posted
Sec. 218 seems to appropriate money for a plan and timeline for service from New Orleans to Sanford.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it's an AUTHORIZATION bill, not an appropriation. Appropriations, with very few exceptions (Long term procurement contracts) must be funded year by year.
Even procurement contracts can (and have been) zeroed out in midlife. Usually the appropriation was a specific cancellation of the project.
This is all basic Constitution stuff.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought section 217 of the bill was interesting for those of us in the south. I had seen discussion (again) on a possible bypass of Ashland, CSX's Acca yard, and Staples Mill station (Richmond, north side of town) by using the ex C&O route from Doswell (12 miles north of Ashland) to the Richmond Main St. Station (downtown).
I would much rather see the first item of this section come to pass. If memory serves, to bypass Acca, CSX would have to move their TransFlo (Bulk Distribution) facility that is in the area that a bypass track would take. I think they would be happy to get government dollars to do so, as the present one has no room for expansion.
For direct access to Main St. to be of benefit to trains heading further south, the government needs to get on with the Southeast High Speed rail initiative that would upgrade tracks from Main St. south on the old SAL line and connect back into the current Amtrak route north of Petersburg. Lots of talk, no action.
I am sure CSX would also be happy to see item 2 of this section happen. It would help Amtrak and CSX trains in this congested area. Selma of course is where the Carolinian and Silver Star take a right turn to get on the NS for Raleigh and beyond. A few miles further south at Pembroke, NC, many CSX freights also leave the main Florida line to head over to a major yard at Hamlet, NC.
" SEC. 217. CONGESTION GRANTS.
(a) Authority- The Secretary of Transportation may make grants to States, or to Amtrak in cooperation with States, for financing the capital costs of facilities, infrastructure, and equipment for high priority rail corridor projects necessary to reduce congestion or facilitate ridership growth in intercity passenger rail transportation.
(b) Eligible Projects- Projects eligible for grants under this section include projects--
(1) to add a third track, crossovers, and Richmond-area track improvements to bypass Acca Yard and access the downtown Main St. Station on track from Washington, DC, to Richmond, VA;
(2) to add sections of second track, extend sidings, and add crossovers for Virginia and North Carolina service between Richmond, VA, and Selma, NC;
(3) to add a third track, crossovers, and sidings from Seattle, WA, to Portland, OR;
(4) to add new signals, reconfigure the Porter rail junction, add new siding, and construct flyovers and a separate passenger line from Chicago, IL, to Porter, IN; and
(5) designated by the Secretary as being sufficiently advanced in development to be capable of serving the purposes described in subsection (a) on an expedited schedule."
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting to note, Mr. Palmland, that some Congresscritter from a District near Richmond got his imprimatur into the Bill's language.
Now he has something to "tout" to the folks back home this Fall. Even if most of 'em are "Critters-for-Life", they still have to go through "the drill" every two years.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, Mr. Norman. Great minds, but wouldn't it be great if just once one of these bills actually made a difference.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Appears that we have committee members from Virginia, Chicago area, and the Seattle-Portland area.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
One of the NCDOT initiatives has been the notion of a passenger train from Raleigh to Wilmington. One of the proposed routes would have been to Selma, down the A line to Pembroke, and then diverging southeastward to Wilmington.
The problems with this plan are that the connecting tracks onto the A line in Selma and then off the A line in Pembroke are in the wrong quadrant. New connections would have to be built or the train would have a pair of backup moves en route. Moreover, the new connecting track in Pembroke would require tearing down a number of buildings in the tiny business district, an idea which puts the mayor and all local politicians in the 'against' column for this particular plan.
David Pressley
Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notelvis- Sounds like it would be difficult and expensive to get to the coast via Pembroke.
Doesn't the state have plans to start service reasonably soon across the diamond at Selma and continue on to Goldsboro? Seems that would be a good route since they own the NC RR that NS operates on.
From Goldsboro, I recall discussion about using the existing ex ACL line from Goldsboro to Wilmington now used for a couple CSX locals and some grain trains for the turkey feed mills down the line. Of course there is that 'small' problem of 20+ miles of abandoned track on the south end of the line just north of Wilmington. I know the state has scoped that out - any idea on the status of that option ?
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a fairly major bridge in this 20 mile section, and I think it is a drawbridge. This bridge probably had a lot to do with the choice to shut down this line. Of course CSX and predecessors have abandoned and spun off so much trackage, including a lot of main lines over the last 30 plus years there was a while some of their employees wondered if they were trying to liquidate the system entirely. Probably the only company that has abandoned or sold off a higher proportion of their trackage is Illinois Central.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: No, it's an AUTHORIZATION bill, not an appropriation. Appropriations, with very few exceptions (Long term procurement contracts) must be funded year by year.
Even procurement contracts can (and have been) zeroed out in midlife. Usually the appropriation was a specific cancellation of the project.
This is all basic Constitution stuff.
You must really hate not being a moderator at this forum. Here, you're not able to do stuff like this and basically ram your opinion down people's throats.
Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fortunately this forum is not moderated - at least to any obvious extent.
Amazingly everyone is civil and discussions are fun even if they do wander off topic occasionally (or often?).
No one second guesses someone's opinions even if they may seem annoying, irrelevant, or ill informed. Or for that matter, no one takes a shot at someone even if they seem insufferable.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must have missed the section describing the new Amtrak service from Pittsburgh to St Louis via Columbus, Oh and Indianapolis . Well maybe next year.
Posts: 87 | From: Ohio | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Today has been a "good day" for Amtrak and passenger train interests; I can only hope that the thrust of the Authorization, should it result in greater appropriations than would otherwise be enacted, be directed towards what 21st century intercity passenger railroading is all about - Corridors, and away from what it is not - Long Distance routes.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
GBN-as my argument has always been, the corridors do not meet there full potential without a complimentary long distance network. Every other transportation network-air and bus-work that way and so should rail. Of course, having investments in certain rail companies, your view on long distance networks is taken into proper perspective. We desperately need to expand our long distance network. There are WAY to many gaps in service. The first place I would go is to close the gap between the midwest/west and southeast. One should not have to take 3 or more trains over a time frame of 5 days to get from LA to Atlanta or Orlando.
Obviously, the number one priority should be to purchase more rolling stock to meet ridership demands.
-------------------- Patrick Posts: 387 | From: Bakersfield, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Today has been a "good day" for Amtrak and passenger train interests; I can only hope that the thrust of the Authorization, should it result in greater appropriations than would otherwise be enacted, be directed towards what 21st century intercity passenger railroading is all about - Corridors, and away from what it is not - Long Distance routes.
Many Amtrak passengers and supporters prefer that there be an intelligent and balanced blend of Corridors and Long Distance. The two services actually seem to complement one other, and the abolition of LD services would not put Amtrak in the black, financially, but it might really injure ridership.
Doing this now, would be very counterproductive.
Posts: 110 | From: Kansas City, Missouri | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. Well maybe next year.
