Daily Herald opinion: The high toll of ‘efficiency’: Regional agency’s analysis shows serious issues rail lines must address to justify merger

The Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern rail systems say in a bold public relations campaign “If This Railroad Merger Isn’t Approved, It Hurts America.”

It could also be said that if the merger of the two lines passes muster with the Surface Transportation Board, that hurts America, too.

It certainly has the potential to hurt the Chicago region. In an August memo to their board reported by our Marni Pyke Monday, Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning analysts count some of the ways.

Slower service for passengers on some Metra lines.

Longer and more frequent roadway traffic delays at more than 50 crossings.

More pollution throughout the region.

And thinking beyond the region, other interests add: Higher costs for businesses and consumers.

At first blush, the unification of the two major rail lines into the nation’s only single transcontinental system certainly presents the vision of “a stronger, more efficient single-line rail network that improves service for farmers and American industry, strengthens competition and moves more freight off the highway,” in the words of UP Chief Executive Officer.

But the potential cost for those improvements, CMAP’s planners said, begin with more than five additional trains a day on UP tracks between Geneva and Northlake and nearly 14 trains a day from Northlake to Chicago’s West side. And those trains will all be longer than now, meaning more chances for delays and collisions. They also could result in slower Metra service on UP’s Northwest, Heritage Corridor and SouthWest Service lines as well as some Amtrak routes involving Chicago.

“A merger that improves freight efficiency but weakens passenger rail reliability would not be a win for our region,” said CMAP Executive Director Erin Aleman.

Nor are the impacts limited to the Chicago region alone. Illinois’ two U.S. Senators, Democrats Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, contend in a letter to the STB that, in addition to potential jobs losses, the resultant single railroad in control of nearly half the rail freight in America “increases the likelihood of higher transportation rates and reduces service alternatives for farmers and businesses.”

For their part, the CMAP concerns are not necessarily an argument against the merger. Indeed, the planners offer specific suggestions for conditions of approval — including the use of zero-emission locomotives to reduce pollutants, more specific data regarding the impact on passenger lines and funding help for some crossing improvements.

The rail lines, it is important to note, respond that trains produce up to 75% less carbon emissions than the trucks, from which substantial amounts of freight will be diverted. They say, too, that they already contribute to some local projects to reduce congestion.

Those are relevant enough arguments, but at this early stage in what will be potentially a yearlong review process, they do more to indicate what remains to be shown than to present a persuasive case.

The Rail Passengers Association, a Washington, D.C.,-based advocacy organization, made just that case in a post on its website earlier this month regarding the merger’s impact on passenger service.

“Just hand-waving away the required passenger-rail showing by promising that passengers won’t be worse off after the merger is not the same thing as demonstrating that passenger transportation will be adequate,” its statement says.

In other words, the rail services are long on promises but short on details, and not just on issues affecting passenger lines.

This is especially true in what could be the most wide-ranging area of dispute — the impact of the merger on competition. The railroads say a merger “strengthens competition.” Opponents reasonably question how that can result from a system with only one coast-to-coast rail line.

Interested parties have until Nov. 18 to submit comments, and the STB does not expect to render its decision until after a public hearing next spring. So, there is some time in which to overcome these issues. But there is also a lot of overcoming to be done. The railroads should face a high bar when it comes to demonstrating that they can sufficiently minimize the toll of their merger to justify whatever efficiencies it might enable.