States that decline rail funding are missing out

[cirdan]

Intra-Florida traffic is ≥23% of the combined Silver Service ridership. That's a major financial hit to take and I doubt you'd get high-fare paying New Yorkers to replace them: When the Silver Palm ran, with all its extra capacity, all it did was cannibalize ridership from the others.

I've never actually been to Florida by Amtrak and the main reason for that is that every time I had an opportunity to travel, the Silvers were fully booked on the days that I could have gone.

 

[neroden]

BTW, the recent decision by the STB regarding lack of jurisdiction over NJT opens the door for allowing connecting service between Amtrak and AAF without running afoul of STB ruling of non-jurisdiction over AAF. STB ruled that it has no jurisdiction over NJT even though NJT passengers may connect to Amtrak.In reality Amtrak even issues NJT tickets without running afoul of this, and Amtrak uses NJT as a Thruway service from PHL to ACY and points in between.

And NJT runs freight on the lines it owns, and NJT runs on freight-owned lines. And NJT runs INTERSTATE passenger service (to Pennsylvania on its own behalf, and to New York under contract). Over lines shared with freight. I'd like to see the ruling because it sounds like complete nonsense; it would eliminate the entire jurisdiction of the STB over passenger service, which is clearly contrary to the intent of Congress and the text of the law.
If you're describing the case rightly, this is making the California HSR jurisdiction ruling even more of an odd man out. This is inconsistent jurisprudence; it looks like there's no rational distinction being made here, just arbitrary and capricious choices by the STB. If this is really the way the STB is ruling, (a) board members will need to be replaced by people with some consistency, and (b) a law will probably need to be passed to overturn the "precedents" created by this mess.

 

[jphjaxfl]

Because, Amtrak intrastate service in Florida has become less attractive through the years, All Aboard Florida is being developed. If the Miami to Orlando route is successful, other routes will be developed. Once the AAF terminal and parking garage at MCO is built and the line opens, a number of us in JAX plan to drive there and catch AAF to South Florida.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

AAF is primarily a real estate venture, from what I can tell.

 

[jis]

And NJT runs freight on the lines it owns, and NJT runs on freight-owned lines. And NJT runs INTERSTATE passenger service (to Pennsylvania on its own behalf, and to New York under contract). Over lines shared with freight. I'd like to see the ruling because it sounds like complete nonsense; it would eliminate the entire jurisdiction of the STB over passenger service, which is clearly contrary to the intent of Congress and the text of the law.

All of that is completely irrelevant because the law clearly states that government run transit/commuter rail systems are outside the purview of STB, irrespective of who they interline with or what freight runs on their lines. They are free to discontinue or start passenger service as they see fit, which is the matter at hand in Princeton. They did not say anything about running freight since there is no freight service to Princeton and that was not an issue. But as far as passenger service is concerned the intent of Congress is amply clear and STB ruling is consistent with it.
BTW NJT service to New York, the majority of it is on its own behalf. They have a relatively small contract service that they run for MNRR for the west of Hudson service of MNRR. It is really a continuation of legacy Erie service, which was run using subsidy from new York State before Conrail rationalization.

If you're describing the case rightly, this is making the California HSR jurisdiction ruling even more of an odd man out. This is inconsistent jurisprudence; it looks like there's no rational distinction being made here, just arbitrary and capricious choices by the STB. If this is really the way the STB is ruling, (a) board members will need to be replaced by people with some consistency, and (b) a law will probably need to be passed to overturn the "precedents" created by this mess.

The distinction apparently is that the California style HSR is not a commuter service as defined by the law. As for the law, a new one is necessary that does not spell out special treatment for government run commuter service. I am not holding my breath on that one. I don;t think changing the STB members will lead to a different result on this specific one.
BTW, I have also gotten the sense of late that STB really does not want to deal too much with passenger rail if it can help it. In that sense the California HSR decision is the odd one. But I suppose they could not find any clause in the enabling on which they could hang their hat on avoiding that one too. I am sure they'd as soon wash their hands off of Amtrak too if they could.

 

[neroden]

And NJT runs freight on the lines it owns, and NJT runs on freight-owned lines. And NJT runs INTERSTATE passenger service (to Pennsylvania on its own behalf, and to New York under contract). Over lines shared with freight. I'd like to see the ruling because it sounds like complete nonsense; it would eliminate the entire jurisdiction of the STB over passenger service, which is clearly contrary to the intent of Congress and the text of the law.

All of that is completely irrelevant because the law clearly states that government run transit/commuter rail systems are outside the purview of STB,

No, it does not say any such thing. Citation if you still think you're right, since you're completely wrong.

irrespective of who they interline with or what freight runs on their lines. They are free to discontinue or start passenger service as they see fit, which is the matter at hand in Princeton.

Oh, THAT -- yes, the STB has no jurisdiction over *whether NJT starts or discontinues their own commuter services*. That's not at all the same thing as having no jurisdiction over NJT in general. The STB absolutely retains jurisdiction over NJT in regards to many, many other matters, including whether they are required to provide access to freight haulers or other passenger carriers, and all kinds of other things like that.
In short, this is a narrow ruling. Looking at it more closely, it's still an *incorrect* ruling, since the intent of Congress is very clear: ripping up tracks is supposed to require STB approval, whether passenger or freight. But it's a narrow ruling, and doesn't change the fact that the STB has lots of authority over NJT. The "commuter service" exemption from jurisdiction was intended as an anti-micromanagement provision, not an exemption for stuff like ripping tracks out to build housing on them.

I think you're right that the current STB members want to shirk their responsibilities with regards to passenger rail. This is contrary to the intent of Congress, of course (recall that the STB regulates passenger buses as well as passenger rail), which is why changing the composition of the STB would help.

---

I dug up the citations. STB is relying on 10501©(2)(a). However, the STB retains jurisdiction over many matters relating to NJT at 10501©(3)(A) and 10501©(3)(B) (relating to switching and terminal traffic of other railroads).

Furthermore, since 10501©(2)(a) only exempts "mass transportation provided by a local government authority", the STB's authority continues to apply to any activities of NJT which don't fall in that category, including most obviously hosting of freight, but arguably including a lot of other stuff (charters, contract operations, track demolition, etc.)

The STB very carefully cabined its ruling of non-jurisdiction to the Princeton Branch and the Princeton Branch service, so as not to accidentally disclaim more jurisdiction.

The STB's claim is that the obligation of freight service and the obligation to seek STB approval for abandonment and demolition of the Princeton branch was dropped by Congress at the formation of Conrail. I consider this argument tendentious; but regardless, this is an argument which is based on specific provisions of the 3R Act which formed Conrail and so only applies to a very small list of railway lines.

 

[jis]

As I did not intend to claim anything more than what you discovered I guess we may really not be disagreeing on anything. Tracks on which freight operates is about freight. Even on those tracks STB has never stopped NJT from starting or discontinuing commuter service as they see fit. As long as freight access is maintained they don't care what happens to commuter service.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum