Thoughts on rail......

[CSXrules4eva]

Ok here's what I have to say about this issue. The government was once interested in railroads when the first came out as the new and improved way of effective transportation of people and goods. Tthe government subsidized and funded the now "fallen flag railroads". And they would be concidered foolish if the didn't. Railroads were one of the biggest and fast growing industries in the market. Well this all changed when cars were invented. Now the big thing was the trucking industry, so the govrnment turned it's back on the rails and looked to the trucks. This is one of the reasons why I'm mad at the govenment for doing this. Because of this I don't think the government would have the slightest interest in investing in railroad technology anymore. The government doesn't even what to give Amtrak money do you think that they'd want to give a major class one freight, any money to build new infrastructure??//

[selector]

I heard once that the person doing the most talking in an argument is usually the one in the wrong.

[Anonymous]

Mac and others,

What right do you have for accusing me of personal attacks, when all I did was initially provide a set of reasons that open access might be perferable to both the current closed access system and/or a return to re-regulation of rail transporter services? The response was not a set of counterarguments, but an accusation of having "an agenda", being "myopic", being on a soapbox, etc. Naturally, I will respond in kind, and I am correct in assessing Mudchicken's initial response to my set of talking points as being kneejerk, and his assessment of open access arguements being "myopic" is clearly misdefined. Add to that the "dings" from Ed and his ilk, and it is extremely amusing to me that I am the one being accused of "personal attacks", when clearly it is the anti-idea crowd that is engaged in personal attacks. Paul, you don't know what you're talking about.

Again, I will challenge anyone to provide some substance to the set of talking points in favor of open access with a set of counterarguments against open access, without resorting to the "agenda", "soapbox" or "ding" replies. Will open access aid in reducing the U.S. trade deficit or not? If not, provide some substanitive reasons why you don't think open access would address that issue. Will open access provide incentive for manufacturers to stay and or build in the U.S. rather than locating overseas, or not. If not, provide some substanitive arguments why you think open access won't aid in addressing that issue. Will open access be the best option for staving off re-regulation of rail transporting services (e.g. rate re-regulation), or is there a better way to placate the concerns of captive shippers without the inevitable rate regulation? If it is the latter, please provide the reasons how and why these other ways will work toward resolving those issues. What about the points of "equalizing" the playing field among railroad service providers, trucks, barges, et al? What about the idea of using open access to transfer part of the burden of capital expenditure from the railroads to federal and state governments? If you don't think open access in some form would result in an increase in rail's share of intercity traffic, tell us why. If you don't think open access the best way to allow private rail passenger services to thrive in the U.S., tell us why.

If any of you can do that without the insults and inuendo, that would probably be appreciated by all. I have my doubts that most of the anti-open access crowd can do so.

[edblysard]

Actually,
Its kinda funny...
All you gotta do is ring the bell, and watch Uncle Pavs nephew start slobbering about open access....
Talk about knee jerk reactions!

Ed

[PNWRMNM]

Dear Mudchicken,

I have given up on futuremodal because of his ranting personal attacks on those who do not agree with him. You might want to adopt the same course.

Mac

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

Futuremodal:

You are entitled to your opinion, just do not expect the rest of the forum to walk off in lockstep with your point of view. The one sided argument does NOT fly with those of us working in the real world and would make Penn Central's finance and physical condition look insignificant by comparison.

Balance of opinion.....Let 88gta form an informed opinion on his own.

MudChicken

What? You mean the rest of the forum participants won't walk off in lockstep [bow] with "my" POV?!? I'm shocked![:O][:O][:O]

I totally agree with your view that 88gta and others will be able to from their own opinions. I'm not sure why you and others are convinced there is some kind of "agenda" going on here. I would argue just about everyone on this forum has some thought provoking opinions. In my view, the more diversity of opinion, the better. It's just that some on this forum mistake insults and backstabbing for thought provoking opinion.

Suffice it to say, it's not kosher to accuse someone of being on a soapbox, when you yourself are standing knee deep in Ivory Liquid.

[bobwilcox]

If you can not defend your ideas then you resort to demeaning anyone that has a different view.

[mudchicken]

Futuremodal:

You are entitled to your opinion, just do not expect the rest of the forum to walk off in lockstep with your point of view. The one sided argument does NOT fly with those of us working in the real world and would make Penn Central's finance and physical condition look insignificant by comparison.

Balance of opinion.....Let 88gta form an informed opinion on his own.

MudChicken

[selector]

Whew! Marxism/Leninism (i.e-head-up-buttism) vs. Capitalist swine (swindle and predate). Glad to see that there is common ground.

When you appeal to the state to solve your problems, you place them in charge of your life!!! Mother Corp will only be too glad to offer you a nipple and hold you tight so that you can never let go.

[Anonymous]

88gta350,

As you can see by Mudchicken's kneejerk and misdefined view of the idea of separate infrastructure and transporting entities for the NA rail system, there is a narrow-minded cultishness that dominates those who work for the rail industry. His reactionary response to the presentation of evolved ideas is the result of a deep seated fear in the rail oligarchy that the monopolistic gravy train would soon end if the rail playing field was ever opened up to de facto competition. Obviously, given the fact that all other transportation modes function extremely well in an open access environment, one must question why the rail industry continues to short itself with the closed access mentality (and continue to lose market share to other modes as well). It is even more intriguing in Mudchicken's case, given that he is a MOW worker and would thrive working for an infrastructure company. At least, it would be useful for folks such as he to provide some background for their opposition, rather than shovel out insults and inuendo to those who present the new ideas. The fact that the only rebuttal these folks can give in opposition to open access is the problems experienced in Great Britain during it's startup of an open access regime shows that their body of work in this rebuttal is thin indeed, especially when one considers that the British open access rail system is now thriving. Add to that the success experienced in other European countries and Australia, and there is no question such a system would do wonders here in NA for making railroads dominate in intercity freight transportation once again.

If you really want an example of myopic hypocrasy, try the fact that railroaders complain about the "subsidies" for the infrastructure of other modes, yet they themselves will reject any attempt to include the nation's rail system under a similar regime. You sometimes get the feeling that railroaders would rather see the nation's other transportation systems devolved into closed access regimes for highways, waterways, airways, pipelines, and transmission as the way to "level" the playing field, rather than joining their modal counterparts in a superiorly evolved state of existence.

What the rail heirarchy doesn't understand is that the current closed access oligarchy is untendable, and will either be eventually re-regulated by the feds in response to the mounting complaints from captive shippers regarding rate gouging and underserved industries regarding poor or refused service requests, or the nation's rail grid will be nationalized to provide the necessary rate and service relief for our nation's manufacturers and producers (at a huge cost to transportation productivity). The best solution is a separation of the private rail network into infrastructure and transporting companies, with the infrastructure companies functioning as regulated utilities and the transporter companies functioning as the transporter companies do in other modes, but given the lack of cognitive abilities and forward-thinking vision in both the industry and government (not to mention the complete ignorance the average voting citizen has toward the current rail structure), the other two options are more likely to happen.

[Modelcar]

...A simple way to effect a difference and help level the playing field: Inforce truck speed limits on interstate highways...!

[mudchicken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

Dave:

The Feds tell the state how many miles of rail, how many acres and what physical improvements. The state receives a check from the railroad every 3 months for that part of the railroad in their state. The State distributes the property tax to the state, counties and cities. States like Colorado also have a ton-mile tax and diesel fuel taxes. The trucker pays an artificially low highway use tax (the tax does NOT equal the proportional damage done to the highway, no matter what excuse ATA turns loose), a tax on diesel fuel and taxes on the rig..(and not much else).

You've got a lot to see and learn yet...

"The Feds tell the state how many miles of rail..."

"The state distributes the property tax to the state..."

Huh?

(1) You've never heard of a distribution check or the federal disbursement check have you? (If that check does not show up on time, the county fathers howl in pain....But their assessors, who don't understand it either, will complain that the railroads are not paying THEM directly, scoff at the notion that railroads pay their fare share)

(2) Never heard of the ICC Valuation Act of 1913? Created to level the playing field caused by uneven, wildly varying tax rates in each state caused by the people in (1)....Even with the Act of 1913, you have states like New York jacking rates up to unacceptable (as in double) the rates of other states.

(3) And futuremodal, I see, is up on his soapbox again[V]. I, for one, do not buy what he espouses. Won't fly, rather myoptic view of the real world.[}:)][}:)][}:)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

Dave:

Much of what you're speculating about has been discussed -- in some respects, to death -- under the title of "open access". One place you might start is by reading up on some of the work done by John Kneiling (the old Trains Magazine "Professional Iconoclast") who proposed that trackwork be considered as an 'iron ocean' over which trains would navigate following mutually accepted conventions and rules. It is interesting to speculate on the ways that privately-owned ROW might be converted to allow this kind of practice, as the situation with railroad track occupancy is very different from what prevails on our nation's interstates with respect to vehicle safety, capacity, etc.

When you've worked out some ways this might be done -- and checked with Google, etc., to flesh out your ideas with some facts and details -- start thinking about potential problems and opportunities. Then go back over the posts on this forum that concern "open access" and see how the arguments and discussions there affect your ways of looking at the issue.

If you can somehow get a copy of TRAINS from July of 1973, you can find an excellent John Kneiling column regarding the separation of infrastructure ownership from rail transporter services. He explores three options in terms of his preferences: 1) a series of small investor owned transport companies, 2) a series of investor owned toll railroads, and 3) government ownership of railroad right of ways. As is the case somtimes with Kneiling's writing style, it is hard to ascertain the specifics of his plan (e.g. I can see no difference between options 1 and 2 above), but he does make the point that if a railroad transporter happens to fail under this separation scenario, it does not mean the track will get torn up too, which is what happens now under the proprietary closed access system. The phrase "open access" does not occur in Kneiling's column, at least from the 1970's.

To recap from the other threads, separation of rail infrastructure from rail transporter services would take care of some serious problems: 1) It would eliminate the unfairness of the captive rail shipper, 2) It would allow more rail transporters to enter the transportation services market e.g. opens the field of railroading to more, not less, competition, 3) It would help aleviate the U.S. trade deficit, since many of the U.S. exporters are captive shippers, while no U.S. importer is captive to any rail system, 4) Operating the U.S. rail system as regulated infrastructure companies and/or under government ownership would virtually eliminate the concept of deferred maintenance e.g. there would be no robbing the maintenance budget to "sex up" the balance sheet for Wall Street speculators or to procur expenditures on non maintenance capital, 5) Right now railroad companies try to eliminate capacity until lines are saturated with traffic in order to be able to turn away business and thus boost profit margins, then and only then do they consider adding capacity. Under a separation regime, the incentive of the infrastructure companies would be to constantly add capacity in order to expand the customer base (the customer base in this case being the transporter companies) e.g. instead of improving the bottom line through monopolistic practices, they would instead improve the bottom line by increasing volumes.

Best of all, a separation of rail infrastructure from rail transporter services would be a move toward "equalization" of rail infrastructure construction and operations with the infrastructure of other modes, and by doing so will begin to eliminate the skewing of the transportation market that current runs in favor of truckers and barge lines. Railroads once moved 70% of the goods in this country, and that can only happen again under the separation scenario. Conversely, you can bet the farm that under the current system railroading will never again capture over 50% of the transporation market.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

Dave:

The Feds tell the state how many miles of rail, how many acres and what physical improvements. The state receives a check from the railroad every 3 months for that part of the railroad in their state. The State distributes the property tax to the state, counties and cities. States like Colorado also have a ton-mile tax and diesel fuel taxes. The trucker pays an artificially low highway use tax (the tax does NOT equal the proportional damage done to the highway, no matter what excuse ATA turns loose), a tax on diesel fuel and taxes on the rig..(and not much else).

You've got a lot to see and learn yet...

"The Feds tell the state how many miles of rail..."

"The state distributes the property tax to the state..."

Huh?

[Overmod]

Dave:

Much of what you're speculating about has been discussed -- in some respects, to death -- under the title of "open access". One place you might start is by reading up on some of the work done by John Kneiling (the old Trains Magazine "Professional Iconoclast") who proposed that trackwork be considered as an 'iron ocean' over which trains would navigate following mutually accepted conventions and rules. It is interesting to speculate on the ways that privately-owned ROW might be converted to allow this kind of practice, as the situation with railroad track occupancy is very different from what prevails on our nation's interstates with respect to vehicle safety, capacity, etc.

When you've worked out some ways this might be done -- and checked with Google, etc., to flesh out your ideas with some facts and details -- start thinking about potential problems and opportunities. Then go back over the posts on this forum that concern "open access" and see how the arguments and discussions there affect your ways of looking at the issue.

[mudchicken]

Dave:

The Feds tell the state how many miles of rail, how many acres and what physical improvements. The state receives a check from the railroad every 3 months for that part of the railroad in their state. The State distributes the property tax to the state, counties and cities. States like Colorado also have a ton-mile tax and diesel fuel taxes. The trucker pays an artificially low highway use tax (the tax does NOT equal the proportional damage done to the highway, no matter what excuse ATA turns loose), a tax on diesel fuel and taxes on the rig..(and not much else).

You've got a lot to see and learn yet...

[88gta350]

This post is likely to be rambling, as I'm kind of writing it as I'm thinking it... but here goes. (These topics may have been discussed around here before, but I've never caught them)

Many people say it's not fair that the trucking industry gets their transportation system (the roads/interstates) subsidized by the government while the railroads have to build their own physical plant. Roads are financed through taxes and tolls. Would it be advantagous for the railroads if the government owned all the rail? Obviously this would save the railroads a lot of money in maintaince and labor charges, and it would cost the government a lot. The government would have to make up that deficit through higher diesel fuel tax or some type of set toll for usage of the tracks.

But I can see this creating a whole host of problems. Because no one now owns the rails, everyone would be free to go as far on them as they like. Railroads would compete on cost of shipping alone. Every road in the country could travel from coast to coast. So how would you handle this traffic. At least on the road there is room for all the trucks. On rail you'd have a traffic nightmare. You'd now need some type of independent control center to route all the traffic. If a shipper wanted to build rail access, who would build and pay for it? The shipper or the govt?

Perhaps a better solution is to give some type of credits back to the railroads in direct proportion to how many miles of rail they own. Rather than the gov't building the physical plant for the railroads as they do the trucks, perhaps they could subsidize it through tax breaks or lessening the fuel tax railroads have to pay, or something else to that affect.

Anybody have any feasable ideas as to how the gov't could level the playing field between trucks and rail? Is the ROW considered real estate that gets taxed by the state/local authorities? If so, perhaps the gov't could proclaim railroad real estate exempt from all taxes, federal, state, and local?