I was pondering out loud in this forum about the possible scenario of arising from the dynamics of global warming and a draconian nationalisation of rails, private automobiles etc in order to reduce CO2 as a national emergency…whether this will happen is anybodys guess…however, this led to a question that I am not sure can be answered.
If you took a piece of paper and drew a line down the middle of the sheet, and listed nationally owned rail networks on one side and privately owned ones on the other, what would those percentages look like? And then, going further into this realm, which is preferable, public or private ownership and why?
Considering the quasi socialist nature of Amtrak, Conrail, and local Transportation Authorities…one has to wonder if the Merger Era , which created the current stalemate of ownership rationalisation, also is on a path toward this trend if efficencies become more critically required?
One cannot help but consider as a possibility, that the roads have, in effect, painted themselves into a corner.
Wallyworld past is prologue. I was reading through some old Trains magazines from the early '70s and the question of nationalization came up then as well. That was back in the day when Penn Central hit the fan and Amtrak was started. No easy answer then, Congress sat on its hands and let things happen until it was too late to save Penn Central. My surmise is nothing will be done until it is absolutely necessary.
There is no correlation between railroad nationalization and CO2 reductions, other than the fact that both ideas are being pushed by intellectual morons.
Thats it railroad nationalization . Then we can have railroads in as good shape as our highways. Iknow the railroads would not like this but to reduce CO2 how about not burning as much coal. There are other ways. Keep the goverment out of our lives please.
Don’t think highways think Post Office. If the railroads were nationalized we would soon have an organization as responsive as our mail system. As for the Brotherhoods, think of the term “Going Postal” as the paradiem for management/labor relations.
A properly run crown corporation with guidelines PROPERLY set out what is expected of it will provide good jobs, better maintenance and better service than a private enterprise because these cost money. They can also help provide developement in your country better for the same reasons.
If you want to make money, private enterprise is better, they will only run what makes them the most money and are responsible to the shareholders. I think you can see examples of this in CN and BCR in British Columbia.
Once it is privately owned and because there are so few class 1 railroads left, it will never go back to public ownership.
Postal service has historically (2500+ years or so) been a function of government and privatizing it would lead to the deterioration or even termination of service to small towns. We expect daily mail delivery whether it pays its way or not. We also expect cheap postal rates and complain mightily each time rates are raised to cover costs.
Methinks this is gonna get zapped, or it will be a large popcorn with butter thread.
I agree with FM, and with those who wonder how a government can do anything better than those who actually have to make a profit in order to keep creditors and depositors at bay.
When you have a government employing everyone, they own everyone. And we only have to look left and right, across expanses of water, to see the salutary effects of those experiments in humanity.
It’s bad enough they’re just your governors, don’t you think? You actually want them to start paying you as well? Sheesh!
The key words here are ‘properly run … guidelines properly set out’. Indeed, if these two criteria are met, a crown (or public, in dear old USA) entity can be very efficient, and sometimes the best way to run things; the FAA comes to mind in the US. Particularly when the things are, or can be, ‘natural monopolies’ – where there is considerable capital cost in distribution infrastructure. Railroads do come under the general heading of a natural monopoly, and this is one of the reasons why public transit usually is a crown corporation.
That being said, however, both ‘properly run’ and ‘guidelines properly set out’ can be, and often are, exceedingly problematic. While private corporations are, to a certain extent, self-governing in that regard (nothing like losing money to energise folks), crown corporations usually are not. Amtrak, in the USA, is an example where for much of its life ‘properly run’ applied, sometimes in spades. ‘Guidelines properly set out’ cannot be said to have ever happened. Network Rail, in the UK, has done a pretty decent job with the guidelines part, but sad to say the properly run part has been somewhat erratic. And so on. This is not true of the six North American majors; whether one likes
One point the anti-govt camp should remember is that things which are uneconomic for the private sector may be economic for the government sector, as the government may reap a share of the wider economic benefits.
A classic example of this was the study that the Greater London COuncil did in the 1960’s in to whether or not the proposed Victoria underground line would pay it way. The study suggested that:-
a) on a straight profit and loss basis it would not generate a sufficient return to mee the profitability criteria that would be expected in the private sector
b) however the wider economic benefits, such as relieving congestion on other routes and increased propert values (much of UK local govt is funded by taxes on property) would make it economically benefiical
So the decision was taken to build the Victoria line and within 10 years of it opening, property values had increased ten fold and the increased property tax revenues paid for the project several times over!
As an aside, at the present time the Confederation of British Industry calculates that congestion cost the UK economy £13 billion a year. Unfortunately our (not very!) competent government has yet to come up with a joined up transport policy for reducing congestion!
All I can say is that the condition of the publicly owned and maintained highways that I use makes me very reluctant to endorse the idea of letting the same group of folks take over that job for the US railroads.
You guys seem to be stuck in an “either/or” proposition regarding the public vs private ownership debate. Remember, it is possible to have both types of ownership in a state of coexistence.
My points are…
Nationalizing the current privately owned Class I industry is an abhorent idea.
I am in favor of regulating the privately-owned trackage under the auspices of the utility function, while maintaining the transporter aspects under minimal regulation.
It is also okay in my view for the feds, states, localities, regional juridictions, and/or public-private consortiums to supplement the privately-owned rail grid with publicly owned trackage. The question then is how to get the Class I’s to play ball when offered publicly owned rail capacity to work with?