On the broadness of the Brief in PRIIA metrics case.

Trains Magazine Passenger
1

After reading the brief that was added to the PRIIA on time performance metrics case going to the Supreme Court, the broadness of the arguement left a question as to how this case could play out. The court probably has a pretty clean basis to simply reverse the ruling such that the metrics can be set by the STB/FRA/NRPC as they are not legally binding on any entity but NRPC and it is pretty clear that NRPC is part of the government, just like the FHWA.

However, the case could also turn into a forum to discuss the scope of common carrier requirements and their ultimate constitutionality depending upon the scope of the challenges. I am not sure if it would develop as postulated elsewhere.

For example, the investor held railroads might just say…

See here, you have been dumping general fund monies into the Highway Trust Fund, so there is no longer a common carrier requirement for us to haul anything we do not care to, oil in urban areas, radioactive waste, nor is there any basis, constitutionally, for any rate regulation as motor carriers are always an alternative to access, anything else represents a violation of the takings clause… I am no lawyer, so be gracious.

Of course the General Fund transfers are just the most obvious part of the arguement, you have to have simple arguements it seems in a Democracy. I have argued that the real highway (motor carrier) subsidy is through taxes on the use of the much larger mileage of local government supported roads going to highways, a financial leveraging, see Pg 11.

Now, say if such a strike were to occur, I would assume that railroad revenue adequacy would improve relatively quickly, so rail infrastructure could be improved, but the damage to the roadway network and heavy manufacturing base would be immense. Might this just provide a call fo

2

The case is about Amtrak’s status as a “private” corporation and whether in such capacity it can join with the FRA is setting timekeeping standards for its trains over freight railroads. Mr. Payne has produced an interesting argument and question, but I doubt the Court would be willing to venture into the swamp of rail vs highway funding in this instance.

3

I believe you may have misread the brief or simply took whatever contention V. Payne was making. It is just the opposite. The brief is an appeal to SCOTUS to reverse the court of appeals finding that the use of metrics used with regard to the freight rils and Amtrak performance was illegal since it held that Amtrak was a private entity without such power.

"The court of appeals in this matter reversed the

ruling of the district court, and held that metrics and

standards under Section 207 of the Passenger Rail

Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA), 49 U.S.C.

§ 24308(c)(Supp. V 2001), constitutes an unlawful

delegation of regulatory power to a private party. The

court of appeals based its decision on two separate

grounds: (1) an erroneous finding that Amtrak is a

private entity and (2) a complete disregard of the

factors indicating sufficient governmental control over

the development and implementation of the metrics

and standards."

4

Yes, got my wording off, I should have said “such that the metrics can be set”. I sure hope the remainder of the context made that clear. I have edited the original.

5

It is interesting that - 44 years after its creation - there are still discussions over “what Amtrak is”: private corporation? government entity? or something else? As for the court case - are there any “reads” as to how this will play out?