A SURVEY OF CURRENT HIGH-SPEED RAIL
PLANNING EFFORTS IN THE UNITED STATES
Paper 07-3371
April 2, 2007
Forthcoming, Transportation Research Record
By Joseph P. Schwieterman, Ph.D., Professor
Justin Scheidt, Research Associate*
Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development
DePaul University
243 S. Wabash Avenue
Chicago, Il 60604
312/362-5731
[email protected] and [email protected]
* Ph.D. candidate, Michigan State University
1
ABSTRACT
This study surveys the characteristics of the corridors being considered by state and regional
agencies for high-speed rail service in the United States. Using a data set of 21 systems at
various stages of development, the study shows that the initiatives underway involve 64 corridors,
the tracks of 21 freight railroads, and 15,552 unique miles of route.
The findings show that these corridors reach 163 of the 250 largest metropolitan areas in the
continental United States. More than 87 percent of the existing railroad mileage identified for
high-speed service is operated by freight-oriented railroads, with 74 percent being single track.
The choice of technology and the need to acquire non-railroad land to support the development of
corridors differ sharply between interstate and intrastate routes. These and other findings illustrate
the many opportunities—and challenges—facing proponents of high-speed rail throughout the
country.
2
INTRODUCTION
M
any state and regional governments are actively promoting the development of
high-speed rail systems in response to growing concerns about traffic congestion,
the sustainability of development, and constraints on airport capacity. These systems are
envisioned as investments to facilitate economic development, improve mobility, and reduce the
country’s dependence on oil.
This study surveys the expanse of the high-speed rail movement and notable assumptions
that underlie the development of a national system, particularly with respect to the rights of way
being proposed. The study explores the degree to which the rights of way identified for highspeed service are publicly owned, equipped with multiple tracks, and are currently used by
various types of traffic (e.g., mainline freight traffic, commuter, and Amtrak service) as well as
other relevant issues.
The study is based on a data set of the routes identified for operations at speeds of 110
mph or higher, including those routes that have not advanced to the point that they are eligible for
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) designation as Federal High-Speed Rail corridors.
The findings from the study will help fill a gap in the literature about the differing circumstances
that face agencies seeking to establish high-speed service in various corridors. Although many
studies have examined the general state of the high-speed rail (HSR) movement and have focused
on particular corridors, little has been written about the overall qualities of the corridors in the
aggregate.
BACKGROUND
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) defines High-Speed Ground Transportation
(HSGT) as “intercity passenger ground transportation—by steel-wheel railroad or magnetic
levitation (Maglev)—that is time-competitive with air and/or auto for travel markets in the
approximate range of 100–500 miles” (1). As this definition suggests, agencies in the United
States tend to use the term “high-speed rail” more loosely than their counterparts in Europe and
Asia, who often limit its use to corridors in which trains operates at 200 kilometers per hour
(about 125 mph) or more. The High Speed Ground Transportation Association often uses the
term “intermediate speed” to describe HSR services at speeds of less than 150 mph.
Efforts to create high-speed intercity rail systems in the United States date back many
years. In the 1950s and 1960s, railroad companies experimented with new technologies capable
of relatively high-speed operation (2). In 1965, Congress passed the High Speed Ground
Transportation Act, which with its budget of $90 million started a federal effort to develop and
demonstrate the potential of high-speed rail (HSR). The introduction of the Metroliner in 1969
between New York and Washington, D.C., marked the beginning of regularly scheduled service
at speeds of 110 mph or more on American soil. The federal effort included comprehensive
3
planning focusing on the “megalopolis” emerging between Boston and Washington, D.C., called
the Northeast Corridor, as well as research and programs devoted to Maglev and other advanced
transportation technologies (1).
Amtrak was created in 1971 to relieve the freight railroads of the burden of operating
intercity passenger rail service and to ensure the continued existence of a national rail passenger
network. Subsequently, efforts to promote HSR in the 1970s focused predominately on
rehabilitating the Northeast Corridor (2, 1). In the 1980s, however, federal efforts shifted to other
potential HSR opportunities, with the Passenger Railroad Rebuilding Act of 1980 providing
funding for state-sponsored design and engineering studies. The involvement of state
governments in HSR programs gradually grew, and by 1986 several states had awarded contracts
to private developers to build and operate intercity HSR systems. However, all of these efforts
eventually stalled for reasons such as funding issues, political will, and uncertainty of success.
The passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1991
and the creation of the Next Generation High-Speed Rail Technology Development Program in
1994 made possible the further evaluation of HSR systems. In 1997, the FRA completed a major
study that explored opportunities for corridor development and began the practice of officially
designating HSR corridors (1). The agency has thus far granted this designation to about 12,000
miles of routes, rendering them candidates for federal funds.
The HSR movement crossed a milestone in 2001 when Amtrak launched Acela Express
service from New York to both Boston and Washington, D.C. For the first time, regularly
scheduled trains in the country traveled at speeds equal to or greater than 135 mph. From
endpoint to endpoint, however, average speeds on Acela routes remain well below 80 mph,
making the service considerably slower than comparable routes in many European countries and
Japan.
For most of the country, HSR remains more a dream than reality. Although several
corridors have received federal funds for grade-crossing improvements, major federal investment
in HSR service outside the Northeast has been slow to materialize.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Much of the research relevant to HSR in the United States can be assigned to one of three
categories: (i) the exploration of either the economic benefits or economic feasibility of highspeed service in a single corridor or group of corridors; (ii) the evaluation of technical and
economic issues associated with the development of a national high-speed network; and (iii)
opportunities for HSR development based on international experiences.
Studies in the first category, economic benefits or feasibility of particular HSR corridors,
tend to be generated by private consulting companies or universities at the request of government
agencies. At least of dozen major studies of proposed corridors have been undertaken over the
past several years. Several studies, including works by Levinson, Kanafani, and Gillen (3,4),
compare the full social cost of various transportation modes in various corridors, attempting to
determine whether investments in high-speed ground transportation are less costly than
expansions to air and rail systems.
4
In the second category, technical and economic issues associated with the creation of a
national HSR network, most of the studies draw attention to the barriers in the development highspeed rail systems. For example, a 1999 General Accountability Office study, “High-speed Rail
Projects in the United States,” takes a critical look at high-speed rail efforts during that era,
warning that some of the traffic estimates are overstated (5).
One of the significant recent undertakings in this category is Allison de Cerreño and
Daniel M. Evans’ High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements for
Success, published by the Mineta Transportation Institute in 2005 (6). The study examines the
strategies that have been employed by agencies working to develop various high-speed systems in
the country. An earlier Mineta publication by Andrew Nash focuses on the issues associated with
operating high-speed trains on routes shared with other types of rail operations (7).
Another notable study in this category, prepared by Charles Quandel of the High Speed
Ground Transportation Association in 2004, reviews the status of various HSR projects in the
United States and estimates the costs of building 11 major “steel wheel/steel rail” systems to be
$80.9 billion (in 2007 dollars) (8). The study also estimates of the costs of building various
Maglev routes. Among the notable Transportation Research Board papers in this category is Roth
and Aggarwala’s evaluation of track-sharing arrangements in the Northeast Corridor (9).
Among the studies in the third group, lessons for international markets for HSR
development, are Roger Vickerman’s assessment of HSR in Europe (10), Guirao, Menéndez, and
Rivas’ review of track-sharing issues (11), and studies of services in individual countries by Hsa
and Chung (12), Hensher (13), Rus and Inglada (14), and Kobayashi and Okmura (15). Another
international study, by Fernand Martin, explores the relationship between HSR to economic
growth by using a statistical model to define both diverted and induced travelers to HSR (16).
Martin’s study shows not only that HSR offers transportation benefits, but also that it can help to
accelerate the growth and the development of regional economies.
METHODOLOGY
The analysis in this study is based on data of the 64 intercity corridors that have been
identified by state or regional agencies for high-speed service. At least a portion of each route is
envisioned to allow speeds of 110 mph or higher for passenger trains. Two corridors being
planned for service at speeds less than 110 mph are included because they are extensions of
routes identified for higher-speed service.
The corridors are divided into segments to account for operational or ownership
differences along the route. For example, the Chicago–Detroit/Pontiac corridor (part of the
Midwest Regional Rail Initiative) is divided into five segments: one owned by Amtrak (97 miles
from Porter, Ind. to Kalamazoo, Mich.), another owned by Canadian National (23 miles from
Detroit to Pontiac), and the remaining three held by Norfolk Southern.
Each corridor is assigned to one of four categories to describe its stage of development.
Stage 1 corridors remain in the preliminary stage and are not yet supported by final
environmental impact state (FEIS) at the Tier I level.
5
Stage 2 corridors have a plan for high-speed service that is supported by an FEIS, making
it eligible for federal funding.
Stage 3 corridors are supported by an FEIS and by direct state investment in passenger
service or right-of-way improvement. For a corridor to be assigned to this category, state
governments must (in addition to meeting the criteria for Stage 2) have made a direct investment
in the corridor, either by making right-of-way investment or by supporting active conventional
passenger service over the entire length of the route.
Stage 4 corridors have high-speed service that is currently available or scheduled to be
available on at least a portion of the route by 2008. This category applies to routes in which
passenger trains operate at 110 mph or higher, or will soon do so in the near future. This category
includes three routes (Boston–New York, Harrisburg–Philadelphia, and New York–Washington,
D.C.) now used for high-speed service, and one other (Chicago–Detroit/Pontiac) that is expected
to have service at 110 mph within two years.
Corridors are also classified on the type of technology favored by state or local
agencies. Each are assigned to one of five categories: diesel-powered systems, electric
powered, Acela-type systems, bullet trains, and magnetic levitation (Maglev) systems (see
Table 1).
TABLE 1:
Technologies Identified for High-Speed Corridors
1. Diesel-powered: Diesel locomotives or diesel multiple-unit (DMU) equipment,
which are generally able to operate at a maximum speed of 110 mph or less.
Includes Talgo and Turbo-train equipment.
2. Electric-powered: Locomotives without tilt systems drawing power from external
electrical systems, which are generally capable of speeds of 110 mph or less.
3. Acela-type systems: Specially designed train-sets using electric power and
equipped with active tilt systems capable of speeds of 135–150 mph. Acela
technology is appropriate for routes shared with other types of passenger traffic. The
New York–Washington, D.C., and Boston–New York corridors are in this category.
4. Bullet trains: Electrically-propelled trains on dedicated right of way, without
interference from slower traffic. These systems, similar to that of the European TGV
or Japanese Shiskansen, generally allow for speeds exceeding 200 mph.
5. Maglev systems: Magnetically levitated trains on fixed-guideway systems,
operating at speeds in excess of 300 mph.
In cases where planners of HSR corridors have not selected a preferred technology,
we generally shied away from the most advanced choices that were under consideration.
For example, we assigned the “bullet train” category to numerous corridors in the
California, Florida, and Texas systems even though Maglev technology remains an option
in each case. (It should be noted, however, that more conventional diesel-powered systems
are under being evaluated in Florida and Texas). The development of Maglev systems have
6
been formally proposed on just three intercity routes: Baltimore–Washington, D.C.,
Atlanta–Chattanooga–Nashville, and Anaheim–Las Vegas.
Proposals for high-speed service that have either waned or have been formally dropped
from consideration are omitted from the data set. Notable examples are Las Vegas–Reno, Nev.;
Denver–Vail, Col.; and Seattle–Moses Lake, Wash. We also exclude corridors that are largely
confined to a single metropolitan area, such as proposed Maglev systems in the Los Angeles, San
Diego, and Pittsburgh regions. We further exclude several corridors that have received only a
cursory evaluation by government agencies.
In some corridors, there is uncertainty about the preferred alignment (i.e., route choice).
When a government agency has not yet settled upon an alignment, we list the route that appears
to be most likely to emerge as the desired choice.
DISCUSSION OF KEY FINDINGS
The following sections summarize notable aspects about the high-speed movement
derived from an analysis of the various segments and corridors identified for HSR.
a. Various Initiatives Underway
The HSR movement in the United States consists of 21 separate initiatives, and involves
43 of the 48 states on the mainland (Figure 1). Eleven of these initiatives involve more than 500
route-miles (Table 2).
The Midwest (Chicago Hub) and Southeast initiatives account for the greatest mileage,
3,570 and 1,913 miles, respectively, while the Baltimore–Washington, D.C., Maglev (40 miles)
and the Minnesota (Twin Cities–Rochester) initiative (55 miles) involve the least mileage. The
six largest initiatives each involve at least 1,000 miles of route or more and cumulatively account
for 65 percent of the total mileage.
The number of systems under consideration has apparently risen sharply since 2000, with
the Downeaster, Front Range, Gulf Coast, and Ohio & Lake Erie Hub systems among the most
recent additions to the list. Several of the systems, however, have progressed relatively little
since September 2001, after which the financial condition of many state governments deteriorated
sharply.
7
8
TABLE 2:
High-speed Rail Initiatives of the United States
System
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Midwest (Chicago Hub)
Southeast
California
Florida
South Central/Texas
Ohio & Lake Erie Hub
Gulf Coast
Front Range
Empire
No. New England
Cascade
Northeast
Keystone
California–Nevada Interstate Maglev
Atlanta–Chattanooga
Pocono
Arizona
Downeaster
Virginia
Minnesota
Baltimore–Washington, D.C., Maglev
Route-miles
3,570
1,913
1,441
1,327
1,181
1,111
868
788
723
587
468
458
353
270
251
122
119
116
70
55
40
b. Corridors Identified for Service
At present, 65 intercity corridors are targeted for high-speed service (Table 3). These
corridors cumulatively extend over 16,582 miles and encompass 15,552 unique miles of route. (A
discrepancy in mileage occurs because several corridors overlap.) Forty-eight corridors are still
in Stage I of development, and just eight have advanced to Stage 3 or higher. About 60 percent
of the proposed mileage has received formal designation as a federal high-speed route.
c. System and Corridors with Overlapping Mileage
Several segments proposed for HSR development are part of more than one system. The
Ohio & Lake Erie Hub system shares two segments east of Cleveland with the Midwest system as
well as the segment between Buffalo and Niagara Falls with the Empire Corridor (Figure 1).
Furthermore, there are proposals for two separate HSR corridors between several major cities.
Members of the New York General Assembly have proposed building both a Maglev line (to be
developed by 2025) and a more conventional high-speed line between Buffalo and New York.
There is also a proposal for Maglev service over the Baltimore–Washington, D.C., portion of the
Northeast Corridor.
9
d.
Metropolitan Populations Served
The corridors identified for high-speed service reach the 49 most heavily populated
metropolitan areas in the continental United States. Ninety three of the largest 100 metropolitan
areas in the continental are along a proposed route. Additionally, 164 of the 250 largest
metropolitan areas are along at least one corridor identified for service. These metropolitan areas
have a population (based on the 2000 Census) of more than 192 million people.
Five metropolitan areas with metropolitan populations greater than 500,000 people
(Charleston, S.C., El Paso, Tex., Knoxville, Tenn., Salt Lake City, Utah, and Wichita, Kansas)
are not along proposed high-speed routes. Salt Lake City (960,000), which ranks 50th in
population, is the largest metropolitan area in this group. State officials have explored the
feasibility of high-speed service to Charleston and Knoxville, and the governor of New Mexico
has promoted the idea of service between Albuquerque and El Paso. It remains to be seen,
however, whether a formal proposal for high-speed service to these metropolitan areas emerges
anytime in the near future.
e.
Interstate versus Intrastate Service
The high-speed rail movement is heavily oriented toward interstate service, with nearly
two thirds (63%) of all proposed route-mileage composed of corridors that cross state lines. The
number of interstate corridors outnumbers intrastate corridors by margin of two to one. As
discussed below, planning efforts that involve interstate corridors tend to be more complex—and
more reliant on federal support—than intrastate proposals.
All 43 states on the routes identified for high-speed service except Arizona have at least
one interstate corridor under consideration. Arizona has not revived earlier proposals for highspeed service to southern California and is instead focusing on Phoenix–Tucson service.
Consequently, Phoenix (3,200,000) is the most populous metropolitan area not on an interstate
route targeted for high-speed service.
10
TABLE 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Corridors Identified for High-Speed Service
System
Corridor
Arizona
Atl.–Chat Maglev
Bal.–Was.Maglev
California
California
California
California
Cal–Nev Maglev
Cascade
Downeaster
Empire
Empire
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Front Range
Gulf Coast
Gulf Coast
Gulf Coast
Keystone
Keystone
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Phoenix–Tucson
Atlanta–Chattanooga–Nashville
Baltimore–Wash., D.C.
Bay Area–San Diego
Bay Area–L.A. (coastal)
Sacramento–San Diego
San Jose–Sacramento
Anaheim–Las Vegas
Eugene–Vancouver, B.C.
Boston–Portland
New York–Buffalo/Niagara Flls
Buffalo–New York
Jacksonville–Ft. Pierce (I-95)
Jacksonville–Tallahassee (I-10)
Orlando–Cocoa (Beeline Exp.)
Orlando–Daytona (I-4)
Orlando–Miami (Fla. Tpk.)
Orlando–Wildwood (Fla Tpk)
St. Petersburg–Tampa (I-275)
Tampa–Lake City (I-75)
Tampa–Orlando (I-4)
Tampa–Ft. Myers–FLL (I-75)
Casper–Denver–Albuquerque
Atlanta–New Orleans
Houston–New Orleans
New Orleans–Mobile
Harrisburg–Pittsburgh
Philadelphia–Harrisburg
Chicago–Carbondale
Chicago–Cincinnati
Chicago–Cleveland
Chicago–Detroit/Pontiac
Chicago–Grand Rapids/Holland
Type
Diesel
Maglev
Maglev
Bullet
Diesel
Bullet
Diesel
Maglev
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Maglev
Bullet
Bullet
Bullet
Bullet
Bullet
Bullet
Bullet
Bullet
Bullet
Bullet
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Elec
Elec
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Stage Miles
1
1
1
2*
2*
2*
3*
1
3*
1*
1
1
1
1
1
1
2*
1
1
1
2*
1
1
I*
1*
1*
1*
4*
1
1*
2*
4*
1
119
251
40
591
476
571
137
270
310
116
431
390
113
165
30
147
235
57
19
193
92
262
788
518
350
141
249
104
309
304
373
304
212
System
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Minnesota
No. N England
No. N England
No. N England
Northeast
Northeast
Ohio & L Erie
Ohio & L Erie
Ohio & L Erie
Ohio & L Erie
Ohio & L Erie
Pocono
Southeast
Southeast
Southeast
Southeast
Southeast
Southeast
Tex/S. Central
Tex/S. Central
Tex/S. Central
Tex/S. Central
Virginia
Corridor
Chicago–Green Bay
Chicago–Omaha
Chicago–Port Huron
Chicago–Quincy
Chicago–St. Louis
Chicago–Twin Cities
Indianapolis–Louisville
Kansas City–St. Louis
Twin Cities–Rochester
Albany–Boston
Boston–Montreal
New Haven–Springfield,
Boston–New York
New York–Wash., D.C.,
Chi.–Columbus–Pittsbgh
Cincinnati–Cleveland
Cleveland–Buff.–Toronto
Cleveland–Pittsburgh
Cleveland–Toledo–Detroit
New York–Scranton
Raleigh–Jacksonville
Charlotte–Atlanta– Macon
Atlanta –Jacksonville
Wash.–Richmond–Raleigh
Raleigh–Charlotte
Richmond–Hampton Roads
Dallas–Houston
Dallas–San Antonio
Tulsa–Dallas
Little Rock–Dallas
Richmond–Newport News
* Federally designated route
Type Stage
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Acela
Acela
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Bullet
Bullet
Bullet
Bullet
Diesel
1
1
1
1
3*
2*
1
1*
1
1*
1*
1*
4*
4*
1
1*
1
1
1
2
2*
1*
1*
3*
3*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1
Miles
217
476
319
258
284
441
111
283
55
199
330
58
231
227
502
260
294
154
154
122
446
346
321
279
173
108
280
271
262
321
70
11
g. Mileage by Class I Carrier
The various HSR systems involve using the tracks of 21 different freight railroads. The
three most heavily affected carriers are Norfolk Southern (2,142 miles), CSX (2,016 miles), and
Union Pacific (2,207 miles). BNSF, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, conversely, are
affected to a lesser degree (Table 4).
TABLE 4:
Proposed High-Speed Mileage by Private Railroad Carrier
Excludes Bullet Train and Maglev Routes
CSX Transportation
Norfolk Southern
Union Pacific
BNSF
Canadian National (CN)
Canadian Pacific (CP)
2,142 miles
2,016 miles
2,207 miles
1,327 miles
806 miles
358 miles
Proposed Maglev and bullet-train mileage built along railroad lines are excluded from
these totals due to the need for total right-of-way separation over the vast majority of the route.
Of the relevant mileage, 91 percent of the railroad right of way proposed for high-speed routes is
operated by Class I railroads, with 9 percent operated by short-line or regional railroads.
h. Choices of Technology
The vast majority of the proposed system—11,513 miles, or about 74 percent of the
total—involves some form of diesel technology—technologies not requiring the installation of
electrification equipment, whether it is conventional diesel locomotive-drawn trains or diesel
multiple-unit (DMU) equipment. Bullet-train technology accounts for 2,583 miles (17 percent),
while Acela-type services (confined to the Northeast Corridor) represent 458 miles (3 percent)
and Maglev systems constitute 852 miles (5 percent).
It should be emphasized that decisions about the preferred technology have not yet been
made on several of these systems. Moreover, significant differences with respect to the preferred
technology exist between interstate and intrastate proposals. As a general rule, interstate
initiatives place much more emphasis on conventional technologies (e.g., diesel-powered or
Acela-type services) than intrastate routes. Just 251 miles (3 percent) of the interstate mileage
involves bullet-train or Maglev technology, yet 3,185 miles (57 percent) of the intrastate routes
focus on these systems. The three largest intrastate systems, California, Empire Corridor, and
Florida, all involve bullet-train and Maglev systems.
An apparent explanation for the more aggressive use of advanced technology in intrastate
proposals is the perceived opportunity to tap into taxpayer-financed revenue steams. Planners of
intrastate systems generally place greater hope in generating extensive funds from state
governments than those who are working to build interstate corridors.
12
i.
Incremental Improvements to Amtrak Service
Approximately 78% of the route-miles of the proposed HSR system involve incremental
improvements to existing routes rather than building entirely new ones. Many such programs
emphasize gradual increases in the speed of Amtrak service from the present-day maximum,
which is typically 79 mph, to 110 mph. State governments provide financial support for Amtrak
services on about 34 percent of the route-miles identified for high-speed diesel or electric service,
but only 11 percent of route-miles identified for bullet-train, Acela, or Maglev technologies.
The passenger carrier also operates trains over many prospective HSR routes without
state-government support. Altogether, about 8,576 miles (71 percent) of the existing railroad
mileage identified for high-speed service is currently on the Amtrak system. Another 891 miles (7
percent) involves routes that Amtrak has discontinued. Only 21 percent of the existing railroad
mileage targeted for high-speed service has been “freight-only” since 1971 (the beginning of
Amtrak).
h.
Creation of new Railroad Routes
Approximately 2,700 miles (17%) of the rights-of-way identified for high-speed service
involve right of way currently being used for non-railroad purposes. A preponderance of this new
mileage (about 80 percent of it) involves creating high-speed alignments along limited-access
highways, most of which are part of the Interstate system.
Of the 64 corridors identified for service, 23 require gaining access to more than 20 miles
of right of way never before used by a railroad. Florida’s 1,327-mile system is particularly
notable in this regard, with plans to build almost the entire system along Interstate Highway
alignments. (As previously noted, recent announcements suggest that Florida officials are
reconsidering this approach and may eventually pursue an incremental approach using existing
tracks). Much of the California system will require gaining access to a more diverse mix of
properties, including land adjacent to existing highways and railroads as well as land not
presently used for transportation. Most of the Texas bullet-train system would be situated on a
proposed multimodal transportation corridor in close proximity to Interstate 35.
i.
Abandoned Corridors
Several corridors identified for high-speed service involve relaying rail over segments
that have been abandoned by railroad companies. The preferred alignment in the Washington,
D.C.–Raleigh corridor (which involves 75 miles of route not technically abandoned but no longer
equipped with tracks) as well as New York–Scranton (30 miles of abandoned route), Chicago–
Green Bay (24 miles), and Chicago–Cincinnati (23 miles) are particularly noteworthy in this
respect (Table 5; Column c). In the latter two corridors, the abandoned segments have been
converted into recreation trails, creating the risk of a sharp response from the environmental
community.
j.
Public Ownership of Rail Corridors
About 12 percent of the railroad mileage targeted for HSR service (1,463 miles) belongs
to public entities. Apart from Amtrak-owned routes, most of the publicly owned mileage belongs
to regional transportation agencies in metropolitan Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia,
13
TABLE 5
Corridors with Significant Mileage Not Used for High-Density Freight Service
Abandoned, Publicly Owned, and Commuter Rail Mileage
-- Excludes Magev, Bullet-Train Routes, and the Northeast Corridor -(a)
Corridor
(b)
(c)
Total
Abandoned
Mileage
Mileage
Boston–Albany (No. New England)
Boston–Montreal (No. New England)
Boston–Portland (No. New England)
Casper–Albuquerque (Front Range)
Chicago–Cleveland (Midwest, via Ft. Wayne)
Chicago–Cincinnati (Midwest)
Chicago–Detroit/Pontiac (Midwest)
Chicago–Green Bay (Midwest)
Chicago–St. Louis
Chicago–Twin Cities (Midwest via Eau Claire)
Charlotte-Raleigh (Southeast)
Eugene – Vancouver
Harrisburg–Philadelphia (Keystone)
New Haven–Springfield, Mass. (Northern N.E.)
New York–Buffalo/Niagara Falls (Empire)
New York–Scranton (Pocono)
Phoenix–Tucson (Arizona)
San Francisco–Los Angeles (Calif; Coastal Rt.)
Washington, D.C.–Raleigh (Southeast)
199
330
116
788
373
304
281
217
282
404
173
468
104
58
431
122
119
476
279
(d)
(e)
(f)
Publicly Owned Miles w/o Significant Commuter
Mileage
Mainline Freight
Mileage
51 (15%)
23 (8%)
24 (11%)
30 (25%)
75 (27%)
21 (11%)
34 (10%)
34 (29%)
253 (32%)
97 (35%)
32 (15%)
32 (8%)
173 (100%)
2 (<1%)
104 (100%)
73 (17%)
122 (100%)
51 (11%)
-
21 (11%)
280 (85%)
116 (100%)
260 (33%)
266 (71%)
165 (54%)
97 (35%)
144 (66%)
91 (21%)
72 (15%)
104 (100%)
58 (100%)
74 (17%)
122 (100%)
80 (67%)
111 (23%)
139 (50%)
44 (22%)
51 (15%)
34 (29%)
16 (2%)
4 (1%)
4 (1%)
4 (1%)
32 (15%)
67 (24%)
32 (8%)
32 (31%)
73 (17%)
44 (36%)
157 (33%)
70 (25%)
14
San Francisco, and New York, as well as state governments in California, New Jersey, North
Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
Outside of the Northeast Corridor, the most notable routes in this category include
Harrisburg–Philadelphia, which is owned by Amtrak, New York–Scranton, which has its
ownership divided among several public agencies, and Charlotte–Raleigh, which is the property
of the state-owned North Carolina Railroad, a public/private partnership with Norfolk Southern.
(Table 5, Column d) Amtrak owns nearly a third of the Chicago–Detroit/Pontiac route. (We are
including Amtrak-owned lines in this category as that private corporation is publicly-funded, and
was established by Congress for a public purpose.) In addition, The Casper–Albuquerque corridor
is among the most recent additions to this list due to the state of New Mexico’s acquisition of
several hundred miles of former Santa Fe track in 2006.
Proponents of HSR in corridors that are publicly owned have notable advantages over
their counterparts in other corridors. Not only does public ownership lessen or eliminate the need
for negotiation with freight railroads, it can galvanize policymaker support for investments in
corridor improvement and protect passenger services from conflicts resulting from growing
freight traffic.
k.
Track-Sharing Arrangements with Freight Railroads
Seventy percent (70%) of the existing rail mileage identified for high-speed service is
presently used for high-density freight traffic, which is defined in this study as being at least 10
million gross tons per mile per year. (Many routes operated by short line and regional railroad
have densities well under 5 million gross tons per year). A similar share of the mileage—about
74%—is single track. Both issues represent significant challenges to the development of HSR
systems.
In addition to the Northeast Corridor, which allows of passenger operations without
freight-train interference, several other routes with a high share of mileage free of high-density
freight traffic, including New York–Scranton, Philadelphia–Harrisburg, and New Haven–
Springfield, Mass., are located in the northeastern part of the country (Table 5; Column e).
Planners in numerous corridors are considering options for relocating freight traffic to
alternative routes. Over parts of other corridors, such as the portion of Chicago–Cleveland route
west of Toledo, planners have drafted plans to reroute passenger trains off freight-oriented
mainlines onto lightly used routes maintained by regional and short line railroads, thus lessening
congestion problems.
In some corridors, there is the potential for acquiring land adjacent to active freight
mainlines for dedicated passenger tracks or for installing new signaling systems and passing
tracks.
l. Mileage shared with Commuter Operators
Jointly using track with commuter railroads creates opportunities for cost-sharing but also
adds to the complexity of corridor-building initiatives. An estimated 1,162 miles (10%) of the
existing railroad mileage identified for HSR are used by these local operators. The Northeast
Corridor has the highest proportion of its mileage shared with commuter operators, which use 68
15
percent and 97 percent of the Boston–New York and New York–Washington, D.C. route-miles,
respectively.
In other several corridors throughout the country—Boston–Albany, Boston–Portland,
Harrisburg–Philadelphia, New York–Buffalo, New York–Scranton, and San Francisco–Los
Angeles (Coastal Route—more than one-fifth of the mileage would be shared with these
commuter operators (Table 5; Part d). The Chicago–Madison, Wisconsin, portion of the
Chicago–Twin Cities corridor also has extensive commuter-rail mileage, as do lengthy segments
of routes not listed on the table, such as Eugene–Vancouver.
CONCLUSION
As this study has shown, the wide-ranging efforts to bring high-speed rail service to
many parts of the United States are certainly not being hampered by a shortage of ambitious
planning initiatives. The routes identified for service reach 43 states and all but seven of the 100
largest metropolitan areas on the U.S. mainland. Still more proposals are likely to emerge over
the next several years.
The findings point to the need for greater federal leadership—beyond the annual
appropriation for Amtrak—if states are to successfully acquire and improve rights-of-way for
HSR. Outside of the Northeast Corridor, public ownership of railroad rights of way identified for
high-speed service is quite limited, accounting for less than 10 percent of the existing railroad
mileage. In addition, more than 70 percent of the proposals for high-speed routes that use existing
railroad routes involve single-track lines currently used for mainline freight service.
Such findings illustrate the degree to which freight railroads will need to made active
partners in corridor-development initiatives, a process that may require substantial financial
incentives. In some cases, building dedicated tracks for high-speed trains may be necessary due to
the capacity constraints caused by sheer freight volume.
The results also suggest that the choices of technology may be being affected by the
differing political circumstances facing the planners of interstate and intrastate corridors.
Planners of interstate corridors are placing emphasis on incremental and less-costly technologies
than their counterparts working on intrastate corridors, partially due to the difficulty of
coordinating plans that require significant revenues provided by state governments. The perceived
opportunity to tap into taxpayer-financed revenue steams on intrastate route may also explain the
more aggressive use of advanced technology on these systems.
In all probability, few of the proposed HSR corridors will actually see the introduction of
high-speed service over the next decade. The majority will likely stall due to issues of cost,
complexity, and a lack of public funding. One might reasonably ask whether the HSR movement
would be more likely to achieve success if the energies of HSR advocates were not spread among
so many different initiatives. The scope of these initiatives, however, is a strong indication that
state and regional agencies are making concerted efforts to push high-speed rail to the forefront of
the transportation agenda.
16
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration. High-Speed Ground
Transportation for America. Washington D.C.: USDOT, September 1997.
2. Perl, Anthony. New Departures: Rethinking Rail Passenger Policy in the Twenty-First
Century. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2002.
3. Levinson, David, Adib Kanafani, and David Gillen. A Comparison of the Social Costs of Air
and Highway. 1998. Transport Reviews 18:3 215–240
4. Levinson, David, Adib Kanafani, and David Gillen. 1999. Air, High Speed Rail or Highway: A
Cost Comparison in the California Corridor. Transportation Quarterly 53: 1 123–132
5. U.S. General Accounting Office. Surface Infrastructure: High-Speed Rail Projects in the
United States. Report to the Chairman, January 1999.
6. Cerreño, Allison de and Daniel M. Evans. High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States:
Identifying the Elements for Success, San Jose: Mineta Transportation Institute, 2005.
7. Nash, Andrew, Best Practices in Shared-Use High-Speed Rail Systems, San Jose: Mineta
Transportation Institute, 2003.
8. Quandel, Charles, editor. “Building a New Industry: High Speed Trains for America,”
High Speed Ground Transportation Association, 2006.
9. Roth, Daniel L. and Rohit T. Aggarwala, “Whose Railroad is This, Anyway? Opportunities and
Challenges in Regionalizing the Northeast Corridor,” Transportation Research Record: Journal
of the Transportation Research Board 1785, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, 1–7.
10. Vickerman, Roger, 1997. High-Speed Rail in Europe: Experience and Issues for Future
Growth. Annals of Regional Science, Volume 31, pp. 21–38.
11. Guirao, Begona, José María Menéndez, and Ana Rivas, “Bimodal Use of High Speed Rail
Lines,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1916,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, 1–7.
12. Hsu, Chaug-Ing, and Chung, Wen-Ming, 1997. A Model for Market Share Distribution
Between High-Speed and Conventional Rail Services in a Transportation Corridor. Annals of
Regional Science, Volume 31, pp. 121–153.
13. Hensher, David, 1997. A Practical Approach to Identifying the Market Potential for High
Speed Rail: A Case Study in the Sydney – Canberra Corridor. Transportation Research Part aPolicy and Practice, vol.31:6, pp. 431–446.
17
14. de Rus, Gines, and Vicente Inglada, 1997. Cost-Benefit Analysis of the High-Speed Train in
Spain. Annals of Regional Science, Volume 31, pp. 175–188.
15. Kobayashi, Kiyoshi, and Okumura, Makoto, 1997. The Growth of City Systems with HighSpeed Railway Systems. Annals of Regional Science, Volume 31, pp. 39–56.
16. Martin, Fernand, 1997. Justifying a High-Speed Rail Project: Social Value versus Regional
Growth. Annals of Regional Science, Volume 31, pp. 155–174.