2021 Infrastructure Bill

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The bill needs to be audited for pork.
Just as soon as any two people can agree what IS pork. ;)

Some rural people think money for urban transit is pork. Some people outside the Northeast Corridor think money for the NEC is pork, while some people on the NEC or other corridor-heavy areas think money for long-distance trains is pork. Meanwhile, anti-rail people who don't blink at billions for highways and airports think any money for rail is pork.
 
Examples please!!!
Dear Jim and Friends on AU,

I do believe that there will be positive momentum for our Passenger Rail Network Amtrak after some very urgent matters are behind us. We need to get past the pandemic... which our government is now focusing on. We need to rebuild the economy after the financial devastation and incapacitation caused by the pandemic; and questionable actions of the previous administration... and then get on to rebuilding America. For sure Texas has shown us the immense priority needs for environmentally friendly and renewable energy.

Our rail system will be the centerpiece of a rebuilding of our national transportation system to a more environmentally friendly network; and a way to move people long distances with minimal impact on the environment.

This country has been negligent while prior leaders have been hell bent on narcissism and personal greed. There are enough good people in this nation... and the present government that wants to point our direction towards financial responsibility and environmental respect... to move us in a path forward that will benefit all of us.

The examples are in our minds and hearts. Those of us on this forum are focused in a passionate way... upon our passenger rail system. Beyond the enjoyment of travel that respects the historic and natural beauty of America... we represent a wholesome perspective on the enjoyment of our country and its natural assets... in a responsible way.

Let's get the government... the 2021 infrastructure bill... and the folks who represent us... to act in a responsible way so we can enjoy our precious moments on earth in this fine country with guilt free living.

Thank you Jim... with the inspiration you give us all for saying what needs to be said. Let us passionate RR fans be a testament to what responsible living is all about! 🌈
 
like i n the covid relief bill when someone added gender studies for Pakistan.
Your example is a poor one and mostly incorrect.

The Bill you refer to was a combined COVID Relief and 2021 Appropriation Bill. The Pakistan thing was in the State Department section of the 2021 Appropriation part dealing with Foreign Aid, and not in the COVID part. So sorry - fail! Come up with another example.

I am not suggesting that there are never inappropriate things stuck into bills. All I am saying is that this was not an example of one.
 
like i n the covid relief bill when someone added gender studies for Pakistan.
Rounding error, EVERY Spending Bill in our History has Pork in it, for example Mitch McConnell has sent Billions to Kentucky, as has every other Member of Congress and the Senate since George Washington first took the Oath of Office!

Every Single Federal Dollar spent is someone's Necessity and others Pork.

I agree " Studies" and " Special Interest" Riders are full of Pork, that's why Washington has many more Lobbyists than members of Congress!

Amtrak is "Pork" to lots of folks, especially so called " Conservatives".
 
I once spent a week on the Hill as part of an executive development program for Federal scientists. On our first day we had a talk from a person who gave orientations to newly elected Members. She pointed out to us that one of their main interests was to get re-elected, and to do that, they had to pay very close attention to the needs of their districts and states. Obviously, sending $$$$ back home is a very effective way of doing that. I made the mistake of asking about how the balance their need to serve their local constituents with the need to consider the National interest. She laughed in my face. :) (Well, she was more polite than that, but the message I got was that the Members really do care more about their districts and states than they care about the Nation.)
 
I once spent a week on the Hill as part of an executive development program for Federal scientists. On our first day we had a talk from a person who gave orientations to newly elected Members. She pointed out to us that one of their main interests was to get re-elected, and to do that, they had to pay very close attention to the needs of their districts and states. Obviously, sending $$$$ back home is a very effective way of doing that. I made the mistake of asking about how the balance their need to serve their local constituents with the need to consider the National interest. She laughed in my face. :) (Well, she was more polite than that, but the message I got was that the Members really do care more about their districts and states than the care about the Nation.)
And that's the Rest of the True Story!
 
I once spent a week on the Hill as part of an executive development program for Federal scientists. On our first day we had a talk from a person who gave orientations to newly elected Members. She pointed out to us that one of their main interests was to get re-elected, and to do that, they had to pay very close attention to the needs of their districts and states. Obviously, sending $$$$ back home is a very effective way of doing that. I made the mistake of asking about how the balance their need to serve their local constituents with the need to consider the National interest. She laughed in my face. :) (Well, she was more polite than that, but the message I got was that the Members really do care more about their districts and states than they care about the Nation.)
The correct answer to that question is, "What do your local constituents think is in the National interest?". Think about it for a minute and you'll see it...

Local districts will vote to support a Congressmember in doing something which materially hurts their district if *those voters* consider it in the national interest, but only if *those voters* think so. Some districts have more altruistic voters than others, and often they're altruistic only in very specific and targeted ways -- "Sure, we'd lose polluting jobs in this district, but my children who have already moved elsewhere will need a liveable climate". Or "Sure, we'd lose military contractor jobs in this district, but since my good friend who lives elsewhere got maimed in a stupid pointless war, I hate war and want to abolish the military, so I'm willing to take that." Other districts have voters who think the national interest is served by hurting people they don't like -- "I'm willing to cause a recession in my district in order to hurt Hollywood!!!" (Sigh.) So even when it's about the national interest, it's still about your local voters.
 
Saw this newspaper summary of items in the compromise infrastructure bill that was advanced by the senate this week to formal debate. Still a long way to being approved but a good start. In addition to funding for airports, bridges, broadband it includes:
**********
Also included is:

$70 billion for power infrastructure

$66 billion for Amtrak

$55 billion investing in clean drinking water

$50 billion for water infrastructure

$21 billion towards environmental remediation

$11 billion for transportation safety projects

$1 billion towards reconnecting communities divided by interstates
 
Saw this newspaper summary of items in the compromise infrastructure bill that was advanced by the senate this week to formal debate. Still a long way to being approved but a good start. In addition to funding for airports, bridges, broadband it includes:
**********
Also included is:

$70 billion for power infrastructure

$66 billion for Amtrak

$55 billion investing in clean drinking water

$50 billion for water infrastructure

$21 billion towards environmental remediation

$11 billion for transportation safety projects

$1 billion towards reconnecting communities divided by interstates
As was said, it's a Good start!
 
What would the 66 billion go to in Amtrak?
Here is the breakdown as spelled out on WH.gov:
Within these totals, $22 billion would be provided as grants to Amtrak, $24 billion as federal-state partnership grants for Northeast Corridor modernization, $12 billion for partnership grants for intercity rail service, including high-speed rail, $5 billion for rail improvement and safety grants, and $3 billion for grade crossing safety improvements.
 
One very interesting new section dealing with expansion of Long Distance Service is section 22214. It forces Amtrak to produce a Long Distance Service Expansion study, and sends the clear message that the ConnectUS proposal is not the be all and end all of what Amtrak can get away with for the next 15 years. There is even specific funding provided for the study, and specific reporting requirements, so it will be difficult for Amtrak to duck this one. Though in the past even after producing studies Amtrak has basically thrown them into the trashcan and fired the group that produced the study - recall the PRIIA Section 210 PIPs, from which all that Amtrak retained was the destruction of the F&B service, and basically ignored anything that had a whiff of service enhancement or expansion.

Here are some extracts from the section:

SEC. 22214. AMTRAK DAILY LONG-DISTANCE SERVICE STUDY.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to evaluate the restoration of daily intercity rail passenger service along—
(1) any Amtrak long-distance routes that, as of the date of enactment of this Act, were discontinued; and
(2) any Amtrak long-distance routes that, as of the date of enactment of this Act, occur on a non-daily basis.

(b) INCLUSIONS.—The study under subsection (a) shall—
(1) evaluate all options for restoring or enhancing to daily-basis intercity rail passenger service along each Amtrak route described in that subsection;
(2) select a preferred option for restoring or enhancing the service described in paragraph (1);
(3) develop a prioritized inventory of capital projects and other actions that are required to restore or enhance the service described in paragraph (1), including cost estimates for those projects and actions;
(4) develop recommendations for methods by which Amtrak could work with local communities and organizations to develop activities and programs to continuously improve public use of intercity passenger rail service along each route; and
(5) identify Federal and non-Federal funding sources required to restore or enhance the service described in paragraph (1), including—
(A) increased Federal funding for Amtrak based on applicable reductions or discontinuations in service; and
(B) options for entering into public-private partnerships to restore that service.

(c ) OTHER FACTORS WHEN CONSIDERING EXPANSIONS.—In evaluating intercity passenger rail routes under this section, the Secretary may evaluate potential new Amtrak long-distance routes, including with specific attention provided to routes in service as of April 1971 but not continued by Amtrak, taking into consideration whether those new routes would—
(1) link and serve large and small communities as part of a regional rail network;
(2) advance the economic and social well-being of rural areas of the United States;
(3) provide enhanced connectivity for the na8tional long-distance passenger rail system; and
(4) reflect public engagement and local and regional support for restored passenger rail service.

(d) CONSULTATION.—In conducting the study under this section, the Secretary shall consult, through working groups or other forums as the Secretary determines to be appropriate, with—
(1) Amtrak;
(2) each State along a relevant route;
(3) regional transportation planning organizations and metropolitan planning organizations, municipalities, and communities along those relevant routes, to be selected by the Secretary;
(4) host railroad carriers the tracks of which may be used for a service described in subsection (a);
(5) organizations representing onboard Amtrak employees;
(6) nonprofit organizations representing Amtrak passengers;
(7) relevant regional passenger rail authorities and federally recognized Indian Tribes; and
(8) such other entities as the Secretary may select.

(e) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report that includes—
(1) the preferred options selected under subsection (b)(2), including the reasons for selecting each option;
(2) the information described in subsection (b)(3);
(3) the funding sources identified pursuant to subsection (b)(5);
(4) the estimated costs and public benefits of restoring or enhancing intercity rail passenger transportation in the region impacted for each relevant Amtrak route; and
(5) any other information the Secretary determines to be appropriate.

(f) FUNDING.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to conduct the study under this section and to carry out the consultations required by subsection (d)—
(1) $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2022; and
(2) $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2023.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. Has there ever been a real push before from Congress to look into restoring routes that existed in April of 1971--pre-Amtrak?
 
Interesting. Has there ever been a real push before from Congress to look into restoring routes that existed in April of 1971--pre-Amtrak?
In the mid-1970's there was a requirement to start up one new route a year to be run as a two-year experiment. That was how the Pioneer was started up in 1977. That conflicted with the subsequent OMB-driven cutback schemes and I am not sure what became of that process.

There have been many attempts at restoring pre-1971 routes. As a general rule of thumb, odd regulatory rulings excluded, any route that survived till 1968 with two trains a day or with one train a day on an openly hostile railway (Southern Pacific) is worth considering. And, as even Amtrak admits, there are places with much more population than in 1971.
 
We should still push Amtrak on the PIPs. Amtrak's disregard for Congressional desires there is still offensive and the PIPs still had good advice in them.
 
Back
Top