Freight rail companies -- big impediment to better passenger rail service?

[marmar]

from The Transport Politic blog:




It was inevitable: Distraught by the possibility of having to increasingly open up their tracks to passenger trains, the freight railroad companies have staged an open rebellion against a proposed U.S. policy that would have penalized them if they caused delays.

The rule, which was proposed in May by the Federal Railroad Administration, would have enforced “stakeholder agreements” that went along with funding for new or improved intercity rail routes advanced by state governments. In exchange for a public investment in track, signaling, and the like, freight rail companies would be required to ensure that passenger trains aren’t delayed by oncoming traffic or slowed-down cargo trains.

In the Omaha World-Herald earlier this week, reporter Joe Ruff described some of the opposition to these rules. D.J. Mitchell of BNSF railways, suggested that the situation was stacked against the freight companies since their existing lines simply are not built for trains running at speeds higher than 90 mph whereas the Obama Administration has been adamant in pushing projects that increase maximum speeds to 110 mph along freight corridors. Meanwhile, Ruff quotes Bob Turner of Union Pacific, who argued not only that the passenger trains could delay freight traffic but also that “It’s out land, it’s our rails… This is about the government regulating what happens on our property.”

This was a sad reaction from an industry that could potentially benefit handsomely from the infusion of significant federal dollars. The freight railroads have operated mostly without government help for decades. Yet Washington clearly did not approach this situation with the necessary tact, failing to inform the industry of the proposed rules changes… before they were proposed, which evidently is the way things are supposed to work. ..........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/08/27/u-s-withdraws-proposed-freight-rail-regulations-but-fails-to-address-conflict-with-future-passenger-service/

[nashville_brook]

1. this has been a problem for the orlando commuter project

[KamaAina]

2. It's been this way since the founding of Amtrak

the freights have always been supposed to give Amtrak priority. They never have, which explains why most Amtrak long-distance trains are on time once or twice a month. :eyes:

[pscot]

3. Passengers are too much trouble.

n/t

[villager]

4. "it's our land?" Fucking robber barons were *given* those rights-of-way

...by, ah, the U.S. government...

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. Disguise passenger trains as boxcars and all will be fine.

[izzybeans]

6. Amtrak to Chicago is routinely held up by freight trains. The service trouble

all lies with freight. Freight trains break down a lot. They have the right of way. Etc. Trips for my parents to come visit require a 3 hour window for there arrival 99% of the time because they are held up by freight trains.

[Brickbat]

7. Like many industries, railroads are trying to increase short-term profits by making long-term stupid

decisions, such as decreasing maintenance and outsourcing service calls. It's pathetic.

[HopeHoops]

8. Not really. Freight is what kept the lines going for the resurgence of passenger traffic.

[hayu_lol]

9. Here in the west, we have two situations going...

freight takes right of way in CA, Passenger traffic takes right of way in OR and WA...by state law.

Present state of most trackage, particularly here in the west, will not allow higher speeds by passenger trains. Passenger routes will need their own trackage.