by Cowford
David, perhaps you could point to a freight rail network outside of the US that is 'better.'
Ok, you say you don't advocate nationalization (I must have misinterpreted: "i think they should nataionlize (sic) the track , and make it open access.")
Open access is not a free market approach, but a form of expropriation. There is no argument that railroads, in general, DO charge higher rates and make higher contributions on closed stations than those open to rail competition. But there's also modal, source, and substitute product competition that also comes into play to keep rates in check. Your expectation for the "current owners to be well compensated" is naive and your statement about the owners enjoying a windfall to plow back into other areas leaves out a couple of tiny points: 1) Who's going to be paying all this money, and 2) How's the track to be maintained once it's nationalized? PS: Your comment about railroads "struggling to get enough capital to keep up with traffic increases." Are you in 2010? Capacity is NOT an issue now and railroads are not "struggling" to raise capital. In fact, carriers are being creative by investing now in technologies and operating practices that will avoid unnecessary capital outlays in the future. PPS: The only significant capital issue facing carriers over the next few years is adoption of PTC. And broad reaching open access would exaccerbate that.
RE your comments on regulation: not sure how you assumed I was comparing US regulatory burdens to those of other countries. But pre- and post-dereg comparisons (in all modes) should tell all but the most obtuse that in the case of US transportation More regulation = bad, less regulation = good.
RE your critical comments on standardization... sure, different railroads have different operating rules, etc. Standardization has typically centered on issues associated with interline activities. It's all about the network.
And your final comment on intermodal... is this a non sequitur?? Ireally hope you're not suggesting open access for intermodal terminals!
Bottom line... there are inequities to be acknowledged in the current system to be sure... but it works - extremely well. Open access would reduce operational efficiency and increase costs, while driving down carrier profitability. Net result: deterioration of service, disinvestment, and resumption of modal shifts away from rail.
Ok, you say you don't advocate nationalization (I must have misinterpreted: "i think they should nataionlize (sic) the track , and make it open access.")
Open access is not a free market approach, but a form of expropriation. There is no argument that railroads, in general, DO charge higher rates and make higher contributions on closed stations than those open to rail competition. But there's also modal, source, and substitute product competition that also comes into play to keep rates in check. Your expectation for the "current owners to be well compensated" is naive and your statement about the owners enjoying a windfall to plow back into other areas leaves out a couple of tiny points: 1) Who's going to be paying all this money, and 2) How's the track to be maintained once it's nationalized? PS: Your comment about railroads "struggling to get enough capital to keep up with traffic increases." Are you in 2010? Capacity is NOT an issue now and railroads are not "struggling" to raise capital. In fact, carriers are being creative by investing now in technologies and operating practices that will avoid unnecessary capital outlays in the future. PPS: The only significant capital issue facing carriers over the next few years is adoption of PTC. And broad reaching open access would exaccerbate that.
RE your comments on regulation: not sure how you assumed I was comparing US regulatory burdens to those of other countries. But pre- and post-dereg comparisons (in all modes) should tell all but the most obtuse that in the case of US transportation More regulation = bad, less regulation = good.
RE your critical comments on standardization... sure, different railroads have different operating rules, etc. Standardization has typically centered on issues associated with interline activities. It's all about the network.
And your final comment on intermodal... is this a non sequitur?? Ireally hope you're not suggesting open access for intermodal terminals!
Bottom line... there are inequities to be acknowledged in the current system to be sure... but it works - extremely well. Open access would reduce operational efficiency and increase costs, while driving down carrier profitability. Net result: deterioration of service, disinvestment, and resumption of modal shifts away from rail.