USDOT Vision for HIGH SPEED RAIL in America

This is information that I have already posted in an existing thread, but because discussion in that thread has become somewhat diffused I'd like to call attention to this information in a new thread and initiate discussion of the plan here.

The USDOT and the FRA have published Vision for HIGH SPEED RAIL in America to explain the next steps mandated by the passage of RSIA, PRIIA and ARRA legislation. The pdf document is only 28 pages long, some of them blank, so many of the details are missing, but it's an interesting read for policy-wonks, like me. The "Background and Context" chapter in the document is familiar reading for any railfan, but the more interesting information comes in the "Proposed Strategy" chapter. According to the document, as the applications for funding arrive, USDOT will establish 3 tracks for the proposals received into the DOT humpyard:

• Track 1/Projects: Primarily for the "shovel-ready" projects that are finished with preliminary engineering and environmental review and can start bulldozing as soon as the money is granted. This track also will hold projects that need more engineering or environmental work before they can apply for future grants.
• Track 2/Corridor Programs: Money to develop corridor plans that have completed enough preliminary work to provide reasonable cost and benefit estimates, but aren't yet "shovel-ready".
• Track 3/Planning: money for the development of future corridors.

On June 17th, DOT will issue eligibility requirements, application requirements and transparent evaluation criteria for the funding process. Applications for Track 1 and Track 3 funding are due in early August and selections should be made near the end of September. Track 2 applications are due in late September with selections made in December.

The document also contains an interesting paragraph that suggests that there will be a re-examination of operating rules and crash test standards for HSR:

Need for High-Speed Rail Safety Standards. While most high-speed systems overseas have a good safety record, usually on dedicated track, U.S. railroad safety standards are designed to keep passengers and crew safe in a mixed operating environment with conventional freight equipment, which is much heavier than comparable foreign equipment. The advent of Positive Train Control (PTC), crash energy management, and other advances provides the United States with an opportunity to revise its safety approach in a manner that accelerates the development of high-speed rail while preserving and improving upon a strong safety regime. This will be a challenge for the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) as it seeks to administer its critical safety responsibility and facilitate high-speed rail development. The systems approach required to ensure safety of new HSR corridors will necessitate consideration of additional changes in several regulations, including equipment, system safety, and collision and derailment prevention.

The document also introduces a new acronym: "IPR" for Intercity Passenger Rail--distinct from HSR--indicating that there are plans to develop and fund IPR as well as HSR.

Vincent wrote:The USDOT and the FRA have published Vision for HIGH SPEED RAIL in America to explain the next steps mandated by the passage of RSIA, PRIIA and ARRA legislation. The pdf document is only 28 pages long, some of them blank, so many of the details are missing, but it's an interesting read for policy-wonks, like me.

Ahhhh, the blank page: The universal bureacratic symbol for "then a miracle occurs", or "we make some sleight of hand happen, and hope the newsies are watching somewhere else".

That's usually shown on powerpoint with a white cloud over the slide.

John_Perkowski wrote:
Ahhhh, the blank page: The universal bureacratic symbol for "then a miracle occurs", or "we make some sleight of hand happen, and hope the newsies are watching somewhere else".

Not to mention the FRA sets the bar for 'high speed' awfully low: 90 mph.

What's bad is this thing's being basically sold to the public as "All Shinkansen, all the time", and it's really just a slightly faster Amtrak. How many times do the feds expect to pull a fast one on the taxpayer before they can't get away with it anymore?

Look at NY State - the MTA's normal going to Albany with hat in hand, which worked so well in prior years, isn't working so well anymore. If the most rail-receptive state in the US is willing to say 'no' after years of poor management and waste, what hope does Amtrak have in the midwest, where Amtrak is nothing more to most folks than another taxpayer funded program, and an occasional wait at a grade crossing to watch a half empty train amble across.

IMHO, this program would be a better sell, though likely a harder one, if it was positioned as 'Getting Amtrak faster and ready for real HSR". Even the average Joe knows the difference between the TGV and Amtrak, and if he sees a lot of his money going to Amtrak for 'high speed rail', and no TGVs, then he's gonna feel duped, especially if that 'high speed' Amtrak's schedule sucks.

Quoting Mr. Perkowski: "Then a miracle occurs".

John, are you insinuating Gary Larson is "the man behind the curtain" in the federal government?

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, I am the wizard!"

I had a good laugh at this one. Thanks, it's been an otherwise boring Monday.

It's crucial to point out that in most parts of the country we aren't even ready to step up to the plate with regard to ultra-high speed rail. We have to have a decent conventional rail network to plug into first. France spent 20 years massively upgrading its existing rail network before the first LGV route opened in 1981. Even today, High Speed One in England will finally achieve viability with the addition of Southeastern's commuter services to several of the paths on the line that Eurostar doesn't use, but those Southeastern services would not be nearly what they're going to be without extensive upgrades to the Kent commuter services that have raised most line speeds to 100mph.

I think the politicians need to do a better job of communicating this fact. And, at the same time, pointing out the very real improvements in journey time and reliability that will result from what we're actually going to get right away. Chicago-Milwaukee down from 1 hr 29 mins every two hours to 1 hr 4 mins every hour. Chicago-St. Louis down from 5 hours 40 mins five times a day to 3 hours 45 minutes eight times a day. These are serious gains that will result in services that are invariably faster than driving, and in Milwaukee's case provides a crucial new connection to its airport. A future ultra high speed system will do far better if it has these services to plug into. On the French and especially the German model, you might see a high speed line that links O'Hare to the conventional network, shoots through the south suburbs of Chicago while providing a new station for the south suburbs that connects with existing Metra services, and then plugs into existing rails at around Pontiac. Then another stretch of new line around and south of Springfield into St. Louis. Then, the last step, filling in the gap. But you provide these schemes in order of the seriousness of bottlenecks. Another point is that these high speed lines have a huge variety of service configurations. A 200mph high speed line from about Arlington Heights, IL, to Hudson, WI, will carry both end-to-end Minneapolis-Chicago services, a portion of Chicago-Madison, most of Milwaukee-Minneapolis, perhaps a portion of a Milwaukee-Rochester MN direct train, services to and from Wisconsin Dells, and so on, using grade separated flyover interchanges with existing lines to enable efficient connections and transfers of trains without sacrificing paths on the line. But to multitask like that -- and that's how you make HSR economic -- you have to have decent 110mph conventional rails to which to connect first.

California, where they have spent the last 20 years doing to their existing network what the French did to theirs in the 1960s and 1970s (with the notable exception of not having gotten started on electrification yet), is just about far enough along that their ultra high speed project can plug into it -- if they could ever sell the bonds. But as long as that state remains as politically dysfunctional as it is, those bonds are going to be a hard sell in this market.

decisivemoment wrote:It's crucial to point out that in most parts of the country we aren't even ready to step up to the plate with regard to ultra-high speed rail.

Ultra high speed? 186 isn't ultra anything, given that 220 is the new design point for HSR lines. As far as going 110? That's not high speed by any stretch - that's conventional speed.

Nasadowsk wrote: As far as going 110? That's not high speed by any stretch - that's conventional speed.

But it sure beats 79!

Matt Johnson wrote:

Nasadowsk wrote: As far as going 110? That's not high speed by any stretch - that's conventional speed.

But it sure beats 79!

Yes, but see my above post a few posts ago. Say 'high speed rail' to most people, they think TGV...

110? 79? More like 40. If we have a real train to ride.

Maybe Obama wants to replace the bowling alley with a model train layout.

Nasadowsk wrote:Yes, but see my above post a few posts ago. Say 'high speed rail' to most people, they think TGV...

Upgrade to 110, and buy some trains that have TGV looks (like the Turboliners did, or like the Talgos I suppose), and the general public won't know the difference! If it looks like a "bullet train" and hits triple digits speeds, I think Americans will find appeal in the service. It doesn't have to go 200 mph as long as it beats highway speeds.

Let's be honest, half of the Acela's appeal is due to image and marketing hype! Just like most successful products in America...

I'm saying this somewhat tongue in cheek, but while I do think that eventually we'll have true high speed rail (hopefully starting with a successful California HSR system), we can do a lot in the meantime by upgrading existing infrastructure to support reasonable speeds (up to 110 mph) and running decent, modern rolling stock with attractive amenities.

Let's be honest, half of the Acela's appeal is due to image and marketing hype! Just like most successful products in America..

Speed attracts customers. This has been proved over and over again in any country where a rail line has been speeded up. The Mad Men are deluded.

Matt's got the right idea. Business is largely a marketing game. Right now, if I drive from Chicago to Indianapolis, I have interstate highways with limits of 55 and 70. The average speed from downtown to downtown is 48 mph. If I take Amtrak, I have a railroad with MAS of 30, 40, 60, and 79 (guesstimate). With 5-6 stops, average speed is 45 mph. The times work out to a three hour drive, four hour train ride. Either mode can be prolonged by 2 hours in bad traffic (freights or heavy highway traffic).

If the train went 3 mph faster average, does that make it high speed? Sure. High speed is a relative term. Does 3+ mph average make the Hoosier State the TGV? No.

But it does improve ridership, thus increasing commerce and getting politicians elected. Especially if the train looks sleek and impressive. Most importantly, the service is USEFUL. The current Hoosier State is useless, and certain trains in the Chicago hub are marginally useful. Call it a train for those not on a tight schedule. But if I have to be places, the amount of useful corridor trains, as it stands today, is half of all corridors excepting NEC.

george matthews wrote:Speed attracts customers.

Absolutely. That's why we need to get speeds up above 79 mph and into triple digits. But I don't think speed alone accounts for the Acela's success. Would people be willing to pay a significantly higher fare for a mere 15 minute advantage between New York and Washington DC were it not for the Acela's more modern appearance and amenities?

Tadman wrote:Matt's got the right idea. Business is largely a marketing game. Right now, if I drive from Chicago to Indianapolis, I have interstate highways with limits of 55 and 70. The average speed from downtown to downtown is 48 mph. If I take Amtrak, I have a railroad with MAS of 30, 40, 60, and 79 (guesstimate). With 5-6 stops, average speed is 45 mph. The times work out to a three hour drive, four hour train ride. Either mode can be prolonged by 2 hours in bad traffic (freights or heavy highway traffic).

If the train went 3 mph faster average, does that make it high speed? Sure. High speed is a relative term. Does 3+ mph average make the Hoosier State the TGV? No.

But it does improve ridership, thus increasing commerce and getting politicians elected. Especially if the train looks sleek and impressive. Most importantly, the service is USEFUL. The current Hoosier State is useless, and certain trains in the Chicago hub are marginally useful. Call it a train for those not on a tight schedule. But if I have to be places, the amount of useful corridor trains, as it stands today, is half of all corridors excepting NEC.

Well said---and a great point.

Folks, remember the old truism: You've got to crawl before you can walk, and you've got to walk before you can run.

As much as we'd all like to see 200+ MPH speeds on dedicated tracks A.S.A.P., the reality of the situation is that giving taxpayers frequent, reliable service that's faster than driving will help them see passenger rail as a viable alternative to flying for trips up to about 500 miles in length (each way)---something that most taxpayers currently don't see.