DOT Says Rails May Save Millions From New Proposal to Ease Rules

Freight railroads could reap $340 million in cost savings after the Department of Transportation offered to ease the requirements to install technology to prevent head-on collisions, the agency announced.

In a separate matter, the railroads sued DOT to block some requirements that Amtrak trains meet on-time arrival requirements when operated on freight lines.

DOT proposed to reduce requirements to install “positive train control” to avoid head-on crashes on about 14,000 miles of track that don’t carry passenger trains or  materials that are “poison inhalation hazards,” or PIH, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood said. Comments on the proposal are due at DOT by Oct. 24.

The freight railroads, which could realize the savings over the next several years, will still be obligated to spend as much as $5 billion to install that equipment on routes that do carry passengers and PIH materials. A drive for positive train control began after a series of deadly head-on freight-rail accidents during the 1990s.

DOT’s statement said that “the amendments will provide greater flexibility to railroads and the Federal Railroad Administration in assessing the need for PTC without adversely affecting the safety of America’s rail lines.”

“Ensuring the safety of our railroads is a top priority,” said LaHood. “These proposed amendments will provide regulatory relief while maintaining our commitment to safety.”

The savings, which could reach $1 billion over 20 years, are the result of a settlement agreement after a separate lawsuit by the freight railroads’ trade group, the Association of American railroads.

Under the current rules covering PIH shipments, a railroad that wants to move PIH shipments from a rail line where positive train control is required must ask for permission from DOT and conduct what the agency termed “a complex set of analyses.”

The changes that LaHood announced on Aug. 24 would eliminate the need for a series of analyses by DOT and the railroads for lines where the positive train control technology would have been required.

“We believe that the proposal provides a balance of safety regulation and cost to the industry,” said FRA Administrator Joseph Szabo. “We look forward to working together with the railroads as they concentrate on areas where positive train control is much-needed.”

In the case of the Amtrak on-time rules, the court action also was brought by AAR.

That lawsuit, filed on Aug. 18 in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, asks the court to block a section of a 2008 law that requires Amtrak and DOT to develop passenger train on-time standards.

On-time performance by Amtrak trains has been a chronic sore point with some members of Congress, which led to insertion of the requirement into a 2008 law that required creation of those standards.

The first-quarter 2011 standard of 80% on-time was met by just four of 16 long-distance trains run by freight railroads and about half of the shorter runs, less than about 400 miles, according to U.S. statistics.

On average, freight railroads during July managed 41% on-time performance for long-distance Amtrak trains. The California Zephyr train between Chicago and the San Francisco area, which uses Union Pacific and BNSF Railway tracks, never arrived on time during the month, according to Amtrak statistics.

Amtrak and DOT set the performance guidelines last year, which then were challenged in a higher court; the court ruled earlier this year that the district court should hear the case.

The railroads presented several arguments.

“AAR believes this provision is unconstitutional because it gives a private company — in this case Amtrak — legislative and regulatory authority over the business operations of freight railroads,” freight rail spokeswoman Holly Arthur told Transport Topics.

Saying the Amtrak/DOT standards “cannot be achieved as a practical matter,” the freight railroads argued that Amtrak shouldn’t be allowed to benefit from the rules the passenger carrier had a hand in creating. In addition, the freights argued that passenger trains limit the operating flexibility for freight service, reduce capacity and cut into maintenance time.

Under the 2008 law, failure to meet on-time standards could subject the railroads to damages as determined by the Surface Transportation Board.