Off The Rails

The train derailment in Middlebury has been in the news for several days now. The derailment itself is really nothing very interesting. What is interesting is how the incident has raised questions of the safety of our rail lines and possible reasons why they're less safe than tracks in neighboring states.  VPR noted "Vermont rail lines are rated for a maximum load 23,000 pounds lighter" than nationwide standards. The lower weight rating being directly related to the state's failure to upgrade the tracks to the new higher weight limit. These new weight limits and rail standards presumably increase the safety of the track.

The key question being, why exactly are  tracks just across the borders, that are used for trains entering and leaving Vermont, in substantially better condition than our tracks? Why would a train company chose to upgrade its tracks in NY but neglect the connecting portion of the same track as it crosses the border in Vermont? Could it be because 305 of the 578 miles of track in Vermont are state-owned; there thus being no financial incentive for a private carrier to upgrade a state owned track its competitors will have access to at the same state-determined rate?

Is last week's train derailment just one more example of how the free market always outperforms government?

Comments

[geoffrey norman]

Greg:

So could we sell the tracks and raise a little money? We could use the scratch to start a state-run energy efficiency program.

[GreggB]

Great idea. Then we pass a law saying that the tracks must be upgraded at the owners expense. Of course once the tracks are improved they will have to be taxed at a higher rate. Hmmm perhaps vt owns the tracks because no sensible business is interested in owning infrastructure here.

[Greg Decker]

We could and we should. While there may have been a strong argument for the purchase when it was made in 1962 todays regulatory environment is vastly different. Its my cynical view that the only reason the state purchased the tracks to begin with is because of the federal subsidies. As of 1999 these subsidies are no longer available.

Maybe we could start by selling off the 150+ miles of unused track. (this is in addition to the 305 miles of operational track mentioned in the post).

[Christopher Parker]

There are a couple of errors of fact here.

1. No, higher weight standards do not increase the safety of track. Most of the higher weight standards involves the carrying capacity of bridges.

2. Tracks in Vermont are not any less safe than other states.

3. Tracks are not simply, "safe" or "unsafe." They are safe up to a certain maximum speed. The higher the speed, the more level the tracks have to be, the higher tolerances are for being in-gage and the the amount of flex in the track must be less. As long as the tracks are within spec for the particular speed they are posted, then they are safe, which means a track in the weeds that wobbles all over the place can be perfectly safe . . . at 10 mph.

4. So yes, some tracks are in better condition than others - that condition measured by the Federal Railway Administration standards for track geometry that translate to a given speed limit. It's true that on average tracks in other states are in better condition - ie, are rated for a higher speed.

5. The conventional answer for why tracks in other states are in better condition is that there is vastly more traffic running over them, so the return on investment they'll bring is much higher. Vermont, after all, is a pretty lightly-populated rural area which is a difficult place to do business. The Rutland-Burlington line, for example, has one train a day each way, running at 25-40 mph that usually seems to be around 45 cars. The line from Albany to Buffalo has 40-50 trains a day (I think) running at 60mph that often run 100-150 cars per train.

6. Your argument that state ownership takes away the economic incentive to invest is a good one. I think it is true for other states that own their own track (Massachusetts, for example). The difference in Vermont is that Vermont has given long-term leases to the Vermont Rail System, so that they do have time to recoup their investment.

7. This particular accident would have occurred no matter how much investment the tracks had received. The cause was a defect, not visible to the eye in the internal structure of the steel rail - rail that was from 1980, which is relatively new. As you might imagine, this is a pretty rare phenomenon, but they do test the rails ultrasonically every year - the test was scheduled for 2 days after the accident took place!

8. We already have a state run energy efficiency program - Efficiency Vermont. It's got press for being a national model and there have been (unsuccessful) attempts to increase funding, perhaps by a utility rate surcharge.

9. What highway pays property tax?!! If you are for free markets, you can't be taxing one business and giving it's competitor a free ride!! (Sure if you want to ADD a user tax on road users or at least truckers that goes to local government that would be fine - but right now the subsidy dollars go the other way!)

10. Yes it's true - Vermont owns the tracks because private business wasn't interested in owning the infrastructure. Vermont made a political and economic development calculation and bought the tracks. The railroad brings many economic benefits, but from a political standpoint, one of the most important is the feed grain brought in by rail on which Vermont dairy farmers depend. Vermont Railway pays rent and that income stream to the state has paid for the purchase many times over. (So why, then, didn't the private sector do it in the first place? Because the risk was perceived as too high compared to the returns, which are pretty marginal, actually.)

11. What federal subsidies are you referring to? I'm not aware of any that Vermont has benefited from (other than earmarks in the highway bill and things like that. But nothing ongoing).

12. There are a few odds and ends of unused track, but not 150 miles. Unless you are still thinking of the St. Johnsbury & Lamoille County Railway which has been converted to a snowmobile trail and is no longer in the rail network. (sure, sell it off, but you'll have to fight the snowmobile lobby to do it. Seriously, though, I wouldn't sell off any park land - it's a public asset).

13. As for the larger question of state vs. private ownership - that's an argument very similar to private vs. municipal power. By and large, municipal power has a very good record of offering lower rates and helping economic development. I think it's possible private companies would be interested in some of Vermont's rail infrastructure, but it would come at a cost to Vermont business, as they would need a higher profit, sufficient to cover the higher costs of private ownership. That would mean some lines would not sustain themselves any longer. It's hard enough to do business in Vermont, are we going to close down the dairy industry, increase the price of fuel, make it prohibitive to brew beer in Vermont or build anything with out of state lumber?

This is a lot of information, so thanks for reading to this point and thanks for your consideration.

[Greg Decker]

Christopher:

I appreciate the time you spent responding to each item. I don't think all the newspapers put together provided half as much information. Thanks.

Just a few notes:

1. I think Geoffry was being facetious when he proposed a new tax to start an efficiency program.

2. The figure of 150 miles of unused track came directly from the VTrans document linked to in the post.

3. I know government ownership of the tracks lowers the cost to SOME users. These people are called Rent Seekers.

4. Whatever subsidies the state may have had in the past ceased in 1999. Yet we continue to stand at the trough even though its empty?

5. Maybe VAST would be interesting in buying the unused tracks? After all the price would probably be low considering VAST appears to be the only ones interesting in using the tracks anyways.