Excellent point. 

 

The fact that the airline industry uses jet aircraft today is a direct result of technology developed for the military and by the aircraft manufacturers who contracted with them and profited from it.  Even most of the first prop-driven planes that the airlines used were ex-military transport aircraft from World War II and the Korean War.

And don't forget the auto industry.  Can you say Jeep?  Hummer?

 

OK back to Amtrak.

Amtrak reports record annual ridership

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Amtrak carried a record 28.7 million people last year, with each of its routes seeing gains, the national passenger railroad said Friday.

 

The company has posted six years of ridership and revenue growth, recently benefiting from high gas and airline prices. The number of trips over the past year increased 11% over the 25.8 million taken in fiscal year 2007.

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-10-amtrak-annual-ridership_N.htm

 

Amtrak reports record annual ridership

 

The Hiawatha Service between Chicago and Milwaukee, for example, carried 750,000 passengers last year, a 26% increase. Several other Illinois routes also posted double-digit gains.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-10-amtrak-annual-ridership_N.htm

 

 

Hurray, I'm a statistic!  I'm one of those new Hiawatha riders.  I also frequent the Lincoln Service to Normal (to visit my dad in Peoria) on a fairly regular basis.  That one's getting upgraded to high speed right about now.  Cheers!

And don't forget the auto industry. Can you say Jeep? Hummer?

 

OK back to Amtrak.

 

Can you say National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956? Dwight D. Eisenhower promoted the defense aspect, but lobbying by auto makers and the trucking industry provided the decisive push to make it happen. That does relate directly to passenger rail, because the Interstate Highways enabled the trucking industry to siphon away much traffic from the railroads, resulting in mergers, consolidations and elimination of route-miles. Some railroads were already underwriting their passenger operations with freight revenues. The economic pressures brought by the loss of freight to trucks contributed directly and/or indirectly to the loss of much railroad passenger service.

Some railroads were already underwriting their passenger operations with freight revenues. The economic pressures brought by the loss of freight to trucks contributed directly and/or indirectly to the loss of much railroad passenger service.

 

I'd say most railroads were underwriting their passenger operations with freight revenues, or accounting for passenger train losses as part of their publicity expenses.

 

And I would specify the losses of freight business to trucks was the highest yielding, most profitable freight, namely package express, mail, time-sensitive goods, etc. So even though the railroad still carried more freight tonnage, the trucks were get much more revenue yield per ton of freight they were carrying. Intermodal, namely double-stack trains began to change that starting in the 1980s, but the trucks still "out-yield" the railroads.

McCain misses the train on AmtrakThursday, October 09-By Brian O'Neill, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The spokesman said Mr. McCain also objects to the $1.5 billion "earmark" for the Washington Metro system, and doesn't see these expenditures as national priorities.

America is spending hundreds of billions of dollars for a new attack fighter plane that can "go supersonic", although that airplane will soon be obsoleted by pilotless aircraft.  We spend tens of billions/year on spy satellites, although the real need in the intelligence community is to have more translators, data analysts, and covert people in other countries "looking around" to see what is changing in the "problem countries".  That would not cost tens of billions, but it would not enrich Lockheed-Martin, either.

 

I'm not totally sure what sparked this or what it has to do with Amtrak, but I have zero problem with this type of funding.  Our military technological advantage keeps American troops alive.  It may seem like an obscene amount of money going into military R&D, but it is in my opinion, totally worthwhile.  That said, we need to drastically raise the amount of cash that we spend on rail and mass transit, there's no doubt about that.  I just don't see military funding as something that should be cut in the process...

$200 Billion was a lot of money in the 1980s when Reagan reversed Carter's decisions and deployed the B-1B bomber and the MX missile system.  The B-1B was already obsoleted by stealth technology and was vulnerable to surface to air missiles.  Note that the Air Force retired a third of the B-1B bombers a decade ago.  The MX missile was ridiculous.  It was just as vulnerable as the Minuteman missiles because they did not deploy them in the dispersed "racetrack" system in the Great Basin.

 

My point is that the McCains and the Murthas of Congress don't make spending decisions based on "national priorities" like McCain claims.  They do it for their corporate patrons.  Maybe if Boeing could bag $100 billion in sales, then the Washington Metro could get federal funding.  :sarcasm:

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/10/amtrak-reports-illinois-rider-spike.html

 

Amtrak reports Illinois rider spike

October 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM | Comments (10)

 

 

 

 

 

Got this e-mail today from a contact of mine:

 

The landscape for passenger rail has now officially changed.

From the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission

 

President Bush signed HR 2095 today, which contains the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act. The act reauthorizes Amtrak for five years and provides authorization for significant new programs and funding!

 

If you haven’t had a chance to read it, here again is a link to the entire bill -- http://transportation.house.gov/Media/File/Rail/Rail%20Safety.pdf -- and an explanation of the major PRIIA provisions:

 

·        Amtrak authorizations, reforms and operational improvements (beginning on page 152)-- Authorizes Amtrak for 5 years, including authorization levels for capital and operating expenses, and requiring reform and operational improvements.

·        Passenger Train Performance (Section 213, beginning on page 198) – provides a process for the Surface Transportation Board to investigate and determine if host rail carriers are not providing preference for Amtrak over freight as required by law.

·        Intercity Passenger Rail Service Corridor Capital Assistance (Section 301, beginning on page 224) -- $1.9 billion over 5 years, at up to 80 percent federal match. For “financing the capital costs of facilities, infrastructure, and equipment necessary to provide or improve intercity passenger rail transportation” (projects must be part of an approved state rail plan – see section 303 below);

·        Congestion Grants (Section 302, beginning on page 254) – $325 million over 4 years. Projects identified by Amtrak to reduce congestion or facilitate passenger rail growth along heavily traveled corridors, or by the Surface Transportation Board to improve on-time performance;

·        State Rail Plans (Section 303, beginning on page 256) – Describes the purpose and minimum necessary components of state rail plans;

·        Next Generation Corridor Equipment Pool (Section 305, beginning on page 265);

·        Rail Cooperative Research Program (Section 306, beginning on page 267);

·        Biofuels (Sections 404 & 405, beginning on page 281) – mandates studies on the feasibility of using biofuels for powering locomotives (Sec. 404) and bio-based lubricants on locomotives, rolling stock or other equipment (Sec. 405)

·        High Speed Rail Corridor Program (Section 501, beginning on page 287) – $1.5 billion over 5 years, specifically for projects that would achieve speeds of at least 110 mph.

http://209.51.133.155/cms/index.php/news_releases/more/all_aboard_ohio_applauds_signing_of_federal_rail_bill/

 

October 16, 2008

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

Contact: Ken Prendergast,

Director, Research & Communications

All Aboard Ohio

(216) 288-4883 or

(216) 986-6064

 

President Bush signed House Resolution 2095 today, which contains the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act. The act reauthorizes Amtrak for five years and provides authorization for significant new programs and funding that could soon benefit Ohioans!

 

All Aboard Ohio applauds passage of this long-sought legislation. Congress worked hard on this bill, with Ohio’s Congressional Delegation playing an important role, including support from Senator Sherrod Brown, plus Representatives Marcy Kaptur, Dennis Kucinich, Steve LaTourette, Deborah Pryce, Ralph Regula, Timothy Ryan, Zachary Space, Betty Suttton, Patrick Tiberi, Michael Turner, Charles Wilson and the late Stephanie Tubbs Jones.

 

Passenger rail plans for Ohio got a big boost from the signing of this bill into law.

 

“What seemed like a wish for many years is now suddenly possible,” said All Aboard Ohio President Bill Hutchison.

 

Now Congress must work in the coming months on appropriating funding necessary to fulfill the goals of HR 2095. All Aboard Ohio will work with Ohio’s Congressional delegation on this.

 

Among the goals of this new law are improving railroad signaling systems, purchasing sleek new trains, rebuilding or replacing stations, adding new services in populous travel markets like Ohio’s 3-C (Cleveland - Columbus - Dayton - Cincinnati) Corridor, upgrading road-rail crossings, relieving freight train bottlenecks and planning for other new services. 

 

HR 2095 includes language by U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan of the Youngstown area requiring affected state departments of transportation to conduct planning for extending Pennsylvania's "Keystone Corridor" from Pittsburgh to Cleveland.

 

This would be in addition to a 3-C Corridor implementation plan requested by Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland and being conducted by the Ohio Rail Development Commission and Amtrak. The 3-C Corridor planning work began this fall and should be complete within a year. The 3-C Corridor is eligible to receive federal funding authorized by HR 2095.

 

 

END

Woo!

 

This is so exciting .. finally, there is hope for better rail transportation. Let's hope this kinda thing continues and that it's not a once-off.

Next phase of train station project OK’d

Brad Dicken | The Chronicle-Telegram

 

ELYRIA — By next fall, the old New York Central Railroad Station may be in business again.

 

Full story at:

 

http://www.chroniclet.com/2008/10/17/next-phase-of-train-station-project-okd_122/

Of all the passenger rail projects in Ohio, Elyria's New York Central Depot is clearly the closest to being funding-ready.

This story makes reference to improving service (by extension) to Cleveland.

 

Rail study could lead to increased service to Pittsburgh

By William Kibler, [email protected]

POSTED: October 18, 2008 Top of Form

 

A bill signed Thursday by President Bush calls for a study that could lead to more rail passenger service for Altoona, said state Rep. Rick Geist, R-Altoona.

The Rail Safety Improvement Act orders Amtrak to study increasing rail service between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh.

Read more at:

 

http://altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/512275.html

This has been bouncing around the Internet. Glad to see NS is recognizing federal law. This notice directly affects the Capitol Limited (which serves Ohio) and the Pennsylvanian (which should serve Ohio!).......

_________________

 

NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION

Office of the Superintendent

 

Pittsburgh Division

Dispatchers Bulletin

 

NO. 6

 

========================================================================

SUBJECT: Amtrak Trains

DOCUMENT NUMBER: DB-06

REVISION NUMBER:

DATE ISSUED: October 10, 2008

DATE EFFECTIVE: October 10, 2008

PREPARED BY: J.A. Keller

APPROVED BY: J.A. Keller

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

 

All Movement Office Employees:

 

The following guidelines apply to Amtrak Trains operating on the

Pittsburgh Division:

 

1. Amtrak trains will have the highest priority of all trains

operating on the division. No freight or intermodal

interference.

 

2. Train Dispatchers will make decisions to ensure that

Amtrak Trains operate as efficiently as possible. These

decisions include but are not limited to, eliminating

train interference, avoiding slow orders when possible,

avoiding crossovers when possible, running trains on

the most efficient route to avoid approach and restricting

signals.

 

3. If possible, the Train Dispatcher, must notify the Chief

Dispatcher prior to any delays that will be incurred by

Amtrak Trains. If it is not possible to notify the Chief

prior to, the Chief must be notified immediately when

delay occurs to any Amtrak Train.

 

4. Job briefings are required, concerning station work to be

performed, to determine the most efficient procedure, when

loading and unloading passengers (i.e. large groups,

handicapped passengers needing extra help, etc...)

 

5. The following symbols designate all Amtrak Trains, 04T,

06T, 02T, 07T, and 03T.

 

 

J.A. Keller

Assistant Superintendent Dispatch

It will be interesting to see if they can carry this out in practice, especially given the rail bottlenecks around Chicago.

It will be interesting to see if they can carry this out in practice, especially given the rail bottlenecks around Chicago.

 

That came out of the Pittsburgh Division's Superintendent's Office, so I'd interpret it as applicable only in that division. If I understand correctly, the Pittsburgh Division extends from Harrisburg in the east to Cleveland (via Youngstown) and Crestline (old PRR) in the west.

 

I'm not sure what division controls the chokepoint in Northwest Indiana, but it sounds like that's not covered by the memo.

Positive start for that region, I'm sure!

It will be interesting to see if they can carry this out in practice, especially given the rail bottlenecks around Chicago.

 

That came out of the Pittsburgh Division's Superintendent's Office, so I'd interpret it as applicable only in that division. If I understand correctly, the Pittsburgh Division extends from Harrisburg in the east to Cleveland (via Youngstown) and Crestline (old PRR) in the west.

 

I'm not sure what division controls the chokepoint in Northwest Indiana, but it sounds like that's not covered by the memo.

 

The Dearborn Division handles everything from Cleveland to Chicago and into Michigan.

 

I can't say for sure, but the division superintendent probably felt comfortable that his memo would be supported by his superiors. NS runs a pretty tight ship.

... NS runs a pretty tight ship.

 

Indeed they do. A friend who used to work for them says the Nazi's could have taken lessons from NS regarding unquestioning obedience and utter submission to authority.

Hence their nickname Nazi Southern.

The Comfort Zone

October 2008 By ALEX MARSHALL

Governing.com

There’s more to moving people around than wings and wheels, speed and price.

 

 

Look at photos of New York City from the late 1940s, and you may be surprised to see that horse-drawn wagons bearing fruit, junk or milk were still quite common — even as automobiles crowded the streets. This shows that transportation eras do not neatly switch from one to another but slide into each other, with long transitions over many decades. In that transition, the newer mode often seems to mimic the older mode it is replacing.

 

read more at:

 

http://www.governing.com/articles/0810trans.htm

The airline industry did a lot of things that was directed toward making people not thinking about the fact that the plane could fall out of the sky at any moment (which they did quite frequently up through the 1980s).

But I think the article raises an interesting point. Rail service is, and should be, an alternative to air travel. Why not give people more reasons to switch over? There need to be some "out of the box" incentives for people to take rail over flight because it certainly isn't chosen for convenience's sake.

FYI... Legislative Text of Economic Recovery Package S3604

 

http://appropriations.senate.gov/News/2008_09_26_Legislative_Text_of_Economic_Recovery_Package_S3604.pdf?CFID=46499086&CFTOKEN=69661155

 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

SUPPLEMENTAL CAPITAL GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL

RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

 

For an additional amount for the immediate investment in capital projects necessary to maintain and improve national intercity passenger rail service, $350,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009: Provided, That funds made available under this heading shall be allocated directly to the corporation for the purpose of immediate investment in capital projects including the rehabilitation of rolling stock for the purpose of expanding passenger rail capacity: Provided further, that the Board of Directors shall take measures to ensure that funds provided under this heading shall be obligated within 180 days of the enactment of this Act and shall serve to supplement and not supplant planned expenditures for such activities from other Federal, State, local and corporate sources: Provided further, That said Board of Directors shall certify to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing their compliance with the preceding proviso: Provided further, That not more than 50 percent of the funds provided under this heading may be used for capital projects along the Northeast Corridor.

I understand the point that Alex Marshall is trying to make, but until he learns a little bit about transportation history and gets his historical references right, he'll make his point poorly.

 

Early automobiles resembled carriages because the early coachwork was made by carriage builders and patterned after what they knew, and like carriages, the early autos had high wheels and high ground clearances because of the roads they traveled on. Most roads, and even minor streets in villages, towns, and small cities, in the ealry 20th century were made of dirt. I don't mean gravel or crushed limestone, I mean they were just paths worn in the dirt.

 

Any significant amount of rainfall turned them muddy, and traffic of horse-drawn and motorized vehicles churned them into a quagmire. Often after they dried out, they were channelled with foot-deep ruts. The big wheels and high ground clearance weren't some mindless adherence to tradition. They were a functional necessity.

 

Now, about overhead luggage racks; a visit to a good railroad musem and a walk through a railroad coach from the early days of rail travel will show that coaches had overhead luggage racks before scheduled commercial air travel existed.

 

I'm not denying that Amtrak has consciously tried to pattern itself after airlines in some respects, in an ill-begotten attempt to win back riders. The dreadful Amfleet cars were designed to mimic the cramped and inconvenient ambience of an airliner, with their curved sides, tiny windows, and duck-and-watch-your-head low clearance when getting into your seat, especially if it's by the windows.

 

My first cross-country trip on Amtrak was in 1973 before I learned that "A gentleman always travels in the sleeping cars." (E.M. Frimbo)

 

The coach that I rode in on the westbound trip was of Santa Fe provenance, almost certainly pre-WWII, and hadn't yet been desecrated by an Amtrak rebuild. The ride was solid, smooth, and quiet, not at all like the jiggy-rattly cars of post-Amtrak construction that I've ridden in. The seats had spring cushions with padded upholstery, just like real furniture, and they had leg rests, plenty of legroom, and reclined waaay back. Had it not been for the boy scout troop that boarded somwhere in Colorado, the car would have been entirely satisfactory for a good night's sleep.

 

Amtrak replaced the spring-cushioned, steel-framed seats with molded fibreglas buckets with thin foam pads and no springs. OK for a short commute, maybe, but after a couple of hours the pain sets in. Imagine traveling overnight in those. Oh. And they got the legroom down to airline standards, too.

:x

 

^I don't know recently you've ridden Amtrak, but I had very comfortable seats and *plenty* of legroom, traveling from Chicago to Erie, PA just two months ago.  I would have never gotten that degree of comfort on an airliner.

Seriously, my Hiawatha Line and Lincoln Service trains have wonderful seats.  I could swim in them. 

 

Another thing that makes Amtrak much better than a plane is that there are electrical outlets at the seats and you can use your cell phone while riding...neither of which mattered when the airline industry was on its rise, but but now it's a necessity.  Amtrak should really advertise that fact.

Another thing that makes Amtrak much better than a plane is that there are electrical outlets at the seats and you can use your cell phone while riding.

 

Absolutely.  There is no shortage of electrical outlets and no problem using the phone for any purpose.  Believe me, I was thrilled to be able to pass the time on my laptop and plug in my phone.

 

It *does* make the window seats that much more of a luxury though, an advantage of boarding at a line terminus, I guess.

Another thing that makes Amtrak much better than a plane is that there are electrical outlets at the seats and you can use your cell phone while riding.

 

Absolutely.  There is no shortage of electrical outlets and no problem using the phone for any purpose.  Believe me, I was thrilled to be able to pass the time on my laptop and plug in my phone.

 

It *does* make the window seats that much more of a luxury though, an advantage of boarding at a line terminus, I guess.

 

Is there Wi-Fi on the trains? Can you get onto the internet while riding?

^ I don't believe so, which is a drawback.  It'd definitely like to see that implemented.

 

I just took the time warp and played The Sims and iTunes in the middle of the night.  Nothing else to do other than seeing if there's someone to talk to in the lounge car or read a mag.

^ I don't believe so, which is a drawback.  It'd definitely like to see that implemented.

 

That would be great. Then it would have a huge advantage to business travelers, and could be marketed as an even greater alternative to those travelers.

^I don't know recently you've ridden Amtrak, but I had very comfortable seats and *plenty* of legroom, traveling from Chicago to Erie, PA just two months ago.  I would have never gotten that degree of comfort on an airliner.

 

Rob is comparing Amtrak train seats to those of pre-Amtrak trains. And the seats on the pre-Amtrak trains were much more comfortable.

 

 

Is there Wi-Fi on the trains? Can you get onto the internet while riding?

 

See the following.......

 

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=234

 

December 19th, 2006

On the Acela Express from Boston to NY, a MotoQ/PDANet cocktail is just the ticket

Posted by David Berlind

 

Right now, I'm aboard the Acela Express train from Boston's South Station to Penn Station in New York City and I've had connectivity to the Net pretty much the whole way thanks to my Motorola Q and an awesome little app that I've written about before called PDANet from JuneFabrics.

CONTINUED AT ABOVE LINK....

 

Plans for wireless on Amtrak routes:

 

http://www.amtrakcapitols.com/aboard_the_train/wi_fi.php

 

 

Capitol Corridor Wireless Network

 

Project Update, September 2008

The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) has met with and corresopnded with Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) representatives to work through the details of our planned wireless network since UPRR communicated it's desires regarding use of various radio spectrums in their right-of-way (radio spectrum is required for the train to ground communications - see more below).

CONTINUED AT ABOVE LINK....

 

Unfortunately, Canada is ahead of the U.S. on this:

 

 

http://www.viarail.ca/wirelessinternet/en_index.html

 

I don't know the date of this speech.....

 

Speech of Paul Côté

President and Chief Executive Officer

VIA Rail Canada

Deployment of Wireless Internet access on board VIA Rail Canada's

passenger trains

 

I'm very excited to be with you today for the official launch of a first in North America. I am talking about the first commercial deployment of Wi-Fi, Wireless Internet access on board passenger trains.

 

Starting today, all our customers travelling in VIA 1 class on the Montreal-Quebec route and Montreal-Toronto morning and afternoon express trains can take advantage of Wi-Fi service. By the end of April, all passengers travelling in VIA 1 class in the Quebec-Windsor corridor will have access to this new service. By the end of this year, all travellers in the entire Corridor will be able to access the Internet.

CONTINUED AT ABOVE LINK....

Well, I do know that a woman was connected to the internet using a wireless card on megabus, while on a bus that didn't have working wireless yet.  I have no doubt that you could do the same on a train, but alas, we don't all have wireless cards...

 

Glad to see they're working on it though.

If the $350 million for Amtrak isn't enough, here's another proposed stimulus prackage that has $500 million for Amtrak......

 

http://transportation.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=770

 

Oberstar Boosts Stimulus Plan (H.R. 7110)

House package pledges $30 billion for infrastructure

September 26, 2008

 

By Jim Berard (202) 226-5064

 

The House of Representatives late today approved a plan to stimulate the economy with a major investment in our Nation’s infrastructure. The bill provides some $30 billion for highways, bridges, transit, and water projects across the country, and is expected to create or sustain more than one million jobs.

 

The vote on the stimulus plan was 264-158.

 

Below is the record statement of House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James L. Oberstar (Minn.) in support of the package.

 

 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES L. OBERSTAR

H.R. 7110, THE JOB CREATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF ACT OF 2008

 

I rise in strong support of H.R. 7110, the “Job Creation and Unemployment Relief Act of 2008”.

 

This bill invests in America -- in the roads, bridges, transit and passenger rail systems, airports, locks, dams, waterways, and environmental infrastructure that enable our economy to work and keep our citizens safe. This is the infrastructure that, too often, we take for granted, until it fails.

 

This bill recognizes the critical importance of meeting our nation’s transportation and environmental infrastructure investment needs, and provides $30 billion toward that end. This $30 billion investment will yield lasting benefits in terms of reduced travel times, higher productivity, increased competitiveness in the world marketplace, and cleaner water.

 

With more than 800,000 construction workers out of work, and the construction industry suffering the highest unemployment rate (8.2 percent) of any industrial sector, this bill puts America back to work. It will create or sustain more than one million good, family-wage jobs – jobs that cannot be outsourced to another country, because the work must be done here in the U.S. on our roads, bridges, transit and rail systems, airports, waterways, and wastewater treatment facilities.

 

For highways and bridges, the bill provides $12.8 billion. State Departments of Transportation (“DOTs”) have a tremendous backlog of highway projects that could be implemented quickly if these additional funds are made available. For example, State DOTs often have open-ended contracts in place for resurfacing projects, which means that work could begin immediately upon receipt of additional funds. In addition, many State DOTs have projects already in process that could be accelerated if additional funding were provided. According to an Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (“AASHTO”) survey of State DOTs, States have more than 3,000 projects totaling $17.9 billion which are ready-to-go and can be out to bid and under contract within 90 days.

 

Although I have heard the administration’s economists discount the stimulative effects of infrastructure investment, they may want to check with the State DOTs. In August, State DOTs informed the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”) that they had $8 billion of highway projects that could advance before next week (September 30) if funding were available. Regrettably, FHWA only had $1 billion available to distribute to the States through its August redistribution process.

 

Not only will these additional funds be put to use quickly, they will be put to good use, to meet urgent highway and bridge investment needs. For instance, consider the ready-to-go projects of just one State DOT, Missouri. With funding provided by this bill, Missouri could accelerate repair work on the Brownville, Nebraska bridge over the Missouri River. The 1,903-foot bridge is 70 years old and is structurally deficient. The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 3, which is even lower than the rating of the I-35W Bridge which collapsed in Minnesota. This rating reflects such a serious condition that if its rating drops to 2, the bridge will be closed. If the bridge has to be closed, residents will have to make a 123-mile detour. Missouri could also accelerate the replacement of a structurally deficient and obsolete bridge with the construction of a new bridge over the Osage River at Tuscumbia, Missouri. The current bridge is a two-lane, 1,083-foot structure that is 75 years old and is also rated a 3 (serious condition). If this bridge has to be closed, residents will have to make a 40-mile detour.

 

For transit, the bill provides $3.6 billion for capital investments, and $1 billion for relief from high energy costs. Due to high gas prices, transit agencies across the country are experiencing increased demand for transit services, yet they are struggling to meet this demand due to the impact high fuel costs have had on their own operating budgets. In 2007, 10.3 billion trips were taken on public transportation – the highest number of trips taken in 50 years. Ridership has continued to climb in 2008, with a 4.4 percent increase in trips taken during the first half of 2008 compared to the same period last year, putting 2008 on track to beat last year's modern record ridership numbers. Additional funds could be put to immediate use by transit agencies to meet this demand while at the same time creating much-needed jobs and economic activity.

 

For Amtrak, the bill provides $500 million. Similar to transit, Amtrak is experiencing record ridership and revenues in fiscal year 2008, and demand is growing across Amtrak’s entire system for intercity passenger rail service. With this additional funding, Amtrak will be able to refurbish rail cars that are currently in storage and return them to service, and fund other urgently needed repair and maintenance of its facilities.

Here's the only thing I could find in the Congressional record (with the only projects list being a list of unmet highway/bridge needs by state -- Ohio's was $299.3 million). Here is a portion of the text....

 

http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=38766830705+0+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve

 

 

H.R. 7110, THE JOB CREATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF ACT OF 2008

 

 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT

 

For projects and activities eligible under section 133 of title 23, United States Code (without regard to subsection (d)), section 144 of such title (without regard to subsection (g)), and sections 103, 119, 148, and 149 of such title, $12,800,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009: Provided, That funds made available under this heading shall be distributed among the States, including Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, in the same ratio as the obligation limitation for fiscal year 2008 was distributed among the States in accordance with the formula specified in section 120(a)(6) of division K of Public Law 110161, but, in the case of the Puerto Rico Highway Program and the Territorial Highway Program, under section 120(a)(5) of such division: Provided further, That in selecting projects to be funded, priority shall be given to ready-to-go projects that can award bids within 120 days of enactment of this Act: Provided further, That funds made available under this heading shall be administered as if apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code: Provided further, That the Federal share payable on account of any project or activity carried out with funds made available under this heading shall be 100 percent of the total cost thereof: Provided further, That amounts made available under this heading that are not obligated within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act shall be redistributed, in the manner described in section 120© of division K of Public Law 110161, to those States able to obligate amounts in addition to those previously distributed: Provided further, That the amount made available under this heading shall not be subject to any limitation on obligations for Federal-aid highways or highway safety construction programs set forth in any Act.

 

 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

CAPITAL AND DEBT SERVICE GRANTS TO THE

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

 

For an additional amount for Capital and Debt Service Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, $500,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009: Provided, That the Secretary of Transportation may retain up to one-quarter of 1 percent of the funds made available under this heading to fund the oversight by the Federal Railroad Administration of the design and implementation of capital projects funded by grants made under this heading: Provided further, That none of the funds made available under this heading may be used to subsidize operating losses of Amtrak: Provided further, That none of the funds made available under this heading shall be for debt service obligations: Provided further, That in selecting projects to be funded, priority shall be given to Amtrak capital projects that can award contracts based on bids within 120 days of enactment of this Act.

 

 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

TRANSIT CAPITAL ASSISTANCE

 

For transit capital assistance grants, $3,600,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009, of which $3,240,000,000 shall be for grants under section 5307 of title 49, United States Code and shall be apportioned in accordance with section 5336 of such title (other than subsections (i)(1) and (j)) but may not be combined or commingled with any other funds apportioned under such section 5336, and of which $360,000,000 shall be for grants under section 5311 of such title and shall be apportioned in accordance with such section 5311 but may not be combined or commingled with any other funds apportioned under that section: Provided, That in selecting projects to be funded, priority shall be given to projects that can award contracts based on bids within 120 days of enactment of this Act: Provided further, That the Federal share of the costs for which a grant is made under this heading shall be 100 percent.

 

 

TRANSIT ENERGY ASSISTANCE GRANTS

 

For transit energy assistance grants, $1,000,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009, of which $800,000,000 shall be for grants under section 5307 of title 49, United States Code and shall be apportioned in accordance with section 5336 of such title (other than subsections (i)(1) and (j)) but may not be combined or commingled with any other funds apportioned under such section 5336, and of which $200,000,000 shall be for grants under section 5311 of such title and shall be apportioned in accordance with such section 5311 but may not be combined or commingled with any other funds apportioned under that section: Provided, That the Federal share of the costs for which a grant is made under this heading shall be 100 percent: Provided further, That notwithstanding such sections 5307 and 5311, funds appropriated under this heading are available for only one or more of the following purposes:

 

(1) If the recipient of the grant is reducing, or certifies to the Secretary of Transportation within the time the Secretary prescribes that, during the term of the grant, the recipient will reduce, one or more fares the recipient charges for public transportation, or in the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus service, those operating costs of equipment and facilities being used to provide the public transportation, or in the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus service, that the recipient is no longer able to pay from the revenues derived from such fare or fares as a result of such reduction.

 

(2) If the recipient of the grant is expanding, or certifies to the Secretary within the time the Secretary prescribes that, during the term of the grant, the recipient will expand, public transportation service, or in the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus service, those operating and capital costs of equipment and facilities being used to provide the public transportation service, or in the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus service, that the recipient incurs as a result of the expansion of such service.

 

(3) To avoid increases in fares for public transportation, or in the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus service, or decreases in current public transportation service, or in the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus service, that would otherwise result from an increase in costs to the public transportation or intercity bus agency for transportation-related fuel or meeting additional transportation-related equipment or facility maintenance needs, if the recipient of the grant certifies to the Secretary within the time the Secretary prescribes that, during the term of the grant, the recipient will not increase the fares that the recipient charges for public transportation, or in the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus service, or, will not decrease the public transportation service, or in the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus service, that the recipient provides.

 

(4) If the recipient of the grant is acquiring, or certifies to the Secretary within the time the Secretary prescribes that, during the term of the grant, the recipient will acquire, clean fuel or alternative fuel vehiclerelated equipment or facilities for the purpose of improving fuel efficiency, the costs of acquiring the equipment or facilities.

 

(5) If the recipient of the grant is establishing or expanding, or certifies to the Secretary within the time the Secretary prescribes that, during the term of the grant, the recipient will establish or expand, commuter matching services to provide commuters with information and assistance about alternatives to single occupancy vehicle use, those administrative costs in establishing or expanding such services.

Since these stimulus bills require no state share to leverage these funds, and in the case of Amtrak funding, they don't appear to require to requisite planning under the National Environmental Policy Act (please correct me if this incorrect), this would seem to be an ideal way for states like Ohio to get some initial funding for their long-planned passenger rail projects.

 

I have it on fairly good authority that you still have to go through some level of the NEPA process,regardless of the 100% federal funds.  Fed $$ are Fed $$... and they always come with rules.

The question is, where do the rules begin and end? For example, the Lorain County Commissioners didn't go through the NEPA process prior to requesting funding for the Elyria NYC Depot. And Amtrak won't have to go through NEPA to secure funding for building/rebuilding rail cars.

 

Let's say that Amtrak wants to widen the existing platform to Track 44 at Cleveland and build a crossover switch to access Track 44 (thereby creating a two-track station that relieves existing Amtrak/freight congestion and creates a station facility more befitting the endpoint of 3-C), is this subject to NEPA?

 

And, here's the tuffy: I wonder if NEPA applies if there is a desire by Amtrak to use federal funds to build a station and "station track" at Ravenna where a track was once located? This would be a station for Amtrak's Capitol Limited that would allow the train to stop there without blocking freight traffic (it would also allow the train to serve Youngstown and open up the favored path for CLE-PIT passenger trains).

I believe the pertinent question is whether or not the project involves a rail corridor and any changes to to it.  If it's just a building (Elyria's Depot), it may not require NEPA. 

 

Why would NEPA apply toward the building  and/or rehab of passenger cars? 

It wouldn't. I want to understand where it applies and where it doesn't. There has to be a written definition of the rules somewhere.

It wouldn't. I want to understand where it applies and where it doesn't. There has to be a written definition of the rules somewhere.

 

If federal dollars are involved then there will be some NEPA coordination.  The coordination may be minimal (categorical exclusion document) or quite involved (environmental impact statement).  The level of coordination will depend on the project itself.  For example, a traffic signal installation may get by with just a categorical exclusion document (1 - 2 page form) whereas the a corridor study will require an EIS (1 - 2 trees worth of paper). 

 

I am not familiar with the Elyria Train Depot rehab project, but if federal dollars are involved, there is some level of NEPA documentation involved.  It could also depend on what funding is used - Ohio Public Works Commission funds vs. ODOT Enhancement funds. 

 

Below is a link to a plethora of NEPA links from the ODOT's Office of Environmental Services.

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/Environment/links/Pages/default.aspx

Good points. In fact, I'm interested to know who you are as you have a good understanding of the planning process. Certainly a better understanding than I have.

 

Thus far, federal funding for the Elyria station has from the Bus/Bus Facilities Capital program and the Surface Transportation Program (I believe enhancement funds).

Good points. In fact, I'm interested to know who you are as you have a good understanding of the planning process. Certainly a better understanding than I have.

 

Thus far, federal funding for the Elyria station has from the Bus/Bus Facilities Capital program and the Surface Transportation Program (I believe enhancement funds).

 

I work for ODOT as a transportation engineer/planner.  By no means does that make me knowledgeable on the NEPA processes or their inner workings.  Obviously, I get exposed to them in working on different projects, which basically means I know enough to get in trouble.  :roll: As noozer alluded to above, if federal funds are involved, there will be some NEPA coordination involved - large or small.

 

If funding has come from those sources, then some level of NEPA coordination was done.  Most likely, the funds were funneled through ODOT's Office of Transit (Bus/Bus Facilities) or the Office of Local Progams (Enhancement funds).  The NEPA coordination was probably done at the ODOT District level by the environmental coordinators.  Another item that lends me to believe NEPA processes were involved is that the station itself is either historical (NEPA's definition applies here), is located in the historic area of Elyria, or both.  These are my best guesses and if you need more detailed information, I would contact the environmental coordinators at the ODOT district (District 3).

 

 

[ As noozer alluded to above, if federal funds are involved, there will be some NEPA coordination involved - large or small...

 

 

I'm wondering if projects that utilize existing infrastructure and will result in a net reduction in carbon emissions should be exempt from NEPA.  Examples would be:  Ohio Hub, West Shore Corridor, Euclid Corridor, Cincy Streetcar, Columbus Streetcar, etc.

 

 

No, because the environmental impact isn't just about impacts on the natural environment but on the human-built environment. In fact, from what I've seen, much of the NEPA analysis must be done for the impacts on people and buildings from noise, vibration, etc. If you've got historic structures or districts within a certain distance of the proposed transportation corridor, the environmental review is even more intense.

^How about a streamlined NEPA, then?

That's proposed for the reauthorization of the surface transportation law in 2009.

A portion of the statement of Ross B. Capon

President

National Association of Railroad Passengers

 

Submitted to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives

 

The Honorable James Oberstar, Chairman

* * *

 

Hearing on “Investing in Infrastructure: The Road to Recovery”* * *

October 29, 2008

Statement Submitted for the Record on November 5, 2008

 

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

 

The National Association of Railroad Passengers appreciates the opportunity to comment on the subject of infrastructure investment as discussed at your October 29 hearing, “Investing in Infrastructure: The Road to Recovery.”

 

We first express appreciation for the Committee’s work on the new law.  We look forward to working with you to see that the full funding contemplated by the law is forthcoming.  We also appreciate your inclusion of $500 million for Amtrak in HR 7110, although we of course agree with the U.S. Conference of Mayors that a larger passenger train total is justified, with some of it going directly to state projects as outlined in section II.

 

I. Infrastructure Investment and Passenger Trains

 

In a fragile economy, it is essential to have affordable mobility.  Travel stimulates the economy.  If Americans can’t travel by other means, they will stay at home and not spend money on travel and at destinations, further depressing recovery efforts.

 

Therefore, we applaud the Committee for considering infrastructure and passenger train investments for the second economic stimulus package.  Investment in passenger trains can yield immediate benefits:

 

1. job creation,

2. more travel choices for Americans,

3. a transportation system that is safer, more energy efficient and more environmentally benign, and

4. incentives for energy-efficient, pedestrian-friendly station-area real estate development.

 

We support the rolling stock, infrastructure, and positive train control requests in the testimony of Amtrak Chief Operating Officer William Crosbie.  However, we add double-deck Superliners to the list of sidelined cars that should be returned to service.  These cars generally are used on long-distance trains, where ridership has grown in recent years (11% in Fiscal 2008) but capacity has not.  Due to Superliners’ superior all-weather performance, they also have been used to improve wintertime reliability on the Michigan corridors and to fill in elsewhere—currently in the Pacific Northwest Cascades service while the Talgos are rotated through overhaul work.  We understand that about 40 Superliners are out of service.

 

While some point to recent drops in the price of gasoline as evidence that people will return to their cars, most experts say the price drop is temporary.  In an interview with CNBC on October 27, Peter Beutel of Cameron Hanover (an oil industry analysis firm) said, “We need to not repeat our mistakes of the past, when low prices yielded a lack of investment in new technology and alternative fuels,” he said.  “We’re going to get too low (and) kill a lot of alternatives.”

 

In a similar vein, Khalid al-Buraik, “an executive director at Saudi Aramco” [the world’s biggest oil company] said in the November 5 Financial Times, “People would like to go and re-evaluate, and maybe some projects were evaluated at $80 or $100 a barrel—now we are talking about $65 a barrel.  I think the whole oil industry, the new expansions, oil and gas, it will be re-evaluated—it will be reassessed based on the current economic circumstance.”

 

II. State Programs

 

Passenger train infrastructure investment should also include money that goes directly to states which will guide its investment, generally in the infrastructure of the private railroads.  This in effect is an expansion of the $30 million program in the Fiscal 2008 appropriations law which U.S. DOT administered.  Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters announced these grants in Richmond, Virginia, on September 30. 

 

A substantial number of projects are ready to go but still seeking federal funds.  This is indicated by the fact that the $30 million program was substantially oversubscribed.  We have not seen all the applications, but any informed observed could see that some states with active passenger train programs were conspicuous by their absence from the September 30 announcement—notably North Carolina, Michigan and Oregon.  Also, the program encompassed just one of California’s three major corridors.

 

Amtrak will have to speak for itself, but it is our impression that Amtrak’s request did not include money for state programs.  While we assume that some state-supported services would benefit from Amtrak’s proposed rolling stock and station programs, it appears that Amtrak’s other infrastructure investment is focused on Amtrak-owned infrastructure, and does not include state-led investment in private infrastructure such as the DOT’s $30 million program contained.

 

http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/resources/more/house_ti_stimulus/

 

Even with the recent hardships of Wall Street, I'm licking my chops at Amtrak's (and other passenger rail's) potential under Obama who is uniquely committed, probably even more than Clinton, to infrastructure investment.