 |
Re: BNSF Intermodal Portland to Tacoma Offered at exhorbitant rates and/or uncompetitive transit times?
Author: BOB2
Date: 12-30-2021 - 05:04
Bruce Kelly Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Forgive me if this was already mentioned in the
> exhausting discussion above.
>
> [www.bnsf.com]
> vice-options-and-details/seattle-tacoma-portland-s
> ervice.page
>
> [www.bnsf.com]
> nsf/intermodal/seattle-tacoma-portland-flyer.pdf
>
> [www.portofportland.com]
> rtland-Announces-Rail-Service-to-Assist-Shippers
>
> [www.freightwaves.com]
> w-life-into-portland-terminal
>
> If, for some reason, BNSF is no longer providing
> this service (even though it's still listed on
> their site), it at least serves as an example of
> where an incredibly short-haul intermodal lane was
> done.
No, it's more like an example as was offered earlier, where RR's pretend to be "common carriers" by offering services at extortionate and discriminatory rates and transit times that are uncompetitive on some routings. Which appear to be more about showing the regulators that they are really acting as "common carriers". However, the same question applies to your observation, how many COFC/TOFC loads are competitive and carried by rail? In the real economic world, it is the actual "outcome" that is observed that matters.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Forgive me if this was already mentioned in the
> exhausting discussion above.
>
> [www.bnsf.com]
> vice-options-and-details/seattle-tacoma-portland-s
> ervice.page
>
> [www.bnsf.com]
> nsf/intermodal/seattle-tacoma-portland-flyer.pdf
>
> [www.portofportland.com]
> rtland-Announces-Rail-Service-to-Assist-Shippers
>
> [www.freightwaves.com]
> w-life-into-portland-terminal
>
> If, for some reason, BNSF is no longer providing
> this service (even though it's still listed on
> their site), it at least serves as an example of
> where an incredibly short-haul intermodal lane was
> done.
No, it's more like an example as was offered earlier, where RR's pretend to be "common carriers" by offering services at extortionate and discriminatory rates and transit times that are uncompetitive on some routings. Which appear to be more about showing the regulators that they are really acting as "common carriers". However, the same question applies to your observation, how many COFC/TOFC loads are competitive and carried by rail? In the real economic world, it is the actual "outcome" that is observed that matters.
