Free Lunch <lunch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> James Robinson <wascana@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> Free Lunch <lunch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> Trucks pay for a share of the road through taxes or tolls, but they
>>> do have to share with others. Rail has decided that they don't want
>>> to share, except through contract, so they have to pay for their own
>>> dedicated routes. Tough for them.
>>
>> Railroads are common carriers, and have to accept any cargo offered.
>
> But they are not regulated as common carriers as they were.
They are still common carriers, even if the economic regulation has been
reduced from the time they were monopolies. With truck competition, such
regulation is no longer necessary for the most part, and hadn't been
necessary for 50 years prior to deregulation in the 1970s.
>> They were set up that way to they have one operating/financial entity,
>> and can avoid the chaos of multiple operators, which would reduce
>> productivity. The competitors are the truckers.
>
> Now we have the chaos of poor handoffs from one carrier to another.
So by adding more carriers, you feel that the additional handoffs would
somehow be improved? I can just imagine the chaos of several operators
trying to work in the same marshalling yard at the same time.
|
