Category Archives: Rail

Surface Transportation Board (STB) Brings Baseball-style “FINAL OFFER” Game Theory to Railroading Rate Disputes

By Jeff Hartman – January 3, 2023

The STB, struggling since inception in 1995 to develop a fast, affordable, and reasonable method that provides relief to rail shippers challenging unfair rates in “small” zero-sum disputes in which a single railroad dominates the market, will shortly employ Final Offer arbitration to make a binary choice between competing final proposals from railroad and shipper that make the case for what each considers the highest reasonable shipping rate.

Previous efforts by the STB to provide tools for addressing smaller disputes were rarely used by shippers.

The STB’s Final Offer rule is designed as a backup in the case of the failure of a companion STB rule that provides for speedy voluntary, affordable arbitration to resolve rate challenges by stakeholders of any size where the dispute is less than $4M within a two year period—if all Class I railroads agree to use it.

Final Offer theory, developed in the 1940s in the United States, has notably been used by Major League Baseball to resolve disputes as well as state and local governments dealing with unions that are not legally permitted to strike.

In a Final Offer situation, stakeholders do not know what maximum reasonable rate the other side will propose and are thus incentivized to submit proposals that are more rather than less reasonable, and, thus, more likely to be chosen by the arbitration entity. This is markedly different from traditional reasonableness disputes, in which arbitrators would typically split the difference between rate proposals, encouraging participants in the dispute—who knew how the system worked—not only not to be reasonable from the git-go, but specifically to start by proposing unreasonable rates, figuring that whatever they proposed—reasonable or not—was likely to be averaged away.

If—and only if—all seven Class One railroads agree to STB-specified voluntary arbitration proposed in the new rules, the STB’s voluntary arbitration rule will be implemented and the railroads will be exempt from the Final Offer Rate Resolution (FORR) rule for five years.

The FORR rule has been in the works since 2019, when the STB issued a notice of proposed FORR rulemaking and solicited public comment. Five of the Class One railroads filed a petition promising to submit to binding arbitration—a methodology they had refused to participate in for many years—in return for exemption from Final Offer procedures. In response, the STB explored the viability of voluntary arbitration as a practical alternative for smaller rate disputes, and in November 2021 advanced rulemakings for both FORR and voluntary arbitrations, and issued the rules in December 2022 for implementation in early 2023.

Under the voluntary arbitration rule procedure, Class I rail carriers must all commit to five years of arbitration under an expedited schedule. Under the FORR rule procedure, if the STB finds a rate being challenged is unreasonable, both sides submit their case in an “expedited procedural schedule that adheres to firm deadlines.” The voluntary arbitration rule becomes effective 30 days after being published in the Federal Register, the FORR rule after 60 days.

According to STB Chair Martin Oberman, most of the shipper community has expressed a preference for FORR and most of the railroads for voluntary arbitration, but, according to Oberman, both have much in common, including timeframes, flexibility, and monetary limits, and provide shippers with access to more meaningful rate relief than was previously available to them.

“I am optimistic,” Oberman states, “that this time the Board’s efforts will achieve this long-desired goal.  I encourage the Class I railroads to accept the opportunity afforded by the new rule and sign up for the arbitration program they clearly prefer.  However, if they do not, in my view, FORR also provides a strong rate relief mechanism, and its availability would also streamline rate review processes in small rate cases.  To be clear, regardless of some differences of opinion about the most preferable way forward, all Board Members are committed to ensuring review of rate challenges are practical and affordable.”

Joanna Marsh·Tuesday, December 20, 2022

STB’s new rules attempt to ‘strike a balance’ between railroads, shippers – FreightWaves

BNSF plans $1.5B Southern California facility for intermodal, transloading

This has been a winning strategy in the past for BNSF and other Class I rails. I am reminded of the Centerpoint facility near Chicago, which provides BNSF a transfer point in the Midwest. But Centerpoint was developed with money from investors, CalPERS being the largest. BNSF hopes to be the prime developer in Barstow, CA.

In case you don’t know where that is, Barstow is in the middle of the Mojave desert, 132 miles from the Port of LA (about 2 hr 27min as I look at Google Maps). It is right on I-15, the main route the movie stars take to go to Las Vegas from LA. Parts of it around San Bernardino are already traffic jams at many hours. However, the BNSF vision is that containers from the port will move by train, reducing traffic on I-15 and other LA freeways.

The Alameda Corridor already moves containers inland a good 20 miles. It’s a double-stack double-track route. BNSF will ensure good rail service from the Barstow yards to the ports.

Transloading and distribution warehouses will be built near Barstow on the BNSF complex. I believe BNSF sees this as a good real estate play as well as a plan to improve container rail service.

I am wondering if the plans for Barstow include customs processing. If so, that would be good for both imports and exports, because they would not have to wait for customs on the ports. That would aid in reducing port congestion.

Joanna Marsh Monday, October 3, 2022

BNSF plans $1.5B Southern California facility for intermodal, transloading – FreightWaves

Midwest soybean farmers to help pay for Pacific Northwest export terminal; rail service is risky for harvest this year.

Soybean exports are one of the US major sources of export revenue. China is the biggest consumer of soybeans that are exported, about half the US crop. The US competes with Brazil for the Far East soybean market.

Most soybeans to China are for pig feed. However, they can be used to produce biofuel as well.

The new port, in Aberdeen, WA, near Seattle and Tacoma, will export soybean meal. Six state Soybean Associations will chip in to cover the cost, along with the Soy Transportation Coalition. They’ll contribute $900K of the cost.

The terminal will have rail service, involving an interchange between the BNSF and UP main lines, which are predominant in service to Midwest farmers and their elevators, and the Puget Sound and Pacific line, which goes right to the port.

Like the agricultural shipping terminal near Oakland, CA, this facility ought to be of great value in exporting soybean products.

Elsewhere, corn farmers in the US Midwest are worried that railroad inefficiency and poor reliability will prevent grain exports from being shipped as the harvest comes on. A good summary of the situation is in the second article.

Many elevators rely on rail transport to get their grain to a port for export. Some can use barges down the Mississippi, but others, in locations more than 200 mi. from a Mississippi port, use rail at local sidings at elevators. Railroads will need to up their game to support the US export market for agricultural products.

Joanna Marsh Thursday, September 1, 2022

Midwest soybean farmers to help pay for Pacific Northwest export terminal – FreightWaves

 Joanna Marsh Friday, September 2, 2022

Grain shippers eye hiccups on rail network