Amtrak’s Vision of High-Speed
Rail in the Northeast Corridor
National Highway-Rail Grade Crossing
Safety Training Conference
Sarah Yurasko
Chief Administrative Officer - High Speed Rail
November 7, 2011
1
The Amtrak System
Cascades
Long distance routes
connect major hubs
and corridor services
California
corridors
Chicago Hub
Northeast
Corridor
(NEC)
2
Amtrak at a Glance – Ridership and Revenue
Ridership, FY2011
Long
Distance,
3.79m,
15%
Ticket Revenue, FY2011
Long
Distance,
$398.24m,
25%
Acela,
2.86m,
11%
Acela,
$415.96m,
27%
NE Regional,
6.31m,
25%
State
Corridors,
12.26m,
49%
State
Corridors,
$353.79m,
22%
NE
Regional,
$414.73m,
26%
• State corridors – nearly half of Amtrak’s ridership
• NEC – over half of Amtrak ticket revenue, majority of capital funding
• Long distance – fewer riders, longer trips, majority of Federal operating
support
• All business lines rely on Shared Costs – stations, mechanical, systems
3
Record 30 Million Riders for FY2011!
• FY08: Economic peak; low unemployment; high gas prices
• FY11: Slower economy; higher unemployment; lower gas prices
• Hurricane Irene, Midwest floods, Pacific Northwest mudslides have
lowered summer ridership and revenue
32.0
Millions
30.0
28.0
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11
Riders
4
Continued Growth in Ridership & Revenue
• Ridership, revenue gains across all segments
Ticket Revenue, FY11 vs. FY10
Ridership, FY11 vs. FY10
+5.0%
+6.5%
+21.1%
18.0
+9.4%
13.9
+6.0%
$983.5
$1000
16.0
+9.5%
$1100
$899.1
14.8
$900
14.0
$800
12.0
10.4
$700
10.9
$600
10.0
$427.0
$500
8.0
$453.8
$481.3
$390.0
$400
6.0
4.5 4.5
4.0
$300
$200
2.0
$100
$-
0.0
NEC
State Corridors
FY10 YTD
FY11 YTD
Long Distance
NEC
State Corridors
FY10 YTD
Long Distance
FY11 YTD
5
Northeast Corridor – Overview
 NEC is 2nd largest mega-region in
the world
50 million
people
 20% of US GDP
 Population density =/> Europe and
12 times US average
 456 miles thru 12 states, DC
• 8 airports
• 12 ports
 8 commuter operators
 3 Class 1 RRs + regional freight
 Amtrak high speed, regional, longdistance
6
Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor: Overview
• More than half our daily trains (153 of 305), more
than 1,800 daily commuter trains
• Carries more than 722,000 riders every day!
• We own (and maintain) 363 of the 457 route-miles
Acela Express on the 1835
Canton Viaduct – at 125mph
– 17 tunnels (six of them under the Hudson River)
– 1,186 bridges (14 of them moveable)
Susquehanna River Bridge, 1907
• Top speeds of 150 mph for Acela Express and 125
mph for Northeast Regional
• We carry more passengers than all the airlines put
together between:
– NYC and Boston
Baltimore’s B&P Tunnel:
In continuous service since
1873
– NYC and Washington, DC
Passenger Trains on Freight Railroads - October 24, 2011
7
Vision Beyond the Master Plan
 Capacity exceeded
 Limited ability to:
 Increase service
 Lower travel times
 Attract new riders
30
Annual Ridership (Millions)
• By 2030 Under NEC
Master Plan:
Amtrak Ridership Growth Under
Master Plan
25
+33%
20
15
10
+8%
+10%
+35%
21
25
23
16
CapacityConstrained
Growth
12
5
0
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Master Plan
NEC intercity travel demand will double by 2050
• Other NEC modes have limited
growth potential
• Corridor needs new capacity to
compete in worldwide economy
8
NEC Compares Favorably to the Most Successful HSR Corridor
9
Next-Gen HSR: Reduced Trip Time; Quantum Leap in Capacity
• World-Class High-Speed Network:
 Dedicated 2 - track alignment; 220 mph equipment
 40% - 60% travel-time reductions in key markets
 Boston – Washington DC: from 6:30 to 3:20
2:42
NYC - DC
2:15
1:36
September 2010
3:35
NYC - BOS
3:08
1:24
Existing
 Higher frequency
Service Departures (Each Direction)
Current Next-Gen HSR
Hourly
1
3-4
Daily
10-15
53-73
Master Plan (2030)
Next-Gen HSR Plan
 Higher average speeds
Average Speeds (Super Express)
Current Next-Gen HSR
NYC - BOS
65 mph
148 mph
NYC - DC
86 mph
137 mph
10
Next-Gen HSR: Potential Alignments: BOS - NYC
Challenges
• Boston to New York
alignment poses
difficult challenges
• Capacity limits on New
Haven Line
• Curvature, capacity
and environmental
concerns on Shore
Line (New Haven to
Mass. state line)
Analyzed Alignment
• Diverges north of
New Rochelle to
serve Conn. and RI
“Analyzed Alignment’ used for costing and
analysis purposes, subject to further analysis in
next phase
• Converges with NEC
alignment at Rt. 128
station in Mass.
11
Next-Gen HSR: Potential Alignments: NYC - WAS
Challenges
• Utilize existing NEC
corridor where
possible
• Providing service to
built-up CBD areas in
key cities
Analyzed Alignment
• Substantially parallels
NEC
• New stations in
Baltimore and
Philadelphia more
centrally located
“Analyzed Alignment’ used for costing and
analysis purposes, subject to further analysis in
next phase
12
Next-Gen HSR: Quantum Leap in Ridership and Revenue
• Major growth in premium service’s
share of NEC ridership (2040)
Premium Ridership (2040)
 Master Plan (Acela): 6.5 million (28%)
 Next-Gen HSR Plan: 18 million (52%)
Ridership by Type of Service
Annual ridership (Millions)
40.0
Regular Rail Service
35.0
Acela
30.0
Next-Gen HSR 25
25.0
16
15.0
12
10.0
3
5.0
Total NEC Ridership & Revenues (2040)
38
34
20
Master Next-Gen
Plan
Ridership (Millions) 23.4
Passenger Fares (Billions) $1.84
18
20.0
• Result: Next-Gen HSR Plan
would raise revenues more
than ridership
Increase
HSR Plan Total
33.7
10.3
$3.29
%
44%
$1.45 79%
11
5
9
11
2010
2020
14
16
18
2030
2040
2050
0.0
13
Next-Gen HSR: Operating Surplus Exceeds $900 Million
• Next-Gen HSR operations
generates $928 million
annual surplus
• Costs include:
• O&M costs
• Capital Renewal (infrastructure &
rolling stock): long-term equipment
& capital repair
$3,000
• Employment Opportunities:
• 120,000 permanent jobs
• 7,100 new rail operations jobs
Millions ($2010)
• 44,000 full-time jobs annually over
a 25 year for construction
$2,500
$2,000
Revenues
$2,533
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$-
O&M Costs
& Capital
Renewal,
$1,606
Operating
Surplus,
$928
Next-Gen HSR Operations - 2040
14
Next-Gen HSR: Capital Investment Costs
• $117 Billion (in $2010)
• Equivalent of $4.7 Billion annually
over 25 years of construction
• $172 million/km for infrastructure,
stations, facilities
• 55 train sets @ $51 million each
• Phasing of Construction
• Four phases over the 2015 to 2040
period
• Phases 1-3 (2015 – 2030): New York
to Washington
• Phase 4 (2024 – 2040): New York to
Boston
15
Next-Gen HSR: Positive Return On Investment
• Next-Gen HSR system Benefits
(financial, economic, social)
exceed Costs by 2-to-1
• Even at conservative 7%
discount rate reaches 1.1 B/C
• Similar to 1.03 B/C value for
NEC HSR in FRA 1997 Study
Benefit / Cost Ratio of
Next-Gen HSR Investment
Billions of
Dollars
Project Cost
$
72.8
Credit for Residual Project Value $
20.3
Credit for Avoidable Master Plan Costs
Net Project Cost
Benefits of Investment
Travel Time & Costs & Safety
Energy and Emissions
Economic Productivity Benefits
Operating Surplus
Highway and Air System Benefits
$
$
8.3
44.2
$
$
$
$
$
16.1
1.3
23.8
11.0
21.6
Commuter Systems and Use Benefits $
Total Benefits of Investment $
26.5
100.2
Benefits / Cost Ratio
2.27
16
Phasing Strategy
Progressive and overlapping programs:
NEC Upgrade Program (NEC-UP)
Projects that provide for 160 MPH (MAS) and capacity improvements by
upgrading constrained areas along the NEC, and achieving a State of Good
Repair.
Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program (Next-Gen HSR)
Projects that will accommodate speeds of 220 MPH (MAS) on a separate twotrack alignment and build on the NEC Upgrade Program foundation.
17
Implementation Phasing Strategy
NextGen HSR: NYC to BOS
NextGen HSR: NYC to Hartford
NextGen HSR: PHL to WAS
NextGen
HSR
220 MPH
MAS
NextGen HSR IOS: NYC to PHL
NEC Gateway: Newark to NYC
NEC 160 mph MAS: NYC to WAS
Acela II Fleet Doubles Capacity
NEC-UP
(Upgrade Program)
160 MPH MAS
Acela Capacity Increases 40%
18
Implementation Phasing Strategy – Program Timeline
Two New Dedicated Tracks: NYC - BOS
New Stations: NYC East (GCT) - BOS
New Infrastructure: NYC - BOS
Two New Dedicated Tracks: NYC - PHL
New Stations & Infra: NYC - PHL
3
2022
NextGen
HSR IOS
NYC- PHL
2030
NextGen
NYC - WAS
2040*
Two New Dedicated Tracks: NYC - WAS
New Stations & Infra: NYC - WAS
NextGen
NYC - BOS
2050*
BOS – NYC – WAS
3:20 Trip Time
* NEC Next-Gen HSR alignment contingent upon NEC PEIS
19
HOW DO WE PAY FOR IT?; Business and Financial Plan
• Purpose:
“Develop an in-depth Strategic Plan to finance the construction and acquisition of
the infrastructure and equipment required to initiate Next Gen High Speed Rail
service in the Northeast Corridor.”
• Parameters:
 Amtrak as the key developer and operator of the system
- With partners and the support of vendors
• Outcomes:
 Develop a “roadmap” strategy on how to fund and/or finance the development
of true, world class high speed rail service
- Define the optimal Federal role
- Maximize opportunities for private investment
- Outline the options for financial involvement of other governmental
stakeholders (states, cities, public authorities)
20
Deliverable Timeline
Aug 11
Oct 11
Sep 11
Nov 11
Dec 11
Jan 12
Feb 12
Mar 12
Apr 12
May 12
 Initial White Paper on Funding & Financing
 Risk Assessment
 DRAFT Ridership & Revenue Model
 Initial White Paper on Procurement, Operations Models
 Fully Functional Financial Model
 DRAFT Recommended Business Plan
 DRAFT Final Report
 Final Report
40 WEEK PROJECT SCHEDULE
21
Treatment of Highway Crossings for High Speed Rail
• FRA requires grade separation at speeds above 125 mph
• Amtrak currently runs at a maximum speed of 110 mph over at-grade crossings.
• Amtrak’s preference for crossing treatments:
– At speeds above 110 mph – grade separation or closure
– Median barriers where possible rather than 4 quadrant gates
– Four quadrant gates at busier crossings
- Time delay of decent of exit gates is first preference
- Loop detectors to control exit gate is next preference
- Tie in to signal system is least preferable due to excessive warning times
– PTC interface such as our ITCS system in Michigan provides the best treatment in corridors
where there is significant passenger operation
- Provides constant warning times for passenger trains
- Ensures that warning devices are activated even with rusty rail or poor shunting
conditions
- Enforces speed reduction if crossing health is in question
22
Crossings on Amtrak High-Speed Rail Lines
New England (Northeast Corridor)
• Top Speed is 150 mph
• 6 crossings have 4 quadrant gates with loop detectors (max. speed over
crossings is 90 mph)
• Loop detectors are tied in with cab signal system to bring a train to a safe
stop with an obstruction on the crossing
– This approach requires long warning times to provide safe stopping distance
– Warning times for freight trains are excessive
– Constant warning devices are not compatible with electrification
23
Crossings on Amtrak High-Speed Rail Lines
Amtrak’s Harrisburg Line (Keystone Service)
• Maximum speed is 110 mph
• There are 3 at-grade highway crossings (speed over crossings is 110 mph)
• All 3 are equipped with traditional gates and flashers
• The state of Pennsylvania has agreed to close all three crossings
– One will be grade-separated
– Two will be closed
24
Treatment of Crossings on Amtrak High-Speed Rail Lines
Amtrak’s Michigan Line
• Top speed is currently 95 mph soon to be 110 mph
• 105 at-grade crossings (all with warning devices)
– One crossing has 4 quadrant gates with loop detectors
– All the others including 9 private crossings have traditional gates and flashers
• Crossing are controlled by a mix of constant warning devices and overlay
track circuits
– Crossing approaches are set for 80 mph
– Our PTC system, ITCS (incremental train control system) provides warning starts
for speeds greater than 80 mph
25
How ITCS Works
• A wayside interface unit at each crossing monitors the health of the crossing
• An ITCS server location gathers health information from the crossings in its area
• As a high speed train approaches each crossing it establishes communication with the ITCS
server in that area for the status of the crossings ahead
• If communication is not established with the server speed reduction to 79 mph is enforced
• The server determines the location and speed of the train using its GPS position data and
provides the train with the crossing health
• The server calculates the warning distance needed for the train at its current speed and
commands the crossing to activate its warning devices 30 seconds before the arrival of the
train
• The server notifies the train when the warning devices are activated allows the train to continue
at its present speed
• If the crossing warning devices do not operate in time, a speed reduction is enforced
• If a bad health message is received the train speed is enforced at restricted speed approaching
the crossing
26
CONCLUSIONS
• Amtrak has a well-developed and internationally peer reviewed vision to bring
220 mph HSR to the NEC.
• Amtrak is open to private financial investment and is presently developing a
strategy to access private capital.
• Amtrak introduced HSR to America in the 20th Century and has the
experience and expertise to bring 21st Century HSR in the next decade.
• Amtrak is moving forward with its HSR vision and working through the NEC
Commission to facilitate collaboration with the FRA, NEC States and other
NEC stakeholders to achieve an optimal outcome
• Amtrak is proactively addressing the challenges inherent with crossings in
high-speed rail systems.
27
UIC 8th World Congress on HSR
• Amtrak will host UIC 8th World Congress on
High-Speed Rail in Philadelphia
• Partner with American Public Transportation
Association (APTA) and American
Association of Railroads (AAR)
• Expect 2,000 worldwide attendees to
exchange views on development and
achievements of high-speed rail
• Trade exhibitions, technical tours and
networking activities for 3-days
• Pennsylvania Convention Center,
Philadelphia, PA - July 10 thru 13, 2012
28
Thank You for Your Attention
New York to D.C or Boston in 96 minutes
29