Capacity Challenges on the California High-Speed Rail Shared Corridors: How Local Decisions Have Statewide Impacts by Samuel J
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Capacity Challenges on the California High-Speed Rail Shared Corridors: How Local Decisions Have Statewide Impacts by Samuel J. Levy B.S. Civil Engineering, Minor in Economics University of Southern California, 2013 Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Transportation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology June 2015 © 2015 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All Rights Reserved. Signature of Author: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering May 19, 2015 Certified by: ……………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………. Dr. Joseph M. Sussman JR East Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Engineering Systems Thesis Supervisor Accepted by: …………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………… Heidi Nepf Donald and Martha Harleman Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering Chair, Graduate Program Committee Capacity Challenges on the California High-Speed Rail Shared Corridors: How Local Decisions Have Statewide Impacts by Samuel J. Levy Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering On May 19, 2015 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Transportation Abstract In 2012, as a cost-control measure and in response to local opposition in the San Francisco Bay Area, the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) adopted a "blended system" at the north and south bookends of the planned first phase of its high-speed rail line. In this blended operation, the high-speed rail line will share track and other infrastructure with commuter rail, intercity rail, and freight on the 50- mile Peninsula Corridor in Northern California and on 50 miles of right-of-way between Burbank, Los Angeles, and Anaheim in Southern California. This thesis provides a critical review of the blended system and discusses the level of cooperation and coordination necessary between host railroads and the high-speed rail tenant operator. In Northern California, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board’s Caltrain commuter rail service between San Francisco and San Jose is experiencing record levels of ridership. This thesis explores the impact of both the electrification of the line and its extension into San Francisco’s central business district on future ridership demand. With the California High-Speed Rail Authority competing spatially and temporally with Caltrain for access to high-revenue and high-cost infrastructure, we review different strategies for coordination and integration between the two agencies. In Southern California, the final form of the blended system is more nebulous than its northern counterpart. For the first few years of high-speed rail service, the Metrolink service operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority is expected to complement the high-speed rail system. However, since Metrolink operates on congested rail infrastructure, some of it owned by capacity- conscious freight railroads, there will exist the challenge of providing quality service and transfer opportunities for time-sensitive high-speed rail customers. The change to a blended system was a dramatic change of direction for the CHSRA; as a result, a new paradigm is needed for implementation of the system over the next 15 years. This thesis reviews the upcoming local design choices to be made on the local rail corridors and evaluates them from the perspective of the future statewide rail network. We find that the decisions made on the local blended corridor level will affect both the financial viability of the overall project and the quality of service experienced by customers across the entire California rail system. Thesis Supervisor: Joseph M. Sussman Title: JR East Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Engineering Systems 2 Acknowledgements I want to thank everyone who helped make this thesis possible. I appreciated all of the encouragement I received along the way from my friends here at MIT and those at home in California. To Ulrich Leister, thank you for talking through many of the ideas presented in this thesis and challenging me to perform an original analysis. To Dave Schlesinger, thank you for introducing me to valuable contacts from across the rail industry in California and doing a fantastic industry proofread of my draft thesis. Fight On, Dave! To Maite and Alex, thank you for being great collaborators on my first published paper and for offering sound advice and support throughout my two years at MIT. Ryan, Joel, Iori, Soshi, Bruno, Rebecca, Joanna, and Patton: I will miss spending time with you and I will miss our conversations in 1-151. It has been a pleasure working with all of you and I wish you good fortune in your bright careers. This thesis would have been impossible without all of the help I received from industry. Drew Cooper from the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, Mel Corbett from Metro-North Railroad, Roderick Diaz from the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, Paul Dyson from the Rail Passengers Association of California and Nevada, David Hunt from Oliver Wyman, Martha Martinez and Mark Simon from the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, Andy Nash from Green City Streets, Clem Tillier from the Caltrain-HSR Compatibility Blog, Frank Vacca from the California High-Speed Rail Authority, and Dominic Spaethling from HNTB all made considerable effort to help get me the answers I was looking for. Mary Seerveld provided the fantastic graphics in the sixth chapter and Courtney Albini provided some excellent copy editing as well. Thank you to Dagin Faulkner, my undergraduate research assistant, who helped map out the complex ecosystem of California passenger rail among many other very important tasks that were necessary in completing this thesis. You are an all-star and I hope you will always keep your enthusiasm for all things transportation. And to my advisor, Joe, thank you for and inviting me to join your research group. Your encouragement and enthusiasm helped me understand the value of my work. I will miss our conversations about baseball and your undying surprise at which weather I considered “shorts-appropriate.” You are what makes MIT a special place for so many of us. Finally, I would like to thank Veronica and my family for being a great support system and sending me lots of candy and warm clothing during my time here in Cambridge. My love goes to all of you. Sam Levy Cambridge, MA May 19, 2015 3 Contents Abstract .............................................................................................................................................2 Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................3 List of ABBreviations ..........................................................................................................................7 1 Introduction and Motivation .......................................................................................................8 1.1 ProBlem Statement ...................................................................................................................... 8 1.2 The Importance of Capacity Management on Shared Rail Corridors ......................................... 8 1.3 High-Speed Rail as a Transportation Capacity Solution ............................................................ 18 1.4 High-Speed Rail and Shared Corridors in California .................................................................. 19 1.5 Motivation: How Might We Improve Capacity Management in California? ........................... 20 1.6 An Outline of the Rest of This Thesis ......................................................................................... 22 2 California High-Speed Rail and Sharing Capacity—Literature and Practice .................................. 23 2.1 Forms of Capacity Allocation and Rail-Specific Challenges....................................................... 23 2.2 Integration and Institutions ....................................................................................................... 26 2.3 Research on the California High-Speed Train Project ............................................................... 28 2.4 Physical Challenges .................................................................................................................... 30 2.5 Operational Challenges .............................................................................................................. 31 2.6 Institutional Challenges.............................................................................................................. 34 2.7 Vertical Separation and Vertical Integration ............................................................................. 35 2.8 Shared Corridors in Practice ....................................................................................................... 37 2.9 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 42 3 Northern California Blended Service Capacity Challenges ........................................................... 43 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 43 3.2 The Peninsula Corridor Commute: History and Institutions ....................................................