The next few years

[neroden]

I dug through all the Keystone stations from Harrisburg to Philadelphia. High platforms are funded (by PennDOT) for all of them except Parkesburg. Most of this is thanks to the new transportation funding bill signed in the waning days of the Corbett administration, which gives SEPTA a lot more to work with. The dates all look iffy, but PennDOT is aiming for 2018 or earlier for all of them except, as mentioned before, Parkesburg. Parkesburg is still planned but no dates and not actually funded.

-- Ardmore is supposed to start construction in 2015, with no specific target date for completion

-- Paoli was supposed to start construction in 2016 according to PennDOT with ADA compliance required by 2018 as per a lawsuit settlement. The representative from PennDOT said the lawsuit was the best thing that could have happened to the project!

-- Exton is supposed to start construction in 2015, no target completion date

-- Downingtown is being relocated: It's under "design and environmental assessment". There are no solid dates, but construction is guessed to begin in 2015 or 2016. Also fully funded.

-- Coatesville is being relocated, but only a little bit to the east. There's been a FONSI already, and it's fully funded with at least $20.7 million, but weirdly there are no dates; I'm not sure what the delay is (apparently "working on agreements with the city and other parties"), but PennDOT says it's definitely happening.

I also dug through the inspector general's report for ADA compliance. The following stations were supposed to have access constructed in FY 15:

Elko, NV

Glenwood Springs, CO

Marshall, TX -- I find that an elevator was installed in late 2013, so what's left should be platform & pathway work

Paoli, PA (note difference from PennDOT -- this may refer to early work)

Philadelphia-North, PA (really? Wow!)

 

[wolfspirit]

If I remember correctly, Downingtown is being relocated because they can't put a high platform in it's current location (on top of the fact that there is barely 200 parking spaces, so it's practically useless as a commuter stop).

The last update I heard through the county grapevine was that the environmental studies were close enough to finished that they have begun working on obtaining the 100ish acres they are using. I wouldn't expect them to get that before 2016, so I would put odds on a new station in 2018-2019. Maybe then I can stop driving the extra miles to Exton because I have a chance at a parking space there, unlike Downingtown.

Stations aren't the first priority of the Act 89 funding (the RRD side of SEPTA is scarily bad), so lots of flash, little bang on their part of the keystone for a couple of years.

Also, why is Coatesville getting a new station before Parkesburg?

 

[neroden]

You are correct about the primary reason for the Downingtown relocation; that's also why Coatesville is being moved, to get the platform off a curve.

I have no idea why Coatesville is getting a new station before Parkesburg, it just is. I think there's more local funding at Coatesville, perhaps. Asked about Parkesburg, PennDOT said (paraphrasing) "Unfortunately, we can't do 12 stations at once."

I know SEPTA has an *enormous* backlog on Regional Rail -- and furthermore, has to prioritize the Market-Frankford and Broad Street lines which carry significantly more people. It seems to me that Ardmore, Exton, and Paoli have been prioritized because of their overlap with the Amtrak route (meaning that they qualify for additional sources of funding).

 

[afigg]

I know SEPTA has an *enormous* backlog on Regional Rail -- and furthermore, has to prioritize the Market-Frankford and Broad Street lines which carry significantly more people. It seems to me that Ardmore, Exton, and Paoli have been prioritized because of their overlap with the Amtrak route (meaning that they qualify for additional sources of funding).

According to this fact sheet for the Paoli station phase 1 project, Amtrak is contributing $12 million and SEPTA $24 million. I imagine Amtrak is contributing funds to the Exton station project as well. Pretty sure that Amtrak has also committed funds for the Ardmore station high level platforms and accessibility parts of the station project, but that project appears to be stalled pending additional funding.

The funding responsibility for the eastern Keystone stations appears to be split with SEPTA taking the lead for the Ardmore, Paoli, Exton stations and PennDOT for Downingtown and west of it. The lawsuit for ADA compliance was beneficial by forcing the state and Amtrak to get serious about upgrading and modernizing the stations. If there is one category of passenger rail infrastructure projects that are prone to endless delays, it is station upgrades, modernization, or building a new replacement station. Station projects have a lot of stakeholders and interaction with local municipal planning boards, local governments, state transportation and highway agencies, and developers. The process usually goes into a circular loop of studies, public meetings, planning, and lining up the funding that go around and around with no real progress for years and years.

Amtrak has reportedly told Delaware that they want the new Newark DE station with high level platforms to be completed by 2018. If Amtrak is seeking to apply a 2018 deadline for high level platforms on the NEC at all stops, what does that mean for the Aberdeen, Mystic, Waverly stations? Maybe mini-highs at those stations to meet the level boarding and ADA requirements as an interim measure until those stations can get full length HLPs? The $50 million a year Amtrak is getting from Congress to bring stations to ADA compliance doesn't go very far when spread over the entire system.

 

[neroden]

Amtrak has reportedly told Delaware that they want the new Newark DE station with high level platforms to be completed by 2018. If Amtrak is seeking to apply a 2018 deadline for high level platforms on the NEC at all stops, what does that mean for the Aberdeen, Mystic, Waverly stations?

Hmm. Well, they all have lifts already.

I expect Mystic CT (23490/year, sharp curve, grade crossings on either end) will be put off and left with low platforms for some time.

Westerly RI (39186/year, significant curve) will be a hassle too.

Aberdeen MD (40160/year) is much more of a priority. It will probably be redone in conjunction with making room for quad-tracking. (As a local station; expresses couldn't stop.) There appear to be conceptual plans already, from 2012. Amtrak can also make MARC pay for part of it, given the way ADA rules are written.

 

[Guest]

Amtrak has reportedly told Delaware that they want the new Newark DE station with high level platforms to be completed by 2018. If Amtrak is seeking to apply a 2018 deadline for high level platforms on the NEC at all stops, what does that mean for the Aberdeen, Mystic, Waverly stations?

Hmm. Well, they all have lifts already.

I expect Mystic CT (23490/year, sharp curve, grade crossings on either end) will be put off and left with low platforms for some time.

Westerly RI (39186/year, significant curve) will be a hassle too.

Aberdeen MD (40160/year) is much more of a priority. It will probably be redone in conjunction with making room for quad-tracking. (As a local station; expresses couldn't stop.) There appear to be conceptual plans already, from 2012. Amtrak can also make MARC pay for part of it, given the way ADA rules are written.

Aberdeen should be done by MARC and Maryland. MARC passengers use it the most by far.

 

[neroden]

I did a little research into the state of the law, and basically, Amtrak's done what it's legally required to do by the ADA by installing the lifts. This is because the level boarding regulation was specifically stated only to apply to new construction (!!!) and not to the underlying mandate to make all intercity rail stations accessible (a confusing distinction).

This means that the Aberdeen station (etc.) can legally be left to rot, though if any further improvements are made, level boarding would have to be provided. I think Amtrak will wait for Maryland to pay for it.

There are some stations (17 according to the OIG's report) which specifically *require* new construction to become accessible even under the *previous* regulations. These are the stations where people in wheelchairs don't have an accessible path to the platform. (I'm not counting the ones where only the bathrooms are inaccessible, since in those cases, it's possible to only do construction on the bathrooms and ignore the rest of the station.) Of these 17, the ones under the control of a freight operator might not have level boarding installed. These are:

Ashland, VA

Buffalo Exchange Street NY

Clifton Forge VA

Elko NV (promised for 2015, see above)

Glenwood Springs CO

Harpers Ferry VA

Marshall TX (promised for 2015, see above)

Windsor-Mt Aschtney, VT

The remainder which are under the control of the passenger operator will definitely have to have level boarding installed when this mandatory construction is done. These are:

Coatesville PA (being done by PennDOT, see above)

Mount Joy PA (being done by PennDOT, see above)

Paoli PA (being done by PennDOT/SEPTA/Amtrak, see above)

Phildelphia-North PA (100% Amtrak responsibility, planned for 2015, see above)

Parkesburg PA (legal responsibility 100% Amtrak, but probably will be done by PennDOT)

Newark DE (legal responsbility shared by City of Newark, DELDOT, Amtrak, and possibly SEPTA)

Westerly RI (legal responsibility shared by State of Rhode Island & Amtrak)

Windsor CT (legal responsibility shared by Town of Windsor & Amtrak, but ConnDOT will probably get involved)

Windsor Locks CT (legal responsibility shared by ConnDOT & Amtrak)

After the Paoli lawsuit settlement, I would expect Amtrak to prioritize work on these most-inaccessible stations in an attempt to avert further lawsuits. Amtrak plans to complete designs for 13 of the 17 stations by the end of 2015. The 4 exceptions are Mt. Joy (which PennDOT is doing), Coatesville (which PennDOT is doing), Buffalo-Exchange St. and Windsor-Mt Aschtney VT. Those last two are merely supposed to be "assessed" in 2015. I don't know why Amtrak is moving so slowly on them, but I would expect Amtrak to push to get them done ASAP, probably before 2018.

 

[CHamilton]

There is a good list of transit projects that will be coming online or under construction in 2015 at

Openings and Construction Starts Planned for 2015

Unfortunately, NARP has not done their annual "Wheels of Progress" list of rail projects for several years.

 

[afigg]

I did a little research into the state of the law, and basically, Amtrak's done what it's legally required to do by the ADA by installing the lifts. This is because the level boarding regulation was specifically stated only to apply to new construction (!!!) and not to the underlying mandate to make all intercity rail stations accessible (a confusing distinction).

This means that the Aberdeen station (etc.) can legally be left to rot, though if any further improvements are made, level boarding would have to be provided. I think Amtrak will wait for Maryland to pay for it.

....

The remainder which are under the control of the passenger operator will definitely have to have level boarding installed when this mandatory construction is done. These are:

Coatesville PA (being done by PennDOT, see above)

Mount Joy PA (being done by PennDOT, see above)

Paoli PA (being done by PennDOT/SEPTA/Amtrak, see above)

Phildelphia-North PA (100% Amtrak responsibility, planned for 2015, see above)

Parkesburg PA (legal responsibility 100% Amtrak, but probably will be done by PennDOT)

Digging it up, the feasibility study for the Aberdeen station that was published in 2012 calls for 4 tracks at the location (from the current 3) with the tracks shifted 5 to 10 feet to the east to reduce the spiral curve with the track spacing increased to 16 feet to allow 160 mph speeds for the center tracks (link to the MARC Aberdeen document page). The exact alignment at Aberdeen is likely coupled to the specific alignment and design selected for the replacement 4 track Susquehanna bridge. The Aberdeen station would undergo a major upgrade with 12 car long high level platforms. These are long term plans, not near term. Since any high level platforms built at the current Aberdeen station would have to be torn out in 10-20 years and would present issues with NS freight traffic, my guess is that Amtrak and MdDOT will install mini-high platforms to satisfy the ADA requirements in the interim. Aberdeen > 7,500 passengers a year, so by Amtrak's stated guidelines, it should get at least a mini-high instead of a lift. The mini-highs won't cost much and can be removed when that segment of the NEC is upgraded to 4 tracks, although that is likely to take decades.

As for the stations on the eastern Keystone, we are lucky that PA is a passenger rail supportive state and that the state legislature & Governor passed the gas tax and transportation funding increase in 2013, so PennDOT is able to step up and provide $200 million for the station upgrades. If it was not for the gas tax increase, PennDOT would not been able to contribute much funding and Amtrak would have to either drop some station stops or take capital funds from other projects.

 

[wolfspirit]

So I went out on a hike, hopped a few fences, and wandered into the abandonded paper mill that is going to be the new Downingtown station area. They've very recently begun demolition work on some of the buildings (the ones furthest from the tracks), and all of the for sale signs have been taken down. The houses in the block around the station have been condemned, and new retail is supposed to go in that location (according to the signage). If I can get my phone to cooperate, I should have a couple of pictures.

According to the SEPTA improvements site, Exton starts construction in Spring 2015, completion in Winter 2017. Paoli & Downingtown aren't listed on the site. I'm not sure what that means beyond SEPTA probably isn't lead on those projects. (http://www.septa.org/rebuilding/index.html)

 

[Anderson]

Buffalo-Exchange Street might well be on the back burner because of the presence of Buffalo-Depew. On the other hand, Windsor-Mt. Ascutney has such low ridership (1197 in FY14) that I could seriously see Amtrak responding to a lawsuit by just shutting the station down (which is one of those unintended consequences of things like this). Unlike Buffalo-Exchange Street, Windsor-Mt. Ascutney probably just isn't worth any serious expense on Amtrak's part unless Vermont (or WIndsor) also play a role.

 

[neroden]

Windsor-Mt. Ascutney probably just isn't worth any serious expense on Amtrak's part unless Vermont (or WIndsor) also play a role.

Looking at it, the problem is that there's no platform at all (just an asphalt patch substantially below top-of-rail, and probably of uneven height), and presumably there's nowhere to safely store a lift.

The ridership is low enough that it could be converted into a flagstop; flagstops are completely exempt from the regulations. With an average of 1.6 passengers per train, it probably has *no* passengers some of the time and probably *should* be a flagstop.

If Vermont wanted to really do a nice job with this station, I'd suggest that they buy the temporary wooden platform at Northampton or Greenfield after said platform is decommissioned -- that would be more than sufficient!

 

[Anderson]

Making it a flag stop is probably a good call, and even switching it to a flag stop and changing it back later would buy a lot of time. It's really a shame that there's not a blanket exemption for stations with less than a certain level of patronage...stops like this (with <10 passengers per day) are ones that it becomes a lot more plausible to just cut service to rather than to comply with ADA requirements.

This isn't to say that accessibility isn't a good long-term goal; it's just that, given scarce resources, there are a number of lightly-used stops that it just doesn't make sense for Amtrak to fix up. There are a slew of stops like this on the Adirondack, though surprisingly few in Vermont (using 10 pax/day as a threshold, you only have one other stop in VT, plus Claremont in NH that would qualify in New England; Framingham would if it weren't also on an MBTA line).

 

[Bus Nut]

Anderson, the kind of calculations you are talking about make sense from a utilitarian point of view. Possibly such a balance could have been sought in a collaborative matter between advocates for the disabled and public transportation officials two generations ago. Instead, transportation leaders dug in and made contemptuous comments to the effect that transit patrons did not wish to look at disabled people. The result was Radical Crips waging a successful war against The Man in DC and getting Congress to pass sweeping regulations on common carriers including Amtrak during 1987-1990 period (ADA is the culmination but the transit rules actually became law in the years running up to it). The result was rights-based legislation that doesn't take into account monetary, physical, even mathematical limitations to transit resources because transportation leaders took themselves out of the conversation. Enforcement is not through a federal agency that might, over time, adjust to the subjects of its enforcement and their needs (see: USDA, also known as regulatory capture) but rather through the law courts and judges so far have pretty much upheld the scheme as originally outlined.

If Amtrak has the option to alter this stop to FS they probably should. The community there needs to take some responsibility to develop the station in such a way as to enhance ridership and ensure their community's access to rail long term.

 

[Anderson]

And honestly, with apologies to Charlie, IMHO it has turned some disability activists into the bad guys. This is a sore spot for me because the broad utilitarian considerations in a number of cases argue for trying to serve as many people as possible and accepting that, in some limited circumstances, not everyone can be served in the same way. I agree that an effort should be made in all cases where it might bear fruit, but at the same time there are cases where for a mix of reasons you simply can't make something work. Usually it involves historic buildings or, in what we're discussing, extremely rural stops that either get non-compliant service for a very long time or no service at all.

One thing I do wonder is whether, in some of these cases, "reasonable accommodation" might not include arranging a cost-defrayed (or even free) shuttle to a compliant stop assuming some advance notice. There's a good chance that in a few cases it would be cheaper to operate said service for a few decades than to fix a given station with exceedingly thin ridership (since you might be arranging the cab a few dozen times per year...for example, running a complementary $50 cab 25 times a year (probably a reasonable, if not high, guess at a stop with <2000 riders/year) would be cheaper than the interest on a $100,000 fix.

 

[andersone]

I am very sensitive to disability issues, having spent almost two years of my life on crutches or in a wheel chair. In my youth (in the 60's) I had to walk up six flights of stairs to go to school on crutches for almost a year. They let me be "late" to class without consequences. In the last seven years I have been wheelchair / crutch bound for almost another year (in variant stretches) and have been amazed at the difference in accommodation. I didn't ask to be this way, I am this way. In a former life I was involved in public construction, and even things like levers instead of knobs on a door can make a big difference. I have no problem with the ADA premise new construction being the trigger. It is where we are going not where we have been,

 

[Anderson]

I am very sensitive to disability issues, having spent almost two years of my life on crutches or in a wheel chair. In my youth (in the 60's) I had to walk up six flights of stairs to go to school on crutches for almost a year. They let me be "late" to class without consequences. In the last seven years I have been wheelchair / crutch bound for almost another year (in variant stretches) and have been amazed at the difference in accommodation. I didn't ask to be this way, I am this way. In a former life I was involved in public construction, and even things like levers instead of knobs on a door can make a big difference. I have no problem with the ADA premise new construction being the trigger. It is where we are going not where we have been,

Yes, except when you end up with things like platforms not being repaved or buildings not being renovated because it might trigger the "new construction" requirements. I'm not going to put too fine a point on it, but you've got some platforms and stations that are, quite frankly, crap out there. Osceola, Iowa comes to mind...beautiful old building with all the latest amenities of the 1930s. The heater barely keeps the station warm, for example (though that might just be Iowa)...but I suspect that doing too much would trigger the "new construction" rule and you'd see a small fortune going into widening doors and the like if anything is done.

The problem with that premise is that it has triggered a bunch of cases where, instead of someone biting the bullet and doing all the improvements, things basically have to degrade to being utterly unacceptable before any improvements can happen.

 

[jis]

There may be a parallel between this and the 79mph rule. The theory was that if automatic trains stop or cab signal was required to run at above 79mph then railroads would install such. The result was that the railroads retrenched running above 79mph.

 

[neroden]

You want to know why the ADA is as harsh as it is? New York City.

New York City is *still* refusing to provide accessibility in new construction (totally illegal) even when they are completely rebuilding subway stations from the steel frame up. They have to be sued every single time to get them to do things which they should have been doing as a matter of course. NYC announced a completely inaccessible "Taxi of Tommorow" -- utterly gratuitous inaccessibility -- and had to get sued into compliance.

As long as we have scofflaw governments like New York City which will not make reasonable accomodations, the law is going to stay harsh.

Disability advocates are usually pretty reasonable people, but getting grossly mistreated for decades can get people to dig in their heels.

Amtrak fell into the same category as New York City (flagrant discriminatory behavior) for a long time, and it only changed when Boardman became President.

The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 was already in effect when Amtrak was *created*, and yet Amtrak altered stations without providing wheelchair access for decades afterwards. (Meanwhile, the entire Washington Metro was built wheelchair accessible.)

When the ADA was passed in 1992, commuter rail and urban rail were given relatively soft requirements: they mostly only have to provide access during new construction or major renovation, and there's a "too expensive" rule. There's also a "key stations" rule, but it's quite generous; it was based on the lawsuit settlements with New York and Philadelphia for their previous non-compliance with the law, but had lower requirements for most other cities. (Since then, Philadelphia has become cool and behaves itself quite well, as does every other urban rail system in the US except New York. Philadelphia, Boston, and Chicago are now working on going beyond the legal requirements and making ALL stations fully accessible. Philadelphia in particular has a rather spectacular backlog of work, but they're incorporating accessibility into all of it.)

So in 1992, Amtrak was required to make all stations except whistlestops accessible, which was a rather harsher requirement than applied to the urban rail systems; this was probably partly because Amtrak's stations are much easier to make compliant than subway stations, and partly due to Amtrak's failure to comply with the Architectural Barriers Act for 20 years. However, decades were given to accomplish this. In this time, multiple successive Amtrak administrations made *precisely no effort at all* to achieve compliance, zero, nada.

Pretty much every Amtrak CEO prior to Boardman shares blame for this, even the sainted Claytor.

Finally, Boardman became President in 2008. Since then, starting *immediately* after Boardman became President, Amtrak has been making extremely reasonable efforts to provide disabled access. (Good for Boardman.) But the decades-long record of total disregard has led to some bad blood. Any complaints from Amtrak that it's "too much work" are met with the response "Well, if you'd just started back in 1971, you'd be done by now..."

 

[neroden]

Osceola, Iowa comes to mind...beautiful old building with all the latest amenities of the 1930s. The heater barely keeps the station warm, for example (though that might just be Iowa)...but I suspect that doing too much would trigger the "new construction" rule and you'd see a small fortune going into widening doors and the like if anything is done.

That's not really how it works. The general "new construction" rule is triggered per-area. There are also some "path of travel" rules. So if you rebuild the platform, you have to make the platform accessible, and provide an accessible path to the platform, but you're not required to touch the building. If you replace the heating system for the building, you're only required to comply with ADA in the heating system changes... but if you rip the floors out to replace the heating system, then you have to put in accessible floors. If you replace the bathrooms, you have to make the bathrooms accessible, and also provide a path of travel *to* the bathrooms. You get the idea, I hope.

There are also some prioritization rules: if you have funds for a general overhaul, you're required to make the path from the entryway or parking lot to the "primary function area" accessible first (so that people can get on the train); then the path to the "secondary function areas" (buy tickets, check luggage); then the bathrooms, then worry about everything else. This is based on what causes the most disruption for disabled people.

Amtrak is on a sharp learning curve due to having made absolutely zero effort at ADA compliance prior to 2008. But I think honestly they've been doing pretty well since then, considering that 2009 was the first year they even assigned anyone the job of trying to make the system accessible.

 

[Anderson]

New York City is a piece of...work...in many respects, and I'd add this to the list. Actually, there seems to be a connection between big cities and very bad municipal behavior (Meigs Field, anyone?).

As jis said, I suspect there's a parallel between this and the 79 MPH rule (and indeed with some other rules out there as well).

I do get the idea (though the concept of "accessible floors" seems a bit odd to me) and thanks for pointing that out. However, the point does stand that while there are stations that are fully accessible (some if only by accident or by third-party handling) there are others that are basically non-workable. I think there's a valid example in the Deland platform: The ends of the platform are obviously aged (the far southern end of the platform hasn't had the track ballast rocks cleared in a long time as far as I can tell) and in sore need of a repaving effort...but if I'm not mistaken repaving would require putting in at least one mini-high platforms (going to an all-high-platform layout is a non-starter due to SunRail). It is quite possible that this will happen when SunRail comes in, but there are a ton of stations in the South with massive platforms (as far as I can tell, most of the platforms were set up for trains that ran up to 18 cars long) that could definitely stand to be repaved (and/or have their layouts fixed, as Amtrak noted in the Silvers' PIP...and to say nothing of the number of platforms with leaking roofs and the like).

 

[neroden]

(though the concept of "accessible floors" seems a bit odd to me)

Well, there are some floors which are (a) not anywhere close to flat, (b) have random steps scattered in the middle of them, (c ) have large gaps/cracks between tiles or between boards creating a trip hazard for the mobility-impaired, (d) are extremely slippery when wet, etc.... these are non-accessible. Most of these ought to be fixed by OSHA regulations anyway, but the ADA regulations would apply too.

 

[afigg]

So in 1992, Amtrak was required to make all stations except whistlestops accessible, which was a rather harsher requirement than applied to the urban rail systems; this was probably partly because Amtrak's stations are much easier to make compliant than subway stations, and partly due to Amtrak's failure to comply with the Architectural Barriers Act for 20 years. However, decades were given to accomplish this. In this time, multiple successive Amtrak administrations made *precisely no effort at all* to achieve compliance, zero, nada.

Pretty much every Amtrak CEO prior to Boardman shares blame for this, even the sainted Claytor.

Finally, Boardman became President in 2008. Since then, starting *immediately* after Boardman became President, Amtrak has been making extremely reasonable efforts to provide disabled access. (Good for Boardman.) But the decades-long record of total disregard has led to some bad blood. Any complaints from Amtrak that it's "too much work" are met with the response "Well, if you'd just started back in 1971, you'd be done by now..."

Before the 2008 PRIIA act and the inclusion of dedicated annual funding allotments for ADA compliance, how much funding did Congress provide over the years to Amtrak to upgrade stations and the system for ADA? With little or no directed funding for ADA, against an always long to do list of repair and capital projects to keep the system running, and no real enforcement of ADA compliance from Congress, upgrading stations for ADA compliance is going to lose out in the budget decisions.

In 2009, Amtrak received the $1.3 billion in stimulus funds, some of which Boardman spent on ADA compliance. Then it started receiving funding directed for ADA compliance, $144 million in FY10, and typically $50 million most FYs since. So Boardman had funding he had to spend on achieving ADA compliance, rather than general capital that gets diverted to other critical projects. With directed ADA funding and a deadline for compliance, that both forced Amtrak to get serious about it and to motivate state & local agencies to start to upgrade the stations. The funding that Amtrak is getting is not nearly enough by itself, but by being able to offer to pay for part of the station upgrade, say $5 million for the platforms and compliant access to the platforms, that nudges the state or local agencies to put up matching amounts to refurb or improve the rest of the station facility. Why only replace the platform if the station building is a dump? It takes a lot of time to get going as Amtrak has to wait on the local and state players to do the studies, agree on who pays for what, and then allocate funds for it in their annual or multi-year budget cycles.

The 2015 deadline set in 2008/2009 won't be met but Congress inserts impractical underfunded deadlines that are not met all the time. The 2018 deadline that Amtrak is working to won't be completely met either. Too many stations and local & state agencies to deal with. Hopefully, Congress will keep providing $50 million a a year for ADA compliance for the next 5-6 years so progress can continue. The net benefit is not just achieving ADA accessibility for most stations, but fixing up and improving a lot of run-down platforms and stations across the system that otherwise would have continued to crumble. I think by the end of this decade that the overall state (and intermodal transit connectivity) of Amtrak stations will be much better than it was prior to the 2008 PRIIA act and the injection of stimulus, HSIPR, TIGER grant funding.

 

[afigg]

Hey, CSX has started work to install the 3 crossovers on the A-Line that were funded in the initial round of HSIPR grant awards in 2010. NC DOT press release: Series of Railroad Construction Projects Start in January in three Eastern NC Locations. Content:

RALEIGH-This month, CSX, in partnership with NCDOT, will begin construction on a series of projects to build universal crossovers on the CSX A-line in three eastern North Carolina locations: South Weldon, Enfield, and Rocky Mount. Construction at the three project locations will include grading, drainage improvements, track, and signal construction.

The Enfield project will be constructed just to the south of downtown Enfield in Halifax County, spanning a distance of approximately one mile from south of Burnette Street to south to Plant Street. Vehicle traffic will not likely be impacted during construction, but trains will have to travel slower through the area while work is underway.

The crossovers will enable trains to cross over from one track to another regardless of direction, allowing passenger and freight trains to operate more fluidly. Three Amtrak passenger trains operate on this section of railroad, which runs north to Richmond and south through Fayetteville to Florida.

The $12.5 million construction project is funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Construction is being done by CSX. The project is scheduled to be in service by early 2016.

Er, three Amtrak trains operate through Enfield? I count 4 daily train services.

 

[afigg]

Funded but AFAICT indefinitely delayed:

...

RF&P line, 3rd track from Arkendale to Powells Creek

Virginia DRPT has revamped their website and now has updated info pages on their major rail initiatives. Link to Arkendale to Powell's Creek entry, Content:

Arkendale to Powells Creek, located in Stafford and Prince William Counties, is the first Virginia part of the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) Corridor to begin construction. The purpose of the project is to accommodate higher speed passenger rail travel while minimizing interference with freight traffic. The project will consist of 11.4 miles of third track, which will be constructed adjacent to the existing CSX main line. Construction will encompass additional tracks, siding, turnouts, a new platform at Quantico Station, and replacement or modifications to Bauer Road Bridge at the Marine Corps Base Quantico. The work will also include relocation of applicable utilities, earthworks, drainage structures, retaining walls and all associated signal and communications work as needed.

DRPT is the recipient of a $74.8 million American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Federal Railroad Administration grant. CSX (DRPTs subgrantee for the project) entered into a design-build contract in mid-2014 with KC Constructors, a consortium of Kiewitt Infrastructure and Corman Construction. Rummel Klepper and Kahl (RKK) will handle all design work. All construction work is required to be finished by the middle of 2017, per the grant requirement.

So CSX is under contract and a design-build sub-contract has been awarded. Another project that will likely be completed in 2017, mainly because that is the spend it or lose it deadline on the ARRA grant award.