List of Figures and Tables
European High-Speed Rail Network 19
Current High-Speed Rail Planning in the United States 21
Schematic Illustrations of Additional Track 47
New German ICE Line Between Cologne-Rhine/Main 50
Passenger Separation System on Paris Meteor 55
Automatic Block Signaling System-Schematic Illustration 63 63
FRA Classes of Track and Maximum Operating Speed 49
High-speed rail (HSR) systems are gaining increasing attention in the United States. High-speed rail is intercity passenger ground transportation that is time-competitive with air and auto for travel markets in the approximate range of 100 to 500 miles.
There is significant international experience in building and operating HSR systems that can be helpful in planning U.S. systems. A key challenge for U.S. high-speed rail planning is to take full advantage of foreign experience while ensuring that no degradation of safety or unmitigated environmental effects results from the deployment of foreign technology in North America. The objective of this research project was to identify and describe infrastructure and operating practices that enable high-speed trains in European HSR systems to share tracks with other types of trains, which makes HSR systems both more feasible and effective. This report documents the research project's results.
This report will be of interest to HSR system planners and managers who want to learn about shared-use techniques, to railroad engineers who want a comprehensive listing of strategies that could be used to improve shared-use operations, and to anyone who wants to learn more about high-speed rail planning in general.
Introduction
The increasing movement of people and products at the local, regional, national, and international levels has placed extreme demands on transportation systems, especially in the developed world. Highway and air transportation system congestion are growing fast, and a transportation network developed to meet the needs of an age in which there was less travel and movement of materials, is ill-suited to today's needs.
In most metropolitan regions, there is no space available to expand highway and airport infrastructure, and there is strong environmental and political opposition when such expansion is proposed. One key to solving today's transportation problems is to develop systems that meet markets served poorly by the existing transportation infrastructure. High-speed rail fits snugly in just such a niche: the medium-distance travel market -- too far to drive and too short to fly.
In Europe, HSR systems are well integrated into the urban transportation network and linked to metropolitan airports. There, on intercity corridors where rail offers door-to-door journey times competitive with air, it carries a large market share. In Continental Europe, a vast network of national high-speed train systems has nearly eliminated air trips between cities less than 400 miles apart. The Eurostar train travels between Paris and London in about three hours, which has significantly reduced air travel in the market.
As U.S. cities become denser, the demand for an improved medium-distance transportation system like HSR increases. By providing competitive travel times in a high-quality environment, HSR can attract significant numbers of passengers. This also benefits society by freeing space on the existing transportation systems for travel that has no other practical alternative, for example, allowing airports to focus on serving long-distance travel.
High-Speed Rail Experience
The first HSR line was Japan's Shinkansen service between Tokyo and Osaka, which opened in 1964 with a maximum speed of 130 mph (210 km/h). It is a dedicated HSR system, meaning that it was built especially for high-speed trains and only high-speed trains operate on it.
France took the next big step for shared-use HSR with the introduction of the Train à Grande Vitesse (TGV) program in 1981. The first TGV line, running between Paris and Lyon, was a dedicated line with shared-use segments in urban areas. It proved that high-speed rail could attract a large share of the airline passengers in medium-distance markets.
Germany's high-speed train system, the InterCity Express (ICE), began operation in 1992. Germany used a coordinated program of improvements in infrastructure, rolling stock, and service, upgrading much of the mainline track network for speeds of 125 mph (200 km/h). This allowed ICE trains to efficiently share tracks with other trains and enabled Germany to expand its HSR network quickly and cost effectively.
The only HSR system operating in the United States today is on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor. In 1968, the corridor's private sector owner introduced the Metroliner service, consisting of track improvements and new higher-speed rolling stock. The line was already electrified. The Metroliner's initial top speed was approximately 110 mph and operating speeds eventually reached approximately 125 mph (200 km/h).
Several plans for dedicated HSR systems were proposed in the United States during the 1980s and 1990s but not built. Today, most of the direct U.S. interest in HSR is taking place at the state level; 36 states are planning and making improvements to existing passenger rail networks, and 28 are developing plans for regional HSR corridors. Most of the U.S. high-speed rail planning is for systems that will operate at speeds less than 110 mph (176 km/h). These plans recommend an incremental series of capacity, speed, and safety upgrades to existing railroad lines that will enable operation of more frequent and higher-speed service. Recently, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) has developed the Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program, designed to support the states' efforts by encouraging development of modern, cost-effective technology enabling rail passenger service at speeds up to 150 mph (240 km/h) on existing infrastructure.
Shared-Use High-Speed Rail Systems
The Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. DOT, has defined high-speed rail as self-guided intercity passenger ground transportation by steel wheel railroad that is time competitive with air and auto for travel markets in the approximate range of 100 to 500 miles (160 to 800 kilometers). This is a market-driven, performance-based definition of high-speed rail rather than a speed-based definition. It recognizes that total trip time (including access to and from stations), rather than speed per se, influences passengers' choices among transport options in a given market, and that travelers evaluate each mode not in isolation, but in relation to the performance of the other available choices.
This research concerns shared-use HSR systems, that is, systems in which high-speed passenger trains use the same tracks as slower passenger and freight service. In Europe, trains that can travel at speeds greater than 150 mph commonly operate at lower speeds on shared-use track segments and use dedicated track for top speeds. Therefore, the two basic types of shared-use HSR system are total shared-use -- high-speed rail systems that share tracks with other trains over their entire length -- and partial shared-use -- high-speed rail systems that operate on dedicated HSR track for part of their route and share track in some locations.
The choice between a completely dedicated track system (New HSR) and the two types of shared-use depends on the travel market to be served, since there is an effective maximum speed for each type of system. A dedicated track system provides the fastest travel times, so it serves the longest travel markets; a partial shared-use system provides middle-range travel times and serves middle-range markets (the higher the proportion of dedicated track, the longer the market served); a total shared-use system provides the longest travel times and serves the shortest markets. Because it is not always feasible to construct a dedicated system, shared-use HSR systems are common throughout the world.
Problems with Shared-Use Operations
Five problems with shared-use HSR systems are safety at higher speeds; lessened train capacity; reduced top speed, which increases travel times; congestion on the line, which can increase reliability problems; and fewer options for high-speed vehicle design. These problems also impact HSR economics; for example, reduced speed makes the HSR system less attractive to customers and increases costs to operators by reducing the productivity of expensive rolling stock.
Benefits of Shared-Use Operations
The four main benefits of shared-use are lower costs; reduced economic, environmental, and social impacts; improved accessibility, since shared-use enables HSR trains to go to rail stations in the hearts of cities; and network benefits, as other lines can feed traffic onto the HSR lines. All other things being equal, it is more feasible to develop a shared-use HSR system than a dedicated HSR system. A shared-use HSR system can be improved incrementally by building dedicated segments over time as ridership increases and benefits become better known.
Research Objective and Methodology
The objective of this research project was to identify infrastructure and operating strategies used by European railroads to improve operation of shared-use high-speed rail systems. The research consisted of a literature review and interviews of experts. A list of interviewees is included as Appendix A. The questionnaire developed for the interviews is included as Appendix B.
This research started with the premise that there might be European strategies and practices that were unknown in the United States, or that there might be some novel application of strategies in Europe. However, it appears that Europe uses the same techniques known to improve track sharing in the United States, although these techniques are applied to different degrees based on differences in operating railroads and railroad markets. Therefore, the research focused on how the strategies are applied, the importance of various strategies, and recommendations from planners who have experience building and operating shared-use high-speed rail systems.
Recommended Shared-Use Strategies
The objective of this research was to identify infrastructure and operating strategies that improve the operation of shared-use HSR systems. One critical finding is that strong partnerships are needed to make shared-use work, and getting the parties to look beyond their own parochial interests is critical to success.
This research identified four categories of strategies to improve the operation of shared-use HSR systems: planning, infrastructure, communications and signal system, and operating strategies. This section presents a brief outline of the recommended strategies in each category; the strategies are described in detail in Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Planning is particularly important in developing shared-use HSR systems for five reasons: often there are a large number of stakeholders; understanding railroad capacity and operation is not simple; safety issues are paramount; railroad infrastructure is highly interrelated; and railroad infrastructure is expensive. The planning process should identify the most effective set of improvements necessary to provide the service demanded by the market with the least economic, political, technological, and environmental cost.
Infrastructure strategies are presented for track, structures, stations, and grade crossings. Most of the recommended strategies are similar to those used to increase capacity and speed on any rail system.
Communications and Signal System Strategies
Signals are critical in determining a rail segment's maximum speed and capacity because they control the movement of trains. Signals prevent trains from colliding on the same track and when changing tracks, and they route trains onto the best tracks to enable efficient railroad system operation.
Operating strategies are plans for providing transportation services on the shared-use segments of track. There are two types of operating strategies -- operations planning and dispatching. Operations planning consists of developing a schedule for all trains that will run on the shared-use segment. Except for relatively simple systems, this usually requires the use of train simulation software. Dispatching is the process of providing trains with specific directions that account for day-to-day operating conditions in real time. The dispatching process focuses on what happens when things do not work as planned because of train delays or infrastructure failures. Shared-use HSR systems should have centralized train control, but CTC only enables dispatchers to route trains through the network; people must set priorities and make good decisions.
Further Research
Two areas that would be fruitful for additional research would be policy questions and experience implementing shared-use HSR systems. A good example in the policy area would be, "What are the competitive advantages to freight railroads gained by having the public sector construct new facilities and track?" On the practical side, information on experiences in implementing programs such as the Pacific Northwest Corridor or Midwest Rail Initiative would be useful for planners on other corridors.
High-speed rail (HSR) systems are gaining increasing attention in the United States. A high-speed rail system is intercity passenger ground transportation that is time-competitive with air and auto for travel markets in the approximate range of 100 to 500 miles. Many states are developing proposals for new HSR systems designed to solve critical transportation problems, especially growing congestion on highways and airport systems. High-speed rail is also viewed as a way to focus growth and development around stations and as a catalyst for economic growth.
The significant international experience in building and operating HSR systems can be helpful in planning U.S. systems. However, it is important to ensure that no degradation of safety or unmitigated environmental effects result from the deployment of foreign technology in North America. The objective of this research project was to identify and describe infrastructure and operating practices that enable European HSR systems to share tracks with other types of trains, a practice that makes HSR systems both more feasible and effective. This report documents the results of the research project.
This research report will be most interesting to HSR system planners and managers who want to learn about shared-use techniques. Because many of the strategies used in Europe are based on traditional railroad engineering techniques for increasing capacity and speed, and, therefore, are fairly well known to railroad engineers, the report will be of interest to them mainly as a comprehensive listing of potential strategies for improving shared-use operations. The report will also be of interest to those who want to learn more about high-speed rail planning in general.
This chapter summarizes the research purpose and the methodology used to complete the research and outlines the report contents.
Research Purpose
High-speed rail systems can lessen some of the major transportation problems facing the world today, such as the increasing congestion at airports and on air routes, highway congestion, and increasing energy use. Shared-use is an important high-speed rail strategy because often it is the only feasible way to construct a high-speed rail system.
The objective of this research project was to identify infrastructure and operating strategies used by European railroads to optimize operation of high-speed trains on shared track segments. All Europe's high-speed rail systems operate to some degree on shared-use track; therefore, European railroads have a great deal of experience in planning and improving such systems.
This research started with the premise that there might be European strategies and practices that were unknown in the United States, or that there might be some novel application of strategies in Europe, but this was not the case. It appears that the same techniques known to improve track sharing in the United States are used in Europe but to different degrees based on differences in operating railroads and railroad markets. This is logical, since the basic problems with shared-use HSR are similar to those for any railroad: safety, capacity, and speed. Furthermore, Amtrak's Northeast Corridor (NEC) is, by many measures, one of the most complex and heavily used shared-use HSR systems in the world. Many of the techniques and strategies used in European systems have been used for many years on the NEC.
Since the strategies used by European railroads do not differ significantly from those used in the United States, the research focused on how the strategies are applied, the importance of various strategies, and recommendations from planners who have experience building and operating shared-use high-speed rail systems.
It is hoped that this research will provide planners with an approach to planning high-speed rail systems, a set of techniques that can be used in designing and operating the system, and a context for making shared-use feasibility decisions. The report will be most useful as an introduction to the topic of shared-use high-speed rail systems for policymakers and as a summary of shared-use strategies for planning and evaluating new high-speed rail systems. Since most of the strategies described in the report will be familiar to railroad engineers, the report will be most useful for them as a comprehensive summary of shared-use techniques.
Methodology
The research consisted of a literature review and expert interviews. Technical experts from European railroads, European railroad research institutes, Amtrak, the U.S. Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. railroad planners, and other interested parties were interviewed. An initial set of interviewees was developed working with staff from the California High-Speed Rail Authority and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology's IVT. Those interviewees then provided names of additional experts to interview. A list of interviewees is included as See Interview List.
The interviews were completed between January and August 2002. A questionnaire was developed to introduce the subject and set the context for the interviews, but it was not followed strictly because the project's objective was to obtain a qualitative understanding of shared-use techniques. A copy of the initial questionnaire is included as See Initial Questionnaire.
Information from the interviews was used to prepare a draft report. The draft benefited from comments by Steve Colman, an Assistant Professor in Transportation at San José State University, as well as an independent peer review, but any errors or omissions are the fault of the author.
It must again be emphasized that this report was not designed to provide detailed technical data, but to provide qualitative information on the subject of track sharing by high-speed rail, introduce the subject of track sharing, make recommendations for use in the planning process, and suggest paths for future research.
Report Outline
See Introduction and Methodology is this introduction.
See High-Speed Rail describes the state of high-speed rail today. It includes a definition of high-speed rail; a brief history of high-speed rail throughout the world; and a description of current high-speed rail planning, with an emphasis on the United States.
See Shared-Use High-Speed Rail Systems describes track sharing in detail: the institutional issues surrounding it, its types, problems associated with it, and its benefits.
See Planning Strategies describes best practices for planning shared-use high-speed rail systems. All the interviewees emphasized the need for strong planning. This chapter describes the importance of planning, outlines the shared-use high-speed system planning process, and presents a set of planning recommendations.
See Infrastructure Improvement Strategies presents strategies for improving shared-use high-speed rail system infrastructure, including track improvements to increase capacity, track improvements to increase speed, station improvements, and grade-crossing improvements.
See Signaling and Communications Strategies presents strategies for improving communications and signaling systems on shared-use high-speed rail systems. Communications and signal systems include signaling, train control, and traffic control systems. The chapter outlines these systems and presents recommendations for each of them.
See Operating Strategies presents operating strategies to improve shared-use high-speed rail systems. It includes recommendations for planning operations (in advance) and for real-time control of shared-use high-speed rail systems.
See Interview List lists the persons interviewed for this project.
See Initial Questionnaire presents the initial questionnaire that was used to conduct the interviews.
A bibliography, a list of acronyms, and endnotes are also included in this report.
High-speed rail systems are increasingly viewed as an attractive means for serving medium-distance transportation markets. This chapter presents an introduction to high-speed rail systems, with sections on the definition of high-speed rail, factors related to travel speed, the importance of high-speed rail, worldwide experience with high-speed rail, and high-speed rail planning in the United States.
A Niche for High-Speed Rail
One fundamental change caused by globalization and the communications revolution is the increasing movement of people and products at the local, regional, national, and international levels. This has placed extreme demands on transportation systems, especially in the developed world. Highway and air transportation system congestion are growing fast, and travel demand sometimes seems almost unlimited. As the "paperless" office has not eliminated paper, the communications revolution seems to have actually increased the demand for travel.
Extreme congestion is a sign that the transportation system cannot cope with the demands of a new world. The transportation network has been developed to meet the needs of an earlier age, one in which there was less travel and movement of materials, and is, therefore, ill suited to meet today's needs. The existing system is not specialized enough to serve new transportation demands efficiently. For example, it may be efficient to drive 120 miles when there is limited congestion, but it makes a great deal less sense in highly congested areas.
The key to solving today's transportation problems is to develop systems that meet markets served poorly by the existing transportation infrastructure. High-speed rail fits snugly in such a niche, namely the medium-distance travel market: too far to drive and too short to fly. Highway congestion and airport access delays have conspired to create this niche by increasing travel times on these networks. Congestion and delays will grow with the economy, further improving the prospects for high-speed rail during the coming years.
A fundamental problem with today's highway and airport infrastructure is that these networks cannot be expanded significantly. In most metropolitan regions, there is no space available and there is strong environmental and social opposition to the expansion of highways and airports. A closely related problem that causes society to invest inefficiently in transportation systems is the political inability to create a market for transportation infrastructure. Selling highway use or airport use in a market would reduce their demand and increase demand for other transportation systems such as high-speed rail. Using market pricing for highway and airport infrastructure would send stronger market signals for development of an HSR network than can be provided solely by the increases in travel time caused by delay and congestion on those systems.
European experience with high-speed rail points to a good future in the United States. In Europe, HSR systems are well integrated into the urban transportation network and linked to metropolitan airports. There, rail carries a large market share on intercity corridors where it offers door-to-door journey times competitive with air. According to the New York Times, in Continental Europe, a vast network of national high-speed train systems has nearly eliminated air trips between cities less than 400 miles apart. High-speed rail networks "bleed the short-haul capacity out of the system," freeing airports to do what they do best: handle long-distance trips.
One key difference between U.S. and European transportation systems is land use patterns; however, these patterns are becoming more similar -- European cities are spreading out, and major U.S. cities are becoming denser. This evolving land use pattern supports the demand for an improved medium-distance transportation system, such as high-speed rail, by creating stronger nodes in the United States, increasing highway congestion, and further reducing the ability to build new highways and airports.
To summarize, high-speed rail fills an important and growing role in the transportation market. By providing competitive travel times in a high-quality environment, it can attract significant numbers of passengers. This also benefits society by freeing space on the existing transportation systems for travel that has no other practical alternative, for example, allowing airports to focus on serving long-distance travel.
Definitions: High-Speed Rail and Shared-Use
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has defined high-speed rail as self-guided intercity passenger ground transportation by steel wheel railroad that is time competitive with air and/or auto for travel markets in the approximate range of 100 to 500 miles (160 to 800 kilometers). This is a market-driven, performance-based definition of high-speed rail rather than a speed-based definition. It recognizes that total trip time (including access to and from stations), rather than speed per se, influences passengers' choices among transport options in a given market, and that travelers evaluate each mode not in isolation, but in relation to the performance of the other available choices.
Using a market-based definition helps explain why the opportunities and requirements for high-speed rail differ markedly among different city pairs and transportation corridors. A particular high-speed rail system might be effective in one corridor but fail in another simply because it did not meet the corridor's particular market demand. Adopting a shared-use strategy is an excellent example of this point; in some markets it will be successful but not in others.
The international organization of railways, the Union Internationale Chemins de Fer (UIC) High-Speed Rail Task Force, has decided to use the plural word "definitions" for high-speed rail to reflect the fact that there can be no standard definition based on infrastructure, rolling stock, and operations. The task force developed definitions for high-speed rail in all three of these areas. The UIC also emphasizes that high-speed trains need to provide high-quality service, a further reflection on the market-based nature of successful high-speed rail systems.
The FRA has defined two categories of high-speed rail service based on top speed: Accelerail and New HSR. These categories are important because they define the system's basic characteristics, including infrastructure, rolling stock, and operating regulations. They are defined as follows:
Accelerail -- High-speed rail systems that travel at speeds around 90 to 150 mph (144 to 240 km/h). These systems are designed to share tracks with other types of trains.
New HSR -- High-speed rail systems that travel at speeds above 150 mph (240 km/h). To reach these speeds, a dedicated line and highly specialized infrastructure and rolling stock are needed. The only totally dedicated system now operating is Japan's Shinkansen service.
The Accelerail category can be further subdivided based on speed into rough categories of less than 110 mph (176 km/h), 110 to 125 mph (176 to 200 km/h), and 125 to 150 mph (200 to 240 km/h). These categories are based on practical and regulatory infrastructure and rolling stock requirements. The maximum practical speed for Accelerail today is approximately 110 mph (176 km/h). Operating in the higher-speed categories, such as on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor (top speed of 150 mph), requires more specialized rolling stock (for example, turbine propulsion or electric locomotives), higher-quality track, more advanced signal systems, and elimination of grade crossings. Speeds over approximately 125 mph require electrification.
This research concerns shared-use HSR systems -- systems where high-speed passenger trains use the same tracks as slower passenger and freight service. The ability of trains to operate in shared-use systems generally becomes more difficult as train speed increases. However, it is common in Europe for trains that can operate at very high top speeds (that is, over 150 mph) to operate on both shared-use and dedicated tracks. These trains operate at lower speeds on shared-use segments and at top speeds on the dedicated track segments. Since this type of operation can also be described as shared-use, it is possible to define two basic types of shared-use HSR systems:
Total Shared-Use -- High-speed rail systems that share tracks with other trains over their entire length, such as Amtrak's Northeast Corridor and most of the Accelerail proposals.
Partial Shared-Use -- High-speed rail systems that operate on dedicated HSR track for a portion of their route and only share track in some locations, such as France's TGV system and the California High-Speed Rail Authority's HSR Plan.
Choosing between a completely dedicated track system (New HSR) and the two types of shared-use is the fundamental question in designing an HSR system. The choice depends on the travel market to be served because there is an effective maximum speed for each type of system. A dedicated track system provides the fastest travel times, so it serves the longest travel markets; a partial shared-use system provides middle-range travel times and serves middle-range markets (the higher the proportion of dedicated track, the longer the market served); a total shared-use system provides the longest travel times and serves the shortest markets.
There are a few examples of non-high-speed trains using dedicated HSR track segments. For example, Spain's AVE tracks between Madrid and Seville are used by TALGO overnight service, with the TALGO trains operated at lower speeds during periods of low AVE train service.
The Speed Factor
The market-based definition of high-speed rail emphasizes door-to-door travel time rather than speed as the key factor of customer interest in high-speed rail systems, but, of course, travel time is closely related to speed. Given speed's importance in high-speed rail system planning, there are three important factors that should be kept in mind when considering HSR systems.
First, increases in maximum speed have decreasing marginal gains in travel time savings. This means that a 10-mph increase in speed between 80 and 90 mph will reduce total travel time by relatively more than a 10-mph increase in speed between 140 and 150 mph. Therefore, improving the speed of a slow train can have a greater travel time benefit for passengers than improving the speed of a fast train.
Second, travel time reductions due to higher speeds depend very much on the distance between stations because trains need a significant amount of time to accelerate to their maximum speed and to decelerate and stop. Trains that stop and start frequently never reach their maximum speeds or reach it only for a short period of time. For planning purposes, this means that HSR systems are not cost effective on lines with frequent station stops.
Third, the marginal cost of increases in maximum speed (in system design, construction, operating costs, and so forth) grows more than proportionately with speed increases. In other words, the level of infrastructure investment increases significantly as the maximum speed increases. This is partly because of the increased level of precision required in all aspects of the HSR system. Energy consumption also increases with the speed because of the exponential increase in air resistance. For high-speed rail planning, this means that the maximum speed necessary to serve the market must be carefully analyzed because each increase in speed is more expensive in capital and operating terms.
These three factors, along with market demand, should be used early in the planning process to develop and evaluate high-speed rail plans at the conceptual level before proceeding with more detailed planning efforts. They also help to explain the strong interest in the Accelerail category of high-speed rail in many U.S. regions.
Worldwide Experience
The first true high-speed rail line was Japan's Shinkansen service between Tokyo and Osaka. This line was opened in 1964 with a maximum speed of 130 mph (210 km/h). The line has been extended and its maximum speed increased to 188 mph (300 km/h). Today it carries more than 400,000 passengers per day. The Shinkansen line is a dedicated high-speed rail system, meaning that it was built especially for high-speed trains and no other types of trains operate on the line. One reason the Japanese decided to build a dedicated line was that there was no capacity on the existing railroad network available for adding high-speed trains.
During the 1960s, researchers from several countries experimented with technologies that would enable trains to travel at higher speeds on the existing network, in other words, shared-use high-speed rail systems. Both Britain and France experimented with tilting trains and infrastructure improvements to existing lines. France made significant progress in increasing speeds during this time by improving its signaling system and infrastructure.
A well-known problem with high-speed rail service was that operating trains at high speeds caused significant track damage. Therefore, there was an intensive research effort to design trains that could travel at high speeds without damaging the tracks. France was the first country to put these newly designed trains into service with its Train à Grande Vitesse (TGV) program.
The first TGV line was opened between Paris and Lyon, a distance of 260 miles (417 km) in 1981. It was a dedicated line with shared-use segments in urban areas. Trains operated at a maximum speed of 170 mph (270 km/h), and the system was successful technically and financially. The line also proved that high-speed rail could attract a large share of airline passengers in medium-distance markets. Based on this line's success, France embarked on an extensive program of building high-speed lines throughout the country, and French technology is used on many other high-speed rail systems worldwide (see See French TGV Train Source: SNCF).
The TGV is a partial shared-use high-speed rail system because it uses both dedicated high-speed tracks and shared-use tracks. On shared-use segments, it travels under the same restrictions as other trains; on the dedicated segments, it now reaches top speeds of 188 mph (300 km/h) on some lines. France has continued to improve its system, adding new lines and technical improvements to the TGV trains themselves. Today's TGV trains are faster, more comfortable, and more efficient than the original trains, and there is even a double-deck version on the heavily traveled Atlantique line.
French TGV Train
Source: SNCF
Britain also developed a high-speed rail program during the 1960s. The British HST125 trains have been successfully operated for more than 25 years. These trains are especially interesting since they are diesel powered.
The high-speed program in Germany included extensive work to upgrade many of its mainline tracks for speeds of 125 mph (200 km/h), continuing an earlier effort to improve the nation's railroad network. This later effort comprised a coordinated program of improvements in infrastructure, rolling stock, and service (for example, hourly service on an intercity network throughout the country).
In parallel with these improvements to the rail network, Germany began developing a true high-speed system, the InterCity Express (ICE), although service did not begin until 1992, more than 10 years later than the TGV. The first ICE lines were between Hannover and Würtzburg and between Mannheim and Stuttgart. The first-generation ICE trains had a maximum line speed of 156 mph (250 km/h) but could travel up to 280 km/h to make up schedule delays.
Germany's approach of upgrading its main track network allowed ICE trains to share tracks with other trains efficiently and enabled Germany to expand its high-speed network quickly and cost effectively. Today Germany is building new, dedicated high-speed tracks along many shared track segments to improve service by adding capacity and increasing speed. Germany has also continued development of the ICE trains and has developed a tilting version (ICE-T) for use on lines with many horizontal curves, as well as faster versions. The latest-generation trains (ICE3) travel at speeds above 200 mph (330 km/h).
The ICE trains have increased passenger volumes significantly in Germany. In one example, shortening the travel time between Hamburg and Frankfurt by one hour increased the number of passengers by nearly 40 percent. Surveys show that the ICE trains are being used by passengers traveling longer distances than conventional InterCity services.
Spain opened its first high-speed rail line in 1992, in connection with the World Fair in Seville (see See Spanish AVE Train Source: Bombardier Transportation). The line between Madrid and Seville is interesting because although it was built for high-speed rail trains (the AVE system), it allows some other trains to use the dedicated high-speed line (for example, the TALGO overnight service from Barcelona). The AVE is also remarkable because it has adopted the common European track gauge rather than the standard Spanish gauge, which is wider. Similarly, the Italian high-speed lines were built for high-speed service, but other trains are allowed to use the line.
As an example of extending high-speed networks, the Thalys high-speed trains serve a network including France, Belgium, The Netherlands, and Germany. The Dutch trains run on existing tracks with other passenger and freight service, operating as regular passenger trains. In 2006, a new dedicated high-speed line will be opened to allow the trains to operate at higher speeds (188 mph or 300 km/h). The Thalys rolling stock must be designed to operate on all four countries' different signaling and power distribution systems.
One major project that deserves recognition is the English Channel Tunnel high-speed line that opened in 1994. This impressive engineering project has provided excellent rail service between the European continent and Great Britain, significantly reducing travel times and attracting a large number of former air passengers. The system is directly linked to France and Belgium's HSR network and will be further improved upon completion of a new 60-mile dedicated high-speed rail segment between the tunnel and London, which will cost about 6 billion pounds.
Spanish AVE Train
Source: Bombardier Transportation
As this brief survey indicates, there has been much activity in developing high-speed rail systems in Europe. There are two key reasons for this: Europe contains many large city-pair markets that can be served easily by HSR, and Europe has a long history of support for intercity passenger rail services. Because high-speed rail is important in Europe, the European Commission adopted a European high-speed network. In most cases, the European network links the individual national systems into an integrated network, as shown in See European High-Speed Rail Network Source: MTI.
European High-Speed Rail Network
Source:
MTI
Over this same period, interest in high-speed rail was increasing in the United States, although the only U.S. high-speed rail system implemented has been the shared-use system on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) between Boston and Washington D.C. NEC improvements started in the late 1960s with the Metroliner program and continued sporadically until implementation of the Acela Express in late 2000. The Metroliner operated with a top speed of approximately 125 mph, while the Acela Express has a top speed of 150 mph (240 km/h). Amtrak's Acela Express program included upgrading the infrastructure and acquiring new rolling stock that can travel faster on the shared-use tracks.
One of the most interesting aspects of the NEC, for purposes of this research, is the level of complexity experienced in planning and operations because of the many different types of trains operated on the line. Hundreds of 80-mph commuter trains and 30-mph freight trains must share the tracks with Acela Express trains operating between 110 and 150 mph. By many measures, there is more shared-use on the NEC than on most European lines. Given this wealth of shared-use experience, many of the research recommendations come from those familiar with the NEC. Amtrak reports that several European high-speed rail operators are studying the NEC to learn more about shared-use operations.
Amtrak's Acela Express has proved very popular, especially in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when ridership soared by 40 percent. The service is currently carrying more than 50 percent of the air/rail market between New York and Washington and more than 30 percent of the market between Boston and New York. The service is popular with passengers, but it has been plagued by a series of technical problems, starting with delayed introduction; in late 2002, many trips were canceled because of yaw damper bracket cracks. Many critics blame these problems on vehicle design, specifically the excessive weight needed to meet FRA crashworthiness standards.
In the 1980s and 1990s, several plans for high-speed service in the United States were developed but not built. These included proposals for high-speed rail in California, the Texas Triangle plan, and Florida's FOX system. However, many high-speed rail plans are now under development in the United States. These efforts are outlined in the following section.
United States High-Speed Rail Planning
U.S. interest in high-speed rail has increased significantly during the 1990s, both because of foreign success and the increasing congestion in the air and on the road. The landmark Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1991 required completion of a nationwide high-speed rail study and designation of five high-speed rail corridors, and included funding for high-speed rail projects. This was followed by 1994's Swift Rail Development Act, which led to the establishment of the FRA's Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program.
The Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program was designed to support the availability of modern, cost-effective technology enabling rail passenger service at speeds up to 150 mph (240 km/h) on existing infrastructure. The program focuses on three main areas: track evaluation, improvement, and maintenance; signaling and communications; and non-electric motive power. This focus was continued in the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
Since TEA-21, several other high-speed rail bills have been considered by the Congress, including bills that would provide additional funding for high-speed rail. Today, 36 states are planning and making improvements to existing passenger rail networks, and 28 are developing plans for regional high-speed rail corridors. See Current High-Speed Rail Planning in the United States Source: U.S. DOT-FRA shows current U.S. high-speed rail planning efforts.
Current High-Speed Rail Planning in the United States
Source: U.S. DOT-FRA
The main reasons for increased interest in high-speed rail systems are that they can provide comfortable, high-quality transportation in the medium-distance travel market and reduce congestion on the highway and airline system. Another reason is the time necessary to complete additional security requirements when flying following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Unlike earlier planning efforts for dedicated HSR systems such as the Texas and Florida projects, most current planning is for shared-use HSR systems that will operate in the Accelerail range of speeds. Much of the current U.S. passenger rail planning is focused at the state level. According to Amtrak, states are largely driving the effort -- they have consistently concluded that improved passenger rail service often is the only viable and affordable alternative to the highway and airport congestion that is choking economic growth. Some examples of planning efforts recently completed or currently underway include:
California Passenger Rail System-20-Year Improvement Plan
Midwest Regional Rail Initiative
Amtrak Cascades (Oregon-Washington) Plan
Boston-Montreal High-Speed Corridor
All these plans recommend a series of capacity, speed, and safety upgrades to existing railroad lines that will enable operation of higher-speed service. Coupled with these infrastructure improvements are recommendations for increased levels of service and the purchase of new rolling stock that is both more attractive for passengers and capable of operating comfortably at higher speeds.
These plans all focus on systems operating at less than 110 mph (176 km/h). One reason for focusing on this speed is that the required grade-crossing safety improvements for trains traveling at higher speeds are still difficult to meet, and most existing railroad lines have grade crossings. The FRA is participating in several research projects designed to improve grade-crossing warning devices, and as new solutions are developed, higher-speed services may be considered.
These plans recommend an incremental upgrade program with targets for infrastructure improvements and service levels given over time, often over a 20-year period. This is a sensible approach to improving an infrastructure system as complex and interrelated as the railroad network. An incremental improvement program can begin providing benefits immediately and is more consistent with annual capital spending programs developed through legislation.
While these Accelerail plans focus on speeds less than 110 mph, they could be upgraded in the future by further improving the infrastructure and rolling stock or by adding sections of dedicated track. The FRA's High-Speed Ground Transportation for America report suggests that states fine-tune their corridor studies to maximize the cost effectiveness of HSR improvements. It suggests careful attention to the possibility of staging (gradual implementation of more ambitious HSR solutions) and routing options (building dedicated routes). The report suggests that such improvements, if designed with vision, could become the kernel for a much improved HSR system.
The state of California has adopted just such an approach in its exciting plan for a new HSR-type system between San Francisco and Los Angeles. This system would be similar to European systems such as the TGV and ICE in that it would combine long sections of dedicated track (where it would operate at speeds on the order of 200 mph [320 km/h]) with shared-use sections. The main reason California is considering a new HSR-category system is that its major market, between San Francisco and Los Angeles, is too long (approximately 380 miles) to be served by trains in the Accelerail category. California's HSR system has a travel time goal of 3 hours for express trains from San Francisco to Los Angeles.
The California HSR system would share tracks with freight, commuter, and other intercity trains in the vicinity of San Francisco and Los Angeles, where it would be difficult and expensive to obtain rights-of-way needed to build dedicated tracks. The system would be closely coordinated with the state's other intercity passenger rail service and urban transit systems. Eventually, it might consider a more extensive track-sharing program to provide service throughout the state.
Shared-Use High-Speed Rail Systems
See High-Speed Rail presented a definition of shared-use HSR systems. This chapter outlines some of the institutional issues surrounding planning and operation of shared-use HSR systems, the problems with shared-use, and the benefits of shared-use.
Institutional Issues
An interesting aspect of planning a shared-use HSR system is that, because of its shared nature, several different organizations will be involved in operating trains over the network. Most of the challenges to developing HSR systems are not technological, but political, institutional, and financial.
According to one source, "Clearly, the institutional barriers, or perhaps attitudinal barriers, are the largest problems for shared-use partners." Getting the parties to look beyond their own parochial interests is critical to success. An agency that wants to introduce shared-use HSR service must carefully consider process issues and techniques that enable the formation and operation of fruitful multiagency partnerships.
Some of the partners may not be obvious; as one interviewee stated, "Every city on the corridor will want something." The general public will also be involved in developing the system and must be consulted if the project is to be successful. An especially interesting institutional issue is the question of competitive benefits that government-sponsored improvements on a shared-use infrastructure may provide to the private-sector infrastructure owner (for example, a freight railroad). Analyzing these institutional issues will be an important area of future research.
Because the biggest challenges will be institutional, the first step in any shared-use HSR planning effort must be a careful assessment of institutional issues and development of a plan to address them. Many different techniques should be considered in developing this plan, including use of facilitation, identifying champions, public involvement and communications, and mediation, but recognizing that this step is necessary is the most critical.
One good technique in developing a shared-use HSR plan is to organize a steering committee of partners for the project. At first, this group will be responsible for developing the implementation plan, but it will continue to be needed to resolve operating issues and develop further improvement plans. When organizing these groups, it is critical that all participants understand the decision-making and plan implementation process. A good description of the role of partners is presented in the TRB's Intercity Passenger Rail Committee newsletter article, "Partners Key to Rail Service in Puget Sound Corridor."
In some ways, the existing institutional structure might not work to improve passenger rail service in the corridor. In that case, it may be necessary to consider new and innovative organizational schemes. Europe is experimenting with different ways to allow open access to the traditionally national-government-controlled railroad system. Others have suggested different ways of organizing Amtrak and Northeast Corridor service in the United States to improve rail service. These reorganization efforts should be considered early in the planning process.
When working in the existing institutional structure, the involvement of multiple and different organizations is a departure from the traditional way railroads work, which adds a new dimension to planning and operating shared-use HSR systems. The three main aspects of this issue are the concept of multiple operators, the planning of multiple-operator systems, and the operation of multiple-operator systems. These are outlined below.
Railroad infrastructure owners usually are responsible for operation of trains on their network, but in some cases, different organizations operate trains on the same tracks. In the United States, Amtrak, commuter rail, and freight trains -- all operated by different organizations -- share tracks on the Northeast Corridor. There are many examples of different operators sharing track under running powers agreements (for example, one freight railroad operating trains on another railroad's tracks).
There is growing experience with multiple companies operating trains on European railroads; in Great Britain, 14 different railroad operating companies use at least some portion of the West Coast Mainline between London and Glasgow. Shared-use is a more familiar concept in other transportation systems, such as highways and airports; there may be important lessons from the operation of these systems that can be transferred to HSR systems.
When planning shared-use systems, it is important to recognize that the concept of multiple operators may be relatively new for railroads. This means that the institutional framework has not been developed, and the intellectual understanding may not be in place, to facilitate planning and operating the shared-use system. In those cases, advocates of shared-use systems must develop a good process for stakeholders to work together before beginning the planning effort.
There are two important institutional issues in planning shared-use high-speed rail systems. First, the infrastructure owner must be protected from capacity and safety impacts of the new system; second, a process must be in place that enables changes to be made to the existing systems to improve overall service.
In the United States, the common situation is that a government agency wants to operate passenger rail service on tracks owned by a private-sector freight railroad. Since deregulation of the rail industry, most U.S. rail infrastructure has been so closely optimized for existing needs that adding new service would create capacity problems. Therefore, infrastructure owners (generally freight railroads, but public-sector owners are just as concerned with protecting their operations as private owners) require those who want to operate new service on their line to prove that the proposed operations will not negatively impact existing service. This usually means that any proposal for new service must include infrastructure improvements designed to increase line capacity and speed, with benefits accruing to both the infrastructure owners and the new operator.
As the title of a presentation made to the AREMA conference, "Running High-Speed Passenger Trains on Freight Railroad Track-or-You Want To Do What?" indicates freight railroads may not initially welcome new passenger service on their tracks. According to the paper, these tracks are "owned mostly by large corporations, run by hard-headed businessmen advised by capacity-challenged operating people and liability-sensitive lawyers in a world of congestion and spiraling jury awards. To gain the cooperation of the host freight railroad requires careful attention to design and safety issues, as well as access to tools that can demonstrate capacity-related impacts of sharing tracks." In other words, it is critical that the planning analysis, prepared by the agency that wants to operate new service, be comprehensive and include strong technical analysis, since the infrastructure owner will carefully review the analysis.
Second, the best way to improve operations may be to make changes to the owner's rolling stock or operations rather than to the HSR system. In this case, the HSR operator must have good relations with the owner so that reasonable and effective solutions can be developed and implemented. For example, when installing cab signaling on freight locomotives that operate on a shared-use segment, the operators must work together to agree on installing this equipment on a reasonable number of locomotives.
The third institutional issue is how the shared-use system will be operated. Operation issues include developing train schedules, train control (especially when there are delays or infrastructure problems), operating rules, maintenance procedures, and financing. As in planning shared-use systems, the only way to operate the system successfully is to have a good working relationship between all the stakeholders involved in operations.
Track-Sharing Problems
The most efficient transportation infrastructure-vehicle system operates a single type of vehicle on a guideway designed specifically for it. For high-speed rail systems, this means track, signal systems, stations, and other infrastructure coupled with trains designed especially for the particular infrastructure. Because it is often infeasible to construct a dedicated high-speed rail system, shared-use HSR systems are common. There are five well-known problems with shared-use HSR systems:
Safety -- Higher speeds may increase accident severity and potential.
Capacity -- Shared-use reduces potential train capacity.
Reduced Top Speed -- Shared-use reduces potential top speeds, increasing travel time.
Congestion -- Shared-use increases congestion, increasing potential reliability problems.
High-Speed Vehicle Design -- Shared-use reduces options for HSR vehicle design.
These technical problems also have economic impacts on the high-speed rail operations. For example, the lack of capacity and low operating speeds caused by shared-use operations make the high-speed system less attractive for the customer and also increase the expense to system operators because their expensive rolling stock is less productive than it might be otherwise.
Safety is the most important aspect of railroad operations and planning. High-speed rail systems in operation today have excellent safety records: France's TGV system has operated for more than 20 years without a fatality. However, basic physics means that the faster a vehicle is traveling, the more damage will be done in an accident. Faster speeds also mean there is less time for operators to receive and act upon train control information. Therefore, high-speed rail vehicles and infrastructure must be designed with very high levels of safety.
One aspect of the safety problem for shared-use HSR systems is that many U.S. railroad lines now operate without any passenger service. Owners of these railroads are concerned about liability for accidents because an accident involving passenger trains is likely to be more serious than one involving only freight trains. There is no reason to believe that accident frequency will increase with well-designed HSR systems, but increasing speed will increase the severity of any accidents that occur. Much of the U.S. government's HSR research effort focuses on improving safety.
Capacity is defined as the number of trains that can be operated over a given section of railroad track per unit of time (for example, 10 trains per hour). One significant problem in planning a shared-use high-speed rail system is lack of capacity on the shared-use segment. There are two reasons for this. First, many of the railroad lines on which one wants to add new service are already heavily used by other trains (for example, on segments near major cities), so there is little available capacity. Second, operating trains that travel at different speeds reduces capacity on a rail line. The optimum condition -- all trains operating at about the same speed -- requires operation of similar types of trains.
Each segment of railroad track has speed limits determined by its track quality, superelevation and curvature, grade, and signaling system. A critical problem with shared-use HSR systems is that trains are limited to operating at the track segment's maximum speed, generally much less than the HSR train's potential top speed. Since the objective of a high-speed rail system is to reduce travel time, a great deal of effort is spent in developing rolling stock that can go fast. With shared-use, these carefully designed, expensive high-speed trains must travel at lower speeds on shared-use track sections. This increases travel time, which reduces market demand for the service.
Congestion is a problem on all transportation networks that operate at near-capacity levels, which is common on shared-use HSR systems. The particular problem is that HSR customers are paying a premium for reliable service. Causes of congestion on HSR trains include lack of capacity on popular routes, the difficulty of operating different types of trains on the same infrastructure, and day-to-day schedule delays. Ideally, high-speed trains can be scheduled to reduce the impacts of congestion, but in day-to-day operations (especially on busy sections of railroads) many things can disrupt planned schedules and cause delays. An especially difficult aspect of scheduling trains is that many U.S. freight railroads do not operate trains on exact schedules (in the passenger train sense), compounding the problem of HSR scheduling.
One goal for the design, construction, and subsequent maintenance of intercity passenger rail systems is to achieve a fully integrated vehicle-track system. The high-speed rail vehicles should be designed to fit closely to the infrastructure (tracks and signal systems), market needs, and operations plan. A good example of this comprehensive design process is France's TGV system. There, vehicle designers worked with infrastructure planners to optimize the overall system; thus, if it was more efficient to give a vehicle a certain quality than to achieve the same goal with infrastructure, the vehicle was designed with that quality, and vice versa.
Designing rolling stock for a newly built, dedicated high-speed line is easier than for shared-use high-speed systems because there are fewer constraints. In shared-use systems, high-speed vehicles must be designed to consider interactions with all the other types of vehicles using the system as well as the limitations to infrastructure imposed by the needs of those other vehicles.
In the United States, all rolling stock that operates on the national railroad system must meet strict crashworthiness standards (also referred to as buff strength), normally requiring use of heavy vehicles. Unfortunately, the best rolling stock for high-speed systems is lightweight, since those vehicles need less power to accelerate and less braking effort to stop, are energy efficient when traveling at high speeds, and reduce track maintenance costs. While Amtrak's Acela high-speed trains prove that the U.S. standards can be met for speeds less than 150 mph, critics of these trains argue that their heavy weight impacts operations.
For most of the shared-use HSR plans now being developed, rolling stock design will not be a significant issue. However, for systems planning to operate at speeds in the highest ranges (over 150 mph) on segments of dedicated HSR track, such as the California system, vehicle standards may pose a problem: U.S. crashworthiness standards conflict with the lightweight construction of modern high-speed passenger trains. Adapting existing HSR equipment to meet U.S. regulations would result in weight increases that would disrupt the design integrity of the trainset. The vehicles also will be more expensive to build and operate than European versions and could increase the cost of track maintenance. Finally, placing constraints on HSR vehicle design reduces the ability of planners to make the tradeoffs between infrastructure and rolling stock that have been used in developing European HSR systems.
Although safety must remain the most important factor in railroad operations, there are different ways to achieve safety objectives. One potential solution would be to adopt time separation in the shared-use segments. Under this system, high-speed trainsets that were not compliant with FRA crashworthiness standards would be operated during certain periods on shared-use segments, and standard trains (for example, freight trains) would be operated during other periods. The FRA has granted waivers to transit agencies for operating light rail vehicles on railroad tracks based on the use of temporal separation, and this could work for lighter-weight HSR vehicles as well. One potential problem with temporal separation could be the inability to operate standard FRA-compliant commuter rail trains while noncompliant HSR trains were operating.
A second potential solution would be to apply a comprehensive risk analysis to operation of noncompliant HSR vehicles in a shared-use operation. One famous application of risk analysis in shared-use rail projects is in Germany, where several cities operate light rail vehicles on tracks with regular rail service (the most famous being Karlsruhe). Such a risk analysis could attempt to balance system parameters, including vehicle performance, train control systems, operating patterns, and vehicle design, for all the vehicles operated at a given time to develop a safe and effective system.
Results of this type of risk analysis could be used to develop HSR vehicle design parameters tailored to the specific operating scenario. For example, HSR vehicles might have `x' crashworthiness if they were operated in shared-use situations only with commuter rail vehicles of type `z' and `y' crashworthiness if they were operated with freight cars. All system parameters could be considered in an attempt to identify the optimum possible without compromising safety. Balancing system elements also recognizes that making rail vehicles stronger to sustain collision forces (collision protection) usually creates a heavier vehicle that requires more braking effort to stop in the same distance as a lighter vehicle, thereby sacrificing performance (collision avoidance).
The objective of this research is to identify infrastructure and operating strategies that can improve the operation of shared-use HSR systems; therefore, rolling stock has not been directly considered. Because U.S. crashworthiness standards celearly reduce the options for planning HSR systems, additional research is needed to resolve this conflict.
Track-Sharing Benefits
Given the great advantages of dedicated high-speed systems and the problems with shared-use HSR systems, why develop a shared-use system? As noted earlier, shared-use usually is adoped to overcome feasibility problems such as high cost and political opposition to dedicated lines.
By allowing an initial HSR system to be developed, shared-use opens the door to future improvements once the benefits of the system are recognized. Incremental improvements, such as segments of new dedicated HSR tracks, can be added to shared-use systems to increase system speed and frequency. Such incremental improvement programs are common in Europe. The initial shared-use HSR system must have the integrity to illustrate the benefits of the HSR system -- nothing would be worse than a "starter line" so limited as to discredit the idea of HSR.
Shared-use also allows HSR systems to take advantage of accessibility to center cities and feeder networks provided by existing rail lines. Although shared-use is not optimum, it is an important tool for constructing and operating HSR systems. Four significant benefits of track sharing by HSR are outlined below.
Cost is the main reason for adopting a shared-use approach to high-speed rail. Dedicated high-speed tracks can cost up to $50 million per route mile to build. In some corridors, the less expensive options -- upgraded existing railroads with maximum speeds of 90 to 150 mph (144 to 240 km/h) -- can provide affordable travel improvements that expand the range of transportation choices.
In partial shared-use high-speed rail systems, the extremely high cost of constructing dedicated lines in particular locations drives the decision to adopt shared-use operations. Examples include areas near cities where the land is very expensive and locations that would require construction of expensive structures, such as tunnels, bridges, and urban subways.
In the initial high-speed rail planning process, a cost-benefit analysis should be done to determine if sections of dedicated line are more cost effective than total shared-use. Although total shared-use systems are generally less expensive than dedicated systems, a Canadian study of high-speed rail on the Quebec-Windsor corridor found that dedicated segments were less expensive than total shared-use segments in some locations. This finding was highly dependent on local conditions (the availability of an alternative right-of-way through agricultural land that would need fewer grade separations and utility relocations), but it is a good reminder to investigate all costs in the planning process.
A second reason for building shared-use high-speed rail systems is to reduce the social, political, economic, and environmental impacts of the project. In some cases, the impacts of providing the line may be higher than the benefits. For example, the environmental impacts of constructing a dedicated route through a wetland or neighborhood may be too high to warrant construction. In many cases these impacts can be mitigated, but the mitigation costs can be so high that shared-use is optimal. When impacts cannot be mitigated, for example if building a dedicated route through a certain area is infeasible for political reasons, adopting shared-use enables the project to be built.
A third reason for building a shared-use system is accessibility. Sharing tracks can enable high-speed trains to get to locations that they could not otherwise reach. The best example is providing access to rail stations located in the heart of cities that are nodes for transportation systems. This is common in European shared-use high-speed railroads. In many cases, building a dedicated high-speed rail line to these locations would be extremely expensive and would have impacts that could not be mitigated easily.
A fourth reason for building a shared-use system is that shared-use can provide the high-speed system with network benefits. Network benefits are similar to accessibility, but can be thought of as at the other end of the trip -- in other words, as a type of "feeder" system. In this case, high-speed trains operate over the regular rail network like any other intercity train and provide passengers with nontransfer service on the high-speed line. When high-speed trains share tracks with other trains, the high-speed network can be vastly expanded over what would be possible when all new lines needed to be constructed. This takes advantage of a large network to attract passengers and revenue to the high-speed system and can help build demand for a dedicated high-speed line. A good example is France's TGV Mediterranean Line: The portion south of Lyon was originally served by TGV trains operating on shared track, but a dedicated line was built to serve the customers attracted, in part, by the original shared-use segment.
This chapter presents recommendations for planning shared-use HSR systems. Planning is especially important for shared-use high-speed rail systems because they are complex, involve many stakeholders, are expensive, and can have a large impact on a nation's transportation network. The importance of planning may seem obvious, but many transportation projects have suffered the consequences of poor planning: higher costs, longer construction time, lower-quality operations, increased impacts, or a combination of these problems.
Overview
This chapter focuses on planning issues of particular importance for shared-use HSR systems; it does not describe the general railroad improvement planning process. Many good references on railroad improvement planning are available, including a technical working paper from the FRA, U.S. DOT, ( Railroad Corridor Transportation Plans, A Guidance Manual ) and Chapter 17 of the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association's (AREMA) Manual for Railway Engineering . Those references provide a step-by-step process for corridor evaluation and preparation of improvement plans.
Other good sources of information on railroad corridor planning are the improvement plans cited in See High-Speed Rail. Reviewing these plans provides insight into the overall planning process.
Importance of Planning
Comprehensive planning is important for all types of infrastructure systems, but the following are five reasons that it is especially critical when developing shared-use high-speed rail systems.
Safety -- One of the most important differences between moving people and freight concerns system safety: An accident involving a passenger train is generally more serious than one with only freight trains, and freight railroad owners are extremely concerned with liability issues if passenger trains operate on their infrastructure. Therefore, shared-use high-speed rail planning must focus strongly on safety, specifically on preventing accidents and minimizing their impact. Accidents may be more likely the result of the shared-use infrastructure (that is, poorly maintained tracks) or other trains operating on the system rather than the new HSR system trains. Thus, safety must be considered for the entire shared-use system, not just for the HSR system.
Large Number of Stakeholders -- As outlined in See Shared-Use High-Speed Rail Systems, one key difference between shared-use HSR system planning and typical railroad planning is the large number of stakeholders involved. There is significant literature on how different organizations can work together in the planning process; therefore, these topics are not covered in this research. This research simply makes the point that when developing a plan for shared-use HSR systems, it is critical to think carefully about the planning process and the needs of all stakeholders. These elements are especially important because sharing tracks with other users may be a new experience for many railroad infrastructure owners, public or private.
Understanding Rail System Capacity -- One key difficulty faced when considering new passenger rail service is the perception by nonprofessionals that there is a great deal of excess capacity on the existing railroad system. When people see a railroad track with a train every hour, they may think that there are 59 minutes left to operate new passenger trains. Determining the actual capacity of a rail line is far more complex than what one sees at a single point, so comprehensive planning is necessary to evaluate changes to rail system operations. There may be available capacity that is not obvious; for example, capacity may be freed on one line by shifting some traffic to another vaguely parallel line.
Highly Interrelated Infrastructure -- One complex problem with planning railroad infrastructure is that rail networks are highly interrelated. An infrastructure improvement in one location can have significant impacts in another location, sometimes quite a distance from the improvement. Compounding this problem, changes to operations or scheduling can also have wide-ranging impacts. These impacts take place on a critical element in a nation's transportation infrastructure -- disruptions to the railroad network can have significant economic impacts. Because of this network nature, railroad planning must be completed in a comprehensive, methodical manner.
High Cost of Rail Infrastructure -- Improving a railroad is expensive -- not only the basic infrastructure, but also the costs of taking a line out of service during construction, additional right-of-way needed for improvements such as adding a new track, and addressing the complexity of the interrelated nature of railroad systems. A poorly planned improvement will increase operating costs and problems for the railroad; improvements must be carefully planned to avoid wasting time and money and avoid creating problems in operating the finished railroad.
High-Speed Rail System Planning
Planning is critical to the development of a successful shared-use high-speed rail system. This research considers how the planning process views the question of dedicated versus shared-use infrastructure and how planning is used to identify and evaluate capital and operating strategies for improving shared-use high-speed rail systems. This section provides a brief description of planning process issues especially relevant to shared-use high-speed rail systems.
The first step in the HSR planning process is estimating how many people would use the new service. This estimate is based on such input variables as demographic data (for example, population and socioeconomic characteristics), economic data, and transportation data (for example, characteristics of travel by all the modes serving the particular market -- car, plane, rail).
The main objective of the market analysis is to define the level of HSR service needed to attract a significant share of the given travel market. In its most basic form, this definition will be something like, "In order to attract enough customers to make high-speed service a reasonable investment, the service must offer trip times of less than `x' hours, operate `y' times per day, and cost `z' dollars." The travel time, frequency, and cost estimates derived from the market analysis then are used to develop the system's infrastructure and operating plan.
Most transportation systems fit a certain market niche. High-speed rail is best for trips that take too long to drive but are too short to fly, given the large amount of time needed for airport access. This market is assumed to be trips that the high-speed system can make in less than 3 hours. Therefore, the HSR market will depend on the system's average schedule speed, which is based on the system's maximum speed and operating pattern.
Frequency is also important in determining market demand. For example, if customers have a choice between flying (4-hour total travel time) with flights operating every hour versus taking HSR (3-hour total travel time) operating twice a day, many will fly. Airlines have recognized the importance of frequency and are using small regional jets to increase frequency economically in smaller markets. Many European railroads schedule service hourly or better, between major cities. This is probably the level necessary to provide attractive service.
The other side of the frequency issue -- congestion -- is of concern to transportation companies. It is difficult to expand airline passenger capacity without overloading airports, but an HSR system can easily increase the train length to serve more passengers without significantly impacting rail system capacity.
Infrastructure and Operating Plan
Market analysis provides planners with the travel time and frequency requirements needed to create a successful high-speed rail system. Planners use these requirements to determine the infrastructure and operating plan for the HSR system.
The first choice to be made is between a dedicated-track HSR system and a shared-use system. The choice depends on the travel market identified in the market analysis, since there is an effective maximum speed for each type of system. If the market consists of two cities that are far apart, the travel time requirement might call for a dedicated line; moderate distances could be served by partial shared-use lines; short distances could be served by totally shared-use lines. The same type of analysis holds true for frequency -- higher frequencies are more likely to require dedicated lines or additional tracks.
Generally, the track type is chosen to keep the travel time below 3 hours. Amtrak's Acela Express service uses a totally shared-use system on the busy Northeast Corridor to make the 150-mile trip between New York and Washington in 2 hours, 45 minutes. To meet this travel time objective, the NEC's infrastructure was designed to provide sufficient capacity and to allow speeds up to 150 mph. In contrast, California is planning a partially shared-use line that will enable express trains to travel the approximately 380 miles between San Francisco and Los Angeles in approximately 2-1/2 hours; the dedicated segments will be designed for approximately 200-mph service, and the shared-use segments will have significant capacity and speed improvements.
If a shared-use approach is chosen, the existing railroad infrastructure must be analyzed to determine what improvements are needed to enable the high-speed system to meet its travel time and frequency objectives. This analysis must consider both the trains currently operating on the shared-use segments and expected growth, and it should identify a variety of capacity and speed improvements for the planned line. The ultimate improvement program should be determined through an iterative planning process that evaluates different combinations of infrastructure and operating strategies.
The final step in the shared-use high-speed rail planning process is completing an economic analysis to determine if the benefits of the system outweigh its costs. An HSR system provides many external benefits beyond strict economics, including reducing congestion at airports and on highways and reducing energy use. As one interviewee put it, "High-speed rail is not cheap, but a well-planned system can be cheaper than the alternatives."
After completion of the economic analysis, the decision-makers can determine whether to construct the high-speed line. Results of this analysis often are used to refine the proposed HSR plan. If the costs are too high, planners can return to the infrastructure planning step and evaluate the effectiveness of lower-cost systems, such as systems that use more shared track.
Recommended Planning Strategies
This section makes the following recommendations for planning shared-use HSR systems:
Consider a range of improvements
Consider improvements for other operators
Prepare a prioritized infrastructure improvement program
Consider funding in system planning and design
These recommendations are outlined in more detail below.
Understand Project Objectives: Travel Time and Reliability
The name "high-speed rail" may mislead people into thinking that high maximum speed is the objective, but customers care about total travel time, not maximum speed. Although this sounds simple, there are examples of transportation systems designed around this misunderstanding. Raising top speeds in a corridor may be only one of many ways to reduce trip times, but it may not be the most cost-effective way.
The customer travel time objective is significant in shared-use HSR systems because a major reason for adopting shared-use is to provide customers more direct service, therefore shortening travel times. Two examples are sharing tracks to provide direct access into a city center (accessibility) and sharing tracks to increase the catchment area for high-speed trains (network benefits). One benefit of track sharing in these examples is that passengers do not have to change trains to reach their ultimate location. A significant body of research shows that passengers would rather not transfer, and transfers reduce patronage up to 35 to 50 percent, depending on the situation. Therefore, shared-use can attract passengers by providing more convenient service.
Closely related to the travel time objective is reliability. Customers want travel systems that reliably get them to their destinations on time. To succeed financially, HSR systems are counting on passengers paying a premium for fast and reliable service.
One way to improve reliability is to consider it explicitly during system planning. This might include examining potential operating problems and planning infrastructure that addresses those problems before they occur, instead of planning a bare-bones system. Examples include providing additional tracks that can serve as convenient waiting areas around important interlockings or terminals. It is best to overdesign facilities to increase system reliability, for example, building passing tracks longer than the calculated minimum to provide a cushion for delayed trains.
Another way to improve reliability is to specify high-quality equipment and construction. This may seem to contradict conventional wisdom to minimize costs, but because shared-use HSR infrastructure is used intensively, it needs to be designed to maximize attributes such as capacity and speed rather than to minimize costs. The same is true of rolling stock. High-speed service should not be delayed by such problems as broken-down commuter rail equipment because the customer does not care who caused the delay. An important institutional issue is to determine who is responsible for ensuring that the failure of a train by one operator does not ruin all the services operated on the line. Amtrak's Acela express trains are a good example -- their specifications require very high reliability.
The HSR planning process involves a constant balancing of different improvements against each other to identify the optimal investment plan. Keeping the project purpose in mind assists planners in this process. For example, consider the question of whether to improve capacity or increase speed on a given segment of shared-use line. The answer to this question depends on how these improvements would reduce travel time and increase reliability, based on such variables as the location, length, and purpose of the shared-use segment.
A specific situation might be where short sections of shared track provide access to city-center stations. Here high-speed rail trains will be going slowly (since they need to stop or are just starting), so capacity improvements that provide greater reli