Frequently Asked Questions

During World War I, the federal government briefly took control of the U.S. rail network, as it was widely agreed that the chaotic privately owned and run system was not up to the task of serving the nation. The US Railroad Administration (USRA) operated the railroads far more effectively and efficiently for 26 months from 1917 to 1920, winning the approval and support of many citizens, shippers, communities, and all 16 rail unions. In a nationwide union-sponsored plebiscite vote of all rail workers from all crafts and all unions, the vote to keep the nation’s railroads in public hands was overwhelmingly in favor, 306,720 to 1,466. Nevertheless, the railroads were handed over to the former private owners by the Cummins-Esch bill in 1920.

Under public control during the war, railroad workers had more of a say in their conditions of employment. The instability and constant open-class warfare that were hallmarks of the industry were largely eliminated. Safety and general working conditions improved, wages were raised, and the industry became more stable and standardized.

Glenn E. Plumb, a lawyer who was appointed counsel for 16 rail unions in 1918, proposed a plan for cooperative railway ownership dubbed the “Plumb Plan” to keep the railroad under public control once the World War had ended. Despite drawing strong support from organized labor, including railroad workers, miners, and farm workers, the plan was not adopted by Congress. Under the Plumb plan, the railroads would be owned cooperatively, and the federal government would sell bonds, using them to purchase the railroads. All railroads would be merged into a public corporation. Rates would be set by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), and the government would be paid 5% of revenue as a rental fee. Half of the profits would be given to the employees of the railroad, and the other half would be used to retire the bonds. A board of directors with 15 members would control the railroad. The president of the United States would appoint five members, who would represent the public. The workers would elect five members, and management would elect five members. The railroad’s administration would be tripartite, including representatives of workers' unions, shippers' organizations, and bondholders. The plan showed how the interests of workers and farmers in the national transportation system could be protected. The Plumb Plan enjoyed popularity not just among the vast majority of rail workers but also among the working class in general. At the January 1920 Convention of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), the delegates voted 29,159 to 8,349 to nationalize the railroads and place them under democratic management.

The Plumb Plan League was a coalition of organizations and individuals committed to seeing the Plumb Plan become the law of the land. Its primary goal was to build a political alliance strong enough to win Congressional support for the nationalization of the railroads and also public ownership of other key industries such as steel and mining. Its president and avid supporter was Warren Stanford Stone, the president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE) union.

Just what shape a publicly owned rail system in North America might look like is difficult to say, as there are a myriad of potential options. RWU believes that practically any of them are superior to the Wall Street monopolistic destructive path we are on now. The Plumb Plan, with its emphasis on worker and public control of the industry, is a fine starting point. Like other vital national infrastructure, we believe that the rails should first and foremost serve those who have a direct interest in the operation: rail workers, passengers, shippers, trackside communities, and the general public. They should not be operated in the sole interest of a handful of wealthy stockholders interested in making a quick buck.

As outlined above, all U.S. railroads were publicly run for a few years during and after World War I. In addition, various railroads, including the Canadian National (CN) and most of the major railroads in Mexico, were publicly administered at one time or another during the 20th century. Today, there are a handful of smaller port-, state-, and municipally owned and operated railroads. In addition, most of the nation’s commuter railroads are owned and operated by some form of public authority.

Most of the nation's railroads, similar to highways, waterways, and other basic transportation infrastructure, are owned and operated publicly. While some railroads may contract out various functions, including maintenance, train operations, ticketing, etc., the basic infrastructure is, in the vast majority of cases, owned publicly. The North American system is relatively unique among the world’s rail networks in that it is owned, for the most part, lock, stock, and barrel by private companies.

Throughout North America, like the rest of the world, transportation infrastructure is owned and operated in the public interest. The nation’s highways—interstate, state, local, and municipal—are owned, financed, and maintained publicly. Likewise, the nation’s waterways, including the Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, and dozens of other great rivers, are all publicly held, and their use is facilitated by the infrastructure development and maintenance of the Army Corps of Engineers and others. Public authorities build and maintain the nation’s seaports. Airports are constructed and maintained with public funds, and the airway infrastructure, including the traffic control system (FAA) and security (TSA), is financed publicly.

As documented, for the few years that the government operated the railroads, it appeared to do a good job. Just ask any rail workers at the time (see above questions 1–3). Other public transportation infrastructure has been successfully operated publicly for well over a century now. Countries across the globe maintain publicly operated rail systems, and many of them are dramatically advanced and sophisticated, handling billions of passengers annually and millions of gross tons. And dozens of publicly owned railroads are operated every day in the US and have been successful for years. And two of the most popular programs in US history—social security and Medicare—have been handled efficiently by the government for many years, both enjoying mass public support.

Amtrak, while generally considered to be a public entity, is technically a private, for-profit corporation. Nevertheless, it is publicly funded (subsidized) and controlled by a Board of Directors appointed by the President. Amtrak, however, has been a political football for much of its 50-year existence and has been starved of necessary capital and consistently threatened with extinction every few years. Despite all odds, Amtrak enjoys popular support among rural and urban communities and lawmakers from both political parties. As proposed, public ownership of the existing Class One freight carriers would look much different than Amtrak because the system would be truly publicly owned and democratically operated. Also, freight traffic on the nation’s railroads is extremely profitable and essential to the national economy and represents vital infrastructure to every state of the union; hence, there would be no need for operating subsidies. Passenger operations, including Amtrak, are subsidized in countries across the globe due to their nature.

Conrail was created by the federal government in 1976, when major Northeastern railroads were on the verge of collapse and bankruptcy after years of deferred maintenance, capital divestment, and a loss of freight traffic to other modes (e.g., the new interstate highway system). Conrail, with a huge infusion of billions in federal cash, rebuilt the inherited, formerly bankrupt railroads, and within a decade, Conrail became a rebuilt and profitable entity. Though workers and shippers wanted it to remain in public hands, it was sold back to private inverters in the 1980s. By 1999, it was carved up and divided between the two remaining eastern Class One railroads, Norfolk Southern and CSX. Only a few sections remain in a few terminals for shared railcar switching between the CSX and NS.

There are a number of reasons to believe that rail safety would improve under public ownership. The enormous pressures from Wall Street to cut costs, including labor, maintenance, and inspections, have instigated a decline in rail safety in recent years. Public ownership would eliminate those pressures that now exist to increase profits by cutting corners. And as a public entity, the railroad would be less capable of hiding safety violations from inspection. Workers would be empowered to play a greater role, and whistleblowers would enjoy more protections.

Under the Railway Labor Act, collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) between carriers and unions do not expire but live on in perpetuity (unless and until the workers in the bargaining unit were to vote to decertify the union). As such, when a rail corporation assumes ownership of another company or merges with another and forms a new corporation, a union contract remains intact. There is no reason to believe that if and when the nation’s railroad were to be merged into a publicly run entity, the union contract would not likewise remain. Those units that were previously unorganized at the time would of course remain so, but there is reason to believe that these units would stand a greater chance of being organized into the union once under public ownership (e.g., the dispatchers at UP).

There is reason to believe that union contracts, especially those related to working conditions and safety, would improve with public ownership. The public sector is now far more unionized than the private sector in the U.S., and anti-union forces are not as great as they are in the private sector. Public entities are more accountable to the public by their very nature than private entities, so one might expect better treatment. The vast majority of profit currently is siphoned into stock buybacks, dividends, CEO bonuses, and the like. Public ownership would see the end of such schemes, with profits being plowed back into the enterprise and shared more with the workers who create the wealth (contrary to what railroad CEOs stated during the contract fight in 2022, railroad workers do create the profits of the industry). The private rail industry has played hardball with the nation’s rail unions over the course of many years, and as a result, contracts for freight rail workers have worsened along with pay and working conditions. Due to the nature of “patterns” established under the Railway Labor Act, this has not generally boded well for commuter and passenger rail workers, whose contracts often mimic and take their cues from the national master freight rail agreement.

Eugene Debs, the great rail union organizer and leader, once said, “I would rather have a government that is in control of the railroads than a railroad system that is in control of the government.” And this: “Privately owned industry and production for individual profit are no longer compatible with social progress and have ceased to work out to humane and civilized ends.” And more: “A privately owned world can never be a free world, and a society based upon warring classes cannot stand.”

With just four major Fortune 500 corporations (NS, CSX, UP, and BNSF) controlling the vast majority of rail traffic in the U.S., joined by two others (CP and CN), jointly controlling 90% of the U.S. rail freight traffic, their power—not just economically but politically—is enormous. Is it wise in a democracy to allow a handful of very rich, privately owned corporations that operate relatively clandestinely and wield enormous power over all other industries—and hence millions of workers—to own and control such a vital piece of infrastructure? Clearly, allowing such a monopolistic enterprise to wield such power in the name of so few people is antithetical to the basic idea of a “government of the people.”

There were once two million rail workers in the U.S. a hundred years ago. At that time there were 240,000 miles of track. Today there are approximately 200,000 railroad workers in freight, passenger and commuter service, and just 110,000 miles of rail right-of-way. We have lost 90% of the workforce and 40% of the route miles. In recent years, the decline in employment has been accelerated by so-called Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR), decimating jobs across most crafts employed by the big Class One carriers. Some put the job losses in recent years at as high as 35%. The rail carriers are driven by Wall Street pressure to cut labor costs. They do so by cutting jobs, increasing workload and hours on the remaining workforce, shredding the union contract, and shuttering or downgrading classification yards, shops, terminals, and mainlines. Still, they are not happy. The push for single-person train crews, automated inspections, and contracted-out maintenance will mean even deeper job cuts. Public ownership would no doubt result in a dramatic reversal of this trend, as once again, the railroad would be considered a public service, designed to serve its workers, shippers, and the public at large, and not serve as simply a cash cow for a handful of rich folks. Countless loads that now go by truck because the rail industry finds them "not profitable enough" would return to the rails. Double tracking would ensue on the now cramped and restricted single-track mainlines. Hump yards would reopen to handle the traffic. Public investment would mean more efficient, modern, electrified trunk lines, diverting even more traffic off the nation’s highways and back on the rails where it belongs. Remember, the private rail system in the last 17 years has witnessed a 24% decline in carloads handled! In 2006, 32.1 carloads were moved by the Class Ones. In 2023, that number shrank to just 24.4 million loads. In addition to freight, passenger trains—vilified for more than half a century by the private railroads—could return to the rails in large numbers. In short, public ownership would mean a dramatic revival of both freight and passenger services, translating into tens if not hundreds of thousands of good union rail jobs across all crafts, in every state in the country, and in thousands of communities both urban and rural.

We just witnessed a despicable degrading moment in rail labor history in the fall of 2022, when railroad workers dared to ask for a handful of paid sick leave, and the big rail carriers, rather than concede this modest and reasonable demand, refused to offer not ONE day of paid sick leave to their employees, bringing the nation to the brink of a national rail strike and shutdown. Driven by their Wall Street masters’ appetite for profits and knowing that paid time off would necessarily mean more workers on the payroll, the carriers dug in their heels. With public ownership, once again the drive for ever greater profits would be eliminated, along with the stingy, skinflint attitude of a private, for-profit corporation. Also, most all public employees, either under a union contract or otherwise, enjoy relatively generous paid sick leave provisions, so it would follow that railroad workers would more easily achieve parity on the sick leave front with other workers once the rails were nationalized.

Just as with the union contract, there is no reason that the railroad retirement system would be abolished or degraded. It is currently administered by the government and is self-funded. In fact, there is reason to believe that public ownership of the railroads would bode well for the Railroad Retirement System because, as outlined, increased freight traffic, electrification, infrastructure expansion, a return of passenger service, shorter and safer trains, and an emphasis on service rather than profit and job cutbacks would necessarily translate into more railroad jobs and more payers into the Railroad Retirement System.

At its essence, what makes rail transport so efficient is the steel wheel on the steel rail. The space where each wheel of a rail car occupies the rail is about the size of a dime, so there is very little friction. Compare that to an automobile or an 18-wheel truck, where rubber on asphalt or concrete occupies many times more space. A railroad train once in motion requires very little additional energy to keep it moving due to the limited friction and huge momentum.

1. A one-mile-long train of double-stacked containers can move the same freight as nearly 200 separate tractor trailer “big rigs” on the nation’s highways and roadways. Rather than needing 200 or so separate trucks (tractors) to haul these 200 containers (trailers), the train requires 2 to 5 separate locomotives (depending on weight and terrain). In addition, rather than having 200 separate drivers, the train requires just two crew members in the lead locomotive.
2. A double-tracked railroad line can handle as much traffic—cars and trucks—as a four-lane interstate highway. That highway includes not just those four lanes but also the “breakdown lanes” (4 of them, two each direction), median strips, and auxiliary adjacent land space that can add up to up to three, four, or even ten times as much land as is required by the railroad line.
3. While steel rail and rail car wheels wear out and degrade along the railroad right-of-way, the detritus is relatively harmless. Compare this with the millions of pounds of degraded rubber that a highway experiences from countless tires that wear away each day and the rubber particles flowing into the nation’s waterways and groundwater.
4. Those 2 to 5 diesel locomotives that pull those 200 containers may leak motor oil, diesel fuel, and other compounds over the course of their run. But compare that to the 200 separate trucks that move the equivalent amount of freight. And railroads can be electrified through overhead catenaries so that locomotive propulsion can be generated without the need for fossil fuels, motor oil, or other toxic chemicals.
5. Repair and maintenance of a railroad right-of-way requires far less time, cost, and personnel than a 4-lane interstate highway system. And while ties, rail, and other infrastructure must be replaced on a railroad regularly, the inconvenience, time, material, and labor required to keep a railroad operational and functioning properly pales in comparison to the highway.

Yes, but the numbers pale in comparison to those killed each year on the highway. Highway traffic is relatively constant, giving animals far fewer opportunities to make a safe crossing. Railroad traffic, by its very nature of necessary spacing, is sporadic and intermittent, allowing traffic-free periods where animals can cross safely. In locations where dense populations and/or endangered species exist, fencing, like with highways, can be undertaken. The advantage of the railroad is that the construction of underpasses is far cheaper because the railroad right-of-way is far narrower to tunnel under (or over).

Rail is the safest means of transportation known to humanity. Because trains are guided by rails, there is no danger of a train swerving off the road, skidding on the ice, or sliding in the snow into a ditch or another train. Last year alone, some 40,000 motorists were killed on the nation’s highways, while another 100,000 were maimed for life. In general, when a train does wreck, the train crew on the headend is often unhurt and survives. When a passenger train wrecks, in most cases, passengers are OK or slightly injured, sometimes killed. Compare this to a plane crash. As an example, the Japanese high-speed train, the first of its kind, was initiated in 1964, 60 years ago, and after transporting billions of passengers, it has never suffered a fatality.

Yes! And in many countries around the world, electrification has been in place for decades and is now being implemented at an accelerated rate. India announced a few years ago that it expected to electrify all of its major trunk lines within a decade. Most new routes being constructed anywhere in the world are electrified due to their inherent efficiencies and environmental benefits. A number of key freight routes in the U.S. had been electrified in the past, but the rail carriers dismantled the infrastructure in the post-war years due to their preference for universal application of the diesel locomotive.

Yes! Wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal means of electrical generation can be employed to propel the nation’s railroads. And the rails have the advantage of already owning the land upon which the electricity will be transported to the train, the railroad right-of-way, and its accompanying air rights and adjacent land rights. So electricity can be generated in places where those renewable resources (e.g., wind and solar) are located close to the railroad right-of-way, then shipped along the tracks to where it is needed.

The simple answer is that the North American rail system has largely been privately owned throughout its history, and the short-term profit calculations do not favor rail electrification. To electrify a railroad is a capital-intensive endeavor. And private railroads have long assumed that a universal approach to propulsion was more profitable, where all rail lines could employ the same type of propulsion (i.e., diesel power). Since private Wall Street firms own the infrastructure, they call the shots. They have shown almost no interest in electrifying any of the mainlines, even the busiest and most trafficked.

When a train under electric wire moves downgrade, slows, or stops, the motors powering such a train are quickly and easily converted from “traction motors” into “generators.” Hence, the train’s forward momentum is actually used to brake the train, as the motors-come-generators provide retardation forces and generate electricity that can be pushed through the locomotive’s pantograph and back into the power line, hence the term regenerative braking. Currently, most freight and passenger trains in operation in North America lack this capacity, so there is no efficiency gained when a train traverses downhill, slows, or stops. Just a lot of heat and/or brake shoe smoke is produced.

Electric locomotives can be produced to exert far more tractive effort (horsepower) than their diesel-powered or “diesel-electric” brethren. While the latter generally produce just over 4,000 horsepower, electric locomotives can produce more than twice that amount. They have fewer moving parts, need less service and maintenance, and have a longer life span by as much as twice.

Trains are capable of safely moving much faster than motor vehicles. Many mainlines today are capable of hauling freight at highway speeds and faster for passenger trains. With upgrades, these speeds could be dramatically increased, taking advantage of all of the inherent cost savings of achieving such speeds. In the last century, however, the privately owned rail network in North America has shown little to no interest in increasing speed limits and schedules for either freight or passenger trains. In fact, in many cases, speed limits have been downgraded in an attempt to cut costs.

Like any form of transport, the movement of trains is hampered by inclement weather. However, due to their nature, rain, fog, and mist generally do not interfere with a train’s forward movement or safe passage. Compare this to cars, trucks, and planes. Snow can present difficulty, but plow operations and general snow removal tend to be simpler, more efficient, and more effective than on highways. This is due to the fact that trains are guided and held in place by rails, they have the ability to move through snow far easier than lighter vehicles, and the right-of-way to be plowed is far narrower.

Public rail ownership can play a crucial role in addressing climate concerns by promoting energy-efficient, low-emission transportation options, reducing dependence on individual vehicles, and facilitating sustainable practices within the rail industry. Rail is the most environmentally friendly mode of transport of goods and people. We hope that by creating more equitable access to rail transport, we can reduce the amount of truck transport, thereby reducing congestion and diesel emissions.

Compared to every other form of transport, rail comes out on top when it comes to the environment. Trains emit less CO2 than other transport modes, use less space and use less fuel than other modes. Planes burn huge amounts of jet fuel at 35,000 feet and do major damage to the upper atmosphere. Trains emit far less noise pollution than carts, trucks and planes. Tow barges have destroyed the basic river ecology of the major river systems across the country through dredging, wing dams, levies, locks and dams, and powerful wakes created by barge tow boats.

The biggest detriment to on-time performance for years has been freight train interference. Given the fact that the nation’s Class Ones are moving 24% less freight than 17 years ago, it is a bit ironic that on-time performance has in fact declined, not improved. This is due to the inefficient nature of PSR and the private carriers’ desire to run extremely long and often underpowered trains to save money.

For years, Amtrak has sought to institute additional frequencies on existing routes, but the host railroads have refused or want exorbitant amounts of cash for infrastructure improvements to do so. “Precision Scheduled Railroading” (PSR) and its penchant for long, heavy, cumbersome, and yes UNSCHEDULED freight trains have exacerbated these claims and demands.

In some cases, yes. Without the freight train interference issue, train schedules could be tightened up. Many of today’s train schedules have been lengthened in recent decades, not because of track condition but because freight trains have impeded the forward progress of passenger trains. Passenger train schedules in many cases were quite a bit faster in the past than today. With double tracking, additional sidings, and extended sidings, passenger train schedules could be further expedited. The private rail system does not wish to make these infrastructural improvements. In fact over the past century, more than 100,000 miles of track miles have been abandoned, while thousands of other miles that were once double have been single tracked.

Passenger service would stand to improve. As more and more Americans once again ride the train and enjoy its comforts, convenience, safety, and relaxation, the political support of a world-class passenger rail system will grow and develop. Currently, with a skeletal network, limited options—or, in some cases, in many communities, zero options at all—and poor on-time performance, many people are not supportive of passenger trains.

Right now, demand, in many cases, is far outpacing supply, so ticket prices can be abnormally high. Also, there is a limited amount of capacity on many trains, so as they sell out, ticket prices rise dramatically. With a developed and robust passenger rail network that would be made possible without the impediment of the private host system currently, ticket prices would naturally fall as supply increased and economies of scale were realized through additional frequencies, longer trains, second sections, etc.

Yes, see the FRA’s proposal for a comprehensive network of trains serving hundreds of new communities. The rail network in the U.S. was vast and still remains, despite the tragic abandonment of more than 100,00 miles of right-of-way in the past century, the largest in the world. Trains still roar through thousands of communities across America, but they do not stop. Fewer and fewer bus lines and air lines service rural and small-town communities. But the railroad tracks are there, waiting to be upgraded, and the stations are waiting to be built or rebuilt for passenger train operations. However, the privately owned rail system in North America is hostile to practically any revival of passenger train operations.

By taking traffic off of roads and highways, additional passenger trains would make driving safer and faster, with highways less prone to traffic jams and congestion. This is especially true in urban areas where tens of thousands of train riders drastically reduce the congestion on urban highways, especially at rush hour.

Just as additional passenger trains (see above) will remove countless automobiles from the nation’s highways, the additional movement of millions of freight carloads by rail would likewise remove countless big rigs from the nation’s highways, making them safer and more fluid, less congested and backed up.

Every vehicle that uses the nation’s highways receives a subsidy from the American people in the form of road maintenance and building. The more vehicles that use the highways, the more maintenance is required, the more new routes and additional lanes, all at taxpayer expense. Removing vehicles - especially trucks which are known to cause far more damage to roadways and bridges than the average passenger automobile - extends the life of highways, removes the need for expansion, and saves billions in expenses.

For the first time in more than a hundred years, single-line shipping rail service will be available to shippers coast-to-coast. No longer will a shipper have to navigate across a series of railroads. Shippers from east to west will be especially rewarded because there will no longer be a need for inefficient, timely interchanges between rail carriers and terminals in Memphis, New Orleans, St. Louis, Kansas City, and most notably Chicago, expediting traffic and bringing down costs.

Definitely. Currently, many small shippers have been squeezed by PSR logistics, which mitigates against the interests of smaller shippers. In recent years, service has deteriorated notoriously, especially for smaller shippers. Switch frequency has been reduced dramatically, in some cases from five days a week to just one. Because small and infrequent shippers are not as lucrative to the Class Ones, they have denigrated service and, in many cases, driven small shippers off the rails to trucks. These shippers would be welcome back to the rails with public ownership because the quest for a .50 operating ratio would be removed from the picture.

With a more contented workforce, with higher morale, lower turnover rate and a generally more stable workforce, staffing crises should be a thing of the past. Trains held for rested crews have wreaked havoc on shippers in recent decades, as private railroads have kept their workforce trimmed to the bone, and made conditions miserable, all combining to create acute staffing shortages on a routine basis. Furthermore, there have been serious "meltdowns" as a result of Class One mergers, such as the 1995 merger of UP and SP and the 1999 collapse of Conrail, with service completely collapsing and shipments being delayed for days or weeks. All of these shenanigans will disappear with public ownership.

No. The Class Ones construct the largest train possible in order to reduce labor costs and boost short-term profits because they are motivated by Wall Street's pursuit of a low operating ratio. Nevertheless, neither traffic acceleration nor smooth operation of the railroad are achieved by this method of railroading. Short, fast trains that keep moving are in the interest of every shipper out there because they keep the mainline fluid and running on time, and they allow for faster transit times in general.

Currently, the majority of Class One carriers do not have marketing departments. As noted earlier in this Q&A, the rail industry is moving far less freight than a generation ago. Public ownership will necessarily mean a reversal of this trend for all the reasons spelled out previously. Rail is the most efficient means of transportation known, and therefore millions of carloads are now moving by truck, and other inefficient and environmentally degrading modes will switch to rail. Marketing departments will be restored because the rail industry would be in business to build traffic, not drive it away, which has been the case for years.

The rail industry - while largely controlled by just six Class One railroads in North America - is monopolistic in that many shippers are “captive” to a single railroad. The classic case was that of Southern Pacific in California, where the carrier for a time, largely controlled the state’s economy and businesses within it. Problems faced by rail-dependent shippers have varied since those days, but many remain at the mercy of profit driven powerful corporations. Public ownership would put an end to this exploitation and strangulation of U.S. businesses by providing rail service as a public service to all. Price gouging would become a thing of the past.

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) - the federal agency that replaced the Interstate Commerce Commision (ICC) in 1995 - was ostensibly set up to carry on the mission of the predecessor agency (regulate service, rates, construction, acquisitions, abandonments, mergers and traffic interchange) but with far less clout. The FAQ of the Freight Rail Customer Alliance shows, the STB is limited in what it can do to reign in the Class One carriers. Practically every major shipping group in the U.S. has complained vociferously before the STB in recent years, but they have won very few concessions from the Class One carriers.

Current practice assumes that certain bulk commodities, generally in long unit trains of material such as coal, oil, sand, gravel, grain, fertilizer, etc., are the mainstay of the railroad. But there was a time when mail and express, perishables, and all kinds of agricultural products moved by rail. With double tracking, increased capacity, increased speed limits, shorter trains, electrification, and the buildout of a robust infrastructure, the railroad could easily handle these high-priority and high-value commodities that now move over the nation’s highway system and do it just as quickly, if not faster, and far cheaper due to the basic efficiencies of rail.

The railroads once carried the majority of the nation’s mail, and there is no reason that mail could not come back to the rails. In fact, as both agencies would be publicly owned, it would only make sense. If the railroad returned to a scheduled format the way it once operated before the pursuit of private profit pushed it in a different direction, mail trains could run once again across the mainlines of America greater than the speed of trucks. These mail trains could once again haul express packages as well.

Under the current system, the Class One rail carriers have decided that it is not profitable (or not profitable enough) to serve a number of potential customers. The rail industry is generally interested in freight traffic that can generate 40 cents on the dollar (or more). These types of profits are generally achieved through economies of scale by running long unit trains of the same commodity (e.g., coal, oil, sand, coke, ore, grain, etc.) and serving large shippers. Small-town America does not fit into this scheme of things. A factory along the mainline in a town of 5,000 might employ a hundred workers and load 5 or 10 carloads per week. The rail industry’s answer is all too often to such a current (or potential) shipper, “hit the road, Jack (literally). This business model has been a major factor in the degradation of small towns and rural economies, as businesses, especially smaller ones, find it harder and harder to thrive outside of urban areas. A publicly owned railroad system would be obliged by law to service all potential customers. NOTE: The “common carrier obligation” does exist in law, and rail carriers are supposed to be bound by it, but it is routinely flouted and ineffectual.

There was a time when the “depot” was the center of the town, where people arrived and departed, goods of all types arrived and were distributed, and locally produced commodities were shipped out. This is rare nowadays. But a return of reasonably priced rail freight and passenger service could witness a revival and a renaissance of small town life, centered around the tracks, where businesses of all types—restaurants, cafes, shops, and taverns—could thrive and develop alongside the depot.

As outlined above, the rail industry is interested in highly profitable loads and, usually, long-unit trains. For many smaller farmers and ranchers, access to rail is impossible under the current private arrangements. A public rail system based upon reasonable rates and a common carrier obligation would assist thousands of smaller farmers and ranchers to once again be able to ship their products and receive necessary supplies (fertilizer, feed, fencing, etc.) by rail.

Public rail ownership in the US could significantly assist economic development by facilitating infrastructure modernization and expansion, leading to job creation in construction and related industries. By improving transportation networks, it would reduce logistical costs for businesses and enhance connectivity between urban and rural areas, stimulating trade and economic activity. Public ownership would also allow for strategic planning to prioritize routes that maximize economic benefits and ensure equitable access to transportation services for all communities. Additionally, investing in rail infrastructure can promote environmental sustainability by reducing carbon emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, while fostering innovation in rail technology and manufacturing, further contributing to economic growth and competitiveness. Overall, public rail ownership would serve as a catalyst for broader economic development initiatives, enhancing the nation's infrastructure, connectivity, and environmental stewardship.

As mentioned in the Environment Section of this Q&A, electrification of the nation’s railroad mainlines could work wonders for smaller communities. Rural electric co-ops would get a huge shot in the arm as electric wire is strung atop the mainlines that traverse the region. The demand for wind and solar-generated power to serve the needs of the railroad would create new infrastructure, provide good jobs, and boost the local economies of thousands of rural communities.

Neighborhoods free from declining air quality would benefit from a revitalization brought about by the possibility of electrification and increased public accountability from a publicly owned railroad. Connectivity to a single national rail system would result in less particulate air pollution by reducing truck traffic through neighborhoods and towns; it would reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality in these communities. Living adjacent to a rail yard would no longer be such a nightmare.

A publicly run and growing rail system would add thousands of well-paying rail jobs, many of which could go to low-income trackside and yardside communities that have been impacted first and worst by railyard diesel emissions. And with the expansion of the nation’s passenger rail network, marginalized communities in big cities like Chicago, LA, St. Louis, and Kansas City would have easy rail access to many locations across the country that are now lacking.

Historically, most poor people were able to make necessary trips by rail. Trains used to be the main way low-income households connected for weddings, funerals, and other events—that is, until recently. And tragically, for those without the means of auto transport, there are fewer and fewer buses and planes, and what Amtrak service exists is skeletal. Rural low-income people would greatly benefit from the advent of a national publicly owned and operated rail system, first and foremost by connecting them once again to family and friends, special events, expert medical care, employment, etc. Also, the small town rejuvenation that a publicly owned rail system could bring to small town America would mean greater potential for better and more meaningful job opportunities, the ability to stay in and rear children in small towns, and the ability of their children to stay, live, and work in that same town.

Through public advocacy and having a "seat at the table," public rail ownership can contribute to environmental benefits by promoting a transition to Tier 4 locomotives and switchers in railyards. This shift reduces air pollution and noise levels, creating a more sustainable and pleasant living environment for trackside communities. Under public ownership, we propose all railyards transition to electric power to reduce the particulate air emissions, improve air quality, and reduce noise and light pollution.

Public rail systems would benefit tribal communities by providing reliable transportation to urban centers for employment, healthcare, and education, enhancing economic development and access to essential services. Additionally, public rail systems would facilitate cultural preservation by allowing tribal communities to integrate their cultural values and practices into the operation and management of the rail system. The public ownership model provides opportunities for tribal input on route planning, station design, and service provision, ensuring that the rail infrastructure respects and reflects tribal traditions and values. Moreover, revenue generated from the rail system can be reinvested into cultural preservation efforts, such as language revitalization programs, cultural education initiatives, and the protection of sacred sites along the rail corridor, further strengthening the connection between the rail system and tribal culture.

Yes. Tribal reservations often lie adjacent to railroad tracks. With the advent of electric rail operations under public ownership, tribes could produce clean renewable electricity and sell it to the railroad, creating jobs for tribal members and local economic development. The high voltage lines that would be strung above the mainline could also handle surplus electricity to be fed into the grid at points along the right-of-way where power is most needed, further benefiting the tribal members financially.

With rates set fairly, and the monopolistic power and control of the Class Ones ended, businesses could thrive in rural and urban communities alike. The goal of the rail industry under public ownership would be to expand market share, reduce environmental degradation, provide good customer service, assist in economic development, connect communities and citizens across the country, and provide a safe, properly staffed transportation infrastructure with a well paid, properly trained, professional workforce. The goal would be to expand infrastructure and capacity, moving ever larger numbers of people and loads of freight each year, as compared to the current system, which consistently moves less freight, services fewer industries and businesses, and is hostile to the movement of people. A public rail system would not discourage, alienate, and otherwise reject shippers who could not help meet the carrier’s Operating Ratio goals, as is the case with today’s Wall Street controlled rail network.

Yes! When a commuter train station opens in a specific neighborhood, the area in the vicinity becomes a bastion of economic activity and growth. Likewise, when an Amtrak station is developed in a small city or town, the neighborhood takes on a new lease on life. Normal, Illinois, a small city of just over 50,000 people is a prime example of how passenger trains and stations can generate a web of economic activity in the surrounding neighborhood.

There are literally thousands of small towns and communities along the 140,000 miles of railroad right-of-way in the U.S. Most of these towns grew up with the railroad, and at one time were served by the railroad in terms of freight and passenger accommodation. No longer. Many communities lost their passenger service more than 50 years ago, while freight service has seen a slow and steady erosion to the point where the majority of trackside communities have no industry left that ships by rail. Many small businesses in small towns manufactured products and shipped by rail for decades. They now ship by truck, have gone out of business, or have consolidated operations into larger centralized facilities, all due to poor service, high prices and new demurrage charges. The privately owned rail industry is largely uninterested in loose car load traffic, favoring unit trains and those operations that provide economies of scale and are highly profitable. This means that small factories in small towns have been jettisoned. Public ownership could revive small town industries and provide good paying jobs that boost the local economies of these towns.