23 17 46 11
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds To FM "Here's another challenge: Find a nation outside North America where railroads engage in differential pricing. I haven't been able to find one. Perhaps someone with more motivation to prove the open access proponents wrong will be able to provide some examples." Can you define just what you mean by "differential pricing"?
QUOTE: Originally posted by brazos87 Futuremodal, Find a single country whose railroads are as successful as American railroads. Look at Europe, where the State of Texas is larger than most European nations!
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe Dave, I mean this politely. But, I really am starting to see your argument as wanting your cake and eating it too or wanting someone else to pay for your cake. (1) More competition equals more profits? Maybe more profit for the companies served, but surely not by the railroad. If competition equaled profit, there would be no need for anti-trust regulation. Are you really saying more competition equals more profit to you or your interests? (2) Not "the" reason but "a" reason highway, waterway, and open-access European rail is successful is subsidy. To think that open access in America will profit American railroads without a like subsidy is like removing ham from ham and bean soup and expect it to taste the same. I suspect you would be one of the first people to cry when taxes were heightened to pay for the subsidy to allow railroads to function on an open access system. Worse yet (for me), the requisite subsidy to make railroads work under your system would effectively make me (as a tax payer) subsidize the customer (yet again). I see your argument really coming down to you want someone else (the American tax payer) to pay for someone else’s (rail customer) benefit. Gabe
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe Dave (futuremodal), No. I am very much in favor of competition. It is simply a matter of how much are we willing to sacrifice to facilitate competition and what level of competition is adequate. I am learning a great deal about railroads on this forum; after another five or six years, I will consider myself to have worked my way up to amateur status. So, I can't say one way or another that your model to open access is too attenuated to work—the question is simply above my intelligence level. That having been said, I do know that the ARR says a railroad needs an operating ratio of 80% or lower to earn the cost of capital, and as of right now only two railroads meet that mark (one just barely). More competition lowers prices. I am not sure railroads can afford less profit right now. From my limited knowledge, I am not willing to risk as much as you for competition. I am dead-set against ANY future rail consolidations, I would have liked to see the government step in and save the Milwaukee Road (in 1974, when it could have—I don't think it was savable by 1980). But, risking the implosion of our national rail network on an unproven theory seems a bit risky to my picayune knowledge. Besides don’t trucks and barge traffic provide additional competition? Gabe
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.