LaHood Announces Guidelines for High-Speed Rail Funding

[jc653]

DOT 81-09

Contact: Mark Paustenbach, Tel.: (202) 366-5408

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

U.S. Transportation Secretary LaHood Announces Guidelines for Receiving Economic Recovery Funds for High-Speed Rail

The Department of Transportation moved another step closer to realizing President Obama’s vision for high-speed rail in America today, publishing guidelines for states and regions to apply for federal funds as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

“The time has finally come for the United States to get serious about building a national network of high-speed rail corridors we can all be proud of,” Secretary Ray LaHood said. “High-speed rail can reduce traffic congestion and link up with light rail, subways and buses to make travel more convenient and our communities more livable.”

The historic commitment to revitalizing the nation’s rail lines by creating high- speed corridors and improving existing service between cities includes an $8 billion competitive grant program and a continuing $1 billion annual investment proposed in the President’s budget.

“Rail travel will encourage economic growth and create new domestic manufacturing jobs, while reducing pressure on our highways and airways,” said Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph Szabo. “In addition to the economic advantages, trains are energy-efficient, capable of reducing billions of pounds of carbons each year from being released into our atmosphere and reducing our country’s reliance on oil.”

Officials from the USDOT and Federal Railroad Administration met with more than 1,000 people across the country to receive input in preparation for developing the program’s grant application guidelines. Vice President Biden and Secretary LaHood also heard from governors and state transportation chiefs at the White House on June 3 about how they hoped to boost their economies with improved passenger rail service.

The guidelines, which can be found at http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/2243, require rigorous financial and environmental planning to make sure projects are worthy of investment and likely to be successful. The program will offer grants for both planning and construction so that states can apply for funds no matter what stage of development their project is in.

The guidance states that proposals will be considered on the merits for their ability to make trips quicker and more convenient reduce congestion on highways and at airports and meet other environmental, energy and safety goals. And it allows the USDOT to actively promote standard specifications for rail cars and other equipment.

The Federal Railroad Administration will award the first round of grants by mid-September.

-END-

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Yesterday I was thinking about the costs of high speed rail. They come very high and I'm not sure people recognize it entirely. I know our local HSR freak doesn't.

Lets put forth a plan to build a 150-200 mph high speed rail system from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh. This is, naturally, covered in the Obama-Biden plan.

Currently, an effective and useful right-of-way, already owned by Amtrak, exists from Philadelphia to Harrisburg. That would require minimal upgrading. Most of the alignment is capable of handling speeds 150+. Some realigning would be needed. You'd need to upgrade the track somewhat in places. Rebuild it to a 4 track main past Downington. I don't recall any grade crossings on that line. This stuff is all pretty simple, I'd say it would cost $5 billion in and of itself.

Harrisburg to Pittsburgh is a whole different bundle. It has to be rebuilt to a 4 track mainline to handle the high speed rail. But not just that. The allignment through the mountains is untenable. No, it would need to be rebuilt entirely. A two track mainline would have to run Harrisburg-Lewistown-Altoona-Johnstown-Pittsburgh. It would have to bypass Tyrone. Moreover, it would have to be drilled through the mountains. The original Broadway would have to be rebuilt anyway to handle locals. I mean this in and of itself is probably a $100 billion project.

Fine, so now we have the mainline built. What kind of service do we need? There are two kinds of trains- locals and express trains. The Express trains would make few stops. Between 4 AM and Midnight, Class Three Express trains would make stops at: New York, Newark, Trenton, Philadelphia, Downington, Lancaster, and Harrisburg, and would run every two hours off peak, every hour on peak. Every other two hours off-peak, a Class Two Express would replicate that run but then continue: Lewistown, Altoona, Pittsburgh, and also run hourly during peak times. A Class One Express would operate hourly during peak, as well as one running at noon, New York, Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and Pittsburgh making no intermediate stops. Total of 3 trains during peak, 1 train an hour otherwise.

Class Three and Class Two trains would make Harrisburg from Philadelphia in about 55 minutes, averaging around 110 miles per hour including stops. Class Two trains would hit Pittsburgh from Philly in about 2 hours, 45 minutes, averaging 130 miles per hour, a 4 hour trip from New York- and a 5 hour, 35 minute improvement over the Pennsylvanian. Class One trains would average about 175 PHL-HAR, and make the trip in about 35 minutes. It would average about 185 mph to Pittsburgh, and make that trip in 1 hour, 54 minutes. Assuming the NEC is not upgraded, that means it could make the New York-PGH trip in 3 hours, 15 minutes.

Equipment? 10 Class One sets (2 Power cars, 6 coaches, cafe, first class), and 30 Class Two/Three sets (EMUs, 10 coaches, cafe, First class). 20 Power Cars, 60 coaches, 10 first class cars, 10 cafe cars, 30 control coach EMUs, 210 coach EMUs, 30 Cafe EMUs, and 30 First Class Control EMUs. Figure $3 Million for the power cars, $2 million for the coaches, $2.5 million for the cafe cars, $3.5 million for control EMUs and food cars, and $3.5 million for coach EMUs. $1.17 billion.

These, naturally, would run on the inner express tracks. In order to justify this, you need local feeders, which would run more offten. Three times an hour off-peak- one NYP-HAR (Class 7 Local), one PHL-HAR (Class 6 Local), and one alternating PHL-PGH (Class 5 Local) and NYP-PGH (Class 4 Local) each hour. They would follow the full Keystone/Pennsylvanian schedule. During peak there would be 3 PHL-HAR, 2 NYP-HAR, 1 NYP-PGH, and 1 PHL-PGH.

They would average about 90 mph over their length and run via the Broadway west of Harrisburg. About an hour and 10 minutes to Harrisburg, about 4 hours to PGH from PHL, about 5h 30 minutes NYP-PGH. The last Class 6 and Class 7 would leave PHL and NYP at 8 pm. (So the last "day train" to PGH would leave PHL at about 9:30).

Class 7 and 6 Locals would consist of a electric locomotive, and 8 coach cars, and a cab-coach. Class 5 Locals would consist of a loco, 7 coach cars, a cafe car, and a business car. Class 4 Locals would consist of a local, 5 coach cars, a buffet-diner (sorta like on the San Joaquins), and 2 Business Class car.

You'd need about 30 Class 6/7 sets, 15 Class 5s, and 15 Class 4s. 60 electric locomotives, 420 coach cars, 30 cab-coach cars, 15 cafes, 15 diners, 45 business class. $4.2 million for the locomotives, 2 million for the coach and business class cars, 2.5 million for the cab-coache cars, 3 million for the cafes, and 3.5 million for the diners. $1.35 billion. You need these to feed the high speed rail.

So wait now. We now have, for this line, 106 Express (53 round trips) trains serving New York, Philly, and Harrisburg. We have 36 Express trains serving Pittsburgh- 18 round trips a day. 184 Local trains (92 round trips) serve PHL and HAR. 28 local trains serving Pittsburgh. 290 trains PHL-HAR, and 64 trains serving Pittsburgh. All the terminals would need substantial upgrades or complete rebuilds. Yards would have to be built.

But wait. There's more. Harrisburg and Pittsburgh will need to develop extensive commuter rail networks. Both towns will also need to develop rapid transit systems. This system could carry a hundred million people a year, and it will if it eliminates the need to drive or fly between any of these citys. But I conservatively estimate the cost at about $400 billion. And we are just talking about a hypothetical system built PHL-PGH and maximized in its potential.

 

[Neil_M]

Wow, talk about over egging the pudding.......

 

[birdy]

Gave it the once over lightly. Some observations:

1. VERY quick deadlines. Stuff has to be filed starting in early July.

2. A prominent disclaimer that the $8 bil is a down payment at the beginning of the document.

3. A heavy emphasis on stimulus. Blighted areas are favored. Evidently no state matching expected for most of the money. Putting economically disadvantaged people to work is discussed as a point in favor of applicants. Putting rail in blighted areas is favored. A general definition of high speed as being 110 mph. But that appears to be the minimum speed. I believe the idea is to help geographic diversity. (Arizona are you even awake?).

4. An interesting 50-50 match program is announced, but with only $90 million in funding. Basically, gov't will match state expenditures at 50-50 without too many questions asked for marginal projects. This suggests to me that the gov't would like to spend a lot of money on this over a long period of time.

Bottom line: If the administration has its way, this is only the beginning.

 

[stntylr]

Texas has had years and years and years of talk about high speed rail. Now that the states basically have to show what they have been doing it turns out that Texas has actually done nothing. None of the required studies have even been started. the state is having a hard enough time putting together 631 million for the SAS-AUS regular train. Wait to they see how much the HSR is going to cost.

 

[jis]

Wow, talk about over egging the pudding.......

You present this kind of analysis when you are trying to convince people that something cannot be done or should not be done

The rest of the world runs all their HSR using two track mains with passing sidings. But in US invariably we have to talk about full four track mains (except in those rare occasions when someone takes the "six tracks or bust" position), when it is not even clear that we have enough potential ridership to justify two.

One was proposing quad tracking the Baltimore B&P Tunnels a few weeks back. When asked which century was someone planning to run more than 25tph on that route on a regular basis and for whom, there was deathly silence.

But all in all it does keep us entertained (says he with tongue firmly planted in his cheeks).

 

[volkris]

3. A heavy emphasis on stimulus. Blighted areas are favored. Evidently no state matching expected for most of the money. Putting economically disadvantaged people to work is discussed as a point in favor of applicants. Putting rail in blighted areas is favored. A general definition of high speed as being 110 mph. But that appears to be the minimum speed. I believe the idea is to help geographic diversity. (Arizona are you even awake?).

Is this running through and constructing through blighted areas, or providing service to blighted areas?

The former seems to be an inefficient detour, but the latter a flat out bad decision.

Blighted cities are beginning to admit that they won't be rebounding to their past populations, and people are moving away to other opportunities. Those aren't exactly the regions that will use this service to its fullest.

 

[Neil_M]

Wow, talk about over egging the pudding.......

You present this kind of analysis when you are trying to convince people that something cannot be done or should not be done

The rest of the world runs all their HSR using two track mains with passing sidings. But in US invariably we have to talk about full four track mains (except in those rare occasions when someone takes the "six tracks or bust" position), when it is not even clear that we have enough potential ridership to justify two.

One was proposing quad tracking the Baltimore B&P Tunnels a few weeks back. When asked which century was someone planning to run more than 25tph on that route on a regular basis and for whom, there was deathly silence.

But all in all it does keep us entertained (says he with tongue firmly planted in his cheeks).

Indeed. You get the feeling that the GML don't want any nice fast modern railways to travel on. Maybe he should try a few and see that 4 tracks is not really needed, a 3 minute interval service can manage quite nicely with 2 tracks and some passing loops with high speed turnouts at stations, thank you very much. No need for GML Fantasy Railroads.

(Although if he could get to Chicago in 3 hours, he would be filling his mush with pizza every day!)

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Wow, talk about over egging the pudding.......

You present this kind of analysis when you are trying to convince people that something cannot be done or should not be done

The rest of the world runs all their HSR using two track mains with passing sidings. But in US invariably we have to talk about full four track mains (except in those rare occasions when someone takes the "six tracks or bust" position), when it is not even clear that we have enough potential ridership to justify two.

One was proposing quad tracking the Baltimore B&P Tunnels a few weeks back. When asked which century was someone planning to run more than 25tph on that route on a regular basis and for whom, there was deathly silence.

But all in all it does keep us entertained (says he with tongue firmly planted in his cheeks).

East of Harrisburg, this line is already quad tracked most of the way. West of Harrisburg, its a freight main. Also, I was figuring on commuter operations sharing the right of way. NIMBYs are less problematic when you can handle everything on one right of way. Regardless, most of the cost we are talking about here is not related to quad-tracking it.

 

[Steve4031]

That pennsy main west of Harrisburg has many curves. Plus the route over the horeshoe curve would not work for hsr. I see gml point about the need for 4 tracks with freigt and all. Really I think a new line would have to be built with a tunnel under the alleghenies. Think Switzerland, or look at italy's lne from Rome to bologna.

 

[SUNSETLIMITED01]

Well I can tell the Florida High Speed Rail and the California High Speed Rail are the ones Obama's looking at.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Well I can tell the Florida High Speed Rail and the California High Speed Rail are the ones Obama's looking at.

I wasn't suggesting they were actually thinking of building such a system. I was merely pointing out the potential costs involved.

 

[SUNSETLIMITED01]

Well I can tell the Florida High Speed Rail and the California High Speed Rail are the ones Obama's looking at.

I wasn't suggesting they were actually thinking of building such a system. I was merely pointing out the potential costs involved.

I know I was just saying that those two HRS routes are likely to happen.

 

[MikefromCrete]

California and the Midwest High Speed Network based in Chicago would seem to have the inside track. I don't Florida has anything to offer at this time. They looked at HSR a few years ago based on a state-wide vote, but later backed down when they found they would actually has to pay for it. Heck, Florida apparently can't even run commuter rail. SunRail has been rejected by the state legislature and Tri-Rail seems to be in jeopardy despite millions spent on double-tracking the route.

 

[AlanB]

I'm certain that the two front runners for a piece of the $8 Billion pie are California and the Chicago area. After that, smaller pieces might go to Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington State. Perhaps NY, Ohio, Penn might see some, slight chance for Mass or Vermont.

I seriously doubt that Florida will even be considered, since it's already looking like Florida is going to have to repay several hundred million dollars for the Tri-Rail double tracking, when Tri-Rail reduces the number of trains it runs each day come this fall. Unless the State Legislature gets its act together and quickly, and at the moment that seems unlikely. Sadly.

 

[George Harris]

Wow, talk about over egging the pudding.......

You present this kind of analysis when you are trying to convince people that something cannot be done or should not be done

The rest of the world runs all their HSR using two track mains with passing sidings. But in US invariably we have to talk about full four track mains (except in those rare occasions when someone takes the "six tracks or bust" position), when it is not even clear that we have enough potential ridership to justify two.

One was proposing quad tracking the Baltimore B&P Tunnels a few weeks back. When asked which century was someone planning to run more than 25tph on that route on a regular basis and for whom, there was deathly silence.

But all in all it does keep us entertained (says he with tongue firmly planted in his cheeks).

Indeed. You get the feeling that the GML don't want any nice fast modern railways to travel on. Maybe he should try a few and see that 4 tracks is not really needed, a 3 minute interval service can manage quite nicely with 2 tracks and some passing loops with high speed turnouts at stations, thank you very much. No need for GML Fantasy Railroads.

(Although if he could get to Chicago in 3 hours, he would be filling his mush with pizza every day!)

Far be it from me to defend the lion, :blush: However: He is right on this one. Neil you are sitting in the UK aren't you where there are or were lots of four track mains. The areas being discussed are NOT going to be four mains for high speed trains. they are going to hve two for high speed trasin and two for commuter, freight, or whatever else there is. Baltimore, for example really needs to have a straight through the middle east west four track, or more tunnel to carry the NEC high speed trains, commuter trains, and both NS and CSX freight trains. For a purely high speed railroad, it will be two main tracks. The intermediate stations will have, as has been done in France, Taiwan, and elsewhere, four tracks, with the mains going through and the platforms adjacent to tracks built for that purpose with high speed turnouts into and out of hte mains. After all, you really don't want a train moveing at 150 mph plus up to the 220 mph planned in California adjacent to a platform at full speed. In additon to the effect on anybody or anything on the platform, there is the need to comply with US ADA requirements to have a car floor level platform with a gap between car and platform edge of 3 inches or less. Smart design says you set the gap at 2 3/4 inches so that minor wobbles in position of things puts you out of complance with the law.

 

[birdy]

By blighted areas I mean like Detroit and Cleveland, not slums. In fact, the proposal emphasizes that those areas will not be singled out as the dumping ground for the less attractive parts of the system.

Re: Double tracking. Saw an article where the French are saying their greatest failing in their TGV was not to double track Paris to Lyon (or at least to allow room for it).

The fact that the administration thinks they can get the construction going fast enough to help with the recession is pretty ambitious.

Re: Florida. If the Floridians have to stop being Crackers before we build HSR there, we will never get anywhere. These are federal projects. Have the states put in their application and then go from there at a federal level.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

You know, not so long ago when I was a teenager I wanted to save the world. I have since found out they have me outnumbered. People are their own worst enemy.

Its gotta be a fast train. But it can't go near my school. Or my house. Or make noise, or use electricity, or effect my life in any way. It must stop near me but must be able to make good time. It has to stop at every Podunk and Lightsville, but it has to run express. It has to be built, and the tickets have to be cheap. But god damnit, don't raise my freakin' taxes.

Pfui.

 

[jis]

You know, not so long ago when I was a teenager I wanted to save the world. I have since found out they have me outnumbered. People are their own worst enemy.
Its gotta be a fast train. But it can't go near my school. Or my house. Or make noise, or use electricity, or effect my life in any way. It must stop near me but must be able to make good time. It has to stop at every Podunk and Lightsville, but it has to run express. It has to be built, and the tickets have to be cheap. But god damnit, don't raise my freakin' taxes.

Pfui.

I agree. And it is not just trains. It is almost anything else too. Ever since people started believing in the fairy tale that by reducing taxes you collect more money under all circumstances they have developed this cognitive dissonance with reality. They really have developed a sense of entitlement that the government must provide their every need as and when they appear but when it comes time to pay, taxes must continuously be reduced.

But then, this is now getting OT, so, I'll shut up and not feel too bad at all if the Moderators redacted this rant.

 

[jis]

Far be it from me to defend the lion, :blush: However: He is right on this one. Neil you are sitting in the UK aren't you where there are or were lots of four track mains. The areas being discussed are NOT going to be four mains for high speed trains. they are going to hve two for high speed trasin and two for commuter, freight, or whatever else there is. Baltimore, for example really needs to have a straight through the middle east west four track, or more tunnel to carry the NEC high speed trains, commuter trains, and both NS and CSX freight trains. For a purely high speed railroad, it will be two main tracks. The intermediate stations will have, as has been done in France, Taiwan, and elsewhere, four tracks, with the mains going through and the platforms adjacent to tracks built for that purpose with high speed turnouts into and out of hte mains. After all, you really don't want a train moveing at 150 mph plus up to the 220 mph planned in California adjacent to a platform at full speed. In additon to the effect on anybody or anything on the platform, there is the need to comply with US ADA requirements to have a car floor level platform with a gap between car and platform edge of 3 inches or less. Smart design says you set the gap at 2 3/4 inches so that minor wobbles in position of things puts you out of complance with the law.

The problem is that we have a tendency to try to boil the ocean instead of solving one problem at a time. If we want HSR we should concentrate on that and not worry about commuter trains and freight trains. Placing requirements like having the ability to have freight trains use the same ROW as HSR, even though on different tracks actually harms the HSR. A well designed HSR can easily tolerate 4% gradients and run relatively straight through rolling country through a mix of viaducts and tunnels. But as soon as you want a freight to use it suddenly your 4% is gone and the track become longer to accommodate the gradients that can be tolerated by freights. There are similar issue with cant and cant deficiencies. Also allowing heavy axle loads of freights on HS tracks makes it much harder to maintain HSR tracks. That may be one of the reasons that even on the NEC ride quality absolutely sucks when compared to ride quality on the Shinkansen or the LGV even at considerably higher speeds.

So yes, we might want to build four tracks, but it does not follow that all four have to be part of the same project. It is better to think of them as two separable projects with different goals and requirements for each. Unless we start thinking in those terms we will never get HSR in this country. Nor would the French, Germans, Japanese, and even the British have gotten real HSR if they insisted on building a single railroad with umpteen tracks on the same ROW to accommodate everything from a milk run to a super duper HSR.

So I agree that at stations there should be four tracks and the platforms should be on the sidings. But I get really worried when people talk about 4 track HS mains capable of carrying everything from HSR to coal trains, or nothing. 'Cause what we will get is precisely nothing if we stick to that approach

 

[jis]

East of Harrisburg, this line is already quad tracked most of the way. West of Harrisburg, its a freight main. Also, I was figuring on commuter operations sharing the right of way. NIMBYs are less problematic when you can handle everything on one right of way. Regardless, most of the cost we are talking about here is not related to quad-tracking it.

Leaving aside for the moment that it is quad tracked less than half of the way and it is at least double tracked all the way ....

So I sympathize with your overarching sentiment to want to solve every known problem that exists between PHL and PGH in one fell swoop.

However, let me also point out that what is there in the current ROW between HAR and PHL is of little relevance if you are really interested in HSR, since that ROW is not suitable for real HSR, as opposed to pokey 125mph HSR. Same is true for HAR to PGH current alignment. Yes we could get trains to run maybe at 125mph on a few segments on that ROW, but that really is medium speed railway by world standards. Back in the 60s that was HSR, not today.

I agree that most of the expense for building true HSR will be in acquisition of ROW and that is why I would suggest that we start with what is truly needed for getting HSR, i.e. a relatively straight ROW with gradients that will not be suitable for freight and the super-elevation on the curves will also not be suitable for slow speed freights. Also it would help to get some idea of what kind of traffic might be offered on such an HSR if it were built.

Of course if all we are talking about is 110mph - 125mph "HSR" then I guess I am whistling in the wind, and I am happy to cease doing so.

But I do find restricting ourselves to 125mph HSR a little odd, and the attitude that only existing ROWs must be used to achieve whatever at cross-purposes to the desire of having a true HSR network. Can you imagine what our Interstate Highway system would look like today if it was developed only along existing ROWs. They would be at least as goofy as the Northern and Southern State Parkways on LI if not considerably worse.

 

[AAARGH!]

By blighted areas I mean like Detroit and Cleveland, not slums. In fact, the proposal emphasizes that those areas will not be singled out as the dumping ground for the less attractive parts of the system.

I'm not sure in what context you consider Cleveland blighted? You say 'not slums', so your's and my definition of blighted are diffferent, so how do you consider Cleveland blighted?

Not challenging you (well sort of a bit I guess), but am curious.

 

[gaspeamtrak]

Wow, talk about over egging the pudding.......

Now Neil! Be nice!!!

 

[Neil_M]

Wow, talk about over egging the pudding.......

Now Neil! Be nice!!!

Trust me,that was nice!!!

 

[Green Maned Lion]

East of Harrisburg, this line is already quad tracked most of the way. West of Harrisburg, its a freight main. Also, I was figuring on commuter operations sharing the right of way. NIMBYs are less problematic when you can handle everything on one right of way. Regardless, most of the cost we are talking about here is not related to quad-tracking it.

Leaving aside for the moment that it is quad tracked less than half of the way and it is at least double tracked all the way ....

So I sympathize with your overarching sentiment to want to solve every known problem that exists between PHL and PGH in one fell swoop.

However, let me also point out that what is there in the current ROW between HAR and PHL is of little relevance if you are really interested in HSR, since that ROW is not suitable for real HSR, as opposed to pokey 125mph HSR. Same is true for HAR to PGH current alignment. Yes we could get trains to run maybe at 125mph on a few segments on that ROW, but that really is medium speed railway by world standards. Back in the 60s that was HSR, not today.

I agree that most of the expense for building true HSR will be in acquisition of ROW and that is why I would suggest that we start with what is truly needed for getting HSR, i.e. a relatively straight ROW with gradients that will not be suitable for freight and the super-elevation on the curves will also not be suitable for slow speed freights. Also it would help to get some idea of what kind of traffic might be offered on such an HSR if it were built.

Of course if all we are talking about is 110mph - 125mph "HSR" then I guess I am whistling in the wind, and I am happy to cease doing so.

But I do find restricting ourselves to 125mph HSR a little odd, and the attitude that only existing ROWs must be used to achieve whatever at cross-purposes to the desire of having a true HSR network. Can you imagine what our Interstate Highway system would look like today if it was developed only along existing ROWs. They would be at least as goofy as the Northern and Southern State Parkways on LI if not considerably worse.

I wasn't suggesting that we create this impressive half-a-trillion dollar "Philly-Pitt High Speed Rail" project and sell it to Congress. In the end, whether you do it over 3 years as one project with every construction worker in the land working on it, or you do it over 40 as a bunch of smaller projects, the cost of building that line, and then creating the infrastructure to make use of its potential is going to be that much. Or more, if you break it up. If we roll the passenger trains exclusively over a somewhat realigned Broadway, then a line has to be built over which to move the displaced freight. No matter how you look at it, the money has to be spent.