This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
November 2006
— by Angela Cotey, Associate Editor
What's it take to get from Chicago to St. Louis? If you don't want to spend five hours in the car, you'll have to fight traffic to drive to O'Hare, arrive two hours before your flight to make it through security, spend an hour-plus on the plane, then rent a car or catch a cab at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport to get to your final destination. It would take just as long to drive.
But what if there was a cost-effective mode of transportation that took you directly from downtown Chicago to downtown St. Louis in three hours, 49 minutes — and eliminated the traffic, parking and airport hassles? There is: high-speed rail. It's the type of service U.S. high-speed proponents have spent years lobbying for. Several high-speed rail corridors have been proposed throughout the country to connect major cities such as Seattle and Portland; San Francisco and Los Angeles; San Antonio and Tulsa, Okla.; Washington, D.C., and Charlotte, N.C.; and Tampa and Orlando, as well as Chicago and St. Louis.
Most of the proposed U.S. high-speed projects involve upgrading existing track to accommodate trains operating up to 110 mph, and the infrastructure's already there — it just needs track and signal improvements, curve realignments, some grade crossing eliminations and station upgrades. (The exceptions: California and Florida, which have proposed building new alignment to operate trains at 200 and 120 mph, respectively).
But improving infrastructure isn't cheap; it would cost more than $80 billion to implement high-speed service on the 11 high-speed corridors designated by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
The biggest road block that's preventing states from advancing high-speed plans is federal funding — or the lack thereof. Federal grants issued to help fund corridor improvements have barely made a dent in the multi-billion-dollar cost.
"States that are active in passenger rail see that travel time improvements and construction of high-speed rail systems are absolutely essential," says Patrick Simmons, director of the North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) Rail Division, which is developing the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor. "It just hasn't been dealt with or recognized at the federal level."
With an Administration that's not known for its support of passenger-rail service (example: the annual fight to adequately fund Amtrak) and a Congress that has other issues taking top priority (like the war in Iraq), it's not surprising high-speed rail hasn't attracted the attention proponents believe it deserves. But as the Highway Trust Fund dwindles and highway congestion continues to mount, it's an issue that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.
"This is part of our country's inability to think long term," says Rick Harnish, executive director of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association. "We are going to be in big trouble very soon because we haven't made these intercity passenger-rail improvements. It's extremely urgent that we do this right now in a very, very aggressive way."
Last year, high-speed corridor developers hoped they might be able to start pursuing projects more aggressively after the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved the Rail Infrastructure Development and Expansion Act for the 21st Century (RIDE 21). Originally introduced in 2001 by Don Young (R-Alaska), the bill proposed to provide $12 billion in tax credit bonds for high-speed rail projects — an ideal funding source, some say, because the funds wouldn't be doled out of the thinly stretched general budget or compete with other transportation programs.
However, the bill didn't make it through the House Ways and Means Committee — not because members don't support high-speed rail, but because "several key members are opposed to tax credit bonds," says HNTB Corp. Vice President and National Director of Intercity Passenger Rail Charlie Quandel, who had served as chairman of the former High Speed Ground Transportation Association (which recently became part of the American Public Transportation Association).
"Ultimately, we will see high-speed rail, but there has to be the political will to do it," he says.
Political support is needed to resolve other rail issues that ultimately affect states' ability to carry out high-speed plans.
Amtrak, a key player in high-speed corridors, faces an uncertain future as Congress and the Bush Administration continue to raise concerns about appropriations, reform initiatives and long-distance routes. It's tough for high-speed rail developers to talk about increasing service and operating faster trains with a partner whose existence always seems to be in question.
"Amtrak has to be part of this," says Frank Busalacchi, secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) and chairman of the States for Passenger Rail Coalition, which aims to improve and expand passenger-rail and high-speed service. "Shutting Amtrak down or eliminating some of its services is not the answer."
And because most high-speed corridors would operate over freight tracks, network capacity constraints are a concern. Freight roads' recent infrastructure reinvestments have begun to benefit some intercity passenger-rail corridors, but other states still are seeing on-time performance decline as freight traffic continues to increase.
"We need to build capacity on our freight railroads, and right now we don't have a good, functioning model of how to do that," says Simmons.
Again, federal funds could help.
"We need to provide dollars not just for trains, but also to increase capacity for the freight railroads," says Busalacchi. "We can't just say, ‘Oh, we need to add trains and increase service times.'"
But that would mean states interested in launching high-speed rail might have to compete with freight railroads for federal funds. A member of the National Surface Transportation Revenue and Policy Study Commission, which is charged with developing a recommendation for Congress for the next transportation reauthorization bill, Busalacchi believes funding will be recommended for both modes.
For their part, states are willing to contribute to the high-speed funding pot — some have been doing it for years — but they can't go it alone.
"We need something modeled after the highway and airport programs, with an 80/20 federal match to get some of these projects built," says Randy Wade, passenger rail implementation manager for WisDOT and past secretary/treasurer of the States for Passenger Rail Coalition. "That's the missing ingredient."
Finding it will continue to be an uphill battle, but proponents are encouraged by proposed legislation.
In July 2005, Sens. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) introduced The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2005 (S. 1516). The six-year bill would provide $1.4 billion in 80/20 matching funds to states for intercity passenger-rail investments — a far cry from what's needed, but a step in the right direction, considering it's easier to add money to an existing program than create a new one. High-speed proponents are optimistic about S. 1516's chances of passing since it's obtained bipartisan support in the Senate. Proponents hope the legislation can make its way to the House by year end.
The fall elections could give high-speed a much-needed boost, too, if more intercity passenger-rail supporters were elected at the local, state and/or federal level. That's a possibility, especially given this year's record gas prices, which have prompted more people to use public transportation.
So, proponents believe they've got as strong a case as ever to convince Congress of the need for high speed.
"I think we're closer than ever before," says Rod Diridon, past chair and current member of the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), and vice chairman and acting chairman of APTA's High Speed and Intercity Rail Committee. "Public support for high-speed and intercity passenger rail have grown tremendously, and that's going to be voiced to elected officials."
In the meantime, several states are slowly but surely moving forward with high-speed plans. When dedicated federal funds are available, they'll be more than ready to take projects to the next level.
In California, CHSRA has proposed building a $33 billion, 750-mile fully grade-separated, electrified, double-tracked high-speed line connecting Sacramento, Los Angeles and San Diego.
The authority has completed a statewide program-level Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and now is beginning project-level environmental review and preliminary engineering on the corridor's San Francisco-to-L.A. starter segment.
Once complete, passengers could travel between the two cities in just over two-and-a-half hours. Last month, the authority selected Parsons Brinckerhoff as contract manager and expected to approve a contract at its November meeting. If everything goes as planned, the authority could begin construction by 2010, says Diridon. But the authority needs federal and state funds to stick to the the timetable.
CHSRA plans to place a measure on the November 2008 ballot that would authorize $9 billion in general obligation bonds for the project. Diridon is "very optimistic" voters will approve the bonds — provided they get the chance.
The authority originally was slated to place the measure on the November 2004 ballot, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger instead requested a measure for the state to sell $15 billion in bonds to help cover its deficit. This year, the high-speed measure was replaced with a proposal to sell $19.9 billion in transportation infrastructure bonds for state transit agencies.
"You don't want to have two big bond measures on one ballot," says Diridon.
In the Southeast U.S., high-speed rail officials have garnered tremendous state support. The Virginia and North Carolina DOTs have offered up millions to help project managers increase trains speeds along the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) Corridor's initial 450-mile Washington, D.C.- to-Charlotte leg. The DOTs work independently to advance corridor work in their respective states, but also work as a team on portions of the inter-state corridor. The departments currently are completing a Tier II Draft EIS for a segment between Petersburg, Va., and Raleigh, N.C.
Ultimately, SEHSR officials hope to upgrade existing infrastructure along the corridor to operate trains at 110 mph. Officials plan to eventually extend the line through South Carolina to Macon, Ga.
Work is being done incrementally as funding is available. So far, the Virginia DOT has completed a Draft EIS for a segment between Richmond and Hampton Roads. Now, the agency is working with CSX Transportation to expand capacity along the state's portion of the high-speed route.
During the past several years, NCDOT has made incremental track and station improvements to speed trains between Raleigh and Charlotte, reducing transit times along the 174-mile segment by about an hour.
"We're nowhere near high speed yet, but we have gotten transit times down to three hours, seven minutes," says NCDOT's Simmons. "We'll get down to what we consider to be directly automobile competitive at three hours next spring. So, we're working on the various pieces of the puzzle."
But to help them all fall into place, SEHSR officials will need a federal partner. The Tier II environmental work is scheduled to be complete in late 2009, so if federal funds were available, construction could begin by late 2010. So far, the states have funded the majority of the work that's been done along the SEHSR corridor. Since the line was designated as a high-speed corridor in 1992, the federal government has provided about $15 million in grants; the Tier I environmental study projected construction costs at $5.5 million per mile between Washington, D.C. and Charlotte.
A federal partner also could help provide much-needed leadership and oversight for the inter-state high-speed corridors.
"A single state can do a lot, but it's out of character for North Carolina to do planning work for Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and Washington, D.C.," says Simmons.
For now, North Carolina and Virginia officials have taken leadership matters into their own hands by creating the Virginia/North Carolina Interstate High Speed Rail Compact under which the states will jointly appropriate money and authorize projects for the high-speed corridor. The compact is expected to hold its inaugural meeting later this year.
"We need to get policy-makers in Richmond and Raleigh working with the congressional delegation to finance this project," says Simmons. "When we take action on something, it impacts Virginia and vice versa, so we need both states at a policy level to be working together."
Midwestern states also have joined forces to advance high-speed plans. In 1996, nine states launched the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI), which aims to upgrade 3,000 miles of track to accommodate 110 mph trains between urban areas. The plan calls for high-speed service between Chicago, Milwaukee and Madison, Wis., and Minneapolis; Des Moines, Iowa, and Omaha, Neb.; St. Louis and Kansas City, Mo.; Grand Rapids and Detroit, Mich.; and Cleveland and Toledo, Ohio.
"We believe the future of U.S. passenger-rail service is on these city-to-city corridors where you provide higher speeds and a lot more frequencies," says WisDOT's Wade. "It's a market niche where rail competes very strongly with air and auto travel."
Like the SEHSR Corridor, the MWRRI will require a series of incremental improvements to existing rail corridors. In September 2004, a steering committee comprising key officials from each state and Amtrak released updated capital costs, operating revenue and ridership for the Midwest initiative. The updated cost: $7.7 billion (including equipment costs). The committee has completed an environmental analysis and is determining how to proceed with environmental work for each corridor.
Meanwhile, states are proceeding with corridor improvements. On Oct. 30, Illinois increased state-sponsored Amtrak service between Chicago, Carbondale and Quincy, Ill., and St. Louis after the Illinois general assembly increased state funding for Amtrak from $12.1 million to $24 million.
Wisconsin is making strides, too. In February 2005, Amtrak and WisDOT opened the Milwaukee Airport Station on the Hiawatha Line. In summer, the state opened a new station in Sturtevant and began renovating the downtown Milwaukee Amtrak station. WisDOT also has completed an environmental study and is beginning engineering work to extend Hiawatha service from Milwaukee to Madison, and operate trains up to 110 mph. In addition, the state has negotiated the purchase of 32 track miles between Watertown and Madison from the Wisconsin & Southern Railroad Co., and will improve track and signals along Canadian Pacific Railway-owned track east of Watertown to accommodate higher-speed trains.
In Michigan, the DOT and Amtrak have been working to install an Incremental Train Control System on an 80-mile Amtrak-owned segment between Kalamazoo, Mich., and the Indiana state line. Trains currently operate at 90 mph or higher.
And in Ohio, officials are conducting a study to determine what's needed to connect Cleveland to the Midwest regional rail plans.
"Things are coming along," says Wade. "We're doing this very incrementally, step by step."
But in at least one state, high-speed plans have taken a step back. A few years ago, Florida was closer to constructing a high-speed rail system than any other state. The Florida High Speed Rail Authority — created in 2001 by the Florida legislature — had completed preliminary assessments and was beginning to conduct final environmental studies for an initial Tampa-to-Orlando leg. The authority also had chosen a Flour Corp./Bombardier Transportation consortium to design, build, operate, maintain and finance the line.
But in 2003, Gov. Jeb Bush, who opposed building the corridor, vetoed high-speed funding approved by the state legislature. In 2004, he quarterbacked an effort to repeal a state constitution amendment Florida voters approved in 2000 mandating the state construct a high-speed rail system with trains operating at speeds above 120 mph by Nov. 1, 2003. Voters repealed the amendment in November 2004, and while the authority still exists, it hasn't been able to actively pursue high-speed plans. But that could change after Florida elects a new governor; Bush has reached his term limit.
"Since [Gov. Bush] won't allow us to spend money, there's nothing we can do," says authority member C.C. "Doc" Dockery. "He'll be out of office in January and my guess is the Florida High Speed Rail Authority will resume some sort of effort then."
Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Chris has said he favors high-speed rail, and although Democratic candidate Jim Davis has not specifically voiced support, he has helped the state obtain high-speed rail appropriations, says Dockery.
"Repealing the constitutional amendment did not repeal the law. So, if we had the money, it would take about 10 minutes to get the project under way again," he says. "We've finished design and engineering work, which has been approved by the FRA."
Each of the proposed U.S. high-speed rail corridors have their own unique plans and approaches, but the common factor in all of them is Amtrak. The national intercity passenger railroad not only operates the only U.S. high-speed system, but will be a key component in all the proposed lines.
Since beginning revenue service in late 2000, the Boston-to-Washington, D.C. Acela Express has had some snags, from maintenance issues with Bombardier Transportation to cracked brake discs that suspended service for part of 2005. But today, Acela is carrying more passengers and operating more reliably than ever. Last month, on-time performance was up to 94 percent. And in FY2006, ridership grew 9 percent compared with 2005.
In addition, Amtrak's engineering department completed infrastructure improvements that helped the railroad cut five minutes off the New York City-to-Washington, D.C., leg on Oct. 30, says Senior Vice President of Operations William Crosbie.
Also on Oct. 30, Amtrak began operating another high-speed service: the Keystone Corridor. As part of a three-year, $145 million project, Amtrak and the commonwealth of Pennsylvania installed continuous-welded rail, ties and switches along the 104-mile Philadelphia-to-Harrisburg route. Amtrak also rebuilt passenger cars and now operates up to 110 mph electric service on the line.
Amtrak's partnership with Pennsylvania will serve as the railroad's high-speed business model going forward, says Crosbie.
Hopefully, it's a model that Amtrak can begin perfecting with other states soon. If high-speed proponents' optimism is any indication, dedicated funds could come sooner rather than later.
In June, the High Speed Ground Transportation Association became part of APTA and was renamed the High Speed and Intercity Rail Committee. Since then, the committee's membership has risen from 30 to 120 members, who had their first meeting last month at APTA's annual meeting in San Jose, Calif.
The States for Passenger Rail Coalition also has grown since its 2000 inception, now with 28 members. And a year ago, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials — which estimates rail traffic will more than double by 2020 — created a committee to advocate for high-speed and intercity passenger rail.
When all the groups lobby for dedicated high-speed funds next year during the new congressional session, their case might have some new — and, hopefully, rail-supportive — ears to fall on. For example, if the Democrats take control of the House, James Oberstar (D-Minn.), a champion of high-speed rail, would become chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
"To get high-speed funding, it's going to take very strong political leadership," says the Midwest High Speed Rail Association's Harnish.
If the right pieces fell into place, the stage could be set for Congress to finally approve legislation, such as S. 1516. But even if it doesn't, high-speed proponents won't be throwing in the towel.
"I think we've come a long way in last couple of years, but this is going to take a lot of time, just as years back it took airlines a long time to evolve with the FAA; same thing with the interstate highway system," says WisDOT's Busalacchi. "But we are moving in the right direction and we're going to get this done."
Related Topics: