Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 32 Publications in Transportation
Presentations & Interviews ICLE Executive Director Ian Adams joined the Regulatory Transparency Project’s Fourth Branch Podcast to discuss proposed rules that would require mandatory switching on U.S. railroads. . . .
ICLE Executive Director Ian Adams joined the Regulatory Transparency Project’s Fourth Branch Podcast to discuss proposed rules that would require mandatory switching on U.S. railroads. The full episode is embedded below.
Regulatory Comments Comments of the International Center for Law & Economics Before the Surface Transportation Board STB Ex Parte No. 711 (Sub-No. 1) Reciprocal Switching Submitted Feb. . . .
On behalf of the International Center for Law & Economics, a nonpartisan nonprofit that promotes the use of law & economics methodologies to inform public-policy debates, I offer the following comments to express concern about the potential finalization and promulgation of the Surface Transportation Board’s (STB) 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the imposition of a reciprocal-switching requirement for U.S. freight-rail operations.
The STB’s renewed efforts on reciprocal switching have come as part of a push by the administration to spur competition in the U.S. economy.[1] This proceeding responds specifically to a call by President Joe Biden to: “strengthen regulations pertaining to reciprocal switching agreements.”[2] Unfortunately, like much of the administration’s broader effort, the regulatory solutions the STB offers are in search of competition problems, evidence of which remains conspicuously absent. Worse, the STB offers these new regulations on the basis of a docket that is now dated and that itself relied on even older data.[3] As a procedural and factual matter, the STB should use this proceeding to abandon consideration both of the 2016 NPRM, specifically, and of a reciprocal-switching mandate altogether.
Toward that end, these comments speak to the manifest infirmities of the proposal under consideration by examining how the STB has failed in its statutory duty to identify a problem suitable for regulatory redress; by identifying the proposed solution’s most likely outcomes and exploring how poorly they satisfy the Proposed Rule’s stated goal; and by detailing the inevitable costs associated with promulgating the Proposed Rule.
Competition within the freight-rail sector and the larger U.S. economy is vital to the nation’s economic health, and by the STB’s most recent assessment, is robust.[4] But the role of regulation is to make markets regular in a manner that fosters efficiency, not to reflect the whims or will of a regulator to the detriment of a disfavored party.
Read the full comments here.
[1] Executive Order 14036, 86 FR 36987-36999, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy.” July 9, 2021. https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-15069.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Docket No. EP 711, Docket No. EP 711 (Sub-No. 1), 81 FR 51149-51165,“Petition for Rulemaking To Adopt Revised Competitive Switching Rules; Reciprocal Switching.” Aug 3, 2016. (NPRM). https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-17980.
[4] Laurits Christensen Associates report to Surface Transportation Board, “A Study of Competition in the U.S. Freight Railroad Industry and Analysis of Proposals that might Enhance Competition.” November 2009. https://www.stb.gov/wpcontent/uploads/files/docs/competitionStudy/Executive%20Summary.pdf.
Popular Media President Joe Biden’s July 2021 executive order offered a sneak preview of his administration’s priorities for the freight-rail sector, particularly where it calls on the Surface Transportation . . .
President Joe Biden’s July 2021 executive order offered a sneak preview of his administration’s priorities for the freight-rail sector, particularly where it calls on the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to “strengthen regulations pertaining to reciprocal switching agreements.”
Read the full piece here.
Popular Media The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has released a list of 50 airports that it contends will need “buffer zones” for 5G cellular spectrum, the latest in a . . .
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has released a list of 50 airports that it contends will need “buffer zones” for 5G cellular spectrum, the latest in a months-long and escalating public fight between the agency and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Rather than a mere regulatory turf battle, the differences this internecine spectacle illustrates in how these two agencies think about risk and understand the purposes of regulation reflect basic divisions that run throughout our politics.
Popular Media In a turf war between federal agencies that could prove deeply disruptive to travelers, the Federal Aviation Administration is threatening to ground planes if the . . .
In a turf war between federal agencies that could prove deeply disruptive to travelers, the Federal Aviation Administration is threatening to ground planes if the Federal Communications Commission allows wireless carriers to begin operating in the C-band spectrum this week.
TL;DR Since taking office, the Biden administration has moved aggressively to use enforcement actions and rulemakings—many of them outlined in the administration’s July 2021 executive order—ostensibly as a means to promote market competition.
Since taking office, the Biden administration has moved aggressively to use enforcement actions and rulemakings—many of them outlined in the administration’s July 2021 executive order—ostensibly as a means to promote market competition. Among the targets of this approach has been the freight-rail sector. The administration advocates for mandated reciprocal switching, a form of compelled network interoperability, on grounds that it would improve the rail industry’s competitive environment.
The Biden EO called on the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to “strengthen regulations pertaining to reciprocal switching agreements,” which the board is expected to do in early 2022. The regulations would be based on a six-year-old notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which was, in turn, based on far older data.
Concerns about competition in the freight-rail industry, and particularly about consolidation among Class I railroads, have been both overblown and misdirected, driving officials to seek counterproductive regulatory remedies. A reciprocal-switching mandate would render rail networks both less efficient and less resilient, as it would undermine firms’ ability to schedule their operations precisely.
Such a mandate would be particularly counterproductive in the midst of the ongoing supply-chain crisis. Over the longer term, a switching mandate would undermine the very incentives that have yielded enormous private investment in the development and ongoing maintenance of rail infrastructure.
Read the full explainer here.
TOTM Economist Josh Hendrickson asserts that the Jones Act is properly understood as a Coasean bargain. In this view, the law serves as a subsidy to the U.S. . . .
Economist Josh Hendrickson asserts that the Jones Act is properly understood as a Coasean bargain. In this view, the law serves as a subsidy to the U.S. maritime industry through its restriction of waterborne domestic commerce to vessels that are constructed in U.S. shipyards, U.S.-flagged, and U.S.-crewed. Such protectionism, it is argued, provides the government with ready access to these assets, rather than taking precious time to build them up during times of conflict.
Written Testimonies & Filings The signatories of this letter represent a broad range of public interest organizations who urge that any state laws still prohibiting car companies from selling their cars directly to consumers, or opening service centers for those vehicles, be amended to permit direct sales and service of EVs
We, the signatories of this letter, represent a broad range of public interest organizations. Our individual interests include such diverse matters as environmental protection, fair competition, consumer protection, economic growth and workforce development, and technology and innovation. Some of us frequently find ourselves on different sides of public policy debates. However, today we find common ground on an issue of considerable public importance concerning sales of electric vehicles (“EVs”). Specifically, we urge that any state laws still prohibiting car companies from selling their cars directly to consumers, or opening service centers for those vehicles, be amended to permit direct sales and service of EVs
Written Testimonies & Filings The signatories of this letter, active or emeritus professors employed at public or private universities in the United States, come from across the political spectrum, and have a wide variety of views on regulation, environmental and consumer protection, and free enterprise as a general matter, but find common ground on the important issue of automotive direct sales.
We, the signatories of this letter, are active or emeritus professors employed at public or private universities in the United States. We specialize in economics, competition policy, market regulation, industrial organization, or other disciplines bearing on the questions presented in this letter. We come from across the political spectrum, and have a wide variety of views on regulation, environmental and consumer protection, and free enterprise as a general matter, but find common ground on the important issue of automotive direct sales.
