leemell
Conductor
That was the middle of last month and has been discussed here already. The current conversation is peripheral to that.
Xpress West
- Thread starter The Davy Crockett
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
George Harris
Engineer
And if it had been in place in 1800 there would have been no steam locomotive and we would all be riding horses and mules, or for the most of us walking and spending a lot of our days watching the back end of a mule or water buffalo depending upon what part of the world we lived end, and oh yeah, with the generally poor communication technological progress otherwise would be greatly slowed and we would enjoy disease filled lives with average life expectancies of around 30, which most people fail to understand meant that quite a few people did make it to 60 plus, but during that time would bury between 1/3 and 1/2 half of their children within their first 10 years of life. There is definitely a place for an EIS, but let's have some rationality and balance with this stuff.
A
Andrew
Guest
Does the RRIF Program still exist? (I have not heard about it being allocated for any other projects recently).
Yes, the FRA RRIF loan program still exists. The first response to a Google search of "RRIF loan" is this FRA webpage: http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0128
It is a loan program at current US Treasury note rates, so the loans have to be paid back with interest and fees. So not that many have applied for the RRIF loans over the years.
A
Andrew
Guest
I read over that same link--but it says nothing about loans be authorized for 2013; thus, that's why I was wondering if the RRIF Program still exists. Can the $5.5 billion that was going to be used for the Xpress West Project instead go to Amtrak's Gateway Project?
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
RRIF has a pool of money to loan. There was nothing going to anyone until the loan is approved. Amtrak or NJT or NY or NJ State DOT could get RRIF Loans for specific parts of Gateway which have independent utility. I do not think there will be one giant single funding package for all of Gateway in one fell swoop. Such has not been the case for ESA, nor for SAS, or for the myriads of station upgrade and rebuilding projects either, which each individually are miniscule financial commitments compared to some thing like Gateway.
Actually the lead agency for all of the Gateway related projects is not Amtrak. For example currently the lead agency for Portal Replacement is NJT, mainly so that work can proceed to the extent possible without going through the rigmarole of transferring intellectual property of the design work thatw as already carried out as part of the ARC related project. There is not specific designated owner of the Portal South bridge which goes with the two additional tracks between new Hudson Tubes and Newark yet, but will probably be NJT again for reasons stated above. A lead agency will most likely get designated only after they have figured out who is responsible for providing funding for what from what source, and who is capable of bringing what resources to the table for which part. As I have said in earlier message one just has to wait to let the NEC Commission and associated processes to reach a stage where the states can come up with a way to divvy up the cost.
Actually the lead agency for all of the Gateway related projects is not Amtrak. For example currently the lead agency for Portal Replacement is NJT, mainly so that work can proceed to the extent possible without going through the rigmarole of transferring intellectual property of the design work thatw as already carried out as part of the ARC related project. There is not specific designated owner of the Portal South bridge which goes with the two additional tracks between new Hudson Tubes and Newark yet, but will probably be NJT again for reasons stated above. A lead agency will most likely get designated only after they have figured out who is responsible for providing funding for what from what source, and who is capable of bringing what resources to the table for which part. As I have said in earlier message one just has to wait to let the NEC Commission and associated processes to reach a stage where the states can come up with a way to divvy up the cost.
A
Andrew
Guest
Maybe New Starts can fund the Bergen Loop and Expanded Secaucus Station, while RRIF can fund major part of the Gateway Project, AND NYC/MTA can fund Penn South Expansion?
The problem is that RRIF has to be paid back. The others don't.
A
Andrew
Guest
But RRIF can be paid back from Amtrak's annual ticket revenue, just as they are doing with the new electric locomotives...
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Why is it fair to cover the entire cost of the tunnel from Amtrak ticket revenues when the main beneficiary of it is not Amtrak? Doesn't make an iota of sense to me. Why would MTA/NYC pay for Penn South when MTA does not get any direct benefit out of it? NY State should contribute some as should NJ, as will PANYNJ, and then there will be half a dozen categories of federally sourced funds probably running the whole gamut from New Start, TIGER, CMAQ, FTA General Grants, Recovery Projects from the next two financial meltdowns, FRA targeted appropriation, who knows? All that will depend a lot on how the political winds blow when it comes to actually find the appropriation.
I don't understand why we are agonizing over funding at present. Seems like we ought to have better things to obsess over at this time.
Nothing that we speculate about funding source here will have any impact on what actually happens.
I don't understand why we are agonizing over funding at present. Seems like we ought to have better things to obsess over at this time.
Nothing that we speculate about funding source here will have any impact on what actually happens. But to pick a number, $5 billion in debt load will take a lot of ticket revenue to pay for. As jis states, Gateway will benefit multiple users of the station: Amtrak, the NEC states, NJT, indirectly LIRR & MNRR, MTA and will get funding carefully assembled in many parts from multiple sources over many years. All of which have nothing to do with Xpress West, the topic of discussion in this thread.
On the one hand, if Amtrak also gets significant use fees from NJT (or anyone else), that could provide an offset. On the other hand, I'm not sure if this is the best commitment for future ticket revenue. If Amtrak takes a $3bn RIFF loan for the tunnels 3% interest for 30 years (all very favorable assumptions), you're looking at somewhere around $90m/yr in interest to say nothing of principal. I'd rather see that money put towards Acela IIs and other aspects of overhauling and/or expanding Amtrak's fleet.
VentureForth
Engineer
A
Andrew
Guest
Why is it fair to cover the entire cost of the tunnel from Amtrak ticket revenues when the main beneficiary of it is not Amtrak? Doesn't make an iota of sense to me. Why would MTA/NYC pay for Penn South when MTA does not get any direct benefit out of it? NY State should contribute some as should NJ, as will PANYNJ, and then there will be half a dozen categories of federally sourced funds probably running the whole gamut from New Start, TIGER, CMAQ, FTA General Grants, Recovery Projects from the next two financial meltdowns, FRA targeted appropriation, who knows? All that will depend a lot on how the political winds blow when it comes to actually find the appropriation.
I don't understand why we are agonizing over funding at present. Seems like we ought to have better things to obsess over at this time.
1. Xpress West was supposed to receive a $5.5 billion loan...
2. Perhaps the Gateway Project can receive money from several pots after all. I recently read that the Bloomberg Administration has figured out that $1.3 billion from selling air rights near Penn Station in Manhattan. So, imagine this money plus $700 million from the MTA and another $1 billion from Albany. That's $3 billion right there, with another $2.1 billion coming from New Starts (at $300 million per year over 7 years,), $500 million from TIGER for new Portal South Bridge, $1.4 billion RRIF loan, $3 billion from FTA Grants over a seven year period, $3.5 billion from Port Authority of NY and NJ, and $1.5 billion from NJ Budget/Bonds...
Does anyone know if Amtrak (or anyone else) has begun the process of figuring out potential cash flows, etc? Also, what will Amtrak need to do to convince Christie Administration to support financial resources for the Gateway Project?
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 4,888
A billion here. A billion there. Soon you'll be talking about real money.
In the Air Force 40 years ago, we used to talk about megadollars that way and would make the same comment. Sounds so much smaller than $5,000,000 (or $5,000,000,000 now).
J
justin
Guest
Why can't the feds just give the go ahead, so they can start building this thing. It will mean jobs, and that what is las vegas needs badly. If this president really wants to produce jobs, then this is the way to go.
It's not just federal "approval" for the project...there's a massive loan at stake as well, and a lot of legal strings attached to what the loan can/can't be spent on that are at issue.
Las Vegas rail service plans have seen starts, stops
An outline of both the XpressWest and X Train projects.
An outline of both the XpressWest and X Train projects.
rrdude
Engineer
If it happens in my lifetime, "Drinks are on me"
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
It is also not clear that this would be the best use of such a massive loan and there is significant doubt about whether it will ever be paid back, since the financial profile of the project is not exactly the soundest, and the risk that the proposer are willing to take in terms of assets brought to the table appear to be rather meager.
Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
I dunno. I feel like losing a lot of money.
Aloha
You are young enough, if I remember correctly, that you may have to pay off on that.
I felt that article was well written.
Mahalo
The Davy Crockett
Engineer
The article might be well written, but the comments to the article show that a lot of folks need to get a grip and face the fact that roads DO NOT pay for themselves. Plenty of the fools pay lip service to "economics" without having a clue as to what they are blabbing about. Spewing 'ostrich economics' might feel good, but it doesn't give one much perspective on reality...
The Davy Crockett
Engineer
Dude, the 'ice bucket challenge' is already SO passe`! :lol:
George Harris
Engineer
When we keep hearing this "roads don't pay for themselves" statement, we must recognize that while this is absolutely true, the reality is that no one expects them to, so it does nothing for the issue.
