posted
That's the title of this item by Fred Frailey in today's 'Trains' newswire.
With the usual government heavy handed approach, this may seriously delay HSR projects if they involve use of railroads' right of way. It would seem a better approach would be to let the states' DOT administer the programs affecting them. They have a better understanding of what consumer protection is needed and the day to day operating issues in of the railroads in their state.
For those of you who subscribe to Trains, a pdf of the specifics is attached on the link provided at their website .
********** Trains Newswire
Published: Friday, May 28, 2010 Upset at what they regard as overly intrusive government intervention, several big railroads may walk away from high speed passenger train projects, jeopardizing one of President Barack Obama's signature domestic policy initiatives.
At issue are guidelines issued on May 12 by the Federal Railroad Administration for implementing the high speed rail program, in which the federal government has made an initial $8 billion commitment. These guidelines came to light only this week (full document available as a downloadable PDF below), and stunned more than one of the four largest U.S. Class I railroads they affect. The FRA must approve plans for spending this money. The guidelines are meant to inform railroads and recipients what is and is not acceptable in agreements they reach for implementing the grants.
Initially, at least, no railroad would go on record as threatening to cancel fast-train projects involving their properties. Nor would railroad executives speak on the record, for fear of antagonizing a federal agency that's holding a very large financial carrot in front of them. Nevertheless, interviews with executives of the four largest U.S. Class Is reveal that, in at least three instances, a high degree of alarm at controls the FRA seeks to impose.
Chief among the concerns are:
Performance standards Railroads and direct recipients of the federal aid (mostly state departments of transportation) must agree to on-time targets for affected passenger trains. If a railroad fails to meet those targets for reasons attributable to that railroad for any calendar month, it must spend whatever amount of money is necessary to achieve compliance within six months. After six months, if standards are still not met, then the railroad must give back the federal government's investment, based on a sliding 20-year scale — the sooner the failure, the more the railroad must pay.
One Class I railroad already has negotiated contracts with two state DOTs for significant high speed projects targeted for federal grants. It reports that the performance standards stipulated in both agreements have already been rejected by the FRA as inadequate.
Capacity utilization According to the guidelines, any train capacity created by federal high speed investments that is not immediately consumed must be reserved in part for future passenger train use. The guidelines recommend that railroads and recipients agree upon a 30-year plan for use of the capacity. This idea is complicated by the fact that freight traffic over some of the affected lines remains as much as 30 percent below pre-recession levels. One rail executive is given to believe that future capacity allocations between freight and passenger service will hinge on growth rates starting with today's depressed levels of freight traffic.
Apparently, the FRA already feels the push-back from railroads. In a statement to TRAINS, an agency spokesman said: "FRA has a responsibility to protect the public interest. We are aware of the freight railroads' concerns and have asked them to meet with us for dialogue. With billions in funding at stake, our goal is to make sure taxpayer funds are spent wisely and that agreements with freight railroads are kept." He added that the guidelines are "preliminary."
Almost all of the high speed projects involve long lead times for ordering materials, such as rail and concrete ties. In the best of circumstances, few would be operational before the 2012 presidential election. The biggest exception is the partnership between Illinois and Union Pacific to run 110-mph Amtrak trains between St. Louis and Joliet, Ill., which will receive much of the $1.13 billion the FRA has dedicated to the Chicago-St. Louis-Kansas City, Mo., corridor. That project could go into limbo until FRA and the rail industry agree on how the implementation guidelines should read, if indeed they can reach agreement.
At the core of the dispute is a belief, gaining more velocity among railroad executives, that FRA does not possess the competence to administer this new and complex program. These executives fear that FRA cannot make nuanced decisions — in other words, that the guidelines are not really guidelines, but rigid rules. As evidence, they cite the agency's unwillingness to consider special circumstances. Example: One railroad negotiated standards for on-time performance after improvements are made on high speed projects in two states that are less than this railroad's current near-perfect numbers. An executive of this railroad says the FRA has rejected these agreements as inadequate. He contends, however, that today's depressed level of freight traffic creates an artificially low expectation of future freight traffic volumes.
It's too soon to know how all of this will play out. One possibility is that the dialogue that FRA says it wants with railroads about implementing high speed rail programs will result in agreements that dissolve the railroads' worst fears. At the other extreme, the two parties could slide down a slippery slope of distrust and suspicion that ends with some or all of the Class Is walking away from the high speed rail program. It doesn't help that nearly two weeks went by before railroads were aware of the FRA guidelines, and that initial questioning of those provisions by state departments of transportation revealed a take-it-or-leave-it attitude on the part of the government. — Fred W. Frailey Download PDF Stakeholder Agreements Guidance File Size: 175 KB
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In view of the positions I have consistently held at this Forum, "I'm not surprised".
I have long held that a detente has existed between the Class I industry and Amtrak. Ignoring the premise that Amtrak, or at least LD Amtrak, was to be over and done in about five years after A-Day, and when it became evident that such was not to be the case, the detente evolved and was simply "we'll handle your existing (largely "one a day") trains so long as you do not try to impose upon us to handle additional trains and that you will accept that we will handle them consistent with our other requirements of service i.e. you aint on the top of the pile, pal.
Obviously the imposition to handle additional trains and at higher speeds as well is suggesting that outside parties are attempting to upset that detente. Likely the industry "laid back" figuring that this $8B for HSR was simply more Washington bluster, but that such was enacted, and the funding now allocated amongst the various projects, it appears that the industry is prepared to say "not so fast'.
disclaimer: author holds positions in NSC and UNP
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like there has been a breakthrough in this impasse - surprisingly with the UP. Since Trains has opened HSR to everyone, not just those getting Newswire, here is the link.Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it isn't as bad as CSX's stipulation in New York State that there has to be a 30-foot gap between freight tracks and passenger tracks. How come they don't need to do that in other countries, especially for service that's a great deal faster than 110 mph? I suspect that things are overregulated here.
Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems the government is trying to build a futuristic rail system on exsisting tracks. Look at the Acela its a new looking train running on a decade old tracks. While jets and cars are looking to run faster and more efficiently (see SCAM jets) Washington spouts vision but no real plan. I do not see how they can run a high speed system sharing frieght lines,
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
