A REGIONAL CONTEXT FOR INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL IMPROVEMENTS IN THE NORTHEAST

Transcription

1 A REGIONAL CONTEXT FOR INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL IMPROVEMENTS IN THE NORTHEAST AUGUST 24, 2009 Prepared For: CONEG Policy Research Center, Inc. By: Matthew Coogan, Consultant in Transportation, in Association with Resource Systems Group, Inc., and SmartMobility, Inc.

2 CONEG Policy Research Center, Inc. The CONEG Policy Research Center, Inc., the staff arm to the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG), encourages intergovernmental cooperation in the Northeast through joint consideration of common issues relating to the economic, environmental and social wellbeing of the Northeast states. The Center wishes to thank Matthew Coogan, Consultant in Transportation in association with Resource Systems Group, Inc. and SmartMobility, Inc. for preparing this document. This paper does not necessarily express the views of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors or the CONEG Policy Research Center, Inc.

3 A REGIONAL CONTEXT FOR INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL IMPROVEMENTS IN THE NORTHEAST The Northeast region of the United States the 11 states between Maine and Maryland and the District of Columbia is uniquely positioned to become the American showcase for the application of advanced intercity rail systems which incorporate high speed segments and improved connectivity. This region has the population density, the proximity of major travel sheds, the economic markets and existing rail corridors to support higher speed, integrated intercity rail systems. The Northeast has a population density over three times that of the nation as a whole, with over 90 percent of the population living within 50 miles of an existing or proposed intercity passenger rail corridor. The Northeast states have a high level of economic interdependence and travel connectivity, as reflected in the tens of millions of medium distance (100± mile) trips by all modes that currently cross state lines and the 200 million such trips projected by The Northeast has the nation s primary high speed rail corridor, the Northeast Corridor (NEC), as well as a network of existing intercity corridors that, with appropriate infrastructure investment and service coordination, have the potential to serve more intercity travel markets, thereby diverting a significant level of trips from congested airports and highways. No region of the country is better suited to support the higher speed intercity rail systems that are the objective of the nation s high speed intercity rail vision and investment program. Northeast Demographics Are Supportive of Intercity Rail Service The Northeast is home to more than 60 million people. It represents approximately six percent of the nation s land mass, and more than 20 percent of its population. The region s overall density of population is about 3.5 times the density of the country as whole a greater level of population density than that of any of the potential rail corridors in the nation. The Northeast s population settlement patterns have been influenced by the transportation corridors shaped by geography and history. As a result, the population is densely settled around transportation rail corridors proposed for improvement. The rail corridors connect some of the largest metropolitan areas with each other, and also connect the many small metropolitan and the more than 50 micropolitan areas that form a critical part of the region s economic fabric. Of the region s 60 million people, more than 90 percent of them live within 50 miles of an existing or proposed multistate rail service and more than 80 percent live within 25 miles. On average the density of settlement within 25 miles of the rail system is over 650 persons per mile comparable with many European markets supported by rail. (See Appendix One for density of both population and employment for those areas within 25 miles of rail service and for the states as a whole.) 1

4 Figure 1 More than 80 percent of the population of the Northeast resides within 25 miles of the rail network Source: SmartMobility, Inc. for CONEG Policy Research Center, Inc. Travel in the Northeast is more likely to be interstate travel than in many other parts of the nation due to population settlement patterns, political geography, and economic interdependence. Discounting most commuter trips, the sheer scale of travel by all modes among states in the Northeast is significant. Table 1 shows the present number of yearly round trips of more than 100 miles presently taken by citizens of one state to other states in the region by all modes of transportation. 2

5 TABLE 1: Trips over 100 miles in Length by All Modes Between States in the Northeast Present (Expressed as Number of Round Trips from State of Origin to State of Destination ) Origin Destination State State CT DE MA MD ME NH NJ NY PA RI VT DC CT 66,478 2,716, , , ,905 1,188,106 1,502, , , , ,451 DE 41,221 96, ,775 19,992 10, , , ,592 9,211 23,392 78,897 MA 1,534,114 59, ,621 2,951,678 3,406, ,910 2,724, , ,459 1,081, ,398 MD 376,671 1,167, ,303 91,490 60,035 4,557,512 1,483,847 2,887, ,412 59,154 27,154 ME 214,190 7,425 1,053,937 35, ,876 65, ,837 71,171 96, ,069 31,900 NH 756,132 14, ,222 41, , , , , , ,320 52,128 NJ 850, , ,456 2,062, , ,921 3,837,747 4,108, , , ,952 NY 1,468, ,983 3,646,582 1,275, , ,689 3,158,705 4,698, ,036 1,260,545 1,069,915 PA 527,540 3,104, ,240 2,656, , ,148 4,434,478 3,948,568 32, , ,793 RI 143,471 7, ,202 25, , , , , , ,066 39,841 VT 158,723 5, ,272 20, , , , ,335 74,270 55,208 26,059 DC 44, ,163 91,577 44,974 16,853 9, , , ,938 3,560 10,248 Total 6,115,664 5,376,937 11,666,713 6,792,418 6,640,943 6,802,512 15,194,260 15,897,153 14,201,568 1,919,935 4,654,182 3,542,488 Prepared by RSG, Inc. based on the American Travel Survey expanded by population growth reported by the U.S. Census. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. DOT, American Travel Survey, Reflecting the region s population density, northeast cities/metro areas are closer to one another than most cities nationwide, making them attractive markets for intercity rail. Of all the longer distance trips within the region, 95 percent are less than 300 miles a distance in which higher speed, intercity rail can be truly competitive. For the rail traveler, the trip is about getting from the point of origin to the final destination not getting from rail station to rail station. Therefore, intercity rail works best when it is supported by other modes and services that provide good access from rail stations to local destinations. The major metropolitan regions in the Northeast have multimodal transportation systems that connect the existing intercity rail stations to the larger region. For example, Northeast transit systems in total carry almost half of all public transit trips in the entire U.S. This infrastructure and the demonstrated willingness of the region s residents to use public transportation together enhance the viability of both current and improved intercity rail services. 3

6 Can Rail Help Solve Problems with Existing Infrastructure? A recent study by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 1 and the Transportation Research Board (TRB) indicates that the national problem of airport delay is most severe in the Northeast. 2 As Table 2 indicates, airport delay at the least delayed major airport in the Northeast (Baltimore Washington International) is worse than all but one airport on the West Coast (San Francisco). Aviation delays across the nation often begin in the Northeast and often spill over into the rest of the national system. 3 The TRB study showed that the cost of not addressing the airport delay problem at Northeast airports could increase to over $6 billion per year over the next twenty years. Total Delay Index for East and West Coast Airports, 2007 Airport Delay Index* Airport Delay Index Newark 32.6 SFO 18.7 LaGuardia 29.5 LAX 13.3 JFK 27.7 LAS 13.2 Philadelphia 23.5 Burbank 12.3 Dulles 23.0 John Wayne 12.0 Boston 22.3 San Diego 11.7 Reagan National 20.1 Long Beach 11.3 Providence 19.3 OAK 10.9 Manchester 18.2 Ontario 10.5 Bradley 17.3 San Jose 10.4 BWI 14.5 *Expressed as total minutes of delay per aviation trip Prepared by the authors, based on performance data accessed from Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Table 2 The National Problem of Airport Congestion and Delay is experienced most in the Northeast here compared with the West Coast 1 MITRE Corporation, Capacity Needs in the National Airspace , U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, May Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal MegaRegions, Airport Cooperative Research Program Project 310, Draft Final Report, Summer See also, U.S. Senate Joint Economic Committee Majority Staff, Your Flight Has Been Delayed Again: Flight Delays Cost Passengers, Airlines and the U.S. Economy Billions, May

7 The Northeast airports currently carry about ten million intraregional trips that begin and end within the region (see Figure 2). Analysis of existing studies undertaken by the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) and others 4 shows that millions of these medium intraregion trips could be diverted away from regional airports by an adequately designed and funded higher speed system. Such passenger capacity could be freed up and made available for the economically vital long distance air travel to other parts of United States, such as Chicago or California, Europe, Asia and other continents. Figure 2 Approximately 10 million air trips now use the airports of the NE Region for medium distance trips taking place entirely within the region Source: Derived from the DB1B and T100 data of the BTS, See footnotes 8, 9 and 10, below 5

8 Projected Growth in Multistate Medium Distance Trips As previously noted, the Northeast region already has a high level of medium distance (greater than 100 miles) trips that cross state borders. States have developed highly sophisticated transportation planning programs for travel within metropolitan areas. The national aviation system can accommodate the long distance trips in which air is the most efficient and environmentallyappropriate answer. However, adequate planning has not been completed to deal with these medium distance interstate trips. The scale of these trips is projected to grow over the next two decades, with over 200 million such multistate medium distance trips expected in the Northeast by The projected flow is conceptually captured in the diagram in Figure 3. For reasons of graphic clarity, the New York City region has been broken out from the rest of the state, resulting in the use of nine superzones in the diagram, which are depicted as circles. Seven cordon lines have been included to illustrate the total number of these trips flowing between selected superzones. Cordon Point Volumes Multistate Trips over 100 Miles Total Trips, All Modes, All Purposes Year million trips illustrated Upstate NY ME NH VT MA 20 million trips 14 million trips* RI / CT 22 million trips NYC NJ 19 million trips PA 31 million trips DE / MD/ DC 36 million trips 29 million trips *NYC broken out from NY for clarity. Figure 3 Medium Distance Trip Making in the Northeast Region in Expansion of Table 1 trip tables to year 2025, using state growth factors from U.S. Census, undertaken by RSG, Inc. 6

9 Table 3 Real GDP by State, 2008 Maine 40,332 New Hampshire 50,553 Vermont 21,697 Massachusetts 312,476 Rhode Island 38,126 Connecticut 177,717 New York 964,755 New Jersey 390,350 Pennsylvania 443,669 Delaware 49,244 Maryland 220,865 District of Columbia 74,812 Northeast Total 2,784,596 United States 11,523,637 In what may be a surprising finding, the projected cordon volumes of medium distance trips are expected to be distributed rather evenly all over the region. This finding suggests that, based on the level of tripmaking between states, the Northeast states are highly interdependent and interconnected. Decision makers in Wilmington are impacted by those on Wall Street. Academics and students at colleges and universities on the emerging Knowledge Corridor (linking New Haven HartfordSpringfield and Vermont) need to interact with similar academic communities stretched along the NEC between Boston and Washington, D.C. Managers of health services in Philadelphia need to interact with managers of insurance in Hartford. All of this is reflected in the high propensity to take these medium distance, multistate trips. The ability to interact with each other so readily has tremendous economic implications for the Northeast states. Its Gross Domestic Product of $2.7 billion dollars (2008) is 24 percent of the nation s GDP. 6 The demand for this kind of travel appears everywhere in the NE Share of GDP 24.2% region. The year 2025 forecasts suggest that distinctions between rural and urban states may be outmoded. Some states attract high numbers of trips precisely because of their rural quality of life. In the 2025 demand forecasts, some 20 million tripmakers desire to cross the border between Northern New England and Massachusetts. Many of those trips continue on to Rhode Island/Connecticut; and many more continue on to New York, New Jersey and beyond. The projected volumes crossing the cordon lines suggest that an improved, integrated rail network will serve both the urban metropolitan areas and the more rural areas, such as that shown for travel to and from Northern New England. In such an integrated, regional transportation network, the benefits of investment in the system are truly regional in nature an investment made in one state often spins off travel and economic benefits to citizens of many other states. Take, for example, an imaginary cordon line separating the State of New Jersey from the State of New York. Analysis of the projected interstate, medium distance trips across that imaginary line shows that, of the 30 million trips that will flow across this line in 2025, less than one quarter (7 million) are going only between New York and New Jersey. The rest are making trips that start or end in locations spread from Maine to DC. One Region with Several Corridors The Northeast region is fundamentally different from other potential American high speed intercity corridors. Here, intercity rail travel occurs in multiple corridors that together form a Northeast regional rail network. In the U.S. and Europe, higher speed intercity rail service can be considered competitive with air at intercity pair distances up to 325 miles. Examples of potential northeastern city pairs of this distance include: 6 7

10 Washington, DC to Albany, NY Brattleboro, VT to Wilmington, DE Syracuse, NY to Philadelphia, PA Boston, MA to Wilmington, DE Harrisburg, PA to Springfield, MA Hartford, CT to Washington, DC Atlantic City, NJ to Providence, RI Bennington, VT to Baltimore, MD Not considering size of population, each of the above travel markets reflects a geographic scale (a distance from origin to destination) that is served by high speed rail service in Europe and Asia. In the Northeast, these patterns of intercity travel demand rely upon rail infrastructure at the center of the network the Northeast Corridor that serves not just one set of travelers (one market ), but a core system that serves many separate markets cumulatively as they overlap with the Northeast Corridor. These multiple, interrelated travel flows make the Northeast a unique and fundamentally strong candidate for developing a more closely integrated network of intercity, higher speed passenger rail corridors. Understanding the Potential for High Speed Rail in the Northeast A review of previous research concerning the future of higher speed rail services in the Northeast was undertaken in the preparation of this document. 7 This continuing effort suggests that, based on conclusions developed for the FRA and others, intercity higher speed ridership in 2025 could range from around 8 million annual passengers to well over 10 million depending, of course, on the kind of the investments made over the next two decades. A more exact level of intercity passenger rail travel projected for the Northeast network cannot be known until specific service plans and engineering designs are drawn to determine the type of improvements and investments needed for the network of corridors to achieve trip time and service goals. However, the potential markets for more reliable, frequent and triptime competitive rail services in the Northeast can be assessed. The original source material, undertaken by FRA in the 1990 s, 8 has been more recently updated for the Boston to Washington 9 and the Empire 10 Corridors. Each of the original studies examines a variety of capital investments, and a variety of door to door travel times made possible by those investments. 7 Previous U.S. Department of Transportation research uses a marketdriven, performancebased definition of high speed focused on trip times that are competitive with air and/or auto travel for markets in the mile range. A technological option for high speed that is competitive in a medium distance corridor may not be considered high speed in a longer corridor. Top speed is only one of several ways to reduce tip time. See U.S. Federal Railroad Administration, High Speed Ground Transportation for America, Under current law, high speed rail is defined as intercity rail service that is reasonably expected to reach speeds at least 110 mph. (Title 49, Subtitle V, Part D, Chapter 261, Section 26106(a)(4). 8 U.S. Federal Railroad Administration, High Speed Ground Transportation for America Ridership forecasts developed by CRA International for Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. 9 U.S. Department of Transportation, Analysis of the Benefits of HighSpeed Rail on the Northeast Corridor, Office of the Inspector General, Office of the Secretary, Information Memorandum, June 16, Ridership forecasts developed by CRA International. 10 New York State Senate High Speed Rail Task Force Action Program, 2008; Chapter Three, pp Ridership forecasts developed by CRA International. 8

11 Based on the previous work, diversion rates from other modes were developed for trips assuming considerably higher rail speeds than today, and with travel times comparable to a variety of present European systems. These diversion rates have been applied throughout the region, assuming that major improvements are made on the Northeast Corridor, the Empire Corridor, and the Keystone Corridor and on corridors into northern New England. The results discussed here are based on new growth factors for longer distance travel between now and 2025, as developed by the MITRE Corporation for the FAA in its definitive FACT2 study of the future of aviation demand in the United States. 11 As previously noted, northeast airports are presently supporting over ten million intraregional trips. That consumer aviation capacity might be used for longer distance national and international trips for which rail is not a reasonable alternative. According to the market potential studies undertaken, (based on diversion rates developed for the U.S. DOT and others) high speed rail services could divert more than three million air trips within the region in Similarly, high speed rail services could divert another one million trips off of the region s highways under the assumption of the improved travel times incorporated into the original U.S. DOT studies. This diversion calculation makes no assumptions about specific rail improvements or the related costs. The Environmental Impact of Success in the High Speed Rail Market The studies of high speed rail potential markets suggest a range of futures depending on the actual systems proposed, funded and built. Assuming that the future rail trip increases range between the moderate and high, a future improved intercity rail system has the potential to attract somewhere between eight million and more than ten million trips. Looking only at the lower ridership assumption of approximately eight million trips, the scale of the environmental impact can be approximated. Of these trips, an estimated one million would be diverted from the roadway system. If the average length of the trip diverted to high speed intercity rail is 175 miles, an estimated 175 million person miles per year would be diverted from the roadway system. If each diverted trip carries an average of 2.4 persons per car, some 75 million Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) could be replaced as a result of investment in the region s rail network. At current fuel efficiency levels, a reduction of 75 million VMTs would be associated with a savings of four million gallons of gasoline and a reduction of more than 30,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gases. If the average vehicle fuel efficiency were to rise to 30 mph by 2025, the fuel used by auto drivers would decrease by more than two million gallons annually. Mobility and Travel Time Savings An integrated regional rail system can enhance intraregional mobility. Travelers who divert from present modes to another mode will do so when they perceive their travel times can be faster and more reliable. With highway congestion projected to increase over the next 20 years (especially when the medium distance trip must use roadway segments that experience peak period commuterbased congestion), it is not presently possible to estimate the exact travel times for the auto trip between 150 and 300 miles in length the length of trip for which reliable, frequent and 11 MITRE Corporation, Capacity Needs in the National Airspace , U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, May

12 triptime intercity passenger rail can attract travelers from other modes. However, certain assumptions can be made about a realistic sense of scale of benefit, particularly for a medium distance intercity rail trip. Assuming that the total rail system improvements over the next two decades result in an average savings of one hour per trip, the potential mobility improvements can be approximated. 12 As a general observation, trips on corridors which have not yet been upgraded might experience improvement of more than one hour while trips on segments which already have been upgraded might experience somewhat less than one hour improvement. Reductions in intercity trip time also offer economic value to the traveler and the economy. The U.S. DOT (FAA) values a savings of one hour in long distance intercity travel at $38 per hour in current dollars. 13 If a fully integrated intercity regional rail system that offers frequent and competitive trip times attracted eight million passengers who perceived that their trip time was improved by only one hour, the perceived economic benefit from improved travel time/reliability would exceed $300 million per year. The Ability of the Northeast Region to Support Higher Quality Rail Service A good example of the potential for the Northeast region to provide a market capable of supporting superior rail services is a recent study on the benefits of high speed rail on the Northeast Corridor by the U.S. DOT Inspector General. 14 This study focuses on the BostonWashington, D.C. corridor (NEC) which, as previously noted, is the core segment of a network of corridors whose travelers frequently overlap on the NEC. This study of the potential for improved intercity passenger rail in the Northeast examined an option ( scenario 1 ) in which travel times were improved by one half hour on both north and south segments of the full NEC. In such a scenario, the benefits would exceed the expenditures required to implement it. We found that achieving passenger rail travel times of 3hours between Boston and New York and 2 1/2hours between New York and Washington (scenario 1) would produce a net present value benefit of $16.3 billion in 2006 dollars. These benefits are composed of $11.9 billion in increased rail revenues, $4.1 billion in gains in consumer surplus, and $0.3 billion in congestion relief. The U.S. DOT OIG concluded that additional investment could bring additional market support in the Northeast. Benefits from HSR would grow at an increasing rate with each further reduction in travel time. Scenario 2, with its travel time reduced by an additional 1/2hour from scenario 1 on both the north and south ends of the NEC, would produce net present value benefits of $36.0 billion. This is more than double those in scenario 1. Our evaluation showed that each further 12 The actual amount of savings per trip will depend on the present state of the infrastructure. Boston to New York has already improved from a five hour trip to about 3 ½ hours. The ridership analysis undertaken by the Inspector General includes both an assumption of a one half hour improvement, and the assumption of a one hour improvement for each segment. 13 Value of time updated to present from: APO Bulletin APO031 Treatment of Values of Travel Time in Economic Analysis, FAA Office of Aviation Policy and Plans, March, 2003, and Revised Departmental Guidance Valuation of Travel Time in Economic Analysis, Office of the Secretary of Transportation Memorandum, February 11, U.S. DOTOIG Analysis of the Benefits of HighSpeed Rail on the Northeast Corridor (2008). 10

13 1/2hour reduction in travel time would generate benefits at a greater rate as travel time decreased. Since the NEC is the core segment of the regional network of rail corridors, it is reasonable to assume that the benefits described by the U.S. DOT OIG would accrue not only the rider whose trip begins and ends on the NEC, but also those travelers whose trip involves one of the connecting corridors. In summary, the Northeast rail network offers a series of interrelated markets for superior intercity passenger rail. The Northeast has a set of demographic and travel patterns that make it uniquely suited for developing a more closely integrated network of intercity, higher speed passenger rail corridors. The current and planned network of corridors will readily reach more than 80 percent of the 60 million people residing in the Northeast. With quality service, this network could link a number of new potential city pairs that span the NEC spine and its connectors. Northeasterners are already making the medium distance, interstate trips for which higher speed intercity service can be competitive. The future demand for such trips by all modes is only expected to grow significantly over the next two decades. The ability of an integrated, higher speed intercity rail system to attract an increasing number of these travelers from other modes particularly from intraregional air travel could help address the national problem of airport delay. In short, the Northeast region is a fundamentally strong candidate to support the higher speed intercity rail systems that are the objective of the nation s high speed intercity vision and investment program. 11

14 Appendix One: Northeast Rail Network Demographics State State Population (2007) Instate Population Within 25 Miles (2007) Percent Within 25 Miles Area (sq. mi.) Area Within 25 Miles Percent of Area Within 25 Miles Statewide Population Density (2007) Density Within 25 Miles (2007) Connecticut 3,556,875 3,379,613 95% 4,977 4,126 83% Delaware 880, ,016 61% 2, % 428 1,154 District of Columbia 591, , % % 8,665 8,665 Maine 1,352, ,334 51% 32,162 3,031 9% Maryland 5,727,376 5,074,903 89% 9,740 5,880 60% Massachusetts 6,530,311 5,852,137 90% 8,173 6,819 83% New Hampshire 1,352,812 1,133,474 84% 9,260 4,048 44% New Jersey 8,891,611 6,955,559 78% 7,508 3,703 49% 1,184 1,878 New York 19,581,872 17,251,738 88% 48,562 23,281 48% Pennsylvania 12,642,856 9,112,150 72% 45,360 19,630 43% Rhode Island 1,085,885 1,085, % 1,088 1, % Vermont 636, ,451 88% 9,603 7,255 76% Region Wide 62,830,500 52,217,578 83% 178,556 79,393 44%

15 State Total Employment (2007) Instate Employment Within 25 Miles Percent Employment Within 25 Miles Statewide Employment Density (Jobs/sq. mi.) Employment Density Within 25 Miles Density Ratio Connecticut 1,688,122 1,572,836 93% Delaware 423, ,231 67% District of Columbia 678, , % 9,937 9, Maine 602, ,496 51% Maryland 2,547,351 1,899,992 75% Massachusetts 3,234,357 2,911,002 90% New Hampshire 630, ,019 84% New Jersey 3,961,341 3,351,111 85% New York 8,554,012 7,230,625 85% Pennsylvania 5,652,547 4,014,767 71% Rhode Island 480, , % Vermont 303, ,241 90% Region Wide 28,755,366 23,531,571 82%