Creating a Passenger Rail Network for the Piedmont- Atlantic Megaregion Using City Ranking Criteria

Creating a Passenger Rail Network for the Piedmont- Atlantic Megaregion Using City Ranking Criteria Drew Murray – May 2, 2011 Submitted to Catherine L. Ross, Ph.D Creating a Passenger Rail Network for the Piedmont- Atlantic Megaregion Using City Ranking Criteria Drew Murray – May 2, 2011 Submitted to Dr. Catherine L. Ross in accordance with the requirement by the School of City and Regional Planning, Georgia Institute of Technology – Atlanta, GA Page 2 of 85 Table of Contents: I. Introduction 4 Global Review 5 Local Review 9 Research Statement 9 II. Literature Review 11 State Rail Plans 11 Alabama 11 Georgia 12 North Carolina 16 South Carolina 17 Tennessee 18 City Ranking and Ranking 20 III. Methodology 22 IV. Analysis 25 Political 25 Cultural 28 Economic 30 Index Scores 31 Atlanta, GA Charlotte, NC 32 Atlanta, GA Nashville, TN 35 Charlotte, NC Raleigh, NC 38 Nashville, TN Memphis, TN 40 Atlanta, GA Birmingham, AL 42 Nashville, TN Birmingham, AL 44 Atlanta, GA Columbia, SC Charlotte, NC 46 Columbia, SC Charleston, SC 48 Columbia, SC Greenville, SC 50 Atlanta, GA—Charlotte, NC—Greenville, SC Knoxville, TN 51 Charlotte, NC—Raleigh, NC—Charleston, SC Wilmington, NC 54 Charleston, SC—Augusta, GA Savannah, GA 58 Birmingham, AL Mobile, AL 60 Atlanta, GA—Savannah, GA—Montgomery, AL Columbus, GA 61 Raleigh, NC—Wilmington, NC Greenville, NC 64 Athens, GA Gainesville, GA 66 Savannah, GA—Montgomery, AL—Macon, GA Valdosta, GA 67 Pensacola, FL, Gulfport, MS 69 Richmond, VA, Virginia Beach, VA 71 Jacksonville, FL 72 Louisville, KY 73 V. Conclusion 75 Scope of Analysis 76 VI. List of Figures 78 VII. Bibliography 83 Page 3 of 85 I. Introduction We face many issues today. In an ever-flattening global landscape, emerging opportunities are as bountiful as new challenges. Among these are health, energy, economy, equity, mobility, equality, and sustainability. Virtually every twenty-first century issue overlaps with other perplexities, though not always noticeable on the surface. Personal mobility is as inter-connected through each modern challenge as is its physical origins and destinations. Human activity no longer limits movement within political-jurisdictions whether local or national. As political systems endure, they must participate globally by developing infrastructure systems which build functionality. Regardless of whether encouragement to participate is competitive or cooperative, current transportation systems desperately need to be improved to accommodate modern mobility needs. America is behind in this regard – that is relative to its importance in the global arena. The European Union and Eastern Asia are leading the world in creating mobility systems that will be sustainable for the emerging era (Contant and Leone de Nie, 2009). Additionally, both have an advantage in political structures which accommodate comprehensive thinking over local individualism (Faludi, 2009). This is a serious challenge for the United States with outdated infrastructure that is either over-capacity or no longer relevant. Vulnerable to the volatility of oil prices, America’s system also accounts for weekly congestion costs in the billions due to wasted gasoline and lost productivity hours (American Public Works Association, 2009). With a system that is unsustainable and already losing functionality, one would think that infrastructure investment would be eminent. Unfortunately, few people are aware of the implications that this current dilemma actually represents beyond personal convenience. America needs a transportation system that works and a significant part of that framework will consist of a comprehensive passenger rail network which will connect all urban centers providing equitable access, efficient mobility, energy independence and economic freedom. Many current proposals to Page 4 of 85 introduce passenger rail back into the American mainstream will not be sustainable over time. Many current plans propose reusing bicentennially dated track networks to save on capital costs; but are these approaches wise since many station locations may occupy large cities of the past which are no longer considered globally significant today? Many historic urban centers yesterday are small towns today and the potential economic development outcomes do not address the needs of where people live today and where they will need to travel tomorrow. Additionally, historic track curvature and at-grade intermodal intersections will not accommodate the high speed train sets needed to guarantee system competitiveness in the global context that new peers such as China is offering. Rather than looking at what can be done in the context of what is most politically expedient in helping America prevent sinking, I propose to look at what should be done to meet this pressing challenge, albeit a hopeful thought in the context of helping America swim alongside Eastern Asia and Europe via an optimally efficient, comprehensive system for all Americans. Global Review The importance of centralized megaregion development, Eastern Asia’s historic, cultural context (Confucian ideology) illustrates how national planning has become an advantage for Asia in becoming key players in global competitiveness (Yang, 2009). Since Asian countries tend to have top-down authority government systems, localized jurisdiction and territorial issues have virtually no major influence in planning. Though local systems do exist, their funding and design are generally handed down from national or super-regional government agencies (Tanimura and Edgintton, 2001). In some cases however, the implementation process of the national design is left up to the local agencies to fulfill (Yang, 2009). As China and India have many more people than the United States, Japan has nearly half of America’s population in only one-twenty-fifth of the land area. Density is the major difference between American megaregion development and Asia’s simple acknowledgement of megaregion reality. Page 5 of 85 However, America’s governance has been deeply rooted in local jurisdiction control for hundreds of years now. The expansive land mass of the United States with such a relatively low population density requires local long term regional planning to get things done. However, in today’s global economy, it is becoming clear that no one is an island. In order to remain a contender in today’s political system, America will have to go against the historical and political grain to develop a national economic development system if it wants to maintain its ground in the global economy (Ross, 2009; Yang, 2009). Rail in the People’s Republic of China The Peoples Republic of China is currently implementing a massive passenger rail expansion program, adding over 20,000 kilometers of track, aiming to operate 110,000 kilometers by 2012. The Ministry of Railways of the Peoples Republic of China have increased annual investment in rail construction by nearly 90% during the past few years up to ¥337-billion ($51.2-billion USD) in 2008 (China Daily, 2009). This is compared to a one-time commitment of $10-billion in America by the Obama Administration as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, nearly half of which has been pledged to small lines in Florida and California – and as recently as February 2011, this commitment has expanded to $53-billion over the following six years (Freemark, 2001). In late 2009, Vice Minister Wang Zhiguo announced that the department will be investing another ¥2-trillion ($303.7-billion USD) during the remainder of the year and 2010 in order to reach their scheduled goals for beginning operation (China Daily, 2009). Rail in the Republic of India The Republic of India currently operates the world’s fourth largest rail network through its Ministry of Railways also known as Indian Railways – with over 1.2-millions employees, it is also one of the largest employers in the world. Running over seven thousand passenger trains, Indian Railways serves 13- million passengers daily (Ministry of Railways, 2011). Although during the previous six decades, the Page 6 of 85 agency has only added an average of 180 kilometers of track each year, re-elected opposition-leader Railway Minister Mamata Banerjee unveiled ambitious plans to expand the system by 25,000 kilometers during the next ten years as part of the ‘Vision 2020’ initiative (Press Information Bureau, 2010). Rail in the European Union Creating the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), regional planners across Europe have combined various goals of the European Union’s objective into one specialized plan. This strategy has caught the attention of American planners who acknowledge the EU as a superior cooperation of many different countries compared to the wasted potential of what one country cannot seem to do by itself (Faludi 2002; Carbonell and Yaro, 2005). America certainly has a diverse range of natural, economic and cultural resources, but its lack of desire to produce an all-inclusive national plan is additionally embarrassed by what several neighboring nations with deep political histories can do in a cooperative effort to stake their competitive claim into the global economy. Primarily, the development of a ‘pentagon’ of cities – London, Paris, Milan, Munich and Hamburg – determined the first megaregion for ESDP. However, more extensive planning promoted the idea that perhaps the EU could support multiple megaregions. It is clear that all of Europe must work together if all of Europe wants to be competitive as a major

Load more