Passenger Trains > Sneaky Amtrak...will NARP fall into lock-step???

Another view on "Amtrak Wants to Expand Across the Nation. Local Politics Might Intervene."

"They [NRPC] will also press lawmakers to modify Section 209 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, a key clause that requires states to commit substantial funds on rail projects that are fewer than 750 miles in length. Mr. Gardner said that the section should “be reviewed” so it precluded a situation in which “one state is sort of able to stymie what is an interstate need” by holding up funding for a project that crossed multiple states"....from NY Times article:

Amtrak Wants to Expand Across the Nation. Local Politics Might Intervene.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/06/us/amtrak-route-expansion.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage

All this is: a way to force the states to pay for the national system.  Pushed by the Northeastern bloc.  Seen it before. Needs to not make it out of committee if it gets that far.    Hopefully NARP/RPA does not fall for it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/21 13:55 by GenePoon.

I think it is more to address multi-state daytime potential routes that are under 750 miles. 

Interesting - so does Gardner believe that the bar should be lowered to 450 miles - anything less than 450 miles has to be state funded at 100% Or is there even a % of share at that point between state and federal? What's enough to make a difference and surely Amtrak knows the numbers as to what re-shapes the maps and the State payments. Amtrak has also got to be worried about collectibility of funds from the States. 

Amtrak should, as it proposed, lobby VERY HARD  for federal dollars help ALL state funded rail services (corridors etc.) - to get the initial start up underway - cause the States presently are either broke or suffering HUGE financial losses as a result of COVID-19. Some states are more fortunate than others Downeaster is up and running. Keystone service was slashed. I guess the question becomes - are States going to have that money that was there before to re-start passenger rail services to the level of pre-COVID? And now with Gardner and a Amtrak Joe in the White house, how do the really advance expansion - aside from just TALK and studies!

Amtrak needs additional funds (and needs to hit politicians hard now for it) so they can better partner with the States to expand service and find the formula to re-start service pre-COVID. Doing a bait and switch will not work, or is at least less enticing - that is "we'll cover costs now, but eventually but year 5 you have to be covering 100% with State funds. What will get the deal done? Find a way that bridges the financial gap to get states started back on state supported trains (can they afford 100% like they did before?) and also gets them expanded in corridors as NARP/ARP and Gardner want?

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it is more to address multi-state daytime
> potential routes that are under 750 miles. 

Plenty of potential for overnight service too if it was actually offered and came in multiple sizes including single rooms, rooms with a floor level bed for two, and rooms for 3, 4 or maybe even 5 people.  Remember that half the country is held hostage on a reasonable number of sleeping berths being provided per car and per train by the clearances at Penn Station.

Single level cars can be fully ADA compliant, including getting to/from dining (if we force real meals) and lounges.  Superliners seemed like a good idea, but IMHO their time has passed.  

Anything Gardner and Amtrak says is not to be trusted.  Their actions speak for themselves: downgrade everything.........

MEKoch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anything Gardner and Amtrak says is not to be
> trusted.  Their actions speak for themselves:
> downgrade everything.........

No, not everything, not the sacred Northeast Corridor.

I get GenePoon's hint, and I'm glad he posts his own opinions instead of just linking articles. Whether Gardner is downgrading LD trains deliberately or not we don't know, but one can speculate that blaming the LD trains for financial losses is a good story to cover up the financial failures of the NEC. He needs more funding (states funding corridor trains) so the organization stays solvent and he stays in power to protect "my precious" which is the NEC.

Interesting timing of the "Amtrak Wants to Expand..." article with the COVID-19 bill mandating the return of daily LD service, no? Don't think it was an accident that the article wants to manipulate the economic divide argument of "subsidizing land cruises for older people" which is obviously an argument against LD trains.

 Amtrak is NOT focused on "expanding" when they are busy scheming other things.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/21 19:53 by cchan006.

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MEKoch Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Anything Gardner and Amtrak says is not to be
> > trusted.  Their actions speak for themselves:
> > downgrade everything.........
>
> No, not everything, not the sacred Northeast
> Corridor.
>
> I get GenePoon's hint, and I'm glad he posts his
> own opinions instead of just linking articles.
> Whether Gardner is downgrading LD trains
> deliberately or not we don't know, but one can
> speculate that blaming the LD trains for financial
> losses is a good story to cover up the financial
> failures of the NEC. He needs more funding (states
> funding corridor trains) so the organization stays
> solvent and he stays in power to protect "my
> precious" which is the NEC.
>
> Interesting timing of the "Amtrak Wants to
> Expand..." article with the COVID-19 bill
> mandating the return of daily LD service, no?
> Don't think it was an accident that the article
> wants to manipulate the economic divide argument
> of "subsidizing land cruises for older people"
> which is obviously an argument against LD trains.
>
>  Amtrak is NOT focused on "expanding" when they
> are busy scheming other things.

But the comments about "subsidizing land cruises for older people" in this article refer to specious arguments by the locals against the introduction of service. And specious they are: a quick look at the socioeconomic data of Amtrak passengers would shoot down such arguments in no time, the relatively small number of high-paying sleeping car passengers (who, in the case of corridor trains, aren't even relevant).

         Same rotten thinking such as your neighbor wants ( demands ) a newer car and forces you to pay for part of it. And you already have trouble paying for your own needs,

Bring back the Shenandoah!

Oh, wait...that won't work.

Bring back the National Limited!

Oh, wait...that won't work.

Sigh.

I agree with you, and I'm in Nebraska, far from those routes' territory.

Chessie1963 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bring back the Shenandoah!
>
> Oh, wait...that won't work.
>
> Bring back the National Limited!
>
> Oh, wait...that won't work.
>
> Sigh.

BrynMawr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Single level cars can be fully ADA compliant,
> including getting to/from dining (if we force real
> meals) and lounges.  Superliners seemed like a
> good idea, but IMHO their time has passed.  

New single level cars can certainly be fully ADA compliant, Amfleet I will never be fully ADA compliant, another reason besides the structural issues that will force them into retirement.

Posted from iPhone

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another view on "Amtrak Wants to Expand Across the
> Nation. Local Politics Might Intervene."
>
> "They will also press lawmakers to modify Section
> 209 of the Passenger Rail Investment and
> Improvement Act of 2008, a key clause that
> requires states to commit substantial funds on
> rail projects that are fewer than 750 miles in
> length. Mr. Gardner said that the section should
> “be reviewed” so it precluded a situation in
> which “one state is sort of able to stymie what
> is an interstate need” by holding up funding for
> a project that crossed multiple states"....
>
> All this is: a way to force the states to pay for
> the national system.  Pushed by the Northeastern
> bloc.  Seen it before. Needs to not make it out
> of committee if it gets that far.    Hopefully
> NARP/RPA does not fall for it.

I'm not seeing what is feeding your concern nor argument. Section 209 needs to go away IMO, as it impacts intercity, interstate transportation - which should be a Federal purview under the Commerce clause. State and local government funds should only be concerned with stations and station improvements/maintenance within their jurisdictions, period. Everything else from the rails on up should be under Amtrak's budget. I believe this is Gardner's argument, and with enough capital and operating funds Amtrak would be in a position to deliver.

The jerk in Mobile abvout the harbor losing jobs must be so blind he probably never seen an Amtrak Train or even knew when 1 and 2 went through there plus the Gulf Breeze and for 3 months in 96 the Gulf Coast Limited! Gardner on the other hand, corridor expansion is great, but sorry, on my end the LD Network needs expansion too, it's sad Ammanagment doesn't see that part!