Bill to Strengthen STB Regulatory Powers.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 2:01 pmHowever, in all fairness, I think the Surfboard "has gone out of their way" during the '90's merger movement (not an issue at present with either KCS-CP or CSX-PAR as both are "end to end") to ensure that there were two roads serving any major traffic source.

Their influence was only in not approving a merger that would eliminate the final competition. What stops a railroad from deciding not to provide adequate service?

Sure, there are abandonment proceedings that are expected to prevent railroads from leaving a customer without service - but provide poor service for a few years and use the decreasing car count as a reason to abandon the line. Or sell off segments to short lines to do the final mile (often literally a mile). At best abandonment proceedings help make sure there is ONE railroad serving each customer. Not two. No guarantee of adequate competition.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 2:01 pm ...Such was the case with BNSF being granted both ratemaking and trackage over the entire D&RGW in the course of the latter's merger with the UP. Another example is the ratemaking access that BNSF was granted to a Toyota assembly plant in Bexar County, TX (near San Antonio).

Interesting, and I was not aware of these decisions. Mr. Norman: I'm curious whether you consider those "taking, under the 5th amendment," and therefore wrong/illegal?

For the most part, trackage rights aren't free, so it's not really a taking. BNSF has to pay UP to use those rights.

Why has this discussion missed the businesses that cannot move? Coal mines, agriculture, etc. They are being taken advantage of by the monoply's RRs.
Add in any kind of mining anything from frack sand, aggreate, colbalt, copper, iron ore, cement as the receiving customers can change over time, etc.

eolesen wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:43 pm For the most part, trackage rights aren't free, so it's not really a taking. BNSF has to pay UP to use those rights.

Of course Amtrak pays fees for its trackage use. Yet you and Mr. GBN consider it a "taking."

Mr. Rohr, I do not think there is an analogy between any road"s payment for trackage rights and that of the Amtrak "taking", beyond that there is a payment.

In the case of, say, BNSF using the UP/DRGW, those rates have been negotiated between the parties. There is also a set of rates known as the GMA.(General Manager's Association) Ratrs that largely provide for detours but also include trackage rights. From my first hand experience, or at least when I was in the industry, those rates are "generous".

By comparison, Amtrak’s reported remuneration can only be considered "bargain basement"; especially when Amtrak, or their Benefactors, expect a road to plan their operations around Amtrak’s needs.

The issue with me is that Amtrak, and their advocacy community, expects handling as if they were a high priority movement (what the BNSF calls a "Z"), yet hardly pays a rate commensurate with "giving them the railroad".

So much for addressing Amtrak affairs at a non-Amtrak forum.

justalurker66 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 7:18 pm

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 2:01 pmHowever, in all fairness, I think the Surfboard "has gone out of their way" during the '90's merger movement (not an issue at present with either KCS-CP or CSX-PAR as both are "end to end") to ensure that there were two roads serving any major traffic source.

Their influence was only in not approving a merger that would eliminate the final competition. What stops a railroad from deciding not to provide adequate service?

Sure, there are abandonment proceedings that are expected to prevent railroads from leaving a customer without service - but provide poor service for a few years and use the decreasing car count as a reason to abandon the line. Or sell off segments to short lines to do the final mile (often literally a mile). At best abandonment proceedings help make sure there is ONE railroad serving each customer. Not two. No guarantee of adequate competition.

Why should a railroad be forced to operate a line to service a customer that is not profitable? The customer is generally offered a rate, however high, that it would take to recoup those costs and continue service.

Luckily the Class Is are more inclined to lease or sell to a shortline these days in lieu of straight abandonment, which was the norm forever.

rohr turbo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:13 am Of course Amtrak pays fees for its trackage use. Yet you and Mr. GBN consider it a "taking."

Prof. Norman has already hit on why -- the difference in rates charged.

Frankly, if the Class 1's were to make public how little Amtrak is paying to access their property, shippers might not be too happy.

according to the thinking---- The telephone companies should not be required to provide POTS and internet to rural areas. even though it is not a full restitution for that service. Everyone pays a fee on their relephone bill. That fee does not off set the price of rhe service. The T-1 and T-2 repeaters every 1200 feet cost.

They aren't required to provide Internet, Internet is not regulated. However voice service is regulated, for safety reasons.

Poor comparison.

eolesen wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:12 pm Prof. Norman has already hit on why -- the difference in rates charged.

From my Googling, the 1996 UP/BNSF agreement charged trackage at $0.09 per car mile for empties ($0.50 for loads). In 2006, Amtrak was paying approx. $1 per train mile plus some other fees*. So while Amtrak might be getting a modest discount, I would say these are in the same ballpark.

If you have more current rate data, please share. I'm still curious how you justify one as 'normal cost of doing business' and the other as "TAKING, unconstitutional, shut down Amtrak now."

*That data is from the late Randolph Resor, analyst for STB, acquaintance of Mr. GBN, participant on this forum.

Nobody is saying shut down Amtrak.

I'm saying make them pay a market rate for access vs something imposed 40+ years ago.

That might force some different decisions but at least it would be fair.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

newpylong wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 7:12 pm They aren't required to provide Internet, Internet is not regulated. However voice service is regulated, for safety reasons.

Poor comparison.

Things like T1 lines are regulated. Telephone companies are required to provide DSL including DSL through Competitive Local Exchange Carriers. Interestingly, Verizon does not provide Dry Loop. Where they have ripped out the copper, I am not sure if they are required to provide an alternative service over fiber or CLEC access. Fiber internet such as FIOS, is basically unregulated.

The cable television company claims that their franchise agreement requires them to provide cable television, but the cable internet on the same wire is unregulated!!

Railroads seem quite happy to accept federal preemption of virtually all state and local rules including on the environment. Happy to get federal and state grants, happy to take advantage of low interest bonds that are often tax exempt. Happy to have eminent-domain powers.

In the beginning, many railroads received state charters, some received land grants and concessions.

In exchange, they have Common Carrier obligations except they don't have to provide passenger service. They can exercise their own police powers. They have to provide service to Amtrak but can stonewall state owned passenger railroads.

Railroads enjoy broad loopholes around anti-trust laws. For example, they sell track but retrain freight rights, specific rights by type of freight, or establish "paper barriers" that last in perpetuity.