New Federal Grants for HSR and Identifying Corridors

[York1]

Our school district used .org since another school district in the US used the same name with .edu.

I know of quite a few local small town government agencies that use .com and .org.

[matthewsaggie]

Many governmental units use .com and .org as addresses. Most were registered prior to the creation of .gov

[CMStPnP]

daveklepper

Because one can make tax-deductable contribuitions to it.

Only true of some non-profits and again it is defined by the IRS Code.   You can have a non profit in which you cannot deduct taxes via contributions.   Also, very unlikely any form of government would participate in membership to a charitable nonprofit because I suspect that would be a conflict of interest and illegal.

Interesting subject tangent though.

I would suspect for rail passenger promotion it might be considered a political interest group non-profit but then again I would suspect the government would be legally excluded from participation.

Suspect strongly this was done for multiple governmental agency participation across governing lines of responsibility as a fast and more efficient alternative to setting up an RTA like structure as well as including non-government people into it.   Would need a very strong ethics code for the Board though, in my opinion. 

[CMStPnP]

FRRYKid

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.

A nonprofit Corporation is defined by the IRS tax code and has nothing to do with who set it up.   It is controlled by a board of directors and shareholders.    In the case I run it is done for common ownership of property (Homeowner Association) it can also be done for a special interest.    The only nonprofit C Corporation I am aware of where the Government cannot participate is 501 chapter C or Charitable Non-profit.

The web domain dot org is used by quasi-governmental organizations like the Federal Reserve on the private side (Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago) and then dot gov on the government side (Board of Governors), so it can be a mix and I don't think there is any restriction in .org being used by a government.

I think this might be a larger umbrella organization in which the government participates and so both sides might be correct here.    They might have setup a nonprofit because it is a LOT faster to setup and disband than an RTA.    Additionally with a nonprofit they could have others participate in it without the overly cumbersome government restrictions.    I think overall it would be cheaper, faster and more agile.     No idea how it would be funded other than grants.    Though NGO's are indeed non-profits and some recieve federal funding.   

So beats me on how that is all done.

[Overmod]

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

[daveklepper]

Because one can make tax-deductable contribuitions to it.

[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.

[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.

 

[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.

[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.

[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.

 

[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]

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.

 

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

 

[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.

[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.

[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. 

[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. 

[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.

[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.

[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.

[diningcar]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.