ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, January 30, 1996 TAG: 9601300117
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-5 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JOSEPH P. SCHWIETERMAN
FOR MANY freight-railroad customers, the next 12 months could be a tumultuous time. Major carriers in the West are consolidating, putting thousands of miles of track at risk of being abandoned. In the Northeast, Conrail is planning to shed more than one-third of its route miles.
Meanwhile, state and local governments are scaling back financial assistance for local railroads, which could force some of the weaker carriers to close.
To be sure, most of these recent developments have a silver lining. They reflect the rising productivity of railroading, the emphasis on fast main-line service. The iron horse now pulls more ton-miles of freight on only half the track that was in service 50 years ago. Railroad mergers hold the promise of vastly improving intermodal services, expediting the shipment of containers and truck trailers.
An inevitable side effect of these latest developments, however, will be the loss of rail service to many communities. The next round of abandonments could snatch rail service from urban areas with 10,000 or more residents. With steel rails and wood ties commanding as much as $30,000 per mile from scrap dealers, there are powerful incentives for carriers to pull up little-used track.
Research under my direction at DePaul University has taken a comprehensive look at the ramifications of railroad-track abandonments. After two years of study, we have built a comprehensive ``inventory'' of places without access to railroads.
Until the 1970s, the study found, the loss of rail service to cities was a rare phenomenon. (``Cities'' are defined as communities with more than 3,000 residents.) After abandonment rules were liberalized beginning in 1973, an avalanche of cutbacks ensued. Nearly 700 cities saw their service vanish. Most cities fell victim after the Staggers Act of 1980 which, in effect, deregulated the abandonment process.
Hundreds more cities narrowly escaped the sting of abandonment as ``short lines'' arrived on the scene. These low-cost entrepreneurs, free of cumbersome union work-rules, began operating thousands of miles of track discarded by major railroad companies. Other cities were spared the loss of rail service through the generous public-investment programs of state governments.
Abandonments were not the only factor leaving cities without railroads. An exodus of businesses and residents from old-line railroad towns took place after 1960; more than 1,100 cities sprung up in rural areas without any tracks. Modern-day ``boom towns,'' such as Scottsdale, Ariz.; Moreno Valley, Calif.; and Pembroke Pines, Fla., which never had railroads, saw their populations rise to 100,000 or more. These places rely entirely on highways for the movement of freight.
The study makes the following conclusions about access of railroads in the United States:
Ten of the 200 largest cities on the American mainland are without rail services.
Approximately 1,750 communities with populations of 3,000 or more lack access to railroads. They are in every state except Vermont.
Cities without railroads account for 3.1 percent of the nation's industrial output.
Cities without railroads account for 17 million people, or an estimated 8 percent of our country's urbanized population. In comparison, cities without railroads accounted for only 1 percent to 2 percent of the U.S. population in 1957.
Fortunately for shippers, railroad service remains ubiquitous in America's largest metropolitan areas. Although many individual cities lack rail access, the 300 most populous and most heavily industrialized metropolitan areas continue to be served.
Currently, the most populous metropolitan areas without rails, Farmington, N.M., and Annapolis, Md., have regional populations of less than 100,000.
These findings suggest a bright outlook for railroad services that don't require the rails to directly reach the shipper's door, such as intermodal services. Virtually all urban shippers still have rail service available only a short distance away.
However, for some types of traffic, such as grain, liquids, lumber and coal, railroad service usually must reach the shipper's door to be cost-effective. In these cases, the implication of cities losing their rail service is more troubling; it can impair their ability to attract certain types of industry.
The largest city on the mainland to have lost service is Lakewood, Colo., (population: 132,600), which fell victim in 1988. The California communities of Concord, Daly City, Newport Beach, Santa Monica and Vacaville are also among America's largest without service. All of these cities have more than 75,000 residents and substantial industry.
East of the Mississippi, the casualty list includes Bethesda, Md.; Blacksburg, Va.; Carpenterville, Ill.; Farmington Hills, Mich.; Hamden, Conn.; and Miami Beach, Fla. In the West, it includes Prescott, Ariz; Port Angeles, Wash.; and Bountiful, Utah. Two state capitals, Carson City, Nev., and Annapolis, were also left behind.
The reasons that railroads pulled out of these cities are no mystery: They average only about one-half the manufacturing activity as the typical city of their size.
However, some industrial-oriented cities have lost service. For example, Troy, Mich., ranks sixth in total industrial output among cities in Michigan. It exemplifies the new breed of highway-dependent industrial centers springing up across America.
The railroad industry is beginning to make progress winning back small shippers. This is creating renewed optimism that rail service can be visible in smaller markets. However, blocking the industry's path are high property taxes and an inequitable system of highway fees, which effectively provides a subsidy for heavy trucks.
In the new environment, shippers and cities can no longer assume that railroads will be omnipresent in the American metropolis. Some cities may come to regret the loss of their rails; others may find their old rail bed more productive for nontransportation use. Regardless, the fragmentation of the national rail system is a subject that warrants additional debate.
Joseph P. Schwieterman, director of the Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development at DePaul University in Chicago, wrote this for the Journal of Commerce.
- Knight-Ridder/Tribune
LENGTH: Long : 119 lines ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC: BARBARA CUMMINGS/Los Angeles Timesby CNB