# 2021 Infrastructure Bill



## jis (Feb 15, 2021)

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









Biden meets with bipartisan senators to discuss potential infrastructure bill


President Biden met with bipartisan senators on Thursday to discuss the contours of a potential infrastructure package, warning that if the U.S. does not invest in the issue, China is “going …




thehill.com


----------



## MIrailfan (Feb 18, 2021)

The bill needs to be audited for pork and riders, but otherwise yes it needs to pass. Infrastructure is critical.


----------



## John Bredin (Feb 18, 2021)

MIRAILFAN said:


> The bill needs to be audited for pork.


Just as soon as any two people can agree what IS pork.  

Some rural people think money for urban transit is pork. Some people outside the Northeast Corridor think money for the NEC is pork, while some people on the NEC or other corridor-heavy areas think money for long-distance trains is pork. Meanwhile, anti-rail people who don't blink at billions for highways and airports think *any* money for rail is pork.


----------



## MIrailfan (Feb 18, 2021)

Agreed. I''m talking pork like stuff that has nothing to do with infrastructure.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 18, 2021)

MIRAILFAN said:


> Agreed. I''m talking pork like stuff that has nothing to do with infrastructure.


Examples please!!!


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Feb 18, 2021)

Bob Dylan said:


> Examples please!!!


Dear Jim and Friends on AU,

I do believe that there will be positive momentum for our Passenger Rail Network Amtrak after some very urgent matters are behind us. We need to get past the pandemic... which our government is now focusing on. We need to rebuild the economy after the financial devastation and incapacitation caused by the pandemic; and questionable actions of the previous administration... and then get on to rebuilding America. For sure Texas has shown us the immense priority needs for environmentally friendly and renewable energy.

Our rail system will be the centerpiece of a rebuilding of our national transportation system to a more environmentally friendly network; and a way to move people long distances with minimal impact on the environment.

This country has been negligent while prior leaders have been hell bent on narcissism and personal greed. There are enough good people in this nation... and the present government that wants to point our direction towards financial responsibility and environmental respect... to move us in a path forward that will benefit all of us.

The examples are in our minds and hearts. Those of us on this forum are focused in a passionate way... upon our passenger rail system. Beyond the enjoyment of travel that respects the historic and natural beauty of America... we represent a wholesome perspective on the enjoyment of our country and its natural assets... in a responsible way.

Let's get the government... the 2021 infrastructure bill... and the folks who represent us... to act in a responsible way so we can enjoy our precious moments on earth in this fine country with guilt free living.

Thank you Jim... with the inspiration you give us all for saying what needs to be said. Let us passionate RR fans be a testament to what responsible living is all about!


----------



## MIrailfan (Feb 18, 2021)

Bob Dylan said:


> Examples please!!!


 like i n the covid relief bill when someone added gender studies for Pakistan.


----------



## MARC Rider (Feb 19, 2021)

MIRAILFAN said:


> The bill needs to be audited for pork and riders, but otherwise yes it needs to pass. Infrastructure is critical.


Hey, if a little pork is needed to get the bill passed, than I hereby declare it kosher!


----------



## jis (Feb 19, 2021)

MIRAILFAN said:


> like i n the covid relief bill when someone added gender studies for Pakistan.


Your example is a poor one and mostly incorrect.

The Bill you refer to was a combined COVID Relief and 2021 Appropriation Bill. The Pakistan thing was in the State Department section of the 2021 Appropriation part dealing with Foreign Aid, and not in the COVID part. So sorry - fail! Come up with another example.

I am not suggesting that there are never inappropriate things stuck into bills. All I am saying is that this was not an example of one.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 20, 2021)

MIRAILFAN said:


> like i n the covid relief bill when someone added gender studies for Pakistan.


Rounding error, EVERY Spending Bill in our History has Pork in it, for example Mitch McConnell has sent Billions to Kentucky, as has every other Member of Congress and the Senate since George Washington first took the Oath of Office!

Every Single Federal Dollar spent is someone's Necessity and others Pork.

I agree " Studies" and " Special Interest" Riders are full of Pork, that's why Washington has many more Lobbyists than members of Congress!

Amtrak is "Pork" to lots of folks, especially so called " Conservatives".


----------



## MARC Rider (Feb 20, 2021)

I once spent a week on the Hill as part of an executive development program for Federal scientists. On our first day we had a talk from a person who gave orientations to newly elected Members. She pointed out to us that one of their main interests was to get re-elected, and to do that, they had to pay very close attention to the needs of their districts and states. Obviously, sending $$$$ back home is a very effective way of doing that. I made the mistake of asking about how the balance their need to serve their local constituents with the need to consider the National interest. She laughed in my face.  (Well, she was more polite than that, but the message I got was that the Members really do care more about their districts and states than they care about the Nation.)


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 20, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> I once spent a week on the Hill as part of an executive development program for Federal scientists. On our first day we had a talk from a person who gave orientations to newly elected Members. She pointed out to us that one of their main interests was to get re-elected, and to do that, they had to pay very close attention to the needs of their districts and states. Obviously, sending $$$$ back home is a very effective way of doing that. I made the mistake of asking about how the balance their need to serve their local constituents with the need to consider the National interest. She laughed in my face.  (Well, she was more polite than that, but the message I got was that the Members really do care more about their districts and states than the care about the Nation.)


And that's the Rest of the True Story!


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Feb 20, 2021)

Bob Dylan said:


> And that's the Rest of the True Story!



Yup... nothing's changed... it's all about votes, power, and money.

Soooo... who's looking out for the 'little people?'


----------



## neroden (Mar 2, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> I once spent a week on the Hill as part of an executive development program for Federal scientists. On our first day we had a talk from a person who gave orientations to newly elected Members. She pointed out to us that one of their main interests was to get re-elected, and to do that, they had to pay very close attention to the needs of their districts and states. Obviously, sending $$$$ back home is a very effective way of doing that. I made the mistake of asking about how the balance their need to serve their local constituents with the need to consider the National interest. She laughed in my face.  (Well, she was more polite than that, but the message I got was that the Members really do care more about their districts and states than they care about the Nation.)


The correct answer to that question is, "What do your local constituents think is in the National interest?". Think about it for a minute and you'll see it...

Local districts will vote to support a Congressmember in doing something which materially hurts their district if *those voters* consider it in the national interest, but only if *those voters* think so. Some districts have more altruistic voters than others, and often they're altruistic only in very specific and targeted ways -- "Sure, we'd lose polluting jobs in this district, but my children who have already moved elsewhere will need a liveable climate". Or "Sure, we'd lose military contractor jobs in this district, but since my good friend who lives elsewhere got maimed in a stupid pointless war, I hate war and want to abolish the military, so I'm willing to take that." Other districts have voters who think the national interest is served by hurting people they don't like -- "I'm willing to cause a recession in my district in order to hurt Hollywood!!!" (Sigh.) So even when it's about the national interest, it's still about your local voters.


----------



## Palmland (Jul 29, 2021)

Saw this newspaper summary of items in the compromise infrastructure bill that was advanced by the senate this week to formal debate. Still a long way to being approved but a good start. In addition to funding for airports, bridges, broadband it includes:
**********
Also included is:

$70 billion for power infrastructure 

$66 billion for Amtrak 

$55 billion investing in clean drinking water 

$50 billion for water infrastructure 

$21 billion towards environmental remediation 

$11 billion for transportation safety projects 

$1 billion towards reconnecting communities divided by interstates


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 29, 2021)

Palmland said:


> Saw this newspaper summary of items in the compromise infrastructure bill that was advanced by the senate this week to formal debate. Still a long way to being approved but a good start. In addition to funding for airports, bridges, broadband it includes:
> **********
> Also included is:
> 
> ...


As was said, it's a Good start!


----------



## Cal (Jul 29, 2021)

What would the 66 billion go to in Amtrak?


----------



## jis (Jul 29, 2021)

Cal said:


> What would the 66 billion go to in Amtrak?


Here is the breakdown as spelled out on WH.gov:


> Within these totals, $22 billion would be provided as grants to Amtrak, $24 billion as federal-state partnership grants for Northeast Corridor modernization, $12 billion for partnership grants for intercity rail service, including high-speed rail, $5 billion for rail improvement and safety grants, and $3 billion for grade crossing safety improvements.


----------



## jis (Aug 2, 2021)

Latest analysis from RPA of the various Infrastructure Bill in progress...









Draft of Senate Bill Reveals Full Scope of Rail Funding | Rail Passengers Association | Washington, DC







www.railpassengers.org





Here is the full text of the STIA 2021 Draft Bill presented as a Substitution Amendment in the Senate...



https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21031186/edw21a09.pdf


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Aug 2, 2021)

jis said:


> Latest analysis from RPA of the various Infrastructure Bill in progress...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Reason to be optimistic.


----------



## jis (Aug 2, 2021)

One very interesting new section dealing with expansion of Long Distance Service is section 22214. It forces Amtrak to produce a Long Distance Service Expansion study, and sends the clear message that the ConnectUS proposal is not the be all and end all of what Amtrak can get away with for the next 15 years. There is even specific funding provided for the study, and specific reporting requirements, so it will be difficult for Amtrak to duck this one. Though in the past even after producing studies Amtrak has basically thrown them into the trashcan and fired the group that produced the study - recall the PRIIA Section 210 PIPs, from which all that Amtrak retained was the destruction of the F&B service, and basically ignored anything that had a whiff of service enhancement or expansion.

Here are some extracts from the section:



> SEC. 22214. AMTRAK DAILY LONG-DISTANCE SERVICE STUDY.
> (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to evaluate the restoration of daily intercity rail passenger service along—
> (1) any Amtrak long-distance routes that, as of the date of enactment of this Act, were discontinued; and
> (2) any Amtrak long-distance routes that, as of the date of enactment of this Act, occur on a non-daily basis.
> ...


----------



## mlanoue (Aug 2, 2021)

Interesting. Has there ever been a real push before from Congress to look into restoring routes that existed in April of 1971--pre-Amtrak?


----------



## Willbridge (Aug 2, 2021)

mlanoue said:


> Interesting. Has there ever been a real push before from Congress to look into restoring routes that existed in April of 1971--pre-Amtrak?


In the mid-1970's there was a requirement to start up one new route a year to be run as a two-year experiment. That was how the _Pioneer_ was started up in 1977. That conflicted with the subsequent OMB-driven cutback schemes and I am not sure what became of that process.

There have been many attempts at restoring pre-1971 routes. As a general rule of thumb, odd regulatory rulings excluded, any route that survived till 1968 with two trains a day or with one train a day on an openly hostile railway (Southern Pacific) is worth considering. And, as even Amtrak admits, there are places with much more population than in 1971.


----------



## neroden (Aug 4, 2021)

We should still push Amtrak on the PIPs. Amtrak's disregard for Congressional desires there is still offensive and the PIPs still had good advice in them.


----------



## Brian Battuello (Aug 4, 2021)

Maybe they'll bring back the Hassayampa Flyer. I rode two round trips when I lived in Phoenix, just for fun. 

Through Pullmans from Chicago to Phoenix until 1967. Ash Fork down the Peavine. Talk about early snowbirds!


----------



## Qapla (Aug 5, 2021)

Infrastructure Bill: Amtrak Getting New Mandate, Reduced Focus on Profit (businessinsider.com)


Sounds interesting - if it comes to pass


----------



## jis (Aug 5, 2021)

Qapla said:


> Infrastructure Bill: Amtrak Getting New Mandate, Reduced Focus on Profit (businessinsider.com)
> 
> 
> Sounds interesting - if it comes to pass


Perhaps you missed the extended discussion of this buill in this long running thread:





__





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






MODERATOR NOTE: Merged the 2 threads


----------



## Qapla (Aug 5, 2021)

Yes, I guess I missed that thread ... I looked for a thread that addressed the change of mandate and didn't see one ... sorry

Thanks for merging it


----------



## jis (Aug 10, 2021)

Senate Passes $1 Trillion Infrastructure Bill, Handing Biden a Bipartisan Win


The approval came after months of negotiations and despite deficit concerns, reflecting an appetite in both parties for the long-awaited spending package.




www.nytimes.com





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.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 10, 2021)

jis said:


> Senate Passes $1 Trillion Infrastructure Bill, Handing Biden a Bipartisan Win
> 
> 
> The approval came after months of negotiations and despite deficit concerns, reflecting an appetite in both parties for the long-awaited spending package.
> ...


Yep, House Tepublicans and " Progressive Democrats" will add so many amendment that the Senate will never agree too, that this Bill is Months, if not years away!

And the House is on August " Recess", aka Vacation till after Labor Day!


----------



## Dakota 400 (Aug 10, 2021)

Bob Dylan said:


> House Tepublicans and " Progressive Democrats" will add so many amendment that the Senate will never agree too, that this Bill is Months, if not years away!



I am more hopeful. Early this afternoon, CNN reported that a group of moderate Democrats are encouraging the Speaker to bring this newly Senate passed Bill to the Floor for a stand alone vote. The "horsetrading" that went on in the Senate that was successful in getting this Bill passed must now occur in the House. For the Bill to pass with the number of Republicans supporting it is most encouraging to me. It proves Government can work when "the adults" are in charge.


----------



## JontyMort (Aug 11, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> I am more hopeful. Early this afternoon, CNN reported that a group of moderate Democrats are encouraging the Speaker to bring this newly Senate passed Bill to the Floor for a stand alone vote. The "horsetrading" that went on in the Senate that was successful in getting this Bill passed must now occur in the House. For the Bill to pass with the number of Republicans supporting it is most encouraging to me. It proves Government can work when "the adults" are in charge.


Genuine question from the other side of the pond: is passing a Bill through the Senate before it goes to the House (i) unusual, or (ii) invariable practice, or (iii) it depends?


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 11, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> I am more hopeful. Early this afternoon, CNN reported that a group of moderate Democrats are encouraging the Speaker to bring this newly Senate passed Bill to the Floor for a stand alone vote. The "horsetrading" that went on in the Senate that was successful in getting this Bill passed must now occur in the House. For the Bill to pass with the number of Republicans supporting it is most encouraging to me. It proves Government can work when "the adults" are in charge.


Of course the moderates are encouraging the Speaker to pass the bill immediately. That gives them more leverage on the contents of the reconciliation bill, which contains stuff that no Republican will vote for. The real "horsetrading" is going on between the Speaker and these moderate Democrats. Of course, everyone knows that they can't play this game of chicken too long, and the moderates will have to give up stuff that the progressives really want, and vice versa for the progressives. Everybody on that side of the aisle wants a win for the President and their party, though, so despite some of the posturing, I'm hopeful they'll come up with something that everyone can live with. Unfortunately, the folks on the other side of the aisle equally want a defeat for the President and his party and are willing to do what it takes to inflict one, even if it hurts their constituents. While it's nice to see that 19 of the 50 broke ranks for this, I'm keeping my champagne bottle corked until we start seeing more of a trend (and the infrastructure bill gets signed and passed.)

By the way, I wonder if there will be additional funding for passenger rail/transit in the reconciliation bill.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Aug 11, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> By the way, I wonder if there will be additional funding for passenger rail/transit in the reconciliation bill.



My understanding is that there is.
Not sure if it’s direct rail funding or indirect; this particular bill talked a big HSR game.


----------



## chrsjrcj (Aug 11, 2021)

I think the bill the Senate passed includes too much funding for highways. Unlike most, I’m okay with the House sitting on it to get it right. What we really can’t afford to do is continue pouring money into new roads if we want to tackle CO2 emissions and make the train a viable alternative.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Aug 11, 2021)

chrsjrcj said:


> I think the bill the Senate passed includes too much funding for highways. Unlike most, I’m okay with the House sitting on it to get it right. What we really can’t afford to do is continue pouring money into new roads if we want to tackle CO2 emissions and make the train a viable alternative.


For better or for worse, there has to be a lot of highway funding. That’s the whole point of compromise.

That said, I’m definitely with you; it’s better than the first rounds of haggling however, which had more than double the amount for roads.

I was dismayed to see the transit portion of the bill mostly slashed, when such a large portion of citizens rely on it.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 11, 2021)

JontyMort said:


> Genuine question from the other side of the pond: is passing a Bill through the Senate before it goes to the House (i) unusual, or (ii) invariable practice, or (iii) it depends?


The answer is it depends.

The Constitution Mandates that all Tax/ Revenue Bills must originate in the House, so with that exception, it can be either body that passes a Bill first.( the House does introduce and Pass Many more Bills than the Senate)

Most Bills that die are due to the Senate not agreeing to even take them up!


----------



## jis (Aug 11, 2021)

Those who read the actual bill that was passed will notice that it is worded as a substitution amendment to a House Bill HR 3684. So technically the original text in the bill originated in the House, and it is replaced in its entirety by this amendment.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Aug 11, 2021)

jis said:


> Those who read the actual bill that was passed will notice that it is worded as a substitution amendment to a House Bill HR 3684. So technically the original text in the bill originated in the House, and it is replaced in its entirety by this amendment.



Any chance I could imposition you to drop a link to the actual bill?


----------



## JontyMort (Aug 11, 2021)

Bob Dylan said:


> The answer is it depends.
> 
> The Constitution Mandates that all Tax/ Revenue Bills must originate in the House, so with that exception, it can be either body that passes a Bill first.( the House does introduce and Pass Many more Bills than the Senate)
> 
> Most Bills that die are due to the Senate not agreeing to even take them up!


Thanks. I suppose I was assuming this was a tax/revenue bill, but it clearly isn’t. The situation here in the UK is similar, in that money bills are really the preserve of the lower house** but anything else may originate in either house. In practice, most business originates in the Commons, but the Lords is useful for kicking off the odd non-partisan reform.

** The current situation is a “temporary” solution to the constitutional crisis of 1910/1911 - when the upper house blocked the government’s budget. We’re still awaiting reform 110 years later.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 11, 2021)

JontyMort said:


> Thanks. I suppose I was assuming this was a tax/revenue bill, but it clearly isn’t. The situation here in the UK is similar, in that money bills are really the preserve of the lower house** but anything else may originate in either house. In practice, most business originates in the Commons, but the Lords is useful for kicking off the odd non-partisan reform.
> 
> ** The current situation is a “temporary” solution to the constitutional crisis of 1910/1911 - when the upper house blocked the government’s budget. We’re still awaiting reform 110 years later.


Lots of us sometimes wish we had a Parlimentary System so we could get rid of those Public Servants quicker that are not doing their jobs, are corrupt, or incompetent!


----------



## sttom (Aug 11, 2021)

JontyMort said:


> Genuine question from the other side of the pond: is passing a Bill through the Senate before it goes to the House (i) unusual, or (ii) invariable practice, or (iii) it depends?



There is also the fun situation where two competing bills are introduced in both Houses and they have to go to a conference committee to hammer out the differences, then both Houses have to pass the joint bill before it goes to the President.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Aug 11, 2021)

sttom said:


> There is also the fun situation where two competing bills are introduced in both Houses and they have to go to a conference committee to hammer out the differences, then both Houses have to pass the joint bill before it goes to the President.



True and I think we all should hope that a Conference Committee is required to develop a third Bill that might not be Amtrak friendly. 



chrsjrcj said:


> I think the bill the Senate passed includes too much funding for highways. Unlike most, I’m okay with the House sitting on it to get it right. What we really can’t afford to do is continue pouring money into new roads if we want to tackle CO2 emissions and make the train a viable alternative.



I agree in part with your post. In parts of our country, and the Fort Lauderdale area is one of them, the traffic congestion that exists needs to be "fixed". Cars aren't going to go away from local in-community and close environs travel. Improved public transit would help, but, nonetheless, it is going to take many years before our auto centered culture really changes. 

Money--major amounts of it--are needed for highway and street repairs. What is also needed is major oversight of the work that is done that is QUALITY highway/street work. The Senate Bill moves us along in the direction of needed funding. Lacking is how will the spending of this money overseen.

Then, let me mention bridges that need to be rebuilt, repaired, and a few places that require another bridge. There happens to be a certain bridge that crosses the Ohio River between Covington, Kentucky and Cincinnati, Ohio that needs help; the traffic counts more than warrant another bridge to be built in that area. A serious fire that closed that bridge late 2020 caused serious issues and had an economic impact on Ohio and Kentucky. It's no coincidence that the Senior Senator from Kentucky was a supporter of this Bill. We'll never know what he has heard from the business interests in Kentucky. I'll bet it has been plenty! The fact that the Junior Senator from Ohio was one of two lead negotiators to get this Bill passed: I expect he has heard much from those whom he represents as well.


----------



## neroden (Aug 11, 2021)

There's too much vital stuff which has to be passed through reconciliation; in the House, the progressives (94 of them) have far more leverage than the "moderates" (19 of them) so the reconciliation bill is going to pass before this highway-heavy "bipartisan" bill is passed; they want to make sure their priorities get done before handing a gift to the highway-lovers. Pelosi's already made it clear that the "bipartisan" bill will wait for the reconciliation bill to go first.

However, before EITHER of these bills pass, the debt limit crisis is going to hit.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 11, 2021)

neroden said:


> There's too much vital stuff which has to be passed through reconciliation; in the House, the progressives (94 of them) have far more leverage than the "moderates" (19 of them) . . .


I'm not sure why you think that the progressives have more leverage than the moderates. It would seem that fewer of them need to defect in order for the bill to fail. In any event, my understanding is that, posturing aside, the entire caucus is focused on passing both bills, as it is very important that they show the country that they are the "adults in the room," as they're getting virtually no help from the other side. Of course it's going to be highway-heavy; the vast majority of Americans and their goods are travel on the highways. That's not going to change in our lifetimes, unless the apocalypse comes, in which case we'll have a lot more to worry about than the contents of the infrastructure and reconciliation bills.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Aug 11, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> the entire caucus is focused on passing both bills, as it is very important that they show the country that they are the "adults in the room," as they're getting virtually no help from the other side.



AOC, maybe the most progressive member of the House caucus, said weeks ago that she(they) wanted the President to be successful. By doing so, they will increase the country's realizations that they are part of "the adults in the room". It's good for the country; it's good politics. 

Maybe a pollyanish hope, but there are GOP House members whose Districts would significantly benefit from the use of the funds in this Bill. Specifically, the House Members who represent the Cincinnati area and 2-3 other Members who represent Districts in Southwestern Ohio and Southeastern Indiana. There is the potential of more GOP support, I think, if the specter of the 45th President of the United States looms less and less as time pass. That specter was of little concern for 19 GOP members of the Senate.


----------



## jis (Aug 12, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Any chance I could imposition you to drop a link to the actual bill?





https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21031186/edw21a09.pdf


----------



## neroden (Aug 13, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> I'm not sure why you think that the progressives have more leverage than the moderates. It would seem that fewer of them need to defect in order for the bill to fail. In any event, my understanding is that, posturing aside, the entire caucus is focused on passing both bills, as it is very important that they show the country that they are the "adults in the room," as they're getting virtually no help from the other side. Of course it's going to be highway-heavy; the vast majority of Americans and their goods are travel on the highways. That's not going to change in our lifetimes, unless the apocalypse comes, in which case we'll have a lot more to worry about than the contents of the infrastructure and reconciliation bills.



Specifically, the so-called moderates who think that they can get the infrastructure bill to go first (with no guarantee that they'll vote for reconciliation afterwards) have no leverage to do that. The reconciliation bill is going to go first and everyone knows this now, and Pelosi has said so. The progressives already used their leverage to make that happen (and they have promised to vote for the infrastructure bill after they're assured that reconciliation is happening, and they will). So it's pretty clear what will happen, both bills will pass the House, reconciliation first. 

So this is an important point about how leverage works in politics: The so-called moderates in the House had less leverage precisely because the Senate "moderates" couldn't credibly make the logrolling promise to vote for reconciliation once the infrastructure bill was done -- because the Senate "moderates" have low credibility and are not trusted to vote for reconciliation once they've "got what they wanted". 

Because the House progressives promised to vote for the infrastructure bill if the reconciliation bill was passed first, and they have a reputation for keeping their promises, the progressives have more leverage. Trustworthiness is a form of power.

But like I said, the debt limit crisis will hit the Senate first.


----------



## PaTrainFan (Aug 24, 2021)

Infrastructure passed big hurdle in the House. Nancy struck a compromise with moderates pass the budget resolution and advance infrastructure. Final passage targeted for Sept. 27.









House Democrats clear path toward passing $3.5 trillion budget bill and infrastructure plan after breaking stalemate


The House voted to approve a $3.5 trillion budget resolution, advance a bipartisan infrastructure bill and move forward with sweeping voting rights legislation.




www.cnbc.com


----------



## danasgoodstuff (Sep 2, 2021)

neroden said:


> We should still push Amtrak on the PIPs. Amtrak's disregard for Congressional desires there is still offensive and the PIPs still had good advice in them.


PIPs?


----------



## Eric S (Sep 2, 2021)

danasgoodstuff said:


> PIPs?


Performance Improvement Plans.

A 2008 law required Amtrak to prepare Performance Improvement Plans for each of the long distance routes. You may still be able to find the reports floating around the internet. (Not entirely sure, though, as I haven't searched for them for a number of years.) Essentially, the reports laid out suggestions for improvements to the routes, including schedule changes, new Thruway connections, staffing changes, and more. A few of the suggested improvements were put in place (one that comes to mind is the Newton - Wichita - Oklahoma City Thruway connection to/from the Southwest Chief and Heartland Flyer) but many were never acted on.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Oct 1, 2021)

I’m beginning the think the infrastructure bill may not happen at all due infighting/posturing on one side and obstruction on the other. Even if the Dems to get their act together, time is of the essence. Yesterday’s statements from Manchin make me think it’s plausible he could switch parties for the last 4 years of his senate career and then retire. The Dems have many 75 year old plus Senators if one passes away in a red state unexpectedly that also would make McConnell majority leader. I can bet money on McConnell recalling the Senate version of the bill that previously passed. Maybe it’s legal, maybe it’s not.

So what would it mean to Amtrak if the infrastructure bill doesn’t pass? My thoughts are one that’s at least 50 percent smaller gets passed or maybe even doesn’t get passed if the GOP gets either the house or senate in 2022. Since Amtrak is Biden’s baby I don’t see a lot of good will going across the aisle. I see it as disastrous for Amtrak if it doesn’t pass, especially with Amtrak’s current management and their less than sincere support of the national network. Sad state of affairs with both side so dysfunctional basic infrastructure can’t get passed.


----------



## Wolverine72 (Oct 1, 2021)

Amtrak was never gonna get rich off of Biden. All that Amtrak talk was just “Ole Joe from Scranton PA.” campaign rhetoric.


----------



## MARC Rider (Oct 1, 2021)

Wolverine72 said:


> Amtrak was never gonna get rich off of Biden. All that Amtrak talk was just “Ole Joe from Scranton PA.” campaign rhetoric.


President Biden has nothing to do with what's going on in Congress. And as far as Congress is concerned, I would take all the sensationslist reporting from the news media with a grain of salt. Something is going to get approved. It will probably have significantly more money for Amtrak than has been appropriated in past years, but it will probably be a good bit less than what was in the House bill. And remember that funding for Amtrak is not the major bone of contention among the various factions, if it's even considered at all. In a multi-trillion dollar budget, a few billion is rounding error.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Oct 1, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Something is going to get approved



Like you, something is going to get approved. There is a Bridge across the Ohio River that surely is of great importance to Senator McConnell. What we are witnessing is the "sausage making process" of getting legislation approved. It's not a pretty sight, but it has worked for many, many years.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Oct 1, 2021)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> I’m beginning the think the infrastructure bill may not happen at all due infighting/posturing on one side and obstruction on the other. Even if the Dems to get their act together, time is of the essence. Yesterday’s statements from Manchin make me think it’s plausible he could switch parties for the last 4 years of his senate career and then retire. The Dems have many 75 year old plus Senators if one passes away in a red state unexpectedly that also would make McConnell majority leader. I can bet money on McConnell recalling the Senate version of the bill that previously passed. Maybe it’s legal, maybe it’s not.
> 
> So what would it mean to Amtrak if the infrastructure bill doesn’t pass? My thoughts are one that’s at least 50 percent smaller gets passed or maybe even doesn’t get passed if the GOP gets either the house or senate in 2022. Since Amtrak is Biden’s baby I don’t see a lot of good will going across the aisle. I see it as disastrous for Amtrak if it doesn’t pass, especially with Amtrak’s current management and their less than sincere support of the national network. Sad state of affairs with both side so dysfunctional basic infrastructure can’t get passed.



As others have said, news is sensationalist. It’s how they make money. I certainly re-learned that lesson when reading the NY Times article about the bill this morning.

Something will get approved, and I doubt Amtrak’s current funding will be touched to a great degree, if at all. It’s really not a subject of hot debate.

if Amtrak gets no money, they will continue, and somehow find a way to pay for the stuff they’ve ordered, and hopefully rely on states to get some other problems fixed.


----------



## lordsigma (Oct 1, 2021)

It’ll get passed eventually.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Oct 1, 2021)

lordsigma said:


> It’ll get passed eventually.



I have no objections in the legislation for money devoted for Amtrak. Overdue and needed to be certain. 

On the larger $3.5 trillion proposal, I do have some concerns about certain elements of that bill.


----------



## pennyk (Oct 2, 2021)

MODERATOR NOTE: Please limit your discussion in this thread (in the Rail Advocacy Forum) to the Infrastructure Bill as it relates to Amtrak. Also please avoid unrelated political discussions.

Thank you for your continued cooperation.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Oct 3, 2021)

I have a good and honest question for all:

Lets assume this bill passes with flying colors, and rail gets a seriously massive amount of cash.
In talking with some of my more conservative friends, nearly all agree that the US picked transportation winners (flight, and road) and all but purposefully brought down rail transportation. 

While they all agree that rail should be funded (or at least not financially hindered), they fear the money being spent on Amtrak will not actually go towards shovels in the ground and railcars rolling off the assembly line. Rather, and more specifically, they fear the money will be spent on union fees, new "programs" appeasing current social trends, poor management and deficiencies and other money holes of the sort. One did add environmental reviews to this list, but I pointed out that other countries are also conducting environmental reviews and getting rail lines built no problem, so we concluded that complaining about it is a non starter.

Is this a rational fear in your opinions, or do you feel that the money will indeed go to where its most needed, and one shouldn't worry about it. 
Feel free to moderate if needed.


----------



## basketmaker (Oct 3, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> I have a good and honest question for all:
> 
> Lets assume this bill passes with flying colors, and rail gets a seriously massive amount of cash.
> In talking with some of my more conservative friends, nearly all agree that the US picked transportation winners (flight, and road) and all but purposefully brought down rail transportation.
> ...


Your point is factual in my conservative opinion. But I also feel that the reasons you stated that where the monies will go is also applicable to air and road. It is they are so highly subsidized that the waste gets lost in the shuffle. Where rail (i.e. Amtrak) tries to stretch the crumbs to make a meal. As for the environmental aspect (again I am conservative) rail by far is the one of the most friendly ways to go. Air is one of the worst.


----------



## MARC Rider (Oct 3, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> I have a good and honest question for all:
> 
> Lets assume this bill passes with flying colors, and rail gets a seriously massive amount of cash.
> In talking with some of my more conservative friends, nearly all agree that the US picked transportation winners (flight, and road) and all but purposefully brought down rail transportation.
> ...


As far as "union fees" go, I hope your conservative friends realize that the airlines, aircraft manufacturing companies, automakers, highway construction trades, etc. are also unionized. 

Also, poor management is not something confined to the public sector, and it seems that poor management in the private sector is rewarded, not punished, the fates of the most recent Boeing CEOs illustrates. I believe the term is "golden parachute."

Finally, what kind of " 'programs' appeasing current social trends" are they talking about? Unless they're offended by the idea of the low-level grunts earning decent wages and benefits and being treated with some respect.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Oct 3, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> As far as "union fees" go, I hope your conservative friends realize that the airlines, aircraft manufacturing companies, automakers, highway construction trades, etc. are also unionized.
> 
> Also, poor management is not something confined to the public sector, and it seems that poor management in the private sector is rewarded, not punished, the fates of the most recent Boeing CEOs illustrates. I believe the term is "golden parachute."
> 
> Finally, what kind of " 'programs' appeasing current social trends" are they talking about? Unless they're offended by the idea of the low-level grunts earning decent wages and benefits and being treated with some respect.



I'm sure they are well aware of union fees, and while I would need to ask directly, I'm sure the large union fees in other industries concern them too.

By social programs, I actually meant stuff along the DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) side of the coin, and initiatives along those lines.


----------



## jis (Oct 3, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> One did add environmental reviews to this list, but I pointed out that other countries are also conducting environmental reviews and getting rail lines built no problem, so we concluded that complaining about it is a non starter.


It should be noted that many countries who are trying to leverage the efficiency of rail have very aggressive electrification programs either already in place or on its way. I think US at present is very very far from that, and is at present in the usual rear guard "we are exceptional and we don't need it" mode. Consequently in US Environmental Review is primarily used to delay and block, whereas in many other countries they are carried out rapidly and usually are used to arrive at quick consensus on what to do often involving much use of political will and risk taking to force the issue.

Countries that have successfully pushed an effective environmental agenda as far as rail goes have tended to include a rolling plan for electrification, thus better managing the alleged high cost. Even UK has finally stumbled upon that after the Great Western fiasco and the Scottish success taught them a live lesson.

Interestingly Amtrak's latest plan has talked about a similar rolling plan though who knows which quick sand that will fall into here.

Meanwhile even India with all its US-like pitfalls and then some, manages to electrify over 4,000 route mile (yes, route miles, not track miles) year over year for five years, and install Solar collectors and battery farms wherever they can in a rolling program. Just the regenerative braking in general reduces power requirement by 15% to 20%. Of course there also needs to be a general consensus in the society about what to do about base load since Sun don't shine all the time and wind don't blow all the time and you can only do so much with batteries.


----------



## basketmaker (Oct 3, 2021)

jis said:


> It should be noted that many countries who are trying to leverage the efficiency of rail have very aggressive electrification programs either already in place or on its way. I think US at present is very very far from that, and is at present in the usual rear guard "we are exceptional and we don't need it" mode. Consequently in US Environmental Review is primarily used to delay and block, whereas in many other countries they are carried out rapidly and usually are used to arrive at quick consensus on what to do often involving much use of political will and risk taking to force the issue.
> 
> Countries that have successfully pushed an effective environmental agenda as far as rail goes have tended to include a rolling plan for electrification, thus better managing the alleged high cost. Even UK has finally stumbled upon that after the Great Western fiasco and the Scottish success taught them a live lesson.
> 
> ...


Not related but used to camp in Sebastion Inlet. Never knew the area code. Love the 3-2-1 relation!


----------



## jis (Oct 3, 2021)

basketmaker said:


> Not related but used to camp in Sebastion Inlet. Never knew the area code. Love the 3-2-1 relation!


It's a Brevard County thing. The County actually specially petitioned Bell System way back when to finagle the area code for themselves. Apparently everyone thought it was a sufficiently cool idea to make the effort to make it so. So Strictly speaking only the Brevard side of the inlet is 321. Indian River County on the other side is something else - 772 seems to be what people I know there have. But of course these days with portable numbers anyone can have any number, like I still retain my NJ 973 number here in Brevard County for continuity.


----------



## basketmaker (Oct 3, 2021)

jis said:


> It's a Brevard County thing. The County actually specially petitioned Bell System way back when to finagle the area code for themselves. Apparently everyone thought it was a sufficiently cool idea to make the effort to make it so. So Strictly speaking only the Brevard side of the inlet is 321. Indian River County on the other side is something else - 772 seems to be what people I know there have. But of course these days with portable numbers anyone can have any number, like I still retain my NJ 973 number here in Brevard County for continuity.


Oh heck it's been a while. Everything was 305 for me in Hialeah. And 813 for Naples (worked for Naples Airlines). We did have the new "TouchTone" phone though!


----------



## Shanson (Oct 4, 2021)

I'm curious as to what you consider "union fees." Businesses whose workforce are unionized sometimes provide office space to union representatives, but don't directly fund the unions. The unions get their money from dues paid by members (that is, the individual employees, not the employer).


----------



## danasgoodstuff (Oct 4, 2021)

Yes, there is no cost associated with having a unionized workforce, be it higher wages, costs associated with work rules, or whatever, that is more than a tiny fraction of a drop in the bucket here. Railroads are extremely capital intensive. Laying track, buying new rolling stock, bring stations up to snuff, environmental studies, feasibility studies, all these things are crazy expensive, and in many cases made much more so by the on again off again nature of Amtrak funding which hampers good planning.


----------



## Shanson (Oct 4, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> I have a good and honest question for all:
> 
> Lets assume this bill passes with flying colors, and rail gets a seriously massive amount of cash.
> In talking with some of my more conservative friends, nearly all agree that the US picked transportation winners (flight, and road) and all but purposefully brought down rail transportation.
> ...


No. Your conservative friends don't really understand unions. See previous resonses.


----------



## 87YJ (Oct 4, 2021)

I belonged to 2 unions Teamsters summer time while in college and 11 years with the local Machinist union. Never put the local unions as all wonderful or bad, because some are wonderful and some are bad. You learn to change jobs until you get a good shop to be in and a good union to support you.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Oct 4, 2021)

Shanson said:


> No. Your conservative friends don't really understand unions. See previous resonses.


it was merely a question and I can certainly get more information from them to get a better understanding of what they fully meant, which is far more productive than simpleton statements that only address a small, cherry-picked, part of a post or question.

from what I can remember of the now 2 month old conversation, they mentioned scenarios regarding labor fees costing more than labor should (to a degree which they feel is out of hand). I’m sure they would agree that all need a decent wage.

It could be my fault for ‘misnomer-ing’ their idea, which might be better described as excessive staffing, little to no competition, antiquated regulations, and over-generous contracts thwarting any attempt to keep the costs of rail down. In their prediction, these issues would eat through the 66 billion rather quickly, and may prevent actual projects getting completed (in a timely and non-costly way). To be fair, this has happened with other infrastructure projects like the 2nd Avenue tunnel, the Big Dig, and the CHSRA (at least to my understanding. If I’m wrong, feel free to politely correct and cite).

disclaimer: I’m not anti union, as per my membership in the American Federation of Musicians.

I will report back.


----------



## MARC Rider (Oct 4, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> from what I can remember of the conversation, they mentioned scenarios regarding labor fees costing more than labor should (to a degree which they feel is out of hand). I’m sure they would agree that all need a decent wage.
> 
> It could be my fault for ‘misnomer-ing’ their idea, which might be better described as excessive staffing, little to no competition, antiquated regulations, and over-generous contracts thwarting any attempt to keep the costs of rail down.
> 
> ...



"Labor fees" might mean that in certain union shops, in order to work there, you have to join the union and pay their dues. This might annoy certain libertarian-minded people, as they might feel that you shouldn't have to belong to an organization if you don't want to. There's also a political angle that I don't want to go into too much detail, but by joining a union, your dues might go to fund political activities with which you don't agree. I don't know enough about how unions fund their favored political candidates, so I can't really say whether this is a real concern. For all I know, the unions do separate fundraising efforts for candidates, and members who don't support a particular candidate don't have to contribute. Or maybe general union funds go to the candidates. As I said, I don't know. Of course, if I work for a corporation, or own stock in one and the management of that company funds a candidate I really don't like, there's really not a whole lot I can do., either.

"A decent wage" is a very slippery term, indeed. I mean, I think a corporate CEO is definitely worth a salary of up to a couple hundred thousand a year, but the corporate CEOs do their darndest to get paid 10, 50, 100, 150 million a year. Are dining car attendants who make $20-$40 an hour overpaid? Well, most restaurant workers commonly make under $15/hour and may not even get to work 40 hours a week. Is that a "decent wage?"

As far as unions fostering "excessive staffing," well, based on all of the experiences recounted here, I would say that Amtrak's problem is that there's insufficient staffing to do the job right. Amtrak is not the only company with the problem, by the way. Practically every company I do business with is understaffed, whether they're unionized or not. 

"Little or no competition?" With what? Amtrak competes with people driving their cars burning underpriced gasoline on taxpayer-funded highways and traffic law enforcement. Driving is significantly cheaper than riding in any form of public transportation and it's some pretty potent competition. It's cheaper because a lot of the true cost of driving is an externality in the form of pollution and greenhouse gases.

"Antiquated regulations?" Maybe. But on the other hand, updating the regulations might make them stricter and increase costs. Then there's the issue of "regulatory capture," though I don't think Amtrak is powerful enough to be accused of that.

"Over-generous [labor?] contracts?" -- Are Amtrak's contracts really out of line with the rest of the railroad industry? (I'm talking here about the class 1's, not small local short lines operating in low-cost rural areas.)

"Thwarting any attempt to keep the cost of rail down..." An excessive emphasis on cutting costs leads to the race to the bottom scenario, which doesn't help any business, government, or non-profit enterprise provide a quality product and service and in the long run doesn't help the company, government agency or non-profit.

I joined the union (National Treasury Employees Union) a year or so before I retired. Sorry I didn't do it sooner. (I worked in and "open shop." We had a union contract, but you didn't have to join the union to work there.) Being I was a civil servant, they couldn't do much about our pay and benefits beyond lobbying Congress on our behalf, but they did help me out with something that saved me a whole lot of money.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Oct 4, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> "Labor fees" might mean that in certain union shops, in order to work there, you have to join the union and pay their dues. This might annoy certain libertarian-minded people, as they might feel that you shouldn't have to belong to an organization if you don't want to. There's also a political angle that I don't want to go into too much detail, but by joining a union, your dues might go to fund political activities with which you don't agree. I don't know enough about how unions fund their favored political candidates, so I can't really say whether this is a real concern. For all I know, the unions do separate fundraising efforts for candidates, and members who don't support a particular candidate don't have to contribute. Or maybe general union funds go to the candidates. As I said, I don't know. Of course, if I work for a corporation, or own stock in one and the management of that company funds a candidate I really don't like, there's really not a whole lot I can do., either.
> 
> "A decent wage" is a very slippery term, indeed. I mean, I think a corporate CEO is definitely worth a salary of up to a couple hundred thousand a year, but the corporate CEOs do their darndest to get paid 10, 50, 100, 150 million a year. Are dining car attendants who make $20-$40 an hour overpaid? Well, most restaurant workers commonly make under $15/hour and may not even get to work 40 hours a week. Is that a "decent wage?"
> 
> ...



I will pass along your thoughts to my friends.

by the way, what I meant by “little or no competiton” was the aforementioned between competing skilled workers and contracted companies to build infrastructure, not Amtrak itself competing against other transport modes.

each point you so thoughtfully addresses is (mostly) referring to skilled workers and companies that would be building the infrastructure,


----------



## Shanson (Oct 4, 2021)

"Labor costs" is more accurate than labor "fees." Railroads are required to pay for labor as part of operating expenses. 

The infrastructure package doesn't include funding for current routine operations, but for new equipment or new tracks and bridges, and yes, labor costs would be part of that. This doesn't mean that contracted construction will be done by union members.


----------



## neroden (Oct 4, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> It could be my fault for ‘misnomer-ing’ their idea, which might be better described as excessive staffing, little to no competition, antiquated regulations, and over-generous contracts thwarting any attempt to keep the costs of rail down. In their prediction, these issues would eat through the 66 billion rather quickly, and may prevent actual projects getting completed (in a timely and non-costly way). To be fair, this has happened with other infrastructure projects like the 2nd Avenue tunnel, the Big Dig, and the CHSRA (at least to my understanding. If I’m wrong, feel free to politely correct and cite).


Some clarifications.

2nd Avenue Subway *did* have problems with contractors chiseling and charging excessive amounts, however. Not unions -- contractors. NYC in particular has a lot of problems with overpriced bidding, which is mostly NYC-specific.

Big Dig was fundamentally always going to cost what it cost, it was warned about in advance, and it was advertised with an lowballed cost by the politicos who wanted to build it. It's a *road tunnel* and they're *very expensive*, partly due to width and ventilation. Rail's cheaper.

CHSRA had one problem with a chiseling, money-extracting contractor on the first segment; that contractor hasn't been hired again. CHSRA is actually coming in on budget, pretty much, in constant 1995-era dollars; claims to the contrary are dishonest, and have been made by a *change in the procedure used to account for inflation*, which is essentially a dishonest way of doctoring the numbers. This change in how costs are reported was mandated by anti-rail extremist politicians.

The fact is that outside NYC, Amtrak hasn't had any of these problems and its projects have mostly come in on budget, with the exception of NYC-area projects. There is a problem in NYC.


----------



## Willbridge (Oct 5, 2021)

Having worked on both sides of the union /management fence I would note that the cost of using union labor sometimes is not the wage scale but rather the contract work rules. If these are not kept up to date they raise costs and may actually result in disbenefits to workers.

The rail industry went through this for years until both sides discovered that they could negotiate and some of the small craft unions were merged.

The big problem with the Infrastructure package implementation will be finding competent staffing at all levels. The big consulting firms will be raiding the transit and rail employers and plugging in junior staff whose academic hours included little about railways. Consider that in 1990 when RTD (Denver) started to get serious again about rail transit there were two (2) of us going to the public meetings to answer the questions. By the time of the 2004 Fastracks package vote there was a team of experienced people in every aspect in house. It still was a big enough project that major components were contracted out. Step by step most of the package has been built and opened.

So if the infrastructure plan is approved in 2021, part of it should be recognizable by 2035 and then there should be a series of openings by 2050. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it but it is going to be difficult.

Sometimes I smile when I see this photo of my grandsons so confidently exploring the brave new world that we Baby Boomers are leaving them. Sometimes I cry when I see this photo as I think of how much time has been wasted by we Baby Boomers when action was so clearly needed long ago.  And had it been taken at a steady pace we could have had better work at reasonable prices.




-- photo by Patti.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Oct 5, 2021)

neroden said:


> Some clarifications.
> 
> 2nd Avenue Subway *did* have problems with contractors chiseling and charging excessive amounts, however. Not unions -- contractors. NYC in particular has a lot of problems with overpriced bidding, which is mostly NYC-specific.
> 
> ...



thanks for all of this clarification.
I have passed all of these thoughts along to my friends.
After reading what people have to say, I think there’s a couple of takeaways:

-I definitely ‘misnomered’ “union fees/costs,” (or whatever you feel the proper nomenclature is), but that was only one small part of my original question. This created a red herring and of course, my other half of the question went largely undiscussed. The main issue that I was failing to accurately describe seems to be with contractors.

-I think their fears don’t come from an irrational place. The US has a history of projects costing more than what they original stated, or more than they should due to any form of poor planning or negligence. My friends fear this will repeat itself, and wonder whether this is money wisely spent. I get it. Rather stereotypically of them, they wish the private sector has more of a say in passenger rail infrastructure (which of course is the case is parts of Europe, and seems to be showing signs of happening here too)


----------



## neroden (Oct 5, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> thanks for all of this clarification.
> I have passed all of these thoughts along to my friends.
> After reading what people have to say, I think there’s a couple of takeaways:
> 
> ...


The private sector is the source of pretty much ALL the project cost overruns, so your friends aren't being rational in that regard.

In Europe, the big difference is that far more of the projects are done in-house by permanent government staff. In the US, the lack of permanent in-house trained government staff means that private contractors can "sell the government a bill of goods" and defraud the government, and nobody in government is expert enough to know that this is happening until it's too late.

An example was on the Boston Green Line Extension. The first contractor was defrauding the government, but the oversight committee was too small, lacked expertise, so didn't realize this and kept assuming that the costs were real. Finally a new investigative board was brought in, and they had people with more expertise. They fired the fraudulent contractor *and blacklisted them*, reported them for possible prosecution, hired in-house experts, and rebid the entire project.

The new bids came in under budget and on schedule. They'd got a different group of contractors now that it was recognized that the fraudulent contractors were not being tolerated any more.


If you want better results you actually need *less* private sector involvement and *more* in-house permanent government employees with technical expertise. And private contractors who have a history of dishonesty and chiseling need to be banned from contracting.


----------



## MARC Rider (Oct 5, 2021)

neroden said:


> The private sector is the source of pretty much ALL the project cost overruns, so your friends aren't being rational in that regard.
> 
> In Europe, the big difference is that far more of the projects are done in-house by permanent government staff. In the US, the lack of permanent in-house trained government staff means that private contractors can "sell the government a bill of goods" and defraud the government, and nobody in government is expert enough to know that this is happening until it's too late.
> 
> ...


I'm curious about private companies that outsource or contract stuff out, which would put them in a similar position to a government agency that is running a contract. Do they hire sufficient technical expertise to keep themselves from being defrauded? An example might be the Siemens Venture coach job with the lead plumbing fixtures. I can't believe that Siemens manufactured those defective parts themselves. Thus, they contracted them out, but how was the contracting oversight done, and is Siemens (like our American publicly held companies) under pressure from the markets to keep costs down, and did they do that by not hiring enough in-house technical expertise?


----------



## me_little_me (Oct 5, 2021)

If labor costs are such an issue, why do so many companies pay their executives so much instead of haggling with them to lower the costs of their labor or cutting all their perks?


----------



## MARC Rider (Oct 5, 2021)

me_little_me said:


> If labor costs are such an issue, why do so many companies pay their executives so much instead of haggling with them to lower the costs of their labor or cutting all their perks?


Or they could move their headquarters to Monterrey or Mexico City and hire Mexican senior executives (at Mexican executive pay rates).


----------



## neroden (Oct 7, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> I'm curious about private companies that outsource or contract stuff out, which would put them in a similar position to a government agency that is running a contract. Do they hire sufficient technical expertise to keep themselves from being defrauded?


Frequently not. Similar problems happen. :-( Yes, it's documented in other industries. And in trains, Bombardier basically blew its entire company up by doing such things.



> An example might be the Siemens Venture coach job with the lead plumbing fixtures. I can't believe that Siemens manufactured those defective parts themselves. Thus, they contracted them out, but how was the contracting oversight done, and is Siemens (like our American publicly held companies) under pressure from the markets to keep costs down, and did they do that by not hiring enough in-house technical expertise?


Can't speak to that directly.


----------



## neroden (Oct 7, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Or they could move their headquarters to Monterrey or Mexico City and hire Mexican senior executives (at Mexican executive pay rates).


Given Carlos Slim's pay package, I think maybe they should try outsourcing to Vietnamese CEOs instead. They seem to be paid frugally.


----------



## John from RI (Oct 7, 2021)

If we want to talk about pork we need to consider the Interstate Highway System where it runs through cities. Providence, where spent a lot of -95 time when I was young, is an example. I-95 runs though Providence where successful urban neighborhoods such as Cathedral Square were ripped out to build it. And the lost of massive amounts of the tax base is an important reason for the decline of the city. The highway was built in the middle 1950's. A short time later there a new parallel interstate, I-295, had to be built. It runs around Providence and reconnects to I-95 in southern Massachusetts. Had I-295 been built in the first place I-95 through Providence could have been avoided completely. 
To make matters worse a massive interchange with I-195 which runs from Providence to Cape Cod was built in the 1960's, destroying more of the tax base. Then in the early 2000's that interchange was ripped out and replaces, costing more millions and destroying more the the tax base. But neither of these two interchanges were needed at all. I 295 might simply have been extended and then continued out to Cape Cod. 
I can only wonder about how many other once successful cities have been eviscerated by Interstate Highways would might have been built around them. How many people were pushed into slums who once lived in decent neighborhoods. How many businesses were destroyed. How much wasted taxes have we all paid. 
Railroads were not perfect. There was plenty wrong with the New York New Haven and Hartford. But it built up cities like Providence while paying taxes. It never tore down the cities as the Interstate Highways did to Providence.


----------



## lordsigma (Nov 5, 2021)

Big news - the house passed the bipartisan infrastructure bill tonight after multiple delays.


----------



## PaTrainFan (Nov 6, 2021)

Now the work begins for Amtrak. How will it administer the massive new influx of tens of billions of dollars when they can't effectively manage the system they have now, or get one new long planned new service established along the Gulf Coast?


----------



## Ryan (Nov 6, 2021)

PaTrainFan said:


> or get one new long planned new service established along the Gulf Coast?


You can’t really lay this at the feet of management. If anything, their aggressive pursuit of CSX to allow the service is a high point.


----------



## PaTrainFan (Nov 6, 2021)

Ryan said:


> You can’t really lay this at the feet of management. If anything, their aggressive pursuit of CSX to allow the service is a high point.


I agree, but they're going to face this type of fight almost everywhere, especially if CSX succeeds. It is going to take a Herculean effort to accomplish what Amtrak is planning.


----------



## jis (Nov 7, 2021)

PaTrainFan said:


> I agree, but they're going to face this type of fight almost everywhere, especially if CSX succeeds. It is going to take a Herculean effort to accomplish what Amtrak is planning.


I suspect Amtrak cannot do it alone. There is some amount of political and legal castration of the likes of CSX that will be involved if all this is going to come to pass. There is no reason to roll over to the whims of a patently incompetent corporation which apparently does not even handle its own real interests competently. If we think Amtrak needs new management we should be thinking so about CSX and NS at least at double the intensity, and campaign to achieve that by all legal means.


----------



## Lonnie (Nov 7, 2021)

John from RI said:


> If we want to talk about pork we need to consider the Interstate Highway System where it runs through cities. Providence, where spent a lot of -95 time when I was young, is an example. I-95 runs though Providence where successful urban neighborhoods such as Cathedral Square were ripped out to build it. And the lost of massive amounts of the tax base is an important reason for the decline of the city. The highway was built in the middle 1950's. A short time later there a new parallel interstate, I-295, had to be built. It runs around Providence and reconnects to I-95 in southern Massachusetts. Had I-295 been built in the first place I-95 through Providence could have been avoided completely.
> To make matters worse a massive interchange with I-195 which runs from Providence to Cape Cod was built in the 1960's, destroying more of the tax base. Then in the early 2000's that interchange was ripped out and replaces, costing more millions and destroying more the the tax base. But neither of these two interchanges were needed at all. I 295 might simply have been extended and then continued out to Cape Cod.
> I can only wonder about how many other once successful cities have been eviscerated by Interstate Highways would might have been built around them. How many people were pushed into slums who once lived in decent neighborhoods. How many businesses were destroyed. How much wasted taxes have we all paid.
> Railroads were not perfect. There was plenty wrong with the New York New Haven and Hartford. But it built up cities like Providence while paying taxes. It never tore down the cities as the Interstate Highways did to Providence.


Syracuse NY was one of the first cities to be bisected by the new interstate. It was so poorly designed (apparently by a California company that didn't understand what nine feet of snow in a season can do to roadways), they have never stopped working on it. In the heart of the city is a spot where the actual highway narrows to one lane! They destroyed a vibrant neighborhood of - you guessed it - people of color, set the wealthier side of the city apart from the rest, did all those things that happened in Providence. For the past ten years they've been engaging with the public to find out what they feel is the best way to handle a highway so old it has to be either rebuilt to current standards or brought down to street level, making I-81 go around the city on the current I-481. Fortunately, they keep voting to get rid of the city portion.


----------



## Anthony V (Nov 7, 2021)

As part of the IIJA, did the amendment to require US DOT to study restoring various discontinued long distance routes (with the Pioneer and North Coast Hiawatha getting priority) pass?


----------



## neroden (Nov 17, 2021)

Lonnie said:


> Syracuse NY was one of the first cities to be bisected by the new interstate. It was so poorly designed (apparently by a California company that didn't understand what nine feet of snow in a season can do to roadways), they have never stopped working on it. In the heart of the city is a spot where the actual highway narrows to one lane! They destroyed a vibrant neighborhood of - you guessed it - people of color, set the wealthier side of the city apart from the rest, did all those things that happened in Providence. For the past ten years they've been engaging with the public to find out what they feel is the best way to handle a highway so old it has to be either rebuilt to current standards or brought down to street level, making I-81 go around the city on the current I-481. Fortunately, they keep voting to get rid of the city portion.


I am so looking forward to the I-81 viaduct teardown. It looks like they're finally committing to it and have funding.

The other highway which bisects Syracuse was built by ripping out the downtown passenger rail line. That's I-690. Sadly there are no plans to repair that problem. :-(


----------



## Lonnie (Nov 19, 2021)

neroden said:


> I am so looking forward to the I-81 viaduct teardown. It looks like they're finally committing to it and have funding.
> 
> The other highway which bisects Syracuse was built by ripping out the downtown passenger rail line. That's I-690. Sadly there are no plans to repair that problem. :-(


It was in 1936 when they moved the trains out of downtown. That was 60 trains a day right where downtown crowds of people were constantly crossing those rails. Due to excessive death, dismemberment and pollution, not to mention traffic tie-ups at the 29 grade crossings, the rails were moved by only a few blocks. Now I-690 runs where the trains used to run and the platform is being maintained with works of art that are white statues of people waiting for a train that will never come. There's a pretty nice new transportation hub just a little further north next to the amazing farmer's market so at last you can go from train to bus or visa versa.


----------



## neroden (Nov 19, 2021)

Lonnie said:


> It was in 1936 when they moved the trains out of downtown. That was 60 trains a day right where downtown crowds of people were constantly crossing those rails. Due to excessive death, dismemberment and pollution, not to mention traffic tie-ups at the 29 grade crossings, the rails were moved by only a few blocks. Now I-690 runs where the trains used to run and the platform is being maintained with works of art that are white statues of people waiting for a train that will never come. There's a pretty nice new transportation hub just a little further north next to the amazing farmer's market so at last you can go from train to bus or visa versa.



Yeah, the street running had to go -- amazing it lasted until 1936. The elevated railway line lasted less than 20 years before being ripped out for the expressway. :-(

I use the new Syracuse station routinely, but the lack of sidewalks there is a severe problem for myself and my partner who has mobility impairments. Even crossing to the farmer's market is unsafe.

Apparently the current Syracuse mayor, Ben Walsh, managed to get the city to pass a law just this year where the city will take over sidewalk maintenance and construction (previously adjacent property owners were supposed to do it and it didn't happen). So hopefully the unfortunate situation there will be fixed soon. 

If you want to help, write the city and ask them to fix the gaps in the sidewalk network between the train station, the farmer's market, the street grid, and DestinyUSA -- the more requests they get the more likely they'll prioritize it, I suspect.


----------



## GoAmtrak (Nov 30, 2021)

neroden said:


> I am so looking forward to the I-81 viaduct teardown. It looks like they're finally committing to it and have funding.
> 
> The other highway which bisects Syracuse was built by ripping out the downtown passenger rail line. That's I-690. Sadly there are no plans to repair that problem. :-(


Perhaps a little bit of topic, but I like Syracuse and upstate New York also! I think the urban planning cutting Syracuse into pieces by a highway was a big fault they would never do again. Poor urban planning again. As you correctly mentioned, passenger railway service should be at the place of the highway and serve downtown Syracuse instead.


----------

