Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="TomDiehl"][quote user="futuremodal"] The problem with trying to determine the portion of waterway maintenance costs attributable to users is that you can't come up with a reliable standard of measure.  Take dredging, for instance.  Some including the CBO would say the cost of dredging should be fully borne by the barge lines, yet the accumulation of silt behind dams would not occur if the river was free flowing, so since prior usage scenarios were sans siltation, why should silt removal be borne by the bargelines under slack water conditions?  Yet, we also know that capacity of the old river boats was limited by free flowing conditions, including a seasonal cessation of navigation during low water periods.  Since modern barge lines have far deeper draft than the old river boats, should we pro-rate any maintenance dredging cost over those sections of the river that used to be shallower than current draft? To their credit, the barge lines argue that since the dams themselves provide a valuable commodity called electricity, all the costs associated with waterway maintenance should be included in the cost of producing that electricity.  Well, that is true, those projects are producing both a transportation service and a valuable commodity, something the railroads can't claim. For the record, most of the Waterways Trust Fund is kept in limbo to help *reduce* the federal deficit, and is not being fully dispersed for use in waterways projects. What's most important to remember here is that the rail companies are not being discriminated against by this perceived waterways subsidy.  Waterways are Open Acess, railroads are not.  Anyone can start up a barge company with relatively minimal investment (e.g. no need for a $2 billion federal loan guarantee for a PRB extension or a $1 billion federal grant to aid in a double stack clearance project![;)])  Both UP and BNSF have every right in the world to start up their own barging divisions if they choose.  Contrast that with the various public subidies of the railroads, which have not resulted in any improved public access benefits.  Though UP or BNSF can start up a barge division and use the Columbia/Snake River Waterway, neither Tidewater nor Foss have the right to start up their own rail divisions and use Marias Pass or Weber Canyon. [/quote] To the point of the dams, would the river be navigable by the barges if the dams weren't there to maintain a minimum water level? [/quote] Yes, but only part of the year. [quote] "To their (barge lines) credit, they argue?" I hate to break the news to you Dave, but not every dam is hydroelectric. [/quote] I hate to break the news to you Tom, but every dam on the Columbia/Snake Waterway is hydroelectric. [quote] And some creative accounting with the Waterway Trust Fund "helps *reduce* the federal deficit?" Maybe you haven't been watching the news for the last six years. [/quote] The point I made that is obvious to everyone but you is that the Waterway Trust Fund is being held in account as a way of countering deficits (much like the Social Security *Trust Fund*), and is not being fully dispersed for use on waterways projects.  We're not arguing about the relative size of the federal deficit.  Perhaps you shouldn't have the CBS Evening Indoctrination.......er, *News*.... on while you are typing away on your computer, it seems to cause crossed signals in your mind. [quote] And the old "open access" argument still isn't flying. Highways and riverways aren't single lane, or even single lane dual direction like most of the railroads. Plus, we still haven't heard how you figured out the logistics of making the concept actually work. Lots of things sound good in theory, but fall flat on their face with an attempt to try and make them work. [/quote] As per your AAR submindset, you ignore that little segment of land outside North America known as "The Rest Of The World", where railroad OA in various implementations continues to grow unabated.  And why you think having signal controlled bottlenecks somehow bars multiple user access on highway and riverways is something only a psychologist can answer - don't highways have signalled intersections?  Aren't locks through dams one user at a time?  It's amazing but true, if a certain transporation pathway is signalled to control fluidity through bottlenecks, you can have multiple users aplenty without accident or delay.  In fact, there are some sections of US railroads where multiple users access single track sections with no apparent drawbacks........... [quote] Plus, Tidewater and Foss (as well as anyone else) is welcome to build a rail line between two end points. Why are you hung up on the idea they have to use certain passes or canyons? Let them find their own routes like the railroads did. Or let the government build a rail line for them, like they maintain the riverways. Oh wait, the government is so far in debt now our grandchildren will be paying the principal. [/quote] The AAR clone strikes again!  How about we make the railroads open access like the waterways and highways, instead of building each potential rail transporter their own exclusive line?  Read that last phrase again, it bears worth contemplation.   Where is it written in stone that each individual transportation service provider must build their own exclusive transportation pathway? Apparently it is written only on the stoney minds of rail propagandists! [quote] Also it begs the question "who built the rivers?" [/quote] Which begs the question "where did you learn your geology?"
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