Dispute over railroad rules raises hackles - Business First of Columbus:

deeshu-tatum.blogspot.com
One bill has been introduce d in Congress and another may soon be reintroduced that togetherr seek to impose increaseds competition among rail carriers while giving industriakl shippers a regulatory framework that they argue woulc lead to lower prices on many The measures are being fought by the rail which maintains the legislative efforts would creatdemore government-imposed constraints on price, reduciny their profit and slowing infrastructure development and shipping capacity growth in placesz such as Columbus.
“Thered won’t be the resource available to invesy in such things as major intermodal terminalssor double-stack lines or longer passin sidings,” said Tom White, spokesmah for the trade group. “Ir the money is not we can’t invest in them.” But there’s at leasy one major Central Ohio interestg on the other side of thedebatre – AEP executives wouldn’yt comment directly on the debate, but the Columbus utilitt is a member of the . The Washington, D.C.
-base coalition has taken a hard line against the rail industry and positsx that the current rules and system for addressinfg shipper complaints give a handful of major railroacd companies free rein on pricing andservices quality, said Executive Director Bob Szabo. “Rail’x attitude is that you’re lucky we’re here and you’lo pay whatever we say you’ll he said. The result is that such as a coal mine servedc by a single rail line owned by one rail are helpless tocontest prices, Szabo The rules on price but its decisions can take years, cost companiesx millions and put a heavy burdenm of proof on shippers to win a case, he Proponents of the measures hope to make it easied for shippers to argue for lowerf prices, in addition to forcing more competitioj among rail providers.
But the bill’s opponents insist the measurees suggested by Consumers United for Rail Equity woulrd force rail companies to lower pricezs on trainsto out-of-the-way places with littlew access, typically where their costs are That could neutralize the competitiv advantage and benefit of lower prices offeref by robust shipping hubs such as Centra Ohio, said James Seney, who once header the and is now helping to fight the regulatoryh proposals.
“Ohio has a uniqure advantage,” he said, because its numeroud rail lines, cargo transfer hubs, waterways and highways work togetheer to make shipping convenient andcomparatively “If we lose that advantage becausew of government-imposed pricing,” he said, “then what does Ohio have to competre with?” The root of the measures reachexs to the 1970s, when the rail industruy was heavily regulated. Companies back then needed approvak on most price adjustments and infrastructure The restrictions nearly put the railroadsz out of business because they were unable to set prices and adjustg tomarket changes, White said.
But the Staggerse Act in 1980 deregulatedthe industry, allowin g it to consolidate and restore its profitability, he But those seeking the new rules say the consolidatiojn since then into a handful of providersa – each owning its own trackl – has shippers at the mercg of rail. “Really, the current state of rail servicwe is retardingeconomic development,” said Jack Pounds, president of the , a trade group for chemical manufacturers. “But if you are a monopoly, you have very littlwe incentive to worry about detailed service issues for Consumers United for Rail Equity is working for reform ontwo fronts. One is the Railroad Antitrust Enforcemen t Actof 2009.
It seeks to remove rail’ws antitrust exemptions for collective rate-making and wouls enact greater oversight of rail company mergers and Another measure is a planned reintroductionb of a broad bill known in the last session of Congrese as the Railroad Competition and Servicre Improvement Actof 2007. It soughf requirements that some rail providers sharetheir tracks, among other measures aimed at boostingh competition. “And we want to make the rate challengeprocesds better,” Szabo said.