JOIN NOW


THE VIDEO MAGAZINE OF RAILROADING


HAND-PICKED


VIDEOS POSTED DAILY


gress who focuses on the railroad industry understands why Amtrak’s long distance overnight trains don’t officially show a profit. Nearly every member, that is, except one. Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) is apparently so concerned (some might say obsessed) with visions of running those trains privately that he insert- ed some provisions into the recently-enacted Fixing America’s Surface Transportation legislation (known by the acronym FAST) to get privatization written into law. In a letter, Mica effectively urged Transportation Secre- tary Anthony Foxx to get cracking and invite competition from the private sector.


In a story on this issue that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, that respected and usu- ally reliable newspaper appeared to accept the lopsided math that assumes Amtrak lags behind the rest of America’s transportation modes by requiring taxpayer dollars while the others pay their way. As outlined above, that is not the case, but for now, no matter. The congressman’s letter warns he’s on the secretary’s case: “I intend to do everything possible to ensure [that DOT] does not drag its feet in ending Amtrak’s Soviet-style mo- nopoly on rail passenger service.” Or what? There are those inclined to ques- tion how effective the letter will be in stirring substantive action on the part of a “lame duck” administration, receiving an implied warning from a lawmaker who is often ignored by some in his own party, even given his chairman- ship of a relatively obscure subcommittee on Oversight and Government Reform. Besides which, the term “Soviet-style” does not sound like a friendly handshake or an introduction that suggests, “Howdy partner, we’re going to make a smashing success of this venture, ar- en’t we? You and I, good buddy!”


On that, some background — as a member of Transportation and Infrastructure, Mica was the center of a private discussion with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle who challenged his idea that all passenger rail- roading’s effort should be focused on building a high-speed rail system on the Northeast Corridor. It was like talking to a brick wall. “I’m still here?” That is not to say the


WWW.THERAILCHANNEL.COM Broadband Internet Connection Required


The Rail Channel and Watch It are trademarks of TRC Media Group 1726 Route 44, Windsor VT 05089 ©TRC Media Group, All Rights Reserved


Mica plan is dead. He will make lots of noise if his legislation is treated by DOT in a “slow motion” manner. However, it would be inter- esting to see if private companies do receive such invitations from the secretary. Presum- ably, he would want to know who those com- panies are and whether they are objectively qualified for the venture. The operation that appears to be the most obvious candidate for such involvement, but without the words “private” blared out loud on its website, is the Association of Indepen- dent Rail Operators, with four members: Her- zog; Transdey; Keolis, Inc.; and First Group, PLC. They advertise such services as opera- tions, maintenance of facilities and rolling stock, responsive management, safety, signal construction and maintenance, dispatching, and fare collection.


Whether you want to show a little company pride or add to your collection of cool rail-related gear, this is the place to be for exclusive and authentic TTX-branded merchandise.


COMPANY STORE www.ttx.com 22 MARCH 2016 • RAILFAN.COM


Sounds like they know the ins and outs of passenger trains. But does that necessarily translate into saving money on a privately funded operation? Enough to satisfy Mr. Mica?


Rail Ambitions in New England


The Departments of Transportation in the six New England states envision an upgraded rail system over the next 30 years, designed


to “provide a foundation for competitiveness and promote livable communities through a network of high speed and intercity passen- ger routes connecting every major city in New England with smaller cities and rural areas, and internationally to Montreal.” Beyond that high-flying rhetoric, one could say, as per “back in the day,” these guys “are really going to town.”


Here’s a view of what is envisioned: (1) Washington-New Haven-Springfield-White River Junction, with future service to Mon- treal; (2) Boston-Springfield, Vermont-Mon- treal; (3) Boston-Springfield-New Haven along the Inland Route; (4) New Haven-Hart- ford-Springfield service expansion with speeds up to 110 m.p.h. on schedules between Springfield and New Haven in as little as 73 minutes; (5) new service between Boston and Concord, N.H.


Some buses will also be provided, presum- ably for connections from the rail network (just outlined) to less rail-oriented outposts.


Complaints


This being America, we expect to hear from those who exercise their right to dis- sent. Blogger Ellen Spiegel has thrown a long and detailed spotlight on the three suggested alternatives to “upgrade” or “reinvent” the Northeast Corridor. The nearly 1,000-page document, a product of NEC Future at a cost of $30 million, result- ed from some poking around that the FRA had been doing in search of an updated study of the almost one-and-three-quarter-century- old passenger railroad line (in various config- urarions), now the nation’s busiest. Downside: Complaints allege the propos- als lack details and that the citizen hearings were inconveniently scheduled around the holidays. “None,” according to Spiegel, “is scheduled in Fairfield County (Conn.), where rail is currently more widely used.” True, but is that a surprise? Fairfield is perceived to have a better presence of rail service than in other counties, so does it need improvement? Does that leave much of the rest of the state comparatively underserved? Of course, you can turn that around as well, and say, as Spiegel implies, that the better ar- gument is, if anything, more service is needed outside Fairfield because of past neglect. At the same time. . . Debates like this are necessary, provided they don’t (but often do) stretch into 35 years or half a century. At some point there is a need for a decision. Nor, according to critics, is there reason to bull it through. It has been noted the plan is not a traditional “environmental” study where data on ridership, just for one example, would be included. Over the years, some of those prog- nostications have taken on the ultimate cred- ibility of the crystal ball. Mathematicians love them, some others not so much.


Just So We Understand: This column is unapologetically pro-rail — freight, pas- senger,


light rail, street cars, commuter, mainline, shortline, high-speed, low-speed, whatever. There will be very loud dissenters, especially whenever a huge multi-year pro- posal is offered.


Here’s what to expect?: The Washington D.C. area Metro subway: first proposed 1909; groundbreaking 1969; opening 1976; com- pleted 2001. The point? I’ve seen this movie before.


WES VERNON IS A WASHINGTON WRITER and veteran broadcast journalist. You can reach him with questions or comments at capitollines@railfan.com.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72