Review – S 2104 Introduced - Common Carrier Rules

Back in June Sen Baldwin (D,WI) introduced S 2104, the Reliable Rail Service Act of 2025. The bill would amend 49 USC 11101, expanding the railroad common carrier requirements to provide transportation upon a reasonable request to include requirements for ‘timely, efficient, and reliable rail service’. There is no funding provided in the legislation.

The bill is essentially identical to S 2071, the Reliable Rail Service Act, that was introduced by Baldwin in June of 2023. No other action was taken on the bill in the 118^th Congress.

Moving Forward

Baldwin is a member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Technology Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration. This means that there may be sufficient influence to see the bill considered in Committee. Railroads are going to oppose this expansion of their common carrier responsibilities based upon their long-standing assertion that they are the only ones that have enough service situational awareness to establish what delivery schedules are reasonable. How that opposition would break down into votes in Committee and ultimately on the floor of the Senate is difficult to quantify. I suspect that any votes would be somewhat bipartisan and very close.

 

For more details about the provisions of the bill see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/s-2104-introduced-common-carrier - subscription required.

Review - S 2071 Introduced – Common Carrier Rules

Last month, Sen Baldwin (D,WI) introduced S 2071, the Reliable Rail Service Act. The bill would amend 49 USC 11101, expanding the railroad common carrier requirements to provide transportation upon a reasonable request to include requirements for ‘timely, efficient, and reliable rail service’. There is no funding provided in the legislation.

Moving Forward

Baldwin is a member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Technology Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration. This means that there may be sufficient influence to see the bill considered in Committee. Railroads are going to oppose this expansion of their common carrier responsibilities based upon their long-standing assertion that they are the only ones that have enough service situational awareness to establish what delivery schedules are reasonable. How that opposition would break down into votes in Committee and ultimately on the floor of the Senate is difficult to quantify. I suspect that any votes would be somewhat bipartisan and very close.

Commentary

This bill is an outgrowth of the continuing issues that shippers and receivers have had with railroad services. This bill is not going to solve the problem, but it does provide the STB with some additional tools to work out a solution.

 

For more details about the provisions of this bill, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/s-2071-introduced - subscription required.

Bills Introduced – 6-21-23

Yesterday, with both the House and Senate in session, there were 101 bills introduced. One of those bills may receive additional coverage in this blog:

S 2071 A bill to amend section 11101 of title 49, United States Code, to ensure that rail carriers provide transportation or service in a manner that fulfills the shipper's reasonable service requirements. Baldwin, Tammy [Sen.-D-WI]

I will be watching S 2071 for language and definitions that would specifically include chemical shipments in the scope of the proposed changes.

Mention in Passing

I would like to mention two bills introduced yesterday, HR 4250 and S 2074. They are both described as bills “to maintain the free flow of information to the public by establishing appropriate limits on the federally compelled disclosure of information obtained as part of engaging in journalism, and for other purposes.” While whether blogs such as this one are considered ‘journalism’ is open to interpretation and debate, I have something of a personal stake in legislation like this. Both bills have significant bipartisan sponsorship, but I doubt that in this congress they will actually get considered.