Hey - its only an undeveloped brain storm - with high gusting winds even! If anyone with the clout ever got serious about it, a whole LOT of details would have to be worked out.

But the idea is not original with me at all. From time to time you read a comment or two about it in a trade journal. Debate has occurred on the various pros and cons of different approaches to open access. But as in all modern media, substantive discussion is rare, as almost all trade journals are slavish defenders of the corporate powers they cover. The usual context is how the industry can dip into the public treasury without provoking some sort of open access requirment in return for the taxpayer's money.

In the past, this concern greatly slowed requests for public funding. But now apparently, they are getting over their reticence! - what with LA's Alemeda Corridor, the Donner project, the "CREAT" project in Chicago, and CSX's & NS's talk of publically funded super-corridors (freight) in the east; not to mention all the Texas talk about a great new north-south super railroad in the middle of a rebuilt I35 (I think it was I35).

My concern is - that it is definitely not in the public interest to be strengthening monopoly private businesses, especially with public money. Not only that, but like all welfare, it is sure to further degrade the rail industry in the long run. But at the same time, the industry's point is well taken, that there is no chance of attracting enough private capital to keep up with demand.

The problem is that any public money given to a private monopoly only enriches the monopoly, not the public. Even if what the public paid for actually gets built, the "earnings" generated by the public investment will only line private pockets; while they still act only in their own interests and "the public be damned". The public purposes of such grants will not happen - at all.

Thus, I am intrigued by the idea of "Open Access" as a middle ground approach to both the public's monopoly problem; the rail industry's morebund inflexibility; and the public's accute need to increase rail capacity, so that freight can be shifted off the highways (needed for both environmental and economic reasons).

With millions and even billions already earmarked, were are going to be paying enough for "Open Access" anyway; we may as well actually get it! - and the vibrant rail industry that will follow. If anyone doubts it, the trucking industry IS vibrant because it has a publically provided open access r.o.w.. Their main problen now is poor fuel efficiency
--------------

As to your questions:

If I am not mistaken, what took place in England was not "Open Access", but instead mere privatization; where a solitary contract operator was designated to operate a given line (aka NCRA). Not only that, but another private entity was often designated to maintain the track and signal systems on the same line. Of course, the private interests of each conflicted - and the public was damned. On some lines though, it did work well enough; however, not without all sorts of problems - not any different than we already have here with solitary operators on privately owned lines.

"Open Access" over a publically provided r.o.w has already proven workable - vibrantly so. True, goverment projects sometimes seem a bit over the top and goofy; but even so, in the case of the trucking industry, it gave an inherently inefficient (thus disadvantaged) industry sufficient advantage to be able to literally trash its inherently more efficent competitor. The lack of open access and related inflexibilities on the rails completely negated its natural advantage. Plus a bunch more!

We all see the net effect of a private "landlord" maintaining the rails, in the case of Amtrak, and many other commuter agencies that share track with a private concern. The public will be paying enough - we should do more of what works (has worked) - and less of what doesn't. You can't argue with success - follow the successful model - haulage on public open r.o.w. works well for the trucking industry.

I really don't think stockholders would appreciate their monopoly position in the rail freight market being eroded. So what! They need to get their hand out of the cookie jar if they want to eat the cookie! If they really want public funding to provide their roadway, they will just have to get in harmony with the public's interests.

My main axe to grind here is that they must not be trusted to play nice after they get their (our) money - they simply won't (can't, for reasons I have outlined before). The only way we the public can properly help them is to gain equity ownership (thus control of the r.o.w) in return for public investment. And the greatest public benefit available is open access (just exactly what previous railroad CEOs anticipated).

OPB