H.R. 6003, The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act

[SUNSETLIMITED02]

Uh.......... Guys I don't know if you know this but this bill got approved by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rep. Gene Taylor a few days ago.

 

[jackal]

Uh.......... Guys I don't know if you know this but this bill got approved by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rep. Gene Taylor a few days ago.

Thanks for the update--haven't been following the news lately (only what's posted here on this board), so please keep us updated!

 

[SUNSETLIMITED02]

I got this information from the google group known as Sunset Un-limited.

 

[MrEd]

I got this information from the google group known as Sunset Un-limited.

th

do they have any information on when sunset service will be restored ?

 

[Neil_M]

European freight rail is much lighter and less frequent so lighter cars can survive in that enviroment.

"Lighter" I could give you, less frequent? Depends on where you are standing, there are some places in Europe with one freight a week, but stand at Erstfeld in Switzerland, Or Dijon in France or anywhere along the Rhine Valley in Germany and you are very wrong.

 

[Neil_M]

The Insurance Institute For Highway Safety exists for the purposes of reducing accident costs. Not saving lives.

Is there any subject you don't think you know everything?

Surely the best way to reduce accident costs is to have less of them, and a by product of that is less people dead? Or is that too simple to begin to make sense?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

There is a huge volume of subjects on which I think I don't know everything, or even a great deal about them. In such instances, drawing on my fine command of the English language, I say nothing.

 

[SUNSETLIMITED02]

I got this information from the google group known as Sunset Un-limited.

They are a group supporting the restoration of the Sunset Limited. They helped formed SMART (Sunset Marketing And Revitalization Team). Go on google groups and type this in exactly (Sunset Un-limited).

 

[Neil_M]

There is a huge volume of subjects on which I think I don't know everything, or even a great deal about them. In such instances, drawing on my fine command of the English language, I say nothing.

:blink:

 

[Shotgun7]

Man, LET IT GO!

 

[Green Maned Lion]

There is a huge volume of subjects on which I think I don't know everything, or even a great deal about them. In such instances, drawing on my fine command of the English language, I say nothing.

:blink:

Let me put it another way: If I don't think I'm qualified to argue, discuss, or coherently debate, I don't, and perhaps even ask questions. You do notice that I do ask questions as well as state opinions, yes?

 

[Chessie Hokie]

Passed in the House of Representatives this afternoon by a vote of 311 Yeas to 104 Nays.

 

[GP35]

Passed in the House of Representatives this afternoon by a vote of 311 Yeas to 104 Nays.

Correct me if I am wrong, this vote is high enough to over-ride a veto, right?

Ofcourse we would still need a senate vote of 67 senators to also be high enough to beat a veto.

 

[Rafi]

Passed in the House of Representatives this afternoon by a vote of 311 Yeas to 104 Nays.

Correct me if I am wrong, this vote is high enough to over-ride a veto, right?

Ofcourse we would still need a senate vote of 67 senators to also be high enough to beat a veto.

That is correct. The vote was veto-proof on the house side. First time in a while for Amtrak if memory serves me. All the more reason to put pressure on your state senators to shoot for a veto-proof vote on that side as well.

Rafi

 

[meatpuff]

Correct me if I am wrong, this vote is high enough to over-ride a veto, right?Ofcourse we would still need a senate vote of 67 senators to also be high enough to beat a veto.

My analysis:

This is good. Yes, that is a veto-proof majority. And in fact the Senate passed a companion bill, S.294, last year with a veto-proof majority (70 aye - 22 nay). Also good.

BUT the bill still has to make it through conference, i.e. the House and Senate bill must be mated, and then THAT must pass by a veto-proof majority (unless of course they can drag it out 7 more months AND Barack Obama is elected). Some news sources are saying this could be tricky because though the money is similar for both bills, there are some substantial differences. The most likely sticking point is that the House bill says Amtrak MUST allow private operators to be able to compete to run their own passneger service on the NE Corridor. This was definitely a factor in getting plenty of G.O.P. House votes onboard with this bill.

Heh. I say let that provision stay in there. I am reminded of when I do my income taxes, there is a blurb in the instructions that spells out what steps you should take if you would like to make a donation to the federal government towards the public debt. It seems this provision is cut from the same cloth: the federal government is excited to announce a new way for you to lose money! I am sure the business community will be all over it. And if some entrepreneur does somehow manage to run a more attractive service than Amtrak, well, the passenger wins.

One other comment, now there can be no doubt that, these days at least, the Democrats are the more friendly of the two parties toward Amtrak. Democrats in the House voted 224-0 for H.R.6003, and Democrats in the Senate supported S.294 by 43-0.

 

[MrEd]

House took this bill up on Wednesday, did not see the outcome.

Amtrak's previous authorization expired in 2002. Amtrak says that having a new authorization in place will make it easier for the company to make long-term plans.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The most likely sticking point is that the House bill says Amtrak MUST allow private operators to be able to compete to run their own passneger service on the NE Corridor. This was definitely a factor in getting plenty of G.O.P. House votes onboard with this bill.
Heh. I say let that provision stay in there. I am reminded of when I do my income taxes, there is a blurb in the instructions that spells out what steps you should take if you would like to make a donation to the federal government towards the public debt. It seems this provision is cut from the same cloth: the federal government is excited to announce a new way for you to lose money! I am sure the business community will be all over it. And if some entrepreneur does somehow manage to run a more attractive service than Amtrak, well, the passenger wins.

It all depends how much the private operator has to contribute towards the debt that has been incurred building the NEC. If the answer is $0, or even industry standard trackage rights fees, it's quite possible that this would be a government handout to whatever individuals happen to own the company that runs this business, if Amtrak has to pay for all of the construction costs out of profits from selling tickets for trips on worn out trainsets.

I'm not sure how much risk there is of any trainsets bought by such a company becoming useless if the price of those trackage rights suddenly went up by a lot, but I suspect the trainsets would have some value to some commuter rail system somewhere in the country.

 

[meatpuff]

It all depends how much the private operator has to contribute towards the debt that has been incurred building the NEC. If the answer is $0, or even industry standard trackage rights fees, it's quite possible that this would be a government handout to whatever individuals happen to own the company that runs this business, if Amtrak has to pay for all of the construction costs out of profits from selling tickets for trips on worn out trainsets.
I'm not sure how much risk there is of any trainsets bought by such a company becoming useless if the price of those trackage rights suddenly went up by a lot, but I suspect the trainsets would have some value to some commuter rail system somewhere in the country.

I didn't read the bill, but I'm very confident that such a private operator's costs could only include those above the rails, plus perhaps these trackage rights fees. Certainly they wouldn't pay for capital improvements and maintenance on the NE Corridor.

Your analysis is not precisely correct on this, Amtrak does not pay for construction costs on the Corridor out of earnings from ticket sales, either. Those costs are funded out of their capital budget, which is kept separately in their books and is appropriated separately by Congress.

I don't think the privatization scenario is any panacea, but neither is the current situation. Yes, Amtrak could be whipped into cutting costs more by adding a competitor; but suppose the private competitor defeated Amtrak and had a monopoly of their own. They could charge whatever they wanted. At least Amtrak is somewhat bound to serve the public good in running their service and setting ticket prices. The laissez-faire capitalist folks complain about Amtrak's inefficiencies, but firms with virtual monopolies bring inefficiencies (and high prices) of their own. Just look at Microsoft, patent-protected prescription drugs; or the railroads before regulation and the competition brought by trucking, private autos and airlines. Some House members could probably do with a history lesson.

Such is the dilemma when there is only ONE Northeast Corridor.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I didn't read the bill, but I'm very confident that such a private operator's costs could only include those above the rails, plus perhaps these trackage rights fees. Certainly they wouldn't pay for capital improvements and maintenance on the NE Corridor.
Your analysis is not precisely correct on this, Amtrak does not pay for construction costs on the Corridor out of earnings from ticket sales, either. Those costs are funded out of their capital budget, which is kept separately in their books and is appropriated separately by Congress.

But Amtrak is also expected to pay the interest and principal on the loans that Amtrak took out years ago to make those capital investments, right? I'd expect that on the NEC, the number of dollars of the average Amtrak ticket that goes to pay off those capital investments may exceed the trackage fees that a new corporation would have to pay from their ticket sales. And if that's the case, this is a handout from taxpayers to that private corporation.

You could argue that if Amtrak is currently paying the freight railroads less than industry standard trackage rights (which may or may not be the case), that might also be unfair, but then again, the initial builders of those rights of way often got handouts from the government to begin with, and then went bankrupt, and the current railroad generally hasn't paid off the full private costs that were incurred constructing that railroad, so it may be the case that the current freight railroads are getting a much, much better deal than they would have been getting if they didn't have to let Amtrak operate over their tracks but they'd had to pay to construct the tracks completely from scratch on land that had never previously had a railroad.

 

[jis]

But Amtrak is also expected to pay the interest and principal on the loans that Amtrak took out years ago to make those capital investments, right?

For NEC track improvements under NECIP they were all straight grants. No loans and hence no interest payments at least for that part.
OTOH in the Warrington years in order to raise cash to keep Amtrak solvent many capital assets were sold and leased back and real estate mortgaged. Those lease and mortgage payments will have to be picked up by someone.

You could argue that if Amtrak is currently paying the freight railroads less than industry standard trackage rights (which may or may not be the case), that might also be unfair, but then again, the initial builders of those rights of way often got handouts from the government to begin with, and then went bankrupt, and the current railroad generally hasn't paid off the full private costs that were incurred constructing that railroad, so it may be the case that the current freight railroads are getting a much, much better deal than they would have been getting if they didn't have to let Amtrak operate over their tracks but they'd had to pay to construct the tracks completely from scratch on land that had never previously had a railroad.

Some railroads got land grants (e.g. UP) and others did not (e.g. GN, predecessor of BNSF), and either way even those that got land grants have mostly met the obligations that were placed on them in the way of doing land development along the rights of way granted, and indeed it is the US Government and by implication the nation that has really done well as a result of those deals. So I don't think the argument holds much water.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

If a private operator runs the Corridor, and Amtrak is dispatching it, how well do you think that operator is going to do with OTP if Amtrak sees them as a threat?