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]