DM&E Financing revisited.

[Murphy Siding]

     Meanwhile....back at the DM&E.....Overview of what I'm getting out of this discussion:  Because of the capital situation of rail investment, the only way to finance something like this is with Government loans.  Both BNSF and UP used some Government loans to get  their lines built/built up into the PRB.  The DM&E project would bring jobs and economic improvement to (most of>>>don't ask Rochester) the areas it impacts.  I'm in agreement with most of these ideas.

     I do find myself skepticle about some things.  Is it really neccessary to add a third railroad into the PRB?  Why does it require more than two to have competition?  Why isn't DM&E heading to the northern PRB, where BNSF has the field all to itself?  Other than glittering generalities, is there anything proposed to put additional non-coal freight on the line?  Where will this coal go?  Will DM&E send coal down the Mississippi, at Winona, Minnesota?  Will DM&E have to partner up with other railroads to get the job done?  Do BNSF and UP have enough economic power to keep this from happening? 

     What are your thoughts?

[Anonymous]

 

    

Did I mention that BNSF is the NIMBY in this case?

     Can you explain this thought a little better?  Is BNSF openly opposing the DM&E loan?

Yes.  Matt Rose, the BNSF honcho, has gone on record as stating the DM&E project is "bad public policy".

I guess such things are only "good public policy" when the federal aid goes to the current rail oligarchs, as opposed to rail oligarchial wannabes.

Matt Rose gets paid to take care of his investors.  Why on Earth would he think the DME is a good idea for his investors?

Because the DM&E PRB line would make a nice capacity addition to all the PRB railroads, as it's East-West profile would reduce BNSF transit time between the Orin line and the Alliance sub.  All BNSF has to do is to play nice, and it is likely DM&E will be willing to rent out any extra capacity they might have on that portion, in order to maximize the line's revenue potential.

But of course that's not how US rail execs think, given the long sorry history of the integrated closed access mindset.  Geez, did Feudalism even last that long?

In that last paragraph, you can delete the words "US rail" and still be accurate. Why would a private, for-profit company want to support the expansion of the competition? You'd think someone that claims a bookkeeping background would know that. You can start by telling us how much K-Mart supported the expansion of the WalMart stores over the last decade or so. That would make as much sense as what you're suggesting.

You all have got to get off this myth of US railroads being the collective poster child exemplifying "a private, for-profit company".  There's simply too much history of federal aid for railroading in the US to use them as such.

And that gets to the gist of the point of the matter.....

I have not said BNSF should for all intents and purposes "support a competitor".  Rather, given the current lack of capacity and competition in the PRB, BNSF should use the opportunity to carve out their own capacity niche via the inevitable DM&E project.  There's more than enough business there to support all three railroads and still stay ahead of the demand curve, e.g. all three roads will enjoy pricing power for PRB deliveries (unless the Democrats take over DC and all coal fired power plants are shut down to *save* us from Global Warming.)

That being said, I don't think I have ever seen a company come out in public opposition of a potential competitor in such a shameful brazen way as BNSF has regarding the DM&E project.  No KMart exec has ever voiced opposition to a Walmart that I know of (most Walmart opposition comes from mom and pop types, or more succinctly extreme lefties posing as mom and pop types!).  I have never heard of a McDonalds manager publicly voicing opposition to a Wendy's or a Burger King.  No trucking company that I know of has ever voiced public opposition to the entry of another truckload carrier into even the small markets, no barge line has ever voiced public opposition to the entry of another barge line onto our waterways, no airline has ever voiced public opposition to the entry of another air line into small air markets.

Oh, for sure there's private opposition in all these examples, that's par for the course in business.  But outright public opposition?  Not at this scale.

[TomDiehl]

 

    

Did I mention that BNSF is the NIMBY in this case?

     Can you explain this thought a little better?  Is BNSF openly opposing the DM&E loan?

Yes.  Matt Rose, the BNSF honcho, has gone on record as stating the DM&E project is "bad public policy".

I guess such things are only "good public policy" when the federal aid goes to the current rail oligarchs, as opposed to rail oligarchial wannabes.

Matt Rose gets paid to take care of his investors.  Why on Earth would he think the DME is a good idea for his investors?

Because the DM&E PRB line would make a nice capacity addition to all the PRB railroads, as it's East-West profile would reduce BNSF transit time between the Orin line and the Alliance sub.  All BNSF has to do is to play nice, and it is likely DM&E will be willing to rent out any extra capacity they might have on that portion, in order to maximize the line's revenue potential.

But of course that's not how US rail execs think, given the long sorry history of the integrated closed access mindset.  Geez, did Feudalism even last that long?

In that last paragraph, you can delete the words "US rail" and still be accurate. Why would a private, for-profit company want to support the expansion of the competition? You'd think someone that claims a bookkeeping background would know that. You can start by telling us how much K-Mart supported the expansion of the WalMart stores over the last decade or so. That would make as much sense as what you're suggesting.

[Poppa_Zit]

Post started, then deleted upon further review. Decided not to waste any more time responding to silliness.

[nanaimo73]

  How far out of context do we have to take poor Murphy's thread?

(Sorry Murph)

      I'm stiil trying to figure out the riddle from Dale (Nanaimo73) about the significance of August 12th.(?)

Murph, I'll let you know by personal message. It was a guess that I now believe is wrong. 

[Murphy Siding]

Surely such a self-righteous soul as yourself would have done this already, I'm guessing.  I, on the other hand, am a greedy european who constructs mammoth statues to my greatness (on other peoples' land, mind you) while laughing at my victories over the weaker peoples of this little ole planet of mine.  (Sarcasm intended)

Tee-Hee!

 

I've been declared a "righteous white dude" by a Native American friend of mine, he tells me I can stay as his invitee.

Funny how a simple (and accurate, I will  point out) comment I made to Michael Sol has been picked up  and made a seperately debated issue by the same band of merry pranksters.

How far out of context do we have to take poor Murphy's thread?

(Sorry Murph)

       I guess I'm just waiting for the music to stop so we can all grab a chair!  It's not vey often, that we can layer this many different  debates into one thread. 

[Anonymous]

Surely such a self-righteous soul as yourself would have done this already, I'm guessing.  I, on the other hand, am a greedy european who constructs mammoth statues to my greatness (on other peoples' land, mind you) while laughing at my victories over the weaker peoples of this little ole planet of mine.  (Sarcasm intended)

Tee-Hee!

 

I've been declared a "righteous white dude" by a Native American friend of mine, he tells me I can stay as his invitee.

Funny how a simple (and accurate, I will  point out) comment I made to Michael Sol has been picked up  and made a seperately debated issue by the same band of merry pranksters.

How far out of context do we have to take poor Murphy's thread?

(Sorry Murph)

[solzrules]

First of all, I don't need anyone to hijack what I write and use my words to twist and misinterpret them

 Coming from a  guy who often skews intended meaning to indulge his own fascination with sarcasm, you have so much room to talk.    If you are trying to scold me, I remain unimpressed

I suggest you check your history of American Indian tribes before you point fingers and mount a defense. Some tribes were peace-loving, and unfortunately too often were massacred into extinction . 

OK,  humoring your premise just for my own amusement, who did the people commonly  referred to as the 'native americans"   supposedly steal the land from?

I think the "native americans" are grandfathered in. Absent a proveable timeline to the contrary, your  counterclaims are rather... impotent..  lol!.

Sure, there was infighting amongst them, just as there has always been among euro countries.

Does the fact that France and England have had wars between them, invalidate France's claim to France. England's claim to England?

What makes Germany's claim to German soil any more valid that the Native american's claim to their own homeland?


That ethnocentric  belief of self importance among the euros,   and the subsequent  pretense that stealing in the name of an omnipotent superstition is justifiable,  is an absurd fairytale..

And as an ethnocentric self-improtant euro, when do you propose to return your property to its rightful 'owners'?

Surely such a self-righteous soul as yourself would have done this already, I'm guessing.  I, on the other hand, am a greedy european who constructs mammoth statues to my greatness (on other peoples' land, mind you) while laughing at my victories over the weaker peoples of this little ole planet of mine.  (Sarcasm intended)

Tee-Hee!

 

[Anonymous]

First of all, I don't need anyone to hijack what I write and use my words to twist and misinterpret them

 Coming from a  guy who often skews intended meaning to indulge his own fascination with sarcasm, you have so much room to talk.    If you are trying to scold me, I remain unimpressed

I suggest you check your history of American Indian tribes before you point fingers and mount a defense. Some tribes were peace-loving, and unfortunately too often were massacred into extinction . 

OK,  humoring your premise just for my own amusement, who did the people commonly  referred to as the 'native americans"   supposedly steal the land from?

I think the "native americans" are grandfathered in. Absent a proveable timeline to the contrary, your  counterclaims are rather... impotent..  lol!.

Sure, there was infighting amongst them, just as there has always been among euro countries.

Does the fact that France and England have had wars between them, invalidate France's claim to France. England's claim to England?

What makes Germany's claim to German soil any more valid that the Native american's claim to their own homeland?


That ethnocentric  belief of self importance among the euros,   and the subsequent  pretense that stealing in the name of an omnipotent superstition is justifiable,  is an absurd fairytale..

[Murphy Siding]

  All I know for certain, is when my ancestors *discovered* America in the 1100's, there was someone already there to meet the boat.

1100?!  I thought the Irish didn't get here until Prohibition was repealed.

     Actually,my father's ancestors came from Norway.  My mother's ancestors were Irish, and became homesteaders in Montana.  Fortuneately for me, they don't grow wheat.

[nanaimo73]

Murph-

If you look on page two of this link, DME says it is a loan that will be paid back with interest.

http://www.dmerail.com/News/Myths%20and%20Facts.pdf

Myth: DM&E is seeking a government subsidized loan that has no collateral.

Fact: The loan would be fully secured with collateral. There is no taxpayer

subsidization. It will be paid back to the government by DM&E with interest. Further, the

Congressional Budget Office has specifically determined that the FRA loan does not cost

anything to taxpayers, and by law has determined that the loan does not constitute a

subsidy.

[Anonymous]

 

    

Did I mention that BNSF is the NIMBY in this case?

     Can you explain this thought a little better?  Is BNSF openly opposing the DM&E loan?

Yes.  Matt Rose, the BNSF honcho, has gone on record as stating the DM&E project is "bad public policy".

I guess such things are only "good public policy" when the federal aid goes to the current rail oligarchs, as opposed to rail oligarchial wannabes.

Matt Rose gets paid to take care of his investors.  Why on Earth would he think the DME is a good idea for his investors?

Because the DM&E PRB line would make a nice capacity addition to all the PRB railroads, as it's East-West profile would reduce BNSF transit time between the Orin line and the Alliance sub.  All BNSF has to do is to play nice, and it is likely DM&E will be willing to rent out any extra capacity they might have on that portion, in order to maximize the line's revenue potential.

But of course that's not how US rail execs think, given the long sorry history of the integrated closed access mindset.  Geez, did Feudalism even last that long?

[Anonymous]

FM-

1) He's Norwegian.

I know.  He's mentioned that before, but I thought he said he was also part Irish, like me.

2) Are you in favor of CREATE, as it would benefit American railroads, or against it, as it would benefit BNSF ? Or is it outside the PNW and not of interest to you ?

CREATE seems to be a pro-Chicago thing.  You're opening up a whole 'nother can of worms there, as I would prefer transcon traffic completely bypass Chi-town.  There's other villages that would make just as apt East-West gateways if not better.  It sounds like another "Big Dig" just waiting to happen.

But if we must have it, then at least it should benefit the up-and-comers like KCS and DM&E as much as the BNSF's and UP's of the world.

[nanaimo73]

FM-

1) He's Norwegian.

2) Are you in favor of CREATE, as it would benefit American railroads, or against it, as it would benefit BNSF ? Or is it outside the PNW and not of interest to you ?

[Poppa_Zit]

At least the "so called" native americans did not take the land under force or duress when they originally occupied it.

     I hate to get off track here, when we are all so good at staying on track......but-  Where I live, the white men took the land from the Sioux, who had, in fact, forcefully taken it from the Mandans and I *think* the Arikaras.  The Sioux came here, after being forced out of Minn/Wisc by the Ojibawa, who were pushed west by the........and on and on.  All I know for certain, is when my ancestors *discovered* America in the 1100's, there was someone already there to meet the boat.

Same here in Northern Illinois, Murph.

To wit:

"In 1667 the French priest Allouez met a party of Illinois Indians who had come to La Pointe on Lake Superior to trade. In 1673 Marquette, while descending the Mississippi, found the Peoria and Moingwena west of the river near the mouth of the Des Moines, but before his return they had moved to the neighborhood of the present Peoria, and most of the other Illinois tribes, except the Mitchigamea, were then on Illinois River. In 1700 the Kaskaskia moved to southern Illinois and settled on Kaskaskia River. About the time of La Salle's visit in 1682 the Illinois were at war with a number of neighboring peoples, and the Iroquois, who were then just beginning raids against them, caused them heavy losses in the succeeding years.
     The murder of Pontiac (tribal chieftan) by a Kaskaskia Indian set the northern tribes in motion against the Illinois and in the ensuing wars the latter were reduced to a fraction of their former strength and the Sauk, Foxes, Kickapoo, and Potawatomi dispossessed them of the greater part of their territories. The remnant settled near the French at Kaskaskia, where they continued to decline in numbers until, in 1800, only about 150 were left. In 1832 the survivors sold their lands and removed west of the Mississippi, to the present Kansas, whence they removed again in 1867 and became consolidated with the Wea and Piankashaw in the northeastern corner of the present State of Oklahoma."

Source: Access Geneology: Indian Tribal records

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/illinois/index.htm 

 

[bobwilcox]

 

    

Did I mention that BNSF is the NIMBY in this case?

     Can you explain this thought a little better?  Is BNSF openly opposing the DM&E loan?

Yes.  Matt Rose, the BNSF honcho, has gone on record as stating the DM&E project is "bad public policy".

I guess such things are only "good public policy" when the federal aid goes to the current rail oligarchs, as opposed to rail oligarchial wannabes.

Matt Rose gets paid to take care of his investors.  Why on Earth would he think the DME is a good idea for his investors?

[Anonymous]

 

    

Did I mention that BNSF is the NIMBY in this case?

     Can you explain this thought a little better?  Is BNSF openly opposing the DM&E loan?

Yes.  Matt Rose, the BNSF honcho, has gone on record as stating the DM&E project is "bad public policy".

I guess such things are only "good public policy" when the federal aid goes to the current rail oligarchs, as opposed to rail oligarchial wannabes.

[Anonymous]

  All I know for certain, is when my ancestors *discovered* America in the 1100's, there was someone already there to meet the boat.

1100?!  I thought the Irish didn't get here until Prohibition was repealed.

[Poppa_Zit]

The  land wasn't "free",  it was stolen from the Native Americans

And they came from where, got it how, and from whom?

I seriously doubt there were any indigenous people on this land mass. The so-called Native Americans were here before the Europeans showed up, 

At least the "so called" native americans did not take the land under force or duress when they originally occupied it.

Yes, I consider euro-occupation of North America to be a "stolen" presence.

  and therefore having such claiming rights.

My my, now THERE is convenient thinking , if ever there was such a case.

I'm sure you, Pizarro, and the whole "manifest destiny" bunch  could have had an orgy of self indulgence with that one.

First possession might indicate otherwise.

Seems like even the hucksters who bartered trinkets and beads for manhattan island had a more ethical view than the one you propose

First of all, I don't need anyone to hijack what I write and use my words to twist and misinterpret them into something unrelated that fits their liberal agenda.

I suggest you check your history of American Indian tribes before you point fingers and mount a defense. Some tribes were peace-loving, and unfortunately too often were massacred into extinction (can you spell "genocide?") by ruthless, savage tribes who wanted their land and resources. In America, this occupation-and-displacement/extinction scenario had been going on for centuries -- long before your Pizarro and the Manifest Destiny gang arrived. What made Europeans different than all previous invader/occupiers of North America was their superior technology -- especially in the area of weaponry.

And when I referred to "claiming rights" please use the entire quote as I wrote it:

"I seriously doubt there were any indigenous people on this land mass. The so-called Native Americans were here before the Europeans showed up, which is something totally different from originating here and therefore having such claiming rights."

 I stand on what I wrote in its unspun form. Now I will wait for you to next defend whatever people or culture the so-called Native Americans "stole" it from.

As I wrote, there is a big difference between "first possession" and "then-current possession." History starts when history starts, not when it's convenient for your arguments. 

[Murphy Siding]

At least the "so called" native americans did not take the land under force or duress when they originally occupied it.

     I hate to get off track here, when we are all so good at staying on track......but-  Where I live, the white men took the land from the Sioux, who had, in fact, forcefully taken it from the Mandans and I *think* the Arikaras.  The Sioux came here, after being forced out of Minn/Wisc by the Ojibawa, who were pushed west by the........and on and on.  All I know for certain, is when my ancestors *discovered* America in the 1100's, there was someone already there to meet the boat.

[solzrules]

The  land wasn't "free",  it was stolen from the Native Americans

And they came from where, got it how, and from whom?

I seriously doubt there were any indigenous people on this land mass. The so-called Native Americans were here before the Europeans showed up, 

At least the "so called" native americans did not take the land under force or duress when they originally occupied it.

Yes, I consider euro-occupation of North America to be a "stolen" presence.

totally different from originating here and therefore having such claiming rights.

My my, now THERE is convenient thinking , if ever there was such a case.

I'm sure you, Pizarro, and the whole "manifest destiny" bunch  could have had an orgy of self indulgence with that one.

 

So does this mean that in order to ease your pained conscience you will lead the way and give your property back to the native americans?  ('Native' is questionable- I have heard it said that the native americans most likely crossed from the present day Russia via the Bearing Straight - before it was flooded over with a rise in the sea level.  I guess global warming was a problem back in the year 100 A.D. too, then, huh?)

[Anonymous]

The  land wasn't "free",  it was stolen from the Native Americans

And they came from where, got it how, and from whom?

I seriously doubt there were any indigenous people on this land mass. The so-called Native Americans were here before the Europeans showed up, 

At least the "so called" native americans did not take the land under force or duress when they originally occupied it.

Yes, I consider euro-occupation of North America to be a "stolen" presence.

  and therefore having such claiming rights.

My my, now THERE is convenient thinking , if ever there was such a case.

I'm sure you, Pizarro, and the whole "manifest destiny" bunch  could have had an orgy of self indulgence with that one.

First possession might indicate otherwise.

Seems like even the hucksters who bartered trinkets and beads for manhattan island had a more ethical view than the one you propose

[MichaelSol]

Good points.

The FRA has been directed by Congress to loan money to the rail industry.

From the FRA website:

"The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998 (TIFIA), via the Department of Transportation (DOT), makes three forms of credit assistance available – secured (direct) loans, loan guarantees and standby lines of credit – for surface transportation projects of national or regional significance. 

"The TIFIA credit program’s fundamental goal is to leverage Federal funds by attracting substantial private and other non-Federal investment in critical improvements to the nation’s surface transportation system."

I imagine that DM&E's private bankers no doubt made it a condition of private financing to apply for such loans -- that would be almost a given that they would -- in order to spread out the risk, which is what private bankers like to do.

Also:

"The Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program was established by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and amended by the Safe Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) . Under this program the Administrator is authorized to provide direct loans and loan guarantees up to $35.0 billion. Up to $7.0 billion is reserved for projects benefiting freight railroads other than Class I carriers.

"The funding may be used to:

• Acquire, improve, or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or facilities, including track, components of track, bridges, yards, buildings and shops;
  
  
• Refinance outstanding debt incurred for the purposes listed above; and
  
  
• Develop or establish new intermodal or railroad facilities

"Direct loans can fund up to 100% of a railroad project with repayment periods of up to 25 years and interest rates equal to the cost of borrowing to the government.

"Eligible borrowers include railroads, state and local governments, government-sponsored authorities and corporations, joint ventures that include at least one railroad, and limited option freight shippers who intend to construct a new rail connection."

This certainly all fits with noises that Matt Rose has been making lately about government "partnerships" with railroads for funding railroad projects upon the idea that such projects benefit society.

He probably didn't mean this one, however.

[solzrules]

idiotic nonsense

....and we see that when the NIMBY's run out of substance, they turn to these cheap tricks.

Congrats AG, you've just been nominated for membership in the Fratricidal Order of the Ilks!

And to think I was yelled at for posting something that had nothing to do with the DME 

Bert- Sorry if you took that as being yelled at.  Now would be a good time to ask everybody on this thread to please keep a civil discussion going.  We're all capable, I believe, of having a good discussion, with calling names, you muttonheads!()

 Anyway, I don't understand this thinking that since railroads were gived land grants over a HUNDRED years ago, that the DME is somehow entitled to an automatic loan from the goverment.  Look I'm a railfan, and I hope that DME line gets built, but not because they are "owed" the same thing that the UP and NP got back in the 1800's.  I think that the DME should be built because it can make a profit, which I have my doubts about.  If the line is such a slam dunk in the money making catagory, why are private banks not funding the entire project? 

I couldn't agree with you more.

 

Keep in mind that private banks ARE bankrolling over half of the project, although I admit the numbers do not add up based on what I have read.  Estimated cost of construction = 1-2 billion. Total project cost?  6 billion.  I am not sure what DME is doing with all of the money, but assuming they are responsible businessmen I don't think they would take on more debt then what they need. 

As for the government providing loans to rr's-I am not sure what the big argument is.  Again, the FRA's history on this is impeccable.  Certainly that doesn't mean they couldn't make a mistake in the future, but their past track record indicates they know how to make a loan.  I would trust their decision. 

The FRA has made loans to the UP, BNSF and a host of other railroads.  Is this capitalism?  No, not really.  If the rr's couldn't sell people on the project in the private sector then we have passed the point of calling this a purely capitalist project.  However, the private sector also has a history of abusing railroads.  Projects that entail such massive amounts of capitol with a long period before the rr or the bank would see any return on investment may turn a lot of instant gratification investors off - or they will sign on but only with a very high interest rate.  Speculative interest rates like that will hamstring the rr from fully utilizing the line - a big chunk of money would have to go to pay to fund the debt instead.  The government's loan serves to reign in speculative interest rates and keep the railroad in a realistic ball park of interest payments.  Besides, if you had the opportunity to borrow 3 billion at 4% instead of 8 % in the private sector wouldn't you do it?  (Numbers are fictional).  What if the the DME COULD finance the whole project with private investors but instead they are trying to save tens of millions of dollars in interest costs by funding part of the project with low interest loans?  Makes smart business sense to me.  If the loans are available why not use it? 

Besides - this amount of money absolutely pails in comparison to the airline industry - and industry that has defaulted more than once on loans from the government and private investors.  Not only that, after 9/11 we gave the airlines what amounted to a 40 billion dollar present right?  Who paid that back?  I would be far more concerned about my tax dollars going to an industry that has major business model problems like the airlines instead of it going to rr's as loans that have to be paid back with interest. 

As a side note I was out hunting Saturday and this morning.  I didn't get a shot off but on the way home from hunting I hit a huge buck with my truck.  Of course, it was probably just  a wake-up bump for the deer - he just got up and ran away (I think he was smiling at me too).  Now I have a truck with a mashed front end, and no vension to show for it. 

[Poppa_Zit]

The  land wasn't "free",  it was stolen from the Native Americans

And they came from where, got it how, and from whom?

I seriously doubt there were any indigenous people on this land mass. The so-called Native Americans were here before the Europeans showed up, which is something totally different from originating here and therefore having such claiming rights. 

[Murphy Siding]

idiotic nonsense

....and we see that when the NIMBY's run out of substance, they turn to these cheap tricks.

Congrats AG, you've just been nominated for membership in the Fratricidal Order of the Ilks!

And to think I was yelled at for posting something that had nothing to do with the DME 

Bert- Sorry if you took that as being yelled at.  Now would be a good time to ask everybody on this thread to please keep a civil discussion going.  We're all capable, I believe, of having a good discussion, with calling names, you muttonheads!()

 Anyway, I don't understand this thinking that since railroads were gived land grants over a HUNDRED years ago, that the DME is somehow entitled to an automatic loan from the goverment.  Look I'm a railfan, and I hope that DME line gets built, but not because they are "owed" the same thing that the UP and NP got back in the 1800's.  I think that the DME should be built because it can make a profit, which I have my doubts about.  If the line is such a slam dunk in the money making catagory, why are private banks not funding the entire project? 

I couldn't agree with you more.

[Murphy Siding]

The existing Western lines all got their starts through extraordinary government benevolence (unprecedented before or since), couldn't be economically justified at the time, shafted their private investors through corruption and bankruptcy, kept entirely their government largesse, and they dominate the railroad scene today -- having put their privately financed rivals out of business or absorbed them. Coincidence?

Who is complaining about DM&E?

     And that would be a case for approving the DM&E loan?  In my opinion, that's a little "out there".  With that kind of logic, you could justify having a 3rd party rob a bank and give you the money, becaus I had robbed the bank?

     You and Dave both seem to be saying that we need to give DM&E the loan simply to *get back* at BNSF and UP for all the *wrong* they've done.  It's sort of like saying a vote for DM&E is a vote against BNSF.  I'd rather see DM&E succeed on it's own merit.

Sometimes I wonder just where and how you end up with your particular POV on these issues.  Correcting injustice is not *getting back* at someone.  And the *wrong* such as it is was committed by the regulators in allowing the creation of this subsidized duopoly known as UP and BNSF.

Why is it *wrong* to right a wrong?

     My particular POV is based on my understanding of the opinion put forth by you and Michael.  Note that Michael replied to the same post, and did a pretty fair job of expaining his POV on the subject.  Your POV...(shrugs)....I'm not quite sure I understand that yet.  More than anything, it sounds to me, at least, to be little more than anti-BNSF ranting at times.

     As far as "Why is it *wrong* to right a wrong?".  That is the flip side of the cliche:  Do two wrongs make a right?

[Murphy Siding]

This was posted a while back in this thread, but here it is again.....

http://www.gotrac.org/index.cfm?page=267

"In fact, parts of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific (UP) coal hauling lines were built with FRA loans like the one that DM&E has applied for. In today’s dollars, the FRA loan for the UP line alone was $1.5 billion."

     OK.  I went back and re-read the link.  I see what you're saying now.

    

Did I mention that BNSF is the NIMBY in this case?

     Can you explain this thought a little better?  Is BNSF openly opposing the DM&E loan?

[n012944]

idiotic nonsense

....and we see that when the NIMBY's run out of substance, they turn to these cheap tricks.

Congrats AG, you've just been nominated for membership in the Fratricidal Order of the Ilks!

And to think I was yelled at for posting something that had nothing to do with the DME  Anyway, I don't understand this thinking that since railroads were gived land grants over a HUNDRED years ago, that the DME is somehow entitled to an automatic loan from the goverment.  Look I'm a railfan, and I hope that DME line gets built, but not because they are "owed" the same thing that the UP and NP got back in the 1800's.  I think that the DME should be built because it can make a profit, which I have my doubts about.  If the line is such a slam dunk in the money making catagory, why are private banks not funding the entire project? 

[MichaelSol]

The costs of entry are extraordinarily high for a railroad. Government assistance -- extraordinary government assistance in the form of free land,

You and Milton Friedman were not the best of friends I take it?
The  land wasn't "free",  it was stolen from the Native Americans

Well, that does make it second hand bank robbery ...