New Federal Grants for HSR and Identifying Corridors

[charlie hebdo]

https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/president-biden-announces-82-billion-new-grants-high-speed-rail-and-pipeline-projects

U.S. Department of Transportation

Home

Newsroom

In This Section

President Biden Announces $8.2 Billion in New Grants for High-Speed Rail and Pipeline of Projects Nationwide

Friday, December 8, 2023

Announcement includes 10 projects in 9 states ready for construction and 69 corridors across 44 states identified for future development through two grant programs funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) today announced that it has awarded $8.2 billion for 10 passenger rail projects across the country while announcing corridor planning activities that will impact every region nationwide. This unprecedented investment in America’s nationwide intercity passenger rail network builds on a $16.4 billion investment announced last month for 25 projects of national significance along America’s busiest rail corridor. To date, the Biden-Harris Administration has announced nearly $30 billion in investments for our nation’s rail system. 

 

Projects announced through the Federal State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail (Fed-State National) Program will advance two high-speed rail corridors and fund improvements to existing rail corridors for expanded service and performance. These investments will:  

 

Help deliver high-speed rail service in California's Central Valley

Create a brand-new high-speed rail corridor between Las Vegas, Nevada, and southern California, serving an estimated 11 million passengers annually 

Make major upgrades to existing conventional rail corridors to better connect Northern Virginia and the Southeast with the Northeast Corridor

Expand and add frequencies to the Pennsylvania Keystone Corridor between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh

Extend the Piedmont Corridor in North Carolina north, as part of a higher-speed connection between Raleigh and Richmond, Virginia 

Invest in Chicago Union Station, as an initial step toward future improvements to the critical Midwest corridors hub

Improve service in Maine, Montana, and Alaska

“Today, the Biden-Harris Administration takes another historic step to deliver the passenger rail system that Americans have been calling for – with $8.2 billion for faster, more reliable, expanded train service across the country,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. “With this funding, we’ll deliver America’s first high-speed rail on a route between Southern California and Las Vegas, complete major upgrades for riders in Virginia, North Carolina, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maine, Montana, and Alaska, and announce a comprehensive plan that makes it easier to expand passenger rail lines in 44 states.”

 

At the same time, FRA is announcing 69 corridor selections across 44 states through the Corridor Identification and Development (Corridor ID) Program, which will drive future passenger rail expansion. 

 

Corridor ID, a new planning program made possible by President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, will help guide intercity passenger rail development throughout the country. This inaugural round of selections aims to upgrade 15 existing rail routes, add or extend service on 47 new routes, and advance 7 new high-speed rail projects, creating a pipeline of intercity passenger rail projects ready for implementation and future investment. FRA will work closely with states, transportation agencies, host and operating railroads, and local governments to develop and build passenger rail projects faster than ever before.

 

“President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law gave us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to think smart and think big about the future of rail in America, and we are taking full advantage of the resources we have to advance world-class passenger rail services nationwide,” said FRA Administrator Amit Bose. “Today’s announcement is another step forward as we advance transformative projects that will carry Americans for decades to come and provide them with convenient, climate-friendly alternatives to congested roads and airports. We’re thinking about the future too with comprehensive and systematic planning efforts to transform the U.S. intercity passenger rail network now and in the years to come.”

 

Examples of planning and development activities selected through the Corridor ID program include:

 

New high-speed rail service in the Cascadia High-Speed Rail Corridor between Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia

New high-speed rail service between Dallas and Houston

New and upgraded Midwest Chicago hub corridors: 

Daily, multi-frequency service from Chicago to Indianapolis 

Increased frequencies from Chicago to Milwaukee to the Twin Cities, with an extension to Madison, Wisconsin

Improved service and increased frequencies from Chicago to Detroit, with an extension to Windsor, providing a direct connection to Canada’s high-speed rail network 

A comprehensive plan for the Chicago terminal and service chokepoints south of Lake Michigan benefiting all corridors and long-distance trains south and east of Chicago 

New service between the Twin Cities and Duluth, Minnesota

New service from Fort Collins to Pueblo, Colorado, with intermediate stops at Boulder, Denver, and Colorado Springs  

New service between Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona, with multiple daily frequencies 

New service connecting Baton Rouge and New Orleans, Louisiana  

New connections between the Northeast Corridor and Northern Delaware and Reading and Scranton, Pennsylvania  

Expanded connections and increased frequencies within California’s extensive conventional rail network  

Expanded connections and service in Florida’s intercity rail network between the key travel markets of Tampa, Jacksonville, Orlando, and Miami 

New service between Atlanta and Savanah, and from Atlanta to Nashville and Memphis via Chattanooga  

Restoration of service between Chicago and Seattle, Washington, through multiple rural communities in North Dakota and Montana that are currently not served by passenger rail.

 

[CMStPnP]

Amtrak and the Feds are boosting expectation well above what they will probably execute on here.    I seen numerous press releases on Facebook from all over the country about how Amtrak is going to start this corridor here and over there.   They announced two new corridors in Wisconsin alone.   Milwaukee - Madison - Twin Cities and  Milwaukee - Green Bay,   Minnesota they announced Twin Cities to Duluth..........In Arizona they announced Phoenix to Tucson.......and the list goes on and on.    Everytime I read one of the FB posts on this shower of small amounts of Federal money all across the country for studies...........this plays in my head over and over again.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz1syhcU39U

 We are what $33 Trillion in Debt.   Which I am in a small minority of people that still thinks we are already overcomming that with past inflation as well as the comming tech boom with AI.........even so it is a ridiculously high number and I don't see the country spending another half to full trillion just on Corridor rail projects across the country.   So in my view the complete lack of selectivity here is a waste of money.

[54light15]

I'm thinking that a lot of those ideas will turn into this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YihiSqO4jnA 

 

[CMStPnP]

54light15

I'm thinking that a lot of those ideas will turn into this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YihiSqO4jnA 

 

Hey thats palgarism (heh).   The best part is I just got a FB post about how Amtrak is going to restart the North Coast Hiawatha across three to four states.   Apparently not only do people think the states it would run across have a money tree somewhere but also an Amtrak LD equipment tree.......where you can just pluck off locomotives and passenger cars at random when you want to start new service in a year or two (10-15 years average - realistically).     It's getting ridiculous and a lot of people are wasting the grant money handed out on a lot of nonsense plans.

I would love to be more positive and optimistic about this but my past experience on adding new trains (Texas and Wisconsin) it's not done in a few years and as I posted before it takes a strong grass roots effort and the states also have to backstop with money.

[charlie hebdo]

CMStPnP

 

 

54light15

I'm thinking that a lot of those ideas will turn into this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YihiSqO4jnA 

 

 

 

Hey thats palgarism (heh).   The best part is I just got a FB post about how Amtrak is going to restart the North Coast Hiawatha across three to four states.   Apparently not only do people think the states it would run across have a money tree somewhere but also an Amtrak LD equipment tree.......where you can just pluck off locomotives and passenger cars at random when you want to start new service in a year or two (10-15 years average - realistically).     It's getting ridiculous and a lot of people are wasting the grant money handed out on a lot of nonsense plans.

I would love to be more positive and optimistic about this but my past experience on adding new trains (Texas and Wisconsin) it's not done in a few years and as I posted before it takes a strong grass roots effort and the states also have to backstop with money.

 

The NCH.

https://www.kfyrtv.com/2023/12/11/old-north-coast-hiawatha-rail-route-takes-giant-step-towards-reinstatement/?fbclid=IwAR1aBpYbiYBaZl47rLI4Z9DXvQlcVOFeWk1RAxkFq0XMXK1EYFCVZMkLLCs

You might want to be careful about overgeneralizing the TX and WI unfortunate experiences to other regions. Some states (IL, MI, VA and even WI have done fairly well with improving and/or expanding services.

You also mentioned a half trillion dollar number, when the article mentioned $50 billion. Are you referring to some estimates of total costs?  Likely much higher than that to get a modern network.

[CMStPnP]

charlie hebdo

You might want to be careful about overgeneralizing the TX and WI unfortunate experiences to other regions. Some states (IL, MI, VA and even WI have done fairly well with improving and/or expanding services.

Right so IL, MI and WI are currently existing corridors being upgraded with the recent money since 2008, in my view that is not as difficult to accomplish because there is ridership and Amtrak trains on those routes already.    I am referring to the recent promises of entirely new trains that do not currently exist on new routes.

charlie hebdo

You also mentioned a half trillion dollar number, when the article mentioned $50 billion. Are you referring to some estimates of total costs?  Likely much higher than that to get a modern network. Add Quote to your Post

I was referring to all Amtrak's dreams nationwide of implementing Amtrak Connect US - patching up the National LD network and starting new services one train a day as a corridor starter like the the new Chicago - Twin Cities train, without much route improvement.   

Not necessarily a national corridor network which my read on that is not only new corridor services but new corridor services with train frequency of 5 trains or more and 79+ mph or higher speeds along with rehabbed routes.

Amtrak only has 83 trainsets on order and my interpretation of that order was it is going to replace Amfleet I.    Not sure it was intended for Amfleet II or Bombaridier.   However, I have my doubts they are going to keep Amfleet I as spare equipment after the new trainsets come in.   Pretty sure they will be sold or scrapped.

[charlie hebdo]

The routes in IL, WI, VA, MD and MI required effort to get funding to expand or even start. There are lessons there for other states/regions to emulate.

Still not clear from your reply where that half trillion $ number came from, Amtrak or your own estimate.

[Gramp]

It reminds me of the 70's energy crisis.  Suddenly there were going to be all these new trains popping up, running between cities which had no train service.

I'll follow Brightline. 

[charlie hebdo]

https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20231212/big-upgrades-coming-to-union-station-more-trains-to-midwestern-cities-planned/?fbclid=IwAR1ZYSlGvg1NRHk-s_j3PXrf_Qz6dUUwpehXFmfDs83mdHXq8OhF2ahfhRQ

Midwestern upgrades + Union Station revamp.

[CMStPnP]

charlie hebdo

https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20231212/big-upgrades-coming-to-union-station-more-trains-to-midwestern-cities-planned/?fbclid=IwAR1ZYSlGvg1NRHk-s_j3PXrf_Qz6dUUwpehXFmfDs83mdHXq8OhF2ahfhRQ

Midwestern upgrades + Union Station revamp.

$94 million was a compromise from what I read.   They asked for a lot more money than that.    So I think this is a scaled down project and some were disappointed.

[CMStPnP]

charlie hebdo

The routes in IL, WI, VA, MD and MI required effort to get funding to expand or even start. There are lessons there for other states/regions to emulate.

Still not clear from your reply where that half trillion $ number came from, Amtrak or your own estimate.

 

It was a guess.   Everyone guesses in the Trains Forums, even the official estimates put forwards (see post above) are guesses.

[diningcar]

The California guessers were off by ???. Total still to be determined but more than double now and not half finished.

[wjstix]

CMStPnP

hey announced two new corridors in Wisconsin alone.   Milwaukee - Madison - Twin Cities and  Milwaukee - Green Bay,   Minnesota they announced Twin Cities to Duluth.......

Chicago - Twin Cities second train already approved, will start in 2024. Twin Cities - Duluth probably a year after, maybe early 2026. 

Funding for high-speed rail between Twin Cities - Chicago was approved back in the Obama administration, but failed because Wisconsin refused to participate...largely for political reasons.

[CMStPnP]

diningcar

The California guessers were off by ???. Total still to be determined but more than double now and not half finished.

I think California taxpayers just wanted a High Speed rail line between LA and SFO but then the politicians got involved and the project manager apparently issued the directive:  "Spare no expense".    I still can't believe the route or the fact they are boring under multiple mountain ranges.   I don't even think Europe builds High Speed Railways that way.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

CMStPnP

 

 

diningcar

The California guessers were off by ???. Total still to be determined but more than double now and not half finished.

 

 

I think California taxpayers just wanted a High Speed rail line between LA and SFO but then the politicians got involved and the project manager apparently issued the directive:  "Spare no expense".    I still can't believe the route or the fact they are boring under multiple mountain ranges.   I don't even think Europe builds High Speed Railways that way.

 

The Gotthard Base Tunnel may not be High Speed Rail but it is an improvement over the previous route.

[spsffan]

CMStPnP

  I still can't believe the route or the fact they are boring under multiple mountain ranges.   I don't even think Europe builds High Speed Railways that way.

 

I know the topography well having lived in California for 61 years. There is no other, better way to do it. The existing route from LA to Bakersfield, via Mojave even with it's roughly doubled length still has grades that nearly exceed rail abiliies. Tehachapi Loop is a hint at the extraordinay measures to get even that lenghty line through. 

The coast route is almost as long and includes grades an a much larger portion of the route. The San Joaquin Valley routing with substantial tunneling at the southern end is the only way to do this. 

[Gramp]

Wisconsin was 3 billion in the hole back then. Walker straightened that out. Saved state school districts from having to make deep cuts. People often have selective memory. 

[CMStPnP]

Gramp

People often have selective memory. 

I don't think the issue is selective memory because the route was Milwaukee to Madison for $800 million not Chicago to Twin Cities.    There is a math issue going on there if people really believe a trully high speed rail line can even be built on the shorter route for $800 million.

[CMStPnP]

CSSHEGEWISCH

The Gotthard Base Tunnel may not be High Speed Rail but it is an improvement over the previous route.

I believe that was an incremental improvement as well.

[Vermontanan2]

CMStPnP

The best part is I just got a FB post about how Amtrak is going to restart the North Coast Hiawatha across three to four states.   Apparently not only do people think the states it would run across have a money tree somewhere but also an Amtrak LD equipment tree.......where you can just pluck off locomotives and passenger cars at random when you want to start new service in a year or two (10-15 years average - realistically).     It's getting ridiculous and a lot of people are wasting the grant money handed out on a lot of nonsense plans. 

I think the most interesting part about the $500,000 grant money toward route studies is that there seems to be no coordination or anyone specifically prioritizing routes.  Case in point:  Both Phoenix-Tucson and Los Angeles-Coachella Valley are being studied, which incorporate part of the Sunset Limited route.  The IIJA specifically mentions funding to make the Cardinal and Sunset Limited daily trains.  So, while all these things could come to pass, it’s likely one other important restorative aspect of the Sunset Limited route won’t happen, that is reopening the Phoenix-Wellton segment to return the train to Phoenix proper.  This is because no government entity pitched Phoenix to Wellton as a desired corridor.  Amtrak, of course, could apply for additional grant money to get the Sunset operating through Phoenix again, but I would guess any such applications would be made toward regional/state-sponsored service.

 

It also appears that those who get the $500,000 for route studies get say in who gets to do the studies.  Anyone see anything wrong with this?  I can see where the results could be anywhere from asking for the moon and the stars to requesting too little to get a new service launched. 

 

Speaking of the North Coast Hiawatha route, there is actual precedence on what could happen with a study.  Shortly after it was created, the Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority (a Montana state government entity) commissioned a study of the North Coast Hiawatha route by none other than the Rail Passengers Association.  Amazingly, the study showed that the train would have less utility in Montana than any other state along the route.  For instance, though one-third of the route-miles are in Montana, the state would generate only 13.8% of the ridership and only 16.5% of the economic benefit.  Touted as a way to serve more of Montana’s population (about 60% compared to 30% for the Empire Builder), the study found that (compared with Amtrak FY2019), there would actually be fewer people use the North Coast Hiawatha in Montana than use the Empire Builder though the route in the state is about 100 miles further.  And while the Bozeman/Yellowstone airport is by far Montana’s busiest (3,000 people daily) serving Yellowstone National Park, the Big Sky resort, and Montana State University, the study projected less than 9 passengers would board each train per day in Bozeman, and handle fewer passengers annually than in Detroit Lakes, Minnesota.  Bozeman’s projected annual boardings were only 84% of that at the East Glacier Park station served by the Empire Builder AND the East Glacier Park station is only open 5 months of the year.  The Bozeman example (and there are scores more) actually helped underrepresent the train’s potential usage in Montana.   Ridership in other states – all based on random inaccurate county populations (and only one county per stop) tended to be overstated.

 

As ridiculous as these and many more conclusions from the study were, they were ignored by the BPSRA and RPA who simply touted the study finding the train would generate $271 million in annual economic benefit.  If one simply Googles “$271 million Amtrak”, he/she will find numerous articles about the BSPRA touting this figure about a reinstated North Coast Hiawatha, but all the batshit crazy ridership figures (shown in the study) are ignored.  (Contact me if anyone desires a thorough critique of the study.)  The entire study was a complete fabrication, and was done without contacted any of the host railroads, proposing a schedule, identifying specific infrastructure, train servicing locations or stations and the amenities which would be offered at these stations.  The goal was simply “a means to an end” and the “end” was the $271 million figure (where the vast majority of the “benefit” was claimed) was in Washington, Minnesota and Wisconsin. 

 

 

Based on this, the last entity taxpayers need to be studying the North Coast Hiawatha route is the one who got a grant to do it.   If past practice shows us anything, they’re likely to show the train to be fantastic success because – well – that’s what they want.  In the case of the $271 million benefit, reading the study will reveal that even RPA admits that only 11% of the ridership is only attributable to the train – that is, only 11% wouldn’t travel at all if the train was not available.  This means that 89% would still travel by other means and they, in turn, would generate economic activity, just not with the passenger train.  According to the study, that 11% was much less than the annual subsidy to operate the train, admitting in effect that the train would still lose money.  And, the estimated amount of annual subsidy is much less than Amtrak claims it takes for its other Chicago-West Coast trains.

 

With entities as diverse as Eau Claire County, Wisconsin, the City of Peoria, Illinois and numerous state DOTs doing individual studies, it would seem that consistency is likely not going to be the norm.  Will the FRA be able to sufficiently factcheck?

 

[Erik_Mag]

Back in the early 1970's, the Miles City Star was reporting the number of people who got on or off the NCH, numbers would typically be between 1 to 5. This was with the train running from Seattle to Chicago.

[FRRYKid]

Vermontanan2

the Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority (a Montana state government entity) 

Just for reference, the Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority is not a governmental organization. It is a 501(c)3 not for profit. The various counties, municipalities, and tribal governments involved have voted to join the group. For those that are interested, their website is www.bigskyrail.org. The FAQ page answers a lot of questions. I am not involved with them in any sense so I have no direct interest in promoting them other than to get passenger rail back to my home area.

[CMStPnP]

FRRYKid

Just for reference, the Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority is not a governmental organization. It is a 501(c)3 not for profit. The various counties, municipalities, and tribal governments involved have voted to join the group. For those that are interested, their website is www.bigskyrail.org. The FAQ page answers a lot of questions. I am not involved with them in any sense so I have no direct interest in promoting them other than to get passenger rail back to my home area.

Good Luck!   The biggest problem with startup of rail passenger service is the capital necessary.   As big as Montana is, it does not have the political influence that larger states like NY, IL and CA have to plead with the Feds for money.   So even if you do get a successful and large scale grass roots group, get state backing in the legislature and governorship.   Your going to probably need more than one state on board the plan to get the financial attention of the Feds.    Amtrak will promise you folks the moon but likely you will not get much more than crumbs unless you have a good plan in place to influence the decision making better than Montana could alone.     Even so, Montana will need to contribute a sizeable chunk of it's own taxpayer money and I just do not see a largely rural state being OK with this.    I would be happy to be proven wrong though.

The best plan as I see it here is a coalition of Western states forming a rail passenger authority or interstate body.    Thats your best bet for real action and more than passing interest by Amtrak.

[Vermontanan2]

FRRYKid

Just for reference, the Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority is not a governmental organization. It is a 501(c)3 not for profit. The various counties, municipalities, and tribal governments involved have voted to join the group. For those that are interested, their website is www.bigskyrail.org. The FAQ page answers a lot of questions. I am not involved with them in any sense so I have no direct interest in promoting them other than to get passenger rail back to my home area.

Well, if you actually go the Big Sky Passenger Rail website and their FAQ page, it says this: "State law allows counties to provide financial or in-kind support to the authority if they so choose, but they are under no obligation to do so. It also allows the authority to place before voters in participating counties a mill levy for authority operation."

In other words, they have the power to tax.  Obviously, a non-profit isn't able to do that.

There's also this link at their website: https://missoulacounty.sharepoint.com/administration/BCC/Public/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2Fadministration%2FBCC%2FPublic%2FPassenger%20Rail%20Videos%2FJoint%20Big%20Sky%20Passenger%20Rail%20Authority%20Resolution%20%2D%20Final%20Signed%2Epdf&parent=%2Fadministration%2FBCC%2FPublic%2FPassenger%20Rail%20Videos&p=true&ga=1

this is the joint resolution creating the passenger rail authority.  Under section 7, item 3, it specifies how the authority can receive grants but also levy taxes.

Of course in Montana, any suggestion of levying a tax for support the entity would receive less than an enthusiastic response.

 

[charlie hebdo]

Aside from speculation about an unnecessary train that the people in MT, ID etc. probably would not use or pay taxes to support it, Amtrak issued it Request for Proposals (replacement for bi-level equipment) due December 22. 

https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/amtrak-issues-long-distance-rfp/?fbclid=IwAR3o_dQfE0B7XOxLd1mJgvH1bvbacMOIxWzssXYyGt8V-e7Hkdp_0nkN3zc

 

[Vermontanan2]

CMStPnP

The biggest problem with startup of rail passenger service is the capital necessary.   As big as Montana is, it does not have the political influence that larger states like NY, IL and CA have to plead with the Feds for money.   So even if you do get a successful and large scale grass roots group, get state backing in the legislature and governorship.   Your going to probably need more than one state on board the plan to get the financial attention of the Feds.    Amtrak will promise you folks the moon but likely you will not get much more than crumbs unless you have a good plan in place to influence the decision making better than Montana could alone.     Even so, Montana will need to contribute a sizeable chunk of it's own taxpayer money and I just do not see a largely rural state being OK with this.    I would be happy to be proven wrong though.

The best plan as I see it here is a coalition of Western states forming a rail passenger authority or interstate body.    Thats your best bet for real action and more than passing interest by Amtrak.

Backing of the governor and legislature in Montana is not going to happen.  In fact, this is why the BSPRA was formed to begin with.  In the 2019 legislature, there was an attempt to get the state on board with a modicum of monetary support for expanded rail service.  The proposal was quickly dismissed with even a measure for expanded bike paths getting more traction.

Since then, the BSPRA has been promoting expanded rail service in Southern Montana (rather disingenuously in my opinion) as a "no-cost" option because any new service would be financed with federal dollars.  (When I lived in Montana, I paid federal taxes, and don't think that has changed.)  So, they're obviously expecting the feds to pay for the whole kit and caboodle.  And, of course, none of the other states are on board, either.  Wisconsin and Minnesota will enventually get their "second train" between Chicago and St. Paul, and Minnesota wants this extended to Fargo.  But this is proposed as a day train without any connection to a North Coast Hiawatha, and for their part - even after four years - the BSPRA won't commit to even an aspirational schedule for their train so we don't know how it might fit in with other services.  We can count on North Dakota and Idaho to mirror Montana and not provide any kind of funding whatsoever, and even in Washington, interest in the route between Seattle and Spokane via Yakima fizzled out after a state-sponsored report projected high infrastructure costs and less than impressive ridership.

In a way, this is kind of a deja-vu-all-over-again moment for those of us around in 1979.  Remember, the reason that the North Coast Hiawatha (and four other long-distance trains) was discontinued was that Congress didn't want to give Amtrak an appropriation at the level which included operations funding for all the existing trains.  The North Coast Hiawatha wasn't one of the original trains in the Amtrak system.  Throughout the 1970s, routes were added without any long-term plan to pay for them.  Budget crunches resulted in more trains getting the ax later, as in 1981, 1997, and 2005.  As in 1971, adding another long-distance service will simply result in the annual required appropriation to increase, and we're finding out to this day, even that much funding is not a sure thing.  This is why Amtrak is more likely to remain focused on state-supported services simply because they don't want to deal with the ebbs and flows of politics in this aspect of their yearly ask.

 

[FRRYKid]

Vermontanan2

 

 

FRRYKid

Just for reference, the Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority is not a governmental organization. It is a 501(c)3 not for profit. The various counties, municipalities, and tribal governments involved have voted to join the group. For those that are interested, their website is www.bigskyrail.org. The FAQ page answers a lot of questions. I am not involved with them in any sense so I have no direct interest in promoting them other than to get passenger rail back to my home area.

 

 

 

Well, if you actually go the Big Sky Passenger Rail website and their FAQ page, it says this: "State law allows counties to provide financial or in-kind support to the authority if they so choose, but they are under no obligation to do so. It also allows the authority to place before voters in participating counties a mill levy for authority operation."

In other words, they have the power to tax.  Obviously, a non-profit isn't able to do that.

There's also this link at their website: https://missoulacounty.sharepoint.com/administration/BCC/Public/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2Fadministration%2FBCC%2FPublic%2FPassenger%20Rail%20Videos%2FJoint%20Big%20Sky%20Passenger%20Rail%20Authority%20Resolution%20%2D%20Final%20Signed%2Epdf&parent=%2Fadministration%2FBCC%2FPublic%2FPassenger%20Rail%20Videos&p=true&ga=1

this is the joint resolution creating the passenger rail authority.  Under section 7, item 3, it specifies how the authority can receive grants but also levy taxes.

Of course in Montana, any suggestion of levying a tax for support the entity would receive less than an enthusiastic response.

However on the FAQ page it also says that any donations are tax deductible. A government agency doesn't have that ability to the best of my knowledge.

[CMStPnP]

charlie hebdo

Aside from speculation about an unnecessary train that the people in MT, ID etc. probably would not use or pay taxes to support it, Amtrak issued it Request for Proposals (replacement for bi-level equipment) due December 22. 

https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/amtrak-issues-long-distance-rfp/?fbclid=IwAR3o_dQfE0B7XOxLd1mJgvH1bvbacMOIxWzssXYyGt8V-e7Hkdp_0nkN3zc

Thanks for posting but this should be in a new thread because most will miss it here.   I was wondering when they were going to send that out because they promised fall of 2023.

Onto a related topic, also surfing trying to find out when the big Muskego yard redirect project gets underway in Milwaukee.    That is planned for no later then Spring of 2024 and I have not heard a peep on it, other than it was a GO and fully funded.     That is a major line redirect for CPKC freight trains through Milwaukee and includes CTC signaling through Milwaukee's Amtrak station for passenger trains.

[Vermontanan2]

FRRYKid

However on the FAQ page it also says that any donations are tax deductible. A government agency doesn't have that ability to the best of my knowledge.

Another reason I think the BSPRA is a government entity is that they say they are:

"The Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority is a subdivision of state government and the largest transportation district in Montana."

At: https://www.bigskyrail.org/releases

Go to the November 9, 2023 press release.

 

[FRRYKid]

Vermontanan2

 

FRRYKid

However on the FAQ page it also says that any donations are tax deductible. A government agency doesn't have that ability to the best of my knowledge.

 

 

 

Another reason I think the BSPRA is a government entity is that they say they are:

"The Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority is a subdivision of state government and the largest transportation district in Montana."

At: https://www.bigskyrail.org/releases

Go to the November 9, 2023 press release.

 

 

Then why can it use a .org extension for its webpage? Anything government, whether it is federal, state, or local uses a .gov at least to the best of my knowledge.