One thing not discussed here, I may have missed it, is that a railroad will walk away from Gov't participation if onerous terms are placed upon it.
There are always priorities regarding the components of infrastructure inhancement and competent management will postpone those components having lessor significance if forced to do so, by either their own finances or outside conditions. Gov't just says "*** the torpedos, full speed ahead" once a project has been approved and they never look to make adjustments.
Almost without fail Gov't agencies will spend every dollar appropriated before the end of the fiscal period, and do so without regard to the value of whatever they choose to do as they empty the current budget appropriation.
diningcar One thing not discussed here, I may have missed it, is that a railroad will walk away from Gov't participation if onerous terms are placed upon it. There are always priorities regarding the components of infrastructure inhancement and competent management will postpone those components having lessor significance if forced to do so, by either their own finances or outside conditions. Gov't just says "*** the torpedos, full speed ahead" once a project has been approved and they never look to make adjustments. Almost without fail Gov't agencies will spend every dollar appropriated before the end of the fiscal period, and do so without regard to the value of whatever they choose to do as they empty the current budget appropriation.
True, any business will walk under unfavorable conditions which cannot be negotiated or dealt with. So what's your point? And your final sentence is a very broad generalization based more on political persuasion than all facts. But also note, is the fact that private enterprise railroads are coming to the trough so to speak. Government is not imposing anything on them, begging them on. The railroad industry, like BNSF, has said that they cannot see more than 75% private monies available needed for improvements and maintenance over the next 20 or so years. What they are saying in effect is: do you want big business to continue as a provider of transportation needs or do you want us to do just what we can and burden you with what's left? There statement is not begging, not socialism, not passing the buck, not looking for pork, not even the failure of privatea enterprise, but rather a realistic look at the transportation needs of the future in this country, and seeking ways to make it happen, not just for private enterprise, but for the public's governements as well. Again, what happens if "nothing" is done? is a question to which the answer is not "nothing" but could be catastrophic at worst, disruptive at least. Build the ark now instead of waiting for the flood!
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6The railroad industry, like BNSF, has said that they cannot see more than 75% private monies available needed for improvements and maintenance over the next 20 or so years. What they are saying in effect is: do you want big business to continue as a provider of transportation needs or do you want us to do just what we can and burden you with what's left?
The railroad industry, like BNSF, has said that they cannot see more than 75% private monies available needed for improvements and maintenance over the next 20 or so years. What they are saying in effect is: do you want big business to continue as a provider of transportation needs or do you want us to do just what we can and burden you with what's left?
Maybe it's me, aren't they (BNSF) saying, "If you want big business to continue as a provider of transportation needs, we'll do what we can and burden you with what is left." I see it this way because the government is being asked to pay a quarter of the cost.
I am guessing BNSF's evaluation of funds is based on todays numbers, what happens in five to ten years when revenues, investments, etc. are at a point where BNSF no longer needs government monies. Do they turn down the cash? Or, vice versa, BNSF's projections are wrong, do they hit up the government for more funds? You know, in for a penny, in for a pound.
James
henry6, My 1st point is that RR's may be asking for some Gov't participation on projects which are mutually beneficial, but unless we know the specifics of those projects we cannot judge how significant they are to the RR's on say a 1 to 100 list of the total.
If the RR's currently think they can pay for 75% then it may well be that items 76 to 100 will be postponed, or not done at all because as 1 to 75 are done some of the remaining 25 may diminish in importance or even dissappear. After all this is a long rage projection and the rule of thumb is "plan for five years", and be studying beyond that time frame.
Yes I know that the RR's compiled the list but I believe that there are priorities and that some of the items are not very significant to the RR's, but if coupled with public projects may be mutually beneficial.
Finally sir I am not in the habit of injecting politics into discussion here. It matters not which political party prevails at any given time, the Agencies will spend all that is appropriated unless they are specifically instructed not to.
Regarding the last two posts: unless you, actually we..us here posting...are inside the boardrooms or have a perfectly clear crystal ball, we can only debate what is put before us as fact or make up scenerios which may or may not happen. The latter is most dangerous.
henry6 Bucyrus Since the public sector produces nothing and therefore creates no money of its own, it would take all the money the private sector has if not for the resistance put up by the private sector. In economic terms, government is a beggar with power. On the contrary, public funds invested in the Interstate highway system opened up many money making opportunities in transportation and its attending fields including, but not limited to, vehicle sales, gasoline sales, nationwide restaurant chains, local and nationwide hotel chains; industrial development in many communities, etc. And the creation of these industries and services accompanied by the paychecks produced, have given back monies to the governments in the form of income, sales, and other taxes. The government's investment in Conrail paid itself back not just in stock sale but also in bolstering the economy (tax base) of much of the east. Early governments bonding, granting, loaning and legislating allowed for turnpikes, canals, waterways, and railroads to build and expand the economy. The airline industry is supported by government military r&d, federal operation of airways, and owned and owned and operated airports all of which supposedly have benefits which go directly into the communities and their governments. Oh, there have been governement boondogles, no one is denying that. Private Sector Business has laid many bombs itself from products and service that were not needed, wanted, or viable from the start to Big Businesses missing the mark with things like the New Coke!
Bucyrus Since the public sector produces nothing and therefore creates no money of its own, it would take all the money the private sector has if not for the resistance put up by the private sector. In economic terms, government is a beggar with power.
Since the public sector produces nothing and therefore creates no money of its own, it would take all the money the private sector has if not for the resistance put up by the private sector. In economic terms, government is a beggar with power.
On the contrary, public funds invested in the Interstate highway system opened up many money making opportunities in transportation and its attending fields including, but not limited to, vehicle sales, gasoline sales, nationwide restaurant chains, local and nationwide hotel chains; industrial development in many communities, etc. And the creation of these industries and services accompanied by the paychecks produced, have given back monies to the governments in the form of income, sales, and other taxes. The government's investment in Conrail paid itself back not just in stock sale but also in bolstering the economy (tax base) of much of the east. Early governments bonding, granting, loaning and legislating allowed for turnpikes, canals, waterways, and railroads to build and expand the economy. The airline industry is supported by government military r&d, federal operation of airways, and owned and owned and operated airports all of which supposedly have benefits which go directly into the communities and their governments. Oh, there have been governement boondogles, no one is denying that. Private Sector Business has laid many bombs itself from products and service that were not needed, wanted, or viable from the start to Big Businesses missing the mark with things like the New Coke!
Your response to my quote seems to miss my point. It is not surprising that when the government pours money into a public work, that there are winners somewhere downstream. But I don’t see how that refutes what I have said. I am not saying that there is no benefit when the government invests. When the government takes a dollar from one person and gives it to another, it certainly benefits the person receiving it. But not only is there unfairness is this redistribution of the dollar, there is also the government’s cost of overhead, which might require them to take two dollars from one person in order to give one dollar to another person.
You compare government boondoggles with similarly unfortunate investments of private business and conclude that they both are guilty. But the two are not comparable. One acts with care because it assumes the risk for its own money, and the other is free to operate with no risk because it takes somebody else’s money. The motivation to spend money just to increase its own power, and the ability to do so without financial risk is the reason that government is so inefficient at doing things that could be done by the private sector.
First, I fear your responses are fears and assumptions not based on fact but emotional responses based on political persuasion. In the second paragraph above, you claim that there is a difference in investment between government and private business based on source of money. Private enterprise uses a lot of other people's money to advance itself. Thus the current mortgage and credit catastrophe. And financial risk is a very big part of government operations when seeking bonding, or satisfying its constituency. Power is the ego trip of the participants of both, not the aim of the entity. And in your first graph above, money spent by a government benefits reach further than the mere immediate recipiant. It is as much a calculated investment as any banker makes. Sit in on a municipal government meeting, or talk with a state or federal employee or official and see that they have to find a return on investment in their deliberations on projects and programs just the same as Mr. Businessman. Thus a bridge over a river would help people get to work, or allow bigger trucks traffic or mean less maintenance, or allow for development or decrease insurance costs or help emergency vehicles respond, and whatever else could be thrown in. So by giving the dollar to the bridge builder actually goes a lot further than his bank account. LIkewise for water, sewer, parks, recreation, etc. The one thing I have always wondered is why those who support only private enterprise fear anything for the common good of the community being done by government as if it would take too much from them...or is it the ego/power thing afterall? If a town want a quiet zone, why should the railroad pay for it? If a town wants to eliminate a grade crossing, shoudl the railroad pay for it? If the railroad wants to realign in tracks through a town to eliminate grade crossings, should a town help pay if it means safer roads, better emergency protections, new water or gas or sewer or power services which will east maintenanc and lower costs? My point is that both sides have something to gain (and I'm sure, lose); that both are "in this thing together". So why all the animosity between the two?
Henry,
Well said.
- Erik
henry6 Private enterprise uses a lot of other people's money to advance itself. Thus the current mortgage and credit catastrophe. And financial risk is a very big part of government operations when seeking bonding, or satisfying its constituency. ... . Sit in on a municipal government meeting, or talk with a state or federal employee or official and see that they have to find a return on investment in their deliberations on projects and programs just the same as Mr. Businessman. Thus a bridge over a river would help people get to work, or allow bigger trucks traffic or mean less maintenance, or allow for development or decrease insurance costs or help emergency vehicles respond, and whatever else could be thrown in. So by giving the dollar to the bridge builder actually goes a lot further than his bank account. LIkewise for water, sewer, parks, recreation, etc.
Private enterprise uses a lot of other people's money to advance itself. Thus the current mortgage and credit catastrophe. And financial risk is a very big part of government operations when seeking bonding, or satisfying its constituency. ... . Sit in on a municipal government meeting, or talk with a state or federal employee or official and see that they have to find a return on investment in their deliberations on projects and programs just the same as Mr. Businessman. Thus a bridge over a river would help people get to work, or allow bigger trucks traffic or mean less maintenance, or allow for development or decrease insurance costs or help emergency vehicles respond, and whatever else could be thrown in. So by giving the dollar to the bridge builder actually goes a lot further than his bank account. LIkewise for water, sewer, parks, recreation, etc.
First, a question. Have you ever taken college level economics classes? I have. This is a scientific disciplin. It's not something made up on the spot. People spend their lives studying how to effectively allocate scarce resources such as capital investment. The best way to do it is for the government to stay out and let market forces direct investment to where it is most needed.
The difference is night and day. For its history the US has generally, but not always, allowed the market forces to direct investment. Other countries, such as the Soviet Union, went with government directed investment. The USSR did a poor job providing for its people and only lasted about 70 years. The US has lasted well over 200 years and has a great lving standard.
You say private enterprise uses other people's money and cite the current mortgage crisis. I know that the current mortgage crisis was caused by government involvement in the economy through "Government Sponsored Enterprises" such as Fannie Mae that directed mortgage investment into black holes. Thereby destroying some of the wealth of our nation. Your own example pretty much proves governments don't have to meet ROI standards.
You leave out the fact that any private enterprise use of someone else's money must be voluntary on both sides. That's the market directing investment to where it is most needed - people will voluntarily invest where they get the highest return. A high rate of return is a market signal that more resources are needed in the economic activity producing the high rate of return. That voluntary thing is important. And it irks the H E double L out of government types - individual liberty, a cornerstone of the US, always gets in their way.
And a businessman isn't limited to his bank account. If his project is worthy he can attract voluntary investors and/or lenders. Unlike the businessman, government can just confiscate people's money and violate those irksome individual liberties.
As to water, sewage, power, gas, communication, etc. I have every one of those things in my home. Every one of them is privately supplied. The only real thing the government does is drive up their cost by taxing some of them. If you think about it, it's pretty oppresive for the government to tax me for reading a book, but that's what they do by taxing my electric power. (Greedy SOB's to be sure.)
Bringing this back to railroads, I'm in favor of the tax credit. (I'll disagree with Jay that we'll have to pay for it. Reduced tax rates can produce increased tax revenues.)
First, like Milton Friedman, I'm for any tax cut at any time and at any place.
Second, to keep the investment market playing field level, all business capacity expansion, not just railroad capacity expansion, should get a similar tax credit.
Third, a tax credit will keep politics out of it and allow the market to direct investment to where it is most needed.
Fourth, corporations don't really pay taxes. They collect them and pass them on to the government making our real tax burden much higher than the government propagandist say. So giving an expansion tax credit to all US businesses would really be giving us all a tax cut, and I'm for that. (See Milton Friedman above.)
Fifth, investment in railroads using a tax credit would still be voluntary on the part of investors. Respecting that individual liberty thing that is so irksome to the government.
henry6 First, I fear your responses are fears and assumptions not based on fact but emotional responses based on political persuasion. In the second paragraph above, you claim that there is a difference in investment between government and private business based on source of money. Private enterprise uses a lot of other people's money to advance itself. Thus the current mortgage and credit catastrophe. And financial risk is a very big part of government operations when seeking bonding, or satisfying its constituency. Power is the ego trip of the participants of both, not the aim of the entity. And in your first graph above, money spent by a government benefits reach further than the mere immediate recipiant. It is as much a calculated investment as any banker makes. Sit in on a municipal government meeting, or talk with a state or federal employee or official and see that they have to find a return on investment in their deliberations on projects and programs just the same as Mr. Businessman. Thus a bridge over a river would help people get to work, or allow bigger trucks traffic or mean less maintenance, or allow for development or decrease insurance costs or help emergency vehicles respond, and whatever else could be thrown in. So by giving the dollar to the bridge builder actually goes a lot further than his bank account. LIkewise for water, sewer, parks, recreation, etc. The one thing I have always wondered is why those who support only private enterprise fear anything for the common good of the community being done by government as if it would take too much from them...or is it the ego/power thing afterall? If a town want a quiet zone, why should the railroad pay for it? If a town wants to eliminate a grade crossing, shoudl the railroad pay for it? If the railroad wants to realign in tracks through a town to eliminate grade crossings, should a town help pay if it means safer roads, better emergency protections, new water or gas or sewer or power services which will east maintenanc and lower costs? My point is that both sides have something to gain (and I'm sure, lose); that both are "in this thing together". So why all the animosity between the two?
I think we are debating two distinctly different levels of this subject. My points about why government should stay out of the business sector are at a basic, fundamental level. And you are citing antidotal, detailed evidence to refute them. I don’t disagree with you that lot of the detail observations you make are true on their own. But exceptions to the rule do not necessarily disprove the rule.
Moreover, a lot of your antidotal evidence attempting to prove that government and business are alike is comparing apples to oranges. An example would be when I say government’s inherent carelessness arising from their lack of financial risk results in blunders and inefficiencies. And you counter with the contention that business makes blunders too, citing New Coke. Yes they both blunder, but the tendency is for government to blunder more than private business because of a fundamental difference in the risk they bear. And blunders of the government cost us all, while business bears the cost of its blunders.
When I say that government operates without financial risk, you cite government employees who do feel a sense of risk and look for a return on the money they spend. But am talking about a very basic level where the risk is always more real and greater in magnitude if you are risking your own hard earned money as opposed to risking the public’s money. Of course there are probably people in government who might worry themselves sick over risking public money, but they are glaring exceptions to the rule. So maybe I should say that the government operates relatively free of financial risk compared to private business. With that qualifier, I would say that it is an axiom.
It seems to me that you believe that government and private business are basically the same, like two large corporations for instance; different, but using identical business models. And it seems to me that you believe that if they work together, more gets accomplished than if the private sector does most of the work. It would be kind of like; two heads are better than one. My one and only point is that government and private sector business are fundamentally much different with different motivators and powers at the most basic level. This is how:
1) Government operates relatively free of financial risk.
2) Like business, government has a fundamental motivation to expand itself, but without the restraint of financial risk, the motive to expand leads to careless decisions and actions.
There is nothing emotional or political about it.
It is obvious that our political, economic, and social views differe greatly. And as our ages are greater than middle age, I am sure that niether of us is going to change each other's mind. But I am certainly glad that we can do this without calling each other names or denegrating the other in anyway as I have seen happen on other forums. And again, Bergie, thank you for letting us rant. The world continues as was despite us!!!
Gentlemen: There are many sides to this argument.
First: There is the attraction of money. An accountant will have to elaborate on some of these items. Return of investment (ROI) is controlling whenever anyone invests into private companies. The quicker you can get your investment back the more attractive it is. Henry, Bucyrus: this why it is hard to attract capital to the RRs. That is why so much RR improvements come out of internally produced money. Look at the double tracking of the Sunset, BNSF transcon, and triple tracking Cajon. Bucyrus: Nothing that was needed to be upgraded was done in the 60s and 70s and the RRs nearly collapsed. (SP, CRI&P, SCL, PC, etc) . Note what Butler posted. Another point is that it is politically impossible to charge what it would take to get a good business rate of return of 12-15%. Note all posts of shippers crying that they are overcharged. This crying shows how important good transportation is. As Bucyrus stated the shippers want someone else to pay! As stated with the economic crisis as is there is a lack of capital for many projects and infrastructure improvements are out of sight out of mind (water and sewer lines RR tracks, etc).
Second: Infrastructure: Costs vary greatly in the transportation sector. The old ICC betterment rules for write offs caused RRs to be put in a hole to begin with. ROWs have a very long useable life and the effect of abandonment is not known. Don't know the actual write off times time. Roundhouses, servicing facilities, etc also have a long scheduled life. Airport hangers have about 30 yrs maximum (usually owned by airport) and many much less time because of the use of bigger planes. RR stations vs. airport terminals, bus stations, bus garages, dams and locks (even Panama Canal has been rebuilt and a new set of locks now being constructed). Others transportation modes other than RRs have a much less useful life time. RR bridges last very long (however the proposed higher axel loads may require some bridge replacement). I don't know of many highway bridges pre WW-2 that are still used and not considered functionally deficient toll road or otherwise. Overhead CAT lasts indefinitely ( 70+ yrs PRR installed even though technologically obsolete). With these long life items the depreciation schedules are not as profitable or the items have been completely depreciated.
Third: Equipment: An airline likes its planes to average not be over 8 yrs old. Bus companies about the same. Barges, tug boats, about 20 yr life span. In contrast on the Class 1s it is about 25 years life on locomotives (15 yr ? depreciation). Freight cars have 40 yrs (AAR) before a 20 yr extension by rebuilding. Passenger cars (AMTRAK) appear about 25 yrs however some heritage equipment is over 50 yrs old. Other operational equipment compares with the rest of US industry.
Fourth: Performance freight: 1. Presently our RRs have an average revenue car speed of about 20+ mph. (does this include intermodal?) The biggest item for my or any business is how fast I can get my product to market or to an export port. Jeaton is right - slow or inefficient transportation does not help any business. What degrades US rail performance metrics? a. the lack of double track (Abo) and triple track in certain locations (ex. Cajon) to allow meets and not slow opposing traffic. b. traffic that is slow or exceptionally fast (passenger). c. Maintenance on one track when there is no second or third track. d. natural disasters. Earthquake damage, fires, floods (look at this year), snows, landslides, etc: causing many backups because of no available short alternate. e. grade crossings, curves, running through congested citys ( Chicago, LA, Oakland, Portland, Seattle, Fort Worth, Minneapolis, St. Louis, New Orleans, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Toledo, Washington, etc. I'm sure mudchicken and RWM have others.
A post mentioned Chicago - LA as having about the right time keeping. Yes but how about Oakland - Chicago; LA - Dallas, LA - Atlanta (now 5 days); LA - Florida; West Coast - East Coast; North - South; Midwest - South/ Southwest; etc. Large business and business parks need a way for their traffic to clear RR mains by way of long siding/spurs etc. The new KIA plant here in southwest Ga. has CSX installing a 2-1/2+ mile siding and also a parallel spur. (all 141# rail). KIA is also installing all the ladder and servicing tracks . That factory will not have any effect on travel speeds for this section of track.
Most European manufacturing and consumption is near coastal areas. The proposed upgrade of the Russian rail system to carry containers to and from China to Europe will really hurt the US competitive position in the future. I have not heard their proposed transit times. Also with the lower axel loadings on European lines much freight can be handled on the passenger routes without ROW degradation.
Fifth: Performance passenger: This is an area that the US is competing with the rest of the world and not internal to the US. Since all the high speed countries appear to subsidize passenger rail construction one way or the other the US is at a competitive disadvantage. I wish there was a private way out but the US is not on a level playing field when dealing with other countries. I agree with Al that it will be up to the Some of the same metrics and improvements that apply to freight apply here. HSR is not justified between the east coast and west coast through the plains states and mountain states. To placate those people more medium speed rail would have to be installed. My definition of medium speed is on freight RRs up to 110 MPH. Conventional speed defined of up to 80 (79 will go out with PTC) MPH.
Immediate HSR improvements 1. Washington - Philadelphia increase to at least 4 tracks because SEPTA AMTRAK, and MARC now are delayed many times. 2. MN - NYC - New Haven widen clearances and straighten 3 or 4 curves a year. 3. New Haven - Boston Straighten curves and fly over some drawbridge locations.
Short time medium speed improvements ( 4 yrs) can be implemented along several corridors. 1. Boston - Albany 2. NYC - Chicago (Water level route will require much third track to prevent the conflicts mentioned above). 3. Washington - Raleigh - Charlotte - Atlanta - Birmingham. 4. Washington - Jacksonville - (Orlando) - Miami. 5. Orlando - Atlanta - Cincinnati - Indianapolis - Chicago (lots of bad track). 6. Detroit - Toledo - Dayton - Cincinnati. 7. Chicago - New Orleans 8. Chicago - Mineapolis. 9. Chicago - St. Louis - Kansas City: Chicago - Kansas City 10. Chicago - Denver 11. Atlanta - Dallas/Ft. Worth - San Antonio. 12. Tucson - Phoenix - LA 13. Sacramento - Portland( via Oregon trunk) - Seattle. 14. Salt lake - Vegas - LA
All this gets to who will finance. The freight RRs should finance as much as possible through investment credits and bonds with the caveat that priority will be given to all passenger trips. The passenger improvements should come from the federal government. All these improvements will provide many construction jobs and provide rail infrastructure for the next 100 yrs. This will be just one leg of the economic stimulus packages that have been proposed.
A lot of intelligent comments . I think an oiption that has not been explored is the use of tax breaks. Why should a railroad see its real estate taxes increase when it adds a second track, electrifies, etc.? Suppose in 1971, instead of setting up Amtrak, the Government had proposed tax breaks for railroads on the basis of how much good passenger service they provided?
Concerning proposed expenditures. In the corridor, before additional tracks, just replacing the catenary so 150mph speeds can be obtained where existing track conditions permit (NY-Washington) would be an efficient first step . There is really no way you can straighten curves out in nearly all cases between New Haven and New Rochelle. The area is just too built up, with most really sharp curves in very built-up areas. (Possibly the right-of -way could be widened just a little to permit clearances for tile operation on Acela trains.) My solution is to leave Metro North-Conn-Dot alone and continue to use it for Boston-NY business, but bypass New York completely for Boston-Philly and Boston-Washington business . The old Maybrook line goes through rural areas and the Poughkeepsie Bridge can be rebuilt. Also building a really high speed line even up to European and Japanese standards on the old White Train line between New Haven and Readville/Boston via Wilimantic is a doable project, and Connecticut has land banked nearly all the right of way that does not see some kind of freight service today.
This talk about Maglev Washington-Baltimore should be replaced by a third the money spent on the Amtrak line for 150 mph speeds (even higher when better equipment does become available) and defnitely four track so commuter and highspeed can be better separated.
Remember here we are talking about the railroad industry as a whole and not just Amtrak as BNSF and NS (as examples) have looked at, and even suggested, the need for government aid for infrastructure improvements is very real.
As for Maglev and other super highspeed technologies, I am not sure we really need all that as we have never fully explored or utilized the technology we have'; we don't have to spend billions on a new technology when millions can make vast improvements to reach the full potential of what we have.
I have not seen any specifics about the type or location of the government participation. If any one at this site has them then our discussions will have some substance. Otherwise we are just speculating about things which may not even be under consideration.
The only one I can think of is the proposed collaborative effort to relieve congestion in Chicago which was covered in a TRAINS article a few years ago.
diningcar I have not seen any specifics about the type or location of the government participation. If any one at this site has them then our discussions will have some substance. Otherwise we are just speculating about things which may not even be under consideration. The only one I can think of is the proposed collaborative effort to relieve congestion in Chicago which was covered in a TRAINS article a few years ago.
There has been discussion of specific statements that have been in both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal as well as rail industry press. We are not speculating and making things up.
Specifics to me mean: A project, a location, a time line. I may not have seen the "specifics" you have, so please enlighten me and possibly others.
diningcar Specifics to me mean: A project, a location, a time line. I may not have seen the "specifics" you have, so please enlighten me and possibly others.
This dialogue has been general. BNSF and the AAR I believe have stated in public forums and to government planners that they foresee private finance availability to be about 75% over the next 20 to 50 years for needed infrastructure projects. Our discussion here has been around that information only.
I agree that we are in a general discussion and I stay with my observation that we can only speculate about: what, where, when, how many $; and even that it will eventially occur.
diningcar I agree that we are in a general discussion and I stay with my observation that we can only speculate about: what, where, when, how many $; and even that it will eventially occur.
Here are a few that are specific. NS and VA are doing the Heartland corridor (clearances and terminals on the old NS mainline). CR and PA did clearances between Phila and Pittsburgh. The CREATE project (Chicago terminal) is getting mixed funding in drips and drabs. CSX has talked about an I-95 corridor project. UP just backed out of talks with CA to double track Donner. NS is talking to PA and VA (mostly) about an I-81 "Crecent Corridor" project.
These would have very specific funding for very specific uses.
The RRs are also pushing the investment tax break which would allow exisiting funds to go a bit farther. This would be completely at the RRs discretion.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Speculation is the first step to a solution. Dealing with the political is never as neat as columns on a balance sheet. The precise rules of accounting do not apply. Speculation beyond what most would consider reason is not out of bounds.
An example of politics over public necessity, let alone reason, reminds of Amtrak's early route structure. A powerful congressman from W. Virginia had a train named after him and derided as a train ride to nowhere. Not to stear off course into another Amtrak debate, was Amtrak the result of a rail service "need' allowed to degenerate to the brink of collapse before something was done?
Matt Rose is sounding an early warning. Is the rail industry co-ordinating public awarness of the problem to allow for longer than crisis deliberation. Who will lead the effort? Is there an industry agreed goal for what public financing plan is acceptable? Has a strategy to achieve a goal been determined?
The public sector is alway slow to respond to any problem that costs money. Once the problem is acknowleged, it does not necessarily speed the pace to resolution. Will rail capacity financing simmer until it too boils over?
When the public sector is forced to act quickly, the less likely reason will influence the decision. Speculation under such circumstances should include the unreasonable.
Two other projects I know have been bantied around for years is a second NS track parallel to I81 in VA and helping NS's Southern Tier Line get new bridge at Portage across Letchworth State Park.
henry6 Two other projects I know have been bantied around for years is a second NS track parallel to I81 in VA and helping NS's Southern Tier Line get new bridge at Portage across Letchworth State Park.
Rail improvements in the I-81 corridor are supposed to be an intregal part of the widening of I-81 project in Virginia.
Asking who will finance rail is a misleading question - the answer is that no matter what, we all will: if government spends the money through tax revenue for a transportation project, you will pay through taxes. If private enterprise pays for a transportation project, you will also pay in increased costs of goods and electricity because the shippers (like food companies, power companies) will pass their higher costs onto their customers or user fees (or increased user fees) if you are talking about roads . If no one pays for transportation improvements, you will pay through higher costs, more congestion, etc.. Thus, any of the three primary options - private pay, public pay, or do nothing all entails costs to the general public. In many cases, ultimately the do nothing option may actually entail the highest costs to society. Public funding of transportation probably makes the most economic sense since all of society benefits from improved transportation all of society should probably bear the costs and public authorities can generally borrow at a cheaper rate than private enterprise - add in that if private enterprise would be used, a large degree of government regulation would be required in order to assure uniform standards and connectivity and the profit motive for private enterpise and privately financed transportation probably costs more than publically funded transportation. Of course, the current trend (and its hardly new, the original building of railroads in the 19th Century essentially followed this model) is public private partnerships. Anyone at all familiar with the building of railroads knows that there is a very high danger of corruption in such projects.
penncentral2002 ... Anyone at all familiar with the building of railroads knows that there is a very high danger of corruption in such projects.
... Anyone at all familiar with the building of railroads knows that there is a very high danger of corruption in such projects.
Evidently whether you are a far right Capitalist or a far left Socialist there is going to be corruption. Of course, here in the USA, we never can find middle ground. But hey, if it weren't for extremisms there'd be nothing to talk about!
henry6 penncentral2002 ... Anyone at all familiar with the building of railroads knows that there is a very high danger of corruption in such projects. But hey, if it weren't for extremisms there'd be nothing to talk about!
But hey, if it weren't for extremisms there'd be nothing to talk about!
Well, that's a bit extreme, don't you think?
oltmanndhenry6 penncentral2002 ... Anyone at all familiar with the building of railroads knows that there is a very high danger of corruption in such projects. But hey, if it weren't for extremisms there'd be nothing to talk about! Well, that's a bit extreme, don't you think?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.