by Gilbert B Norman
F74265A wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:43 pmMr. F7, I'm drawing upon the trackage rights, including ratemaking authority, that UP granted (surely out of brotherly love ) to the BNSF in order to complete their merger with SP and CNW. Coming to mind are the rights BNSF gained over the entire D&RGW and to the Toyota Bexar County TX facility that is deep into the T&NO West of San Antonio.Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:35 pm .... would some party in interest seek to have CSX access, including ratemaking, to Searsport granted....Service from two competitive roads would certainly make the Port more attractive....I’m confused as to why CP would ever be required to grant concessions to a competitor in the context of a transaction to which they are not a party....
At present, access to Searsport by only one road (CP-M, SOO, or whatever US subsidiary CP is dong business through) is one thing. From the discussion here, I've drawn that bulk commodities are what presently comprises the traffic.
But what if a revitalized second road, i.e. PAR-CSX, with a far more favorable routing to the Midwest, i.e. the NYC, and a routing to the Southeast enters the picture and the maritime companies wish to call at Searsport with high value traffic. Now there's more for both CP and CSX.
Such a petition to the Surfboard could easily come from a shipper; and any shipper prefers to have two competing roads than one with a monopoly.