Status of High-speed Rail in US--some good, much bad

[BTinSF]

Two interesting articles in national US publications today (probably not a coincidence). I thought it was worth posting both and offering a chance to discuss developments from various perspectives around the country.

The first was in today's USA Today:

High-speed rail service derailed
Updated 11/3/2006 12:21 AM ET
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Denny Spicher, a risk management consultant, wants to love the new high-speed electric train that started this week between here and Philadelphia. After his first ride Wednesday, however, he reluctantly reports that the train rode a lot like the rickety old diesel trains he's ridden for years on the 102-mile route.

"Don't get me wrong. I welcome the new service. But I couldn't see a major difference. It's not quite there yet," says Spicher, 52, a Dauphin, Pa., resident.

When it comes to high-speed rail, "are we there yet?" is a question worth asking. Other than the new service here and the Acela train line between Washington, D.C., New York and Boston, high-speed passenger rail service isn't scheduled to arrive anywhere else in the country for a very long time.

Amtrak introduced the new high-speed rail line this week, amid little fanfare. The Keystone Service will increase maximum speeds between Harrisburg and Philadelphia from 90 mph to 110 mph and cut 15 to 30 minutes off a two-hour trip. The service costs as little as $20 each way.

The train will connect to the heavily traveled high-speed line between Washington, New York and Boston. The Acela train, introduced in December 2000, reaches speeds as high as 150 mph in parts of New England and 135 mph elsewhere on the route.

The Philadelphia-to-Harrisburg route became a high-speed route for practical reasons. It's the only rail line other than the Acela that is wired for electric trains, which reach high speeds more efficiently than diesel engines.

Kiran Mudambi, 20, of Mountain View, Calif., took the train Thursday to interview for the medical student program at Pennsylvania State University. By flying into Philadelphia, instead of Harrisburg, and taking the train to his final destination, he saved $250.



"Quite a bit for a college student," he says.

'Balanced transportation'

Amtrak, which receives about $1.3 billion a year in federal money, spent $145 million upgrading the track and rail switches. The federal government paid $58 million of the cost, Pennsylvania borrowed $14.5 million for its share, and Amtrak paid the rest.

Pennsylvania also pays $6.8 million a year to subsidize the cost of operating the Keystone route, in service since 1834.

"It's part of Gov. (Ed) Rendell's vision of a balanced transportation system," says Rich Kirkpatrick, press secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. "Pennsylvania has stepped up to the plate to make this high-speed service viable."

High-speed rail got attention in the 1990s when the federal government started designating high-speed rail corridors around the country. Today, there are 11 designated high-speed rail corridors through 28 states.

Actual development of high-speed routes has slowed to a crawl or gone completely dormant. For example, Florida voters approved a high-speed rail project in 2000, then repealed it in 2004.

In other key proposals:

•The California High-Speed Rail Authority, established in 1996, wants to bring European-style high-speed trains — with speeds exceeding 200 mph — from San Diego to Sacramento. In 2004 and 2006, the state decided against asking voters for funding. A proposal to borrow $10 billion could be on the 2008 ballot.

•The Southeast corridor, created in 1992, is supposed to bring high-speed passenger rail to Atlanta, Jacksonville, Raleigh, N.C., Washington and other cities.

"The problem is there's no federal money, other than some planning dollars," North Carolina transportation planner David Foster says. It will cost $5.5 million per mile — or $2.5 billion — just to upgrade the 450-mile Charlotte-to-Washington line, he says.

•The Midwest corridor, centered in Chicago, has been getting more trains, but none that travel at high speeds. Last Monday, Amtrak doubled the number of trains running downstate out of Chicago, using $24 million in state money to add service. But the trains don't go faster than 79 mph.

"All we do is talk, talk, talk," says Rick Harnish, executive director of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association, a private group.

Harnish says Illinois could start high-speed rail service quickly by purchasing available rail-switching technology. "It would cost peanuts — so cheap it's embarrassing," he says.

Matt Vanover of the Illinois Department of Transportation says the state is waiting for a report on a train-control system under development. He also says details need to be worked out with Amtrak, Union Pacific, the federal government and Chicago.

Will the public get on board?

High-speed rail service in the USA is going nowhere because it doesn't make economic sense, says William Garrison, co-author of the book Tomorrow's Transportation and a professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley.

"What passenger rail lacks isn't money. It's riders," he says. "These high-speed rail proposals are big boondoggles. We're reluctant to subsidize high-speed rail for good reason: There's not a market for it."

John Spychalski, a transportation expert and professor at Penn State, says the problem is lack of political will. "People didn't bat an eyelash when we decided to build the interstate system in 1956."

He says high-speed passenger rail has technical, as well as financial problems. Railroad tracks in the USA are almost all privately owned by freight companies that run slower, heavier trains. "They aren't too keen on operating a 125-mph passenger train when they're running heavy freight trains at 30 to 70 mph," Spychalski says.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...-02-rail_x.htm

The second article was in today's Wall Street Journal:

Amtrak Is Switching Tracks
In a High-Speed Bid to Survive,
States Are Asked to Pitch In More
By DANIEL MACHALABA
November 3, 2006; Page B4
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. -- Beyond the Northeast, where Amtrak's Acela trains reach speeds of 150 miles per hour, America's passenger trains rarely leave the slow lane. But that is changing as Amtrak encourages states to upgrade railroad tracks for faster trains -- and helps to foot the bill.

Amtrak began running express trains Monday between Harrisburg, Pa., and Philadelphia that shave 30 minutes from what was a two-hour trip. Trains on the 104-mile route now hit 110 mph, following a $145 million overhaul funded equally by Pennsylvania and the nation's passenger railroad. Train experts say thousands of additional miles could become fast-train corridors -- and more standard-speed trains could start running -- if such federal-state partnerships spread across the U.S.


"This is the face and future of Amtrak," Alexander Kummant, who became Amtrak president and chief executive in September, said recently at a train depot in Champaign, Ill., between Chicago and Carbondale, Ill., where a new train started running this week, funded by the state of Illinois.

Amtrak's encouragement of high-speed train service -- despite costing roughly $1 million a mile -- offers a glimpse of the railroad's wider survival strategy. Amtrak, which has never made a profit, depends on federal grants of about $1.3 billion a year to stay in business. Last year the Bush administration sought to cut off its federal funding and force the railroad into bankruptcy. Congress voted to maintain the subsidies and keep the railroad running, but political pressure remains on the railroad to cut operating costs.

Instead of fixating on financial black holes like long-distance trains, railroad officials are looking to score smaller victories. Even modest successes are likely to give Amtrak more time to deal with problems ranging from aging train cars to costly union work rules.

The speedier passenger trains still are slow compared with supersleek trains in Europe and Asia that glide along at nearly 200 mph. And no one is betting the tens of billions of dollars in funding needed to build just one dedicated European-style route will emerge anytime soon.

Still, "there is a lot we can do at 80 mph to 100 mph," said Mr. Kummant, 46 years old, who previously held executive positions at Union Pacific Corp. and other industrial companies. Those speeds are a big improvement over the 79 mph speed limit on most U.S. rail lines, which was put in place more than 50 years ago after a string of crashes involving trains moving at higher speeds.

Operating faster trains typically requires upgrades to track and signals, and a system to avoid interference with slower trains.

Amtrak says its faster trains are ideally suited for short hauls between cities. Meanwhile, clogged roads, high gasoline prices and security-snared airports are giving state governments new interest in pumping millions into alternative transportation modes. The $145 million price tag in Pennsylvania was about the same as the cost of a major highway interchange, said Allen Biehler, secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. A few other states have established partnerships with Amtrak, led by California, which spends more than $70 million a year on its system of intercity passenger trains operated by Amtrak.

In an interview, Mr. Kummant acknowledged he doesn't know exactly how Amtrak and various state governments will pay for future upgrades. Potential funding sources include state tax revenue and bond offerings. Some states are pushing for matching funds similar to those offered by the federal government on highways and local transit.

Mr. Kummant said he doesn't plan to tear apart Amtrak's national network of long-distance trains, but will consider changes in some routes and services.


Amtrak's financial contribution to the fast-train partnerships has varied, partly because the railroad doesn't have the money to spend, and in many cases doesn't own the tracks. In Pennsylvania, Amtrak owns the track and provided locomotives, cars and half of track-rebuilding costs, using funds from its federal grant. In Illinois, Amtrak is providing technology assistance and has operated test trains, for which it was reimbursed by the state. Illinois doubled its passenger train budget this year to $25 million from $12 million, aiming to double the number of state-supported Amtrak trains it runs.

There still are plenty of kinks. Fast trains sometimes are slowed down by freight trains that get in their way. Amtrak also has sparred with Canadian National Railway Co. over access to the railroad's tracks in Illinois. Canadian National said the additional passenger trains could disrupt its operations, but the railroad backed down after Amtrak threatened a lawsuit and Sen. Richard Durbin (D., Ill.) accused Canadian National of reneging on a commitment to allow additional trains to use its tracks.

An effort involving Amtrak, the state of Illinois, the freight-railroad industry, equipment makers and federal safety regulators to develop a sophisticated signal system for 110-mph trains on the Chicago-St. Louis corridor has run into problems. The system has failed to provide reliable information about train locations, and Illinois officials say they may have to replace the technology to run faster trains. Trains continue to travel the route at speeds up to 79 mph.

Sticker shock may keep the speedier service from reaching routes where it could have the biggest impact; it would cost more than $1 billion to create a bypass around a 40-mile stretch of track between Chicago and Detroit that is clogged by freight trains, said Richard Harnish, executive director of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association, a rail advocacy group.



Write to Daniel Machalaba at daniel.machalaba@wsj.com1

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116251876517712146.html

[NYonward]

Thanks for posting this...beat me to it.

High-speed rail service in the USA is going nowhere because it doesn't make economic sense, says William Garrison, co-author of the book Tomorrow's Transportation and a professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley.

"What passenger rail lacks isn't money. It's riders," he says. "These high-speed rail proposals are big boondoggles. We're reluctant to subsidize high-speed rail for good reason: There's not a market for it."

Baloney. The Acela is a money maker. High speed rail works in inter-city connections that are medium distance apart. Boston-NYC-DC is the prime (and only, unfortunately) example of this. SF-LA-SD would be an excellent addition to this...we'll just have to wait.

John Spychalski, a transportation expert and professor at Penn State, says the problem is lack of political will. "People didn't bat an eyelash when we decided to build the interstate system in 1956."

Exactly. Its all about political will. With gas prices likely never coming down, airline ticket prices creeping ever upward, rail is a viable alternative. It has a terrible image, but perceptions can be changed with leaders who make it a priority.

[ajfroggie]

Baloney. The Acela is a money maker. High speed rail works in inter-city connections that are medium distance apart. Boston-NYC-DC is the prime (and only, unfortunately) example of this. SF-LA-SD would be an excellent addition to this...we'll just have to wait.

Acela is a money maker because it has the population and traffic congestion to support it. Except for your suggested SF-LA-SD corridor, there probably aren't any other corridors in the nation that would support such...

[NYonward]

Originally Posted by ajfroggie

Acela is a money maker because it has the population and traffic congestion to support it. Except for your suggested SF-LA-SD corridor, there probably aren't any other corridors in the nation that would support such...

There are others. The USA Today article mentions Atlanta-Raleigh-DC which continually grows every year. Florida and Seattle-Portland in a decade or two will have the mass to support high speed rail as well.

[the urban politician]

In the end, it will be up to individual states and their ability (and willingness) to cooporate with one another to fund these systems. I have no faith in our oil-lobbied Federal Govt whatsoever on this issue.

[northbay]

^ i agree, or on ANY issue for that matter

[PDXPaul]

I think the investment across the country in mass transit is a positive sign. It produces a more condusive environment to intercity train travel. Also the increased focus on city cores, another positive trend. Train travel is harder to make profitable in a suburban, freeway focused environment.

[The Cheat]

I don't understand why Illinois is pursuing a new "sophisticated" signal system (NAJPTC) when there's already an existing cab signal system that's been in use for over 75 years, which Amtrak, NJ Transit, SEPTA, and MARC all use. The freight train companies Norfolk Southern, CSX, and Conrail Shared Assets also have locomotives equipped with the same system, since it's a requirement for running freights on the NEC.

[apbest]

[J. Will]

I think part of the problem is the location of the stations in some cities. The "Minneapolis" station for example is not in downtown Minneapolis, but in St. Paul (and even then not downtown). There are numerous other examples.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by J. Will

I think part of the problem is the location of the stations in some cities. The "Minneapolis" station for example is not in downtown Minneapolis, but in St. Paul (and even then not downtown). There are numerous other examples.

In some of those cases, though, that can be remedied--even if doing so is expensive. For example, AMTRAK doesn't even go to San Francisco at the moment. It goes to Emeryville on the east side of the Bay and busses people across the Bay bridge into the city. But if the high speed rail gets built, it will go up the Peninsula to a new downtown SF terminal (much talk about that all over SSP).

[J. Will]

In some cities though it would require entirely new rail ROWs, which is all but impossible in most dense built-up areas in this day and age.

[The Cheat]

Typically you would have new ROW only in the suburban and rural areas between cities, and use existing trackage in urban areas. This is how most HSR lines in Europe work.

Anyway, I would favor an incremental approach instead of trying to build the most expensive option all at once.

[ChunkyMonkey]

Ridership will increase if the train service is faster, frequent, affordable and better than driving a car. Partly it is the chicken and the egg syndrome. Politicians won't want to spend the money if there's no riders. While there won't be riders if you don't spend enough money to make the service enticing enough. One of Amtrak's few successes is the Downeaster (Portland to Boston). It is now one of Amtrak's top performing routes with ridership increasing in the double digits. I think if this route goes to a higher speed and more frequent service, ridership will subsequently increase even more. At this stage, I think Amtrak should concentrate on the Northeast whose population is used to riding trains. The vast distances in the west, south and midwest are hurdles to make cost-effective.

[bcp]

that map is such a joke....texarkana and littlerock? jax NOT connected to Orlando? pittsburgh not connected to cincy? nothing in denver's front range or to mountains? looks as if this map was put together by the airline industry.

[ajfroggie]

I think part of the problem is the location of the stations in some cities. The "Minneapolis" station for example is not in downtown Minneapolis, but in St. Paul (and even then not downtown). There are numerous other examples.

The "Minneapolis/St Paul" station, based on previously done studies, will be in one of two locations: the Minneapolis/St Paul International Airport, or at a renovated Union Station in downtown St Paul...

At this stage, I think Amtrak should concentrate on the Northeast whose population is used to riding trains. The vast distances in the west, south and midwest are hurdles to make cost-effective.

Given increasing delays at both MSP and O'Hare, a Twin Cities-Chicago line may prove worthwhile, especially if it can beat the roughly 7-8 hour drive that exists...

[the urban politician]

An opinion posted in this week's Crains:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-b...ate=2006-11-11
By Howard A. Learner

Post-election chance to pull together regional rail support
Nationally, while the public voted for change last week, Midwest voters re-elected four pragmatic governors in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Combining those second-term governors with the Democratic takeovers of the Senate and House — and going into the 2008 national elections with pivotal Midwest electoral votes at stake — provides a potent force for cooperative regional solutions to pressing problems.

Howard A. Learner
is the executive director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center in Chicago.
One starting point: the region's transportation system, which no longer works very well.

Business air travelers' frustration with flight delays, security hassles and poor service is palpable. Highway congestion is getting worse: Travel times are maddeningly slow, wasteful and costly.

One solution: Jump-start the long-promised Midwest high-speed rail network connecting the 10 major cities within a 400-mile radius of Chicago and the mid-sized cities in between.

Modern, fast, comfortable, convenient trains operating at 100 to 125 mph can be time-competitive on a door-to-door basis. They can also pull together the regional economy and bolster the Midwest cities' business centers. Because trains pollute less than cars and airplanes on a per-passenger-mile basis, rail development can help alleviate our global warming problems. And you can get productive work done while on a train.

In the absence of federal support, Illinois and other states have stepped up to support improved rail service. The Illinois General Assembly's budget vote this year to expand rail service between Chicago, Springfield/St. Louis, Champaign/Carbondale and Quincy broke the ice for a next wave of upgraded rail service and capacity.


Advertisement


Related Article Topics | Related Industry News
Wisconsin is building new train stations in Milwaukee and at General Mitchell International Airport and plans a Madison-Milwaukee rail connection. Minnesota voters just amended the state constitution to funnel an extra $300 million a year into transportation projects.
When the Illinois congressional delegation last month challenged Canadian National Railway's withdrawal of access for expanded rail service, it underscored the bipartisan political support. Amtrak ridership in Illinois is growing at double-digit rates, and state transportation departments have committed to build a regional high-speed rail network.

But there is too little coordination across state lines and too little funding. States can't do it alone. That's not how high-speed rail is succeeding on the East Coast.

The public is clearly demanding that government do better. With travelers' frustration growing, it's time for the Midwest's governors to get together with the powerful congressional delegation to drum up the necessary financial support for high-speed rail development linking the Midwest's cities. Connect the rail lines to the airports, too. Let's make the region's interstate transportation system work much better.

[The Cheat]

You can see from the FRA web site the descriptions of each corridor. This is what I have for the status of each:

Northeast Corridor: This 457-mile corridor from Boston to Washington is in a "state of good repair" but the average speed of 70 MPH isn't very impressive. Upgrades to interlockings, overhead catenary wire, and signals are needed to improve times.

Keystone Corridor: the 104-mile Philadelphia to Harrisburg was upgraded to 110 MPH in October 2006, with an average speed of 69 MPH, but the remainder of the 353-mile Philadelphia to Pittsburgh route is limited to 80 MPH and there are no plans to upgrade this section, which sees at least 50 freight trains a day. There are more track upgrades planned for the Philadelphia commuter area, but we will have to see how ridership (which was already increasing) turns out on the improved Keystone Service.

Empire Corridor: the 437-mile New York to Albany route has sections upgraded to 110 MPH and there is a planned express that would run New York to Albany in 2:10, averaging 65 MPH. The refurbishment of the Turboliner train sets was cancelled by NYS and the sets already done have been put in storage. Now, the state is looking for ways to improve the existing service.

California HSR: The latest study proposes an ambitious $33 billion plan to link Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, and Sacremento with a 220 MPH network, with LA-SF trains averaging 183 MPH, which would make it one of the fastest trains in the world (by average speed). The bond issue has been pushed back in 2004 and 2006, and the earliest a referendum could be held is 2008. It's an ambitious plan that's more revolutionary than evolutionary, but it would be great if the could pull it off.

Midwest HSR: The 284-mile Chicago-St. Louis route is testing a new NAJPTC system that would allow 110 MPH (and 74 MPH average speed). The 281-mile Chicago-Detroit route has been testing the ITCS system up to 95 MPH, and will have eventually 110 MPH service (74 MPH average). About 1/3 of the track mileage on this route is owned by Amtrak, so this makes it easier to upgrade tracks for HSR.

Pacific Northwest HSR: Eugene-Seattle (310 miles) and Seattle-Vancouver (156 miles) are being considered.

Texas HSR: a system to link Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio was cancelled.

Florida HSR: A plan with service for Orlando-Tampa (92 miles) and Miami-Orlando (264 miles) was voted for in 2000, and then voted to be repealed in 2004. The plans are indefinitely on hold.

Southeast HSR: There have been several studies on the many segments in this Washington, Richmond, Raleigh, and Charlotte route, but little in the way of construction.

. . .

There are really only four corridors (not including the NEC) that have seen some substantial work towards HSR: Keystone, Empire, Chicago-Detroit, and Chicago-St. Louis. All the others either never got beyond a study, or have been effectively cancelled.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by The Cheat

Texas HSR: a system to link Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio was cancelled.

^ That's terrible. Why was it cancelled?

[pyropius]

There have been a few proposals. If this is the one that was cancelled in the early 90s, it was basically due to intense lobbying by Southwest. If this is the Texas T-Bone, then I didn't even know that had been cancelled.