Passenger Trains > Amtrak threatens withdrawal of Boston service on NEC

Looks like the legal geniuses at Amtrak, MBTA and the Federal court
are disregarding the US Constitution, article 1, section 9, clause 1, impairment
of contract (under which section the action of the Northeast Corridor Commission
that Amtrak says is applicable is unconstitutional).
=================================================


No Acela to NYC? Amtrak suggests MBTA dispute threatens Boston rail service
Boston Business Journal
Aug 24, 2016

> The MBTA’s legal battle with Amtrak is getting so ugly that it could
> potentially put your ability to grab an Acela train from Boston to
> New York or Washington, D.C., in danger.
>
> In a court filing this week, Amtrak signaled that it may not be able
> to offer rail service to riders in the Bay State unless the MBTA
> begins meeting its obligations under what is known as the Attleboro
> Line Agreement. Amtrak and the MBTA are tangled in a legal dispute
> over a 2003 agreement.
>
> Amtrak and the MBTA are tangled in a legal dispute over a 2003
> agreement.
>
> “MBTA’s refusal to honor its contractual payment obligations has
> resulted in financial harm to Amtrak, which could potentially
> jeopardize Amtrak’s ability to provide rail service in
> Massachusetts,” Amtrak said. “Amtrak depends on timely payments from
> MBTA for services rendered to ensure its financial stability, fund
> its operations, and provide service to rail customers traveling to
> and from Massachusetts. No business partner should have to wait over
> five years to receive payment on a valid, authorized, and undisputed
> invoice that is contractually required to be paid within 30 days.”
>
> The filing came in a lawsuit filed by the MBTA against Amtrak earlier
> this year. According to the lawsuit, the MBTA allowed Amtrak to use
> the Attleboro Line for trains heading south from Boston, in exchange
> for Amtrak performing certain maintenance and other services at no
> cost. But Amtrak pulled back from the agreement in October after a
> government commission (the PRIIA-established Northeast Corridor
> Commission) called for Amtrak and states to share the costs
> of rail access, and demanded nearly $30 million this year for the
> same services, the lawsuit said.
>
> The lawsuit was put on pause for the spring and much of the summer as
> the two sides attempted to hammer out a new agreement. At least so
> far, that effort has failed, and on Tuesday Amtrak leveled claims of
> its own in the case and asked a federal judge in Boston to dismiss
> the MBTA’s allegations.
>
> Amtrak claims that it was supposed to be paid for some of the
> engineering and other work it provided to the MBTA under the
> agreement, but that the MBTA never paid for the services, including
> for invoices dating back to 2011. It called the MBTA a “chronically
> delinquent business partner” and said the MBTA’s assertion that
> Amtrak was in violation of the Attleboro contract was “nonsense.” As
> late July, the MBTA owed Amtrak more than $1.3 million under the
> Attleboro agreement, according to a letter from an Amtrak executive
> to MBTA Acting General Manager Brian Shortsleeve and others.

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2016/08/24/no-acela-to-nyc-amtrak-suggests-mbta-dispute.html



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/16 08:08 by GenePoon.

Let's not be surprised.  The ineptitude of the MBTA management shows up every once in a while.  This probably is a ploy by Amtrak to put some pressure on the MBTA to get this conflict resolved. 

I won't loose a wink of sleep over this puff & bluff.

Why doesn't Amtrak just refuse to handle any MBTA trains in and out of South Station?  It is my understanding that AMTRAK dispatches all trains running south and west from South Station.  That will get the MBTA's leadership attention really fast.

Marty Harrison
Knob Noster, MO

This is an interesting situation.  MA owns the track between the RI state line and South Station and makes it available free to Amtrak in exchange for Amtrak dispatching the trains and maintaining the property (and I assume Amtrak pays for the overhead electricity).  This arrangement had been reflected in a 2003 agreement between Amtrak and the MBTA.  Last Oct. Amtrak, citing a to-be-determined state commission report which allowed the road to increase its charges against commuter roads, used this report as a basis to start billing the "T" for maintenance.  The "T" objected, citing the 2003 agreement and wound up taking Amtrak to court in Jan.  Apparently nothing significant has been resolved up to this point.
What would make the "T" situation unique is that is is the only commuter road running over state owned tracks that Amtrak dispatches.  West/South of NY, NJ Transit, SEPTA and MARC run over Amtrak owned/dispatched tracks and between New Rochelle and New Haven Amtrak runs over state owned tracks dispatched by Metro North.  If the "state commission report" allowed Amtrak to increase user charges for NJT/SEPTA/MARC, would the same justification apply to Amtrak increasing charges for the "T"?  Interesting!
Andy

has the state always own the line or did Amtrak give up the line like it did the MNR ???

Out_Of_Service Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> has the state always own the line or did Amtrak
> give up the line like it did the MNR ???

Amtrak did not give up ownership of either the Massachusetts line or the MNRR line. In both cases the states took ownership of those portions of the line prior to Amtrak's taking ownership of the rest of the NEC.

What will also make it interesting is that even if MBTA has to start paying maintenance, it will be an interesting negotiation what proportion of the maintenance they'll have to pay.  MBTA certainly doesn't need anything faster than a Class 4 (80 mph railroad), while the line is maintained in Massachusetts to some FRA-waivered quality that allows 150-mph Acela Express service.  I can see MBTA making a case that it only needs to pay the proportion of maintenance based on a 2-track Class 4 railroad, not on the very expensive maintenance that Amtrak must be required to perform for a 150-mph operation.

I've been told that the Amtrak dispatchers remain in Boston because that is also a condition of the agreement with MBTA.  Same with the New York dispatching office that is shared with Long Island Railroad.  That's part of the agreement that Amtrak and LIRR signed many years ago.

As I recall, the agreement that Amtrak now wants to void is an agreement that Amtrak all but begged the state to sign. In 2003, Amtrak had lost the operating contract for MBTA commuter rail and was fearful that they would lose the right to dispatch the NEC out of Boston. They made Massachusetts an offer that they would maintain the line for free in exchange for retaining dispatching authority. Massachusetts agreed, and that became the 2003 agreement.

Now, 13 years later, Amtrak is trying to renege on that agreement citing the PRIIA and the other NEC states setting new requirements. If I were Mass, I would call their bluff. I would tell Amtrak that, effective 1/1/17, the 2003 agreement is null and void. Starting that day, MBTA's commuter rail contractor will take over dispatching and maintenance of the NEC within the commonwealth. Amtrak would retain ownership and maintenance of the electric traction system (maintenance subject to track availability as determined by the state). The line will be maintained to the standards required for the MBTA commuter trains. Amtrak will pay the state for use of the line on a pro-rated basis similar to Amtrak's charges to commuter authorities for using their lines. Any costs to maintain the line for speeds higher than commuter trains will be 100% paid by Amtrak. Take it or leave it.

Maybe the new regime at Amtrak will take steps to reverse Amtrak's long standing history of adversarial relationships with state DOT's and local authorities. Working things out equitably with Massachusetts and with the Niagara Falls station issue would be a good start.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/16 11:26 by prr60.

Seems like this is a messy situation, but I'm surprised Mr Boardman let it bubble over during his last few weeks on the job. That's something you ask a "blue ribbon panel" etc to examine, and report back. After you're gone...

Departing the scene with a grudge ?

prr60 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Out_Of_Service Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > has the state always own the line or did Amtrak
> > give up the line like it did the MNR ???
>
> Amtrak did not give up ownership of either the
> Massachusetts line or the MNRR line. In both cases
> the states took ownership of those portions of the
> line prior to Amtrak's taking ownership of the
> rest of the NEC.

 hmmm .. i did not know that ... since the transactions were pre - Amtrak at what point did the state take over the railrroad from the New Haven on both sections of railroad ... 

My understanding is NY and CT bought their segments of the NEC from the estate of the Penn Central, before Amtrak inherited the rest of the property.  MD, DE, NJ, PA, RI, and MA had the opportunity to buy their pieces and chose not to buy at that time.

(That was back in the era when there was an active discussion about whether there would be a national passenger train operator PLUS an owner of the NEC, or whether the same authority would own the NEC while operating it and national service.  What we have now wasn't a given in 1969-1971)

Out_Of_Service Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> prr60 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Out_Of_Service Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > has the state always own the line or did
> Amtrak
> > > give up the line like it did the MNR ???
> >
> > Amtrak did not give up ownership of either the
> > Massachusetts line or the MNRR line. In both
> cases
> > the states took ownership of those portions of
> the
> > line prior to Amtrak's taking ownership of the
> > rest of the NEC.
>
>  hmmm .. i did not know that ... since the
> transactions were pre - Amtrak at what point did
> the state take over the railrroad from the New
> Haven on both sections of railroad ... 

Massachusetts took ownership of their portion of the NEC in 1971. New York (ownership) and Connecticut (lease) occurred in 1971. Amtrak took ownership of the rest of the NEC in 1976.

prr60 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Out_Of_Service Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > prr60 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Out_Of_Service Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > has the state always own the line or did
> > Amtrak
> > > > give up the line like it did the MNR ???
> > >
> > > Amtrak did not give up ownership of either
> the
> > > Massachusetts line or the MNRR line. In both
> > cases
> > > the states took ownership of those portions
> of
> > the
> > > line prior to Amtrak's taking ownership of
> the
> > > rest of the NEC.
> >
> >  hmmm .. i did not know that ... since the
> > transactions were pre - Amtrak at what point
> did
> > the state take over the railrroad from the New
> > Haven on both sections of railroad ... 
>
> Massachusetts took ownership of their portion of
> the NEC in 1971. New York (ownership) and
> Connecticut (lease) occurred in 1971. Amtrak took
> ownership of the rest of the NEC in 1976.

1971!  I would have never guessed that early!
That would be a good passenger train trivia question.
Wasn't that a very liberal concept back then,
for a state to own a railroad?
 

The bankruptcy of the NYNH&H was an enormous news item for a decade prior to 1971.  Several proposed "end of service" dates were offered, and branch lines were chopped regularly.  There was a very real fear on the Gold Coast of CT that rail service would stop. Commuter service, especially.

That was a put up or shut up moment for NY and CT. The NH bankruptcy court (later merged into the PennCentral court case, I believe) was clearly considering stopping service, and scrapping the wire/rails.  Wreck of the PennCentral has a long section on this.

mp51w Wrote:

> 1971!  I would have never guessed that early!
> That would be a good passenger train trivia
> question.
> Wasn't that a very liberal concept back then,
> for a state to own a railroad?

=========================================================

Vermont Railway was incorporated as a State-owned corporation Oct. 25, 1963,
and began running trains on January 6, 1964.

The Vermont Railway was organized by the State when the Rutland shut down, to avert 
the adverse economic impact of not having a freight railroad.  But Vermont Railway did
better than that.  From profits, it has even paid back the expense incurred by the State
to purchase most of the physical plant of the Rutland Railway.

Vermont Railway had no passenger trains at first, though.  Neither did the Rutland
when it shut down.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/16 17:25 by GenePoon.

One reason the FL9's were invented was to scrap the catenary east of Stamford. They did scrap it on the Danbury Branch. Then let the Washboard MU's cover the primary commuter service and the hell with the rest of it.

So the real issue is whether the Federal Government's:

Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) -- The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) reauthorizes the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, better known as Amtrak, and strengthens the US passenger rail network by tasking Amtrak, the U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), states, and other stakeholders in improving service, operations, and facilities. PRIIA focuses on intercity passenger rail, including Amtrak’s long-distance routes and the Northeast Corridor (NEC), state-sponsored corridors throughout the Nation, and the development of high-speed rail corridors.

supersedes the Attleboro agreement.  PRIIA is what lead to the "goverment commission" that led to higher costs for the states, both on the NEC and off.

It's neat to watch the TO crowd blast Amtrak and MBTA for an issue that was created in a domed building in Washington DC.

Brian

Any time a new law supersedes an existing law or contract, there will be litigation, if the parties can't work out a deal.  That's a core holding with any contract agreement. Especially if both sides have filled their assigned roles, as seems to be the case here.

(It's also a reminder of the ongoing problem that Amtrak can't claim to be a government agency when it's in their interest, and be a private company in other situations.  "The federal government" imposing a rule on a state which recasts Amtrak's engagement is just asking for litigation.)