High-speed Rail in California:

Transcription

1 High-speed Rail in California: The Process to Success AREMA 2010 National Conference By: Bruce Armistead Assistant Vice President Parsons Brinckerhoff 444 S. Flower Street, Suite 3700 Los Angeles, CA (213) Word count: 3,328

2 ABSTRACT HIGH-SPEED RAIL IN CALIFORNIA: THE PROCESS TO SUCCESS The California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) was established in 1997 to begin planning for a statewide very-high-speed [220 mph (354 kph)] rail network to provide a level of rail service and passenger convenience not yet available in California or the United States. In October 2006, a program management team was selected to develop criteria and standards and to oversee design, construction and operation of the network, with Phase 1 open for revenue service by The program environmental impact study was the first of its kind in the U.S. and a major milestone in the development of highspeed trains for the country. The study demonstrated that the proven safety record in Europe and Japan could be emulated in the Golden State and that the system is capable of carrying 58 million passengers in Phase 1 with a low passenger travel cost per mile. Many components of this large-scale project require departures from existing U.S. standards, as it will draw on international technology (rolling stock, control systems, special structural design techniques) and project delivery techniques that require approval by California and federal regulatory bodies. This paper outlines the work undertaken by the CHSRA s program management team to date, the challenges encountered and achievements made that mark the project s process to success.

3 HIGH-SPEED RAIL IN CALIFORNIA: THE PROCESS TO SUCCESS [By 2050], California s population will grow to approximately 50 million people, which will nearly double interregional travel to one billion trips per year. A high speed rail system will alleviate the need to build thousands of additional miles of new freeway and dozens of new airport departure gates and runways. - California High-speed Train December 2009 Business Plan Report to the Legislature (1) INTRODUCTION That modes of transportation have the power to shape communities and opportunity is certainly not a new notion; the story of our nation s development can be easily told through this lens: when the railroad arrived across the West, when the automobile introduced an unparalleled new freedom to roam and when commercial flight once solely the stuff of science fiction further connected the nation in a web of hub cities and condensed location, time and space. The unfolding of this story, of transformation through transportation, has not ended in California. More than a decade ago, California began planning for the largest breakthrough in the nation s infrastructure in recent history a very high-speed [220 mph (354 kph)] rail network connecting the state s major urban centers from San Diego to San Francisco and beyond, able to make the trip for Los Angeles to San Francisco in a little over two and a half hours. High-speed rail in California will soon be a reality and will be the result of careful coordination, outreach and negotiation at all levels local, state, national and global - and an underlying commitment to the development and implementation process.

4 With the passage of AB 3034 in 2008, California put forth a bond issue for voter approval and with the passage of that bond issue, Proposition 1A, California voters approved the nearly $10 billion in general obligation bonds for high-speed rail construction. With the more recent announcement of $2.25 billion in dedicated American Recovery and Reinvestment Act federal funding, the California High-speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) is on its way to delivering the growing state of California a new transportation backbone and an effective, environmentally friendly travel convenience that is extensively utilized in Europe and Asia and a lower speed version of which the ACELA - already helps connect the nation s East Coast. (2) With Phase 1 Anaheim to Los Angeles to Merced and the San Francisco Bay Area - projected for completion in 2020, followed by Phase II linking Merced to Sacramento and Los Angeles to San Diego, the California High-speed Rail will be an 800-mile-long system serving Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego. The system will use state-of-the-art electrified trains capable of speeds of up to 220 mph, primarily on dedicated track with limited portions of the route shared with other existing passenger rail operations. The high-speed train system will be electrically powered and will draw electric power from overhead wires connected to the commercial power grid. In braking, the high-speed trains can regenerate electricity back to the grid. The system will connect with other modes of transportation, existing and future, for an integrated and environmentally sound mode of travel. At certain locations the high-speed line is expected to use viaducts and tunnels, in a similar manner to other high-speed rail projects around the globe.

5 FIGURE 1: California High Speed Rail System To successfully deliver such a technically complex undertaking, and in reaching the program s current level of completion with approval of the Program-level EIR/EIS documents for the nine-segment program, it has been critical to set up a clear criteria and standards process so that all nine rail segments connect safely and seamlessly.

6 CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT Since the early 1990s, Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) has been an active participant and partner with state and local agencies in supporting the delivery of high-speed train service to California. PB s initial involvement included a statewide corridor evaluation and environmental constraints analysis, which led to the 1996 finding that a high-speed rail system is technically, environmentally and economically feasible in California. In October 2006, PB was asked to lead the Program Management Team (PMT) to oversee design, construction and operation of the network, with revenue service by PB s overarching scope of work as Program Management consultant is to develop and implement, in close coordination with the CHSRA, the guidelines, structure and controls to enable thorough and technically consistent project level implementation. This scope of work includes development of project controls, design and engineering criteria, system specifications, environmental methodologies, work with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) on compliance issues, as well as work with state and federal resource agencies in order to successfully obtain environmental clearances and permits. PB is responsible for the development of a project implementation strategy and master plan, the launch and management of the project level Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) through a series of regional consultants, development of right-of-way assessment and acquisition program, and the management of procurement, final design and construction, testing and commissioning, and revenue start-up activities. (3) PB has conducted quality control and peer review working sessions to provide real-time feedback and guidance on the initial document submittals from the project -

7 level regional consultants developing the individual sections. PB has also conducted training workshops for consultant technical staff to outline the processes, methods and requirements for preparing various technical analyses and environmental documents. To date, the PMT has released dozens of program guidance documents and technical memos for use by the regional consultants on topics ranging from third party coordination and design submittal protocol to geological investigation and trainset configuration analysis. (See Table 1) CHALLENGES As outlined above, the PMT is responsible for the coordination of all elements of this farreaching program, from planning and implementation to commissioning for revenue service. A project of this size and scope has no shortage of challenges, given the number of regional entities involved and, in particular, the fact that many components of the project are not covered by existing U.S. rail regulations, therefore requiring Petition for Rule of Particular Applicability to the FRA. Equally important, to be successful, the project must draw on international technology (rolling stock, control systems and special structural design techniques) and project delivery techniques that require approval by California and federal regulatory bodies. Each of these challenges is an opportunity to push forward transportation standards and criteria in California and across the country and, collectively, have broad implications for the sharing of industry best practices and technological advancement globally. In addition to the introduction of new technology into the U.S., the mitigation of potential negative environmental impacts identified in the program-level EIR/EIS is a

8 significant challenge. These areas of potential impact include: property and land uses, wetlands and biological resources, cultural resources, noise and vibration, farmland, park land and water quality. CORRIDOR EVALUATION STUDY AND PROGRAM EIR From 1995 to 1996, a corridor evaluation and environmental analysis was performed to determine the most feasible route alternatives statewide. Specific route considerations included who will be served and the length of time it would take to travel a particular route. Connections to population centers were reviewed in addition to cost and electrical power requirements for high-speed rail routes. In all, fourteen potential high-speed ground transportation routes between Los Angeles and San Francisco, generally representing coastal, I-5 and State Route 99 north south corridors, were evaluated. Potential extensions of the Los Angeles to San Francisco corridor were also studied between San Francisco and Sacramento and between Los Angeles and San Diego via San Bernardino. The program environmental impact study defining the system, which included a survey of its environmental impacts and identification of preferred rail alignments, was completed by the CHSRA and Federal Rail Administration (FRA) in 2005 (4). The study demonstrated that the proven high-speed rail safety record in Europe and Japan could be emulated in the Golden State and that the system would be capable of carrying 58 million passengers a year by The study projected the implications for servicing existing and future intercity trips if, a) no project is delivered b) improvements to California s highways and airports are

9 made and c) high-speed trains are delivered to the region. The findings showed that adding high-speed trains to the state s transportation network would be two-to-three times less costly than expanding highways and airports to serve similar travel demands, while improving intercity transportation reliability in a more energy efficient mode with competitive travel times via a safer mode of transportation. DESIGN CRITERIA To facilitate the project development process, the PMT is charged with overall design management and design of the system-wide elements to meet system performance objectives, while each segment is being developed with a separate design team. The general design responsibilities include: 1. Basis of Design 2. System Level Design Ridership Forecast System Capacity Rolling Stock Performance Train Simulation and Dispatch Preliminary Operations Plan Traction Power Modeling and Electrification Train Control System Communications System Preliminary Maintenance Plan 3. Design Manual, including Design Criteria and Standards Track Alignment Utilities Stations Safety and Security Bridge/Elevated Structures Geotechnical Tunnels Seismic Buildings and Facilities Traction and Power, Drainage and Grading Electrification

10 Train Control Communications Rolling Stock 4. Oversight to ensure technical consistency across the CHST system and conformance with standards 5. Procurement of Design Builder and Operator/Maintainer 6. Coordination and monitoring of testing and commissioning 7. Final Acceptance and Recommendation for Start up and Revenue Service PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS The CHST system will be a steel-wheel-on-steel-rail very high-speed system, capable of safe, comfortable and efficient operations at speeds of up to 220 mph. Infrastructure requirements include: fully grade-separated track; fully dual-track mainline with off-line station stopping tracks, unless otherwise determined to not be required; fully accesscontrolled railway with intrusion detection monitoring systems and intrusion protection systems when adjacent to other transportation facilities as required. The system will operate on an electric traction system of 2x25kV, 60 Hz capable of accommodating 12 trainsets per hour per direction. Train controls and communications will: be capable of operating three-minute headways practical capacity; feature computer based train controls equivalent to the European Railway Traffic Management System (ERTMS) standard Level 2 and the capability to upgrade to Level 3 or equivalent subject to FRA approval; be equipped with high-capacity and redundant communications systems capable of supporting fully automatic train operations.

11 Rolling stock requirements include trainsets which use a distributed traction power configuration, accommodate approximately passengers per 660-foot trainsets during peak operating hours, and are capable of operating up to 400,000 miles per trainset per year with an intensive maintenance. Specifications are being prepared so that North American, European, and Asian manufacturers can compete for the procurement and the system will be designed to operate during all weather and to accommodate normal maintenance activities without disruption to daily operations. (4) REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND RULE OF PARTICULAR APPLICABILITY In addition to existing applicable federal and state regulations indentified in 49 CFR Parts and CPUC General Orders, regulatory requirements for high-speed rail in California are strongly based on the European Union s Technical Specifications for Interopability (TSI) for the trans-european high-speed rail system. The TSI provides for evaluating the high-speed rail system as a set of subsystems, evaluating the key interfaces between each, and optimizing the system for safety, reliability and performance. Because this is a first-of-its-kind transportation system in the U.S., CHSRA is currently working closely with FRA to develop CHSTP-specific technical and safety requirements supporting the filing of a Petition for a Rule of Particular Applicability (RPA). The basis of the RPA is the melding of existing state and federal regulations and global best practices to ensure regulations cover safety features. CHSRA will also be requesting a waiver from California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Order for the electrification system.

12 MOUs WITH OTHER COUNTRIES The technology behind the high-speed rail steel-on-wheel-on-steel-rail, electric power, state-of-the art safety and signaling systems, and automated train controls may be new to North America, but has a well-established track record globally. It was first introduced in Japan in 1964, France in 1981 and in many other countries within the past few decades. To benefit from existing technical knowledge and experience, the CHSRA has signed MOUs with foreign governments advanced in high-speed rail delivery, including Japan, Germany, Italy, France, Belgium, Korea, China and Spain. PHASE 1 OPERATING PLAN The Phase 1 (Anaheim to Los Angeles to Merced and the San Francisco Bay Area) Service Plan is a concept-level service plan based on optimal ideal operations, with trains running precisely on schedule. The hypothetical timetable and analysis for the plan was generated by a PB-developed static model that was adapted for the highspeed train network. The model generates a level of detail to enable a pattern analysis of the express, limited stop and all-stop local services that are currently considered, which in turn identifies an achievable service pattern to maximize service at each station while minimizing conflicts between trains and the number of overtakes. The plan provides a basis for estimating the number of required train sets and overall rolling stock fleet requirements as well for estimating platform track and storage track capacity needed to support operations at the terminal stations.

13 The plan assumes the HST system operates independent of any other passenger or freight service, with train sets at 660 feet in length accommodating 500 and 1000 passengers respectively. The minimum spacing of trains could be three minute headways. While the Phase 1 Service Plan is the basis for estimates of ridership and revenue, operating cost and elements of the capital cost, a full detailed operating plan based on dynamic computer simulation modeling will be established to approve proposed timetables. PROJECT LEVEL EIR Completion of the Statewide Program EIR/EIS advanced the project to be put officially before the voters and signaled the start the work the CHSRA is currently undertaking with project level EIR/EIS for the nine segments: San Francisco to San Jose, San Jose to Merced, Merced to Fresno, Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, Palmdale to Los Angeles and Los Angeles to Anaheim and the subsequent phases planned for a southern extension from Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire and an extension from Merced north to Sacramento. The project level environmental review process must be completed before a final project alignment is chosen and before any construction can take place. The project EIR/EIS documents for sections of the California HST system are being prepared to satisfy the environmental review requirements of state (CEQA) and federal (NEPA) laws and will enable the public and agencies to participate in the review of site-specific alternatives, as well as to help define appropriate project-level mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts that tier from the CEQA Findings of Fact for the statewide EIR/EIS.

14 The information in the project environmental documents will be used to make decisions about the location of alignments, stations, and facilities to serve the highspeed train and to seek permits and other needed approvals. All project environmental analysis is based on information in the Program EIR/EIS to ensure a consistent approach links all segments. LOS ANGELES TO ANAHEIM PROJECT LEVEL EIR The Los Angeles to Anaheim section of Phase 1 is well into the project level EIR process and provides an example for how the process to bring high-speed rail to California is unfolding at the project level. Current plans establish the Anaheim to Los Angeles high-speed rail corridor along the existing LOSSAN (Los Angeles- Rail Corridor, an existing passenger and freight rail line between Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Trains will move between the future Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) and Los Angeles Union Station. An additional station is being considered for either Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs or Fullerton. High-speed rail trains will reach top speeds of 110 mph along this section, taking passengers from Anaheim to Los Angeles in a little more than 20 minutes. Within the LA to Anaheim segment there is a shared-track option which is being considered. This option was proposed collectively by the Los Angeles and Orange county transportation agencies. It will require reduced speeds, lower than 110 mph, and a special ruling from the FRA. The shared-track option appears more likely with the FRA ruling on mixed use along the Caltrain corridor.

15 FIGURE 2: Los Angeles to Anaheim NEXT STEPS Completion of the project-level environmental documents for all segments, along with the development of a procurement strategy, is a prerequisite for construction to begin. As funding permits, initial civil construction could begin by Within the next two years, the CHSRA will commence the procurement of core systems including the rolling stock, start acquiring right-of-way, negotiate agreements with host railroads to share

16 right-of-way, obtain necessary environmental permits, and gear up for the construction. Most of the civil infrastructure is planned to be built using a Design-Build project delivery approach. Stations will likely be built using a Public Private Partnership approach. Availability of funding remains the biggest challenge and will determine the pace of construction. CONCLUSION Where it once could be said to lag in the evolution of its modes of transportation, with the projected completion of the California High-speed Rail system, the day is now in sight where California will be a national leader in the advancement of mass transit. PB has been involved in identifying the path forward for this mega transit project from the program s inception and with its current role as program manager for California s highspeed rail system and additionally for high-speed and intercity passenger rail projects in Illinois, Ohio and Florida, PB is applying its expertise in rail and program management to bring similar advancement to transportation across the country. Though years in the making, this story of developing high-speed rail in California is only the beginning chapter; as high-speed rail begins to transform the way we think of getting from here to there, there s no telling what other advancements it may trigger in the Golden State.

17 REFERENCES 1. California High-Speed Train Business Plan Fact Sheet, November California High Speed Rail Authority California High-Speed Train Business Plan, November California Highspeed Rail Authority. essplan2008.pdf 3. Report to the Legislature, December California High-speed Rail Authority 4. Final Program EIR/EIS for the proposed California High-Speed Train System. The California High Speed Rail Authority / The Federal Railroad Administration. August, EIS_brochure_ pdf

18 LIST OF FIGURES/TABLES Figure 1: Figure 2: Map of the California High-Speed Rail System Map of the Los Angeles to Anaheim segment of the California High-Speed Revision 2, November 2009Rail System Table 1: California High Speed Rail Program Management Team Released Program Guidance Documents

19 TABLE 1

20 TABLE 1 (continued)