before the
Senate Subcommittee on
Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, CHAIRMAN
PRESENTED BY
WILLIAM W. MILLAR
PRESIDENT
AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSIT ASSOCIATION
WASHINGTON, D.C.
*******
March 2, 1999
*******
American Public Transit Association
1201 New York Avenue, N. W.
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 898-4000
APTA is a nonprofit international association of over 1,200 member organizations including transit systems; planning, design, construction and finance firms; product and service providers; academic institutions, and state associations and departments of transportation. APTA members serve the public interest by providing safe, efficient and economical transit services and products. Over ninety percent of persons using public transportation in the United States and Canada are served by APTA members.
The American Public Transit Association (APTA) is pleased to submit
this testimony for the hearing record requesting that Congress, as part of the pending
reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Board (STB), establish a process which will
require due consideration of the public interest whenever a state or regional passenger
rail agency seeks use of a rail freight corridor. We believe that such a process will be
critical to the mobility and well being of the traveling public, as well as in the
long-term interest of both freight and passenger interests.
Historically, America’s rail corridors have been used for both
freight and passenger purposes. At one time, both were operated by the private sector
under laws governing public utilities. These laws recognized the public interest in the
system. As passenger operations became unprofitable, private railroads were relieved of
the obligation to operate passenger service directly. Services were often taken over and
supported financially by public entities.
Today, rail passenger service across America is in the midst of a
rebirth. Nearly fifty new or extended rail systems have been added since the 1980s. The
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), enacted by Congress
last year, itself provides funding for over 200 new rail projects.
Many of these projects and the communities they serve would benefit
enormously through the use of existing rail freight corridors. Where capacity exists,
using existing rights-of-way simply makes more sense and is more economical to the
taxpayer than acquiring and bulldozing new corridors. When the use of a freight line is
required, the rail passenger agency will typically seek to negotiate an agreement on a
range of issues, including lease payments, schedules and dispatching, cost sharing of
maintenance and capital investments, liability, and other matters.
Unfortunately, when a rail passenger service requires use of a freight
corridor, the negotiation process does not include a mechanism for consideration of public
interest factors that may be associated with the passenger service. Freight railroads
unilaterally can - and have - denied access to passenger rail agencies. In other
instances, the terms of the access have been deemed by the passenger agency to be
unreasonable. Public agencies so denied have no recourse, and the result is a very
difficult environment for negotiating fair agreements.
The normal way a state or regional public transit agency would gain
access to property needed for public improvements would be through eminent domain
proceedings. However, state law based condemnation authority does not extend to property
owned by freight railroads, which come under the interstate authority of the federal STB.
APTA asks Congress, as part of pending efforts to reauthorize STB, to
provide state and regional rail agencies the same statutory rights to access as Amtrak
has. The Rail Passenger Service Act of 1971 (RPSA), which created Amtrak, has a very
thorough process regarding the use of freight-owned track and other facilities. In the
event of a failure to agree, RPSA provides that the STB shall order the use of track and
other facilities on such terms and for such compensation as STB finds just and reasonable.
Essentially, the STB’s role is to determine whether an impasse
exists and to provide freight railroads with reasonable compensation for the access
provided to and the service provided by Amtrak. By putting pressure on both sides, this
model has worked well and the STB has rarely been called upon to intervene in these
disputes.
While Amtrak was assigned responsibility for intercity rail passenger
service, regional rail passenger service performed the equally important role of providing
regional rail passenger service. Congress did not anticipate at the time of Amtrak’s
enactment how much commuter rail service would grow in the next 28 years, and the number
of new passenger rail systems to be created that would require access to the railroad
network. Regional rail ridership today far eclipses that of Amtrak. Today commuter
railroads alone carry over 17 times as many passengers as Amtrak and account for 55
percent more passenger miles.
APTA suggests that statutory language similar to that which applies to
Amtrak should be made applicable to state and local public agencies responsible for the
provision of rail passenger service. Disputes would be resolved by the STB only when a
prolonged impasse in negotiations occurs, or when the parties, in the judgement of STB,
are not negotiating in good faith.
Justification for such an action can also be found in the ICC
Termination Act of 1995, wherein Congress specifically allowed rail carriers, including
eligible passenger rail authorities, to seek access to railroad terminals using public
interest criteria as the basis. The STB has authority to prescribe terms in these cases if
parties cannot agree.
APTA and the Association of American Railroads (AAR) have met to
discuss the possibility of an industry-wide framework to help facilitate the negotiation
of local agreements. We have begun to identify common issues contained in such agreements
and normal industry practices or costs related to each of those issues. In these talks
APTA has emphasized the need for some form of a dispute resolution process, a position
that has also been taken by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO).
In conclusion, APTA and its members want to work cooperatively with
private railroads to ensure that our nation continues to be served with an efficient and
effective freight passenger network. We recognize that freight railroads are profit-making
enterprises that cannot be expected to subsidize passenger services. Nonetheless, we
believe that the ability to petition STB for the resolution of disputes and public
interest issues needs to apply to state and regional rail passenger agencies just as it
applies to Amtrak. The future mobility of millions of Americans will be affected by the
outcome.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be pleased to provide
any additional information that might be useful to the Subcommittee.
Some of these pages may include links to documents in the Adobe PDF format. Please download the Adobe PDF reader if you have not already done so.
