North Carolina Intercity Rail Transit

[orulz]

North Carolina DOT's Rail Division has long had plans for passenger train service from Salisbury to Asheville and from Raleigh to Wilmington, but could never get the needed funding to upgrade the tracks. Hopefully that will change now.

I agree and hope that things will change. When NCDOT studied this earlier this decade, they came up with an estimate of somewhere between $100m and $150m each for the Asheville service and for either alternative to Wilmington.

Regarding the Asheville service: I think I heard that momentum was building towards introducing the service around 2001, but then NS shut down the Saluda grade, moving more traffic to the Salisbury line, maxing out its existing capacity, meaning that more improvements would be required before passenger trains could run.

I do wonder what the schedule will be between Salisbury and Asheville though. The Andrews Geyser Loops will probably take 30 or 45 minutes to negotiate, and they do plan on stopping at basically every town along the way: Asheville, Black Mountain, Old Fort, Marion, Morganton, Valdese, Hickory, Conover, Statesville, and Salisbury. Realistically with all those stops we're talking about 5 hours.

If you could cut out the closely spaced stops and the smaller towns (Black Mountain, Old Fort, Valdese, and Conover) you could trim a half hour or more..

[mallguy]

The Southern Railway ran the "Asheville Special" train between Salisbury and Asheville until 1975:

http://www.geocities.com/orvillei/southern1974.html

Very nice to see these trains, which I'd viewed as long-gone, being resurrected.

Why doesn't the NCDOT just work with governments along the lines of NC passenger trains to give tax cuts or tax credits to Norfolk Southern and have Norfolk Southern just run its own passenger trains, and sell tickets through the Amtrak reservations system (like the ACES line in New Jersey does)? Let counties along the Asheville-Salisbury line cut NS property taxes, and let the NC state government cut NS's income taxes, and enter into an agreement with NS for the railroad to use those savings to upgrade its tracks and run passenger trains meeting certain service criteria (route, stations, etc.)?

[ERJ170]

Why doesn't the NCDOT just work with governments along the lines of NC passenger trains to give tax cuts or tax credits to Norfolk Southern and have Norfolk Southern just run its own passenger trains, and sell tickets through the Amtrak reservations system (like the ACES line in New Jersey does)? Let counties along the Asheville-Salisbury line cut NS property taxes, and let the NC state government cut NS's income taxes, and enter into an agreement with NS for the railroad to use those savings to upgrade its tracks and run passenger trains meeting certain service criteria (route, stations, etc.)?

Would they be willing to do such a thing with private railways? Allow them to use the NCRR lines and cut a tax credit for the service? Would increase service push for more funding to upgrade tracks from 1 to 2 lines? Just wondering..

[mallguy]

Would they be willing to do such a thing with private railways? Allow them to use the NCRR lines and cut a tax credit for the service? Would increase service push for more funding to upgrade tracks from 1 to 2 lines? Just wondering..

New York State has done such a thing, with CSX (tax credits for upgrades to freight routes that Amtrak also uses). Trains to Asheville would run on Norfolk Southern tracks, and I don't know about Norfolk Southern, but at least Union Pacific and some other private railroads run commuter trains (e.g., provide the crews and some other work) under contract with state and local governments, so there is some precedent.

You make a good point though- NC just perhaps isn't interested.

[ChiefJoJo]

The map is current- you're right- but the routes are basically unchanged from the Clinton and Bush years.

So much for "change we can believe in", and $13B won't do enough to make those lines truly high-speed.

Given that Bush & the GOP-controlled Congress was close to completely gutting Amtrak altogether, we are essentially restarting the HSR conversation at the federal level. Realize that save the NE corridor, the states have done most of the heavy lifting in advancing the HSR agenda (CA, IL, MI, NC, etc), so don't think for a minute that having the POTUS & VP (who used to commute on Amtrak) standing at a podium praising the benefits of HSR isn't significant, not to mention the $8B in stimulus & $5B in budgeted funds. In the context of the potential dismantling of Amtrak that Bush (& IIRC McCain) wanted, this is a great step in the right direction.

[orulz]

The map is current- you're right- but the routes are basically unchanged from the Clinton and Bush years.

So much for "change we can believe in", and $13B won't do enough to make those lines truly high-speed.

That map is codified in law and will require an act of congress to change.

You're right, $13 billion will hardly scratch the surface of high speed rail, but it is a down payment. Let's also not be too impatient here; no country has ever built an entire national high speed rail network all at once out of a single appropriation. Given the long lead times for planning, design, and environmental review for projects of this magnitude, $13 billion is a pretty good chunk of what we can actually and reasonably spend on HSR over the next 4 years. Rushing headlong into this with a massive, radical $40 billion design-build contract on day one for a single "HSR Express" line is a sure-fire way to wind up with a project that is mismanaged, bungled, massively over budget, and a lightning rod for criticism.

So, I think the incremental "emerging HSR" approach is a wise one. If we decide to immediately put all our eggs into the full-blown "HSR Express" basket, but then 4 or 8 years from now the national scene swings back towards the right and Jeb Bush or whoever is elected president, the HSR projects will promptly be axed. Since it can take a decade or so to bring a full blown HSR line online once funding is committed, we'll be left with one or two half built lines, a bunch of finger-wagging pundits, and a passenger rail network that isn't any better than what have now in 2009.

With an incremental approach, in four to eight years we can make significant improvements to our passenger rail system. Even if we get stuck with President Bush III in 2016, we'll still have a useful, functioning intercity rail system that touches more regions, meaning broader political support that might keep the momentum moving in the right direction in spite of the ebb and flow of the political tide.

[mallguy]

That map is codified in law and will require an act of congress to change.

So, I think the incremental "emerging HSR" approach is a wise one. If we decide to immediately put all our eggs into the full-blown "HSR Express" basket, but then 4 or 8 years from now the national scene swings back towards the right and Jeb Bush or whoever is elected president, the HSR projects will promptly be axed. Since it can take a decade or so to bring a full blown HSR line online once funding is committed, we'll be left with one or two half built lines, a bunch of finger-wagging pundits, and a passenger rail network that isn't any better than what have now in 2009.

With an incremental approach, in four to eight years we can make significant improvements to our passenger rail system. Even if we get stuck with President Bush III in 2016, we'll still have a useful, functioning intercity rail system that touches more regions, meaning broader political support that might keep the momentum moving in the right direction in spite of the ebb and flow of the political tide.

I agree with you; incremental HSR is definitely the way to go in the US.

One more corridor could be designated without Congressional approval:

SOURCE: http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/hotl...re/hotline_600/

I think we're on the same page re: HSR; I'd have preferred that a larger share of the stimulus had been used for HSR and other infrastructure programs (roads, airports, etc.). I think that would have helped long-term economic growth more than the stimulus, as enacted, will.

And for another prior post- Bush and the GOP Congress did not gut Amtrak; while Bush and some GOP congressmen would have loved to, Amtrak funding increased dramatically under the GOP Congress and Bush; numbers are at the link below:

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

Edited April 20, 2009 by mallguy

[monsoon]

Keen in mind the NCRR is a state mandated company that owns rail right of way that crosses a good portion of this state. It's mandate includes freight traffic as well as passenger. Far more freight trains operate on it's tracks than passenger trains. I believe NS is the designated freight operator on the NCRR.

Amtrak is the national passenger rail operator that was formed in 1971 by the federal government. This is when most private train operators disappeared in the USA. I might be wrong, but Amtrak owns very little of its own track.

The NCDOT funds the Piedmont and Carolinian which are the state owned passenger rail lines in NC. These trains operate in part on the NCRR tracks but also tracks of other operators. The NCDOT is not the operator of these trains. That duty has been contracted to Amtrak.

Amtrak also operates several trains through NC as part of their federally funded national rail service. These will operate in part on NCRR track and share stations with the NCDOT passenger rail service. (though Amtrak will bypass most)

[ERJ170]

Does anyone know when we will hear when the 2nd Piedmont will run? When will the schudules be uploaded? how long between the 2nd and 3rd (for the 4th RGH-CLT service)?

[sax184]

Does anyone know when we will hear when the 2nd Piedmont will run? When will the schudules be uploaded? how long between the 2nd and 3rd (for the 4th RGH-CLT service)?

The midday trains are supposed to start sometime later this year- could be August or September, maybe.

[orulz]

Not within NC, but directly related to NC through the SEHSR: The plans for the rail alignment between Richmond and Petersburg have been released. See them here.

A couple of observations:

1. The plans include grade separating or closing all crossings, at least from Main Street Station to Collier. There will be no grade crossings on the high speed rail line.
   
2. There will be a second track over both the James and the Appomattox Rivers. I hope they do here what they did with the new bridge at Possum Point (Quantico): leave the old bridge, and build the second bridge wide enough so that it can be double tracked in the future, eventually allowing for 3 tracks. This is necessary IMO since these bridges will probably be built with a 100-150 year lifespan in mind.
   
3. The "S" line will be renovated and double tracked and the "A" line will be triple tracked through Richmond and Petersburg.
   
4. For those of you who have been keeping track (anyone?) there was some question as to the routing the trains would take through Petersburg. Would they take the old ACL main through Colonial Heights to a station downtown, or stick to the CSX "A" line? This chart seems to indicate they have decided to stick with the CSX "A" line. That's bad news for the town of Petersburg because their station will remain in a crappy part of town (Ettrick) , but good news for SEHSR in general because the CSX alignment will be faster. IMO they should put the Ettrick station out of its misery and at least put in a new station on Washington Street (Washington & Atlantic if you want to look it up on a map.)
   

[mallguy]

The Obama administration proposes only $1.502B in grants for Amtrak for FY 2010- an immaterial increase from $1.49B in FY 2009.

SOURCE: National Association of Railroad Passengers, Hotline News #603, May 9.

Again, where's the "change we can believe in" from the Bush years? Not seeing any here, at least re: direct Amtrak spending.

[monsoon]

^Why would Amtrak need more than that increase? What are they proposing that would require a significant increase in federal funding?

[sax184]

The Obama administration proposes only $1.502B in grants for Amtrak for FY 2010- an immaterial increase from $1.49B in FY 2009.

SOURCE: National Association of Railroad Passengers, Hotline News #603, May 9.

Again, where's the "change we can believe in" from the Bush years? Not seeing any here, at least re: direct Amtrak spending.

It's important to understand the differences between capital and operating grants, and to acknowledge that the transportation bill is up for reauthorization this year. Remember that "Amtrak" is not synonymous with "all spending on rail in the USA."

So:

1. Grants for Amtrak have not increased substantially because the capital improvement program was largely put into the $8 BILLION high speed rail "down payment" in the stimulus bill. To continue operating the national rail system at its current level takes roughly the same amount of money.

2. It will take time to build the improvements in the capital program. When some of them are made, Amtrak services will begin to improve in speed and reliability. As this happens, demands for service should increase. At this time, maybe 2-4 years out, we should see some definite growth in the Amtrak budget.

3. The transportation bill is up for re-authorization this year. It may be broadly rewritten to include rail, which has been left out of each of the last three transportation bills, all of which are authorized for 6 years. If Congressional leaders and the Obama administration plan to remedy this anomaly, the best way to do it would be to give Amtrak roughly the same amount of money it got last year and do the major re-programming of Amtrak funding through the transportation bill. Most serious Amtrak advocates want this to happen because it is better to put the Amtrak budget on a predictable 6-year renewal cycle instead of an annual political football in Congress. The former is much, much, better for infrastructure planning than the latter.

In summary, Obama has been in office a little over 100 days. In that time, he has committed over $9 billion to passenger rail in the US. Bush was in office for 8 years, never had a budget for Amtrak above $1.4 billion, and tried to reduce funding for Amtrak to under $700 million multiple times.

If this isn't a night and day difference, I don't know what is.

[mallguy]

I understand the difference- I have been involved in the mass transit business before and am a NARP member. The Amtrak grant covers a variety of items- operations, capital improvements, retirement-related payments, debt repayments, etc. Operations is only part of the annual Amtrak grant.

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

Amtrak requested $1.84 billion for the items above (operations, capital improvements, debt repayment, etc.); Obama is giving slightly over $1.5 billion. Here are some of Amtrak's goals that it would try to reach with more money:

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServe...06&ssid=168

The billions for capital improvements to increase train speeds are a good thing, but we will not have more trains on those improved tracks unless Amtrak or another operator gets more operating grants- as passenger trains require operating support to be able to run, and the $1.5B includes enough operating grants to run only Amtrak's current system, not an expanded one.

Same old story- Congress has authorized big bucks for various things before (such as allowing states to use capital grants for rail) but the money never seems to appear as promised, and Amtrak goes to Capitol Hill each year, begging for a bare minimum to make it, and it comes back with less than it begged for. Some things never change, despite rhetoric and hype.

Edited May 13, 2009 by mallguy

[monsoon]

If Amtrak requested $1.84B for this purpose, and got $1.5B then I am not sure what the problem might be. This seems to be within a contingency amount for a funding request.

[mallguy]

The problem is that all that rail has gotten so far is promises of money for states (some of which will spend it on rail, some of which won't bother) to upgrade track to achieve 70-100mph speeds. (Obama's own words summarized- available through a NARP website link to his speech on the White House website.)

Amtrak also needs big increases for operations, debt repayments, and other capital (such as buying new train cars and refurbishing old ones). It didn't get anything for those things other than just 1% (!) more than the Bush-era grant level.

Amtrak also requests funds on top of the $1.84B (for ADA station upgrades and more), so Amtrak's full need and full request is even more than $1.84B.

The US needs more trains, newer trains and faster trains. It takes more than just improved track to have that.

With the rest of the federal budget increasing dramatically, Amtrak's grant only increased by 1%! Not enough!

Edited May 14, 2009 by mallguy

[sax184]

We're going to have to disagree on how much has changed. The Obama administration and Congress may get the opportunity to pull Amtrak out of the annual political grandstanding it gets from anti-rail politicians by addressing Amtrak's needs in the re-authorization of the transportation bill later this year.

The best way to do this without burning political capital is to run a continuation-based budget to continue present operations while Jim Oberstar and the transportation committee put together their bill. Amtrak does not want to ask for money every year. They want a 6-year authorization just like FHWA, FTA, and the aviation system. They have to continue to ask for funds like they are doing currently because Congress has not given them a new avenue to seek funding yet, but it is coming.

There has been a massive sea change in Washington on passenger rail. We have at minimum, $8 billion reasons and vocal public endorsement from the President that things have changed. The transportation bill offers a greater chance for this to happen.

NARP is a good organization but they are more focused on preserving Amtrak's existing route structure than anything else. This was exactly what was needed from a political advocacy point of view for the last 8 years, when the primary strategy was getting together conservative democrats and republicans from areas with long-distance trains to vote with the urban rail supporters. Things have changed. NARP's advocacy has not yet adapted to the new conditions in DC, though I am confident they will in time.

An alternative organization to NARP which is more forward-looking is the National Corridors Initiative. This group is the one actually pushing the vision for intercity rail in the US.

The leading group on re-authorization is Transportation For America. Check out their platform, and you will see that there is significant discussion of intercity rail being addressed through the transportation bill. This, not an extra $300 million for Amtrak this year, is the big goal.

[monsoon]

The problem is that all that rail has gotten so far is promises of money for states (some of which will spend it on rail, some of which won't bother) to upgrade track to achieve 70-100mph speeds. (Obama's own words summarized- available through a NARP website link to his speech on the White House website.).....

But Amtrak is an operator and owns little to no track ROW. Federal funding to improve or create new ROW would not come from this operational fund. Faster trains better trains also would not be funded out of this amount. I still don't see where there is a problem.

[ChiefJoJo]

NCDOT Secretary Gene Conti was named chair to an influential federal rail policy board. Some are speculating that his presence will improve NC's already very good chances of receiving federal stimulus dollars for SEHSR.

[mallguy]

The problem is just that track- which will be used by Amtrak and maybe other operators- is being improved but funds for other related needs (operating trains, buying new cars, etc.) aren't being provided.

So the end result, unless Obama and Congress provide additional operating grants (whether to Amtrak or someone else), is that we'll just have Amtrak's existing skeletal network of often older train sets running at somewhat faster speeds. No money to run additional trains, and no money to buy new train cars, is being provided. (And look at recent New York and New England-area negotiations between states and Amtrak- states aren't really looking to significantly increase their passenger train spending these days.)

Again, we need more train cars and funds to run more trains, and that money has not been provided. With money being thrown around right and left, I'd have expected Amtrak to get more than a 1% increase.

Let's imagine that airlines are government-owned; there are just a few slow flights a day from most airports; and some but not all airports are government-owned. Then the government dumps money into extending runway lengths at airports, but it doesn't give the government-owned airline any money to buy better planes or add flights. That's what's happening so far with passenger rail.

Edited May 14, 2009 by mallguy

[monsoon]

^You are not making any sense. Amtrak asked for operational funding. They got essentially what they asked for. Somehow you are making the statement that because it just $1.5B that it is the status quo in terms of rail travel development in the USA. While I understand this is your opinion, it's based on a misunderstanding of Amtrak's role in this process.

[mallguy]

^You are not making any sense. Amtrak asked for operational funding. They got essentially what they asked for. Somehow you are making the statement that because it just $1.5B that it is the status quo in terms of rail travel development in the USA. While I understand this is your opinion, it's based on a misunderstanding of Amtrak's role in this process.

Monsoon, as always, you are 100% right and I am 100% wrong.

To anyone else: Amtrak's request for $1.84B (plus $144M for ADA station upgrades, so a total of $1.98B) covered more than just operations- it also covered debt repayments (some of which are mandatory), rail car and locomotive purchases, etc. The breakdown is available on the NARP website. Amtrak wants to provide faster trains and more frequent trains (according to its CEO, Joseph Boardman, this week). Amtrak didn't get what it requested for operations, but it also didn't get what it requested for buying new train cars and for paying down some of its debt- debt that is taking a big chunk out of its budget.

The $5B provided separately by the administration covers just track upgrades through grants to various state agencies for the work. Better track makes faster trains, but without more money for operations and buying train cars, we won't have more frequent trains (or a larger route network).

The fact that Amtrak got 15-24% less than what it asked for isn't really important; what is important is that no more money is being provided for operations and buying new train cars than before. Running the train network we need- fast, newer and more frequent trains- requires more than just track upgrades, and more money for operations, paying down debt and buying new train cars is extremely important.

For the large parts of the US that have one train a day each way- or no train at all- the fact that perhaps the one train in each direction that serves a town and that comes through in the middle of the night (e.g., Columbia, SC) will run somewhat faster won't really make a huge difference.

NARP has an action request out to push Congress to fully fund Amtrak's request. They don't find the $1.5B satisfactory; nor do I. Nor does Amtrak, according to its CEO this week. (All of this is on the NARP site.)

Edited May 15, 2009 by mallguy

[orulz]

I agree that paying down debt is important. Offloading some of Amtrak's debt, such as the ill-advised sale/leaseback schemes from the Warrington era would free up a lot of Amtrak's appropriation to be used on operations.

About new equipment: The $8b HSR portion of the ARRA explicitly mentions that new rolling stock, locomotives, trainsets, etc. are an acceptable use of stimulus funds. So any project that can "reasonably be expected" to attain speeds of 110mph or more is eligible to purchase new trains under the stimulus plan. Does the extra $1b per year Obama proposed exclude that?

As for operations. The fact is that in many / most cases, there simply isn't enough railroad capacity out there to add frequencies without first spending money on capital improvements (track capacity, signal upgrades, additional/refurbished rolling stock). Even if we threw more money at Amtrak operations this year, how many more trains would they be able to run? Not many! Even if no capacity constraints were present, there would still be the matter of negotiating with the freights, which can be a time consuming process by itself.

For this year, I am definitely satisfied with the overwhelming emphasis on capital. That's where the huge backlog is found; that's what needs the most work, right now.

[mallguy]

I agree that paying down debt is important. Offloading some of Amtrak's debt, such as the ill-advised sale/leaseback schemes from the Warrington era would free up a lot of Amtrak's appropriation to be used on operations.

About new equipment: The $8b HSR portion of the ARRA explicitly mentions that new rolling stock, locomotives, trainsets, etc. are an acceptable use of stimulus funds. So any project that can "reasonably be expected" to attain speeds of 110mph or more is eligible to purchase new trains under the stimulus plan. Does the extra $1b per year Obama proposed exclude that?

As for operations. The fact is that in many / most cases, there simply isn't enough railroad capacity out there to add frequencies without first spending money on capital improvements (track capacity, signal upgrades, additional/refurbished rolling stock). Even if we threw more money at Amtrak operations this year, how many more trains would they be able to run? Not many! Even if no capacity constraints were present, there would still be the matter of negotiating with the freights, which can be a time consuming process by itself.

For this year, I am definitely satisfied with the overwhelming emphasis on capital. That's where the huge backlog is found; that's what needs the most work, right now.

These are good points. Thanks for providing them.

True, Amtrak can't necessarily add a lot of new trains, but it has been planning to buy new cars to replace the remaining Heritage Fleet equipment that is 50+ years old and that is used on long-distance trains (which often run on routes that won't attain 110 mph speeds (even in the Northeast Corridor)). It also has wanted to buy more cars to expand train lengths- the Crescent, for example, has just 2 sleeping cars and a handful of coaches and is frequently sold out. Just expanding train lengths could significantly increase capacity, but that won't be possible on a lot of routes. So the $8B won't necessarily allow Amtrak to do either, although Amtrak has wanted to do both for years.

Amtrak could add at least a few new trains though but since its grant for operations isn't going up, it can't.

We're close, and thanks again for your good points. Hopefully NARP will be able to persuade Congress to fully fund Amtrak- with a federal deficit of over a trillion, the extra $494 million to fully fund Amtrak is a drop in the bucket.

Edited May 16, 2009 by mallguy