Table 7: DOT (2009) makes an argument for a correlation between federal funding and passenger use
DOT (2009) has developed regional projections of HSR development in the United States. As Table 8 represents, the HSR systems would be implemented on a regional
basis; however, the rail lines would show a conclusive connection to other passenger rail systems throughout the country, preventing the isolation of any one regional system.
Table 8: Source DOT (2009)
In April 2009, through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, DOT developed an implementation framework for HSR in various regions throughout the US. DOT (2009) explains that HSR will be funded and implemented in the transportation sector of 100-600 miles.
Funding
DOT (2009) has proposed two governmental funding strategies: grants, and cooperative agreements. The grants will be awarded to qualified regional public and/or private applicants for the improvement of existing services. The eligible projects include infrastructure, facilities, and equipment. These projects must be “ready to go” and demonstrate “independent utility” (p.12). Cooperative agreements will contribute funding to corridor programs in which entire segments or phases of corridors will be developed.
Cooperative agreements are also to be used for additional planning past the corridor plans. This segment is meant to establish a foundation for the successful implementation of a national HSR system (p. 13).
Implementation of High-Speed Rail Infrastructure
Campos and Rus (2009) explain that there are many economic aspects of development that need to be considered when implementing a high-speed system. One of the major economic factors of implementation in a country such as the US is finding the most cost-effective relationship between HSR infrastructure and existing conventional services. Campos and Rus (2009) are quoted establishing four separate models that can be chosen from when establishing the relationship:
1. The exclusive exploitation model is characterized by a complete separation between high -speed and conventional services, each one with its own infrastructure. One of the major advantages of this model is that the market organization of
both HSR and conventional services is fully independent.
2. In the mixed high-speed model, high-speed trains run either on specifically built new lines, or on upgraded segments of conventional lines. This reduces building costs, which is one of the main advantages of this model.
3. The mixed conventional model, where some conventional trains run on high-speed lines, has been adopted by SpainŮs Alta Velocidad Espa ̃nola (AVE). The main advantage of this model is the saving of rolling stock acquisition and
maintenance costs and the flexibility for providing ‘intermediate high-speed services’ on certain routes.
4. Finally, the fully mixed model allows for the maximum flexibility, since this is the case where both high-speed and conventional services can run (at their corresponding speeds) on each type of infrastructure. High-speed trains occasionally
use upgraded conven- tional lines, and freight services use the spare capacity of high- speed lines during the night. The price for this wider use of the infrastructure is a significant increase in maintenance costs.
(Campos and Rus, 2009)
The multiple case study will be conducted in order to establish an understanding of the most cost-effective implementation model that would be established in a given US region. Some factors that will need to be considered include: quality of existing infrastructure, cost of completely separate infrastructure, and cost savings of a mixed model.
Station Area Planning
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA, 2011) has developed a planning guideline for station implementation and placement to be used for HSR development. FRA (2011) states that although each station will require a degree of unique traits based on regional characteristics, there are three overarching themes that need to be addressed when implementing a HSR station: location, transportation, and development. The ultimate goal of FRA (2011) is to ensure ridership growth and capture livability, sustainability, and economic benefits (p. 2).
Specific considerations for optimal station location need to be a joint effort by multiple levels of government and stakeholders. When considering the general location of the station, the state department will need to take a broader perspective in order to optimize the regional impacts of the location. This will allow for an intermediate branch of government to consider both local and regional variables. The local jurisdiction will then take on a larger role in the specific location selection in order to address the local impacts on a micro-level in order to maximize social and economic benefits. With the goal of ever-increasing ridership, implementation of a HSR station in an existing regional center may prove optimal. Two advantageous characteristics for ridership increases include walkability and connections to local transportation.
The principles of TOD prove vital in HSR station planning. TOD communities are built around a HSR system, connecting local transit systems to the HSR system and also incorporating green technology throughout the community to make the community as a whole more green. TOD is a way to not only advance the U.S. in the HSR investment and fight global climate change as stated above, but also a cost-effective
solution to secure further energy security. FRA (2011) is calling for TOD by developing the local community around the station; making the station the center of a walkable, connected community. Connectivity also needs to extend further than just to the local transportation sector; the station needs to be a regional hub for multiple rail-lines, connecting the station to neighboring stations. Overall, the location selection of a HSR station is a multi-faceted approach that needs to take into account regional centers, population and employment statistics, and societal and economics impacts at the local and regional levels
Safety Plan
The Department of Transportation’s HSR safety plan (Safety, 2009), in response to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, is one of ensured rail safety equal other countries and other forms of transportation. The DOT states:
the expansion of HSR in America will yield safety benefits for those who choose to use the service instead of driving the same distance via roads and highways. Data published by the National Safety Council shows that, based on miles traveled, personal motor
vehicle travel is 12 to 20 times more likely to result in a fatality than passenger rail travel. (p. 1)
The main goal proposed by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is to ensure the same amount of safety for all passengers across all rail lines, regardless of speed. Currently, FRA has established standards on safety equipment that allow for rail travel up to 150 mph. These standards include requirements for track, equipment, operating rules and practices, signals and train control, communications, emergency preparedness, certification of locomotive engineers and control of alcohol and drug use, among others (Safety, 2009; p. 5). Overall, the current safety system is insufficient to support a HSR system of speeds up to 220 mph; the DOT safety plan (2009) implies further research and
an established plan based on foreign research and enhanced research. The case studies of France, Japan, and Germany will provide an insight into a developed safety plan with evidence of effectiveness.
Corridor Planning
Corridor planning takes HSR implementation beyond station and safety plans, connecting each and every aspect of a regional HSR project into one functional system. Interconnectedness of a HSR system is essential to reliability, communication, safety, speed, and efficiency; Table 9 illustrates the interconnectedness of the French TGV corridor system.
Table 9: Source BBC (2007)
FRA (2005) explains that when planning and submitting a HSR corridor plan, two published volumes need to be produced in order to fully cover every aspect of the proposal. Volume one summarizes the findings and projected costs of the various
implementation processes; Volume Two contains the detailed analysis and justification of all the implementation processes contained in Volume One (p. 19).
Volume one will first need to contain a detailed look into the corridor today and how the HSR project is going to improve the given corridor and at what cost. Aspects of the “corridor today” sector include: location; background and ownership; track conditions; bridges, culverts and other structures; highway/railroad grade crossings; electrification needed; signals and communications; support facilities; and stations and parking (p.19-20). The “corridor today” sector will also need to have a detailed look into the services currently in use and how they will be changed/improved with the HSR implementation including: intercity passenger, commuter, and freight. After the “corridor today” section, the project goals section will specifically outline the project timeline including the estimated finishing date and total cost. Further analysis in volume one includes: time travel and capacity analysis; environmental impact analysis; corridor-wide investment projections; and site-specific investment projections.
Volume two for corridor planning proposals requires a much more detailed insight into how the HSR station would operate on a day-to-day basis. FRA (2005) advises preparing a final proposed operating schedule in volume two including the operating of all trains (intercity, commuter, freight, and long distance service), and the ultimate destination and origination of each train (p. 21). Volume two also requires a detailed look into track configuration; signaling systems; speed vs. distance plot; and a further look into necessary individual projects (i.e. replacing a bridge). FRA (2005) explains that corridor planning is a lengthy process that requires a detailed look into each
and every aspect of HSR implementation, and more importantly, how each aspect connects, resulting in a successfully operation HSR system.
Conclusion
HSR may have an economic and environmental advantage over the air and auto transportation sectors at the regional level; however, if there is low ridership due to the individualized mindset of American transportation, the economic and environmental considerations can be discarded. Therefore, HSR implementation at the regional level calls for societal and economic impact projections along with investment strategies and environmental benefits in order to truly find the suitable US regions.
Methodology
Using a multiple case study analysis of France, Japan, and Germany, along with the already developed US HSR plan, this project will examine the strengths and weaknesses of the current US implementation framework. Yin (2009) explains that case studies are a combination of a mixture of both qualitative and quantitative research evidence that looks into a contemporary issue with multiple sources of evidence and converging data to result in a resulting conclusion. An often-cited limitation of case studies is the lack of external validity they may hold; for example, the United States HSR plan may not be applicable and/or comparable to the nations under study. However, with each case study being reviewed under the same criteria, the external validity of the case study remains strong. It is important to note that the context of this study is to find the over-arching criteria of success in a high-speed rail system; by studying the criteria in each case, valuable lessons can be taken and applied to the United States HSR vision.
The definition of success for a HSR system in this thesis has many variables; each variable is in intricate part of the overall success of the overall system. The variables of success include: a mixed funding approach with little legal and/or political obstacles, a regional (100-600 miles) implementation strategy, an incremental implementation strategy, having a strong safety record in terms of accidents and human deaths, support of the other transportation sectors, incorporation of transit-oriented development, and incorporation of designated high-speed lines. These three cases provide for the most in-depth analysis due to the implementation and longevity of the systems. Japan, France, and Germany HSR systems have been running since 1964, 1981, and 1991 respectively;
this provides an ample timetable for analysis. China was also considered for this study; however, the youth of the system results in an unreliable sample for analysis.
According to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), the following criteria are essential for the successful implementation of High-speed Rail in the United States:
| Transit Oriented | ||
| Mixed Funding | Loosely Coupled System | Development |
| - Connectivity to local | ||
| - Strict Applications | - Regional Implementation | transportation |
| - Grants | - 100-600 mile range | - Energy efficiency |
| Moderate and high | ||
| - Cooperative Agreements | populated cities only | |
| - Funding for future system | - Continual support of air and | |
| expansion | auto sectors |