Opinion: Drinking Deeply From the Public Trough

By Dan Lang, Staff Reporter

According to the Wall Street Journal of May 1, Norfolk Southern Corp. has suggested that the Commonwealth of Virginia kick in a share of the $900 million it will take to add a second track to the railroad line that parallels Interstate 81.

The article also mentions a public-private partnership involving both Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe to build the Alameda Corridor in California.

That crashing sound you hear is the railroad industry falling off of its self-proclaimed “high ground.”

As the WSJ article notes, the major railroads have not in the past sought public funding. And they have not backed short-line and regional railroad initiatives in this direction — even though the small railroads have said they need help to upgrade their track to accept the heavier cars the big railroads are developing.

However, with Norfolk Southern, that paradigm of conservatism trying to thrust its hand into the public pocket, perhaps attitudes will change.

You see, until now NS and the other railroads — often speaking through the Association of American Railroads — have justified their opposition to bigger trucks by piously pointing out that highways are built and maintained by tax dollars while railroad lines are built and maintained by private investment.

Therefore, the railroads would say, to allow trucks to get bigger or heavier while using taxpayer supported highways (even though trucks pay substantial road use charges) would be to —gasp — subsidize the competition.

On this premise, the railroads have asserted that they have standing to enter the debate over bigger, more productive trucks. Once in, of course, they attack truck safety because the word “safety” resonates more widely and effectively than “user charges.”

Should we presume that railroads will drop their opposition to more productive trucks if they get some subsidized rights of way?

A clue may be found in the argument that NS representatives think will sell their proposition to the guardians of Virginia’s purse.

An extra rail line, they say, will take trucks off the road.

It is a constant source of wonder — and maybe a little annoyance — that railroads seem to think a promise to take business away from a competitor is a sure-fire justification for anything they might want. It is as though a reduction in trucking is right up there with preservation of the family as a societal goal.

Truckers don’t argue for the productivity gains they want by claiming that they will put the railroads out of business. In fact, now that I think about it, the trucking industry has argued for productivity gains — like a higher weight limit — by saying it would reduce the number of trucks on the road.

n the current booming economy and high-demand environment, it is difficult to say with certainty whether the number of trucks can be reduced. But, if trucks are bigger, there will be fewer than would otherwise have been the case.

The plain fact is, the demand for trucking is so great — and continuing to grow — that there will soon be too many for existing highway systems.

What the trucking industry should do, therefore, is support NS in its importuning for public money.

In fact, we should join them, make common cause in the noble effort to reduce the number of trucks on the road.

Because, while the track record (pun intended) of railroads in cutting down on truck traffic has been disappointing, we know — and can demonstrate — that, if trucks are permitted to get bigger, we won’t need as many.

That is the reason trucking has sought higher weights: so that fewer trucks, with fewer drivers, could carry the same load.

And the gains would be financed by the industry, not only through user charges already being paid, but by bearing the cost of equipment replacement.

The fact is, there is little reason to believe that NS, even with subsidized track, can improve its service enough to compete with trucks.

NS and CSX both promised to reduce truck traffic if they were permitted to buy and dismember Conrail. It has been almost a year since that deal was implemented — and there are, if anything, more trucks on the road.

The advice the trucking industry should give to the those who guard the public purse is this: Go ahead if you want to. Let the railroads drink deeply from the public trough.

But if your goal is to see fewer trucks on the highways, don’t put your faith in the railroads.

The number of trucks plying the roads is regulated by trucking companies and their customers, and if you want to do something to help them reduce the potential number without crippling the national economy, just let them have the productivity gains they need.

Just get out of the way.

And if the railroads scream “No fair!” remind them that they sold their right to complain for the price of some rail and ties.