‘Excited’ High-Speed Rail Builders Get Ready
High-speed rail advocates celebrated the Jan. 28 award of grants from the $8-billion pot that is part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, but officials must now figure out how to leverage the seed money into successful long-term programs. California and Florida, the anticipated big grant winners at $2.25 billion and $1.25 billion, respectively, are now pondering design-build and public-private partnerships along with other funding sources.
The U.S. Dept. of Transportation was flooded with applications, receiving $57 billion in project funding proposals. That total includes $50 billion in rail-corridor proposals submitted by 24 states and $7 billion from 34 states for specific projects.
Most of the funds went to long-term programs that now can proceed with environmental reviews and preliminary engineering. But some projects specifically were “shovel-ready,” says David J. Carol, market leader of high-speed rail for Parsons Brinckerhoff, New York City. “Those will be going to design-build or final design fairly quickly under the terms of the legislation, in which they need to be completed in two years,” he says. “A year out, you’ll see some heavy-duty construction.”
Florida’s Tampa-Orlando line could be the first to debut, since the state Dept. of Transportation (FDOT) had already allotted it room in the median of Interstate 4. Right-of-way procurements are almost complete, but additional funding is still a concern, officials say.
“We are very excited by what the Federal Railroad Administration is awarding us, but we will have to look at this and figure out a plan to facilitate the system,” says Nazih Haddad, FDOT manager for passenger-rail development. “We don’t have answers about the rest of the funding at this time. We will look at the situation and decide. It’s important to note that the agency is providing dollars only as a down payment. There may be additional funding at a later date.”
Even so, high-speed-rail advocates are encouraged by the unprecedented investment in high-speed rail. “I’m relieved and happy,” says Peter Gertler, HNTB director of high-speed rail and a newly named senior vice president. “It’s like the day after a big party.”
But some constructors are skeptical. “I’m not sure anybody knows what they’re going to do now,” says Robert G. Burleson, president of the Florida Transportation Builders Association, Tallahassee. “I don’t think anybody knows exactly what the parameters are with the money. It’s pretty obvious you can’t build a train from Orlando to Tampa with just $1.25 billion,” he says. “Quite honestly, there isn’t $1.25 billion of transportation money to commit over the next five years to high-speed rail, even if the [federal government] wanted to, unless [it] totally shuts down the highway program. We’re in a real dilemma.”
Rick Chesser, regional director for Reynolds Smith & Hills, Jacksonville, Fla., says the construction community is in a “wait-and-see mode” to see how the projects progress. He notes that at a DOT forum in December, there were discussions about the Tampa-Orlando leg, “what [officials] called the civil works to prepare the track bed to accept the track and electrification,” he says, noting officials at the event said the second phase “would be to bring in track electrification and equipment and then to operate and maintain the system.”
International firms boasting previous high-speed rail experience are eager to get onboard with American partners. “It comes at the right time, and I think we have the elements in place to be one of the serious competitors for this work, in whatever fashion it comes out,” says Lauro Bravar, chief operating officer for OHL USA, the Miami-based...
...unit of the Spanish construction firm. But he acknowledges future financing could prove challenging. “These are very expensive structures to build, maintain and operate. You don’t want to put too much burden on the fares, so the general public can use them as a reasonable price,” says Bravar. “Usually there is reasonable aid coming from the government.”
California Dreamin’
California’s $2.25-billion share of the high-speed-rail stimulus funds was $2.45 billion less than what the state applied for to jump-start construction on an 800-mile, $46-billion Los Angeles-to-San Francisco project, but a welcome down payment. “We didn’t really think we would get the entire amount, but we put everything we possibly could into the application by the deadline, so [the government] would have a big menu to choose from,” says Mehdi Morshed, California High Speed Rail Authority executive director.
Federal monies will be used to leverage $9 billion in state bond funds already approved by voters, local and private funds, and up to $17 billion more in federal transportation funding expected in future years.
The ARRA grant allows the authority to allocate the money toward property acquisition, engineering, environmental work and track laying in any of the four corridors submitted: Los Angeles to Anaheim, Fresno to Bakersfield, Fresno to Merced or San Francisco to San Jose. “This is a very good outcome because it gives us the flexibility to use the funds on whichever projects don’t run into roadblocks and can make the September 2011 deadline to complete environmental approvals,” Morshed says. Design-build contracts could open for bid in the next two years, he adds.
Parsons Brinckerhoff, San Francisco-based URS Corp., Millburn, N.J.-based Hatch Mott MacDonald, London-based Arup Group and HNTB Corp., Kansas City, are among the 80 engineering firms already working on preliminary design.
“We can now complete preliminary engineering by 2012,” says HNTB’s Gertler. He foresees a possible scenario in which California and Florida award design-build construction projects and then use public-private partnership arrangements to support operation and maintenance.
Derailing Dangers
Dedicated corridors such as in California and Florida will involve building new alignments specifically for high-speed rail. But in other areas, such as the Midwest, which received $2.6 billion as a regional initiative, “higher-speed” trains running at average speeds of 110 mph will share track with freight trains.
“We are very pleased. This is the best news we could have hoped for given the extreme competition for rail funding,” says Brian Weiler, director of multimodal operations at the Missouri Dept. of Transportation. The money will fund shovel-ready projects, such as improvements to existing track used by freight trains and Amtrak, and also longer-term plans for routes using 220-mph trains between core cities, such as Chicago to St. Louis.
“There will be a lot of technical and operating challenges,” says Clifford Eby, PB’s eastern group transportation manager and a former Federal Railroad deputy adminsitrator. “Some locations have a high density of freight,” he says. “Operating slots will be needed.” He also notes new requirements enacted in 2008 that require all Class 1 freight railroads to implement anti-collision technology by 2015.
Adequate staffing and resources will also be a challenge. “Lack of new talent is an issue,” says PB’s Carol. But he notes the appeal of an emerging industry sector. “If a 25-year-old engineer is looking for a future, this is a game-changer right now.”
