Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton I am at a bit of a loss as to where the railroads will find room on their tracks for a 10% growth in business let alone getting to a 70% market share. Can we assume that the "new" railroads are going to put cash up front for any new capacity? Is that the way it works in the telephone and electric power business? Jay PS Get a new Broker. [/quote] One way this capacity goal could be approached to a certain degree is by running shorter faster trains over the current network. On the financing of new physical capacity, there is already such investment taking place in the electric power markets. Both private utilities and public power entities are expanding transmission capacity to guarantee they can meet future growth projections. What needs to be done (and this is where the analogy with railroads comes into play) is to better synchronize the disparate long distance transmission capabilities. Since we are talking about needing the cooperation of several entities to do this, the approach being taken is to have that work done on a regional public level. The cost of this transmission synchonization will be borne by the rate payers as a tax on top of the utility's rates, e.g. a pay as you go user fee. This has long been the way public utilties have financed new capacity, they raise the necessary funds via the rates they charge before they begin the actual project. The same can work for railroads once access limitations are eliminated. However, since railroads have more in common with highways than transmission lines, what I propose is to have the Highway Trust Fund converted into an Intermodal Trust Fund, have all fuel users (including railroads and barge lines) pay the federal fuel tax, and while each mode would be able to keep a majority of what it pays in, it should also allow a certain degree of cross funding of projects to better reflect today's intermodal realities. This type of funding would address the bottleneck issues. For new rail capacity and the upkeep of existing rail lines, what I feel is ideal is to take the maintenance tax credit just passed for shortlines and extend it to all open access rail lines. In addition, for new rail capacity contructed by private entities, federal loan guarantees would be appropriate. I would also like to see (but know it is very doubtful) targeted land grants to aid in financing open access rail projects in those areas of the country where large amounts of federal land still exist today. It is my view that no state should have more than 25% of its land under federal control, so any land in excess of this percentage would be elibible for these land grants. This idea would work well for an expansion of the Alaska RR south toward Canada, as well as the several projects proposed for Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Colorado, and Montana.
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