STB hearing: Amtrak, Class Is begin arguing evidence in Gulf Coast case
4/7/2022
By Julie Sneider, Senior Associate Editor
The Surface Transportation Board on Monday began its evidentiary hearing on Amtrak’s application to operate two daily roundtrip passenger trains along the Gulf Coast between New Orleans and Mobile, Alabama, for the first time since before Hurricane Katrina struck the region in 2005.
The case pits Amtrak against CSX and Norfolk Southern Railway, the two Class Is that own the track Amtrak trains would run on for the estimated 150-mile route. The Class Is argue that the presence of additional passenger trains on the line would unreasonably interfere with freight-rail traffic unless Amtrak commits to funding 14 freight-rail infrastructure projects to accommodate passenger-rail traffic.
The hearing began April 4 with opening arguments from the three railroads’ representatives, as well as from the Alabama Port Authority, which operates the Port of Mobile and Terminal Railway Alabama State Docks. Among the questions the STB will have to settle are whether to grant Amtrak the authority to begin passenger-rail service immediately, whether to deny Amtrak’s application, whether to allow Amtrak to begin passenger-rail service only after it upgrades infrastructure, and whether the STB has the authority to require infrastructure to be upgraded.
CSX, NS: Amtrak wants a precedent-setting case
The Class Is presented their opening statements first, leading with CSX’s counsel Ray Atkins, who said that the Amtrak Gulf Coast case strays from an established process used for over 40 years to accommodate new passenger service. That process calls for a robust study that considers the impact on existing freight and passenger service — and the “gold standard” for that kind of study is the rail traffic controller (RTC) model. Once that study was completed, the parties would then collaborate to determine the infrastructure solutions necessary to accommodate the new service.
But that tradition was not followed in this case because Amtrak “pulled the plug” before the joint RTC study (conducted by R.L. Banks & Associates) for the proposed Gulf Coast service was completed, Atkins said.
“We expect Amtrak will try to blame the railroads and a lack of transparency on the modeling inputs” used in the study, Atkins said. “But the process was proceeding on a normal path. … Amtrak, for whatever reason, made it clear that it was no longer interested in completion of the RTC study, refused to let the railroads pay to complete the study and then filed this case with the STB.”
The law and the record will not support Amtrak's “aggressive demands,” Atkins argued.
“Amtrak maintains it is entitled to immediate access to the Gulf Coast line without any study of the impact on freight service or a single penny of infrastructure,” he said, adding that includes a dedicated station track in Mobile that was recommended years ago by a Gulf Coast passenger-rail working group in a report to Congress.
“Amtrak maintains it is entitled to immediate access to the Gulf Coast line without any study of the impact on freight service or a single penny of infrastructure.” — Roy Atkins, CSX counsel
In making their case to the STB, CSX and NS expert witnesses will describe the process they used in the RTC study and provide maps, pictures and drone footage to explain the complex features of the Gulf Coast line, which entail mostly mainline track with seven movable bridges, local traffic, foreign trains and hundreds of grade crossings, Atkins said. The RTC model shows immediate harm to freight service from four additional passenger trains in an already busy corridor.
The only legal question of the hearing to be answered is what impact passenger-rail service will have on freight service, and whether that impact is reasonable, he said.
“CSX is committed to finding a solution in good faith that works for Amtrak and protects the interests of all parties,” said Atkins.
Representing NS in the hearing was Bill Mullins, who also lamented Amtrak’s decision to pull out of an established process between freight railroads and Amtrak to determine what’s needed to add passenger trains to a freight-rail line. He cited the Southern Rail Commission, which supports Amtrak service in the Gulf Coast and years ago was awarded a federal grant to fund infrastructure work to make it happen.
But even after Amtrak filed its application with the STB, NS was willing to negotiate the proper amount of infrastructure with Amtrak but the railroad refused, Mullins said, noting the railroad declined the Class Is’ request that the STB call for board-sponsored mediation.
The parties are far apart in what they believe are necessary infrastructure projects before Amtrak can begin Gulf Coast operations. CSX and NS currently argue that Amtrak should fund about $440 million in freight-rail infrastructure projects prior to the introduction of passenger service. Amtrak has estimated about $66 million in passenger-related infrastructure is necessary.
Mullins argued the STB has the legal authority to require Amtrak to fund freight-rail infrastructure projects prior to starting Gulf Coast service.
“This case could be settled with negotiations or board-sponsored mediation, but Amtrak refuses,” Mullins said. “Why? Because they want historical precedent. I would ask the board to be careful. … If you impose access without infrastructure it would put [Amtrak’s] needs above freight railroads and their employees. NS asks you to impose infrastructure” requirements.
Before Amtrak presented its opening statement, the board members heard from the Alabama Port Authority’s representative Rob Wimbish, who argued that without new infrastructure, Amtrak trains running on the Gulf Coast line would impair the port’s related freight-rail operations. The port relies on CSX service, Wimbish said.
Port officials are not “categorically opposed” to Amtrak service in the Gulf Coast, but the national intercity passenger railroad has not been open to discussing how its service could harm the port’s operations, he said.
Amtrak: Case is fundamental to Congress’ vision for passenger rail
From Amtrak’s perspective, the Gulf Coast case boils down to what Congress intended when it created Amtrak 50 years ago by removing freight railroads’ passenger obligations in exchange for Amtrak trains having priority access to freight railroads’ tracks, said Jessie Amunson, who represented Amtrak.
The Class Is and port want to make the case about RTC modeling and infrastructure projects, she said.
“This is fundamentally a case about Congress’ vision about a national passenger-rail system and whether private railroads can exercise veto power by making inordinate capital demands,” Amunson said. “Amtrak does not believe that the private railroads should have that power.”
Amtrak has a mandate from Congress to bring passenger rail to underserved communities, while CSX and NS want to preserve the status quo, she added.
“Of course, Congress understood that running passenger service on rail lines owned by freight carriers would impact freight-rail service,” Amunson said. “And of course, Congress understood that giving Amtrak trains preference over freight trains would sometimes cause delays to freight railroads to alter their operating plans. That was part of the whole premise of the bargain [with the freight railroads] that Congress struck.”
“This is fundamentally a case about Congress’ vision about a national passenger-rail system and whether private railroads can exercise veto power by making inordinate capital demands.” — Jessie Amunson, Amtrak counsel
Amunson talked about the federal legislation that allows Amtrak to add trains on freight-rail lines unless the carriers can show serious adverse impact on their operations. But the Class Is’ RTC study results, expressed in percentages of impact on operations, would be less dramatic “when converted into real numbers.”
While the freight carriers’ service would be impacted, freight-rail service would not grind to a halt — something CSX and NS acknowledged in previous STB filings, she said.
Amtrak witnesses will show the Class Is’ RTC study was used to determine the amount of infrastructure needed so that “no aggregate freight service delays would result, no schedules would be adjusted and passenger service would operate at 95% on-time performance,” she said.
“That is not a model for trying to determine whether freight transportation would be harmed beyond moderation, that is a model designed to gold-plate a railroad,” she said.
Following the Class Is and Amtrak’s opening statements, the STB heard testimony from witnesses on April 4 and April 5, and continued hearing testimony from witnesses on April 6.