(HJR 54 – Sponsors: McClendon and Staples)
The constitutional amendment creating the Texas rail relocation and improvement fund and authorizing grants of money and issuance of obligations for financing the relocation, rehabilitation, and expansion of rail facilities.
No.
From LWV:
ARGUMENTS FOR
• The proposal may help relieve congestion on public highways, improve air quality, and enhance safety at railway crossings.
• The new and upgraded rail corridors would foster economic development.
• Savings to the highway fund that is currently used for improving rail crossings and related expenses would offset a portion of the cost of this program.ARGUMENTS AGAINST
• Each billion dollars in bonds will require debt service and fees of almost 100 million per year, which is a huge long-term commitment of state funds.
• There are many more cost-effective and direct ways to improve air quality than financing rail facility improvements.
• Railroad companies are realizing higher profits that should allow them to re-invest in infrastructure without public assistance.
From TLC:
Arguments For:
1. Traffic congestion on state highways has increased in recent years partially due to the inability of the railroad industry to meet the demand for freight transportation through the state. The ability to ship more goods using railroads would decrease the amount of trucks traveling on highways, thereby reducing congestion.2. The relocation of rail lines would improve efficiency, encourage investment, and promote safety. Goods would be delivered much faster if freight rail lines were moved from congested urban areas. Right-of-way obtained by relocating railroads out of cities could be used for the placement of commuter rail lines or highways, each of which could provide economic opportunities for private investment along its corridors. Also, relocating railroad tracks that route train cars through populated urban areas would reduce the number of potentially fatal train accidents that occur in Texas each year.
3. Freight rail is more fuel-efficient per ton-mile than trucks and would help Texas comply with federal air quality standards. Also, relocating rail lines out of urban areas would reduce the amount of hazardous materials shipped through highly populated areas.
Arguments Against:
1. The private sector should be responsible for the improvement and relocation of railroads. The railroad industry is not a state-regulated industry, and the state should play no part in the industry’s investment decisions. It is not the state’s responsibility to aid private companies in investing in and improving rail lines owned by the companies.2. Borrowing does not create new money for the improvement of rail infrastructure, it only delays the time when payment is due. The debt service on the bonds issued could cost the state $87.5 million per year beginning in fiscal year 2007. The amounts needed to pay off the debt must be collected eventually.
3. The Texas Department of Transportation’s primary duties involve planning and making policies for the location, construction, and maintenance of state highways. The authority of the agency over railroad issues is very limited. The Texas Department of Transportation should continue to use its resources to carry out its primary duties without using state resources to aid an industry over which it has little control.
From HRO:
Supporters say
Proposition 1 would help enhance public safety, alleviate traffic congestion, improve air quality, and boost economic opportunity by facilitating the relocation and construction of rail lines in Texas. If approved by the voters and funded by the Legislature, it would create a mechanism for financing the relocation of dangerous freight rail lines in densely populated areas. Relocating railroads outside of cities would improve public safety by reducing the number of inner city rail accidents and preventing the shipment of hazardous materials through densely populated areas. Last year, a toxic waste spill in San Antonio killed five people and injured 50.The current congestion crisis on Texas highways stems in part from the inability of railroads to keep up with increasing demands for the transport of freight through the state. According to the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), the number of vehicles on Texas roads increased by more than 60 percent — from 11.7 million to 18.9 million — between 1980 and 2003. Allowing for the shipment of more goods by train would reduce the number of trucks traveling on highways, which would decrease congestion and increase safety by eliminating potentially dangerous truck traffic. Freight rail is more fuel-efficient than trucks and would help Texas comply with federal air quality standards.
Right-of-way obtained by relocating railroads out of urban areas could be used for the placement of commuter rail lines or new highways, both of which would decrease traffic congestion and provide economic development opportunities along these corridors. The Union Pacific track between Georgetown and San Antonio that straddles MoPac Expressway (Loop 1) in Austin would be one location for a possible commuter rail line if the heavy freight traffic could be relocated to an area outside of the urban centers. The fund could be used to help finance both the relocation of existing rail lines and the development, improvement, and maintenance of new lines, such as commuter or high-speed rail.
The state needs outside assistance to fund large-scale railroad improvement and relocation projects, and Texas should continue to forge public-private partnerships to finance such projects. In the construction of the Trans-Texas Corridor, for example, a Spanish company has agreed to finance the project in exchange for toll revenues collected over the next 50 years. Similarly, in a public-private partnership for rail relocation, a private company could finance the construction and maintenance of the rail lines in exchange for the opportunity to profit from future economic activity along the railways.
Relocating rail lines would boost the state’s economy by encouraging investment, improving efficiency, and preventing existing businesses from moving out of the state. Rail carriers are not shipping as much freight as is needed for a vital economy because of clogged or inadequate rail lines. With a revamped rail system, investors would look to Texas as a prime location through which to ship their goods, which would be delivered much faster if freight rail lines did not pass through congested cities. Texas already has begun to lose important businesses as a result of inadequate rail lines. Any costs related to rail improvements would be offset by the income from increased shipments.
Opponents say
Railroad relocation should be left entirely to the private sector. It is not the responsibility of the state to finance construction of additional freight rail lines. The state debt commitment would be open-ended, with no limit on the amount of state bonds that could be issued from this new fund. By amending the Constitution to authorize the creation of this fund, the state could commit itself to such debt for a long time to come.TxDOT deals primarily with state highways and has very little authority over railroad matters. TxDOT should use its resources to carry out its primary functions that relate to the planning, construction, and maintenance of the state’s highways. The railroad industry no longer is state-regulated, and state government should not involve itself in that industry’s investment decisions.
I believe it is not the government’s place to fund improvements for the private sector. If it is economically viable, let them issue their own bonds, and not put the burden on the taxpayers of the state. If the rail lines are more efficient in transporting cargo than truck freighters, let them use their cost advantage to improve their own infrastructure. Like the man says, you have to spend money to make money.
As a Houston aside, as Charlie Kuffner points out, this would have little or no effect on our city, since we are one of the largest ports in the world, and rerouting rail traffic is just not a possibility.
