posted
For those not familiar with the term, JPA stands for Joint Powers Authority. JPAs are governmental entities that serve a single purpose. They are created by a coalition of governments seeking to provide a service for the mutual benefit of their respective constituents. Transportation authorities are often JPAs, as are many park and school districts.
JPA boards are composed of representatives from each government jurisdiction that they serve, but otherwise operate independently of any other government authority. For that reason they tend to be isolated from day to day changes in the political winds and can plan for the long term more effectively. JPAs have taxing authority much the same as the governments that compose the JPA.
For example, the Transportation Agency for Monterey County is a JPA governed by the five county supevisors, and one representative from the each city council within the county. Since becoming a JPA the agency has become much more effective, more responsive to citizen input, and far less political.
The Capitol Corridor is operated by a JPA, and has proven to be extremely effective in managing its resources and growing the business of train service. The CCJPA has also established a good working relationship with Union Pacific.
JPAs tend to be regional, and thus limited in their scope, so I'm not sure if this is workable, but I'm wondering if the JPA model might be applied to Amtrak in some way.
An Amtrak JPA might be composed of one elected official from each state, such as a legislator on a state transportation committee. This board would make all decisions regarding Amtrak's mission, services, budgets, etc, based on sound transportation planning principles, and public input. Smaller groups of board members would be responsible for subcommittees to cover different aspects of Amtrak's management and operations, taking recommendations to the full board for final approval. Subcommittes might cover equipment, food service, routes & schedules, labor relations, etc. Since the board members would represent the entire nation, no one region would gain preference over any other (think NEC) for funding or planning, except by majority consent of the board.
The one board member from each state would be selected by the individual state legislatures, or perhaps appointed by the governor of that state. D.C. politicians would not be involved in selecting board members in any way.
Like other JPAs the Amtrak JPA would have authority to collect taxes, the method of which would be subject to approval by Congress. Taxes would then be collected through normal IRS channels and automatically distributed to the Amtrak JPA. Congress would have no say in how these funds are used. That authority would lie with the Amtrak JPA exclusively. Checks and balances would be provided by the states that appoint the board members, changing the membership as they see fit.
This idea is rather rough in my mind. Feel free to refine it or shoot it out of the water.
Mr. Toy, you reside in a nation state which if it were soverign would displace a sitting member of the G-8.
Obviously, President Bush would like to see such an agency formed to operate the Corridor and would be funded at local level, but the simple fact is that such traverses nine states and the likelihood of them "coming together" to fund the albeit essential Corridor is remote.
After all, why step forward? Do nothing and the Feddybucks will roll in just as they have for the past thirty five years.
During the later "fifties'I was a teenager residing in the New York area. Then as now I avidly read The New York Times. Also during that era it was simply inevitable that public funding would be required for commuter service (lest we forget, EVERY railroad serving New York went bankrupt).
Towards the end of public funding, the natural - a Tri-State oversight agency was proposed that would let purchase of service contracts to the various roads and would be funded by Sales Tax receipts. In The Times, I carefully devoured each article regarding the proposal - it simply made so much sense!
Well, that proposal went nowhere and the roads providing commuter service all went bankrupt. Had those roads avoided bankruptcy, one must wonder, for better or worse, what shape Northeast railroading would have taken.
Well, today both metropolitan (that term might just supplant commuter sooner than later) and intercity rail is publicly funded. In New York, there are three operating railroads to provide the Metropolitan service - and THREE State level oversight agencies!!!!
It is a great idea "on paper' as it means that the regional intercity agency would be in a position to be more responsive to regional needs (even something as trivial as on board food selections) than some far off top down bureauracy in Washington. Further, it supports the Administration's initiative to 'get the Feds out of the passenger business" and continus the service where there is a local initiative, and presumably need, for such. But with the failure to form a NY Tri-State commuter authority, I am quite pessimistic any such initiative would go anywhere.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the NE Corridor Amtrak runs alone only from Providence RI to Mystic CT or west from Wooster to Springfield and down to New Haven. Then thru Deleware to MD other then that Amtrak runs thru the states commuter rails. Face it no one will ride a train from Boston to Washington on local railroads with up to six tranfers. Could these states fund a intercity express rather then having the Feds do it? might be an interesting study. Of course one only has to see the Thruways that parrellel the train tracks also note the construction workers on said highways that are working to expand said roads. So yes the government is competing with itself. Spare me the LD vs NEC ridership statistics the reason why many people chose not to ride Amtrak is because of price and convinience of schedule choices they have in this area. Try get other regions to expand or build a commuter railroad, I'm sure DC will help fund it. I'm sorry bout reading this message board I only see riders using Amtrak for liesure trips.
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tanner, maybe we need to check on your definition of "leisure trips." If that means any trip other than an expensable business trip, you are probably about 90% right. If you mean only a pure sightseeing trip as opposed to a visit friends, relatives, family and professional or hobby interest trips, I would say you are less than 50% right. Sure a lot of these people are doing some sightseeing on the way, but this is in the order of the driving trip where you have a real need to get from "A" to "B", but while you are at it you drop by points of interest "C", "D", and "E".
Most of the Northeastern commuter service also has a fairly heavy ffederal imput as well. While there is commuter service by NJT, SEPTA, and MARC between New York and Washington, all of this is on Amtrak owned tracks. North / east of New York, you do have Conn DOT owndership for part, but only west of New Haven, and I don't know what MBTA owns, if anything. The huge money in recent yeasr has gone into the electrification and upgrading between New Haven and Boston, which is the lightest trafficed part of the whole NEC, both before and now.
"Spare you the LD vs NEC ridership statistics?" Sorry, no can do. That is a real part of the issue. What kind of ridership would the NEC have if it like a lot of other routes had one train a day that went through New York City at 3:00 am and ran at an average speed of about 45 mph?
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tanner, I don't understand how your post relates to my original question.
Mr. Norman, I think you misunderstand the concept. With an Amtrak JPA, state governments would not be directly involved with each other. The JPA would operate independently of the states. The states' only obligation would be to provide one board member from among their elected officials. After that, the states and DC politicians alike would butt out and let the board do its job. The board, not the states, would be responsible for finding funding.
Alternatively, or in addition, the freight railroads might provide board members.
Like I said, the idea is rough, and very certainly needs refinement. The source of funds is still an elusive matter in my mind, though a 2-4 cent gas tax dedicated to the Amtrak JPA would be my choice.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Toy, I think what Mr. Norman is trying to say is that some states -maybe most states - have no provision that permits the formation of a Joint Powers Authority. Therefore, if they are to become involved in one, there has to be some change in state law, and possibly for some states a constitutional change. Plus, you would be looking at one that would involve 46 up to 48 states unless you are going to have individual egional "Amtraks", in which case you might have some states involved in more than one. When you get that far, then you have something that becomes an appropriate function of the Joint Powers Authority we already have, which is commonly referred to as the Federal Government, as originally that was all it was really intended to be, an agency to do the things that the individual states could not each do practically on their own. And this gets back to the final solution on that, which can be summed up by the comment I saw once, which was that the War Between the States was actually fought over a verb tense: Whether the United States are or the United States is.
An example I am familiar with: Most bridges that cross state lines usually involve a specific individual contract between the two states involved for that particular individual bridge. It works almost like a joint track agreement. While both states put in money for the construction and upkeep, one of the two by contract is responsible for the actual work. Sometimes the break point may even be in the bridge itself, with the short approach spans seperated from the long spans involving the river.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The greatest careful intellectuals are here on this forum, not in the universities!! We Amtrak fans should be proud!
Posts: 287 | From: Palatka, FL, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Mr. Toy, you reside in a nation state which if it were soverign would displace a sitting member of the G-8.
From other postings you have made to this Forum, Mr. Toy, I know you hold the incumbent JPA chariman, Mr. Skorpowski, in high respect. Possibly if I had closer contact with the man's administrative (that also reads political) skills, I too would join you, but be that as it may.
But I still refer back the my earlier posting quoted in pertinent part here, and again remind all concerned that the JPA you note has jurisdiction, because that's all it needs to fufil its "mission", within ONE State.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I understand the interstate vs intrastate may be a sticking poimt. But I'm wondering if some of the concepts might translate to a national model, in whole or in part.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
