High-speed Rail - Greater Greater Washington

Shuster gets transportation chair

Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:46:00 EDT

Bill Shuster (R-PA) will chair the House Transportation Committee. He supports high-speed rail, but only privatized and in the Northeast Corridor, and wants more focus on highways and less on bike paths. (Streetsblog)

Comment

GOP transportation bill's new direction is the same old one (Jul 11, 2011)
Transportation in Congress roundup: Leaders agree on extension, GOP would kill Amtrak, & Obama proposal (Sep 12, 2011)
House GOP moves to decimate transit funding (Feb 2, 2012)
Stimulus compromise won't cut transit (Feb 7, 2009)
House GOP would wipe out local control over bike/ped funds (Jun 8, 2012)

Obama on transportation

Mon, 05 Nov 2012 08:29:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

President Obama's achievements in transportation policy include Ray LaHood as DOT Secretary, the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, TIGER grants, and taking steps toward high-speed rail. (Streetsblog)

Comment

Obama supports congestion pricing (Mar 28, 2008)
Transportation in Congress roundup: Leaders agree on extension, GOP would kill Amtrak, & Obama proposal (Sep 12, 2011)
Flashback: Obama once led push for "Complete Streets" (May 28, 2009)

Amtrak speeds up in the Midwest

Thu, 25 Oct 2012 08:31:00 EDT

by Thaddeus Bell

An Amtrak train in Illinois hit 111 mph in a demonstration run, faster than any Amtrak train outside the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak says 75% of the Chicago-St. Louis route will be high speed by 2015. (Grid Chicago)

Comment

Amtrak celebrates 40 years today (May 1, 2011)
Northeast, California win big in high speed rail grants (May 9, 2011)
Gas prices: Obama still gets it; Friedman slams Clinton (Apr 30, 2008)
Amtrak makes no little plans with Union Station vision (Jul 26, 2012)
Why isn't an Amtrak ticket cheaper in the Northeast? (Aug 22, 2011)

And...

Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:23:00 EDT

by Thaddeus Bell

Amtrak will test trains at 165 mph along the Northeast Corridor. (Examiner) ... Louisville uses 3D printers to share plans with the public. (Atlantic Cities) ... Philadelphia builds a park for $50,000. (Next American City) ... A commuter tax is unlikely. (Examiner)

Comment

HSR could get you to Boston in 3 hours, but it's pricey (Sep 29, 2010)
Amtrak celebrates 40 years today (May 1, 2011)
Are private operations on the Northeast Corridor the means to an end, or just an end? (Jun 20, 2011)
Post unfairly criticizes California high-speed rail (Jan 13, 2011)
Why isn't an Amtrak ticket cheaper in the Northeast? (Aug 22, 2011)

And...

Mon, 17 Sep 2012 08:14:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Virginia gets high-speed rail money in the nick of time. (Examiner) ... A Bethesda pedestrian detour is dangerous at night. (RD@BR) ... A proposed hotel near Nationals Park will have neither ground-floor retail nor on-site parking. (JDLand)

Comment

Guess the location: pedestrian street (Oct 21, 2008)
Our transportation priorities (Jun 17, 2008)
Rein's "OMG $15 billion" Tysons costs include transportation far from Tysons (Oct 30, 2009)
Maryland worried about new transit-hostile FTA (Feb 8, 2008)
Time to fast-track the southern Bethesda Metro entrance (Nov 2, 2010)

GOP on transportation

Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:17:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Republicans officially want to cut Amtrak and high speed rail funding and think President Obama's investments in infrastructure have been for "an exclusively urban vision of dense housing and government transit." (Streetsblog)

Comment

"Everyone benefits if we can leave our cars" (Nov 20, 2008)
GO VOTE (Nov 4, 2008)
High-speed rail, here we come (Feb 12, 2009)
Presidential candidates on transit, cycling and walking (Jan 31, 2008)
Transportation in Congress roundup: Leaders agree on extension, GOP would kill Amtrak, & Obama proposal (Sep 12, 2011)

Amtrak makes no little plans with Union Station vision

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:07:00 EDT

by Matt Johnson

Yesterday, Amtrak released a master plan to guide Union Station's growth over the next several decades. The ambitious proposal includes several key components that will make the station easier to use, increase its capacity, and ensure a strong foundation for the transportation center.

Images from Amtrak.

It's somewhat fitting that this ambitious plan is attached to Union Station. The architect who designed the Beaux-Arts main station building, Daniel Burnham, is known for saying, "Make no little plans. They do not have the magic to stir men's blood."

This plan is a big plan. And at an estimated $7 billion, it's an expensive plan. But it has many needed pieces. It will triple Union Station's passenger capacity and double the number of trains.

Union Station needs to grow

According to Amtrak's Stephen Gardner, since the station was rebuilt in 1988, the station's annual passenger volumes have risen by more than 2 million trips. In 1988, MARC's daily ridership was a mere 5,000. Today it's passed beyond 33,000. The station has outgrown its capacity, and many of the stations tracks, platforms, and other facilities are old and do not meet ADA requirements.

As the plan makes clear, deferring action is not an option. Additional capacity is needed to accommodate the thousands of additional daily riders expected over the next several years.

Union Station is the second-busiest Amtrak station in the nation, falling only behind New York's Penn Station. It handles an estimated 100,000 passenger trips each day, but the station is home to outdated infrastructure and crowded spaces.

The Union Station Master Plan sets out a framework for rebuilding and expanding the station over the next 20 years. The first 3 phases of the project are expected to cost somewhere between $6.5 and $7.5 billion, and will greatly expand capacity and usability.

Funding is not identified in the document. The region will likely need to contribute a good deal, but the station is in federal ownership and is the southern end of Amtrak's busiest rail corridor, so some investment can be expected from outside the region.

What would a better Union Station look like?

The vision lays out a plan to improve much of the station. Here are the key elements:

Platforms and tracks are going to be redone completely. The plan is actually to reduce the number of tracks at the station, but to make use of them more efficiently. Currently, there are 20 tracks at the station. At the end of Phase 3, there will be just 18.

However, one major and early component of the project will be to lengthen and widen the platforms. Additionally, Amtrak wants to remove the parking garage above the tracks, which will let it keep the new platforms clear of obstructions like the large columns that crowd the platforms now.

While all VRE trains and the Superliner cars that Amtrak uses on its Capitol Limited can only use low-level platforms, the majority of trains operating at Union Station are designed to use high platforms. When those cars stop on a low-level platform, passengers have to navigate stairs to board and alight.

The lower level of the station currently has 6 platform tracks, all of which are low-level platforms. These tracks have access to the First Street Tunnel, which allows trains to continue south toward L'Enfant Plaza and Virginia.

Under the plan, Amtrak will add 2 new platform tracks, for a total of 8 on the lower level. 5 tracks will have high-level platforms and 3 will have low-levels.

On the upper level, the plan includes 10 high-level platforms. These are the stub-end platforms that will end directly behind the station building.

Phase 4 adds 6 (and potentially up to 9) underground tracks specifically for the NextGen Northeast High-Speed Rail. Those tracks will be built under the Upper Level platforms, and 3 will be able to extend further south under the station building to connect with the proposed Southeast High-Speed Rail to Virginia and North Carolina.

Each platform will have access at three points: at the southern and northern ends of the platforms and also in the middle.

Concourses will provide routes through the complex.

Running down the central axis of the station is a major pathway called the Central Concourse. The Central Concourse will be located one level below the tracks, starting in the area that is currently the food court.

The corridor will be 50 feet wide, and open above, with the ceiling about 100 feet up. This concourse will connect the main station building to each of the three east-west concourses that provide access to the tracks. It will also connect to the consolidated bus terminal at its northern end.

Concourse A is the current train concourse, located one level above the Central Concourse at the southern end of the platforms. It will connect the Great Hall to the train platforms, and will also include a connection to the Central Concourse.

The plan calls for most Amtrak passengers to use Concourse A to access platforms, but the platforms will be open to all passengers from any of the entrances.

Concourse B, located in the middle of the platforms, and Concourse C, located at the north end of the platforms, will primarily serve commuter rail patrons. Waiting areas for commuter trains will sit along Concourses B and C. These concourses will be on the same level as the Central Concourse, one story down from the platforms.

Additionally, a north-south connection will run along the western edge of the station, called the West Concourse. This concourse will start at the northern entrance to the Metro station and run all the way along the station to Concourse C. Along the way it will link to several new entrances along First Street NE.

One additional east-west corridor, called the Market Passage, will facilitate movement through the station, but will not provide access to the platforms. The Market Passage runs along the area currently occupied by the closed H Street underpass. It will link a new entrance on First Street NE west of the station to one on 2nd Street NE on the east side of the station.

New design will shift station's architecture

While Burnham's structure will still remain a major element of Union Station, the complex's center of gravity will shift northward.

Above the Central Concourse, Amtrak plans to create a high trainshed that will let light into the platform and concourse areas. At the northern end, a new entrance on H Street will give passengers access to H Street and the Burnham Place development over the tracks along H.

The design of the northern end of the station will be quite different from the Beaux-Arts headhouse on Columbus Circle. But it will give the station an airy, light-filled interior.

Transit will connect far better

The plan calls for greatly improving transit connections in and around the station.

On the lowest level of the station, the plan suggests removing lots of the walls. Opening up the space that's currently the food court will allow easier access between the Metro and the Central Concourse.

Designs show a much more open area around the north mezzanine entrance to the Metro station. It includes 2 new escalators which will drop customers closer to the center of the Metro platform. These new escalators will be in addition to the 2 new elevators and staircase that Metro has already proposed to add.

Lower level of Union Station at the Metro entrance.

The plan makes reference to another new Metro line. But since WMATA is not actively planning such a line (yet) and hasn't chosen an alignment, the plan is silent about how a second Metro platform would fit into the new designs.

As for the DC Streetcar, the plan calls for platforms on the Hopscotch Bridge, immediately outside the new H Street entrance pavilion.

Intercity and tour buses will move to a new consolidated bus terminal beneath the tracks just south of K Street, linked to the rest of the station by the Central and West concourses.

Is there too much parking?

One possible way to cut the project's costs would be to reduce the parking in the plan.

The current parking garage, located above the station's upper level platforms, has about 2,200 parking spaces. The plan calls for building 5,000 spaces to replace the spaces in the deck and expand capacity. And a good portion of those 5,000 spaces would be built underground within the station site.

Amtrak is proposing this increase in the parking despite its expectation that the number of people accessing trains by car at Union Station will drop. Amtrak feels the parking needs to be included for employees and shoppers at the station complex.

As the region's preeminent transit hub, Union Station can probably succeed without so much expensive subterranean parking.

Plan has magic to stir the blood

Seeing Amtrak's vision for Union Station is exciting. The redesign of the station will create a truly magnificent transportation hub for and gateway into the region.

In 30 years, surely our children will find Burnham prescient. His famous quote ends, "Remember that our sons and grandsons are going to do things that would stagger us. Let your watchword be order and your beacon beauty. Think big." Burnham designed the foundation, but he certainly would be amazed to see this Amtrak vision realized.

74 comments

Union Station Intermodal Transportation Center meeting tonight (May 29, 2008)
Amtrak & Akridge imagine the future of Union Station (Jul 25, 2012)
Expanded mezzanine planned for Union Station Metro (Jul 29, 2010)
Halethorpe getting a MARC station replacement (May 13, 2010)
Plan envisions decking railroad, adding 4th track in SW DC (Jul 17, 2012)

Privately-developed maglev?

Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:32:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

A private firm is lobbying to build a high-speed maglev line between Washington and New York, promising a travel time of an hour between the two cities. This proposal is unrelated to Amtrak's high-speed rail plan. (Post, Mel D.)

Comment

Post unfairly criticizes California high-speed rail (Jan 13, 2011)
HSR could get you to Boston in 3 hours, but it's pricey (Sep 29, 2010)
Gas prices: Obama still gets it; Friedman slams Clinton (Apr 30, 2008)
Amtrak celebrates 40 years today (May 1, 2011)
Bush threatening veto of Amtrak funding (Jun 10, 2008)

Amtrak eyes larger Union Station

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:13:00 EDT

by Thaddeus Bell

The long-term plan for faster Acela service includes building a high speed train station underneath Union Station. Improvements could lead to a 94 minute ride from DC to New York. (WBJ)

Comment

Amtrak celebrates 40 years today (May 1, 2011)
Building over Union Station rail yards (Jan 22, 2008)
Weekend video: Amtrak: The First 40 Years (May 7, 2011)
The eternal question: New York via train or bus? (Aug 3, 2010)
Why all the wailing over the Union Station railyard project? (Jan 24, 2011)

Make the NEC high-speed, gradually

Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:36:00 EDT

by David Alpert

A new Amtrak vision would gradually upgrade the Northeast Corridor to high-speed rail, with more Acela trains and some higher speeds in 2017 up to real high-speed in 2040. (TN)

Comment

Amtrak celebrates 40 years today (May 1, 2011)
Post unfairly criticizes California high-speed rail (Jan 13, 2011)
HSR could get you to Boston in 3 hours, but it's pricey (Sep 29, 2010)
Northeast, California win big in high speed rail grants (May 9, 2011)
FY11 budget threatens national high-speed rail network (Apr 14, 2011)

California moves ahead with high-speed rail

Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:36:00 EDT

by Thaddeus Bell

The California State Senate approved funds to start high-speed rail on a segment in the Central Valley, ultimately to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles. Without the vote, California would have lost federal money. (Streetsblog)

Comment

Post unfairly criticizes California high-speed rail (Jan 13, 2011)
Northeast, California win big in high speed rail grants (May 9, 2011)
High-speed rail, here we come (Feb 12, 2009)
LaHood, Biden meet with governors on high-speed rail (Jun 3, 2009)
GO VOTE (Nov 4, 2008)

California's loss is Northeast's gain

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 08:46:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

California will likely lose its High Speed Rail funding because it won't break ground in time. If it does, that money could go to the Northeast Corridor where plenty of good projects await. (Pedestrian Observations)

Comment

Northeast, California win big in high speed rail grants (May 9, 2011)
Post unfairly criticizes California high-speed rail (Jan 13, 2011)
Stimulus compromise won't cut transit (Feb 7, 2009)
GO VOTE (Nov 4, 2008)
LaHood, Biden meet with governors on high-speed rail (Jun 3, 2009)

And...

Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:04:00 EDT

by David Edmondson

Bikeshare stations on the Mall are now consistently among the top 10 busiest. (Examiner) ... Virginia's counties don't want to be on the hook for roadwork. (Post) ... Bill Clinton led a large and international Lincoln Heights community clean-up effort. (DCist) ... California's High Speed Rail cuts costs by $30 billion under a new business plan. (NARP)

Comment

Park Service will allow CaBi on the Mall (Sep 6, 2011)
NPS hasn't asked its concessionaire about bike sharing (Oct 19, 2010)
Capital Bikeshare comes to the Mall, already (Mar 16, 2012)
Where should 25 new Capital Bikeshare stations go? (Apr 20, 2011)
What's wrong with these pictures? (Apr 6, 2011)

Florida HSR would have been profitable

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 08:40:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Governor Rick Scott canceled Florida's high-speed rail a year ago and refused $2 billion in federal funds. But, a new analysis shows, if he had accepted the money the line would have run a surplus. (TBO)

Comment

Northeast, California win big in high speed rail grants (May 9, 2011)
Stimulus compromise won't cut transit (Feb 7, 2009)
FY11 budget threatens national high-speed rail network (Apr 14, 2011)
LaHood, Biden meet with governors on high-speed rail (Jun 3, 2009)
The federally tilted playing field on transportation (Sep 10, 2007)

A tale of two high-speed rails

Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:11:00 EDT

by David Edmondson

California would do well to learn from Spain's high-speed rail system. The Spanish system cut car travel in half in its service area. (Sacramento Bee)

Comment

Post unfairly criticizes California high-speed rail (Jan 13, 2011)
CA high-speed rail interactive map (May 20, 2008)
Northeast, California win big in high speed rail grants (May 9, 2011)
LaHood, Biden meet with governors on high-speed rail (Jun 3, 2009)
Then and Now: The former Spanish Embassy (Sep 14, 2009)

Slowing China's trains

Sat, 14 Jan 2012 09:49:00 EDT

by David Edmondson

While China excels at splashy high-speed trains, its low-speed train system and back-end management is what needs the investment. (Economist)

Comment

China proposes car-straddling buses (or are they trains?) (Aug 4, 2010)
VA wants more rail, needs money (Apr 26, 2008)
MARC will run more, shorter trains (Jan 25, 2011)
Gas prices: Obama still gets it; Friedman slams Clinton (Apr 30, 2008)
How track circuits detect and protect trains (Mar 5, 2010)

Florida's almost-rail

Sat, 14 Jan 2012 09:49:00 EDT

by David Edmondson

Florida Governor Rick Scott nearly took federal high-speed rail funding but rejected it because the feds were unwilling to also pay for dredging Florida's ports. The money ultimately was distributed elsewhere. (The Hill)

Comment

Northeast, California win big in high speed rail grants (May 9, 2011)
FY11 budget threatens national high-speed rail network (Apr 14, 2011)
LaHood, Biden meet with governors on high-speed rail (Jun 3, 2009)
VA wants more rail, needs money (Apr 26, 2008)
High-speed rail, here we come (Feb 12, 2009)

DOT fixes disaster damage, spares HSR

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:08:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

The US DOT was able to fund nearly $1.6 billion in disaster repairs without raiding high-speed rail funds, much to the chagrin of some House Republicans. (Streetsblog)

Comment

Stimulus compromise won't cut transit (Feb 7, 2009)
High-speed rail, here we come (Feb 12, 2009)
LaHood, Biden meet with governors on high-speed rail (Jun 3, 2009)
Debt deal could mean more painful cuts for transportation (Aug 1, 2011)
GOP transportation bill's new direction is the same old one (Jul 11, 2011)

Senate slightly saves HSR

Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:33:00 EDT

by David Alpert

The Senate appropriations committee restored a tiny bit of funding, $100 million, for high-speed rail. It's far less than the $8 billion the Obama administration wanted, but more than the $0 the House wanted. (Streetsblog)

Comment

NJ rep takes money from NJ rails

Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:41:00 EDT

by David Alpert

New Jersey Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen added an appropriations amendment to cut all the HSR money awarded to the Northeast Corridor and use it for Mississippi River flood control. (Star-Ledger)

Comment

Nadler transit amendment passes on voice vote (Jan 28, 2009)
Northeast, California win big in high speed rail grants (May 9, 2011)
FY11 budget threatens national high-speed rail network (Apr 14, 2011)
NJ school discourages bicycling (May 6, 2008)
New Jersey says no to FTA money. What would you build? (Oct 6, 2010)

Let's explore gentrification together with Clybourne Park

Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:15:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Clybourne Park, the award-winning play about gentrification, is coming back to DC this summer, and Greater Greater Washington is organizing a group outing to the show on July 28. We can think and talk about what gentrification means to DC at that performance, and also tonight at a panel with Veronica Davis.

The play draws on the 1959 play A Raisin in the Sun, where an African-American family, the Youngers, try to buy a house in the white Clybourne Park suburb of Chicago just as racial restrictions on homeownership are crumbling.

Clybourne Park shows the same house from the perspective of the white family that sold it to the Youngers and the community's treatment of that family. The second act jumps to the modern day, when a young white couple has bought the very same house, representing another wave of demographic change as what's now a predominantly black neighborhood stands on the cusp of gentrification.

The play ran at the Woolly Mammoth theater last year, and I enjoyed it tremendously. Woolly brought it back this year, and since then it's won both the Pulitzer and Helen Hayes awards.

We've arranged a special Greater Greater Washington night on July 28. All tickets to that performance are 15% off if you use the code 1186 when you buy tickets online or on the phone. In addition, we'll have a happy hour in the Woolly's lobby. Everyone who buys a ticket with the code gets $1 off beer or wine. We'll gather starting at 6, and the show begins at 8.

You can also start learning and talking about gentrification even sooner—tonight, in fact. GGW contributor Veronica Davis is participating in a panel, "The Gentrification of Chocolate City—Reality vs. Perception," hosted by the Greater Washington Urban League. It's at 6:45 pm at the NPR building, 635 Massachusetts Ave NW (Metro: Gallery Place).

Tomorrow midday is another interesting panel, "Better Transportation By Design," discussing how design can help create a better high-speed rail program. It's part of the Van Alen Institute's "Life at the Speed of Rail" event announcing winners of a design competition around HSR.

It starts at 12:30 at the National Building Museum, 401 F Street, NW (Metro: Judiciary Square). It's free but RSVPs are requested at rsvp@vanalen.org.

Monday is Arlington's CaBi expansion meeting; if you can't go, you can submit your suggestions for locations.

And don't forget about our Greater Greater Washington trip to the Anacostia Community Museum and Art Gallery on July 10. There's still some room so RSVP here.

6 comments

"Clybourne Park" raises gentrification's tough questions (Apr 5, 2010)
Join GGW at Anacostia Community Museum & Art Gallery (Jun 15, 2011)
GGW discusses: Displacement versus gentrification (Feb 17, 2011)
On the calendar: Happy hour tonight on H Street, plus Alexandria tour, open data, BRAC, Connecticut Ave (Jul 14, 2010)
Party with Greater Greater Washington tonight (Dec 8, 2009)

Are private operations on the Northeast Corridor the means to an end, or just an end?

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:10:00 EDT

by Yonah Freemark

House Republicans have proposed "privatizing" Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, keeping the tracks publicly owned but contracting out operations to a private operator. But without more federal funds to improve the corridor, this won't accomplish much.

Photo by tracktwentynine on Flickr.

In order to take advantage of the roadways effectively, bus drivers—not to mention car drivers—do not need to take possession of said roads. Indeed, they need only to be in possession of a vehicle that can navigate along the streets and be able to pay for fuel, part of whose cost returns to cover many of the expenses required to build and maintain the roads. Many different vehicles, owned by many different people or organizations, can share the roads, usually without problems.

Sometimes, there are accidents, which can be mostly avoided through proper design of the roadways, and there is sometimes congestion, which can be relieved through road fees. Fundamentally, the system works: There are vehicle owners, usually private individuals, and there are infrastructure owners, usually the public sector, and they get along fine.

All of this, I know, is obvious. But when it comes to rail transportation, this formula has been avoided, especially in the U.S. The owner of railroad tracks usually is also the operator of trains along them. When other operators want to move their own trains in, conflicts typically erupt.

The frequent disagreements about acceptable service levels between national rail operator Amtrak and freight railroads on tracks that the latter owns (and which it isn't very happy to share) are indicative of this problem. But these disagreements are not irreconcilable.

Indeed, an infrastructure owner that is able to arbitrate between competing operators could be more effective in producing efficient service for everyone than might be an owner-operator, which discriminates against other operators.

In this context, last week's revealing of House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica's (R-FL) plan for the Northeast Corridor raises a number of interesting questions. Convinced of the value of private sector competition and promoting a pull-out of the federal government from every public service imaginable, Mr. Mica has submitted a proposal that attempts to re-imagine the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak's flagship route and the nation's most-traveled intercity rail line, as a place where, fundamentally, the rules of the road—but not the railroad—could apply.

The bill (draft text) would force Amtrak to abandon its control of (much of) the Northeast Corridor between Washington and Boston, handing it over to the Department of Transportation, which in turn would lease it to an "Executive Committee."

Amtrak would have to give up all of its assets and it would lose federal funding. The Committee, in charge of infrastructure and setting pricing policies, would then engage a public-private partnership (PPP) with a private group, which would commit to upgrading the line and then operating trains to offer two-hour trips between New York and Washington and 2h30 between New York and Boston—within ten years, twenty years more quickly than Amtrak has said it would be able to make roughly the same improvements.

Mr. Mica also claims that this could be done at a cheaper price than Amtrak's $117 billion proposal.

Outside of the Northeast, states would have to offer their rail corridors to competitive bidding; current subsidies to Amtrak would simply be redistributed to the winners of those operations bids.

Despite the wide-ranging proposed effects of the bill as summarized, the manner in which any of this would be implemented remains incredibly unclear. How would intercity rail operators interact with the freight and commuter railroads that also use the tracks, in the Northeast and elsewhere? If a PPP were implemented, how much would the government agree to commit to pay for improvements?

Unfortunately, the bill would not provide a realistic way to promote true operational competition. Nor does it would it offer a promise of actual federal support to fund an upgrade of the corridor, which seems unlikely to be sponsored by private entities alone. Most problematic would be the transfer of authority over the line's management to the currently non-existant Executive Committee, whose ability to make decisions about rail properties has yet to be tested, let alone proven.

Fortunately, the proposal is unlikely to make it through the Senate, where Democrats and other Republican supporters of Amtrak are likely to prevent the bill from passing even if it makes it through the House. The American intercity rail system and the governance bodies that oversee it at the federal and state levels are too underdeveloped to be able to guarantee that this semi-privatization wouldn't be a disaster.

But Mr. Mica's bill does articulate a number of policy changes that could play an important role in shoring up passenger service in the Northeast. The status quo, in which Amtrak operates relatively infrequent and slow passenger trains within the nation's most important megaregion, certainly is not ideal. If managed appropriately, the separation of track ownership and line operations could allow for a situation in which multiple operators offer competing services along the same routes, just as Megabus and Bolt Bus compete for the most customers on I-95.

In mainland Europe, E.U. regulations have mandated that national rail companies like France's SNCF or Germany's DB allow other operators (in many cases, SNCF and DB affiliates) to run trains between similar destinations. Though I am not convinced that this will produce universally positive results, it will at least likely result in lower fares for customers on the most heavily trafficked rail corridors.

And focusing on the most-used lines is clearly Mr. Mica's goal; according to the bill, the second-highest stated priority for potential investors are "activities that benefit the greatest number of passengers" (just after safety). Amtrak's current policies do not exactly fit that bill since they are designed to push lower-income individuals (like myself) onto slower and less comfortable intercity buses.

Yet the Mica proposal would not produce true competition in rail operations. It would encourage competition in rail operations contracts. Rather than invest in the infrastructure and then open up the rights to use tracks, the PPP structure as proposed would be a build-operate-maintain system in which one private group would invest in improvements and then have control over operations, which it would perform itself.

Mr. Mica has repeatedly referred to Amtrak as a "Soviet-Style" system because it has a monopoly over its services, but it is hard to see how a PPP extended over a long contract would be any different, except that it would charge even higher prices to make up for the initial cost of capital improvements and—even worse—it would be literally banned from cross-subsidizing other services with the profits, according to the proposed bill. Is this in the public interest?

The biggest question of all, though, is whether Mr. Mica is in complete denial about the extent of either the private sector's ingenuity or their collective willingness to invest in public infrastructure. While it may sound nice, asserting that corporations can rebuild the Northeast Corridor in 10 years at a far lower cost to the taxpayers than Amtrak has proposed could is a stretch. And even a $50 billion upgrade would be larger than any single private investment in infrastructure ever in the U.S. What evidence does Mr. Mica have that a plan like this could move forward?

Cross-posted on The Transport Politic.

19 comments

Amtrak celebrates 40 years today (May 1, 2011)
Northeast, California win big in high speed rail grants (May 9, 2011)
HSR could get you to Boston in 3 hours, but it's pricey (Sep 29, 2010)
Can a private model build the transit we need? (Feb 8, 2010)
FY11 budget threatens national high-speed rail network (Apr 14, 2011)

Transportation is political in Virginia

Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:57:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Sean Connaughton defends his decision not to apply for HSR money for Virginia, but Peter Galuszka says he's leaving out some factors. (Post) ... Republican challengers in Alexandria and Fairfax are attacking incumbents over BRAC, but Democrats note the decision came from the Bush administration. (WAMU)

Comment

McDonnell trying to take WMATA seats from NoVA (Jun 4, 2010)
Virginia Republican pursuing vendetta against Arlington for not wanting to be a "giant interchange" (Jan 25, 2011)
Alexandria delegate candidates apparently haven't heard of transit (Jan 11, 2009)
Where's Bob? McDonnell MIA on Metro funding (Feb 16, 2011)
For Congress in Virginia and DC State Board of Education (Nov 1, 2010)

Why McDonnell didn't push for Richmond-DC HSR

Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:26:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Virginia commuters from Richmond to DC would love higher-speed rail, but Virginia nevera even applied for funding. Why? Governor McDonnell's ideological bent. (Post)

Comment

McDonnell trying again to take WMATA seat from NoVA (Mar 31, 2011)
Where's Bob? McDonnell MIA on Metro funding (Feb 16, 2011)
McDonnell still pushing WMATA takeover, vote Thursday (Oct 5, 2010)
McDonnell transportation plan: Mortgage future, build roads (Dec 10, 2010)
McDonnell still refusing to push Congress on Metro funding (Feb 23, 2011)

HSR an even clearer win for California than France

Wed, 25 May 2011 11:14:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Facing near-constant calls by some quarters to cancel California's high-speed rail, a Sacramento Bee editorial and amazing graphic notes that Calfornia's system would be a similar size to France's, which operates at a profit, but serve even more people. (Burrito Justice)

Comment

Post unfairly criticizes California high-speed rail (Jan 13, 2011)
Northeast, California win big in high speed rail grants (May 9, 2011)
Grand Vitesse (Sep 22, 2008)
GO VOTE (Nov 4, 2008)
CA high-speed rail interactive map (May 20, 2008)

Northeast, California win big in high speed rail grants

Mon, 09 May 2011 14:14:00 EDT

by Dan Malouff

The federal government today announced $2 billion in new grants for high-speed passenger rail projects around the country. $800 million will go to rail improvements along the Northeast Corridor, and $300 million for high-speed rail in California.

Photo by jpmueller99 on Flickr.

The funds are left over from $2.4 billion which had been originally allocated to Florida, but which governor Rick Scott returned to the Federal government. Congress rescinded $400 million as part of the recent budget deal, leaving $2 billion to allocate to new recipients.

Despite ideological opposition from a number of Republican governors, there was no shortage of states interested in using the money. USDOT received 98 applications for the funds from 24 states plus the District of Columbia, totaling approximately $10 billion. Clearly there continues to be more demand for passenger rail funding than Congress can keep up with.

As expected, the big winners are the Northeast Corridor and the California high-speed rail project, each of which were given hundreds of millions of dollars. In a little bit of surprise, the Midwest Chicago-hub was also a big winner, with major improvements funded on several corridors.

The Washington region didn't receive any funds directly, although we will benefit from some of the projects to the north and south. The District applied for but did not receive money. Maryland applied for $415 million and received $22 million that will go to planning for a new Susquehanna River bridge.

Ironically, Virginia didn't apply for any money but received some anyway, as part of a North Carolina-led application to perform environmental planning work on proposed upgrades to the Richmond-Raleigh corridor.

The Northeast Corridor will benefit from the $450 million devoted to catenary and signal improvements in central New Jersey. This funding will pay for installation of constant-tension catenary over a 24-mile section of track, raising the top speed from 135 to 160 miles per hour. Other Corridor improvements will result in minor trip time improvements and reduction in bottlenecks.

The complete breakdown of grant recipients is shown in the table below. The acronym "NEPA", which appears a number of times, refers to the National Environmental Policy Act requirement for environmental planning approval of federally-funded projects.

Location	Amount	Purpose
NORTHEAST CORRIDOR
New Jersey	$450m	Power, signal, track, catenary improvements supporting 160mph service.
New York	$295m	Bypass tracks for high-speed trains in NYC area.
Rhode Island	$25m	Bypass tracks for high-speed trains in Kingston area.
Maryland	$22m	Planning & NEPA to replace Susquehanna River bridge.
Rhode Island	$3m	Planning & NEPA for renovations for Providence station.
NORTHEAST (NON-NEC)
New York	$58m	Track, station, signal upgrades to Empire corridor, including replacement of Schenectady station and 4th track at Albany-Rennsselaer station bottleneck.
Pennsylvania	$40m	Track & signal upgrades to Harrisburg-Philadelphia line.
Connecticut	$30m	Double track New Haven-Springfield line.
Mass.-Maine	$21m	Double track Wilmington-Andover line.
New York	$1m	Planning & NEPA for new Rochester station.
MIDWEST
Non-specific	$268m	48 railcars and 7 locomotives for 8 Amtrak corridors in the Midwest.
Michigan	$197m	Track & signal upgrades on Chicagao-Detroit line between Kalamazoo and Dearborn, allowing 110 mph service for 235 miles of corridor.
Illinois	$186m	Track upgrades on Chicago-Saint Louis line between Joliet and Dwight, IL allowing 110 mph service for 220 miles of corridor.
Missouri	$14m	Design for new Mississippi River bridge on Chicago-Saint Louis corridor.
Minnesota	$5m	Planning & NEPA for new 110mph service from Minneapolis to Duluth.
Michigan	$3m	Planning & NEPA for new Ann Arbor station.
SOUTH
Texas	$15m	Planning & NEPA for new Dallas-Houston corridor.
N.C.-Virginia	$4m	NEPA for 110mph upgrades to Richmond-Raleigh corridor.
WEST COAST
California	$300m	20 miles of track construction near Fresno for the 220mph California high speed rail project.
California	$68m	15 railcars and 4 locomotives for existing California Amtrak routes.
Washington	$15m	Track grade separation at the Port of Vancouver, near Portland, OR.
Oregon	$2m	Study of service and capacity needs near Eugene.

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.

65 comments

Post unfairly criticizes California high-speed rail (Jan 13, 2011)
FY11 budget threatens national high-speed rail network (Apr 14, 2011)
LaHood, Biden meet with governors on high-speed rail (Jun 3, 2009)
HSR could get you to Boston in 3 hours, but it's pricey (Sep 29, 2010)
TIGER funds bus corridors, not K Street or bike sharing (Feb 17, 2010)

FY11 budget threatens national high-speed rail network

Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:01:00 EDT

by Malcolm Kenton

With Congress cutting spending left and right, one of the casualties has been President Obama's high-speed rail initiative. The loss of $2.8 billion in funding is a major blow to the program.

A Union Pacific crew lays new track in Illinois. Photo by Illinois Dept. of Transportation.

The next few months could be a do-or-die moment for supporters of efforts to build a 21st-century transportation infrastructure in the United States. If opponents of improved passenger train service get their way, Americans will face rising fuel costs with few alternatives to costly car travel.

House Republicans' proposed budget for the remainder of the current fiscal year contains no new funding for the federal High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program, and rescinds $400 million in funds that had been awarded to Florida's Tampa-Orlando bullet train, but were turned back by Gov. Rick Scott.

The HSIPR program, created by a 2008 law and capitalized with $8 billion from the 2009 Recovery Act, consists of grants awarded on a competitive basis to states, groups of states, or Amtrak to pay for capital projects aimed at making intercity passenger train service faster, more frequent, more reliable and safer. This includes building new world-class high-speed rail systems, as well as making meaningful upgrades to existing rail infrastructure and equipment to greatly enhance current Amtrak service.

The latter type of investment, often deemed higher-speed rail, is just as important as the former, as it is a cost-effective way of giving more Americans the choice of train travel. This builds the domestic production capacity and the train-riding culture necessary for the U.S. to begin to approach Europe in terms of the energy-efficient choices available to travelers.

The elimination of the program from the 2011 budget unwisely stunts the growth of a program that has already begun to prove its worth.

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), which administers HSIPR grants, has been criticized, even by train supporters, for getting money out the door too slowly. Despite that, a recent Government Accountability Office report confirms the agency has moved remarkably fast, given difficult circumstances the agency faces. The FRA's program has only been active for a little over two years, during which time the FRA expanded its mission from safety oversight to grant-making.

America's freight railroads carry most of the nation's passenger trains and coordination with freight schedules proves especially daunting. Even though HSIPR investments usually expand capacity and improve reliability for freight transport, private railroads are wary of agreements that might limit their ability to move a growing volume of cargo. Despite these tough bargaining conditions, four of the six major US freight railroads have already entered into agreements with states and Amtrak to commit to meeting specific passenger train performance standards.

The future Brunswick, ME, Amtrak station under construction. Photo by Jim Nawrocki, courtesy NARP.

The projects that the FRA has already awarded promise to create over 50,000 jobs and are already stimulating economic development in the communities served. Among these projects are an extension of Amtrak's frequent Boston-Portland, ME Downeaster service to Brunswick, ME, where developers are already investing in a walkable commercial corridor near the Amtrak station that is slated to receive service next year. The railroad supply and construction industry nationwide has enjoyed a significant boost in employment and contracts.

In ignoring these successes in spurring economic growth, Congressional Republicans are misinterpreting the rejection of HSIPR grants by Republican governors in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida to argue that no state government wants to be "burdened" with the ongoing operation of poorly patronized trains. On the contrary, the vast majority of states are eager for more Federal investment in passenger rail because they see that recent investments are already producing returns.

So far 23 states, DC, and Amtrak submitted applications seeking a total of $10 billion for a piece of the $2.4 billion that FRA will redistribute after Florida rejected it. For every notice of funding availability the FRA issues, the amount applied for has exceeded the amount available by at least a 2 to 1 margin.

Though the high-profile rejections by a few governors make headlines, many more states are eagerly demanding the money because they see passenger rail as a smart investment.

If we are going to meet the 21st-century challenges of population growth and petroleum scarcity, we must dramatically ramp up investment in passenger trains—a transportation method unmatched in capacity, efficiency, safety and comfort.

The National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP), an organization for which I work, has been leading the charge to win the level of investment necessary to put America on track to a more secure, livable, and sustainable future. Please consider asking your Members of Congress to oppose these draconian cuts to high-speed rail programs, transit funding, and upgrades to the Northeast Corridor.

80 comments

Stimulus compromise won't cut transit (Feb 7, 2009)
High-speed rail, here we come (Feb 12, 2009)
LaHood, Biden meet with governors on high-speed rail (Jun 3, 2009)
Post unfairly criticizes California high-speed rail (Jan 13, 2011)
HSR could get you to Boston in 3 hours, but it's pricey (Sep 29, 2010)

And...

Fri, 08 Apr 2011 08:56:00 EDT

by Erik Weber

The looming federal shutdown shows DC advocates should focus on budget autonomy before statehood, Jack Evans says. (Examiner) ... DC, Maryland and 23 other states applied for a piece of Florida's $2.4 billion in high-speed rail funds. Where's Virginia? (Transportation Nation, Gavin)

Comment

The federally tilted playing field on transportation (Sep 10, 2007)
Stimulus compromise won't cut transit (Feb 7, 2009)
LaHood, Biden meet with governors on high-speed rail (Jun 3, 2009)
High-speed rail, here we come (Feb 12, 2009)
Jack Evans defends bag fees and meter increases (Jan 11, 2010)

The best urbanist April Fool's jokes

Sat, 02 Apr 2011 09:17:00 EDT

by David Alpert

We had a lot of fun entertaining you with some April Fool's joke posts yesterday. Here were some of our favorites from elsewhere on the Web:

Image by Steve Offutt.

Google adds "skateboard directions": A new Google feature directs skateboard users around the region, including on new skateboard lanes. But Montgomery County isn't pleased with the influx of skaters, and the ICC threw Google for a loop. (JUTP)

Wells "outraged": Tommy Wells and WTOP got into the spirit of our first joke of the morning. Wells told WTOP that he was "outraged" to find out he had requested a "fully-loaded" bicycle at taxpayer expense, but that he won't hold a hearing because of a conflict of interest.

WMATA adds fees: WMATA announced a series of budget-closing proposals including "peak of the off peak," charges for using elevators and seats, charges for posting negative things online including at Greater Greater Washington, and a Clear-like program to get out of bag searches after paying a fee. (DC Area Transit Zone)

New Gaithersburg Heights: The blogger behind New Columbia Heights moved to Gaithersburg, learned to walk a dog while driving an SUV, and inaugurated a new feature, Chili's of the Day.

We want 3-D! Wheaton residents are outraged that a proposed plaza for Wheaton looks like a Sketchup model, and started a group "3-DIMBY" to push for a more 3-dimensional plan. (JUTP)

Too many ped-on-ped crashes: The New York DOT was alarmed to discover a high frequency of pedestrian-on-pedestrian crashes. Small children even get into such crashes intentionally. Fortunately, there are very few injuries. (Transportation Nation)

Planjokizen: Ben & Jerry's adds a new flavor, Janette Sadik-Pecan ... LA will add car racks to its buses ... After many Republican governors rejected high-speed rail money, Ray LaHood spent the $2.4 billion on a huge party in Las Vegas. (Planetizen)

Public spaces get better: The Project for Public Spaces, which always does great news coverage at the start of April, revealed that Brooklyn's Prospect Park West will new get new kayak lanes, Arlington, Texas will train riders to use ESP to find out when their bus is coming, a new iPhone app helps starchitects not listen to public input, and a newly-unveiled plan would solve New York congestion by replacing most of Manhattan with freeways. Once upon a time, that last one was not a joke.

Comment

Wheaton town square should belong to the public (Mar 7, 2011)
Urbanism comes in many shapes and colors (Jul 13, 2010)
Gaithersbungle, part 6: What else $3.8 billion could buy, more specifically (Jul 29, 2009)
Growing government vehicle scandal envelops Wells (Apr 1, 2011)
Wheaton sector plan recommends taller buildings, more open space (Dec 4, 2009)