Amtrak FY2014 Appropriations - $1.39 billion, $600 million f

[afigg]

Yes, it is that time of year. Only 3 and ½ months into the fiscal year and Congress is finally close to settling on how to allocate the funds!

The FY2014 Omnibus appropriations bill has been released with mixed news for Amtrak and passenger rail funding. My numbers come from reading the Senate and House summaries and a search of the 1,542 page omnibus bill. My interpretation of the amounts and riders may be incorrect in some parts as these massive bills are complicated, so there may be corrections as the media, agencies, and interest groups examine the bill. The omnibus bill is expected to be passed by the Senate and House later this week, but with this Congress, nothing is certain. Copies of the omnibus bill and easier to read summaries can be found at the House or Senate Appropriations websites.

Amtrak receives a total of $1.39 billion, a $47 million increase over the sequestered FY13 amount. The FY11 total was $1.475 billion and FY12 was $1.408 billion, so the total federal funding amount continues to shrink, although it is offset by the increased state subsidies.

The operating subsidy is $340 million, a rather lean amount, but keeps the LD trains running. Capital grant and debt service funding is a total of $1,050 million with $199 million for debt service and $50 million for ADA compliance. That leaves $800 million for capital grants, which is a decent increase over FY12 and FY13. There is a provision that if the $340 million for operating subsidy is insufficient, that $40 million from the capital grants can be transferred to make up the shortfall. I do not see any provision for NEC Gateway engineering, so Amtrak will have to fund the project PE and EIS from the capital grant if they want to keep Gateway moving ahead.

Because of the additional circa $100 million in state subsidy payments and reduced debt service payments, Amtrak gets an increase in capital grant funding from $642 million in FY13 to ~$800 million in FY14. That is good news, but of course well short of the amounts needed to buy Amfleet, Superliner, and P-42 replacements without incurring substantial new debt.

According to the Senate summary, the bill ensures that Amtrak can access the $81 million (out of $86 million originally provided) that it received in the Sandy relief bill for mitigation and flood protection projects. Amtrak had been unable to tap those funds because of the language in the Sandy relief bill.

The bill retains the same silly restrictions on Amtrak overtime and no more than 50% discounts from the peak fares for the non-state supported routes. There is a paragraph on the RRIF loan program with a rider that I don’t know enough to interpret. $1.973 million is rescinded from Next Gen HSR funds, those are likely left over spare funds the FRA did not obligate.

The TIGER grant program continues with $600 million in FY14. Has the same constraints as before on grant amounts and requires that 20% of the funds go to rural areas. There will be another round of grants this year with some funding going to passenger rail projects.

So Amtrak and the LD trains keep going for another year, having survived this round of the budget games. But what is the status of the Amtrak reauthorization bill? No idea.

 

[Paulus]

To be honest, I really don't think a limitation of "No more than $35,000 per person in overtime" is silly. That's really getting into "You need to hire another person" territory.

 

[Andrew]

Yes, it is that time of year. Only 3 and ½ months into the fiscal year and Congress is finally close to settling on how to allocate the funds!

The FY2014 Omnibus appropriations bill has been released with mixed news for Amtrak and passenger rail funding. My numbers come from reading the Senate and House summaries and a search of the 1,542 page omnibus bill. My interpretation of the amounts and riders may be incorrect in some parts as these massive bills are complicated, so there may be corrections as the media, agencies, and interest groups examine the bill. The omnibus bill is expected to be passed by the Senate and House later this week, but with this Congress, nothing is certain. Copies of the omnibus bill and easier to read summaries can be found at the House or Senate Appropriations websites.

Amtrak receives a total of $1.39 billion, a $47 million increase over the sequestered FY13 amount. The FY11 total was $1.475 billion and FY12 was $1.408 billion, so the total federal funding amount continues to shrink, although it is offset by the increased state subsidies.

The operating subsidy is $340 million, a rather lean amount, but keeps the LD trains running. Capital grant and debt service funding is a total of $1,050 million with $199 million for debt service and $50 million for ADA compliance. That leaves $800 million for capital grants, which is a decent increase over FY12 and FY13. There is a provision that if the $340 million for operating subsidy is insufficient, that $40 million from the capital grants can be transferred to make up the shortfall. I do not see any provision for NEC Gateway engineering, so Amtrak will have to fund the project PE and EIS from the capital grant if they want to keep Gateway moving ahead.

Because of the additional circa $100 million in state subsidy payments and reduced debt service payments, Amtrak gets an increase in capital grant funding from $642 million in FY13 to ~$800 million in FY14. That is good news, but of course well short of the amounts needed to buy Amfleet, Superliner, and P-42 replacements without incurring substantial new debt.

According to the Senate summary, the bill ensures that Amtrak can access the $81 million (out of $86 million originally provided) that it received in the Sandy relief bill for mitigation and flood protection projects. Amtrak had been unable to tap those funds because of the language in the Sandy relief bill.

The bill retains the same silly restrictions on Amtrak overtime and no more than 50% discounts from the peak fares for the non-state supported routes. There is a paragraph on the RRIF loan program with a rider that I don’t know enough to interpret. $1.973 million is rescinded from Next Gen HSR funds, those are likely left over spare funds the FRA did not obligate.

The TIGER grant program continues with $600 million in FY14. Has the same constraints as before on grant amounts and requires that 20% of the funds go to rural areas. There will be another round of grants this year with some funding going to passenger rail projects.

So Amtrak and the LD trains keep going for another year, having survived this round of the budget games. But what is the status of the Amtrak reauthorization bill? No idea.

You mean Amtrak should fund Gateway from their own revenue?

 

[afigg]

To be honest, I really don't think a limitation of "No more than $35,000 per person in overtime" is silly. That's really getting into "You need to hire another person" territory.

It is micro-management with a blunt tool. If Congress is that concerned about excessive overtime, add language in the Amtrak authorization bill telling US DOT to monitor Amtrak for excessive OT, not have several paragraphs in annual appropriation bills. But if it keeps Congress from micro-managing food and beverage sales, that is probably an acceptable tradeoff.

If the omnibus appropriations bill passes this week, Amtrak will presumably post a formal FY14 budget document in a month or so. We will see what is in the updated capital spending program. NEC Gateway engineering, any hints of exercising part of the options with CAF, a line item for managing the Acela II RFP?

 

[afigg]

You mean Amtrak should fund Gateway from their own revenue?

Andrew, please read what I wrote. Amtrak may have to fund the ongoing NEC Gateway Preliminary Engineering (PE) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from the annual capital grant unless I overlooked something in the very large bill. Amtrak received $15 million for NEC Gateway PE in FY12 and $14 million in FY13. The early engineering studies are a different matter in terms of costs than the umpteen billion in property acquisition and construction costs for the entire NEC Gateway project as currently conceived.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

To be honest, I really don't think a limitation of "No more than $35,000 per person in overtime" is silly. That's really getting into "You need to hire another person" territory.

It is micro-management with a blunt tool. If Congress is that concerned about excessive overtime, add language in the Amtrak authorization bill telling US DOT to monitor Amtrak for excessive OT, not have several paragraphs in annual appropriation bills. But if it keeps Congress from micro-managing food and beverage sales, that is probably an acceptable tradeoff.

Help me with the overtime thing.

I'm guessing maybe Amtrak could run up huge OT maintaining obsolete

electric locomotives currently being replaced and maintaining obsolete

diners currently being replaced. AmIright?

If that's the case, it's Congress micro-managing settled history, and by

fiscal 2015 it will be a regulation without an 'OT problem' to apply to.

Or in other words, more B.S. from the B.S.ers.

 

[afigg]

Help me with the overtime thing.

I'm guessing maybe Amtrak could run up huge OT maintaining obsolete electric locomotives currently being replaced and maintaining obsolete diners currently being replaced. AmIright?

If that's the case, it's Congress micro-managing settled history, and by fiscal 2015 it will be a regulation without an 'OT problem' to apply to. Or in other words, more B.S. from the B.S.ers.

Why would the OT restriction have anything to do with the electric locomotives or Heritage fleet or rolling stock maintenance staffing? I don't know how long the OT restrictions have been in the annual appropriation bills. But it probably something that was inserted after a Congressman read a story about some employees or managers racking up a lot of OT, It could be OBS, MOW crews, line managers, whatever.
The more cumbersome restriction is the limit of discounts to 50%. Quoting the omnibus bill: "Provided further, That none of the funds

provided in this Act may be used to support any route on which Amtrak offers a discounted fare of more than 50 percent off the normal peak fare: Provided further, That the preceding proviso does not apply to routes where the operating loss as a result of the discount is covered by a State and the State participates in the setting of fares."

The airlines and bus companies don't operate under this type of restriction. Megabus and Bolt bus certainly do not. It prevents Amtrak from selling seats at really big discounts for NEC and LD trains that have a lot of open seats for a segment. Say you have a Regional departing WAS at 4 AM for NYP with only a few passengers, but gets a lot of passengers at better times in WIL and PHL for trips to NYP. If Amtrak had full flexibility in setting fares, they could offer really low fares for WAS to PHL or WIL on that train to fill some of the empty seats and collect additional revenue. The 50% discount restriction hampers Amtrak's ability to maximize ticket revenue.

 

[Nathanael]

The more cumbersome restriction is the limit of discounts to 50%. Quoting the omnibus bill: "Provided further, That none of the funds

provided in this Act may be used to support any route on which Amtrak offers a discounted fare of more than 50 percent off the normal peak fare: Provided further, That the preceding proviso does not apply to routes where the operating loss as a result of the discount is covered by a State and the State participates in the setting of fares."

This is a stupid restriction, certainly, but I'm not sure what it applies to.
"Support any route" is a vague term. If it refers to operating support, well then the NEC is profitable and doesn't need operating support, and so it only applies to the LD trains. Which is actually the worst place for it to apply, as they probably need the most price flexibility.

But what's the "normal peak fare" on an LD train? Perhaps that's a different fare every day. In that case, this would only affect how far apart the bucket prices can be on any given day.

 

[Anderson]

To be honest, I really don't think a limitation of "No more than $35,000 per person in overtime" is silly. That's really getting into "You need to hire another person" territory.

I suspect that the overtime situation becomes a mess with the LD trains...especially when the Builder goes to hell in a handbasket.

afigg: I have to wonder if Amtrak could charge an "abnormal peak fare" during certain limited seasons (i.e. blackout day seasons).

 

[afigg]

This is a stupid restriction, certainly, but I'm not sure what it applies to.

"Support any route" is a vague term. If it refers to operating support, well then the NEC is profitable and doesn't need operating support, and so it only applies to the LD trains. Which is actually the worst place for it to apply, as they probably need the most price flexibility.

But what's the "normal peak fare" on an LD train? Perhaps that's a different fare every day. In that case, this would only affect how far apart the bucket prices can be on any given day.

The bill states that "none of the funds provided in this Act may be used" which means both the capital grants and the operating subsidy. Even if the NE Regionals run at a stated net surplus, the subsidy are part of the mix and the capital grant funds are used for the NEC. So it applies to the NEC as well as the LD trains. It really does hamper Amtrak's flexibility to be able to offer big discounts for specific days and segments when they know the train will have a lot of open seats.
Another takeaway from the FY14 bill is that $340 million is likely to be the upper limit for operating subsidies going forward for the LD trains in the next few years, except perhaps for inflation adjustments. If Amtrak asks in FY16 for $400 or $450 million in operating subsidies to make up for greater losses than expected, it will expose the LD train funding to attack and cuts in Congress. Before they could mix the LD losses with the shorter distance corridor losses and muddle the picture. For all the countless posts on here about restoring this or that LD train, any expansion of service will have to be accomplished under that $340 million limit on the net cash loss regardless of whether enough rolling stock and a viable route is available. That includes a daily Cardinal or Sunset Limited.

 

[Andrew]

Is it likely for Amtrak to continue funding Gateway Studies at about the same amount as the past two years?

 

[Long Haul Trucker]

I guess this means the dining car menu will now feature Hot Pockets and SPAM burgers. ;-)

 

[Anderson]

This is a stupid restriction, certainly, but I'm not sure what it applies to.

"Support any route" is a vague term. If it refers to operating support, well then the NEC is profitable and doesn't need operating support, and so it only applies to the LD trains. Which is actually the worst place for it to apply, as they probably need the most price flexibility.

But what's the "normal peak fare" on an LD train? Perhaps that's a different fare every day. In that case, this would only affect how far apart the bucket prices can be on any given day.

The bill states that "none of the funds provided in this Act may be used" which means both the capital grants and the operating subsidy. Even if the NE Regionals run at a stated net surplus, the subsidy are part of the mix and the capital grant funds are used for the NEC. So it applies to the NEC as well as the LD trains. It really does hamper Amtrak's flexibility to be able to offer big discounts for specific days and segments when they know the train will have a lot of open seats.
Another takeaway from the FY14 bill is that $340 million is likely to be the upper limit for operating subsidies going forward for the LD trains in the next few years, except perhaps for inflation adjustments. If Amtrak asks in FY16 for $400 or $450 million in operating subsidies to make up for greater losses than expected, it will expose the LD train funding to attack and cuts in Congress. Before they could mix the LD losses with the shorter distance corridor losses and muddle the picture. For all the countless posts on here about restoring this or that LD train, any expansion of service will have to be accomplished under that $340 million limit on the net cash loss regardless of whether enough rolling stock and a viable route is available. That includes a daily Cardinal or Sunset Limited.

Yes, but $340m seems to be an achievable goal for the foreseeable future. At least in the first two months of FY14, Amtrak is up almost $20m on the NEC vs. FY13. Some of that is disruption springback, but some obviously isn't. It seems likely that Amtrak isn't. YTD, Amtrak is up $56m vs. FY13...the fully allocated loss YTD is only $8m.

Mind you, we're headed into winter, and I expect January's numbers to be pretty awful even for January, considering what happened with the massive shutdown. However, the NEC's situation continues to improve in general, and with the state funding situation changed there should be additional cash inbound there as well. FY13 only showed $355m in "adjusted loss", which I believe was roughly equivalent to the operating support requirement.

As long as nothing truly catastrophic happens on the NEC, Amtrak should be able to make $350m with room to spare. There's something like $80m in improvement coming on the state support front.

Three other points:

(1) It seems that Amtrak could offer a lower fare on an LD train (and/or the NEC) if a state got involved in covering the offer.

(2) I don't think the situation with the LD trains is as dire as it's being made out to be in terms of accounting. Yes, a fudge is mostly going away...but there's still 15% or so of the state supported train cost that Amtrak still gets to cover per PRIIA 209. However, while it's going away, Amtrak is getting a lot of money in the deal. This, of course, leads to...

(3) If Amtrak is getting equipment "rental" charges from the states, how free is that money? i.e. Can it be used for new equipment purchases, to cover operating subsidies, etc.?

 

[afigg]

Is it likely for Amtrak to continue funding Gateway Studies at about the same amount as the past two years?

That is a question for Joe Boardman and Amtrak management. Not one we can really answer. However, the amounts needed for PE and EIS work will increase as the scope of the engineering, environmental analysis and surveys expand. Amtrak asked for $151.6 million in the FY14 budget request for "Advancing the Gateway Program". This was broken down into $100 million to commence work on the Portal bridge replacement, $42 million for engineering and design of the NEC Gateway, and $8.6 million for other related track investment.

Amtrak asked for a total of $1,270 million in Capital Grants, $151.6 million for NEC Gateway, and $340 million for rolling stock acquisitions. They will get $800 million, so pick and choose what gets funded. There may well be efforts behind the scenes to get more of the Sandy relief funds to help pay for Portal Bridge and NEC Gateway related work, but that is just guessing.

 

[afigg]

Yes, but $340m seems to be an achievable goal for the foreseeable future. At least in the first two months of FY14, Amtrak is up almost $20m on the NEC vs. FY13. Some of that is disruption springback, but some obviously isn't. It seems likely that Amtrak isn't. YTD, Amtrak is up $56m vs. FY13...the fully allocated loss YTD is only $8m.

Mind you, we're headed into winter, and I expect January's numbers to be pretty awful even for January, considering what happened with the massive shutdown. However, the NEC's situation continues to improve in general, and with the state funding situation changed there should be additional cash inbound there as well. FY13 only showed $355m in "adjusted loss", which I believe was roughly equivalent to the operating support requirement.

As long as nothing truly catastrophic happens on the NEC, Amtrak should be able to make $350m with room to spare. There's something like $80m in improvement coming on the state support front.

Yes, the Acela and NE Regionals generated an allocated net surplus of $372.9 million in FY12. However, the operating surplus from the Regionals will have to go to paying for the ACS-64s and presumably the Acela for the Acela IIs in a few years. As Amtrak takes on debt for NEC equipment, the operating surplus from NEC operations may not be there to cover some of the loses on the LD trains.
However, if Amtrak has a selected vendor and fancy renderings of the Acela IIs trainsets they want to buy, may get easier to obtain at least some funding from Congress for Acela II purchases so the members of Congress and the political operatives can take the Acela IIs to NYC where the money is (for election campaigns that is).

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Yes, but $340m seems to be an achievable goal for the foreseeable future.

At least in the first two months of FY14, Amtrak is up almost $20m on

the NEC vs. FY13. Some of that is disruption springback, but some

obviously isn't. It seems likely that Amtrak isn't. YTD, Amtrak is up

$56m vs. FY13...the fully allocated loss YTD is only $8m.

Mind you, we're headed into winter, and I expect January's numbers to be

pretty awful even for January, considering what happened with the massive

shutdown. However, the NEC's situation continues to improve in general,

and with the state funding situation changed there should be additional

cash inbound there as well. FY13 only showed $355m in "adjusted loss",

which I believe was roughly equivalent to the operating support requirement.

As long as nothing truly catastrophic happens on the NEC, Amtrak should

be able to make $350m with room to spare. There's something like $80m

in improvement coming on the state support front.

Yes, the Acela and NE Regionals generated an allocated net surplus of $372.9 million in FY12.

However, the operating surplus from the Regionals will have to go to paying for the ACS-64s

and presumably the Acela for the Acela IIs in a few years. As Amtrak takes on debt for NEC

equipment, the operating surplus from NEC operations may not be there to cover some of

the losses on the LD trains.

However, if Amtrak has a selected vendor and fancy renderings of the Acela IIs trainsets they

want to buy, it may get easier to obtain at least some funding from Congress for Acela II

purchases so the members of Congress and the political operatives can take the Acela IIs

to NYC where the money is (for election campaigns that is).

In his Railway Age interview, Boardman said the 28 new-and-improved

Acela train sets would throw off enuff operating surplus to pay for themselves

and then some to help pay for further improvements to "the NEC". It was almost

as if he was promising someone (Schuster? Mica?) that more NEC operating

surpluses would not be diverted to cover the LD trains.

If that's part of a deal to get specific appropriations from Congress for the

Portal bridge and any more parts of the Gateway Project, for the Baltimore

tunnels, for a bridge or two in Maryland -- hey, a great deal. If he can get it.

The LD trains aren't in any great shape, but they are greatly better off than

they were, say, five years ago. They can make it thru.

 

[Andrew]

What will Amtrak's likely top infrastructure priorities be in the Northeast from this bill?

 

[jis]

Here is a quick summary of the proposed Amtrak appropriations for 2014 (taken from NARP supplied figures):

In addition the following funds are available to Amtrak:

(i) Access to $80 million Sandy fund appropriated for Amtrak in 2013, which was under such restrictions that Amtrak could not gain access to them. Those onerous restrictions have been removed.

(ii) $10 million DHS funds for Amtrak

(iii) $23.5 million for Amtrak Inspector General

(iv) TIGER has been increased from $474 million (2013) to $600 million, some of which might filter down to specific Amtrak projects.

(v) In addition certain NEC facilities that are jointly and heavily used by commuter railroads are also eligible for funding out of various FTA programs. An example of such candidates would be partial funding of Portal.

As far as Portal and Gateway goes, remember that ARC's federal funding came entirely from FTA new starts program! So some funding for Gateway in general and Portal in particular from FTA is not out of the question and there is precedent. The issue will be finding local match, and that is where PANYNJ would likely play role.

 

[afigg]

What will Amtrak's likely top infrastructure priorities be in the Northeast from this bill?

For FY14, we will find out when the Amtrak FY14 final budget document is posted on the website. Maybe in a month or so? Beyond FY14, look for the FY14-FY18 Five Year Financial plan document whenever that is released.

 

[Guest]

Before they could mix the LD losses with the shorter distance corridor losses and muddle the picture. For all the countless posts on here about restoring this or that LD train, any expansion of service will have to be accomplished under that $340 million limit on the net cash loss regardless of whether enough rolling stock and a viable route is available. That includes a daily Cardinal or Sunset Limited.

I don't think this will be an issue for a daily Cardinal.
The daily Cardinal was estimated to increase Amtrak's operating loss by a mere 2.1 million per year, back in the PIP from 2010. This is something Amtrak can do within the budget, no problem. Frankly, given the variance on the financial performance of trains, that's approximately zero; it might even be cash-flow-positive with today's higher ticket prices.

The complex restructuring of the daily Sunset Limited / Texas Eagle plan from the PIP in 2010 was estimated to increase Amtrak's operating loss by 3 million per year. Again, this could be cash-flow-positive in todays higher-ticket-price environment, and even if not, sounds like something Amtrak can definitely do within the budget.

Much the same analysis applies to the Capitol Limited-Pennsylvanian through cars; the change in operating loss would be negligible or even positive.

I think the lower operating budget is not going to be an issue for "expansions" like these (daily service, through cars) or even for "more a day" (extending the Palmetto to resurrect the Silver Palm, or whatever). It will pretty much rule out federal funding for any genuinely new routes running on different track, but none of us were seriously expecting any of those anyway.

The place where the lower operating budget is more worrisome is during long-term disruptions like the current disaster with the Empire Builder. Those can eat up operating budget quite quickly.

 

[Nathanael]

Amtrak asked for a total of $1,270 million in Capital Grants, $151.6 million for NEC Gateway, and $340 million for rolling stock acquisitions. They will get $800 million, so pick and choose what gets funded.

Rolling stock acquisitions have to be the top priority if they have any sense. Two of the rolling stock acquisition projects (ACS-64, Viewliner II) are already committed and the money on those *has* to be spent to avoid wasting lots of money.
There's also the lease "early buyout options". The argument for exercising he lease "early buyout options" is twofold: first, pay less in interest; second and more importantly, buy the rolling stock for a fixed price, rather than having to negotiate with the leasing company.

The arguments for not exercising the options are: first, lack of cashflow; and second, if you're planning to dump the rolling stock at the end of the lease, you probably do better NOT buying it. The second reason means that it's debatable whether to buy the P42s and the Superliners, both of which Amtrak actually wants to replace soon.

The January deadline for most of the P42 buyouts has passed, anyway. But there are Surfliner buyouts in March. Amtrak is definitely going to be keeping the Surfliners in service well after the lease term ends, and so the ROI of exercising these options is very high.

So if I were Amtrak, this year I'd exercise buyouts and buy the rolling stock currently on order, and what's left for the rest of the infrastructure is... what's left, unfortunately. It's probably easier to get outside grant funding for NEC and Michigan track, and certainly easier to get it for station work, than it is to get it for locomotives and rolling stock.

 

[Andrew]

Here is a quick summary of the proposed Amtrak appropriations for 2014 (taken from NARP supplied figures):

In addition the following funds are available to Amtrak:

(i) Access to $80 million Sandy fund appropriated for Amtrak in 2013, which was under such restrictions that Amtrak could not gain access to them. Those onerous restrictions have been removed.

(ii) $10 million DHS funds for Amtrak

(iii) $23.5 million for Amtrak Inspector General

(iv) TIGER has been increased from $474 million (2013) to $600 million, some of which might filter down to specific Amtrak projects.

(v) In addition certain NEC facilities that are jointly and heavily used by commuter railroads are also eligible for funding out of various FTA programs. An example of such candidates would be partial funding of Portal.

As far as Portal and Gateway goes, remember that ARC's federal funding came entirely from FTA new starts program! So some funding for Gateway in general and Portal in particular from FTA is not out of the question and there is precedent. The issue will be finding local match, and that is where PANYNJ would likely play role.

1. I believe that some of ARC's funding actually came from the RRIF program.

2. Can you please send a link from NARP (or wherever you got this information from)?

 

[Anderson]

(1) Another thing to remember is that Amtrak tended to be pretty conservative with the ridership gains from going daily, IIRC. It's hardly implausible that the presence of X running daily vs. 3x weekly would increase ridership on each train, since now folks don't have to figure out which days they can travel on and adjust accordingly.

(2) The funny thing about disruptions like the Builder is that if enough stuff gets truncated, it can actually save money. When the Builder got shut down for a few weeks, I seem to recall that it helped the operating losses because so many expenses were avoided.

 

[afigg]

Here is a quick summary of the proposed Amtrak appropriations for 2014 (taken from NARP supplied figures):

This may be picky, but the FY2013 allocations in the table are incorrect, although the total of $1,344 million is correct, skipping the $30 million Sandy operating supplemental. Remember, the final FY13 appropriations were the end result of a messy process where FY13 ended up as a continuing resolution of the FY12 amounts minus sequestration (and adjustments for some agencies). Congress allowed agencies and recipients of federal funding a fair amount of latitude to adjust the allocation of their funding and shift funds around to cover shortfalls. Amtrak took advantage of this and shifted funds from the debt service (the needed debt payments had been reduced by the Early Buyout Options) and operating subsidy to capital grants.

In the final FY13 budget document dated May 2013 (yes, 8 months into the FY), the amounts are: Operating subsidy = $422 million, Capital grants = $642 million, ADA = $47 million, NEC Gateway = $14 million, debt service = $199 million. So the FY14 jump in General Capital or Grants is not quite as large.

I'm not sure that the $20 million for NEC Programs is coming out of the $1,050 million. I think I found the $20 million in the omnibus bill under Sec. 192, although the language is rather murky referring to "the Secretary shall make available no less than $20,000,000 for corridor planning improvement grants as described in section 26101(b) of title 49, United States Code", provided that such grants shall be available for passenger rail corridors that have not completed a tier I EIS within the last 10 years. The source of the funds are unobligated funds made available for section 1307(d)(1) yada yada.

That provision of no less than $20 million for passenger rail corridor planning is so obtuse, I wonder if this is Senator Schumer getting Amtrak funds to continue NEC Gateway and NEC engineering studies through a side door. And it could be more than $20 million.

Edit: PS. The $20 million for NEC planning is the from Maglev development program funded in a 2005 bill Public Law 109-59, Sec. 1307. Found the bill which authorized $15 million each in FY06 and FY07, $30 million in FY08 and FY09. This may indeed be Schumer (well his staff and others) scouring the budget to find money for NEC Gateway engineering.

 

[afigg]

1. I believe that some of ARC's funding actually came from the RRIF program.

2. Can you please send a link from NARP (or wherever you got this information from)?

Andrew, RRIF is a loan program, not a grant program. What RRIF does is allow railroads to borrow funds for capital projects from the US Treasury at interest rates equal to current Treasury note rates for the length of the loan plus a risk premium. If NJT was planning to pay for some of the costs of ARC with a RRIF loan, it would have been debt that would have to been paid off over N years, same as floating state bonds to pay for the project, not a grant.
The only relevance RRIF has to Amtrak is that it is a viable source for low interest loans to pay for purchasing new rolling stock (ACS-64s, HSR trainsets) which can generate revenue that can be used to pay off the RRIF loan.