Public Ownership of Roads is okay but Public Ownership of Railroads is not?

[Anonymous]

there is nothing new in the discussion of public vs private ownership....
since the beginning of time people have tried to decide whether a man's work, thoughts and the product of these two very personal efforts belong to the man himself
or to the self appointed group which steals it from him.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by techguy57

QUOTE: In Vermont , The state owns all the track in that state except the Central Vermont(NECR) and leases it back to Vermont Railway.

Could explain the small amount of Class I action in Vermont. Just a thought.[;)]

Mike

Viewing that the only major product is people, why would a Class 1 even want to do business there?[:-^]

[techguy57]

QUOTE: In Vermont , The state owns all the track in that state except the Central Vermont(NECR) and leases it back to Vermont Railway.

Could explain the small amount of Class I action in Vermont. Just a thought.[;)]

Mike

[Anonymous]

Reading this reminds me of trying to hear a new dirty joke, In 42 years since I was 10 years old, I have not. The same is true for the subject of this thread. There is not one new idea or suggestion that I have not heard before. A new one that is beyond the Locke vs. Marks schools of thought would be welcome.

[Anonymous]

Public Ownership is Quetly becoming more common.
Akron Metro the local Transit Bus Agency Owns about 60 miles of Track in Summit and Portage Countys. They lease it back for a nominal fee to the Wheeling and Lake Erie for Fright servive. They Also lease track to the Cuyahoga Valley Line for Passenger Service. As of this year you could take a train from Independence OH outside of Cleveland(77F RTA BUS Service from Terminal Tower) to Akron Oh(32 miles) Overnight in Akron and then continue on to Canton in the Morning.

In Vermont , The state owns all the track in that state except the Central Vermont(NECR) and leases it back to Vermont Railway. Futher more they have invested money in Exchange for Passenger service on Freight railroads. The Problem with Vermont as far as passenger service is that the state only has 600,000 people in it and that the tourist season is very Cycleical

[gabe]

Very true, and trust me--as a former prosecutor and someone who deals with many criminal issues every day--that presumption of innocence is EVERYTHING.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

along with the presumption of innocence.

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cbt141

this was tried for 75 years in and around moscow.
generally considered to have been a poor idea.
needed a wall to keep folks from leaving the game.

That is a bit of a mischaracterization. More than one country has tried that and continues this approach. In fact, I believe that America's private ownership of rail is by far the exception rather than the rule.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

this was tried for 75 years in and around moscow.
generally considered to have been a poor idea.
needed a wall to keep folks from leaving the game.

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

Even on toll roads, cars cross subsidize trucks. The truck toll is typically 5-10X the car toll, but the extra cost to build a road to support heavy trucks and the wear and tear caused by trucks is a much higher differential. I doubt you could ever come up with an acceptable scheme collect user fees for highway use that are exactly the same as the cost to build, police, adminstrate and maintain the roads.

Most places, county roads are funded out of local property and income taxes. How would one collect user fees for these roads without getting into privacy issues?

If I were the King of the US, I would use fuel taxes to shape markets to improve energy and environmental outcomes. But, no one would ever elect me King on this platform. We Americans love our subsidized transportation and proposing an major increase in the gasoline tax would be political suicide!

(1) I am not so sure. If truckers were forced to pay their percentage of tax that they cause wear on the road and cars had their tax reduced by that amount and were told they were not going to be pushed off the road by a tired truck driver who has two log books to hide the fact that he is tired, I am not sure you wouldn't have a very loyal constituency.

(2) I am surprised that no one has mentioned that "little" constitutionality problem with the above idea--even if it were rational to begin with.

Gabe

[jchnhtfd]

There is another thread along these lines running, on which I have made a comment -- a rather long one -- which I won't repeat here. However, that said... a few remarks here are not duplicated there, so:

First, ownership of a railroad by a pulbic agency is NOT the same as open access. Nor does it guarantee high efficiency, nor good maintenance, nor anything else. A bureacracy is a bureaucracy...

Andy (junction's) comment about EHH/CN and Canada are very interesting, and probably reasonably close. EHH is doing a very good job of running a business; with a bit more input from Ottawa (and some financial incentives -- fat chance there!) the end result might be really really good for Canada.

Third, while it is possible to interpret figures to show that British rail freight capacity may have increased duing the period of public ownership and open access, one must be -- as always -- careful to assume causality. There is no evidence to show that freight capacity would not have increased anyway: that is, one cannot demonstrate that the move to open access was responsible for the increase in capacity. What one can demonstrate, however, is that the quality of the infrastructure has decreased durning the same time period. Again, one must not assume that open access caused a troubling decrease in infrastructure quality -- but if one does assume that open access caused a change, then one must, logically, assume that it caused all changes. And I'm not sure that a decrease in infrastructure quality (and an increase in accidents and incidents) is a beneficial trade for a slight increase in capaciyt...

[mloik]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

If I were the King of the US, I would use fuel taxes to shape markets to improve energy and environmental outcomes. But, no one would ever elect me King on this platform. We Americans love our subsidized transportation and proposing an major increase in the gasoline tax would be political suicide!

[#ditto]

[oltmannd]

Even on toll roads, cars cross subsidize trucks. The truck toll is typically 5-10X the car toll, but the extra cost to build a road to support heavy trucks and the wear and tear caused by trucks is a much higher differential. I doubt you could ever come up with an acceptable scheme collect user fees for highway use that are exactly the same as the cost to build, police, adminstrate and maintain the roads.

Most places, county roads are funded out of local property and income taxes. How would one collect user fees for these roads without getting into privacy issues?

If I were the King of the US, I would use fuel taxes to shape markets to improve energy and environmental outcomes. But, no one would ever elect me King on this platform. We Americans love our subsidized transportation and proposing an major increase in the gasoline tax would be political suicide!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

Better idea... Lets privatize all of the public roads, just thing of all the money won't be coming out of my pocket anymore. The trucking companys will find out what it's like to have an infrastructure more than a parking lot and a few trucks.
Randy

Sounds fair to me. How do I buy shares in the Thruway Authority? It's the only thing in this state that makes any $$$...

LC

[arbfbe]

I believe the city of Cincinnati still owns the CNO&TP and has it leased to the NS, correct? That seems to have worked quite well for both parties but that is the exception rather than the rule.

Alan

[Anonymous]

I gotta ask, are you a member of some militia? It seems you are anti-government and/or always running "against the grain". Just curious.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

There are publicly owned railroads, such as the Alaska. But every attempt to separate infrstructure and the trains seems to bring more problems than it solves. This was true with Britain and it seems to be true even in some respects with Amtrak and the freight railroads.

The key arguable aspect of the British open access experience is whether they have managed to increase rail freight capacity. By most accouts, it has to some degree, in spite of the inherent problems of a passenger dominated system. If so, then that suggests a similar capacity increase could occur in the U.S. with open access.

[Junctionfan]

Well I am going to apologies in advance if I sound offensive; please don't take what I say personally but as something to seriously ponder.

I know it has been talked about to death but might as well talk about something right? It is a worthy topic to discuss every once in a while since depending on what we experience or learn, our opinions may differ apon new information. That's what flexibility is all about in a forum of well rounded individuals who are thinkers and not just folk who need others to think for themselves.

The reason why public class 1 railroads don't work is for several reasons.

1/ The capitalists don't want to so they drag their heals as much as possible to spite public enterprise because it is effecting their profit. That is one reason

2/ Government particularly the liberals and yes a good deal of us left-wingers don't know their butts from the hole in the ground about running a business particularly the railroad. CN and Conrail are great examples.

3/ Certain laws and constitutional amendments prohibit the government from doing things even if they would like to and would do a good job. A great deal of folk are so darn hardcore when it comes to the constitution that change is slow and stagnent so it is next to impossible to make any reform when need be. As there are what are called "bible-thumpers", there are those who are "constitution-thumpers".

Having said this, you have to take in account that making roads private won't work at all. Profit on highways and roads is even less profitable than passenger train service. There are so many roads that it is impossible to exploit a market that is so big and impossible to recieve a large market share on. Unless one made a monopoly on all of the roads, sustained revenue never mind profit would be a struggle to maintain as moterists would eventually get ticked off and find alternative routes or methods of travel. A great example is the retarded Conservative Ontario government privatizing highway 407. The private enterprise which bought it, are having a difficult time getting any money off of the tolls and those who don't pay tolls, get a bill in the mail but nobody pays them. Government was asked to help out and take legislative steps if necessary but were refused. The enterprise has been forced to send tons of folk to a collection agency. Not very profitable at all right?

Railroads are something different all together. There aren't too many of them that can offer certain services that even other modes of transportation could cheaply match so profit isn't too difficult to accumulate. It's just a matter of running the railroads properly and having a balance of power. For example, I believe E. Hunter Harrison and his team at CN wouldn't be so bad if the government was a major shareholder. Neither government nor Harrison is entirely good for Canada but with a balance (Harrison being a successful businessman and the government being a successful bureaucrat) Canada at least should do very well and CN should prosper for Canada if the government is a major investor but not the greatest investor otherwise the government is purely in charge again which didn't work the first time.

Now I know what I said will likely attract some Andrew bashing for a bit; well I'll survive but let's face it folks, how true is what I have said? Not far off from the truth I would say.

[Anonymous]

Passenger rail is publicly operated worldwide. A train ticket is priced at what riders are willing to pay but this is below the cost of providing the service. Privatized passenger trains lose money because of this. But passenger trains don’t just provide value to riders, cars take up too much space, cars consume over a third of Los Angeles and makes high density city centers impossible. Even in the suburbs the cost of land is so high running a commuter train would be cheaper than buying the land to build a freeway. Commuter rail all over the world is publicly subsidized and the public gets a better return on that subsidy than they would buy building freeways.

Manhattan, the Chicago Loop, San Francisco’s financial district places that generate far more wealth per square mile than anywhere in the country could not exist without subsidized commuter rail.

Passenger rail has value to both riders and the general public and the public pays to consume the benefits.

It seems that when the primary purpose of a railroad is passenger service it is publicly owned but when its primary purpose is freight service its privately owned because freight service can cover operating expenses from fares alone.

[daveklepper]

There are publicly owned railroads, such as the Alaska. But every attempt to separate infrstructure and the trains seems to bring more problems than it solves. This was true with Britain and it seems to be true even in some respects with Amtrak and the freight railroads.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

Better idea... Lets privatize all of the public roads, just thing of all the money won't be coming out of my pocket anymore. The trucking companys will find out what it's like to have an infrastructure more than a parking lot and a few trucks.
Randy

So, what's good for the goose is good for the gander?

Of course, if you think about it, at the start of the surface transportation revolution, most forms of constructed interstate infrastructure were privately owned tollways - the early toll roads, the first freight canals, the first railroads. It can be said that the two former evolved into public right of ways, the latter did not.

It would have been interesting if all the land grants given for railroad construction had a stated caveat that the owner was forbidden to run his own trains over the new lines, and instead was directed to charge a toll to other train operators! I wonder how different the transportation world would be today?

[Randy Stahl]

Better idea... Lets privatize all of the public roads, just thing of all the money won't be coming out of my pocket anymore. The trucking companys will find out what it's like to have an infrastructure more than a parking lot and a few trucks.
Randy

[Anonymous]

Oh god, not again

[Anonymous]

Public Ownership of Right of ways of Highways and Toll Roads is accepted and the Publics Right of Free Acess to them is also but Public Ownership of Railroad Infrastucture is not? Certainly unless you are living under a rock we all get benefits of cheeper and Cleaner modes of transporttion wether use them or not. Food is cheaper and fresher, Lawyers Doctors and Proffesionals can serve us without having to live in our area by taking Public Trains and Public Roads. We can have stuff brought to us from all over the world via Container trains and ships.
So making just the users pay for there access is unfair because there are third partys who benifit as well. Collecting Taxes from those people makes sure that our Infrastucture stays in place.
Private Ownership and Private capital may have worker when this country was young and Private Entrapranuers had pooled there money together to build our railroads and canals. But those people acted not out of benolence but for personal gain. In todays urbanised world Transportation is in The Pro Bono or the Public Good and Intrest . By acting collectivly under our a Democratic Goverment WE can decide what we need and when we need Infrastucture.