Table of Contents
Findings, Lessons, and Themes for Consideration 2
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY AND SOME DEFINITIONS 7
A Synopsis of High-Speed Rail in the United States 13
HISTORY AND STATUS OF U.S. HSR PROJECTS SINCE 1980 13
High-Speed Rail Case Studies 27
Key Findings, Lessons, and Themes for Consideration 73
LEADERSHIP BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 73
TECHNOLOGIES AND APPROACHES 75
List of Figures
Empire Corridor, and Keystone, Northeast, and Northern New England Corridors 18
Ohio and Lake Erie Regional Rail: Cleveland Hub 23
Sources of Funding for the FOX Project 32
List of Tables
U.S. High-Speed Ground Transportation Projects as of May 2004 9
Florida DOT's Strategy for Incremental HSR 36
2000 and Proposed Year 2005 Intercity Rail Daily Round Trips 37
Tampa-Orlando DEIS Alignment Choices 41
The goal of this study is to identify lessons learned for successfully developing and implementing high-speed rail (HSR) in the United States. Few broad statements can be made about high-speed ground transportation (HSGT) in the United States, but two points are clear:
With the exception of the Northeast Corridor, there has been relatively little forward movement if one looks at the number of years spent on many of these projects.
The federal government has played and continues to play a minimal role in HSGT, generally restricting its efforts to funding pilot studies and technological research.
Given the early stages of these projects, "success" cannot be based on implementation, but is defined in terms of whether a given HSR project is still actively pursuing development and/or funding.
This study proceeded in two phases. Phase 1 was a literature review following two parallel tracks: an assessment of federal and, where warranted, state legislation to determine what was intended in terms of objectives and criteria identified in the legislation; and a broader literature review that briefly assessed all HSR efforts in the United States since 1980 to determine their history and current status. The result was an interim report, written by Allison C. de Cerreño. Recommendations were made after Phase 1 to examine in more depth three case studies: California, Florida, and the Pacific Northwest. Phase 2 consisted of additional literature review and interviews with key individuals related to those three case studies. This final report includes the results of both Phase 1 and Phase 2.
Allison C. de Cerreño researched and wrote the Florida case study, along with the Executive Summary, the Introduction, the Synopsis of High-Speed Rail in the United States, and the concluding section of the report. Daniel Evans researched and wrote the two case studies on California and the Pacific Northwest. Howard Permut provided overall guidance on the structuring of the case studies and development of lessons learned, helped formulate the critical questions to address, and identified both the key players in the cases and the types of information that should be included.
Methodology
The first step was to identify as many cases of HSGT efforts in the country since 1980 as possible. An extensive review revealed 19 cases. The cases offer a complex array of examples with differences in a number of areas, including, but not limited to, the type of HSGT being pursued; whether the project exists entirely in one state or spans several; the way funding is being sought, both in terms of partnerships and the actual funding mechanisms; whether the public is involved through voting and/or legislation; and the role of freight rail. In many cases, early feasibility studies and environmental impact studies have been or are being developed, but often on only a portion of a project, leading to a document trail that often has to be pieced together.
The 19 projects were differentiated according to the type of system proposed:
Incremental high-speed rail, which generally uses existing technologies and rights-of-way, but makes improvements to allow for speeds up to 150 miles per hour (mph) (although in the United States, most projects aim for 110 mph) using either electrified or nonelectrified systems
New high-speed rail, which requires new rights-of-way and imported technologies currently used in Asia or Europe, that typically would allow for speeds of just over 200 mph
Magnetic levitation (Maglev) which, by doing away with steel-wheel-on-steel-rail, would allow speeds in excess of 300 mph
Because Maglev uses a completely different technology and different sources of federal funding, the lessons learned from those examples might not be helpful for other HSR efforts. Given the scope of and resources for this study, Maglev projects were excluded from the remainder of the study. The final fifteen projects--three new HSR and twelve incremental HSR--were briefly assessed in terms of their history and current status. California, Florida, and the Pacific Northwest were chosen for Phase 2.
Findings, Lessons, and Themes for Consideration
Several specific findings and lessons were learned from each of the three case studies. The following broad themes for consideration were apparent.
Leadership by the Federal Government
First and foremost is the need for leadership by the federal government, both in vision and funding--and both have been lacking for some time. Amtrak has attempted to fill this void to a degree but has been hampered by politics and funding issues.
Funding for both passenger rail and freight rail has long been neglected relative to other transportation modes. This is partly because of the common acceptance of the myth that railroads can pay for themselves, even when this is rarely the case. High-speed rail initiatives suffer from this same lack of willingness to provide public support. Florida, for example, is mired in debates over how its HSR project can be funded in the absence of public monies.
In terms of the type of vision that might be provided at the federal level, at the least, guidance and standards for successful models are needed. Without this, states will continue to fill the void with a multitude of models--constitutional amendments and legislation as in Florida and California, multistate compacts as in the Pacific Northwest, public-private partnerships--without a sense of what is most likely to succeed.
More important, there is an overarching need for a national network strategy for rail--one that combines passenger, freight, and high-speed rail--plus a vision for how rail connects to and interrelates with the other transportation modes around the country and how it all might be funded. Otherwise, the nation will continue to miss critical opportunities for key linkages and enhancing efficiency, not just for high-speed rail, but also for regular passenger rail and freight transport.
Defining Cost
When cost-benefit analyses are developed for high-speed rail, the focus tends to be on the bottom line: how much money will be put in and how much will be generated. By looking at cost as bottom-line driven, we are unlikely to see high-speed rail implemented in the United States because of the large capital investment needed to build such systems. A broader tabulation that includes other costs borne by the transportation system and the public as a whole under the "no-build" or "modal alternative" options often yields different results.
Related to this is the need for clarity not only on the goals of the particular HSR project, but also on who is reaping the benefits. In Florida, the central concern has been who should bear the risk for a project that is described as having a public benefit but looking for private dollars. The private sector would like to see the state bear more risk, while the state would like the private sector and the federal government to assume more risk. If there are public benefits to an HSR project, then arguing for only private funding makes no sense, and such projects are unlikely to succeed. If the public benefits are questionable, then private funding is a better choice.
Institutionalized Support
The spark for building HSR often has begun with a particular person in a particular state. It was Governor Bob Graham in Florida who visited Japan and believed Florida should have a similar system. In California, several legislative leaders visited Europe and Japan and returned with the same sentiments. While the initial vision is important for beginning an effort, institutionalized support is critical to sustain the effort and successfully implement HSR. Without institutional buy-in for a project, as well as the authority and responsibility to identify, gather, and manage funding, and the responsibility for and capability of seeing a project through, many HSR projects fail as soon as the key supporter or visionary leaves. Indeed, this frustration led Florida voters to approve the constitutional amendment requiring the building of HSR. As Florida demonstrates, a constitutional amendment or legislative acts alone cannot replace the need for institutionalized support because the former still can be challenged by successive governments or other stakeholders.
In the Pacific Northwest--the one multistate case in the study--there is some institutional support in the state of Washington, but that is missing in Oregon and British Columbia, perhaps demonstrating the need for a federal leadership role to help bridge such gaps.
Technologies and Approaches
Whether to develop a new HSR or an incremental HSR system depends greatly on what one hopes to accomplish and the context within which one is working. For example, if the goal is to increase the number of commuters using rail instead of automobile to minimize highway congestion, the key is to increase frequency and reliability of service, reduce travel times, and make the system more accessible. Such goals may be better met with an incremental approach that invests in station and equipment improvements, fixing curves and improving tracks, and enhancing signals, rather than new HSR. If the goal is to relieve air congestion between urban areas to free up space for more long-distance flights, a new HSR system linking key urban areas might be the better approach. However, such discussions do not always occur; often the decision to pursue one approach or another is based more on political factors than on a clear assessment and explanation of what the specific goals are and how best to meet them.
Opportunities
Opportunities for both incremental and new HSR exist in the United States and have for many years, particularly along those corridors federally designated as HSR corridors. A 1997 Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) study on HSGT concluded that HSGT could develop appreciable ridership. The key is to get at least one project fully implemented in a way that is clearly HSR (as opposed to those that are capable of high speeds but only run at such speeds for small distances). Once a project is in revenue service, many of the concerns expressed by critics, including ridership projections and whether HSR can work in a country where cars and air transport are dominant, can be addressed.
Since the 1960s, high-speed ground transportation (HSGT) has held the promise of fast, convenient, and environmentally sound travel for distances between 40 and 600 miles. Japan was the first to deploy HSGT in 1964 when the Shinkansen bullet train began service between Tokyo and Osaka, with top speeds of 270 kilometers per hour (kph) (169 miles per hour [mph]). This was followed in 1982 by France's Train à Grande Vitesse (TGV), linking Paris and Lyon at speeds of 300 kph (188 mph), and later by Germany's Intercity Express (ICE) that also operates at speeds up to 300 kph (188 mph). South Korea recently began high-speed rail (HSR) service and Taiwan is expected to follow shortly, the former using French technology and the latter using Japanese bullet train technology.
The U.S. experience with HSGT has differed greatly from that in Asia and Europe. Congress first authorized studies aimed at deploying HSGT with the High-Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965, but to date there are only two examples of such systems in the United States--the Empire Corridor and Northeast Corridor--and whether these systems are truly high speed is debatable. Despite numerous efforts by states and the federal government, nearly all U.S. high-speed rail projects have failed to progress significantly, and none has come close to matching the performance levels of Asian and European systems.
Unlike its European and Asian counterparts, which made high-speed intercity rail a national priority once it became clear that railroads were either in or potentially headed for decline, the U.S. government has been reluctant to develop such projects. The only intercity rail effort moved forward by the federal government beyond pilot studies and technological research has been Amtrak. Ironically, the creation of Amtrak led to a stalemate regarding intercity passenger rail's relationship with other transportation modes and with government. Since its creation, Amtrak's relationship with other modes has been characterized by a division between passenger and freight rail and the isolation of the former from earmarked tax returns and cooperative planning and management. Both of these issues also plague HSR efforts, along with other political and financial difficulties.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY AND SOME DEFINITIONS
The goal of this study is to identify lessons learned for successfully developing and implementing HSR in the United States. Phase 1 comprised a two-part literature review: an assessment of federal and, where warranted, state legislation to determine what was intended in terms of objectives and criteria identified in the legislation; and a broader review that briefly assessed all HSR efforts in the United States since 1980 to determine their history and current status. Phase 2 comprised a deeper literature review and interviews to explore in more detail three case studies: California, Florida, and the Pacific Northwest. This report incorporates the findings from both phases of the study.
Given the early stages of these projects, this report defines success by whether a given HSR project is still actively pursuing development or funding. Comparisons are not made with European or Asian HSR models because most U.S. cases have different goals for speed, accessibility, and frequency. In some cases, HSR has been defined in terms of top speeds (for example, above 110 mph); in others, HSR definitions revolve around market penetration. Thus, each case is judged by how well the project has met its stated goals.
Since 1980, there have been 19 efforts to develop and deploy some form of high-speed ground transportation in the United States. These projects have taken different forms, both in terms of business models--which range from entirely public led and financed, to privately funded, to public-private partnership--and in the type of HSGT they have sought to employ:
Incremental high-speed rail (Accelerail), which generally uses existing technologies and rights-of-way, but makes improvements to allow for speeds up to 150 mph (though in the United States, most projects aim for 110 mph) using electrified or nonelectrified systems.
New high-speed rail (HSR), which requires new rights-of-way and imported technologies currently used in Asia or Europe that typically allow speeds greater than 200 mph.
Magnetic levitation (Maglev), which, by doing away with steel-wheel-on-steel-rail, allows speeds greater than 300 mph.
Some of these projects have been formally designated by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) as federal HSR corridors or identified under the Federal Railroad Administration's Maglev program. Such identification opens the door for federal funding that might not be available otherwise. Other projects have been pursued without federal designation, although several (as in Nevada) are hoping to achieve this status. Complicating the situation is the fact that in some cases, states or groups of states have been pursuing HSGT systems that include all or part of federally designated corridors, but expand upon them by adding additional linkages. Table 1 lists those projects identified, along with the type of HSGT being pursued and their status relative to federal designation or identification.
While incremental and new HSR projects differ in several ways, both the basic technologies and the markets they would serve are similar. Maglev is fundamentally different than HSR: it uses a completely different technology; it offers competitive service at a broader set of distances (40 to 600 miles versus 100 to 500 miles); and its federal funding sources are different. Because of these differences and the scope of and resources for the current study, the remainder of this report discusses incremental and new HSR options, but not Maglev.
OUTLINE OF THE REPORT
The following section provides a synopsis of HSR efforts in the United States since the 1980s. It begins with a review and assessment of federal legislation and the goals for HSGT initially set forth by the U.S. DOT to provide the context within which to examine the various projects. A brief summary of each project in the past 20 to 25 years is provided to round out the three case studies.
, explores the California, Florida, and Pacific Northwest case studies in greater detail. The history of each case is discussed along with an assessment of why it has or has not progressed. The three cases offer an interesting mix: California is a new HSR project; Florida has two parallel plans, one new HSR and one incremental; the Pacific Northwest focuses on incremental HSR. California and Florida both focus on corridors within their states that could eventually be linked to corridors beyond their borders; the Pacific Northwest case involves more than one state, adding to some of the complexities. In terms of business models, California is relying on public funding for its project, Florida has experimented with several public-private partnership models, and the Pacific Northwest is partnering with Amtrak. The three cases offer some interesting counterpoints to each other and some broad lessons and themes for consideration.
The report concludes with a synthesis and comparison of the lessons provided by the case studies as well as information gleaned from other projects around the country.
A Synopsis of High-Speed Rail in the United States
Section 1010 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) called for the selection and designation of five high-speed rail corridors around the United States. In October 1992, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Andrew Card, Jr., announced the designations of the following high-speed rail corridors: Midwest (renamed the Chicago Hub), Florida, California, Southeast, and the Pacific Northwest. Seven years later, Section 1103(c) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) authorized six additional corridor designations, although to date only five additional designations have been made: Gulf Coast, Keystone, Empire State, South Central, and Northern New England.
HISTORY AND STATUS OF U.S. HSR PROJECTS SINCE 1980
The case studies in the following section provide detailed information on California, Florida, and the Pacific Northwest, but it is instructive to briefly review the status of the other HSR projects in the United States. Together, they provide a sense of the difficulties involved with implementing HSR. The following pages provide brief descriptions and the status of each federally designated corridor as well as several corridors that are not federally designated. Where federally designated and not-federally designated systems overlap, they are discussed together if warranted.
At different times, the U.S. DOT has defined HSGT both in terms of absolute speeds (anything over 90 mph) and in terms of markets and performance-based measurements, which look to total trip time savings and natural groupings of metropolitan areas. In most discussions, however, it tends toward the speed-based definition. For most HSR efforts in the United States, the goal has not been to replicate European or Asian HSR systems but to improve on what already exists.
Chicago Hub Network and the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (2 projects/1 inclusive of the other)
In 1990, Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) aimed at evaluating the potential for a high-speed rail corridor linking Chicago, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis-St. Paul. One year later, TMS/Benesch High-Speed Rail Consultants presented their report, Tri-State High-Speed Rail Study: Chicago-Milwaukee-Twin Cities Corridor , to the Departments of Transportation of the three states. The purpose of the report was "to investigate the economic and financial potential for constructing and operating a high-speed rail system in one of two corridors...between Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul." The corridors examined were a southern corridor linking Chicago, Milwaukee, and the Twin Cities via Madison, and a northern corridor linking the same cities via Green Bay. The study concluded that the southern corridor appeared "very promising in terms of ridership, revenues, financial, and economic benefits." The report recommended using existing rights-of-way and targeting 125-mph service.
Formally designated a federal high-speed rail corridor on October 15, 1992, the Chicago Hub (formerly named the Midwest High-Speed Rail Corridor) initially included links between Chicago and Detroit, Chicago and St. Louis, and Chicago and Milwaukee. Additional linkages later were added, for a total of eight linkages covering 2,313 miles. The network is shown in See Chicago Hub Network and details are provided in See Chicago Hub Links.
|
Chicago -
Milwaukee, WI |
|||
|
U.S. DOT, Federal Railroad Administration, "Chicago Hub Network," www.fra.dot.gov/Content3.asp?P=648 and "Corridor Chronology," www.fra.dot.gov/Content3.asp?P=1272 (accessed 18 February, 2004). |
|||
By 1994, Illinois planners had completed a study of 125-mph service for the Chicago-St. Louis spoke, and the second phase of a study focused on the Chicago-Milwaukee spoke recommended incremental nonelectric high-speed rail at 125 mph.
In April 1997, Illinois entered into a cooperative agreement (DTFRDV-96-H-60006) with the U.S. DOT to perform a Tier I environmental impact study (EIS) of the Chicago-St. Louis spoke of the Chicago Hub Network. The total cost for the EIS was $4.469 million over seven years. FRA contributed $2.8 million ($2.5 million of which was provided in the first fiscal year of the study). This was matched with state funds totaling $1.66 million ($1.5 million from general revenues and the remainder from state planning funds, of which 80 percent is derived from the Federal Highway Administration.). The final EIS, released in January 2003, proposed that HSR passenger service between Chicago and St. Louis be implemented with a maximum operating speed of 110 mph on the section south of Dwight and ongoing speeds of 79 mph north of Dwight. Three different alignments were identified for the north-of-Dwight portion of the line, but a formal recommendation was not made because of funding constraints.
Work has begun along the Chicago-St. Louis spoke of the Hub Network. In 1999, Illinois voters approved $70 million for HSR infrastructure and grade-crossing improvements along the Chicago-St. Louis spoke. Several improvements have been made to upgrade the tracks to allow for 110 mph speeds on the south of the Dwight-Springfield portion of the spoke. A Positive Train Control system demonstration is underway along that same spoke. The FRA reports grants totaling $28 million to Illinois through fiscal year 2002 under FRA's Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program.
Running parallel to the EIS efforts, nine Midwestern states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin) joined to form the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI) in 1996. The goal was to develop an implementation plan for a more extensive HSR centered around the Chicago Hub. Totaling 3,000 miles, the MWRRI includes the federally designated corridors in the Chicago Hub Network, and adds additional passenger rail links at various speeds above and below 110 mph, as well as several feeder bus service links.
Working with Amtrak and the FRA, the MWRRI developed a report assessing the hub approach to the region. Their report, Midwest Regional Rail System: A Transportation Network for the 21st Century , issued in February 2000, concluded that completing the system envisioned would require a decade and approximately $4 billion in infrastructure upgrades and new equipment. The proposed Midwest regional rail system includes the Chicago Hub Network as designated by the FRA, but expands upon it with a number of additional links. The following city links are not federally designated:
Chicago, IL-Iowa City, IA-Des Moines, IA-Omaha, NE
Kalamazoo, MI-Grand Rapids, MI-Holland, MI
Kalamazoo, MI-Lansing, MI-Port Huron, MI
In 1998, the Midwestern Legislative Conference formed a High-Speed Rail Task Force. Out of that task force, the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission (MIPRC) was formed by a compact in 2000. The MIPRC works with the MWRRI, providing an advocacy arm for HSR in the region.
In 2002, Amtrak and the states of Illinois and Wisconsin began reviewing proposals for 110-mph tilting HSR trains. Lack of federal funding was cited as the reason for the delay in concluding procurement. According to Amtrak, the state of Michigan, Amtrak, and the FRA have developed a state-of-the-art incremental train control system that permits passenger train operations on the existing rights-of-way at speeds up to 110 mph. The first phase of the system (up to 90 mph on 45 miles of track along the Chicago-Detroit spoke) was implemented in January 2002. Work began to extend the system an additional 20 miles and to seek approval for operations at speeds in excess of 90 mph. Speeds have been increased to 110 mph on this section in southwest Michigan.
With respect to the other spokes of the hub, Indiana has completed a series of high-speed rail public outreach meetings to define the state's interest and participation in the MWRRI. Indiana is working with Amtrak, the states of Illinois and Michigan, and freight railroads on the South of the Lake Corridor Study to identify the best way to route passenger trains through southern Chicago and northwest Indiana. Minnesota is pursuing a $10 million capital budget request for preliminary engineering and environmental documentation for the Minnesota portion of the Chicago-Minneapolis-St. Paul Corridor.
With more than $10 million from the states and the FRA invested in planning, the Chicago Hub Network provides a success story of an incremental HSR project--or series of projects, in this case--by this study's definition of success. Some work has occurred and the project is being actively pursued, both substantively and financially. Finding construction funding is a key obstacle, but the Chicago Hub Network gives a complex picture of federally designated and non-federally designated corridors. There also is a strong rail component, as the state of Illinois pursues its Chicago Regional Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program (CREATE) in tandem with HSR efforts. Union Pacific, which owns several of the key lines, is willing to cooperate to implement HSR in the region.
Empire Corridor
Designated in December 1998 as a federal HSR corridor, the Empire Corridor connects New York City with Albany and Buffalo, for a total of 439 miles running through New York State ( See Empire Corridor, and Keystone, Northeast, and Northern New England Corridors ). New York State has run 110-mph passenger rail service on portions of the Albany-New York City stretch of the Empire Corridor route since the 1970s. (The improvements along the line that allowed higher speeds were largely financed through the 1974 Rail Bond Act.) Speeds along the rest of the corridor are limited to 90 mph at most, in part because of the shared right-of-way with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority south of Poughkeepsie and with CSX Corporation railroad for most of the corridor between Poughkeepsie and Buffalo.
Empire Corridor, and Keystone, Northeast, and Northern New England Corridors
In September 1998, an MOU was signed by the New York State DOT and Amtrak that committed the former to rebuilding several old Turboliners and the latter to track improvements that would allow speeds of up to 125 mph on the section between New York City and Schenectady. The estimated cost of the plan was $185 million, but travel times were expected to be reduced significantly throughout the corridor. In January 2004, Amtrak announced its intention to withdraw, citing delays and increased costs. In the meantime, three Turboliners were delivered to Amtrak; two were placed in regular service until later in 2004, when they were taken out of service as a result of high fuel consumption and excessive costs.
One of the few corridors in the country where speeds of 110 mph are being achieved in places, the Empire Corridor is an interesting case and is considered by some to be a success story for incremental HSR. However, with the recent Amtrak announcement and the likelihood that the goal of 125 mph will not be reached soon, nor on a good portion of the corridor, it is unclear whether to consider this a success or failure.
Gulf Coast Corridor
Formally designated as a federal HSR corridor in November 1998, with extensions approved in October 2000, the Gulf Coast Corridor (See Gulf Coast Corridor) covers 1,022 miles and connects cities in Texas (Houston), Louisiana (New Orleans), Alabama (Mobile and Birmingham), Mississippi (Meridian), and Georgia (Atlanta). The goal is to run HSR at speeds of 110 mph. Louisiana received a $1 million earmark in Fiscal Year 1999 and $1.85 million was provided under TEA-21 for elimination of at-grade crossings. The lead for planning the corridor is the Southern Rapid Rail Transportation Commission (SRRTC), which includes representatives from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.
Gulf Coast Corridor
In September 2002, the SRRTC was awarded a cooperative agreement by the FRA for Phase I of the Deep South HSR Corridor Study. In Phase I, it will identify institutional issues, make service projections, gather information, and develop a rail operations plan. A specific strategy for implementation will form the basis for Phase II.
Because funding for the study was scheduled to last through September 2004, it is likely that the study is not yet completed. According to the FRA, there are physical constraints along the CSX lines between New Orleans and Mobile that might prevent HSR for much of this distance.
Keystone Corridor
The Keystone Corridor was designated as a federal HSR corridor in December 1998 (see See Empire Corridor, and Keystone, Northeast, and Northern New England Corridors). Now consisting of 349 miles, the initial designation linked Philadelphia and Harrisburg, with an extension to Pittsburgh approved by the U.S. DOT in 2000. Amtrak owns the roughly 100 miles of track between Philadelphia and Harrisburg where current efforts are focused.
In November 1999, Amtrak and the State of Pennsylvania entered into an MOU and announced a joint $140 million infrastructure and equipment upgrade program on the Philadelphia-Harrisburg segment of the line to reduce trip times to 90 minutes by 2004, enhance stations, and improve reliability. In October 2003, Governor Rendell announced another $3 million for passenger rail service between Harrisburg and Philadelphia as part of a $125 million capital budget aimed at improving public transportation. Work continues on the line, although more slowly than anticipated. Roughly $20 million has been expended, with an anticipated $30 million in total by the end of 2004. Recent discussions with Amtrak have resulted in a verbal agreement that the remaining funding will be redeployed in light of a reassessment of needs on this segment of the corridor. However, the project is expected to continue, with a completion date of December 2006.
Another example of an incremental HSR project within one state, efforts continue on this line, although it appears to have some difficulties similar to the Empire Corridor in terms of Amtrak's role.
Northeast Corridor
Although not formally designated as a federal corridor, the Northeast Corridor (see See Empire Corridor, and Keystone, Northeast, and Northern New England Corridors) is one of the few U.S. success stories in HSR; however, its key successes in terms of speed came by the early 1970s and there has been little improvement since. As Perl notes, however, while HSR in the Northeast Corridor did not keep pace with the speed and reliability of European and Asian efforts, it did keep pace with respect to commercial performance by covering costs and generating an operating profit.
In 1967, following the High-Speed Ground Transportation Act two years prior, the Office of HSGT at the U.S. DOT committed $6.7 million to support Pennsylvania Railroad's acquisition of new passenger cars that could attain speeds up to 160 mph. The goal was to shorten the trip between New York City and Washington, D.C., to less than three hours. What made the Northeast Corridor so marketable was a combination of economic and geographic circumstances. Because the Northeast Corridor lacked the space to add the highway and air capacity needed to match growing travel demands, it was a good candidate for enhancing existing infrastructure. The corridor had a well-developed and modern rail infrastructure when the decision was made, and Pennsylvania Railroad, which owned and operated the line between New York City and Washington, D.C., was willing to work with the government on the initiative.
This was a true private-public enterprise: Private partners put approximately $860 million into the project, with only about $13 million from government sources. The key manufacturing companies--GE, Westinghouse, and the Budd Company--were all U.S. based. The partners had the Metroliner HSR system up and running within four years. However, because the long-term goal of upgrading the tracks to accommodate the higher speeds was not yet met, the trains could only run at speeds as high as 120 mph.
The partnership ended when Penn Central filed for bankruptcy in 1970, with other railroads following soon after. Amtrak took over operation of the Metroliner between New York City and Washington, D.C., between 1978 and 1999; FRA invested about $3.7 billion in rehabilitating and upgrading the corridor. In 1992, Amtrak initiated the Acela HSR program and has invested $1.8 billion to date in a system that could run at speeds of 150 mph. Work focused especially on the New York City-Boston segment of the corridor, rebuilding infrastructure and fully electrifying the line to Boston from New Haven, Connecticut.
Revenue service of the Acela began in December 2000 and trains now operate between 110 and 150 mph on parts of the corridor. However, in more than 30 years, except for the introduction of the Acela, little has changed on the southern section of the corridor in terms of speed and number of trains making the trip on a daily basis, even as the airlines have modified their schedules to accommodate more passengers and more trips. This corridor is considered a success because the system has been operating at HSR speeds for several decades, although the ultimate goal has not yet been achieved on much of the line.
Northern New England Corridor
One of the newest of the federally designated corridors, the Northern New England Corridor was formally designated in October 2000 (see See Empire Corridor, and Keystone, Northeast, and Northern New England Corridors). Shaped like a lopsided V, the 489-mile corridor connects Boston with Portland and Auburn, Maine, on one side and connects Boston with Montreal, Canada, on the other. Current speeds on the section from Boston to Portland (which began being serviced by Amtrak in December 2001) average only 59 mph. In January 2002, a meeting was held in Nashua, New Hampshire, to begin a Boston-Montreal high-speed rail feasibility study, jointly funded by the FRA and the Departments of Transportation of Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire. The study's first phase, which focuses on ridership forecasts, infrastructure, public participation, and institutional issues, was scheduled for completion in September 2002, but has not yet been released.
Ohio and Lake Erie Regional Rail Network
In 1975, the Ohio Rail Transportation Authority (ORTA) was created and charged with creating a plan for an intrastate passenger rail system that could be brought to the voters for support, and with promoting a sound and efficient freight rail system. In 1979, ORTA recommended incremental HSR as the most viable option because it could be implemented at speeds up to 150 mph in a relatively short time. Within a few years, however, they had shifted to advocating a new HSR system, thinking that construction of such a system would also generate jobs in a state experiencing an economic downturn. In 1982, the ORTA proposal was defeated at the polls.
ORTA's responsibilities were shifted to the Ohio Department of Transportation's (ODOT) Rail Division in 1983, and an Ohio High-Speed Rail Authority was created in 1985 to assist in developing a statewide rail plan, including HSR. The latter was terminated in 1989. Five years later, the Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC) was established by the legislature as part of ODOT. Consistent with earlier Ohio policy on rail, the ORDC was charged with addressing all rail issues, including passenger and freight.
In 1997, the ORDC began another serious look at HSR. They actively pursued federal designation of the 3-Cs (Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati) Corridor as part of the Chicago Hub Network and actively participated in the Midwest Regional Rail System. The ORDC and ODOT also identified several other corridors for further investigation and continue to seek federal HSR designation.
In 2001, the ORDC requested funds from the state for a study of the Detroit-Pittsburgh section of what they are calling the Cleveland Hub (see See Ohio and Lake Erie Regional Rail: Cleveland Hub from the Ohio Rail Development Commission Website, http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/CleveHub%20 Map.htm). ODOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved funding, although at the time of this report it appears that study is not yet completed. ODOT has also been working on a study with the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) on the Detroit-Toledo line.
Ohio and Lake Erie Regional Rail: Cleveland Hub
The remainder of the corridors remain unassessed with respect to their feasibility for HSR. The following ORDC corridors are not federally designated:
Cleveland, OH-Erie, NY-Buffalo, NY-Niagara Falls, NY-Toronto, Canada
South Central Corridor
The South Central Corridor was designated a federal corridor in October 2000. Shaped like a Y, it connects San Antonio, Texas, to Tulsa, Oklahoma, via Austin, Dallas/Fort Worth and Oklahoma City on one fork, and San Antonio to Little Rock, Arkansas, via Austin, Dallas/Fort Worth, and Texarkana on the other. The entire system covers 994 miles. Nothing appears to have moved forward in this corridor.
Southeast Corridor and Southeastern High-Speed Rail (2 projects: 1 inclusive of the other)
Designated as a federal corridor in October 1992, the initial Southeast Corridor linked Washington, D.C., to Richmond, Virginia. In 1995, an extension was approved to Hampton Roads, Virginia, with additional extensions approved in December 1998 and October 2000 (See Southeast Corridor).
Southeast Corridor
The current corridor links Washington, D.C., with five states and the Gulf Coast Corridor in the following segments:
Richmond, VA-Hampton Roads, VA
Richmond, VA-Raleigh, NC-Greensboro, NC-Charlotte, NC
Raleigh, NC-Columbia, SC-Savannah, GA-Jacksonville, FL
Southeastern High-Speed Rail includes the federally designated corridor, but extends the links to include the segment to Birmingham, Alabama, covered by the Gulf Coast federally designated corridor and an additional segment to Chattanooga and Nashville, Tennessee.
A report issued in 1997 by the U.S. DOT identified the Southeast Corridor as the most economically viable of all the proposed HSR projects. One year later, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transport, North Carolina's Department of Transportation, the FRA, and the FHWA signed an MOU to jointly develop environmental documentation related to implementing HSR on the portions of the corridor in Virginia and North Carolina. A Tier I EIS followed in 1999, focused on the Washington, D.C.-Charlotte segment of the corridor. The Tier I EIS was completed in 2002 and a Record of Decision on the proposed route was issued by the FRA and FHWA, allowing the Tier II EIS to begin. The proposed date of completion was 2004.
Texas Triangle
Linking the cities of Dallas and Houston, Dallas and San Antonio, and San Antonio and Houston, the Texas Triangle is not a federally designated corridor, although parts of it are included in the federally designated South Central Corridor. Efforts began in 1987 when the Texas Legislature directed the Texas Turnpike Authority to study the feasibility of HSR in the Texas Triangle. In 1989, a report was made to the legislature concluding that under certain assumptions, HSR would be feasible. In May 1989, the Texas High-Speed Rail Act created the 11-member Texas High-Speed Rail Authority (THSRA). It was charged with determining if HSR was in the public interest and, if so, awarding a franchise to develop and operate such a system. In 1990, requests for letters of intent and then a request for proposals were issued, with proposals received the following year from the Texas High-Speed Rail Joint Venture (later Texas FasTrac) and the Texas TGV Consortium. The latter was awarded the franchise to build, operate, and maintain an HSR system in the triangle.
Initially, the Texas TGV Consortium expected a more streamlined process with fewer constraints because there was to be no public funding for the project. It quickly became clear that there were major hurdles to overcome. In the franchise agreement, Texas TGV agreed to pay for THSRA's ongoing operating budget and to obtain $170 million in equity financing by the end of 1992. Because of new safety regulations under the FRA, a complete EIS would need to be prepared, including public hearings, all at Texas TGV's expense.
The initial 1992 deadline was missed and extended for an additional year. The financing deadline was missed again in 1993, and by 1994 the contract had been terminated. Part of the difficulty in obtaining funding was directly related to Southwest Airlines' aggressive countercampaign, which launched several lawsuits during this period and allied with key partners to block congressional funding in an effort to stop what they saw as a competitor for their customers.
Texas TGV's investors lost about $40 million by the end of the process. More importantly, according to Perl, "The Texas TGV's failure was a delegitimizing event for the proponents of market-led rail passenger renewal." The Texas Triangle is a clear example of a failure, as they are no longer actively pursuing funding or development.
The following three case studies were selected for further review based on the potential for some demonstrable lessons learned or themes for consideration that would be relevant to other projects around the country. These three studies offer interesting counterpoints: California is pressing for a new HSR system; the Pacific Northwest case focuses on incremental HSR; and Florida has two plans--one for new HSR and one for an incremental system. In Florida and California, voters are heavily involved and, in some ways, leading HSR efforts, while the Pacific Northwest case is led primarily by state agencies. The Pacific Northwest demonstrates the difficulties of multistate efforts, while California and Florida are testaments to the fact that single-state efforts also often meet with difficulty. Finally, while California to a large degree and the Pacific Northwest to a smaller degree have a history of reliance on rail and public transit systems, Florida has for many years been focused on the automobile and highways, adding to the difficulty of implementing HSR.
FLORIDA
Not clearly a success or a failure at this point, Florida's intercity passenger rail plan is an interesting case in dealing with high-speed rail. Florida's experience with HSR dates back more than 30 years, including several starts and stops and multiple plans and pieces of legislation. The current project plan focuses on building a new HSR system along a 92-mile stretch connecting Tampa and Orlando (See Florida Corridor). A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been completed as part of the Project Development and Environmental (PD&E) Process, preferred alignments have been identified, and the Florida High-Speed Rail Authority (FHSRA) has executed a contract with Fluor-Bombardier to provide professional services to complete the final EIS. A Record of Decision on the final EIS by the U.S. Federal Railroad Administration is pending,
Florida Corridor
All this activity is occurring against the backdrop of an intense and extremely divisive political debate within a state that is historically dependent on the automobile, with little commuter rail or transit, and an antitax culture. In 2000, a constitutional amendment, conceived and spearheaded by Florida citizens, was approved by voters, requiring the state to build a high-speed ground transportation system. Governor Jeb Bush (R, 1999-present), who curtailed an earlier HSR project when he took office, helped lead an effort to stop the current plans. Unable to get bills passed through the state House and Senate, he turned to the voters to gain enough signatures to place a measure on the November 2004 ballot to repeal the 2000 amendment. That amendment was repealed on November 2, 2004, with 63.7 percent of the vote in favor of repealing it. Before the repeal of the amendment was definite, the Florida legislature cut all state funding for high-speed rail, citing the likelihood of veto by Bush.
The public debate in Florida focuses on cost and marketability. Those opposed to building HSR in Florida argue that the costs are too high, the state is being asked to shoulder an undue burden, and contributing funds for HSR will reduce monies needed for other transportation programs, in particular, highway projects. Those pressing for HSR cite growing population pressures and transportation capacity needs that require an intermodal approach that links Florida's urban areas. They also argue that funds have been set aside for HSR within the Florida Department of Transportation, so an HSR project should not be a drain on other transportation programs, and that costs would be far outweighed by the economic benefits HSR would bring over the life of the project.
The Florida case also may provide lessons on other contextual issues. For example, while projected cost is an important rallying point for both sides of the debate, there are two more fundamental issues related to this that go beyond the immediate debate:
the role of public investment in intercity passenger rail, and the unwillingness of government to subsidize this transportation mode as it does others
defining cost as purely monetary costs rather than a broader definition that includes environmental costs, societal costs, energy costs, and so on.
Florida also provides insight about the effect of the type of project being pursued. The current debate relates to new HSR, but some people prefer an incremental solution, believing that would help prove HSR marketability without the financial risks of a new system. Why new HSR was chosen over an incremental approach and how that decision has affected the likelihood of a successful outcome is relevant for other projects. The role of the state legislature and the importance of the constitutional amendment also will be examined to see how they affected the likelihood of successfully implementing HSR in the state.
A History of HSR in Florida
The history of HSR in Florida covers three decades of multiple starts and stops, numerous corridor studies and proposals, and millions of dollars in investments, yet still no HSR. In 1976, the Florida legislature mandated the Florida Transit Corridor Study to determine the feasibility of HSR between Daytona Beach and St. Petersburg. The study concluded that, if implemented in stages using existing highway corridors, HSR would be marketable in Florida. The study proposed using existing rail corridors and the possibility of locating HSR within limited access highway medians, an idea with which the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) agreed.
Six years later, Governor Bob Graham (D, 1979-1987) visited Japan and traveled on the Shinkansen. He returned to Florida a strong supporter of HSR and authorized the creation of the Florida High-Speed Rail Committee (FHSRC) as a first step toward creating such a system in his state. In 1984, the committee released the Florida Future Advanced Transportation Report, which concluded that Florida's transportation infrastructure could not accommodate future growth and that an advanced HSR system was necessary to maintaining mobility in the state. The report recommended developing public-private partnerships and using existing publicly owned rights-of-way (ROWs). During that same year, Florida's legislature enacted the Florida High-Speed Rail Transportation Commission Act, which created the seven-member Florida High-Speed Rail Commission (FHSRC) and authorized it to grant a franchise to build a privately funded and operated high-speed rail network serving Miami, Tampa, and Orlando.
In 1986, the HSR Commission released its own study by Barton Aschman Associates that recommended proceeding with a 356-mile HSR system connecting Miami, Orlando, and Tampa. Requests for proposals were issued; two were received in 1988, one from Florida TGV, Inc., and one from Florida High-Speed Rail Corporation. The former proposed using French TGV trains, which could run at speeds of 170 mph. The estimated cost of building the system was $2.2 billion, with ridership projections of 5.9 million annually. The latter proposed using Swedish-built ABBX2000 trains with tilt technologies that could run at speeds of 150 mph. Estimated costs were $1.9 billion, with projected ridership at 3.7 million annually. Both proposals assumed some public spending and/or real estate development rights, but when it was clear that there would be no support for public funding, Florida TGV, Inc., withdrew. Florida High-Speed Rail Corporation submitted a revised proposal in 1990 that proposed financing the project with a combination of tax increment financing, benefit districts, impact fees, and a new gas tax. One year later, Governor Lawton Chiles (D, 1991-1998) rejected the proposal, citing high costs.
Despite the lack of support in the governor's office, the legislature enacted a new High-Speed Rail Act in 1992, transferring the FHSRC's responsibilities to FDOT. FDOT also was charged with providing an updated rail system plan every other year that incorporated both passenger and freight components. That same year, on October 16, the Miami-Orlando-Tampa Corridor was federally designated as a high-speed rail corridor by the U.S. Department of Transportation, allowing the possibility of federal funds for studies.
During the next two years, more corridor studies were conducted by FDOT to evaluate the feasibility of a network of HSR corridors connecting major cities around the state. Based on the findings of these studies, FDOT announced its commitment to fund HSR, setting aside $70 million per year, plus a 4 percent inflation adjustment, for at least 30 years. The funds would service infrastructure bonds using a portion of Florida's gasoline tax that had been earmarked for nonhighway expenditures. As Perl points out, "such a dowry, while small in relation to the level of government support routinely extended to air or road infrastructure, made Florida's planned high-speed rail development far more attractive to private industry than prospects in other states." This was evidenced by the response to FDOT's 1995 request for proposals. Five proposals were submitted, offering a range of public-private options for the Miami-Tampa-Orlando corridor, including plans aimed at incremental improvements, new high-speed rail using bullet trains, and two proposals for Maglev technologies. Cost estimates on the proposals ranged from a low of $740 million to a high of $20 billion.
The Florida Overland eXpress Project
After evaluating the proposals, FDOT selected the Florida Overland eXpress (FOX) Consortium, comprising Fluor Daniel Corporation, Odebrecht-Campanhia Brasileira de Projectos e Obras, Bombardier, GEC-Alsthom, Bear Stearns, Banque Nationale de Paris, and several consulting groups. FOX proposed to build and operate a new grade-separated, fully dedicated HSR serving the three cities at an estimated capital cost of $6.1 billion. The rationale for a new HSR system instead of an incremental approach stemmed from the goals laid out in the request for proposals (RFP) and the belief that if the critical goal were to move people from point A to point B quickly and efficiently, a dedicated ROW was necessary. FOX officials felt strongly that sharing tracks through an incremental approach would never allow the speeds and frequency of service of a dedicated ROW.
Like the earlier proposal from Florida TGV, Inc., FOX planned to use French TGV technology for its rolling stock. Although other technologies were available, the selection of the TGV was aimed at minimizing risk, particularly in the eyes of the financial industry. Because HSR did not exist in the United States, it was (and still is) considered a high-risk venture; using a proven technology could at least mitigate risk on the technological side. In revenue service since 1981, the TGV had demonstrated the fastest trip times, the most reliability, and the best safety record of the potential technologies available. (It should be noted that evolving FRA safety standards would have required changes to conventional TGV technology for high-speed operation in the United States.)
Envisioned as a private-public partnership, franchise and precertification agreements were executed in 1997, with the understanding that FDOT would provide $70 million per year (escalated at 4 percent per year) for 30 to 40 years. Using a portion of Florida's gasoline tax revenues, a percentage of which had been earmarked for nonhighway-related expenditures, these funds would be used to service infrastructure bonds. FOX would contribute $349 million in equity funds over the construction period to capitalize FOX. Although a significant amount of money, the $349 million only accounted for 4 percent of the total projected costs, estimated at up to $9.3 billion total. (Private investment was set at $349 million because of a state cap on the private equity share that demanded a high return of investment, making it less expensive to use public funds.) The remainder of the costs would be financed through debt financing and bonds, repaid by revenues and a portion of the annual state contributions, although $2 billion in federal loans through the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) were also sought (See Sources of Funding for the FOX Project).
Sources of Funding for the FOX Project
This last point has been a continuous source of contention because it is not just unclear, but also unlikely, that federal support would be provided for HSR at the levels needed.
FDOT viewed the project as playing a key role in an integrated transportation system that would link various modes and meet the travel needs of tourists and residents, while being environmentally and fiscally responsible. Studies undertaken by Tim Lynch at Florida State University's Center for Economic Forecasting and Analysis and by Steven Polzin at the University of South Florida's Center for Urban Transportation Research, provided a detailed description of the need for and projected impacts of the FOX HSR project.
Regarding the need for an HSR project, Lynch and Polzin noted that Florida's population grew by 91 percent between 1970 and 1990, and they projected an additional increase of 38 percent by 2010. Tourism was projected to increase by 82 percent during that same period. Increased numbers of residents and tourists was expected to create a tremendous increase in demand for highway capacity that would exceed the projected 18 percent increase in highway lane miles through 2010. Thus, an alternate mode was necessary and Lynch and Polzin went so far as defining HSR as "one of several pivotal transportation investments needed...."
Lynch and Polzin noted several benefits of HSR connecting Miami, Tampa, and Orlando:
1.4 million fewer auto trips by 2010
60,000 fewer airport flights by 2010
$1.667 billion (1997 dollars) per year of increased economic activity during the four peak construction years
80 pounds fewer pollutants per person for any traveler who shifted mode to HSR by 2010
Reduced energy consumption equivalent to 4.7 gallons of gasoline per person who shifted mode
Bolstered by these findings and FDOT's support, FOX began its preliminary engineering and environmental work in 1998. Opponents quickly sprang up, questioning everything from costs and environmental issues to the use of imported technology. A grassroots campaign called Derail the Bullet Train actively campaigned against FOX, suggesting that the new HSR project would lead to "an ineffective use of public money." State Senator Ron Klein (D-District 30, Palm Beach), founder of Derail the Bullet Train, said that public transportation was and continues to be underdeveloped in Florida and, given the costs involved, he and many others would rather see such funds used toward regional forms of public transportation than intercity HSR.
Others began poking holes in FOX's ridership projections and revenue estimates, often arguing that the United States was unlikely to follow European and Asian experiences with HSR. Although FOX's ridership study was said to have included "a more intense review and detailed ridership study than anywhere else in the world" at that time, many were skeptical because there was no HSR in the United States. For example, FOX assumed that some airlines would agree to code-share agreements so travelers could easily transfer from planes flying into the cities onto HSR, as was done in Europe. However, an independent report in 1998 by Wilbur Smith Associates, commissioned by the Florida Transportation Commission, which oversees FDOT, concluded that the assumption was unverified in the United States. (The fact that U.S. airlines have not been quick to support HSR, and in several cases--most notably Texas--have openly opposed it, suggests that the assumption should be questioned.) FOX also assumed that some air passengers would choose HSR over air because of lower fares. However, the report stated that in many cases, air fares were already much lower than FOX projections. (In a letter from C.C. Dockery to Senator Toni Jenning, Dockery refutes these claims, demonstrating that the FOX fares were significantly lower than the air fares at the time.) It also was assumed that more than 50 percent of the riders would be automobile drivers who would shift mode, something that Wilbur Smith Associates again argued was unproven in the United States, and particularly in a state like Florida, which relies extensively on the automobile. Many people thought that FOX's ridership and revenue projections were too optimistic in an environment in which HSR was unproven.
Shortly thereafter, U.S. House Budget Committee Chair John Kasich (R-Ohio) asked the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) to review FOX's proposal. The GAO's 1999 report noted that because it was in the early phases of development, the FOX project faced "several uncertainties regarding its cost, ridership, and schedule.... It will be at least 2 more years before sufficient information is available to comprehensively assess the project." The GAO warned that investing in FOX could constrain other Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) allocations. The report stated that "the FOX project could require a substantial portion of TIFIA's total 5-year funding." It further noted that at least 31 projects nationwide would be eligible for TIFIA funds and that "limited TIFIA funds would be available for these projects if the Department decides to provide FOX with a $2 billion loan."
The report had a strong chilling effect, especially among potential investors, and lent further credence to concerns over the ability to secure federal funding for the project. Upon taking office in January 1999, Governor Bush terminated funding (as Governor Chiles had eight years earlier), citing both environmental and financial concerns and the uncertainties identified in the GAO report. The funding that would have been used for HSR was redirected toward highway and aviation projects, dealing a devastating blow to HSR.
In the Wake of FOX's Demise: A Vision for Incremental HSR
In May 2000, Amtrak and FDOT issued the joint Florida Intercity Passenger Service Rail Vision Plan . It took a different approach to HSR, focusing on incremental rather than new HSR, and posited a business model partnering the State of Florida and Amtrak. When asked about this shift, Nazih Haddad, Manager of Passenger Rail Development at FDOT, explained that with the failure of FOX, FDOT felt it needed to do something because an alternative to highways was still needed with demand for capacity continuing to increase. He noted that incremental HSR made sense because "the bottom line issues of frequency of service and travel time are more important than actual speed."
An incremental approach to HSR in Florida has advocates. Al Harper, Chairman of EWM Realtors, believes that new HSR may be "too expensive for what Florida ought to do right now." The competitiveness of the first leg of the system (Tampa-Orlando) is questionable given that it is an 80-minute trip by car, and by rail it would be reduced only about 10 minutes. He argues that an incremental approach could be put in place faster, at a lesser cost, and could help prove the marketability needed to expand the system further.
Harper's thoughts are echoed by Bob Vander Clute, Senior Vice President of Safety and Operations at the Association of American Railroads. He notes that incremental HSR can begin with existing ROWs and structures, saving both cost and time so people need not wait many years to see progress--something quite important in a highly charged political environment. While incremental rail will never achieve the speeds of new HSR, much can still be done in terms of eliminating highway grade crossings, straightening curves, and deploying supplementary signalization systems so that faster times and increased frequency can be achieved and further built upon later.
Citing the figures provided by Lynch and Polzin several years earlier, the Vision Plan noted that further highway and air expansion to meet projected travel demand would face major economic and environmental challenges. Although the FOX project was not implemented, the benefits of rail were recognized by FDOT. The Vision Plan connected major urban centers, tourist attractions, and intermodal transportation centers with the following objectives:
Delivery of quality, corridor-focused rail service quickly, implementing initial service improvements by 2003
Provision of continuous program improvement thereafter, including market development, service quality, and network expansion
Implementation of the program cost effectively and affordably, while minimizing and managing financial, market, technological, and environmental risks
Use of a wide range of partnerships to maximize customer and stakeholder support
The Vision Plan identified two planning periods. The first would cover five years and include immediate actions that could "...initiate quality passenger rail service in high-demand travel markets quickly with minimal capital investment." The second period would run 20 years, at the end of which Florida would have a well-integrated passenger rail system serving communities throughout the state.
The Vision Plan chose the Miami-Tampa-Orlando Corridor as the best one in which to begin, noting that it was already served by an existing rail line, the distance between endpoint stations was between 75 and 300 miles (making rail competitive with air and automobile), and it had the largest current and projected markets. Working within Amtrak's Network Growth Strategy, which had assessed the potential for connecting the national network to additional corridor service in partnership with states, the Vision Plan laid out its 20-year strategy, as shown in See Florida DOT's Strategy for Incremental HSR.
Initial financing would be through joint investment by FDOT and Amtrak, with each sharing initial capital costs (estimated at $278 to $393 million) equally. As shown in See 2000 and Proposed Year 2005 Intercity Rail Daily Round Trips, the Vision Plan anticipates immediate benefits within the first five years (Phase 1 and Phase 2) in terms of frequency of service.