New York PRIIA 209 Negotiations going down to the wire

As I had predicted there are still disagreements between New York and Amtrak being worked on

http://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Loss-of-rail-service-looms-4826127.php

What is distressingly surprising is that there are no signed agreements in place yet with the following states:

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Pennsylvania, Vermont, North Carolina, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan

So at least theoretically as of this day the following services are in jeopardy:

Empire+Adirondack+Maple Leaf, Illinois Chicago based including St. Louis, New Haven - Springfield, Piedmont/Carolinian, Detroit Corridor, Ethan Allen/Vermonter, Pennsylvanian/Keystone and Hoosier State.

Amtrak is now required by Union Contracts to start notifying people about possible service discontinuance effective 16th of October for all trains funded under 209 in these states.

Hopefully Amtraks Negotiating Teams are Better than those that Worked on the Daily Eagle and Sunset East Negotiation Fiasco with UP!!! :help:

I saw the same article link on trainorders and posted it in the October 1 thread. I think no matter when the deadline was, even if another year was added to it, there was going to be a flurry of last minute negotiations. The good news is that 8 out or 18 states have signed so the glass is close to half full.

I expect that there will be some sort of agreement that ensures of continuance of service, but it is quite possible that FRA/STB arbitration of some sort might also come into play with interim stand still agreements of some sort. I do think most of these states want service to continue bur are quite dissatisfied with Amtrak's inability to provide adequate justification for the proposed charges, specially in the area of capital cost allocations. My guess is that even after this round is over there will eventually be additional legislative action on this front finally when Congress gets over its self inflicted constipation. The patterns seems to be that states that own substantial rolling stock have tended to sign off.

For example Illinois is probably scratching its head about why it has to pay capital charges on creaky old equipment as if they are new, in order to fund further equipment acquisition when its needed equipment acquisition is substantially paid for already.

Agreed. I'm not at all worried about losing Empire Corridor Service, it's all agreements and politics. The whole Capital Charge parts of the agreements with such old equipment I don't quite understand. Illinois shouldn't have to pay for new equipment that won't be used the in state. New York State to a less extend as well. Any word if these negotiations in New York State are going to bring food service back to ALL Empire Service trains, not just the two daily trains extended to NFL.

I'm planning a weekend trip up to SYR the first weekend in October and am not at all worried that this will result in a shutdown.

Side Note: I quite enjoyed the slideshow accompanying the article especially of passengers boarding the train. There clearly taken with a zoom from public areas of the station and the parking., I guess even an Albany-Times Union Photographer can't get by the gate usher dragons that check all tickets before you can descend to the restricted access platforms there.

New York is infamous for last-minute backroom agreements; it seems to be how everything involving money gets done in this state. It stopped worrying me about 20 years ago.

This is a weird state government. We do have a system of checks and balances: there's the Governor, the Comptroller, and the Attorney General, all of whom are normally at odds with each other. The legislature (voted "worst legislature in the US" a couple of times) is mainly a sideshow and a distraction, and has bizarre practices like "empty seat voting".... but the state works just fine without it.

It's a weird government in other ways too. The local courts don't have good reputations, but the Supreme Court (which is not the top court) has a pretty good reputation, and the Court of Appeals (which is the top court) has an excellent reputation.

It seems that all the powers in New York State want Empire Service to continue and be improved, including west of Albany; at least, that's the leaks out of the back rooms. Therefore it *will* continue and be improved.

This state can move fast when there's a deadline. There were many years when the budget was many months late, but there was never any interruption of service or government "shutdowns" thanks to some constitutional provisions passed back in the 1940s (IIRC) which gave the Governor the power to just keep things running if there wasn't a budget.

I'd worry more about other states with more, uh, normal budgeting processes.

jis said:

My guess is that even after this round is over there will eventually be additional legislative action on this front finally when Congress gets over its self inflicted constipation.

Click to expand...

Uh... you could be waiting four or five years for that to happen. The federal government has been running on continuing resolutions for over a year now, and it shows no signs of stopping.

I'm not surprised. Most negotiations involving government agencies go down to the last minute.

jis said:

I expect that there will be some sort of agreement that ensures of continuance of service, but it is quite possible that FRA/STB arbitration of some sort might also come into play with interim stand still agreements of some sort. I do think most of these states want service to continue bur are quite dissatisfied with Amtrak's inability to provide adequate justification for the proposed charges, specially in the area of capital cost allocations. My guess is that even after this round is over there will eventually be additional legislative action on this front finally when Congress gets over its self inflicted constipation. The patterns seems to be that states that own substantial rolling stock have tended to sign off.

For example Illinois is probably scratching its head about why it has to pay capital charges on creaky old equipment as if they are new, in order to fund further equipment acquisition when its needed equipment acquisition is substantially paid for already.

Click to expand...

I'm just wondering...what ability is there for states to appeal to the [FRA/DOT/insert-letters-here] over the charges? Also, I do suspect that there's (not entirely unjustified) complaining about paying "full pull" for using equipment ordered under Richard Nixon.

That's saying Something if New York has the Worst Legislature! There's 49 other Cantidates for that Title (and if the DC City Council could be Counted theyd be Strong Contenders!) and not just the Usual Suspects! :help: (Lots of whom are in Prison! )

Anderson said:

I'm just wondering...what ability is there for states to appeal to the [FRA/DOT/insert-letters-here] over the charges? Also, I do suspect that there's (not entirely unjustified) complaining about paying "full pull" for using equipment ordered under Richard Nixon.

Click to expand...

Amtrak is still making lease payments on the P-42s. Not sure about the Amfleets and Horizons for leases from the Warrington era. Even if there are no lease payments, the equipment has to be paid for. Overhauls are not free. The miles put on the rolling stock, even if the equipment is all paid off, are still using up a part of a finite operating lifespan, even ones that will been extended to 40+ years for the Amfleet Is.
In the case of Illinois and Michigan, it is complicated because the Horizons and P-42s will be replaced by new equipment in 3 to 4 years, courtesy of HSIPR stimulus grants. In the meantime, Amtrak has to keep the Horizons running. Since Missouri has reached an agreement, they must have worked out a charge basis for the Horizons.

If we see IL and MI sign soon, then it will leave only northeast and Mid-Atlantic states that have not reached agreements. Which will say something about the complexity of figuring out cost allocations with the Amfleets and NEC shared operations.

On the one hand, you're right that there are appreciable costs attached to that equipment. On the other hand, I'm far from convinced that it merits "full cost" payments.

From what I gathered, and this could be my misinterpretation of what I heard, so to be taken with a pinch of salt..... appraently Amtrak wants something akin to full depreciation payment as if the thing was put into service new today. The theory is that the money that is collected will be used to fund new equipment purchase some day. This might make sense for New York which has no plan to buy new equipment of its own as of now, though this does lock them into Amtrak being an agent for them to buy equipment when the time comes. But it is an outright bizarre requirement for the likes of IL and MI, if they are subject to this too.

I don't think there is much disagreement on paying actual cost of operation and upkeep/maintenance.

At the end of the day it comes down to what calculation are you depreciating the asset at. One could argue that if Amtrak is using straight line depreciation (taking initial cost - scrap value/useful life) then their calculation is actually relatively fair. For the most part cars will be deployed the same number of times per year on a given route. So Amtrak's cost to deploy x number of cars on the route should be flat if the consist remains the same throughout the year, which it does on most state supported routes.

Of the states without agreements, there are two categories and an outlier:

Illinois, Michigan and North Carolina have meaningful equipment programs (the first two are replacing most or all of their passenger equipment, while NC has their interesting mix of Pullman coaches). NC also seems likely to make an equipment buy with VA at some point (since my read is that VA will need to order some of their own stuff in the next decade or two if they intend to make their service expansion plans happen).

New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Vermont do not have such programs. Of these, all but NY and ME are more or less wedded to the NEC equipment pool for practical reasons. NY could, in practical terms, break off, as could ME, though neither would make much sense.

Honestly, the other issue is what timeframe Amtrak is trying to depreciate the stuff on. If they're trying to sock the states with a 20-25 year timetable, I can see a state balking at that given that passenger equipment seems destined for useful lives in the 35-60 year range. Even accounting for rebuilds and the like, a 30-40 year depreciation schedule on cars seems likely.

SubwayNut said:

Side Note: I quite enjoyed the slideshow accompanying the article especially of passengers boarding the train. There clearly taken with a zoom from public areas of the station and the parking.

Click to expand...

The boarding sequence looks like those surveillance shots on TV of a crime in progress!

Off topic on the photos, how extensive is the maintenance performed at Rensselaer?

" how extensive is the maintenance performed at Rensselaer?"

All but heavy repairs / rebuild, that goes out.

They also provide maintenance to the inland route engines.

Big shop, lots of employees. That would be another issues for PRIIA, this shop does work on equipment that does not service NY.

Darn I-phone

North Carolina has settled: https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=8829

xyzzy said:

North Carolina has settled: https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=8829

Click to expand...

The other news in the NC announcement is: "With North Carolina’s announcement, at this time Amtrak has agreements with 12 of the19 affected states." It was 8 out of 19 states on September 19, so 3 other states have signed agreements. We know Indiana is 1 of the remaining 7 states; anyone have a list of which states are still unsigned? My guess is that the other 6 are all in the Northeast.

With the October 1 interim deadline and the October 16 PRIIA act deadline approaching, there could be a complication. As I noted in the Oct. 1 thread, the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority reached an agreement with Amtrak ($28.4 million for FY14), but CCJPA declined to pay a $1.26 million charge for the Amtrak Call Center services. CCJPA and Amtrak agreed to a 3rd party mediation through the FRA to resolve the dispute.

Well, if the remaining states are looking to the FRA to help settle disputes over the equipment capital charge or other items, there may not be anyone at the FRA to answer the phone next Tuesday (Oct. 1). For that matter, throughout the entire federal government, many federal employees and contractors are busy preparing for a government shutdown of unknown duration and not getting their work done. So the FRA or US DOT staff may not be in position to assist in getting the last agreements signed.

http://narprail.org/news/hotline/2388-hotline-830-september-27-2013

There are 4 states left: NY, IL, IN, and CA (except Capitol Corridor)

Add Washington State, and the completed list is up to 15. Via Facebook:

All Aboard Washington

Good news for the Amtrak Cascades!

All Aboard Washington has learned that WSDOT and Amtrak have reached a contract agreement for the state to assume most of the costs of operating the Cascades between Portland and Vancouver, BC on Oct. 1. WSDOT signed the contract earlier this week and Amtrak Pres. Joe Boardman was to sign the contract today. Part of a memo to employees from Boardman: “As of today, we have completed negotiations or have agreements with fifteen states and agencies … They are Virginia, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, North Carolina, Maine, Pennsylvania, Michigan, the CCJPA in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont." This funding change for corridors less than 750 miles was mandated by Congress.

Click to expand...

The only one that I would suspect is even close to being on the bubble as far as signing is Indiana. The other states may haggle, but they'll likely sign. Are these annual agreements or are they long term?

battalion51 said:

The only one that I would suspect is even close to being on the bubble as far as signing is Indiana. The other states may haggle, but they'll likely sign. Are these annual agreements or are they long term?

Click to expand...

The other states that might have been a concern: PA, NC, MI have apparently signed, so it is likely just IN on the bubble. It was reported that CA had signed, but the report obviously confused Capitol Corridor signing with all 3 CA corridors. But, if CalTrans or the corridor authorities are still unsigned and haggling, I would expect a temporary extension would be agreed to.

As for the duration of the agreements, we have not been sure which states signed, so we have little information on the contract terms besides the Capitol Corridor Joint Power Authority which put a copy of the agreement on-line in board meeting documents. My guess is that most of the state agreements are for 1 year.

What would be interesting is to find out how much each state or agency will be paying. Then we figure out how much of a bump in state payments Amtrak is receiving in FY14 compared to FY13.

Only four remain to sign yet, and they are biggies...

http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/four-states-continue-talks-to-keep-amtrak-service-85899508519

While some states continue to haggle, PA has signed. The Philadelphia Inquirer philly.com article Pa. picks up $15.5M tab for cross-state trains give the funding amounts for the Keystone and Pennsylvanian.

“The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation will provide $10.9 million for operations and $4.6 million for capital costs in the next 12 months, said PennDot spokeswoman Erin Waters-Trasatt.”

I guess it is too much to hope they are negotiating to improve service? :blush: