” The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee continued down the unfortunate course of dissentious policy instead of selecting common sense, practical options to fund the nations public infrastructure,” AAR said in a statement. “Freight railroads are incredibly disappointed in the deeply partisan, backward-looking rail title of the expense. If enacted, this legislation would weaken the continuous modernization of the rail industry through outdated operational restrictions and capability constraints, damaging the industrys capability to serve its customers and the economy. This nation needs tested, bipartisan services for infrastructure, and we will continue to work in earnest toward that goal.”
While your home of Representatives just recently passed the proposed five-year, $494 billion Buying a New Vision for the Environment and Surface Area Transport in America (BUY America) Act by a 35-25 margin, with the costs serving as a key component of the five-year, $760 billion outline, entitled “Progressing Structure,” which was launched in January, it is fair to state language within the costs was not favored by the freight railway sector.
AAR stated that this legislation is replete with what it called various harmful arrangements that would have an unfavorable impact on railroads for many years to come, impeding its capability to capability to adapt and serve clients and the economy.
That was the word from the Washington, D.C.-based Association of American Railroads (AAR).
Among its chief objections to the INVEST in America Act pointed out by the AAR were:
the reliable prohibition of the safe motion of LNG by rail is unneeded as the Department of Transportation currently has a continuous rulemaking and has completed a real-world tank cars and truck test, in addition to additional research study on the transportation of the LNG by rail that is likewise being undertaken pursuant to the FY 2020 Appropriation bill;
Private Right of Action: With the continuous requirements and metrics rulemaking concluding at the Department of Transportation, the lawfully enforceable agreements currently out there, and the two other choices for legal option, this arrangement is unnecessary at this time;
Two-Crew Mandate (Section 9509): This anti-technology provision would avoid any freight railroad staffing modernization in all time, a process that has actually historically been done through cumulative bargaining, without supplying any security advantage;
Efficient Prohibition on Certain Crew Operations (Section 9510): The reliable restriction on the limited capability of specific Mexican trains teams to continue to run safely in the U.S. will decrease security and security of operations, reduce network fluidity, lead to increased blocked crossings in Laredo, Texas, and might adversely affect U.S. tasks;
Yardmaster Hours of Service: Given that a yardmaster is already required to abide by all hours-of-service laws when participated in an activity that could affect the safe operation of a train, this provision is unnecessary; and
10-Minute Blocked Crossing Standard (Section 9553): Each of the nations 200,000 grade crossings are various, so the one-size-fits-all service proposed will lead to unexpected effects, consisting of network congestion and reductions in service
” Current policies have actually assisted railways continue to deliver for their employees and consumers during this pandemic,” stated AAR. “Now is not the time to retreat from this structure, much less enforce partisan policy riders or unnecessary functional requirements … Now more than ever, Congress should come together in a bipartisan style to do much better to enhance Americas infrastructure. Oppose the INVEST in America Act.”
In an interview, AAR President and CEO Ian Jefferies discussed that this costs, in the AARs opinion, represents a missed out on opportunity.
Jefferies noted that there is some irony there, because freight railways invest private capital back into their networks, with around $25 billion invested into their networks, noting that railroads are not looking for financing through legislation or other things in a federal surface area transport reauthorization.
” Right now, there is an extensive appreciation for the public infrastructure financial investment needs that this nation has, whether it is highways, mass transit, wastewater, broadband, and other kinds of infrastructure,” he said. “And it certainly needs to be an issue that everyone can rally around. But, regrettably, the course that was chosen by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee was part of an extremely dissentious partisan procedure that included a number of extremely objectionable policy provisions in the rail titles specifically.”
” We need a totally operating transport facilities network in this nation, so definitely we are helpful of properly funded and financed highway programs, for example,” he said. We have a number of issues about the expenses arrangements, whether they be running provisions, the number of people physically located in the cabinet of an engine, restrictions on cross-border traffic, and prohibitions on certain commodities like LNG.
About the Author
Jeff Berman, Group News Editor
Jeff Berman is Group News Editor for
Modern Materials Handling, and
Supply Chain Management Review. Jeff lives and works in Cape Elizabeth, Maine, where he covers all aspects of the supply chain, logistics, freight transport, and products managing sectors every day.
Contact Jeff Berman
” The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee continued down the unfortunate path of dissentious policy rather than selecting common sense, pragmatic solutions to fund the nations public infrastructure,” AAR said in a statement. “Freight railways are very disappointed in the deeply partisan, backward-looking rail title of the bill. Oppose the INVEST in America Act.”
Unfortunately, the path that was chosen by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee was part of an extremely dissentious partisan procedure that consisted of a number of highly objectionable policy provisions in the rail titles specifically.”
” We require a completely functioning transport facilities network in this nation, so certainly we are supportive of appropriately moneyed and financed highway programs, for example,” he said.