Any missing trains today (Oct 1)?

[Bob Dylan]

Now that is news and good one at that

Looks like someone in New York earned their keep. The net amount appears to be a couple of million less than what they were fearing it might be. Perhaps ridership and revenue gains played a role. Last year the Adirondack also happened to turn out to be over-funded. Maybe now there is some hope for food on the Albany trains!

True this! I want my Angus Burger and Coffee on the way to Albany! ^_^

 

[jis]

In another piece of possibly good news, Gene Poon on TO reports that Indiana is now seeking a short term (maybe 6 months) stopgap agreement at the current service level while they work out a plan for a more improved comprehensive service on that route. This could be a good thing at the end of the day.

 

[afigg]

Now that is news and good one at that

Looks like someone in New York earned their keep. The net amount appears to be a couple of million less than what they were fearing it might be. Perhaps ridership and revenue gains played a role. Last year the Adirondack also happened to turn out to be over-funded. Maybe now there is some hope for food on the Albany trains!

So NY will be paying about $22 million for FY2014. Do you know how much NY paid in FY2013? Just trying to get an estimate on the increase in state subsidies Amtrak is getting.
This part of the new agreement could have useful effects: "The agreement also calls for performance measures on such things as on-time performance, cleanliness, and customer service." The poor OTP of the Empire corridor trains and the high Passenger Hold delays came up in the August MPR thread. If NY leans on Amtrak to improve OTP for the parts that the Amtrak crews can control, that could result in changes in the boarding practices by the crews.

I wonder what the story is with IL and exactly what the holdup is there in reaching an agreement. MI and MO signed, so they settled on capital charge amounts for the Horizons.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

I wonder what the story is with IL and exactly what the holdup is there in reaching an agreement. MI and MO signed, so they settled on capital charge amounts for the Horizons.

I've been wondering that myself. Anybody know anything?

 

[Anderson]

For last year, the New York services posted the following:

Route Total Ticket Other Loss
Adirondack $10.0 $6.7 $3.3 $2.6
Maple Leaf $26.3 $24.6 $1.5 $1.5
Empire $44.8 $43.9 $0.9 $19.8
Grand Tot. $81.1 $75.2 $5.7 $23.9
Aside from the Adirondack (which tends to recieve substantial state support), none of those received any support from NY state. For FY11, I got:

Route      Total  Ticket  Other  Loss
Adirondack $14.6  $6.3    $8.3   $1.6 profit
Maple Leaf $25.0  $23.4   $1.6   $5.2
Empire     $40.9  $40.1   $0.8   $29.5
Grand Tot. $70.5  $75.2   $10.7  $33.1

In the other coulumn, my best guess is that $7.5m or so is state support for FY11nd about $2.5m for FY12, all on the Adirondack. I attribute the big swing to the profits in FY12...Amtrak probably had a provision to apply the overrun from FY11 to FY12, and probably also reduced the support requirement in line with that as well. Also, the agreement might not have provided for the Adirondack to quite get to $0.0 (the agreement might not consider certain "core" costs), which would increase the swing a bit further. For FY13, the state support (based on YTD figures) seems to be back around $6-7m, but I want to hold off until I have the September figures to hack FY13 apart too strongly on this front.

 

[jis]

Yes. the support for Adirondack was a shade under $7 million.

Also it is somewhat vague what exactly is covered by the $22 million, specially in the area of trackage charges over what used to be CSX and what is now NY State leased, Amtrak operated segment. Are the trains being billed some trackage charge and the actual lease/operate aspect being accounted for separately? Or is it all lumped together? I don't know.

Apparently that last bit was a matter of major contention remaining. I wonder whether they resolved it or separated it, since strictly speaking it is not entirely a 209 matter. That is covered by a complex three way agreement among NY State, CSX and Amtrak.

 

[CHamilton]

Via NARP, confirming the previous listings:

Aside from Indiana...only two states still have yet to finalize Section 209-mandated contracts: California and Illinois. Amtrak has said that, without contracts in place, affected trains would be suspended effective October 16.

 

[Nathanael]

Yes. the support for Adirondack was a shade under $7 million.

Also it is somewhat vague what exactly is covered by the $22 million, specially in the area of trackage charges over what used to be CSX and what is now NY State leased, Amtrak operated segment. Are the trains being billed some trackage charge and the actual lease/operate aspect being accounted for separately? Or is it all lumped together? I don't know.

Apparently that last bit was a matter of major contention remaining.

I can see why it was difficult to decide. Whatever they decided, it probably will end up not changing the net amount of money spent by New York. New York pays for the maintenance and upgrade of that track, period. There are a number of ways to account for it which would have differences only in overhead tracking, but there's no compelling reason to pick one method over another.

I wonder whether they resolved it or separated it, since strictly speaking it is not entirely a 209 matter. That is covered by a complex three way agreement among NY State, CSX and Amtrak.

In California I wonder whether the holdup is due to California's plans to change the management of the San Joaquins and Surfliners from CalDOT to "authorities" like the one for the Capitol Corridor. It's possible that we'll see a short-term agreement pending the planned change in management.

I have no idea what the holdup is regarding Illinois. I wondered if if was related to the planned Moline and Dubuque trains, but it seems like they won't start running until Fiscal Year 2015.

 

[afigg]

I wondered what the status was for CA and IL agreements, so did a google search. According to news reports, both IL and CA (for the Surfliner and San Joaquin corridors) have reached official agreements. Since there have not been any reports of signs going up at stations warning of a possible termination of service for the CA and IL services, either they had a temporary or verbal agreement or Amtrak expected to complete the agreements by October 16.

IL: Amtrak Service Shutdown Averted. IL will be paying more to cover all the Lincoln service trains, but the article does not say how much.

Mass Transit magazine: CA: California Approves Amtrak Deal. "California officials have approved a deal to provide an extra $19 million in annual funding for Amtrak, ensuring the passenger rail provider's service continues uninterrupted in the Golden State."

So only Indiana and the Hoosier State is left without an agreement. The reports are that IN continues to negotiate and appears to be serious about it which is a good sign.

Meanwhile, of course, Amtrak is still cut off from federal funds for operating subsidies, debt service payments, and capital grants.

 

[jis]

Now there are reports being heard that a deal has been ironed out with Indiana to continue the Hoosier State. All are awaiting details or an official announcement.

 

[Daniel]

Now there are reports being heard that a deal has been ironed out with Indiana to continue the Hoosier State. All are awaiting details or an official announcement.

Is it just a short term extension so that a longer deal can be struck?

 

[CHamilton]

Looks like a short-term deal. A couple of sources have identical stories, including this one:

Hoosier State Line negotiations progressing

An Indiana transportation official says a short-term deal to keep the Hoosier State passenger train line running is still possible before funding runs out this week. ...


Funding is expected to run out October 16 and officials are working on a short-term agreement that will keep the line running while long-term negotiations continue.

Indiana Department of Transportation spokesman Will Wingfield says talks are progressing, but points out they are complex....

 

[jis]

It is for one year and four months. See:

http://www.indystar.com/article/20131015/NEWS/310150046/Amtrak-service-between-Indianapolis-Chicago-continue?odyssey=mod

 

[Anderson]

That sounds like just enough to get them through two legislative sessions...enough to pick from the options on the table.

Now, why they didn't do this six months ago is beyond me. I presume this means no significant service changes (and no cuts) from PRIIA?

 

[afigg]

Amtrak has issued a news release announcing that all 19 states have negotiated contracts: Amtrak and State Partners Reach Agreement to Preserve All Corridor Routes. The deadline was October 16, so yep, a lot of last minute signings.

Excerpts from the news release:

WASHINGTON -- Amtrak has successfully negotiated contracts with 19 state transportation departments and other entities to increase state control and funding of 28 current passenger rail routes. America’s Railroad® is now poised to move forward with state partners to further expand and improve the intercity passenger rail network.

yes, expansion. Roanoke VA, Vermonter to Montreal, 2 new Illinois corridors, more service frequencies, Coast Daylight by 2017?

Under the Section 209 policy, state partners will pay for approximately 85 percent of operating costs that are attributed to their routes, as well as for capital maintenance costs of the Amtrak equipment they use and for support costs such as safety programs and marketing. Amtrak will pay about 15 percent for “backbone” costs such as centralized dispatching and services, and back shops. States will continue to benefit from Amtrak’s incremental cost access rights to tracks owned by host railroads, dispatching priority and Amtrak capital investments that support the entire system such as technology improvements like eTicketing.

Points out that Amtrak is still picking up some of the overhead.

Ok, so all the corridor services have been preserved. I was not on this forum when the 2008 PRIIA act was signed. How many thought or feared that many of the corridor services would be dropped? I do think that the $8 billion stimulus and $2.1 billion in FY10 HSIPR grants certainly helped to encourage the states which received large grants to keep their passenger train service.

 

[afigg]

BTW, came across this October 21 news release from CT DOT on the agreement with Amtrak to provide subsidies for its share of the New Haven to Springfield trains. It adds $4.4 million to the total in new state subsidies Amtrak will get in FY2014. To quote:

"Under the agreement, Connecticut in partnership with the States of Massachusetts and Vermont share in the costs of Amtrak train service between New Haven and Springfield, Massachusetts, and the Vermonter service between New Haven and St. Albans, Vermont. Connecticut will pay approximately $4.4 million as its share in state fiscal year 2014 to cover operating and equipment capital costs associated with the NHHS Line train services. The Amtrak trains also provide service to station stops at Wallingford, Meriden, Berlin, Hartford, Windsor, and Windsor Locks."

 

[Nathanael]

Ok, so all the corridor services have been preserved. I was not on this forum when the 2008 PRIIA act was signed. How many thought or feared that many of the corridor services would be dropped?

Most people on Amtrak fan sites expected most of the corridor services to be preserved. Many of the states were already paying through the "403(b)" provision for all of their corridor services. The exceptions were Washington, California, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Michigan, and New York, with most of the added costs going to Michigan and New York. The PRIIA provision was being described at the time as a "screw New York and Michigan" provision.
I think California, Washington, and Illinois had to pick up the costs of one additional train run each, out of many? Something like that; it was thought to be small enough as a percentage of the state's train operating budget that it was expected to be paid. Connecticut had already committed before 2008 to the "New Haven - Hartford - Springfield Commuter Rail" project, which is going to have much larger operating costs than the Springfield shuttles, so there wasn't really any question about them paying up. There was never really any question of New York allowing service to lapse either, as it would anger all four of the largest upstate NY cities, who together have some meaningful power in the legislature.

There were two major worries at the time: first, that Indiana would decide to drop the Hoosier State, and second, that Michigan would not be able to find the money because Michigan is so poor. It was only more recently that people became worried about the Pennsylvanian.

I do think that the $8 billion stimulus and $2.1 billion in FY10 HSIPR grants certainly helped to encourage the states which received large grants to keep their passenger train service.

That would certainly apply to Michigan, and to a lesser extent to NY. Also to Connecticut and Washington State and Illinois, really.

 

[afigg]

Most people on Amtrak fan sites expected most of the corridor services to be preserved. Many of the states were already paying through the "403(b)" provision for all of their corridor services. The exceptions were Washington, California, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Michigan, and New York, with most of the added costs going to Michigan and New York. The PRIIA provision was being described at the time as a "screw New York and Michigan" provision.

I think California, Washington, and Illinois had to pick up the costs of one additional train run each, out of many? Something like that; it was thought to be small enough as a percentage of the state's train operating budget that it was expected to be paid.

It may have been described as screw NY and MI, but CA has to pay the largest total increase of about $19 million according to reports. For CA, it was not paying subsidies for an additional train, but the full allocated subsidy tab for the Surfliners and San Joaquin. The Capitol Corridor faced no significant increase.

MI is not far behind CA is increased subsidy; MI is paying around $17 million more according to this Detroit Free Press article from October 6: Amtrak works with the state to upgrade service, raise number of riders. MI should be able to reduce the annual subsidy levels over the next 4-5 years, perhaps by a lot, as the track improvements and new bi-level cars come on-line.

If NY is paying around $15 million more in total subsidy - and that is not certain - then Amtrak will get about $51 million in additional operating subsidies in FY14 from 3 states: CA, MI, NY.

 

[jis]

I have been trying to figure out whether the carryover from the 2012 subsidy for Adirondack is accounted for in the final 2013 209 numbers for New York, or that is over and above what was negotiated for 2013. Also I am not sure how the three way Lease payment scheme among Amtrak, NY State and CSX is accounted for either. I will try to find out the next time I bump into some right folks at ESPA, which could be in their Nov 23 meeting in Schenectady.