Perverse incentives

gregcoit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> This makes a lot of sense. I would add that
> railroads in the US have to pay taxes on land and
> equipment whether it's use or not. This acts as a
> financial incentive to sell unused or little used
> equipment, track and the land it sits on rather
> than wait to see if traffic patterns and needs
> might change in the future.

Tell me about it. I wish I had [insert amount here] for every time I was on an Amtrak's Empire Builder (or other trains), rolling happily along at 79 mph, when we got stuffed into a siding to wait (and wait, and wait) for a freight move in the opposite direction that was too long for the approx 4500' sidings which hadn't been extended since the WWII era. Often others had been removed too, and all because BN(SF) didn't need them and the tax was excessive.

I've argued for years that the quickest way to speed Amtrak up, in the West at least, would be to pay for a bunch of siding extensions and make them federal property and thus immune to greedy state tax men (or women). Or even strategic short double track segments. That would let Amtrak continue rolling along at 79 mph and raise the average speed. But of course it's not as sexy as building a few miles of "High Speed" track somewhere.

Hank