We can't even get 100mph long distance trains except for sections of the NE corridor. I'll probably never live to ride the CHSR, the Texas HS or the Victorville-Las Vegas route much less a Maglev.Maglev? Is that still a thing?
Profoundly glad and relieved to see that at least our elected lawmakers are taking into consideration the wellbeing of Amtrak patrons and employees. Pair with that support from the Executive Branch and there's renewed hope for a vigorous Amtrak system. Again and again we are reminded to get out there and vote!
Revenue shortfall was like falling off a cliff when the pandemic hit.Could someone parse this a bit for me? I am glad Amtrak is getting attention at that level, but is $26Bn a bit of overkill? Or is this just setting a marker up high because they know it will be whittled down?
"The so-called “emergency title,” Title V, makes $26 billion in additional money available into Fiscal 2022. It includes $5 billion for the Northeast Corridor, $3 billion for the National Network, $5 billion for the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) program, $3 billion for BUILD grants, $5 billion for Capital Investment Grants targeting surface transportation and $100 million for Maglev on top of $5 million in Maglev appropriations in the core appropriations measure."
$5Bn for the NEC and $3Bn for the National Network sounds great, but that is a huge amount of money, is the loss of revenue that large? I knew the drop in revenue was huge, but I guess I never saw a figure for the actual shortfall. The NEC funds are broken out a bit below, but what will the capital projects be? Are we talking about funding for the Gateway Project or is this going to be used for something else? Or both?
Another $5Bn for the Capital Investment Grants is a huge amount as well. Where will this go, in all likelihood?
Will much of the Capital Investments Grants targeting surface transport got to rail improvements or will it be roads and non-rail transport?
"Within the $5 billion NEC provision, subcommittee members set aside $1 billion for capital projects, $200 million for upgrades related to the Americans with Disabilities Act, and $172 million to cover 2021 capital payments that would have come from states. On the National Network side, the subcommittee stipulated that $424 million of the $3 billion be used for state-related payments, capital projects and positive train control."
Where will the remaining, un-directed $2.576Bn be spent on the National Network? Will some be spent on double/triple tracking in high traffic areas that are current chokepoints? Improving Amtrak stations or adding service back?
I apologize for all the questions but the article seems to paint a broad picture without filling in a lot of the details that are probably known to people that are more familiar with this process. Or I missed the meat of the article somehow...
On edit: And I am not even sure if this money will be used over the course of 2 fiscal years, or less, or more...
I couldn't agree more with this position and hope that these stipulations survive future negotiations.“Since May 28th, we’ve been saying that while we strongly support additional emergency funds for Amtrak, we’ve also insisted that any additional funds need to buy certainty for workers and passengers alike,” Mathews said. “Daily train service must be the very minimum service level. Title I includes important language protecting that service at 2018 levels in exchange for the additional dollars.”
Huge amount of money compared to what? The pandemic isn't even over yet and chances are good passenger rail will need more money in the future. I have no problem with using my taxes to help keep our passenger rail systems open and operating on a dependable basis.$5Bn for the NEC and $3Bn for the National Network sounds great, but that is a huge amount of money, is the loss of revenue that large? I knew the drop in revenue was huge, but I guess I never saw a figure for the actual shortfall.
Well said!I couldn't agree more with this position and hope that these stipulations survive future negotiations.
Huge amount of money compared to what? The pandemic isn't even over yet and chances are good passenger rail will need more money in the future. I have no problem with using my taxes to help keep our passenger rail systems open and operating on a dependable basis.
Profoundly glad and relieved to see that at least our elected lawmakers are taking into consideration the wellbeing of Amtrak patrons and employees. Pair with that support from the Executive Branch and there's renewed hope for a vigorous Amtrak system. Again and again we are reminded to get out there and vote!
November is a short 6 months away and each one of us has the power to make a difference!
You are so right! This staying at home has me all mixed up with times and dates... which just seem to go wizzing by!And by a SHORT six months, that is just under four months...
That would make sense if you could maintain the same ridership with either tri-weekly or daily service. However, past experience has shown that not only does ridership not stay the same when such cuts are made, it is reduced by a greater ratio than the cuts in frequency, resulting in more empty trains than prior to the service reductions. The other major consideration is that a huge proportion of the costs are fixed, so would not be reduced by such cuts.As much as I am a proponent of keeping daily service, doesn’t it make sense to scale to demand and use the extra money for infrastructure and capital improvements?
So Amtrak’s price to maintain daily service and avoid layoffs is now 10 billion?? What the blank...
Today’s RPA is all about the House funding bill. I can’t tell if that headline is taken out of context or a line in the sand now by Amtrak’s management that 10 billion is the actual price they want to keep the network trains daily. Either way I don’t know why RPA is so happy about that quote from Flynn. It shows the LD trains will be the sacrificial lamb if they don’t get what they want for their beloved corridors. Yes the money is sorely needed but claiming 10 billion to keep daily service and avoid layoffs is extortion.
Flynns letter has bullet points listed there’s a lot of NEC and state corridor improvements but not much for the network with this 10 billion save for the fact they still want to install PTC on the two train a day track the SWC uses and as stated earlier avoid LD frequency reductions.
Am I being too pessimistic?
As much as I am a proponent of keeping daily service, doesn’t it make sense to scale to demand and use the extra money for infrastructure and capital improvements?
Although infrastructure spending is important and I can see the idea of doing everything 3x weekly and putting all the money into capital, part of the idea from congress’ prospective of keeping the trains daily is probably to avoid the layoffs involved (as well as not risking losing the time slots). In an economic recovery the more people still working the better. I’m sure this is also about keeping Amtrak employees on the job as much as it is the affects on the usefulness of the network.
Scaling back is how we ended up with daily trains where there used to be several runs per day. Amtrak has proven you can rebuild ridership and support with daily service but you are virtually guaranteed to lose riders and support with less-than-daily service. I wouldn't wish the Sunset situation on anyone else.As much as I am a proponent of keeping daily service, doesn’t it make sense to scale to demand and use the extra money for infrastructure and capital improvements?
I agree along with so many others on this forum... reducing frequency to less than once a day discourages passengers who need to navigate around the ever changing scheduling patterns. Less begets less.That would make sense if you could maintain the same ridership with either tri-weekly or daily service. However, past experience has shown that not only does ridership not stay the same when such cuts are made, it is reduced by a greater ratio than the cuts in frequency, resulting in more empty trains than prior to the service reductions. The other major consideration is that a huge proportion of the costs are fixed, so would not be reduced by such cuts.
I agree along with so many others on this forum... reducing frequency to less than once a day discourages passengers who need to navigate around the ever changing scheduling patterns. Less begets less.
Could someone parse this a bit for me? I am glad Amtrak is getting attention at that level, but is $26Bn a bit of overkill? Or is this just setting a marker up high because they know it will be whittled down?
Re,member, there are a lot more Senators from states that have national network service than states in the NEC. And the NEC states also have national network service. Given past performance, there may be more support for this in the Senate than people think. But the House maybe needed to put a little padding in it to allow the Senators to save ideological face by being able to cut it a bit.While this report is encouraging news and is demonstrating why the House of Representatives is nick-named "The House of the People", there is still the United States Senate that the Appropriation Bill has to face.
A full reauthorization won't go through Congress until after the people elected in November are seated in January.
Enter your email address to join: