Intercity Rail Passenger Systems Update

Transcription

1 Intercity Rail Passenger Systems Update No. 20 Winter 2012 Crrent Research and Development in Intercity Rail Passenger Systems Intercity Rail Passenger Systems Update is pblished exclsively on the Internet. The table of contents offers links directly to each article, or yo can scroll down to read the entire newsletter. Please keep yor bookmark at for pcoming editions. The Transportation Research Board s Committee on (AR010) is concerned with research that will lead to better planning and implementation of intercity rail passenger systems, with particlar emphasis on the fll range of high-speed systems inclding new technology. This research will inclde demand analysis, financial considerations, economic impacts (inclding consideration of ser and social benefits), and instittional arrangements inclding pblic private partnerships. The research shold also address impacts on other rail operations, coordination with other modes, rail highway interfaces, corridor verss system concerns, technology assessment, environmental impacts, and implementation strategies. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Concil, which serves as an independent adviser to the federal government and others on scientific and technical qestions of national importance. The National Research Concil is jointly administered by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institte of Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress throgh research and information exchange, condcted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and mltimodal. Contents...2 Editor s Introdction...3 Railenergy: The Eropean Improvement of Energy Sotheast Corridor Revisited...10 Nothing for in MAP Intercity Rail Passenger Systems Update is pblished intermittently by the Transportation Research Board to disseminate information abot crrent research and development in intercity rail passenger systems. Penny E. Eickemeyer, Editor; David P. Simpson, Chair, TRB Committee on Intercity Passenger Rail; Thomas M. Palmerlee, TRB Associate Division Director, Data and Information Services. Any findings and conclsions are those of the athors and not of TRB. TRB Pblications office: Lea Camarda, Editor; Pal debrijn, Design. Sbmit news items to Thomas M. Palmerlee, Transportation Research Board, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001, telephone , or tpalmerlee@nas.ed.

2 No. 20 Winter This Isse Editor s Introdction Railenergy: The Eropean Sotheast Corridor Revisited Dear Friends and Colleages: Plans are in fll swing for the 2013 TRB Annal Meeting. Held, as always, in the Zoo District of or nation s capital, the meeting featres a wide range of qality presentations and workshops both domestic and imported and promises an intellectal feast for those interested in rail transportation. The topic of intercity passenger rail contines to generate considerable interest among yong members and researchers the 29 papers sbmitted for review this fall constittes a new record for or committee. My sincere thanks to Genaro Mejia, who stepped p to coordinate the review process, as well as to all the friends and members who generosly devoted serios time and brainpower to critiqing and offering comments on these sbmissions. Eric Peterson s article smmarizes the crrent state of federal fnding and the treatment or nontreatment of passenger rail in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Centry Act (MAP-21) of In previos newsletters I ve noted the importance of remembering the long-term context that rail contines to grow in the pblic consciosness as an important element of or investment framework. Some exciting new initiatives are seeking alternative approaches to rail development, sch as the Texas Central High-Speed Railway and All Aboard Florida, a program for passenger rail development along Florida s east coast. These and other topics will be explored in a workshop organized in collaboration with the Mineta Transportation Institte on Snday, Janary 13, jst before the Annal Meeting, on the topic of intercity and highspeed rail. Thanks for listening. I hope to see most of yo in Janary! David Simpson, Chair David P. Simpson Consltants simpsonconslt@comcast.net

3 No. 20 Winter This Isse EDITOR S INTRODUCTION Editor s Introdction Railenergy: The Eropean Sotheast Corridor Revisited We are getting close to the 2013 TRB Annal Meeting and a new rond of papers, presentations, and workshops have been selected. As in past years, the Intercity Passenger Rail Committee (AR010) is doing its part to inform attendees professionals, researchers, and stdents abot the latest innovations and schools of thoght on intercity passenger rail worldwide. Each TRB Annal Meeting cycle contribtes to a continm of information that we hope will offer sfficient knowledge for decision making to those who fnd and implement transportation programs. As we move forward, prior research provides frther gidance worthy of consideration; therefore, this isse contains articles on recent research of vale in meeting or edcational goals. Or lead article presents a technology-related topic from Erope. Valerio Recagno of D Appolonia S.p.A., which is based in Genova, Italy, discsses a mltiyear, mlticontry stdy that began in 2006 to investigate and determine a system approach to measring energy efficiency in the railway sector and assessing the impacts of innovation in new technologies and operational measres. His article, Railenergy: The Eropean, is qite informative. We also have two articles that discss research on the feasibility of intercity passenger and high-speed rail. These articles focs on two separate U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) designated high-speed rail corridors: In, Ben Sperry and Crtis Morgan of the Texas A&M Transportation Institte (TTI) discss TTI s research on the mobility impacts of the Hiawatha Amtrak rote, which rns between Milwakee, Wisconsin, and Chicago, Illinois one hb in the Midwest (Chicago Hb Network) Corridor. One stop on this Hiawatha service is at the Milwakee Airport Rail Station; according to the article, this is one of only for stations in the contry with a direct link between the Amtrak rail system and an airport. A srvey of passengers provides insight into the impact of this connection on ridership. In the second article, Crtis Bradley discsses research that he performed as a master s degree stdent at Soth Carolina State University. The article, High- Speed Rail in the Sotheast Corridor Revisited, highlights points from his re search paper, A Revisit of the Feasibility of the Sotheast Corridor, which evalates criteria sch as poplation, terrain, proposed distance of high-speed rail, and existing rail, to assess the potential for sccessfl high-speed rail in the sotheastern United States. The forth, and last, article refers to MAP-21, the long-awaited seqel to SAFE- TEA-LU that was signed by President Barack Obama on Jly 6, The athor, Eric Peterson, points ot that fnding for intercity passenger rail or high-speed rail was not inclded in the final bill, bt that the possibility of ftre federal fnding for this service still is p for debate among legislators. The contination of this discssion nderscores the importance of the role of TRB, its committees, and its members in providing as

4 No. 20 Winter This Isse Editor s Introdction mch new, innovative, and objective information as possible. With this in mind, please consider contribting articles to this newsletter on yor recently completed research dring the next year. Also, please keep an eye ot for a srvey that will be posted on the AR010 website in the next few months to solicit yor sggestions for ideas for an article or offers to athor an article. Thanks, and I hope to see yo at the 2013 Annal Meeting. Penny Eickemeyer Region 2 University Transportation Research Center City College of New York peickemeyer@trc2.org Railenergy: The Eropean Sotheast Corridor Revisited

5 No. 20 Winter This Isse RAILENERGY: THE EUROPEAN APPROACH TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN RAILWAYS Editor s Introdction Railenergy: The Eropean Sotheast Corridor Revisited Valerio Recagno valerio.recagno@dappolonia.it Valerio Recagno is Manager of the Transport Engineering Division of D Appolonia S.p.A., based in Genova, Italy. Over the past decade, the Eropean railway market has been challenged by different factors: open-market competition within the railway, among operating companies, and among other modes of transportation; the secrity of the energy spply; and the impact of greenhose gas emissions on the climate. From a strategic point of view, the whole railway indstry has identified energy efficiency as the prime consideration in addressing all the above challenges at once. For this reason, major players of the Eropean railway sector established the Railenergy project in Partly financed by the Eropean Commission nder the Sixth Framework Programme of Research and Technological Development, Railenergy has investigated and determined a system approach to measre energy efficiency in the railway sector and to assess the impacts of innovation coming from new technologies or operational measres. The project officially started in September 2006 and ended in December It comprised 27 partners railway operators, manfactrers, sppliers, consltancies, and niversities bringing along more than 100 researchers from 15 Eropean contries. The direct participation of the International Union of Railways (UIC); UNIFE, the Association of the Eropean Rail Indstry; and major project stakeholders created the critical mass needed to ensre the market ptake of project reslts and their se in the bsiness arena. Railenergy has demonstrated that it is possible to redce the specific energy consmption of the rail system by 6 percent by 2020, throgh the application of a holistic approach comprising different railway systems, sbsystems, and components. The project reslts inclde the following: 1 1. Contribtion to technical standardization (technical recommendation: a bilateral UIC UNIFE standard as an inpt for the Eropean standards), 2. Tools for the calclation of energy consmption in a defined railway system, and 3. New technical components and recommendations for their se. One of the most important reslts from Railenergy is its contribtion to the Eropean standardization processes, in particlar the preparation of joint UIC UNIFE Technical Recommendations (TecRecs). A TecRec is a joint standard that aims to accelerate the standardization process, thereby improving the competitiveness of the Eropean railway system. The first TecRec, 100_001: Specification and Verification of Energy Consmption for Railway Rolling Stock, was developed by Railenergy to spport procrement 1 Bergendorff, M., R. Nolte, J. Sandor, V. Recagno, and E. Wiebe. Smart and Efficient Energy Soltions for Railways The Railenergy Approach. Proceedings of the 9th World Congress on Railway Research, Lille, France, 2011.

6 No. 20 Winter This Isse Editor s Introdction Railenergy: The Eropean Sotheast Corridor Revisited Examples of Railenergy Calclator energy-saving assessments. of locomotives and train sets. Its general prpose is to provide a comparative framework to evalate energy performance vales for train sets or locomotives on a common basis and to benchmark and improve the energy efficiency of all types of rail vehicles. This method provides directly comparable reslts and represents the real operation of a train. The application of TecRec 100_001 is recommended for new projects in the tendering process as the basis for evalating the energy performance of new technologies or design options. Railenergy also delivered a second proposal for a TecRec, which provides a volntary standard as a gide when implementing reversible electrical sbstations (ESS) in direct crrent (DC). This TecRec is sitable for newly manfactred ESS, as well as pgrading and renewal, taking into accont the dedicated economic analysis that mst be provided in both cases. It also provides indications for the design phase to maximize energy efficiency by correctly installing the technology. This project also was involved in the preparation and delivery of the Railenergy Calclator, a software-based decision spport tool for railway decision makers to assess varios energy-efficiency strategies. The tool, openly accessible at spports manfactrers assessment of technologies for rolling stock and infrastrctre components. Railway operators and infrastrctre managers also benefit by being able to evalate the operational, technical, and strategic investment opportnities for energy-efficiency soltions in procrement, leasing, operation, and maintenance activities. The strategic evalation is based on a simplified cost-benefit cost-effectiveness methodology that incldes a strong lifecycle perspective. The Railenergy Calclator

7 No. 20 Winter This Isse Editor s Introdction Railenergy: The Eropean defines the optimal mix of energy-efficiency strategies at the vehicle or network level, acconting for energy efficiency and costs, sch as investments and payback time. It featres a sensitivity analysis modle to inclde the effects of ncertainties in traffic volmes, energy prices, and tariffs for strategic assessment prposes. By sing a consistent methodology in the technical, operational, and economic assessment phases, indstrial partners can screen energy-efficiency measres in a transparent, fnctional manner. The figre on page 6 shows an example of the technical reslts of the calclator. Manfactrers and operators joint efforts to investigate the energy-saving potential of different technologies made it possible to draw recommendations for their possible application in different systems. This represents a significant advance, as historically deep differences between the former national railways in Erope have blocked the integration and interoperability of trains across Eropean Union member states borders. Thogh this is still somewhat the case, the Railenergy approach has enabled comparisons across varios railway systems. Railenergy examined the potential for energy saving in the for main traction systems on the Eropean continent DC railway services, alternating crrent (AC) conventional railway services, AC high-speed railway services, and diesel railway services. The approach offered strategic recommendations for sch service types as regional traffic or high-speed services; for dedicated technologies sch as the medim-freqency transformation of waste heat; and for operational measres, inclding energy-efficient driving or parked-train management. Althogh Railenergy offers benchmarks for energy-saving potential in existing rail systems, it does not recommend a specific traction system. Frther details are available on the web at Sotheast Corridor Revisited

8 No. 20 Winter This Isse NEW RESEARCH ON THE MOBILITY IMPACTS OF INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Editor s Introdction Railenergy: The Eropean Sotheast Corridor Revisited Ben Sperry and Crtis Morgan b-sperry@ttimail.tam.ed, c-morgan@ttimail.tam.ed Ben Sperry is Associate Transportation Researcher in Freight and Passenger Rail and Crtis Morgan is Program Manager at the Texas A&M Transportation Institte. Otside of the Northeast Corridor, there are very few corridors in the United States where intercity passenger rail cold be considered trly well-integrated into the mltimodal transportation system. One sch corridor is between Milwakee, Wisconsin, and Chicago, Illinois. Operating between the two cities, which are approximately 90 miles apart, is an Amtrak rote known as the Hiawatha Service. In Janary 2011, researchers from TTI, with financial spport from the University Transportation Center for Mobility and Wisconsin DOT, initiated a research project to examine the mobility impacts of the Hiawatha Service rote. In the first phase of this project, TTI and Wisconsin DOT developed and implemented an onboard srvey of Hiawatha Service passengers. One stop on the Hiawatha Service is at the Milwakee Airport Rail Station one of only for sch stations in the contry with a direct link between the Amtrak rail system and an airport. Passengers wishing to travel between the rail station and the airport terminal se a circlating shttle bs. In the second phase of this project, TTI researchers designed and implemented a two-part srvey that examined the passengers tilizing the air rail intermodal interface at the Milwakee Airport Rail Station. Reslts from the onboard passenger srvey showed that, on weekdays, a majority of passengers traveled on the Hiawatha Service for bsiness-related prposes or for work commtes. This inclded travelers commting to or from work on a daily or less-thandaily basis. Conversely, nearly 80 percent of weekend passengers were traveling for personal reasons visiting family or friends, leisre or entertainment, vacation, or shopping. Weekday passengers cited the convenience of the rail service as a main inflence on their decision to se the rail service instead of other modes, while weekend passengers rated the connections between the rail service and other Amtrak trains, intercity bses, or airlines as more inflential. The atomobile was the primary alternative to rail service, with approximately 70 percent of passengers reporting that they wold se an atomobile if the rail service was not available. Other alternatives to the Hiawatha Service inclded intercity bs, Metra commter rail, airplane, and local transit bs. The alternative, I wold not have made this trip, was selected by 14 percent of passengers, indicating a small amont of indced travel on the rote. As an alternative to the Hiawatha Service, commter rail was slightly higher for weekday travelers, while the intercity bs alternative to rail service was higher for weekend travelers. Applying these findings to overall Hiawatha Service ridership, researchers estimated that more than 521,000 annal vehicle trips are shifted from the region s highways onto the Hiawatha Service, reslting in an estimated annal savings of more than 41.7 million vehicle miles traveled.

9 No. 20 Winter This Isse Editor s Introdction Railenergy: The Eropean Sotheast Corridor Revisited Hiawatha Station. (Image: Ben Sperry, TTI) Most passengers connecting between the Hiawatha Service and the Milwakee airport were traveling for personal reasons, sch as to visit family and friends (36 percent) or for leisre and vacation (20 percent). Approximately 35 percent of connecting passengers were traveling for bsiness prposes. While most Hiawatha Service passengers were from the Milwakee area, Milwakee-area residents comprised only 7 percent of airport shttle ridership. This contrast was not srprising, as residents of the Milwakee area were more likely to have other options for accessing the Milwakee airport. Chicagoarea residents acconted for 32 percent of shttle passengers and 23 percent of overall Hiawatha Service ridership. A majority of passengers on the airport shttle 55 percent were from other states than Wisconsin or Illinois. By contrast, only 9 percent of all Hiawatha Service passengers reported a home residence otside of Wisconsin or Illinois. One interesting finding from the shttle srvey was that not all passengers riding the shttle were connecting between the Hiawatha Service and a flight at the Milwakee airport rather, 19 percent of passengers reported that they sed the shttle to connect to sch transportation options as airport-based rental car facilities. Another interesting finding from the srvey was that if the air rail connection was not available, one-third of shttle passengers wold have sed one of the two Chicago-area airports instead of Milwakee for their flight. In this context, the Hiawatha Service strengthens the synergy between the Milwakee airport and larger travel markets in the Chicago central bsiness district and helps extend the market area for the Milwakee airport into the Chicago region. For more information abot this research project and for a PDF copy of the final report, visit

10 No. 20 Winter This Isse HIGH-SPEED RAIL IN THE SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR REVISITED Editor s Introdction Railenergy: The Eropean Sotheast Corridor Revisited Crtis T. Bradley crtis_bradley@stdent.ml.ed Crtis Bradley is a Ph.D. stdent in Civil Engineering: Transportation Engineering at the University of Massachsetts, Lowell. In May 2012, he received a master s degree in transportation from Soth Carolina State University. This article will discss analysis and findings from A Revisit of the Feasibility of the Sotheast Corridor, presented on Janary 24, 2012, at the TRB Annal Meeting. This paper was written following the Obama Administration s 2008 annoncement that transportation improvements wold be fnded throgh the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and, specifically, that $8 billion wold be invested in high-speed rail initiatives across the contry. The Sotheast High- Speed Rail (HSR) Corridor was fnded by the federal government at $620 million. Two qestions arise from this news: (1) what case cold be made for the Sotheast HSR Corridor to receive ftre fnding and (2) whether fnding for the Sotheast HSR Corridor is a good investment in comparison to other corridors in the United States. Introdction The Sotheast HSR Corridor is comprised of a combination of several rail lines; since 1995, these lines have been connected throgh the formation of extensions. The original Piedmont Corridor connected Washington, D.C.; Richmond, Virginia; and Raleigh, Greensboro, and, before 1995, Charlotte, North Carolina. According to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), it has been extended several times since to make p the crrent Sotheast HSR Corridor, as shown on page 11. Research has shown that poplation, existing railroad infrastrctre, terrain, and speed all have an impact on the performance of high-speed rail. This paper will briefly docment and analyze the effects of these for factors on the Sotheast HSR Corridor. Poplation In comparison to other cities with sccessfl high-speed rail, it cold be determined that the sotheastern United States do not have the sfficient poplation density to generate the level of demand that wold lead to positive performance in terms of ridership. Data from the 2010 U.S. Censs present interesting information on the ftre poplation of the Sotheast HSR Corridor: the sothern portion of the United States grew at a faster rate than the rest of the United States between 2000 and According to the data, the poplation of the Soth has grown by 14.3 percent in comparison to other corridors, the poplation of the Northeast by 3.2 percent, the West by 13.8 percent, and the Midwest by 3.9 percent. Censs data showed evidence that the trend of poplation growth is shifting to the sothern United States. 1 The censs docmentation frther shows that, over the past years, the most significant growth in this region served by the 1 Observed censs data took into accont other states and cities that were not considered part of the Sotheast HSR Corridor.

11 No. 20 Winter This Isse Editor s Introdction Railenergy: The Eropean Sotheast Corridor Revisited Sotheast HSR Corridor. (Image: SEHSR.org) Sotheast HSR Corridor occrred in the major metropolitan areas of Raleigh and Charlotte. This information cold be interpreted as the beginning of a trend toward contined poplation and economic growth of the Sotheast HSR Corridor; historically, this growth has jstified the provision of high-speed rail service, particlarly when major metropolitan markets can be connected. While the poplation of the Sotheast HSR Corridor is an important factor in the consideration of high-speed rail services, the cost of the rail service is particlarly important to the metropolitan area and potential investors. Use of Existing Rail The high cost of high-speed rail has been well-docmented. One way to redce the cost of high-speed rail is to alleviate land acqisition and constrction costs. Different plans referencing the Sotheast HSR Corridor have indicated that, to accomplish this, they will tilize the existing railroad infrastrctre. By sing existing track owned by CSX and Norfolk Sothern for freight and passenger service, constrction costs will be redced significantly and land acqisition costs will be nearly eliminated, compared to the cost of new constrction. 2,3 Conseqently, maintenance costs most likely will rise becase of increased stress on the rail, bt estimates have shown that the costs for pgrade and maintenance are still less than that of constrcting completely new track. 4 Terrain The terrain of the area also has a distinct impact on cost of high-speed rail infrastrctre. This trend generally is spported by existing high-speed rail systems in other 2 Balfor Beatty Rail Systems, Sprage & Sprage Conslting Engineers, Wilbr Smith Associates, Soth Carolina Sotheast High Speed Rail Corridor Improvement Stdy, Febrary 2001, 3 Sotheast High-Speed Rail, Stdy Area Alternatives Recommendation Report: Tier I, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, March 5, Cikata, Jr., J. F., A. M. Zarembski. Estimating Maintenance Costs for Mixed High-Speed Passenger and Freight Corridors: A New Tool for Rail Planners. TR News, April 2008.

12 No. 20 Winter This Isse Editor s Introdction Railenergy: The Eropean Sotheast Corridor Revisited contries. A 2009 U.S. Government Accontability Office (GAO) report, High Speed Passenger Rail: Ftre Development Will Depend on Addressing Financial and Other Challenges and Establishing a Clear Federal Role, compares the cost of high-speed rail constrction in Spain to that of Japan, a montainos and dense contry, in which constrction costs range from $82 to $143 million per mile. In Spain, a less dense and less montainos contry, the costs of high-speed rail constrction are between $37 and $53 million per mile. Flat terrain also is beneficial to the design flexibility of new lines shold that option become necessary. The GAO report points ot that decisions mst be made on the appropriate balance between constrction cost savings and the se of a design and operating model that allows for sccessfl operating performance, which can encorage increased ridership and better speed performance. Speed The intended speed of trains is a factor in determining the feasibility of the Sotheast HSR Corridor; the GAO report cited this as a significant factor in the decision to invest. The projected speed of high-speed rail in this corridor (a maximm of 110 mph) actally is lower than the UIC definition of high-speed rail (at least 125 mph). 4 5 The Sotheast HSR Corridor s speed is a reslt of its reliance on existing track and of sharing the rail with passenger and freight lines. The nmber of stops between each station cold have a significant impact on the overall operating speed and time of high-speed rail and so shold be factored into the performance of the Sotheast HSR Corridor. Conclsion In smmary, the Sotheast HSR Corridor rates favorably for investment in high-speed rail, based on GAO-defined criteria of acceptable poplation, rail road infrastrctre, terrain, and speed. The corridor shows evidence of an increasing poplation, which will contribte to the growth and economic stability experienced by crrent cities and metropolitan areas that crrently tilize high-speed rail. What makes the Sotheast HSR Corridor niqe is the opportnity for relatively minimal investment costs and the potential for significant revenes and profits. The economic sccess of the Sotheast HSR Corridor is contingent pon a sitable bsiness plan, along with other potential factors that were not discssed in this paper. Regardless of the critiqes of investment in high-speed rail technology, this stdy shows that investment in the Sotheast HSR Corridor shold be seriosly considered and that the corridor has the potential for real and significant transportation and financial sccesses. To access the original paper discssed in this article, contact the athor or, for attendees of the 2012 TRB Annal Meeting, visit 5 International Union of Railways. Accessed on Jne 30, 2011.

13 No. 20 Winter This Isse NOTHING FOR INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL IN MAP-21 Editor s Introdction Railenergy: The Eropean Sotheast Corridor Revisited Eric Peterson ecp50@verizon.net Eric Peterson is a transportation policy consltant and a member of the TRB Intercity Passenger Rail Committee. On Jly 6th, 2012, President Obama signed MAP-21 (H.R. 4348) into law, ending a two-year stalemate with Congress over the reathorization of the nation s srface transportation programs. The new athorization expires at the end of fiscal year (FY) The bill totals $105 billion for FYs 2013 and 2014 and primarily covers srface transportation highway provisions. Althogh the Senate s version of the legislation inclded provisions that wold direct the U.S. Transportation Secretary in collaboration with stakeholders to develop a long-range national rail plan and reqirements for implementing positive train control; refining Srface Transportation Board athorities; and amending and pdating Amtrak s environmental review, capital planning and financing, and inspector general athorities, the MAP-21 conferees dropped all of these provisions. At this time, government officials indicate that the administration s passenger rail program will contine to operate nder the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act of 2008, which is de for reathorization next year and which crrently athorizes federal rail programs throgh September 30, An aide to U.S. Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), chair of the Hose Transportation and Infrastrctre Committee, informed this athor that the Committee plans to hold hearings throghot the remainder of this year on athorizing the fnding of rail programs in the ftre, however. Amtrak P370 heads into a St. Joseph, Michigan, train station. Congress passed a joint resoltion on September 10, 2012, contining Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak fnding at FY 2012 levels throgh March (Photo: Rssell Sekeet)

14 No. 20 Winter This Isse Editor s Introdction Railenergy: The Eropean Thogh the pending FY 2013 transportation appropriation bill contains fnding for Amtrak, no money has been approved for other high-speed and intercity passenger rail projects or for the administration s highly poplar transportation infrastrctre grants. In the Hose version of the FY 2013 transportation appropriation, FRA wold receive $2 billion, with $1.8 billion dedicated to Amtrak. The FY 2013 Senate transportation appropriations bill offers $1.76 billion for FRA, with $1.45 dedicated to Amtrak. Bt becase the fll Senate has yet to take p the FY 2013 Transportation, Hosing, and Urban Development Appropriations Act, on September 10 Congress passed a joint resoltion contining FRA and Amtrak fnding at FY 2012 levels throgh March 27, President Obama signed the resoltion into law on September 28. Newsletter Comments We look forward to yor feedback on the format and the content of this pblication. Comments on this newsletter, and most especially, contined contribtions by committee members, friends of the committee, and others can be sent to the editor: Penny Eickemeyer peickemeyer@trc2.org Sotheast Corridor Revisited