Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]Originally posted by Mark W. Hemphill [ The real question is economic value: which mode provides more in which lane for which commodity? And, just as important, how much do we (the public) want to insert taxpayer money to enhance the economic value of one or more modes? And, how much do we want to favor one mode in order to get other things we value -- such as safety, environmental quality, peace and quiet, and other things -- that are difficult to quantify in dollars? Right now, the public is continuing its decision to provide an open-access, taxpayer-provided highway system with no fixed costs for truckers and user fees that do not reflect true costs, while at the same time hoping that railroads can continue to provide a high fixed-cost, franchise-based system that doesn't pay for itself. As we can see, this huge input of taxpayer money has shifted the economic value decision toward trucks in many commodities and lanes since the 1920s. (This is not necessarily a bad thing; the advent of trucking has had huge economic benefits and greatly increased wealth in this country.) Every shipper is going to pick the best solution, and if the public wants to give you (the shipper) money, you're not going to turn them down. Your competitor won't! The public can change its mind at any time. Whatever the public decides to do is their decision to make, not mine, not this magazine's, and not a trucking or railroad companys'. All we do in Trains is point out the outcomes of any given policy. One outcome of the current policy is that it is causing disinvestment in railroads, through such things as abandonment and extraction of cash, which is given to investors to put into other businesses which presumably have a better long-term outlook. Maybe the public doesn't NEED railroads, in which case this decision is fine. If they do, then this decision is not so fine. Before anyone decides to put taxpayer money into a transportation mode, or take it out, they might want to decide what kind of an America they want to live in. The decisions made about transportation will influence these decisions and their outcomes. Mark, I am wondering if the "open access" concept might improve the public's awareness of these issues. Although I assume it is not your place or that of TRAINS to take a position one way or the other on open access, there are two areas I'd like to explore. First, if the ownership of certain railroad right of ways were shifted to a state, port district, or regional transportation authority, wouldn't that in and of itself improve the public's awareness of the needs of railroad infrastructure maintenance? Secondly, if truck companies, 3PL's, large shippers, or even barge lines began running their own trains on a public rail right of way, wouldn't there be a greater degree of interaction between John/Jane Q. Public and railroad operators? I know it is kind of a vague line of questioning, but with the aforementioned correlation between improving efficiencies and reduced revenues for the rail industry as a whole, it seems to me to be only a matter of time until some form of open access is instituted by the regulators as the only way to truly save railroading in this country. Dave Smith
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag