Regulatory Reform and HSR
In a New York Times op-ed today, Christian Wolmar argues for focusing national HSR efforts on the Northeast Corridor, upgrading the Acela as a demonstration of HSR’s value:
Yet the $8 billion set aside for high-speed rail in his 2009 stimulus package, split among 31 states, includes only two genuine high-speed rail projects — in Florida and California. And even that money will do little more than kick-start the schemes. The rest of the package will go to upgrading various sections of the Amtrak network….
And that’s what makes the Acela lines from Washington to Boston the best opportunity to create a real high-speed, high-frequency service to compete with air travel along the Northeastern Seaboard.
Of course, the Acela is already a successful example of sort-of-high speed rail in California America, with 60% of the market share on the Northeast Corridor according to recent stats. While the Acela needs to be upgraded to even faster speeds, HSR will get more lasting support in Congress if HSR in new states is supported. The Clinton Administration would up focusing its HSR efforts on the NEC and as a result, no lasting HSR funding project was achieved until Barack Obama became president in 2009.
So it would not be sensible from the perspective of generating national support for HSR to just focus on improving the Acela. The most valuable thing to do to get a national HSR system up and running would be for Congress to create a significant, stable, long-term funding source for HSR, and Wolmar doesn’t propose that here.
But Wolmar offers some other good places to look at in order to speed up HSR in the US:
It’s not just a matter of money, though. The government must do away with a host of state and federal regulations that reduce train speed and are far too restrictive.
Wolmar didn’t go into details here, but we can. One of the most important reforms involves Federal Railroad Administration rules that make it difficult to bring off-the-shelf European and Japanese style high speed trains to existing railroads. Instead trains must be made heavier, slowing speeds and travel times.
Another issue is environmental regulation. As I’ve discussed here before, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) needs to be reformed in order for sustainable infrastructure projects like HSR to be built, with a more holistic statewide process created that can supplant the existing, flawed CEQA model that doesn’t effectively engage public input and gives too much power to NIMBYs. All sides should support sensible reform, because in its absence, the legislature is moving instead to exempt more projects from CEQA entirely, which isn’t an ideal solution.
The federal government can also help by reforming the way railroads are regulated. Currently the state of California has very little leverage over Union Pacific, which enjoys immunity from state regulation and eminent domain dating back to the Gilded Age and is no longer necessary here in the 21st century.
These are just some of the state and federal regulations that could be reformed to help accelerate HSR planning and construction. I’m sure you all can offer more in the comments, and I invite you to do so.
Amtrak (not just the Acela) has 60% of the air/rail market on NY-DC. This is not the same as 60% of the market in the same sense that the KTX has 63% of the Seoul-Busan market, because it excludes cars and premium buses. The numbers I’ve seen for the actual market share of the NEC range from 6% to 14%.
Little mistake: the first sentence after the first quote suggests that the Acela is in California.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Thanks.
And if any of youse guys wants to talk about “real passengers” rather than market share (… or “marketshare,” as one of our local environmentalist / rail deniers spells it):
The electrified portion of the “Northeast Corridor” extends 731.9 km, Boston – New Haven – New York – Philadelphia – Baltimore – Washington, DC.
At 2009, “Acela Express” services carried 3.0 million. “Northeast Regional” services carried about 6.2 million passengers over this segment. Total traffic by all Amtrak trains was about 11.5 million.
The average travel distance was about 260 km. Thus, the annual passenger traffic density was about 4 million pass-km per km of route. This traffic density level matches that carried on the “lineas de alta velocidad” in Spain. However …
It makes absolutely no sense to ignore the traffic carried by other operators along the same railroad – Shore Line East, Metro-North, New Jersey Transit, SEPTA, and MARC. These operators, together with Amtrak, carried a total of about 80 million passengers during 2009 along the NEC. The average travel distance was about 80 km. Thus, the annual traffic density was about 9 million pass-km per km of route – just a bit less than carried by TGV Est (10 million pass-km per km of route, at 2008).
BruceMcF Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
In terms of evaluating investments to improve capacity, reduce unplanned outages, etc. … certainly the full spectrum of transport services should be considered.
But in terms of the effectiveness in the intercity transport task, an average travel distance of 80km suggests that many of the passengers added when adding the other operators are serving different transport tasks.
A danger of too much lumping together of different transport tasks is risk into lapsing into the fallacy of the One-Size-Fits-All solution, when efficiency of use of energy and other material resources (including land) requires instead solutions that do their particular job well.
Indeed, given that the riders from Rhode Island to Boston or New Haven to New London need trains that pass through both towns, while most passengers from connecting to a major New York City station to downtown Boston are served by getting where they are going faster … the NEC may not be the way to go to connect NYC and Boston at 180mph to 220mph.
the Union Pacific Railroad makes a huge amount of money from California . The mindset of the company is uncalled for..they know that the line south of Sj is small piece of pie for them yet refuse to work with us..and the valley line thou busy is also more than wide enough for growth and HSR . BNSF will show what a great railroad can do and work with the state on this. Maby we should make UP electrify all its lines if they want to serve the ports..!!
I stand by my original point: it makes absolutely no sense to ignore the traffic carried by other operators along the NEC. I doubt that you would, for example, segregate “Hikari” from “Kodama” traffic on the Tōkaidō Shinkansen to make a similar point. NEC investments benefit – or should benefit – all passengers who use the line, not just Acela Express or Amtrak passengers. Now, having said that …
You are absolutely correct about New York – Boston in the speed range of 300 – 350 km/h. The NEC is not the “way to go.” This is also true of New York – Washington, although to a lesser degree. The cost of upgrading the current alignment for sustained running in this speed range would be immense – far more than building an entirely new line.
Contrary to common (apparent) belief, it is cheaper to build an entirely new railway for 300 – 350 km/h than to upgrade an existing one. Banverket, the Swedish rail infrastructure authority, and the national passenger rail operator SJ have stated that four-tracking the existing Stockholm – Göteborg and Stockholm – Malmö lines would be more expensive than building dedicated HSR lines.
Unfortunately, the political obstacles to building an entirely new line as an NEC “cutoff” (or, say, restoring the old New Haven “Air Line”) are also immense. “Focusing national HSR efforts” on the NEC to “provide a demonstration of HSR’s value” might sound like a good idea if you live back there – but LA – SF would provide at least as good of a demonstration. (It would also cost less, and might even be finished sooner.)
Alon Levy Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
First, it makes all the sense in the world to ignore commuter traffic. The LGV Est passenger figures don’t count the commuter network of the Gare de l’est, the Shinkansen figures don’t count the commuter network feeding into Tokyo Station, and the Amtrak passenger figures shouldn’t count the commuter networks using the same alignment.
The cost of upgrading legacy alignment depends entirely on what needs to be upgraded. For the NEC south of New York, the catenary needs replacement, and a few curves in Maryland need to be straightened, with minimal eminent domain. That’s it. The alignment is straighter than any of the alternatives, and already has concrete ties and grade separations. The total cost of such a project would consist of re-electrification, a few easements, and a new tunnel in Baltimore that has to be built anyway. The total cost, including the Baltimore tunnel, is on the order of $2 billion.
For the NEC north of New York the problem is different. The NEC requires substantial curve straightening, but on the problem section, New York-New Haven, the competing alignments aren’t any straighter; you’d have to bite the bullet and build a few tunnels (and it really is a few – with a bit of eminent domain, the only necessary tunnels would be in Bridgeport and east of Stamford). East of New Haven I-95 is straight enough to be an alternative, at least until you hit Rhode Island and the legacy track becomes straight and can support any speed the FRA would permit. Again, the cost isn’t large – at standard el and subway costs, we’re talking about $5 billion, including the I-95 route between New Haven and Rhode Island.
Now, the real problem is prestige. Amtrak has a plan for the NEC, but it prioritizes all the wrong things: quad-tracking curvy legacy track in Maryland instead of bypassing it on existing US Highway routes; Moynihan Station; upgrades to the Hell Gate Bridge; insufficient increases in cant deficiency.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
The New Haven Air Line would have been a wonderful thing compared to the combination of ferry boats and railroads that a trip between Boston and New York involved… .when it was laid out in the 1870s. It’s as curvy as the shore line, if not more and it has grades, lots of grades. . . there’s a reason why it never saw much traffic.
Leroy W. Demery, Jr. Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Yes, but: In the trade press of almost a century ago, I read that electrification New Haven – Boston via the Air Line would permit four-hour timings New York – Boston. (It’s been more than 40 years since I read this, so I’ve certainly forgotten key details.) The New Haven board of directors authorized electrification Boston – Providence in 1914, but World War I (and, no doubt, antitrust action against the NH management) put these plans on hold. (It turned out to be a long wait.)
Nathanael Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 10:05 am
“Contrary to common (apparent) belief, it is cheaper to build an entirely new railway for 300 – 350 km/h than to upgrade an existing one.”
Well, actually, it’s all about ROW.
You are absolutely correct through rural areas, because the cost of acquiring new ROW is pretty low, and the cost of keeping a railroad running while upgrading it is high, and the land near the existing railroad is usually fairly expensive.
Through decimated urban areas (Detroit?) it’s probably true too.
Through extremely rich, successful urban areas (New York City) it’s simply not true. The cost of building a new line is astronomical — whether due to buying new ROW or digging enormous tunnels — and outweighs pretty much all other considerations. This is why most HSR systems revert to old line upon reaching major cities, and we should do the same thing.
Massachusetts is rural enough for a new Boston-Springfield-Albany *fast* line (and the current line is simply ridiculous in its indirection). By way of contrast, I don’t think the Bronx is cheap enough that a new line would be cheaper than upgrades to the current Amtrak route, and I’m quite sure for Manhattan.
I like the idea of direct bypass tracks from Rhode Island to New Haven, which sounds practical.
Oddly, practically all of LA is rural enough (sprawl city). Sadly, not Union Station itself.
Would you have me go through national transportation survey data for Japan, and deduct all “short-distance” traffic from reported Shinkansen totals? Similar sources are available for the Spanish LAV lines …
More important, I believe that you might have significantly underestimated the cost of upgrading the NEC – both north and south of New York.
The Tōkaidō Shinkansen was built for continuous running at 200 km/h. The specified minimum horizontal curve radius is 2.5 km.
Subsequent shinkansen lines were built for continuous running at 260 km/h. The specified minimum horizontal curve radius is 4 km.
In France, LGV Nord was built for 300 km/h. The specified curve radius is 5.0 km, with a “minimum” of 3.25 km.
The maximum gradient is stated at 25 mm/m, or 2.5 percent. The vertical curve radii standards (rayon de raccordement circulaire; something like “circular blending radius”):
25.0 km “en creux conseillé,” something like at the foot of a grade.
21.0 km “en sommet minimal,” something like at a minimal summit.
19.0 km “en sommet exceptionnel,” something like at an exceptional summit.
(LGVs follow the contour of the land, and TGV speed varies up and down over a considerable range. An “exceptional” summit, that is, of “exceptional” elevation, would permit a shorter vertical curve
radius because of relatively lower speed.)
Even a quick glance at the NEC from the air (“Google Maps” satellite images) reveals a number of curves in NJ and PA that appear to have a shorter radius than 5.0 km, or even 2.5 km. Vertical curves would also have to be “eased.” The cost of upgrading this railroad for continuous operation at 300 – 350 km/h might be significantly greater than $5 billion + $2 billion.
dejv Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 1:36 am
IMO, this is not the case. The recommended values should be used wherever they fit, minimum/maximum values limit values that can be used without waiver and exceptional values are most extreme that can be permitted by waiver.
TomW Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 8:14 am
It may seem pardoxical, but larger curve radii results ine less land use by the rail corridor, not more. The issue for the NE corrdior is the amouttn of build-up by the tracks, and while farmland is fungible (at least locallay), residential land isn’t.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Leroy W. Demery, Jr., Mar 8th, 2010 at 23:45
“Would you have me go through national transportation survey data for Japan, and deduct all ‘short-distance’ traffic from reported Shinkansen totals? Similar sources are available for the Spanish LAV lines …”
I would have you either use the “reply” button or quote the statement that you are responding to, so its clear what you are saying.
However, no, I would not have you dig into the TGV figures and subtract all trips below a certain threshold … rather, what I would suggest is that when counting intercity ridership, you should not take TGV figures and add all trains that run in every corridor that TGV trains use to reach metropolitan centers.
That is, if difference in gauge means that one country naturally segregates local rail and intercity rail services, while shared gauge means that in one country, intercity rail sometimes shares corridor with commuter rail, the pooled traffic should be considered for decisions to invest in those improvements that are shared by all users of a common line, …
… but it would be a mistake to just lump the traffic together when evaluating how to allocate funds in support for intercity passenger transport between road, rail and air.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Go ahead – JR East, JR Central, and JR West all report separate commuter-Shinkansen and intercity-Shinkansen numbers. The commuter portion is never more than 10% of ridership.
The LGV Sud-Est has 3.5% gradients; this is also the standard for CAHSR. The Cologne-Frankfurt line has 4% gradients, but that limits speed to 300 km/h.
First, the high radii are used only for future upgrades and for convenience. Modern HSR is capable of running tilting trains at high cant deficiency and high superelevation, as is done on the Tokaido Shinkansen; at 350 km/h, the drop-dead radius for the N700 would be 4.2 km, and at 300 it would be 3.1 km. A train designed from the ground up for high cant deficiency could do even better – it’s just that for now there’s a tradeoff between maximum speed and maximum tilt.
Second, in NJ and PA the track is nearly tangent between Frankford Junction and Elizabeth; the only significant curves are the transitions from one tangent to another, which are in greenfield and can be eased at virtually no cost, and the curve near Metuchen, which can be bypassed on the Lincoln Highway at low cost.
And third, I don’t know the vertical profile of the NEC, but in that part the land is so flat I highly doubt the vertical curve radii are a problem. Remember: it’s okay to have sharp curves near stations. Trains aren’t going to skip Philly or New York at full speed.
Leroy W. Demery, Jr. Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
No, the JR railways do not report “commuter” and “intercity” Shinkansen traffic separately. Nor did I use the term “commuter.” “Short-distance” is not a synonym for same.
定期 (teiki, “periodic”) is a category of ticket; these are (or were) called “FREX” and “FREX バル (“FREX PAL,” for students). At FY 2004, more than 20 percent of JR-East shinkansen passengers used these tickets (Tōhoku, Jōetsu and Hokuriku shinkansen lines). That does not begin to capture the full extent of “commuter” traffic. Not everyone who “commutes” does so daily. But all this is a distraction: if you refer to Japanese national transportation surveys, you will find that “short distance” traffic makes up significantly more than “10%” of shinkansen “ridership,” or annual passengers
I am skeptical that upgrading the NEC for sustained running at 300-350 km/h (except for passing through stations and the occasional speed restriction) could be accomplished at “low cost.” More to the point is the question of what markets one would serve, given the ability to operate at such speed. In Japan, for example, JR-West and JR-Kyūshū plan through working between Ōsaka and Kagoshima – but not between Tōkyō and Kagoshima (of course, they’ll certainly be happy to sell you a through ticket). Exactly what one would “do” with 350 km/h south of New York is not clear to me – absent electrification and speeding up between Washington and Richmond, and farther south.
dejv Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 1:55 am
Alon Levy Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Well, the definition of a commuter is someone who commutes more-or-less daily… if you just randomly ride Shinkansen from Oyama to Tokyo once in a while, you’re not a commuter. By the same token there are people who randomly ride Acela from New Haven to New York.
The Tohoku/Joetsu/Nagano lines have more commuter traffic than the other lines. It’s a numbers game – they serve as many suburbs as Tokaido, but smaller intercity markets. On Tokaido, it’s different. JR Central reports that commuter passes account for about 9% of ridership on the Tokaido Shinkansen. The appropriate US comparison for Tohoku isn’t the NEC, but the Empire Corridor.
I doubt that Amtrak’s market share in the Northeast Corridor, whether you look at Acela or regular service, offers much guidance at all in forecasting future California HSR ridership, or even in estimating what Amtrak’s own potential in the NEC itself might really be, for that matter. The reason, as a quick look at Amtrak’s web site will confirm, is the extremely high level of fares that Amtrak charges in the NEC, which greatly exceed fares it presently charges in California corridors or that are projected for HSR service.
For example: New York is about 90 miles from Philadelphia, a distance only slightly farther than that between Oakland and Sacramento. In the summer of 2008 I made a one day round trip between New York and Philadelphia on a Saturday, using regular (i.e., not Acela) trains. That ticket cost me between $90 and $100. Had I traveled during peak weekday hours, or taken the Acela, the fare would have ranged from higher than that to very much higher than that. A San Francisco to Sacramento round trip, in comparison, cost less than $40 the last time I checked.
With NEC fares set high enough to make even solo travelers reluctantly consider driving through heavy tunnel, turnpike and bridge traffic between New York and Philadelphia, the wonder is that trains have attracted as many riders as they have. You can only try to imagine what the ridership figures and market share would be if NEC fares were set at present California levels or those planned for HSR.
Nathanael Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 10:09 am
The really impressive point is that Amtrak is basically filling the trains even at those prices (otherwise they’d charge less).
This indicates huge demand. I think there is justification for a second New York-Philadelphia train line with different intermediate stops (…and I suggest the former Pennsy “secondary” route from South Amboy to Bordentown, and/or the former CNJ route to West Trenton…).
Alon Levy Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 10:53 am
The former secondary route is curvy; the NEC was built as a cutoff for it. The West Trenton line isn’t even electrified between Newark and West Trenton.
I’m not sure why you’d want to dissipate frequencies like this. Right now, people in suburban Jersey know that if they want to catch an intercity train, they should drive to Metropark. With two routes, they’d have to know in advance where to drive to, with worse consequences if they miss the trains.
It doesn’t really matter, because the capacity between Newark and Philadelphia is astounding. The line is fully four-tracked, with six-track sections. The most non-Amtrak traffic it ever sees is 12 tph of NEC commuter trains north of Rahway. Amtrak’s capacity problems aren’t there; they’re at the North River Tunnels and the New Rochelle-New Haven segment.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
It would be serving the market a different market. Philadelphia suburbs to New York and New Jersey suburbs to Philadelphia. Right now if you are in Plainfield and are headed to Philadelphia or in Langhorne and headed to New York there is no easy mass transit option. Also would give New York direct service to Market East and Suburban – it’s a former Reading Line and would go through Philadelphia on the upper level at 30th Street. Might even be an option for the Keystones, direct service to Suburban and Market East with no turn could be attractive.
OT:
The animations for the three alignment options from Diridon to Tamien are now on the Authority’s website in the Library under San Jose-Merced.
HSRComingSoon Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
The animations are quite interesting. I like that a new ballpark is located next to the station. I guess there is a strong belief that SJ will land the Oakland A’s…
Peter Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
I’ve actually discovered a discrepancy between the animations, and the stuff on the recent Alternatives Analysis. If you look at the animation, traveling towards Diridon, the refined Program Alignment transitions from a slightly elevated berm to an aerial before it gets to Bird Avenue in Gardner. If you look at the corresponding meeting boards it alternatively shows, in the profile view, the same early transition to the aerial as the animation does. This still offers a grade crossing of Caltrain/UPRR at W. Virginia Street.
Now compare the animation with the cross-section and the from-above view. They both show a berm for HSR (implied by the from-above view) at W. Virginia Street and the aerial beginning JUST before the alignment reaches 280.
I’m guessing the discrepancy arises simply from the fact that the animation was produced based on a different stage of design.
Peter Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Gahhh, I need to proofread.
Matthew F. Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 3:04 am
San Jose A’s doesn’t sound right – the double-open-vowel (I am not a linguist) is awkward.