Privatized toll roads, how about toll railroads?

[Murphy Siding]

Maybe, a similar type thing would work? Contract hauling: My railroad will haul cars from your yard in Council Bluffs, to your yard in Rock Island (or wherever to wherever) for a set price. Would something like that work, when capacity gets tight?

[Anonymous]

Open Access by any other name is still Open Access, isn't it. It sounds like you're trying to expound the exact same thing but under a different brand name!

A consultant's work is never done...........

[TomDiehl]

Another theory that sounds good on paper, but falls apart when you go to figure out how to put it into practice.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

Another theory that sounds good on paper, but falls apart when you go to figure out how to put it into practice.

Hmmm, isn't that what the original opponents of representative democracy once said? And yes, there are similarities between representative governments and intracompetitive business models.

There is no logical reason why a toll railroad concept cannot work as well as a contemporary toll road concept.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

Another theory that sounds good on paper, but falls apart when you go to figure out how to put it into practice.

Hmmm, isn't that what the original opponents of representative democracy once said? And yes, there are similarities between representative governments and intracompetitive business models.

There is no logical reason why a toll railroad concept cannot work as well as a contemporary toll road concept.

Similar statements don't mean that you're comparing apples to apples. The reason they CAN'T work is that the people that promote the idea have only that----an idea. None of them have taken the time to figure out the details of how it will work. As soon as you progress to that step, the whole thing falls apart.

And work as well as toll roads? Hate to break the news to you, but the oldest one in the US, the Pennsylvania Turnpike, doesn't cover all its costs from tolls.

[ajmiller]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

Another theory that sounds good on paper, but falls apart when you go to figure out how to put it into practice.

Hmmm, isn't that what the original opponents of representative democracy once said? And yes, there are similarities between representative governments and intracompetitive business models.

There is no logical reason why a toll railroad concept cannot work as well as a contemporary toll road concept.

Just as long as they install some EZ Pass tracks at the toll booths. I wonder what the per-axle charges would come to?

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Open Access by any other name is still Open Access, isn't it. It sounds like you're trying to expound the exact same thing but under a different brand name!

If the owner controls who gets access, it's not open access.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Open Access by any other name is still Open Access, isn't it. It sounds like you're trying to expound the exact same thing but under a different brand name!

If the owner controls who gets access, it's not open access.

Yet it is a variation thereof. So what will you call your variation of the OA theme. Limited Non-Owner Access (LNA)?

Of course, ed's topic title does suggest a rail version of the toll road, and I have not seen any toll road proposals that would allow the owner to discriminate as to who is and who isn't allowed to use their road.

No matter, because Tom says it CANT work because no one has worked out the details yet.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Open Access by any other name is still Open Access, isn't it. It sounds like you're trying to expound the exact same thing but under a different brand name!

If the owner controls who gets access, it's not open access.

Yet it is a variation thereof. So what will you call your variation of the OA theme. Limited Non-Owner Access (LNA)?

Of course, ed's topic title does suggest a rail version of the toll road, and I have not seen any toll road proposals that would allow the owner to discriminate as to who is and who isn't allowed to use their road.

No matter, because Tom says it CANT work because no one has worked out the details yet.

What you're talking about is "trackage rights."

And it can't work because no consultant has taken the time to figure out the details of HOW it will work. Typical for them though, all they do is come into a situation, look around for a couple days, make recommendations, then leave with a fat paycheck. They never hang around long enough to find out what works and what doesn't. Of course, management gets a warm fuzzy because they paid somebody from the outside to look at the situation. What they REALLY need is somebody to hang around long enough to MANAGE the change.

[Anonymous]

Details, schmetails. In a free market economy with the inherent efficiencies of labor divisions, it makes more sense for one person to come up with the ideas and someone else to work out the details. What you are suggesting is that we should be responsible for all aspects of integration. If that's the case, just make us the CEO of the company and be done with it.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Open Access by any other name is still Open Access, isn't it. It sounds like you're trying to expound the exact same thing but under a different brand name!

If the owner controls who gets access, it's not open access.

Yet it is a variation thereof. So what will you call your variation of the OA theme. Limited Non-Owner Access (LNA)?

Using that logic, if the railroad is able to let anybody run their trains on that line this very afternoon,then it allready is open access. Take a bow Dave-you've won them over without a fight.[;)]

[Anonymous]

The inference derived from the topic title is one of quasi-open access lines converted from old unused or abandoned lines, wherein such ROW's can act as supplements to the current private rail infrastructure. That was one of the suggestions made a while ago as a way to introduce and test the concept of OA on the private closed access system. You can call it anything you want, TTX Infrastructure Co., Union Railway LLC., etc. but it's still a step in the OA direction.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Details, schmetails. In a free market economy with the inherent efficiencies of labor divisions, it makes more sense for one person to come up with the ideas and someone else to work out the details. What you are suggesting is that we should be responsible for all aspects of integration. If that's the case, just make us the CEO of the company and be done with it.

What I'm suggesting is that a consultant that was hired for the survey and recommendations on a certain problem do more than just show up, look around, and dream up a few supposed methods for solution. They should "put their money where their mouth is" and actually PROVE their methods would offer a solution.

Changes to ANY operation is a dynamic situation. The person making the suggestions should be able to implement the changes, fine tuning the methods as each solution brings up its own problems. Otherwise, what are they doing to actually earn their money?

[Overmod]

I'm a little surprised no one has brought up the Shellpot Bridge example.

Barriers to entry for most "toll" lines that would be structured to work like turnpikes will almost certainly be too high for most putative 'private' trainset owners. It's tough enough for a Detroit Edison to pony up the cost of full trainsets and locomotives as opposed to leasing stuff from an operating carrier -- I wouldn't be surprised to find that a 'condominium' allocation of cost for a given piece of track turned out to be higher than something worked out as a trackage-rights agreement, PARTICULARLY if accounting required full allocation of improvement costs, depreciation, etc. directly to the 'toll' users. In the Shellpot example, the large capital cost was directly paid by government, with anticipated revenue from railroad movements being set intentionally with a long payback period. I wouldn't expect a private for-profit company to be quite as 'enlightened' about TVM and similar factors here -- to say nothing of the drubbing that typical Wall Street 'analysts' would administer to any track/infrastructure owning entity that attempted something with the characteristics of the Shellpot project.

Might bear remembering, too, that many of the issues that came up with the original Philadelphia and Columbia Railroad might apply to a 'toll' railroad, particularly a single-track line with considerable traffic... I'd be more than a bit surprised to find very much enthusiasm for a private entity, not government, to conduct the actual improvements to put a piece of railroad into full service as a 'toll' line, the potential revenue streams being considerably lower for a variety of (easily-identified imho) reasons than an 'equivalent' toll road for trucks, which almost by definition would be the equivalent of a multitrack main line. and the economies of scale, capital utilization, etc. generally being in favor of private entities that own the means of handling trains as well as fixing up trackwork.

[XG01X]

International Mining would be the owner of the track.