Railway Age News had a short piece on a bill that passed the judicial comittee in congress that would take away the railroads ability to negotiate individual contracts. The AAR has already condemened it. Would anyone like to speculate on how this will really affect the industry if it becomes law? Does anyone know whether or not Bush has expressed any indictaions of signing it or vetoing it?
Thanks,
George
With Pelosi and Reid in-charge, are you surprised? Let’s all climb into the time machine and return to the good ole’ days of governmental over-regulation, because those awful rail barons might rise from their graves…
Oh yeah - the current idea of letting the RRs regulate themselves is working SO well…
I didn’t see where the bill would prohibit individual contracts. What is this anti trust exemption railroads have, how long have they had it? Is it a part of the Staggers Act or was it a part of the original regulatory mandate from the 1900’s? If indeed it is a relic of the original regulation, why do railroads need it post-Staggers, and wouldn’t it’s elimination be consistent with deregulation rather than a return to regulation?
And the government would do it better?
So just what do you think needs to be changed? Things seems to be going along pretty well.
And what net benifits do you think will come from renewed economic medling by the politicians?
I just don’t agree with the notion that everything the gov’t is involved with is bad. It’s out gov’t… kind of silly to live in fear of it.
I don’t live in fear of the government. There are some very sensible government regulations, such as driving on the right side of the road.
But you seem to think there is something wrong with a market based system of rail transportation. I don’t think there are significant issues that can be well served by involving the government in economic reregulation. The government can not do economic regulation well, so it shouldn’t do it at all.
I asked what you perceived as being wrong with the present system, what needed changing, and how the involvement of politicians would improve things. You aparently don’t have an answer.
It’s probably a bad idea, but that doesn’t mean it portends National Socialism.
If you want to look for examples of diminution of civil liberties, though, there are lots of other places to go.
Does anyone know the specifics of this legislation?
I have seen it attempts to knock down paper barriers with short lines, force pricing to the nearest gateway and apply anti-trust rules to railroad mergers but not much else. This seems to be real cutting edge stuff (1) the major spin offs are probably over, (2) a unit train moving over the nearest junction is going to have service requirements very different than a lose car operation via an interchange track built in 1908 and (3) there are not a lot of big mergers on the horizon.
Your Federal Government is right on top of transportation policy in 1990. We should whisper to the good Congressmen that it’s 2008.
There is already too much goverment regualtion , they have enough trouble doing the things they are so posed to do . They should leave it to the proffessionals.
What did does is STOP things like CSX did in WV were the group they wanted to get the rails could not get the cash up so another group got the contract in that contract it stated that CSX was that RR’s ONLY ALLOWED INTERCHANGE partner for coal trains what did CSX do refused to accept any coal trains or supply them with EMPTIES and starved them to death. Therefore when they had to close up shop the one they wanted to get the contract could get in there for pennies guess what happened then NO CAR SUPPLY issues at all.
It just amazes me that practically any topic gets turned to conservative-liberal conflict immediately. National Socialism or Market Economy, indeed!
No one here has read this bill, but, by gosh, we sure do have opinions on it.
Isn’t it obvious that in the future the railroads and the government are going to draw closer since the cost of needed projects is so high? Railroads already have taken the king’s shilling in a number of small cooperative projects, so it’s a matter of degree, not debate.
From everything I read, railroads in the US are already at near-capacity and our current system of funding, and controlling/regulating these Common Carriers has led us to the point we are at today.
I’d like to live in a country that is planning and building for the future…like I used to as a kid. But when every question touching on railroads turns into a political fistfight, especially here or in the pages of Trains, well, that just dismays me.
So often this forum seems populated by nothing but old, grumpy, and ideological has-beens. Can we think, out of the box, and help our country compete and live up to its potential?
But…but…wouldn’t our discussions be a lot less fun?
[:-,]
Interesting point, selector, but I think it could also lead to fewer antacids being used here, too! Thanks for your reply.
Any viable business needs to be able to negotiate its own contracts/set it owns rates and terms.
The problem with goverment is that we have come to depend on it like a surrogate parent. Goverment should not be in the business of curtailing people of ability to run businesses.
We regularly devote 5 pages to dissing and 5 pages to apologizing.
So is someone who thinks differently than you an old, grumpy, ideological has-been? I admit that sentence is pretty good. It’s so much more than just buzz words; that there is a “buzz sentence”
I can play too. “Those that don’t know history are condemed to repeat it.”
I think that’s where you’re off the track. The current system of “funding and controlling/regulating the railroads” (and I don’t think an
NKP guy,
No I haven’t read it yet, but given Pelosi’s past attempts to re-regulate RR’s. It’s not hard to guess that what ever it says, it will not fair well for rail, if passed.
I had to kinda smile at your statement “I’d like to live in a country that is planning and building for the future…like I used to as a kid.”.
Well son you be living in that future now, how’s it look to ya ??? Remember today was made possible, by the forward “outside the box thinking” of those with “I smart papers” [collage degrees] and not listening to some of the wisdom from those "old, grumpy, and ideological has-beens ", of their time.
Now feller I’m not trying to flame ya or what ever. Just trying to get you to open your eyes a bit a little more.
There be a few more old fart saying’s that I heard years ago.
There is no problem, which the government can’t make worse, while trying to fix it, and Regulation only begets more regulation, trying to fix the damage from the first one.
Hey maybe great grand dad knew more than I thought.
inch
greyhounds:
I’d have to be a grumpy guy myself not to tell you that I have read and considered every word of your thoughtful and articulate reply to my posting. Thank you for that. I’m not sure you have convinced me over all, but your examples are good ones.
On one point I will disagree specifically: Of course, it’s a hypothetical question, but I think the New York Central went under because the manufacturing base of the Northeast simply deteriorated, not because the railroad couldn’t use some particular method of shipping. At least, that’s the conclusion I draw from reading The Wreck of the Penn Central.
I will not enter the fistfight or fray on this point, except to say that I have as much confidence in the government as I do the “free enterprise” system, which, as we’ve recently seen, seeks to privatize profits while socializing the risk. Both government and business are made up of the American people, not aliens; we’re all in this together.
My point remains, government and railroads need to cooperate, plan for, and build the transportation network we need for the next hundred years. It doesn’t have to mean nationalization or buccaneer capitalism. But it might mean that the future is now; it’s not the 1980’s or even the 1930’s anymore.
Thanks again for these interesting, thought-provoking replies.