# Florida HSR Funds Sought



## leemell

Here is the story in today's LA Times. The knives are out.


----------



## George Harris

leemell said:


> Here is the story in today's LA Times. The knives are out.


More aptly, the vultures are cirling the carcass.


----------



## afigg

The press release from US DOT on the new round of submitting applications for the $2.4 billion can be found at http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2011/dot2911.html

The Notice of Funding Availability and other documents can be found at http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/passenger/477.shtml

There is a total of $2.43 billion available, split from 2 pots: $1.63 billion of stimulus money which does not require state matching and $800 million of FY2010 money which requires at least 20% state matching. The applications are not to directed toward either account, the FRA will make the decision how the two funds are to be allocated. So states do not have to provide matching funds, but state matching will be a factor in the evaluation of the applications.

So states now have to hurry up, update and in some cases, probably restructure their applications, and get them in by April 4. By opening the process to a new round of applications, the NEC may benefit from being able to submit projects that were not eligible when the stimulus applications were submitted in 2009. Will be interesting to see who submits applications, for which projects and for how much.


----------



## Anderson

I hope Virginia sticks in an application, either for the planned improvements to train service to Hampton Roads (I've looked through the EIS on it...though they picked what might well be the worst option of the considered alternatives [not to mention an alternative that would probably have been better, if more expensive on the capital investment side, being discarded outright], it's a decent use of the money.

Of course, I _really_ hope they upgrade to CTC on the WAS-NYP corridor with this slug.


----------



## Eric S

Anderson said:


> Of course, I _really_ hope they upgrade to CTC on the WAS-NYP corridor with this slug.


CTC? I assume you don't mean Centralized Traffic Control (signaling)?


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> Of course, I _really_ hope they upgrade to CTC on the WAS-NYP corridor with this slug.


Huh? :unsure:

NEC has had CTC (Centralized Traffic Control) known as CETC, for at least 20 years now except in a few short segments, the only remaining one being Doc, around Newark, which is being transferred to CETC as we speak, schedule to be completed by this summer. And getting ACSES on the southerns half is more or less fully funded through Amtrak and earlier grants already I believe.

OTOH, if you mean Constant Tension Catenary, I suspect there will be no application for that in this round.

I suspect there may be an application for funding the Portal replacement based on the original NJ State application in a previous round.

*Moderator's Note:* The URLs provided by _afigg _above don't work please replace the two URL's by the following respectively:

http://www.fra.dot.gov/roa/press_releases/fp_DOT%2029-11.shtml

http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/passenger/477.shtml

And when done, please remove this part of this post.

Thanks.


----------



## Gratt

Sigh, I wish Texas would apply for this to be the first leg of our own HSR system SAS-AUS being the first leg with dedicated, electrified track.

Sadly I doubt we could get the money even if we wanted it, which is not the case. 

In that case split it between CA and the NEC

Americans need to see what European/Japanese style HSR can look like in the country... Then maybe the rest will finally demand the same.


----------



## jis

I know for a fact that NY State is applying for several projects on the Empire Corridor and I know that NJ is applying for Portal Bridge replacement in collaboration with Amtrak, positioned as an enabler (and a part of) for the Gateway Proposal. Fortunately there is a design ready and EIS already done for the Portal bridge replacement by NJT, and they can just polish up their previous application for the same and submit it again. Of course, just for fun LaHood could give a grant from the 80/20 part of the pot and watch Christie sweat it for the 20 to get the 80. As I said just for laughs.


----------



## Anderson

jls,

I meant Constant Tension Catenary. And...that's a shame, given that it really _is_ low-hanging fruit in terms of trip time improvement.


----------



## PRR 60

Anderson said:


> jls,
> 
> I meant Constant Tension Catenary. And...that's a shame, given that it really _is_ low-hanging fruit in terms of trip time improvement.


Low hanging fruit if you consider a several billion dollar upgrade low hanging. Conversion of the old PRR catenary to constant tension would not be cheap or, considering it has to be done accommodating traffic, fast.


----------



## Anderson

PRR 60 said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> jls,
> 
> I meant Constant Tension Catenary. And...that's a shame, given that it really _is_ low-hanging fruit in terms of trip time improvement.
> 
> 
> 
> Low hanging fruit if you consider a several billion dollar upgrade low hanging. Conversion of the old PRR catenary to constant tension would not be cheap or, considering it has to be done accommodating traffic, fast.
Click to expand...

I thought it was only $500 million for each NYP-PHL and PHL-WAS or somewhere in that ballpark according to the master plan (or somesuch documentation)?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Sure. And it only woulda cost $6 billion to build the Deep Cavern Terminal in New York. You know, the one where it was cancelled because there were fears that the price might exceed 14.6 billion or some such like that.


----------



## Anderson

Well, I've got to ask: If the master plan numbers are too low, where are the better numbers to be found?


----------



## PRR 60

Anderson said:


> Well, I've got to ask: If the master plan numbers are too low, where are the better numbers to be found?


The real numbers can be estimated by any engineer who has ever worked with catenary and has ever worked with Amtrak. Estimates in the "Master Plan" are for political consumption. $1 billion to completely rebuild the NYP-WAS catenary might not even pay for the copper wires. There will be structure replacements (some structures are pushing 100 years old, the youngest are 75 years old, and many are not suitable for constant tension no matter what condition). Each replacement structure is about $200k and there are potentially over 5000 of them. Every insulator and every piece of catenary hardware will have to be replaced, and a lot of that stuff is custom work. And. last but not least, the work will have to be staged to maintain rail traffic for both Amtrak and the commuter tenants. Many work windows will be late night, short, and inefficient (with the added pleasure of having promised work windows cancelled at the last minute leaving expensive work crews with nothing to do for the night). My somewhat educated guess: the $2.4 billion rejected by Florida would just about do the trick for constant tension catenary, plus it would take at least five years to complete (probably more like ten years, but call me an optimist).

Here's an example of a political estimate verses the real cost: the New Haven to Boston electrification project was originally estimated and sold at a cost of $300 million. The final cost was $800 million. As Amtrak people repeatedly told me, "we don't do anything cheap." That's a fact they and I know all too well.


----------



## jis

PRR 60 said:


> Here's an example of a political estimate verses the real cost: the New Haven to Boston electrification project was originally estimated and sold at a cost of $300 million. The final cost was $800 million. As Amtrak people repeatedly told me, "we don't do anything cheap." That's a fact they and I know all too well.


Heh... the darned thing appears to be more over-engineered than the LGV electrification for 220mph! :lol:

Well they are finally completing the third track electrification through the Boston trench.

Just curious, were those two numbers stated in same year dollars or different year dollars, and in either case, which year?


----------



## afigg

Anderson said:


> I thought it was only $500 million for each NYP-PHL and PHL-WAS or somewhere in that ballpark according to the master plan (or somesuch documentation)?


The NEC Infrastructure Master plan documents lists in the New York-Washington Program of Improvements table (pg 38) "Constant Tension Catenary (High-Speed Territory)" as costing $1,000 million or 1 billion. The question is how many miles of the NYP-WAS route are considered to be in the "High Speed" territory? Doesn't say. Were they just referencing the short 130 mph section in MD-DE and the straight 135 mph sections in NJ or would this include additional high speed sections after other improvements, maybe to much of the Baltimore-Wilmington segment? But, obviously $1 billion is not for putting up constant tension catenary over the entire NYP-WAS route.

As pointed out, the biggest challenge is replacing the catenary on a busy corridor. Goes double for the 2 or 3 track sections that already considered to be bottlenecks.

BTW, the biggest ticket item in the NYP-WAS Trip-time improvements list is $2 billion for the northern Maryland bridge replacements and track capacity upgrade which includes replacing the Susquehanna, Bush, and Gunpowder river bridges. The $2 billion is likely nothing more than a placeholder number.


----------



## afigg

News reports are starting to come in on what projects and how much the states will be applying for the Florida HSR reallocations.

The California HSR Authority will ask for $1.2 billion to make the first phase of the HSR corridor extend from Merced to Fresno to Bakersfield. See http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2011/03/28/1828719/high-speed-rail-first-phase-could.html.

Massachusetts will be asking for $110 million to replace the Merrimack River bridge in Haverhill which the Downeaster and MBTA use. Interesting choice. See http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/03/27/mass_vies_for_rail_funds_spurned_by_fla_governor/.


----------



## George Harris

Green Maned Lion said:


> Sure. And it only woulda cost $6 billion to build the Deep Cavern Terminal in New York. You know, the one where it was cancelled because there were fears that the price might exceed 14.6 billion or some such like that.


This thing was the rail equivalent of the Boston "Big Dig" I would be surprised if the $14.6B would have even been enough by the time evarybody got their cut and all the changes and additions were plugged in.


----------



## jis

Al Engel mentioned the other day that Amtrak and NJDOT/NJTransit are applying for funds to replace the Portal Swing Bridge across Hackensack River on the NEC, with a high level (50' high) fixed three span Network Tied Arch bridge as per design completed by NJTransit last year.


----------



## jis

PRR 60 said:


> Here's an example of a political estimate verses the real cost: the New Haven to Boston electrification project was originally estimated and sold at a cost of $300 million. The final cost was $800 million. As Amtrak people repeatedly told me, "we don't do anything cheap." That's a fact they and I know all too well.


There are some interesting issues with these numbers. The NHV - BOS electrification numbers actually include some considerable amounts that have precious little to do with electrification, but are ornaments that are typically hung on the Christmas tree. From all reports I have seen, the actual electrification cost was something like $3 million (2010 USD) (around $2.4 million 2000) per route mile of double track + additional deltas for triple and 4th track, with Boston South Station eating up a huge chunk. They actually managed to not even complete the entire project while they were at it. A good ballpark figure for US is about $3 million per route mile for double track, and that is green field electrification.

Now for NEC South, apparently they are not planning to do wholesale conversion to Constant Tension. They will do only the high speed tracks, which I think means any track with MAS of greater than 110mph. In addition they will do some cheaper modification for tracks with more than 80mph speed limits having to do with using some special cables with lower coefficient of expansion or some such. That is all I have been able to dig out so far. They already have a design in hand for the Constant Tension conversion, which I am told can be done with minimal disruption a track at a time in short segments. And yes, they are also not contemplating conversion to 60Hz any time soon.

Next time I get to see Amtrak NEC HSR guys is on April 8th at TransAction, and I will try to probe some more.


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> Al Engel mentioned the other day that Amtrak and NJDOT/NJTransit are applying for funds to replace the Portal Swing Bridge across Hackensack River on the NEC, with a high level (50' high) fixed three span Network Tied Arch bridge as per design completed by NJTransit last year.


I get confused with what is the story with the funding status for the north Portal bridge replacement project. The whole ARC project would not work without the Portal Bridge replacements, so was it funded or not? I've seen something that Amtrak was going to put up $250 million over the construction period from it's own capital budget, but that might have been assuming Amtrak got such and such capital funding amounts each year. Since this is as much a transit project as intercity rail, because NJT Transit needs a new high level bridge there just as much as Amtrak, whether LaHood could award some funding from the $3 billion of FTA money that was to go to the ARC project.

More info is coming in on other applications for the Florida HSR funds:

Wisconsin - Gov. Walker with a unexpected twist - will be applying for $150 million for upgrades and to buy 2 new trainsets for the Hiawatha service.

Missouri - in a rather bold move, will be applying for $363 million for the Kansas City to St. Louis River Runner service and $600 million to plan, design, and acquire land for a new Kansas City to St. Louis HSR line. Very long odds on getting anything more than some initial planning money for the HSR proposal. The River Runner route might get more money, but not $363 million.

Maryland - this was from several weeks ago, but MD will be applying for about $250 million to replace the BWI airport station and add 9 miles of a 4th track going through the station; and $200 million for planning and engineering to replace the Bush, Gunpowder and Susquehanna river bridges. The BWI airport 4th track which would go east of the eastern platform is identified as a near term NEC improvement project in the NEC Master Plan and one that would reduce NYP-WAS trip times by up to 2 minutes. See http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-03-15/news/bs-md-rail-funds-20110315_1_high-speed-rail-bwi-station-rick-scott.


----------



## Shawn Ryu

How about combined CHI to KC HSR?


----------



## Ozark Southern

afigg said:


> Missouri - in a rather bold move, will be applying for $363 million for the Kansas City to St. Louis River Runner service and $600 million to plan, design, and acquire land for a new Kansas City to St. Louis HSR line. Very long odds on getting anything more than some initial planning money for the HSR proposal. The River Runner route might get more money, but not $363 million.


That's right. 220-MPH electric service to connect with the proposed STL-SPI-CHM-CHI 220-MPH service! It may be a pipe dream, but it's a really sweet pipe dream.

Personally, though, I think instead of getting faster speeds, we need to add new service in our state, and to do so we need to start working out plans with our neighbours. I'm glad we've got such a good partnership with Illinois, but we need more. With Oklahoma's cooperation we can build a St. Louis-Rolla-Springfield-Joplin-Tulsa-Oklahoma City line. With Iowa and Minnesota we can build Kansas City-St. Joseph-Omaha and Kansas City-Des Moines-Ames-Albert Lea-Minneapolis-Duluth/Superior. With Illinois and Indiana we can build St. Louis-Effingham-Terre Haute-Indianapolis. All of these are possible with existing freight lines which currently run at 55-65 MPH, and which (except for the Ozarks line) with minimal improvements can hit 79 MPH. The Ozarks alignment will require quite a few upgrades due to the geography, but it does have population on its side. The third-, fifth-, and sixth- largest metro areas in Missouri (Springfield, Joplin, and Rolla, respectively) are located along the route (the MORR already serves #1, St. Louis; #2, Kansas City; and #4, Columbia/Jefferson City). In addition, the second- and third-largest universities in the state are along that route (Missouri State, in Springfield; and Missouri Science & Technology, in Rolla; respectively). So the greater cost would be justified by the much higher potential for ridership.

To be clear, I'm not complaining in the least. I'm glad to see the River Runner doing so well, and I will welcome greater speed and frequency. My poin is that the success of the River Runner proves that the time has come for us to connect all of Missouri's major cities by rail.


----------



## afigg

Now we know what Amtrak is asking for from the Florida HSR funds - $1.3 billion total for the NEC.

Amtrak has posted a press release at http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobkey=id&blobwhere=1249224538367&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-disposition&blobheadervalue1=attachment;filename=Amtrak_ATK-11-040_AmtrakSeeks.pdf.

"AMTRAK SEEKS $1.3 BILLION FOR GATEWAY PROJECT AND NEXT-GENERATION HIGH-SPEED RAIL ON NEC"

"Portal Bridge, Hudson River Tunnels, NY Penn Station among projects"

The projects are:

$570 million for the Portal Bridge North replacement for Amtrak, NJ kicking in up to $150 million for $720 million total

$188 million for PE and EIS for Gateway project for 2 new tunnels under Hudson river with related infrastructure improvements

$50 million for PE and EIS for Penn Station south facility

$450 million for upgrades between Philly and NYP for "Power, Signal, and Catenary and Track Improvements" for speed increase to 160 mph. Obviously constant tension catenary on the high speed sections in NJ

$15 million for PE and EIS for Pelham Bay Bridge replacement and evaluate track upgrades for a 5 mile stretch south of the bride for higher speeds


----------



## afigg

Found some more state application info for the Florida HSR fund do-over:

CT: reportedly $100 million for New Haven to Springfield corridor. CT only got $120 million of the $220 million applied for in their FY2010 application so this would complete their previous request amount.

New York: $517 million total for 8 projects

$294.7 million for 2 mile bypass route at Harold interlocking to avoid conflicts with LIRR and reduce delays on NEC trains going to/from Boston.

$49.8 million for phase 2 design of Moynihan station

$112 million for new signal system from Croton-Harmon to Poughkeepsie

$18.6 million for replacing 48 miles of Hudson signal system from Poughkeepsie and Albany

$35.4 for final phase 4th track construction at Rensselaer station

$4.1 million for track and platform upgrades at Schenectady station

$1.4 million for PE for Rochester intermodal station

$1.75 million for Niagara Falls high-speed rail and maintenance facility.

The bypass at Harold interlocking in Queens is interesting because I don't think I have seen it mentioned before. Is there a engineering study on this? The $112 million for the new signal system from Croton-Harmon to Poughkeepsie sounds like it should be a Metro-North application for transit funds, not HSIPR.

News summary at Transportation Nation: http://transportationnation.org/2011/04/04/ny-governor-andrew-cuomo-applying-for-high-speed-rail/ titled "Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced he is seeking approximately $517 million in federal funding for eight projects that advance New York’s high-speed rail plans."

RI: $31 million total

$25 million for 3rd track at Kingston station for Acela and Amtrak bypass traffic

$6 million for studies including TF Green Airport station

WA: $120 million for Cascades corridor projects

Vermont: $80 million for western corridor track upgrades for Ethan Allan re-route.


----------



## Train2104

CA filed a request worth all of the money that Florida gave up. According to their press release, if granted all the money, they would be able to extend the Fresno-Bakersfield line to Modesto plus build 39 miles of HSR track either continuing north or south to the mountains. If given half of the FL money, they could build track only to Modesto. IMO, they will definitely get at least half.

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/pr_flfundingapp.aspx

As for the NEC, Constant tension is critical, much before this fanciful 2040 dedicated ROW HSR plan that Amtrak has released.


----------



## AlanB

afigg said:


> $35.4 for final phase 4th track construction at Rensselaer station


I find this interesting since I thought that this was already funded.



afigg said:


> The bypass at Harold interlocking in Queens is interesting because I don't think I have seen it mentioned before. Is there a engineering study on this? WA: $120 million for Cascades corridor projects


The conflicts at Harold are legendary, as both ways RR east/west or for those thinking mapwise north/south to Boston Amtrak essentially must cross over tracks needed by the LIRR to move to/from the East River tunnels and the Hell Gate line to Boston. What's interesting in my mind is that AFAIK, those conflicting moves are being eliminated anyhow as the LIRR's East Side Access work is done to tie the LIRR tracks into the 63rd Street tunnel under the East River and the currently under construction station at Grand Central. And I thought that was fully funded, unless maybe they're trying to lessen the amount of money put in by the State and/or Amtrak.

While this is a bit over simplified, just to give people the idea of what's going on, here's a quickie drawing of Harold Interlocking:







Now first, there are many more switches and even a few more tracks that I didn't draw into my diagram for time expediancy. But when you look at this diagram Lines 2 & 4 are the typical inbound tracks to NYP, with 4 generally used only by the LIRR and 2 being used by NJT, Amtrak, and during rush hours the LIRR. Lines 1 & 3 represent the outbound tracks, with Line 3 being the primary LIRR tunnel and Line 1 being the Amtrak/NJT tunnel and rush hour LIRR service.

So as you can see, in the out bound direction, Amtrak trains going to Boston must cross over in front of all the LIRR trains coming out of Line 3. During off peak times, that's not too much of a problem when everything is on schedule. But during rush hour with the LIRR having trains departing every couple of minutes, essentially shutting down Line 3 for the 2 minutes or so that it takes to cross an Amtrak train in over to the Hell Gate line causes big problems.

And of course the reverse is true in the inbound direction, where the Hell Gate line essentially merges with the LIRR track that leads into the Line 4 tunnel. So it has to cross over the approach to the Line 4 tunnel shutting it down, in order to reach the Line 2 tunnel. And in the meantime, they're trying to get the LIRR trains coming off of the two feeds from Woodside into the Line 4 tunnel.

Essentially, everything is backwards from what is needed.


----------



## afigg

AlanB said:


> The conflicts at Harold are legendary, as both ways RR east/west or for those thinking mapwise north/south to Boston Amtrak essentially must cross over tracks needed by the LIRR to move to/from the East River tunnels and the Hell Gate line to Boston. What's interesting in my mind is that AFAIK, those conflicting moves are being eliminated anyhow as the LIRR's East Side Access work is done to tie the LIRR tracks into the 63rd Street tunnel under the East River and the currently under construction station at Grand Central. And I thought that was fully funded, unless maybe they're trying to lessen the amount of money put in by the State and/or Amtrak.


Saw some info elsewhere that the Harold bypass is indeed part of the East Side Access project. With a project this big and stretched out over this many years, MTA and NY may be taking a shot at landing some funding. A long shot given the amount of applications for the FL funds.

Some more state applications:

correction for MD: $415 million total; $299 million for BWI Airport station & platform rebuild and 9 miles of 4th track, MD will provide $41 million in matching funds (not sure if the state matching is in addition to the $299 million or part of); $116 million for engineering and design study to replace Bush, Gunpowder, Susquehanna river bridges.

Massachusetts: $98.4 million to replace Merrimack River bridge in Haverhill for MBTA and Downeaster.

NC: $624 million total: for a series of projects, but also includes $300 million to buy 140 miles of the CSX S-Line ROW from Petersburg VA to Cary, NC for the SE HSR corridor. $50 million for 75 miles of the abandoned S-Line, $250 million for 65 miles of the active part of the S-Line.


----------



## afigg

There is a press release on the US DOT website on the applications submitted for the Florida HSR funds at http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2011/dot4411.html with a list of the states that submitted applications. Quoting from the release: "We have received more than 90 applications from 24 states, the District of Columbia and Amtrak for projects in the Northeast Corridor, with preliminary requests totaling nearly $10 billion dollars."

The states are:

California

Connecticut

District of Columbia

Georgia

Illinois

Kansas

Massachusetts

Maryland

Maine

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

North Carolina

New Mexico

Nevada

New York

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Washington

Wisconsin

Now to find out what for and how much each state applied for. I've posted some earlier. I would guess that some of the states such as SC, Utah without corridor services asked mostly for planning and study funding.


----------



## me_little_me

afigg said:


> Now to find out what for and how much each state applied for. I've posted some earlier. I would guess that some of the states such as SC, Utah without corridor services asked mostly for planning and study funding.



"some of the states such as SC, Utah without corridor services asked mostly for planning and study funding"

Read: The lobbyists for the "Consultants of America who Donate to Politicians" want some free, easy money that they know will never result in actual implementation projects


----------



## afigg

Finding info on a few more state applications, including a major joint application for the mid-West.

CT (update): $227 million for the new Haven to Springfield corridor

Illinois: $186.4 million for the Chicago to St. Louis corridor with $42.4 million state matching & 19.7 million from local/other, $1 million for planning a new station in East St. Louis.

Illinois appears to be the lead on this one:

IL, MI, MO, WI: $806 million in a joint inter-state application to buy bi-level passenger cars and locomotives for all the Chicago hub corridor routes and the St. Louis to Kansas City River Runner in those four states. The application is for stimulus money entirely with no state matching. If I'm reading the application correctly, they want to buy 100 bi-level cars and 31 locomotives. Bold move.

A copy of the the Illinois application can be found here: http://www.connectthemidwest.com/category/federal-hsr-funding/. Warning two of the PDF files are ~2430 pages long!

PA: $248 million for the Keystone East corridor


----------



## GlobalistPotato

afigg said:


> There is a press release on the US DOT website on the applications submitted for the Florida HSR funds at http://www.dot.gov/a...11/dot4411.html with a list of the states that submitted applications. Quoting from the release: "We have received more than 90 applications from 24 states, the District of Columbia and Amtrak for projects in the Northeast Corridor, with preliminary requests totaling nearly $10 billion dollars."
> 
> The states are:
> 
> California
> 
> Connecticut
> 
> District of Columbia
> 
> Georgia
> 
> Illinois
> 
> Kansas
> 
> Massachusetts
> 
> Maryland
> 
> Maine
> 
> Michigan
> 
> Minnesota
> 
> Missouri
> 
> North Carolina
> 
> New Mexico
> 
> Nevada
> 
> New York
> 
> Oregon
> 
> Pennsylvania
> 
> Rhode Island
> 
> South Carolina
> 
> Texas
> 
> Utah
> 
> Vermont
> 
> Washington
> 
> Wisconsin
> 
> Now to find out what for and how much each state applied for. I've posted some earlier. I would guess that some of the states such as SC, Utah without corridor services asked mostly for planning and study funding.


What's Texas's request?


----------



## afigg

GlobalistPotato said:


> What's Texas's request?


Finally found some info. Texas asked for $43 million total: $18 million for PE and EIS for proposed Dallas/FW to Houston HSR line; $24.8 million for final design and construction of PTC for the Trinity Rail Express corridor. Found some hopefully accurate info here: http://centexunfilterednews.blogspot.com/2011/04/txdot-submits-applications-for-high.html from Centex unfiltered news "TxDOT submits applications for high-speed rail funds".

Getting close to filling in the summary list of state and Amtrak applications for the Florida HSR funds. But still missing DC, KS, MN, NM, NV, SC.


----------



## afigg

The summary list for all the state and Amtrak applications that I have found so far. The only states remaining, except maybe for Minnesota, are likely to have only applied for study funding or not ready for primetime projects. The applications are for the $2.43 billion of Florida HSIPR funds: $1.63 in stimulus funds, $800 million in FY2010 funds which require a minimum of a 20% state or local match.

Amtrak: $1.3 billion for five NEC projects:

- $570 million for the Portal Bridge North replacement for Amtrak, NJ kicking in up to $150 million for $720 million total.

- $188 million for PE and EIS for Gateway project for 2 new tunnels under Hudson river with related infrastructure improvements.

- $50 million for PE and EIS for Penn Station south facility.

- $450 million for upgrades between Philly and NYP for "Power, Signal, and Catenary and Track Improvements" for speed increases to 160 mph.

- $15 million for PE and EIS for Pelham Bay Bridge replacement and evaluate track upgrades for a 5 mile stretch south of the bride for higher speeds.

California: $3.7 billion for HSR, $382 million for the Surfliner, San Joaquin, Capital Corridor.

- $1.44 billion with 20% state match for completing the backbone of Merced to Bakersfield.

- $960 million with 20% state match for construction north from Merced toward the Bay Area.

- $1.3 billion with 20% state match for construction south from Bakersfield to the Tehachapi Mountains.

- Caltrain: $382 million for more than 12 improvement projects for its Pacific Surfliner, San Joaquin and Capitol Corridor passenger rail lines.

CT: $227 million for New Haven to Springfield corridor

District of Columbia: 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.

Georgia: $22.5 million for a $38 million dollar project to build a new station in Atlanta.

Illinois: $186.4 million funding with matching funds for a total of $248.5 million for Chicago to St. Louis corridor projects; $1 million for planning a station in East St. Louis.

Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Wisconsin: $806 million in a joint inter-state application for rolling stock for all the Chicago hub corridor services and the River Runner; to buy 100 bi-levels and 31 locomotives, includes a 20% reserve.

Kansas: ?

Maine: $59.1 million total: $38.3 million for improvements to the Pan Am Railways tracks between Portland and Plaistow, NH to add double tracks, sidings curve modifications to reduce trip times by 10 minutes; $20.8 million to add double tracks and replace rail for the MBTA owned tracks in MA.

Maryland: $415 million total: $299 million for BWI Airport station & platform rebuild and 9 miles of 4th track, MD will provide $41 million in matching funds; $116 million for engineering and design study to replace Bush, Gunpowder, Susquehanna river bridges.

Massachusetts: $98.4 million to replace Merrimack River bridge in Haverhill for MBTA and Downeaster.

Michigan: $196.5 million for Kalamazoo to Dearborn section of the Chicago-Detroit corridor for upgrades to 110 mph, $5.2 million for Kalamazoo-Dearborn Deferred Maintenance Program that could begin this summer, $2.9 million for the West Detroit Connection Track Universal Crossover; $3.5 million for an intermodal station in Ann Arbor.

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

Missouri: $937 million total: $337 million for current Kansas City to St. Louis corridor and St. Louis projects; $600 million for study, engineering, and ROW acquisition for KC to St. Louis HSR corridor.

NC: $624 million total: for a series of projects, but also includes $300 million to buy 140 miles of the CSX S-Line ROW from Petersburg VA to Cary, NC for the SE HSR corridor. $50 million for 75 miles of the abandoned S-Line, $250 million for 65 miles of the active part of the S-Line.

New Mexico: ?

Nevada: request for planning money for a western HSR network connecting Las Vegas to Salt Lake City, Phoenix, and LA.

NY: $517 million for 8 projects: $294.7 million for Harold interlocking 2 mile bypass route to avoid conflicts with LIRR, $49.8 million for phase 2 design of Moynihan station, $112 million for new signal system from Croton-Harmon to Poughkeepsie, $18.6 million for replacing 48 miles of Hudson signal system from Poughkeepsie and Albany, $35.4 for final phase 4th track construction at Rensselaer station, $4.1 million for track and platform upgrades at Schenectady station, $1.4 million for PE for Rochester intermodal station, $1.75 million for Niagara Falls high-speed rail and maintenance facility.

Oregon: $13.1 million total for 5 Cascades projects.

Pennsylvania: $248 million for Keystone East corridor: upgrade 5 interlocking segments with track, signal, catenary improvements to reduce Harrisburg to Philly trip times by 20 minutes, install high level platforms at 3 stations. $73.3 million in matching funds provided for $321.2 million total project.

Rhode Island: $31 million: $25 million for 3rd track at Kingston station for Acela and Amtrak bypass traffic, $6 million for studies including TF Green Airport station

South Carolina: ?

Texas: $43 million total: $18 million for PE and EIS for proposed Dallas/FW to Houston HSR line; $24.8 million for final design and construction of PTC for the Trinity Rail Express corridor.

Utah: requested funding for a study of high speed rail corridors in the Intermountain West.

Vermont: $80 million for Ethan Allen western corridor expansion.

WA: $120 million for Cascades corridor projects.

Wisconsin: $150 million for Chicago to Milwaukee Hiawatha service for new rolling stock and maintenance facility. Specifics are not clear.

Note: Virginia did not submit an application.

So how would you divide up $2.4 billion? Role play LaHood and the FRA staff. 

[edit notes: updated DC, MN info]


----------



## Steve4031

Give it to Illinois!!!! Lol.


----------



## Eric S

afigg said:


> The summary list for all the state and Amtrak applications that I have found so far. The only states remaining, except maybe for Minnesota, are likely to have only applied for study funding or not ready for primetime projects. The applications are for the $2.43 billion of Florida HSIPR funds: $1.63 in stimulus funds, $800 million in FY2010 funds which require a minimum of a 20% state or local match.


Thank you for going to the trouble of compiling such a summary.


----------



## AlanB

My guess is that Amtrak will get money for Portal, either CT will get some money or Maine, another chunk to Illinois for the CHI-ST. Louis corridor, and the rest to California. Slight chance that Oregon/Washington will get some.


----------



## afigg

Found some info on a couple of more of the 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 go back and edit my list to update it.

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.

There is a total of over $9 billion in requests, so the $2.43 billion won't go very far. However, some are easy to put aside: the CA HSR request for extensions beyond Merced to Bakersfield, the MO $600 Kansas City to St. Louis HSR application (maybe some study and planning funding); the $806 joint request by IL, WI, MI, MO for rolling stock because the states should put some skin in the game first and get the costs down.


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> My guess is that Amtrak will get money for Portal, either CT will get some money or Maine, another chunk to Illinois for the CHI-ST. Louis corridor, and the rest to California. Slight chance that Oregon/Washington will get some.


Portal actually has $150 million commitment from NJ. The Governor has actually signed off on the commitment. This was announced by NJ Transport Commish Simpson at TransAction in Atlantic City on Thursday. So if the full request for Portal is granted then the construction of the North Bridge and dismantling of the current Portal Swing Bridge would be fully funded. The NJ commitment makes this request eligible for funding from both the 100% pot and the 80-20 pot. Apparently in spite of the loud sounds coming from the Tea Partiers, John Mica (R Florida and Chair of Transport and Infrastructure Committee) is supportive of this.


----------



## afigg

Here is one cut I came up with at splitting the $2.03 billion remaining of the returned Florida HSR funds for the applications that were submitted that I know of. Since many of these have state matching, they can be funded out of either the $1.63 billion of stimulus or $400 million of FY10 funds. With uncertain funding in the next several years, the issue is how to best allocate the funds so there are real service improvements, but also to start some Preliminary Engineering and EIS studies so if funding becomes available in a few years, those projects are ready to move forward.

My thinking is to fully fund some key projects – Portal bridge replacement for the NEC, Keystone East, and the Illinois application for the St. Louis-Chicago corridors. CA HSR gets a chunk for the Merced to Bakersfield section. The rest gets spread between a mix of some PE studies, but mostly to projects that will improve service for a number of corridors. Amtrak gets funding to start the Gateway Project PE. WA and NC have enough funding already for years of project work, give them small amounts to maintain some momentum, at least in the political context. Maine submitted 2 applications; fund the smaller one for double tracking the MBTA owned line in MA so the project work helps 2 states and the MBTA. Help Michigan with additional funding for the Kalamazoo-Dearborn section to buy the NS line and start fixing up the tracks for 110 mph speeds. If Texas is serious about considering a Dallas/Fort Worth to Houston HSR line, give them the $18 million to get started. All numbers in the list are in millions.

Amtrak	$570.0	Portal Bridge North Replacement in NJ ($150M NJ state match)

Amtrak	$60.0	NYP Gateway Project PE and EIS (out of $188M million requested)

Amtrak	$15.0	Pelham Bridge replacement and track upgrades PE and EIS

CA HSR	$600.0	Merced to Bakersfield with 20% state match ($1,440M requested)

CA	$30.0	Surfliner, San Joaquin, Capital corridor projects

CT	$75.0	New Haven to Springfield MA Corridor (out of $227M requested)

IL	$186.0	Chicago-St. Louis corridor Joliet-Dwight section, ($62M state match)

Maine	$20.8	Improvements and double tracking for MBTA tracks for Downeaster, $5.2M state match

MI	$100.0	Chicago-Detroit corridor Kalamazoo-Dearborn section, West Detroit crossover (out of $205M requested)

NC	$26.8	Phase I complete Raleigh to Richmond EIS/ROD, Phase II Charlotte to Raleigh for increase to 5 trains/day ($624M total requests for plus 20% state match for 8 phases)

NY	$35.4	Final phase of 4th track at Rennselaer station

NY	$4.1	Track and platform upgrades at Schenectady station

OR	$13.1	Five Cascades projects

PA	$248.0	Keystone East upgrades to reduce Harrisburg to Philly trip times by 20 minutes and increase speeds on corridor to 125+ mph ($73M state match).

TX	$18.0	PE and EIS for Dallas/FW to Houston HSR line

WA	$28.0	Cascades projects (out of $120M requested)

Total	$2,030M

Have no idea when the FRA and LaHood will announce the actual grants, but when they do, we can see just how far off my list is. :lol:


----------



## Ozark Southern

How would I divide it up? Well, of course it'd be $937 million to Missouri for KCY-STL upgrade to 220mph, and $1.46 billion to Illinois to begin the STL-ORD 220mph line. But that's just me.


----------



## jis

Rumor has it that it will be by 1 September.

Incidentally, Governor Christie has signed off on the $150 million from NJ. This was announced by NJ DOT Commissioner Simpson at TransAction in Atlantic City week before last. So that money is available contingent upon the federal money coming through. This makes the Portal grant request eligible for receiving money from the 80-20 bucket in addition to the 100% bucket.

BTW, this actually funds half the total Portal Bridge replacement project, which in total calls for and has EIS for replacing the two track bring with a total of 5 tracks. That is being built in two phases and scaled back to 4 tracks. The 2 track North Span is what would be funded if this grant request comes through. An earlier grant request for $38.5 million came through and FFGA was completed on last week. That was for completing final modified design taking into consideration change in plans from ARC to Gateway. This will require reconfiguration of Swift and also Portal interlockings to be different from the original plan. The South Span will be built in conjunction with the new tunnels, if and when they are built. But the total design and plan will be taken care of now. Somewhat similar to how the interstate highways system was built in segments based on an overall plan.

BTW, I think you have a very well thought out list above!


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> Rumor has it that it will be by 1 September.


If you mean the announcements for the re-allocation of the Florida HSR funds, I would expect the timeframe will be weeks, not September. The stimulus funds have to be put to work by September, 2012 with construction starting on some part of the overall project (or PE studies underway) and completed by Sept, 2017. The clock is ticking on the stimulus funds, which will be a major factor in the decision on which projects to grant funding from the $1.6 billion. So the funding is likely to go to existing projects or corridors which are already funded, have agreements in place and are ready to break ground by next year or to projects where there are low risks in getting the agreements in place. The Amtrak owned portions of the NEC, Keystone East, NHV-Springfield lines are good candidates to get funding because Amtrak is not going to say no.



jis said:


> Incidentally, Governor Christie has signed off on the $150 million from NJ. This was announced by NJ DOT Commissioner Simpson at TransAction in Atlantic City week before last. So that money is available contingent upon the federal money coming through. This makes the Portal grant request eligible for receiving money from the 80-20 bucket in addition to the 100% bucket.
> 
> BTW, this actually funds half the total Portal Bridge replacement project, which in total calls for and has EIS for replacing the two track bring with a total of 5 tracks. That is being built in two phases and scaled back to 4 tracks. The 2 track North Span is what would be funded if this grant request comes through. An earlier grant request for $38.5 million came through and FFGA was completed on last week. That was for completing final modified design taking into consideration change in plans from ARC to Gateway. This will require reconfiguration of Swift and also Portal interlockings to be different from the original plan. The South Span will be built in conjunction with the new tunnels, if and when they are built. But the total design and plan will be taken care of now. Somewhat similar to how the interstate highways system was built in segments based on an overall plan.
> 
> BTW, I think you have a very well thought out list above!


Thanks for the complement on the list. Just threw a bunch of them into a spreadsheet and played around to get the number to $2.03 billion. An extra $400 million would have made it easier.

Interesting if Amtrak is indeed cutting the North Portal Bridge replacement to 2 tracks. The NEC master plan has 3 tracks on it and the line has 3 through tracks at Secaucus station. Leaving the bridge at 2 tracks would make the segment still something of a bottleneck. Might mean that Amtrak is counting on the Gateway project moving forward to provide 4 through tracks in the long term. I think the Gateway project - or some version of it - will happen, but it could easily be dragged out for 20 years waiting on funding and changing degrees of political support.


----------



## jis

afigg said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rumor has it that it will be by 1 September.
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean the announcements for the re-allocation of the Florida HSR funds, I would expect the timeframe will be weeks, not September. The stimulus funds have to be put to work by September, 2012 with construction starting on some part of the overall project (or PE studies underway) and completed by Sept, 2017.
Click to expand...

I dunno. I am just repeating what I heard from people who ought to know, like the guy who manages NEC Capital Projects. Well more accurately he said that it would not be a problem to meet the deadlines if the grants were announced in September when someone asked him about the date. Of course better things can happen and they may be announced earlier.



> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, this actually funds half the total Portal Bridge replacement project, which in total calls for and has EIS for replacing the two track bring with a total of 5 tracks. That is being built in two phases and scaled back to 4 tracks. The 2 track North Span is what would be funded if this grant request comes through. An earlier grant request for $38.5 million came through and FFGA was completed on last week. That was for completing final modified design taking into consideration change in plans from ARC to Gateway. This will require reconfiguration of Swift and also Portal interlockings to be different from the original plan. The South Span will be built in conjunction with the new tunnels, if and when they are built. But the total design and plan will be taken care of now. Somewhat similar to how the interstate highways system was built in segments based on an overall plan.
> 
> BTW, I think you have a very well thought out list above!
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the complement on the list. Just threw a bunch of them into a spreadsheet and played around to get the number to $2.03 billion. An extra $400 million would have made it easier.
> 
> Interesting if Amtrak is indeed cutting the North Portal Bridge replacement to 2 tracks. The NEC master plan has 3 tracks on it and the line has 3 through tracks at Secaucus station. Leaving the bridge at 2 tracks would make the segment still something of a bottleneck. Might mean that Amtrak is counting on the Gateway project moving forward to provide 4 through tracks in the long term. I think the Gateway project - or some version of it - will happen, but it could easily be dragged out for 20 years waiting on funding and changing degrees of political support.
Click to expand...

Because it is down to two tracks the cost is down to $750 million or so. It would be about $850 to $900 million if it was 3 tracks as originally planned. Afterall at the end of it all whatever goes over that bridge has to fit into two tunnel tracks, so it is not really a huge bottleneck - well not any more than the tunnels are that is.

I think the Gateway Project will happen way before 20 years. Th Republicans of the current breed have a short lifespan.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

jis said:


> I think the Gateway Project will happen way before 20 years. Th Republicans of the current breed have a short lifespan.


You are a cockeyed optimist.


----------



## jis

Green Maned Lion said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Gateway Project will happen way before 20 years. Th Republicans of the current breed have a short lifespan.
> 
> 
> 
> You are a cockeyed optimist.
Click to expand...

:hi:

Anyone would have to be a raving lunatic to be in the rail (or even infrastructure) advocacy business in this country without being a "cockeyed optimist" 

BTW, wasn't it you GML that had assured us that it was OK to have ARC canceled since a better alternative would get built? :unsure: So were you just being devious back then or have you become more pessimistic since then?  Or perhaps your time horizon was 50 years and you forgot to disclose that while encouraging all to support canceling ARC?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I had stated that if ARC could not be made more sensible, it would be better to kill it because having a superior alternative built in the next 20-50 years would be better than it being built badly and having To wait another 100+.


----------



## George Harris

jis said:


> Anyone would have to be a raving lunatic to be in the rail (or even infrastructure) advocacy business in this country without being a "cockeyed optimist"


Greetings from a "cockeyed optimist". I have been in the engineering side of rail of all flavors for the most part of the last 40 years.


----------



## jis

George Harris said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone would have to be a raving lunatic to be in the rail (or even infrastructure) advocacy business in this country without being a "cockeyed optimist"
> 
> 
> 
> Greetings from a "cockeyed optimist". I have been in the engineering side of rail of all flavors for the most part of the last 40 years.
Click to expand...

:hi:  Greeting from another publicly recognized "cockeyed optimist", though not an RR industry insider. Just an overall "cockeyed optimist", but mostly grounded in reality, as many of my posts in these fora will attest to, what can I say?


----------



## WICT106

Count me as another optimist -- though it has been difficult over these past few months, what with a governor from the Party Of "No." What do you say we at least talk about what has worked, what hasn't, in promotion of rail ?


----------



## jis

WICT106 said:


> Count me as another optimist -- though it has been difficult over these past few months, what with a governor from the Party Of "No." What do you say we at least talk about what has worked, what hasn't, in promotion of rail ?


Being an optimist does not mean that one will meet with success all the time or even most of the time. Success will come only occasionally. But irrespective of what happens one has to keep the eye on the ball, educate folks, show them how the rest of the world operates. Unfortunately, US has progressively become a most intensely navel gazing country, where the population is surprisingly unaware of anything that goes on anywhere beyond the immediate vicinity of their nose and eyes. Sharing the vision in a positive way without criticizing gratuitously, and countering false propaganda are two important aspects. In addition active participation in the planning process with the bureaucracy and even the advocates in order to try to save them from their own follies is a very useful activity too.

Sometimes it even becomes necessary to kill off an out of control project for the overall health of the bigger agenda. For example ARC would have been an unmitigated disaster for any (a) regional rail plans in the future and (b) Any intra-NJ plans (because it would have eaten up all local resources and then some for a decade or more) and © any Amtrak HSR plans would have been set back by decades. While it is fashionable to lump ARC in with what happened in Wisconsin and Ohio, it actually was a beast of a very different color. And actually if there had not been a huge amount of subterfuge and trying to hide skeletons in the closet which all came tumbling out when the Feds asked a few inconvenient question, all indications are that the Governor of NJ would have happily carried on with it. The basic lesson to learn from ARC is to be absolutely straightforward and get the truth out earlier rather than later. Unfortunately indications so far are that NJT has learned nothing from it. They are still battling NJ OPRA requests, and losing each of them and having to disclose the real truth eventually, thus reducing their credibility even further in a stepwise fashion. One thing that well meaning optimists can do is help blow the whistle on this kind of nonsense as early as possible so that so much time is not lost in bureaucrats lining their nests.

The bottom line is if you are an optimist you must be able to recover from a failure rapidly and join the battle for the next round, start building new coalitions, bring in new people who have been on the side lines or uninvolved. That's how the game is played. It is hard to keep people excited about a negative message for too long.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Just because I doubt most of my efforts will be profitable doesn't mean I don't give them my all.


----------



## jcl653

The Wall Street Journal has a nugget of news (to me) at the end of an article published today:

"The Federal Railroad Administration is expected to announce awards in coming days or weeks."

Read the article here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704099704576289452940073250.html


----------



## Devil's Advocate

> The federally subsidized railroad, formally the National Railroad Passenger Corp., is lobbying for $1.3 billion in federal money to upgrade service on its Northeast Corridor between Boston and Washington so that trains could eventually reach 160 miles an hour. Amtrak's fastest Acela trains now average 85 miles an hour between New York and Washington.


What exactly is this 1.3 billion buying Amtrak? The Acela already reaches 150MPH and adding another 10MPH for a few minutes won't appreciably change the average speed over the whole length of the NEC. The cost of making 160 possible over most of the route would vastly exceed every last penny congress has approved. Leaving me with few if any reasons to support this request. Hopefully Amtrak will be able to fund additional improvements on the NEC through private credit and the FRA will put this public funding where private funds are unlikely or impossible to secure.


----------



## jis

Roughly speaking:

o $570 million for Portal bridge replacement with a matching $150 million from NJ totaling $720 million which is the total estimated cost of building a new high level two track fixed span and dismantling the existing swing bridge.

o $450 million for upgrade of Newark to Philadelphia signaling plus CT catenary between New Brunswick and Morrisville allowing 160mph operation of Acelas on that segment.

o $50? million for replacement of Pelham movable bridge on the New york Connecting Railroad/Hell Gate Line).

and a few other smaller requests. Of course Amtrak will not get all that it requests, but hopefully they will get the first one so that that rickety bridge can be replaced before the whole thing falls into the Hackensack River one of these days.


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> Roughly speaking:
> 
> o $50? million for replacement of Pelham movable bridge on the New york Connecting Railroad/Hell Gate Line).
> 
> and a few other smaller requests. Of course Amtrak will not get all that it requests, but hopefully they will get the first one so that that rickety bridge can be replaced before the whole thing falls into the Hackensack River one of these days.


Yes, it would be desirable to replace the Portal bridge before it either falls into the river or gets stuck open with no way to close it without weeks of repair. :help:

After the 2 big $570 million and $450 million dollar applications, Amtrak requested:

- $188 million for PE and EIS for Gateway project for 2 new tunnels under Hudson River with related infrastructure improvements.

- $50 million for PE and EIS for Penn Station south facility

- $15 million for PE and EIS for Pelham Bay Bridge replacement and evaluate track upgrades for a 5 mile stretch south of the bridge for higher speeds.

The Amtrak press release on the applications is at http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobkey=id&blobwhere=1249224538367&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-disposition&blobheadervalue1=attachment;filename=Amtrak_ATK-11-040_AmtrakSeeks.pdf

I think Amtrak will be lucky if the Portal Bridge north replacement is funded and maybe part of the Gateway project PE for the 2 tunnels. But these applications all clearly would benefit the existing NEC with the PE and EIS projects to get the engineering & cost estimate work in place so the projects are eligible for construction funding when it becomes available.


----------



## jis

Ah yes. $15M not $50M for the Pelham bridge. My bad.


----------



## Eric S

IL gets a portion of the FL funds:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-illinois-gets-186m-in-rail-funds-florida-rejected-20110504,0,4302117.story

Is this the first such announcement of how the (now) $2 billion will be redistributed?


----------



## afigg

Eric S said:


> IL gets a portion of the FL funds:
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-illinois-gets-186m-in-rail-funds-florida-rejected-20110504,0,4302117.story
> 
> Is this the first such announcement of how the (now) $2 billion will be redistributed?


This is the first news I've seen on who gets selected. I don't see anything on the US DOT website, so I think this is a notification to the Illinois politicians so they can put out a press release first to get credit, then LaHood & the FRA will follow up with a press release. Other states may have gotten the news today; have to check to see if there are other announcements by governors or Senators.


----------



## Steve4031

afigg said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> IL gets a portion of the FL funds:
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-illinois-gets-186m-in-rail-funds-florida-rejected-20110504,0,4302117.story
> 
> Is this the first such announcement of how the (now) $2 billion will be redistributed?
> 
> 
> 
> This is the first news I've seen on who gets selected. I don't see anything on the US DOT website, so I think this is a notification to the Illinois politicians so they can put out a press release first to get credit, then LaHood & the FRA will follow up with a press release. Other states may have gotten the news today; have to check to see if there are other announcements by governors or Senators.
Click to expand...

Well this is good for Illinois. Wonder what will happen with the joint equipment order. Also, how long till they actually start to work on the track?


----------



## afigg

Steve4031 said:


> Well this is good for Illinois. Wonder what will happen with the joint equipment order. Also, how long till they actually start to work on the track?


On the $806 million dollar rolling stock application, there is only a total of $2.03 billion to redistribute. I just don't see it getting funded this cycle, except maybe for a partial grant, enough to buy enough bi-levels for several other corridors than the already funded rolling stock for the Chicago-St. Louis corridor. The NEC and CA HSR project are likely to get a fair piece of the $2 billion.

Track work for the $186 million grant for the Joliet to Dwight section would presumably not start until 2012 at the earliest.


----------



## afigg

It appears that the announcement of the rest of the redistributions of the Florida HSR funds will be made next week: http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201105051354dowjonesdjonline000564&title=us-rail-grants-to-come-out-next-week-transport-secretary

The Illinois Governor's press release on the award of the $186 million says that the US DOT notified Congress that $400 million of the funds have been reprogrammed: http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=2&RecNum=9385 . So, if $400 million has been reprogrammed, have other states been notified that they are getting some or all of the $214 million left, but we have not seen it in the news yet? Or, maybe the $400 million is what is left of the FY2010 Florida funds and Illinois is getting the $186 million from the FY2010 funds because the state is providing a 25% match?


----------



## jis

afigg said:


> It appears that the announcement of the rest of the redistributions of the Florida HSR funds will be made next week: http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201105051354dowjonesdjonline000564&title=us-rail-grants-to-come-out-next-week-transport-secretary
> 
> The Illinois Governor's press release on the award of the $186 million says that the US DOT notified Congress that $400 million of the funds have been reprogrammed: http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=2&RecNum=9385 . So, if $400 million has been reprogrammed, have other states been notified that they are getting some or all of the $214 million left, but we have not seen it in the news yet? Or, maybe the $400 million is what is left of the FY2010 Florida funds and Illinois is getting the $186 million from the FY2010 funds because the state is providing a 25% match?


Wasn't the $400 million from 2010 rescinded? Was there other 2010 money in there too?


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> Wasn't the $400 million from 2010 rescinded? Was there other 2010 money in there too?


There was a total of $800 million in FY2010 grants that went to the Florida HSR project. The House Republicans rescinded 1/2 of that, $400 million, leaving $400 million of FY2010 plus $1.6 billion of stimulus grants to be reprogrammed or redistributed by the FRA.


----------



## afigg

According to Transportation Nation, LaHood will be announcing the selections for the Florida HSR funds on Monday at Penn Station in NYC and in Detroit. So, I would figure Amtrak is going to get some funding for Portal Bridge and maybe the Gateway project PE, Michigan gets some more for the Detroit-Chicago corridor.


----------



## jis

According to the WSJ it is $450 million for NEC in NJ, $295 million for new grade separation of through tracks through Harold Interlocking. I suspect there is the $50 million tucked in there for the final design of the tunnel somewhere. No mention of Portal. If that is the case then it would appear that LaHood wants to have something concrete to show in the high speed arena in short order and NJ has been chosen for the first 160mph service in the US. But we'll see for sure in a couple of hours.


----------



## afigg

Looks like Michigan is getting just about the entire $208 million they requested for the Chicago - Detroit corridor. Article "Michigan to get $200M for high-speed rail" at http://www.detnews.com/article/20110509/METRO05/105090361/1409/METRO/Michigan-to-get-$200M-for-high-speed-rail . Hard to argue with that selection as it represents a significant bang for the buck project.

I'm surprised that the Harold interlocking project would get funding, because I gather that was already a planned part of the East Side Access project. If Portal Bridge replacement does not get selected, what are the other options for funding it in the near future? But we have to wait for the actual US DOT & FRA press release because the mainstream press all too often mangles the information they are provided when it is not straightforward.


----------



## jis

afigg said:


> I'm surprised that the Harold interlocking project would get funding, because I gather that was already a planned part of the East Side Access project.


The Amtrak portion of Harold Interlocking ( grade separated high speed lines skipping most of the interlocking)was not funded. First LIRR tried to apply for it, but FTA told them that they are capped by the original ESA FFGA. So it was either upto Amtrak to get the money or for LIRR to drain their fast depleting capital funds to pay for it. Hence Amtrak applied for it and apparently they are getting it.

We have to wait for the actual numbers and projects, but my guess is that Portal will eventually get packaged together with the Gateway Tunnels. It is kind of hard to nail down and build Portal without knowing for sure what the guiding operating plan will be for Gateway, which is somewhat up in the air, without making a lot of guesses and hence potentially wasteful construction that will need to be eventually torn down and rebuilt, specially the interlockings (Swift, Portal and possibly Erie and Bergen) and approach tracks.

OTOH, the $450 million in NJ gives something visible and high speed, with 160mph service and better track utilization with shorter blocks. It is a relatively high bang for the buck capacity and speed enhancement.

Again, just a guess. We'll know for sure in a couple of hours.


----------



## afigg

The US DOT press release is now available at http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2011/dot5711.html. A lot of piece meal grants here to spread the money around.

The eastern Keystone came up short with $40 million for the interlocking and track improvements near Harrisburg PA. Maybe this a way of nudging Congressman Bill Shuster (R-PA) to put support behind intercity passenger rail in the FY2012 and the Transportation Authorization bill so more money can be made available to the Keystone corridor next year.

Only $300 million for CA HSR which is likely to disappoint the supporters in CA.

Only $30 million more for the New Haven to Springfield corridor, but they already have enough funding to get a lot of double tracking and improvements done.


----------



## saxman

Wow, Texas got $15 million for a DFW to Houston line! Amazing.


----------



## jis

afigg said:


> The US DOT press release is now available at http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2011/dot5711.html. A lot of piece meal grants here to spread the money around.
> 
> The eastern Keystone came up short with $40 million for the interlocking and track improvements near Harrisburg PA. Maybe this a way of nudging Congressman Bill Shuster (R-PA) to put support behind intercity passenger rail in the FY2012 and the Transportation Authorization bill so more money can be made available to the Keystone corridor next year.
> 
> Only $300 million for CA HSR which is likely to disappoint the supporters in CA.
> 
> Only $30 million more for the New Haven to Springfield corridor, but they already have enough funding to get a lot of double tracking and improvements done.


My understanding is that with that $30 million they pretty much got complete funding when taken together with CT contribution to complete the project.

A pleasant surprise for us in the New York/New jersey/Connecticut region.

The full funding of the 4th platform track and new Schenectady station is icing on top of the cake IMHO.

There will be significant effect (very positive) on both Amtrak and NJT operations on the NEC between Edison and Trenton. NJ will willy nilly get the nation's first 160mph railroad!!! And we also get CT catenary! This will bring Newark - Philly in 45 mins on Acela almost within reach, will be a couple mins short I think. I think it will be a smidgen under 48 mins, making it the first segment in the US with many trains doing over 100mph average speed.

The changes in signaling will improve track utilization and general train performance for both NJT and Amtrak. Just the signl issues will probably go towards shaving a minute or two.

The Harold grade separated bypass for Amtrak will save a cool 2 to 3 minutes on the Boston run.

Also those new cars and locomotives for the Midwest and California is very very good news not only for the Midwest and California but potentially for the Northeast too.

And of course the Traveler gets a third track at KIN too!


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> My understanding is that with that $30 million they pretty much got complete funding when taken together with CT contribution to complete the project.


CT applied for $227 million for the New Haven - Springfield line. Don't know how much of that was to complete the double tracking, fix bridges, or to upgrade grade crossings for >79 mph speeds.



> There will be significant effect (very positive) on both Amtrak and NJT operations on the NEC between Edison and Trenton. NJ will willy nilly get the nation's first 160mph railroad!!! And we also get CT catenary! This will bring Newark - Philly in 45 mins on Acela almost within reach, will be a couple mins short I think. I think it will be a smidgen under 48 mins, making it the first segment in the US with many trains doing over 100mph average speed.


Now people won't have to travel to RI or MA to get the 150+ mph speeds! Although the benefits of 135 to 160 mph over a 24 mile segment is not all that great on reducing trip times. To get the average speed up between NYP or Newark and Philly, Amtrak needs to improve the slow 60-70 mph stretch in north Philly. Still, since the NYP to Philly is the most heavily traveled part of the NEC, having a high speed run there will help sell the Acela service.



> The Harold grade separated bypass for Amtrak will save a cool 2 to 3 minutes on the Boston run.


Any improvements on the NYP-BOS section are welcome. Now, about that 30 year goal of a 3 hour NYP-BOS trip time...


----------



## stntylr

saxman said:


> Wow, Texas got $15 million for a DFW to Houston line! Amazing.


Isn't that the largest amount yet Texas has gotten for High Speed Rail.

Texas must be back on the good side of the FRA after the Texas T-Bone fiasco.


----------



## jis

afigg said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that with that $30 million they pretty much got complete funding when taken together with CT contribution to complete the project.
> 
> 
> 
> CT applied for $227 million for the New Haven - Springfield line. Don't know how much of that was to complete the double tracking, fix bridges, or to upgrade grade crossings for >79 mph speeds.
Click to expand...

I meant for double tracking. That in and of itself doesn;t get you to 110mph all the way.



> Now people won't have to travel to RI or MA to get the 150+ mph speeds! Although the benefits of 135 to 160 mph over a 24 mile segment is not all that great on reducing trip times. To get the average speed up between NYP or Newark and Philly, Amtrak needs to improve the slow 60-70 mph stretch in north Philly. Still, since the NYP to Philly is the most heavily traveled part of the NEC, having a high speed run there will help sell the Acela service.


Just the 24 miles of 160 instead of 135 gets you almost 2 mins. But there are many more miles that go from 110 and 125 to 125 and 135 respectively. Also shorter blocks allows trains to run at higher speeds in front of eventual adverse signals, which adds another 2 or 3 minutes. So the non stop runtime from Newark to Philly will go down from 54/53 mins to 49/48 mins or so, is my back of the envelope guess. New York to Philly time goes to 63 mins or so with one stop in Newark.

More impressively, the Acela that stops at both Metropark and Trenton will probably become the fist schedule in the US to have a start to stop average between those two stations of greater than 110 mph.

NJT will really need to get on the ball and get the outer zone expresses certified to run at 125 so that they can get out of the way faster ahead of these faster trains on tracks 2 and 3.



> The Harold grade separated bypass for Amtrak will save a cool 2 to 3 minutes on the Boston run.
> 
> 
> 
> Any improvements on the NYP-BOS section are welcome. Now, about that 30 year goal of a 3 hour NYP-BOS trip time...
Click to expand...

This is actually a major operational win. It removes the very inconvenient set of conflicts that exist at Harold East between LIRR and Amtrak. This will improve throughput of both LIRR and Amtrak, and save Amtrak a couple of minutes on its run from Gate to the tunnels, since they will be able to zip along at 90 instead of slowing down to 45 or slower to cross over LIRR to get to/from the right tunnels.


----------



## Anderson

I'm really glad to see the CTC funded for at least some of the line up there. Honestly, this is probably the best batch I've seen...improvements to the NEC mainline _and_ to the two big corridors out of Chicago.

One question: With CA, how long will this make the HSR segment (or segments) in total?


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> One question: With CA, how long will this make the HSR segment (or segments) in total?


20 additional miles. So add that to whatever it was before this.


----------



## Anderson

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> One question: With CA, how long will this make the HSR segment (or segments) in total?
> 
> 
> 
> 20 additional miles. So add that to whatever it was before this.
Click to expand...

Found it: 110 miles before, 130 miles now.

Also...I like what I'm seeing in the Northern Lights report, as long as they run the train to the Amtrak hub in MSP and shoot right by the Casino...nice use of the money there.


----------



## afigg

Getting back to _this_ thread, the FRA put up a new table listing all the redirected projects announced today with some info about each project. There are now 3 documents for the original awards, the FY10 awards and "March 2011 (Redireced ARRA and FY2010)" which can be found at http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/passenger/2325.shtml . This is getting rather complicated. :help: :lol:

Regardless of the messy process of getting to the current allocation of funds, even if there is no more HSIPR funding in the next several years, we will see improvements in almost all of Amtrak's current corridor services, new rolling stock, and the critical PE & EIS groundwork done on a number of projects that will be ready to move to construction in 2-4 years when money does become available.


----------



## jis

So the Travelers KIN is getting two high level platforms and an additional platform track together with a high speed interlocking! Looks like they are getting ready to extend MBTA service to Kingston, doesn't it?

BTW, on the Harold bypass track, apparently the Eastbound bypass was already funded in ESA. It is the Westbound bypass that was not, and is now fully funded.

One of my colleagues from NJ-ARP was present at the NY Penn Station announcement and had the opportunity to pick the brains of a few present, including Boardman.

Incidentally, something that I had possibly not reported here before - After the Amtrak sessions at TransAction 2011 in Atlantic City I had a chance to talk to Drew Galloway who is in-charge of NEC Capital Projects for about 20 mins. We discussed the Newark - Philadelphia segment at length. He said that this is the segment where you can get the maximum bang for the buck in terms of true service improvement, not just speed improvement. I got some details about what he had just presented. Apparently if full funding became available they plan to do Constant Tension catenary on all four tracks, so I expect New Brunswick to Morris to get CT catenary in the next 4 years. Saw some diagrams of what it might look like too.

For going higher speed than 160mph there will be track center issues. I.e. they will have to basically reconstruct the segments with much higher track center spacing. Some areas have enough space in the ROW to do this, others don't. What is so special about 160? It is the division point between Class 8 and Class 9.

For the upgrade between New Brunswick and Morris very little additional work is needed on the tracks. They are already Class 8. All old non-moving frog switches at the interlockings will be replaced by higher speed moving frog switches. The CF that is Fair interlocking will be cleaned up and replaced with high speed turnouts thus allowing higher speed entry into Trenton platform tracks and Class 8 speeds through Trenton station on 2 and 3. Also high density short block signaling will be put in place similar to what exists now between Newark and New York. So those crawls into Trenton (and eventually into Metropark, though not in this funding round) will be a thing of the past.

In addition A interlocking in New York Penn Station will be realigned to increase speeds through it. That is part of this current grant.

As you can see I am truly excited about it. Having a whole series of trains averaging 98 to 110mph through NJ is going to be absolutely thrilling! And it will be fun watching the construction while it takes place, though a little inconvenient for a few years for travelers at times.


----------



## Steve4031

This will truly be exciting in the midwest too. I am glad the NEC corridor is getting these much needed improvements too.

Now if we can only get the Englewood flyover completed, and the 30 miles to porter upgraded, then the Michigan corridor will be off to a good start.

I was also impressed with the news that there are plans to replace the bridge across the Mississippi at St. Louis. Which routing is this? I know there are two routes into STL, but don't remember how the names of the bridges correspond.


----------



## jis

Merchant's Bridge is the one North of St. Louis. It is not the one visible from the Arch to the south of Eads Bridge. Trains that go over Merchants Bridge go through the tunnel under the Arch park.







The other one is McArthur Bridge, which is closer to downtown.


----------



## Eric S

It is interesting that MO is planning the replacement of Merchants Bridge (which, as you mention, is the one north of downtown, and currently used much less often by Amtrak) as most Amtrak service currently uses MacArthur Bridge. I understand that either bridge can be used at any given time based upon traffic.


----------



## AlanB

Eric S said:


> It is interesting that MO is planning the replacement of Merchants Bridge (which, as you mention, is the one north of downtown, and currently used much less often by Amtrak) as most Amtrak service currently uses MacArthur Bridge. I understand that either bridge can be used at any given time based upon traffic.


My guess is that you'll see a dramatic change in how many times Amtrak uses the MacArthur Bridge once the Merchants Bridge is replaced.

Which is kind of sad, since MacArthur provides a much more picturesque entry to St. Louis.


----------



## Anderson

It may be a matter of cost...it might be cheaper to replace one and simply redirect Amtrak traffic accordingly than to replace the other one.

The emphasis on upgrading a lot of things one or two steps is the right way to go. I'll say that I'd rather have seen new/upgraded rolling stock on more routes to relieve strain elsewhere (perhaps buying some Acela-IIs so you can run Acela-Is as new Regional cars and shuffle some Regional cars into other services) than funding some of the reports or miscellaneous projects, but all in all it's a pretty decent set of equipment. 'course, I'd also rather have seen some beefing up of the Superliner fleet, but that's just me.


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> It may be a matter of cost...it might be cheaper to replace one and simply redirect Amtrak traffic accordingly than to replace the other one.
> 
> The emphasis on upgrading a lot of things one or two steps is the right way to go. I'll say that I'd rather have seen new/upgraded rolling stock on more routes to relieve strain elsewhere (perhaps buying some Acela-IIs so you can run Acela-Is as new Regional cars and shuffle some Regional cars into other services) than funding some of the reports or miscellaneous projects, but all in all it's a pretty decent set of equipment. 'course, I'd also rather have seen some beefing up of the Superliner fleet, but that's just me.


I don't think Acela Is will get used for Regional service because it will cause a huge brand confusion and it will dilute the Acela brand thus reducing the flexibility to charge higher for Acela service. Acelas are getting two additional cars per consist and they will remain in Acela Service. Eventually when Acela IIs are acquired they will either be for augmenting Acela Service or they will create a third higher tier brand and service.

Regionals will remain 125 mph Tier I trains and they will get the new single level Corridor Cars when they arrive. They will continue to be loco hauled service, but with availability of new cab cars they will become push-pull.

This is sort of similar to the Tokaido Shinkansen where there are three levels of service - fastest - Nozomi, fast - Hikari, and milk run - Kodama.

As for Superliner fleet, Boardman in his speech to NARP last week said quite clearly that there will be no further LD equipment order until Congress states what the policy is regarding LD trains and provides funding for the same. Just reporting, so don't shoot the messenger. OTOH he also said that any equipment purchase that can be reasonably financed against net positive revenue streams are fair game. It will be a straight business decision on those.


----------



## Eric S

AlanB said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that MO is planning the replacement of Merchants Bridge (which, as you mention, is the one north of downtown, and currently used much less often by Amtrak) as most Amtrak service currently uses MacArthur Bridge. I understand that either bridge can be used at any given time based upon traffic.
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you'll see a dramatic change in how many times Amtrak uses the MacArthur Bridge once the Merchants Bridge is replaced.
> 
> Which is kind of sad, since MacArthur provides a much more picturesque entry to St. Louis.
Click to expand...

Agree completely.


----------



## Anderson

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> It may be a matter of cost...it might be cheaper to replace one and simply redirect Amtrak traffic accordingly than to replace the other one.
> 
> The emphasis on upgrading a lot of things one or two steps is the right way to go. I'll say that I'd rather have seen new/upgraded rolling stock on more routes to relieve strain elsewhere (perhaps buying some Acela-IIs so you can run Acela-Is as new Regional cars and shuffle some Regional cars into other services) than funding some of the reports or miscellaneous projects, but all in all it's a pretty decent set of equipment. 'course, I'd also rather have seen some beefing up of the Superliner fleet, but that's just me.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Acela Is will get used for Regional service because it will cause a huge brand confusion and it will dilute the Acela brand thus reducing the flexibility to charge higher for Acela service. Acelas are getting two additional cars per consist and they will remain in Acela Service. Eventually when Acela IIs are acquired they will either be for augmenting Acela Service or they will create a third higher tier brand and service.
> 
> Regionals will remain 125 mph Tier I trains and they will get the new single level Corridor Cars when they arrive. They will continue to be loco hauled service, but with availability of new cab cars they will become push-pull.
> 
> This is sort of similar to the Tokaido Shinkansen where there are three levels of service - fastest - Nozomi, fast - Hikari, and milk run - Kodama.
> 
> As for Superliner fleet, Boardman in his speech to NARP last week said quite clearly that there will be no further LD equipment order until Congress states what the policy is regarding LD trains and provides funding for the same. Just reporting, so don't shoot the messenger. OTOH he also said that any equipment purchase that can be reasonably financed against net positive revenue streams are fair game. It will be a straight business decision on those.
Click to expand...

I'd been wondering what the plan was on those; I knew about the "add two cars" decision (as we've discussed before, capacity is a major limiting factor on the Acela). Of course, I honestly don't quite see room for three levels of service on the current alignment...running anything under 110-125 doesn't make sense, you've got the current cap of 150-160...and there's nowhere to stick in 200 MPH trains without an absurdly expensive new alignment, which IMHO would be a waste of money at this stage unless you're _also_ going to somehow rope in additional markets. That said, if the "top" brand fights on quality of service as well as speed (and again, unless you start cutting stops you're _really_ at a point of diminishing returns without new alignments, and I can't really see the justification without adding something significant to the rider base)...do we start calling those cars the "Merchants Fleet"?

Back to the Acela-I fleet: The speculation I'd heard, of shifting them into Regional service, suggests that what might instead happen is a marginal upgrade for the Acela-II service and a marginal downgrade for the Acela-I service. Ironically, I think offering guaranteed connections to trains outbound from WAS and NYP with the "downgraded" service might make them attractive to a lot of folks...but again, having two high-level services that aren't terribly different from one another risks cannibalization of the market.


----------



## afigg

Anderson said:


> I'd been wondering what the plan was on those; I knew about the "add two cars" decision (as we've discussed before, capacity is a major limiting factor on the Acela). Of course, I honestly don't quite see room for three levels of service on the current alignment...running anything under 110-125 doesn't make sense, you've got the current cap of 150-160...and there's nowhere to stick in 200 MPH trains without an absurdly expensive new alignment, which IMHO would be a waste of money at this stage unless you're _also_ going to somehow rope in additional markets. That said, if the "top" brand fights on quality of service as well as speed (and again, unless you start cutting stops you're _really_ at a point of diminishing returns without new alignments, and I can't really see the justification without adding something significant to the rider base)...do we start calling those cars the "Merchants Fleet"?
> 
> Back to the Acela-I fleet: The speculation I'd heard, of shifting them into Regional service, suggests that what might instead happen is a marginal upgrade for the Acela-II service and a marginal downgrade for the Acela-I service. Ironically, I think offering guaranteed connections to trains outbound from WAS and NYP with the "downgraded" service might make them attractive to a lot of folks...but again, having two high-level services that aren't terribly different from one another risks cannibalization of the market.


I don't think Amtrak would create a split between the current Acela and new Acela II service. The Amtrak Fleet Strategy plan calls for the current Acelas to be retired by 2023 by which time they will be over 20 years old and have a lot of miles on them. The Acela IIs are not expected to start delivery until 2017 and that is an optimistic schedule. Even if the new Acela IIs can run at 220 mph, I seriously doubt even the proposed first 220 mph section in NJ would be in service before the current Acelas are retired. No, Amtrak will stick with a 2 tier system because it works - the 125 mph Northeast Regionals, Keystones, and corridor & LD trains that operate beyond the NEC and the premium Acela NEC service.

Personally, I am in the camp of rather see the funding spent over the next 8-10 years to bring the current NEC up to a state of good repair with 150-160 mph speeds over more segments, replace the old tunnels and bridges, 2 new tunnels under the Hudson, track & catenary upgrades from NYP to WAS in section by section, expand capacity with 3rd and 4th tracks, fix the slow bottlenecks and curves, and get serious about ROW re-alignments in selected segments in eastern CT. Achieve a goal of 2:15 (or less) Acela trip time from WAS-NYP and do what it takes to achieve 2:45 Acela BOS-NYP. The costs in the Northeast of building the 220 mph sections has the potential to drain the available funding from other HSR and improved passenger rail projects outside of the NEC. Get the current NEC in much better condition, then if the support is still there, get started on building the selected 220 mph sections.


----------



## afigg

With the two original grant rounds (ARRA and FY10) and 2 rounds of redirecting the funds, it gets complicated how much each state and corridor ended up with. I decided to pull up the various award lists and sum up what the NEC and the directly connecting corridors got out of the $10.1 billion. Would have been better if the Portal bridge replacement, Gateway & Pelham bridge PE, the Keystone East, and BWI Airport station 4th track had all been fully funded, but maybe next time. The bottom line is that the NEC is getting a lot more funding than was in the cards 2.5 years ago.

Besides the HSIPR grants, Amtrak got $1.3 billion in the stimulus which was used for a range of projects including NEC related projects: Niantic river bridge replacement, Wilmington Station renovation, power system fixes, ROW improvements, Amfleet wreck repairs.

Anyway, of the $8 billion of stimulus funding and $2.1 billion of FY2010 funding for High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) that after the original awards and 2 rounds of redirections due to OH, WI & FL governors returning the funds, the NEC and the connecting corridors got the following amounts below after the dust settled. Well, we hope the dust has settled.

NEC: $950.5 million total

$38.5 million stimulus to NJ for Portal Bridge replacement final design and engineering.

$60 million stimulus to MD for completion of PE for B&P tunnel replacement.

$1.2 million stimulus to RI for 3rd track and station platform PE at Kingston station.

$13.3 million FY10 to DE for 1.5 miles of 3rd track from Ragan to Yard interlockings south of Wilmington.

$32.5 million FY10 to MA for PE of Boston South Station expansion.

$10 million FY10 joint NEC planning and NEC Commission.

$450 million FL HSR redirection to Amtrak for New Brunswick to Trenton improvements.

$22 million FL HSR redirection to MD for Susquehanna Bridge replacement completion of PE work.

$295 million FL HSR redirection to NY for Harold Interlocking bypass & Sunnyside yard access improvements.

$25 million FL HSR redirection to RI for 1.5 miles of 3rd track, high speed interlocking, and new high level platforms at Kingston station.

$3 million FL HSR redirection to RI for completion of PE for overhaul of Providence station.

Other corridors connecting to the NEC:

New Haven to Springfield: $191 million total (plus up to $286 million of CT state bond funding).

$40 million stimulus grant to CT to double track part of NHV-SPG corridor.

$120.9 million FY10 grant to CT for NHV-SPG corridor.

$30 million FL HSR redirection to CT for NHV to SPG corridor.

Also:

$72.8 million stimulus and OH &WI redirection to MA for Knowledge corridor track restoration.

$52.7 million stimulus and OH &WI redirection to VT for Vermonter route track upgrades.

Empire Corridor: $243.9 million total

$157.3 million total stimulus and OH &WI redirection grants for 2nd track Albany-Schenectady, high-speed 3rd track section, grade crossing improvements.

$28.5 million FY10 grants to NY for 3 projects.

$58.1 million FL HSR redirection grants to NY for completion of Albany-Rensselaer station 4th track, new Schenectady station, and signal system improvements along Hudson line.

Keystone East: $66 million total

$26 million stimulus grant to PA to close 3 grade crossings, PE for reconfiguration of several interlockings.

$40 million FL HSR redirection grant to PA for State interlocking segment improvements.

South of DC to Richmond:

$2.9 million stimulus grant to DC for Long Bridge replacement for PE study.

$75 million stimulus grant to VA for 3rd track from Arkendale to Powell’s Creek on the RF&P.

$45.5 million FY10 grant to VA for completion of PE and NEPA for DC to Richmond section of the SE HSR.


----------



## Anderson

afigg said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd been wondering what the plan was on those; I knew about the "add two cars" decision (as we've discussed before, capacity is a major limiting factor on the Acela). Of course, I honestly don't quite see room for three levels of service on the current alignment...running anything under 110-125 doesn't make sense, you've got the current cap of 150-160...and there's nowhere to stick in 200 MPH trains without an absurdly expensive new alignment, which IMHO would be a waste of money at this stage unless you're _also_ going to somehow rope in additional markets. That said, if the "top" brand fights on quality of service as well as speed (and again, unless you start cutting stops you're _really_ at a point of diminishing returns without new alignments, and I can't really see the justification without adding something significant to the rider base)...do we start calling those cars the "Merchants Fleet"?
> 
> Back to the Acela-I fleet: The speculation I'd heard, of shifting them into Regional service, suggests that what might instead happen is a marginal upgrade for the Acela-II service and a marginal downgrade for the Acela-I service. Ironically, I think offering guaranteed connections to trains outbound from WAS and NYP with the "downgraded" service might make them attractive to a lot of folks...but again, having two high-level services that aren't terribly different from one another risks cannibalization of the market.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Amtrak would create a split between the current Acela and new Acela II service. The Amtrak Fleet Strategy plan calls for the current Acelas to be retired by 2023 by which time they will be over 20 years old and have a lot of miles on them. The Acela IIs are not expected to start delivery until 2017 and that is an optimistic schedule. Even if the new Acela IIs can run at 220 mph, I seriously doubt even the proposed first 220 mph section in NJ would be in service before the current Acelas are retired. No, Amtrak will stick with a 2 tier system because it works - the 125 mph Northeast Regionals, Keystones, and corridor & LD trains that operate beyond the NEC and the premium Acela NEC service.
> 
> Personally, I am in the camp of rather see the funding spent over the next 8-10 years to bring the current NEC up to a state of good repair with 150-160 mph speeds over more segments, replace the old tunnels and bridges, 2 new tunnels under the Hudson, track & catenary upgrades from NYP to WAS in section by section, expand capacity with 3rd and 4th tracks, fix the slow bottlenecks and curves, and get serious about ROW re-alignments in selected segments in eastern CT. Achieve a goal of 2:15 (or less) Acela trip time from WAS-NYP and do what it takes to achieve 2:45 Acela BOS-NYP. The costs in the Northeast of building the 220 mph sections has the potential to drain the available funding from other HSR and improved passenger rail projects outside of the NEC. Get the current NEC in much better condition, then if the support is still there, get started on building the selected 220 mph sections.
Click to expand...

Amtrak? Voluntarily retire equipment that's less than 50 years old? *falls over in shock*

Sarcasm aside, I wouldn't be surprised to see what you say happen...though my gut says that they'll run those cars until they die. Like I said...given the funding to get a 220 MPH project on the NEC, I'd rather see it used to improve a _lot_ of other routes, add additional alignments in the NEC, or do _something_ to broaden service (even within the NEC). Actually, I'm only inclined to support the 220 MPH stuff if you can hang some pretty decent ornaments on it for elsewhere.


----------



## jis

I agree that until the 220mph HS Vision materializes there will be no third (top) tier service on NEC.The HSR Vision is however based on a 3 tier service operations plan.

BTW, the $10 million that was awarded to NJ for NEC planning was turned over to FRA by NJ so that FRA can do a Program EIS (Tier 1 EIS) for the NEC using that money. The last such was done in the early 70's and events have overtaken it and made it almost irrelevant.

I talked to Drew Galloway and Al Engel about it a few weeks back. It is a program that will be run by the FRA and there will be opportunities for public participation through Citizens Consultative Committees. We from NJ-ARP and other ARPs are keeping a close eye on this development. It will cover both the Amtrak 2030 Infrastructure Plan and will also delve into the 2050 Vision articulated by Amtrak taking current ground realities into account. Among other things it will most likely try to get a first cut sense of what the true high speed alignments would be. Amtrak's vision is more of a "what if" using exemplar alignments only.


----------



## Anderson

jls,

I'd like to see what the various alignments generate as far as travel times, costs, and ridership. Notwithstanding the NYP bottleneck, I do think a secondary alignment north of New York _may _be necessary given the logjams along the current line...though at the same time, I think I've said that going for a full-blown 220 MPH alignment may be more of an expensive mess than it's worth.


----------

