# "Subsidies" for freight railroads



## CHamilton (Dec 3, 2013)

This is hardly news for those of us who know about the rail system, but it may be an eye-opener for some.

Obama spends $600 million on rail projects that benefit private companies



> WASHINGTON — The railroad industry brags in its national publicity campaign that it spends billions of dollars improving its infrastructure “so taxpayers don’t have to.”
> But the ads don’t tell everything. The nation’s freight rail network has been the quiet recipient of more than $600 million in federal investment during the Obama administration.
> According to Federal Railroad Administration numbers, at least half that amount has gone to projects that benefit the nation’s four largest railroads, the same companies at the heart of the industry’s ubiquitous “Freight Rail Works” campaign.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Dec 3, 2013)

CHamilton said:


> This is hardly news for those of us who know about the rail system, but it may be an eye-opener for some.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


IMHO it is Federal dollars generally well spent, but your point is still VERY valid Charlie.

I wonder how much the 'Big Four' spend on propaganda er... advertising?  :unsure:


----------



## railiner (Dec 4, 2013)

Interesting. But in the case of getting trains separated from street traffic in cities. the cities received a good chunk or more of the benefit.......


----------



## Anderson (Dec 7, 2013)

Two points:
(1) CHI is a mess because of a lot of history and geography...the fact that you've got three freight lines CHI-MKE should be a hint that something is awry, as should the sheer mass of tracks along the south shore of Lake Michigan in some places...and straightening that out isn't cheap. The scary thing is that while straightening it out isn't cheap, it's also the least bad alternative in many regards.

(2) On the Crescent and Gateway projects, IIRC a lot of those state funds are coming from VA.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 7, 2013)

The HSR funds wouldn't have gotten through Congress without the blessing of at least some of the Class I carriers (we've already mentioned NS being critical to updates in Virginia in another topic) so it goes without saying that they are still out for public funds for their systems. This is, as you say, nothing new.

I remember when the Ohio 3-C project was cancelled Republican Gov Kasich smiled at a press conference as he suggested the money be given to Ohio to make upgrades to CSX and NS track. He was an absolute jackass, still is. The thought that after all his whining about how slow the trains would be that he'd still take the money just to line the pockets of the class Is, without any benefit to the Ohioans at-large. Conservative fiscal thinking my butt.


----------



## jis (Dec 7, 2013)

I think getting trucks off highways and onto rail is a laudable goal, and some federal and state money to augment funding from other sources to achieve that is good use of the money. I wish similar joint funding mechanisms could be found for passenger rail. Without that I don't really see HSR advancing in a big way in this country, even on the NEC.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 7, 2013)

jis said:


> I think getting trucks off highways and onto rail is a laudable goal


If the ultimate goal you speak of is reduced emissions then the path isn't in moving the trucks onto rails but in reduced consumption of goods *or* Star Trek-style matter replicators. It is unfortunate that we cannot live in a society that will allow continuous conspicuous consuption without devistating economic or environmental consequences, however it is so. I think increasing funds available to upgrade rail (both passanger and freight) is only a short-to-medium term way of moving people away from dirtier forms of transportation.


----------



## jis (Dec 7, 2013)

As the saying goes .... in the long term we will all be dead.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 7, 2013)

To continue the thought of that saying... but your grandchildren might be.


----------



## jis (Dec 8, 2013)

The bottom line is, leaving aside the philosophizing and metaphysics, it is a cheaper alternative to get trucks off the road and onto rail on the whole.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 8, 2013)

Setting aside metaphysics and whatnot:
-I don't think many people would be happy with what a substantial decrease in consumption would imply.

-Roads are getting more and more expensive as time goes on. There's a 10-11 mile section of I-95 getting two new lanes that's running about $100m/mile, and my understanding is that such calculations are the norm more and more.

-Many railroad lines were laid out for 2-4 tracks at the least (often even if they were never fully built out, the land was bought) but only have 1-2 tracks laid now. That's a _lot_ of untapped capacity that is available for relatively little, requires little to no land acquisition to execute, and which can be privately maintained upon construction (and indeed, which the private sector will often cover most of the cost of building as well).


----------



## Ryan (Dec 8, 2013)

Anderson said:


> -Roads are getting more and more expensive as time goes on. There's a 10-11 mile section of I-95 getting two new lanes that's running about $100m/mile, and my understanding is that such calculations are the norm more and more.


The 5 miles of I64 getting expanded to 3 lanes in the vicinity of Ft. Eustis are going to cost $100, so it can be even more than that...


----------



## CHamilton (Dec 10, 2013)

Letter: Economy gains from rail projects




> As president and CEO of the Association of American Railroads, I'm responding to the story published by The Columbian on Dec. 3, "Obama spends big to aid country's freight rail network." The premise that the Barack Obama administration spent $600 million on rail projects that benefit private companies distorts how the federal government finances critical transportation infrastructure projects, including those involving railroads.
> 
> State and local governments — not railroads — receive federal grant funding for projects that meet federal criteria. These projects are true public-private partnerships: private freight railroads and governmental entities each contribute resources to solve critical transportation problems. Local governments and the public derive great benefits from these public-private partnerships. These projects ease roadway congestion, lower greenhouse gas emissions and increase commuter rail capacity.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 10, 2013)

CHamilton said:


> Letter: Economy gains from rail projects
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Excellent! We need more Private Sector Leaders supporting Government/Private Business Partnerships!


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Dec 10, 2013)

And when we invest in 'the freight railroads'...



> DFM Research out of St Paul, Minn., conducted surveys in eight districts in the states of Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, Colorado, Kansas, and Iowa. Results clearly showed very strong support levels for more Amtrak funding.
> 
> So, what can saving the Southwest Chief and potentially expanding passenger rail service do for this region?
> 
> ...


(From this op-ed piece in the Kansas City Star.)


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 10, 2013)

Well if you're going to blantaly disregard philosophy and "metaphysics" as you call it then perhaps you should consider this argument, which is equally valid; just as highways became overclogged rail lines can suffer the same fate. We have seen this on several major lines, the BNSF hi-line especially, there is a limit how many trucks you can have on the highways or rails without needing to expand and upgrade (read: spend money). Also while rail is decidedly more fuel efficient it is far from a green technology at present application, while I agree in the short-term it is a good way to reduse emissions in the long term it will cost a lot of money to revamp the fleets of diesel locomotives that will be required to haul this century's increasing demands. Rail is more environmentally friendly and more cost-effective than trucks and highways to a point, and less cost-effictive if it has to become more environemntally friendly as more and more trains run.


----------



## cirdan (Dec 12, 2013)

I believe talk about greenhouse gas emissions is often empty gesturing used to greenwash projects that are not principally driven by green concerns but driven by economic concerns. Trucks cause congestion on highways and cause wear and tear on highways and you can address that by spending more money on fixing highways and on adding lanes. But you can equally take that money and invest it in railroads and in some cases the latter choice is better value for money. Anything said about greenhouse gases beyond that is empty waffle. If people were really concerned about greenhouse gases they would first and foremost look at reducing the oil dependency of the economy.


----------

