STB delays inquiry into competitive rail switching

   The Surface Transportation Board said Friday that it is putting off consideration of a request by the country’s largest shipper organization to revise its rules having to do with competitive railroad switching.
   The National Industrial Transportation League asked the STB in July to adopt new rules so captive shippers served by a single railroad could gain access to competing carriers more easily. The League said existing competitive access rules did not work, and that no shipper using them had ever succeeded in gaining access to a competitive railroad.
    But the STB said Friday that had decided to defer consideration of whether to start a rulemaking proceeding on the NIT League’s request.
    STB said it wanted to first consider extensive arguments presented in another, more general proceeding it has conducted over the past year in which it invited the public to “explore the current state of competition in the railroad industry and possible policy alternatives to facilitate more competition, where appropriate.”
    NITL President Bruce Carlton said the League was “extremely disappointed in the board’s decision which indefinitely delays action on the critical problems faced by captive shippers and proposed solutions presented in our petition.”
    “We believe that an expedited decision on the League’s petition is both necessary and warranted,” said Carlton. He said hitching the NIT League’s “specific and narrowly drawn proposal” to the STB’s open-ended exploration of rail regulation was “a step backward to achieving a robustly competitive freight rail system in the United States.”
    “Recognizing that any rulemaking proceeding is a time-consuming process, further delay in the commencement of such a proceeding means that captive shippers who are dependent on rail service will continue to pay a monopoly tax on their rail shipments,” said Carlton. “Those shippers need competitive relief to grow their businesses and hire more workers.
   “We continue to believe that the Board should act to inject more competition in the rail marketplace and we urge the Board to initiate a proceeding on competitive switching as soon as possible so that all interested parties may offer their views,” he added.
    Railroads have traditionally opposed mandatory reciprocal switching, with the Association of American Railroads arguing that “rail investment and rail capacity would decline, and with it railroads’ ability to continue to provide the affordable, environmentally responsible rail service.”  It explains its position in a fact sheet here.