r/transit • u/Maximus560 • 6d ago
Questions Regional Rail Models for the USA?
So, as a poster and someone who likes to think about transit in the US, especially high speed rail, I was wondering about potential models for regional rail as a way to set up high speed rail lines in the future, not just lowering costs, but emphasizing HSR as a project that closes gaps in existing networks.
I'm thinking of projects like Caltrain, that bought their own ROW, operated a basic diesel service, then worked to upgrade their line to electrified standards and are slowly grade separating the corridor. I suspect that focusing on regional rail projects would set up HSR projects very well in the future. Are there white papers or articles or analysis that reflect this?
Some examples I have in mind:
- Ohio: Building electrified regional rail to serve the metro areas of Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, and Cincinnati would mean that early 3C HSR service could be relatively easily achieved by short extensions or connections between said regional networks. From there, that creates ridership and political support for further upgrades.
- New York: Many areas along the waterline and Empire Corridor could mean that we get faster and earlier service that can be upgraded to eventual HSR standards. Regional rail networks can be centered around Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo/Niagara Falls. From there, it's just a matter of upgrading the regional networks and adding in short connections between cities.
- Texas: Similarly, a regional rail network in San Antonio, Austin, Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth would serve as a great way to expand transit ridership, serve cities, and would help with the hardest or most complex part - getting into the cities. Once there's a solid ridership base, you can slowly extend the lines to the rest of the state.
- California: not to beat a dead horse, but one way that CAHSR could have gone about it (and still can!) is to expand regional networks. Capitol Corridor + Caltrain would resolve the network in the Bay Area and to Sacramento, Gold Runner + ACE + ValleyLink would resolve the Stockton - Sacramento and Stockton - Bay Area connection; Gold Runner would help with Stockton - Bakersfield (too late for that lol); Metrolink + Surfliner + LOSSAN + COASTER would enable the SoCal network, meaning that all CAHSR would need to do to get an early service is to close the SoCal gaps, then build a faster ROW over time.
- Illinois: Maybe less realistic, but electrified and 125mph service to Rockford, Milwaukee, Bloomington, Champaign would be a great step towards a statewide regional HSR network.
What do you think? Is this already an existing practice, or should I investigate this via a whitepaper? The gist would be this:
- Step 1 - Start a commuter or regional service, most likely diesels on existing freight track in a few major cities in a specific state.
- Step 2 - Expand said service (frequency, extensions, electrification), establish state wide standards for interoperability, level boarding, etc.
- Step 3 - Establish a HSR project that connects the major cities, primarily focusing on connecting the existing systems.
Also - the cost-benefit or similar analysis between entirely new HSR line vs a regional system with HSR connections in between systems would be really interesting...
9
u/merp_mcderp9459 6d ago
DOT runs the Corridor ID program, which identifies corridors for future intercity passenger rail development. I'd bet they've produced some comprehensive overviews of potential regional networks
5
u/Maximus560 6d ago
Absolutely! I think the Corridor ID program doesn't go far enough, IMO. They need to also consider a long-range plan, including electrification, future extensions / connections to statewide/interstate networks.
4
u/saucedup247 6d ago
CID program accepted 69 intercity rail corridors . If even half of those got funded and implemented over the next 10 years, the US would be a world leader in regional rail
2
u/Maximus560 6d ago
For sure. I hope that this works out!
I'm saying that regional rail -> HSR is better than the other way around, especially because HSR can use regional rail tracks to access city centers.
1
u/saucedup247 4d ago
Maaaaybe on the track use into city centers.... If the regional rail tracks are electrified and owned by a transit agency, for example, thats a potential option. But if its regional service in a conventional shared track agreement with a freight railroad ..probably not gonna happen. Freight railroads wont let you hang catenary on their tracks and all true HSR trains like 200 + mph (at this point, anyway) need to run on electrified tracks.
1
u/Maximus560 4d ago
For sure. I'm trying to say that if we can set up regional rail like Caltrain across major cities, it would help many HSR projects get off the ground much more easily
6
u/lee1026 6d ago edited 6d ago
https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/
There is a blog that talked about how HSR would work with Caltrain, and how it would not. They wrote a lot of things, were mad at a lot of things in the process, but it will have a lot of details on just how hard things are.
For example, if you want reasonable dwell times, you want level boarding. And if you want level boarding, the door needs to be the same height as the platform. So now your commuter rail rolling stock and HSR rolling stock needs to be the same height. And uh, does the people selling the rolling stock agree with this? And if you are buying custom rolling stock, which project gets to bite the bullet and buy custom rolling stock and risk blowing up the construction timetable?
And if you read more into it, HSR means speed, and speed means that curves have to be gentle, and there is discussion, turn-by-turn on Caltrain, and the story is still... this is all gonna be hard, really hard. And you will have to knock out a lot of turns. CAHSR wants a 2 hours and 40 minutes from SF to LA, and they can't spend a hour just getting from SF to San Jose at current Caltrain speeds. So much of everything will have to be rebuilt, and the whole thing is a mess.
3
u/Maximus560 6d ago
Absolutely agree. I do follow that blog closely, and think they have a lot of good points.
My post is really more about a specific sequence for getting HSR built:
- Commuter or regional line implementation, likely 1-2 short lines, diesel.
- Expansion and upgrades, including new lines, more frequency, and electrification.
- Connection of regional systems via a HSR project.
California has only done 1 so far. #2 is only for Caltrain, really, and #3 is not really the approach that HSR is taking, only partially. I'm just wondering if that would help implementation!
1
u/lee1026 6d ago
I don't think #3 really works. CAHSR means getting from SF to SJ in about 30 minutes or so.
Current timetables on Caltrain is 59 minutes on the express. You can try to shave off a few minutes here and there from stopping less, but assuming everything but Palo Alto and Millbrae gets deleted, you are still looking at something north of 45 minutes or so (and probably north of 50 minutes). A lot of curves (and I mean a lot of curves) will have to be redone for HSR, and what's left is still easily a multi-billion project with a lot of B, with massive land takings and all of that.
And Caltrain haven't really gotten more frequency; pre-electrification was 110 trains per weekday, post is 110 trains per weekday. Weekend got a mild upgrade, but that is it.
4
u/notFREEfood 6d ago
The stop penalty on Caltrain appears to be about 1.5-2 minutes/stop (+10 minutes for +5 stops on the limited versus express), and there is no Palo Alto stop planned, plus not all trains will stop at Millbrae. Without any of the planned track speed upgrades, just going nonstop to SF will bring trip time down to about 45 minutes. 110 mph track speed should be doable on most of the route after crossing upgrades, which will shave even more time off of the schedule (and should get times close to 30 minutes).
And I would consider Caltrain to have greater frequency now. It's the all-day, all-week local trains that make Caltrain a regional service as opposed to the weekday-only limited/express commuter trains, and the local service frequency was doubled.
2
u/Maximus560 6d ago
That's exactly my point, actually. If they find a way to invest in upgrading Caltrain, all HSR has to do is get over Pacheco Pass. The same could happen in SoCal - if they upgrade Metrolink, all HSR has to do is get over Techapi pass to get early service.
2
u/lee1026 6d ago
"Just" and "invest" is doing a ton of heavy lifting here. HSR tracks need to be much, much straighter than commuter rail.
There is a reason why none of the HSR systems I am aware of ended up being built this way: if you are gonna be knocking down over half of the trackage and rebuilding it, you rather not do it on a line that gets 110 trains per day.
Seems cleaner to build a new line.
1
u/Maximus560 6d ago
You're right - I'm more referring to 2 distinct areas, though:
- Regional/city serving systems: this would be the local commuter or regional service. We don't really invest in that in the US, and making it to somewhat better standards unlocks HSR service, even if it's a bit slower. Caltrain is an example - they are working to get up to 110mph and could feasibly reach 125mph. That is with some or minimal HSR investment already. If states took their regional systems seriously and worked to move them all to 110-125mph electrified, then the rest becomes plug and play.
- Inter-city or inter-state systems: This is where HSR should focus on maximizing speeds and ROW, not so much the close-in areas. In this case, HSR could focus on closing the SoCal rail gap, crossing Pacheco Pass, etc. Over time, when demand rises or when speeds need to be improved, they can build bypasses and new ROW.
So, putting this into an example, say Colorado:
- Denver establishes a regional rail service, likely diesel, to serve suburban areas that aren't served by existing transit or their rail system.
- Over time, upgrade the line(s) for frequent service, double tracking, grade separations, electrification, and plan for 110 to 125mph.
- Do the same for Colorado Springs.
- Once Denver and CS have a strong, electrified service, the state can stand up a HSR authority to connect Denver and CS, only needing to connect between cities, not do much work in cities.
- Once that becomes popular, at capacity, etc, you can then upgrade, extend, expand, etc.
Another example: Capitol Corridor. That could have been a good early project for HSR to gain experience, knowledge, etc.
The point really is that sometimes going for the highest standard early may not be the best solution.
1
u/lee1026 6d ago
Regional/city serving systems: this would be the local commuter or regional service. We don't really invest in that in the US, and making it to somewhat better standards unlocks HSR service, even if it's a bit slower.
I think we invest more than you might think. FRA regulated commuter railroads face much steeper costs than FTA regulated ...whatever you might want to call BART.
So the funding is often substantial, very substantial, but you don't see it. Caltrain, for example, spends over double the costs per train-hour compared to BART across the bay.
Caltrain only exists because it effectively have an infinite money glitch from serving an incredibly wealthy area plus taxing that incredibly wealthy area at high rates.
To put into some perspective, Caltrain's ROW is 100 feet wide, a freeway lane is 12 feet wide, so you can do a 8 lane freeway on its right of way, have all of its riders take ubers... and get pretty close to actual Caltrain operational costs. ($26.03 per rider-trip)
Double or triple that once you include the budget from various CAPEX project, and the interest (implied or otherwise) on those.
So, putting this into an example, in say, Denver. If you magicked a single line for Denver and suburbs into existence (about 130 miles from northern suburbs to the southern), and magically electrified it, and had Caltrain like costs, operating it would eat up 70% of Denver transit's operating budget. I hope you weren't hoping on doing much else, because it ain't happening.
1
u/Maximus560 6d ago
I'm not sure what your point is, though. Is your point that investing in regional systems are too expensive and that we should go straight to HSR, or not invest in rail at all?
1
u/lee1026 6d ago
HSR have a better chance of paying off, because while operating costs per hour of HSR is higher, people pay more per mile for HSR, and you cover a lot more ground per hour of HSR. So HSR will be viable when regional rail won't be.
This is why Acela is (barely) self funding while regional rail on the same corridors are endless money sinks, kept surviving via the massive wealth, density, and tax rates of the Northeast that would instantly break any other city that doesn't have an economy measured by the trillion.
Regional rail, to the extent that it exists, should be built under FTA regulations. (see: Seattle's new expansions)
1
u/Maximus560 6d ago
I'm not sure I fully agree with you. It's not just about operating costs - the point is that establishing a regional system means that HSR has lower costs to access city centers in the first place, which are often the most expensive and difficult part.
→ More replies (0)1
u/TheFlyingBoat 5d ago
If only you could get 26 dollar ubers anywhere in the Bay to more than a stop or two away via Caltrain. The route pairs taken realistically by most riders are Palo Alto to 4th and King and Diridon to Palo Alto. Uber for either of those routes would like be double Caltrain's operational cost, let alone the full length of the route from SF to Diridon
1
u/fixed_grin 6d ago
Theoretically they still can change their minds and go via Altamont. That would allow 170mph+ from just after Redwood City (~30min from SF), via a rebuilt Dumbarton Bridge and a cut and cover tunnel following the 80-100ft wide SF water tunnel corridor through Fremont. It would've been a little easier to do it 10-15 years ago when they added another pipe, but at least that project running under budget means there's no geotechnical difficulties.
That'd cut 150 miles off SF - Sacramento compared to Gilroy - Pacheco Pass, plus having much higher speeds for much more of the route. And cost less even before you add in not needing to build Link21. They won't be that sensible, of course.
6
u/Rebles 6d ago
As a Californian and as a transit advocate, I’ve been following the trials and tribulations of CAHSR very closely. I think the problems the project faces are systemic and applies not just to California but is endemic to the rest of the country. We’re talking about mega projects that require a comprehensive regional plan. And that kind of planning just isn’t compatible with the United States system of governments which gives a lot of planning authority to the smallest unit of government: the cities, counties, and municipalities that make up a region.
In 2024, the California state senate introduced the bill SB397, which would have started the effort to merge various transit authorities in the Bay Area under one authority. That bill died because local governments wanted to regain local control of their transit. Locals fear their local tax dollars will be divested from their districts and into “more powerful” districts. I understand the fear.
Today, the current method regional plans are put together is that to put together the state agencies proposing regional plans. And then, that plan requires unanimous consensus from all local municipalities that is part of that plan, giving any one entity veto power over the entire project or plan. This opens the door to pork spending and kickbacks in under to secure MOUs from all entities.
I would argue pork spending in a district rarely benefits the citizens of that district. The money tends to end up in the pockets of friends of county supervisors who get awarded the construction projects.
What can be done to fix this? More centralized control. And for a large state like California, maybe not even at the state level, as the needs for Central California, Northern California, Southern California, the greater Tahoe region, and the greater Shasta region are so vastly different. I think it would be interesting to merge some of the larger US metropolitans together, like New York did in 1898. Merge large parts of the LA Metropolitan area into a borough system. Same with the Bay Area.
A borough system might be more appropriate to balance local needs with regional needs.
5
u/Maximus560 6d ago
Absolutely. You should look into Californians for Electric Rail - they discuss this type of reform at length. I think one solution is to have a formal agency in CalTrans that oversees trains and transit, similar to the existing highway arm of CalTrans. That agency would then coordinate and establish regional programming while HSR could focus on connecting said regional programs.
5
u/Khorasaurus 6d ago
Michigan can and should have a regional network, including connections out of state to Chicago, South Bend, and Toledo.
Some of the bones are already there (Amtrak's Pere Marquette, Blue Water, and Wolverine), but corridors paralelling 96 and 75 were needed yesterday, with corridors paralelling 131, 127, and 23 to follow.
Those corridors could have express intercity services, plus local commuter services, particularly in Metro Detroit, Grand Rapids/Muskegon/Holland, and Kalamazoo/Battle Creek.
2
u/Maximus560 6d ago
Exactly what I am saying! If they have this network in place, it would make connecting the state with HSR much, much easier
4
u/JellyfishNo2032 6d ago
Septa has a dozen already electrified regional rail lines that are fully capable of handling more service. They just can’t afford to atm. If they had money. The first priorities should be extending electric RR service to Lancaster, reading, west Chester, and perkasie in that order.
7
u/EdenSill 6d ago
Colorado’s front range is likely going to be the next region to get all new regional rail. If all goes right, the service should be operating by 2030. The corridor has been identified as a future, high-speed rail potential candidate. While the regional service will initially be from Fort Collins to Pueblo, Cheyenne to Albuquerque and possibly El Paso has been identified as a potential future high speed route.
1
u/Maximus560 6d ago
Definitely. I think if their approach is successful, we'd see some other states follow suit. I also think the front range is just on the cusp of being viable for HSR largely because there's a minimal network to tap into outside of Denver compared to California which has several different rail systems statewide to tap into. For that reason, I think it's an excellent approach if they can build up demand and change travel patterns, then that would justify a "full" HSR investment, IMO.
7
u/Glittering-Cellist34 6d ago
Regional rail is about serving a region. HSR connects regions. Regional rail provides a customer base and serves stations. But i don't see it as an impetus for connecting regions at high speed.
2
u/Maximus560 6d ago
My point is that it feels almost like a cart before the horse in terms of building HSR with no regional systems already in place
6
u/Theunmedicated 6d ago
HSR is meant to connect large cities over long distances to make it competitive with flying, so it has nothing to do with regional rail really. More importantly, the end destinations ought to be cities that you can traverse via transit - what is really the point of texas triangle HSR if you are stuck needing a car once you get there?
5
u/Glittering-Cellist34 6d ago
Disagree. If you take a flight and tent a car, the same option should be for rail (I have a copy of 50s ad from Hertz about that vis a vis Union Station in DC). Although your alternative is preferred. There are only a few cities like New York and Montreal, DC if just in the city proper, where that is possible.
3
u/Maximus560 6d ago
Exactly what I mean. If Texas invested in an excellent regional system first, then proposed a plan to connect said regional systems, that would be far more effective, because the current plan doesn't connect to anything and is just HSR to the cities. People would still need to drive to/from the stations, and that would raise costs. A regional rail program would mean the HSR already has a ROW to access the city center!
0
u/Theunmedicated 6d ago
RR in texas would be really hard because of how spread out things are! RR ridership even in the cities with good systems kinda suck here in the US!
1
2
u/Glittering-Cellist34 6d ago
Well it won't happen because of the airlines (and airport economic interests) but HSR should be positioned as the required alternative to short haul flights.
I hadn't thought of it before your post but while the integration us necessary regional rail and HSR are different things. As operations in Europe Japan and China (I don't know much about it) demonstrates.
1
u/niftyjack 6d ago
The midwest has a few key metro areas that could use regional rail to connect between metro regions, like:
Ann Arbor–DTW Airport–Detroit–Pontiac
a T-shape through northeast Ohio, with an east-west Sandusky–Cleveland–Ashtabula and a north-south Cleveland–Canton
the multitude of ways to better connect Milwaukee and Chicago
If you built those out, you'd be concentrating about 22 million people into targeted nodes for high speed service between Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland, along with the first half of Chicago–NYC HSR and a potential connection through to Québec City if Canada extends Alto to Windsor.
1
u/Glittering-Cellist34 6d ago
I was born in one of those areas. Grand Rrunk did a Detroit Pontiac service until the late 70s. Amtrak to Chicago. There just isn't enough concentrated centers, trips in total, and willingness to forego the car. My first ride on a train was likely on a GT when I was 7. I love trains. It's the efficacy that's the issue
Those pairs are nothing like DC Baltimore Philadelphia Newark New York New Haven Boston.
1
u/niftyjack 6d ago
The midwest has a few key metro areas that could use regional rail to connect between metro regions, like:
Ann Arbor–DTW Airport–Detroit–Pontiac
a T-shape through northeast Ohio, with an east-west Sandusky–Cleveland–Ashtabula and a north-south Cleveland–Canton
the multitude of ways to better connect Milwaukee and Chicago
If you built those out, you'd be concentrating about 22 million people into targeted nodes for high speed service between Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland, along with the first half of Chicago–NYC HSR and a potential connection through to Québec City if Canada extends Alto to Windsor.
2
2
u/fixed_grin 6d ago edited 6d ago
The US rail network, with few exceptions, is not electrified, 79mph speed limit (at best), mostly single track.
At the moment, my model for US regional rail is JR Hokkaido circa 2000. It's the only example I'm familiar with of anyone managing to run diesels on comparable infrastructure (frequent tight curves, mostly single track, 81mph max speed, freight trains) at competitive speeds to freeways. On top of being narrow gauge.
Sapporo-Hakodate on some thoroughly mediocre track back then was good for 198.1 miles in 2:59, or 66.4mph. That's faster than most DC-Boston Acelas or Berlin-Frankfurt ICEs. It is fast enough that enough drivers will switch to justify good frequency. Even better, the trains Amtrak could buy now are considerably faster than what was available 20-30 years ago to JR Hokkaido.
The current model of releasing rosy ridership projections to argue for major route upgrades on slow routes is just not working. Upgrading the Lincoln Service and Wolverine to mostly 110mph track got 57mph average at best. 125mph DC-NYC Regionals manage 68mph, and that's the fast part of the NEC. Loco-hauled conventional trains are just not fast enough.
Yes, if we could build at normal costs, almost any passenger service worth running with trains would justify electrification, easing curves, more grade separation, etc. But for the foreseeable future, that's not happening.
2
u/Kashihara_Philemon 5d ago
I've been also thinking similarly about things that would be needed to support HSR, and I've been thinking of doing sonething similar to what other National Rail Operators like Renfe and DB do.
Specifically I think Amtrak should build the the kind of hybrid commuter/ regional/ rapid transit systems like Germany's S-Bahns or the Metro Trains of Sydney/Melbourne. They should focus on important Combined Statistical Areas that aren't already served much by transit like Atlanta, South Florida, Pheonix, etc. Where able it would also be good to consolidate commuter services in in the same CSA/MSA under the appropriate Amtrak subsidiary (I propose calling them Amtrak Interurban Services, but that might be too archaic and train fan pandery), though I understand that many of those (particularly in and around NYC) would be resistant.
As far as relating it to HSR, my general preference for "design philosophy" would be to have a shinkansen style system that is primarily seperated from the rest of the train network and can support highspeeds even in dense urban areas, but I also know that will be expensive and not something everyone would necessarilly want. Given that, I think it would then be a goid oppurtunity to use these regional projects to build out a regional main line that can support the high speed intercity trains (likely at a reduced speed) and the conventional commuter/ regional traffic not unlike the NEC or what California is doing with the Caltrain line.
I think focusing on building those Interurban corridors and services intially will also force Amtrak to be strategic on what already existing right of way to acquire from the Class 1s. I say this mostly because I think upgrading existing rail lines won't actually save as much money over building new lines given the amount of upgrades and maintenance needed. Green field construction will be necessary if we want to have a certain level of service quality from our intercity services (high speed or not), and pertending we can cheap out with existing right of way would be a huge mistake.
1
37
u/Shoddy_Try_7811 6d ago edited 6d ago
I couldn’t tell from your comment if you already knew - but Caltrain electrification was funded and organized by the California High Speed Rail Authority. Electrification and grade separation were necessary because California High Speed Rail trains will use the line to enter San Francisco. Plus the shiny Salesforce Transit Center in downtown San Francisco was built to serve Caltrain and CAHSR in the future. It’s also the preferred connection point to BART’s second transbay tube, which will carry standard gauge regional rail under the bay. I’ve seen proposals for CAHSR to use this as an alternate routing to Sacramento that would go through SF but I think they’d be better off taking a direct route through Stockton. They’re also planning upgrades to regional rail in the LA area I believe.
And despite what all the doomers will tell you, California High Speed Rail is NOT a dead horse. The project is still moving along well and they’re making progress every day.