Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding ameliorated? You're expecting the *government* to level the playing field ? [:)]. The question, plainly is- Why would there be a top end of what an IO could earn? If the idea is to make for more competition, why would you want to limit how well an IO performs? [/quote] That is the whole idea of implementing OA into the nation's rail system, taking the anachronistic devolution of the closed access system (or if it pleases you, dragging the railroad companies kicking and screaming out of the last vestiges of a Feudal mentality), and bringing it forward into an evolved state where the operational characteristics of railroading is in a similar vein as the other transportation modes. I doubt that it would happen voluntarily, to risky for those who might vs those who absolutely would not, thus the need for governmental oversight of the transistion. Don't forget, it is the railroad companies (and TRAINS columnists) who constantly complain about the "unfair" advantages highways and waterways have over railways. They are the ones who want a level playing field, asking for government aid to help pay for the selective capacity expansion projects, but without the added competition those other modes exhibit. A great example of the "wanting to have the cake and wanting to eat the cake too" is such. Why a top end to what an IO could earn? The user fees would have to be regulated to prevent the very bottleneck rates being scammed on us now. Allowing an IO to charge differential rates would defeat the whole purpose of OA.
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