Amtrak FY 2015 Budget Request

[Andrew]

Here it is!

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/425/416/Amtrak-FY15-Grant-Legislative-Request.pdf

 

[afigg]

Here it is!

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/425/416/Amtrak-FY15-Grant-Legislative-Request.pdf

Andrew, if you are going to post the link, please provide some quotes and context. <sigh> Anyway, I'll leave it to someone else to do the honors from the FY15 appropriations request. Posted enough long excerpts today...

Summations, BTW, should include a link to the Amtrak press release which provides additional stuff to discuss.

 

[neroden]

Well, Amtrak is slicing the accounting in yet another way in hopes of getting more appropriations. There's any number of different ways you can slice it, and they're all equally valid -- let's hope this one gets positive Congressional attention.

I didn't see anything else interesting, I have to say.

Boardman's frustration at the lack of steady multi-year funding (for the last 42 years!) is evident. I am equally frustrated.

 

[Paulus]

It's pretty clear that Amtrak is not concerned about political attempts to kill them off anymore; they've restated the accounting in such a fashion that their operational loss, as they would announce and request support for, has increased, despite the potential political gain of trumpeting the lowest loss, in inflation adjusted dollars, since 1973. They've also made it explicitly clear to Congress that if Congress wants the long distance trains, Congress will have to provide for them and Amtrak will no longer subsidize the long distance trains. Focusing the NEC revenue on the NEC also opens up a wealth of potential investment: If Amtrak can swing a 4% loan (via RRIF for instance), mortgaging the NEC's revenue gives them five billion dollars to play with. That alone would make a significant dent in SOGR, all the more so if they can get matching funds from states or the Federal government.

 

[neroden]

They've also made it explicitly clear to Congress that if Congress wants the long distance trains, Congress will have to provide for them and Amtrak will no longer subsidize the long distance trains.

Actually, Boardman very much hedged his statement there. If you read carefully, you'll see that he did not rule out cross-subsidizing the long-distance train operations. The rearrangement of funding is merely called a *proposal*.

The comments about the need for capital to maintain the long-distance trains was *much* clearer, using the word "require" four times in four sentences, followed by a comment about how heavily run the Superliners are. I may be reading too much into this, but there seemed to be a bit of an implication that if the Superliners wear out and Congress hasn't funded replacements, Superliner long-distance routes will stop running.

Thinking about it, this is probably just an unavoidable fact; without sufficient capital funding, any prioritization of capital allocation has to put routes like Denver-Sacramento at the very back of the list, behind everything else. Even within just the "long-distance" routes, the east-of-the-Mississippi routes have to be the top priority for rolling stock, and the Amfleet II replacements haven't been ordered yet.

The "core responsibilities" of the "General Manager Long Distance" are described as, in order:

- ensuring the effective connectivity of the nation’s major regions through Amtrak’s network of long-distance trains

- providing a foundation of intercity passenger rail service

- and preserving intercity mobility for underserved communities or populations.

If those priorities are in order, then the top priorities for "connectivity of the nation's major regions", based on most definitions of "the nation's major regions" and the presence of local train services to interconnect, are likely to be NY-Chicago and NY-Florida. Not coincidentally, we know which "long-distance" segments have the worst farebox recovery, and it isn't those.

Boardman also makes a point of saying:

Our long distance trains are, on average, as full on the peak leg of their trips as are the Acela services on the Northeast Corridor.

Peak leg. The backup plan if Congress won't fund the full LD system is probably to try to get the states to keep those peak legs.
I wouldn't be surprised if page 11 of Boardman's March 2013 presentation is his warning of the future if the LD trains aren't sufficiently Congressionally funded: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/778/373/Amtrak-Covers-88-Percent-of-Operating-Costs-ATK-13-022.pdf. I'd expect Amtrak to figure out how to keep a bit more than that running; such threats are always slightly more cuts than what happens. But it can't be a coincidence that he published a map which specifically chopped off six (rather than seven or five) routes.

 

[CHamilton]

Railway Age: Amtrak FY 2015 budget: “Something has to change”

The Hill: Amtrak requests $260M funding increase

 

[afigg]

Ok, since no one else has posted a summary of what is in the FY15 request, I'll go ahead. For better or worse.

The FY2015 appropriation request has implications for the LD trains with Boardman asking Congress to either fully fund them or else (in so many words). The request with the shifting of the NEC operating surplus to spend it on the NEC rather than to continue subsidizing the LD trains is couched as a proposal, so Boardman is leaving the door open to continue to do so in FY15. However, he is making it clear that the NEC is generating an operating surplus that is being used to pay for the rest of the system which many on the Hill may not realize.

Anyway, here are the numbers as background to any discussion about what the FY15 request means.

Amtrak FY14 appropriations were a total of $1.390 billion split as follows: $340 million for operating subsidy and $1.050 billion for capital ($781 million for general capital, $199 million for debt service, $50 million for ADA compliance, $20 million for NEC programs).

The FY15 appropriations request is as follows:
Operating Subsidy requests
NEC $0
State Supported $83 million
LD $618 million
Total operating: $701 million

Capital grant requests
NEC $445 million*
State Supported: $20 million
LD $295 million
Total Capital $760 million

Debt Service: $150 million
FRA Oversight $9 million
Total Federal Request: $1,620 million

* The $290 million projected Net Operating Profit from the Acela and Regionals is to be added to the $445 million for a total of $735 million for NEC Capital. There is also $79 million from projected Net Operating profit from Corporate Development that is to be used for Corporate Development capital funding.

Amtrak is requesting a 16.5% increase over FY14 which is much less than requests in previous years which have been around $2.5 billion as those were the levels authorized by the 2008 PRIIA act. Congress never funded Amtrak at close to the amounts requested, so this is a change in tactics.

The request summarizes what Amtrak wants to get in Capital Investments through FY18. The NEC would increase from $735M FY15 to $1,573M in FY16 to $1,692M in FY17. The LD capital investment would drop off a little at $295M FY15, $285M FY16, $275M FY17, $279M FY18. If there is a strategy in this, Boardman is asking to ramp up the funding for the LD trains this year while requesting only a modest total increase which is what most in Congress focus on. If the $1.6 billion is provided this year, then the ramp-up in federal funding in future years is mainly for NEC capital investments, which once the NEC PEIS is in place, should be sturdier political ground to fight on.

Some excerpts from the request:

If Amtrak could obtain access to a multi-year Federal funding commitment, it could build and follow through on a capital program that would address our fleet and infrastructure needs. Amtrak has never had a true capital commitment, one that allowed us to sign multiyear contracts, knowing that the money would be there to carry out the work. As a result, we have put off major capital programs to renew aging bridges and tunnels, in some cases for decades. The projects we have been able to undertake have been completed in a manner that is less efficient than it would have been if we could say with certainty that our projects were funded in advance. Our ability to buy in bulk for out years, which saves money, is hindered by our inability to commit money for purchases in coming fiscal years.

The uncertainty associated with an annual appropriation sometimes means we are left with excess inventory that must be stored or held until a use can be found for it. It is difficult to get industry to respond to orders or proposals if we can’t guarantee large purchases, and it is hard to know when our workforce will be needed, a challenge that is made even harder by the limited work windows that are available on the Northeast Corridor. The process of “ramping up” the organization so that we can effectively invest at a level that will make a difference will take a period of years, as we will have to develop capabilities that are currently scaled to our existing program – both management capabilities, such as project and contractoroversight, and workforce capacity – to accommodate significantly higher levels of funding. While we can expand and contract these capabilities to accommodate fluctuating levels of investment, there are significant long term cost savings that will come if we can plan our activities in advance and manage our workforce and inventory in a manner that ensures we obtain the most efficient return for our investment. This would be another efficiency benefit that will flow naturally from access to a committed source of capital support.

Such a funding stream would also be important for our long distance services, which enjoy strong support from the states and communities they serve. In addition to the aging fleet, which we have begun to replace, there is a need for investments in the freight network to provide improvements that are needed for passenger service. We are working closely with strong support from the states of Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico – as well as BNSF Railway – to sustain our Southwest Chief service. These states are strongly committed to the sustainment of the existing service, so much so that in the absence of available Federal funding, they are trying to find a way to invest together to preserve the service. We would like to be able to invest in the future to support successful programs, particularly those, such as grade crossing projects, that bring safety benefits.

While the long distance service costs have been offset in recent years by revenues from our Northeast Corridor services, Amtrak is proposing in FY 2015 that the Federal Government provide for the totality of their operating need, $618 million, as part of our FY 2015 operating need. Like the Northeast Corridor, these trains will require significant capital investment, with a total identified FY 2015 need of $295 million. About $50 million of this cost will be required for ADA compliance at our stations. The purchase of new rolling stock (including the ongoing replacement of our Heritage cars) will require $130 million. Approximately $115 million will be required for overhauls to our fleet, much of which dates to the early 1980s. Our Superliner cars, which are used in long distance service, are probably the hardest-run passenger equipment in North America, with the average car traveling an annual distance equal to seven trips around the world.

 

[Andrew]

Ok, since no one else has posted a summary of what is in the FY15 request, I'll go ahead. For better or worse.

The FY2015 appropriation request has implications for the LD trains with Boardman asking Congress to either fully fund them or else (in so many words). The request with the shifting of the NEC operating surplus to spend it on the NEC rather than to continue subsidizing the LD trains is couched as a proposal, so Boardman is leaving the door open to continue to do so in FY15. However, he is making it clear that the NEC is generating an operating surplus that is being used to pay for the rest of the system which many on the Hill may not realize.

Anyway, here are the numbers as background to any discussion about what the FY15 request means.

Amtrak FY14 appropriations were a total of $1.390 billion split as follows: $340 million for operating subsidy and $1.050 billion for capital ($781 million for general capital, $199 million for debt service, $50 million for ADA compliance, $20 million for NEC programs).

The FY15 appropriations request is as follows:

Operating Subsidy requests

NEC $0

State Supported $83 million

LD $618 million

Total operating: $701 million

Capital grant requests

NEC $445 million*

State Supported: $20 million

LD $295 million

Total Capital $760 million

Debt Service: $150 million

FRA Oversight $9 million

Total Federal Request: $1,620 million

* The $290 million projected Net Operating Profit from the Acela and Regionals is to be added to the $445 million for a total of $735 million for NEC Capital. There is also $79 million from projected Net Operating profit from Corporate Development that is to be used for Corporate Development capital funding.

Amtrak is requesting a 16.5% increase over FY14 which is much less than requests in previous years which have been around $2.5 billion as those were the levels authorized by the 2008 PRIIA act. Congress never funded Amtrak at close to the amounts requested, so this is a change in tactics.

The request summarizes what Amtrak wants to get in Capital Investments through FY18. The NEC would increase from $735M FY15 to $1,573M in FY16 to $1,692M in FY17. The LD capital investment would drop off a little at $295M FY15, $285M FY16, $275M FY17, $279M FY18. If there is a strategy in this, Boardman is asking to ramp up the funding for the LD trains this year while requesting only a modest total increase which is what most in Congress focus on. If the $1.6 billion is provided this year, then the ramp-up in federal funding in future years is mainly for NEC capital investments, which once the NEC PEIS is in place, should be sturdier political ground to fight on.

Some excerpts from the request:

If Amtrak could obtain access to a multi-year Federal funding commitment, it could build and follow through on a capital program that would address our fleet and infrastructure needs. Amtrak has never had a true capital commitment, one that allowed us to sign multiyear contracts, knowing that the money would be there to carry out the work. As a result, we have put off major capital programs to renew aging bridges and tunnels, in some cases for decades. The projects we have been able to undertake have been completed in a manner that is less efficient than it would have been if we could say with certainty that our projects were funded in advance. Our ability to buy in bulk for out years, which saves money, is hindered by our inability to commit money for purchases in coming fiscal years.

The uncertainty associated with an annual appropriation sometimes means we are left with excess inventory that must be stored or held until a use can be found for it. It is difficult to get industry to respond to orders or proposals if we can’t guarantee large purchases, and it is hard to know when our workforce will be needed, a challenge that is made even harder by the limited work windows that are available on the Northeast Corridor. The process of “ramping up” the organization so that we can effectively invest at a level that will make a difference will take a period of years, as we will have to develop capabilities that are currently scaled to our existing program – both management capabilities, such as project and contractoroversight, and workforce capacity – to accommodate significantly higher levels of funding. While we can expand and contract these capabilities to accommodate fluctuating levels of investment, there are significant long term cost savings that will come if we can plan our activities in advance and manage our workforce and inventory in a manner that ensures we obtain the most efficient return for our investment. This would be another efficiency benefit that will flow naturally from access to a committed source of capital support.

Such a funding stream would also be important for our long distance services, which enjoy strong support from the states and communities they serve. In addition to the aging fleet, which we have begun to replace, there is a need for investments in the freight network to provide improvements that are needed for passenger service. We are working closely with strong support from the states of Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico – as well as BNSF Railway – to sustain our Southwest Chief service. These states are strongly committed to the sustainment of the existing service, so much so that in the absence of available Federal funding, they are trying to find a way to invest together to preserve the service. We would like to be able to invest in the future to support successful programs, particularly those, such as grade crossing projects, that bring safety benefits.

While the long distance service costs have been offset in recent years by revenues from our Northeast Corridor services, Amtrak is proposing in FY 2015 that the Federal Government provide for the totality of their operating need, $618 million, as part of our FY 2015 operating need. Like the Northeast Corridor, these trains will require significant capital investment, with a total identified FY 2015 need of $295 million. About $50 million of this cost will be required for ADA compliance at our stations. The purchase of new rolling stock (including the ongoing replacement of our Heritage cars) will require $130 million. Approximately $115 million will be required for overhauls to our fleet, much of which dates to the early 1980s. Our Superliner cars, which are used in long distance service, are probably the hardest-run passenger equipment in North America, with the average car traveling an annual distance equal to seven trips around the world.

So, what Amtrak is literally proposing, is that FY 2014 could very well be the last year that they PAY for LD Service? Thus, if Washington chooses not to fund future LD Service, then the current money that is covering LD Service--from NEC Revenue--will instead get diverted to high priority NEC Construction/Capacity Expansion Projects?

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Nothing new here, but props go to CBS on this one for not getting anything substantially wrong, quite an achievement for TV!

http://screen.yahoo.com/cbs-lm-cbs-new-york_182/amtrak-big-plans-northeast-corridor-225400251.html

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Ok, since no one else has posted a summary of what is in the FY15 request, I'll go ahead. For better or worse.

. . .

The FY2015 appropriation request has implications for the LD trains with Boardman asking Congress to either fully fund them or else (in so many words).

If Amtrak could obtain access to a multi-year Federal funding commitment, it could build and follow through on a capital program that would address our fleet and infrastructure needs. Amtrak has never had a true capital commitment, one that allowed us to sign multiyear contracts, knowing that the money would be there to carry out the work. . . . Our ability to buy in bulk for out years, which saves money, is hindered by our inability to commit money for purchases in coming fiscal years.

Such a funding stream would also be important for our long distance services. . . We would like to be able to invest in the future to support successful programs, particularly those, such as grade crossing projects, that bring safety benefits.

. . . Amtrak is proposing in FY 2015 that the Federal Government provide for the totality of [the long distance services] operating need, $618 million, as part of our FY 2015 operating need. . . .these trains will require significant capital investment, with a total identified FY 2015 need of $295 million. About $50 million of this cost will be required for ADA compliance at our stations. The purchase of new rolling stock (including the ongoing replacement of our Heritage cars) will require $130 million. Approximately $115 million will be required for overhauls to our fleet, much of which dates to the early 1980s. . . .

A very nice summary. Thanks.

So much here that it's hard for me to get thru it all. So I've selected a couple of points to comment on.

There's many mentions of infrastructure, bridges, tunnels -- big construction contracts that any traditional pork-spreading Congresscritter should love.

But Boardman never forgets the fleet renewal needs. He asks "allow us to sign multiyear contracts" because Amtrak needs "to buy in bulk for out years, which saves money." Of course, "Such a funding stream would also be important for our long distance services."

Then specifically for FY 2015, starting in about six months, he breaks it down. Motherhood, apple pie, and $50 million for ADA compliance. (Seems to me it's hard to build or rebuild to improve ADA access without improving things for everybody, so I'm all for this.)

Then, I highlighted my favorite sentence. New rolling stock, $130 million. Hmmn. That's not Acela II stuff, because he's segregated NEC stuff from the LD stuff here. Guess that's the last payments to CAF on the tardy units of the 130-car Viewliner II order. Except he says "on-going replacement of our Heritage cars". The 130-car order doesn't quite get it done. To completely replace the last of the Heritage cars, they'll need more Viewliner II baggage cars. But $130 million seems rather a lot for a bunch of baggage cars. It's almost enuff to cover the option order. Well, a boy can hope.

----------------

That throw-away sentence about spending for safer grade crossings. Nice. We're all for safety, even tea baggers, surely. Of course, better grade crossings will benefit all-American drivers as much as collectivist-minded train riders, so that's appealing. The proposal could spread spending over about 500 Congressional districts. Or if concentrated along certain carefully chosen corridors (say, Indianapolis-Chicago, or Albany-Buffalo), might actually be a nice little contribution to the cost of upgrading a route. With a generous reading, fixing grade crossings might even cover a few remaining CREATE projects. LOL. Let's do that.

 

[afigg]

But Boardman never forgets the fleet renewal needs. He asks "allow us to sign multiyear contracts" because Amtrak needs "to buy in bulk for out years, which saves money." Of course, "Such a funding stream would also be important for our long distance services."

Then specifically for FY 2015, starting in about six months, he breaks it down. Motherhood, apple pie, and $50 million for ADA compliance. (Seems to me it's hard to build or rebuild to improve ADA access without improving things for everybody, so I'm all for this.)

I highlighted my favorite sentence. New rolling stock, $130 million. Hmmn. That's not Acela II stuff, because he's segregated NEC stuff from the LD stuff here. Guess that's the last payments to CAF on the tardy units of the 130-car Viewliner II order. Except he says "on-going replacement of our Heritage cars". The 130-car order doesn't quite get it done. To completely replace the last of the Heritage cars, they'll need more Viewliner II baggage cars. But $130 million seems rather a lot for a bunch of baggage cars. It's almost enuff to cover the option order. Well, a boy can hope.

The $130 million in FY15 is presumably the progress payments on the current 130 car Viewliner II order for deliveries in FY15. Amtrak asked for dedicated funds for rolling stock purchases in FY14 which they did not get. They will have to cover FY14 payments out of the general capital funding and any loose change in the couch they can find.
The key is the request for a sustained circa $280 million a year for capital grants for the LD trains. If Amtrak were to somehow get that much, that would provide enough money over time to order P-42, Amfleet II, Superliner I replacements in batches. For FY15, as the quoted paragraph said, the $295 million is split into $50 million for ADA compliance, $115 million for overhauls, and $130 million for the Viewliner IIs. If Amtrak was able to in future years allocate circa $150 million a year to rolling stock acquisition, that would cover the upfront acquisition costs and the down payment for new LD rolling stock orders. RIFF or commercial loans to be paid off over 20 or 25 years from the LD revenue cash flow and debt service funding might be able to cover the rest of the costs.

However, getting Congress in the current political environment to agree to a long term adequate sustained capital funding deal is a serious challenge.

 

[Andrew]

What about for high priority Tunnel Projects on the NEC?

 

[Paulus]

What about for high priority Tunnel Projects on the NEC?

Dude, this obsession of yours is getting way out of hand.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

What about for high priority Tunnel Projects on the NEC?

Why would they fund such a thing? There aren't any tunnel projects in the northeast, let alone one that's high priority.

I mean there's a Parsons-Brinkerhoff funding scheme going around under the name Gateway, but that's not a tunnel project, it's just way to offload federal funds to a PB study.

 

[jis]

What about for high priority Tunnel Projects on the NEC?

It is not just for Amtrak to fund. Amtrak will likely come up with some funds. But money will have to found from elsewhere. I don;pt see that happening before 2018 or so if not later for any significant construction to take place. I suspect that Portal Bridge has higher priority at present than the tunnel if some additional funding were to become available.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, while the tunnel is important it is not the highest priority at this point in time. For that Congress might even bring the concept of Public Private Partnership into effect in some way, depending on how things go in the elections of course over the next half a dozen Congresses.

There are aspects of Gateway that are not the tunnel and some of them have higher priority than any tunnel at present. The Portal Bridge, the Sawtooth Bridge and the quad tracking of Newark to Secaucus are all part of Gateway.

 

[Andrew]

What about for high priority Tunnel Projects on the NEC?

Why would they fund such a thing? There aren't any tunnel projects in the northeast, let alone one that's high priority.

I mean there's a Parsons-Brinkerhoff funding scheme going around under the name Gateway, but that's not a tunnel project, it's just way to offload federal funds to a PB study.

1. So you are saying that PB is involved with a study regarding Gateway?

What about for high priority Tunnel Projects on the NEC?

It is not just for Amtrak to fund. Amtrak will likely come up with some funds. But money will have to found from elsewhere. I don;pt see that happening before 2018 or so if not later for any significant construction to take place. I suspect that Portal Bridge has higher priority at present than the tunnel if some additional funding were to become available.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, while the tunnel is important it is not the highest priority at this point in time. For that Congress might even bring the concept of Public Private Partnership into effect in some way, depending on how things go in the elections of course over the next half a dozen Congresses.

There are aspects of Gateway that are not the tunnel and some of them have higher priority than any tunnel at present. The Portal Bridge, the Sawtooth Bridge and the quad tracking of Newark to Secaucus are all part of Gateway.

2. Are you saying what Amtrak could literally do is shift the future money that could go to LD Service instead to Portal Bridge Replacement or some other important project?

 

[jis]

What about for high priority Tunnel Projects on the NEC?

Why would they fund such a thing? There aren't any tunnel projects in the northeast, let alone one that's high priority.

I mean there's a Parsons-Brinkerhoff funding scheme going around under the name Gateway, but that's not a tunnel project, it's just way to offload federal funds to a PB study.

1. So you are saying that PB is involved with a study regarding Gateway?

PB has always been involved, both with the Gateway Tunnel and the 7 to Secaucus. Nothing new there.

What about for high priority Tunnel Projects on the NEC?

It is not just for Amtrak to fund. Amtrak will likely come up with some funds. But money will have to found from elsewhere. I don;pt see that happening before 2018 or so if not later for any significant construction to take place. I suspect that Portal Bridge has higher priority at present than the tunnel if some additional funding were to become available.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, while the tunnel is important it is not the highest priority at this point in time. For that Congress might even bring the concept of Public Private Partnership into effect in some way, depending on how things go in the elections of course over the next half a dozen Congresses.

There are aspects of Gateway that are not the tunnel and some of them have higher priority than any tunnel at present. The Portal Bridge, the Sawtooth Bridge and the quad tracking of Newark to Secaucus are all part of Gateway.

2. Are you saying what Amtrak could literally do is shift the future money that could go to LD Service instead to Portal Bridge Replacement or some other important project?

A specific grant for a specific project cannot be moved around. But any funding that is out of Amtrak's general budget, is of course free to be moved to whatever Amtrak thinks is more important. For example couple hundred million dollars is moved to support LD trains instead of spending on NEC infrastructure like say Portal Bridge at the present time, as pointed out. OTOH the biggest user of Portal Bridge is NJT not Amtrak, so it stands to reason that NJT should pitch in. Also via NJT they can access FTA and CMAQ funding which Amtrak by itself cannot get.

Actually NJT has applied for TIGER money for Portal work this year. I would be absolutely stumped if Amtrak funds the Portal work unilaterally all by itself even in the form of a grant request just for itself for such purpose, as opposed to a joint one involving NJT. Even more so for the tunnel, if and when such happens. Frankly I think, anything involving any additional funding from the PANYNJ is stuck until Mr. Samson makes exit left. It is just a matter of time.

 

[Andrew]

What about for high priority Tunnel Projects on the NEC?

Why would they fund such a thing? There aren't any tunnel projects in the northeast, let alone one that's high priority.

I mean there's a Parsons-Brinkerhoff funding scheme going around under the name Gateway, but that's not a tunnel project, it's just way to offload federal funds to a PB study.

1. So you are saying that PB is involved with a study regarding Gateway?

PB has always been involved, both with the Gateway Tunnel and the 7 to Secaucus. Nothing new there.

What about for high priority Tunnel Projects on the NEC?

It is not just for Amtrak to fund. Amtrak will likely come up with some funds. But money will have to found from elsewhere. I don;pt see that happening before 2018 or so if not later for any significant construction to take place. I suspect that Portal Bridge has higher priority at present than the tunnel if some additional funding were to become available.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, while the tunnel is important it is not the highest priority at this point in time. For that Congress might even bring the concept of Public Private Partnership into effect in some way, depending on how things go in the elections of course over the next half a dozen Congresses.

There are aspects of Gateway that are not the tunnel and some of them have higher priority than any tunnel at present. The Portal Bridge, the Sawtooth Bridge and the quad tracking of Newark to Secaucus are all part of Gateway.

2. Are you saying what Amtrak could literally do is shift the future money that could go to LD Service instead to Portal Bridge Replacement or some other important project?

A specific grant for a specific project cannot be moved around. But any funding that is out of Amtrak's general budget, is of course free to be moved to whatever Amtrak thinks is more important. For example couple hundred million dollars is moved to support LD trains instead of spending on NEC infrastructure like say Portal Bridge at the present time, as pointed out. OTOH the biggest user of Portal Bridge is NJT not Amtrak, so it stands to reason that NJT should pitch in. Also via NJT they can access FTA and CMAQ funding which Amtrak by itself cannot get.

Actually NJT has applied for TIGER money for Portal work this year. I would be absolutely stumped if Amtrak funds the Portal work unilaterally all by itself even in the form of a grant request just for itself for such purpose, as opposed to a joint one involving NJT. Even more so for the tunnel, if and when such happens. Frankly I think, anything involving any additional funding from the PANYNJ is stuck until Mr. Samson makes exit left. It is just a matter of time.

1. What is PB currently doing with Gateway?

2. If you really believe that Mr. Samson is going to leave, how much longer do you think it will be?

 

[afigg]

A specific grant for a specific project cannot be moved around. But any funding that is out of Amtrak's general budget, is of course free to be moved to whatever Amtrak thinks is more important. For example couple hundred million dollars is moved to support LD trains instead of spending on NEC infrastructure like say Portal Bridge at the present time, as pointed out. OTOH the biggest user of Portal Bridge is NJT not Amtrak, so it stands to reason that NJT should pitch in. Also via NJT they can access FTA and CMAQ funding which Amtrak by itself cannot get.

Actually NJT has applied for TIGER money for Portal work this year. I would be absolutely stumped if Amtrak funds the Portal work unilaterally all by itself even in the form of a grant request just for itself for such purpose, as opposed to a joint one involving NJT. Even more so for the tunnel, if and when such happens. Frankly I think, anything involving any additional funding from the PANYNJ is stuck until Mr. Samson makes exit left. It is just a matter of time.

If NJT lands a TIGER grant for Portal bridge replacement work, the grant will likely be limited to a max of $20 to $25 million. Which is a small piece of the total needed for the (north) Portal Bridge and sawtooth bridge replacements. I assume the application will be for pre-construction, property acquisition and utility relocation type work?
There are 2 grant programs this year that I would expect Amtrak and their NEC commuter partners will try to land some NEC funding from. The applications for the $3 billion in Sandy mitigation funds for the transit and rail systems in the northeast are due at the end of March. Then the applications for the $600 million FY14 TIGER grants are due at the end of April. Would be interesting to find out and for what Amtrak and the NEC commuter agencies submit applications for. We can expect that there will be some passenger rail related FY14 TIGER grants, but I don't know what the prospects are for Amtrak and the NEC to get a decent sized portion of the $3 billion.

And, Andrew, please don't ask whether if NEC Gateway and the Hudson river tunnels will get Sandy mitigation funds beyond the tunnel box. The state of good repair and weather hardening needs of the NEC are many and there are near term projects the Sandy funds could be used for.

 

[Andrew]

A specific grant for a specific project cannot be moved around. But any funding that is out of Amtrak's general budget, is of course free to be moved to whatever Amtrak thinks is more important. For example couple hundred million dollars is moved to support LD trains instead of spending on NEC infrastructure like say Portal Bridge at the present time, as pointed out. OTOH the biggest user of Portal Bridge is NJT not Amtrak, so it stands to reason that NJT should pitch in. Also via NJT they can access FTA and CMAQ funding which Amtrak by itself cannot get.

Actually NJT has applied for TIGER money for Portal work this year. I would be absolutely stumped if Amtrak funds the Portal work unilaterally all by itself even in the form of a grant request just for itself for such purpose, as opposed to a joint one involving NJT. Even more so for the tunnel, if and when such happens. Frankly I think, anything involving any additional funding from the PANYNJ is stuck until Mr. Samson makes exit left. It is just a matter of time.

If NJT lands a TIGER grant for Portal bridge replacement work, the grant will likely be limited to a max of $20 to $25 million. Which is a small piece of the total needed for the (north) Portal Bridge and sawtooth bridge replacements. I assume the application will be for pre-construction, property acquisition and utility relocation type work?
There are 2 grant programs this year that I would expect Amtrak and their NEC commuter partners will try to land some NEC funding from. The applications for the $3 billion in Sandy mitigation funds for the transit and rail systems in the northeast are due at the end of March. Then the applications for the $600 million FY14 TIGER grants are due at the end of April. Would be interesting to find out and for what Amtrak and the NEC commuter agencies submit applications for. We can expect that there will be some passenger rail related FY14 TIGER grants, but I don't know what the prospects are for Amtrak and the NEC to get a decent sized portion of the $3 billion.

And, Andrew, please don't ask whether if NEC Gateway and the Hudson river tunnels will get Sandy mitigation funds beyond the tunnel box. The state of good repair and weather hardening needs of the NEC are many and there are near term projects the Sandy funds could be used for.

How likely is it for Amtrak to lobby for more Tunnel Box funding (from the new Sandy Mitigation funds)?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Amtrak doesn't want the damned tunnels. They are NEVER going to be built. You are pining to meet a Minotaur.

 

[Ziv]

So how has Shuster been responding to Amtrak/Boardman so far? He has to be better than Mica and the first reports I heard were guardedly positive. I know he still is talking about privatizing the "crown jewels" of the NEC, but will he be open to more steady rates of funding Amtrak? Sorry for asking such a basic question but I haven't seen any anti-Amtrak rants from the head of the House Transport committee in a while and that has to be a good thing.

 

[afigg]

Amtrak doesn't want the damned tunnels. They are NEVER going to be built. You are pining to meet a Minotaur.

You realize, of course, that yours is a distinct minority viewpoint and one not supported by the evidence.
All the NEC planning and infrastructure reports in recent years identify the 2 Hudson river tunnels as the most critical chokepoint on the NEC. Amtrak fought for and got NEC Gateway engineering study funding from Congress. Amtrak managed to get $185 million of Sandy mitigation funds allocated to build the tunnel box to protect the access path for 2 new Hudson tunnels. If there are any accidents in or serious corrosion problems are found in either one of the hundred year old tunnels that require the tunnel to be taken out of service for an extended period, the NEC will be severely crippled.

Yes, building 2 new Hudson River tunnels, a south Portal bridge, and 2 new tracks in NJ will be expensive, but the cost is well within the capability of the US, NJ, NY, NYC to pay for it. It may take 5 years or more to complete the engineering studies, build the political and public consensus, and get the funding agreements in place, but those 2 tunnels will eventually get built.

 

[afigg]

So how has Shuster been responding to Amtrak/Boardman so far? He has to be better than Mica and the first reports I heard were guardedly positive. I know he still is talking about privatizing the "crown jewels" of the NEC, but will he be open to more steady rates of funding Amtrak? Sorry for asking such a basic question but I haven't seen any anti-Amtrak rants from the head of the House Transport committee in a while and that has to be a good thing.

I have not seen much info in the past year about Chairman Shuster's position with regards to Amtrak. We will find out what he and the key House players are up to when the details of the House version of the Amtrak re-authorization bill are made public. I think the statements by Boardman defending the LD trains and Amtrak's recent actions to cut amenities on the LD trains are strong clues to the conversations and exchanges going on between Amtrak and the Hill.

 

[Andrew]

Amtrak doesn't want the damned tunnels. They are NEVER going to be built. You are pining to meet a Minotaur.

You realize, of course, that yours is a distinct minority viewpoint and one not supported by the evidence.
All the NEC planning and infrastructure reports in recent years identify the 2 Hudson river tunnels as the most critical chokepoint on the NEC. Amtrak fought for and got NEC Gateway engineering study funding from Congress. Amtrak managed to get $185 million of Sandy mitigation funds allocated to build the tunnel box to protect the access path for 2 new Hudson tunnels. If there are any accidents in or serious corrosion problems are found in either one of the hundred year old tunnels that require the tunnel to be taken out of service for an extended period, the NEC will be severely crippled.

Yes, building 2 new Hudson River tunnels, a south Portal bridge, and 2 new tracks in NJ will be expensive, but the cost is well within the capability of the US, NJ, NY, NYC to pay for it. It may take 5 years or more to complete the engineering studies, build the political and public consensus, and get the funding agreements in place, but those 2 tunnels will eventually get built.

My prediction is that the current Tunnel Box gets completed on schedule--with the rebuilding of the maintenance facility concluding by Thanksgiving of 2015. Then, Amtrak (or Tutor Perini) will extend the Tunnel Box to just east of 12th Avenue (at 30th street).

By this time, the Portal Bridge Replacement Project will be well on it's way.

My main question is, though, how much can Amtrak financially contribute to the Gateway Project? Also, how will the Block 780 Station get constructed?