Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Mergers, abandonments, limited capacity, and the taxpayer,...OH MY!!
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by chad thomas</i> <br /><br /> But having parallel routes is not as efficient as having more capacity on a single route. <br /> <br />(snip) <br /> <br />Dont try to get John Q Public to pay for it, Let the shippers pay for it. In my opinion it's as simple as that.[8D] <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />Chad, <br /> <br />On your first point, I can offer evidence of contradiction (keeping in mind that "efficiency" can have several definitions). Remember, a secure transportation corridor(s) between two points must have both (A)redundancy and (B)diserpersion. When you add capacity only to a single route, you do fulfill requirement (A) but not requirement (B). Say you triple track a single line. Okay, now you have the necessary redundancy to increase capacity. Now what happens if you have a derailment on one of those tracks? More likely than not, you take out all three lines. It gets worse if there is a major incident e.g. bridge out, washout, earthquake, etc. <br /> <br />It is inherently better to add capacity on parallel lines that are a certain distance away from the current line, far away enough not to be affected by the incident that closed the first line. You also get an added benefit of being able to cover more territory for potential carload and unit train shippers in those general corridors, e.g. a greater customer base. <br /> <br />In that vein it is much more "efficient" to add capacity to parallel routes rather than just adding track to a sole rail line. <br /> <br />On your second point, it is my belief that the user fee system applied to highway should also be applied to publicly funded/owned rail lines. The federal fuel tax should be extended to fuel puchased by railroads, and the funds from this tax should be used to add capacity where needed via public expenditure. Of course, for this to work with optimal fluidity, you need to add the access where it can get the most use from the most users, which means that a railroad's competitors should have as much right to use publicly funded rail additions as the primary railroad, otherwise we are engaged in nothing more than corporate welfare for the sake of monopolistic practitioneers.
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
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy