High-speed rail in the United States currently consists of one high-speed rail service:[1]:5 Amtrak's Acela Express runs on the Northeast Corridor from Boston to Washington, D.C. Unlike Asian or European systems, the Acela shares its tracks with conventional rail, and thus is limited to an average speed of 68 mph (109 km/h) for the entire distance with brief segments up to 150 mph (240 km/h). A federal allocation of $8 billion for high-speed rail projects as a part of the 2009 stimulus package has prompted U.S. federal and state planners to coordinate the expansion of high-speed service to ten other major rail corridors.[2]
America's first dedicated high-speed rail infrastructure is likely to be in California, consisting of a high speed line between Anaheim and San Francisco via Los Angeles and San Jose. The line is scheduled to begin construction by September 2012 in the Central Valley.[3] The new line planned for construction in California would have a top speed in excess of 150 mph (240 km/h) and is classified as a High-Speed Rail–Express corridor.[4]
In Europe the definition of a minimum speed for newly built high-speed railways is 250 km/h (160 mph) while for upgraded conventional railways it is 200 km/h (120 mph).[5] In places where high speed rail programs are in earlier developmental stages or where substantial speed increases are achieved by upgrading current infrastructure and/or introducing more advanced trains, lower minimum speed definitions of high speed rail are used.[5] This is the case in the United States. For transportation planning purposes focussing on the development of high speed rail, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) distinguishes four types of intercity passenger rail corridors:[6]
When it was discovered that a tram (trolley or streetcar) could run between two towns, the first interurban was created. During the period 1900-1931, some of USA’s interurbans evolved really high-speed service for its time. However, the interurbans were especially exposed to the competition from cars and buses because they were clogged by the growing car congestions in the streets. In addition, many of them were bought and laid down by the General Motors alliance in the Great American streetcar scandal.[7]
Much of the high-speed rail technology stems from the U.S. interurban scene (in Europe, the interurbans didn’t play the same role)
History proves that steam, petrol, diesel, and gas turbines were sidings on the way to the modern high-speed rail: Virtually all the world’s high-speed trains today use electric traction because of better efficiency, less noise, and less air pollution. Therefore, it was possible to build small high-speed electric railcars, while the fastest steam locomitives were big and heavy. And while Ohio alone had about 2,800 mi (4,500 km) interurbans in 1916,[8] most conventional railroads preferred steam till they began using diesel in about 1934 – outside the Northeast Corridor and a few commuter railroads, very few of them were ever electrified. The interurban companies also experimented with different current systems and voltages to maximize efficiency and minimize energy waste.
The traction magnate Henry Huntington’s railcar Alabama, made by St. Louis Car Company, was capable of almost 100 mph (160 km/h) – in 1905.[9]
The interurbans were a decade ahead of the steam railroads in lightweight car construction. Lightweight interurban railcars like the Red Devils in Ohio (1929) and the Bullets from J. G. Brill Company in Philadelphia (1931) weighed 22 and 26 tons, respectively, or about ½ ton per seat – and provided their own tractive force. Conventional railroad cars of that time weighed about one ton per seat, and they needed a locomotive of up to 400 tons to haul them. Even the legendary Pioneer Zephyr (1934) weighed more than 700 kg (1,500 lb) per seat (or about 1.1 tons per seat, but 1/3 of its space was reserved for mail and express goods).[10] With four 100-horsepower (75 kW) motors, these high-speed interurbans also had at least twice the power-to-weight ratio as the Pioneer Zephyr. Compared to contemporary steam powered express trains, the ratio was at least 4 or 5 to 1 in the interurbans’ favor. Cincinnati Car Company, which developed the Red Devils for the Cincinnati and Lake Erie Railroad (C&LE), also constructed a truck adapted to run on a rough track at up to 90 mph (145 km/h) in commercial service; during a test run it reached almost 100 mph (160 km/h). As well, their light weight and low axle loads (11–13 tons compared to 20.5 tons for the Pioneer Zephyr and 29.5–33.5 tons for the 30s’ steam express locomotives)[10] resulted in less wear and tear on the infrastructure.
At same speed, air resistance is relatively more important for a railcar at twenty-some tons than for a locomotive at 300+ tons. And J.G.Brill was the first to use wind tunnel research to reduce the air resistance of rail equipment. The Bullets are called "ancestors of the TGV, ICE, Shinkansen, and the Acela Express"[11] (in English, the first Shinkansens were named Bullet Trains, though probably not named after the Bullet interurbans). The appearance of Fliegender Hamburger (Flying Hamburger), the first German high-speed train in commercial traffic (1933), was even more similar to Brill’s masterpiece.
Some of the interurbans were also ahead of conventional railroads (at least most of them) in infrastructure construction. In 1907, Philadelphia and Western Railroad (P&W) opened the Upper Darby-Strafford double-track, third rail-operated line without a single grade crossing with roads or other railroads (an essential requirement for modern HSR), and the maximum grades of 2%, in an exceedingly irregular topography.[9] Their extremely long lives were probably explained by both the infrastructure and high quality of the Brill railcars. While most of the high-speed steams and diesels of the '30s were phased out before 1960, some of the Bullets – and even some beefed-up interurbans from the period 1924–27 – ran till 1990.[11] And while most of the US’ public transport disappeared, the Norristown High Speed Line still serves as an interurban,[12] almost a hundred years after it in 1912 was extended from Strafford to Norristown.
Competition between railroads had driven operators to make trains run faster and more efficiently for many years, but 1934 brought some of the biggest jumps in United States history. Fighting to retain customers who began fleeing to automobiles and airplanes after 1920, the Burlington Route's Zephyr and the Union Pacific's M-10000 sought to recapture the public's imagination. They marked the start of a new era of lightweight, streamlined trains, and were a major departure from the conventional, heavyweight beasts of the time. The Zephyr, built especially light due to its underpowered diesel-electric drivetrain, set a speed record of 112.5 miles per hour (181.1 km/h), and averaged 77 mph (124 km/h) on the 1,015-mile (1,633 km) route between Denver, Colorado and Chicago, Illinois on a special "Dawn-to-Dusk Dash"—speeds that could cut hours off of many intermediate- and long-distance train routes. Following a demonstration run to the Twin Cities, three railroads quickly announced they would drop four hours from their Chicago to Saint Paul schedules, a reduction of 38%.[13]
After the fall of the electric interurbans, the question on the US high-speed rail scene during several decades was: Steam or diesel? The Zephyr calmed to a modest 49 mph (79 km/h) in its first revenue service, but other routes picked up the pace. On the 85 miles (137 km) Between Chicago and Milwaukee, steam locomotives still operated, and were averaging 57 mph (92 km/h) on that stretch by year's end. Beginning January 2, 1935, the Chicago and North Western 400 briefly held the spotlight by running 408.6 miles (657.6 km) at 58.4 mph (94.0 km/h) to Saint Paul—led by an upgraded steam engine originally built in 1923 that was pulling heavyweight cars.[13] In April, a new pair of diesel-powered Twin Zephyrs ticked the average speed up to 65.7 mph (105.7 km/h) on their slightly longer route. In testing, the Milwaukee Road's "speedlined", steam-powered Hiawatha cruised at the Zephyr's year-old record speed of 112.5 mph for 14 miles (23 km).[14]
New and old technologies crossed paths on railroads across the country, and each had their advantages and disadvantages. Short, articulated trainsets were efficient and eye-catching, but could not be expanded easily and had to be replaced by longer articulated sets or trains with conventional passenger cars. Steam locomotives were much more powerful than the diesels, but needed enormous manpower to operate and maintain. Diesels were fairly clean and simple to run, but needed to be ganged together in multiple-unit operation in order to pull bigger trains. Still, many trains had a style all their own, and the locomotives that hauled them, like the NYC Hudson, the Southern Pacific GS-4, and the EMD FT, became railroading icons.
Improvements to streamliners continued through the rest of the 1930s and into the 1940s. The Hiawatha regularly reached 100 mph (160 km/h) in the early years, and easily reached 110 mph (180 km/h) after a 1939 upgrade which claimed the locomotive had a "reserve speed" of 125 mph (201 km/h).[14] Long-distance services also improved, averaging 70 mph (110 km/h) or more on some lines. The original fixed-length streamliners were mostly scrapped during World War II, but not without great influence. In the 1950s, Japan's Odakyu Electric Railway introduced Romancecar service, which was largely patterned after the Zephyr and later Electroliner. It was the Romancecar, operating at 90 mph (140 km/h) on the Japanese narrow-gauge network, which proved the viability of even-faster standard gauge trains, leading Japan to inaugurate the modern high-speed rail era with the Tokaido Shinkansen in 1964.[15]
Streamliners in the US were significantly set back by 1940s and 1950s Interstate Commerce Commission rules which required enhanced safety features for all trains traveling above a 79mph (126 km/h) limit. Since the infrastructure required for cab signaling, automatic train stop and other enhancements was uneconomical in the sparsely-populated American West, this rule effectively killed further development of high speed rail outside the Northeast, where the Pennsylvania Railroad and others had installed cab signaling beginning in the 1930s. No other English-speaking country adopted this rule, and while the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia all operate trains at 100 mph (160 km/h) or higher using conventional lineside signaling, few trains in the United States operate above 79 mph (127 km/h) outside the Northeast Corridor. One exception that survives today is Amtrak's Southwest Chief, which travels up to 90 miles per hour (140 km/h) along various stretches of its Chicago–Los Angeles route.[16]
Japan opened its first line of the Shinkansen network in 1964, running its 0 Series "bullet trains" at a top speed of 130 miles per hour (210 km/h)—a speed that was soon improved. The United States Congress responded by passing the High Speed Ground Transportation Act a year later, which led the US DOT to partner with the Pennsylvania Railroad and several industrial manufacturers to develop the Metroliner service, which was capable of traveling at 160 mph (260 km/h).[16] Pennsylvania-operated Metroliners were short-lived, however, as just two years later Amtrak was formed to take over the nation's passenger rail system from the freight operators.
U.S. federal and state governments continued to revisit the idea of fast trains as time went by. The Passenger Railroad Rebuilding Act of 1980 led to funding of high-speed corridor studies in 1984. Private-sector consortia intending to build high-speed lines were created in Florida, Ohio, Texas, California, and Nevada. Maglev trains became a new field of interest. They were officially added to the definition of "railroad" in 1988, and were studied repeatedly. Five high-speed corridors were officially endorsed in October 1992 following passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.[17] TEA-21 and other legislation continued to be passed with mentions of high-speed rail, but lacking funding or real direction.[18]
While Japan continuously improved its Shinkansen network, going from an initial top speed of 130 mph to having many services which operate at 186 mph (300 km/h) today, Amtrak consistently slowed down the Metroliner service, and the Metroliner-based Amfleet passenger car became the mainstay of intermediate-haul Amtrak services. Increasing airport congestion led to a renewed interest in high-speed rail, and in 2001 the Acela Express was inaugurated.
Tilting technology allows Acelas to negotiate tight curves on the New York to Boston route while maintaining relatively fast speeds. While the trains themselves are capable of 150 mph (240 km/h), improvements to the track have proceeded in a piecemeal manner, and actual speeds are significantly slower. Presently the New York–Washington segment (formerly PRR) is the faster of the two, and only a small portion of the line allows 135 mph (217 km/h) running. The New York–Boston segment contains extensive segments with speeds as low as 90 mph (140 km/h); consequently, most of the recent improvements have focused on this corridor, thus the 150 mph (240 km/h) segment is also found here.
Acela travel time between Washington and New York is 2 hours and 53 minutes (compared to 2 hours and 30 minutes for PRR's nonstop Metroliner in 1969), or an average speed of 79 mph (130 km/h). Schedule between New York and Boston is 3 hours 34 minutes, an average speed of only 63 mph (80 km/h). With a 15-minute layover in New York, the entire end-to-end trip averages 68 mph (110 km/h).[19]
In recent years high jet fuel prices, congested airports and highways, and increasing airport security rules regarding liquids and electronics that force most travelers to check baggage have all combined to make high-speed rail options more attractive. A study conducted by the International Union of Railways indicated that high-speed trains produce five times less CO2 than automobiles and jet aircraft.[20] Most high-speed rail systems use electricity for power, so they lessen dependence on petroleum and can be powered by renewable energy sources, or by nuclear power such as in Japan and France. There has been a resurgence of interest in recent decades, with many plans being examined for high-speed rail across the country, but current service remains relatively limited.
In February 2009, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), Congress allocated $8 billion to be granted to states for intercity rail projects, with "priority to projects that support the development of intercity high speed rail service."[21]
In April 2009, as required by ARRA, the FRA released its strategic plan describing the agency's vision for developing high-speed rail in the United States.[6] As potential funding targets, the plan formally identified ten corridors[22]—all previously designated as high-speed rail corridors by several successive Secretaries of Transportation—as well as the existing Northeast Corridor. The ten designated high-speed corridors, together with the major cities served by each, are:
In addition to the $8 billion provided by ARRA, the plan forecasts five years' worth of $1 billion annual budget requests to be used to "jump-start a potential world-class passenger rail system."[1]
On June 17, 2009, the FRA issued interim guidance to applicants covering grant terms, conditions, and procedures until final regulations are issued. Under its criteria, the FRA evaluates grant proposals for their ability to make trips quicker and more convenient, reduce congestion on highways and at airports, and meet other environmental, energy, and safety goals.[24]
The FRA received grant applications from states for stimulus funds and FY 2009 intercity capital funds in August and October 2009[25] Over $57 Billion in requests were filed from 34 states. An announcement of which states received these funds was made on January 28, 2010, with 31 states and 13 rail corridors receiving funding.[26][27]
| Corridor | Grant received (in millions $) |
|---|---|
| Chicago Hub/Ohio Hub | 2617 |
| California | 2343 |
| Florida | 1250 |
| Southeast | 620 |
| Pacific Northwest | 598 |
| Northern New England | 160 |
| Empire | 152 |
| Northeast | 112 |
| Keystone | 27 |
The five areas receiving the most funding had originally been designated as high-speed rail corridors in October 1992 following passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.[17]
When Republicans gave a response to President Obama’s speech to Congress in February 2009, Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana criticized the money as wasteful spending.[28] Some organizations, such as the Koch-funded, conservative[29] Cato Institute, have taken a strong stance against governmental spending on high speed trains. They claim that the Interstate Highway System is used by more people and pays for itself (in the form of tolls and the gasoline tax), while high speed trains would cost the government more money, as ridership fees would not pay for the maintenance of the train, even if the government covered the cost of building the train. They also believe that many people will pay for a service only a few will use. [30]
Congress allocated $2.5 billion in the FY 2010 budget[31] and these funds were allocated on October 28, 2010.[32] Major allocations are listed below.
| Corridor | Grant received (in millions $) |
|---|---|
| California | 898 |
| Florida | 800 |
| Chicago Hub | 428 |
| Connecticut | 121 |
| Southeast | 45 |
On March 22, 2010, Amtrak announced it had created a dedicated department to pursue the development of high-speed rail. The initial focus of the department will be on the Northeast Corridor (Washington–New York–Boston) with an emphasis on increasing frequency and reducing journey times. The department will also examine the feasibility of raising the maximum speed limit in the aforementioned alignment from 150 mph to 220 mph. The department will also look at the possibilities of collaboration with other state and private initiatives, such as in California or Florida.[33]
On December 10, 2010, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced $1.2 billion in grants for Wisconsin and Ohio would be removed, and redirected to other states. This was due to opposition from governors-elect in both states, Scott Walker of Wisconsin and John Kasich of Ohio. From the redirected funds, California received $624 million, Florida $342 million, Washington $161 million, and Illinois $42 million. [34]
On February 16, 2011, Florida Governor Rick Scott formally announced that he would be rejecting all federal funds to construct a high-speed railway project in the state, thereby killing the Florida High Speed Rail project. Governor Scott's reasoning behind cancelling the project was that it would be "too costly to taxpayers" and that "the risk far outweigh[ed] the benefits".[35] Those funds were once again redistributed to other states.
According to a poll released on April 6, 2010, just under half of Americans are in favor of the proposed plan laid out in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Grants, while just above a quarter are opposed and the remainder are unsure. When shown a map of the proposed high speed lines, 32% of the participants said they would rather take a high speed train than fly, drive, or take the bus (which would put high-speed rail a few percentage points behind driving but well ahead of flying and taking the bus). Republicans and Independents who took part in the poll were more likely to state that they would rather drive (40% of Republicans and 38% of Independents), while 44% of Democrats stated they would use the proposed high speed rail system (making it the most popular choice among Democrats).[36] Among Republicans, high-speed rail was competitive with air travel (24% to 24%), while high-speed rail was preferred to air travel among both Independents and Democrats.
In February 2011, Vice President Biden proposed investing $53 billion in improved passenger rail service over six years.[37] The plan drew fire from majority Republicans in the House of Representatives, who preferred private investment rather than government investment.[38] No money was appropriated for passenger rail in either the FY 2011[39] or FY 2012[40] budgets.
Amtrak officials released a concept report for next-generation high-speed rail within the Northeast corridor on October 1, 2010.[41] The concept report envisions 220 mph trains running on dedicated tracks between Washington, DC, and Boston, Massachusetts. The report suggests the preferred alignment will closely follow the existing Northeast Corridor south of New York City. A number of different alignments will be studied north of New York City, including one through interior Connecticut paralleling Interstates 684, 84, and 90 (via Danbury, Waterbury, and Hartford), one following the existing shoreline route (paralleling Interstate 95), and one via Long Island (requiring a bridge or tunnel across Long Island Sound to Connecticut). Amtrak has projected planning and construction of the next generation high speed Northeast Corridor line will cost approximately $117 billion (2010 dollars) and reduce the travel time from New York to Washington, including a stop in Philadelphia, to 96 minutes, and the travel time from Boston to New York to 84 minutes.[42][43]
In February 2011 Amtrak announced plans for the Gateway Project , an 11 mile high-speed right of way across the Meadowlands, the Hudson Palisades, and the Hudson River, between Newark Penn Station and New York Penn Station.[44] In November 2011, US Congress allocated $15 million for engineering work on the project. [45] [46][47] It remains unclear how much preliminary work done for the somewhat similar cancelled ARC project will be utilized. In August 2011, the United States Department of Transportation obligated $450 million to a six-year project to support capacity increases on one of the busiest segments on the NEC, a 24 miles (39 km) section in New Jersey between New Brunswick and Trenton. The project is designed to upgrade electrical power, signal systems, and overhead catenary wires to improve reliability and increase speeds up to 160 mph (260 km/h), and after the purchase of new equipment, up to 186 mph (299 km/h). At the same time it obligated $295 million to improvements at Harold Interlocking, the nation's busiest rail junction nearby Sunnyside Yards in Queens, New York so that Amtrak's New England service can avoid congestion and bypass New Jersey Transit and Long Island Railroad trains.[48]
California Proposition 1A, passed in November 2008, authorizes the state to issue $9.95 billion in bonds to fund the first phase of a planned multi-phase high-speed rail network. Steel-wheel on rail technology is the adopted mode. Los Angeles to San Francisco, via California's Central Valley, will be the first phase of the network. The California High-Speed Rail Authority is the lead agency charged with planning and implementing the system. When the network is built, high-speed trains will be able to travel across California at speeds of up to 220 mph (350 km/h), potentially linking San Francisco and Los Angeles in as little as two hours and thirty-eight minutes. The state has been awarded 2.35 billion dollars in funding from the U.S.
The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority is in the process of a high speed rail feasibility study. Primary corridors being studied are the Interstate 70 corridor from Denver International Airport (DEN) to Eagle Airport (EGE) in Eagle County near Vail, and the Interstate 25 corridor from the Wyoming border to the New Mexico border.[49] These corridors however, are not defined as high speed rail corridors by the FRA.
On July 9, 2009 the governors of Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas announced plans to jointly seek federal designation of a high-speed rail corridor linking Denver, Albuquerque, and El Paso and request up to $5 million in federal funding for a feasibility study.[50]
Development of a high-speed rail system in Florida was mandated by a constitutional referendum in 2000, but taken off the books by another referendum in 2004.[51] However, Florida resurrected its high speed rail authority to capitalize on the nationwide effort to build a high speed rail network. Florida legislature approved Sunrail in a special session in late 2009, which along with work already completed on the originally proposed line between Tampa and Orlando, was instrumental in the state winning a significant amount of the total amount allotted to high speed rail. Only California received more high speed rail funding than Florida. In February 2011, Florida's newly elected governor chose to cancel the project.[52] Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood then announced he would be redirecting the funds intended for Florida to other states.
New York State has been actively discussing high-speed rail service since the 1990s, but thus far little progress has been made. Amtrak Acela service between Washington, D.C., and Boston, Massachusetts, is available to New York City, but the cities in Upstate New York and Western New York remain isolated from high-speed rail service. Further, destinations outside the New York metropolitan area have been plagued by delayed service for decades. Nonetheless, New York has been quietly endorsing and even implementing rail improvements for years.
Closer and faster railroad transportation links between New York City and the rest of the state are frequently cited as a partial solution to Upstate's stagnant economic growth.
The Ohio Hub is a project created by the Ohio Department of Transportation that is intended to connect Ohio with four other states, as well as Canada, by a passenger rail network. The main proposal is a four-corridor system based in Cleveland with branches terminating in Detroit, Toronto, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh. Both a 79 mph (126 km/h) and 110 mph (176 km/h) high-speed rail network have been proposed, costing a total $2.7 billion and $3.32 billion, respectively.
The Keystone Corridor is a 349 mile (562 km) rail line between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, composed of two different segments. Between Philadelphia and Harrisburg, the line, which is owned by Amtrak, is fully electrified and almost completely grade separated. Between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, the line is owned by Norfolk Southern, and is heavily used for freight transportation, with mountainous terrain. In 1999, the Keystone Corridor was formally recognized as a "designated high speed corridor" by the Federal Railroad Administration. The Keystone Corridor was upgraded in 2006 with two segments of 110 mph (176 km/h) operation between Philadelphia and Harrisburg, with express service taking 90 minutes over 103.6 miles (165.8 kilometres), which is the fastest average speed outside the North East Corridor. While the infrastructure already exists for high-speed rail between Harrisburg and Philadelphia, substantial infrastructure improvements would be necessary to provide high-speed rail between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. Currently, one train per day runs on the segment west of Harrisburg.
The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative or Midwest Regional Rail System (MRRI, MWRRI, or MWRRS) is a plan to implement a 220 mph (354 km/h) (on some key corridors) to 110 mph (177 km/h) passenger rail network in the Midwestern United States, using Chicago, Illinois as a hub and including 3,000 miles (4,800 km) of track. Primary routes would stretch across Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin, possibly reaching Kentucky. Secondary routes would operate at a somewhat slower speed across Missouri and Iowa, just touching Nebraska and nearly reaching Kansas. Existing Amtrak routes would probably be upgraded as part of this plan, which has been in development since 1996. Michigan has begun upgrading track and signals, already resulting in increased service speeds for Amtrak's Wolverine service.[53] However, similar efforts in Illinois have met with considerable technical difficulties.[54]
Construction on a high-speed rail line between Chicago and St. Louis is taking place.[55] Illinois has been one of the most aggressive at pursuing highspeed rail, getting $1.1 billion in 2010.[56] Governor Quinn told says that "we want to make this corridor the pre-eminent one in America". The Chicago-St.Louis rail line is being upgraded to include speeds of over 100 miles per hour (160 km/h). Plans have been such that they originated from the southern part of the state going up north. The first installment of funds provided for construction between Alton and Lincoln. In March 2011, the next installment of funds ($685 million) provided for another section to go from Lincoln to Dwight.[57] In May 2011, some $186 million additional got allocated, allowing for further construction between Dwight and Joliet.[58] Plans called for eventually investing in true high-speed travel that would boost train speeds to 220 mph (354 km/h).[59]
In June 2011, Governor Quinn of Illinois approved a 1.25 million dollar study on implementing 220mph service between Chicago and Champaign-Urbana. [60] If implemented it would be the fastest train in the United States. The train may also go as far as Rockford, on tracks along Interstate 90. [61]
Michigan had received more than $161 million for high-speed rail and $40 million for Amtrak stations in Troy, Battle Creek and Dearborn.[62] On May 9, 2011, the state received $196.5 million to help retrofit a 135-mile (217 km) section of the Kalamazoo-to-Dearborn track for high-speed rail service.[63] The work should wrap up by the end of 2013 and cut the travel time between Detroit and Chicago by 30 minutes from the current 5 hours and 45 minutes.
About 30 miles (50 km) of the Chicago-Detroit route passes through northwestern Indiana along Lake Michigan's south shore.[64] In early 2010 the federal government authorized some $71.4 million for this project.[65]
The Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor is a passenger rail transportation project to extend high speed passenger rail services from Washington, DC south through Richmond and Petersburg in Virginia through Raleigh and Charlotte in North Carolina and connect with the existing high speed rail corridor from DC to Boston, Massachusetts known as the Northeast Corridor. Since first established in 1992, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has since extended the corridor to Atlanta and Macon, Georgia; Greenville, South Carolina; Columbia, South Carolina; Jacksonville, Florida; and Birmingham, Alabama.
Incremental improvements to existing rail lines have been taking place while the environmental impact study required under the National Environmental Policy Act is being completed. The two-tiered EIS began in 1999, and completion is expected in 2011, with passenger service expected by 2015 to 2020, depending upon funding availability.
In 1991 the Texas High Speed Rail Authority awarded a 50-year high speed rail franchise to the Texas TGV Corporation - a consortium of Morrison Knudsen (USA), Bombardier (Canada), Alstom (France/UK), Crédit Lyonnais (France), Banque IndoSuez (France), Merrill Lynch (USA), and others. Texas TGV won the franchise after more than two years of litigation instigated by a rival consortium backing German ICE technology.
The plan was to connect the "Texas Triangle" (Houston - Dallas/Fort Worth - San Antonio) with a privately financed high speed train system which would quickly take passengers from one city to the next at prices designed to compete with or beat other transport options. This was the same model Southwest Airlines used 20 years earlier to break in to the Texas market where it served the same three cities.
Funding for the project was to come entirely from private sources, since Texas did not allow the use of public money. The original estimated cost was $5.6 billion, but the task of securing the necessary private funds proved extremely difficult.
Southwest Airlines, with the help of lobbyists, created legal barriers to prohibit the consortium from moving forward and the entire project was eventually scuttled in 1994, when the State of Texas withdrew the franchise.[66]
A more recent proposal for high-speed rail in Texas is part of a larger proposed, state-wide super-infrastructure, the Trans-Texas Corridor.
In 2002, the Texas High Speed Rail and Transportation Corporation (THSRTC), a grass roots organization dedicated to bringing high speed rail to Texas was established. In 2006, American Airlines and Continental Airlines formally joined THSRTC, in an effort to bring high speed rail to Texas as a passenger collector system for the airlines. The Texas High Speed Rail and Transportation Corporation developed the Texas T-Bone and Brazos Express corridors to link Central Texas.[66]
The cities of Denver, Las Vegas, Reno, Phoenix and Salt Lake City have recently formed the Western High Speed Rail Alliance, which is slated to spend $11 million over three years to study the feasibility of building railway links between the major cities of the southwestern United States, as well as linking to the California high-speed corridor via Las Vegas.[67][68] All four states represented are in the top ten fastest growing states, with Utah and Colorado topping the list. New Mexico is considering joining in order to include Albuquerque and Santa Fe in the network by upgrading and extending its recently-completed Rail Runner Express. Major obstacles to high speed rail in the region include highly competitive airline fares, rugged geography, and funding. Critics argue that high-speed rail works best in densely populated regions (such as the various large cities of the East Coast and the eastern Midwestern United States), and will not be feasible in the sparsely populated West[69]
On January 27, 2010 the federal government announced it would be awarding $590 Million of ARRA Stimulus funds to Washington State for infrastructure improvement.[70] This will be used to build high speed trains connecting the Pacific Northwest Corridor between Eugene, OR and Vancouver, BC going through Portland and Seattle.
|
|||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||