The following is from a recent letter I wrote on rail transport. It is
followed by an article advocating a national rail trust fund similar to the
national Highway Trust Fund.
Tom
--------------------
I think we need to look at the total rail picture more. That is, both freight
and passenger rail. I don't know how it would be implemented, but I think the
possibility should be discussed in some forum of the efficient land-use and
anti-urban sprawl, implications of rebuilding rail infrastructure in central
cities. In the 1850 to 1950 century strong downtowns were built around rail,
with rail sidings and marshalling yards an integral part of downtowns. Then,
people did their retail shopping downtown, not out in suburban sprawl. They
traveled downtown mostly in public transport, all of which, up to the 1930s,
was street railways. We had an urban area that looked to downtown as it's
economic and cultural center, not the present system of looking to the
sprawling suburbs for economic and cultural activity.

Des Moines has abandoned much of it's downtown and near-downtown rail system.
This past summer I took photos of the tracks and ties that were being torn up
in the abandoned rail yard just south of Grays Lake and east of Fleur Drive.
We are still in the mode of thought where highways are to be built and
railroads are to be abandoned. This is considered progress, when in fact it
is the opposite of progress. (Progress means improvement; abandoning
railroads improves nothing and makes our transportation system worse, not
better.)

I think we need to look to a future that incorporates what was good in the
past, and adds those portions of new technology which are genuinely useful.
(I don't think all new technology is good--urban freeways are not useful, for
example. On the other hand, telecommunications and computers employed to
prevent rail transport accidents would be genuinely useful.)

Tom

 --------- Forwarded message ----------
 From: [log in to unmask]
 To: [log in to unmask]
 Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:48:11 EDT
 Subject: [midwesthsr] Why we need a Rail Trust Fund
 Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>

 http://www.railwayage.com/B/xpov.html

 Why we need a Rail Trust Fund

 By U.S. Rep. William O. Lipinski


 Carl Sandburg once referred to Chicago as a Player with Railroads and
 the
 Nations Freight Handler. Nearly a century later, the Chicago Terminal
 District is still the rail hub of this nation. About 22% of all rail
 freight
 passes through Chicagos 57 rail yards. There are nearly 2,000 at-grade
 crossings; 37,500 freight cars travel through Chicago every day at a
 snails
 pace of 7 to 12 miles per hour. Add on top of that 700 commuter and
 Amtrak
 trains. Today, it takes two days to move rail shipments through Chicago.
 Clearly, capacity constraints and congestion abound within the rail
 system in
 northeastern Illinois, and theyre worsening. The Chicago Area
 Transportation
 Study, the MPO for northeastern Illinois, predicts that freight car
 traffic
 through the area will increase nearly 79% in less than two decades.
 In todays business economy where just-in-time deliveries are the norm,
 time
 is money. The inefficient flow of freight through Chicago is a chokepoint

 resulting in real economic losses from Los Angeles to New York City.
 Communities are impacted, too. Idling trains, traffic backups, grade
 crossing
 incidents, and other safety issues affect the quality of life.
 This is not just a problem in northeastern Illinois. With U.S. freight
 traffic expected to double by 2020, capacity constraints and congestion
 are
 national problems. Elected officials have recognized that. Last year the
 U.S.
 Conference of Mayors adopted a resolution that called for increased
 federal
 investment in our freight rail infrastructure.
 For small railroads, the funding needs are tremendous. AASHTO has
 concluded
 that short lines and regionals need $2.26 billion over the next ten years

 just to maintain existing infrastructure. More recently, ASLRRA and the
 FRA
 commissioned a study that found the short line industry needs nearly $7
 billion worth of investment to upgrade track and structures to
 accommodate
 the 286,000-pound freight cars that are standard on Class Is.
 Class I infrastructure needs are just as serious. According to the AAR,
 Class
 Is annually invest billions to maintain and improve their
 infrastructure.
 Yet, anecdotal evidence suggests that still more is needed to address
 congestion problems as well as community and safety issues in densely
 populated areas. Such increased capital investment will only add to the
 stressed financial condition facing Class Is.
 These are not small needs. As Daniel Burnham, the famous Chicago-based
 architect and city planner, exhorted us to make no small plans, we
 ought
 to make big plans to address these tremendous capital needs.
 In 1995, I served as the ranking Democrat on the House Railroads
 Subcommittee. In that role, I worked on the issues facing the industry.
 The
 more I examined rail congestion, the more I believed that the federal
 government ought to have a greater role in directly financing railroad
 infrastructure projects that have public and private benefits.
 However, as in all things here in Washington, the big question is: Where
 can
 we get the funds to support these needs? One possible funding option is
 the
 4.3 cents diesel fuel tax that railroads currently pay into the general
 fund.
 I believe putting these funds into a rail infrastructure program that
 will
 benefit the public is the only logical thing to do.
 That would only be a start. To adequately fund our nations rail
 infrastructure needs, as well as the needs in every other mode of
 transportation, Congress also ought to fully debate and consider a
 substantial increase in federal motor fuel excise taxes.
 Next year, Congress will begin work on reauthorization of the
 Transportation
 Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), a $218 billion surface
 transportation funding bill. Just as weve established a Highway Trust
 Fund
 and an Aviation Trust Fund, Congress should establish a Rail Trust Fund
 to
 address our nations rail infrastructure needs. TEA-21 is the ideal
 opportunity to create a national rail infrastructure program that can
 target
 funding to the states and localities that really need it.
 Substantial investments in our rail system will improve the efficient
 movement of goods and the efficiency our national economy, improve rail
 safety, improve highway safety, and improve the quality of life in our
 communities and neighborhoods. Indeed, our entire nation benefits.
 There are some who may disagree with such a proposal. However, it would
 be a
 serious mistake to ignore our nations growing rail infrastructure needs
 and
 the gridlock that will entail if we fail to expand our freight rail
 capacity.
 It would be a serious mistake to ignore possible solutions and remain
 satisfied with the status quo. So let us heed Daniel Burnham. Let us
 think
 big and make some big plans to address the growing national problem
 facing
 our rail system.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rep. William O. Lipinski (D-Ill.) is a senior member of the House
 Committee
 on Transportation and Infrastructure.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Copyright  2001. Simmons-Boardman Publishing Corp.
  >>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]