To implement this proposal, Congress could form a single private corporation, called, say, Railtrak, to which each of today's railroads would contribute its track in return for an equity position in the company. Meanwhile, other entities, such as the United Parcel Service or other logistics companies, could rent access to the rail system from Railtrak and compete with each other in operating trains. More important, say proponents, open access would heighten competition in rail operations. In theory, the barriers to entry that make railroading a natural monopoly would be removed, while the economies of scale necessary to pay for the high fixed cost of rail infrastructure would be preserved. The most logical solution is open access, where anybody with the wherewithal can run trains.
Most railroads hate the idea, characterizing it as a form of re-regulation.
But proponents counter that open access is the ultimate expression of capitalism. In structure, the idea is analogous to market-driven reforms imposed on such former monopolies as telephone companies and utilities. In these sectors, government has mandated that companies provide open access to each other's infrastructure and then stood back and let market competition take over. Last year, the United Kingdom privatized its national rail system using an open access scheme. A single organization now owns all the nation's rail infrastructure, while competing private transportation companies offer passenger and freight service.