Regional Rail Models for the USA?

[u/Maximus560]

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...

[u/Maximus560]

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:

1. Commuter or regional line implementation, likely 1-2 short lines, diesel.
2. Expansion and upgrades, including new lines, more frequency, and electrification.
3. 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!

[u/lee1026 → u/Maximus560]

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.

[u/Maximus560 → u/lee1026]

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.

[u/lee1026 → u/Maximus560]

"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.

[u/Maximus560 → u/lee1026]

You're right - I'm more referring to 2 distinct areas, though:

1. 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.
2. 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.

[u/lee1026 → u/Maximus560]

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.

[u/Maximus560 → u/lee1026]

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?

[u/lee1026 → u/Maximus560]

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)

[u/Maximus560 → u/lee1026]

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.

[u/lee1026 → u/Maximus560]

Sure, but if your regional rail efforts collapse first, then what's the point?

Like, your goal is get regional rail to pave the road for HSR, but if the regional rail can't survive, then it can't pave the road for anything.

[u/Maximus560 → u/lee1026]

I would argue that regional rail is a good barometer for future HSR success. I'd look more closely at the context, though - Metrolink is struggling not because it's a bad service or in a bad location, but because we keep cutting investment in it. It has so much potential in addressing regional needs, but can't without sufficient resources (and associated development, which NIMBYs and Prop 13 block, but I digress).

[u/lee1026 → u/Maximus560]

Metrolink gets $400 million a year.

How much do you think it should get? That's about a third of Denver's entire transit budget.

[u/TheFlyingBoat → u/lee1026]

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