What People Think
 |
 |
42% For, 58% Against
Take Action
| Vote on this Bill | |
  |
For |
  |
Against |
| Speak Out | |
  |
Comment on this Bill |
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
S. 1125, The Freight Rail Infrastructure Capacity Expansion Act of 2007 (32 comments ↓)
S. 1125 would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives to encourage investment in the expansion of freight rail infrastructure capacity and to enhance modal tax equity.
()
Learn More
Trackback URL: http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/trackback/110_SN_1125.html
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
R. S. Osborn
Sounds like good legislation. This country needs better rail infrastructure. More efficient rail transport will help keep the US more competitive and help improve the environment.
G Urey
Why should the public pay for the creation of an asset that the RRs then control? Except for AMTRAK, other passenger rail interests have no leverage in bargaining with RRs.
Let them pay for it themselves.
T Gobler
I do believe incentives should be given to promote construction of rail. However, having the public pay directly for privately controlled investments does not seem right. Maybe we should explore other incentives which do not cost the public so much money. Also, possibly the increasing demand will be enough of an incentive for the RRs.
Jeremiah Petsas
I believe that the government should not give incentives to the railroad companies to build new infrastructure that they will control. Instead it should be up to the companies to create. That way those companies that paid for the track can charge a fee for those users who which to travel along those sets of tracks. It happens already in Southern California. There are many lines that the local commuter rail service uses that are owned by Union Pacific in which they must pay a set fee for using. So I don’t see why this can’t be applied to a national level.
BD Parker
With all the cash to be generated, I can see why hedge funds are now taking positions in CSX and BNSF. EPS would run upward, the stock would go up and they would sell out and be happy hedgies.
Joanne S. Jo
I think this bill will raise siginificant amount of discussion because it directly affects the public. I believe that trying to improve the RR infrastructure is a good idea since people's lives are depended on them (ie goods movement). But involving public in a privately controlled infrastructure to this extend seems too extreme.
Hsolis
We pay for it one way or another! My initial reaction was to agree with most of the previous post and say “No, let them pay for it themselves”. However, we must understand that our rail infrastructure badly needs to be revamped and expanded. This tax incentive may just provide the needed financial aid for this private/public partnership to do so. If the rail industry is not equipped to handle the increased in demand for our competitive economy, then the trucking industry will bear the brunt of it while using our highways and roads. We know that the highway industry is not getting any subsidies correct? Wrong. So, this bill is really a matter of allowing a more multi-modal form of transportation of goods.
Brandon Valentine
I agree, I think this expansion and RR improvement will better our economy with better networks or transportation of goods. Plus it will help illiminate some of the traffic that trucks cause on our raods and highways.
Ralph Krmpis
I think that the government needs to step in and help improve the rail infrastructure because by relying on private businesses to do the job, this would allow for inconsistent participation among companies and would not be suitable for the citizens who need public transit. So the tax incentives for the rail infrastructure would be a great way to get the mass transit moving forward on the right foot.
Jenette Coduto
I think we need to start using more rail for trasport rather than trucks, giving incentives is the best way to encourage companies to build more infrastructure. I think this is a good idea, it will help improve circulation and create a more reliable goods movement network.
D Lamano
I do believe that the rail infrastructure does need to be improved, because some truck route just isn't the best way to be heading. The private should be giving more of the incentives than the public because more of the private use the rails than the public. Many of the trucks that are being used for transport are getting stuck on the highway, while the rail infrastructure is a better to transport items.
Christina Ross
If the government thinks this is a good idea...then it must be a good idea....haha just kidding...actually I have mixed feelings on this. I am sure this is going to be beneficial for the transportation of goods, but it seems that since this form is so slow, it isnt used as frequently as trucks are. Hopefully with the tax incentives and revamping of the railways, this system will be more efficient so that it is used more often. I would also hope that with this amendment and expansion, one of the requirements would be to find alternative forms of fueling, instead of burning coal, which is harmful to the environment. If taxpayers are going to be contributing, we might as well be contributing in a positive way, instead of a negative way.
D L Roberts
I do think that giving a tax incentive to the RR companies is a good idea, but not 25%. First, we will all benefit from less pollution. According to the EPA highway vehicles contribute 55.9 % Co, 35.1% NO, and 2.7% PM25, while railroads contribute 0.1% CO, 3.9% NO, and 0.4% PM25. Such pollutants cause many health conditions (like cancer, asthma, heart-attack and nausea). So in a way we will all benefit from less pollution. However, railroad property is very expensive and they are making lots of money off of the increased movement of goods. For example, a rail car on the Los Angles/Pasadena Gold Line costs $3.75 million. Thus, shouldn’t those who are benefiting from such increases pay for the majority of the costs? Besides, ultimately it is going to be the consumer who really pays for the cost of the goods movement. In conclusion, we will all benefit from increased air quality, but not nearly as much as the RR companies, so we should contribute a little (like 10%), but no 25%.
steven kim
if this country is serious about getting away from fossil fuel, serious investments like this bill proposes will be needed. as nations begin to move away from polluting fuels and eventually our own, new modes of transportation for the movement of goods and people will be necessary. this bill places a great deal of cost onto the taxpayer, however the cost of failing to act will be exponentially larger. failure to invest in goods movement infrastructure could debilitate our economy, limiting growth. this investment will help keep the US competitive in the marketplace or else face lose of market capital.
Harald Luna
The expansion of Rail Road infrastructure sounds like an excellent idea. The country needs to improve on its "logistics" of improving the movement of goods. This act should help reduce truck emissions from sitting in traffic on our highways. Enacting this "Freight Rail Infrastructure Capacity Expansion Act of 2007," RR industries should not only improve on the movement of goods, yet they should find alternative means of fuel burning in order to reduce smog emissions and improve our environments air quality.
Noe Torres
It is a good idea to try to improve the current infrastructure and it is even a better idea for the government to give incentives. The governments role should only be get the projects going and not to give away more than it should. The general public is a stakeholder but there are benefits like better air quality, less traffic, etc.
Jose H Rivera
I'm in favor with the government providing incentives to railroad companies to encourage the investment in the expansion of rail infrastructure because one way of another we all will benefit from it. The transportation of goods is a major factor for the economy of many cities, states and subsequently the country. So by the government providing those incentives is making needed investment. If the government does not provide those incentives, what other easier way would those rail companies will obtain the capital for rail infrastructure improvements? Aren’t those improvements in the best economic interest of the public? It is also very important that Environmental Impacts are taken into consideration when doing the expansion of rail infrastructure.
Richard Cuevas
Although I beieve that our rail infrastructure needs to be improved, I do not think that it should be up to the public to solely fund these improvements. If infrastructure improvements included both private freight and public transportation rail, then I think it would be more of the public's obligation to pay for improvements. It is a good idea to offer incentives to private rail companies to find ways of providing better more efficient transportation of goods but it should not be entirely at the expense of public taxpayer money. Private rail companies should contribute to rail infrastructure improvements as well.
P Willkomm
I think it is a step in the right direction to provide incentives for the investment and expansion of freight rail capacity as this helps to improve the movement of goods. However, I don't believe the burden of appropriating funds should be placed yet again on the taxpayer. Although the we will all benefit from it eventually, it should be kept in mind that the private freight industry is going to be taking in the big bucks.
M Pierce
If the credit is extended to other transportation related businesses then it should be passed.
Locomotive Engineer
I can see there aren't any railroaders posting here. This is a cash grab, pure and simple. Public money for private gain. The railroads get the profit and the taxpayers get the bill. And don't think for one second this is a "green" solution. Railroads still have Diesel engines operating that are older than you are. Newer, cleaner locomotives (still no filters) are available, but the railroads keep the filty ones working. The worst thing is that this cash grab is moving through Congress while H.R.2095 waits.
DEUNREIN
I agree with the point that the nations rail infrastructure needs improvement to better facilitate goods movement. These rail improvements could aid in reducing congestion in our ports and on our highways in anticipation of future increased levels of imported goods. When it comes to infrastructure issues, public participation many times comes only in the form of financing and fails to provide direct benefit. I believe a possible solution to this issue would be a funds matching program that require private RR industries to pay for much of the improvement to infrastructure since they will benefit the most. One comment that may be an interesting point to add refers to the point that the locomotive engineer makes about the age of the locomotives and to HR2095, which discusses the isssue of rail safety. After reading the comments I propose that an addition to S1125 address the issues of public safety and health by implementing new technologies in locomotives design and rail safety.
B Albini
I'm glad that some type of rail road policy is coming forth that sets some incentives for company capital improvements. However, the bill falls short of the goal that many see apparent in a discussion/policy on modern rail infrastructure - the much needed upgrade and expansion of passenger over freight rail. The proposed bill fails by being too broad in its definition of "Qualifed Frieght Rail Infrastructure Property" eligible for tax credit that it essentially allows companies to earn tax credits on operational costs rather than real tangible capital investment. Any policy put forth to meet the goals for incentives to rail companies should be aimed at expanding rail, improving degraded track, and investing in cleaner/efficient technology.
M Busheri
There should be more grounded standards on public funding. In essence, the RR industries are exploiting the notion that because the public will benefit from the resource, they should pay for it. Yes, the public will benefit somewhat, but not nearly as much as the companies.
apokkamthanam
I agree with the amendment. Improving conditions of signals and tracks would help eliminate danger to the public. Also, enhancing capacities of freight trails will help reduce traffic on the roads. This becomes necessary as the population increases, and it can prove to be a solution to the congestion experienced by many in the country. I personally would not mind a slight increase on taxes if it means that it will improve my lifestyle, i.e. not spending hours in traffic daily.
JGarcia
It is kind of unfair that the public is the one that is target to pay for part of the cost, when they are not benefiting as much, it is truth that we need to improve our rail infrastructure given the expected in crease of goods movement through the ports and in the highways. However, the expansion of the rail might be what is need it, to decrease the number of truck on the highways, does leaving more room for regular commuters, the incentives can be made more possible for does private companies that are going to get the most of it.
Erik Angel
We all complain about the traffic on our roads and here comes something that would help solve the problem. I think the bill is great because even though we the public would have to pay for part of it, it would benefit us in the long run. Yes, the tax is kind of high (25%) but by giving incentives that encourage rail transport rather than trucks, it would cut down on pollution, create safer roads, and encourage us to return to an old method of transportation that we have forgotten how great it worked after the invention of the automobile and all its hype. If the rail infrastructure works with freight, hopefully it encourages other forms of transportation in where we all won't have to be dependent on automobiles and trucks. Here’s a thought, instead of creating new rail roads, how about reusing the existing ones by fixing them. There are many abandoned rails that are not longer in service. I don’t know, it might work.
Wen Wei
Maybe we can look at the method used by European countries or the Japanese on funding the Freight Rail, and apply it in the U.S. We don't have to reinventing the wheel. I personally favors the offering of municiple bonds over taxing the whole public.
I. Corona
I believe that the bill is attempting to move in the right direction. With the projected increase of freight traffic in the years to come, we do need to expand our rail lines to accommodate this. If there are not enough trains to move the goods, they will just be shipped off on big rigs. This will just add more traffic to our already overly used and extremely congested highways. I do agree with everyone else in saying that the 25% tax is on the high side.
A Gonzalez
Although I do not agree with public investment for private use, it also seems detrimental to increase rail capacity that is badly needed. Our roadways have been ravaged by freight traffic, and rail is the best solution to move goods without disrupting human activity. Anyone who feels otherwise should take a trip down the 710,5 and 60 freeways through Los Angeles and enjoy the horrendous traffic caused by a wall of trucks daily.
Another point is that our federal government, and us as taxpayers, subsidize numerous activites with very little benefit to us individually. Most economists would note that we do not exist in a truly "free market" because of heavy government subsidies in various industries. Helping subsidize the rail industry has a historical precedence, has a benefit to all of us, and is also beneficial to the environment, which should be a priority.
Terrell Jones
If we offer tax incentives to reduce expense on the rail traditional transportation methods i.e. (truck) should go down. As a result, rail volume will increase and over the road (truck) volume decreases… in the world of economics over the road (truck) rates should diminish and create a vacuum for lower freight cost across the board. In addition, fuel consumption in the transportation market should drop thus creating lower fuel cost across the board for all sectors. Therefore, the tax payer should see a lower cost of goods through many facets of every day life.
I think this is worth the money to invest.
Ryan Stroupe
If we want to be able to keep up with the flow of goods in 25 years- then we will have to do something to the infrastructure of out RR system in America.