Just noticed something weird about PRIIA 2008

Everyone's been talking about requirements in PRIIA section 209 for uniform cost-sharing among "short" (<750 mile) routes. I finally read the text and realized it doesn't say what most people think it says.

The uniform cost-sharing requirement applies to a different set of routes than most people think.

Legally, it applies to

(1) High-speed rail corridors designated by the Secretary of Transportation, other than the Boston to Washington spine of the NEC; and

(2) Contracts for "Amtrak to operate an intercity rail service or route not included in the national rail passenger transportation system"

Now, nearly all the short corridors currently operated or proposed are part of the designated high-speed rail corridors. The exceptions are all state funded right now.

According to PRIIA, however, Amtrak is authorized to -- even encouraged to -- restore service on discontinued routes, or add service on entirely new routes, regardless of whether they are part of the "national rail passenger transportation system" and regardless of their length.

This means that if Amtrak wanted to start service from, oh, say, Fort Collins to Denver, it's allowed to do so without getting any state funding, but only because that's *not* a designated high-speed rail corridor!

This seems perverse, frankly, but there you go. It means that if Amtrak decides that a venture is desirable (perhaps profitable, such as Lynchburg), it could do it without state cooperation, regardless of length.... but only provided it is *not* on the list of high-speed rail corridors.

More usefully, it means Amtrak can maintain Lynchburg service even if Virginia decides to stop contracting for it. Because Lynchburg isn't on a designated HSR corridor.

Anyway, I thought that was odd.

There are very few places where service would be able to run in the black to make it feasible to accomplish it without someone chipping in additional cash. The most recent addition (and subsequent subtraction) of service without a state involved I can recall is the K-Card, and that was around 2000 or so.

According to PRIIA the following fall under the purvue of Section 209:

PRIIA Sec. 209(a). The routes subject to PRIIA Sec. 209(a) include

(i) high-speed rail corridors designated by the Secretary of Transportation (other than the Northeast Corridor railroad line, which extends from Boston, Mass., to Washington, D.C.);

(ii) short-distance corridors and routes currently part of the national rail passenger transportation system that do not exceed 750 miles between their endpoints; and

(iii) intercity rail routes not included in the national rail passenger transportation system that Amtrak operates on behalf of state or local entities.

Since Lynchburg service falls under (iii), arguably Amtrak could not just pick it up and start operating it without getting into a boat load of trouble with its paymasters. So no it does not mean that Amtrak could continue running the Lynchburg service without a support agreement being in place with Virginia. Now if revenues turn out to be enough so as not to require any actual support that is good, but the support agreement is required, or so I have been told by the legal beagles who have been dealing with PRIIA related issues.

Frankly, I don't think Amtrak itself wants to spend an extra penny on any service that is under 750 miles (outside of the NEC) irrespective of any other conditions. There is ample evidence in support of that hypothesis.

"Frankly, I don't think Amtrak itself wants to spend an extra penny on any service that is under 750 miles (outside of the NEC) irrespective of any other conditions. There is ample evidence in support of that hypothesis."

Well, that does seem true, certainly. Accordingly I can only imagine this happening for a potentially-profitable service, and it's hard to think of where you could have such a service without stepping on one of the designated high-speed rail corridors.

"(iii) intercity rail routes not included in the national rail passenger transportation system that Amtrak operates on behalf of state or local entities."

MEANING, that if Virginia STOPPED contracting for it, then Amtrak *wouldn't* be operating it on behalf of state or local entities, and therefore it wouldn't be subject to section 209.

See? You have to actually read what the damn law says. A lot of lawyers are really sloppy.

Don't underestimate lawyers. Their (at least one of the ones involved) interpretation is that once a route is under state funding and contract it cannot simply become not part of state funded network just because the state stops funding it. If the state stops funding it Amtrak cannot take it back over. I kid you not IOW, Amtrak is not allowed to put itself in a position where it might potentially have to cover a loss. This is analogous to why Amtrak is not allowed to bid on the MBTA contract anymore.

Of course as is true with all laws, neither you, nor me, nor this lawyer gets to decide what the final definitive interpretation is. Primarily STB decides, and then it could be challenged in court by someone and then some judge in some court decides. But my suspicion is that absent a long drawn out litigation on this issue, which is highly unlikely, a very conservative position minimizing fina ncial risk to Amtrak is what everyone will settle on, given the legislative history of this act. But again that is just my somewhat educated guess, and nothing more.

My best guess is that Amtrak might try and keep a route with a fat enough margin (after all expenses); the question may be whether they could operate under a contract that stipulates in effect "put the surplus in an account, and if the account drops to zero stop the train". Basically a non-support support contract (if that's not too much of a contradiction in terms).

I think we are discussing a hypothetical that is unlikely to come to pass, since I don't think Virginia will drop any of the service or contract that it has in place now.

I agree that it is unlikely in the case of Virginia. I would, however, raise the possibility with respect to the Carolinian (which bounces around) and some other trains (if PA can force a seat-charge credit on the through cars in the vein of VA on the Regionals, it's quite believable that the Pennsylvanian could come into this picture).