Metra Electric Rider
Engineer
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2016
- Messages
- 2,075
Don't we need those mythical Midwest Bi-Levels to get additional service going?
Gateway, D.C., & Chicago Trump Infrastructure Priorities
- Thread starter A Voice
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
More than token expansion, yes.
west point
Engineer
As well as more single level cars ! !
Last edited by a moderator:
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
At the core we have to figure out a way of acquiring cars that take less than a decade between when the funding is secured for ordering cars and actually getting them on the road. Well maybe something good to shoot for would be something like what Brightline managed with Siemens instead of the ridiculous nonsense that we have been facing with CAF and N-S.
ehbowen
Engineer
Here's a radical proposal: Order enough cars per year, every year, to make it possible and profitable for car builders to keep experienced employees on staff and component suppliers familiar with the special requirements of railroad equipment.
Yes, I know that's completely impossible and utterly unrealistic, but I can dream....
Or at least order more cars while you have an active production facility (CAF.....), rather than wait just a few years and have to start from scratch.
west point
Engineer
What you propose is what Amtrak posted in their fleet strategy plan version 3.1
https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/36/921/2012-Amtrak-Fleet-Strategy-v3.1-%2003-29-12.pdf
Dutchrailnut
Conductor
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20171229/POLITICS/171229921?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
MODERATOR NOTE: this post/topic (Trump administration kills Gateway tunnel deal) was merged with a previous topic regarding the Gateway Project
MODERATOR NOTE: this post/topic (Trump administration kills Gateway tunnel deal) was merged with a previous topic regarding the Gateway Project
Last edited by a moderator:
the_traveler
Engineer
Not making a political statement, but I find it very ironic that after the WA derailment, he brought up the crumbling infrastructure. So what happens? A cut to FIX the crumbling infrastructure!
Thirdrail7
Engineer
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 4,542
You have love this portion:
I wonder if good old Governor Christie saw this coming. Although ARC was ill-advised, at least it would have been something. Now, there is nothing on the horizon...unless this is some sort of political ploy.
I wonder if good old Governor Christie saw this coming. Although ARC was ill-advised, at least it would have been something. Now, there is nothing on the horizon...unless this is some sort of political ploy.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Isn't it the case that basically the Trump Administration is disowning an informal handshake understanding that existed between the Obama Administration and the NJ and NY delegations in Congress? Was anyone really expecting, given the records, that that informal handshake had any chance of surviving, except as a point of political posturing, if that? At least I did not.
Both the Hudson Tunnel Project and the Portal Bridge are in the FTA Capital Investment Pipeline. I believe that this is USDOT's way of negotiating for an eventual Full Funding Grant Agreement.
Below is a link to the presentation from the most recent Gateway Development Board Meeting and the 2017 Milestones for both the Hudson Tunnel Project and the Portal Bridge.
http://www.gatewayprogram.org/content/dam/nec/gdc-board-items/2017-12-21_Board-Update.pdf
http://www.gatewayprogram.org/content/dam/nec/gdc-board-items/2GDC%20Milestones-12-21-17.pdf
Last edited by a moderator:
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
The ARC project was less than nothing, quite frankly.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Well, the clear signal from the Trump Administration appears to be that the local funding plan submitted by the two states is unacceptable to the Trump Admin because it depends mostly on federal loans. So yeah it is a starting negotiating position, but not a particularly cheerful one for NY and NJ.
Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
If you consider slipping this under the radar on the penultimate day of the year a political ploy, then yes.
I agree with (hope that) jis is correct that this is a funding negotiation tactic. If Gateway isn't funded, then the Port Authority trains and bridges will be overwhelmed with traffic. The fees Port Authority bridges and tunnels can be raised to pay off new bonds to help generate "local" funds as a "user fee".
As a counter offer, NY and NJ need to create some sort of a state loan, and use their currently proposed fees to pay off those loans.
The White House's position of "they shouldn't pay for it because most of the traffic is local" is ominous for the Infrastructure bill because a high percentage of interstate highway traffic is actually local intrastate traffic. Therefore, if they apply the same rule against interstate highways, then the White House would not want to fund infrastructure funds for interstate highways. The current highway 90% Federal/10% Local funding split would also be on the table for renegotiation....2018 here we come!!
As a counter offer, NY and NJ need to create some sort of a state loan, and use their currently proposed fees to pay off those loans.
The White House's position of "they shouldn't pay for it because most of the traffic is local" is ominous for the Infrastructure bill because a high percentage of interstate highway traffic is actually local intrastate traffic. Therefore, if they apply the same rule against interstate highways, then the White House would not want to fund infrastructure funds for interstate highways. The current highway 90% Federal/10% Local funding split would also be on the table for renegotiation....2018 here we come!!
Last edited by a moderator:
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
The two extra tunnels must be built. The rest of the project is actually rather superfluous. The tunnels, a second lead from west side yards into the south of the station, and better fly over capacity into Sunnyside are all thats really needed (you drop 1-4, assign LIRR 5,6,7,8, 18, 19, 20, 21, and run the rest in a north westbound, south eastbound pattern, all problems solved)
I was wondering what the nature of that "agreement" was (e.g. informal handshake versus MOU). I've got to say that this incident does not improve my either side involved:
-Trump's administration for zapping the proposal (with the caveat of it likely being a negotiating tactic).
-Obama's administration for, yet again, handling the timing of these projects in a way that leads to them getting axed (the 2010 stimulus affair comes to mind, and this is even less excusable since by 2016 there was a pattern of behavior to look to).
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
How can there be a formal MOU committing federal funds without the involvement of a legislative action? That is what puzzles me. A President can promise the heaven but cannot commit a single cent without appropriations towards whatever heaven is promised. At least that is how I understand the workings of the US Constitution. Am I wrong?
The short answer to your question is "That's how it works on paper..."
The longer answer is "Under which theory of Constitutional law are we operating?" Under non-delegation doctrine, you'd be correct. Under what has been in place since the 1930s? Not so much. Remember, the RRIF "pot" has been out there for almost two decades. It was already authorized/appropriated under Bush, but most of it has never been used. It would not have been a stretch for the Obama administration to work out a loan agreement with some mix of NY, NJ, and either the PA, Amtrak, or whomever else needed to be involved to loan them money from that pot on a 20-30 year time horizon (with it being an open question as to what T&C would need to be attached...I don't know if they could have done this with an interest-only arrangement or something else, for example).
I suspect that in theory they could have just done the deal with one of the states plus Amtrak, though that would probably have gotten messy once permitting and so on got involved.
The longer answer is "Under which theory of Constitutional law are we operating?" Under non-delegation doctrine, you'd be correct. Under what has been in place since the 1930s? Not so much. Remember, the RRIF "pot" has been out there for almost two decades. It was already authorized/appropriated under Bush, but most of it has never been used. It would not have been a stretch for the Obama administration to work out a loan agreement with some mix of NY, NJ, and either the PA, Amtrak, or whomever else needed to be involved to loan them money from that pot on a 20-30 year time horizon (with it being an open question as to what T&C would need to be attached...I don't know if they could have done this with an interest-only arrangement or something else, for example).
I suspect that in theory they could have just done the deal with one of the states plus Amtrak, though that would probably have gotten messy once permitting and so on got involved.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Right. But they would have had to close the deal before leaving office. It is foolish to expect the next guy, specially a hostile one, to honor the terms that were talked about essentially informally, until the thing is signed and closed.
Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Last edited by a moderator:
RRIF was started under Bill Clinton.
From http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20171229/POLITICS/171229921/trump-administration-kills-gateway-tunnel-deal
update:
On Saturday a senior administration official told Crain's that the Department of Transportation regards the framework deal between the Obama administration and the states as a non-binding, politically-motivated public relations maneuver by then-Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.
The official asserted that the federal government had no right to announce its commitment to any financing plan because the states had not submitted a formal application for funding. The official said the department recognizes the project's importance and is open to an arrangement for underwriting it that does not count a federal loan repaid by the states toward the local contribution.
Formal applications for the three RRIF Loans will be done in 2018, and request for entry into engineering for the Hudson Tunnel Project will be done soon.
And remember, President Trump is (or I should say was) a real-estate developer in NYC--so he understands the importance of public transportation infrastructure.
Last edited by a moderator:
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
It is good to be an optimist, but losing sight of realities while doing so is probably not so good.
What the Federal DOT has done is pulled the rug out from underneath what is necessary for being able to apply for the RRIF loan in a form that is likely to be accepted and approved by the Federal DOT, by stating that the financing formula provided for meeting the state funding, which is a prerequisite for a loan being granted, that uses mostly federal funds, is not acceptable. So things currently are dead in the water until something changes.
I don;t see an RRIF loan application happening until this issue is resolved first.
What the Federal DOT has done is pulled the rug out from underneath what is necessary for being able to apply for the RRIF loan in a form that is likely to be accepted and approved by the Federal DOT, by stating that the financing formula provided for meeting the state funding, which is a prerequisite for a loan being granted, that uses mostly federal funds, is not acceptable. So things currently are dead in the water until something changes.
I don;t see an RRIF loan application happening until this issue is resolved first.
Last edited by a moderator:
It would be rather difficult to believe the elected officials in the respective states - and certainly those responsible within the Department(s) of Transportation - to have not been more cognizant of that fact that we are. But certainly they have their own "negotiating position" (though I'm not sure trying to paint the administration as wholly responsible for "stopping" the project is a wise strategy).
Politics has always been messy and convoluted - arguably even more so today, with the state of Congress - and will likely result in Gateway taking longer (and costing more) than it rightfully should, but in no way does that mean the project has been or will be cancelled.
Gateway will get done. https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2017/12/21/incoming-gateway-chairman-it-will-get-built-160913
From the link, "On Thursday, Gateway officials said that the DOT statement ignored the fact that for decades, the federal government has allowed local partners to count federal loans as part of their funding share."
Last edited by a moderator:
