We must develop high-speed rails for NE Corridor - TheHill.com

We must develop high-speed rails for NE Corridor - TheHill.com

Mica's statements are in italics while I provide a response in the paragraphs thereafter.

Nowhere is the lack of investment in true high-speed more glaring than in the Northeast Corridor. This is, in fact, the only corridor owned by Amtrak. Amtrak continues its Soviet-style control over this vital transportation asset linking our nation’s financial and political capitals. Amtrak’s supposed high-speed service, the Acela, is an international joke. While high-speed trains in Europe and Asia speed along at an average of 150 mph or faster, Acela averages only 83 mph and is little more than a nice looking train that just makes fewer stops than the Amtrak regional service. The Acela simply doesn't compare to any true high-speed international service.

Mica's had this obsession of opening up the NEC to private competition since 2002. Perhaps, a separate express HSR line between Washington and Boston is needed, but only after Florida and California have their shots at running trains that are on par with trains in Europe and Asia. There's nothing wrong with opening the 456-mile corridor to private competition. But, the congressman has to realize that the Northeast has gotten preferential treatment from Amtrak for decades and that the congressional delegation will go out of its way to bar any competitors that could outshine Amtrak.

Unfortunately, 76 of the 78 stimulus grants the administration awarded under the $8 billion in the Recovery Act are for incremental speed improvements for Amtrak and do nothing to advance high-speed rail. Most of the projects selected are designed to allow passenger trains to operate only slightly faster while continuing to commingle with slower freight traffic. Much like their plan for the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak supports these projects out of self-interest — there is little doubt who will be the service provider in these new projects over routes where Amtrak currently operates.

As far as the field being tilted so heavily in Amtrak's favor, this is the one area where I agree with the congressman given that I am worried about Amtrak being the only operator of high speed rail. It would be criminal if the president didn't allow qualified operators like JR Central of Japan or SNCF to have the chance to run HSR trains because that would force Amtrak to step up its game with the NEC. If anything, Congress should subdivide Amtrak's funds into NEC and non-NEC so Amtrak can use the money wisely for other parts of the nation.

Of State Corridors and Amtrak

The February issue of Trains Magazine featured an article on California's success with intercity rail. However, the thing that I paid the closest attention to was the line that states have until October 2013 to pay Amtrak for their corridors by agreeing on a single formula or they risk losing those trains.
Given the current dire situation most states have with their budgets, several state legislatures have threatened to end funding for certain state-supported routes. For now, nothing has happened, but suppose that the economy doesn't get better in 32 months, what would the Amtrak system look like? Furthermore, would the states even care enough to keep these conventional, 79 mph services running, or will have most of them jumped on the high speed rail bandwagon? If the bulk of the states choose the latter, they risk stopping the upcoming passenger rail renaissance dead in its tracks (for the lack of a better term).
Back in 2003, the Missouri legislature came very close to handing its trains over to Herzog. Now, if Herzog were running the Missouri River Runner trains today, it might have been able to not only have a better working relationship with Union Pacific, but, it could have also been able to add frequencies between St. Louis and Kansas City!
I really hope that President Obama encourages competition for not only the fast trains but also the conventional speed trains--regardless of whether they're long distance trains or short runs. So, I would like to see him persuade the companies currently bidding for HSR corridors to operate some of these corridors in the event that Amtrak cuts off ties with a state in the fall of '13. Such a goodwill gesture could potentially put an end to the annual begfests that we all read about in a handful of states. After all, if passenger rail is going to prosper, we can't have certain states taking the hostile view that rail service is expendable.

Specialty Rail Travel

Current Amtrak management has expressed little to no interest in expanding the National System (aka the real backbone of passenger rail). The recent route studies covering the restoration of Sunset Limited service east of New Orleans and route revivals of the Pioneer and North Coast Hiawatha have led to some organizations to publicly criticize the national carrier. As a matter of fact, the Seattle-based Cascadia Center for Regional Development is open to letting a private operator run the Pioneer. If more CCRDs pop up to blast other flawed Amtrak reports, we could easily see private involvement.

Think it's a silly idea? There at least three good reasons why the private sector would want another shot at running passenger trains:

1) The hosts may want more control over the route (it is not at all outside the realm of possibility to think that Warren Buffett could use a privatized BNSF to run passenger service in the near future)

2) Various companies domestically and internationally currently bidding for high speed rail routes. If these companies lose to Amtrak or to each other during the bidding process, long distance routes could be a part of a business plan

3) Someone else wants to run trains for special purposes

As MBA student Jon Fostik pointed out, there are ways that intercity rail travel could be promoted in an era of multiple operators. I have divided his suggestions--and mine--into two categories:

Enhanced Intercity Rail Service
Fostik's Autorail USA should be part of my planned Rail Consortium  or service could otherwise be handled by the host railroads. Complementing Amtrak's eastern-based Lorton-Sanford route would offer even more options for automobile riders who want to carry their vehicles on the train to their destinations. Untapped markets are Midwest-Florida (which in fairness, was covered by the original Auto Train Corporation in the 1970s), the Southwest, and National Parks. Unlike Auto Train Corp's tenure, the time is ripe given that we had $4/gallon gas prices in late summer 2008 and that we may see gas go well past the $3 mark by the time summer's here.

International travel is another area that could be covered by another company. I hereby propose Railroad International Lines as a company that can be set up as a multiple-entity partnership involving the governments of the U.S., Canada and Mexico, the host railroads, Via Rail Canada, and an independent organization that actually operates the trains. All customs issues would be handled at the stations and would only apply to passengers who are traveling outside of the country. What it means is that there would be no busing cross the border to catch a train an hour later as there would be an agreement to handle inspection costs.

As a stater, RRIL would start out of Detroit and serve Toronto via Port Huron, Sarnia and Kitchener, Toronto via Windsor and New York via Windsor and Buffalo with a possible westward extension to Chicago. For the most part, RRIL would serve existing Amtrak and Via Rail stations but RRIL could set up separate facilities if the situation warrants it. However, in the cases of Detroit, Chicago, and New York (and possibly, Buffalo), either historic or alternate stations would be served. Initially, there would be limited stops along these routes, but once the trains prove to be popular enough, stops can be added. Future expansion would result in a Chicago-Winnipeg route, and Mexican destinations would be part of a long-range plan once things have improved in that country.

Themed Rail Travel
Fostik brought up an organization he called American Special Trains that would serve certain areas that are not currently served by Amtrak and even brought up partnerships with the states and/or Amtrak. I would differ with him where the hypothetical organization would have nothing to do with Amtrak.

An entrepreneurial person could stand out by providing special themes and/or special cars to really sell the public on train travel. The unofficial theme could be "Train travel for people who don't ride trains." This company would also specialize in catering to markets and routes that haven't been utilized since the Dark Ages of the 1960s as well as routes that were recently discontinued by Amtrak (the Desert Wind, Pioneer and Three Rivers all come to mind). In North Carolina, an Asheville-New York train would utilize the old Southern Railway route via Winston-Salem and would be an example of old markets being reintroduced to rail as no trains have served the city in four decades and a direct route would alleviate fears of a commuter rail connection to SEHSR in Greensboro possibly being canceled due to low demand for mass transit. The same thing could go for service along other routes like the old South Wind route via Evansville, IN. If speed is an issue that causes Rail Consortium Central to utilize Indianapolis and Nashville as stops for its Chicago-Florida route, the owners of AST might negotiate a lengthy agreement with the hosts. In this scenario, CSX would allow AST to operate on the slow route in western Indiana, but travelers would be notified about it by the latter group and primarily ride the train for scenery along the route. Who says that all trains need to be 200 mph speeding bullets?

Cruise Trains are something that I've pondered on and off for a few years but didn't think much about them outside of Alaska Railroad's partnership with Holland America Line. Like Fostik, I truly think that Florida is an obviously easy choice. Even though he brought up Disney when he replied to my posting and mainly focused on Carnival, this business plan could extend to any cruise line that uses a port in the Lower 48. Even more, the cruise industry can work with the hosts and have the hosts haul specially marked trains with the cruises' logos to the ports. Just like the previous idea, the cruise companies would provide special themes to their passengers between the train station and the port of call. This would also be a case of providing train service for people who don't ride trains.

An Interesting Tie-In
Something that few people have pondered is how new life can be breathed into Detroit's beleaguered Michigan Central Station. My solution is to provide intercity, themed and high speed rail services at the historic location. Last fall, SNCF mentioned in its letter to the FRA that it likes historic train stations as its facilities, so, they'd get first dibs on the place. Rail Consortium's East and Central Subdivisions would provide intercity service alongside Auto Train-like routes being operated by the consortium or the hosts. RRIL would operate here with its passengers receiving special attention. Special themed trains operated by private companies and cruise trains partnered with host railroads would then follow.

Amtrak and whoever operates the Detroit-Columbus portion of the Ohio Rail Hub would stop at Amtrak's current location. Transfers between Express HSR and the Wolverines/Ohio Hub trains would be made at the Detroit airport. Those transfers and shuttle transfers between the two Motor City train stations concerning passengers traveling with Amtrak/Ohio Hub operator and SNCF/Consortium/AST/RRIL/Cruise Trains/Hosts would be handled by state officials affiliated with MWHSR.

Station Issues Part 2: Fixing Chicago's Congestion Woes

In 1950, Chicago had at least eight major train stations that were centrally located. Half of those stations remain in place today. 

Union Station: Amtrak consolidated service here on March 5, 1972. While it may be a major landmark, Union Station has major overcrowding issues. Unless Amtrak wins bidding for every single route passing through Chicago and the station undergoes further renovations, Union Station would be very unsuitable for more than 400 trains a day since METRA commuter trains (and the bulk of its lines) also use the facility.

Ogilvie Transportation Center (was North Western Station): The Madison Street facility currently holds four METRA lines and almost 200 trains daily.

Millennium Station (was Randolph Street Station): Two agencies call this station home--METRA and the South Shore Line. Both companies operate electric train routes.

La Salle Street Station: METRA's Rock Island Line serves the facility. The Rock Island called this place home until it went out of business three decades ago. 


Current Plans
There is some talk of a West Loop Transportation Center that would combine Union Station and the OTC. The issue that I have with this is that such a move would only be a short-term solution. I mean, what if HSR gets so popular that more trains need to be added but the facilities quickly reach capacity? And I haven't even mentioned the possibilities of METRA expansion and long-distance service by entities other than Amtrak.


A second proposal would result in an entirely new HSR station being built just blocks southeast of Union Station. The station would be located next to an old post office. This location looks too small for high speed service and could easily run into the same crowding issues as Union Station.
 
Sensible Alternatives
The MWHSR needs to come up with something better. As a result, I'm recommending that O'Hare be turned into a second main Chicago station alongside Union Station with the other three playing major roles in intercity rail travel as well. Why not have a stop at one of the world's busiest airports? It would provide air travelers and locals another option.


SNCF seems to understand the possibility of an alternative station in the Windy City as they propose the airport as one of the city's two stations and it's time that commissions like MWHSR understand it as well. Instead of trying to consolidate all intercity train service into a cramped facility and relocating METRA routes to less crowded locations, MWHSR should spread the trains around. Here's how it can be done:


1) Union Station: Amtrak would keep all of its routes here as it revamps the facility. The only catch is that the other four stations listed here would be homes to new operators so once any existing routes move out of Union Station, Amtrak would no longer operate them!


2) O'Hare Airport: This would be the only brand new station to be built at a new facility. SNCF (or whichever foreign entity) operates Express HSR would run the trains here. Furthermore, express trains would enable passengers to travel between Cleveland/Detroit and the Twin Cities, Cincinnati and St. Louis either directly or with an easy connection.


3) Ogilvie Transportation Center: Alternative service to Milwaukee, the Twin Cities and Green Bay. Also, another operator could choose to serve alternate stops between Chicago and Milwaukee like Kenosha and Racine.


4) Millennium Station. The new home for Illini and Saluki routes would also be the home for Express HSR service to St. Louis, Detroit and Cleveland. Also, on the long-distance front, The City of New Orleans would be relocated here if Canadian National shows any interest in operating passenger service. Trains to Florida would also be an appealing choice for this location.


5) La Salle Street Station: Quad Cities/Iowa/Omaha service if another company were to outbid Amtrak. Conventional or Regional HSR Cleveland service would call this station home. The Lake Shore Limited and the Capitol Limited would be relocated here and would be joined by a Florida-bound train that would follow the latter route to D.C. before being extended southward.


To alleviate the problem of changing trains and operators, HSR authorities like MWHSR should work out a special transfer program for passengers if they have to transfer from one station to another operator at a different station in the same city. That would guarantee passengers a connection. Unlike the Grand Central Terminal-Penn Station transfers of the past, these transfers would be free.

Station Issues Part 1: Handling Multiple Operators

Based on the controversies over station locations in Florida and Cincinnati, it's worth evaluating the sensibility of having two primary train stations in the same city. In the pre-Amtrak era, such stations existed due to multiple railroads stopping in different parts of town. Now, some states will select new operators for high speed service. The location of where these trains will stop should depend on the operator, whether the station provides any connections to local transportation and other intercity trains and whether these three criteria can be met:

1) Distance. Separate stations exist to handle corridor and
long-distance trains. In the July 27 TWA, Mr. Lindley provided an
example of what could happen in the future when he brought up Phoenix.
If everything played out as he described, a new Airport Station would
serve commuter trains, intrastate express trains, and intercity trains
while Union Station would remain in place for commuter and express
trains;

2) Size or Company. Overcrowding forces a company to move to a less crowded station or to a new location. In big cities like Chicago (I'll address the city in my next entry), this means that there are multiple major stations. For other locations like growing Sun Belt communities, this may result in the company outbidding Amtrak building a new train station at a whole new location;

3) Speed. Different stations are set up to handle fast and
conventional train speeds. The stations between Tampa and Orlando
would be examples of such a unique experiment. The older facilities
would handle Amtrak and intrastate service while the new buildings
would cater only to high-speed trains.

Florida leaders have decided to separate its HSR stations by providing the (likely) foreign operator with stations north of the Miami area that will only handle high speed trains. Between Tampa and Orlando, only suburban locations and the Orlando Airport will be served. There'll be little or no connection to local transportation, the planned Sunrail project in central Florida, or Amtrak along the I-4 corridor.

On the other hand, Cincinnati's situation makes little sense because the Cardinal is not even a daily train and it's likely that Amtrak will run the 3C Route. As a result, there will be no connectivity with the 3C and the Cardinal. How the city can renovate a station and still not have any meaningful train service is beyond me! I would only hope that the Chicago-Cincinnati
HSR route would serve Union Terminal, but that is more long-term, regardless of which station the high-speed line calls home. The only way this makes any real sense is if there are separate operators for the 3C and the Chicago Hub routes. In essence, Cincinnati, fails the smell test because it doesn't meet any of the criteria listed above.

Revamping Parts of HSR Corridors

There are currently 11 federally designated high speed rail corridors with some segments that are more ready than others (e.g., Washington-Charlotte starting before Raleigh-Jacksonville). For the segments that aren't as likely to start by the end of the Teens, conventional service is best--assuming that Amtrak runs trains along that corridor).

Last February, The Transport Politic pointed out seven segments that would be hit with low ridership and 10 others with some connections that the original FRA HSR map missed. In order to solve the former problem is to provide conventional train service. Do the Coast Daylight and daytime Raleigh-Columbia-Jacksonville routes ring bells? The planned Daylight is the result of a partial revision that removed the coastal San Francisco-Los Angeles route from HSR consideration. 

Once Amtrak loses some of its existing service to other companies, it should shift some of its equipment to other states for conventional Florida service to Orlando, Tampa, and Miami. Horizon Cars in the Sunshine State may be weird, but if Amtrak loses big time in the Midwest, it would need to add and expand service in the areas that it retains corridor and long-distance routes. Eventually, the state would order its own cars to expand service.

Any company that outbids and/or replaces Amtrak leaves an opening for the national carrier in which it could capitalize. Say that Spanish-based RENFE outbids Amtrak on the Milwaukee-Madison-Twin Cities extension while the latter company begins operating SEHSR service. No one can tell me that it's out of the question that Amtrak could provide a conventional daytime route between RGH and JAX. Such a route would serve three purposes: 1) it would relieve the Silver Star of overcrowding; 2) as a daytime balance, the times are more marketable with connections to and from local and express SEHSR routes in RGH; and 3) such a route would serve as a warmup for HSR service along the S-Line between the two endpoints.

Provided that Florida East Coast doesn't get tired of waiting for Amtrak and operates the route itself, Amtrak could get a California-like system going that could lead to a long-distance route using the JAX-MIA east coast segment that local, intrastate service would initially utilize.

Both of these examples would also put Amtrak in a better position to win other segments of a corridor when those routes finally meet HSR standards. Of course, that will also require a drastic change in Amtrak culture and for them to learn from any and all upcoming losses to foreign operators.

Building an Interstate Passenger Rail System

The FRA should give grants to the freight railroads to repair certain stretches of rail that have deteriorated throughout the decades. In places like central Florida, where freight congestion has been used as an excuse to end or keep Amtrak service off the former Seaboard Air Line segment via Ocala, parallel rights of way should be set up. On one side, freight trains would be multi-tracked with future space set aside to add as many tracks as the company sees fit. Passenger trains would be on the other side and would be double-tracked with sidings along certain stretches. Along busy corridors like Central Florida, stretches would be triple or quadruple-tracked. This would be in line with former FRA administrator Gil Carmichael's vision of Interstate II, and it would also be much more appealing for long-distance travel.