High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program Track 3 Planning | Apply Online

FAQs: High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program Track 3 Planning (FR-IPR-09-001)

What is this funding opportunity?

This opportunity is the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program Track 3 "Planning" notice (Funding Opportunity Number FR-IPR-09-001). It was a discretionary funding notice issued by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) under the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) focused on planning activities that support a national network of high speed intercity passenger rail corridors.

Which federal agency ran the program?

The program was administered by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), an agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation.

What was the main purpose of HSIPR Track 3 (Planning)?

Track 3 was intended to help states and partners advance rail corridor projects that were still in earlier stages of development, while ensuring that planning work fit into a broader long-term strategy for corridor buildout and a national high speed rail network.

How does Track 3 fit into the broader HSIPR program?

Track 3 is described as a planning-focused "on-ramp" into the national high speed rail initiative. It emphasized readiness, measurable public benefits, and a credible path from planning to implementation, with close coordination among FRA, states, railroads, and other stakeholders.

What kinds of activities were supported?

The notice focused specifically on planning activities that support development of high speed intercity passenger rail corridors. The description also makes clear that FRA expected planning to be connected to a pathway toward implementation, rather than being purely conceptual.

What funding sources supported this cycle of HSIPR funding?

The notice states that HSIPR funding for this cycle drew on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) as well as the FY 2008 and FY 2009 DOT Appropriations Acts.

What selection criteria or priorities were emphasized?

The stated intent was to favor proposals that deliver clear public benefits beyond rail service alone. Examples called out include transportation improvements, economic recovery impacts, energy independence, environmental quality gains, and support for livable communities.

How did FRA evaluate whether a planning proposal was likely to succeed?

Beyond the public-benefit emphasis, FRA signaled it would weigh the likelihood of successful delivery by looking for strong project management approaches, realistic financial planning, and meaningful stakeholder commitments.

Was planning treated as purely conceptual work?

No. The notice indicates FRA did not view planning as purely conceptual. Applicants were expected to show a credible path from planning to implementation, including practical management and financial planning, plus stakeholder commitments.

What type of award instrument was used?

The opportunity used a cooperative agreement. This generally implies closer federal involvement during execution than a standard grant, including shared oversight, defined deliverables, and ongoing coordination between FRA and the awardee.

Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was limited to state governments. The program structure positioned states as the primary applicants responsible for corridor-level leadership and coordination with railroads, metropolitan partners, and other entities.

Does the listing include a CFDA number?

Yes. The listing is associated with CFDA 20.317, "Capital Assistance to States - Intercity Passenger Rail Service."

Was cost sharing or matching required?

Yes. The opportunity required cost sharing or matching, meaning applicants were expected to contribute non-federal resources and demonstrate that they had "skin in the game."

How were applications submitted?

Applications were not accepted through Grants.gov. Applicants had to apply through GrantSolutions (grantsolutions.gov). The notice also indicates support was available through the GrantSolutions Help Desk.

What were the key dates for this opportunity?

The posting shows it was posted on June 25, 2009. The original closing date and the current closing date were both August 25, 2009. The archive date was September 24, 2009.

Did the public synopsis specify award amounts?

The source record lists expected awards, total funding, and award floor/ceiling values as zero. The notice explains this typically means the public-facing synopsis did not specify set amounts in that database entry, not necessarily that no funds existed in the broader HSIPR program.

What did the program aim to achieve beyond rail service improvements?

According to the notice, the program emphasized broader public benefits, including transportation system improvements, economic recovery impacts, increased energy independence, gains in environmental quality, and support for livable communities.

What role did stakeholders like railroads and metropolitan partners play?

While states were the only eligible applicants, the opportunity was framed as a collaborative effort among the federal government, states, railroads, and other stakeholders. States were expected to coordinate corridor-level planning and implementation activities with these partners.

Why is the April 16, 2009 White House high speed rail vision mentioned?

The opportunity was announced in the wake of that vision statement, and it is presented as part of a national push to modernize the U.S. transportation system through clearly defined corridor investments and coordinated implementation.

What does it mean that this was a discretionary funding notice?

It means funding decisions were competitive and based on selection criteria and agency judgment, rather than being distributed automatically by formula.