# $66 billion for Amtrak



## TC_NYC (Jul 29, 2021)

Senate votes to move forward with bipartisan infrastructure bill


The Senate secured enough votes to move ahead with a bipartisan infrastructure agreement.




www.cbsnews.com







> The Senate voted to move forward on a bipartisan infrastructure bill after weeks of negotiations on Wednesday, clearing a key procedural hurdle on a bill that includes $550 billion in new spending for infrastructure projects around the country.
> 
> 
> $40 billion for bridge repair, replacement and rehabilitation
> ...




Looks like Biden's Infrastructure bill has passed and it includes $66 billion in funding for Amtrak. This is quite a significant investment, in the Obama Stimulus (ARRA) in 09 Amtrak only received $1.8 billion. Will some of this funding be going towards the huge investment needed to replace the Amfleet 1s?


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jul 29, 2021)

TC_NYC said:


> Senate votes to move forward with bipartisan infrastructure bill
> 
> 
> The Senate secured enough votes to move ahead with a bipartisan infrastructure agreement.
> ...


It has not passed. It has only move forward - for debating.


----------



## PaTrainFan (Jul 29, 2021)

TC_NYC said:


> Senate votes to move forward with bipartisan infrastructure bill
> 
> 
> The Senate secured enough votes to move ahead with a bipartisan infrastructure agreement.
> ...



It hasn't passed yet. This was just a procedural vote to allow it to continue to consideration. Long, long way to go, not to mention they'll have to reconcile a House version. In addition Pelosi is playing chicken by saying she won't consider this bill until the she gets the second stimulus that addresses the more social aspects. I suspect she'll give in on that, but again many more miles to go before we sleep.


----------



## TC_NYC (Jul 29, 2021)

I mean it sounds pretty promising, got 67 votes in the Senate with bipartisan support, I would be surprised to see the house shoot it down.


----------



## Cal (Jul 29, 2021)

22 billion for grants 
24 billion for federal-state partnership grants for NEC modernization 
12 billion for partnership grants for intercity rail service 
5 billion for rail improvement and safety grants 
3 billion for grade crossing safety improvements

Any specific projects the grants will go to? Especially the intercity and federal-state partnership ones


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 29, 2021)

PaTrainFan said:


> It hasn't passed yet. This was just a procedural vote to allow it to continue to consideration. Long, long way to go, not to mention they'll have to reconcile a House version. In addition Pelosi is playing chicken by saying she won't consider this bill until the she gets the second stimulus that addresses the more social aspects. I suspect she'll give in on that, but again many more miles to go before we sleep.


Technically, that was a "procedural" vote, but that means it has the votes for cloture and isn't being filibustered. It is one of those "procedural" votes that pretty much means it has more than enough votes for passage (passage only requires 51, cloture requires 60). It is a more important and more difficult vote than passage itself. Calling it "just procedural" minimizes its actual importance.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Jul 29, 2021)

While I am pleased that the slice of the pie that is expected to go Amtrak is as large as it is, I am even more pleased that the legislation received the bipartisan support that it did. This is a very important "win" for our democracy. Adults are once again in charge of our great Country!


----------



## jis (Jul 29, 2021)

BTW, the information presented in the post by @Cal above comes from:









FACT SHEET: Historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal | The White House


Today, the President and the bipartisan group announced agreement on the details of a once-in-a-generation investment in our infrastructure, which will be




www.whitehouse.gov


----------



## jis (Jul 29, 2021)

Cal said:


> 22 billion for grants
> 24 billion for federal-state partnership grants for NEC modernization
> 12 billion for partnership grants for intercity rail service
> 5 billion for rail improvement and safety grants
> ...


The NEC grants are most likely for things like Gateway and Baltimore Tunnels and such.

Intercity Rail is for launching Amtrak's ConnectUS program I'd imagine. As to which specific route projects, who knows? It even includes HSR, so California might snag a few more billions from it for all one knows.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Jul 29, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> While I am pleased that the slice of the pie that is expected to go Amtrak is as large as it is, I am even more pleased that the legislation received the bipartisan support that it did. This is a very important "win" for our democracy. *Adults are once again in charge of our great Country!*


 
One huge issue, I have serious doubts that competent and well intentioned Adults are in charge of Amtrak. If this money does materialize and they blow it, it won’t bode well for Amtrak with future Congresses.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Jul 29, 2021)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> One huge issue, I have serious doubts that competent and well intentioned Adults are in charge of Amtrak.



There certainly is ample recent evidence to support such a thought. There is a "new man" in charge in Washington, one who supports Amtrak. I hope--and expect--that he will be watching what the "suits" are going to do with the billions when they finally receive it.


----------



## jis (Jul 29, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> While I am pleased that the slice of the pie that is expected to go Amtrak is as large as it is, I am even more pleased that the legislation received the bipartisan support that it did. This is a very important "win" for our democracy. Adults are once again in charge of our great Country!


All that I'd say is make as much hay as possible while the Sun shines. This may not last that long what with blatant manipulation of the foundations of the electoral system, which has always been surprising;y rickety when compared to those in many other democracies of the world.


Dakota 400 said:


> There certainly is ample recent evidence to support such a thought. There is a "new man" in charge in Washington, one who supports Amtrak. I hope--and expect--that he will be watching what the "suits" are going to do with the billions when they finally receive it.


I have a strong suspicion that Amtrak Joe will have his hands and time very full with issues more important and far reaching than what happens to a few passenger trains. He will be fighting mightily to stay in control, and I do hope that he succeeds. It is by far not a given that he will.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 29, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> There certainly is ample recent evidence to support such a thought. There is a "new man" in charge in Washington, one who supports Amtrak. I hope--and expect--that he will be watching what the "suits" are going to do with the billions when they finally receive it.


A Democratic Senate, even by a razor thin margin, and a Democratic House don't hurt.


----------



## jis (Jul 29, 2021)

Secretary Pete’s Robust Defense Of Long-Distance Trains | Rail Passengers Association | Washington, DC


Challenged on "unprofitable" Amtrak routes, DOT Secretary Buttigieg puts on a master class in how to defend passenger rail investments on their own merits.




railpassengers.org


----------



## Abe26 (Jul 30, 2021)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> One huge issue, I have serious doubts that competent and well intentioned Adults are in charge of Amtrak. If this money does materialize and they blow it, it won’t bode well for Amtrak with future Congresses.


I have the same feeling.
instead of using the money to improve everything, the money will just blow away. It’s a big pitty


----------



## IndyLions (Jul 30, 2021)

From what I’ve read, it’s maybe $16B for intercity rail. Best case scenario is the ConnectUS plan. Don’t get too excited.


----------



## jis (Jul 30, 2021)

Some more of the nitty gritty details of the dollar numbers and some of the back room wheeling and dealing...









Bipartisan Bill, While Welcome, Falls Short [Corrected] | Rail Passengers Association | Washington, DC


[Having had an opportunity to review the draft bill text integrating the BIF and the Senate’s Surface Transportation Investment Act (STIA) of 2021, Rail Passengers has provided an updated analysis of the five-year bill.]




www.railpassengers.org





Suffice it to say that these numbers may or may not be anywhere near the final numbers that will emerge from the "Sausage Factory" eventually.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 30, 2021)

I view this bill, and my enthusiasm for it, not on the belief that it will transform passenger rail and Amtrak in America (though I would welcome being wrong about that) but that it will ensure Amtrak’s survival in its current state for at least the foreseeable future.

Part of surviving means the ability to purchase new trains and fix backlogged repairs.


----------



## Cal (Jul 30, 2021)

jis said:


> Some more of the nitty gritty details of the dollar numbers and some of the back room wheeling and dealing...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Only 16 billion for the national network including 28 state supported routes. I don’t know if that’s enough to help the current routes and do the ConnectUS plan. 


50 million to help restore discontinued service sounds good, but is that enough either?


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 30, 2021)

Cal said:


> Only 16 billion for the national network including 28 state supported routes. I don’t know if that’s enough to help the current routes and do the ConnectUS plan.
> 
> 
> 50 million to help restore discontinued service sounds good, but is that enough either?




I think the over answer to all our “is it enough” questions is a giant and resounding no.

ConnectUS, NEC 2035, Siemens Amfleet I replacements, and Superliner replacements are probably pushing a combined price tag close to 250 billion, and that’s before shovels go in the ground.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 30, 2021)

Cal said:


> Only 16 billion for the national network including 28 state supported routes. I don’t know if that’s enough to help the current routes and do the ConnectUS plan.
> 
> 
> 50 million to help restore discontinued service sounds good, but is that enough either?


No to both questions! That's rounding errors in the Federal Budget!


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Jul 30, 2021)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> One huge issue, I have serious doubts that competent and well intentioned Adults are in charge of Amtrak. If this money does materialize and they blow it, it won’t bode well for Amtrak with future Congresses.


And many are watching them carefully... with a magnifying glass. My gut instinct is that management knows it; also watching are the President and Secy of Transportation.


----------



## jis (Jul 30, 2021)

Cal said:


> Only 16 billion for the national network including 28 state supported routes. I don’t know if that’s enough to help the current routes and do the ConnectUS plan.


Actually it is $16 B + $12 B = $28 B. After taking the NEC set aside, there is $12B left in the intercity line.

Frankly I consider the ConnectUS to be more of a marketing document than a credible plan for anything. It is meant to provide the one picture on a tripod behind Stephen Gardner while he yammers on about pie in the sky possibilities, like he did in Atlanta, and now in Phoenix. I wonder what UP and Arizona have to say about all this as they are going to be the Custodians of it shoveling money at Amtrak as Gardner hopes.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Jul 30, 2021)

I think it is important to remember that the House will have their say in whatever Bill comes out of the Senate. The Chairman of the House Committee that deals with Amtrak funding, Rep. DeFazio, is displeased with what he sees in the Bill. The gentleman is an important voice in the Democratic Caucus and the Speaker can ill afford to loose too many of her Party's members support. 

I predict we won't really know what the final numbers for passenger rail will be until after a Conference Committee resolves the differences between whatever the two Houses finally pass. I am optimistic that Amtrak is going to fare well.


----------



## PaTrainFan (Jul 30, 2021)

That this even happened at all in today's political environment is remarkable. Sure, it would have been awesome to get [insert your number here] billion more for Amtrak, but think of where we were before today. Before Jan. 20. Let's rejoice that this is the biggest capital infusion, by far, in Amtrak's history. And there is still _potential_ for more in the regular appropriations. After it's signed sealed and deliver, let's just hope Amtrak uses it wisely.


----------



## jis (Jul 31, 2021)

PaTrainFan said:


> That this even happened at all in today's political environment is remarkable. Sure, it would have been awesome to get [insert your number here] billion more for Amtrak, but think of where we were before today. Before Jan. 20. Let's rejoice that this is the biggest capital infusion, by far, in Amtrak's history. And there is still _potential_ for more in the regular appropriations. After it's signed sealed and deliver, let's just hope Amtrak uses it wisely.


Yes it is a good step, but let us not quite count our chicken yet, just because the eggs have been moved to a better hatchery. So far it is just a proposed capital infusion bill that the Senate has agreed to discuss, and if the stars remain aligned they might even vote it out. But even then there is no infusion. The House will have a go at either this bill to amend or start with a different bill and pass it , and then there will be a conference to reconcile differences, producing a third bill that then will hopefully pass both houses etc. before the President signs it and then there will be infusion.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Jul 31, 2021)

jis said:


> The House will have a go at either this bill to amend or start with a different bill and pass it , and then there will be a conference to reconcile differences, producing a third bill that then will hopefully pass both houses etc. before the President signs it and then there will be infusion.



There is a potential wild card in this deck and that is the President himself. I have read a couple of reports that the President wants the House to seriously consider whatever Bill comes out of the Senate and avoid the tinkering that might lead to a Conference Committee. If the President and the Speaker--and this is a very big if, I think--can keep all of their Party's members in the House "in line" and accept whatever the Senate passes, then maybe a third Bill won't need to happen.

I have heard one very progressive Democratic member of the House of the wing of the Party of which she is a part say that their primary goal is for the President to be successful. If so, does her colleagues agree with her? Will they follow the leadership of the President?


----------



## George Harris (Jul 31, 2021)

There is virtually always a conference committee on all but the simplest of issues. That is just the way the game is played. Many times what comes out of the conference committee bares little resemblance to what went in from either side.


----------



## Willbridge (Aug 1, 2021)

jis said:


> Actually it is $16 B + $12 B = $28 B. After taking the NEC set aside, there is $12B left in the intercity line.
> 
> Frankly I consider the ConnectUS to be more of a marketing document than a credible plan for anything. It is meant to provide the one picture on a tripod behind Stephen Gardner while he yammers on about pie in the sky possibilities, like he did in Atlanta, and now in Phoenix. I wonder what UP and Arizona have to say about all this as they are going to be the Custodians of it shoveling money at Amtrak as Gardner hopes.



UP speaks: Better As Partners


----------



## danasgoodstuff (Aug 1, 2021)

Willbridge said:


> UP speaks: Better As Partners


There must be something in particular that they are concerned may happen. What parts of Amtrak's 2035 map would happen on UP lines?


----------



## Cal (Aug 1, 2021)

danasgoodstuff said:


> There must be something in particular that they are concerned may happen. What parts of Amtrak's 2035 map would happen on UP lines?


Service to Las Vegas, the Coachella Valley, Phoenix, expanded Surfliner service north of LA, and enhanced service in the MIdwest


----------



## me_little_me (Aug 1, 2021)

Willbridge said:


> UP speaks: Better As Partners


It seems UP's idea of being "Partners" is that Amtrak find government money to pay for all the improvements - and many of the improvements needed are because of PSR and similar changes in the way the Class 1s operate.

Their complaint about the STB conveniently fails to note that the reason for the push is that the Class 1s have consistently and repeatedly failed to live up to their original agreement to divest themselves of passenger services only with the condition that they give passenger rail priority.

The government, of course, could have made all those past grants in recent years conditional on the Class 1s paying a "fee" for any portion of the grant that benefits the Class 1s until such time as the government recovers its grant money . If a grant allows not only passenger service to speed up by paying for a crossing, but saves the Class 1 money on its freight operations, the Class 1 should pay back, say, half their savings to the government until the portion of the grant that benefits them is paid back. The Class 1s conveniently forget that they gain from government grant money to help passenger service speed up. And that includes all the eliminated crossings which allow trains to run faster or not slow down for crossings they used to have to be aware of in the past.


----------



## NES28 (Aug 1, 2021)

Cal said:


> Service to Las Vegas, the Coachella Valley, Phoenix, expanded Surfliner service north of LA, and enhanced service in the MIdwest


Also Portland-Eugene (many lengthened sidings proposed) and upgraded Capitol Corridor.


----------



## Willbridge (Aug 2, 2021)

Years ago the Southern Pacific drew predictable laughter when they complained about all the government money going into the Santa Fe San Joaquin line.


----------



## Rover (Aug 2, 2021)

Money for the NEC... that was expected.

But what I don't see is real money for real improvements in service to the Long Haul lines west of Mississippi. Read service to mean issues with freight congestion...

What is this bill??? ... Every city gets a (High Speed) "Train to nowhere???"


----------



## PaTrainFan (Aug 2, 2021)

We'll find out today what is in the bill. The 2,700 page text was finally completed last night so we'll see how the Republicans, even those who voted for it in the first round, start nitpicking the details.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Aug 2, 2021)

Rover said:


> Money for the NEC... that was expected.
> 
> But what I don't see is real money for real improvements in service to the Long Haul lines west of Mississippi. Read service to mean issues with freight congestion...
> 
> What is this bill??? ... Every city gets a (High Speed) "Train to nowhere???"



The left's obsession with true HSR (225mph) is going to take its toll on progress. I appreciate their enthusiasm, but they really have no understanding about just how unnecessary, and difficult it will be to implement it, even on a small scale. 
Instead, there should be an obsession and universal push toward's the electrification of as many lines and tracks as possible, both Amtrak, and otherwise.

In principle I agree, but the reality is that most of the people to take the train in this country are on the NEC.


----------



## jis (Aug 2, 2021)

Rover said:


> What is this bill??? ... Every city gets a (High Speed) "Train to nowhere???"


In case one is interested in actually seeing what is in the bill instead of just wildly speculating nonsense, a pointer to the Senate Bill STIA 2021 (all 2,700 pages of it) and a discussion of the overall funding proposals at this point from the RPA can be found at:





__





2021 Infrastructure Bill


Discussions are starting in right earnest for the 2021 Infrastructure Bill, the much promised bill that might contain many goodies for passenger rail and Amtrak https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/538419-biden-meets-with-bipartisan-senators-to-discuss-potential




www.amtraktrains.com





And for those interested in what is there for Long Distance Expansion program take a look at:





__





2021 Infrastructure Bill


Discussions are starting in right earnest for the 2021 Infrastructure Bill, the much promised bill that might contain many goodies for passenger rail and Amtrak https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/538419-biden-meets-with-bipartisan-senators-to-discuss-potential




www.amtraktrains.com


----------



## PaTrainFan (Aug 2, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> The left's obsession with true HSR (225mph) is going to take its toll on progress. I appreciate their enthusiasm, but they really have no understanding about just how unnecessary, and difficult it will be to implement it, even on a small scale.
> Instead, there should be an obsession and universal push toward's the electrification of as many lines and tracks as possible, both Amtrak, and otherwise.
> 
> In principle I agree, but the reality is that most of the people to take the train in this country are on the NEC.



I agree with this, and speaking as one who is just slightly left of center. "Higher speed" rail is the best opportunity for success. Improving infrastructure so we can at least get trains reliabiliy, predictably on time to compete with highways will have the greatest impact.


----------



## west point (Aug 2, 2021)

Getting rid of all the slow sections would be a good first step. Maybe get the FRA to allow 90 MPH on class 4 track that has PTC ?
The new ALCs should be able to meet that speed. As well that MAX speed would allow Amtrak trains to pass same direction mega freights faster.


----------



## Ziv (Aug 2, 2021)

I agree w TLCooper that the novelty factor of 220+ mph service can really make the move to improve the US rail network even harder than it needs to be. CAHSR required a 220mph top speed and that made the selection process even harder than it would have been if the requirement had been a still rather fast 200mph. If and when the CAHSR actually has an LA to San Fran service in place it will have taken decades longer than it should have taken and it will have cost Billions of dollars more than it could have if the powers that be had opted for a 200mph top speed.
PA Train Fan comment on "Higher Speed Rail" needing to achieve reliability as much as having a very high top speed is important too. Trains shouldn't be driven by a fan factor, or a novelty factor. They should be fast enough and reliable enough to be an every day occurrence that people can count on. And that may be 90mph for a good deal of the SWC, EB and CZ routes for the next couple decades.
Finally, I agree with West Point on the importance of speeding up currently slow sections. Going slow for even a short distance subtracts much of the benefit of going fast for a longer one. One way to reduce the amount of slow sections may be finding a way for Amtrak to pay for sections of new track, whether it is double tracking a single track section, or probably more likely now, triple tracking a currently double tracked section. But the critical part is that Amtrak needs to maintain some sort of control over the tracks so that it can use the possibility of the host freight railroad getting access to the new track when the Amtrak trains aren't using it to improve the host railroads throughput, and hopefully thereby improving the host railroads priority for passenger rail trains vs the freight trains. Getting the STB to light a fire under the host railroads is critical, but having a few "carrots" to go along with the STB legal "stick" might make it work a bit better. One big problem with the desire to build additional trackage is that there simply may not be room for it in many of the places that would benefit the most from it, but if it is possible in some areas, it may be worth exploring Amtrak financed improvements if Amtrak can get better priority on the improved section and concessions for the use of said improvements.



Tlcooper93 said:


> The left's obsession with true HSR (225mph) is going to take its toll on progress. I appreciate their enthusiasm, but they really have no understanding about just how unnecessary, and difficult it will be to implement it, even on a small scale.
> Instead, there should be an obsession and universal push toward's the electrification of as many lines and tracks as possible, both Amtrak, and otherwise.
> 
> In principle I agree, but the reality is that most of the people to take the train in this country are on the NEC.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 2, 2021)

1. Take West Point's first point: "Getting rid of all the slow sections would be a good first step. Yes!! Yes!! Yes!!
There are many. many examples of 79 mph speed limit railroads with several miles of 30 mph or less into major cities, sometimes with a couple of 10 mph sections. Simple arithmetic: 1 mile at 10 mph takes 6 minutes. 1 mile at 60 mph takes 1 minute. Every mile of 10 mph track you can upgrade will save several minutes, as there is slowing and acceleration times to be added. Years ago one of the writers on this subject in the Railway Gazette International stated, "The best way to go fast is to avoid going slow." Some of the Brits I know refer to this sort of thing as a pronouncement by the Bureau of the Blooming Obvious. I can think of several examples in Amtrak schedules, such as on the Texas Eagle route look at the length of 25 mph limit out St. Louis. Worse is the round about slow speed trek into and out of San Antonio. Many terminals have strings of 10 mph to 15 mph turnouts in and out. There are AREMA standard turnouts, nothing exotic that can be run at 25 to 40 mph. Yes, it would make for a longer ladder, but if you have the space, use it. 
2. If you are laying out a new HSR, do go for 220 mph or even more. Although right now anything above around 186 mph (that is 300 km/hr) seems near irrational, that may not be true in the future. Remember, when the Japanese started building the Shinkansen lines, 200 km/hr (124 mph) seemed like the edge of the planet so far as speed on rails is concerned. Obviously that is no longer true. For example the Taiwan High Speed Rail was opened and runs as a 300 km/hr operation, but everything alignment related can safely and easily go to 350 km/hr, that is 217 mph for those wanting their information in normal units. If new alignment, set your curves and spirals, and vertical curves for 250 mph at least. You can always open with a lower speed limit. Having a 250 mph alignment does not keep you from having a speed limit of 125 mph when opening. Two important points: Be as straight as possible. A straight line has no speed limit. Remember, the Roman roads are where they were built over 2,000 years ago. What ever you build, you will be stuck with from now on, so don't fold to pressure and insert doglegs in alignment that in 10 to 20 to 30 years or more have people looking and say, "why did they ever do that? It makes no sense."


----------



## George Harris (Aug 2, 2021)

When I see these improvement projects on the NEC that get you 50 mph instead of 30 mph and add zero to 6 inches of clearance, I simply cringe and want to shake someone and say if you are going to do it at all, do it well. ANYTHING you do anywhere alignment related should be done with the eye of at least 100 mph, and more if at all practical. If you are going to improve some of these tight clearance and track spacing locations, go for the best you can get as if for a new line instead of the least you can get by with using what you have now.


----------



## west point (Aug 3, 2021)

Slow sections also have the effect of having to slow 1 - 2 miles before the section and then speeding up after leaving the slow section. So a 1 mile slow section of 30 MPH bracketed by 90 MPH sections have a net effect of 1 mile 30 and 2 - 3 miles at average ~ 60 mph. How much time has been lost ??5


----------



## George Harris (Aug 3, 2021)

Ziv said:


> I agree w TLCooper that the novelty factor of 220+ mph service can really make the move to improve the US rail network even harder than it needs to be. CAHSR required a 220mph top speed and that made the selection process even harder than it would have been if the requirement had been a still rather fast 200mph. If and when the CAHSR actually has an LA to San Fran service in place it will have taken decades longer than it should have taken and it will have cost Billions of dollars more than it could have if the powers that be had opted for a 200mph top speed.


This statement about the CAHSR and 220 mph is simply not true. The killer is and was politics. If the state was truly committed to getting this thing built in a timely manner and not waste years yielding to every little issue real and imaginary brought up by every anti anything group and NIMBY group we would be riding the trains end to end by now. It would not have mattered if the design speed was 220 mph, 200 mph, 90 mph or 300 mph all these roadblocks would still be there. Go to their web site and read the design standards and some of the issues raised. By the way, they are not going to try to run 220 mph or even 200 mph between San Jose and San Francisco, anyway. I think the number there is going to be 110 mph or even less.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 3, 2021)

west point said:


> Getting rid of all the slow sections would be a good first step. Maybe get the FRA to allow 90 MPH on class 4 track that has PTC ?


I don't think you are understanding what "Class 4 track" means. These classes are track maintenance minimum standards. What you may be thinking of is the signal and train control speed limits that requires the speed limit for passenger trains be less than 80 mph without certain additional forms of train control. That is why there are many miles of main line that have 79 mph passenger train speed limits.

If you are riding on a track that just barely meets Class 4 standards, details of which can be found in www.ecfr.gov and ask for CHAPTER II—FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION · PART _213_—TRACK SAFETY STANDARDS, look at the details so far as track is concerned. Note these are SAFETY standards. A track just meeting these standards, if you are running on it at 79 mph, the ride quality is best described as sit down and hang on. A comfortable ride requires track to be at far better than minimum standards for safety. In general, most railroads will maintain main line tracks to well above these legally required minimums.

Further down in these FRA standards you can find track standards that allow 90 mph or 110 mph. If you want to go faster than these you go here. Further, if the railroad allows container and piggyback trains to run 70 mph, the track already must meet Class 5 standards, as the freight limit on Class 4 is 60 mph. Despite Class 5 allowing 80 mph freight trains, so far as I know no one does that. Generally premium freights may be allowed 70 mph but no more. This by the way is why the Autotrain is limited to 70 mph. With the auto carriers it is effectively a priority freight train operationally.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 3, 2021)

*Here are the speeds allowed on the various track classes. [In miles per hour]*​

Over track that meets all of the requirements prescribed in this part for -The maximum allowable operating speed for freight trains is -The maximum allowable operating speed for passenger trains is -Excepted track10​N/A​Class 1 track10​15​Class 2 track25​30​Class 3 track40​60​Class 4 track60​80​Class 5 track80​90​


----------



## Lonestar648 (Aug 3, 2021)

Though the Senate plans a bi-partisan vote this week, there are many in the House who want to make major additions to the Bill. The key here is that the Senate got a Bi-partisan bill written, so any major additions by the House would totally kill what the Senate has managed to put together. The Senate’s version May win in the end but will that be this year. Nothing will be discussed until Fall when Congress reconvenes. I am just sitting here with my fingers and toes crossed that first we get the bill, and second Amtrak comes through the process will enough money for the needed fleet replacements and some expansions. Until the bill heads to the WH, we will not know how Amtrak comes out in the end. What special clauses are added, etc.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 3, 2021)

The overall big strategy on this bill is that Congress will pass a more limited "nuts and bolts" infrastructure bill (this one) that's "bipartisan" (or at least has enough Republican votes to prevent a filibuster.) Then they will include additional funding for stuff no Republican would vote for as part of a reconciliation bill, which can pass with a simple majority. Thus, while the House might vote for a more expansive "nuts and bolts" bill, they're probably inclined to support whatever the Senate approves on that one. All of the Democrats are very interested in giving the President a "win" and having this bill pass successfully. Any demands for additional funding on this bill would be nothing more than posturing, and those doing it will probably, in the end, settle for whatever they can get from the Senate. I haven't heard whether they have any plans for more passenger rail funding in the reconciliation bill or not; my understanding is that they're planning a lot of spending that on stuff like education, child care, etc. that one doesn't normally think of as "infrastructure."


----------



## neroden (Aug 4, 2021)

George Harris said:


> This statement about the CAHSR and 220 mph is simply not true. The killer is and was politics.


I would add lack of expertise in house, leading to getting cheated. The first contractor hired by CAHSR was the infamous Tutor Perini, known for chiseling its clients on change orders while doing inferior work. To their credit they have wised up and are hiring better contractors now.


----------



## neroden (Aug 4, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> The overall big strategy on this bill is that Congress will pass a more limited "nuts and bolts" infrastructure bill (this one) that's "bipartisan" (or at least has enough Republican votes to prevent a filibuster.) Then they will include additional funding for stuff no Republican would vote for as part of a reconciliation bill, which can pass with a simple majority.



....I will add the point that the House, specifically Speaker Pelosi, has promised that they aren't going to pass the more limited "bipartisan" bill until after they pass the reconciliation bill. So they certainly won't pass the Senate bill unmodified before reconciliation passes (because then it would pass!) They'll send back modified versions via conference committee until after reconciliation has passed, and *then* sign off on something.

So, no final infrastructure bill until after reconciliation is done. Plenty of time to keep working on modifying the "bipartisan" bill.


----------



## neroden (Aug 4, 2021)

There are three chances to do reconciliation this year, by the way. This year's budget which was never done, the future year's budget, and the bill to get rid of the debt ceiling (this bill is essential, and the Republican leaders in the House and Senate are trying to block it AGAIN because they have the mentality of arsonists).


----------



## jis (Aug 4, 2021)

So there would seem to be a significant likelihood that nothing useful will pass, specially if the midterm election does not quite work out as we hope. 

I am actually quite curious to see how much of the proclamations are posturing and how much actually will be reflected in actual action. After all politicians ....


----------



## neroden (Aug 4, 2021)

jis said:


> So there would seem to be a significant likelihood that nothing useful will pass, specially if the midterm election does not quite work out as we hope.



No. Reconciliation is definitely happening. They need to pass a budget. Everything and the kitchen sink will get thrown into the reconciliation bills (there are likely to be 3 of them this year), possibly followed by the House passing a bunch of other legislation which the Senate passed which it was waiting on until reconciliation was done (including this infrastructure bill).


----------



## jis (Aug 4, 2021)

neroden said:


> No. Reconciliation is definitely happening. They need to pass a budget. Everything and the kitchen sink will get thrown into the reconciliation bills (there are likely to be 3 of them this year), possibly followed by the House passing a bunch of other legislation which the Senate passed which it was waiting on until reconciliation was done (including this infrastructure bill).


My worry is that the couple of DINOs in Senate will decide to scupper a reconciliation bill or two. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

In any case whatever they wish to do they will have to have it substantially done by mid 2022. After that things are pretty much up in the air as far as I can see.


----------



## neroden (Aug 4, 2021)

jis said:


> My worry is that the couple of DINOs in Senate will decide to scupper a reconciliation bill or two. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.


Manchin and Sinema are unreasonable people but I don't think they'll go far enough as to scupper reconciliation, especially when they have to raise or abolish the debt limit, which is *really urgent*. They're not *that* crazy.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 5, 2021)

neroden said:


> I would add lack of expertise in house, leading to getting cheated. The first contractor hired by CAHSR was the infamous Tutor Perini, known for chiseling its clients on change orders while doing inferior work. To their credit they have wised up and are hiring better contractors now.


Some of the ineptitude seen in CA's Transportation Department was simply beyond belief. It is no wonder almost everything in transportation projects in California costs way more than it ought to. Remember the replacement of the east part of the San Francisco Bay Bridge. Something like 4.5 Billion dollars and they did not get any improvements and a bike path that only gets you half way across the Bay. The wildly screamed about "structural deficiencies" and obsolete design were in the first part repairable, and the second part bogus. The existing structure could probably have been repaired and put into good condition for another 50 years of life for about 1% or less of the cost of the replacement.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Aug 5, 2021)

Amtrak would get a new mandate in the $1 trillion infrastructure bill that includes a reduced focus on profitability and better food


The infrastructure bill would be a win for Amtrak supporters that say the rail corporation should be focused on connectivity over profits if passed.




www.yahoo.com


----------



## jis (Aug 5, 2021)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> Amtrak would get a new mandate in the $1 trillion infrastructure bill that includes a reduced focus on profitability and better food
> 
> 
> The infrastructure bill would be a win for Amtrak supporters that say the rail corporation should be focused on connectivity over profits if passed.
> ...


We have the RPA, among many, to thank for almost all of that new mandate language.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Aug 5, 2021)

Congress wants to make it easier for Americans to take Amtrak to Canada in the new $1 trillion infrastructure bill


Amtrak trains are often delayed at the US-Canada border but the new infrastructure bill may make traveling by rail between the two countries easier.




www.yahoo.com


----------



## jis (Aug 6, 2021)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> Congress wants to make it easier for Americans to take Amtrak to Canada in the new $1 trillion infrastructure bill
> 
> 
> Amtrak trains are often delayed at the US-Canada border but the new infrastructure bill may make traveling by rail between the two countries easier.
> ...


Yet another report to be submitted. Unless something has changed spectacularly, one more report to find its way into the circular file, sadly. 

It is kind of strange to task an outfit that has the least control over things that need to be fixed, to fix those things, when they can't even get the same outfit to fix a zillion things over which it actually does have control. One perhaps could not be blamed for surmising that this is an example of "kicking the can down the road" in disguise.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 6, 2021)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> Congress wants to make it easier for Americans to take Amtrak to Canada in the new $1 trillion infrastructure bill
> 
> 
> Amtrak trains are often delayed at the US-Canada border but the new infrastructure bill may make traveling by rail between the two countries easier.
> ...


Don't see any connection whatsoever between "infrastructure" and Amtrak funding with border crossing processes.


----------



## IndyLions (Aug 6, 2021)

George Harris said:


> Don't see any connection whatsoever between "infrastructure" and Amtrak funding with border crossing processes.



I agree with JIS that funding Amtrak for a study probably is kicking the can down the road.

However, if it did get us closer to efficient transportation to Canada - a very popular destination - it would most certainly be infrastructure.


----------



## danasgoodstuff (Aug 6, 2021)

IndyLions said:


> I agree with JIS that funding Amtrak for a study probably is kicking the can down the road.
> 
> However, if it did get us closer to efficient transportation to Canada - a very popular destination - it would most certainly be infrastructure.


Especially if they actually construct or repurpose facilities for pre-clearance.


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 6, 2021)

danasgoodstuff said:


> Especially if they actually construct or repurpose facilities for pre-clearance.


For existing services, or, more accurately, services that existed prior to the pandemic, the main place that needs preclearance facilities is Montreal.

Vancouver already has them, though they may require a bit of expansion, and has done a "preclearance light" with US Immigration processing but not customs for years. Hopefully that will change with the revisions to the preclearance treaty that went into effect a year or two ago that allows rail the same preclearance rights as air and the border stop at Blaine for US Customs will be eliminated. Getting that agreement cleared the biggest obstacle to doing full preclearance at Vancouver.

The other thing that would improve things is for Canada to exercise its preclearance rights and move CBSA operations into the Niagara Falls, NY station, which is pretty new and was designed with both US CBP and Canadian CBSA preclearance operations in mind. That decision is Canada's and not within the purview of the US Congress.

Toronto is unlikely to get preclearance as the Maple Leaf from Niagara Falls, ON to Toronto is a VIA operated service and serves several intermediate stops. Unless the train were to run sealed to Toronto, international border formalities would still have to be done at Niagara Falls. The main improvement would be for CBSA to do pre-clearance on the New York side using the purpose built facilities there, as mentioned above.

The biggest thing in my mind is reinstating Chicago-Toronto service and I understand the proposal is that it run via Detroit, not the former _International_ service via Port Huron/Sarnia, which kind of complicates things. It would likely require that Amtrak move their Detroit service back into the former MC station by the tunnel. Luckily, I understand that Ford is at least somewhat open to that. The other is somehow re-jigger the track arrangements/station in Windsor, ON, as there is no direct connection from the international tunnel to the Windsor VIA station. There are operational issues for an international train as well. Both the Maple Leaf and the former International were joint Amtrak/VIA operations due the length of the run in Canada and the presence of intermediate stops, as opposed to the relatively short Canadian runs of the exclusively Amtrak operations into Vancouver and Montreal. I seriously doubt that the Canadian government, Canadian Unions, or VIA itself would allow Amtrak to operate such a long service in Canada. So VIA's cooperation is essential in starting such a service. And I understand that even the continued VIA operation of the Maple Leaf may be in at least some doubt post-pandemic, with Metrolinx now offering multiple rail frequencies Toronto-Niagara Falls. As an aside, both the Cascades and the Adirondack are back in Arrow and bookable starting early in 2022. The Maple Leaf is not.

Honestly, the money pit here is restoring Chicago-Toronto, as are most of the issues that would require study. I would expect most of the funds to flow that direction.


----------



## Anthony V (Aug 7, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> For existing services, or, more accurately, services that existed prior to the pandemic, the main place that needs preclearance facilities is Montreal.
> 
> Vancouver already has them, though they may require a bit of expansion, and has done a "preclearance light" with US Immigration processing but not customs for years. Hopefully that will change with the revisions to the preclearance treaty that went into effect a year or two ago that allows rail the same preclearance rights as air and the border stop at Blaine for US Customs will be eliminated. Getting that agreement cleared the biggest obstacle to doing full preclearance at Vancouver.
> 
> ...


Building the preclearance facility in Montreal is the last essential step to restoring the Montrealer train (via extending the Vermonter to Montreal). That facility will also be used by the Adirondack train. As far as restoring Chicago-Toronto service, while Ford is not paying for an Amtrak return to MCS, they promise to keep that opportunity open in the future by keeping four of the station tracks in place as part of their renovation of the facility. If Amtrak returns to MCS, the other two Wolverine RT's that will not be extended would likely terminate there. To preserve service on the Detroit-Pontiac portion of the route, a commuter rail line could be started, initially using Amtrak's current schedule on that portion of the Wolverine route, connecting with Amtrak at MCS. As far as Windsor, a good location for the relocated station would be at the former station site that the Niagara Rainbow used. (Sadly, the beautiful former depot burned down due to Arson in the 1990s).


----------



## Abe26 (Aug 8, 2021)

Opinion | Amtrak’s $66 Billion Ticket


The government can’t run a railroad, but it sure can subsidize one.




www.wsj.com


----------



## TC_NYC (Aug 10, 2021)

The bill has now passed in the Senate, includes the $66 billion for amtrak:



> It also includes money to restore lakes across the country, $66 billion in new funding for Amtrak and more funding for programs intended to provide safe commutes for pedestrians.


----------



## jis (Aug 10, 2021)

From what it looks as far as the politics of it goes, it will sit in the House until the Senate passes the much larger Reconciliation Bill. So it may be still a while before the money is actually there.


----------



## cirdan (Aug 10, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> There certainly is ample recent evidence to support such a thought. There is a "new man" in charge in Washington, one who supports Amtrak. I hope--and expect--that he will be watching what the "suits" are going to do with the billions when they finally receive it.



I don't want to be a pessimist but it doesn't bode well when you recall what happened when the same guy was VP and a lot of money got distributed for HSR and all that happened was the thing in Illinois with nominally 110mph running but no reduction in journey times, plus a section in California that looks to be far far from the envisaged LA to SF bullet train that was promised, and will probably not be completed in most of our lifetimes. Plus some fixes on the NEC that in all honesty were for the most part just catching up with arrears on maintenance and thus abusing the concept of HSR investment to the extreme.

I think part of the problem was lack of clearly defined deliverables or any sufficient obligation by those who took the money. If you give out money in return for vague promises, you are rewarding vague promises.


----------



## frequentflyer (Aug 10, 2021)

jis said:


> We have the RPA, among many, to thank for almost all of that new mandate language.



When the White House replaces current Amtrak management then I will believe it.


----------



## jis (Aug 10, 2021)

frequentflyer said:


> When the White House replaces current Amtrak management then I will believe it.


White House does not have the power to remove Amtrak management. Only the Board can do it. So you might as well start being disappointed, since it will be a few years before the process can complete, that is if the White House thinks it is important. I actually doubt that they do. Wilmington is on the NEC and that has excellent and forever improving service.

Frankly I would prefer White House to concentrate on removing DeJoy, another thing that they cannot do.


----------



## neroden (Aug 10, 2021)

jis said:


> Frankly I would prefer White House to concentrate on removing DeJoy, another thing that they cannot do.


According to a fairly recent Supreme Court ruling, it appears that Biden can sack anyone who is appointed and confirmed by the Senate, which includes the entire Postal Board of Governors. The replacement board can then sack DeJoy.

From what I've been hearing, Flynn actually is new management and has a decent attitude. Whether he will be able to straighten out the attitude problems lower down, I don't know, but he doesn't seem clueless like Mr. Anderson was.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Aug 11, 2021)

neroden said:


> According to a fairly recent Supreme Court ruling, it appears that Biden can sack anyone who is appointed and confirmed by the Senate, which includes the entire Postal Board of Governors. The replacement board can then sack DeJoy.




This is news to me. Not implying that you are incorrect, but are you able to recall the ruling?


----------



## neroden (Aug 11, 2021)

Court says president can fire Consumer board head 'at will'


WASHINGTON (AP) — In a ruling underscoring the power of the president, the Supreme Court on Monday made it easier for the president to fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The justices struck down restrictions Congress had written on when the president can remove the...




apnews.com





Their logic seems to apply to all similar cases, including USPS board and Amtrak board. Biden's already used it to throw Trump appointments out when the law said they could only be removed for cause. But this Supreme Court can sometimes be wildly inconsistent (lawless, I would say) so it isn't 100% sure that they'd stick with their own recent precedent.


----------



## Deni (Aug 12, 2021)

An interesting item in the bill - less important than other things of course, but interesting all the same - that got my attention is station staffing requirements. One of the rules states that any station that averaged 40 boardings per day in fiscal 2017 has to be staffed with at least one ticket agent. The question I have is, if anyone here might know where to find that info, are there any stations with that many boardings that are currently unstaffed that would have to be re-staffed if this provision survives the process?

It also says any station staffed on or after October 1st, 2017 will have to be staffed, meaning some more recent station agent cuts could be reversed and would also prohibit any more ticket agent cuts in the future.

I do like this.


----------



## cirdan (Aug 12, 2021)

Deni said:


> An interesting item in the bill - less important than other things of course, but interesting all the same - that got my attention is station staffing requirements. One of the rules states that any station that averaged 40 boardings per day in fiscal 2017 has to be staffed with at least one ticket agent. The question I have is, if anyone here might know where to find that info, are there any stations with that many boardings that are currently unstaffed that would have to be re-staffed if this provision survives the process?
> 
> It also says any station staffed on or after October 1st, 2017 will have to be staffed, meaning some more recent station agent cuts could be reversed and would also prohibit any more ticket agent cuts in the future.
> 
> I do like this.



To me this sounds like exactly the sort of micro-management that ends up backfiring and making it easy for detractors to harp on about waste and ineffciency. It also potentially makes new routes more difficult to introduce. I feel this type of decision should be Amtrak's. Congress need to put able and competent pro-Amtrak people in charge and then give them as much freedom as possible in day to day decision taking. 

There may be stations where an agent is justified and others where there is little point.


----------



## me_little_me (Aug 12, 2021)

cirdan said:


> To me this sounds like exactly the sort of micro-management that ends up backfiring and making it easy for detractors to harp on about waste and ineffciency. It also potentially makes new routes more difficult to introduce. I feel this type of decision should be Amtrak's. Congress need to put able and competent pro-Amtrak people in charge and then give them as much freedom as possible in day to day decision taking.
> 
> There may be stations where an agent is justified and others where there is little point.


I agree/disagree somewhat with this. Yes, they are micromanaging - but they have to with a management that has no concept on how to implement "manned" stations and/or provide those services that the local agent did other than the way it has always been done.

But getting "able and competent pro-Amtrak people in charge" has been a big problem for congress because of the diverging "representatives" who are more interested in promoting their political agenda than they are serving the American people.


----------



## joelkfla (Aug 12, 2021)

Deni said:


> An interesting item in the bill - less important than other things of course, but interesting all the same - that got my attention is station staffing requirements. One of the rules states that any station that averaged 40 boardings per day in fiscal 2017 has to be staffed with at least one ticket agent. The question I have is, if anyone here might know where to find that info, are there any stations with that many boardings that are currently unstaffed that would have to be re-staffed if this provision survives the process?
> 
> It also says any station staffed on or after October 1st, 2017 will have to be staffed, meaning some more recent station agent cuts could be reversed and would also prohibit any more ticket agent cuts in the future.
> 
> I do like this.


Passenger counts for stations are available at State Fact Sheets | Amtrak for FY 2018 & 2019. If you really want the numbers for FY17, copy the link to the FY18 sheet and change the 18 at the end of the URL to 17.

Station amenities, including staffing, are available at At the Station | Amtrak (Ticket Office or not.)


----------



## Deni (Aug 12, 2021)

joelkfla said:


> Passenger counts for stations are available at State Fact Sheets | Amtrak for FY 2018 & 2019. If you really want the numbers for FY17, copy the link to the FY18 sheet and change the 18 at the end of the URL to 17.
> 
> Station amenities, including staffing, are available at At the Station | Amtrak (Ticket Office or not.)


Cool, thanks for pointing me in that direction. Interesting to see just form a few searches how many stations would be getting ticket agents back under this bill. My old college town of Macomb being one of them.


----------



## Josh M (Aug 12, 2021)

joelkfla said:


> Passenger counts for stations are available at State Fact Sheets | Amtrak for FY 2018 & 2019. If you really want the numbers for FY17, copy the link to the FY18 sheet and change the 18 at the end of the URL to 17.
> 
> Station amenities, including staffing, are available at At the Station | Amtrak (Ticket Office or not.)


Looks like a lot of stations here in MI would be getting a ticket agent. I find it very interesting that Royal Oak (my "home" station) is one of them, when the Royal Oak station is literally just an outdoor platform with a shelter, but Pontiac, which has a small but nice and still fairly new actual station building, won't. (If they'd used FY 2019 numbers, then both of them would qualify.) I suppose maybe they could put someone inside the Royal Oak Transit Center across the street?


----------



## lordsigma (Aug 12, 2021)

This rule on station agents does not apply to state supported services - only long distance and the northeast corridor. State supported stations are still between Amtrak and the states. Amtrak can get around it by allowing commuter rail agents to sell Amtrak tickets. In a large number of NEC stations that could be affected by this they could address the issue by using the commuter rail agency as they do with NJ transit at a couple stops. The biggest issue I see for them on the NEC is a couple stops where them de staffing essentially caused the station building to close - ones I’m thinking are westerly and mystic - now the towns have gone on to put other venues in those station buildings so we’ll see how this gets interpreted. At places like Back Bay and Bridgeport it may just be easier to allow the commuter rail employees sell Amtrak.


----------



## neroden (Aug 13, 2021)

cirdan said:


> To me this sounds like exactly the sort of micro-management


Congressional micromanagement is a reaction to blatantly incompetent Amtrak leadership, in this case Mr. Anderson. If Amtrak would stop scoring own goals and otherwise shooting at its own feet, Congress might be more inclined to be hands-off. On that topic, Amtrak needs to start publishing timetables again.


----------



## cirdan (Aug 13, 2021)

lordsigma said:


> This rule on station agents does not apply to state supported services - only long distance and the northeast corridor. State supported stations are still between Amtrak and the states. Amtrak can get around it by allowing commuter rail agents to sell Amtrak tickets. In a large number of NEC stations that could be affected by this they could address the issue by using the commuter rail agency as they do with NJ transit at a couple stops. The biggest issue I see for them on the NEC is a couple stops where them de staffing essentially caused the station building to close - ones I’m thinking are westerly and mystic - now the towns have gone on to put other venues in those station buildings so we’ll see how this gets interpreted. At places like Back Bay and Bridgeport it may just be easier to allow the commuter rail employees sell Amtrak.



In principle, I like the idea.

The devil may be in the details however. How can you assure that commuter rail employees have the same level of training and detail knowledge as Amtrak employees and can answer customer questions competently? If you send them on courses and give them a qualification this may lead to problematic situations where employee A is not permitted to serve an Amtrak customer but employee B is, but the customer is angry because employee B has finished their shift and is going home and there is only employee A left to talk to.

Also, what will the Unions say about non Amtrak people doing Amtrak jobs?


----------



## GoAmtrak (Nov 4, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> A Democratic Senate, even by a razor thin margin, and a Democratic House don't hurt.


I don't get it what the house members are waiting for. If all Democratic members of the House would approve it, couldn't it be passed then? Or is there a 2/3 majority necessary? Democrats should not calculate but just put all what they have to pass it. And then move on to the social bill.

And even if the infrastructure bill gets passed, there are numbers of years to upgrade tracks, stations etc. I read about the Rutland - Burlington extension in Vermont which was expected to start in 2018 or 2019 and now it seems to start in 2022. For me, even more bizarre is the delay of the Arrow commuter rail in California. It was projected for 2013 and although it is such a short distance between San Bernardino and Redlands, it seems to start just in 2022, with 9 years of delay for such a short distance?! If Amtrak would implement its improvements at this pace, the 2035 vision will be more of a 2135 vision 


Generally I'm conviced a stronger Democratic Party ist way better for Amtrak expansion as most Republicans dont' seem to support passenger railway but spread conspiracy theories like "Public transport brings crime". If a politican in Switzerland would talk that non-sense, he would't be elected again for sure. Like Joe Biden, I really hope things move forward quickly.


----------



## neroden (Nov 5, 2021)

GoAmtrak said:


> I don't get it what the house members are waiting for.



The Senate has to pass bills in order for them to pass -- not just the House. Unfortunately.

Abolish the Senate, I say; it's undemocratic. But we can't do that just yet.

There are some absolutely critical infrastructure priorities in the reconciliation bill, and the majority of the Democratic members of the House insist that those get passed. The other, pseudo-bipartisan "infrastructure" bill is extremely highway-heavy and rural-heavy and frankly a lot of Democratic House members are very meh about it and don't really care about it; it doesn't have what's important to their constituents. So they'll pass the pseudo-bipartisan "infrastructure" bill but only if the reconciliation bill passes.

This was known months ago. So the Democratic Senators all promised to pass the reconciliation bill and the pseudo-bipartisan "infrastruture" bill together. But now two of them (Manchin and Sinema) are reneging and delaying everything. So they need to keep the promise they made earlier. The House is waiting for them to keep their promise and pass a reconciliation bill. Then the House will go ahead and finish passing both bills, as previously agreed.

The problem within the Democratic Party right now is 100% Manchin and Sinema, who have been grandstanding, changing what they want every week, refusing to say what they want, breaking promises they made -- it's really frustrating the other Senators as well as the House members. Frankly if they'd just be honest and give a price (pork barrel spending for West Virginia? money to things Manchin is invested in? whatever, fine) everything would be resolved, but they won't.

(Well, obviously the obstructionist Republicans who are rejecting things they supported last week just in order to be obstructionist are also a problem.)

The Swiss equivalent would be if the opposition parties were consistently voting against everything supported by the ruling coalition (even stuff they previously supported) -- AND there were two members of the ruling coalition in the Council of States who were breaking their promises and also obstructing the ruling coalition. You can perhaps see how this would make a giant mess. You'd probably go to new elections or a referendum but we don't have those options here.


----------



## jis (Nov 5, 2021)

Looks like this thread might wish to transition gently over to the AU Lounge


----------



## tricia (Nov 6, 2021)

The infrastructure bill, with $66 billion for Amtrak intact, passed the House last night and is headed to Pres. Biden for his signature.


----------



## IndyLions (Nov 6, 2021)

Yes - finally. It is put up or shut up time for Amtrak. I for one, am rooting for them to have their act together.

And on this forum – I hope we all remember that despite the fact that the majority of the funds are geared for Corridor type routes – that can do nothing but help long-distance.


----------



## Gemuser (Nov 6, 2021)

tricia said:


> The infrastructure bill, with $66 billion for Amtrak intact, passed the House last night and is headed to Pres. Biden for his signature.


Are you sure about that last bit? I saw reporting [either MSMBC or CNN] last week that the House speaker was going to sit on each Bill until the other joined it & they would go to Biden together.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Nov 6, 2021)

Gemuser said:


> Are you sure about that last bit? I saw reporting [either MSMBC or CNN] last week that the House speaker was going to sit on each Bill until the other joined it & they would go to Biden together.


Have you read the news recently?


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Nov 6, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Have you read the news recently?


Apparently not. 
Edit: Oh, I see s/he's in Australia, so maybe it hasn't made the news there yet.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Nov 6, 2021)

Gemuser said:


> Are you sure about that last bit? I saw reporting [either MSMBC or CNN] last week that the House speaker was going to sit on each Bill until the other joined it & they would go to Biden together.











Biden says passage of $1 trillion infrastructure bill a 'monumental step forward'


President Joe Biden was making last-minute calls to House members as Speaker Nancy Pelosi pressed for critical votes Friday on the Democratic agenda.




abcnews.go.com


----------



## Steve Manfred (Nov 6, 2021)

Gemuser said:


> Are you sure about that last bit? I saw reporting [either MSMBC or CNN] last week that the House speaker was going to sit on each Bill until the other joined it & they would go to Biden together.



Any bill that passes both houses of Congress automatically becomes law ten days after passage even without the President‘s signature, unless Congress is out of session when the tenth day comes up, which it isn’t going to be. Even if they want to sit on it in this way for symbolic purposes, and even if those other bills stall and don’t get done, this one will still be law as of November 15 or 16.


----------



## jis (Nov 6, 2021)

There is much more to this bill as far as Amtrak is concerned, than just the $66 Billion. This Bill is also the Authorization for next five years, and it changes the fundamental structure of Amtrak and what it is all about. The emphasis for the first time shifts from becoming profitable to providing service, and the change is reflected in the amended Missions and Goals.

For more details see Jim Matthew (of RPA) letter from Friday night....









Historic Passenger Rail Infrastructure Bill Passes | Rail Passengers Association | Washington, DC


The trajectory of the U.S. passenger rail network has been fundamentally changed with the passage of the Investment in Infrastructure and Jobs Act (IIJA) into law. We went to sleep last night in one world, and today we woke up in a new one.




railpassengers.org


----------



## Ziv (Nov 6, 2021)

Interesting. I thought that if it wasn't signed the bill was not enacted and was in fact, subjected to a "pocket veto". 
But it has been quite a few years since I watched "I am just a bill." LOL!
Kind of sad that I remember Schoolhouse Rock better than I remember the process of enacting a bill from the news or civics classes.



Steve Manfred said:


> Any bill that passes both houses of Congress automatically becomes law ten days after passage even without the President‘s signature, unless Congress is out of session when the tenth day comes up, which it isn’t going to be. Even if they want to sit on it in this way for symbolic purposes, and even if those other bills stall and don’t get done, this one will still be law as of November 15 or 16.


----------



## jis (Nov 6, 2021)

Steve Manfred said:


> Any bill that passes both houses of Congress automatically becomes law ten days after passage even without the President‘s signature, unless Congress is out of session when the tenth day comes up, which it isn’t going to be. Even if they want to sit on it in this way for symbolic purposes, and even if those other bills stall and don’t get done, this one will still be law as of November 15 or 16.


Indeed! And if Congress was about to adjourn before the ten days are up, the Speaker would have to be completely bonkers to sit on the bill and force a pocket veto or something like that. Either way the optics of sitting on this bill is not good and the Democrats would pay dearly for such an act down the line.


----------



## Steve Manfred (Nov 6, 2021)

Ziv said:


> Interesting. I thought that if it wasn't signed the bill was not enacted and was in fact, subjected to a "pocket veto".
> But it has been quite a few years since I watched "I am just a bill." LOL!
> Kind of sad that I remember Schoolhouse Rock better than I remember the process of enacting a bill from the news or civics classes.


The pocket veto only occurs if Congress is out of session when the ten days is up. This happened much more often back in history when Congress was out of session much more often than it is today. Nowadays it’s in session almost all the time, even if it’s not really doing anything…they keep doing just enough to be technically in session, so as to avoid pocket veto opportunities.


----------



## me_little_me (Nov 6, 2021)

neroden said:


> The Senate has to pass bills in order for them to pass -- not just the House. Unfortunately.
> 
> Abolish the Senate, I say; it's undemocratic. But we can't do that just yet.


Unfortunately, you got it all wrong. The Senate has long since approved the bill. It was the House holding it up. The idea of the Democrats was to join the Senate-approved infrastructure bill with a House bill which also would add the additional $3T bill then use "Reconciliation" to adjust the differences between the two bills which would not then allow a filibuster to stop it so the Democrats could pass it with 51 votes. Of course, this is not the intention of Reconciliation which is to reconcile minor differences in a bill, not to add another bill twice the size. However, this is not the fist time it would have been done by either party. Both Republicans and Democrats have used Reconciliation to avoid filibusters.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Nov 6, 2021)

When I read this news a few minutes ago, I was surprised. I thought that the House would do nothing before it went into recess before its week break. Certainly glad that the Bill did pass! And very pleased that some Republican members supported the Bill! (I wonder if my Republican member of Congress did. I'd be shocked if he did.)


----------



## jis (Nov 6, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> When I read this news a few minutes ago, I was surprised. I thought that the House would do nothing before it went into recess before its week break. Certainly glad that the Bill did pass! And very pleased that some Republican members supported the Bill! (I wonder if my Republican member of Congress did. I'd be shocked if he did.)


Yes, 13 Republicans supported and 6 Democrats opposed. So in a manner of speaking it was bipartisan in the House too. Frankly if they had failed to pass this this week, they'd have had hell to pay for down the line, at least in the purple states, and apparently possibly in some blue states too.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Nov 6, 2021)

jis said:


> Yes, 13 Republicans supported and 6 Democrats opposed. So in a manner of speaking it was bipartisan in the House too. Frankly if they had failed to pass this this week, they'd have had hell to pay for down the line, at least in the purple states, and apparently possibly in some blue states too.



And, maybe in at least two red states as well. Senator McConnell is going to get his bridge across the Ohio River between Northern Kentucky and Cincinnati that has been a source of irritation for those who live in that area for several years. Failure of this Bill might also have had some impact on Ohio's Senate race in 2022. The Cincinnati area has started to lean "blue".


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Nov 6, 2021)

What are the optics going to be if management announces service reductions back to 3x a week within days of the bill passing. I’m mixed. Obviously it would be disastrious with the holidays approaching. On the flip side if they reduce service now it’s admitting to the world (and all elected officials) they are in over their head and have no business administering the 66 billion we are about to trust them with. My hope would be Buttigieg would instigate a Board and management shake up.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Nov 6, 2021)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> What are the optics going to be if management announces service reductions back to 3x a week within days of the bill passing. I’m mixed. Obviously it would be disastrious with the holidays approaching. On the flip side if they reduce service now it’s admitting to the world (and all elected officials) they are in over their head and have no business administering the 66 billion we are about to trust them with. My hope would be Buttigieg would instigate a Board and management shake up.


If you don't have enough engineers and conductor's qualified on routes to run trains 7 days a week, what to you suggest they do?


----------



## Andrew (Nov 6, 2021)

How much would this bill fund for Amtrak for FY 2022?

And I know that it appropriates $8 billion over 5 years to the CIG program--which is critical for Gateway. But, is this $8 billion in addition to annual CIG funding?


----------



## jis (Nov 6, 2021)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> What are the optics going to be if management announces service reductions back to 3x a week within days of the bill passing. I’m mixed. Obviously it would be disastrious with the holidays approaching. On the flip side if they reduce service now it’s admitting to the world (and all elected officials) they are in over their head and have no business administering the 66 billion we are about to trust them with. My hope would be Buttigieg would instigate a Board and management shake up.


Do you actually have a solution to propose, or you just want to carp along as usual? 

Besides they are not really getting all of the $66 Billion immediately anyway, so even that is misleading. There will be multiple Amtrak management teams involved in doing stuff with the $66 Billion, if that amount is actually appropriated over the years.

Long term of course the Board needs to be restructured to align with the new Law and an Amtrak management shakeup is almost always a good idea when it is found to be complacent or not responding to customer desires, but none of that will fix the current problem of labor shortage which is not at all unique to Amtrak. Most airlines are also to an extent in the same soup, the more conservative ones a less so than the more aggressive ones as far as sharp scheduling goes.

Frankly I would be quite pleasantly surprised if Buttgieg does anything drastically different in the short run than what he is doing about Amtrak now. I don't really expect it. He is likely way more worried about freight transportation bottlenecks as part of the supply chain issues at present than Amtrak.


----------



## George Harris (Nov 6, 2021)

IndyLions said:


> Yes - finally. It is put up or shut up time for Amtrak. I for one, am rooting for them to have their act together.
> 
> And on this forum – I hope we all remember that despite the fact that the majority of the funds are geared for Corridor type routes – that can do nothing but help long-distance.


I would say you need to rethink this last sentence. Experience so far says "funds are geared for Corridor type routes WHICH WILL DO NOTHING TO help long-distance" services.


----------



## nti1094 (Nov 6, 2021)

It’s time for Amtrak to get it together and get some good intelligent people on its board who represent every party including passengers. They can either completely transform the company into something wonderful that provides service to millions of additional Americans, or squander the money on wasteful endless planning and incremental changes that mean nothing.


----------



## nti1094 (Nov 6, 2021)

George Harris said:


> I would say you need to rethink this last sentence. Experience so far says "funds are geared for Corridor type routes WHICH WILL DO NOTHING TO help long-distance" services.


I’m not so sure I agree… even if opening up the long distance trains to millions of additional potential customers via connections to and from those trains they would have to help. Besides as these corridors open up they make trains a viable possibility for people and keep
the train in their minds as a mode of transport.


----------



## sttom (Nov 6, 2021)

Doesn't this funding still require state cooperation and operation funds? If that is still the case, I'm dubious that this will live up to the hype. We already tried the state thing 10 years ago.


----------



## PaTrainFan (Nov 6, 2021)

sttom said:


> Doesn't this funding still require state cooperation and operation funds? If that is still the case, I'm dubious that this will live up to the hype. We already tried the state thing 10 years ago.



There will be successes and failures. There will be enormous pressure on Red states to accept the incentives and when these are turned down they can explain it away. likely most Blue, along with Purple, states, will enthisiastically accept. Of course, with many corridors, multiple state cooperation will be necessary.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Nov 6, 2021)

nti1094 said:


> It’s time for Amtrak to get it together and get some good intelligent people on its board who represent every party including passengers. They can either completely transform the company into something wonderful that provides service to millions of additional Americans, or squander the money on wasteful endless planning and incremental changes that mean nothing.





> *Sec. 22202. Composition of Amtrak’s Board of Directors: *Revises the composition of Amtrak’s Board of Directors to ensure representation across the Amtrak network (two from NEC states, two from LDR states, and two from State-supported states), and requires annual engagement with the disability community, Amtrak employees and the general public.











What’s in the Senate’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill? | Rail Passengers Association | Washington, DC


Rail Passengers has provided a breakdown of the Senate’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill’s passenger rail highlights, looking at both funding and policy reforms.




www.railpassengers.org


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Nov 6, 2021)

George Harris said:


> I would say you need to rethink this last sentence. Experience so far says "funds are geared for Corridor type routes WHICH WILL DO NOTHING TO help long-distance" services.





> *Sec. 22201. Amtrak Findings, Mission, and Goals:* Amends Amtrak’s mission and goals to emphasize its role in providing service to rural communities, recognize the importance of long-distance routes, and encourage Amtrak to maximize the benefits of Federal investment (as opposed to minimizing costs).











What’s in the Senate’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill? | Rail Passengers Association | Washington, DC


Rail Passengers has provided a breakdown of the Senate’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill’s passenger rail highlights, looking at both funding and policy reforms.




www.railpassengers.org


----------



## jis (Nov 6, 2021)

Here straight from the horse's mouth, how that money is likely to be used... so that we can stop arguing with the wind and random assumptions...









How Amtrak's CEO Plans to Spend $66 Billion - The Journal. - WSJ Podcasts


Congress is nearing passage of the largest investment in public transit ever. About $66 billion of that money is slated to go to Amtrak, America's passenger rail company. Amtrak's CEO sat down with Ryan to talk about where he intends to spend that money.




www.wsj.com


----------



## PaTrainFan (Nov 6, 2021)

jis said:


> Here straight from the horse's mouth, how that money is likely to be used... so that we can stop arguing with the wind and random assumptions...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Still a very general and few details. Will be interesting to see how all this plays out. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. $66 billion is a lot of money. Sure less than the $80 billion Biden wanted, but still a chunck of change. Can't wait to see how it all breaks down. I'm also eager to see how the money will go on the highway system, not just intercity rail and transit. I'm sure we're a ways from knowing any of this.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Nov 6, 2021)

the 66 billion is not just Amtrak, it is also not operations but capital improvements.
it is also a 5 year appropriations bill, take it from there.


----------



## lordsigma (Nov 6, 2021)

Breakdown of intercity passenger rail funding. Courtesy rail passengers association.


----------



## neroden (Nov 6, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> When I read this news a few minutes ago, I was surprised. I thought that the House would do nothing before it went into recess before its week break. Certainly glad that the Bill did pass! And very pleased that some Republican members supported the Bill! (I wonder if my Republican member of Congress did. I'd be shocked if he did.)



The politics of this were quite complicated, but involved the so-called centrists in the House making signed promises to pass the reconciliation bill if it met a particular CBO score (which it will) and an agreement on how to adjust it if it didn't, ***and*** Biden saying he believes he has a reconciliation bill which can get through Manchin and Sinema (though I don't know if that will turn out to be true).

There will be political hell to pay if the major budget reconciliation bill doesn't pass. The infrastructure bill... well, I've seen them pass and I've seen them fail, and it doesn't have a political effect the way the budget failing does. The political effect comes a year down the road: once the infrastructure funding is actually showing up in jobsites, *then* it starts getting some positive response. Failing to pass the budget is just *embarassing* -- it looks incompetent.

Most people these days have not studied the National Recovery Administration. It was FDR's first attempt at the New Deal. The bill passed, but it didn't *work* -- things simply didn't get implemented effectively -- and this was a huge drag on FDR's popularity, much bigger politically than the previous threats of the bill not passing or even the bills being struck down by the Supreme Court. He ended up doing a "second try" with a bunch of smaller agencies which was far more effective (many of those agencies are still with us today). So implementation is key.

I wish I could trust Amtrak to implement its part effectively, but they can't even publish timetables, so? Well, I'll keep advocating.


----------



## Gemuser (Nov 7, 2021)

Steve Manfred said:


> Any bill that passes both houses of Congress automatically becomes law ten days after passage even without the President‘s signature, unless Congress is out of session when the tenth day comes up, which it isn’t going to be. Even if they want to sit on it in this way for symbolic purposes, and even if those other bills stall and don’t get done, this one will still be law as of November 15 or 16.


How long has this been the case? Seems a VERY big hole in my American Politics class, which it could be or if it's less than 50 years old that could also explain it.


----------



## ehbowen (Nov 7, 2021)

Gemuser said:


> How long has this been the case?



Since 1789.



Gemuser said:


> Seems a VERY big hole in my American Politics class, which it could be or if it's less than 50 years old that could also explain it.



Well, it wasn't covered by _Schoolhouse Rock..._


----------



## John819 (Nov 7, 2021)

Sorry to be a Debbie Downer here, but getting the funds is only the start. Anything that Amtrak does will require endless bureaucracy, environmental reviews (bring on the NIMBYs and BANANAS), and lots of other process before anything can get done (except perhaps purchasing new rolling stock).


----------



## joelkfla (Nov 7, 2021)

John819 said:


> BANANAS


= "*build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything*"


----------



## ehbowen (Nov 7, 2021)

John819 said:


> Sorry to be a Debbie Downer here, but getting the funds is only the start. Anything that Amtrak does will require endless bureaucracy, environmental reviews (bring on the NIMBYs and BANANAS), and lots of other process before anything can get done (except perhaps purchasing new rolling stock).





joelkfla said:


> = "*build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything*"



How the world has changed...and not for the better. When the New York Central's line up the Hudson River was being surveyed the millionaires (billionaires by today's standards) with estates and farmers with land along the river willingly ceded right-of-way from their properties with very little complaint, because they knew that the railroad was an improvement for the betterment of all. Nowadays..."You want twenty feet by a hundred forty feet along my back fence line, a hundred and twenty feet from my house which is on the tax rolls for a million five, and you'll build a sound-insulating wall and landscape it? Let's see, I think we need to start at ten million dollars here...."


----------



## CraigInNC (Nov 7, 2021)

I, like most I hope, are looking forward to these infrastructure plans especially Amtrak. I realize the US will never have the kind of rail system that other countries have. Outside of the NEC, the country is just simply too big to expect people to depend on rail to the extent they do elsewhere. With that being said we leave a lot on the table by not investing in comprehensive transportation. I do not think this is news to anybody, at least not in a forum like this. I listened to a Republican female Congressperson from NY try to explain to her constituents why she voted for the infrastructure bill and the difference between it and the social bill the Democrats want passed. It was incredible that people 1) Failed to understand the difference; 2) Chose not to understand the difference; 3) Are still out for blood despite many of them expressing support for many if not most of the projects. It is a sad state of affairs these days especially to a fairly younger person like myself who has more than half of my life yet to live. 

As far as what I see for Amtrak, long term changes will take time, new routes/stations, etc. Especially when having to coordinate with the freight lines. I expect and hope onboard and current service to improve fairly quickly as the money starts to flow. They are already moving towards resuming Traditional Dining in the East, frequency of service, the upgraded cars. A lot of maintenance will be done I presume and I wouldn't be surprised if the old stock Viewliner Is and the AmCans get refurbished. It will be exciting to see. Here in North Carolina, Charlotte is getting a new Gateway Station that will be inter-modal: Charlotte's Gateway District | Transportation Development in Uptown Charlotte As an older millennial I share preferences that span both new and traditional. I still like to sit down to a good meal with a table cloth but appreciate the improvements made to accommodate the 21st century lifestyles. Trains (even outside the NEC) are not just for retired folks or folks on holiday with a lot of time on their hands.


----------



## Barb Stout (Nov 7, 2021)

lordsigma said:


> Breakdown of intercity passenger rail funding. Courtesy rail passengers association.


The attached chart does not line up with Flynn's statement in the previous article (WSJ) where he indicated about 30 billion of the 66 billion would be for the NEC. Is this because of a different pot distribution?


----------



## yyy (Nov 7, 2021)

They still have no plan to replace superliner


----------



## jis (Nov 7, 2021)

yyy said:


> They still have no plan to replace superliner


2025 is the target timeframe for finalizing a plan for that so that orders can be placed. This $66B over ten years ($28B total for National Network) provides the foundational funding for actually putting such in motion. Repeatedly saying there isn't a plan is hardly likely to change that. Read the published Amtrak Equipment Plan.



Barb Stout said:


> The attached chart does not line up with Flynn's statement in the previous article (WSJ) where he indicated about 30 billion of the 66 billion would be for the NEC. Is this because of a different pot distribution?


National Network is $28B coming from $12B from Fed-State Partnership and the balance of $16B from base

For NEC it is $24B set aside from the $36B Fed-State Partnership for NEC plus the base $6B for NEC making $30B for NEC.

Just look at the stuff under "Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal" (light orange highlighted line). The stuff above that is Authorization for annual Appropriation for the next five years.

Remember that the Appropriations come over and above the $6.6B per year for each year averaged out over ten years. So if the full amounts are appropriated then the actual amount for for the first five years, each year, will be the $6.6B plus another $3.3B to $4.4B or so per year from above the light orange line. The authorized appropriation amounts vary a bit from year to year.


----------



## lordsigma (Nov 7, 2021)

Barb Stout said:


> The attached chart does not line up with Flynn's statement in the previous article (WSJ) where he indicated about 30 billion of the 66 billion would be for the NEC. Is this because of a different pot distribution?



45% of the money in the “fed-state partnership” line item is meant for the NEC. That’s where the bulk of the funding for shared use assets on the NEC will come from. The direct NEC appropriations are meant for Amtrak’s Portions of costs and for sole use assets.


----------



## JoshP (Nov 7, 2021)

Here what I found in the bill states for Amtrak:


----------



## MARC Rider (Nov 7, 2021)

CraigInNC said:


> Outside of the NEC, the country is just simply too big to expect people to depend on rail to the extent they do elsewhere


That's really not true. I think that the population density of the country east of the Mississippi (and maybe a bit west, too) is very similar to that of Europe. Also, the West Coast (from central California (say, Sonoma County/Sacramento) to San Diego and the Eugene Oregon to the Washington-Canada border west of the Cascades) is also pretty densely populated. We let our rail network deteriorate for cultural reasons, not because of some exceptionalism that makes North America somehow geographically different from every other continent.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Nov 7, 2021)

neroden said:


> Failing to pass the budget is just *embarassing* -- it looks incompetent.



As well as the Bill needed to raise the debt ceiling. Both parties will pay a price for that with the minority Party being the most to blame, if people understand that.



neroden said:


> He ended up doing a "second try" with a bunch of smaller agencies which was far more effective (many of those agencies are still with us today). So implementation is key.



Agree. The passage of this Bill must be seen by our countrymen to be starting to make a difference in their lives. It's going to take many years for the "fruits" in that Bill to be fulfilled, i.e. a new bridge between Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky for I-71 and I-75, but a start in such directions is absolutely needed.


----------



## GoAmtrak (Nov 7, 2021)

IndyLions said:


> Yes - finally. It is put up or shut up time for Amtrak. I for one, am rooting for them to have their act together.
> 
> And on this forum – I hope we all remember that despite the fact that the majority of the funds are geared for Corridor type routes – that can do nothing but help long-distance.


I'm so happy this infrastructure bill finally passed 

I heard it as the first headline turning the radio on - even in Switzerland it was topic number one! I think we can finally dream of major improvements of passenger rail in the US in the future. And if it works out well and it gains further popularity, certain passenger services may have a good chance to remain for more than 2-3 years.

I'm hopeful it helps the corridor type routes as well as the long-distance routes - Despite corridor routes might get more money first as Amtrak is probably looking more at densely populated areas which completely underserverd/unserverd by passenger rail. But connections between long-distance routes could also finally get a boost, like the Oklahoma City-Newton connection, the Cleveland-Cincinnati route and the Toledo-Detroit route. 
In the longterm, I'm convinced if corridor routes are successful, other areas will become more and more interested in re-establishing (long-distance) passenger rail again in their city or state.

Thanks to everybody who made that possible! A thank you goes also to all of you who have probably done much of your time, money and energy to convince politicans passenger rail in the US must grow.


----------



## GoAmtrak (Nov 7, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> That's really not true. I think that the population density of the country east of the Mississippi (and maybe a bit west, too) is very similar to that of Europe. Also, the West Coast (from central California (say, Sonoma County/Sacramento) to San Diego and the Eugene Oregon to the Washington-Canada border west of the Cascades) is also pretty densely populated. We let our rail network deteriorate for cultural reasons, not because of some exceptionalism that makes North America somehow geographically different from every other continent.


I couldn't have said it better. Especially the Midwest, but also parts of the Southeastern US are densely populated (and could theoretically have decent passenger rail connections between eacht other) but have a deteriorated passenger rail network. 

Of course, there are areas in North America where scarce population might partly explain the poor passenger railway network, like in Wyoming or South Dakota. But there are enough regions in the US of which I'm convinced there is some intereste for increased passenger rail.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Nov 7, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> And very pleased that some Republican members supported the Bill! (I wonder if my Republican member of Congress did. I'd be shocked if he did.)



And, he didn't. But, the Republican Member of Congress from Alaska, my Nephew's home state, Mr. Young, did! My Nephew was very surprised that he did support the Bill. But, as my Nephew said, there are some good benefits in the Bill for our 49th State. Senator Murkowski was part of the Republican group that got the Bill passed by the Senate.


----------



## PaTrainFan (Nov 7, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> And, he didn't. But, the Republican Member of Congress from Alaska, my Nephew's home state, Mr. Young, did! My Nephew was very surprised that he did support the Bill. But, as my Nephew said, there are some good benefits in the Bill for our 49th State. Senator Murkowski was part of the Republican group that got the Bill passed by the Senate.



Although "pork" is officially dead, this bill was stocked full of goodies so that most members of Congress could take home to brag about supporting, if they chose to. So, those who voted against will have to explain why they did not want treats for their home states.


----------



## GoAmtrak (Nov 7, 2021)

jis said:


> There is much more to this bill as far as Amtrak is concerned, than just the $66 Billion. This Bill is also the Authorization for next five years, and it changes the fundamental structure of Amtrak and what it is all about. The emphasis for the first time shifts from becoming profitable to providing service, and the change is reflected in the amended Missions and Goals.
> 
> For more details see Jim Matthew (of RPA) letter from Friday night....
> 
> ...


That's also quite an interesting aspect. When Amtrak gets the possibility to focus on providing a minimum of service instead of being forced to be profitable... Could this open up new possibilities for more (or new) long distance trains in rural areas like between the Northwest and the Great Plains?

In my home country, in Switzerland, public transport and other public services (like post offices) partly have to guarantee a sort of basic care (named "Grundversorgung") which is highly weighted among politicans and in public discussions. It is an aspect which our authorities believe it ties together our country, the more prosperous with the more marginal parts of our country (for example rural areas in the Alps and the North West). Generally, I appreciate this kind of thinking. Naturally, urban areas get more services (of all kinds) in Switzerland too, but rural or less prosperous regions aren't forgotten.


----------



## MIrailfan (Nov 7, 2021)

cut thepork.


----------



## John Bredin (Nov 8, 2021)

MIRAILFAN said:


> cut thepork.


Define thepork.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Nov 8, 2021)

MIRAILFAN said:


> cut thepork.


Very curious to know what you consider “thepork.”


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Nov 8, 2021)

CraigInNC said:


> Outside of the NEC, the country is just simply too big to expect people to depend on rail to the extent they do elsewhere.
> 
> 
> Trains (even outside the NEC) are not just for retired folks or folks on holiday with a lot of time on their hands.



Yeah this isn’t really true. The Midwest has population density in some areas similar to the NEC, and in terms of area of the country, China has something similar with the rail to back it up.

To your second point, I’m not really sure your average person considers the eclectic Amtrak passenger to be an old person on holiday either. Amtrak actually has a pretty broad base of passengers ranging all types and classes of people


----------



## Andrew (Nov 8, 2021)

jis said:


> 2025 is the target timeframe for finalizing a plan for that so that orders can be placed. This $66B over ten years ($28B total for National Network) provides the foundational funding for actually putting such in motion. Repeatedly saying there isn't a plan is hardly likely to change that. Read the published Amtrak Equipment Plan.
> 
> 
> National Network is $28B coming from $12B from Fed-State Partnership and the balance of $16B from base
> ...



This money is supposed to be allocated over five years...


----------



## Steve Manfred (Nov 8, 2021)

Gemuser said:


> How long has this been the case? Seems a VERY big hole in my American Politics class, which it could be or if it's less than 50 years old that could also explain it.


It’s been in the Constitution since the beginning. I first learned about this bit in fourth grade.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac (Nov 8, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> That's really not true. I think that the population density of the country east of the Mississippi (and maybe a bit west, too) is very similar to that of Europe. Also, the West Coast (from central California (say, Sonoma County/Sacramento) to San Diego and the Eugene Oregon to the Washington-Canada border west of the Cascades) is also pretty densely populated. We let our rail network deteriorate for cultural reasons, not because of some exceptionalism that makes North America somehow geographically different from every other continent.


I agree with this. Also consider that since 1971 when Amtrak was formed, most of the growth in the US has been in the South and West, but our Amtrak system is still oriented towards what was populated 50 years ago. Entire cities such as Phoenix with no convenient service. 

One can look at Russia as an example of a large country with a spread out population yet with good rail service. Of course part of the reason may be that under the Soviet system, cars were hard to come by so people got in the habit of using trains for intercity travel.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Nov 8, 2021)

Andrew said:


> This money is supposed to be allocated over five years...



I don’t think the yearly allocation will be a problem for purchasing superliner replacements. The most recent order was only 7 billion or so.


----------



## 87YJ (Nov 8, 2021)

"Entire cities such as Phoenix with no convenient service" 

PHX will be fine, with out a train stopping downtown. Those days are over. Just a matter of time for MCR to have a light rail link to PHX.
The track purchase some want will cost the SL close to a hour as stops would be in time @ Buckeye & Gilbert. With the money the track costs(and over runs) would pay for lots of equipment.
My thinking is have clean new trainsets that run on time. Trust me they will come to ride! JMHO


----------



## me_little_me (Nov 8, 2021)

AmtrakBlue said:


> If you don't have enough engineers and conductor's qualified on routes to run trains 7 days a week, what to you suggest they do?


Fire the execs for their failures. They are paid to do a good job and, when they do so, are honored and get bonuses. They need to take responsibility for their failures and either quit or be terminated for cause. May not immediately help the worker employment situation but I could see morale rise, trained workers reconsider their not coming back, experienced freight engineers needing little additional training and tired of being screwed by "Precision Railroading" rethinking their position, and customers seeing light at the end of the tunnel with the idiots gone.

Like everywhere else, replacing a failed general who lost the battle doesn't mean an immediate victory but it does mean the future looks brighter and the troops are energized to do their part.

Amtrak needs new leaders that tell congress and the public "Here is why we failed and the failures are over. We can't promise immediate success but our way of doing business and our past hiding of failures is going to end. We intend to be open from now on as a publicly owned company should be and we intend to fix our problems".


----------



## jis (Nov 8, 2021)

me_little_me said:


> Fire the execs for their failures.


And of course that will fix the immediate problem with a complex series of causes immediately!


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 8, 2021)

Don't think this will make it through the Senate. But if it does, I doubt seriously that we will ever see any marked improvement on Amtrak. Maybe some nice new carriages that will be nice and new for about 5 years, but I fear it will be lost completely into real estate interests of the executive management.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Nov 8, 2021)

VentureForth said:


> Don't think this will make it through the Senate. But if it does, I doubt seriously that we will ever see any marked improvement on Amtrak. Maybe some nice new carriages that will be nice and new for about 5 years, but I fear it will be lost completely into real estate interests of the executive management.


Hmm, the infrastructure one was already passed by the Senate. It's now waiting for Biden's signature


----------



## jis (Nov 8, 2021)

AmtrakBlue said:


> Hmm, the infrastructure one was already passed by the Senate. It's now waiting for Biden's signature


Indeed. It passed the Senate many months back. It was held up in the House as a hostage for getting the Reconciliation Bill through with votes of the moderates. Apparently the two by four that was applied to the posterior of the Democrats on the election day dislodged that hostage situation. It is indeed with Biden. Even if he forgets to sign it, it becomes law in ten days.

I hope we don't have to wait for another two by four on the posterior from the next election to move the Reconciliation Bill, with CRs galore until then


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 8, 2021)

AmtrakBlue said:


> Hmm, the infrastructure one was already passed by the Senate. It's now waiting for Biden's signature


Oh well. I can't see where any more than 25% or so goes towards infrastructure. I just don't see that even spending $66B on Amtrak is going to improve the experience enough to build back ridership.


----------



## CraigInNC (Nov 8, 2021)

Biden will have a public signing ceremony in the next few days. Such bills usually involve media coverage and a crowd for pictures. I imagine the other half of the infrastructure bill will soon follow at least that is what I read. Maybe it was Tuesday's elections maybe not but I think everyone is ready to move on from that drama. As far as the Amtrak dollars go, of course capital projects will take time new / expanded routes will be years down the road but the important thing is that much will be in the pipeline. The government generally does not claw back money so even if there is a change of administration in 2025 plans will be in place and be moving with this money. On the short term side I expect this will allow Amtrak to invest in operational upgrades both in hard and soft product. Seeing as they will not have to budget current revenues to cover future capital improvements they can allocate some of the internal money for refinement. I would imagine dining service will return quicker now as well as potential other amenities and various other convenience improvements. I expect to see a faster turnaround of refurbishing old equipment in addition to new orders for new equipment for replacement and future service. We saw this on the municipal level with the various Covid related bills over the last 18 months. New money was earmarked to certain categories but in effect what that did was free up money for other things as a domino effect.


----------



## Ziv (Nov 8, 2021)

I am not sure if it is possible, but given the delivery timeline that new build cars would have, I almost wish that Amtrak would add another 20 or 30 sleepers and 10 or 15 additional coaches to the contract with CAF. The new VLII's have had a few problems and delivery has been slower than molasses, but they are actually getting delivered this year, not sometime in the late 2020's. Maybe.
Amtrak is going to be coming into a decent amount of money. The one thing that would make an immediate impact (i.e. around mid-2022) would be getting more sleepers on existing trains, thereby driving up supply and hopefully allowing for low bucket prices a bit more often. New tunnels, tracks and stations (and new design railcars) would take years for just the planning, let alone for these improvements to actually arrive.


----------



## jis (Nov 8, 2021)

Ziv said:


> I am not sure if it is possible, but given the delivery timeline that new build cars would have, I almost wish that Amtrak would add another 20 or 30 sleepers and 10 or 15 additional coaches to the contract with CAF. The new VLII's have had a few problems and delivery has been slower than molasses, but they are actually getting delivered this year, not sometime in the late 2020's. Maybe.
> Amtrak is going to be coming into a decent amount of money. The one thing that would make an immediate impact (i.e. around mid-2022) would be getting more sleepers on existing trains, thereby driving up supply and hopefully allowing for low bucket prices a bit more often. New tunnels, tracks and stations (and new design railcars) would take years for just the planning, let alone for these improvements to actually arrive.


CAF does not have the production line for building 
Viewliners in place anymore. The car bodies were constructed over five years back. It is basically starting from scratch to do more.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Nov 8, 2021)

VentureForth said:


> Oh well. I can't see where any more than 25% or so goes towards infrastructure. I just don't see that even spending $66B on Amtrak is going to improve the experience enough to build back ridership.



This bill is good for a few reasons, chief of which is that it ensures Amtrak’s survival for the next decade or two. 

I do concede it’s possible that 66B might not bring about gargantuan improvements, but it does help with new equipment, fixing some basic but crucial infrastructure problems, and keeping daily service a thing. All of these points build towards keeping Amtrak relevant and running, which is important! 

So yes, this bill is important, and far more important than you give it credit for.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Nov 8, 2021)

PaTrainFan said:


> Although "pork" is officially dead, this bill was stocked full of goodies so that most members of Congress could take home to brag about supporting, if they chose to. So, those who voted against will have to explain why they did not want treats for their home states.



Agree, that my Representative ought to have some explaining to do with others in his District who have worked for many years to get Amtrak service re-started since this Bill has the best possibility of getting that service begun. 



Dakota 400 said:


> the Republican Member of Congress from Alaska, my Nephew's home state, Mr. Young, did! My Nephew was very surprised that he did support the Bill. But, as my Nephew said, there are some good benefits in the Bill for our 49th State. Senator Murkowski was part of the Republican group that got the Bill passed by the Senate.



Today in my local newspaper, I read that Representative Young, who has served 25 terms in the House of Representatives, along with 4 of his Republican colleagues, said that they voted for the Bill because infrastructure Bills have traditionally been supported by Republicans as well as by Democrats.


----------



## Ziv (Nov 8, 2021)

Rats. I was afraid it wasn't possible. Thanks for explaining why my pipe dream will remain unrealized, though! 



jis said:


> CAF does not have the production line for building
> Viewliners in place anymore. The car bodies were constructed over five years back. It is basically starting from scratch to do more.


----------



## PaTrainFan (Nov 8, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> Agree, that my Representative ought to have some explaining to do with others in his District who have worked for many years to get Amtrak service re-started since this Bill has the best possibility of getting that service begun.



But it's not just Amtrak. There is something for everybody in the bill which is by design. I am sure there will be plenty of road and bridge projects in your district he'll be happy to tout when the time comes, while trying to explain why he voted against it.


----------



## joelkfla (Nov 8, 2021)

CNN says $66B is for freight and passenger rail combined.


----------



## AmHope (Nov 8, 2021)

jis said:


> CAF does not have the production line for building
> Viewliners in place anymore. The car bodies were constructed over five years back. It is basically starting from scratch to do more.



VL1 carbodies are still good. Could use them as a base for a total overhaul (new trucks, suspension, etc. with VL2 fixtures and finish inside). Though honestly they'd be better off coming up with a sleeper design using the Venture base for future expansion.


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 8, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> So yes, this bill is important, and far more important than you give it credit for.


Think they'll bring back a full dining experience with that much money?


----------



## jpakala (Nov 8, 2021)

We are not too large for long-distance passenger rail in view of the size of China, Brazil, India, Europe.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Nov 8, 2021)

VentureForth said:


> Think they'll bring back a full dining experience with that much money?


They are already planning to do that - once they get the staff they need ready (hired/trained).


----------



## Cal (Nov 8, 2021)

CraigInNC said:


> so even if there is a change of administration in 2025


Hold on, is anyone expecting Biden to go for another term and be re-elected? He's going to be 81 years old and is already the oldest person to assume the presidency.



VentureForth said:


> Think they'll bring back a full dining experience with that much money?





AmtrakBlue said:


> They are already planning to do that - once they get the staff they need ready (hired/trained).


Well, maybe not full dining, but some form of traditional dining has been intended to come back to all routes for quite some time now. This infrastructure bill will definitely do some good, just probably not as much as we'd like.


----------



## CraigInNC (Nov 8, 2021)

Cal said:


> Hold on, is anyone expecting Biden to go for another term and be re-elected? He's going to be 81 years old and is already the oldest person to assume the presidency.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe not full dining, but some form of traditional dining has been intended to come back to all routes for quite some time now. This infrastructure bill will definitely do some good, just probably not as much as we'd like.



Biden himself might not run again but I was thinking of a party change to an administration that might not be Amtrak friendly. The hope is that whomever is President on January 20, 2025 there are enough Congresspeople from both parties to sustain the investments. Amtrak has always had to fight for funding. Congress always seems to be more willing to throw money at the airlines even though they are an endless pit as anything else is.


----------



## Cal (Nov 8, 2021)

CraigInNC said:


> Biden himself might not run again but I was thinking of a party change to an administration that might not be Amtrak friendly. The hope is that whomever is President on January 20, 2025 there are enough Congresspeople from both parties to sustain the investments. Amtrak has always had to fight for funding. Congress always seems to be more willing to throw money at the airlines even though they are an endless pit as anything else is.


Who knows what's gonna happen, let's just hope that Amtrak does well over the next four years with this new funding and recovering from the pandemic.


----------



## CraigInNC (Nov 8, 2021)

Ziv said:


> I am not sure if it is possible, but given the delivery timeline that new build cars would have, I almost wish that Amtrak would add another 20 or 30 sleepers and 10 or 15 additional coaches to the contract with CAF. The new VLII's have had a few problems and delivery has been slower than molasses, but they are actually getting delivered this year, not sometime in the late 2020's. Maybe.
> Amtrak is going to be coming into a decent amount of money. The one thing that would make an immediate impact (i.e. around mid-2022) would be getting more sleepers on existing trains, thereby driving up supply and hopefully allowing for low bucket prices a bit more often. New tunnels, tracks and stations (and new design railcars) would take years for just the planning, let alone for these improvements to actually arrive.



I would say more than decent like a level unthinkable in years past. I truly could be transformative. 

At this point I think the bigger question is from a capital expenditure basis can CAF actually build cars at a reasonable speed to accommodate such an expansion of service ? Or would Amtrak have to open a second bid with another company just to achieve volume. Then you have to deal with the freight lines.


----------



## MARC Rider (Nov 8, 2021)

CraigInNC said:


> Biden himself might not run again but I was thinking of a party change to an administration that might not be Amtrak friendly. The hope is that whomever is President on January 20, 2025 there are enough Congresspeople from both parties to sustain the investments. Amtrak has always had to fight for funding. Congress always seems to be more willing to throw money at the airlines even though they are an endless pit as anything else is.


The identity of the President, or even the party of the President, is not as important (or at least critical) as some people think. Look at the Previous Guy, he sucked up to the ideas of the Heritage Foundation/Cato Institute types and proposed zeroing out Amtrak. That didn't happen, even when Congress was controlled by his own party. 

There will, of course, be some difference between parties, as one of them seems to think that spending on passenger rail is a lower national priority, but even that party is not totally opposed to spending money on passenger rail. In many ways, it's more important who controls Congress. The President's main power is that he or she can start expensive, unwinnable wars that go on forever, and suck up so much money that it's harder to spend it on stuff like passenger rail.


----------



## Larry H. (Nov 8, 2021)

I heard the President of Amtrak I think it was today saying how most of the money would go the Eastern states for upgrades. I don't know about others here, but I am a bit tired of paying taxes for rail and then having most of it continually go to the eastern lines. One thing I see mentioned here is about the diners. Even though I don't go east all that much I think all overnight trains and maybe some medium distance ones should offer the same quality of food as the western ones now do. What ever happened to the 50 new diners they hardly used at all? The money should be used equally among all areas of the nation, we ride trains too, even if there aren't many choices of how or where to go.


----------



## CCC1007 (Nov 8, 2021)

CraigInNC said:


> I would say more than decent like a level unthinkable in years past. I truly could be transformative.
> 
> At this point I think the bigger question is from a capital expenditure basis can CAF actually build cars at a reasonable speed to accommodate such an expansion of service ? Or would Amtrak have to open a second bid with another company just to achieve volume. Then you have to deal with the freight lines.


CAF is likely to never see another penny from Amtrak, especially since the order for 130 cars has taken 9 years to get to this level of completion.

It is much more likely that Siemens will be receiving another order for LD cars, after negotiations are complete for the Amfleet 1 Replacement program.

In my mind, this order should (Ideally) be for a 1:1.5 seat for seat replacement of the Superliners, Amfleet 2's, and augmentation of the Viewliner fleet. This would allow nearly every train in the country to be almost the same type of equipment. Granted, this particular order would be around 1000 cars, (Coaches, Lounges, Diners, Sleepers, Dorms), costs somewhere around $4-5B for the base order, and the service contract would be somewhere in the $2-4B range.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Nov 9, 2021)

Larry H. said:


> I heard the President of Amtrak I think it was today saying how most of the money would go the Eastern states for upgrades. I don't know about others here, but I am a bit tired of paying taxes for rail and then having most of it continually go to the eastern lines. One thing I see mentioned here is about the diners. Even though I don't go east all that much I think all overnight trains and maybe some medium distance ones should offer the same quality of food as the western ones now do. What ever happened to the 50 new diners they hardly used at all? The money should be used equally among all areas of the nation, we ride trains too, even if there aren't many choices of how or where to go.


As has been mentioned many times, they currently do not have the staffing for all the diners due to COVID-19, directly or indirectly. And before that there was the F&B requirement to break even. 
They have stated that dining will improve on the eastern trains.


----------



## PaTrainFan (Nov 9, 2021)

Best story I have seen yet with most detail on how the infrastructure bill impacts Amtrak, from the Washington Post.


----------



## CraigInNC (Nov 9, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> The identity of the President, or even the party of the President, is not as important (or at least critical) as some people think. Look at the Previous Guy, he sucked up to the ideas of the Heritage Foundation/Cato Institute types and proposed zeroing out Amtrak. That didn't happen, even when Congress was controlled by his own party.
> 
> There will, of course, be some difference between parties, as one of them seems to think that spending on passenger rail is a lower national priority, but even that party is not totally opposed to spending money on passenger rail. In many ways, it's more important who controls Congress. The President's main power is that he or she can start expensive, unwinnable wars that go on forever, and suck up so much money that it's harder to spend it on stuff like passenger rail.



I understand you and largely agree with your point at least in terms of cutting off Amtrak completely. A lot like the argument that used to happen about privatizing SS it was happy talk for some but we all know that will never happen (any time soon). With that being said, government programs always fight for money but there is a difference from being aspirational and feeling the knife slide across your back on a regular basis. It seems like today's political climate is one of just trying to reverse what the previous guy(s) did just out of spite. That might be certainly true for a few controversial things but I would hate to find out that "wasteful" Amtrak spending becomes a campaign issue at any level. The stuff in the "hard" bill that just passed is almost completely non-controversial and historically would have passed by wide margins regardless of which party controlled the WH/Congress. Maybe some programs would have been tweaked, funding levels adjusted, differing priorities but its not inconceivable that this could have passed 2 years ago. I am sure the Previous Guy would have wasted no time taking advantage of the PR values... 

One thing I am hopefully of, as being a fairly younger person yet at 41, the younger folks are more in tune with mixed travel arrangements. Mass transit, Uber, ride share, walking, bicycling, light rail (in my city Charlotte), and that could be extended to heavy rail if it is marketed right. (And you can still do it without eliminating traditional dining no reason to cut off your nose to spite your face).


----------



## Larry H. (Nov 9, 2021)

They need to figure a way to get more hub cities so that every where you need to go doesn't means going mostly to Chicago which could be a day or more from you and then reversing on one of the few other western trains if you are lucky enough to be going to one of those cities on the line. And worse paying rail or room charges to go way out of your way to boot. People in say, KC shouldn't have to go overnight to Chicago in order to go to Minnesota or farther west.


----------



## CraigInNC (Nov 9, 2021)

Larry H. said:


> I heard the President of Amtrak I think it was today saying how most of the money would go the Eastern states for upgrades. I don't know about others here, but I am a bit tired of paying taxes for rail and then having most of it continually go to the eastern lines. One thing I see mentioned here is about the diners. Even though I don't go east all that much I think all overnight trains and maybe some medium distance ones should offer the same quality of food as the western ones now do. What ever happened to the 50 new diners they hardly used at all? The money should be used equally among all areas of the nation, we ride trains too, even if there aren't many choices of how or where to go.



I hear you and do not disagree that there is a natural tendency to just throw money at the East especially the NEC almost by inertia. With that said, there are some legitimate business arguments for why that is happening the least of which is that the ROI for every $1 is high and IIRC the NEC is largely profitable. Getting Acela right is bookoo bucks like how the basketball team at UNC (my alma mater) funds a large part of the athletic department and pays for dozens of teams of more obscure sports that really have no hope of breaking even. With that being said, I am not sure about the diners there might issues with staffing/service where logistics are an overriding factor. While the $66B bill does not address amenities per se, with all that infusion of hard money I fully expect a byproduct of that bill will be all the Amtrak soft product upgrades, including dining, will accelerate now because they can afford to divert internal funds to it and replace capital funds with these new funds. I would be curious for someone to opine what the hold up is to Western services, lower demand? track availability? lack of buy in from the states? Part of the problem that I could see, at first blush, is LD western trains are likely not used for anything but leisure outside of the Pacific coastline areas. Large metro areas out west are few and far between and its hard to justify the time. LV to LA I can see. PHX to Tuscon of course, a lot of intraTexas but the airlines have traditional had good cheap service (aka why Southwest exists) between DAL HOU SAN ELP AUS etc.


----------



## Ziv (Nov 9, 2021)

Since my wish list for new cars built my CAF isn't going to happen,  I will chime in here and say that another wish I have is for a train that would connect Wash DC to Kansas City, via Charleston WV, Cincinnati OH, Louisville KE and St Louis MO. Going from DC to St Louis to LA without going to Chicago or New Orleans would be a nice trip and it would make the trip worthwhile for a lot of people that otherwise would not bother to take a train that was going to haul them all the way up to Chicago or down to NO. Admittedly, this "mid-country" route probably doesn't have a high likelihood of happening, but it would be cool to see it pull other Amtrak routes (both present and future) together. 
The route that is probably more wished for, from Chicago through Louisville (or Nashville?) and Atlanta to Jacksonville, would be even better but I am not sure that the tracks in that area would support a passenger route, especially not at a speed that most people would find useful.
Mostly, though, I hope that Amtrak finds a way to use the present windfall to make useful and lasting improvements in existing services and infrastructure, both in the NEC and the LD routes AND builds the supply of Amtrak rolling stock (and hires new crew) to allow for a few new routes and additional frequencies on the more popular LD routes. This is a once in a lifetime windfall, I hope they do a great deal of good with it, not just a few large ticket items.




Larry H. said:


> They need to figure a way to get more hub cities so that every where you need to go doesn't means going mostly to Chicago which could be a day or more from you and then reversing on one of the few other western trains if you are lucky enough to be going to one of those cities on the line. And worse paying rail or room charges to go way out of your way to boot. People in say, KC shouldn't have to go overnight to Chicago in order to go to Minnesota or farther west.


----------



## MARC Rider (Nov 9, 2021)

CraigInNC said:


> With that said, there are some legitimate business arguments for why that is happening the least of which is that the ROI for every $1 is high and IIRC the NEC is largely profitable.


It's not just "profitable" (and look up one of my rants about "Hollywood accounting" to see the "profitable" is a meaningless word.) It's that the NEC and the lines that branch off from it is probably the only place in the country where passenger rail is an actual practical, significant part of the transportation mix. And it needs a lot of money to keep it that way, as a lot of the critical infrastructure is very old and ready to fall apart. Anyway, it's official now. Amtrak is no longer a "business" with a mandate to "make money." It's purpose is to provide a transportation utility, preferably one that gets people out of their cars and short-haul airline flights.

Outside of the NEC, Amtrak's challenge is to increase the market share of intercity passenger rail to the point that political support for it comes from all parts of the political spectrum, just as funding for highways, waterways, and air traffic improvements are supported by all sides of the political spectrum. This probably means focusing on the midwest, the southeast, parts of the west coast, and the Rocky Mountain Front Range. And focusing on trips of 500 miles or less. 

There may be some trains that run longer distances, but the vast majority of the passengers will be taking shorter trips. And, of course, the longer the train's route, the more chance there is for delays, so it might make sense to run most trains over shorter routes. Amtrak has actually been expanding such a network, and they need to keep doing it, but more effectively. I think their first priority is doing what needs to be done to have the trains run reliably on time with a competitive schedule. Dealing with the freight railroads is one thing, but they need to keep the infrastructure they do own in good repair, and, of course, keep the rolling stock up to date so it doesn't keep breaking down at inconvenient times in inconvenient places. Expanding long distance routes that cross the Rocky Mountains and unpopulated deserts is probably a much lower priority, and additional connections can be made there by means of expanded Thruway bus services, which can be put in place almost immediately.


----------



## jis (Nov 9, 2021)

In this bill there is outright $28 Billion for the National Network and $30 Billion for NEC. There is no appropriated operations money. Only authorisation. It is an infrastructure thing. Operations money is in the Reconciliation Bill. Just to ground the discussion and keep it from taking flights of fancy.


----------



## jruff001 (Nov 9, 2021)

VentureForth said:


> Think they'll bring back a full dining experience with that much money?


Is the dining car menu really "infrastructure"?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 9, 2021)

VentureForth said:


> Don't think this will make it through the Senate. But if it does, I doubt seriously that we will ever see any marked improvement on Amtrak.





VentureForth said:


> I just don't see that even spending $66B on Amtrak is going to improve the experience enough to build back ridership.


Where is this coming from and what exactly would it take for you see things in a positive light? Or is it the funding itself that primarily disappoints you?


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Nov 9, 2021)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Where is this coming from and what exactly would it take for you see things in a positive light? Or is it the funding itself that primarily disappoints you?



He did not read previous posts in the thread or pay attention to the news enough to know it (the biggest news ever for Amtrak) passed the senate months ago. How he sees the bill isn’t of too much concern.


----------



## sttom (Nov 9, 2021)

CCC1007 said:


> In my mind, this order should (Ideally) be for a 1:1.5 seat for seat replacement of the Superliners,



I did the math for a Superliner single level replacement and the rough number is 3 single levels for every 2 Superliners just for the sleepers. And that's under the assumption that the Family Bedroom won't be replaced. Adding that in would make it a 2 to 1 ratio. Coaches it's less of an issue since the Amfleet 2s carry 59 and the Superliners carry 74. Which is roughly 5 single levels to replace 4 Superliner coaches.


----------



## CraigInNC (Nov 9, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> Is the dining car menu really "infrastructure"?



Amtrak will simply reallocate money to improve the amenities and replace that money with this new money. Amtrak will not have to budget as much current money for capital improvements and use it for now stuff. That is assuming the language in the bill does not specifically tie Amtrak's hands in such a regard. Occasionally I have seen "new" money with such strings that it can only be spent on stuff that the was otherwise unplanned but I am not seeing that is the case here. Its a lot of money, the accounts can move it around to make it look right as long as management knows what is going on.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 9, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> He did not read previous posts in the thread or pay attention to the news enough to know it (the biggest news ever for Amtrak) passed the senate months ago. How he sees the bill isn’t of too much concern.


Even after being corrected he simply doubled down on his dour nihilism. So is he unhappy with this news because he thinks we're not spending enough or because he thinks we're spending too much? Seems like a pretty simple question to me.



VentureForth said:


> But if I get to allocate where MY taxes go, I'd put 97c of every dollar for transport into roads, 2c into trains, and 1c into air based on my usage.


I guess that answers it well enough.


----------



## CraigInNC (Nov 9, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> It's not just "profitable" (and look up one of my rants about "Hollywood accounting" to see the "profitable" is a meaningless word.) It's that the NEC and the lines that branch off from it is probably the only place in the country where passenger rail is an actual practical, significant part of the transportation mix. And it needs a lot of money to keep it that way, as a lot of the critical infrastructure is very old and ready to fall apart. Anyway, it's official now. Amtrak is no longer a "business" with a mandate to "make money." It's purpose is to provide a transportation utility, preferably one that gets people out of their cars and short-haul airline flights.
> 
> Outside of the NEC, Amtrak's challenge is to increase the market share of intercity passenger rail to the point that political support for it comes from all parts of the political spectrum, just as funding for highways, waterways, and air traffic improvements are supported by all sides of the political spectrum. This probably means focusing on the midwest, the southeast, parts of the west coast, and the Rocky Mountain Front Range. And focusing on trips of 500 miles or less.
> 
> There may be some trains that run longer distances, but the vast majority of the passengers will be taking shorter trips. And, of course, the longer the train's route, the more chance there is for delays, so it might make sense to run most trains over shorter routes. Amtrak has actually been expanding such a network, and they need to keep doing it, but more effectively. I think their first priority is doing what needs to be done to have the trains run reliably on time with a competitive schedule. Dealing with the freight railroads is one thing, but they need to keep the infrastructure they do own in good repair, and, of course, keep the rolling stock up to date so it doesn't keep breaking down at inconvenient times in inconvenient places. Expanding long distance routes that cross the Rocky Mountains and unpopulated deserts is probably a much lower priority, and additional connections can be made there by means of expanded Thruway bus services, which can be put in place almost immediately.



It would be nice to see Amtrak supplanting some of the airline short haul business outside of the NEC it would be a win-win both for the rail side and the air side. I am not familiar enough with the airline business model to know what their break even points are for various routes. There would be a lot of variables at play but I suspect just on an efficiency basis they would have the potential to have a higher profit margin on longer hauls than short. I am sure the legacy airlines would love to get out of the business of flying routes of under an hour. Flying is so capital intensive where the break even point is so high that the airlines lose a lot of money on small routes in order to gain passenger volume to feed longer routes that subsidize everything. I know some routes in obscure places receive government subsidies in order to provide connectivity options for remote populations. Yet despite all of that most of the airlines have collectively lost more money in the last 40 years than any other single industry ever.


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 9, 2021)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Even after being corrected he simply doubled down on his dour nihilism. So is he unhappy with this news because he thinks we're not spending enough or because he thinks we're spending too much? Seems like a pretty simple question to me.
> 
> 
> I guess that answers it well enough.


I think $66B is too much money for a mere 32 million annual riders. If it makes a real difference, if it improves the reliability, if it improves the experience, if it increases ridership, then I'll be a happy camper. But I have yet to see any real action to limit the amount of wasteful spending that Amtrak has been accused by the IG over a decade ago.

So, I feel like I can be as dour as I want to be about how my taxes are being spent and whether there's value gained for it. 

$110B: Roads, bridges
$39B: Public Transit
$66B: Railways
$73B: Power Grids
$7.5B: Electric Vehicles
$7.5B: Electric Buses & Ferries
$42B: Airports, waterways
$50B: Resilience, climate change
$55B: Drinking water
$65B: Broadband
$21B: Environmental spending
$11B: Transportation safety

That's only $547B or HALF of the bill. Where's the other $650B being spent? These are the BIG ticket items. 

Mock me for my previous comment on the dining car being fully restored as not infrastructure, but one can suppose that if all this money is being spent on the infrastructure, then Amtrak's traditional $1.5B annual stipend (which is also used for infrastructure) can be allocated to operations.

At least I can be dour about something without personally attacking individuals for their thoughts.


----------



## jis (Nov 9, 2021)

To be quite pedantic only $58 Billion over ten years is fully targeted for passenger rail infrastructure. That too if the so called Fed-State $36 Billion is entirely used for passenger service.

It is quite likely that a big chunk will be used for NEC and Midwest around Chicago infrastructure - tunnels, bridges, south shore separation of passenger trackage etc. Leaving that aside, the purely Amtrak amounts are $6 Billion for the NEC $16 Billion for National. They could get substantially expended just on rolling stock acquisition and upgrading maintenance facilities over ten years.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Nov 9, 2021)

PaTrainFan said:


> But it's not just Amtrak. There is something for everybody in the bill which is by design. I am sure there will be plenty of road and bridge projects in your district he'll be happy to tout when the time comes, while trying to explain why he voted against it.



The gentleman does an excellent job in getting and keeping support for Wright Patterson AFB and other military installations in Ohio. When Amtrak's proposal to increase service in Ohio was first proposed, he was non-committal. But, when--if--that service does start and a new station is built in Dayton, I can almost guarantee you that he will be there for the ribbon cutting and praising the wisdom of starting the 3C service.


----------



## Willbridge (Nov 9, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> It's not just "profitable" (and look up one of my rants about "Hollywood accounting" to see the "profitable" is a meaningless word.) It's that the NEC and the lines that branch off from it is probably the only place in the country where passenger rail is an actual practical, significant part of the transportation mix. And it needs a lot of money to keep it that way, as a lot of the critical infrastructure is very old and ready to fall apart. Anyway, it's official now. Amtrak is no longer a "business" with a mandate to "make money." It's purpose is to provide a transportation utility, preferably one that gets people out of their cars and short-haul airline flights.
> 
> Outside of the NEC, Amtrak's challenge is to increase the market share of intercity passenger rail to the point that political support for it comes from all parts of the political spectrum, just as funding for highways, waterways, and air traffic improvements are supported by all sides of the political spectrum. This probably means focusing on the midwest, the southeast, parts of the west coast, and the Rocky Mountain Front Range. And focusing on trips of 500 miles or less.
> 
> There may be some trains that run longer distances, but the vast majority of the passengers will be taking shorter trips. And, of course, the longer the train's route, the more chance there is for delays, so it might make sense to run most trains over shorter routes. Amtrak has actually been expanding such a network, and they need to keep doing it, but more effectively. I think their first priority is doing what needs to be done to have the trains run reliably on time with a competitive schedule. Dealing with the freight railroads is one thing, but they need to keep the infrastructure they do own in good repair, and, of course, keep the rolling stock up to date so it doesn't keep breaking down at inconvenient times in inconvenient places. Expanding long distance routes that cross the Rocky Mountains and unpopulated deserts is probably a much lower priority, and additional connections can be made there by means of expanded Thruway bus services, which can be put in place almost immediately.


"...expanded Thruway bus services, which can be put in place almost immediately."

Then why isn't the DEN<>RAT Thruway operating? The answer, just like with new corridor OR long-distance routes is that a lot of organizations and interest groups are involved. Indeed, since May 1, 1971 there have been customers on the populous Front Range who wonder why there is no DEN<>LAJ connection with the existing LAJ<>KCY<>STL<>CDL<>NOL or LAJ<>NEW<>OKC<>FTW<>SAS schedule paths. When one gets into it it is not easy, including the political need to protect existing bus lines.

Some things are commonly overlooked when arguing that the middle of the country is empty:

Most of the population west of say the 90th meridian is located on current or past railway main lines (Denver Union Station is on the 105th meridian).
People in the West travel much longer distances than people in other regions, thereby generating more passenger miles. When I worked on the first study that led to the creation of Trains 27/28, I found that the average passenger on Trains 7/8 headed west of Pasco was traveling just over 1,000 miles. One graphic way of looking at this is to visualize the coverage area for broadcasting pro football or baseball. The Denver Broncos coverage area is bigger than many nation states.
This doesn't mean that the area does not have less population but it does mean that running train service that may also attract tourists and Amtrak Unlimited members is not as unreasonable as it may seem on the edges of the country.

Here are some eccentric sources that could help in developing ideas about rail routes:

Where do MLB Fans Live? Mapping Baseball Fandom Across the U.S. - SeatGeek - TBA

major league baseball radio station maps - Bing images

Denver Broncos radio stations outside of Colorado:

*KANSAS*


CityCall LettersStationColbyKLOE730 AMGoodlandKKCI102.5 FMGreat BendKZRS107.9 FMHaysKRMR105.7 FMSalinaKDJM101.7 FMWichitaKGSO1410 AM/93.9 FM
*NEBRASKA*

CityCall LettersStationChadronKCSR610 AMLincolnKLIN1400 AM/95.9 FMMcCookKBRL1300 AMNorth PlatteKOOQ1410 AMOgallalaKOGA930 AMScottsbluffKNEB960 AM
*NEW MEXICO*

CityCall LettersStationAlbuquerqueKQTM101.7 FMFarmingtonKCQL1340 AMRuidosoKEDU102.3 FM
*NEVADA*

CityCall LettersStationLas VegasKMZQ670 AM
*OKLAHOMA*

CityCall LettersStationAlvaKRDR105.7 FM
*SOUTH DAKOTA*

CityCall LettersStationBelle FourcheKFBS1450 AMRapid CityKOTA1380 AM
*TEXAS*

CityCall LettersStationAbileneKYYW1470 AMDimmittKDHN1470 AMLubbockKKAM1340 AM
*WYOMING*

CityCall LettersStationBuffaloKBBS1450 AMCasperKTWO1030 AMCheyenneKFBC1240 AMCodyKODI97.9 FMDouglasKKTY1470 AMGilletteKXXL106.1 FMGreen RiverKFRZ92.1 FMLanderKVOE1330 AMLaramieKOWB1290 AMPine BluffsKEZF95.5 FMPinedaleKFZE104.3 FMPowellKPOW1260 AMRiverston/Lost CabinKWYW99.1 FMSaratogaKTGA99.3 FMSheridanKWYO1410 AMSheridanKSHW87.7 FMSundanceKYDT103.1 FMTorringtonKGOS1490 AMWheatlandKYCN1340 AMWorlandKWOR1340 AM

*CANADA*

CityCall LettersStationCalgaryCFAC960 AM

Or visit the tv football coverage maps. Here's Washington DC vs. Denver this year.




There are lots of ways of looking at these cultural sources but in general Westerners travel more miles. I began thinking about this in the Army, when I met a soldier from NYC who had once been as far west as Niagara Falls. I had felt deprived because before the service I had only been as far east from Portland as the Chicago area.


----------



## sttom (Nov 9, 2021)

VentureForth said:


> I think $66B is too much money for a mere 32 million annual riders.



The point of spending the money is to get more riders. The issue with the $66 billion is how much of that is getting spent on the NEC? Given that Amtrak's rosiest goals for the money is to not even double ridership in 15 years, $66 billion is way to much and the implication is that most of it is going to be used on the NEC and not much extra ridership is going to come from it. 


Total$126,500,000,000Upgrade Existing Mileage$14,000,000,00020,000 milesNew Mileage Upgrades$28,000,000,00016,000 milesRolling Stock$61,000,000,00014,000 cars, 1000 enginesFacilities$3,000,000,000Heavy maintenance, turning facilities, commissariesWorkforce$500,000,000Stations$20,000,000,000500 stationsBuffer$5,500,000,000

If you roughly double the money and spend basically none of it on the NEC or existing state services, you can get a lot out of it based on current cost figures. For nearly double the funding they got, you could "enhance" the existing services and nearly double the size of the network. But, all we are getting is more put into the NEC. And to put this into more perspective, their original ask was $80 billion and only $25 billion of that was going to the rest of the country. Proportionally speaking, if the rest of the country got the same as the NEC, they would have asked for an additional $469 billion. So basically, the NEC gets an interstate highway project level of funding and we get next to nothing in comparison. Which should also irk the representatives from places like Buffalo or Western Massachusetts since they won't see much of a benefit out of trains being faster between New York and Boston.


----------



## Larry H. (Nov 9, 2021)

I find it a bit hard to understand how a Diner is a questionable expense and not a part of the infrastructure. This might be 2021, but trains for the most part always provided decent food even on shorter runs like Chicago / St. louis. The GM&O offered a fine diner right to the end. People need to eat, although I will say the cost of railroad food has been on the pretty high side compared to what a Union Pacific or other major railroad would have charged. So far as why is the diner needed, well, why is the engine needed? Its part of the train and when your on a trip wether short or long and meal times come up then should people not be able to eat at a table and not with rather questionable cafe car food? That GM& O Diner served great breakfast right out of Union Station and the same in return on the late train, but then they were rather odd in that they thought they should provide expected services to the customer.


----------



## CCC1007 (Nov 9, 2021)

sttom said:


> I did the math for a Superliner single level replacement and the rough number is 3 single levels for every 2 Superliners just for the sleepers. And that's under the assumption that the Family Bedroom won't be replaced. Adding that in would make it a 2 to 1 ratio. Coaches it's less of an issue since the Amfleet 2s carry 59 and the Superliners carry 74. Which is roughly 5 single levels to replace 4 Superliner coaches.


That is correct mathematically. 
I've worked out train lengths and car counts for this type of replacement. If anyone wants to take a look, I'd be happy to supply a link in PM's.


----------



## Gemuser (Nov 9, 2021)

Steve Manfred said:


> It’s been in the Constitution since the beginning. I first learned about this bit in fourth grade.


That is certainly a big hole in the course! I'd email the professor and point it out except he's been dead for about 20 years!


----------



## west point (Nov 9, 2021)

What is puzzling is the emphasis that Amtrak puts on non revenue cars running up expenses. If the LD trains that could support many more passengers then the ratio of more passengers for the mainly 2 non revenue cars ( diner , Lounge , some BAGGAGES ) and some 3. Then why hasn't Amtrak pushed for more revenue rolling stock to support these non revenue cars. Have to recognize that some heavy use sleeper trains might require 2 diners but that would allow for at least one alternately to be open 24 hours a day.


----------



## neroden (Nov 9, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> And, he didn't. But, the Republican Member of Congress from Alaska, my Nephew's home state, Mr. Young, did! My Nephew was very surprised that he did support the Bill. But, as my Nephew said, there are some good benefits in the Bill for our 49th State. Senator Murkowski was part of the Republican group that got the Bill passed by the Senate.


Alaska's *very* interesting politically. It was solidly Democratic until the oil boom. Turned Republican due to oil, as far as I can tell. Now has the most "maverick", willing to fight the party leadership, Republicans in the country.


----------



## neroden (Nov 9, 2021)

87YJ said:


> "Entire cities such as Phoenix with no convenient service"
> 
> PHX will be fine, with out a train stopping downtown. Those days are over. Just a matter of time for MCR to have a light rail link to PHX.


Check a map. Maricopa is WAY too far out from Phoenix for that.

Every advocate in Arizona wants to return Amtrak to Phoenix proper. The line west of Phoenix would have to be rebuilt by some government agency, but UP isn't using it so I'm pretty sure they would have no problem with Amtrak using it and running on it as long as someone else pays for it.

Many, many proposals are also to run regular several-a-day trains between Tucson and Phoenix. Some of those run on the existing UP line, others on a proposed new line because UP often is uncooperative. Either way, the Sunset Limited could share the line with the Tucson-Phoenix trains.


----------



## neroden (Nov 9, 2021)

me_little_me said:


> Fire the execs for their failures. They are paid to do a good job and, when they do so, are honored and get bonuses. They need to take responsibility for their failures and either quit or be terminated for cause. May not immediately help the worker employment situation but I could see morale rise, trained workers reconsider their not coming back, experienced freight engineers needing little additional training and tired of being screwed by "Precision Railroading" rethinking their position, and customers seeing light at the end of the tunnel with the idiots gone.
> 
> Like everywhere else, replacing a failed general who lost the battle doesn't mean an immediate victory but it does mean the future looks brighter and the troops are energized to do their part.
> 
> Amtrak needs new leaders that tell congress and the public "Here is why we failed and the failures are over. We can't promise immediate success but our way of doing business and our past hiding of failures is going to end. We intend to be open from now on as a publicly owned company should be and we intend to fix our problems".


Well, honestly, the top exec at Amtrak is brand new! Give Flynn a chance! People on the inside are saying very good things about him.

Stephen Gardner has made a lot of documented terrible mistakes and I don't think he brings anything special to the table, so I'm not against some *targeted* early retirements. Maybe he's straightened up and is flying right, but I don't trust that.

As for the "freight railroads", the current stock market incentives are for them to have terrible execs. They get bonuses for vulture capitalism, for wrecking the company. (Exception is BNSF which is owned by Berkshire Hathaway and not market listed.) They massively need to be replaced, but I don't see a clear path to it.

Buying the tracks off of them is the most plausible path I see for them. That will give the state governments who buy the tracks the power to pressure them into providing decent freight service and will give the same state governments the ability to simply order passenger service. And to the short-sighted execs, takes an expensive depreciating maintenance-intensive asset off their book and replaces it with a rental fee, which is the sort of thing these Wall Streeters have been trying to do to every company they get their hands on (as a means of cooking the books). So fundamentally they'll sell the tracks if the right offer is made to them.


----------



## neroden (Nov 9, 2021)

Larry H. said:


> They need to figure a way to get more hub cities so that every where you need to go doesn't means going mostly to Chicago which could be a day or more from you and then reversing on one of the few other western trains if you are lucky enough to be going to one of those cities on the line. And worse paying rail or room charges to go way out of your way to boot. People in say, KC shouldn't have to go overnight to Chicago in order to go to Minnesota or farther west.


OK, some passenger rail planning 101 here.

The number of riders between two metro areas can be roughly estimated by the "gravity model", which says that it's proportional to the population of metro area 1 times the population of metro area 2, divided by the travel time between them. This is very reliable. Certain locations (such as college towns) "punch above their weight", and there can be social aspects causing some cities to be more tightly linked than others, but on the whole it is the standard model used to predict ridership on a new line.

Chicago is the third largest metro area in the US (after NYC and LA), at 9.6 million people. Nothing else in the Midwest even comes CLOSE; Detroit is closest at 4.4 million, Minneapolis-St Paul next at 3.7 million, then St Louis at 2.8 million. Then Pittsburgh, then Cincinnati, Kansas City, Columbus, Indianapolis Cleveland.

This means that, for any given Midwestern city, a line going to Chicago can regularly expect 2.5 times as many passengers as a line bypassing Chicago to go to Minneapolis. Similarly, it can expect 3.4 times as many passengers as a line bypassing Chicago to go to St Louis. In order to beat the ridership bonus of going to Chicago, a line going to St Louis has to have a trip time which is less than 30% of the trip time to Chicago -- that's less than 1/3. A line to Minneapolis has to have a trip time which is less than 40% of the time to Chicago to have comparable ridership.

Other Midwestern cities are even *smaller*.

Now do you understand why so many lines go to Chicago? Eventually we will build out enough passenger rail that Chicago-avoiding lines will make a lot of sense.

But right now the biggest bang for the buck is mostly improving the lines to Chicago with higher speeds, more reliability, and more frequencies per day. It just gets so many more riders. And as we speed up those lines and add frequencies, the time penalty for going via Chicago and changing trains keeps dropping, making it less valuable to build direct lines bypassing Chicago.

So you're most likely to get that quicker trip from Kansas City to Minneapolis if there are six trains a day on a high-speed line from Chicago to Minneapolis and six trains a day on a high-speed line from Chicago through St Louis to Kansas City. The most direct route is unlikely to be the quickest, because the quickest route will be the one where the most money is invested to make it fast, which is probably going to be the one with the most passengers on the line.

There are some exceptions to the rule of thumb that all the best train routes in the Midwest should go to Chicago, though most of them are only sort-of-exceptions because cities are on the way to Chicago.

- Kansas City to St Louis because it can be made into Kansas City to St Louis to Chicago, and has been.
- Over east in Ohio, where Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cinncinati are near to each other and not near to Chicago. Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati are 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 million respectively and you can get all the combinations with one line. The gravity model shows this combo to have expected ridership equal to a line from Chicago to any one of those cities, assuming the same train speed -- which shows you how big a deal Chicago is.
- Toledo to Detroit, which is VERY short, and again, quite far from Chicago. The shortness means high expected ridership.
- Theoretically, Indianapolis to Cincinnati (which could and should be Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago, as with Kansas City-St Louis-Chicago.) Yep, Cardinal Route should be improved as a corridor. Darn Indiana state government.
- And over further east, Pittsburgh-Cleveland (preferably via either Akron/Canton or Youngstown or both, which are on the way) ...continuing to Chicago. Yep, again, Capitol Limited route should be improved as a corridor.

Eventually you might do Indianapolis to St Louis, but improving the Indianapolis to Chicago line obviously takes priority. Indianapolis to St Louis is just a weaker route. Kansas City to Minneapolis has the same problem. Chicago's the 800-pound gorilla of the Midwest and you get the highest ridership by going there, almost every time.

Perhaps the most plausible Chicago avoiding line which might be reinstated is actually Bloomington-Peoria-Galesburg. This is not because it's a good line by itself, but because the direct routes from Peoria to Chicago aren't functional and the fastest way to connect Peoria to Chicago is via Galesburg or Bloomington or both. So if Peoria wants service this is how they may get it. Any avoiding-Chicago benefit would be incidental.


----------



## neroden (Nov 9, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Outside of the NEC, Amtrak's challenge is to increase the market share of intercity passenger rail to the point that political support for it comes from all parts of the political spectrum, just as funding for highways, waterways, and air traffic improvements are supported by all sides of the political spectrum. This probably means focusing on the midwest, the southeast, parts of the west coast, and the Rocky Mountain Front Range. And focusing on trips of 500 miles or less.



I generally agree with this until you get to that last line. That is far too simplistic a number. Ridership follows the gravity model. There is no magic mile-number cutoff; for trips between very large cities, a longer route can generate very substantial ridership.

The Lake Shore Limited takes 959 miles from New York to Chicago, but they are the largest and third-largest metro areas in the country, so it's possible to generate huge ridership from them. In addition to the trips between intermediate cities, which are, agreed, probably more important. (I catch the train at one of those intermediate cities!)

Also, in "midwest, southeast, parts of the west coast, and Rocky Mountain Front Range", you left out Texas. The highest-ridership-potential city pair in the US which is totally unserved, going from metro area population data, is Dallas-Houston. Obviously Texas Central is trying to serve this. The Texas Eagle corridor through Texas also has huge potential from San Antonio to Dallas.

Second-highest-ridership potential unserved city pair is Atlanta-Miami. (Which would obviously be done so as to also supply Atlanta-Orlando.)

Phoenix-Anywhere and Detroit-Points East also pop out of the metropolitan area lists as obvious gaps in need of service.


----------



## neroden (Nov 9, 2021)

jis said:


> To be quite pedantic only $58 Billion over ten years is fully targeted for passenger rail infrastructure. That too if the so called Fed-State $36 Billion is entirely used for passenger service.
> 
> It is quite likely that a big chunk will be used for NEC and Midwest around Chicago infrastructure - tunnels, bridges, south shore separation of passenger trackage etc.


I *really* hope they get "South of the Lake" (Amtrak passenger-priority tracks from Chicago Union Station to Porter Indiana) funded, as that would mean the Wolverines, Blue Water, Pere Marquette, Lake Shore Limited, and Capitol Limited would all run on time far more often, and cut at least 15 minutes and as much as an hour off their schedules. The Wolverines and Blue Water would probably be on time nearly all the time.

That is Midwest Around Chicago infrastructure, but of critical importance to the entire country. Sadly I am not sure it is going to get the money. :-(


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 10, 2021)

VentureForth said:


> I have yet to see any real action to limit the amount of wasteful spending that Amtrak has been accused by the IG over a decade ago.


There was a lot of action to limit “wasteful” spending by John Mica and Richard Anderson and it resulted in some of the worst service Amtrak has ever sold. To be perfectly frank I’m glad they’re gone. 



VentureForth said:


> So, I feel like I can be as dour as I want to be about how my taxes are being spent and whether there's value gained for it.


Be as dour as you like but at least be upfront about it instead of mincing your words with doublespeak.



VentureForth said:


> Mock me for my previous comment on the dining car being fully restored as not infrastructure, but one can suppose that if all this money is being spent on the infrastructure, then Amtrak's traditional $1.5B annual stipend (which is also used for infrastructure) can be allocated to operations. At least I can be dour about something without personally attacking individuals for their thoughts.


I did not mock any comments about dining cars being infrastructure.


----------



## Larry H. (Nov 10, 2021)

west point said:


> What is puzzling is the emphasis that Amtrak puts on non revenue cars running up expenses. If the LD trains that could support many more passengers then the ratio of more passengers for the mainly 2 non revenue cars ( diner , Lounge , some BAGGAGES ) and some 3. Then why hasn't Amtrak pushed for more revenue rolling stock to support these non revenue cars. Have to recognize that some heavy use sleeper trains might require 2 diners but that would allow for at least one alternately to be open 24 hours a day.



I think there should be no fear of running none revenue cars to the length of the consist. When we took the Continental across Canada in the 70s we were in the last sleeper in a consist that was 22 passenger cars, not including the baggage and engines. I spotted a photo somewhere that showed the combined "City" trains of the Union Pacific coming into California. It had at least 38 cars from the countable passenger cars shown. Think how long a freight train is and that will pretty much remove any worry about passenger train lenght.


----------



## MARC Rider (Nov 10, 2021)

neroden said:


> Also, in "midwest, southeast, parts of the west coast, and Rocky Mountain Front Range", you left out Texas. The highest-ridership-potential city pair in the US which is totally unserved, going from metro area population data, is Dallas-Houston. Obviously Texas Central is trying to serve this. The Texas Eagle corridor through Texas also has huge potential from San Antonio to Dallas.



I consider Texas to be southeast, midwest, and southwest all at the same time. But, yes, Texas is a possible major market. The traffic on I-35 between the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex and San Antonio rivals anything on I-95 in the northeast. To get people out of their cars, they will need a train that can travel between Dallas and San Antonio in 6 hours, though.


----------



## west point (Nov 10, 2021)

neroden said:


> Buying the tracks off of them is the most plausible path I see for them. That will give the state governments who buy the tracks the power to pressure them into providing decent freight service and will give the same state governments the ability to simply order passenger service. And to the short-sighted execs, takes an expensive depreciating maintenance-intensive asset off their book and replaces it with a rental fee, which is the sort of thing these Wall Streeters have been trying to do to every company they get their hands on (as a means of cooking the books). So fundamentally they'll sell the tracks if the right offer is made to them.



Buying tracks has to have certain fences. Make a provision that all revenue from rentals are to be plowed back into all RRs owned or to buy more. track. Remember in the past the NC legislature tried to grab all the revenue from NS rentals of NCRR and put it into general revenue. Best way would be for a partial grant from the US DOT for purchases. A provision that all revenue be plowed back into rail purchases and improvements. Only say 20% of the cost of any grade crossing elimination could be used from revenue.. Highway revenues pay for rest.


----------



## 87YJ (Nov 10, 2021)

neroden: 
Let me say "you do not live here I do" If you knew how fast Marcopa is growing and the 4 lane road going to PHX is overloaded. You would understand the need for a light rail line. 
The time it would take to get the SL out of PHX on the east side would add time to the SL schedule. Around 45mins. & that could effect things with Amtrak. 
Maybe they will use some of the 66B to light rail or get on with the Phoenix to Tucson line and everyone could ride to Tucson to get on.


----------



## me_little_me (Nov 10, 2021)

neroden said:


> Well, honestly, the top exec at Amtrak is brand new! Give Flynn a chance! People on the inside are saying very good things about him.


Sorry, I totally disagree. If I was an employee responsible for a disaster that Amtrak has done - failing to maintain cars in a ready state; failing to keep enough people employed with the Covid funds they got; failure to recognize the upward trend in travel in time - I would be fired in an instant much less if I had been employed as long as he has. Flynn has had sufficient time to do things right. He FAILED TO DO SO. Had Amtrak made brilliant decisions, he would have been suitably honored even if he perosonally disagreed with them and was proven wrong. So he has to take responsibility both for the failures of his company and his inability to lead them to success. He has been President since April of 2020.


----------



## nti1094 (Nov 12, 2021)

AmtrakBlue said:


> What’s in the Senate’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill? | Rail Passengers Association | Washington, DC
> 
> 
> Rail Passengers has provided a breakdown of the Senate’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill’s passenger rail highlights, looking at both funding and policy reforms.
> ...


Yeah this section on remaking the composition of the Board of Directors is a game changer for Amtrak governance. There are going to be some amazing changes coming in the next few years.


----------



## piedpiper (Nov 12, 2021)

I hope they use some of the $66 billion to upgrade and reopen the JAX-NOL portion of the Sunset Limited. A direct southern coast to coast is really needed.


----------



## Chatter163 (Nov 12, 2021)

piedpiper said:


> I hope they use some of the $66 billion to upgrade and reopen the JAX-NOL portion of the Sunset Limited. A direct southern coast to coast is really needed.


Why not to Miami, as it originally was?


----------



## Chatter163 (Nov 12, 2021)

me_little_me said:


> Sorry, I totally disagree. If I was an employee responsible for a disaster that Amtrak has done - failing to maintain cars in a ready state; failing to keep enough people employed with the Covid funds they got; failure to recognize the upward trend in travel in time - I would be fired in an instant much less if I had been employed as long as he has. Flynn has had sufficient time to do things right. He FAILED TO DO SO. Had Amtrak made brilliant decisions, he would have been suitably honored even if he perosonally disagreed with them and was proven wrong. So he has to take responsibility both for the failures of his company and his inability to lead them to success. He has been President since April of 2020.


Sorry, I totally disagree. I'm not sure where this fantastic world exists, where executives are "fired in an instant" in almost any circumstances, let alone 18 months into an unprecedented world crisis of complex political, social, and economic factors. This is hardly a typical situation, or one about which one may glibly make such a bold and sweeping assertion.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Nov 12, 2021)

piedpiper said:


> I hope they use some of the $66 billion to upgrade and reopen the JAX-NOL portion of the Sunset Limited. A direct southern coast to coast is really needed.



Completely disagree. There are about a dozen more pressing issues that need cash spent before extending the Sunset Limited. Perhaps daily service could be a starter.

Would it be nice? Yes. Should it be a spending priority? No.


----------



## joelkfla (Nov 12, 2021)

piedpiper said:


> I hope they use some of the $66 billion to upgrade and reopen the JAX-NOL portion of the Sunset Limited. A direct southern coast to coast is really needed.


I agree, but in prior discussions on this board the consensus has been that restoring that service is unlikely. Reasons given: track condition and meandering nature of the route make for a very long ride, and ownership of at least part of it has transferred to a short line. And it has not been an item on any long-range plans released by Amtrak.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac (Nov 12, 2021)

piedpiper said:


> I hope they use some of the $66 billion to upgrade and reopen the JAX-NOL portion of the Sunset Limited. A direct southern coast to coast is really needed.


Get NOL - Mobile up and running first as that is already in the pipeline. See how that works out before considering extending it.
As others have said there are more pressing issues / lower hanging fruit.
Intercity service in the Ohio area would be one for a start.


----------



## jis (Nov 12, 2021)

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> Get NOL - Mobile up and running first as that is already in the pipeline. See how that works out before considering extending it.
> As others have said there are more pressing issues / lower hanging fruit.
> Intercity service in the Ohio area would be one for a start.


Indeed! It is worth noting that Mobile - JAX does not even make an appearance in the Amtrak/FRA 35 year plan, and FDOT would rather work on a West Coast of Florida Corridor which would serve orders of magnitude more people in Florida.


----------



## sttom (Nov 12, 2021)

Chatter163 said:


> Sorry, I totally disagree. I'm not sure where this fantastic world exists, where executives are "fired in an instant" in almost any circumstances, let alone 18 months into an unprecedented world crisis of complex political, social, and economic factors. This is hardly a typical situation, or one about which one may glibly make such a bold and sweeping assertion.


This is just the double standard that gets enforced as you go up the food chain in an organization. If you're at the top, it's harder for your underlings to fire you since on some level they are culpable in whatever they'd want to fire you over. Another reason why companies don't fire their upper management is because theirbstock will tank and they can't have that no matter what (types with sarcasm). I know this isn't an issue for Amtrak, the issue would be a domino effect within the upper tiers of the organization should they fire Gardener or whomever.


----------



## Chatter163 (Nov 12, 2021)

sttom said:


> This is just the double standard that gets enforced as you go up the food chain in an organization. If you're at the top, it's harder for your underlings to fire you since on some level they are culpable in whatever they'd want to fire you over. Another reason why companies don't fire their upper management is because theirbstock will tank and they can't have that no matter what (types with sarcasm). I know this isn't an issue for Amtrak, the issue would be a domino effect within the upper tiers of the organization should they fire Gardener or whomever.


I don't deny the validity of the factors that you cite, or the assertion that CEOs are particularly protected. However, in my experience, in both public and private sectors, there is a great reluctance to fire employees of various levels, not just management. There are many factors that cause this, fear of litigation being chief among them. In my working life in both the public and private sectors, I have seen scores of line employees that should have lost their jobs, but for various reasons, never did.


----------



## PaulM (Nov 12, 2021)

jis said:


> FDOT would rather work on a West Coast of Florida Corridor which would serve orders of magnitude more people in Florida.


What does FDOT (I presume this is Florida Dept of Transportation) have in mind? I'd love to see frequent service between the northern edge of the Tampa Bay megopolis to Naples. But somehow I don't think that is what FDOT has in mind.

Also, what does "orders of magitude" mean? I've seen it used a lot, especially related to the DoD. But this math major has never seen it defined.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Nov 12, 2021)

PaulM said:


> Also, what does "orders of magitude" mean? I've seen it used a lot, especially related to the DoD. But this math major has never seen it defined.



I think it means "a lot" in the context he was using.
The phrase is used in a comparison involving something either significantly smaller or larger.


----------



## danasgoodstuff (Nov 12, 2021)

I usually understand 'order of magnitude' to mean roughly X10, orders would be at least two so roughly X100. But it's often used loosely and for things that don't quantify very exactly. In other words, more than just a little more.


----------



## CraigInNC (Nov 12, 2021)

neroden said:


> Alaska's *very* interesting politically. It was solidly Democratic until the oil boom. Turned Republican due to oil, as far as I can tell. Now has the most "maverick", willing to fight the party leadership, Republicans in the country.



Yes Alaska drifted from D to R over the years but with that being said most Alaska pols wore their party labels a bit looser than most. Until the most recent hyperpartisan environment in Congress they often split their votes depending on the issue and how it affected the state. The same thing still happens in Juneau as I understand there are different groups in charge of the legislature and they contain both Ds and Rs. With that being said again Alaska's needs are very different than the lower 48 just like Hawaii is unique. In the old days there were things that were done on a party basis, things that were done on a regional basis, some were done due to personal interest. These days everything seems to be done on a national level and for or against the incumbent in the WH regardless of whether or not he legislation is useful. It is a sad situation especially for a younger person like myself that has the expectation to live another 40-50 years.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Nov 12, 2021)

CraigInNC said:


> These days everything seems to be done on a national level and for or against the incumbent in the WH regardless of whether or not he legislation is useful. It is a sad situation especially for a younger person like myself that has the expectation to live another 40-50 years.



Then, you "younger persons" need to start to work for a different direction. We, the People, and I include my generation, have sat on our hands for decades and have allowed this situation to develop. 

Out of all the dysfunction that exists, will Amtrak survive? I hope so. The larger question, however, is will our country, our democracy survive?


----------



## CraigInNC (Nov 12, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> Then, you "younger persons" need to start to work for a different direction. We, the People, and I include my generation, have sat on our hands for decades and have allowed this situation to develop.
> 
> Out of all the dysfunction that exists, will Amtrak survive? I hope so. The larger question, however, is will our country, our democracy survive?



"We" are and I tend to think that the Biden/Trump duopoly will be the last of the Boomer(+) candidates and once the respective parties move on from those two it is almost certainly the candidates will be younger by 20 years or more. We seemed to currently be in a personality-driven environment rather than an issue-driven environment. With one party engaging in it more so than the other. This "hard" infrastructure bill is representative of that. When the Senate part passed in the summer it got a vote of 69-31 a vote more in line with what would be expected for such universally popular spending and in the past probably would have passed by an even larger margin and it is not inconceivable that a President from either party would have signed the bill. Yet by the time we got to the House vote we are now seeing "recriminations" for some who voted for it. Not necessarily because of what was in the bill but because it was signed by the "other" guy. I think Amtrak will survive at least for the foreseeable future. This money boosts that considerably and there are just enough elected from both parties to keep funding going. Plus the Amtrak fanbase and ridership is bipartisan. 

As for your last part, yeah well I hope so. I served in the Air Force and hope to think my efforts were not in vain.


----------



## JoshP (Nov 12, 2021)

joelkfla said:


> I agree, but in prior discussions on this board the consensus has been that restoring that service is unlikely. Reasons given: track condition and meandering nature of the route make for a very long ride, and ownership of at least part of it has transferred to a short line. And it has not been an item on any long-range plans released by Amtrak.



huh? I'm confused, I though CSX repaired the tracks/bridges right after Katrina and it has been open since then but Amtrak used a excuses to say no money to restore it?


----------



## Cal (Nov 12, 2021)

JoshP said:


> huh? I'm confused, I though CSX repaired the tracks/bridges right after Katrina and it has been open since then but Amtrak used a excuses to say no money to restore it?


They did, however 16 years in a long time. Since then, much of the line has been sold to a shortline who has very little reason to keep it at the same condition CSX did. And I've heard some of the line is dark as well.


----------



## MIrailfan (Nov 12, 2021)

Add more sidingd/passing tracks. This would help with delays and allow bypassing of disabled freights.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Nov 13, 2021)

JoshP said:


> huh? I'm confused, I though CSX repaired the tracks/bridges right after Katrina and it has been open since then but Amtrak used a excuses to say no money to restore it?


They probably only restored it to freight train standards, not passenger train standards.


----------



## Andrew (Nov 13, 2021)

If the GOP wins the midterm elections, than wouldn't future transit funding probably get reduced?


----------



## PaTrainFan (Nov 13, 2021)

Andrew said:


> If the GOP wins the midterm elections, than wouldn't future transit funding probably get reduced?


 Yes, after they lower the corporate tax rate and wealth taxes to next to nothing.


----------



## John819 (Nov 13, 2021)

Andrew said:


> If the GOP wins the midterm elections, than wouldn't future transit funding probably get reduced?


Which is a very good reason for Amtrak to immediately enter into contracts, which cannot be broken by future Congresses.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 13, 2021)

Andrew said:


> If the GOP wins the midterm elections, than wouldn't future transit funding probably get reduced?





PaTrainFan said:


> Yes, after they lower the corporate tax rate and wealth taxes to next to nothing.





John819 said:


> Which is a very good reason for Amtrak to immediately enter into contracts, which cannot be broken by future Congresses.


There is no such thing as an unbreakable contract and many American politicians would strongly prefer to throw taxpayer money at contract lawsuits and settlements than to spend another cent on more passenger rail.


----------



## CraigInNC (Nov 13, 2021)

I am less worried about Amtrak funding from now until January 2025, its after that date is when things could get dicey if it goes that way. Not every Republican is against Amtrak although many are. A lot will depend on how successful Amtrak is on implementing these funds from now until then. I am more curious how the Post Office is going to survive going forward. I may be a bit unusual in this regard but I can largely live without ever receiving a piece of mail.


----------



## GoAmtrak (Nov 13, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Completely disagree. There are about a dozen more pressing issues that need cash spent before extending the Sunset Limited. Perhaps daily service could be a starter.
> 
> Would it be nice? Yes. Should it be a spending priority? No.


I agree with you in this point again.

I would like having restored the Sunset Limited entirely, but in my opinion there should different priorities. But if enough money is there, I'm happy about every single kilometer which is (re)-opened for passenger service.

Personally, I would try to buy as many tracks as possible to limit (or stop) freight interference on some routes. Then I would double or triple services in completely underserved, densely populated areas (to ensure normal arrival/departure time of the trains in most parts of long-distance routes) and try to connect existing routes:

- I would go for Toledo - Detroit first (such a short distance, enough existing tracks of which perhaps one could be more easily purchased than in other cases, create a direct connection between Detroit and Cleveland) 
- then I would also go for Cleveland - Columbus - Cincinnati to connect large urban areas within relatively short distance. 
- Additionally, I hope Amtrak makes the Atlanta - Macon - Savannah connection happen to connect Atlanta in a much better way with Florida
- I would also like to see a connection of Dallas/Oklahoma City to the Southwest Chief via Wichita in Kansas.


----------



## Burns651 (Nov 13, 2021)

AmtrakBlue said:


> They probably only restored it to freight train standards, not passenger train standards.


What do you mean by "freight train standards?" Was superelevation reduced? As far as I know CSX restored it to the condition it was in before (Class 4: 60 MPH freight/79 MPH passenger).


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Nov 13, 2021)

Burns651 said:


> What do you mean by "freight train standards?" Was superelevation reduced? As far as I know CSX restored it to the condition it was in before (Class 4: 60 MPH freight/79 MPH passenger).


It was just a guess on my part.


----------



## GoAmtrak (Nov 13, 2021)

neroden said:


> Check a map. Maricopa is WAY too far out from Phoenix for that.
> 
> Every advocate in Arizona wants to return Amtrak to Phoenix proper. The line west of Phoenix would have to be rebuilt by some government agency, but UP isn't using it so I'm pretty sure they would have no problem with Amtrak using it and running on it as long as someone else pays for it.
> 
> Many, many proposals are also to run regular several-a-day trains between Tucson and Phoenix. Some of those run on the existing UP line, others on a proposed new line because UP often is uncooperative. Either way, the Sunset Limited could share the line with the Tucson-Phoenix trains.


I completely agree with you. 

I think serving downtowns is a key for success. Amtrak (or Via Rail) trains arriving outside downtowns are just not attractive more most tourists and even not for some regular riders and commuters. Take the example of Edmonton or Saskatoon in Canada were the railway stations are a footwalk one hour (or even more!) away from the citycenter which is apart from this station in the nowhere isn't served at all. Or Jacksonville (the station is 1 and a half hours away from downtown)... The locality is comparable to an airport. It's not walkable.
For Maricopa/Phoenix it is even worse.

What kind of strange urban planing is that? A combination of incompetence (regarding urban planning) or a shortage of money? Those stations are nothing more than stopgaps in my eyes. It might be true that they are better than nothing but they should not be a long-term solution.

Railways should use their advantage against airports by bringing people directly where they want to go. Entertainment, culture, restaurants are in or tend to come back to city centers. Most tourists are also interested in city centers and not in the suburban nowhere.


----------



## jis (Nov 13, 2021)

Burns651 said:


> What do you mean by "freight train standards?" Was superelevation reduced? As far as I know CSX restored it to the condition it was in before (Class 4: 60 MPH freight/79 MPH passenger).


Would it be OK to point out that all this has very little to do with why Sunset Limited was not restored? It was not restored because Amtrak did not want to run it anymore and was looking for a convenient out and they found it in Katrina, and that is about the long and short of it. There was not a sufficiently vocal and numerous group willing to make the effort to challenge it, and here we are.... Looking for technical reasons for it is a fool's errand.


----------



## Willbridge (Nov 13, 2021)

GoAmtrak said:


> I completely agree with you.
> 
> I think serving downtowns is a key for success. Amtrak (or Via Rail) trains arriving outside downtowns are just not attractive more most tourists and even not for some regular riders and commuters. Take the example of Edmonton or Saskatoon in Canada were the railway stations are a footwalk one hour (or even more!) away from the citycenter which is apart from this station in the nowhere isn't served at all. Or Jacksonville (the station is 1 and a half hours away from downtown)... The locality is comparable to an airport. It's not walkable.
> For Maricopa/Phoenix it is even worse.
> ...


The relocation of Saskatoon's CN station to a remote area was one of several station projects financed as "modernizations" by the federal government in the 1960's. As I recall, the Ottawa and Hull and Quebec City moves were in the same program. (For newcomers, there have been projects to ameliorate the issues in Ottawa and Quebec City. For Saskatoon, most of their service is gone.)

The Edmonton relocation was to open up the CP and CN yard area for developments and to "solve" the purported downtown parking problem. It also saved replacing the 105th Street viaduct and the 109th Street "rathole" underpass. The new location is on a someday rapid transit route, thereby salving the consciences of people who knew better but said nothing.

The Phoenix situation is different but it has the same end result.


----------



## danasgoodstuff (Nov 13, 2021)

Willbridge said:


> The relocation of Saskatoon's CN station to a remote area was one of several station projects financed as "modernizations" by the federal government in the 1960's. As I recall, the Ottawa and Hull and Quebec City moves were in the same program. (For newcomers, there have been projects to ameliorate the issues in Ottawa and Quebec City. For Saskatoon, most of their service is gone.)
> 
> The Edmonton relocation was to open up the CP and CN yard area for developments and to "solve" the purported downtown parking problem. It also saved replacing the 105th Street viaduct and the 109th Street "rathole" underpass. The new location is on a someday rapid transit route, thereby salving the consciences of people who knew better but said nothing.
> 
> The Phoenix situation is different but it has the same end result.


Saskatoon sort of made sense because it was part of moving the freight yards out of the middle of town, and that was a very good thing. At the time the CNR was still running the passenger trains so they didn't have access to the only remaining tracks and station which could have served downtown. But since it's now VIA Rail running the one remaining passenger train to serve Saskatoon, it should be possible to use the CP tracks and station which still exist to connect two CNR lines and bring service back to downtown. It would take some work, no doubt. But what it really takes is imagination and will. I suspect Edmonton was similar, but I've never lived there so I'll leave that judgment for others.


----------



## Willbridge (Nov 13, 2021)

danasgoodstuff said:


> Saskatoon sort of made sense because it was part of moving the freight yards out of the middle of town, and that was a very good thing. At the time the CNR was still running the passenger trains so they didn't have access to the only remaining tracks and station which could have served downtown. But since it's now VIA Rail running the one remaining passenger train to serve Saskatoon, it should be possible to use the CP tracks and station which still exist to connect two CNR lines and bring service back to downtown. It would take some work, no doubt. But what it really takes is imagination and will. I suspect Edmonton was similar, but I've never lived there so I'll leave that judgment for others.


Edmonton failed to recognize that it is a potential commuter rail city. Like Denver it had a well-situated station for regional rail service and integration with walking, LRT and bus services (better than Seattle, Portland or San Francisco, for examples). Space had been retained for it in back of the existing station tracks. When the CN Tower Station was built the pedestrian tunnel went all the way under the tracks for future expansion.

Here's the 1981 train from Saskatoon arriving in Edmonton's former downtown station. All of that surface parking could have been used as bus or rail space, already having access to the tunnel into downtown.




Looking west toward Jasper in 1973.


----------



## jruff001 (Nov 13, 2021)

PaulM said:


> What does FDOT (I presume this is Florida Dept of Transportation) have in mind? I'd love to see frequent service between the northern edge of the Tampa Bay megopolis to Naples. But somehow I don't think that is what FDOT has in mind.


Yeah Hillsborough County (which is Tampa) couldn't even get a 1% tax increase for improved public transit to stick. Cars cars cars is all people down here care or even think about.


----------



## jruff001 (Nov 13, 2021)

GoAmtrak said:


> What kind of strange urban planing is that? A combination of incompetence (regarding urban planning) or a shortage of money?


Neither. It was simply no urban planning at all.


----------



## McIntyre2K7 (Nov 13, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> Yeah Hillsborough County (which is Tampa) couldn't even get a 1% tax increase for improved public transit to stick. Cars cars cars is all people down here care or even think about.



The only reason it didn't stick was because a county commissioner was upset that the commission could not control how the funds were spent and sued to get the bill revoked. It was appeal all the way up to the State Supreme Court and they said the tax was unconstitutional. (I for one liked that the plan made the 3 cities (Tampa, Temple Terrace and Plant City) as well as the county submit plans to the oversight committee on how they would spend the money. The funny thing is the county has underfunded transpiration for decades. For example, I created a regional map with commuter rail, light rail and BRT as well as a creating some zones that I saw were perfect for Transit Oriented Development. Every time I posted it on social media I would get the "it's going to create sprawl" response. The sprawl is happening now. The county has collected over 500 million before the Florida Supreme Court announced the ruling. No idea what's going to happen to that money. 

For people who want to see what I've created: 









Tampa Bay Transit 2040 - Google My Maps


Tampa Bay Transit 2040




www.google.com


----------



## jruff001 (Nov 13, 2021)

Love the map!


----------



## west point (Nov 14, 2021)

Tucson - PHX - LAX is prime potential of not just a daily Sunset but probably 2 maybe 3 Round trips. Not only a stop in PHX at the station but also maybe Tempe or Mesa near ASU. Other than needed service several directions in and out of ATL cannot see a location that needs the service more.


----------



## toddinde (Nov 14, 2021)

Devil's Advocate said:


> There is no such thing as an unbreakable contract and many American politicians would strongly prefer to throw taxpayer money at contract lawsuits and settlements than to spend another cent on more passenger rail.


That’s exactly what happened in Wisconsin where Scott Walker preferred to spend $50 million to terminate contracts and get zip, and turn down $800 million for enhanced 110 mph Hiawatha, an extension to Madison, and a budding rail passenger manufacturing industry in Milwaukee. Make no mistake; it wasn’t just Talgo in Milwaukee, but all the little job shops and suppliers as well. Walker stabbed Wisconsin for the Koch Bros. Then he FoxxConned the state with a hugely expensive giveaway that will never bear any fruit. He’s the epitome of corruption, and what we can expect with his party.


----------



## George Harris (Nov 14, 2021)

Andrew said:


> If the GOP wins the midterm elections, than wouldn't future transit funding probably get reduced?


There is so much non-transportation fluff and pork in this "infrastructure" bill that it could probably be at least cut in half without reducing any real transit-related funding.


----------



## me_little_me (Nov 15, 2021)

Quantity is not a problem. Length is. With the looooonnnnngggg trains the freights run, there is no room for them on the sidings. That's why Amtrak ends up on them - it has the only trains that fit.


----------



## jis (Nov 15, 2021)

George Harris said:


> There is so much non-transportation fluff and pork in this "infrastructure" bill that it could probably be at least cut in half without reducing any real transit-related funding.


It is afterall an Infrastructure and Jobs Bill, not just a Transportation Bill.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 15, 2021)

The bill has now been signed into law.









November 15, 2021 Biden infrastructure bill news


President Biden signed the bipartisan infrastructure bill on Monday during a ceremony that included members of Congress, governors and mayors. Follow here for the latest news.




www.cnn.com


----------



## me_little_me (Nov 15, 2021)

Devil's Advocate said:


> The bill has now been signed into law.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is an example of the silliness of TV news and it was really popularized by CNN when it first started broadcasting years ago and had to fill 24 hours with one half hour of real news. TV news's biggest advantage of "live news" is that we actually see the events themselves as they happen - so important for critical events. But staged events where there is no expectation whatsoever of an unanticipated change ("Biden changes his mind! He refuses to sign his bill! See it live!") where it has been planned for a while and is just a formality, is just drivel, not news. The news occurred back in August when the Senate agreed to it without a filibuster and somewhat later when a number of Republicans in the House voted against party pressure to support it. The whole "event" could have been done an hour after the House vote since Biden's signature was a foregone conclusion.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 15, 2021)

me_little_me said:


> This is an example of the silliness of TV news...


I chose CNN simply because it confirms the bill is now law and does not employ a pay wall which I believe annoys some members. If there is some other source with an article written in a style you prefer, or there is some other aspect of the bill you would rather discuss in detail, then I'm all ears.


----------



## MIrailfan (Nov 15, 2021)

me_little_me said:


> Quantity is not a problem. Length is. With the looooonnnnngggg trains the freights run, there is no room for them on the sidings. That's why Amtrak ends up on them - it has the only trains that fit.


Lengthen sidings then.


----------



## PaTrainFan (Nov 15, 2021)

Now here, from Railway Age, is the most detailed analysis I have yet seen on the infrastructure bill as relating to rail, Amtrak and transit. It is a good read.


----------



## lrh442 (Nov 16, 2021)

In this article Andrew Seldon makes a persuasive argument in favor of incremental expansion of LD routes instead of Amtrak's ConnectUs corridor proposal.

U.S., Andrew Selden and Amtrak: Spend Less, Get More; Use $66 Billion Wisely For Network Growth Avoiding Mistakes Of The Past And Squandering It On Random Political Demands – Corridor Rail Development

The middle part of the article gets a little bogged down, IMO, but keep reading because in the latter half of it Andrew makes specific (and compelling) suggestions for modest extensions or changes to the LD network that would leverage the "network effect" to result in higher return-on-investment than ConnectUs. 

One particularly illuminating point: Compared to LD routes, short-haul corridors must have frequent and fast service to attract riders. However, on tracks shared with freight the increased frequency and speed necessary for corridor passenger service quickly drive up infrastructure and operating costs. Examples abound of the extortion-like charges asked for by the freights to accommodate Amtrak expansion.


----------



## jis (Nov 16, 2021)

PaTrainFan said:


> Now here, from Railway Age, is the most detailed analysis I have yet seen on the infrastructure bill as relating to rail, Amtrak and transit. It is a good read.


Good old David explains the Authorization part of the bill well, but that is not the $66 Billion part. He appears to gross over the 10 year grant part which is the $66 Billion Part. If you go back and read the article published by RPA a little ways up thread, you'll see what I mean. 

If you add the grant part and the Authorizations for the next five years, the FRA part adds up to a little north of $101 Billion as described in the RPA publication.


----------



## MARC Rider (Nov 16, 2021)

jis said:


> Good old David explains the Authorization part of the bill well, but that is not the $66 Billion part. He appears to gross over the 10 year grant part which is the $66 Billion Part. If you go back and read the article published by RPA a little ways up thread, you'll see what I mean.
> 
> If you add the grant part and the Authorizations for the next five years, the FRA part adds up to a little north of $101 Billion as described in the RPA publication.


How much of this stuff is actual appropriations as opposed to authorizations?


----------



## jis (Nov 16, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> How much of this stuff is actual appropriations as opposed to authorizations?


The $66 billion is appropriation to be spent over ten years. And there is in addition some $35 or so Billion that is Authorization over next five years. That is the FRA part. There is a separate FTA part that David Allen alludes to as 20% of the Highway funds, and that too is broken up between appropriation for ten years and authorization for next five years. And then of course the rail mode then gets broken up within it between commuter rail and light rail etc. Some day soon I will read the entire bill and figure it out, or maybe Sean-Jean Gails of RPA will spell it out soon.

Incidentally, the massive proposal described in this article below will be partly funded by both the FRA and FTA part of the Infrastructure bill, but will require additional matching contributions from the states at some level to add upto the full amount needed.









How cities will benefit from Amtrak's $117B Northeast Corridor revamp


The 15-year upgrade of the Washington, D.C.-New York-Boston route will increase capacity and add new stations and transit-oriented development along the way.




www.constructiondive.com


----------



## sttom (Nov 16, 2021)

That article still plays into the dumb "long distance vs short haul" debate we keep pointlessly having. Amtrak is a long way from being a functional transportation system and adding a few long distance trains could go a long way, but the story can't just stop there. The average person isn't going to see as much use in a train that runs from Tampa to Toronto as it would from a train making four round trips per day from Tampa to Jacksonville. Should their be a third Silver, probably. But there also needs local services as well. They also benefit from network effects along with the long distance trains. Most of Amtrak's corridor routes run what 5 round trips per day at the high end excluding the Surfliner and Capitols? That's not particularly useful over short distances like Eugene to Portland which should probably have hourly service now let alone in 2055 or whatever ODOT's plan is. And all of the new corridors are going to be in a similar boat. They should be starting off at 5 round trips per day, not promising that when I'm old enough to get social security. As for the Capitols, the way we plan them says a lot and this is just a California gripe. They essentially just stop short of places where they'd be useful and that has to do with the states neglect and that being substituted for local stupidity. We'll maybe be getting extra service east of Sacramento in a year or two and service south of San Jose around the same time when that should have happened 15 years ago. And this is beyond them missing other markets entirely like San Jose - Stockton - Sacramento which has been entirely ceded to a commuter operation. Service north of Sacramento and a north/south connection to LA which will probably never happen. If the Capitols on their own ran to Salinas and Reno with 4 round trips per day, Amtrak would get 3-8 trips out of me every year more than they already do. The Zephyr or Starlight running twice while good isn't going to have the same effects as more frequent local service. And the only way to really have that conversation is to be honest about long distance, medium distance and short distance trains all fitting different needs and situations instead of making it an either/or and you hate the others no matter which one you pick.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac (Nov 17, 2021)

While the article makes some good points and the proposed LD trains may have merit, I find the focus on ROI misguided. The role of Amtrak is to provide useful travel alternatives and for most people that is going to be frequent short and medium haul services, even if these services are more expensive to get up and running.


----------



## sttom (Nov 17, 2021)

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> While the article makes some good points and the proposed LD trains may have merit, I find the focus on ROI misguided. The role of Amtrak is to provide useful travel alternatives and for most people that is going to be frequent short and medium haul services, even if these services are more expensive to get up and running.


I was also thinking that about ROI. Not to mention you need to compare ROI to some other alternative. Which for Amtrak is highways and airports. If we did an honest inventory of highways and their associated costs, they'd probably get a negative ROI. Especially when you factor in the Mortgage Interest Deduction or that the suburban sprawl around them can't even generate enough tax revenue to pay their own way as far as infrastructure goes. Airports can break even, but their benefits beyond the airport are defuse. Whereas a train station with reasonably frequent service (4 round trips daily according to APTA at minimum) turns a station into a hub which actually manages to attract economic activity. Just based on APTA's studies of commuter rail lines, rail returns $4.50 for every dollar spent over 20 years. Highways have given us suburbs that don't generate enough tax revenue to fix their own sewers.


----------



## lrh442 (Nov 17, 2021)

Most would agree that short corridor services need a *minimum* of 5 frequencies a day to be useful. But, show me a corridor where the freights would allow that, let alone hourly frequencies. Just look at the hissy fit CSX is throwing over a 2x daily frequency along the Gulf Coast. Yes, we need more corridor routes outside the NEC, but those will come at an astronomical cost thanks to resistance from the freights. My takeaway from the Selden article was that ConnectUs needs to have a better _balance_ between LD and corridors. If the primary focus of ConnectUs remains on corridors the $66B will be quickly swallowed up with little to show for it. 

ROI is a good metric for evaluating where to invest, but Amtrak needs to think more broadly of the definition of "Return". Return can be dollars, but it can also be (should be) passenger miles, passengers carried, etc. Corridors will likely have a higher return (e.g. passenger trips), but also a higher investment required (infrastructure required by freights). LD expansion will likely have a lower return, but at a lower cost. In this context ROI can be a helpful measure to allocate scarce resources.


----------



## Willbridge (Nov 17, 2021)

JoshP said:


> huh? I'm confused, I though CSX repaired the tracks/bridges right after Katrina and it has been open since then but Amtrak used a excuses to say no money to restore it?


CSX selling off to a shortline and now this piece on the infrastructure act suggests to me that the Gulf Coast is quietly being written off by Important People, other than some Venice-like islands.

Read this article carefully. The Texas copy editor followed tradition and focuses on the local angle. But, in old-time American journalism the real story is there in paragraphs further down. Some of the most vocal climate deniers are backing what amounts to an orderly retreat from rising sea levels.









Congress designates Interstate 14 across five states with I-14 corridor through San Angelo


The I-14 Corridor across Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia will be built primarily by incrementally upgrading existing highways.




currently.att.yahoo.com





This suggests to me that an Atlanta <> Fort Worth link would have more value than New Orleans <> Jacksonville, even though I'm sure that I would have enjoyed a once in a lifetime trip along the Gulf Coast.


----------



## sttom (Nov 17, 2021)

The main issue on the Gulf is CSX not wanting to deal with Amtrak and that is par for the course when it comes to them. Most of the other railroads will drag their feet until someone agrees to go halvsies on improvements they'd do anyways and whatever else the passenger trains would need. Even if you rebuilt every mile Amtrak could conceivably use to double track, class 4 and with PTC the cost would still work out to $3 million per mile. The only real issue that could come up is land acquisition if its necessary. Even now, the Gulf Coast start up costs are going to be around $600,000 per mile, even if you need to double it to get up to 5 round trips per day, that still not a lot of money. You can barely repave one lane mile of highway for $1.2 million. Not to mention, the railroads will demand money for upgrades for long distance trains. The article in question just states that doing LD only will be cheaper and yield more ridership per dollar, but there isn't any proof other than the insinuation that the existing routes aren't doing well compared to the NEC. There is no reason to assume that the railroads would accept less per mile in upgrades to expand the capacity of the long distance trains. If 2 round trips per day costs $600,000 per mile, then adding the same capacity across the LD routes would cost $11 billion. Its still cheaper than the $25 billion Amtrak wants for short and medium distance trains, but you'd need to quadruple long distance ridership to make it worth it compared to the 2035 plan of growing network wide ridership by 50%. 

As mentioned, there are also network effects on a less national scale. As mentioned, I would ride Amtrak more if the local network was useful and didn't require a bus connection to go further than hour away from me. The article even mentions that having a dense network helps you, he even freaking mentions highways! The issue with transportation is that people generally only travel up to 300 miles away from home. The maximum length of the Capitol Corridor would be around 330 miles. Which would connect various cities, towns and suburbs together who's people have reasons to travel between the various towns. More frequent service would be beneficial to us. Another thing with long distance services is what level of service are we talking? If we go to 3 round trips daily on most of the routes, that could mean that trains are running evenly throughout the day. Which won't necessarily lend itself to shorter trips. A second convenient run would make it possible to make a day trip in either direction, but you'd have very little flexibility in terms of when you can travel. Which would overall hurt potential ridership.


----------



## neroden (Nov 17, 2021)

me_little_me said:


> Sorry, I totally disagree. If I was an employee responsible for a disaster that Amtrak has done - failing to maintain cars in a ready state; failing to keep enough people employed with the Covid funds they got; failure to recognize the upward trend in travel in time - I would be fired in an instant much less if I had been employed as long as he has. Flynn has had sufficient time to do things right. He FAILED TO DO SO. Had Amtrak made brilliant decisions, he would have been suitably honored even if he perosonally disagreed with them and was proven wrong. So he has to take responsibility both for the failures of his company and his inability to lead them to success. He has been President since April of 2020.


Have you come in from outside and tried to manage an organization you didn't understand? It can take a year just to get a handle on what's going on inside the organization at all. Some never figure it out, but you have to give them a chance to find their footing. I'm very willing to shower negativity on Mr. Anderson, who never figured anything out and left a disaster for Mr. Flynn to deal with. I am very suspicious of Mr Gardner, who I believe was in charge when Mr Anderson was leaving and Mr Flynn was arriving, and based on other things we know I simply don't trust him to make competent decisions at all. But I can't really blame Mr. Flynn for not immediately figuring out that Mr Gardner is trouble and not immediately realizing that he shouldn't listen to Mr Gardner.


----------



## neroden (Nov 17, 2021)

87YJ said:


> neroden:
> Let me say "you do not live here I do" If you knew how fast Marcopa is growing and the 4 lane road going to PHX is overloaded. You would understand the need for a light rail line.



An electric rail line running 30 miles through the Gila River Indian Reservation? Oh-kay. If you can manage to get local AND NATIVE AMERICAN support for that billion dollar project, good luck!


----------



## neroden (Nov 17, 2021)

PaTrainFan said:


> Now here, from Railway Age, is the most detailed analysis I have yet seen on the infrastructure bill as relating to rail, Amtrak and transit. It is a good read.


It's a good analysis. But he made a legal analysis mistake. 

He discusses how the "national network" was defined in the 2008 law as the routes in operation in 2008, and assumes that only those can be fully federally funded, but that's not quite right... when I last went through it, I found that through a complicated set of provisions, the national network also includes (and Amtrak can also directly federally fund) all the designated high speed rail corridors (which are mostly vaporware at this point). So when a train is studied for restoration *and* happens to also be one of the designated high-speed rail corridors, the definition of national network is not a problem. There are several such cases in the Eastern and Central time zones.


----------



## west point (Nov 17, 2021)

No train longer than each sidings every 20 minutes of travel time on any tack section..


----------



## daybeers (Nov 17, 2021)

neroden said:


> The domestic federal budget is fine.


----------



## George Harris (Nov 17, 2021)

Willbridge said:


> Congress designates Interstate 14 across five states with I-14 corridor through San Angelo
> 
> 
> The I-14 Corridor across Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia will be built primarily by incrementally upgrading existing highways.
> ...


??I-14 has nothing to do with writing off the Gulf Coast, read I-10 corridor. It has a lot to do with putting together an east-west interstate link that avoids involving major cities like I-20 does. This more of a relief of I-20 than anything else. Reading the article, it does not appear to be approached with much enthusiasm. It is like we will do this segment by segment as we get around to it when the existing roads along this route get congested.


----------



## GoAmtrak (Nov 18, 2021)

George Harris said:


> There is so much non-transportation fluff and pork in this "infrastructure" bill that it could probably be at least cut in half without reducing any real transit-related funding.


To be save, just vote Democrats over Republicans 

You can see how few has happened concerning passenger railway in states where Republicans are in power (Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky, Wyoming and so on) while for example in Vermont which is quite rural, some pleasant efforts have been made to expand passenger railway service. Vermont is dominated by Democrats like perhaps no other rural state in the US.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Nov 18, 2021)

GoAmtrak said:


> To be save, just vote Democrats over Republicans
> 
> You can see how few has happened concerning passenger railway in states where Republicans are in power (Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky, Wyoming and so on) while for example in Vermont which is quite rural, some pleasant efforts have been made to expand passenger railway service. Vermont is dominated by Democrats like perhaps no other rural state in the US.



this is a pretty simplistic take on politics in trains that doesn’t accurately reflect reality.

In my opinion, some of the far left politicians, who support true HSR, are doing more to hurt rail in this country than help it. They were the ones (among others) who nearly tanked the most recent bill.

There have been times in the past where red states have been quite rail friendly. Moreover, I don’t think republicans are inherently against rail.


----------



## jis (Nov 18, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> There have been times in the past where red states have been quite rail friendly. Moreover, I don’t think republicans are inherently against rail.


These days, sometimes it seems to me that if the Democrats were vocally against passenger rail, the Republicans would be wildly in favor of passenger rail


----------



## George Harris (Nov 18, 2021)

GoAmtrak said:


> To be save, just vote Democrats over Republicans


If you like talk instead of action. Remember the largest cuts over the entire life of Amtrak were under a Democratic president. Much as Trump was an obnoxious personality, he at least got things done, many of which never got any press. For example, he got more done to clean up superfund pollution sites than was done over the previous 3 presidential terms. Frankly, our current guy in office is a bumbling stumbling international embarrassment to this country. Then there are several other unrelated party platform issue that ensure I will never vote Democrat unless the alternative is a pure communist. There is also the joke running around, "my father had not voted for a Democrat since Kennedy until Biden, but by then he had been in the ground for 10 years." I can live with "mean tweets" if that is what it takes to make things happen. Reading through some of the things being proposed, a lot of this money is going to studies and some of the provisions are requiring things already being done. More looks than action, AGAIN. It is Texas that will probably have a high speed railway running before that in California has all sections under construction or even alignment and right of way settled. I would say excuse me for the politicing, but I won't.


----------



## sttom (Nov 18, 2021)

Since when are Democrats good for Amtrak outside the NEC? The biggest cuts Amtrak faced were under Carter and Clinton, not to mention the loss of 403 funds under Obama. Even in solidly blue no matter who California, much of our current Amtrak service was created by vote initiative in the 90s and that state decided that rail wasn't a state issue about a decade later. Republicans did expand services in Virginia and North Carolina and still are. As much as the Republicans sabre rattle about privatization, they never work up the nerve to follow through. If you can explain to Republicans that trains are cheaper for the public than highways, you can win them over.


----------



## me_little_me (Nov 18, 2021)

neroden said:


> Have you come in from outside and tried to manage an organization you didn't understand? It can take a year just to get a handle on what's going on inside the organization at all. Some never figure it out, but you have to give them a chance to find their footing. I'm very willing to shower negativity on Mr. Anderson, who never figured anything out and left a disaster for Mr. Flynn to deal with. I am very suspicious of Mr Gardner, who I believe was in charge when Mr Anderson was leaving and Mr Flynn was arriving, and based on other things we know I simply don't trust him to make competent decisions at all. But I can't really blame Mr. Flynn for not immediately figuring out that Mr Gardner is trouble and not immediately realizing that he shouldn't listen to Mr Gardner.


No, I have not "come in from outside and tried to manage an organization you didn't understand". I'm not stupid enough to do that. If you don't understand the business, you shouldn't take over running it. You learn it first. THEN you try and run it.

If Mr. Flynn had done his homework and read about and understood Amtrak's issues, things might have been different. A bored executive who retired from his last position and thought he could do anything.


----------



## lrh442 (Nov 18, 2021)

Amtrak, due to it's government funding, is always going to be _political_. However, it doesn't have to be _partisan_. But when supporters _make_ it partisan Amtrak loses. People who really care about passenger rail will do well to avoid partisan generalizations and attacks.


----------



## danasgoodstuff (Nov 18, 2021)

lrh442 said:


> Amtrak, due to it's government funding, is always going to be _political_. However, it doesn't have to be _partisan_. But when supporters _make_ it partisan Amtrak loses. People who really care about passenger rail will do well to avoid partisan generalizations and attacks.


This is an important distinction, and if passenger rail supporters can do something that lessens the partisan divide then that's a win/win for rail and the country as a whole. Mostly moderate Dem, issue by issue guy here - always glad to sit down and talk to people to see if we can get beyond broad brush generalizations to individual issues where we can agree.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Nov 18, 2021)

sttom said:


> If you can explain to Republicans that trains are cheaper for the public than highways, you can win them over.



Amtrak does not contribute to the campaign coffers of our legislators. The industries that support building highways do make such contributions. Think that might make a difference?


----------



## sttom (Nov 18, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> Amtrak does not contribute to the campaign coffers of our legislators. The industries that support building highways do make such contributions. Think that might make a difference?


There is a difference between Congress, Voters and State Legislators. Generally politicians that don't throw themselves in front of every camera they see are not as ideological as less well known ones. Meaning, convincing Ted Cruz or Louis Gomert that Amtrak is worthwhile probably won't happen. A Republican voter or unknown State Assembly Rep, you have a better chance. If there is anything that we can say is bipartisan about Amtrak, its that there is both support for it and hostility.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 18, 2021)

Both George Bush (43) and Donald Trump proposed zero dollar budgets for Amtrak. I've never seen a zero dollar budget proposal from Carter, Clinton, Obama, or Biden. If Amtrak lost routes and frequencies because it was not fully funded it should be Congress that answers for that since they hold the purse strings. Obama and Biden are pro-rail but can only grant what Congress is willing to authorize and state officials are willing to accept. I have yet to see a Democratic official refuse public rail funding like Rick Scott (R) or run on a platform of redirecting passenger rail money to fund roads like Scott Walker (R). While it's true that some Republicans are indeed pro-rail many others are proudly anti-rail or at least against spending public money on it. One thing I can confirm is that voting _for_ Democrats has never required me to vote _against_ passenger rail. I think false equivalency and partisan hand wringing we see in this and other threads comes from people who struggle to align a history of supporting passenger rail while voting for those who put its future most at risk.


----------



## Ziv (Nov 18, 2021)

I can not speak for others but for myself, despite my love of Amtrak trains, Amtrak itself does not even make it into the top 5 issues that I consider when I weigh which candidate will get my vote. 



Devil's Advocate said:


> … I think false equivalency and political hand wringing we see in this and other threads comes from people who struggle to align a history of supporting passenger rail while also voting for those who put its future most at risk.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Nov 18, 2021)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Both George Bush (43) and Donald Trump proposed zero dollar budgets for Amtrak. I've never seen a zero dollar budget proposal from Carter, Clinton, Obama, or Biden. If Amtrak lost routes and frequencies because it was not fully funded it should be Congress that answers for that since they hold the purse strings. Obama and Biden were pro-rail but could only grant what Congress was willing to authorize and state officials were willing to accept. I have yet to see a Democratic official refuse public rail funding like Rick Scott (R) or run on a platform of redirecting passenger rail money to fund roads like Scott Walker (R). While it's true that some Republicans are indeed pro-rail many others are proudly anti-rail or at least against spending public money on it. One thing I can confirm is that voting _for_ Democrats has never required me to vote _against_ passenger rail. I think false equivalency and partisan hand wringing we see in this and other threads comes from people who struggle to align a history of supporting passenger rail while voting for those who put its future most at risk.



all of what you say is true. 
as I wrote before, it’s more nuanced than left=rail and right=anti-rail.
What you just wrote is a nuanced answer that certainly unveils a trend, but acknowledges the complexities.


----------



## sttom (Nov 18, 2021)

You also have to take into consideration how much of what Bush and Trump did were posturing over policy. Republican Presidents have been hostile to Amtrak, but Congress largely isn't. And since the House controls the budget, the Presidential budget always just struck me as a performative tradition rather than something most people outside the Belt Way actually care about. The outcome though is what I care about, Clinton, Carter and Obama weren't explicitly hostile to Amtrak but cuts happened under them none the less. Which confirms some people's hypothesis about our politics being that we have one party that tries to destroy everything and the other one breaks things slightly. If that were the case, killing Amtrak directly or anything really isn't likely to work outside of an emergency, but killing something by 1000 cuts, that could work. The issues with Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa and Indiana are more proof of why Amtrak shouldn't be entirely beholden to the states when it comes having more service than a once per day long distance train. We don't do that with highways, airports or Social Security.


----------



## GoAmtrak (Nov 19, 2021)

lrh442 said:


> Amtrak, due to it's government funding, is always going to be _political_. However, it doesn't have to be _partisan_. But when supporters _make_ it partisan Amtrak loses. People who really care about passenger rail will do well to avoid partisan generalizations and attacks.


I agree with you.
Amtrak is a mostly state-funded passenger railway service. So there is always the question how much money Amtrak shall receive on a regular basis. That's why I think the impact of political parties (or some politicians) on passenger railway service is definitely not off-topic.

As some remarked rightly, my words "Just vote Democrats over Republicans for more passenger railway" was simplified. It was good to stimulate discussion about the impact of political parties on Amtrak. I gained some interesting new insight from your posts and learned something new.

Nonetheless, I still have the impression there is more than just a tendency Democratic politicians make more efforts towards improving passenger railway in the US:

- Joe Biden is a Democrat and for a long time, there wasn't a president making that much efforts to improve the passenger railway service. Donald Trump more than once asked Congress to reduce Amtrak funding. He's a Republican (and he is great  ).

- John Kasich (Ohio) and Scott Walker (Wisconsin) both had the chance to strengthen the Amtrak network in their state and even turned down federal money. Jim Douglas (Vermont) decided the Burlington commuter rail was not viable and to abolish it. Eric Holcomb (Indiana) proposed budget cuts which led to service cuts of the Hoosier state. All those politicians are Republicans. 

- In contrast, I heard of Jon Tester (Montana) making efforts Amtrak to revitalize Montana's Hi-Line. I heard of Derek Bauman (Ohio) pushing for expanded railway service around Cincinnati. Tester and Bauman are members of the Democratic Party.

I just have the impression Democrats make more efforts towards passenger railway expansion, as my examples above should show. That's why I can imagine more Democrats in power could be an advantage for Amtrak. On the other hand, are there also numerous examples of Democrats who have hindered Amtrak expansion in their states in the last 20 years?

I do agree it is a big advantage if passenger rail projects are bi-partisan. Then you really have the strength behind it to get it done. I hope as many as possible politicians get on board for expansion.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac (Nov 19, 2021)

The partisan divide over support for rail could be somewhat explained by the fact that urban areas tend to vote Democrat and rural areas Republican. Rail primarily is seen as benefiting urban areas e.g. the Northeast Corridor. Of course our national network does benefit those rural areas it serves but in general this is not perceived as important as having a good highway network in those places.


----------



## GoAmtrak (Nov 19, 2021)

George Harris said:


> If you like talk instead of action. Remember the largest cuts over the entire life of Amtrak were under a Democratic president. Much as Trump was an obnoxious personality, he at least got things done, many of which never got any press. For example, he got more done to clean up superfund pollution sites than was done over the previous 3 presidential terms. Frankly, our current guy in office is a bumbling stumbling international embarrassment to this country. Then there are several other unrelated party platform issue that ensure I will never vote Democrat unless the alternative is a pure communist. There is also the joke running around, "my father had not voted for a Democrat since Kennedy until Biden, but by then he had been in the ground for 10 years." I can live with "mean tweets" if that is what it takes to make things happen. Reading through some of the things being proposed, a lot of this money is going to studies and some of the provisions are requiring things already being done. More looks than action, AGAIN. It is Texas that will probably have a high speed railway running before that in California has all sections under construction or even alignment and right of way settled. I would say excuse me for the politicing, but I won't.


I respect your opinion, but I may ask who is trying to make more efforts for passenger rail, Trump or Biden?

In this article is written Trump proposed to cut the Amtrak budget by half: https://www.washingtonpost.com/tran...p-again-asking-congress-slash-amtrak-funding/

Joe Biden in contrast has pushed the infrastructure bill to give Amtrak the possibility for expansion for the first time in many years.

Perhaps you are right and some Democrats including Joe Biden just talk about expansion but don't do that much to really improve. Personally, I hope this is or will not be the case and we can move forward.

I don't want to be missunderstood, I'm just talking about Democrats and Republicans and their relation to passenger rail, not their politicial agenda in general.




AmtrakMaineiac said:


> The partisan divide over support for rail could be somewhat explained by the fact that urban areas tend to vote Democrat and rural areas Republican. Rail primarily is seen as benefiting urban areas e.g. the Northeast Corridor. Of course our national network does benefit those rural areas it serves but in general this is not perceived as important as having a good highway network in those places.


I can imagine this may be partly an explanation for the divide also. Urban areas tend to vote Democratic and get more rail service, rural areas tend to vote more for Republicans and get less rail service (while we all know those are tendencies as there are also urban Republicans and rural Democrats, and some cities don't get railway service like Columbus or Phoenix).

By the way thank you to Devil's Advocate for your post to which I highly agree.


----------



## neroden (Nov 19, 2021)

There was an old breed of Republicans who strongly supported passenger rail, and there still are a few.

But there is also a highway-mad breed of Republicans who have become more and more aggressively hostile to passenger rail. They are bizarre -- they seem to think trains will cause Communism or rioting or some such nonsense.

There used to be highway-mad Democrats who attacked passenger rail too, but they mostly disappeared before I was in college (they still exist at the grassroots level and you can still find some in state legislatures, but not many).

And then there is a pretty large caucus of Democrats who are really strong passenger rail supporters.

There are still a lot of "lukewarm" Democrats and Republicans who don't really care either way.

In the old days, a "lukewarm" Republican would probably vote for a passenger rail project if it brought money to his district, and some still do. Unfortunately, for many years, many of the "lukewarm" Republicans have been pandering to the highway-mad Republicans -- which led to things like Kasich, who I think probably has no personal opinions on the matter, cancelling the fully federally funded Cleveland-Columbus-Cincy line which had been planned for over a decade.

The "lukewarm" Democrats do not have a similar highway-mad caucus to pander to, so they don't generally do things like that. They generally go along and support passenger rail as a favor to their passenger-rail-supporting colleagues, as long as they get enough phone calls in favor, even if they never would have inserted a passenger rail line in the budget themselves. (And might cut it from the budget if people stop advocating for it.)

That's my analysis, anyway.

I think you can probably figure out which politicians go in which group.

Governor Newsom's a "lukewarm" Democrat, for example, who will cut rail funding if he thinks nobody's demanding rail funding, but will sign it if his colleagues are demanding it. Bill Clinton was the same. I believe Obama was the same too.

Trump certainly has no personal opinions about passenger rail, and neither did G W Bush or G H W Bush, but all of them were pandering to the highway-mad caucus of their party.

Biden actually personally supports passenger rail. He is probably the first President since... Eisenhower, perhaps?... to care personally.


----------



## pennyk (Nov 19, 2021)

MODERATOR NOTE: The moderating staff has removed many posts as being off topic and/or responses to posts that were removed for being off topic. Please try to keep your comments on the topic of Amtrak funding and please limit the discussion of politics to that which directly relates to Amtrak. Thank you.


----------



## Abe26 (Nov 21, 2021)

Can someone explain how come the USA, supposedly a very super country. but when it comes to trains we are about 100 years old??


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Nov 21, 2021)

Abe26 said:


> Can someone explain how come the USA, supposedly a very super country. but when it comes to trains we are about 100 years old??


Because we are not actually a “super country,” and American exceptionalism led us to a false sense of reality. When I was younger, I really bought into the charade. It wasn’t until I started traveling to Europe and Asia for music that I noticed America was really behind when it comes to moving people around.

Turns out countries that we deemed less, surpassed our level of infrastructure decades ago.

In the technicals, you could write pages as to how the American “anti-train” attitude pervaded to the point where conservative governors would return government money (and still do) simply because it was given to start commuter rail projects.

The famous Boston Big Dig had plans for a North Station-South Station connection tunnel, but Ronald Reagan rejected the proposal and refused to fund any project that included provisions for rail.

Of course, car culture, the Koch Brothers, the Cato Institute (funded by the Koch Brothers) and a general culture that rejects anything communal in favor of individualism also contribute to the difficulty of rail related progress.


----------



## WICT106 (Nov 21, 2021)

Abe26 said:


> Can someone explain how come the USA, supposedly a very super country. but when it comes to trains we are about 100 years old??


One reason is that many who vote for a certain party, are accustomed to getting around by car, and don't use transit and have never taken a train -- and they are O.K. with that. They're accustomed to getting around by car, and can't see themselves using a train ( or transit ) for any reason whatever. They don't want to have to pay for something they don't use, they've never used, and cannot see themselves using. They also have little to no idea of how difficult it is to get around town without a car. They're accustomed to getting around by car.


----------



## joelkfla (Nov 21, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> In the technicals, you could write pages as to how the American “anti-train” attitude pervaded to the point where conservative governors would return government money (and still do) simply because it was given to start commuter rail projects.


Not just because they were anti-train, but also because it came from the opposing party.


----------



## Abe26 (Nov 21, 2021)

we finally got a pro train person in the white house, probably won't happen again anytime soon, why can't we get some real infrastructure changes for at least normal speed trains? 
with a car from NYP to CHI , with a car it takes 12hours , with a train its almost 20 hours! 
you have every day almost 50 flights , if you can get the train on some semi normal speeds, not talking high speeds you should at least get it down to 10 hours, and I am sure you will have a much bigger audience on the trains. make it stop by PIT and CLE and you connect 4 big cities!

NY-BUF , with a car under 6 hours , with train almost 8 hours , why can't we have just semi normal speeds and make the trip within 5 hours? you have over 20 flights a day from NY to BUF, taking into account going to the airport till the final destination, its at least 4 hours , so for another hour you would for sure have much more costumers taking the train , then flying .

I feel the 66 billions $ , its just going to waste , instead of improving the infrastructure and getting more people using trains , we are just throwing money at the old system with no real benefit's. and then the republicans will say , hey you got 66 billions dollar, did anything meaningful improve?


----------



## CraigInNC (Nov 21, 2021)

The biggest problem I see going on is that everything has become "national" which is as problematic as being "partisan." Historically, outside of a handful couple 2-3 controversial issues that divided parties, most issues had other cleavages, urban/rural, regional, state/state, etc. The whole discussion of this bipartisan bill that just passed is an example of this. Yes a lot of GOP Senators voted for it and a handful of GOP House members did as well but it was whipped (at least in the House) by GOP leadership as a partisan vote. This very same bill could have been proposed during the past administration and the then President would have gladly signed it. As-is. That is the reality we live in. So now 13 House GOP members are catching flak for voting for a bill the current President signed that probably 90% of the GOP would support otherwise. As it relates to Amtrak, I tend to see that the D's tend to support Amtrak more often than not while the R's are more split but there is still substantial support for rail (and other mass transit). Federally and locally based on what I have seen in DC and in my home state of NC. There were a handful of true believers like John Mica who tried to throw monkey wrenches into the works but there was usually enough R's to move the necessary money. Biden is perhaps the first expressly pro-Amtrak president mainly because of his own personal experience riding the rails between DC and Delaware all those years. Few people probably voted for him just because of that but many railfans were heartened to see him win because of the potential for favorable attention. Who knows if the infrastructure bill would have looked different if another D besides Biden would have been elected. The past president claimed to want to move infrastructure legislation, remember "infrastructure week?" But nothing happened for reasons that are beyond this thread. Amtrak, light rail, and other mass transit programs generally find bipartisan support here in North Carolina and was even subject to discussion with the recently passed NC State Budget that the Governor signed last week that includes additional monies for intrastate rail. Too many electeds are putting national events in front of local interests and even their own feelings/desires and constituent needs in order to follow the herd.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Nov 21, 2021)

Abe26 said:


> we finally got a pro train person in the white house, probably won't happen again anytime soon, why can't we get some real infrastructure changes for at least normal speed trains?
> with a car from NYP to CHI , with a car it takes 12hours , with a train its almost 20 hours!
> you have every day almost 50 flights , if you can get the train on some semi normal speeds, not talking high speeds you should at least get it down to 10 hours, and I am sure you will have a much bigger audience on the trains. make it stop by PIT and CLE and you connect 4 big cities!
> 
> ...


First of all, this is the first time in the history of Amtrak that they have any real money to work with. In their 50 years of existence, they have only been given enough cash to keep them from drowning.

When it comes to Amtrak management, I will be first to admit to their shortcomings, but we act as if we’ve given Amtrak a ton of money before and they’ve squandered it.

This has never happened, so we have no idea how Amtrak will handle this cash.

Secondly, asking Amtrak to be profitable/provide excellent service/insert-your-own-desire-here, is like asking Greyhound to completely pay for the highways it uses and make a profit at the same time.

Airlines additionally receive massive subsidies in different ways. They of course pay fees, but comparing airlines with trains in this country and in this day and age is not smart.

For once, let’s cut Amtrak a break, and wait and see what happens. Who knows, this could be a turning point.


----------



## MARC Rider (Nov 21, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> It wasn’t until I started traveling to Europe and Asia for music that I noticed America was really behind when it comes to moving people around.



It's not just that we're being surpassed on "moving people around." On my trips abroad to other developed countries, I've noticed that there's less crime, less poverty, better city planning, better quality television programming, and even the food is better. For crying out loud, I visited _England_ and thought the quality of the food was better than that in the US.

I'm afraid that the US is just one step above being a Third-world country, and not a very big step, either.


----------



## neroden (Nov 21, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> It's not just that we're being surpassed on "moving people around." On my trips abroad to other developed countries, I've noticed that there's less crime, less poverty, better city planning, better quality television programming, and even the food is better. For crying out loud, I visited _England_ and thought the quality of the food was better than that in the US.
> 
> I'm afraid that the US is just one step above being a Third-world country, and not a very big step, either.


Don't get me started on health care, where the US is actually worse than most third-world countries. When Mexico and Thailand established universal health coverage in the 2000s, it should just have embarassed the US. Yeah, we have problems.

There's actually an Amtrak connection to this: the issue of health insurance screws up every single labor negotiation. This *isn't an issue* in most other countries because they have a universal system. It also puts costs onto employers which are central-government responsibility in nearly every other country, making the books look worse for every employer, including Amtrak. I don't know how much of Amtrak's budget is going to Aetna for health insurance, but it's a lot, and it's distorting the picture of the cost of train service.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Nov 21, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> It's not just that we're being surpassed on "moving people around." On my trips abroad to other developed countries, I've noticed that there's less crime, less poverty, better city planning, better quality television programming, and even the food is better. For crying out loud, I visited _England_ and thought the quality of the food was better than that in the US.
> 
> I'm afraid that the US is just one step above being a Third-world country, and not a very big step, either.



I wasn’t going to include those categories, but you’re certainly right!


----------



## CraigInNC (Nov 21, 2021)

I am not against airlines per se, not my favorite form of transportation, but they have collectively lost more money in the last 40 years than any other industry in the United States. Their business model has never been consistently profitable and the business is highly cyclical to the point of requiring government intervention as we saw through 9/11, Great Recession, Covid, etc. With that being said, perhaps because airlines are nominally private entities with most being traded on the stock exchanges, they get a pass by politicians despite costing the government even more money as a percentage of their volume then Amtrak does. Of course no one can argue that the airlines are valuable, not just for passenger travel but for cargo, but Amtrak does not have a cargo dimension which of course is handled by NS, CSX, etc. I tend to agree with Tlcooper93's comments in that how Amtrak handles this money over the next 5 years will be crucial to future support and the direction of the entity. A mindset change needs to be made with the public and elevate Amtrak from a boutique transportation medium for a "somewhat" eccentric section of the traveling public to a mainstream, if secondary, transportation option.


----------



## me_little_me (Nov 21, 2021)

Does anyone know if any European countries require their local governments to pay for or subsidize the shorter distance trains *operated by the central government*? Anyone have their version of the 700 mile rule (accounting for a proportional country size (e.g. Luxembourg having a 700 meter rule?) Do the French make their Regions pay? The Swiss make their Cantons pay?


----------



## Willbridge (Nov 22, 2021)

me_little_me said:


> Does anyone know if any European countries require their local governments to pay for or subsidize the shorter distance trains *operated by the central government*? Anyone have their version of the 700 mile rule (accounting for a proportional country size (e.g. Luxembourg having a 700 meter rule?) Do the French make their Regions pay? The Swiss make their Cantons pay?



I hope to see some specific nations described. Here's a generalization.

Under the EU there are various regional arrangements now and regional authorities in some places have the right to contract for service either with the legacy operator or with private contractors (see photos). The regional authorities have revenue sharing from the national governments.

There are at least two issues in hindsight that do not seem to have been anticipated.

The legacy carriers set up incorporated subsidiaries that can win service contracts in their home countries and in other countries. This disappoints people who want to break up the legacy carriers.
As in North America, if your small city is midway between two regions you may have mediocre service (see photo). Or, as in some Northeast Corridor points, you may get commuter service to the regional hub, but few through intercity rides into the territory of the next hub (see North Philadelphia).
So far, the best feature of this change is that the legacy trip planning software is required to carry the regional and other privatized service. So, Nightjet or FlixTrain or commuter trains come up in searches, although due to differing tariff structures one may not be able to get price quotes or bookings. It's more complicated to implement with separate managements, but efforts continue to coordinate connections with clock-pattern meets _(takt _in German_)_.

Regional contract services can include marketing. In 2005 photo the Hamburg<>Bremen service advertises clock headways _(takt)_. Previously, Hamburg<>Bremen was dominated by long-distance trains, resulting in ragged headways for regional travel.




Alsace regional label on SNCF equipment in 2018 even includes the local dialect.




Altenbeken in 2002 was sort of a forgotten summit between regions.






In 2014 even an HO-scale model railway is programmed for timed transfer connections in Germany. That is not always achieved in real life but it's a goal.


----------



## acelafan (Nov 22, 2021)

Abe26 said:


> Can someone explain how come the USA, supposedly a very super country. but when it comes to trains we are about 100 years old??


There are lots of lobbyists in the US, and I would bet that the air/truck/auto ones are far more powerful than those representing rail interests. Follow the money...


----------



## MARC Rider (Nov 22, 2021)

acelafan said:


> There are lots of lobbyists in the US, and I would bet that the air/truck/auto ones are far more powerful than those representing rail interests. Follow the money...


Private businesses can make financial contributions to the re-election campaigns of elected officials. Nearly all passenger rail services are run by public agencies that can't do that. Guess who has the ear of the elected officials? I'm amazed, actually, that there's as much support for passenger rail from our elected officials as there is. 

What's a little weird is that one might think that the private class 1 railroads (who can make political contributions) might want to have the government buy out their trackage so they are relieved of the responsibility of the overhead expenses inherent in an industry like railroading. They would then operate their trains on public tracks in a manner similar to that of the trucking companies and airlines who use publicly owned roads, airports, and air traffic control systems, and might find it easier to be profitable. However, I've never seen the AAR advocate such a thing. I wonder how Congress would react if they did.


----------



## neroden (Nov 22, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> What's a little weird is that one might think that the private class 1 railroads (who can make political contributions) might want to have the government buy out their trackage so they are relieved of the responsibility of the overhead expenses inherent in an industry like railroading. They would then operate their trains on public tracks in a manner similar to that of the trucking companies and airlines who use publicly owned roads, airports, and air traffic control systems, and might find it easier to be profitable. However, I've never seen the AAR advocate such a thing. I wonder how Congress would react if they did.


Yeah, Moorman backed it when he was at NS but none of the other "Freight rail" execs have


----------



## Willbridge (Nov 22, 2021)

Something that rail line owners need to consider is the unanticipated revenues from other utilities. SPrint cables, for example, have followed rail ROW's, as have pipelines and power lines. It would be possible, but contentious, to price these present and future into a sale to the government.

Also, government ownership of the entire network would tend to open the way to 'open access' which the companies dread. It's one of the issues that creeps them out about Amtrak. Another concern is maintenance levels, which has been a notorious issue in the UK privatisation schemes.

All of these issues could be worked out but it's easier to just say "no!"

[Interurbans, of course, were noted for their power line ROW's, sometimes leased by a sister power company. Here's the Class II Oregon Electric Railway's line south of Wilsonville with a power line deal worked out with an unrelated utility.]


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac (Nov 23, 2021)

Abe26 said:


> Can someone explain how come the USA, supposedly a very super country. but when it comes to trains we are about 100 years old??


100 years ago we probably had the best railway system in the world. In the US we don't always come up with the ideas first but when we see a good idea we run with it. When the UK invented railways we immediately saw it as a way to open up the vast distances in our country. The same thing happened with the automobile. It was particularly appealing to a people with a self concept of rugged individualism and wanting the freedom to go where we want when we want.

The European experience was different partly due to more involvement by governments early on and a more conservative approach to things so that they moved more slowly on transitioning to auto travel for example. Some countries did follow the lead of the US to some extent; I am thinking of the UK and Ireland which neglected their rail systems, then in the UK you had the privitization fiasco and they are only now trying to play catch-up. 

Of course money and political influence always plays a part once a particular mode gets the upper hand. Read about how hard it was initially to get a national road system started. Now we are realizing for many reasons we need to move to a more balanced approach but it will just take time.


----------



## neroden (Nov 23, 2021)

Willbridge said:


> Something that rail line owners need to consider is the unanticipated revenues from other utilities. SPrint cables, for example, have followed rail ROW's, as have pipelines and power lines. It would be possible, but contentious, to price these present and future into a sale to the government.


Yeah, it's not a big deal. They might also retain the utility rights, that's been done too



> Also, government ownership of the entire network would tend to open the way to 'open access' which the companies dread. It's one of the issues that creeps them out about Amtrak.


I think this "empire building" attitude -- hostility to open access -- is the main obstacle. 

I don't think the Class I freight railroads actually get any benefit from their current restricted access *at all* -- if they try to do monopoly pricing, everyone just switches to trucks -- and they already have run-through trains from other Class Is, routinely, now, because it's more profitable to do it that way. But the management, trapped in a 19th-century mentality, has not yet realized that open access is just fine for them (excepting Moorman).

Of course, you can nationalize the tracks without providing open access; it is fairly frequent in the US to have one company with "exclusive freight rights" on government-owned tracks. So it really shouldn't be an issue at all.



> Another concern is maintenance levels, which has been a notorious issue in the UK privatisation schemes.


US private railroads are notorious for undermaintenance, especially CSX. It's actually one of the main arguments in favor of nationalization.


----------



## jis (Nov 23, 2021)

SPrint afterall was a Southern Pacific subsidiary before it was spun off to sail on its own, because the railroad could not figure out how to make money using it.

The American Railroad management have been competent in one thing for quite a while, which is cashing out on lucrative business subsidiaries and consistently losing market share in the transportation business, while making a bit more money on a progressively smaller piece of the overall transportation pie. And of course shedding tears of pain if anyone points any of the obvious to them.


----------



## Willbridge (Nov 23, 2021)

neroden said:


> US private railroads are notorious for under-maintenance, especially CSX. It's actually one of the main arguments in favor of nationalization.


Actually, there was an era of the opposite for profitable companies that could reduce their tax burden by spending money on maintenance. Wall Street thought that was a waste of money and so the rules were changed to eliminate the incentive (I vaguely recall that it had to do with whether maintenance was an operating expense or a capital expense). Prior to that, excursion trains could be safely operated on almost any Western Region branch line.

Enjoying the NP on the Centralia--Gate cut-off in 1968. By then the UP would not permit excursions on branch lines, so I would surmise that the tax rules were changed sometime in the 1960's.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Nov 23, 2021)

While we are a far cry from nationalizing the tracks, how hard would it be to nationalize dispatching (sort of like air traffic control) which may help with Amtrak OTP and make freight railroads honor the law.


----------



## neroden (Nov 24, 2021)

Willbridge said:


> Actually, there was an era of the opposite for profitable companies that could reduce their tax burden by spending money on maintenance.


Yes, there were some major changes in federal tax law in the 1970s and 1980s. The 1950s tax law was set up to heavily reward R&D and maintenance; the Reagan-era tax law was set up to discourage both.


----------



## Andrew (Nov 24, 2021)

How much of the NEC grants would be reserved for Gateway?

Also, how much total is appropriated for the Capital Investment Grant Program?


----------



## Willbridge (Nov 25, 2021)

neroden said:


> Yes, there were some major changes in federal tax law in the 1970s and 1980s. The 1950s tax law was set up to heavily reward R&D and maintenance; the Reagan-era tax law was set up to discourage both.


That makes sense. In the1950's almost everyone was aware that they had just got through WWII and the Korean War with tremendous burdens on a network that took quite a beating.


----------



## Willbridge (Dec 2, 2021)

Here's a 9½-minute interview with Bill Flynn by Bloomberg back on November 10th that outlines his expectations (and the interviewer's). Guess what station is used as a backdrop!









Amtrak CEO Flynn on Northeast Corridor, Vaccine Mandate


Amtrak CEO Bill Flynn discusses the rail and tunnel improvements to be funded by the newly passed federal infrastructure bill, passenger traffic recovery, and the railroad's employee vaccination policy on "Balance of Power."




www.bloomberg.com


----------



## GoAmtrak (Dec 3, 2021)

Willbridge said:


> Here's a 9½-minute interview with Bill Flynn by Bloomberg back on November 10th that outlines his expectations (and the interviewer's). Guess what station is used as a backdrop!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for this informative interview. He stands before the Denver Union Station doesn't he? In this interview, it was somewhat too much focus on the Northeast Corridor in my mind. Of course this corridor is the prestige object where connections are the best. It's good to keep this good service on track. But I look more on the expansion of areas completely underserved or not served at all. And those areas in the US are numerous.

Did I hear it correctly that 16 of the 66 billion go to the Amtrak national network? I would have wished more for the national network.


More than once I read competition for those billions has started.
It's gonna be quite interesting which regions in the US receive how much money to expand passenger railway in their states.
For example, here's an article stating Louisville-Indianapolis would have relatively good chances to win this competition for federal money because they would serve two relatively large metropolitan areas (of course they would not be the sole winner):
Infrastructure law could put Louisville on track to lure passenger train service | News | wdrb.com


We already started discussions about which preferences are taken by users. I'm interested in more opinions and preferences about it. Even if its perhaps too early to say how many of those projects (of the 2035 plan) can actually be funded by this money - A quarter? Half? Or more?


----------



## jis (Dec 3, 2021)

GoAmtrak said:


> Did I hear it correctly that 16 of the 66 billion go to the Amtrak national network? I would have wished more for the national network.


Potentially it is $16 B + $12 B = $28 B for national network. After taking the NEC set aside out of the intercity line, there is $12B left in the intercity line for potential use in the national network. This is usually glossed over in the quick presentations.


----------



## Willbridge (Dec 3, 2021)

GoAmtrak said:


> Thank you for this informative interview. He stands before the Denver Union Station doesn't he? In this interview, it was somewhat too much focus on the Northeast Corridor in my mind. Of course this corridor is the prestige object where connections are the best. It's good to keep this good service on track. But I look more on the expansion of areas completely underserved or not served at all. And those areas in the US are numerous.
> 
> Did I hear it correctly that 16 of the 66 billion go to the Amtrak national network? I would have wished more for the national network.
> 
> ...


The ultimate outcome of this will depend on the state and regional interests in addition to the federal involvement and degree of interest of the private right-of-way owners. They'll have to consider that this isn't a "permanent" fund like those supported by highway taxes. There can be quite a list of places abandoned by Amtrak for various reasons, so communities need to go through a planning process that determines how important the service will be to them.


----------



## GoAmtrak (Feb 16, 2022)

I have a question because of an interpretation problem:

Most you possibly know the Amtrak 2035 plan. In their details about potential expansion (eg page 53), they distinguish between public operating funding per new passenger, the potential number of new passengers and infrastructure cost per new passenger for full buildout.

Then, there are symbols, eg 2 dollar symbols, 3 people as symbol for the number of anticipated passengers, and a shovel as a symbol for the infastructure costs.

I guess the more the anticipated ridership is the better and the fewer the infastructure costs the better the chances a project is able to become reality (in theory). The thing I don't understand is the "public operating funding per new passenger": What does that mean? And if there is just 1 dollar symbol in this category is it an advantage for that route, or is it an advantage to have 3 dollar symbols in it?

Thank you for clarification.



https://www.amtrakconnectsus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Amtrak-2021-Corridor-Vision-May27_2021-1.pdf


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Feb 16, 2022)

GoAmtrak said:


> I have a question because of an interpretation problem:
> 
> Most you possibly know the Amtrak 2035 plan. In their details about potential expansion (eg page 53), they distinguish between public operating funding per new passenger, the potential number of new passengers and infrastructure cost per new passenger for full buildout.
> 
> ...


The "public operating funding per new passengers" is the operating subsidy divided by the passengers added. It would be an advantage to have a lower number since that would indicate a more efficient route.


----------



## GoAmtrak (Feb 17, 2022)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> The "public operating funding per new passengers" is the operating subsidy divided by the passengers added. It would be an advantage to have a lower number since that would indicate a more efficient route.


Thank you for clarification.

According to this report (looking at the symbols in the categories public operating funding per new passenger/New passengers/infrastructure for full buildout), the following routes would have the best chances for improvement:
- California: Los Angeles - Pomona - Ontario - Indio: already served by the Sunset Limited, with more frequency planned
- California: Bakersfield - Hanford - Madera - Fresno - Merced - Modesto - Stockton - Oakland: large parts of the route are already served by the San Joaquins, apart from the Merced - Modesto section. The Modesto Union Station is set to re-open for railway service already in 2023.
- Oregon/Washington: Eugene - Portland - Vancouver, WA: already served by the Amtrak Cascades, could add frequency
- Washington/British Columbia: Vancouver, WA - Seattle - Vancouver, BC: already served by the Amtrak Cascades, could add frequency
- Texas: San Antonio - Austin - Fort Worth - Dallas: served by the Texas Eagle, more frequency needed
- Florida: Miami - Tampa: served by the Amtrak Silverstar, could add frequency
- Florida: Miami - Orlando: served by the Amtrak Silverstar, could add frequency
- Florida: Tampa - Orlando - Jacksonville: served by the Silver Meteor, could add frequency
- North Carolina/Virginia: Charlotte - Greensboro - Raleigh - Richmond - Washington D.C.: already served by Amtrak, could add frequency
- New York: New York - Albany - Syracuse - Rochester - Buffalo: served by a good number of trains, could add frequency
- New York/New Jersey/Pennsylvania: New York - Newark - Scranton: many trains until Lake Hopatcong, but the rest of the route is not served at all
- New York/New Jersey/Pennsylvania: New York - Newark - Bethlehem - Allentown: many trains until High Bridge, the rest of the route is not served at all
- Pennsylvania: Reading - Philadelphia: well served east of Morristown, not served at all west of it
- Illinois/Iowa: Chicago, IL - Moline, IL - Davenport - Iowa City: well served east of Princeton, IL, not served at all west of it
- Illinois: Chicago - Springfield - St. Louis, MO: already served by the Lincoln Service, could add frequency
- Illinois/Wisconsin/Minnesota: Chicago, IL - Milwaukee - Saint Paul: served by the Empire Builder/partly the Hiawatha, more frequency needed west of Milwaukee
- Illinois/Indiana/Michigan: Chicago, IL - Gary - Grand Rapids: served by the Pere Marquette, could add frequency
- Illinois/Indiana: Chicago, IL - Indianapolis: very few trains (Cardinal), more frequency badly needed
- Indiana/Kentucky: Indianapolis - Louisville: not served by passenger rail at all
- Indiana/Ohio: Indianapolis - Cincinnati: very few trains (Cardinal), more frequency badly needed
- Ohio: Cleveland - Columbus - Dayton - Cincinnati: not served by passenger rail at all

How many of those routes will gain part of the money first? Which other routes come in surprisingly? I'm looking forward to the next months when first tendencies could show up.


----------



## jis (Feb 17, 2022)

A few observations about areas I am familiar with



GoAmtrak said:


> - Florida: Miami - Tampa: served by the Amtrak Silverstar, could add frequency


Agreed


> - Florida: Miami - Orlando: served by the Amtrak Silverstar, could add frequency


Served by both Silver Star and Silver Meteor. Silver Star via Tampa, Silver Meteor direct. Agree on frequency


> - Florida: Tampa - Orlando - Jacksonville: served by the Silver Meteor, could add frequency


Served by Silver Star. Only Orlando - JAX is served by both the Star and the Meteor. Agree on frequency


> - North Carolina/Virginia: Charlotte - Greensboro - Raleigh - Richmond - Washington D.C.: already served by Amtrak, could add frequency


Charlotte - Washington served via Raleigh by the Carolinian. Raleigh to Washington additionally served by the Silver Star. Needless to say it could do with more service.


> - New York: New York - Albany - Syracuse - Rochester - Buffalo: served by a good number of trains, could add frequency


Agreed. Specially west of Albany is crying for more service.


> - New York/New Jersey/Pennsylvania: New York - Newark - Scranton: many trains until Lake Hopatcong, but the rest of the route is not served at all


It is not served mainly because there is no existing route that has track to run trains on 

This route, if restored, also has potential of being relatively easily extended to Binghamton NY. ESPA and NYSDOT have both stated that that would be their preference for the route of a New York Binghamton service.


> - New York/New Jersey/Pennsylvania: New York - Newark - Bethlehem - Allentown: many trains until High Bridge, the rest of the route is not served at all


It is unlikely that there will ever be service from High Bridge to Allentown. If service is started to Allentown it will most likely be either a faster service via the ex-LV line with almost no stops other than Newark Penn Station and Phillipsburg in NJ or a slower service via the NJT Morristown Line through Hackettstown and Washington NJ on the upgraded Washington Secondary. This routing would not have a stop at Newark Penn Station, but will have stops at Newark Broad Street and possibly Summit, Morristown and Phillipsburg in NJ.

There is a chance that they could run it on the NJT Raritan Valley Line upto Bound Brook and croos over somewhere around there to the ex-LV line. That would allow for a couple of additional stops (Cranford, Plainfield) in NJ than the first alternative I mentioned above.


----------



## neroden (Feb 17, 2022)

GoAmtrak said:


> Thank you for clarification.
> 
> According to this report (looking at the symbols in the categories public operating funding per new passenger/New passengers/infrastructure for full buildout), the following routes would have the best chances for improvement:


I mean, it's a good list! I agree with it!


----------

