Passenger Trains > Amtrak, USDOT, USDOJ lose on-time performance legal battle

In US District Court, District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 11-1499
(JEB) AAR vs. USDOT et al:

(This is the case where the AAR challenged the right of Amtrak to
set performance metrics for on-time performance. It went to the
US Supreme Court, which sent it back to lower court for final
judgment)

The Court's conclusion:

1. Defendant’s Motion for Entry of Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART;

2. Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Plaintiff;

3. Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act
of 2008 is DECLARED void and unconstitutional; and

4. The Department of Transportation and Federal Railroad
Administration’s Metrics and Standards for Intercity Passenger Rail
Service, Docket No. FRA-2009-0016 (effective May 12, 2010) are
VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ James E. Boasberg
United States District Judge

Date: March 23, 2017



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/17 23:01 by GenePoon.

What exactly does all this mean?

Posted from Android

PRIIA Section 207 authorized the FRA and Amtrak to establish and regulate
on-time performance standards for Amtrak passenger trains operating on freight
railroed-owned track.

The AAR, representing the freight railroads, pleaded that this was illegal, that it allowed
Amtrak, an operational competitor for use of the freight railroad track, to also set standards
under which it would operate on that track; and that it deprived their rights to use
of their own property, without due process of law.

The defendants USDOJ and USDOT on behalf of the FRA and Amtrak, also argued that
only the due process portion of the decision should be involved here, and that, properly
controlled by the FRA and USDOT to ensure no violation of due process, Amtrak should
still be permitted set standards for on-time operation on the freight railroads as
per the remainder of PRIIA Section 207. The Court says NO, the entire concept of
an interested party in the use of the tracks also being a rules-maker and
regulator is unconstitutional, the Court's decision thus wiping out the entire PRIIA
Section 207 that gave Amtrak that authority.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/17 00:45 by GenePoon.

There's always a risk when you take a regulatory issue to court, rather than negotiating a compromise. Any future reg would be constrained by the findings of the court in this situation.  The ruling creates a threshold that has to be met.

By the way, this is an example of a company taking a regulator to court over the way in which a law is expressed in regulation. You can lose a a section of the law, as well as the reg.  Section 207 is gone, and the chances of Congress passing a new clarification, to the benefit of Amtrak, is zero.

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/17 12:55 by Lackawanna484.

The judge's annoyance with the DOJ shines through. They should have let the matter drop after their last smackdown at the DC Circuit.

Paul Wilson
Arlington, VA

Dcmcrider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The judge's annoyance with the DOJ shines through. They should have let the matter drop after their last smackdown at the DC Circuit.

Like most lawyers, I suspect DOJ gets paid by the billable hour, not the result.
In all fairness, DOJ lawyers are federal civil servants, but they still have to do what their bosses tell them -- like most of us.  :-)

My understanding is that the offending portion of that part of PRIIA reads that on-time standards would be set by "the FRA and Amtrak", vel sim., and that the landlord railroads' legal objection could be addressed by amending PRIIA by deleting two words.

Of course, anything except the naming of post offices has been beyond the ability of the past several congresses and the obstructionist obsessions of one party.

Too late now.  PRIIA Section 207 is dead.

Section 207 was a creation of the Amtrak legal department, which like all of Amtrak, exists in an autocracy.  When the autocrat is a belligerant bureaucrat, the ill-advised is all too likely.  Consideration of whether the section would pass legal scrutiny may have been tabled by orders from up top, and in the bureaucrats' Club of Friends, the FRA and DOT didn't advise or make any suggestions.

A former Amtrak upper manager suggests that Section 207 was thus ill-conceived, and that the AAR had the upper legal hand all along.  

Now that Amtrak has Wick Moorman in charge, with his background and business relationships among the freight railroads and not in the Sad Swamp, there may be more cooperation and less ill will.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/17 00:18 by GenePoon.

Amtrak has been able to skate on the fine line of being a government agency when it wants, or be a private company when it wants.

207 defined Amtrak as a co-author of regulations ( a government function), and a party to those rules, along with the freight and commuter operators.

That's over. Wick Moorman will likely sit down and hammer out agreements and remedies. I would expect to see reliability requests from the hosts. It can't be enjoyable to see the same locomotives break down, run out of fuel, etc.

Posted from Android