Biggest obstacle to high-speed rail: The FRA

I just came across this article while doing a Google search for something else, and I thought I'd share it:

How the FRA is Regulating Passenger Rail Out of Existence

It deals with passenger rail in general, but mentions the Acela debacle as a prime example of FRA backwardness in comparison to European high-speed trains.

What are your thoughts on the article?

It's also somewhat disturbing to me as I read forums like this one, and people talk as if FRA regulations are simply a fact of life that are carved in stone.

What needs to change at the FRA? Who does the FRA answer to, and what political pressures would force them to change?

Thanks...

Given that the present convention of HSR is to not run on tracks shared with freight, the FRA is not really the biggest obstacle. No funding for high-speed corridors is, instead.

As for the Acela Express, that was never meant to be a full-blown TGV/ICE/AVE/Bullet-train, but instead more like down-dressed tilting HSR for "conventional" railroads, like the German ICT (for operation at up to about 143 mph), the Pendolino (which can operate at about 155 mph), or lower-grade models of Talgo Pendular trainsets. The Acela Express, in that department, is also the victim of insufficient funding, not to mention hastily-conceived designs and a host of other problems...but really, the FRA would have been the least of the problems associated with it, what with the upgrades to the NEC infrastructure that were not effected nor funded. A more lenient FRA would not have resulted in widespread 150-mph passenger rail operation around the USA, to be sure...

David Cole wrote:Who does the FRA answer to, and what political pressures would force them to change?

The FRA is under the USDOT. As a federal agency its rulemaking process must follow the US Admistrative Procedures Act. So all rulemakings are noticed in the Federal Register, there is an opportunity for pulbic comment, and ultimately an opportunity for US court review of FRA rule adoptions.

Interested parties are also free to file a petition for rulemaking to seek a change in the existing rules or to add a new rule.

Congress can also jump in and strike / change sections in the CFR. They've done it to the EPA a few times before, when that agency went really off the deep end....

Basically, if enough intertia gained in congress, the FRA's regs could be done away with...

No one, and I repeat no one, in DC is going to sign off on a standard the reduces the safety factor in US equipment. While the standards have reached a level that we all here can agree is excessive, the FRA writes rules to enforce the dictates of Congress through legeslation that the Congress has passed. Look at the horn debacle. The FRA didnt make that rule up out of thin air- it was enforcing a law Congress had passed a number of years ago, then proceeded to forget. Individual congressman may fuss about beauracrats , but they passed the lawm the FRA just implements it.

The staff at the FRA is not going to expose themselves the crucification by media and lawsuit when the first death occurs after the standards have been made what we consider more realistic, or has they will put it "reduced". Think of the media and lawyers going after the poor person who signed off on that regulation. And no Congress member is going to introduce a bill titled, "A Bill to Have Faster Trains, Though Less Crash Worthy."
I agree that the FRA has made real HSR in the US all but impossible, but I don't see it changing.

the biggest obstacle to HSR is MONEY

please cut your other nonsense excuses...

the government will not fund trillion dollar HSR projects, period

when HSR is considered take entire list of objections to developing a system and FRA is probably one of last obstacles.
try in priority of biggest hinderence.
A] Nimby's
B] funding
C] politics
D] enviromental
E] regulatory

the government will not fund trillion dollar HSR projects

What trillion-dollar projects? All of the ones proposed are under the tens of billions of dollars.

I agree that funding is a big issue. But the cost of implementing overbearing and unrealistic FRA regulations is certainly a big factor in driving the cost of HSR sky-high.

Of course, even if the FRA regulations were overhauled tomorrow, it still wouldn't change the pathetic state of our rail infrastructure. Even the best Franch TGV train is pretty useless without decent tracks and signalling.

there are several things in play here

1. since when is it the GOVERNMENT's role to promote long distance travel by ANY means

2. why should the government subsidize people's transportation habits

As the NEC has shown us, HSR cannot fund itself, it is a money pit

if the most dense population area in the NATION cannot be self sustaining, these cooridoors will be MASSIVE money losers

why should taxpayers fund such projects?

As the NEC has shown us, HSR cannot fund itself, it is a money pit

The USA funded airports via direct subsidy until they were able to avail of "dedicated" tax revenue. Were the airports "money pits" until they reached that particular plateau?

The NEC proves nothing because it is an example of what happens when something is underfunded versus overfunded or indeed adequately funded. Nor is the NEC an example of a high-speed corridor—those examples would be LGVs, AVEs and Shinkansen corridors.

since when is it the GOVERNMENT's role to promote long distance travel by ANY means

Since they started building interstate highways and regional/international airports, that's when. They've been into it for well over five decades, so they can't just "jump out" of the role now. Time for some parity when it comes to modes.

Maybe if we had the X-2000 we would have been fine with it, since it ran at 169.9 mph, but at the time of the testing (1993/94), there was no catenary past New Haven, so it got tested in the Southern end of the NEC which had that 134 mph limit.

If the X2000 is such a succes why is Norway starting to downgrade these trainsets,specialy after spectacular failures including wheels and axles. If ICE is so succesfull why are first ICE trains starting to go to scrapper ???

DutchRailnut wrote:If the X2000 is such a succes why is Norway starting to downgrade these trainsets,specialy after spectacular failures including wheels and axles. If ICE is so succesfull why are first ICE trains starting to go to scrapper ???

If Norway is downgrading the X2000s, I think the Swedes might have something to say, since Norway doesn't own any X2000s, and unfortunately the X2 met with little in the way of sales success when it came to exports (only one being exported, the unit we tested which wound up in China). What Norway got were a similar but still different trainset which was related to the X2 EMU. Norway has stuck a variety of designations on their variant, from BM71 to BM73B for different models. Their speed is listed as '160/210' km/h so it's a good bet that they were designed to be upgraded at a later date to higher speed operation. The only reference I can find to the SJ X2s being slowwed down is one mention that their acceleration has been less than was expected due to some sort of electrical trouble. I can find no references to an ICE trains being scrapped outside those which have been involved either in accidents or other problems. In any event, the original ICE 1 has been so totally superceded by the ICE 3 that at this point it'd make sense to replace them.

Sorry I ment Sweden, what do you expect from a Dutchman, their all scandinavians