ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
A congressional mandate for rail carriers that haul chlorine and other extremely hazardous materials to install costly new collision-avoidance systems has set off another squabble between chemical shippers and the nation’s freight railroads.
The debate is part of a broader dispute over shipping rates. Chemical companies, which rely heavily on freight trains to transport raw materials and deliver their goods, have complained for years that, as a result of deregulation and mass consolidation, big railroad companies now operate as virtual monopolies.
Chemical manufacturers, along with utilities and grain producers, argue that railroads charge ever-escalating rates while providing poor and unpredictable service, particularly for “captive shippers” located in areas where only a single rail company operates.
Two-thirds of U.S. chemical plants that rely on railroads are served by one freight carrier, according to the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group. Such captive shippers pay on average 20% more than shippers with economic alternative ways to transport commodities.
Railroads counter that average inflation-adjusted rates for all shippers have plunged 55% since Congress deregulated the industry in 1980. “In fact, freight rail rates are a bargain,” says Edward R. Hamberger, president and chief executive officer of the American Association of Railroads (AAR), a trade association representing major rail companies such as Union Pacific Railroad, CSX Transportation, BNSF Railway, and Norfolk Southern Railway.
Freight railroads also say they face potentially ruinous financial liability because they have an obligation under federal law to carry some of the most highly toxic chemicals around the country.
The latest dispute stems from rail safety improvement legislation that Congress passed and former president George W. Bush signed into law in 2008. That legislation directs railroads to develop and deploy by the end of 2015 automated safety systems that can remotely slow or even stop a train before certain types of accidents caused by human error occur.
Positive train control (PTC) is a catch-all term that describes an integrated set of technologies designed to help prevent collisions between two or more trains, avoid over-speed derailments, and safeguard workers who are engaged in track maintenance.
Under study since the mid-1980s, the systems send and receive a continuous stream of data transmitted by wireless signals about the location, speed, and direction of trains. Digital radio links, global positioning systems, and wayside computer control systems aid dispatchers and train crews in safely managing train movements. For example, if a train operator fails to halt a train at a stop signal, the PTC system would apply the brakes automatically.
Rail safety officials have said the high-tech upgrades could have prevented several fatal train accidents in recent years, including the Jan. 6, 2005, derailment of several railcars in Graniteville, S.C. In this case, a railroad employee failed to properly set a track switch, resulting in a collision and derailment. Sixty tons of toxic chlorine gas was released, killing nine people and injuring hundreds more.
PTC systems have been put to use only in limited areas, including the Northeast and in the area between Chicago and Detroit. Regulations issued by the Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in January require freight railroads to install the sophisticated warning and control devices nationwide on 65,000 miles of mainline tracks that carry passengers or transport highly toxic chemicals. The railroads must meet the 2015 deadline set in the 2008 law.
The chemical industry has expressed strong support for using the technology to make rail movements safer. But shippers of chlorine and other chemicals classified as toxic inhalation hazards are worried that railroads will try to recoup the huge costs of installing PTC systems by hitting them with large rate hikes.
The Chlorine Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based trade group representing chlor-alkali producers and distributors, has asked FRA to correct what it terms a “faulty” cost-benefit analysis of the accident prevention systems, which was included in the final rule implementing the congressional mandate.
FRA’s analysis “excluded the economic business and societal benefits that will result from implementing PTC,” such as productivity gains from more efficient service and diverting more freight traffic from the highways to safer rail lines, says Chlorine Institute President Frank Reiner.
“Our concern is that policy and business decisions will be made based on the cost-benefit analysis in the final rule,” he notes. The institute fears that railroads will use an inaccurate analysis to “justify significant rate increases,” Reiner says.
According to calculations done by FRA, railroads will have to spend approximately $5 billion to install PTC systems—an amount roughly equal to what railroads have spent over the past five years combined on capital expenditures for infrastructure expansion.
After installation, rail companies will also have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year to maintain their systems. Altogether, FRA estimates, the PTC mandate will cost railroads $10 billion to $13 billion over 20 years with about a $500 million safety benefit.
In its petition, the Chlorine Institute contends that the agency’s analysis, which “drastically underestimates” the rule’s benefits, “could foster a situation that would allow railroads to impose an unfairly large share of the costs of applying PTC technology” on shippers of chlorine and other toxic inhalation hazard chemicals.
“The railroads have stated that they will attempt to recover their investment directly from the shippers they view as being primarily responsible for the requirement to install PTC,” Reiner says.
These efforts, he remarks, will “directly impact and harm” toxic inhalation hazard rail shippers, as they stand to absorb much of the costs. Charging these shippers higher rates will also provide “a strong incentive” to drive hazardous cargo onto the highways and away from the rails, which is considered the safest mode of transportation for chlorine and other highly toxic chemicals, Reiner notes.
A study conducted for the Chlorine Institute by the consulting firm L. E. Peabody & Associates says FRA’s analysis underestimates the economic benefits of implementing PTC technology by more than $12 billion. In addition to safer operations, the key benefits for railroads include fuel savings from better fuel monitoring and more efficient operations, better equipment utilization, and improved dispatching operations, according to the industry-funded analysis.
While FRA’s final rule includes only the railroad safety benefits expected to result from PTC installation, the Peabody study says there will also be reduced costs for all rail shippers as a result of improved and more reliable transit times. It also predicts a related decrease in highway crashes and congestion as shippers take advantage of better train service and shift freight from truck to rail.
“To arbitrarily exclude vast sums on the benefit side of the cost-benefit analysis is to fatally prejudice the result in a manner that is wholly unacceptable, and inconsistent with the most basic cost-benefit models,” the Chlorine Institute petition states.
But AAR’s Hamberger says the chlorine industry’s criticism of FRA’s cost-benefit calculation is “a smoke screen” to hide the fact that their shipments will raise the cost of rail transportation for all customers. “The high cost of the PTC mandate is a direct result of the toxic nature of chlorine shipments,” the railroad official declares.
■ Digital communications are combined with Global Positioning System (GPS) technology to monitor train locations and speeds.
■ These systems can detect excessive speed, improperly aligned switches, whether trains are on the wrong track, unauthorized train movements, and whether trains have missed signals to slow or stop.
■ If engineers do not comply with signals, the system automatically brings the trains to a stop.
Instead of “bashing” FRA’s analysis, Hamberger remarks, chlorine shippers and similar customers should join the railroads in improving the safety of rail transportation, as well as reducing the public’s potential exposure to dangerous chemicals “through product substitution.”
According to a study commissioned by AAR and conducted by consulting firm Oliver Wyman, more than 80% of the claimed business benefits from the use of PTC technology cited by the Peabody analysis come from increasing train speed and creating new rail line capacity by allowing trains to be spaced more closely together.
The AAR study, however, found that the PTC systems the railroads plan to implement will likely not increase train speed or capacity. “Current PTC technology cannot equal the handling and braking precision of a skilled engineer,” the rail group says. “Increased stopping distances will mean reduced average speed and reduced capacity.”
Hamberger notes that Britain’s Strategic Rail Authority has concluded that European PTC-like systems comparable with those envisioned for use in the U.S. would have a negative impact on capacity. “It’s important to compare apples to apples, and to be realistic about what technology is available for use in meeting the mandate,” he remarks.
“The truth is that in weighing all the factors involved in PTC implementation, FRA’s examination of the costs versus the benefits of PTC clearly shows that there are no present business benefits to the railroads,” Hamberger adds.
The Chlorine Institute’s Reiner disagrees and says experts have assured the institute that the PTC technology the railroads will install to satisfy the federal requirements is sophisticated enough to produce the substantial benefits the Peabody analysis projects for both the freight rail industry and society as a whole.
“It is apparent that the FRA analysis is seriously flawed,” Reiner told agency officials in a May 25 letter. “Only a reevaluation of the assumptions used and the methods employed in conducting the FRA cost-benefit analysis that includes all elements of benefits flowing from Positive Train Control can correct the deficiencies.”
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on Twitter