Productivity, Pricing, and Profitability in the U.S. Rail Freight Industry, 1995-2004

Martland, C D

doi:10.5399/osu/jtrf.45.3.626

Cited by 12 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Deregulation ushered in a dramatic decline in railroad rates-rates on average were cut in halfand a dramatic rise in railroad profi ts (Figure 1.1). The explanation was a dramatic rise in productivity due to industry consolidation, the abandonment of uneconomic lines, the growth of long-haul coal and intermodal traffi c, and a far more intensive use of a "right-sized" railroad system (Caves, Christensen, andSwanson 2010-2011;Martland 2012;Stover 1997).…”

Section: Background For Reform: the 1980s Watershedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 Workforce reductions had been major contributors to carrier profi tability since the end of the Second World War. Key drivers of carrier profi tability continued to economize on labor, such as the use of larger cars and longer trains and the shift to intermodal freight traffi c (Martland 2012). Railroad employment fell by 9,000 workers from 2001 to 2002, when 60/30 was introduced-more than the increase in retirements attributable to the 2001 reform-and by another 4,000 in 2003.…”

Section: The Carriers and The 2001 Reformmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Privatizing Railroad Retirement

Sass¹

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Background For Reform: the 1980s Watershedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Carriers and The 2001 Reformmentioning

confidence: 99%

Privatizing Railroad Retirement

Sass¹

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Access to the network and dispatching flexibility is more constrained in Europe. Additionally, in the U.S., investments in the past 40 years were focused on increasing freight trains' productivity (Martland 2012) by: increase in train length (with associated changes in terminals and increase in sidings); increase in the net weight per rail car; and increase in track resistance and double stacking of containers (with the associated increase in clearances). In Europe, investment was concentrated on passenger services, namely, high speed rail.…”

Section: Modal Share and Structural Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

U.S. and European Freight Railways: The Differences That Matter

Furtado¹

2013

J Transp Res Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the differences between the United States (U.S.) and European (EU27) freight railways. The inherent or structural factors influencing the railways modal share will be evaluated. It was found that nearly all of the disparity in modal share can be explained by structural or inherent differences, like the competitiveness of non-surface modes, shipment distances (both influenced by geography), and commodity mix (namely, coal). More striking are the differences in productivity, to move the same number of tons seven times, more trains are required in Europe compared with the U.S.. Operational revenues per ton-mile are around two times higher in Europe, while the operational expenses in the U.S. are four times lower than in Europe. It is argued that setting a goal for modal share similar to the U.S. is not realistic for the EU27. A key concern for European freight railways should be the reduction of operational costs, by increasing the trains’ sizes.Distinct policy answers were given to the railroads’ crisis in the post WWII years. Soon after 1980 when reforms were introduced in the U.S. there was a revival of the sector. The same has not happened in Europe, where questions regarding infrastructure financing or the coordination of network investments and operational needs remain.

show abstract

“…Carl D. Martland (2006) studies the extent and sources of productivity enhancement in the U.S. rail industry since 1995, and whether productivity improvement has led to improved financial performance. His study concludes that from 1995 to 2004, rail productivity increased 5% per year, there was a decline in rail prices, and financial performance was also not showing much progress.…”

Section: Review Of Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…His study concludes that from 1995 to 2004, rail productivity increased 5% per year, there was a decline in rail prices, and financial performance was also not showing much progress. Martland (2006) revealed that by 2004, the long-term productivity trends in the rail industry were almost coming to an end coupled with the decline in the rate of productivity and increase in rail rates.…”

Section: Review Of Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%