January, 2010 Issue: Don Phillips article

[htgguy]

“Paranoia strikes deep” - Buffalo Springfield.

Schlimm-any chance you could address the issue of why we need a National Rail Plan?

There is a BIG LEAP from a NATIONAL PLAN to NATIONALIZATION.

A National Plan would help ensure goals are met in the most efficient manner with the least duplication of infrastructure. It may not have been termed as a “National Plan,” but when the government set standards back in the 1800’s that was the goal of silly things like a Standard Gauge for track. It was not a Nationalization, just an attempt to get the most out of what was being built, a NATIONAL PLAN today would serve the same purpose.

A National Plan is sound planning for the Future, it is not the same thing as Nationalization.

Doug

Doug, from what I have read of the plan so far, it doesn’t seem like there is any concrete evidence of what you are stating, that a national plan would help ensure goals are met in the most efficient manner. As a matter of fact, it’s easy to make a case that deregulation (which is hardly consistent with a “national plan”) has done more to drive efficiency and eliminate duplication than any attempt at these goals by government regulation.

The preliminary plan itself comes out and says “Partial deregulation of the industry allowed the railroads to consolidate and gave them the flexibility to control costs and enter into contract pricing. As a consequence, the long-term decline of the U.S. freight rail industry prior to Staggers was reversed.” See the bottom of page 20.

And the report says that "Duplicative routes and branch lines that were sold by the Class I’s are now being operated by smaller railroads. Class I railroads also spun off some route

[Anonymous]

Thanks, Bucyrus, for your affirmation. In consulting you, your local government was able to serve you well, even if it meant cancelling a project that they had initiated.

-Crandell

Well the project got cancelled, and that was good, but our local government did not serve us well. They offered us anything and everything EXCEPT what we wanted, which was to do nothing. Nothing was needed, and it cost us residents a whole lot of time, money and worry to kill the greedy city plan.

If we were truly stakeholders

[greyhounds]

This is just amazing. People just flat out make stuff up . The government never, ever set a “standard” for the distance between the rails, the track gauge.

au contraire!

The establishment of a standard gauge of 4’ 8 1/2" in G.B. (5’ 3" in Ireland) by a Royal Commission in the jolly old UK occurred in 1846.

In the US, the Pacific Railway Act of 1863 pretty well made certain that the standard gauge of most northern rail lines would become the national standard. Very little new trackage was built to other gauges after its passage. In 1886 the southern lines switched over.

Aw Phooey!

In the US there was never a government “Standard” for the distance between the rails. When people say things such as: “Very little new trackage was built to other gauges after its (The Pacific Railway Act of 1863) passage.”, I know they’re making stuff up to support a political ideology.

I should just let it go. It’s not important. Just let it go. Turn off the computer and go have a beer at a local establishment.

But it bothers me when people just make stuff like this up.

The largest “Non-Standard” gauge railroad in the US was the Denver & Rio Grande. It didn’t have any track until eight years after the Pacific Railroad Act in 1863, and that track was not standard gauge. By 1889 the D&RG had spiked down 1,861 miles of non-standard gauge track (226 miles of dual gauge) and it was all done after “The Act” and after the completion of the Pacific Railroad.

Construction of “Non-Standard” gauge railroads in the US peaked in 1882 when 2,627 miles of not to government specification (There was no government specfication!) track were laid down. This was 22.71% of the track constructed that year. That is 19 years after th

[schlimm]

Aw Phooey!

In the US there was never a government “Standard” for the distance between the rails. When people say things such as: “Very little new trackage was built to other gauges after its (The Pacific Railway Act of 1863) passage.”, I know they’re making stuff up to support a political ideology.

I will ignore the offensive, ad hominem nature of your post. However, you make some good points. But if we look at the growth in railroad mileage from 1860 to 1890, we see it went from 28919 to 163562 miles. During that time numerous narrow gauge lines were laid in the midwest and west, by free choice, mostly because it was cheaper to construct. During that time the building of the major transcontinental lines also took place: UP, CP, NP, MP, & SP (GN finished in 1893, I believe). I would imagine most people would come to the conclusion that the building of the narrow gauge lines (as fantastic as some of them were/are) led to fairly little permanency, while most of the market’s adoption of a common standard, set and subsidized by the government, was an important part of the economic growth of the US in the 19th and 20th centuries. That isn’t “making stuff up.”

[htgguy]

Aw Phooey!

In the US there was never a government “Standard” for the distance between the rails. When people say things such as: “Very little new trackage was built to other gauges after its (The Pacific Railway Act of 1863) passage.”, I know they’re making stuff up to support a political ideology.

I will ignore the offensive, ad hominem nature of your post. However, you make some good points. But if we look at the growth in railroad mileage from 1860 to 1890, we see it went from 28919 to 163562 miles. During that time numerous narrow gauge lines were laid in the midwest and west, by free choice, mostly because it was cheaper to construct. During that time the building of the major transcontinental lines also took place: UP, CP, NP, MP, & SP (GN finished in 1893, I believe). I would imagine most people would come to the conclusion that the building of the narrow gauge lines (as fantastic as some of them were/are) led to fairly little permanency, while most of the market’s adoption of a common standard, set and subsidized by the government, was an important part of the economic growth of the US in the 19th and 20th centuries. That isn’t “making stuff up.”

Schlimm, I was hoping you might address why we need a national rail plan in the 21st century. Have you had any time to consider that, given the language that is included in the preliminary plan that I quoted in the posts above? I’m sure it’s fun to argue about the 19th century, but we are looking forward, not back.

Thanks, Jim

[schlimm]

Schlimm, I was hoping you might address why we need a national rail plan in the 21st century. Have you had any time to consider that, given the language that is included in the preliminary plan that I quoted in the posts above? I’m sure it’s fun to argue about the 19th century, but we are looking forward, not back.

Thanks, Jim

Back to the 21st century. Still reading when I’ve had a chance on a busy day. No answer yet. Hopefully there is some clear expression of the purported need in the later pages.

[Bruce_Kelly]

If the future of our nation’s rail network is being shaped by the information in this report, I hope the numerical stats are more accurate than the visuals. The map of 2006 intermodal flow has the BNSF traffic west of Spokane all wrong. In reality, more intermodal uses the ex-GN between Spokane and Seattle/Tacoma than the ex-NP between Spokane and Pasco. The map doesn’t even show any intermodal west of Wenatchee. I may sound like a nitpicker, but if they could flub something that simple, I’d consider everything else in this report suspect until proven otherwise.

[schlimm]

This section of the report seems to try to make the case on the basis of equal treatment of various sectors:

Historically, only two modes of freight transportation, rail and pipeline, are self-sustaining, meaning that they have the ability to finance, build, and maintain their infrastructure. Other modes of freight transportation rely on publicly financed infrastructure, though these modes have dedicated revenue sources that are paid, at least in part, by system users. When an investor buys stock in a non-rail transportation company, the investment is made in the vehicles, towboats, office buildings, and other capital costs. The investment does not cover the cost of the infrastructure, which is not owned and not maintained by the freight company. The economics of the U.S. rail industry are unique because private railroads own their locomotives and equipment as well as the track, yards, tunnels, and bridges of the total enterprise. Railroads, confident of the untapped capability of rail freight transportation, have been investing billions of dollars in double-tracking, signal improvements, and intermodal facilities. Railroads are in business to earn a profit and are willing to self-finance additions to their infrastructure to ensure long-term returns. A notable phenomenon is the construction of new main tracks in the same locations where main tracks were removed decades before. It is the inherent efficiency of rail transportation that enables freight railroads to do something that is expected of no other form of transportation: maintain their infrastructure, add capacity, host passenger operations, and pay local property taxes on their real estate6. A review of the previous 29 years since the railroads were partially deregulated by the Staggers Act of 1980 reveals improvements in the railroad’s physical plant (infrastructure) as well as their performance metrics. Safety and fuel efficiency have remarkably improved. Rail rates are lower today than in 1980, when compared in consta

[Railway_Man]

We’ve had a piecemeal national transportation plan for some time now – in some cases dating to the early 1800s – laying out policy on safety, labor, rates, land use, land acquisition, economic stimulus, economic development, agricultural development, minerals development, tax policy, industrial development, urbanization, farm exports, industrial imports, manufactured imports, trade policy, rubber consumption, oil consumption, ethanol consumption, ownership of freight, ownership of mineral lands, construction standards, operating standards, drainage from rights-of-way, at-grade crossings, joint ownership of other transportation modes, public health, air quality, water quality, endangered species, national parkland, national forestland, erosion, and education. I’m sure I have forgotten some. All of it promulgated in an ad hoc and unorganized fashion. States are required to have state rail plans if they want to spend federal dollars on transportation, but the federal government has no plan and so the money is apportioned to states for roads, bridges, airports, waterways, ports, freight railways, intercity passenger railways, commuter railways, rail transit systems, and bus transit systems ignorant of any sort of coherent strategy, consideration of consequences, cost-benefit analysis, but in direct relationship only to the need of the voters in a district to feel loved.

I leave it to those more intelligent and more politically active than I to argue whether its a good idea to have a federal government, or not, or to give it powers, or not, or have taxes, or not, or spend money, or not. Seems rather high-level and more important than me and all these questions have only a spider thread linking them with railways. Since I’m in the trenches I just want to be handed the rulebook.

Since the federal government has already written plan and policy on railways for more than a century, albeit on many pages that have not been bound together, and I don’t think it’s feasib

[Anonymous]

It is the inherent efficiency of rail transportation that enables freight railroads to do something that is expected of no other form of transportation: maintain their infrastructure, add capacity, host passenger operations, and pay local property taxes on their real estate6. A review of the previous 29 years since the railroads were partially deregulated by the Staggers Act of 1980 reveals improvements in the railroad’s physical plant (infrastructure) as well as their performance metrics. Safety and fuel efficiency have remarkably improved. Rail rates are lower today than in 1980, when compared in constant dollars. Nonetheless, captive shippers – those without a viable alternative to a single rail carrier – often complain that they are being charged more than shippers that have competitive options.

One of the most interesting points and curious points in the entire document is the last sentence of last paragraph (quoted above) of page 21.:

“Nonetheless, captive shippers—those without a viable alternative to a single rail carrier—often complain that they are being charged more than shippers that have competitive options.”

Somehow, it seems to me that that sentence represents something that is high on the mind of the FRA, but they just don’t quire dare broach the subject. So the

[schlimm]

Within the context of the paragraph that it’s in, it says this to me:

Railroads are doing very well since partial deregulation of the Staggers Act. But while they have earned their success for the most part, a portion of it might be due to the railroads cheating some of their customers.

That FRA sentence is a highly provocative, and warning of a big problem.

It seems to me that you are looking for the proverbial needle that will confirm your notion that this national plan is simply a backdoor to nationalization. The document in no way seems to suggest the need to takeover the private freight rail system.

As the previous poster stated, all this political/conspiracy talk gets us nowhere. This section seems pretty key:

Appropriateness of Strategies of funding freight Transportation Investments

Our Nation’s transportation infrastructure is one of its greatest assets. Properly maintained, it can move freight quickly and efficiently, which is essential to U.S. economic growth, industrial productivity, and global competitiveness. Inadequate investments in freight corridors that fail to keep pace with increased shipper demand and expected public benefits cause congestion, delays, unreliable service, and damage the environment. These freight corridors, once built, should be self-supporting. Cos

[schlimm]

Always beware of the term, stakeholder, since it is a favorite buzzword in any promotion of the expansion of the public sector. It is a catchy, little term that refers to those whose interests are about to be meddled with by government.

From the plan:

We are all stakeholders in the Nation’s transportation system, and we all have a vested interest in the continuation and enhancement of performance and services that we have come to rely on. Each of us depends on the delivery of goods and the ability to travel unimpeded throughout the country. The providers of transportation services are constantly under pressure to provide greater value to their customers.

[blownout_cylinder]

From the plan:

We are all stakeholders in the Nation’s transportation system, and we all have a vested interest in the continuation and enhancement of performance and services that we have come to rely on.

That ‘we’ is kind of interesting in that the government has posited itself as being part of that ‘we’. It is pretty much as stated by another poster—one may find themselves involved with another class of stakeholders–but it does not mean that the stakeholders really should trust a class of stakeholders interested in gaining more influential power over others–[:-^]

[Anonymous]

The FRA plan does not call for nationalization, but nationalization has a way of sneaking up on you. In any case, the FRA is putting forth this ambitious plan as what they refer to as their “new scope,” which is apparently much larger than their old scope. The FRA is nationalized, so clearly, adding new scope to the charge of the FRA expands its nationalized activities.

It is easy to praise the development of a plan. Who could argue against having a good plan? But, while this FRA piece is being called a plan, it is not just a helpful plan. It is an agenda of items that the FRA intends to implement. By default, it is a list of what the FRA finds deficient in our transportation system. It makes me wonder if the total of the new agenda action items that will be added to the railroad industry is larger than the industry itself. Some of this new agenda will be publicly financed and administered by the FRA.

The plan seems to be just aching to find new ways to expand the FRA mission. So it reaches into every nook and cranny, makes every conceivable connection, and thus

[htgguy]

[quote user=“schlimm”]

This section of the report seems to try to make the case on the basis of equal treatment of various sectors:

Historically, only two modes of freight transportation, rail and pipeline, are self-sustaining, meaning that they have the ability to finance, build, and maintain their infrastructure. Other modes of freight transportation rely on publicly financed infrastructure, though these modes have dedicated revenue sources that are paid, at least in part, by system users. When an investor buys stock in a non-rail transportation company, the investment is made in the vehicles, towboats, office buildings, and other capital costs. The investment does not cover the cost of the infrastructure, which is not owned and not maintained by the freight company. The economics of the U.S. rail industry are unique because private railroads own their locomotives and equipment as well as the track, yards, tunnels, and bridges of the total enterprise. Railroads, confident of the untapped capability of rail freight transportation, have been investing billions of dollars in double-tracking, signal improvements, and intermodal facilities. Railroads are in business to earn a profit and are willing to self-finance additions to their infrastructure to ensure long-term returns. A notable phenomenon is the construction of new main tracks in the same locations where main tracks were removed decades before. It is the inherent efficiency of rail transportation that enables freight railroads to do something that is expected of no other form of transportation: maintain their infrastructure, add capacity, host passenger operations, and pay local property taxes on their real estate6. A review of the previous 29 years since the railroads were partially deregulated by the Staggers Act of 1980 reveals improvements in the railroad’s physical plant (infrastructure) as well as their performance metrics. Safety and fuel efficiency have remarkably improved. Rail rates are lower

[schlimm]

I wanted to go through the plan and pick out the action items, but the massive flow of ponderous rhetoric with its constant repetition of key points, makes it very difficult to break it down far enough to pick out the specifics. In a general sense, it seems to cover every problem there is with life in the U.S.A; an entire reordering of society.

It really would be helpful if the plan’s specifics were openly discussed rather than launching into yet another of those predictable, political tirades about the a government conspiracy of forced nationalization , etc. ad nauseam. Adopting your line of “reasoning”, perhaps your real goal is to rant away, distracting from the substance so that out of frustration, any discussion is blocked.

[schlimm]

Is there something that is not being accomplished that will be accomplished because the federal government creates a plan?

I think this quote states a strong reason for a plan with federal aid, clearly not a takeover.

Our Nation’s transportation infrastructure is one of its greatest assets. Properly maintained, it can move freight quickly and efficiently, which is essential to U.S. economic growth, industrial productivity, and global competitiveness. Inadequate investments in freight corridors that fail to keep pace with increased shipper demand and expected public benefits cause congestion, delays, unreliable service, and damage the environment. These freight corridors, once built, should be self-supporting. Cost-effective, fuel efficient, and environmentally friendly, improved rail transportation is essential to achieving national freight transportation goals. Failure to keep and grow rail market share will impose a further burden on highways. To address this issue, stakeholders need to evaluate the appropriateness of various strategies for investing in freight rail by the private sector, the public sector, or potentially both in conjunction. States can leverage Federal programs and funds by partnering with all freight transportation stakeholders, including the private sector. As States develop State transportation plans, it is expected that they will identify planning and organizational opportunities that will lead to the development of new and more creative ways to better allocate resources, which will result in a more integrated and efficient freight and passenger transportation network.

[htgguy]

Is there something that is not being accomplished that will be accomplished because the federal government creates a plan?

I think this quote states a strong reason for a plan with federal aid, clearly not a takeover.

Our Nation’s transportation infrastructure is one of its greatest assets. Properly maintained, it can move freight quickly and efficiently, which is essential to U.S. economic growth, industrial productivity, and global competitiveness. Inadequate investments in freight corridors that fail to keep pace with increased shipper demand and expected public benefits cause congestion, delays, unreliable service, and damage the environment. These freight corridors, once built, should be self-supporting. Cost-effective, fuel efficient, and environmentally friendly, improved rail transportation is essential to achieving national freight transportation goals. Failure to keep and grow rail market share will impose a further burden on highways. To address this issue, stakeholders need to evaluate the appropriateness of various strategies for investing in freight rail by the private sector, the public sector, or potentially both in conjunction. States can leverage Federal programs and funds by partnering with all freight transportation stakeholders, including the private sector. As States develop State transportation plans, it is expected that they will identify planning and organizational opportunities that will lead to the development of new and more creative ways to better allocate resources, which will result in a more integrated and efficient freight and passenger transportation network.

So then it’s all about figuring out how to spend more government money on private businesses? I guess I can see why a plan is needed, then. That is, if spending more government money on private businesses is a worthy use of tax dollars.

I personally don’

[Anonymous]

I wanted to go through the plan and pick out the action items, but the massive flow of ponderous rhetoric with its constant repetition of key points, makes it very difficult to break it down far enough to pick out the specifics. In a general sense, it seems to cover every problem there is with life in the U.S.A; an entire reordering of society.

It really would be helpful if the plan’s specifics were openly discussed rather than launching into yet another of those predictable, political tirades about the a government conspiracy of forced nationalization , etc. ad nauseam. Adopting your line of “reasoning”, perhaps your real goal is to rant away, distracting from the substance so that out of frustration, any discussion is blocked.

I am discussing the specifics. I don’t know where you are seeing political tirades about forced nationalization and conspiracy theories. There is nobody blocking discussion. If you have something to discuss, go ahead. People are free to have opinions, and they don’t all agree.

[schlimm]

I have not yet had an opportunity to see what Phillips has to say, but will be interested in his thoughts to what seems to be a rather innocuous preliminary (so not very specific) document.