Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by Character Sounds like there are not nearly so many dissatisfied customers as some would have us believe. [/quote] Quotes from article: "But for many who rely on trains to ship their goods it has been -- at times -- a hassle." "Congestion on the tracks and a shortage of rail cars, not to mention rising prices, have all contributed to headaches for shippers and their customers." "With more freight moving through a rail system that has not been able to grow with demand, there has been occasional tension between railroads and their customers." "One of the biggest critics of the railroads is United Parcel Service, which complained to the Surface Transportation Board in Washington, D.C., last year that federal response is needed to address the capacity crunch." You see the glass half full, I see it half empty. BTW - This is a great article! Thanks for posting it. The "tell" however is in the finer print. There are several references to having the public bear the cost of new rail construction: "It has also brought to a head the need for improved rail infrastructure in the United States and perhaps a public-private partnership when it comes to paying for it." "Hamberger said the association would like Congress to provide tax credits to the railroads when they expand." "Martland believes Congress".....(that's you and me folks!)...." should finance more research on rail issues" "'Clearly, the railroads can't be asked to do it all,' Martland said. 'The public should help pay for the benefits of increased rail use, which include less highway congestion, less energy consumption and cleaner air. The railroads won't invest enough to get the full public benefits,' he said" Hmmmm, hasn't railroad retrenchment caused more, not less highway congestion? Hasn't the average truck haul to the nearest railhead increased fourfold since the 1960's? Surely Professor Martland knows that the public IS paying for loss of rail network coverage across the USA via increased truck road usage. But the funniest quote is the one from CSX spokesman Gary Sease in explaining why railroads won't keep up with current demand for fear of an economic downturn: "There's a saying in the industry. You don't build the church for Easter Sunday." Actually, you do build the church for your maximum capacity even if that capacity is only reached on special occasions. Ditto for your school gymnasium, your community theatre, your convention center...........the list is endless. And the saying, if indeed it is a current rail industry maxim, is idiotic. Only a fool builds a facility's capacity for the bare minimum.[D)] I will say there are a lot of ideas for improving rail capacity that I have promoted over the years. The UPS idea of a railroad trust fund paid for with fuel taxes on the railroads was seemingly lifted right from this forum and yours truly.[:p] And I am an advocate of using tax credits to fund rail infrastructure expansion, albeit only for lines which give opportunity for each rail shipper to have access to intramodal competition, aka the dreaded open access. Look, it boils down to this: If the railroads want the public to fund the rebuilding of lost capacity (perchance to expand rail capacity to new reaches[tup]), then the public deserves some semblence of public acces to that public/private property. Open access solves that tradeoff. Not so sure reregulation will accompli***hat end. I apologize if it seems I have hijacked another thread. I will now release the hostages.[;)]
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