The Warren County Board of Supervisors and Vicksburg Board of Mayor and Aldermen announced the signing of resolutions in support of Amtrak’s endeavor to provide a rail service across Mississippi.
Now, the expected route will have an updated start in Dallas, Tx., and end in Atlanta, Ga., with a spread across five states along the I-20 corridor route. Multiple stops are expected in Mississippi, in cities such as Vicksburg, Jackson, and Meridian.
The Surface Transportation Board (STB) has rescheduled the evidentiary hearing for the Amtrak Gulf Coast case to April 4-5.
The board changed the hearing's date after CSX asked that the proceeding be moved from March 9-10 to early April. None of the parties in the case opposed CSX's request.
The case involves Amtrak's petition calling on the STB to require CSX and Norfolk Southern Railway to allow the intercity passenger railroad to run its trains on the Class Is' line between New Orleans and Mobile, Alabama.
Active cross-examination by Surface Transportation Board Chairman Martin Oberman and other board members marked almost eight hours of testimony Tuesday on the first of two days of public comment on the ramifications of two proposed daily Amtrak round trips between New Orleans and Mobile, Ala.
Some 45 witnesses spoke Tuesday. While most repeated contentions included in previously submitted comments [see “Gulf Coast show(down) set to begin …,” Trains News Wire, Feb. 14, 2022], there was some striking new information.
The northbound Crescent moves past a stopped freight on Norfolk Southern rails leaving New Orleans on Dec. 12, 2021. The same tracks would be used by trains headed to Mobile on CSX. (Bob Johnston)
The public-comment session is the first of two phases in the hearing over the long running between Amtrak and freight railroads CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern over Amtrak’s effort to restore service on the Gulf Coast route. Amtrak brought the matter to the STB last year, citing its inability to reach agreement with the two freight railroads [see “Amtrak asks STB to require CSX, NS to allow Gulf Coast service,” News Wire,” March 16, 2021]. The freight carriers contend the passenger trains will be highly disruptive to their operations [see “CSX, NS say Gulf Coast passenger service would ‘devastate’ freight operations,” News Wire, Nov. 4, 2021].
Among the notable details:
— Southern Rail Commission Chairman Knox Ross recounted a conversation with a CSX official at a Cincinnati meeting in 2016. The representative said the railroad would drop opposition to passenger trains along the former route of Amtrak’s Sunset Limited, and remove random drawbridge openings from capacity modeling, if two round trips were limited to New Orleans-Mobile instead of having one of the trains extended to Orlando, Fla. Ross says this conversation was the primary reason the Commission decided to concentrate on the Gulf Coast Corridor.
— John Robert Smith, chairman of the Transportation for America advocacy group, says he learned the seven drawbridges along the 144-mile route are being “automated” by CSX over the next two years, allowing the bridges to be raised and lowered remotely. This means the railroad will no longer be tied up by the need to deliver bridge tenders to their job sites in hi-rail vehicles. This was not disclosed in the railroad’s STB filing.
— FRA Administrator Amit Bose says filings by Norfolk Southern and CSX have not met the statutory burden of proof to show the passengers would “unreasonably impair freight transportation.” Congress didn’t intend that passenger service was required to accommodate freight operations, so the railroads, Bose says, “cannot effectively crowd out passenger service by claiming that it conflicts with their existing or planned operations.” He also contends the host railroads have not presented a transparent analysis “and thus have deprived the STB of a ‘clear-eyed view’ of railroad operations.” Bose says that transparency is essential, “given that host railroads here have called for costly capital improvements as a prerequisite to adding Amtrak trains. The public has a right to know why improvements were being made.”
During cross-examination of shipper representatives and local government officials, STB Chairman Oberman ascertained that those testifying had not independently determined passenger trains would disrupt freight service, but relied on CSX in making that contention. Oberman also noted that a container terminal at the Port of Mobile — which has strongly opposed the Amtrak service — interchanged only 5% of its volume with rail, and that interchange with Canadian National came only after containers were driven by truck over a bridge spanning CSX tracks.
Little-used industrial tracks, seen on June 7, 2021, leading to Mobile’s Brookley Aeroplex. The location was characterized as “downtown” during Tuesday’s hearing. (Bob Johnston)
Mobile politicians and the president of the Mobile Airport Authority repeated their preference for a station at Brookley Aeroplex. They characterized the facility as a proposed “downtown airport,” although it is several miles southwest of the true downtown location CSX has said prefers. Under questioning, Oberman learned that the earliest the Aeroplex could be operational was 2024.
But the STB chairman also spent an extended time learning from Tom Giovinazzi, director of rail services for Holcim Inc., how the imminent arrival of a passenger train could disrupt operations of the daily CSX local from Mobile that serves the company’s cement plant at Theodore, Ala. Giovinazzi speaks from experience: he used to be a dispatcher for Conrail on what is now Norfolk Southern’s Chicago-Cleveland corridor.
The exchange illustrates how facts will matter as the STB evaluates arguments from all sides.
U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), who opened the session, points out that provisions of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill would benefit both passenger and freight transportation.
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) hadn’t been scheduled to speak. But in his appearance, he noted the state of Oregon had paid Union Pacific to install a passing track on the corridor used by Amtrak Cascades and the Coast Starlight south of Portland, Ore., only to have UP routinely running freight trains that exceed the length of the siding.
The virtual session will continue Wednesday, and will again be streamed on the STB YouTube page. Representatives from Amtrak, CSX, NS, and the Port of Mobile will have the opportunity to respond to questions from STB members.
The following are remarks, as prepared for delivery, from Chair of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Peter DeFazio (D-OR) at the Surface Transportation Board’s public hearing on Amtrak’s petition to restore Gulf Coast intercity passenger rail service between New Orleans, Louisiana and Mobile, Alabama.
Video of Chair DeFazio’s statement can be found here.
Chair DeFazio:
Chairman Oberman, Vice Chair Schultz, Members of the Board, thank you for allowing me to participate in this hearing.
I am here today in support of Amtrak’s petition to restart service along the Gulf Coast. A cooperative relationship between the freight railroads and Amtrak is essential to give Americans access to intercity passenger rail transportation that is safe, efficient, and on time.
Decades ago, Congress enshrined this relationship by establishing and codifying the important rights of Amtrak to access, preference, and additional trains on freight-owned rights of way. The Surface Transportation Board is the entity Congress has made responsible for ensuring these rights are upheld. Your affirmation of these rights is critical to restoring Gulf Coast service, and this proceeding couldn’t have come at a more crucial moment in Amtrak’s history.
Throughout my Congressional career, I have witnessed Congress chronically underfunding Amtrak and Amtrak’s struggle to enforce its statutory rights to access, preference, and additional trains.
This dual challenge could be reversed very soon. Earlier this year, Congress enacted the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), making a historic investment in our country’s rail network that goes a long way towards improved stability for Amtrak. Speaking from my 35-year tenure in Congress, I believe that this guaranteed and robust funding for the next 5 years will be revolutionary. This money is of critical importance to the future and reliability of America’s intercity passenger and freight rail network.
But for each dollar to mean something requires reasonable cooperation from all parties—which is not the case in the Gulf Coast today. To avoid squandering these historic federal funds, Amtrak’s rights to access, preference, and additional trains need to be fully enforced.
We have the greatest freight rail system in the world, and we want to keep it that way. But we also know that the freight railroads have both the ability —and notably—the legal mandate to provide Amtrak the level of service, access, and preference it requires to operate and grow its intercity passenger rail network.
In 1970, Congress created Amtrak to relieve the freight railroads of their common carrier obligation to provide intercity passenger railroad service. In passing the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, Congress was clear in Section 402(b) of the law that to facilitate the initiation of Amtrak operations within the U.S. rail system, the Board shall “require a railroad to make immediately available tracks and other facilities.”[1]
Amtrak’s right of access is codified at Title 49 U.S.C. Section 24308(a), stating clearly that: “Amtrak may make an agreement with a rail carrier…to use facilities of, and have services provided by, the carrier…”. Congress went on to update the statute, defining the Board’s role in ordering access for Amtrak. Again, 49 U.S.C. Section 24308 (a)(2) states: “the Board shall… order that the facilities be made available and the services provided to Amtrak; and prescribe reasonable terms and compensation for using the facilities and providing the services.”
Congress provided additional details in 1973, by providing that Amtrak’s right to access freight infrastructure includes a “preference over freight transportation in using a rail line, junction, or crossing unless the Board orders otherwise under this subsection.” This right is codified at 49 U.S.C. Section 24308(c).
And in 1980, Congress determined that freight railroads were demanding inordinate capital investments from Amtrak to add service and mandated what is now codified at 49 U.S.C. 24308(e)—the Board’s requirement to give an expedited remedy.
There is no gray area. There was no miscommunication. It is federal statute, augmented again and again for strength and clarity. Providing Amtrak access, as well as preference for Amtrak trains, were part of the bargain in the 1970s that the railroad carriers agreed to, and it remains so today. Further, there is nothing contained in statute that justifies years-long waiting periods or gross overcharges by the freights as a condition of passenger access to existing rail lines, something that has unfortunately characterized the Gulf Coast service restoration.
In the case of the Gulf Coast service, Amtrak ran regular service on this route before Hurricane Katrina hit the region in 2005. Since the hurricane, the region has been fighting to restore the route. Congress grew so exasperated with the intransigence of CSX and NS to restore this route that in the FAST Act, we directed the U.S. Department of Transportation to form a working group—including the freight railroads—to study and estimate needed investment costs.
In issuing that report, the U.S. Department of Transportation determined that reasonable compensation is approximately $120 million. But since that report was issued in 2017, CSX has given Amtrak and Gulf Coast communities the run-around instead of working cooperatively to return this service. In 2017, CSX estimated that the cost of investments necessary to return the service was $2.3 billion—a shocking number. Notably, in the CSX and NS November 3, 2021, joint filing, the railroads reduced the amount to just over $400 million.
My staff reached out to CSX to ask about the railroad’s operations and cost estimates along the route to better understand its opposition, and they were told that the information was “confidential and proprietary.” And yet, CSX clearly states in their public filings to this docket that they operate just under a dozen trains per day on any portion of this route.
You mean to tell me that CSX can’t handle two more trains a day on this route in either direction unless the American public invests $400 million? That is ridiculous. The lack of transparency and unreasonable demands for taxpayer funds flies in the face of the law and is all too common across the Amtrak network.
As Members of the Surface Transportation Board, you have a critical role to play in ensuring the law is followed. That includes ordering CSX and NS to allow Amtrak access to operate this service and to determine whether additional trains “impair unreasonably freight transportation.” If you determine freight transportation is unreasonably impaired, then you must decide exactly what are “reasonable terms and compensation.” The U.S. Department of Transportation has already studied this route to determine what is reasonable—it’s somewhere around $120 million. The FRA has set aside $33 million, and along with the $33 million in non-federal match, we’re more than halfway there.
Further, I was disappointed to read news reports that published an email from CSX’s CEO to its network of shippers attempting to scare them into filing opposition comments to this docket. His doomsday message is unfounded given that it is CSX that has been unwilling to share data needed for the studies it keeps advocating for, but then delays, delays, delays when it’s time for action.
More broadly, the Class I railroads as a whole need to know STB will enforce the law and not allow them to simply use the historic passenger rail investment from IIJA for additional freight capacity. If Amtrak has to seek an STB order every time it wishes to launch a new route, add additional trains, or even just run their trains on time, then the historic investment will be derailed.
I urge the STB to be bold and send a strong message to the railroad industry that they will implement and enforce the law and ensure the bipartisan IIJA funds are not squandered.
This case, if decided in accordance with the law, will set an important precedent that could improve passenger rail service across the nation. For example, in my state of Oregon, the state and federal government invested $7 million into a Union Pacific freight rail line to speed up passenger rail service between Eugene and Portland by building a mile long siding. The siding is not even finished, and yet the taxpayer dollars may already be highjacked because the UP’s average train length is now 1.75 miles. As a result, Amtrak trains will be forced into the siding in the event of a conflict, effectively giving preference to freight. The end result is that it takes just under three hours to go 110 miles along this route, despite this and other significant public investment.
I thank the Board for holding this hearing today, and I look forward to an expeditious resolution to this matter, in accordance with federal statute.
Nearly a year after Amtrak first petitioned to run a passenger route through the Gulf Coast, the federal body that will decide the train’s future is holding a public meeting.
The Surface Transportation Board, which is based in Washington, D.C., announced it will host a public hearing on Feb. 15 about the proposed route that would run between New Orleans and Mobile with stops in Mississippi. The meeting, which will be hosted on Zoom and then posted to YouTube, will allow for public comments.
The announcement by Amtrak and CP was very welcomed news to passenger rail advocacy organizations throughout the nation, including the I-20 Corridor Council.
Amtrak and the freight railway company, Canadian Pacific (CP), announced this past week, on January 6, that the two transportation entities had reached an agreement formalizing Canadian Pacific’s support of Amtrak’s expansion of passenger rail service in the Midwest and the South.
In the announcement, Amtrak President Stephen J. Gardner said, “Given CP’s consistent record as an Amtrak host, we support CP’s proposal to expand its network. This is exactly what Congress and the Administration are seeking: Amtrak and the freight railroads working together to benefit freight customers, Amtrak passengers, our state/regional partners and the general public.”
Read More
Amtrak and Canadian Pacific Railway Limited (CP) (TSX: CP) (NYSE: CP) today announced an agreement with Amtrak supporting the proposed combination of CP and Kansas City Southern (KCS) railways.
“CP has been an excellent host of Amtrak intercity passenger service year after year and has established itself as a leader in the railroad industry,” said Stephen J. Gardner, Amtrak President. “We welcome CP’s commitment to our efforts with states and others to expand Amtrak service and are pleased to have reached an agreement formalizing CP’s support of Amtrak expansion in the Midwest and the South.
A $10 to $15 passenger train ride between Baton Rouge and New Orleans could be just a year or so away — if all the pieces fall into place.
Canadian Pacific Railway is close to gaining ownership of the train tracks that run between the two cities after its shareholders earlier this month approved a $31 billion takeover of Kansas City Southern, which currently owns the train lines. Canadian Pacific also committed to working with passenger rail operator Amtrak and state and local governments to start the passenger service as soon as possible.
The U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Railroad Administration call for the Surface Transportation Board to order the restoration of Amtrak service along the Gulf Coast — and offer detailed criticism of arguments by CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern against that service — in a Tuesday filing with the Surface Transportation Board.
The long-held dream of a passenger rail link between Baton Rouge and New Orleans inched closer after officials from Canadian Pacific Railway, which is close to gaining ownership of the tracks between the two cities, committed to re-introducing service on the line.