PRIIA Long-Distance Routes

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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Thomas

Guest
Remember back in the 90s when the Minneapolis-St. Paul to Chicago section of the Builder would be daily and the rest would be quad-weekly? Under today's PRIIA regulations, would the Minneapolis-St. Paul to Chicago service, still under the "Builder" name, be considered as part of the long-distance Builder service, or a separate short-distance service?
 
It would be a separate short distance train. This is analogous to say the Chicago to Indianapolis service provided three days by the LD Cardinal funded by Amtrak and 4 days by the short distance Hoosier State funded by Indiana.
 
It would be a separate short distance train. This is analogous to say the Chicago to Indianapolis service provided three days by the LD Cardinal funded by Amtrak and 4 days by the short distance Hoosier State funded by Indiana.
So even though the train name is "Empire Builder," it would still be considered a separate short-distance train?
 
Actually, the trains covered by PRIIA 209 are much, much weirder list than the "generally believed" list. I've explained this elsewhere:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/54501-just-noticed-something-weird-about-priia-2008/

So the Minneapolis-Chicago train would be covered by the state-payment requirement because it is a <750 mile route *on a high-speed rail corridor designated by the Secretary of Transportation*. Not solely because of the distance.

I swear that this was a deliberate carveout by some Senator or Representative. It theoretically allows for Amtrak to fund Houston-Dallas without state support, for example, because that isn't a designated HSR corridor.
 
No. You're simply misinterpreting the law. Any service under 750 miles (except on the NEC) must be funded by someone other than Amtrak. Being part of a designated HSR corridor is not a requirement. So, no, Amtrak could not run a Houston-Dallas train on its own.
 
No, I'm right. I've actually read the law, and parsed it in detail. You haven't, and you're making stuff up.

I suggest you provide detailed citation and analysis of the text of the law if you really believe I'm wrong. I am, in fact, correct.

If you want to argue "the law doesn't matter any more in this country, the powerful just do whatever they feel like", you are probably right. But as a matter of law, there's really no doubt I'm right; it's quite clear.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry, but Trogdor is correct here.

This link has the relevant statues compiled in Appendix B:

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/PRIIA%20209%20Policy%20Final%20Version%20083111.pdf

PRIIA 209 Says:

SEC. 209. STATE‐SUPPORTED ROUTES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Within 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Amtrak Board of Directors, in consultation with the Secretary, the governors of each relevant State, and the Mayor of the District of Columbia, or entities representing those officials, shall develop and implement a single, nationwide standardized methodology for establishing and allocating the operating and capital costs among the States and Amtrak associated with trains operated on each of the routes described in section 24102(5)(B) and (D) and section 24702
Section 24102(5)(D) says:

49 USC § 24102. Definitions

(5) “national rail passenger transportation system” means ‐

(D) short‐distance corridors, or routes of not more than 750 miles between endpoints, operated by‐‐(i) Amtrak; or (ii) another rail carrier that receives funds under chapter 244.
That's it. 24102(5)(B) refers to designated HSR corridors, but 24102(5)(D) stands on its own and applies to all 750 mile or less route operated my Amtrak.
 
No, I'm right. I've actually read the law, and parsed it in detail. You haven't, and you're making stuff up.

I suggest you provide detailed citation and analysis of the text of the law if you really believe I'm wrong. I am, in fact, correct.

If you want to argue "the law doesn't matter any more in this country, the powerful just do whatever they feel like", you are probably right. But as a matter of law, there's really no doubt I'm right; it's quite clear.
So confident, yet so completely wrong.

I already corrected you on your misinterpretation previously here: http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/58411-thoughts-sparked-by-boardman-presentation/?p=501269

Plus, I posted the relevant part of the US Code (a portion of which Ryan quoted above) here: http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/53956-pennsylvanian-may-end/?p=425918

So, there it is in plain English. If you have some other law citation elsewhere that supersedes this, then by all means let us (and the states that are paying for the service) know. Otherwise, thanks for playing, better luck next time.
 
I also believe that the idea that some Congressman or Senator bothered to craft such an obscure exception as was suggested is sheer fantasy. There was relatively unanimous support to unburden Amtrak budget completely of short distance trains in exchange for continued funding of LD trains.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
 
No, I'm right. I've actually read the law, and parsed it in detail. You haven't, and you're making stuff up.

I suggest you provide detailed citation and analysis of the text of the law if you really believe I'm wrong. I am, in fact, correct.

If you want to argue "the law doesn't matter any more in this country, the powerful just do whatever they feel like", you are probably right. But as a matter of law, there's really no doubt I'm right; it's quite clear.
So confident, yet so completely wrong.

I already corrected you on your misinterpretation previously here: http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/58411-thoughts-sparked-by-boardman-presentation/?p=501269

Plus, I posted the relevant part of the US Code (a portion of which Ryan quoted above) here: http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/53956-pennsylvanian-may-end/?p=425918

So, there it is in plain English. If you have some other law citation elsewhere that supersedes this, then by all means let us (and the states that are paying for the service) know. Otherwise, thanks for playing, better luck next time.
Thanks for the citation -- I hadn't seen it before.
I wonder when that was amended.

I was working from the official text of PRIIA as originally passed, and section 24102(D) was NOT present in that form. Apparently, judging by the current copy of the US code, it was amended afterwards.

In short, I wasn't wrong, but apparently, as you discovered, the law was changed later. Maybe someone read my posts and amended it in a budget act or something.

I guess that wouldn't be surprising if they drafted the law badly when they first passed it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top