NDGDA Reiterates Support for CPKC
Written by William C. Vantuono, Editor-in-Chief
Just when we thought Railway Age would get a brief break from publishing letters about mergers, here’s another one, from the North Dakota Grain Dealers Association (NDGDA) to the Surface Transportation Board re-iterating its support of the Canadian Pacific-Kansas City Southern combination.
In the letter, the NDGDA also expressed its opposition to CN’s rival bid. The full text:
The North Dakota Grain Dealers Association (NDGDA) hereby files this letter to express its opposition to the bid by CN to acquire KCS and re-iterate its support for the CP-KCS combination.
As expressed in our initial letter to the Board dated March 30, 2021, NDGDA supports swift approval of the CP-KCS combination because of the significant benefits the combination should bring, including expanded markets to the North Dakota grain shippers serviced by CP and strengthened competition against the other, larger rail carriers and trucks that serve our members’ markets.
The backbone of North Dakota’s economy is agriculture, and over* 80% of North Dakota’s grain production moves to market by rail. North Dakota’s grain shippers are in a captive rail market which* limits competition and our options for market destinations. A CP-KCS combination should provide CP grain shippers expanded access to markets across the United States, Mexico, Canada, and even internationally. The bid by CN would effectively end any opportunity for market expansion for North Dakota CP grain shippers.
In addition, a CPKC network should increase competition between North Dakota’s rail carriers and trucks that serve our members’ markets. We expect a combined CPKC network to offer seamless, single-line service that will improve our transportation options and provide a better alternative to the options that already exist. As mentioned, North Dakota is a captive rail market, but a CPKC network should provide alternatives that would increase competition between North Dakota’s Class I carriers. A CN-KCS combination would do nothing to benefit North Dakota shippers but would instead decrease competition overall.
Respectfully submitted,
Stu Letcher
Executive Vice President
North Dakota Grain Dealers Association
*Editor’s Note: The correct word usage is “more than,” not “over.” Also, I’m a “which hunter” who replaces “which” with “that” where appropriate (though some people think, not incorrectly, that this is optional). If I had $5 for every time I changed “over” to “more than,” substituted “that” for “which” and replaced double spaces after periods with single spaces, I could buy Kansas City Southern myself. Get it right, people! On the other hand, if there were no grammatical gaffes, splintered syntax, daunting dangling participles and nagging non-sequiturs to correct, there may not be much use for copy editors, which is just one of my multiple hats I wear—all of for which I’m grateful. Notice that I did not end the previous sentence (which, at 47 words, is WAY too long) in a preposition. That’s more than you probably care to read at this point. Thank you for your patients, which is what the HMO said to the retiring family doctor when it (not “they”) bought his practice. – William C. Vantuono
