DOCSLIB.ORG

Where High-Speed Rail Works Best 11 Endnotes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Where High-Speed Rail Works Best 11 Endnotes 1 1 Executive Summary 1 The FRA Vision for High-Speed Rail 2 Determining Potential Market Demand for High-Speed Rail 2 Criterion 1: Metropolitan Size 3 Criterion 2: Distance 3 Criterion 3: Transit Connections 4 Criterion 4: Economic Productivity 5 Criterion 5: Congestion 5 Criterion 6: Megaregion 6 Results 7 Developing a Phasing Plan for High-Speed Rail 8 Acknowledgements 9 Technical Appendix Where High-Speed Rail Works Best 11 Endnotes Yoav Hagler While these project specific criteria are necessary, Associate Planner, America 2050 they are not sufficient to identify appropriate corridors for federal high speed rail funding over the long term. The Petra Todorovich majority of the applications for the ARRA high-speed rail Director, America 2050 funding will likely be able to demonstrate at least some level of transportation and economic recovery benefits to qualify for these federal funds; however, the FRA should also develop metrics to compare the scale of these benefits across Executive Summary regions. Specifically, the FRA should develop a mechanism for judging which corridors across the nation have the Defining the corridors in America that are most appropriate greatest potential demand for high-speed rail and thus will for high-speed rail service is critical to the long-term success provide the greatest transportation, economic, and societal of America’s high-speed rail program. This paper offers one benefits. mechanism for assessing which potential high-speed rail Defining which corridors are most appropriate for high- corridors will have the greatest ridership demand based speed rail development is critical for the long term success on population size, economic activity, transit connections, of this nascent federal program. The $8 billion appropri- existing travel markets and urban spatial form and density. ated for high-speed rail in the ARRA legislation1 is only a The authors evaluate 27,000 city pairs in the nation small fraction of what will be necessary to fully construct to create an index of city pairs with the greatest demand an American high-speed rail network. To maintain public for high-speed rail service. The paper provides a list of the support for a continued federal commitment to high-speed top 50 city pairs, which are primarily concentrated in the rail, the initial investments must be viewed as a success. Al- Northeast, California, and the Midwest, and provides though there are many promising projects in smaller travel recommendations for phasing corridor development in the markets that should be part of a fully constructed network, nation’s megaregions. these will be better positioned for success if the initial $8 billion are invested in projects that can achieve the greatest travel benefits for the largest numbers in the shortest period n February 17, 2009 President Obama signed into of time. For this to be true, they need to fund projects in Olaw the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act corridors with the appropriate density, economic activity, (ARRA). As part of this legislation, the Federal Railroad and existing travel markets to support strong ridership on Administration (FRA) has been charged with the distribu- these new services. There are large potential financial risks tion of $8 billion for intercity and high-speed rail projects. inherent in any large scale transportation infrastructure On July 10th, the FRA received pre-applications from 40 project. However, investing in corridors with the maximum states totaling $103 billion for this funding. The FRA will potential to support such systems reduces this risk, increas- inevitably experience intense political pressure to spread the ing the probability of success and long term public support. funding around the country. In keeping with the transpar- ency and accountability goals set forth by the President, however, the FRA has pledged to employ impartial evalua- The FRA Vision for tion criteria to judge these applications and distribute this High-Speed Rail funding to only the most worthy projects. They have out- lined specific transportation, job recovery, project readiness, and other public benefit criteria on which these applications Given the wide range of definitions of high-speed rail, it is will be judged. These project specific criteria are critical to helpful to clarify exactly what may be funded under this successfully screening the hundreds of applications received new program. Not all projects eligible for ARRA funding by the FRA and distributing federal funds in a timely man- meet the definition of what our international competitors ner consistent with the goals of the ARRA legislation. consider high-speed rail. The FRA 2009 High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan provides three definitions of high-speed service, based on distance between markets, top speeds of Where High-Speed Rail Works Best – America 2050 2 service, and existence of dedicated right of way.2 The FRA defines “HSR Express” as service operating in corridors Determining Potential Market 200-600 miles in length with top speed of over 150 mph on Demand for High-Speed Rail primarily dedicated tracks. These services are expected to be very competitive with air and auto trips in these mar- kets. The planned California high-speed rail system would Given the long lead time and inherent risk in high-speed qualify as HSR Express under this definition. rail investments, it is essential that the FRA select corridors Next is “HSR Regional”, which operates at top speed of where the conditions exist to support strong passenger 110-150 mph on a mix of dedicated tracks and tracks shared demand for high-speed services. In addition to the FRA’s with slower passenger and freight trains. Acela service in criteria described above, it is critical to identify the corridors the Northeast Corridor is the only intercity rail service across the country with the maximum potential to support in the country to currently qualify for this category. HSR high-speed rail in order to minimize this investment risk. Regional service provides relief for highway and air operat- To do so, America 2050 has developed a ranking system ing in these markets, as demonstrated by Amtrak’s current based on an index of six criteria to judge the extent of 64 percent market share for air and rail trips that begin and demand for high-speed rail between any two city pairs. Each end in New York and Washington, D.C.3 city pair consists of two cities, each with a population of at The third level of HSR defined by the FRA is “Emerg- least 50,000 that are separated by a distance of 100 to 500 ing HSR.” These are corridors of 100-500 miles in length miles. These criteria were weighted and then calculated into with service operating at top speeds of 90 - 110 mph on an index that scored the city pairs. The largest index score tracks shared with freight and/or commuter services. This represented the best potential market for high-speed rail. service is intended to build a market for intercity rail and is Nearly thirty thousand city pairs were analyzed to deter- only expected to have a limited effect on shifting passengers mine their suitability for high-speed rail investment. The from other modes. This service would not be defined as criteria and the results of the index are described below. high-speed in any country but the United States. The FRA The city pairs were evaluated on the basis of the follow- is positioning these corridors as having potential to someday ing criteria: achieve high-speed service through incremental investments and service improvements that could build a market over • City and metropolitan area population, favoring cities time. with larger populations in large metropolitan areas. A subsequent document, the High-Speed Rail Intercity Passenger Rail Program Notice, published in the Federal • Distance between city pairs, confined to distances Register, provides insight into how the FRA will make deci- between 100-500 miles, with 250 miles receiving the sions about awarding the ARRA funding. The FRA will highest value. use three categories of criteria to make decisions. The first category assesses the public return on investment, using cri- • Metropolitan regions with existing transit systems teria such as: transportation benefits, promotion of network including regional rail, commuter rail and local transit integration between modes, safety improvements, preserv- networks. ing and creating jobs, environmental quality benefits, energy efficiency gains, and promotion of livable communities.4 • Metropolitan GDP, awarding value based on the com- The second category of evaluation criteria will be used bined per-capita GDP. to assess project readiness and sustainability of benefits. These will include organizational capacity, project engineer- • Metropolitan regions with high levels of auto conges- ing, environmental studies, and financial plans.5 In addition tion as measured by the Texas Transportation Institute’s to these two categories of project specific evaluation criteria, Travel Time Index. the FRA will employ cross-cutting “selection criteria” intended to balance projects against national priorities. • Metropolitan regions that are located within a These additional criteria will consider geography, economic megaregion. conditions, innovation and technology, and existence of multi-state agreements.6 The rationale for each of these criteria is described below. Many of the pre-applications received by the FRA only qualify under the Emerging HSR category. These applica- Criterion 1: Metropolitan Size tions are to improve top speeds of intercity rail service from To ensure sufficient travel demand for high-speed rail ser- top speeds of 60-80 mph to 80 -110 mph through specific vice, it is best to locate stations in major metropolitan areas. projects along a corridor that would reduce conflicts with There are 21 metro regions in the nation with a population freight rail, address grade crossings, replace bridges or tun- of at least 2.5 million; all are located within one of the 11 nels, and repair and improve track infrastructure.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bus and Shared-Ride Taxi Use in Two Small Urban Areas
    Bus and Shared-Ride Taxi Use in Two Small Urban Areas David P. Middendorf, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company Kenneth W. Heathington, University of Tennessee The demand for publicly owned fixed-route. fixed-schedule bus service are used for work and business-related trips to and was compared with tho demand for privately owned shared-ride taxi ser­ within CBDs and for short social, shopping, medical, vice in Davenport. Iowa, and Hicksville, New York, through on-board and personal business trips. surveys end cab company dispatch records and driver logs. The bus and In many small cities and in many suburbs of large slmrcd·ride taxi systems in Davenport com11eted for the off.peak-period travel market. During off-peak hours, the taxis tended to attract social· metropol.il;e:H!:i, l.lus~s nd taxicabs operate within tlie recreation, medical, and per onal business trips between widely scattered same jlu·isclictions and may compete for the same public origins and destinations, while the buses tended 10 attract shopping and transportation market. Two examples of small commu­ personal business trips to the CBD. The shared-ride taxi system in Hicks· nities in which buses and ta.xis coexist are Davenport, ville, in addition to providing many-to·many service, competed with the Iowa, and Hicksville, New York. The markets, eco­ counlywide bus system as a feeder system to the Long Island commuter nomic characteristics, organization, management, and railroad network. In each study area, the markets of each mode of public operation of the taxicab systems sel'Ving these commu­ transportation were similar.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Rail Service the Vermont Way
    DRAFT Regional Rail Service The Vermont Way Authored by Christopher Parker and Carl Fowler November 30, 2017 Contents Contents 2 Executive Summary 4 The Budd Car RDC Advantage 5 Project System Description 6 Routes 6 Schedule 7 Major Employers and Markets 8 Commuter vs. Intercity Designation 10 Project Developer 10 Stakeholders 10 Transportation organizations 10 Town and City Governments 11 Colleges and Universities 11 Resorts 11 Host Railroads 11 Vermont Rail Systems 11 New England Central Railroad 12 Amtrak 12 Possible contract operators 12 Dispatching 13 Liability Insurance 13 Tracks and Right-of-Way 15 Upgraded Track 15 Safety: Grade Crossing Upgrades 15 Proposed Standard 16 Upgrades by segment 16 Cost of Upgrades 17 Safety 19 Platforms and Stations 20 Proposed Stations 20 Existing Stations 22 Construction Methods of New Stations 22 Current and Historical Precedents 25 Rail in Vermont 25 Regional Rail Service in the United States 27 New Mexico 27 Maine 27 Oregon 28 Arizona and Rural New York 28 Rural Massachusetts 28 Executive Summary For more than twenty years various studies have responded to a yearning in Vermont for a regional passenger rail service which would connect Vermont towns and cities. This White Paper, commissioned by Champ P3, LLC reviews the opportunities for and obstacles to delivering rail service at a rural scale appropriate for a rural state. Champ P3 is a mission driven public-private partnership modeled on the Eagle P3 which built Denver’s new commuter rail network. Vermont’s two railroads, Vermont Rail System and Genesee & Wyoming, have experience hosting and operating commuter rail service utilizing Budd cars.
    [Show full text]
  • Sounder Commuter Rail (Seattle)
    Public Use of Rail Right-of-Way in Urban Areas Final Report PRC 14-12 F Public Use of Rail Right-of-Way in Urban Areas Texas A&M Transportation Institute PRC 14-12 F December 2014 Authors Jolanda Prozzi Rydell Walthall Megan Kenney Jeff Warner Curtis Morgan Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 8 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. 9 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 10 Sharing Rail Infrastructure ........................................................................................................ 10 Three Scenarios for Sharing Rail Infrastructure ................................................................... 10 Shared-Use Agreement Components .................................................................................... 12 Freight Railroad Company Perspectives ............................................................................... 12 Keys to Negotiating Successful Shared-Use Agreements .................................................... 13 Rail Infrastructure Relocation ................................................................................................... 15 Benefits of Infrastructure Relocation ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Rail
    STATION LOCATIONS CONNECTING SERVICES * SATURDAYS, SUNDAYS and MAJOR HOLIDAYS PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TERMINALS E and F 37, 108, 115 )DUH 6HUYLFHV 7UDLQ1XPEHU AIRPORT INFORMATION AIRPORT TERMINALS C and D 37, 108, 115 =RQH Ê*Ë6WDWLRQV $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 $0 D $LUSRUW7HUPLQDOV( ) TERMINAL A - EAST and WEST AIRPORT TERMINAL B 37, 108, 115 REGIONAL RAIL AIRPORT $LUSRUW7HUPLQDOV& ' D American Airlines International & Caribbean AIRPORT TERMINAL A EAST 37, 108, 115 D $LUSRUW7HUPLQDO% British Airways AIRPORT TERMINAL A WEST 37, 108, 115 D $LUSRUW7HUPLQDO$ LINE EASTWICK (DVWZLFN Qatar Airways 37, 68, 108, 115 To/From Center City Philadelphia D 8511 Bartram Ave & D 3HQQ0HGLFLQH6WDWLRQ Eastern Airlines PENN MEDICINE STATION & DDWK6WUHHW6WDWLRQ ' TERMINAL B 3149 Convention Blvd 40, LUCY & DD6XEXUEDQ6WDWLRQ ' 215-580-6565 Effective September 5, 2021 & DD-HIIHUVRQ6WDWLRQ ' American Airlines Domestic & Canadian service MFL, 9, 10, 11, 13, 30, 31, 34, 36, 30th STREET STATION & D7HPSOH8QLYHUVLW\ The Philadelphia Marketplace 44, 49, 62, 78, 124, 125, LUCY, 30th & Market Sts Amtrak, NJT Atlantic City Rail Line • Airport Terminals E and F D :D\QH-XQFWLRQ ² ²² ²² ²² ² ² ² Airport Marriott Hotel SUBURBAN STATION MFL, BSL, 2, 4, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, DD)HUQ5RFN7& ² 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 44, 48, 62, • Airport Terminals C and D 16th St
    [Show full text]
  • Light Rail and Tram: the European Outlook November 2019
    STATISTICS BRIEF LIGHT RAIL AND TRAM: THE EUROPEAN OUTLOOK NOVEMBER 2019 INTRODUCTION Tram and light rail systems are available in 389 cit- evolution of light rail transit (LRT) in Europe since ies around the world, with more than half of them 20151, and provides a snapshot of the situation in (204) in Europe. This Statistics Brief describes the 2018. BALTIC/ NORDIC BENELUX REGION BRITISH 12 cities GERMANY 10 cities ISLES 482 km 49 cities 645 km 9 cities 375 m pax/y. 2,966 km 700 m pax/y. 356 km 2,908 m pax/y. 196 m pax/y. POLAND 15 cities 979 km FRANCE 1,051 m pax/y. 28 cities 827 km 1,104 m pax/y. SOUTH- EASTERN WESTERN CENTRAL EUROPE MEDITERRANEAN 29 cities 29 cities EUROPE 992 km 23 cities 809 km 1,277 m pax/y. 1,240 km 623 m pax/y. 2,188 m pax/y. 1 UITP collects rail data according to a three-year cycle (Metro, LRT and Regional & Suburban Railways) 1 A REMARKABLE RENAISSANCE 180 LRT has experienced a renaissance since the new millen- 160 nium, with no less than 108 new cities (re)opening their 140 first line, of which 60 are from Europe. This does not in- 120 Asia-Pacific clude new lines in existing systems and line extensions. 100 Eurasia Europe 80 40 450 South America 60 35 400 MENA & Africa 7 40 350 North America 30 +56% 20 6 300 25 3 2 250 0 2 4 20 2 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 10 1 5 200 15 1 6 1 150 1 1 Figure 3: Evolution of LRT development (km) 2 10 1 19 19 5 100 4 2 15 11 1 5 50 2 7 5 3 0 0 RIDERSHIP pre-1985 1985-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000-04 2005-09 2010-14 2015-19 Europe North America South America With a total annual ridership in Europe of 10,422 million Eurasia Asia-Pacific MENA & Africa in 2018, LRT carries as many passengers as metros and Cumulative # systems regional/commuter rail, and 10 times more passengers 2 Figure 1: LRT system opening per half-decade, 1985-2019 than air travel in Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Passenger Rail Primer
    Passenger Rail Primer Thurston Passenger Rail Workgroup November 2005 Passenger Rail Characteristics This document is intended as a primer introducing and familiarizing the reader with the basic definitions of passenger rail and providing a comparison of common transit services in 2005. It was developed to facilitate a discussion of passenger rail and other transit options in the Thurston Region, in preparation of a regional rail plan. In the next section, Passenger Rail Overview, the fundamental characteristics of light rail, commuter rail and intercity rail are covered. Complementary and Alternative Transit Options (primarily common bus transit choices) provides a wider transit context within which the passenger rail modes coordinate and compete. After investigating transit options individually, they are compared and contrasted in a chart of their characteristics, Summarizing the Continuum of Services. Other Rail Transit Technologies provides a brief overview of less extensively used rail options and the Appendices provide additional details and information. Additional resources the reader may want to consult include: • The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) website at www.apta.com • The Victoria Transportation Policy Institute (VTPI) website at www.vtpi.org • Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) website at www.bts.gov Passenger Rail Overview Introduction Passenger rail modes may be distinguished from one another based on a variety of characteristics – level of service, technology, right-of-way and operations. These characteristics are discussed in more detail in the other sections of this chapter. Like other transit services, however, in the most basic sense passenger rail modes break down by three distinct geographies – local, regional, and statewide or interstate.
    [Show full text]
  • CAPITAL REGION RAIL VISION from Baltimore to Richmond, Creating a More Unified, Competitive, Modern Rail Network
    Report CAPITAL REGION RAIL VISION From Baltimore to Richmond, Creating a More Unified, Competitive, Modern Rail Network DECEMBER 2020 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 EXISTING REGIONAL RAIL NETWORK 10 THE VISION 26 BIDIRECTIONAL RUN-THROUGH SERVICE 28 EXPANDED SERVICE 29 SEAMLESS RIDER EXPERIENCE 30 SUPERIOR OPERATIONAL INTEGRATION 30 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM 31 VISION ANALYSIS 32 IMPLEMENTATION AND NEXT STEPS 47 KEY STAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATION ROLES 48 NEXT STEPS 51 APPENDICES 55 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The decisions that we as a region make in the next five years will determine whether a more coordinated, integrated regional rail network continues as a viable possibility or remains a missed opportunity. The Capital Region’s economic and global Railway Express (VRE) and Amtrak—leaves us far from CAPITAL REGION RAIL NETWORK competitiveness hinges on the ability for residents of all incomes to have easy and Perryville Martinsburg reliable access to superb transit—a key factor Baltimore Frederick Penn Station in attracting and retaining talent pre- and Camden post-pandemic, as well as employers’ location Yards decisions. While expansive, the regional rail network represents an untapped resource. Washington The Capital Region Rail Vision charts a course Union Station to transform the regional rail network into a globally competitive asset that enables a more Broad Run / Airport inclusive and equitable region where all can be proud to live, work, grow a family and build a business. Spotsylvania to Richmond Main Street Station Relative to most domestic peer regions, our rail network is superior in terms of both distance covered and scope of service, with over 335 total miles of rail lines1 and more world-class service.
    [Show full text]
  • SMART Regional Rail – San Rafael to Larkspur Extension, San Rafael
    SMART Regional Rail – San Rafael to Larkspur Extension San Rafael, California Small Starts Project Development (Rating Assigned November 2015) Summary Description Proposed Project: Commuter Rail 2.1 Miles, 1 Station Total Capital Cost ($YOE): $42.53 Million Section 5309 Small Starts Share ($YOE): $22.53 Million (53.0%) Annual Operating Cost (opening year 2018): $0.03 Million 760 Daily Linked Trips Current Year Ridership Forecast (2015): 220,300 Annual Linked Trips 800 Daily Linked Trips Horizon Year Ridership Forecast (2035): 236,700 Annual Linked Trips Overall Project Rating: Medium Project Justification Rating: Medium Local Financial Commitment Rating: Medium Project Description: The Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART) proposes a short extension to a 43-mile, 10-station, commuter rail initial operating segment (IOS) that is currently under construction with local funds between downtown San Rafael and Sonoma County Airport. The extension would operate from downtown San Rafael to the Golden Gate Transit Larkspur Ferry terminal in Marin County. The project includes one new station in Larkspur near the ferry terminal, five public at-grade roadway crossings including signals and crossing equipment, refurbishment of one existing railroad trestle bridge, and replacement of another trestle bridge. SMART owns the rail right-of-way and is procuring the needed diesel multiple unit rail vehicles as part of the locally-funded IOS. Thus, no additional vehicles are needed for the extension project. On weekdays, the service is planned to operate every 30 minutes during peak periods. During weekday off-peak periods, one mid-day train is planned, while four trains would be offered on weekends.
    [Show full text]
  • Amtrak CEO Flynn House Railroads Testimony May 6 20201
    Testimony of William J. Flynn Chief Executive Officer National Railroad Passenger Corporation Before the United States House of Representatives House CommiFee on Transportation & Infrastructure SubcommiFee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials When Unlimited Potential Meets Limited Resources: The Benefits and Challenges of High-Speed Rail and Emerging Rail Technologies Thursday, May Q, RSRT TT:SS a.m. Rayburn House Office Building, Room RTQU Amtrak T MassachuseFs Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC RSSST-TYST (RSR) \SQ-]\T^ WHEN UNLIMITED POTENTIAL MEETS LIMITED RESOURCES: THE BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF HIGH-SPEED RAIL AND EMERGING RAIL TECHNOLOGIES Introduction Good morning, Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, and Members of this SubcommiFee. Thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing on behalf of Amtrak. My name is William Flynn, and I am Amtrak’s Chief Executive Officer. I am particularly honored to be representing Amtrak at this hearing. It takes place six days after Pres- ident Biden traveled to Philadelphia to join us in celebrating Amtrak’s fiftieth anniversary. The American Jobs Plan he has proposed, which would provide $^S billion for Amtrak and high- speed and intercity passenger rail, is an important first step in developing an improved passenger rail system that would enhance mobility by serving more communities; provide more frequent and more equitable service; generate significant economic benefits; and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Amtrak has accomplished a great deal since we began service on May T, T\UT with a mandate to transform unprofitable intercity passenger rail services operated by private railroads into “a modern, efficient intercity railroad passenger service”1 – with an initial appropriation of only $YS million.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of U.S. Commuter Rail
    AN OVERVIEW OF U.S. COMMUTER RAIL Timothy J. Brock, MA Reginald R. Souleyrette, PhD, PE KTC-13-18/UTCNURAIL1-12-1F This research was sponsored by: The NuRail Center National University Transportation Center and The Kentucky Transportation Center University of Kentucky Cover Photo: Tri-Rail System in Miami, Florida By: Timothy J. Brock Date: April, 2011 Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank Dr. Ted Grossardt and Dr. Len O’Connell for their comments on earlier drafts. They would also like to thank the participants in the Cities, Transportation and Sustainability session at the Association of American Geographers annual meeting for the thoughtful discussion and comments on this research. Disclaimer: The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Kentucky Transportation Center or of the NuRail Center. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. ii AN OVERVIEW OF U.S. COMMUTER RAIL Timothy J. Brock, M.A. Research Associate Kentucky Transportation Center University of Kentucky and Reginald R. Souleyrette, Ph.D., P.E. Professor of Transportation Engineering and Commonwealth Chair College of Engineering University of Kentucky FINAL REPORT May 2nd, 2013 © 2013 University of Kentucky, Kentucky Transportation Center Information may not be used, reproduced, or republished without our written consent. iii 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No KTC-13-18/UTCNURAIL1-12-1F 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date May 2013 AN OVERVIEW OF U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Baltimore-Washington Superconducting Maglev Draft
    Chapter 2 Purpose and Need BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON SUPERCONDUCTING MAGLEV PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION Purpose and Need Chapter 2: Purpose and Need As discussed in Chapter 1, the Proposed Action includes the construction and operation of a Superconducting Magnetic Levitation Project (SCMAGLEV Project) system between Baltimore, MD and Washington, D.C. The SCMAGLEV Project is a high-speed rail technology that can operate at speeds of over 300 miles per hour on a grade- separated, fixed guideway powered by magnetic forces. The evaluation of the SCMAGLEV technology in the Washington, D.C. to Baltimore corridor is the result of Congressional direction in annual appropriations relating to Maglev technology, and previous studies that have identified this corridor as the location for development of a project under the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). Note to reader – this section has been augmented to include any pertinent data that has been updated since the Purpose and Need document was concurred upon in October 2017. All data updates are included for informational and comparative purposes only. 2.1 Project Purpose The purpose of the SCMAGLEV Project is to evaluate, and ultimately construct and operate, a safe, revenue-producing, high-speed ground transportation system that achieves the optimum operating speed of the SCMAGLEV technology to significantly reduce travel time in order to meet the capacity and ridership needs of the Baltimore-Washington region. To achieve the operational and safety metrics, the SCMAGLEV Project must include: • Infrastructure, vehicles, and operating procedures required for the SCMAGLEV system. • An alignment which allows the highest practical speed that can be attained by SCMAGLEV technology at a given location and which avoids the need for reduction in speed other than that imposed by the normal acceleration and braking curves into and out of stations.
    [Show full text]
  • TCRP Report 52: Joint Operation of Light Rail Transit Or Diesel Multiple
    CHAPTER 2: OPERATING STANDARDS, PRACTICES, AND ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH JOINT OPERATIONS 2.1 OVERVIEW current safety is not compromised but in fact enhanced. In doing so, risk factors and Developing an understanding of the critical mitigation associated with this topic are issues vital to successful joint operation of addressed. This chapter addresses these railroads and rail transit requires an issues by noting characteristics of various appreciation of the physics and operations and services and the benefits of interrelationships of mass and motion, and joint operations. Two caveats inform this the dimensional characteristics of the discussion: rolling stock and the physical plant. A safe, ! Total Physical Separation of dependable operation must consider passenger and freight movement is acceleration and deceleration, and preferred for safety and operational accommodate practicalities such as reasons. Further separation of station/terminal stops, switching, operation by speed or service mode overtakes, and potential service delays. (e.g., Commuter Rail and High- Traversing the physical plant requires the Speed Rail or Commuter Rail and support of systems and personnel to DMU/LRT operation) may also be monitor and control this movement. All of justified. these factors are ultimately incorporated in a set of operating standards and ! Temporal Separation of modes or procedures. equipment can be an effective, simple, and straightforward solution. Reconciliation of relative differences in the It does not, however, provide the dynamic performance of freight and most efficient use of the track passenger equipment operating on shared capacity. Temporal separation as track in joint service involves: now practiced in North America is exclusive use/time sharing of the ! A brief perspective on the evolution of operating philosophy railroad, not simultaneous joint use or co-mingling of train movements.
    [Show full text]