FY 2025 Federal Appropriations

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
2,926
The House proposed THUD appropriations for FY25 is out.

Includes a 12% cut to both the NEC and National Network accounts. Also zeroes out the FedState partnership grant program. Absolutely all rail programs include a cut except for, unsurprisingly, CRISI, which funds primarily short line freight rail programs.

On the transit/commuter rail side there’s a huge over $1 billion cut to the FTA. Not surprisingly again these are coupled with increases to both the Highway Funds and the FAA.

RPA’s response
The House proposed THUD appropriations for FY25 is out.

https://www.railpassengers.org/happ...ers-statement-on-proposed-house-cuts-to-rail/
 
The House proposed THUD appropriations for FY25 is out.

Includes a 12% cut to both the NEC and National Network accounts. Also zeroes out the FedState partnership grant program. Absolutely all rail programs include a cut except for, unsurprisingly, CRISI, which funds primarily short line freight rail programs.

On the transit/commuter rail side there’s a huge over $1 billion cut to the FTA. Not surprisingly again these are coupled with increases to both the Highway Funds and the FAA.

RPA’s response
The House proposed THUD appropriations for FY25 is out.

https://www.railpassengers.org/happ...ers-statement-on-proposed-house-cuts-to-rail/
We are projecting a $2 Trillion deficit in 2024 and we are going to solve that by cutting a few million from rail projects. Got it.
 
The House proposed THUD appropriations for FY25 is out.

Includes a 12% cut to both the NEC and National Network accounts. Also zeroes out the FedState partnership grant program. Absolutely all rail programs include a cut except for, unsurprisingly, CRISI, which funds primarily short line freight rail programs.

On the transit/commuter rail side there’s a huge over $1 billion cut to the FTA. Not surprisingly again these are coupled with increases to both the Highway Funds and the FAA.

RPA’s response
The House proposed THUD appropriations for FY25 is out.

https://www.railpassengers.org/happ...ers-statement-on-proposed-house-cuts-to-rail/
How does this compare to what the House proposed last year (FY24)?
 
Do the airlines still actively lobby against pasenger rail? Does freight rail lobby against passenger rail? Who are the constituent opponents of passenger rail?
I think a lot of it is simply ideological. Lots of people think we're doing fine by having our mobility totally dependant on personal cars and airplanes; other forms of public transportation are just for the riffraff poor; passenger rail is 19th century technology, etc. Thus, funding passenger rail is a low priority to people who also think there's too much giverment spending already. Also, why should I pay for rail service to places where I don't live. Then there's the angle where a president of one party made a big deal about "high speed rail" (this was about 2010 or so) and his political opponents had a strategy of simply opposing everything he supported. I think some of that attitude still remains.

A lot of it is irrational, which is why after the performative politics of the partisan budget proposals, they'll end up with funding similar to that of the previous year.

And I don't think the Class 1 rrs are all that opposed to passenger rail. what they want would be higher track rental fees, keeping the lines open for their PSR thousand-car freight trains, and total exemption from any liability from crashes involving passenger trains.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ideology on the right, lack of interest on the left or right, gadgetbahn preferences on the left and right.

When we (RTD) were designing the skyRide coach network for the new Denver airport, the Jefferson County commissioners sent us a nasty letter about how there was only one park-n-Ride planned in their county. That was correct, but there were two more in the direction of travel just across the county line. Quite often it seems that if a station is not physically in a district, it doesn't count, even though customers don't confine themselves to district boundaries. Party labels have no effect on this phenomenon.
 
Ideology on the right, lack of interest on the left or right, gadgetbahn preferences on the left and right.

When we (RTD) were designing the skyRide coach network for the new Denver airport, the Jefferson County commissioners sent us a nasty letter about how there was only one park-n-Ride planned in their county. That was correct, but there were two more in the direction of travel just across the county line. Quite often it seems that if a station is not physically in a district, it doesn't count, even though customers don't confine themselves to district boundaries. Party labels have no effect on this phenomenon.
Oh, yeah, I forgot about the gadgetbahn freaks.

And your example of the provincialism of our elected officials takes the cake. I knew it was bad, but I didn't think it was that bad.
 
It'll improve somewhat after negotiations with the Senate. But they have to get what they can this year because next is beginning to look very bleak.
The question is whether the leaders of the House want to use the Amtrak appropriation as the excise to threaten a government shutdown. I think the amount is so small, it's really chump change in the big scheme of things, so Amtrak will probably get what it usually does. I think the House is going to focus on immigration or Ukraine funding. As far as the future, that depends on the election results, but I don't think, even in the worst case, that Amtrak will be totally screwed. Again, the amounts are chump change, and, in our system, the minority has more power than people realize.
 
I think a lot of it is simply ideological. Lots of people think we're doing fine by having our mobility totally dependant on personal cars and airplanes; other forms of public transportation are just for the riffraff poor; passenger rail is 19th century technology, etc.
Many of these perceptions are not necessarily down to stupidity or malice but just to lack of exposure. I guess many people have the impression that rail is a fringe thing that exists only for the pleasure of some foamers and in some especially favorable situations, and that it wouldn't really work outside of that bubble.

The more people are confronted with working, modern and efficient rail systems at least occasionally in their lives, the more this misperception can be dispelled.
 
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-118hrpt584/pdf/CRPT-118hrpt584.pdf

Committee comments on the recommendations. Interesting private car blurb that was likely snuck in there by a rep that knows a private car owner. While I am not in principle against the idea of looking to make sure private car owners aren’t getting screwed I do find it obnoxious that they include this and then immediately go into the budget cuts. This kind of mixed messaging and unpredictability of funding has been a major roadblock to having a predictable functional Amtrak. The ultimate example of why Amtrak can be dysfunctional.
 
This sucks. Especially in the face of highways and airlines getting increases.

Do we know how bad these cuts might reflect in Amtrak operations for '25? Potential service cuts, or just deferred maintenance? More beatings on the NEC catenary until morale (funding) improves?
 
This sucks. Especially in the face of highways and airlines getting increases.

Do we know how bad these cuts might reflect in Amtrak operations for '25? Potential service cuts, or just deferred maintenance? More beatings on the NEC catenary until morale (funding) improves?
It’s by no means the final word - the senate will weigh in and based on recent history their numbers will be better. So we’ll just have to see.
 
Here is a summary extracted from a Rail Passenger Association weekly post on the Senate THUD Committee markup on Amtrak FY 25 Appropriations. Before approving this the Senate Committee rejected the pro;posed House Approps by a vote of 28-1.

Rail Passenger Association said:
The bill provides a total of $3.46 billion for federal rail programs and $17 billion for the Federal Transit Administration. That includes:

$2.63 billion for Amtrak operations, an increase of $210 million over FY24 levels and $530 million more than the House version;
$1.61 billion for National Network operations;
Allows Amtrak to use for $66 million in National Network funds for corridor development activities, including $10 million for a new Atlanta intercity passenger rail hub and $20 million for Pacific Northwest rail improvements;
$1.02 billion for Northeast Corridor operations;

$292 million for the FRA’s Safety and Operations budget, an increase of $24 million over FY24 and $4 million more than the House version ;

$100 million for the Federal-State Partnership Intercity Passenger Rail Program, an increase of $25 million over FY24 and $100 million more than the House version;
Includes a $15 million set-aside for the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation to rehabilitate and repair the Washington Union Station complex;

$475 million for the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Grant program, an increase of $276 million over FY24 levels and $176 million more than the House version, including $75 million in Congressional Directed Spending earmarks:
Sen. Krysten Sinema (D-AZ) secured $3.85 million for the City of Flagstaff for improvements to the Flagstaff Amtrak Station platform;
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-AZ) secured $2.9 million for the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission for PTC installation work that will allow for expanded ACE rail service;
Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) secured $2 million for the City of Detroit for improvements to the Michigan Central Intermodal Passenger Station; and

$2.3 billion for Capital Investment Grants, a $57 million increase over FY24 and $1.5 billion more than the House version.

The Senate bill also included several policy provisions, many of which are familiar from our work with Congress over the past years:

National Network Services: the bill emphasized that Amtrak’s long-distance routes provide much needed transportation access in hundreds of communities and for rural areas where mobility options are limited. It also states that routes providing service to rural areas from urban areas along the northeast corridor are equally important. The Committee underscored that it does not support proposals that will inevitably lead to long-term or permanent service cuts or segmentation of routes, which will result in less service for rural communities.

Amtrak Station Agents: requires Amtrak to provide station agents at all Amtrak stations that had a ticket agent position eliminated in fiscal year 2018, and to communicate and collaborate with local partners and take into consideration the unique needs of each community, including impacts to local jobs, when making decisions related to the staffing of Amtrak stations.

Food and Beverage: urges Amtrak to provide food and beverage services in a cost-effective manner consistent with available funds, and update Congress on the food and beverage offerings, new initiatives, and operating loss, as appropriate.

Lactation Accommodations: recognizes Amtrak’s work to implement lactation accommodations for nursing employees and customers, and encourages Amtrak to consider the continued expansion of such accommodations on board its trains and stations.

Midwest Rail Commission Study: the bill directs the DOT and the FRA, in coordination with Amtrak, to study and provide recommendations on ways to establish a federally authorized commission for the purposes of developing a long-term delivery strategy for Midwest rail, including identifying projects in need of prioritization. The study should include recommendations on how to most appropriately establish a Federal entity, including where the Commission would ideally be housed. The findings and recommendations shall be provided to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 6 months of passage of the bill.
 
Back
Top