Amtrak: Connects US // American Jobs Plan Infrastructure Legislation

Yes the fed state partnership grants are written by states that apply. 45% of that block is set aside for NEC projects on shared-use assets (that is NEC assets that are shared by both Amtrak and commuter railroads.) because gateway overwhelmingly benefits New Jersey transit a large bulk of its funding would come from this sort of grant. the rest of the grants would be for Non NEC projects (such as setting up a new corridor or a project to upgrade a state supported corridor under the “Connects US” plan) the NEC Amtrak direct appropriation is for rolling stock, stations, and for assets that are Amtrak sole use. Probably also for Amtrak’s share of shared use projects as well.

Keep in mind Mr. Norman the national network account also funds the state supported side. So even if one is against the long distance network Amtrak does have state supported rolling stock and other infrastructure assets such as the Keystone and New Haven - Springfield lines and Chicago Union station assets that it’s responsible for and which have deferred maintenance needs. I suspect the main long distance thing would be rolling stock replacements. Probably Amfleet II will be announced in the next year or two - they are targeting 2025 to have a plan in place for Superliners. While I of course respect your views on LD service any plan to eliminate the long distance network is essentially dead during the term of this legislation though they could kick the can down the road by doing something such as simply heavily rebuilding the Superliners to extend their life another 20 years or so instead of replacing them altogether with a car that would have a much longer lifespan.

Mr. Petrich, regarding the admittedly long link to The Timrs material I shared, they are now limiting paid subscribers to sharing ten articles per month. I acknowledge that the longer the link, especially if it contains arguments, the more suspectibile it is to breakage - 404 and all that!

With regards to IIJA21, while The Times reports, The Journal editorializes.

Here's Fair Use with regards to Amtrak:

Amtrak gets a $66 billion bailout that should be enough to build a high-speed line in the Northeast corridor but almost certainly won’t because of union and political stipulations. Some $16 billion will go to a national rail network that is unnecessary and bleeds money.

Mr. Lord and other LD advocates around here, your thoughts?

It could take 50 years of lawsuits to build that NEC high speed line, but efficiently fixing the problems and chokepoints (like do Gateway for a small fraction of what is planned), speed it up, do the Hudson tunnel repairs more or less the way MTA did its tunnels, the Baltimore tunnel. Modernized cat would improve NEC quite a bit. Stop going the Taj Mahal way. And the national network should be greatly expanded - it's not about money, it's about better transportation for millions, less pollution, less road congestion. Including transportation in areas which have very few options. And change attitudes about rail. As in parts of Western Europe, a lot less flying in lieu of rail. As I've noted, my father used to take trains from Scranton out to the midwest, slept, ate aboard, avoided airports, long check in lines, transport to and from the airports, and a hotel, and had a much better trip. Back in the 1950's. Oh, he was an aeronautical engineer - heavily interested even back then in energy efficiency. Maybe it's time we stop subsidizing air travel.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 10:24 pm With regards to IIJA21, while The Times reports, The Journal editorializes.

Here's Fair Use with regards to Amtrak:

Amtrak gets a $66 billion bailout that should be enough to build a high-speed line in the Northeast corridor but almost certainly won’t because of union and political stipulations. Some $16 billion will go to a national rail network that is unnecessary and bleeds money.

Mr. Lord and other LD advocates around here, your thoughts?

In the manner and forum for which this infrastructure plan was put forward (and passed), I don't think Amtrak has a prayer at just getting NEC money - affecting about 8 states - without getting money for the "national" network. The "social" and "green" infrastructure items passed in said bill looks at trying to appeal to all states, not just the United State of the NEC. I think the whole concept of the US CONNECT is DOA. By year 5, the costs have to be picked up fully by the States. Ohio already gave back funds once, can't see them spending to support state rail corridors. Would the better approach have been to connect two or three corridors on the map to create a LD route (to establish and hold down a route), and then through time, as ridership increased and states wanted to take on the burden, the corridors then emerge? It's almost like the corridors become a byproduct within the LD route....Not sure what the answer is. Investing in equipment renewal should be first priority of the $66B. That may take a good chunk out of the money!

Amtrak is a political truce. The national network (both long distance and state supported routes) secure more votes and make Amtrak a less controversial and more bipartisan thing. One can certainly make the argument that only the Northeast Corridor and maybe one or two others such as the California corridors, and empire corridor, and maybe keystones have a significant ridership that makes any kind of difference and that the long distance network and many of the state supported routes are a waste of money and are insignificant in terms of their utility. However There’s no denying all trains including the long distance network being economic benefit to the communities their serve - whether this benefit makes up for the expense and the impacts to freight rail is of course the eternal debate we will always have on boards such as this. But I think when you limit passenger rail to something for only the left and right coasts you turn it into a political target - in recent years many rural members have gone along with Amtrak because of the national network and the desire of various members not to lose their local trains and the economic impact they have on areas they serve. Amtrak would become a purely party line thing if it became just about the northeast and California.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 10:24 pm With regards to IIJA21, while The Times reports, The Journal editorializes.

Mr. Lord and other LD advocates around here, your thoughts?

How I think the $66 Billion should be spent by priority.
1) Replace all existing Amfleet, Horizon, Superliner, and Acela rolling stock. Everyone riding Amtrak trains deserves riding in modern equipment, and I really mean everyone. Customers happy = Company happy.
2) Repair or replace rail corridor components (bridges & tunnels) about to fail or reaching end of life. Safety first
3) Fix chokepoints so they no longer cause delays every day or with every train. Scheduling second.
4) Remodeling stations so they are no longer dumps. Customers happy = Company happy.
5) Expanding services should be last on this list, either more frequent trains or trains to new places. Fix what already exists before adding more things that need to be fixed. Additionally, I have never seen Amtrak expanding any services without asking for major handouts from local governments which rarely comes in a timely manner, therefore always completed with huge delays - if ever completed.

That's my take on priorities, but I will not be surprised if Amtrak took them on in the reverse priority.

However I’d go further to say I have limits on my advocacy. I think investments in Amtrak should give the best bang for our buck. I certainly am not willing to make the argument that resuming long gone long distance routes is a better investment than gateway or B&P. I would also say I respect the concerns of those regarding impacts to freight rail. While I do feel the freights should negotiate in good faith and not be obstructionist we should not be bulldozing the freight railroads with passenger service. The carriers deserve a seat at the table, appropriate market based compensation including for the existing network, and needed infrastructure upgrades to avoid freight impacts. I support maintaining the existing network as a base framework and replacing the rolling stock for it - but I believe all network expansion should require state and local investment.

If we are making New Jersey and New York contribute to gateway, I don’t see how it’s fair to reinstitute a route like the Pioneer with no expectation of buy in from the states along the way. I am not against long distance expansion in principle - but I think it needs to follow the same standards as the rest of an expansion program - with states getting together and going thru the same motions that shorter distance routes would have to, applying for a grant, and having to make the argument why their project should get the money and not another.

electricron wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 6:58 am That’s my take on priorities, but I will not be surprised if Amtrak took them on in the reverse priority.

I’d agree fix what’s there first. Expansion should be a state and locally initiated activity.

This article specifically mentions $8 Billion for the Gateway project:

The massive bill gives an $8 billion boost to the long-stalled Gateway Project, which includes the new tunnel, as well as repairs to existing tubes ravaged by Hurricane Sandy.

In addition to the $8 billion earmarked for Gateway in the Capital Investment Grants program, the bill also includes $30 billion in funding for Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, which stretches from Washington, DC to Boston, Schumer said.

“The BIF bill is very good news for Gateway,” Schumer told The Post on Sunday. “There’s more than enough funding here to fund Gateway. This will get it off to a very strong start.

“I’ve talked to [Department of Transportation] Secretary [Pete] Buttigieg, he’s all on board. I’ve talked to the president and he’s on board,” the senator added about BIF money being used toward Gateway.

Construction on the new tunnel is expected to start in August 2023, according to officials at the bi-state Gateway Development Corporation.

https://nypost.com/2021/11/07/infrastru ... er-tunnel/

lordsigma12345 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 7:08 am If we are making New Jersey and New York contribute to gateway, I don’t see how it’s fair to reinstitute a route like the Pioneer with no expectation of buy in from the states along the way. I am not against long distance expansion in principle - but I think it needs to follow the same standards as the rest of an expansion program - with states getting together and going thru the same motions that shorter distance routes would have to, applying for a grant, and having to make the argument why their project should get the money and not another.

This is exactly how I feel. There is no reason to resume a long distance run without some support from the states involved. I don't think the subsidy game that is used for the Empire Service or Keystone Service works for a long distance train necessarily, but there should be some local/state contribution.

lordsigma12345 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 06, 2021 8:36 am

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Sat Nov 06, 2021 7:31 am What I'm "in the dark" about at this time, is how much, if any, does this soon to be enacted legislation represent an "Appropriation" (you WILL spend this amount of $$$$ on these particular projects) or an "Authorization" (it would be nice to spend "this" on "that" in the years ahead).

So far as Bernie's, Liz's, and "The Squad's" social legislation, just take that "piece by piece". I think a strategy of "fly it under the radar" would be best for its proponents.

Mr. Norman I wonder how AOC’s NYC voters will feel about the Squad’s vote given how much it benefits NY - Nancy had made a last minute deal between the moderates and progressive caucus that the moderates would publicly state they will support the “human infrastructure” bill by thanksgiving after CBO scoring. All the progressives except the squad went from no to yes with this deal. And the 13 republicans that voted yes made up the difference.

AOC voted "no" when it became clear the bill was going to pass anyway. Given the nature of the NY-14 electorate she's not likely to be heavily dinged by this. Also worth noting that of the 13 R's who voted "yes" on the infrastructure bill, 4 were from NYC and the suburbs and a further 2 were from Upstate NY.

Mr. Ridgefield, there was report in a Journal article today, that Nancy could have "whipped The Squad into formation" if she had to.

But when she realized she had sufficient support from Republicans to pass IIJA21, she "let 'em do their thing". Lest we forget that in the House 228 (that's what she got) gets same end as does 435.

I would guess she did not want to be seen as more of a Lady Macbeth than she already is.

Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Projects

https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/gra ... g-projects

Washington Post coverage.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transpo ... F42A%3D%3D


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro