Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Datafever"]And if that is the case, then the GM/Ford analogy would still hold, as I would presume that GM would charge Ford for the lost production capability.  Therefore, GM really loses nothing by investing in new production capabilities that can then be used by Ford.  In fact, GM should be able to actually make money on the deal if it charges Ford enough. [/quote] No, because autos are not homogenous.  GM cars are designed and built to confidential GM standards, Ford cars to Ford standards, etc.  If all cars were of one standard design, you could in theory support the notion of a private auto plant builder hosting the production needs of various automakers.  Since they're not, it's misplaced speculation. Transportation services and rail infrastructure are for the most part modally homogenous.  There's no real difference between BNSF-built track and UP-built track that would warrant any customer preference of one over the other.  Such preferences show themselves in the service arena, not the physical plant.  It is quite easy for a UP train to travel over BNSF tracks and vis versa.  In fact, it happens in quite a few places around the country, which in and of itself pretty much proves that OA will work.  But I haven't yet seen or heard of a production-based entity sharing it's facilities with a competitor. [quote] Oops, but then I need to backtrack to open access.  What is to prevent the owner of the infrastructure from charging an extravagant rate in those cases where there is no viable alternative? [/quote] In a totally free market, none.  Which is why that utility aspect of railroading would most likely fall into the same regulatory oversight as electric utilities.  As I state elsewhere, regulation of monopolies is a fact of life for our Western version of capitalism.  Since the monopoly aspect of railroads is embodied in the infrastructure and not in the transporter services, it makes sense if we can limit the regulation to that monopoly aspect, and leave the transporter side of the industry relatively unregulated.  To me that would make much more sense than what we have going on now in the halls of the STB, trying to determine a dozen or so Stand-Alone hypotheticals for the purpose of transporter rate oversight. Of course, sans regulation, if an infrastructure owner wants to make any money, he'd need to charge a rate that will produce voluntary patronage.  Revenue or loss from infrastructure ownership would be contingent on volume.  The more users, the more revenue, up to physical capacity.
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