Sam Skinner says he favors no mode. What does he favor? - trucking vs. railroads - column

Railway Age, Dec, 1990 by Gus Welty

Transportation Secretary Sam Skinner is an ambitious man, or so the Washington wisdom has it. Speculation seems to follow him around, speculation as to the direction his ambition will take, speculation as to what he will be doing when his hitch at DOT is just a memory.

For the moment, however, Sam Skinner is at DOT It is presumed that he will be at DOT during the debate in 1991 over highway funding reauthorization and what is expected to be a major battle over extension of motor-carrier rights to operate monster trucks, twin-48s and triple-28s, on the whole federal highway system and maybe even beyond that.

The Secretary made what was presumably a major speech last month at a joint meeting of the American Railroad Conference and the Railway Progress institute. He had this to say:

"Competition between the railroad and trucking industries is healthy and is something we expect to occur. However, all of us recognize that a war of words can escalate into the kind of conflict in which both sides are damaged. We cannot allow this to happen... I urge both industries to remember that while they may argue about political and economic issues at one level, reality requires that they cooperate at other levels. Too much is at stake from a global competition standpoint for the railroad and trucking industries to fight with each other. And I want to make it clear at the outset: At my first opportunity, I will deliver the same message to the trucking industry. . . The message applies equally. I favor no mode over another."

Skinner looked back at the aviation reauthorization process, completed in 1990, as something akin to the highway reauthorization process which will have to be completed in 1991. Nobody liked the first draft of the aviation reauthorization bill, he said, but in the end there was agreement (though, as one observer pointed out, the airline passengers who will ultimately pay didn't seem to be major players in that agreement).

Said Skinner: "What we've done in aviation we can do in surface transportation reauthorization if everybody works together. I do believe, given my knowledge of the railroad and trucking industries, that this is going to happen."

He also said: "It is neither my job to referee this debate nor to twist arms in an attempt to contain it. My job is to make sure that everybody gets heard, that nobody gets bowled over, that the end result is in the best interest of the public and America's position in the global economy. That ought to be your goal as well, and we ought to be able to achieve it."

That's a very statesmanlike approach.

But is it realistic?

Publicly, the trucking industry's spokespersons seem to be playing both sides-Down-playing their intent with respect to long combination vehicles (LCVs) while they engage in railroad-bashing with their "program for railroad reform."

It seems clear that the Secretary of Transportation doesn't much like what he's been seeing and hearing. It seems clear that he would greatly prefer that the two industries break off combat and arrive at some sort of accommodation, compromise, whatever, in the name of the greater good, and with looming global competition as the bogeyman threatening all concerned.

So, he issues a warning to the railroads and he says the same warning will go to the truckers: Don't escalate, compromise.

There is one large problem with this.

Railroads are not demanding anything from truckers. Truckers, through American Trucking Associations, are demanding that a program for railroad reform be enacted, and a top officer of ATA has been quoted as saying that her intent is to cost the railroads all the money she can.

Truckers are demanding-or will be demanding-the "right" to operate monster trucks on highways nationwide, regardless of safety considerations, public opinion, whatever.

Railroads have analyzed the economic impact of operation of these monster trucks, especially the twin-48s, and the conclusion is that the modest and fragile prosperity enjoyed by railroads today would be destroyed-at an inestimable economic and social cost to the nation.

Railroads have made a comeback during the 80s, since deregulation and during the nation's period of economic expansion. But railroads cannot take a major hit from government authorization of bigger, heavier, longer trucks. And this would be a combination of injury-plus-insult, since today's big trucks don't pay much more than an average of 50% of the cost of the damage they do to highways and bridges. Motorists are going to be asked to pay even more? The drivers of automobiles are going to be asked to share the road with terror-trucks?

The Secretary of Transportation seems not to be addressing the key issues, issues of competitive equity, issues of transportation balance, issues of safety. All the Secretary seems to be saying is, "Don't fight, guys."

Compromise on what?

If your life is at stake, even your economic life, you do not compromise. And that's the position the railroad industry may well be in, as the truckers push for a continuation and an expansion of the free ride they already enjoy on the nation's highways.