2008 Ad

Railway Age, Sept, 2008 by William C. Vantuono

While it seems that the urgency to invest in and grow the nation's railways, freight and passenger, transcends politics, this election may prove more confusing and polarizing than most.

Conventional wisdom and "traditional" partisan politics tells us Republicans are good for freight, bad for passenger; Democrats are the opposite. Management will lean toward the Republican candidate, labor toward the Democrat. (I interviewed Union Pacific chief executive Jim Young by telephone for our August issue. I could almost see him cringe when we got into a brief discussion on politics and I mentioned Barack Obama's name.)

No way is anything clear-cut. Let's take a look at both Presidential candidates and what electing them might mean for the industry.

It's safe to say that Democratic candidate Obama will not stand in the way of progress for passenger rail. Obama, according to the Railway Supply Institute's Capitol Hill office, "supports development of high speed rail networks." That's encouraging. But an Obama Administration would have the benefit of a Congress controlled by Democrats, who are more inclined to push for freight railroad reregulation, via Jim Oberstar. That's scary. So far, Obama has not taken a position on reregulation, and he believes "most problems can be resolved through increased investment in infrastructure and dialogue between the parties." He also "believes domestic rail freight capacity must be strengthened," and he supports "clean coal." That's encouraging. On the other hand, he's criticized the CN/EJ&E merger. That's disturbing.

[ILLUSTRATIONS OMITTED]

A balancing influence for passenger rail in an Obama Administration could be his choice for Vice President, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, a regular commuter on (and strong supporter of) Amtrak (see p. 26).

John McCain does not support reregulation or taking away the industry's limited antitrust exemption, and he supports clean coal. That's encouraging. But he's been one of Amtrak's harshest critics, and has opposed continued funding for it. That's discouraging. On the other hand, his position papers do not mention anything about passenger rail. That's typical.

Conventional wisdom? "Traditional" Democrat vs. Republican partisan positions? Wait a second: Republican Richard Nixon signed the law creating Amtrak, and John Volpe, his transportation secretary, was largely responsible for crafting federal funding for transit. Democratic New Jersey Congressman Jim Florio is credited with crafting railroad deregulation in the late 1970s, which led to the Staggers Act in 1980, signed by Democratic President Jimmy Carter. And who can forget candidate Bill Clinton donning an Amtrak conductor's cap in 1992 and giving a thumb's up, and actually using the words "high speed rail" in a debate--and then doing virtually nothing for passenger rail after being elected? His administration did nothing to negate the silly "glide path to self-sufficiency" yoke Congress hoisted on Amtrak in 1997.

Now we have two Presidential candidates who appear to be all over the railroad map--if they even care.

What's a railroader to do? Vote for Lyndon LaRouche?