The idea of either the Government owning the tracks and infrastructure directly or having a government controlled "private" corporation own and operate the rail system is not new at all. It has been tossed around for years under the name of "Open Access". The government then sells or leases the right to run trains on the tracks to private companies.
This has been tried over the past few decades by several countries in Europe, most notably Great Brittan. The results have been less than spectacular; perhaps several of our regular posters from across the pond can enlighten us. The most common complaint that I have heard is the Government often has its own ideas about when and where the trains should run, regardless of what the train operating company's customers want. Making new freight operations very difficult.
In the United States, there is no National Transportation Policy and we have a mish-mosh of government agencies that both promote and police the form of transportation they are supposedly in charge of, and spend an inordinate amount of time fighting with the other goverment transportation agencies for money. Think about it, if it comes down to spending public money to repair a major Interstate Highway used by commuters, a major airport used by millions of travelers or a railroad mainline that hasn't seen a passenger train in 40 years, where do you think the politicans will put the money? Oh....and don't b***h about your taxes.
Pardon me for a really dumb question.
When the rest of the world is privatizing government-owned systems, why would it be a good idea to turn our private rail infrastructure over to the politicians?
It was tried, once. Look up the history of operations under the USRA to see how well THAT worked.
Chuck
Or, alternatively, the Government could just reduce taxes and get out of the way.
How long are the Government fools going to hold up the second track through Abo Canyon? It's something like five miles of second track. Five miles of second track isn't going to have a signifcant effect on anything's environment. But it's delay, delay, delay from our saviors in Washington.
The problem with government ownership is that all decisions will political rather than economic. Better to leave business in the hands of businessmen. The quest for profit generally leads to more efficiency, better service and more value for the customer's dollar.
Having said that, I still have no problem with public tax money spent to improve ROWs. For example, I would urge New York State to add a third track to the Water Level Route, from NYC to BUF. It would be a 110 mph line primarily for Amtrak use, but available to CSX on a not-to-interfere basis. The higher speed passenger service would serve the state interest in expanding the passenger and freight corridor at a cost much lower than adding a lane to the Thruway. By partnering with CSX and the fed government it could be done without breaking Albany's budget.
Note: According to Amtrak, it costs about $5 million per mile to upgrade existing track to 150 mph standards. Compare that to $10 to 20 million to add one mile of lane to an existing interstate highway. (2004 estimates) My 110 mph plan should be cheaper.
Public ownership would be like the interstate highways for railroads. Could anyone wiyh a train run thier train anywhere they want? Just think how good our interstates are. The people in DC do not spend the money that should be spent on highways like they should. Railroads would be back to the 70's. Anyone remember the railroads in the 70's?
I say bad idea.
Norman Saxon wrote: mudchicken wrote: Any time you want to see why you keep government out of ownership of otherwise private freight lines, look at Massachusetts. (absolutely awful custodian of former PC and NH lines)...Transit at the expense of viable freight lines? No thank you.Dumb idea.Can the same be said for state ownership of lines in North Carolina or Washington state?
mudchicken wrote: Any time you want to see why you keep government out of ownership of otherwise private freight lines, look at Massachusetts. (absolutely awful custodian of former PC and NH lines)...Transit at the expense of viable freight lines? No thank you.Dumb idea.
Any time you want to see why you keep government out of ownership of otherwise private freight lines, look at Massachusetts. (absolutely awful custodian of former PC and NH lines)...
Transit at the expense of viable freight lines? No thank you.
Dumb idea.
Can the same be said for state ownership of lines in North Carolina or Washington state?
North Carolina is blessed with an operating company that knows what's it's doing. (Cincinnati as well.) NC loves the income derived. NC the custodian leaves a lot to be desired. (cutting its own throat in the courts and impeding the future viability of the line)
Washington is too early to tell (and IMHO we have seen some regrettable early moves)
GP40-2 wrote: mudchicken wrote: Any time you want to see why you keep government out of ownership of otherwise private freight lines, look at Massachusetts. (absolutely awful custodian of former PC and NH lines)...Transit at the expense of viable freight lines? No thank you.Dumb idea.The slime ball politicians that run Massachusetts are awful custodians of everything in that state, not just rail lines. Hmm, I wonder why Massachusetts is the only state that is losing population, and now has a higher percentage of functionally illiterate individuals than Mississippi?
23 17 46 11
mudchicken wrote:Any time you want to see why you keep government out of ownership of otherwise private freight lines, look at Massachusetts. (absolutely awful custodian of former PC and NH lines)...Transit at the expense of viable freight lines? No thank you.Dumb idea.
Just a quibble here, but the "public" already owns the railroad infrastructure though something called stock. For instance, any of you out there with a pension other than Social Security (our national Ponzi scheme) probably indirectly owns plenty of railroad stock.
If, by "public" one means government, then we're talking something else altogether. The difference between the two versions is that other than the government, the people building the infrastructure must obtain the money with a realistic assumption that they will be able to pay the cost of renting the money from the infrastructure.
Now stepping down from the thank you.
diningcar wrote: Why is it that someone can throw out a number "trillons of dollars" without an ounce of supporting data and then ask all who read it to accept it as fact and take some action???In fact private RR's are doing very well with upgrading the vital corridors, ie, the TRANSCON of the BNSF and the SUNSET of the UP. There is no current emergency, nor one foreseeable unless unsupported data is assumed.By-the way, the State of New Mexico is currently constructing a passenger rail line in the median of I-25, apparently without consideration for the safety concerns described by other respondents at this post. This boondoggle is in one of the less demanding public transportation corridors, Albuquerque to Santa Fe, where the creation of one additional lane in each direction would take care of projected growth for decades. And, there is plenty of room to build the lanes without disrupting ongoing public and private operations.
Why is it that someone can throw out a number "trillons of dollars" without an ounce of supporting data and then ask all who read it to accept it as fact and take some action???
In fact private RR's are doing very well with upgrading the vital corridors, ie, the TRANSCON of the BNSF and the SUNSET of the UP. There is no current emergency, nor one foreseeable unless unsupported data is assumed.
By-the way, the State of New Mexico is currently constructing a passenger rail line in the median of I-25, apparently without consideration for the safety concerns described by other respondents at this post. This boondoggle is in one of the less demanding public transportation corridors, Albuquerque to Santa Fe, where the creation of one additional lane in each direction would take care of projected growth for decades. And, there is plenty of room to build the lanes without disrupting ongoing public and private operations.
Why is it that someone can do that? It's one of the drawbacks of free speech and democracy? I'm being facetious, but not entirely.
Anyway, I'm not seeing a stampede of agreement with either the premises or the action plan. The fact that it proposed highway medians, presumably for freight, shows very little technical depth. On the other hand, a certain state proposed just that a few years ago, and it took no small amount of suasion to turn the light on!
RWM
I agree strongly with the concept, and in fact have stated it in here myself.
That said, I have reservations because of the fine job the Feds are doing maintaining the rest of the infrastructure...
We are talking about a government that lets automobile bridges deteriorate while it uses the dedicated highway trust fund to build a million dollar bus stop in front of a museum in Ankorage AK, and to support the Packard and Erie Canal museums. Then there is the walking trail in the Great Smokeys.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
But think of the advantages. 1. No crossings for the highway patroll to turn around and hunt you down with the rest of the traffic going 20 over the limit. Or 2. With a crossing, a slow 120 car train could keep mister copper sitting there for 3 minutes before he can turn around to try to catch you.
But really, why should the public own the railbeds. Wouldn't that turn out to be the government. Nothing good generally happens when the government takes over something they need not get their hands on.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
Leet me see if I have this correct...you want morons on their cell phones, eating a Macanything, driving next to tankcars full of LPG?
Last time I looked, any close interaction between automobiles and trains most often results in serious problems.
The public already owns the medians of Interstates, but for technical reasons that is not a viable location for any useful freight railroad unless the highway is rebuilt on a vertical and horizontal alignment that's suitable for railroads. If that was to be done, the better location is to the side of the highway, not the middle. The few examples that exist -- one in Los Angeles and the MoPac freeway in Austin come to mind -- are cases where the railroad was there first and the highway sandwiched around it.
1. Energy issues are putting pressure on the railroads, both in terms of passenger traffic and freight.
2. The trillions of dollars it will take to recover from 50 years of railroad neglect cannot be shouldered by the private railroads.
3. Our roads, airports and waterways are owned by the public, with privately-owned trucks, buses, airplanes and barges operating on that infrastructure.
4. It is time for the public to own the railbeds and track, for the use of private corporations and general public.
5. Rail expansion can include double-tracking, more bypasses, laying track down the middle of Interstate medians, etc.
6. Join the nascent group Public Ownership Of Railbeds (P.O.O.R.) at dsoverby@msn.com to begin to correct this problem.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.