Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
I have another point of view regarding open access. Railroads are natural monopolies and therefore there are cost advantages from integration. Open access would translate into many high-cost operators instead of few lower-cost big-railroads. Nevertheless, a good legal framework is essential for competitive railroads. For those interested in economic studies, this paper (only for engineers and economists) may help: Bitzan, J. "Railroads Cost and Competition. The implications of introducing competition to railroad networks". Journal of Transport Ecoomics and Policy, Vol. 37, Part 2, May 2003, pp. 210-225. On the other hand, separating infrastructure and operations would create incentives for increased rail/wheel damage that don't exist today and that would be very expensive to manage. If train operators are not responsible for rail maintencance, they wouldn't care about evenly load cars. Finally, this is the 21st century. Locomotives are no longer steam and railroads are no longer monopolies. Let's face it, diesels and highways rule.
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