I think that Member States that the NEC transverses should contribute directly to a fund that brings NEC maintenence standareds up to good working order and modernity and maintains the NEC in good order. The same multi-state agency should collect a portion of the use from each operator on the NEC, including Amtrak for each train run perhaps on a mileage basis.
The regional authority could compete along with other infrastructure projects for expansion or improvement grants from the Feds but it's primary mission would be just maintaining an "as is" maintenence state and not defer maintenece. Perhaps with a little extra margin on top for incremental improvements over time that also have to be maintained once the improvement is made.
I think the NEC maintenence should be entirely removed from the Amtrak budget as Amtrak has been unable to maintain it to consistent standards over time due to it's uneven funding and ongoing funding shortfall. With a multi-state consortium maintaining the NEC accountability for poor track and track infrastructure falling apart is a LOT closer to the voters. Further moving NEC maintenence away from Amtrak also opens up the opportunity that other intercity rail passenger operators could be invited onto the NEC to compete with Amtrak. Overall, I think it would be win-win.
Amtrak as owner / maintainer of the NEC track, signals, bridges, overhead wire, etc. Just seems to be failing at the task over the years and as a result we are slowly drowning the NEC if not just treading water.
I would charge it on a car mile basis. A separate company is going to want to do work the less costly way which means working during the day. The company's charter would need to require work in off peak hours and not during the day rush. If the company could do some work and not delay trains at the users OK. Of course emergency repairs done on a 24/7 basis.
Strangely Boardman made a siimilar recommendation in his recent Trains interview, I didn't get the magazine until after I posted the above.
FWIW, some of my thoughts are as follows:
1. A one dollar maintenance surcharge be attached to every ticket sold of a passenger traveling on any part of the NEC.
2. A real estate development company that operates in the private sector be formed to handle all of the issues related to this part of the business. It needs to be more proactive and businesslike and less bureaucratic in seeking out opportunities.
3. Generate revenues from naming rights of major stations, such as Citibank Penn Station, Amazon Washington Union Station, and others. Also, lease space on viaducts and overpasses crossing major highways or visible from busy roads to billboard companies.
Putting together a regional interstate authority to fund maintenance of the NEC may well be politically impossible. For a route running from Boston to Washington, eight states plus the District of Columbia would have to agree on an interstate compact to create such an authority. It's hard enough to get two states to agree to create a special authority, consider the Bi-State Transit District in metro St. Louis or the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Eight states may well be impossible.
CSSHEGEWISCHEight states may well be impossible.
As I see it, the reason the NEC keeps falling short and has such a large backlog of deferred maintenence is some of those states are not paying their fair share of costs. I don't know how else you can explain having so many passenger trains run on the infrastructure and still not keep up with maintenence. My suspicion in part a portion of it is the Amtrak HSR trains are not apportioned the full maintenence expense that running at higher speeds cause.
Other suspicion is one or more of the various commutter trains / agencies using NEC tracks are undercharged.
I can't otherwise explain how it is that each year Amtrak increases the deferred maintenence backlog each year on the NEC. I think last years increase to the deferred maintence backlog was close to or slighly over $500 million. That's a lot of expenses not being accounted for somewhere.
CMStPnPOther suspicion is one or more of the various commutter trains / agencies using NEC tracks are undercharged.
That's been mentioned before, I think in Amtrak studies, primarily NJT.
I have to believe some of the above usual maintenance costs on the NEC are the obsolete PRR style catenary and 25Hz generating/transmission system, plus the dozen drawbridgs and big underwater tunnels all in a tide water envronment.
MidlandMikeI have to believe some of the above usual maintenance costs on the NEC are the obsolete PRR style catenary and 25Hz generating/transmission system, plus the dozen drawbridgs and big underwater tunnels all in a tide water envronment.
So for all that stuff, I would make it the mission of the multi-state group to modernize it and bring it to a state of good repair via fees assessed to users of the NEC, plus allow them to also approach the Feds for infrastructure grants like everyone else. You'll notice though that maintaining the NEC is a problem for Amtrak.............However, building a brand new 110 mph corridor from the ground up between Chicago and St. Louis, seemed to be no problem. Maintaining it's high speed Michigan trackage without deferred maintence, seems not to be an issue. So again points to an issue with the NEC and it's accounting specifically.
What would be really cool is if the new NEC authority worked, the model could be applied in other areas of the country to take over rail corridors and incrementally upgrade them to high speed with Amtrak only concerned about running the trains and paying a fee to use the tracks. Virgin Trains could expand a lot faster as well with this model.
If done right we could have a much better and more internationally competitive Amtrak. If done poorly it would of course be a disaster for everyone.
charlie hebdoThat's been mentioned before, I think in Amtrak studies, primarily NJT.
I didn't know that but I'll bet it is more than NJT. I read in New York the NYC-Albany trains were part of the original Amtrak charter at formation in 1971 and NY is not paying the true cost of those trains as other states would be if they had Amtrak running them. If thats true, that specific NY state subsidy outside the NEC should end as well.
CMStPnP CMStPnP Other suspicion is one or more of the various commutter trains / agencies using NEC tracks are undercharged. I didn't know that but I'll bet it is more than NJT. I read in New York the NYC-Albany trains were part of the original Amtrak charter at formation in 1971 and NY is not paying the true cost of those trains as other states would be if they had Amtrak running them. If thats true, that specific NY state subsidy outside the NEC should end as well.
CMStPnP Other suspicion is one or more of the various commutter trains / agencies using NEC tracks are undercharged. I didn't know that but I'll bet it is more than NJT. I read in New York the NYC-Albany trains were part of the original Amtrak charter at formation in 1971 and NY is not paying the true cost of those trains as other states would be if they had Amtrak running them. If thats true, that specific NY state subsidy outside the NEC should end as well.
CMStPnP Other suspicion is one or more of the various commutter trains / agencies using NEC tracks are undercharged.
CMStPnP You'll notice though that maintaining the NEC is a problem for Amtrak.............However, building a brand new 110 mph corridor from the ground up between Chicago and St. Louis, seemed to be no problem. Maintaining it's high speed Michigan trackage without deferred maintence, seems not to be an issue.
I thought the HrSR in Illinois was just an upgraded existing line, and owned by UP. How much of the line has actually been upgraded? Plus the Illinois and Michigan lines only get a few trains per day, and don't have the other high cost items mentioned, electrification and multiple draw bridges/tunnels. The bill to get the NEC modernized and in good order is something like $30 billion.
MidlandMikeI thought the HrSR in Illinois was just an upgraded existing line, and owned by UP.
It is an extensive upgrade and involves most of the route, but it was not built "from the ground up."
charlie hebdoThat may or may not be true, but my comment was a response to your post on commuter systems, not about state-supported routes.
They have a report on the Amtrak website with their request for FY 2019 detailed. Amtrak pays approx 50% of the cost of running NY to Albany trains. They pay zero for Hiawatha Service, it's cost is fully covered by Illinois and Wisconsin. Other corridors are a mixed bag. Missouri River Runner they only paid $127k last year for, rest was paid by state of MO. Some of the Illinois state supported routes Amtrak kicks in a chunk of money. Across the U.S. depends on the state supported corridor.
As much as I favor the development of short to medium-length corridors, the NEC is far more essential as a service to the US. There is also the factor of who gets free infrastructure upgrades if Amtrak pays? On the CHI-STL route, the UP also benefits while limiting passnger train usage somewhat.
charlie hebdoAs much as I favor the development of short to medium-length corridors, the NEC is far more essential as a service to the US. There is also the factor of who gets free infrastructure upgrades if Amtrak pays? On the CHI-STL route, the UP also benefits while limiting passnger train usage somewhat.
So I kind of disagree with Amtrak's narrative there. It's not Amtrak driving development of the state corridors, rather, it is the states using Amtraks access to frieght rails to get the state corridors done faster.
Guess what though? There are some freight rails that want to enter the business and compete against Amtrak but only if state funds are provided. Iowa Pacific is one such company and we saw that with the Hoosier State. But little known to most readers here, Wisconsin and Southern has attempted to do so several times in the past under the former leadership of Mr. Gardner (now deceased). It was the whole reason WSOR purchased those bi-level commuter rail cars, they were trying to sell Madison on commuter rail supported by the state.
I suspect another reason why some of those Madison to Chicago WSOR rail trips as well as with Iowa Pacific that took place. Ulterior motive there I suspect but have no proof beause this time they didn't have any releases to the press was probably to generate interest in a non-Amtrak but state sponsored train between the two cities.
When Obama came along and offered the $800 million. Again WSOR popped up and stated it could develope a 79 mph Milwaukee-Madison passenger rail corridor at less cost using trackage rights over CP from Watertown to Milwaukee, then by upgrading the Watertown, WI to Madison, WI line. The State never persued it with WSOR. Now that WSOR is owned by webtec it might no longer want anything to do with passenger service. So thats that.
I think if Amtrak shrunk to just NEC operation, it might be beneficial to state corridor development to take them out of the loop entirely as I don't feel they are helping all that much and in some cases I think Amtrak might be slowing State Corridor development down by how they manage costs and expenses.
Always remember the early experience with the Hiawatha service and Amtrak Chicago management. Mayor Norquist of Milwaukee pushed the service via the Wisonsin State Governor. At one point the relationship between Wisconsin and Amtrak management in Chicago had broken down to the point where the City of Milwaukee was paying someone to sit on every Amtrak train between Chicago and Milwaukee to spy on Amtrak and quickly report back when Amtrak did something stupid to the Mayor of Milwaukee who would then report to the State, who would then female dog at Amtrak. Absolutely true story. I was a student at UW-Milwaukee when that first started to happen and the City of Milwaukee was recruiting college students into the train baby sitter job role (ha-ha).
What was going on that prompted all that was first Amtrak kept putting it's broken down equipment or equipment on the Chicago to Milwaukee run because it had a guaranteed payment and the run was short so if the equipment broke down it would not pizz off that many people before it could be swapped out. That went on for a few weeks before the Mayor noticed a pattern that Amtrak was assigning broken equipment vs it just breaking down due to age. The next issue was I think on a few runs Amtrak subbed in those old C&NW gallery cars it purchased instead of the newer Amfleet cars.......again causing the Mayor to complain and finally it was stipulated that Chicago to Milwaukee Hiawatha service would have a fixed pool of the same cars instead of whatever Amtrak could scrounge up.
Then came the food service debacle. Early on in the service there used to be a Cafe car provided but then Wisconsin saw the bill and said to Amtrak "can we cut these costs somehow" then Amtrak went to a pushcart deal with the overpaid Amtrak employee selling $1.25 candy bars and a few danish. Bill for that was like $350,000 a year and finally Wisconsin said no more to the food service. That was just two of the items Amtrak tried on the route. Theres more. I think it took until after the year 2000 before the relationship progressed to the point where the train babysitter was removed and now they trust what Amtrak says with some spot verification.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.