Amtrak Projects/Priorities in an Infrastructure Stimilus

rcthompson04 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2020 7:20 am I think the EIS requirements need to be relaxed. It was a big drawback to the 2009 stimulus was how several projects languished due to environmental issues.

That is why I think any stimulus bill that wants to hit the ground running needs to focus what is already in the design or approved waiting for money phases.

The FTA and FRA "New" and "Small" start EIS process is a step by step process. All construction projects seeking any federal funding at all must have an environmental review. Just about all new construction projects have significant impacts that need to be minimized. Even refurbishing and replacing existing infrastructure with no significant impacts stamp of approval have to minimize environmental issues. With new infrastructure projects, the EIS steps are associated with approval to proceed and some federal money trickling out. The approval to proceed steps allow design and engineering to 10%, beyond 10%, but the final Record of Decision after completing the FEIS (F-Final) approves design and engineering to 100% along with the rest of the federal money being obligated for that specific project.
What I'm trying very hard to suggest is that there are few, if any, projects that are 100% designed and engineered, and shovel ready without the federal funding already promised. That's the reason why most of the previous stimulus funding went into repairing existing infrastructure and repaving existing roads, not building new ones.
We will all be much better off increasing the USDOT yearly budgets for the next decade than a one time release of stimulus funds. That would allow more projects to proceed through the "New" and "Small" Starts programs faster. That would also allow failing infrastructure to be replaced quicker as well, instead of waiting 10-20 years to past before another economic stimulus bill occurs.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2020 7:14 am PTC isn't stupid, it's a matter of GiGo. Garbage in, garbage out. It's the programming.

PTC is stupid. It's a $15b unfunded mandate that aims to prevent a rounding error of casualties on the railroad while leaving 99% of them completely un-addressed. Also, the "P" for positive is a fraud. It's not positive, and we've already seen one accident because of it. PTC was inspired by a texting-and-driving accident, not a signal misread/malfunction.

You're not wrong about garbage in, garbage out. But I find that to be a symptom, not a root cause.

David Benton wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 5:44 pm

Tadman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 8:58 am

What did they do wrong? They're trying to blame it on delays related to Nippon-Sharyo's problems, but we all know that isn't true as the current rolling stock can do 100mph. There's also a lot of talk about PTC testing problems. PTC is stupid and the numbers prove it. We've seen PTC problems hobble >79 on the Detroit line as well. Other than that, nobody really seems to know. It's that great black hole of Amtrak problems. I can't wait to see what is in store for the 2020's, we're looking at some great failures.

PTC is run by UP , not Amtrak or Illinois state, right?.Nippon Sharyo's problem was multi state , and not the states fault, though i still think it ties to the RFP requirements been unrealistic .
Been guilty of corruption elsewhere doesn't prove your guilty of corruption in a specific case as I'm sure you know .

"Thats right, we aint guilty of nothin, now move along, bout to have a few washing machines fall off a truck don nobody wanna see it"

All kidding aside, nobody is saying anything about the Nippon Sharyo problem. Given the greater context - half or more of Amtrak's rolling stock procurements have gone sideways and Nippon Sharyo has been perhaps the most trouble-free manufacturer until now - this one gets chalked up to Amtrak. I've seen their specs and done business with them and the only way I'll do it is if I can offer something reasonably off the shelf, just like Budd or EMD learned.

The same thing seems to be happening with UP and PTC. UP has a pretty able signal department, seems there aren't any problems anywhere else on the system. I suspect but cannot confirm that the "special" PTC being installed on that line might be related to the same special PTC on the Detroit line, neither of which seems to work that well.

The Detroit line is also where we saw our first PTC accident. The system was down for maintenance and instead of displaying a restricting indication, it was just dark. By definition, if it were positive, it wouldn't go dark during maintenance, it would display a most restrictive indication.

After ten years we have nothing to show. We've had committees, studies, implementations, repair, track built, you name it. We've done everything but what the program set out to do.

electricron wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2020 8:12 am

rcthompson04 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2020 7:20 am I think the EIS requirements need to be relaxed. It was a big drawback to the 2009 stimulus was how several projects languished due to environmental issues.

That is why I think any stimulus bill that wants to hit the ground running needs to focus what is already in the design or approved waiting for money phases.

The FTA and FRA "New" and "Small" start EIS process is a step by step process. All construction projects seeking any federal funding at all must have an environmental review. Just about all new construction projects have significant impacts that need to be minimized. Even refurbishing and replacing existing infrastructure with no significant impacts stamp of approval have to minimize environmental issues. With new infrastructure projects, the EIS steps are associated with approval to proceed and some federal money trickling out. The approval to proceed steps allow design and engineering to 10%, beyond 10%, but the final Record of Decision after completing the FEIS (F-Final) approves design and engineering to 100% along with the rest of the federal money being obligated for that specific project.
What I'm trying very hard to suggest is that there are few, if any, projects that are 100% designed and engineered, and shovel ready without the federal funding already promised. That's the reason why most of the previous stimulus funding went into repairing existing infrastructure and repaving existing roads, not building new ones.
We will all be much better off increasing the USDOT yearly budgets for the next decade than a one time release of stimulus funds. That would allow more projects to proceed through the "New" and "Small" Starts programs faster. That would also allow failing infrastructure to be replaced quicker as well, instead of waiting 10-20 years to past before another economic stimulus bill occurs.

My point is that the EIS requirements need to be loosened across the board to speed up projects.

Agreed. Imagine if we tried to build the United States and its important infrastructure projects like the Golden Gate Bridge or Transcontinental Railway on a modern timeline like the Saint Louis or Detroit high speed lines. In ten years on both lines they've managed to do just about nothing. We built an entire darn transcontinental railroad in the face of hostile people and uncharted territory in five years while a civil war raged.

But, but, but, we have to do another study and EIS because there might be endangered sperm whales in the creeks of Ann Arbor and PTC to pretend to protect the people that ride the train...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

spare me

In regards to Shovel Ready and stimulus:

I'm currently reading The Power Broker, by Robert Caro. It's a biography of Robert Moses. I think most here are familiar enough with the name I don't need to go into details.

That said, one of the things that Caro goes into, was that part of Moses success during the Great Depression was he showed up prepared down to the last detail. Or rather, at least that's how it looked. He had every t crossed, every i dotted, every blueprint available, every form they could ask for. He was the epitome of shovel ready. I think the book says that at one point 1/3 of all WPA in the US was going to NYC through Moses. (now the truth was he'd often then... expand the scope after he got the money, but that's another day).

But, it definitely sets the precedent, as does 2008, you want the money, you show up with plans complete to the last detail and you're far more likely to get the money.

Tadman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2020 4:24 pm Agreed. Imagine if we tried to build the United States and its important infrastructure projects like the Golden Gate Bridge or Transcontinental Railway on a modern timeline like the Saint Louis or Detroit high speed lines. In ten years on both lines they've managed to do just about nothing. We built an entire darn transcontinental railroad in the face of hostile people and uncharted territory in five years while a civil war raged.

But, but, but, we have to do another study and EIS because there might be endangered sperm whales in the creeks of Ann Arbor and PTC to pretend to protect the people that ride the train...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

spare me

Just handouts for consultants and constituency groups that are shakedown artists.

Design / Build : look at how (relatively) quickly the new TZB got built, and how quickly the LIRR third track is progressing. It can be done.

Mr. Smith, I know you are away from the New York area nowadays; GMC (Gov. Mario Cuomo) Bridge vice TZB (Tappan Zee Bridge).

the problems with design build are that you degrade the in-house capabilities of your agency, leaving it up to consultants who benefit by spending more public money in the long run, and you create a fairly small market of large general contractors who have the capacity to manage whole projects (while you don't anymore) and charge according to their market power.

The places-with-cheap-infrastructure costs don't do design build.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2020 9:41 am Mr. Smith, I know you are away from the New York area nowadays; GMC (Gov. Mario Cuomo) Bridge vice TZB (Tappan Zee Bridge).

I refuse to call it such.

Not sure about the costs being higher; as I recall, the replacement TZB came in a lot cheaper than the options they were throwing out there under Pataki. I want to say it came in at about $4B?

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:39 pm

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2020 9:41 am Mr. Smith, I know you are away from the New York area nowadays; GMC (Gov. Mario Cuomo) Bridge vice TZB (Tappan Zee Bridge).

I refuse to call it such.

Thank you. Me neither. I don't care what name you put on it it'll always be the Tappan Zee Bridge.

May I be allowed a further off topic, off rails, comment?

Seems as if Sept last, driving Eastward to Greenwich CT, I was going to take from the 80, the 287, "over the River" ($5 v. $15 on George) then to the 95 and Greenwich.

I just love the "cryptic" with which New York bridges are referred. Yes I know of GWB and did of TZB. So here I am driving and looking for TZB signage.

Sorry, but I should have been looking for GMC Bridge signage.

Maybe any plan for passenger rail could also include some of the local commuter rail lines. Money to rebuild old track, build new cars & locomotives. Following a similar plan for Amtrak rebuilds the NEC, gets new train sets. Either way means lots of American Jobs!