This post is likely to be rambling, as I’m kind of writing it as I’m thinking it… but here goes. (These topics may have been discussed around here before, but I’ve never caught them)
Many people say it’s not fair that the trucking industry gets their transportation system (the roads/interstates) subsidized by the government while the railroads have to build their own physical plant. Roads are financed through taxes and tolls. Would it be advantagous for the railroads if the government owned all the rail? Obviously this would save the railroads a lot of money in maintaince and labor charges, and it would cost the government a lot. The government would have to make up that deficit through higher diesel fuel tax or some type of set toll for usage of the tracks.
But I can see this creating a whole host of problems. Because no one now owns the rails, everyone would be free to go as far on them as they like. Railroads would compete on cost of shipping alone. Every road in the country could travel from coast to coast. So how would you handle this traffic. At least on the road there is room for all the trucks. On rail you’d have a traffic nightmare. You’d now need some type of independent control center to route all the traffic. If a shipper wanted to build rail access, who would build and pay for it? The shipper or the govt?
Perhaps a better solution is to give some type of credits back to the railroads in direct proportion to how many miles of rail they own. Rather than the gov’t building the physical plant for the railroads as they do the trucks, perhaps they could subsidize it through tax breaks or lessening the fuel tax railroads have to pay, or something else to that affect.
Anybody have any feasable ideas as to how the gov’t could level the playing field between trucks and rail? Is the ROW considered real estate that gets taxed by the state/local authorities? If so, perhaps the gov’t could proclaim railroad real estate exempt from all taxes, f
The Feds tell the state how many miles of rail, how many acres and what physical improvements. The state receives a check from the railroad every 3 months for that part of the railroad in their state. The State distributes the property tax to the state, counties and cities. States like Colorado also have a ton-mile tax and diesel fuel taxes. The trucker pays an artificially low highway use tax (the tax does NOT equal the proportional damage done to the highway, no matter what excuse ATA turns loose), a tax on diesel fuel and taxes on the rig…(and not much else).
Much of what you’re speculating about has been discussed – in some respects, to death – under the title of “open access”. One place you might start is by reading up on some of the work done by John Kneiling (the old Trains Magazine “Professional Iconoclast”) who proposed that trackwork be considered as an ‘iron ocean’ over which trains would navigate following mutually accepted conventions and rules. It is interesting to speculate on the ways that privately-owned ROW might be converted to allow this kind of practice, as the situation with railroad track occupancy is very different from what prevails on our nation’s interstates with respect to vehicle safety, capacity, etc.
When you’ve worked out some ways this might be done – and checked with Google, etc., to flesh out your ideas with some facts and details – start thinking about potential problems and opportunities. Then go back over the posts on this forum that concern “open access” and see how the arguments and discussions there affect your ways of looking at the issue.
If you can somehow get a copy of TRAINS from July of 1973, you can find an excellent John Kneiling column regarding the separation of infrastructure ownership from rail transporter services. He explores three options in terms of his preferences: 1) a series of small investor owned transport companies, 2) a series of investor owned toll railroads, and 3) government ownership of railroad right of ways. As is the case somtimes with Kneiling’s writing style, it is hard to ascertain the specifics of his plan (e.g. I can see no difference between options 1 and 2 above), but he does make the point that if a railroad transporter happens to fail under this separation scenario, it does not mean the track will get torn up too, which is what happens now under the proprietary closed access system. The phrase “open access” does not occur in Kneiling’s column, at least from
(1) You’ve never heard of a distribution check or the federal disbursement check have you? (If that check does not show up on time, the county fathers howl in pain…But their assessors, who don’t understand it either, will complain that the railroads are not paying THEM directly, scoff at the notion that railroads pay their fare share)
(2) Never heard of the ICC Valuation Act of 1913? Created to level the playing field caused by uneven, wildly varying tax rates in each state caused by the people in (1)…Even with the Act of 1913, you have states like New York jacking rates up to unacceptable (as in double) the rates of other states.
(3) And futuremodal, I see, is up on his soapbox again[V]. I, for one, do not buy what he espouses. Won’t fly, rather myoptic view of the real world.[}:)][}:)][}:)]
As you can see by Mudchicken’s kneejerk and misdefined view of the idea of separate infrastructure and transporting entities for the NA rail system, there is a narrow-minded cultishness that dominates those who work for the rail industry. His reactionary response to the presentation of evolved ideas is the result of a deep seated fear in the rail oligarchy that the monopolistic gravy train would soon end if the rail playing field was ever opened up to de facto competition. Obviously, given the fact that all other transportation modes function extremely well in an open access environment, one must question why the rail industry continues to short itself with the closed access mentality (and continue to lose market share to other modes as well). It is even more intriguing in Mudchicken’s case, given that he is a MOW worker and would thrive working for an infrastructure company. At least, it would be useful for folks such as he to provide some background for their opposition, rather than shovel out insults and inuendo to those who present the new ideas. The fact that the only rebuttal these folks can give in opposition to open access is the problems experienced in Great Britain during it’s startup of an open access regime shows that their body of work in this rebuttal is thin indeed, especially when one considers that the British open access rail system is now thriving. Add to that the success experienced in other European countries and Australia, and there is no question such a system would do wonders here in NA for making railroads dominate in intercity freight transportation once again.
If you really want an example of myopic hypocrasy, try the fact that railroaders complain about the “subsidies” for the infrastructure of other modes, yet they themselves will reject any attempt to include the nation’s rail system under a similar regime. You sometimes get the feeling that railroaders would rather see the nation’s other transportation systems devolved into closed access re
Whew! Marxism/Leninism (i.e-head-up-buttism) vs. Capitalist swine (swindle and predate). Glad to see that there is common ground.
When you appeal to the state to solve your problems, you place them in charge of your life!!! Mother Corp will only be too glad to offer you a nipple and hold you tight so that you can never let go.
You are entitled to your opinion, just do not expect the rest of the forum to walk off in lockstep with your point of view. The one sided argument does NOT fly with those of us working in the real world and would make Penn Central’s finance and physical condition look insignificant by comparison.
Balance of opinion…Let 88gta form an informed opinion on his own.
What? You mean the rest of the forum participants won’t walk off in lockstep [bow] with “my” POV?!? I’m shocked![:O][:O][:O]
I totally agree with your view that 88gta and others will be able to from their own opinions. I’m not sure why you and others are convinced there is some kind of “agenda” going on here. I would argue just about everyone on this forum has some thought provoking opinions. In my view, the more diversity of opinion, the better. It’s just that some on this forum mistake insults and backstabbing for thought provoking opinion.
Suffice it to say, it’s not kosher to accuse someone of being on a soapbox, when you yourself are standing knee deep in Ivory Liquid.
Actually,
Its kinda funny…
All you gotta do is ring the bell, and watch Uncle Pavs nephew start slobbering about open access…
Talk about knee jerk reactions!
What right do you have for accusing me of personal attacks, when all I did was initially provide a set of reasons that open access might be perferable to both the current closed access system and/or a return to re-regulation of rail transporter services? The response was not a set of counterarguments, but an accusation of having “an agenda”, being “myopic”, being on a soapbox, etc. Naturally, I will respond in kind, and I am correct in assessing Mudchicken’s initial response to my set of talking points as being kneejerk, and his assessment of open access arguements being “myopic” is clearly misdefined. Add to that the “dings” from Ed and his ilk, and it is extremely amusing to me that I am the one being accused of “personal attacks”, when clearly it is the anti-idea crowd that is engaged in personal attacks. Paul, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Again, I will challenge anyone to provide some substance to the set of talking points in favor of open access with a set of counterarguments against open access, without resorting to the “agenda”, “soapbox” or “ding” replies. Will open access aid in reducing the U.S. trade deficit or not? If not, provide some substanitive reasons why you don’t think open access would address that issue. Will open access provide incentive for manufacturers to stay and or build in the U.S. rather than locating overseas, or not. If not, provide some substanitive arguments why you think open access won’t aid in addressing that issue. Will open access be the best option for staving off re-regulation of rail transporting services (e.g. rate re-regulation), or is there a better way to placate the concerns of captive shippers without the inevitable rate regulation? If it is the latter, please provide the reasons how and why these other ways will work toward resolving those issues. What about the points of “equalizing” the playing field among railroad service providers, trucks, barges, et al? What about the idea of using open access
Ok here’s what I have to say about this issue. The government was once interested in railroads when the first came out as the new and improved way of effective transportation of people and goods. Tthe government subsidized and funded the now “fallen flag railroads”. And they would be concidered foolish if the didn’t. Railroads were one of the biggest and fast growing industries in the market. Well this all changed when cars were invented. Now the big thing was the trucking industry, so the govrnment turned it’s back on the rails and looked to the trucks. This is one of the reasons why I’m mad at the govenment for doing this. Because of this I don’t think the government would have the slightest interest in investing in railroad technology anymore. The government doesn’t even what to give Amtrak money do you think that they’d want to give a major class one freight, any money to build new infrastructure??//
As the dairy ads say “Got ilk?”. As far as ilk goes, it must be a minimum of a 6 point ilk, ilk is best grilled over mesquite, ilk goes great with others “whine” and cheese. Unfortunely ilk season is over, but snipe season is here!![:D]
I can’t really make an informed opinion because most of the arguments that are being made by both sides are a bit over my head. I’m not very familiar with railroad processes, history, or even the terminolgy being thrown about. Open access, closed access, regulation, deregulation, reregulation… it’s all greek to me.
I originally posted this thread to solicit ideas on how the givernement could make rail more competetive, or “subsidize” it as it does with the trucking industry. While gov’t may not set out to subsidize trucks by directly giving them money, incentives or tax breaks, the industry uses governement supplied highways and it’s only real costs are labor, fuel, and maintainance on it’s fleet. Imagine what rail could do if it had those same 3 major costs and didn’t have to worry about maintaining or replacing rail or ballast or signals, etc. However, short of turning the entire rail network over to the gov’t, I’m not sure how the playing field could be leveled like that. That’s what I’m looking for opinions on.
And for all I know, that’s exactly what you’ve been discussing and I just can’t understand it. Let’s pretend you were explainging this to Joe Blow out on the street… what could gov’t do to help the railroads be more competetive or “level the playing field” if you want to use that term, without bankrupting either the roads or the gov’t.
I appreciate all the replies, and let’s keep the discussion civil and informative! I’m learning!