I rambled a bit in this e-mail reply, but I guess the conclusion is that we are going to need Republican support in the present political climate to save passenger rail and there are good reasons why the Republicans should support an effort to save rail transportation.
> Steve, > > I appreciate your very thought provoking response, and look forward to > reviewing your articles on the web site indicated. I too generally dislike > government intervention in the private sector, but I am increasingly fed up > with the arrogance of the UP, CSX, NS, Conrail, and to a lesser extent BNSF > top management's. There was a reason behind the push for the development of > heavy government regulation of the railroads in the last century, leading > to the ICC, and these guys seem to have forgotten that lesson. At some > point the responsibility to the public has to be acknowledged and > balanced with the obvious need for the corporation to make a reasonable > return on investment. This growing antagonism toward Amtrak (like sharks > circling a wounded swimmer) is pushing the line. > > Thanks again for the response. > > Bill Pollard > Arkrail@aol.com Bill, Thanks for your feedback! Yes, I was aware that the railroad companies were a great contributor to their own problems. They certainly often used the virtual monopoly franchise they were granted by the government over the routes they were given to exploit their clients (manufacturers, mining companies, ranchers, farmers and other shippers), many of who the railroads had lured to move their homes and operations to the new land owned by the railroads along the sides of the tracks. I haven't gone into those details in my posts as yet, but even there I feel the original source of the problem is with the government policies. If the government had build and then continued to maintain and operate the railways, but allowed private companies to operate the trains over the railways, then the monopoly situation would never have developed. The private freight train companies would operate similar to today's trucking companies where no individual company controls enough of trucking services to be a monopoly and thus could not set arbitrarily high prices. Without that power, the government regulatory backlash against the rail companies would never have been generated. I believe it was those punitive retaliatory measures which eventually bankrupt many railroads. Many were left in such a weak financial state compared to other modes of shipping that the only way to remain profitable is to combine resources with other weakened railroads or to be absorbed by one of the giants that has fared better through the decades of regulation. That is why we see today's frenzy of mega-mergers. From what you have read or will read in my posts, you will see that I think the way to back out of the problems created over the last century and to put the railways on par with highways, airways and waterways, is for government to play the same role in rail as they do in the other modes of transportation. That is, for the government to embark in a major project to upgrade rail so that it meets the needs of our nation, for both freight and passengers, and then to continue to maintain and operate those railways. Just like in others modes of transportation, I do not believe that the government should be involved at all in the operation of the vehicles used to transport either freight or passengers. Private companies should market these services and operate the vehicles used to transport both freight and passengers over the government operated rail infrastructure. The problem will be how to accomplish this. The government probably can not take over the existing rail infrastructure without a constitutional amendment which I don't think would ever get to first base. I don't believe eminent domain would apply, but even if it did, the government could not afford to pay the rail companies for the value of the property "taken". On top of that, I don't think the government should enter such a project with the rail companies in the opposition. Such an endeavor is going to require the long term cooperation of the rail companies. Thus, a large problem is going to be to show how such an undertaking would be of benefit to the rail companies, which I absolutely believe it would be. I think the solution there is to use the Amtrak model. That is, let each company voluntarily turn over their railways to the government. In exchange, the rail companies relieve themselves of the responsibility to maintain and operate those railways. The government could give the railroad company a "credit" for the market value of the property turned over to the government and that railroad company could use that credit to pay for its operating costs over any of the railways operated by the government. If this is done right, little by little, railways will find they can tremendously boost their bottom line profits by turning responsibility of their railways over to the government and then paying for use of the railways by a combination of cash and credits. Those railways that hold out will gradually find themselves at an economic disadvantage to their competitors. Thus, I believe it will only be a matter of time before all the railroad companies voluntarily join and support the plan to have the government own and operate the railways while they continue to market and operate the rail vehicles to move the freight. Under such an arrangement, I think a model can be designed where private companies would find it profitable to operate private passenger service over these government owned and operated railways. Then, even the responsibility for rail passenger transportation can be turned over to the private sector and the rail will hold a position that is at parity with the other transportation modes. I generally don't write to Congress except when their are bills that need my urgent support. I'm probably going to make an exception at this time and put these views forth both to my own congressman and any others that play important roles in committees related to rail transportation. Politically I am a Libertarian but almost always vote Republican and contribute financially to both parties. As you are probably aware from the writings and speeches from both these entities, their views seem to be that passenger rail is dying of its own accord because it is an outdated and unnecessary mode of transportation. They have little awareness that government intervention itself, something that Libertarians and Republicans themselves are aware distorts the economy, has made a large contribution to the destruction of passenger rail. In the current political climate, it is necessary to obtain the support of many Republicans in order to save Amtrak in the short run and the entire passenger rail system in the long run. We won't be able to get the support that we need unless we can convince Republicans that it is dying because of government policies and not because it isn't a viable mode of transportation. If they can be made to see that rail is a perfect example of what they have been preaching for years, that government intervention distorts the economy and usually harms in unseen ways more than it helps, then the Republicans might start to look at the help they give to rail is to undo the damage the government has done rather than giving undeserved support to an outdated mode of transportation. I was shocked when an organization that I support both philosophically and financially, the Cato Institute, came out with their scathing attack on Amtrak. They, of anyone, should have dug a little more deeply in their research to see how anti-libertarian politics in the government support given to the highways and airways coupled with the crippling regulation and taxation of rail brought about the demise of passenger rail. I certainly could not expect them to come out in support of funding for Amtrak, but I would have expected a paper that instead showed how government intervention distorted the entire transportation market and would have expected Cato to support removal of all economic and political supports from all modes of transportation, not just rail. That would be the kind of paper that should be issued by a libertarian think tank like the Cato Institute! Sorry to be so long winded, but I sometimes find it hard to stop once I get going. If you don't mind, I'm going to add a copy of this e-mail to the items posted at: "http://trainweb.com/tip". Thanks again for your feedback! Steve Grande steve@trainweb.com http://www.trainweb.com/tip > Steve, > > I like you approach and you have some compelling arguments. When I got > to the point you were making about the railroads being convinced to > cooperate, I was thinking.... yeah, when Hell freezes over or one of > the companies looks in the corporate mirror and sees the Rock Island, > but not before. However, your idea of the gradual transition might > actually work... the motivation to the carriers being an improvement > to their bottom line. > > It would seem that your philosophy about involving Republicans through > greater understanding of the evils of government involvement in other > modes is already taking place to a small extent. More of the same is > certainly needed. > > Bill Pollard > Arkrail@aol.com
