Acting Secretary of Transportation Named

Steven G. Bradbury has been named acting secretary of transportation following the Jan. 11 resignation of Elaine Chao as secretary.

DOT officials said the appointment was made in accordance with the department’s established order of succession.

His term as acting secretary is expected to be brief. President-elect Joseph Biden, who takes office on Jan. 20, has nominated former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg as the next secretary of transportation.

Bradbury has served as general counsel of USDOT since Nov. 27, 2017. In that role he has had authority to resolve all legal questions regarding the agency’s policies and programs.

He has also overseen DOT’s 55,000 employees and  $87 billion budget since Sept. 10, 2019, as a member of the Office of Deputy Secretary of Transportation.

Chao, who was an original member of President Donald Trump’s cabinet, announced her resignation on Jan. 7, the day after a mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol.

Both Chao and Bradbury had pledged to work toward a smooth transition to the next leadership team of the agency.

Chao Stepping Down as Transportation Secretary

U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao will leave her post on Jan. 11.

Although Chao referenced Wednesday’s riots at the U.S. Capitol in her resignation letter, she would have been leaving office later this month anyway due to the inauguration of a new president.

Chao in a letter to DOT employees called the storming of the Capitol “a traumatic and entirely avoidable event. It has deeply troubled me in a way that I simply cannot set aside.”

President-elect Joseph Biden has nominated Pete Buttigieg as the next transportation secretary.

In her letter to DOT employees, Chao said she was “tremendously proud of the many accomplishments we were able to achieve together for our country.”

She pledged to help Buttigieg in the transition to become head of DOT.

Primus Nominated for STB Seat

Robert Primus had been nominated by the Trump administration to fill a Democratic seat on the U.S. Surface Transportation Board.

The 49-year-old career Democratic congressional staffer is expected to be paired on the Senate floor with Republican nominee Michelle A. Schultz, whose nomination has been stalled for three years pending the naming of a Democrat to fill one of the two vacant seats on the five-member board.

Current STB members are Republican Chairman Ann D. Begeman, Republican Patrick J. Fuchs and Democrat Martin J. Oberman.

The Senate Commerce Committee will consider Primus in a hearing that observers do not expect to be controversial.

Schultz was earlier recommended by the committee for confirmation.

Begeman, who controls the STB’s docket, is expected to hold any controversial cases until the two new members are seated.

However, Begeman’s term expires on Dec. 31 although she can remain in the post for another year pending confirmation of a successor.

Amtrak Service Cuts Just Keep Coming

Amtrak service to Michigan will be reduced to two pairs of trains and service cuts will be imposed on three corridor routes in Illinois.

However, no service reductions are being planned for the long-distance network Amtrak spokesman Marc Magilari told Trains magazine.

Michigan trains that will continue to operate are the Chicago-Port Huron Blue Water while Wolverine Service will consist of No 352, which departs Chicago at 1:25 p.m. and arrives in Pontiac at 8:32 p.m. and No. 351, which departs Pontiac at 5:50 a.m. and arrives in Chicago at 10:32 a.m.

Canceled are the Chicago-Grand Rapids Pere Marquette and two Wolverine Service roundtrips.

On the Chicago-Carbondale, Illinois, corridor the southbound Saluki and northbound Illini will continue to operate while their counterparts are canceled.

The corridor is also served by the City of New Orleans which provides service northbound in the early morning hours and southbound in late evening.

Between Chicago and Quincy the Carl Sandburg will be canceled while the Illinois Zephyr will continue to operate.

Part of the Chicago-Quincy corridor will continue to be served by the California Zephyr and Southwest Chief.

The Chicago-Milwaukee corridor will be reduced to one Hiawatha Service roundtrip with the Empire Builder picking up some of the slack.

The one Chicago to Milwaukee Hiawatha will depart at 5:08 p.m. for a 6:45 p.m. arrival in Milwaukee.

There will also be a late night bus from Chicago to Milwaukee that leaves Chicago at 9:15 p.m.

The Milwaukee to Chicago Hiawatha will depart at 8:05 a.m. and arriving in Chicago at 9:34 a.m.

The Empire Builder will handle local passengers at all stops, including at Sturtevant, Wisconsin, and Milwaukee airport station, both of which Nos. 7 and 8 normally do not serve.

However, the Empire Builder is an afternoon operation in both directions between Chicago and Milwaukee so passengers will not be able to travel northbound in the morning or southbound in the evening.

On the Chicago-St. Louis corridor the southbound 7 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. departures from Chicago will be cut.

Lincoln Service trains will continue to depart Chicago at 9:25 a.m. and 7 p.m.

From St. Louis, Lincoln Service trains will depart at 4:35 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.

The Texas Eagle will also continue operating in the corridor. Canceled are northbound Lincoln Service departures from St. Louis at 6:30 a.m. and 3 p.m.

For now Missouri River Runner service between St. Louis and Kansas City will continue operating on its current level of service of two roundtrips per day.

On the West Coast, the Capitol Corridor route will see a reduction from 15 to five weekday departures in each direction between Sacramento and Emeryville, California, effective March 23.

This does not include the Seattle-Los Angeles Coast Starlight, which uses part of the corridor.

Service reductions on the San Joaquin and Pacific Surfliner corridors have not yet been announced.

Cascades Service is no longer operating north of Seattle and will see the last round trip of the day canceled.

A presentation by the Chaddick Institute at DePaul University in Chicago said Amtrak’s current bookings are down 60 percent, future reservations are off 80 percent, and passenger cancellations are up 400 percent compared with the same period last year.

In a related development the Trump administration has proposed that Amtrak receive $500 million in emergency aid.

The carrier had said it needs $1 billion to cover losses related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The funding is part of a supplemental appropriation proposal the administration has sent to Congress totaling $45.8 billion.

Budget Proposal Gets Muted Reaction in Washington

A Trump administration proposal to more than halve Amtrak funding in federal fiscal year 2021 received a muted response on Capitol Hill.

The Rail Passengers Association wrote on its blog that congressional leaders in both parties are saying there is a two-year budget agreement in effect and they expect that will guide the appropriations process.

“We’ve got the caps deal in place,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. “We negotiated it last year. It’s good for the second year, and we’ll comply with that.”

Nonetheless, RPA is trying to activate its members to contact Congress in opposition to the Amtrak funding cuts.

The administration’s budget proposal calls for slashing Amtrak funding from the $2 billion appropriated for FY2020, which ends on Sept. 30, to $936 million.

The budget proposal would reduce funding for the Northeast Corridor from $700 million to $325 million.

Funding of the national network would fall from $1.3 million to $611 million.

The budget document calls for the elimination of Amtrak’s long-distance passengers trains over the next five years.

Specifically, that would be accomplished through implementation of a new grant program whose objective is to encourage state and local governments to fund Amtrak service in corridors of 100 to 500 miles.

The budget document gave few details about the grant program other than it would only last through FY2015.

However, the administration made clear that it sees no future for long-distance trains.

“Amtrak trains inadequately serve many rural markets while not serving many growing metropolitan areas at all,” the budget document said. “The Administration believes that restructuring the Amtrak system can result in better service at a lower cost, by focusing trains on better-performing routes, while providing robust intercity bus service connections.”

RPA said the proposed $550 million in National Network “transformational grants” appears to be designed to help Amtrak cover the costs of multi-year labor agreements and contracts.

The rail passenger advocacy group argues that those agreements in tandem with the lost revenue from the eliminated trains and lost connections will make ending Amtrak’s long-distance network an expensive proposition.

Last year the Trump administration proposed a similar funding program that would have given states money to implement intercity bus services in lieu of passenger trains.

That idea went nowhere in Congress and the long-distance network survived intact.

The FY2021 budget proposal promised to provide details at an unspecified later date as part of the administration’s proposal for renewing the surface transportation act that expires on Sept. 30.

That document will, presumably, also provide a more complete picture of what corridor services Amtrak and the U.S. Department of Transportation have in mind for funding with the federal transformation grants.

For more than a year Amtrak President Richard Anderson has talked up the concept of corridor services between urban centers, particularly in the South and West.

Anderson’s concept is to provide multiple daily frequencies on those routes.

In his public comments and congressional testimony, Anderson has said many cities served by long-distance routes are served poorly due to scheduling or lack of service frequency.

Amtrak executives have also in recent weeks visited state legislative transportation committee hearings to talk up the corridors concept.

An Amtrak public affairs manager spoke in Tennessee in favor of a new route between Nashville and Atlanta.

The same official also spoke in Kansas about an extension of the Heartland Flyer to the Sunflower State via Wichita.

In both instances, the Amtrak executive made clear that state and local governments will be expected to underwrite the operating losses of the routes.

During the Kansas hearing, the Amtrak executive referred to a yet to be enacted fund to help states fund new service.

The Trump administration budget proposal appears to be the framework for that fund.

Last year in response to questions raised during a congressional hearing Amtrak in a letter to senators declined to list the proposed corridors that it is studying, but indicated that it would continue to work with states that have expressed an interest in new Amtrak service.

Among the routes in states that have worked with Amtrak in recent years on service expansions are a route between Duluth, Minnesota, and the Twin Cities; an extension of Northeast Regional service to Bistol, Virginia; and a train between Chicago and the Twin Cities on the route of the Empire Builder.

There are no shortage of potential new Amtrak routes including some that have been discussed for years but failed to gain political traction.

That would include the 3C corridor in Ohio between Cleveland and Cincinnati via Columbus and Dayton.

Amtrak has never served that route, although it does provide service currently to Cleveland and Cincinnati with long-distance trains.

Columbus and Dayton lost Amtrak service on Oct. 1, 1979, with the discontinuance of the New York-Kansas City National Limited.

If Congress does, indeed, follow the budget deal reached last year, it seems likely that Amtrak’s services in the next fiscal year will be the same as those now operating.

Budget proposals are more policy statements and aspirational statements than they are blueprints.

The Trump administration is not the first to call for elimination of Amtrak’s long-distance passenger trains.

The real action is likely to be in the political wrangling over the surface transportation renewal bill and even action on that is not guaranteed despite the looming Sept. 30 expiration of the current FAST Act.

Congress might seek to extend the current FAST act through a continuing resolution just as it does the federal budget when it fails to reach agreement on a appropriations as the current fiscal year is coming to a close.

Budget Proposal Slashes Amtrak by More than 50%

The Trump administration this week released its federal fiscal year budget proposal and to no one’s surprise it has proposed slashing Amtrak funding by more than half.

The budget proposal also recommends funding cuts to rail-related transportation of nearly $900 million when compared with the last two budget cycles, most of which would be achieved by appropriating less money for federal agencies that oversee rail transportation activities.

For Amtrak, the administration has proposed cutting spending on the Northeast Corridor from $700 million to $325 million.

Support for the long-distance service would fall from $1.3 billion to $611 million with those trains being phased over in the next few years.

The budget document released by the U.S. Department of Transportation calls for funding of a vaguely defined account that is meant to transition long-distance routes into corridor services of between 100 to 500 miles that would be funded in part by state and local governments.

These grants would be known as “National Network Transformation Grants — Long Distance Routes” and would receive $550 million.

Amtrak’s overall funding will decline from $2 billion in the 2020 budget to $1.5 billion in 2021.

The focus on corridor services would be in line with the vision for Amtrak that the carrier’s president, Richard Anderson, and its senior executive vice president, Stephen Gardner, have been talking up for more than a year.

Indeed the DOT budget document uses language similar to that used by Anderson and Gardner in saying that long-distance routes have outlived their usefulness and Amtrak needs to transform into a corridor-oriented operation linking urban centers.

“Long-distance routes continually underperform, suffering from low ridership and large operating losses of roughly half a billion dollars annually,” the DOT budget document states. “Amtrak trains inadequately serve many rural markets while not serving many growing metropolitan areas at all.”

This of course raises the question of whether DOT is parroting Anderson and Gardner or whether the Amtrak executives are mouthing what DOT has told them to say.

DOT said it would release later this year details about the long-distance route transformation program as part of its recommendation for a re-authorization of the FAST Act.

The administration’s budget proposal also recommends $13.2 billion for public transportation, a $303 million increase from the FY2020 enacted level, but would reduce passenger-rail grant programs by $712 million for a total of $1.8 billion.

The budget proposes a 10-year, $810 billion plan for surface transportation reauthorization to replace the FAST Act, which expires Sept. 30. That is $75 billion above the current authorized level.

Public transit would receive $155.4 billion over the next 10 years. The administration stated that it would submit a comprehensive surface transportation reauthorization proposal in the coming months, APTA officials said in a legislative update.

The Federal Railroad Administration would receive just under $2 billion compared with nearly $2.8 billion budgeted in 2020.

Proposed LNG by Rail Rule Draws Range of Comments

Opinions are flowing in rapidly on a proposal by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to allow trains to transport liquefied natural gas in DOT-113C120W specification rail tank cars.

Opposed are the National Transportation Safety Board, attorneys general of 16 states and at least two U.S. senators.

In favor are railroad trade groups Association of American Railroads, and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association.

The rule change is also being pushed by the Trump administration.

To opponents it is a matter of public safety. The proponents of the rule also cite safety but contend that transporting LNG by rail is safer because of the industry’s “strong safety record” on a ton-mile basis.

Under existing standards, LNG can only be transported by rail with a PHMSA special permit or in a portable tank with Federal Railroad Administration approval.

The dispute began last April when President Trump issued an executive order directing the U.S. Department of Transportation to expedite a proceeding so that LNG could be moved by rail tank cars within 13 months.

The proposed rule that is the subject of public comment was issued in October by the PHMSA.

From the administration’s viewpoint, the rule will provide economic benefits by providing additional transportation options for U.S. energy resources.

In a news release, PHMSA said LNG by rail is seen by the administration as a potential alternative to pipelines, which are not always able to meet the demand of or reach certain areas in the United States that are accessible by rail.

Railroad trade groups that favor the rule have sought to play up the safety record of railroads, saying railroads are involved in only 3 percent of hazardous materials incidents that trucks are involved in, despite having roughly equal hazmat ton-mileage.

The trade groups have even called for the proposed rule to be more expansive than it is, calling for PHMSA to allow LNG to be transported by the 113C140 tank car in addition to the 113C120 and dropping proposed limits on the lengths of trains transporting LNG.

For its part the NTSB has said public safety may be at risk without further study of LNG by rail.

The safety agency said the rule should at a minimum include additional route planning requirements; limit trains transporting large blocks of LNG tank cars to a maximum speed of 50 mph; and require LNG trains to be equipped with electronically controlled pneumatic brakes.

U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley wrote to PHMSA Administrator Howard Elliott to warn that loosening restrictions on transporting LNG by rail “would pose serious threats to public safety that do not appear to have been adequately considered” by regulators.

In calling for further study they cited multiple accidents involving trains carrying hazardous materials, including a 2016 derailment in Mosier, Oregon, that spilled 42,000 gallons of crude oil into the Columbia River Gorge and sparked a large fire.

The attorneys general in opposing the LNG by rail rule said it ignores safety risks and doesn’t substantially address environmental issues.

They, too, want the rule withdrawn until further study and an environmental impact statement can be completed.

Coal Booster Plans Quietly Dropped

The Trump administration has quietly set aside its plans to bolster the coal industry amid opposition from within and outside the administration.

Politico reported that various ideas to force utility companies to keep coal-fired generating plants operating were opposed by members of the National Security Council and National Economic Council.

The report did not say whether President Trump, who campaigned in 2016 on a pledge to revive the coal industry, agreed with or made the decision himself.

Coal remains the single-largest commodity by carload volume hauled by Class 1 railroads, but that traffic has sharply declined in the past decade as utility companies have retired coal-fired plants or switched them to burning natural gas.

The Politico article said the coal industry has been frustrated by lack of progress in the administration’s effort to boost coal production and use.

In particular, they have been hoping for economic assistance, but that has met with fierce opposition from oil and gas producers, consumer groups worried about rising energy costs, environmentalists, and conservatives fighting federal intervention in markets that might cost billions of dollars.

Tariffs Not Hurting Railroads — Yet

Although the railroad industry has been warning about being adversely affected by the growing trade war being waged by the Trump administration, those effects have not yet shown up in the most recent freight traffic figures.

Nonetheless it may be too early for that evidence to be appearing.

Just this week Edward Hamberger, the CEO of the Association of American Railroads warned that recently announced tariffs on certain foreign goods will hinder global commerce and could reverse economic progress.

“The president’s more recent trade decisions could reverse that tremendous progress, adding hundreds of billions of dollars in potential costs for American businesses — costs that could ultimately be borne by consumers,” Hamberger and two other CEOs wrote in an op ed column that appeared in the Washington Examiner.

Also writing the column were American Chemistry Council head Cal Dooley and American Petroleum Institute CEO Jack Gerard.

The most recent figures issued by AAR showed that U.S. Class 1 railroads have posted a 9 percent traffic gain through the first six months of the year and a 5 percent gain during June.

“What these tariffs will mean for the overall economy is not clear — their impact will vary from firm to firm and industry to industry, with overall damage depending in part on how long the disputes last and how they escalate,” AAR said last week in its monthly Rail Time Indicators economic outlook.

After the U.S. imposed tariffs on goods coming from China, that country responded by placing tariffs on such American products as soybeans and automobiles.

The U.S. and several European and North American countries have also imposed tariffs on each other’s exports.

Soybean producers were already seeing declining sales to China even before the tariffs were imposed.

During the first four months of 2018, U.S. grain exports are down nearly 7 percent, with soybean exports down 10 percent and wheat off by 22 percent, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported.

Although intermodal growth this year has been strong, international intermodal container traffic rose just 1.4 percent in June, which might be an indication of slowing traffic.

International intermodal traffic had posted a 7.5 percent increase during the first three months of this year.

Nonetheless, the AAR expects intermodal to set records this year barring  a collapse of international trade.

Anthony B. Hatch, an independent rail analyst with ABH Consulting, told Trains magazine that the Chinese tariffs could have a 6 to 8 percent negative impact on imports of containerized cargo.

Hatch said a strong U.S. dollar has also made U.S. products more expensive aboard.

2 Nominated for STB Seats

President Donald Trump has nominated Patrick Fuchs and Michelle Schultz to serve five-year terms on the U.S. Surface Transportation Board.

Both are Republicans and their appointments are subject to Senate confirmation.

If approved, they would bring the number of STB members to four with a fifth slot, which by law must be filled by a Democrat, still to be named.

Fuchs has worked on the staff the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

A White House news release said that he worked on the development and enactment of major railroad legislation, including the first re-authorization of the STB since its creation in 1996, as well as the first passenger rail re-authorization in more than seven years.

Fuchs also served as a policy analyst and Presidential Management Fellow at the Office of Management and Budget, where he managed railroad and maritime regulatory reviews.

Schultz is a deputy general counsel at the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority.

Before joining the agency in 2006, she was an associate with a Philadelphia law firm, and clerked for the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.