Business Alliance for Northeast Mobility

The U.K. Moves Ahead With High-Speed Rail. Can the U.S. Follow?

2012-02-03T19:00:00Z

While high-speed rail has struggled to secure adequate financing in the U.S., in Britain, the government has given the green light to begin construction on the country's second bullet train. The U.K. government's decision to move forward with the controversial project offers important lessons as the U.S. pursues its own high-speed rail corridors in California and the Northeast.

]]> In proposing the new high-speed line, which will link London to Birmingham in under an hour, the U.K. government sought to emphasize the project's lasting economic and environmental benefits. A government evaluation analyzing the economic costs and benefits of the project showed that every $1 invested in the $29 billion first phase of the London-Birmingham line will generate $1.70 in overall economic benefit. That figure includes a category dubbed "wider economic impacts," a measure used commonly in Europe, but far less often in the U.S., to calculate indirect benefits to society. For example, it might factor in the economic gains that emerge when high-speed rail increases a region's competitiveness and productivity and draws businesses to concentrate along the rail corridor.

With that assessment in hand, economists and transportation planners were able to make a case to the general public and business communities that the decades-long project would pay huge dividends over the long term. Including a measure of wider economic benefits in studies in the U.S. would make it easier to make a more complete case for high-speed rail projects.

One advantage the U.K. has is that it has already successfully built high-speed rail. The first line, known has High Speed 1, opened in 2007, connecting the Channel Tunnel to London. The line's operations and maintenance responsibilities were sold as a concession in 2010 to a consortium of Canadian pension funds, allowing the U.K. to recoup about one-third of its initial investment. The train operators pay fees to use the tracks, creating a revenue stream that is then used to maintain the infrastructure and provide a return to the investors. This deal demonstrates the feasibility of attracting private financing to high-speed rail projects.

In contrast, the U.S. is still awaiting its first high-speed line. The Northeast Corridor stretching from Washington, D.C. to Boston has characteristics similar to the U.K.'s busiest rail route, the West Coast Main Line. The two corridors have comparable lengths: the Northeast Corridor is 455 miles long and the West Coast Main Line stretches nearly 400 miles from London to Glasgow. They also serve similar-size populations and economies: the Northeast megaregion is home to about 52 million people and has an economy valued at $2.9 trillion; England has 52 million residents and a $2.2 trillion economy.

In the late 1990's, the U.K. decided to upgrade the West Coast Main Line at a cost of $20 billion, disrupting traffic on the corridor for more than 10 years. When the overhaul was completed in 2008, the line was already near capacity again. To address future demand on the line, the U.K. has now chosen to embark on its High Speed 2 project, building two dedicated tracks connecting London, the West Midlands and northern England, securing much-needed capacity and transforming intercity travel in the U.K.

The Northeast Corridor also is operating at or near capacity along several segments and has an enormous backlog of critical infrastructure projects. In 2010, Amtrak and states in the Northeast completed a report that concluded $52 billion of investment is needed to bring the corridor back to a state of good repair (much of the normal maintenance on the corridor has been neglected for years, due to battles over Amtrak funding in Congress) and meet capacity needs over the next 20 years. These improvements would probably take until 2030 to complete on the corridor, which serves nearly three-quarters of a million passengers each day. What the U.K. experience upgrading the West Coast Main Line shows is that incremental improvements alone might not suffice, and that pursuing high-speed rail is the most effective way to deal with capacity constraints on the corridor.

In 2011, Amtrak released a high-speed rail plan for the Northeast, proposing two dedicated tracks to run the length of the corridor. The new line would dramatically increase passenger capacity and reduce travel times to 90 minutes from New York to Washington, D.C. and to 100 minutes from New York to Boston. The project is estimated to cost $117 billion over 20 years and is still in the conceptual phase.

Whether the U.S. and the Northeast opt for an ambitious vision of high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor will be determined by a variety of factors, including the outcome of the presidential and congressional races, progress on the California project, and an environmental impact study on the Northeast Corridor to begin this year.

As the U.S. endeavors to introduce high-speed rail, the U.K. government's push for the London-Birmingham line suggests that a concerted effort to explain the economic benefits could jump-start the effort here. But as in the U.K., proponents of high-speed rail in the U.S. will need to overcome major concerns about the country's financial constraints and deep skepticism about infrastructure projects that take decades to complete.

This article, written by Dan Schned, Associate Planner, and Petra Todorovich, Director, RPA's America 2050 initiative, was originally published in Spotlight on the Region.

Images: www.go-hs2.com

White House Fast Tracks Northeast Corridor Environmental Review

2012-01-19T18:36:30Z

The White House Council on Environmental Quality recently selected the Northeast Corridor's environmental review process, which will begin early this year, as a case study in a new pilot program that seeks to pioneer new ways of speeding the delivery of important infrastructure projects. This will allow projects to fix and upgrade the existing rail corridor and construct a new high-speed rail line to begin more quickly, creating much needed jobs, improving rail service, and generating enormous economic benefits for the Northeast Megaregion over time. The Business Alliance for Northeast Mobility applauds the selection of the Northeast Corridor for an expedited environmental review. We hope further time-saving techniques can be found and pioneered in the Northeast that can be applied to similar environmental studies around the country, aiding our national economic recovery.

]]> The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), signed into law by President Richard Nixon over forty years ago, is the solid foundation of all of our national environmental policies and is often referred to as the Magna Carta of the modern environmental movement. Despite the strong regulatory framework that it created and the flexibility it provides agencies to complete robust, expeditious environmental reviews that involve the public, leading to more informed decision making, the actual implementation of the law has devolved significantly over the years.

It now commonly takes large, complex, or controversial projects five years or more to complete the environmental review process. This is mainly due to the over-analyzing of environmental impacts because of the ever present threat of litigation, antiquated agency procedures that lead to duplication of work, lack of communication, and administrative bottlenecks, and a lack of staff and resource capacity at the implementing agencies.

Earlier this year, the White House Council on Environmental Quality created the NEPA Pilot Program, a new initiative that aims to modernize the implementation within federal agencies of the environmental review process. The NEPA Pilot Program sought to select five projects that aim to use new, creative techniques to increase the transparency and accountability of the process in an effort to shorten the time it takes to complete and improve citizen participation, leading to more informed decision making. Federal agencies nominated 38 projects around the country that proposed new, innovative, more efficient and effective approaches to NEPA implementation. The Northeast Corridor tier 1 environmental impact statement project was submitted by the Federal Railroad Administration, which is managing the process.

The Federal Railroad Administration intends to use the Northeast Corridor EIS process as a pilot project to "showcase how early involvement and outreach in the development of Tier 1 analysis of a rail corridor crossing multiple states and federal jurisdictions can provide time and cost savings when performing Tier 2 analysis at the project level." So, this pilot project may not save significant amounts of time during the initial tier 1 EIS at the programmatic-level, but the early scoping and coordination among federal agencies that are involved proposed by the Federal Railroad Administration is expected to save time during the next phase of the NEPA process, the tier 2 project-level analyses.

The FRA will engage state and federal resource agencies, and other stakeholders at the outset of the tier 1 process in order to establish environmental goals that all participants can agree to as a baseline. This ensures that environmental protections are built into the tier 2 process, which should help avoid potential conflicts that can slow projects down. It should also result in greater information sharing, transparency, and accountability that make environmental reviews more efficient.

It is hoped that the Northeast Corridor tier 1 EIS process and the innovative techniques that are utilized can be a model for other large-scale, multi-state, tiered environmental studies.

Read more about the NEPA Pilot Program and the Northeast Corridor tier 1 EIS pilot project (PDF).

Business Alliance Plans for 2012

2012-01-06T23:11:41Z

Best Wishes to All for a Happy New Year!

This year will be a defining time for the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak is set to release an update to its high-speed rail proposal within the next few weeks, followed by a detailed financial and business plan for the Northeast Corridor by mid-year. The first phase of the corridor-wide environmental review process will get under way. The International Union of Railways is hosting the 8th World Congress on High-Speed Rail in Philadelphia in July.

So, we thought we'd start the year off with a couple of New Years Resolutions for the Business Alliance for Northeast Mobility. Over the coming months, the Business Alliance plans to work with members of Congress, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and Amtrak to make sure that when the 113th Congress meets for the first time in January 2013, it will be ready to make substantial investments in our passenger rail network in order to increase the Northeast Megaregion's global competitiveness. Read more about our goals for 2012 after the break.

]]> We have ambitious goals for the new year. In 2012, we plan to...

Launch our campaign to build consensus for a world-class, high-speed rail project in the Northeast Corridor. Click here for more details.
Secure funds for priority upgrades to the Northeast Corridor's existing passenger rail network.
Secure funds for the first phase of a true, high-speed rail service on the Northeast Corridor.
Double our membership from 50 to 100 members. Can you help by joining today?

Join the Business Alliance Today!

Continue showing your support in 2012 for upgrading our passenger rail network and advancing a true high-speed rail vision that will handle the next generation of travel in the Northeast by officially joining the Business Alliance today.

Joining the Business Alliance involves:

Participating in the debate,
Contacting legislators and the media, and
Spreading the word to colleagues, partners, and friends.

A strong coalition of business leaders is a powerful voice in convincing Congress that we need to invest in passenger rail in the Northeast. By joining the Business Alliance for Northeast Mobility, you will help us achieve our common goal of upgrading the region's deteriorating passenger rail network and advancing an ambitious vision for true, world-class high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor in order to make the Northeast a more attractive place to do business. By 2050, the Northeast will add about 18.5 million new residents and could make enormous economic gains as well. However, this rapid growth will require investments that create new capacity in our transportation system.

The Business Alliance welcomes private companies, such as banks, universities, hospitals, law firms, developers, engineers, architects, planners, and builders, as well as chambers of commerce, convention and visitors bureaus, and other economic development and planning organizations. For more information about our mission, goals, accomplishments, and activities, visit our website at www.NortheastBizAlliance.org/about. If your organization is interested in joining, or if you know of an organization that would be interested in joining, please contact Dan Schned, at DSchned@NortheastBizAlliance.org or (917) 546-4307.

Business Alliance Successes in 2011

2012-01-06T22:34:35Z

Last year, the Business Alliance for Northeast Mobility worked hard to convince Congress, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and Amtrak to invest in passenger rail infrastructure in the Northeast Megaregion and expand the capacity by developing a world-class high-speed rail line. This advocacy work contributed to several major successes. Read about all of the highlights from last year after the jump.

]]> In March, our advocacy helped secure the Northeast Corridor's official federal designation as a High-Speed Rail Corridor. This made Amtrak eligible for funding through the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program. Members of the alliance contacted legislators and testified at a House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Field Hearing on High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor. Learn more about the Northeast Corridor's high-speed rail designation.

In May, nearly $1 billion worth of high-speed rail grants was directed to the Northeast Megaregion to fix critical bottlenecks on our regional passenger rail network, and increase the speed and reliability of intercity service. The Northeast Corridor received almost $800 million for two important projects: 1) Major upgrades to track and overhead catenary wires in New Jersey, and 2) A new flyover at Harold Interlocking in Queens, NY, the busiest railroad interlocking in North America, which will separate Amtrak and Long Island Railroad trains at Sunnyside Yards. Learn more about these two important passenger rail projects in the Northeast.

This spring, a graduate studio at the University of Pennsylvania led by PennDesign Dean Marilyn Taylor and Regional Plan Association President and Business Alliance Co-Chair Bob Yaro published a new report about implementing a high-speed rail line in the Northeast Corridor. The students worked with a team of experts exploring the difficult and complex issues of governance, finance, intermodal connectivity, station area revitalization, and economic development. Several members of the Business Alliance served as expert advisers to the studio team and attended the final presentation of their report. Learn more about Northeast Corridor high-speed rail proposals.

In July, the Business Alliance launched the Back on Track: Northeast blog, focused on tracking progress toward implementing a world-class high-speed rail system on the Northeast Corridor, exploring the broad array of practical and political challenges, and making the case for fixing our existing passenger rail system and creating a faster, more reliable conventional rail service. Learn more about Back on Track: Northeast.

This winter, Amtrak announced the creation of a new business division, Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Investment Development, that will be solely devoted to all of the funding, policy, and planning decisions related to improving the existing rail infrastructure and the development of a world-class high-speed rail service on the Northeast Corridor. This bold step by Amtrak, which was recommended in the PennDesign report, lays the groundwork for a more efficient rail management structure that will help expedite the development and implementation of high-speed rail, and maximize the Northeast Corridor's potential. Learn more about Amtrak's new business unit.

$15 million for Amtrak's Gateway Project

2011-12-06T00:40:01Z

On November 18th, Congress passed a 2012 "minibus" bill, H.R. 2112, and President Obama signed it into law the next day, which included $15 million to begin designing a new rail tunnel into Manhattan.

The minibus bill combined several annual spending bills, including the FY 2012 Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development appropriations bill and a continuing resolution that funds the government through December 16th. The final version of the bill was not very rail-friendly, but it could have been a lot worse. The bill provides no new funding for high-speed and intercity passenger rail grants despite a Senate amendment that would have provided $100 million to the program, which was struck in conference. Amtrak's capital grant was set at $952 million, a small increase from FY 2011, as well as $466 million for operations, a major decrease from the FY 2011 enacted level of $562 million. Fortunately, the bill did not include language that was proposed by the House that would have prevented Amtrak from funding state-supported routes. This provision would have shuttered service on many of these popular routes.

The bill also included a $15 million grant to Amtrak to begin preliminary design and engineering on the Gateway project. This project would consist of building new tracks between Newark Penn Station and Manhattan, new four-track, high-level bridges in New Jersey, replacing of the 100+ year old Portal Bridge, digging two new tunnels under the Hudson River, and expanding Penn Station to the south of Madison Square Garden, including seven new tracks and four new platforms. Eventually, these new platforms would be connected to the existing platforms at Penn Station.

The new tunnels would provide much needed redundancy and operational flexibility for Amtrak and NJ Transit as the existing Trans-Hudson tunnels are aging and will require major structural maintenance in the coming years.

]]> Amtrak President Joe Boardman has said that the Gateway Project is the most crucial element to achieving the agency's vision for high-speed rail and completing the project's first phase--New York to Philadelphia. The existing tunnels, which are used by Amtrak and NJ Transit trains about every two minutes during peak hours, are in dire need of additional capacity. The Gateway Tunnel project would allow the system to operate nearly 50 percent more trains during a typical weekday peak period. Amtrak would be able to operate twelve Northeast Corridor trains, up from four currently. It would also provide NJ Transit with 13 additional trains slots, Metro North Railroad with six, and Long Island Railroad with one. The cost of the project is currently estimated to be $13.5 billion.

Read statements by Senators Lautenberg, Schumer, Menendez, Gillibrand in the announcement of the decision to award the Gateway Tunnel project $15 million.

Images: The Star Ledger

A High-Speed New York City-Philadelphia Rail Link

2011-12-01T22:43:48Z

The first phase of a Northeast Corridor high-speed rail project should connect New York and Philadelphia, Bob Yaro, president of Regional Plan Association, told the audience at a forum on high-speed rail in Philadelphia on Wednesday.

High-speed rail would cut travel times to 34 minutes between New York Penn Station and a new, high-speed rail station in downtown Philadelphia at Market East. This new station would be strategically located at the center of the largest job cluster in the Greater Philadelphia region. This phase of the project would require two new dedicated tracks, new railroad cars, and new tunnels under the Hudson River west of Manhattan and under Center City Philadelphia.

]]> High-speed rail is an expensive undertaking, but it can be paid for using a combination of innovative public financing mechanisms and various forms of private funding. New or reorganized governance structures to manage the Northeast rail corridor and consolidate ownership of the existing infrastructure are needed. Amtrak has already taken bold steps in this direction by creating a new division that is focused on improving the Northeast Corridor's existing rail infrastructure and developing a world-class, high-speed rail service.

Mr. Yaro was joined at the event in Philadelphia by Stephen Gardner, vice president of Amtrak's new Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Investment Development business line, and Paul Levy, president & CEO of Center City District. The event was organized by PenTrans and sponsored by Parsons Brinkerhoff.

EVENT: High-Speed Rail Philadelphia

2011-11-22T14:53:18Z

You are invited to attend the upcoming PenTrans Forum, High-Speed Rail Philadelphia: The Why and the How, on Wednesday, Nov. 30, from 4:30 PM to 6:30 PM at The Down Town Club in Philadelphia, PA. The event is hosted by PenTrans and sponsored by Parsons Brinkerhoff. Bob Yaro, president of Regional Plan Association and co-chair of the Business Alliance for Northeast Mobility, will present a compelling vision for high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor that was developed by the University of Pennsylvania graduate studio Mr. Yaro co-taught with Marilyn Taylor, dean of the Penn School of Design. Two other leading voices on high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor will provide thoughts and reactions: Stephen Gardner, vice president of Amtrak's new Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Investment Development business line, and Paul Levy, president & CEO of Center City District. Please join us in Philadelphia for an exciting discussion.

When:
Wednesday, Nov. 30
4:30 PM - 6:30 PM

Where:
The Down Town Club
600 Chestnut Street (corner of S 6th Street) (directions)
Philadelphia, PA 19106

Contact:
Peter Javsicas, PenTrans
javsicas@pentrans.org
215-205-8157

Amtrak Anounces Northeast Corridor Development Business Line

2011-11-17T19:17:06Z

Amtrak recently announced the creation of a new business line, or division, Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Investment Development, that will be solely devoted to all of the funding, policy, and planning decisions specifically related to improving the existing rail infrastructure and the development of a world-class, high-speed rail service on the NEC. This new business line will consolidate all of Amtrak's current high-speed rail development efforts under this new division. The new business line will be headed up by Stephen Gardner, who was previously Amtrak Vice President of Policy and Development.

This summer, Amtrak released a new strategic plan that lays out the goals of the NEC Development business line. It will be responsible for managing all of the station assets, planning, designing, and engineering new infrastructure, coordinating maintenance and construction, managing and growing the current capacity, and controlling all dispatching services for all railroad operations on the Northeast Corridor. One of the divisions priorities will be to manage Amtrak's investments in high-speed rail technology on the Corridor.

Last year, Amtrak published a vision document that broadly outlined its plans for developing a next generation high-speed rail service in the Northeast Corridor. These new, high-speed trains would be capable of moving Amtrak passengers between New York and Washington, DC in 96 minutes, and New York and Boston in 83 minutes. Both of these trips take over 3 hours by airplane and over 4 by car in good traffic. This vision plan estimated that it could take up to 30 years and cost $117 billion to implement this next generation service on the country's premier rail corridor.

Amtrak also announced that they would release an update to this plan by the end of the year, which is expected to include "new analysis of the conceptual alignment, ridership, revenue, operations and maintenance costs projections, and capital investment needs." It will also proposed a phased implementation plan that will include incremental upgrades to existing infrastructure, capacity improvements, and of course constructing new track, signal, and electrical infrastructure for the high-speed rail service.

]]> Amtrak's new strategic plan outlines the following goals for the new business line:

Safety: Improve safety and security in all areas of the business line by building a culture that minimizes risks for all passengers and employees.
Superior Service: Provide superior service to other Amtrak business lines and external partners by continually seeking ways to improve customer satisfaction.
Financial Performance: Improve financial performance of the Northeast Corridor and other assets by maximizing efficiency and utilization.
Station and Connectivity Improvement: Make travel easier and more attractive for train passengers by improving the appearance and operation of Amtrak-owned stations and increasing opportunities to connect with other travel modes in key markets.
Environmental Improvement: Reduce the impact of Amtrak operations on the environment by reducing energy consumption and improving EPA compliance scores.

It also describes the following strategies for achieving the goals above:

Actively pursue opportunities to grow capacity in the near-term through the use of new technologies and refined operating plans.
Build new partnerships with stakeholders, including federal, state and local governments, global rail industry organizations and the private sector, to secure long-term investments for a world-class high-speed rail corridor.
Develop financial and business plans for the long-term development and expansion of high-speed rail services in accordance with Amtrak's vision for the Northeast Corridor.
Proactively communicate Amtrak's vision for high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor to stakeholders and the public.
Improve relationship with, and financial reimbursement from, commuter agencies that operate service on Amtrak-owned or controlled trackage.

The strategy plan outlines is a separate business line called, Northeast Corridor Operations, that has the sole mission of providing safe, reliable and environmentally sustainable intercity rail service and developing world-class high-speed rail service on the NEC.

Read Amtrak's press release (PDF)

Download Amtrak's Vision for High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor (PDF)

Images: Amtrak

$150 Million for the Empire Corridor

2011-10-14T13:51:44Z

Empire Corridor Project Map
In September, the U.S. DOT reached an agreement with the New York State DOT, Amtrak, and CSX and released the $149.3 million that was awarded to make improvements to passenger rail service on the Empire Corridor. The funds will be used to upgrade service, reduce delays, and improve reliability on this corridor, which is used by several Amtrak routes, including the Empire Service, Lake Shore Limited, Maple Leaf, Adirondack, and Ethan Allen Express.

These funds represent two ARRA grants that were awarded through the FRA's High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program:

1) Empire Corridor Capacity Improvements - $58.1 million
These funds will be used by NYSDOT for final design and construction of the three interrelated upgrades to the Empire Corridor around the Albany-Rensselaer and Schenectady stations. A fourth track will be constructed at the Albany-Rensselaer station to relieve one of the most significant bottlenecks on the corridor. Tracks and turnouts at this station will also be upgraded and realigned to improve reliability, and signal wires on the Hudson Line will be relocated. Finally, Schenectady Station will be completely replaced as part of a broader, downtown revitalization
program.

2) Empire Corridor South: Albany to Schenectady 2nd Track - $91.2 million
NYSDOT will use these funds to add a second mainline track between Albany-Rensselaer and Schenectady stations, where there is currently only one track. This 17-mile stretch, along with several interlockings, represents a significant bottleneck on the corridor. If a train approaches while another train is using the rail line in the opposing direction, it can be forced to wait for up to 26 minutes for the line to clear. NYSDOT will also upgrade existing warning signs, automatic flashers, gates and predictors at grade crossings along this segment of the corridor.

View Empire Corridor HSIPR Projects in a larger map

Both of these grants and their associated improvements will allow for increased speeds and reduced trip times, and improved reliability along the corridor. Reconstructing Schenectady Station will also improve transit and pedestrian connectivity in downtown Schenectady. Construction on all of these projects is expected to begin next summer.

"These unprecedented investments, using American made materials, will improve passenger travel while creating good-paying jobs," said U.S. DOT Secretary Ray LaHood in a press release Friday. "President Obama's bold vision for passenger rail will change transportation in New York and the United States, helping relieve congestion on our roadways and reducing our dependence on foreign oil."

Images: NYS DOT

Amtrak's Vision for NextGen High-Speed Rail on the Northeast Corridor

2011-10-13T20:28:00Z

»Amtrak has a strong vision for high-speed rail that embraces the concept of public-private partnerships, but retains leadership over infrastructure and operations in the Northeast Corridor.

Over the past several posts, Back on Track: Northeast has highlighted the proposal for high-speed rail on the Northeast Corridor by a studio at the University of Pennsylvania (PennDesign), which developed a vision for completing a dedicated, two-track high-speed rail system in just 25 years. While the PennDesign proposal is exciting, it is not the only plan for high-speed rail in the Northeast.

In September 2010, Amtrak released a summary of its own plans to institute a next generation, high-speed rail service in the Northeast Corridor (NEC), in a report entitled, A Vision For High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor (PDF). This report is expected to be followed up with a more detailed plan to be released in the next few months. While there are many similarities between Amtrak's vision and the PennDesign proposal, they differ in several key ways.

For starters, the document that Amtrak has released to the public so far is not as thorough or comprehensive as the PennDesign reports. Amtrak's proposal cannot be considered quite as objective as the one created by the UPenn students, for while the PennDesign proposal does not prescribe who should actually run the service, Amtrak clearly sees itself as the primary intercity rail operator in the corridor and does not recommended anything that would jeopardize that status. Furthermore, while Amtrak studied the alignment proposed by PennDesign and recommended a parallel path from Washington to New York, ultimately Amtrak chose to pursue a route between New York and Boston that is vastly different than the one PennDesign deemed most feasible.

There are many important reasons why the Amtrak proposal is worth strong consideration. First, Amtrak has more experience with passenger rail on the NEC than any other entity, and their high-quality plan is indicative of their NEC expertise. Already, Amtrak has begun pushing its high-speed vision, and has a far-reaching advocacy network and strong political ties in the nation's capital. Furthermore, even if Amtrak does not turn out to be the operator of the future high-speed service, they will continue to operate intercity trains on the NEC for a decade or more as the system is built out. As a result, their proposal will inevitably have a strong influence over the future of the NEC.

Overview of the Amtrak's Next Generation High-Speed Rail Proposal

Alignment: Existing alignment from NYC to DC; new, inland alignment from NYC to BOS
Top Speed: 220 mph
Travel Time: Washington, DC to NYC in 1:36; NYC to Boston in 1:23
Capital Cost: $117 billion
Ridership: 37 million by 2040

Proposed Alignment

Like PennDesign, Amtrak is mindful of the unique design requirements for true, high-speed service, as opposed to those for conventional rail. Amtrak's proposal asserts, that trains need a minimum curve radius of 3 miles to maintain high speeds. In addition, high-speed trains will require about five minutes of acceleration over 16 miles of straight, flat track to reach their top speeds of 220 mph. To solve these challenges, Amtrak envisions a dedicated, 430-mile, two-track system.

Amtrak's proposed southern alignment between NYC and Washington, DC, takes advantage of the existing NEC right-of-way, which already includes long stretches of straight track that can support high-speed operations. Similar to the PennDesign route, the alignment calls for major new tunnels under the cities of Baltimore, Philadelphia and NYC, where an 11.8 mile would be the system's longest.

Southern Alignment

Like PennDesign, Amtrak's vision for the northern high-speed rail alignment is a radical departure from the existing NEC, but the two proposals came to very different conclusions. Amtrak recognizes that, north of NYC, the current NEC alignment is unsuitable for HSR. In Connecticut, west of New Haven (where MetroNorth currently operates) the tracks are already reaching capacity and nearby land development prohibits expansion. East of New Haven, curves in the alignment restrict high-speed service.

Northern Alignment

Amtrak's solution is to send the next generation high-speed trains north from NYC to Westchester County and into western Connecticut via a new, inland route. That route would take advantage of highway alignments that are already under public ownership, including Interstates 84 and 91 in Connecticut, and Interstate 90 in Massachusetts. And while this alignment wouldn't serve Long Island, it would bring intercity service to new communities, specifically the Connecticut cities of Danbury and Waterbury.

Another major feature is the alignment's new, proposed connection between New York Penn Station and Grand Central Terminal. For the first time, the NEC would stop at both of NYC's major train stations and directly connect intercity service to the east side of Midtown Manhattan, where the majority of jobs are located.

Service Pattern

Amtrak envisions four levels of service on the new, high-speed rail system:

HSR Super-Express: Serving the four major hub cities (Washington, DC; Philadelphia; NYC; and Boston).
HSR Express: Serving the four major hubs, along with one of two different combinations of medium-sized cities (Express A or Express B).
HSR Keystone Express: Improved service on the Keystone Corridor between NYC, Philadelphia, and Harrisburg, PA.
HSR Shoreline Express: Improved express service on the coastal route combined with high-speed operations between NYC and Washington, DC.

Like the PennDesign proposal, Amtrak's vision calls for improved regional service on the existing route between NYC and Boston ("Regional" in the map above). In addition, the "HSR Express" service would connect the major Northeast airports (other than JFK and MacArthur Airport, which the PennDesign alignment connects).

A key point of departure from the PennDesign proposal, is Amtrak's treatment of the NEC branch lines. According to Amtrak, high-speed service on the Keystone Corridor and the existing coastal route (the "Shoreline Express" above) would enter the dedicated HSR alignment between NYC and Philadelphia/Washington, DC. The PennDesign proposal recommended that Keystone and coastal service continue to use the existing NEC.

Time Savings

According to Amtrak, average travel speed on the NEC is approximately 62 mph between NYC and Boston and 86 mph between NYC and Washington, DC. The proposed HSR service calls for an average of around 140 mph, with stop speeds of 220 mph. Such service would cut travel time down dramatically on the NEC and make rail extremely competitive with air travel:

In general, these travel times are comparable to those of the PennDesign proposal. Between NYC and Boston they are actually faster, most likely due to the fact that Amtrak's alignment is a shorter route in terms of overall distance.

Cost & Timeline

Amtrak estimates that the total cost of its vision is $117 billion. According to their plan, the entire project could be completed in 30 years time (five years longer than the PennDesign proposal). Amtrak envisions a stair-step approach to implemention, with the first segment in operation between Philadelphia and NYC, then Philadelphia to Washington, DC followed by NYC to Hartford and finally Hartford to Boston. The plan proposes to complete construction of the NYC-Philadelphia segment by 2030 and the remainder of the corridor by 2040.

Ridership & Revenue

According to Amtrak, high-speed rail would significantly increase NEC ridership. By 2040, when the entire system is operational from NYC to Boston, Amtrak's conservative estimates project total NEC ridership of 33.7 million riders, compared to 23.4 million if high-speed rail is not built. Of the 33.7 million, about half would be high-speed rail riders (17.7 million) and half would ride the conventional rail (16 million). Meanwhile, 60% of high-speed rail passengers would be diverted from automobiles and planes.

According to Amtrak, these ridership figures are conservative. If more aggressive projections for population growth and highway congestion are considered, Amtrak projects that ridership would reach up to 43 million by 2040. Still, even at lower, more conservative levels, Amtrak predicts the system will turn a profit. In 2040, the proposal estimates that total revenue will reach $3.29 billion, compared to total estimated annual costs of $1.6 billion.

Financing

Amtrak's vision does not put forward a clear plan for financing their proposed high-speed rail system. Still, Amtrak has indicated that it is interested in utilizing a public-private partnership. In a March 2011 statement to Congress (PDF), Amtrak Vice President for Policy and Development, Stephen Gardner, argued that high-speed rail cannot be completed with private funding alone. Instead, Gardner argued, "federal funding for intercity passenger rail service is the only way to attract - and maintain - private sector participation and financing."

In May 2011, Amtrak announced in a press release (PDF) that it was developing a business plan that would incorporate a public-private partnership. In April, Amtrak released a request for consultants to submit proposals for the development of a business plan for the high-speed rail system. This business plan will include a full plan for financing, construction, and operations. The proposals were due in June and in August Amtrak announced that they had selected a consultant team led by KPMG, in association with Steer Davies Gleave, DWH Strategic Advisors, Sharon Greene & Associates, and TranSystems.

The Role of Amtrak

Amtrak's vision for high-speed rail seeks to reaffirm the national rail corporation as the leader of the Northeast Corridor. While the PennDesign proposal left open the possibility for Amtrak or new, private operators to operate passenger rail service, Amtrak clearly sees its primary role on the NEC continuing on into the future.

For this reason, Amtrak's vision has been the subject of censure by the same voices that have long criticized the national railroad corporation. In June 2011, Rep. John Mica (R-FL), Chairman of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, put forth legislation that would remove Amtrak from the NEC altogether, and replace it with private investors tasked with implementing high-speed rail. When he introduced the legislation, Mica specifically targeted Amtrak, saying that their vision would cost too much, take too long, and continue a pattern of government subsidization that he finds unacceptable.

In June 2011, Amtrak President Joe Boardman responded to this criticism in a hearing before the Mica's committee. Boardman argued that Amtrak should be a part of any high-speed rail plan for the NEC, and that Mica's plan put forth an unrealistic time frame and would actually be more expensive than Amtrak's vision.

Final Thoughts

It is largely this argument - the role of Amtrak - that is shaping the debate about high-speed rail in the NEC. In order for Congress to support major funding, Amtrak must remain open-minded about improving the corridor and capable of embracing some degree of institutional change. It is no surprise that Amtrak envisions a strong role for itself in a plan with its own name in the title, however, the debate must move beyond the same, tired discussion about the failures of publicly-owned railroads.

Still, Amtrak has a better understanding than anyone of the challenges of running a high-speed rail service in the United States. Their proposal is based on decades of experience investing and operating in the NEC. No matter what path is chosen going forward, Amtrak will inevitably need to be involved in some capacity. This proposal is good news because it shows that they are prepared to play a major role in the Northeast's transition to high-speed rail.

Images:
A Vision For High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak. September 2010. Link.

U.S. DOT Obligates $13 Million to Delaware for Rail Projects on the NEC

2011-09-28T19:23:00Z

On Tuesday, the U.S. DOT released a $13.3 million High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program grant to the Delaware DOT. The funds will be used to add a third track just south of the Wilmington, DE station along a 1.5 mile segment of the Northeast Corridor. This will effectively eliminate a major chokepoint, will result in increased speeds, and lead to improved reliability and capacity of Amtrak's intercity and SEPTA's commuter rail services on the corridor. Freight railroads operating on the NEC will also benefit from greater dispatching flexibility. This project also includes improvements to the Newark, DE station.

Four Trains Converge at Ragan Interlocking
(Amtrak, SEPTA, and Norfolk Southern)

In a statement released on Tuesday, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said, "The Obama Administration's historic investment in the Northeast Corridor will modernize its aging railways, dramatically improve its capacity for high-speed rail and create thousands of good-paying jobs by using materials made in the USA."

While the Federal Railroad Adminisitration is chipping in $13.3 million, the Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration are also contributing a combined $38.4 million to this project.

View Delaware NEC Project in a larger map

Image: Live Railroad Radio Communications

PennDesign: Making High-Speed Rail in the Northeast a Reality

2011-09-26T14:35:49Z

We continue to review the PennDesign proposal for high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor. Earlier posts examined the proposal's vision and the argument for making the investment, while the post below summarizes the proposal's major strategies for successful implementation. To learn more about the proposal, see our first post here or visit the PennDesign HSR Studio website.

»In order to make high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor a reality, a 2011 report by the PennDesign HSR Studio proposes making improvements to America's public financing programs and a new, regional public benefits corporation whose sole mission is the success of HSR.

The challenges to completing HSR in the Northeast are immense: the complex institutional framework involving eight states and the District of Columbia, Congress's flagging commitment to transportation infrastructure, and a price tag of approximately $100 billion, to name a few.

The PennDesign proposal aims to address these challenges with clear strategies for construction, finance, governance, and advocacy. The proposal draws upon successful cases in Europe to identify best practices and builds off of existing strategies and institutions already at work in the Northeast. The proposal's recommendation are extremely valuable for advocates, because they provide a realistic set of options for achieving HSR in the NEC.

An Agressive Timeline

The proposal offers an ambitious timeline for completing a HSR line in the NEC. Construction would be completed in phases, with the entire system operational in under 25 years by 2035:

Early action items (environmental review, environmental mitigation, and land acquisition) and improvements to existing NEC. (2012-2020)
Phase 1: Construction of NYC to Philadelphia. (2015 - 2024)
Phase 2: Construction of Philadelphia to Washington DC, and NYC to Boston. (2025 - 2035)

There are several benefits to this approach. First, early improvements to the existing NEC will enable the corridor to add capacity and improve speed to meet the growing demand that cannot wait for HSR. Second, the Phase 1 project will allow the HSR system to begin to generate operating revenue even before the full system is in place. Third, the Phase 1 segment is projected to the most profitable part of the line and will largely utilize the existing NEC ROW, making it easier to construct. If additional public funding is in jeopardy, the success of Phase 1 could generate additional political and citizen enthusiasm for Phase 2. Finally, the Phased approach enables the Northeast to get started right away. While the environmental review for some parts of the project may take several years, other projects, like some of the improvements to the existing NEC and parts of Phase 1, could begin much sooner.

The Financing Challenge

The most obvious challenge to implementing high-speed rail is its high cost. The government is unlikely to hand planners a check for $102 billion. According to the proposal, the solution is a public-private partnership (P3). In looking at successful cases in Europe and Asia, the students found that no major high-speed rail program has been completed without a strong, upfront commitment by the public sector. While private investors have been willing to participate, the government's participation is essential to minimizing the risk of the large investment.

The proposal offers two basic options for financing the project using a mix of private and public dollars. The first option relies on utilizing public financing tools to minimize public grants and attract private investors. For example, the proposal recommends expanding existing public financing programs, like TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance & Innovation Act) and RRIF (Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing), which offer government loans and loan guarantees. The proposal also recommends that the U.S. pursue an infrastructure bank, modeled after the European Infrastructure Bank, which can leverage government dollars to attract private investors. Finally, the proposal recommends new tax-credit programs, modeled after existing ones, which encourage investment by providing tax credits in lieu of a return, which can substantially lower the government's cost of borrowing. By combining these recommendations, the proposal estimates that government grants could be limited to around $26.5 billion and that 74% of the project's expenses could eventually be repaid.

The proposal's second financing option recommends leasing the HSR infrastructure to private investors as a concession contract. Under a concession contract, the public sector retains ownership of the rail infrastructure, but leases it out to a private investor, who pays a one-time fee for the right to control and collect revenue over a certain period of time (e.g. 10 years). Like an infrastructure bank, concession contracts have worked well in European countries, most notably the U.K., where the high-speed rail infrastructure is controlled by a private investor. As time elapses, the government can perform additional concessions, thereby collecting additional revenue to invest in the infrastructure or to defray the initial capital investment. According to the proposal, a concession contract model could cover up to 35% of the total project expenses by 2065.

Overall, the proposal's recommendations are very encouraging. By basing their recommendations on successful models in Europe and building off of existing programs in the U.S., their financing proposals are realistic and practical. We already know that the government will not hand the Northeast a $100 billion check with no strings attached. In July, Rep. John Mica (R-FL), Chairman of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, indicated that he wants HSR to proceed in the Northeast, but that any HSR project will have to include a mix of private and public dollars. In this regard, the PennDesign proposal is right on the mark.

The financing recommendations are particularly strong because they are not overly prescriptive. The truth is that decision-makers will ultimately embrace a financing strategy ultimately that reflects political goals just as much as financial realities. If Congress is not willing to make grants, for example, then a financing package will have to rely more heavily on public financing. By offering a range of financing options, the proposal makes clear that there is no single way to successfully finance HSR. Instead, U.S. decision-makers can mix and match the financing strategies that best fit with our current financial and political framework.

New Institutions for HSR

The proposal also takes on a challenge that is less visible than financing, but potentially even more important. The PennDesign report recognizes that the current institutional system governing rail infrastructure in the Northeast is inadequate. Currently, the NEC infrastructure is managed by multiple owners, which creates delays and conflicts among operators, and each state tends to prioritize investments in commuter rail over intercity service. And while these issues could be overcome, the proposal argues that the current institutional framework is too weak for the nine major governments along the NEC to cooperate and make major investments.

To solve these problems, the proposal takes its cues from successful examples in Europe. Specifically, the proposal recommends separating infrastructure operations from rail operations and creating a new public-benefit corporation (PBC) that would manage the high-speed rail infrastructure. This PBC, which they dub, "NECSA - the Northeast Corridor Systems Authority," would represent the major governments on the line and would be responsible for constructing and managing the high-speed rail infrastructure. NECSA would not, however, run any high-speed rail trains, but would be responsible for contracting with operators to run service. Under this model, a corporation like Amtrak could continue to run on the NEC, but would no longer own the infrastructure or be responsible for its maintenance.

According to the proposal, there are two main benefits to separating infrastructure from rail operations. The first benefit is that it provides a reliable source of revenue. Under this model, each rail operator pays an access fee to the infrastructure manager, based on its proportional use of the system. While rail operators can make a profit from ticket revenue, the infrastructure manager maintains a source of revenue to perform maintenance or to pay off capital expenses. The second benefit is that the infrastructure manager serves as a neutral dispatcher, which more effectively optimizes rail operations. Right now, train movements on the NEC are subject to the various owners of the line. During the morning rush, for example, multiple commuter trains may be delayed to minimize the delay of a single Amtrak train. A neutral dispatcher, however, can ensure that everyone has equal access to infrastructure and minimize delays for all riders.

NECSA, would also provide a number of new advantages. First, as a regional entity, NECSA would create an opportunity for the state-level planners to work together and formulate a plan that meets the region's full needs. Second, the PBC would have a single purpose, making it highly accountable for a clearly defined mission. Finally, it would also solve the problems caused by the line's split ownership. As we saw earlier this summer, poor investment by one state impacts every part of the line. Investments on one part of the corridor are invariably constrained by investments on another. By consolidating ownership under a single entity, these investments can be managed to ensure they optimize service along the entire corridor.

Like the public financing tools described above, these governance recommendations smartly build off existing institutions. Already, the PRIIA legislation has mandated the creation of the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure & Operations Advisory Commission (NECIOAC), which is tasked with managing the future direction of the NEC. By taking on ownership of the NEC and being given the authority to construct the HSR system, a public benefits corporation, like NECSA, would be a significant step forward for the regional governance.

And while the separation of infrastructure and operations is not found in many parts of the American rail system, it is actually quite similar to the way we run our airports and roads. While a regional port authority may own and operate an airport, a mix of operators utilize the facility. This approach makes the PennDesign proposal extremely attractive from a political perspective. For example, one of the major points of controversy surrounding Rep. Mica's plan to privatize the NEC and initiate HSR is its whole-sale removal of Amtrak from the line. Under the PennDesign proposal, Amtrak can still play an important role as a rail operator (but would no longer be saddled with the maintenance problems that plague the NEC). Rather than answer the controversial question of whether Amtrak should run the service, the PennDesign team empowers regional decision-makers to choose the best option for the NEC.

Changing the Conversation

The proposal recognizes that HSR will require an enormous amount of political support to become a reality. Our transportation needs call for long-term investment, but the political will for large-scale projects appears to be fading.

In order to address this challenge, the proposal calls for making the benefits of high-speed rail relatable and accessible to average citizens. For families, HSR means more time together. For business travelers, HSR means a faster, more comfortable trip. For motorists, HSR means better roads and fewer delays. The proposal even goes so far as to envision what a high-speed rail advertising campaign might look like, drawing upon successful examples from abroad.

In addition, the proposal outlines the key levers for achieving broad support on several levels. The proposal recommends targeting media outlets, elected officials, and real estate developers who stand to gain from HSR.

Final Thoughts

While the PennDesign proposal offers an exciting vision of HSR and a compelling case for making such a major investment, the implementation strategies described are by far their most valuable feature. Even among transportation advocates in the Northeast there is some skepticism about the potential for HSR, which is understandable after the setbacks and failed efforts over the past several decades.

The PennDesign proposal, however, makes it clear that HSR is a distinct possibility for the United States. We already have many of the financing tools and institutional models we need to make HSR work. And, while we will have to make changes to the certain systems work, the risk of those changes is quite low. The experience of our peers in Europe and Asia have already shown us what works and what does not. Overall, the PennDesign proposal sends the message to all HSR skeptics that we can make HSR a reality in the Northeast.

Images:
High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Megaregion: From Vision to Reality. University of Pennsylvania. 2011. Link.

PennDesign: Making the Case for HSR

2011-09-21T16:27:16Z

The following post continues a review of the PennDesign proposal for high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor. An earlier post examined the proposal's vision for HSR, while the post below examines their argument for why HSR must be built in the NEC. To learn more about the proposal, see our first post here or visit the PennDesign HSR Studio website.

>>A 2011 proposal by the PennDesign High-Speed Rail Studio argues that HSR is essential for the economic growth of the Northeast Megaregion.

The team from PennDesign takes an exciting approach to making the case for why we need high-speed rail in the Northeast. Like most proposals, the report explains how our existing transportation system will be unable to meet future demand and performs a traditional benefit-cost analysis that illuminates that positive benefits of a true HSR system.

But unlike other proposals, the students at Penn go much further. The proposal offers examples in Europe and Asia to explain that HSR has the potential to transform the economic geography of the Northeast Megaregion. Our existing urban hubs can grow stronger, our smaller urban cities can regenerate, and our overall regional economy can achieve greater productivity and stronger growth. This transformation is what makes HSR so exciting and important for the Northeast Megaregion.

The Need

The PennDesign team argues that HSR is essential to the continued economic growth of the Northeast. They assert that the Megaregion is projected to grow by 20 million people by 2050 (though more recent projections suggest that growth will be closer to 18 million). In order to ensure that all Northeast residents can reach their jobs, the Megaregion will need to invest in additional transportation capacity.

Our existing transportation system already cannot meet current demand, imposing a high cost to the Megaregional economy. The Northeast contains four of America's top-ten most congested metropolitan areas (New York, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, and Boston) and is home to the most congested highway corridor in the country: I-95 in the Bronx. As for air travel, the top four most delay-prone airports in the country are also found in the Northeast. The team estimates, that highway congestion and air travel delays together cost the Northeast $30 billion a year in lost productivity. This means that every three and a half years, the Northeast is paying the same in costs associated with metropolitan area congestion as it would take to build a true, HSR system in the NEC. That is worth repeating: the Northeast could build a true, HSR system in the NEC every three and a half years for the same price as the productivity that the region loses over the same time period due to congestion!

As we plan to expand our transportation system to meet the growing demand, the team argues that HSR is the most cost effective means of creating capacity in the densely developed metropolitan areas of the Northeast. With respect to highways, they cite a report by the I-95 Corridor Coalition, which states that the Northeast will need to spend $25 billion annually on highways through 2035 to meet growing demand under current population and transportation trends. The proposal also recognizes that the construction of multi-lane highways would be highly disruptive for Northeast residents and likely to encounter significant opposition. Likewise, airport expansions are expensive and require high amounts of land. The recent expansion of Denver airport, for example, required 53 square miles. It is estimated that a $5 billion expansion of the Philadelphia airport will only meet demand projected through 2035.

While the PennDesign team recognizes that roads and air will remain important, the introduction of HSR will create a more balanced transportation system for the Northeast. Right now, the problem is that Northeast's transportation system relies to heavily on some modes and not enough on others. Under ideal conditions, the most economically efficient mode would be used for each trip. When time and travel costs are considered, HSR is the most economically efficient mode for trips between 100 and 500 miles:

By capturing the majority of trips within that range, HSR could take some of the pressure off of the highways and rail, enabling all modes to accommodate the growing travel market in the Northeast.

The Benefits

The team completed a traditional benefit-cost analysis to demonstrate the positive economic value of the project. To calculate the total benefits, they considered a number of critical benefits, including the green-house gases that will be saved by diverting drivers from the roads to rails, the time saved by travelers no long suffering congested roadways and air delays, the number of lives saved by travelers switching from more dangerous modes of travel, like driving, the avoided cost of road maintenance (made unnecessary by HSR), and billions of dollars of saved gasoline.

The report finds that the benefits to society would far outweigh the costs. In total, the team estimated $468 billion in benefits and costs of approximately $102 billion. Following the standards set by the U.S. DOT, these costs and benefits were each discounted by 7% over a 53 year period, resulting in $71 billion in benefits and $52 billion in cost, for positive benefit-cost ratio of 1.38 - signaling high economic value for the Northeast.

A New Economic Geography

It's no secret, however, that traditional cost-benefit analyses do not take into account all of the economic impacts of improved transportation capacity. The proposal argues that high-speed rail will transform the economic geography of the Northeast by drastically reducing the travel time between cities. Here the proposal is a bit confusing, but only because while this phenomenon is real, it is difficult to measure and entails a number of overlapping and related phenomena.

The main idea is that HSR will improve productivity in the Northeast by lowering the cost (in time and money) of transporting people and goods. To understand this phenomenon, consider how many millions of additional people that HSR will put within a one-hour travel distance from the major economic hubs of the Northeast:

2.9 million additional people within a one-hour travel time to New York City
1.3 million additional people to Boston
10.5 million additional people to Philadelphia

The result is that firms will have access to a larger labor market, enabling both individuals and firms to specialize at what they do best. In addition, firms will have lower production costs, as HSR facilitates face-to-face meetings and lowers the cost of distributing goods thanks to reduced congestion.

The One-Hour Commuter Shed of Philadelphia, PA

The gray area above shows the areas within a one-hour travel distance of Phialdelphia, PA, with HSR.

Over time, HSR will encourage an increased clustering of firms near stations. The clustering of competitive and complementary industries in urban centers results in what are referred to as "spatial agglomeration benefits." Agglomeration benefits result in a rise in productivity by encouraging innovation (as firms in close proximity to one another share knowledge) and by lowering costs (thanks to economies of scale, i.e. the lower cost of labor and services thanks to increased specialization). When firms choose to locate close to one another, however, these benefits are often outweighed by the congestion costs associated with locating in a dense, urban environment. For example, it is more expensive to pay workers who must travel long distances or endure traffic delays. HSR will alter those decisions, by lowering the cost of travel to urban centers. More firms will cluster in order to take advantage of the agglomeration benefits found in densely developed central business districts.

As more firms benefit from agglomeration, the overall economy will see an increase in overall productivity. According to the proposal, these effects will be particularly powerful in the Northeast, thanks to the continued importance of innovation- and information-based industries. Unlike industrial production, these industries rely on the face-to-face interaction that HSR will facilitate and benefit from the knowledge sharing that occurs when industries cluster together.

Reigniting Our Struggling Cities

The proposal also argues that HSR could also encourage the economic growth of smaller, struggling cities, by effectively pulling them into the orbit of the larger, more economically successful metropolitan areas. Consider the case of Hartford, CT. Under the PennDesign proposal, the city would be within a one-hour travel time of both NYC and Boston.

Hartford, CT

Thanks to improved transportation linkages, cities like Hartford, CT can focus on the industries where they excel. Instead of relying solely on the local region for things like marketing and legal services, firms in Hartford will be able rely on firms in Boston and New York, allowing them to focus on what they do best. In addition, firms will be able to draw upon a much larger pool of labor, enabling them to attract talented workers who may wish to continue live in larger and more cosmopolitan cities.

In addition, HSR makes smaller cities much better positioned to participate in the Northeast economy. Thanks to short travel times, firms in large cities can take advantage of the services a smaller city may specialize in. A health services company in Boston, for example, can more easily take advantage of a health insurance firm in Hartford. Similarly, smaller cities can serve as home to large-city workers. A resident of Hartford could be at work in Manhattan in just one hour.

The proposal recognizes that HSR is not the silver bullet to improving our cities. The report provides a detailed overview of StAR (Station Area Redevelopment), a collection of design and policy strategies that cities can use to capture the benefits of HSR. Unlike current expectations for transit-oriented development, the proposal argues that StAR anchored by HSR has the potential to achieve impacts as far as one-hour travel from city centers. The team offers compelling visions of Philadelphia and Hartford, to demonstrate how transportation, design, and development can work together to improve our urban centers.

Final Thoughts

The proposal looks at HSR from two vantage points. First, there is need. Without additional transportation capacity, the Northeast economy will be unable to meet the growing travel demand, which could have serious consequences for our long-term economic growth. Second, there is potential. In other parts of the world, HSR has produced tremendous benefits by significantly altering the transportation patterns of a region. The Northeast has a remarkable amount to gain by making an investment in HSR.

The truth is, however, that global competition makes virtually every benefit of HSR truly necessary. If we wish to compete with megaregions in China, our industries must be as productive as possible and we cannot afford to endure unnecessary costs like environmental degradation and congestion delays caused by our unbalanced, auto-centric transportation system. The PennDesign proposal lays out the facts clearly and makes an excellent case for HSR. But perhaps it could be clearer on one important point: we need HSR now.

Stay tuned for a final post on the PennDesign proposal, examining their plan for implementing HSR in the Northeast.

Images:
High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Megaregion: From Vision to Reality. University of Pennsylvania. 2011. Link.

U.S. DOT Provides $22 Million to Study Susquehanna River Bridge Replacement

2011-09-16T21:49:29Z

Susquehanna River Bridge

Earlier this month, our blog, Back on Track: Northeast, posted a story about the top four failing bridges on the Northeast Corridor that are bottlenecks, aging, and in need of replacement. Number three on the list was the Susquehanna River Bridge in Havre de Grace, Maryland. On Friday, the U.S. DOT announced that the Obama Administration has obligated $22 million from the FRA's High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program to the Maryland DOT to study options for replacing and expanding this bridge, and complete all of the necessary preliminary engineering and environmental work for the project.

The Susquehanna River Bridge is a three quarters of a mile long span with a movable segment in the middle. The bridge was completed in 1906, making it over a century old. Both passenger and freight railroads use the bridge, which represents a major bottleneck on the NEC. With just two tracks the length of the bridge, it constricts the NEC down from four tracks to the north and three tracks to the south. The total replacement project is estimated to cost roughly $500 million.

The U.S. DOT press release states: "Replacement and expansion of the bridge is a key component to the region's long term plans to drastically expand capacity, and improve reliability and on-time performance for high-speed and regional trains."

Read the entire U.S. DOT press release.

U.S. DOT Sends $32.5 Million to Boston for South Station Expansion

2011-09-16T21:48:59Z

On Tuesday, Secretary Ray LaHood announced that the U.S. DOT has obligated a $32.5 million grant to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to finalize expansion and enhancement plans for Boston's historic South Station. The State of Massachusetts is also contributing $10.5 million to this phase of the project.

Currently, South Station operates at capacity during peak periods and is expecting huge increases in Amtrak service in the near future. In 2010, the station handled a total of 1.3 million passengers on Amtrak's Acela, Northeast Regional, and Lake Shore Limited services. The expansion project will increase the number of platforms from 13 to 20, which will support Amtrak and Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) commuter trains. MBTA is also expecting significantly increased ridership over the coming years.

The funds will help MassDOT complete all of the environmental permitting work, as well as the preliminary engineering and design phase of the project. A U.S. DOT press release also mentions the following tasks that are included in this phase of the expansion project:

Development of a new layover facility for train storage during off-peak times
Improvements to existing tracks, platforms, interlockings, passenger facilities, and other infrastructure
Demolition and relocation of an existing, adjacent U.S. Postal Service General Mail Facility to construct new passenger facilities, including tracks, platforms, waiting areas with connections to existing platforms and tracks and the adjacent South Station Bus Terminal
Design passenger enhancements through improved streetscape, pedestrian, bicycle, local transit, and vehicular facilities in and around the station, including the re-opening of Dorchester Avenue for public use
Develop a cost estimate for the construction phase of the project
Consideration of opportunities for joint public/private development over an expanded South Station. Such development agreements exist at New York's Penn Station and Union Station in Washington, DC.

U.S. DOT Secretary Ray LaHood said, "Revitalizing and modernizing South Station is not only crucial to accommodating projected population growth, it will create jobs and grow the region's economy."

Read the entire U.S. DOT press release.

Image:
Wikipedia, South Coast Rail - Plan for Action, 2007 (PDF)