Posts Tagged ‘intercity rail passenger service’

ORDC to Seek Passenger Rail Study Grant

February 10, 2023

Ohio has taken another tangible step toward the development of intercity passenger rail corridor service.

Gov. Mike DeWine has authorized the Ohio Rail Development Commission to seek a federal grant to be used to pay for a study of the development of corridor passenger service.

The grant being sought would come from the Corridor Identification and Development program of the Federal Railroad Administration.

The FRA has said it will provide up to $500,000 per corridor to successful applicants. Applications are due by March 27.

ORDC said if it wins the grant it would study two routes: Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati and Cleveland-Toledo-Detroit.

The study would be conducted by a consultant hired by ORDC and would examine infrastructure needs of the routes in order to make them ready for intercity rail passenger service.

The study also would examine equipment needed to provide the service, stations and other facilities, operating costs, ridership estimates and how much funding the state would need to provide to launch the service

ORDC Executive Director Matthew Dietrich said his agency has been discussing some of those matters with Amtrak and wants to ensure that any new rail passenger service would not interrupt freight service on those routes.

Amtrak serves Ohio with three routes, two of them operating across the state’s northern tier via Toledo and Cleveland. The third route operates three times a week via Cincinnati.

All of those trains are scheduled to operate through Ohio between midnight and 6 a.m. because they are designed to run overnight between Chicago and the eastern terminals of Boston, New York and Washington.

“This is the first step of many in this process,” DeWine said in a statement. “We have a lot of questions that need to be answered before we make any commitments. The information we gather from this effort will help us make informed decisions about federal opportunities for passenger rail in Ohio.”

The Dayton Daily News reported that Amtrak estimated last May that developing the corridor between Cleveland and Cincinnati would cost $100 million for infrastructure improvements.

The corridor identification program was launched last year with $1.8 billion in funding.

Mayors, Planning Groups Seek to Promote Interest in Intercity Passenger Rail Routes in Ohio

December 21, 2022

The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission, some Ohio mayors and other metropolitan planning organizations have submitted “expression of interest” letters to the Federal Railroad Administration in a bid to jump start the creation of intercity passenger service between Cleveland and Cincinnati.

The FRA earlier this year called for expressions of interest from state and local government entities in participating in a program the agency is overseeing to develop new passenger service or improving existing service.

The letters to the FRA promoted the 3C+D corridor via Columbus and Dayton as well as routes linking Chicago and Pittsburgh via Columbus.

The letters of interest are a first step toward winning a grant from the FRA to begin the planning process for the new service.

Amtrak has not served Columbus or Dayton since the 1979 discontinuance of the New York-Kansas City National Limited.

Cincinnati is served by the tri-weekly Chicago-New York Cardinal while Cleveland and Toledo are on Amtrak routes linking Chicago with New York, Boston and Washington.

It remains to be seen, though, whether Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, the Ohio Department of Transportation or the Ohio legislature will be onboard with the efforts to expand rail passenger service in the state.

The letters written by the mayors and planning agencies are in part an effort to show support for expanding Amtrak operations in Ohio.

The 3C+D corridor is part of the Amtrak Connects US plan released by Amtrak in 2021 showing what future services the intercity rail passenger carrier would like to operate.

Those services, though, hinge upon the willingness of state and local governments to pay for those routes once they are developed.

Some funding for intercity route development is included in the federal Infrastructure and Jobs Act. The FRA just this week issued a call for proposals to be submitted by next March by parties interested in working with the FRA to develop new passenger service or to improve existing service.

“To me the good news is that people are thinking about this, people are noticing,” said Stu Nicholson, executive director of All Aboard Ohio, which advocates for rail passenger service and public transit.

Nicholson told the website Columbus Underground that other governors have been more active in working toward getting a share of the FRA funding for passenger route development than DeWine has been.

Last May DeWine did direct the Ohio Rail Development Commission to talk with Amtrak about how much it would cost to launch the routes serving Ohio that are identified in the Amtrak Connects US plan.

A spokesperson for DeWine told Columbus Underground report that DeWine “wouldn’t be responding to questions about Amtrak expansion until a report being prepared by ORDC examining construction and operation costs has been completed.”

At the time that DeWine ordered the study, the ORDC said the study would take eight months to a year to complete.

That would put Ohio at risk of missing the March 7 deadline the FRA has set for bids to seek funding in the first round of funding for the passenger development program.

FRA Seeking Passenger Corridor Proposals

December 21, 2022

The Federal Railroad Administration this week issued a Notice of Solicitation and Funding Opportunity for intercity passenger rail corridor development.

The program is funded by $1.8 billion from the Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act.

The FRA began last May accepting expressions of interest by those interested in participating in the corridor development program.

In a news release, the FRA said the Corridor ID Program will be used to determine which passenger corridors will receive funding.

The corridors could establish new intercity passenger rail service or improve existing service.

Formal project proposals must be submitted to the FRA by March 20, 2023.

FRA Taking Bids for Passenger Rail Funding

December 8, 2022

The Federal Railroad Administration said this week that it is taking applications for $2.3 billion for intercity passenger rail projects.

The grants are available for projects such as fixing track, structures, and grade crossings.

An FRA news release said funding provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act  “greatly expands the scope, funding and vision” of its partnership program.”

Aside from infrastructure related projects, grants are available for the development of new intercity passenger and high-speed rail services.

Eligible applicants include a state; a group of states; an Interstate Compact; a public agency or publicly chartered authority established by one or more states; a political subdivision of a state; Amtrak, acting on its own behalf or under a cooperative agreement with one or more states; a federally recognized Indian Tribe; or any combination of these entities.

The federal share of eligible projects must not exceed 80 percent of the project cost.

The remaining 20 percent must be made up of funding provided by state and local government, and/or private sector entities.

Ohio Mayors, Planning Agencies Want Corridors Added to FRA Corridor Development List

November 3, 2022

Several Ohio mayors and regional planning agencies have asked the Federal Railroad Administration to include 10 corridors in Ohio for use as potential rail passenger routes.

A news release issued by All Aboard Ohio, a rail passenger and public transit advocacy group, said the corridors would be listed on the FRA’s Corridor Identification Program. 

The news release said the “expression of interest” by the mayors and planning agencies was important because they are eligible to apply for FRA grants to develop these corridors for passenger service.

Some of the corridors have no intercity rail passenger service while others include segments served by existing Amtrak long-distance trains.

The Amtrak Connects Us plan released last year identifies several corridor serving Ohio that could see new or additional Amtrak service subject to funding availability.

The Ohio Rail Development Commission is currently undertaking a study of rail corridors in Ohio to determine what infrastructure needs are for passenger service and the estimated service development costs.

Any state funding for rail passenger service development in Ohio would need approval of the Ohio General Assembly.

The AAO news release noted that usually FRA grants require a 20 percent state match.

The release said the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 allows regional planning agencies, city and county governments, private sector partners and state government entities to provide t hose matching funds. The corridors that the planning agencies and mayors are seeking to have included on the FRA corridor list include: 


•    Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati
•    Chicago-Fort Wayne-Lima-Columbus-Pittsburgh
•    Detroit-Toledo-Columbus
•    Columbus-Lancaster-Logan-Athens
•    Columbus-Chillicothe-Portsmouth-Northern Kentucky
•    Cleveland-Elyria-Sandusky-Toledo-Bryan-Chicago
•    Cleveland-Toledo-Detroit
•    Cleveland-Buffalo-Rochester-New York City
•    Cleveland-Pittsburgh-Philadelphia-New York City
•    Cleveland-Washington

Third County Joins Pennsylvania Rail Agency

April 29, 2022

Formation of a passenger rail agency in eastern Pennsylvania is now complete after a third county agreed to join the effort.

Chester County commissioners voted to join the Schuylkill River Passenger Rail Authority, which will lead efforts to create an Amtrak route between Philadelphia and Reading, Pennsylvania.

Earlier commissioners in Bucks and Montgomery had voted to join the rail agency.

Each county will appoint three members to the agency’s governing board, which hopes to hold its first meeting in June.

The new agency will seek grant funding and work with Amtrak to develop the proposed service.

Pa. Counties Seek to Form Rail Passenger Agency

April 25, 2022

Public officials in two Pennsylvania counties have suggested creating an agency that would work toward restoration of rail passenger service between Philadelphia and Reading, Pennsylvania.

If a third county agrees to join, the proposed Schuylkill River Passenger Rail Authority will be formed.

Thus far officials in Berks and Montgomery counties have agreed to join the proposed Authority.

Officials in Chester County are scheduled to vote on the proposal this week.

The authority would seek competitive infrastructure funding and to work with Amtrak, the Federal Railroad Administration, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, and other agencies.

It would have a nine-member board that would include members of the county commissions, planning commissions, other agencies, and local mayors.

Amtrak has proposed in its Amtrak Connects US plan operating up to three daily roundtrips between Reading and New York via Philadelphia.

Ultimately, It Comes Down to Control and Self Interest

August 10, 2021

I ran across a pair of columns last week that help illuminate why expanding rail passenger service in the United States is so challenging and happens so infrequently.

One piece was written by Jim Mathews, president of the Rail Passengers Association and appeared on that organization’s website.

The other was written by a Union Pacific vice president and appeared on the website of Railway Age although it originally appeared on the UP website.

Mathews was in part writing in response to a recent U.S. Surface Transportation Board decision that established a timeline in a case Amtrak brought seeking to prod CSX and Norfolk Southern into allowing intercity passenger service between New Orleans and Mobile, Alabama, to begin next year.

The proposed service has been in the works for five years and funding is in place for capital improvements and operating expenses.

But Amtrak and the host railroads – CSX in particular – have been unable to reach agreement on what infrastructure improvements are needed.

Mathews pointed out that CSX has demanded work that would cost 19.5 times what a Federal Railroad Administration study estimated was needed.

Mathews doesn’t think NS or CSX have been negotiating in good faith, saying there is ample data available to move ahead on the Gulf Coast service, including infrastructure improvements.

“What are CSX and N-S really after in their long-standing opposition to the Gulf Coast restoration?” Mathews asked, perhaps rhetorically.

He believes the host railroads are demanding study after study until they can finally get a result “that gives them cover to stop the restoration.”

There is likely some truth to that. It’s a strategy Class 1 railroads have used before to stymie new passenger service or expansion of existing service.

If you drag the process out long enough those wanting the service might get discouraged and go away.

A subset of that strategy is demanding expensive infrastructure work that is too costly for Amtrak or a transportation agency to afford. It is all a way of getting to “no” without saying it as such.

And that brings me to the column by Wes Lujan, assistant vice president of external relations at Union Pacific.

He begins by contending UP is not hostile to Amtrak and other entities seeking to use UP rails for expanded service on existing passenger routes or creating new service on freight-only routes.

Lujan argues that UP has worked with Amtrak and state agencies in California and Illinois on projects that enabled expanded and faster passenger service and will continue to do so.

But Lujan said Union Pacific is put off by how Amtrak and others are demanding access to UP rails by announcing those plans and then bringing political pressure on the railroad to agree to them.

He cited the Amtrak ConnectsUS plan announced earlier this year of 39 new routes to be implemented over the next 15 years at an estimated cost of $75 billion.

That plan, Lujan wrote, was created in conjunction with state transportation agencies but not in consultation with the railroads that would host those trains.

“Instead of a unilateral push to expand passenger service, it would be transformational if we faced these challenges collaboratively, as partners with passenger agencies and with a common understanding that the U.S. freight rail network is a dynamic system that moves the physical goods that drive the American economy,” Lujan wrote.

To boil down Lujan’s argument to its essence, if you want new or expanded passenger service be prepared to pay for it. That means funding infrastructure improvements “and (emphasis in original) provid[ing] more reasonable compensation for access to host railroads.”

I would not take everything that either Mathews or Lujan wrote at face value. At the same time each has shown how each side comes at rail passenger expansion from different perspectives that hinder the creation of the partnerships that Lujan espouses.

To have a partnership you need to have willing partners who are committed to working through their differences to reach an agreed upon end goal.

There must be some incentive for both parties to work toward that end goal, and it helps when there is more balance in the relationship than is typically the case when Amtrak or some agency wants new rail passenger service.

Mathews wants more of what Lujan opposes: Using political pressure and the power of government, specifically the STB, to force railroads to be more cooperative in allowing passenger rail expansion and seeing to it that those trains operate on time.

Host railroads, though, see little in it for them in allowing passenger trains to use their rails.

Their purpose is hauling freight, not passengers. It is not realistic to expect freight railroads to respond to every proposal for passenger trains on their rails with a response of “that’s a great idea; let’s sit down and figure out how we can make it work.”

It may be that the partnerships that Lujan cited are more the exception than the rule.

They occurred in states with a long history of paying to fund passenger service and its capital expenses. Those states also have agencies that have a history of working with Amtrak and its host railroads and understand that it takes time and money to get to “yes.”

Many, although not all, of the routes in the Amtrak ConnectsUS plans are in places where state governments have not funded intercity rail passenger service and which lack agencies with experience in overseeing and managing rail passenger service.

Railroads are accustomed to working with state transportation departments on public-private capital projects. But they see something in it for them in those projects.

Those also tend to be one-off projects that do not involve an on-going commitment to paying for such things as operating expenses as is typically the case with intercity passenger rail.

I doubt that Mathews would disagree with Lujan’s assertion that passenger rail development works best when you have a partnership of the willing.

It is just that Mathews is not convinced that railroads are all that willing to establish those partnerships to host new and additional passenger trains. These partnerships are far more difficult to establish than Lujan is willing to admit.

Ultimately, it comes down to control. Like anyone else, railroads don’t like being told what to do with their property and don’t want to be forced into doing something they don’t see as being in their interests or something they simply believe is not necessary.

Senate Committee Puts Brakes on Amtrak’s Expansive Vision

June 21, 2021

Last week the Senate Commerce Committee approved its own version of a new surface transportation authorization act.

The bill, known as the Surface Transportation Investment Act of 2021, would replace the FAST Act, which is set to expire on Sept. 30.

What is noteworthy about the Senate bill is how it differs in one key area from a House surface transportation bill approved two weeks ago by a House transportation committee.

Although it boosts transportation funding generally and Amtrak funding in particular, the Senate bill would authorize far less money for both areas than the House bill.

That’s a critical point because much of the much ballyhooed Amtrak service expansion plans are premised on Congress approving a dedicated funding program to pay for that expansion.

The House bill does that but not so the Senate bill.

Before getting into the details about that, let’s get straight that both bills authorize spending but do not appropriate it. Those are separate processes and although they are related.

Think of the surface transportation bill as setting spending priorities that Congress will, presumably, follow.

As for those spending priorities, the Senate bill would authorize just 36 percent of what the House bill would authorize.

The Senate bill increased transportation funding for freight and passenger rail, but not as much as the House bill.

Over the five-year life of the Senate bill, transportation funding would be authorized at $34.2 billion. The current FAST Act level is $14.3 billion.

Missing from the Senate bill is the funding authorization for the grant program that Amtrak plans to use to develop its new corridor services.

The House bill would provide $25 billion for that while the Senate bill provides nothing.

Also in the House bill is $25 billion for grants for bridges, tunnels and stations. The Senate bill has no authorized funding for that grant program.

Senate authorizations for Amtrak funding in Senate bill are lower than in the House bill.

The Senate would authorize $6.6 billion for Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor and $10.7 billion for the passenger carrier’s national network.

The House bill figures are $13.5 billion for the Northeast Corridor and $18.5 billion for the national network.

The Rail Passengers Association asserted on its website that the authorizations in the Senate bill will be “inadequate to meaningfully add or upgrade new service beyond a handful of routes.”

That, though, may be the point of the Senate bill. It may be a statement from the Senate Commerce Committee that support for a massive spending spree to expand intercity rail passenger service lacks political support in that chamber.

It remains to be seen what will happen once both bills reach the floor of their respective chambers.

There may be amendments offered in both chambers to increase or lower individual line item authorizations.

It seems likely that a conference committee will need to work out the differences between the two competing surface transportation authorization bills.

If the two chambers are unable to resolve their differences, that might lead to yet another one year extension of the FAST Act as happened last year. Some congressional observers believe it might happen this year, too.

Spending authorizations can be highly contentious and subject to partisan differences.

That brings up another noteworthy difference between the House and Senate surface transportation authorization bills.

The Senate bill passed out of committee with bi-partisan, although not unanimous support. The House bill was more of a partisan creation.

The Senate bill does contain a number of clauses that can be interpreted as pro-passenger rail.

These include mandates, for example, that Amtrak maintain a ticket agent at stations averaging 40 or more passengers a day.

Amtrak is also being directed by the Senate bill to provide a host of additional information about a variety of issues including any plans to change the operations of long-distance or other routes.

There is also language in the bill describing the importance of Amtrak service to rural America.

These mandates appear to reflect a likelihood of Congressional support for continuing funding of Amtrak service as it exists today with, perhaps, some modest service increases and enhancements.

The Senate committee, though, did not support the type of far-reaching and expansive additions to the Amtrak network envisioned by the carrier’s Amtrak Connect US plan.

What it all means is that despite the happy talk emanating from rail passenger advocacy groups about how intercity passenger rail service is on the verge of a transformational moment that is not a sure thing.

A lot of things are going to have fall into place and what happened last week in the Senate does not necessarily bode well for that process playing out the way some want to see it develop.

Bill Would Create Indiana Passenger Rail Commission

January 15, 2021

Two Indiana lawmakers have introduced legislation to create a state rail commission to develop rail passenger service through the state.

Senate Bill 9 was introduced by Senators Dennis Kruse of Auburn and Jeff Raatz of Richmond and has been assigned to the Senate Homeland Security and Transportation Committee.

The bill would create the Indiana Passenger Rail Commission, whose goals would be to promote and coordinate passenger rail service in the state, including facilitating development and implementation of improvements to intercity rail service, long-range plans for passenger service, and coordinating public and private agencies and organizations to develop service.

The senators were assisted in drafting the bill by the Northern Indiana Passenger Rail Association, which has been actively pushing for restoration of intercity rail passenger service between Chicago and Columbus, Ohio, via Fort Wayne, Indiana.