General US High Speed Rail Discussion

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Also, asking more than is available tactically sets up those projects for additional grants later. Few if any projects get awarded at the original request amount, but some get an IOU for chipping away at the difference the next time new funding surfaces. This list features a lot of jockeying for future IOU's.

Yes, some of these applications are attempts to get funding down the road, but not necessarily from HSIPR funds or serve other purposes. I should have mentioned that joint state application led by Illinois for $806 million to buy 100 bi-levels & 31 locomotives is entirely for federal money with no state matching. With the competition for the Florida funds and the states not putting any of their money in, not likely to get selected. But it puts the 4 states in the position of having established an agreement and arrangement to try again to get federal funding later if the states provide some of their own money. Although, WI may drop out if the state has to provide some funding.

I would categorize the $600 million application by Missouri for HSR from Kansas City to St. Louis as more to start political and public discussion and maybe get some study money for a real HSR line. Although I would put Kansas City to St. Louis well down the list of city pairs or corridors that should get electrified 150-220 mph HSR first.

Several of the applications look to be more of an attempt to get funding to cover costs for commuter rail projects than really for intercity rail. The Texas application for of PTC for the Trinity Rail Express corridor and NY for new signal system from Croton-Harmon to Poughkeepsie fall into that category and are easy to not select.

David Benton wrote:I wouldnt think property aqquisition would provide many jobs or supplier stimulus . Unless CSx used the money on other projects . a necessary step i quess , but hardly a economy stimulus .

If you are talking about the NC application for funding to buy the 140 miles of the CSX S-Line, that would be a critical purchase because that is a key part of the Southeast HSR corridor. The plan is to restore the abandoned part of the line, straighten out curves, close all grade crossings from Richmond to Raleigh NC, upgrade the line to be able to run at 110 mph speeds, but also establish a ROW for a future true HSR line. The current plans for 110 mph level service would reduce Richmond to Raleigh trip times by several hours. The HSIPR money is not just about jobs, it is about seed money for improved intercity rail and HSR. Now whether NC gets some funding from the FRA this time around to buy the abandoned 75 miles of the S-Line to essentially rail bank it, don't know.

Official announcements:
CA California submits application for billions in rail construction projects -- California High-Speed Rail Authority
CN ConnDOT: Gov. Malloy: Connecticut submits robust application for $227 million of Florida's declined rail money
MA Patrick-Murray Administration Submits Application for Federal High-Speed Rail Funds for Merrimack River Rail Bridge Replacement
MD Governor Martin O'Malley Announces Formal Application for Federal High-Speed Rail Funding
MN Northern Lights Express - NLX - High Speed Rail Project, Duluth to Minneapolis MN
MO Missouri will pursue nearly $1 billion in reallocated federal funding for rail projects, Gov. Nixon announces
NY Governor Cuomo Seeks Federal Funds for High-Speed Rail Projects | Governor Andrew M. Cuomo
OR Communications Oregon applies for $13.1 million of rejected high-speed rail funds
PA www.planthekeystone.com - High Speed Rail
TX TxDOT Submits Applications for High-Speed Rail Funds
VT Gov. Shumlin calls for federal investment in high speed rail | The Official Website of the Governor of Vemont
WA WSDOT - 2011 - Washington state applies for Florida's high-speed-rail funding

I could not find anything for DC, GA, IL, KS, ME, MI, NV, NM, NC, RI, SC, UT, WI

...according to a late night press release from the House Appropriations Committee. The 2010 appropriation was $2.5 billion, so that leaves $1.0 billion for the year. That's what the Obama administration originally proposed for the program in 2011 (and for each of the five years from 2010 to 2014), so the compromise is hardly a total defeat -- in fact, I'm sure rail planners at the DOT consider it something of a victory.

lpetrich wrote:I could not find anything for DC, GA, IL, KS, ME, MI, NV, NM, NC, RI, SC, UT, WI

Some I can add with details on the applications - or the actual applications.
IL: http://www.connectthemidwest.com/catego ... r-funding/
Maine: http://www.amtrakdowneaster.com/expansi ... plications
NC: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/crosstown ... -461m-less

The spreadsheet in the list of NC documents lists exactly what amount the state is applying for and what the state matching would be for each project.

Most of the rest of the info I have is from press releases, either from the state DOT or Governor's website. A drawback to a press release is that they sometimes either simplify too much or don't differentiate between the total amount of the project and the amount requested from the FRA. The MD press release is an example of this for the BWI Airport area project. Is the requested amount from the FRA $299 million in addition to the $41 state matching or is the total project cost $299 million with state matching making up $41 million of it. If it is $258 million, the project is a little easier to fund. Finding the the copy of the actual HSIPR application - or at least the government provided forms because the 2439 page Illinois application for the Chi-St. Louis project is a tad long to even skim.

I tried adding up some of the projects I think should get selected in a spreadsheet just for kicks. Not easy getting it down to $2.43 billion, knowing that there will be no more than $1 billion in FY2011.

I really dont get how they get away with increasing defense spending by $120 billion , whilst cutting hsr by $ 1.5 billion . guess Obama made the mistake of been enthusuiastic about hsr , so it became the target .

Found additional info on several more applications for the Florida funds, although the figure for the MN application is based on a spreadsheet that turned up with a google search and not on a official press release or posted copy of the application. I'll update my post with the list.

DC: set of access and capacity improvements to Union Station focused on improved access from the Metro, an improved western entrance and a new north entrance to Union Station. Did not find a dollar figure, but the Metro station modification really should be funded by Washington Metro and/or FTA.

Minnesota: $145 million for Twin Cities to Duluth Northern Lights Express project.

The first big project on NC's list is about $225 million to move the Charlotte station downtown and build other necessary related improvements. This would have greater immediate impact on ridership in NC than any other capital project. The current Charlotte station is too small, and is in a bad neighborhood that is about 1.5 miles from the center of downtown.

orulz wrote:The first big project on NC's list is about $225 million to move the Charlotte station downtown and build other necessary related improvements. This would have greater immediate impact on ridership in NC than any other capital project. The current Charlotte station is too small, and is in a bad neighborhood that is about 1.5 miles from the center of downtown.

Going to be difficult for NC to get that much funding from the Florida HSR fund reallocation given the amount of competition for the funds and because NC has gotten a pretty good chunk of the available money already. Got to spread the funding around a bit. NC might get several of the smaller projects funded for $20 or $30 million to help keep the momentum going, but NC has a big backlog of funded project work to do. The new Charlotte Gateway station as an intermodal station may be able to cobble funding together from various transit funds, even TIGER grants (if Congress has not killed the program in FY11) for the station itself and some of the projects needed to provide access to it.

NC got about 7% of the initial $8 billion from the stimulus. If NC were to get a similar percentage out of the $2.4 billion, that would be $168 million. That would be enough to mostly complete the track and bridge work for Gateway Station but not build the station itself. If track improvements can be funded from the Florida money, the state and city would certainly be able to dig up $40 million for the station facility itself.

I would say that at least $1.5 billion will be split between Amtrak and California. For the remainder, I'd bet that the administration is not looking for any more standoffs with freight railroads, governors, or legislatures. Therefore, they will be looking mostly toward states that have already cut through the red tape and successfully signed federal grant agreements for major projects. As far as I know, there are only three such states: Washington, Illinois, and North Carolina.

orulz wrote:I would say that at least $1.5 billion will be split between Amtrak and California. For the remainder, I'd bet that the administration is not looking for any more standoffs with freight railroads, governors, or legislatures. Therefore, they will be looking mostly toward states that have already cut through the red tape and successfully signed federal grant agreements for major projects. As far as I know, there are only three such states: Washington, Illinois, and North Carolina.

No, there are other states that have agreements in place. Both Maine and Vermont started track work last year with the stimulus grants. Maine with Pan Am Railways for the extension to Brunswick, VT with New England Central Railroad for the part of the Vermonter route north of MA. The Maine applications are for the Pan Am Railways section and for the MBTA owned section in MA, so no standoff issues here. I think CA has gotten some of the agreements done for the Amtrak California routes.

The Michigan Chicago-Detroit corridor project which was partially funded in the FY10 grants is to purchase the 135 miles of tracks from NS from Kalamazoo to Dearborn and upgrade it to 110 mph speeds. The Kalamazoo to Dearborn tracks are in poor condition and is getting hit with slow orders dropping speeds to 60 mph. Amtrak owns 95 miles of the corridor, so with the NS purchase, there would be 230 miles which can be upgraded to 110 mph without interference from freight track owners. Michigan is a good candidate to get some of the Florida money.

The applications from MD, PA, CT, RI are for projects on the NEC, the Amtrak owned Keystone East or New Haven-Springfield MA corridors. Two of NY's application are for either the NEC in Queens at Harold Interlocking or the MTA owned Croton-Harmon to Poughkeepsie section on the Hudson River line / Empire corridor, although I suspect neither is a strong candidate for selection by the FRA. So a lot of the applications do not have any pending agreement concerns with fright rail companies

afiggatt wrote: No, there are other states that have agreements in place. Both Maine and Vermont started track work last year with the stimulus grants. Maine with Pan Am Railways for the extension to Brunswick, VT with New England Central Railroad for the part of the Vermonter route north of MA. The Maine applications are for the Pan Am Railways section and for the MBTA owned section in MA, so no standoff issues here. I think CA has gotten some of the agreements done for the Amtrak California routes.

Plus, NY has an agreement with CP and Washington has an agreement with BNSF.

I think that if there are any substantial (>$100 million) grants in the upcoming announcement that are not for CA or projects on the NEC, at least one will be for outside the northeast US.

That leaves Washington, North Carolina, Illinois as the non-NE "sure bets" to actually build something with the money. Maybe Michigan can be counted too, since the corridor is publicly owned, but their track record is not as proven as the three above when it come to spending federal money on actual track improvements. The money they have received so far has been used for corridor acquisition, station work, and planning.

Doesn't CSX own the 110 mph track in New York between Poughkeepsie, Albany, and Schenectady?

Matt Johnson wrote:Doesn't CSX own the 110 mph track in New York between Poughkeepsie, Albany, and Schenectady?

The Hudson sub has two short sections of 110 track, one between QC124.3 and QC 141.1, and the other between QC 149 and QC 156. There is also a 100 mph stretch between QC 161.3 and QC 164, and QC 165 and the Selkirk Sub. But I believe that those tracks are pretty much all passenger with some freight mixed in, most of the freight going down to Jersey goes down the River Sub. and onto Conrail.