High Speed Rail Studio Final Report by Erika Lindsey

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION Shaping the Regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Future Through Strategic Transportation Investments

University of Pennsylvania . School of Design Department of City and Regional Planning Spring 2010 . Studio Final Report

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL OF DESIGN The University of Pennsylvania carries on the principles and spirit of its founder, Benjamin Franklin: entrepreneurship, innovation, invention, outreach and a pragmatic love of knowledge. Franklin’s outlook of melding theory and practice has remained a driving force in the university’s academic and social mission. The University of Pennsylvania School of Design embodies those principles as well, linking a diverse range of disciplines through a design perspective. The school houses Architecture, City and Regional Planning, Landscape Architecture, Fine Arts, Historic Preservation, Digital Media Design and Visual Studies. The City Planning Program within the School of Design integrates academic planning theories with practical, clientbased applications of planning. During the program’s final semester, students participate in a capstone studio that serves as the culmination of their planning work at Penn. Incorporating the skills gained during two years of study, the studio project requires a team of students, under the guidance of professional practioners and faculty, to collaborate on a project addressing a realworld planning challenge. In this studio, held during the spring semester of 2010, a team of 18 students with various planning backgrounds tackled the challenge of envisioning a new mobility future for the Northeast, centered around the concept of developing a high-speed rail system for the Northeast Megaregion. Students researched the system alignment and design, capital costs, regional mobility, station-area development, environmental benefits and implementation strategies. Findings from the semester are available in this report and electronically at http://studio.design.upenn.edu/hsr/. The studio would like to extend its gratitude to the instructors Marilyn Jordan Taylor and Bob Yaro for their guidance in producing this report.

STUDIO TEAM Lace Babcock Master of City Planning, Transportation Jeffrey Barg Master of City Planning, Urban Design Amy Bernknopf Master of City Planning, Transportation Cassidy Boulan Master of City Planning, Transportation Jeff Bumgardner Master of City Planning, Public + Private Development Trinity Busch Master of City Planning, Land Use and Environment Ted Clement Master of City Planning, Transportation Diana Cornely Master of City Planning, Public + Private Development Yirui Huang Master of City Planning, Public + Private Development Lisa Jacobson Master of City Planning, Transportation Kate Keller Master of City Planning, Public + Private Development Zlata Kobzantsev Master of City Planning, Public + Private Development Erika Lindsey Master of City Planning, Community and Economic Development Reuben MacMartin Master of City Planning, Transportation Colin McLean Master of City Planning, Urban Design Danny Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Shaughnessy Master of City Planning, Public + Private Development Bryan Rodda Master of City Planning, Transportation Selina Zapata Master of City Planning, Transportation

INSTRUCTORS Marilyn Jordan Taylor Dean and Paley Professor Bob Yaro Professor of Practice

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The studio offers its sincere thanks to the Daniel and Joanna S. Rose Fund, Inc., and AECOM for their generous contributions to the studio’s work and its planning workshop, which was held in London, England, from March 8 - 12, 2010. It also extends its thanks to the Regional Plan Association, whose America 2050 project proved instrumental to this report, as well as the Business Alliance for Northeast Mobility, a valuable sponsoring organization. The studio also extends particular thanks to Vincent Goodstadt, Former President, Royal Town Planning Institute and Honorary Professor at the University of Manchester, who gave generously of his time to organize the London Workshop. We would also like to thank Skidmore Owings & Merrill’s London Office and office manager Mari McKavanagh for hosting and assisting the studio during the week-long workshop. Further, the studio recognizes all of the following individuals whose support, time and ideas have helped make this project a success:

PENN FACULTY AND ASSOCIATES Paul Amos, Managing Director, Wharton GIS Lab Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Practice, PennDesign Eric Bruun, Department of Electrical and Systems Engineering, Penn Engineering Mark Kocent, Principal Planner, Office of the University Architect John Landis, Crossways Professor of City and Regional Planning; Dept. Chair, PennDesign Anne Papageorge, Vice President, Facilities and Real Estate Services Paul Sehnert, Director of Real Estate Development, Facilities and Real Estate Services Vukan Vuchic, UPS Foundation Professor of Transportation Engineering, Penn Engineering Rachel Weinberger, Assistant Professor, PennDesign

PENN STAFF Kate Daniel, Department Coordinator, PennPlanning Roslynne Carter, Administrative Assistant, PennPlanning Julianne Siracusa, Administrative Assistant, Dean’s Office, PennDesign

LONDO N WORKSHOP FACULTY Vincent Goodstadt, Honorary Professor, University of Manchester Yoav Hagler, Associate Planner, America 2050, Regional Plan Association Diana Mendes , Senior VP and National Director of Transit Planning, AECOM Arlington Foster Nichols, Assistant VP, Manager Operations Planning, Parsons Brinckerhoff Karen Rae, Deputy Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration Petra Todorovich, Director, America 2050, Regional Plan Association Polly Trottenberg, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S. DOT

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATES Kip Bergstrom, Executive Director, Urban Redevelopment Commission, Stamford, Conn. Steve Buckley, Deputy Commissioner for Transportation, Streets Dept., City of Philadelphia Vishaan Chakrabarti, Director, Real Estate Development Program, Columbia University Matthew Coogan, Director, The New England Transportation Institute Rina Cutler, Deputy Mayor for Transportation and Utilities, City of Philadelphia Calvin Davenger, Deputy Director of Aviation, Planning and Environmental Stewardship, Philadelphia International Airport

Al Engel, Vice President and High-Speed Rail Director, AECOM Transportation Kyle Gradinger, Planner, Wallace Roberts & Todd Hanan Kivett, AECOM David Kooris, VP and Director, Connecticut Office, Regional Plan Association Scott Maits, Vice President, The Delaware Valley Association of Rail Passengers Derek Moore, Associate, Skidmore Owings & Merrill Tony Rimikis, Senior Vice President, Brandywine Realty Trust Jerry Sweeney, President and CEO, Brandywine Realty Trust Graham Wiseman, Director, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill London

LONDON WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS Terence Bendixson, Deputy Secretary, Ind. Transport Commission, University of Southampton Malcolm Buchanan, CBP, Buchanan Consultancy Pat Castledine, Consents Manager, HS1 Ltd. Paul Chapman, Managing Director, HS1 Ltd. Chia-Lin Chen , Doctoral Candidate, University College London Andrew Crudgington, Head of Policy, Institute of Civil Engineers Harry Dimitriou, Bartlett Professor of Planning Studies, University College London Iain Docherty, Department of Management, University of Glasgow Martin Elton, Regional Director, Transportation, AECOM Kent Moshe Givoni, Senior Researcher, School of Geog. and the Environment, University of Oxford Stephen Glaister, Director, RAC Foundation Philip Graham, Deputy Director, High Speed Rail at Department for Transport Sir Peter Hall, Bartlett Professor of Planning and Regeneration, University College London Terry Hill, Director, Transport Policy, ARUP Peter Koning, Director, Transportation, AECOM St. Albans Bryan Matthews, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds Chris Nash, Research Professor, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds John Preston, Director, Transportation Research Group, University of Southampton Dan Ringelstein, Director of Urban Design and Planning, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill London John Segal, Director of Rail, MVA Consultancy Jim Steer, Director, Greengauge 21 Robin Thompson, Bartlett School, University College London David Watters, International Director, AECOM London Alan Wenban-Smith, Urban & Regional Policy Ian Wray, Chief Planner, North West Regional Development Agency

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

i-xiii

INTRODUCTION

ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS

The Northeast Megaregion

The Economy

Anchored by Great Cities

Transportation

The Northeast Corridor: Major Challenges

DESIGNING A HIGH-SPEED RAIL SERVICE

What is High-speed Rail?

The Design Challenge

Design Pinciples for High-speed Rail in the Northeast

System Upgrade Typologies

Detailed Alignment Proposals

Capital Cost Estimates

Operations and Maintenance

Service Plan

Ridership Projections

DESIGNING LOCAL AND REGIONAL CONNECTIONS

Connect To Local Subcenters

Promote Transit, Walkability and Bicycle Access

Coordinate Fares, Ticketing, and Schedules

Existing Conditions and Recommendations

Transit, High-speed Rail and Regional Growth

REDESIGNING STATIONS AND STATION AREAS

Station and Station-area Design Principles

Create Magnetic Destinations

Function as Gateways

Catalyze Walkable, Compact, Centered Development

Connect to Regional and Interregional Transportation Systems

Strengthen Weak- and Strong-economy Cities

Station Design Interventions

Market East Station, Philadelphia

Ronkonkoma Station, MacArthur Airport

SUSTAINABILITY

Importance of High-speed Rail

Environmental Sustainability

Economic Sustainability

103

Social Sustainability

106

THE TRANSFORMATIVE POTENTIAL OF HIGH-SPEED RAIL 109 New Economic Geography

110

Hot and Cold Cities

112

Vignettes

116

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

119

Purpose of Cost-Benefit Analysis

120

Methodology

120

Analysis

122

Implications of the Cost-Benefit Analysis

123

IMPLEMEN TATION: GOVERNANCE AND FINANCING

125

Governance

126

The Northeast Corridor Commission

128

Financing High-speed Rail

130

NECC High-speed Rail Trust Fund

132

CONCLUSION

137

APPENDIC ES

139

Capital Costs

140

Ridership Projections

142

Benefit-Cost Analysis

143

Presentation

144

REFERENCES AND CITATIONS

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

159

High-Speed Train: A French TGV train leaves the station.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY If the United States Northeast Megaregion is to grow and prosper, its cities and states must work together to become a single, globally competitive economic powerhouse. This report outlines a bold new proposal for world-class highspeed rail in the Northeast Corridor, which will transform the economic geography of the whole Northeast. By creating two dedicated high-speed rail (HSR) tracks from Boston to Washington, the Northeast Corridor will achieve significant improvements in capacity, reliability and travel times. Simultaneously addressing system-wide congestion and intercity connectivity, this new HSR network will sustain the Northeastâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role as the countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s premier economic and cultural driver. Megaregions are networks of linked metropolitan areas, with shared economies and infrastructure and natural resource systems, stretching from 200 to 600 miles across. They are too large to be easily traversed by automobiles and too small to be readily accessible by air. Megaregions in Asia and Europe have discovered that the scale of these places is uniquely suited to HSR and are moving aggressively to build these systems.

Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor: Current service runs from Boston to Washington, D.C., with additional lines branching off into NEC states. The region is also served by an extensive freight rail network.

Boston Providence New Haven New York Trenton Philadelphia Wilmington Baltimore Washington DC Northeast Corridor Amtrak Rail Class 1 Freight Rail

REGIONAL RAIL Northeast RailTRANSPORTATION Transportation Networks

100

Miles

A new HSR system in the Northeast will enable the region to meet the needs of a growing economy and population in the most environmentally responsible, cost-effective way. With this new mobility system in place, the Northeast can compete successfully with the great cities and nations of the world—many of which are already reaping the benefits of their own high-speed rail networks. Proposed new HSR service will cut travel times in half, with one-anda-half-hour service between New York and Washington, D.C., and onehour-45-minute service between New York and Boston. It will enable a six-fold increase in the frequency of intercity service and a ten-fold increase in the capacity of the system. This enhanced network will translate to improved connectivity for the Northeast’s global cities— the anchors of New York, Washington, Philadelphia and Boston—and increased potential for other cities along the corridor. This report proposes that new HSR stations be built in several underperforming areas of the Northeast, including downtown Baltimore, Philadelphia and Hartford, Conn., and several places on Long Island. It also brings every “cold”-market city in the corridor within an hour’s travel time of Boston, New York or Washington, the Northeast’s “hot”-market centers. In so doing, this proposal creates the opportunity to bring all of these places into the Northeast’s economic mainstream. Building this transformative high-speed rail network will require champions both in government and from the grassroots. The Obama

Executive Summary

Land impact: The Northeast Corridor is full of challenges—road congestion, increased urbanization—but also offers great potential for diverse industries and a skilled workforce to work more closely together. Boston Providence Connecticut New York Central New Jersey Philadelphia Wilmington Baltimore Washington, DC

MAJORRegional REGIONAL Employers EMPLOYERS BYby INDUSTRY Major Industry

Manufacturing

Accommodations

Retail

Finance

Professional Services

Government (Non-Federal)

Healthcare

Other

100

Miles

administration has committed to building HSR around the country, and this proposal captures that forward-looking commitment to present new ideas for innovative and long-term funding mechanisms. As the following pages detail, HSR will be most successful if it serves areas of dense population, high transit ridership and walkable station districts. Also necessary is use planning for transit-oriented development, cooperation among transportation authorities and investors and, perhaps most important, support from both the market and voters. EXISTING CONDITIONS Taken as a whole, the Northeast Corridor is the sixth-largest economy in the world, with a GDP of $2.59 trillion and a population of nearly 50 million. By 2050, the region is projected to grow to 70 million people with a $7 trillion GDP. However, with land consumption outpacing population growth, the amount of urbanized land in the NEC is expected to increase by more than 23,000 square miles. The region is anchored by five of the world’s great cities—Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C.—and supported by a constellation of smaller cities and towns. The megaregion is well served by existing road, rail and air networks, including 10 port authorities, 12 major airports and Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor services. However, road and air networks suffer from substantial congestion, dragging down travel times on those modes.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

iii

mtrak Service

Windsor Locks

Rhinecliff

Windsor

Service

Tolland (UConn)

Poughkeepsie

Miles

Hartford

Meriden New London New Haven Croton Harmon

Mystic Old Saybrook

Bridgeport

Stamford

Yonkers

New Rochelle

Terryville (SUNY Stony Brook) New York (Moynihan Station) Newark (Penn Station) Newark Liberty International Airport

Lewistown

Metropark (Iselin)

Nassau Hub

Ronkonkoma - MacArthur Airport Farmingdale - Route 110 Jamaica - JFK Airport

New Brunswick Harrisburg

Trenton

Middletown Elizabethtown Mount Joy Lancaster Downingtown Coatesville Parkesburg

Paoli Exton

Philadelphia (30th St)

Wilmington

Harpers Ferry

NJ Cornwells Heights

Philadelphia (North)

Philadelphia (Market East) Philadelphia Airport

Newark, DE

burg

Ardmore

Princeton Junction

Aberdeen

Baltimore (Penn Station) BWI Airport

Baltimore (Charles Center)

Rockville

Odenton

New Carrollton

Washington, DC (Union Station)

Manassas Woodbridge

Alexandria Franconia - Springfield Lorton (Auto Train)

Quantico

Southern alignment: Between Washington, D.C., and New York City, dedicated high-speed tracks travel new alignments through the city centers of Baltimore and Philadelphia, enabling trains to maintain shorter travel times throughout the route. Fredericksburg

Among Amtrakâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s services, the Acela Express is the fastest, with an average speed around 70 miles an hour. At these speeds, the Acela can get passengers from Washington to New York in two hours and 45 minutes, and from New York to Boston in three and a half hours. Although the Northeast Corridor is the busiest rail route in the nation, it faces a number of challenges including negotiating a myriad of rail operators, interacting with freight, poor on-time performance, speed and capacity constraints, and the ongoing costs of maintenance and incremental improvements. DESIGN: HIGH-SPEED RAIL LINE In order to provide high-speed rail service that achieves significant and reliable trip-time reductions, the exisiting network must be dramatically expanded in capacity. Incremental improvements will not succeed. Two new tracks, dedicated to high-speed trains, are required for the entire

Executive Summary

Haverhill

Brattleboro

Schenectady Albany - Rensselaer

Pittsfield Amherst

Woburn

MA Worcester

Riverside MetroWest Framingham

Hudson

Boston (South Station) Boston (Back Bay) Route 128 - Westwood

Springfield Windsor Locks

Rhinecliff

Providence

Windsor

Tolland (UConn)

Poughkeepsie

Hartford

Meriden

Kingston

New London New Haven Croton Harmon

Mystic

Westerly

Old Saybrook

Bridgeport

Stamford Yonkers

New Rochelle

Terryville (SUNY Stony Brook) New York (Moynihan Station) Newark (Penn Station) Newark Liberty International Airport

Metropark (Iselin)

Nassau Hub

Ronkonkoma - MacArthur Airport Farmingdale - Route 110 Jamaica - JFK Airport

New Brunswick

Northern alignment: Two options exist between New York and New Haven. An upgraded existing route from New Rochelle to New Haven, which is already heavily used, has a constrained and circuitous right-of-way and would likely have NIMBY concerns; an Princeton Junction alternative Trenton route, which travels through Long Island and inland through Connecticut and Massachusetts, can compete for the service.

wningtown le

Paoli Exton

Philadelphia (30th St)

ilmington Newark, DE

er)

NJ from Washington, D.C. to Boston. The addition of length of the corridor Cornwells Heights these tracks will make existing capacity available to commuter services Philadelphia (North) and freight(Market traffic, reduce trip times to be competitive with air and Philadelphia East) Philadelphia Airport auto travel, and dramatically increase the viable connections between residence and workplace. By improving service with a new alignment and service plan, the Northeast Corridor has the potential to triple its current annual Amtrak ridership by 2040, serving more than 55 million annual riders by 2040.

Ardmore

The proposed two-track dedicated service between New Yorkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s PennMoynihan Station and Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s South Station may follow a significantly different alignment than the existing NEC. Simultaneously solving the problems of tightly curving and constrained alignments through New York and southwestern Connecticut and the isolation of Long Island from the rest of the Northeast, the new alignment proceeds east from New York across Long Island, then north through a new, three-track tunnel under Long Island Sound to New Haven. From there it travels

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

inland to Hartford, then along the I-84 corridor toward Worcester, and finally east to Boston along the Massachusetts Turnpike. As an alternative northern alignment, full Amtrak service will be retained or expanded along the existing coastal route, with New Haven becoming the new linchpin of the northern end. The southern half of the dedicated highspeed rail line relies mostly on existing right-of-way from Washington’s Union Station to New York’s Penn-Moynihan Station. Here, the physical challenge is primarily an urban one—the tricky alignments through Philadelphia and Baltimore limit speeds for the whole line. Solving two problems with one strategy, the proposed alignments utilize tunnels to dramatically improve speeds through these cities while also creating new downtown stations in areas ripe for economic development. Further linkages include direct service to Philadelphia and Baltimore’s international airports and improved regional connections. Proposed service would reduce travel times between Washington and New York to one and a half hours, between Philadelphia and New York to 37 minutes, and between New York and Boston to one hour 45 minutes, at an estimated cost of $98.1 billion. The line will be built in phases, starting with the New York-Philadelphia connection in the south and New Haven-Boston in the north, followed by completion of the southern end to Washington, D.C., and eventually the connection of the northern end through Long Island. DESIGN: INTERMODAL LINKS AND REGIONAL CONNECTIVITY Rail, at any speed, performs better when it’s connected to other modes. In order for any high-speed rail network to succeed, it must be fully integrated with the connecting regional transportation networks: not just commuter trains, but subways, light-rail systems, cars, buses and planes (for long-distance travel) as well. This not only increases ridership; it also supports concentrated, dense development. Links between modes must be seamless, both physically and temporally. They require an integrated fare system—riders should be able to swipe one card to get from origin to destination, no matter the number of different modes they take—and closely coordinated schedules with an absolute minimum of waiting. The more times passengers have to consult a schedule, the more likely they are to find a different way to get there. Since high-speed rail will need to stop in central locations in the Northeast’s cities, the regional transportation networks need to ensure that underserved areas have suitable connections to the HSR network. Fare structures need to reflect the Northeast’s economic and social diversity. If the megaregion is to realize all of HSR’s potential benefits, residents from all walks of life must be able to access the train, drawing on as broad a passenger base as possible.

Executive Summary

DESIGN: STATIONS AND STATION AREAS To achieve the land use benefits of HSR investment, cities and regions must define and implement development and management plans to direct and coordinate public and private investment. Stations and station areas must be planned and constructed to value viable public spaces and an active public realm, encourage private investment and public/private partnerships in and around the stations and promote social equity. For areas in and around train stations along the Northeast Corridor, transportation can direct the movement of people in a way that catalyzes development. In many cities, high-speed rail will be a catalyst to develop stations as nodes that direct growth. When done successfully, this can create new city centers, and extend and strengthen existing central business districts. In Philadelphia, a new Market East Station becomes the centrally located stop for high-speed rail. This station works in tandem with 30th Street Station to restore the Market Street corridor from Center City to University City. By creating a cohesive visual element along Market Street, connecting the Schuylkill River waterfront to the University of Pennsylvania and drawing on Old Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s tourism, these two complementary stations can create an energy that elevates the entire corridor. A new alignment through Baltimore creates a station at the Charles Center, in the heart of the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s central business district. Besides taking advantage of a straighter path that will allow for faster speeds in and out

The Market Street District: By bringing high-speed rail through Philadelphia at a new Center City station, the entire corridor becomes an economic anchor for the city, stretching from east of Market East Station to west of 30th Street Station.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

vii

Baltimore: The new high-speed rail station at Charles Center is strategically located in the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s central business district.

Fayette St

Baltimore St

Redwood St

200

400

Light St

Charles St

Hanover St

Hopkins Pl

Howard St

Lombard St

800 ft

Philadelphia: A remade Market East Station anchors high-speed rail in Center City, complementing 30th Street Station just across the Schuylkill River.

Filbert St

Market St

viii

200

400

9th St

10th St

11th St

12th St

Chestnut St

800 ft

Executive Summary

of the city, the new station can capitalize on a vibrant network of public spaces in the surrounding area. Finally, urban design, development and management guidelines for the Northeast Corridor will ensure that stations and station areas are constructed in a way that values viable public space and an active public realm, enables public/private partnerships to fund development and promotes social equity for those living near or accessing the stations. SUSTAINABILITY When looking at environmental, economic and social factors related to the need for increased mobility in a growing region, high-speed rail is the most effective way to achieve an overall sustainability strategy in the Northeast. Railâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s performance ranks highest in the five key aspects of environmental sustainability: land use, air quality, water quality, energy and connectivity. Transportation is responsible for 32 percent of U.S. carbon emissions, which have been linked to global warming and decreased air quality. More trains mean fewer new roads built, which reduces the amount of impervious surfaces whose runoff affects water quality. In terms of energy, even if trains are powered by coal-generated electricity, they reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And when quality regional transportation systems link to high-speed rail, connectivity and its environmental benefits follow.

FUEL WASTED 20

BOSTON

NEW YORK

20 50

PROVIDENCE

40 50

DUE TO TRAFFIC CONGESTION

E PHILADELPHIA

NEW HAVEN 30

BALTIMORE

STAMFORD

20 50

10 0

20 50

10 0

40 50 60

E WASHINGTON DC F

ANNUAL NUMBER OF GALLONS WASTED PER DRIVER 2007

City names denote the entire urban area Data:Texas Transportation Instituteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Urban Mobility Report

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

High-speed rail’s central locations support and encourage greater concentration of development around stations. When a train station becomes a center-city hub, activity is concentrated there, discouraging sprawl and allowing for businesses to feed off of one another. High-speed rail can promote social sustainability. By widening the market of jobs available to workers, HSR levels the playing field, provided it is affordable enough to be accessed by populations. TRANSFORMATIONS The proposed high-speed rail system, complemented by the improved connectivity of regional and inter/intracity transit, has the potential to transform the spatial relationships of the Northeast Megaregion. Highspeed rail improves connectivity between businesses, facilitating the movement of labor and goods resulting in a new economic geography— one that may be particularly valuable for the knowledge industries that will benefit from agglomeration economies. This new geography will result in economic growth in the corridor’s major cities, making the Northeast Corridor more competitive in the global market. Improved connectivity will be particularly valuable for new household formation and extended work-home distances in newly urbanized areas. Large cities with major economies require a different development strategy than cities those with growing economies. Places like New York, Boston and Washington—cities that are growing, and have higher educational attainment and area median incomes—will benefit differently from highspeed rail than Philadelphia, Baltimore and the smaller cities along the corridor. These places need a strategy that ensures they won’t lose economic activity as a result of their increased accessibility to strongmarket cities. Furthermore, none of these cities can be considered all strong or all weak: While New York, for example, has higher educational attainment, it also has higher unemployment. Economic development strategies, therefore, must vary carefully from city to city and region to region. Importantly, all of the weak-market cities served by this new HSR system will be brought within a one-hour travel time of Boston, New York or Washington, the megaregion’s three big strong-market metros. This will create the opportunity for underperforming places to strengthen their links to the larger regional labor and housing markets, innovation networks and agglomeration economies of Northeast’s strongest regional economies.

Executive Summary

INCLUDED IN ANALYSIS

ticket fares

reduced emissions

reduced congestion

time savings

increased safety

NOT INCLUDED IN ANALYSIS

short- and long-term jobs

recentralization

shift in energy sources

other environmental benefits

induced development

global economic competitiveness

connecting networks of people

other potential effects

Cost-benefit analysis: Not all effects of high-speed rail can be easily quantified. This analysis for proposed service accounts for the direct impacts listed, but indirect benefits can be a boon to the region as well.

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS A generation of transportation projects has been evaluated, often by transportation agencies, on the basis of a ratio between the benefits they engender and their costs. Analytical literature suggests that quantifying of benefits is difficult to do and that the methodologies used for costbenefit analysis inherently favor smaller projects as well as those with low, or no, capital cost. Notwithstanding these limitations, the cost-benefit analysis—prepared for the proposed NEC HSR with ticket fares, emissions reduction, improved connectivity, time savings and increased safety as its benefits— shows a positive benefit-cost ratio, indicating the economic feasibility of high-speed rail. But, more important, the investment brings broad and long-lasting—although less measurable—benefits to jobs, land use, development, connectivity, economic competitiveness, energy use and the environment.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

IMPLEMENTATION In order to successfully build a new interstate high-speed rail network, creative methods of governance, financing and environmental review will need to come together. Nearly all of the countries that have initiated HSR systems have done so with funding from national governments, and this should be done here as well. A matching contribution from Northeast states and regions will help meet capital costs, and a portion of the up-front investment could be recouped through a long-term lease of the corridor, as the U.K. is now proposing to do with its HS1 line, where an expected 40 percent of the public investment is expected to be returned to the government. Since funding will need to be largely from the federal government, a new agency, known as the Northeast Corridor Commission (NECC), will bring the states, metropolitan areas, Amtrak and other regional, commuter and freight rail operators to the same table to figure out how to cooperate in order to get federal dollars to the region. This new entity will manage the implementation process and will ensure that discrete agencies are talking with each other and working together toward the ultimate goal of a rail network that benefits the entire region. There needs to be a system for dedicated and sustainable financing that can handle the large costs, multiyear planning and construction period and complicated jurisdictional structure of building in the Northeast Megaregion. The responsibility of financing the construction of HSR and ensuring continued funding should be taken on by the federal government, or a regional agency, because it has the capacity to manage the risk of the project and realize the long-term benefits. By approaching HSR as a long-term investment, the government provides an opportunity Federal Railroad Administration

Amtrak + Other Rail Operating Companies

Planning and Design

CT MD

DC NJ

DE NY

MA PA

Northeast Corridor Commission Construction

Dispatching

Maintenance

A new governance model: The Northeast Corridor Commission can achieve the fundamental goals of building high-speed rail in the NEC, preserving unified corridor operations, increasing statesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; involvement, balancing operatorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; needs, obtaining dedicated revenue streams, and successfully competing for federal HSR grants.

xii

Executive Summary

for the private sector to invest in the HSR system through publicprivate partnerships, where the government can recoup a portion of its investment in HSR, and where funding can be dedicated, sustainable and guaranteed. Public financing mechanisms include the creation of a Northeast Corridor Commission Trust Fund, government grants and a range of tools to cover operating costs including gas taxes, interstate tolls, user fees, value added tax and station area sales tax. After the public sector has taken on the financing and building HSR, opportunities develop for subsequent private sector investment. CONCLUSION The implementation of high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor is the key to unlocking the economic growth and competitive advantage of the Northeast Megaregion. Investment in high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor is essential, and, over time, each of the other 10 U.S. megaregions should see some for of HSR service as key elements of the National Rail Plan, which can transform the connectivity, economic geography and performance of the entire country. With the federal government committed to high-speed rail, the country is poised to take up the challenge of such a substantial, transformative new infrastructure project—one that can and will fundamentally change the way our cities work. The 21st-century narrative will be one not of global cities, but of global megaregions. When megaregions work as unified markets, strongly linked internally and externally, as many of our European and Asian counterparts already do, they can achieve the investment and innovation necessary to compete on an international stage. For the past two centuries, each generation of Americans has embraced the latest transportation mode to shape the country’s mobility systems and with them, the nation’s destiny. Now is the time for American highspeed rail that will sustain the country’s economic potential through the 21st century. By building the nation’s premier world-class high-speed rail network, the Northeast can lead the way.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

xiii

Eurostar trains at Waterloo Station, London.

01 01 INTRODUCTION This report proposes a new, world-class high-speed rail (HSR) system for the U.S. Northeast Megaregion. It also examines the benefits that such a system would offer in terms of mobility, economic growth, environmental sustainability and social equity. It investigates the increased travel capacity the megaregion will need to enable its projected growth in jobs, population and economic activity to be achieved by 2050. To meet these needs, the megaregion must build two new dedicated HSR tracks from Boston to Washington, D.C., that will provide frequent, reliable and well-priced HSR service throughout the megaregion. The Northeast Megaregion, stretching from Maine to Virginia, was first identified nearly half a century ago by French geographer Jean Gottman in his book Megalopolis. It encompasses 13 states, the District of Columbia and five major metropolitan regions: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington. Megaregions are interconnected networks of metropolitan areas, with shared economies, infrastructure and natural resource systems. The Northeast is one of 11 emerging megaregions in the United States. These places range from 200 to 600 miles across and are too large to be easily traversed by automobile and too small to be readily accessible by air.

“Our unity as a nation is sustained by free communication of thought and by easy transportation of people and goods.” — President Dwight Eisenhower, 1955

High-speed rail is uniquely suited to megaregions and can enable them to achieve their full economic potential. In this sense, President Obama’s vision for a national HSR network builds upon President Eisenhower’s 1956 vision for the national interstate highway system, which underpinned the nation’s rapid growth in the second half of the 20th century. In much the same way that limited-access highways enabled the emergence of metropolitan regions over the past half century, HSR links will enable the growth and development of 21st-century megaregions. BUILDING BLOCKS In the spring of 2010, this planning studio at the University of Pennsylvania took on the challenge of outlining a world-class HSR system for the Northeast Megaregion. The studio worked closely with America 2050, a national infrastructure planning program led by the Regional Plan Association, an organization responsible for long-range planning and policy development aimed at managing population growth. Drawing on their vast data resources and industry experience provided much of the foundation upon which our research was formed.

“What we need, then, is a smart transportation system equal to the needs of the 21st century. A system that reduces travel times and increases mobility. A system that reduces congestion and boosts productivity. A system that reduces destructive emissions and creates jobs.”

The Business Alliance for Northeast Mobility, a coalition of business and civic leaders for Northeast cities, served as the outside client for the studio. The studio was comprised of 18 city and regional planning graduate students with concentrations ranging from transportation planning to urban development. The studio’s instructors were Robert D.

— President Barack Obama, 2009 Birth of the interstates: A 1947 plan for cross-country highways.

01 - Introduction

Designated HSR Corridor Northeast Corridor Other Passenger Rail

An administrationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s vision: A national high-speed rail network, as proposed by the Obama administration.

Yaro, Professor of Practice, and Marilyn Taylor, Dean of the University of Pennsylvania School of Design and Paley Professor at Penn. A team of leading U.S. and British experts on transportation and regional planning, transit-oriented development and station-area development projects also advised the studio. UNDERSTANDING THE SYSTEM This studio has developed a holistic approach to high-speed rail that encompasses elements of system design, regional connectivity, stationarea development, sustainability and implementation. This report differs from earlier proposals primarily in scope, but also in focus. Previous reports such as the Amtrak Master Plan outline the steps necessary to maintain existing infrastructure, but achieve only modest reductions in travel times and limited increases in capacity. At a total cost of more than $52 billion, Amtrakâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Master Plan nets few improvements beyond the present system while leaving the region to face growing concerns of capacity and sustainability. The Penn studio has taken a decidedly different approach in how it views the system, choosing to focus on a new, complementary system of highspeed rail that would be capable of significantly reducing travel times between cities while providing huge increases in efficiency and capacity. A system of this nature would move beyond the important goal of simply bringing the existing Northeast Corridor to a state of good repair. It will

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

LESSON FROM LONDON

provide much greater net benefits while avoiding alternatives such as highway widening or airport expansion, which are fraught with their own problems.

The U.K. Experience During the course of the semester, students traveled to London, England, for a 10-day intensive study on highspeed rail planning and development in the U.K. Of particular interest to the group was the introduction of Britain’s HS2 high-speed rail system, which brought to light the many features and challenges that the U.K. and the Northeast Corridor share. In the following pages you will find a number of Lessons From London highlighting some of the most relevant material gathered from our meetings, site visits and presentations.

KEY FINDINGS This report outlines a number of benefit streams that would result from a new Northeast HSR system. These include significant reductions in travel time, increased frequency of service and improved reliability. These attributes would help integrate employment and housing markets and innovation networks among city pairs like New York and Philadelphia while increasing accessibility for their surrounding regions. By building new stations in several of the underperforming areas, including downtown Baltimore, Philadelphia, suburban Long Island and downtown Hartford, it would also promote revitalization of these places. And it will bring all of the region’s underperforming cities served by HSR within an hour of the Northeast’s “hot” regional centers, Boston, New York and Washington, D.C., creating the opportunity to revitalize all of these places. The new Northeast HSR system will also reduce airport and highway congestion, greenhouse gas emissions and urban sprawl across the megaregion. Adding two dedicated high-speed tracks will free up valuable capacity at airports for long-haul flights, reduce congestion on roadways already at or near capacity and increase the availability of space on commuter trains along the entire corridor. Along with the megaregion-wide gains outlined in this report, much of this report focuses on station-area design that will bring important benefits to every city center served by this new system. Stations will become gateways for the cities and magnets for new economic development. 2010 LONDON WORKSHOP In order to better understand the political and financial commitments necessary to make HSR investments in the United States, the studio traveled to London in March 2010 for a week-long workshop with government officials and HSR experts who are engaged with the British government’s proposed new HS2 HSR link from London to Scotland. This link is now viewed by officials from all major parties in Britain as the foundation for a national HSR network. The studio also met with planners and managers of the newly opened HS1 high-speed service linking London’s St. Pancras Station with the Channel Tunnel and new HSR commuter services in Southeast England. This project helped the studio understand the limitations of potential public-private partnerships

01 - Introduction

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

457 MILES 50 MILLION PEOPLE

PROPOSED HS2 SYSTEM

400 MILES 51 MILLION PEOPLE

Comparing the systems: The Northeast Corridor and the U.K.â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposed HS2 line connect almost the same populations over similar distances, providing an excellent case study for high-speed rail in the NEC.

to finance, build and operate HSR services. Finally, when in England the studio met with British scholars in London, Oxford and Leeds, including Sir Peter Hall, who reported on their research, which confirmed the potential to achieve significant economic transformations on the cities and regions served by HSR systems.

SUMMARY This report outlines the role that a world-class HSR system will play in enabling the future economic development, accessibility and sustainability for the whole Northeast Megaregion and its component cities. It proposes the construction of a high-speed rail system that will fundamentally change the economic geography of the Northeast by enabling greater agglomeration of industries, shrinking travel times between cities like New York and Philadelphia, and creating expanded employment and housing opportunities for the Northeastâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s growing population. This system will also relieve congestion, reduce carbon emissions, increase productivity, promote more compact development patterns and improve urban connectivity. In summary, the HSR system proposed in this report will enable the Northeast to unleash its economic potential, while accommodating a projected 20 million additional residents by 2050. Moving forward with this proposal will, however, require a new level of public support and political leadership for the estimated $100 billion required to achieve this vision.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

The Northeast: An aerial overview.

02 02 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS The Northeast Megaregion presents a complex set of opportunities and challenges. This section articulates in some detail the importance of the megaregion, both nationally and internationally, as well as the benefits of connectivity, population concentration and job growth. It provides readers with the context necessary to understand design solutions that follow in subsequent sections. Transportation is a critical factor in the continued success of the megaregion, which has a robust network of roads, rail and air infrastructure. In particular, the Northeast has the advantage of a direct rail connection between Washington, D.C., and Boston: the Northeast Corridor. But much of that infrastructure is at or above capacity, or is beyond its useful life. Some proposed upgrades to the corridor will therefore be discussed in detail. As an inventory of current conditions in the megaregion shows, the Northeast represents this countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most strategic investment in passenger rail travel, particularly high-speed rail. Its population size, economic strength, transit connections and important geographic nodes make it a region unique to the United States and ultimately to the world.

THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION 49.5 million People

$2.59 trillion GDP

162

Fortune 500 headquarters

The Northeast consists of 13 states along the Eastern seaboard from Virginia north to Maine, plus the District of Columbia, and is the most densely populated place in the country. Of greater importance to this analysis, however, is what is commonly referred to as the Northeast Megaregionâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the network of metropolitan regions spanning from the Washington, D.C., metro area about 500 miles north to the Boston metro area. The megaregion is home to nearly 50 million people, 1 who together produce about $2.59 trillion in gross domestic product annually. 2 While it is the largest megaregion in the country in terms of population and economy, it covers just 60,000 square miles, or only 2 percent of total land area in the United States. 3 As such, it is the densest part of the country, with the seven most densely populated states and nine of the top 11. Put another way, every state in this megaregion is more densely populated than California. PROJECTED GROWTH

Vital statistics: Size and importance of the Northeast Megaregion.

19% 20%

LAND USE AND CONSUMPTION

Developed

Agriculture

40%

Forest

21%

Water

Land cover: Northeast Megaregion.

The Northeast Megaregion is also projected to grow to 58 million people by 2025 and 70 million by 2050. 4 Over this same period, the economy has the potential to nearly triple in size, to a $7 trillion annual GDP. 5 While these projections paint a bright picture, the future is not without its potential challenges: land and resource constraints, global competition, increased congestion and environmental issues, to name just a few. Not surprisingly, these factors are all also projected to increase substantially over the coming decades.

Although the Northeast Megaregion is the densest and most highly urbanized area in the country, relatively little of its land is actually built out with cities, towns, roads or other human habitations. In fact, just 19 percent of land area falls into this category, with much more used for agriculture (20 percent) or even forest (40 percent). 6 This is quickly changing, however, as urban areas continue to expand. From 1982 to 1997, the amount of urbanized land in the Northeast increased by 39 percent to accommodate a population increase of just 6.9 percent. 7 On average, each of these new residents consumed 5.5 times as much land as an existing resident. While it is likely that much of this conversion was the result of intraregional movement by existing residents from central to peripheral locations, as a trend it has profound implications for the long-term viability of the megaregion. Low-density development drives up public costs for the provision and

02 - Analysis of Existing Conditions

maintenance of infrastructure. While sufficiently low densities may eliminate water and sewerage costs by relying on wells and septic systems, these savings are offset by the additional costs of building new local roads and expanding existing collectors and arterials. There are also large externality costs associated with such patterns, including habitat degradation and fragmentation, loss of functional open space and increased runoff and water contamination resulting from land compaction, loss of land cover and additional impervious surfaces. 8 Yet the trend still appears to be headed toward more rather than less land consumption. An analysis by the Regional Plan Association predicts that if current trends and policies continue, between 2000 and 2025 urbanized land will increase by 95 percent in the region, and then again by 32 percent between 2025 and 2050. 9 That is, if current trends continue to 2050, more than 23,000 more square miles of land will be urbanizedâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; roughly twice the extent of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Land use impacts directly affect climate change. For example, models predict that New York City can expect a doubling or tripling of the number of summer days over 90 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050. 10 And climate change affects the entire megaregion, transcending jurisdictional and political lines. It will be up to states and other regional organizations to work together to mitigate externalities and slow this rate of land use consumption.

Boston Providence New Haven New York Trenton Philadelphia Wilmington Baltimore Washington DC

R Northeast Megaregion

R Urbanized Area, 2000 Urbanized Area, 2025 Urbanized Area, 2050

PROJECTED URBANIZATION

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

100

Miles

REGIONAL COMPARISONS THE NORTHEAST VS. THE REST OF THE WORLD

THE ECONOMY

OMPARISONS

REST OF THE WORLD

WESTERN EUROPE 16.4% area WESTERN EUROPE 18.1% population 16.4% area 23.7% GDP 18.1% population 23.7% GDP

As an economy, the Northeast is a powerhouse. With a $2.59 trillion gross domestic product in 2005, 11 it represents 20 percent of the country’s overall GDP, or 4.2 percent of world GDP. 12 If it were a country unto itself, it would be the world’s sixth-largest economy, behind only the entire United States, China, Japan, Germany and France—and just ahead of the United Kingdom. 13 It also houses world centers of government, finance, technology, healthcare and a number of other major industries. By several measures the megaregion is also one of the most competitive places in the world. For example, with just more than half the population JAPANwhich has had phenomenal success with high-speed PERSIAN GULF of Japan (a country 162.9% area 11.8% area rail), the Northeast produces more than 85 percent of Japan’s GDP—a 56.5% population 36.9% population direct result of 85.8% usingGDP human capital and resources more efficiently. This 146.1% GDP efficiency is even clearer when looking at regions like the Persian Gulf; at only 37 percent of its size, the Northeast produces 146 percent of its GDP. This story could be repeated across the world. 14 The relatively high density of the Northeast also provides a comparative advantage, as what are essentially five regional markets combine to produce phenomenal economic output. The proximity of population and job centers to each other opens doors for networking, innovation and entrepreneurship, which have been the lifeblood of the economy for decades.

JAPAN

162.9% area 56.5% population JAPAN 85.8% 162.9%GDP area 56.5% population 85.8% GDP

PERSIAN GULF 11.8% area

36.9% population PERSIAN GULF 11.8% areaGDP 146.1% 36.9% population 146.1% GDP

International comparisons: The Northeast is competitive on a global scale.

MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTORS PERSIAN GULF

AFRICA

11.8% area 2.0% area The Northeast Megaregion is home to every imaginable type of company, 36.9% population 7.2% population from high finance to higher education, healthcare and pharmaceuticals 146.1% GDP 291.7% GDP to small businesses that span the entire breadth of industry sectors. Of particular note is the concentration of jobs and employment adjacent to the Northeast Corridor—the rail line that serves as the region’s transportation spine. Counties adjacent to (that is, within five miles of) this corridor tend to be service industries, with the top five employers including healthcare, professional, scientific, technical and financial services. 15 These types of industries have historically benefited from connectivity and increases in information sharing across networks. And although manufacturing has declined significantly in the region since its heyday, plenty still exists in areas slightly further away from the dense urban centers.

The comparative advantage that the Northeast enjoys over the rest AFRICA of the nation can be effectively summarized using location quotients, 2.0% area 7.2%an population which provide indication of regional specialization by industry. The 291.7% GDP Northeast has a workforce that specializes in information industries, education and health services. 16 These industries include subsectors

02 - Analysis of Existing Conditions

such as publishing houses, research universities and medical institutions, all of which require well-educated labor pools. They also must innovate to remain competitive and include knowledge-producing occupations. Anchor institutions such as medical facilities and universities are assets and economic development generators in this type of environment. Their immobility ensures stable employment, and the institutions are often deeply invested in the broader economic development of the region. One of the great engines of innovation and entrepreneurship in the Northeast is a rich network of education and research institutions. According to a recent Academic Ranking of World Universities report, eight of the world’s top 20 research universities are in the megaregion. 17 This concentration of top institutions draws some of the world’s top talent to the Northeast as students or researchers, and attracts them to stay with associated jobs in technology and other related sectors. Education is not simply a competitive advantage for the region, but truly a driver of the economy and a major factor in its continued global competitiveness. Tying these and other anchor institutions more seamlessly together across the megaregion could pave the way toward an even more successful, more competitive future.

Top 20 global research universities: Eight are in the Northeast Megaregion, with seven along the Northeast Corridor. World Rank

Institution

Harvard University

Stanford University

University of California, Berkeley

University of Cambridge

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

California Institute of Technology

Columbia University

Princeton University

University of Chicago

University of Oxford

Yale University

Cornell University

University of California, Los Angeles

University of California, San Diego

University of Pennsylvania

University of Washington

University of Wisconsin - Madison

University of California, San Francisco

19 20

The Johns Hopkins University The University of Tokyo

Boston Providence Connecticut New York Central New Jersey Philadelphia Wilmington Baltimore Washington, DC

MAJOR REGIONAL EMPLOYERS BY INDUSTRY

Manufacturing

Accommodations

Retail

Finance

Professional Services

Government (Non-Federal)

Healthcare

Other

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

100

Miles

Location quotients: The Northeast’s specialized economy. 18

Washington, D.C.

Baltimore

ANCHORED BY GREAT CITIES But this story is about more than just numbers. The economy of the Northeast Megaregion is anchored by a string of cities that are among the country’s oldest, largest and most influential. They serve as job centers and engines of entrepreneurship, bringing people together for business or simply to exchange ideas. Of equal importance, however, is that they are also hubs of American culture, media, history, tourism and retailing. Together, they represent the megaregion’s largest investment in the built environment. WASHINGTON, D.C.: The political capital of the United States and southern boundary of the Northeast Corridor, this global knowledge city encapsulates government, history and culture, and serves as a home to several prestigious universities, numerous federal agencies and national centers for the arts.

Philadelphia

BALTIMORE: This “city of neighborhoods” is home to major education and medical institutions. A former industrial town, the renowned port city now hosts a growing share of the megaregion’s financial, research and health services industries. PHILADELPHIA: A commercial and education center, Philadelphia is home to some of the world’s top universities and research facilities. The city’s rich history also makes it a hub for landmark architecture, worldclass restaurants, renowned cultural institutions and growing tourism.

New York City

NEW YORK CITY: The economic engine of the megaregion and the nation, New York anchors the middle of the Northeast Corridor. The nation’s most populous city is also the financial and commercial capital of the country, the home of more than 25 Fortune 500 companies, and a world center of arts, media and culture. BOSTON: The unofficial “capital of New England,” Boston is a global center for education and research, complemented by a strong biotechnology industry. The city’s rich history predates the founding of the country.

Boston

The megaregion also contains a constellation of other cities and towns. Interwoven among the region’s five large metropolises is a tapestry of medium-sized cities, small towns and historic communities. They represent national historic treasures like Plymouth, Mass., and Mystic, Conn.; places of incredible natural beauty such as Cape Cod and the Berkshires, Mass.; world-renowned centers of education and research like New Haven, Conn., and New Brunswick and Princeton, N.J.; and former industrial boomtowns and state capitals which, with the right combination of investments, are poised to grow again, such as Trenton, N.J., and Providence, R.I.

02 - Analysis of Existing Conditions

TRANSPORTATION The Northeast benefits from an intricate web of transportation networks, including the nation’s densest concentration of urban, regional intercity rail networks, which weave together major cities and small towns, connecting people, places, goods and ideas. As the country’s first major industrialized area, the Northeast has seen enormous investment in transportation infrastructure over time, starting with freight and passenger rail systems and continuing to the present with highways and airports. The Northeast was also home to what was arguably the nation’s first infrastructure mega-project: the Erie Canal, which served as a conduit for raw materials and finished goods between the East Coast and Midwest, and became the first high-volume supply line for the development of the interior of the country. These projects have continued throughout the region’s history, from the nation’s first subway system in Boston to its recent Central Artery/Tunnel project (also know as “The Big Dig”). The Northeast is also well-served by extensive road and rail (local, regional and long-haul) networks that facilitate large flows of people and freight across and within the megaregion. Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor services, for example, carried approximately 18.9 million passengers in 2009, 19 while intracorridor air traffic totaled approximately 11.2 million trips. 20 The region has 90 percent of the nation’s heavy-rail ridership on its extensive public transportation networks, with people in the largest cities making particular use of transit for commuting or leisure travel. Ten port authorities operate within the corridor, with a combined total of annual freight handled in excess of 290 million tons. 21 The need for overland movement of incoming and outgoing freight from these facilities puts demands on the rail and roadway networks in addition to freight flows to and from the rest of the country.

work from home walk, bicycle, etc public transportation carpool drive alone

80% 60% 40% 20%

Commuter mode choice: Percentages vary throughout the Northeast’s cities, but public transportation shares are all above the national average. 22

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

HIGHWAYS The Northeast Megaregion is well-connected through a series of interstate highways, limited-access expressways, turnpikes, major arterial roads and local roads. The backbone of the automobile transportation system is the region’s highway network. Arguably the most important thoroughfare in the United States, I-95, runs the length of the corridor, connecting from Miami along the East Coast all the way north to Maine, linking all the major cities in the Northeast. It is supplemented by a series of beltways around major cities and other interstate links that connect the coast with the hinterlands: I-87 in New York, I-84 in Connecticut to I-90 in Massachusetts, I-78 and 80 in New Jersey, I-76 in Pennsylvania, and on the southern end, I-64 near Richmond, Va., and Washington, D.C. Much of this highway system suffers from severe congestion. The Texas Transportation Institute reports that the metropolitan areas in the Northeast are among the most congested in the country, with Washington, D.C., topping the list. In Baltimore, Boston and New York, each commuter loses more than 40 hours of every year stuck in traffic—a full work week (or vacation week) of time in addition to the actual time it takes to drive to work. In Washington, D.C., this number is almost 50 percent higher. 23 And, barring a significant change in travel behavior across the country, things will get even worse. Some estimates suggest that congestion could rise as much as 85 percent by 2025—that

Level of Severe Congestion 101%+ 76 - 100% 51 - 75% 26 - 50% 0 - 25%

MAJOR ROADWAY CONGESTION

Miles 0

100

02 - Analysis of Existing Conditions

The costs of congestion: Delays and their effects by metropolitan area. 26

Urban Area Washington DC-VA-MD New York-Newark NY-NJ-CT Baltimore MD Boston MA-NH-RI Philadelphia PA-NJ-DE-MD Bridgeport-Stamford CT-NY Providence RI-MA Hartford CT New Haven CT National Average Northeast Totals

Annual Delay per Traveler (hrs) 62 44 44 43 38 33 29 21 19 41

Wasted Fuel per Traveler (gals) 42 28 32 29 24 27 18 15 14 28

Annual Delay Total (hrs) 133,862 379,328 56,964 91,052 112,074 16,077 19,937 10,147 5,728 3,592,338 825,169

is, driving in the nation’s capital may soon cost drivers 115 hours every year, or nearly three full work weeks! 24 As in the United States as a whole, this state of affairs is the result of the megaregion’s postwar development in low-density, automobile-based suburbs organized around the interstate highways. Consequently, the highways have become the primary means of access to employment, goods and services for an increasingly dispersed population. This pattern of dispersion—coupled with jurisdictional fragmentation, which produces competition to maximize tax bases while minimizing demand for services—led to a vicious cycle of urban decline and increasing demand for further development at the periphery. This has required everincreasing amounts of roadway capacity. The Northeast also suffers from a unique roadway problem associated with the overlapping of metropolitan regions. Interstate highways, originally built to foster long-distance trips between states, are now used primarily for metropolitan commuting. Movement between cities at most points during the day is, therefore, severely constrained by growing congestion. 25 While these dynamics have been recognized and some efforts made to alleviate them, large portions of the roadway network in the Northeast continue to operate at or above capacity for substantial periods of the day, especially within and around major urban centers. But additional highway capacity will not solve the problem of congestion, as congestion itself represents the equilibrium point of what commuters are willing to pay in time costs. The duration of their daily commutes and additional capacity will be consumed by additional demand as the cost of travel falls. Put simply, a city or region cannot build itself out of congestion, but it can plan for increased demand for roadway capacity by focusing efforts on other modes and attempting to shift that demand to them. In the Northeast, investments in rail infrastructure instead of highways may prove much more elastic, with marginally increased speeds and cost differentials drawing considerably higher ridership.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

Wasted Fuel Total (gals) 90,801 238,934 41,777 60,985 71,262 12,759 12,114 7,201 4,225 2,473,532 540,058

Congestion Cost ($ million) 2,762 8,180 1,276 1,996 2,316 350 386 203 117 75,761 17,586

The Costs of Congestion

825,000

Wasted Hours (20,625 weeks of vacation time)

540,000

Wasted Gallons of Gasoline

$17.6 billion Total Costs of Congestion

5,240 tons

CO2 Emissions 27

AIRPORTS

On-time arrivals by airport: 2009. Rank Airport (Code)

On-Time

Salt Lake City, UT (SLC)

85.10%

Phoenix, AZ (PHX)

83.93%

Chicago, IL (MDW)

83.54%

Portland, OR (PDX)

82.97%

Las Vegas, NV (LAS)

82.92%

Houston, TX (IAH)

82.75%

Los Angeles, CA (LAX)

82.68%

Baltimore, MD (BWI)

82.46%

Seattle, WA (SEA)

82.22%

Cincinnati, OH (CVG)

82.18%

St. Louis, MO (STL)

81.87%

Detroit, MI (DTW)

81.86%

San Diego, CA (SAN)

81.69%

Tampa, FL (TPA)

81.30%

Orlando, FL (MCO)

80.89%

Washington, DC (IAD)

80.80%

Denver, CO (DEN)

80.77%

Washington, DC (DCA)

80.34%

Charlotte, NC (CLT)

80.05%

Chicago, IL (ORD)

79.42%

Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX (DFW)

79.00%

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN (MSP)

78.94%

Ft. Lauderdale, FL (FLL)

78.01%

Boston, MA (BOS)

76.45%

Miami, FL (MIA)

75.76%

Philadelphia, PA (PHL)

74.62%

San Francisco, CA (SFO)

73.53%

New York, NY (JFK)

73.51%

Atlanta, GA (ATL)

72.60%

New York, NY (LGA)

68.70%

Newark, NJ (EWR)

65.76%

The Northeast Corridor is served by a number of major airports, including Boston-Logan, New York-La Guardia, New York-Kennedy, Newark-Liberty, Philadelphia, Baltimore-Washington International, Washington-Reagan National and Washington-Dulles. These airports serve as the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s primary gateways to both domestic and international destinations. Notwithstanding its extensive air connections, the Northeast Megaregion suffers from seriously congested airports. Generally this is both a supply- and demand-side problem: while demand for air travel in the region has progressively increased over the years, airports built in developed areas have no room to expand or add runway capacity. In terms of on-time arrivals, the airports in the Northeast are among the poorest-performing in the country, with only 66 percent of flights arriving on time at Newark, 69 percent at La Guardia, 73 percent at JFK, 75 percent at Philadelphia and 76 percent at Boston-Logan. 28 But why, specifically, are these flights delayed? Flight delays generally fall into one of four categories: extreme weather, carrier delays, late aircraft and delays caused by the national aviation system. Carrier delays are situations under the airlinesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; control, such as crew problems or scheduling mishaps. The national aviation system category, on the other hand, includes non-extreme weather and high-traffic volume delays, both of which are directly attributable to airports running a tight schedule. 29 National aviation system (NAS) delays worsen at increasingly large airports. In the five largest metro areas, two of which (Philadelphia and New York) are in the Northeast Corridor, 48 percent of delays are caused by the NAS. In fact, New York leads the pack in NAS delays: In

International Date Line

12:00 MIDNIGHT

1:00 am

2:00 am

3:00 am

4:00 am

5:00 am

6:00 am

7:00 am

8:00 am

9:00 am

10:00 am

11:00 am

12:00 pm

1:00 pm

2:00 pm

3:00 pm

4:00 pm

5:00 pm

6:00 pm

7:00 pm

8:00 pm

9:00 pm

10:00 pm

11:00 pm

INTERNATIONAL CONNECTIONS TO THE NORTHEAST

02 - Analysis of Existing Conditions

2009, for example, nearly 65 percent of its delays were due to the NAS. 30 Additionally, over the past few decades, these airports have seen steadily rising numbers of short-haul flights, which bring passengers back and forth between airports within about 500 miles of each other. Most airlines operate on a hub-and-spoke model, in which smaller planes shuttle passengers from their origin (the spokes) into major airports (the hubs), where they can transfer to another aircraft for longer-haul flights. This allows them to focus operations on filling the biggerâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;and more profitableâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;flights, while still providing access to passengers in less-populous areas. Unfortunately, this comes with a price: Airports with limited capacity are constrained by the constant movement of flights in and out and, as a result, frequency and reliability of long-haul flights drops. This problem is particularly acute in the Northeast, with the New York airports (LGA, JFK and EWR) experiencing some of the heaviest congestion. 31 What, is the solution? Some people suggest building more runways, but this is nearly impossible in an area as dense as the Northeast, where most airports are landlocked and surrounded by residential communities that are strongly opposed to new runways. Instead, the solution may be found in the effective integration of air travel and a complementary mode like high-speed rail. Together, they can produce synergies that neither could realize alone. This prospect is explored in greater detail later in this report.

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

National

5 Largest Metros

Extreme Weather Carrier Late Aircraft National Aviation System Causes of Flight Delays

Boston

Providence

New York

Philadelphia

Washington DC

Daily Flight Airport

INTRA-CORRIDOR AIR TRAVEL

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

100

Miles

RAIL One of the greatest assets in the Northeast Megaregion is the extensive existing rail network. The Northeast Corridor is the busiest passenger rail line in the country, and it hosts several branches that reach north, west and south. The network reaches destinations such as Montreal, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Charlotte and New Orleans. The actual spine of the line runs from Washington to Boston on 457 miles of track and hosts 1,800 trains each weekday. 32 The tracks are used by Amtrakâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s passenger rail, commuter rail and freight trains. Passenger rail includes Amtrakâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s higher-speed Acela Express service and conventional-speed Northeast Regional trains. Commuter rail agencies utilize the corridor in every state and around each major city. Freight operates on the line through trackage rights. Major operators include Norfolk Southern Railway and CSX Transportation. 33 With these different types of trains sharing the same track, the infrastructure is often overwhelmed and overcrowded. No other megaregion is so adequately equipped with supporting transit infrastructure. Commuter rail systems cover more than 3,000 miles of track and serve millions of riders each day. These robust transit systems are a major asset that bring people to jobs and other destinations across the region.

Boston Providence New Haven New York Trenton Philadelphia Wilmington Baltimore Washington DC Northeast Corridor Amtrak Rail Class 1 Freight Rail

REGIONAL RAIL TRANSPORTATION

100

Miles

02 - Analysis of Existing Conditions

METROPOLITAN AREA RAIL SYSTEMS WASHINGTON, D.C., AND BALTIMORE: This metropolitan region is served by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) and the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA). WMATA operates commuter rail subway service in Washington, Maryland and Virginia. The MTA administers MARC, a commuter train connecting Baltimore and Washington, and subway and light rail services in Baltimore. Combined, the Washington-Baltimore system transports nearly one million riders per day on 338 miles of track. Amtrak trains serve Washington’s Union Station and Baltimore’s Penn Station. 34 PHILADELPHIA: Philadelphia and surrounding counties are served by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority’s (SEPTA) bus, subway and elevated rail, commuter rail, light rail and trolleybus. SEPTA has 280 active stations, 2,295 revenue vehicles and 196 routes. More than 450 miles of track serve 500,000 daily riders. SEPTA’s stations are also served by NJ Transit. SEPTA’s R7 Trenton service connects with NJ Transit, and Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station is served by NJ Transit’s Atlantic City Line. Amtrak stops at Philadelphia’s historic 30th Street Station. 35

Washington, D.C., and Baltimore

Philadelphia

NEW YORK: With more than eight million daily riders and more than 2,000 miles of track, New York boasts one of the most well-known transit systems in the world. Several different transit operators carry passengers in and around New York, including the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), which operates 385 bus and 23 subway lines; PATH, the Port Authority Trans-Hudson, which links several cities in New Jersey to New York; Long Island Rail Road (LIRR), a commuter service that connects through the length of Long Island; and Metro-North Commuter Railroad, which is the second busiest commuter railroad in the United States. Metro-North runs from New York City to New York and Connecticut suburbs. 36 BOSTON: The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) operates bus, subway, commuter rail and ferry systems in the Greater Boston region. The MBTA has 432 miles of track and carries nearly one million riders daily. There system boasts 123 commuter rail stations, almost 100 light rail stops and 50 subway stations. Amtrak trains terminate at either South Station (most trains) or North Station, which serves the Downeaster route to Portland, Maine. 37

New York

Boston Metropolitan area rail systems: Backbone of the regional transit system.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR The Northeast Corridor (NEC) is the backbone of the megaregion’s rail transportation network. It is the actual infrastructure that runs 457 miles from Washington, D.C., to Boston, with significant feeder lines to Richmond, Va., Harrisburg, Pa., Albany, N.Y., and Springfield, Mass. The fully electrified route supports more than 2,600 total daily passenger trains as well as freight services. 38 By far America’s busiest rail corridor, it sees more than 250 million passengers as well as several thousand freight trains travel along its tracks annually. 39 Amtrak operates a number of services along the Northeast Corridor, including the Acela Express and Northeast Regional that serve the corridor directly, and Amtrak’s long-distance services, many of which originate or terminate in the corridor and service points outside of the Northeast. The NEC is the busiest intercity passenger rail line (in terms of ridership and frequency of service) in the United States with approximately 13 million passengers in 2008. The southern end of the line (from D.C. to New York) is two- to four-times busier than the northern half (New York to Boston). Half of Amtrak’s 10 busiest stations are in the Northeast. 40 The Acela Express—the company’s signature express train service— attains speeds of up to 150 mph (but averages speeds of 70 mph) and carries three million passengers annually. It stops in 15 cities with an average distance of 43 miles between stations. 41 The Northeast Regional operates at speeds up to 125 mph and makes more frequent stops (25 stops; average of 23 miles between stations). This is Amtrak’s busiest route, with 6.9 million passengers per year. 42 Together, the Acela Express and the Northeast Regional generate more than half of Amtrak’s total revenue. Feeder route and long-distance trains also operate over some portion of the NEC, including the Keystone, Crescent, Pennsylvanian, Adirondack, Carolinian and Ethan Allen Express. Acela Express currently offers 300 seats per train, or about 15,000 seats per day. Other systems around the world offer at least double the capacity of Acela, including systems that serve city pairs that are less populous than the Northeast Corridor cities. 43

02 - Analysis of Existing Conditions

TRAVEL TIMES Currently, passengers on the Northeast Regional can get from Washington to New York in three and a half hours and from New York to Boston in four hours. On the Acela Express, it takes two hours and 45 minutes to travel from Washington to New York, and three and a half hours from New York to Boston. 44 Compared to high-speed rail systems worldwide, Acela Express has a fairly competitive top speed of 150 mph between New York and Boston. Unfortunately, average speeds across the whole system—a more important barometer of travel time—hover at around 75 mph. 45 This puts the Northeast’s highest-speed rail service near the bottom of comparable international services. At the other end of the spectrum, both the AVE system in Spain and the Shinkansen system in Japan average speeds nearly twice that fast. 46 The line diagram below indicates travel times leaving Philadelphia’s City Hall to other city halls in the region. Today’s Acela Express service has travel times comparable to driving to get to other city halls in the region. The Amtrak Master Plan 2030 only slightly reduces travel times. High-speed rail on dedicated tracks allows trains to move at much faster speeds and significantly reduces travel times. The time from point A to point B is a primary consideration for people when choosing which mode to take for their trip. City Hall to City Hall,Travel Time by Mode NYC

BOS Northeast Regional

4 hr 36 min

Acela Express

4 hr 00 min

Amtrak Master Plan 2030*

2 hr 14 min

1 hr 31 min

2 hr 04 min

1 hr 11 min

3 hr 0 min

Auto

3 hr 42 min

40 min

1 hr 39 min

2 hr 42 min

2 hr 43 min

BOS

WAS

1 hr 43 min

3 hr 26 min

High Speed Rail Scenario*

Air

PHL

1 hr 37 min

1 hr 0 min

2 hr 26 min

2 hr 20 min

2 hr 56 min

* indicates not yet built

City hall to city hall:Travel times by mode.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR: MAJOR CHALLENGES The Northeast Corridor is currently experiencing myriad problems, from a complex ownership and operations structure to a looming backlog of deferred maintenance. Understanding each of these problems will be instrumental in designing a feasible plan for high-speed rail service and increased connectivity along the corridor. OWNERSHIP Ownership and operation of this transportation resource is fragmented. Amtrak, the intercity operator, owns 363 miles of the main line plus the Springfield and Harrisburg branch lines and a portion of the branch line to Albany. Other portions of the main line are owned by the Connecticut Department of Transportation (46 miles), Metro-North Railroad (10 miles) and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (38 miles). CSX Transportation owns the other major branch lines, including the bulk of the Albany line and the entire line from Washington, D.C., to Richmond. 47 COMPLEXITY OF OPERATION In total, 9 different passenger train operators are active on the NEC main line. Eight are commuter railroad operations, each with its own set of structures, protocols and demands. They are as follows: • Amtrak • Massachusets Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) • ConnDOT/Shore Line East (SLE) • Metro-North Commuter Railroad (MNR) • Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) • New Jersey Transit (NJT) • Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) • Maryland Area Rail Commuter (MARC) • Virginia Railway Express (VRE) These commuter services carry the majority of passenger traffic on the NEC. According to Amtrak, the state-sponsored commuter railroads account for 245 million of the 258 million annual trips taken on the corridor. 48 However, since commuters travel much shorter distances per

02 - Analysis of Existing Conditions

trip than the average Amtrak passenger, Amtrak carries more than 45 percent of the corridor’s total annual passenger miles. 49 Additionally, seven different freight railroads currently operate on portions of the NEC, resulting in more than 50 freight trains per day on the Amtrak-owned parts of the corridor. 50 In fact, only two portions of the entire Amtrak-owned network see no daily freight service: between Sunnyside Yard in New York and Harrison, N.J., and between Landover, Md., and Washington, D.C. In total, however, these two areas account for only 20 miles of Amtrak’s 363-mile network. 51 RELIABILITY Of all operators on the NEC, Amtrak has the poorest on-time performance. In recent years, 85 to 90 percent of Acela trains have reached their destinations on time. Amtrak’s Northeast Regional service accomplishes this only 75 to 80 percent of the time. Per 150 miles of journey, Amtrak trains experience an average of seven minutes of train delay (above and beyond a built-in “pad” of 10 to 20 minutes of recovery time). Delay minutes increased 13 percent in 2008 alone—and the situation will not improve without major investment in the corridor. 52 SPEED AND CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS The NEC has many physical constraints that limit speed on the line, including: • Tight curves • Tunnels more than 100 years old • Junction and signaling challenges • Shared track with commuter rail and freight operators • Grade crossings When the NEC is analyzed in terms of the Federal Railroad Administration’s accepted designations of types of “high-speed” rail, the current corridor speeds are mixed. Sixty percent of track is capable of speeds of only 110 mph or less. 53 For the Northeast Corridor to achieve true high-speed rail, or HSR Express service of more than 150 mph, significant upgrades to the infrastructure and train sets are necessary. As listed above, several different types of issues currently impede high-speed operation along the NEC. Some particularly notable speed constraints include the section of track owned by Metro-North Railroad, where Amtrak is contractually limited to 90 mph service and where Metro-North trains receive signal priority over Amtrak at the

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

Speed Constraints on the Existing Northeast Corridor

Percent of Track Capable of Particular Speeds

100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0%

95 10 0 10 5 11 0 11 5 12 0 12 5 13 0 13 5 14 0 14 5 15 0

0.0%

Maximum Speed (mph) NYC Ñ BOS

NYC Ñ DC

Entire NEC

Speed profile: Northeast Corridor.

New Rochelle junction north of New York City. Several lift and swing bridges also limit speeds and volumes in the corridor, including three over navigable waterways in southeastern Connecticut and three in the Chesapeake Bay region in northern Maryland. CAPACITY According to Amtrak’s Infrastructure Master Plan, one-third of the track segments from Washington to Boston are operating at or above 75 percent capacity. 54 The urban areas, particularly the New York City region stretching from Trenton, N.J., to Stamford, Conn., and areas in the vicinity of Baltimore, Wilmington and Boston, are noted as especially capacity-constrained. In some instances, these represent choke points where an otherwise three- or four-track railroad briefly has only two tracks; in other cases, such as in Boston, additional track or station capacity is limited by an area’s dense urban form. MAINTENANCE The NEC has not been in a true state of good repair since the day it was conveyed to Amtrak in 1976. Since Amtrak lacks a dedicated source of infrastructure maintenance and repair funding, congressional appropriations occur on a year-to-year basis. Only the recent passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the “Stimulus Bill”) has allowed Amtrak to begin to eliminate some of its backlog of deferred maintenance. Amtrak estimates that an annual appropriation of approximately $700 million will be necessary in coming years to remove this backlog by 2023 (a typical appropriation today is $400 million). In total, Amtrak estimates a maintenance backlog of $4.7 billion. 55

02 - Analysis of Existing Conditions

THE COST OF INCREMENTAL IMPR OVEMENTS Amtrak’s recent Master Plan, coupled with a report discussing the infrastructure requirements necessary to make moderate travel time improvements along the NEC, provides a rough estimate of the order-ofmagnitude cost of incremental improvements along the NEC. First, as noted above, approximately $4.7 billion is needed to remove the current backlog that resulted from long-term deferred investment in the Amtrak-owned portion of the corridor. An additional $3.2 billion represents the estimated backlog on the Metro-North portion of the corridor. 56 These investments should be seen as essential to future safe, reliable and efficient operation on the corridor. Costs for normal replacement—that is, to retain regular maintenance of the existing railroad so that new maintenance problems do not develop even while old ones are resolved—are estimated at $9.1 billion through 2030. 57 Finally, by far the largest section of costs is the capital cost associated with providing the improvements necessary to increase capacity and improve travel times to meet the demands expected by 2030. Amtrak estimates these costs at $32.3 billion by 2030, with $10.2 billion set aside for targeted improvements to directly reduce travel times. This does not include costs for rolling stock improvements, which are a separate budget item, at an estimated $2.3 billion. 58 These costs together represent the levels of investment needed simply to improve what is on the ground today through a series of incremental changes. It will allow for faster Acela service, but will still not provide the infrastructure necessary for true high-speed trains or provide capacity for projected increases in travel demand. To go above and beyond this master plan would involve a bold paradigm shift in national rail planning, in which the long-term costs of incrementalism are more carefully considered and alternatives afforded greater credence. That approach may be just the shift needed to reassert the primacy of rail transportation in the corridor, better connect disparate geographic and economic regions, and make the region more competitive in a global, 21st-century economy.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

Amtrak Master Plan: Deferred maintenance costs. 59 Cost Project Type

(millions)

Track Interlocking Reconstruction Subgrade Replacement Electric Traction System Replace Substations/Transformers Catenary System Rehabilitation Signal System Interlocking Signals Replacement Automatic Block Signal (ABS) System Replacement CETC Construction Stations/Facilities Facilities Stations ADA Replacement of Bridges/Structures NY Tunnel Structural Rehab Corn River Bridge Pelham Bay Bridge Portal Bridge B & P Tunnel Bush Bridge Susquehanna Bridge Gunpow Bridge Fixed Bridge Replacement Total

985

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

800 185 350 50 300 255 100 100 55 315 85 230 2,839 214 200 100 250 1,000 150 500 200 225 4,744

Amtrak Master Plan: Capital costs. Cost Project Type Infrastructure Tunnels Moveable Bridges Fixed Bridges Track Major Terminals Propulsion Signals and Catenary Stations Facilities Total

(millions) $ 36,693 $ 11,142 $ 8,034 $ 1,818 $ 10,727 $ 2,625 $ 618 $ 1,729 $ 2,567 $ 1,003 $ 40,263

High-speed trains: The future of mobility on the Northeast Corridor.

03 03 DESIGNING A HIGH-SPEED RAIL SERVICE To remain globally competitive in the 21st century, the Northeast Megaregion needs 21st-century infrastructure. In particular, its intercity rail infrastructure—the Northeast Corridor—is aging and underdeveloped. America’s preeminent passenger rail corridor is in need of a bold paradigm shift to remain competitive on a global scale. While European and Asian megaregions are increasingly interconnected by trains reaching speeds of more than 180 mph, Amtrak’s Acela Express averages only 70 to 80 mph over its route. This chapter presents a proposal for a revitalized Northeast Corridor, anchored by two dedicated high-speed rail tracks between Washington, D.C., and Boston. This innovative proposal maximizes the potential of existing rights-of-way while suggesting several new routes and alignments that can dramatically improve service speeds and reliability throughout the corridor. By improving service with a new alignment and service plan, the Northeast Corridor has the potential to triple its current ridership by 2040, and to transform mobility and connectivity throughout the region, fulfilling its economic potential and promoting sustainable, equitable growth.

CASE STUDY

Acela Express: The Only “High-Speed” Service in the United States In 1999 Amtrak released a plan for high-speed service in the Northeast. Engineers finished electrifying the Northeast Corridor from Washington, D.C., to Boston, and also made other necessary improvements for highspeed operations, such as removing at-grade crossings with roadways. However, a major difference between U.S. “high-speed” service and that of services in Japan, France and many other countries remained: the American trains still do not have dedicated high-speed track. The new Acela Express high-speed service had to run on 19th-century rightsof-way, constrained by tightly curving track and competing train operations. Accordingly, Acela reaches its maximum speed of 150 mph on only two short sections of the corridor. Nonetheless, the Acela Express service had an immediate impact on rail’s mode share in the Northeast. Before Acela, 64 percent of passengers between New York and Washington, D.C., traveled by air. After Acela began running in 1999, the rail market share grew 53 percent of all air-rail passengers. Similarly, between New York and Boston, Amtrak’s mode share increased from 18 percent to 40 percent. 1 These mode shifts are clear evidence that the market exists and that passengers will ride fast trains in the Northeast Corridor.

WHAT IS HIGH-SPEED RAIL? Americans have had precious few encounters with true high-speed rail service. Internationally, a high-speed service is defined as regularly operates at speeds exceeding 250 kilometers per hour (160 mph). Several systems, including those in France, Japan, Spain and China, operate well above this speed, exceeding 300 kilometers per hour (186 mph), gaining ridership and providing energy-efficient mobility. But in the United States, even the Acela Express, often touted as America’s only high-speed service, reaches speeds in excess of 125 mph on limited sections of its route because of the significant limitations of the existing Northeast Corridor. In this report, high-speed rail refers exclusively to service that operates above 125 mph and the high-speed proposal detailed in this chapter is envisioned (conservatively) for trains operating in the range of 180 mph and achieving average speeds of approximately 150 mph. This allows room for growth: most future high-speed lines, such as HS2 in the United Kingdom and the proposed California High-Speed Rail system are being designed to reach top speeds of at least 220 mph.

THE DESIGN CHALLENGE The proposal detailed in this chapter is a bold, innovative and forwardlooking approach to solving the design challenge of building a dedicated high-speed rail right-of-way along the 454-mile spine of the Northeast Corridor between Washington, D.C. and Boston. The design challenge is to accomplish nothing short of threading a dedicated high-speed rail alignment into the densest region in the country, through several of the largest and densest cities in the United States, while weaving it into one of the most complex and busiest passenger and freight rail systems in the world. The design seeks to create a system that minimizes construction costs while maximizing benefits and being bold enough in vision and in substance to revolutionize mobility throughout the Northeast. The design team sought to mix an inventive vision with grounded practicality in a way that identifies feasible projects that are challenging to the status quo. The guiding principles of the design are explained in the next section. This proposal is neither the fastest possible route nor the most forward-looking, best-possible solution, but it is a superior alternative to continued incremental upgrades that invest extensive resources while achieving only marginal benefits.

03 - Designing a High-Speed Rail Service

DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR HIGH-SPEED RAIL IN THE NORTHEAST INCREASE CAPACITY: Two new, dedicated high-speed intercity tracks are crucial to freeing up capacity for intercity services and for relieving capacity on crowded commuter rail lines across the Northeast. The eight commuter rail operators, carrying more than 240 million passengers per year, need this capacity to expand their services. Nearly one-third of the NEC already operates at 75 percent capacity or worse. MAKE TRAVEL TIME COMPETITIVE: Dedicated high-speed intercity tracks will allow rail trip times that are faster than driving and flying times throughout the Northeast, making rail the mode of choice for intercity trips. MAXIMIZE ACCESSIBILITY AND INCREASE RIDERSHIP: The new high-speed rail alignment maximizes opportunities to connect to local transportation hubs, commuter rail stations and international airports, improving customer accessibility and expanding the rail market. UTILIZE EXISTING ROW/MINIMIZE TAKINGS: The new alignment follows existing rights-of-way, or utilizes vacant land, industrial sites and utility rights-of-way, to the greatest extent possible in ways that minimize takings of residences and other private property. CATALYZE DEVELOPMENT: New station locations were deliberately selected to spur new, high-speed-rail-oriented urban development and infill development. SIMPLIFY AND AMPLIFY LOCAL TRANSIT CONNECTIONS: For too long the Northeastâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s intercity services have not been well coordinated with local transportation services. The new alignment and station designs directly connect these assets, making transfers and interconnections seamless. OFFER A HIERARCHY OF SERVICE: Two new, dedicated highspeed tracks will vastly increase the operational flexibility of the railroad. This allows for a wider range of express and local services, offering customers far more choices regarding speed and destinations. LIMIT CAPITAL COSTS: High-speed rail infrastructure is expensive, but you get what you pay for. The proposed dedicated high-speed alignment balances forward-thinking capital investments with the constraints of the Northeast to create infrastructure that will serve the megaregion for decades to come.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

SYSTEM UPGRADE TYPOLOGIES Urban Core Station

The design process invested particular attention to the types of new station locations, station improvements and track improvements that will be necessary to advance the design principles for high-speed rail in the Northeast. These typologies are explained here. STATION LOCATIONS

M Regional Connection Station

New and existing stations on the alignment largely fall into three categories. These three types help achieve the design goals of catalyzing development, maximizing ridership and accessibility and creating seamless transit connections. Urban Core Stations serve the central areas of the cities along the corridor. In addition to the five largest cities, this type includes stations serving the cores of Hartford, Conn., Newark, N.J., Wilmington, Del., Providence, R.I., Stamford, Conn., Worcester, Mass., and others. Regional Connection Stations serve peripheral areas of the major metropolitan stations along the corridor. These stations are often accessible by commuter rail and regional bus networks, as well as being conveniently located near major freeway junctions for excellent accessibility by car.

Airport Station

Airport Stations are a new model for the Northeast, where highspeed rail service connects together the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s major airports, ready to deliver passengers to the airport terminals or whisk passengers to their ultimate destinations. In addition to the existing connections at Newark and Baltimore-Washington, proposed stations will serve Philadelphia International, John F. Kennedy and MacArthur airports. STATION IMPROVEMENTS Appropriate station design, particularly track and platform layout, is an essential element in moving trains as efficiently and safely as possible. Existing stations on the Northeast Corridor must be upgraded (and new stations designed) to host a combination of commuter rail and longdistance trains. Not all stations will be served by high-speed rail (Type IV), and some stations are solely dedicated to high-speed rail (Type I). Many existing stations will entertain commuter service on outer tracks, with high-speed rail on inner tracks (Type II and Type III). Type I stations are completely dedicated to high-speed rail. Stopping trains pull off the high-speed tracks to stop at the station; nonstop trains proceed through the station at consistent speeds on separated tracks between the passenger platforms. New high-speed stations at Baltimore Charles Center, Philadelphia International Airport and Tolland/UConn

03 - Designing a High-Speed Rail Service

are examples of this approach. These stations can also accommodate high-speed commuter services, following the model of the U.K.â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Javelin service. Type II stations host high-speed trains and commuter rail. These designs are similar to Type I, with high-speed rail in the center and commuter rail to the outside of station platforms. This allows for simple crossplatform transfers between commuter rail and high-speed rail. Stations in Odenton, Md., Newark, Del., Cornwells Heights, Pa., and MetroWest outside of Boston are examples of this model. Type III stations are similar to Type II stations, except Type III are located in areas with constrained rights-of-way. New Carrollton, Md., BWI Airport and Aberdeen, Md., are examples of stations have little room for outward expansion, so providing separated tracks above or below existing stations is necessary. Thus, nonstop high-speed trains utilize an aerial structure or tunnel to safely bypass the station. Type IV stations will continue to serve commuter trains, allowing high-speed trains to bypass the station through a tunnel or on an aerial structure. Examples of Type IV include the many small commuter stations along the Long Island Rail Road, such as Wyandanch, Deer Park and Brentwood.

Type I Basic High-Speed Station

Type II High-Speed + Commuter Station (w/ Station Bypass)

Type III High-Speed + Commuter Station (in Constrained ROW)

TRACK IMPROVEMENTS When designing for a high-speed track within or near the existing right-of-way, several different types of improvements are proposed, as represented by the diagrams below. These track improvements serve particular design goals: Types 1, III and V offer capacity expansion and dedicated HSR tracks; Type II offers new market access for rail; and Types I, IV and V offer speed improvements over current conditions. Type I Add Track

Type II Add Station

Type III Bypass Station

Type IV Straighten S-Curve

Type V Remove Bottleneck

Type IV High-Speed Bypass of Commuter Station (in Constrained ROW)

HSR Alignment HSR Bypass - Aerial or Tunnel Commuter Rail Alignment HSR Station Stopping Alignment Station Platform

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR AMTRAK RAIL COMMUTER RAIL

PROPOSED RAIL Acela Express

Northeast Regional Other Amtrak Service

Rhinecliff

Proposed/Upgraded Service

Poughke

Miles

Croto

Sta

Yonkers

New York (Penn-Moynihan Station) Newark (Penn Station) Newark Liberty International Airport

Lewistown

Metropark (Iselin)

ntingdon

New Brunswick Harrisburg

Downingtown Coatesville Parkesburg

Paoli

Philadelphia (30th St)

NJ Cornwells Heights

Philadelphia (North)

Philadelphia (Market East) Philadelphia Airport

Newark, DE

Harpers Ferry

Ardmore

Exton

Wilmington

artinsburg

Princeton Junction

Trenton

Middletown Elizabethtown Mount Joy Lancaster

Aberdeen

Baltimore (Penn Station) III. PHILADELPHIA

BWI Airport

Baltimore (Charles Center)

Rockville

Odenton

II. WILMINGTON, DEL.

New Carrollton

Washington, DC (Union Station)

Manassas Woodbridge

Alexandria Franconia - Springfield Lorton (Auto Train)

I. BALTIMORE, MD.

Nas

Jam

Albany - Rensselaer

Pittsfield Amherst

Woburn

VIII. BOSTON APPROACH, MASS.

Worcester

Riverside MetroWest Framingham

udson

Boston (South Station) Boston (Back Bay) VII. WORCESTER, MASS.

Route 128 - Westwood

Springfield Windsor Locks

Providence

Windsor

Tolland (UConn)

eepsie

Hartford

Meriden

Kingston

New London New Haven

on Harmon

Bridgeport

Mystic

Westerly

Old Saybrook

VI. I-84 CORRIDOR, CONN.

amford V. LONG ISLAND, N.Y.

New Rochelle

Terryville (SUNY Stony Brook)

IV. NEW YORK CITY AREA, N.Y./N.J.

ssau Hub

Ronkonkoma - MacArthur Airport Farmingdale - Route 110 maica - JFK Airport NORTHERN END — NEW YORK TO BOSTON There are two potential routes for a new two-track, dedicated, high-speed service from New York to Boston. The first would require upgrading the existing corridor along inlets, rivers and historic waterfront communities. This section is particularly congested, and it would require significant use of tunnels and viaducts to bypass curves, movable bridges and other obstructions. Given the high costs and political uncertainties associated with this first option, this report outlines an alternative right-of-way that would simultaneously solve the problems of curvy, difficult existing alignment while connecting now-isolated communities to the corridor. This proposed alignment proceeds east from New York across Long Island, then north through a new three-track tunnel under Long Island Sound to New Haven. From there it travels inland to Hartford, then along the I-84 corridor toward Worcester, and finally east to Boston along the Massachusetts Turnpike. At the same time, full Amtrak service will be retained or expanded along the existing Shore Line, with New Haven becoming the new linchpin of the northern end. SOUTHERN END — WASHINGTON TO NEW YORK The southern half of the dedicated high-speed rail line relies mostly on the existing right-of-way from Washington’s Union Station to New York’s Penn-Moynihan Station. Here, the physical challenge is primarily an urban one—the tricky alignments through Philadelphia and Baltimore limit speeds for the whole line. Solving two problems with one change, the proposed alignments utilize tunnels to dramatically improve speeds through these cities while also creating new downtown stations in areas ripe for economic development. Further linkages include direct service to Philadelphia International Airport and improved regional connections.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

Penn Station

Charles Center

Existing NEC

Proposed HSR

Local Rail

Existing Station

Proposed HSR Station

Other Amtrak Corridors

0.25

0.5

Miles 1

DETAILED ALIGNMENT PROPOSALS I. BALTIMORE

M Improvement and Station Typologies

The most severe speed restrictions on the southern end of the existing Northeast Corridor occur in Baltimore. For example, speeds are limited to 30 mph or less in the 140-year-old Baltimore and Potomac Tunnel on the western approach to Penn Station. Further, Penn Station itself is weakly linked to Baltimore’s core downtown. To vastly increase speeds, improve infrastructure and offer better multimodal connections, the proposed route uses a new tunnel to serve downtown Baltimore directly at the new Charles Center Station. • Project Length: 7.1 miles • Current Top Speed: 30-55 mph 2 • Proposed Top Speed: Up to 150 mph • Key Benefits: New downtown core station with better accessibility to existing transit; replace obsolete tunnels • Current Annual Ridership: 986,000 passengers 3 (Penn Station) • Projected Annual Ridership (2040): 1.9-2.8 million passengers • Major Capital Projects: Tunnel along Wilkens Avenue, Redwood Street and Orleans Street; New Charles Center Station; replace obsolete tunnel

03 - Designing a High-Speed Rail Service

Wilmington

Existing NEC

Proposed HSR

Local Rail

Existing Station

Proposed HSR Station

Other Amtrak Corridors

0.25

0.5

Miles 1

II. WILMINGTON, DEL. The tight curves immediately surrounding Wilmington Station restrict current speeds to 30 mph, which is not a major problem for trains stopping at Wilmington but hinders nonstop trains. While Wilmington will see increases in total train service from the HSR proposal, nonstop trains will bypass these curves by using an existing freight right-of-way. • Project Length: 5.1 miles • Current Top Speed: 30-70 mph • Proposed Top Speed: Up to 180 mph • Benefits: Allow for higher speeds by bypassing station and curves; improve direct travel times between Washington and New York

Improvement and Station Typologies

• Major Capital Projects: Acquire freight right-of-way; build two bridges and some track on aerial structures

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

North Philadelphia

30th Street Station

Market East

Philadelphia International Airport

Existing NEC

Proposed HSR

Local Rail

Existing Station

Proposed HSR Station

Other Amtrak Corridors

0.5

Miles 2

III. PHILADELPHIA

M Improvement and Station Typologies

The proposal through Philadelphia includes two new intercity rail access points for the region, while retaining service at Philadelphia’s majestic 30th Street Station. The new alignment serves the airport, then continues in a tunnel under Philadelphia to a new station at Market East in Center City. Directly connected to the region’s transit infrastructure and steps from major business and tourist destinations, Market East HSR could unlock the potential of this underperforming portion of Philadelphia’s downtown. • Project Length: 20.3 miles • Current Top Speed: 45-100 mph • Proposed Top Speed: 130-180 mph • Current Annual Ridership: • Airport: N/A; 30th Street Station: 3.88 million passengers • Projected Annual Ridership (2040): • A irport: 800,000-1.2 million passengers; Market East/30th Street Station: 6.3-9.5 million passengers • Major Capital Projects: Tunnel and aerial structure to access Philadelphia Airport; Philadelphia tunnel to serve Market East; two new full-scale rail stations

03 - Designing a High-Speed Rail Service

Penn-Moynihan Station Newark Jamaica - JKF Airport

Newark International Airport

AirTrain JKF

Existing NEC

Proposed HSR

Local Rail

Existing Station

Proposed HSR Station

Other Amtrak Corridors

0 0.5 1

Miles 2

IV. NEW YORK CITY AREA, N.Y./N.J. Access to New York’s existing Penn Station is the major capacity bottleneck in the entire current Northeast Corridor. The proposal envisions a new set of dedicated tunnels serving New York’s future Moynihan Station, with the tunnel continuing to the east under the East River and into Long Island. Back above ground, the line serves Jamaica Station, with its direct connections to the Long Island Rail Road and JFK Airport. • Project Length: 17.0 miles (Newark to Jamaica) • Current Top Speed: 30-80 mph • Proposed Top Speed: Up to 150 mph

Improvement and Station Typologies

• Current Annual Ridership: • Penn Station: 8.5 million passengers; Jamaica Station: N/A • Projected Annual Ridership (2040): • Penn-Moynihan Station: 10.7-16.1 million passengers; Jamaica Station: 2.0-3.0 million passengers • Major Capital Projects: Tunnel under Hudson, Manhattan, the East River and parts of Brooklyn and Queens; Moynihan Station and Jamaica Station improvements

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

New Haven

Old Saybrook

Bridgeport

Stamford

New Rochelle

Terryville/SUNY Stony Brook Ronkonkoma - MacArthur Airport

Penn-Moynihan Station

Newark Int’l Airport

Farmingdale/Route 110 Nassau Hub Jamaica - JKF Airport

Existing NEC

Proposed HSR

Local Rail

Existing Station

Proposed HSR Station

Other Amtrak Corridors

V. LONG ISLAND, N.Y.

2.5

Miles 10

5’ Ø @ 800’ Pressure Release Ducts

75’ 105

The signature investment of the new proposed high-speed rail line is its proposal for direct, high-speed service throughout Long Island, including 11’ Øto@rejoin 1,200’ the existing Northeast a major tunnel under Long Island Sound Cross Passages Corridor at New Haven. This project, along with the inland route proposal described below, are central to vastly improving rail travel times on the northern half of the Northeast Megaregion.

25’ Ø Main Tunnel

The proposed high-speed alignment generally follows existing Long 25’ Ø Ø Island Rail Road rights-of-way east-to-west40’across the island. To 25’ minimize Ancillary land takings, in many Tunnel cases the high-speed alignment may run Main in a Tunnel tunnel under or trench along or within LIRR alignments.

40’

Improvement and Station Typologies

In addition to Jamaica, new stations to serve Long Island’s seven million people include Nassau Hub, east of Garden City, which is envisioned as Nassau County’s emerging downtown; the Route 110 corridor and New York

shipping channel

130’

75’

rad

1.2 mi

16.2 mi

Tunnel Section: the sound is wide (16.2 miles), but shallow (130’ max. depth).

03 - Designing a High-Speed Rail Service

Ronkonoma/MacArthur Airport, which presents a unique intermodal station opportunity for access by rail, car and plane. Also, a stop is proposed near SUNY Stony Brook’s campus.

LESSON FROM LONDON

The Long Island Sound Tunnel itself is similar to, but not as long or as deep as, the tunnel under the English Channel between Britain and France. This tunnel would actually be three tracks—two serving highspeed rail passenger service, and a third providing freight access to Long Island through specially designed electric-powered freight trains. • Project Length: 70.3 miles (Jamaica to Milford, Conn., tunnel portal)

Channel Tunnel: High-Speed Link Between France and the United Kingdom The Channel Tunnel, also known as the “Chunnel,” runs from Folkestone, England, to Sangatte, France, and allows for a high-speed connection between London, Paris, Brussels and other destinations in Europe.

LONG ISLAND SOUND

• Current Top Speed: 40-90 mph (on existing NEC segment)

• New Top Speed: Up to 180 mph (on Long Island alignment)

The construction of the tunnel was finished in 1994 at a total cost of $21 billion. The total length of the steeland-concrete tunnel is about 31 miles. Completion of the Chunnel took about six years from the time actual boring started until the first services were operational. With trains allowed to reach speeds around 100 mph in the Chunnel, the total end-to-end travel time is just 20 minutes.

BATHYMETRY + TUNNEL SECTION

• Benefits: Provide five Long Island access points to the Northeast Corridor; vastly improved travel times north from New York

min depth 5’ max depth

• Current Annual Ridership: N/A • Projected Annual Ridership (2040): 880,000-1.4 million passengers (excludes Jamaica Station) • Major Capital Projects: New track; Long Island Sound Tunnel; grade separations on LIRR track

75’ min depth 105’ max depth

5’ Ø @ 800’ Pressure Release Ducts

11’ Ø @ 1,200’ Cross Passages

25’ Ø Main Tunnel

40’

25’ Ø Ancillary Tunnel

40’

Engineers building the tunnel faced two major challenges: first, to design the longest underwater tunnel ever built (at that point); and second, to BATHYMETRY convince the public that passengers would be safe in a tunnel that long. To alleviate safety concerns (as well as allow for regular maintenance without disrupting service), the Chunnel actually consists of three tunnels: two that accommodate rail traffic and a smaller service tunnel reserved for emergency access. 4

LONG ISLAND +

25’ Ø Main Tunnel

Tunnel Section: 2 main tubes and 1 ancillary tube. (m)

336 - 365

301 - 335

New York

shipping channel

Connecticut

recreation area

266 - 300

236 - 265

201 - 235

130’

166 - 200

136 - 165

101 - 135

75’

66 - 100

31 - 65

6 - 30

1.2 mi

rad

1% max

e x grad

1% ma

100’

16.2 mi

0-5

1.5 mi

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

grade

2 mi

Springfield

Windsor Locks Tolland/UConn

Windsor Hartford

Berlin Meriden

Kingston

Wallingford Existing NEC

Proposed HSR

Local Rail

Existing Station

Proposed HSR Station

Other Amtrak Corridors

2.5

Miles 10

VI. INTERSTATE 84 CORRIDOR, CONN./MASS. After emerging from the Long Island Sound Tunnel, trains will briefly rejoin the existing NEC to reach New Haven. At New Haven, northbound trains can be routed either along the high-speed I-84 corridor or along the existing NEC line that serves the Connecticut shore and Rhode Island. Similarly, southbound trains reaching New Haven will either take the tunnel to Long Island or serve Stamford and the Connecticut/New York shore along the conventional NEC.

The inland route between New Haven and Boston represents the most significant alignment change of the entire project, creating a new highspeed alignment largely along three interstates (I-91, I-84 and I-90) in Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Improvement and Station Typologies

High-speed trains will travel north from New Haven to serve Hartford, Conn., where they will veer east and follow a brand-new alignment

18’ CLEAR ZONE

15’ SHOULDER

12’ LANE

12’ 6’ LANE SHOULDER

20’ MEDIAN

2’ BARRIER

192’ TOTAL ROW

I-84: Current Alignment

03 - Designing a High-Speed Rail Service

along Interstate 84 through northeastern Connecticut and southern Massachusetts toward Worcester. This section is the second crucial link of the proposed high-speed link between New York and Boston, and will provide excellent through-speeds, but trains will also stop to serve Hartford and a new Tolland/University of Connecticut station. In many sections of this route, the high-speed alignment may be able to fit directly into the I-84 right-of-way, such as in the median as depicted in the illustrations on these pages. In other sections, the high-speed track may run along one or another side of the freeway or deviate from the freeway routing in order to avoid excessive curves or grades. Some tunnel and viaduct construction is anticipated in order to avoid the most severe grade change as well. • Project Length: 48.0 miles (Hartford to Worcester rail junction) • Current Top Speed: N/A • New Top Speed: 180+ mph • Benefits: Straight alignment along I-84 corridor; ties Hartford into the Northeast Corridor; service to Tolland/UConn; travel time improvements to Boston • Major Capital Projects: Build track along highway; occasional small tunnel or viaduct section to accommodate grades

18’ CLEAR ZONE

15’ SHOULDER

12’ LANE

12’ 6’ LANE SHOULDER

20’ MEDIAN

2’ BARRIER

192’ TOTAL ROW

18’ CLEAR ZONE

8’ SHOULDER

12’ LANE

12’ 6’ LANE SHOULDER

CASE STUDY

High-Speed Rail on Highway ROW: HSL2, Belgium Belgium is a country rich in rail infrastructure, with the Eurostar ICE, TGV and Thalys HSR systems all providing extensive services. Until recently, however, fewer Belgians used rail as their primary mode of transportation than many of their European counterparts. In 2002, the Flemish government attempted to expand the market for rail by upgrading the main lines to accommodate higher speed services and extending lines east into Germany. These lines—known as HSL2, HSL3 and HSL4—were built to host both ICE and Thalys trains. Like the proposed high-speed route on the NEC, the HSL2 line was built using a combination of existing tracks and additional public ROW—in this case, alongside the E40 motorway. Using the motorway had two great benefits: First, it utilized land already owned by the Flemish government, and second, it allowed high-speed trains to run on the long, straight, flat corridors on which the motorway system was built. In fact, trains reach their fastest speeds along this route, unimpeded by tight curves or grade changes. The E40 corridor is similar to I-84 in Connecticut, and provides a clear example of using existing resources more efficiently to reduce costs and minimize land takings. 5

54’ HSR ROW

192’ TOTAL ROW

I-84: Proposed Alignment with HSR in Median

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

MetroWest Worcester

Existing NEC

Proposed HSR

Local Rail

Existing Station

Proposed HSR Station

Other Amtrak Corridors

0.5

Miles 2

VII. WORCESTER, MASS.

M Improvement and Station Typologies

At Worcester, high-speed trains serving the direct Boston-to-New York markets will remain near the Interstate 90 alignment to the city’s south; however, many trains will also divert off this alignment to service Worcester directly by running along existing Amtrak track that is shared with commuter services from Boston. Trains making these stops in Worcester will be able to rejoin the high-speed alignment east of the city and proceed to Boston. Thus, travel time for through trains, like at Wilmington, is reduced, but access is still provided to the major rail market in the urban core. • Project Length: 17.7 miles (high-speed bypass); 21.5 miles (Worcester-serving route) • Current Top Speed: N/A • New Top Speed: Up to 180 mph • Benefits: Option of direct service to Worcester’s Union Station or high-speed bypass service to Boston • Current Annual Ridership: 6,183 passengers (not an NEC service) • Projected Annual Ridership (2040): 250,000-400,000 passengers • Major Capital Projects: Build track along highway corridor; new rail junctions to allow service to Worcester

03 - Designing a High-Speed Rail Service

Riverside

MetroWest

North Station South Station Back Bay

Framingham

Route 128 - Westwood Existing NEC

Proposed HSR

Local Rail

Existing Station

Proposed HSR Station

Other Amtrak Corridors

Miles 4

VIII. BOSTON APPROACH The Boston metropolitan area gains two new stations on the new high-speed rail alignment while retaining service at its two urban core stations, Back Bay and South Station. The tightly constrained high-speed alignment parallels the Mass Pike (I-90), most likely in an aerial structure and then in a highly optimized train environment allowing maximum intercity and commuter train capacity when nearing the urban core stations. The new MetroWest station, sitting at the junction of two major freeways, will be one of the most accessible stations by car in the entire high-speed system in addition to connecting to commuter rail services. At Riverside, an extension to Boston’s Green Line could connect urban transit, commuter rail, automobile access and intercity trains at one location.

CR Improvement and Station Typologies

• Project Length: 28.1 miles (I-495 to South Station) • Current Top Speed: Down to 15 mph near South Station • New Top Speed: Up to 180 mph, still slow at South Station • Benefits: Increased interconnections between intercity and commuter/local rail transit; additional intercity capacity for Boston

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES The proposed high-speed rail line will requires significant investment in rail infrastructure and technology over multiple years. Capital costs for the new line were estimated by geographic segment and type of investment, and are summarized in the table below.

ts en em

L A O T T

at io

O th er

pr ov

io n

La nd

Ac qu isi t

an d re s ru ct u

Ju nc tio

ns St

Costs in Millions of USD

Ra il

Tr ac k

an d

Sig

na lin g

Tu nn els

In total, the order-of-magnitude cost estimate for the new high-speed rail system is just under $100 billion.

Washington - Baltimore

300 $

350 $

2,100 $

2 $

4,300 $

1,000 $

8,100

Baltimore - Philadelphia Int'l Airport

700 $

300 $

2,400 $

2 $

1,300 $

1,500 $

6,200

Philadelphia Int'l Airport - Trenton

400 $

2,100 $

2,200 $

1 $

3,500 $

3,000 $

11,200

Trenton - New York

600 $

2,150 $

5,400 $

2 $

5,600 $

1,000 $

14,800

New York - New Haven

900 $

2,250 $

9,800 $

5 $

1,200 $

2,300 $

16,500

New Haven - Hartford

300 $

100 $

600 $

1 $

800 $

500 $

2,300

Hartford - Worcester

400 $

200 $

500 $

2 $

700 $

1,800

Worcester - Boston

500 $

1,050 $

4,100 $

5 $

5,700 $

11,400

SUBTOTAL $ 71,900 Track and Signaling 5%

Environmental Mitigation 2% Rolling Stock 7%

Rail Junctions 10%

Overhead 16%

Overhead/Project Management (25%)

18,000

Environmental Mitigation (3%)

2,200

Rolling Stock (40 train sets)

6,000

Other 2% Structures and Tunnels 31% Station Improvements 26%

Land Acquisition 1%

Total Capital Expenditures, by Type

TOTAL $ 98,100

ASSUMPTIONS

1. While there is some overlap, many of the state-of-good-repair investments included in the Amtrak Master Plan are still necessary (about $40 billion). 2. Estimated costs are in 2010 dollars. 3. Costs are spread over a 20-year period (see phasing plan). 4. Unit cost assumptions are located in Appendix B.

03 - Designing a High-Speed Rail Service

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Globally, some high-speed rail systems are able to turn operating profits on their high-speed rail systems—examples include the Eurostar service between London, Brussels and Paris, and SNCF’s TGV operations. Indeed, contrary to a widely held belief that all American passenger rail is unprofitable, Amtrak currently makes a profit of approximately $9 per passenger on its Northeast Corridor services (Amtrak Five-Year Plan, FY 2010-2014). A future high-speed system in the Northeast should also be expected to turn operating profits. To examine the feasibility of this, the studio estimated operations and maintenance costs of a new high-speed line at several levels of potential ridership. Operating costs were based off a 2003 study of the proposed California Operations and Maintenance Unit Costs HSR system, then increased by 20 percent to adjust for increased costs Track Infrasctructure Costs in the Northeast. All amounts are given in 2010 dollars. The break-even ($ Per Train Mile) fare indicates the average fare that would be required to sustain the California HSR Northeast HSR service; some passengers would pay more while other passengers would Cost Category Plan Estimate Plan Estimate pay less. IRR stands for internal rate of return, and is a key metric for Station Services $0.64 $0.76 profitability—the potential for a 17 percent return on investment would Insurance $1.56 $1.87 attract private capital to system operations.

Operations and Maintenance Unit Costs

General Support

$1.12

$1.35

Maintenance of Way

$3.34

$4.01

Total Cost per Train Mile

$6.66

$7.99

System Operation Costs

Track Infrasctructure Costs

($ Per Train Mile)

($ Per Train Mile) California HSR

Northeast HSR

California HSR

Northeast HSR

Cost Category

Plan Estimate

Station Services

$0.64

$0.76

Train Operations

$7.78

$9.33

Insurance

$1.56

$1.87

Equipment Maintenance

$9.12

$10.95

General Support

$1.12

$1.35

Marketing and Reservations

$1.64

$1.97

Maintenance of Way

$3.34

$4.01

Power

$5.50

$6.60

Total Cost per Train Mile

$6.66

$7.99

Total Cost per Train Mile

$24.04

$28.84

System Operation Costs

Projected Fare Requirements To Recover Operations and Maintenance Costs ($ Per Train Mile) California HSR

Northeast HSR

Minimal O/M Annual Scenario High O/M Annual Cost Scenario PlanCost Estimate Plan Estimate Train Operations Annual Equipment Maintenance O/M Costs Passengers Marketing and Reservations (millions of $) (millions) Power

1,118 Total20 Cost per Train Mile

$7.78 $9.12 Break-Even $1.64 Fare ($) $5.50

$55.90 $24.04

$9.33 17% IRR $10.95 O/M Costs Fare ($) $1.97 (millions of $) $6.60

$65.40 $28.841,542

Break-Even

17% IRR

Fare ($)

$77.10

$90.21

1,318

$43.93

$51.40

1,742

$58.07

$67.94

1,538

$38.45

$44.99

1,845

$46.13

$53.97

1,693

$33.86

$39.62

2,032

$40.64

$47.55

1,758

$29.30

$34.28

2,322

$38.70

$45.28

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

SERVICE PLAN

With the flexibility and capacity offered by new dedicated high-speed tracks, a wide variety of services can be offered on the Northeast Corridor. Four different services are proposed:

WAS - NYC: 1 hour 30 mins

• Express: direct service for the most time-sensitive passengers • Limited: express service connecting the most significant markets on the corridor • Regional: inland and coastal service serving primary destinations • Local: inland and coastal service serving secondary destinations

PHL - NYC: 37 mins

Stopping patterns on these services can be varied to fit the specific ridership demands on the railroad, and can be adjusted over time as those trends change. Individual stops would be served by trains running the stopping patterns indicated by the diagram on the next page.

With 10 to 12 trains per hour per direction possible in the peak hour, compared to three to five at the peak hour today, the proposed service plan would lead to nearly all destinations on the Northeast Corridor seeing more trains in peak hours as well as more trains throughout the day.

NYC - BOS: 1 hour 45 mins Proposed Travel Times: key NEC cities on new express services. Trains per Hour (Peak) - SOUTH

Trains per Hour (Peak) - NORTH - Proposed Inland Route

STATIONS

Proposed

Current

Difference

Washington

Jamaica/JFK Airport

STATIONS

Proposed 8

Current

New Carrollton

Nassau Hub

BWI Airport

Farmingdale/Rt. 110

Baltimore Penn Station

Ronkonkoma/MacArthur Airport

Baltimore Charles Center

Terryville/SUNY Stony Brook

Aberdeen

New Haven

Newark, Del

Meriden

Wilmington

Hartford

Philadelphia Airport

—

Tolland/UConn

2 5

Difference

8 2

Philadelphia Market East

Worcester

Philadelphia 30th Street

MetroWest

Cornwells Heights

Riverside

Trenton

Back Bay

Princeton Junction

South Station

Metropark

Newark Liberty Airport

Newark Penn Station

STATIONS

Proposed

Current

Difference

New York Moynihan Station

New Rochelle

Stamford

Bridgeport

Old Saybrook

New London

Mystic

Westerly

Kingston

Providence

Route 128

Trains per Hour (Peak) - NORTH - Shore Line Route

03 - Designing a High-Speed Rail Service

NORTHEAST EXPRESS

BOSTON

M CR

South Station

NORTHEAST REGIONAL

M CR

Union Station

BOSTON BACK BAY

M CR M CR M CR

RIVERSIDE ROUTE 128

WORCESTER

NORTHEAST LOCAL

BOSTON BACK BAY

M CR M CR

0:25

M CR

NORTHEAST LIMITED

RIVERSIDE

ROUTE 128

METROWEST

WORCESTER

METROWEST WORCESTER PROVIDENCE

0:30

PROVIDENCE

KINGSTON

TOLLAND/UCONN MYSTIC

HARTFORD

Union Station

NEW HAVEN

HARTFORD NEW LONDON

0:24

1:45

Union Station

HARTFORD

NEW LONDON MERIDEN OLD SAYBROOK

NEW HAVEN

BRIDGEPORT

STAMFORD

RONKONKOMA

0:42

STAMFORD

NEW YORK

Penn-Moynihan Station

M CR

JAMAICA/JFK

M CR

NEW YORK

M CR

NEWARK

0:37

CR CR

PHILADELPHIA

1:30

Market East

CR M

M CR

ROUTE 110

M CR

EWR AIRPORT METROPARK TRENTON

BALTIMORE

Charles Center

WASHINGTON

Union Station

All Trains Stop Some Trains Stop

M CR

WASHINGTON

Other Intercity Rail

M Local Metro

M CR

0:20 M CR

CR CR

PHILADELPHIA

M CR

CR Commuter Rail Airport

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

NEW ROCHELLE JAMAICA/JFK M CR

NEW YORK

M CR

NEWARK

CR M

EWR AIRPORT

METROPARK

NEW BRUNSWICK

PRINCETON JUNCTION

M CR

CR M CR

Market East & 30th Street Station

TRENTON CORNWELLS HEIGHTS PHILADELPHIA

PHL AIRPORT

WILMINGTON

NEWARK

ABERDEEN

PHL AIRPORT

0:42

M CR

NASSAU HUB

JAMAICA/JFK

M CR

NEW HAVEN

STONY BROOK

RONKONKOMA

WILMINGTON

BALTIMORE

Charles Center & Penn Station

BWI AIRPORT WASHINGTON

M CR

BWI AIRPORT

ODENTON

M CR

NEW CARROLLTON

M CR

WASHINGTON

HSR Alignment: Inland/Long Island Route Coastal Route Service

BALTIMORE

STATION 0:20 Travel Times

PHASING THE VITAL FACTS

888 track miles 87 miles of tunnel 53 miles of elevated structure 9 new stations 20 upgraded stations 42 acres new ROW 3,330 acres total ROW 180+ mph top speed 155 mph average speed

Finally, the question arises of when and in what order the new highspeed line should be built. Some projects had a logical order: The projects near New York City are a priority because without these capacity expansions, much of the value of other projects would be diminished. Additionally, the northern end segment from Boston to New Haven was prioritized since its construction will give the Northeast its first true taste of high-speed rail, which should help fuel the desire to complete the system. PHASE 1: ESTABLISHING A FOUNDATION The first phase focuses on making the critical improvements that increase capacity and set the foundation for the improvements of later stages. The focus of the phase is on creating the high-speed alignment between New York and Philadelphia, as well as beginning the tunnel into Charles Center Station in Baltimore. On the north end, the first major project undertaken will be building the high-speed alignment between New Haven and Boston, which when completed will create the country’s longest high-speed corridor. PHASE 2: FINISHING THE SOUTH; BEGINNING THE TUNNEL By the completion of the second phase, two portions of the corridor will be capable of full high-speed service: the entire southern end from New York to Washington, D.C., and the northern section from New Haven to Boston. Attention will switch in this phase to connecting these two segments through Long Island, with construction along and under the Long Island Rail Road alignment and the start of the Long Island Sound Tunnel linking New York and Connecticut. PHASE 3: A COMPLETED LINE The last phase will see the completion of the high-speed line through Long Island and the connection through the Long Island Sound Tunnel, allowing full high-speed service along the entire Northeast Corridor. With the completion of the tunnel, the “figure eight” pattern of service on the northern end will be operational, offering faster speeds and higher-quality services to passengers originating along the coastal route through connections in New Haven.

03 - Designing a High-Speed Rail Service

PHASE I PHASE II

Riverside Worcester MetroWest

Boston (South Station) Boston (Back Bay)

PHASE III 0

Providence

Miles

Tolland (UConn) Hartford

Meriden New London New Haven

Stamford

Terryville (SUNY Stony Brook) New York (Penn-Moynihan Station) Newark (Penn Station) Metropark (Iselin)

Nassau Hub

Ronkonkoma - MacArthur Airport Farmingdale - Route 110 Jamaica - JFK Airport

Trenton

NJ Philadelphia (30th St) Wilmington

Philadelphia (Market East) Philadelphia Airport

MD Baltimore (Penn Station) Baltimore (Charles Center)

BWI Airport

Odenton

Washington, DC (Union Station)

General

BEG IN D ESIG N

PH A SE I

PH A SE II

PH A SE III

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Design/Permitting/EIS

Corridor Upgrades Washington, D.C. to Baltimore Baltimore to Philadelphia Philadelphia to New York City New York City to Long Island New Haven to Hartford Hartford to Worcester Worcester to Boston New York to Boston: Inland Route

Major Capital Projects Washington, D.C. Area Baltimore Tunnel Wilmington Bypass Philadelphia Tunnel Hudson Tunnels/Capacity Upgrades Long Island Tunnel

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

LESSON FROM LONDON Javelin Service: High-Speed Commuter Rail In December 2009, the U.K. launched its first domestic high-speed service, popularly known as Javelin. The nearly £6 billion investment links more than a dozen commuter stations in southeastern England to London’s St. Pancras International Station. The service utilizes existing HS1 tracks and runs at 140 mph. This service has dramatically changed commuting in southeastern England. Ashford International is only 37 minutes from St. Pancras (instead of an 80-minute 55-mile trip), and towns far east such as Canterbury and Folkestone are now just an hour trip from London. The high-speed commuter service provides an extra 200 trains across the region, which increases the capacity of the network by five percent. The Javelin service between Stratford (site of the 2012 Olympic Games) and St. Pancras is touted as a critical factor in London’s successful Olympic bid. This commute takes just seven minutes on the high-speed trains compared to 25 minutes on London’s Underground subway. 6

Ridership Forecast A major benefit to increasing the frequency of trains per hour, speed, and efficiency of the NEC train system is the potential to increase ridership and potential revenue that could fund operations of the network depending on the fare structure. Therefore, it was necessary to create an estimate for ridership to find the capability of this revenue. The estimates are calculated on a linear population projection model and also include assumptions based on the type of station and location (airport, new station, university, suburban hub, See appendix __). For the ridership forecasts data was collected from the transportation agencies: Amtrak, Long Island Railroad (LIRR), MetroNorth for up-to-date ridership and the Regional Planning Association (RPA) for the population projections. Figure ___ shows three ridership scenarios: baseline, only utilizing the population projection data and current ridership, low ridership, and high ridership. All scenarios include include diverted and induced ridership based on the type of station and/or changes at the station (no changes, center city, and new station), each type with a different percentage of ridership increase.

Amtrak NEC Ridership 2009

Amtrak Master Plan NEC Projected Ridership 2030

13 million

23 million

Low Projection Scenario Ridership 2030

48 million

High Projection Scenario Ridership 2030

55 million

Ridership Projections: possible 2030 scenarios.

03 - Designing a High-Speed Rail Service

CHALLENGES This proposal, which recommends significant alignment adjustments and bold new construction on the current Northeast Corridor, carries with it a complex array of challenges. While any large public project will face a number of challenges, the sheer scale of the Northeast Corridor, the complexity of its current infrastructure systems, and the density of its cities will make these challenges particularly acute. PHYSICAL To construct two dedicated high-speed rail tracks, the proposal uses existing freight and passenger rail infrastructure, its associated rightof-way (ROW), and additional public ROW along interstate highway or utility corridors. Where use of these is impossible—because of speed, size or ownership constraints—more complicated solutions are necessary. Generally, the project calls for four types of construction: upgrading the existing NEC network; connecting the NEC to unused freight and passenger rail infrastructure; acquiring land and building new infrastructure; and tunneling in areas with high population density or under major geographic barriers like the Long Island Sound. FISCAL Perhaps the greatest challenge facing the project is money. At nearly $100 billion, it represents the largest investment in infrastructure in the Northeast in decades—and the first time such a project has been attempted since the postwar interstate era. But when viewed from a broader perspective, construction of the corridor would represent only about three percent of the megaregion’s annual GDP, and the cost would be spread over a decade or more. Further, the investment has the potential to be transformative, making the economy of the Northeast more competitive and dynamic in a manner that far outweighs its cost. POLITICAL The Northeast Corridor passes through eight states and the District of Columbia, and the successful implementation of high-speed rail service will depend on them working together. That is, it must somehow balance the interests of 16 U.S. senators, 99 U.S. representatives, hundreds of state senators and representatives, federal and state departments of transportation, hundreds of counties, thousands of municipalities, and dozens of multistate or special-purpose organizations, such the Environmental Protection Agency. The political challenge of making this happen is difficult, and will require a strong belief in the overall vision as well as an ability to find ways for each group to gain benefits from HSR.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

Tram and cyclists in Strasbourg, France.

04 04 DESIGNING LOCAL AND REGIONAL CONNECTIONS For high-speed rail to serve as an effective substitute for air and automobile travel, it must be capable of delivering passengers not only to HSR stations, but to the destinations themselves. In the immediate station vicinity, where stations are integral elements of the central business district or other centered development, this is best accomplished by creating pedestrian-first environments, encouraging walking as the mode of choice. At the city or regional scale, this â&#x20AC;&#x153;last-mile problemâ&#x20AC;? can be solved one of two ways: by providing direct, convenient links to transit services, or by providing large-scale, airport-style parking and rental car services. Bicycles and taxis also serve certain segments of rail riders. Strong connections to multiple forms of transit at HSR stations will allow local and regional networks to assume the primary role as effective feeder and dispersion systems for HSR riders. In order to realize this potential, HSR stations must be thoroughly integrated with other available modes, including commuter rail, subways, buses, light rail, and active transportation modes like cycling and walking. HSR stations should provide user-friendly experiences with multimodal access, connections to many origins and destinations, simple transfers and navigation, and complementary ticketing and scheduling between different modes and operators. 53

The Northeast Corridor is home to the nation’s densest collection of transit networks. Each of the corridor’s five largest cities has at least one rapid transit system, and thousands of miles of regional and commuter rail networks extend from the city centers. Combined with bus systems, light rail networks and a walkable urban form in most cities, high-speed rail can create a seamless, intercity door-to-door transit experience in a way that is unattainable with traditional automobile and air transportation. Transit connections are already in place at many of the stations that will be part of the high-speed rail network, but the current user experiences differ dramatically between stations. When choosing a mode of travel, comfort, convenience, time and cost are among the most important factors in an individual’s decision-making process, and all must be considered so potential users are not deterred. If accessing the HSR system is entirely or primarily dependent on a park-and-ride model, the line will lose riders who see using their cars for the entirety of their trip as preferable to driving to the station. An overemphasis on private vehicles as a mode of station access will reduce riders for the proposed HSR system and undercut its economic and mobility benefits to the whole megaregion. Even a full parking garage at an HSR station is the sign of unfilled promise, as development potential is lost to parking and roadway facilities, and pedestrian amenities are reduced by congested, traffic-filled station areas. In order for high-speed rail to emerge as a competitive mode in the Northeast, this service must be well-integrated with expanded transit systems in the cities it serves, and new development must be organized around these systems. When considering retrofits of existing stations, or the construction of dedicated HSR stations, there are four principles of good connectivity design and intermodal linkage that can contribute to increased ridership and more sustainable urban form. These principles are as follows: I. CONNECT TO LOCAL SUBCENTERS II. PROMOTE TRANSIT, WALKABILITY AND BICYCLE ACCESS III. C OORDINATE FARES, TICKETING AND SCHEDULES IV. C REATE SIMPLE AND DIRECT PATHS AND SIGNAGE The following sections will explain each of these principles in more detail, along with their applicability in the context of cities on the Northeast Corridor.

04 - Designing Local and Regional Connections

CONNECT TO LOCAL SUBCENTERS Given the existing density and extent of development in the Northeast, many cities and regions have developed subcenters outside of their historic CBD that function as hubs of activity, be they primarily for entertainment, employment, retail or any combination thereof.

CASE STUDY DC Circulator

In the New York metropolitan area, for more than four decades Regional Plan Association has promoted a network of regional centers, in such places as Stamford and Bridgeport, Conn.; Newark, Jersey City and New Brunswick, N.J.; and White Plains and Downtown Brooklyn, N.Y., all linked by an extensive transit network. Today these centers contain more than one million jobs and an even larger number of residents, and the regional rail network has extensive reverse commuter service linking them to New York City and to each other. In cases where these preexisting centers are not currently served by modes other than private automobiles, it will be imperative that transit, bikeway or other networks be extended to provide access to these sites. As travel demand to and from these places is already high, and likely to increase, failing to provide them with these new connections would represent a lost opportunity for prospective HSR riders. NEW ROUTING, TRANSIT LINES, OR CIRCULATORS In major cities, the station may be highly connected, but some trips are still too long for walking, but too short for the effective use of public transportation. These are often cities where the station is the CBD, but employment or residential centers are nearby. In these cases, a bus circulator or streetcar can be implemented as an effective, low-cost method of transporting users. These circulators should have simple scheduling and clear branding and marketing in order to attract the most users. (See DC Circulator example, right.)

The DC Circulator is a circulating downtown bus with short headways and a simple schedule. Developed as a public-private partnership to link cultural, entertainment and business destinations, the Circulator has five lines, each of which runs every 10 minutes during operating hours. There is real-time online and mobile tracking, and stops are easily identified by red circular tubes on street corners that feature extensive maps. Additionally, the fare card is integrated with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authorityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Metro, Metrobus and parking systems, as well as nearly every regional bus service in Virginia and Maryland. The perceived high quality of the system, as exemplified by attractive signage and strong branding, has brought a new demographic of bus riders, namely tourists and commuters. The Union Station-toGeorgetown route consistently shows the highest ridership numbers, particularly in the summer months, when the most visitors (who are likely to be unfamiliar with the city) are present. 1,2

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

PROMOTE TRANSIT, WALKABILITY AND BICYCLE ACCESS The utility of HSR depends on the ease with which riders can access routes to and from the station to complete the first and last miles of their trip. Currently, many stations in urban centers are flanked with parking structures or surface lots. While some parking infrastructure may be necessary, public transportation and active modes such as walking and bicycling should be encouraged in place of driving to solve the â&#x20AC;&#x153;last-mile problem.â&#x20AC;? Particularly for stations in central cities, the station areas should be exceptionally pedestrian-friendly environments, including sidewalks and clearly marked crosswalks, with traffic-calming measures taming the speed and flow of automobiles on surrounding streets. Consideration should also be paid to bicycle trips to and from the station by providing bicycle parking and bike sharing at the station, creating marked and delineated paths and on-street lanes, and encouraging policies that facilitate taking bicycles on HSR trains. Car sharing, though it does not preclude the need for station-area parking, is also a growing mode in many urban areas, particularly with the growth of national brands such as ZipCar. ZipCar executives recently stated that analysis of member use patterns suggests that one shared car can replace as many as 15 private cars. 6 COMPL ETE STREETS

Serving different modes: Complete Streets policies can include traffic calming, safe transit stops, and bike lanes, as shown in (from top) Amsterdam, Portland, and Philadelphia. 3,4,5

Even in urban centers, many road layouts favor vehicles over other modes. Complete Streets policies provide equity for different modes of transit, rather than this traditional pattern, which creates both actual and perceived safety increases for these users. The implementation of Complete Streets can include bus rapid transit, distinct bicycle lanes, expanded pedestrian areas, wider sidewalks and visibly differentiated crosswalks, as well as traditional vehicular traffic lanes. Coordinated planning may be required, wherein a city, transit operator or station owner may officially adopt a Complete Streets policy. In the Northeast, New Haven, Conn., has adopted a citywide Complete Streets strategy and is moving aggressively forward with its implementation.

04 - Designing Local and Regional Connections

TRANSIT DENSITY MEASURES: PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY LEVEL (PTAL) Used throughout Greater London, the Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) is a planning tool that calculates the accessibility of a proposed development based on both its proximity to transit and the number and frequency of lines that serve it. It is a time-capacity measure that includes calculations of walk times to and waits for the various services in a given area. As a tool for assessing potential developments, PTAL is strengthened by a lack of “as of right” density under Britan’s planning system. All major projects are subject to a review of the ability of the transit network to serve them, with final development density dependent upon sufficient access and capacity relative to the expected or potential number of users and expected demand for the facilities proposed. PTALs are also used to determine a maximum parking standard (as opposed to the minimums commonly found in the U.S.) which is inversely related to the PTAL score (higher levels of transit accessibility correspond to more limited parking). Limiting the amount of parking that can serve large developments that are well-served by transit creates an incentive for users to employ transit by reducing the convenience commonly associated with automobile travel. The reduced parking maximum also allows developers and potential tenant/employers to realize higher returns on their locational decisions. For developers this is a result of being able to create less parking, and to tailor decisions about types of spaces and users (retail, office, residential, etc.) to their perceptions of the market.

PTAL for the NEC: Using a model developed to measure transit density and access in the style of PTAL, a similar calculation was derived for Boston, below right, using the same scale as utilized in London, below left. 7 8

Level 1a Level 1b Level 2 Less Transit Accessibility

2.5

10 MILES

2.5

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

Level 3

Level 4

Level 5

Level 6a Level 6b

More Transit Accessibility

10 MILES

CASE STUDY

E-ZPass Tolling System

Developing an integrated fare collection system for the whole Northeast will require a new level of coordination among intercity and commuter railroads and transit agencies. The E-ZPass tolling system, currently in place in 14 states including the entire Northeast, sets a standard for this type of cooperation. The E-ZPass Interagency Group is an organization of 25 highway and bridge operators, including state transportation departments, turnpike managers and port authorities, all of which have a seat on an executive board. Though the system is compatible with toll roads throughout this region, each user has a “home” agency from which they receive their transponder and pay variable fees. This type of infrastructure was much easier to retrofit to tolling systems where the previous option was cash only, rather than a multitude of transit systems with various ownership, but the management structure provides a potential lesson for regional transit operators. 9

COORDINATE FARES, TICKETING, AND SCHEDULES SMART CARDS In order to maximize the convenience of the travelling experience, HSR riders should have the option to purchase tickets and “smart cards” that allow them to access connecting services directly from their trains. Eliminating the need to purchase additional tickets, tokens or cards at the ends of trips allows for seamless transfer between HSR and local services, making HSR a more attractive mode in terms of both time and convenience. This will also help relieve potential pedestrian congestion and exacerbated wait times and ticket queues. Another option worth exploring may be a rechargeable pass, which would allow passengers unlimited use on HSR, regional rail and transit systems while providing the option to charge their cards for systems that they use less frequently. COORDINATED SCHEDULING Both as a complement to an integrated fare system and a stand-alone feature, coordinated scheduling is an integral part of successfully connecting HSR to local networks. Wait time is generally viewed by travelers as more onerous than walk times associated with accessing a service or travel time after boarding. As such, minimizing the amount of time dedicated to waiting during a given journey will enhance the rider experience and customer satisfaction. Coordinated scheduling also provides a greater sense of certainty in the trip planning process, by assuring that a connecting service will be immediately available and reducing the need for travelers to build additional travel times into their schedules to account for missed connections or late trains. By eliminating or shortening waiting times and reducing barriers between connecting services, travelers are more likely to utilize transit than automobiles to get to their final destinations. UMBRELLA TRANSIT COORDINATION AGENCY To provide coordinated scheduling and integrated fare services will require a great deal of coordination between more than a dozen providers of transit and regional rail services. Since the effects of a wellintegrated HSR system on travel patterns is unknown, and exogenous

04 - Designing Local and Regional Connections

factors may cause these patterns to change over time, there is a high likelihood that pricing for universal or multisystem passes and tickets will need to change over time to reflect the needs of various operators. To promote coordination among the dozen or more rail agencies in the Northeast on scheduling and integrated fare operations, a transportation coordination council or association should be established, perhaps modeled after the Verkehrsverbund found in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. Ideally this agency would act as an arbiter and facilitator, with responsibility for day-to-day operations left to existing providers.

NEC-wide transit authority: Based on the European Verkehrsverbund model of regionwide, multiagency cooperation. 10 UMBRELLA TRANSIT AUTHORITY: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART CITY A

SHARE: 331/3 %

CITY B

SHARE: 331/3 %

COUNTIES

SHARE: 331/3 % Board of Directors Managing Director

Committees:

Shareholders

Transit Advisory

Passenger Association

Areas of Service: Planning & Passenger Information

Fares & Marketing

Revenue Sharing & Economic Management

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

CASE STUDY

Freiburg: Integrated Ticketing

The city of Freiburg is located in southern Germany, with about 220,000 residents and at the center of a region of 615,000 people. Freiburg is an exceptional example of integrated transit services: the Zweckverbund RegioNahverkehr Freiburg (ZRF) is the public transportation agency that coordinates services, fares and subsidies for the entire region; this includes 17 bus and rail operators, 90 different lines and 1,900 miles of routes. A main component of their coordination policy is integrated ticketing. A single ticket can be used for several trip segments and on different types of service. Further, in 1991, the ZRF introduced the RegioKarte. This monthly pass provides riders unlimited travel on ZRF routes as well as services in the five adjacent public transport regions. The newest innovation offered is the RegioMobilKarte, which connects the monthly transit pass with car-sharing memberships and reduced taxi fares, along with bicycle and car rental discounts. Between the introduction of RegioKarte, in 1991, and 2007, public transport trips increased by 70 percent. 11

PULSE SCHEDULING When the arrivals and departures of transit lines, including HSR, are coordinated to include appropriate transfer times, wait times and scheduling confusion are minimized. This type of coordination is known as pulse scheduling, and can have important impacts on ridership for both regular and infrequent users of stations. Pulse schedules can be simultaneous or alternating, depending on the frequency of transit. At central city hub stations, a simultaneous pulse could include all modes upon arrival of HSR, like commuter rail and subway. For outlying or suburban stations, a less frequent but necessary bus line could be scheduled to coincide with the arrival or departure of an HSR line. This type of scheduling is most effective at local transportation hubs, particularly for modes where there may be longer headways, such as regional rail and suburban bus service. 12

INTERCITY TRAINS

MARKET - FRANKFORD

TROLLEY MARKET - FRANKFORD REGIONAL RAIL HSR

INTERCITY TRAINS MARKET - FRANKFORD

TROLLEY MARKET - FRANKFORD REGIONAL RAIL HSR

Philadelphia: Prototypical pulsed transit schedules at :00 and :30 past the hour. 13

04 - Designing Local and Regional Connections

CREATE SIMPLE AND DIRECT PATHS AND SIGNAGE Transit connections should directly serve the HSR station, with minimal physical barriers and distance between modes, which can be deterrents to transit usage even when schedules are coordinated. Since there is likely to be a potential influx of new users of a station, appropriate signage and information should be provided to facilitate smooth transfers. Clearly marking the routes between services and providing legible maps for consultation will allow riders to efficiently navigate stations and connect to feeder networks. Within stations, the ability to transfer between services will be affected by layout and circulation patterns; passengers from HSR must be able to easily determine where their connecting service can be found and have unimpeded routes to those points. These intrastation connections will be an important part of the user experience, as the existence of a labyrinth between a riderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s HSR platform and their connecting mode is likely to represent a serious hardship for infrequent users of any station.

LESSON FROM LONDON

Legible London Various wayfinding and signage installations have been enacted in Central London, with the goals of encouraging easy pedestrian movement and connecting the street network to transit stations. Examples of the signage are shown below: 14

MINIMIZE PHYSICAL BARRIERS AND LONG WALKS Where possible, connections from HSR to transit services should be direct and occur either within the station, or directly outside, with appropriate signage guiding users to their destination. For surface modes such as bike share, bus and light rail these connections may also be sited immediately outside the station, as long as there are minimal barriers between travelers and their last-mile mode. This can be accomplished by offering alternate bus circulation routes, or ensuring that light rail or streetcar lines outside the station have explicit pathways guiding riders to their next mode choice. Bicycle and car-sharing facilities should have similarly directed pathways. WAYFINDING SIGNAGE AND TRAVEL INFORMATION Clear, simple signage indicating direction and distance to connecting services should be prominently displayed and located both centrally and along the routes to those services. The coverage of these devices should include the exterior of the station, and potentially extend along bicycle and sidewalk networks in the surrounding city. In addition to wayfinding measures for spatial orientation in an unfamiliar environment, stations must be outfitted with effective static and dynamic schedule displays: the former to show timetables and expected times, the latter to provide information on arrival, departure and delay times. Stations should be outfitted with multiple-line LED signage to apprise users of the status of their connecting services. Signage and scheduling information need to be coordinated between different transit operators in a given station environment.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

Legible London: examples of clear, simple signage and wayfinding.

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PHILADELPHIA

Connecting between modes: In Philadelphia, SEPTA trolley and bus service are located in a different structure separate from 30th Street Station, across several congested streets. 15

In Philadelphia, Amtrak’s 30th Street Station currently serves as the city’s primary hub of intercity rail. Located directly across the Schuykill River from Center City, 30th Street Station is a gateway to University City’s diverse mix of education, technology, and medical facilities and resources. In the new proposed HSR alignment, the fastest trains bypass 30th Street Station in favor of a straighter route that stops at Philadelphia International Airport, and then continues in a tunnel to a new HSR station at Market East. Like 30th Street Station, the area around the proposed Market East Station has connections to nearly all of the region’s transit, including SEPTA regional rail, subway, trolley, and bus service, as well as New Jersey Transit and Greyhound buses. 30th Street Station will still remain a principle intermodal hub for Philadelphia, even with only regional Northeast Corridor service. The Amtrak Keystone route connects to 30th Street from the west, where users would have to transfer to another mode in order to access the HSR station; alternatively, HSR users whose destinations lie west of Center City would likely access 30th Street station via a connection at Market East. The existing conditions at 30th Street Station and its surrounding environs are not currently conducive to the type of quick, easy transfers that will be most beneficial to HSR and its users.

30th Street Station University City

Market - Frankford Line

Philadelphia

69th Street Terminal Frankford Trolley Lines

ile

Chestnu

30th

1/4

11 Darby 13 Yeadon/Darby 34 Angora 36 Eastwick Intercity Buses - Bolt Bus

Market

Bus Routes

You are here

9 Andorra 30 69th Street Terminal 44 Ardmore and Gladwyne 62 Andorra, Roxborough, Manayunk 124 King of Prussia 125 King of Prussia and Valley Forge Intercity Buses - Megabus

Potential wayfinding signage at 30th Street Station: Based on Legible London concept.

04 - Designing Local and Regional Connections

Though it is located slightly outside the city’s central business district, the area around 30th Street Station is dense and transit-accessible, and has the potential to be an exciting hub of pedestrian activity and street life. However, the streets outside are traffic-filled near the onand off-ramps of the interchange between Interstates 76 and 676 (see photo). SEPTA subway, trolley and bus services are located on the fringes of the station, across several lanes of this traffic. Parking is also a primary use around the station, as the innermost lanes are dedicated to pick-ups, drop-offs and taxi stands. There are also distinct divides between the spaces dedicated to the different systems inside the station: namely, Amtrak, SEPTA Regional Rail and New Jersey Transit. Amtrak and NJ Transit share a scheduling board and platform space, but SEPTA platforms are located in a different wing of the station that is poorly marked, with a completely separate ticketing structure. In order to make 30th Street Station a functioning intermodal hub for HSR connectivity, wayfinding and pedestrian improvement measures should be at the forefront of station retrofits. Learning from the Legible London pilot (see sidebar) and other sophisticated urban wayfinding programs, the area around 30th Street Station could be branded with signage that would serve to orient station users upon their arrival or departure, helping both new and experienced users locate the appropriate intermodal connections, including transit, bicycle facilities or pedestrian thoroughfares. Additionally, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission (PCPC) released a vision for the “Station Square” area on the 2900 block of Market Street, which would provide a grand public space, as well as the reconfiguration of automobile lanes, traffic buffers and extended crosswalks. 16

Station Square by daylight: Rendering of proposed pedestrian improvements from the PCPC’s Station Square Planning Study. 17

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

TRENTON, N.J. The Trenton Transit Center functions as an important node of rail and bus transit between Philadelphia, New York, and North and South New Jersey. In addition to being a stop on Amtrak and NJ Transit’s Northeast Corridor lines, the Transit Center is also the terminus of SEPTA’s R7 Regional Rail service, the NJ Transit River Line light rail, and several NJ Transit and SEPTA buses. However, as is the case with many NEC stations, the Trenton Transit Center is located on the periphery of the CBD and New Jersey state government headquarters, known as the Capital Complex. The route between the station and the Capital Complex is not pedestrian-friendly, as it lacks sidewalks in several points and includes intersections with U.S. Route 1; consequently, only eight percent of riders access the station on foot. NJ Transit does provide Capital Connection bus service, but several different routes and poor signage lead riders to these connections. An existing downtown circulator had its routes and schedule cut back due to low ridership. The Trenton Transit Center is also located adjacent to several residential neighborhoods, to which it also suffers from poor pedestrian connections.

A proposed Capital Complex Cirulator (C3) could replace the existing multi-line Capital Connection services in Trenton with simple scheduling, intuitive routes and innovative branding. 18

Trenton would potentially receive high-level HSR service under this proposal. Currently, the parking-focused policies and comparative lack of automobile traffic mean that rail is not the primary mode of arrival for commuters and visitors to the city. To combat this, several proposals have focused on the addition of a “jitney”-style shuttle connecting the station to the Capital Complex, to replace or work in tandem with the existing Capital Connection service. This model has been successfully used in Washington, D.C., where the DC Circulator service connects many nodes of employment and tourism throughout the district, including Union Station and dozens of Metro stops. As in Trenton, Washington was suffering from a lack of ridership on city bus lines, which the DC Circulator combated with a new, attractive fleet and an aggressive marketing campaign. The recent $46 million renovation of the station demonstrates its value to the region’s transit system, and an HSR stop at the Trenton Transit Center can be more than just a connection for SEPTA, Amtrak or NJ Transit riders; it can be a gateway into New Jersey’s capital.

04 - Designing Local and Regional Connections

Trenton Transit Center: Above, existing transit connections. Below, areas inhibiting pedestrian mobility and access, including large parking lots, confusing highway interchanges and multi-lane roads flowing into neighborhoods.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

NEW HAVEN, CONN. New Haven, currently a hub of education, medicine and other knowledge-sector activities, is set to become an important physical hub along the proposed HSR route, where the inland route will meet the existing Connecticut shoreline route. Union Station in New Haven is a historic rail depot that underwent a top-to-bottom rehabilitation in the 1980s. Amtrak, Metro-North and New London-bound Shoreline East trains converge at the station, in addition to Connecticut Transit local bus service and Greyhound interstate buses. Though the station layout is simple, with all train platforms closely oriented to each other and strong signage for connection to other modes, the primary mode of accessing the station is private automobiles. A transit-oriented development study commissioned by the city parking authority in 2008 recommended the construction of more than 1,500 new parking spots in several structures flanking the station, even though the station is approximately a mile from the heart of the Yale University campus and other landmarks in Downtown New Haven. 20 However, there are perceived safety issues along the route from the station to downtown, and a lack of bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure to facilitate active modes. The city is also developing plans for redevelopment of the run-down area between Union Station, Downtown and Yale-New Haven Hospital into a new medical technology district, with the goal of creating a more transit- and pedestrian-friendly district connecting all of these destinations.

Images of Union Station, New Haven, Conn.: April 2010 19

In a small city centered on a university campus, Union Station provides an excellent opportunity to promote the use of alternative forms of transit to access the station. Yale has an existing relationship with ZipCar, which could provide dedicated spaces for journeys that may be longer than walking distance. Bicycle stations or long-term locking facilities could also be implemented to encourage an active student population to access the station this way, rather than via cab. Church Street, which extends from Union Station directly to Yaleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s campus, is a wide street with a median already in place; greening and Complete Streets measures could be implemented along this route in order to create a bikeway or pedway leading to the station. As bus ridership is low, a streetcar service has also been proposed in New Haven as a cost-effective economic development proposal, though one of the two proposed routes does not connect to Union Station. If this were selected, it would be a serious missed opportunity for a strong transit connection, particularly in the face of potential HSR service. 21

04 - Designing Local and Regional Connections

Union Station Downtown New Haven

Proposed Streetcar Service

Miles

.25

Proposals to connect Union Station and Downtown New Haven: Above, streetcar service would efficiently connect across the one-mile distance. Below, a pedway and bike path along Church Street would promote nonautomotive modes of travel to and from the station.

Union Station Downtown New Haven

Proposed Church Street Pedway

Miles

.25

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

Bike station: Provides secure storage outside of Union Station, Washington, D.C. 22

Intercity bus station: Parnell Place, Cork, Ireland. 23

Local bus shelter: Downtown New Haven, Conn. 24

Station improvements: At Union Station (top), several modifications should be made to enhance the transit experience, including a commuter bicycle locking station, an improved intercity bus terminal and high-quality local bus shelters, which are already in place in other areas of the city.

04 - Designing Local and Regional Connections

TRANSIT, HSR AND REGIONAL GROWTH For transit networks to work as effective feeder and dispersion systems for HSR riders, these roles will need to be acknowledged in the land use and growth management plans of local jurisdictions and regional agencies. Connecting HSR to transit networks will also provide access to long-distance travel for individuals opting to locate along those transit lines. By providing high-capacity, reliable systems for circulation within metropolitan regions, municipal and regional authorities will also be creating a physical framework around which land use and preservation policies can be constructed. The same smart growth principles that guide the development of HSR stations must guide development and redevelopment of outlying stations along the regional networks in order to produce a spatial pattern of destinations and origins that are accessible from the HSR line. Land use and growth management policies that are responsive to existing transit networks and future expansions or improvements will be necessary for directing future growth within metro regions. By selecting existing nodes along transit systems for additional development transit providers and local jurisdictions can coordinate their planning processes, in terms of zoning, permitting and service improvements to best serve both HSR passengers and those making intraregional trips. This coordinated planning also creates opportunities for the distribution of economic and transportation benefits across multiple jurisdictions within the metro region. This coordination of policy will ensure that HSR and transit can act as drivers of long-term economic growth by providing additional capacity for both inter- and intracity journeys by directing development to areas which already have high levels of accessibility and the potential for increased service. This concept will be further expanded upon in the next chapter, focusing on potentially transformative area-wide improvements that can result from thoughtfully planned HSR stations.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s St. Pancras Station

05 05 REDESIGNING STATIONS AND STATION AREAS Well-served by high-speed trains and local transit, thriving high-speed rail (HSR) stations can leverage their superior accessibility and place-making power to transform urban centers and catalyze transit-friendly development around stations and stops along regional systems connecting to HSR. The unique geography of the Northeast Megaregion, with cities strung like pearls along the Northeast Corridor, will enable HSR to bolster development and strengthen the sense of place around each of the proposed NEC routes’ 42 stations. Once the system is running, every station on the corridor will lie within an hour of at least one of the megaregion’s “hot-market” cities of Boston, New York and Washington, D.C. This newfound accessibility will expand market areas and generate a broad range of economic benefits; nowhere will these benefits be more apparent than in the areas around stations. Alone, improved accessibility is insufficient to transform station areas. Strong economic incentives and public/private cooperation are necessary for a comprehensive development strategy. This tandem approach will unlock the potential for stations to serve as foundations for successful economic development in the Northeast’s urban cores.

Stations are where HSR meets the city. Well-planned and well-designed stations are more than just places to process passengers. They are unique, magnetic destinations unto themselves and impressive gateways to the Northeast’s world-class cities and small towns; they are places where you want to spend time. Stations anchor livable urban centers and are integrated with surrounding neighborhoods and the entire city by local transportation connections. HSR can strengthen the economy of both strong- and weak-economy cities if it is paired with strong public/ private development incentives. Station designs that incorporate the five principles illustrated in this chapter will create the greatest benefits for the Northeast’s cities and the Northeast Megaregion. Union Station, Washington, D.C.: Retail and public space. 7

James A. Farley Post Office: Across from Penn Station, the James A. Farley building will soon become Moynihan Station, a grand gateway to New York. 11

The great train stations of the world are inspirational landmarks that express the ingenuity of their builders and the transformative potential of travel by rail. Grand Central Terminal in New York, known for its majestic main concourse, created a new central business district in Midtown Manhattan. Kyoto Station in Japan incorporates HSR and mixed-use development into a magnificent heritage city. And St. Pancras Station, home to Eurostar, is transforming the largest brownfield site in Europe into a new development nexus for Central London. Modern stations further demonstrate the transformative power of train stations. Euralille in Lille, France, catalyzed the regeneration of a historic but left-behind post-industrial city into an international commercial center. Stratford Station in London will be the international gateway to the 2012 Olympic Games and the spark for the regeneration of derelict lands in East London. The new Penn-Moynihan Station in New York will recall the now-demolished landmark Pennsylvania Station in a new gateway to America’s greatest city that will anchor new development on Manhattan’s Far West Side.

05 - Redesigning Stations and Station Areas

STATION AND STATION-AREA DESIGN PRINCIPLES The following five principles create a framework for the development of stations and station areas in a way that maximizes the transformative benefits of high-speed rail. In the absence of policies and projects that advance these principles, the full benefits of high-speed rail will not be realized. CREATE MAGNETIC DESTINATIONS: High-speed rail stations are important destinations that create the greatest value when they are not merely places for passenger processing but also become distinctive destinations, linked to public space, retail and mixed-use development. SERVE AS GATEWAYS: Train stations are gateways to cities, and serve this role best when they express a sense of welcome and leave a positive and memorable impression on those traveling through. A welldesigned and inspiring station strengthens a cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s identity. CATALYZE WALKABLE, COMPACT, CENTERED DEVELOPMENT: HSR stations that pair megaregional high-speed rail service with local transit access can become the most accessible abd high-value location within a city. Bolstered by superior accessibility, station areas support high-density development and significant mixed-use centers. LINK TRANSPORTATION INVESTME NT AND THE FORM IN WHICH CITIES GROW: HSR linked to regional transportation can provide an impetus toward centered development at nodes throughout the metropolitan area. In addition, HSR service to airports will not only increase the capacity of airports for long-haul flights; it can also spur the development of airport cities as locations for economic development. STRENGTHEN WEAK- AND STRONG-ECONOMY CITIES: High-speed rail and innovative public/private development incentives can transform the land markets around HSR stations and at other transitserved destinations. All cities require strong planning and economic incentives to fully capitalize on the economic benefits of high-speed rail.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

CASE STUDY

Grand Central Terminal When the current Grand Central Terminal opened in 1913, it anchored the new Midtown Manhattan business district. When rail ridership peaked in the 1940s, more than 65 million people, or 40 percent of the U.S. population, traveled through Grand Central. 1 Unfortunately, it soon entered a long decline and was threatened with demolition. By the mid-1990s the regional Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) restored the terminalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s great public spaces and dramatically expanded retail activity. In addition to being a busy transit hub, Grand Central is now a major retail destination and grand public space, home to five sit-down restaurants and cocktail lounges, 20 casual eateries and 50 specialty shops. The 12,000-square-foot main concourse, known for the zodiac mural painted on its ceiling, is a major public gathering place, serving commuter rail passengers and hosting seasonal events and temporary exhibitions. At nearly 100 years old, Grand Central Terminal exemplifies successful station and station-area development.

CREATE MAGNETIC DESTINATIONS Train stations are more than just places to process passengers. Highquality public space and interesting retail areas create a strong sense of place that enhances the travel experience. A well-planned and diverse mix of uses within the station, including destination retail, can partially offset construction costs and subsidize station operations, providing reinvestment funds for the station operator. This revenue stream can attract private investment and support public/private partnerships. DYNAMIC PUBLIC SPACES High-quality public space, when incorporated into HSR stations, enhances the travel experience and improves a cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s livability. As public space, HSR stations are natural gathering places that represent the inclusionary and democratic values of our society. HSR stations, often housed in historic structures or modern landmarks, offer a huge opportunity to privilege the movements of passengers and pedestrians while creating new hubs in central cities. VITAL RETAIL HUBS As busy, accessible centers, HSR stations are natural sites for retail development. With current demographic trends once again favoring central cities, transit hubs can anchor the intensive retail use that supports urban life. In the Northeast, both central cities and older transit-oriented suburbs are now growing. 3 This is creating a new market opportunity for convenient, transit-oriented retail. The retail sector is also moving aggressively to enter urban markets and looking for places to build new, denser shopping destinations. Capitalizing on stationsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; superior accessibility, station developers can attract destination retail to enliven the station experience and recoup operating costs.

Grand Central Terminal: The main concourse is a magnetic public space used for transportation and retail. 5

05 - Redesigning Stations and Station Areas

FUNCTION AS GATEWAYS As places of arrival and departure, high-speed rail stations are the gateways to the cities of the Northeast. Stations are where high-speed rail meets the city; well-sited and attractively-designed stations speed the daily movement of millions of people across the Northeast Megaregion. In this role, stations have the opportunity to mold the reputation and identity for the cities that they serve. A station must reflect the unique character of the city while creating a positive impression of the city for the traveling public. These places should privilege the travel experience, as the interaction of people and exchange of ideas are key to enhancing the economic, intellectual and cultural vibrancy of the Northeast Megaregion. While creating a sense of welcome that is specific to each city, HSR stations can also be a locus for demonstrating a commitment to memorable civic space and public-private partnership. At Union Station in Washington, D.C. (see box to right), where the station sits in the monumental space created by the Senate Park Commission at the beginning of the 20th century, the U.S. Congress passed legislation to establish the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, an entity responsible for improving the station infrastructure annd attracting private investment, both in the station and on its adjoining sites. The station area development reinforces the importance of the station to its city. And at Stratford, London, UK, the new HSR station will serve the 2012 Olympics as well as the new attractions, development and open spaces that will be the legacy of the games.

CASE STUDY

Union Station, Washington, D.C. Washington’s Union Station is an appropriately monumental gateway to the national capital. The grand Beaux-Arts structure, designed by Daniel Burnham and completed in 1907, reflects the grandeur of the nation’s capital; upon exiting the station through the triumphant arch, passengers are immediately greeted by the sight of the Capitol Dome. Redeveloped in 1981 after Congress passed the Union Station Redevelopment Act, Union Station now hosts 130 shops and restaurants and houses the headquarters of Amtrak, the national passenger railroad. Visited by more than 32 million people each year, it is the most-visited tourist destination in Washington. As a landmark, Union Station now hosts presidential inaugural balls while continuing to serve as a hub for Amtrak, commuter trains and local transit. 6 After more than a century of service, Union Station remains a monumental gateway to the nation’s capital.

Union Station, Washington, D.C.: A grand, monumental gateway to the nation’s capital city. 5

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

CASE STUDY

St. Pancras International St. Pancras International, located in the northern area of Central London, demonstrates how HSR can create a new walkable and compact urban center. As a historic 1868 rail terminal, St. Pancras initially attracted industrial uses to the station vicinity. Now that heavy industry no longer operates in Central London, the once-industrial land sits vacant, comprising the largest brownfield site in Europe.

CATALYZE WALKABLE, COMPACT, CENTERED DEVELOPMENT By offering superior accessibility and grand spaces, HSR stations have the power to catalyze walkable, compact development in city centers. HSR strengthens land values in the immediate vicinity of a station, acting as a powerful generator of economic activity. Station builders must work to encourage station-area development. Like all transit systems, HSR is most effective when stations lead directly to transit-oriented land uses. The increased accessibility made possible by HSR has the power to privilege station-area development and recenter the Northeast Megaregion by bolstering real estate demand in central cities.

The 67-acre brownfield, now owned by the London and Continental Railways, will be transformed into Kings Cross Central, a mixeduse development containing 2,000 apartments, nearly five million square feet of office space, retail, public space and a new campus for the University of the Arts, London. HSR enhanced local land values, making such development feasible. In addition, the railway company controls the land; real estate revenues will help recoup the construction costs of HS1, and station-area development will provide a steady stream of riders for high-speed trains.

St. Pancras, London: The locus of a new, dense development in Central London. 10

05 - Redesigning Stations and Station Areas

CONNECT TO REGIONAL AND INTERREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS High-speed rail that is linked into regional transportation systems provides the opportunity for concentrated development at transit nodes throughout the region. An integrated transit network is necessary for HSR to serve regional centers beyond the immediate station area, which allows for the potential of growth around multiple transit stations. This type of growth can enable HSR to unleash its full transformative power across the entire region. Finally, HSR can support new airport cities of offices, hotels and logistics centers. With the right combination of land use patterns and zoning, an HSR station has great potential for transit oriented development around the station area. However, good urban form around just one station area does not constitute a fully-integrated network. By investing in smart development around regional transportation system nodes, coupled with a strong HSR anchor node, the potential for growth around transit in the entire region blossoms. Airport cities, resembling those in Amsterdam-Schiphol and Hong Kong International, can develop around HSR stations at Long Island MacArthur and Philadelphia International airports. In addition to replacing shorthaul flights and freeing up airport capacity, HSR can make airport cities the location of choice for certain international businesses, airport hotels and logistics centers for high-value, time-sensitive freight.

CASE STUDY

South Station, Boston Boston’s South Station is an intermodal transportation hub and anchor of the urban center. Located on the eastern edge of the traditional central business district, South Station is a hub for Amtrak, intercity buses, commuter rail, subways and the Silver Line BRT. That BRT link is crucial, as it connects South Station to Logan Airport and the South Boston Waterfront, formerly industrial lands that are becoming a center of office space, apartments and the arts. In addition, the Big Dig project buried the central artery, an elevated highway that ran in front of the station, reconnecting South Station to the CBD. While South Station serves development in adjacent neighborhoods, the station’s air rights remain largely unused. Redeveloped as part of the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the station’s tracks and platforms were built in a way that would allow for the eventual construction of an office tower. While some of the air rights were used for an intercity bus terminal and parking garage, the tracks remain largely open, waiting for eventual office development. With a significant amount of vacant land available near South Station, building a tower over a busy railroad is not worth the extra expense. South Station demonstrates the development benefits of integrating intercity rail with other modes of transportation, but the challenges of building over an active railroad prevented a build-out of the station’s air rights.

Signage at South Station, Boston: Intermodal connections between Amtrak and intercity and commuter buses make South Station a transportation hub. 17

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

CASE STUDY

STRENGTHEN WEAK- AND STRONGECONOMY CITIES

Euralille Euralille is a vast urban transportation complex in the center of Lille, France. Since it opened in 1994 it has transformed the postindustrial city into an international business center. While Euralille serves international high-speed trains, conventional trains continue to serve the historic district. The area around Euralille, dubbed the “instant city,”continues to transform the city’s economy. 20 The 288-acre site is home to 24 acres of urban parkland, one of France’s largest shopping centers, and a new commercial corridor that many international businesses use as an affordable alternative to London, Brussels and Paris. Lille is now a satellite city of Paris and an important hub in the European HSR network. It is on the Eurostar line to London and the French TGV network to Paris, Brussels, Marseille, Lyon and Toulouse. 21 HSR enhanced Lille’s accessibility, making it an important international business center.

In order for high-speed rail to benefit all cities along the Northeast Corridor, innovative public/private development incentives must transform the land markets around stations. Cities will respond differently to new HSR linkages depending on their existing industries, employment base, population growth and cultural amenities. Accordingly, successful HSR implementation requires city-specific development strategies. For cities with relatively strong native industries and population growth, appropriate station-area development will create quick, easy links to employment centers, if those industries are not already located in the central city. HSR can carry visitors directly to cultural districts where arts and entertainment are strong megaregional draws. Well-thought-out station areas will draw on the region’s economic strengths, highlighting those industries that make each city stand out. Weak-economy cities also need region-specific strategies. With effective station design and area development, high-speed rail can draw on the megaregion’s collective resources to bolster local industry. In these cities, public/private development incentives can ensure that investment happens locally, instead of being shipped out to other parts of the megaregion. In each case, a close examination of the local economy’s strengths and weaknesses must shape those cities’ development strategies.

Euralille, Lille, France: Euralille welcomes people to a 24-acre park, office development and an historic urban core. 22

05 - Redesigning Stations and Station Areas

MA NY

Ronkonkoma - MacArthur Airport

Philadelphia (Market East) MD

Baltimore (Charles Center) VA

New station area designs: Baltimore (Charles Center), Philadelphia (Market East), and Ronkonkoma-MacArthur Airport, Long Island.

STATION DESIGN INTERVENTIONS Stations from Boston to Washington will require significant investments to accommodate HSR. In some cities, new high-speed trains will stop at an existing station that can be modified to accommodate the requirements of dedicated-track HSR service. However, if the existing station is not suitable for HSR, or where a new rail alignment is built, a new station will be needed. This report identifies exciting opportunities for cities large and small to create strong relationships between station locations and economic opportunity. New dowtown stations are proposed for Baltimore, Philadelphia, Hartford and several other smaller cities. These stations have the potential to revitalize these cities and their surrounding regions. In addition, several new stations on Long Island, a region that has experienced slow economic growth for more than a decade, will help jump-start its stagnant economy by improving access to the rest of the Northeast Megaregion. The unique geography of the Northeast will help HSR bolster the economy of each of the cities with access to the route. Once HSR is operational, every one of these cities will be less than an hour away from at least one of the megaregion’s “hot markets.” This enhanced accessibility will bring the entire Corridor into the labor and housing markets of the stronger cities, providing a broad range of economic benefits. By itself, enhanced accessibility will not be enough to transform “cold” cities, but in concert with effective local revitalization strategies it could form a foundation for successful economic development.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

CHARLES CENTER STATION, BALTIMORE The new high-speed rail service reduces nonstop travel time from Baltimore to Washington, D.C. from 40 minutes to just 20 minutes. The service also positions Baltimore less than an hour and a half away from New York City. The vision for an HSR station in Baltimore is Charles Center Station, which is strategically located to link downtown Baltimore to the rest of the Northeast Corridor. The current Amtrak station, Penn Station, is located north of downtown next to an expressway, isolated from CBD activity and redevelopment potential. Context map: Baltimore

The downtown location of Charles Center is surrounded by existing successful development and opportunities for infill. The Inner Harbor, Baltimore Convention Center, and professional sports stadiums are within walking distance to the proposed station.The historic Charles Street corridor and Mt. Vernon neighborhoods also have easy access to the station area. There is underutilized land around the station area that is prime for development, including buildings that are blighted and/ or fewer than two stories in height. These opportunities suggest that a Charles Center Station would capitalize on the surrounding activity and become a major hub of activity for downtown Baltimore. ST PAUL STREET

CHARLES STREET

LIBERTY STREET

PARK AVENUE

HOWARD STREET

EUTAW STREET

PACE STREET

GREENE STREET

MULBERRY STREET

TO PENN STATION BALTIMORE

SARATOGA STREET

LEXINGTON STREET

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT

FAYETTE STREET

BALTIMORE STREET

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND MEDICAL CENTER LOMBARD STREET

PRATT STREET

CONVENTION CENTER

R VA

E UL

N TO

I SH

ORIOLE PARK AT CAMDEN YARDS

INNER HARBOR

A W

FEDERAL HILL

Attractions

HSRBANK Alignment M&T STADIUM

Light Rail

Metro

Redevelopment Opportunities

400

800

Feet 1600

Baltimore strengths: Potential opportunities and strengths that HSR can build on in the downtown Baltimore area.

05 - Redesigning Stations and Station Areas

MASTER PLAN The Charles Center Station design connects high-speed rail to the regional and interregional transportation system. The station is located one block east of the light rail line; it is immediately adjacent to the exisint Metro line; and the MARC commuter trains to Washington, D.C. are located near Camden Yards, which is just a short walk. In addition, a proposed subway, the Red Line, recommends a station stop at Charles Center. The proposed station is located along one of Baltimoreâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s primary east-west thoroughfares, Baltimore Avenue. The station is also located along Charles Street which runs north-south to the existing Penn Station north of the proposed station. The proposed Charles Center Station is further integrated into the existing urban core by linking the station with the existing pedestrian network of downtown Baltimore. The pedestrian network connects the Inner Harbor with the sports stadiums to the southwest and will now connect with the proposed Charles Center Station. KEY ELEMENTS Charles Center Station City Hall University Maryland Balitmore County Convention Center Baltimore Inner Harbor Camden Yards

HSR Alignment

Light Rail

Metro

CBD

200

400

Feet 800

Baltimore master plan: Connecting to Baltimoreâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s best assets, the master plan for Charles Center proposes new public space and an expanded pedestrian network.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

DESIGN ELEMENTS Iconic Station in Downtown Baltimore Retail at Street Level to Activate Public Spaces New Park Spaces Open the Former Charles Center and Extend Redood Street Integrated With the Existing Pedestrian and Open Space Network

Baltimore site plan: By breaking down a superblock, the area around the station can become more pedestrian-friendly and human-scaled..

SITE PLAN DETAILS The Charles Center Station design opens up the existing Charles Center superblock to a more human scale. The central superblock is broken into smaller-scale blocks to cater to the increased activity associated with the proposed station. This design change also brings open space from the interior of the superblock to the curbside, which provides a more welcoming environment to the pedestrian. Much of this new park space is located on blocks adjacent to the proposed station to increase the stationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s stature and presence in the city. The design promotes an efficient and connected system for passengers travelling along high-speed rail. The design accommodates passengers via local rail, buses, as well as taxi queues with sufficient and convenient pick-up and drop-off areas. In addition, amenities including traveleroriented retail in the station and at the street-level are provided to enhance the passenger experience and make the station a destination. For passenger convenience, riders can transfer from high-speed rail to the metro by moving one level down. The station also allows for the

05 - Redesigning Stations and Station Areas

100

200 ft

Charles Center Section: A multi-level station fits into the downtown urban core. An atrium allows for natural light and maximum visibility.

convenient and comfortable movement of people to the street through thoughtfully designed levels and ample signage. By utilizing a glass roof and an open atrium, all functions of the station, including high-speed rail, transit and retail, are connected and visually coherent. The site plan also illustrates the proximity of development opportunities to the station. With Charles Center as an intermodal station, there is an opportunity to modify land use patterns to encourage more density and sustainable land use patterns.

The potential for Baltimore: If maximum floor-to-area ratios are increased around the station, Baltimore could see significant new development in its downtown.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

MARKET EAST STATION, PHILADELPHIA

Context map: Philadelphia

The new high-speed rail service reduces nonstop travel time from Philadelphia to New York to 37 minutes and makes Washington, D.C., less than an hour away from Center City Philadelphia. This presents a great opportunity for Center City to tie into the Northeast Megaregion. The station design for Market East includes a bold vision for Philadelphia, one in which high-speed rail has the potential to improve cold areas along Market Street and within the central business district. By bridging these gaps, the connections between the Delaware River waterfront, City Hall, and 30th Street Station will create a vibrant river-to-river corridor. With strength in the spine of Center City, there is great potential to create an attractive destination for residential, office, and retail space. An analysis of development opportunities around the Gallery at Market East shows that there is significant redevelopment potential in the area. Market East is situated in Philadelphiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s historic urban core, adjacent to a newly expanded Pennsylvania Convention Center, Reading Terminal Market, City Hall, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Independence Mall, and associated tourist destinations. Market East Station sits in the center of all of these activities.

Market Street strengths: The neighborhood surrounding the proposed Market East Station already has many strengths and anchors for HSR to connect.

05 - Redesigning Stations and Station Areas

MASTER PLAN The proposed Market East Station takes advantage of identified opportunities in the fringe of Philadelphiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s central business district. The station is integrated into existing local and regional transit networks including the Market-Frankford Line and all lines of the SEPTA Regional Rail network. The proposed station is also directly connected to the PATCO High-Speed Line and the SEPTA Trolley lines. The proposed station and associated open space bridge Market Street mimicking the two other major interruptoins to the Market Street Corridor: City Hall and Independence Mall. Furthermore, the introduction of the proposed station and park space creates an open space system that continues from Independence Mall to City Hall and Dilworth Plaza and on to Fairmount Park. The introduction of high-speed rail at Market East will build on the locationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s its centrality, greenspace connectivity, and access to transit and will make Market East the nexus of activity that extends the central business district beyond Broad Street.

KEY ELEMENTS Convention Center Market East Station City Hall

HSR Alignment

Septa Trolley

Heavy Rail

CBD

400

800

Feet 1600

Market Street master plan: The station is situated between City Hall, Independence Hall, Philadelphia Convention Center, and numerous other destinations.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

DESIGN ELEMENTS: Intercity Bus Station Commuter Bus Depot Revitalized Urban Shopping Center New Civic Space and Iconic Presence on Market Street Surface Trolley to Old City and the Delaware Waterfront Open Space Connection to Chestnut Street and Center City

Market Street site plan: The proposed station at Market East is prominently situated on Market Street tying it to the existing 30th Street Station.

SITE PLAN The Market East Station site plan highlights the integration of the new station with the existing corridors along Chestnut and Market streets. The new station replaces an underutilized block of the existing Gallery at Market East Mall. This allows the station to have an iconic presence directly on Market Street and increases its visibility and symbolic relationship to 30th Street Station. The connection between the two stations is improved along the Market Street Corridor through streetscaping improvements. Market East Stationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s presence on Market Street is further emphasized by implementing setbacks on the block across Market Street that open up the street wall and create a cohesive open space around the new station. The open space around the station is defined by a specific paving pattern that continues across Market Street and on to Chestnut Street. The site plan also includes two bus terminals: an existing intercity terminal, and a commuter terminal to provide intermodal access between the new station and bus services in the area. Moving the large commuter buses off Market Street frees up space for an improved pedestrian experience and the Delaware Waterfront Surface Trolley. The new trolley line stops directly in front of the station before circling around the new open space and continuing back to the waterfront. 86

05 - Redesigning Stations and Station Areas

100

200 ft

MARKET STREET CORRIDOR The Market Street Corridor is one of the primary structural elements of Center City and West Philadelphia. The corridor bisects City Hall which is also bisected by Broad Street; Philadelphiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s other primary structural device. Along the Market Street Corridor there are hot and cold spots of vibrant economic activity and stagnation. Old City, Market Street West, and University City are all strong areas. But the areas in between-the portion of Market Street closest to the Schuylkill River, including the area around 30th Street Station, and Market East, the area around the new Market East Station--are weak. The introduction of the new station will bring with it increased activity which will lead to increased property values around the station. This should provide for property values around Market East Station to be brought up, creating a consistent corridor of hot areas from Center City to Old city.

Proposed HSR

Local Transit

Existing NEC

Market Street Corridor

0.25

0.5

Market East Station Section: The multi-level station provides direct access to the SEPTA Market-Frankford line, regional rail, and both bus terminals.

Miles 1.0

Market Street Corridor: Market Streetâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rich transit system connects Philadelphia, river-to-river and beyond.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

RONKONKOMA STATION, MACARTHUR AIRPORT

Context map: Ronkomkoma Station is located right at the northern bend in the proposed high-speed rail line, midway across Long Island.

Located on the eastern portion of Long Island, the proposed highspeed rail connection to Long Island MacArthur Airport and nearby Ronkonkoma presents a unique opportunity for high-speed rail based development. High-speed rail will give Ronkonkoma a new economic geography, centered around a quick connection to New York (under 30 minutes by high-speed rail) and further connections to the airport and the Long Island Expressway. With these connections, Ronkonkoma’s airport area would become a regional hub of activity, acting as a new center for residents of eastern Long Island, linking them fully into the greater economy of the New York region and southern New England. These connections will attract businesses and public investments to a currently low-density and underutilized area. Due to these reasons, Ronkonkoma-MacArthur Airport Station was selected as a design study for high-speed rail to highlight its potential as an intermodal facility offering high-speed rail and air services. EXISTING CONDITIONS

Existing Condtions: Current aerial of the site, with airport terminal in white.

The immediate area surrounding MacArthur Airport is characterized by low-density light industrial and residential development. Similarly, the airport itself is underutilized, with limited commerical and freight traffic. Unique among New York region airports, MacArthur Airport has the ability to significantly expand its services in the future; it could become New York’s fourth airport, relieving some of the congestion pressure on JFK, Newark and LaGuardia. NEW HSR STATION AND AIRPORT TERMINAL To accommodate a new high-speed rail station, the airport’s terminals will be shifted to the northern end of the site, where it will integrate the current Long Island Rail Road service with road access from the Long Island Expressway and the new high-speed rail service. Once completed, high-speed rail will make Ronkonkoma and MacArthur Airport into part of the New York and New Haven commutersheds.

Proposed Station: Proposed relocated terminal in white, with HSR station in red and vehicle loop from the highway.

05 - Redesigning Stations and Station Areas

CASE STUDY

High-Speed Rail and Airport Integration: Frankfurt, Germany As part of the InterCity Express (ICE) system in Germany, a line connecting the cities of Frankfurt and Cologne—and their respective airports—was opened in 2002. It successfully integrates air and highspeed rail service by providing a fast and seamless transfer from airport to rail. This allows passengers arriving from international destinations to get to Stuttgart and Cologne on a train rather than on a short-haul flight. Here, significant mode substitution has resulted, coupled with a sharp drop in the number of flights between Frankfurt and nearby cities.

Development Plan: Noise and vertical clearance contours, shown in purple, constrain development near the airport. However, other areas are available for high-intensity station development to create a new industrial and commercial hub at Ronkonkoma.

DEVELOPMENT PLANS Airport operations—both vertical clearance requirements and noise contour requirements constrain the development of sites surrounding the airport. Noise contours are shown above, in purple. The noise associated with planes landing, taking off and taxiing makes high-intensity development parallel to the runways impossible.

Part of the reason Frankfurt has been so successful in this endeavor is that Lufthansa—Germany’s largest airline—actually operates the highspeed rail service from the airport to Stuttgart and Cologne. By realizing the synergistic relationship between air and rail service, Lufthansa was able to capitalize on the investment in infrastructure, rather than being hurt by it. This necessitated a significant change in the airline’s business model, but it allowed it to continue offering domestic services while freeing up airport capacity for more long-haul (and higher profit) flights.

However, this allows for development to be concentrated on other areas of the overall site. With the newly implemented high-speed rail service, development will be directed into these areas, which surround the airport on all sides. A variety of different development types could be successful on the site, and several representative ideas are given above. The highest intensity of development will take place immediately adjacent to the station entrance and expressway on the north end of the site, which could include commerical office, residential, and travelerrelated development, such as hotels and meeting facilities.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

Sustainability: Environmental, economic and social.

06 06 SUSTAINABILITY The Northeast high-speed rail network, and the existing systems of urban transit in cities across the megaregion, will promote a significantly more sustainable pattern of development across the Northeast. This chapter outlines how HSR is the linchpin to the Northeast Megaregion’s future sustainable growth and development. The Northeast is already the most highly urbanized megaregion in the country. It has the most extensive intercity and urban rail networks in the United States, providing the Northeast with an enormous advantage as it seeks to promote more sustainable patterns of development. HSR is the key to unlocking the Northeast’s potential to become a global model for sustainable growth. The growing global economy, and related increases in wealth, have transformed societies all over the world, but these expansions have placed a great strain on the world’s resources. It is now increasingly important to manage growth and the inventory of natural resources in the most responsible manner possible—a charge that the United States government is not taking lightly.

The Obama administration’s new Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities between the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency demonstrates its commitment to this charge. The program has established a set of “livability principles” which not only include aspects of social equity, economic competitiveness and environmental consciousness, but also highlight the importance of transportation planning in accomplishing these goals. In the past, America’s automobile-focused transportation investments have led to exponential increases in land consumption, energy inefficiency and environmental degradation. Through the integration of HSR, transportation systems can play a role in changing this paradigm and move toward a more sustainable mobility strategy. Although the term has many wide-ranging, ever-changing definitions, sustainability is applied here as a method of managing resources in such a way that satisfies economic and social needs without destabilizing the natural resource base and environmental quality on which life depends. High-speed rail is not only a more sustainable mode of transport than highways or air travel, but it has the potential to spearhead a sustainability movement in the Northeast and in other megaregions across the country. Planning for America’s future transportation needs must incorporate sustainable practices in order to manage future growth. Continuing down the same road is no longer an option. The following section conveys the ways in which HSR is more sustainable than any other transportation alternative, as well as how it can be used to promote regional strategies and policies to direct sustainable development. HSR’s sustainability benefits are discussed within three frameworks: environmental, economic and social, although it is imperative to understand that there is considerable overlap among them.

IMPORTANCE OF HSR High-speed rail is the most sustainable strategy for addressing the transportation challenges facing the Northeast Megaregion. With a 40 percent increase in population and an even larger increase in economic activity projected by 2050, the Northeast Megaregion must find new and more sustainable ways to manage projected growth. When compared to the environmental, economic and social costs of highway and airport expansion, HSR is the most cost-effective way to meet the capacity demands for intercity travel along the corridor. It can also create a framework for transit systems and more compact, energy- and landefficient development patterns in cities throughout the megaregion.

06 - Sustainability

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND HSR A sustainable transportation system requires the efficient and environmentally sensitive movement of people, information, goods and services, while minimizing the negative impacts on water and air quality, reducing the production of greenhouse gases and promoting energy conservation. Investment in HSR is the most appropriate transportation strategy to achieve each of these objectives. HSR meets the transportation capacity requirements of the growing Northeast Megaregion, while increasing mobility and energy efficiency with decreased greenhouse gas emissions and curbed land consumption. ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY AND HSR Transportation plays a vital role within a global economy; an efficient transportation system is of crucial importance for the competitiveness of the economy and the mobility of its citizens. The U.S. transportation system is a vast enterprise; transportation-related goods and services account for about one-tenth of the nation’s gross domestic product, and the economy is heavily reliant on the low-cost, highly flexible, fast movement of goods and services. However, today’s pattern of transportation infrastructure and its dependence on the private automobile is far from economically sustainable. HSR is a necessary component of any modern transportation network as it can meet future capacity demands while drastically reducing travel times, creating a new economic geography. SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY AND HSR A community is comprised of much more than just its hard infrastructure. While the utility lines, dwelling types and transportation infrastructure may define the physical form a community takes, it is a diversity of residents, adequate public services and economic opportunities that lead to truly sustainable communities. HSR has the ability to increase a community’s regional mobility, broadening employment and housing opportunities for some of the most disadvantaged communites in the Northeast while also opening up new social networks for their residents.

The New Jersey Pine Barrens: These lands are among the region’s spectacular environmental assets that will benefit from sustainable practices. 1

Wilmington, Del.: One of many cities slated to benefit from a well-connected megaregional market. 2

Strong community: Organizers in Philadelphia and throughout the region will benefit from broader social networks and increased job access. 3

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

TOWARD A SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY FOR THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION Despite being the nation’s most urbanized megaregion, the Northeast retains an extraordinary natural setting. The megaregion’s large metropolitan areas are bounded by the Appalachian highlands, with their forests and watersheds to the west, and the Atlantic Ocean, with its estuaries and beaches to the east. This natural environment creates a stunning backdrop for its cities and towns, contributes to economic prosperity and improves quality of life. The communities of the Northeast are linked not only by the transportation system but also by shared ecosystems, culture and economic clusters. The manner in which the Northeast develops transportation infrastructure affects the natural environment, the health of the region’s economy and the character of the communities along the corridor. The modernization of the megaregion’s infrastructure and the integration of HSR will require a coordinated effort across eight states and the District of Columbia, employing a variety of growth management policies that aim to achieve three aspects of sustainability: environmental, economic and social.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY LAND USE HSR will provide considerable benefits to the land use in the Northeast Megaregion. The proposed HSR line will utilize existing right-of-way and infrastructure, while highway or airport alternatives would require vast land acquisition. Due to its smaller infrastructure footprint, HSR is less intrusive to natural landscapes, ecosystems and wildlife. HSR will act as a catalyst for improving resource management strategies and encouraging growth patterns that promote compact, sustainable urban development. LAND CONSUMPTION The first and most immediate benefit of constructing HSR over other alternatives is the decreased physical impact this mode will have on the land. In the next 30 years, Amtrak has projected ridership to increase from the current 13 million riders to 23 million riders. The proposed HSR line will further divert and induce another 25 to 32 million riders to rail. This is a conservative estimate based on current Amtrak markets and not accounting for the increase in service frequency and capacity. If these additional 25 million riders were to be accommodated by cars or planes, two lanes of highway or eight airport runways would need to be built. Such interventions would require the acquisition of 1,300 acres of land for highway expansion or 800 acres for runway construction. As shown in Chapter 2, two dedicated HSR tracks could be laid almost

06 - Sustainability

completely on existing right-of-way, minimizing harmful effects to the land and avoiding the addition of hundreds of acres of impervious surfaces. In many other ways, highway and airport expansion is considerably more burdensome than adding additional, or even building new, rail lines. Because those alternatives take up more land, not only will land acquisition costs be higher, but any disruption to surrounding communities will be harder felt. In some cases, housing or other infrastructure may need to be removed, and for those places just beyond the reach of new highway lanes, the noise buffer will be much smaller. Although trains are not silent, high-speed trains are becoming quieter with better technology. They are also sporadic and do not create the constant noise, carbon output and other negative effects that automobiles do. These impacts as well as opposition from community and environmental groups make it virtually impossible in much of the Northeast to build new highway capacity. Similarly, air traffic in the megaregion is already so congested that adding more runways may not even be an option for accommodating future growth. WILDLIFE AND ECOSYSTEMS HSR within the existing right-of-way, with its smaller footprint and minimal land consumption, has great benefits to wildlife and ecosystems. Compared to highway and air alternatives, rail lines contribute significantly less to the transformation of wildlife habitat. Similarly, HSRâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s contribution to the recentralization of cities will limit the spread of urbanized areas into critical habitat. In addition to perpetuating land conversion, roads also bisect critical wildlife ecosystems, hunting territories, migration routes and breeding grounds. This fragmentation of natural land significantly decreases the likelihood of survival for many animals. While HSR has similar fragmentation effects, they are less intrusive than multi-lane highways and therefore their negative impacts are mitigated. Animals are attracted to roadside corridors within urbanized areas because they offer food resources habitat for some species, and are often the only spaces where native flora and fauna are able to grow. Residing in these corridors has become necessary for many animals because roads have transformed natural land cover to low-density suburban development and paved surfaces. Unfortunately, this is a deadly attraction, especially for many mammal and bird species. As animals move along these open corridors, they intermingle with traffic, resulting in more fatalities than those accrued through hunting. 4 Animals, especially those that reside along roadside corridors, will also benefit from the same air and water benefits explained later in this chapter.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

SMART GROWTH Environmental impacts of HSR are not limited to immediate physical changes. Investment in a connected transportation system, which includes HSR, regional rail and urban transit, has the potential to change growth and land use patterns across the megaregion. Just as the interstate highway system altered development patterns in the second half of the 20th century, HSR has the potential to do it again, and this time with sustainability as the driving force. HSR alone will not change the patterns of growth in the Northeast. To do so it will be necessary to create and expand urban transit systems in cities served by HSR and to implement growth management practices with the support and coordination of federal, state and local governments. As Alisa W. Coffin puts it in her article on the ecological effects of roads, transportation infrastructure is the â&#x20AC;&#x153;physical manifestation of the social connections and the economic and political decisions that lead to land use change.â&#x20AC;? 5 With that in mind, the Northeast Megaregion must share a unified future development strategy. The route the Northeast, and the nation, have taken since World War II is one of sprawling, auto-dependent suburbs that deplete the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s resources, limit accessibility and consume vast amounts of open land. For more than 50 years, the rate at which Americans have consumed land has

Mixed-use development in Boston: The Northeast Megaregion already has many examples of smart development to build upon. 6

06 - Sustainability

been unbridled and is no longer sustainable. High-speed rail can be the catalyst for change that is so desperately needed in the Northeast and other megaregions across the country. Several recommendations, when coupled with a connected transportation system, can help the Northeast achieve a more sustainable future: ADOPT SMART GROWTH PRINCIPLES: Smart growth promotes development in and near existing communities, providing a variety of transportation options, a mix of land uses, and preservation of open space, farmland and critical environmental areas. 7 ADOPT TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) ZONING AND TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) PROGRAMS: TOD zoning allows for more compact mixed-use development and initiates higher density near existing transit stops. TDR programs allow landowners in designated, environmentally sensitive areas to sell their development rights to the government, which then sells the right to increase density to developers inside designated urban areas. PROMOTE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES : The quality of life in a community can be enhanced by increasing the frequency and reliability of intercity and commuter rail. Usually located at city centers, rail has the ability to put riders within walking distance of their destinations and provide them with easy transit connections. Business and retail also tend to locate near stations, making passenger commutes easier while adding density to center cities. 8 PROMOTE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION: The decentralization of American life has contributed to a growing disillusionment with congested highways and a general dissatisfaction with sprawling land consumption. Yet many Americans are reluctant to give up the mobility freedom they have come to associate with the private auto. In order to capitalize on this disillusionment and create a shift toward public transportation, cities need to promote a balanced, well-integrated, multimodal transportation system. High-speed railâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s connections to regional rail and local transit are key to the successful development of a truly balanced, sustainable transportation network that can most efficiently complete an origination/destination trip without compromising an individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mobility.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

WATER QUALITY The population in the Northeast is expected to grow by 40 percent in the next 40 years, yet its water resources are, and will remain, finite. It is essential that these resources remain healthy in order to sustain the nation’s densest megaregion. Planning policies and infrastructure investments must be made with water in mind. HSR can play a vital role in reducing the threat to this critical component of life. By choosing HSR over road and airport expansions to handle the region’s future transportation capacity needs, the amount of new impervious surface required will be significantly less, thereby reducing the effects of stormwater runoff and nonpoint source pollution. The largest source of the nation’s water quality problems and the reason that 40 percent of the nation’s rivers, lakes and estuaries are not fishable or swimmable is nonpoint source pollution (NPS). Defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “NPS pollution occurs when rainfall, snowmelt or irrigation runs over land or through the ground, picks up pollutants and deposits them into rivers, lakes and coastal waters or introduces them into ground water.” 9 Stormwater runoff is a major source of NPS and is generated by precipitation that flows over impervious surfaces and does not filter into the ground. 10

Sources of Highway Runoff Pollutants 12

Iron

Auto body rust, steel highway structures such as bridges and guardrails and moving engine parts

Copper

Metal plating, bearing and brushing wear, moving engine parts, brake lining wear, fungicides and insecticides

Cadmium

Tire wear and insecticide application

Chromium

Metal plating, moving engine parts and brake lining wear

Nickel

Diesel fuel and gasoline, lubricating oil, metal plating, brushing wear, brake lining wear and asphalt paving

Manganese

Moving engine parts

Cyanide

Anti-caking compounds used to keep deicing salt granular

Sodium and Calcium

Deicing salts and grease

Chloride

Deicing salts

Sulphates

Roadway beds, fuel and deicing salts

Bromide

Exhaust

Petroleum

Spills, leaks, antifreeze and hydraulic fluids, asphalt surface leachate and blow-by motor lubricants

PCBs and Pesticides

Spraying of highway right-of-ways, atmospheric deposition and PCB catalyst in synthetic tires

Pthogenic Bacteria

Soil litter, bird droppings and trucks hauling livestock/ stockyard waste

06 - Sustainability

The first inch of rainfall is responsible for about 90 percent of the water quality impact from stormwater runoff and one inch of rain over one acre of impervious surface is equivalent to 27,156 gallons of water. 11 As this sheet of water flows down hills into lakes, rivers and municipal sewer systems, it not only picks up debris, chemicals, sediment and other pollutants, but is also a major contributor of erosion. Investing in HSR 2008 CO2 Emissions by Sector instead of roads would help minimize these negative impacts and allow Percent (TG CO 2 Eq.) agencies to mitigate problem areasElectricity that already exist. Choosing HSR Generation 43% 2,342 over roads would also lessen the conversion of wetlands, which Transportation 32% 1,785 are not Industrial 15% 820 only a valuable ecosystem for many critical and endangered species but Residential 6% 343 also act as a natural filter of nonpoint source pollution. Investing in HSR Commercial 4% 220 is investing in water quality and the health of the TotalNEC. 5,510 6%

AIR QUALITY

15% 43% The investment in HSR is the most logical next step in addressing the transportation system’s impacts on air quality. The U.S. transportation system is the largest in the world, providing Americans with arguably the greatest mobility of any society in the world today. It is fundamental to 32% the health of the U.S. economy and to its continued growth. However, transportation is also the nation’s second largest source of carbon dioxide (CO2), a potent greenhouse gas that has been linked to global warming. HSR provides a unique opportunity to address the CO2 emissions related to intercity travel without compromising the mobility of the Northeast Megaregion’s residents.

CARBON EMISSIONS Carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector have increased at a nearly exponential rate since the 1950s. 14 In 2008, transportation was responsible for 29 percent of United States CO2 emissions. Since passenger cars and light trucks contributed 52 percent of the transportation sector’s emissions, the use of the private auto as the main means of travel within and between cities has contributed greatly the country’s status as the world’s highest emitter of greenhouse gases. In contrast, a person traveling by public transit and rail produces, on average, less than half of the CO2 he or she would have if traveling the same distance by private auto or air. When HSR is implemented along the NEC, substantial CO2 savings will occur. The pounds of CO2 saved are dependent on the number of HSR passengers diverted from other modes, the source of electricity generation and the train technology utilized. Emissions savings are highest when passengers are diverted from the private auto and short-

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

Origins of CO2 emissions: The transportation sector is the second highest emitter of CO2 in the U.S. Over half of these emissions come from private auto use. Rail contributes only 0.2 percent of transportation CO2 emissions. 13 2008 CO2 Emissions by Vehicle Type Percent (TG CQ Eq.) Passenger Cars 27.8% 598 Light-Duty Trucks 23.8% 513 Medium & Heavy Duty Trucks 39.1% 841 Buses 0.5% 11 Motorcyles 2.1% 45 Recreational Boats 0.7% 14 Ships & Other Boats 0.1% 2 Jet Fuel 5.7% 122 Rail 0.2% 5 100% Total 2150

.1% .2% 2% .7% .5% 6% 28%

39%

24%

2008 CO2 Emissions by Sector Electricity Generation Transportation Industrial Residential Commercial Total

Percent 43% 32% 15% 6% 4%

(TG CO 2 Eq.) 2,342 1,785 820 343 220 5,510

15% 43%

32%

CARBON SAVINGS

$2,356,242

haul air flights, both of which generate more emissions per passenger mile than HSR. 15 Additionally, pounds of CO2 saved can fluctuate depending on the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s electricity generation portfolio. The increasing availability of wind, solar, hydro and geothermal generation allows for further reductions in HSR carbon emissions. In 2006, the Center for Clean Air Policy partnered with the Center for Neighborhood Technology to project the potential CO2 savings that would result from the employment of HSR along the NEC. Based on the model used in this study, utilizing ridership projections for 2025, with a two percent mode shift from private auto and a 22 percent mode shift from short-haul air flights, a total of nearly 707 million pounds of CO2, some 321,014 tons, will be saved annually. To put this number in economic terms, current carbon offset markets quote the average price of an offset at $7.34 per ton. 16 That means HSR is saving more than $2.36 million annually in CO2 emissions. These estimations of CO2 savings do not take into account the mode of travel passengers take to and from the HSR train station. The competitive advantage of the NEC lies in its expansive network of local transit and regional rail connections, enabling the corridor to benefit from further CO2 savings when people use these alternative modes of travel to the HSR station. Some will argue that advances in the automotive industry, like the expanded application of the hybrid engine and the potential of fuel cell technology, will produce vehicles with increasingly fewer emissions, thereby addressing the CO2 problem. However, the investment in HSR will not only address CO2 emissions but also confront the congestion that plagues our highway network.

CO2 Emissions Saved Annually With HSR lbs of CO2 Private Automobiles

50,715,516 Short Haul Air Flights

657,000,999

100

06 - Sustainability

AIR QUALITY AND HEALTH In addition to the current concerns over greenhouse gases, automotive exhaust also contributes to ground-level ozone, commonly referred to as smog when it combines with volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides. Particulate matter, yet another exhaust pollutant, is of particular concern as it has been linked to increased rates of respiratory illness in children and the elderly. 17 According to the Environmental Protection Agency, tens of thousands of elderly people die prematurely each year from exposure to ambient levels of particulate matter. 18 Children are especially prone to health problems related to air quality, as they breathe 50 percent more air per pound of body weight than adults. Not surprisingly, asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases among children, the direct and indirect costs of which totaled nearly $2 billion nationwide in 1996. While there are still air pollutants generated from the production of the electricity used to power HSR, these power plants are stationary sources of pollution and are far easier to regulate than mobile sources like cars and trucks.

ENERGY The transportation system is not only a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, it is also almost entirely responsible for the U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Transportation is a component of nearly every aspect of daily life, strongly linked to choices in housing, employment and commercial development. Mobility of people and commodities is essential to our modern society and economy. In 2006, Americans traveled some 5.34 trillion person-miles. 20 That equates to a trip around the world for nearly every American every year. Between 1995 and 2006 the person-miles traveled by Americans rose 29 percent. Freight movement on the system, some 4.6 trillion ton-miles of freight in 2006, has increased more than 13 percent since 1995.

CASE STUDY The Link Between Vehicle Exhaust and South Bronx Schoolchildrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Asthma 19 From 2002 to 2005 schoolchildren in the South Bronx carried air pollution monitors everywhere they went, to playgrounds, sidewalks and even movie theaters. The monitors, attached to the childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s backpacks, enabled New York University researchers to measure the pollution to which the children were exposed. The South Bronx has more than its share of highways and truck traffic due to more than a dozen wastetransfer stations and numerous food markets in the area. It is also home to some of the highest asthma hospitalization rates in the city. The study found that students were exposed to high air pollution levels not only in their neighborhoods but also in their schoolyards. Children in the South Bronx were twice as likely to attend classes near a highway as children in other parts of the city. Of the 69 days on which measurements took place, 18 of them exceeded the EPAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s standard for particulate matter. According to the EPA, airborne particles like dust, soot, smoke and automotive exhaust that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter are small enough to become lodged deep in the lungs, causing respiratory problems, decreased lung function and aggravated asthma.

Transportation on such a massive scale requires an enormous amount of energy. Energy use in the transportation sector has increased from 7,880 trillion BTU in 1949 to 27,800 trillion BTU in 2008, a 253 percent increase in just six decades. The energy used within the U.S. transportation sector is greater than the energy consumed by the entire economy of most nations. Only China and Russia consume more energy in their entire economies than the U.S. transportation sector. Of this 27,800 trillion BTU, only three percent currently comes from renewable sources, and 95 percent is generated from petroleum. 21

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

101

This increased dependence on one energy source for our mobility needs creates a vulnerability for our economy and general quality of life for the majority of Americans. Oil price shocks cost the U.S. economy trillions of dollars and are often followed by a U.S. recession. 22 Petroleum has become a precious commodity, one of the largest expenditures for American households. Congestion on the NEC’s network of roads results in an average fuel loss of nearly 27 gallons annually for every driver, and is projected to grow higher in coming years. The transportation system’s energy efficiency can be increased by shifting activity from more energy-intensive to less energy intensive modes of transportation. HSR can provide the necessary shift away from a reliance on private auto and air travel for intercity trips along the Northeast Corridor, curbing not only greenhouse gas emissions, but also reducing fuel price volatility and strengthening U.S. energy security. It is unquestionable that higher oil prices lead to greater fuel efficiency and can provide the necessary push from private auto toward increased transit and train use. 23 It is imperative that U.S. federal policy begins to address the need to maintain higher fuel prices to encourage this modal shift. Increased taxes on fuel can begin to internalize some of the external costs of private auto transportation like air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and traffic congestion. ENERGY SAVINGS WITH MORE COMPACT DEVELOPMENT The growth in driving and U.S. auto dependency is largely attributed to the built environment. We have built homes farther and farther from workplaces, schools and central cities. The typical American single-family detached home on a quarter-acre lot in the suburbs consumes far more energy than homes constructed in a denser manner, or in an attached dwelling situation or apartment building. The land use policies employed

FUEL WASTED 20

BOSTON

NEW YORK

20 50

PROVIDENCE

40 50

DUE TO TRAFFIC CONGESTION

E PHILADELPHIA

NEW HAVEN 30

BALTIMORE

STAMFORD

20 50

10 0

20 50

10 0

40 50 60

E WASHINGTON DC F

ANNUAL NUMBER OF GALLONS WASTED PER DRIVER 2007

City names denote the entire urban area Data:Texas Transportation Institute’s Urban Mobility Report

102

06 - Sustainability

to benefit the utilization of HSR will have energy impacts beyond the transportation scope. Development at greater densities within close proximity to cities will result in increasingly energy-efficient homes. ENERGY GUIDES The Federal Trade Commission requires EnergyGuide labels on most home appliances. These labels provide an estimate of the product’s energy consumption or energy efficiency. They also show the highest and lowest energy consumption or efficiency estimates of comparable appliance models. A similar label could be incorporated on the backs of HSR, regional rail and local transit tickets, or incorporated into mortgage documents to show the energy costs of daily travel and housing choices. Just as nutritional guides on food packaging inform food choices, these energy-guide-type labels can begin to inform individual energy consumption on a much broader scale.

ENERGYGUIDE Based on standard U.S. Government tests

Airline Trip Average Cost: $148

Individual Trip From Washington D.C. To Boston

Compare the Energy Use of this Airline Trip Washington D.C. to Boston with Others before You Buy. Airline Private Auto 358 kWh/trip 464 kWh/trip

High-speed Rail 89 kWh/trip

Energy Use (kWh/trip) range of all similar modes Emits LEAST CO2

Emits MOST CO2

kWh/trip (kilowatt-hours per trip) is a measure of energy use. Only one way trips taken from Washington D.C. to Boston are used in the calculation of this scale.

Less efficient modes of transportation use more energy This airline instead of HSR trip wasted:

375 kWh Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY The economy of the Northeast Megaregion is poised to benefit from the advantages of high-speed rail. The region is an economic powerhouse, producing a fifth of the nation’s gross domestic product. 24 The region is bound by Boston and Washington, D.C., and anchored by New York in the center, each with its own industry strengths and agglomeration economies. High-speed rail improves connectivity among these economies, facilitating the movement of labor and goods. High-speed rail will not have a transformative economic impact without complementary economic policies that support the connection of populations to jobs and the mobility of workers and goods. This comprehensive approach to transportation development can promote economic sustainability for the region. Collaboration between major corporations can also serve as a catalyst for the type of economic policies that can complement high-speed rail. According to WBCSD, sustainable corporations are businesses that are “more competitive, more resilient to shocks, nimbler in a fastchanging world, more unified in purpose, more likely to attract and hold customers and the best employees, and more at ease with regulators, banks, insurers and financial markets.” 25

ENERGYGUIDE Based on standard U.S. Government tests

Detached Single-Family Home 3 Bedrooms

Average American Residential Development Capacity: 2.73 persons

Compare the Energy Use of this Detached Single Family Home with Others before You Buy. Apartment 19,401 kWh/year

Compact Lot Detached Home 22,800 kWh/year

This Model Uses 29,570 kWh/year

Energy Use (kWh/year) range of all similar models Uses LEAST Energy

Uses MOST Energy

kWh/year (kilowatt-hours per year) is a measure of energy use. Your utility company uses it to compute your electricity bill. Only models with 3 bedrooms and 2.73 occupants are used in this scale.

Housing Units using more energy cost more to power This model’s estimated yearly energy cost is:

$1,924 Source: Energy Information Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey

EnergyGuide Labels: comparing energy consumption among modes.

Economic sustainability in the Northeast requires greater collaboration between major corporations, encouraging innovation and government alliances to ensure that policies and regulations are consistent along the corridor. This strategy will result in overall economic growth along the corridor, making the Northeast more competitive in the global market.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

103

SUSTAINABLE JOBS Quality jobs are a micro-level economic sustainability strategy. Promoting policies that encourage companies to invest in their employees, incentivize job creation and ensure access to multimodal transit so that households without cars can access jobs will create a more sustainable economy. Greater investment in employees can reduce turnover, increase productivity, and still retain profitability. Of Fortune magazine’s “Best Companies to Work For in 2010” the top companies are largely successful, while offering employees competitive benefits. 26 A majority of the top 10 employers are in innovative industries such as software development. These innovation industries can benefit from the increased connectivity that high-speed rail can provide. THE HIGH COST OF SPRAWL There are detrimental economic and environmental impacts of sprawl. As the population continues to grow, there will be greater costs to maintain the infrastructure of dispersed development. As noted earlier, land consumption has outpaced population growth drastically in the past

A Typical Sprawling American Suburb: high transportation costs. 27

Boston Community Type Median Income Housing Costs Annual Transportation Costs Transportation Costs Saved

104

New York

Somerville

Braintree

Midtown

BedStuy, BK

Dense $55,183 25.6% $7,164 $3,060

Dispersed $66,373 30.0% $10,224

Dense $65,001 43.5% $2,652 $2,256

Dispersed $26,461 21.0% $4,908

06 - Sustainability

decades. Regions cannot afford to expand, and there are significant costs for moderate- and low-income households as well. Compact communities have lower transportation costs, as basic needs are accessible with minimal or no need for a car. Low- and moderateincome households that leave the center city to acquire affordable housing often end up paying high transportation costs, which exceed the savings from more affordable housing. 28 If households were to return to the center city, the transportation costs equal greater savings for households, and more money that can be injected into the economy. However, there would need to be affordable housing options available for this to happen. A sample of dense neighborhoods in major cities in the Northeast was compared with a sample of dispersed areas in the same cities. Block group data was used to compare housing and transportation costs for the regions. In every region (except for New York), housing costs in the dispersed areas exceeded those in the center city. When comparing monthly transportation costs for dispersed and dense neighborhoods, there was a savings of thousands of dollars for each area, with areas like the Philadelphia region saving more than $4,000 a month.

Projected Savings Boston $ 264,250,944 New York $ 955,593,618 Philadelphia $ 390,246,000 Baltimore $ 144,007,200 Washington D.C. $ 1,260,130,158 NEC Savings $ 3,014,227,920

Increased disposable income 29: Representative compact and dispersed neighborhoods were used to cost out the savings associated with efficient living. Citywide savings were calculated as if half of the projected growth in households through 2030 occurred in more compact rather than dispersed neighborhoods. In just the five major cities along the corridor, savings surpassed $3 billion. Leaving the families living in these compact communities added disposable income to spend as they see fit. Compact Urban Development: low transportation costs. 30

Philadelphia

Baltimore

Washington D.C.

Center City

Springfield, PA

Bolton Hill

Roland Park

Dupont Circle

Brookmont, MD

Dense $37,543

Dispersed $68,427

Dense $20,454

Dispersed $57,274

Dense $54,420

Dispersed $140,000

23.0% $5,784

36.1% $9,828

17.0% $6,612

27.9% $8,736

23.2% $7,116

53.1% $10,920

$4,044

$2,124

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

$3,804

105

These savings were multiplied by the projected populations for each of the regions along the corridor. The result was billions of dollars in savings for the Northeast Megaregion. If the growing population moved back to dense neighborhoods with lower transportation costs, tremendous savings for households and the economy would follow.

SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY The proposed HSR system for the Northeast Megaregion promotes social sustainability through its ability to increase a communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regional mobility, broadening the social networking reach of its residents while addressing major health and safety concerns. GRADUATED FARES If high-speed rail is to be socially sustainable, then fare systems should encourage ridership across all communities and income brackets. The proposed high-speed line is part of a larger rail strategy that allows for greater frequency and capacity of local and regional networks. The four tiers of high-speed service offer a range of speed and price options for riders. For the passengers using local trains, fares will continue to be affordable, but riders will enjoy the added service benefits. The pricing can also include strategies such as monthly and weekly passes. MICRO-SCALE OPPORTUNITIES Economic sustainability and social sustainability intersect around the impact of HSR on job growth. The local job opportunities created by high-speed rail can support community stability. Beyond the jobs created during the construction of HSR, there are many indirect jobs generated in the service industry. These include train operations, station management and many other service-related occupations. LOCATION EFFICIENT MORTGAGES Location Efficient Mortgages (LEM) are mortgages common in dense urban areas. They allow households to obtain more expensive homes as a result of their transportation savings. These mortgages are available in urban centers like Seattle, Chicago and San Francisco. LEMs incorporate the savings that would have otherwise be spent on an automobile into the supportable mortgage. This supports community stability, by encouraging home ownership and use of public transportation. 31

106

06 - Sustainability

Reliable, cost-efficient transit options benefit all members of wellconnected urban areas. 32

SAFETY High-speed rail is the most socially sustainable option for addressing our growing transportation needs primarily because it is safer than any other mode of ground transportation. Some of the social costs imposed by auto reliance may not be immediately apparent sustainability issues, yet the carâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s poor safety record as compared with trains, buses and airplanes is an important consideration. The annual death toll on American highways is consistently in the hundreds of thousands, 33 and the risk of death in an automobile accident is nearly 18 times that of rail. 34 PUBLIC HEALTH Air pollution, especially fine particulate matter found in exhaust from the internal combustion engine, has been linked to increased rates of respiratory ailments, heart disease and even premature death. The elderly and children are particularly susceptible to these effects. While high-speed rail is still primarily reliant on the burning of fossil fuels for its electrical power, these power plants are stationary sources, which are far easier to regulate than the millions of mobile sources associated with auto dependence. Additionally, as the potential for electricity to be provided on a large scale by renewable, nonpolluting sources, high-speed rail would be even more environmentally healthy.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

107

Passengers boarding New York subway. 1

07 07 THE TRANSFORMATIVE POTENTIAL OF HIGH-SPEED RAIL The proposed Northeast Corridor high-speed rail system, matched with station investments and improvements to local and regional transit networks, will transform the economic geography of the entire Northeast Megaregion. It will alter the existing spatial relationships among Northeast cities and metropolitan areas, facilitating energy-efficient mobility and economic exchange. High-speed rail, in coordination with planned regional transit, will also positively affect urban form by altering development patterns within the Northeast Megaregion. The Northeast is predicted to gain 20 million residents in the next 40 years, a 40 percent increase over the 50 million who currently live here. 2 High-speed rail is the most environmentally responsible way to create new capacity in the megaregionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s congested transportation infrastructure. When paired with land use policies emphasizing centered growth, transit-oriented projects, and compact development plans, this new system will promote the recentralization of cities. The economic opportunities and land use policies supported by high-speed rail, in concert with improved connectivity, will pull residents and businesses back into cities, reducing the consumption of valuable agricultural land and environmental resources while also increasing productivity.

109

NEW ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY

Car travel: Areas within a four-hour drive of Philadelphia.

Car travel: Areas within a four-hour drive of Philadelphia, with heavy congestion.

Distance can be considered as an economic concept, one that is measured in the ease of movement for labor, capital and goods. An efficient transportation system is fundamental for economic competitiveness and the mobility of its citizens. High-speed rail improves connectivity between regional economies, facilitating the movement of labor, information and goods, creating a new economic geography. This new geography will energize economic growth and job creation in the corridor’s major cities, and as a result make the Northeast Megaregion more competitive in global markets. The dramatic economic impact of investment in high-speed rail has been observed in other countries around the world, where political and business leadership has led and supported significant public investment to achieve new levels of economic performance. High-speed rail has recentralized and reenergized cities and increased the mobility of workers, researchers, vacationers and tourists. 3 HSR and the improved connectivity it brings will revolutionize the Northeast’s economy, as reduced travel times will permit residents to travel greater distances and expand employment options, while enabling corporations, small enterprises and 21st-century manufacturers to draw from a larger labor force, to extend market reach and to identify new partners for collaboration and innovation. This new mobility system will also provide the greater opportunity for collaboration among researchers and entrepreneurs, as the nation’s leading research institutions—from Johns Hopkins to Harvard Medical—will soon be within a few hours of each other. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF DENSITY

Air travel: Areas within a four-hour flight time of Philadelphia.

High-speed rail: Areas within a four-hour trip on high-speed rail from Philadelphia.

110

The Northeast’s densely populated urban regions will greatly benefit economically from high-speed rail. While the megaregion as a whole has created broad and diverse economic sectors, its top industries are in the advanced service and technology sectors, both of which benefit from the face-to-face communication that the Northeast’s networks of dense urban centers and transit links make possible. According to Harvard economist Edward Glaeser, the increasingly information-intensive economy benefits from dense urban areas. 4 A study of population density and gross metropolitan product per capita of America’s cities in 2008 found that productivity rose by four percent per capita when density increased by 50 percent in a region. 5 With a growing service industry that requires more face-to-face meetings with clients and suppliers, these industries are drawn to dense cities. High-speed rail can facilitate those service industries by bringing major destinations in the megaregion within a four-hour door-to-door journey.

07 - The Transformative Potential of High-Speed Rail

A study prepared for Greengauge 21 in the U.K. found that areas with greater rail connectivity tend to have greater employment densities. 6 This suggests that businesses are attracted to well-connected areas, and could lead to a relocation of jobs to station areas connected to a Northeast HSR system as well as to centers strategically located along well-served connecting transit systems. The labor pool is expanded as reduced commuting times draw in employees from greater surrounding areas. Literature on economic geography also suggests that the increase in productivity found in these station locations would lead to higher wages, and would draw more people into the job market. 7

Educational connectivity: The corridor is home to many of the world’s top universities.

EDS AND MEDS One of the major economic sectors expected to benefit from high-speed rail is education. The major cities served by the Northeast rail corridor are home to large and renowned research institutions that serve as anchors for the megaregion’s economy. Anchor institutions such as research universities and teaching hospitals are economic development generators as they attract talented students, faculty and researchers. They are especially important to older and underperforming cities because their commitment to remain in established locations promotes more stable employment in these places. 8 Many students drawn to the Northeast Corridor for their studies choose to remain in the Northeast after completing their education, creating a permanent base of skilled workers for the megaregion. A skilled workforce can be a magnet for new industries and employers. Several of the key technology success stories in recent decades, including Boston’s Route 128, California’s Silicon Valley and North Carolina’s Research Triangle, emerged due their proximity to top-ranking universities and their regions’ well-educated, high-skilled labor force. 9

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

111

CASE STUDY

Regeneration Strategies in France and England Perhaps the best international example of this phenomenon is Northwest France’s Lille, an older industrial city that was transformed from a declining manufacturing center to a revitalized international business service and retail center by its new high-speed rail links to London, Paris and Brussels. 10 In Southern England a number of similar places have been revitalized by higher-speed (125 mph) rail services developed since the 1980s. Sir Peter Hall has documented this phenomenon, which brought a number of smaller “cold” cities, including Reading to the west of London, into the London labor markets by this improved rail service. In most cases, these cities were transformed by the new rail service. But some of these places, particularly those which had high concentrations of low-skill workers and which did not aggressively pursue urban regeneration strategies, did not experience significant economic benefits from their improved access to London. 11

HOT AND COLD CITIES The 2006 studio at the University of Pennsylvania School of Design, as part of its analysis of the Northeast as a megaregion, devised a city typology of the major cities within the corridor where this year’s studio is proposing the NEC high-speed rail system. This city typology uses indicators such as educational attainment, unemployment status, area median income and housing cost burden to determine if a city’s economy is “hot” or “cold.” Hot cities are those that are growing, have a high proportion of the population with advanced degrees and achieve higher median incomes. Cold cities are those that have higher rates of unemployment, high poverty rates and lower median incomes; they are typically cities that were former industrial centers. The cities large and small are diverse in their strengths and will be impacted by high-speed rail in a variety of ways. Large cities with strong economies require a different development strategy than cities that have smaller or “cold” market economies. But in order to realize the transformative benefits of HSR, each city and its metropolitan region will need clear and focused policies and plans to direct land use, stimulate jobs, and attain a distinct economic advantage beyond the corridor itself. This may be even more crucial for weak cities than it is for strong ones. The Northeast Corridor links two hot cities: Boston and Washington D.C., and is anchored at its center by another hot city: New York. Between these hot cities are several cold cities, including Worcester, Hartford, New Haven, Newark, Trenton, Philadelphia and Baltimore. High-speed rail has the potential to transform the economies of these places, provided that they include effective local economic development strategies designed to take advantage of their new accessibility to the Northeast’s hot cities. High-speed rail in the Northeast can build upon the megaregion’s unique geography by bringing most of its underperforming cities within an hour of at least one of the hot economy cities of Boston, New York and Washington. As in England, however, to capitalize on this new proximity, older Northeastern industrial cities will need to develop strong economic development strategies. These should include downtown and brownfields revitalization, workforce skill development, mobility and related programs to “remagnetize” these places.

112

07 - The Transformative Potential of High-Speed Rail

$41,368

$37,309 New Haven

Baltimore

$47,256 Philadelphia

32.1% Philadelphia

32.7% New Haven

34.% Baltimore

$57,097

$57,916 Boston

$61,834 Washington D.C.

35.2%

41.9%

New York

Boston

46.8% Washington D.C.

New York

GDP per Capita

Percent of Population with Bachelor’s Degree and above

8.6% New York

7.9%

8.4% Philadelphia

7.9%

7.5%

New Haven

Boston

Baltimore

19.4% Baltimore

18.7% Boston

New York

$40,314

$51,116

$51,688

New Haven

New York

Boston

6.1% Washington D.C.

Unemployment Rate

Percent of Population Living Below the Poverty Level

27.3%

24.1%

New Haven

Philadelphia

$36,976 Philadelphia

$40,313 Baltimore

18.2%

17.2% Washington D.C.

$57,936 Washington D.C.

Median Household Income

Hot and cold gradient: Indicators for hot and cold cities. 12

It should also be noted that hot and cold cities hold more complexity than the typologies indicate. New York, a “hot” city, has significant income disparities, while Philadelphia, a “cold” city, has several educational and medical anchor institutions and a number of high-income urban and suburban enclaves. When housing indicators are examined individually, it is apparent that no city is entirely “hot” or “cold.” Cities like New York have higher rates of educational attainment and GDP per capita, but for 2009 had the highest unemployment rate. 13 This is due to the financial crisis, but illustrates that an economy may not be sustainable in isolation. Despite having an unemployment rate lower than the other cities in the region, New Haven has one of the Northeast’s highest poverty rates, underscoring the importance of having effective economic and workforce development strategies in both hot and cold cities across the Northeast. 14

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

113

JOB ACCESS Building on “hot and cold” indicators, an additional indicator of housing and transportation costs was also used to determine city typology. Households that have moved away from the center city to more affordable suburban and exurban housing options have ended up paying a great deal in transportation costs. The Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) has developed an affordability index that calculates housing and transportation cost burden for working families. CNT also developed an index for working families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually. 15 They define housing cost burden as housing costs being more than 30 percent of income, and transportation cost burden being more than 15 percent of annual median income. Combining these two costs, they developed a measure of affordability 45 percent of area median income as measure of housing and transportation affordability. 16 A little less than a third of the households of all Northeastern cities have a housing cost burden. When transportation cost burden is included, a majority of the households in these cities are struggling with high housing and transportation costs. Strategies to expand housing opportunities around a growing Northeastern transit network can reduce this burden. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES High-speed rail cannot by itself succeed in transforming the economic prospects of the Northeast’s cities and suburbs. This will require complementary local and regional economic and mobility strategies designed to allow communities and individuals to take advantage of the new accessibility that HSR, related investments in regional transit systems and transit-oriented development plans will make possible. Workforce development strategies will also be required to allow many of the Northeast’s workers to share in the megaregion’s growing prosperity. While the region has the world’s highest concentration of prestigious research universities and teaching hospitals, and large concentrations of high-skilled occupations in sectors such as finance, biotechnology and professional services, there is a robust middle-skilled labor pool that is expected to grow as well. Middle-skill occupations are those that require a high school diploma but do not require a bachelor’s degree. The demand for midskilled labor should grow and remain robust as population increases. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that nearly half of all job openings in the next 10 years will be in occupational categories that are mostly middle-skill. 17 Occupations in industries such as biotechnology are expected to benefit greatly from high-speed rail. It is important to invest in vocational and educational programs that provide job training for these midlevel positions for key economic sectors.

114

07 - The Transformative Potential of High-Speed Rail

Housing Cost

Housing and Transportation Cost

Less than 30% 30% +

Less than 45% 45% +

Boston

Housing and transportation costs: These maps indicate the housing and transportation cost burden in the major cities along the corridor. These household cost burdens are particularly prominent in cities along the southern portion of the corridor. 18

New York

Philadelphia

Baltimore

Washington D.C.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

115

BOSTON

South Station

VIGNETTES To best illustrate the impact of high-speed rail on the Northeast Corridor, the following vignettes will reveal how high-speed rail will transform various cities at the personal level.

1:45

EXECUTIVE COMMUTE Sam lives in Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Dorchester neighborhood and works for Starwood Hotels, which is headquartered in the area. He is going to Washington, D.C., for a noon meeting with developers about his proposal to build a new hotel in the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capital. Sam leaves home at 8:30 a.m. and takes the Red Line subway to South Station to catch the 9 a.m. high-speed rail train. He takes a seat in the cafe car and grabs coffee and a croissant. The ride, which is just under three hours, provides Sam with the time to complete his PowerPoint presentation for the D.C. meeting. By the time he arrives in Union Station, Sam has composed and practiced his presentation, and gets to their office just before noon in the new Union Station Yards, office complex built a few years ago on air rights just north of the station.

NEW YORK

1:30

Moynihan Station

Commuters waiting for train: Improved commuting options with high-speed rail. 19

WASHINGTON Union Station

116

07 - The Transformative Potential of High-Speed Rail

DUAL COMMUTE Mark and Marja live in Long Island, N. Y. Mark is a small-business owner in Manhattan, and Michelle is a professor at SUNY Stony Brook. In the mornings, Mark leaves their home at 7 a.m. to catch the Long Island Rail Road into Penn Station in New York. Marja does not commute every day, but has to drive for an hour to get to Stony Brook. Both of them love their community, so they put up with time-consuming commutes. After the new Long Island high-speed rail service opens, Marja receives an offer to teach at Yale University in New Haven. Before high-speed rail opened, taking this job would have required that the family relocate off Long Island. With high-speed rail Mark now takes the high-speed commuter service from Ronkonkoma to Manhattan, which cuts his travel time in half. And Marja drives with Mark to Ronkonkoma three days a week to get the high-speed train to New Haven, and transfers to the new trolley at New Haven Station for the five-minute trip to Yale, with a total door-to-door commute of less than an hour each day.

BOSTON BACK BAY RIVERSIDE ROUTE 128 METROWEST WORCESTER

PROVIDENCE

HARTFORD NEW LONDON

NEW HAVEN

RONKONKOMA

UNIVERSITY CONNECTION Marina and her mother Yvonne wake up early on a Monday in suburban Baltimore for their college tour trip. Marina has recently been admitted to the University of Pennsylvania and Boston University. At 7 a.m. Marina and her mother walk to their local ZipCar parking area and drive to the new high-speed rail station in downtown Baltimore. Yvonne and Marina swipe their Northeast smart transit cards at the gate and board the 7:30 a.m. high-speed rail train to Philadelphia. By 8:30 a.m. they arrive at 30th Street Station. They swipe their smart transit cards again to catch the Market-Frankford Line to the University of Pennsylvania campus, arriving at 8:45 a.m., with a few minutes to spare before their 9 a.m. tour. After a campus tour and a stop at the campus bookstore, Marina and Yvonne take the Market-Frankford Line to Market East, grab a quick lunch at the elegant new station there, and catch the 1 p.m. high-speed rail to Boston. They arrive in Boston at 3:30 p.m., catch the Green Line trolley to BU where they take the campus tour, and after returning on the trolley to South Station, eat a nice dinner at the station. They board the 6 p.m. high-speed rail train to back to Baltimore, getting back home around 9 p.m. Marina was able to visit two top universities in a day with relative ease due to the high-speed rail and its integration with local transit, aided by the Northeast Megaregionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s smart transit card and automated fare collection system.

STAMFORD

JAMAICA/JFK

NEW YORK NEWARK EWR AIRPORT METROPARK TRENTON PHILADELPHIA

Market East & 30th Street Station

PHL AIRPORT

WILMINGTON

BALTIMORE

Charles Center & Penn Station

BWI AIRPORT WASHINGTON

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

117

St. Pancras International Terminal: old and new facades.

08 08 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS The proposed new high-speed rail system has the potential to generate many benefits for the Northeast Megaregion. These potential benefits can create new relationships between cities, generate new opportunities for economic investment, create sustainable land use patterns, and improve the ability of the Northeast Corridor transportation system to meet future travel demand. Other climate, energy, environmental and safety benefits will also result from this investment. As the necessary capital investments for the proposed system will most likely be provided from public sources, the public and lawmakers alike should understand the relationship between the costs and the benefits of HSR in the Northeast. This chapter uses a cost-benefit analysis methodology in order to determine whether HSR is a worthwhile investment for improving the transportation capacity of the Northeast Corridor. The cost-benefit analysis is used to quantify various benefits and costs into a ratio that compares the large costs and long timeframe of HSR projects against the potential benefits it will provide to the megaregion. 1

119

PURPOSE OF COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS Cost-benefit analysis is a tool that can be used to evaluate HSR investment and its effectiveness compared to other public investments for solving the transportation capacity constraints in the Northeast Corridor. This analysis provides a methodology for quantifying the benefits of public expenditure so that there is a common denominator to compare the costs and benefits. It also considers the long-term benefits and the long-term costs of the public expenditure. This is an important consideration because of the long timeframe of the project. It will likely take 10 or more years to implement a HSR plan, and the value capture from the new infrastructure may not begin for an even longer time period. This cost-benefit analysis considers the time value of money in its evaluation of HSR. 2 Cost-benefit analysis can fail to considers both the full costs and benefits of public investments. While this analysis should consider all the possible benefits from the project, many of these benefits are qualitative and difficult to quantify. The monetary value assigned to these benefits often undervalues the true amount of benefit. In the case of HSR, it is easier to value the benefit of travel time savings and carbon emission reductions than to quantify the wider economic benefits, such as station development and urban investment that could occur from the new economic geography of the Northeast Megaregion. 3

METHODOLOGY This report includes a preliminary cost-benefit analysis for the proposed HSR system to establish the cost-effectiveness of this proposal. A full cost-benefit analysis should, of course, be conducted prior to committing major capital funds to the project. In order to perform a cost-benefit analysis on HSR in the Northeast Megaregion, there must first be an understanding of the problem that HSR will solve and which alternative solutions might be employed. The existing transportation system, including roads, rails and airports, is already heavily congested and does not have the capacity to meet projected increases in demand. Creating this new capacity will enable the Northeast to achieve its full economic potential by 2050. In order to relieve congestion and meet future demand, the capacity of the Northeastâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transportation system must be increased. There are several alternatives to creating the needed improvements. One alternative is to build a new mode of transportation, like HSR. HSR would provide an additional transportation option that could free up

120

08 - Benefit-Cost Analysis

Benefit-Cost Analysis Summary 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

COSTS

BENEFITS

Construction

Revenue

Track and Signals Rail Junctions

$ $

4,100,000,000 8,500,000,000

Structures and Tunnels

27,100,000,000

Land Acquisition

20,000,000

Station Improvements

23,100,000,000

Other Infrastructure

9,300,000,000

Rolling Stock

6,000,000,000

Project Overhead

18,000,000,000

Environmental Mitigation

2,200,000,000

Other Construction Inconvenience

2,200,000,000

Operations + Maintenance

423,250,000

Total Costs

100,943,250,000

HSR Revenue Regular Rail Revenue Change

$ $

55,621,021,150 (70,307,034)

Travel Time Savings

58,429,000,000

Foregone Death and Injury

8,569,000,000

Improved Capacity

1,502,470,000

Users

Non-Users Congestion Mitigation

5,898,600,000

Carbon Emission Reduction

4,243,515

Wider Economic Benefits

41,013,000,000

Total Benefits

171,037,334,665

capacity on existing modes by shifting passengers to its new service. Another alternative would be to widen highways and add airport runways to meet future demand. These alternative solutions should be compared based on their benefit-cost ratio. 9

B/C Ratio: 1.70

Assumptions need to be made in order to make the quantitative valuations of the cost-benefit analysis. The benefits that can be quantified include the operating revenue of HSR, user benefits such as travel time savings and improved safety, and nonuser benefits such as carbon emission reductions, highway decongestion, improved capacity of other transportation modes, and wider economic benefits. Costs that can be quantified include infrastructure construction, rolling stock, operations and environmental remediation costs. Since the benefits will largely be generated after many of the costs are incurred, the value of the benefits is quantified for the year 2030, when the whole Northeast HSR system would be fully operational. The social discount rate that is applied for the cost-benefit analysis is four percent per year. 10 This rate is lower in order to account for the long timeframe of HSR construction, implementation and benefit generation. The cost-benefit model employed here is based on the analyses performed by Greengauge 21 to evaluate a possible HS2 line in the United Kingdom and on the model of the California High-Speed Rail Authority used to assess HSR costs and benefits for California. However, the analysis is adjusted to suit the proposed HSR system in this report. 11, 12

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

121

LESSON FROM LONDON Moving Away From CBA for Transportation Projects In the United Kingdom, investment in the proposed HS2 high-speed rail line linking London to Birmingham, Manchester and Scotland was the subject of much debate prior to the decision to proceed with the project in March 2010. In 2006, former British Airways CEO Sir Rod Eddington conducted a study that evaluated the capacity of transport in the United Kingdom. The findings identified congestion as a debilitating factor for the economy of the United Kingdom, but did not recommend HSR as the solution to alleviate congestion and create capacity. Instead, the Eddington Report recommended congestion pricing to relieve congestion. 18 In 2009, transport secretary Lord Adonis, conducted another study that evaluated alternatives for improving the capacity of transport in the United Kingdom. This report found that HSR was the best option for alleviating congestion. The Eddington Report and Lord Adonis’s Report both used a cost-benefit analysis to evaluate the alternatives for improving transportation systems in the United Kingdom. However, Lord Adonis’ report included consideration of the broader regional economic development benefits HS2 service would bring to cities in the Midlands and the North of England. It also concluded that there were political and environmental obstacles to expanding highway and airport capacity that would make it impossible to proceed with these alternatives. For these reasons it concluded that HSR should be built and all three major political parties have endorsed the decision to proceed with the project. 19

122

The costs and benefits were quantified based on the projected ridership and operation costs, but data was not available to quantify all of the benefits for the Northeast. Where data was not available, the value of the benefits from the Greengauge 21 and California High-Speed Rail Authority cost-benefit analysis were scaled to the parameters of the Northeast Corridor. In order to evaluate HSR as a solution versus the expansion of highways and airports, a benefit-cost ratio for the alternate solution will be used. The selected benefit-cost ratio for these highway and airport expansion projects is based on the average ratio found in the analysis of highway expansion projects from the U.K. 2006 Eddington Report. The benefitcost of highway expansion was reported in this study at 4.7. 13

ANALYSIS This cost-benefit analysis concludes that the Northeast HSR system proposed in this report has a ratio of benefits to costs of 1.7. Since the ratio is greater than one, benefits outweigh the costs of constructing and implementing the proposal. This means that HSR investment is economically beneficial for the Northeast Corridor, and that the construction of a HSR system in the Northeast Corridor is worthy of public support and investment. 14 This cost-benefit analysis concludes that there is a better benefitcost ratio for HSR than for other alternatives. However, there are many benefits that are not included in the cost-benefit analysis of HSR because they cannot be readily quantified. Benefits such as station-area development and induced economic growth, which are not included, would further enhance the benefits of HSR. These benefits can be linked only to HSR development, and not the expansion of highways and airports, because HSR has the ability to promote station-area development in dense urban settings while these other transportation modes do not. 15 More precisely, quantifying the role of HSR in enabling economic growth throughout the whole megaregion could be the key to refining this analysis. This cost-benefit analysis does not incorporate assumptions about the size of the Northeast’s future economy. It can be anticipated that this economy has the potential to expand significantly by 2050 if past trends continue and if the region creates the capacity in its major infrastructure systems to enable this growth to occur. Further, while the order-of-magnitude cost estimate of the proposed HSR system, at nearly $100 billion, represents a major expenditure of public funds, it will be spent over a 20-year period. And in comparison to the gross regional product of the Northeast—currently $2.59 trillion

08 - Benefit-Cost Analysis

annually, and growingâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the cost of HSR is small. 16 Finally, it must also be noted that it may not be possible to build the highway and airport alternatives at all, due to environmental constraints and severe political opposition. 17

IMPLICATIONS OF THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS In order to choose an alternative for improving transportation in the Northeast Corridor, the results of this cost-benefit analysis should be considered in conjunction with political and economic priorities. A costbenefit analysis provides a basic measure to evaluate a possible solution and how this solution compares to other alternatives. The specific advantages of HSR that are not included in the cost-benefit analysis should be considered on top of the basic benefit-to-cost evaluation. A full assessment that includes all the potential benefits of HSR and relates the benefits to economy of the megaregion should lead to HSR being chosen as the best alternative for solving the future intercity transportation capacity problem of the Northeast Megaregion.

INCLUDED IN ANALYSIS

ticket fares

reduced emissions

reduced congestion

time savings

increased safety

NOT INCLUDED IN ANALYSIS

short- and long-term jobs

recentralization

shift in energy sources

other environmental benefits

induced development

global economic competitiveness

connecting networks of people

other potential effects

Benefits: Some are easily quantifiable, while others elude simple mathematical analysis and are more indicative of the particular goals for a project.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

123

Tunnel Boring Machines

09 09 IMPLEMENTATION: GOVERNANCE AND FINANCING Building high-speed rail will the Northeast will be a massive undertaking. A new governance structure, financing mechanism and sustained political leadership are necessary to build high-speed rail. The current Amtrak-dominated governance structure of the Northeast Corridor is not equipped to build the HSR line that is illustrated in this report. The new Northeast Corridor Commission (NECC) will be a federal-state partnership, charged with building and operating high-speed rail infrastructure. While the new highspeed rail line must be financed primarily with public funds, limited opportunities are available for the private sector to fund station construction and development, equipment, and train operations. Finally, strong, sustained leadership is necessary for this vision of high-speed rail to become a reality. Building HSR will be an expensive, long-term project.

125

CASE STUDY

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey: An Interstate Compact Established in 1921 to improve the movement of goods through its port, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is a bistate agency that operates cargo facilities, bridges and tunnels, airports, bus terminals and a rapid transit system in the bistate region. The Port Authority initially sought to combat port congestion, a regional issue that crossed political boundaries. Alone, neither state could solve the infrastructure problems in the port district. The Port Authority is the nation’s oldest interstate agency, created from an interstate compact that required approval by Congress and both state legislatures. Financially self-sufficient, the Port Authority’s operations are supported by tolls, port revenues and airport landing fees. The Port Authority generates an operating surplus, enabling it to partially fund the construction of NJ Transit’s new Hudson River tunnel. Interstate compacts like the Port Authority are created to bridge political boundaries and solve regional issues. Unfortunately they are difficult to implement, as states have to cede power to the interstate compact. Such bodies can be enacted only after the legislatures of all states involved pass identical legislation, something that gets exponentially harder as the number of states increases. 1

GOVERNANCE This report recommends that a new Northeast Corridor Commission (NECC), a new multistate governing body, be established to design, build, operate and maintain the unified rail infrastructure for the improved Northeast Corridor. This new body could emerge from the recently established Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission. But this existing body will require additional authority to build and operate this report’s proposed HSR alignment. While the existing line is used by multiple operators, governance is dominated by Amtrak. This existing Amtrak-dominated governance structure is not equipped to carry out an infrastructure project on the scale proposed by this report. The NECC will be a federal-state partnership, designed to build the new high-speed line between Boston and Washington and upgrade the existing railroad. Its establishment will require an act of Congress, and the participation of all eight states through which the corridor runs as well as the District of Columbia. THE NEC TODAY Served by Amtrak, eight commuter railroads and seven freight carriers, today’s Northeast Corridor is one of the most complicated rail lines in the world. 2 Unlike other intercity rail corridors in the United States, the entire Boston-Washington corridor is publicly owned and used primarily by passenger trains; most freight moves through the region on separate freight lines. While the Northeast Corridor operates as a unified passenger rail line, the track is currently owned by four governing bodies. Amtrak owns 80 percent of the line’s route-miles, including sections from the Massachusetts-Rhode Island state line through New Haven and from New Rochelle to Washington. 3 Additionally, Amtrak owns two key feeder routes, the Springfield-New Haven Inland Route and the Philadelphia-Harrisburg Keystone Line. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, through the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, owns track in Massachusetts, but the line is dispatched and maintained by Amtrak. 4 Finally the State of Connecticut owns the Metro-North section of the corridor, which is dispatched and maintained by MetroNorth. Typically each track owner prioritizes its own trains and needs over those of other operators, and communication among operators can be poor. Amtrak often holds back commuter trains to allow its own trains to pass. Past Amtrak capital improvements aimed to expedite intercity trains, sometimes at the expense of commuter traffic. For instance, the Connecticut Department of Transportation was forced to reduce its Shore Line East service to New London in 2003 so that Amtrak could add additional Boston-New York Acela trips. 5 Similarly, Metro-North

126

09 - Implementation: Governance & Financing

often delays Amtrak traffic on the segment that it controls and never upgrades the line for faster intercity service. While the line is adequate for existing commuter rail, Amtrak trains never reach speeds above 90 miles per hour on the Metro-North segment. In fact, tight track spacing on Metro-North means that Amtrak cannot use the Acela’s tilt mechanism on the line, reducing speeds around curves and slowing travel times. Today’s fractured Northeast Corridor governance and ownertenant relationships lead to delayed trains and a planning process that has not been responsive to the needs of all rail operators. Finally, today’s intercity passenger service is inadequate. While Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor has the best intercity service in the country, service quality pales in comparison to the international competition. Amtrak’s trains run infrequently, are slow and unreliable, and ticket prices are relatively high. Amtrak’s congressionally mandated operational goals seek to maximize profit on Northeast Corridor trains; high ticket prices come at the expense of building ridership. Since the states have no direct way to influence Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor operations, Amtrak’s primary policy objective in the corridor is to maximize its revenue to support its national system. Past capital improvements, including the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project in the early 1980s and the New Haven-Boston electrification in the 1990s, sought to upgrade the line for fast passenger trains, diverting through freight trains to parallel routes. Unfortunately, these projects were never fully implemented, and the fast trip-times proposed for intercity trains never met. 6

Rochester

CASE STUDY

Appalachian Regional Commission: A FederalState Partnership The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a federal-state partnership that promotes economic development in a 205,000-squaremile, 13-state region that stretches from southern New York to northern Mississippi. Designed to combat the region’s entrenched poverty and underdevelopment, ARC is governed by 14 commission members: one federal co-chair and the governor of each state served by the commission. ARC awards grants to support infrastructure projects, education and health programs. The commission relies on federal funding, but projects are implemented by state and local agencies as well as nonprofits. The ARC is a federal-state partnership model that could be partially emulated in the Northeast. 7

Syracuse

Buffalo

Schenectady Albany y

Boston

Worcester Springfield Hartford

Poughkeepsie

Providence

New Haven

New York Newark

Harrisburg

Trenton

Lancaster

Philadelphia

NEC Track Owners s

Washington

CSX Transportation New England Central

Appalachian Mountains. 8

Norfolk Southern Pan Am Railways

Amtrak

Wilmington

Baltimore

Canadian Pacific

Ho ost Ra ailroads

Stamford

Connecticut DOT MBTA Commuter Rail MTA Metro-North

NEC Infrastructure Ownership: a number of different entities with different missions and overlapping jurisdictions.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

127

The existing governing bodies must evolve in order to rebuild the railroad to be more responsive to the needs of the Northeast Megaregion. The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) created the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission (NECIOAC), which will “promote mutual cooperation and planning pertaining to the rail operations and related activities of the Northeast Corridor.” 9 The body is composed of representatives of the Federal Railroad Administration, Amtrak, the eight states served by the line and the District of Columbia, with the FRA and Amtrak controlling the majority of seats. Freight railroads share a nonvoting seat on the board. The NECIOAC is currently charged with overseeing the state-of-good-repair-focused Northeast Corridor Master Plan and could evolve into a body with greater planning and operating responsibilities. 10

THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR COMMISSION The proposed Northeast Corridor Commission (NECC) will be a robust governing institution for the corridor. The commission will be a federal-state partnership, evolving from the existing Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission. The new NECC will coordinate the planning and design of the new corridor, oversee the programmatic environmental impact statement, build and maintain

Federal Railroad Administration

DE NY

MA PA

Northeast Corridor Commission

Amtrak + Other Rail Operating Companies

Planning and Design

Construction

Dispatching

Maintenance

A new governance model: The Northeast Corridor Commission can achieve the fundamental goals of building high-speed rail in the NEC, preserving unified corridor operations, increasing states’ involvement, balancing operators’ needs, obtaining dedicated revenue streams, and successfully competing for federal HSR grants.

128

09 - Implementation: Governance & Financing

the new line, and centralize operations and dispatching in a way that will ensure operational neutrality. While the NECC will oversee the construction of the new line, actual work may be carried out by Amtrak, a state or the private sector. Property acquisition will be handled by Amtrak or the states, which already have the power of eminent domain. The NECC will be controlled by Amtrak, the Federal Railroad Administration and the states served by the Northeast Corridor. The majority of seats on the current NECIOAC are held by Amtrak and the FRA, ensuring continued federal oversight of the Northeast Corridor, a key asset for interstate transportation services. Each of the eight states served by the line and the District of Columbia has one seat, and the seven freight carriers that serve the line will have nonvoting representation. The NECIOAC’s board composition will be left in place for the new NECC, giving all stakeholders governance responsibility but retaining federal control to ensure continuity and balance the states’ needs. The NECC will be responsible for operating the Northeast Corridor, planning and building the new alignment, and maintaining both the existing and new railroads. Additionally, the NECC will oversee the completion of a state-of-good-repair program on the existing railroad but actual work may be carried out by the existing operators, Amtrak and Metro-North, which have considerable expertise with the line’s infrastructure. The new NECC will oversee planning and design for the new alignment, although work may be carried out by Amtrak, state agencies or the private sector. Amtrak (and the states in state-owned sections) may retain legal ownership of the line, but all rights and responsibilities for operations will be ceded to the NECC, in return for the NECC assuming responsibility for capital and operating costs on the entire corridor. This arrangement is similar to the existing governance structure on the Massachusetts portion of the corridor, where Amtrak is responsible for operating the state-owned line. 11 New high-speed bypasses could be owned by the NECC, Amtrak or a state transportation agency, but would be operated by the NECC. Consolidated operations and planning will ensure the continued viability of the Northeast Corridor; complete devolution to the states would rob the line of its unified nature, its greatest asset as a passenger line. Even if the tracks were technically owned by state agencies, the NECC would retain dispatching and planning powers for the line, enabling neutrality in operations and preserving the line’s interstate nature. All existing train operators, and potential future open-access companies, would pay trackage rights fees to the NECC to cover the operating and maintenance costs of the line. Stations could be operated by the existing operators, and new facilities, such as the proposed Charles Center Station in Baltimore, could be built by local redevelopment agencies. Finally, the NECC would have the ability to deal with contingencies, ensuring project completion, even in climates of fiscal uncertainty.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

CASE STUDY

Moynihan Station Development Corporation New York’s Moynihan Station Development Corporation (MSDC) is building the new Moynihan Station in Midtown Manhattan. A subsidiary of the Empire State Development Corporation, the state’s development agency, MSDC recently received federal TIGER funds to complete phase one of the project. MSDC is a local development agency charged with building HSR-related infrastructure. 12 As a development agency, MSDC has the experience to coordinate the project’s construction, work with private developers and oversee the build-out of the neighborhood. Transit agencies rarely have the development expertise to complete this type of project. In addition, state-chartered redevelopment agencies are exempt from local land use controls and have the power of eminent domain. Like MSDC, similar state-chartered development corporations could receive federal funds to build new high-speed rail stations in Baltimore, Philadelphia and Ronkonkoma.

Proposed Moynihan Station. 13

129

FINANCING HIGH-SPEED RAIL The implementation of a high-speed rail network in the Northeast Corridor is a long-term project, from the planning stages to construction of the infrastructure and continued operation of the system. In order to properly implement HSR, there needs to be a dedicated source of funding that is sustained throughout the life of the proposed HSR system. The existing mechanism for financing improvements in the rail infrastructure of the Northeast is not equipped to undertake the task of building new HSR infrastructure and maintaining it over the long time frame of the project. In order to build and maintain the proposed HSR network, there needs to be a system for dedicated and sustainable financing that can handle the long time frame, large costs and complicated jurisdictional structure of building in the Northeast Megaregion. This report proposes that the Northeast Corridor Commission (NECC) should have the ability to fund HSR through a dedicated HSR trust fund, and the authority to issue guarantees in order to open select parts of the infrastructure market to private investment. EXISTING FUNDING MECHANISMS The existing mechanism for funding rail in the NEC is fragmented and based on short-term needs. The complicated ownership structure of the existing line divides maintenance responsibilities among different operators that have separate funding sources. The majority of the NEC line is owned by Amtrak, which is funded through yearly appropriations from Congress and is sensitive to political will. The funding that Amtrak receives is sufficient only to operate the system for a year and not enough to maintain a state of good repair or deal with contingencies. The profit that Amtrak receives from ticket sales in the Northeast Corridor cannot be used for improvements to the system, but instead subsidizes Amtrak service in other areas of the U.S. Other owner-operators like Metro-North receive funding from state governments. This funding approach does not promote a longrange strategy that allows for long-term investments of the kind being proposed in this report. 14 HSR AS NEW INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION In the Northeast Corridor, the construction of two dedicated HSR tracks from Boston to Washington will represent a 21st-century infrastructure investment analogous to the construction of the Interstate Highway System in the period from 1956-â&#x20AC;&#x2122;90. 15

130

09 - Implementation: Governance & Financing

HSR infrastructure will create new relationships between cities and enable new opportunities for economic development throughout the megaregion. It will benefit not only HSR passengers, but everyone living and working in the Northeast, including nonusers who benefit from the increased capacity of conventional travel modes and from new economic development opportunities. These region-wide benefits make the NECC an ideal authority to provide the funding needed for the proposed HSR investment. 16 NECC AS LEADING FINANCIER In order to overcome these funding limitations and generate a dedicated and sustainable source for long-term investment, the NECC could take a leadership role and assume the responsibility of funding the proposed HSR line. The NECC would follow the precedent set by national governments in Europe and Asia that have successfully built HSR systems and provided all or most of the long-term funding necessary for HSR infrastructure. In these countries, HSR became a priority transportation policy, and their transportation budgets were adjusted to reflect the increased need for funding with dedicated allocations from the general fund of the national government. In Spain, for example, half of the national transportation budget through 2030 is dedicated to funding the AVE HSR system. 19

UK (HSR1) Italy Taiwan France South Korea China Germany Japan Russia Spain 0

100

Percent of Public Share

Public share of HSR investment: international comparisons. 18

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

131

LESSON FROM LONDON A Change in Strategy From HS1 to HS2 Influenced by the success of HSR construction in Europe, the United Kingdom financed the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL), the HSR connection between France and the United Kingdom, with a private finance initiative (PFI). This scheme put the financing responsibility on the private sector in this public/private partnership. In 1997, the private sector found that it could not handle the high construction overrun costs and the market risks of the project. The British government stepped in to complete the project by restructuring the PFI and transferring the project to High Speed 1, Ltd (HS1), a government subsidiary company, through a long-term lease. High Speed 1, Ltd was assigned full responsibility for design, construction and management of the rail assets as well as the redevelopment of St. Pancras and nearby excess rail lands. Provision of rail service, including a high-speed domestic commuter rail service (the “Javelin”) as well as the trans-channel service to Europe, remained the responsibility of rail operators. The British government also issued guarantees for the financing of HSR and funded the purchase of risk insurance. HS1 managed the risks and responsibilities of building HSR by combining conventional rail with innovative engineering techniques and unbundling the infrastructure from rolling stock and operations to provide new opportunities for private sector investment. 17 (continued on next page)

When the public sector has not taken on the primary role in paying for HSR construction, there have been delays in completing HSR systems and private investors have gotten into financial trouble. Eventually, the public sector had to step in and restructure the financing of these HSR systems, like in Taiwan and Italy. 20 The Taiwanese HSR system illustrates the challenges of using public/ private partnership strategies (P3s) to finance HSR projects. This system was initially completely financed through the private sector. The Taiwan HSR Corporation used bank debt to pay for the infrastructure of the line. After the infrastructure was completed and the line opened for operation, the initial revenue could not cover the repayment of the loan. After two years of operation, the Taiwanese government refinanced this debt and took over control of the HSR system. 21 Similarly, 60 percent of the Italian HSR system was funded through debt purchased by the private sector. As construction costs increased and the time frame for completion of the project was delayed, expected profits decreased and the private investors backed out. These precedents make it unlikely that the private sector would take on a majority of HSR infrastructure funding. 22 Following the financial crisis of 2008-’09, it is even less likely that the private sector will take on the burden of HSR infrastructure funding, If and when these conditions change, however, there could be opportunities for P3s in HSR infrastructure development.

NECC HSR TRUST FUND The NECC can raise the capital needed for a long-term HSR investment through a HSR Trust Fund. The HSR Trust Fund could receive money from the general fund, collect regional taxes, issue bonds and appropriately allocate this money for HSR funding. GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS The dedicated HSR Trust Fund would be analogous to the Federal Highway Trust Fund, which facilitates HSR investment over a period of many years. Most other countries building HSR systems have used general funds to finance these investments. A similar approach in the U.S. would require that Congress provide annual appropriations, which would always be subject to political influence and potential disruptions. To solve this funding constraint, the federal government could create a national infrastructure bank or capital budget to finance the national HSR system and other priority infrastructure investments to permit both

132

09 - Implementation: Governance & Financing

large initial investment and sustained long-term financing from its general fund. This could be a source for the large up-front costs needed for HSR infrastructure construction. 23 FEDERAL-STATE MATCH PROGRAM As with the federal-state matching program of the Interstate Highway system, the states of the Northeast Corridor could contribute a small proportion of funding to match the NECC contribution for HSR infrastructure. This mechanism for financing HSR and local transit was established by the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act of 2008 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The continuation of this policy and the availability of federal financing, up to 90 percent of the project cost, would incentivize states to participate in the whole enterprise and to raise the remaining 10 percent of capital needed to build the HSR system. 24 SUSTAINED FUNDING FROM TAXES Additional methods for funding the HSR Trust Fund could be through a combination of financing measures that consider the long-term project costs and the need for sustained, yearly cash flows. These could include taxes and tolls or fees levied on the whole Northeast Megaregion or on communities and passengers directly benefiting from this investment. The fees could include HSR user fees, a station-area sales tax or other value-recapture measure, tolls on interstate highways in the Northeast, a regional value-added tax, carbon or gasoline tax, or a tax on vehicle miles travelled in the megaregion. 25 This funding could be used for maintaining the system and operations because the funding is continual. The smaller amount of funding that is generated suits the reduced funding need when the system becomes operational.

LESSON FROM LONDON A Change in Strategy From HS1 to HS2 (continued) Due to the availability of capital in the market and this project management strategy, HS1 was able to raise private investment through refinancing, producing attractive returns to private investors. The redevelopment of St. Pancras Station, for example, is generating net income in the range of 12 million pounds per annum, and HS1 executives believe that the assets created can be monetized to create returns to the government for its funding. In March 2010 the British government announced its intention to proceed with High Speed 2 (HS2). The HS2 White Paper acknowledged that the funding for HS2 will have to come from a dedicated, government source. This new approach to HSR financing reflects the changed circumstances both in the United Kingdom and globally, in which private investors can no longer be expected to take on the high construction costs and risks associated with building HSR infrastructure. Opportunities for some private investment, in rolling stock and/or station developments, are being further considered. 17

When funds are raised from these sources, the funding mechanism must be able to adjust to changes in maintenance and operating costs. In order to guarantee a continued revenue stream over the life of the project, the tax rates for all the funding streams must be adjusted to reflect the changes in the real price and match the financing need. In this way the money that is raised for the HSR Trust Fund could keep pace with the changing maintenance and operation costs. 26 BOND FINANCING Bond financing is a mechanism to raise money for HSR construction that could work in conjunction with the strategies described above. Any bonds that are floated should be completely guaranteed by the NECC and the federal government in order to create security among investors

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

133

for their contribution to the investment. Bond financing could be used to pay for both instrastructure construction and maintenance costs. 27 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING FOR STATIONS AND TRANSIT After the HSR infrastructure is built, the real estate value surrounding HSR stations will not immediately increase. Improvements to local transit services will be required so that HSR is conveniently connected to its passengers. Further improvements will be needed in station areas across metropolitan regions to promote new economic activity and real estate development. A potential funding source for these projects would be tax increment financing (TIF) by cities. Floating municipal bonds and borrowing against the future value of the real estate in station areas could generate the funding needed to create the local transit connections needed to complement HSR and overcome the barriers to real estate development in station areas. 28 POTENT IAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS The opportunities for private sector investment in HSR are limited. The nature of the investment has high upfront costs, estimated at $98.1 billion, and significant construction and market risks that would make finance and construction of the system inappropriate for a public/private partnership transaction. The timeframe of the HSR project is too long for the private sector to realize benefits from the increased ridership of passengers and station development. Moreover, station development is unlikely to occur because there are high cost barriers to station-area development. These existing conditions make HSR investment too risky for the private sector. Once the public sector funding mechanism for HSR is established, there may be opportunities for private sector investment to overcome these barriers and invest in certain phases of the project. Investment could be matched with government guarantees to mitigate the risks of infrastructure investment. HSR OPERATION PARTNERSHIPS Public-private partnerships established after the HSR infrastructure has been built will allow the government to recapture value from its investment. Public-private opportunities could occur through long-term operating leases of the infrastructure with the private sector. In the UK, for example, the British government expects to recapture 40 percent of its total capital investment in the HS1 rail link between Kent and London through a 49-year lease of the line to a private group that will operate

134

09 - Implementation: Governance & Financing

and maintain this HSR route. 29 Other potential operational partnerships could occur with airlines, like the partnership between Deutche Bahn and Lufthansa on Germanyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ICE system. This approach would ensure a long-term cash flow from HSR for the government. 30 The switch to a private operator would also take off the pressure of public financing for maintenance and operations in case the public financing that is generated cannot meet the increasing operational demands of the HSR system. INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT GUARANTEES Private investment for the construction of HSR and local transit could be generated through a program that guarantees loans for institutional and private investors. This precedent of government guarantees for generating private infrastructure financing was established through the Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act of 1998. Expanding this program could activate investment in HSR. 31 STATION-AREA DEVELOPMENT Station-area development also provides prospects for public-private partnerships. The sale or lease of development rights from the NECCowned HSR line to public or private groups in districts surrounding HSR stations could provide the added land value to make development feasible. 32 Transfers of development rights would need to be coordinated with other policies to overcome the high cost of development in station areas and the lack of demand for station-area commercial space. An opportunity zone, created by a state or city government, which reduces taxes for both the real estate owners and tenants, could be used to attract new development. The transfer of development rights and the presence of the Keystone Opportunity Improvement Zone in a difficultto-develop area around 30th Street Station helped Brandywine Realty Trust overcome development barriers to successfully build the Cira Centre. If used elsewhere in the Northeast, this technique would, of course, reduce tax revenues that might otherwise go toward TIF financing of HSR or related local transit investments. 33 The implementation of HSR in the Northeast Corridor is a responsibility that needs to be assumed by the public sector because it can absorb the high upfront costs and manage the risks of infrastructure investment. After the public sector has taken on the financing of HSR, opportunities could emerge for private sector investment. The value recaptured from the resulting public/private partnerships could provide a mechanism for reinvestment in HSR or investments in further economic growth.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

135

LESSON FROM LONDON Lord Adonis: Building Political Leadership for HS2 The United Kingdom built the world’s first railway but, like the United States, is a laggard when it comes to building high-speed rail. While mainland European nations such as France, Germany and Spain have vast national HSR systems, the U.K.’s only operational HSR line connects London with the Channel Tunnel. Busy routes that connect major domestic cities still run on conventional Victorian-era alignments. This studio was fortunate enough to be in London when the U.K.’s secretary of state for transport, Lord Andrew Adonis, announced the government’s decision to proceed with the HS2 link from London to Birmingham, the first phase in a project that will eventually extend HSR to Scotland. Lord Adonis played a critical role in gaining political support from all three major parties for this project. Lord Adonis, when meeting with us, emphasized the need for strong political leadership and grand vision to generate strong popular support for HSR. Projects of this size and scale can be successful only when they have support from across the political spectrum and the backing of a leader who is willing to stake his or her career on the success of the project. While HS2 in the U.K. is years away from becoming operational, Adonis was able to garner support from all major political parties, advancing the cause of HSR in the United Kingdom. 35

136

POLITICAL LEADERSHIP Large infrastructure projects need champions to guide them through a challenging political climate. Because ambitious projects like high-speed rail take decades to complete, longer than a politician’s term in office, elected officials may be hesitant to support such projects. Far-sighted leaders can provide the vision necessary to generate strong public support for a complicated project and serve as a strong advocate for the project. In the United Kingdom, where high-speed rail languished for years, both major political parties now support HS2, a north-south line that will connect the nation’s largest cities. While previous studies found that a north-south high-speed rail line would not be economically beneficial, members of both major political parties now cite HSR’s broader economic benefits and support HSR. Andrew Adonis, the secretary of state for transport, demonstrated that HSR would expand labor markets and strengthen agglomeration economies in Birmingham and the surrounding West Midlands region. HSR is expensive, Adonis admitted, but will provide transportation capacity that is sufficient to accommodate projected growth at a far lower cost than doing so with expanded airports or highways. In addition, HSR not only is the most energy-efficient transportation mode but also will do the most to integrate the U.K.’s labor markets and urban economies. Weaker cities may have the most to gain from the accessibility benefits of HSR. When building HS1, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, rail planners in the U.K. had municipalities compete for stations. Such competition helped overcome local political opposition and NIMBY concerns, and ensured that localities would enact HSR-supportive land use planning, transit connections and development policies. In the United States, President Obama and transportation secretary Ray LaHood are both committed to building a HSR system. Still, they have not yet developed a long-range financing mechanism or the bipartisan political consensus needed to build this system over the coming decades. For Northeast HSR to proceed it will require sustained political leadership from mayors, governors and members of Congress in the megaregion. One or more of these individuals will need to capture the bold vision behind the project and use it to build public and political support for the decade or more needed to complete the project. To succeed in building this support, they will need to advance the full range of transportation, economic, social, environmental, energy and other benefits the project will provide. And they will also need to identify the benefits that will accrue to every city and metropolitan area affected by the project and use this to build grassroots support across the megaregion. 36 In the United States, this grassroots support is an essential and necessary complement to leadership.

09 - Implementation: Governance & Financing

CONCLUSION The authors of this report strongly advocate the implementation of high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor as the key to unlocking the economic growth and competitive advantage of the Northeast Megaregion. At the same time, investment in high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor is but one element among several high-speed rail networks serving America’s 10 other megaregions as part of a national rail plan, which can transform the connectivity, economic geography and performance of the entire country. With the federal government committed to high-speed rail, the country is poised to take up the challenge of such a substantial, transformative new infrastructure project—one that can and will fundamentally change the way our cities work. The 21st-century narrative will be one not of global cities, but of global megaregions. When megaregions work as unified markets, strongly linked internally and externally, as many of our European and Asian counterparts already do, they can achieve the investment and innovation necessary to compete on an international stage. For the past two centuries, each generation of Americans has embraced the latest transportation mode to shape the country’s mobility systems and with them, the nation’s destiny. Now is the time for American highspeed rail that will sustain the country’s economic potential through the 21st century. By building the nation’s premier world-class high-speed rail network, the Northeast can lead the way.

High-Speed Rail: moving towards a more connected, more competitive future.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

137

Crossrail: Heavenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Gate, UK

APPENDICES Appendix A:

Capital Costs

Appendix B:

Ridership Projections

Appendix C:

Benefit-Cost Analysis

Appendix D:

Presentation

139

APPENDIX A: CAPITAL COSTS All unit capital costs are adapted from the California High-Speed Train Projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation. Unit costs are adjusted to reflect 2010 dollars and Northeast prices. Some of the larger capital projects are special cases, and those cost estimates are adjusted to the appropriate scale. UNIT PRICE COST ELEMENTS

UNIT

(2010)

Track Items Double Track Section - Total Double Track Section - At-Grade

$2,069,156

Double Track Section - On Structure

$3,913,116

Double Track Section - In Tunnel or Subway

$3,913,116

Double Track Section - In Trench

$3,913,116

Single Track Section - At Grade

$1,034,578

Single Track Section - Total Single Track Section - On Structure

$1,956,558

Single Track Sections - In Tunnel or Subway

$1,956,558

Single Track Section - In Trench

$1,956,558

Structures, Tunnels, Walls

140

Standard Structure

$28,613,172

High Structure

$34,335,807

Long Span Structure

$78,288,818

Waterway Crossing - Primary

$60,161,568

Waterway Crossing - Secondary (Irrigation/Canal Crossing)

Twin Single Track Drill & Blast (<6 Miles)

$156,338,292

Twin Single Track TBM (<6 Miles)

$115,554,389

Twin Single Track TBM w/3rd Tube (>6 Miles)

$164,268,495

$48,166,418

Double Track Drill & Blast

$174,464,470

Double Track Mined (Soft Soil)

$200,520,852

Seismic Chamber (Drill & Blast/Mined)

$122,729,335

Crossovers

$122,729,335

Cut & Cover Double Track Tunnel

$100,260,426

Trench Short

$103,479,155

Trench Long

$81,820,727

Mechanical & Electrical for Tunnels

$4,023,785

Retaining Walls

$9,166,813

Containment Walls

$3,126,254

Single Track Cut and Cover Subway

$62,662,766

Appendices

UNIT PRICE COST ELEMENTS

UNIT

(2010)

Grade Separations Street Overcrossing HSR - (Urban)

Street Overcrossing HSR - (Suburban)

$8,395,828

Street Overcrossing HSR - (Undeveloped)

$1,415,767

$22,224,251

Street Undercrossing HSR - (Urban)

$23,211,996

Street Undercrossing HSR - (Suburban)

$8,889,700

Street Undercrossing HSR - (Undeveloped)

$1,498,079

Minor crossing closures

$230,474

Building Items Stations

$25,000,000 $5,000,000,000

Right-of-Way Items Right-of-Way Required for Each Segment Dense Urban

acres

$2,151,308

Urban

acres

$1,434,205

Dense Suburban

acres

$717,103

Suburban

acres

$250,986

Undeveloped

acres

$179,276

Dense Urban

acres

$2,151,308

Urban

acres

$1,434,205

Dense Suburban

acres

$717,103

Suburban

acres

$250,986

Undeveloped

acres

$179,276

Right-of-Way Required for Passenger Station & Parking Facilities

System Elements Signaling (ATC)

$1,761,830

Communications (w/Fiber Optic Backbone)

$1,457,152

Wayside Protection System

$139,887

Traction Power Supply

$900,785

Traction Power Distribution

$1,679,699

Electrification Items

Rail Junctions Trainset

$50,000,000 $1,000,000,000

Vehicle Costs Trainset

$150,000,000

Overhead/Project Management 25% of capital costs

Environmental Mitigation 3% of capital costs

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

141

APPENDIX B: RIDERSHIP PROJECTIONS 2008 BASELINE Proposed HSR Route Boston South Station

Market Size

2040 ESTIMATES

Ridership

Low Scenario

High Scenario

3,135,103

1,393,691

3,792,425

1,647,125

2,141,263

2,470,688

Boston Back Bay

659,909

424,605

757,059

487,114

608,893

706,315

Riverside/Rte. 128

450,000

303,681

530,901

358,277

490,839

573,243

Eastborough/I-495

494,159

296,496

525,871

315,522

432,265

504,835

1,058,133

211,627

1,259,376

251,875

345,069

403,000

185,906

37,181

259,830

51,966

71,193

83,146

1,467,547

293,509

1,553,421

310,684

425,637

497,094

Worcester Tolland/UConn Hartford Meriden New Haven

640,531

76,864

759,000

91,080

124,780

145,728

1,035,092

705,458

1,165,239

822,145

1,126,339

1,315,432

Terryville/SUNY Stony Brook

297,037

59,407

363,229

68,438

93,760

109,501

Ronkonkoma/MacArthur Airport

524,070

183,424

649,452

227,308

311,412

363,693

Farmingdale/Rte. 110

504,070

75,610

609,452

91,418

125,243

146,269

Nassau Hub

504,070

100,814

609,452

121,890

166,989

195,024

6,657,258

998,589

7,736,371

1,160,456

1,508,593

1,740,684

New York Moynihan Station

5,388,327

8,512,800

6,311,355

10,359,869

13,467,830

15,539,804

Newark Penn Station

2,269,576

667,700

2,438,316

717,343

896,679

1,040,147

341,000

115,400

431,000

152,528

190,660

221,166

1,109,675

406,287

1,549,124

567,183

708,979

822,415

New Brunswick

322,158

38,659

446,090

53,531

66,914

77,620

Princeton Junction

544,372

65,325

758,799

91,056

113,820

132,031

1,105,025

444,000

1,366,576

549,091

686,364

796,182

996,762

99,676

1,147,719

114,772

143,465

166,419

4,257,868

3,877,000

5,224,746

4,757,391

6,184,608

7,136,087

500,000

318,000

635,000

489,600

612,000

709,920

1,209,493

718,800

1,570,332

933,246

1,166,558

1,353,207 84,425

New York Jamaica Station

Newark Liberty International Airport Metropark

Trenton Cornwell Heights Philadelphia Market East Station Philadelphia International Airport Wilmington Newark, Del.

344,057

34,406

582,236

58,224

72,780

Aberdeen

939,518

42,639

1,294,973

58,771

73,464

85,218

1,675,196

986,000

2,016,259

1,217,618

1,582,903

1,826,427

BWI Airport

849,850

617,700

1,311,024

952,898

1,191,123

1,381,702

Odenton

256,395

64,099

295,000

73,750

92,188

106,938

New Carrollton

2,142,637

199,300

2,791,720

259,675

324,594

376,529

Washington, D.C. Union Station

3,579,424

4,327,000

6,066,466

7,333,470

9,533,511

11,000,205

45,444,218

26,695,747

56,807,813

34,745,314

45,080,711

52,111,092

Baltimore Charles Center

Sub-Total

2008 BASELINE Existing Shore Line Route

Market Size

2040 ESTIMATES

Ridership

Market Size

Ridership

Westwood/Rte. 128

2,090,764

366,649

2,584,001

453,146

Providence

1,934,547

599,000

2,236,757

692,574

West Kingston

231,190

158,400

306,276

209,845

Westerly

146,845

36,430

168,031

41,686

Stonington/Mystic

146,845

19,272

168,031

22,053

New London

236,578

168,800

305,012

217,628

Old Saybrook

384,122

65,470

446,485

76,099

Bridgeport

726,095

75,487

854,657

88,852

1,407,444

363,400

1,679,019

433,520

856,619

86,862

1,098,213

111,360

8,161,049

1,939,770

9,846,482

2,346,763

53,605,267

28,635,517

66,654,295

37,092,077

47,427,474

54,457,855

Stamford New Rochelle Sub-Total GRAND TOTAL

142

Market Size

Appendices

APPENDIX C: BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS DISCOUNT RATE A social discount rate of four percent was used as the interest rate for finding the value of money at different future times. This rate was determined based on a review of cost-benefit analyses for transportation projects like the California HSR, Greengauge 21 and Omega Centre studies. REVENUE HSR revenue is generated from the operating costs needed for projected ridership of 55 million passengers in 2030. The revenue assumes a 17 percent return on the operating costs. This return will garner interest from private sector investment. Regular rail revenue change is based on a 30 percent shift in ridership from Amtrak Regional Rail service to HSR. This 30 percent reduction was applied to Amtrak profits for the Northeast Corridor and adjusted to 2030 future values at a four percent rate. BENEFITS The travel time savings, foregone death and injury (safety), improved capacity and highway decongestion were not readily quantifiable for the Northeast Corridor. As a result, the benefit values determined in the California HSR cost-benefit analysis and the Greengauge 21 cost-benefit analysis were scaled to the Northeast Corridor study area and projected ridership. The Greengauge 21 values were converted from British pounds to 2010 U.S. dollars and adjusted from future values in 2055 to future values in 2030. The carbon emission reduction value is based on the value generated in the sustainability chapter of this report. The amount of carbon metric tons saved from the projected use of HSR was multiplied by the value that metric tons were traded at according to the Chicago Climate Exchange in 2008. This value was adjusted to 2030 values. COSTS The infrastructure/rolling stock and construction inconvenience costs were calculated based on the capital costs determined by the HSR design. The operations were determined based on Amtrak operational costs per track mile in 2010 and adjusted to 2030 values, with an interest rate of four percent.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

143

APPENDIX D: PRESENTATION The following are slides from a presentation given at the U.S. Department of Transportation on May 11, 2010. An electronic version is available at http://studio.design.upenn.edu/hsr/.

144

Appendices

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

145

146

Appendices

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

147

148

Appendices

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

149

150

Appendices

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

151

152

Appendices

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

153

154

Appendices

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

155

156

Appendices

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

157

158

REFERENCES AND CITATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Vogel, J. M. (2009, October 09). Connecting Europe At High Speed. Retrieved May 09, 2010, from Jeroen M. A. Vogel’s Blog: http://jeroenmavogel.files.wordpress. com/2009/09/tgv1.jpg

CHAPTER 2: ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2009 2. Uniting People, Places & Systems: Megalopolis Unbound, April 2006 http://www. america2050.org/pdf/UPenn2006StudioReport_final.pdf 3. U.S. Census Bureau, TIGER/Line files (US Census Bureau) 4. Northeast Megaregion 2050, A Common Future, November 2007 http://www.rpa.org/ pdf/Northeast_Report_sm.pdf 5. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2003). Dreaming With BRICs: The Path to 2050. 6. USGS Land Cover Institute. (2010, May). The USGS Land Cover Institute. Retrieved April 10, 2010, from http://landcover.usgs.gov/ 7. TCRP Report 74, (2000). The Costs of Sprawl. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. 8. RPA, America 2050 (GIS data used for report) 9. Northeast Megaregion 2050, A Common Future, November 2007 http://www.rpa. org/pdf/Northeast_Report_sm.pdf 10. Mayor’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability. PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York. April, 2007. 11. Uniting People, Places & Systems: Megalopolis Unbound. 12. Central Intelligence Agency. (2010). CIA-The World Factbook. Retrieved April 10, 2010, from Central Intelligence Agency: https://www.cia.gov/library/ publications/the-world-factbook/index.html 13. Ibid. 14. Ibid. 15. Uniting People, Places & Systems: Megalopolis Unbound, April 2006 http://www. america2050.org/pdf/UPenn2006StudioReport_final.pdf

159

16. Reinventing Megalopolis: The Northeast MegaRegion, Spring 2005 http:// america2050.org/pdf/reinventingmegalopolis.pdf 17. Academic Ranking of World Universities. (n.d.). Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU). Retrieved April 10, 2010, from Academic Ranking of World Univerisities : http://www.arwu.org/ 18. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2004). Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics Survey. Retrieved March 3, 2010, from Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov; Image from Regional Plan Association. (2007, November 7). Northeast Megaregion 2050: A Common Future. Retrieved March 3, 2010, from Regional Plan Association: http://www.rpa.org/pdf/Northeast_Report_ sm.pdf 19. The Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan, October 2009 - (pdf) 20. Airport congestion data provided by the Regional Plan Association; Congestion GIS layers from: National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD) 2009: Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) Polyline Shapefiles 21. Beauchamp, D., & Warren, R. (2009). Transportation Policy and Governance in the Northeast Corridor: An Overview of Major Public Agencies. Univ. of Delaware Transportation Center. 22. US Census Bureau, 2000 Decennial Census data (SF3); graphic inspiration from http://www.infrastructurist.com/2010/02/18/how-do-americans-get-to-worktransit-patterns-in-major-cities/ 23. Fulton, W., Pendall, R., Nguyen, M., & Harrison, A. (2001). Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Differ Across the U.S. Texas Transprotation Institute . (2009). TTI Urban Mobility Report. University of Transportation Center for Mobility. 24. Ibid. 25. Presentation to the Studio by Kip Berkstrom, Executive Director, Urban Redevelopment Commission of Stamford, Conn. 26. Fulton, Pendall, Nguyen & Harrison. Who Sprawls Most? 27. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). US Environmental Agency. Retrieved April 10, 2010, from EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/ 28. Data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 29. Tomer, A., and Puentes, R. Brookings Institution, Metropolitan Policy Program. (2009). Expect Delays: An Analysis of Air Travel Trends in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. Retrieved from http://www. brookings.edu/reports/2009/1008_air_travel_tomer_puentes.aspx 30. Ibid. 31. Ibid. 32. Amtrak. The Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan, October 2009. 33. Ibid. 34. Information from the Washington Metro Transportation Authority, http://www. wmata.com, and the Maryland Transit Administration, http://mta.maryland.gov. 35. Information from the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, http:// www.septa.org, and New Jersey Transit, http://www.njtransit.com. 36. Information from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, http://mta.info/, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, http://www.panynj.gov/path/, and New Jersey Transit, http://www.njtransit.com. 37. Information from the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, http://www.

160

Executive Summary

mbta.com. 38. Amtrak. The Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan, October 2009. 39. Ibid. 40. Ibid.; Information on the busiest Amtrak stations are from the 2009 Amtrak State Fact Sheets for the individual states along the Northeast Corridor. 41. Amtrak. The Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan, October 2009. 42. Ibid. 43. Ibid. 44. Travel times are current as of April 2010 for regularly scheduled services on Amtrak.com. 45. Average travel speeds calculated by dividing station distances by travel times. 46. Travel time information on the AVE and Shinkensen systems was obtained from their respective ticketing websites, and represent currently operating service as of April, 2010. Average speeds were calculated for the Madrid-Barcelona and Toyko-Osaka city pairs. 47. Amtrak. The Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan, October 2009. 48. Ibid. 49. Ibid. 50. Ibid. 51. Ibid. 52. Ibid. 53. Ibid. 54. Ibid. 55. Ibid. 56. Ibid.

CHAPTER 3: DESIGNING A HIGH-SPEED RAIL SERVICE First page image credit: Taiwanese High-speed rail train. photo available via creative commons from flickr user “yeowatzup”. Available at: http://www.flickr.com/ photos/yeowatzup/2364604496/sizes/o/ 1. R. Clifford Black (2005). The Acela Express. Japan Railway & Transport Review. April 12, 2010. 2. Amtrak Track Charts, provided by Foster Nichols, Jr. of Parsons Brinckerhoff. 3. Amtrak. State Fact Sheets. April 12, 2010, From: www.amtrak.com/ servlet/ContentServer?c=AM_Content_C&pagename=am/ Layout&cid=1241267288095. 4. Greater London Authority. The London Plan. April 12, 2010. From: www.london. gov.uk/thelondonplan/docs/londonplan08.pdf. 5. Fyra brand for Amsterdam—Brussels high speed. “Railway Gazette International”. April 7, 2010. From: www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/10/fyrabrand-for-amsterdam-brussels-high-speed.html. 6. Transport for London. Resources and Investments. April 12, 2010. From: www.tfl. gov.uk.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

161

CHAPTER 4: DESIGNING LOCAL AND REGIONAL CONNECTIONS 1. [Photograph of DC Circulator Banner]. Flickr user rllayman. Retrieved from http://www.flickr.com/photos/rrlayman/ 2. District Department of Transportation. (January 2010). DC Circulator Ridership Data Report. Washington, D.C. 3. [Traffic calming in Amsterdam image]. World Changing blog. Retrieved from http:// www.worldchanging.com/archives/007750.html 4. [Portland streetcar image] ProTransit Cincinnati. Retrieved from http:// arecycledbin.blogspot.com/2009/07/streetcar-film-short-version.html 5. [Philadelphia bike lane image]. Flickr user K_Gradinger. Retrieved from http:// streetsblog.net/2009/12/14/assessing-the-spruce-and-pine-bike-victory/ 6. ZipCar: Green Benefits. Retrieved from http://www.zipcar.com/is-it/greenbenefits 7. Mayor of London. (2008). The London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations Since 2004). Greater London Authority. 8. [Image of London PTAL]. Ibid. 9. Archer, C. [E-ZPass Express lane.] Retrieved from NJMonthly Magazine online, October 6, 2008 10. [Based on organizational chart of Verkehrsverbund Berlin-Brandenburg]. Auf dem besten Weg in die Zukunft. Berlin, 2010. 11. Pucher, John and Ralph Buehler. “Sustainable Transportation That Works: Lessons from Germany.” World Transport Policy and Practice 15.1 (2009): 13 - 46. 12. Bay Area Regional Rail Plan: Local & Regional Transit Connections Survey. EarthTech, DMJM Harris, AECOM. April 12, 2007. 13. Pucher, John and Stefan Kurth. “Verkehrsverbund: The Success of Regional Public Transport in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.” Transport Policy 2.4 (1996): 279 - 291. 14. Appleby, Tristan. [Legible London Sign at Waterloo image] Retrieved from http:// www.flickr.com/photos/14880766@N02/4511188520/ 15. [SEPTA 30th Street Station Main Entrance]. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/30th_Street_%28SEPTA_station%29 16. Bohlin Cywinski Jackson/Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Station Square Planning Study. City of Philadelphia, 2008 17. Ibid. 18. [NJ Transit Capital Connection logo]. NJ Transit Capital Connection Schedule, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.njtransit.com/pdf/bus/T1601.pdf 19. Van Tosh, R. (2010). [Images of Union Station, New Haven, Conn.] 20. New Haven Parking Authority, ConnDOT, Jones Lang LaSalle. New Haven Union Station Transit-Oriented Development Study. City of New Haven, 2008. 21. New Haven Streetcar Assessment. Prepared by I Stone Consulting & Design and TranSystems. April 2008. 22. [Bikeshelter DC image]. Retrieved from http://www.bikestation.org/DCproject. asp 23. [Parnell Place Bus Terminal image]. Retrieved from http://www.ridge.ie/index. php/contract/focus/bus_station_cork/ 24. Van Tosh, R., 2010. [Image of New Haven bus shelter].

162

Executive Summary

CHAPTER 5: REDESIGNING STATIONS AND STATION AREAS 1 . Grand Central Terminal . (2010, April 15). Grand Central Terminal . Retrieved April 15, 2010, from History : http://grandcentralterminal.com/

2. Ibid. 3. Hagler, Y. (2009, October 19). New York Transportation Journal. Retrieved April 15, 2010, from The Northeast Megaregion: A Stronger Future with High Speed Rail: ttp://wagner.nyu.edu/rudincenter/journal/2009/10/the-northeast-megaregiona-stronger-future-with-high-speed-rail/ 4. Miller, C. (2009, November 1). The American Conservative . Retrieved April 15, 2010, from Shopped Out: The Changing Face of American Retail: http://www. amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00032/ Hagler, 5. Kevin Spencer (Photographer). (2008). Grand Central Station [Photograph], from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/vek/2479060375/ 6. Union Station Washington DC. (2010, April 15). Union Station. (T. U. Jones Lang LaSalle, Producer) Retrieved April 15, 2010, from History: http://www. unionstationdc.com/history.aspx 7. Diana Cornely. (2010). Union Station Retail and Public Space [Photograph], May 7, 2010. 8. St. Pancras International . (2010, April 20). Retrieved April 20, 2010, from http:// www.stpancras.com/ 9. Chapman, P. (2010, March 10). Managing Director, High-speed Rail 1 . (S. Zapata and D. Cornely, Interviewers) 10. Diana Cornely. (2010). St. Pancras Retail and Public Space [Photograph], May 7, 2010. 11. A rendering of the proposed Moynihan Station [Photograph]. From: http://www. streetsblog.org/2010/02/16/moynihan-station-is-the-first-big-tiger-stimulus12. Regional Plan Association . (2005, November ). Rebirth of a Gateway: Moynihan Station. 13. Friends of Moynihan Station. (2010, April 15). Friends of Moynihan Station . Retrieved April 15, 2010, from A Narrative History: http://www. moynihanstation.org/newsite/ 14. Ibid. 15. Diana Cornely. (2010). Penn Station [Photograph], May 7, 2010. 16. The Urban Land Institute. (2008). Hartford, Connecticut: Redeveloping an Urban Gateway. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Land Institute. 17. AntyDiluvian (Photographer). (2007). South Station A-Frame [Photograph], from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/antydiluvian/442992639/ 18. Google Inc. (2009). Google Earth (Version 5.1.3533.1731) [Software]. Available from http://earth.google.com/ 19. Gunts, E. (2009, May 29). Inn Pulls Into Station: Amtrak Plans Hotel in Area Tagged For Revitalization. The Baltimore Sun. 20. Newman, P., & Thornley, A. (1995). Euralille: Boosterism at the Centre of Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies , 2 (3), 237-246. 21. Tiry, T. (1999). From Lille-Flanders to Lille-Europe- The Evolution of a Railway Station. Japan Railway and Transport Review , 20, 44-49. 22. Diana Cornely. (2010). Euralille [Photograph], May 7, 2010.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

163

23. Amtrak. (2008). Connecting America: Safer, Greener, Healthier (Amtrak Annual Report 2008). Washington, D.C. 24. University of Pennsylvania. (2007-2010). PennConnects: -- Cira Centre South Overview. Retrieved 04 15, 2010, from PennConnects: http://www. pennconnects.upenn.edu/find_a_project/in_construction/in_construction_a_ to_f/cira_centre_south_overview.php 25. Image on page 85: Real Capital Analytics. (2010, April 15). Real Capital Analytics. Retrieved April 15, 2010, from Philadelphia : http://www.rcanalytics.com/ trends.aspx 26. Image on page 93:Camden Yards, Baltimore (Photograph). (2010). April 15, 2010, from: 15http://www.iskenderiye.net/images/Oriole%20Park%20at%20 Camden%20Yards,%20Baltimore,%20Maryland.jpg 27. Image on page 93: Calatrava,-Liege (Photograph). (2010). April 15, 2010, from: http://www.archinect.com/images/uploads/ForArchinect-Calatrava-Liege_ COneil+JCarlos_001x.jpg 28. Images on page 93: Baltimore Inner Harbor (Photograph). (2010). April 15, 2010, from: http://image04.webshots.com/4/0/23/75/53702375MOSMpK_fs.jpg 29. Image on page 93: City Parks Foundation (Photograph). (2010). April 15, 2010, from: http://cityparksfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/kiddie-fun.jpg

CHAPTER 6: SUSTAINABILITY 1. [untitled photo of NJ pinelands]. Retrieved April 15, 2010, from: http://www. packetinsider.com/blog/nature/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/idyllic-lakeoswego-pine-barrens-07-04-09.jpg 2. [untitled photo of Wilmington, DE skyline]. Retrieved April 15, 2010, from: http:// dealbreaker.com/_old/2009/11/02/wilmington.jpg 3. [untitled photo of community march]. Retrieved April 15, 2010, from: http://farm3. static.flickr.com/ 4. Coffin, A. W. (2007, September). From roadkill to road ecology: A review of the ecological effects of roads. Journal of Transport Geography, 15(5), 396-406. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_ tockey=%23TOC%236032%232007%23999849994%23665618%23FLA%23&_ cdi=6032&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000022721&_version=1&_ urlVersion=0&_userid=489256&md5=ea257933d02f4a87251c81171fc74b42 5. Ibid. p. 396. 6. [untitled photo of mixed-use in Boston, MA]. Retrieved May 4, 2010, from: https:// www.communicationsmgr.com/projects/1347/Multimedia/Gallery/Boston.jpg 7. About Smart Growth. (2010). Smart Growth Online. Retrieved April, 2010, from Smart Growth Network website: http://www.smartgrowth.org/about/default. asp?res=1280 8. Federal Railroad Administration. (2009, October). Preliminary National Rail Plan. p. 16. 9. Nonpoint Source Pollution: The Nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Largest Water Quality Problem. (2010). Polluted Runoff. Retrieved April, 2010, from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website: http://www.epa.gov/nps/facts/point1.htm 10. Stormwater Program. (2009). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Retrieved April, 2010, from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=6 11. Storm water from our roads and drainage ditches. (2010). St. Johnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s River Water

164

Executive Summary

Management District. Retrieved April, 2010, from http://sjr.state.fl.us/pollution/ runoff-stormwater.html 12. Table data adapted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance Specifying Management Measurements for Sources of Non Point Pollution in Coastal Waters, Washington, D.C.: Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997 and Federal Highway Administration.Sources and Mitigation of Highway Runoff Pollutants, Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration. 13. Data for chart from: Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Draft U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report. Washington D.C. 14. Ibid. 15. Center for Clean Air Policy, Center for Neighborhood Technology. (2006). High Speed Rail and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the U.S. Washington, D.C. 16. Hamilton, K., Sjardin, M., & Shapiro, A. (2009). Fortifying the Foundation: State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets. Ecosystem Marketplace and New Carbon Finance . 17. University Of Delaware (1999, August 17). Smog Impacts: Hurtling Through Airways, Tiny Particles May Do More Damage Than Previously Assumed. ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 22, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/ releases/1999/08/990817065736.htm 18. Wang LY, Zhong Y, Wheeler L. Direct and Indirect Costs of Asthma in School-Age Children. Prev Chronic Dis. 2005 Jan;2(1):A11. 19. Manjeet Dhuga, asthma educator [Photograph]. (2008). Retrieved April 10, 2010 from: http://www.hospitalnews.com/modules/magazines/mag. asp?ID=3&IID=113&AID=1441 20. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (2008). Transportation Statistics Annual Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration. 21. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2008). International Energy Annual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. 22. Bernanke, B. S. (1997). Systematic Monetary Policy and the Effects of Oil Price Shocks. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity , 91-157. 23. Currie, G., & Phung, J. (2007). Transit Ridership, Auto Gas Prices, and World Events: New Drivers of Change? Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board , 3-10. 24. Northeast. (2010). America 2050: Megaregions. Retrieved April, 2010, from America 2050 website: http://www.america2050.org/northeast.html 25. World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2002). The Business Case for Sustainable Development. Switzerland: World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 26. Fortune 500. (2010). 100 Best Companies to Work For. Retrieved March 23, 2010, from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2010/ snapshots/1.html 27. [untitled photo of suburban sprawl]. Retrieved May 7, 2010, from: http://www. mbl.edu/news/features/images/aerial.jpg 28. Center for Neighborhood Technology. (2010). Pennywise pound fuelish: New measures of housing and transportation affordability. Chicago: Center for Neighborhood Technology. 29. Ibid. 30. [untitled photo of Madison Street in Jersey City]. Retrieved April 28, 2010,

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

165

from: http://lh3.ggpht.com/_st7m2N2fviI/R_C-uB9qDwI/AAAAAAAAAc0/ JuXcLKoCA7k/Madison+Street+in+Jersey+City.jpg 31. Holzer, H., & Lermen, L. (2007). America’s Forgotten Middle-Skill Jobs. Washington D.C.: The Workforce Alliance. 32. Center for Neighborhood Technology. (2010). Pennywise pound fuelish: New measures of housing and transportation affordability. Chicago: Center for Neighborhood Technology. 33. [untitled photo of suburban sprawl]. Retrieved May 7, 2010, from: http://www.mbl. edu/news/features/images/aerial.jpg 34. Rhodes, Elizabeth. New Mortgage Rewards Those Who Take The Bus. 14 November 1999. 1 May 2010 <http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date =19991114&slug=2995194>. 35. [untitled photo of New York Subway riders]. Retrieved May 7, 2010, from: http:// truthpraiseandhelp.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/subway-by-buddy-don.jpg. 36. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (2008). Transportation Statistics Annual Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research ans Innovative Technology Administration. 37. Lowe, M. D. (1994). Back on Track: The Global Rail Revival. Washington: Worldwatch Institute.

CHAPTER 7: THE TRANSFORMATIVE POTENTIAL OF HIGHSPEED RAIL 1. Icopythat, Subway Ghosts [photograph]. (2005) Retrieved May 5, 2010 from: http:// www.flickr.com/photos/icopythat/3445744/sizes/o/ 2. R. Purushothaman, D. W. (2003). Dreaming With BRICs: The Path to 2050. Goldman Sachs, New York. 3. Chen, C.-L., & Hall, P. (2009). The Impacts of High-Speed Trains on British Economic Geography: A Study of the UK’s IC125/225 and its Effects. London: University College London. 4. Glaeser, E. (2010, April 13). Why Humanity Loves, and Needs, Cities. The New York Times. 5. Ibid. 6. Greengauge 21. (2009). Fast forward a high-speed rail strategy for Britain. Greengauge 7. Ibid, 16. 8. Bartik, T. J., & Erickcek, G. (2007). Higher Education, the Health Care Industry and Metropolitan Regional Economic Development: What Can “Eds & Meds” Do for the Economic Fortunes of a Metro Area’s Residents? Kalamazoo: The W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. 9. Ibid., 3. 10. Greengauge 21 (2009), 62. 11. Chen, Hall, 16. 12. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). Metropolitan Unemployment Rate. Retrieved April 2010, from Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov 13. Ibid. 14. Ibid. 15. Center for Neighborhood Technology. (2010). Pennywise pound fuelish: New

166

Executive Summary

measures of housing and transportation affordability. Chicago: Center for Neighborhood Technology. 16. Ibid, 4. 17. Holzer, H., & Lermen, L. (2007). America’s Forgotten Middle-Skill Jobs. Washington D.C.: The Workforce Alliance. 18. Center for Neighborhood Technology. (2010) 19. Joffley, Friday Night Commute [photograph]. (2010) Retrieved April 30, 2010 from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/joffley/4317951647/sizes/o/#cc_license

CHAPTER 8: COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS 1. US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. (2007, August 27). Economic Analysis Primer. Retrieved April 2010, from FHWA Asset Management: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/primer05.cfm 2. Littman, T. (2009). Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs. Victoria Public Transport Insitute. 3. De Rus, G., & Inglada, V. (1997). Cost-benefit analysis of the high-speed train in Spain. Annals of Regional Science , 175-188. 4. Amtrak. (2010). FY 2010-2014 Five Year Financial Plan. 5. Cambridge Systematics. Benefit Cost Analysis. California High Speed Rail Authority. 6. Center for Clean Air Policy & Center for Neighborhood Technology. (2006). High Speed Rail and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 7. Chicago Climate Exchange. (n.d.). Chicago Climate Exchange. Retrieved 2010, from www.chicagoclimate.com 8. Greengauge 21. (2009). Fast Forward A High Speed Rail Strategy for Britain. Retrieved 2010, from www.greengauge21.net 9. Eddington, R. (2006). The Case for Action: Sir Rod Eddington’s Advice to Government. London: UK Department of Transport. 10. Cambridge Systematics. Benefit Cost Analysis. California High Speed Rail Authority. 11. Cambridge Systematics. Benefit Cost Analysis. California High Speed Rail Authority. 12. Greengauge 21. (2009). Fast Forward A High Speed Rail Strategy for Britain. Retrieved 2010, from www.greengauge21.ne 13. Eddington, R. (2006). The Case for Action: Sir Rod Eddington’s Advice to Government. London: UK Department of Transport. 14. US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. (2007, August 27). Economic Analysis Primer. Retrieved April 2010, from FHWA Asset Management: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/primer05.cfm 15. Wenban-Smith, A. (2009). Report to GreenGauge 21: Complementary measures to facilitate regional economic benefits. 16. Wilson, D., & Purushothaman, R. (2003). Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050. Goldman Sachs. 17. Omega Centre. (2008). Project Profile UK Channel Tunnel Rail Link. London: University College London Bartlett School of Planning. 18. Eddington, R. (2006). The Case for Action: Sir Rod Eddington’s Advice to Government. London: UK Department of Transport. 19. Omega Centre. (2008). Project Profile UK Channel Tunnel Rail Link. London: University College London Bartlett School of Planning.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

167

CHAPTER 9: IMPLEMENTATION 1. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, (2010). Retrieved from http:// www.panynj.gov 2. Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center, (2006). Northeast corridor action plan: a call for a new federal-state partnership. Retrieved from http://policy.rutgers.edu/ vtc/reports/REPORTS/NECAP.pdf. 3. Amtrak. (2009, October 21). An interim assessment of achieving improved trip times on the northeast corridor. Retrieved from www.amtrak.com/servlet/ BlobServer?blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobkey=id&blobw here=1249200685700&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1 =Content-disposition&blobheadervalue1=attachment;filename=Amtrak_ AmtrakNortheastCorridorAssessment.pdf. 4. Amtrak. (2009, 15 April). Northeast corridor state of good repair spend plan. Retrieved from http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobcol=urldata&b lobtable=MungoBlobs&blobkey=id&blobwhere=1249200493941&blobheader= application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-disposition&blobheadervalue1 =attachment;filename=Amtrak_NEC_StateOfGoodRepair_PRIIA.pdf. 5. Freemark, Y. (2009, September 9). Getting the price right: how much should high-speed fares cost?. Retrieved from http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/08/ getting-the-price-right-how-much-should-high-speed-fares-cost/. 6. NEC Master Plan Working Group. (2009). The Northeast corridor infrastructure master plan [Draft Version 1.0, October 2009]. 7. (GW Bridge Image: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2289/2047206968_888e4d80 ff_o.jpg)(Appalachian Mountain Images: http://5ridgefield.files.wordpress. com/2008/09/grandfathermountain.jpg) 8. Image from: http://5ridgefield.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/grandfathermountain. jpg 9. Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act of 2008. Retrieved from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_ bills&docid=f:h6003ih.txt.pdf. 10. Ibid. 11. Roth, D, & Aggarwala, R. (2002). Whose Railroad is this anyway? Opportunities and challenges in regionalizing the northeast corridor. Transportation research record, 1785. Retrieved from http://trb.metapress.com/content/f155m366242202k7/ fulltext, 3. 12. (Moynihan Station Image: source Empire State Development Corporation/http:// www.empire.state.ny.us/Subsidiaries_Projects/images/Moynihan2.jpg) 13. Empire State Development Corporation/http://www.empire.state.ny.us/ Subsidiaries_Projects/images/Moynihan2.jpg 14. Amtrak. (2010). FY2010-2014 Five Year Financial Plan. 15. National Surface Transportation Board. (2008). Transportation for Tomorrow: Report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. 16. Chapman, P. (2010, March 6). HS1 Ltd. 17. Omega Centre. (2008). Project Profile UK Channel Tunnel Rail Link. London: University College London Bartlett School of Planning. 18. Ernst & Young. (2009). International case studies on delivery and financing â&#x20AC;&#x201C;a report for HS2. London.

168

Executive Summary

19. Ibid. 20. Ibid. 21. Ibid. 22. Ibid. 23. National Surface Transportation Board. (2008). Transportation for Tomorrow: Report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. 24. Ibid. 25. Brown, K. (2007). Are Public-Private Transactions the Future of Infrastructure Finance. Public Works Management & Policy , 320-324. 26. National Surface Transportation Board. (2008). Transportation for Tomorrow: Report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. 27. Brown, K. (2007). Are Public-Private Transactions the Future of Infrastructure Finance. Public Works Management & Policy , 320-324. 27. Sweeney, G. (2010, February 19). President, Chief Executive Officer of Brandywine Realty Trust. 28. Chapman, P. (2010, March 6). HS1 Ltd. 29. Ernst & Young. (2009). International case studies on delivery and financing â&#x20AC;&#x201C;a report for HS2. London. 30. 23 USC 601-609 - SAFETEA LU Section(s): 1601 31. Chapman, P. (2010, March 6). HS1 Ltd. 32. 23 USC 601-609 - SAFETEA LU Section(s): 1601 33. Papageorge, A., Sehnert, P., & Kocent, M. (2010, February 12). University of Pennsylvania Facilities and Real Estate Services. 34. Ibid. 35. Omega Centre. (2008). Project Profile UK Channel Tunnel Rail Link. London: University College London Bartlett School of Planning.

GIS DATA SOURCES To complete the studio analysis and large parts of the proposed design solutions, a significant amount of GIS data was used, which came from a number of different sources. The major providers of this data are as follows:

Regional Plan Association (America 2050): political and administrative

boundaries, demographics, land use, open space, and the entire transportation network across many different modes.

U.S. Census Bureau: demographic and administrative data through TIGER/Line files.

ESRI: public data for aerial photography (World Imagery) and street network analysis (U.S. Street Map).

U.S. Geological Survey: land cover and bathymetry data. Wharton GIS Lab: Northeast business data. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Association (DVRPC): regional transportation systems.

MAKING HIGH-SPEED RAIL WORK IN THE NORTHEAST MEGAREGION

169