Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
NITL's suggestions to STB for rail policy oversight
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
Ed - I make assumptions that others on this forum can put two and two together as well as I. <br /> <br />"Captive" is used to describe rail shippers with access to only one railroad. This "access" can be diseminated into two catagories by my estimation: Those rail shippers whose product can only move viably by rail directly from the plant and who only have one physical rail connection at their production facility (e.g. physically captive), and those rail shippers whose product can viably move short distances by truck without losing a competitive edge to their main competitors but whose particular region has only one decent Class I in service (e.g. regionally captive). Chemicals are the best example of the former, while intermodal or grain are good examples of the latter. <br /> <br />Thus, "captive intermodal" refers to intermodal terminals located in regions where there is short haul access to only one Class I. Billings Montana is a good example of a captive intermodal terminal, Nampa Idaho another. If you allow some grey area for the purpose of definition, then you can also say that a captive intermodal terminal is one in which there may be more than one Class I railroad in the area, but only one provides actual intermodal services from this terminal. I think Spokane Washington fits into this second category, both UP and BNSF serves Spokane but only BNSF provides intermodal services. This is probably due to the fact that the UP line is only a Canadian connection, serving primarily as a conduit for potash, grain, mixed freights. <br /> <br />However, for the sake of reference, I will contact CURE and ask them to define what a "captive rail shipper" is so that I won't be putting words and concepts into the lexicon that may not necessarily be part of their efforts. If they do email me back, I will give their definition verbetum. <br /> <br />I take a different opinion on the NITL's position than what you discerned. I believe they are in favor of going back to some form of rate regulation, they just don't want to frame it that way. Because let's face it, there are only two ways to force railroad rate reductions for captive shippers: Either re-regulate rate setting, or introduce head to head rail competition via open access. The NITL makes no mention of Rep. Mark Green's bill (H.R. 3318) to make railroads subject to anti-trust laws that apply to every other industry, and only by anti-trust action can the railroads' natural monopoly be broken up. <br /> <br />I also take a different view on how best to achieve an expansion of the rail system. Because most railroads that exist today were built with some form of public support, they were not built as an adjunct of a succesful business model being exonerated by higher revenues. To assume that if railroads finally are able to more than cover their ROI's they will start building more lines is naive, e.g. it lacks understanding of how monopolies function. Monopolies are natural price discriminators, and as such will take no action that might denigrate their ability to price discriminate. Easing rail congestion is not synonymous with increasing railroad ROI's, at least under the closed access system. Secondly, it is my view that transportation infrastructure development is best left in the hands of the public, as that is the realilty of most transportation systems today. It would be better for railroad ROW's to follow the example of highways and waterways, and allow user fees combined with local and state financing perogatives to pay for much of any new railroad expansion, and let de facto transportation companies do the actual hauling. But that is far beyond what the NITL envisions, too ambitious and far-fetched to be used in lobbying negotiations. It is much easier to lobby for rate regulation than it is to lobby for a complete overhaul of the U.S. rail system. <br /> <br />I am sorry you feel like you are being condescended to, that is not my intent. I would like to have lively conversations, but if is a fact that most participants on this forum too easily slip into sub-par sparring. BTW, it may very well be that being treated like a graduate student is insulting to you, that is your perogative, but for some of the others on this forum being treated like grad students is better than they deserve.
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