NOW COMPETE FOR THE SHORT HAULS.

Motor carriers already pound the interstate highways to pieces, thus it is no surprise that the president of the Association of American Railroads takes to The Hill to raise that point as part of an argument against allowing longer tandem hitches on the roads.

Federal policymakers ought to answer a simple question: should large commercial trucks fully cover their costs for using public roadways, or should taxpayers help foot the bill? From the perspective of large, private freight railroads that compete with trucks and other subsidized transportation modes, the answer is a resounding “no.”

Private enterprises should cover their costs to do business, including moving freight over roads, bridges and highways also used by the traveling public.

The evidence is clear: big trucks, which play an invaluable role to U.S. commerce and are also a major customer of the rail industry, simply do not account for the costs associated with their infrastructure use. Some sections of the industry advocate for a gas tax increase, but that does not seem sufficient nor imminent.

“The last Federal highway cost allocation study [sic] showed that many of the heaviest trucks pay considerably less than their highway cost responsibility,” reports the U.S. Department of Transportation.

This issue is particularly pertinent as the Senate Appropriations Committee readies action on its transportation spending bill, a process in which proponents of even bigger trucks may try to hijack the spending process to modify existing truck-size limits.

The freight railroads are walking a tightrope here, attempting not to antagonize the motor carriers that are willing to contract for long-distance haulage by reintroducing retail railroading, e.g. moving containers from Rochelle to Madison or North Baltimore to Columbus by rail, rather than having them rubbered there.

In an environment of shortages of truck drivers and experimental robot trucks that may or may not play well with motorists and pedestrians, though, there likely is a business opportunity for railroads to go after those shorter hauls.

The June 2018 Trains devotes space to the possibilities for shorter-haul intermodal, noting inter alia Florida East Coast's service getting trailers off Interstate 95 (south Florida evidently terminating a lot more cargo than it originates these days) and Britain's Freightliners (the British Isles being short haul railroading per se, and there are U.S. companies with experience running the freight services there.)

Perhaps it's time for the trade association to force the issue, by supplementing the rent-seeking with more aggressive attempts to solicit the shorter-haul business.

The rail industry not only values its business with trucks – which is nearly a quarter of all revenue – but believes it is mutually beneficial. In 2015 alone, freight rail carriers handled 15.3 million intermodal containers and 1.5 million trailers carrying a myriad of goods central to our high-quality of life. Trucks, railroads and ships in the U.S. combine to form a top-performing supply chain that delivers 54 tons per American every year.

However, we reject efforts by select trucking interests to increase truck sizes until policymakers take real action to require the trucking sector to cover its costs. Absent such dialogue, campaigns to boost truck sizes should be emphatically rejected.

Maybe the status quo is good enough. Or maybe the railroaders want the status quo, rather than be in a position where infrastructure improvements might bring ... gasp ... passenger trains with them.