![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/cef8ab_8d4e0ddce355463e8edabd7c8937b6f6~mv2_d_2500_1406_s_2.jpg/v1/fill/w_124,h_70,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/maxresdefault%5B1%5D.jpg)
Infrastructure needs must be met. It is as simple as that. If infrastructure needs are not met, then the underpinnings of our society, along with its bridges and other public works, start to crumble. In my opinion, the most efficient way to meet these needs is to make infrastructure a major component in any national transportation policy.
The problem right now is this: The United States does not have a truly comprehensive national transportation policy. I'm going to let the reader stew on that for a moment while I bring up some specific needs as they relate to railroads.
Money. Yes, the freight railroads are flush with capital right now, and they plan to invest reported multiple billions of dollars per year for the foreseeable future in infrastructure projects. For the most part, these expenditures do not address maintenance, per se, but rather are targeted to increase capacity in one way or another. The means to increase capacity for railroads are primarily threefold: Increase track mileage, improve signalling thereby allowing more trains to use the same track, and reduce dwell time. The latter is done by increasing yard capacity and/or improving your scheduling via improved digital algoithms or better dispatching. The latter two have very little to do with infrastructure. Those railroads one would consider a part of the public domain--commuter services, Amtrak, street railroads aka light rail, etc.--do not have the luxury of spending huge capital surpluses on new infrastructure, let alone on keeping existing infrastructure from decay. There is no consistent source of funding for this. As a result, repair or replacement projects tend to look more like drawing plans for the lifeboats after the liner hits the iceberg.
Planning. Some infrastructure repair and replacement could be done in half the time if it were possible to coordinate all such needs regionally and on a national basis. It does the railroad no good to replace cheaper Bridge B while more expensive Bridge A is still breaking down and causing slow-orders and headaches a mere two miles up the line. Without planning, money tends to be spent on the cheaper project first. Foreseeably, it may continue until Bridge A collapses and shuts down the line altogether. Planning helps make money available when and where it is needed most.
Divorce from Politics. No officeholder wants to plan to spend lots and lots of money on infrastructure if it can't be spent before the next election cycle. Divorcing the allocation of funds from political expediency would allow railroads to develop sources of funding for capital expenditures far into the future, beyond the normal 2, 4 or 6 year terms of office of those in power.
But in all these areas, the one thing that will certainly make a difference is for government to provide for a consistent and dependable source of funding for infrastructure repair and replacement. If we want to let politics govern capital improvements, maybe that's the compromise. But fund maintenance for all modes of transport, including rail, through a single source. I would propose that this could be a mileage related tax independent of the actual cost per mile of the transportation. Perhaps X dollars per thousand passenger miles and Y dollars per thousand ton miles, kind of like the tax on gasoline that doesn't depend on the cost per gallon.
Let me close this blog with a few things that will help make infrastructure improvements and repairs more cost effective, to be used in conjunction with the consistent and uniform funding.
Consider modifying and/or repealing those federal and state laws that mandate higher wages or union membership for infrastructure workers.
Modify or repeal "buy America" laws.
Force state and federal environmental agencies to expedite review, and at the same time limit filings for objections often used by property owners to hold projects hostage.
Access for all is a noble goal, but access for everything from bicycles to wheelbarrows to herds of sheep is not. Limit the extent to which projects must provide for special interests. Just because you would rather see a hiking trail there than a railroad doesn't make it a good idea for America as a whole.
Limit administrative costs. A single source of funding could do this, as would items 1 to 4 above. Then pare it down some more!
Allow those modes of transportation that are privately owned, and this includes freight railroads, to have a piece of the funding pie when and where a real public benefit is demonstrated. Things like level crossing separations and increased warning intervals where level crossings cannot be changed come to mind.
Infrastructure is not just a buzzword. Let's get ours in order before a disaster makes it a curse.
©2015 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
