Kind of nice to see Montana’s Democrat Governor doing what his Republican predicessors failed to do…
"The rail service competition council shall perform the following duties:
(a) promote rail service competition in the state of Montana that results in reliable and adequate service at reasonable rates;
(b) develop a comprehensive and coordinated plan to increase rail service competition in the state of Montana;
(c) reevaluate the state’s railroad taxation practices to ensure reasonable competition while minimizing any transfer of tax burden. The reevaluation of the state’s railroad taxation practices should include but is not limited to a reevaluation of property taxes, taxes that minimize highway damage, special fuel taxes, and corporate tax rates;
(d) develop various means to assist Montanans impacted by high rates and poor rail service;
(e) analyze the feasibility of developing legal structures to facilitate growth of producer transportation investment cooperatives and rural transportation infrastructure authorities;
(f) provide advice and recommendations to the department of transportation on the department’s activities under 60-11-113 through 60-11-116;
(g) coordinate efforts and develop cooperative partnerships with other states and federal agencies to promote rail service competition; and
(h) act as the state’s liaison in working with Class I railroads to promote rail service competition."
Sounds like step one in using eminent domain (where necessary) to reactivate the MILW as it was post-BN merger date. It has been said before, and I will say it again, the mere presents of the MILW nearly bankrupted both the GN and the NP. A bit of political maneuvering, and with the MILW’s bankruptcy, BN got rid of the only effective competition it had in Montana.
Perhaps it may take only the threat of reserection. Time to try.
The resurrection of CMStP&P isn’t going to happen, no matter how much the shippers of Montana wish it to be so. It’s interesting to note that shippers want a cheaper rate, which is not surprising as mentioned in other posts, but they are most certainly not entitled to it.
Points A and B are a preamble and are political posturing.
Point C mentioned above sounds like a threat to tax the railroads to death unless they charge rates from Montana not unlike the Crows Nest Pass Agreement, which did nothing for the financial health of CN or CP.
Point D will have to determine if Montanans are affected by rates or a slump in commodity prices.
Point E sounds good, but where’s the money coming from to pay for these shipper-oriented organizations.
Point F is just so much legal jargon unless you are licensed to practice law in Montana.
Point G isn’t going to happen anytime soon, other states and the Federal Government have different sets of priorities.
Point H is pandering to the voters.
One could always hope. But it is true that if the MILW (or its resurected vision) were actually in place, BN would not be charging “400%” the midwest (per mile) rate for hauling Montana wheat to Portland. Probably be closer to “200%”.
All that would be required is to rebuild either the MILW via Avery or the UP/NP via Wallace from Plummer Jct to Haugen and thence down to St. Regis, MRL to Garrison, take over the former NP from Garrison to Three Forks, MRL to Laurel, former GN to Judith Gap and then take over the remaining MILW lines north of there and rebuild any viable ones that are no longer and perhaps also the former MILW main line along the Musselshell Valley, and perhaps down to Miles City to connect with the Tongue River RR.
Connnections with the MRL, the BN at Laurel, the UP at Spokane (or Plumber Jct) and Silver Bow. Would do the trick.
What I derive from this is the possibility of a “monopoly tax”, with the funds being the source of the competitive alternatives. I think it is refreshing that a Democrat is focussing the lip service on “competitive” rail rates rather than regulated rail rates, although the cynic in me says it will most likely end up as the latter rather than the former. I think that is just the usual byproduct of government intervention - it is easier to legislate regulation than it is to legislate competition.
What Gov. Schweitzer needs to do is to stop the pandering to his political left, and start to see some of the possibilities of using Bush Administration proposals to supplement the desire for in state rail competition. Item in point - the Gov. has stated opposition to the Bush Administration proposal to sell some parcels of federal land. Why not ask the Administration to instead grant some of those same parcels of land to the State of Montana for the purpose of funding the desire for rail competition? If he is truly committed to fostering rail competition in Montana, that is probably the most likely way such can be realized.
I’m also not sure that a complete rebuild of the PCE would be necessary to effectively reintroduce rail competition to Montana. There is still capacity available on the ex-NP corridor, although it is true that the Forsyth to Lombard portion of the PCE is superior to the current Bozeman Pass alignment. What would be needed is a way to connect Southeast Montana to the DM&E in South Dakota, which adds for all intents and purposes a fourth line through the PRB. And of course, as things stand now it would make sense to add a rail link between Missoula and North Central Idaho, which would give a direct line to the Columbia River gorge and the Columbia/Snake River waterway. The waterway has more than enough excess capacity for shipping grain to port, and it makes more sense to transload grain to barge rather than clogging up the busy mainlines through the gorge. Unless we
Why doesn’t the Governor just piggy-back onto the DM&E proposal, and try for $2.5 billion for tracks in Montana? The odds of raising $5 billion can’t be too much higher than the odds of raising $2.5 billion.[;)]
Why not, indeed! Not really knowing what the restrictive language of the Energy Bill is which your Rep. Thune used to get the $2.5 billion for DM&E, I would suppose Montana’s reps could do the same for the DM&E-MRL connection through Montana’s portion of the PRB (which is so far relatively untapped by railroads), and then just stretch that line a little bit to the West, say to Lewiston ID [:)], and see if the feds will go for that. Probably would take a coal fired power plant to be proposed for the Lewiston area in order to fit into the Energy Bill caveats.
Oh, c’mon now. We all recognize the need for an extensive expansion of the US rail network, so why not use currently available funding mechanisms to achieve that end, even if they are a stretch of the original intent?