Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 Dave: Ok, so address this please... As an advocate of open access, would it apply to all lines? In other words, would all rail lines be owned by the "rail toll roads"? It is very easy to make a case for the high tonnage lines such as BNSF Transcon, UP Overland, and others. However, at what point does the open access system cease to apply. Lets say you have the following lines: CN's ex Grand Trunk Western line from Canada to Chicago. It generates very little on line business, at least in Indiana. In essence it would be a tollway. The EJE line in Indiana generates and terminates HUGE amounts of trafffic, thanks to the steel mills. It's roll would be much differnent than the CN line. What about the EJE branch that serves only a couple of customers, perhaps only twice a week? Do you think the "toll road" will want to purchase this line and maintain it? Further, if you guarantee open access for some customers, doesnt it mean that all customers would therefore be given the right to service? How would lines be abandoned? Lets say a company moves away from rail service, but wants to keep it's options open...wouldnt they be given "open access", albeit in a form of required service by the "toll road"? ed [/quote] I probably won't be able to answer to your satisfaction, but here't goes.... First, as stated elsewhere I would prefer the fuel tax/maintenance tax credit method of financing open access lines rather than the toll idea, but since you focused on the toll concept..... I am not familiar with the example lines you mentioned, but I expect that one of them is preferable to the other in terms of point to point transit. I'll sidestep the online traffic question for now. Since railroad "slots" are a much rarer commodity than the available slots for highways and waterways, it is likely a bid process would determine who uses what slots when. Say you have three transport companies who want to leave Point A with a consist at 8 am, and it takes five hours to transit from Point A to Point B via the prefered line vs seven hours via the secondary line. Each company bids for the "prime" slot, but only one company gets it. What do the other two transport companies do? They can either bid for the 8 am slot on the secondary line, move their departure time earlier for the prefered line ahead of the 8 am prime departure time, or bid for a second section slot right behind the first. If one infrastructure entity owns both lines, they may want to offer a discount on the secondary line if the primary line is nearing capacity. If two separate entities own one line each, the owner of the lesser line may want to provide similar incentives and/or a different operating format that favors their load factor costs over the load factor costs of the transporter. If the prime line is predicated for long heavy trains, the owner of the secondary line may want to host shorter faster consists, and make up for the lesser premium with more trains per time period. Perhaps one infrastructure company will find that the prefered maximum axle weight is 66,000 lbs per (spreading the consist's weight over more axles) while the other may prefer 78,750 lbs per (concentrating the most weight on the fewest axles possible), it all would depend on rail weight, curvature, track profile, relative superelevation, etc. It is my belief that the free market in this case will not designate one winner and one loser with regard to the infrastructure companies (as has been expounded by TRAINS staff when referencing why certain lines survived while others were torn out), but will rather force the "lesser" lines to adjust to differing market aspects, and thus survive and prosper with creative cognitive adjustments. Since you now have a number of transporters needing lines to traverse, rather than having one transporter owning it's own infrastructure, the economic laws regarding absolute advantage and comparative advantage would guarantee all lines would find sufficient clients. Throw in the differential of online traffic or the lack thereof, and now you have additional concerns for doling out slots. I would think that through traffic would get preference over local traffic, but I may be wrong depending on how the local traffic affects the total revenue picture. Still, the highest bidder would get the most leeway. So I guess to answer your question, for the toll concept there would be two avenues of revenue - the fixed revenue of the slot, and the variable revenue via a ton/mile fee predicated on allowable weight per axle. The fixed revenue portion is something that would be unique for railroads compared to highways and waterways, which have no such concerns. Depending on how much of the cost is borne by the public via tax credits, federal loan guarantees, or a receipt of a larger porportion of an intermodal trust fund outlay than what was paid in, the fixed revenues would vary thuswise, and the degree of the variable revenues likewise. Take a look at the TrackShare link. They have devised a way of accounting for usage of track for open access (or some other shared use) which is predicated on full ownership financial responsibility, e.g. no public aid for supporting infrastructure costs. Their program would be a good basis for determining both fixed and variable revenue adequacy.
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