» First phase of applications for Track 2 line planning and construction attracts major bid demands from California, North Carolina, Florida, Oklahoma, and Virginia.
Update (13 October): State of Indiana has applied for $2.8 billion in funds on behalf of the Midwest Regional Rail Intiative for a 110 mph line connecting Chicago and Cleveland.
Update (6 October): Federal Railroad Administration head Joseph Szabo released the following news earlier today:
“We have received numerous applications from states and groups of states for the development of high-speed and intercity passenger rail programs for grant funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. These include 45 applications from 24 states totaling approximately $50 billion to advance high-speed rail corridor programs. We also received 214 applications from 34 states totaling $7 billion for corridor planning and smaller projects.”
All awards, according to the statement, will be announced this winter (for the $8 billion). This means that the states applying for the second round of high-speed rail (applications due in Spring 2010) will have to rely on Congress authorizing more money for the program…
Update: New York has submitted a proposal for $7.9 billion (inflation-adjusted) in investments in its Empire Corridor, making it the biggest project on the list yet announced. Pennsylvania has added its own proposal for $3.1 billion in funds.
More than forty states submitted $100 billion in proposals for stimulus funding of high-speed rail projects in July. Those applications were preliminary, but they followed with more serious applications at the end of August for the Federal Railroad Administration’s first, third, and fourth tracks of rail financing, which include small project construction and corridor planning. Last week, a number of states completed their final application for the FRA’s second track, which is designed for corridor-level construction on a much larger scale. These projects, unlike those submitted for consideration in August, do not have to be shovel-ready. The FRA will determine which states receive financing in the beginning of next year.
Though the list I’ve compiled below is not necessarily complete, it provides a basic overview of the states that have announced their applications thus far. Project costs total $18 $30 $50 billion — far higher than the $8 billion thus far committed to high-speed projects in the United States, and coming in addition to the almost $7 billion for which states applied in August. Clearly, there is far more demand than supply for these funds.
| Applicants for High-Speed Rail Corridor Projects | ||
| State | Amount | Project Description |
| California | $4.5 b | 220 mph service preparations for San Francisco-San Jose; Merced-Fresno; Fresno-Bakersfield; Los Angeles-Anaheim (source) |
| Florida | $2.6 b | Tampa-Orlando HSR; Passenger rail between Jacksonville and West Palm Beach (for the first time since 1968) (source) |
| Georgia | $472 m | Atlanta to Macon, full capital costs (source) |
| Illinois | $550 m | Line from Chicago to St. Louis (source) |
| Indiana | $2.8 b | Line from Chicago to Cleveland, via Indiana (source) |
| Kansas | $10 m | Upgrades to the Newton-Kansas/Oklahoma state line (source) |
| Michigan | $830 m | Upgrades to 110 mph of Detroit-Chicago service (source) |
| New York |
$7.9 b | Albany-Rochester-Niagara Falls upgrades to 90-110 mph service (source) |
| North Carolina |
$3.9 b | Charlotte-Raleigh-Richmond upgrades to 90-110 mph service (source) |
| Ohio | $564 m | 3C Line connecting Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland (source) |
| Oklahoma |
$2 b | Tulsa-Oklahoma City-Texas State Line (source) |
| Pennsylvania | $3.1 b | Harrisburg-Philadelphia speed up; Lackawanna Cutoff; Pittsburgh Maglev (source) |
| Virginia | $1.75 b | Washington-Richmond-Petersburg, reducing DC-Richmond trip times to 90 minutes (source) |
| Washington | $850 m | Portland-Seattle-International Border (source) |
| Wisconsin | $652 m | Milwaukee-Madison (source) |
——-
The state that submitted the second biggest proposal, California, has a major rail program underway, and there’s a lot to be said for why it should receive the lion’s share of federal funds. It is the only state whose taxpayers have made a serious commitment of their own to fund their rail program.
But North Carolina, Florida, Oklahoma, and Virginia have also submitted multi-billion dollar bids for money, arguing that their corridors deserve federal help. It remains to be seen how Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood will decide to spend the cash, but it would be inappropriate for federal funding to ignore local efforts. But would it make sense for Oklahoma and California both to receive $2 billion, when the latter had already agreed to spend $10 billion of its own money, while the former has done nothing of the sort?
In a September meeting in Georgia, Mr. LaHood was asked whether that state would receive federal dollars for high-speed rail. He responded: “It’ll come to Atlanta if Georgia gets its act together… There has to be a commitment by state government that transit is important.” This kind of rhetoric is helpful, because it provides a clue for how the U.S. government will determine funding.
The Department of Transportation has yet to establish how it will measure the efficacy of various proposed rail projects. The government will release a draft national rail plan later this month, a document which should provide some clues about Washington’s goals for intercity rail. Initial plans suggested that the government would release funding for Phase I corridors (those submitted in August) in late September, but there has been no news on that front. It would be appropriate, after all, if the government provided funding after describing its goals for the rail program.
There is also the question about how much of the $8 billion the federal government will distribute for each of the funding tracks; some states are planning to wait for round two of applications, which will be due in Spring 2010. For instance, Minnesota is planning to apply for $200 million in track 2 funds for the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, Northstar, and the Northern Lights Express — but only next year. New Hampshire has temporarily delayed action on a planned line between Nashua and Concord, with the expectation that it will be able to demand funds later. How much will the DOT have already committed by then? Will there be any money left?
Of course, Congress has a role to play here as well. If the $8 billion included for high-speed rail in the stimulus was a good start, it clearly isn’t enough to rework the American rail system, which is hardly the paragon of quality service. President Obama requested $1 billion in additional annual appropriations for rail for the next five years, but that isn’t enough to meet the demand; the House has suggested a $4 billion grant for this year alone, but the Senate has yet to sign on. James Oberstar (D-MN), Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has proposed a $50 billion allocation to rail over the next five years, but his efforts to see a new transportation bill passed have been delayed repeatedly by disagreements in the Congress about how to find money.
Nonetheless, the deluge of applications from states suggest that congresspeople increasingly have strong constituent desires for increasing the pot of federal rail allocations. Whether Congress will follow through on that incipient desire, however, is another matter.
Yonah Freemark | 
October 5th, 2009, 05:31 EST | 
Filed Under: 
I here there is rumors that only 40% of the 767 billon dollar stumus package has been spend to date as of Oct 1. Also from that they are akso saying in Washington say the big banks are starting to pay back the billons in lottery ticket money they borrowed to play the morage lotto strachers. If the states are asking for $50 to $70 billon in rail funding to build up grade many railroad systems that have not been worked on scince the 1930’s then the Feds should use $50-$20 from the eather the billons the banks are spost to pay back or from the $767Billon dollar package.
They should also streamline the high speed rail construciton and work on it one high speed rail line at a time such as instead of nibbling at the railroad projects very slowlly they should do it all in several high speed eletric railroad adavices starting out from the Northeast Corridor. Such as the NEC has eletric powered trains then they should kick off the natonal high speed rail up grades with a eletric catenary adaince towards Chaicgo from Harrsionburg PA. Or they could extend the eletric lines thoguh New York too.They should also do a high speed eletric catenary adanicement south from Washingtion DC down to link up with Florida’s high speed rail. Calforinia could start it’s eletric catenary and high speed rail advaincement right away too scince it is going to act as it’s own eletric catenary system with no known planned links to the other eletric catenary rail systems. Maybe they could pay for this with one on one speical foucsed stumius pakages that are custem made for each state’s rail plans.
Dean @ 50 — I’m much more optimistic about HSR in the US than about the future of the American Empire.
Until last year all passenger rail in the US had a very bad reputation — slow, late, run-down, money-losing, doesn’t go where you want to go or when you want to go there… The public and the politicians had mostly given up on rail, and we seemed to be reaching the end of the line.
Then it all changed. Team Obama dangled a modest $8 Billion out there and incited a kind of feeding frenzy. Two dozen states rushed to ask for money for HSR routes and another dozen asked for funds to study rail improvements.
The entire conversation has changed. The media and the people are talking about fast trains for the future, instead of chewing over Amtrak’s past failures. State agencies that used to be honestly named the Department of Highways found themselves instructed by the governors to actually act like Departments of Transportation and get serious about rail. Politicians now see valid proposals about what could be done in their states and they’ll be working to see how they can help to get it done. (If you could get a Nobel Prize just for changing the direction of national policy discussions …)
In our sometimes clumsy federal system, today the proposals for improving rail are coming bottom up, from the various states, not top down from D.C., and building support closer to the grass roots As the states put forward their bids, we are getting a better idea of what is doable, which states are really committed, what’s a realistic timeframe and budget for projects, etc. Most of all, it’s beginning to dawn on the politicians and the public that fast trains may be a very good idea, but getting them will not be easy or cheap.
So the needs and the opportunities are becoming clearer. Priorities are emerging from the fog. When the $8 Billion carrot is sliced and diced and spread equitably across the four regions — Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, and West — clearly many worthy projects will be left unfunded. At that point the pressure will be on Congress to put serious money behind better passenger rail. Then we’ll start to move.
Congress would most likely be more willing to add another 4 to 15 billon to the 8 billon high speed rail funds if they do see a lot of active construciton work in the states on new rail projects or improved train arival times. Then the public would to be more happy to go into it to.
I do hope it works out. I really want to see the benefits that efficient rail transportation can provide.
I hope the approach taken can cater for what the public actually want – more trains more often getting to their destinations faster.
I appreciate that improvements in service and usage are possible in some instances without a great deal of funds asnd existing investments are valuable. I am also cognizant of the future. Rail is a long-term investment, not a short term fix.
There are cultural differences some of us share which means we would never be willing riders on an overcrowded or unsafe system. Passengers are concerned with their safety and see more risk of assault or robbery than a crash so the whole process must be one which provides that level of personal safety and the frequent travel.
This leads me to conclude that trains should be smaller lighter faster and therefore leave and arrive more often, require lower power consumption, track, bridge strength, less materials, modular etc etc. I can imagine a passenger train network with only three separate parts and few of them moving.
The competitor is flying. They are also dragging engines, fuel and what not 30,000 feet into the air and landing them way outside city centres. Don’t expect me to be satisfied with iron horses when I know that rail has all the advantages, and the flexibility that air transport does not. It may also arrive directly in the center of a city.
These advantages should be exploited to the fullest. I say again, get some people who have never designed a train. If Dick Rutan were still alive I’m sure he would have opened a few minds to the possibilities.
Passengers appear to want small planes that don’t fly but get to their destination often. Get the idea?