Compare and Contrast: Freight Rail with Roads and Highways

The North American freight railroad business is chugging along very nicely, reports the Wall Street Journal, and railroad companies are engaged in a building boom surpassing anything seen since the industry’s 19th century golden age. Major rail lines are spending $14 billion this year on rail yards, refueling stations, additional track and upgrades to old track — more than double what they spent a decade ago.

What’s going on? Does this reflect a booming economy? Not really, although the shale/oil gas revolution clearly is helping. What’s happening is that America’s freight railroads are gaining market share.

Rail companies have become far more efficient than in the days when they struggled under the dead hand of federal government regulation. U.S. freight rail rates are nearly half of what they were three decades ago. On-time performance has improved dramatically — almost to the point where delivery by train is almost as reliable as by truck. Rising fuel prices are a help, too. Freight rail more energy efficient than trucks over long distances — trains can move one ton of freight about 500 miles on a gallon of fuel, making them three to four times as energy efficient as trucks.

The U.S. freight rail system is even becoming a source of national competitive advantage in manufacturing.  If not for rail, Yossi Sheffi, director of MIT’s Center for Transportation and Logistics, told the Journal, “We wouldn’t have as many companies considering moving back to the U.S. or near-shoring.”

Bacon’s bottom line: Fascinating, isn’t it, how the sub-sector of the transportation economy with the least government involvement, seems to be the healthiest. Roads and highways are built overwhelmingly with public funds and investments are guided by politicians… and the sector is in perennial crisis. Freight railroads are built overwhelmingly with private funds and investments are subject to rigorous ROI analysis… and the rail sector is thriving.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has no established methodology for determining whether or not the money spent on roads, bridges and highways yields a positive economic return. Thus, the state can spend $244 million on a project like the Charlottesville Bypass without the faintest clue as to its economic return on investment. (By my calculations, which no one has disputed, the Bypass likely will generate an ROI less than the state’s tax-subsidized cost of capital, which represents a net destruction of wealth.) Rail companies, by contrast, have rigorous investment guidelines. Typically, large private corporations won’t invest in a project unless it provides a ROI of 15% to 20% — or even higher, if the projects are risky.

Investment in transportation infrastructure is necessary for any state, region or locality that wants to grow and prosper. But that doesn’t mean that every transportation investment is economically justified. Here in Virginia, like most everywhere else in the U.S., we are flying blind. We are throwing around billions of dollars with no idea whether we are creating economic value or destroying it. We cannot hope to survive the fiscal hard times to come if we do not mend our  ways.

— JAB


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

26 responses to “Compare and Contrast: Freight Rail with Roads and Highways”

  1. where did the rail companies get their right of way from?

  2. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Yes rail is doing fine, but attributing this to the Staggers Act deregulating rail waaayyy back 30 plus years ago is a rather silly attempt at being political (right wing) correct.

    That happened a long time ago. And in between all this wonderfulness, there were some screw ups. Two were big time mergers such as Burlington Northern and Sante Fe. An even bigger one, 12 years ago, was the takeover of Contrail by Norfolk SOuthern and CSX. Conrail, created by the government after the failure of Penn Central, actually turned into a pretty good railroad. The takeover was a total mess with trains lost for days on end or being in Texas when they should have been in Ohio.

    Just to trumpet ancient dereg is a bit much. There’s a lot more going on here.

    1. No question, private corporations screw up just like government. They just tend to react more vigorously to fix their screw-ups and hold people accountable. The railroad renaissance never would have happened without deregulation.

  3. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Jim,
    Also, the Staggers Act deregulating rail and the airline dereg of 1978 happened during the (guess what) Carter Administration!

    1. Yes, there were the biggest accomplishments of his administration!

      1. reed fawell III Avatar
        reed fawell III

        It was to Carter’s credit. Railroads like Pennsy were going bankrupt all over the country under the ICC rules until Carter Admin. deregulation.

  4. If the govt gave a toll road company the right-of-way free… would the toll road company do as good as the railroads have?

  5. Larry, that more or less happened with the Beltway Express Lanes (HOT Lanes). Most of the RoW necessary to construct the toll lanes was already owned by VDOT and was used by Fluor-Lane to build the facilities.

  6. @TMT – indeed it did – for adjacent lanes.

    what if the beltway and/or interstate rights-of-ways were given to private toll companies to build toll roads ?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_grant#United_States

    my position is that rail has benefited mightily from being given rights-of-way outright and/or the ability to use ED to get them and that if we had done roads the same way would we now have an equivalent situation with roads that we have with rails?

    where have I got this wrong?

  7. errata: what if the ORIGINAL rights-of-way were obtained by the govt and given free to the toll road companies to build and operate toll roads?

    would they have ended up as well off as the rails have?

  8. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    “They just tend to react more vigorously to fix their screw-ups and hold people accountable.’

    Don’t get me started on the number of private corporations that have not done this!

    1. Don’t get me started on the number of governments — almost zero — that have.

  9. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Jim,
    You overlook state and federal government help for rail upgrades. To paint rail as a free market champion on its own is silly.

  10. You are correct. The railroads have coaxed subsidies from the states, including Virginia. That’s why I said, “Freight railroads are built overwhelmingly with private funds and investments,” adding the modifier “overwhelmingly” to make it clear that railroads didn’t fund their upgrades “exclusively” with private funds.

  11. it was not “overwhelmingly”… it was with major giveaways. If we had given away that much right-of-way to toll road companies… I would suspect we’d actually have a road world similar to the rail world where ROI actually would actually be involved.

    look up “land grants” and “railroads” and you’ll see that the rail network was overwhelmingly a GIFT of the American taxpayer – unprecedented.

    today…guess what … we call that… crony capitalism and rent seeking.

    What I stand for here is to keep the record straight – to stamp out revisionist history and to advocate apple-to-apple comparisons.

    Modern-day freight rail had one hell of a subsidy that now days if it were done – especially by Obama – all heck would break lose about Obama’s Cronies…. and the like… and the irony is that one of Amtraks major costs is paying for use of private rail, eh?

    1. The land grants are ancient history, dating back to the 1800s. Government regulation nearly ran the railroad industry into the ground after WW II. The situation was so bad that there was talk of nationalizing the industry. Since deregulation, most of the economic pathologies have disappeared.

  12. http://www.landandfreedom.org/ushistory/us13.htm

    there are a number of other articles on the subject.

    so how about this? VDOT offers a “free” right-of-way to any toll road operator for a given new road…..

    what would be wrong with that?

  13. free rights-of-way? did you read the article? it was a huge, massive give away and railroads obviously have benefited hugely from it over the years both their rail and their real estate holdings.

    what if we offered a free right of way to a toll road company along with the land adjacent to the corridor so they could develop it?

    the idea that “regulations” almost killed the rail industry is a real laugher Jim.

    look at them… the right-of-way they were given is still around and so are they… and if we did had done roads like that – would there be private sector toll road companies doing quite well the same way the rail is?

    you discount that right-of-way and real estate… and that is key to their success in my view.

    saying it is “old history” ignores the simple facts that crony capitalism and rent seeking started with the rail industry and they have benefited enormously from it.

  14. Larry said, “The idea that “regulations” almost killed the rail industry is a real laugher Jim.”

    It must be nice having your own alternate reality in Larry World.

  15. Jim – did you back up your own assertion about the regs killing rails?

    and don’t the facts on the ground today contradict that assertion ?

    are you saying that first they got the windfall, then bad regs that almost killed them then the regs went away and now we are where we are?

    are you talking about teapot dome guy?

    all I am saying here is that rail has benefited mightily from govt giveaways – and indeed to this day – they still benefit from those give-aways and that has contributed to their success.

    can you show how that is not true? there is no “LarryWorld” here unless you want to re-write history and claim a different reality that what it appears to be but for some reason those who say they believe in the “free market” must have their deeply-held beliefs – no matter what the facts on the ground are.

    1. Sorry, Larry, I don’t have time to argue with you about the disastrous condition of the rail industry in the 1970s, how much of the industry was going broke — remember Penn Central? — and the widespread recognition that regulation was to blame. If you don’t believe me, Google it.

      The one semi-substantive point you’ve raised is that railroads continue to receive government subsidies and that those subsidies explain much of their current prosperity. Yes, rail lines do receive subsidies — but mainly in order to accomplish public policy objectives of the state and federal governments. For instance, Virginia has subsidized improvements between Norfolk and the Midwest so Norfolk Southern can run two-stacked rail cars, thus improving the competitiveness of the ports of Virginia.

      NS might not have made those improvements without the subsidies — the project wouldn’t have met its ROI hurdle. Big whoop. It would have shipped containers from Baltimore or Philadelphia instead.

  16. Eisenhower wanted the interstate highway system to be tolled. He was told that this would not work in the rural sections and that would doom the prospects of a system that connected the country as a whole.

    here’s the question from Larry’s alternative world.

    what if Eisenhower had put out the whole system for a PPTA bid and part of the deal was that the govt would acquire the right-of-way ?

    so one or two companies or a consortium (like the rail companies) would then take over the job of designing and operating a system where some parts of it would, in effect, subsidize other parts of it but as long as the entire system ran as a company rather than as a govt operation…

    …. would you now have a road equivalent of our rail network?

    and perhaps… beltways that were automatically tolled and congestion and land development/sprawl played out differently and more on an ROI basis?

    why would you say such a thing is an “alternative reality” Jim Bacon when much of what you blather about with regard to health care and ROI for roads is no better just stuff you make up for which there are scanty real-world analogs?

    I’ve picked something that could have been and in fact, is now playing out that way in a back-fit manner but I also point out that had it started out like rail – that perhaps things would have progressed more along the lines of what you advocate for anyhow.

    the other real-world analog that I would suggest is rural electrification where the electric companies were given the rights-of-ways – in exchange for building the grid….

    we did this for rail and for electric. why not road?

    alternate reality my keister!

  17. Jim – you’re using revisionist history (once again). Did ALL rail suffer from regulation and did it lead to the demise of ALL rail?

    Obviously not guy. you make these wild assertions without any real evidence !!!

    My position is that rails had a huge advantage from the very begninning and like you point out in your “cities” post, it has carried forward with the rails.

    If rails had started from square one would they now be as well off as they are?

    If we had given the same deal to companies that did tollroads would those companies now be as well off as rail?

    my view is that they would and that rail is not the “free market” success story that it is claimed to be.

    you mentioned public policy almost in the same breath that you rail against crony capitalism and rent seeking which makes me wonder where you do draw that line sometimes.

    that’s a fair criticism, no?

    1. Simple question: Which infrastructure sector is more heavily controlled/regulated/subsidized by government — roads/highways or freight rail?

      There is only one answer. We can quibble over the degrees to which one may differ from the other but in the end, there is only one answer. And in the context of my post, that’s what matters.

  18. Jim – still not understanding how “regulated” offsets free right of way just as an unsubstantiated assertion.

    not saying it is not true but you are ignoring the free right-of-way as a key issue in their success I believe.

    and if you want to actually compare apples to apples, don’t compare privately operated rail with govt-provided r/w with govt built roads. How about comparing to private toll roads?

  19. reading up on rail. Rail was “nationalized” in WWI because it was felt that it was not operating as well as it needed as a assembly of disparate companies with different corporate cultures and management.

    Afterwards – it was felt they needed to be regulated because – and this is important – the way they operated before the war and the justification for nationalizing them – was that they were not really operating in the public interest “enough”.

    It’s obviously an arguable point but one thing that amuses me is the current dialog from the right about “regulation” which back in those days makes today pale in comparison.

    but the most relevant aspect of the issue that is almost always overlooked these days by the anti-govt types is what is meant by operating in the public interest.

    why should a corporation be held to that standard?

    In the case of rail – it was very simple. They were essentially given their right of ways and the govt used eminent domain in the east (without compensation) or just plain took the land from the native Americans as a strategic endeavor to link the country for commerce – which was done in the interests of everyone; it was felt that commerce was fundamental to the betterment of the country and it’s people.

    THAT WAS the public interest that JUSTIFIED giving the rail the rights-of-ways.

    the regulation did not suddenly appear without any reason.

    the VERY SAME justification was used to establish and build the Interstate Highway System and today the irony is that the anti-govt voices on the right refer to rail and the interstate highway system as “ancient history” as if that right-of-way (and actually a LOT of adjacent real-estate in the case of rail) – no longer matters in the modern world.

    In a subsequent thread entitled: ” Why Cities Succeed and Fail” – that very same argument is used:

    Cities that start out on top tend to stay on top.

    Accessible, well-connected cities exhibit higher growth rates.

    Good and bad policies do matter.

    sometimes in BR, we end up with painful convoluted revisionist history – to “fit” the current narrative against govt involvement in the private sector.

    and that was true in this thread about rail.

    While it’s true without question that freight rail is a well run operation these days – and profitable – ignoring the fact that they started out by being given hundreds of millions of acres of land not only for right-of-way but for real-estate they can sell to finance the building of rail – that they would own – is ignoring a key aspect of rail IMHO of course.

    And comparing rail to roads as a parable comparing govt to private sector is just plain wrong-headed.

    None other than Eisenhower himself wanted the IRS to be completely funded from tolls – but was talked out of it.

    So I do ask the question – what if a private sector company (or consortium of companies) HAD been given the IHS right of way – to then build and operate it – the same way that rail was benefited. Would we now also have profitable private-sector “road” companies to COMPARE to rail RATHER than the questionable narrative that private sector rail is “better” than govt “roads”?

    so yes.. I do question the premise because in part it’s part of an overall narrative that the private sector is “better” than govt and that the private sector got there by the dint of hard work and “earned” success.

    You probably could pick no worse example than RAIL IMHO.

    A big deal has been made about Solyndra and other govt-led forays into new technologies, often accompanied by whacks that govt should not be picking winners and losers much less squandering taxpayer money on things automatically uneconomic (or else the private sector would be doing them via the “free market”).

    That’s not what happened with Rail. Rail was one of the original Solyndras in fact.

    and if one thinks that Solyndra or govt road building or even METRO is a scandal…. they are all pikers compared to this one:

    Crédit Mobilier of America scandal

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%A9dit_Mobilier_of_America_scandal

    It starts off this way:

    ” The federal government in 1864–1868 had authorized and chartered the “Union Pacific Railroad,” with $100,000,000 capital, to complete a transcontinental line west from the Missouri River to the Pacific Coast. It offered to assist it by a loan of $16,000 to $48,000 per mile, according to location, for a total of more than $60,000,000 in all, and a land grant of 20,000,000 acres, worth $50,000,000 to $100,000,000. The offer initially attracted no subscribers for financing, as the conditions were daunting. The railroad would have to be built for 1,750 miles through desert and mountain, which would mean extremely high freight costs for supplies. In addition there was the likely risk of armed conflict with hostile tribes of Indians, who occupied many territories in the interior, and no probable early business to pay dividends.[1]”

    I think I’ll stop here but there is much more to the story – which now days is completely forgotten in the fervor from the right to talk about just how corrupt and wasteful the govt has become and to hold up, of all things, RAIL as the paragon of private sector success over feckless govt incompetence and malfeasance.

    GRUMP!

Leave a Reply