Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
OA Overview - 1. Infrastructure companies are regulated, while transporters are not. 2. Infrastructure companies would get certain tax incentives to "equalize" the various aspects of public support as exhibited by highways and waterways. 3. The tax incentives would act as the primary source of maintenance funding, supplemented by user fees. (This is not set in stone) 4. Funding for capital expansion projects would accrue from a portion of an Intermodal Trust Fund aka fuel tax paid by all modes, again with some cross funding by tax credits. 5. Additional funding for capital expansion can also come from general federal tax reciepts (porportional to that going to highways and waterways), as well as a portion coming from state coffers. (The state money source will be dictated by the state, and can be fuel taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, et al, e.g. whatever the state decides is best for its rail lines). 6. Although the current rail infrastructure network would most likely continue under private ownership, states and localities can also own, buy, and sell rail infrastructure as they see fit, and most likely would be the lead source for new rail project considerations (just as they do highway projects). 7. Transporters can consist of the remaining Class I's, as well as Class II's and Class III's, and/or current transportation companies involved in trucking, barges, short sea shipping, intermodal firms, and shipper groups - basically anyone willing to pay the entry fee and submit to all operator requirements as set forth by the infrastructure companies. 8. Rail lines of differing profile characteristics would probably evolve into actions as predicted by economic theories of absolute advantage and comparative advantage. 9. With new operating opportunities, there may be an increase in the use of bi-modal technology to take advantage of short haul lanes currently underutilized. 10. Some rail lines would gravitate toward higher speeds and/or lighter axle loads, while others would gravitate toward heavy axle loads and slower speeds. 11. With access guaranteed, there would no longer be a need for a federal passenger train service as private and regional opportunists would get to establish new passenger services, leading to new innovations. 12. Open access would likely lead to a reduction in the U.S. trade deficit, since there would no longer be captive rail shippers (which are all U.S.), and thus U.S. exporters would see their transportation costs on U.S. surface corridors reduced while importers' transportation costs would likely remain constant. 13. Open access would likely render the truck driver shortage moot, since now trucking firms will be able to run their own trains. Fewer long haul truck drivers will be needed, as most will take advantage of more short haul opportunities. 14. Open access may result in a resumption of higher sustained freight and passenger speeds (a trend that halted sometime in the 1930's) as some rail lines try to maximize daily usage by increasing minimum speed limits. 15. Open access may also see a resumption of the shorter faster train as opposed to the longer slower trains. 16. OE may result in increased congestion during the initial stages of application since there would be more users on the current trackage, making new rail construction projects a must BEFORE full OE application. 17. OE would result in the rebirth of multi owner rail corridors such as the I-15 corridor from Sweetgrass MT to SL. That's enough for now. Comment on any of the talking points as you see fit.
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