Posts Tagged ‘Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008’

High Court Won’t Hear AAR Passenger Rules Appeal

June 4, 2019

Amtrak and the Association of American Railroads are both claiming victory in the wake of a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to decline to review an appeals court ruling in the long-running battle over the authority of federal regulators to established on-time standards for passenger trains.

The latest action by the high court means that a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that Amtrak and the Federal Railroad Administration may work together to establish on-time metrics to be applied to Amtrak’s host railroads will stand.

The Supreme Court in 2015 had ruled 9-0 that the two could collaborate on those metrics.

However, the DC appeals court has also ruled that part of the 2008 Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has not overturned that ruling, which was made in July 2018.

The appeals court ruled unconstitutional part of section 207, which gave the U.S. Surface Transportation Board the ability to settle disputes over on-time performance metrics and standards by appointing an arbiter to perform binding arbitration.

The court objected to the use of binding arbitration and said Amtrak could not unilaterally impose metrics and standards on a host railroad over its objections.

That same decision upheld the remainder of section 207, which dictated how on-time metrics could be developed.

It was that part of the appeals court decision that AAR appealed to the Supreme Court.

In reaction to the most recent development, Amtrak said in a statement that it is pleased with the decision and looks forward to working with FRA “to develop clear, efficient and impactful metrics that will lead to better on-time performance for Amtrak customers and the entire rail system.”

The AAR in a statement express disappointment with the high court’s refusal to accept its appeal but said it was pleased that the provision pertaining to metrics and standards remains invalidated.

“Freight railroads are committed to providing efficient and reliable service to all their customers and tenant railroads, and we will work with the FRA and Amtrak in a way that recognizes the importance of moving increased freight volume to help support the U.S. economy,” the AAR said.

The legal battle over the on-time standards dates to 2011 when AAR commenced litigation.

The essence of the latest outcome means that although the previous on-time standards are not longer valid, Amtrak and the FRA will have the opportunity to try again to come up with a different set of standards.

That process is expected to take several months and Amtrak’s host railroads may still be dissatisfied with them and seek to have then struck down in court.

Railway Age Washington reporter Frank N. Wilner said the resulting regulatory proceedings and any subsequent litigation could take up another half a decade.

Wilner speculated that the railroad industry might argue in future court cases that the standards amount to an unconstitutional taking of private property without appropriate compensation.

He said the court have yet to rule on what constitutes a reasonable compensation to remedy freight railroad delays and if such compensation even is recoverable.

Supreme Court Won’t Intervene in On-time Case

February 27, 2018

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a request by Amtrak to review a lower court decision that found the Surface Transportation Board cannot assume regulatory authority that is granted to Congress.

The high court’s decision means that a last effort by the federal government to revive the delegated authority will be decided by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

In a July 2017 decision, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the STB lacked the authority to establish regulatory standards for “on-time performance” in exercising its power to require freight railroads to give “preference” to Amtrak trains. See, Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Surface Transportation Board, 863 F.3d 816 (8th Cir. 2017).

The Union Pacific case was one of two in which courts considered challenges to a portion of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008.

That law delegated to the Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak the joint power to establish metrics and standards to define “on-time performance,” and gave the STB power to penalize railroads that fail to meet the standards.

The other case was Association of American Railroads vs. U.S. Department of Transportation.

In the latter case, the railroad trade organization challenged the joint FRA/Amtrak authority as an unconstitutional delegation of governmental power to Amtrak because it is a for profit entity.

The appellate court in that case sided with the AAR, ruling that the law constituted a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause to give Amtrak, “an economically self-interested actor,” the power to regulate its competitors.

Following that decision, the STB sought to establish the on-time standards itself, which led to the Union Pacific case.

The district court in Washington has set oral arguments for March 5 in what remains of the AAR case.

During that hearing, the federal government and Amtrak will be seeking to have the court reinstate the joint rule-making authority of the FRA and Amtrak by narrowing the court’s previous decision and striking down only a portion of the offending PRIIA provision.

STB Rules in 2 Passenger Cases

July 28, 2016

The U.S. Surface Transportation Board this week decided that it would consider on-time arrival and departure at all stations along a passenger train’s route for purposes of assessing on-time performance.

STBThe STB said in a news release that it deem a train to be “on time” if it arrives at or departs from, a station no more than 15 minutes after its scheduled arrival or departure.

In a related decision, the STB said it is withdrawing a proposed policy statement on issues that may arise, and evidence to be presented in proceedings under the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 in favor of a case-by-case approach.

“Reflecting careful consideration of an extensive public and stakeholder response to our most recent passenger rail proposals, these decisions will better position the Board to implement its responsibilities under the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008,” said Board Chairman Daniel R. Elliott III in a statement. “Improved passenger train on-time performance is an important goal, and the Board’s decisions will support that goal by clarifying the trigger for starting a proceeding, while allowing more complex and detailed issues to be resolved in the context of individual cases.”