Open Access, How Would it be Established and Administered?

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

On-line delays caused by a derailment would be a legal nightmare that could take years to settle waiting for a determination of what caused the derailment.

No different than your average traffic accident. Trust me, I've been there.

QUOTE:
"Open Access" as predicated by futuremodal comes across as invisible nationalization since he believes that the rights of way should be owned by government or quasi-governmental bodies. Also, competition on every mile of track and lower rates cannot be guaranteed short of re-regulation more along the lines of the Civil Aeronautics Board over commercial aviation than anything of the Interstate Commerce Commission over railroads and trucking.

There is nothing to say that there would be competition on every mile of track. However every mile of track could have competition, which pressure would help keep rates in check. No shipper would be captive since anyone who can legally operate on the infrastructure can serve them.

QUOTE:
Also, what would be the provision for abandonment of track if no operator wants to provide service over that line? It can happen.

If there is viable industry on that line, someone would most likely step up and provide service, potentially including the industry itself. They are all going to pay the same toll.

If there is legitimate reason to abandon the line, and all parties are in agreement (ie, no industries left to serve, and no reasonable possibility of any cropping up), no reason why it couldn't be done. All of the usual predicating issues would still apply (who the land reverts to, etc)

Consider that a carload shipment of something currently sees as many as five or six "vendors" between leaving the originating industry and arriving at the receiving customer, even if it never leaves that same railroad. A local picks it up and delivers it to a local yard. A collector freight picks it up and takes it to a hub yard. The hub yard handles making it available for transit to another local yard (or maybe another hub yard, then to the local yard), and a local delivers it. In an open access arrangement, each of those vendors could be different. The shipper/receiver pay for the ton miles and/or handling by some agreed upon fee structure. It's no different than you flying from here to there and changing airlines enroute...

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

On-line delays caused by a derailment would be a legal nightmare that could take years to settle waiting for a determination of what caused the derailment.

"Open Access" as predicated by futuremodal comes across as invisible nationalization since he believes that the rights of way should be owned by government or quasi-governmental bodies. Also, competition on every mile of track and lower rates cannot be guaranteed short of re-regulation more along the lines of the Civil Aeronautics Board over commercial aviation than anything of the Interstate Commerce Commission over railroads and trucking.

Also, what would be the provision for abandonment of track if no operator wants to provide service over that line? It can happen.

No, I believe the ROW's would do best if they function as private regulated utilities, with the federal government providing tax incetives to approach an equalitzation with highways and waterways, and with the option of state and local governments adding their investment prowess in the form of public/private consortiums as they see fit for their own economic development desires.

On that latter point, such investment would work great under open access, since the desire of the infrastructure operator is to add capacity to increase business potential, and if someone else is willing to foot the bill for a secondary line, so much the better. It doesn't work so well under the present system, because the desires of states and localities to keep lines open, upgrade secondary lines, or build new lines, more often than not does not fit the plans of the Class I who is only trying to eliminate capacity and consolidate terminals to better position their pricing power. Secondly, if the Class I has pure monopolistic pricing power in a certain area, there is no point in states and localities spending tax dollars to save a line on which the shippers cannot afford to use anyway.

[Junctionfan]

For the first part of the question which is an excellent one by the way, would only be handled well with a contract agreement/ treaty, whatever as far as I know. Not being a lawyer in the U.S so my legal expertise is very limited so the only people that might be able to share some insight on this would be somebody like Gabe or L.C

Hope you guys are reading this.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

On-line delays caused by a derailment would be a legal nightmare that could take years to settle waiting for a determination of what caused the derailment.

"Open Access" as predicated by futuremodal comes across as invisible nationalization since he believes that the rights of way should be owned by government or quasi-governmental bodies. Also, competition on every mile of track and lower rates cannot be guaranteed short of re-regulation more along the lines of the Civil Aeronautics Board over commercial aviation than anything of the Interstate Commerce Commission over railroads and trucking.

Also, what would be the provision for abandonment of track if no operator wants to provide service over that line? It can happen.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Operational questions related to open access:

1. How would dispatching be handled?
2. How would dispatching priorities be established, especially when different operators with similar trains (e.g.; 2 or 3 different stack train operators) are involved?

In addition to previous comments:

1. Think FAA. Regional/local centers run as part of a national system. You file your "flight" plan, you get in line. As has been mentioned, slots could be auctioned, more or less guaranteeing you your 4 am departure (assuming you are ready to go).
The centers would probably be run by the track owner, but to system-wide standards.

2. The auction rears it's head, or maybe a lottery. On top of that, the operators would be under a certain amount of pressure to be ready to go at X time. If I'm an operator with a 4am slot, I'll want to be ready to go. If I'm not, the 4:15 slot may just get to go in my place, if he's ready. Then I may get to jump in next possible opening, although I may face a penalty for screwing things up.

That raises the question of delays on a line. If an airplane or a bus is running slow, the one behind him can pass. If a train dies on the law and ties up the line, then the operator should be penalized. Breakdowns are only slightly different, especially if the operator has a history. "Wrecker" engines might be kept available (part of the cost of using the line), or a cooperative might form to help an operator if there is a problem. This would provide an incentive to both maintain equipment and to properly schedule your runs.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Operational questions related to open access:

1. How would dispatching be handled?
2. How would dispatching priorities be established, especially when different operators with similar trains (e.g.; 2 or 3 different stack train operators) are involved?

1. The infrastructure owner does the dispatching
2. How's it done now? There would be a priority schematic, probably first come first serve, or slots would be reserved in advance by auction. The point is, these things would be figured out before any operator even enters the property.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Operational questions related to open access:

1. How would dispatching be handled?
2. How would dispatching priorities be established, especially when different operators with similar trains (e.g.; 2 or 3 different stack train operators) are involved?

[daveklepper]

But takes it back at a lower rate?

[kevarc]

"2. Investigate costs of building the connection with the nearest competitive railroad and approach that railroad to see if it makes economic sense for the shippers, again as a group, to share costs with the railroad on building the connection."

And here is EXACTLY what tthe RR will tell you - you pay for and build it, we may help a little, and then when it is BUILT, we will quote you a rate. Been there, still going through that for our plant. Then after the contract is up, the former RR usually takes the business back.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

The analogy cited by futuremodal is slightly off-base. The abandonments cited would be more like the ripping up of the old 2-lane undivided highway (with stoplights and going through the middle of town) because all of the through traffic went over to the parallel Interstate.

Why should a branch line be maintained when service outside of the grain rush is minimal at best? A good rate won't generate traffic from non-existent sources.

An Interstate replacement of an old two lane road is usually a stone"s throw away, e.g. it is closely parallel. The "parallel" alternatives to the Milwaukee, RI, or Modoc abandonments are more often than not hundreds of miles away. Also, with Interstate replacements of two lane roads, there is no shift of revenue traffic from one carrier to another, so shippers who used to transport via the old two lane road are still able to use the same carriers via the new four lane freeway, and they can do so with better economies of scale. Plus, the old two lane road remains as an access road except where there are no online users.

Again, there really is no counter modal equivalent to a railroad abandonment.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The analogy cited by futuremodal is slightly off-base. The abandonments cited would be more like the ripping up of the old 2-lane undivided highway (with stoplights and going through the middle of town) because all of the through traffic went over to the parallel Interstate.

Why should a branch line be maintained when service outside of the grain rush is minimal at best? A good rate won't generate traffic from non-existent sources.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Their argument was the Toronto belongs to its people, who mostly use transit, and not to the out-of-towners that just want to drive through it!

The 401 (which I don't think actually touches Toronto proper) - 4 lanes express, 3 or 4 lanes feeder in each direction. Went through there not long ago at 80 mph + in near bumper to bumper traffic...

[daveklepper]

You are on the ball. But the Embarkadaro removal was not in a jungle. It is prime real estate (commercial) property and of course the value skyrocketed once the blight of the elevated highway was removed. But you are on the ball. Here is the equivalent:

Two York University professors, one a woman, successfully fought the compain for the Ontario equivalent of our interstate system to run through downtown Toronto. Construction had begun, a segment was completed and is still in use, but before demolition of homes and othe buildings they were succesful in getting the project stopped completely. They also headed the campaign to keep Toronto's streetcars, with most of the lines being classic streetcars of modern design stopping at street corners and sharing lanes with automobiles, etc. There is some "light rail" and also an excellent subway system (possibly the world's best in terms of reliability, comfort, and quiet) and "Go Transit" the diesel commuter railroad system on CN and CP tracks and a supplier of second-hand rolling stock to some USA operations. Their argument was the Toronto belongs to its people, who mostly use transit, and not to the out-of-towners that just want to drive through it!

[Anonymous]

It's one thing to abandon a few miles of eyesore viaduct in some run down urban jungle. It would be quite another if key highway gateways were abandoned in the same manner as the Class I's have abandoned key rail segments prior to sale to a shortline outfit to keep that shortline from accessing another railroad. If we're talking about equivalency, the Milwaukee PCE abandonment would be akin to the tearing up of I-90 between Rapid City and Seattle. The Rock Island abandonment would be the equivalent of tearing up I-70 between Kansas City and Denver. The abandonment of the SP Modoc line would be like tearing up U.S. 395 between Alturas and Reno. Even the abandonment of a grain hauling branch is the equivalent of tearing up a State Highway.

So we ask again, when has there ever been a REAL segment of highway abandonment?

[Anonymous]

The former Milwaukee mayor is very active in promoting more-liveable cities. Includes rolling back urban highway construction. He viewed street congestion as not necessarily a bad thing - it represents neighborhood vibrancy. Here's a website - click on new urbanism to find quite a lot of train/transit info.

http://www.dutchsustainablecommunities.com/site/epage/16215_449.htm

Wisconsin is beginning to replace the Marquette highway interchange, a spaghetti bowl in central Milwaukee. Upwards of a billion $$. Is muscling out other state projects. Wish it would be scaled back. Urban highway construction has gone way overboard. Why make the same mistake twice?

[Anonymous]

I forgot to tell of teh mie and a half of right of way that was purchased for a freeway, people relocated, buldings cleared, sewers installed, then the former Milwaukee mayor and his buddies stirred up teh pot enough where no concrete was ever poured. The land sat vacant in some areas for 30 years. The poor village this route went through lost all that tax base. They do indeed abandon highways.

[daveklepper]

Remember the Emarkadaro Freeway in San Francisco? The people considered it an eyesore, a majority of the nearby residents used public transit and didn't drive anyway. and since it benefited primarily out-of-towners, they knocked it down.

Now, miracles of miracles, there's a heritage light rail line on that waterfront with restored streetcars from all over the world! And it is a regular transit line with transfers and regular fare collection as part of the overal mix of cable cars, streetcars, light rail, trolley buses, buses, high-speed automated rapid transit, and commuter rail, and ferry boats, that make up SF's public transportation systems.

[Anonymous]

The last time I saw a highway abandoned was about two years ago. The State of Wisconsin knocked down (at the constant urging of the former MIlwukaee mayor) a part of freeway that ran into the northern part of Milwaukee's downtown. The land has been vacant for the last two years as they are trying to find development for the land.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

1. In a body, approach the railroad management and point out that the RR will loose all the business, if the business that is paying the freight closes, relocates, or uses trucking!

If previous discussions along that line are any indication, the RR will say "Thanks - we've been trying to get rid of that branch anyhow."

QUOTE: 2. Investigate costs of building the connection with the nearest competitive railroad and approach that railroad to see if it makes economic sense for the shippers, again as a group, to share costs with the railroad on building the connection.

Unless the nearest railroad other than the line serving the industry is a hundred miles away....

I really don't care whether open access happens or not (I'm not a railroader or a shipper), but so far it seems the biggest obstacle is institutional inertia.

Will branches fall off? Certainly. But new branches might be built, too. And when was last time you saw a highway abandoned?

Will there be some problems making the transition? I'd be amazed if there weren't.

There have been references to unanswered questions. Instead of complaining that nobody has answered them, lose the conviction that the concept will fail and look for an answer to your question that will make it work. You're the one who knows why it won't work, so you obviously know what has to be fixed to make it work...

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

It appears that the concept of open access being predicated on this thread is also meant to keep every last mile of track in place, whether it still serves a useful economic function or not. It has been argued that many railroads should never have built in the first place, the Chicago Great Western being one example. Open access would keep a lot of unnecessary track in place but it might be questionable whether any operators would want to use that track.

Not myself anyways. My idea of a great use for open access would be the newly established Canada Southern as I have ranted about on previous threads. That is a particular useful line for open access. A nice Chicago to Los Angelas line used by BNSF, UP, Amtrak and any shortlines along the way could be constructed from existing lines spliced together maybe and redone. Build some tunnels and other things to reduce the grade and share the cost of it and now they have a nice mainline for at least faster on-time priority trains. They would need to build a parking lots (staging yards) in certain areas to decrease conjestion due to no space for crew changes. There are a number of ways to do this that others who have actually worked or working for a railroad could think of so the line would most definately be worth investigating.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

In the end, because of the problems noted, it would make railroads less competitive with trucking rather than more.

What shippers in an area with monopolistic pricing should do, if the problem is really serious and they do not wi***o relocate, is:

1. In a body, approach the railroad management and point out that the RR will loose all the business, if the business that is paying the freight closes, relocates, or uses trucking!

2. Investigate costs of building the connection with the nearest competitive railroad and approach that railroad to see if it makes economic sense for the shippers, again as a group, to share costs with the railroad on building the connection.

I believe this a very practical way to appraoch the problem. In step 1, don't mention the possibility of building the connection, the railroad can figure that alternative out for themselves and there is no point in creating needless hostility, and besides it would start their legal group working to figure out what they could do to get objections filed, their own and people along the possible right-of-way.

This is the primary process that is followed in the cases where shippers have increased the number of railroads they can use and/or lower the rates paid to the rr that currently serves their plant. The other much less succesful technique is to bring in the politicians such as with the UP's problems absorbing the SP and opening up many industries to the BNSF.

These approaches are very specific. None of the shippers care anything about transportation policy they just want to lower their costs.

[daveklepper]

In the end, because of the problems noted, it would make railroads less competitive with trucking rather than more.

What shippers in an area with monopolistic pricing should do, if the problem is really serious and they do not wi***o relocate, is:

1. In a body, approach the railroad management and point out that the RR will loose all the business, if the business that is paying the freight closes, relocates, or uses trucking!

2. Investigate costs of building the connection with the nearest competitive railroad and approach that railroad to see if it makes economic sense for the shippers, again as a group, to share costs with the railroad on building the connection.

I believe this a very practical way to appraoch the problem. In step 1, don't mention the possibility of building the connection, the railroad can figure that alternative out for themselves and there is no point in creating needless hostility, and besides it would start their legal group working to figure out what they could do to get objections filed, their own and people along the possible right-of-way.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

It appears that the concept of open access being predicated on this thread is also meant to keep every last mile of track in place, whether it still serves a useful economic function or not. It has been argued that many railroads should never have built in the first place, the Chicago Great Western being one example. Open access would keep a lot of unnecessary track in place but it might be questionable whether any operators would want to use that track.

[daveklepper]

Highways and to some extent the waterways have an added layer of police and beurocracy to pay to make it work.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Bad analogy by Junctionfan. In a condominium, the owner owns his individual unit, which is not shared by anyone else and for which he alone is responsible, and has a fractional share in the common areas, which are administered by the building association. The closest analogy to the common areas would be the jointly owned terminal railroad, such as BRC, with the individual units being comparable to BRC's six owner roads.

I know it sounds like a stretch but really it is like this.

1/ Individual property (condo-unit) or (open access line-railroads own locomotives/ equipment and individual's lines connecting to the line like apartment connecting to a hall way.

2/ One railroad who operates the most trains shall be controller (super or landlord) and is entitled to rent for use of maintainance and operation.

3/ Although individual railroads operate as seperate trains, all trains must abide to rules of the lease or may be evicted in concerns with failing to pay rent

My idea for the line uses the basic principles of running a condo or apartment building.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Judging by what has happened to Amtrak funding, and again, I believe that long distance cruise trains like the Capitol Limited, the Sunset, and the CZ are essential for an important if small segment of the American people, can we just imagene how the infrastructure would be maintained if the Government owned the right of ways for open access?

Highways are a portion of the infrastructure maintained by the government, and yet we have private passenger services on highways. Waterways are a portion of the infrastructure maintained by government, and yet we have private passenger services on waterways. No one has yet made an argument that government couldn't do at least a palatable job of maintaining rail infrastructure, if indeed that is the preferable alternative to continued private ownership of an open access rail system.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jwieczorek

Here's a solution. Tax all railroad proerty and fuel and labor out of existence. Then the govenrment (local, county, state ,federal, take you pick) can mop up the unused rights of way for a song. (we won't discuss inverse condemnation here). Then with all the relatively flat and fairly wide rights of way, roadways can be constructed and restricted to only trucks. Extra long combination vehicles can be accomodated on these highways thus freeing the interstates for the passenger autos. These former rail routes serve industries directly, and old railyards can be paved into transfer areas, where the long combination vehicles can be split into single vehicles for local deliveries. Jurisdiction of these new roads will be under the FHWA just like any other highway.

Now you have most of the trucks off the interstates, Ma & Pa shippers would have access to anyone with a tractor. and the rates MUST go down, as there would be hundreds of people aggressively seeking everyone's business.

Not a bad suggestion[:-,], except that railroads are still more efficient ways of moving multiple boxes between points at speed, so it would make more sense to leave the rails in place. Until someone invents the self steering trailer wheelset, you can't have more than 5 or so trailers behind a cab unit, because of the tendency to pull the consist inward during curving. Also, rails have the greater potential for safe speeds above 100 mph, whereas those speeds on highways would not pass the safety test for tonnage.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain

Maybe I'm just on a different page. I look at a supermarket. It's privately owned. The population of a good-sized city walks through its doors each week. Almost all of what it offers is available elsewhere through internet ordering. It's got to serve its customers to make itself successful. What is it about a railroad that is so much different? How long does a "customer" have to exist to be deemed "captive"?

The market for constructing and/or closing supermarkets is elastic. New stores are popping up all the time, and at the same time other stores are closing. It is the epitome of the free market.

The market for constructing and/or closing railroads is inelastic. It is nearly impossible, both financially and jurisdictionally, to construct new railroads. It is up to the discretion of the STB if an owner can close a railroad. Because of this inelasticity, the few remaining owners of railroads can extract monopolistic pricing practices unavailable to other markets, including other transportation modes. That makes shippers who otherwise are logical rail shippers captive to that particular mode if they want to be competitive with other like businesses. When railroads raise rates by triple digits or cut back on service to logical rail shippers, it causes an unnatural shift in economic variables to less than perferable alternatives (from the standpoint of national interests). If the preferable alternatives are a shift to less economical transportation modes, shut down, and/or a move overseas, then clearly it ends up hurting the U.S. economy and contributing to the imbalance of trade.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There are better alternatives for curing the railroad ROI problem than to allow monopolistic retrenchment of the industry. Taking the sole responsibility of infrastructure costs away from the rail service providers and fostering that cost onto the public in some way (public/private consortiums, exemption of property tax liability, maintenance tax credits, access to infrastructure trust funding), and then allowing rail service providers the full risks and benefits of head to head competition nationwide would be a better way of addressing the ROI problem without sticking it to rail shippers.

[daveklepper]

Judging by what has happened to Amtrak funding, and again, I believe that long distance cruise trains like the Capitol Limited, the Sunset, and the CZ are essential for an important if small segment of the American people, can we just imagene how the infrastructure would be maintained if the Government owned the right of ways for open access?