Environment, Energy and Transportation Program

State Rail Transportation Issues and Policies

June 1999

Transportation Series No. 11

By James B. Reed, Matt Sundeen and Chris Burnett

32-page document

Summary
Introduction
TEA-21
Rail Safety
Passenger Travel by Rail
Freight Rail Transportation Issues
Table 1 - State Rail Freight Policies and Programs
Conclusion

Appendices
Appendix A: State Rail Trespass and Vandalism Laws
Appendix B: State Passenger Rail Case Studies
Appendix C: State Rail Freight Transportation Case Studies
Appendix D: State Agency Rail Comparison
Notes

Summary

New momentum for passenger rail service, coupled with continuing consolidation of freight operations, has caused state lawmakers to increasingly focus on the effects of rail transportation in their states. A renaissance of sorts is under way for passenger rail service in the United States, and the railroad industry continues to consolidate and streamline freight operations that account for 13 percent of goods shipped by weight. State legislators have a vital interest in ensuring good service for both passenger and rail freight transportation.

Several states have made substantial commitments to rail passenger service through Amtrak and locally operated train service. High-speed passenger rail service is a particular focus of many states, including California, Nevada, and states in the Midwest, Northwest and Northeast. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) creates new avenues of federal funding for states to use in implementing high-speed rail service as a travel alternative. A key issue to be addressed is passenger train access to rail lines that are owned by railroad companies.

As highway congestion mounts and trucks get stuck in traffic, sending more freight by rail becomes increasingly attractive. The rail industry already transports the lion's share of bulk products like grain, oil and coal. States are using rail access as a way to entice new businesses and to better move the products of existing industry to markets. To preserve and enhance rail service in their states, legislatures have authorized state agencies to own and operate rail facilities, have established rail districts to facilitate service, give assistance to short line railroads, and operate rail banking programs. In the South and West, however, operational problems with the Union Pacific-Southern Pacific merger caused severe delay and lack of service for many industries. Other pending mergers potentially could create similar service problems though the railroads involved are endeavoring to avoid such problems. The result has been a reexamination of state policies to determine how state government can address similar problems in the future and create a coherent approach to rail activities in general.

At the same time, vexing safety issues face regulators at all levels of government. Fatalities at highway-rail grade crossings are still unacceptably high at nearly 500 each year and there are simply too many such crossings. Efforts to reduce the number of crossings (159,000 public and 100,000 private) are being pursued by state, federal and local authorities. In addition, hundreds of railroad trespassers are killed every year by trains. Moreover, safety often conflicts with quality of life concerns in communities where residential areas adjacent to grade crossings are subject to loud train whistles. Night whistle bans have been implemented in some areas, but the impact on railroad crossing safety is negative.

Introduction

Americans have had a long love affair with the iron horse. Because of its importance to the American economy, states and the federal government have attempted to promote rail usage and guide its development since the early 19th century. The federal government, however, up until the last few decades has been the dominant partner, with states becoming involved only when crises affected local rail interests. Today, that picture has changed as state legislators across the country are taking an active role in addressing rail problems and potential solutions in the context of solving larger transportation dilemmas.

This report places passenger, freight and rail safety issues into the state legislative context as an aid to state policymakers who are seeking to devise solutions for the problems facing their states and communities. The paper profiles existing state polices on rail safety and on passenger and freight rail transportation. Federal policy is examined as appropriate. Amtrak operations are profiled, and several innovative state initiatives are discussed. Case studies of several state rail programs for both passenger and freight are included in the appendix. The paper opens with a discussion of new rail programs and financing enacted as part of TEA-21. The focus in this report is on rail operations between cities, rather than rail or transit service within a city or metropolitan area.

Rail policy and its implementation are complex and carried out at all levels of government. Thus, a report of this nature cannot address every rail policy issue. However, the authors have endeavored to cover key topics to assist state legislatures in formulating and amending their rail policies and to inform them of national policies to which they may need to respond.

TEA-21

Surface transportation funding in the United States received a major boost in 1998 as Congress passed the massive Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Among other provisions, the act provided states with funding and opportunities for five major rail issues: magnetic levitation (MAGLEV) transportation technology deployment, high-speed rail development, light density rail line pilot projects, railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing, and the Alaska Railroad.

MAGLEV. TEA-21 granted contract authority totaling $60 million to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) for fiscal years 1999-2001 to fund nationally significant state projects that will demonstrate the feasibility and safety of MAGLEV technology. Of this amount, $15 million will be used to research the use of MAGLEV technology for public transportation in urban areas. The act authorized another $950 million in budget authority that first must be appropriated by Congress.

States interested in federal funding for MAGLEV projects under TEA-21 may submit proposals to the U.S. Department of Transportation. The DOT will select one or more eligible projects to receive assistance for preconstruction planning activities. After all states have completed planning activities, the DOT will provide assistance to one project for final design, engineering and construction.

High Speed Rail. TEA-21 reauthorized federal funding under the Swift Rail Development Act for state high-speed rail expansion. Under this law, the DOT may provide financial assistance to a public agency or group of public agencies for high-speed rail corridor planning and high-speed rail technology improvements.

For corridor planning, the DOT can provide up to 50 percent of the publicly financed costs. At least 20 percent of the costs must come from state and local sources. A variety of corridor planning activities are eligible to receive funding, including environmental assessments, feasibility studies, economic analysis, impact assessments, rail employment assessments, operational planning, route selection analysis and purchase of rights of way for high-speed service, preliminary engineering and design, identification of specific corridor improvements, preparation of financing plans and creation of public and private partnerships.

Funding for high-speed rail technology is available for the improvement, adaptation and integration of proven technologies for commercial application in high-speed rail service. Eligible recipients include private business; educational institutions; state, local or public authorities; and agencies of the federal government.

Congress reauthorized a total of $40 million for fiscal years 1998-2001 for corridor planning and $100 million for technology improvements. These authorizations come from the general fund, and appropriations will be necessary to fund eligible programs.

Light Density Rail Line Project. This TEA-21 provision creates a new program to fund state light density rail line pilot projects. The U.S. DOT may make grants to states under this section only for pilot projects for capital improvements and rehabilitation of publicly and privately owned rail line structures; funding may not be used to provide operating assistance. Congress authorized a total of $105 million for the program for fiscal years 1998-2003.

The U.S. DOT is required to study the pilot projects that are carried out with grant assistance to determine the public interest benefits associated with the light density rail networks in the states and their contribution to a multimodal transportation system. The secretary of transportation is to submit a report to Congress by March 31, 2003, to report the findings of the study and any recommendations.

Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing. TEA-21 created a new Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program to provide credit assistance-in the form of direct loans and loan guarantees-to states and other public or private sponsors of intermodal and rail projects. Eligible programs include acquisition, development, improvement, or rehabilitation of intermodal or rail equipment or facilities, including track, bridges, yards, buildings and shops. Priority projects will enhance public safety, enhance the environment, promote economic development, make U.S. companies more competitive, or preserve or enhance rail or intermodal service to rural areas.

TEA-21 does not provide budget authority, but authorizes future appropriations and contributions from potential borrowers and other non-federal sources to fund the credit assistance. The total amount of loans and guarantees that can be made under this program is $3.5 billion, with $1 billion available only for projects that primarily benefit freight railroads other than Class 1 carriers (those railroads with revenues of over $300 million).

Alaska Railroad. TEA-21 authorized the U.S. DOT to make grants to the Alaska Railroad for capital rehabilitation and improvements to its passenger service. Congress authorized a total of $31.5 million for the fiscal years 1998-2003 for these purposes. An additional $29.1 million is available in transit formula grant funding for the Alaska Railroad's passenger operations.

Rail Safety

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has primary responsibility for railroad safety. Through the Federal Rail Safety Act of 1971, FRA employs more than 400 inspectors to monitor the safety of trains, track and railroad equipment. A state-federal partnership allows state inspectors to be trained in FRA procedures, thereby enhancing rail safety inspections. FRA announced new safety standards for rail passenger equipment in May 1999 to enhance the crashworthiness, fire safety and emergency escape features of passenger trains. This section focuses on state and federal efforts on the issues of railroad crossing safety, trespass and vandalism, and locomotive whistle bans.

Rail Crossings. Although rail is one of the safest modes of transportation, accidents at highway-railroad grade crossings remain a problem, as the March 1999 collision of a truck with an Amtrak train in Bourbonnais, Illinois, illustrates. About half of all rail-related fatalities are the result of collisions between trains and vehicles at grade crossings. A highway-railroad crossing is defined as a location where railroad tracks intersect a public or private thoroughfare, sidewalk or pathway. Almost every 115 minutes, someone in America is hit by a train at one of 160,000 such public intersections. More than half the crashes at public railroad crossings occur where warning devices such as lights, bells and gates exist. Motorists and pedestrians fail to realize that it usually takes a train more than a mile to come to a full stop. A motorist is 40 times more likely to die in a crash involving a train as in one involving another motor vehicle. In 1997, 3,865 collisions at rail crossings resulted in 461 fatalities.1 In 1998, 426 people died in 3,493 such collisions. Although the number of public railroad crossings has decreased since 1975, crossings still pose a major safety challenge because of growing rail traffic and higher speed passenger and freight rail operations.

The federal government, state governments and the railroad industry have cooperated to improve railroad crossing safety through the Rail-Highway Crossing Program initiated in 1974. This program provides federal funds for state efforts to reduce the incidence of collisions, injuries and fatalities at public railroad crossings. The U.S. Department of Transportation, in conjunction with a number of other interested parties, released a Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan in 1994. This plan aims to reduce railroad crossing collisions and fatalities by 50 percent by 2004 and seeks to eliminate half of the 4,500 highway-rail crossings on the National Highway System. To achieve these goals, the plan identified 55 initiatives in the following categories: increased enforcement of traffic laws at crossings, rail corridor crossing safety improvement reviews, increased public education through Operation Lifesaver, safety at private railroad crossings, data and research, and trespass prevention.2 The plan also recommends that the federal government provide states with financial and technical assistance to remove unnecessary crossings and to mount public education campaigns. Since 1991, 33,000 grade crossings have been closed.

Cost of Grade Crossing Safety

The cost of railroad crossing safety improvements varies substantially, depending on the nature of the work undertaken. The total cost of gates with automatic flashing lights for one crossing on a two-lane road is approximately $150,000. Additional costs for roadway improvements could typically range from $2,000 to $25,000 depending on the road type and location. Construction of grade separation structures is costly. Total cost for reconstruction of an underpass can range from $400,000 for pavement lowering to $3 million for complete reconstruction. Construction of a new underpass could cost as much as $5 million. Bridges carrying roadways over railroads can cost from $400,000 for a rural structure to $40 million for a multi-lane, multi-track urban structure.

Source: Illinois Commerce Commission, Crossing Safety Improvement Program, FY 2000-2004, April 1999.

In fiscal year 1999, the U.S. Department of Transportation provided $154.8 million to states to be used exclusively for highway-rail crossing improvements or elimination. An additional $314.8 million of funding for hazard elimination also may be used to eliminate or improve grade crossings. States provide additional funds for such improvements. For example, Illinois spends $18 million per year from state motor fuel taxes to pay for grade crossing improvement activities.

State Efforts. On October 25, 1995, a school bus and a train were involved in a collision at a highway-railroad grade crossing in Fox River Grove, Illinois. Seven teenagers were killed. This incident focused national attention on the issue of highway-railroad grade crossing safety. A national Railroad Grade Crossing Safety Task Force made recommendations-aimed at bettering standards, coordination and communication-to help prevent similar collisions from occurring in the future.

U.S. Department of Transportation Proposes New Highway Crossing Rules

The U.S. Department of Transportation recently proposed two new rules to ensure extreme caution by commercial vehicle operators at highway-rail crossings. Under the new measures, truck or bus drivers who are convicted of violating laws or regulations concerning highway-rail crossings would be disqualified from driving for 60 days for a first offense and for 120 days for a second offense. Commercial drivers also would be prohibited from driving onto a rail crossing unless there is sufficient space to drive through the crossing without stopping.

The federal proposals followed a tragic collision between an Amtrak passenger train and a semi-trailer truck at a highway-rail crossing in Illinois. The driver of the truck that collided with Amtrak's City of New Orleans train in March had racked up numerous driving-related convictions and accidents and was using a probationary license at the time of the crash. The collision killed 11 passengers and injured more than 100 people. Several witnesses claimed that the truck driver had been attempting to zigzag his vehicle-which was loaded with steel-around the crossing gates at the time of the crash. These reports, however, have not yet been confirmed.

One response by the Illinois legislature was passage of Senate Bill 1154 in 1996. The legislature instructed the Regional Transportation Authority to cooperate with the Illinois Commerce Commission and local law enforcement agencies in establishing a two-year pilot program in DuPage County to determine the effectiveness of an automated railroad crossing enforcement system. (An automated railroad crossing enforcement system is defined as a system operated by a law enforcement agency that records a driver's response to automatic, electrical or mechanical signal devices and crossing gates. It is designed to obtain a clear photograph or other recorded image of the vehicle, vehicle operator and the vehicle registration plate.) Within DuPage County, the three railroad crossings that pose the greatest threat to human life, based upon the number of collisions and fatalities at the crossings during the past five years, have been equipped with automated railroad crossing systems. At the end of two years, the Illinois Commerce Commission was to issue a report detailing the effectiveness of these systems. However, the automated systems are only now being set up because of difficulty finding qualified vendors.

The North Carolina DOT has undertaken an $8.5 million project to create "sealed corridors" that virtually close crossings to vehicles. With $6.38 million from U.S. DOT, the system combines quadrant gates, median barriers and video cameras to monitor violations. At one crossing, violations are down 98 percent. San Antonio, Texas, has a new system that warns emergency vehicles ahead of time about blocked rail crossings so they can take an alternate route.

In 1997 and 1998, several state legislatures took steps to improve highway-rail crossing safety. Hawaii and Idaho set stricter standards for where and when vehicles should stop at rail crossings. The Illinois legislature required the Illinois Commerce Commission to develop annual and five-year project plans for rail crossing capital improvements. Senate Bill 260 allows the Oklahoma Department of Transportation to spend up to 20 percent of the funds available in the Railroad Maintenance Revolving Fund for the installation of signal lights, crossing arms or other warning devices at locations approved by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. In 1999, Mississippi enacted legislation to require a party requesting a new grade crossing to pay for installation of appropriate warning devices before the crossing is opened to the public.

New Jersey increased the penalties for stealing or damaging railroad crossing signs or equipment. Tennessee set up a special joint committee to study highway-railroad crossings, including the issues of opening or closing crossings, state authority, public safety and economic considerations. Vermont required all school buses to stop at railroad crossings, even if no children are aboard. Wisconsin established penalties, including driver's license revocation, for reckless driving at railroad crossings.

Louisiana passed numerous bills in 1998 to increase highway-rail grade crossing safety. The Legislature authorized its Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) to require closure of certain railroad grade crossings and to close or move others on any state maintained highway when it is necessary for public safety. DOTD is further authorized to require railroad companies to repair warning devices within 30 days or pay the state for such repairs. Stop signs are to be erected at certain rail crossings, and penalties for failure to obey warning devices were increased. In addition, implied consent for alcohol testing was established for locomotive engine operators who are involved in rail crossing collisions. Driver improvement and education programs now are required to include highway-rail grade safety crossing information. The legislature also prohibited the blocking of a road by a train for an extended period of time. Finally, the distance required for locomotive horns to be sounded at rail crossings was increased.

The ideal approach to reducing train-vehicle collisions is to eliminate ground-level crossings by a grade separation (bridge) or by consolidating and closing crossings. However, questions of administrative and financial responsibility between federal, state and local governments and the railroad and highway-related industries pose formidable barriers to such reductions. The high cost of grade separations is a key impediment. Grade crossing safety improvement depends on the ongoing cooperative efforts among agencies and industries.

States and Railroads Clash Over Blocked Roads

Safety concerns and rising public frustration over trains blocking roads and intersections for long periods of time have led several state legislatures to enact laws restricting the time trains may obstruct rail grade crossings. Laws have been enacted in Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina and West Virginia. A bill to impose fines on railroads whose trains fail to clear a crossing within 10 minutes has passed the Illinois Senate this year.

The Michigan attorney general has sought to intervene in a suit testing Michigan's strict time limits on trains blocking roads. CSX Transportation sued Plymouth, Michigan, last August alleging that the city, by enforcing the state railroad crossing law, was interfering with the company's federal right to unimpeded commerce. Plymouth police issued some 2,000 tickets to CSX engineers for blocking the city's nine crossings during the last four years. CSX wants the federal court to force Plymouth to use the more lenient federal guidelines for the length of time a passing train can block a crossing, rather than the stringent state rules. Federal guidelines do not set a time limit. The trial is scheduled to begin in October 1999.

Sources: Craig Garrett, "State Asks to Join Train Suit," The Detroit News, April 1, 1999; NCSL statute search.

Train Whistle Bans. Locomotive horn sounding, although an important safety measure, is under fire in many communities and has been banned in some areas, particularly at night. The Massachusetts legislature banned the sounding of whistles at certain railroad crossings in the city of Cambridge in March 1998. In 1984, the Florida Legislature allowed whistle bans under certain conditions for intrastate railroads. In response, 20 communities in Florida banned the sounding of train whistles at certain times. A 1998 New Jersey bill permits the commissioner of transportation to exempt railroad companies from sounding a train whistle at grade crossings where the Federal Railroad Administration has approved supplementary safety measures.

The Oregon Public Utilities Commission rescinded whistle bans in two cities after a 200 percent increase in accident rates. Since 1975, 30 new municipal whistle bans have been enacted, while 72 have been repealed.3 The Federal Railroad Administration is slated to establish a more definitive rule on locomotive horns late in 1999 after a study is completed. In April 1995, a preliminary study showed a marked decrease of 38 percent in grade crossing collision rates after whistle bans were repealed.

Trespass and Vandalism. On average, the highest number of rail fatalities each year occur among trespassers on railroad property who are not at highway-rail crossings. Since 1988, railroad related trespass deaths have averaged more than 500 per year nationwide. From 1993 to 1998, 2,665 trespassers were killed in railroad incidents and 2,554 were injured. Combined, trespasser deaths and highway-rail crossing deaths account for more than 95 percent of all fatalities reported by the railroads each year.

Although highway-rail crossing deaths have gradually decreased over time, trespasser fatalities have gradually increased. In 1997, trespasser deaths exceeded highway-rail crossing deaths for the first time since the Federal Rail Administration has collected data. In 1998, trespasser fatalities numbered 520 people, compared with 426 killed at rail-highway crossings.

In addition to harming themselves, trespassers on railroad property also can endanger railroad employees and rail passengers. Often, trespassers vandalize equipment or tracks. Trains that attempt quick stops to avoid a trespasser can also derail, causing injuries to passengers and crew and spilling potentially hazardous cargo.

States take a variety of approaches to the problem of trespass and vandalism on railroad property. (No federal trespass law exists.) All states generally prohibit trespass and the defacement and destruction of private property. Many states, however, do not expressly forbid trespassing on railroad property or vandalism of railroad equipment and facilities. A 1998 survey conducted by the Federal Rail Administration indicated that only 30 states have statutes that specifically prohibit trespass on railroad property. Forty-one states have statutes that proscribe vandalism of rail property and facilities. (Appendix A details state laws regarding trespass and vandalism on rail property.)

Among the states that have specific rail trespass and vandalism provisions, penalties and enforcement mechanisms vary in severity. Most states treat mere trespass on rail property as a relatively innocuous crime. For example, Georgia makes criminal trespass on railroad property a misdemeanor. Under the law, it is illegal for any person to intrude unlawfully upon the tracks of a railroad without consent. A person also is guilty of criminal trespass when he or she knowingly and without authority: 1) enters upon the land or premises of a railroad or into a railroad car, 2) enters a railroad car after being notified by the owner that such entry is forbidden, or 3) remains upon railroad land after being told to leave.

In Maine, a person guilty of trespass on rail property can be fined not less than $5 or more than $20. Trespass occurs when a person, without rights, stands or walks on a railroad track or bridge, or passes over such a bridge. Other states impose stiffer penalties for trespass on rail property. For example, Rhode Island allows fines up to $1,000 for trespass on rail property, imprisonment for up to a year, or both.

States that specifically prohibit vandalism on railroad property often impose harsher penalties for the crime than they do for mere trespass. Although sanctions vary according to the criminal act, vandalism that causes severe damage to rail property or vandalism that could potentially injure people often is classified as a felony. In North Dakota, for example, anyone who tampers with, alters, or damages railroad property, or exhibits any false lights or signals is guilty of a Class C felony.

In Pennsylvania, a person is guilty of felony criminal mischief if he or she intentionally causes pecuniary loss in excess of $5,000, or substantially interrupts public transportation. If the loss is in excess of $1,000 dollars, the offense is charged as a second degree misdemeanor. If the loss is in excess of $500, the offense is charged as a third degree misdemeanor. Otherwise criminal mischief is a summary offense.

Vandalism to rail property in Wyoming is punishable by imprisonment of up to 20 years. If such vandalism results in the death of any person, the offender can be found guilty of first or second degree murder or manslaughter, depending on the nature of the offense. In Illinois and Idaho, persons who vandalize rail property and whose actions result in a death may be tried and punished for murder.

In 1994, Congress passed the Railroad Safety Authorization Act. This statute recognized the differences among state trespass and vandalism provisions for railroad property and required the U.S. Department of Transportation, in consultation with states and local governments, to develop model legislation. The resulting model acts-the "Railroad Trespass Prevention Act" and the "Railroad Vandalism Prevention Act"-were intended to help states define the offenses of trespass and vandalism on railroad property and devise more consistent penalties. Both acts also were intended to incorporate provisions relevant in urban and rural areas.

Since the federal model trespass and vandalism acts were completed in 1997, no states have fully implemented the provisions.4 In February 1999 the West Virginia House of Representatives passed the federal model legislation, but it did not emerge from the West Virginia Senate.

Passenger Travel by Rail

Railroads are an important cog for passenger travel in the national transportation system. Each year, millions of people travel billions of miles on America's railroads. In 1997 alone, passengers traveled more than 20 billion miles on heavy rail, commuter trains and light rail systems.

Since 1970, much of the responsibility for passenger rail service in the United States has rested with the federal government and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, better known as Amtrak. Recently, however, states have assumed a larger role in the planning and funding for passenger rail systems. This section details the roles of both Amtrak and state governments, and examines emerging developments in MAGLEV technology and high-speed rail that will shape future passenger rail service. Appendix B contains case studies of passenger rail developments in California, North Carolina and the Pacific Northwest.

Amtrak. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, or Amtrak, is a public corporation that was created by the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 to operate and revitalize intercity passenger rail service. The fundamental goal of Amtrak has been to provide an economically viable national rail system. Since its inception, Amtrak has consistently struggled to meet this goal.

Amtrak currently provides passenger rail service to 44 states and the District of Columbia. In 1997 Amtrak served approximately 20 million intercity passengers on 40 different routes. Additionally, Amtrak was contracted to operate seven commuter rail systems that serviced more than 49 million rail commuters in 1997. According to Amtrak, an average of 179,000 passenger trips are made each weekday on the 708 commuter trains it operates. This service is especially crucial in the Northeast corridor, where an estimated 100 million commuters use Amtrak or private rail lines each year.

Despite its impressive passenger statistics, Amtrak continues to struggle financially and consistently relies on federal and state funding to remain in operation. Since 1971, Amtrak has received more than $20 billion in federal subsidies to cover operating losses and to make capital improvements. These subsidies, however, have not even covered Amtrak's operating deficits. At the end of fiscal year (FY) 1996, Amtrak's operating deficit-total revenues minus total expenses less non-cash items-began to grow. Moreover, Amtrak experienced a working capital deficit between assets and liabilities and significantly increased its debt. In FY 1997, Amtrak's net loss was $762 million. After federal subsidies, the overall loss was still $70 million.

A December 1998 report by the U.S. DOT's inspector general found that Amtrak incurred an operating loss of $823 million in fiscal year 1998. The report projected a deficit of between $368 million and $535 million in the year 2003.

To compensate for its deteriorating financial condition, Amtrak has been forced to borrow from private banks. As of September 30, 1997, Amtrak had borrowed $75 million to meet payroll and other operating expense. This debt has compounded Amtrak's financial difficulties.

Analysts have traced Amtrak's financial woes to a variety of causes.5 Many argue that Amtrak's basic goal of a self-sufficient national rail network is fundamentally flawed because such a network cannot adjust rapidly to changing and diverse customer requirements throughout the country. Rail needs vary tremendously in different regions of the country. For example, Amtrak services a much different market with its "Sunset Limited" train from Orlando, Florida, to Los Angeles than it does with its commuter trains in the Northeast Corridor from Boston to Washington, D.C. Although Amtrak has recognized different market demands by dividing into three separate business units, many route and schedule changes have occurred slowly. Amtrak's inability to meet market demands has resulted in lost riders because people have easily found a variety of travel alternatives.

Others point to Amtrak's susceptibility to political influences in Washington, the lack of dedicated funding sources, labor difficulties, and the absence of built-in lobbies as the chief causes of Amtrak's struggles. Additional impediments include route structure and Amtrak's inability to attract customers. These problems have made it difficult for Amtrak to upgrade track equipment, meet payroll expenses, improve customer service and remain financially viable.

Whatever the reasons, Amtrak's deteriorating financial condition has intensified efforts by Congress to either reform the organization or do away with the National Passenger Railroad Corporation altogether. In 1995, Congress ordered Amtrak to balance its operating budget. This directive prompted Amtrak to significantly reduce train frequencies and eliminate parts of several routes for the first time since 1981.

In the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, Congress triggered additional cuts when it ordered Amtrak to balance its operating budget by the year 2002. According to the federal law, Congress will not subsidize Amtrak's operating costs after the year 2002.

The act also directed Amtrak to replace its existing board of directors with one that would implement more reform-minded measures. More significantly, Congress established the Amtrak Reform Council (ARC) to monitor Amtrak's progress towards self-sufficiency. Congress directed the 11-member ARC to assess the financial viability of the nation's passenger rail system. If, by the end of FY 2000, the ARC determines that Amtrak cannot meet the goal of self-sufficiency, the ARC must submit a plan to Congress for a restructured and rationalized national intercity rail passenger system and also is to submit a plan for the complete liquidation of Amtrak.

By establishing the ARC, Congress created what the Amtrak board chairman, Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, described as the "Amtrak guillotine."6 The ARC itself, however, has been mired in controversy from the outset. The 11 members include the secretary of transportation and 10 political appointees. The majority party in the House and Senate can determine six of the 10 political appointees, while the president and the minority leaders in Congress decide the remaining four members.

In 1998, Congress trimmed the ARC's budget from $1.9 million to only $450,000, and prohibited the ARC from hiring outside consultants to assist with its responsibilities. The budget cuts not only made it difficult for the ARC to effectively evaluate Amtrak, but also indicated the clear intent of some in Congress to use the ARC as a tool to get rid of the national passenger rail system altogether. New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman was so angered by this action that she resigned her position as the ARC chairwoman.7

It has been said that, as long as most members of Congress can count an Amtrak station in their district, the national passenger rail system will continue to exist. Amtrak is attempting to remedy its current crisis through cutbacks, new emphasis on high-speed rail and improved customer service. Amtrak also has resolved some of its labor difficulties, and is exploring alternate revenue sources such as carrying mail and packages on its trains. However, with the congressional mandate for self-sufficiency looming in the year 2002 and the threat of the ARC and possible liquidation coming much sooner, Amtrak's future is as precarious and uncertain as at any time in its history.

High Speed Rail and MAGLEV. Amtrak has linked much of its future to the development of high-speed ground transportation systems, including high-speed rail service and, possibly, magnetic levitation technology (MAGLEV). These technologies and systems are transportation options that can best link metropolitan areas that are about 100 miles to 500 miles apart. High-speed rail service utilizes high-speed trains, track upgrades, improved signaling, the elimination of highway rail intersections and safety technology to propel trains at speeds of up to 200 mph. MAGLEV technology floats trains on magnets that silently and comfortably propel them at speeds reaching 300 mph.

Both high-speed trains and MAGLEV technology promise several substantial benefits. High-speed and MAGLEV rail systems can provide safe and time-efficient travel alternatives between suburbs or tourist attractions and major metropolitan areas. Convenient, comfortable and time-efficient high-speed railroads can remove drivers from the highways, relieve traffic congestion and substantially reduce pollution. MAGLEV trains are particularly promising because of their low environmental impact.

Proponents argue that high-speed ground transportation also can reduce congestion in airports, spur economic development and provide greater mobility for urban dwellers. A fully developed national high-speed ground transportation system could someday help provide a seamless connection with airplanes, ships, railways and highways.

In October 1999, Amtrak plans to unveil its first high-speed train, which will provide service in the Northeast Corridor from Boston to New York to Washington, D.C. The train will travel at peak speeds of 150 mph and will cut travel time between Boston and New York to three hours, and travel time between Boston to Washington, D.C., from nine hours to six hours. Amtrak plans to use this high-speed project as a model for the development of high-speed corridors throughout the country.

High-speed rail already has revolutionized intercity travel in Europe and Japan. The French speed passengers along six high-speed lines at speeds up to 186 mph using the Train Grande Vitesse (TGV) technology. The French National Railway plans to develop 2,000 miles of new high-speed lines at a cost of $33 billion by 2015. Trains will travel on the TGV lines at speeds of 200 mph.

The Japanese have been using high-speed rail since the 1960s. Modern Japanese bullet trains are immensely popular and carry more than 400,000 passengers a day at speeds approaching 200 mph. Japan is developing a superconducting linear motorcar that would be the world's first commercial MAGLEV rail system. The train could be in operation shortly after the turn of the century.

Germany currently uses intercity express (ICE) trains to provide high-speed service between Hamburg and Munich. The ICE trains operate at speeds up to 180 mph and have reduced travel time by as much as 45 percent. Germany also hopes to soon build the world's first commercial MAGLEV line between Berlin and Hamburg. The MAGLEV trains promise to operate at speeds up to 300 mph.

Until recently, high-speed ground transportation in the United States has been almost nonexistent. Although both high-speed rail and MAGLEV have been studied exhaustively by several public and private agencies and organizations, only the high-speed rail corridor in the Northeast is near full implementation. MAGLEV is not available anywhere in the country.

TEA-21 promises to spur development for both forms of high-speed transit. As of February 1999, 11 transit authorities had applied to the Federal Railroad Administration to receive preconstruction planning grants under TEA-21 for MAGLEV Transportation Technology Deployment Programs. Amtrak and the FRA also are using TEA-21 funds to develop eight congressionally mandated high-speed corridors throughout the country.

State and Amtrak Partnerships. If Amtrak cannot successfully reorganize before its dwindling congressional support completely erodes, much of the burden for funding and planning passenger rail service will shift to the states. Already, states shoulder much of Amtrak's financial load. Amtrak operates several intercity rail lines that are financially supported by states or groups of states. States can gain access to Amtrak rail service if they agree to pay a reasonable share of the cost of running the trains. Under Section 403(b) of the National Rail Passenger Act of 1970, Amtrak "... shall institute such service if the state, regional, or local agency agrees to reimburse the corporation for a reasonable portion of any losses associated with such services." In FY 1997, 11 states paid Amtrak approximately $70 million to transport 4.6 million passengers along these routes.

One state that formed a partnership with Amtrak was Illinois. In 1997, Illinois agreed to subsidize Amtrak service from Chicago to communities in southern Illinois. The agreement called for Illinois to pay approximately $7.5 million a year for three years. In exchange, Amtrak agreed to performance standards that require the company to pay a $2,700 penalty when trains are more than a half-hour late departing from point of origin. The contract was the first of its kind in Illinois and served as a model for future agreements. Other states that directly subsidize Amtrak's intercity and commuter passenger services include Oregon, Washington, California, Wisconsin, Missouri, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Vermont.

High Speed Rail In The Midwest

Nine states and two federal agencies recently formed an ambitious alliance to improve passenger rail service in the Midwest. The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI)-participants include Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Wisconsin, Amtrak and the Federal Railroad Administration-will feature more frequent passenger train service. Under the agreement, high-speed trains will operate at speeds up to 110 mph on a 3,000-mile rail network radiating out of Chicago and connecting major midwestern metropolitan areas.

The MWRRI members envision the initiative as a catalyst for economic development along rail corridors and at rail passenger stations. Members hope the initiative will create approximately 1,550 new rail operations jobs as well as 4,000 manufacturing jobs for the construction of new trains and the rehabilitation of railroad tracks.

The initiative also promises to reduce travel time between major metropolitan areas such as Minneapolis, St. Paul, Madison, Milwaukee, Omaha, Des Moines, Kansas City, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Toledo, Detroit, Grand Rapids and Chicago. According to Amtrak, the regional system could provide service to 80 percent of the region's population and time savings of 30 percent to 50 percent over current train service. The higher speed trains operating on an improved track would also feature greater business and leisure traveler amenities and provide passengers with a more comfortable, faster alternative to driving.

The total estimated cost of the MWRRI is $3.5 billion. The federal government will pay 80 percent of this cost, with the remaining $700 million jointly financed by the nine states. Portions of the Midwest system also are designated as federal high-speed rail corridors, making them eligible for funding to eliminate hazards at highway-rail grade crossings.

Amtrak recently committed $25 million to the MWRRI to buy new trains, improve infrastructure and continue operational planning. The money will be used to conduct a demonstration of the modern train technology, upgrade train stations, create a new rail connection on the south side of Chicago, and conduct further research to prepare Chicago Union Station, the Chicago-Detroit corridor, and other projects for future high-speed rail service.

Sources: Midwestern Office of the Council of State Governments, "Focus: High Speed Rail," Firstline Midwest, March 1997; Transportation Economics and Management Systems Inc., Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Executive Report, August 1998.

Many states also have worked with Amtrak to improve infrastructure for passenger rail lines. For example, Connecticut agreed to help Amtrak build center island platforms at the Stamford train station to help commuter and high-speed trains use the station safely and efficiently. Rhode Island cooperated with Amtrak to reconstruct of a number of state bridges over the railroad. Amtrak also transferred ownership of several stations to the state to help facilitate several major intermodal projects. Massachusetts and Amtrak worked together to improve the Route 128 station and the historic Canton Viaduct and Canton Station.

Both Congress and Amtrak want to expand state participation in passenger rail systems beyond 1999. Amtrak's strategic business plan for fiscal years 1999-2002 details plans for development of eight federally designated high-speed and commuter corridors.8 These include:

• California: Sacramento-Bay Area-Los Angeles-San Diego

• Chicago Hub: Chicago to Milwaukee and Minneapolis, Detroit and St. Louis

• Empire: New York City-Albany-Buffalo

• Florida: Miami-Orlando-Tampa

• Gulf Coast: Routing to be specified

• Keystone: Philadelphia-Harrisburg

• Pacific Northwest: Vancouver-Seattle-Portland-Eugene

• Southeast Corridor: Washington-Richmond-Charlotte

In many of these corridors, Amtrak already cooperates with state governments to provide passenger or commuter service. Amtrak's plan for successful development of the corridor projects depends heavily on continued support from state legislatures and transportation agencies.

Congress also encouraged interstate agreements to enhance state participation in Amtrak. The 1997 Amtrak reauthorization bill granted states the right to form interstate compacts regarding the specific form, route or corridor of intercity passenger rail service. Although several states already participate in interstate agreements, the federal provision allows states to accept and provide financing for such a system, perform capital improvements, retain an existing service or commence a new service, and assemble rights-of-way.

State Legislation. Continued erosion of the federal support for Amtrak will likely accelerate the trend toward state involvement in passenger rail service independent of federal initiatives. Many state officials have expressed interest in passenger rail travel and, in 1997 and 1998, several states passed legislation on the subject.

California authorized consultation between state agencies to coordinate intercity rail passenger service for the San Joaquin corridor. Georgia directed the Georgia Rail Passenger Authority to undertake certain studies concerning rail passenger service. Illinois directed the development and implementation of safety programs for rail transit fixed guideway systems in Illinois and Missouri. Oklahoma created the High-Speed Passenger Rail Task Force.

State support of passenger rail has not been uniform, however, and several states have discontinued rail projects. Most recently, in January 1999, Florida's Governor Jeb Bush canceled a proposed 200 mph bullet train connecting Miami, Orlando and Tampa after more than a decade of debate and planning and an expenditure of $22 million for ridership research. Governor Bush canceled the project because of concerns that the high-speed train would not attract sufficient passengers to make the venture financially viable. Ohio and Texas discontinued similar projects in the mid-1990s.

Failed Plans For High-Speed Rail In Texas

In 1991, Texas awarded a franchise to a consortium to build and operate a high-speed rail system between Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio. The system would have used the French TGV technology with trains operating at 200 miles per hour, and travel times ranging from one hour, 30 minutes from Dallas to Houston to 58 minutes from San Antonio to Houston. The system was to be privately funded because state law prevented use of state taxpayer money on the project. However, the consortium failed to obtain the necessary financial backing to build the system. Regional airlines that opposed state efforts for high-speed rail had put pressure on the Legislature to block high-speed rail service. In 1994 the project died due to lack of adequate funding, and a year later, in 1995, the Legislature abolished the state High-Speed Rail Authority. Currently, plans call for an Accelerail system that would be paid for locally and would run between Houston and Dallas.

The rejection came in spite of studies that showed high-speed rail would be used if customers could be assured service would be timely. Initial capital costs for building the system would range from $900 million for Accelerail to $5 billion for new high-speed rail and $10 billion for a MAGLEV system. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, new high-speed rail would cost less than Accelerail because new high-speed rail's shorter route would result in lower infrastructure costs. High-speed rail could achieve travel times of as little as three hours with an Accelerail system, as little as two and one-half hours with a new high-speed rail system and one and two-thirds hours with a MAGLEV system.

Freight Rail Transportation Issues

Freight rail policy in the United States has been dominated by the federal government since passage of the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. As the result of economic deregulation of the rail industry in the 1970s and 1980s, however, states became heavily involved in rail policy to help offset loss of vital rail service and consequent loss of industry, jobs and income. States have an essential interest in ensuring adequate rail freight service to transport the products of existing agricultural businesses and industries and for use as a tool for economic development. States spend about $70 million each year on rail freight programs.9 In addition, good rail service can improve clean air efforts and reduce congestion by encouraging the shipment of appropriate products by train rather than by truck. For example, the Washington Department of Transportation estimates that the 17 short-line railroads traversing the state reduce truck shipments by 500,000 per year, saving about $20 million annually in road maintenance costs.10 Written rail plans or policies guide the efforts of most states and at least 18 states have an ongoing rail policy advisory committee.

The movement of goods by rail is important to both the nation's economy and individual state economies. Railroads carry 4 percent by value and 13 percent by weight of the nation's freight.11 (This compares with 71.9 percent by value and 53 percent by weight carried by truck.) Generally, rail carries small amounts along the eastern seaboard, but large shares of total shipments in some Great Plains and Rocky Mountain states. The states most heavily dependent on rail for movement of commodities are, in order of dependence, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, Idaho, Louisiana, West Virginia, Nebraska, Kansas and New Mexico.

Rail's share by weight reflects the movement of low value-per-ton commodities like coal, lumber, ores and grains, prominent products of these nine states. (Coal accounts for 40 percent of rail cargo by weight.) Transportation costs make up a proportionately larger share of total costs for such commodities and often influence the price of the product. Rail transportation has cost advantages over long distance trips where its high capacity and low operating costs per ton-mile can be realized. Thus, state legislatures have an interest in maintaining rail service for freight transportation.

State Rail Policies, Plans and Programs, an analysis by the LBJ School of Public Affairs, showed that successful state freight programs share four characteristics. First, they have benefited from auspicious funding circumstances, such as earmarking money from a specific source. Second, an effective planning process is in place so that when funding becomes available it can be spent efficiently. Third, successful freight rail programs place minimal requirements on the state administratively and programs are self-sustaining. Fourth, communication between state officials and rail interests is routine and works well.

Freight Rail Issues for State Legislatures. Maintenance of freight rail service is critical to those states that rely heavily on rail transportation. Rail also may be an alternative freight option for states that have seriously congested highway routes. The continued evolution of the railroad business in a deregulated environment, however, has created problems for states that want to preserve service, especially to rural population centers. Consolidation of railroads has dampened competition and resulted in elimination of routes and a decline in service on remaining routes.

Rail line abandonment caused by railroad companies shedding unprofitable lines has resulted in a loss of 90,000 miles of rail corridor since enactment of the Railroad Deregulation Act of 1980 (also known as the Staggers Act.)12 (The total operational rail line system today consists of about 175,000 miles.) This act freed railroads from most economic regulation and made it easier to abandon rail lines. Rail line abandonment by railroads is a process, through the federal Surface Transportation Board, by which rail companies can eliminate branch lines that have become unprofitable over time. The deregulated railroad environment created major challenges for state legislators as farms and industries that were dependent upon curtailed rail transportation scrambled to find alternatives. Policies in effect today grew out of the needs identified in the 1970s.

Railroad Deregulation

The process of deregulation began with passage of the National Rail Passenger Act of 1971 that created Amtrak and allowed certain railroads to drop uneconomical passenger service. It also set up an assistance program for shippers and communities hurt by service withdrawal.* The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 expanded federal assistance and further eased economic regulation and abandonment procedures. However, the continued decline of the railroad industry led to the Staggers Act in 1980, which established as national policy the reliance on real economic forces, not regulation, to provide a more efficient rail system. Partly as a result of this law, the rail share of the freight transportation market as measured in ton-miles has begun to inch upward, topping 40 percent in both 1995 and 1996 for the first time since 1970. Returns on investment have increased from an average of 2 percent in the 1970s to an average of between 9 percent and 10 percent today. Productivity of locomotives, freight cars and track have all doubled since 1980, while labor productivity has more than tripled, according to the Association of American Railroads.

* Information from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Maintaining Local Freight Service, January 1997, pp. 4-5.

Moreover, track access is becoming more of a problem. Competition for use of existing track is intensifying as more passenger rail service operations start up and existing service expands, and as the fewer railroads consolidate freight service on crowded main lines. In addition, the strong national economy has created new demand for freight movement by all modes, increasing traffic levels on rail lines. States are using various approaches to retain service, address abandonment and deal with track access issues. Other concerns not specifically addressed in this report are capacity constraints on main lines, the related problem of line congestion, and shortages of rail cars. Table 1 shows the variety of programs and policies currently undertaken by the states. These are further discussed below. In addition, Appendix C contains case studies of rail freight programs in Michigan, New England, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Washington.

Table 1. State Rail Freight Policies and Programs

Rail Preservation. Most states and Puerto Rico are actively involved in preserving existing rail service. This takes many forms. Numerous states assist in deals for small railroads or other companies to purchase lines cast off by the large railroads, in order to retain service to users on those lines. Helping to pay to construct, maintain and upgrade track on less-used corridors aids the small railroad companies that are struggling to maintain service and turn a profit. Several states have rail bank programs where they can acquire and preserve abandoned rail lines for future use. Funding of these efforts takes the form of direct grants, loans and loan guarantees.

Specific assistance to short-line railroads is undertaken in at least seven states. Short lines run on tracks branching off the major carriers' lines, providing service that the larger companies find unprofitable. (Smaller railroads can successfully operate branch lines due to lower overhead, but profit margins can be slim.) Maryland, for example, aids the Maryland and Delaware Railroad Company, which provides service to Eastern Shore businesses, many of which are tied to the area's extensive poultry industry. The state program of grants and loans for equipment and maintenance of track helps preserve the rail service and 22,000 jobs associated with the poultry industry. Expenditures for Maryland's entire short-line program average $4 million each year.13

Surface Transportation Board

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) is an independent adjudicatory body administratively housed within the Department of Transportation. It is responsible for the economic regulation of interstate surface transportation, primarily railroads, within the United States. The STB's mission is accomplished through rulemaking and adjudicative proceedings to ensure that competitive, efficient and safe transportation services are provided to meet the needs of shippers, receivers and consumers. It was created in 1995, assuming the remaining duties of the defunct Interstate Commerce Commission.

Arguing against unwise rail line abandonment (and consequent discontinuation of service) and railroad company mergers before the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) is a routine state exercise. As railroad companies reorganize, states can lose branch lines and must deal with service degradation caused by reduced competition and difficulties encountered in consolidating train operations of merging companies. The Union Pacific (UP) acquisition of Southern Pacific in September 1996 caused a service "meltdown" in the Houston area that spread through UP's 36,000 mile system, representing one-quarter of the nation's mainlines.14 The resulting chaos cost the national economy $4 billion and the Surface Transportation Board took the unprecedented step of allowing another railroad to run on UP's tracks in the Houston-Gulf Coast area. STB examined various recommendations to increase competition in this area, but concluded in a December 31, 1998, decision that "effective" competition exists between UP and Burlington Northern Santa Fe, warranting no further adjustments to conditions STB placed on the merger process. Recent additional mergers include CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern's purchase of Conrail's eastern network and Canadian National's purchase of Illinois Central, which was approved by the STB on March 25, 1999.

In response to the UP crisis, several states-including Texas and Kansas-have proposed new rail policies. A Rail Advisory Committee, under the auspices of the Texas Railroad Commission, has proposed a policy that seeks to reduce highway congestion by promoting railroad competition and access for captive shippers, promoting the highest level of rail service that is economically feasible, and preserving essential service to small towns and rural areas.15 Several safety recommendations also are included. Strengthening the powers of rail districts, collecting data on grain transportation, and finding an appropriate funding mechanism to pay for rail freight transport needs are specific elements under consideration this legislative session.

Loss of Rail Service

The loss of direct rail service has a profound effect on businesses and communities. In cases where a business is in a highly competitive market environment or has a marginal operation, the loss of rail service may force the firm to either close or greatly reduce its operation due to the increased costs of trucking. For some businesses, particularly grain elevators, the loss of rail service may result in the loss of a market due to greatly increased transportation costs. It has been found that an elevator shifting to truck from rail will pay farmers five cents to seven cents per bushel less for their grain to account for their own higher transportation costs. The five cents per bushel is often greater than the farmer's profit margin. In either case, the local community must bear the resulting increases in unemployment and reductions in disposable income.

Source: Illinois Department of Transportation, "FY 1999 Proposed Rail Improvement Program," Spring 1998.

State or Public Ownership of Railroad Facilities. To prevent rail corridor abandonment that might harm existing industries and threaten prospects for future economic development, at least 20 states have acquired railroad facilities. States entered the railroad business in the 1970s when bankruptcies such as Penn Central, industry restructuring and deregulation caused the largest railroads to abandon service on all but their busiest lines. Still, several states-including Arizona, Missouri, Nevada and Wyoming-are precluded by statute or constitution from owning or investing in rail lines.

Nationwide, more than 100 railroads involve some degree of state or local ownership, spread among 36 states.16 The range of ownership varies from full operation and possession of a railroad venture to ownership of the track or rail cars. These facilities then are leased to private companies. Joint public-private ownership is employed by almost 30 percent of all state/local lines. The typical state/local railroad is a relatively modest operation with an average of 34 miles of track and three locomotives. These lines commonly carry products extracted from the ground, including lumber, minerals and agricultural products. In some cases, public ownership has changed back to private hands (Maine and Montana), while Pennsylvania is seeking to sell some of its railroad holdings.

Rail districts or special purpose districts are another form of public involvement and ownership. Nine states have given statutory authority for the creation of such districts. Typically, districts have a specific charge to retain and improve service, often cover a defined geographic area, are managed by a board of directors, have the ability to purchase land and equipment, and have the ability to raise funds through taxation or the issuance of bonds.

Economic Development. All the above policies and programs have a direct or indirect economic development aspect. Several states-including Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia-also have specific programs to attract new companies through development of industrial rail access. North Carolina's program is designed to help ensure that companies have the track needed to transport their freight and materials. The program uses state funds to construct or refurbish tracks required by new or expanded industry. Funding for projects is contingent on private and local sources providing matching funds. During the last five years, $3 million of state money has been spent on rail industrial access projects to complement an overall investment of $567 million on these projects.17

Another economic development effort is to promote intermodalism, that is, the transport of the same cargo using more than one "mode," e.g., rail, highway, air or water. Intermodal shipments combine the door-to-door convenience of trucks with the long-haul economy of rail or water transport. At least nine states have placed emphasis in this area. Intermodalism has benefited from the universal cargo container that can easily be carried by train, truck and ship. Sixty percent of intermodal shipments involve such containers. Several states-including Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Virginia-have undertaken construction efforts to raise bridges and other obstacles so that trains can carry double stacks of these containers, thus increasing capacity to and from port facilities. Intermodalism is aided in many states when the port authority owns rail facilities. States promoting intermodal transportation are realizing economic development benefits from greater efficiency and better freight service.

Financing.18 Since 1995, states no longer benefit from the federal Local Freight Assistance Program started in the 1970s. As a consequence, several states-including Arkansas, California, Idaho, Louisiana and Missouri-currently have no rail funding. Adjusting to the cutoff of federal funds, states have taken a variety of approaches. All told, states spend around $70 million per year on rail freight programs. However, rail programs compete with all other state funding priorities. As a consequence, annual budgets vary widely, ranging from $14 million in Pennsylvania; to $11 million in Michigan; to around $6 million to $7 million in Illinois, Minnesota, Tennessee and Virginia; to $580,000 in Idaho (see appendix D).

States that do fund rail programs from state sources use a variety of approaches and combinations of approaches (see table 1). Transportation trust funds are used in eight states. Bonds finance projects in at least six states. A portion of the general sales tax is employed in Indiana, while Oregon uses lottery proceeds. Many states-including Nevada and New York-rely on specific appropriations. Oklahoma uses income from state-owned rail property. Many states impose various taxes on the rail industry to support rail assistance and preservation programs. Loan repayments provide funding in six states.

TEA-21 created a new loan and loan guarantee program that state and local governments can use to acquire, develop, improve and rehabilitate intermodal and rail facilities and equipment including track, bridges, yards, buildings and shops. Projects will be funded that give priority to enhancing safety, protecting the environment, promoting economic development, promoting U.S. competitiveness and preserving and enhancing service to small communities and rural areas, and that are included in state transportation plans.

Track Access Conflicts. As passenger rail service experiences a renaissance in terms of growth and popularity, conflicts over track use with freight trains has become an increasing problem. In most instances, passenger service agencies use track owned by private railroads through an agreement that covers lease payments, schedules, dispatching, cost sharing of maintenance and capital investments, and liability.19 Difficulty in negotiating such agreements arises as freight traffic grows as a consequence of the healthy national economy along with the increases in passenger rail services. Railroad mergers also can bring new freight traffic to lines that already are juggling freight and passenger train schedules.

Usually, a state or regional transit agency can acquire needed property through eminent domain proceedings. State condemnation authority does not include property owned by freight railroads, which is under the authority of STB. Furthermore, existing law covers only the process for Amtrak to contract for use of railroad owned facilities and not for commuter rail.

The American Public Transit Association (APTA), representing the major transit agencies in America, has asked the STB to help resolve disputes between private railroads and states or other public agencies that are seeking to provide rail passenger service in existing freight rights-of-way. In addition, APTA is working with the Association of American Railroads to develop a model framework for joint use of rail corridors. It is hoped that an agreed to set of principles on liability, cost methodology, capital improvements and service standards will assist local negotiators. A May 1999 agreement in the Seattle-Tacoma, Wash., area between passenger and freight interests to share track and pay for improvements could become a model for other states.

Wyoming Reexamines Eminent Domain Laws

In 1998, Wyoming legislators considered legislation to revoke the ability of railroads to initiate eminent domain proceedings to acquire rights-of-way for new tracks. Eminent domain refers to the power to take private property for public use by the state, municipalities, and private persons or corporations authorized to exercise functions of public character.

In most states, railroads can acquire property or an easement through property by following eminent domain procedures that are stipulated in state statutes. In many states, a railroad can petition a court to order property owners to sell their rights-of-way to the railroad. The 1998 Wyoming legislation, which was proposed in response to a planned expansion of the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad into the Powder River Basin coal fields in northeastern Wyoming, would have repealed the railroads' general power of eminent domain. The measure failed, however, under intense pressure from the railroads.

Wyoming legislators proposed but did not pass several bills in 1999 that would limit the power of eminent domain by railroads, better define circumstances when eminent domain can be used and list specific factors to determine the value of property taken by eminent domain.

Conclusion

As the new millennium approaches, the state legislative role in rail policy and planning in the United States continues to grow. State lawmakers are working to improve railroad safety, plan and fund passenger rail service, and resolve a variety of issues related to the rail transportation of freight. The financing elements of TEA-21, Amtrak's uncertain future, federal deregulation and national economic growth are evolving factors for state legislatures to consider in setting rail policy.

Appendix A. State Rail Trespass and Vandalism Laws

Appendix B. State Passenger Rail Case Studies

California

Three state-supported rail lines-the San Diegan, San Joaquin and Capitol routes-serve the state and are funded jointly by Amtrak and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Under the original agreement between Amtrak and Caltrans, the state agreed to pay 45 percent of the short-term avoidable loss in a train's first year of service, plus at least 65 percent of the loss in later years. Caltrans also was responsible under the agreement for paying at least half of the associated capital costs, which includes interest charges and equipment depreciation. Short-term avoidable costs were defined as those that no longer would be sustained if a train or route were discontinued, or started up with the introduction of a new service.

Federal budget cuts in 1991 led Amtrak to put into effect a two-part cost-sharing policy. The state currently supports 64 percent of all trains on the San Diegan route, and Amtrak supports the remaining 36 percent as basic system trains. Amtrak assists Caltrans with its national marketing and ticketing systems, while Caltrans staff oversee the intercity rail train service by monitoring onboard service and reviewing train schedules and Amtrak procedures. Caltrans also oversees production of Amtrak's California timetable and the administration of advertising and public relations consultant contracts.

In November 1997, the state created an Intercity High-Speed Rail Authority to implement a master plan that calls for a 680-mile high-speed line linking San Francisco and Los Angeles. Projections indicate the corridor between Los Angeles and San Francisco could generate up to 6 billion annual passenger-miles by 2020. Initial projections indicate the system could cost as much as $25 billion due to the challenging terrain and distance involved. Similar studies are being conducted for a route along the heavily traveled San Diego-Los Angeles corridor. The rail authority is expected to seek approval from voters in 2000 for increases in gas and sales taxes to generate money for the high-speed rail program.

The Federal Transit Administration provides money for urban and commuter rail programs. A 10-year state program begun in 1989 has provided $150 million in rail bond money for passenger service. The local transportation fund generates money for mass transit through a 0.25 percent sales tax collected by the state. Four transit districts and 17 counties impose a 0.5 percent sales tax for local transportation. Other money for rail comes from general fund money and property taxes on rail investments.

North Carolina

A unique and historic public rail entity, the North Carolina Railroad Company (NCRC) adds a special flavor to the discussion of passenger rail service in this state. NCRC owns a line that runs across the state from Charlotte to Havelock, going through Greensboro and Raleigh. Amtrak runs trains between Raleigh and Charlotte along NCRC track. The state holds 75 percent of NCRC's shares, with the other 25 percent privately held. North Carolina, unlike many other states, has the discretion to increase passenger rail frequency, although this authority is under dispute because many of NCRC's shareholders would prefer the company concentrate on more profitable freight operations.

Amtrak operates the Piedmont twice daily between Charlotte and Raleigh, and operates the Carolinian from Charlotte to Raleigh in the morning, which then continues on to Rocky Mount, Washington, D.C., and New York. The North Carolina Department of Transportation reimburses Amtrak for 100 percent of the net operating expenses of the Piedmont and 100 percent of the expenses of the Carolinian between Rocky Mount (which is near the Virginia border) and Charlotte. In 1990, the state began planning a service that would complement existing Carolinian service and provide service to and from Raleigh once a day. Service began in 1995, following purchase by the state of five used railcars and two remanufactured locomotives for $2.2 million.

The state also is a leader in planning for high-speed rail service. The Piedmont High-Speed Corridor would provide high-speed service for 334 rail miles from Charlotte to Washington, D.C., running in North Carolina through Greensboro, Raleigh and Rocky Mount before heading north through Virginia. Rail planners consider the high-speed corridor a logical extension of current high-speed service provided up the eastern seaboard by Metroliners. The state also has studied the possibility of reducing rail travel time between Charlotte and Raleigh to two hours, down from the current three hours and 40 minutes. In 1997, the North Carolina Department of Transportation concluded that upgrading North Carolina tracks to allow trains to run at speeds of 95 miles per hour were estimated at between $371.4 million and $515.5 million. The planning report estimated that the economic feasibility of high-speed train service would improve as more money is invested because trains would run more frequently and people would be willing to spend more on train trips. The report said that increasing speeds by 50 percent would increase ridership and revenue by 300 percent.

Another argument that Governor James B. Hunt has used in North Carolina is that improving passenger service will help spur economic development. An efficient transportation network encourages companies to relocate. In addition, there is a likely ripple effect as the relocated companies add new jobs and encourage the creation of even more businesses. As a result, even if the projected margins between costs and revenues are small, projected indirect revenue to the state from economic growth spurred by passenger rail service boosts the returns on investment.

Pacific Northwest

The 466-mile corridor from Eugene, Oregon, to Vancouver, British Columbia, provides one of the more interesting examples of planning for eventual high-speed travel. Efforts in this region demonstrate how interstate-and even international-cooperation is important in planning for improved passenger rail delivery. The corridor in the Pacific Northwest was designated in 1992 as one of five national corridors to be studied for eventual high-speed travel, and Oregon, Washington and British Columbia have commissioned a number of studies on their own on the feasibility of high-speed service at 125 miles per hour. Oregon and Washington have taken an incremental approach in their planning by upgrading track and signal systems and buying freight cars. The project cost is estimated at $1.82 billion.

Amtrak currently runs four trains serving 13 communities in Oregon, while intercity passenger rail service in Washington serves 14 communities. For the past decade, Washington has been actively involved in planning for future passenger service. This involvement parallels activity described above in encouraging improved freight service. In 1991, the Legislature created a high- speed ground transportation steering committee, which the next year concluded that high-speed rail was feasible in the north-south corridor in the western part of the state. Costs to develop the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor are $2.9 billion over 20 years to carry 2.2 million people 500 miles a year. The Washington State Department of Transportation is expected to contribute $1.2 billion, with Amtrak, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Company, Oregon, British Columbia, and other state and local jurisdictions providing another $1.1 billion. Passenger revenues are expected to cover the remaining $600,000 cost. A 1997 study by the Federal Railroad Administration estimates the cost of providing high-speed rail service would range from $600 million for the lowest-cost Accelerail upgrade to $14 billion for Maglev.

Appendix C. State Rail Freight Transportation Case Studies

Michigan

This midwestern state plays an active role in managing a diverse rail freight industry that consists of 32 rail carriers operating on several thousand miles of track. The state Department of Transportation's rail freight program consists of 22 staff members who administer an $11.4 million budget as of FY 1997. The rail freight program handles property management, capital preservation and development, a revolving loan fund, an infrastructure loan program, port development and administration.

The property management portion of the program spends money on leases, taxes, inventory control, maintenance and repair, insurance, security, appraisals, rail-banking activities and environmental projects. The state also handles contracts with private consultants who look for opportunities to commercialize and privatize 701 miles of state-owned rail lines.

The capital freight preservation and development portion of the program invests in freight transportation infrastructure to promote economic development projects. The projects involve partnerships between state and local government agencies and private shippers and companies to rehabilitate lines in the state. In FY 1996, the freight program conducted the preliminary engineering and design work for 53 miles of state-owned lines. The state's capital budget paid for 55.5 miles of rehabilitation construction.

The Michigan Rail Loan Assistance Program helps preserve and improve privately owned rail freight transportation infrastructure through low-interest loans and a revolving loan fund. The program, established by the Legislature in 1997, allows local governments, railroads, and current or potential users of freight railroad services to apply for money. Eligible projects include track rehabilitation, bridge and culvert repair, new construction and rail consolidation. Money is unavailable through the program for right-of-way acquisition. To be eligible for the program, the project must be on a line that generates more than 50 carloads per mile of track or is a connector to a segment that generates more than 50 carloads per mile of track.

New England

States in the New England region (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont) have embraced regional planning as one tool in promoting economic development. Thus, unlike other regions, that look at freight issues as a means of promoting the transport of specific commodities that often are unique to the region, the New England regional effort is aimed at more general goals. A 1995 report by Cambridge Systematics Inc. said the region should attempt to gain an advantage over ports in New York and New Jersey from which freight is hauled on routes traveling by way of Southwest Asia and the Suez Canal.

The six New England states formed the New England Consortium in the early 1990s to provide the kind of regional effort necessary to achieve more coordinated goals. The consortium was later replaced by the New England Transportation Initiative, which consists of representatives of several state agencies-the state departments of transportation, environmental protection, and economic development-that guide transportation planning efforts. The 1995 report by Cambridge Systematics Inc. recommended the creation of a New England Regional Intermodal Freight Alliance. State governments, however, still have to agree to the recommendations, since no common funding mechanism exists to implement the recommendations.

Thus far, state governments have acted singularly to preserve rail service. For example, Connecticut has bought and repaired rail lines and built rail facilities. Maine has bought rail lines from the Maine Central Railroad and provided operating subsidies to railroads. Massachusetts has subsidized rail freight and bought and fixed up abandoned Conrail lines. New Hampshire has preserved and bought track that was under consideration for abandonment. Cities and towns in Rhode Island have been involved in acquiring lines, and the state uses tax policy to preserve existing rail service. Rhode Island has promoted industrial development at the Port of Providence, Davisville and Quonset to encourage rail activity. Vermont also has provided financial assistance to fix up and improve its rail network, most particularly the St. Johnsbury and Swanson lines.

Oklahoma

Oklahoma's freight rail plan helps dependent industries move commodities to key markets, according to State Rail Policies, Plans and Programs. The state Department of Transportation has targeted north-south rail routes for upkeep to take advantage of the North American Free Trade Agreement. In addition, east-west routes are important for reaching Gulf Coast ports. Another goal of the department is to relieve the pressure on the state's roads from truck traffic. As in many other states, rail abandonment and rail industry deregulation have made it more difficult to maintain service for key industries.

The state Department of Transportation uses a railroad maintenance revolving fund to buy underused freight routes and provide support for maintaining those lines. A rail plan update done in 1992 targets several projects as central to opening an east-west route for western Oklahoma products. The state has achieved several of the update's goals by buying the line from Cherokee to Elmer to transport western Oklahoma wheat and other commodities, and by working with the private sector to improve rail access at the Port of Catoosa. The state also has provided money to buy the McAlester to Shawnee line and connect the line with the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System at a cost of $6.2 million. Reopening the rail line from Hydro to Bridgeport has helped ease the eastern movement of wheat, the state's top cash crop.

The state gets money for rail programs from the revolving fund, which draws about $800,000 to $900,000 a year from a railroad freight gross receipts tax, and from lease and rental agreements. From 1985 to 1991, money from state-owned rail properties ranged from $1.01 million to $8.54 million, according to the 1992 rail plan update.

Pennsylvania

Railroads play a key role in Pennsylvania's transportation system. Pennsylvania has 78 railroads-more than any other state in the nation. Pennsylvania railroads carry 160 million tons of freight. In FY 1997, state lawmakers committed $20.5 million in operating and capital expenditures for the state's freight rail program.

Historically, the state contributed a relatively small amount of money to maintain freight rail service. However, that changed in the early 1970s when the state came to the aid of its economically faltering rail industry. Today, Pennsylvania's Department of Transportation's Bureau of Rail Freight, Ports and Waterways plays a key role in planning. The program has strong political support. A key issue facing the rail industry in Pennsylvania is obtaining the financing to maintain the state's rail lines. A comprehensive rail freight study conducted in 1996 by Mainline Management Services Inc. of Harrisburg, Pa., said the state needed $35 million to keep up some 4,000 miles of non-core rail lines. The study suggested the state contribute 20 percent to 25 percent-or $7 million to $10 million-of the cost, with another $5 million to $7 million in economic development money earmarked. According to the report, one possible way to pay for the program would be low-interest, revolving loan funds. Another possible way to pay for rail activities includes dedicating tax money paid by railroads to rail maintenance. The state's capital stock and franchise tax, if earmarked for rail maintenance, would generate another $8 million to $9 million a year, according to State Rail Policies, Plans and Programs.

The state has a rail-banking program that allows rail lines to be transferred to groups and organizations so the railroad may be preserved for future use. The state recently completed raising and widening rail track clearances. More than $80 million has been invested in crossings to provide double-stack trains with access from the Port of Philadelphia to the Ohio and New York borders.

Tennessee

A unique mechanism, a transportation equity fund, has helped Tennessee support freight rail service for the past decade. Under a plan approved by the legislature in 1986, money generated from sales taxes on rail, aviation and water transportation fuels goes into the fund and then is reinvested. The legislature gave the state Department of Transportation discretion-with a required annual report to the legislature-on how the equity fund money is to be spent, based on a transportation plan. The practice has been to allocate the money to each transportation sector proportional to that sector's contribution to the fund. To tap into the fund for projects, a 20 percent local match is required.

The equity fund has proven popular because it is not a new tax, and industry prefers the earmarked equity fund over vying for general fund money. Spending from the equity fund has grown to more than $13 million annually, with more than $3.8 million going to rail and waterways in 1995. Most of the money for railroads is used to fix short-line railroads (those that operate on tracks branching off major carriers' lines) and other engineering services, such as tie and rail replacements, track-bed improvements, surfacing, drainage improvements, bridge repairs, and improvements in grade crossings at highway intersections.

One potential downside for states that are contemplating using equity funds is the potential that less money will be available some years. Like all funds that rely on money from user fees, the transportation equity fund could shrink if fuel prices or consumption declined. However, state officials expect the size of the fund to increase over the next few years as more diesel fuel is used. In a 1994 plan, the state Department of Transportation estimated that the fund would generate enough revenue to pay for deferred maintenance costs for 10 years.

Washington

Washington's rapid growth in port activity, agricultural capacity and freight movement has strained the capacity of the mainline rail network. Light-density branch lines also are in need of rehabilitation, and equipment to move goods on branch lines is often in short supply. In the southeastern part of the state, the equivalent of 800 to 1,000 rail cars of freight is diverted every year to barges because of inadequate rail capacity.

The state's grain train program, started in 1995, is an example of how state government-due to fortuitous funding circumstances and careful planning-responded to the needs of the state's shipping industry. The state provided state-owned grain cars for operation in eastern Washington, which successfully preserved rail line service in eastern Washington and alleviated the rail car shortage during the past few years. The state bought 29 grain cars for the grain program, using $754,000 from a U.S. Department of Energy energy rebate fund. A 1996 study by the state Department of Transportation indicates the program not only assisted grain shippers, but also reached to all products and commodities of rural areas and helped other entities that were seeking economic development and rural revitalization. In the first year of the program, the Grain Train saved growers 4 to 6 cents per bushel, and hauled 1.3 million bushels to a grain terminal in Portland, Oregon.

Appendix D. State Agency Rail Comparison

State	No. of FTE Staff (State Dept. of Transportation)			Annual Budget (in Millions of Dollars)		Number of Freight Rail Carriers		Miles of Rail
		Freight	Passenger		Freight		Passenger
Arizona		1	total		.05		0		12	2,034
Arkansas		1	0		0		0		25	3,098
California		1	50		0		47.10		35	8,300
Florida		Not	Available		Not Available		49.80		14	2,888
Georgia		3	total		Not		Available		22	4,960
Idaho		.8	.2		.58		0		8	1,940
Illinois		8	6		5.63		6.80		44	7,900
Indiana		5	total		Not		Available		40	4,503
Iowa		3	0		1.40		0		16	4,268
Kansas		2	0		.27		0		23	6,416
Louisiana		1	1		0		.10		16	2,817
Maryland		Not	Available		32		total		21	842
Michigan		22	Not Available		11.38		Not Available		32	4,000
Minnesota		4	3		7.00		.77		22	4,652
Mississippi		8	total		Not		Available		20	2,841
Missouri		1	1		0		3.60		11	4,484
Montana		1.4	.2		.08		.01		9	3,463
Nebraska		3	0		.10		0		15	3,779
Nevada		2	2		.02		.01		9	1,449
New England		Not	Available		Not		Available		31	4,852
New Jersey		2	Separate Agency		1.80		1.44		13	1,337
New York		9	3		Not		Available		34	4,600
North Carolina		4	7		.09		6.00		26	3,655
Ohio		24.5	.5		4.70		0		24	6,100
Oklahoma		10 to 12	total		Not Available		4.20		20	4,532
Oregon		.5	1.5		.03		10.10		21	2,600
Pennsylvania		9	Not Available		13.70		0		70	607
Tennessee		5	0		6.30		0		20	3,151
Utah		1	total		.07		0		11	2,553
Virginia**		6	4		6.40		11.65		13	3,188
Washington		1	8		3.90		Not Available		16	3,096
Wisconsin		9	1.5		9.5		total		11	4,000
Wyoming		3	total		12.2		total		4	1,856

* FTE = full-time equivalent staff. The numbers in this table exclude safety-related positions.

** Virginia's rail activities are not housed within the state Department of Transportation, but within the Department of Rail and Public Transportation, a separate state department.

Source: LBJ School of Public Affairs (University of Texas), State Rail Policies, Plans and Programs, 1997.

Notes

1. Seventy-three percent of all train/vehicle crashes occur in 14 states: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas and Wisconsin.

2. "Operation Lifesaver" is a public education program designed to create an awareness of the potential hazards of grade crossings.

3. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Nationwide Study of Train Whistle Bans, Washington, D.C., April 1995, p. 8.

4. Iowa recently enacted a railroad vandalism statute that incorporates some of the federal model provisions. However, §716.10 of the Iowa code does not fully implement the model vandalism statute and includes no trespass provisions.

5. Numerous commentators have analyzed Amtrak's woes. A good summary article is Randolph R. Ressor, "Should Amtrak Survive as a National Rail System?" Transportation Quarterly 53, no. 1, (Winter 1999): 93-107. Other articles are listed in the reference section of this report.

6. Testimony before Congress by Governor Tommy Thompson, March 10, 1999.

7. "Amtrak Reform Council Continues Work," AASHTO Journal (Nov. 25, 1998): 3.

8. The Federal Railroad Administration will select three other corridors according to congressionally mandated criteria that consider ridership projections, maximum cruise speeds, congestion relief potential, leveraging funding potential and rail line owner cooperation.

9. Estimate derived from information in report from the LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas, State Rail Policies, Plans and Programs, The University of Texas Board of Regents, 1997.

10. Jeff D. Opdyke and Steven D. Jones, "Short-Line Rails Pick Up Steam-Despite Politicians," The Wall Street Journal, March 3, 1999.

11. Statistics and analysis of freight movement by rail is derived from Transportation Statistics Annual Report 1998 by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, pp. 190-1.

12. New Hampshire Railroad Revitalization Association, March 6, 1998, www.trainweb.com/nhrra.

13. Greg Garland, "Md. Funds Industry's Rail Line," Baltimore Sun, Oct. 18, 1998.

14. Katie Fairbank, "UP's Climb Still Uphill," The Denver Post, July 19, 1998.

15. Illinois Department of Transportation, "FY 1999 Proposed Rail Improvement Program," Spring 1998.

16. David C. Nice, "Public Ownership of Railroads in the U.S.," Transportation Quarterly 51, no. 2 (Spring 1997), pp. 23-30.

17. North Carolina Department of Transportation-Rail Division, Rail Industrial Access Program, www.bytrain.org/industry

18. Financing information was available only for selected states.

19. This section derived from Passenger Transport, "Rail Corridor Access is Growing Challenge," November 23, 1998, and Testimony of the American Public Transit Association before the Surface Transportation Board, "Review of Rail Access and Competition Issues," April 2, 1998.

References

Aggarwala, Rohit T. "The States, New Modes, and Federal Transportation Policy: Lessons from History for High-Speed Rail." Transportation Quarterly 52, no. 3 (Summer 1998): 53-67.

Testimony of the American Public Transit Association before the Surface Transportation Board. "Review of Rail Access and Competition Issues," April 2, 1998.

Amtrak's Fiscal Year 1999-2002 Strategic Business Plan, Oct. 12, 1998.

Casavant, Kenneth L., and Richard Mack. An Economic Evaluation of the Performance of the Washington State Department of Transportation Grain Train Project. Olympia, Wash.: Washington State Department of Transportation, February 1996.

Garrett, Craig. "State Asks to Join Train Suit." The Detroit News. April 1, 1999.

Garland, Greg. "Md. Funds Industry's Rail Line." Baltimore Sun, Oct. 18, 1998.

Fairbank, Katie. "UP's Climb Still Uphill." Associated Press. The Denver Post, July 19, 1998.

Illinois Department of Transportation. FY 1999 Proposed Rail Improvement Program. Spring 1998.

Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. State Rail Policies, Plans, and Programs (Austin: The University of Texas Board of Regents, 1997).

Luberoff, David. "Amtrak and the States." Governing (November 1996): 85.

McConnell, Vicki P. "Pioneering a U.S. MAGLEV System: MAGLEV 2000 Begins Construction in Titusville." Speedlines Magazine (Fall 1998): 8-9.

New Hampshire Railroad Revitalization Association. "ISTEA Alert." March 6, 1998. www.trainweb.com/nhrra.

Nice, David C. Amtrak: The History and Politics of a National Railroad. (PLACE: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998).

North Carolina Department of Transportation-Rail Division, Rail Industrial Access Program, www.bytrain.org/industry.

Opdyke, Jeff D., and Steven D. Jones. "Short-Line Rails Pick Up Steam-Despite Politicians." The Wall Street Journal, March 3, 1999.

Painter, Steve. "State urged to preserve rail service." The Wichita Eagle, June 4, 1998.

"Rail Corridor Access is Growing Challenge." Passenger Transport, Nov. 23, 1998.

Ressor, Randolph R. "Should Amtrak Survive as a National Rail System?" Transportation Quarterly 53, no. 1 (Winter 1999): 93-107.

Taylor, Steven T. "ITS on the Line." ITS World, November/December 1998.

State of Texas. "Railroad Advisory Committee Resolution." Dec. 1, 1998.

"Public Ownership of Railroads in the U.S." Transportation Quarterly 51, no. 2 (Spring 1997): pp. 23-30.

"Amtrak-Facing an Uncertain Future." Urban Mobility Corporation Innovation Briefs 10, no. 2 (March/April 1999).

United States General Accounting Office Report to Congress. "Intercity Passenger Rail: Issues Associated With a Possible Amtrak Liquidation," (March 1998), GAO/RCED-98-60.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Maintaining Local Freight Service. Washington, D.C., January 1997.

U.S. Department of Transportation. Accidents That Shouldn't Happen: A Report of the Grade Crossing Safety Task Force. Washington, D.C.: Federal Railroad Administration, March 1, 1996.

---. Rail-Highway Crossing Safety: Action Plan Summary. Washington, D.C., June 13, 1994.

---. High-Speed Ground Transportation for America. Washington, D.C.: Federal Railroad Administration, August 1996.

---. High-Speed Ground Transportation for America. Washington, D.C.: Federal Railroad Administration, September 1997.

---. Model Legislation for Railroad Trespass and Railroad Vandalism. Washington, D.C.: Federal Railroad Administration, April 1998.

---. Nationwide Study of Train Whistle Bans. Washington, D.C.: Federal Railroad Administration, April 1995.

---. Transportation Statistics Annual Report 1998. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 1998.

World Wide Web Sites

American Short Line Railroad Association, www.aslra.org

Amtrak, http://www.amtrak.com

Association of American Railroads, www.aar.org/

Federal Railroad Administration, http://www.fra.dot.gov

Operation Lifesaver, www.oli.org

Surface Transportation Board, http://www.stb.dot.gov/indextxt.htm

Contacts for more information:

Jim Reed
Matt Sundeen
(303) 364-7700