A Fix for Something that isn't Broken
First off, there are a ton of other Bloggers hitting this topic. So I'll stick some links at the bottom of this write up. There are also links to this bill and other information to track the status of it getting pushed through.
So first off, let's approach what this bill actually says and means, then we'll look at what it will most likely do from a functional perspective. The bill is intended to remove antitrust protection the freight railroads supposedly have versus other transportation providers and businesses. It is commonly mentioned in pro-HR 1650 literature that the protection is draconian and needs to be removed to hold the freight railroad liable to the same standards of the other logistical providers.
On the other hand the freight railroads point out the obvious, almost immediate effects that will take place. First off, they've almost promised that new capitol investment will be gone. The threats; current, potential, and unknown are so large with this bill that the small percentage of revenue that is allocated toward expansion of the freight system to keep up with increasing demand will be gone. From my review of the bill I don't think maintenance and a large amount of the needed standard operating funds will be gone, but the railroads are not exaggerating when they say their investment money will disappear.
This leads me to the first and most obvious problem with this bill. The elimination of capitol investment expenditures needed to keep up with a demand that currently the country as a whole cannot keep up with. The Government has had multiple organizations, studies, and the railroads themselves point out that they are barely keeping up with infrastructure growth demands as it is. So the question we're left with, with this demand by the Government and the economy as a whole, in order to stay competitive, to grow our rail infrastructure to meet future demand, is, "where will the money come from?"
So Where Will the Money Come From for Growth?
The answer is simply, the Government and thus the taxpayers will have to start forking over billions to create the infrastructure growth that will be needed. If US history and the experience of other nations is even remotely close to what will happen, we're looking forward to excessively growing infrastructure costs that the Government will incorrectly allocate funds for, arbitrarily increase the costs for, and specifically increase the costs that taxpayers will pay for this infrastructure.
Currently it is born in the products we use and not even a penny from our tax burden is used for its current maintenance. But be warned, with this bill, that will change. In the last decade hundreds of billions have been invested in the infrastructure, are we ready for that need to be shifted to the Government? Are we ready to deal with the increased burden of this cost? Do we want to pay more, just to meet need by disassociating responsibility for the infrastructure to us instead of directly to the users of the infrastructure?
[ocean] <- start section ->
The Impact to Passenger Rail
Somebody over on MetroRiderLA responded to a link back with a vehement hatred toward the freight rail industry for their theoretical "blocking" of passenger rail. Many of us that are in the transit circles know about the various issues that the freight companies have with passenger rail, some of use know how it works intimately, some of us also know there is not a quick fix to it. Especially anyone that has worked for Amtrak, BNSF, NS, UP, CSX, KCS, or any of the short lines that has to interact with passenger rail.
Technically and directly there is no involvement of passenger rail in this bill. There will however be negative impacts to passenger rail services around the country. Without capitol investment funds to grow the rail network that means there will be that many less miles of track for prospective passenger rail use. That also means that as demand increase the freight trains will also cause more blockage to passenger trains. In primary corridors this might not be immediately obvious because the states will probably jump in to alleviate the issues to some degree. On the longer routes though this could become drastic and abandonment of right of way might even become a way of the industry again. This would absolutely be catastrophic for freight AND passenger rail.
Imagine UP without capitol investment or a very minimal cash flow, squeezed from the bill by forced price controls being placed on the network. Just a mere 3-4 months ago there was a massive 2-3 mile long land slide over the route between Oregon and California. This route is a pretty major route between the north and southern west coast. UP had to literally move thousands upon thousands of truck loads worth of debris from the area. They had to build a road into the area just to get it moved to load onto trains to get it out of the area. Finally after almost 2 to 3 months of this effort the line is finally open. A cash strapped UP would have NOT BEEN ABLE TO DO THIS!
Coast Starlight Permanently Canceled
If UP had been cash strapped the Coast Starlight would have been canceled for good. UP has no motive interest in getting that line back in service if they are cash strapped. It would have been logical to abandon the line and begin usage of further inland routes and delay most shipments by another day or two to compensate for the loss. This would however make the west's Coast Starlight run impossible.
Hurricane Strikes, Cash Strapped Freight Railroads Abandon Thousands of Track Mileage
Imagine another hurricane Katrina hits the eastern or south eastern US. This isn't really imagine, but a when will it hit question. When it does hit, CSX will most likely just abandon thousands of miles of railroad. At this juncture in time many miles between New Orleans and other areas just isn't worth the re-investment of a cash strapped railroad. Maybe a further consolidation of certain CSX and NS lines would even occur. The Crescent might even be canceled based on the fact that so much of the NS line is single track and would be slammed if CSX and NS had to utilize those lines. They of course, as they did during hurricane Katrina, would share lines to compensate for the loss. It would cause massive delays and other such issues.
The City of New Orleans might even need to be canceled for an un-determined amount of time. With the Chicago to New Orleans line saturated with increased traffic if the western segments of Louisiana where knocked out. Most of those lines, under these new price controls and other such mechanisms that some of these companies the Politicians will assuredly put in place, will either go under, lose mileage, or just plain abandon the service.
The Stupid Idea that Railroads Have Some This Mythical Advantage
Railroads do have some advantages; much more environmentally friendly, they are vastly more efficient than trucking, they cost almost a third to a half as much as hauling something via truck, and I won't even compare it to air freight. All of those excessive functional advantages keep the system going in face of the harsh regulation, unfair monopolistic practices against the freight railroads by the Government, and other such insane notions that they operate in some theoretical open, free, fair, or other equal economy with shipping, trucking, or other methods of freight delivery.
Shipping receives legal advantages; the forced right of way on river, the clear docking advantages and forced access in cities with the facilities (heaven forbid we move things to places where costs and efficiencies could be brought down by multiples), and the list goes on. Trucking also receives even more advantages; The vast majority of the roadways are NOT paid by them even though they do most of the damage to the roadways, they are not held responsible for most of the dangers and other notions on the roadways, they are and often utilize subsidized or price reduced fuel, they're even demanding for more of this lopsided political advantage by getting the Government to step in further to reduce fuel costs for them.
Of all these things the vast gulf of political treatment by freight railroads versus trucking versus shipping is massive. If left to their own among an open economy that worked on a basis of fair and free commerce inside the country the logistical systems of this nation would be drastically different. The HR 1650 bill acts only to increase this massive gulf between competitors even further. It gives railroads even more reason to hate passenger rail, adds insult to injury with their place along the inefficient trucking industry, and places and even larger and growing burden upon the taxpayer.
There is zero reason this should become law. There is zero reason to step in on the side of a certain group of customers to protect them against something that just isn't a problem. The simple fact is some businesses want an unfair and uncompetitive advantage by removing their responsibility for their cost of the system they use. They want to disassociate the costs that they should be held accountable for. For too long this country has continuously pushed off responsibility for the usage of resources, transportation, and especially logistical movement around this country. This bill is a step in the WRONG direction. People, especially businesses, and the railroads all need to shoulder their responsibilities to the demands they put on the earth, the country, the infrastructure, and on each other. The do not need to force arbitrary or excessive control on each other by Government force. It is wrong in every possible way; logically, morally, environmentally, and logistically.
I have read the following links and I advise anyone with any say so in the matter or even a remote interest in the matter to read these. Some are skewed, some are just the bill. For more background read the history of the railroads in the US in the following books: Nothing Like It In the World by Stephen E. Ambrose, Empire Express by David Haward Bain, and for some serious context on privatized rail operations from an ex-Amtrak employee check out End of The Line by Joseph Vranish. You might not agree with the last one there, not at all, but there are tons of facts that one CANNOT deny with denying reality itself.