AMTRAK MEDIA ALERT: Amtrak Awarded Federal Funds for 12 Projects of National Significance (NEC)

lordsigma12345 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 5:59 am At the moment that obligation is there, and would require changes to the law to remove that obligation from Amtrak.

Mr. Lord, let us consider the context of the term obligation.

At this time, especially considering a reported 300-135 "vote of confidence" in the House for the LD's (National Network), Amtrak appears compelled to continue the LD's, even considering their heavy losses would be compounded if their "bargain basement ride" over the Class I's ROW were to cease. I guess considering that vote, it can be said Amtrak's best interests are served by refraining any thoughts of getting rid of them - even if at present considering their equipment needs replacement, and hence an obligation.

The roads that hold operating agreements with Amtrak are obligated under such to operate the trains delineated so long as they are proffered by Amtrak with roadworthy equipment and Rules Qualified crews properly rested under Hours of Service.

But what I guess I objected to was that advocacy group stating the railroads had an obligation to run passenger trains - and Amtrak came to their rescue and relieved them from such (possibly a member aware of such may choose to post a link to this material). The roads, save some quirks in charters such as the B&O obligated to run passenger trains over 12 miles of their original route and the CB&Q being forced to provide passenger trains that the Crow Indians could ride through their reservation, were not obligated. It was only after 1887 when the Interstate Commerce Act was enacted (likely in great part to abuses the then monopoly railroads forced on the public) that any train to be discontinued was subject to review by the regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Act established.

However, it came about, that agency became "hidebound" and long after the roads no longer held monopoly powers, bent to Congressional constituents who (actually part of testimony) liked to hear the whistle. But by the later 60's and 70's, this agency was becoming more lenient with train discontinuances (Santa Fe discontinuing over half their vaunted LD fleet in one blow). The UP had combined all of their "City" trains into one East of Ogden and had gotten off #5-6 companion train. All told, the agency became more "relaxing" reducing this ostensible "obligation".

So even had RPSA70 not been enacted, "the writing was on the wall", but it was and the "swan song" of cash upfront (Amtrak pays the roads in advance for services - especially considering on A-Day it was for a "turnkey purchase of service") was just too great to ignore.

But, especially how history came to pass, the roads signed up for "a Faustian pact with the Devil". Trust me I was there, and the washroom walls in the CUS offices "gave 'em five years". Well, I think we know how mistaken those walls have proven to be.

Now suppose the roads collectively said, "thanks but no thanks". Ignoring "ward of the State Penn Central (read the Corridor)". I think some of the "weaks" such as "my MILW" would have gotten trains off during the statutory five years roads not joining Amtrak would have had to operate trains. Even "the strongs" would have gotten the secondary trains off, such as the BN "Mainstreeter" and "Western Star". Now when the Staggers Act was enacted during 1980, there wouldn't be a passenger train left - anywhere outside the Corridor.

electricron wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2023 11:07 am All 12 projects on this list are associated with just the Northeast Corridor. Sorry, no matter how much you repeat it, the NEC is not significant nationally. Only one region of over a dozen super regions is affected.

This pot of funding is specifically for NEC. There are other pots of funding specifically for other project areas. As for your feeling that funding NEC is unfair, what is the percentage of passenger rail trips taken in this country outside of the NEC? Yes, there are other important corridor routes, but none of them come remotely close to serving the massive concentration of people found along the NEC. It has the most weight, it makes sense for it to get the largest slice of funding.

Trains to Chicago, Pittsburgh, Atlanta/New Orleans, Miami, Newport News, Charlotte, and Savannah use the NEC.

OP's link with title text: Amtrak Awarded Federal Funds for 12 Projects of National Significance Totaling Nearly $10B Across America’s Busiest Rail Corridor

All the projects, from SW to NE:

• Baltimore MD - B&P Tunnel Replacement Program: Frederick Douglass Tunnel - final design, construction
• Baltimore Penn Station: Master Plan - PD, final design, construction
• Gunpowder MD - Gunpowder River Bridge Replacement Program - PD
• Belcamp MD - Bush River Bridge Replacement Program - planning, PD
• Havre de Grace, Perryville MD - Susquehanna River Bridge Replacement Program - final design, construction
• New Brunswick, NJ - Delco Lead - construction
• Newark, NJ - Newark Penn Station Vertical Circulation Improvements - final design, construction
• Newark, Harrison NJ (Passaic R) - Gateway Program: Dock Bridge Rehabilitation - construction
• Kearny NJ - Gateway Program: Sawtooth Bridges Replacement Project Enabling Components - construction
• (Portal Bridge: under construction)
• Gateway Program: Hudson Tunnel Project Systems and Fit Out - final design, construction
• (New York City)
• East River Tunnel Rehabilitation - final design, construction
• Pelham Bay Bridge Replacement - final design
• Norwalk CT - Walk Bridge Replacement - construction
• Westport CT - Saugatuck River Bridge Replacement - PD
• ? - New Haven Line Track Improvement and Mobility Enhancement (TIME) Part 1 and 3 - PD, final design
• Stratford, Milford CT - Devon Bridge Replacement - PD, final design - Devon Bridge Interim Repairs - PD, final design, construction
• (New Haven CT)
• Old Saybrook, Old Lyme CT - Connecticut River Bridge Replacement - construction

Over extents:

• DC - northern NJ - South End Infrastructure Renewal and Speed Improvement Planning
  (IRSIP) Study - planning
• NYC - New Rochelle CT (Hell Gate Line) - Penn Station Access - final design, construction
• NYC - New Haven CT - New Haven Line Network Infrastructure Upgrade - PD, final design, construction - New Haven Line Power Improvement Program - final design, construction
• New Haven CT - Providence RI - New Haven to Providence Capacity Planning Study - planning

PD = project development

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 7:51 am However, certain Local jurisdictions, whether there be demand for such or not, have decided they wish to fund rail passenger service for whatever their reason may be. Amtrak is the only organization today that has the "institutional expertise" to operate an intercity passenger train. Therefore, I believe that Amtrak should remain a public agency national in scope.

However, that does not mean that there should be some "connect the dots National Network". Such was intended (according to the washroom walls in the CUS offices) to be an "ease the pain" exercise to last about five years after A-Day. Take it from one "who was there"; nobody ever envisioned that there would be any kind of "National Network" fifty years later - and, in view of that there are consultants feeding at the trough, such would be re-equipped for the second time with the idea that it will go on forever.

I cannot believe I have to say this. The authors of RPSA 70 forgot or never learned the fist rule of executive branch agency building: an agency, once created, has reason to fight for future funding to sustain itself.

Also, yet again, 218+51+1. Unless these grants were written in FY22 or 23 funds, nothing will happen until the FY 24 appropriations are complete. Even then, if the Republicans in the House redline these, nothing will happen.

In other words, a news announcement is worthless, a contract signing has value, construction equipment at work has more value, and a ribbon cutting is the proof of the proposal.

PS… based on my recent travels in Europe, the best thing Amtrak can do in the NEC is build lots of flyover mileage!

IMO there needs to be 4 main tracks from PHL to WASH. The following proposals completely ignores the current problems with equipment & ROW. Have Island platform between the 2 inner tracks for Amtrak. 2 outer tracks for MARC trains with side platforms. Marc then can add the many trains it needs and still have the fastest commuter trains in the USA. Amtrak can then dispatch an Acela from PHL immediately followed by a regional to WASH on the inner tracks both ways! Ideally MARC will have a fly over or duck under at Perry to not foul the inner Amtrak trains. Eventually SEPTA and MARC will meet much like SEPTA and NJT at Trenton. Also, a flyover for MARC at WASH for both bound MARCs needs planning.

lordsigma12345 wrote:As for busses as an alternative in my opinion that's just a waste of time and money. Take it from a "can't fly/won't drive" I have no desire to take a bus nor would I use it if it was given as the replacement option for the rail service I use - in many markets Amtrak operates in intercity bus service is already present and there's a reason it's nose dived ridership wise - people don't want to ride intercity busses. If the decision is made that serving passengers like me is not worthy of the costs, then just get rid of it altogether and forget about the busses. Most of us that "can but won't drive" will just drive at that point and have no interest in being stuffed on a Greyhound bus. Amtrak's budget is a rounding error in the federal budget at this point. I can think a lot of useless pork we can cut before we need to start going after services like Amtrak used by citizens.

This argument flat out contradicts the entire "Amtrak is a public service" argument and is rightfully an argument Amtrak should lose 100% of its government/taxpayer funding, and should float or sink on its own accord, all the while paying every single penny in taxes it rightfully owes back to the cities, counties, states, and country that it uses. Every square inch of property. Every gallon of diesel fuel. Every pound of carbon monoxide that gets pumped out of a P42. Pay the damn tax, don't ask for a bailout, if you can't afford new cars on your own you shouldn't operate them.

There might be a lot of "useless pork" but the arugment that "buses suck so I'd rather die than actually get on a bus that is the option for lifesaving medical care" proves, without a doubt, that Amtrak trains are nothing more than luxury cruise liners for the rich, wealthy, and train snobs who openly advocate as public policy discrimination against anyone who isn't like them.

wigwagfan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 8:24 pm There might be a lot of "useless pork" but the arugment that "buses suck so I'd rather die than actually get on a bus that is the option for lifesaving medical care" proves, without a doubt, that Amtrak trains are nothing more than luxury cruise liners for the rich, wealthy, and train snobs who openly advocate as public policy discrimination against anyone who isn't like them.

No, Amtrak trains are not luxury cruise liners for the rich and much of that part of my post was sarcasm. Do you honestly believe that everyone that travels on every form of public transportation is going to a critical lifesaving care appointment and that is the only reason why the government funds transportation and mobility? There are plenty of things the government funds that are not essential or emergency services. The government funds parks, museums, and other cultural and recreational activities. None of those are critical lifesaving services and I don't see people asking for their tax money back for those. Yes Amtrak has a few routes that serve underserved rural areas, but a number of Amtrak's routes do not serve areas that meet that definition and yet they receive funding. A small minority of my trips on Amtrak are overnight sleeping car trips, so don't categorize me as a "rich, wealthy, train snob." I recognize that bus service plays its role in the transportation system - obviously rail service isn't feasible in a lot of places. But critical services are not the only reason why things like Amtrak are funded. They are funded because of the economic value they bring to areas that are served in addition to the mobility provided. Why does the government build tanks that the army even says it doesn't need? Because its a jobs program for the places that build them. At least with Amtrak it's a service that people want. When you replace the train routes with busses, you aren't going to provide the same economic benefits to the areas served because less people are going to use the service. Sure maybe in some cases busses could fulfil the "critical essential service" portion in some areas but again - that isn't the only reason why government funds things.

This is but another example of why we give out sarcasm warnings on posts. Text filters out emotion, and we assume the worst.