April 21, 2008
JUST LIFT THE STATIST BOOT FROM CASEY JONES'S NECK:
A Switch on the Tracks: Railroads Roar Ahead: Global Trade, Fuel Costs Add Up To Expansion for Once-Dying Industry (Frank Ahrens, 4/21/08, Washington Post)
The freight railway industry is enjoying its biggest building boom in nearly a century, a turnaround as abrupt as it is ambitious. It is largely fueled by growing global trade and rising fuel costs for 18-wheelers. In 2002, the major railroads laid off 4,700 workers; in 2006, they hired more than 5,000. Profit has doubled industry-wide since 2003, and stock prices have soared. The value of the largest railroad, the Union Pacific, has tripled since 2001.This year alone, the railroads will spend nearly $10 billion to add track, build switchyards and terminals, and open tunnels to handle the coming flood of traffic. Freight rail tonnage will rise nearly 90 percent by 2035, according to the Transportation Department.
In the 1970s, tight federal regulation, cheap truck fuel and a wide-open interstate highway system conspired to cripple the railroad industry, driving many lines into bankruptcy.
Statists aren't know for making good decisions, but trying to kill the rails was an especially appalling one. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 21, 2008 8:22 AM
Statists aren't know for making good decisions, but trying to kill the rails was an especially appalling one.
A hard claim to make. The best way offhand I think to justify this one is a combination of the National Environmental Policy Act, which mandates Environmental Impact Statements and came into effect in 1970 shortly after most of the Interstate Highway System was constructed (and in response to it). It's responsible for making it very difficult to change transportation policy because of the long lead times of such studies. For example, they've been doing just the EIS for the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor since 1999, and that's in a project that involves straightening existing track and reactivating old rights of way.
The second thing to focus on is I assume covered under the "tight federal regulation" above; the US, under the Federal Railroad Administration, has the toughest safety standards (and hence speed restrictions and tilt restrictions) worldwide for rail. It's fairly dumb because rail travel is already the safest form of transportation. (I suppose that the marginal reduction in safety could be cheap enough to be worth it, but not only is it so safe already that the potential benefits are small, the costs are pretty enormous.)
Posted by: John Thacker at April 21, 2008 9:23 AMWe should definitely reinvigorate the railroads for shipping, to get all those big rigs off the freeways and clear space for the little guy who needs the uncongested lanes for an easier drive on the family vacation.
Posted by: b at April 21, 2008 11:20 AMJohn: The "tight regulation" isn't in the matter of safety standards. Under the ICC, you couldn't discontinue an unneeded service, or change your rates, without government permission. 1970s-era labor contracts and state "full crew laws" required five men to run a train, and called it a day's work (meaning a crew change" every 100 miles.
Posted by: Mike Morley at April 21, 2008 12:00 PMUnder the ICC, you couldn't discontinue an unneeded service, or change your rates, without government permission. 1970s-era labor contracts and state "full crew laws" required five men to run a train, and called it a day's work (meaning a crew change" every 100 miles.
True enough, until the Staggers Act. (Well, Amtrak still has a fairly strong union for their part.) I was talking about what it's possible to blame on the statists since 1980. It's not as though there was a flourishing of rail investment until very recently, so I don't think that it can all be blamed on government intervention. (Outside of the still extant safety regs and the EISes.)
Posted by: John Thacker at April 21, 2008 12:46 PMAnd once you get the trucking firms and their lobbyists out of it you can raise gas taxes more easily.
Posted by: oj at April 21, 2008 2:31 PM"And once you get the trucking firms and their lobbyists out of it you can raise gas taxes more easily."
Said the Statist.
jp
Posted by: jefferson park at April 21, 2008 3:34 PMTax consumption, not income.
Posted by: oj at April 21, 2008 5:45 PM