• Amtrak: Connects US // American Jobs Plan Infrastructure Legislation

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

  • 462 posts
  • 1
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 31
  by STrRedWolf
 
As I looked at said Connects/US Map... I had an odd thought.

Through-run Scranton-NYP-Ronkonkoma, treated just like the Keystones. It's a corridor service -- a very express corridor service that has better transfer ticket sales since it's all through Amtrak.

The thing is, it's contingent on the new Hudson River Tunnels. You need the capacity to do it.
  by gokeefe
 
Pensyfan19 wrote:Things are looking great for the NYC to Scranton service.

https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews ... c-service/
SCRANTON, Pa. — Amtrak and the Pennsylvania Northeast Regional Railroad Authority have reached agreement on a study to assess a potential route between Scranton and New York City.

The Pocono Record reports Amtrak will look at the route’s infrastructure and estimate possible ridership and revenue, with the authority covering the $400,000 cost of the study.

The route is one of 39 first suggested in a map released by Amtrak in March [see “Amtrak unveils ‘Connect US’ map …,” Trains News Wire, March 31, 2021], and included in a more detailed report released in May.
I also looked closely at the detailed northeast Connect Us map and noticed that there is a small line which goes along the Metro North route between Yonkers and New York, so this could mean that Amtrak could be reutilizing Grand Central!
Image
I think you're on to something here. Very nice catch. I was trying to figure out if this could be some kind of mapping error or artifact from a base layer of rail lines. My conclusion is that is unlikely because the thin blue line is drawn *over* other trunk lines.

I think Amtrak is in fact considering reinstating service from Grand Central. Not sure how, why or which trains. Others know better than I would on that question but it does look like it.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  by photobug56
 
STrRedWolf wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 6:48 am As I looked at said Connects/US Map... I had an odd thought.

Through-run Scranton-NYP-Ronkonkoma, treated just like the Keystones. It's a corridor service -- a very express corridor service that has better transfer ticket sales since it's all through Amtrak.

The thing is, it's contingent on the new Hudson River Tunnels. You need the capacity to do it.
Cuomo thinks the new capacity can only be used to feed tracks under his massive real estate give-away plan, but the capacity is needed now for the existing Penn. As to your idea, why Ronkonkoma? From my selfish view, Huntington (I live on the PJ line).
  by njtmnrrbuff
 
Ronkonkoma is basically in the middle of the island and very close to several large towns, major business centers, plus MacArthur Airport. Plus given that the Main Line is almost a straight shot from Ronkonkoma to NYP, Amtrak trains can do a lot of nonstop fast speeds.
  by njtmnrrbuff
 
It's 80 mph on a lot of the Ronkonkoma Line and if Amtrak ever runs there, I could see them making track speed on that line. Plus on the Main Line west of Hicksville, I can see Amtrak doing 80.
  by MikeBPRR
 
Well, folks, here is the text of the bill. At 2,702 pages, it’s perfect, light beach reading. https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cach ... w21a09.pdf

I’m still combing through it. Here are some preliminary observations:

1. The section on rail starts on page 697 and is entitled “Passenger Rail Expansion and Rail Safety Act of 2021.”
2. Over the next five years, Amtrak will receive $6.5B to distribute as grants for the NEC and $12.6B to distribute as grants for the national network.
3. Current law states, “A greater degree of cooperation is necessary among Amtrak, other rail carriers, State, regional, and local governments, the private sector, labor organizations, and suppliers of services and equipment to Amtrak to achieve a performance level sufficient to justify expending public money.” That is changed to “A greater degree of cooperation is necessary among Amtrak, other rail carriers, State, regional, and local governments, the private sector, labor organizations, and suppliers of services and equipment in order to meet the intercity passenger rail needs of the United States” (emphasis added). That strikes me as they see Amtrak as important now.
4. Upgrades for food and beverage must be studied, recommended, and implemented.
5. Ticket agents at every station with 40 or more daily passengers OR if they had an agent as of October 1, 2027, unless there is an agent from an adjoining commuter rail service.
6. Some amendments to PRIAA from 2008, although I’m not sure what they mean.
7. Study for daily long-distance study, including along discontinued routes.
8. Money for railroad R&D.

I’m not sure what it all means, and whether it’s all good or bad. I don’t see any specifically marked projects in here, but I guess that’s what the amendment process is for.
  by electricron
 
photobug56 wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:45 am They need that per year a few times over. What's the backlog amount just for the NEC?
A complete rebuild of the NEC was recently suggested by the NEC Commission this year as $117 Billion.
https://nec-commission.com/app/uploads/ ... y-Only.pdf

Last year or so Amtrak suggested putting the NEC into a state of good repair as $28.1 Billion.
https://www.rtands.com/passenger/interc ... 3-billion/

This year Amtrak suggest to place its' entire network into a state of good repair as $38 Billion.
https://nec.amtrak.com/readytobuild/

All the links from sources issuing within the last two years, so they are not out of date.

P.S. The bi-partsian Senate plan limits Amtrak funding to around $19.1 Billion.
  by MikeBPRR
 
$19.1B doesn’t seem like enough compared to its needs, but according to page 1287, transit seems to be getting just short of $70B, so maybe some of the agencies along the NEC (NJT, SEPTA, MARC, etc.) can get some of that money to chip into some NEC upgrades. I imagine that the NEC didn’t receive more funding because no one wanted to be associated with giving what seems like a disproportionate amount of money to New York via the Gateway Tunnels.

What I’m really interested in is seeing what amendments end up in this bill that may cover Gateway and other projects. This is going to take time to even pass the Senate, as Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) is bellyaching about this bill.
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
LET's GET IT ENACTED!!!!! Then we sob how passenger rail barely gets enough to feed the consultants.

Nancy is enough of a political statesman to get her troops in line with this amazing "bipartisan" legislation being drafted within the Senate, even though because it involves appropriations, she has to first introduce the legislation.

But let's get real; NO passenger train advocacy group has the clout to influence the outcome of this legislation.

And Joe; he signs what he gets!!!!

I've been more than happy to support the charity Feeding America through the Pandemic; not too sure about filling the trough for that first mentioned community.

Sorry volks, but I foresee another fiasco regarding passenger rail on a par with that of Obama's ARRA09.
  by Defiant
 
MikeBPRR wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:32 pm Well, folks, here is the text of the bill. At 2,702 pages, it’s perfect, light beach reading. https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cach ... w21a09.pdf

I’m still combing through it. Here are some preliminary observations:

1. The section on rail starts on page 697 and is entitled “Passenger Rail Expansion and Rail Safety Act of 2021.”
2. Over the next five years, Amtrak will receive $6.5B to distribute as grants for the NEC and $12.6B to distribute as grants for the national network.
3. Current law states, “A greater degree of cooperation is necessary among Amtrak, other rail carriers, State, regional, and local governments, the private sector, labor organizations, and suppliers of services and equipment to Amtrak to achieve a performance level sufficient to justify expending public money.” That is changed to “A greater degree of cooperation is necessary among Amtrak, other rail carriers, State, regional, and local governments, the private sector, labor organizations, and suppliers of services and equipment in order to meet the intercity passenger rail needs of the United States” (emphasis added). That strikes me as they see Amtrak as important now.
4. Upgrades for food and beverage must be studied, recommended, and implemented.
5. Ticket agents at every station with 40 or more daily passengers OR if they had an agent as of October 1, 2027, unless there is an agent from an adjoining commuter rail service.
6. Some amendments to PRIAA from 2008, although I’m not sure what they mean.
7. Study for daily long-distance study, including along discontinued routes.
8. Money for railroad R&D.
6.5 billion is not even enough to pay for Geteway. But aren't there at least 70 billion in mass transit funding? Any idea how the rest of the money is supposed to be spent?
  by R&DB
 
#1577242 by MikeBPRR
Mon Aug 02, 2021 7:16 am
I imagine that the NEC didn’t receive more funding because no one wanted to be associated with giving what seems like a disproportionate amount of money to New York via the Gateway Tunnels.
Short sighted morons. The Amtrak traffic through the tunnels does not benefit only NYC. More than half of East coast Amtrack trains go through those tubes. It benefits every state on the right coast plus PA, AL, MS, LA, WV, OH, IN, and IL.
  by bostontrainguy
 
Maybe there is a problem when building such things as the Greenline Extension in Boston costs $2.28 billion for only 4.3 miles of adding a light rail line to an existing 4 track ROW. Also it's still not finished and its construction is going to take over 10 years. Remember the Transcontinental Railroad took six years and that was mostly built with picks and shovels!

Article below about rail projects costing too much:

Excerpt: • U.S. rail transit projects cost an average 50% more to build, both at-grade and tunneled, compared to peer projects in Western Europe.

https://www.railwayage.com/mw/eno-study ... ey-should/
  • 1
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 31