06, 11: 22 p.m. :No, you're wrong agiain. They've reduced weight. What do you think aluminum gondolas do? .... They did this to reduce train weight. What is clear from Strawbridge's own words is that 1) he confused tare ratio with axle load, and 2) but that he clearly believed that by reducing tare, railroads were attempting to reduce train weight.It was ridiculous, but no one put any words into Strawbridge's mouth that he had not uttered on his own. What Strawbridge clearly confused was the fact that efforts to improve the tare ratio had nothing to do with axle loading or train weight. But, that is the exact opposite of what he tried to argue when he tried to argue that the solution to resistance problems was to go to lighter trains.Indeed, on 8/28/06, he noted after finally "doing the math" that a 286 k carload operated against 36,939 lbs of resistance at 50 mph in a 7,200 ton train, whereas 263k cars on the same train operated at 37,934 lbs of resistance.That the heavier cars were more efficient! That increasing, not decreasing, car weight would reduce the total resistance incurred by a train of equal overall weight.Compare that to his earlier comments above and decide for yourself why Strawbridge has fall back on the allegation that someone is "putting false words into my mouth into an effort to discredit me." This is a guy who thought that railroads were reducing car weight and reducing train weight and, as usual, sticking his strong opinions in on the subject. That you were "beyond any possible reason" if you disagreed with him. Look at his comments on the ICC opinion on captivity. Was the ICC reversed on the captivity analysis? Nope. Strawbridge made a patently false assertion. Did Strawbridge claim that trains and train cars were getting lighter? Not only did he claim it, he claimed that weight was singularly important, that wind resistance an "afterthought" and that reducing car and train weight was the only way of effectively reducing train resistance. He repeated it multiple times in his usual effort to browbeat the argument into submission to his routinely false premises. He left absolutely no doubt on the topic although he now claims he did not claim that "trains were getting lighter"; and presumably will now claim that there was obviously no need to ....The problem with Strawbridge's claim that people are "putting words" in his mouth is that it's simply not true. The words are his.
greyhounds wrote:Now why is he doing this? Was he unable to follow the arguement? Is he just being dishonest? I don't know. But I do know he's putting false words in my mouth in an effort to discredit me. Niether did I say trains were getting lighter.
Strawbridge: 8/24,06 9:20 p.m.:To understand why weight is a much more critical factor than "air resistance" ...
Strawbridge:It's more important to reduce train weight - ... Tom was/is right. The lightweight equipment was more important than the cosmetic streamlining. BTW, it also could be accelerated/decelerated faster.
If you don't understand that grades and curvature are significant factors in rail operations and that "Wind Resistance" is an afterthought, you're beyond any possible reason.
Strawbridge:The most significant resistance factor is the grade. You can either pile on the power or reduce the tare weight to deal with the grades.
Strawbridge, 8/26/06, 2:05 a.m.:But they pale in comparison to reducing the weight you have to drag up a hill.
Strawbridge: 8/26/06, 11: 22 p.m. :No, you're wrong agiain. They've reduced weight. What do you think aluminum gondolas do? .... They did this to reduce train weight.
This has to be one of the most ignorant things about railroading I've ever read in my life. I've long suspected that Mr. Sol can not 'connect the dots'. This writing by him further leads me in that direction. He just doesn't understand this stuff.
I clearly stated I was talking about tare weight. He quotes me on that. Tare is the weight of the equipment you have to put under the payload. You don't get paid for moving the equipment weight, you only get paid for moving the payload weight. Sol doesn't understand enough to differentiate between tare and payload. He just proved it.
Heavier cars are not, as Sol now claims, more efficient. Heavier cars are less efficient. The goal is to build as light of a car as is economically feasible. What you want to do is increase is the payload, not the dead weight of the car you have to drag around to get paid. That's what I said. I never said that trains were getting lighter.
Lightening the train does not mean run lighter, smaller trains. Mr. Sol doesn't apear to understand this. He can't 'connect those dots.' Lightening the train means getting the nonproductive tare weight out. I clearly said I was talking about tare - but he couldn't follow the discussion.
And Mr Sol, that ICC decision was reversed on appeal and the good guys won. The railroad prevailed.
MP173 wrote: Hey, in case anyone wants to know...NS 218 this morning (7am) had 52 trailers, no containers. Of the 52 trailers, at least 12 were UPS trailers, probably more as there were lease trailers on the train. Lots of big orange too. Trains 217/218, the Greensboro - Chicago trains typically only have 50 - 60 trailers...there must be pretty good revenue for these to justify that small of train. What is the average trailer revenue per mile these days? About a buck a mile? That yields about $45k for this trailer. That seems thin. ed
Hey, in case anyone wants to know...NS 218 this morning (7am) had 52 trailers, no containers. Of the 52 trailers, at least 12 were UPS trailers, probably more as there were lease trailers on the train.
Lots of big orange too.
Trains 217/218, the Greensboro - Chicago trains typically only have 50 - 60 trailers...there must be pretty good revenue for these to justify that small of train.
What is the average trailer revenue per mile these days? About a buck a mile? That yields about $45k for this trailer. That seems thin.
ed
I just checked the BNSF public rates between Chicago and Denver today.
Westbound a 53' NACS container w/o chassis goes terminal to terminal for $1,150. Which is like $1.10/mile.
Eastbound is a whole 'nother story. The same equipment moves for $500, which is under $0.50/mile. When the supply is the same (just as many containers have to leave Denver as arrive Denver) but the demand is less, the price has got to fall.
Of course the BNSF could go after all that good Colorado Beef and Lamb originating Denver, Ft. Morgan, and Greely. If they can move loads for $500 they could own that business at a much higher rate.
futuremodal wrote: arbfbe wrote: . Public investment to fluidize these bottlenecks in exchange for some form of public access across the rail spectrum wouldn't seem to be an objectionable idea, would it?
arbfbe wrote:
. Public investment to fluidize these bottlenecks in exchange for some form of public access across the rail spectrum wouldn't seem to be an objectionable idea, would it?
That sure sounds great but in the case of the BNSF the will abandon such track rather than allow public money to upgrade the line particularly if it means allowing another railroad onto the trackage. The perfect examples are the BNSF lines between Helena and Great Falls as well as the lines between Great Falls and Pacific Jct. You can expect those lines to fall as soon as the BNSF has forced the shippers to relocate nearer the mainlines.
The only way public money will be used to upgrade these lines is if the State of Montana siezes them in a Imminent Domain action. Then the state will still need to find some way to connect them to a rail system who wants to use them. MRL will be reluctant since that just moves the connection problem farther down the line. Who can force a carrier to provide service on tracks they do not own?
Piggyback, in the sense of trailer-on-flat-car, may continue to shrink somewhat but it will continue to be offered as long as a substantial number of customers want it.
greyhounds wrote:This has to be one of the most ignorant things about railroading I've ever read in my life. I've long suspected that Mr. Sol can not 'connect the dots'. This writing by him further leads me in that direction. He just doesn't understand this stuff.
MichaelSol wrote: greyhounds wrote: This has to be one of the most ignorant things about railroading I've ever read in my life. I've long suspected that Mr. Sol can not 'connect the dots'. This writing by him further leads me in that direction. He just doesn't understand this stuff.Sorry Strawbridge, you are on the record as stating it was to make the trains lighter. Claiming that other people "don't understand" the argument requires people to read what you say, and then pretend you didn't say it..I was explicit early on in that discussion that overall friction on the train had nothing to do with the tare ratio, that loading on axles and train speed were the only train factors that could be included in the Davis Equation, since it would be useless to include the tare ratio since that had nothing to do with the axle loading on a loaded car. Nothing.You babbled on for three pages arguing that railroads were trying to make trains lighter. That air resistance had little to do with horsepower needs. Then when you realized you had goofed up yet again, you tried to morph it, as usual, into an argument that railroads were doing a good thing by improving tare. Which had zero to do with axle loading which was increasing, not decreasing. Your usual sleight of hand change of the subject.Strawbridge:The most significant resistance factor is the grade. You can either pile on the power or reduce the tare weight to deal with the grades. Strawbridge, 8/26/06, 2:05 a.m.:But they pale in comparison to reducing the weight you have to drag up a hill. Strawbridge: 8/26/06, 11: 22 p.m. :No, you're wrong agiain. They've reduced weight. What do you think aluminum gondolas do? .... They did this to reduce train weight. The problem for you is, you actually said it. The record is clear and complete on that item. Aluminum gons didn't reduce the train weight. They allowed more product to be carried on the same axle loading. The "train weight" stayed the same. Aluminum had zero to do with the resistance factors encountered by the train which needed to be overcome by horsepower. You were simply wrong.You didn't know what you were talking about. Reducing tare weight wasn't for the purpose of reducing train weight, it was for the purpose of improving the economic efficiency of the train movement. Reducing train weight was not part of that picture, rather the reverse.As usual, you got it backwards. You didn't understand it, and no one is putting words in your mouth by pointing it out. You put them there all by yourself. I won't say it was the most ignorant thing I have ever read in railroading. You've written a lot.
greyhounds wrote: This has to be one of the most ignorant things about railroading I've ever read in my life. I've long suspected that Mr. Sol can not 'connect the dots'. This writing by him further leads me in that direction. He just doesn't understand this stuff.
The problem for you is, you actually said it. The record is clear and complete on that item. Aluminum gons didn't reduce the train weight. They allowed more product to be carried on the same axle loading. The "train weight" stayed the same. Aluminum had zero to do with the resistance factors encountered by the train which needed to be overcome by horsepower. You were simply wrong.You didn't know what you were talking about. Reducing tare weight wasn't for the purpose of reducing train weight, it was for the purpose of improving the economic efficiency of the train movement. Reducing train weight was not part of that picture, rather the reverse.As usual, you got it backwards. You didn't understand it, and no one is putting words in your mouth by pointing it out. You put them there all by yourself. I won't say it was the most ignorant thing I have ever read in railroading. You've written a lot.
OK, we have reached the inevitable point where Mr. Sol claims that:
I said what he says I said because he says that I said it.
Did Not!
Say Good Night Mikey. You make Gracie look smart.
arbfbe wrote:I have to agree with Michael on this one. While aluminum cars made the mty train lighter the loaded trains actually increased in weight. The reason was the railroads increased the load per car account the lighter cars allowed for more freight load but then they also increased the number of cars per train as well as increasing the loaded weight of the cars from 220,000 lbs to 286,000 lbs. Even if the number of cars had remained the same the loaded train would still weigh more. If they had kept the number of cars the same and kept the load the same then the loaded train would be lighter but then that is not the way the railroad industry works.
Well you can agree with anyone you wish to agree with.
But you do agree that they took weight out of the train by reducing the tare. Which is what I said.
arbfbe wrote: The only way public money will be used to upgrade these lines is if the State of Montana siezes them in a Imminent Domain action. Then the state will still need to find some way to connect them to a rail system who wants to use them. MRL will be reluctant since that just moves the connection problem farther down the line. Who can force a carrier to provide service on tracks they do not own?
Assuming that action would pass muster with the courts, Montana would still need neighboring states to do the same thing at the same time so that the tracks are freed for multiple use from commodity origin to destination. Otherwise, Montana would be on an island, with only UP via Monida Pass or CP via Sweetwater as potential competition suitors. Neither route offers much in the way of an improvement over BNSF's routes to the West Coast for Montana export grain.
Now, if Idaho and Washington were to do the same thing, then the list of likely transporter participants grows exponentially.
futuremodal wrote: arbfbe wrote: The only way public money will be used to upgrade these lines is if the State of Montana siezes them in a Imminent Domain action. Then the state will still need to find some way to connect them to a rail system who wants to use them. MRL will be reluctant since that just moves the connection problem farther down the line. Who can force a carrier to provide service on tracks they do not own? Assuming that action would pass muster with the courts, Montana would still need neighboring states to do the same thing at the same time so that the tracks are freed for multiple use from commodity origin to destination. Otherwise, Montana would be on an island, with only UP via Monida Pass or CP via Sweetwater as potential competition suitors. Neither route offers much in the way of an improvement over BNSF's routes to the West Coast for Montana export grain. Now, if Idaho and Washington were to do the same thing, then the list of likely transporter participants grows exponentially.
I see that you still have little respect for the Fifth Article of Amendment to the United States Constitution. Also consider that a multistate eminent domain suit would take a very long time to work its way through the various courts. If the states happened to win, where would they come up with the money to purchase the property? More taxes would be political suicide.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: futuremodal wrote: arbfbe wrote: The only way public money will be used to upgrade these lines is if the State of Montana siezes them in a Imminent Domain action. Then the state will still need to find some way to connect them to a rail system who wants to use them. MRL will be reluctant since that just moves the connection problem farther down the line. Who can force a carrier to provide service on tracks they do not own? Assuming that action would pass muster with the courts, Montana would still need neighboring states to do the same thing at the same time so that the tracks are freed for multiple use from commodity origin to destination. Otherwise, Montana would be on an island, with only UP via Monida Pass or CP via Sweetwater as potential competition suitors. Neither route offers much in the way of an improvement over BNSF's routes to the West Coast for Montana export grain. Now, if Idaho and Washington were to do the same thing, then the list of likely transporter participants grows exponentially. I see that you still have little respect for the Fifth Article of Amendment to the United States Constitution. Also consider that a multistate eminent domain suit would take a very long time to work its way through the various courts. If the states happened to win, where would they come up with the money to purchase the property? More taxes would be political suicide.
Don't try playing holier than thou now, when you know perfectly well the railroads themselves used Eminent Domain to obtain the initial right of way. In principle, ED is supposed to be reserved for public entities, not private, and the purpose of ED is to obtain a public good, e.g. public access. It certainly makes more sense for a State consortium to use ED to facilitate that public usage caveat than it is to use ED for private entities which subsequently bar that public access.
More taxes would be political suicide? If the railroads are forced to pay into the Highway Trust Fund via a diesel fuel tax (as suggested by UPS and yours truly, e.g. great minds think alike!), how is that political suicide? If anything, the public will appreciate the inclusion of railroads which heretofore have been exempted from paying that tax. Tax fairness plays very well with the public. Since railroads are now drawing from that Fund, it is appropriate that they pay into it as well.
Personally, I prefer land grants to States such as Montana, Idaho, and Washington e.g. states that have significant (and property tax exempt) holdings of federally owned land within their borders. Those land grants themselves would more than pay for the assessed value of railroad ROW.
JSGreen wrote:"Personally, I prefer land grants to States such as Montana, Idaho, and Washington e.g. states that have significant (and property tax exempt) holdings of federally owned land within their borders. Those land grants themselves would more than pay for the assessed value of railroad ROW."So, are you advocating that the FEDS reimburse the states' cost of creating a new RR by giving them National Forest and BLM land? Are they supposed to then turn around and sell that land to developers to raise the money? No, thanks. That is a one dimensional solution to a preceived problem -- and I think I can relax, because not enough people perceive this to be a problem, so there will not be a grass roots effort to make it happen.
Most of the Western States use their state land holdings to fund schools, etc. using practical, environmentally sustainable resource utilization. It is only the federal government that seems to lose money with it's land holdings, and not coincidently it is the federal lands that have the worst environmental record. Since many Western States have more than 25% of the land within their borders under federal control, it makes sense - both environmentally and economically - if a large portion of these mismanaged federal lands were turned over to the states for more localized control.
And you are wrong regarding the problem of federal land ownership in States such as Idaho and Nevada - there is a large and growing grass roots effort to get the management of these lands away from the dunderheads back East and return more managerial control of public lands over to States and localities. Most reasoned people will acknowledge that localized control makes sense, and only the extreme partisans think otherwise.
futuremodal wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: futuremodal wrote: arbfbe wrote: The only way public money will be used to upgrade these lines is if the State of Montana siezes them in a Imminent Domain action. Then the state will still need to find some way to connect them to a rail system who wants to use them. MRL will be reluctant since that just moves the connection problem farther down the line. Who can force a carrier to provide service on tracks they do not own? Assuming that action would pass muster with the courts, Montana would still need neighboring states to do the same thing at the same time so that the tracks are freed for multiple use from commodity origin to destination. Otherwise, Montana would be on an island, with only UP via Monida Pass or CP via Sweetwater as potential competition suitors. Neither route offers much in the way of an improvement over BNSF's routes to the West Coast for Montana export grain. Now, if Idaho and Washington were to do the same thing, then the list of likely transporter participants grows exponentially. I see that you still have little respect for the Fifth Article of Amendment to the United States Constitution. Also consider that a multistate eminent domain suit would take a very long time to work its way through the various courts. If the states happened to win, where would they come up with the money to purchase the property? More taxes would be political suicide. Don't try playing holier than thou now, when you know perfectly well the railroads themselves used Eminent Domain to obtain the initial right of way.
Don't try playing holier than thou now, when you know perfectly well the railroads themselves used Eminent Domain to obtain the initial right of way.
And to think of all the people and buisnesses that were displaced in the late 1800's, I am floored that there was not more of an outcry
futuremodal wrote: And you are wrong regarding the problem of federal land ownership in States such as Idaho and Nevada - there is a large and growing grass roots effort to get the management of these lands away from the dunderheads back East and return more managerial control of public lands over to States and localities. Most reasoned people will acknowledge that localized control makes sense, and only the extreme partisans think otherwise.
JSGreen wrote: futuremodal wrote: And you are wrong regarding the problem of federal land ownership in States such as Idaho and Nevada - there is a large and growing grass roots effort to get the management of these lands away from the dunderheads back East and return more managerial control of public lands over to States and localities. Most reasoned people will acknowledge that localized control makes sense, and only the extreme partisans think otherwise.How can I be wrong about something I didnt discuss? I asked a question, posed an answer, and commented about the desirability of same. To whit..."So, are you advocating that the FEDS reimburse the states' cost of creating a new RR by giving them National Forest and BLM land? Are they supposed to then turn around and sell that land to developers to raise the money? " src="../emoticons/icon_smile_8ball.gif">No, thanks. "Be more careful in your reading and attribution in the future, please.
I'll state this as simply as possible to give you the best possible odds of comprehending the point at hand:
1. States manage their lands as an endowment. That means they retain ownership of the land, but use the resources from that land as a way to derive revenue.
2. Therefore, a land grant to the States for the purpose of facilitating the purchase of railroad ROW's would not subsequently be "sold to developers" to raise that cash, but would be utilized as an endowment.
3. A more liberal approach would involve an actual land sale, but with the caveat of retaining prevailing public access and forbidding on site development. Thus again, there would be no selling of the land to developers.
This way, it's a win-win for everyone except those who wish to repress the economies of the West.
futuremodal wrote: I'll state this as simply as possible to give you the best possible odds of comprehending the point at hand:
JSGreen wrote:Item. Just giving land to states for trust is NOT going to raise the kind of capital required to accomplish the purchase and refurbishment of right of way. Few states have bucks just sitting around to do that. If the goal is accquire and rebuild, that requires cash. Just having land doesnt necessarily generate cash.
The idea is that a land transfer provides an incentive for states to issue bonds to raise the necessary cash. South Dakota used its bonding capacity to finance its rail acquisitions in the early 1980s and certainly is how most states undertake large projects of that sort.
Recall, the original NP and CP/UP land grants didn't offer any cash to the railroad companies either. Few companies had "bucks just sitting around" to build a transcontinental railroad and the land grants certainly did not provide direct cash. But they did provide an incentive to the construction efforts, and provided collateral for the companies to issue ... bonds.
In the case of the states mentioned above, they have been treated differently than earlier admissions to the Union, in which federal land had historically been transferred to the states or sold off -- precisely to encourage development of the states. In an earlier phase of land grants to railroads by states -- during a time when states themselves were sometimes barred by their own constitutions from lending money or credit for "internal improvements" -- the land was almost always former federal land.
MILW, GN, CNW were all "state land grant" roads in one form or another, for example, all organized in Northwest Ordinance states, receiving both federal and state land grants, compared to IC, UP, CP and NP which were federal land grant railroads.
GN, for instance, was granted several million acres and several million dollars in Minnesota state bonds. Minnesota state grants in 1857 and 1862 gave ten sections per mile of track, for a total of 3,256,790 acres, which was the same grant as the original UP federal grant -- ten sections per mile and substantially more than the Illinois Central. Oddly, IC is recognized as a land grant road, while GN, for some reason, is given a pass as having benefitted from land grants.
JSGreen wrote: futuremodal wrote: I'll state this as simply as possible to give you the best possible odds of comprehending the point at hand: So, who peed in your Wheaties? There is no need to act like a jerk. Item. Just giving land to states for trust is NOT going to raise the kind of capital required to accomplish the purchase and refurbishment of right of way. Few states have bucks just sitting around to do that. If the goal is accquire and rebuild, that requires cash. Just having land doesnt necessarily generate cash. So, thanks for sharing all of your great and unfailing knowledge with us mere mortals on all the subjects on which you are an expert (which appears to be all of them). So, unless you are a candidate for public office, I for one would request a little civililty in the discourse...
Anyone reading this dialog will see that it is you who is being pedantic and fit for a hissy. So, if indeed you want "civility" in this discussion, you can start by being more straightforward and less melodramatic.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.