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.