FY19 Appropriation - Safe

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GBNorman

OBS Chief
Joined
Feb 26, 2017
Messages
573
Trains' Newswire reports for Fiscal Year '19, Amtrak will get $1.9B of Federal funding again.

Unchanged from FY 18, but a "mighty good haul" for a program perpetually on the chopping block.

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2019/02/15-compromise-spending-bill-maintains-amtrak-funding

Fair Use:

WASHINGTON — The budget compromise that Congress passed last night and is expected to be signed by President Donald Trump today funds Amtrak at $1.9 billion, equal to last year’s level, according to a summary document issued by House Democrats. The bill also includes $670 million for rail infrastructure improvements.
Incidentially, the declared "National Emergency" will have no effect upon that appropriation. The $6B for such will come, if it comes, from the likes of the Defense Department and Homeland Security's "petty cash drawer".

Finally, I would not be "holding breath" expecting any "experiential" enhancements. Lest we forget, the boss comes from a world of "pushback to ding ding; Flight Attendants prepare..." done so in a safe and efficient manner.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The full story of the FY2019 passenger rail related appropriations, quoting from RPA:


 


[SIZE=11pt](in millions of dollars)[/SIZE]



 


[SIZE=11pt]FY2018 Appropriated Levels[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]FAST Act FY2019 Authorized Levels[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]RPA FY2019 Request[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]House THUD FY2019 Budget[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]Senate THUD FY2019 Budget[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]FY2019 Appropriated Levels[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]Program[/SIZE]





















[SIZE=11pt]Amtrak - National Network[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$1,300.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$1,143.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$1,400.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$1,292.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$1,292.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$1,291.6[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]Amtrak - NEC[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$650.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$557.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$750.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$650.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$650.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$650.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]Consolidated Rail Infrastructure & Safety Grants[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$593.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$255.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$600.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$300.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$255.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$255.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]Federal State Partnership For State Of Good Repair[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$250.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$300.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$500.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$500.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$300.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$400.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]Restoration & Enhancement Grants[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$20.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$20.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$20.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$0.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$10.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$5.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]Total[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$2,813.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$2,276.5[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$3,270.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$2,742.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$2,507.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$2,601.6[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]Transit Formula Grants[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$10,567.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$11,400.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$11,400.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$10,740.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$9,939.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$9,939.4[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]Capital Investment Grants[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$2,645.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$2,301.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$3,800.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$2,610.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$2,553.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$2,552.6[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]WMATA[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$150.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$150.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$150.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$150.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$150.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$150.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]Total Transit[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$13,362.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$13,851.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$15,350.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$13,500.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$12,642.0[/SIZE]



[SIZE=11pt]$12,642.0[/SIZE]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Any word on which special provisions made it? I remember there was talk of the long distance language, the requirement to make the fixes to the Southwest Chief route, and the station agent language but curious what got in there.
 
Any word on which special provisions made it? I remember there was talk of the long distance language, the requirement to make the fixes to the Southwest Chief route, and the station agent language but curious what got in there.
They all made it. I will post the list when I get back to my laptop.

Here you go:

[SIZE=11pt]It also includes several key provisions that Rail Passengers members and our allies fought for, including:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]A statement from the Congress that that long-distance passenger rail is an essential part of the nation’s transportation system, specifically for rural parts of the country, and should be retained to ensure connectivity throughout the National Network;[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]A requirement to invest in the capital improvements for the Southwest Chief, and a prohibition on the use of these funds to “discontinue, reduce the frequency of, suspend, or substantially alter” the route;[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The return of discounted passenger fares for U.S. military veterans;[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Bringing back station agents to any Amtrak station that had a ticket agent position eliminated in fiscal year 2018;[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Congressional direction to Amtrak to improve communication and collaboration with local partners and take into consideration the unique needs of each community, including impacts to local jobs, when making decisions related to the staffing of Amtrak stations.[/SIZE]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder if this station agent provision applies to the state supported routes that eliminated some stations. You’d think not as the state would have had to agree to the unstaffing but I guess we’ll see.
 
At least looking at what happened with RVR and some of what I saw on here, I think that's a 50/50 proposition.  I think there's a case that Amtrak leaned on the states with overbilling and wasn't interested in offering alternatives (local staffing, etc.).  So the clause seems to at least force them to allow a middle path on this front. 
 
Was the veterans discount similar to the disabled where it is not applicable to advanced fare buckets?
You talking about Saver fares? If so, the answer is yes. Saver fares are considered to already be discounted, and therefore no other passenger discounts (except for the 50%-off children's discount) can not be combined with it.
 
We are now starting to work on additional language to be included in the upcoming Amtrak Reauthorization Bill. We will try to get language in there to remove the requirement for F&B to be an independent P&L cost center among other things. Baggage facilities might find some mention too.
 
At least looking at what happened with RVR and some of what I saw on here, I think that's a 50/50 proposition.  I think there's a case that Amtrak leaned on the states with overbilling and wasn't interested in offering alternatives (local staffing, etc.).  So the clause seems to at least force them to allow a middle path on this front. 
RVR still has staffing doesn’t it? Or did they reduce the positions.
 
tricia said:
I'm hoping that restoring station staff will bring baggage service back to those stations too.
I doubt there is a requirement to do so. There are some stations where they no longer offer baggage (on routes that still have baggage) but still have agents for ticketing and red cap services. But hopefully they will!
 
They all made it. I will post the list when I get back to my laptop.

Here you go:
Wow.  Mr. Anderson was a fool.  If he had not overreached on cutting station agents, he could have cut a bunch; he overreached and now he has to restore ALL of them, including the ones which weren't needed where nobody complained!  The dangers of acting like an autocrat when you aren't.

Dammit, I could run Amtrak smarter.  Part-time.  The backlash was predictable in advance -- I mean, cutting Cincy?  Seriously?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I must say I'm kinda annoyed at the station agent provision. If there was one thing Amtrak could've cut that I'd say was worthy of cutting, it's station staffing. Far better way to reduce costs than almost anything else that has been floated/done. Far better than all the food service shenanigans lately. This sets a bit of an ugly precedent since legislation is quite hard to reverse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
he full story of the FY2019 passenger rail related appropriations, quoting from RPA:
IS there a link? I'd like to see the station agent statement since the initial language called for making sure Amtrak retained an agent in every state that had one during FY18
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IS there a link? I'd like to see the station agent statement since the initial language called for making sure Amtrak retained an agent in every state that had one during FY18
I have asked the people who made the original claim to provide a pointer to the actual text. I could not find it in H.J. Res 31, which I thought was the final Appropriation. But I could be wrong about that. Or maybe I am clueless about where to look for it within the voluminous document. I just looked under FRA. So I await a response from them.
 
I must say I'm kinda annoyed at the station agent provision. If there was one thing Amtrak could've cut that I'd say was worthy of cutting, it's station staffing. Far better way to reduce costs than almost anything else that has been floated/done. Far better than all the food service shenanigans lately. This sets a bit of an ugly precedent since legislation is quite hard to reverse.
The main point being made to Amtrak is that it is supposed to provide service, not cut costs wherever and whenever. The signal be ing sent clearly is that they will be given more money in exchange for not cutting service. Their job is to provide service. The negotiation with Congress is about what that means. Anderson clearly had an idea that is clearly being soundly rejected. Congress left to itself would not have done this. It is because the likes of many of us here lit the fire under them that they did this, and there will be more of this sort of walking Amtrak back from the edge of idiocy upcoming soon. Too bad some don't like it.

The appropriators were in general reluctant to change Authorization language in an Appropriations Bill, so we are training our guns next on the upcoming Authorization Bill. Rest assured F&B will be dealt with there to the best of our collective abilities including those of all on this forum who take the trouble to engage with their Congress persons.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The main point being made to Amtrak is that it is supposed to provide service, not cut costs wherever and whenever. The signal be ing sent clearly is that they will be given more money in exchange for not cutting service. Their job is to provide service. The negotiation with Congress is about what that means. Anderson clearly had an idea that is clearly being soundly rejected. Congress left to itself would not have done this. It is because the likes of many of us here lit the fire under them that they did thi, and there will be more of this sort of walking Amtrak back from the edge of idiocy upcoming soon. Too bad some don't like it.
This does sound great. So do you think there's any chance this new "direction" may result in improvements to food service?
 
This does sound great. So do you think there's any chance this new "direction" may result in improvements to food service?
That is the goal of the work that people are putting into the Authorization Bill. Of course what will come out the other end of the sausage factory is anyone's guess at present.
 
The 750 mile ARRA restrictions need to be severely reduced to 400 miles or eliminated!.  Reduce it to apply only to multi state routes but better eliminate.  A two state would take the Carolinian, Lynchburg, and all Va trains out of the restrictions.

Would also allow a ATL - NEC train and Pennsylvanian
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top