AMTRAK MEDIA ALERT: Amtrak Awarded Federal Funds for 12 Projects of National Significance (NEC)

PRESS RELEASE: Amtrak Media

Amtrak Awarded Federal Funds for 12 Projects of National Significance Totaling Nearly $10B Across America’s Busiest Rail Corridor

Combined with partner-led projects also funded today, this work will modernize the Northeast Corridor, improving reliability and service quality



WASHINGTON – Amtrak has been awarded nearly $10 billion in Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) funding from the Biden-Harris Administration to modernize critical infrastructure, improve stations and support future ridership growth on the Northeast Corridor (NEC). This historic funding comes at a critical time as NEC ridership continues to rise, consistently exceeding pre-pandemic levels since early summer as Amtrak delivers a new era of passenger rail.

“These grants will help advance Amtrak’s plans to modernize the Northeast Corridor and unlock major bottlenecks on the busiest passenger rail corridor in America,” said Amtrak CEO Stephen Gardner. “I want to thank President Biden, USDOT Secretary Pete Buttigieg and FRA Administrator Amit Bose for their continued support as Amtrak and our partners rebuild this critical infrastructure asset.”

The grants announced today will support 12 Amtrak-led projects through the FRA’s Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Program (Fed-State NEC):

Frederick Douglass Tunnel Program (up to $4.7B)
Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project (up to $2.08B)
East River Tunnel Rehabilitation Project (up to $1.26B)
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project (up to $826.64M)
Dock Bridge Rehabilitation Project (up to $300.18M)
Sawtooth Bridges Replacement Project (up to $133.32M)
Baltimore Penn Station Redevelopment (up to $108.32M)
Pelham Bay Bridge Replacement Project (up to $58.27M)
Gunpowder River Bridge Replacement Program (up to $30M)
NEC South End Infrastructure Renewal and Speed Improvement Planning Study (up to $21.6M)
Bush River Bridge Replacement Program (up to $18.8M)
New Haven to Providence Capacity Planning Study (up to $4M)

Another 13 NEC projects led by Amtrak’s partners also received funding, including:

Hudson Tunnel Project – Gateway Development Commission (up to $3.79B)
Penn Station Access – MTA (up to $1.64B)
Walk Bridge Replacement Project – CTDOT (up to $465M)
Devon Bridge Replacement Project – CTDOT (up to $245.92M)
Delco Lead – NJ TRANSIT (up to $180.9M)
New Haven Line Power Improvement Program – CTDOT (up to $122.8M)
Devon Bridge Interim Repairs – CTDOT (up to $119.32M)
Hartford Line Rail Program Double Track (Phase 3B) Project – CTDOT (up to $104.86M)
New Haven Line Track Improvement and Mobility Enhancement Part 1 and 3 – CTDOT (up to $71.64M)
Newark Penn Station Vertical Circulation Improvements – NJ TRANSIT (up to $59.2M)
Reconstruction of Cornwells Heights Station – SEPTA (up to $30.5M)
Saugatuck River Bridge Replacement – CTDOT (up to $23.2M)
New Haven Line Network Infrastructure Upgrade Project – CTDOT (up to $15.4M)

View additional details here, including project descriptions and funding details.

“Under President Biden, we are finally delivering the generational investments in passenger rail that Americans have wanted for years, including modernizing the busiest rail corridor in the country,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. “These investments will make our busiest passenger railroad safer, faster, and more reliable, which means fewer delays and shorter commutes for the 800,000 passengers who rely on the Northeast Corridor every day.”

“President Biden’s Investing in America agenda includes unprecedented investments in rail—investments that are already creating jobs, impacting communities, and laying the foundation for world-class passenger rail in America,” said FRA Administrator Amit Bose. “Today’s $16.4 billion investment in projects of national significance is a massive step forward to do even more. Federal funding made possible by President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will replace or repair vital Northeast Corridor infrastructure that has been in need of major upgrades for decades. Twenty-five projects in total will receive funding, and that means at least 800,000 daily riders will, in the future, experience fewer delays, faster service, and greater convenience on America’s busiest rail corridor.”

These new grant awards are a major step in delivering on the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act’s (IIJA) vision for expanded and improved passenger rail. In September 2023, the FRA awarded Amtrak nearly $200 million through the CRISI grant program. Amtrak has also submitted additional federal grant applications to improve our Long Distance and State Supported services through the FRA’s Corridor ID Program and separate Fed-State Partnership Program funding for projects outside the NEC. Those grant award announcements are anticipated later this year.

The NEC is one of the busiest and economically vital transportation systems in the world, serving the Northeast’s five major metropolitan regions – Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington. Hundreds of thousands of people rely on the approximately 2,200 Amtrak, commuter and freight trains that operate over some portion of the route each day. In addition to operating Acela, Northeast Regional, State Supported and Long Distance trains on the NEC, Amtrak also provides dispatching services and electric propulsion power while maintaining and improving the infrastructure and facilities used by Amtrak and others.

Great news! Shaving 30 minutes off both DC-NYC and NYC-BOS is a huge improvement.

Glad the Fredrick Douglass Tunnel's getting funding. The B&P is screaming for replacement.

I want to "connect the dots" here, because of some of the language on the various projects:

• Fredrick Douglass Tunnel Project: Replace B&P and raise track speed to 100 MPH, lay groundwork for 4 tunnels while only doing 2.
• Baltimore Penn Station Redevelopment: "Move" station to north side, add tracks, rehab all platforms and stairways.
• Gunpowder River BR: Replace bridge w/4-track bridge.
• Bush River BR: Replace bridge w/4-track bridge.
• Susquehanna River BR: Replace bridge w/4-track bridge.
• NEC South End IRSIP: Study improvements to speed between DC and New Jersey.

Seeing a pattern? I think Amtrak wants to 4-track the NEC, and is spending money to test out areas and build documentation to prove it's case.

If it were me, I'd say "get it shovel ready."

There are a few patterns I see. As an NEC “Southsider” you would notice that pattern of course. A speed improvement project might include an additional track.

As an NEC “Northsider” I see a pattern too. Fixing the area colloquially known as “the Mets”, or Metro-North territory. Bridge replacements to enhance reliability and increase speeds. Capacity studies too. Makes me wonder about triple-tracking east of New Haven at least through New London, I.e. Shore Line East territory.

The overarching theme of course is fixing the vulnerabilities of the Corridor: bridges and tunnels. Having to wait for the Pelham Bay draw for half an hour is not fun lol. If any of the draws malfunction? It’s a disaster just waiting to happen.

I wish it was more explicit on the passenger benefits (line speeds, time savings, extra # trains/capacity) - I know the pdf had some more detail - but each project, given the whopping price tags, should be clearer on what they bring.

How many more trains per day? End to end journey time savings between NYC and Washington / Boston - and beyond, as applicable.

A shame to not see any electrification, ie. Hartford line or down to Richmond. Long Bridge too. And the Empire Corridor is crying out for improvements too, especially on the NYP-ALB core.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 6:00 am I want to "connect the dots" here, because of some of the language on the various projects:

• Fredrick Douglass Tunnel Project: Replace B&P and raise track speed to 100 MPH, lay groundwork for 4 tunnels while only doing 2.
• Baltimore Penn Station Redevelopment: "Move" station to north side, add tracks, rehab all platforms and stairways.
• Gunpowder River BR: Replace bridge w/4-track bridge.
• Bush River BR: Replace bridge w/4-track bridge.
• Susquehanna River BR: Replace bridge w/4-track bridge.
• NEC South End IRSIP: Study improvements to speed between DC and New Jersey.

Seeing a pattern? I think Amtrak wants to 4-track the NEC, and is spending money to test out areas and build documentation to prove it's case.

If it were me, I'd say "get it shovel ready."

IS there really capacity for 4 tracks for all those bridges? If they are going to be higher bridges, then we are looking at alot of ROW getting raised (which needs to happen, due to coastal flooding, anyway). I understand they are bottlenecks, just due to speed restrictions.

Finaly.

Now raising the speed around stations (philly and NY penn), and raising the speed between Boston and DC to 186 mph and then finally the N.E.C. can be the first true high speed railline in the US.

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 8:37 am

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 6:00 am

• Gunpowder River BR: Replace bridge w/4-track bridge.
• Bush River BR: Replace bridge w/4-track bridge.
• Susquehanna River BR: Replace bridge w/4-track bridge.

IS there really capacity for 4 tracks for all those bridges? If they are going to be higher bridges, then we are looking at alot of ROW getting raised (which needs to happen, due to coastal flooding, anyway). I understand they are bottlenecks, just due to speed restrictions.

The existing formation between GUNPOW and PERRY, minus the bridges and parts of their approaches, has enough space for at least four tracks throughout without replacing any of the catenary and transmission supports. The existing double-track stretches across the bridges and through Harford County, MD are a serious impediment to dispatching the Amtrak services around the MARC station stoppers, and widening this part of the Corridor to four tracks throughout will eliminate most of those impediments. The Gunpowder and Bush River bridges are the ones that will need to be raised, and raising them makes sense anyway to allow a greater variety of boating traffic to pass beneath them.

In addition, a four-track formation means that the NS services down to Bayview Yard can use the 125mph tracks for the majority of the runs between PERRY and BAY, and keep the 160mph tracks clear for the highest speed services.

TheOneKEA wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 12:00 pm The existing formation between GUNPOW and PERRY, minus the bridges and parts of their approaches, has enough space for at least four tracks throughout without replacing any of the catenary and transmission supports. The existing double-track stretches across the bridges and through Harford County, MD are a serious impediment to dispatching the Amtrak services around the MARC station stoppers, and widening this part of the Corridor to four tracks throughout will eliminate most of those impediments. The Gunpowder and Bush River bridges are the ones that will need to be raised, and raising them makes sense anyway to allow a greater variety of boating traffic to pass beneath them.

In addition, a four-track formation means that the NS services down to Bayview Yard can use the 125mph tracks for the majority of the runs between PERRY and BAY, and keep the 160mph tracks clear for the highest speed services.

Exactly. The only real issue is the MARC stations. If they follow the same south-of-Baltimore theme, then they'll have to bridge Martin State Airport... to which you might as well rebuild that to be high level. Edgewood would need a rebuild to get four tracks through it, Aberdeen would need one side pushed back to put the new track in, since it's three track wide already, and Perryville just needs a platform and opposite side access, plus a fly-over to help the MARC trains going 1-4 from fowling all the tracks.... unless you have it go all the way up to Newark and put the fly-over there.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 5:44 pm

TheOneKEA wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 12:00 pm The existing formation between GUNPOW and PERRY, minus the bridges and parts of their approaches, has enough space for at least four tracks throughout without replacing any of the catenary and transmission supports. The existing double-track stretches across the bridges and through Harford County, MD are a serious impediment to dispatching the Amtrak services around the MARC station stoppers, and widening this part of the Corridor to four tracks throughout will eliminate most of those impediments. The Gunpowder and Bush River bridges are the ones that will need to be raised, and raising them makes sense anyway to allow a greater variety of boating traffic to pass beneath them.

In addition, a four-track formation means that the NS services down to Bayview Yard can use the 125mph tracks for the majority of the runs between PERRY and BAY, and keep the 160mph tracks clear for the highest speed services.

Exactly. The only real issue is the MARC stations. If they follow the same south-of-Baltimore theme, then they'll have to bridge Martin State Airport... to which you might as well rebuild that to be high level. Edgewood would need a rebuild to get four tracks through it, Aberdeen would need one side pushed back to put the new track in, since it's three track wide already, and Perryville just needs a platform and opposite side access, plus a fly-over to help the MARC trains going 1-4 from fowling all the tracks.... unless you have it go all the way up to Newark and put the fly-over there.

Honestly, I think it would be better to rebuild Martin State Airport with an island platform between Tracks 1 and 2, with Tracks A and 1 skewed to the east to make sufficient room, and to fence off the side of the island that faces Track 2. Unless BAY and UNION interlockings are radically altered in layout, my perception is that it's easier to dispatch those four tracks by segregating them into pairs by usage: Amtrak trains can bypass Martin State by using Tracks 2 and 3; and MARC services, including those going into or coming out of Martins Yard, can use Tracks A and 1. This would allow the Gunpowder River bridge to also be paired up by usage, and north of the river there's a lot more open space that could be acquired to build something to rearrange the tracks so that the NS services can avoid conflicting with the Amtrak services.

TheOneKEA wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 1:03 pm Honestly, I think it would be better to rebuild Martin State Airport with an island platform between Tracks 1 and 2, with Tracks A and 1 skewed to the east to make sufficient room, and to fence off the side of the island that faces Track 2. Unless BAY and UNION interlockings are radically altered in layout, my perception is that it's easier to dispatch those four tracks by segregating them into pairs by usage: Amtrak trains can bypass Martin State by using Tracks 2 and 3; and MARC services, including those going into or coming out of Martins Yard, can use Tracks A and 1. This would allow the Gunpowder River bridge to also be paired up by usage, and north of the river there's a lot more open space that could be acquired to build something to rearrange the tracks so that the NS services can avoid conflicting with the Amtrak services.

I think the big thing here between BAL and Newark SEPTA is consistency. Right now the real contention points are PERRY (because only one side platform for Perryville and it's a 2 track-to-4-track interlock, but it's a terminus for MARC) and GUNPOW (4 track to 2 track, but MARC has to move ether from A to 2 or from 3 to 1 to access Martin State). If you remove those contention points, you get faster speeds because you're not waiting for a MARC to get out of the way.

That said, if we want to move everything over so that tracks A and 1 are MARC/freight, and 2/3 are Amtrak, you're still rebuilding stations but they're likely going to be more expensive as you can't reuse infrastructure and you'll need to build crossover bridges no matter what... and you still will have freight on track 3 because of the Clorox manufacturing plant and Gordon Food Service in Eastgate, MD.

Oh, and NS has a track connection/wye at Perryville on the northwest side. And Amtrak has a MOW yard on a Southeast side just up from there.

Um... maybe have a flyover between Martins State Airport and Edgewood so that the MARC trains can get from one side to the other, like they're going to do in Virginia?

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 6:00 am I want to "connect the dots" here, because of some of the language on the various projects:

• Fredrick Douglass Tunnel Project: Replace B&P and raise track speed to 100 MPH, lay groundwork for 4 tunnels while only doing 2.
• Baltimore Penn Station Redevelopment: "Move" station to north side, add tracks, rehab all platforms and stairways.
• Gunpowder River BR: Replace bridge w/4-track bridge.
• Bush River BR: Replace bridge w/4-track bridge.
• Susquehanna River BR: Replace bridge w/4-track bridge.
• NEC South End IRSIP: Study improvements to speed between DC and New Jersey.

Seeing a pattern? I think Amtrak wants to 4-track the NEC, and is spending money to test out areas and build documentation to prove it's case.

If it were me, I'd say "get it shovel ready."

Thank you for looking closely at the language that is being used in these announcement. The exact wording being used is important.

My take here is that someone (FRA and/or Amtrak) is thinking about the next 100 years and not just building a new bridge as quickly as possible. If you're thinking way in to the future and you have a lots of money, as they have right now, you shoot for the moon and spend the money that you have now so you don't have to later.

The other words to look at carefully are "project development", "planning", "final design", and "construction."

Some of the awards are simply for necessary planning but no construction. As example, the Saugatuck River Bridge project in Westport, CT. Construction work will be funded with future grants, assuming that the money is still there.

Other awards are for "project development and final design" (again with no construction), as example the Devon River Bridge in CT.

And other awards are for "planning and project development" (again, with no construction), as example the Bush River Bridge Replacement Program in MD.

The only projects that will move into construction are the ones listed with the word construction. All of the others are planning and design work which doesn't necessarily mean that they will be built. But with that said, its likely that they will, unless something changes in Congress.

The condition of Devonn brings up a question. There are funds for both repairs on Devon and separate line item for replacement, Can anyone here speak on the condition of Devon bridge?

Wait, where is the virginia flyover going to go?