 |
Re: Rail most efficient, not no 2 continuing earlier thread.
Author: Dave Smith
Date: 12-15-2007 - 23:50
George,
Thanks for the reminder. I almost forgot about Lynden et al, some of the few ocean container lines that use 53' ISO-spec "stackable" containers. Of course, that Alaska-Canada rail link will probably put them out of business when it gets built a hundred years from now!
Marc,
Gotta be careful throwing the "subsidy" thing at the barge lines, due to several factors. One is that any river dammed by the USACE that had preceeding river navigation will have to by law have continuance of whatever contemporary navigation methods are favored. Their requirement to maintain navigability isn't much different from their requirement to relocate and rebuild existing rail lines that get flooded out. The big difference is that the waterways are maintained by the USACE, while relocated rail lines are maintained by the railroad in question. So it becomes a question of whether the barge lines cover their fair share of waterway maintenance costs via the Waterways Trust Fund. Remember also that waterways are open access, and a lot of recreational and tourist craft use those locks as well.
So are the barge lines subsidized beyond a pay-as-you-go user fee? Probably somewhat, but not as much as the rail companies would have you believe. In this day and age it seems all modes are receiving subsidies beyond any user fee reciprocity. In the PNW, it seems the railroads are getting a bigger share of taxpayer subsidies than the barge lines, aka the State of Washington takeover of the WATCO lines, state aid for BNSF's Stampede Tunnel expansion, etc.
I am somewhat suprised that the Wallula rail-to-barge concept is expanding, given the historic hostilities between the two modal groups. I have been an advocate of both UP and BNSF utilizing rail to barge transloading of certain long haul commodities to ease rail congestion in the Gorge. UP could transload at Boardman/Umatilla, BNSF at Pasco/Finley, even CP/UP via Eastport could develop a transload facility at Ayer for grain and potash if they wanted to reduce unit train cycle times.
And remember, the railroads wouldn't technically be shorthauling themselves via this method if they also owned their own barge lines are well!
Thanks for the reminder. I almost forgot about Lynden et al, some of the few ocean container lines that use 53' ISO-spec "stackable" containers. Of course, that Alaska-Canada rail link will probably put them out of business when it gets built a hundred years from now!
Marc,
Gotta be careful throwing the "subsidy" thing at the barge lines, due to several factors. One is that any river dammed by the USACE that had preceeding river navigation will have to by law have continuance of whatever contemporary navigation methods are favored. Their requirement to maintain navigability isn't much different from their requirement to relocate and rebuild existing rail lines that get flooded out. The big difference is that the waterways are maintained by the USACE, while relocated rail lines are maintained by the railroad in question. So it becomes a question of whether the barge lines cover their fair share of waterway maintenance costs via the Waterways Trust Fund. Remember also that waterways are open access, and a lot of recreational and tourist craft use those locks as well.
So are the barge lines subsidized beyond a pay-as-you-go user fee? Probably somewhat, but not as much as the rail companies would have you believe. In this day and age it seems all modes are receiving subsidies beyond any user fee reciprocity. In the PNW, it seems the railroads are getting a bigger share of taxpayer subsidies than the barge lines, aka the State of Washington takeover of the WATCO lines, state aid for BNSF's Stampede Tunnel expansion, etc.
I am somewhat suprised that the Wallula rail-to-barge concept is expanding, given the historic hostilities between the two modal groups. I have been an advocate of both UP and BNSF utilizing rail to barge transloading of certain long haul commodities to ease rail congestion in the Gorge. UP could transload at Boardman/Umatilla, BNSF at Pasco/Finley, even CP/UP via Eastport could develop a transload facility at Ayer for grain and potash if they wanted to reduce unit train cycle times.
And remember, the railroads wouldn't technically be shorthauling themselves via this method if they also owned their own barge lines are well!
