New Beaumont station

[MrEd]

There will be total of eight stations for the florida project. They should all be getting the funds this year.

when will the new florida service start ?

...

All eight cities on the line need to have train stations designated for the federal government to consider the stimulus request, said Kim Delaney, growth management coordinator for the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, which has taken the lead in advocating for this project.

The state has estimated that it will cost about $268 million to bring Amtrak service to Florida East Coast tracks. The state now uses CSX tracks that go through the middle of the state.

Six cities — Titusville, Daytona Beach, Fort Pierce, Vero Beach, Cocoa and Stuart — have designated locations for train stations. Melbourne will be approving a location in July, Delaney said.

...

 

[mfastx]

Wow this is a great project. Only 1.2 million? That's less then many houses. Great to see the slab replaced, now if only they would build something this good in Houston (yes ours is that bad).

Are there still plans for the Houston Amtrak station to be replaced by the Intermodal Transit Center, serving (I seem to recall) Amtrak, local buses, light rail, and proposed commuter rail?

Well yes there are plans, but givin the current situation, the Amtrak station will not be replaced until 10-15 years down the road.

 

[afigg]

There will be total of eight stations for the florida project. They should all be getting the funds this year.

when will the new florida service start ?

...

All eight cities on the line need to have train stations designated for the federal government to consider the stimulus request, said Kim Delaney, growth management coordinator for the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, which has taken the lead in advocating for this project.

This is getting somewhat off-topic from the replacement for the new Beaumont, TX station concrete slab, but Florida service down the FEC is probably several years away at the earliest. A google check of news articles shows that they are planning to apply for stimulus funds, but the local town or city governments have to agree to put up 20% of the cost, the state government has to agree to submit the applications, the city or local gov and then the feds have to award the funding. There are also EIS documents, engineering design work, and public meetings that all have to be done before contracts can be awarded to build a station. All that takes time.

What the $1.25 million stimulus project cost for the Beaumont and the other small stations getting replaced does is to establish what is the minimum cost for a new station with a 550' long concrete platform and minimum station facility with an open enclosure and no restrooms or A/C or heating. If Orange, TX or another city along the NOL to SAS route wants to build a new station, figure the costs will be higher to cover land acquisition, adding a parking lot, maybe some local road work to add an access road. Bare minimum cost for a new ADA qualified station with a long platform is probably in the $1.5 to $2 million ballpark. There are only 3 stops in TX on the NOL to SAS route. If Amtrak provides daily daytime service on that route, one would hope that a couple of the bigger towns along the route would be interested in adding a station. Which would help with ridership along that route.

In FL along the FEC, the local communities are going to insist on an enclosed station facility with A/C, restrooms, and probably at least a partially roofed platform for protection from rain, so the stations will likely cost considerably more than $1.5 to $2 million.

 

[DKpartyguy]

When I travel to TX to visit family,Beaumont is my destination. Granted, the proposed new station is a vast improvement over the concrete slab.

It is the location in Beaumont that is the problem.

Since I take the SSL from NOLA, the train, usually late, arrives at the station well after dark.I have never gotten off the train in Beaumont because of where the station is.

I go into Houston, then drive back to Beaumont the next morning.

It would be nice to have a station in downtown Beaumont, but obviously Amtrak is oblivious to this fact, and since they are putting up the new station at its' current site, that means we will probably not get a better location for decades to come.

The station in Houston is indicative of Amtrak's ambivalence to the Texas routes. Houston is the largest city in Texas, and should have better train service, and a better station in a better location.

Amtrak bemoans low-ridership, but they need to realize that they need to make riding Amtrak more attractive to potential riders.

Houston should have a central transit hub, like New York, Chicago, etc.

Just my 2 cents....

David

 

[stntylr]

It would be nice to have a station in downtown Beaumont, but obviously Amtrak is oblivious to this fact, and since they are putting up the new station at its' current site, that means we will probably not get a better location for decades to come.

The station in Houston is indicative of Amtrak's ambivalence to the Texas routes. Houston is the largest city in Texas, and should have better train service, and a better station in a better location.

As Alan said the location of the Beaumont station was not determined by Amtrak. The city of Beaumont had a better location picked out but they couldn't reach an agreement with the host railroad.

The station in Houston is not owned by Amtrak and while it's also in a bad section of town it is probably the right size given the low ridership.

Also if you look at the map you will see there are no large or even midsized cities along the route between Houston and San Antonio. The city of Schulenburg (pop 8,000) has been trying to be added as a stop. It would make sense considering the large distance between stops.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Granted, the proposed new station is a vast improvement over the concrete slab.

…Only until it gets ransacked like the last one.

Since I take the SSL from NOLA, the train, usually late, arrives at the station well after dark.I have never gotten off the train in Beaumont because of where the station is. I go into Houston, then drive back to Beaumont the next morning.

This really needs to be relayed to Amtrak directly. Are you willing to make a quick call?

It would be nice to have a station in downtown Beaumont, but obviously Amtrak is oblivious to this fact, and since they are putting up the new station at its' current site, that means we will probably not get a better location for decades to come.

This is a city and state issue as much as Amtrak. Where’s the disgust with Texas and Beaumont who refuse to put their foot down with KCS?

Houston should have a central transit hub, like New York, Chicago, etc.

I admit that would be ideal, but let’s think about this discrepancy for a moment. New York City and Chicago are in relatively blue states, Texas is deep red. States like Texas don’t care if their public transportation infrastructure actually works or even makes any sense at all. Think about it, there are some rare exceptions but in general blue states have much better public transportation than red states. At least that’s been my experience. If I didn't know better I'd say red states are almost proud of how poorly their public transportation is setup. Almost like its sole purpose is to bring in the pork and help shuffle around debt.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

When I travel to TX to visit family,Beaumont is my destination. Granted, the proposed new station is a vast improvement over the concrete slab. It is the location in Beaumont that is the problem.Since I take the SSL from NOLA, the train, usually late, arrives at the station well after dark.I have never gotten off the train in Beaumont because of where the station is.I go into Houston, then drive back to Beaumont the next morning.It would be nice to have a station in downtown Beaumont, but obviously Amtrak is oblivious to this fact, and since they are putting up the new station at its' current site, that means we will probably not get a better location for decades to come. The station in Houston is indicative of Amtrak's ambivalence to the Texas routes. Houston is the largest city in Texas, and should have better train service, and a better station in a better location.Amtrak bemoans low-ridership, but they need to realize that they need to make riding Amtrak more attractive to potential riders.Houston should have a central transit hub, like New York, Chicago, etc.Just my 2 cents....David

Amtrak can't just willy nilly put up a station where they want to put it. As someone involved with the fun that goes on around the construction and implementation of any rail project, I find the naiveté of the average forum member in regards to this something of a hoot.

For Amtrak to build a station at any point where nothing currently exists, they have to:

Find the land.

Find the money to buy the land (This may require public meetings and Congressional committee meetings)

Have a public meeting to discuss this.

Have a period where members of the public can voice objections.

Create a design for it.

Have a public meeting to discuss the impact of the design on the surrounding community

Have a period where the public can submit objections to the public record.

Perform an Environmental Impact Study.

Have a public meeting where people can discuss this.

Have a period where the public can submit objections or other comments about this.

Buy the land.

Finalize the design.

Have a public meeting.

Have a period where the public can submit comments to the record.

Submit a request for companies to consider submitting a proposal.

Submit a request for proposal (RFP)

Receive the proposals.

Put the project up for bidding.

Have a public meeting for people to discuss this.

Have a period where the public can submit comments to the record.

Award the contract.

This takes years, and shovel one hasn't even gotten in the ground.

And anywhere along the line, NIMBYs, BANANAs, and people with their own ideas can slow down, derail, or completely destroy the entire project.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Amtrak can't just willy nilly put up a station where they want to put it.

No, but they can refuse to play along with a charade and talk to other towns instead.

And anywhere along the line, NIMBYs, BANANAs, and people with their own ideas can slow down, derail, or completely destroy the entire project.

Do you have any evidence that any of those groups are preventing Beaumont from using the former station downtown? From what I've read the only party that seems incapable of negotiating in good faith is KCS. In a more progressive state that might bring them increased scrutiny of safety and security violations to help put the pressure on, but in Texas it gets them a pat on the back and a kiss on the boot.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

No, but they can refuse to play along with a charade and talk to other towns instead.

Since the town was willing but KCS (who runs through more towns then just Beaumont, one would assume) wasn't, what, precisely, would be the point of talking to another town?

Do you have any evidence that any of those groups are preventing Beaumont from using the former station downtown? From what I've read the only party that seems incapable of negotiating in good faith is KCS. In a more progressive state that might bring them increased scrutiny of safety and security violations to help put the pressure on, but in Texas it gets them a pat on the back and a kiss on the boot.

I was point out generalities, not specifics.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Since the town was willing but KCS (who runs through more towns then just Beaumont, one would assume) wasn't, what, precisely, would be the point of talking to another town?

In other words, spend the money where it might do more good, either off the KCS line or outside of Texas. Wouldn't it be better to send federal funds where they'll actually be maintained and appreciated? In Beaumont Amtrak is risking another trashed station that could become yet another vandalized disgrace that already suspicious Texans will point to as a reason to further cut back their funding. It's just not worth it in my view, the downside outweighs the upside. Unless, of course, Amtrak is able to skim something off the top. In which case I'm disappointed but at least it would make sense as to why they're moving forward with an expensive upgrade in a bad part of an ugly, impotent town.

 

[AlanB]

Unless, of course, Amtrak is able to skim something off the top. In which case I'm disappointed but at least it would make sense as to why they're moving forward with an expensive upgrade in a bad part of an ugly, impotent town.

The work is moving forward because Congress gave Amtrak the money and Amtrak has to make its stations ADA compliant. Nothing sinister or ulterior about it.

Yes, it would have been nice if all the parties could have gotten together to move the station to a better location, or if more pressure could have been brought to bear on KCS. But it is what it is and Amtrak is fullfilling their mandate to make all of its stations ADA compliant.

 

[Guest]

more info.

http://www.theexaminer.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=61&ArticleID=3992

Kyle Hayes, Beaumont city manager, said that the city is currently planning on building a substation to maintain a police presence in the area, but there are other options that the city is looking into that may make up for some shortfalls of the Amtrak station.

"We were waiting for Amtrak to tell us the size of their facility and what amenities they were going to have," said Hayes. "We got that on Monday, and we're told that Amtrak will not have restrooms in the station or as a part of the station so we're discussing other options - a possibility of a restaurant locating on the property, which would be open at least during normal business hours, where someone waiting for an Amtrak train could go and eat, or drink, or use the restroom.

"Another option would be locating some sort of city operation on the property, where we may have a presence between 8 (a.m.) and 5 (p.m.) Monday through Friday. There may be another city operation that could be out there along with the police substation because police substations only need a small amount of space. Police officers can get in out of the inclement weather, go in and work on their laptops, complete reports, so on and so forth, but it's more to have a presence in a certain area."

The facility will be built at the same Cedar Street location, which currently contains the concrete slab that has been used by Amtrak riders. According to Warner, years ago there was a train station that existed at that location.

"It originally was a manned station, and then it was unmanned," said Warner. "While it was unmanned it was vandalized, allowed to deteriorate and eventually had to be torn down."

Hayes said that once the city has a presence in the area on a regular basis, there will be less of an issue with illegal activity around the train station.

Magliari said that Amtrak will go out for bids within the coming months and plans to begin construction before fall.

 

[Bob Dylan]

This is at least getting attention in City Hall but the trains here (Sunset Ltd./twice a day/thrice weekly-Mo/Tu/Wed/Fri/Su)arrive outside an 8AM-5PM window, more like 7PM and 7 AM, so what good would having a resturant open only 8-5 or a city office of some type open Mon-Fri only? :wacko:

If and when a daily train of some type starts running SAS-NOL perhaps the time frame will change (day trains!)and a resturant would have a chance to survive here in this wasteland!I totally agree that it would be insane to build a shelter/bathroom/shootin gallery for the street people for $1.2 M!!!

and see it trashed in short order! The rednecks and no nothings in Texas dont need anymore anti-government ammunition! :help:

 

[Devil's Advocate]

The work is moving forward because Congress gave Amtrak the money and Amtrak has to make its stations ADA compliant. Nothing sinister or ulterior about it. Yes, it would have been nice if all the parties could have gotten together to move the station to a better location, or if more pressure could have been brought to bear on KCS. But it is what it is and Amtrak is fullfilling their mandate to make all of its stations AD

First of all, would you mind responding to the rest of my post please? It seems you cherry-picked one tiny part and then simply ignored the rest. Also, as you're now apparently choosing to speak in absolute terms I'd like to remind you that Amtrak could still consider how this will play out in the press and refuse the money. They could simply leave Beaumont as-is until they get their act together. If there is no money left at that point, then maybe the city council will learn to be more demanding or at least more cleaver next time.

If I understand your position correctly you are convinced that it's impossible anyone at Amtrak could be benefiting financially from these sorts of projects. I'm not sure I agree with that or even understand how you could possibly know this, but even if that were true they're still wasting our tax dollars in state (and nation) that generally looks at public transit expenses with extreme suspicion. Let me reiterate, I'm one of the few pro-rail Texans. If even I think it's a waste of money you can be sure the average Texan is just one AM talk show away from losing it over these sorts of expenditures.

If ADA compliance is the issue it can almost certainly be funded for less than 1.2 million, even if that was their sole reason for this upgrade. I don't think SAS is fully ADA compliant so if that was their concern shouldn't they start where it would do the most good? I understand that there are folks who will apologize for virtually everything Amtrak does but we have to start getting real about where this is going to land them in the long term, and at the moment I see lots of hot water in their future.

It's a poorly reasoned strategy to spend tax dollars now that could easily backfire in the future. Just imagine if Amtrak decides to end the Sunset Limited and drop everything east of SAS. Better to be careful with government expenses you can still defend later than just shoving taxpayer money into the nearest ghetto station in the hope it won't fall to the same worthless fate as the one before it.

 

[stntylr]

The work is moving forward because Congress gave Amtrak the money and Amtrak has to make its stations ADA compliant. Nothing sinister or ulterior about it. Yes, it would have been nice if all the parties could have gotten together to move the station to a better location, or if more pressure could have been brought to bear on KCS. But it is what it is and Amtrak is fullfilling their mandate to make all of its stations AD

Also, as you're now apparently choosing to speak in absolute terms I'd like to remind you that Amtrak could still consider how this will play out in the press and refuse the money. They could simply leave Beaumont as-is until they get their act together. If there is no money left at that point, then maybe the city council will learn to be more demanding or at least more cleaver next time.

I don't think they can do that. As Alan said they are required to make the station ADA compliant, it's federal law. Amtrak doesn't have a choice and they can't hold out until a better solution was found.

Also because this is being paid for by federal stimulus money there is a drop dead date for issuing the contracts and starting construction. That's the reason they stopped negotiating with KSC and went ahead with the plans for the current location.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I don't think they can do that. As Alan said they are required to make the station ADA compliant, it's federal law. Amtrak doesn't have a choice and they can't hold out until a better solution was found.

If no change is made to the station, beyond demolishing it apparently, then ADA is not a requirement. This was also according to a previous post by Alan. I'm not in agreement that it requires a fat 1.2 million to upgrade a low-volume remote station on a potentially dead line to ADA compliance. That sounds inflated to me and ripe for ridicule. If platform height is such a big deal then why does even SAS still have the old height and how are they avoiding whatever federal penalties that supposedly driving Amtrak to action? There are lots of concerns still unanswered, at least from the Texan perspective. Amtrak doesn't need any obvious lightening rods for political discontent but they're about to build a nice big one in bright red state.

 

[stntylr]

I don't think they can do that. As Alan said they are required to make the station ADA compliant, it's federal law. Amtrak doesn't have a choice and they can't hold out until a better solution was found.

If no change is made to the station, beyond demolishing it apparently, then ADA is not a requirement. This was also according to a previous post by Alan. I'm not in agreement that it requires a fat 1.2 million to upgrade a low-volume remote station on a potentially dead line to ADA compliance. That sounds inflated to me and ripe for ridicule. If platform height is such a big deal then why does even SAS still have the old height and how are they avoiding whatever federal penalties that supposedly driving Amtrak to action? There are lots of concerns still unanswered, at least from the Texan perspective. Amtrak doesn't need any obvious lightening rods for political discontent but they're about to build a nice big one in bright red state.

All new stations have to be built to ADA standards. The timeline is different for existing ones.

 

[Eric S]

I'm not in agreement that it requires a fat 1.2 million to upgrade a low-volume remote station on a potentially dead line to ADA compliance.

Potentially dead line? What indications are there that Amtrak intends to discontinue service to/through Beaumont? (None that I am aware of. Perhaps alter service, but not discontinue it.)

Low-volume remote station? Low-volume, yes, but due at least in part to the horrible condition of the existing "station." But remote? Remote suggests it's in a sparsely populated, rural area, not serving a metropolitan area of approximately 375,000. Unless you mean a remote part of town? Although it may not be in downtown Beaumont and may be in a less-than-desirable part of town, the station does not appear to be on the outskirts of town.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Potentially dead line? What indications are there that Amtrak intends to discontinue service to/through Beaumont? (None that I am aware of. Perhaps alter service, but not discontinue it.)

Maybe I misunderstood but it seemed as though there was a possibility that if the Texas Eagle goes daily to LA it could mean the end of service east of SAS. I understand that Amtrak has talked about making SAS <> NOL daily as a stub or something, but considering how poorly the Sunset Limited's financials have been and how easily Amtrak can simply lop-off and ignore half the route after Katrina I consider the this line to be one of the most at risk of long-term discontinuation.

Unless you mean a remote part of town? Although it may not be in downtown Beaumont and may be in a less-than-desirable part of town, the station does not appear to be on the outskirts of town.

Yeah, I meant remote part of town. Looking at google maps and bing it looked pretty isolated. Maybe that would have been a better term.

 

[Eric S]

Potentially dead line? What indications are there that Amtrak intends to discontinue service to/through Beaumont? (None that I am aware of. Perhaps alter service, but not discontinue it.)

Maybe I misunderstood but it seemed as though there was a possibility that if the Texas Eagle goes daily it could mean the end of service east of SAS.

There has been a great deal of debate/discussion here about what MIGHT happen if the Texas Eagle becomes a daily CHI-LAX train. IF that happens, the consensus seems to be that Amtrak would run a daily "stub train" (as many have referred to it) NOL-SAS to connect to/from the Texas Eagle.

 

[afigg]

I'm not in agreement that it requires a fat 1.2 million to upgrade a low-volume remote station on a potentially dead line to ADA compliance. That sounds inflated to me and ripe for ridicule. If platform height is such a big deal then why does even SAS still have the old height and how are they avoiding whatever federal penalties that supposedly driving Amtrak to action? There are lots of concerns still unanswered, at least from the Texan perspective. Amtrak doesn't need any obvious lightening rods for political discontent but they're about to build a nice big one in bright red state.

$1.2 million is not a lot of money for a public infrastructure project and is a very small piece of the $1.3 billion Amtrak got in the stimulus program. Maybe the location of the station is not ideal, but Amtrak has to take advantage of the funding to fix some of the worse problems in their system while they can. Would you rather they leave Beaumont with a crumbling concrete platform for an excuse of a train station?

For a little more background on this project, there is an article on the new Beaumont station in a rail industry publication at http://www.rtands.com/newsflash/beaumont-texas-getting-new-amtrak-station.html. Flat out statement from the Amtrak media relation manager that Amtrak is working towards daily service on that route as soon as possible. In terms of local political support, the city of Beaumont brought the property for the station from UP for $300,000 and is looking at placing a police substation at the site to provide some police presence which might make people feel safer in terms of being dropped off and waiting for a train. Why not see this a positive development, albeit a small one, for improved train service in Texas?

 

[AlanB]

I don't think they can do that. As Alan said they are required to make the station ADA compliant, it's federal law. Amtrak doesn't have a choice and they can't hold out until a better solution was found.

If no change is made to the station, beyond demolishing it apparently, then ADA is not a requirement. This was also according to a previous post by Alan. I'm not in agreement that it requires a fat 1.2 million to upgrade a low-volume remote station on a potentially dead line to ADA compliance. That sounds inflated to me and ripe for ridicule. If platform height is such a big deal then why does even SAS still have the old height and how are they avoiding whatever federal penalties that supposedly driving Amtrak to action? There are lots of concerns still unanswered, at least from the Texan perspective. Amtrak doesn't need any obvious lightening rods for political discontent but they're about to build a nice big one in bright red state.

I don't pretend to understand all the nuances of this, and frankly don't really want to either, but my understanding goes something like this: First, Amtrak doesn't own the majority of the stations out there. Cities, towns, and freight RR's own the bulk of the stations.

Putting a new roof on a building is not considered a major change, and therefore continues to leave the station in some sort of exempt status from fines for not being ADA compliant. Enlarging the building, adding new amenities, putting up a rain canopy, all these types of things are considered an improvement and immediately force the owner to make everything at that stop ADA compliant. That means platforms at the right hieght, a lift, ADA restrooms if regular restrooms exist, parking for ADA, and so on. Therefore, putting up a new building invokes the ADA requirements.

Additionally it should be noted that ownership of the station area is passing from UP to the city.

Amtrak is spending similar amounts on several other stations, including IIRC at least one more in Texas. A big chunk of the costs is the new platform. Concrete isn't exactly cheap. And then you have to add the complexity of the fact that you can't just replace the entire platform in one shot; this is still a functioning train stop. So you have to do it in sections which adds to the costs. Additionally, since it is right next to an active freight line, you have to have a UP foreman on duty at all times when work is going on, so as to get the workers out of harms way as a train approaches. That alone can cost some pretty big bucks.

But the bottom line here is that Amtrak is spending similar amounts on several other stations, so the costs are not out of line for the work being done, even though I've no doubt that some critics will still deem them excessive.

 

[Guest]

Recent article:

No bathrooms at new $1.1 million Amtrak station

After years of using a concrete slab as the Amtrak train station, the city of Beaumont will see a new station constructed in coming months.

Jennifer Trahan

Staff Writer

After years of using a concrete slab as the Amtrak train station, the city of Beaumont will see a new station constructed in coming months.

This article was already linked to back in post #38 on page #2.

 

Additionally, in the future, please do not quote the entire article as that is against copyright rules. Only quote a small part of the story, and then please link to the actual story for those who wish to view the entire article.

 

Many thanks.

 

[alanh]

Bathrooms, particularly at an unstaffed station, are a big ongoing expense. Someone has to clean them daily, and frequent vandalism has to be repaired. And security is a problem; you don't want homeless people taking up residence in them.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Maybe I misunderstood but it seemed as though there was a possibility that if the Texas Eagle goes daily to LA it could mean the end of service east of SAS. I understand that Amtrak has talked about making SAS <> NOL daily as a stub or something, but considering how poorly the Sunset Limited's financials have been and how easily Amtrak can simply lop-off and ignore half the route after Katrina I consider the this line to be one of the most at risk of long-term discontinuation.

ng it looked pretty isolated. Maybe that would have been a better term.

That is a perspective of a few people on this board, most notably AlanB, hold. I personally disagree with it, and I suspect most of the rest of the people on here who spend a lot of their time working with rail in the political arena also disagree with this faction. The political fallout of Amtrak doing that again would be so large it would probably land Boardman on the unemployment list.

I think people confuse Liar George and the subsequent Republican administration with the newer, much more pro-rail group heading Amtrak under Joe Boardman- who seems hell-bent on expansion in ALL directions.