This article from the Baltmore Sun discusses the increasing conflict between capacity constraints on freight railroads and the need for better, faster passenger service. Nice to see a discussion that has the facts about right.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Palmland, first allow me to note the linked Baltimore Sun material is Opinion.
Otherwise, as referenced in the column, oral arguments in the mater of DOT v. AAR 13-1080 were heard by the US Supreme Court Monday:
In the railroad case, a trade group challenged a 2008 federal law that it said gave Amtrak, which carries passengers, too much power over freight railroad companies.
“The Constitution does not permit Congress to create a corporation, deem it nongovernmental, and then launch it into the commercial sphere with a for-profit mandate, and then vest it with regulatory authority over other companies in the same industry,” the group’s lawyer, Thomas H. Dupree Jr., said in describing Amtrak.
A lawyer for the federal government, Curtis E. Gannon, disputed almost every clause of that sentence. But there was no question that the 2008 law allowed Amtrak to play a role in setting performance standards.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said that was problematic.
“Suppose that the government together with auto manufacturer A made standards,” he said, drawing on a hypothetical example in a brief, “but then auto manufacturers B and C had to follow them. That seems wrong.”
This just seems like one more case in which Amtrak chooses to wear whichever hat, government agency or private corporation, suits it best.
On Monday, The Wall Street Journal editorialized on the matter:
Government collusion with favored businesses has been a hallmark of the Obama era, and on Monday the Supreme Court has a rare opportunity to rebuke the practice in the name of democratic accountability and the Constitution’s separation of powers.
The case concerns a challenge by private railroads to Congress’s 2008 decision to give Amtrak and the Federal Railroad Administration joint power to regulate the use of railway lines. The private freight railroads claim this amounts to an unlawful delegation of power. They won at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and on Monday the High Court is hearing Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads.
The Constitution’s so-called non-delegation doctrine derives from Article I that holds that all legislative power “shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” Congress and the courts have let that doctrine erode over the decades as the legislature has delegated power to executive regulators—much to the detriment of freedom.
But one principle the Supreme Court has held firmly to is that Congress cannot delegate its legislative power to private actors. That’s precisely what Congress has done in this case. Amtrak is a company with private shareholders that competes with freight railroads for the use of limited railway tracks.
Finally, off rails, the outcome of the other case noted by The Times I will find to be of interest; it should also be of interest to those who hold that on-line shopping avoids one from paying Sales Taxes.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
I'm thinking that at least 5 of the Supremes are going to rule against Amtrak and in favor of AAR on the subject case. Would be surprised if it plays out differently.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Allow me to add that a decision in this matter is not expected until next June.
Posted by palmland (Member # 4344) on :
I think regardless of the outcome of the court case, the fundamental issue of the over capacity of many railroads and the resulting conflict with Amtrak will remain, and increase.
As the article stated, the only long term answer on many routes is additional trackage. Good luck with that except maybe on the corridor routes in urban areas.
It does however seem to me that there are current freight lines that do have capacity and perhaps only require upgrading to efficiently handle Amtrak. The current example is, of course, the KS and NM portion of the SWC. Could the CZ also use that route to LaJunta, even though longer, but would add Pueblo/Colo Sprngs customers. It would certainly reduce the overhead expense too since the cost per train would be shared for things such as station expenses and perhaps better crew utilization. And while longer, isn't that better than the multi hour delay often encountered now. Yes, Omaha would lose service, but KC would get two a day.
That to me begs the question: should Amtrak concentrate its long hauls on routes with that kind of capacity. Another is the much discussed former Seaboard line. While a portion has been abandoned, how much would CSX like to see all passenger off the ACL line used by all but the Star. If that 75 mile abandoned portion could be restored, at 79mph - not HSR - should all trains, except perhaps the Palmetto for local business,be routed on to the SAL line? CSX has minimal freight traffic on the line south of Raleigh to Savannah. Are there other similar routes? Disclaimer: a reroute over SAL would make me a happy camper since that route passes through my small town.
Posted by yukon11 (Member # 2997) on :
I never have understood the true meaning of the 2008 law, and that Amtrak and the FRA can "regulate the use of rail lines". To what extent does the word, "regulate", mean? Does "regulate" imply forced expenditure? Can Amtrak force the freights to provide double tracking when needed? Can Amtrak and the FRA change a freight's schedule to force yielding to a particular Amtrak train schedule?
I know it is a poor analogy, but I have always found the public/private interaction between the US Postal Service and an individual home mail box interesting. Although you purchase a mail box to dwell on your own property, the USPS, in a sense, "owns" your mail box (or, at least, has an exclusive right to use it). The justification seems to be that the USPS must do so to prevent mail tampering. If I place a flyer, inviting my neighbor to an ice cream social, in my neighbor's mail box it's considered mail fraud.
Yet, UPS and FEDEX can deliver parcels to my front door. I always worry if the packages could be tampered with or stolen. How does UPS AND FEDEX get away with it? Maybe UPS and FEDEX could have the right to deliver mail to my mailbox. It probably would be cheaper. The USPS loses around $20 million a day.
Richard
Posted by palmland (Member # 4344) on :
Interesting comments from the Supreme Court in their deliberations.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Why is it amazing to some that a government entity would try to conduct business in a profitable manner? I realize Amtrak will never be profitable, but maximizing their income to minimize their tax dollar help should be a lauded endeavor.
Also, did our government give the railroads the land they use for their trackage? Did the railroads agree to the formation of Amtrak, knowing full well that Amtrak would be using their rail?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mighty powerful stuff that Mr. Palmland located at the Atlantic Monthly's website. Allow me to quote a "Brief passage" therefrom:
1. Chief Justice Roberts on a "significant regulatory impact."
Amtrak can then force a proceeding at which the freight carriers will have to defend, right? …
Well, that's a significant regulatory impact, to tell railroads I, a private party, get to start a governmental proceeding and you have to show up to defend it. …
And, by the way, if I don't — it's triggered if I don't comply with standards that I get to set.
Here the Chief Justice is entertaining the idea that Amtrak is operating as a private party while also regulating its own industry in the style of a government agency—seemingly favoring the freight side in the case. Not only did Amtrak write the "metrics and standards" that dictate operating practices, says Roberts, but it can raise a grievance with anyone who defies those standards. Curtis Gannon, who argued the case for Amtrak (technically, for the Department of Transportation), responded that private parties initiate government investigations all the time without that being seen as "delegation of legislative power."
Be sure to read Justice Kennedy's remarks and the author's analysis of such. Likely, this is going to be one more "Swing and Sway with Ken A DAY".
Finally, the photo appearing with the link; dollars to donuts that is a set of Hiawatha equipment being handled from CUS to Lumber St.
Posted by Vincent206 (Member # 15447) on :
Decision: 9-0 vote defining Amtrak as a government agency and not a for-profit company. Left undecided is the question of whether or not Congress delegated too much authority to Amtrak in setting on-time standards. That question is to be decided in lower courts. So it's not a total defeat for the AAR; but from now on, we can consider Amtrak to be a government agency.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
There are a surprising number of 9-0 decisions by this Supreme Court. I saw 20 on a very quick google search.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
1) The fact of the matter is the Court is often 7-2, 8-1, or 9-0 on cases. These are the cases we don't read about because they are arcane points of law, being clarified between to Appellate Districts.
2) If Amtrak is declared a Government Agency, watch all those contracts with the Unions go out the door, for representation will switch from UTU to AFGE. Also, USG does not bargain for wages and hours. Jobs will have to be reclassified into the Civil Service system.
3) If Amtrak is a Government Agency, vice a corporation, Katy Bar the Door. Congress will go on a rapid cycle to divest Amtrak to being a private corporation, I believe.
It would be better if it were a private corporation which must apply a complaint to the STB.