Posts Tagged ‘Association of American Railroads’

High-Speed Rail Won’t be Inexpensive

May 22, 2017

High speed passenger rail service in America is going to cost a lot of money two railroad leaders said last week.

On that point Amtrak CEO Charles “Wick” Moorman” and Association of American Railroads Present Ed Hamberger both agree.

The two railroad executives appeared on Washington Journal, a daily C-SPAN cable network’s public affairs program.

AAR represents the interests of freight railroads so it is seeking different things in the pending Trump administration’s transportation infrastructure revitalization plan.

“The key issue with high speed trains which people don’t always recognize is that they essentially require [a] completely new right-of-way,” Moorman said. “The Europeans, the Chinese, the Japanese, and others have made significant commitments in the order of hundreds of billions of dollars, and that’s the kind of commitment it takes.”

Noting that Amtrak wants to boost train speeds in the Boston-New York-Washington Northeast Corridor, Moorman said that “will take huge amounts of infrastructure renewal and expenditure” to do so.

For his part, Hamberger made a pitch for freight rail. “Everybody says why can’t we have railroads like they have in Europe or Japan,” he said. “We have the best freight rail system in the world. We’re the envy of the world.”

Hamberger said freight railroads want changes in regulations of the industry, saying it now takes six to eight years to get government agencies to approve a capital investment such as a new bridge or intermodal yard.

“We need to compress that. You still have to go through the studies, you still have to get the permits, but let’s do it in a smart way so the different agencies are operating concurrently not in consecutive fashion,” Hamberger said.

Moorman also called for a balanced approach in providing passenger rail on long-distance and corridor routes.

“I view Amtrak as a government contractor,” Moorman said. “To date, the decision has always been made that Amtrak should be in the businesses that it’s currently in, and we continue to do what we do best, which is to promote the idea of passenger rail transportation across the country.”

Advertisements

Infrastructure Plan Might Not Benefit Amtrak

May 15, 2017

Public-private partnerships are unlikely to provide much, if any, benefit to Amtrak an executive of the carrier said last week during an industry conference to discuss the pending Trump administration infrastructure program.

Many attending the conference, which was sponsored by the Association of American Railroads, believer that the yet-to-be announced Trump plan will rely heavily on private investment.

That won’t provide much help to Amtrak said Caroline Decker, Amtrak’s senior vice president for government affairs and communications.

“There’s a lot discussion about an infrastructure package with PPPs, but when it comes to Amtrak and our infrastructure, most of that is going to require direct federal investment,” Decker said in an interview with Trains magazine.

Decker said during the a panel discussion that Amtrak’s infrastructure needs range from replacing aging bridges, tunnels and power distribution systems on the Northeast Corridor to buying new passenger cars to replace rolling stock that’s 50 years old and older.

Also speaking at the conference were other executives representing the AAR and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association.

Ian Jeffries, a senior vice president for government affairs with AAR, said freight railroads are not seeking federal funding but instead looking to resolve funding shortfalls in the Highway Trust Fund and other user-pay systems.

AAR believes that the practice of underwriting the trust fund from general revenue, which has been going on for several years, gives the trucking industry a competitive advantage.

“Truckers are our biggest partners, and our biggest competitors,” Jeffries said.

AAR also wants to see some streamlining of environmental reviews when seeking permits for new construction.

Jo Strang, the vice president for safety and regulatory policy, of the short line association said that policy makers should be reminded that short-line railroads are small businesses and that changes in policy could have unintended consequences.

She cited raising the weight limit for trucks on highways as an example of a change that could harm short lines.

Nicole Berwin, vice president for government affairs with the Railroad Supply Institute, said Congress should view the industry as an integrated whole that includes railroads and their suppliers.

Let the Posturing Begin: Trade Groups Jockey for Influence in Wake of New Regime in Washington

March 31, 2017

With a new administration in Washington promising a renewed focus on transportation infrastructure the posturing from trade groups representing various segments of the railroad industry is in full swing.

The American Public Transportation Association is seeking to lobby Congress to fully fund the FAST Act for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 as well as include public transit in any infrastructure development plan.

The Association of American Railroads is seeking to caution the administration against taking too hostile of a stance on foreign trade by pointing out that at least 42 percent of rail traffic and more than 35 percent of annual rail revenue are directly tied to international trade.

APTA is reacting to the “skinny budget” proposed by President Donald Trump earlier this year that slashed funding for capital grants used by public transit.

In particular the Trump budget would greatly reduce the Federal Transit Administration’s Capital Investment Grants, TIGER grants and Amtrak funding.

APTA said it has conducted more than 60 meetings with congressional staff, focusing on those that serve on budget, appropriations, tax and authorization committees, and taken other proactive steps to engage with members of Congress.

It also has called on its members to meet with their members of Congress when they are on spring break in their home districts April 8-23.

As for the AAR, it released a report saying that 50,000 domestic rail jobs accounting for more than $5.5 billion in annual wages and benefits depend directly on international trade. Those numbers would be higher if rail traffic indirectly associated with trade is included.

AAR fears that the Trump administration might make policy changes that would adversely affect the global economy.

“Efforts that curtail overall trade would threaten thousands of U.S. freight-rail jobs that depend on it and limit essential railroad revenues used to modernize railroad infrastructure throughout North America,” said AAR President and CEO Edward Hamberger.

The AAR report examined rail movements using data from the 2014 Surface Transportation Board Waybill Sample, other government data and information from U.S. ports and Google Earth.

This included movements of coal for export from ports in Maryland, Virginia, the Gulf Coast and the Great Lakes; paper and forest products imported from Canada into the Midwest, as well as paper products exported from the southern United States; imports and exports of Canadian and Mexican automotive products to and from auto factories in dozens of U.S. states; containers of consumer goods from Asia coming ashore in California, Washington, Georgia, Virginia and New Jersey; plastics shipped by rail from Texas and Louisiana to the East and West coasts for export to Europe and Asia; iron ore mined in Minnesota and shipped by rail to Great Lakes ports; and Midwest-grown grain carried by rail to the Pacific Northwest and the Gulf Coast for export.

Chao Confirmed as Secretary of Transportation

February 1, 2017

The U.S. Senate on Tuesday confirmed Elaine L. Chao as the new federal secretary of transportation. The vote was 93-6.

US DOTChao is the only member of the Donald L. Trump administration cabinet to have previously served as a cabinet secretary, having been secretary of labor in the George W. Bush administration.

She drew bipartisan praise during her confirmation hearings and on the Senate floor.

Chao also has served as chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission.

Her confirmation was lauded by the Association of American Railroads and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association.

Both trade associations are expecting Chao to take a more railroad industry friendly approach to regulation.

“Ms. Chao has a deep appreciation of critical surface transportation issues. This includes the important role the rail industry plays in this country,” said Edward R. Hamberger, AAR president.

Amtrak Board Chairman Tony Coscia congratulated Chao, saying he looked forward to working with her to strengthen Amtrak. The DOT secretary has a seat on the Amtrak board of directors.

AAR Appeals STB Passenger Train Ruling

August 11, 2016

Displeased with the outcome of a U.S. Surface Transportation Board ruling on passenger train on-time standards, the Association of American Railroads has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to review the ruling.

AARAAR maintains in its appeal that federal law gives the Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak — but not the STB — the legal authority to define on-time performance.

The ruling in question involved an STB determination that on-time arrivals and departures at all stations along a passenger train’s route should be used for the purpose of determining on-time performance.

The STB also said it was dropping a proposal that would have allowed railroads to give higher priority to some freight trains over passenger trains.

The AAR asserted in its appeal that it is not challenging the rule that gives preference to passenger trains on freight-rail lines, said AAR spokesman Ed Greenberg.

“Freight railroads take contractual obligations seriously and comply with the law in giving Amtrak preference,” said Greenberg. “That has never been contested by freight railroads.”

But the AAR said it is disappointed that the STB “has decided to add mid-point on-time performance measures, which could result in negative impacts for freight rail customers and consumers.”

Court Sides With AAR in On-Time Rules Dispute

May 3, 2016

A federal appeals court ruled last week that a 2008 law unconstitutionally gave Amtrak regulatory power over its contract railroads.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia sided with the Association of American Railroads in saying that the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 gave Amtrak too much power when it comes to writing regulations pertaining to on-time performance metrics.

It was the second time that the appeals court has ruled in favor of the AAR.

Amtrak logoAn earlier decision was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court which sent the case back to the appeals court for further review.

AAR had brought suit against the U.S. Department of Transportation in an effort to invalidate Section 207 of the 2008 PRII law.

In its latest ruling, the appeals court said the law’s giving Amtrak the authority to write regulations that affect its host railroads is in violation of the Constitution’s Due Process clause.

The court also knocked down the clause that gives the Surface Transportation Board the authority to appoint a mediator to arbitrate disputes between Amtrak and a host railroad over on-time performance.

The case has a long history that began with a federal district court siding with the U.S. DOT in favor of the law.

AAR appealed that decision to the appeals court, which said in July 2013 that Amtrak is a private company.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in March 2015 that Amtrak must be considered a governmental entity but instructed the appeals court to decide the question of the propriety of a government entity that is a participant in a private marketplace being able to regulate that marketplace.

However, concurring opinions by justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas noted that the situation might violate a host railroad’s right to due process.

Those opinions said that regulators must be “disinterested” government bodies rather than competitors in the business.

In its latest ruling, the appeals court cited the Alito and Thomas’s opinions, but conceded that Amtrak and its contract railroads are not competing for the same customers.

They are, however, the court said, competing for the same scarce railroad route capacity and therefore must be considered economic competitors.

As for the STB’s authority under the 2008 law to appoint an arbitrator, the appeals court said that an independent arbitrator appointed by the STB cannot make final regulations because he or she is not a duly appointed or sworn Officer of the United States, as the Constitution requires.

The AAR originally filed suit acted after the U.S. DOT began to promulgate regulations under Section 207 if the PRII with the railroad trade group arguing that the law was an unconstitutional delegation of rule-making to a private company.

In briefs to the court, the AAR relied on the congressional proclamation of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 creating the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) not be treated as a government entity but instead be operated as a for-profit business.

Although the appeals court last week struck down Section 207, it left the rest of the 2008 PRII intact and did not disturb Amtrak’s statutory rights to access of freight railroad tracks on an incremental cost basis.

Nor did the appeals court set aside laws that give Amtrak trains “preference over freight transportation.”

Congress could revise the 2008 law to grant the U.S. DOT the sole power to write on-time performance metrics and standards, in consultation with Amtrak and other others.

In doing so, Congress could give the authority to mediate between Amtrak and a contract railroad to the STB, whose members are duly sworn Officers of the United States, appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate.

The court did not say that it was improper for the federal government to promulgate on-time performance regulations.

AAR Opposes ‘All Stations’ OT Metrics

April 1, 2016

The Association of American Railroads has told the Surface Transportation Board that it opposes use of “all stations metrics” in setting on-time performance standards for passenger trains.

AAR submitted its comments as part of an STB proceeding that was mandated by federal law.

AARInstead of using an “all stations metric” as Amtrak has proposed, AAR said the STB should use those on-time performance metrics that Amtrak and its host railroads have adopted in their operating agreements, if applicable.

“Switching to an all-stations metric would create false positives for investigation because of the back-loading of recovery time in many of Amtrak’s schedules, in addition to conflicting with the operating agreements,” AAR said. “All-stations OTP (on-time performance) is a deficient metric.”

Amtrak has contended that an all-stations metric is the best way to measure on-time performance.

However, the AAR noted that the passenger carrier did not advocate for an all-stations metric in its operating agreements with the freight railroads even though virtually all of the arguments that Amtrak now makes in its comments to the STB were available when it negotiated those agreements.

The on-time standards that the STB is considering would come into play if a passenger carrier such as Amtrak felt that its trains were consistently being delayed by a host railroad.

Amtrak or another passenger carrier could ask the STB to launch an investigation and sanction a railroad if it was found to have violated the on-time performance standards.

In its comments to the STB, AAR noted that most operating agreements measure on-time performance through arrival at the endpoint of each host’s segment or at specified checkpoints rather than at all intermediate stations.

The AAR comments also noted that contrary to the belief of some, Congress has not adopted the all-stations metric for on-time performance in legislation it has adopted over the years, going back to 1976.

In its comments to the STB, Amtrak said an endpoint metric “ignores the experience’ of Amtrak passengers who disembark at an intermediate station.”

In response, the AAR said Amtrak and its host carriers have long recognized that the on-time performance measures in many of their operating agreements and endpoint OTP both provide strongly correlated indications of overall on-time performance on a route, including performance at intermediate stations.

“And in cases where endpoint on-time performance is satisfactory but all-stations on-time performance is not, the immediate focus should not be a full investigation of all operations for the train, but review and consideration of whether recovery time for that train has been appropriately set for the entire route.”

AAR spokesman Ed Greenberg told Railway Age magazine that the nation’s freight railroads recognize the importance of Amtrak.

“We are committed to a reliable passenger rail service,” he said.  “It is a delicate balance in this country where the majority of passenger rail operates on tracks owned by freight railroads, which means trying to find that right transportation mix of serving the needs of passenger rail while ensuring our industry is continuing to meet the shipping requirements of freight customers in moving the country’s economy. Freight railroads take their contractual obligations seriously and comply with the law.”

Greenberg said on-time performance measurement is complicated involves many factors that are negotiated between Amtrak and its host railroads.

If You Want to be Ontime Aboard Amtrak, Then You Need to Get on or Off at an Endpoint City

March 9, 2016

Only once have I lived in an Amtrak endpoint city. Otherwise, I’ve lived in places at or near an intermediate station.

I mention that because in my experience your best chance for an on-time arrival or departure is at an endpoint city.

For 20 years I rode Amtrak twice a year to visit my dad when he lived in downstate Illinois.

The westbound Capitol Limited or Lake Shore Limited typically arrived late into Cleveland, but on several occasions No. 29 or Nol 49 were on-time or even early arriving into Chicago Union Station, where both terminate.

My connecting train, the Illini, almost always departed Chicago on time, but more often than not arrived late at my destination of Mattoon, Illinois.

I’ve observed this phenomenon on other routes, too. In May 2014, I rode the Empire Builder from Chicago to Seattle.

On TransportationWe left Chicago 1 hour, 12 minutes late due to being held for a more than four-hour late arriving Lake Shore Limited.

During the 2,200-mile journey we were upwards of two hours late at times, but arrived into Seattle 15 minutes early.

How was that possible?

The short answer is what Amtrak euphemistically calls “recovery time.”

It is built into the schedule to enable a late Amtrak train to make up time before arriving at an endpoint city.

You often find recovery time by examining the running time between an endpoint city and the next station.

The running time of the Capitol Limited from South Bend, Indiana, to Chicago is 1 hour, 54 minutes. The running time from Chicago to South Bend is 1 hour, 29 minutes.

For the Lake Shore Limited, the running time from South Bend to Chicago is two minutes longer, but exactly the same from Chicago as the Capitol Limited.

The City of New Orleans has a running time of 49 minutes from Chicago to Homewood, Illinois, a distance of 24 miles. Yet its inbound counterpart “needs” 1 hour, 16 minutes to travel the same distance.

As this is written, Amtrak and its host railroads are sparring in a rule-making proceeding by the Surface Transportation Board over on-time standards.

A 1973 federal law gives preference to passenger trains over freight trains and Amtrak is arguing for an absolute interpretation of that standard. The Association of American Railroads sees it differently.

The STB is not going to get involved in every instance in which an Amtrak train is late.

Rather, the issue is a repeated pattern of a host railroad favoring freight trains over passenger trains and/or the host railroad’s repeated failure to dispatch Amtrak trains in a manner that results in on-time performance.

Amtrak argues that when a train arrives or departs at intermediate stations should be taken into account when considering if a host railroad has engaged in a pattern of preferring its freight trains over passenger trains.

The ARR counters that Amtrak schedules are unrealistic given the operating and physical characteristics of today’s railroads.

Both parties want to have it both ways. It’s a bit cheeky for Amtrak to talk about on-time performance at intermediate stations when its own schedules are skewed in favor of endpoint cities.

When Amtrak and the State of Illinois were negotiating a contract a few years ago for the state to fund certain corridor trains, Amtrak refused to agree to an on-time standard for intermediate cities, insisting that only arrival and departure times from originating cities and terminus cities be included in the standard.

In short, if the Illini is late arriving in Mattoon, tough luck. Illinois only can reduce its payments to Amtrak if the Illini is late arriving in Carbondale or Chicago.

The AAR brief might have you believe that Amtrak imposes its schedules upon its host railroads.

The same brief mentions that individual railroads have negotiated agreements with Amtrak pertaining to on-time performance.

I find it hard to believe that any host railroad that has an “incentive” contract for Amtrak on-time performance would not have a major say in Amtrak schedules over its line.

Recovery time exists in part to benefit the host railroad so that it has a better chance of earning incentive payments.

The STB proceeding is about rules that may or may not have mean much in the daily performance of any given train on any given day.

Like any legal rules, the on-time standards the STB is considering would only come into play if Amtrak initiates a proceeding against a host railroad as it has done with Canadian National over its handling of Amtrak trains between Chicago and Carbondale.

Obviously, each party wants the rules slanted in favor of its own interests and positions of strength.

Amtrak hopes that if the rules favor it that will encourage host railroads to give Amtrak the benefit of the doubt more often than not when passenger trains and freight trains are in conflict.

From a passenger perspective, Amtrak’s position has appeal. The eastbound Capitol Limited is scheduled to arrive in Cleveland at 1:45 a.m. If it arrives at 2:15 a.m., it is a half-hour late as far as passengers getting off are concerned. It doesn’t matter that it arrived in Washington on time.

The interests of passengers might seem to be central to the STB proceedings but that isn’t necessarily the case.

Amtrak has already decided that although all passengers have an interest in arriving and departing on time, the interests of some passengers outweigh those of others.

That is why it is advantageous to get on at an originating city and get off at the end of the line. You’re more likely to leave and arrive when the schedules says that you will.

STB to Begin Rule Making for Passenger OT Rules

May 15, 2015

The federal agency that oversees transportation will begin a rule-making process designed to define intercity passenger railroad on-time performance for purposes of Section 213 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008.

“The Board intends to issue in a subsequent decision a notice of proposed rulemaking in this matter, inviting public participation and comment,” said Surface Transportation Board spokesman Dennis Watson. “This decision follows a series of events surrounding the constitutionality of Section 207 of PRIIA in the federal courts, as well as a petition filed by the Association of American Railroads requesting a rulemaking on this matter.”

“The Board fully recognizes that when Congress enacted PRIIA, it placed importance on the efficient and timely adjudication of on-time performance,” said Watson. “Therefore, the Board will develop a definition of on-time performance with public participation through a formal rulemaking so that a process will be in place as Congress intended.”

The board’s notice can be viewed at

http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readingroom.nsf/WebDecisionID/44440?OpenDocument

U.S. Supreme Court Sides With Amtrak in Case

March 10, 2015

The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with Amtrak in a dispute with its host railroads over on-time standards.

The court unanimously found that Amtrak is a government entity and it directed the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to reconsider the case in light of the high court’s ruling.

That court had ruled in a case brought by the Association of American Railroads that Amtrak was a private company and therefore could not participate in setting standards with the FRA in the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008’s Section 207, which sets measurable thresholds of on-time performance, because one private entity (Amtrak), would be regulating others (host railroads).

The district court had also expressed reservations about the constitutionality of Amtrak’s structure.

Writing for the Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited a 1995 Supreme Court case in which Amtrak had tried to argue it was private, but lost.

In the AAR case, Kennedy wrote, “The political branches created Amtrak, control its Board, define its mission, specify many of its day-to-day operations, have imposed transparency and accountability mechanisms, and for all practical purposes set and supervise its annual budget.”

Kennedy also said the District Court will still need to deal with the issue of whether the delegation of powers to Amtrak violates the Due Process or Appointments clauses of the Constitution.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr., wrote separate concurring opinions in which each expressed reservations about Amtrak’s structure.

Alito argued that Section 207’s arbitration provision “is fair game for challenge,” because if a private arbitrator were chosen to decide a dispute over metrics between the FRA and Amtrak (which didn’t happen), that person would be “making law without supervision” and that would be illegal.

Alito also said that since Amtrak’s president is appointed by the board of directors but not the President of the United States, “it does not necessarily follow that the present structure of Amtrak is consistent with the Constitution.”