Paul_D_North_Jr Murphy Siding: Convicted One: Well, last night during organizing and sorting out my Trains collection after our recent move, I ran across a column by former Trains editor Mark W. Hemphill in an early 2005 issue* on the exact same topic. His main point was that the railroads can either accept public funding whole-heartedly and all that comes with it, or not - there's no middle ground, such as a tax or fee on rail operations that would then be used as government-managed reinvestment. His secondary point was that any such tax scheme must inherently be less efficient and effective than the railroads managing such reinvestment by themselves, as they see fit. It's good reading and to the point, so I thought it was worth mentioning in connection with the concerns and debate over Fred Frailey's "squish". EDIT: January 2005, Vol. 65 No. 1, "Subsidies for All or Subsidies for None - If You Think Railroads Are Worth Having, You Must Choose One of the Above", pp. 20-21. - Paul North.
Murphy Siding: Convicted One: Well, last night during organizing and sorting out my Trains collection after our recent move, I ran across a column by former Trains editor Mark W. Hemphill in an early 2005 issue* on the exact same topic. His main point was that the railroads can either accept public funding whole-heartedly and all that comes with it, or not - there's no middle ground, such as a tax or fee on rail operations that would then be used as government-managed reinvestment. His secondary point was that any such tax scheme must inherently be less efficient and effective than the railroads managing such reinvestment by themselves, as they see fit. It's good reading and to the point, so I thought it was worth mentioning in connection with the concerns and debate over Fred Frailey's "squish".
Murphy Siding: Convicted One:
Well, last night during organizing and sorting out my Trains collection after our recent move, I ran across a column by former Trains editor Mark W. Hemphill in an early 2005 issue* on the exact same topic. His main point was that the railroads can either accept public funding whole-heartedly and all that comes with it, or not - there's no middle ground, such as a tax or fee on rail operations that would then be used as government-managed reinvestment. His secondary point was that any such tax scheme must inherently be less efficient and effective than the railroads managing such reinvestment by themselves, as they see fit. It's good reading and to the point, so I thought it was worth mentioning in connection with the concerns and debate over Fred Frailey's "squish".
EDIT: January 2005, Vol. 65 No. 1, "Subsidies for All or Subsidies for None - If You Think Railroads Are Worth Having, You Must Choose One of the Above", pp. 20-21.
- Paul North.
But can we look at the government own RR ROWs. 2 quick examples the Cincinnati owned NS route from Cincinnati to Chattanooga and the NC DOT owned Charlotte - Morehead City route? Both routes have had the user fees reinvested with outstanding results.
1. The Rat-Hole thru very difficult terrain is now a 1st class operation with the restricted tunnels gone and many cuts and bridges reducing grades.
2. NC Dot has started reinvesting the user fees (but also putting in funds originally given to state over the years into the general fund). Results? curve mitigation and grade crossing elimination.
I am sure there are other examples.
I believe the management of the "Rat Hole" route - the Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific, or CNO&TP - by the City of Cincinnati is pretty passive, and at least back then was essentially limited to merely approving what the railroad wanted to do and put up the money for.
The North Carolina State Railroad is a different story. I attended a 1/2-hour presentation on the Norfolk Southern - NSDOT partnership at the AREMA Conference in Orlando in August - the NS presenter was Brad Kircher (who used to be an Asst. Division Engineer on the Middle Division between Harrisburg and Altoona, PA). That's a much more collaborative endeavor with the 2 entities cooperating on the planning and the funding of the improvements. While some people are concerned over the government's 'came'l poking its nose into the railroad's 'tent', these people and organizations seem to have found a way to make it work at the practical and operating level - perhaps because they're small enough to know each other on a personal basis, and also "off the radar screen" of national political dogma. Also, NCDOT's Rail Division gets something considerable back for its money - use of the tracks for its passenger trains, at higher speeds/ shorter transit times than before, plus less grae crossings, etc. - so that doesn't seem to be quite either the pure subsidy that was the subject of Mr. Hemphill's essay, or the kind of "squish" that Mr. Frailey is concerned about.
Mr. Hemphill's 2005 essay also mentioned what he thought was a legitimate use of public money that wasn't a subsidy - the traditional "terminal district" with joint access, reduced grade crossings, rationalization of duplicate tracks, etc. So not all public funding involvement needs to be inherently evil.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.