U@ed Sta$es General Accounting Office Report to the Honorable GAO ihrqj Reid, U.S. Senate Acquiring Rights-of-way for ,,Maglev Systems IRequires-a F lexible Approach GACVRCED-92442 United States General Accounting Of&e GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 /mmy Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-246563 February lo,1992 The Honorable Harry Reid United States Senate Dear Senator Reid: In response to your request, this report discusses the advantages and disadvantages of right-of-way alternatives for magnetic levitation (maglev) systems. It also recommends that the Secretary of Transportation establish a clearinghouse for collecting and disseminating informa- tion on these right-of-way alternatives. As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no fur- ther distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration. We will also make copies available to others upon request. This report was prepared under the direction of Kenneth M. Mead, Director, Transportation Issues, who may be reached on (202) 275-1000 if you or your staff have any questions. Other major contributors to this report are listed in appendix I. J. Dexter Peach Y Assistant Comptroller General Executive Summary I’ . A form of high-speed ground transportation-magnetic levitation Purpose (maglev)-could relieve highway and aviation congestion, conserve energy, and reduce air pollution. Maglev technology uses forces of attraction or repulsion from powerful electromagnets placed in either the maglev vehicle or the guideway beneath it. These forces both lift the vehicle above the guideway and propel it at speeds of up to 300 miles per hour, In the United States, a number of maglev systems are being considered, but diffi- culties in acquiring rights-of-way-the right to move across property and to erect associated facilities-may impede system implementation. Concerned about access to rights-of-way, Senator Harry Reid asked GAOto identify right-of-way alternatives and to assessthe advantages and disadvantages of each. As part of this work, GAO reviewed the three U.S. maglev projects whose plans are most fully developed. As research and development efforts in Germany and Japan have brought Background maglev systems closer to commercial service, interest has grown, both in the United States and abroad, in using them to supplement or replace current transportation systems over distances of 150 to 500 miles. Several federal agencies have formed the National Maglev Initiative, a collaborative organization to advance U.S. maglev development. Moreover, the Congress recently authorized $725 million for developing maglev systems in the United States. However, to improve maglev’s chances of economic suc- cess, rights-of-way that can accommodate maglev’s high speeds must be acquired. Such rights-of-way must be relatively straight and level to meet passenger comfort requirements at high speeds. Moreover, technical, safety, environmental, and legal issues must be considered as various rights-of-way are proposed. Right-of-way options for maglev use fall into two categories: collocating Results in Brief with (sharing) existing rights-of-way-Interstate highways, railroad lines, and utility corridors-and acquiring new rights-of-way. Whether any partic- ular option will prove advantageous will depend on local conditions. In some locations, Interstate highway rights-of-way may contain enough space to accommodate maglev guideways. In urban areas, rail lines may provide practical maglev routes into city centers. Electric utility corridors are widespread and could provide a nearby maglev power source. Over longer distances, however, existing rights-of-way-although they may be straight and level enough for maglev’s high speeds in some areas-cannot be relied on exclusively, and new rights-of-way that allow such speeds will be needed. Page 2 GAOIBCED-92-82 Maglev Eights-of-way Executive Sutnmary For each of three planned maglev systems, the developers needed to be flexible and combine different right-of-way options. A system connecting Anaheim, California, to Las Vegas, Nevada, would collocate with an Inter- state highway over much of the route. Where highway collocation is unsuit- able, the system would follow railroad lines or establish new rights-of-way. The proposed Orlando, Florida, maglev system would collocate with elec- tric utility lines and a county toll road, as well as obtain new rights-of-way. A system connecting downtown Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to the Pittsburgh International Airport would collocate with existing railroad lines as well as establish new rights-of-way, including some that would require tunnels. Although right-of-way requirements for each project will differ, sharing information about right-of-way options and acquisition could expedite development of maglev systems and minimize duplication of planners’ efforts, Such sharing might also facilitate development of other high-speed ground transportation systems, which face some of the same right-of-way issues as maglev. The Department of Transportation could contribute to maglev development by collecting such information and making it available to planners. GAO’s Analysis Right-of-way Options for Several maglev proponents believe that existing highway rights-of-way Maglev Systems Vary in offer an affordable solution to the siting problem. An extensive network of Suitability Interstate highways already exists, and many Interstate rights-of-way con- tain enough space in medians or parallel to highway shoulders to accom- modate a maglev system. However, the cost of collocating with highways is not easy to calculate because it must include the cost not only of gaining access to the right-of-way but also of conforming the guideway to the highway and of acquiring new land in areas where collocation is not prac- tical. Also, Interstate highways, which were designed for speeds of about 70 miles per hour, often cannot accommodate maglev’s need for a straight and level route over long distances. In addition, some highway officials are concerned about the safety implications of siting a high-speed maglev system close to drivers on the highway, who may be startled by passing maglev vehicles. In some locations, existing railroad rights-of-way may offer suitable siting options for maglev systems. In urban areas, where new rights-of-way are difficult and costly to obtain, rail lines may provide a direct and relatively Page 3 GAO/RCED-92-82 Maglev Rights-of-way Executive Sammary inexpensive route into and out of city centers, as well as into downtown transportation centers connecting to other modes of travel. Railroad officials said they would consider sharing rights-of-way with maglev sys- tems, although they had some concerns about the safety of operating a maglev system ascent to railroad tracks. Like Interstate highways, rail- road lines were not designed for maglev’s high speeds and cannot meet maglev’s need for a straight and level route over long distances. Also, offi- cials of several transit agencies that have right-of-way sharing agreements with railroads stated that negotiating those agreements was more costly and time-consuming than anticipated. Maglev systems could also be located in electric utility corridors. Such cor- ridors may offer an advantage by providing a nearby maglev power source. However, because many utilities do not own the land on which their lines are located, negotiations for rights-of-way would have to occur with many different landowners. Also, some electricity lines traverse rough terrain and turn on sharp angles, making them unsuitable for maglev systems. Where existing rights-of-way are neither available nor compatible with maglev systems, new routes will be needed. A new right-of-way would allow engineers to design a route that best meets maglev’s speed and ride com- fort requirements, thereby making maglev more competitive. A new right-of-way, however, may be less benign environmentally than other options because it could disturb previously undeveloped areas. Also, acquiring new rights-of-way may entail legally complicated and time- consuming negotiations with many landowners and government agencies. Planned Ma@ev Syskm~ Will Because right-of-way options available to and appropriate for maglev will Need a Mix of Rights-of-Way vary from one location to another, ready access to one type of right-of-way will not solve all acquisition problems. For example, although providing low-cost or free access to Interstate highway rights-of-way may benefit sys- tems whose routes rely on such access, it will not remove all barriers to right-of-way acquisition. The three planned systems that GAOreviewed would each need to use more than one right-of-way option, including acquiring new land. Cost, topography, the availability of existing transpor- tation corridors, and potential station locations influenced the decisions to use a flexible approach incorporating multiple rights-of-way. The proposed maglev line from Anaheim, California, to Las Vegas, Nevada, would combine Interstate highway, railroad, and new rights-of-way. The system would parallel Interstate 15 for over half of the route’s length, Page 4 GAO/WED-92-82 Maglev Rights-of-way Executive Bummary thereby minimizing impacts on surrounding federal lands, which contain habitat for the threatened desert tortoise. In at least one location where the system enters a station, it would follow railroad rights-of-way. Where the highway’s curvature is not suitable for maglev, new rights-of-way would have to be established. If such rights-of-way pass through public lands, consultation with and/or approval from federal and state resource agencies would be necessary. The Orlando maglev system illustrates that even a short system in a developed area will need to piece together its route. This 13.5~mile maglev project will share rights-of-way with utility lines and a toll road, as well as establish rights-of-way through private and airport lands.