Amtrak: Connects US // American Jobs Plan Infrastructure Legislation

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transpo ... l-funding/

Washington Post coverage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

lordsigma12345 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 7:08 am 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.

Reports I've read re the Portal Bridge suggest that Amtrak could build a perfectly fine 4 track replacement at as little as 10% of what they plan to spend. Apparently boat traffic there is now light, you can still do an openable bridge at a far lower cost than the super high one they want. If they are right, billions could be wasted on just this one thing. And if this is so absurd, I wonder how many other projects are wasting lots of money (beyond ESA).

Ridgefielder wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 11:50 am 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.

AOC voted against it because the reconciliation bill was not coming along with it. AOC, The Squad defend infrastructure vote - Axios

Ocasio-Cortez and Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) say they weren't willing to vote for it without an assurance of passing the larger, $1.75 trillion "Build Back Better" social spending package.

Joining them in the no-votes were Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) and Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.).

She has criticized the infrastructure bill as having dubious contents: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Details matter. ..." / Twitter

She claimed in her next tweets that the bill supports producing hydrogen from natural gas. I fact-checked her assertion by looking through H.R.3684 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress and the bill indeed supports that as a way of producing hydrogen, though the bill also supports renewable-energy production of it.

She mentioned "green", "blue", and "gray" hydrogen, and these colors being symbolic of the means of production of that hydrogen. I've found several such colors:

• Black: production with coal
• Brown: production with lignite (soft coal)
• Gray: production with natural gas
• Blue: production with fossil fuels and carbon capture
• Green: production with electrolysis from renewable energy
• Pink: production with electrolysis from nuclear energy

She opposes any infrastructure improvements. Once in a while for the right reason (like Cuomo's grand tour of Queens air train), but usually just to oppose it and anything useful.

electricron wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 6:58 am 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.

I think that that is a totally harebrained idea. As long as some rolling stock is functional and it can be kept in good shape without great expense, then I think that it should remain in service.

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.

These parts are good. I like the German planning slogan, "Organisation vor Elektronik vor Beton" - "organization before electronics before concrete".

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.

I'm not sure that I agree. Expanding Amtrak service will mean more people served by it, and thus more people with a stake in it.

photobug56 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 8:18 pm She opposes any infrastructure improvements. Once in a while for the right reason (like Cuomo's grand tour of Queens air train), but usually just to oppose it and anything useful.

AOC? That's news to me.

Here are where the Democratic "no" voters' districts are:

1. AOC - NY-14 - E Bronx, N Queens
2. Ayanna Pressley - MA-07 - 3/4 of Boston and some suburbs
3. Rashida Tlaib - MI-13 - parts of Detroit and its suburbs
4. Ilhan Omar - MN--05 - Minneapolis and some suburbs
5. Jamaal Bowman - NY-16 - N Bronx, S Westchester County
6. Cori Bush - MO-01 - St. Louis and some suburbs

All urban areas, and they can only be defeated in the Democratic primaries by someone running as a Democrat. AOC, RT, and IO all survived primary challenges last year. BTW, four of them got into office by defeating a previous incumbent in a primary.

Their districts have varying degrees of rail-transit development, from high (NY-14, NY-16, MA-07) to medium (MN-05, MO-01) to low (MI-13).

The Republicans who voted for the bill:

1. Don Bacon - NE-02 - Omaha and nearby
2. Brian Fitzpatrick - PA-01 - Bucks County N of Philadelphia
3. Anthony Gonzalez - OH-16 - W of Cleveland
4. Andrew Garbarino - NY-02 - S central Long Island
5. John Katko - NY-24 - Syracuse and nearby
6. Adam Kinzinger - IL-16 - rural areas S and W of Chicago
7. Nicole Malliotakis - NY-11 - Staten Island and a bit of Brooklyn
8. David McKinley - WV-01 - north WV
9. Tom Reed - NY-23 - S of W NY
10. Chris Smith - NJ-04 - central NJ
11. Fred Upton - MI-06 - SW MI, incl. Kalamazoo
12. Jeff Van Drew - NJ-02 - S NJ
13. Don Young - AK-01 - all AK

It's hard to find any pattern in these districts, because they range from suburban to rural.

The bill's hydrogen proposals aren't worth losing sleep over. Neither are any hydrogen proposals, period. It's a suboptimal energy storage technology that hasn't seen major technological advances in storage, form factor, or production in decades. More importantly, there's no infrastructure to support a national hydrogen grid and no appetite to build that infrastructure. It will remain a niche fuel with some applications in transportation and a few other industries but not much elsewhere. Of course I agree that details matter, and I agree that blue hydrogen is inherently problematic because it relies on fossil fuels (especially with the issue of methane leaks in the natural gas supply chain) and unproven CCS technologies. But nobody here or anywhere else should be looking forward to a "hydrogen economy" now or in the future.

The bill is obviously great for Amtrak. I still hate the bi-mode rolling stock order and I still wish there were more appetite for mainline electrification and service expansion, but these investments will at least provide meaningful service and infrastructure improvements (or, at the very least, maintenance of current service).

lpetrich wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 8:28 pm I'm not sure that I agree. Expanding Amtrak service will mean more people served by it, and thus more people with a stake in it.

I did not suggest not to expand services at all, I only set that priority very low. Amtrak is getting $66 Billion over 5 to 10 years, not the States. Amtrak is not going to expand services without seeking more matching money from the States.
Some States will get some money to fund capital improvements to the tracks, but few will get any money to subsidize these trains daily operations. The delays for expanding services almost always arise from State subsidies.
I do not think Amtrak will be changing how its asks States for more funding.

Virginia at least claims its Amtrak runs are profitable. That's pre-pandemic, and how the bookkeeping works, I don't know. A lot of moolah went to CSX and NS. It's been a slow build-out, with only two new station stops, Norfolk and Roanoke, and one more planned, Va. Tech. Frequency has gone up, of course, but not speed. The new politics after Nov. 2, unknown.

It's like Amtrak nationally, one big urban area (NoVa) generates the taxes, but has to share most of it with the hinterland. College towns and urban/suburban areas ride the train. Unlike most of Amtrak nationally though, Virginia is on the NEC. So it's not hard to make money on a train in Va. Some big investments outside the scope of any current planning would do well in the long run, but we're not Europe/Asia and won't be building high speed anytime soon. NEC improvements and the higher speed pax-only milk run from Petersburg to Raleigh are the limit for now for what may get built.

lpetrich wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 8:28 pm

electricron wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 6:58 am 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.

I think that that is a totally harebrained idea. As long as some rolling stock is functional and it can be kept in good shape without great expense, then I think that it should remain in service.

You really think those models are being kept in good shape without great expense?

Some should likely be overhauled and refurbished depending on what shape its in. Dome cars, cars that in general are expensive to replace but can be redone. Modernized as appropriate. Every time you start from scratch you have new problems to overcome.

Biden to sign $1.2T infrastructure bill, unleashing massive investment - "'We're finally getting this done': Biden signs landmark infrastructure package in major win for domestic agenda"

But Congress is still at loggerheads over the rest of the package, the Build Back Better bill. That would have even more money for rail systems.

Last I heard of details in that bill I didn't see any infrastructure, just social programs and hoped for Medicare improvements.

photobug56 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 12:42 am Last I heard of details in that bill I didn't see any infrastructure, just social programs and hoped for Medicare improvements.

That was all cut out of the bill that passed, and put off for a future bill with dim hopes in my opinion. The transportation item is 80% highways. The only things social about the new law are inexpensive stuff like bikeways, and transit, costly, and addressing past bulldozing through poor communities, however that can be done in a few years. If you want to read an attempt to make hay out of the limited social aspects, try here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/15/nyre ... -york.html I doubt Buttigieg will have time to cap the Cross-Bronx Expressway (I-95) with a park, but his department does have some grant discretion for the next three years. The allocation of DOT funds has become much more political recently, swinging between red states and blue states as the White House changes. In the old days there was Congressional pork, then that was reined in, then it came back a bit, and now there's a bad cake from the bakery with two flavors, red and blue.

There is also money for H2O and airports, a good way to scatter money into the wind of far flung Congressional districts.

I think that most of the money should go to districts and states based on how their Congressional representation voted. And yes, that includes GOP reps and Senators who supported it. I'm tired of hearing such that voted against such legislation taking credit for what their districts or states receive. Even though I think mass transit, commuter rail and passenger rail overall got badly shortchanged, I do get that our roads are in horrible shape. But I also believe that states and districts whose reps oppose badly needed infrastructure work shouldn't get any help with it.