To me, this sums up the entire argument starting with a paraphrase from Mike Ward:
"If shippers don't want to use trains, he says matter-of-factly, they can use trucks. Fournier counters that trucks aren't a viable option; both M&G and its customers have built their supply chains around rail."
Just asking...if trucks aren't a viable option...what does that mean? They're even more expensive than rail? Kinda sounds like somebody that just wants to pay less.
CSX & the other railroads over the past 10 years has leased branch lines and under used mainlines to shortline railroads. I don't understand the meaning of captive customer with the complaints that only one track one railroad haves availability to a shipper. That doesn't make sense other then to try and hap heartedly argue of a monopoly. It's not like NS is going to build a 25-30+ mile long branch line off their mainline and visa versa. Most of these customers knew who would service them seeing the railroads were there before the factories/plants were built. As for shipping rates I was always thought that was done by the American Association of Railroads (AAR) to maintain industry standards.