Rail Consolidation Is A False Bogeyman

 

News article: Rail Consolidation Is A False Bogeyman

Last year CSX Transportation, the fourth biggest railroad in the U.

  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Fabulous Reading

While the first objection to the transaction is that it will leave some Vermont shippers with access to only one railroad, it makes little sense to conceptualize a railroad as a product distinct from other modes of shipping goods: The vast majority of goods transported across North America currently travel by truck.

Rail constitutes just over 1/4 of all goods transported.

The government effectively subsidizes the trucking industry; the gasoline tax does not come close to paying for our nation's roads, and the disproportionate damage that semi-trailer trucks and other heavy transport vehicles do to roads are in no way accounted for in those taxes.

The increased traffic abetted by these implicit subsidies serve to increase congestion and make roads less safe. Transporting goods by truck rather than rail also contributes to global warming.

The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that goods traveling in trucks generate nearly three times as much carbon dioxide as goods that go by rail.
Somebody


Rail Consolidation Is A False Bogeyman

Sponsored advertisement

  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
What is a 'false bogeyman' ?
  emerald-a Junior Train Controller

Seems like your view has changed 180° since the Acacia Ridge thread
  justapassenger Minister for Railways

What is a 'false bogeyman' ?
YM-Mundrabilla
Well a bogeyman is a colloquialism for an impending change that is feared, so saying it's a false bogeyman might logically be interpreted as the headline saying the merger is not to be feared.

The headline is clumsy but the logic checks out. This is the problem: you should apply logic to understand the article, and that should not be needed for the headline. The sub-editor who wrote the headline should be introduced to a Americanism where the logic does not check out, namely right to work which actually means right to get fired.

Reading the story itself (I know, not the normal practice in this section of the forum) seems to support that position. The writer reckons the merger is great and will lead to sunshine and puppies for everyone. This being Forbes, I'm sure the writer only cares about NASDAQ:CSX and doesn't really have a clue about what the company does or how these mergers affect real people.

Seems like your view has changed 180° since the Acacia Ridge thread
emerald-a
That would imply bevans read the story.

We all know that practice is frowned upon in this section of the forum, at least when making the opening post of the thread.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Bit like a 'false negative' ????? ..................
  fzr560 Chief Train Controller

Seems like your view has changed 180° since the Acacia Ridge thread
emerald-a
Yes. The point was made that PN had lots of competition in the shape of the trucking industry.
  james.au Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney, NSW
Seems like your view has changed 180° since the Acacia Ridge thread
emerald-a
Every merger/takeover/consolidation is different and it is hard to have a strict set of rules for them all given the wildly different contexts they exist in.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: bevans, fzr560

Display from: