leemell
Conductor
That was the middle of last month and has been discussed here already. The current conversation is peripheral to that.
And if it had been in place in 1800 there would have been no steam locomotive and we would all be riding horses and mules, or for the most of us walking and spending a lot of our days watching the back end of a mule or water buffalo depending upon what part of the world we lived end, and oh yeah, with the generally poor communication technological progress otherwise would be greatly slowed and we would enjoy disease filled lives with average life expectancies of around 30, which most people fail to understand meant that quite a few people did make it to 60 plus, but during that time would bury between 1/3 and 1/2 half of their children within their first 10 years of life. There is definitely a place for an EIS, but let's have some rationality and balance with this stuff.I am reminded of the commentary from someone from, I believe, CT that if the EIS process had been in place in 1950, we'd never have gotten I-95 from New York to Boston.
Yes, the FRA RRIF loan program still exists. The first response to a Google search of "RRIF loan" is this FRA webpage: http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0128Does the RRIF Program still exist? (I have not heard about it being allocated for any other projects recently).
The problem is that RRIF has to be paid back. The others don't.Maybe New Starts can fund the Bergen Loop and Expanded Secaucus Station, while RRIF can fund major part of the Gateway Project, AND NYC/MTA can fund Penn South Expansion?
But RRIF can be paid back from Amtrak's annual ticket revenue, just as they are doing with the new electric locomotives...The problem is that RRIF has to be paid back. The others don't.Maybe New Starts can fund the Bergen Loop and Expanded Secaucus Station, while RRIF can fund major part of the Gateway Project, AND NYC/MTA can fund Penn South Expansion?
But to pick a number, $5 billion in debt load will take a lot of ticket revenue to pay for. As jis states, Gateway will benefit multiple users of the station: Amtrak, the NEC states, NJT, indirectly LIRR & MNRR, MTA and will get funding carefully assembled in many parts from multiple sources over many years. All of which have nothing to do with Xpress West, the topic of discussion in this thread.But RRIF can be paid back from Amtrak's annual ticket revenue, just as they are doing with the new electric locomotives...
Because everyone KNOWS that Amtrak will pay for way more than their fair share.Why is it fair to cover the entire cost of the tunnel from Amtrak ticket revenues when the main beneficiary of it is not Amtrak?
Why is it fair to cover the entire cost of the tunnel from Amtrak ticket revenues when the main beneficiary of it is not Amtrak? Doesn't make an iota of sense to me. Why would MTA/NYC pay for Penn South when MTA does not get any direct benefit out of it? NY State should contribute some as should NJ, as will PANYNJ, and then there will be half a dozen categories of federally sourced funds probably running the whole gamut from New Start, TIGER, CMAQ, FTA General Grants, Recovery Projects from the next two financial meltdowns, FRA targeted appropriation, who knows? All that will depend a lot on how the political winds blow when it comes to actually find the appropriation.
I don't understand why we are agonizing over funding at present. Seems like we ought to have better things to obsess over at this time. Nothing that we speculate about funding source here will have any impact on what actually happens.
Because everyone KNOWS that Amtrak will pay for way more than their fair share.Why is it fair to cover the entire cost of the tunnel from Amtrak ticket revenues when the main beneficiary of it is not Amtrak?
A billion here. A billion there. Soon you'll be talking about real money.Perhaps the Gateway Project can receive money from several pots after all. I recently read that the Bloomberg Administration has figured out that $1.3 billion from selling air rights near Penn Station in Manhattan. So, imagine this money plus $700 million from the MTA and another $1 billion from Albany. That's $3 billion right there, with another $2.1 billion coming from New Starts (at $300 million per year over 7 years,), $500 million from TIGER for new Portal South Bridge, $1.4 billion RRIF loan, $3 billion from FTA Grants over a seven year period, $3.5 billion from Port Authority of NY and NJ, and $1.5 billion from NJ Budget/Bonds...
It's not just federal "approval" for the project...there's a massive loan at stake as well, and a lot of legal strings attached to what the loan can/can't be spent on that are at issue.Why can't the feds just give the go ahead, so they can start building this thing. It will mean jobs, and that what is las vegas needs badly. If this president really wants to produce jobs, then this is the way to go.
It is also not clear that this would be the best use of such a massive loan and there is significant doubt about whether it will ever be paid back, since the financial profile of the project is not exactly the soundest, and the risk that the proposer are willing to take in terms of assets brought to the table appear to be rather meager.It's not just federal "approval" for the project...there's a massive loan at stake as well, and a lot of legal strings attached to what the loan can/can't be spent on that are at issue.Why can't the feds just give the go ahead, so they can start building this thing. It will mean jobs, and that what is las vegas needs badly. If this president really wants to produce jobs, then this is the way to go.
AlohaIf it happens in my lifetime, "Drinks are on me"
Dude, the 'ice bucket challenge' is already SO passe`! :lol:If it happens in my lifetime, "Drinks are on me"