Potomac Express

Expanding Light Rail in Buffalo

2011-10-14T13:07:00.000-07:00

One of the recurring themes in all of literature is the struggle a writer engages with their native home. From Homer to Hemingway, authors across the ages have explored and reflected upon the influence of the place of their birth or upbringing. While this recurring archetype can cause out-sized coverage of the writer's formative community, it can also yield valuable insights and perspectives on the place's culture, traditions and identity that an outsider would have a hard time accessing.

With such a heady and theoretical opening, the direction this post is heading should be obvious: developments in passenger rail on your blogger's native turf, in this case news of a forthcoming study of expanding the light-rail system in Buffalo, N.Y. And, some context will surely be helpful in connecting this blogger with Western New York and its transit network.

Back in 1985, Buffalo opened a 6.4-mile light-rail line, connecting the city's downtown with the South Campus of the State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY UB), which enrolls more than 29,000 students each year and is the largest university in New York State. Your blogger was aboard the very first day of service, and the experience sparked a lifelong passion and interest in community and public transportation, especially passenger rail.

The route – dubbed Metro Rail by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA), the regional public transit agency which provides transit service in Erie and Niagara counties – marked Buffalo as one of North America's earliest adopters of the modern light-rail mode, following only Edmonton in 1978 and Calgary and San Diego in 1984 – predating most of today's larger light-rail networks in places like Portland, Denver and Dallas. Metro Rail was designed to revitalize commercial and retail activity downtown by serving residential neighborhoods in north Buffalo and its immediate suburbs, the college campuses of UB and Canisus College, and two hospital centers along the line. For a full background on Metro Rail, visit sites here and here.

Unique among modern light-rail systems is Metro Rail's 5.2-mile subway beneath Main Street, by far the bulk of its route miles (another 1.2 miles of the system operates above ground downtown in a pedestrian mall on Main Street, terminating at the First Niagara Center, home to the N.H.L.'s Buffalo Sabres). Among light-rail networks built after 1981, few utilize subway tunnels to the extent used in Buffalo. While a few short light-rail subway segments exist in St. Louis, Dallas, Portland and Los Angeles, subways were more common for hold-over light-rail operations, when lower construction costs made light-rail subways in viable in Boston, Newark, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Cleveland. A notable exception is Seattle's recent conversion of its downtown bus tunnel to accommodate its Link light-rail trains. And Ottawa is currently planning a new light-rail service that will construct a 1.5-mile tunnel through the downtown of Canada's capital city.

Buffalo ended up with a light-rail tunnel for several reasons. Planners had initially designed the line in the inverse of its current orientation, with a 1.2-mile subway downtown, and a 5.2-mile at-grade segment running in designated lanes above ground on Main Street outside of downtown. However, factors of geology in downtown Buffalo – particularly at the line's southern terminus at the city's waterfront – inflated the costs of tunnels downtown. Moreover, given that the light-rail mode was relatively new in North America, leaders at Canisus College and its surrounding neighborhoods were concerned about the appearance of overhead catenary wires through the campus. When combined, these demands necessitated flipping the plans, resulting in Metro Rail's current short surface, long subway configuration.

1980s rendering of Buffalo subway system

The most significant consequence of the change in plans was the skyrocketing project cost. Initially, the project was intended to not only link downtown and UB's South Campus, but extend into the neighboring town of Amherst where UB had stationed its primary (North) campus in the 1970's, about 3 miles north of the South Campus. In fact, the primary motivation for the light-rail service was to connect the two campuses and downtown with frequent, high-capacity rapid transit service, a concession to the city of Buffalo when the majority of its namesake university would be located outside the city limits. However, the decision to construct most of the route underground quickly absorbed the project's $535 million budget (in 1985 dollars), forcing the completion of the line between the North and South campuses to be placed on indefinite hold.

It's within this context that Buffalo's Metro Rail light rail has existed since 1985, as a 14 station, 6.4-mile stand-alone route, averaging between 22,000 and 25,000 weekday riders, making it one of the best-utilized rail transit routes in North America per mile. Nonetheless, its role in revitalizing Buffalo is far less certain. The city's population plummeted after 1950, from more than 580,000 then to less than 300,000 today. And while much of that population shifted into nearby suburban communities, and Metro Rail certainly was not the cause of the population exodus – in fact, its consistent ridership counts are all the more impressive in that environment – commercial activity remained stagnant, at best, downtown, while its retail component largely vanished, and the two UB campuses remain unconnected but for sporadic bus service provided by the university. According to those measures, the service did not live up to its billing.

Metro Rail at the South Campus station

Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus – located within blocks of Metro Rail's Allen-Medical Campus subway station – has rapidly expanded over the same time, to conduct centrally-located health care, medical research and entrepreneurship, hosting over 8,000 employees, 500 medical doctors, 200 PhDs and 700,000 annual patient visits to produce more than $600 million in annual expenditures, creating a $300 million economic impact. UB – which already had a significant presence at the campus – recently announced it would locate its entire medical school at the facility, further bolstering the importance of the site. Lastly, a steady resurgence of the city's waterfront area – where Metro Rail trains currently terminate their inbound trips – is positioned downtown for even greater activity and vitality.

The current synergy of development in Buffalo has caused leaders at the local, state and federal levels to reexamine the original purpose of Metro Rail: to connect both UB campuses with downtown. As reported yesterday by the Buffalo culture and urbanism blog, Buffalo Rising, New York's U.S. Senators Charles E. Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand announced the Federal Transit Administration awarded the NFTA $1.2 million to conduct an alternatives analysis on the transit corridor between the UB North and South campuses. The award marks the first occasion since the original Metro Rail project that federal funds will support the study of a high-capacity transit corridor in Western New York. As part of the federally-required alternatives analysis process, the study will examine a series of options for the corridor, including no-build, minor improvements, and bus and rail capital projects. The NFTA will jointly conduct the study with the region's metropolitan planning organization, the Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council.

While it's possible the study process will determine any of those options – including no build or incremental improvements, along with bus-focused service, like bus rapid transit – is the most desirable use of public investment for the corridor, an extension of Metro Rail to the North Campus in Amherst has strong merits as well. Most significantly, it would allow a one-seat trip between the North Campus, the Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus and downtown Buffalo, and more fully utilize the community's existing asset of the Metro Rail infrastructure, including its high-speed subway tunnels. Additionally, two of the three most likely alignments for a light-rail extension to Amherst would also provide a one-seat train ride between the North and South campuses (I'll explain the differences between the three likely alignments shortly). Moreover, Metro Rail would allow for the greatest capacity, frequency and speed service within the corridor, most easily attracting UB students, faculty and staff, along with the larger community who could access new stations along the route. Lastly, an expanded Metro Rail system would set the stage for additional routes along existing, publicly-owned rights-of-way, enhancing overall mobility and making Western New York a more attractive place to live and work, potentially reversing population trends.

Most intriguing of any alternatives analysis process are the specific alignments under consideration. We'll stick to the light rail options here, due to the benefits explained above. There are three options likely to be explored are based on the original plan for the North-South campus connection, the most direct roadway right-of-way between the two locations, and utilizing a former rail right-of-way already owned by the NFTA. The Google Maps image below provides visual background for the descriptions below (click here to view the interactive map).

Option 1: Original Completion Alignment

The initial 1985 route between the two campuses was to continue from the current South Campus terminus underground below Main Street, then turn to follow Bailey Avenue heading north. The line would then emerge above ground using the naturally-occurring Onondoga Escarpment near Bryant Street. Although original planners did not include a station here, the intersection of Bailey and Grover Cleveland Highway would serve as an ideal location for a stop for the hamlet of Eggertsville, given the relatively high population density nearby. Tracks would then continue north along the west side of Bailey Avenue before turning left to cross Eggert Road near the intersection of Bailey and Eggert. The route would travel in parking lots of Northtown Plaza on the north side of Eggert and stop at a station there. Trains would then turn north on the unbuilt alignment for Marion Road, which continues as a residential street on the south side of Eggert. Trains would ascend an elevated structure to cross over the busy Sheridan Drive and stop at an elevated station serving the retail plaza at Almeda Avenue. Tracks would weave through parking lots and private right-of-way to reach the Boulevard Mall, the second-busiest mall in Erie County (after the Walden Galeria). Continuing on an elevated structure, the route would run parallel to Alberta Drive and cross over another busy thoroughfare, Maple Road. Again utilizing a combination of private easements and parking lots, the elevated route would stop near the Amherst Development Park on North Bailey Avenue, cross over that road and then climb over Interstate 290, near its interchange with Interstate 990. After crossing over I-990 proper and then Sweet Home Road, the tracks would descend into the grassy median of Audubon Parkway, and serve the UB North Campus at a station in that median. The tracks would continue in that median strip to reach a station for the campus' main dormitory complex and finally end its run at the Audubon commercial and governmental park.

Advantages: Planners devised this route in order to serve some of the region's largest activity centers, including major retail locations such as Northtown Plaza and the Boulevard Mall, along with a non-intrusive path to reach the North Campus. It would serve well-established residential neighborhoods in Amherst's Eggertsville community, and attract riders from the neighboring town of Tonawanda.

Disadvantages: There is no natural rail corridor to reach the North Campus from the end of the current route at the South Campus station. Consequently, the line devised by planners would require extensive use of elevated structures to cross several major thoroughfares and two interstate highways, while also claiming a significant amount of private property and easements through purchase and eminent domain power, substantially raising project costs and potentially causing hostility among the public.

Option 2: Millersport Highway Subway

With no natural rail corridor available, the most direct routing would be a continuation of the current subway from South Campus under Main Street and then Bailey Avenue as described in the first option scenario. However, here trains would not emerge from the tunnel at Bryant Street, but turn northeast underneath Grover Cleveland Highway (Route 263), which then is known as Millersport Highway north of Longmeadow Road. Like the first option, an Eggertsville station at Bailey and Grover Cleveland should be included, while stations underneath the intersections of Grover Cleveland/Millersport, Eggert and Longmeadow – known locally as Six Corners – and Sheridan Drive could serve nearby neighborhoods and small retail plazas. After passing underneath I-290, another station would be included at Flint Road to serve the commercial district there before the tracks leave the Millersport corridor to reach the North Campus, either above or below ground.

Advantages: A continuation of the subway underneath the Millersport corridor would be the most direct route to the North Campus, reducing trip times for the route. Also, less private property would need to be acquired, and the overall impact of construction would be far less disruptive than the first option.

Disadvantages: Although it was less densely populated and developed when planners were sketching out the Metro Rail route in the late 1970s, Millersport Highway was still the most direct route to the North Campus then as it is today. So why did they choose the more invasive, indirect alignment? Because while far more expensive than at-grade trackage, elevated structures are still far less costly than underground tunnels. With more than 3.7 miles of subway tunnels, the Millersport Corridor would likely far exceed the costs of the original alignment while also drawing fewer riders, especially when UB classes were out of session. These factors combined would lower the project's cost-effectiveness rating, and make attracting federal investment more difficult.

Option 3: The Tonawanda Spur

Instead of continuing from the current South Campus terminal, trains on this route would leave the subway tunnel just before the La Salle station and join a former Erie Railroad right-of-way currently owned by the NFTA. The corridor not only hosted Erie freight and passenger trains between Niagara Falls and Buffalo's eastern suburbs, but also separate tracks for the interurban trains of the International Railway Corp. As a result, the corridor is already wide enough to host two light-rail tracks, along with a parallel bicycle and pedestrian trail. Heading north-by-northwest, the route first passes a spur line that could eventually carry light rail trains west through north Buffalo, and then continues into the Town of Tonawanda. After a series of seven stations in the town, trains heading to the North Campus would then branch off the right-of-way and run alongside I-290, making stops at Brighton Park and Niagara Falls Boulevard before following the same alignment in option one to reach the North Campus.

Advantages: This option would utilize the existing tunnel turnouts near the La Salle station to reach the former Erie Railroad right-of-way, minimizing disruption to the existing Metro Rail operations. More importantly, it would take advantage of a well-defined and historic rail corridor through densely-populated neighborhoods, attracting riders while reducing construction impacts and avoiding costly elevated structures and tunnels (although very short segments of new tunnel would be needed near La Salle, and overpasses or underpasses may be required to cross busy arterials such as Kenmore Avenue, Sheridan Drive and Brighton Road). Also, installing light-rail infrastructure on the corridor would set the stage to continue the Tonawanda line north to the cities of Tonawanda and North Tonawanda and eventually to Niagara Falls, while opening the option of a north Buffalo spur route.

Disadvantages: Of the three options considered here, it is by far the least direct route between the existing Metro Rail route and the North Campus. By travelling primarily via Tonawanda and not Amherst, perhaps as much as 10 minutes of additional travel time would be necessary when compared to the previous two options. Additionally, it would functionally isolate the La Salle and South Campus stations, requiring passengers – especially students – to transfer trains at the current Amherst Street station to travel between the North and South campuses.

Assessment

There is no clear-cut favorite for how to proceed in extending Buffalo's Metro Rail to reach the UB North Campus. Each option has significant benefits and disadvantages to consider for policymakers and planners. Leaders at all levels of government should engage the Western New York community to determine its willingness to expand the system and what priorities it hopes to achieve with improved transit service.

Given the recent momentum the region has built in re-energizing its downtown, growing its medical campus and leveraging the value of the University of Buffalo, now may be the key time to take action. Competition for federal investment is always fierce, and those projects with the greatest positive impact on their communities tend to move forward. Extending the existing Metro Rail system to reach an important and growing educational institution is the type of distinguishing factor which could lead to future investment.

The Importance of the Michigan Purchase

2011-10-12T08:11:00.000-07:00

In the dialogue over various high-speed and intercity rail projects in the United States, the route between Detroit and Chicago has received relatively little attention. Sure, it received some investment awards through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and other federal appropriations. But more high-profile projects in the Northeast Corridor, California and Florida's ill-fated Orlando-Tampa line all have been viewed as more important barometers for the nation's development of improved intercity passenger rail service. And until this month, those assessments would have been correct.

However, last week's announcement that the state of Michigan had approved investment to join with federal funding to purchase the railroad owned by Norfolk Southern between Kalamazoo and Dearborn changed the prognosis for the route. The state's move to acquire the 135-mile corridor came in response to deteriorating conditions on the line, as freight traffic on the route had declined to the level where Norfolk Southern reduced its level of maintenance support, necessitating Amtrak's Wolverine service to reduce speeds significantly, severely impacting train schedules. Accordingly, Norfolk Southern determined that it no longer needed to maintain ownership of the corridor with such a lower frequency of freight service. The freight railroad found a willing partner in a state not only interested in restoring the former level of service for the Wolverine trains, but also improving the corridor's reliability, frequency and speed beyond the Wolverine's current three daily trips between Chicago and Detroit.

What makes the purchase more significant is Amtrak's existing control of the Wolverine's route west of Kalamazoo, extending to Porter, Ind. That 97-mile stretch – when combined with Michigan's purchase of the Kalamazoo – Dearborn segment – easily constitues the largest intercity route outside of the Northeast Corridor under public control in North America (Amtrak had acquired the line from Conrail decades ago). Although a few short portions of the Wolverine route will still be controlled by freight railroads – the eastern segment between Dearborn, Detroit and Pontiac, an interchange zone in Battle Creek, and the connection between Porter and the Chicago metropolitan area – Amtrak and the public entities that oversee the Wolverine service will have the authority to determine the future of the route.

Through direct ownership of the right-of-way and its related infrastructure – switches, signals, facilities, etc. – by federal (via Amtrak), state and local governments, passenger trains will receive priority access to the line, preventing Wolverine trains from literally becoming side-tracked by slower-moving freight trains. This will immediately improve service reliability for passengers of the current service, and restore 79-mph passenger speeds between Kalamazoo and Pontiac on a timetable of weeks and months, not years.

But Michigan residents and their elected leaders can now realistically envision a much improved passenger rail corridor that can strive towards higher-speed rail. Already, ARRA investment is allowing Amtrak to upgrade the Kalamazoo-Porter segment to 110-mph speeds through enhanced signaling, positive train control, closed or more secure grade crossings, and upgraded switches. Michigan's purchase of the Kalamazoo-Dearbon section will now allow similar enhancements on that stretch of railroad in the coming years, producing a 225-mile corridor primarily capable of 110-mph operation with substantially increased reliability and primed to support far greater train frequency. All these factors combine to hit the sweet spot where higher-speed intercity passenger rail is attractive to a vastly wider swath of riders and become more fiscally viable.

Moving forward, Michigan and Amtrak must work together to add additional trips and purchase new equipment necessarily to both increase frequency and operate more effectively at the 110-mph speeds the corridor will be able to achieve. As seen in effective intercity corridors in North America – not only the Northeast Corridor, but also Amtrak's Cascades service in the Pacific Northwest, California's extensive intra-state routes, the Downeaster trains between Boston and Portland, North Carolina's state-supported service and the VIA Rail's Quebec-Ontario corridor in Canada – the blend of higher frequency (at least 5 or 6 trips each day, if not more), new equipment and a cohesive identity are strong lures to grow ridership on corridor-based passenger rail. And Michigan now has an even greater advantage than all those routes save the Northeast Corridor: ownership and control over its railroad, a factor that may rocket it to the top of America's most promising passenger rail corridors in the very near future.

What Makes an Excursion?

2011-07-25T05:51:00.000-07:00

On any given weekend day between April and October, there's hundreds of excursion and heritage trains operating across the United States. Some are steam-hauled relics, which hark back to the heydays of railroading. Others are more modern, diesel-powered trainsets, while others are collections of trolleys and streetcars running under electric power. And, yet, no matter their source of locomotion, nearly all of them function as a destination in of themselves – a train ride for the sake of riding the train itself, not to reach any specific location for purposes of regular trips. These rolling museums are an important part of our heritage, and help transfer knowledge of – and appreciation for – the importance of railroading to the development of our nation.

But others blur the line between an excursion railroad and something offering closer to the original and inherent purpose of operating passenger trains: to get people where they need to go. How do we determine a standard, revenue service rail operation from those serving more educational and entertainment aims? After all, nearly all excursion trains collect fares, have conductors and engineers to oversee the train's operation, and have published schedules for when trains depart – much like any revenue service rail system.

There are a few easily-identifiable characteristics to distinguish the two sets. It is easier to define the former – revenue service rail lines – from the latter. First is the presence of two terminal stations, separated by a significant distance, from which passengers can arrive and depart on the trains. This first category automatically rules out most of the country's excursion railroads, where, even if there is a specified location where the train ends its outbound run and turns around, new passengers are not commonly allowed to board and on-board passengers cannot depart.

Secondly are the inclusion of on-line stations, or stops made between the two terminals where passengers can again alight or board the train to travel to another intermediate station or one of the terminals. Hardly any heritage railroads offer this option.

Meanwhile, does the railroad offer a frequency of trips indicating it's role as a convenient option for many travel periods? This is a trickier classification, as many of Amtrak's intercity trains only offer a single trip each day, and some operatre even less frequently. Conversely, a sizable number of excursion railroads will operate a handful of daily trips – especially on weekends in the summer – to cater to the large number of tourists and visitors. Some of the cog railroads that climb mountain cliffs will even field hourly service or better during their busy seasons.

Lastly, are connections available to other intercity travel and public transit options, allowing riders to travel to greater numbers of destinations beyond the reach of the rail line? While nearly every intercity and local passenger rail operation will offer such connectivity, only a small number of heritage railroads promote linkages to other travel options. A few immediately come to mind: The Adirondack Scenic Railroad shares Utica's Union Station with Amtrak's Empire Service, Lake Shore Limited and Maple Leaf trains travelling across Upstate New York. Soon, the Maine Eastern Railroad will benefit from connections to Amtrak's Downeaster trains from Portland and Boston in Brunswick, where Downeaster passengers can continue their trip to Maine costal communities such as Bath, BoothBay and Rockland.

Of course, by now you're probably wondering why we're spending this much space covering excursion trains – and the definition thereof. After all, excursion trains have been around more more than a half century, and while some operations come and go, a healthy heritage railroading industry seems pretty secure for many years to come. To answer this question, we point to this past Saturday's debut of the Saratoga & North Creek (S&NC) Railway in Upstate New York, operating over the former Adirondack Railway between Saratoga Springs and North Creek. The line hadn't seen passenger trains over its entire length in more than 50 years, and it's North Creek terminus is especially historic, as it was the location where Theodore Roosevelt returned from his hunting trip in the Adirondacks in 1901 en route to Buffalo, where he would be inaugurated as President following the assassination of William McKinley.

Despite its nascent status as a railroad, the S&NC is offering an ambitious schedule – one that comes closer to a regular, revenue operation than most other excursion railroads. In relation to the four criteria outlined above for revenue service rail lines – terminal stations, in-line stops, frequency and connectivity – the S&NC meets all of them. Take a look at its initial schedule of operations:

The S&NC has two, clearly-identified terminal locations in North Creek and Saratoga Springs – with a mid-day short-turn option at Hadley/Luzerne – seven designated stops along the route (stations might be a bit of a misnomer, as station buildings only exist at Saratoga Springs and North Creek), three daily roundtrip trains five days per week, and connections to two Amtrak trains – the Adirondack between Montreal and New York City, and the Ethan Allen Express between Rutland, Vt. and New York City – along with other regional and local travel options at Saratoga Springs.

By all accounts, the S&NC is a full-fledged, revenue service passenger railroad. The operation even takes things a step further by designating each trip as a named train, the Hudson Explorer, The Merganser and New York Express, respectively – a nod to the fantastic railroading tradition of giving its trains evocative and inspirational titles (see our post on the brilliance of named trains).

Still, the rail line serves a largely rural and recreational region, where New Yorkers come from across the state to vacation during the summer and explore the foliage in fall. So, while Saratoga Springs lies just outside the state's Capital Region centered in Albany, and is just a few hours ride from New York City, its hard to envision the railroad functioning primarily as a means for travelers to make a large number trips to commuter, for business or other non-entertainment purposes. The railroad's operations will also be paired down after October in advance of the region's strong winter, although a number of holiday specials will take place. Meanwhile, Iowa Pacific Holdings – which operates other excursion railroads across the nation as well as the Machu Piccu Train in Peru – has been contracted to operate the service and maintain the railroad, much of which is owned by local governments. These factors would suggest a more excursion orientation for the S&NC.

In reality, perhaps the S&NC is a little of both – an excursion railroad that can also serve to help meet the mobility needs of a part of the Adirondack region. Time will tell if residents along its route will take advantage of the trains to travel within and beyond the communities it serves, giving the railroad reason to consider eventually expanding its operations to daily service throughout the year. Such growth would serve as the truest indication of the railroad's role as a bona fide, regular service rail line. In the meantime, vacationers and tourists will benefit from an active and robust excursion operation, helping to draw lessons from the past and an enjoyable way to spend the day – on a train.

P.S. The S&NC includes a well-appointed fleet of locomotives and passenger coaches to support its train schedule. The railroad acquired several bi-level domed railcars that offer panoramic views of the line's scenic territory from other excursion railroads, as well as bi-level commuter railcars from the Long Island Railroad. It also inherited single-level coaches from it's predecessor, the Upper Hudson River Railroad, which only operated trains on the north end of the rail line. Iowa Pacific has also acquired some impressive motive power: a General Electric Dash-8 and an EMD BL-2, both of which have been painted in the livery of the Delaware & Hudson Railway, which owned and operated the rail line for more than 50 years after it purchased the route from the former Adirondack Railway.

A Strategy for Light Rail & Streetcars in the Potomac Region

2011-04-01T13:03:00.000-07:00

Rendering of Baltimore Red Line in subway in downtown Baltimore

Although this blog is branded with a fictitious train serving the Baltimore-Washington region as a metaphor for delivering policy-related news and analysis from RAIL Magazine's headquarters in the nation's capital, we don't often zero-in on specific passenger rail topics on our local radar screen. This post will be different in that regard.

Washington, D.C. and its northerly neighbor in Maryland could be considered to have relatively extensive passenger rail options, although the folks in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Toronto, Chicago, the San Francisco Bay area and Los Angles could argue convincingly for the comparative strengths of their local rail networks. In the nation's capital, passenger rail is largely defined by the region's iconic Metro heavy rail system (your blog author penned a fairly thorough look at the Washington Metro in our 19th Edition). The 106-mile system – serving 85 stations, with another five currently under construction in northern Virginia – is the nation's second-busiest local rail operation after the New York City Subway. Meanwhile, longer-distance commuters in suburban communities in Maryland and Virginia are served the MARC and Virginia Railway Express (VRE) commuter rail systems in their respective states, both of which terminate at Washington's bustling Union Station. That same location also is the southern end of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor (NEC) intercity rail spine, and Amtrak passengers can board trains reaching destinations as far away as Chicago, Ill., New Orleans, La., Miami, Fla., Boston, Mass., and Montreal, Quebec. Over 32 million people visit Union Station each year, and in 2010, 4.5 million of them journeyed through the station on Amtrak trains, with millions more riding on MARC and VRE trains.

About 40 miles to the north is Maryland's largest city, Baltimore, which is connected to Washington via Amtrak's NEC Acela and Regional trains, as well as MARC's Penn and Camden lines – the former traveling over Amtrak's NEC route between Union Station and Baltimore's Penn Station, while the latter operates over CSX's Capital Subdivision between Union Station and the line's namesake terminal near Baltimore's popular Inner Harbor. The Camden Line is also the nation's oldest continually operating passenger rail line, beginning in 1835 when the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad began hauling its first passengers over the route. MARC service on the Penn Line also continues north from Baltimore on the NEC to Perryville, which recently has benefited from the addition of mid-day and reverse-commute trips.

Meanwhile, the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) – which oversees the MARC system – also provides local rail transit service in the Baltimore area, in addition to local and express bus routes and paratransit service. It's Metro heavy rail system opened in 1983 from downtown Baltimore northwest to Reistertown Plaza using a combination of subway, elevated and grade-level infrastructure. It was extended further northwest to Owings Mills in 1987 and northeast from downtown to Johns Hopkins Hospital in 1994. At the same time, the MTA operates a primarily north-south running light-rail system spanning 33 miles from Hunt Valley in the north to BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport and Cromwell/Glen Burnie in the south on two branches. The line utilizes a mix of former railroad and interurban rights-of-way, street running on Howard Street in downtown Baltimore (a dual-level rail thoroughfare, with CSX's Howard Street tunnel underneath) and new alignments to serve more than 36,000 daily riders.

In the combined Baltimore-Washington metropolitan region, there are numerous proposals for expansion for all of the passenger rail modes described above, ranging from Amtrak's proposals to construct a new high-speed rail corridor to new routes for the Washington and Baltimore Metro operations, commuter rail extensions, and – the main subject of this post – new light-rail and streetcar lines in both cities. It is this aspect of rail expansion plans that requires some unique analysis today, in terms of how these new projects and systems are planned, constructed, stocked and operated. For while both cities operate heavy rail Metro systems, they are entirely incompatible – utilizing vastly different vehicles, infrastructure clearances, signaling systems and other elements. The MTA and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority (WMATA) – which is responsible for the Washington Metro, as well as its own bus and paratransit services – should continue to operate both systems as distinct railroad entities. Likewise, while MARC and VRE certainly could improve their coordination on aspects such as run-through trips between Maryland and Virginia (perhaps a few even bypassing Union Station altogether via CSX's Alexandria Branch?), joint equipment purchases, and integration of fares and schedules, there are relatively few challenges to the region's commuter rail network aside from additional capacity needs.

However, the new light-rail and streetcar projects planned or under construction in the region do present opportunities for a regional approach to the two similar modes. First, a rundown of the various proposed and in-progress projects in the works is in order.

Most imminent will be two streetcar projects in Washington, D.C., both of which are currently under construction. The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) is building two, unconnected streetcar routes that it envisions as the starter segments of an extensive citywide network. The further along of the two will link Union Station with the rapidly-growing H Street, NE corridor. Streetcar rails have already been installed along much of H Street as part of an ongoing roadway rehabilitation project, and final details are being ironed out in anticipation of a 2012 opening. The H Street will mark the first streetcar service in the nation's capital since 1962. Following the H Street line will be a route through the Anacostia section of southeast and southwest D.C., which has also begun construction for a 2013 debut. DDOT purchased three streetcars in advance of the initial routes, which WMATA is currently storing at its yards in Greenbelt, Md. Full details on D.C.'s planned streetcar system are available here (see full map below).

Across the Potomac in northern Virginia, Arlington County is also moving forward with plans for a streetcar route down its busy Columbia Pike corridor from the Pentagon City Metro station. WMATA's 16-series bus route is already one of the region's most well-used, with buses operating every two or three minutes during peak segments of the morning and evening rush hours. Investment has yet to be lined-up to support the project, but much of the planning and design work has already been completed. Arlington County is also working with the neighboring City of Alexandria to study a streetcar route between the Crystal City Metro station and the Potomac Yards development district to augment Metro's Blue and Yellow Lines and connect with a planned in-fill Metro station at Potomac Yards. Additionally, Fairfax County has considered streetcar options to connect Alexandria with the expanding Fort Belvoir and the sprawling Tysons Corners urban area, which will soon be served by four new stations as part of Metro's Silver Line expansion.

Returning to Maryland – but still within suburban communities surrounding Washington – is the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT). Although the planning process has yet to determine whether the project would utilize light rail or bus rapid transit (BRT), the CCT project would augment existing Red Line Metro and MARC Brunswick Line service in Montgomery Country between Shady Grove and Clarksburg, serving Germantown, Gaithersburg and Rockville in the process. No investment sources have been lined-up yet, and a locally-preferred alternative is due for selection later this spring.

Also within Montgomery County, and extending into neighboring Prince George's County is the so-called Purple Line light-rail corridor (formerly known as the Bi-County Transitway), connecting a series of Metro stations in the two counties via an abandoned freight rail right-of-way and new alignments through dense suburban communities. Clockwise from west-to-east, the Purple Line would link the Red Line Bethesda and Silver Spring Metro stations in Montgomery County – and in the process slash travel times between the two extensively developed business districts by avoiding downtown Washington altogether – with Prince George's County via the Green Line's College Park Metro station and the nearby University of Maryland main campus and the New Carrolton Metro, MARC and Amtrak intermodal station. Work is now underway on the project's preliminary engineering and environmental impact stages – placing it substantially ahead of the CCT – and will be seeking a Record of Decision from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to receive federal investment in the coming years. Additionally, the Purple Line could ultimately serve as the first quarter of a full light-rail loop around the region, connecting the various spokes of the existing Metro network (see second map below).

Maryland is also studying a new light-rail line in Baltimore to compliment its existing Metro (green) and Light Rail (blue and yellow) routes. Dubbed the Red Line, the 14-mile route would connect the mammoth centers for Medicaid and Social Security services in western Baltimore County with downtown Baltimore, the popular Fells Point district and the Bayview campus of Johns Hopkins Medical Center, along with a new station on the MARC Penn Line. Largely paralleling the planning and environmental work of the Purple Line, Maryland officials except to request a Record of Decision along the same timeframe as the corresponding project. The Red Line could also set the stage for an even more expanded passenger rail network in Baltimore, as first proposed in the Baltimore Rail Plan in 2002 (see second map below).

All told, three separate light-rail and at least three distinct streetcar projects are at various stages of planning, design or construction in the Potomac region, which could substantial alter and improve its mobility network for decades to come. With such a potentially significant impact, could there be ways these projects are considered and implemented through a broader, regional vision?

Certainly, the three light-rail projects in Maryland are easy to group together. The MTA is overseeing the planning and environmental processes for all three efforts, with input from local governmental entities, leaders and residents as is appropriate. Since the MTA already operates light-rail service in Baltimore, it is the logical choice to implement and operate similar services throughout the state. By consolidating elements such as vehicle procurement, construction management and maintenance, economies of scale in purchasing and materials can be realized, while institutional knowledge and operational know-how can serve as assets to each project. Such enhanced efficiencies could offer the projects a leg-up when competing for federal funds.

However, inasmuch as these managerial and operational elements belong together across the various light-rail projects, only one of those – Baltimore's Red Line – will be a clear part of Maryland's existing Baltimore-based rail network. For the CCT and Purple Line, their ultimate utility is in their connections to the Washington Metro network and – to a lesser extent – MARC commuter rail. So, while purchasing the same light-rail vehicles for all three projects makes sense, having the same fare structure, branding and transfer system is not quite so simple. For the Purple Line and CCT to achieve lasting success, they must be easy for Metro riders to access without much interference changing modes. That means, for example, Metro riders will not take easily to having to purchase a separate paper ticket – as required for the MTA's existing light-rail operations – when they already use a SmarTrip electronic card to access Metro. Meanwhile, Purple Line and CCT operating hours should mirror the larger Metro network, so a hypothetical rider heading into DC to enjoy weekend nightlife isn't suddenly stranded at 2 a.m. at Silver Spring with no way Purple Line trains heading back to Chevy Chase after midnight. These, and numerous other elements (system maps, convenient transfers, parking policies, etc) suggest that while the MTA should operate the routes as part of their light-rail operations department, a serious collaborative process is needed with WMATA that sufficiently coordinates the new light-rail aspects.

Part of the challenge is the difference in modes, and the most significant element of that difference is fare processing. WMATA's Metro enjoys one of the highest farebox recovery rates in North America (71 percent) due to its thorough fare collection system, including SmarTrip and farecard machines and fare gates. Few opportunities are available to evade fare payment, as Metro's station managers are positioned to observe passengers moving through the fare gates. Conversely, nearly all light-rail systems operate on a proof-of-payment system, where passengers purchase paper fare cards from ticket vending machines on station platforms, and transit officials – sometimes transit police – randomly inspect trains for valid tickets. Most light-rail stations are not staffed and contain no fare gates, turnstiles or fare-based barriers to boarding trains, although many of the older light-rail operations (Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and San Francisco) include fare payment to board the vehicle – similar to a standard bus farebox – or through turnstiles or fare gates at downtown subway stations.

How will the CCT and Purple Line interact with Metro's fare payment system? Will Metro riders need to tap their SmarTrip cards on a light-rail vending machine to print a paper ticket? How will those riders react to a more complicated travel experience? Or will the CCT and Purple Line stations utilize completely controlled fare systems like the Metro, and limit station access to perhaps single entrances at either end of the platform? No light-rail system in North America operates in that manner. This aspect demands careful consideration and community input as the planning processes for both projects move forward.

The integration of streetcar projects in the District of Columbia and Northern Virginia are noticeably simpler. The greatest benefit of D.C.-Virginia collaboration would be a common choice of streetcar vehicle so that their collective purchasing power can be leveraged, and should various routes eventually be connected – however unlikely – they could operate over each others' rails. Integration with Metro's fare structure would actually be simpler than the Purple Line and CCT light-rail options, since streetcars are more easily adaptable to bus-style fareboxes and carry lower passenger volumes. And while a universal brand for all the region's streetcars would be interesting (perhaps Potomac Streetcar?), such a scheme would not be mandatory for successful operations. A regional transportation and planning blog, Greater Greater Washington, recently explored some branding ideas for Virginia's streetcar projects. Regardless of how they're branded or the fare structure employed, like light rail, must be consciously included as part of the region's passenger rail network, not stand-alone operations.

The True Story of High-Speed Rail in the U.S.

2011-02-11T05:44:00.000-08:00

On Tuesday, at Philadelphia's historic 30th Street Station, Vice President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced a $53 billion initiative to realize their vision of high-speed and intercity rail in the United States. The appeal includes a $8 billion allotment in the FY2012 federal budget – which must be approved by Congress – and would build upon the momentum towards high-speed rail established in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and subsequent annual appropriations.

Not only does the initiative promise investment to support new and improved high-speed and intercity rail corridors, but introduces a new three-tiered classification for different types of passenger rail projects. In the initial rounds of passenger rail projects supported by ARRA and annual appropriations, too little clarification was made by the Obama Administration between true high-speed rail services and more conventional intercity rail options (RAIL Magazine has consistently identified the overall effort as improving high-speed and intercity passenger rail). As a result, opponents of passenger rail were more easily able to characterize the conventional intercity passenger projects supported by these investment streams – such as those in Ohio and Wisconsin that were terminated by new state-level leadership – as not effective uses of public investment. The new categories – Core Express (greater than 125 mph), Regional (90 - 125 mph) and Emerging (under 90 mph) – better define the expectations of differing passenger rail projects and should allow a more coherent justification of individual corridors.

Additionally, it is unlikely that the proposed investment stream would trade-off with support for more established modes of transportation, such as community and public transportation or they highway network, as Administration officials – including President Obama himself – have routinely stressed the importance of an integrated, connected network of mobility options. Connectivity with transit services to serve as the first and last mile links with high-speed and intercity passenger rail routes is essential to the success of such projects.

The prospects for Congressional approval for the initiative are dubious, given the reluctance of leaders in the House of Representatives to support additional spending of any kind, and for high-speed rail in particular. So, while the White House leadership on the issue indicates the strong and continued support of the Obama Administration, enthusiasm for the initiative should be restrained until a path towards Congressional approval becomes more apparent.

Reaction to the announcement was mixed, from strong endorsements from passenger rail advocates, business leaders (such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) and manufacturers – who noted the job-creation, connectivity and community investment benefits of such a campaign – to less positive reactions from Republican leaders, most notably House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Rep. John Mica (FL - 7th). Mica cited his long-standing disagreements with Amtrak, along with his continued push for high-speed rail investment in the Northeast Corridor (NEC).

Congressman Mica – one of the most knowledgeable and experienced transportation leaders in Congress, and one who will have a strong role in drafting new federal transportation legislation – should be commended for advocating policy ideas that offer no direct benefits to his constituents in Florida. Too few elected officials stake out ground on policy questions for the pure sake of the nation's collective good, which is the case with Mica's stance here. Moreover, he's absolutely correct that the NEC possesses the greatest potential for effective and successful true high-speed rail service of any high-speed rail corridor in the nation. This blog took extensive looks at both the history of the development of the NEC and Amtrak's NEC high-speed rail plan, which was released last fall.

However, the trouble with true high-speed rail in the NEC is its both astronomically expensive ($117 billion, according to Amtrak) and logistically challenging (requiring new tunnels, bridges, etc), leading to a completion timeline measured in decades, not years. Moreover, while Amtrak's recently-developed plan is a good first step, much more work needs to be done in developing a realistic approach to rights-of-way, station facilities, infrastructure and equipment, and many other elements. Among the key reasons why other high-speed rail corridors – namely those in California and Florida – were selected for initial investment through ARRA and annual appropriations were because plans for those networks were already developed, significant engineering work completed and property acquired. The NEC benefits from no such advance work as of yet, although the Gateway Tunnel recently announced by New Jersey's Senators – Lautenberg and Menendez – is the first tangible new infrastructure proposal for the corridor.

It is certainly possible that, should the $53 billion initiative supported by the Obama Administration be enacted by Congress, that investment for developing more fully-developed high-speed rail plans for the NEC would ultimately be selected. Nonetheless, since the Administration has billed their vision for high-speed and intercity passenger rail as a nationwide effort, it is likely that projects from across the country will continued to be selected, especially those – like Florida and California – that are closest to realization. Early success stories are needed to prove the concept of high-speed rail to the rest of the nation, and the NEC is far from that reality.

It is also important to consider the notion of how intercity passenger rail operates on conventional routes, namely those owned by private railroads. Congressman Mica routinely criticizes Amtrak as example of wasteful government spending and a hindrance to private sector competition, although he is certainly not alone in his criticism. And, to be fair, Amtrak is hardly a perfect instrument to achieve the nation's passenger rail goals. Its customer service is wildly inconsistent, station facilities range from breathtaking (the union stations in both Washington and Los Angeles, for example) to outright shabby (the scores of so-called Amshacks littered across the country), and its long-distance trains are chronically late and infrequent. At the same time, they're saddled with pension payments to retired employees of the freight railroads – many of whom never even worked for Amtrak – have ownership of only one true rail corridor (the NEC) and burdened by an often fluctuating and occasionally non-existent federal policy that guides their direction. Accordingly, to claim all of Amtrak's challenges are self-inflicted is irresponsible rhetoric. (In 2009, author James McCommons took an extensive look at Amtrak's history, trends and challenges in Waiting on a Train, and last year, we interviewed McCommons in RAIL #25, as well as including his presentation at our Connecting Communities: A Passenger Rail Symposium in Long Beach.)

At the same time, few leaders or policy-makers ever come to grips with the fundamental reality of most of the nation's passenger rail network: it operates over the rails of privately-owned freight railroads, which makes contracted service through private operators nearly impossible. Because of the 1970 Rail Passenger Service Act whereby the federal government allowed private railroads to shed their money-loosing passenger services and created Amtrak, the national passenger carrier has exclusive domain to operate passenger trains over their tracks. And while most freight railroads tolerate Amtrak as a nuisance which occasionally occupies their rails, they would have an even lower appetite for private entities with access to their rail lines. Amtrak service is predictable, legally-restricted and, essentially, equally unfair and painful to all the private railroads. Issues such as liability, contract compliance and new routes are well-established in governing documents and practice, providing low levels of uncertainty to the system. New entrants to the passenger rail arena – imagine Richard Branson bringing his Virgin brand to the U.S. rail network, or the rapidly-growing Megabus introducing Megatrain – would be independent agents and potential competitors, and offer none of the certainty and precedent as the more established Amtrak. For America's freight railroads, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.

It is in this atmosphere that the recent – and likely future – rounds of non-high speed, intercity passenger rail projects were selected, with Amtrak as the service operator. While Amtrak might not be the ideal entity to provide intercity passenger trains, it is the only one that can currently navigate the freight-dominated railroad infrastructure. As true high-speed rail projects are developed – those with dedicated infrastructure that is separate from the freight rail network and where speeds over 125 mph are possible – opportunities for private sector involvement will become more prevalent. Indeed, Amtrak's role in the Florida high-speed rail project is only that of a prospective bidder – the railroad partnered with French operator SNCF to submit their proposal – competing along with other international firms and entities for the right to design, build, operate and maintain the system. A similar arrangement is anticipated in California, perhaps with an even greater amount of private, international investment to fuel the project to completion.

The Return of the EMU

2011-02-01T06:19:00.000-08:00

Rendering of Denver's planned EMU vehicles

Over the past three or four decades, one important element of the passenger rail renaissance has been the rediscovery of the commuter rail mode as a vital aspect of regional transportation networks. We included an extensive look at these trends in commuter rail in the 12th Edition of RAIL Magazine, back in the summer of 2005. However, one component of commuter rail history did not evolve to the same degree as the rest of the mode in the recent past: the use of self-propelled, electrically-powered vehicles (electric-multiple units, or EMUs) to provide the service.

Now, it is understandable why EMUs were generally not part of a restored family of commuter rail operations. They're expensive to install, meaning the electric catenary infrastructure they require demands up-front capital, and the vehicles themselves are more costly than their diesel-hauled counterparts. At times when every budget line item in capital projects are scrutinized, its far easier to justify the less-expensive diesel-powered trainsets, especially as double-deck passenger coaches became more common to meet capacity needs.

Those systems operating EMU trains today are but a handful, and most of those are hold-over services originally built by the private railroads of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Metro North Railroad operates EMUs over all three of its routes in New York and Connecticut – all of which serve Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan – as does its Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) counterpart, the Long Island Railroad, over substantial portions of its system. Across the Hudson River, New Jersey Transit hosts EMUs on several routes, while nearly all the regional rail lines of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) feature EMU technology. North of the border, the Agence Metropolitaine de Transport (AMT) – serving the Montreal region – is one of the most recent adopters of EMU trains, which were deployed on its Deux-Montagnes line in 1995. Chicago is the only site of EMU operations west of the northeast – which sees the trainsets operate over its Metra Electric division – as well as the venerable interurban, the South Shore Line between South Bend and downtown Chicago. Interestingly, one of the newest systems in North America does employ EMUs: the Errocarril Suburbano de la Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México, which began service between downtown Mexico City and Cuautitlán in 2008.

Aside from those half-dozen or so commuter rail systems, the rest of North America is largely devoid of electrically-powered commuter trains. Even several commuter rail operations along the Northeast Corridor which could operate EMUs under Amtrak's catenary infrastructure – the Penn Line of Maryland's MARC Train, Connecticut's Shore Line East service and the Providence/Stoughton Line of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) – do not run EMU trains and have no formal plans to do so (although MARC Penn Line trains are often powered by electric locomotives, unlike the others in this set).

Nonetheless, EMU technology does offer some significant benefits over diesel locomotive-based operations on the highest-capacity lines. Since a locomotive isn't hauling its own weight in addition to that of the trailing railcars and EMUs customarily don't power more than one additional coach, EMU trains are typically limited only by the length of the station platforms they serve and can achieve higher speeds than their diesel-powered counterparts. Moreover, for the same reasons, they are more energy-efficient while also producing more passenger revenue per trainset, since the passengers are – in essence – traveling in the locomotive itself. Lastly, EMUs produce no emissions directly from the vehicle, although the same is true for electric locomotives.

Mindful of this cohort of benefits, some current and future commuter rail systems are taking a fresh look at EMU technology and how it might be applied to their operations. The most likely to deploy EMU trains and infrastructure is the Eagle P3 Project in the Denver region. The project – a public-private partnership between the Regional Transportation District of Denver (RTD) and Denver Transit Partners – will build three new commuter rail lines serving Union Station in downtown Denver by 2016: the East Corridor to Denver International Airport (DIA); the Gold Line Corridor to Wheat Ridge; and a portion of the Northwest Rail Corridor to Federal Heights. All three projects will be electrified and operate EMU vehicles over their routes. Several renderings of potential EMU vehicles for the project have been developed (see below).

Along the same lines, plans are moving forward to electrify several of the existing routes of Toronto's commuter rail network, GO Train, as well as a spur route to Toronto's Pearson International Airport. To that end, Metrolinx – the transportation planning and policy-making entity in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) – recently approved recommendations for an initial round of electrification that would see the current Lakeshore and Georgetown lines add electric power, along with the airport spur off the Georgetown line. EMUs are expected to begin operations on the airport route by 2018, with the other lines following afterwards (see proposed map below).

Alternatively, one of the longest-discussed electrification commuter rail projects has been that of the Caltrain service between San Francisco and San Jose. The route – one of the longest continually-operating commuter rail services in the nation – operates high-frequency service along the densely-populated corridor and is an ideal candidate for electrification. However, two factors complicate fulfillment of these plans, one short-term and the other long term. First, Caltrain currently faces severe budget shortfalls due to recent economic challenges and California's state budget crisis, and will likely be forced to cut service and raise fares to compensate. Hardly stable conditions to undertake such an extensive effort. Moreover, the corridor will likely be the location for the high-speed trains of the California High-Speed Rail network. Should the route be selected, it is likely the entire corridor will be rebuilt, including the electric catenary infrastructure required for high-speed rail. With that upgrade, Caltrain commuter rail service would mingle on the route along with high-speed trains and require complete electrification to share the tracks. While construction on the initial high-speed rail segment in California's Central Valley will begin within the next few years, the timetable for the project to reach the Bay Area is undetermined.

In all, EMUs present notable operational and societal benefits as a result of their deployment, but require significant up-front capital to install their required infrastructure. Where the proper mix of demographics, rail corridors and investment are present, they should be studied as a valuable resource for both new and existing commuter rail operations.

Hybrid Streetcar Unveiled in Charlotte

2011-01-26T05:50:00.000-08:00

ameriTRAM at Charlotte's Ninth Street trolley station

On January 20, Kinkisharyo International announced its hybrid-powered streetcar designed for North American markets had successfully completed testing on the LYNX Blue Line in Charlotte, N.C., and unveiled the first vehicle at a downtown Charlotte event. The streetcar – dubbed the ameriTRAM by the international railcar manufacturer – can operate both under the traditional catenary wire used by light-rail and streetcar systems, as well as under its own lithium-ion battery power for up to 5 miles, which is then recharged through a combination of catenary power and regenerative braking. By offering this dual power supply, the ameriTRAM can serve route segments where installing overhead electric power is costly, technically difficult, unsightly or prohibited by local ordinances, such as crossing a substantial bridge or navigating a historic district.

“Municipalities across the country have greater expectations of their urban transit solutions providers and the products and services they deliver,” said Rainer Hombach, vice president and general manager of Kinkisharyo International. “This new generation of streetcars must reduce capital investment and operational costs, improve environmental performance, offer greater aesthetics, enhance public safety and provide overall greater value.”

Beyond the innovative propulsion technology, the low-floor vehicle is also fully compliant with U.S. manufacturing and operating standards, including Buy America and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Moreover, the ameriTRAM is expandable to match future capacity needs by adding articulated passenger sections in the center of the vehicle – allowing streetcar routes to operate with light-rail passenger loads of up to 190 total in the ameriTRAM 700 version. The railcars can reach speeds of up to 50 miles per hour and travel in both exclusive rights-of-way as well as street-running trackage.

“The ameriTRAM is an important technology, not just for Charlotte, but for all of North America,” said Councilman David L. Howard of the Charlotte City Council. “We’re looking for new technologies to help preserve the characteristics of our city but also drive economic development.”

(For more information on Charlotte’s LYNX light rail, see RAIL #22.)

ameriTRAM operating over Charlotte's LYNX Blue Line light-rail tracks

Kinkisharyo International Vice President and General Manager Rainer Hombach introduces the ameriTRAM

ameriTRAM vehicles can operate up to 5 miles under Li-ion Battery power

The ameriTRAM prototype undertook extensive testing on Charlotte's LYNX Blue Line

Redirecting High-Speed Rail Investment

2010-12-10T06:12:00.000-08:00

Florida High-Speed Rail Rendering

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced it is redirecting nearly $1.2 billion in high-speed rail investment after incoming Governors in Ohio and Wisconsin indicated their administrations were not interested in continuing projects previously awarded funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2008 (ARRA). Wisconsin Governor-elect Scott Walker campaigned against further state support of new service between Milwaukee and Madison, while Ohio Governor-elect John Kasich advocated a similar position on development of the so-called 3-C Corridor linking Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. Wisconsin's project had been previously awarded $810 million, while the 3-C Corridor was to have received $400 million. (To view RAIL Magazine's analysis of the initial ARRA high-speed rail projects, click here, and Potomac Express' additional analysis of subsequent federal high-speed investment is available here).

Given the opposition of those states' new administrations, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood announced that the combined investment would instead be channeled to 13 states. The largest of those selections were not altogether surprising. Up to $624 million will be made available to California to support the continued development of its ambitious high-speed rail network, which will ultimately link San Francisco to Los Angeles with branches to Sacramento and San Diego. The new award will build momentum on last week's selection of the initial segment in the San Joaquin Valley where construction will begin next year. California's high-speed network is the largest effort of its kind in the nation, and will also achieve its highest speeds – up to 220 mph – when the first stages open by 2017. The project has received consistently strong support from current Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and incoming Governor-elect Jerry Brown.

Meanwhile, the first true U.S. high-speed route to begin operation – Florida's Orlando-to-Tampa corridor, to be underway in 2014 – also received a sizable award from the redistributed funding, up to $342 million. The additional investment will fully fund the project, and enhance prospects for expansion of the service from Orlando to Miami by the end of the this decade. While the effort received a lukewarm reception from Florida Governor-elect Rick Scott and U.S. Representative John Mica – the incoming chair of the House of Representatives' Transportation and Infrastructure Committee – full federal investment in the project likely cements its path forward.

Other substantial investments will be directed to Washington State (up to $161.5 million) and Illinois (up to $42.3 million) to further enhance their existing intercity rail corridors between the Canadian border and Oregon and from Chicago to St. Louis, respectively, to reach speeds up to 110 mph. Both projects received initial ARRA investment and have strong levels of state support for intercity rail service.

Somewhat surprising was a relatively small award to New York State (up to $7.3 million) for the continued development of its upstate corridor between Albany and Buffalo. Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo publicly sought-out a portion of the redirected funds just days after his election. Moreover, the project is one of the most promising settings for high-speed rail due to the extensive railroading infrastructure originally constructed by the New York Central that comprised the core of its famed Water Level Route between New York City and Chicago. Ample space in the corridor currently owned by CSX is available to install high-speed tracks dedicated to passenger trains, and a string of upstate's largest cities – Albany, Schenectady, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo – are all centered along the route, forming a solid potential ridership base. However, the state has lagged behind others – such as California, Florida and Illinois – in planning for high-speed rail, which likely is the largest factor in the limited federal investment in the project.

Other states receiving investment include Maine ($3.3 million to support the continued expansion of Amtrak's Downeaster from Portland to Brunswick); Massachusetts ($2.8 million for development of Vermonter service through western Massachusetts); Missouri ($2.2 million in support of its existing St. Louis - Kansas City service); Oregon ($1.6 million to upgrade that state's portion of the Cascades service); North Carolina ($1.5 million for the continued improvement of its statewide intercity rail program); Indiana (more than $364,000 for intercity routes to and from the midwest's Chicago hub); and Iowa (more than $309,000 supporting existing and expanded Amtrak service in the state). Interestingly, Wisconsin was redistributed up to $2.2 million for its current Hiawatha service between Chicago and Milwaukee, which Governor-elect Walker does support.

High Speed Rail: Round the Second

2010-10-25T15:46:00.000-07:00

Later this week, the Obama Administration will announce the recipients of a $2.5 billion investment in high-speed and intercity passenger rail projects around the nation. The grants – appropriated as part of the FY 2010 federal budget and awarded by the U.S. Department of Transportation – are intended to build upon the $8 billion provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which established the groundwork for true high-speed rail service, while also improving, introducing or reintroducing contemporary intercity passenger rail operations to a number of corridors. RAIL Magazine's full analysis of those projects supported by ARRA is available here.

The largest awards are not surprising, as they'll support the two projects most likely to introduce true high-speed rail in the shortest timeframe: those in California and Florida. Through a more than $900 million investment in California's high-speed rail effort – the nation's largest and most fully realized high-speed rail campaign – will be able to advance work on the project, especially on the segment through the Central Valley between Merced and Bakersfield. Other elements will include the purchase of new rolling stock, an automatic braking and control system, work on the San Jose and San Francisco segment and infrastructure upgrades in Del Mar.

Meanwhile, Florida will receive $800 million, nearly all of which will be devoted to the construction of the nation's first true high-speed route between Orlando and Tampa. The investment will allow the project's aggressive planning and construction schedule to continue, with operations at top speeds of 186 mph targeted for 2014. Upon receipt of the expected award, the project will have secured $2.06 billion of its $2.7 billion pricetag, and is expected to receive the remainder from the $1 billion for high-speed and intercity passenger rail provided in the FY 2011 federal budget. Proponents for high-speed rail, starting with President Obama himself, along with Vice President Biden – have identified the Orlando-Tampa corridor is a test case for the development of additional routes around the nation, including California's planned network. In early 2011, Florida will select some entity – likely one based on significant overseas experience in high-speed rail, such as those in Europe or Asia – to build, operate and maintain the service, along with supplying the high-speed equipment and technologies. The operation is expected to attract more than $2.4 million rider's in its debut year, produce positive revenue and make the 84-mile trip between the two cities – on express runs – in about 50 minutes.

While the investment directed to California and Florida will constitute the bulk of the $2.5 billion available, a number of other important, conventional intercity passenger rail projects also will likely be selected. Continuing on the ARRA-rail investment trend to support the development of new, non-high-speed passenger rail lines – such as those connecting Milwaukee and Madison, Wisc., and Ohio's 3-C corridor between Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati – this round of investment will channel $230 million to support a new service between Chicago, Ill., and Iowa City. The new service – which smartly leverages a $10 million TIGER II grant to Moline, Ill., to prepare a new intermodal facility there – is expected to be underway in 2015 with two daily roundtrip trains and generate more than 240,000 annual trips in its first year of operation. The 220-mile route has not hosted scheduled, daily passenger rail service since Amtrak's formation in 1970 and has already received more than $65 million in investment from Illinois, Iowa and local government sources.

Additionally, $150 million will likely be awarded to Michigan, for upgrades to Amtrak's corridor between Dearborn and Kalamazoo, which will increase train speeds and improve reliability. The project will build upon ARRA investment to Indiana to upgrade sections of the same route that leads to the Dearborn-Kalamazoo line. Likewise, probable grants to corridors in Connecticut and Massachusetts ($121 million), Virginia ($45 million) and Oregon ($9 million) will build on initial ARRA support to further advance conventional passenger rail services in those areas. Moreover, a partnership of North and South Carolina, along with Georgia, will conduct a $4.1 million study on an improved route between Charlotte and Atlanta. Other projects could also be selected with this week's official announcement.

Rail Projects in TIGER II

2010-10-20T12:39:00.000-07:00

Rendering of the Atlanta Peachtree Corridor Streetcar

Today, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood announced a series of investments in a range of transportation projects across the nation. As part of the Department of Transportation's TIGER II (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) program, 75 projects in 40 states were selected totaling $585 million out of more than 1,000 proposals submitted requesting more than $19 billion. Projects selected – divided between 42 capital projects and 33 planning efforts – focused on a range of transportation improvement activities, including new roadway and transit infrastructure, transit-oriented development, freight capacity enhancements and intermodal facilities.

Passenger rail-related projects fared well, as 11 capital and 11 planning projects were chosen that directly impact various passenger rail modes. Indeed, the largest single project selected was more than $47 million to support the construction of the Atlanta Peachtree Corridor Streetcar, which will connect with the existing MARTA heavy-rail metro network at its Peachtree Center station and stretch 2.7 miles reaching 12 stops within Atlanta's Peachtree Corridor. Meanwhile, the Utah Transit Authority received $26 million in investment to aid in the construction of the Sugar House Streetcar project, which will link to the existing TRAX light-rail network at the Central Pointe station, extending two miles to serve seven stops. The service is projected to attract 3,000 daily riders upon its opening in 2013.

Other significant capital projects include the rehabilitation of Tower 55 in downtown Fort Worth, Tex., where busy rail lines owned by BNSF and the Union Pacific intersect. The $34 million effort will allow not only freight, but Amtrak's Texas Eagle and Heartland Flyer trains, as well as Trinity Railway Express [see our full-length feature article in RAIL #1] commuter trains to and from Dallas, to navigate the intersection easier. Additionally, Niagara Falls, N.Y., will receive $16.5 million to construct a new passenger station and customs and immigration facility near the Niagara Gorge at the Whirlpool Bridge to better serve Amtrak's Maple Leaf – which operates between Toronto, Ont., and New York City, as well as the terminal destination for its Empire Service corridor trains to Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany and New York City.

Perhaps the most interesting approach supported by the new round of investment is a $20 million award to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) for the development of the Crenshaw Corridor light-rail line. The grant leverages a previously-announced $546 million loan through the Department of Transportation's TIFIA program that will accelerate the 8.5 mile project by perhaps a decade or more. The route will connect the Expo/Crenshaw station on the currently-under construction Exposition Line [see our full-length feature article in RAIL #22] with Los Angles International Airport (LAX) and the existing Green Line light rail near the airport, providing rail service for the first time to communities such as Inglewood and Westchester.

Other capital projects will include new or upgraded intermodal stations in Moline, Ind., and Des Moines, Iowa ($10 million each) as well as rail station revitalization and improvement projects in Philadelphia, Pa. ($15 million), Cleveland, Ohio ($10 million) and the Fordham Transit Center in New York, N.Y. ($10 million). A number of freight capacity improvements were also selected, and while they might not directly impact passenger rail systems, a more efficient and effective freight network benefits the entire rail sector. Likewise, TIGER II also includes investments for a number of transit improvements and great streets projects that enhance sustainable communities through new pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, accessibility features and livability enhancements that affect communities and neighborhoods with existing passenger rail service. A full list of, and fact sheets on the capital projects selected for Tiger II funding is available here.

Moreover, the 11 planning-related projects directly related to passenger rail allow for plans and studies to move forward on transit-oriented development (TOD) efforts at the West Oakland Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station in Oakland, Calif. ($2 million) [see our profile on TOD at BART's Fruitvale station in RAIL #15], the Canal Crossing project in Jersey City, N.J. served by NJ Transit's Hudson-Bergen light-rail line ($1.9 million) [see our profile in RAIL #1], Denver's West Corridor light-rail extension currently under construction ($1.1 million), and at Greenville, S.C.'s Amtrak station ($235,000). Planning grant investment will also advance plans for new stations in Newark, Del. ($2.2 million), Madison, Wisc. ($950,000) and Lexington, N.C. ($700,000), as well as supporting studies on the east rail corridor in Pittsburgh, Pa. ($825,000), relocating the South Shore commuter railroad in Northern Indiana off of street-running trackage in Michigan City, Ind. ($800,000) [see our profile in RAIL #1), a new urban circulator system – possibly a streetcar – in Oklahoma City, Okla. ($378,000), and revitalization of neighborhoods surrounding the Metrolink light-rail system in University City, Mo. ($150,000). A full list and descriptions of the Tiger II planning projects can be found here.

Rail & State of Good Repair

2010-10-05T08:07:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood and Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff announced $776 million in investment to support the ongoing maintenance and vehicle needs of transit providers across the nation. While the bulk of the investment is rightly targeted to help transit agencies purchase new buses and bus maintenance facilities – which also helps those systems also operating rail networks by improving the organization's overall stability – there were a few projects that have real or potential benefits for passenger rail operations.

The most prominent is the $7.4 million investment to the New Orleans Regional Transit Authority (RTA) to renovate its historic Carrollton streetcar barn, which houses the agency's equally historic St. Charles Streetcars. The 1893 barn is the nation's oldest continually operating transit maintenance facility and was mercifully spared from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, unlike its newer counterpart on Canal Street. The renovation process will make the building ADA-compliant and introduce improved and energy-efficient lighting, new floors and waste treatment systems as well as security devices.

Additionally, the Jacksonville Transit Authority will receive more than $2.3 million to rehabilitate the bus facilities at three of the system's eight Sykyway elevated people mover stations. The work will improve the electrical and structural components at the stations to enhance the passenger experience for travelers connecting between the Skyway and local bus routes. The 2.5-mile Skyway – similar to other people movers in Detroit and Miami – opened in 1989 to serve downtown Jacksonville attractions and spans the St. John's River to reach the south side of the downtown area.

Finally, although not yet connected to any passenger rail service, one of the largest grants – $16 million – was awarded to the Duluth Transit Authority (DTA) for the construction of the Twin Points Multimodal Transportation Terminal. In addition to serving local bus routes of the DTA, intercity bus lines, taxis, car rental providers and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, the facility could serve as the northern terminus for the planned Northern Lights Express intercity passenger rail operation to Minneapolis. The 155-mile corridor would host trains every two hours and reach speeds up to 110 mph. The presence of an established multimodal facility in Duluth will make the project more attractive for federal and state investment.

Amtrak's Vision for High-Speed Rail in the Northeast

2010-09-30T12:10:00.000-07:00

Source: Amtrak

On Tuesday, Amtrak released a concept document detailing their vision for high-speed rail service in the Northeast. Today, Amtrak's Stephen Gardner – the chief architect of the plan – briefed interested parties on the specifics of the plan, which is intended to function in concert with the railroad's Northeast Corridor (NEC) Infrastructure Master Plan and the work of the recently-formed Northeast Corridor Advisory Commission. As a introductory note, I presented an extensive look at the evolution of the Northeast Corridor as it exists today in this forum over the summer. I'd encourage a view of that post for those interested in the route's history, attributes and challenges.

The first and most important aspect of the proposal to consider is its price tag: $117 billion, divided into $4.7 billion annual increments over the project's 40-year horizon of development and construction. There is currently no identified source of investment at any level of government or private-sector alternative that could deliver that level of funding. Indeed, federal high-speed investment for the entire nation to-date amounts to only $13 billion – through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and the 2010 and 2010 Fiscal Year appropriations – while the most recent multi-year surface transportation, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) provided a total of $256.4 billion for all surface transportation modes over a six-year period. A project of this scope and magnitude would be unprecedented in the public sector.

Until the question of how such a project would attract investment is considered, the larger question of its concept and execution is largely academic. In all likelihood, only some innovative and unique blend of federal and state spending plus private-sector investment would make such an effort possible. Moreover, thus far, Amtrak has offered no options or scenarios for the realization of these funds, nor for the $52 billion required to implement the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan. However, as Gardner noted, without the presence of a conceptual vision for what such investment would achieve, it would be impossible to build support among any constituency for such a significant funding effort.

It is almost shocking to consider that until Amtrak's announcement on Tuesday, no formal high-speed rail plan for the Northeast had ever been presented to the public. By comparison, plans for such networks in California, Florida, the Midwest and other corridors had been formulated decades ago, and work is only just ready to begin in the first of those projects – California and Florida – in the coming year. Additionally, the genesis for those plans have come from the state and regional levels and Amtrak – while supportive of, and a major participant in those plans – had not taken the lead in such a proposal. So, the railroad has done the Northeast region a substantial service in producing an initial starting point for discussion, regardless of the funding mechanisms necessary to achieve the project.

For Amtrak to position itself at the front of an effort to implement high-speed rail in the Northeast not only smartly serves its own interests, but also is the most sensible entity to initiate the discussion. The region stretching south-by-southwest from Maine to Washington, D.C. is so closely tied to the identity of Amtrak's signature asset – the existing NEC – that it's often branded with that title on matters unrelated to train travel or even transportation. This contrasts with the projects in California and Florida largely confined to a single state apparatus, and the focus of the Midwest initiative on routes centered around Chicago. Because the vital role of Amtrak in the Northeast, an high-speed effort must be informed by and integrated with the realities of the NEC, and given its role as owner and operator of that infrastructure, their involvement is paramount. Also, as the only current operator of high-speed rail service in the western hemisphere (Amtrak's Acela reaches 150 mph on a small part of the NEC), Amtrak should play an important part in sharing its experiences, operating practices and institutional knowledge of the mode, especially when it's positioned in its backyard.

Beyond the a priori fiscal, governmental and political considerations of the proposal as described above, there is much to be excited about in Amtrak's plan. It envisions the establishment of a true high-speed rail corridor between Boston, Mass., and Washington via New York, N.Y. that makes service at speeds up to 220 mph possible and average speeds close to 150 mph. Most impressively, the new infrastructure would make possible trips between Boston and New York in 1 hour and 36 minutes and between New York and Washington in 1 hour and 23 minutes. The entire corridor could be traversed in 3 hours and 23 minutes on express trains only stopping at New York's Penn and Grand Central stations.

If such a route was established, it would compete with those in Europe and Asia as the most beneficial and profitable in the world. Amtrak estimates the project would return at least $2 for every $1 in investment over the corridor's century-plus lifetime through increased economic development, property values, economic productivity, energy use, environmental benefits and regional connectivity, presenting the opportunity to realize more than $230 billion in returned investment over time. Moreover, the high-speed service would generate significant operating revenues, to the tune of nearly $1 billion each year. To this end, Gardner noted on several occasions that their revenue projections conservatively assumed current economic conditions, such as demand for travel along the corridor, current fuel prices and population projections. Should any of these dynamics change in favor of rail travel – say fuel prices at $5 or $6 – the service's profits would only grow. No other high-speed rail project in the western hemisphere offers such positive revenue forecasts, and such profitability may be a tool to attract private investment in the project's capital infrastructure in exchange for concessions on future revenues.

The plain aims to achieve this level of service by constructing entirely new high-speed tracks in the corridor that would be exclusively dedicated to high-speed trains like the Acela. Gardner was careful to point out that although their vision considered several potential alignments for both the Boston to New York and New York to Washington segments, the document was not an in-depth engineering nor environmental study, and future planning work would be necessary to select the exact routes and infrastructure options. However, based on the preliminary alignments investigated in Tuesday's report (see map at top), the new tracks would roughly reside alongside the current NEC rails from between New York and Washington, except for new tunnels through Philadelphia, Pa. and Baltimore, Md., and new structures near Wilmington, Del. Meanwhile, north of Manhattan, a largely entirely new railroad would be built from New Rochelle, N.Y. to near Route 128 outside of Boston, stretching through northern Connecticut and Rhode Island to serve the Connecticut cities of Danbury, Waterbury and Hartford along with Woonsocket, R.I. The route would be a northerly departure from the current NEC shoreline route through New Haven and Providence, R.I., and essentially create two parallel high-speed lines through New England through the combination of the new tracks and the current NEC. Additionally, a new tunnel under Manhattan would link Penn and Grand Central stations for the first time.

Source: Amtrak

Beyond the benefits offered by true high-speed rail service in one of the world's leading mega-regions, the project would also introduce significant benefits via the improved efficiency of the existing NEC. By dedicating the highest-speed traffic to the new infrastructure – and implementing the capital projects specified in the NEC Infrastructure Master Plan – new capacity would be introduced to increase commuter and freight traffic on the line, which today is constrained by the capacity required by Acela traffic. The two railroads would work in tandem to provide a multifaceted and redundant rail travel network in the region. And, while far from a detailed service plan, the proposal includes a preliminary routing structure (see map above) that would include so-called Super Express trains – stopping only at Boston, the two New York Stations, Philadelphia and Washington – regular Express trains making all stops on the new corridor, Shoreline Express trips traveling from Boston on the current NEC through Providence and New Haven before switching to the new route, and Regional trains operating on the existing NEC, as well as connections on the recently-upgraded Keystone line to Harrisburg, Pa. Projects to enhance existing regional routes to Portland, Maine, Springfield, Conn., Albany, N.Y. and Richmond, Va., could all coincide with the new corridor as well.

Amtrak's vision for a new approach to high-speed rail in the Northeast is an important first step in a process that could revolutionize the region for more than a century. The lack of investment scenarios for the effort is concerning and potentially fatal, although hardly Amtrak's fault. As Gardner himself noted, the project will only be realized if the region – and potentially the nation – devotes its collective and political will to the endeavor. Public officials and concerned citizens should take a long look at the compelling ideas and underlying justifications presented in Amtrak's vision. Few opportunities exist today that could so significantly and positively impact a large number of people, boost our economy and improve our quality of life. Reasonable people can have valuable discussions and rational disagreements over whether the risk inherent in the upfront investment necessary is worthy of the potential benefits. But those discussions can and must occur, and Amtrak should receive credit for setting the stage for such a dialogue to take place.

Outside Investment in California's High Speed Rail Network

2010-09-16T15:51:00.000-07:00

(AP Photo/Eugene Hoshiko)

This week, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is in Asia on a multi-nation trade visit aimed at attracting investment in his state's ailing economy. During his visits to China, Japan and South Korea, Schwarzenegger is also visiting the high-speed rail systems of those respective nations in advance of California's own plans for a similar network. Considering that the United States has no manufacturers of high-speed rail technology, and Amtrak's only experience operating the mode is the relatively slow-speed Northeast Corridor, expertise from either Europe or Asia will likely be needed to deploy and operate the project.

During his stops in both Japan and China, government and business representatives in those nations have offered to invest in California's high-speed rail network should their competing technologies and firms be chosen as exclusive or leading partners in the effort. While the level of investment for either nation would be dependent on the scope of their involvement, and federal and state investment will still contribute a sizable portion of the project, the inclusion of foreign investment in California's high-speed rail network could just be the bridge from the current mix of $12.3 billion in state ($10 billion) and federal ($2.3 billion) support already committed to the program to its total $40 billion pricetag.

American theorists on U.S. protectionism and exceptionalism will likely gasp at such arrangement, arguing such a move would suggest an inherently week American economy and governmental structure. Leaving such lofty discussions of economics and political theory to other observers, its important to note that those arguments ignore a fundamental truth of American history and its economy: we've always been dependent on help from others around the world, and nowhere moreso than our infrastructure and transportation technologies. Salon.com offers a fantastic account of Sino-American cooperation on building California's railroads, then and now. Meanwhile, immigrants from many countries toiled in relative poverty to build our subways, railroads, highways and telephone lines – infrastructure that remains the backbone of our society today. Moreover, the space program that put a man the moon and instilled so much national pride during the 1960s and 70s did so with substantial know-how and resources from German scientists in the immediate aftermath of World War II. So to suggest that incorporating foreign investment and knowledge now to realize a high-speed rail network in California is nothing short of revisionist.

USA Rail 2010 - Day 2

2010-09-14T08:16:00.000-07:00

DENVER, Colo. -- Today begins day 2 of the USA Rail 2010 Conference here in Denver. On the slate for today are sessions on smarter rail planning, high-speed rail and communications, signaling and train control. As with yesterday, check back throughout the day for updates as the day progresses.

3:55 p.m. – Gil Carmichael wraps-up the conference with his thoughts on the future of rail in the United States by noting the significant scope of issues facing both passenger and freight rail in the years ahead. Proclaims the 21st century to be an "intermodal century," to flow seamlessly from one system to another. Just beginning to construct the system to clean up the disconnects to produce a safe and reasonably cost railroad system.

3:18 p.m. – To close the conference on a technical perspective, the final panel considers the operational aspects of communications systems, train signaling networks and positive train control (PTC). Keith Szewczyk of Ansaldo-STS moderated an provided an overview of PTC technology. Through the technology, train movements are monitored by on-board and wayside computer systems and can assume control of the train if an incursion occurs. PRIIA of 2008 included a provision to integrate PTC on most of the nation's railroads by 2015.

Eileen Reilly, the Chief Information and Technology Officer of the Alaska Railroad Corporation, described her railroad's efforts beginning in 1996 to improve its safety and communications systems on a voluntary basis. At the time, some elements of their network even utilized vacuum tubes. Now, prepared to implement PTC provisions by 2013. Challenge is even though the railroad will never connect to any other railroads, it still strives for its equipment and infrastructure that is interoperable with standards throughout the industry.

Jeff Young of the Union Pacific Railroad noted that while his railroad was moving forward with PTC provisions before the PRIIA, the interoperability requirements have provided significant challenges. While the long-term benefits of PTC will likely improve conditions for the Class I railroads, the up-front capital costs of the technology are significant. The layover of new technology on existing signaling and communications presents notable risks in terms of reliability.

Finally, Dr. Mark Hartong of the Federal Railroad Administration, admits the PRIAA-directed PTC provisions is a non-trivial task for the Administration, railroads and many other stakeholders. 3 issues for PTC compliance: interoperability, installation of communications infrastructure (and appropriate capacity where wireless communications is congested), and the scope of the effort.

2:30 p.m. – Focusing the high-speed rail discussion closer to Denver and the Rocky Mountain region is the next panel, looking at new intercity options to parallel the increasingly congested Interstates 70 and 25. Anthony DeVito from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) provided an update on CDOT's efforts to improve multimodal options along the I-70 corridor. Efforts are building off the successful completion of the TREX project in Denver. Will be initiating passenger and freight rail plans for Colorado, as well as a state high-speed rail plan.

Harry Dale, Chairman and CEO of the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority, described his agency's work involving 52 Colorado jurisdictions to introduce and improve intercity passenger rail service. Looking at feasible rail corridors paralleling the I-70 and I-25 routes, connections between north/south (I-25) and east/west (I-70) are essential. Meanwhile, because of 75 mph speed limits on Colorado highways, even 110 mph service is just competitive with auto travel times. Highway corridors offer better ridership opportunities than existing freight rail lines. Geography in the region presents steep grade challenges for new alignments, along with environmental concerns. Because of the already significant amount of new infrastructure required, maglev technology would be a favorable option.

Kevin Cotes, Executive Director of the North American Maglev Institute, discussed the possibilities offered by maglev technology in the I-70 and I-25 corridors. Highlighted the low life-cycle and maintenance costs germane to the mode, and why it might be the best option for the new alignments and steep grades

2:02 p.m. – Mike Murray of the Illinois Governor's Office described the state's rail transportation policy initiatives and especially the Chicago – St. Louis high-speed corridor. As a part of a larger midwest regional rail system, the route will be the most visible element of a long-term effort to improve service throughout the region. Project is expected to create 57,000 permanent jobs throughout the midwest upon completion. Small improvements in frequency, trip time and reliability can significantly improve ridership, as evidenced by recent gains by Amtrak's Hiawatha and Chicago - St. Louis corridor services. Now working with other states in the region and communities to speak with a single vision, which resulted in $2.6 billion in ARRA investment for high-speed and intercity passenger rail in the region. And while true high-speed rail service at 220 mph service is a desirable long-term goal, improvements to 110 mph service is achievable now to build ridership and familiarity with rail travel. Notes similarities with Madrid - Seville corridor in Spain; didn't happen overnight, but rather with incremental improvements. Economic development efforts can't wait for full high-speed rail.

Image from Midwest High Speed Rail Association

1:55 p.m. – Greg Hanna of the Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) presented his agency's findings and recommendations in regards to high-speed rail. Those recommendations include establishing goals for the investment, establish the roles of the various participants in the public and private sectors, and establish where investment will come from and how fund are distributed. Those aspects are informed by and dependent on each other. He noted that unless a dedicated revenue stream is established for federal investment in passenger rail is established, those funds will have to compete with other programs.

12:10 p.m. – Beyond Florida's high-speed rail project is a broader campaign to introduce high or higher speed services around the nation. In a session moderated by Lewis Geotz – a founder and board member of the American High Speed Rail Alliance – the panel considered the definition of high-speed rail, implementing projects, sustainability of high-speed rail, ridership forecasts and the role of Amtrak.

Geotz noted that both the funding and ridership elements of the various projects are essential aspects of high-speed rail's viability. Meanwhile, the American reality of high-speed rail is a bit different than systems elsewhere in the world and our unique situation must be accounted for, and described the FTA definitions of emerging, regional and express high-speed rail designations.

Jamie Rall from the National Conference of State Legislatures referenced her organization's high-speed rail working group and the major role of states in high-speed and intercity passenger rail. That tole in supporting capital projects and the operation of systems, and federal investment is only a recent development. Many obstacles for states including budget challenges, constitutional previsions and limited resources and staff. "Many states who want these systems and consider them a priority may be unable to do their part. Need permanent, direct and sustainable support of federal support."

Petra Todorovich, Director of America 2050, views high-speed rail as a "transformative, region-shaping investment." Riderships is the key to sustainability of high-speed rail projects, not only in terms of operating revenues, but also general political and public support. Underlying benefits are (economic development, environmental protection, etc) impossible without strong ridership. Factors that contribute to ridership: level of service (frequency, trip times, reliability, comfort); regional elements (population, spatial distribution/density, employment concentration/composition of labor markets, network effects); transit system connections; proven intercity market for corridor (air travel, road congestion, existing rail ridership); and competition (other service options in the corridor, price of fuel/tolls, vehicle ownership).

Quentin Kopp, a Board Member of the California High Speed Rail Authority, described some of the lessons learned so far through the project, and why the state has set its sights on 220 mph service. Kopp introduced several pieces of legislation in the California State Legislature during his service in that body that ultimately led to the Authority's creation in 1996 as a separate governmental entity, with work conducted under contract by private entities. Project is on-schedule despite lawsuits and funding challenges. Project phases: San Francisco - San Jose to Los Angeles (500 miles), adopted in 2006 by Authority. 2nd phase; from San Diego to Los Angeles and Merced to Sacramento. Total: 800 miles. Project lessons: select equipment as early as possible; be mindful of political turnover; don't underestimate the need for early and consistent public relations; avoid legislative limitations to project momentum (ie. subsidy prevention, grade crossing separation, elimination of station); and don't be intimidated by "secret forces" intent on stopping high-speed rail.

11:12 a.m. – An eclectic panel looks at the connection between people and cargo in development projects. By co-locating the passenger and freight elements of transportation in well-designed facilities, improved efficiencies and private investment could be realized to support projects with substantial community benefits. Catherine Cox Blair of Reconnecting America moderated the panel and presented an overview of transit-oriented development districts. People who live near transit are 5 times as likely to take transit.

Maria Choca-Urban of the Center for Neighborhood Technology mentioned the mixed-use industrial development that occurs around freight transportation assets, which they term cargo-oriented development (COD). When working together, TOD and COD can combine to support communities built around railroad infrastructure, such as those in Chicagoland, including Blue Island and Harvey, which are both served by Metra commuter rail and freight railroads.

Jack Wierzenski, Director of Economic Development and Planning for Dallas Area Rapid Transit, described his agency's transit-oriented development efforts (note: see our full-length feature article on DART in RAIL Edition #13) and how models from those projects will inform their future light-rail extensions and new commuter rail services, such as the Cotton Belt line. From the rail transit agency perspective, development opportunities present revenue opportunities to support service operation and expansion. Land values from DART TOD projects increased for residential spaces by 39 percent and office space over 50 percent, bringing hundreds of millions additional tax revenues to local and state governments.

Scott Johnson, the Vice President for Public Infrastructure at Mincom – a asset management software provider for rail and transit providers – explained how a standard maintenance and safety management strategy is essential to successful TOD projects. Due to the number of moving parts, coordinating those elements is often overlooked.

10:22 a.m. – Nazih Haddad, CEO of Florida Rail Enterprise, presents on the forthcoming Orlando – Tampa high-speed rail corridor, likely to be the first in the nation. Began to change with Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act (PRIIA) of 2008 and strengthened by American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. Florida was ready to respond to ARRA opportunity because of previous planning work. State legislature's first special session ever was called in December 2009 to consider (and approve) state investment in passenger rail, which also initiated support for Orlando's SunRail project. First record of decision by FRA for high-speed rail in nation's history. State's passenger rail effort is part of DOT, not separate from. Extensive details on the Tampa – Orlando project, for which the state already owns 93% of right-of-way. Frequency: hourly. Ridership: 2.3 million annually. Maximum speed: 168 mph. Connectivity will be essential, from light rail and commuter rail to airport access.

10:01 a.m. – Amtrak's Bruce Hillblom notes how efforts to address climate change interact with Amtrak's interest in promoting mobility alternatives such as passenger rail. Rail (both passenger and freight) inherently enjoys an environmental advantage because of its efficiency and low efficiency. Amtrak hopes to become even more environmentally-friendly while also increasing its market share. Some efforts include increased electrification, use of bio fuels (ie. Heartland Flyer,see image below) lightweight equipment, reduction of engine idling and more energy-efficient locomotives. "The cheapest gallon of fuel is the one you don't use."

Heartland Flyer bio fuel locomotive

9:43 a.m. – Looking at generating revenue through sustainable practices, Colin Peppard from the Natural Resources Defense Council discussed new paradigms in climate protection through transportation mechanisms. Paradigms include fuel policy, emissions reduction and land use. New environmentally-friendly business practices can be new profit centers. Cites CEO's for Cities "Green Dividend"study of the benefits to communities and its residents through more efficient transportation networks; green as in economic and environmental.

9:12 a.m. – James Hertwig, CEO of the Florida East Coast Railway (a Class II railroad) explains his railroad's business growth in Florida and their interaction with the state's port facilities in Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach and Miami (see map below). He also noted their efforts to improve connections with Class I freight carriers in Jacksonville (CSX and Norfolk Southern), and their work with Amtrak to introduce regular intercity passenger rail service between Jacksonville and Miami. "Both passenger and freight rail are aligned in their interests to reduce congestion and improve environmental impacts of transportation." First freight railroad to utilize automatic train control along its route. The railroad also is a member of the Environmental Protection Agency's SmartWay program. Passenger stations along the route will be key to a successful service in the future; need to be well-located, secure and enticing to all types of travelers (including restaurants and business amenities such as wireless internet). Also looking at commuter rail service from Jupiter to Miami along the railroad.

Florida East Coast Railway

9:00 a.m. – Gil Carmichael gets the day underway again, recapping yesterday's sessions and discussing the National Center for Intermodal Transportation's recent white paper on a national rail plan.

USA Rail 2010

2010-09-13T08:00:00.000-07:00

DENVER, Colo. -- Greetings from Denver, Colorado and the USA Rail 2010 Conference. I will be liveblogging from the event today and tomorrow, as a mix of passenger and freight rail professionals will discuss the trends and directions in our nation's railroad network. So check back often for reports on topics such as passenger and freight integration, capital projects, Denver's Union Station redevelopment project and other issues.

4:20 p.m. – Continuing on the public-private partnerships theme of earlier sessions, a trio of presenters shared their experiences with projects that included significant contributions from – and relationships between – the public and private sectors. Adam Nicolopoulos lead off and spoke again on raising capital for infrastructure projects. On high-speed projects specifically, he noted the wide scope, high risk, low profitability and long construction periods inherent in these efforts that contribute to the high capital needs. Viability of services improve after initial period (ie 10-12 years).

Next, Bill James of the RTD provided additional details on their Eagle P3 project with Denver Transit Partners. Stemmed from 2004 vote to approve FasTracks and the ability to combine several corridor efforts into a single project to maximize federal investment, improve efficiency and reduce project schedules. Key issues: where control and risk lie within the agreement.

Finally, Michael Barron, Chairman and CEO of the Las Vegas Railway Express, Inc., described his firm's plans to initiate intercity passenger rail service between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. He explained their communication with Amtrak, BNSF and Union Pacific, along with private investors, and the dynamics between the players in order to identify their respective interests.

3:10 p.m. – Building on the earlier discussion of the Denver Union Station redevelopment project, representatives from Denver's Regional Transportation District (RTD) described their multi-year, multi-corridor infrastructure expansion campaign, FasTracks. RTD Director Bill James and Senior Manager John Shonsey explained the genesis of the effort. Shonsey explained that prioritizing corridors failed to generate overall community support. Instead FasTracks is a series of one new light rail corridor, three commuter rail lines and one BRT route, along with new transit centers and the Union Station redevelopment. In terms of the rail projects, two of the commuter lines and the new Gold Line light rail corridor will operate in existing rail corridors but on new, dedicated passenger tracks. He also described their partnerships with the various railroads which own the rail lines, and the communications efforts needed to bring projects to fruition.

James described the various investment streams that support FasTracks, including the .4% local sales tax and their Eagle P3 (public-private partnership) agreement with Denver Transit Partners. Construction on the project will begin this fall and amount to a total project of $2.3 billion. He noted the lengthy process needed to devise the proposal selection process and its uniqueness to date in the passenger rail industry.

2:15 p.m. – A quartet of speakers discuss attracting public investment for rail projects, moderated by Adam Nicolopoulos of ADN Capital Ventures. Cheryl Jones representing the TIFIA loan program of the U.S. Department of Transportation highlighted the differences between DOT grant programs and TIFIA. Using revenues from tolls and tax increment financing options, among other mechanisms, projects pay back the initial loan investment to support projects when straight grant-based investment is limited. Notes that the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco represented the first time that only tax increment financing would be allowed as a financing stream. Garvey Bonds are also an option to leverage future grant monies. TIFIA offers repayment terms more favorable than those available on the general market, and interest rate is irrespective of credit quality. TIFIA doesn't just want to be repaid, but wants to see the project built.

Matt Ginsberg of Chambers, Conlon & Hartwell, LLC in Washington which presents railroad interests discussed the financing opportunities for rail as marked by a good deal of interest, but not much vision. He discussed reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU and the prospects for Congressional action, along with various revenue options to support investment provided by the legislation.

Rodney Massman from the Missouri Department of Transportation describes how various states support rail projects and Missouri's efforts to increase investment in its St. Louis - Kansas City corridor. Multimodal programs in state DOTs are hard to define and often can be blocked by restrictions on use of funds. Many states' rail programs were burdened by small staffs and limited resources. He also noted that although ARRA offered 100% federal investment for high-speed and intercity passenger projects, the subsequent annual appropriations that required 20% state investment received significantly more requests than dollars available, indicating a willingness by many states to partner with the federal government to support new projects.

12:18 p.m. – Project officials involved with the Denver Union Station redevelopment effort (see rendering below) present about the project and some of its unique elements. Elbra Wedgeworth, President of the Denver Union Station Project Authority provided some history of the 1894 facility and how the redevelopment project has moved forward. Meanwhile, Bill Mosher, Project Manager for the project discussed the gradual effort to return activity to the station and the FasTraks Program which will bring to Union Station commuter rail lines to Denver International Airport and three other routes, a new West corridor light rail line and a 22-bay regional bus facility. Moreover, the project will introduce over 3 million square feet of development space to the west of the train platforms and the creation of a public plaza. The project involves extensive investment and financing options, including a mix of federal, state and local support as well as private investment through the nearby development. The key to bringing the project closer to reality has been the blend of a regional transit vision, community place-making and the utilization of public-private partnerships.

Denver Union Station redevelopment

11:46 a.m. – Martin Leinweber from DuPont Sustainable Solutions presents ideas on managing large capital projects. Goal of capital project is to safely produce a good or service that meets objectives, not to build a rail line or refurbish a station.

Scott Witt of the Washington Department of Transportation discusses the continued growth of the Cascades service in the Pacific Northwest. ARRA grant has been a challenging process; MOU with BNSF recently agreed-to; will lead to advanced signilization and corridor reliability efforts. Multiple players in partnerships required is not easy, but essential. Need to find common interest. Terminology has been a huge issue (ie. "operationally complete"). Second train to Vancouver was very well received and exceeded expectations for ridership. FRA traditional regulatory/safety role is now transitioning into grant-making role, with a limited staff and resources, so it will take time for them to get up to speed.

Mark Bristol of Union Pacific mentions his railroad's work on the Illinois project and how similar projects will be dealt with in the future. Smaller projects in Missouri and California. FRA provisions in May were especially surprising and changed the risk profiles for the railroads. Being "on the hook" for project outcomes was a non-starter for Union Pacific and other railroads. Good relationships with state partners, but new federal regulations are difficult. Illinois situation is favorable because there are alternate routes between Chicago and St. Louis, so can take the risk of passenger capacity. Full vision is for a full 2-track railroad and certain sections of 3-track to support 18 total passenger trips each day at 110 mph. Also, geography is good for high-speed operation. Communication is key with partners, minimize contact through consultants. Also need realistic expectations to deal with railroad's motivations and challenges. Avoid premature cost estimates. Reimburse railroads to build capacity plans to improve buy-in, and take advantage of their institutional expertise. Not much constructive involvement with FRA.

Bruce Hillblom of Amtrak discusses how freight and passenger entities must work together to build a larger market for rail. "Transformational misconception on high-speed rail at 220 mph and tsunami of 110 mph trains to be forced, but markets evolve gradually, and it will be new services where none exist, increased frequency where limited and reliability improved everywhere." Amtrak respects franchise of freight railroads and partnership is key. A new set of economic challenges requires new partnerships to meet them. PRIIA and ARRA are just the first steps. If potential corridor already has Amtrak service, access Amtrak's expertise and build on existing relationships.

11:05 a.m. – A balanced panel of passenger and freight rail officials discuss how to improve cooperation between the two sectors. Mark Hinsdale from CSX mentions the challenge of maintaining the freight franchise and still provide the passenger benefit that seems to be growing in numbers and interest. Not much freight can take advantage of higher speeds. Only co-mingled operation at over 79 mph is on Hudson Line in New York. Opportunity of former New York Central, 4-track right-of-way between Schnectady and Buffalo. Luxury not available elsewhere, especially in the south. Difficult to mix 100 mph passenger trains and 40 mph freight trains without additional capacity added. European systems usually do not mix freight and passenger operations. CREATE is rare public-private partnership that has benefits for everyone to improve reliability and frequency, not speed.

10:27 a.m. – Clark Robertson from CSX Transportation notes the numerous regulatory and legislative challenges facing the freight industry: re-regulation, positive train control (PTC) and passenger rail interaction. Re-regulation should not backslide from gains made after Staggers. PTC: series of technologies to prevent human errors. PTC will create safer railroads, but only prevent 4% of all accidents (can't prevent track failures, equipment failures or grade crossing collisions). Well-intentioned, but unfunded $10 billion mandate with technology that's still being developed. Consequence is significant delay to capital investment. High-speed and passenger rail: CSX hosts more passenger trains than any other railroads. Federal funding does not yet match vision and forces freight to shoulder too much of the burden. Key elements for freight-passenger integration: safety (30ft separation and dedicated corridors over 90 mph), capacity, liability and compensation.

10:09 a.m. – Peter Gilberston, CEO of Anacostia & Pacific railroad consultants considers how the renaissance of the freight rail industry can continue. Renaissance embodied by Warren Buffet's acquisition of BNSF. Staggers Act was a massive transformation of the industry (see below chart). Productivity, volume, revenue and rates all significantly improved. Prior to Staggers, many industry leaders did not have confidence in their own industry. New leaders, some from outside, changed the culture. Similar confidence is now growing for passenger rail.

Source: Association of American Railroads

9:55 a.m. – A panel of freight railroad representatives look at trends in the freight industry. Jerry Vest of the Genesee & Wyoming suggests freight railroads are a solid long-term investment with good management. G&W oversees a network of short line railroads across the nation. Resurgence of industry accomplished by Staggers Act in 1980 (unlocked ability to better serve customers and meet investment demands), cost of carbon fuel shifted traffic off roads (but freight rail is more efficient, 1 ton of freight 436 miles on 1 gallon of fuel), growth and acceptance of intermodalism, and better technology. Railroading is a long-life business where assets often exceed the lifespan of the customers and original decision-makers.

9:41 a.m. – John Gray of the Association of American Railroads talks about putting large numbers of passenger trains on freight railroads. Freight rail industry has maintained capital spending despite economic recession, and increasingly on infrastructure rather than equipment. New passenger service must compete with freight growth. "High-speed is up to a lot of interpretation as to what it means, but generally it's lines at – or moving towards – 110 mph." Initial agreements for new projects will require a lot of individuality for each project. Issues: passenger rail should compliment, not conflict with freight; liability protection; full compensation (not Amtrak incremental cost model); no forced access; some uses not compatible with freight infrastructure (especially very high speed). Also, people access to rights-of-way and station facilities significant concern. How to improve: look at light density lines; train management conflicts and maintenance/safety enhancements; separate facilities above 110 mph; de-bottleneck chokepoints; upgrade terminal access routes; and increasing average overall speeds, not top speeds. "Frequency is one of the most important aspects in acceptance of passenger rail, but frequency comes at the expense of capacity and capacity is expensive to build and maintain."

9:26 a.m. – Judy Mitchell, Director of Strategic Initiatives for Canadian Pacific, speaks of her company's efforts involving passenger rail. Cites TEA-21 as beginning of progress for reforming rail network; led to projects like the Hiawatha light rail and Northstar commuter rail in Minneapolis. "Canadian Pacific has worked closely with Wisconsin DOT to advance projects." Freight mandate is to improve our operations; public projects can learn lessons from freight sector on how to transition to a vibrant industry. Have to make difficult investment choices. "A long-term plan for the passenger network is crucial." Intermodal connections can be modeled off freight multi-modal facilities developed over the last several decades. How to improve the network: Make safety a priority; Fill trains you have and then make them longer; Increase speed, reduce dwell and idle time, and ensure reliable scheduling. "Fast, predictable service is important for customer satisfaction, whether they're passengers or freight."

9:10 a.m. – A trio of public, private and association speakers discuss how to bring North America's passenger rail network into the 21st Century. Donna Brown, the Passenger Rail Planning Manager of the Wisconsin Dept. of Transportation focuses on the sustainability of the network. "Transit or passenger rail should not have to justify their existence more than any other mode...to provide benefits to all citizens of our state." Similar doubts about Interstate Highway System at its inception as high-speed and intercity rail today. Milwaukee - Chicago Hiawatha Service indicates model for success for Milwaukee - Madison project. New service will be successful because residents will consider their options. Goal is to improve quality of life and to improve mobility options, not to make a profit. ARRA grant will buy equipment, upgrade Canadian Pacific route and build stations. Opportunity to return passenger rail to Madison. "We were ready to produce a shovel-ready high-speed rail at 110 mph by 2016." Working with Canadian Pacific to identify needs, improve signaling and communications and share aspects of training programs. Focusing on a Wisconsin workforce address immediate need for construction and long-term maintenance program.

8:50 a.m. – Former FRA Administrator Gil Garmichael sets the state with an overview of the future of the U.S. transportation network and how we got here, and the opportunities of not just a national rail plan, but a North American rail plan. Also mentions how airports should become key centers for intermodalism, much as discussed in RAIL Magazine #24. "We should double or triple track rail lines with full grade separation. We should electrify as much as possible, as well."

Named Trains

2010-09-11T07:55:00.000-07:00

FORT MORGAN, Colo. – Railroading is associated with a number of fine traditions, many of which are holdovers from the days when travel by train was the preferred mode of transportation. And while those days are unlikely to return to the same degree, a number of those hallmarks of railroading remain even in the contemporary environment of passenger rail.

The other day, I commented on one of these traditions – dining aboard long-distance trains. Meanwhile, the conductor – the official directly in charge of the operation of the train, not the engineer – remains a standard of order and professionalism somewhere between the equally Americana-flavored positions of baseball umpire and town clerk. Likewise, another classic element of passenger rail is its fantastic job at naming trains.

From the first time that a train skipped some stops along its route to become an express – likely sometime in the early-to-mid 1800s – railroads have been devising names for their trips, especially their most elite trains. Beyond the functional markers such as Express, Special and Limited that tell passengers something about how it operates, there are other designations such as Zephyr, Clipper and Flyer that evoke a sense of speed and elegance in their service. Indeed, even today, the name of the fastest train in the Western Hemisphere – the Acela Express – was chosen to reflect a combination of acceleration and excellence.

Since named trains first appeared, their titles have largely, but not exclusively, blended some geographic or thematic reference with a railroading descriptor such as Limited or Flyer to form a unique and descriptive brand for the train. I’ve previously referred to several of these monikers – the 20^th Century Limited of the New York Central, once believed to be the finest train in the world, or the train from which this post is being crafted, the California Zephyr. These names are nothing short of beautiful in of themselves, and were often enhanced by marketing and branding campaigns by their respective railroads. The font used for the 20^th Century Limited was synonymous with the Art Deco style popular in the 1930s and 40s, while the Zephyr’s streamlined motif helped to establish a theme that would be later applied to everything from automobiles to appliances. Should you have some free time to spend, a look at Wikipedia’s extensive list of named trains in North America and around the world is well-worth the visit.

Today, Amtrak proudly continues the tradition of naming their trains. Some are holdovers from its predecessors, such as the Southwest Chief of the Santa Fe, the Crescent coined by the Southern Railroad, the Empire Builder of the Great Northern and the City of New Orleans of the Illinois Central, among several others. Meanwhile, several names are newer creations, evidenced in the Downeaster, Heartland Flyer and Pacific Surfliner. Even many commuter rail operations have unique brands, such as the New Mexico RailRunner, Music City Star in Nashville or the Northstar line in Minnesota. Yet whether they are historic or contemporary, all suggest a strong sense of image and identity for the train as it serves a particular purpose or geographic region.

It’s hard to conjure the same sense of excitement and wonder from Flight #1246 from Chicago to Los Angeles – although, to be fair, every train – freight and passenger – bears a distinct number assignment for precision and traffic control. And while some airlines do a good job of naming their planes – Pan Am designated their first 747s as “Clipper Ships” and jetBlue names each aircraft with a distinct blue-themed identity (such as “Blue Moon” or “Blue Crew”) – their individual trips are known only by their numeric code. How much more exhilarating would a trip from New York JFK to London Heathrow be if it was known as the Trans-Atlantic Express, or a Denver-Vancouver crossing dubbed the Rocky Mountain Explorer? Perhaps air travelers might be in just a better mood if they’re challenged to think their trip is part of something special, instead of a number that vanishes once wheels hit tarmac?

In the meantime, passenger rail can and will claim exclusive domain over the evocative imagery associated with travel. As new trains sponsored by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act come online in the next few years, what will they be called? The Sunshine State Special high-speed train between Orlando and Tampa? Badger and Buckeye Services in Wisconsin and Ohio, respectively? The Golden State Express high-speed corridor in California? The possibilities are limited only by the imaginations of those charged with their selection. We wish them well in their efforts.

Chicago's Quartet of Terminals

2010-09-09T09:33:00.000-07:00

Chicago Union Station

Chicago has long been considered the premier city of American railroading. For more than 120 years, it has hosted the greatest numbers of rail miles and train movements for both passengers and freight, even in today's consolidated railroading environment. Amtrak's presence in Chicagoland likewise speaks to its national importance, with trains departing to coastal terminal locations in Boston, New York, Washington, New Orleans, Los Angeles, Oakland, Portland and Seattle, as well as more regional destinations such as Detroit, Port Huron and Grand Rapids, Mich., Quincy and Carbondale, Ill., St. Louis and Kansas City, Mo., Milwaukee, Wisc., and Indianapolis, Ind. No other station in the United States offers such a geographic array of destinations.

Additionally, the Windy City hosts more active passenger rail stations than any other in North America. Sure, New York has the magnificent Grand Central and the busy Penn Station, Boston its North and South Stations, Baltimore can boast about its Penn and Camden Stations, Philadelphia with the trio of 30th Street, Suburban and Market East and, up north, Montreal and Vancouver each maintain two terminals apiece. However, no city can claim it supports four stations serving daily passenger trains except Chicago and its quartet of Union Station, the Ogilvie Transportation Center, LaSalle Station and the recently rehabilitated Millennium Station. We'll take a look at each of these important transportation nodes and how they function together to serve Chicago.

Union Station's Great Hall still speaks to the grandeur of Burnham's design

Union Station

Union Station with its original 1924 concourse

RAIL Magazine's interest in Chicago's premier rail terminal began in our first edition and continued in our 18th issue (which also focused on the larger passenger rail network in Chicagoland). For an extensive profile of Union Station, you'd do best to read through those profiles. As an overview, no intercity passenger rail station between the east and west coasts hosts more passengers than this 1925 vintage facility. Home to 17 different Amtrak routes and six Metra commuter rail lines, more than 50,000 people pass through the station every day. While there is not a Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) L station directly connected to Union Station, there are several within walking distance. Designed by famed Chicago architect Daniel Burnham – he of the "make no small plans" quote fame – and restored in 1991 with a new concourse after its original version was demolished in 1969, the station is not only well-suited to accommodate its current scores of daily patrons, but also to serve as the centerpiece for expanded high-speed and intercity passenger rail service throughout the Midwest.

Ogilvie Transportation Center

Ogilvie Transportation Center

Chicago & Northwestern Terminal

While Union Station was originally built to serve the operations of numerous independent railroads in Chicago, it did not serve them all. One railroad that maintained its own facility was the Chicago & Northwestern (C&NW), which wanted a distinct presence in its hometown. As a result, the railroad constructed its namesake terminal in 1911 at Madison and Clinton streets on the west side of the Chicago River. Not only did C&NW trains such as the North Western Limited or the Dakota 400 call at the station, but so did joint C&NW-Union Pacific trains like the Overland Limited and the City of Los Angeles. The main terminal building stood at the location until 1984, when a new hi-rise office building to house Citicorp was constructed in its place. A new passenger station was included in the facility, which was subsequently renamed after Richard B. Ogilvie in 1997. Ogilvie was a board member of the Milwaukee Road and Governor of Illinois who was influential in the establishment of the Regional Transportation Authority. Metra assumed the commuter rail services of the C&NW – whose rail lines would eventually be acquired by the Union Pacific – and today, the Ogilvie Transportation Center hosts the Union Pacific West, Northwest and West lines to Elburn, Harvard/McHenry and Kenosha, Wisc., respectively. All told, these lines deliver more than 41,000 daily passengers to the 16-track station, and several L stops are nearby but, again, not directly attached to the depot.

LaSalle Station

LaSalle Station

The original LaSalle Station

Like the Ogilvie Transportation Center, LaSalle Station – at LaSalle Street and Congress Parkway – was built by railroads uninterested in locating at the Union Station joint facility. The New York Central and Rock Island railroads took over an existing station in the east side of the Chicago River and co-located their operations at the site, which was formalized with a new station building in 1903. Both carriers sent trains to LaSalle until the New York Central merged with the Pennsylvania in 1968 to form the Penn Central, after which its trains called at Union Station. The Rock Island continued service to LaSalle until the Regional Transportation Authority purchased its commuter rail operation in 1976 – although it was operated by the Chicago & Northwestern until 1981, when it was integrated into the Metra network. Today, Metra's Rock Island District carries more than 32,000 daily passengers on two branches between LaSalle and Blue Island, with others extending the full route to Joliet. The L is accessible via the LaSalle/Van Buren station just about a block away, while the Blue Line subway's LaSalle station is a block to the east.

Millennium Station after its 2005 refurbishment

Millennium Station

Illinois Central's Randolph Street Terminal

Anywhere west of Harrisburg, Penn., there is only one terminal station where electrically-powered intercity or commuter trains operate in North America: Chicago's Millennium Station (although this factoid may prove a fleeting one should expected high-speed and intercity rail projects currently planned come to fruition; the first will most likely be the electrification of the Caltrain service between San Francisco and San Jose). The Illinois Central (IC) Railroad established its Chicago terminal at Randolph and South Water streets just east of The Loop in 1893, and electrified its commuter rail trackage in 1926 with routes stretching to South Chicago, Blue Island and University Park. Known then as Randolph Street Terminal, the station also hosted the interurban trains of the Chicago, South Shore and South Bend Railroad (South Shore). Metra assumed the IC's routes in 1987 and rebranded them as Metra Electric, while the South Shore was acquired by the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD) in 1989 (for full details on the last surviving interurban, the South Shore Line, see Beth Wilson's excellent profile in the first edition of RAIL Magazine). Today, more than 18,000 daily riders travel through Millennium Station, which was renamed to correspond with the park built over its tracks bearing the same name after a substantial rehabilitation in 2005 improved the station with shops, food service, waiting areas, ticket windows and other amenities.

Coming soon will be a photo collection from the various stations....

Prairie Crossing, Ill.

2010-09-08T13:44:00.000-07:00

About 40 miles north and west of downtown Chicago, two Metra commuter rail lines come together near Libertyville, Illinois. Although the actual intersection of the routes is a few hundred yards away, both lines serve passengers at stations with the same name – Prairie Crossing, separated by the span of a parking lot. Why is the genesis for two different rail lines serving the same location and how common is such a connection elsewhere in North American passenger rail?

The Milwaukee Road – officially, the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad – first reached the Libertyville area in 1881 as a spur off its main line between Chicago and Milwaukee. Meanwhile, the Wisconsin Central Railway arrived in 1886 on its route between Chicago and Fond du Lac. The railroads competed for the business of not only long-distance passengers and freight on their respective lines, but also for Chicago-bound daily workers, and commuter trains were established on both railroads shortly after their completion. And while intercity passenger traffic dwindled after World War II, both lines maintained healthy commuter traffic through the 1960s and 70s. Indeed, the Chicagoland area was served by a number of railroads operating independent commuter rail operations as late as the 1980s.

Concerned about the loss of vital commuter rail service should the railroads abandon their operations, the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) was formed in 1974 to coordinate not only commuter rail service (Metra), but also the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) and the suburban Pace bus system. Gradually, it assumed control of the commuter operations of the various railroads into a unified network, including the Milwaukee Road's route to Fox Lake, Ill., and the Wisconsin Central's line to Antioch, Ill., both of which served independent stations in Libertyville. Beyond ensuring continued service on these lines and purchasing new locomotives and railcars, it also sought to improve connections between its routes where possible. One such connection became the jointly named stations that exist today at Prairie Crossing, although both lines continue to serve their respective Libertyville stations.

Today's Milwaukee District/North line service marks the previous Milwaukee Road operation as it arches northwest from Chicago's Union Station through communities such as Glenview and Northbrook through Prairie Crossing to reach the peninsula community of Fox Lake. At the same time, the current North Central Service retraces the Wisconsin Central route south-by-southeast from Antioch to Prairie Crossing and continuing through Buffalo Grove and Rosemont before linking up with the Milwaukee District/West line at Franklin Park to reach Union Station. The Milwaukee District/North operation carries more than 25,000 riders each day while the North Central Service moves another 5,600. Interestingly, the ownership of the lines has evolved into control by two Canadian-based freight operators, the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National, respectively.

Metra Milwaukee District North train #2134 approaching Prairie Crossing

Prairie Crossing station on North Central Service line

As distinct as the story of Prairie Crossing may be, its not unique in North America, as railroads frequently constructed competing lines for commuter traffic. In Chicagoland itself, today's Metra Heritage Corridor and Rock Island District lines both meet in Joliet, reflecting the interests of the preceding Alton and Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific (commonly known as the Rock Island) railroads. Meanwhile, Maryland's commuter rail service MARC operates parallel routes between Washington, D.C. and Baltimore – its Penn and Camden lines, owing their development to the Pennsylvania and Baltimore & Ohio railroads, respectively – and in the Boston region, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's Providence/Stoughton and Franklin lines serve nearby but not completely connecting stations at Readville. Unlike the competition-fueled lines in other areas, however, both routes reaching Readville were built by the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad.

Elsewhere, Montreal's Agence Metropolitaine de Transport (AMT) finds its Deux Montagnes and Blainville lines passing each other, but not connecting near Canora – again reflecting the battle between CN and CP – while the Chestnut Hill East and West Regional Rail lines of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Public Transportation Authority (SEPTA) terminate within blocks of each other, accounting for the competition between the Reading and Pennsylvania railroads for Chestnut Hill-Philadelphia commuters.

Although new passenger rail services – including high-speed, intercity and commuter modes – will be made available over coming years, its unlikely that any will offer the redundancy of competing routes since they will be made possible by public investment. In the meantime, rail passengers will continue to use these holdovers from the halcyon days of railroading, when competitors laid down tracks within sight of each other and mobilized communities in the process.

Milwaukee District North train 2113

North Central Service Prairie Crossing Depot and Platform

Crossover between Milwaukee District North and North Central Service routes marked by the signal in the distance.

North Central Service trackage across the prairie from the Milwaukee North District platform.

Long-Distance Dining

2010-09-08T08:18:00.000-07:00

“It’s not even food, if I understand the meaning of the word.”

CHICAGO UNION STATION, Ill. -- That’s how Anthony Hopkins’ Hanibal Lechter sardonically described the state of airline food in “Hannibal,” the 2001 sequel to “The Silence of the Lambs.” And while the culinary opinions of a fictional cannibal might be just a bit harsh a commentary on how people eat while traveling these days, there is no doubt the quality and intention of meals onboard many vehicles has transitioned substantially from the days of china and fine linens aboard a Pan Am jetliner, where food service wasn’t justified as a money-making enterprise, but rather a way to attract passengers. And, to be fair, the microwaved cheeseburgers and soggy Danish available on most Amtrak regional and corridor trains is not what most diners would consider haute cuisine.

However, one holdover from the nostalgic days of onboard dining are the dining cars still found on the long-distance trains of Amtrak and VIA Rail in Canada. On trains longer than 3 or 4 hours, a full-service dining car is included in the train consist. Here you’ll find sit-down, multiple course offering with wait staff, made-to-order options, adult beverages, and desserts. Adding to the restaurant-on-wheels atmosphere are the reserved table times arranged just after the train departs from its originating terminal.

The motif harks back to the days when dining aboard passenger trains – such as the famous 20^th Century Limited of the New York Central or the Royal Blue of the Baltimore & Ohio – offered access to some of the best fare and service in the nation. Executive chef positions for the various railroads were among the most sought-after roles for top cooks and their menus were as exciting and diverse as the regions through which they traveled. The Baltimore & Ohio was known for its extensive use of Cheasapeake Bay oysters, while fresh citrus from California was featured on well-regarded California Zephyr of several railroads, including the Denver & Rio Grande. Moreover, these chefs were among the first adopters of local produce and ingredients – having access to fresh supplies at station stops along the line – a concept that didn’t become prevalent in stationary dining until much later. (For an excellent perspective on Dining on the B&O by Thomas Greco and Karl Spence, please read Christine Pomorski’s review in RAIL #23.)

Certainly, there is no confusing today’s long-distance dining experience with the halcyon days of railroading; meals now are less lavish and more standardized. A New York strip steak might represent the featured entrée and the butter comes from wrapped packets rather than whipped-up on a plate. But when considering that cooking on a rocking railcar might be among the most challenging platforms in which to prepare food – not to mention the wait staff who deliver it – a fresh-cooked meal can turn a long and winding train trip into a enjoyable way to spend some time.

There’s one last aspect of long-distance train dining that must not go unmentioned. Because the challenge of fixing place settings aboard a moving railcar is daunting, dining car staff seat patrons together to maximize table efficiency. This means that often diners will share a meal with fellow travelers they’ve never met. I find this to be the most rewarding part of long-distance train travel – to share a meal and some conversation with complete strangers. You quickly learn to discuss what you have in common and in an increasingly divided age, it’s a rare opportunity to come together in a respectful and civilized setting.

Last night, I had the pleasure of dining with Will and Carol of Clinton, Iowa. Will works for a caramel coloring plant and Carol is a teacher. They were visiting friends in New Jersey and returning home to Iowa aboard the Capitol Limited and then Chicago's Metra commuter rail service to Aurora, Ill., before driving the remainder of the trip. We had a great conversation over Will's New York strip, Carol's salmon filet and my 1/4 chicken, before we all couldn't resist the peanut butter-chocolate pie. A good time was had by all.

Hitting the Rails...

2010-09-07T10:17:00.000-07:00

In just a few hours, I'll climb aboard Amtrak #26 – the 4:05 p.m. departure of the westbound Capitol Limited. I'll be aboard the Capitol the entirety of its trip to Chicago, Ill., scheduled to arrive in the Windy City at 8:45 a.m. tomorrow morning. From there, I'll spend little more than a day in Chicago, exploring some of the railroading nuances there – and a brief trip up to the historic Wrigley Field for a Cubs game – before catching Amtrak's #5, the westbound California Zephyr on Thursday afternoon en route to Denver, Colo., to attend the USA Rail 2010 Conference early next week.

Along the way, you can expect a series of posts not only chronicling my journey, but also some commentary and analysis of some of the interesting elements of long-distance train travel and a few of Chicago's railroading distinctiveness. For instance, I'm planning posts on dining aboard long-distance trains, a visit to Prairie Crossing, Ill., Chicago's four train stations and some background on how trains are named. Some posts might be rather brief on account of travel limitations. Lastly, I'll be liveblogging the USA RAIL 2010 Conference once it gets underway.

Stay tuned...

Moving Freight & Passengers

2010-09-02T10:19:00.000-07:00

In just over a week, experts and professionals in intercity passenger and freight rail will gather in Denver at the USA RAIL 2010 Conference to discuss the direction of railroading in the United States and some of the recent and ongoing legislative and policy activities to support increased high-speed and intercity passenger rail in the nation. A series of speakers and presenters from Amtrak, freight railroads and public agencies will consider topics such as capital and investment, infrastructure needs, intermodalism and other important elements that must combine to form a cohesive approach to the nation's rail network.

The meeting provides a timely forum to discuss the increasing concern that has developed recently about the impact of current and forthcoming high-speed and intercity passenger rail projects will have on the American freight rail network. The number of new corridors that will install true high-speed infrastructure will be limited – likely to those in Florida and California – at least initially. Accordingly, most of the remaining projects will involve some interaction with freight lines.

Freight railroads are nervous after the U.S. Department of Transportation has suggested that they may be liable to reimburse the federal government for upgrades to their infrastructure supported through ARRA and other sources if passenger trains do not achieve pre-agreed upon reliability and performance measures. Moreover, mandates to install positive train control on routes shared with passenger trains stemming from the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act of 2008 have not been matched with public investment to support these technological upgrades.

But, more importantly, as recent analysis from The Economist and Transport Politic suggest, attempts to achieve both significantly improved intercity passenger service and maintain existing freight capacity will be difficult to achieve due to the different operating speeds required by the two modes. Operating passenger trains too slow and freight trains too fast benefits neither sector and wastes the efficiency and revenue centers of both. So, while co-mingling passenger and freight traffic is fiscally possible on routes with fewer than a half-dozen or so daily passenger trips, when passenger frequency increases, significant passenger-only infrastructure is often necessary.

Because of this reality, some observers suggest that a broad effort to improve passenger rail in the United States are futile because most will not be able to achieve true high-speed status and others claim it will impose substantial disadvantages to the freight network, which is, indeed, a well-established, economically-successful and environmentally-friendly way of moving goods and materials that is unmatched elsewhere in the world. It's also one for which the United States receives too little credit by international and domestic commentators.

However, to suggest such a zero-sum game – to build massively expensive high-speed infrastructure or essentially maintain the status quo of freight traffic dominance – as the only possible outcome is a shortsighted view of policy-making. Indeed, in some cases, only incremental increases will be possible, like the new services being planned for Ohio's 3-C corridor or between Milwaukee and Madison. However, those projects also represent restoration of service absent for more than three decades, so any increase is an infinite upgrade. And the true high-speed projects in California and Florida will demonstrate the potential of the technology, which can be adapted to additional corridors later. But there will still be opportunities for conventional – non high-speed – services that can benefit both intercity passenger and freight interests. In fact, these types of efforts have already found a model for success at the commuter rail level.

Commuter rail systems such as the Trinity Railway Express between Dallas and Fort Worth, the Caltrain service between San Francisco and San Jose, the New Mexico Rail Runner serving Albuquerque and Santa Fe, and the Utah Transit Authority's Front Runner between Ogden and Salt Lake City all represent conventional rail applications that offer outstanding frequency while also co-mingling with freight traffic or along dedicated tracks along freight corridors. Each service operates at least a dozen roundtrips on weekdays in multiple directions with off-peak trips at midday or in the evenings. Meanwhile, their tracks are available to accommodate freight traffic either at the same time or at segregated periods, maximizing the efficiency and functionality of these corridors. The key similarity among these systems in various parts of the country is public control over the rail infrastructure, meaning their commuter trains are not delayed by freight trains with greater priority. At the same time, the State of North Carolina owns the railroad that connects its major cities of Raleigh-Durham, Greensboro and Charlotte, which has allowed North Carolina to add frequencies, train speeds and reliability to its state-sponsored Amtrak trains such as the Piedmont and Carolinian.

In this framework, projects supported by ARRA in Illinois and Virginia will add dedicated track to support increased frequency and speed, while Oregon and Washington as well as New York are planning similar improvements to their existing Amtrak services, the Cascades and Empire Service, respectively. These efforts – while certainly not instituting high-speed rail – will offer greatly enhanced intercity passenger rail service while also improving the infrastructure available to freight trains. It is an important first step to make to help larger sections of our society become familiar with intercity rail travel before the significant investment needed for high-speed projects is secured.

The perfect is not the enemy of the good, and this notion must be continually re-emphasized as the nation undertakes its reinvestment and revitalization of its intercity passenger rail network.

The Curious Case of the NEC

2010-06-19T11:38:00.000-07:00

Often, those who are less familiar with the nuances and history of high-speed and intercity passenger rail will pose the following question: "Why can't trains go faster between Boston, New York and Washington?"

This is indeed a fair and perplexing question as, if most people have any perception of what high-speed and intercity rail is these days, it usually involves that stretch of railroad linking Boston in the north with Washington, D.C., in the south via New York City that's commonly known as the Northeast Corridor (NEC). That perception is likely based on the reality that the NEC is the most heavily-traveled passenger rail route in the Western Hemisphere and the only one in that same territory that comes close to reaching high-speed status.

Moreover, no other corridor in the nation is as suitable for high-speed rail, with five massive cities – Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington – and a handful of smaller ones – Providence, New Haven, Newark, Trenton and Wilmington – positioned less than 500 miles apart along its route, and populations in those areas who are the most accustomed of any in the nation to traveling by train. Airports all along the corridor – especially Boston's Logan, New York's Laguardia and J.F.K and Washington's Reagan National – are increasingly congested with international and domestic flights, while Interstate 95 that parallels the NEC often turns into a parking lot, and when it isn't is burdened by tolls for bridges, tunnels and the practically every mile of the highway in the State of Delaware. Because of that congestion, Amtrak's Acela and Regional trains on the NEC easily beat the travel time on I-95 between New York and Washington by well over an hour without significant traffic, are competitive with driving times between New York and Boston as well as shuttle flights on either half of the route when the downtown-to-downtown trip is compared.

As a result, a true high-speed operation on the NEC would have the greatest opportunity for success of any such project in North or South America. And yet, in the first round of high-speed and intercity rail projects selected by the Obama Administration under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA] (see our analysis of those projects), four other corridors received more investment than the NEC, and the $700 million supplied to the NEC under ARRA will barely make a dent in higher speeds or increased train frequency, although its replacements of a couple bridges on the line will significantly reduce massive delays that sometimes occur on those bridges today. Critics of the Administration's decisions on these projects - such as Florida Congressman John Mica – claim more of the investment should have been directed to the NEC where it would have had the greatest impact. They have a point.

Meanwhile, a recent study by students at the University of Pennsylvania proposes a massive high-speed rail project in the corridor which would not only slice travel times to an hour-and-a-half between New York and Washington and only an hour-and-forty-five minutes between New York and Boston – mostly by constructing an entirely new line between Long Island and Boston, including a 20-mile tunnel below the Long Island Sound – but also offer six times as much frequency on the entire corridor. The price tag for such a massive effort: a cool $98.1 billion. Why would such a large amount of investment be necessary on a corridor that already carries so many passengers and hosts the fastest trains in the hemisphere?

That is because to label the service provided on the NEC high-speed rail would certainly be a misnomer, as trains reach truly high speeds (over 150 mph) on a very short stretch of track between Providence and Boston. Why is this the case, and what can be done to improve train performance on the NEC?

Like any good discussion involving passenger rail, the answer lies in its history. The NEC is today a single railroad – mostly owned by Amtrak, and by far its most significant physical asset – that was actually built by two separate railroads: the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad (usually shortened to the New Haven) from Boston to New York and the Pennsylvania Railroad from New York to Washington, D.C. These railroads didn't compete with each other so much as they both competed with the New York Central Railroad, so they offered connections between the two routes at the Pennsylvania's namesake station in Manhattan. In order to provide the fastest and most frequent service to New York City, both railroads electrified significant portions of their lines in the early-to-mid 1900s: the Pennsylvania its entire corridor between New York and Washington (as well as to Harrisburg) in 1935 and the New Haven its track from New York to New Haven in 1914. It is important to note the New Haven did not continue the electrification effort beyond its namesake city to Providence and Boston. The railroads utilized the best technology and equipment available to them at the time and built infrastructure most crucial to achieving higher speed operation: the elimination of all grade crossings via bridges and tunnels, and banked curves necessary to maintain higher speeds. For about a half century, the trains of the Pennsylvania and New Haven operating on these segments were the fastest trains in the world. That changed in 1964 when Japan debuted the Skinkansen – the Bullet Train – debuted at speeds reaching 125 mph, besting the 110 mph top speeds achieved by the Pennsylvania.

An entire account of the development of high-speed rail around the world isn't appropriate here, and as passenger rail became a perpetual money-losing proposition for the railroads after World War II, no further investment or upgrades were made on the NEC until Amtrak – with federal investment – began electrifying and rebuilding the route between Boston and New Haven. The project was undertaken to make possible today's Acela Express service, which began in late December, 2000.

Thus, today's NEC is an amalgamation of essentially three different electrified railroads: Amtrak's Boston - New Haven segment; the New Haven's route between its hometown and New York – which today is owned by Metro-North Commuter Railroad, a division of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority; and the Pennsylvania's New York to Washington section, and Amtrak's Acela and other NEC trains operate very differently through these segments. Between Boston and Providence, the Acela hits its top speed – 150 mph – and is only slowed by congestion from other Amtrak and MBTA commuter rail trains. The infrastructure here – namely the overhead electric system (termed the catenary), signals, continuously-welded rails and concrete ties – is nearly as advanced as the best stretches found in Europe and Asia. South of Boston, trains are slowed by many sharp curves through Rhode Island and Connecticut, as well as 19 road grade crossings, which require trains to slow to 70 mph for safety. See photos to the left and below for a view of this section of the corridor.

South of New Haven, things get dicey. The New Haven electrified its line using a hybrid of catenary methods and equipment that never allowed for very fast trains at all. A full account can be found here. Today, that infrastructure is largely unchanged and is owned by Metro-North, which is mostly focused on the operations of its commuter trains between New Haven and Grand Central Terminal, not expediting Amtrak trains. Note the massively complex catenary structure left behind from the New Haven days through which the Acela must navigate.

South of New York, the remnants of the Pennsylvania's electrification work still dictates how modern trains operate. While far simpler and more conducive to higher-speed operation than the New Haven's infrastructure – likely owing to the advances in technology between 1914 and 1935 – it still represents pre-World War II equipment and systems. Although the trackbed has largely been rebuilt with continuously-welded rail and concrete ties, the catenary is essentially the same railroad installed by the Pennsylvania more than 75 years ago.

Although heavier than typical high-speed trainsets employed in Europe and Asia – a result of Federal Railroad Administration crash-worthiness requirements – the Acela equipment built by a consortium of Alstom and Bombardier is not that far off that pace and could achieve top speeds of 165 mph for extended periods. However, subjecting the trains to operation over the disjointed and antiquated NEC infrastructure would be like driving a Lamborghini over a dirt road.

In all, the NEC – in its current state – is far short of high-speed rail infrastructure available in other nations. Indeed, even the 1965 Shinkansen – itself now 45 years old – was superior to the nearly ancient railroad that stands-in for true high-speed rail anywhere in the Americas at this point. Consider the latest high-speed line constructed in China, which is arguably the most advanced in the world today, although likely due to the fact that is the among the newest. When contrasted with the hand-me-down wires and tracks along the NEC, China's rail lines are simple, tidy and efficient, allowing for not only high speeds – their top route now reaches speeds up to 250 mph – but also allows for train frequencies of every 5 minutes. That level of service attracts more riders and also justifies the investment made in the infrastructure. Now, a comparison to the current work in China with high-speed rail isn't entirely a fair one to this nation or others, due to the vastly different governmental and economic structures in China that make such rapid mobilization of projects more achievable.

So, what can be done to improve the infrastructure in the Northeast to achieve better performance for its trains? The most achievable course of action would be public investment in new catenary equipment between New Haven and Washington, replacing the antiquated leftovers from the New Haven and Pennsylvania. However, two substantial complications would arise with such an effort. First, the project would significantly and negatively impact Amtrak and commuter rail service, complicating essential travel for work and business trips in the most dynamic business region in the county. Secondly, and more substantially, work would occur in six different states – Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland, along with the District of Columbia. As a result, organizing a structure by which investment would be channeled and work be prioritized would be difficult and contentious. For instance, although a substantial number of Acela passengers travel between New York City and Philadelphia, most of that trip takes place in New Jersey. Accordingly, New Jersey would be hesitant to invest its resources in a project that would not provide the most benefit to its state. Conversely, New York and Pennsylvania wouldn't be in a rush to fund upgrades to work done in their neighboring state. For this reason, such a project would need to be coordinated by the federal government and likely funding originating from that same source.

A more substantial project – such as the one proposed by the University of Pennsylvania's study – would certainly deliver massive economic and societal benefits that could positively reshape the entire region over a century or more. However, the costs of such projects are nearly impossible to realize in contemporary politics. The costs are so high because land must be acquired in some of the most highly-valued markets in the nation, and because such new infrastructure would require new bridges and tunnels with price figures in the tens of billions. Inasmuch as such a campaign of new infrastructure would be beneficial and ultimately justifiable, it would simply be unlikely to be undertaken due to its massive, upfront costs.

High Speed Rail Means Jobs

2010-06-14T14:23:00.000-07:00

According to a new report, released today by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, a national high-speed rail network – like the one promoted by the Obama Administration – is expected to produce more than 150,000 jobs across the nation by 2035. The study also received coverage today from the New York Times.

In creating the projections, the Conference of Mayors' report – conducted by Economic Development Research Group and supported by Siemens – analyzed four cities of different sizes that are located on high-speed and intercity rail projects supported by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA): Los Angeles, Chicago, Orlando and Albany (see RAIL Magazine's analysis of those projects). The projections produced by those case studies were extrapolated to create a national total.

The most interesting findings of the report are the ridership projections, job estimates and economic impact figures presented for each of the case study cities. Some of the highlights include job creation numbers of 2,000 new workers in Albany-Rensselaer; 5,000 jobs created in Chicago, and 10,000 jobs in both Los Angeles and Orlando due to the implementation of planned high-speed and intercity rail projects. Meanwhile, the report presents specific ridership estimates for each city that haven't been widely distributed to date from current project documents, including 12 million annual riders in Los Angeles – with more than 7 million passengers traveling between Los Angeles and San Francisco alone and another 2-plus million heading both to Sacramento and San Diego – a total of nearly 5 million passengers traveling through Chicago on routes to Detroit, Minneapolis and St. Louis at 110 miles-per-hour speeds (which almost doubles if projects are upgraded to 220 miles-per-hour), more than 5.8 million riders traveling between Orlando and Miami, and a set of routes from Albany to Boston, Buffalo, Montreal and New York attracting more than 1.8 million annual riders at the lowest speed options. Finally, the yearly economic impact for these cities is substantial: more than $360 million annually in Los Angeles, $255 million each year in Orlando, more than $100 million directed to the Albany area, and another $50 million annual impact in the Chicagoland region.

As leaders at all levels of government make the case in the coming years to support additional investment for high-speed and intercity passenger rail, they'll need numbers to strengthen their arguments. The new study by the Conference of Mayors is a strong first statement in that direction. Even more concrete evidence will come as the first phase of ARRA projects come on-line in the coming years, such as the new service between Milwaukee and Madison, Wisc., the 3-C Corridor in Ohio, the extension of Amtrak's Downeaster to Brunswick, Maine, and especially the initiation of true high-speed service between Orlando and Tampa by 2014.

RAIL Symposium Recap; First ARRA Grants Released

2010-06-02T16:20:00.000-07:00

Hello readers,

Apologies for the absence of posts the past few weeks; we've been preparing and producing our first-ever conference event, Connecting Communities: A Passenger Rail Symposium, which was held in Long Beach on May 24th and 25th. Rather than offering my biased perspective, I invite you to check out the review by Drew Reed of L.A. Streetsblog of Day One and Day Two.

Later last week, Vice President Biden announced the first series of high-speed and intercity passenger rail grants to states under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) [For our full analysis of the ARRA high-speed and intercity rail projects, visit here]. Nearly $80 million was distributed to 5 states as the first phase of their projects. More than $66 million of that was directed to Florida to begin project management and preliminary engineering on the state's Tampa-to-Orlando high-speed line. With a planned opening date in 2014, Florida needs to move quickly in order to have significant work underway by 2012. Additionally, the infrastructure, vehicle technology, final station locations and service operator have all yet to be determined, making the need for the first stage of the project's $1.25 billion budget all the more urgent.

Meanwhile, although California's high-speed rail network will ultimately be larger and move more passenger's than Florida's, it will likely be hampered by a longer timeframe to implement the project. As a result, California's initial ARRA allocation came in the form of $6.2 million to improve service on existing, conventional Capitol Corridor route between the Bay Area and Sacramento. The infrastructure work will produce fewer delays and faster trains for the service, which is already one of the busiest in the nation. (For more information on California's existing conventional rail options, view our article "California's Railroad" in the 11th Edition of RAIL.

One of the most exciting projects selected for ARRA investment is the creation of new service between Milwaukee and Madison, Wisconsin. Passenger service has not been offered on the corridor between the state's two largest cities since the 1970s, and Wisconsin has already purchased a fleet of new trainsets from Talgo to operate the service. Talgo will manufacture the trainsets – and two others for Oregon – in Wisconsin. Under the first phase of ARRA grants, Wisconsin will receive $5.7 million to move forward with the project – which will operate trains at up to 110 mph – anticipated to open in 2013.

One of the surprises of the original ARRA announcement was the relatively small award to New York State for its Empire Corridor project between New York City, Albany, Buffalo and Niagara Falls. A total of $144 million was designated for New York to add sections of track between Albany and Schenectady and Rochester and Batavia to reduce delays and improve trip times, as well as other smaller projects elsewhere along the route. The state received $1 million in this initial disbursement to expand its planning work on the effort, and continue negotiations with CSX, which owns the former New York Central Water Level Route paralleling the Erie Canal and at one time included four track infrastructure. (For more information on New York's Empire Corridor, read "A Tale of Two Corridors" in our 3rd Edition of RAIL)

Finally, New Mexico received a $100,000 grant to conduct the first-ever state rail plan, which will investigate how high-speed and intercity passenger rail could be implemented in New Mexico. The state already operates its frequent Rail Runner Express between Santa Fe, Albuquerque and Belen, and would look to expand on that foundation with the new study.

Stay tuned to RAIL Magazine and The Potomac Express for further details and updates on high-speed and intercity rail projects across the country.

Streetcars for Cincinnati

2010-05-16T15:57:00.000-07:00

After Cincinnati voters indicated their support for a streetcar project last November by defeating a measure to halt the plans, the City Council voted on May 12 in favor of bonds that will serve as the local match for the planned system. The bond issue will produce $62 million in local investment for the total $128 million project to connect downtown Cincinnati with its riverfront and Over-the-Rhine neighborhood to reach the University of Cincinnati. The city will repay the bonds through a combination oftax increment financing, proceeds from the sale of the Blue Ash airport and the sale of the city’s streetlights to Duke Energy.

Proponents of the streetcar expect to attract federal investment to support the full cost of the project, which would utilize modern streetcars similar to those in use in Portland, Ore. and Tacoma, Wash. The streetcar is expected to be connected to the future 3-C Corridor intercity service to Columbus and Cleveland, and future efforts to establish light rail and commuter rail in the region (see map).

Numerous cities and communities around the country have developed plans for both modern and historic streetcars over the last decade, but relatively few have lined-up local investment to support the projects. Federal officials have been clear that those projects that have attracted local investment will receive federal support, given the number of projects requesting funding. Some of those projects were selected under the U.S. Department of Transportation's TIGER grants. Given Cincinnati's recent actions, there seems to be a good likelihood that a formal streetcar project in the city would fare well for future federal investment.

A Presidential Rail Visit?

2010-05-10T17:01:00.000-07:00

This Thursday, President Obama will travel to this blog author's hometown of Buffalo, N.Y. on his Main Street listening tour. According to reports in the Buffalo News, the president will visit Industrial Support, Inc., a manufacturing firm on the city's East Side. If he indeed heads there for a visit, he'll be within motorcade distance of one of the nation's largest, but most threatened passenger rail facilities: Buffalo Central Terminal.

The story of Central Terminal is recounted in numerous places, but perhaps you'll check out RAIL Magazine's Making Up for Lost Time from our 21st Edition for a full background. In much abbreviation, Central Terminal was built to the highest standards and largess by the New York Central Railroad before the Great Depression, and then was battered to the extreme both by the downturn in passenger rail traffic and Buffalo's nosediving economy. By sheer luck, none of the succession of owners who paid a pittance for the terminal managed to successfully tear the structure down, although they did manage to strip all of its valuable materials, including the famous stuffed buffalo and its four-faced clock.

Today, the station has found its way into the hands of the non-profit community organization, the Buffalo Central Terminal Restoration Corporation (CTRC), which has gradually repatriated the grand facility into an increasingly vibrant community destination. However, the costs associated with a proper restoration are massive and no viable ideas have emerged to fill the humongous space, although a combination of high-speed rail, hotel rooms, areas for community groups and events and other components could produce a cohesive approach.

This is where a visit from the president could do enormous good. The first round of TIGER grants made possible under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) supported redevelopment of transportation centers elsewhere, and Central Terminal would be a perfect candidate for similar investment in the future if the program is continued. As a president that has expressed knowledge of and interest in projects made real by the work of dedicated community groups and leaders, along with tangible investment in our nation's infrastructure, the recent work done by the CTRC is worthy of Obama's attention.

Down to the Wire

2010-05-02T15:22:00.000-07:00

Over the last few years, Washington, D.C. has advanced plans for a fairly comprehensive streetcar network to augment the region's over-burdened and under-funded Metro system. Construction is now underway on two different lines: one in Southeast D.C. in the Anacostia neighborhood, and another in Northeast D.C. on H Street and Benning Avenue. Three streetcars manufactured in the Czech Republic have already been delivered to the region in anticipation of the forthcoming service.

However, the historical streetcar network in Washington – which was dismantled in 1962 – always operated under a unique traction structure: the absence of overhead wires. Because of the rigid urban design rules instituted by Congress in 1889 to protect the beauty of the nation's capital from rampant electrification at the time, DC's streetcars were forced to develop an alternative arrangement to the traditional overhead trolley wires used elsewhere to power the vehicles. That set-up turned out to be a slot in between the rails that contained electric wiring the streetcars would access by a pole underneath the car, presenting a similar visual look to San Francisco's iconic cable cars.

This arrangement worked fine when there were many manufacturers in the United States who built streetcars, and opportunities for customization were prevalent. However, as streetcars fell out of favor across the country, the streetcar manufacturing industry evaporated. The remaining cities that continued to operate the mode – such as Boston, New Orleans and Philadelphia – relied on holdover vehicles, such as PCC cars. And while communities in Europe and Asia continued to operate, and even expand, their streetcar networks, no similar civic codes required the use of underground streetcar wires. Even modern streetcar operations in Portland, Tacoma, Little Rock and Tampa required no such traction abnormalities.

And yet, the National Capital Planning Commission – the quasi-governmental body charged with maintaining the urban form of the capital city – seems intent on enforcing the 1889 code, at least in the so-called "federal city" designed by Pierre L'Enfant. That would prohibit the use of overhead-powered streetcars on the H Street and Benning Avenue line, although not on the Anacostia route. The Czech-built streetcars were constructed to use overhead power and cannot be retrofitted. Procuring and maintaining a streetcar fleet using different modes of traction would likely be costly and inefficient.

Thus, DC seems positioned for two options: convince the Planning Commission to approve waivers for overhead wires, or locate a manufacturer willing and able to produce a streetcar not powered by overhead traction, possibly such as a hybrid vehicle that could connect to overhead wires outside the federal city. Last month, the Department of Transportation approved investment to allow Oregon's United Streetcar to construct a prototype of such a vehicle.

Meanwhile, some architectural and preservation observers argue that overhead wires would not present a substantial enough aesthetic detriment to the capital city's sightlines to outweigh their mobility benefits, and also revitalize neighborhoods and historic districts. Additionally, many cities artfully weave streetcar wires into their urban fabric, enhancing – not damaging – the beauty of their streetscapes. Examples can be found here, here and here.

Intermodalism: Sacramento Style

2010-04-24T06:30:00.000-07:00

With the early 2010 announcement of the projects selected by the Obama Administration for high-speed and intercity passenger rail, much observation and commentary on the issue has focused on the need to compliment the projects with the so-called first and last mile of a trip, meaning how does a passenger traveling on a high-speed or intercity train get to and from the station? In fact, the President himself described his vision of the concept, saying:

"What we're talking about is a vision for high-speed rail in America. Imagine boarding a train in the center of a city. No racing to an airport and across a terminal, no delays, no sitting on the tarmac, no lost luggage, no taking off your shoes. Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination. Imagine what a great project that would be to rebuild America."

The idea of coordinating connections between modes of travel at a central nexus – like a train station – is, of course, not a new concept by any means. Early in our nation's development, port cities found immense centers of travel activity near their docks and wharves. As the railroads stretched across the continent, train stations became the crux of community life in the smallest towns and largest cities. However, as travel by automobile and air emerged as the preferred modes of travel in the second half of the twentieth century, less priority was placed on organizing transportation options in a single location. This trend has begun to reverse itself, however, in recent decades, as new travel hubs uniting rail, bus, taxi, bicycle and pedestrian routes have been established – or reestablished in many communities.

Some commentators discussing how these intermodal facilities would amplify the opportunities offered by high-speed rail often describe a utopian-sounding environment where high-speed trains glide into a stunning glass atrium station to find frequent and easy to access connections to regional commuter rail and local rail transit – such as subways, light-rail and streetcars – alongside local and intercity bus service, taxi stands, bicycle racks or lockers and well-appointed pedestrian paths to reach nearby attractions such as central business districts or historical sites. These observers would prefer to position such a facility at or near a historical and well-maintained passenger rail station, too. Sounds like a pretty fanciful concept, eh? Maybe something more suited to a progressive European capital like Amsterdam or Prague, or perhaps possibly in that outside-the-box enclave of Portland, Ore? Except for the high-speed rail, all this is already happening in Sacramento, Calif.

Sacramento is one the nation's most historic railroading cities – after possibly Baltimore and Chicago – and perhaps the most important one in California. It was here that the legendary "Big Four" investors in the Central Pacific Railroad – Leland Stanford, Collis Huntington, Charles Crocker and Mark Hopkins, along with engineer Theodore Judah – launched the railroad that would connect with the Union Pacific at Promontory Point, Utah to complete the Transcontinental Railroad. Trains crossing the route would terminate here, before connections were established later on to reach the Bay Area and the San Joaquin Valley. The Central Pacific would ultimately become the Southern Pacific, which in turn was acquired by the Union Pacific in 1996. To recognize the city's prominent location as one of California's key railroad centers, the Southern Pacific constructed its Sacramento Depot in 1925. The architectural firm of Bliss & Faville designed the largely rectangular building in the Romanesque Revival style popularized by the famed H.H. RIchardson and similar to the Union Stations in both Hartford and St. Louis.

Today, the depot is known as Sacramento Valley Station and hosts as much, if not more activity than in its heyday. Four different Amtrak routes serve the station: Amtrak California's Capitol Corridor and San Joaquins, providing intrastate service, and the long-distance California Zephyr – connecting Chicago and Emeryville, Calif – and the Coast Starlight, which links Seattle with Los Angeles. All told, that's 40 weekday trains serving Sacramento (a couple fewer Capitol Corridor trains operate on the weekends). Moreover, the Capitol Corridor operates one of its daily roundtrips east of Sacramento to Placer County to reach Roseville, Rocklin and Auburn, heading into Sacramento in the morning and out in the evening to function as commuter service. The amount of traffic makes Sacramento Amtrak's second-busiest station in California after Los Angeles and more than 1.1 million Amtrak passengers traveled through the station in 2009.

And yet while intercity rail options in Sacramento are burgeoning, passengers connecting to or from these trains find themselves with substantial options to access the metropolitan region or elsewhere in the state. As part of its statewide rail program (note: please see our full-length feature article, "California's Railroad" in RAIL #11), a broad network of intercity bus routes are also operated. In Sacramento, Amtrak California bus routes head north to Medford, Ore, west to Fairfield and Suisun, and east to both Reno/Sparks and Lake Tahoe, Nev. Bus connections are coordinated to match Amtrak departures, especially so for the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquins routes.

Meanwhile, local transit connections at Valley Station abound. In December 2006, Sacramento's Regional Transit District (RT) extended its Gold Line light-rail to the station. Light-rail trains heading to Sunrise and others all the way to Johnny Cash's fabled Folsom stop on an adjacent platform to Amtrak trains. At the same time, RT's J Street bus routes (#s 30 and 31) call at the station. A taxi cue at the front entrance of the station offers additional options to travel through the city, and ample bicycle racks and space encourage non-motorized travel. Likewise, just a couple hundred feet away from the end of the platforms, a well-marked path guides visitors to the fine California State Railroad Museum and Old Sacramento State Historic Park. And given the station's position at the northwest corner of the city's downtown, nearly all of the central business district and state capitol office buildings are within walking distance (although the RT's light-rail and bus options would probably get you there faster).

If Valley Station's claim as a model for intermodal locations wasn't already established, plentiful space exists on the north side of the existing station platforms to host a full-scale high-speed rail terminal. Land that used to support the Southern Pacific's extensive yards and shops (see photo to the left) now lies in wait for California's high-speed rail network to reaffirm the city's role as a rail hotbed. Corresponding with those efforts are plans to transform the former yards owned first by the Southern Pacific and later the Union Pacific into one of the nation's largest transit-oriented development projects. While work is just beginning, the project is expected to transform the Southern Pacific's Central Shops building into a public marketplace, offer expanded space for the Railroad Museum, include over 12,000 housing units and create 19,000 jobs. Projected to include at lease $5 billion in private investment, the project will include over 240 acres and last well into the next decade.

In all, Sacramento's Valley Station offers an outstanding example of achievement and opportunity in modern intermodal transportation facilities. It blends historical preservation with multiple and frequent service options in a location that is both convenient to existing activity and attractions, and nearby prime locations for new development. So, when detractors of well-designed intermodal facilities say "it can't be done," point them to Sacramento.

A Tale of Two Stations

2010-04-19T14:06:00.000-07:00

Following last week's discussion of California's high-speed rail plans through the San Joaquin Valley, today we look at what remains of Fresno's passenger rail infrastructure. Currently, the lines of the Union Pacific and BNSF (representing the amalgamation of the former Burlington Northern and Santa Fe railroads) travel through the city. The rails of BNSF host Amtrak's San Joaquin trains, which we discussed yesterday. Those tracks were originally constructed by the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad (usually shortened to the Santa Fe) in the late 1800 to serve the burgeoning agricultural activity in the Valley. Accordingly, the railroad constructed a well-appointed station in the heart of Fresno at Tulare and P streets in its iconic mission-style architecture.

Featuring a moderately-sized passenger waiting area, ticket counters, baggage check facilities, wide platforms, and a freight office, the Santa Fe's Fresno station represents the quintessential smaller city train station. It is inviting, well laid-out, and speaks to the railroad's presence in the city. Fortunately, the Santa Fe depot is in full use today as a train station, hosting Amtrak's five daily roundtrip San Joaquins trains north to Oakland and Sacramento and south to Bakersfield. The photos below illustrate the facility's fine standard of upkeep to this day.

Meanwhile, westward down Tulare Street at the intersection of the Union Pacific tracks lies the former Southern Pacific depot. Union Pacific inherited the Southern Pacific (SP) – which itself grew out of the Central Pacific – route when the two roads merged in 1996. The SP built its first station at the same location in 1872, and the current facility replaced its predecessor in 1889. The station marked a sharp contrast with most of the railroad's other railroad buildings, which featured a more boxy, red brick-and-wood style. Instead, its Fresno depot was fashioned in the Queen Anne architectural tradition, included rounded turrets, interior tunnel hallways, and a hipped roof. Full details on the history and architectural features of the Southern Pacific depot can be found here.

As passenger traffic on the line declined after the 1950's, the Southern Pacific was forced to abandon the station in 1971, when Amtrak assumed all passenger rail service in the nation and discontinued service to the San Joaquin valley. When service was restored in 1974, the San Joaquin trains instead served the Santa Fe station. Today, the station is listed on the National Register of Historic Places ensuring its continued preservation and is home to commercial and retail tenants. Trackside access to the Union Pacific right-of-way is prevented via a retaining wall. Also nearby is Chukchansi Park, home to the Fresno Grizzlies, a AAA affiliate of the San Francisco Giants, continuing the fine tradition of locating ballparks in close proximity to railroad infrastructure (see first photo below).

The eventual route of California's high-speed rail system is expected to pass next to the Southern Pacific depot and include a new station at the location. The project is anticipated to anchor development at the west end of downtown Fresno by leveraging nearby Chuckansi Park along with the new rail station. See my previous post on high-speed rail in California for further details.

Coming soon will be another look at one of California's historic rail depots: Sacramento's Valley Station, which serves as an outstanding example of true intermodalism, offering intercity rail and bus service, along with Sacramento Regional Transit's local light-rail and bus operations, taxi options, bicycle and pedestrian access.

Rail Through the Valley

2010-04-14T21:25:00.000-07:00

While California's bleak fiscal outlook presents significant challenges to the implementation of state's planned high-speed rail network, and substantial debate and planning is underway to determine the alignment of the system through the Bay Area and into the Southern California basin, one of its strongest elements will be its passage through the San Joaquin Valley, which will represent the longest swaths of trackage on the network.

Already served by five daily roundtrip trains on Amtrak's conventional San Joaquins service between Oakland or Sacramento and Bakersfield, the Valley that is one of the world's most verdant and productive agricultural regions also exhibits the perfect conditions for a high-speed rail line: flat, straight terrain unencumbered by narrow rights-of-way or shoehorned-together urban densities. In fact, these very conditions pose the biggest obstacles to the line's corridors approaching San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Both Union Pacific and BNSF operate heavily-utilized freight corridors through the Valley – the former which hosts Amtrak's San Joaquins (see above photo of the UP corridor paralleling Highway 99). California's high-speed rail route will not operate over those tracks, however, but most likely parallel one of the routes, depending on factors such as right-of-way availability, population density, and infrastructure, such as bridges and tunnels. Regardless of the exact alignment chosen, the path through the San Joaquin Valley will allow California's high-speed trains to reach their highest speeds on the route, reaching up to 220 mph in some sections through the Valley. Some trains will make all stops along the line, including Valley communities like Fresno and Bakersfield, while other will operate as expresses between the Bay Area and Southern California, allowing for even shorter trip times. Fortunately, in Fresno, ample space is available downtown to locate a full-service intermodal station. Consider the images below contrasting the current area around the Union Pacific's tracks through Fresno with the renderings of the high-speed station planned for the city. (NOTE: Tune into the Potomac Express tomorrow for a comparison of the existing historic train stations in Fresno)

RAIL in the Air: PHX

2010-04-13T06:15:00.000-07:00

If you happened to catch the most recent edition of RAIL, you noticed our focus on connections between air and rail travel. One of our brief profiles covered the work to construct an airport rail service at Phoenix's Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX ). As you can see from the above photo, construction is well underway at PHX, as beams of concrete and steel rise above the tarmac. The first phase of PHX Sky Train is expected to open in 2013. It will also connect to Phoenix's Valley METRO Light Rail service.

And for all you rail enthusiasts who are also aviation observers, this photo was taken from a US Air A321 taxiing prior to departure to LAX.

All Signals Green for Departure

2010-04-11T14:08:00.000-07:00

This post marks the debut of RAIL Magazine's Potomac Express blog. This venue will bridge the gaps between our quarterly editions of RAIL and our monthly electronic newsletter, Fast Mail for RAIL. Since this is a blog, the Potomac Express will be presented in a less formal style and include postings as news and developments occur in the passenger rail industry, or simply when I have an idea to share or concept to discuss. This means sometimes there may be several posts in a week, and in other weeks none. Some will be more substantive, and others more brief.

In all, the Potomac Express represents another means to get you the latest happenings, trends and ideas in passenger rail, while also offering a new interactive medium for you to share your reactions and connect with other passenger rail leaders, experts, advocates and observers. As always, feel free to contact me at sampson@ctaa.org if you'd like to spread the word on any interesting news, resources or events.

In a bit of a preview of what's coming down the line in the Potomac Express in the days ahead, I'll be making a week-long visit to California to meet with leaders of community and public transit systems across the state, and you can expect some intermittent posts as I encounter some of the the Golden State's numerous passenger rail services, stations and vehicles along the way. This could include some original photography, passing thoughts on nuances of the various operations and perhaps some details or commentary on the state's evolving effort on high-speed rail.