For those of you who have subscription access to the TRAINS newswire...
http://www.trains.com/trn/print.aspx?c=a&id=1381
TVA considers using trains for coal delivery to Memphis plant
Quote from Tom White of AAR:
"while barge rates remain lower than rail charges, it's largely because of federal subsidies in the form of dredging on navigation channels. "Their right-of-way is built and maintained by the federal government," White said. "Nonetheless, railroads have become very efficient, and can move an awful lot of coal at very low rates.""
Two points:
1. Why does the AAR continue to push the "everyone else is subsidized but us" line of BS when most railroads were built with land grants, maintained with antitrust exemptions et al, and are now lining up for federal aid to the public trough? Memo to Mr. White - barge rates are generally lower because they have lower operating costs. Water is a very forgiving conveyance, unlike steel and concrete.
Every transportation mode is subsidized to some degree. Acknowledge it and move on already.
2. Wasn't the Mississippi built by God, and not by the federal government? Ergo, barges' ROW was built by God but is maintained by the federales. Yes, one can argue that slack water is man-made, but there was riverboat activity long before the first dams were built on the Mississippi. The federal role in *subsidizing* river transportation is simply one of maintaining prior usage, not of establishing new usage where none existed before.
Oh, and about that claim that the rail move can be had at "very low rates" - keep an eye on what's happening to other utilities who also had *very low rates* at one time but are now seeing their rates doubling while service suffers. Current deliveries, while at record paces for the railroads, are running 86% of demand for the utilities and at higher cost to the consumer via higher electric rates.
Kinda like those credit card offers we get in the mail - "very low rates" on an introductory basis, then after a while WHAM!
I am not sure that you realize how one-sided you come across on the issue of subsidies. You keep bringing up the point that the railroads received massive land grants (although railroads were by no means the only recipients of land grants).
But more to the point, the issue is not so much about the initial building of the infrastructure, but about today's upkeep of the infrastructure. Without dredging, barge traffic on the Mississippi would be limited. Without dams, barge traffic would be even more limited. In the old days, barge operators had to contend with low water levels, floods, constantly changing channels, etc. These factors have been mitigated by public works projects.
Do railroads receive subsidies? Sure they do. But what happened 150 years ago, or even 30 years ago, is of little relevance to the issue of infrastructure maintenance that the railroads must deal with today.
I do appreciate the message that you are trying to convey; I'm only asking that you keep the comparisons relevant. Thank you.
Below St. Louis, the Mississippi River is a wonderful avenue of commerce.
Above St. Louis, it's a pork barrel taxpayer subsidized looser.
As for the "Land Grants". Very little railroad mileage was laid using them. Every mile of barge trainsportation on the inland waterways is continually subsidized for no damn good reason.
The initial building of the Union Pacific was done for political reasons. And it really didn't cost the Federal Government a dime. Northern Pacific, same thing.
Nobody would build a railroad across an empty continent for commercial purposes. The UP and NP were both financial disasters. It's incredulous that anyone invested in the NP after the UP failed. But, they did.
It was politically important to link California and Puget Sound with the rest of US. That's why that hapened.
futuremodal wrote: 2. Wasn't the Mississippi built by God, and not by the federal government? Ergo, barges' ROW was built by God but is maintained by the federales. Yes, one can argue that slack water is man-made, but there was riverboat activity long before the first dams were built on the Mississippi. The federal role in *subsidizing* river transportation is simply one of maintaining prior usage, not of establishing new usage where none existed before.
Future,
Likening a paddle wheel steamboat to a 10-12 barge tow is about as meaningless as likening the Pony Express to today's air mail. Barge commerce on our inland waterways would be nil, nada if not for the massive lock and dam infrastructure, cutoffs and channel dredging projects of the Corps of Engineers. All built and maintained with our federal tax dollars.
As far as land grants are concerned, IIRC, their purpose was to promote the westard expansion and population of the netherlands. And it worked. Yes the railroads benefited 140 years ago but I fail to see any relevance to today's situation.
You are entitled to your opinion of the AAR but your attempt to discredit their position about subsidization of competing modes of transportation is specious.
Mark
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Let me see if I have this straight:
The TVA, which now receives coal by barge, might switch to somewhat more expensive all-rail delivery? Gee, transportation price isn't everything?
And, since the TVA would likely be "captive" to one RR, the railroad would then be able to gouge them on the rate after the "low, low introductory" rate? Uh, wouldn't they just convert back to barge delivery if this happened? Oh, wait! Now I remember. There's no such thing as competition between rail and other modes. Only rail - rail comptetion counts. Right?
Funny stuff, indeed!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Datafever wrote: I am not sure that you realize how one-sided you come across on the issue of subsidies.
I am not sure that you realize how one-sided you come across on the issue of subsidies.
Actually, I'm sure he does.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
greyhounds wrote: Below St. Louis, the Mississippi River is a wonderful avenue of commerce. Above St. Louis, it's a pork barrel taxpayer subsidized looser.As for the "Land Grants". Very little railroad mileage was laid using them. Every mile of barge trainsportation on the inland waterways is continually subsidized for no damn good reason.The initial building of the Union Pacific was done for political reasons. And it really didn't cost the Federal Government a dime. Northern Pacific, same thing.Nobody would build a railroad across an empty continent for commercial purposes. The UP and NP were both financial disasters. It's incredulous that anyone invested in the NP after the UP failed. But, they did.It was politically important to link California and Puget Sound with the rest of US. That's why that hapened.
In line with this, there was an article in the Memphis Commercial Appeal on Monday the 15th, referencing the problems with coal delivery at the Thos. Allen Coal generation plant at Memphis.
The coal delivery has always been accomplished by barged delivery through an access off the Mississippi River, via the McKellar lake channel, which has become more problematic due to the recent periods of low flow on the river. TVA is now considering direct derlivery by rail, as an option to the plant, now the coal is transloaded at a Cora, Il. facility, an approximate 385 mile barge ride from there to Memphis. Apparently, the plant uses about 18 million tons of coal per year, representing several thousand rail car load of coal, and many more trains, representing traffic delays in the area as those trains negotiate a circuitous route through town to get to the Steam Plant.
Should be interesting to see who gets the mine to plant delivery, as both BNSF and UP are carriers serving Memphis.
futuremodal wrote: Memo to Mr. White - barge rates are generally lower because they have lower operating costs. .
Memo to Mr. White - barge rates are generally lower because they have lower operating costs. .
One of the reasons why is because they do not have to pay to maintain their right of way or taxes on it.
Bert
An "expensive model collector"
18million tons of coal per year would amount to about 1300 loaded coal trains per year, about
3.5 trains PER DAY loaded.
That must be a big power plant or my math is wrong.
ed
FM seems to have ignored the fact that the AAR, among other functions, serves as a lobbying group for its member roads. He has also long ignored the fact that modal competition really does exist. Missouri Pacific had barge competition for years.
The low-water issue brings up another point. When water levels are low, barge operators customarily raise their rates since barges are restricted to lighter loads at those times.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: FM seems to have ignored the fact that the AAR, among other functions, serves as a lobbying group for its member roads. He has also long ignored the fact that modal competition really does exist. Missouri Pacific had barge competition for years.The low-water issue brings up another point. When water levels are low, barge operators customarily raise their rates since barges are restricted to lighter loads at those times.
FM also missed the boat (Pun sort of intended) on God creating the Mississippi River. The Army Corps of Engineers created the pools on the Mississippi. Without the lock system there would be no pools and without the pools we wouldn't have towboating as we know it today. These are not the boats of the Mark Twain era. They require a much deeper draft than sternwheelers of the olden days.
FM also missed the boat (Pun sort of intended) on God creating the Mississippi River. The Army Corps of Engineers created the pools on the Mississippi. Without the lock system there would be no pools and without the pools we wouldn't have towboating as we know it today. These
MP173 wrote: 18million tons of coal per year would amount to about 1300 loaded coal trains per year, about 3.5 trains PER DAY loaded. That must be a big power plant or my math is wrong.ed
ed:
I WAS QUOTING FROM MEMORY. Which in my case, was the wrong thing to do, as I had the facts somewhat scrambled; I was able to go into the Memphis Commercial Appeal's web site and find a copy of the article in question:
"Shift in shipping
Photos by Alan Spearman/The Commercial Appeal Deckhands James Barker, David Declue and Brandon Appling do some heavy lifting on McKellar Lake, Memphis' main harbor along the river. Pilot David Reeves guides a barge shipment on the river. Coal for TVA's Allen Fossil Plant is delivered to Memphis on barges from Illinois. Story Tools
TVA considers trains instead of bargesfor coal delivery; local rail traffic may rise
By Tom CharlierContact January 14, 2007
In a move that could sharply increase rail traffic into Memphis, TVA soon may begin using trains instead of Mississippi River barges to ship coal to its Allen Fossil Plant.
Tennessee Valley Authority officials are reviewing submittals from firms that responded to a request for proposals to build a major rail-unloading facility at the power-generating plant, which is located along McKellar Lake.
The agency, which provides wholesale electricity to a seven-state region that includes Memphis, should decide within six months whether to pursue the rail option, TVA spokesman John Moulton said. No cost estimate is available yet on the unloading facility.
"It's very preliminary -- we've made no decision yet -- but we are evaluating that option based on cost," he said.
TVA and industry officials said the interest in rail was spurred by rising barge-transport rates and the drought conditions over the past few years that have produced chronic low-water problems in McKellar, which is Memphis' main harbor along the river.
Currently, the low-sulfur coal burned at the plant is carried by rail from mines in Colorado and Wyoming to Cora, Ill., more than 50 miles southeast of St. Louis. There, it is loaded into barges and sent 315 miles down the Mississippi to Memphis.
The plant each year consumes about 3 million tons of coal, enough to fill nearly 1,800 barges. Those shipments constitute roughly 18 percent of the 17 million or so tons of cargo handled at Memphis port facilities annually.
No figures were available late last week as to how much TVA pays for shipping by barge.
But rates have been rising industrywide in recent years to cover the millions of dollars towing companies have invested in a new generation of barges, said Dan Martin, senior vice president and chief commercial officer for Ingram Barge Co., the Nashville-based firm that ships coal to the Allen plant.
"That higher capital base requires a higher rate structure," said Martin, who also noted the rising cost of steel.
In addition to the rising rates, TVA has been troubled by frequent low-water conditions in the harbor. When that occurs, the large string of 25 or so barges must be broken up before the vessels are brought into the harbor -- a time-consuming and costly process.
Despite the costs and troubles, Martin said barges still represent "the most efficient, low-cost means of bulk transport."
Martin also said a shift to trains could lead to more disruption along local roads situated along rail crossings.
It would take more than 27,000 rail cars to haul 3 million tons of coal.
"We bring in all this coal, and it's largely unnoticed in town," Martin said.
However, disruptions could be minimal if the coal is carried into the city across one of the local rail spans over the Mississippi and then routed through mostly industrial areas to the south.
Tom White, spokesman for the Association of American Railroads, said that while barge rates remain lower than rail charges, it's largely because of federal subsidies in the form of dredging on navigation channels. [They probably put this in to vindicate FutureModal]
"Their right-of-way is built and maintained by the federal government."
Nonetheless, White said, railroads "have become very efficient and can move an awful lot of coal at very low rates."
-- Tom Charlier: 529-2572 (C)Memphis Commercial Appeal
Datafever wrote: I am not sure that you realize how one-sided you come across on the issue of subsidies. You keep bringing up the point that the railroads received massive land grants (although railroads were by no means the only recipients of land grants).But more to the point, the issue is not so much about the initial building of the infrastructure, but about today's upkeep of the infrastructure. Without dredging, barge traffic on the Mississippi would be limited. Without dams, barge traffic would be even more limited. In the old days, barge operators had to contend with low water levels, floods, constantly changing channels, etc. These factors have been mitigated by public works projects. Do railroads receive subsidies? Sure they do. But what happened 150 years ago, or even 30 years ago, is of little relevance to the issue of infrastructure maintenance that the railroads must deal with today.I do appreciate the message that you are trying to convey; I'm only asking that you keep the comparisons relevant. Thank you.
The problem is the allegation made by Mr. White that, without subsidies, barging would be more expensive than railroading. If you take away all forms of subsidies from both modes, the fact remains that barging is a lower operating cost method of transit, and that usually results in lower costs to the end users.
The other thing I was pointing out was that railroads offer these introductory rates, much as the credit card companies do, then after you're in deep they'll jack the rates on you even as service levels drop. It has happened time and again to other utilities, so why would one infer that it won't it happen to the TVA?
Of course, this is a bi-modal move currently being used by TVA - rail and barge. It'd be interesting to see if the TVA could opt back to that move if the all-rail move doesn't work out.
futuremodal wrote:The problem is the allegation made by Mr. White that, without subsidies, barging would be more expensive than railroading. If you take away all forms of subsidies from both modes, the fact remains that barging is a lower operating cost method of transit, and that usually results in lower costs to the end users.
I would presume that barges have to pays fees for each lock that they traverse, which (helps) pay for the upkeep of the lock. To what extent do they contribute to dredging operations?
I will have to admit that I have no clue as to what a barge's main operating costs stem from. They pay for diesel, labor, upkeep of the barge, lock fees. What else? And of those costs, which tend to predominate?
Lacking any good information, I would agree with you that barges have a lower operating cost than railroads, subsidies notwithstanding.
Datafever wrote: futuremodal wrote: The problem is the allegation made by Mr. White that, without subsidies, barging would be more expensive than railroading. If you take away all forms of subsidies from both modes, the fact remains that barging is a lower operating cost method of transit, and that usually results in lower costs to the end users.I would presume that barges have to pays fees for each lock that they traverse, which (helps) pay for the upkeep of the lock. To what extent do they contribute to dredging operations?I will have to admit that I have no clue as to what a barge's main operating costs stem from. They pay for diesel, labor, upkeep of the barge, lock fees. What else? And of those costs, which tend to predominate?Lacking any good information, I would agree with you that barges have a lower operating cost than railroads, subsidies notwithstanding.
futuremodal wrote: The problem is the allegation made by Mr. White that, without subsidies, barging would be more expensive than railroading. If you take away all forms of subsidies from both modes, the fact remains that barging is a lower operating cost method of transit, and that usually results in lower costs to the end users.
Barge companies pay into a Waterway Trust Fund, from which the federal government gets another deficit buffer. Currently, barge companies pay more into the fund than what they are getting out if it.
One problem you have in allocating "true" costs of barging is how to allocate the cost of maintaining water levels. Higher water levels favor barging, but also favor electricity generation. And since electricity generation is a profit source, can we allocate those profits to the general operation of dams and the reservoirs?
Also keep in mind that waterways are open access, not only supporting competing barge companies but also private and recreational users. Do you charge the same fee to the two fishermen in the Duckworth inboard jet boat as you do the commercial barge operator? Both take the same amount of water to raise and lower the locks. And that slack water that supports modern day barging also supports major recreational activities.
Thus, you also have that intangible of a "public good" that needs to be accounted for when determining costs of barging, something we don't have with US railroads outside the NEC.
Keep in mind also that barging is only good for bulk goods at slow speeds, and can't compete for that time sensitive traffic that railroads can (in theory) monopolize.
With the potential profit generated by electricity production, in theory barges should get by scott free, since energy generation covers more than the total costs of maintaining dams, locks, and waterways. That is, if the electricity were being sold at market prices!
futuremodal wrote: Datafever wrote: futuremodal wrote: The problem is the allegation made by Mr. White that, without subsidies, barging would be more expensive than railroading. If you take away all forms of subsidies from both modes, the fact remains that barging is a lower operating cost method of transit, and that usually results in lower costs to the end users.I would presume that barges have to pays fees for each lock that they traverseBarge companies pay into a Waterway Trust Fund, from which the federal government gets another deficit buffer. Currently, barge companies pay more into the fund than what they are getting out if it.
Datafever wrote: futuremodal wrote: The problem is the allegation made by Mr. White that, without subsidies, barging would be more expensive than railroading. If you take away all forms of subsidies from both modes, the fact remains that barging is a lower operating cost method of transit, and that usually results in lower costs to the end users.I would presume that barges have to pays fees for each lock that they traverse
I would presume that barges have to pays fees for each lock that they traverse
FM Is this money collected on a fuel tax for all commercial vessels?
spokyone wrote: futuremodal wrote: Datafever wrote: futuremodal wrote: The problem is the allegation made by Mr. White that, without subsidies, barging would be more expensive than railroading. If you take away all forms of subsidies from both modes, the fact remains that barging is a lower operating cost method of transit, and that usually results in lower costs to the end users.I would presume that barges have to pays fees for each lock that they traverseBarge companies pay into a Waterway Trust Fund, from which the federal government gets another deficit buffer. Currently, barge companies pay more into the fund than what they are getting out if it.FM Is this money collected on a fuel tax for all commercial vessels?
I don't know if it's a fuel tax or just a user fee. There was a 4.3 cent per gallon tax both barge lines and railroads paid a few years ago for deficit reduction, but that was eliminated.
futuremodal wrote: Barge companies pay into a Waterway Trust Fund, from which the federal government gets another deficit buffer. Currently, barge companies pay more into the fund than what they are getting out if it.
Oh really? From the Corps of Engineer's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request:
CofE Commercial Business Line: Construction, Operations and Maintenance Requested Appropriations-$1.866 billion.
Sources of Appropriations: Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, Inland Waterways Trust Fund, Special Recreation User Fees and Disposal Facilities User Fees Total $905 million.
Amount from General Fund to cover the difference: $961 million. And another $2.886 billion from the General Fund is kicked in to cover all the other stuff that the Corps does.
Just to get a little more specific expenditures for Navagation just on the Mississippi River and tributaries are $359 million for construction and $542 million for Operations and Maintenance for a total of $901 million.
Totals recieved from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund: $197 million
You do understand the concepts of more and less?
futuremodal wrote:One problem you have in allocating "true" costs of barging is how to allocate the cost of maintaining water levels. Higher water levels favor barging, but also favor electricity generation. And since electricity generation is a profit source, can we allocate those profits to the general operation of dams and the reservoirs?
Not sure what the percentage of barge traffic for the US actually travels on the Mississippi RIver (vs the Columbia River and the TVA systems, which DO generate power...), but the dams on 'Ole Man River are NOT for power generation...reference: recent visit to the Great RIver visitor center new St Louis. THey are stictly to attempt to retain water year round for Navigation and a modicum of flood control.
Highly recommended if you are passing by...tour of the dam and locks, and a barge/pusher simulator. (You thought Trains were hard to stop....)
jeaton wrote: futuremodal wrote: Barge companies pay into a Waterway Trust Fund, from which the federal government gets another deficit buffer. Currently, barge companies pay more into the fund than what they are getting out if it.Oh really? From the Corps of Engineer's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request:CofE Commercial Business Line: Construction, Operations and Maintenance Requested Appropriations-$1.866 billion.Sources of Appropriations: Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, Inland Waterways Trust Fund, Special Recreation User Fees and Disposal Facilities User Fees Total $905 million.Amount from General Fund to cover the difference: $961 million. And another $2.886 billion from the General Fund is kicked in to cover all the other stuff that the Corps does.Just to get a little more specific expenditures for Navagation just on the Mississippi River and tributaries are $359 million for construction and $542 million for Operations and Maintenance for a total of $901 million.Totals recieved from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund: $197 million You do understand the concepts of more and less?
First, you do understand that most of the Corps budget request of late is for that whole New Orleans fiasco, right?
Second, when was the last time the Corps got what they requested?
Lastly, you do understand that those budget requests on the Mississippi are related to the entire operation, and not just the barging portion? Like I tried to point out a few posts back, the waterway system is used for more than just barging - flood control, recreational navigation, private navigation, electricity generation, wildlife mitigation, wetlands enhancement, et al.
Like it or not, barging does pay it's fair share. Kick out the private and recreational users of the waterway system, and put the wildlife and wetlands mitigation in it's proper context, maybe then you might have an argument.
futuremodal wrote: jeaton wrote: futuremodal wrote: Barge companies pay into a Waterway Trust Fund, from which the federal government gets another deficit buffer. Currently, barge companies pay more into the fund than what they are getting out if it.Oh really? From the Corps of Engineer's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request:CofE Commercial Business Line: Construction, Operations and Maintenance Requested Appropriations-$1.866 billion.Sources of Appropriations: Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, Inland Waterways Trust Fund, Special Recreation User Fees and Disposal Facilities User Fees Total $905 million.Amount from General Fund to cover the difference: $961 million. And another $2.886 billion from the General Fund is kicked in to cover all the other stuff that the Corps does.Just to get a little more specific expenditures for Navagation just on the Mississippi River and tributaries are $359 million for construction and $542 million for Operations and Maintenance for a total of $901 million.Totals recieved from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund: $197 million You do understand the concepts of more and less?First, you do understand that most of the Corps budget request of late is for that whole New Orleans fiasco, right?Second, when was the last time the Corps got what they requested?Lastly, you do understand that those budget requests on the Mississippi are related to the entire operation, and not just the barging portion? Like I tried to point out a few posts back, the waterway system is used for more than just barging - flood control, recreational navigation, private navigation, electricity generation, wildlife mitigation, wetlands enhancement, et al.Like it or not, barging does pay it's fair share. Kick out the private and recreational users of the waterway system, and put the wildlife and wetlands mitigation in it's proper context, maybe then you might have an argument.
Sorry I excluded a key word in second line of my post above. That should be CofE Commercial Navagation Business Line.
Commercial Navagation is a business line with a separate reporting from the other business lines, which include Flood/Storm Damage Reduction, Recreation, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Environmental Stewardship, Hydro-Power, Water Supply, Emergency Management, Regulatory Program and the all important $164 million for Executive Direction & Management.
So just to be clear the Mississippi River and Tributaries expenses for Construction, Operations and Maintenance for the Commercial Navagation business line FY2007 is scheduled to be $901 million. The Inland Waterways Trust Fund will provide $177 million for FY 2007.
jeaton wrote: futuremodal wrote: jeaton wrote: futuremodal wrote: Barge companies pay into a Waterway Trust Fund, from which the federal government gets another deficit buffer. Currently, barge companies pay more into the fund than what they are getting out if it.Oh really? From the Corps of Engineer's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request:CofE Commercial Business Line: Construction, Operations and Maintenance Requested Appropriations-$1.866 billion.Sources of Appropriations: Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, Inland Waterways Trust Fund, Special Recreation User Fees and Disposal Facilities User Fees Total $905 million.Amount from General Fund to cover the difference: $961 million. And another $2.886 billion from the General Fund is kicked in to cover all the other stuff that the Corps does.Just to get a little more specific expenditures for Navagation just on the Mississippi River and tributaries are $359 million for construction and $542 million for Operations and Maintenance for a total of $901 million.Totals recieved from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund: $197 million You do understand the concepts of more and less?First, you do understand that most of the Corps budget request of late is for that whole New Orleans fiasco, right?Second, when was the last time the Corps got what they requested?Lastly, you do understand that those budget requests on the Mississippi are related to the entire operation, and not just the barging portion? Like I tried to point out a few posts back, the waterway system is used for more than just barging - flood control, recreational navigation, private navigation, electricity generation, wildlife mitigation, wetlands enhancement, et al.Like it or not, barging does pay it's fair share. Kick out the private and recreational users of the waterway system, and put the wildlife and wetlands mitigation in it's proper context, maybe then you might have an argument.Sorry I excluded a key word in second line of my post above. That should be CofE Commercial Navagation Business Line.Commercial Navagation is a business line with a separate reporting from the other business lines, which include Flood/Storm Damage Reduction, Recreation, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Environmental Stewardship, Hydro-Power, Water Supply, Emergency Management, Regulatory Program and the all important $164 million for Executive Direction & Management.So just to be clear the Mississippi River and Tributaries expenses for Construction, Operations and Maintenance for the Commercial Navagation business line FY2007 is scheduled to be $901 million. The Inland Waterways Trust Fund will provide $177 million for FY 2007.
You're simply mincing words. The Commercial Navigation system is used by non commercial users as well as commercial users. It is interactive, ergo you cannot functionally separate the two de facto, just de jure for accounting purposes. There is also the caveat of maintaining pre-dam usage of the river system, something for which no commercial or recreational user of the system should have to pay for.
Something else to keep in mind - that $177 million from the Waterway Trust Fund is but a small portion of the entire Waterway Trust Fund.
So what we have here is basically half of all Mississippi navigation projects paid for via user fees and half paid for from the general fund. Wanna make a bet that most of that is Katrina related? Perhaps you think that railroads don't need a refunctioning Port of New Orleans.
Just for fun, let's compare that $1.866 billion for waterway maintenance with the billions being allocated for rail projects in this country. Which mode is getting more right now? PS - yes, I'm including transit.
Care to take a stab at that one?
I think once we get this all put in perspective, it becomes clear that rail gets as much via the federal dole as barging, perhaps even more. That's the point of contention I have with the AAR, which wants to paint a picture of pure privatization for rail.
FM
Once again we see that you state that the facts are wrong in order to avoid upsetting your view of the world. You really ought to get yourself a time slot on the local AM radio station. With a sure supply of ditto heads, I am sure you would find it quite rewarding.
Tax Revenue going into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund for the 12 months ending November,2006 were $80.8 million and the trust fund balance was $249 million. Use the entire balance of $249 million instead of the $177 million that the Corps plans to use and you still see a "slight" shortfall.
If you want to argue that the Corps maintains a 12 foot navigation channel so some fisherman can run his 250 horsepower bass boat to a good spot, be my guest.
I suppose I could be wrong, but I think that the Corps would put the Katrina related expense into the Category of Flood/Storm Damage Reduction for which they have separate scheduled $1.291 billion. Further, the regional breakdowns only show about $260 million going for Navagation and Flood Control for the lower portion of the Mississippi that includes New Orleans.
And speaking of mincing words, perhaps you can dig up a quote from the AAR stating that the railroads are a "purely private" enterprise. I doubt that there are many barge lines that will call themselves anything but "private businesses" any more than any other kind of business that has received grants, loans or services in kind from the government.
Finally, I am not going to get into your diversion about who gets what and for what and the relative merits. Frankly, it does not bother me one bit that large sums of money go to maintain waterways and facilities around the country, as I believe that it is of benefit to the general economic well being. My point is that your contention that the barge lines fully pay for the benefits they recieve from the govern is total BS.
jeaton wrote: FMOnce again we see that you state that the facts are wrong in order to avoid upsetting your view of the world. You really ought to get yourself a time slot on the local AM radio station. With a sure supply of ditto heads, I am sure you would find it quite rewarding.Tax Revenue going into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund for the 12 months ending November,2006 were $80.8 million and the trust fund balance was $249 million. Use the entire balance of $249 million instead of the $177 million that the Corps plans to use and you still see a "slight" shortfall.If you want to argue that the Corps maintains a 12 foot navigation channel so some fisherman can run his 250 horsepower bass boat to a good spot, be my guest.I suppose I could be wrong, but I think that the Corps would put the Katrina related expense into the Category of Flood/Storm Damage Reduction for which they have separate scheduled $1.291 billion. Further, the regional breakdowns only show about $260 million going for Navagation and Flood Control for the lower portion of the Mississippi that includes New Orleans. And speaking of mincing words, perhaps you can dig up a quote from the AAR stating that the railroads are a "purely private" enterprise. I doubt that there are many barge lines that will call themselves anything but "private businesses" any more than any other kind of business that has received grants, loans or services in kind from the government.Finally, I am not going to get into your diversion about who gets what and for what and the relative merits. Frankly, it does not bother me one bit that large sums of money go to maintain waterways and facilities around the country, as I believe that it is of benefit to the general economic well being. My point is that your contention that the barge lines fully pay for the benefits they recieve from the govern is total BS.
You're certainly entitled to your view, but you have to obfuscate the facts to arrive at your conclusions. Not a problem, since you seem to have no problem with a general maintenance of the nation's transportation infrastructure.
I have pointed out the grey area of who should pay for what when a prior usage factor is disrupted by development. It's too bad we don't have a situation where a free flowing river is maintained soley for barge movement, e.g. no dams, no locks, no private boaters, no environmental *mitigation*. We do have some natural harbors and free flowing rivers being dredged for ships but not barging.
May I also point out that the Corps budget is like that of any other government entity, where funds from one area may be transferred to another area to keep things prioritized. Historically, the Waterways and Harbor funds have been raided like Social Security to minimize general budget growth, both externally and internally. Therefore, taking this post-Katrina spending period out of context is a bit disingenuous for analysis sake.
And I will state it clearly - barge lines not only fully pay there own way year in and year out, they pay the way of non-commercial users as well. You can argue that point if you discount prior usage, selected municiple port development, et al, but if you do so you are on a slippery slope.
BTW - did you come up with those figures yet for total rail related tax expenditures?
futuremodal wrote: jeaton wrote: FMOnce again we see that you state that the facts are wrong in order to avoid upsetting your view of the world. You really ought to get yourself a time slot on the local AM radio station. With a sure supply of ditto heads, I am sure you would find it quite rewarding.Tax Revenue going into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund for the 12 months ending November,2006 were $80.8 million and the trust fund balance was $249 million. Use the entire balance of $249 million instead of the $177 million that the Corps plans to use and you still see a "slight" shortfall.If you want to argue that the Corps maintains a 12 foot navigation channel so some fisherman can run his 250 horsepower bass boat to a good spot, be my guest.I suppose I could be wrong, but I think that the Corps would put the Katrina related expense into the Category of Flood/Storm Damage Reduction for which they have separate scheduled $1.291 billion. Further, the regional breakdowns only show about $260 million going for Navagation and Flood Control for the lower portion of the Mississippi that includes New Orleans. And speaking of mincing words, perhaps you can dig up a quote from the AAR stating that the railroads are a "purely private" enterprise. I doubt that there are many barge lines that will call themselves anything but "private businesses" any more than any other kind of business that has received grants, loans or services in kind from the government.Finally, I am not going to get into your diversion about who gets what and for what and the relative merits. Frankly, it does not bother me one bit that large sums of money go to maintain waterways and facilities around the country, as I believe that it is of benefit to the general economic well being. My point is that your contention that the barge lines fully pay for the benefits they recieve from the govern is total BS.You're certainly entitled to your view, but you have to obfuscate the facts to arrive at your conclusions. Not a problem, since you seem to have no problem with a general maintenance of the nation's transportation infrastructure.I have pointed out the grey area of who should pay for what when a prior usage factor is disrupted by development. It's too bad we don't have a situation where a free flowing river is maintained soley for barge movement, e.g. no dams, no locks, no private boaters, no environmental *mitigation*. We do have some natural harbors and free flowing rivers being dredged for ships but not barging.May I also point out that the Corps budget is like that of any other government entity, where funds from one area may be transferred to another area to keep things prioritized. Historically, the Waterways and Harbor funds have been raided like Social Security to minimize general budget growth, both externally and internally. Therefore, taking this post-Katrina spending period out of context is a bit disingenuous for analysis sake.And I will state it clearly - barge lines not only fully pay there own way year in and year out, they pay the way of non-commercial users as well. You can argue that point if you discount prior usage, selected municiple port development, et al, but if you do so you are on a slippery slope.BTW - did you come up with those figures yet for total rail related tax expenditures?
I always find it interesting when someone who is convinced that their view on everything is always correct is confronted by evidence suggesting that they are wrong. It always seems to follow that allegations of obsfucation and disingenuous analysis will be made. That, or else the suggestion is made that the facts are wrong.
Your allegation that barge lines not only pay their way, but also pay for the recreational use is so out of wack as to be a joke. I have looked at the numbers for taxes into the Fund from 1990 and I will tell you that it has been consistently chicken feed compared to the Corps expenditures that are identified as for Commercial Navigation. As with the numbers on grants to railroads, I won't be digging them up. You are the one who wishes to make some point by comparing railroad numbers to the Corps numbers, and of course, if they don't happen to support your view, you will dismiss them as be not applicable
By the way, just as you, I am sure the railroads would wish that the Government had never gotten into the development of the inland water way system. Had that been the case, the conveyances for Mississippi River freight would look much more like the pre-civil war rafts than today's massive tows. Can you imagine the level of the monolistic railroad coal rates to those riverside power plants?
Jay, I don't really know why this is so hard for you to understand, nor why you seem so emotional about it. I'll go over the facts again so you'll understand:
1. Mr. White of the AAR made a point of suggesting that barge lines were subsidized, inferring that railroads aren't. Nothing could be further from the truth, as Jay well knows.
2. I made the point that since there is a prior usage right on the Mississippi, subsequent development on that river is prohibited by statute to inhibit said navigation. Thus, the fees paid by the barge lines more than cover their rightful cost of using the "new and improved" navigation system, unless you count flood control et al as being a responsibility of the barge lines. After all, all waterway systems are open access.
3. I pointed out that historically the barge lines have paid more into the Waterways Trust Fund than what has been forthcoming in navigation improvements by the Corps. Current anomolies don't discount this point. Dredging and lock maintenance are not yearly expenses, more like every 10 to 15 years, so it would make sense to divide the current commercial navigation budget of the Corps over that time period. Puts the true cost into perspective.
To add to this discussion, Jay made mention of the fact that post-dam navigation may have draft depth that exceeds that of pre-dam navigation. So what? Is the Corps supposed to minimize such improvements? Remember also that railroad lines have been re-aligned due to river projects, such as the UP along the Columbia River. The UP line pre-dam was rather heavy on the curvature, post-dam was rebuilt with gentler wider curvature. Was the Corps supposed to replace the UP line as it was with the exact same curvature? Of course not, that's not the American way. We like our rebuilds to be better than the old ones.
Consider also that the Corps is required by law to maintain a certain navigation depth for it's projects that disrupt prior river navigation. If the barge lines all went away, leaving only private and recreational shipping, the Corps would still have to maintain the draft and locks at it's required state.
It is also worth noting that the Corps budget for navigation expenses tend to be two or three times the actual physical cost of such projects due to the ever present requirement for an EIS, usually followed by an environmental lawsuit, further followed by a revamped EIS, etc. etc. etc. How do you think the railroads would fare if they were required to complete an EIS every time they reballasted the tracks? In cases where the dredging projects are delayed over a long period of time, the barge lines and/or river ports themselves would gladly take on the chore of dredging and maintenance of navigation aids themselves (and at a fraction of the C of E budget for such things), but they cannot legally do so.
Thus, you can argue that under the extreme de jure perspective barging doesn't pay the costs of maintaining navigation on the Mississippi, but I would challenge that take under the de facto perspective. Just because bureauacracy and eco-litigation take navigation costs far beyond the basic physical costs doens't mean that the users are supposed to be morally responsible for such money wasting actions by anti-barge entities. If anything, let the interfering entities pay those costs since they (the bad guys) are the ones who generate such wastefullness.
The bottom line is this: Barging is a lower cost mode of transporting bulk commodities at low speed than it is for railroads after all costs are accounted for, assuming river or canal navigation is available. Railroads are best at transporting bulk commodities at relatively high speed, and of course can go places barges can't. And the US multimodal transportation system works best when all the modes work in concert for the most efficient moves, not when one mode tries to monopolize traffic to fatten the cats.
BTW - I'll make a bet that the TVA opts to keep the barging move (as long as it is still physically available) after they research current rail practices as they relate to utilities. Any takers?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.