america 2050 where hsr works best

8/4/2019 America 2050 Where HSR Works Best

1/12


2/12

Where High-Speed Rail Works Best America 2050

2

service, and existence o dedicated right o way.2 Te FRAdenes HSR Express as service operating in corridors200-600 miles in length with top speed o over 150 mph on

primarily dedicated tracks. Tese services are expected tobe very competitive with air and auto trips in these mar-kets. Te planned Caliornia high-speed rail system wouldqualiy as HSR Express under this denition.

Next is HSR Regional, which operates at top speed o110-150 mph on a mix o dedicated tracks and tracks sharedwith slower passenger and reight trains. Acela service inthe Northeast Corridor is the only intercity rail servicein the country to currently qualiy or this category. HSRRegional service provides relie or highway and air operat-ing in these markets, as demonstrated by Amtraks current64 percent market share or air and rail trips that begin andend in New York and Washington, D.C.3

Te third level o HSR dened by the FRA is Emerg-ing HSR. Tese are corridors o 100-500 miles in length

with service operating at top speeds o 90 - 110 mph ontracks shared with reight and/or commuter services. Tisservice is intended to build a market or intercity rail and is

only expected to have a limited eect on shiing passengersrom other modes. Tis service would not be dened ashigh-speed in any country but the United States. Te FRAis positioning these corridors as having potential to somedayachieve high-speed service through incremental investmentsand service improvements that could build a market overtime.

A subsequent document, the High-Speed Rail IntercityPassenger Rail Program Notice, published in the FederalRegister, provides insight into how the FRA will make deci-sions about awarding the ARRA unding. Te FRA willuse three categories o criteria to make decisions. Te rstcategory assesses the public return on investment, using cri-teria such as: transportation benets, promotion o network

integration between modes, saety improvements, preserv-ing and creating jobs, environmental quality benets, energyeciency gains, and promotion o livable communities.4

Te second category o evaluation criteria will be usedto assess project readiness and sustainability o benets.Tese will include organizational capacity, project engineer-ing, environmental studies, and nancial plans.5 In additionto these two categories o project specic evaluation criteria,the FRA will employ cross-cutting selection criteriaintended to balance projects against national priorities.Tese additional criteria will consider geography, economicconditions, innovation and technology, and existence omulti-state agreements.6

Many o the pre-applications received by the FRA only

qualiy under the Emerging HSR category. Tese applica-tions are to improve top speeds o intercity rail service romtop speeds o 60-80 mph to 80 -110 mph through specic

projects along a corridor that would reduce conficts withreight rail, address grade crossings, replace bridges or tun-nels, and repair and improve track inrastructure.

Determining Potential MarketDemand for High-Speed Rail

Given the long lead time and inherent risk in high-speedrail investments, it is essential that the FRA select corridors

where the conditions exist to support strong passengerdemand or high-speed services. In addition to the FRAscriteria described above, it is critical to identiy the corridorsacross the country with the maximum potential to supporthigh-speed rail in order to minimize this investment risk.o do so, America 2050 has developed a ranking systembased on an index o six criteria to judge the extent odemand or high-speed rail between any two city pairs. Eachcity pair consists o two cities, each with a population o atleast 50,000 that are separated by a distance o 100 to 500miles. Tese criteria were weighted and then calculated intoan index that scored the city pairs. Te largest index scorerepresented the best potential market or high-speed rail.Nearly thirty thousand city pairs were analyzed to deter-

mine their suitability or high-speed rail investment. Tecriteria and the results o the index are described below.

Te city pairs were evaluated on the basis o the ollow-ing criteria:

City and metropolitan area population, avoring citieswith larger populations in large metropolitan areas.

Distance between city pairs, conned to distancesbetween 100-500 miles, with 250 miles receiving thehighest value.

Metropolitan regions with existing transit systemsincluding regional rail, commuter rail and local transit

networks.

Metropolitan GDP, awarding value based on the com-bined per-capita GDP.

Metropolitan regions with high levels o auto conges-tion as measured by the exas ransportation Institutesravel ime Index.

Metropolitan regions that are located within amegaregion.

Te rationale or each o these criteria is described below.

Criterion 1: Metropolitan Sizeo ensure sucient travel demand or high-speed rai l ser-

vice, it is best to locate stations in major metropolitan areas.Tere are 21 metro regions in the nation with a populationo at least 2.5 million; all are located within one o the 11emerging megaregions across the country. Megaregions arenetworks o metropolitan regions with shared economies,inrastructure and natural resource systems.Te NortheastMegaregion alone contains our o the top ten most popu-lous metro regions in the nation New York, Philadelphia,


3/12


3

source: Regional Plan Association

FIGURE 1: Americas Emerging Megaregions.

Washington, D.C., and Boston. Te Great Lakes and exasriangle megaregions each contain two metro areas in thetop ten.

Metropolitan area size is a necessary prerequisite orhigh-speed rail, but not a sucient indicator on its own oa successul corridor. Distance to other major metropolitancenters, richness o local transit service, economic activ-ity, and existing travel demand are all important actors inidentiying optimal corridors. Tese criteria will each bediscussed in turn.

Metropolitan Region Population

New York, NY 18,815,988

Los Angeles 12,875,587

Chicago 9,524,673

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 6,145,037

Philadelphia, PA 5,827,962

Houston, TX 5,628,101Miami, FL 5,413,212

Washington, D.C. 5,306,565

Boston, MA 4,482,857

Detroit, MI 4,467,592

Source: U.S. Census 2000

Criterion 2: DistanceTe competitive advantage o high-speed rail over othermodes o travel is maximized at distances between 100 to500 miles. Distances below 100 miles are better suited orauto and commuter rail networks whereas distances greater

than 500 miles are more eciently travelled by air. Tere aresignicant barriers to air travel causing it to be inecient

at short distances. Tese barriers include accessing airportslocated outside the metropolitan core, onerous security

processes, long check-in times, and airport delays and con-gestion. Tese time barriers to air travel result in signicanttime advantages to ecient rail service. Tis time advantagedrops o sharply at distances beyond 500 miles when thesuperior in-fight speed o air travel overwhelms the initialtime costs o travelling to and checking in at the airport.Tis index weighted the distance criteria such that it peakedbetween 200 and 300 miles and decreased to zero aer 500miles, replicating perormance o existing systems in Europeand Asia.

Criterion 3: Transit Connectionswo additional competitive advantages o rail over air arerails ability to bring passengers directly into the city centerand attract riders through connecting local and regionaltransit networks, which act as eeder services. High-speedrail systems will attract greater numbers o riders i theybegin and end in central locations within the metro regionand tie seamlessly into existing commuter rail and transitsystems. Tese commuter and local transit systems supportintercity ridership by oering passengers options to transerto nal destinations. Without access to transit systems,intercity passengers are dependant on autos to begin orend their trip, signicantly decreasing rails competitive


4/12


4

advantage. Te presence and use o transit and regional railsystems within a metropolitan region also may indicate a

willingness o the people in that region to leave their cars athome and the land use patterns that support that choicemaking use o high-speed rail a more likely option.

Tere are only a handul o American cities with su-ciently large transit systems capable o providing the con-

nections to make high-speed rail an attractive option. Othe nine American cities with commuter rail systems andrail transit systems, ve are located in the Northeast. O theremaining our, two are in Caliornia, one is in the Midwest(Chicago) and one is in Florida (Miami).

Tere are eight commuter rail systems operating in theNortheast Megaregion carrying approximately 350 mil-lion annual riders. New York has by ar the most robust othese systems with a commuter rail network o more than1,000 route miles. In terms o annual ridership, the NewYork metro region has three o the top our commuter railservices in the nation, with each carrying approximately300,000 daily passengers. Te Metra system in Chicagocarries passenger volumes similar to one o these systems.

Boston and Philadelphia are the only other cities with com-muter rail systems that carry more than 100,000 average

weekday riders.With heavy rail transit systems, New York again is in

a class o its own. New Yorks subway system is more thantwice as large as the next closest in terms o route miles, andeight times larger than the next closest in terms o passenger

volume. Te system carries nearly eight million passen-gers on an average weekday. Te second busiest heavy railtransit system in the nation is also located in the Northeast.

Washington, D.C.s metro system has an average weekdayridership o nearly one million passengers. Tese supportingtransit systems are one reason that the New York to Wash-ington, D.C. market currently has the highest intercity rail

ridership in the nation. Tese two cities are ollowed byChicago, Boston, and San Francisco in terms o ridership.7

Total Track Miles in Transit Systems

Metropolitan Region Commuter

Rail

HeavyRail

Transit

LightRail

Transit

New York, NY 1,082 233 14

Washington, DC 277 105 0

Chicago, IL 541 103 0

San Francisco, CA 160 91 25

Philadelphia, PA 215 38 55Boston, MA 388 38 25

Baltimore, MD 197 29 15

Miami, FL 71 23 5

Los Angeles, CA 386 16 56

Source: Federal Transit Administration 2004

Criterion 4: Economic ProductivityHigh-speed rail systems depend heavily on business travelto sustain ridership and business travel is highest in places

with more productive economies. Studies also show that

travel increases with increased income, whether or business,personal, or leisure travel.89 Gross Domestic Product (GDP)per capita is the broadest measure that is associated withboth economic productivity and personal income. Six o theten largest metropolitan reg ions (with populations over 2.5million) with the highest per capita GDP are located in twomegaregions: the Northeast and the exas riangle. Te

Northeast Megaregion accounts or our o the top ten mostproductive metro regions in the nation and accounts orone-h o the nations GDP. Te productivity o the metroregions in Caliornia and exas (each with two metros inthe top ten o per-capita GDP) contributes to their overal l

productivity as the nations top two states in terms o totaleconomic output with 13 and 8 percent o the nations GDPrespectively.

Tis economic productivity in these three regions haslead to a well established intercity travel market betweentheir major cities. Air and rail travel data are not counted inthe index, but are discussed here to illustrate how economic

productivity and demand or intercity travel requently co-exists. Everyday there are more than 70 fights each between

New York and Boston and New York and Washington.And the city pairs o New York to Washington, New Yorkto Philadelphia, and Philadelphia to Washington representthe top three city pairs in terms o ridership in the Amtraksystem with our million annual passengers.

Tere is also signicant intercity travel in Caliornia;however, it is currently dominated by air and private autotrips. Tere are nearly 200 daily fights between Los Angelesmetro airports (LAX, ON, SNA) and the airports in theSan Francisco Bay area (SFO, OAK, SJC). Tis is in addi-tion to the scores o other daily fights between other citiesin these megaregions including San Diego and Los Angelesto Las Vegas and Sacramento.

Te travel market between the major cities in exas is

less well dened. Tere is currently no rail option betweenDallas and Houston. Tere are approximately 60 dailyfights between these two cities, and although both theHouston and Dallas metropolitan areas are among the topten most congested, Interstate 45 that connects the twocities is not among the most heavily tracked non-metrohighways in the country.

Gross Domestic Product by Metropolitan Regionswith population o over 2.5 million

Metropolitan Region Per-Capita GDP

San Francisco, CA $69,478

Washington, DC $69,097

Boston, MA $61,513

Houston, TX $61,214Seattle, WA $59,736

New York, NY $59,712

Minneapolis, MN $56,007

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX $55,084

Philadelphia, PA $53,447

San Diego, CA $52,947

Source: Bureau o Economic Analysis 2006


5/12


5

New YorkLos

AngelesChicago

San

Francisco

Dallas -

Fort Worth

Washington

DC

Miami

Houston

Criterion 5: CongestionTe goal o congestion reduction, both at airports and onhighways, is one motivation or building high-speed railsystems. Metropolitan congestion increases intercity autotravel time making rail a more attractive option. Te exasransportation Institute (I) ravel ime Index or

metropolitan areas was used to select metro areas with highrates o auto congestion. Tree o the top our and our othe top ten most congested metro areas in the nation arelocated in Caliornia. Again, Caliornia, exas, and theNortheast have multiple metropolitan regions on the listo the top ten. Although metro regions in each o thesemegaregions appear on this list, as noted above, I-45 is notone o the more heavily trac routes, whereas I-5 in Calior-nia and I-95 in the Eastern Seaboard have consistently hightrac volumes throughout the megaregions. Te I-95 Cor-ridor Coalition estimates that over 60 percent o the urbanroad miles o Interstate 95 are heavily congested.10

Relative Auto Congestion Levels

Metropolitan Region TTI Index

Los Angeles, CA 1.50

Chicago, IL 1.47

San Francisco, CA 1.41

San Diego, CA 1.40

New York, NY 1.39

Miami, FL 1.38

Washington, DC 1.37

Houston, TX 1.36

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 1.35

Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 1.35

Source: Texas Transportation Institute 2005 11

While relieving auto congestion is a major potentialbenet, high-speed rail systems tend to compete more withshort-haul air travel than intercity auto trips and have the

potential to decongest some o the nations most congestedairports. Although not included in rankings, airports

with high levels o congestion may indicate high volumeso intercity passenger travel originating or ending in thatcitythough the eect o airlines hubs on congestion mustbe discounted. Te airspace above New York is the mostcomplex and congested in the nation. All three New Yorkmetro airports (Newark, La Guardia, and JFK) are amongthe ve airports in the nation with the worst on-time arrival

rate. When delays occur at these three airports, they ripplethrough the system causing delays across the nation. Intestimony beore the Senate last year, the U.S. GovernmentAccountability Oce (GAO) cited the air congestion in theNew York metropolitan region as a particular concern tothe eciency o the entire national aviation system. Sinceone-third o aircra in the national airspace system movethrough the New York airspace at some point during a typi-cal day, this region has a disproportionate impact on delaysnationwide.12 In total, there were ve Northeastern airportsin the bottom ten perorming airports in the nation or on-

time perormance, including Philadelphia and Boston. Teother ve airports in the bottom ten or on-time arrival rateare spread out over ve separate megaregions.

On Time Arrival Perormance or most delayed airports

AirportPercent on time arr ivals

Jan-Apr 2009

Newark (EWR) 57.25

New York (LGA) 65.24

San Francisco (SFO) 71.40

Atlanta (ATL) 71.99

New York (JFK) 73.33

Philadelphia (PHL) 75.07

Miami (MIA) 77.04Boston (BOS) 77.48

Chicago (ORD) 77.72

Seattle (SEA) 78.13

Source: Bureau o Transportation Statist ics

Criterion 6: MegaregionTe nal criterion included in the index takes into ac-count urban orm and population density, by determining

whether a city is located in a megaregion. Megaregions arenetworks o metropolitan regions with shared economies,inrastructure and natural resource systems, stretching

FIGURE 2: Total Gross Domestic Product by Metro Region

source: Bureau o Economic Analysis


6/12


6

over distances o roughly 300 miles - 600 miles in length.High-speed rail systems work best as part o a network withmultiple connections, as has been shown in European andAsian megaregions. Cities that are located in one o theeleven megaregions are more likely to be part o a networko interconnected cities with the appropriate density tosupport high-speed rail systems, rather than an isolated city

pair. Most o these megaregions have population densitiessimilar to European countries with successul high-speedrail systems. Te most densely populated megaregion is theNortheast, which approaches densities ound in Japan andother Asian countries, ollowed by Southern Florida.13

Results

Te six criteria described above were used to create an indexthat ranked 27,000 city pairs on their suitability, based on

potential market demand, to act as origin and destinationnodes o one leg o a high-speed rail corridor.14 Te top 50

pairs in the index are shown below. Te top 50 city pairs

identied were primarily concentrated in the Northeast,Caliornia, and the Midwest. Te results o the ranking

were also used to inorm America 2050s suggested priori-tization o corridors or the development o high-speed rai lnetworks, which also takes into account the concentrationo high-ranking city pairs in one megaregion, the progress ohigh-seed rail planning in those regions, and local politicalsupport.

It is no surprise that the nations our largest cities (NewYork, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston) are all represent-ed near the top o the list as part o city pairs with potentialdemand or high-speed rail. Tese are the places that notonly contain a critical mass o population to support thesesystems, but also a large percentage o the nations economic

productivity, existing travel markets, and metropolitancongestion.

Te New York to Washington, D.C. market was the toppair o the 27,000 pairs analyzed.15 In many ways this citypair typies the ideal corridor or high-speed rail and sharessimilar attributes with successul existing corridors aroundthe word. Population density in the Northeast Megaregionis higher than anywhere else in the nation, is higher thanalmost anywhere in Europe, and is similar to densities in

Japan. Both cities have extensive transit and regional railsystems to complement intercity rail trac. Both cities have

productive economies and have an extensive existing travelmarket. And the two cities are separated by just over 200miles with two major cities in between, Philadelphia and

Baltimore. Tis corridor shares many o the characteristicswith the most successul (in term o ridership) high-speedrail corridor in the world, okyo to Osaka, which is similarin distance, density, existence o supportive transit systems,and major intermediate cities, Nagoya and Kyoto.

Although one exas city pair made it into the top tenin the index (Dallas-Houston), the other major connec-tions in the exas riangle are urther down on the list(Austin-Dallas: 45th; Austin-Houston: 54th; Houston-SanAntonio: 56th: Dallas-San Antonio: 70th). Tese corridorstended to be ranked lower than the city pairs in Caliornia(six Caliornia city pairs were ranked in the top 25) and

Top 50 City PairsRank City Pair Score

1 New York-Washington 100.00

2 Philadelphia-Washington 98.24

3 Boston-New York 97.22

4 Baltimore-New York 96.835 Los Angeles-San Francisco 96.43

6 Boston-Philadelphia 96.05

7 Los Angeles-San Diego 94.92

8 Los Angeles-San Jose 94.19

9 Boston-Washington 92.79

10 Dallas-Houston 91.37

11 Chicago-Detroit 91.09

12 Baltimore-Boston 90.39

13 Chicago-Columbus 89.42

14 Chicago-Saint Louis 89.25

15 Los Angeles-Phoenix 89.03

16 Chicago-Cleveland 88.71

17 Charlotte-Washington 88.39

18 San Diego-San Francisco 88.32

19 Columbus-Washington 88.21

20 Cleveland-Washington 88.13

21 New York-Pittsburgh 88.03

22 Phoenix-San Diego 87.97

23 Las Vegas-Los Angeles 87.79

24 Detroit-New York 87.47

25 Chicago-Minneapolis 87.33

26 Detroit-Washington 87.27

27 Cleveland-New York 87.25

28 Philadelphia-Pittsburgh 87.23

29 Portland-Seattle 87.19

30 Pittsburgh-Washington 86.69

31 Los Angeles-Sacramento 86.58

32 New York-Providence 86.58

33 Raleigh-Washington 86.36

34 Detroit-Philadelphia 86.30

35 Chicago-Louisville 86.25

36 Hartford-Philadelphia 86.20

37 San Diego-San Jose 86.14

38 Hartford-Washington 86.13

39 Chicago-Cincinnati 86.02

40 Cleveland-Philadelphia 85.99

41 Charlotte-Philadelphia 85.6042 Philadelphia-Raleigh 85.58

43 Buffalo-New York 85.58

44 New York-Virginia Beach 85.52

45 Austin-Dallas 85.47

46 Manchester-New York 85.41

47 Philadelphia-Providence 85.36

48 Bridgeport-Philadelphia 85.31

49 Columbus-Philadelphia 85.24

50 New York-Rochester 85.11


7/12


7

the Midwest (with city pairs including Chicago, Detroit,Columbus, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh), which all appearedmultiple times in the top 50 pairs. Although these exascorridors scored well in overall population, length o cor-ridor, and economic activity, the lack o (or limited) existinglocal and regional transit systems in these cities reducedtheir overall rankings. City pairs with at least one city withlocal transit and commuter rail systems tended to populatethe top 100 city pairs. Corridors which included two suchcities including New York, Washington, Philadelphia, LosAngeles, and San Francisco all can be ound in the top 10.

Developing a Phasing Planfor High-Speed Rail

o illustrate how a high-speed rail system might be builtout over time, America 2050 used the results o the indexabove, indicating where there is greatest market demandor these services. Tis phasing plan also considered theexistence o more than one high-ranking city pair located

within a megaregion that together can help compose a net-work. High-speed rail services will be most eective i theyconnect to other transportation services, including other

high-speed rail routes, as well as conventional passenger rail,regional rail and local transit. Metro regions with multipleconnections to other large metro regions within 100-500miles became an additional weight in the creation o the

phasing plan. Te multiple connections between major met-ropolitan centers in the Northeast, Caliornia, and GreatLakes megaregions create the potential or ideal corridorsor high-speed rail networks.

Metropolitan Regions withGreatest Number of Neigh-boring Metro Regions

Number ofOther Major

Metros within100-500 Miles

HSRMegaregion

Network

Detroit, MI 5 Midwest

New York, NY 4 Northeast

Philadelphia, PA 4 Northeast

Washington, DC 4 Northeast

Boston, MA 4 Northeast

Los Angeles, CA 3 California

Chicago, IL 3 Midwest

San Francisco, CA 3 California

San Diego, CA 3 California

Baltimore, MD 3 Northeast

America 2050s High-Speed Rail Phasing map illustrates the results rom the described research as well as taking into account

the current state o rail planning across the country. It prioritizes the connection o major metropolitan centers within 500

miles with high levels o economic activ ity and integration

AtlanticOcean

Gulf ofMexico

PacificOcean

Socal

NorCal

ArizonaSun Corridor

FrontRange

Cascadia

Great Lakes

Northeast

TexasTriangle

Gulf Coast

Florida

Piedmont

Metro of3 million+

250K +

50K

City Population 10-50KBus

LongDistance/Corridor

Megaregionboundary

America2050.org

HSR Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Other PotentialCorridors

source: Regional Plan Association

FIGURE 3: High-Speed Rail Phasing Plan


8/12


8

Phase One: Phase one o the national high-speed railnetwork includes the beginning o three megaregion-scalesystems. First, improvements to the Northeast Corridorboost speeds between the cities o Boston, New York,Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C. Tesecity pairs dominated the top spots in the ranking. It alsoincludes the rst three legs o the Chicago Hub system in

the Midwest connecting Detroit, St. Louis and Minneapolis(via Milwaukee), to Chicago. Tese three city pairs ranked11, 14, and 25 respectively on the index. Te importance oChicago as a regional travel and economic hub, its size as thenations third largest metro region, and its supportive transitsystems warranted the inclusion o parts o the Midwestsystem in phase one o the plan. Finally, phase one o thenational plan also includes the rst phase o the Caliorniahigh-speed rail system rom Los Angeles to the San Fran-cisco Bay Area. Tis system will be the nations rst HSRExpress service on a dedicated right o way.

Phase Two: Phase two o the plan provides connections tomany o the remaining city pairs ranked in the top 100 and

includes parts o ten o the eleven megaregions. New routesin this phase include Dallas to Houston (ranked 10th), LosAngeles to Phoenix (ranked 15th), Los Angeles to Las Vegas(ranked 23rd), Portland to Seattle (ranked 29), Miamito ampa via Orlando (ranked 100), and the SoutheastCorridor that runs rom Atlanta to Washington, D.C. viaCharlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Richmond. Phase two alsoincludes extensions to the three systems begun in phase oneextending the Caliornia system south to San Diego, theNortheast system to Albany, and the Midwest system eastto Cleveland.

Phase Three: Te third phase o the national high-speedrail system urther extends the megaregion scale systems to

include medium-sized cities within 500 miles o the majormegaregional centers and begins to make connections be-tween these systems to integrate them into a truly nationalnetwork. Te Midwest system is expanded west to includeKansas City and is connected to the Northeast network

via new routes through New York State and Pennsylvaniabringing Bualo, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Cincinnati, andIndianapolis into the system. It extends and connects theSoutheast Corridor and the Florida networks, adding con-nections to Jacksonville and Birmingham. It incorporatesthe remaining two metro regions in the exas riangle,Austin and San Antonio, and extends the system northto ulsa, Oklahoma City, and Wichita. Finally, the third

phase o the plan adds the remaining megaregion system by

connecting Denver to Albuquerque along the I-25 corridor.When complete, this high-speed intercity passenger rail

network will be an important part o a larger comprehensivepassenger network, which includes air travel, intercity railand bus services. An emphasis on coordinating these ser-

vices and enhancing links between intercity, regional, andlocal networks will leverage the governments investments,maximize ridership, and enhance mobility options or the440 million Americans that will inhabit the country by midcentury.

Although investments in mega inrastructure projectsare necessary to accommodate uture population and eco-nomic expansion, they are inevitably raught with great risksbecause o the sheer scale o these investments. As the GAOrecently observed, each o these high-speed rail systems willcost tens o billions o dollars o upront costs to build theinrastructure beore a single passenger pays a are.16 Te

FRAs ocus on project readiness, local matching unds, andorganizational capacity will help ensure that the rst roundo ederal unding is awarded to agencies that are capable odelivering the projects on time and on budget. Te successo early projects will help pave the way or the continuedgrowth and expansion o the program by building publiccondence and support. Yet, another actor in building

public condence and support is investing in corridorswhere the services will be in high demand. As discussed inthis report, investing in corridors with the highest potentialridershipplaces with the appropriate density, economicactivity, supportive transit, and existing travel markets

will maximize are recovery and minimize project risk.Te $8 billion appropriated or intercity rail projects

represents a major commitment to intercity rail by the ed-eral government. It will take many more o these appropria-tions, however, to realize the ultimate goal. Tese initialederal investments in intercity rail should be directedtoward corridors with the greatest demand or intercitytravel. In general, this demand occurs in city pairs located100 500 miles rom each another, with large populations,economies, and the presence o regional and local transitnetworks that can provide connections or intercity pas-sengers. Americas 11 emerging megaregionsnetworks ometropolitan regions connected by linked economies, travel

patterns, and shared environmental resourcesare amongthe prime areas suited or intercity rail investment. Tesuccess o these investments in attracting sucient ridership

to oset operating expenses and the ensuing public supportor the projects selected or the rst round o unding, willdetermine whether this is a one-time expenditure or a sus-tained commitment by the ederal government. Ultimatelythe FRA will need to develop a comprehensive strategic

plan that details the ederal role in the uture high-speedrail network. Te orthcoming National Rail Plan being

prepared by the FRA and due to Congress on October 16could serve this purpose. In the meantime, the FRA musthave a mechanism or assessing the corridors with the great-est potential return on this investmentthe ranking systemdetailed in this report oers one such mechanism.

AcknowledgementsTe authors would like to thank Je Zupan, Seniorransportation Fellow, Regional Plan Association, or hisguidance and technical support with this analysis as wellthe Rockeeller Foundation, Surdna Foundation, LincolnInstitute o Land Policy, the William Penn Foundation,and the J.M. Kaplan Fund, or their generous support oAmerica 2050.


9/12


9

Technical Appendix

Tis technical appendix denes the terms and equationused in this analysis.

In this study, evaluation criteria were applied to citypairs to analyze potential high-speed rail corridors. How-

ever, beore doing so, these city pairs were created usinga geographic inormation system. First, we selected everyincorporated place in the nation with a population o atleast 50,000. Tis process yielded approximately 600 citiesand towns. From these 600 places, city pairs were created byconnecting each one o the cities to every other city locatedbetween 100 and 500 miles rom the originating city. Tis

yielded approximately 27,000 city pairs across the nation onwhich the analysis was based.

welve variables were used in the creation o the indexacross six categories: metropolitan size, distance, transitconnections, economic vitality, and congestion. Tese

variables were weighted and then summed into an indexthat scored the city pairs. An explanation o each variable

with its associated value and the equation used to create thisindex ollows.

Te scores or the 27,000 city pairs ranked in this indexranged rom 3.9 to 44.9. Te scores listed beside the city

pairs in the table in the text o this document represent thatcity pairs scores as a percentage o the top score.

TRANSIT VARIABLES:

Commuter RailIs there a commuter rail system in the metropolitan area?

Yes 1No 0

Syntax in equation:CR = Commuter Rail Starting City

CR_1 = Commuter Rail Ending City

Light RailIs there a light rail system in the city?

Yes 1No 0Syntax in equation:

LR = Light Rail Starting City

LR_1 = Light Rail Ending City

Light Rail System Route MilesI a light rail system exists, how many route miles are therein the system?

0 0.0>0 -15 0.515-30 1.0>30 1.5Syntax in equation:

S_LR_Len_I = Starting City Light Rail System Mileage

E_LR_len_I = Ending City Light Rail System Mileage

Heavy Rail TransitIs there a heavy rail transit system in the city?

Yes No 0Syntax in Equation:

HRT = Heavy Rail Transit Starting City

HRT_1 = Heavy Rail Transit Ending City

Heavy Rail Transit System Route MilesI a heavy rail transit system exists, how many route miles

are there in the system?

0 0>0 -25 0.525-100 1>100 3Syntax in equation:

S_HR_Len_I = Start ing City Heavy Rail Transit System Mileage

E_HR_Len_I = Ending City Heavy Rail Transit System Mileage

POPULATION VARIABLES

Metropolitan Area PopulationWhat is the population o the metropolitan area in which

the city is located?

Under 250,000 0250,000 1,000,000 11,000,000 2,500,000 2More than 2,500,000 3Syntax in Equation:

Met_Pop = Metro population Starting City

Met_Pop_1 = Metro population Ending City

Largest City in Metro AreaIs the city the largest city in the metro region? Note: This

variable is heavily weighted in the equation to select or

the primary city in metro region or HSR location.

Yes No 0

Syntax in Equation:

Metro_Main = Largest city in Metro Area Starting City

Metro_Ma_1 = Largest city in Metro Area Ending City

City PopulationWhat is the population o the city?

Under 100,000 0100,000 500,000 1500,000 1,500,000 2More than 1,500,000 3Syntax in Equation:

City_pop = City Population Starting City

City_pop_1 = City Population Ending City


10/12


10

LOCATION VARIABLE

In MegaregionIs the city located in a megaregion?

Yes 1No 0

Syntax in Equation:Mega = In Megaregion Starting City

Mega_1 = In Megaregion Ending City

DISTANCE VARIABLE

Corridor LengthWhat is the distance between city pairs?

For lengths < 150 miles the value is obtained by

((length/100) +1); or lengths 150 300 miles the value

plateaus at 2.5; or lengths 300 - 350 values is obtained

by (((500-length)/100) +0.5); or lengths > 350 miles

(500-length/100).

The value begins at 2 or cor ridor lengths o 100 miles,

increases linearly and peaks at 2.5 or corr idor lengths be-

tween 150 300 miles, decreases linearly to 2 at lengths o

350, then decreases to 1.5 and continues decreasing linearly

to a value o 0 or lengths o 500 miles.

100 2150 - 300 2.5350 2400 1500 0Syntax in Equation:

C_Length = Corridor Length

ECONOMIC VARIABLE

Metro GDPWhat is the combined geometric mean o the two metro

areas GDPs that make up the city pair?

The geometric mean o the two metro regions per capita

GDP was created by taking the square root o the product o

the per capita GDP o the start ing metro area and the per

capita GDP o the ending metro area.

< 20,000 020,000 - 30 0.5

30,000 - 40 140,000 - 50 1.550,000 - 60 2> 60,000 2.5Syntax or Equation:

C_GDP_Cap = Geometric mean o GDP o the two metro regions

CONGESTION VARIABLE

TTI IndexWhat is the combined Texas Transportation Institutes Travel

Time Index (TTI) or o the two cities that make up the city

pair? TTI ranges rom 1 to 1.5. The combined index was

created by subtracting 1 rom the TTI rom each city and

multiplying their sum by 2.5. This resulted in a value or thisvariable that is a continuous scale between 0 and 2.275.

Note: Not all metro areas have TTI indices. Cities not spe-

cifcally identifed with a TTI were given the TTI or their

class o metro region, either small (150,000-500,000 =

1.09), medium (500,000 1,000,000 = 1.16), or large

(1,000,000 = 1.23) metro region.

Syntax or

TTI_ IND = Combined TTI index o two cities in cit y pair

Equation[CR]+ 0.5*[LR]+ 0.5*[S_LR_Len_I]+ 0.5*[HRT]+ 0.5*[S_

HR_Len_I] +[Met_Pop]+10* [Metro_Main] + [City_pop]+ [Mega] + [CR_1] + 0.5*[LR_1]+ 0.5* [E_LR_Len_I] +

0.5*[HRT_1]+0.5* [E_HR_Len_I]+ [Met_Pop_1]+10* [Metro_

Ma_1]+ [City_pop_1] + [Mega_1]+ [C_Length] + [C_GDP_

Scal]+ [TTI_Ind]

Starting City [Does city have o Commuter rail (0,1) + 0.5

times does the city have light rail (0,1) + 0.5 times length

o light rail system (0, 0.5, 1, 1.5) + 0.5 times does the city

have heavy rail transit (0,1) + 0.5 times length o heavy rail

transit system (0, 0.5, 1, 3) + What is metropolitan popula-

tion in which the city is in (0,1,2,3) + ten times is the city

the largest city in its metro region (0,1) + what is the city

population (0,1,2,3) Is the city in a megaregion (0,1)] +

Ending City [Does city have o Commuter rail (0,1) + 0.5times does the city have light rail (0,1) + 0.5 times length

o light rail system (0, 0.5, 1, 1.5) + 0.5 times does the city

have heavy rail transit (0,1) + 0.5 times length o heavy rail

transit system (0, 0.5, 1, 3) + What is metropolitan popula-

tion in which the city is in (0,1,2,3) + ten times is the city

the largest city in its metro region (0,1) + what is the city

population (0,1,2,3) Is the city in a megaregion (0,1)] +

Corridor[what is the length o the corridor (0-2.5) + what is

the geometric mean o the GDPs o the two cities (0, 0.5, 1,

1.5, 2, 2.5) + combined TTI index o the two cities.


11/12


1

Endnotes

1 An additional $5 billion over ve years was proposed in theObama administrations budget request; the House o Representa-tives recently raised this amount $4 billion in the rst year alone,however in the Senate version o the bill it was reduced back downto $1.2 billion.

2 U.S. Department o ransportation Federal Railroad Admin-istration, April 2009, Vision or High-Speed Rail in America. p2.

3 Data obtained rom Amtrak and Port Authority o New Yorkand New Jersey.

4 U.S. Department o ransportation, June 23, 2009, FederalRailroad Administration, Te Federal Register, p. 29,902.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid. p.29,903.

7 http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/riderep/documents/08q4hr.pd

8 Polzin, S. E., 2004, Relationship Between Land Use, Urban

Form And Vehicle Miles O ravel: Te State O Knowledge AndImplications For ransportation Planning, ampa: Universityo South Florida, Florida Department o ransportation, FederalHighway Administration. http://www.cutr.us.edu/pubs/rans-LU%20White%20Paper%20Final.pd

9 Ewing, R. and Cervero, R., 2001, ravel and the BuiltEnvironment: A Synthesis. ransportation Research Record1780.Washington, D.C.: ransportation Research Board, National Re-search Council. http://depts.washington.edu/trac/concurrency/lit_review/trr1780.pd

10 http://www.i95coalition.org/i95/Home/I95CorridorFacts/tabid/173/Deault.aspx

11 In the 2007 I index, which was published aer the dataportion o this study was completed, San Jose, CA and Atlanta,

GA replaced Houston and Dallas in the top ten. Te two exascities dropped to 11 and 12 respectively in the= rankings.

12 Susan Fleming, United States Government Accountability O-ce, July 15, 2008, estimony Beore the Subcommittee on Avia-tion Operations, Saety, and Security, Committee on Commerce,Science, and ransportation. U.S. Senate. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-934

13 Te densities o the major European countries range rom 200to 650 people per square mile (sq. mi.). France and Spain, twocountries that have successully deployed high speed rail networkshave population densities o 300 and 200 per sq. mi. respectively.In the U.S. seven o the eleven megaregions have populationdensities in the 200 to 400 range with the Northeast as a notableoutlier with a density o 800 per sq. mi. Although a comparisonbetween international countries and domestic megaregions maynot be an equal comparison, it does provide some evidence thathigh-speed rail networks at this density are viable. For a completelisting o densities o all eleven U.S. megaregions, see: RegionalPlan Association, 2008, America 2050: An Inrastructure Visionor 21st Century America. p. 11. http://www.america2050.org/2008/11/an-inrastrucutre-vision-or-2.html

14 A complete description o the criteria and equation used tocreate this index is included in the technical appendix at the endo this report.

15 Tis study only analyzed city pairs between 100 and 500 milesapart. However, city pairs either less than 100 miles or more than500 miles could potentially be good candidates or high speed

rail based on congestion levels between the cities and geographicconstraints. For example, city pairs such as New York-Philadelphiaand Chicago-Milwaukee are not included in this study becausethey are separated by only 90 miles, but rank second and seventhrespectively in current intercity rail volume. Despite their omis-sion, both o these city pairs are part o a larger network includedin the rst phase o the proposed plan discussed below.

16 U.S. Government Accountability Oce, March 2009, High-

speed Passenger Rail: Future Development Will Depend on Ad-dressing Financial and Other Challenges and Establishing a ClearFederal Role.
http://www.cutr.usf.edu/pubs/Trans-LU%20White%20Paper%20Final.pdfhttp://www.cutr.usf.edu/pubs/Trans-LU%20White%20Paper%20Final.pdfhttp://depts.washington.edu/trac/concurrency/lit_review/trr1780.pdfhttp://depts.washington.edu/trac/concurrency/lit_review/trr1780.pdfhttp://www.i95coalition.org/i95/Home/I95CorridorFacts/tabid/173/Default.aspxhttp://www.i95coalition.org/i95/Home/I95CorridorFacts/tabid/173/Default.aspxhttp://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-934Thttp://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-934Thttp://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-934Thttp://www.america2050.org/2008/11/an-infrastrucutre-vision-for-2.htmlhttp://www.america2050.org/2008/11/an-infrastrucutre-vision-for-2.htmlhttp://www.america2050.org/2008/11/an-infrastrucutre-vision-for-2.htmlhttp://www.america2050.org/2008/11/an-infrastrucutre-vision-for-2.htmlhttp://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-934Thttp://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-934Thttp://www.i95coalition.org/i95/Home/I95CorridorFacts/tabid/173/Default.aspxhttp://www.i95coalition.org/i95/Home/I95CorridorFacts/tabid/173/Default.aspxhttp://depts.washington.edu/trac/concurrency/lit_review/trr1780.pdfhttp://depts.washington.edu/trac/concurrency/lit_review/trr1780.pdfhttp://www.cutr.usf.edu/pubs/Trans-LU%20White%20Paper%20Final.pdfhttp://www.cutr.usf.edu/pubs/Trans-LU%20White%20Paper%20Final.pdf


12/12


12

America 2050 is a national initiative to develop a rame-work or Americas uture growth and development in ace

o rapid population growth, demographic change and

inrastructure needs in the 21st century. A major ocus

o America 2050 is the emergence o megaregions large

networks o metropolitan areas, where most o the pro-

jected population growth by mid-century will take place

and how to organize governance, inrastructure invest-

ments and land use planning at this new urban scale.

www.America2050.org
http://www.america2050.org/http://www.america2050.org/

america 2050 where hsr works best

Documents