Funding for Hoosier State: The Saga Continues
- Thread starter CHamilton
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
I wonder if they will continue with their bumbling misadventure in identifying an operator, or throw in the towel and just go with Amtrak.
At least it the State that is going to fund the train. The whole process of have the city and towns pay for the train was a receipt for disaster.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Yup. One town pulls out and the house of cards collapses, which is exactly what was about to happen.
Very unfair to the towns. How does a town's taxpayers get reimbursed for a passenger that lives outside of the tax zone, but rides the train.
Of course that question goes both ways. Why do the people who live outside of the train route have to pay for the train.
Boils down to what government should do, or not do, and what your own politics are.
Happy to see State of Indian step up, still not a fan of 750 mile rule, but as a Upstate New Yorker I do understand why.
Of course that question goes both ways. Why do the people who live outside of the train route have to pay for the train.
Boils down to what government should do, or not do, and what your own politics are.
Happy to see State of Indian step up, still not a fan of 750 mile rule, but as a Upstate New Yorker I do understand why.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Actually, as California, North Carolina, Maine and Virginia have demonstrated states can do a heck of a lot better job than the national system in serving the interests of a state. And if a state doesn't want a service enough to pay some of its cost, it is hard to justify forcing them to take a train using national system funds. Running a train through a state as part of the national network is a different matter from running a train entirely within the state or just across the border to an adjacent state.
All of the much maligned (by the likes of URPA, RailPAC and assorted other detractors) north eastern states have huge internal state service separately funded from the national system. NEC is part of the national system because the spine trains are all interstate in a big way.
Whether it is 750 miles or 550 miles the general principle should be that states that want a certain level of intra-state service (including service connecting to major economic centers in adjacent states) beyond what the national system can afford as part of the national system, they need to pony up for it. That follows from the federal nature of the country. That principle also should apply to other modes of transport subsidies, and does to some extent.
All of the much maligned (by the likes of URPA, RailPAC and assorted other detractors) north eastern states have huge internal state service separately funded from the national system. NEC is part of the national system because the spine trains are all interstate in a big way.
Whether it is 750 miles or 550 miles the general principle should be that states that want a certain level of intra-state service (including service connecting to major economic centers in adjacent states) beyond what the national system can afford as part of the national system, they need to pony up for it. That follows from the federal nature of the country. That principle also should apply to other modes of transport subsidies, and does to some extent.
cirdan
Engineer
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2011
- Messages
- 3,653
The examples you cite are all in states that are situated on the scale from fairly pro-rail to extremely pro-rail.
Indiana is more in the region of anti rail to tolearnt of rail if it doesn't cost anything.
Indiana hasn't done very much to support passenger rail (apart from NICTD) and without real commitment, things can easily enter a limbo of stagnation.
I'm actually surprised they are spending this money at all. The cynic in me was assuming the entire exercise so fat was just a prelude to pulling the plug.
But I'm happy to be proven wrong.
What I still don't see in these reports is any discussion of the state also providing any funds for track infrastructure improvements. Even a small amount, say $3 million a year for capital improvements to match the $3 million in subsidy costs could be used to tackle low hanging fruit track and station improvements over time. State funding can be used to provide state matching components for various federal funding programs, TIGER grants, CMAQ, various small FRA grant programs. Use the state funds to bring in some federal funds and put in some $5 million a year into track improvements and give CSX a reason to support the train service.
But IN appears to be stuck in doing just the minimum to maintain a 4 day a week service. Which will be a very inefficient use of rolling stock if the state buys their own equipment to avoid paying Amtrak equipment charges. But maybe the strategy of the HS supporters is to first get the state legislature used to the idea of providing a subsidy and then work on expanding the support program to a daily service, followed by some small capital funding.
At least, there is some good news with regards to track improvements on the route with CSX investing in upgrades because of business from a new plant. Article except:
But IN appears to be stuck in doing just the minimum to maintain a 4 day a week service. Which will be a very inefficient use of rolling stock if the state buys their own equipment to avoid paying Amtrak equipment charges. But maybe the strategy of the HS supporters is to first get the state legislature used to the idea of providing a subsidy and then work on expanding the support program to a daily service, followed by some small capital funding.
At least, there is some good news with regards to track improvements on the route with CSX investing in upgrades because of business from a new plant. Article except:
M
Metra Electric Guest
Guest
I think the theory is that passengers through a town's station contribute more in economic growth and the more there are, the more the benefit, as well as attracting new business etc.
Hopefully this will be good news for Indiana.
Lake Country
Train Attendant
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 19
Indiana has either been playing a game or is really bad at rail planning. Bottom line is that they missed out on the current round of Fed rail investment. Certainly will not be any ARRA orTIGER money this year for infrastructure. And they are not part of the Midwest/CA equipment purchase. So they along with WI will have to come to the table with the other Midwest states and invest their own money without Fed match to add to the rail car order in Rochelle IL.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, there is $500 million for TIGER grants in the FY2015 budget. I expect US DOT will have an application deadline of May or June with grant award selections in September. But IN DOT is not in a position to submit a competitive or viable application that has a chance of landing a grant for the HS corridor service without state matching funds to put in the application. Wi and Hiawatha service may get included in the corridor bi-level deliveries with the additional 34 cars for the Midwest, but IN DOT is off pursuing their own path.
Would be interesting to find out if IN DOT even communicates or has attempted to coordinate with IL DOT and MI, MO, WI in any substantive way in its planning for the HS. Apparently not.
L
Lake Country
Guest
Indiana is not in position to land a grant because they have done absolutely no pre-planning. It is not just the money. They cannot even submit a coherent grant because their is no estimate on infrastructure improvements. Not a singe project has been identified. No alternate route planning, no station planning AND no rolling stock plan.
On Facebook:
cirdan
Engineer
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2011
- Messages
- 3,653
Wouldn't getting differernt contractors to submit bids count as a form of planning?
A bit minimalistic I know ...
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Doing so without an existing plan on how they will proceed once the bids are submitted is not planning. It is usually known as "bumbling along"
Re jis' post about " bumbling along":
Pretty much describes the current state of Amtraks Management as they just make it up as they roll along, and make promises to Micro Managers in Congress ( Mica Managers) that they know they can't keep!
Time for another Inspection/PR junket out to the Provinces to tell the rubes in flyover country untruths while traveling on Beech Grove in Royal style!
Pretty much describes the current state of Amtraks Management as they just make it up as they roll along, and make promises to Micro Managers in Congress ( Mica Managers) that they know they can't keep!
Time for another Inspection/PR junket out to the Provinces to tell the rubes in flyover country untruths while traveling on Beech Grove in Royal style!
PaulM
Engineer
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Yes I agree. The 750 mile rule is trying to use a mallet where a more refined tool is in order. I was trying to describe what that refined tool might want to articulate IMHO. Because of the high degree of variance in state sizes a purely mileage based tool may not be the best way to formulate such a rule.
cirdan
Engineer
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2011
- Messages
- 3,653
Using state size would also be rather unfair though.
Some of the smaller states on the NEC are so small that they wouldn't under any conditions warrant any intra-state inter city rail. All inter city rail traffic there is inter state by definition. If this automatically becomes a reason that they shouldn't pay for it, this puts the bigger states at a disadvantage.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
I think that is fine. If you have a small house you don't need a giant AC system, like the guy with the McMansion does. That does not mean that you must force the guy with the small house to pay for a large AC system nonetheless because otherwise it is unfair for the guy with the McMansion. They should just pay for their tiny window air conditioner.
If you have large state you have to provide for what it needs. If a small state does not need internal rail service so be it. The bigger states have an advantage of being big with more population, resources etc. There are some responsibilities that come with it. Those are not disadvantages but opportunities looked at another way.
However the fact of the matter is that all the small states on the NEC spend plenty of money on transit. It is just that they do not spend money on Amtrak directly, even though they do spend plenty of money even on Amtrak indirectly. And furthermore, the purpose of PRIIA 212 is to address this very issue through a shared funding mechanism to be managed by the NEC Commission. So that particular issue is being addressed through a separate mechanism taking such matters into consideration anyway.
If you have large state you have to provide for what it needs. If a small state does not need internal rail service so be it. The bigger states have an advantage of being big with more population, resources etc. There are some responsibilities that come with it. Those are not disadvantages but opportunities looked at another way.
However the fact of the matter is that all the small states on the NEC spend plenty of money on transit. It is just that they do not spend money on Amtrak directly, even though they do spend plenty of money even on Amtrak indirectly. And furthermore, the purpose of PRIIA 212 is to address this very issue through a shared funding mechanism to be managed by the NEC Commission. So that particular issue is being addressed through a separate mechanism taking such matters into consideration anyway.
cirdan
Engineer
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2011
- Messages
- 3,653
This is not necessarily an advantage. Bigger states have a bigger tax base but also bigger responsibilities. Its swings and roundabouts.
On the other hand, small states are often more nimble as they have fewer layers of administration and the rulers are closer to the real issues meaning they can work on them more efficiently and on a case by case basis rather than generically.
The one edge bigger states have is that a number of them will have most or all of a fairly long route within their borders. For example, CHI-STL is almost entirely within Illinois, NYP-BUF is within New York, NYP-MTR is almost entirely within New York, PHL-PGH is entirely within Pennsylvania...and so on. A good chunk of the Vermonter is within Vermont (shocking, I know), but a good chunk of the state-supported portion is also within CT and MA while the train also wanders into NH. The Downeaster...a good chunk is within MA and NH in addition to ME. And so on...
A lot of routes work because one state is willing to simply eat the cost of extending the train over the border (i.e. all of MI's trains), and other routes run into issues because one state drops out (i.e. Chicago-Des Moines or Chicago-Minneapolis via Madison).
A lot of routes work because one state is willing to simply eat the cost of extending the train over the border (i.e. all of MI's trains), and other routes run into issues because one state drops out (i.e. Chicago-Des Moines or Chicago-Minneapolis via Madison).
andersone
Conductor
The founding fathers would be proud of this discussion of a bicameral legislature,,,,
my concept derives from my childhood on the west side of chi,,,,, being somewhat devious
what if we were to create a multi state train like Columbus to Chi to Des Moines to say KC? The 750 mile rule would be satisfied,,, think of al the permutations,,,,
my concept derives from my childhood on the west side of chi,,,,, being somewhat devious
what if we were to create a multi state train like Columbus to Chi to Des Moines to say KC? The 750 mile rule would be satisfied,,, think of al the permutations,,,,
Can't add a new long distance train that isn't using existing end points if I'm not mistaken.
- Status
