# Strings attached to HSR stimulus funds?



## DaveKCMO (May 9, 2010)

i've seen several unsubstantiated comments that the feds are requiring states who take HSR federal stimulus funds to run the service for some amount of time. i read the HSR portion of the stimulus act and don't recall seeing anything that stipulated this. can anyone provide a written confirmation (link to FRA or DOT website, etc.) that proves this or any other attached strings? was it perhaps in the "guidance" that the FRA issued after the stimulus act was passed?

thanks in advance!


----------



## AlanB (May 9, 2010)

I'm not sure where or if it's actually stated in the HSR stuff, but that is a requirement for all Federal funding for rail projects. That's why Florida finally passed the rental car tax to ensure Tri-Rail's survival, as they would have had to pay a major bill if Tri-Rail had cut service like they would have needed to do without additional funding.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 10, 2010)

DaveKCMO said:


> i've seen several unsubstantiated comments that the feds are requiring states who take HSR federal stimulus funds to run the service for some amount of time. i read the HSR portion of the stimulus act and don't recall seeing anything that stipulated this. can anyone provide a written confirmation (link to FRA or DOT website, etc.) that proves this or any other attached strings? was it perhaps in the "guidance" that the FRA issued after the stimulus act was passed?
> thanks in advance!


What's the point of building a HSR setup if you aren't going to run it?


----------



## DaveKCMO (May 10, 2010)

i am looking for published confirmation of such requirements, not opinions about whether they should exist or not.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 10, 2010)

I don't know the publish remarks, but I do know with complete certainty such a requirement exists when you apply for federal funding assistance for major rail projects.


----------



## George Harris (May 10, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I don't know the publish remarks, but I do know with complete certainty such a requirement exists when you apply for federal funding assistance for major rail projects.


GML: Your level of certainty is a wonder to behold, but in the real world of wowrking with Uncle Sugar's money, you better be able to "Chapter and Verse" everthing about it, becaue if you cannot there will be much trouble. What you don't know or did not anticipate can really hurt you. It is not just a yes or no, but for how long, to what level of service, and many other items.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 10, 2010)

I know that, I just don't happen to be in a generous enough mood to go digging through laws and regulations on the O.P.'s behalf. Everybody should at some point try to find a law and its actual meaning through the morass of documents out there. It builds character.


----------



## DaveKCMO (May 10, 2010)

this requirement would have to be new, correct? federal funding for intercity passenger rail did not exist before, what, 2007? all other projects funded by federal money were earmarks or grants from programs or titles not specific to intercity passenger rail (CMAQ, etc.).


----------



## DaveKCMO (May 21, 2010)

per Ray Lang from Amtrak, the requirement is specific to ARRA and requires states to fund services for 20 years if they accept ARRA grant money.


----------



## AlanB (May 21, 2010)

The Fed has required for several years now that any receipients of funds awarded from the Mass Transit Fund operate the service that was built using said funds for 20 years. So it's not at all surprising that ARRA included similar wording.


----------



## WhoozOn1st (May 28, 2010)

Here is the FRA document: Re: High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program -- Stakeholder Agreements

Trains is making its online HSR coverage available to everyone:

"TRAINS special coverage: High speed rail 2010

"TrainsMag.com's special section, "High Speed Rail 2010," includes the latest news about the funding, a breakdown of the requests by categories and by state, and offer continuing coverage of the announcement and projects as they unfold.

"This and all other stories about the high speed rail funding will be available to everyone from Trains News Wire, a section typically reserved for Trains magazine subscribers. We update News Wire daily with the latest stories from throughout the national and international rail industry."

The FRA document was included today in this Trains News Wire item: Railroads may reject high speed projects


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Aug 20, 2010)

The FRA has now withdrawn the HSR guidelines issued in May, and is in the process of drafting new guidance:

UPDATED: Feds withdraw fast-train guidelines

"[FRA Administrator Joe] Szabo acted in the face of vigorous opposition to the guidelines by railroads. Latest to weigh in is the Senate Appropriations Committee, which requested that FRA 'expeditiously finalize grant agreements' by giving states and railroads 'the appropriate flexibility for negotiating performance standards and expectations.' The committee told FRA that its guidelines had 'created a sense of uncertainty for the program that was unnecessary and counterproductive.'"


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Aug 20, 2010)

Massachusetts has asked for federal funding to build a third track along part of the NEC in Massachusetts (Readville to Canton Junction, I think); I don't remember exactly which program they've asked for that money from.

The justification for that track has been Fall River / New Bedford commuter rail service.

There is some question as to how cost effective Fall River / New Bedford commuter rail service will be; there are concerns about how long the travel time to downtown Boston will be; it is likely that Fall River / New Bedford will see far fewer trains than a Blue Line extension to Lynn would; and there seems to be NIMBYism along every possible route that has been considered.

I believe that even if Fall River / New Bedford commuter rail service never happens, a third track from Readville to Canton Junction has the potential to enable express commuter trains that make 8-10 stops in Rhode Island, and very few stops in Massachusetts, which would help to get more of Rhode Island within a 90 minute train commute of Boston's South Station.

My question is: if a third track from Readville to Canton Junction gets built with a Fall River / New Bedford justification, and ends up being used for express Rhode Island commuter rail instead of Fall River / New Bedford service, is the federal government going to come looking to get their money back?


----------

