Cost Benefit Analysis of Washington-Richmond High-Speed Rail

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Cost Benefit Analysis of Washington-Richmond High-Speed Rail Spring 2010 2. High-Speed Rail Policy The level of interest in HSR by members of Congress dates back at least to the mid 1960s. With the passage of the High-Speed Ground Transportation (HSGT) Act, this legislation, initially authorized at $90 million, started an effort, at the Federal level, to develop, and demonstrate where possible, contemporary and advanced HSGT technologies. Under the HSGT Act, the Office of High-Speed Ground Transportation of the FRA introduced modern HSGT to America in 1969 by deploying the self-propelled Metroliner cars and the Turbotrain into what would soon become Northeast Corridor revenue service. Simultaneously, the construction of new suburban rail stations at Metropark (Iselin), New Jersey, and Capital Beltway (Lanham), Maryland significantly improved access to this new service. The service improvements, Washington—New York—Boston, represented a private/public partnership between the freight railroad companies, the equipment suppliers, States, localities, and the FRA. 4 The program also included a comprehensive multimodal transportation planning effort focusing on long-term needs in the Northeast Corridor “megalopolis,” 5 as well as a pioneering research and development program in such advanced technologies as tracked air-cushion vehicles, linear electric motors, and magnetic levitation (Maglev) systems. The Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 led to the creation of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) in 1971 as a way of ensuring continued operation of an intercity rail passenger network in the United States. On May 1, 1971, Amtrak took over the responsibility for operating intercity rail service from the freight railroads in most of the United States. This would also include the Northeast Corridor. As the result of this take over, Amtrak initiated a number of research, planning, development, and demonstration efforts under the HSGT Act to recommend improved HSR in the Northeast Corridor as the optimal response to steadily increasing congestion and decreasing service in the other intercity modes. 6 While the Metroliners and Turbotrain demonstrated the potential for HSR transportation, the Boston- Washington route infrastructure was still suffering from many years of neglected maintenance. Thus, in 1975, the Congress shifted their focus to upgrading the Northeast Corridor infrastructure to improve the reliability of the service and allow for shorter trip times, particularly between New York City and Washington, D.C. Pursuant to Title VII of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, a total of $3.3 billion 7 was appropriated for the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project (NECIP). This project was a massive engineering and construction effort which was slated to improve major sections of the main line by means of track reconstruction, new signals and control systems, elimination of many highway/railroad grade crossings, construction of maintenance-of-way bases and maintenance-of- 4 Walter Shapiro, “The Seven Secrets of the Metroliners Success,” The Washington Monthly, March 1973. 5 So termed by Senator Claiborne Pell in his book Clairborne Pell, Megalopolis Unbound (Prager, 1966) 6 Improved High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor (U.S. Department of Transportation, 1973). 7 Amtrak's Northeast Corridor: Information on the Status and Cost of Needed Improvements (General Accounting Office, April 13, 1995). 10
Cost Benefit Analysis of Washington-Richmond High-Speed Rail Spring 2010 equipment facilities, improvements to stations, and bridge replacement and repair. These improvements would not only pave the way for high-speed intercity passenger rail, it also provided benefits to those commuter rail operators by enhancing operational efficiencies on the corridor. The success of high-speed intercity passenger rail service in the Northeast, between New York City and Washington, D.C., provided the necessary charge for the Federal government to support similar improvements and enhancements along the Northeast corridor between Boston and New York City. Federal HSGT emphasis in the 1980's shifted to studies of potential HSGT corridors. Among those efforts was a series of reports on “Emerging Corridors,” developed in conjunction with Amtrak, which were issued in 1980 and 1981. In 1984, grants of $4 million were set aside for HSGT corridor studies on the State level under the Passenger Railroad Rebuilding Act of 1980. 8 As the Federal involvement in HSR transportation planning continued during the 1980's, State involvement also increased. By 1986, at least six States had formed HSR entities, and ultimately Florida, Ohio, Texas, California, and Nevada awarded franchises to groups of private corporations to build and operate intercity HSR or Maglev systems—although none of the proposals never led to the construction of any of these systems--for a variety of reasons. Learning from such challenges, the State of New York invested heavily in making the necessary upgrades to enhance the Albany portion of the Empire Corridor to 110 mph. These improvements would come with some Federal support. Since that time, more than 15 States have passed enabling legislation that would allow the facilitation of HSR transportation activities. One significant push by Congress, ensured the safety of new technologies being introduced for HSR travel. To that end, the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 1988 9 extended the statutory definition of “railroad” in the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1920 to include “all forms of non-highway ground transportation that runs on rails or electromagnetic guideways,” including “HSR transportation systems that connect metropolitan areas, without regard to whether they use new technologies not associated with traditional railroads.” 10 In 1991, the Senate passed a High-Speed Rail Transportation Act 11 that encouraged research, development, design, and implementation of Maglev and other HSGT technologies in the United States and would have promoted domestic manufacturing efforts. In addition, in 1991, the President signed into law the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). This law established a program to fund safety improvements at highway–rail grade crossings on corridors to be “designated” as high-speed intercity passenger rail corridors. However, although this program was established, the maximum funding for the program in most years was about $5 million. Of the 11 authorized high-speed corridor designations, only 10 designations have been made. Since the 8 Ibid, 96-254 9 49 U.S.C. 20102 10 High Speed Ground Transportation in America (Federal Railroad Administration, September 1997). 11 S.811 11
Page 1 and 2: Spring 2010 Cost-Benefit Analysis o
Page 3 and 4: Cost Benefit Analysis of Washington
Page 9: Cost Benefit Analysis of Washington
Page 61 and 62:
Cost Benefit Analysis of Washington
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
show all

Cost Benefit Analysis of Washington-Richmond High-Speed Rail

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?