High Speed Rail Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen John Tolman, Vice President & National Legislative Representative

National Association of State Legislative Board Chairmen

Timothy L. Smith, Tim Hanely, Chairman Region 1 Chairman

William Verdeyen, David Lavery, 1st Vice Chairman Region 2 Chairman

Ken Kertesz, C. Edward Way, Secretary Treasurer Region 3 Chairman

Terry Todd, Mike Muscha, 2nd Vice Chairman Region 4 Chairman High Speed Rail 1 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen

Introduction However, times have changed. In 1955, there were The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Train- 65 million vehicles on U.S. highways. Today, there are men (BLET) represents 39,000 active locomotive over 246 million. It is projected that by the year 2055, engineers and trainmen on Class I, Class II, Class III, there will be at least 400 million vehicles on our high- Passenger and Commuter railroads around the coun- try. The BLET, formerly the Brotherhood of Loco- In 1955, there were 65 million motive Engineers, was founded in 1863 in Marshall, vehicles on U.S. highways. Today Michigan, and has been representing the interests of there are over 246 million. It is railroad workers for 146 years. On December 5, 2003, projected that by the year 2055, BLE members overwhelmingly voted to ratify a merger there will be at least 400 million with the Teamsters. The merger took effect on January vehicles on our highway system. 1, 2004, creating the IBT Rail Conference and formally changing the name of BLE to BLET. The BLET is the founding member of the IBT Rail Conference. way system. Congestion on our nation’s roadways is in a terrible state and will only get worse as our popula- tion grows. It is projected that by the year 2020, 90% of urban interstates will either be at or over capacity. Between 1995 and 2001, commute times over the same distance on U.S. highways increased 10%.

The Texas Transportation Institute says that $63 billion was wasted due to traffic congestion because of time lost and fuel used in 2005. Passenger miles on highways also increased 18.1% between 1997 and 2004.

Anyone who has flown recently knows the prob- Since the founding of our organization, we have lems in our nation’s airports – flight delays and cancel- been at the forefront of technological adaptation of the lations, lost luggage, overcrowded planes. Only 82% of railroad industry and hope to continue to be so as the commercial flights were on time in February 2009 and industry moves towards high speed rail in this nation. most of these delays occurred because of overcrowded airspace along the East Coast. Transportation As We Know It The Interstate Highway System was authorized by the The Case for High Speed Rail Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. It had been lob- The impact on the environment could be lessened by bied for by major U.S. automobile manufacturers and switching from the current transportation strategy to championed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Since one which will allow us to rely upon the benefits of then, we have spent billions building and maintaining mass transportation and inter-modal freight move- one of the best highway systems in the world. The In- ment through High Speed Rail corridors. This system terstate Highway system cost $114 billion and took 35 would be clean, affordable, and reliable. It would offer years to complete. In today’s dollars, the system would many benefits which would allow the U.S. to become cost $426 billion. less dependent on foreign oil. According to the Trans-

The photographs in this paper are for illustrative purposes only. The photograph on page 1 was provided by the BLET Public Relations Department. All other photos in this paper were provided courtesy of Greg Godfrey. Their use was to demonstrate the possibility of high speed rail in this country, and while the speeds these trains achieve will not be matched in the U.S. for years to come, we believe they provide a valuable example of the possibilities for high speed rail. High Speed Rail Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen 2

As a transportation medium, rail networks date back to 1827. Many of those original lines are still in use today, nearly 200 years later. When considering the total cost of maintaining a rail network versus the inter-state freeway system, rail costs pennies on the dollar. Any investment into a passenger rail network could pay dividends for centuries to come.

History has shown, if you build passenger rail or increase passenger service in an area, ridership will also increase. In the 38 years since was created in 1971, ridership has increased from 6,450,304 at its formation to the record level of 28.7 million passengers in fiscal year 2008. Fiscal year 2008 represented its sixth straight year of record ridership. When Amtrak added two state-financed round-trips between St. Louis and Chicago and one apiece between from Quincy and Carbondale to the Windy City, ridership spiked by 189,823 for the first two-thirds of the next Fiscal Year portation Energy Data Book, published by the Oak (2007), bringing the total passenger count in the state Ridge National Laboratory, in 2005, domestic airlines to 670,605. The same pattern held true in California. on average consumed 20.5% more energy per passen- Just months after eight trains were added to the state- ger-mile than Amtrak, while cars consumed 27.2% subsidized Amtrak service between Sacramento and more than Amtrak. Looking at the other way around, the Bay Area, ridership on the 170-mile service now Amtrak consumes 17.0% and 21.4% less energy per with 32 trains, was nearly 1.3 million in 2005, nearly passenger-mile than airlines and cars, respectively. triple the 460,000 passengers who rode those rails eight [One passenger-mile is one passenger traveling one years previous. mile.] Increasing the speed of trains increases their energy efficiency even further. Current Projects The funding in both the stimulus and the FY09 omni- Amtrak consumes 17.0% and 21.4% bus bill has enabled municipalities, states and multi- less energy per passenger-mile than state compacts to apply for funding for commuter and airlines and cars, respectively. high speed rail projects.

Among the projects in the development stages are The solution to our transportation problems is the California high speed rail projects which will run not to build more roads or fly more planes. In essence, north and south through the state. Voters in the state there is no reason why this country could not use the voted for a $9 billion bond measure in November 2008 examples of the past in which our nation’s highway in- to develop the corridor. Also under consideration is a frastructure (which has a minimum speed of 45 mph) high speed rail line from Las Vegas to Los Angeles. and airline structures were developed through the use Another corridor that is receiving state funding is of federal and state funds and apply them to our future the 3 C (Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati) cor- -- creating a high speed rail system which will accom- ridor in Ohio which received funds in the most recent modate passenger train operations up to 125 mph and Ohio Department of Transportation budget. inter-modal freight train movements at speeds greater than 70 mph. High Speed Rail 3 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen

The State of Florida hopes to use stimulus funds to • the South Central Corridor(, Austin, develop a high speed line between Walt Disney World Dallas, Little Rock, Oklahoma City, Tulsa); and Orlando International Airport. • the Gulf Coast Corridor (, New Orleans, Many other states hope to use funding to create Mobile, Meridian, Birmingham); or improve commuter rail lines, including New Jersey, • the (Chicago, Twin Cities, Minnesota and Illinois. St. Louis, Kansas City, Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Louisville, Indianapolis); There are 11 federally designated high speed rail corridors: • the Florida Corridor (Orlando, Tampa, Miami); • the (Philadelphia, Harrisburg, • the (Boston to Washington, Pittsburgh); D.C.); • the Northern New England Corridor (Portland, • the California Corridor (Bay Area–Los Angeles– Boston, Montreal); San Diego); • the Southeast Corridor (Washington, Richmond, • the (NYC to Buffalo); Raleigh, Charlotte, Atlanta, Columbia, Macon, • the Pacific Northwest Corridor (Vancouver, B.C. Savannah, Birmingham, Jacksonville). to Eugene, OR); High Speed Rail Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen 4

The Obama Administration The Administration identified a The Obama Administration has expressed its support near-term investment strategy which for passenger, commuter and high speed rail in the seeks to: months since the inauguration. Passenger rail finally • Advance new express high-speed has a friend in the White House. On the eve of the corridor services (operating inauguration, President Obama, Vice President Biden speeds above 150 mph on primar- and their families rode a passenger train, run by BLET ily dedicated track) in select corri- members, from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C. The dors of 200–600 miles. administration has declared high speed rail as one of its priorities. • Develop emerging and regional On April 16, 2009, President Obama, Vice Presi- high-speed corridor services dent Biden and Secretary of Transportation Ray (operating speeds up to 90–110 LaHood, held a press conference to announce the mph and 110–150 mph respectively, administration’s proposal for high speed rail develop- on shared and dedicated track) in ment in the United States. During the press conference, corridors of 100–500 miles. all three touted the benefits of high speed rail to our nation’s economic future, and noted that the $8 billion • Upgrade reliability and service contained in the stimulus package was just a “down on conventional intercity rail payment” on a high speed rail system for the U.S. services (operating speeds up to 79–90 mph). The President’s proposal identified several pieces of legislation as good first steps towards the development of high speed rail, including: The administration proposed three funding tracks: • Projects. Provide grants to complete individual • The FY 2008 Appropriation Act, which established a projects that are “ready to go” with preliminary new IPR State Grant Program. engineering and environmental work completed. • The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA). • Corridor programs. Enter into cooperative agree- • The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement ments to develop entire phases or geographic Act of 2008 (PRIIA). sections of corridor programs that have completed • The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of corridor plans and environmental documentation, 2009 (ARRA). and have a prioritized list of projects to meet the corridor objectives; this approach would involve The Administration identified a near-term invest- additional Federal oversight and support. ment strategy which seeks to: • Planning. Enter into cooperative agreements for • Advance new express high-speed corridor services planning activities using non-ARRA appropria- (operating speeds above 150 mph on primarily dedi- tions funds, in order to create the corridor pro- cated track) in select corridors of 200–600 miles. gram and project pipeline needed to fully develop • Develop emerging and regional high-speed corridor a high-speed rail network. services (operating speeds up to 90–110 mph and The April 16 press conference was just one example 110–150 mph respectively, on shared and dedicated of the Administration’s public support for high speed track) in corridors of 100–500 miles. rail. In announcing that Amtrak will receive $1.3 billion • Upgrade reliability and service on conventional inter- in grant funding from the recently enacted American city rail services (operating speeds up to 79–90 mph). Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to expand pas- senger rail capacity, Vice President Biden reiterated the administration’s commitment to passenger rail. ARRA funding roughly doubles the size of Amtrak’s capital High Speed Rail 5 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen

investment program over a two-year period. It will be BLET Position on High Speed Rail used to upgrade railroad assets and infrastructure and The BLET believes the implementation of a nation- for capital projects that expand passenger rail capacity. wide high speed rail plan could greatly benefit both “Over 28 million passengers ride Amtrak each our membership and the country as a whole with a few year. That’s about 500,000 passengers a week – or adjustments to the current strategies. 80,000 a day,” said Vice President Biden. “For too long, we haven’t made the investments we needed to make Definition Change Amtrak as safe, as reliable, as secure as it can be. That The current definition of high speed rail relates to ends now. The funds in the Recovery Act for Amtrak 125 mph and above passenger train operations. In will help create jobs and at the same time, repair and the nearly forty years since the establishment of this update critical needs of our nation’s infrastructure.” definition, only one rail corridor (-Northeast Corridor) has been built to that standard. “This is the Obama Administration keeping its promise to America,” said Secretary LaHood. “We are The BLET wants to change this definition so investing in jobs that will allow Amtrak to add and that high speed rail can include intermodal freight modernize cars and engines and upgrade its tracks. We operations. The BLET believes that if we could are getting transportation money to Americans quickly include intermodal freight within the definition of in order to get the American economy going again.” high speed rail, we could build a system that would The U.S. Congress has noted the administration’s priority and responded with record funding for high The BLET believes that if we could speed and passenger rail recently. High speed and include intermodal freight within passenger rail received $8 billion from the stimulus the definition of high speed rail, we bill and an additional $5 billion in the fiscal year 2009 could build a system that would omnibus budget. The President noted that this funding operate at speeds between 70 and was just the beginning. 125 mph. High Speed Rail Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen 6 operate at speeds between 70 and 125 mph. This system could raise the average intermodal speed, The BLET believes that there must allow more frequent passenger train operations remain a locomotive engineer in the and gain the support of the freight railroads as it cab of any high speed locomotive. would benefit their operations. A high speed rail While technology and automation system which has restricted access grade crossing have their place, it is not in the cab separation (which is how all interstate highways of a locomotive. The federally and the Northeast Corridor are defined) would certified locomotive engineers and allow the railroads to greatly increase the average trainmen currently working on our intermodal speed from 17 mph, thereby allowing nation’s railroads are highly skilled more opportunities per car to be loaded during the and well trained, and they must course of a year. remain on the job, ensuring our By increasing the speed of just one inter-modal nation’s citizens are kept safe. train (which can be loaded approximately 10-12 times per year), the number of loadings per year Standardization of Infrastructure could be increased. Each mile per hour improve- We also believe that any new system must be stan- ment in speed translates into $100 million in dardized so that a seamless network is created from efficiency gains including energy savings, according coast to coast which can be integrated with the to General Electric in the New York Times. Raising existing Amtrak and freight railroad infrastructure. volume and revenue along with better equipment During the inception of our nation’s railroad in- utilization gives the railroad increased revenue. frastructure, the need for standardization was seen With the support of freight railroads and their per- as imperative and we must continue to operate a mission to use current rights of way, the eminent seamless railroad system. domain concerns could be removed, thus decreas- ing the costs of the overall system. Engineer Must Remain On Board Locomotive Any system that operates in excess of 150 mph The BLET believes that there must remain a will not be commingled with inter-modal freight locomotive engineer in the cab of any high speed operations, and may not be supported by the Control cab of Amtrak engine. freight railroads. Thus, we propose to change the definition of high speed rail to gain their support.

The freight railroads have often placed passen- ger trains running on freight lines at a operational disadvantage, even though there are legal safe- guards in place to prevent this. The BLET believes that the use of temporal separation would allow freight/passenger rail to operate on the same lines as an intermodal system and it would take away the questions about which would take precedence on a particular line. Temporal separation would provide a buffer so that freight can not operate on the line at the same time as passenger rail, without decreas- ing the safety of either or the ability to thrive in a competitive market. High Speed Rail 7 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen

locomotive. While technology and automation have their place, it is not in the cab of a locomo- tive. The federally certified locomotive engineers and trainmen currently working on our nation’s railroads are highly skilled and well trained, and they must remain on the job, ensuring our nation’s citizens are kept safe.

Employees Must Be Given All Rights and Benefits Conferred to Railroad Workers The BLET also wants to ensure the jobs created through the creation of a high speed rail system are safeguarded for railroad workers, and ensures that all workers in the project are covered by federal laws relating to railroad workers, including the Railway Labor Act, Railroad Retirement Act and the Federal Employers Liability Act. All workers on a high speed railroad system must be considered to be railroad workers and be entitled to all of the rights and privileges conferred by that distinc- tion. We have, unfortunately, seen these rights taken away during the creation of new passenger/ commuter rail systems built in recent years – even those built on existing rights of way – and would like for it to be mandated that all workers on these systems be railroad workers.

Summary Development of a high speed rail infrastructure will take time, money and patience. With the changes that we have proposed, the nation stands to gain from the implementation of high speed rail. It could increase our rail capacity and inter-modal speeds; eliminate congestion in our nation’s ports, highways and air- ports; provide a viable alternative to mass trans- portation issues throughout the country; lessen our dependence on foreign oil; reduce our environmental footprint; and create an estimated 47,000 permanent, good paying jobs for every $1 billion we spend devel- oping and maintaining the high speed rail system.

The bottom line is that high speed rail is the solution to resolving most of our major transportation challenges in this nation. High Speed Rail Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen viii

Appendix: High Speed Railroads, Speeds and Kilometers Converted to Miles Source: UIC “High Speed Lines in the World.” 4 June 2008. uic.asso.fr

United States of America Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Boston – New York – Washington 241.4 150.00 362 224.94

Planned Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Los Angeles – Sacramento 300 186.41 2025 900 559.23

In Operation 362 224.94 9919 6163.38 Under Construction 8295 5154.27 Planned 2395 1488.18 18753 11652.57 Total by 2025 2757 1713.12 36967 22970.23

Europe Belgium Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Brussels – French Border 300 186.41 1997 72 44.74 Leuven – Liege 300 186.41 2002 65 40.39 137 85.13

Under Construction Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Liege – German Border 260 161.56 2008 36 22.37 Antwerp – Dutch Border 300 186.41 2008 36 22.37 72 22.74 High Speed Rail ix Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen

France Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened LGV Sud Est 300 186.41 1981/1983 419 260.35 LGV Atlantique 300 186.41 1989/1990 291 180.82 LGV Contournement Lyon 300 186.41 1992/1994 121 75.19 LGV Nord – Europe 300 186.41 1994/1996 346 214.99 LGV Interconnexion IDF 300 186.41 1994/1996 104 64.62 LGV Mediterranee 320 198.84 2001 259 160.94 LGV East 320 198.84 2007 332 206.30 1872 1163.21

Under Construction Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened (Figueres) Frontiere – Perpignan 300 186.41 2009 24 14.91 Haut – Bugey (amelioraton LC) 2009 65 40.39 Contournement Nimes – 300 186.41 2012 70 43.50 Montpellier LGV Dignon – Mulhouse 320 198.84 2012 140 86.99 299 185.79

Planned Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened LGV Sud Europe Atlantique S 2013 120 74.56 LGV Bretagne – Pays de la 2013 188 116.82 LGV Est – Europeenne 2014/2015 100 62.14 (Second Phase) LGV Poitiers – Limoges 2015 115 71.46 LGV Sud Europe Atlantique N 2016 180 111.85 LGV Bordeaux – Toulouse 2016 230 142.92 LGV Rhin – Rhone Br Est 2015/2020 48 29.83 (Second Phase) LGV PACA 2020 200 124.27 Interconnexion Sud IDF 2020 40 24.85 LGV Bordeaux – Espagne 2020 230 142.92 LGV Lyon – Turin 2020 150 93.21 LGV Montpellier – Perpignan 2022 150 93.21 LGV Picardie 2022 250 155.34 LGV Rhin – Rhone Branche S 2022 100 62.14 LGV Rhin – Rhone – Branche Ouest 2022 85 52.82 LGV Paris – Lyon Bis 2025 430 267.19 2616 1625.51 High Speed Rail Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen x

Germany Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Fulda – Wurzburg 280 173.98 1988 90 55.92 Hannover – Fulda 280 173.98 1991/1994 248 154.10 Mannheim – Stuttgart 280 173.98 1985/1991 109 67.73 Hannover (Wolfsburg) – Berlin 250 155.34 1998 189 117.44 Koln – Frankfurt 300 186.41 2002/2004 197 122.41 Koln – Duren 250 155.34 2003 42 26.10 (Karlsruhe) Rastatt – Offenburg 250 155.34 2004 44 27.34 Liepzip – Grobers – (Erfurt) 250 155.34 2004 24 14.91 Hamburg – Berlin 230 142.92 2004 253 157.21 Nurenberg – Inglostadt 300 186.41 2006 89 55.30 1285 798.46

Under Construction Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Munchen – Augsburg 230 142.92 2010 62 38.53 (Leipzip/Halle) 300 186.41 2015 98 60.89 Nurnberg – Erfurt 250 155.34 2017 218 135.46 378 234.88

Planned Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened (Karlsruhe) Offenburg – Basel 250 155.34 112 69.59 Frankfurt – Mannheim 300 186.41 81 50.33 Stuttgart – Ulm – Augsburg 250 155.34 166 103.15 Hamburg/Bremen – Hannover 300 186.41 114 70.84 (Hannover) Seelze – Minden 230 142.92 71 44.12 (Frankfurt) Hanau – 300 186.41 126 78.29 Fulda/Wurzburg 690 416.32 High Speed Rail xi Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen

Italy Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Rome – Florence (First Section) 250 155.34 1981 150 93.21 Rome – Florence (Second Section) 250 155.34 1984 74 45.98 Rome – Florence (Third Section) 250 155.34 1992 24 14.91 Rome – Naples 300 186.41 2006 220 136.70 Turin – Novara 300 186.41 2006 94 58.41 562 349.21

Under Construction Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Milan – Bologna 300 186.41 2008 182 113.09 Novara – Milan 300 186.41 2008 55 34.18 Florence – Bologna 300 186.41 2009 77 47.85 314 195.11

Planned Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Milan – Venice 245 152.24 Genoa – Milan 150 395 245.44

The Netherlands Under Construction Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Schipol – Rotterdamn – 300 186.41 2008 120 74.56 Belgian Border

Poland Planned Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Warsaw – Lodz – 300 186.41 2015 500 310.69 Wroclaw – Proznan Warsaw – Ktowice/Krakow 300 186.41 2015 212 131.73 712 442.42 High Speed Rail Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen xii

Portugal Planned Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Lisboa – Caia (Madrid) 350 217.48 2013 206 128.00 Port – Valencia (Vigo) First Phase 250 155.34 2013 55 34.18 Lisboa – Porto 300 186.41 2015 290 180.20 Porto – Valencia (Vigo) 250 155.34 45 27.96 Second Phase Aveiro – Almeida (Salamanca) 250 155.34 170 105.63 Evora – Faro – Vila de SA (Huelva) 250 155.34 240 149.13 1006 625.10

Russia Planned Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Moscow – St. Petersburg 300 186.41 650 403.89

Spain Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Madrid – Seville 270 167.77 1992 471 292.67 Madrid – Lleida 300 186.41 2003 519 322.49 Zaragoza – Huesca 200 124.27 2003 79 49.09 (Madrid) La Sagra – Toledo 250 155.34 2005 21 13.05 Cordoba – Antequera 300 186.41 2006 100 62.14 Lleida – Camp de Tarragona 300 186.41 2006 82 50.95 Madrid – Segovia – Valladolid 300 186.41 2007 179 111.23 Antequera – Malaga 300 186.41 2007 55 34.18 Camp de Tarragona – Barcelona 300 186.41 2008 88 54.68 1594 990.47

Under Construction Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Figueres – Frontera (– Perpignan) 300 186.41 2009 20 12.43 Barcelona – Figueres 300 186.41 2010/2012 132 82.02 Mardrid – Valencia – Alicante – 300 186.41 2010/2012 902 560.48 Murcia Vitoria – Bilbao – San Sebastian 250 155.34 2012 175 108.74 Variante de Pajares 250 155.34 2012 50 31.07 Ourense – Santiago 300 186.41 2012 88 54.68 High Speed Rail xiii Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen

Spain cont. Under Construction cont. Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Bobadilla – Granada 250 155.34 2012 109 67.73 La Coruna – Vigo 250 155.34 2012 158 98.18 Navalmoral – Caceres – Badajoz 300 186.41 278 172.74 – Fr. Port Sevilla – Cadiz 250 155.34 152 94.45 Hellin – Cieza 250 155.34 27 16.78 (Variente de Camarillas) Sevilla – Antequera 300 186.41 128 79.54 2219 1378.82

Planned Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Valladolid – Burgo – Vitoria 300 186.41 211 131.11 Venta de Banos – Leon – Asturias 238 147.89 Madrid – Navalmoral de la Mata 300 186.41 191 118.68 Almeria – Murcia 190 118.06 Valencia – Castellon 64 39.77 Olmedo – Zamora – Orense 300 186.41 2012 323 200.70 Palencia – Santander 300 186.41 201 124.90 Zaragoza – Castejon – Logrono 250 155.34 149 92.58 Castejon – Pamplona 300 186.41 75 46.60 Orense – Vigo (via Cerdedo) 250 155.34 60 37.28 1702 1057.57

Sweden Planned Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Stockholm – Malmo/Goteborg 300 186.41 750 466.03 High Speed Rail Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen xiv

Switzerland Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Frutigen – Visp 250 155.34 2007 35 21.75 (Lotschberg Base Tunnel)

Under Construction Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Erstfeld – Biasca 250 155.34 2017 57 35.42 (Gotthard Base Tunnel) Giubiasco – Lugano 250 155.34 2019 15 9.32 (Cenari Base Tunnel) 72 44.74

United Kingdom Planned Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Fawkham Junction – Tunnel 300 186.41 2003 74 45.98 London – Southfleet Junction 300 186.41 2007 39 24.23 113 7021 High Speed Rail xv Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen

Asia

China Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Quinhuangdao – Shenyang 200 124.27 2003 442 274.65 JInan – Quigdao 200 124.27 2006 (tests) 330 205.05 Jinan – Quigdao 250 155.34 2006 (tests) 60 37.28 832 516.98

Under Construction Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Beijing – Tianjing 300 186.41 2008 115 71.46 Wuhan – Guanzhou – Shenzhen 300 186.41 2010 1045 649.33 Shijiazhuang – Tia Yuan 250 155.34 2010 190 118.06 (Shi-Tai Line) Zhengzhou – Xian 250 155.34 2010 454 282.10 Hangzhou – Ningbo – 250 155.34 2010 1600 994.19 Fuzhou – Shenzhen 3404 2115.15

Planned Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Beijing – Shanghai 350 217.48 2010 1320 20.21 Beijing – Wuhan 300 186.41 2010 1100 683.51 Harbin – Dalian 250 155.34 2010 905 562.34 Tianjin – Quinhuangdao 250 155.34 2010 260 161.56 Nanjung – Wuhan 250 155.34 2010 490 304.47 4075 2532.09

Taiwan Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Taipei – Koahsiung 300 186.41 2007 345 214.37

India Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Mumbai – Amehdabad 250 155.34 495 307.58 High Speed Rail Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen xvi

Iran Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Tehran – Isfahan 250 155.34 475 295.15

Japan Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Tokaido Tokyo – Osaka 270 167.77 1964 515 320.01 San-yo Osaka – Okayama 270 167.77 1972 161 100.04 San-yo Okayama – Hakata 300 186.41 1975 393 244.20 Tohoku Omiya – Morioka 275 170.88 1982 465 288.94 Joetsu Omiya – Niigata 240 149.13 1982 270 167.77 Ueno – Omiya 110 68.35 1985 27 16.78 Tokyo – Ueno 110 68.35 1991 4 2.49 Yamagata Fukushima – Yamagata 130 80.78 1992 (MINI) 87 54.06 Akita Morioka – Akita 130 8078 1997 (MINI) 127 78.91 Hokuriku Takasaki – Nagano 260 161.56 1997 117 72.70 Yamagata Yamagata – Shinjo 130 80.78 1999 (MINI) 62 38.53 Tohoku Morioka – Hachinohe 260 161.56 2002 97 60.27 Kyushu Yatsuhiro – Kagoshima Chui 260 161.56 2004 127 78.91 2452 1523.60

Under Construction Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Tohoku Hachinohe – Shin Aomori 2011 82 50.95

Kyushu Hakata – Shin Yatsuhiro 2011 130 80.78

Hokuriku Nagano – Kanazawa 2015 229 142.29

Hokkaido Shin Aomori – Shin Hakodate 2016 149 92.58 590 366.61

Planned Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened

Hokkaido Shin Hakodate – Sapporo 211 131.11

Hokyriku Kanazawa – Osaka 254 157.83

Kyushu Hakata – Nagasaki 118 73.32 583 362.26 High Speed Rail xvii Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen

Saudi Arabia Planned Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Medina – Jeddah – Mecca 300 186.41 2015 550 341.75

South Korea Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Seoul – Daegu 300 186.41 2004 330 205.05

Under Construction Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Daegu – Pusan 300 186.41 82 50.95

Turkey Under Construction Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Ankara – Istanbul 250 155.34 2008 533 331.19 Ankara – Konya 250 155.34 212 131.73 745 462.92

Planned Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Ankara – Sivas 250 155.34 460 285.83 Ankara – Kayseri 250 155.34 175 108.74 Ankara – Izmir 250 155.34 624 387.74 Bandirma – Bursa – 250 155.34 190 118.06 Ayazama – Osmaneli Halkali – Bulgaria Border 250 155.34 230 142.92 1679 1043.28 High Speed Rail Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen xviii

Other Countries

Morocco Planned Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Tanger – Marrakech 300 186.41 2015 680 422.53

Argentina Planned Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Buenos Aires – Rosario 250 155.34 2020 315 195.73

Brazil Planned Max Speed Max Speed Year Line Limits Total KM Total MI KM MI Opened Rio de Janeiro – Sao Paulo 300 186.41 2025 500 310.69 High Speed Rail Notes Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen

Notes High Speed Rail Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen Notes

Notes