Now that winners of the $8 billion “high-speed” rail stimulus have been announced, it is apparent that the goal was to spread money around as many Congressional districts as possible. Perhaps that is good politics, and will help build support for bi-partisan buy-in down the road.
But is this good policy? It means a swing state can get awarded grant funding for a rather dubious project.
Consider Ohio’s 3C project, which is anything but high-speed.
The plan is to spend $400 million upgrading freight tracks for a standard Amtrak service between Cleveland and Cincinnati. When built, it will take trains 6.5 hours to travel the 255 mile corridor. Average speed will be a whopping 39 mph!
The low average speed is only part of the problem. The proposed schedule has (effectively) 3 round trips per day. Instead of regular clock-face scheduling, travelers have to plan their day around infrequent train service. Thus, the service will be neither convenient nor time-competitive against competing automobile mode.
Conventional vs. HSR
There has been an on-going debate as to whether nations should upgrade existing conventional corridors, or build (from scratch) dedicated high-speed rail lines. In most cases, re-using existing infrastructure (i.e. conventional upgrade) is much more cost-effective. The US is major exception to that rule, due to archaic Amtrak operating practices.
It should noted that the Ohio Rail Development Commission does envision a more modern and futuristic service. The website features railfan photos of TGVs and boasts:
The trains of the Ohio Hub won’t be the trains your parent’s remember. They will be modern, fast, convenient and comfortable with the on-board amenities that help you relax or do business. And it isn’t futuristic technology. This type of service is available elsewhere in the world on existing trains.
That sounds great, but these photos of gleaming TGVs are completely at odds with the actual plan. This line will run under FRA ruleset, which is incompatible with cost-effective high-speed rail.
Even worse, Ohio does not intend to run modern off-the-shelf trainsets:
Following the release of Amtrak’s Draft Report for the Ohio 3-C Study on September 15, 2009, ORDC advised Amtrak that the State of Ohio has expressed serious interest in DMU (diesel multiple unit) equipment, potentially manufactured in Ohio by US Railcar (formerly Colorado Railcar), for use in the proposed 3-C service.
Thank you for your post. I think the manner in which the $8b was carved up does not bode well at all for HSR in America.
I am curious about one thing, though:
How are Amtrak’s archaic operating practices responsible for America being the exception to the cost-effective re-use of existing infrastructure rule?
Also, given the speeds they plan to run, I think Rader DMUs sound like a pretty good fit. Easy to maintain and run, and FRA compliant in their speed regime.
Ohio cannot buy any trainsets off of the shelf, as the European and Asian trainsets do not meet US crash standards off the shelf. Once can modify them of course, but then you wade into the same morass as Amtrak did with the Acela sets.
Ran:
If the goal is to run an effective passenger-rail service, then strict FRA-compliance is something to be avoided at all costs. The FRA-weight penalty greatly increases costs, and lowers speeds. Acela provides very good example of this. There is no reason to expect that the 3C project, using experimental Colorado Railcars, won’t be any different.
I agree that FRA-compliance imposes severe, and arguably fatal, penalties on service. How does one proceed without being in compliance? A waiver is hard to imagine obtaining, and there does not seem to be the political will to change the rules, so isn’t any train operator stuck with these rules, not just Amtrak?
You are correct that FRA-compliance imposes fatal penalties on service. In most countries that have undertaken high-speed rail projects, the first step was to update regulations to permit use of the technology. Until this happens in the US, it is unlikely there will be much high-speed rail development.
Until the regulatory framework is reformed, the only options are:
1. Build 100% segregated infrastructure (like California)
2. Amtrak-style FRA-compliant trains
3. Obtain FRA waiver (time segregation, etc)
#1 is insanely expensive to build
#2 is insanely expensive to operate, and not very high-speed
#3 is bureaucratic nightmare