Reregulation of freight railroads, as proposed in S. 953 and H.R. 2125 would restrict railroad earnings to the point that railroads would not be able to maintain their investments in infrastructure, which are at record levels today.  Less infrastructure investment would not only prevent rail hauling capacity from increasing, but also mean that railroads would not be able to maintain existing track and equipment.

As rail service declined, fewer shippers would use rail transportation, which would further decrease the railroads' ability to invest in infrastructure.  This downward spiral would continue just as it did prior to deregulation of the rail industry in 1980 and would harm us all.

The Public

The U.S. Department of Transportation, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and others all agree that demand for freight transportation will grow sharply over the next 20 years.  Our highways are already congested and reregulation of the rail industry would result in more freight being shipped over-the-road.

AASHTO's Freight Rail Bottom Line Report concludes that investing in additional rail capacity would produce overwhelming public benefits.  To decrease capacity would harm the public.

Motorists
According to the U.S. DOT, congestion costs the U.S. almost $180 billion each year.  The Hudson Institue has concluded that freight traffic has a greater impact on traffic problems than passenger traffic.  Adding more freight to our highways would dramatically increase highway congestion.

Taxpayers
Shifting freight off of rail would result in additional wear and tear to our highways.  Additional highway maintenance and construction would require additional taxpayer money.

The Environment
Locomotives are three or more times more fuel efficient than trucks.  Once locomotive can move a ton of freight over 420 miles on a single gallon of fuel.  Also, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that for every ton-mile, a locomotive emits roughly three times less NOx and particulates than a truck.  Reregulation would have the effect of diverting shipments to a less environmentaly sound method of transportation.

Railroads

Reregulation would restrict railroad earnings, which would make railroads unattractive to investors and limit their ability to invest in rail infrastructure.  Less infrastructure investment would shrink rail capacity, decrease service, and lead to fewer customers.  Before railroads were partially deregulated in 1980, many were near bankruptcy.  Reregulation, over time, could lead to the same result.

Rail Industry Employees & Retirees

Weaker railroads mean fewer jobs and fewer jobs mean a weaker railroad retirement system.

Businesses & Consumers

Some shippers may benefit from reregulation in the short term because regulators may artificially lower the prices for a small group of large companies.  In the long term, however, weaker railroads with diminished capacity and poorer service would hurt businesses because it would limit their transportation options.  Rail is the most efficient and cost effective way to ship many goods over the long haul.  If rail capacity is diminished, more freight will be forced onto our highways, which will increase transportation costs for businesses and for consumers.

Local Economies

Less rail capacity will make it harder for local communities to attract businesses that depend on rail.  A weaker industry also means fewer jobs in fewer towns.

Click here to ask your legislators to oppose reregulation.