FRA's Corridor ID Program and possible new Corridors

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.
Additionally a couple state corridors have already received substantial funding in CRISI for construction work so those are likely to be included in Corridor ID if they submitted since FRA decided they were developed enough to give them construction money even before Corridor ID was complete. These include Virginia, Gulf Coast, and the Inland Route in Massachusetts.
 
So, vs the original list submitted, we have:
  • Charlotte to Washington, DC
  • Wilmington, NC to Raleigh, NC
  • Charlotte, NC to Kings Mountain, NC
  • Greenville, NC to Raleigh, NC
  • Winston-Salem, NC to Raleigh, NC
  • Hamlet, NC to Raleigh, NC
  • Morehead City, NC to Raleigh, NC
  • Fayetteville, NC to Raleigh, NC
  • Winston-Salem, NC to Charlotte, NC
  • Weldon, NC to Raleigh, NC
  • Atlanta, GA to Charlotte, NC
  • Salisbury, NC to Asheville, NC
Of the no-goes, Hamlet and Weldon were probably DOA because they didn't go through to either Columbia, SC or Norfolk, VA (respectively) while Morehead City and Greenville just don't have many people there. I am surprised that Winston-Salem to Charlotte didn't get thrown in alongside Winston-Salem to Raleigh, however.

Edit:
I'm sort-of scratching my head at Charlotte-Kings Mountain falling under this program. It feels more like a bona fide commuter project (not that that's a bad project to pursue), though in defense of it this one seems like it could conceivably pop out a station at the airport, which would probably be a pretty big traffic generator (I'm pretty sure that American would rather not have to bother with CLT-GSP flights anymore...).

One that's missing from the NC list (courtesy of stupid state borders) would be Charlotte-Columbia (that same issue was probably a fatal shortcoming in the Hamlet proposal).
Charlotte to Kings Mountain is a low hanging fruit which can be a showcase of an early success.

The Morehead City - Raleigh is really Morehead City - Goldsboro, since Goldsboro - Raleigh is part of the Wilmington Raleigh segment.

It seems to me that the Hamlet - Raleigh and Weldon - Raleigh both require just some station and turning facility at the end point away from Raleigh. The routes are already served by at least one train a day.

The Charlotte - Columbia thing does not appear in the NC State proposed route map so it is no surprise that no one put together a proposal. Indeed no proposal that involved South Carolina as a terminal point appears to have been made as far as I know.

Here is the NC State map from NCDOT:

rail-cid-corridor-map.png
 
Charlotte to Kings Mountain is a low hanging fruit which can be a showcase of an early success.

The Morehead City - Raleigh is really Morehead City - Goldsboro, since Goldsboro - Raleigh is part of the Wilmington Raleigh segment.

It seems to me that the Hamlet - Raleigh and Weldon - Raleigh both require just some station and turning facility at the end point away from Raleigh. The routes are already served by at least one train a day.

The Charlotte - Columbia thing does not appear in the NC State proposed route map so it is no surprise that no one put together a proposal. Indeed no proposal that involved South Carolina as a terminal point appears to have been made as far as I know.

Here is the NC State map from NCDOT:

rail-cid-corridor-map.png
The issue is that, as-is, they're still dead ends. An additional train (or two) per day might do better than existing service, but it's still a weak stub-end in both cases when there's a natural endpoint that makes sense for both of them (Columbia for Hamlet and Norfolk/Richmond [preferably Norfolk] for Weldon).

[King's Mountain is as well, but as I indicated that's got a good chance of turning into getting the Piedmonts, etc. serving the airport, and getting 9-11 trains/day into that airport is probably a slam dunk for ridership.]
 
Add the Nashville - Chattanooga - Atlanta corridor to the list.

Article link here.

Excerpt from the article:
I'm a bit taken aback with an additional Tennessee proposal that made the initial cut ─ Nashville - Memphis. It was one of nine additional routes announced Wednesday, Dec. 6:

— Phoenix-Tucson, Ariz.

— Fort Collins-Denver-Pueblo, Colo.

— Nashville-Memphis, Tenn.

— Pittsburgh-Philadelphia, Pa.

— Green Bay, Wis.-Milwaukee-Chicago

— Milwaukee-Madison-Eau Claire, Wis.

— Eau Claire-Twin Cities

— Milwaukee-Chicago (increased Hiawatha service)
on Dec 6.

As I understood it last summer, "Tier-1" designated routes, of which the Nashville-ATL proposal was the only route ranked as such in the state, were the ones for which these awards were to be granted for this round. The one application submitted in Tennessee was by Chattanooga, endorsed by the state and by the cities of Memphis, Nashville, and Atlanta; it was for a route from Memphis to Nashville and then on to Chattanooga and Atlanta.

The Memphis-Nashville route, however, was of tier-2, as I was informed by a local expert employed by the state, so the tier-1 route (Nashville-Chatta-ATL) identified and submitted earlier in the state's study and one of the tier-2 routes, apparently made this muster as one approved submission. But then, perhaps other national corridors selected for awarded funding in the this round also were of tier-2. I must have been mistaken with the basis of ranking by tier designation.
 
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.

Boise-SLC-Las-Vegas-SLC-map-1024x576.jpg
 
Georgia's announcement; two of the three routes receiving study dollars have already been mentioned (Charlotte - Atlanta high speed; Nashville - Atlanta). The third is the Atlanta to Savannah corridor via Athens, Augusta, and Macon.

https://www.ossoff.senate.gov/press...unding-investments-in-georgia-passenger-rail/
Unless they are doing two separate routes, they'll have to decide between going through Macon or going through Athens and Augusta. The former would be a shorter distance but the latter would serve a larger population.
 
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.

View attachment 34874
I feel your pain and empathize! Although the Twin Cities and a couple towns in eastern Minnesota would benefit from several of the Wisconsin proposals, MnDOT's MN-specific proposals were almost entirely left out. Only the Northern Lights Express to Duluth received anything. Nothing for the key North-South corridor from St. Paul to Kansas City via Des Moines. Nothing for service to Fargo (extension of the upcoming second train, most likely), or Sioux Falls, SD. But as with Utah, it's Minnesota's fault! Weak rail planning and community support, with a DOT that, while they do decent things with active transportation, is biased against passenger rail and has done the bare minimum forever.
 
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.

View attachment 34874

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.

Many of the successful applicants were quick to publicly announce their proposals when they submitted them in March 2023.

In contrast, the first substantial public acknowledgement made in Utah of the Boise-SLC and Las Vegas-SLC proposals didn’t come until UTA’s luncheon in November, eight months delayed.

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. .
 
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
They could probably do several expansions for the time and trouble it takes to set up a new line. Maybe that is part of the reason.
I was surprised about the Kansas City to St. Joseph line, as I hadn't read much about it. They say would connect to the Missouri trains, but I guess it's a new line.
 
There are a few interesting ones that have not been mentioned that caught my attention.

First the ones for FDOT in Florida:
  • Jacksonville - Orlando - Miami: This would most likely be added service on the Amtrak route,
  • Miami - Orlando - Tampa - This one I think is mostly about additional service between Miami and Tampa and Orlando along the Amtrak route, although given the order of cities mentioned, it could be Brightline too.
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.
Amtrak in addition to daily Cardinal and Sunset and improvements on several existing corridors got an interesting one that has been talked about in the past
  • Amtrak to Long Island: extending a few NER from NYP to Ronkonkoma with stops at Jamaica and Hicksville.
VDRPT got a few interesting ones:
  • Washington DC to Bristol VA: Extension of Roanoke service to Bristol, including infill station at Bedford VA.
  • Commonwealth Corridor: Newport News - Richmond - Charlottesville: Presumably BBRR between Doswell and Charlottesville, the old C&O Line, route of the Newport News section of the C&O George Washington, which is used by the Cardinal between Gordonsville and Charlottesville. Cardinal is essentially the Washington DC section of the old C&O George Washington.
Delaware Transit Corporation got one:
  • Diamond State Line: Service down Delmarva Peninsula starting at Wilmington/Newark to Salisbury or Berlin in Maryland, passing through Dover DE.
Conspicuously absent is New Orleans - Jacksonville even though the Southern Rail Commission did submit it. Most likely because Florida DOT did not say anything about it, it got dropped.
 
Last edited:
I'm picturing this as a conveyor belt of projects. My understanding is none of this is a "one-off" but just this year's tranche of multi-year programs.* The projects that got real money (tens of millions to a few billions) now were either underway or shovel-ready. The projects that got half-million-dollar planning grants will hopefully be shovel-ready to get real money next year or the year after. And if the programs continue, a new set of planning grants will be issued at the same time to create shovel-ready plans for future years. And so on.

Yes, studies often don't result in actual projects. But no project has been done in recent decades without a study. A necessary but not sufficient condition, as the logicians say. "Just build it" is a nice slogan for High Speed Rail Association :) but not a detailed description of how things get done.

Advocates and politicians have to work to move these projects down the road, but cynicism or resignation because one's favored project (which in many cases got a lot of letters of support from chambers of commerce and county councils but has no formal plan) didn't get real money in the first year isn't helpful to that work.

*Absent Congress rescinding the programs. Vote accordingly in '24!.
 
I'm picturing this as a conveyor belt of projects. My understanding is none of this is a "one-off" but just this year's tranche of multi-year programs.* The projects that got real money (tens of millions to a few billions) now were either underway or shovel-ready. The projects that got half-million-dollar planning grants will hopefully be shovel-ready to get real money next year or the year after. And if the programs continue, a new set of planning grants will be issued at the same time to create shovel-ready plans for future years. And so on.

Yes, studies often don't result in actual projects. But no project has been done in recent decades without a study. A necessary but not sufficient condition, as the logicians say. "Just build it" is a nice slogan for High Speed Rail Association :) but not a detailed description of how things get done.

Advocates and politicians have to work to move these projects down the road, but cynicism or resignation because one's favored project (which in many cases got a lot of letters of support from chambers of commerce and county councils but has no formal plan) didn't get real money in the first year isn't helpful to that work.

*Absent Congress rescinding the programs. Vote accordingly in '24!.
Yes, exactly! RPA's thoughts in their email from today on what Corridor ID as a program and what the studies will do puts it very clearly: "Corridor ID will act as a pipeline for developing projects. It will help advance routes to a stage where they are ready to break ground, while maintaining the ability to add additional corridors to the pipeline in future iterations."

In other words, as opposed to one off, state or regional-only-supported, disconnected "studies" that may well have been done in the past (this is a particular issue in Minnesota re: "Zip Rail," or HSR MSP - Rochester & Mayo Clinic, and others), the Corridor ID studies will, barring as John mentioned Congress destroying the program, be part of a connected ecosystem with a pretty clear path to future funding for required environmental studies and construction, etc.
 
  • Washington DC to Bristol VA: Extension of Roanoke service to Bristol, including infill station at Bedford VA.
  • Commonwealth Corridor: Newport News - Richmond - Charlottesville: Presumably BBRR between Doswell and Charlottesville, the old C&O Line, route of the Newport News section of the C&O George Washington, which is used by the Cardinal between Gordonsville and Charlottesville. Cardinal is essentially the Washington DC section of the old C&O George Washington.
Very disappointing end result corridors will be “studied”.
Studies are necessary but you could argue we should be on a crisis footing for the environment, and establish a large federal agency to do the planning, rather than consultants. Might require a lot of visas to India for new engineers. Or, just that studies should not take so long, and best practices involve a faster template for completion.

To elaborate on Bristol VA/TN, the NS tracks from Blacksburg/Christiansburg are a crooked road, but maybe it is feasible. It's NS mainline so probably in decent shape. It would serve an area of declining population* with some political heft. The VA press release mentions cooperation with TN. Across the border (and in adjacent areas of NC), population is increasing, with the Tri-cities (Kingsport, Johnson City, Bristol) and easy terrain down the valley 100 miles to Knoxville (flagship university, etc.). Tracks are not great, if I recall the TN report, which said, basically, see what VA does. TN is not a state supporter of sub-750 mile routes.

The question of funding after planning and how strong the 750-mile rule will be in the future is out of the conversation as far as I can tell.

The VA press release gives a pax projection number for Commonwealth Corridor, but not for Bristol. Connecting the first and third busiest Amtrak stations in the state (66 miles by road), the CC would no doubt draw huge numbers. Part of planning is projecting ridership, and in some cases the politicians may not want to see the numbers. It's a matter of cloudy policy whether the state invests the bounty of "Northern Virginia taxes" in congested areas, middling areas, or struggling areas. Of course, NoVa grew to such ginormous scale in the state revenue picture with the multiplier effect stimulus of government spending. As the ports did going back hundreds of years, and presently in Savannah GA.

(*) Edit, I should say about far SW Va. that while the population is declining, it is sending excellent workers to other parts of the state, including several in my workplace.
 
I'm particularly excited about the Wisconsin and other Midwestern corridors. Green Bay to Milwaukee is a busy corridor as it is - there are two very busy expressway/interstates between the two cities and the western one, I-41 feels like an urban expressway for much of it's route and is busy, as is I-43, on weekends and weekdays. Just the metro populations of the proposed stops is over 800,000 plus surrounding towns (and I'm sure there'd be special green and gold trains a few times a year serving old fashioned's).

90/94 is also busy - friends drove to Minneapolis for Thanksgiving and coming back it sounded like it was bumper to bumper in places north of Madison on the way back.
 
In other words, as opposed to one off, state or regional-only-supported, disconnected "studies" that may well have been done in the past (this is a particular issue in Minnesota re: "Zip Rail," or HSR MSP - Rochester & Mayo Clinic, and others), the Corridor ID studies will, barring as John mentioned Congress destroying the program, be part of a connected ecosystem with a pretty clear path to future funding for required environmental studies and construction, etc.
Thank you! To your point of disconnected studies, I notice that some of the grants are to different agencies for essentially the same project:

*Amtrak and North Central Texas Council of Governments are both planning for service Dallas-Ft. Worth to Houston via the Brazos Valley.

*Antelope Valley Transit Authority is planning for service between Victor Valley and Palmdale CA, which the description explicitly links to California HSR and Brightline West, both of which also received planning grants.

*Eau Claire County (which is in WI, not MN, I believe) is getting a grant for Eau Claire-Twin Cities service, and Wisconsin DOT is also getting a grant for Milwaukee-Madison-Eau Claire-Twin Cities. Not to mention another grant for Hiawatha Service expansion, but that's also going to WisDOT.

I hope the local authorities in each of these instances work closely with the larger organizations (Amtrak, CHSRA, Brightline West, WisDOT) to pool their resources and coordinate their efforts. I suspect they will, and the grants to the local authorities are to give them a seat at the planning table when the big boys make their plans.
 
Thank you! To your point of disconnected studies, I notice that some of the grants are to different agencies for essentially the same project:

*Eau Claire County (which is in WI, not MN, I believe) is getting a grant for Eau Claire-Twin Cities service, and Wisconsin DOT is also getting a grant for Milwaukee-Madison-Eau Claire-Twin Cities. Not to mention another grant for Hiawatha Service expansion, but that's also going to WisDOT.

I hope the local authorities in each of these instances work closely with the larger organizations (Amtrak, CHSRA, Brightline West, WisDOT) to pool their resources and coordinate their efforts. I suspect they will, and the grants to the local authorities are to give them a seat at the planning table when the big boys make their plans.
Re: Eau Claire, you're right about it giving them a "seat at the big boy table," so to speak. I can speak to Eau Claire, being from MN--the funding situation as announced is fairly confusing to even the average Amtrak rider. There's a coalition (West Central Wisconsin Rail Coalition) that has long advocated for a more regional, almost commuter-type (not quite, but they bill it more as that in some ways) rail service just from Eau Claire to St. Paul. And because the squeaky wheel gets the grease, they received funding to finally conduct a real study of what this service--which I've seen them propose somewhere having at least 4 round trips per day--could look like.

The above service (IF it ever comes to be--more on that later) would complement the proposed Chi - MSP service via Madison and Eau Claire. And it would be cool! But the issue is that WI would seemingly need/have to pay for most of it, since this corridor would only have 1-2 stops in MN (St. Paul and maybe Stillwater) and provide the greatest benefit to WI residents, etc., etc. BUT, though Wisconsin's rail planning has been superior to MN's, politically they have a legislature that is reluctant to fund rail.

So, I am pretty skeptical that the Eau Claire - MSP *only* service will happen anytime soon, but the Chi - MSP via Madison and EC service that will also be studied now has a far greater potential, in my opinion. Why? Simple--it would travel through three states instead of two, so more opportunities for state funding, and would unlock the upper Midwest 'holy grail' of serving Madison, something that many people seem almost preternaturally fixated on (so, more political momentum).
 
Back
Top