Why are railroads so quick to abandon and remove track?

Question

Why is it that railroads rip up track when they could simply leave it in case it needs to be used again in the future some time? I'm guessing that railroads (and industry) might be charged a tax on existing rail (is this standard across all of US and Canada?). Does the "salvage value" of the steel and ties make it worthwhile? Could a change in tax/heritage laws help curb this?

Answer 1

Two words. Property tax.

Yeah your parents pay it on their home, but imagine what a railroad pays on railroad track!    If the rails are down, they are taxed on railroad track same as if it was a busy mainline.  If the rails are pulled, it's taxed like bare land.

Salvage value varies dramatically by the quality of the rail and ties.  

90 pound jointed rail from 1918 is barely worth picking up.  

132 lb. welded rail laid in 1988 with a good head would be worth a fortune.

YES!  Government should motivate railroads to leave the rail in place.  And the place to do this is in property tax law.  Have the state support a concept called "rail banking" where, if a rail line is designated dormant, it gets taxed the same as empty land, or preferably, better than empty land.  You could get this changed at the state level, or speak with all the cities and counties along the rail line, and ask them to commit to the railbanking concept.  For the city/county, they're going to lose the tax money either way.  It's MUCH better that they also keep an intact rail line into their community.

Another way to save a rail line is to put together a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation such as a railway museum, and ask the railroad to donate the rail line intact.  They get the tax write-off, and 501(c)(3) non-profits don't pay property tax AT ALL!   This is actually worse for the city/county, because it eliminates some property tax income.

Answer 2

There's a variety of reasons railways rip up the track.  In both Canada and the U.S., there are a series of regulations that govern when a railway can rip up the track.  Usually there's several notices of discontinuance, the property has to be offered for sale to governments or other interested parties, and miles of other red tape.

Railways are constantly looking for ways to be more efficient, so often they stop using track, either main line or yard/side tracks, simply because they don't need to.  Steel is expensive to purchase, and rail isn't cheap to manufacture.  Lifting the rails and ties is just a way to save cash - take it from somewhere it's not needed, put it somewhere it is.  Good quality rail can go on main lines or sidings, less than perfect rail often ends up in sidings, yards, or back tracks.

Changing heritage and tax laws could produce incentive to not rip up tracks, but that's no guarantee it'll work.  The almighty dollar can be very persuasive at times, often overriding government incentives.  Incentives for the long term might not phase on most railways, most of which are publicly traded corporations; it'd need to appeal to short term gain.  How that could be accomplished, I don't know, but I'm sure there are some good ideas out there.

Answer 3

To add to the UK perspective. following on from crimson's comments, and the wholesale closures here of the 1960s, track was pulled up here, often with indecent haste. It was nothing to do with  taxation but for several reasons. Firstly , there was the scrap value of the rails. Things were done very stupidly as very often wholesale improvement works would have been done not long before closure! Secondly, removal of the track enabled the track bed to be sold to farmers in the country, used for footpaths in towns etc. Thirdly, there was the cost of maintenance of infrastructure additional to the actual track. Take a look at the picture at http://www.evr.org.uk/SMR/smr_deepdale_v...

This viaduct spanned a gorge in the town where I live. The railway was closed in 1964, the viaduct lasting until 1972. It had to be pulled at down as BR could not afford its upkeep, and this despite an outcry from the townsfolk who wanted to keep it and use it as a footbridge and tourist attraction. Other photographs of the line and off some viaducts which did remain can be found at http://www.visitcumbria.com/pen/stainmor...

The last reason for removal of tracks was that with them gone there could be no arguments for reopening - something now that is regretted. One did remain, near the University City of Cambridge and there were such plans and arguments made. However, the Government in its wisdom, decided it should be turned into a guided busway - http://www.castiron.org.uk/

In the 40 odd years since all these closures much of the railway land has been sold off - goods yards turned into supermarkets and DIY superstores, housing estates built, rights of way used for, or cut by, new roads,so that any reopening, however desirable, is out of the question.

Answer 4

Wolf speaks the truth.

Answer 5

In the Britain 1961 the newly-appointed head of the then British Railways (BR) was a Dr Beeching, who commissioned a report which alleged that 30% of the rail routes were uneconomic and should be closed down, in the face of increasing competition from road traffic. Sweeping reforms of freight traffic, including widespread containerisation, doing away with mixed freight in favour of bulk freight and the closure of many yards, were also envisaged.

These proposals were enacted to a great extent between 1961-64 in which latter year there was a General Election: the Labour Party promised no more rail closures without a government Transport Review and on being returned to power immediately went back on their promise and closed down more routes. In the end most of Beeching's proposals were enacted, and the promised Transport Review has yet to happen.

It's important to remember that rail closures were taking place both before Beeching's tenure and afterwards (he retired in 1965), but the Beeching era was when most of them happened.

In most other developed countries transport was integrated after World War 2. Other countries experienced cuts in their rail networks but none so savage as in Britain, where the prevailing view was that road and rail should compete with each other. This suited the road transport lobby just fine. It's no coincidence that motorway construction in Britain started in 1959 (at a time when parts of BR were already being run down) and was well into its stride when Beeching took office.

In short, politics and short term gain took priority over common sense. Building roads is far more expensive than laying rail track but it generates profit for the 'right' people, as does all that redundant land left behind by rail closures - a property developer's dream.