Bill to Strengthen STB Regulatory Powers.

BandA wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 11:34 am

newpylong wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 7:12 pm They aren't required to provide Internet, Internet is not regulated. However voice service is regulated, for safety reasons.

Poor comparison.

Things like T1 lines are regulated. Telephone companies are required to provide DSL including DSL through Competitive Local Exchange Carriers. Interestingly, Verizon does not provide Dry Loop. Where they have ripped out the copper, I am not sure if they are required to provide an alternative service over fiber or CLEC access. Fiber internet such as FIOS, is basically unregulated.

The cable television company claims that their franchise agreement requires them to provide cable television, but the cable internet on the same wire is unregulated!!

I work for an ISP.

Depends on whether that's a channelized DS1 (Voice T1) or not.

Telcos are not required to provide DSL in any shape or form, dry loop/naked or toned. Once you're out past 18,000 from the CLEC a DSL modem can't synchronize frames to provide service. A phone at the same distance works fine and that service must be provided.

When a Telcom rips out Copper, then yes, they are required to replace it with something else to provide VoIP over. There have been court cases in Vermont with off the gridders who had copper (and thus low voltage provided by the pair) and when VT Telecom replaced it with Fiber the homeowner sued them because now they needed to provide power for the Fiber ONT.

BandA wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 12:02 pm Railroads seem quite happy to accept federal preemption of virtually all state and local rules.
They have to provide service to Amtrak but can stonewall state owned passenger railroads.

Or end up operating service for state and local agencies under contract. See MARC/CSX and Metra/UP/BNSF.

newpylong wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 1:05 pm I work for an ISP.

Well Mr. Newpy, I guess we both put our railroad careers "in the rearview mirror".

R36 Combine Coach wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 9:05 pm

BandA wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 12:02 pm Railroads seem quite happy to accept federal preemption of virtually all state and local rules.
They have to provide service to Amtrak but can stonewall state owned passenger railroads.

Or end up operating service for state and local agencies under contract. See MARC/CSX and Metra/UP/BNSF.

CSX got out of that. Bombardier/Alstrom operates MARC on CSX territory now.

The point is, the feds reserved "reasonable terms" requirements for themselves (Amtrak) while withholding them from state agencies that perform similar functions.

That's because state agencies aren't engaged in interstate commerce?... Nor does the US Congress have any say in transportation matters which take place entirely within a state's boundaries...

Then the states should be allowed to impose passenger service requirements on railroads as long as it's within a state. And if a train operated across state lines should have the same power to compel the host railroad as Amtrak does.

eolesen wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:33 pm That's because state agencies aren't engaged in interstate commerce?... Nor does the US Congress have any say in transportation matters which take place entirely within a state's boundaries...

So downeaster, MBTA, CT DOT, MNRR,. NJ Transit, SEPTA, MARC, VRE do not count?

west point wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 8:19 pm So downeaster, MBTA, CT DOT, MNRR,. NJ Transit, SEPTA, MARC, VRE do not count?

Dunno. Downeaster is Amtrak, but the rest are all state agencies working in concert with another state's agencies to provide transit services to benefit their residents. That's typically not "commerce"...

Historically, I don't believe the ICC bothered with commuter agencies that operated into an adjoining state. And the STB is watered down extension of the ICC.

Can you show a single example where a privately owned freight road would need to be compelled to allow a state operated (non-Amtrak) passenger service on freight rail?

I can't.

The only example that doesn't involve another state agency's rails would be Metra from Winthrop Harbor to Kenosha, WI (outside the Metra taxation area), but that's also on a line that UP has no interest in operating freight over given they have a parallel line a few miles west used exclusively for freight...

When IP operated the Hoosier State between Indianapolis and Chicago, they had to use Amtrak crews and accept Amtrak bureaucracy. I think a lot of the state-supported interstate trains would be put out to competitive bid if the state authorities had more "leverage" over the host railroads.

BandA wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:25 pm When IP operated the Hoosier State between Indianapolis and Chicago, they had to use Amtrak crews and accept Amtrak bureaucracy. I think a lot of the state-supported interstate trains would be put out to competitive bid if the state authorities had more "leverage" over the host railroads.

Or you eliminate the prohibition of the Amtrak signatories from being able to operate passenger services, and let UP, CSX, CP, CN, etc. bid to be the operator....

I've said for a long time if the crew in the cab was from the host railroad, you'd see the dispatchers handling those trains differently.

This has been discussed in other threads. Most if not all of the freight railroads want nothing to do with operating passenger service. Most don't want to even host passenger trains. Can you think of any that have bid on a Commuter Rail contract in the last 20 years?

CSX, BNSF, UP, BNSF - SEA

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 8:19 am

newpylong wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 1:05 pm I work for an ISP.

Well Mr. Newpy, I guess we both put our railroad careers "in the rearview mirror".

Yes, I've stated numerous times I stopped working for the RR over 15 years ago.

Staggers effectively abrogated common carrier obligations. Defacto, but that is the result after 40 years.

Rail now sits middle to bottom of the transportation market, and what are hot moves on the railroad are maybe not so much compared to road and air shipments.

Try google maps rail-fanning. There are plenty of line side aggregate pits or grain silos that are not rail served. The volume and distance calculations matter for customer pricing and modality choice.

They can bold whatever in the contract about service guarantees, it won’t stop some d-level nitwit from hitting on the lowest pricing tranche, and complaining about the inevitable results.