making the most of high-speed rail in california: lessons from france and germany

8/21/2019 Making the Most of High-Speed Rail in California: Lessons from France and Germany

1/89


2/89

© 2015 Te German Marshall Fund o the United States. All rights reserved.

No part o this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any orm or by any means without permission in writing rom theGerman Marshall Fund o the United States (GMF). Please direct i nquiries to:

Te German Marshall Fund o the United States1744 R Street, NWWashington, DC 20009 1 202 683 2650F 1 202 265 1662E [email protected]

Tis publication can be downloaded or ree at http://www.gmus.org/listings/research.

Te views expressed in GMF publications and commentary are the views o the author alone, and does not reflect the views o theFederal ransit Administration or the U.S. Department o ransportation.

About the Author

Eric Eidlin is a community planner and sustainability lead with the Federal ransit Administration’s (FA) Region 9 office in SanFrancisco, where he provides assistance on planning and e nvironmental issues to several transit agencies throughout C aliornia. Hehas been involved in station area planning e fforts in cities located along the uture Caliornia HSR route. He was a 2013-14 Urban andRegional Policy Fellow. Prior to joining the FA, he worked as an u rban design consultant on transit-oriented development projectsin the Bay Area and elsew here in Caliornia. Ei dlin holds a master’s degree in urban design rom the University o oronto and amaster’s degree in c ity planning rom the University o Caliornia, Los Angeles. In 1999-2000, Eidlin studied urb an sociology at theHumboldt University in Berlin, Germany, as a Fulbright Scholar. In 2014, he was named one o the top 40 proessionals under the ageo 40 in the field o public transportation by Mass ransit Magazine.

GMF Paper Series

Te GMF Paper Series presents research on a variety o transatlantic topics by staff, ellows, and partners o the German MarshallFund o the United States. Te views expressed here are those o the author and do not nec essarily represent the views o GMF. Com-

ments rom readers are welcome; reply to the mailing address above or by e-mail to [email protected].

About GMF

Te German Marshall Fund o the United States (GMF) strengthens transatlantic cooperation on regional, national, and globalchallenges and opportunities in the spirit o the Marshall Plan. GMF does this by supporting individuals and institutions working inthe transatlantic sphere, by convening leaders and members o the policy and business communities, by contributing research andanalysis on transatlantic topics, and by providing exchange opportunities to oster renewed commitment to the transatlantic relation-ship. In addition, GMF supports a number o initi atives to strengthen democracies. Founded in 1972 as a non-partisan, non-profitorganization through a gi rom Germany as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance, GMF maintains a strong presenceon both sides o t he Atlantic. In addition to its headquarters in Washington, DC, GMF has offices in Berlin, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade,Ankara, Bucharest, and Warsaw. GMF also has smaller representations in Bratislava, urin, and Stockholm.

On the cover: GV 4405 and ICE International 4654 at Frankurt am Main Hb. ©Ninostar.

http://www.gmfus.org/listings/researchhttp://../AppData/Local/Adobe/InDesign/Version%2010.0/en_US/Caches/InDesign%20ClipboardScrap1.pdfhttp://../AppData/Local/Adobe/InDesign/Version%2010.0/en_US/Caches/InDesign%20ClipboardScrap1.pdfhttp://www.gmfus.org/listings/research


3/89

Making the Most of High-Speed Rail

in California

Lessons from France and Germany

Eric Eidlin

June 2015


4/89


5/89

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ii

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 5

Background 5

Research Questions 9

What is High-Speed Rail? 12

The Proposed California High-Speed Rail Project 12

Pros and Cons of HSR 13

Key Topics Relating to HSR Stations and Station Access 16

High-Speed Rail Development in France and Germany: Speed versus Connectivity 16

Station Siting 23

Urban Design Advantages of HSR 31

HSR Station Design and Land Use 33

HSR Station Neighborhood as Business District 40

Local Access to HSR Stations: The Importance of Prioritizing Space-Efcient Modes 44

Physical Connections Within HSR Stations Between Non-Auto Access Modes and HSR 49

Integrated Fares and Schedules, Innovations in Payment Systems 54

Policy Recommendations 62

Conclusion 71

References 73

List of Interviewees 78

List of Reviewers 82


6/89

Acknowledgements

I

owe a debt o gratitude to the many individuals and organizations who contributed

to this report. First and oremost, I’d like tothank Te German Marshall Fund or undingmy research, and particularly GeraldineGardner and Bartek Starodaj or their guid-ance and support. I would also like to thankLeslie Rogers and Matt Welbes o the Federalransit Administration, my employer, withoutwhose support I would not have been able topursue the GMF ellowship that unded myresearch.

I also wish to thank Anastasia Loukaitou-Sid-eris and Deike Peters, who were carrying out aresearch project or the Mineta ransportationInstitute at the same time as I was working onthis report, and with whom I collaborated ona number o items, including the developmento a standardized questionnaire that we allused in our interviews.

I would also like to acknowledge all o theindividuals who agreed to be interviewed or

this project, listed at the end o this report.O my interviewees, I would like to extend a

particular note o gratitude to Florian Lennertand to the Innovation Centre or Mobilityand Societal Change (INNOZ) in Berlin, whoserved as gracious hosts to me while I was inGermany in 2013.

I also wish to acknowledge all o the peoplewho reviewed my report, and particularlySuzanne Hague, Jeremy Nelson, Faith Hall,and my brother, Barry Eidlin, who investedsignificant time in reading and improving

early dras o my report. Te complete list oreviewers is shown at the end o this report.

Last but certainly not least, I would like tothank my wie, Renae Waneka, and my twoyoung children, Elsie and Clay, who havepatiently supported me in my work on thisproject over the past two years.


7/89

Making the Most of High-Speed Rail in California | 1

Executive Summary

A

s Caliornia plans or its growing popu-lation and mobility needs, many believe

that high-speed rail (HSR) could be acost-effective and environmentally riendlyalternative to expanding highways and airportterminals.1,2 Indeed, HSR experts agree thatCaliornia has large enough cities spaced atappropriate distances rom one another tomake HSR viable. For example, the distancebetween San Francisco and Los Angeles alongthe planned HSR route is about 450 miles.Tis distance is too ar to be quickly traveledby car or conventional rail.3 At the same time,it is also what many transportation expertsconsider to be an inefficient distance to becovered by airplane i one accounts or thetime spent getting to airports — typicallylocated outside o cities — passing throughsecurity, and boarding planes.4 People trav-eling rom San Francisco to Los Angeles by

1 Egon Terplan. “Beyond the Tracks: The Potential of High-Speed Railto Reshape California’s Growth” (San Francisco Planning and UrbanResearch Association Policy Paper, January 2011), http://www.spur.

org/publications/library/report/beyond-tracks.2 For the purposes of this report, I employ the European Union’sdenition of HSR. According to the EU, high-speed lines include dedi-cated tracks that are specially built for speeds in excess of 250 kph(155 mph), as well as specially upgraded tracks that are designed forspeeds of 200 kph (125 mph) or greater.

3 For the purposes of this report, trains that travel at speeds lowerthan 79 mph are considered “conventional.” This is the maximumspeed of most passenger rail vehicles that operate in the UnitedStates today.

4 The consensus among transportation economists is that HSR isbest-suited to trips in the range of 100 to 500 miles (150-800 km).See http://www.fbbva.es/TLFU/dat/inf_web_economic_analysis.pdf , p. 73.

plane will spend less than an hour in the air,but their door-to-door travel time may be

closer to five hours. In spite o these incon- veniences, the Los Angeles — San Franciscocorridor is one o the busiest short-haul flightcorridors in the world, and by ar the busiestin the United States.5 Given that HSR stationscan be located in city centers and knit intodensely populated urban districts — placesthat are closer to travelers’ typical originsand destinations — HSR can offer quickerdoor-to-door travel times than airplanes ormedium-distance trips, those in the 100- to500-mile range. Since HSR can be broughtinto city centers and dense urban neighbor-hoods, HSR stations also tend to be betterconnected to urban public transit networksthan airports. And where travelers’ ultimatedestinations are neither within a comort-able walking distance6 nor easily reached bytransit, so-called “last-mile” modes such asbicycling, bike share, and car share can play ameaningul role in bringing passengers to and

rom stations.

5 “Domestic Airline Consumer Air fare Report-2013, Table 1”. U.S.Department of Transportation.

6 The maximum distance that transit riders are typically willing towalk to a transit station is a half mile, which represents a ten-minutewalk. This is also the radius that is commonly used to dene the

limits of station areas for land use planning purposes in transit-ori-ented development efforts (for example, see the Metropolitan Trans-portation Commission’s Transit-Oriented Development Policy: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/tod/TOD_policy.pdf ). HSRstations will draw passengers from a larger area, however, likely up toa mile. As such, a larger walking r adius may be appropriate.

HSR is also an attractive option or Cali-ornia due to its anticipated effects on

economic development. Te state’s economy,i compared to the economies o other coun-tries in the world, would be the world’s eighthlargest, and the majority o this wealth isgenerated in communities that are along theHSR route, particularly in Greater Los Angelesand the San Francisco Bay Area. Eight o theten most populous urban centers in the stateare planned to have an HSR station. Te LosAngeles — Long Beach — Santa Ana metro-politan area alone accounts or over one-thirdo Caliornia’s gross domestic product (GDP).7 By acilitating transportation between thestate’s major urban centers, HSR will makeit easier to do business in both places andelsewhere along the corridor, which will havea beneficial effect on economic development.Finally, the high-speed rail project promisesto offer a new, more environmentally riendlymode o intercity transportation8 or the statethat will help it achieve some o the aggres-

sive greenhouse gas reduction goals that arerequired under Caliornia law.9

Tough all o these actors seem to provide asolid basis or building high-speed rail in Cali-ornia, many are concerned that most o the

7 According to World Bank data. See http://www.ccsce.com/PDF/Numbers-July-2014-CA-Economy-Rankings-2013.pdf .

8 See http://www.fbbva.es/TLFU/dat/inf_web_economic_analysis.pdf , p. 30.

9 California Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375 are the mostrelevant on this point.

http://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/beyond-trackshttp://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/beyond-trackshttp://www.fbbva.es/TLFU/dat/inf_web_economic_analysis.pdfhttp://www.fbbva.es/TLFU/dat/inf_web_economic_analysis.pdfhttp://www.dot.gov/policy/aviation-policy/domestic-airline-fares-consumer-reporthttp://www.dot.gov/policy/aviation-policy/domestic-airline-fares-consumer-reporthttp://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/tod/TOD_policy.pdfhttp://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/tod/TOD_policy.pdfhttp://www.ccsce.com/PDF/Numbers-July-2014-CA-Economy-Rankings-2013.pdfhttp://www.ccsce.com/PDF/Numbers-July-2014-CA-Economy-Rankings-2013.pdfhttp://www.fbbva.es/TLFU/dat/inf_web_economic_analysis.pdfhttp://www.fbbva.es/TLFU/dat/inf_web_economic_analysis.pdfhttp://www.fbbva.es/TLFU/dat/inf_web_economic_analysis.pdfhttp://www.fbbva.es/TLFU/dat/inf_web_economic_analysis.pdfhttp://www.fbbva.es/TLFU/dat/inf_web_economic_analysis.pdfhttp://www.ccsce.com/PDF/Numbers-July-2014-CA-Economy-Rankings-2013.pdfhttp://www.ccsce.com/PDF/Numbers-July-2014-CA-Economy-Rankings-2013.pdfhttp://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/tod/TOD_policy.pdfhttp://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/tod/TOD_policy.pdfhttp://www.dot.gov/policy/aviation-policy/domestic-airline-fares-consumer-reporthttp://www.fbbva.es/TLFU/dat/inf_web_economic_analysis.pdfhttp://www.fbbva.es/TLFU/dat/inf_web_economic_analysis.pdfhttp://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/beyond-trackshttp://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/beyond-tracks


8/89

2 | The German Marshall Fund of the United States

state’s proposed station cities lack two ingre-dients that, or the reasons discussed above,make or the successul high-speed rail servicein Europe and Asia: 1) dense activity centerswithin walking distance o uture station sites;

and 2) seamless connections between railand local public transit networks. Tereore,the salient question or Caliornia is: Howcan HSR succeed in Caliornia without bothpromoting urban density around stations atlevels that are currently uncommon in most othe station host communities and increasingtypically expensive transit connections?Without convenient alternative connectionoptions, most HSR passengers will drive tothe stations. Expansive, costly parking struc-tures will limit possibilities or denser landuse around stations over the long term. Tis,in turn, will also reduce opportunities or thestate to maximize return on its investmentin HSR. Moreover, it will do little to decreasetraffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions,and increase transit ridership.10

In my role as liaison between the Federalransit Administration and the CaliorniaHigh-Speed Rail Authority (CAHSRA), the

state agency responsible or implementinghigh-speed rail service in Caliornia, I grapple

10 CAHSRA policy calls for “[l]imits on the amount of parking for newdevelopment and a preference that parking be placed in structures,”but local land use authorities will have decision-making authorityover the amount and arrangement of parking within station areas,authorities that may not be naturally inclined to think about devel-opment opportunities and associated changes in travel behaviorfor stations over a long-term (50-year +) time horizon. See http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/green_practices/station/HST%20Station%20Area%20Development%20-%20General%20Princi-pals%20and%20Guidelines.pdf .

with the challenges that HSR will have inproviding robust and convenient local transitconnections in cities. France and Germany,the two European countries with the mostHSR experience in Europe, have significant

expertise to share with Caliornia on thistopic. Tis is why, with support rom theUrban and Regional Policy Program o TeGerman Marshall Fund o the United States,I traveled to France and Germany to studythese topics in the all o 2013. Trough mytravels, I ocused on three primary researchquestions:

• What are the primary differences betweenthe French and German models o HSR

development?• How do French and German cities plan

or and manage development withinhigh-speed rail station neighborhoods asa means o stimulating economic develop-ment?

• What policies and practices have Germanand French cities employed to acilitatenon-auto access to HSR stations?

In this report, I argue that in order or HSRto deliver on its promise to 38 million Cali-ornians and investors, the project must bedesigned as the backbone o a comprehensivesystem or sustainable passenger mobilityin Caliornia. We are at a critical juncture inthe timing and execution o one o the state’slargest ever inrastructure projects, which willhave an enormous impact on the state’s uture.HSR is a transportation technology that will

link the state’s major urban centers with amode o intercity travel that is much moreenergy efficient and environmentally riendlythan the car or airplane.11

However, in order or HSR to serve as thebackbone o sustainable intercity transporta-tion in Caliornia, the project’s definition mustextend beyond HSR route planning to includesustainable local transportation connectionsand careul station area planning. Cities acrossFrance and Germany demonstrate how HSRcan be a powerul tool or strengthening citiesand towns along HSR corridors in economic,social, and cultural terms. With careul plan-ning, the same can be achieved in Caliornia.

Tis is why the CAHSRA is unding planningefforts in most o the cities that will have HSRstations, to ensure that each station area isdesigned to maximize HSR-supportive devel-opment within station areas. A central ocuso this report, thereore, is to highlight bestpractices rom Europe that can help inormthese CAHSRA-unded planning efforts.

11 Frédéric Dobruszkes and Moshe Givoni (2013), “Competition,Integration, Substitution: Myths and Realities Concerning theRelationship between High-Speed Rail and Air Transport in Europe,”in Lucy Budd, Steven Griggs, and David Howarth (ed.) Sustainable Aviation Futures (Transport and Sustainability, Volume 4) EmeraldGroup Publishing Limited, pp. 175-197.

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/green_practices/station/HST%20Station%20Area%20Development%20-%20General%20Principals%20and%20Guidelines.pdfhttp://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/green_practices/station/HST%20Station%20Area%20Development%20-%20General%20Principals%20and%20Guidelines.pdfhttp://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/green_practices/station/HST%20Station%20Area%20Development%20-%20General%20Principals%20and%20Guidelines.pdfhttp://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/green_practices/station/HST%20Station%20Area%20Development%20-%20General%20Principals%20and%20Guidelines.pdfhttp://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/green_practices/station/HST%20Station%20Area%20Development%20-%20General%20Principals%20and%20Guidelines.pdfhttp://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/green_practices/station/HST%20Station%20Area%20Development%20-%20General%20Principals%20and%20Guidelines.pdfhttp://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/green_practices/station/HST%20Station%20Area%20Development%20-%20General%20Principals%20and%20Guidelines.pdfhttp://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/green_practices/station/HST%20Station%20Area%20Development%20-%20General%20Principals%20and%20Guidelines.pdf


9/89


Summary of Key Lessons

My research revealed a number o underlyingkey lessons, which are listed below. In theconclusion o this report, these key lessons are

translated into actionable policy recommen-dations.

1. Tere are trade-offs between achievinghigh operating speeds and maximizingconnections. In planning or HSR, thereis always a tension between maximizingtrain operating speeds to reduce triptimes and stopping trains requently tomaximize connections. France empha-sizes the first approach, while Germanyemphasizes the second. In assessing theadvantages and disadvantages o bothmodels, it is clear that high speeds shouldbe prioritized in sparsely populated areas,while maximizing connections shouldbe the primary consideration in denselypopulated areas.

2. Central city stations maximize theeconomic development and mobilitybenefits of HSR. Secondary sub-centerstations in large urban areas can also

bring HSR closer to many patronswithout significantly slowing service.In contrast, stations located outside odensely urbanized areas usually remainpark-and-ride stations and do little toattract economic development.

3. HSR stations have inherent urbandesign advantages over other typesof transportation facilities. Unlike

airports and roadway inrastructure, HSRstations can be inserted into dense urbancontexts. Caliornia must recognize thesecomparative advantages and design HSRstations and tracks to make the most o

them.

4. HSR stations should celebrate theirnon-transportation functions. Stationsshould serve not only as transporta-tion acilities that process passengersefficiently, but also as important publicplaces: places or people to gather, shop,and take care o everyday needs. Addi-tionally, the stations themselves canserve as pieces o connective urban abric

that can link neighborhoods that wouldotherwise be physically divided by rail-road tracks.

5. High-density employment and commer-cial uses are best for HSR stationdistricts. High-density employment andcommercial uses are best or tapping theeconomic development potential o HSRand or maximizing ridership or HSR.Residential and cultural uses can and

should play a supporting role in ensuringround-the-clock activity within stationdistricts and to avoid the creation osingle-use office districts that are devoido lie outside o daytime business hours.

6. Access to HSR stations via space-effi-cient modes of transportation shouldbe prioritized. Land within HSR stationareas is a scarce and precious resourcethat will become more valuable over time.

Bearing this in mind, planners shouldprioritize access to stations by space-effi-cient modes o transportation, includingwalking, transit, bicycling, taxi, and carshare. I these modes are not pleasant and

convenient, passengers will resort to theland-hungry deault, the private automo-bile.

7. Within HSR stations, first-rate inter-modal physical connections betweenHSR and non-auto access modes areessential. In order to encourage accessto stations by space-efficient and envi-ronmentally sustainable modes, physicalconnections between those modes at HSR

stations must be as simple, short, seam-less, intuitive, and pleasant as possible.

8. It should be easy to pay to use sustain-able and space-efficient local accessmodes to HSR stations. Another wayto encourage access to HSR by space-e-ficient modes such as transit, bicycling,and car share is to make it easier to payto use these modes in conjunction withrail travel. Tis can be accomplished

through integrated ares and innovationsin payment systems, both at the local andstate-wide levels.

9. It is essential to articulate and main-tain bold long-term visions for HSRcorridors and stations. Caliornia’s HSRsystem will not mature or many decades.We must be careul not to make decisionsthat we will regret in 50 years. In order toavoid this unortunate possibility, Cali-


10/89


ornia must articulate a bold vision orHSR stations and the HSR system as awhole. It must also ensure that this visionis clearly publicized, understood, andmaintained over the long-term.

10. Each station area should establish across-cutting governance entity to leadstation area planning efforts as early inthe process as possible. A distinguishingeature o the most successul HSRstation design efforts, both in Europeand the United States, is that they beganwith a robust visioning process thatwas managed by a single entity whosepurpose was to develop and implement

that vision. Tis governance structure isessential to avoid the tendency towardpiecemeal decision-making that canhamstring station area planning efforts.

Following rom the examination o thesetopics, I propose the ollowing policy recom-mendations or Caliornia and its HSR stationcities. Tese recommendations are listed romthe broadest to the most specific.

1. Develop, articulate, and hold bold long-term visions or HSR corridors andstations.

2. Wherever possible, Caliornia should siteHSR stations in central city locations.

3. Tere are trade-offs to maximizing HSRtravel speeds and maximizing connec-tions by stopping trains. Emphasizingconnections makes sense in dense urban

areas, while speed should be prioritizedin sparsely populated areas.

4. Caliornia must provide first-rate phys-ical intermodal connections within HSRstations between non-auto access modesand HSR.

5. Make it easy to pay to use sustainable andspace-efficient access modes and ensureseamless service coordination betweenlocal transit and intercity rail service.

6. Each station area should orm across-cutting governance entity that willallow or the type o visionary, long-term,and integrated design or stations andstation areas as described in P1 as early inthe planning process as possible.

7. Prioritize land uses within station areasthat will maximize ridership or HSR.

8. Recognize the inherent urban designadvantages o HSR stations over other

transportation acilities, and design themto make the most o these advantages.

9. Recognize, celebrate, and plan or trainstations’ non-transportation roles.

10. Encourage bicycle use as a space-efficientaccess mode that could serve an increas-ingly important role in bringing Calior-nians to HSR stations.


11/89


Background

As Caliornia plans or its growingpopulation and mobility needs, manyconsider high-speed rail (HSR) to be

a cost-effective and environmentally riendlyalternative to expanding highways and airportterminals.12,13 Indeed, HSR experts agree thatCaliornia has large enough cities spaced atappropriate distances rom one another tomake HSR viable.14 For example, the distancebetween San Francisco and Los Angeles alongthe planned HSR route is about 450 miles.

Tis distance is too ar to be quickly traveledby car or conventional rail.15 At the same time,it is also what many transportation expertsconsider to be an inefficient distance to becovered by airplane i one accounts or thetime spent getting to airports — typicallylocated outside o cities — passing through

12 Egon Terplan. “Beyond the Tracks: The Potential of High-SpeedRail to Reshape California’s Growth” (San Francisco Planning andUrban Research Association Policy Paper, January 2011), http://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/beyond-tracks.

13 For the purposes of this report, I employ the European Union’sdenition of HSR. According to the EU, high speed lines include dedi-cated tracks that are specially built for speeds in excess of 250 kph(155 mph), as well as specially upgraded tracks that are designed forspeeds of 200 kph (125 mph) or greater.

14 See Frédéric Dobruszkes and Moshe Givoni (2013).

15 For the purposes of this report, this trains that travel at speedslower than 79 mph are considered “conventional.” This is themaximum speed of most passenger rail vehicles that operate in theUnited States today.

security, and boarding planes.16 People trav-eling rom San Francisco to Los Angeles by

plane will spend less than an hour in the air,but their door-to-door travel time may becloser to five hours.

Given that HSR stations can be located incity centers and knit into densely populatedurban districts — places that are closer totravelers’ typical origins and destinations —HSR can offer quicker door-to-door traveltimes than airplanes or medium-distancetrips in the 100- to 500-mile range. Since

HSR can be brought into city centers anddense urban neighborhoods, HSR stationstend to be better connected to urban publictransit networks than airports. And wheretravelers’ ultimate destinations are neitherwithin a comortable walking distance17 noreasily reached by transit rom HSR stations,so-called “last-mile” modes such as bicy-cling, bike share, car share, and taxi can playa meaningul role in bringing passengers toand rom stations. Tese reasons, along withthe act that train travel produces ar less airpollution and greenhouse gas emissions thanplane or car travel, are behind a growing senti-ment in transportation planning circles and

16 See “In What Circumstances is Investment in HSR Worthwhile?”http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/2559/2/WP590_uploadable_protected.pdf .

17 The generally accepted maximum distance that transit riders arewilling to walk to a transit station is a half mile, which r epresents aten-minute walk. HSR passengers may be willing to walk farther thanthis, however, perhaps up to a mile.

the United States that airplanes are the wrongtool or medium-distance trips. Indeed, this is

the logic behind the European Union’s rans-orum 2050 Initiative, which aims to triple thelength o Europe’s HSR network by 2030 andto ensure that a majority o medium-distancetravel is done by rail by 2050.18

HSR experts agree that successul HSRcorridors satisy a number o preconditions,including:19

• Large urban centers located along theHSR corridor, spaced ideally between 100to 500 miles apart. Distances below 100miles are best covered by conventional railor car, while distances above 500 milesare best traveled by airplane. Te mostsuccessul HSR corridors have a numbero large cities distributed along a corridorwith a total length o 500 miles or less.

• High levels o economic activity along thecorridor. HSR systems depend heavily onbusiness travel to sustain ridership, and

business travel is highest in places withmore productive economies.

• Dense activity centers within walkingdistance o HSR stations.

18 http://www.transforum-project.eu/.

19 Adapted from Yoav Hagler and Petra Todorovich. “Where High-Speed Rail Works Best — America 2050,” http://www.america2050.org/pdf/Where-HSR-Works-Best.pdf .

Introduction

http://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/beyond-trackshttp://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/beyond-trackshttp://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/2559/2/WP590_uploadable_protected.pdfhttp://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/2559/2/WP590_uploadable_protected.pdfhttp://www.transforum-project.eu/http://www.transforum-project.eu/http://www.america2050.org/pdf/Where-HSR-Works-Best.pdfhttp://www.america2050.org/pdf/Where-HSR-Works-Best.pdfhttp://www.america2050.org/pdf/Where-HSR-Works-Best.pdfhttp://www.america2050.org/pdf/Where-HSR-Works-Best.pdfhttp://www.transforum-project.eu/http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/2559/2/WP590_uploadable_protected.pdfhttp://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/2559/2/WP590_uploadable_protected.pdfhttp://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/beyond-trackshttp://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/beyond-tracks


12/89


Figure 1

Door-to-door travel times between downtown San Francisco and downtown Los Angeles by mode.

Travel times calculated as follows:

• HSR — 3 hours 10 minutes: Thisgraphic assumes a travel time of

2 hours and 40 minutes betweenthe Transbay Transit Center (TTC)in San Francisco and Los AngelesUnion Station, the travel time that isspecied in California Proposition 1A

of 2008, the ballot initiative that allo-cated funds to HSR. In this scenario,the traveler walks from the FerryBuilding to the TTC, a 10-minute walk.The traveler arrives at TTC 15 minutesbefore the departure of the train.1

Upon arrival at LA Union Station, thetraveler takes a bus to Grand CentralMarket and arrives in ve minutes.

• Fly SFO to LAX — 5 hours 20 minutes:

Although a ight from SFO to LAXtakes 1 hour and 15 minutes, thedoor-to-door travel time betweenTTC and LA Grand Central Market(GCM) can be over four times as longwhen factoring in travel to and fromthe airports and passing throughsecurity. This diagram assumes thatthe traveler takes a taxi from the FerryBuilding to SFO, checks in luggage,passes through security, and waitsfor an hour in a l ounge. Upon arrivingin Los Angeles, the traveler picks upa rental car and drives to downtownLA. Once in downtown, the travelerspends 10 minutes searching forparking and walking from the parkinggarage to GCM.

• Drive I-5 — 7 hours 20 minutes: Theuninterrupted travel time between thetwo points without trafc is 5 hours and 22 minutes according to Google Maps. The Interstate-5 corridor, however, is often highly congested. This diagram assumes just under an hour of trafc delay. Additionally,

it assumes a meal break of 35 minutes and an additional 10-minute fuel stop. When leaving San Francisco, the traveler walks from the San Francisco Ferry building to a nearby garage, which takes ve minutes.

Upon arriving in Los Angeles, the traveler takes ve minutes to park the car at a garage near Grand Central Market and walks ve minutes to the market.

Source: Graphic by author, adapted from Brian Stokle

1 Access to HSR trains in Europe is not controlled by airport-style security checkpoints. However, if California chooses to implement such security measures, this, according to Stokle’s estimates, could easily add 20minutes to go through the checkpoint and 10-40 minutes waiting in a lounge.

0

(7hrs 20 mins) Drive I-5

Fly SFO > LAX

Transbay Transit Center > LA Union Station

AUTO

AIRPLANE

HSR

(3hrs 10mins)

(5hrs 20mins)

1hr 2hr 3hr 4hr 5hr 6hr 7hr 8hr

Downtime: Waiting

for transport

Intercity travel

Downtime: Trip to

intercity mode

Fuel

stop

P

Parking

and walk

to final

destination

P

Meal in

restaurant

Check-in

and

security

TAXI

Taxi to

airport

TAXI

Drive

rental

car to

downtown

Car rental

shuttle

and

pickup

Bus to

destination

Wait in

lounge

Walk to

intercity

mode

Baggage

pickup


13/89


• Robust public transit networks in HSRstation cities, which would make itunnecessary or HSR passengers to driveto or rom HSR stations, or use cars toget around in the city to which they are

traveling, thus reducing the need orspace-consuming parking and rental caracilities.

Caliornia’s HSR project easily meets the firsttwo o these criteria. In terms o the size othe cities that HSR would serve, Greater LosAngeles and the San Francisco Bay Area havea combined population o about 25 millionpeople. Additionally, the Caliornia HSR linecould be a boon or a number o smaller cities

located in Caliornia’s Central Valley withuntapped economic development potential,including Fresno and Bakersfield. With careuleconomic development and land use planningin these Central Valley cities in anticipation oHSR, they stand to benefit greatly rom beingbetter connected to the state’s major economicpoles. Looking specifically at the length othe Caliornia corridor and the size o thecities along it, the project appears to be verycompelling. Te diagram below shows that the

proposed Caliornia HSR route is o similarlength to heavily traveled HSR corridors inFrance and Germany — the two Europeancountries with the most experience with HSRthat are the ocus o this report. However, thecities located along Caliornia’s HSR route are

much larger than those along the French andGerman corridors.20

HSR is also an attractive option or Cali-ornia due to its anticipated effects oneconomic development. Te state’s economy,i compared to the economies o other coun-tries in the world, would be the world’s eighthlargest, and the majority o this wealth isgenerated in communities along the HSRroute, particularly in Greater Los Angeles andthe San Francisco Bay Area. Over one-thirdo Caliornia’s gross domestic product (GDP)is generated in the Los Angeles – Long Beach– Santa Ana metropolitan area alone.21 Byacilitating transportation between the state’s

major urban centers, HSR will make it easierto do business in both places.

Tough all o these actors would seem toprovide a solid basis or the HSR project inCaliornia, many are concerned that — withthe exception o San Francisco and arguablyLos Angeles — most o the state’s proposedstation cities lack the last two criteria: 1) denseactivity centers within walking distance outure station sites; and 2) seamless connec-

tions between rail and local public transitnetworks. In other words, how can HSRsucceed in Caliornia without both promotingurban density around stations at levels that arecurrently uncommon in most o the station

20 According to the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s 2014Business Plan, approximately 32 million riders are expected underthe “medium ridership scenario” between Los Angeles and SanFrancisco in 2035.

21 http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/calfacts/calfacts_010213.aspx.

host communities and increasing typicallyexpensive transit connections? Withoutconvenient alternative connection options,most HSR passengers will want to drive tostations. At the larger station sites, parking

demand will not be accommodated withsurace parking lots, and there will be pressureto develop large and costly parking struc-tures. Large parking structures, in turn, willlimit possibilities or denser land use aroundstations. Tis will reduce opportunities orthe state to maximize return on its investmentin HSR, and will do little to decrease trafficcongestion, decrease greenhouse gas emis-sions, and increase transit ridership.

Addressing these questions is critical or anumber o stakeholders, including:

• Employers seeking to take advantage oaccess benefits o co-locating job sitesnear HSR stations;

• Real estate developers and investors plan-ning to develop in HSR station areas;

• State and ederal taxpayers unding HSRcapital and operating costs;

• Elected officials whose jurisdictionsbenefit rom increased access andeconomic development potential romHSR; and

• Local transportation officials and transitagencies connecting HSR passengers toHSR stations.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/calfacts/calfacts_010213.aspxhttp://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/calfacts/calfacts_010213.aspxhttp://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/calfacts/calfacts_010213.aspxhttp://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/calfacts/calfacts_010213.aspx


14/89


Figure 2

The length of HSR routes

and the sizes of cities

served in France and

Germany in comparison to

the proposed HSR route

in California and the sizes

of cities along it. As this

graphic shows, California

has very large urban

regions that are spaced

at appropriate distances

from each other in order

to be effectively served by

high-speed rail.

Source: Graphic by author

Paris Region12.3M

Greater Los Angeles18.1M

Fresno1.1M

Bakersfield852k

San FranciscoBay Area

7.6M

L e C r e u s o t ( 2 3 k )

M a c o n ( 3 3 k )

V a l e n c e ( 6 3 k )

A v i g n o n ( 9 0 k )

A i x - e n - P r o v e n c e

( 1 4 1 k )

A n a h e i m ( 3 4

5 k )

L O S

A N G E L E S

B u r b a n k (

1 0 5 k )

P a l m d a l e ( 1 5

7 k )

T u l a r e ( 6 1 k / 4 4 2 k )

M e r c e d

G i l r o y ( 4 9 k )

M i l b r a e / S F

A i r p o r t ( 2 2 k )

Berlin-Brandenburg6.0M

0 100 200 300 400 500 600miles

B E R L I N

W o l f s b u r g ( 1 2 2 k )

H i l d e s h e i m

( 1 0 0 k )

B r a u n s c h w e i g

( 2 4 7 k )

G ö t t i n g e n ( 1 1 7 k )

K a s s e l ( 1 9 6 k )

H a n n o v e r

F u l d a ( 6 5 k )

K a r l s r u h e ( 2 9 6 k )

O f f e n b u r g ( 5 8 k )

F r e i b u r g ( 2 2 0 k )

Rhein-Main5.5M

Hannover-Braunschweig-Göttingen-Wolfsburg

3.9M

Rhein-Neckar2.4M

BaselRegion1.3M

MarseilleRegion1.7M

P A R I S

LyonRegion

2.2M L y o n

295k491k

M a r s e i l l e

340k851k

1.8M3.4M

1.7M2.2M

1.4M3.9M

F r a n k f u r t

505k701k

M a n n h e i m

159k297k

B a s e l

184k174k

389k518k

F r e s n o

407k510k

S a n J o s e

406k999k

S a n F r a n

c i s c o

530k838k

B a k e r s f i e l d

359k364k Metropolitan Region

Number of Jobs

Within Primary City530k

Population of

Primary City838k

HSR Station City

Population 100k-300k

HSR Station City

Population ≤ 99k

Primary City Within

Metropolitan Region

HSR Line

D i j o n

G e n e v a

A n n e c y

G r e n o b l e

B r i a n c o n

B e s a n c o n


15/89


Research Questions

In my role as liaison between the Federalransit Administration and the CaliorniaHigh-Speed Rail Authority (CAHSRA), the

Caliornia state agency that is responsible orimplementing HSR service, I grapple with thechallenges that HSR will have in providingrobust and convenient local transit connec-tions in cities. France and Germany, thetwo European countries with the most HSRexperience in Europe, have significant exper-tise to share with Caliornia on this topic.Tis is why, with support rom the Urbanand Regional Policy Program o the GermanMarshall Fund o the United States, I traveled

to France and Germany to study these topicsin the all o 2013. Trough my travels, Iocused on three primary research questions:

• What are the primary differences betweenthe French and German models o HSRdevelopment?

• How do French and German cities planor and manage development withinhigh-speed rail station neighborhoods asa means o stimulating economic develop-

ment?• What policies and practices have German

and French cities employed to acilitatenon-auto access to HSR stations?

Te French and German HSR systemsrepresent two very different models o HSRdevelopment, reflecting differences in gover-nance, the national distribution o populationthroughout each country, and goals or HSR

within each country’s respective transporta-tion system. France, which has a very strongcentral government located in Paris, uses a“segregated” HSR model, where trains (trainsà grande vitesse or “GV” ) travel at very

high speeds between the national capital andsecond-tier cities. rains run along mostlydedicated track and make very ew (i any)stops in smaller cities. By contrast, Germany,a ederal country where power and popula-tion are distributed more evenly throughoutthe country, uses a “blended” or “integrated”model. In Germany, HSR trains (IntercityExpress or “ICE” ) usually run on track sharedwith conventional trains, do not travel as astas the French trains, and make more stops insmaller cities. HSR corridors in Germany alsotend to be less direct than in France, some-times making significant detours to connectselect cities, particularly state capitals. Tesedifferences, discussed later in this report,make both countries interesting case studiesrom which Caliornia can learn.

Methodology

• I reviewed HSR station access and

development programs, both nationallyand locally, and created an inventory oplans, policies, strategies, and approachesspecific to each city’s context and chal-lenges. My ocus was on the cities listed inable 1, each o which is noteworthy romthe standpoint o my research topic.

• I conducted more than 60 interviews inEurope with representatives rom the

French and German national railways,ederal government officials, representa-tives rom urban transit agencies and cityplanning offices, transportation consul-tants, architects and urban designers,academics, and a small number o HSRriders.

• I toured public transit systems in eachcity, ocusing on key HSR connectionpoints within each system.

• I did a significant amount o travel byHSR in both France and Germany inorder to experience first-hand how HSRshortens both real and perceived traveldistances and to observe differences inHSR inrastructure and connections tolocal transportation networks in bothcountries.

Table 1: Focus Cities

France Germany

• Lyon

• Lille

• Paris• Strasbourg

• Marseille

• Aix-en-Provence

• Avignon

• Le Creusot

• Haute-Picardie*

• Berlin

• Leipzig

• Dresden• Erurt

• Münster

• Hannover

• Kassel

• Cologne*

• Montabaur*

• Limburg*

• Freiburg** A city that I did not have the opportunity to visit during my travels.


16/89


In this report, I argue that in order or HSRto deliver on its promise to 38 million Cali-ornians and investors, the project must bedesigned as the backbone o a comprehensivesystem or sustainable passenger mobility in

Caliornia. It is the mode o intercity travelthat can do more than any other to reduceautomobile dependence, a key considerationor Caliornia in light o state legislation thataims to reduce greenhouse gas emissionsand improve air quality. Given that HSR ismost efficient or medium-distance travelbetween city cores, that stations can fit moreeasily and harmoniously into existing urbanneighborhoods, and that it is easier to connectHSR with local public transit networks andnon-auto “last-mile” modes, it is a mode ointercity travel that can reduce dependenceon less efficient and less sustainable orms otransportation such as cars and airplanes.

However, it is important to recognize thatHSR will not be the most appropriate mode ointercity travel or all travelers and or all trips.It is best suited to trips in the 100 to 500-milerange between large cities or travelers towhom central-city-to-central-city travel times

are most important. Tis segment o the state’stravel is critically important, and increasinglyso as many o Caliornia’s proposed HSR citiessee rapid population and job growth, much owhich is concentrated in central cities.22 Withthat growth, demand or intercity travel wil lalso grow.

22 http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/esti-mates/e-1/documents/E-1_2014_Press_Release.pdf .

Te Los Angeles-San Francisco corridor isalready one o the busiest short-haul flightcorridors in the world, and by ar the busiestin the United States.23 Airports in the SanFrancisco Bay Area and Greater Los Angeles

already operate near peak capacity. Accom-modating projected travel needs will requiresignificant expansion o airport gates. AsCAHSRA has pointed out, shiing some othe state’s short-haul air travel to HSR will reeup gate capacity at the airports, and allow theairports to allocate space to longer-haul planesthat also typically carry more passengers per vehicle.

In order or HSR to serve as the backbone o

sustainable mobility in Caliornia, the project’sdefinition must extend beyond HSR routeplanning to include sustainable local trans-portation connections and careul station areaplanning. Cities across France and Germanydemonstrate how HSR can be a powerul toolor strengthening cities and towns along HSRcorridors in economic, social, and culturalterms. With careul planning, the same can beachieved in Caliornia.

Another social trend that avors HSR is theincreased interest in urban living, both inCaliornia and nationally. Te regions inCaliornia that are seeing the highest rates opopulation growth are located along the HSRroute. Tis includes both coastal countiessuch as Alameda, Contra Costa, and SantaClara counties in the north and Los Angeles

23 “Domestic Airline Consumer Airfare Report-2013, Table 1.” U.S.Department of Transportation.

and Riverside counties in the south, as wellas Central Valley counties like Fresno andKern.24 As I will argue in this report, HSRhas distinct urban design advantages overairports and roadways in that it can handle

24 State of California, Department of Finance, California CountyPopulation Estimates and Components of Change by Year, July 1,2010-2014. Sacramento, California, December 2014, http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-2/view.php.

Figure 3

Cover photo for May 2013 white paper enti -

tled “Public Transit: Backbone and Engine

of a Future-Oriented Coalition for Mobility.”This paper was published by VDV, Germany’s

national public transit trade association. Just

as VDV considers public transit the backbone

for sustainable mobility at the city level in

Germany, high-speed rail should be viewed

as the backbone of national intercity trans-

portation. Notably absent from this image

is the bicycle, which plays an increasingly

important role in urban transportation in

Germany.

Source: GVH (Grossraum-Verkehr Hannover)

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/documents/E-1_2014_Press_Release.pdfhttp://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/documents/E-1_2014_Press_Release.pdfhttp://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/documents/E-1_2014_Press_Release.pdfhttp://www.dot.gov/policy/aviation-policy/domestic-airline-fares-consumer-reporthttp://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-2/view.phphttp://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-2/view.phphttp://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-2/view.phphttp://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-2/view.phphttp://www.dot.gov/policy/aviation-policy/domestic-airline-fares-consumer-reporthttp://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/documents/E-1_2014_Press_Release.pdfhttp://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/documents/E-1_2014_Press_Release.pdf


17/89


much higher passenger volumes, and stationscan either be inserted into densely developedurban contexts or integrated into existingstations and related inrastructure. Potentialcustomers are most attracted to HSR when

it is located in dense activity centers that arewell served by public transit.

Tis report begins with a brie discussiono HSR, ocusing on how it is defined andon its pros and cons. It then discusses theFrench and German HSR systems generallyand then ocuses on a number o train station

technology including passenger inormationand integrated payment systems that acili-tate access to stations. Because o this, thereis significant attention on strategies that willincrease the efficiency, attractiveness, and use

o all non-auto modes that eed into HSR. Tereport ends with a set o actionable policyrecommendations based on the French andGerman models that Caliornia should ollowin order to maximize the state’s investment inHSR.

master planning efforts in both countries. Tereader will note that this report discusses anumber o topics that may not seem directlyrelated to HSR, including bicycling, bikeshare, inrastructure, car share, integrated are

payment systems, and others. Tis is basedon the realization early in this project — andparticularly based on insights rom Germany— that HSR cannot be viewed in isolationrom the larger transportation system. Itmust also be viewed in the context o largersystems such as physical inrastructure and


18/89


First developed in Japan in the mid-1960sand later introduced in Europe and

elsewhere in Asia, high-speed rail (HSR)is a type o rail transportation that operates atmuch higher speeds than conventional trains.HSR is defined in different ways in differentparts o the world, but the European Union(EU) has perhaps put orth the most compre-hensive definition o this travel technology.Tis definition ocuses on three elements: 1)track inrastructure; 2) rolling stock, and; 3)the compatibility between track and rollingstock.25 High speed lines include dedicatedtracks that are specially built or speedsin excess o 155 mph as well as speciallyupgraded tracks that are designed or speedso 125 mph or greater.26 According to the EU,HSR vehicles must be designed to guaranteesae, uninterrupted travel at speeds o at least155 mph on lines specially built or highspeed, while enabling speeds o over 186 mphon tracks designed or those higher velocities.

The Proposed California High-SpeedRail Project

Caliornia high-speed rail will be the nation’sfirst high-speed rail system. According tothe Caliornia High-Speed Rail Authority

25 http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article971.

26 Exceptions are made to these denitions for track segments in

which, due to topographical or other constraints, speeds of 200km/h or greater cannot be maintained.

What is High-Speed Rail?

Figure 4

California high-speed rail route and phasing plan.


Stockton

Sacramento

Modesto

Merced

Fresno

Kings/Tulare

Gilroy

San Jose

Bakersfield

Palmdale

Riverside

San Diego

Anaheim

Los AngelesBurbank

Milbrae

SanFrancisco

http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article971http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article971http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article971


19/89


(CAHSRA), the project will connect themega-regions o the state, contribute toeconomic development, create jobs, preserveagricultural and protected lands, and lead toa cleaner environment. In recognition o the

project’s potential or helping the state to meetaggressive greenhouse gas emissions reduc-tion targets mandated by Caliornia laws,Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32)27 and Senate Bill 375(SB 375),28 Caliornia lawmakers allocated25 percent o uture revenues rom the state’s“cap-and-trade” program — money raisedrom polluters to offset carbon emissions — toprovide ongoing unding or construction oCaliornia’s HSR project in June 2014.

By 2029, the system will run rom San Fran-cisco to the Los Angeles Basin in under threehours at speeds o up to 220 miles per hour.Te system will eventually extend to Sacra-mento and San Diego, totaling 800 miles withup to 24 stations. In addition, the CAHSRA isworking with regional partners to implementa state-wide rail modernization plan that willinvest billions o dollars in local and regionalrail lines to meet the state’s 21st century trans-portation needs.”29

Pros and Cons of HSR

ProsHSR trains have several innate advantagesover cars and planes. In comparison to cars,

27 http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm.

28 http://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm .

29 http://www.hsr.ca.gov/ .

they do not get stuck in traffic and travel atmuch higher speeds. Tey also offer competi-tive door-to-door travel times in comparisonto airplanes because train stations are closerto most people’s origins and destinations.

Also, since historic train stations are oencentral nodes within urban public transitnetworks, they tend to be easily accessible bypublic transit. In countries such as Germanyand Japan, where many mid-sized cities aredistributed along HSR routes linking majormetropolitan agglomerations, HSR offers theadvantage o direct city-to-city service along achain o intermediate cities. In terms o urbandevelopment, HSR stations have the potentialto catalyze economic development in station

neighborhoods and cities i they are conceivedas part o larger urban development andredevelopment plans. Also, rom a passenger’sstandpoint, trains are oen considered to bethe most comortable travel mode becausethey offer more legroom and space in generalthan either cars or planes. Te superiorcomort o trains makes it possible or passen-gers to be more productive while in transit, aactor that is especially important or business

travelers.Some o the main benefits o pursuing an HSRsystem include:30

• Shrinks the perceived distance betweenany two places on or near the line by

30 Adapted from Egon Terplan and Heng Gao, “Getting High-Speed Rail On Track” (2012), http://www.spur.org/publications/article/2012-07-10/getting-high-speed-rail-track.

making travel between them easier andaster.

• Improves mobility by saving travel timeand reducing congestion or all travelers imore trips shi rom air and auto to rail.

• Reduces pollution and helps meetambitious state-wide climate changegoals. With growing population andtravel demand, the state cannot meet itsgreenhouse gas reduction goals withoutshiing more trips rom automobilesand airplanes onto cleaner trains, sitingdestinations closer together to reducedistances, and reducing the need ormotorized travel to satisy short local

trips. Te rail system is estimated toprevent 3 million tons o carbon dioxideemissions annually and result in 4 billionewer vehicle miles traveled on Caliorniahighways in 2040. HSR could play animportant role in reinvigorating the econ-omies o the historic cores o many citiesin Caliornia, particularly or economi-cally depressed cities in the San JoaquinValley.31

• Strengthens and improves commuterrail and regional intercity rail, increasingthe viability o transit or intraregional

31 Egon Terplan, “Beyond the Tracks: The Potential of High-SpeedRail to Reshape California’s Growth” (San Francisco Planning andUrban Research Association Policy Paper, January 2011), http://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/beyond-tracks; EgonTerplan, “Beyond the Tracks: The Potential of High-Speed Rail toReshape California’s Growth” (San Francisco Planning and UrbanResearch Association Policy Paper, January 2011), http://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/beyond-tracks.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htmhttp://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htmhttp://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htmhttp://www.hsr.ca.gov/http://www.hsr.ca.gov/http://www.hsr.ca.gov/http://www.spur.org/publications/article/2012-07-10/getting-high-speed-rail-trackhttp://www.spur.org/publications/article/2012-07-10/getting-high-speed-rail-trackhttp://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/beyond-trackshttp://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/beyond-trackshttp://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/beyond-trackshttp://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/beyond-trackshttp://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/beyond-trackshttp://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/beyond-trackshttp://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/beyond-trackshttp://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/beyond-trackshttp://www.spur.org/publications/article/2012-07-10/getting-high-speed-rail-trackhttp://www.spur.org/publications/article/2012-07-10/getting-high-speed-rail-trackhttp://www.hsr.ca.gov/http://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htmhttp://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm


20/89


commuting, together with the CaliorniaState Rail Modernization Program.

• Reinorces the knowledge economy sector

by supporting ace-to-ace interaction andimproved productivity. ravel by traintypically is more comortable than by caror airplane because seats are generallylarger and passengers are ree to moveabout trains while in route. Tis makes itmore easible or passengers to use theirtravel time more productively.

• Can serve as a catalyst or uture growthin the state — a necessary transportationoption that will allow or the development

o more compact and less auto-orientedgrowth in HSR station cities.

• Can also serve as the backbone orsustainable mobility in the state and canmeet the intercity travel needs o signifi-cant numbers o travelers. I coordinatedwith public transit and other last-milemodes such as bicycles, car share, and

bike share, HSR will allow many Calior-nians to have less car-centric liestyles.

ConsCritics o the Caliornia high-speed rail

project have argued that Caliornia lacksthe geography, demographics, and culturaltradition that have made HSR serviceeconomically viable in densely populatedcountries like France, Germany, and Japan.Tis includes high population concentrations,closely spaced cities, high gasoline prices,and a public that is accustomed to travelingby train.32 Specific criticisms o the Caliorniaproject include:33

• Te project is too expensive, currentorecasts underestimate the cost o theproject and overestimate ridership, andthe prospects or finding the money thatwill be required to build the project arenot good.

• Tere is not enough political and popularsupport or the project, and such supportis essential or such a large and costlyundertaking.

• CAHSRA’s decision to begin constructionin Caliornia’s Central Valley is misguidedbecause the cities along that segment othe route are relatively small and unlikelyto generate significant ridership. Tis has

32 See Ken Orski, “Will There Be a “Tipping Point” for High-SpeedRail in the U.S.?” in Innovation Briefs, Vol. 25, No. 13 (www.inno-briefs.com).

33 See http://reason.org/studies/show/california-high-speed-rail-report and http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/HSR-Defense.pdf .

Figure 5

Introducing HSR spans a critical gap in the modal hierarchy of California’s transportation system

The optimal distance range for trips by high-speed-rail is between 100 and 500 miles, with the

optimal distance being about 300 miles. Distances above 500 miles are best traveled by plane,

while distances below 100 miles are best covered by traditional intercity rail, bus, or by private

automobile.


0 100 200 300

AIRPLANE

HSR

INTERCITY RAIL

INTERCITY BUS

AUTO

COMMUTER RAIL

400 500 600 miles

http://www.innobriefs.com/http://www.innobriefs.com/http://reason.org/studies/show/california-high-speed-rail-reporthttp://reason.org/studies/show/california-high-speed-rail-reporthttp://reason.org/studies/show/california-high-speed-rail-reporthttp://reason.org/studies/show/california-high-speed-rail-reporthttp://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/HSR-Defense.pdfhttp://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/HSR-Defense.pdfhttp://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/HSR-Defense.pdfhttp://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/HSR-Defense.pdfhttp://reason.org/studies/show/california-high-speed-rail-reporthttp://reason.org/studies/show/california-high-speed-rail-reporthttp://www.innobriefs.com/http://www.innobriefs.com/


21/89


led some critics to brand the project the“train to nowhere.”

• HSR is an old technology and not trans-ormational enough. Given Caliornia’sposition as a global center o techno-logical innovation, the state should belooking into more groundbreaking modessuch as magnetic levitation (MAGLEV)or even the highly publicized Hyperloopproposal put orward in 2013 by eslaMotors ounder Elon Musk.34

• Caliornia — like most o the UnitedStates — already has a well-developed

34 See http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/hyperloop.

network o regional air services that serveas an effective substitute or ast trainservice.

• Prevailing travel behavior and land usepatterns in HSR station cities (the ocus othis report) are not compatible with andsupportive o HSR service.

• HSR would be a singularly attractiveterrorist target.

Te ollowing section o this report discusseskey topics related to HSR route planning,with a particular ocus on the elements o

station siting, station design, station accessplanning, and operational strategies thatmake or successul HSR service in Franceand Germany. In discussing each topic as itrelates to these two European countries, I then

consider the relevance o this inormationor Caliornia. Tis discussion will shed light,bearing in mind the pros and cons discussedabove, on actions that the state should takenow as construction on the HSR line hascommenced and as station cities kick offplanning efforts or their uture HSR stationdistricts.

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/hyperloophttp://www.teslamotors.com/blog/hyperloophttp://www.teslamotors.com/blog/hyperloop


22/89


High-Speed Rail Development

in France and Germany:

Speed versus Connectivity

In planning or HSR, a tension existsbetween maximizing train operating speedsand providing as many connections and

station stops as possible. France emphasizesthe first approach, while Germany emphasizesthe second. In assessing the advantages anddisadvantages o both models, high speedsshould be prioritized in sparsely populatedplaces, while maximizing connections should

be the primary consideration in densely popu-lated places.

Te French and German HSR systems repre-sent two very different models o HSR devel-opment, models that reflect differences ingovernance, in the national distribution opopulation throughout each country, and ingoals or HSR within each country’s respec-tive transportation system. France, which hasa very strong central government located in

Paris, uses a “segregated” HSR model, wheretrains (trains à grande vitesse or “GV”) travelat very high speeds between the nationalcapital and second-tier cities. rains run alongmostly dedicated track and make very ew (iany) stops in smaller cities.

By contrast, Germany, a ederal countrywhere power and population are distributedmore evenly throughout the country, uses a

Key Topics Relating to HSR Stations and Station Access

Figure 6

Differing approaches to high-speed rail in France and Germany. In France, virtually all HSR lines

radiate from Paris to provide the shortest possible travel times to and from second-tier ci ties.

Trains travel on dedicated tracks, often in excess of 180 mph. In Germany, the rail system is

almost entirely blended and trains move more slowly. The national rail network is much more

densely developed though, and smaller and mid-sized cities tend to be better connected.



23/89


“blended” or “integrated” model. In Germany,HSR trains, Intercity Express or “ICE,” usuallyrun on shared track with conventional trains,do not run as ast as the French trains, andmake more stops in smaller cities. HSR corri-

dors in Germany also tend to be less directthan in France, sometimes making significantdeviations to connect select cities, partic-ularly state capitals. For example, the deci-sion to make Erurt a stop along the utureBerlin-Munich HSR line adds over 55 miles

and 45 minutes to the trip over a more directroute that was briefly discussed early in theplanning process.35

Tough the French model allows or muchaster station-to-station travel times, onetrade-off is that connections rom HSR topublic transit systems are not as seamless asin Germany, and the network does not servesmaller and mid-sized cities well. People whotravel to smaller cities in France by GVoen need to drive to stations, a act that hasobvious downsides both in terms o the envi-ronment and sustainable land use. Addition-ally, it also means that lower-income Frenchcitizens who do not have easy access to cars

may find it difficult to take HSR.In Germany, HSR trains run on shared trackand stop more requently in smaller citiesthan their French counterparts, causing manyHSR experts to liken the German system to anintercity subway.36 More requent stops extendservice to larger portions o the country. Also,each stop increases opportunities or trans-ers to other modes, and also the possibilitythat people can reach their ultimate desti-nations by rail. Te obvious cost o servingsmall and mid-sized cities is that travel times

35 Christian Wüst, “Germany’s Longest Subway: Billions UponBillions for Berlin-Munich Bullet Train,” Der Spiegel, October 27,2011, http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-s-longest-subway-billions-upon-billions-for-berlin-munich-bullet-train-a-794125.html . According to several of the rail experts Iinterviewed, bypassing Erfurt was never really seriously consideredduring initial planning for the Berlin-Munich HSR line, even thoughthe city is relatively small at just over 200,000 inhabitants. This isbecause Erfurt is the capital of the state of Thuringia and has animportant history dating back over 1,300 years.

36 Phone conversation with Yves Crozet, January 26, 2013.

between Germany’s largest cities are length-ened. Te German Railway (Deutsche Bahn)seeks to balance the needs o its big city andsmaller city passengers by offering a mixo local trains that stop in smaller interme-

diate cities and “sprinter” trains that do not.One o the best known o the sprinters is theBerlin-Frankurt train, which completes thetrip between Germany’s political capital andits financial capital in 3.5 hours, shaving 45minutes off the normal trip time.

Differences in Population Density

and the Distribution of Population

in France and Germany Te two modes o HSR development inGermany and France do not stem purely romthe strategic decision-making o the respectivenational railways. Indeed, existing settlementpatterns are another important determiningactor. First, Germany has about twice theoverall population density as France. Second,Germany does not have a metropolitan areathat is anywhere near as populous as Paris(Berlin, Germany’s largest metropolitan regionhas about 5 million, while Paris has about 12).

Also, Germany has ar more mid-sized citiesdistributed much more evenly throughout thecountry than France. For example, the RuhrValley has five cities ranging rom 400,000 to600,000 inhabitants that essentially blend intoeach other, including Düsseldor, Dortmund,

“Service began on the rst French TGV

line in 1981, ten years earlier than theGerman ICE. The French system cost

only half as much to build per kilometerand, to this day, is much faster than itsGerman counterpart. However, the TGVis only half as useful as the ICE. Also,the interior design of French trains is —at least in the opinion of many Germanrailcar engineers — not as good asGerman trains. As such, it can be moredifcult in France than in Germany to

make as good use of one’s time while in

transit.” — Markus Hoffman, Leader of Strategy and

Marketing, Deutsche Bahn1

1 Interview with Markus Hoffmann, November 8, 2013. WhenHoffmannn said that the TGV only does half as much as the ICE,he was speaking primarily about the access benets of HSR,

particularly from the standpoint of door-to-door access and inte-gration with local transportation networks. He was also alludingto the notion that German trains and track infrastructure is of ahigher quality than French trains and rail infrastructure, and thatGerman trains offer a superior ride quality.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-s-longest-subway-billions-upon-billions-for-berlin-munich-bullet-train-a-794125.htmlhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-s-longest-subway-billions-upon-billions-for-berlin-munich-bullet-train-a-794125.htmlhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-s-longest-subway-billions-upon-billions-for-berlin-munich-bullet-train-a-794125.htmlhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-s-longest-subway-billions-upon-billions-for-berlin-munich-bullet-train-a-794125.htmlhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-s-longest-subway-billions-upon-billions-for-berlin-munich-bullet-train-a-794125.htmlhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-s-longest-subway-billions-upon-billions-for-berlin-munich-bullet-train-a-794125.html


24/89


Table 2: Basic Statistical Information about France, Germany, and California

France Germany California

• Highly centralizedpolitically and

economically • Population: 66

million

• Land area: 261,000square miles

• Density: 302 peopleper square mile

• Paris by ar largest metropolitan area (12million); Lyon next (2 million)

• Primary purpose o HSR is to speed travelbetween Paris and second-tier cities. HSR servescenter city stations in these locations.

• Stops between Paris and second-tier cities arerare, only in exurban unpopulated areas.

• Mostly dedicated HSR track

• HSR quicker and more popular than airbetween many French cities

• Te GV commands 90 percent o thecombined air-rail travel market or the Paris–Lyon route, which has a GV travel time o lessthan two hours. GV also has about 60 percentmarket share in corridors where the GV traveltime is around three hoursb

• Service initiated: 1981

• rack mileage (2013) = 1,265 mi; 470 micurrently under constructionc

• Federal country with relativelyeven distribution o population

• Population: 82 million• Land area: 138,000 square miles

• Density: 608 people per squaremile

• Decentralized Ruhr Valleyregion largest metropolitan areaat 10 million; Berlin next largest at 6 million

• Mostly blended HSR system

• Many cities with 400,000 to 1 million inhabitants,so trains stop requently

• HSR trains serve historic city center stations• Little HSR-specific land use planning (i.e. cities

serve central city stations that are located inneighborhoods that were built out centuries agoand are already the cultural and economic epicen-ters o urban regions)

• HSR not undamental ly new, but rather the nextevolution in an existing technology d

• First rate highway system and well-developednetwork o airports compete with HSR

• A “car country”

• Heavy ocus on intermodality • Te German Railway (Deutsche Bahn) operates its

own car share and bike share services

• Service initiated: 1991

• rack mileage (2013) = 829 mi; 266 mi currentlyunder constructionc

• Largest state bypopulation within a

large ederal republic• Population: 38

million

• Land area: 163,696square mile

• Density: 232 peopleper square mile

• Los Angeles largestmetropolitan areawith 18 million (3.8 million in city limits);a nextlargest San Francisco Bay Region at 7.6 million

(San Jose 999,000; San Francisco 838,000)• Plan is to build a blended system in the densely

populated “bookends” o the system in the LosAngeles and San Francisco Bay regions, anddedicated track elsewhere

• Primary justifications or project include:accommodating the large projected increase intravel between major population centers andreducing pressure on overcrowded airports andreeways; providing a backbone or ocusinguture population growth and land develop-

ment; meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets• Planned track mileage (2029) = 530 miles (rom

San Francisco to Anaheim)

• Service initiation date: 2029 (planned or LosAngeles to San Francisco service)

a 2010 U.S. Census

b http://reason.org/les/high_speed_rail_lessons.pdf .

c http://www.uic.org/IMG/pdf/20131101_high_speed_lines_in_the_world.pdf .

d Conversations with Philipp Latinak and Rainer Danielzik, November 2013.

i

City largerthan 1 million

City 400,000to 999,999

http://reason.org/files/high_speed_rail_lessons.pdfhttp://www.uic.org/IMG/pdf/20131101_high_speed_lines_in_the_world.pdfhttp://www.uic.org/IMG/pdf/20131101_high_speed_lines_in_the_world.pdfhttp://reason.org/files/high_speed_rail_lessons.pdf


25/89


Essen, Duisburg, and Bochum.37 It is difficultto provide HSR service through cities o a halmillion people without stopping trains.38

Te French scholars with whom I spoke allsaid that Germany’s settlement patterns makeit better suited to rail travel. But these settle-ment patterns also make it difficult or HSRtrains to achieve very high speeds withoutbypassing important mid-sized cities. Giventhat the attractiveness o any mode o trans-portation is largely a unction o how quicklyit can transport passengers door-to-door incomparison to other modes, this creates aquandary or the Deutsche Bahn: is it possibleto maintain ast enough travel times between

stations located 100-500 miles apart, in orderor HSR to be competitive both with airplanesand cars. Tis point is especially relevant inGermany because the playing field or HSR ismore challenging there than in other Euro-pean countries. Germany has a comparativelywell-developed network o airports that offersmany attractive options or traveling by plane,as well as an exceptionally well-built networko highways on which there are amously ewor no speed limits.

37 These cities are part of Germany’s industrial heartland. With apopulation of about 10 million people, many consider the Ruhr Valleyto be a metropolitan area in and of itself. However, it is decentralizedand polycentric, unlike other traditional metropolitan areas in Europein this respect.

38 Interview with Bruno Faivre d’Arcier, October 21, 2013.

Paris and Berlin:

Capital Cities Reecting Different

National Approaches to HSRTe different approaches in France andGermany toward HSR development are clear

when comparing the arrangement o HSRstations and local transit connections to thosestations in Paris and Berlin.

Te French national railway system ispremised on the assumption that Paris is theprimary destination or most travelers. High-speed trains arriving rom other parts o thecountry arrive at one o five terminal stations,depending on the direction rom which theyare coming. For example, passengers coming

rom Lyon or Marseille will arrive at Gare deLyon in Paris, while passengers coming romLondon or Lille will arrive at Gare du Nord.

I an HSR traveler’s ultimate destination is inParis, the terminal station where they arrivemay or may not be close to their ultimatedestination. For example, an HSR passengercoming rom Lyon may be able to make it toParis Gare de Lyon in the central southeasternpart o Paris in two hours. However, i their

ultimate destination is in the northwest parto Paris, their door-to-door travel time will besignificantly longer than that.

Te arrangement o HSR stations in Paris isnot efficient or passengers who are simplypassing through Paris on their way to anothercity, such as passengers traveling rom Lyonto London via Paris. Tose passengers need toeither make use o city’s public transit system

to get rom one train station to another ortake a taxi. And while Paris boasts one o themost extensive public transportation networksin the world, transers by public transit canbe very time-consuming because getting

rom HSR platorms to public transportationoen involves long walks and many stairs.Tese transers can also be awkward or HSRpassengers who have physical disabilities, aretraveling with children, or carrying luggage.Tis is because much o the Paris transitsystem — and particularly the subway, whichcarries most public transit passengers — isoen crowded, and not well-equipped tohandle passengers with special needs. Forexample, many stations still do not have eleva-

tors, and there is oen insufficient capacity onescalators and moving walkways.39

In contrast, the high level o integration andcoordination between intercity rail serviceand urban public transit in Germany makes itmuch easier and more efficient to use publictransportation as an access mode to HSR.

First, HSR trains typically stop once beorearriving at Berlin Main Station. For example,HSR trains traveling northward toward Berlinrom the south stop first at Südkreuz beoreproceeding on to Berlin Main Station. AtSüdkreuz, travelers can transer to one oseveral S-Bahn heavy rail lines, includingtwo that run along the “Ringbahn,” a trackthat encircles the central city. Te Ringbahn

39 Accessibility, heralded with the passage of the Americans withDisabilities Act (ADA) is one especially note-worthy accomplishmentin the United States that is recognized as a model in other places,including many European countries.


26/89


Figure 8

Six large terminal or “stub-end” train

stations in Paris, which mark the end of

the various HSR lines that serve different

regions of France and Europe. For example,

trains bound for London or Lille leave from

Gare du Nord, while trains bound for Lyon

or Marseille use Gare de Lyon. The arrange-

ment of stations forces passengers who

are simply passing through Paris on their

way to other destinations to make often

time-consuming transfers between stations

by public transportation.

Source: Graphic by author, adapted from Jug Cerovic

< < <

T o

C e n t r a l F r a n c e ,

S p a

i n

T o

L o n d o n ,

L i l l e

> > >

To Strasbourg , Germany >>>

G A R E

D U N O

R D

G A R E

S T . L A

Z A R E G

A R E D E

L ’ E S

T

G A R E

D E L Y

O N

G A R E

M O N T P

A R N A S S

E

G A R E

D ’ A U S T E R

L I T Z

T o L y o n , M a r s e i l l e> > >