Passenger Trains > States looking to Amtrak (article)

States See Transportation Opportunities
In High-Speed Regional Rail Systems
By DANIEL MACHALABA
stolen from THE WALL STREET JOURNAL


RENSSELAER, N.Y. -- This old industrial city missed out when the airport and main highways were built in neighboring Albany, the state capital. But if state officials have their way, Rensselaer may soon become a major stop for high-speed trains.

New York state is upgrading tracks and rebuilding trains so they can operate at speeds as high as 125 miles an hour. Officials are building a massive new train station here to handle the expected surge in travel.

While national train operator Amtrak prepares for the commercial launch of its high-speed Acela Express trains between Boston and Washington on Dec. 11, much of the new momentum for high-speed rail is coming from the states. Oregon and Washington state have upgraded tracks and bought sleek Spanish-designed trains. Midwestern states are targeting the rail lines radiating from Chicago for fast service. Florida voters amended their constitution last month to mandate high-speed trains. California is mulling an ambitious system. And other plans or proposals are percolating in state capitals elsewhere.


A European-style tilting train running on the Cascades Corridor in the Northwest
"The mood is clearly shifting at transportation departments," says Terry Mulcahy, Wisconsin's transportation secretary. "States are more actively looking for ways to provide high-speed passenger rail service."

But there are many hurdles. A main one is the multibillion-dollar cost. Plans over the past decade to build privately funded high-speed rail systems in Florida and Texas failed because anticipated revenue would cover only operating costs, not construction. Advocates now argue that public investments are essential.

States are counting on federal funding in the form of direct grants similar to those now provided to highways, airports and transit systems. Other potential funding sources include federal tax incentives, state investments and revenue from passenger fares and things such as real estate development along the routes.

Most states don't have the money to build brand new rail lines, so they are negotiating with freight railroads to use their tracks -- which often are filled with curves, road crossings and other impediments to fast trains. And even if the states manage to overcome these obstacles, there's the question of whether enough people will forsake cars and planes to make the new trains a success -- after all, much of this country long ago lost the train-traveling culture that has helped make high-speed rail a success in Europe and Japan.

By international standards, few of these proposals would offer state-of-the-art service. Unlike the 160 to 186 mile-per-hour speeds in Europe and Japan, most state officials seek to run trains at a relatively poky top speed of 100 to 110 mph. That's still an improvement over the 79 mph now allowed on most routes outside the Northeast, but it means the trains won't be a match for air travel in many corridors.

"I don't want to spend my whole day working or traveling to and from work," says R. Victor Stewart a communications consultant for labor unions, who frequently rides the train to New York City from Rensselaer. "There are other things in life."

Still, states say they have many reasons to develop faster rail service. Chief among them is the need to unclog congested highways and airports. Some believe that persuading passengers to take the train for short trips would help ease the airport mess by allowing airlines to concentrate on long-haul service. Proponents even dream of connecting new state systems into a rail version of the interstate highways, only faster. "Call it Interstate II," says Gilbert Carmichael, a former head of the Federal Railroad Administration.

In the Midwest, a consortium of nine states has mapped out a $5 billion hub-and-spoke rail network extending from Chicago to cities such as Detroit, St. Louis and Madison, Wis. Already, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin have committed funds for track upgrades and are working with Amtrak to acquire new high-speed trains.

Merrill Travis, chief of the bureau of railroads at the Illinois Department of Transportation, says higher speeds and reduced travel times will offset the loss of passenger privacy, flexibility and other disadvantages of rail travel when compared to car travel. "We had to find one service attribute we could make so much better than the automobile," he says.

Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia have started improving tracks, signals and stations for a proposed Southeast Corridor. State transportation officials say they expect high-speed trains to be operating between Washington, Richmond, Charlotte and Atlanta in three to five years.

"We've proven we can work together on a staff level," says Patrick Simmons, director of the rail division of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. "Now we need to bring our major policy makers together in a formal compact to build and operate the system."

The Pacific Northwest already operates sleek new trains in cooperation with Amtrak, but only up to 79 mph. Efforts are under way to boost the speed. State officials have shaved 30 minutes off the Seattle-Portland, Ore., route by lifting municipal speed restrictions on railroads and operating the Spanish-designed tilting trains faster on curves. They want to cut another hour from the three and a half hour schedule but need nearly $1 billion to build new tracks and eliminate bottlenecks.

Pennsylvania is working with Amtrak to revamp the line from Philadelphia to the state capital, Harrisburg, and to renovate electrified trains that would travel the route in less time than today.

California is trying to decide how fast to go. Efforts are under way to cut trip times on several existing routes. A more ambitious plan would create a 200-mph network. Although critics call the $25 billion plan a pipe dream, Mehdi Morshed, executive director of the California High Speed Rail Authority, points to the long distances between major California cities. "When you're dealing with California, you need a higher speed to be competitive," he says.

Then there's Florida. Gov. Jeb Bush killed a statewide high-speed rail project soon after being sworn into office in 1999. But in a vote that didn't need to be recounted, Floridians last month amended the state constitution to require a high-speed train system linking the state's five largest urban areas. Now it is up to the state legislature. "Until the Florida legislature tells us what kind of system it's going to be and how it's going to be paid for, we don't really have a role in it right now," says Florida Department of Transportation spokesman Dick Kane.

All of this comes as there is increasing support at the federal level, including a proposal before Congress that would allow Amtrak and states to finance up to $10 billion in high-speed projects through bonds.

The state efforts are advancing independent of the prospects for Amtrak, which is under a mandate to become profitable. States are nonetheless turning to Amtrak for technical support, access to the freight railroads, as a conduit for federal funds and as the eventual operator of the services.

That's true in New York state, which entered a $200 million partnership with Amtrak to cut trip times on the so-called Empire Corridor between New York City and Buffalo. The program includes faster trains, improved track and new stations.

On a recent day, a sleek train, bearing the Amtrak name and New York state seal, waited outside the Amtrak repair shop in Rensselaer, across the Hudson River from Albany. It's one of seven 25-year-old trains being rebuilt for the service, with souped-up engines, new controls and new interiors. The trains are powered by gas turbines that resemble jet engines, not the diesel engines used in most U.S. trains.

State transportation officials say the rebuilt trains will accelerate faster than the unrevamped ones, travel at a slightly higher speed and, over the next three years, cut at least 20 minutes from the current two hours and 20 minutes for the 142-mile trip between Rensselaer, which is Albany's only Amtrak stop, and New York City. That may be enough to coax many people from cars and planes, they say, given the hassles of road and air travel.

"Airlines want you to check in an hour before the flight," says Joseph Boardman, New York state's transportation commissioner. "We'll be in Poughkeepsie [nearly halfway to New York] by that time."

You must be a registered subscriber to watch videos. Join Today!

Goes to show ya that states ain't shy to help Amtrak out, but it sucks on that Califronia part on the article stating that you have to travel 200 MPH to be compettitive when Amtrak's Capitols, San Jaoquins, and Surfliners (formerly the San Diegans) plus 14 and 11 are the hottest trains on that side of the state, so that guy is talking nothing but bull crap. He probably read the book "Derailed" and still thinks 200 is the only way we're gonna succeed and it turns out that the passenger trains running through that state so far are doing just fine.

I am continually amazed at the numbers on the Surfliners as they head north to Santa Barbara....maybe I wasnt paying attention before...but there are a lot of people on them.....guess people are getting fed up with the southbound slowdown on Sunday afternoon-evening.

The guy isn't talking 'much bull crap.' You are comparing apples and oranges. The current Amtrak California/Surfliner service links short-haul city pairs (SDG-LAX-SBA, SJO-OKJ-SAC, and OKJ-FNO-BFD). It is NOT a substitute for a California high speed rail system that would link the SF Bay Area with LAX. That city pair currently has no time-competitive rail service between them. The San Joaquins and Starlight do NOT count as time competitive rail service between LAX and the Bay Area. To compete for business travel between the two metro regions, you need to cut the current rail travel time (12-14 hours) by more than half. Incrementalism won't work here. I hate to agree with Vranich, but California needs something more than short-haul diesel trains with current top speeds of 79 mph between its major cities. They have their place in the corridors they are in, but they DO NOT cut the mustard for long-distance travel. California deserves and needs a world-class 200+ mph high speed rail network to link its major cities. Airports and freeways can only do so much, and the current rail system just doesn't cut it between SFO/OKJ/SJO and LAX.

But you gotta look at the 5 year plan, and I know that 5 year rail plan between Caltrans and Amtrak is a hell of a lot cheaper than putting in high speed rail. Man I sill remember them talking about that so called bullet train back in the late 80s which never happened because of the price. It's better to upgrade instead of building smething new, it's cheaper that way, and Vanrich is wanting supersonic trains, not no 110 MPH Trains! He belevies that's gonna just waste time and all, but you look at the northeast corridor, nobody seems to complain about the speeds there. In fact most if not all the trains on there are packed. So that proves you don't need 200 MPH trains to compete with air. You just need good speed, good service, and keep the trains running A OK.

Pro- dude, you have to calm down. Firstly, the NEC is incremented from WAS to NYC then NYC to BOS. Yes I know, you can go from endpoint to endpoint, but they have their crap together, They have had the Corridor for a billion years now. Plus they have one thing that LAX to SFO doesnt..Population. Think for a minute what's in CA between these cities. Ok, SJC. But then there is well, SLO, SBA, SNS, and don't forget about OXN.(sarcasm). The NEC has Philly, Dover, Wilmington, Newark, Baltimore etc. Big Difference. Vranich is right about CA. 79 mph with stops, is still slower than 70 or even 65 in a car; and more expensive too. Amtrak has done a good job in seeing that their bread and butter is in short haul markets. Some say Gore should conced the election; I do not(I still think he won). However, Amtrak SHOULD start something new, something really hot..an ass kicker 200 mph train SAN-LAX )One other immediate stop,depending on route choice, and SFO. Amtrak should concede to 79Mph trains for the need to coax air travelers to the train, just aint gonna happen. Secondly, I'm sorry, but 11 +14 are kinda slow. One way SAC to LAX, if on time, is 14 hours. I can drive from LA to SAC and BACK, inless time. Not a shot against the Starkight(I love that train), but it is slow. I once rode the Starlight SAC to OXN, and it took 19.5 hours. Hmmmm

That's because the Northeast Corridor is high speed rail, of a sort. They at least go 125 mph, accelerating to 150 whenever they get Crashela going. California's stuck with 79 or less. Your argument is fallacious, because you cannot compare the Northeast Corridor service to California service. It's not even apples and oranges. It's apples and lettuce.

I forgot to add, the Northeast Corridor also has little to no freight service to speak of. All the Amtrak routes in California are fettered with frequent freight trains of the host railroads, BNSF and SP. It doesn't matter how fast your trains can go, if you still have to worry about going into the hole for freights every 25-50 miles. California needs and deserves a dedicated high-speed rail system, operating on grade-separated, freight-free private ROW.

Reason: the coast line is jointed rail, speed is 70, DTC ABS ran, and that line needs a major upgrade. You see ribbion Rail, CTC and all that, that 14 hours can get slashed in no time, but you don't need 200 M.P.H. Trains, and besides, 3 and 4 open it at 90 on the Needles Sub (even though I know on the buiser mornings out there 3 is either ahead, in the middle, or behind a horde of those intermodals heading to San Berdoo, Hobart, Richmond, or Long Beach.) Anyway all Vanrich is is a guy who talks the talk but can't walk the walk.

Seems to me recently BNSF Especially has been running Amtrak hotter than any other freight Carrier, even Metrolink's been doing a good job, so don't even get me started.

The reason #3 and 4 can open it up on the Needles Sub, is because the Needles Sub is straight, mostly flat, and equipped with ATS. The Coast Line is none of those three. Even if you put ribbon rail and CTC on the coast, you'd still be dealing with a lot of curvature and a lot of grades. Much of the Coast Line south of SLO is speed limited to 50 mph or less. That's a restriction because of curvature or grades, not because it's DTC or because it doesn't have ribbon rail. The point is, there is NO WAY to be time competitive with airliners with conventional trains running even 90 mph on the Coast Line, and 90 mph is out of reach for almost the entire route. You're ccomparing apples and oranges yet again. The Needles Sub is in no way like the Coast Line. Why don't you see the need for time-competitive rail service between LAX and the SF Bay Area? Our airports are too crowded, they want to fill in the SF Bay to build new runways, and there are 200 flights a day between SF area airports and LA area airports. California needs high speed rail. Period.

An admission has been made on California's geography as being a culprit to trains running over 79.

To then argue for high speed rail through this profile is contradicting the merits made on the first claim. Shall we blast the mountains away? How about moving California's population inland a few hundred miles so that the Southwest Chief's 90mph running can finally reach where the people are?

The only reason cars often make their time is because the drivers speed, and break many other laws governing stopping or slowing down.

I've trained, carred, bussed, trucked, and boated. Know what I talk about. The only thing I haven't done is rocketed to the moon.

Forgot to add flying (aired) to my resume` .

NRE, good point. In fact they can haul butt across the valley easy, then comes the mountains. I'd still say upgrade the coast line. besides, high speed rail on sperate rights of way are an arm and a leg, it's better to upgrade than to build new rights of way. And I still think Amtrak has to provide good service. Besides, look at what their 5 year plan is gonna do, so watch out you guys, especially ones who don't beleive Amtrak is going to succeed!

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. Do you doubt that California needs an airline-competitive rail link between SF and LA? Do you two even LIVE in California? I live in the SF Bay Area, I deal with the airport congestion, I deal with the traffic congestion. Why don't you understand that the VAST majority of people don't want to spend 10-14 hours traveling between SF and LA? That's how long it currently takes, and even with incremental upgrades there is no way you're going to cut the Coast Line schedule shorter than 8 to 10 hours. The fastest it has ever been, under the Espee, was 10 hours. That doesn't cut it. Sure, I'm a railfan and frequent Amtrak rider. I like the Starlight as a railfan and Amtrak rider. However, I accept the fact that the VAST majority of people are not like me. They don't want to spend 14 hours getting between SF and LA. They have better things to do. So they crowd Bay Area airports, with 200 flights a day each way between the two regions. This corridor cries out, nay, screams out, for a real, European style high speed rail network. I don't really care who builds and runs it, be it the California High Speed Rail Authority, now studying the proposal, Amtrak, or a Joint Powers Authority. 79-90 MPH does not cut it. To those of you who decry the cost... America spent and spends HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars on the Interstate highway system. Can we not spend a fraction of this amount, on a well-capitalized intercity rail network and high speed rail links?

Yeah, from the Antelope Valley man, I know how bad the freeway system is, but you gotta look at it this way, I still remember that bullet train they tried to build from Vegas-Los Angeles, never came to frutrition? Why? Like I said before, an arm and a leg. Besides, there's no way in hell Califrona taxpayers are gonna increase the stupid sales tax for something like that anyway because it's gonna take years to build it anyway, so why even waste your time and just start small and work your way up? Didn't SP advertise about selling the coast line back in the early 90s and was all for trains travelling over 100? The northeast corridor doesn't go 200, but the trains outperform the jets day in and day out, so you don't need supersonic speed just to achieve competitive air service! Besides, the tax is high enough no thanks to them saying we're gonna increase the tax after any major earthquake, and every Califronian (inculding me) knows that the tax is gonna stay evena fter everything's rebuilt. 200 M.P.H. Supertrains in Cali? Yeah, in your dreams. You're just as bad as Joseph Vanrich!

You're quite right, we don't need 200 mph. But yet again, you're comparing the Northeast Corridor with current trains in California. They aren't the same. Not nearly. The NEC is electrified, nearly freight-free, completely grade-separated, and double or quad track all the way. They also are equipped with all sorts of automatic train control systems, the newest of which will allow 150. None of the major California routes have any of these, save the Capitol Corridor which is double track most of the way. We need something better than what we have, and we aren't going to be able to have 150 mph trains (which, at minimum, is what we need) on the current, existing ROW's. Why? A. Lack of ATS or PTC, which, by federal law, limits speeds to 79. B. Freight traffic, on many lines, especially Tehachapi, puts limits on the number of passenger trains that can be scheduled. C. Lack of double track, which slows down any train considerably. D. Lack of grade separation on any scale on any California line, which means that any jurisdiction through which the tracks run would raise holy hell at having 150 mph trains blow through their downtown grade crossings. E. The use of electric locomotives on the NEC, which accelerate much quicker and are quieter and more efficient at high speeds. So, no, the NEC doesn't need 200 mph. However, it needs a lot more than what we have in California.

We'll see what happens with this 5 year plan Amtrak and Caltrans are doing. But I can't wait to see the look on Varnich's face when Amtrak keeps trucking along past 2003.