Scratching my head here.

If I understand things correctly, the title of the conference—sponsored primarily by freight interests—was “FREIGHT Rail Day 2009.”  

Yet it appears that a good bit of the agenda focused on passenger and commuter issues (admittedly with some reference to how passenger/commuter might impact freight railroads).

Link to agenda here: www.wispolitics.com/index.Iml

Roger Breske’s “Top 10 Ways to Tick off Your Legislator” also suggests that many or most of the attendees were passenger rail advocates (we want a HSR or light-rail line in every pot!).

Freight railroads would surely never approach legislators or other officials in such a manner.  In fact, when it comes to expanding and enhancing freight service in Wisconsin, it is more likely the government officials who need to be lobbying the carriers rather than vice versa.

I’m one who suspects there is good potential for expanded rail service in Wisconsin—freight first, and there may even be potential for some intercity passenger and commuter operations that aren’t a complete boondogle.

But if the agenda gets shanghaied and driven by the railfans and passenger interests, the freight carriers may regret it and Wisconsin will lose opportunities for meaningful commercial growth.

Bill,

I'm scratching my head, too.

You tipped your hand when you said, "there may even be potential for some intercity passenger and commuter operations that aren't a complete boondoggle."

Whether any of us like it or not, the future of U.S. railroading _includes_ passenger service!  Travelers aren't going away; the days of Lou Menk and Downing B. Jenks are LONG since past.

Our industry does itself a grave disservice by continuing to use the phrase "freight railroad" as if that defines the sole purpose of its infrastructure.  Our mode of choice is the RAILROAD, period, and we should be prepared for it to be involved in _any_ function which is both profitable and involves flanged steel wheels!

If our cards are played correctly, dealing with public entities interested in restoring passenger service should provide ample opportunity for increased capacity and other right-of-way improvements at little or no capital cost.  As long as important issues like possible tax increases and potential liability are properly handled in advance, I fail to see the downside.

Rather than wringing our hands over carriers losing a chance at "meaningful commercial growth," we should be concerned by the possibility that our roads will be viewed as impediments to transportation progress!  One possible way to deal with a railroad perceived as anti-passenger would be to regulate it...and that's a threat much more ominous than a shanghaied agenda!

Contrary to popular opinion, there is nothing inherently wrong with railfans!  I am one, myself.  [I'm also a railroad professional, which tends to drastically reduce the amount of foam produced!]  Furthermore, the vast majority of those outside of the industry who possess very real "passenger interests" are by no means railfans!  They simply understand the need for environmentally friendly and energy efficient transportation alternatives and equate the railroad (yes, THE RAILROAD!) with positive change!

That's not so bad, is it?

Garl

This post was mentioned on Twitter by rail_network: Lobbyists, legislators and laughs at Wisconsin's Freight Rail Day http://bit.ly/4AtdqH

Garl,

I must just be old fashioned, but think that an event about freight rail really should focus more on freight issues than on how railroads can deal with demands from passenger interests and how passenger and commuter rail initiatives can be financed.

What if the shoe was on the other foot?  Imagine a conference on HSR sponsored by Amtrak and other passenger advocates, or a program on NEC operations.  Is that the time and place for a Class I to do a presentation accommodating more unit coal trains, or how best to finance expansion of intermodal terminals? (Let’s hope there wouldn’t be any tar and feathers handy.)

It’s important that the distinctions between freight and passenger not be blurred.  Too many passenger advocates view railroads (by which I mean the private, profit oriented companies that pay the bills and dividends) primarily as: 1) a means to providing them with the infrastructure they cannot support on their own, and 2) companies runing freight trains that undermine passenger train performance.

The Environmental Law & Policy Center (ELPC), which participated in this conference, appears to be interested only in HSR. The primary reference to freight on their website (and a more extended Google search) is praise for CREATE, because it will alleviate freight congestion in Chicago that is an obstacle to HSR.  (Never mind that if one is truly interested in the environment and fuel consumption, the primary focus should be on taking trucks off the highway—converting freight from truck to rail.)

Another area where the issues are being blurred is the FRA’s new National Rail Plan, which covers freight in addition to passenger networks and infrastructure. The legislation which established this new directive (which in the FRA’s words grant it “additional broad responsibilities” beyond its traditional roles) was in Title III (Intercity Passenger Rail Policy) of Part B (Amtrak).  So legislation re-authorizing Amtrak intercity passenger operations and policy was used to mandate a national freight policy influencing investment. In short, the Feds are using passenger to gain more influence and control over the freight infrastructure owned and operated by private companies.  (Class I’s and States, watch your back.)

Freight and passenger are by no means incompatible.  We only have to look at lines which for years have successfully handled freight, passenger, and commuter trains.  I live along the BN mainline in the Chicago suburbs, and I don’t think Metra, the BNSF, or the BNSF’s shippers have any serious complaints.  It’s a truly impressive operation, and that it works so well is a tribute to those who plan and execute the operations.  But it’s the commuter operations that interfere with the freight, not vice versa.  Many a time, I’ve had interchanges blown (adding 24 hours to transit time), because intermodal trains are held off the mainlines during the commuter hours--“the show.”  International traffic might be able to accept that 24 hour delay, but what about domestic intermodal?

Back to Wisconsin.  There a many subjects pertaining to Wisconsin freight that are worthy of discussion (rather than how the track can best accommodate passenger service).  Green Bay used to have an intermodal ramp, now it doesn’t.  What kinds of volumes might be necessary for CN to re-establish service, or UP, the BNSF, and/or WSOR to consider service options? Would BNSF and/or UP want to pre-empt any possible diversion of Wisconsin’s transpacific import/export cargo to the CN and Port of Prince Rupert? Prince Rupert is a tough sell, but if CN re-opens Green Bay, they'll get a chunk of the business. (CP operates a ramp at Milwaukee, but that’s also largely focused on traffic to/from Canada.)  A Milwaukee to Chicago leg might not pay for itself on it’s own, but what if it were key to diverting Wisconsin to Texas cargo from truck to rail? Or key to capturing a share of other lanes?

Wisconsin shippers could benefit from lower cost rail service if the railroads can make a buck at it.  Drayage to/from Chicago is pretty pricey, and the higher transportation costs undoubtedly impact the competitiveness of Wisconsin manufacturers.  What would be the “public” benefit of taking some trucks off the highways versus focusing primarily on passenger and commuter services?  Too many containers are round-tripped from Chicago, empty in one direction of the other.  This is especially the case with international, where the "chicken or the egg" syndrome often keeps the containerlines from setting up CY's or drop-lots.

The growth potential for passenger/commuter is also a worthy subject, but not necessarily at a conference dubbed as “Freight Rail Day.”  The distances between several populations centers in Wisconsin are conducive to building viable passenger ridership, especially if some of the towns gain some population in suitable densities.

Demographics, demographics, demographics.  Density, density, density.  That’s what is often forgotten when passenger advocates wish for European-like passenger services in the US.  (Having lived in Germany for several years, traveling extensively on intercity trains and transit systems, and studied the cities and towns in detail, I have a little bit of perspective on the differences between Europe and the US.)  Milwaukee, Sheboygan, Green Bay, Fond du Lac, Oshkosh, Appleton, etc. could all use some more people to truly support a viable passenger service—people who might be more likely to move there in pursuit of the jobs made possible by reducing freight costs through more use of rail?

Cheers!

A lot of food for thought there, Bill, and I don't quite know where to start.  First, let's agree that passenger and freight are inextricably intertwined, if only because of political realities of railroad regulation and government sponsorship of passenger service. So, yes, I do believe that freight presentations should be made at passenger conferences and vice versa.  None of us, I hope, is above learning something new.

Let us not forget that it is a senator and a representative from Wisconsin who are the principal proponents of insidiously evil antitrust legislation that would open the freight railroads to legal assault from state attorneys general and venue-shopping lawyers representing shippers.  Can you picture 12 ordinarily educated Americans determining whether a railroad has violated the antitrust laws?  There's a reason administration of the antitrust laws was vested in first ICC, then STB and not in the DOJ or FTC, which oversee all other industries and antitrust issues.

As for FRA' National Rail Plan, sorry to be churlish, but I see no "plan" in the self-congratulatory prattle coming from FRA/DOT.  Greater responsibility for FRA?  I'd like to see it exercise the responsibility it already has.

Most of us who have worked for freight railroads know the horror stories of commuter windows and four-hour delays of premium intermodal trains.  They exist and government isn't going to fix that one.  

It was BN before it was BNSF that developed the hub terminal approach to intermodal.  It understood that if you put enough stops in you could destroy any service, so it figured out the maximum economic dray distance and ran trains to points where containers/trailers could be drayed efficiently and economically to final destinations.  Service improved, rates were compensatory and shippers responded by shifting to intermodal.

CREATE benefits freight - and auto and truck traffic - far more than it will benefit HSR.  We all should be doing what we can to ensure that CREATE is properly funded.  And while we're at it, we should remind the TRAC/Barrington "ours doesn't smell" crowd that had their reps in Congress funded CREATE five years ago CN probably wouldn't have bought EJ&E.  They didn't care the because CREATE wasn't in their backyards.  Well, something even bigger is in their back yards now and their whining is simply annoying.

This country will have more rail passenger service and eventually will get some sort of real or near-HSR.  All it will take is gasoline at $5/gallon and above.  Politicians will simply go along for the ride when constituents start really demanding something more than rhetoric.

So, all in all, I'm not troubled by the blurring, if that's what it was, between freight and passenger advocates at Wisconsin's Freight Rail Day.  Remember, it's all 4 feet, eight and a half inches wide, regardless of what's above the trucks.

Larry, I have no problem with conferences that are intended to specifically address issues of joint freight-passenger/commuter operations. In fact, such a conference was recently held in DC (and has been held for numerous years).

But when passenger advocates start viewing the freight railroads as their sugar daddy (as simultaneously as the enemy), then the railroads should remind the public about the role of the railroads in hauling freight, what the priorities are, and who is subsidizing whom.

It seems that Union Pacific did just that in a recent opinion piece in the Springfield IL paper.  The UP's statements pretty much echo my thoughts on this subject.

***

Joseph Bateman: Rail upgrade needed for passenger service, not freight.

Contrary to the headline and opinions expressed in the Oct. 25 article “High-speed rail spending to be a boon to freight rail companies,” Union Pacific does not need for its freight operations the improvements contained in IDOT’s proposal for high-speed passenger service in the St. Louis-to-Chicago corridor..."

***

Full opinion piece here at the Sprinfield State Journal-Register's website:

www.sj-r.com/.../Joseph-Bateman-Rail-upgrade-needed-for-passenger-service-not-freight

Union Pacific was responding to this piece (which actually covers a fair bit of ground and is worthwhile reading):

www.sj-r.com/.../High-speed-rail-spending-to-be-a-boon-to-freight-rail-companies

I had read Bateman's op-ed previously.  I agree with him and UP.  I agree with you, too.  My point, though, is that nothing we say here is going to change reality that those who are passenger advocates will be passenger advocates regardless of who ends up having to pay for it.  I was mildly surprised although I shouldn't have been, by the passenger afficionados who immediately jumped to the conclusion that Buffett will use his billions to promote high speed passenger rail.  He won't and shouldn't until someone provides hard evidence that a passenger operations can generate sufficient income to justify reinvesting in it.  I'm waiting.......

The key challenge here is to look for network improvements that will benefit both passenger and freight.  Could the Cascades service in WA benefit if improvements at Cascade tunnel allowed BNSF to move freight off of the Portland-Seatle route?  Does the proposed Crescent Corridor not mirror many highspeed rail proposals, such as Charlotte to Atlanta or DC- Roanoke?  These are just two synergies that came up in magazines this month, the possibilities throughout North America are remarkable.  

Railroading is a capital intensive enterprise.  There are more deserving projects that will pay for themselves than capital to fund them, so this capital should be of extreme benefit to freight as well as passenger.    

The important thing for the frieght industry will be for it to communicate that it offers benefits that meet or exceed passenger rail.  That message needs to be communicated to the general VOTING public.  Politicians that decide how highspeed rail investments will be structured make these, like most decisions, based upon what will gain them the most votes.  

The freight industry can benefit greatly from passenger rail by communicating its own benefits to the public.