FRA's Corridor ID Program and possible new Corridors

shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The biggest issue is much of these corridors identified in corridor ID aren’t going anywhere without further funding after the IIJA - as these high speed rail projects have eaten up a massive chunk of the funding we already have and FRA seems like they’re trying to direct the maximum amount toward the NEC possible from the FedState program. While the NEC projects are important - it might be appropriate to send a little more to the national side - above the minimum - in the last year or two once many of these big ticket NEC projects are funded. There is still CRISI (which will have a larger double fiscal year award next Year) which some of the projects will likely get funded under but they only generally award a couple large intercity passenger rail projects out of CRISI since short lines and smaller safety related projects tend to rely on that program also. Additionally commuter rail agencies can go after CRISI grants. Also remember that this was 10 out of 67 projects submitted - those other 57 projects are surely going to resubmit and there likely isn’t enough funding in both CRISI and Federal state for the national network to cover all of those projects that didn’t get in this time - let alone new projects that come out of corridor ID - most of those are likely going to be post IIJA. So the fight to advocate to improve passneger rail nationwide is only just beginning. There’s a lot more work to be done.
 
Last edited:
rookzie said:
Well the Utah Rail Passengers Association is reporting via Building Salt Lake that neither Utah proposal made the cut.


Quite disappointing, to say the very least.

This excerpt from the commentary near the bottom of that linked seems to point to the "probable cause" ─ foot-dragging.



For the Pioneer route, there's no indication that Idaho could have failed to collaborate in concert and respond before the late March deadline, IDK. The Idaho Transportation Department had applied for the grant, with the city of Boise, the UTA and UDOT included as partners. The FRA states that it pays special emphasis to projects that benefit rural and underserved communities. The extent of documented public outreach and engagement undertaken or in process during and following that deadline period is unknown. Gardner expressed a lot of optimism in the potential of a Salt Lake to Boise route, comparing it to other similar, successful routes Amtrak currently has.

In the case of the Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority's (BSPRA) consortium proposal to restore service along (most of) the North Coast Hiawatha route, the BSPRA completed and published last July (2023) a report detailing the public engagement for passenger rail serving rural and tribal communities throughout Montana. That meant that the BSPRA had to have begun the process quite early on, likely around May 2023. It also was known to have submitted the application before the deadline.

It's not entirely clear which if any of the routes that respondents for routes for which proposals were submitted were declined because of a missed deadline. That might not have been the case though with the Pioneer or Desert Wind proposal, although it does seem coincidental (and suspicious) that neither was selected, even though Nevada itself was involved with the Desert Wind route. Somehow, somewhere the ball seems to have been dropped, even if it had been picked back up. .
Click to expand...
Regarding Pioneer alternatives, Oregon DOT didn't contribute much either. And given the political representation of eastern Oregon, there wasn't much incentive to do anything.
 
Willbridge said:
Regarding Pioneer alternatives, Oregon DOT didn't contribute much either. And given the political representation of eastern Oregon, there wasn't much incentive to do anything.
Click to expand...
Yes demonstrating the political will is important. FRA clearly favored corridors that were submitted by and had real backing and enthusiasm from state and federal officials or those submitted by joint powers groups who built grassroots support and governmental backing from policy makers (like Big Sky) - there were a number of corridors submitted by private citizens and advocacy groups without involvement of any governmental officials along with some state submissions that seemed half hearted. They likely don’t want to expend corridor Id money where the political will isn’t there. It should be noted though that some of these could also get an additional chance to get “on the map” under the parallel long distance study. some of the notable ones like the Pioneer, Desert Wind, and Jacksonville - New Orleans are on the most recent “enhanced network” map for that study and have a good chance of making the Final Cut/map from the LD study. Segments that are recommended by the LD study would also have funding eligibility for projects that emerge similar to the eligibility provided by Corridor ID.
 
Last edited:
jis said:
One in Pennsylvania that I have not seen mentioned:
  • Reading - Philadelphia - New York. to Schuylkill River Passenger Rail Authority connecting Reading to Philadelphia with stops at Pottstown, Phoenixville and Norristown, and extending to New York from Philly.
Click to expand...
I wonder if it would be worth considering extending this route West to Harrisburg which would serve some major towns along the route such as Lebanon and the Hershey area which is a significant tourist attraction. This would also terminate the train at a location that is already set up for servicing trains, and would allow connections to the Pennsylvanian. Otherwise terminating at Reading makes it a glorified commuter train.
 
AmtrakMaineiac said:
I wonder if it would be worth considering extending this route West to Harrisburg which would serve some major towns along the route such as Lebanon and the Hershey area which is a significant tourist attraction. This would also terminate the train at a location that is already set up for servicing trains, and would allow connections to the Pennsylvanian. Otherwise terminating at Reading makes it a glorified commuter train.
Click to expand...
I don't think a Philadelphia to Harrisburg via Reading train makes much sense. Now if it were a New York - Allentown - Reading - Harrisburg, that would be something to strive for.
 
Paniolo Man said:
Well the Utah Rail Passengers Association is reporting via Building Salt Lake that neither Utah proposal made the cut.

I am genuinely hurt that many states got funding for several projects and we couldn't get funding for these two. They awarded funding to projects that are mere expansions of existing service, yet these routes that would serve hundreds of thousands not currently served by rail couldn't make the cut.
Click to expand...
Desert wind and Pioneer are both LD routes, I'm not surprised the state didn't win money. I'm more surprised North Coast Hiawatha got money. SLC to LA is 800 miles while SLC to Seattle is over 1000.
 
Barciur said:
Is there a feasible route for that?
Click to expand...
I am sure I read somewhere that the deal was that Amtrak would get the Keystone Corridor to Harrisburg and in exchange NS could concentrate on the Reading/Harrisburgh Corridor for freight. So while there is a class 1 route from NJ through Allentown and Reading, NS could reasonably demand $$$$ for giving away freight capacity to passengers.
 
GDRRiley said:
Desert wind and Pioneer are both LD routes, I'm not surprised the state didn't win money. I'm more surprised North Coast Hiawatha got money. SLC to LA is 800 miles while SLC to Seattle is over 1000.
Click to expand...
But that's not what Utah was requesting, the two proposals were for Salt Lake City -> Pocatello -> Boise and Salt Lake City -> Las Vegas.
 
There is a freight route from New York to Harrisburg via Reading. It is fairly busy. That said I think the Commonwealth could work out something. The ex-Reading is a far less advantageous and efficient route than the ex-PRR. I think they should swap slots. Amtrak would allow (technically there’s a trackage right, but I believe fees are the problem) NS to divert its Morrisville Intermodal traffic onto the ex-PRR. Other traffic may also prove desirable to move. Then NS could move its crack intermodals at 70 on a more direct, less congested route, which in conventional railroading would be desirable. NS would then contract slots to Amtrak for at least Philadelphia to Reading. The ex-PRR might need a third track relain, but then the costs would at least be controlled by Amtrak asking, “What is the least amount of capacity. needed?” vs NS, “How much can we hit them over the head for?” I’m also not sure there is ROW for extensive improvement to the ex+Reading, so costs could rise wildly. This of course would require cooperation akin to the USA and USSR signing an alliance, so it will never happen.
 
Paniolo Man said:
But that's not what Utah was requesting, the two proposals were for Salt Lake City -> Pocatello -> Boise and Salt Lake City -> Las Vegas.
Click to expand...
But if the FRA knows they are likely to do a LD route, then they wouldn't be interested in the shorter routes covering just part of that. And yes they should take things like that into account. I'm not sure how the NCH got corridor $
 
Septa9739 said:
This of course would require cooperation akin to the USA and USSR signing an alliance, so it will never happen.
Click to expand...
Actually, we, they, UK and France signed the Four-Power Treaty on the Status of Berlin, as allies. Diplomats initialed it in September 1971 while I was on the Empire Builder coming home from the Army. Closer to home, no one thought that the Port of Portland could negotiate a reciprocal switching agreement with the six Class I railroads serving Portland. Then one day five or six business cars showed up in the private car tracks at Union Station and the deal was made.

Ever since witnessing things like this, I never say never.
 
AmtrakBlue said:
Didn’t know this. Glad to see DE getting funding.

https://www.newarkpostonline.com/ne...cle_14d7b430-961c-11ee-b99b-ab60d472164d.html
Click to expand...
Here is what the FRA document has to say about it:

Diamond State Line (Up to $500,000)
Delaware Transit Corporation

The proposed corridor would connect at least one point on the Northeast Corridor in northern Delaware (Newark or Wilmington) with a point in eastern Maryland (Salisbury or Berlin) via central Delaware, including the state capital of Dover. The proposed corridor would provide new service on an existing alignment. The corridor sponsor would enter Step 1 of the program to develop a scope, schedule, and cost estimate for preparing, completing, or documenting its service development plan.
Click to expand...


Surprisingly, Gulf Coast (New Orleans - Mobile) was selected for Step 1, one that is on the verge of getting service.restored!

danasgoodstuff said:
But if the FRA knows they are likely to do a LD route, then they wouldn't be interested in the shorter routes covering just part of that. And yes they should take things like that into account.
Click to expand...
Somehow I doubt that this was the primary reason. If this were true then they would not have taken up Atlanta to Savannah either, since they are likely to do an LD using that segment, something under consideration for the Chicago - Florida service via Atlanta.
 
danasgoodstuff said:
I'm a little confused about the routing shown west of Spokane for the NCH, I don't think there's rail there.
Click to expand...
It refers to the route of the old NCH which was the Stevens Pass route. Back then Amtrak Empire Builder used to run via Stampede Pass.
 
jis said:
It refers to the route of the old NCH which was the Stevens Pass route. Back then Amtrak Empire Builder used to run via Stampede Pass.
Click to expand...
But that's not exactly what's drawn there, nor is it likely what's going to happen - the're not both going to go through Stevens in any likely restoration scenario. What's drawn with the route heading straight west from just out of Spokane looks like either the old Milwaukee Road or just a line on a map with no reference to existing rail at all.
 
danasgoodstuff said:
But that's not exactly what's drawn there, nor is it likely what's going to happen - the're not both going to go through Stevens in any likely restoration scenario. What's drawn with the route heading straight west from just out of Spokane looks like either the old Milwaukee Road or just a line on a map with no reference to existing rail at all.
Click to expand...
It is drawn that way so that people who want to do so can waste their time bellyaching about it :D (juuust kidding) Those maps are not terribly precise in many places. I'd just let it go and assume that when they say it follows the old route of the NCH we take it at its face value. 😔
 

Latest posts

Back
Top