» New Haven-Hartford-Springfield corridor would get significantly improved service, opening up possibility of Inland Route New York-Boston trains.

As the competition for the rapidly diminishing federal funds for intercity rail heats up, states are apparently taking seriously Washington’s call for increasing local spending on such projects. The $10.5 billion thus far allocated by the Congress for this transportation mode may encourage state and municipal governments to devote much more of their own funds to the program. Indeed, the U.S. Department of Transportation — at least behind the scenes — seems to be informing states that the only way they’ll receive future grants is by committing some of their own budgets to new tracks and rolling stock.

This is the case in Connecticut, which received only $40 million in the first distribution of funds this past January. Governor Jodi Rell (R), who is in her last year in office, wants more, so she has asked the State Bond Commission to release $260 million for the reconstruction of the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield (MA) corridor, which runs roughly north-south through the center of the state. Connecticut hopes to bring in an additional $220 million from Washington later this year, enough to fund the first phase of the project.

The announcement ups the ante for other states that want the federal government to chip in for their own rail programs.

Connecticut’s project, which has been discussed for more than a decade, would double-track the entire corridor between New Haven and Springfield, a 62-mile Amtrak-owned line that is currently used by half a dozen Amtrak intercity trains a day. Much of the second track was torn out in the mid-1990s.

Stations would be upgraded to high-level platforms at each of the nine existing and three new stations. Once the improvements are completed in 2015, commuter trains would run every thirty minutes during peak periods and every hour at other times. Operations would be substantially bettered: Average train speeds are expected to rise from 40 mph to around 60 mph; daily round-trip trains to Hartford and Springfield would increase from six to 25 or more; travel times from Hartford to New York would decrease from 2h46 to 2h09, and travelers will be able to get to Worcester, Massachusetts from Penn Station in 3h49, a considerable improvement.

The funding that the state received in January already ensures the double tracking of ten miles of the corridor. Electric operations, necessary for direct Metro-North or Amtrak Northeast Regional service into Manhattan, would cost another $100 million and will not be included in the current project.

A 2005 report on the project suggested that the program would only attract about 3,000 daily riders, but that estimate may be low; the study claimed that only eight people would ride out of New Haven Union Station during the morning peak hour — this is a definite underestimate.

Even so, Governor Rell’s claim that “this is the most exciting mass transit project ever in the state of Connecticut” is too exuberant: The New Haven Line Metro-North trains from New Haven, Bridgeport, and Stamford to New York’s Grand Central will remain far bigger ridership generators and fulfill a more important function in the state’s commuting patterns. And it could be argued that support for streetcar lines in the state could play a bigger role in determining the future of the state’s cities.

But in terms of improving the national rail network, the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield project is a fantastic investment. If the entire Inland Route is electrified (the route runs from New Haven north to Springfield, and then east to Boston), it could provide direct and vital access from Central Connecticut and Massachusetts to the large Boston and New York metropolitan areas. Intercity trains running along the line from New Haven to Boston will increase in number to six daily. Connecticut’s project will leave room for the future installation of overhead catenary.

In addition, the improvements along the New Haven-Springfield route, in conjunction with the realignment of service to Burlington, Vermont partly funded by the federal government in January, will radically alter the ability of northern New Englanders to get into New York City. Future funding will go towards connecting the line to Montréal, allowing trains from Boston to the Canadian city. Amtrak service to White River Junction from Penn Station will run in 5h32, compared to 7h36 today. In addition, the opening of full double-tracked corridor will ensure more reliable commutes. The Vermonter, which runs on the line now, has an on-time performance of only 84%.

Though the upgraded line does not fit anyone’s definition of high-speed rail, it is exactly the type of improved, fast-enough service that will allow more Americans to take the train without sacrificing their time compared to driving in a car. Connecticut’s decision to implement both commuter rail and improved intercity rail (the latter mandated by the fact that the U.S. grant program is explicitly not for commuter rail) will mean that new operations will be used by a whole variety of users, not be confined to a single purpose.

Image above: Hartford rail station, from Flickr user Mamorital (cc)

» Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood talks the right talk. But the American government seems fated to be unable to deliver on his promises.

The pie chart above puts in context the limited degree to which the Obama Administration and the U.S. governing structure in general have committed to advancing alternatives to our nation’s current over-reliance on the automobile. The image comes from France’s national transportation infrastructure plan, which was introduced to public consultation earlier this month. With €170 billion in funds for transport planned to be spent over the next twenty to thirty years, the report articulates a vision in which 95% of public spending goes towards modes other than road and air — with more than fifty percent of funds earmarked for intercity passenger and freight rail projects. Though the program, promoted by a conservative government, has yet to be approved and lacks a funding source, it represents a sea change in what kinds of transport are prioritized in France.

Under the supervision of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, the Obama Administration has been making a big deal of its efforts to promote livable communities where people don’t have to drive to get everywhere. At the Netroots Nation conference last week in Las Vegas, Mr. LaHood was especially vocal about his goals. “Americans like their automobiles,” he said. “One of the reasons they like ‘em is because it is in some places in the country the only form of transportation, particularly in rural America.”

He promotes an alternative. Americans would act more like Europeans and Asians when it comes to transportation choice, the Transportation Secretary implied, had President Eisenhower made a commitment to high-speed rail when he advanced his Interstate Highway System in the 1950s. “That’s the kind of vision that President Obama and Vice President Biden [now] have for America,” he said. Mr. LaHood suggested that after 25 years of spending, “80% of America will be connected” to intercity rail.

Yet all evidence suggests that despite Mr. LaHood’s statements — the most honest (and exciting) about the future of American commuting by any U.S. transport secretary ever, as far as I know — there is no way that his goals will be implemented unless there is a massive transformation in the way American politicians think about transportation.

There are two principal explanations for this problem: one, a lack of long-term planning in favor of alternative transportation options; and two, a lack of funding.

From that perspective, the recent announcement of the French long-term transportation plan by Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development, and Sea Minister Jean-Louis Borloo is particularly striking. Mr. Borloo, a member of President Sarkozy’s conservative administration, has advanced what the plan itself argues is “a drastic change in strategy, a major rupture in resolutely privileging the development of alternatives to road-based transport modes.” The result: Two million tons of carbon dioxide economized each year, part of a nationwide commitment to reducing greenhouse gases by 20% by 2020. In France, transportation consumes 68% of the nation’s gas and produces 28% of all emissions.

The plan, which is worthy of a read for French speakers, has four principal goals: Optimizing the existing transportation system to limit the creation of new infrastructure; improving the performance of the system in serving areas far from major metropolitan areas; improving the energy efficiency of the system; and reducing the environmental impact of the network. These priorities have resulted in what is a clear emphasis on improvements in the country’s already well-developed rail system. Not only will 2,300 kilometers (1,429 miles) of new (true) high-speed rail be under construction or complete by 2020, but two major north-south freight railroad corridors will be developed simultaneously to ramp up the country’s use of trains to transport goods.

In addition, €53 billion will be pointed towards the creation of new works of public transportation operating in fixed guideways, about half of which will go to the massive Grand Paris scheme. The doubling of congested highways such as the Paris-Lille autoroute have been eliminated from consideration, since road infrastructure projects will be kept to the absolute minimum. The program is likely to be approved by the government at the end of this year.

Though the state lacks a long-term funding source for the commitment, the plan suggests that whatever money that is available will go almost entirely to non-automotive modes of transport. Even if the government loses power in 2012, the plan’s goals won’t die off, since the opposition Socialists, in pseudo coalition with the Greens, are just as interested in advancing a similar transportation paradigm.

The U.S. lacks a similar long-term plan to develop transportation alternatives. National transportation efforts are not guided by an effort to respond to any particular problem, like climate change or metropolitan congestion, and, in reverse of France’s new priorities, they currently overwhelmingly favor investment in roads over transit and intercity rail. Even if the U.S. Congress ever gets around to approving a new transportation bill — a piece of legislation meant to pinpoint six years of federal funding — it will still spend up to three times on highways that it does on other modes. There is no national plan to articulate why it is important to spend more on rail than on the roads, and the Obama Administration does not seem particularly interested in developing one that has the strong backing of the powers that be.

Moreover, the momentum that seemed to be coming last year for a huge down payment for high-speed rail (on the order of $50 billion or more) has disappeared: A few weeks ago, the U.S. House indicated that it would be supporting a transportation allocation this year with only $1 billion for intercity rail (less than the $2.5 billion from the year before), and more spending on highways than ever.

Mr. LaHood is fond of comparing his administration’s support for high-speed rail to the Eisenhower Interstate project, but he always neglects to mention that that program came with a dedicated revenue base to sponsor it — the fuel tax. There is no similar proposal to reliably fund intercity rail or increase spending on public transportation.

The U.S. Senate’s structural bias towards suburban and rural populations is a constant source of problems for altering investment schemes. The decision by the Republican Party to make transportation investment a partisan issue means that the Obama Administration is faced with mounting opposition to a long-term high-speed rail program. Just as important, the complete unfamiliarity of many Americans towards the importance (or even function) of public transportation or intercity railways makes it difficult to convince their representatives at the local, state, and federal levels that it is worthwhile to stop spending so much on roads. The same is not true of the French population, which is used to using transit.

I don’t want to be the eternal pessimist here — proponents of alternative transportation must remain optimistic about the prospects for future change no matter the obstacles in the way — so I’ll conclude positively. Before becoming the Secretary of Transportation, Mr. LaHood was a Republican with little transportation background. Yet no matter the intransigence of Congress, as a member of the administration he has been steadfast in his advocacy for a transportation system that prioritizes getting around by means other than the car. Perhaps we can content ourselves for now by hoping that he’ll be the example to follow in the future.

Image above: Distribution of French spending priorities in transportation infrastructure long-term plan, from French government

» Industry, citing experience with Amtrak, is concerned that more passenger rail services could increase costs and reduce freight train movements.

The American intercity rail system, it is frequently argued, is notable for the world-class efficiency of its freight trains and the miserable record of its passenger system. While we transport a huge percentage of our goods on track, we move just a tiny percentage of people as such.

The Obama Administration, of course, is spending billions to change that situation, investing in true high-speed lines in California and Florida and upgrades to existing track in Illinois, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and elsewhere. Though the current commitment isn’t yet enough to produce service that will connect “80% of America,” it will significantly improve the performance of passenger trains in certain areas.

Will those improvements, however, come to the detriment of freight service? The Economist addressed that issue this week in a shock article that suggests that passenger rail is not directly compatible with cargo. The industry, already worried that the government is planning re-regulation (the railroads were deregulated in 1980), is convinced that its willingness to allow Amtrak on its tracks costs $240 million in lost fees each year, and it has already been subjected to a required $15 billion upgrade to install positive train control.

According to the article, by allowing more passenger trains on freight track, the efficiency of the freight system could be reduced, and that would lead to increasing costs for consumers. American freight transport costs on average about one-half of similar services in Japan and France and one-third of those in Italy. Each of those countries has far more effective passenger rail services than the U.S.

Indeed, there are some merits to the argument that an increasing intermixing of passenger and freight trains will lead to reduced effectiveness of the shipping industry, not to mention less-than-perfect reliability for passengers. The primary reason is that passenger and freight trains travel at different speeds on the same corridor.

As shown by the following image from the British government’s Command Paper for its High-Speed 2 program, allowing trains to run at different speeds on the same track could reduce capacity enormously. If you were to follow a 300 km/h train by a conventional train running at 200 km/h, you would eliminate the potential to run up to six trains at 300 km/h speeds — because they would run into the slower train otherwise. This situation worsens the longer the corridor.

In other words, in terms of capacity there are major advantages to running all of the trains on the same line at the same speed. (This chart provided one of the arguments for the UK’s decision to only allow true high-speed trains on its planned expansion.)

Freight trains are limited to slower speeds — around 50 mph — than even the relatively slow people-carrying trains the Obama Administration is promoting on some corridors, running at 79 and 110 mph. The private cargo companies that own the tracks to be used by these passenger trains are rightfully concerned that intermixing slower and faster vehicles will induce serious reductions in capacity. Is this result, likely meaning increasing freight transportation costs, worth the benefits of more passenger trains? Should the U.S. sacrifice its excellent freight transportation system for a mediocre passenger network?

Fortunately, the situation is not nearly as dire as the Economist suggests. For one, the vast majority of freight movements are through rural areas in the Western U.S., few of which are likely to see many passenger trains any time in the next century. Second, the true high-speed rail lines first planned for California and Florida will feature brand-new track, doing little to freight services. Third, with appropriate coordination between freight companies and the passenger services — such as promoting shipping during the night (done on New Jersey’s RiverLine corridor) — many problems could be avoided.

Nevertheless, there are some places where improved passenger rail service will make the running of freight trains increasingly difficult. This fact indicates that improved passenger services probably ought to run on their own tracks as much as possible, even if they’re only going 79 or 110 mph. Yet the federal government’s investments have been too minor thus far to make that possible in most cases. Strategic interventions, like passing sidings, could provide a half-way solution. If Washington continues to prioritize spending on passenger corridors, these are the cheap options.

If the public is committed to the funding of improved tracks along privately owned freight corridors, it has the right to demand that those companies allow passenger trains to run along them. From that perspective, the freight companies have little room to complain.

But the federal government does have a long-term interest in promoting investments that offer improvements in both freight and passenger offerings. Freight lines that run through the center of cities should be moved to new routes that detour, allowing passenger services to take over these access corridors much more essential for people than for cargo. Lines running both passenger and freight trains should be expanded to three or more tracks to allow multiple running speeds in both directions. Projects could theoretically be sponsored by public-private partnership, using both government and freight company funds directed to investments that benefit both.

The kind of coordination necessary to make such investments, however, is still generally lacking at the U.S. DOT. To appease the growing complaints of the freight rail companies, it may be necessary to find it.

Images above: (1) Freight train in Sydney, from Flickr user dicktay2000 (cc); (2) Comparison of train paths, from UK’s HS2 Command Paper

» Governor Ted Strickland’s push to connect state via intercity rail is likely to go beyond initial Cincinnati-to-Cleveland corridor.

Following through on a years-long promise to include fourth-city Toledo in the next phase of rail investment in Ohio, the administration of Governor Ted Strickland has announced the awarding to an engineering firm an $8 million study of future intercity routes that would connect the Lake Erie city to the rest of the Buckeye State. A line into Pittsburgh is also up for evaluation.

Because of its geographic position between the Chicago-based Midwest rail network and that of the East Coast focused in New York, Ohio could serve as an essential link in a national rail network if the state makes the right investments.

In January, Ohio received $400 million from the federal government to implement intercity rail service on the 256-mile 3C rail line between Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Dayton — the state’s four largest metropolitan areas. According to current plans, initial 79 mph operations would begin in 2012 on an improved freight corridor, bringing trains to the state’s capital in Columbus for the first time since 1977. The 3C project does not qualify as high-speed rail under anyone’s definition, especially considering its 6h30 estimated travel time, but future investments could increase speeds to 110 mph. The FRA is expected to approve the first direct grants for the state sometime in the next few weeks.

The 3C corridor, however, is not the be-all and end-all, since it lacks connections to Toledo, Akron, and Canton, three other large metropolitan areas. In addition, it does not provide for direct links either to Pittsburgh (and the East Coast network) or Chicago, Detroit, and Indianapolis, three major Midwest cities. Thus the newly announced study, which builds upon the larger Ohio Hub proposal, illustrated above and studied repeatedly over the past decade.

Consultant AECOM will specifically consider potential upgrades for the 3C route, plus new 110 mph links between Detroit, Toledo, and Cleveland; Cleveland and Pittsburgh; and Toledo and Columbus.

The new study is the long-expected next step for Ohio, but it comes at a fortunate time for Governor Strickland, a Democrat who is running for reelection in a tightly contested race against Republican John Kasich. Depending on the timing of the study’s results, Strickland may be able to claim that his administration aims to spread rail throughout the state; Toledo was especially frustrated by the fact that it wasn’t included in the state’s initial priorities. Though the Ohio Hub’s current plan suggests that the next major investment in the state will be connection between Cleveland, Toledo, and Detroit (arguably the more important link from a national perspective), other sources suggest that the new study may prioritize a capital-centric line between Columbus and Toledo.

But Ohio is not steps away from a massive rail network. The 3C corridor has been subject to relentless criticism from state Republicans, who claim that it is a boondoggle since operations would require an annual state subsidy and train running times between termini in Cincinnati and Cleveland would be a full two hours longer than typical car travel. Republican Kasich has been no major supporter of rail (and has posted an anti-rail editorial from another source on his site), so if he were to win the election, the federal government’s $400 million grant and the 3C line in general could be abandoned, leaving any rail improvements considered in the new study by the wayside.

Nonetheless, assuming Strickland remains in the Governor’s office (no sure thing), rail service along 3C will begin as expected. All of the major connections considered in the Ohio Hub plan seem worthy of eventual use as part of the national rail network, especially those that eventually lead to major cities outside of the state, like Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Detroit, Indianapolis, and Chicago. Ohio is relatively dense and many of its cities, despite losing population in the last few decades, have strong urban cores (or at least the potential to restore them).

Moreover, Ohio’s position as the connection point between the Midwest and East Coast rail networks cannot be passed over; any trains between Chicago and the East Coast would have to pass through the state. As part of what is truly a national imperative to improve intercity rail service, the state has an obligation to restore its system. The 3C plan, followed by the investments to be proposed by AECOM’s study, are the right ways to begin.

Image above: Ohio Hub potential corridors, from Ohio DOT

» $10 billion spending spree will improve transit in Cordoba and improve branch railway lines. China expects to improve trade relations and open access to natural resources.

Expanding its effort to use infrastructure investments to spread its influence, the Chinese government has agreed to a $10 billion commitment to upgrade a series of intercity rail lines in Argentina and improve urban transit systems in Buenos Aires and Cordoba. Funds come from the China Development Bank and will require a 15% match from the Argentinian government.

This money will not contribute to to the construction of the Buenos Aires-Rosario high-speed line, a separate and currently delayed project.

The effort suggests not only that China is willing and able to contribute its national funds to foreign projects, but also that it intends to structure its investments as an alternative to the World Bank, a grant-making institution that since World War II has sponsored infrastructure in underdeveloped countries with the general aim of spreading Western economic interests. China announced in March that it was planning to invest in a series of transcontinental high-speed rail lines throughout Asia and Europe; in addition, the Eastern superpower has been upping its spending in Africa far above the engagement of any other country. China clearly hopes that new infrastructure abroad will help speed goods to its rapidly expanding domestic market and encourage the expansion of its own international business.

Thanks to talks between Presidents Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Hu Jintao, Argentina will receive $4.35 billion to renovate three freight railroad lines, including $1.85 billion to improve conditions on the Belgrano Line, which links the country to Bolivia and is an important link for the nation’s agricultural producers. China undoubtedly wants to expand its access to Argentina’s productive farmland, and rail transport is significantly cheaper than road movements.

But China has also agreed to more than four billion dollars for the improvement of the Buenos Aires Subway and the creation of a four-corridor Metro in Cordoba — projects that provide no clear economic benefit to the latter country. This suggests that Argentina has agreed to giving China preferential trade treatment above and beyond the improved access to the country’s agricultural resources.

China, of course, does not have infinite resources so it won’t be able to promise similar spending in every country around the world. That said, its own extensive investment in its high-speed rail and urban rapid transit suggests that similar American projects could potentially find funding in Chinese hands. If U.S. companies aren’t able to provide adequate private sector support for construction programs, and if neither the federal government nor states themselves are able to develop infrastructure banks to advance such funding, foreign aid could be a realistic possibility.

This could be seen as a significant let-down for Americans used to thinking that we should be able to fund our infrastructure using our own funds. But the opportunity for expanded global trade could be an excellent opportunity for improvements in the U.S.; there’s no reason to be worried about direct investment from abroad if it makes possible the construction of resources that we couldn’t otherwise build.

Image above: Cordoba, Argentina, from Flickr user Javier de Cordoba

» National operator SNCF is considering expanding low-cost options for country’s fast trains in response to increased competition. Increasing premium services also proposed.

Faced with the prospect of direct competition for the first time and settling into a difficult fiscal environment, French national rail operator SNCF is strategizing for a more nimble, efficient future that will include cheaper tickets on some of its most frequented routes. In five years, passengers traveling between big cities like Paris, Lyon, and Marseille can expect to see a variety of companies offering similar services at reduced prices.

SNCF is expected to begin offering an increasing number of low-cost services beginning in 2012.

For train riders on the low end, this could mean a sharp turn towards TGV high-speed rail operations based on those promoted by low-cost airlines — at least for routes that have the demand to handle the crowds that these services require. Business people may be asked to pay more for the products they’re used to receiving for free. On minor routes, customers may see fewer trains — and they may have to be subsidized by the government.

It’s a mixed bag, but one that results from a system that disincentivizes solidarity in provision for transport across the entire nation even as it increases offerings for well-used routes.

SNCF’s future is one that will be marked both by international expansion and domestic competition. The company’s majority-owned offshoot Keolis already operates transit systems in a number of cities worldwide and is now pushing to do the same in high-speed rail, starting with the €10 billion Medina-Mecca link planned for Saudi Arabia. At the same time, foreign competitors are entering the French market — by 2012, Deutsche Bahn will link Paris with Brussels and London and Trenitalia will run trains from Milan and Genova to Paris. This competition will reduce the ability of SNCF to use the TGV as a cash-cow whose profitable operations cross-subsidize its other intercity routes, which explains the company’s new effort to adapt itself to a changing market.

Moreover, the company, faced with extremely high track use fees, is desperate to increase its revenue stream. Despite the fact that both SNCF and the national track owner, Réseau Ferré de France (RFF), are entirely government owned, they have been at odds with each other because of their diverging interests since the latter entity was created in the late 1990s (previously the tracks were owned by SNCF). European Union rules have allowed government monopoly ownership of rights-of-way even as they have promoted competition in operations.

RFF has been increasing its track use fees significantly over the past decade, and plans to continue to do so in order to contribute to the funding of new high-speed lines in France and to pay off the enormous €28 billion debt it has inherited. This situation, however, has put SNCF in a bind; its TGVs aren’t bringing in enough money to pay for the their operations, track maintenance, and the construction of new lines. For now at least, the company’s long-term model isn’t sustainable.

The odd result is that last year, RFF made its first profit since its creation even as SNCF lost €500 million (after a one billion Euro profit the year before). The situation is becoming so bad that almost a third of TGV services, once all operationally profitable, will require subsidies from the government beginning next year, irritating other potential operators. SNCF has a major high-speed train fleet replacement program planned, but that can only be possible if the company finds more funds.

It’s a bizarre state of affairs in which one government entity must hand over its profits to another, with an end result that threatens the integrity of national rail service in France.

Thus the new effort by SNCF to both increase ridership on trains through lower prices and more (packed) seats, along with a parallel effort to introduce business service offerings. Whether this will increase revenues by 28% by 2015 has yet to be demonstrated.

SNCF already arguably has the cheapest high-speed services in Europe, with average trips costing only €42. But the new plan will introduce more low-cost trains similar to the company’s already existing iDTGV fleet, which offers trains with fewer personnel on board, more for-purchase services, off-train ticket-checking, and at-home ticket printing. An example of a particularly cheap iDTGV ticket: €19 between Lille and Marseille, a 1000-kilometer trip. That’s an amazing deal.

Similar offers will be expanded over the coming years to fight off other companies. France, probably the most lucrative rail market in Europe because of its large tourist base and high train-using public, will be the beachhead for the future of high-speed rail in which multiple operators serve the same routes. The German, Spanish, and Italian networks are likely to see similar situations over the next decade. As I’ve discussed before, this situation is likely to result in cheaper tickets and more offerings between the biggest cities but fewer travel opportunities elsewhere unless the government steps in.

The French government’s choice to subsidize TGV routes to less popular destinations rather than having SNCF cancel them because they’re no longer profitable is a political response to a management problem, since SNCF no longer is making enough money on its most-used lines to cross-subsidize within the company. Yet there is no way to assume that this is a permanent solution, since competitors will begin pushing for their own subsidies soon enough. The prioritized association between the goals of the French state and SNCF will slowly dissolve.

Yet that relationship, which ensured good rail service throughout the country, has had its major benefits. While it may theoretically be possible to have cheaper service along major corridors, their profits has meant excellent access by train to just about anywhere. It also also allowed the implementation of major social benefits programs that provide large discounts to the young, seniors, people with large families, and the unemployed. Can a system in which there is competition allow that to happen? Does it make sense to transfer the obligation to fulfill those programs, enshrined in goals of solidarity, from the rail operator to the government?

American planners considering how to implement high-speed rail services have an obligation to look across the Atlantic to judge how they ought to approach similar situations in the future. There are a variety of questions that must be pondered based on the relationships our governments establish between high-speed rail track owners and operators.

Assuming that tracks are publicly owned, should train service providers be required to pay high track use fees, in order to maximize the use of operational profits for the creation of new lines? Or should profits from high-speed lines be redirected towards the operation of less productive corridors in order to encourage geographical equity, with the government stepping in to fully cover the construction costs of new tracks? Should we expect to see a direct fiscal payback for initial capital expenditures, or is it reasonable to simply ask that high-speed rail services cover their operations and maintenance regimes?

For services that are not profitable, should the government use separate funds to ensure their continued running? Wouldn’t that simply result in the all-too-familiar privatization of profits and socialization of losses?

It troubles me that states now funding new intercity corridor development, including California, Florida, Illinois, and Wisconsin, have failed to address these questions straight-on, as complicated as they might be. Considering international experience, the projects in each of these states are likely to produce operational profits, but state governments haven’t established where that additional money would be directed. If we’re serious about improving the U.S. rail system, we have an obligation to do so in a way that establishes our response to these problems before we run full-on into them.

Image above: A TGV in southeastern France, from Flickr user Jean-Louis Zimmermann (cc)

» Penn Design group proposes almost $100 billion investment between Washington and Boston. Amtrak confirms it’s evaluating constructing another Hudson River tunnel.

If you thought California’s more than forty billion dollar plan to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles with high-speed rail was an unreasonably large investment, you’ll be doubled-over by what a University of Pennsylvania student group has proposed for the Northeast Corridor: a $98.1 billion spending spree that would transform America’s most productive region by speeding commutes between Boston and Washington to just 3h15.

The plan advocates the construction of new rail tunnels through downtown Philadelphia and Baltimore, a bypass around Wilmington, and, get this, a twenty-mile tunnel under the Long Island Sound from Ronkonkoma to New Haven. Trains would average 155 mph on the trip. These investments, the students suggest, would be enough to triple ridership on the intercity rail network by 2040. I wouldn’t doubt it.

The problem, of course, is that while the plan is well-documented, beautifully illustrated, and, I’m sure, technically feasible, it stands absolutely no chance of being realized, bar some unforeseen willingness on the part of the U.S. government to drop tens of billions on one program and a multi-state agreement binding the Northeast region’s taxpayers to the construction of the world’s single biggest infrastructure project. I would love to see such ease of transportation between these cities, but in the next twenty years, the most we’re likely to get is Amtrak’s current ten billion dollar plan to speed trains from 6h30 between the extremities of the corridor to 5h30. This in spite of the fact that the Northeast Corridor, with the nation’s highest densities and highest potential train ridership, is theoretically perfect for high-speed rail.

But there are two fundamental obstacles to a significantly improved Northeast Corridor: financial limitations and differences in political interest.

Though the Northeast is an incredibly rich region, it has no capacity to raise sufficient funds to pay for an investment on the scale of what the Penn Studio has suggested. Not only are all the states in a fiscally difficult situation today, but they are underfunding their existing roads, transit, and intercity rail systems. Because the Northeast has some of the nation’s oldest infrastructure, it also has the most pressing maintenance needs. If the region were to suddenly benefit from a massive increase in tax revenues, that money should probably first be spent on making sure the subways and highways are working as they should, no small task.

Just as important, the U.S. government, despite its decision to allocate $10.5 billion thus far to the high-speed rail development program, is handicapped by the fact that it must spread the money across the country. If the Northeast deserves a federal contribution of $50 billion for its high-speed program, the rest of the country will demand another $200 billion for their own needs. Where, exactly, will that money come from? The two-year period in which the U.S. government appeared to be guided by a Keynesian impulse to stimulate the economy through infrastructure creation has come to a definite, and probably premature, end.

Of course, the lack of adequate funds is determined by politics; if they wanted, state leaders could approved tax hikes to pay for far more than just maintenance. They could, for instance, band together to promote a regional gas tax increase. Yet the situation in the Northeast is paralyzed by poor decision-making and an unwillingness to look across state lines for compromise.

For example, the $8.7 billion Access to the Region’s Core tunnel, which will connect New Jersey and Manhattan by 2017, will not include connections into the existing Penn Station complex; this makes it possible for only trains terminating in Manhattan to use the tunnel and fundamentally blocks off Amtrak use of the facility. As a result, the national rail operator is now studying the construction of yet another tunnel under the Hudson River, a consequence of the fact that New Jersey simply didn’t care enough to find a way to share. (Note that Amtrak’s study is far from final; while the tunnel may be needed, there is no funding for the project.)

The Northeast has internalized its decision-making at the state level, refusing to come to clear agreements about where the region’s priorities should be focused. This is partly due to the fact that many of the state capitals are not along the Northeast Corridor itself — Albany, Hartford, Harrisburg, and Annapolis — but also due to the fact that high-speed rail sections through some states may be actually more beneficial to residents of other states. For instance, though the link between New York and Philadelphia runs primarily through New Jersey, its users are primarily not from that state; this makes it outside New Jersey’s political interest to invest in true high-speed rail there.

Thus, one wonders whether the kind of mammoth investments necessary to outfit the Northeast Corridor for true high-speed rail should be prioritized. California and Florida are developing cheaper and far less complicated plans to run fast trains between their biggest cities, and it’s actually possible to imagine that their schemes will come to fruition. They benefit from the fact that each project remains within state borders and California’s voters made a very large $10 billion commitment to actually funding their line, a feat to which no Northeast state has come close.

Similarly, in the Midwest, there’s a relative consensus in thinking that Chicago is the region’s core and that primary rail links should head in and out of there. This has made agreement about where investments should go simpler and explains that region’s relatively advanced plans for intercity rail.

People in the Northeast complain that the federal government’s high-speed rail funding allocations have gone to other regions, but the Obama Administration may have its priorities right. Instead of choosing to throw its funds into the mind-numbingly complex project that is the Northeast Corridor — where even minor improvements cost billions of dollars — it has picked intercity rail programs that will significantly improve service at a lower cost in the short-term. If Northeastern states want to see similar allocations in the coming years, they must get their act together by developing regional funding sources and establishing more lines of agreement.

Image above: Philadelphia alternative alignment proposed by Penn Design Studio, from Penn Design

» Project would halve travel time between the two state capitals, but it’s not yet an extension of the Northeast Corridor towards the south.

Yesterday, the Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor planning group (SEHSR) — a project run by the North Carolina Department of Transportation in association with the State of Virginia — released its draft environmental impact study (DEIS) for the 162-mile Raleigh-Richmond passenger rail route. The DEIS will undergo public review over the next two months in preparation for an eventual grant submission to the Federal Railroad Administration for up to three billion dollars to pursue the completion of this project over the next decade.

SEHSR is not proposing true high-speed rail: its trains will be limited to 110 mph, be powered by diesel locomotives, and be limited to single tracks along several route segments. But the project is nonetheless quite ambitious. Whereas current Amtrak service between the two capitals takes almost four hours, this project would reduce travel times to two hours by rerouting trains onto a more direct route and speeding travel. Whereas current service averages around 47 mph, the proposal would allow average speeds of 86 mph, a vast improvement.

If fully implemented, the states would offer four daily round trips between Raleigh and Washington, D.C. along the corridor. A final decision about exact route choices will be made next year.

Neither the Federal Railroad Administration nor the States of North Carolina or Virginia have yet committed significant funding to the completion of this project, though the two states did receive a total of $620 million from Washington in January thanks to the ARRA stimulus bill. Those funds will allow the construction of a third track between Richmond and Washington, D.C. and allow North Carolina to increase speeds to 90 mph between Raleigh and Charlotte, the state’s largest city.

SEHSR’s long-term plans would reduce travel times along the 450-mile route between Charlotte and Washington to between 6h10 and 6h50, down from 9h40 on the Carolinian today (though the Crescent runs a separate route in 8h07). The primary time savings in the medium-term would come from the implementation of this Raleigh to Richmond corridor. A direct route between Raleigh and Charlotte (trains between the cities now take an round-about route to serve Durham and Greensboro), long mentioned as a possibility to speed trains to Atlanta, would be similarly effective, but that project is far off.

Today, Amtrak Carolinian trains travel along a circuitous route through Rocky Mount, North Carolina between Raleigh and Richmond. In this study, SEHSR has proposed moving most of those trains to the 35-mile-shorter CSX-owned alignment that parallels U.S. 1. The states hope to reach agreement with the freight rail company to increase speeds to 110 mph by eliminating all grade crossings along the route (requiring the closing or bridging of more than 100 crossings) and by including five-mile siding tracks every ten miles along the single-track corridor.

This closing of the corridor to vehicle traffic would increase safety and allow for the eventual conversion to electric locomotion if warranted. The report states that “The current designs will not preclude conversion to electricity in the future, thus allowing higher speeds.” Such an investment would basically mean the extension of the Northeast Corridor south from Washington — and indeed, Amtrak President Joseph Boardman suggested last year that electrification from Washington to Richmond was one of his top priorities. That possibility, however, remains far in the future; it’s not included in the funding estimates here. And though this more limited proposal has merit, it is in competition with dozens of other proposals from around the country, so it has no guarantee of being funded anytime soon.

Even if funded, the SEHSR project does face a number of additional obstacles. In other states, CSX has proven to be a mediocre partner; after weeks of negotiations, the company finally agreed to let New York State use its corridor between Albany and Buffalo for new rail service, but it has yet to endorse the 110 mph trains that the state wants. Similarly, CSX demanded a large insurance policy from the State of Florida for the construction of the Orlando-area Sunrail line. Will North Carolina and Virginia be manhandled similarly?

Meanwhile, there are a number of alternative route alignments for this corridor that could pit local interests against statewide needs. In downtown Raleigh, two separate corridors are being considered; one would cost far more but the other may produce too much damage to a growing center city.

In recent years, though, both of these Mid-Atlantic states have been good custodians of their intercity rail networks; they’re likely to see this project through eventually. That is, as long as the federal government reaffirms its commitment to rail through continued annual appropriations, no sure thing in these cutback-ridden times.

Image above: Route options for Raleigh-Richmond Corridor of Southeast High-Speed Rail, from SEHSR

» New government, set on fiscal austerity, could limit transport expenditures in face of the recession. New minister declares an end to “the war on motorists.”

In power for thirteen years, the British Labour party had a mixed record when it came to transportation investments. While it greatly expanded funds committed to public transportation operations and maintenance, especially in London, it did so while pushing private ownership of bus lines and PPP control over construction programs. While it brought the nation’s railroads back from the abyss caused by John Major’s hugely problematic privatization of British Rail, it made few investments in high-speed rail even as virtually every other developed country was doing so.

Only last year, after enduring intense pressure from the rival Conservatives, did Labour finally come around, agreeing to fund a new line heading north from London. In March, Secretary of State for Transport Andrew Adonis finally revealed that program’s first phase, which would according to that government’s plans connect London and Birmingham by 2026 at a cost of more than £16 billion. Future extensions would head north to Manchester and Leeds, with eventual future phases to Glasgow and Edinburgh. It would have no direct link to Heathrow Airport, allowing the Crossrail commuter rail program that’s currently under construction to fulfill that role.

The British national elections held earlier this month, however, may have permanently altered the government’s strategy in relation to its rail program. The newly ruling coalition of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, putting Labour into opposition, has meant the definitive end of the proposed third runway at Heathrow (certainly a big step forward), but the former government’s relatively well thought-through high-speed rail plans are also on the cutting block. The Conservatives’ obsession with connecting Heathrow directly to the rail line — not, in my estimation, a particularly useful idea (and an expensive one, since it would require a detour) — will mean that the environmental reviews Labour had already performed will have to be restudied, potentially delaying the project.

But at least both parties now in power are in favor of the continued investment in the project. But at what cost?

Setting a new message, new Transport Minister Philip Hammond staked out his government’s position on transportation rather starkly at his first press conference. Arguing that Labour had given too much of a priority to transit during its more than a decade in control of the House of Commons, Mr. Hammond declared that he and his compatriots would “end the war on motorists.” While the high-speed rail project may be moving ahead, other future public transportation projects may be under threat — especially since the new government has committed to putting Britain on a fiscal starvation diet.

According to Christian Wolmar, a prominent British transportation commentator, the announcement by Mr. Hammond, who was previously the Conservatives’ “Shadow” Chief Secretary to the Treasury, means that there will be little influence of the Center-Left Liberal Democrats in the new government’s transportation strategy. That party, unlike the right-wing Conservatives, had been in favor of substantial measures to increase use of the country’s abandoned railroad rights of way and exert increased fees on motorists. Yet Mr. Hammond has refused to introduce any road pricing under his mandate, a significant problem if his government is to commit fully to the public transportation programs Labour had pursued.

Potentially the most affected immediately will be the £16 billion Crossrail program, which was supposed to be a RER-type commuter relief line for London. Though the Conservatives have said they would complete it, they haven’t promised that they would do so on schedule, despite the fact that it is vital for the stability of this crowded city. Does this mean funding for Crossrail — whose own completion was holding up Labour’s high-speed rail construction schedule — is to be extended and re-prioritized for high-speed rail?

Will funds currently allocated to rail projects be moved into the construction of new highways?

What is clear is that the Conservatives expect to find new sources of funding; Mr. Hammond said that “the era of easy public money is over” — a reflection of the fact that the kind of mammoth improvements seen in the U.K.’s transport system over the last ten years may be a relic of the past, lost to different priorities in a new government.

It may be too early, however, to guess how the new government will approach the complicated issue of funding high-speed rail and other transportation projects already underway. But the new coalition certainly won’t have it easy attempting to assign priorities in the midst of a major downfall in revenues.

» Georgia introduces plan for rail loop; the Northeast finally makes an effort to introduce better service on the Boston-Washington mainline.

It was just four months ago that the Federal Railroad Administration rewarded huge high-speed rail construction grants to states across the country, but there’s plenty more to do — California, for instance, has assembled just a quarter of the more than $40 billion it needs to complete its San Francisco to Los Angeles corridor. This week, the FRA accepted applications for $50 million in planning grants, and several states put forward proposals to study rail lines that would substantially improve the nation’s intercity train network.

The federal government will announce recipients of the grants later this summer, in addition to the winners of up to $2.5 billion in construction awards. The FRA requires a 20% local match to win funds.

One of the most interesting proposals comes from Georgia, whose state legislature has been notoriously recalcitrant in finding adequate funds to maintain the state’s public transportation systems, and which proposed and then basically abandoned a series of commuter rail lines radiating from Atlanta. Now hoping to get aid from Washington, the state is campaigning to win $16.5 million to begin planning a “Capital-Coastal” rail loop connecting the state’s biggest cities: Atlanta, Athens, Augusta, Savannah, and Macon. In addition, it wants to begin considering improvements along the existing Atlanta-Charlotte route. If won, these funds would come in addition to the $750,000 the state received in January.

Georgia’s rush to submit a proposal for more planning funds was clearly influenced by the success of neighboring North Carolina and Florida in each receiving hundreds of millions of dollars earlier in the year. Unlike Georgia, those states have made clear commitments to improving their passenger rail and transit services, which explains the U.S. DOT’s reluctance to award Georgia money in the past. But the legislature’s passage last month of a bill allowing cities to increase their local taxes to fund better public transportation may indicate a change in thinking there.

California, which is the only state thus far that has made a multi-billion commitment to intercity rail, has applied for $16.6 million to advance planning on the second phase of its true high-speed system. If it wins an award, it will extend engineering studies on the corridors between Los Angeles and San Diego, between Merced and Sacramento, and between San Jose and Sacramento along the Altamont Corridor.

The Northeast states submitted an equally significant bid for $15 million to fund a study of the Washington-Boston corridor, the country’s most-used rail line. Amtrak laid out a $10.2 billion proposal for upgrades along the line last October with the expectation that ridership could quadruple to 60 million annual passengers by 2050. The eleven-state coalition that prepared the application has been slow to focus on the needs of the region’s primary corridor, dispersing money instead on secondary corridors like Connecticut’s New Haven-Hartford line or New York’s Albany-Buffalo connection.

The Northeast must move beyond state borders to respond to the needs of the area’s larger population; this is an important first step in that direction.

Amtrak released today a Northeast Corridor master plan detailing $52 billion worth of infrastructure capital needs that must be fulfilled between now and 2030 to cope with an increase in rides. The project would improve fastest New York-Washington running times to 2h15 from 2h45 today and New York-Boston to 3h08 from 3h31 today.

Other states that applied for funding in this round of FRA grants include Pennsylvania, which wants to speed up trains heading between Cleveland and Buffalo via Erie; Florida, which plans to extend its now virtually guaranteed Tampa-Orlando true high-speed line to Miami; and Arizona, which wants to connect Phoenix to intercity rail service for the first time in decades with a new link from Tucson.

Illinois applied for $8 million in federal funds to begin the upgrade of the St. Louis-Chicago route to 220 mph. The corridor will be upgraded to 110 mph using funding received in January.

Other states likely also submitted proposals; I’ll update this page and the above map as the news flows in.