Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
MP173 - You are correct that I look at this issue through the eyes of rail shippers, not limited to energy companies but all captive rail shippers. As I've stated before, the segment of the national economy represented by rail shippers is far larger than that represented by the rail transporter half of the railroad companies. Even if one buys the contention that rail transporter companies would be hurt by open access competition, from the macro perspective the econony would gain. That counts for a lot in my book. jeaton - I had mentioned previously and will mention again, in addition to recieving a portion of an Intermodal Infrastructure Trust Fund (which would replace the Highway Trust Fund, and all modal forms would contribute) and getting tax incentives (property tax exemptions and maintenance tax credits, not taxpayer subsidies out of the general fund) for ROW maintenance to better balance the cost structure of highway and waterway maintenance, rail infrastructure companies would then be closer to the characteristic of a public utility and thus should probably have their charges and maintenance schedules regulated. Being the apparent political hypocrite that I am, I usually oppose regulation of competitive markets, but not specialized markets such as private ROW's. In my view there is a net gain for the economy when you regulate pathways for the sake of unregulated transporter service providers. The former would fall into the catagory of a safe investment, while the latter are the higher risk/higher return investments. A nice balanced portfolio. For the record, when one thinks of a leftist political philosophy one does not include a competitive market. That's why monopolists seem to thrive in socialistic settings, they've gotten some type of protection from potential competitors by government action, which then tends toward fascism. It is frankly implausible for one to be labeled a leftist whilst he supports increased market competition. But the whole thing is probably a subjective argument anyway. daveklepper - When speaking of interstate traffic, trucks do pay most of the cost of the highway, but when local road maintenance is considered then your 1/2 to 1/3 estimate is more in line. Makes me wonder if publicly owned railroad ROW's would be supported by property taxes instead of contributing to them. CSSHEGEWISCH - most local governments can be made to understand the link between a loss of rail infrastructure and a resultant domino effect on other industries. When presented as an option of either continuing to have viable rail service without being able to assess property taxes on the rail ROW, or losing the rail service and a bunch of local industries with THEIR property tax contributions, then they understand that exempting the railroad ROW from property taxes is the lesser of two tax base erosion scenarios. If anything, a percieved guarantee of long term rail service will result in industrial additions to the tax base in the long run. The WC example is a good one, but of limited support for the truck competition myth, since WC was a regional with short home rail hauls. And yet, if all the railroad had to do was offer the service, it seems they always won out. It is only when the railroad declines the service or reduces the quality of the service that truckers can snatch the crumbs from the table. Truckers in that vein aren't competitors so much as they are the option of last resort after business has been rejected by the railroads. It's analogous to the idea that vultures are the competition against wolves, which is fallacious because vultures only get what the wolves leave behind, they don't do the actual stalking, killing, and initial feasting. Barge lines are more akin to being a true competitor to railroads, because no matter what the railroads do to keep the non-time sensitive business, the barge lines can undercut them at every turn. Of course, barge lines are very limited in their market reach. The bottom line is this - when railroads do things the way they are supposed to do things, truckers cannot compete, thus they are not true competition in my view. Truckers can only work in partnership with barge lines or other railroads to be a part of a competitive option to a railroad. Michael Sol - Isn't the right to private action against alleged monopolistic abuses the heart and soul of all antitrust laws? Without that right to private action, antitrust laws are frankly impotent, otherwise Congressman Green wouldn't need to have introduced his legislation in the first place. Makes a big difference if all a monopolist has to do is to lobby DC vs having to lobby against private interests. If I read this legislation correctly, this will allow those affected industries to bypass an impassive Congress and take direct action regarding the rate abuse. Mark-in-Utah - Thanks for the report. BTW - for anyone interested, there is a rail infrastructure trade show this fall in Great Britain. I'd love to attend but work obligations, travel costs and my aversion to flying will keep me stateside, yet even so I hope some report is posted to add data to this great debate: http://www.infrarail.com/if_page.asp?articletypeid=59
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