[from MHSRA] This is something that should concern all who care about passenger rail in US.
"Tomorrow the House will vote on an authorization for Amtrak. Before the vote, anti-rail opponents introduced an amendment to the Passenger Rail Authorization bill (H.R. 749) that would cut all funding for Amtrak. These extreme voices, buoyed by outside groups like the Heritage Foundation, want to decimate a rapidly growing service that millions of Americans depend on each year.Anti-rail opponents have held America back for decades. Over the past 50 years dozens of other countries have introduced world-class high-speed trains and passed us by. Yet, despite relatively minimal levels of passenger rail funding, Amtrak ridership has skyrocketed over the past decade. At a time when we need to be making investments in our future, some members of Congress, who stick to an outdated transportation agenda, want to move us backwards. The majority of Americans who want more trains need to make themselves heard before it could be too late."
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
How does "cut all funding to Amtrak" translate to "decimate"?
"Decimate" is bad enough. More like "eliminate" or "eviscerate."
We all know that elections have consequences. What the house is purposing should come at no surprise. Its clear that a faction or factions in the house for years have advocated the elimination of amtrak. It may not happen now, but the never ending pressure is thier. It might happen in one shot or over a few years, but the pressure to defund, eliminate, or under fund will continue till Amtrak is gone or the pressure eliminated. I vote for the later.
I don't think it will pass the Senate. This is just but an opening salvo in a larger negotiation and the House has done similar in the past. Hopefully the compromise is above just sustainment levels this time.
Do we know the names and state of those with anti-Amtrak proclivity, such that they can be replaced with pro-Amtrak individuals? There has to be a record of the amendment vote and house bill vote, if the yea or nays are challenged.
I'll take a wild shot and say the oil companies would love to eliminate Amtrak. Publick transportation meens les miles driven by automobiles?
BumpyJack68 I'll take a wild shot and say the oil companies would love to eliminate Amtrak. Publick transportation meens les miles driven by automobiles?
Compared to the wailing and gnashing of teeth during the Reagan administration, this is a walk in the park!
This is about the most Amtrak friendly bill in the history of Rep. controlled House - ever. You can thank/blame Rep. Schuster an unabashed Amtrak supporter.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Being a citizen of the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I'll be a non supporter of Mr. Schuster.
The key will be to see how far the McClintock (R) CA amendment to strike section 101 of the bill (covers all the various operating losses) goes, in terms of how many votes it gets. Likely it will lose, but if close it shows Amtrak is in more danger than some wish to believe. Not getting political here, but today's TP members are far more to the right than GOP members in Reagan's time.
So is there any word on the outcome of the vote?
S. Connor So is there any word on the outcome of the vote?
Yes! [from MHSRA]: "This afternoon the House passed an authorization for Amtrak after some last minute drama. Before the bill came to a vote, rail opponents introduced an amendment to cut all funding for Amtrak. Luckily, more levelheaded representatives from both parties stood their ground, and rejected the amendment. In the end the bipartisan bill passed at a wide margin of 316-101, and will now move on to the Senate."
03/4/2015
"House passes five-year Amtrak reauthorization" From TRAINSNewswire of this date:
By Bob Johnston | March 4, 2015
Looks like the highway crossing amendment was approved.
Requires each state to develop a grade crossing action plan, identifying specific solutions for improving safety at crossings, including highway-rail grade crossing closures or grade separations; and focuses on crossings that have experienced recent grade crossing accidents or multiple accidents, or are at high risk for accidents.
AMENDMENT TO THE RULES COMMITTEE PRINT FOR H.R. 749 OFFERED BY MS. BROWNLEY OF CALIFORNIA At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
1 SEC. 503. STATE ACTION PLANS.
2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall require—
3 (1) each State, other than those States identi-
4 fied pursuant to section 202 of the Rail Safety Im-
5 provement Act of 2008 (49 U.S.C. 22501 note), to
6 develop and implement, not later than 18 months
7 after the date of enactment of this Act, a State
8 grade crossing action plan; and
9 (2) each State that was identified pursuant to
10 section 202 of such Act to update its plan and sub-
11 mit to the Secretary, not later than 1 year after the
12 date of enactment of this Act, a report describing
13 what the State did to implement the plan.
14 (b) CONTENTS.—Each plan required under sub-
15 section (a) shall—
16 (1) identify specific solutions for improving
17 safety at crossings, including highway-rail grade
18 crossing closures or grade separations; and
(2) focus on crossings that have experienced re-
cent grade crossing accidents or multiple accidents,
or are at high risk for accidents.
4 (c) ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary shall provide assist-
5 ance to the States in developing and carrying out, as ap-
6 propriate, the plan required under subsection (a).
7 (d) CONDITIONS.—The Secretary may condition the
8 awarding of any grants under section 103 of this Act to
9 a State on the development of such State’s grade crossing
10 action plan.
11 (e) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary shall
12 make each plan and report publicly available on an official
13 Internet Web site.
Well thats good news, they can pass supplimentals for Amtrak as well, they are not stuck at those figures. Amtrak needs to layout a business plan and make the request.
Highway crossing amendment
Another unfunded mandate !
blue streak 1 Highway crossing amendment Another unfunded mandate !
I properly reformatted the amendment. You should reconsider your conclusion.
ROBERT WILLISON Being a citizen of the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I'll be a non supporter of Mr. Schuster.
Be careful what you wish for... You'd rather Mica have the chair?
samfp1943So maybe, like the 'fat lady' in the opera, Amtrak will continue to stumble around the stage til she's either done in or manages to get a new and better lease on life(?
The draft gave Amtrak access to RRIF loans for the first time. So far, all the comments seem to miss this. It's a BIG DEAL for the NEC if it's in there. Anyone know?
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF), Program Overview, Amtrak took out a RRIF loan for $100 million in 2002. It took out another loan for $562.9 million in 2011.
Some of the 2002 loan proceeds were used to buy back long term equipment leases. Some of the 2011 proceeds were used to buy the new low level long distance cars and the new electric locomotives.
The MHSRA announcement is an example of how people make imprecise claims that are not supported by any data or the implied data is wrong.
"......millions of Americans depend on each year."
Since the topic is funding for Amtrak, I presume the author was referring to Amtrak's passengers.
In FY14 Amtrak carried 30.9 million passengers, which is different than the number of customers (individuals) who rented space on its trains. Many of Amtrak's passengers are one person riding multiple times during the year.
Although Amtrak does not reveal the number of Americans who are dependent on it, the number probably is far less than 30.9 million.
"Over the past 50 years dozens of other countries have introduced world-class high-speed trains...."
Really? At least twenty four countries have implemented world-class high-speed trains? It would be nice to see the list along with a definition of world-class and high-speed.
"Amtrak ridership has skyrocketed over the past decade."
Between FY10 and FY14 Amtrak's ridership increased 7.7 per cent. Between 2004 and 2014 it increased approximatley 33 per cent. How would one know if this meets the criteria for skyrocketed?
Were the increases because new riders flocked to Amtrak's trains? Or was it because many existing customers took more trips as the economy recovered from the 2007-08 financial crisis?
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/09/16/dont-look-now-but-the-house-amtrak-bill-actually-has-some-good-ideas/
"But it does propose reforms to the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program, whose $35 billion in lending power goes largely unused because of cumbersome and confusing requirements. NARP applauded these changes, which include the creation of a $14 billion loan fund within RRIF to invest exclusively in the Northeast Corridor."
I wonder if this part made it through.
Apparently the RRIF procedures were not too cumbersome for Amtrak and 29 other carriers. They were able to work their way through the paper maze and lasso $1.8 billion. Amtrak found a way to get more than 663 million.
The amount of money lent is relatively small compared to the amount of money supposedly available, although how much of it was really available is problematic.
Maybe the biggest constraint on the borrowers was a requirement to demonstrate an ability to pay back the loans. What a novel idea! A solid credit rating!
Amtrak has the taxpayers to fall back on if it defaults on its debt. That may help explain why it has borrowed to date 1/3rd of the funds lent under the program.
I could not help but note the continuing reference to the profitability of the NEC. The NEC had an operating profit in FY14, but it is not generating sufficient revenue to cover its depreciation and capitalized interests costs. These items must be included in the financial statements to determine if an operation or service line is generating a profit.
Sam1I could not help but note the continuing reference to the profitability of the NEC. The NEC had an operating profit in FY14, but it is not generating sufficient revenue to cover its depreciation and capitalized interests costs. These items must be included in the financial statements to determine if an operation or service line is generating a profit.
The current bill requires that net operating profit be invested in the NEC and not used to offset losses on LD train.
It also provides some additional dollars that for capital improvment of the NEC.
Amtrak is supposed to use the net profit plus the capital grants plus easier RRIF loan money to keep the NEC going. This might even be enough to start reversing the tide of deterioration along the NEC.
oltmannd Sam1 I could not help but note the continuing reference to the profitability of the NEC. The NEC had an operating profit in FY14, but it is not generating sufficient revenue to cover its depreciation and capitalized interests costs. These items must be included in the financial statements to determine if an operation or service line is generating a profit. It also provides some additional dollars that for capital improvment of the NEC. Amtrak is supposed to use the net profit plus the capital grants plus easier RRIF loan money to keep the NEC going. This might even be enough to start reversing the tide of deterioration along the NEC.
Sam1 I could not help but note the continuing reference to the profitability of the NEC. The NEC had an operating profit in FY14, but it is not generating sufficient revenue to cover its depreciation and capitalized interests costs. These items must be included in the financial statements to determine if an operation or service line is generating a profit.
I agree. The operating profits generated by the NEC should be restricted to covering its capital investment requirements.
It is in corridors like the NEC where there is a potential payoff for passenger rail.
Hopefully the decision makers will stick a plan to improve the current NEC route. Doing so is likely to be the best outcome for the United States.
Sam1Apparently the RRIF procedures were not too cumbersome for Amtrak and 29 other carriers. They were able to work their way through the paper maze and lasso $1.8 billion. Amtrak found a way to get more than 663 million.
The rules were cumbersome enough that only a small fraction of the money available to be loaned was actually used.
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2011/02/18/in-age-of-s%C2%ADpending-cuts-why-are-billions-of-federal-rail-dollars-going-unused/
oltmannd Sam1 Apparently the RRIF procedures were not too cumbersome for Amtrak and 29 other carriers. They were able to work their way through the paper maze and lasso $1.8 billion. Amtrak found a way to get more than 663 million. http://usa.streetsblog.org/2011/02/18/in-age-of-s%C2%ADpending-cuts-why-are-billions-of-federal-rail-dollars-going-unused/
Sam1 Apparently the RRIF procedures were not too cumbersome for Amtrak and 29 other carriers. They were able to work their way through the paper maze and lasso $1.8 billion. Amtrak found a way to get more than 663 million.
I don't have time to research thoroughly the issue.
Although $35 billion was authorized for the program, how much was appropriated? This is the key question.
Frequently Congress authorizes money for a program. But until the monies are appropriated, the figure is meaningless.
The referenced article does not differentiate between authorization and appropriation. Big mistake or oversight! In addition, the views expressed by the witnesses appear to be general impressions that are not supported by hard data. Where is it, i.e. number of days by quintiles required to secure a loan, number of loans rejected, number of loan applications withdrawn, etc.
I am sticking with my perspective. A significant number of railroads, including Amtrak, worked their way through the paper requirements. If Amtrak management, which strikes me as an excuse team, can find its way through the paper requirements, they cannot be too difficult.
Sam1The referenced article does not differentiate between authorization and appropriation. Big mistake or oversight!
It is likely that a strongly bi-partisan authorization will follow with appropriation. Not like recent years where a one-sided authorization was followed with a bi-partisan authorization.
Sam1Although $35 billion was authorized for the program, how much was appropriated? This is the key question.
My reading of it was that the whole $35B was available and that only a small chunk was ever meted out by the FRA. I have read this several places over the years. The industry has had a very hard time utilizing RRIF.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.