HIGH SPEED RAIL PLANNING SERVICES FINAL REPORT March 2012
3/29/2012
Prepared for: Georgia Department of Transportation One Georgia Center 600 Peachtree Street NW Atlanta, Georgia 30308 (404) 631-1226
Prepared by: HNTB Corporation 3715 Northside Parkway 200 Northcreek, Suite 800 Atlanta, Georgia 30327 (404) 946-5700
[Page intentionally left blank]
TABLE OF CONTENTS ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background and Purpose ...... ES-1 Purpose and Objective ...... ES-2 Corridor Description and History ...... ES-2 Representative Route Development ...... ES-2 Corridor Evaluation ...... ES-3 Operating Plan ...... ES-6 Ridership and Revenue ...... ES-6 Capital Costs ...... ES-7 Operating and Maintenance Costs ...... ES-8 Corridor Evaluation ...... ES-9 Operating Ratio ...... ES-9 Benefit-Cost ...... ES-10 Key Findings ...... ES-10 Hybrid High Performance Scenario ...... ES-11 Ridership and Revenue ...... ES-12 Costs ...... ES-13 Feasibility Evaluation ...... ES-14 Final Conclusions ...... ES-15 SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND METHODOLOGIES 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...... 1-1 1.1 Description/History of High-Speed Rail and Designated Corridors ...... 1-1 1.2 Technology Considerations ...... 1-2 1.2.1 Alternative 1: 90-110 mph Emerging High-Speed Rail ...... 1-2 1.2.2 Alternative 2: 180-220 mph Express High-Speed Rail ...... 1-2 1.2.3 Alternative 3: 220+ mph Maglev ...... 1-3 2 STUDY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ...... 1-5 2.1 Corridor Descriptions and History ...... 1-5 2.1.1 Atlanta – Birmingham ...... 1-5 2.1.2 Atlanta – Macon – Jacksonville ...... 1-6 2.1.3 Atlanta – Chattanooga – Nashville – Louisville ...... 1-7 2.2 Purpose and Objectives ...... 1-9 3 ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGIES ...... 1-11 3.1 Corridor Alternatives Development ...... 1-11 3.1.1 Existing Conditions ...... 1-11 3.1.1.1 Base Data ...... 1-11 3.1.1.2 Environmental Data ...... 1-12 3.1.1.3 Demographic Data ...... 1-14 3.1.1.4 Existing Travel Patterns ...... 1-15 3.1.2 Stakeholder Outreach ...... 1-16 3.1.3 Corridor Screening and Analysis Process ...... 1-18 3.1.4 Step 1: Identification of Universe of Corridor Alternatives ...... 1-19 3.1.4.1 90-110 mph Shared Use ...... 1-19 3.1.4.2 180-220 mph Dedicated Use ...... 1-19 3.1.5 Step 2: Alternative Screening and Representative route Selection ...... 1-21 3.1.5.1 90-110 mph Shared Use ...... 1-21 3.1.5.2 180-220 mph Dedicated Use ...... 1-22 3.1.6 Step 3: Refinement of Representative routes ...... 1-22 3.1.7 Step 4: Evaluate Feasibility of Each Representative Corridor ...... 1-23 3.2 Capital Cost Methodology ...... 1-24 3.2.1 FRA Standard Cost Categories (SCC) ...... 1-24 3.2.2 Unit Cost Development Method ...... 1-30 3.2.2.1 Quantities ...... 1-31 3.2.2.2 Unit Costs ...... 1-31
3.2.3 Detailed Methodologies ...... 1-37 3.2.3.1 Shared Use and Dedicated Use Track ...... 1-37 3.2.3.2 Track Geometry ...... 1-47 3.2.3.3 Interstate Interchanges ...... 1-48 3.2.3.4 At-Grade Crossings ...... 1-50 3.2.3.5 Earthwork ...... 1-51 3.2.3.6 Structures ...... 1-52 3.2.3.7 Stations ...... 1-57 3.2.3.8 Right-of-Way/Real Estate ...... 1-59 3.2.3.9 Signaling and Communication ...... 1-60 3.2.3.10 Cost of Vehicles...... 1-61 3.2.3.11 Professional Services ...... 1-63 3.2.3.12 Contingencies ...... 1-64 3.2.3.13 Phasing Scenarios for Capital Costs ...... 1-64 3.3 Ridership and Revenue Methodology ...... 1-64 3.3.1 Geographic Scope and Zoning Structure ...... 1-65 3.3.2 Market Analysis ...... 1-67 3.3.2.1 Inter-Urban Travel Market ...... 1-67 3.3.2.2 Local Travel Market ...... 1-68 3.3.2.3 Connect Air Market...... 1-69 3.3.3 Demand Estimation Model...... 1-69 3.3.3.1 Step 1: In-Scope Travel Market ...... 1-71 3.3.3.2 Step 2: Market Future Growth ...... 1-73 3.3.3.3 Step 3: Level of Service Characteristics ...... 1-73 3.3.3.4 Step 4: Mode Choice ...... 1-75 3.3.3.5 Step 5: Induced Demand ...... 1-79 3.3.3.6 Step 6: Rail Farebox Revenue ...... 1-81 3.4 Operating and maintenance Methodology ...... 1-81 3.4.1 Operating plan Development ...... 1-81 3.4.1.1 Train Service and Operating Assumptions ...... 1-81 3.4.1.2 Potential Station Locations ...... 1-82 3.4.1.3 Train Technology Assumptions ...... 1-82 3.4.1.4 Other Rolling Stock and Operational Requirements ...... 1-83 3.4.2 Operating Plan Model ...... 1-84 3.4.2.1 Train Performance ...... 1-84 3.4.2.2 Train Scheduling and Fleet Requirements ...... 1-85 3.4.2.3 Train Size, Frequency and Load Factors ...... 1-86 3.4.3 Operating and Maintenance Costs ...... 1-86 3.4.4 Public-Private Benefit Analysis ...... 1-90 3.4.4.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis ...... 1-91 3.4.4.2 Estimate of Economic Benefits ...... 1-92 3.4.4.3 User Benefits – Consumer Surplus ...... 1-93 3.4.4.4 Non-User Benefits...... 1-95 3.4.4.5 Public and Private Benefit Estimations ...... 1-98 3.4.5 Evaluation Ranges ...... 1-98 3.4.5.1 Conservative Scenario ...... 1-99 3.4.5.2 Intermediate Scenario ...... 1-99 3.4.5.3 Optimistic Scenario ...... 1-99
SECTION II: ATLANTA TO BIRMINGHAM
1 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND BACKGROUND ...... 2-1 1.1 Evaluated Alternatives...... 2-3 1.1.1 90-110 mph Shared Use Corridors ...... 2-3 1.1.2 180-220 mph Dedicated Use Corridors ...... 2-6 1.2 Demographics and Socioeconomics ...... 2-8 1.2.1 Total Population, Density, Race and Age ...... 2-8 1.2.2 Employment and Employment Centers ...... 2-12 1.2.3 Socioeconomic Characteristics - Income ...... 2-14 1.2.4 Environmental Justice ...... 2-17 1.3 Land Use – Urban vs. Rural ...... 2-19 1.4 Travel patterns ...... 2-21 1.4.1 Automotive Travel ...... 2-21 1.4.2 Air Travel ...... 2-21 1.5 Environmental Issues ...... 2-22 1.5.1 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 2-22 1.5.2 Cultural Resources...... 2-23 1.6 Issues and Opportunities ...... 2-24 2 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH ...... 2-27 3 REPRESENTATIVE ROUTES ...... 2-31 3.1 90-110 mph Emerging High-Speed Rail (Shared Use) ...... 2-31 3.1.1.1 Major Terminal Stations ...... 2-33 3.1.1.2 Intermediate Stations ...... 2-37 3.2 180-220 mph Express High-Speed Rail (Dedicated Use) ...... 2-40 3.2.1 Proposed Stations ...... 2-42 4 OPERATING PLAN AND SCHEDULE ...... 2-43 4.1 90-110 mph Shared Use ...... 2-43 4.1.1 Speed Profile and Timetable ...... 2-43 4.1.2 Operating Plan...... 2-44 4.2 180-220 mph Dedicated Use ...... 2-45 4.2.1 Speed Profile and Timetable ...... 2-45 4.2.2 Operating Plan...... 2-46 5 RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE ...... 2-47 5.1 Corridor Demographics...... 2-47 Existing (2010) ...... 2-47 5.1.1 Future Year (2020-2035) Demographics ...... 2-49 5.2 Market Analysis ...... 2-53 5.2.1 The Inter-Urban Market ...... 2-53 5.2.1.1 Automobile Travel ...... 2-53 5.2.1.2 Bus Service ...... 2-55 5.2.1.3 Direct Air Service ...... 2-56 5.2.1.4 Rail Service ...... 2-57 5.2.2 Local Travel Market ...... 2-57 5.2.3 Connect Air Market ...... 2-58 5.3 Forecasts...... 2-59 5.3.1 90-110 mph Shared Use Ridership and Revenue Forecasts (2021-2040) ...... 2-60 5.3.2 180-220 mph Dedicated Use Ridership and Revenue Forecasts (2021-2040)...... 2-61 5.3.3 Ridership and Revenue Forecast Comparison (2021-2040) ...... 2-62 5.4 Sensitivity Analysis ...... 2-63 5.4.1 Shared Use Fare Sensitivity ...... 2-63 5.4.2 Dedicated Use Fare Sensitivity ...... 2-64 5.4.3 Shared and Dedicated Use Total Ridership and Revenue Summary ...... 2-65 5.4.4 Evaluation Scenarios ...... 2-65 5.4.4.1 Conservative Scenario Estimates ...... 2-66 5.4.4.2 Intermediate Scenario Estimates ...... 2-66 5.4.4.3 Optimistic Scenario Estimates ...... 2-66
6 FORECASTED COSTS ...... 2-69 6.1.1 90-110 mph Shared Use ...... 2-69 6.1.2 180-220 mph Dedicated Use ...... 2-76 6.1.3 Comparing Capital Costs ...... 2-83 6.2 Operating and maintenance Costs ...... 2-83 6.2.1 90-110 mph Shared Use ...... 2-84 6.2.2 180-220 mph Dedicated Use ...... 2-84 7 CORRIDOR EVALUATION ...... 2-85 7.1 Feasibility Measurements ...... 2-85 7.1.1 90-110 mph Shared Use ...... 2-86 7.1.1.1 Operating Ratio ...... 2-86 7.1.1.2 Benefit-Cost ...... 2-86 7.1.2 180-220 mph Dedicated Use ...... 2-87 7.1.2.1 Operating Ratio ...... 2-87 7.1.2.2 Benefit-Cost ...... 2-88 7.1.3 Key Findings ...... 2-88 8 HYBRID HIGH PERFORMANCE SCENARIO ...... 2-91 8.1 Ridership and Revenue ...... 2-92 8.2 Costs ...... 2-93 8.3 Feasibility Evaluation ...... 2-94 8.4 Phasing Scenarios for Capital Costs ...... 2-95 8.4.1 Additional Implementation Options – Commuter Rail ...... 2-96 8.5 Conclusion ...... 2-97
SECTION V: CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS
1 CORRIDOR COMPARISONS ...... 5-1 1.1 Shared Use ...... 5-1 1.2 Dedicated Use ...... 5-2 1.3 Hybrid High Performance Scenario ...... 5-3 1.4 Key Conclusions ...... 5-4 2 SYSTEM INTEGRATION ANALYSIS ...... 5-5 2.1 System Integration Analysis ...... 5-5 3 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES ...... 5-9 3.1 Federal Capital Grants ...... 5-10 3.1.1 Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) ...... 5-10 3.1.2 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) and Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER)...... 5-10 3.1.3 High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) ...... 5-11 3.1.3.1 Service Develop Program Grants ...... 5-11 3.1.3.2 Individual Project Grants ...... 5-12 3.1.3.3 Planning Grants ...... 5-13 3.1.4 Section 130 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Improvement Program ...... 5-14 3.1.5 Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Capital Grant Program ...... 5-14 3.1.6 FHWA Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality ...... 5-14 3.1.7 FHWA Surface Transportation Program ...... 5-15 3.1.8 FHWA Transportation Enhancement Program ...... 5-15 3.1.9 High-Speed Rail Crossing Improvement Program ...... 5-15 3.2 Federal Financing and Loan Programs ...... 5-16 3.2.1 Rail Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program (RRIF) ...... 5-16 3.2.2 US DOT Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) ...... 5-17 3.2.3 FHWA Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle Bond (GARVEE) ...... 5-17 3.2.4 IRS Tax Exempt Private Activity Bonds (PAB) ...... 5-18 3.3 State and Local Capital Match Funding ...... 5-19 3.3.1 State General Fund Appropriations ...... 5-19 3.3.2 State General Obligation and General Revenue Bonds ...... 5-19 3.3.3 Freight Railroad Contributions ...... 5-19 3.3.4 Transportation Equity Funds ...... 5-20 3.3.5 Local General Fund Appropriations ...... 5-20 3.3.6 Local Bonding ...... 5-20 3.3.7 Value Capture Taxes ...... 5-20 3.3.7.1 Land Value Taxes ...... 5-21 3.3.7.2 Local Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) and Tax Allocation Districts (TAD) .... 5-21 3.3.7.3 Special Assessments - Community Improvement Districts (CID) ...... 5-21 3.3.7.4 Developer Impact Fees ...... 5-22 3.3.7.5 Air Rights ...... 5-22 3.3.7.6 Joint Development ...... 5-22 3.3.8 Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST)...... 5-22 3.3.9 Specialized Local Funding Programs ...... 5-23 3.3.9.1 Georgia Regional TSPLOST ...... 5-23 3.3.9.2 Tennessee: Gasoline Tax for Local Transportation Funding ...... 5-23 3.3.10 Public Private Partnerships (P3) ...... 5-24 3.4 Funding Sources and Strategies for Operating Support ...... 5-24 3.4.1 State Appropriations ...... 5-24 3.4.2 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Funds (CMAQ) ...... 5-24 3.4.3 FHWA Traffic Mitigation Funding ...... 5-25 3.4.4 Revenue Maximizing Strategies ...... 5-25 3.4.5 Operating Cost Control Strategies ...... 5-26 3.5 Private Sector Alternatives ...... 5-27 3.5.1 Joint Development ...... 5-27 3.5.2 Public Private Partnerships ...... 5-27 3.6 Funding Summary ...... 5-28
[Page intentionally left blank]
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3-2: ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND SOURCES ...... 1-13 TABLE 3-3: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA AND SOURCES ...... 1-14 TABLE 3-4: TRAVEL DATA AND SOURCES ...... 1-15 TABLE 3-5: TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE DATA AND SOURCES ...... 1-15 TABLE 3-6: CORRIDOR STAKEHOLDERS ...... 1-18 TABLE 3-7: LEVEL OF ACCURACY VS. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ...... 1-24 TABLE 3-8: FRA STANDARD COST CATEGORIES ...... 1-25 TABLE 3-9: FRA COST ITEMS ...... 1-25 TABLE 3-10: FRA COST ITEM EXPANSION ...... 1-30 TABLE 3-11: SCC SUB-CATEGORY UNIT COSTS ...... 1-32 TABLE 3-12 CURRENT CORRIDOR FREIGHT DENSITIES...... 1-38 TABLE 3-13: FUTURE FREIGHT DENSITY INCREASES ...... 1-39 TABLE 3-14: EVALUATED CORRIDOR DENSITIES...... 1-40 TABLE 3-15: CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT METHODOLOGY ...... 1-42 TABLE 3-16: HIGH-SPEED RAIL INTERCHANGE OPTIONS ...... 1-48 TABLE 3-17: STRUCTURE COSTS ...... 1-53 TABLE 3-18: UNIT COST BY STRUCTURE TYPE ...... 1-53 TABLE 3-19: REAL ESTATE COST ITEMS ...... 1-60 TABLE 3-20: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PERCENTAGES ...... 1-64 TABLE 3-21: VALUES OF TIME ...... 1-78 TABLE 3-22: OPERATING COST CATEGORIES AND PRIMARY COST DRIVERS ...... 1-88 TABLE 3-23: UNIT OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS ...... 1-90 TABLE 3-24: KEY ELEMENTS OF THE BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS ...... 1-91
TABLE 3-25: COST PER TON OF POLLUTANT (VOC, CO, NOX, PM10 AND SOX) ...... 1-96 TABLE 1-1: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM RACE OF STUDY AREA POPULATION ...... 2-10 TABLE 1-2: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM INTERCITY AUTO TRIP TABLE (ATS 1995)...... 2-21 TABLE 1-3: LOCAL AIR TRIPS IN 2010 ...... 2-21 TABLE 1-4: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM AIR SERVICES SUMMARY ...... 2-22 TABLE 1-5: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM STUDY AREA COUNTIES KNOWN ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES ...... 2-23 TABLE 1-6: ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES ...... 2-24 TABLE 2-1: STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH MEETINGS ...... 2-28 TABLE 3-1: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM SHARED USE ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS ...... 2-31 TABLE 3-2: ATLANTA-MACON-JACKSONVILLE SHARED USE PROPOSED STATIONS ...... 2-33 TABLE 3-3: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM DEDICATED USE CHARACTERISTICS ...... 2-40 TABLE 4-1: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM SHARED USE SPEED AND TRAVEL TIME TABLE ...... 2-44 TABLE 4-2: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM SHARED USE TRAIN FREQUENCY AND SIZE ...... 2-44 TABLE 4-3: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM DEDICATED U SE SPEED AND TRAVEL TIME TABLE ...... 2-46 TABLE 4-4: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM DEDICATED USE TRAIN FREQUENCY AND SIZE ...... 2-46 TABLE 5-1: HISTORICAL POPULATION TREND FOR MPO COVERAGE AREAS ...... 2-48 TABLE 5-2: HISTORICAL E MPLOYMENT TREND FOR MPO COVERAGE AREAS ...... 2-49 TABLE 5-3: POPULATION FORECASTS FOR MPO COVERAGE AREAS ...... 2-51 TABLE 5-4: EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS FOR MPO COVERAGE AREAS ...... 2-53 TABLE 5-5: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM SELECTED TRAFFIC COUNTS ...... 2-53 TABLE 5-6: TRAVEL TIMES AND DISTANCES BETWEEN CITY PAIRS ...... 2-54 TABLE 5-7: OBSERVED AUTO TRAFFIC GROWTH (IN AADT) BETWEEN 1995 AND 2010 ...... 2-54 TABLE 5-8: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM BUS SERVICE SUMMARY ...... 2-55 TABLE 5-9: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM MAJOR AIRPORT CHARACTERISTICS ...... 2-56
TABLE 5-10: ORIGIN-DESTINATION AIR TRIPS BY DIRECTION (Q4 2009-Q3 2010) ...... 2-57 TABLE 5-11: AIR SERVICES SUMMARY ...... 2-58 TABLE 5-12: EXTERNAL FACTOR ANALYSES ...... 2-60 TABLE 5-13: 90-110 MPH SHARED USE BASE ANNUAL RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE (2021-2040 IN 2010$) ...... 2-61 TABLE 5-14: SHARED USE BASE 2035 ANNUAL STATION BOARDINGS AND SEGMENT VOLUMES (BI- DIRECTIONAL) ...... 2-61 TABLE 5-15: 180-220 MPH DEDICATED USE BASE RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE (2021-2040 IN 2010$) ..... 2-62 TABLE 5-16: DEDICATED USE BASE CASE 2035 ANNUAL STATION BOARDINGS AND SEGMENT VOLUMES (BI- DIRECTIONAL) ...... 2-62 TABLE 5-17: FARE SENSITIVITY FOR SHARED USE HIGH-SPEED RAIL SERVICE (2021-2040 IN 2010$) ...... 2-64 TABLE 5-18: FARE SENSITIVITY FOR DEDICATED USE HIGH-SPEED RAIL SERVICE ...... 2-64 TABLE 5-19: SHARED USE TOTAL RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE SUMMARY (2021-2040) ...... 2-65 TABLE 5-20: DEDICATED USE TOTAL RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE SUMMARY (2021-2040) ...... 2-65 TABLE 5-21: INTERMEDIATE SCENARIO ANNUAL RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE ESTIMATES (2021-2040 IN 2010$) ...... 2-66 TABLE 5-22: OPTIMISTIC SCENARIO ANNUAL RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE ESTIMATES (2021-2040 IN 2010$) ...... 2-67 TABLE 6-1: FRA STANDARD COST CATEGORIES ...... 2-69 TABLE 6-2: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM TOTAL SHARED USE CAPITAL COST BY SCC CATEGORY (2010$) ...... 2-70 TABLE 6-3: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM TOTAL SHARED USE CAPITAL COST SEGMENT ONE ...... 2-71 TABLE 6-4: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM TOTAL SHARED USE CAPITAL COST SEGMENT TWO ...... 2-72 TABLE 6-5: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM TOTAL SHARED USE CAPITAL COST SEGMENT THREE ...... 2-73 TABLE 6-6: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM TOTAL SHARED USE CAPITAL COST SEGMENT FOUR ...... 2-74 TABLE 6-7: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM TOTAL SHARED USE CAPITAL COST SEGMENT FIVE ...... 2-75 TABLE 6-8: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM TOTAL DEDICATED USE CAPITAL COST (2010$) ...... 2-76 TABLE 6-9: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM TOTAL DEDICATED USE CAPITAL COST SEGMENT ONE ...... 2-77 TABLE 6-10: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM TOTAL DEDICATED USE CAPITAL COST SEGMENT TWO ...... 2-78 TABLE 6-11: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM TOTAL DEDICATED USE CAPITAL COST SEGMENT THREE ...... 2-79 TABLE 6-12: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM TOTAL DEDICATED USE CAPITAL COST SEGMENT FOUR ...... 2-80 TABLE 6-13: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM TOTAL DEDICATED USE CAPITAL COST SEGMENT FIVE ...... 2-81 TABLE 6-14: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM TOTAL DEDICATED USE CAPITAL COST SEGMENT SIX ...... 2-82 TABLE 6-15: TOTAL CAPITAL COST BY ROUTE/TECHNOLOGY ...... 2-83 TABLE 6-16: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM FIXED AND VARIABLE COST CATEGORIES ...... 2-84 TABLE 6-17: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM SHARED USE O&M COSTS (2010$ MILLIONS) ...... 2-84 TABLE 6-18: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM DEDICATED USE O&M COSTS (2010$ MILLIONS) ...... 2-84 TABLE 7-1: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM SHARED USE OPERATING RATIO (2010$ MILLIONS) ...... 2-86 TABLE 7-2: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM SHARED USE BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS (2021-2050) ...... 2-87 TABLE 7-3: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM DEDICATED USE OPERATING RATIO ...... 2-87 TABLE 7-4: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM DEDICATED USE BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS 2021-2050 ...... 2-88 TABLE 8-1: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM OPERATIONS COMPARISON ...... 2-92 TABLE 8-2: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM HYBRID OPERATING PLAN ...... 2-92 TABLE 8-3: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM HYBRID HIGH PERFORMANCE ALTERNATIVE RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE (IN MILLIONS AND 2010$) ...... 2-93 TABLE 8-4: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM TOTAL HYBRID CAPITAL COST BY SCC CATEGORY (2010$) ...... 2-93 TABLE 8-5: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM HYBRID O&M COSTS (2010$ MILLIONS) ...... 2-94 TABLE 8-6: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM HYBRID OPERATING RATIO ...... 2-95 TABLE 8-7: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM HYBRID BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS (2021-2050) ...... 2-95 TABLE 1-1: STUDY CORRIDORS 110 MPH DIESEL-ELECTRIC SHARED USE COMPARISON ...... 5-1 TABLE 1-2: STUDY CORRIDORS STEEL-WHEEL/MAGLEV DEDICATED USE COMPARISON ...... 5-2 TABLE 1-3: STUDY CORRIDORS HYBRID COMPARISON ...... 5-3 TABLE 2-1: HIGH-SPEED RAIL SYSTEM OPERATING RATIOS (2021-2040) ...... 5-6 TABLE 2-2: HIGH-SPEED RAIL SYSTEM BENEFIT-COST RATIOS (2021-2050) ...... 5-7
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 3-2: AT-GRADE, CLOSED DRAINAGE TYPICAL SECTION ...... 1-45 FIGURE 3-3: TRENCH/RETAINED CUT TYPICAL SECTION ...... 1-45 FIGURE 3-4: DEDICATED TRACK WITHIN EXISTING FREIGHT CORRIDOR TYPICAL SECTION ...... 1-46 FIGURE 3-5: HIGH-SPEED RAIL INTERCHANGE OPTION DETAILS ...... 1-49 FIGURE 3-6: TYPICAL GRADE SEPARATIONS (OVERPASS AND UNDERPASS) ...... 1-51 FIGURE 3-7: INTERSTATE CROSSING ...... 1-54 FIGURE 3-8: MINOR ROADWAY ...... 1-54 FIGURE 3-9: MAJOR WATERWAY ...... 1-54 FIGURE 3-10: MINOR WATERWAY ...... 1-55 FIGURE 3-11: VIADUCT GUIDEWAY ...... 1-56 FIGURE 3-12: INTERMEDIATE STATION FOOTPRINT ...... 1-58 FIGURE 3-13: TALGO SERIES 8 ...... 1-62 FIGURE 3-14: ALSTON AGV AND SIEMENS VELARO EMU (LEFT TO RIGHT) ...... 1-62 FIGURE 3-15 TRANSRAPID MAGLEV ...... 1-63 FIGURE 3-16: GEOGRAPHIC STUDY AREA...... 1-66 FIGURE 3-17: DEMAND ESTIMATION MODEL PROCESS ...... 1-70 FIGURE 3-18: DIVERSION MODEL ...... 1-76 FIGURE 3-19: EXAMPLE 110 MPH SPEED PROFILE ...... 1-85 FIGURE 3-20: EXAMPLE SEGMENT LOADING CHART ...... 1-86 FIGURE 3-21: ECONOMIC MEASURE OF CONSUMER SURPLUS ...... 1-94 FIGURE 3-22: CONSUMER SURPLUS CALCULATION AS SHOWN IN THE MAGLEV DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM .... 1-95 FIGURE 1-1: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM STUDY AREA ...... 2-2 FIGURE 1-2: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM SHARED USE EVALUATED ALTERNATIVES ...... 2-5 FIGURE 1-3: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM DEDICATED USE EVALUATED ALTERNATIVE ...... 2-7 FIGURE 1-4: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM POPULATION DENSITY ...... 2-9 FIGURE 1-5: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM MINORITY POPULATIONS ...... 2-11 FIGURE 1-6: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM EMPLOYMENT DENSITY ...... 2-13 FIGURE 1-7: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM AVERAGE ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME 2009 ...... 2-16 FIGURE 1-8: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM URBANIZED AREAS ...... 2-20 FIGURE 2-1: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES ...... 2-29 FIGURE 3-1: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM SHARED USE REPRESENTATIVE ROUTE AND STATIONS ...... 2-32 FIGURE 3-2: H-JAIA STATION LOCATION ...... 2-34 FIGURE 3-3: ATLANTA MMPT STATION LOCATION ...... 2-35 FIGURE 3-4: BIRMINGHAM INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY ...... 2-36 FIGURE 3-5: DOUGLASVILLE INTERMEDIATE STATION ...... 2-38 FIGURE 3-6: ANNISTON INTERMEDIATE STATION ...... 2-39 FIGURE 3-7: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM DEDICATED USE REPRESENTATIVE ROUTE AND STATIONS ...... 2-41 FIGURE 3-8: ANNISTON, AL DEDICATED USE STATION LOCATION ...... 2-42 FIGURE 4-1: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM SHARED USE SPEED PROFILE ...... 2-43 FIGURE 4-2: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM DEDICATED USE SPEED PROFILE ...... 2-45 FIGURE 5-1: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM BASE YEAR (2010) POPULATION MAP ...... 2-47 FIGURE 5-2: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM BASE YEAR (2010) EMPLOYMENT MAP ...... 2-48 FIGURE 5-3: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM 2020 POPULATION ...... 2-49 FIGURE 5-4: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM 2035 POPULATION ...... 2-50 FIGURE 5-5: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM 2020-2035 POPULATION GROWTH ...... 2-50 FIGURE 5-6: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM 2020 EMPLOYMENT ...... 2-51 FIGURE 5-7: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM 2035 EMPLOYMENT ...... 2-52 FIGURE 5-8: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM 2020-2035 EMPLOYMENT GROWTH ...... 2-52
FIGURE 5-9: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM OBSERVED AUTO TRAFFIC (IN AADT) IN 1995 AND 2010 ...... 2-55 FIGURE 5-10: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM CORRIDOR TOTAL RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE FORECASTS (2021-2040 IN 2010$) ...... 2-63 FIGURE 6-1: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM SHARED USE SEGMENT ONE ...... 2-71 FIGURE 6-2: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM SHARED USE SEGMENT TWO ...... 2-72 FIGURE 6-3: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM SHARED USE SEGMENT THREE ...... 2-73 FIGURE 6-4: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM SHARED USE SEGMENT FOUR ...... 2-74 FIGURE 6-5: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM SHARED USE SEGMENT FIVE ...... 2-75 FIGURE 6-6: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM DEDICATED USE SEGMENT ONE ...... 2-77 FIGURE 6-7: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM DEDICATED USE SEGMENT TWO ...... 2-78 FIGURE 6-8: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM DEDICATED USE SEGMENT THREE ...... 2-79 FIGURE 6-9: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM DEDICATED USE SEGMENT FOUR ...... 2-80 FIGURE 6-10: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM DEDICATED USE SEGMENT FIVE ...... 2-81 FIGURE 6-11: ATLANTA-BIRMINGHAM DEDICATED USE SEGMENT SIX ...... 2-82 FIGURE 6-12: TOTAL CAPITAL COST BY TECHNOLOGY ...... 2-83
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
AADT –Annual Average Daily Traffic
ABS –Automatic Block Signals
ACS – American Community Survey
ADECA – Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs
ALDOT – Alabama Department of Transportation
ARC – Atlanta Regional Commission
AREMA – American Railway Engineers and Maintenance Association
ARRA – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
ATS – American Travel Survey
BJCTA – Birmingham Jefferson County Transit Authority
BPR – Bureau of Public Roads
BRT – Bus Rapid Transit
BTS – Bureau of Transportation Statistics
CCI –Construction Cost Index
CE – Categorical Exclusion\
CHRPA – Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency
CID – Community Improvement District
CMAQ – Congestion and Mitigation Air Quality Program
CORE MPO – Chamber County-Savannah Metropolitan Planning Committee
CTC – Centralized Traffic Control
DB1B – Airline Origin and Destination Survey
DCA – Department of Community Affairs
DNR – Department of Natural Resources
EARPC –East Alabama Regional Planning Commission
EIS – Environmental Impact Study
EJ – Environmental Justice
EMU – Electric Multiple Units
FAA – Federal Aviation Administration
FD – Final Design
FRA – Federal Rail Administration
FTA – Federal Transit Authority
FWHA – Federal Highway Administration
GARVEE – Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle Bond
GDOT – Georgia Department of Transportation
GIS – Geographic Information System
GNAHRGIS – Georgia’s natural Archaeological and Historical Resources GIS
GO – General Obligation
GPA – Georgia Ports Authority
GRPA – Georgia Regional Passenger Authority
H-JAIA – Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport
HSGT – High Speed Ground Transportation
HSIPR – High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail
JTA – Jacksonville Transit Authority
KRPDA – Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency
KYTC – Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
LOS – Level of Service
Maglev – Magnetic Levitation
MBPZ - Macon-Bibb Planning and Zoning
MHSRC –Midwest High Speed Rail Coalition
MMPT – Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal
MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
MSA – Metropolitan Statistical Area
MWRRS – Midwest Regional Rail System
NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act
NHRP – National Register of Historic Places
NIST – National Institute of Standards and Technology
NNEPRA – Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority
NPV – Net Percent Value
NS – Norfolk Southern
OBS – On Board Service
OMB – Office of Management and Budget
P3 – Public Private Partnerships
PRIIA – Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008
PTC – Positive Train Control
RPCGB – Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham
RRIF – Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program
SAFETEA-LU – Safe Automobile Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
SCC – Standard Cost Categories
SDP – Service Development Programs
SEHSR – Southeast High Speed Rail
SMART – Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation
SPLOST – Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax
STP – Surface Transportation Program
TAD – Tax Allocation Districts
TDOT – Tennessee Department of Transportation
TEA-21 – Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998
TIF – Tax Incremental Financing
TIGER – Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery
TIFIA – Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
TMP – Transportation Management Plan
TPO – Transportation Planning Organization
TRB – Transportation Research Board
TSPLOST – Transportation Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax
TTI – Texas Transportation Institute
TWC –Track Warranted Control
UGA – University of Georgia, Athens
UIC – International Union of Railways
US FWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Services
US DOT – United States Department of Transportation
VMT – Vehicle Miles Traveled
Chattanooga Atlanta thealong considered wasonly Maglev, as abbreviated Levitation, Magnetic Express report, this “Dedicatedreferred toas Use”. In constraints. capacity highway and air right shared grade High Express of speeds top 90 curvature to due corridors “Shared This railroad. freight a by operated and High Emerging develop the through process,NEPAroute should the beselected tofor analysis.future alternative high an corridors’ alignmen specific of of variety a have may route representative each example for an estimates as reasonable presented are but representa alternatives, the that noted Atlanta the in included was 150 to up speeds with Use) (Dedicated (Shar Rail High Emerging both for corridor each for elected was route representative A in the mph) Atlanta High Express and High Emerging for corridor each within examined was rail high operating and implementing of feasibility The as are follows: high High this of purpose The B TLANTA N A L AT ACKGROUND AND AND ACKGROUND -
speed rail for three corridors in the southeastern United States. The corridors The States. United southeastern the in corridors three for rail speed - separated, electrified, dedicated track (with the possible exception of some of exception possible the (with track dedicated electrified, separated, Atlanta, GA toChattanooga,Atlanta, TNto Atlanta GA toBirmingham,Atlanta, AL; s” Diesel Use”. d s) ih pes p o 90 to up speeds with Use) ed - - - of Nashville Speed Rail achieves top speeds from 180 from speeds top achieves Rail Speed
- , GA, GAtoMacon, FL; toJacksonville, and - Speed Rail generally generally Rail Speed way in terminal areas). Express High Express areas). terminal in way - - 110 mph110 Speed Rail (180 Rail Speed - Chattanooga - - - Louisville corridor, per special permission from the Federal the from permission special per corridor, Louisville electric M A H G N I M R I B Speed Rail Planning Study is to evaluate evaluate to is Study Planning Rail Speed . - and topography topography and
Chattanooga P ie ots r nt rfre o recommended or preferred not are routes tive SU
URPOSE
it ri Technology Train Tilt - - Nashville 220 mph) in all three corridors; and Maglev (220+ Maglev and corridors; three all in mph) 220 RY A M M involves utilizing an existing rail corridor owned corridor rail existing an utilizing involves
- 220 mph. Additionally, Maglev technology Maglev Additionally, mph. 220 - Nashville Nashville, TN to -
- ye of type 1 mh ad xrs High Express and mph, 110 Louisvillecorridor. on these these on -
speed rail performance. Each Each performance. rail speed - service Louisville Corridor. It should be should It Corridor. Louisville - pe ad nect passenger intercity and speed -
route Speed Rail intends to relieve to intends Rail Speed s rpsd for proposed is
to 220 mph on completely on mph 220 to CUTIVE E V I T U EC X E Louisville,KY - Speed R Speed s lo co also is s ts that will be analyzed be will that ts
and typically achieves achieves typically and
High ail (90 ail the feasibility of feasibility the mny called mmonly - pe Ri is Rail Speed .
hrd Use Shared - pe Rail Speed - 110 mph) 110
- Speed -
ES -
1 Executive Summary: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
ES -
2 Executive Summary: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
ordr ih ead t cptl ot, udn ad iacn opportunities, financing and funding costs, capital to each of regards feasibility relative with the determine to corridor is study this of purpose overall The P involves sol also designated alternative corridor, This rail passenger mph. service.rail passenger new 300 and a 250 establishing between speeds cruising permits Maglev Guideway. a over vehicle a guides and propels, lifts, force magnetic i Maglev (FRA). Administration Railroad dniy representative a identify high A andratio othercost comparative factors r ridership, forecast costs, capital route corridorrepresentative identify to was study feasibility this for steps first the of One R rail, bus,accommodate and ta multi new a designing Birmingham the Birmingham, Atlanta, high for need potential the support multi major are two There (Atlanta Corridor Orleans (New Corridor Rail High Coast Gulf the between connection a as study feasibility this of part a as segment route this analyzed (RPCGB) Birmingham Greater of Commission Planning ( Transportation of Department Georgia 1997 the in America included was corridor rail (M Terminal Passenger (H Airport International Atlanta The C corridors. between transportation in investment from anticipated benefits potential the upon dependent is corridor each of feasibility the benefit costs, maintenance and operation URPOSE AND AND URPOSE EPRESENTATIVE EPRESENTATIVE ORRIDOR s
- - for each study corridor study each for level screening analysis was applied to to applied was analysis screening level
ot nlss ah ordr s tde idpnety foe nte, and another, one of independently studied is corridor Each analysis. cost
report and is reportand ofthe one 11 federally h Alna MT s rpsd o e oae i dwtw Alna In Atlanta. downtown in located be to proposed is MMPT Atlanta the
- imnhm ordr xed fo te Hartsfield the from extends corridor Birmingham D - Charlotte ESCRIPTION AND AND ESCRIPTION O -
modal center adjacent to the existing Amtrak station that will that station Amtrak existing the to adjacent center modal MPT) and onto downtown Birmingham, AL. This particular particular This AL. Birmingham, downtown onto and MPT) BJECTIVE - AA t te rpsd onon tat Mli Modal Multi Atlanta downtown proposed the to JAIA) - R modal projects underway in Atlanta and Birminghamand projects modal thatunderwayAtlanta in - - Raleigh Birmingham route route OUTE OUTE xiservices. . Once the representative routes were established, were routes representative the Once . - efro Cut Tast uhrt (JT) is (BJCTA) Authority Transit County Jefferson evenues, operating costs, operating ratio, benefit ratio, operating costs, operating evenues, - WashingtonD.C.). o ec tcnlg fr further for technology each for
- iesi ad eeu, prtn rto and ratios operating revenue, and ridership D pe ri evc btente w cte. In cities. two the between service rail speed
EVELOPMENT -
Atlanta) and t and Atlanta) werecalculated a avne tan ehooy n which in technology train advanced an s DT, n atesi wt te Regional the with partnership in GDOT),
High H - the major cities and along each of the of each along and cities major the designated high ISTORY the - Speed Ground Transportation for for Transportation Ground Speed Atlanta
he Southeast High Southeast he .
- Birmingham - speed rail corridors. l t high to ely - ako Atlanta Jackson
- evaluation. corridor to corridor Speed Rail Speed - - Speed speed
-
route an Atlanta exiting and entering tracks) separate and Use corridor Dedicated The Birmingham. H at stations Use Shared The shownin Figure1 are on page technica a on based 180 and Use Shared G Atlanta, connects Atlanta The C operating each for technology consist s Rail Speed Use) (Shared Representative reig n aayi methodology analysis and creening ORRIDOR ORRIDOR 4. 3. 2. 1.
ss h sm sain a Sae Ue wt te xeto o mvn the moving of exception the with Use, Shared as stations same the uses benefit ratio, operating costs, operating revenues, ridership, forecast costs, capital to regard with feasibility its of terms in route representative each Evaluate and feasibi engineering feasibility, operating and accessibility, location station time, travel including goals service including: analysis detailed more a upon based alignments route representative refine Further threshold; should process, NEPA the through analyzed further be would that alternatives alignment several contain routes These the andleastwith public cost environmental factors primar qualitative and chosen quantitative were routes technology each Representative for route representative a identify to factors qualitative which and quantitative both using alternatives routes route operating of universe initial the Screen each those for identifying alternatives each forconnectivity of majorcitythe pairs; on route based of universe technology initial the Identify
- Use) (Dedicated Birmingham
- on a shared a on AA Alna M Atlanta JAIA, transitions - costandcomparativeratio other factors. Intermodal connectivity Intermodalconnectivity through and opportunities, alter route on input and knowledge Stakeholder alternativeRoute densityroutUsefreight traffic (for Shared alternativegeometryRoute routes E route
VALUATION A l and stakeholder review of the corrido the of review stakeholder and l -
2 mh eiae Ue ordr prtos were operations corridor Use Dedicated mph 220
and Birmingham, A Birmingham, and
were identified for: 1) 90 1) for: identified were follows the NS and Amtrak Crescent corridor, with potential with corridor, Crescent Amtrak and NS the follows C - to freight freight to orridor is the shortest of the three study corridors and corridors study three the of shortest the is orridor corridor; freight use n ddctd fly grade fully dedicated, a on P, Douglasville, MPT, ES - 4, alongwith alternativesthatreviewedwere
route ed route employed employed
of four steps: offour L . .
and travel olw, rmrl, h I the primarily, follows, uiiig rih right freight (utilizing o eie te ihs lvl f service of level highest the deliver to R epresentative epresentative -
and d Birmingham. The Dedicated Use Dedicated The Birmingham. d potential 110 mph Emerging High Emerging mph 110 o dniy representative a identify to GA,
the corridors pass the feasibility the pass corridors the :
2) 180 2)
l bsd n h following the on based ily time Anniston
-
stations. eaae corridor separated , -
220 mph Express High Express mph 220 routes r. r. iy ad ot factors; cost and lity, AL , The select The aie sus and issues native
-
of for 90 for and provide basic basic provide - - 0 interstate 20 a, u on but way, - downtown Speed Rail Speed - ed identified 110 mph 110 es),
routes . route .
The
- . .
ES -
3 Executive Summary: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
ES -
4 Executive Summary: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
route (illustratedFigure route in 1) Use Dedicated the with intersect to order in miles 3.2 southward station Anniston .
Figure Figure 1 : : Atlanta - Birmingham Representative andStationsRoutes
ES -
5 Executive Summary: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
ES -
6 Executive Summary: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
minutes to travel the 15 the travel to minutes route mph 220 stop station and curves mph, 110 highway. corridor, an mph 64 of speed Atlanta The routes. use O O the technologies, increasein significant overallrevenue. the Use Dedicated and Use Shared Use Dedicated mph increasesubstantially indicates betweennot ridershipalso may graph while that The 220 the with associated ridersh both in increase an in results service corridor speeds travel higher and service the tota as well as 2040 and 2030 2021, years balance optimum the in Use Dedicated for $0.40/mile and Use Shared for structure fare $0.28/mile ridership balance lower and optimize ben generate system transportation overall to but order levels, in ridership Therefore, higher revenues. produce structures fare lower that Dedica and Use The R and operating ridership costs. maintenance and travel auto over perating plan perating IDERSHIP AND PERATING
two representative two route study
Travel Time Estimated Auto Frequency Average S Travel Time Rail Distance
0 iue soe ta aeae uo rvl ie sn te Interstate the using time travel auto average than slower minutes 20 de diesel Although veloped P s will have an average speed of 11 of speed average an have will ted Use ted
LAN Te rqece wr estab were frequencies The . and schedule and peed R
Table (round trips per day)
– (hr : min) d will take approximately 2 hours and 46 minutes to travel the travel to minutes 46 and hours 2 approximately take will d EVENUE
the annual ridership and revenue ridership and annual the (miles)
Auto Time
(mph) - Time
Birmingham Corridor Shared Use route willhave route Use Shared Corridor Birmingham . routes 1 1
-
Table 4 and Figure 2 Figure and 4 Table :Atlanta electric equipment technology can provide top speeds of speeds top provide can technology equipment electric mile corridor, corridor, mile
(hr : min) s.
s
. The ridership and revenue analysis revenue and ridership The .
The table and graph show that an increase in level showan ofgraphincrease in and that table The w s reduce average speeds. speeds. average reduce s ere efits (consumer surplus) (consumer efits - BirminghamPlans Operating
developed for the Shared Use and Dedicated and Use Shared the for developed
a 1 hour and 8 minute travel time savings savings time travel minute 8 and hour 1 a
l ridership and revenue (2021 revenue and ridership l Shared Use 176.0 +0:20 2:46 2:26
ihd o rae blne between balance a create to lished 64 illus 6 7 mph and will take 1 hour and 1 and hour 1 take will and mph 7
trate ridership and revenue for revenue and ridership trate ip and revenue for the corridor. the for revenue and ip ihr ae used fare higher
forecasts study study Dedicated Use The Dedicated Use Dedicated The 150.7 - for Sharedboth for the 1:18 2:26 concluded that concluded 117 1:08
10
,
demonstrated revenue, eut i a in results
an average an
- 2040) for 2040) resulted resulted 180
and the 8 -
a significant portionand track, the of electrification the routes.UseDedicated and outlin5Figure 3 and Table attributed andpartiallytopography the to thegeometry of along track corridor the be also may but corridor, the of length short the to due primarily is This corridors. Atlanta The C Figure Figure Table APITAL Total 20 2030 202 2 2 40 :Atlanta : : Atlanta 1 C
Cost per Cost Mile Total Cost - Birmingham Corrid Birmingham OSTS Table 37,177 2,087,000 1,847,000 1,613 Ridership - - Birmingham TotalRidership (2021and Revenue Birmingham TotalRidership(2021 andRevenue
3
:Atlanta
,000 ,000
of operations of the maintenanceand as costs well. Shared Use
e the total capital costs and costs per mile for Shared Usemilecapital Shared for costs theper costs e total and
The high Dedicated UsehighDedicated Theare mostlycosts associated with
- Birmingham TotalCapitalCosts (2010$) $1, comprising or has the least expensive capital costs of the three three the of costs capital expensive least the has or $61,731,000 $53,480,000 $46 077,851 Revenue ,
054 $2,937, $16,821, Shared Use ,000 ,000
about 25 percent of the total capital cost capital total the of percent 25 about 324,000
000
44,270 2,481,000 2,199,000 1,946 Ridership
,000 ,000 $8, Dedicated Use Dedicated Use $54, 322,896,000
126,000 $1, $96,693,000 $84,113,000 $72 - - 2040in 2010$) 2040 in2040 2010$) 694,837 Revenue
, 791
,000
,000
.
ES -
7 Executive Summary: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
ES -
8 Executive Summary: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
time same perio the for billion $1.7 of estimate Use Dedicated the to compared million $930.3 approximately to equate costs maintenance and operating to Use Shared Total used (2021 costs categoriestotal as well as 2040 and costing 2030 2021, for costs fixed maintenance and ope the andillustrates 7 Table variable costs. maintenance of and operating total breakdown calculate a shows 6 Table O PERATING AND d.
Table Figure Figure 4 :FixedandOperatingVariable CategoriesandMaintenance M 3 : : Atlanta Fuel or Fuel or Energy Equipment Maintenance On Train Crew AINTENANCE Administration and Management andTrack Electrification Maintenance Stations CreditCar Travel+ Agency Commissions Call Center Insurance - Board Services
- Birmingham TotalCapitalCosts (2010$)
Variable Costs Fixed Costs C
OSTS
- 2040). rating
corridor studies. diesel corridor Use Shared for made peerrevie a on 180 1 revenue prov operators.and investors This and ridership 2040. conservative to period most the 20 the over increase steadily then even surpluses revenue The forecasts. using 2021 in operating operation significant that notable is It 8. r Table in outlined as ratio 1.0 a above operating all scenarios, sensitivity three the of each under well performed routes the Both Oper in IntermediatescenariosOptimisticthe and forall technologies. downward adjusted were estimates cost Capital drivers. ridership appropriate scenarios. Optimistic and Use Intermediate Dedicated for increased were estimates revenue scenario Conservative the for used were costs operating and feasibility a cost operating and capital revenue, ridership, of scenarios both High C
vne upue ae show are surpluses evenue Ridership adjustments for Intermediate and Optimistic Scenarios were only made for Dedicated Use corridor corridor Use Dedicated for made only were Scenarios Optimistic and Intermediate for adjustments Ridership ORRIDOR - 220 mph electrified, steel electrified, mph 220 Total 2040 2030 202 - ating Ratio ating speed rail service in the A the in service rail speed prtn ratio operating
Table 1
, 90
Conservative, and Intermediate w of regional of w - level analysis. Unadjusted base forecasts for ridership, revenue, capital revenue, ridership, for forecasts base Unadjusted analysis. level -
5 110 mph Shared use and 180 and use Shared mph 110 E :Atlanta Variable VALUATION $457.8 $22.7 $21.8 $20.9
andhigh national
s
- -
wheel and Maglev technologies (Maglev in Atlanta in (Maglev technologies Maglev and wheel Birmingham TotalOperating CostsandMaintenance (2021 n benefit and Shared Use
$472.5 $22.5 $22.5 $22.5 Fixed
- lcrc ehooy eut bsd n pe rve o ohr shared other of review peer a on based results technology electric ds srn icnie o ptnil rvt sector private potential for incentive strong a ides
- 2040 millions in $ 2010$) and n tlan
o bt tcnlge drn te is ya of year first the during technologies both for
- speed rail corridor studies. No scenario ridership adjustment was ridershipscenariowas adjustment No studies. corridor rail speed
ta - cost cost - Birmingham $930.3 $45.2 $44.3 $43.4 Tota 1
Optimistic analyses - l prtn css ee dutd y the by adjusted were costs Operating 220 mph Dedicated Use representative Use Dedicated mph 220
estimates typically encountered in encountered typically estimates Variable $767.9 C $38.1 $36.6 $35.0 . orridor orridor , to show the toshow a impact, range of The
ordr t etbih the establish to corridors
Dedicated Use
study was evaluated by using by evaluated was - Louisville corridor only) based based only) corridor Louisville
. $932.4
$44.4 $44.4 $44.4 Fixed Base ridership and ridership Base
vlae three evaluated
- year planning year
$1,700 $82.5 $81.0 $79.4 Total
- use
ES -
9 Executive Summary: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
ES
- 10 Executive Summary: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
shared diesel corridor Use Shared for made was adjustment ridership scenario No scenarios. the of each for used were forecasts revenue and ridership case base Scenario” 2 surpluses on an annual basis may finance a “rail maintenance fund”, requiring less requiring fund”, maintenance “rail a finance may basis annual an on operating surpluses Additionally, subsidies. investment public on reliability reduced to lead ser debt down pay Positive to ability an operators. indicate and ratios operating owners to risks associated lower with operations strong indicates This scenarios. three all for 1.0 above well ratios in resulting analysis, ratio perform alternatives Use Dedicated and Use Shared The K and a benefitproduces scenarios sensitivity the of any for 1.0 over Use Shared the that routes representative the ratios, operating to Similar Benefit
Shared Use operating ratios did not vary be vary not did ratios operating Use Shared EY
- use corridorstudies. F INDINGS - Cost Dedicated Use Shared Use Table Table
2040 2030 2021 2040 2030 2021
7
6
:Atlanta -
:Atlanta costaboveratio 1.0 forthe
ot alternative route and
Conservative
all - Birmingham Benefit -
BirminghamRatios(2021 Operating
three 1.41 1.25 1.10 1.49 1.32 1.15 Conservative study
tween the three sensitivity levels because the same “Conservative “Conservative same the because levels sensitivity three the tween 0.48 0.80
Dedicated Use sensitivity Shared Use
evalu - electric technology results technology electric does not demonstrate demonstrate not does Intermediate
tdte benefit the ated
Intermediate 2.00 1.86 1.72 1.49 1.32 1.15 scenario Optimistic 2
-
CostRatios (2021 0.92 0.88
eiae Use Dedicated
s. The results The s. sce
vices and bonds, and can and bonds, and vices well under the operating the under well
based on a peer review of other other of review peer a on based Optimistic nario. nario. - cost ratio for the two two the for ratio cost 2.12 2.00 1.87 1.49 1.3 1.15 Optimistic benefit a - 2 1.13 0.95 2050) -
ot alternative route
2050) in Table 9 Table in
- ot ratio cost show
includedin a be Performance High Hybrid the if determine to ratios Use Dedicated Benefit s the estimates, these From Usethe during Shared and analyses.UseDedicated estimatesThese include: scenario feasibility Performance Therefore, scenario analys some While analysis. Use), Shared the the was analyses Use) Dedicated the Use to (compared Dedicated and Use offset to alternative Shared “hybrid” a of the introduction from results the of One H activities Atlanta the in development feasible is corridor service Birmingham rail speed and high that planning finds study this state particular, future for priorities analysis cost account into Taking benefit better a yield could estimates, cost evaluation, narrowingthe rangeofestimates and models, demand high travel very includes study feasibility definitive with more analysis detailedcorridor more this A estimates. that noted be should It scenariosshow route Use benefita benefit a shows T providing corridor, the in interest investment sector funding additional opportunities. private spark likely will Posi costs. maintenance capital for years future in investment e eiae Use Dedicated he YBRID YBRID
- Operating and Operating MaintenanceCosts. Costs;and Capital R Operationalestimates; ot ai t cmae gis te rvosy dniid hrd s and Use Shared identified previously the against compare to ratio Cost completed. be to analysis full a for available data insufficient was there , idership and revenue;and idership and provide a high a provide and study intends to introduce the concept of the Hybrid High Performance High Hybrid the of concept the introduce to intends study
oe efrac ad iaca dtis eadn te yrd High Hybrid the regarding details financial and performance more H
, the the , Corridor. scenario IGH IGH
- future analysis.NEPA cost ratio of 1.13 for t for 1.13 of ratio cost
study hs oiiey matn the impacting positively thus P route using using route both both
ERF
will need to be explored through the NEPA process. This This process. NEPA the through explored be to need will
recomm
h oeaig ais n benefit and ratios operating the ORMANCE ORMANCE - e le
uy aclts h high the calculates tudy s w s vel ends that the results of this analysis be used be analysis this of results the that ends
180
ere while improving the travel speeds travel the improving while feasibility estimates feasibility - costgreaterratio than 1.0. -
2 mph 220 completed for the Hybrid High Performance High Hybrid the for completed he he
Optimistic S . CENARIO
a portion a lcrfe, steel electrified, prtn rto and ratio operating scenario
based on the results found results the on based - ee oeaig ai and ratio operating level
of the initial capital costs capital initial the of
- ot ratio cost . .
tive operating ratios operating tive None of the Shared the of None -
wheel study boundaries,study - scenario ee dt and data level
(compared t (compared
n benefit and benefit technology
should should to set to
- - c cost ost In In o - -
ES - 11 Executive Summary: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
ES
- 12 Executive Summary: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
n o te an eeis f the of benefits main the of One speeds mphof220travel o it years, operating later D high shared no with geometry grade fully utilizing Use, Dedicated and Use Shared between service The as compared2040) UsetoDedicated forecasts. Performance High Hybrid the for scenario revenue and ridership estimated the shows 11 in increase and forecasts Use Dedicated the from percent 7.3 decrease speed average Performance High Hybrid in the for revenue decrease the time, the travel corridor on based estimated study The Rider thanautominutes interstatefaster travelby AtlantafromtoBirmingham(Table 10). Performance High Hybrid mph 130 The route. the approximately that estimated scenario Use Dedicated the for assumed capitaltothe lower compared 180 significantly costs Average Speed (mph) Travel Time (hr : min) Rail Distance (miles) Travel Time Estimated Auto Time(hr : min) Frequency (round trips/day) iesel - s pe tech speed ship and Revenue and ship tudy - Electric Table
for 2021, 2030, and 2040 as well as a total ridership and revenue (2021 revenue and ridership total a as well as 2040 and 2030, 2021, for s
til developed a Hybrid High Performance High Hybrid a developed Segment – hs h ptnil o ec sed o u to up of speeds reach to potential the has l
Auto Time
8 Tilt T Tilt 2 iue lne ta te electrified the than longer minutes 22 : Atlanta ooy the nology,
echnology initially, and initially, echnology
yrd ih Performance High Hybrid - Birmingham HybridHighPerformance Operations can be be can - use freight operations. freight use
rmore.
yrd ih Performance High Hybrid
Shared Use upgrad
route + 176.0
2:56 2:46 0:10 64 Hybrid 6
.
ed
oee, h Hbi Hg Performance High Hybrid the However,
when a to ih Performance High
scenario Dedicated Use
fully ridership and revenue increase in increase revenue and ridership scenario However, rather than electrified than rather However, - 150.7 - 2:56 1:18 220 mph electrified220 technology 117 1:38 10 - scenario electr
(refer to Appendix G) Appendix to (refer ri o th on train
is approximately 1 hour, 16 hour, 1 approximately is scenario
that provides a level of of level a provides that fe sse, obtaining system, ified 130
ol ol take only would ol implement would scenario mph. The The mph. Ddctd Use Dedicated e - Performance Hybrid High separated track separated scenario 150.7 - 2:56 1:40 1:16 10 90
include
. Table . would study
s -
costsmaintenance (2021and maintenance202andfor costs operating track required less track to due estimates maintenance Use and Dedicated inspection the from reduced be also costs maintenance and Operating electrifiedsteelmph Performance High technology Use Dedicated the to compared 12 Table electrifiedfully vehicles. than expensive less also are vehicles diesel since cost vehicle in decreased in results Use Dedicated the for costs maintenance and costs, operating costs, capital the mentioned, previously As Costs Table Table .
Cost per Cost Mile Total Cost Total 2040 2030 202 10 Table 13 13 Table 9
: Atlanta : Hybrid : Atlanta 1 outlines the the outlines
route
ih Performance High 41,043 - lutae te estimate the illustrates 2,300,000 2,039,000 1, Ridership
Birmingham HybridHighPerformanceCapital Rail Costs (2010$) - Hybrid High Performance scenario Birmin 805,000 - wheeltechnology. due to the elimination of the track electrification. This also This electrification. track the of elimination the to due ,000 Hybrid Hybrid
gham HybridHighPerformancegham andRevenueRidership
r almost are
-
Hybrid High Performance eas hay rih tan wl nt e hrn the sharing be not will trains freight heavy because 2040) compared2040) to Dedicatedthe route. Use (2021 $1, ih Perf High $ $ $ 89,644,000 77,981,000 67,484,000 571,284 Revenue $ 5, o te Hybrid the for $ - 35, 455,325,000 scenario 2040 in 2010$)
477,000 two 1, 2030 and 2040 as wellas as total2040 operating2030 and 1, ormance ,000 te yrd ih Performan High Hybrid the s
.
-
hrs ( thirds
Capital costs for the 130 mph Hybrid mph 130 the for costs Capital il e significantly be will
44,270
2,481,000 2,199,000 1,946 Ridership scenario ih Performance High
2/3
,000 ) ,000
Dedicated Use f hs fr h 180 the for those of $8,
Dedicated Use
aia cs estimates cost capital $54, 322,897,000 399 $1, $96,693,000 $84,113,000 $72
684,837 Revenue ,000 es hn the than less , scenario 791
ce
,000
scenario ,000
-
220 will
ES - 13 Executive Summary: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
ES
- 14 Executive Summary: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
requirement increasingbenefitand Atlanta high to approach Performan incremental High Hybrid the into investigation Initial route Use scenarios 15 Table and 14 benefit and ratio operating Use Shared the to Similar Evaluation Feasibility Table Table Table Total 2040 2030 202 Dedicated Use Hybrid High Performance
12 - 11 1 Birmingham 13
: Atlanta : : Conservative, Intermediate and Optimistic and Intermediate Conservative, :
. : Atlanta :
: Atlanta : Maintenance Costs (2021CostsMaintenance Variable 2040 2030 2021 2040 2030 2021 $751.8 $37.2 $35.8 $ Hybrid High Performance Rail
34.4 -
lutae h rsls f hs aaye fr h tre sensitivity three the for analyses these of results the illustrate - Birmingham HybridHighPerformanc
Birmingham HybridHighPerformance -
Birmingham HybridHighPerformance
Corridor
Conservative - $ $31.8 $31.8 $31.8 cost ratio for the Hybrid the for ratio cost Fixed
667.8
and 1.41 1.25 1.10 1.51 1.34 1.18 -
Hybrid High Performance speed rail may provide significant advantages in the in advantages significant provide may rail speed oh n em o rdcn iiil aia cost capital initial reducing of terms in both
Ratio (2021 Ratio Conservative
eiae Use Dedicated - Dedicated Use cost cost ratios 0.48 0.72
$ $69.0 $67.6 $66.2 Total 1,420 - 2040 2040 millionsin $ and 2010$)
Intermediate
-
2050) 2.00 1.86 1.72 2.13 2.00 1.85 .
Intermediate
Variable routes $767.9
$38.1 $36.6 $35.0 0.92 1.28 Performance
as compared to the Dedicated the to compared as ce
e
te td developed study the , scenario
Scenario Scenario Dedicated Use Scenario Optimistic
2.12 2.00 1.87 2.26 2.14 2.02 $932.4 $44.4 $44.4 $44.4 Fixed
alternative. alternative. Optimistic niae ta an that indicates
Operating RatioOperating O
1.13 1.62
Benefit
perating and
$1,700 $82.2 $81.0 $79.4 Total
- Cost Ta
ble ble an
High Hybrid Performanceimplementation approach. the including alternatives technology of range a address to continue Atlanta high thefor pursued in feasible recommend is rail speed high also in investment are mode new initialthis by offered opportunities economic the and mobility the significant, although that illustrates co study This through Birmingham and Atlanta nationa as such cities cost and High consumers. to choices transportation passenge that evidence high While development. economic promotes and solutions transportation needed provide to High F Atlanta the within rail passenger Corridor. Birmingham for alternative technology viable a as analysis Performance Performance High Hybrid the of feasibility the regarding conclusions definitive make to needed is alternative Performance High Hybrid high used study The INAL INAL - infcn. ae o the on Based significant. spe l /international destinations. ed rail service in the Atlanta the in service rail ed - C fetv mas o osmr, rvdn add onciiy o major to connectivity added providing consumers, to means effective - ONCLUSIONS ed pe ri i nt h ol tasotto slto, hs td gives study this solution, transportation only the not is rail speed scenario
ht Te 1 EA ouet n Srie eeomn Pa be Plan Development Service and Document NEPA 1 Tier a that - pe ri srie ihn h corridor. the within service rail speed -
ee etmts o rvne n css soitd ih the with associated costs and revenue for estimates level be included in the next phase of the passenger rail planning rail passenger the of phase next the in included be high r scenario scenario
analys - pe ri wl poie de mblt and mobility added provide will rail speed . Teeoe a oe eald nlss f this of analysis detailed more a Therefore, .
- h suy eomns ht h Hbi High Hybrid the that recommends study The Birmingham Corridor presents an opportunity opportunity an presents Corridor Birmingham i fnig, hs td dtrie ta high that determines study this findings, s
- imnhm Corridor Birmingham - pe ri cn rvd mr efficient more provide can rail speed mril etr and centers mmercial
hs nlss should analysis This It . - pe ri is rail speed
s further is - -
ES - 15 Executive Summary: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
ES
- 16 Executive Summary: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
S E C T I O N I : BACKGROUND INFORMATIO N AND METHODOLOGIES
Section I: Background Information and Methodologies and Information Background SectionI:
Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
in the mph) High Express High Emerging for corridor each within examined was rail implementing of feasibility The as are follows: high High this of purpose The exceed benefits total HSGT’s that in manycosts oftotal illustrativethecorridors. found to study The trips miles. 600 diverted and 100 for between potential the identified high study competitive The corridors. illustrative high in “Accelerail” termed (“IHSR,” mph 150 to 90 of speeds high incremental from systems HSGT of range a implementing if Amer for benefits and costs total the estimated FRA the CFS) or Study Feasibility Commercial Transportation Ground Speed study 1997 its In TRB. the to conclusions similar drawing systems, HSGT for potential the of study a completed also (FRA) Administration Railroad Federal The andis congestion delays very difficult.” highway reduce to capacity expanding but increasing is demand travel where corridors in alternative effective an be could systems “HSGT that concludes 233, Report Angel Los to Francisco San and Washington to York New high the in travel York, New air to Boston the including with State, United domestic the in corridors and markets travel and highway conjunction to alternative competitive a in be (DOT), Transportation high that indicates that research of undertaken has (TRB) Board Research Department Transportation U.S. The 1.1 - - -
speed rail (with 175 (with rail speed sys (HSGT) transportation ground speed speed rail for three c three for rail speed D D Atlanta, GA toChattanooga,Atlanta, TNto GA GAtoMacon, Atlanta, FL; toJacksonville, and GA toBirmingham,Atlanta, AL; ESIGNATED ESIGNATED ESCRIPTION Atlanta - n usi o Sed Nw pin fr nect Psegr Transport Passenger Intercity for Options New Speed, of Pursuit In pe Ri (180 Rail Speed
- speed rail and ground transportation services, especia services, transportation ground and rail speed - Chattanooga - C /H Speed Rail Planning Study is to evaluate evaluate to is Study Planning Rail Speed orridors in the southeastern United States. The corridors The States. United southeastern the in orridors 200 mph top speeds) and maglev (up to 300 mph) in 11 in mph) 300 to (up maglev and speeds) top mph 200 ORRIDORS ISTORY OF OF ISTORY
- 220 mph) in all three corridors; and Maglev (220+ (220+ Maglev and corridors; three all in mph) 220
and operating high operating and - Nashville 1
I NTRODUCTION AND Nashville, TN to -
Lou ica H tems, including high including tems,
(omny eerd o s the as to referred (commonly , isville IGH - -
pe ad nect passenger intercity and speed Corridor S PEED PEED
- Louisville,KY. Speed Rail (90 Rail Speed es corridor. TRB Special Special TRB corridor. es the 1997 report) to new new to report) 1997 the .
- R speed rail with top with rail speed - AIL AND AND AIL speed rail, could could rail, speed the feasibility of feasibility the B ACKGROUND
and airport and lly for trips for lly - 110 mph); 110 - density High - ,
1 -
1 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 2 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
ih tog oeta fr uue high future for potential strong with High Emerging defines FRA 1.2.1 Chattanooga (Maglev technology Levitation Magnetic However, plans. operating and scenarios service developed on based evaluated be highalternativesintercity forservice levels of Three 1.2 “greenfield” “greenfield” Road Governor’s the corridors, rights railroad private Georgia, utility in network (GRIP) Program Improvement other and power corridors, highway state corridor, rail cons for alternatives passenger service new high a to solely establishing designated involves primarily alternative This Express High report, High Express areas).” terminal in track shared some of exception possible the (with way 18 from range will 200 centers population High Express defines FRA 1.2.2 the than extent greater a an acceleration to acceleration centrifugal feel not do passenger that so cant, track centrifugal the by produced compensation body car unbalanced 90 to Diesel This onacceptance based by freightthe railroads. operate. speeds Maximum to interest. service of points passenger for railroad thebetween network rail existing theto bound is it that inlimited very is alternative freight the with negotiated “Shared This railroad. freight a by operated and High Emerging some reliefprovide modes.” to other High separation. Emerging or protection crossing grade advanced with technology), control train 90 to up of speeds - curvature and topography on these corridors and typically achieves top speeds top achieves typically and corridors these on topography and curvature 1 mph. 110 -
pe Ri itns o eiv ar n hgwy aaiy constraints. capacity highway and air relieve to intends Rail Speed T -
electric Tilt electric ECHNOLOGY ECHNOLOGY - s” Operatin Use”. A A LTERNATIVE LTERNATIVE route -
Nashville - With the system, car bodies are tilted at curves to compensate for compensate to curves at tilted are bodies car system, the With - d d thus can attrains higherrun alongcurves. speed Speed rail Speed pe Ri i itne t dvlp the develop to intended is Rail Speed
s. Electrifications. wi 0 to 220 mph on completely gradecompletelyon mph 220 to 0 Train Technology will be utilized on the Shared Use corridors due corridors Use Shared the on utilized be will Technology Train - - 0 mh n rmrl sae tak eetal uig positive using (eventually track shared primarily on mph 100 Speed Rail is Speed referredas “Dedicatedto Use”. - Louisville - 600 miles apart, with few with apart, miles 600 , evc lvl n mitnne gemns ed o be to need agreements maintenance and level service g, 2: 1: - generally C pe Ri a “rqet epes evc bten major between service express “frequent, as Rail Speed - pe psegr al evc. n eeoig corridor developing In service. rail passenger speed
- 180 90 pe Ri a “eeoig ordr o 100 of corridors “developing as Rail Speed ONSIDERATIONS drto, the ideration, -
110 Corridor - 220
involves utilizing an existing rail corridor owned corridor rail existing an utilizing involves
ll beutilizedall with Push MPH - sp
MPH o te shared the for e rgoa ado epes evc. Top service. express and/or regional eed wl ol b cniee fr the for considered be only will ) .
type E study
E MERGING XPRESS
f evc i as cmol called commonly also is service of
xmnd xsig nesae and interstate existing examined Intermediate -
speed passenger rail willpassengerservice speed - separated, dedicated rights dedicatedseparated, -
s atraie s 1 mph 110 is alternative use asne ri mre, and market, rail passenger H H IGH IGH - PullTrain. - - S S
stops
PEED PEED . Top .
- R R - of 0 miles, 500 AIL AIL -
way and way Atlanta
speeds n this In
- of
of - -
other studies in alongthis specialand corridor Atlanta rights util other and power corridors, the service, of level this Again, for interest. of points the between corridor, structure a on elevated rail be may Guideway passenger new a hig to establishing solely designated involves primarily alternative This GermanyJapan. and in exist facilities Test today. operation in one only the is China Shanghai, in operating withi consideration it make Maglev for of speeds operating appropriate The mph. 310 to up of speeds at operating the above distance a along trains excl within propel way guide and lift to forces electromagnetic use systems trains These mph. 300 and 250 between speeds cruising permits and way guide and vehicle between of lift force magnetic which in technology trains advanced is Maglev, as abbreviated Levitation, Magnetic 1.2.3 - the - -
of art electr art - Chattanooga - A a ad “greenfield” and way LTERNATIVE ic power and control systems, this configuration eliminates contact contact eliminates configuration this systems, control and power ic s , propel , - g Nashville usive right usive uideway
h - 3: speed passenger rail service. Significant portions of the of portions Significant service. rail passenger speed s , and guide and , 220+ study
- eiiaig rcin n rlig eitne while resistance, rolling and friction eliminating , Louisville - route of t crios te RP ewr, rvt railroad private network, GRIP the corridors, ity
-
examined existing interstate and state highway state and interstate existing examined way. The trains, when operating, hover a small a hover operating, when trains, The way. MPH n an intercity corridor. A Maglev system system Maglev A corridor. intercity an n s. s
a vehicle over a g a over vehicle a Corridor M alv a ol cniee aog the along considered only was Maglev AGLEV
permission permission FRA. from bsd n alv consideration Maglev on based ,
uideway. Utilizing state Utilizing uideway.
-
1 -
3 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 4 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
Alabama northern region. Bir connect addedto be will service bus of level new a addition, In services. taxiand connections, airportservice, bus (SMART) the Transportation jumpstarting Regional for Authority Mobility Suburban Amtrak, funding, including coor region, will (ARRA) center The Act process. Reinvestment planning and Recovery American Multi Birmingham the Birmingham, In Atlantaregion.fortheetc.) heavy rail, commuter rail, Developer Master willhub high for theterminal envisioned that as is the aserve It opportunities. selected and (EIS) Statement Rece Atlanta. downtown in located Multi Atlanta the Atlanta, In high for need potential the support that major two are There modes other of travelalong (suchcorridor the as andautomobiles airplanes). high o sharing the to due speed of limitations are there however,Crescent service; the of part a as current (2009), RailPlanAmtrak Georgia in the State outlined As Charlotte Orleans connecting Commission Planning Georgia corridors. America for 1997 the in included was corridor rail particular onto and (MMPT) ( Airport International The 2.1.1 2.1 -
speed passenger rail service between the two cities to create competition for competition create to cities two the between service rail passenger speed C Atlanta
A - ORRIDOR ORRIDOR Birmingham eatet f rnprain ( Transportation of Department TLANTA f track with with track f - Raleigh
segment - eot n i oe f h 1 federally 11 the of one is and report imnhm Corridor Birmingham - WashingtonD.C.) –
- B h eitn Briga dwtw Ata sain This station. Amtrak downtown Birmingham existing the Atlanta) and the Southe the and Atlanta)
NS D multi High Coast Gulf the between IRMINGHAM H f rae Briga (RPCGB) Birmingham Greater of . Therefore, the plan states that there may be a need for need a be may there that states plan the Therefore, . ESCRIPTIONS AND AND ESCRIPTIONS - - JAIA
rail (MARTA) and other g other and (MARTA) rail -
oa poet udra i Alna n Birmingham and Atlanta in underway projects modal - Modal Passenger Terminal (MMPT) is proposed to be to proposed is (MMPT) Terminal Passenger Modal ) o h Alna Multi Atlanta the to .
ty GO bgn n niomna Impact Environmental an began GDOT ntly, - 2 extends extends Modal Transit Center received $8 million in million $8 received Center Transit Modal -
iae l eitn tast evcs n the in services transit existing all dinate speed rail service between the two cities. cities. two the between service rail speed GDOT mingham to other transit hubs across the across hubs transit other to mingham S TUDY ast High ast ) i prnrhp ih h Regional the with partnership in , High from H round transportation (bus, taxi, taxi, (bus, transportation round P -
- Speed Ground Transportation Transportation Ground Speed ISTORY Speed Rail Corridor (Atlanta Corridor Rail Speed study - - - URPOSE AND oa Psegr Termi Passenger Modal pe Ri Crio (New Corridor Rail Speed eintd high designated Hartsfield views
to explore additional additional explore to ly
-
serves both citiesserves both ako Atlanta Jackson this route route this - pe rail speed O BJECTIVES - speed
s a as nal -
1 -
5 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 6 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
higher population. The Savannah metropolitan statistical area (MSA) is the fourth the is (MSA) area statistical metropolitan Savannah The population. higher the with associated revenue and ridership in increase the on based chosen was GA was route This FL. Jacksonville, onto included and GA Jesup, and Macon to Atlanta from high designated federally the of Savannah to travels Jac and station, Macon existing the to The 2.1.2 Transportation Authority (JTA) in 2008. This study evaluated various commuter rail commuter various evaluated study This 2008. in (JTA) Authority Transportation the including The peryear million $25 about costs operating this and dollars) for (2010 Hapevil costmillion $400 the approximately is that project MMPT, estimates study The Atlanta Macon. and proposed Forsyth Griffin, 103 Hampton, the encompass including would stations rail commuter potential The between traveling cities. populations serve these to line rail commuter potential a as studied bet corridor the decades, two past the Over mentioned). previously 125 high is corridor the for alternative best the that concluded fo report these of all or some which in scenarios potential Griffin, in stations including Macon, area study feasibility current the of National portion a Volpewithin location 2008 the with Macon coincides corridor study Center proposed System Transportation the of portion A frequency. and be to estimated study, this In Savannah. bypassing and Jesup, and Macon in service providing corridor dedicated ser moderate and conventional High Amtrak. and (GRPA), Authority Study Service Rail Passenger Intercity J to Atlanta An GA. Savannah, and SC Columbia, via FL Jacksonville, to NC Raleigh, from extends which federally the of part also is ma travel largest ksonville terminal station. station. terminal ksonville - Atlanta
Atlanta speed rail technology with 14 station stops (including all four stations stations four all (including stops station 14 with technology rail speed
- A Atlanta
TLANTA in the route alternative analysis; however, the route including Savannah, including route the however, analysis; alternative route the in - - Macon
Macon total otes Foia omtr al esblt Study Feasibility Rail Commuter Florida Northeast
- acksonville corridor was studied in the 2003 the in studied was corridor acksonville
Greenville between $104 milli $104 between rket in the state of Georgia. The Savannah to Jacksonville Corridor Jacksonville to Savannah The Georgia. of state the in rket H
– capital - - JAIA -
akovle Corridor Jacksonville M akovle Corridor Jacksonville ACON
ad h Alna MT Te td dvlpd seven developed study The MMPT. Atlanta the and ,
- costs (2003 dollars) dollars) (2003 costs Charlotte Rail Charlotte - designated Southeast High Southeast designated – The Atlanta The
vices (up to 79 mph). This study followed the U.S. the followed study This mph). 79 to (up vices J - ACKSONVILLE pe ri crio. h oiia crio travels corridor original The corridor. rail speed on and $393 million depending on service level service on depending million $393 and on vlain f High of Evaluation -
pe srie a eautd n diin to addition in evaluated was service speed y DT te eri Rgoa Passenger Regional Georgia the GDOT, by Corridor
- xed fo h Alna MT through MMPT Atlanta the from extends Macon lo is no eet s recent into ties also ween Atlanta and Macon has also been been also has Macon and Atlanta ween required to implement the service wasservice the implementrequired to . This study included four stations stations four included study This . -
Jacksonville Corridor is a variation variation a is Corridor Jacksonville r ttos ee evd The served. were stations ur - Speed Rail Corridor (SEHSR) Corridor Rail Speed - pe Ri Otos n the in Options Rail Speed GA , - mile corridor with 13 13 with corridor mile Atlanta to Jacksonville to Atlanta
no h proposed the onto
uis n Florida, in tudies rm Jacksonville from - 150 mph Diesel mph 150 e Morrow, le,
st corridor Chattanooga Corridor to Atlanta ensure to benchmark for potential the Chattano studying also is GDOT Currently, and extension thebetween eastern of the region portion Midwest southeastto the region. an as system national segment the on placed route this analyzed Louisville) to (Chicago Network Midwest the of connection Chattanooga of City and Cabinet 1997 Transportation America the in included for not was Transportation corridor rail This Ohio. and designated federally The 2.1.3 Additionally, Atlanta. are threethere other centers inorexistence proposed: multi proposed no of the number a high the accommodate are there Finally, corridorrail wouldspeed asuse thissystem a togenerate ridership.feeder pro The Florida. Northeast of areas other to Jacksonville from options
Atlanta
rthern terminus of the corridor is the Atlanta MMPT proposed for downtown for proposed MMPT Atlanta the is corridor the of terminus rthern A high potentially long term. and future near the in including Greyhound region and the Amtrak for services transportation ground and rail serve will the of location current the at located be to Authority center transportation Transportation regional new a for phase Jacksonville design final the in currently the with conjunction in Reg Jacksonville at two looking potential locations Brunswicknear Everett and currently is Region Coastal The Brunswick. for planned system transit route ( rural regional GA Brunswick of areas Mobility the serve Brunswick to hub Region transportation Coastal intermodal an the Center, of function and location the plan Regio Coastal StationTerminal Macon Fifth Street inon downtown Macon. high and intercity commuter, in upgrades potential the accommodate to Facility Commission Zoning and Facility: Terminal Passenger Intermodal Macon oga as part of a Tier I EIS. This This EIS. I Tier a of part as oga TLANTA Fr Seat n Kn Bys aa Bs. h ce The Base. Naval Bay’s King and Stewart Fort , d efr, u te td efr hs en raee t cnie all consider to broadened been has effort study the but effort, udy - - speed rail through Macon through rail speed Chattano
–
C
Mblt Center: Mobility n high that estimates are are estimates that oga HATTANOOGA T Section FTA -
ional Transportation Center (JRTC): Center Transportation ional speed rail service in this corridor. As previously mentioned,previously As corridor. this in service rail speed (KYTC), Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) (TDOT) Transportation of Department Tennessee (KYTC), - - Nashville pe ri crios evcn Ilni, nin, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, servicing corridors rail speed
.
repo .
This corridor provides high provides corridor This (MBPZ) Maglev technology was originally the focus of this this focusof the technology was originally Maglev - 31 tast evc, ryon, n a fixed a and Greyhound, service, transit 5311) Louisville t GO i prnrhp ih Kentucky with partnership in GDOT rt. , GA , –
consistent
N A study is currently being conducted to to conducted being currently is study A con . The project location is adjacent to the to adjacent is location project The . feasibility ASHVILLE
rce fr n nemdl Terminal intermodal an for tracted Corridor
with the concurrent work concurrent the with Convention Center. The JRTC The Center. Convention study study - oa cnes ht would that centers modal
HSGT – oncs n oivle with Louisville in connects
L n 01 Mcn Planning Macon 2001, In
OUISVILLE and reques and
uses the Tier I Tier the uses The City of Jacksonville, of City The
- ewe Alna and Atlanta between speed rail connection rail speed tr il nld the include will nter High
- , GA , pe Ground Speed ted that it be it that ted
posed high posed . -
pe rail speed
(JTA) I a a as EIS
in the in is ,
- - ,
1 -
7 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 8 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
were not developed; not instead,were comparisons rail were sys to made estimates ridership Detailed Covington. and Louisville Lexington, of cities Kentucky study high for potential the assessed KYTC the 1999, In Regional Atlanta The Plan. Rail Intercity 1997 Commission GDOT the of part was and years route I the recommend will it that appears it The but complete, technologies. HSGT potential n Fr Ko i Knuk. hs fclte my eei fo go connectivity good from benefit may facilities corridor rail andalong the accesstomajor airports cities. and These Kentucky. in Knox Fort Tenn and in Base for Air Arnold installations; military key several The the Louisvilleand downtown Elizabethtown explored also has Louisville Clarksville and Nashville downtown between service rail commuter considering between corridor also is Nashvilleregion The railroad. line short existing eastern an (RTA)Authority on Transit an in Leban Nashville and Nashville in downtown available is service rail Commuter connection AtlantaMaglev between Nashville.and Atlanta the airport. Chattanooga the and Chattanooga downtown Murfreesboro, Airport, Nashville Nashville, downtown locations: station passenger technology Maglev a recommended study Journey titledYour Accelerate Nashville to Chattanooga connecting study a conducted Tennessee 2008, In Midwe in 1996. founded the join to state the P Rail State Kentucky The Nashville. to Knoxville and Chattanooga to Knoxville from corridors other two included Plan Rail State The KY. high for potential high for opportunity the explored 2002 in Also the of percent conclu 15 The to contribute only vehicles. needed revenue tocover of costs system. the would of ridership cost that the indicates plus document dollars) (1998 billion $5.48 266 the for estimate cost magnitude of order An corridors. Kentucky the in differences the of some for adjusting time, the at U.S. the Atlanta . . xmnto o I of Examination The Atlanta to Chattan to Atlanta The - - Chattanooga planning and evaluation efforts was intended to provide a provide to intended was efforts evaluation and planning Chattanooga
Chattanooga (ARC) - 03 Tnese n Knuk cmltd tt Ri Pas that Plans Rail State completed Kentucky and Tennessee 2003,
- speed rail from Chattanooga to Nashville and beyondtoLouisville, and toNashville Chattanooga speed from rail
has also thestudied has corridor 1999 from to2003. - 5 I 75, – - Nashville
Chattanooga to Nashville Mag Nashville to Chattanooga - 4 n I and 64 ooga corridor has been a subject of study for over 10 over for study of subject a been has corridor ooga t ih pe Ri Caiin (MWR Coalition Rail Speed High st on - TN , Louisville oeta o cmue ri srie between service rail commuter of potential -
pe ri s rail speed ir I Tier - , KY , Ti srie s prtd y h Regional the by operated is service This . 1 ih pe Ri Corridors Rail Speed High 71 route
(adjacentKnox).toFort
niomna dcmn i nt yet not is document environmental Corridor
largely in the I the in largely - speed rie Tnese xlrd the explored Tennessee ervice. -
route mile system was placed at placed was system mile route
lan outlined the potential for potential the outlined lan - has the potential to connect to potential the has This This 75 corridor 75
passenger service through a through service passenger lev Feasibility Study. Study. Feasibility lev route
se, ot Campbell Fort essee, - 24 corridor with five with corridor 24 tems in temsin operation in ,
when joined with joined when
as the preferred the as
RC) which was was which RC) ewe the between in f the of sion , TN , This This .
stepsnext recommended f Louisville Atlanta Birmingham, of IV through II Sections corridor. each for variability the estimating for used methods 3 Chapter I, Section the along and corridors. cities major the between transportation the of feasibility maintenance and operating representative the Once the through process,NEPAroute should the beselected high corridors’ analyzed be will that alignments specific of variety a have may route representative each for estimates as reasonable presented are but representative alternatives, the that noted the in included was Use (Dedicated R Speed representative A corridors. inve from anticipated benefits potential the upon dependent is corridor each of feasibility the fi and funding benefit costs, capital to each operating of feasibility regards overall the with determine to corridor is study this of purpose overall The 2.2 between used heavily lines. are CSXT the for lines just and Atlanta freight existing The areas. these potentialthefor limited has terrain mountainous/rolling north extent lesser a to and Chattanooga around particularly corridor, the in terrain The hs eot uln te idns rsls n rcmedtos o te Atlanta the for recommendations and results findings, the outline report this
P f ahil rpeet a infcn ise o high to issue significant a represents Nashville of - cost analyses cost ail URPOSE AND AND URPOSE
stment in transportation between the major cities and along each of the of each along and cities major the between transportation in stment Corridor (Shared Use)(Shared revenue and ridership costs, maintenance and ) north of Nashville, and from Atlanta to Chattanooga for the NS rail NS the for Chattanooga to Atlanta from and Nashville, of north with speeds up to 150 to up speeds with route , respectively. s, routes Atlanta . Each corridor is studied independently of one another one of independently studied is corridor Each . -
- supin ad ehdlge, ulns h poes and process the outlines Methodologies, and Assumptions Macon
with speeds speeds to90 with up a slce fr ah ordr o bt Emerging both for corridor each for selected was routes was dependent upon the projected improvements in in improvements projected the upon dependent was or corridors.each ofthe - O
Chattanooga cost, and ridership and revenue was performed. The performed. was revenue and ridership and cost,
BJECTIVES - akovle and Jacksonville
ee salse, dtie aayi o capital, of analysis detailed a established, were
routes eto V rsns ordr oprsn and comparisons corridor presents V Section an example of an alternative to develop develop to alternative an of example an - 220 mph. Additionally, Maglev technology Maglev Additionally, mph. 220 -
Nashville r nt rfre o recommended or preferred not are - 110 mph110
- pe ri performance. rail speed
- Louisville Atlanta ,
and Express for analysis.future Shared Use routeUse Shared - pe rail speed - acn opportunities, nancing route oeaig ais and ratios operating , Chattanooga
Corridor i ec o the of each in s High . It should be should It . route - - S Nashville s through through s peed peed
. The s. H , and , Each Each igh R ail - - -
1 -
9 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 10 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
Tennessee. and Alabama for corridors three the with associated data The 3.1.1.1 the wit studies complete effectively to data of amount large a collect to corridor each within study a data The existingconditionsunique the foreach ofthe threecorridors. II (Sections sections subsequent The areas. critical tran environmentally and patterns, use land patterns, employment characteristics, socioeconomic c and demographics population including characteristics was and factors conditions route existing representative of baseline high that improvements the estimate To and process screening 3.1.1 corridor technical a corridor. stakeholder outreach foreach conditions, (existing) baseline these Developing technologies. A alternative locations. preferred the determine to studies fut of responsibility the be will it feasibility, be to determined are corridors the If options. technology the and corridor the of performance the of representation selected rather but alternative, a determine not did study feasibility This corridors. three the of each for outline to was process analysis the of steps first the of One 3.1 representative route representative study study
C coordinated with states, regions, counties, cities and other key stakeholders key other and cities counties, regions, states, with coordinated nd other data for the three study corridors and their surrounding areas. The areas. surrounding their and corridors study three the for data other nd
ORRIDOR ORRIDOR Base Data Base E
collected base data elements that make up the foundation for maps and maps for foundation the up make that elements data base collected
hmeaningful recommendations.and results olce ad nertd eeat egahc nomto sse (GIS) system information geographic relevant integrated and collected XISTING Table 3
C in s A ONDITIONS
was developed for both the Shared Use and Dedicated Use Dedicated and Use Shared the both for developed was - 1 LTERNATIVES LTERNATIVES each corridor. Existing conditions included a variety of of variety a included conditions Existing corridor. each outlinesthe coll
route routes 3
s comprised of a three a of comprised s A
SSUMPTIONS AND ht ee huh t poie n overall an provide to thought were that ected base data. - pe ri wl big o h crios a corridors, the to bring will rail speed letd n dcmne for documented and ollected D EVELOPMENT seii alignments specific ,
F , lorida
-
step process includi process step representative routes representative Goga Kentucky Georgia, , prain systems sportation M
ETHODOLOGIES
n station and - IV) outline outline IV) preferred ure the ng
1 - 11 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 12 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
7 to due section environmental relations their with the NationalEnvironmental Policy (NEPA) the planning Act process. in included are resources historical that noted study. feasibility this studies. for needed planning data environmental future the summarizes in necessary efforts mitigation potential the an mapped were which streams and ponds wetlands, as cri potentially any on placed emphasis an was There area. study the data Environmental 3.1.1.2
State Resourcesand GIS GIS to Databaseby refer sites states the withinstudy provided the areas. and Land Use (Current Community Facilities Districts Congressional MSA Boundaries MPOBoundaries BoundCity Boundaries Census BlockGroup Boundaries Census Tract County Boundaries BoundariesState
Data Element Future) Environmental Data Environmental
aries
for this feasibility study study feasibility this for
Table the study corridors Currentand Future land usesfor and universities Includeshospitals, schools, colleges eachfor of the fivestates Congressional District boundaries states boundariesfor each of the fi Metropolitan Statistical Area theof fivestates Organization boundaries for each Metropolitan Planning states boundariesCity for each offive the each of the fivestates Census BlockGroup Boundariesfor theof fivestates Census trackBoundaries for each statesfive County boundariesfor ea statesfive BoundariesState for each theof
3
- 1 : Base : DataandSources
Description
refers to the natural landscapes within landscapes natural the to refers
ch the of
ve ve d
analyzed to understand to analyzed State GISState Resources GISState Resources Resources GISState U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Census Bureau State GISState Resources GISState Resources GISState Resources Source tical areas such areas tical
7
It should b should It
al 3 Table
- 2 e
Notice Federal 5], No.101( 64, Register, Vol. 8 is process) NEPA the (including analysis further if eachforrecommended study Thesecorridor. additional aspectsinclude: consideration into taken Impacts Environmental Considering for Procedures consideration thorough for required efforts mapping and collection data the of part a as included not was that data environmental additional are There
eea Rira Administr Railroad Federal Floodplains Wetlands Rivers/Streams Lakes Resources National Historic Quadrants USGS Topographic Non Forests Conservation Land Parks/Rec
- Attainment Areas
Use of of energyUseresources; zone management; Coastal waste disposal; Solid Noise Data Element
reational
andvibration;
Table
to, rcdrs o Cnieig niomna Ipcs FA iet i EO Bi, Dicejt [FRA Impacts Environmental Considering for Procedures ation,
3 -
2 resources registered historic Known eligible and Topographic quadrants S N National and State Forests centers, monuments parks, state cultural including nationaland Conservation lands areas Parks and Recreational Floodplains Wetlands Rivers and Streams Lakes : EnvironmentalDataandSour
OX OX
, Ozone, PM, Ozone,
https://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRDev/FRAEnvProcedures u t te high the to due
Description
bt r important are but ,
10 , PM
2.5
, - 8 data and feasibility a of level . These items will need to be to need will items These .
National and Sta National GISState Resources GISState Resources Administration (FEMA) Management Federal Emergency Inventory National Wetland GISState Resources GISState Resources Officer (SHPO) State (USGS) U.S. Geological Survey GISState Resources Services ces
Historic Preservation set o te FRA the of aspects
Park ServicePark
Source
te Forestryte
,
.pdf - 1, )
1 - 13 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 14 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
Some of items are Some these environmentalonin andtouched the demographics analysis .. ess we aalbe Ohrie dmgahc nomto i te most andcollected data their sources. the is information Bureau Census demographic U.S. the from Otherwise, available recent available. when Census, U.S. high a of ridership as collected data demographic The considered need may to be in future planningefforts. that populations (EJ) justice environmental potential understand to important also for demand the measure accurately t to population the of conditions understand current to the important is It levels. income and employment ethnicity, and race including information socioeconomic future and current to refers data Demographic 3.1.1.3 corridor, each for but eachwill aspectneed tobe carefully consideredinstudies. future ransportation infrastructure ransportation Low Household Income Employment Age R Total Population ace/Ethnicity
- Income Construction periodimpacts.Construction of 4(f) Use Pub Health; Public and landplanned Existing use; barriers Possible elderlyand to the handicapped; and Aesthetic qualitydesign impacts; of other Usenaturalresources;
Dem Data Element licsafety; ographic Data ographic
-
protectedproperties; and -
speed passenger rail. Current demographics refer to the 2010 the to refer demographics Current rail. passenger speed
Table
3
-
3 and estimate future ridership and revenue levels revenue and ridership future estimate and Currentagedistribution at the at county level Currentrace and ethnicity Total existing population at the at county level living belowpoverty level Currentnumber of persons incomeat the county level Current media the at county level Total current employment the county level : Demographic and : Data Sources
a part of the existing conditions will help project help will conditions existing the of part a
Description
n household
. .
Table 3 Table
-
3 U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Census Bureau
outlines the demographic the outlines
Source
. It is It .
system transportation existing the on infraillustrates the collected above. outlined patterns travel was existing the understand to infrastructure data Additionally, study three the of high each for patterns travel corridors, existing the understand to order ci major the between travel high to moderate consistently have travel auto success more bewill thereforeand travel, automotive and air both High corridor. same the in cities major between travel High 3.1.1.4 Connecting Air Volu Local Air Trips Intercity Auto Trips Amtrak Stations Rail Bridges Rail Crossings ChartsTrack Volumesand Frequencies Rail Owners,Corridor Rail Lines Roadway Bridges Major highways/roads Interstates
- - speedrail. speed rail feasibility is partially determined by the success o success the by determined partially is feasibility rail speed Data Element
Data Element Existing Travel Patterns Travel Existing
Table 3 Table
Table
- 3 4 structure ascollected data a of part feasibilitythe study.
mes
-
5 outlines the data employed to estimate the market share for share market the estimate to employed data the outlines : : TransportationInfrastructure Dataand Sources
Table
railroads Existing and abandoned Roadway bridgelocations roads Major highways and local InterstateSystem Stations Locations of Amtrak Railroad bridgelocations separated data including grade/grade at All rail/road crossings railroads in study corridors Tracking charts for all frequency of trains trains perday, and Rail line owners, numberof Connecting Air volumes Total Enplanements an Trips (round trips) Annual Person LocalAir (Round Trips) Annual Person Auto Trips 3 -
4
: : DataTravela Description
Description
nd Sources nd
National Transportation Atlas National Transportation Atlas National Transportation Atlas Railroad Owners Railroad Owners National Transportation Atlas National Transportation Atlas National Transportation Atlas National Transportation Atl 2010 2010 T 100 Airline Database 2010 USDOT DB1B and T Survey 1995 - speed rail competes with competes rail speed
American Travel
- 100 Airline Database Source Source f other modes of modes other f ful
where air andair where
Table 3 Table
ties. In In ties. - as -
5
1 - 15 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 16 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
el etmtd iet ead oes ht s te xsig n future and existing the use that models demand direct estimated newly exi the using estimated tables trip The region. the in pairs city major the between mode each for volumes socioeconomic and trip sharesand existingmode derive to the used first are patterns existing travel The demographic future with mode speci calculate to conjunction and segment market each of size the in explain to characteristics used then are tables trip current These segment. market and purpose trip by modes yea current base the quantify to used first are patterns travel Existing high a with stakeholders key to it refined and list the reviewed partners, financial state 50 a within agencies local and includ and corridor each for compiled was stakeholders comprehensive of A list level. feasibility the at input valuable a have would that agencies regional and state process. study the throughout federal, partners, financial technicalThe issues, local highlight corridor. higheach by for potential the t on stakeholders project key Outreach update and education the impacts. potential of and considerations progress and the to as stakeholders purpose corridor the involve and inform educate, to intend efforts ea along occurred outreach and high a of component essential an is outreach Stakeholder 3.1.2 shownin Figure3 graphically lev high th enables models diversion the in attributes service of level high new the to modes the existing by multiplied then are probabilities The mode year future attributes. service of level mode’s a that probability high the choose would mode, current and segment market purpose, trip calculate to models diversion high binary uses methodology forecasting demand The the explain models demand between relationship demographiccharacteristics direct These inputs. as characteristics demographic el. The forecasting approach is explained in more detail in Section 3.3 as well as well as 3.3 Section in detail more in explained is approach forecasting The el. - - - study speed rail service frequencies and to accordingly adjust them to the ridership the to them adjust accordingly to and frequencies service rail speed of combination each for computes, model diversion Each ridership. rail speed growthrates fic using(directgrowthmodels demandmodels). level perspective on high on perspective level
S
engaged key stakeholders along each corridor including elected officials, elected including corridor each along stakeholders key engaged TAKEHOLDER
- specific travel volumes to calculate the diverted volumes from t volumesfrom diverted calculatethe volumesto specific travel - speed rail over its current mode of travel as a function of each of function a as travel of mode current its over rail speed tn tae pten ae hn rw t ftr yas using years future to grown then are patterns travel sting O - UTREACH 18. - - speed rail. Stakeholders genera Stakeholders rail. speed mile buffer of the corridor. GDOT, along with other with along GDOT, corridor. the of buffer mile The goal for the outreach was to include a group of group a include to was outreach the for goal The ch
- pe ri sse. h icuin f ah mode’s each of inclusion The system. rail speed
corridor throughout the study process study the throughout corridor
and the and travelpatterns. ece ad neet groups interest and gencies cnqe wr dsge to designed were echniques - speed rail feasibility study feasibility rail speed e
lly included state and state included lly ed all state, regional state, all ed study to test several test to study r trip tables for the for tables trip r
- pe ri along rail speed . Outreach .
traveler he -
st to Refer the for steps corridor. next the presented and corridors the of each for recommendations benefit and ratios operating as the study, analcosting,revenue ridership and final to present corridorsthe various feasibility the of end the At Refercorridor. along the to The o in stakeholders data. the from questions technical solicited initial the present and progress corridors’ the on update to corridors the of each from stakeholders with calls conference based compl were analyses revenue and middle Toward the ofthe study timeline formeeting A materials handouts. and the to Refer corridors. the within alternatives Use determine Dedicated and Use Shared help to corridor each along issues ( process screening corridor s the the Additionally, introduce to process study the in on early the corridors, the of each For techniques. analyses and processes study the into input and updates provide to timeline study meeti outreach stakeholder formal on was entities these with Communication major cities the alongeach corridor. of MPOs and cities local and projects transportation in involved agencies regional akeholders for akeholders each threefor of the thatcorridors outreachmeetings.attended the study Appendix
rsne a ubr f etn mtras ulnn the outlining materials meeting of number a presented Section 3.1.3 Section Appendix
- fr etn mtras materials. meeting for A cost analyses. The analyses. cost td the eted, g a te einn, ide n ed f the of end and middle beginning, the at ngs
A formeeting materials.
,
) and solicited input into opportunities and opportunities into input solicited and ) once capital preliminary and cost ridership study - on, u the but going, study study rder to clarify any concerns or issues issues or concerns any clarify to rder
e wt saeodr aog the along stakeholders with met
tudy and its purpose and need. need. and purpose its and tudy
is mt ih e stakeholders key with met first conducted a series of webinar of series a conducted study representat
outlined the findings and findings the outlined al 3 Table study
v route ive
odce three conducted - 6 study ulns the outlines yses well as Appendix Appendix fr the for s again, ,
-
1 - 17 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 18 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
representative route Louisville grade fully dedicated, Use) shared a route route representative high A ridership, forecast costs, capital factors. to regard with benefit ratio, operating costs, operating detail revenues, more the in which evaluate in speed could and to technology was corridor, study study each feasibility for this route corridor for steps first the of One 3.1.3
Atlanta Greater Birmi Commission of Regional Planning Planning Commission Eas City Annistonof City Birminghamof Authority County Transit Birmingham Transportationof Alabama Department Community Affairs Economicof and Ala on a dedicated, fully grade fully dedicated, a on s were identified for: 1) 90 1) identifiedfor: were s bama bama Department t
-
level screening analysis was applied to the three study corridors to identify a identify to corridors study three the to applied was analysis screening level Atlanta Regional
- C
use freight corridor; 2) 180 2) corridor; freight use -
Corridor ORRIDOR Birmingham
- Jefferson ngham
)
.
for operating ofeach technology steps: consists four
o ec tcnlg fr ute eauto. evaluation. further for technology each for S
h sreig n aayi methodolog analysis and screening The CREENING - eaae corridor separated Atlanta Table
Planning Commission Savannah Metropolitan Organization Transportation Planning North Florida and Zoning Macon Transportation Authority Jacksonville Commission Coastal Regional City of Macon Bibb County - - 3 110 mph EmergingHigh mph 110 - separated corridor; and 3) 220+ mph Maglev on a on Maglev mph 220+ 3) and corridor; separated Macon - - 6 Bibb Planning : : CorridorStakeholders AND -
220 mph Express High Express mph 220
-
Jacksonville A
NALYSIS
(for
-
cost ratio and ot and ratio cost
Atlanta P
ROCESS - Nashvi Cabinet Kentucky Transportation Agency Planning and Development Kentuckiana Regional County, TN) (Chattanooga EnterpriseThe Center Planning Organization ClarksvilleMetropolitan Agency County Regional Planning Chattanooga City of Lex City Chattanoogaof Transportation Tennessee Department of City Transit Authority of River (Middle Tennessee) TransitThe Alliance Organization Metropolitan Planning Speed
Atlanta dniy representative a identify
Nashville
- Chattanooga - Speed Rail Speed lle
Rail - Area
Chattanooga ington t ietf a identify to y
her comparative her - (Shared Use) (Shared
- Louisville - Hamilton Representative Hamilton
(Dedicated - Nashv
-
study
ille on -
times. travel and speeds top limit severely that curves numerous included which discarde were corridors rail freight Existing corridors. cross easements, transmission a identified first the of feasibility the confirm to evaluation detailed one a uses operations identifying Use Dedicated for process screening The 3.1.4.2 study three the in pairs city major serving corrido routes corridor rail freight historic 90 the of case the In 3.1.4.1 3.1.4 4. 3. 2. 1.
rs werers inventoried. A S benefit ratio, operating costs, operating revenues, ridership, forecast costs, capital to regard with feasibility its of terms in route representative each Evaluate and feasibili operating and accessibility, location station time, travel including goals service including: analysis detailed more a upon based alignments route representative refine Further threshold; t through analyzed further be would that alternatives alignment several contain routes These the andleastwith public cost environmental factors qualitative and quantitative ro technology. each Representative for route representative a identify to factors qualitative and quantitative both using alternatives operatingroute of universe initial the Screen each for identify alternatives each forconnectivity of majorcitythe pairs; on route based of universe technology initial the Identify 90 180 TEP LTERNATIVES
- 110 mph Shared Use Shared mph 110 -
220 1: - costandcomparativeratio other factors Intermodal connectivity Intermodalconnectivity potentialthrough stations. and and opportunities, issues alternative route on input and knowledge Stakeholder alternativeRoute densi freight traffic alternativegeometryRoute and travel time,
universe of potential corridor routes corridor potential of universe I
mph Dedicated Use Dedicated mph DENTIFICATION OF - 110 mph Shared Use alternatives, all current, abandoned and abandoned current, all alternatives, Use Shared mph 110
ts ee hsn rmrl bsd n h following the on based primarily chosen were utes he NEPA process, should the corridors pass the feasibility the pass corridors the should process, NEPA he
- county greenfield routes and interstate highway highway interstate and routes greenfield county
- y egneig esblt, n cs factors; cost and feasibility, engineering ty, tp ee o nlssfloe wt a more a with followed analysis of level step U ing those routes which provide basic basic provide which routes those ing ersnaie route representative NIVERSE OF
o eie te ihs lvl f service of level highest the deliver to de o h eitn tak geometry track existing the to due d
:
tyroutes),Use (for Shared
selected corridor. The The corridor. selected
including freight rail, electric electric rail, freight including . C
ORRIDOR
fr 180 for s
- 2 mph 220 study
1 - 19 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 20 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
easements. The The easements. The withinthesealternative short “lastrelatively mile” inter s typically are areas urban within where speeds Average areas locations. station urban within is this of to proposed existingaccessibility best or offercorridorsthe to freight rail exception often existing limit The upper the desirable. most be considered to considered 180 generally support can that are curvature curves (30’) minute Thirty right basic three of one highwaythe within highway right outside lane the alongside on be to are corridors The electrified180 indicat report the finalized, Atlanta the with consistency Chattanooga b would The geometrically. desirable particularly be to found were Georgia of areas coastal and southern the in 180 with consistent non in geometry vertical Interstate operations. 180 for suitable is which 30’, than less curves have to designed generally Use Dedicated as use for opportunity The obtained be could corridors.topography) information three accurate the among more compared be could Th technology operating this of corridors study three the of each for of evaluation an provide to was study feasibility of goal The analysis. feasibility a of scope the beyond was corridor “pure” greenfield viable a out lay to required analysis engineering of level the that however, cross True station loc proposed or existing to connectivity rail mile” “last offer typically not did and areas urban in underground buried often are corridors utility electric addition, In grades). percent the with inconsistent be to found were elevation in changes sharp resulting The changes. profile vertical feasib rfr, h rpeettv rue gnrly olw nesae ordr where corridors interstate follow generally routes representative the erefore, study - - study study of iy rvl alwn te xsig rih right freight existing the allowing travel, city le -
a ajcn t te iha right highway the to adjacent way because they are typically laid out in tangent sections without regard for regard without sections tangent in out laid typically are they because aporae o hge sed alv prtos n the in operations Maglev speed higher for appropriate e
-
assumed that viable high viable that assumed county greenfield corridors were also considered. The The considered. also were corridors greenfield county hn eiwd h ptnil s o eeti tasiso ln corridor line transmission electric of use potential the reviewed then eemnd ht h itrtt hgwy ordr offered corridors highway interstate the that determined
- fora high Nashville - 220 mph220 mph 220+ and Maglev operations. study - ations. 220 mph electrified operations. The interstate highway interstate The operations. electrified mph 220 study geometric requirements of 180 of requirements geometric
- - determined that these utility easements were generally not generally were easements utility these that determined levelanalysis. Louisville
lo ocue ta te nesae iha corridors highway interstate the that concluded also - s ht h I the that es Chattanooga Chattanooga -
2 mh prtos wt 1 mi 15 with operations, mph 220 Corridor -
speed rail operations along interstate highway interstate along operations rail speed and speed technologies speed and ersnaie route representative Ti rue a coe t maintain to chosen was route This . - I Tier 5 ordr a slce fr oh an both for selected was corridor 75 - route of -
mountainous areas is also generall also is areas mountainous - feasibility of of feasibility EIS. Although this study is not yet not is study this Although EIS. a. hr slce interstate selected Where way. route : ihn h highw the within s:
- 220 mph (generally less than 3 than less (generally mph 220 - eg, ot goer and geometry route (e.g., of s. - a t poie h best the provide to way
- of . h itrtts are interstates The s. so that the application the that so a - way, or in in purchasedway, or route representative nute (15’) curves curves (15’) nute study lower than for than lower
ay median, median, ay concluded, - h best the 220 mph 220 Atlanta route
this y s -
Oneidentifiedin above:as alternative Step app the processinvolved screening the of step second the operations, corridor Use Shared the For 3.1.5.1 3.1.5 lea high the 30’, than greater were curves highway ve the immediatethe ve highway ifjustified corridor traveltimesavings. by 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.
railroad information)railroad as of Number Gross Million Tonsof greater curves than 1 con generally of Degree track, triple as etc. Predominant Track Classof as Ownership ofRoute Length S S 90 ELECTION TEP c. b. a. c. b. a. b. a. b. a. b. a. b. a. - 110 mph Shared Use Shared mph 110
2: A measure ofcompetingmeasure A givenfreight demand fora route ofcongestions;measure A and ofcurrentmeasure activityA andfreight potential freight conflicts; ofcompetingmeasure A givenfreight demand fora route. ofcongestion;measure A and ofcurrentmeasure activityA andfreight potential freight conflicts; operations. mph 110 with consistent generally maximum curvature of measure A oflimitationmeasure A achievable speeds; top on and ofmeasure i A potential ofcurrentmeasure improvement A levels; and ofmeasure A potential tocontrol dispatch ofthe trains. passenger ofabilitymeasure A corridortopurchase the for rail; andpassenger ofmeasure A direction/indirection; ofconnectivity;measure A and
lication and comparison of the following data for each evaluated each for data following the of comparison and lication A C – T LTERNATIVE urvature
rains per day (converted from million gross gross million from (converted day per rains ClassI, Regional Shortlin or
itn wt 10 p oeain. xrse i nme of number in Expressed operations. mph 110 with sistent T rack
–
M
a
i C measure ofexistingmeasurecapacity density. and les of T les of ° F onfiguration onfiguration
– 30’ and percent miles30’and greater percent than 1 reight as peryear
dge 3 mnts (1 minutes 30 degree 1
S rackas CREENING AND CREENING ncremental upncremental track
–
Single, Single with sidings, double or or double sidings, with Single Single,
e,orAbandonedas Recreation -
pe rail speed R ° EPRESENTATIVEROUTE
0) aiu curvature maximum 30’) - gradecosts. route
tons or from freight from or tons °
a ajse to adjusted was 30’as
.
1 - 21 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 22 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
nldn saeodr nih fr ah f h eautd ordr i lctd in located is corridors evaluated the of section (SectionsII,III,IV).subsequent and each Additionall for insight report. stakeholder this of including C Appendix in seen be can characteristics technical the and corridors evaluated all of matrix comparison A a t rfn the refine to was of development the in step third The 3.1.6 is corridors interstate the of each ( insectionsubsequent located for insight stakeholder including information detailed more Additionally, report. this of C Appendix in seen be can characteristics of matrix comparison A evaluatedafurther high usingthe level following criteria: highway interstate The 3.1.5.2 9. 8. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.
S ofmobility. measure 180 ofmobility. measure 180 traveltime Auto thanpercentgreater30’ milesand greater than30’ as 180 with consistent C of Degree of Miles 90 ofcomparativemeasure mobility. 90
180 TEP - - 110 mph travel time time travel mph 110 110 mph110 averageas speed
- - b. a. b. a. 2 mh high mph 220 high mph 220 -
220 3: operations. mph 180 with consistent generally curvature maximum of measure A oflimitationsmeasure A achievable speeds; top on and ofmeasure A direction/indirection. ofconnectivity;measure A and InterstateH
R
mph Dedicated Use Dedicated mph EFINEMENTOF urvature urvature s ass a ersnaie route representative
route h 180 the - - pe ri aeae pe as speed average rail speed - ighway as pe ri tae tm as time travel rail speed
220
measure ofcomparative measure ofmobility. fr 180 for s –
SectionsII,III, and IV).
– p oeain. xrse i nmes f curves of numbers in Expressed operations. mph
0 iue 3’ mxmm uvtr generally curvature maximum (30’) minute 30 - Calculated based on mileag on based Calculated 2 mh ordr ad h ascae technical associated the and corridors mph 220 R
a
EPRESENTATIVEROUTE measuremobility. ofcomparative ersnaie route representative -
2 mh eiae Ue operations Use Dedicated mph 220
based on accessibility, operating operating accessibility, on based
, oe eald information detailed more y,
a
a
esr o comparative of measure esr o comparative of measure
o frhr evaluation further for e and track class as class track and e S
were - 220
a
corridorthe study, feasibility primarily focuses benefiton operatingand values. property and in incomes impact jobs, economic local of and terms state and program, loan and grant federal various projectcontributions sector private priorities,of viability ratings, creditbudget state on state impact on impact project’s a as: such measures other of use be also can cap and operating and revenues and ridership on information same This A ofbenefitdiscussion more technical another. versus corridor one in rail speed high in investment public a of return benefit benefit to used is time over costs to compared are benefits, Here service. time over costs also capital and operating and revenues ridership, on Information highefficiency of typic is ratio investment. operating sector The private for opportunity an be may there whether of indicator an ratios arealso Operating operatingsurplus. indicates(>1.0), an one than greater operat an as expressed the determine be can This to costs. operating cover can revenues used operating annual which wasto degree data cost operating and revenue ridership, Forecast Feasi inAmerica”. Transportation Commercial 1997 FRA the evaluate to factors benefit and ratios operating utilized study The comparative assess the fe each on in step final The Savannah, 3.1.7 Macon, Birmingham, Atlanta, including: cities major Chattanooga,Jacksonville, LoNashvilleand the of out route ti travel and considerations
sd o aclt a benefit a calculate to used
route - - C S ot ratio cost value net a implies one than greater ratio cost TEP ORRIDOR ersnaie route representative ,
as well as other societal cos societal other as well as t otmz sain cesblt ad prtn caatrsis n and in characteristics operating and accessibility station optimize to s xrs bnft ad ot in costs and benefits express d individually to assess a high a assess to individually d 4: ,
- the evaluation process was to develop more detailed information detailed more develop to was process evaluation the eeis a maue b rvne ad te ue ad societal and user other and revenues by measured as benefits,
speedin corridorserviceone rail versus another.
a b se a a oprtv maue f h s the of measure comparative a as seen be can E
VALUATE three study corridors study three n rto f eeusdvddb oeaig ot. ratio A costs. operating by divided revenues of ratio ing asibility corridorasibility ofthe highfuturefor
me improvements. In particular, this involved refining involved this particular, In improvements. me ly en s cmaaie esr o te economic the of measure comparative a as seen ally
iiy eot o oges “ih pe Ground Speed “High Congress: to Report bility n tcnlg atraie hc cn e sd to used be can which alternative technology and including - ot ai for ratio cost F AIIIY OF EASIBILITY - costanalysislater found is in ts expressed in doll in expressed ts
capital uisville. e peet value present net
- following the methodology used in the in used methodology the following speed rail project’s feasibility in terms in feasibility project’s rail speed
ea oee, o te upss f this of purposes the for However, - , cost calculations as well as other other as well as calculations cost
operating operating
ch
ie lvl f high of level given
E ( or benefit or ACH ar terms. terms. ar and maintenance and
R - NV terms (NPV) speedrail service. EPRESENTATIVE ) Section 3.4.4
to society. The society. to A discount rate discount A cea rt of rate ocietal
, eligibility for eligibility , - cost - pe rail speed ital costs ital
ratios. and costs costs . .
as a
1 - 23 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 24 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
9 ee o acrc o egneig ot siae a development. project estimates cost engineering of accuracy of level (5 level engineering conceptual the at completed were study this for estimates cost Capital 3.2 1.2). three all to applied be di to the of each and corridors enough broad are categories The projects/programs. will application. approach future This applications. funding redu greatly future for preparation easy the and allows SCC transition FRA current to according estimate cost capital the Preparing C the methodology, costing consistent a achieve To 3.2.1 Level of AccuracyisLevel of impliedbased typical on is industry and practice tgre (C) n eeoig l cptl ot siae fr h tre corridors. three the for estimates cost capital all developing in (SCC) ategories ProjectDevelopment Phase
Preliminary Engineering Conceptual Engine C The tenThe majorcategoriesare shown below in Table 3
- 10 percent) with a +/ a with percent) 10 APITAL FRA Final Design ce the need to re to need the ce
S Table TANDARD C
OST OST
3 ering
- R SC s eaae it tn aeois o capital for categories ten into separated is SCC FRA 7 : Level : ofAccuracyDevelopment Project vs.
M fferent technology considerations (refer considerations technology fferent C
- -
evaluate quantities, unit costs and individual items for items individual and costs unit quantities,evaluate 30 percent level of accuracy. accuracy. of level percent 30 ETHODOLOGY OST Engineering Design Level C 5 100 percent 30 percent30 ATEGORIES - 10 percent
study
scae wt vros ees of levels various with ssociated (SCC)
used the FRA Standard Cost Standard FRA the used - +/ 8. Approximate Level of
- Table 3 Table
10 percent10 or better +/ +/ Accuracy - -
15 percent15 percent30 - 7
back illustrates the illustrates 9
to Section Section to
Trackth 9 ( Below evaluations. later in determined be will categories these for values because The category. major each of estimate cost capital the expand that items subcategory into down broken is category Each ) is a list of all FRA subcategoriesFRA listofall a )is definitions categoryand Track for 10 Structures& 10 10.05 10.04 10.03 10.02 10.01
Track Structures and Track
100 FinanceCharges 90 Unallocated Contingencies 80 Professional Services Vehi70 60 Electric Traction Communications50 & Signaling Sitework,40 Right Support30 Facilities: Yards, Shops, Administration Buildings Stations,20 Terminals, Intermodal 10 Track Structures & Track StandardFRA Cost Categories for Capital Project rough80Services.Professional
categories 90 and 100 do not apply to the current Feasibility Study. The The Study. Feasibility current the to apply not do 100 and 90 categories height/depth) Tr DrainageStructure Structure:Track Culvert & Brides Structure:Track Und Bridge Structure:Track Major/Movable Structure:Track Viaduct cles ack Structure:ack Cut Fill& (>4’
Table - of
Item - Way, Land, Existing Improvements 3
- Table
8
: Standard: FRA Categories Cost er
- grade
3
- 9
: Cost: FRA Items
study
stabilization roadbedof Includegrading and subgrade inless width) passageways (generally feet of 20 or Includeall minor undergrade into 10.01 and 10.02 greater than 20 feet that doesnot fall Includeelevated track structure of approximately 400’ longer)or span significant of length (generally of with a movable span, and/or with a Includeall elevated trackstructures spans generally of equal length. significantlength consisting of mu Includeelevated track structure of only utilized categories 10 through 80 through 10 categories utilized only s/Programs
Definition
Table 3 Table ltiple -
1 - 25 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 26 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
20 10.13 10.12 10.11 10.10 10.09 10.08 10.07 10.06 20.02 20.01 10.18 10.17 10.16 10.15 10.14 Stations, Terminals, Intermodal
Replacement (Rails, ties, etc.) T Drainage Track Rehabilitation: Ditching & Surfacing Track Rehabilitation: Ballastand Ballasted NewTrack Construction: Non Conventional Ballasted NewTrack Construction: Systems& Structure:Track Retaining Walls Structure:Track Tunnel stabilization) (grading and sub Structure:Track At Dampening Track: Vibration Noise & power & control) Track: Switch Heaters(with Track: Major Interlockings joints) (Switches, turnouts,insulated Track: Special Track Work (commuter rail, intercity bus) Buildings:Station use Joint Passenger Rail Only Buildings:Station Intercity crash barrier, etc.) (includingsound fence, walls, Other Linear Structures rack Rehabilitation: Component
Item -
grade
-
grade
-
tamping, and surfacing not associated Includeundercutting, ballastcleaning, way subgrade, newon or existing constructiontrack prepared on embedded, and other non Includeall slab, directfixation, existing rights preparedon subgrade, on new or Includeall ba Definition self Definition self 10.07 categories 10.01 through 10.05 and roadbedof notincluded u All grading and subgradestabilization Definition self Definition self Definition self Definition self source to interlocking location equipment from commercia Includecost power distributionof from three or moredirections stations and whereroutes converge Significantinterlockings at major turnoutsat the ends passiof interlocking, such as crossovers and Includeminor turnoutsand Definition self Definition self with newtrack construction
llasted track construction ------of explanatory explanatory explanatory explanatory explanatory explanatory explanatory explanatory Definition - way
ndercost -
ballasted
l power ng tracks
rights
- of
-
40 30 20.05 20.04 20.03 40.04 40.03 40.02 40.01 30.05 30.04 30.03 30.02 30.01 20.09 20.08 20.07 20.06 SupportFacilities: Yards,Shops, Administration Buildings Sitework,Right
Platforms parks wetlands, historic/archeology, Environmental mitigation: treatments removal/mitigation, ground water contaminated soil, Hazardous Material, Site utilities, utility relocation Preparation Demolition, Clearing, Site Yard and Yard Track Build Storage or Maintenance Heavy Maintenance Facility LightMaintenance Facility Sales, Storage, RevenueCounting Administration Buildings: Office, SecurityStation Equipment FareCollection Systems and including roads Automobile, Bus,Van Accessways parking lots accommodation, landscaping, Pedestrian/Bike access and JointCommercial Development Ele vators, Escalators ing
-
of
-
Way,Land, Existing Improvements
Item
- of
-
Way Way
Includeall on facilities,permanent fencing lighting, signage,public artwork, bike landscape, siteand station furniture,site Includesidewalks, paths, pl Federal reimbursement etc.). Costs may notallowable be for passengers(newsstands, snackbar, station space intended for by use cost of incide residential, officespace). Do not include activities(shopping, restaurants, supportnon Construction atstation sites intended to Definition self Definition self Definition self fare counting equipment Include not listed not Includeother environmental mitigation treatments, etc. tanks, other hazardous materials and Includeunderground storagetanks water, gas, electric Includeall site utilities demolition and finegrading Includeproject/program associated with yard Includeyard construction and track Definition self overhaul facilitiesand equipment Includeheavy maintenance and facilitiesand equipment Includeservice, inspection, and storage Definition s fare salesand swipemachines,
- elf transportation commercial ntal commercial use of - - - - gradepaving
explanatory explanatory explanatory - - Definition explanatory explanatory
-
storm, sewer,
-
wideclearing,
azas,
, fuel
1 - 27 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 28 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
50 50.08 50.07 50.06 50.05 50.04 50.03 50.02 50.01 40.09 40.08 40.07 40.06 40.05 Communications Signaling &
Communications systems Traffic control and dispatching On Signal power access and Wayside signaling equipment and businesses Relocation of existing households system Station train approach warning equipment high water, slide,etc. Hazard detectors: dragging Gradecrossing protection separation Highway/pedestrian overpass/grade Purchase leaseor of real estate indirectcosts during construction Temporary facilitiesand other walls, sound w Site structures including retaining - board signaling equipment
alls
Item
distribution
Definition self Definition self fall under40.08 gradefor separation projects,which crossing safety enhancementsexpect Includesall types highwayof Definition self Definition self Control (PTC) related equipment Train Control (ATC), and Positive Train Includeon Definition self Definition self Act In compliance with Uniform Relocation trackage rights,etc. surfaceand subsurfaceeasements, Includethe costs for permanent acquired through payment items are leased, purchased or improvements.Identify whether cost for land from costfor In backup documentation, separate includethe total cost thison lineitem. fundingproject/program, the of in existing improvementsis toused be as If the value rightof Definition self Definition self generally fall under50.06 gradecrossing safety enhanc included in thislineitem, highway thanOther the grade separations - k
ind local match to the Federal - board cab signal, Automatic ------Definition explanatory explanatory explanatory expl explanatory explanatory explanatory explanatory
anatory -
of - way, land and
or foror free.
- ements rail grade
- rail
70 60 70.04 70.03 70.02 70.01 70.00 60.04 60.03 60.02 60.01 70.15 70.14 70.13 70.12 70.11 70.10 70.09 70.08 70.07 70.06 70.05
Electric Traction Vehicles
passengercars with ticketed space Vehicle Acquisition: Loco Unit Vehicle Acquisition: Diesel Multiple Unit Vehicle Acquisition: ElectricMultiple Locomotive Vehicle Acquisition: Non Locomotive Vehicle Acquisition: Traction PowerControl and third rail Traction Power Distribution: Catenary Traction PowerSupply: Substations Voltage Traction Power Transmission: High Multiple Unit Vehicle Refurbishment: Electric Locomotive Vehicle Refurbishment: Non Locomotive Vehicle Refurbis support vehicles Vehicle Acquisition: Non VehiclesWay Vehicle Acquisition: Maintenanceof space passengercars without ticketed Vehicle Acquisition: Loco Spare Parts Wayof Vehicles Vehicle Refurbishment: Maintenance ticketed space passengerLoco Vehicle Refurbishment: Non passengercars with ticketed space Vehicle Refurbishment: Loco M Vehicle Refurbishment: Diesel ultiple Unit
-
hment: Electric hauled car without
Item Electric
- - - Electric - railroad hauled hauled - - - Electric Electric hauled
Definition self Definition self Definition self Definition self Definition self Definition self Definition self Definition self Definition self Definition self and other service support cars Includefood servi Includecoaches, sleeping cars, etc. Definition self Definition self Definition self Definition self Definition self Definition self supportcars lounge,baggage and other service Includededicate sleeping compartments, etc. Includecars with coach space,
Definition ------explanatory explanatory explanatory explanatory explanatory explanatory explanatory explanatory explanatory explanatory explanatory explanatory explanatory explanatory explanatory explanatory d food service, ce, lounge,baggage
1 - 29 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 30 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
unit costs: unit resource of list a is Below developments. pr and overhead labor, material, of cost included items the of each for costs unit The publications. and sources various high The 3.2.2 include: expansions subcategory The study. feasibility the of activities estimate cost capital and gathering data the during decided were expansion requiring Items items. cost The 80
80.10 80.09 80.08 80.07 80.06 80.05 80.04 80.03 80.02 80.01 10.09 Professional Services - study study
speed passenger rail and maglev infrastructure. Unit costs were derived from derived were costs Unit infrastructure. maglev and rail passenger speed
Federal Transit Transit Federal Authorityfor(FTA) website typicalelements cost; otand GDOT Construction Heavy current Data”, Cost edition; “RSMeans as such documents construction Published
U
developed all unit costs unit all developed expanded several subcategory cost items to capture more deta more capture to items cost subcategory several expanded NIT Start Up Engineering Inspection Surveys, testing, investigation Agencies, Cities, etc. Legal; Permits; Review FeesOther by Construction Insurance Professional Liability and other Non Management Construction Administration & Construction Project Management for Design and Final Design Environmental Preliminary Engineering/Project Environmental Service Development/ 10.09.02 10.09.01 C OST
her StateherTransportation agencies weighted cost; unit
D
Table
Track New Construction: Conventional Ballasted
EVELOPMENT
Track NewTrack Construction : 136LB CWRw/ Wood Ties NewTrack Construction: 136LB CWRw/ Concrete Ties Item 3
-
10 Service
: FRA Cos:FRA
in 2010 dollars for the design and construction of construction and design the for dollars 2010 in ofit. Refer to Section Section to Refer ofit.
M ETHOD s t Itemt Expansion
- that that Definition self Definition self Definition se Definition self Definition self Definition self Definition self Definition self Definition self Definition self was
referenced in developing the developing in referenced 3.2.3 3.2.3
lf Definition ------explanatory explanatory explanatory explanatory explanatory explana explanatory explanatory explanatory explanatory for detailed unit cost unit detailed for
tory
il for the for il
these for onregionalbased developed and references.national T values evaluations. The later in determined be Charges). will categories (Finance 100 and Contingencies) (Unallocated the level, feasibility the at is study 3 Table 3.2.2.2 were quantities (+/ Take service. of level and corridor each for study feasibility the during created quantit off Take andelectric traction, vehicles. facilities, support stations, turnouts, materials, track rail, roadbed, track structures, earthwork, to related are take conceptual the process, collection data the in sources data various the From 3.2.2.1 estimations. cost were items the of each for measure of units Actual officially the are in Units used Customary U.S. (NIST). Technology National and the Standards by of defined Institute Units Customary U.S. on based was study feasibility The 2010 dollars:to for costs unit escalate to used was formula following The workers. iron price and bricklayers average national uni local uses the also CCI and The lumber steel. structural 2x4 and cement Portland for prices Record dollars. News year base 2010 costs to unit these years Escalating previous from adjustments needed costs Unit
Unit Cost Unit
Estimating experience andEstimating costshistorical similar projects. for Various and IllinoisWisconsin Planningand Design documents; Design Florida and California - 11 Quantities Unit Costs Unit
ulns h ui css for costs unit the outlines U.S. osrcin ot ne (C) o Atlanta for (CCI) Index Cost Construction Cl 2010 - ies were made from maps, drawings, typical sections and sketches and sections typical drawings, maps, from made were ies ad r as kon n h US a “nls” f “ of “English” as U.S. the in known also are and , off quantities for several of several for quantities off
ass I ass -
= (Unit (Unit = )ofactual 30 percent quantities.
railroad
Cost o 00 olr ws oe y tlzn the utilizing by done was dollars 2010 to ie work site
costestimatessimilar for projects; sized and H igh
Year - S
X peed peed ) × ) study right ,
ah R SC sub SCC FRA each (
R i nt siae ot fr eto 90 Section for costs estimate not did on wages, plus fringes, for carpenters, for fringes, plus wages, on i faiiiy tde ad Preliminary and Studies feasibility ail - FRA cost categories. These quantities These categories. cost FRA of - a, omncto & signaling, & communication way,
Documents;
(
determined during the capital the during determined
ee nt ot, gi, were again, costs, unit hese
GA , - aeoy Bcue this Because category. )
( Te C ue local uses CCI The .
) study
Imperial” units. units. Imperial”
Engineering
developed
)
- off off
1 - 31 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 32 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
10 10.13.02 10.13.01 10.09.02 10.09.01 10.05.02 10.05.01 10.13.03 10.03 10.02 10.01 10.13 10.12 10.11 10.10 10.09 10.08 10.07 10.06 10.05 10.04 Track Structures and Track
Track Rehabilitation: Ballast Non NewTrack Construction: 136 lb 136 lb Conventional Ballasted NewTrack Construction: Walls & Systems Structure:Track Retaining Structure:Track Tunnel stabilizati (grading and subgrade Structure:Track At Mountainous Terrain Rolling Terrain height/depth)4’ Structure:Track Cut Fill& (> DrainageStructure Structure:Track Culvert & Brides Structure:Track Undergrade Major/Movable Bridge Structure:Track StruTrack 100% Track Rehabilitation 60%Track Rehabili 30%Track Rehabilitation (Rails, ties, etc.) Component Replacement Track Rehabilitation: Drainage& Track Rehabilitation: Ditching and Surfacing - Ballasted . .
CR CWR Concreteon Ties on)
cture: Viaduct on on Wood Ties
Table Item
3 tation -
grade - 11
:SCCSub
Track Mile Track Mile Track Mile Lump SumLump SumLump Track Mile Track Mile Track Mile Track Mile Track Mile Track Mile - Corridor Corridor Corridor Corridor Corridor CategoryCosts Unit Each Mile Mile Mile Mile Mile Unit
$116,000,000 $47,000,000 Shared Use $2,145,000 $1,073,000 $1,010,000 $1,281,000 $966,000 $491,000 $427,000 $894,000 $715,000 $132 $57,000 $38,000 Varies Varies N/A
,000
Dedicated Use $116,000,000 $47,000,000 $2,145,000 $1,073,000 $1,010,000 $1,281,000 $966,000 $491,000 $427,000 $132,000 $894,000 $715,000 $57, $38,000 Varies Varies N/A
000
30 20 2 20.02.03 20.02.02 20.02.01 10.14.03 10.14.02 10.14.01 0.02.04 10.15 10.14 30.02 30.01 20.09 20.08 20.07 20.06 20.05 20.04 20.03 20.02 20.01 10.18 10.17 10.16 SupportFacilities: Ya Stations, Terminal, Intermodal
Automobile, Bus,Van parking lots acco Pedestrian/Bike access and Development JointCommercial Elevators, Escalators Platforms Jacksonville Multimodal Birmingham Transit Station H AtlantaMMPT (commuter rail, intercity bus) Buildings:Station use Joint Passenger Rail Only Buildings:Station Intercity crash barrier, etc.) (includingsound fence, walls, Other Linear Structures Dampening Track: Vibration Noise & power & control) Track: Switch Heaters(with Track: Major Interlockings Turnout; No. 24 Turnout; No. 20 Turnout; No. 11 joints) (Switches, turnouts,insulated Track: Special Track Work LightMaintenance Facility RevenueCounting Sales,Office, Storage, Administration Buildings: SecurityStation Equipment FareCollection Systems and Accessways including roads - JAIA mmodation, landscaping,
Item rds,Shops, Administration Buildings
Linear Feet Lump SumLump SumLump Lump SumLump SumLump SumLump Track Mile Corridor Square Each Each Each Each Each Each Each Each Foot Mile N/A N/A N/A Unit
Sum
$217,121,588 $43,424,318 $18,610,422 $62,034,739 $6,203,473 $5,610,000 Shared Use $122,000 $475,000 $200,000 $150,000 $250,000 $350,000 $45,000
$1,080 $150 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dedicated Use $217,121,588 $43,424,318 $18,610,422 $62,034,739 $6,203,473 $5,61 $122,000 $475,000 $200,000 $15 $250,000 $350,000 $45,000 $1,080 $150 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0,000
0,000
1 - 33 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 34 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
50 50.06.02 50.06.01 40 50.06 50.05 50.04 50.03 50.02 50.01 40.09 40.01 30.05 30.04 30.03 40.0 40.07 40.06 40.05 40.04 40.03 40.02 Communications Signaling & Sitework,Right
8
Si equipment Wayside signaling households and businesses Relocation of existing overpass/gradeseparation Highway/pedestrian estate Purchase leaseor of real construction indirectother costsduring Temporary facilitiesand retaining walls, sound walls Site structures including historic/archeology, parks wetlands, Environmental mitigation: water treatments removal/mitigation, ground contaminated soil, Hazardous Material, Site utilities, utility relocation Preparation Demolition, Clearing, Site Yard and Yard Track BuildingWay Storage or Maintenance Heavy Maintenance Facility Private At PublicAt Gradecrossing protection Communications dispatching systems Traffic control and equipment On distribution gnal power access and - board signaling
- of - Grade - - Grade
Way,Land, Existing Improvements
Item
- of
-
Lump SumLump SumLump Lu Lump SumLump SumLump SumLump SumLump Track Mile Corridor Corridor Corridor Corridor mp Summp Each Each Each Each Mile Mile Mile Acre Mile Unit N/A N/A
$29,776,674 $9,000,000 Shared Use $2,561,000 $400,000 $970,000 $293,000 $411,000 $555,000 $5,500 $59,000 Varies Varies Varies Varies N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dedicated Use $9,000,000 $37,220,844 $2,561,000 $293,000 $411,000 $555,000 $400,000 $970,000 $5,500 $59,000 Varie Varies Varies Varies N N/A N/A N/A N/A
/A
s
60 70 V 70 70.02.02 70.02.01 70.09 70.08 70 70.06 70.05 70.04 70.03 70.02 70.01 70.00 60.04 60 60.02 60.01 50.08 50.07 Electric Traction .07 .03 ehicles
without ticketed space hauled passengercars Vehicle Acquisition: Loco ticketed space hauled passengercars with Vehicle Acquisition: Loco Multiple Unit Vehicle Acquisition: Diesel Maglev Unit Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) Multiple Unit Vehicle Acquisition: Electric Electric Locomotive Vehicle Acquisition: Locomotive Vehicle Acquisition: Electric Traction PowerControl Catenary and third rail Traction Power Distribution: Substations Traction PowerSupply: High Voltage Traction Power Transmission: warning system Station train approach etc. equipment high water, slide, Hazard detectors: dragging Electric Locomotive Vehicle Refurbishment: Non Electric Locomotive Vehicle Refurbishment: railroad supportvehicles Vehicle Acquisition: Non Maintenanceof Way Vehicles Vehicle Acquisition:
Item
Non
- -
- -
-
Corridor Track Mile Corridor Corridor Corridor Each Mile Unit Each Each Each Mile Mile Mile N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Shared Use $32,500, $137,500 $1,625,000 $3,600,000 $1,800,000 $7,500 $60,400 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
000
Dedicated Use $79,290,000 $43,450,000 $1,625,000 $3,600,000 $1,800,000 $137,500 $ $60,400 7,500 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1 - 35 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 36 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
80 80.10 80.09 80.08 80.07 80.06 80.05 80.04 80.03 80.02 80.01 70.15 70.14 70.13 70.12 70.11 70.10 Professional Services
etc. by Other Agencies, Cities, Legal; Permits; Review Fees Insurance Nonother Professional Liability and Manageme& Construction Administration Design and Construction Project Management for Final Design Environmental Engineering/Project Pr Start Up Engineering Inspection investigation Surveys, testing, Environmental Service Development/Service Spare Parts Vehicles Maintenanceof Way Vehicle Refurbishment: without ticketed space passengerLoco Vehicle Refurbishment: Non ticketed space hauled passengercars with Vehicle Refurbishment: Loco Diesel MultipleUnit Vehicle Refurbishment: Electric Multiple Unit Vehicle Refurb eliminary
- Construction
Item
nt
ishment:
- hauled car
- - 2% 2% of Total 2% of Total 6% of Total 2% 2% of Total 4% 4% of Total 4% of Total 4% of Total Lump SumLump
Cost C Cost Unit Cost Cost Cost Cost N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ost
Shared Use Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dedicated Use
Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
equalcorridor thelength to weighted average. weighteddaily densitiesThese were thensummed and divided the by totalcorrid calculate averageto the perday trains trains typical which in used was formula following the tons, Therefore, cars. 70 gross and locomotives two of consist 60 is carload typical a that assumes study the route operates. entire the on density of “average “weighted it which the provides over length total the by distance dividing and route the the over values these Summing by density the multiplying by determined in seen be can and w route entire the for averages weighted could that segments assumed are Below tr currenttheorrestrict future freight and operations schedules. passenger involves not will trains passenger that assumption the uses operation study This volumes. train freight passenger freight the existing on corridors, operating Use Shared In SharedUse 3.2.3.1 3.2.3 ihe aeae s eie a te ave the as defined is average eighted
Shared Use and Dedicated Use Track Use Dedicated and Use Shared D
ETAILED
(
M aus o cret rih dniis o te aiu freight various the for densities freight current for values ae uue asne service. passenger future have ETHODOLOGIES
(
route
s and tracks. This This tracks. and s
for a particular s fora particular )
ae est oe te nie route entire the over density rage
(
. F . )
or the purposes of calculation, of purposes the or ( The density values are are values density The
egmentlength
requires requires )
(
) al 3 Table oriain with coordination )
:
- 12
.
n is and Daily daily daily ains
or
1 - 37 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 38 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
elcs h got truh 05 n i tkn rm the from taken is and andInfrastructure Capacity S Investment 2035 through growth the reflects in outlined percentages the by grow will operations of purposes the For Atlanta Atlanta Atlanta Corridor – – –
Louisville Birmingham Jacksonville
Table
hs esblt suy the study, feasibility this NS (Danvilleto Louisville) NS (Chattanooga to Danville) Nashville Eastern& Private (Chattanooga to Harriman) (NashvilleCSXT to Louisville) (ChattanoogaCSXT to Nashville) NS (Atlantato (AtlantaCSXT to Chattanooga) CSXT Kingsland) CSXT Hill) CSXT Georgia NS H NS NS 3 - 12
S
- -
Line
(Callahan to Jacksonville) S S Line CurrentCorridor Densities Freight - - Line (Richmond Hill to Line (Savannah to Richmond Central
Railroad Owner Chattanooga)
Railroad tudy
(September2007).
study
al 3 Table
sue cret freight current assumed - National Rail Freight Freight Rail National 13
Ti percentage This . (trains/day) Density 45.0 22.5 22.5 45.0 29.0 65.2 43.4 26.3 25.0 45.0 12.0 0.3 9.5 0.8 2. 5
2010 and 2035. 10 an Therefore, increase. ridership the accommodate to together increased are frequency and size Train trains. efficient more more larger, with support along frequencies, train options faster with associated ridership higher rule, a as However, frequency. train passenger estimating behind calculations the explains 3.4 Chapter Louisville Atlanta Jacksonville Atlanta Birmin Atlanta
2040 Freight Density Estimates were extrapolated using the Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) between between (AAGR) Rate Growth Annual Average the using extrapolated were Estimates Density Freight 2040 Corridor gham – – –
Louisville) NS (Danvilleto Danville) NS (Chattanooga to Nashville Eastern& Harriman)to Priv Louisville) (NashvilleCSXT to Nashville) (ChattanoogaCSXT to Chattanooga) NS (Atlantato Chattanooga) (AtlantaCSXT to Jacksonville) CSXT Hill to Kingsland) CSXT Richmondto Hill) CSXT Railroad Georgia NS H NS NS
S Table Railroad Owner ate (Chattanooga - -
Line (Ca S S Line - -
Line (Richmond Line (Savannah
Central llahan to
3 - 13
:FutureDensity Freight Increases
(through 2035) Increase Density 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
(trains/day) Density Freight 130.4 2035 2035 14.2 86.8 52.6 37.5 90.0 18.0 67.5 45.0 45.0 90.0 58.0 0.5 1.2 3.6
Estimate Density Freight 130.7 2040 2040 14.4 87.1 52.9 37.7 90.3 18.2 67.7 45.3 45.3 90.3 58.3 0.6 1.4 3.9
10
1 - 39 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 40 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
corridor. each improvemen capacity necessary the calculate help to used then were that T characteristics. estimates frequency train unique these on based frequencies and ridership II Section to lead that patterns ridership in seen be will As foreachstrategy corridors. ofthe three ap iterative current future and and freight operations passengerproposed service: accommodate to capacity track increasing to approach following the took thecost estimate, capital a developing In improvements. capacity in values density the freight projected densities, the with combination in densities rail passenger these on Based
Atlanta Atlanta Atlanta Nashville Chattanooga Atlanta A Atlanta tlanta tlanta Corridor rah a ue t ietf te pia ivsmn ad operating and investment optimal the identify to used was proach – – –
Birmingham Louisville Jacksonville – – –
– Chattanooga: Macon BirminghamCorridor: 6 (12roundtrips trains/day)
Louisville:5
–
Table Nashville: 10 (20roundtrips
–
Jacksonville:8 below illustrate the preliminary train frequency estimates frequency train preliminary the illustrate below
3 CSXT (ChattanoogaCSXT to Nashville) NS (Atlantato Chattanooga) (AtlantaCSXT to Chattanooga) CSXT CSXT CSXT Georgia NS H NS NS NS (Danvilleto Louisville) NS (Chattanooga to Danville) Nashville Eastern& Private (Chattanooga to Harriman) (NashvilleCSXT to Louisville) - 14
round trips ( round trips 16(32roundtrips estimating corridor frequencies. T frequencies. corridor estimating -
V te ordr hv uiu caatrsis and characteristics unique have corridors the IV, S Crescent :EvaluatedCorridor Densities - -
Line al 3 Table A S S Line - - - Line (Richmond Hill to Kingsland) Lin Line Central
e (Savannah to Richmond Hill)
Railroad Owner (Callahan to Jacksonville) round ( trips - study 14 10
Railroad
ee sd o eeo te necessary the develop to used were trains/day)
made the followingas the made
trains/day)
trains/day
16
trains/day)
)
his study study his
Evaluated sumptions and sumptions Density e passenger he 102.0 106.0 142.4 102.8 45.5 30.0 79.5 53.0 57.0 74.0 16.6 31.0 13.6 21.0 64.6 optimizes
ts along ts
higherspeeds. traveling 11 existing track 3 Table o 2/o 2 rfr t te pcfc nl o te diversi the of angle specific the to refers 24 20/No. No.
arecentersProposed track20 crossovers Universal should be No. 20/24;and sidings Minimum twoandfreight sidingsmiles are passenger 10miles; passing and turnouts power with willrequire sidings 20/24 No. replaced be will turnouts mainline All 136 with replaced completely CWR and concretepound ties; be will tracks siding and mainline Existing service passenger bu proposed the infrastructure track any to access require will railroads Freight - 15 illustrates the methodology for increasing track capacity on the various the on capacity track increasing for methodology the illustrates corridors based on based corridorsevaluated the densitiesinoutline
ilds railroad on private property;
11 -
feet.
powerturnouts;
on of the train movement. Larger turnouts reflect reflect turnouts Larger movement. train the of on
Table 3 - 14 .
-
1 - 41 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 42 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
12
Trains/Day 75 75 x< 30 30 x< Average freightpassenger plus baseddensity service future on trains/day proposed trains 100 < x Average < 135
30 < <
100
75 <
12
Existing of# Main tracks Table 2 2 1 1
3 - 15
:Capacity MethodologyImprovement
New SignalNew System PTC PTC PTC PTC
Spacedouble crossovers every 12 miles system Connect allsidings creatingdouble a track standards Upgradeexisting mainline track to Class 6 turn Upgradeall mainlineturnouts to power Add 10 mile passenger siding every 50 miles miles Maintain a minimum siding spacing of 8 2 miles Upgradeand extend allsidings lengths to of standards U turnouts Upgradeall mainlineturnouts to power Spacedouble cross Add third track standards Upgradeexisting mainline tracksto Class 6 turnouts Upgradeall mainlineturnouts to power Spacedouble crossovers every 8 miles standards Upgradee turnouts Upgradeall mainlineturnouts to power pgradeexisting mainline track to Class 6 outs
xisting mainline tracksto Class 6 Track Improvement
overs every 12 miles
- 10
13 varioussegments applied to along dedicatedthe corridors. Figure 3 the took the estimate, cost capital a develop To train passenger unique the consideration into characteri taking and approach iterative the on based Again operateon cannot existingfreight tracks viceversa. and the study, feasibility this of purposes right additional purchase and crossi mph). (110 speeds reduced at corridors city exits the Louisville, and Nashville and enter trains passenger Chattanooga, Birmingham, Jacksonville, Savannah, Macon, Atlanta, where as such stations situations mile” “last in However, trains exist passenger involves operation dedicated passenger on operating the corridors, Use Dedicated In Use Dedicated
Thisandnot required is is anby not FRA industry standard
ing and ing future freightoperations. ngs. Typically, the passenger r passenger the Typically, ngs. rpsd rc cnes r 1. fe wt a iiu o 1 fe in feet 15 of minimum a with feet 16.5 segments are centers track Proposed ofmaintenance;purpose the andfor 24 No. be should crossovers Universal Trackwillbe 136 ClassBuild 9toFRA track standards; corridorstrackDouble bi for Nashville Chattanooga Atlanta Atlanta Atlanta -
1 followingapproachconstructing for dedicated infrastructure:track
tc ad iesi pten o ec o te he suy ordr, the corridors, study three the of each of patterns ridership and stics through
– – –
frequency estimates threethe follows:for corridors
– 13 Chattanooga:28 Macon Birmingham:
Louisville:12 (24 round trips trains/day) Figure3 where speed iswhere speed reduced toless 125 than mph. –
Nashville: 20 (40roundtrips trains/day)
- – route pound concrete CWRties; on
Jacksonville: - 4 study
demonstrate variousthe types oftypical s - s and tracks. This separates passenger service from service passenger separates This tracks. and s 1 of 0 round trips ( roundtrips 0 - way to approach the destin the approach to way
round trips ( roundtrips
assumed passenger train passenger assumed - directionaloperation; ail will utilize an existing freight corridor freight existing an utilize will ail study
14 study
A s A round trips ( roundtrips
assumed that the dedicated technology dedicated the that assumed
ealed corridor does allow for at for allow does corridor ealed
2
or greater or and assumptions following the made 56 0 trains/day)0
trains/day)
28
and spaced every 25 miles 25 every spaced and trains/day)
s will operate on sealed on operate will s
ation station. For the For station. ation
ections
- grade route
1 - 43 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 44 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
Source: California High Figure Figure 3 - 1 :At - Speed Train:Environmental Project Impact - Grade,OpenTypicalDrainage Section
Report (
2010)
Source: California High Source: California High Figu Figure Figure re 3 - 2 3 :At - 3 :Trench/Retained - - - Speed Train:Environmental Project Impact Speed Train:Environmental Project Impact Grade,Closed Typical Drainage Section
CutTypical Section Report ( Report (
2010) 2010)
1 - 45 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 46 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
Figure Figure 3 Source: California High - 4 :DedicatedExisting Corridor within Freight Track Typical Section - Speed Train:Environmental Project Impact Report ( 2010)
a with percent 1.25 be should grade ruling of2.5 percent. maximum desirable The grade. corridor was level the feasibility the at considered was that factor only the grade, vertical For spiral acceptable an determine and Thisexercise willlength. atbe requireda la curve each design to study feasibility the of super applied speed, design calcula individually is spiral of Length only. information as stated is above stated length spiral the that noted be should It characteristics:geometry horizontal detailed feasibility the of scope the within not was it Again, mph). 200 < geometryUsein wasmore Dedicated Use Dedicated freight existing the super increasing on times travel the increase inclu corridors to factors of number a study can engineering Future analysis. further for feasible determined are corridors the if recom is It levelforthis involved study. too been have would this the as times, travel better study, for curves easing with feasibility associated this For geometry. limi be will geometry Use Shared SharedUse utilized currentalso the inAmerican projects California Florida. and The (AREMA). Association Maintenance and Engineering Railway American Unio International high the of basis general The 3.2.3.2 -
speed rail liens (i.e., Japanese and European) as well as the guidance of the of guidance the as well as European) and Japanese (i.e., liens rail speed
lengthofa Minimum segment 600is feet. ( mph); V=220 feet 1,500 is spiral of length Maximum underbalance super Maximum ofcurvedegree 0 Maximum is Track Geometry Track mended that this be looked at further as a part of future detailed studies detailed future of part a as further at looked be this that mended
ig eraig h dge o craue lnteig prl, and spirals, lengthening curvature, of degree the decreasing ding - elevation. n of Railways (UIC) and the Manual of Railway Engineering of the of Engineering Railway of Manual the and (UIC) Railways of n route and ) ;
-
lvto i sx 6 inches (6) six is elevation
. However, for this study, the the study, this for However, .
route
- elevation and degree of curve. It is outside the scope the outside is It curve. of degree and elevation
design was to follow best practices of the current current the of practices best follow to was design e t te xsig rc hrzna ad vertical and horizontal track existing the to ted - °30’00”; depth due to greater design speeds (125 mph speeds (125 design greater due to depth e fr ah uv bsd n ye f spiral, of type on based curve each for ted terphase ofdesign. study
ae o 1.63* on based
did not perform any analysis analysis any perform not did Apid super (Applied study
utilized the following the utilized
E study to create a create to study
a - V and *V elevation plus plus elevation E study a =4”,
1 - 47 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 48 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
ih mxmm rd o fu pret wt ecpin) Peerd operating instances sixofgradesdo have up to percentwith l Preferred exceptions). (with percent high for grades four of systems grade maximum rail a passenger with intercity example, tw of grade For maximum a have typically highways. interstate and roads local than grades percent maximum and change of rate their in flexible less usually vertical The 3.2.3.3 GradeUnder Bridge Structures Flyover scenario. the and study, feasibility this For types. interchange ofcombination a in resulting locate both Atlanta The are interstates and highways over theelevated high the that proposed is it scenarios, interchange most in change i Therefore, overpasses. lengthy andstructures other verticalapproach and walls retaining minimal The previously. mentioned high allow that grades vertical separation, high grade incomingthe the per and interchange million the of $100 characteristics the reach upon depending can interchanges interstate for Costs Option Figure 3 Figure
- Interstate Interstate speed rail system. This large range in cost is due to the mini the to due is cost in range large This system. rail speed
- - Chattanooga route 5 routes - outline the interchange details and costs that were used based on based used were that costs and details interchange the outline speed rail also do not exceed two percent, although current systems systems current although percent, two exceed not do also railspeed roadway/ramp High High interchange High High multi High shoulderto High interstateinto median High Table s of of s Interchanges
------pe ri fyvr hudr cos entire across shoulder flyover rail speed multi half flyover rail speed multi half to shoulder flyover rail speed plateaus, eroded hills, rolling in sp from away speed rail gradeunder interchange and over bridge rail speed speed rail bridgeover aninterchange lane to shoulder - speedrail e ri gae ne intersecting under grade rail eed 3 nect psegr al high rail, passenger intercity - 16 - Nashville
:High
- pe ri sses o civ ter o sed as speeds top their achieve to systems rail speed
route - Description Speed OptionsRail Interchange - oivle and Louisville
. o percent, compared to interstate highways interstate to compared percent, o
- lane into median into lane ower operatingspeeds. Atlanta
- pe ri, n Mge are Maglev and rail, speed
n mutios terrain mountainous and - route lane - imnhm Corridor Birmingham
Cost (in millions) eut i lengthy in results
$150 $93 $23 $23 $95 $95 mal percent mal $3 Table 3 Table
route -
16 of n s
Source: California High Figure Figure 3 - 5 :High - Speed Train:Environmental Project Impact - Speed Rail OptionDetailsSpeed Interchange
Report ( 2010)
1 - 49 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 50 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
prdd o ud ae, lsig ihs ad uil bls ciae b constant by activated bells audible and lights, flashing gates, quad to upgraded purpose the For trains passenger involves at operation private crossingand in ordergrade specific tomaintaina level ofprotection. public passenger every affect corridors Sealed the corridors. sealed corridors, in operating Use Shared In SharedUse 3.2.3.4 costs associated lower In structures. have structures standards. geometry highways railroad typical typical addition, than flexible more much are standards 6 be willcrossings public all that assumes study feasibility This grade that study crossingscostseparating private not effective. would be the of beginning the at determined was It realigned. be to need 3.2. Section in discussed are grade at be will and open public all study, feasibility this of purposes the For crossing togradeseparated grade closed). (or be at private and public every require will corridor The operations. rail and roadways at no has that corridor a within operates train passenger the corridors, Use Dedicated In Dedica willneed crossings tobe tothe upgraded audiblebellwarningproposed system. at all assumes study feasibility This warningsystem. constant singl to upgraded be crossings will private All speeds. differenttrain for that adjusts system time warning ). This is primarily based on the fact that roadway horizontal and verticaland geometry roadway that horizontal fact the on based primarily is This ). - rd cosns eiiaig n ptnil ik o itreec between interference for risk potential any eliminating crossings, grade ted Use ted
At
-
Grade Crossin Grade
f hs esblt suy al ulc at public all study, feasibility this of gts fahn lgt, n adbe el atvtd y the by activated bells audible and lights, flashing gates, e - separated. Approach and various types of grade separationsgrade of types various and Approach separated.
gs
3
.6. Al .6. l private crossings will be closed and access will will access and closed be will crossings private l - rd cosns il ean pn n ta all that and open remain will crossings grade
-
rd cosns il remain will crossings grade - rd cosns il be will crossings grade road over rail ( railover road
hn railroad than Figure 3 Figure
- - -
for Projects Design Geometric the by outline as corridors 2000)Highways Press, (ASCE three all for used weredefinitions and followingcategories The classifyterrain. agenciesto State and informat terrain evaluating and investigations field doing of requirements and variables the to Due cases) hasbeen completed.most (in earthwork previous no where infrastructure new on commence will operations track additional for the of period graded time the on depending been have corridor the along vary not will earthwork for standards may the Therefore, infrastructure. or may corridors existing the Use Shared In 3.2.3.5
elevation of the group with respect to rail are abrupt and where benching where and abrupt are rail to respect with some group the of elevation offer slopes steep Mountainous: occasional where and restriction horizontalto normaland grade vertical rail the below Rolling: areas thatrequire may marsh frequentelevation; Coastal: without so difficultyorconstruction expense; major be to made be could or long generally are restrictions, vertical Flat: Earthwork Figure Figure
Source: California High conditions where sight distances, as governed by both horizontal and horizontal both by governed as distances, sight where conditions
routes,
conditions where the natural slopes consistently rise above and fall and above rise consistently slopes natural the where conditions 3 conditions similar to Flat Terrain with the addition the with Terrain Flat to similar conditions o, the ion, - 6 :Typical (OverpassGrade Underpass)Separations and
conditions where longitudinal and transverse changes in the in changes transverse and longitudinal where conditions w here passenger trains share track with freight operations, freight with track share trains passenger here study : -
Speed Train:Environmental Project Report(2010) Impact
eid oey n nomto dvlpd y Federal by developed information on solely relied
work. In Dedicated Use Dedicated In work.
r oute
; and ;
routes
of wetland and and wetland of , the passenger passenger the ,
1 - 51 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 52 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
osdrd R Sadr Cs Ctgr Ie 1.6 rc Srcue At cost unit Structure: detailed for Track 3.2.3 Section to 10.06 Refer Item stabilization). classification subgrade and terrain Category (grading Flat Cost and Standard Coastal FRA condition. considered ideal an of basis the are and challenges earthwork of amount least the pose terrains of types two These types. terrain Flat and Coastal the on based was classification each for cost unit The Costs Unit multiply tracksshould by account two for to secondthe track. double for built Bridges Track. of Foot Cost/Linear on based calculated are viaduct, 3 Table 3.2.3.6 Cut Fill (>4 feet and height/depth)10.05.01as Rolling 10.05.02 and Mountainous. Structure: Track 10.05 SSC FRA under classified be will locations terrain These and Rolling Mountainousclassifications. terrain The werefollowingfactors applied: the Therefore, earthwork. to track related variables vertical proposed the and level, existing elevations, study feasibility the At development.
Factorof Mountainous: 3 Rol acceptable obtain to required frequently is excavation and horizontal vertical hill side and
- 17 Structures
ling: Factor ling: of 1.5 outlines the structural co structural the outlines
route
.
sts along each corridor. All costs, except the except costs, All corridor. each along sts study
a lmtd nomto o exis on information limited had study route
sd fco apoc for approach factor a used , ol ad eea other several and soils s,
wl be will s
- Grade ting
practic whenever practice desired the as specified is This Zone. Clear roadside crossingbridges roadways, For structures theare tospan the sized roadway the and the of foot linear the for bridge. cost a calculate to doubled be should costs tracks, two in type d were Costs ViaductGuideway waterway Rail over minor spans)foot way (greaterthan 120 Rail over major water waterway Rail over major Rail over minor Rail over major roadway RailInterstate over
Truss Through Plate Girder DeckPlate Girder WideFlange DeckGirder 42” Double CellBox Beam 30” Double CellBox Beam Concrete Slab
Table 3 Table Structure
Structure Type vlpd sn te olwn planning following the using eveloped
- roadway 18
. Costs are by linear foot of single track. For bridges containing bridges For track. single of foot linear by are Costs .
- Table
immediate or futureuse accommodate two tracks, for either All viaducts will be built50 placed end to end. 24 Bridge.If wat 24 150 Girders 120 end span, enter as multiple bridgesplaced end to If waterway can be traversed with 120 120 72 Plate Girders 156 Plate Girders 196
3 Table - - - footspans, enter as multiple bridges footclear span using ConcreteSlab footclear span, using Deck PlateGirders ------
350 footspan using Through Truss 150 footspan using Through foot clear span, using DeckPlate Girders. foot span with a center pier,using Deck foot span with a center pier,using Deck 18
:Unit Cost by Type Structure 3 - 17 MaximumSpan (feet)
erway can be traversed with : CostsStructure Assumption
350 150 120 65 49 35 24
- feet feet wide to
- ee ui css y structure by costs unit level
- Plate
-
foot Cost/Footof Track
$25,000 $12,000 $9,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,500 $4,500 $0.025/Linear $0.012/Linear $0.009/Linear Foot of Track Foot of Track Foot of Track UnitCost (in millions)
$1.10 $0.68 $1.40 $1.76 $0.11
al, in al,
1 - 53 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 54 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
AASHTO’s GDOT the
X $9,000/FT 120’ ofTrack $1,080,0 = Foot ofTrack$9,000/Linear 120a Uses X of$9,000/FT 76’ Track $684,000= $9, 76 a Uses X $9,000/FT 156’ ofTrack $1,404,000 = Foot $9,000/linear ofTrack 15 a Uses 000/Linear Foot000/Linear ofTrack RoadsideGuideDesign rde n Srcue Dsg Plc Manual Policy Design Structures and Bridge - 6 footspan,clear usingPlateDeck Girders - - foot span with a centerwithspan a pier,foot Girdersusing Deck Plate foot clear foot usingspan, GirdersPlateDeck Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure
and is detailedis in and 3
3 - 3 7 - - 9 :InterstateCrossing 8 :Major Waterway :Minor Roadway
00
Figure3
Scin .., n the and 2.3.2, Section ,
- 7 through
Figure3
- 11 .
spansare required areIf greaterthat than feet, 120
150 Spans 120 Spans X of$4,500/FT 24’ Track $108,000= Foot ofTrack$4,500/Linear 24 a Uses - - - footspan,clear SlabBridgeusingConcrete 350 feet,350Truss:Through $25,000/LinearofTrackFoot feet,150Through Figure Figure
3
- 10 - Plate Girders:Plate $12,000/LinearFoot ofTrack : Minor : Waterway
use following:use the
1 - 55 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 56 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
spans and substructures. Because of this, viaducts offer a significant cost savings savings cost significant scale toeconomies bridgedue forof components efficienciesand construction. for a offer viaducts this, of Because substructures. be and spans to considered access are easily in viaducts land, over effort, level built length, same the typically are planning that spans short many of consist this that structures of purposes the For
2 TracksX ofTrack2 $4,418/FT $8,828/LinearofBridge Foot = canviaducts accommodateAll two tracks Foot ofTrack$4,418/Linear 60 a Uses Source: Californ - footwithspan Con ia High Figure Figure ible urban areas. Structures of this type have receptive have type this of Structures areas. urban ible - Speed Train:Environmental Project Impact 3
- 11 creteBoxGirder : Viaduct : Guideway
Report (
2010)
cost. station correct the studies. into added subsequent be in to categories need will they items, these of considered any requires was station cost s this the in included are that track the above noted, bridges be should It Conservative ft. $215/sq. was stations on Amtrak Based as buildings. classified for ft. sources and sq. be studies other 6,600 will approximately be plans) will current and stations under “Medium” already not (those stations purpos the For study. feasibility this for assumed be stations These include: will cost total fare the plans, platforms, alternative under elevators, for generated miscellaneo were other and collections costs Additionally, station. the of construction the covers and building proposed the of foot square on based was b will buildings station The 3.2.3.7
study
Jacksonville MultimodalJacksonville Terminal. Multimodal andBirmingham Terminal; H MMPT; Stations - JAIA
sue ta uls pas r udra fr pooe sain the station, proposed a for underway are plans unless that assumes
n aue A ti tm, o lvtr o ecltr ad overhead and escalators or elevators no time, this At nature. in
es of this feasibility study, the study, feasibility this of es
e based on a typical typical a on based e
typical building construction costs, the unit cost for cost unit the costs, construction building typical us items. For larger stations that are proposed are that stations larger For items. us Figure
Intermediate 3 - tation base cost. If the the If cost. base tation
12 study
lutae a typical a illustrates
has assumed all assumed has
footprint. Unit of measure of Unit footprint. Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate
1 - 57 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 58 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
Trackand Platform
Figure Figure 3 - 12 : Intermediate
Station FootprintStation Terminal
Parking
19. property determine propert of use toThe values. appropriate as states neighbor in databases similar other The distance. specified paral to be will approach general The improvements. capacity future proposed build to railroads freight existing the with obtained be can agreement an that is assumption The tracks. freight existing “last two if decide to For judgment service. rail passenger right A values. property existing on Right the company. utility host with negotiations during determined be will compensation Ultimate service. right A values. property ex approachfor costing The variousstatethe agencies attransportation cost no right that assumes methodology costing The state of use The was approach reflecttobettermodified specific the area. this level, feasibility the at done be will engineering detailed more 50 additional assumed an right railroad inside fit not does existing track passenger new inside where situations occur generally can tracks passenger est privately cost corridor in included was value right railroad existing the of value for approach costing The “greenfield”and corridors rights highway rights railroad existing property; of uses five evaluated study feasibility The 3.2.3.8
study - of
- way - Right we rira right railroad owned
tlzd h GO Ofc o Pann right Planning of Office GDOT the utilized
cost approach for Dedicated Use (greenfield) situations will be based based be will situations (greenfield) Use Dedicated for approach cost - of - of - - ow Way/Real Estate Way/Real -
a, h GI ntok n eri, oe and power Georgia, in network GRIP the way, ned highway rights highway ned
- of Shared Use Shared - route y was separated into the following categories in in categories following the into separated was y new dedicated tracks can be constructed parallel to the to parallel constructed be can tracks dedicated new ft of property was added. In isolated situations where situations isolated In added. was property of ft - isting utility rights utility isting wa
- y width of 100 of width y of s.
- - a. The way. of
e te xsig rih cneln o tak t a at track of centerline freight existing the lel - ie stain, the situations, mile” - way based on adjacent land values. This land This values. land adjacent on based way - situations involved determining the property the determining involved situations of - of - mts o drs te ulc s o the of use public the address to imates a wdh f 100 of width way -
way will generally have no cost impact. cost no have generally will way - of - study of f - ee way or air rights will be granted by granted be will rights air or way - way will also be based on adjacenton based be also will way t
was to sue cntuto o new of construction assumed therailpassenger system. -
of assumed for passenger rail passenger for assumed - the railroad right railroad the a vle aaae and database value way study
f ee t
sd engineering used was -
of sue for assumed te utility other - way. For For way. - - Table 3 Table of of - - way, way,
-
1 - 59 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 60 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
determine the determine signalrequired improvements: to used were assumptions following The etc. circuits, track boxes, pull cable, relays, Upgra replacement or upgraded in toimplementequipment order SharedtheUse service. require passenger will corridors three the along communications Cu and signaling railroad existing all network. Therefore, PTC. implemented communication has railroad freight and signal (PTC) Control Train haveservicePositive communicationsfor to passenger signalingand all requires FRA (ABS), or sys These place. in communications and signaling have already corridors freight existing The SharedUse 3.2.3.9 40.07
ding or replacing existing signaling will involve new signals, signal houses, houses, signal signals, new involve will signaling existing replacing or ding vn n ra wee hr i a eitn CC ytm n lc, the place, in system CTC PTC full new existing a handle an to system. upgraded is fully be to there need will where communications areas in Even will TWC or ABS system; signaling with line freight existing Any
Signaling and Communication and Signaling Centralized tems could be Track Warranted Control (TWC), Automatic Block Signals Signals Block Automatic (TWC), Control Warranted Track be could tems
Subcategory 40.07.07 40.07.06 40.07.05 40.07.04 40.07.03 40.07.02 40.07.01
Traffic(CTC). Control
Table Rural Land Acquisition Urban Land Acquisition State Owned Rural Utility Owned Urban Utility Owned Rural Railroad Owned Urban Railroad Owned 3 Purchase or Lease of Real Estate -
19
Item : Real Items Estate Cost
– –
– – – –
property Purchase ruralof designated property Purchase urbanof designated rightsGRIP Existing interstate,highway and propertyowned Corridor propertyowned Corridor propertyowned Corridor propertyowned Corrido r
route route route route
receive a complete new new complete a receive -
of Definition -
way on ru on urbanon utility ruralon railroad urbanon railroad
rnl, o existing no rrently,
ral utility
andother public and proprietary sources. Program; Corridor HSR Orlando to Tampa DOT Florida the Program; Authority Rail High California the Corridor; Louis St. to Chicago Illinois the Project, Corridor include 2010 to escalated and using dollars appropriate, as sources several from blended were Costs sparecars replacementof and willparts also bein number appropriate an for Costs seat. each at power volt 110 and access internet Wi availability, entertainment audio announcement/displays, station automated ameniti standard feature will sets train All car. dining/bistro a be include will will set train set Each train restrooms. including the accessible ADA and seats) 500 to 400 seati (typically corridor set each for train developed The basis. set train cost a on 70 category cost standard FRA in included be will design) (including me and ways FRA be will diesel The 250 technology coach for prepared was genericvehicle 1) technologies:three 90 plans, service developed on based estimates, cost unit Vehicle 3.2.3.10 entire the for required be will route communication and signaling PTC new assumed the Since Use Dedicated existing the of regardless required the be study, system. communication feasibility will this communications of new purpose that the assumed for Therefore, signals. the not n communication the by caused been have systems PTC of failures Most - 300 mph 300 Maglev technology. .
study
Cost of Vehicles of Cost - lcrctcnlg ue i shared in used technology electric eiae Ue route Use Dedicated Tier I Tier Engineering News Record News Engineering
e eil eprec o te icni DT Milwaukee DOT Wisconsin the on experience vehicle t European crashworthiness standards. Vehicle purchase costs costs purchase Vehicle standards. crashworthiness European t
comp ;
2) 150 2) liant. Other technologies will operate on dedicated right dedicated on operate will technologies Other liant.
-
220 mph electric multiple unit (EMU) technology (EMU) unit multiple electric mph 220
ae rmrl gree primarily are s g aaiy a bsd n h srie plan service the on based was capacity ng Cost Indices. Sources for the cost estimates cost the for Sources Indices. Cost - 110 m 110
es including 2x2 seating, video displays, displays, video seating, 2x2 including es - s psegr n fegt corridors freight and passenger use ph dieselph cluded in the estimate.inthe cluded fed ordr, the corridors, nfield - electric locomotivetiltand etwork and and etwork
- Madiso ;
- and 3) and Speed study study - per - of - Fi n - -
1 - 61 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 62 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
Train Representative Technologies
1. 2.
Si AGV inEMU,meterslength, 196 Alstom 450 150 meters inlength,184 39 lightweighthorsepower, locomotives Series 8coachesTalgo tilt two and push 90 emens E Velaroemens EMU, meters200length, in 400 - Figure Figure 110 mp 110 - 220 mph220 Single LevelElectrified TiltTechnology 3 hSingle Level Electric Diesel TiltTechnology - 14 : : AGVright)Alston Velaro EMUto and Siemens (left Figure Figure
7 passenger capacitypassenger 7
3 - 13 : : Talgo 8 Series
- pull Generation”“Next 3,000 - 500capacity passenger
- 600 passenger capacity passenger600
feasibilitythe for study: The ( table study.following feasibility a for percentages practice common are percentages These and design, procurement, vehicle for manufactur services professional because excluded be will Vehicles 70: category Cost the 60. through of 10 categories percentages for cost on construction based was services professional for approach costing The 3.2.3.11 3.
153 meters inlength,153 600 250
P rofessional Se rofessional - ing will ing costbe includedinthe of the vehicles. 340 mph340 TechnologyTransrapid Maglev Table 3 Table
- rvices 20 Figure Figure ) shows the assumed percentage values that were used were that values percentage assumed the shows )
- 3 650 passenger650capacity - 15
Transrapid Maglev
1 - 63 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 64 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
speed rail ridership. Each diversion model computes, for each combination of trip of combination each for computes, model diversion Each ridership. rail speed featur This 3.3 more be will a ofincludedas is part analysis.feasibility this phasing service of delivery and a cost capital Detailed phases. t the into investment public support that details no are initial there therefore, scenarios; phasing these in included not the reduce to order high of delivery and construction in costs capital the for scenarios phasing examined study the complete, were estimates costs capital Once 3.2.3.13 fact the on based primarily average unthat is This cases). special for allowances with percent 30 (generally level engineering conceptual the at large be will factor contingency The methodology. of contingenc the investigations the percent) study, feasibility this of purpose dif process for FRA allows The process. application funding the during contingencies approach The 3.2.3.12 80 80.05 80.04 80.03 80.02 80.01 80.10 8 80.07 80.06 ppropriate during the NEPA process, but an introduction to the concept of phasing of concept the to introduction an but process, NEPA the during ppropriate 0.08 Professional Services
section
study R e of the methodology is the use of binary diversion models to calculate high calculate to models diversion binary of use the is methodology the of e
IDERSHIP AND AND IDERSHIP
Phasing Scenarios for Capital Costs Capital for Scenarios Phasing Contingencies Start Up Surveys, testing, investigation Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, cities, etc. insurance Professional Liability and other non Construction Administration Management & Project Management for Design and Construction Final Design Preliminary Engineering/ProjectEnvironmental Service Development/ServiceEnvironmental au t te aiu ctgre. oee, o ftr rfnmns and refinements future for However, categories. various the to value
prahd otnece te ae a te R gat applications grant FRA the way same the contingencies approached
presents the ridership and revenue forecasting methodology. forecasting revenue and ridership the presents eet otnece apid o ifrn cs ctgre. o the For categories. cost different to applied contingencies ferent it costs wereit costs used detailed and was analysis design done. not
Table
3 - 20 R ies for each of the categories can adjust with this type this with adjust can categories the of each for ies :Professional Percentages Services EVENUE EVENUE Item - speed rail. Other operational characteristics were characteristics operational Other rail. speed
study - construction M
ETHODOLOGY ple a osat contingency constant a applied
Not applicableNot 0%,
Percentage
negligible 2% 2% 6% 4% 4% 4% 2%
The key key The
(30 he -
part a all counties included and as part studya ofthe area. as for performed basis analysis geographic study. feasibility forecasting the formed demand area travel study subsequent the within included The study. counties feasibility a for area large a model to need the and areas, adjacent of service of level in differences the reflect to granularity sufficient 386 having between was balance good corridors a provided three zone of definition all This for zones. area study the within including the (zones) at counties was structure zoning the corridors, multiple the and area study the of size the Given zones. of number a into split was above described process the by created boundary geographic the within area The example, for accommodate, populationc important to instances specific in appropriate as adjusted was proposed the 50 the However, services. of rail side either three on the miles followsroute 50 that approximately area extends geographic and a corridors covers task forecasting demand The 3.3.1 presentat methodology. modeling a with ending and considered markets potential the of analysis an by followed forecasting, demand the for used structure begins section This the to and induceddiverted demand volu high related Total directly function utility model. travel diversion on based cost generalized a using high to willdivert that travel of volume the predict to modes existing the of volumes trip the by multiplied then are probabilities These attributes. service modes’ respective high choose would traveler a that probability the model, current and segment market purpose, - speed rail. Ind rail. speed s, which s,
G EOGRAPHIC - spe is a typical planning assumption for access catchment for high for catchment access for assumption planning typical a is
d al vr t cret oe o tae a a ucin f the of function a as travel of model current its over rail ed Figure 3 Figure
with a brief description of the geographic scope and the zoning the and scope geographic the of description brief a with uced (new) travel on the high the on travel (new) uced entersjust located outsidethe 50
S COPE AND - 16
shows the straight line line straight the shows - - mile distance is indicative rather than absolute, and absolute, than rather indicative is distance mile pe ri rdrhp s band y umn the summing by obtained is ridership rail speed mesfor individualmarketthe segments. Z ONING ony ee. h ttl ubr of number total The level. county S
- TRUCTURE speed rail mode is also calculated calculated also is mode rail speed o o te ead forecasting demand the of ion route
characteristics for residents for characteristics - milecut s for the three corridors three the for s
- off.
f this of - speed
1 - 65 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 66 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
Figure Figure
3 - 16 : Geographic : Area Study
reluct generally are bus operators Commercial corridors. the in operate that services bus of variety a are There BusService automobiletovalidate volumesused travel calculated from ATS. the are data count traffic 1995 the still is corridors inter on information of source best America 2008 inter of journey as aspects (such specific travel urban on corridors. exists information Some study market. a travel efforts automobile three collection the data quantifying for sources the existing new on depends study original this Therefore, undertaken. unless in U.S. the inter mode for reliable anywhere and available travel date to dominate up Unfortunately, the is Automobile AutomobileTravel the However, detail. more in corridor the describing described are section subsequent markets each in presented are markets these for estimates quantitative travel these of Each which the from highproposed markets travel three are There area). urban Chattanooga the of counties the and area urban Atlanta the of counties the between travel (e.g., area study the within Inter 3.3.2.1 high in in current the estimate to is service The 3.3.2 - scope travel markets are the key travel markets competing with the proposed proposed the with competing markets travel key the are markets travel scope first step in forecasting the potential ridership and revenue of the proposed rail proposed the of revenue and ridership potential the forecasting in step first -
- sp ra tae i lne dsac tae bten ao metropoli major between travel distance longer is travel urban
eed raileed service. Air service. Air and service; Bus Au connect air The market. local travelmarkets;The and inter The Inter M tomobiletravel;
ARKET - n Community Survey). In the absence of original data collection, the collection, data original of absence the In Survey). Community n Urban Travel Market Travel Urban - urban travel markets; urban travel
A
NALYSIS available on major roadways and interstate, which the the which interstate, and roadways major on available -
specificresults, inlatert main three The travelmarkets have been identified as:
Automobile Travel Survey Travel Automobile - - n t rlae iesi nmes Nvrhls, in Nevertheless, numbers. ridership release to ant to speed rail patronagemy draw servicestheir from:
- word data from the 2000 U.S. Census and 2006 and Census U.S. 2000 the from data word -
scope travel markets inside the study area. The The study the area. inside scope travel markets
- ra atmbl vlms ihn hs rail these within volumes automobile urban
hisreport. - ra tae vlm dt i not is data volume travel urban (ATS). In addition, up addition, In (ATS).
a areas tan - to study -
date
re - -
1 - 67 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 68 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
et ad iTa arie. hs ipr srie a a aea fr passengers for gateway a as services airport This Atlanta, including airlines. airports AirTran and large Delta of number hub, airport a large is the importance particular by Of Nashville. served and Jacksonville Birmingham, is Chattanooga, area study The Air Service Direct ridership approximate operators, the It be charter should that noted busoperatorshave study. from this for prepared were factors information load and capacity bus on any based estimates of absence the 20 the mainlocal three types of consideredtrips thisfor study: feasibility within travel 30 includes a within travel this as area, urban Atlanta me the For area. shorter is travel Local 3.3.2.2 in later thisreport. sections subsequent in presented point The Q3 air2009 Q4 2010 volumes.to A Birmingham, and each fromdirection as in passengers seen than each 20,000 with KY, more Louisville, FL and Jacksonville, FL Jacksonville, TN, between include service Nashville, that air those direct are include markets markets travel air significant largest the that evident is It aircrafts. regional and provided are airports these between Services connection. a make to destinations other to traveling passenger obliges this hubs carriers; to various serve flights that feeder by served primarily are area study the in airports other and The domestic numerous to connect lon trips. many for to point connection a as U.S. well as destinations, international southeastern the throughout tropolitan area (ARC area). For the rest of the study area, local travel is defined defined is travel local area, study the of rest the For area). (ARC area tropolitan
Local trips toaccesstrips the Local airport. leisurefortrips Local andpurposes; centers);city wor to Journeys
Local Travel Market Travel Local - to - on ar akt bten h mjr iprs n h suy ra are area study the in airports major the between markets air point
-
- mile radius of each of the proposed rail stations. There are There stations. rail proposed the of each of radius mile distance travel within the different urban areas of the study the of areas urban different the within travel distance k (most likely to originate in the suburbs and terminate in in terminatethe suburbsand the in originate likely to k (most H - JAIA
, the busiest air busiest the ,
eciig h corridor the describing
port in the U.S., and a major hub for hub major a and U.S., the in port been excluded excluded thebeen from analysis. ad imnhm A and AL Birmingham, and L - pcfc rvl patterns travel specific
by both mainline both by H - JAIA ger - Other . distance - county
of revenue proposedthe high The 3.3.3 demand Out modes. rail proposed the to area. trips these of study diversion possible the the incorporates methodology outside forecasting airports to/from connection ultimately attract to option available be will at stations rail proposed With forairport pairslower not involving the and Chattanooga the of involving many connecting the how traffic of much demonstrates that shows comparison pairs This stu airport connecting. are the same passengers the in on routes traffic air destination the on counts passenger of importance the include most area, study the in pairs airport key the of all Of include not does and area), study connections toflights to othe the within located (both airports and originaldestination between traveling passengers eh just shows which earlier presented bet traveling the markets, these of size potential the establish To airports. these at journey air their start to passenger a that possible be new may it where area study the in airports of number a are There 3.3.2.3 3. 2. 1.
study high
ok r l or work trip’sof place home, traveler’s the (e.g., the respectively destination and origin actual from station mode’s the egress and access to needed time/cost in the account into takes this pair. zone each and mode each for characteristics (LOS) Service of Level the Estimate trip behavior making tothese trends. in changes of sensitivity the regarding assumptions and employment) future. the in socio forecast grow reflect will market this how Estimate inthe areoutlined section.next also They disaggregated by trip purpose. automobile). and in current the Estimate Connect Air Market Air Connect D - speed rail service may change the purpose of the airport, and allow for for allow and airport, the of purpose the change may service rail speed
EMAND sd h floig prah o oeat h ptnil iesi and ridership potential the forecast to approach following the used en h ky iy ar. hs ifr fo te iet i market air direct the from differs This pairs. city key the ween
iue etnto) Fr ti b atmbl, hs ae into takes this automobile, by trip a For destination). eisure H For a trip by common carriera common by (includingtripFor propose the H
- H E - JAIA JAIA
- STIMATION JAIA study
These esti These - imnhm ad ht h cnetos r significantly are connections the that and Birmingham) priual te short the (particularly s hb o i tae i te ein Cmaig total Comparing region. the in travel air to hub a as -
r national andnational r international destinations.
economic trends (such as changes in pop in changes as (such trends economic - speed rail speed servicessteps: sixbroad through - xmnd aa n h nme o ttl passengers total of number the on data examined H scope travel market (including trips by air, bus, train, train, bus, air, by trips (including market scopetravel - JAIA
M air trips between these airports which are then are which airports these between trips air mates are developed on a zone a on developed are mates ODEL
- and other study area airports, high airports, area study other and vehicle time, frequency of service, fare, and fare, service, of frequency time, vehicle H
- JAIA
hub. - al ots uh has such routes haul
y ra ih h tu origin true the with area dy H These estimates will will estimates These - JAIA - to , which reflects which , d rail service),d -
zone basis as basis zone ulation and ulation
- speed rail speed H - JA
IA - -
1 - 69 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 70 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
6. 5. 4.
is ridership of level the that Note above. leveltothesensitive of fare. 3 Step from service rail new fare the and steps two previous the in calculated revenue. farebox rail the Estimate service improved provided the project.by proposed no the in made not are demand. induced of level the Estimate modeling and models methodology. choice mode established the and step previous the ridership). the servi new the that share market potential the Estimate vehicleand congestion) (largely operatingcosts cost). fuel origin the account EstimateLevelInduced of EstimateLevelService of forZoneEachand Mode EstimateCurrentTravel Demand Market Pair Figure Figure
This
- destination travel time (including any delays due to road to due delays any (including time travel destination
s siae uig h LS hrceitc cluae in calculated characteristics LOS the using estimated is
3 -
17 - project situation, but that occur as a result of the of result a as occur that but situation, project : Demand : Estimation Model Process
hs s acltd sn te ridership the using calculated is This
These are new inter new are These EstimateFutureMarket MarketforShareNew Estimate FareboxRail EstimatePotential Rail Service Rail Revenue Growth assumptions used for the for used assumptions
ce will capture (i.e., capture will ce
-
urban trips urban
that
approximate operators, the from information any of absence the numbers. ridership in release However, to reluctant generally are operators bus Commercial BusService as such variable socioeconomic geographic network using the of from obtained was information forecasts distance Travel employment. future and population and historical provided the from and m to trips for data trip auto historical using estimated was model The the as measures service of level and explanatory independent or generalThe variables. specification of is:modelthe socioeconomic and variable, Ar Statistical dependent Metropolitan largest the between volumes auto historical analysislinear using of regression help the with travelwasestimated Auto ofand travel) between counties.the socioecono county total forecast which feasibility o inmannercreated tables this wasthanlikely that lower oftrip prepared tables from travel automobile the study, this For s feasibility of this inter establish to work survey including efforts collection data original new Conducting services. project the in used the influences accuracy be strongly tables to trip auto the detailed of accuracy sufficiently the however, is forecasting; that U.S. the in making up standard no is There Intercity Auto eachup corridor. making areas metropolitan major the between travel bus and automobile air, intercity total high the in step first The 3.3.3.1 input preparing data; model; analyzing forecasting the and testing and reviewingproducing andforecasts; runnings and collecting building specifying, include tables; and These assumptions out. carried pre steps forecasting These riginal data collection, the accuracy is nonetheless expected to be suitable for a for suitable be to expected nonetheless is accuracy the collection, data riginal ajor MSAs from the latest 1995 ATS 1995 latest the from MSAs ajor
Step 1: In 1: Step - f h rdrhp n rvne oeat fr h nw high new the for forecasts revenue and ridership the of level study. The The study. level
i ad ee o srie hrceitc (oh r iprat rvr of drivers important are (both characteristics service of level and mic
- city automobile travel patterns and levels was not within the scope the within not was levels and patterns travel automobile city tudy. - - eae dt wti te td ae. hl te cuay f trip of accuracy the While area. study the within data related study Scope Travel Market Travel Scope
- adopted a direct demand modeling approach to calculate to approach modeling demand direct a adopted - to a networkmodel.based a pe ri rdrhp oeatn poes a t forecast to was process forecasting ridership rail speed - to - - study inter about information of source date suppose a number of additional tasks that the the that tasks additional of number a suppose - county auto trips based on changes in the underlyingonchangesin the county trips auto based
eeoe eooerc rvl ead models demand travel econometric developed
. The Woods and Poole economic forecasts economic Poole and Woods The .
ensitivity tests. ensitivity
a (Ss a the as (MSAs) eas - iy uo trip auto city - pe rail speed study - level
1 - 71 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 72 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
predict highlocal 15 14 oae wti te .. n is ertre. oa ar a air Local territories. its and U.S. the within located contains data The are airports destination and origin both with carriers. transported passengers on information air U.S. certified by reported websi data monthly (BTS) statistics, Statistics Transportation of Bureau The LocalAir Air and Connect 50 ofseatsand per50capacity load a bus percent werefactor assumed. area,study insidethesupplydata seating calculatetravelthebusvolumesfrom a to p were factors load and capacity bus on based estimates ridership within markets trip each area. major urban local overall the size to used was trips leisure to trips commuting of ratio typical The employ Poole and Woods on based accordingly scaled was data Work Atlanta trips local the of ofsignifi use best the tomake was done This 2010. in study Atlanta the For sources. two on based estimated were trips Local LocalTrips and trip non vs. (business purpose trip The information. socioeconomic using Airport level pair county the to segments. allocated then were trip air all for departures flight scheduled T origin true airports, destination and airline of carriers sample reporting percent from 10 tickets a is (DB1B) survey destination and origin airline The T and market DB1B the using prepared were - The EIS involved the use of the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) model and the associated input data to to data input associated the and model (ARC) Commission Regional Atlanta the of use the involved EIS The http://www.transtats.bts.g 0 sget aa nlds aa n asne vlm, oa aalbesas and seats available total volume, passenger on data includes data segment 100 - making characteristics from the U.S. Census Bureau, county business patterns, business county Bureau, Census U.S. the from characteristics making WoodsPooleand data.
based the analysis on results of the Atlanta the of results on analysis the based - htaog EIS Chattanooga
- speedinridership Atlanta the railmetro area.
n epne o iia pooe high proposed similar to response in ov/databases.asp?Mode_ID=1&Mode_Desc=Aviation&Subject_ID2=0
15
Fr l ohr ra, h 20 US Cnu Juny to Journey Census U.S. 2000 the areas, other all For .
14 - uies dsrbto ws siae uig aa on data using estimated was distribution business) Te akt aa rvds informat provides data market The . - destination passenger volumes and fares. The fares. and volumes passenger destination
- 100 Segment database from the BTS. the from database Segment 100
- Chattanooga Tier I EIS completed EIS I Tier Chattanooga cantly more detailed cantlymore modeling e ulse US ar carrier air U.S. publishes te d onc ar oue data volume air connect nd - pe ri srie n the in service rail speed - to repared. In order In repared. - - ipr vol airport metro area, the area, metro ment growth. ment o n origin on ion
umes
toestimateused railwere ridershipforecasts study. forthis LOS the of summary brief a is Following in created otherand preparing demand forecast, has useful functionality. data of volumes large the manipulate and hold to capability the offers the calculate ne Voyager to used method the of Irrespective traveltimesobtainedthe through networkmodeling software. check to used were software planning trip commercial from calculated times travel count all relevant between characteristics (LOS) service of levels operating vehicle specific mode various estimate frequencies)to service faresor times, running costs, (regarding assumptions other with combined were techniques (e.g., websites alert trip travel commercial from sources data time real with supplemented Maps) Google time and MapQuest (e.g., software planning travel actual using times the the estimate use and the Voyager) of Cube flo representation free estimate to network (i.e.,highway a software (code) modeling prepare network to using was networking first The forecasting. demand bus and rail (both stations and airports the to/from times egress and access and time travel auto county to county including times travel based highway entire the estimate To the of 3.3.3.3 growth population of rate the at increase metropolitanar to assumed were trips Bus BusTravel Federal the by forecasted as airports i area (FAA) Administration Aviation AreaTerminalForecast. to study assumed the were at connect) growths enplanement and direct (both trips Air (Directand Air Travel ConnectAir) adjustedmodels, these tomatchhistorical in traffic the growths region. of application the through forecasted was travel Future earlier. described models travel total auto econometric the using predicted was travel auto Future Auto 3.3.3.2
), the the ), Step Step Step Step
twork modeling software was used to develop the study forecast, as it it as forecast, study the develop to used was software modeling twork 3 2 : Level of Service Characteristics Service of Level : Growth Future Market : study ea served ea by high the
sd cmiain f w cmo apoce i travel in approaches common two of combination a used www.sigalert.com
- w travel times. The second approach was the was approach second The times. travel w speedrail system.
characteristics for the various mods that mods various the for characteristics , www.bea ,
LOS
thetraffic.com). These two These thetraffic.com).
hrceitc, h Cube the characteristics, ces a te ae of rate the at ncrease
y pairs. In addition,In y pairs.
demand
1 - 73 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 7
4 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
cents/mile for cents/mile non trends. TTI historical on based was yeas future the into growth congestion and index (TTI) Institute Transportation Texas the using route. each on levels congestion representative and limits speed reflect better to order in information supporting as used also were software planning trip commercial from counties the between times and distances of combination a using real and estimated based network were pairs county between times travel Auto Intercity Auto stopping reflect and/ortransfer ti patterns and variable highly are times Travel duration. trip the with correlated and $70 $30and between speaking, broadly are, Fares frequent. more are areas gene metropolitan are frequencies Service from obtained were websites.operatorbus the fares and time travel frequency, as such services of level Bus Bus respectively as used, the corridors.base fares forthe three an mile per $0.28 of fares based high internationalhigh Use Dedicated other and Use Shared few the For a systems. and services corridor Amtrak existing train Use of Use Shared for simulation (separate fares rail and based Distance analysis etc. operations, terrain feedback, stakeholder detailed studies, study engineering the by adopted assumptions the on based were frequencies and times High Rail based calculated on dataDB1B segmentBTS’sfrom database. above. described as models network using access highway on based calculated were county origin/destination the to airport nearest flight. a boarding before terminals airport the (i spend time total the represent to used was minutes engines. search flight from statistics pair airport individualon based estimated were frequencies and journey airporttimes to Airport LocalAir Air and Connect
- evcs wer services) pe ri caatrsis uh s rpsd tp, tto t sain running station to station stops, proposed as such characteristics rail speed
whic
h were the results of research on rail services and stops in other similar other in stops and services rail on research of results the were h
ue wt a ie badn fe ae o rsac o several of research on based fee boarding fixed a with used e - business55cents/mileand for business travelerswere u -
time traffic data as mentioned a mentioned as data traffic time
al lw atog srie bten h major the between services although low, rally d $0.40 per mile (with a $5.00 boarding fee) were fee) boarding $5.00 a (with mile per $0.40 d mes.
Highway congestio Highway
Automobile operating costs of 15 of costs operating Automobile cesers tms ofo the to/from times Access/egress A terminal processing time of 45 of time processing terminal A
Airport to airp to Airport - speed rail services, distance services, rail speed ncluding security delays) at at delays) security ncluding
bove. Automobile travel Automobile bove.
ort airfares were airfares ort n was measured was n
and Dedicated and - pe rail speed sed.
c a on and otherpurpose traveler and characteristics. trip segments Market include: based defined carefully are segments high shown new graphically the is to approach forecasting mode existing each from diversions b separate uses model The and ridership Direct Northeast and Express inthe revenue NortheastCorridor. Acela Amtrak’s to been benchmarked has methodology this using produced Forecasts studies. other many in and recent the theoretically Atlanta in adopted a that to reflects similar is approach it The and structure. choice relationships, satisfying its of accuracy forecasting and high revenue reasonableness calculate and to models ridership is diversion methodology This the binary ridership. of of use feature its key is methodology The study. feasibility The 3.3.3.4 marketforthis needed segment. no Hence, markets. intercity the for calculated percentages high to trips local of Diversions LocalTrips study
- Inter (businessair Local travel nonand Inter htaog suy i te Vol the in study, Chattanooga Step Step ’s wel ’s
- - urbanandbustravel(business non (businessurban auto and travel non 4 : Mode Choice Mode : l - tested high tested inary (two mode) logit relationships to predict traveler predict to relationships logit mode) (two inary - speed rail forecasting methodology was applied to this to applied was methodology forecasting rail speed
-
speed rail were estimated based on using diversion using on based estimated were rail speed practical, transparent and easily evaluated for the for evaluated easily and transparent practical,
e etrs Charlotte Center’s pe - business);and n iue 3 Figure in - miain f urn md, trip mode, current of ombination business). - business);
- 18 - pe ri srie This service. rail speed
eo. rvl market Travel below. - LOS characteristic LOS Atlanta - ao study, Macon - pe rail speed
was
1 - 75 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 76 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
destination and en both fact, in are, travelers auto many suggeststhat work Empirical groups. selec at trips destinatio a furthe is market in shown all are segments market three These of twoattributes the modes. choose would traveler a that probability the predicts which model, choice binary a is model Each Inter t their final destination (“ destination final their t - ig high ting UrbanEstimationAir andModel BusLocalChoice Auto, Mode Intermediate (“destination n - pe ri fr intercity for rail speed - r segmented into three groups: groups: three into segmented r captive. high -
pe ri oe ter xsig oe ie te respective the given mode existing their over rail speed stops during their trip (“en trip their during stops
- atv”; and captive”); non Figure Figure
- captive”); 3 - 18 : Diversion Model: - rvl il e ey ifrn fr h three the for different very be will travel ) hs wo ed o ae automobile make to need who those 3) 2) those who need a vehicle at their final their at vehicle a need who those 2) Figure 3 Figure 1) those who those 1) - route - captive”). The likelihood of likelihood The captive”). -
18 above. The auto travel auto The above. do not not do
need a vehicle a need - route
wid a out carry to easy it makes also approach The corridor. study the in behavior travel of diversity actual the for explicitly accounts so and etc., comfort, cost time, among tradeoffs their in differences realistic exhibit to segments market intercity different for allows it because approach forecasting demand plausible very a is This areastudy and the in otherexperience high using corridors, the the of However, specificity the reflect to required as models the modified study. feasibility this for points starting The data. survey the were using Chattanooga above) and Atlanta described (as models choice mode Atlanta the in households Atlanta to Su study Travel Household recent this the of the scopeRather, the collection. data survey beyond travel wasprimary conduct it However, consideration. under area new from data behavior travel using calibrated and estimated usually are parameters model These timerepresents waiting servicetransformation a of frequency. equal), being attributes other all with Where market each isspecificationgeneral formodel as each follows: in travelers by experienced resp the to “utility” segment overall to relate models The modeled) explicitly characteristicsof high hau of quality and reliability line and terminal egress, access, their into disaggregated cost and frequency,time with service cost, time, include attributes service Modal segments. market high Total ri costs. rail generalized speed on based models using later) (described forecast to divert will that travel high of volume the predict to modes existing the of volumes mode’s would traveler a high choose that probably the mode, current and segment market purpose, in shown model diversion Each l components. Mode components. l U = U = - pe ri. nue (e) rvl n h high the on travel (new) Induced rail. speed -
htaog HG ES td. hs uvy ape apoiaey 1,000 approximately sampled survey This study. EIS HSGT Chattanooga evc atiue. hs poaiiis r te mlile b te trip the by multiplied then are probabilities These attributes. service
+ ersns h mdl osat te neet rfrne f preference inherent (the constant modal the represents - speed rail over rail speed esi i otie b smig h peitos o te individual the for predictions the summing by obtained is dership 1* Cost +Cost
stated and revealed preference surveys conducted locally for study for locally conducted surveys preference revealed and stated readily
ective price and service levels of their respective modes. The modes. respective their of levels service and price ective - 2* availabledata TravelTime+ - - specific constants account for the effects of other (non other of effects the for account constants specific Chattanooga corridor. Indeed, similar inter similar Indeed, corridor. Chattanooga his / her / his rvey conducted by the by conducted rvey Figure 3 Figure
and information developed in other studies in in other studies information developed and current mode of travel as a function of function a as travel of mode current 3* - 18 1 - Access/Egress Time + , speedrail relativemodes. to other - computes, for each comb each for computes, 2 speedrail corridors. , 3 and
- estimated for travel between between travel for estimated pe ri md i separately is mode rail speed 4
study study are modal coefficients, and coefficients, modal are study
study used those models as models those used in 2009 as part of the of part as 2009 in
other current study current other 4* hn dpe and adapted then WaitingTime
drew heavily on heavily drew ination of trip of ination - r h mode the or urban binary urban
each
e - -
1 - 77 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 78 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
credible tool credible thefor presentfeasibility study. t assurance considerable provide applications other these in including elsewhere reasonableness and robustness studies Its Chattanooga). to in (Atlanta area study the applicability within and utility its demonstrated already data th originalfrom derived avoiding confidence in some economy and its collection, included approach this of on advantages changes The various of effects the determine to financialcompetitiveness, viability and benefits. analyses sensitivity of range oe t peit h pretg o cnet i taees ht il wth o the to switch will that travelers air connect of percentage the predict to model at connection with airports major six the of each from routes and destinations composite) or average The (CHA), Nashvill JAIA at connection with area study the in airports major six The area. study the within high proposed JAIA at connect travelersthat air current shareof the estimates model air connect The ConnectAir Model value timeof ($) In onmode.travelerstraveling same the price line to of sensitive values more much are travelers bus the expected, as Also timedifferences. to are they than modes between differences that means This travelers. bus (e cases both in important more and travelers, vehicle private than travelers air to important more Line travelers. bus for than general in ar travelers air high previous in findings oursupport strongly time of values These passengers).air connecting for 3 presented below are in study this for diversion used models of the coefficients model the from calculated segment market each in travelers of time of values The - - 21 vehicle vehicle Value 2010 in
study rm n o te i mjr iprs n h suy ra ht il e sn the using be will that area study the in airports major six the of one from for the vari the for r: aanh SV, akovle JX, imnhm BM, Chattanooga (BHM), Birmingham (JAX), Jacksonville (SAV), Savannah are: dollars
estimated a connect air model for this study by using representative (not representative using by study this for model air connect a estimated
- - speed rail studies. First, as expected, the values of line of values the expected, as First, studies. rail speed e (BNA)Louisville and e (LOU). e higher than for private vehicle travelers, and both are much higher much are both and travelers, vehicle private for than higher e - time haul pe ri md t cmlt te oncig e o ter journey their of leg connecting the complete to mode rail speed xcept for short non short for xcept ous components of travel time (and the terminal transfer penalty transfer terminal the (and time travel of components ous
H - Business JAIA $27
o bsns taees r hge ta fr non for than higher are travelers business for Te onc ar oe te uses then model air connect The .
Table
Air
business Non 3 $15 - - business private vehicle trips) than they are to are they than trips) vehicle private business 21 -
haul time savings on high on timesavings haul :Values of Time
Business
$19
Auto aoto o a oe ta has that model a of adoption e
business
Non $12
a i i a sfl and useful a is it hat
- n i rue choice route air an speed rail are much speedare rail Busine $10 -
haul time for time haul ss Bus
- business business
Non Table Table $5
H H - -
Induced = Travel Total Travel High with follows: high the of introduction the by induced travel The segments. market individual the for above described trips demand induced the summing by obtained is ridership Total highon the travel induced of amount the forecast to therefore, is, process forecasting ridership t if all at made be not would that (trips traffic induced or new generate typically facilities transportation ofnew the introduction that plannersrecognize transportation Most 3.3.3.5 ap as modification proper HSGT Chattanooga with markets local the the from service inter rail potential high the to percentages to diversion observed/calculated diverted trips Local LocalTrips sixeachairports oftheconnect with through destination final the and airports six the was model the the Once estimated, destination. each for route each along volumes and shares regression square least ordinary r selecting After a given on route. experiences these actual of to representative and services transparent more actual is this the as destinations, used but characteristics, service of level composite d representative each on the Next, ofthe destwest RiverMississippi International.and quadrant, Northeast representative U.S. Florida, a are: used as destinations and act areas representative to each the within distribution, city/airport the one on selected Based then and areas geographic representative analyzed. into destination were the combined airports six the of each selected were destinations representative The inside area. trip study the high proposed - urban markets. For the Atlanta metropolitan area, the area, metropolitan Atlanta the For markets. urban he new facility was not built). The final step in the inter the in step final The built). not was facility new he
Step Step study
- speedmode. rail 5 - : Induced Demand Induced : study speed rail mode from the air mode for the connecting leg of their of leg connecting the for mode air the from mode rail speed
selected
peettv dsiain and destinations epresentative TierI
applied it to the to it applied
EIS.
representative route representative siain The estination.
- pe ri wr etmtd ae o already on based estimated were rail speed - ae rue hie oe bsd n h market the on based model choice route based
- Speed rail H
introduction of a new route between each of each between route new a of introduction - JAIA
study by theby proposed high –
s based on the markets and carriers carriers and markets the on based s
Total T - first. The top 10 destinations from destinations 10 top The first. speed rail system in the market as market the in system rail speed
i nt siae h aeae or average the estimate not did H routes - JAIA ravel before High rpit fo te Atlanta the from propriate . These new routes would routes new These . the , -
urban high urban study and the diverted rail diverted the and study nto. h four The ination. - study speedrail service.
used results of results used
- Speed Rail siae an estimated
defines new defines - speed rail speed study
-
1 - 79 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 80 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
modes; modes all travel Total Where: cos generalized composite a overall to the related of as modes,overall the in follows: is modes change all the on of travel functionTotal option. a transportation another providing be by corridor; the in will travel to “impedance” trips induced of number The re t ilsrt a illustrate to order The induced trips new theofby introduction highthe these and modes existing the from diverted trips the of sum the as computed then high Total segment. market each for done was calculation This induceddemandestimated parameterthefor variousintercity markets. Atlanta the from results survey behavioral high the of existence the without occurred have not would that trips some to lead would corridor the in access improved that assume to inter the for considered was demand Induced Demand%= Induced increasethe And, percent in total travelbecomes: travelafterTotal high travelbeforeTotalhigh Consequently: estimatesutility eachforformmode diversion the models: the using calculated is and logsum the as known is cost generalized composite This q A, G S
C /
comp E
= estimation= coefficients. study = Socioeconomic Socioeconomic = Originforfactors and Destination; osite
= Generalized cost of Origin Generalized travel between and = Destination;and
developed specific developed
Total Travel allmodesTravel =Total E) (S / GC na rdrhp oeat bten 202 between forecasts ridership nnual - [Ta speed rail: speed Tb = composi
- speedrail: Ta = Ttl rvl oue ewe Oii/etnto o all on Origin/Destination between volume travel Total = - Tb ] /= Tb] [GCa te
ridership = ln(e=
Uprivatevehicle (S / x(GCb)E)
(S /x(GCa)E) forecasts q - GCb - Chattanooga q - +e urban market, where it is reasonable is it where market, urban ] / GCb / ] Uair -
speed rail system.rail speed
for two years, 2015 and 2035. In 2035. and 2015 years, two for a +e xG q
q - Ubus q
speed rail speed C
c
composite +e HSGT
UHSR 1
- n 20 and
) q speed rail trips were trips rail speed
Tier I Tier
system. Using the Using system.
EIS, the EIS, 4 , the 0,
computed t
study study
off convenient with travelers leisure and recreational all effective an providing while peak daily the of portion a capturing for times at convenient scheduled were trains this, to addition In guidelines. buffer schedule required track, double at time turn or minimum on any constraints respecting while stations that in ensuring occur trains also passenger while between sets, meetings train scheduled the of utilization maximize to designed speed Use and Dedicated and options Use Shared both for developed were timetables Train 3.4.1.1 3.4.1 eachoperatingstrategy for ofthecorridors. three identify to needed was approach iterative an why is This associated trains. efficient more increases larger, of use ridership the allow often time, options speed higher with same and the At size improvement. speed Train initial an the trains. accommodate increas frequency to Train efficient way, increase. ridership balanced a more in together, larger, increased be will with frequencies along frequencies, train riders higher rule, a As interactive this of results The areto thenanalysis used systemidentifycosts. theoperating ration). operation high positive for a requirement produce FRA’s to the systems (e.g., system the of operation the on const financial respect to need a is there addition, In factors. producing load acceptable still while capacity enough providing for demand, match appropriately to levels frequencies and sizes train adjust to forecasts revenue and ridership with an developing for requirement key A 3.4 Atlanta the Louisville of each for presented are Birmingha results revenue and ridership Detailed above. 3 Note Step that level the sensitiveofridershipis leveltothe of fare. high new the for used assumptions fare the and steps two prev the in calculated ridership the using calculated was revenue farebox The 3.3.3.6 from ridership extrapolated and 2036 2035 and 2015 between ridership interpolated
to20 O
PERATING AND MAINTEN AND PERATING Step Step Train Service and Operating Assumptions Operating and Service Train
O Corridor , Atlanta m, 4 PERATINGPLAN 0 .
route 6 : Rail Farebox Revenue Farebox Rail : scorridorin theseparately
obntos id combinations - Macon i ascae wt fse otos a as spot more support also can options faster with associated hip
D - - akovle and Jacksonville day intercity service for bu for serviceintercity day EVELOPMENT niid o ec crio. ceue were Schedules corridor. each for entified operating plan operating
ANCE es the ridership and revenue impact of impact revenue and ridership the es - specificofsections report.the
M
Atlanta and costs is to work to is costs and -
peak travel options. Clearly, options. travel peak ETHODOLOGY route endpoint stations, and stations, endpoint route h otml netet and investment optimal the siness travelers as well as well as travelers siness - - - Chattanooga speed rail service from service rail speed
hour commuter traffic traffic commuter hour - - in tandem in pe rail speed Nashville
raints ious - -
1 - 81 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 82 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
3.4.1.2 comfortable, is that railoffered service the by wouldreflect system allcritical ofthese attributes. environment transportation modernthis in assumed was It safe. and economical convenient, a offers service rail new thatcriticalany is it and onridership levels impact significant a have can service quality the is service the for consideration second A conflicting these meet to was it easier the needs. service, of frequency the higher the ere (6 degrees or “tilt” car’s passenger “non a is time transit determines that assumption study key A option. Maglev Ch 180 and Rail Atlanta the consi In technology Corridor three are study. there feasibility 1.2, Section in outlined As 3.4.1.3 revenue and forecasts. ridership the with and development cost capital the in made assumptions the with selected were sites station prospective study, current the of purposes the for However, process. design and planning location station the in involved be would groups citizens and interests i was finalized that service be likely will sites and study of this of scope the beyond is planning site station Specific frequency the reflects plan operating as determined mostappropriate needsto the of station. each the and option, with compatible are that locations station of study set The a developed station. each to service of level line base minimum a least at providing while done be can This patterns. service local express develop to “thinned” be can small at patterns stopping the enough, high are volumes Slower competitive. less times Atlanta the in Atlanta the to 30 every stop one to limited was corridors the on spacing st the potential identified for study locations the general demand, rail prospective the of assessment an on Based attanooga - , decrease average train speed speed train average decrease , tilt” design. The track in curves is typically banked (super banked typically is curves in track The design. tilt”
, the , Train Technology Assumptions Technology Train Locations Station Potential ftr poet eeomn pae. oa gvrmns business governments, Local phases. development project future n ° , hc rsls n einto o a aac sed o ec cre (at curve each for speed balance a of designation in results which ), - - Nashville High Express Use Dedicated mph 220 - study - Chattanooga segment in order to reflect the proposed operating plan operating proposed the reflect to order in segment Chattanooga htaog HSGT Chattanooga
by the by is considering a 90 a considering is -
Louisville - speed systems can accommodate more stops and if traffic if and stops more accommodate can systems speed study
and the operational assessment will be consistent be will assessment operational the and Corridor ations along along ations ir I Tier
- Birmingham and and Birmingham n cue high cause and -
110 mph Shared Use Emerging High Emerging Use Shared mph 110 the , EI . oe tto sos nrae travel increase stops station More S. e study c crio. n vrg, station average, On corridor. ach - Speed Rail. Along the Along Rail. Speed -
pe ri srie o become to service rail speed ftae fee. Qaiy of Quality offered. travel of s lo osdrn a 220+ at considering also is Atlanta analysis that the quality of quality the that analysis - er, 60 miles, with exception with miles, 60
Intermediate each proposed proposed each - - Macon elevated) eain fr this for derations - Jacksonville up to six to up Atlanta stations -
Speed route -
operating regarding proposed are assumptions requirements rollingforthe stock: general following the studies, the with Consistent 3.4.1.4 currently are inplace. standards FRA no 125 since standards European follow will regulations safety corridors, speeds with operating pas to applied trains are requirements 2 Tier stringent More mph. 125 of speed has FRA The maximum a to up operating trains passenger all to pertain that requirements safety requirements. safety FRA with compliance is corridors study tech train of suitability the determining for issue key Another the lowering by insidecentrifugal forcesfelt speeds, cars. higher even permit can tilt) (passive designs suspension curve). the in force passeng sideways no (4 feel degrees four would to up However, occupant vehicle a speed which
located close to the passenger stations and in the outbound direction so a so direction outbound the in and stations passenger the to close located be should facilities layover overnight Ideally, facility. layover train separate the overni at be stored would night, Trains stations. at terminal the conducted near or at be located facilities layover will requirements other top and water inspections potable Refueling, off. mid require not will Trains locomotives; American North standard a tr disabled a with of recovery easy for equipped allow will that coupler be will train the of end Each baggag checked optional an for provide to also and packages, express and mail of On areaservice wherebistro food can be on for service cart roll accommodating space, galley include will configuration Train doub to together trains required; more or two coupling for capa expandable have will Trains compat ensure operations; to required is which egress, and low access from accessible be will Trains di either push easy for reversible be will Trains r ofr. eod hs obad yrui sses atv tl) r car or tilt) (active systems hydraulic onboard this, Beyond comfort. er Other Rolling Stock and Operational Requirements Operational and Stock Rolling Other - board space is required for stowage of small, but significant, quantities significant, but small, of stowage for required is space board e servi e rection withoutrection equi turning the
ceforpre h o te tto tak, r hy ol b mvd o a to moved be would they or tracks, station the on ght
supin csoaiy ae n feasibility in made customarily assumptions - board food service. Optional service. food board - arranged tour arranged groups; ° ) of imbalance (cant deficiency) is acceptable for acceptable is deficiency) (cant imbalance of )
- route servicing, with the e the with servicing, route - 5 mh Fr h ddctd n Maglev and dedicated the For mph. 150 city for seasonal fluctuations and will allow will and fluctuations seasonal for city - - ee sain ltom fr passenger for platforms station level f, neir laig rqie train required cleaning, interior off, provided during providedentireduring the trip; - pull operations (able to operate in in operate to (able operations pull pment atthe terminalpment stations);
ly, the train may include a include may train the ly,
e r rp aaiy as capacity trip or le xception of food top food of xception nology for the three the for nology ain by conventional by ain blt wt freight with ibility - ee planning level - on/roll
senger ir I Tier
- off off -
1 - 83 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 84 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
graphic. the on seen clearly be can stops, station and limits curve speed of impact the wellas as route, the of segment each to applicable limits speed The corridor. Midwestern example, For examp calculation. time running overall the as well LOCOMOTION TEMS The this For match appropriate ofthe train technology to theinfrastructureofeach route. line. rail a upgrading the for study, potential feasibility the of evaluation flawed a in result convention can equipment wrong the Using a achieved. be not will benefits these or infrastructure) infrastructure, quality low high on (a infrastructure train the speed to mismatched is train the if However, times. running end in reduction substantial a in result can tilt as well as acceleration Higher toge co to Shared continues which but the improvements, for appropriate is an represents this as timerecovery percent the study, this of purposes the For difficulties. operating other or congestion traffic freight to due route restrictions speed temporary factors, weather mechanicaldifficulties, line, the along en delays minor for allow and guidelines service. of The levels and times running with estimate together to characteristics infrastructure, performance and train geometry route uses program this technology, train The 3.4.2.1 3.4.2 study thersameonthe tracks.
study - unn tms o ec oeaig scenario. operating each for times running
e pe poie ht a dvlpd o a 1 mh prtn oe a over operating mph 110 a for developed was that profile speed le Trains must allmeet Trains applicableregulatory requirementsincluding: and direct reversing without continue, can train
Train Performance Train O
used the TEMS LOCOMOTION TEMS the used
de rcvr tm it te ceue t rmi consist remain to schedules the into time recovery added o o o o PERATING
emissions. regulations Environmental wastefor and disposal powerunit and standards Material forrail components high for accessibilityfor Requirements disabledfor persons, safetyrequirementsFRA forcrash
study
P
LAN TM
program developed the train speed profiles by mile as mile by profiles speed train the developed program vie mkn ti cmo msae b mistake common this making avoided
M ODEL - Use option that includes substantial capacity capacity substantial includes that option Use
TM
Train Performance Calculator to estimate to Calculator Performance Train Intermediate - ige rih ad asne services passenger and freight mingle - worthiness, io
, fe is ia sain stop; station final its after n, For each each For
level ofschedule slacklevel that
l ri o high on train al - iue 3 Figure spe
edoperations, route study esrn an ensuring y - n wt FRA with ent 19
used eight used n train and shows an an shows -
- to speed - end end -
assessment engineering corridors the with study concert three the of each for analysis operational The assumption. scheduling ofthe None presentedcorridors casestrong a foralternative an weekend schedule. train weekend different a employ to appropriate be may attrac tourist strong were there if high determine to studied was for corridor Each operations circumstances. special weekend for modified reduced is assumption this assume sometimes corridors, to typical is it While stroa willface ye weekday corridor services intercity Typically, maintenance,idle. sitting excessequipment without for spares sufficient with plan operating the in assignments all cor each for The 3.4.2.2 todevelopneeded detailed schedules foreachtrain corridor. of addition the schedule appropriate With corridor. each for strategy help investment to capital stops the skipping prioritize or curves easing speeds, lowering or raising of impact the was ( assessment Maglev Nashville and time Use running Dedicated Use, detailed Shared the similar for a developed corridors, study three the For study
Train Scheduling and Fleet Requirements Fleet and Scheduling Train - Louisv
calculated the number of train sets required for day for required sets train of number the calculated ridor and technology. These train sets must be large enough to cover to enough large be must sets train These technology. and ridor nger demand weekends. nger demand than ille
Figure Figure Corridor pad, this process developed the point the developed process this pad, 3 -
19 ny. n diin te prtoa aayi assessed analysis operational the addition, In only). : Example : Profile mph 110 Speed
of
proposed passing siding locations for locations siding passing proposed
- to
Atlanta - point running times running point
- was to - day operations day - tions and if it if and tions Chattanooga developed - pe rail speed
in t - ,
1 - 85 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 86 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
oto o te ot te ne t rn Waee cmiain f ri szs and sizes train of combination Whatever run. the to need market, they route the the of of portion needs anticipated the n trains the meet size what determined to assessment operational trains timing to addition In 3.4.2.3 provided. schedul train passenger opera proposed the that ensure to corridors study three the of each for developed was scheduling train of analysis specific A corridor. each ubr f ordr n tcnlg co technology and corridor of Shared number for corridor each of cost total operatingassess the to operatingplans, the with conjunction in used were that se This analysis. economic the plan, operating the cost operating of of level the feasibility assessed physical the assessing to addition In 3.4.3 load average forecasting for as well as the across factors entire route. segment load peak the both determine n seat the shows empty chart This purpose. this for tool minimize useful is in, segment shown that to A similar to chart, possible. as desirable closely as is demand forecasted to it supply matching this, beyond over segment; passengers the of load all carry to seats enough are there ensure must plan operating the pairs, technology and corridor each for chosen are frequencies umber of forecastumber passenger over segment every ofthe route enabling the inly feasible tionally
O
Train Size, Frequency and Load Factors Load and Frequency Size, Train PERATING
Figure Figure AND
ih epc t te asn ad tto infrastructure station and passing the to respect with 3 M - ction describes the build the describes ction 20 AINTENANCE : Ex :
ample ample SegmentLoading Chart - s ad Dedicated and Use s
for supporting the needs of the financial and financial the of needs the supporting for sdrtos n lc, t a esnil to essential was it place, in nsiderations C OSTS
- up of the unit operating costs operating unit the of up - s. eas tee r a are there Because Use. eed to be and over what over and be to eed
- ie, for miles,
h peak the study - loading s are es study
to
ridershipinfluencesmarketingAdditionally, and sales. include:Fixed costs use were in outline as methodology MWRRS the Following addedhave been which intothe framework.MWRRS technologies, Maglev and electrification as such cost categories, additional included b were costs These Amtrak. by provided was Authority’s Rail Down Passenger (NNEPRA) England New Northern the particularly recently sources, other most been has o methodology recent This with validated costs. the of input development provided the others into and manufacturers equipment railroads, In freight Amtrak. addition, with and committee steering MWRRS the comprised that states nine with conjunction in developed was framework costing MWRRS the background, As routecorridorconnect. proposed would high other cost average and benchmarking simple a in inherent be would as corridor, the to allocated inappropriately not are corridor a to belong and direct enabled also It drivers. expli cost specific of impact the on performed on be based costs of development direct the directly enabled This studies. Hub Ohio and bottom the the study, this for costs maintenance and operating developing For fair comparison: a developing For options. all across basis costing the of consistency maintain
cit treatment of overhead cost allocations, to ensure that costs which do not do which costs that ensure to allocations, cost overhead of treatment cit Stati costs; Administrative liability. Insurance and serviceonboard Train (OBS) and crews; and fuel;Energy maintenance; Equipment routes.technologiesand all across that should donot onpropulsion/speed Costs remaindepend samethe differences that depend propulsion/speedCosts shouldon thereflect legitimate - controllable and route and controllable d for this study.for Variable d this costs include: - - speed rail studies across the nation, including those in which the the which in those including nation, the across studies rail speed oncosts; and
p otn faeok ht a oiial dvlpd o the for developed originally was that framework costing up - easter costs and data on Illinois and Oklahoma operations that that operations Oklahoma and Illinois on data and costs easter betweentechnologiesand routes; and direct comparability of Georgia costs with those developed by developed those with costs Georgia of comparability direct
eaig xeine ae o pbi dt aalbe from available data public on based experience perating
- specific factors, and allowed sensitivity analyses to analyses sensitivity allowed and factors, specific
- per
-
ri ml apoc. hs lo allows also This approach. mile train ogt o 21 csig ai and basis costing 2010 a to rought
al 3 Table
- 22 nn seii costs specific nine , study
adapted adapted MWRRS
1 - 87 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 88 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
trains were operated. were trains additional or fewer if much change clearly not do be but services, can train costs specific to Route identified costs. overhead system and route both include costs va as categorized were costs Operating 2040. and 2030 between costs 202 maintenance and operating annual 202 years: three for costs maintenance bottom the on impact potential greatest confidential and public fine to used was approach both development cost A sources. from benchmarking cost by and/or technology the deve were maintenance, this for equipmentand usage fuel as such technology, specifically train by thatvary factors Cost study. developed factors cost other and volumes passenger station, and revenue and ridership pr the cost capital with consistent dollars 2010 current to fine updated were costs These studies. recent other from costs operating unit with consistent be to benchmarked were study this for developed costs Operating Fixed Costs Ridership and Revenue Passenger Miles Train Miles
factors, such as the volume of freight tonnage, or may include a relatively activity a of component include small may or tonnage, freight of volume the as such factors, Costs: Fixed directly drive operatingcosts higherlower. or in decrease or increase An variable. operating that of total cost the determine to used and identified was driver cost variable principal each a cost, For miles. train or miles passenger ridership, on dependent Costs: Variable supply). power and rightTrackand Table
jcs Te ot wr te apid o h train the to applied then were costs The ojects. Drivers 3
- 22
eeal peeemnd bt a b ifune b external by influenced be may but predetermined, generally :Operating Cost CategoriesDrivers andPrimary Cost -
of
- hne wi change loped from discussions with manufacturers and/or users ofusers and/or manufacturers with discussions from loped way maintenance(includes costs communication signals,
- driven costs. driven h h vlm o atvt ad r directly are and activity of volume the th Station CostsStation andTrack ROW Maintenance Service Administration Sales and Marketing InsuranceLiability Onboard Service (OBS) Crews Train and EngineCrews Energy and Fuel Equipment Maintenance 1 ibe r ie. sdsrbdblw fixed below, described As fixed. or riable , 2030, and 2040. The The 2040. and 2030, , line. The line.
As a rule, costs identified as fixed as identified costs rule, a As
Cost Categories study
1
and 2030 and also between between also and 2030 and -
tune those items with the the with items those tune forecasted operating and operating forecasted
study - ie, ubr of number miles,
any of these will these of any
interpolated - tuned and tuned
costs Operating were bas developed technology considerations. technology 3 Table
os f evc. prtn epne fr ri oeain, crews, operations, train for expenses railontypicalapproach passengerbased organizationalneeds. Operating throug developed were supervision and management service. of and staffing crew for hors rules work existing follow practices operating Train supplier. were Guideway of Maintenance Maglev and Use assessed. Dedicated the maintaining cost The maintenance data. cost railroad freight track actual reflects that used a was model study, this For railroads. the res with be negotiations will maintenance track of cost actual the ultimately, right and track the maintain will railroads Freight contractand authorityrail operator(s). base the develop d to used were corridors analysis passenger internal other prior from and programs testing histories, operators’ current suppliers, including sources of variety a studies, recent of results on Based fixed Within subare two costs intensities. service of range broad a across stable remained - rail passenger the between negotiation to subject be will costs Actual ata. 23 o o
ulns h ui css o ec o te he crio bsd n the on based corridor three the of each for costs unit the outlines are separately. handledcosts issue allocation an co such of assignment Accordingly, fixed. is cost the of line direct as (such cost overhead of portion A are nationally. even or routes that across shared costs fixed corporate other and legal, accounting, callcenter, management, headquarters as such costs System or Overhead clea be level. route still station can fixed, and although control that, train expense maintenance, track as such costs Route
ri eupet il e otatd u t te equipment the to out contracted be will equipment train - categories:
supervision) may be directly identifiable but most but identifiable directly be may supervision) that raises equity concerns. These kinds of fixed of kinds These concerns. equity raises that ed ed onthe followingpremises:
- of - way that they own, but but own, they that way h a bottom a h l ietfe a the at identified rly
le through olved
sts becomes sts - up staffing up -
ie cost line costs for for costs directly directly
1 - 89 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 90 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
the Conservative Further, highe incorporated.slightly account into takes costs lower and an developed revenue higher on based and revenue low from range These outcomes. likelypotential the reflect Public the corridor, each for the Given the FRA in the out distrib sectors. are benefits the how and countries, and states as well as communities regional and local for good is project a whether benefit The sector. private and public the both to Public The 3.4.4 track mile) Administration and Management (per (fixed) Administration and Management (p andTrack Electrification Maintenance Stations Fixed Costs Commissions CreditCard/Travel Agency Call center(per passenger) Insurance(per messenger mile) Varia Fuel or Energy Equipment Maintenance On Board Services Train Crew Variableper Train Mile
Maglev Maglev Deployment Program er tracker mile)
P ble per Other
In developingthe In benefit UBLIC
uncertainties associated with the ridership and revenue and capital costs capital and revenue and ridership the with associated uncertainties - Private Benefits Analysis is de is Analysis Benefits Private
estimates. Intermediate
High Annual Costs
- Table
P
high costs incorporated, to an aggressive, or aggressive, an to incorporated, costs high RIVATE
-
Speed America for Ground Transportation 3
-
23
:Un B
estimate that is a “middle of the road” estimate which estimate road” the of “middle a is that estimate ENEFIT - rvt Bnft aayi ue a ag o vle to values of range a used analysis Benefits private it
r ridership and slightly lower costs than that of the of that than costs lower slightly and ridership r , July 1999. July , OperatingandM - cost analysis, the A NALYSIS $13,029,600 signed to identify the benefit the identify to signed Shared $50,000 Specific $11.67
$0.66 $0.02 $3.94 $1.81 $4.66 $1.53 2.8% Use td ewe te ulc n private and public the between uted
-
aintenance
cost analysis is designed to show to designed is analysis cost study
$13,029,600 Conservative Dedicated
$75,000 Specific used the methodology used set the $12.94 $0.66 $0.02 $7.63 $1.60 $3.20 $1.53 2.8% Use , September 1997, and 1997, September ,
Costs
Optimistic
estimates with estimates $13,029,600 - cost returns cost $65,000 Specific Maglev $0.66 $0.02 $7.74 $7.73 $1.07 $2.13 $1.53 2.8% , estimate ,
study
16 Net corridor’s each evaluate to Value Present (NPV) and used were benefits economic of measures Two of feasibility the of analysis in shown its and FRA cou the throughout the of high approach implementing the on based is a estimated costsmethodology Theto economicofbenefits. benefitsused and provide range corridors study three the if determine will analysis feasibility This 3.4.4.1 in outlined are plan sections. subsequent operating the regarding assumptions specific corridor More operation skeletal a only along operation week per high a day with five a suggests This study. EIS HSGT Chattanooga t assumed high make the options, rail passenger different the for benefits the estimating In FRA,
Benefits for Publicat Large Benef
o o o o o o o o o High
its to Users Highway Congestion Fuel Savings Highway Congestion Delay AirportReduced Emissions Savings AirportCongestion Delay OBS AncillaryRevenues System R ConsumerS Highway Reduced Emissions Savings Benefit - Speed GroundSpeed Table 3 Types of Benefits - hv 35 as e ya oeain i ln wt te rgnl Atlanta original the with line in operation, year per days 325 have o level assumptions regarding the operating plan. For example, the the example, For plan. operating the regarding assumptions level - level of service; Saturday morning and Sunday afternoon/evening, with afternoon/evening, Sunday and morning Saturday service; of level
Table
- evenues - Cost 24
urplus ntry -
. Transportation for America,
pe psegr al evc i slce tae corridors travel selected in service rail passenger speed
3
Analysis -
24 16
b
. In that study, revenues and benefits were quantified as quantified were benefits and revenues study, that In . : Key Elements: Key the of
enefit
n audy feno/vnn, n Sna morning. Sunday and afternoon/evening, Saturday on
-
c ost
ratios, whichare defined follows: as
E Maintenance Operations and N Capita pp. 3 xpenses eeds Types of Costs - 7 and 3
l Investment Benefit
- 8, September8, 1997 - Cost
Analysis
Net PresentValue B Economic Benefits enefit
Measures of
- study Cost R
had to had atio study wide
-
1 - 91 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 92 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
Present values arecalculatedPresent standard usingthe financial formula:discounting both and nonusers to accrue benefits These reduction. emissions and savings, time factor congestion, environmental and efficiency resource Benefit 3.4.4.2 marketreflectedthe as bylong the discount real (3%) in percent rate discount percent three three The a rate. using year base 2010 the to discounted were corridors study three the for flows cash cost and revenues analysis, feasibility a For Where: T R C PV
t
to the producer shows up as farebox revenue. The share of benefit that isremain allowed consumerwithto thecalled is consume that benefit of share The revenue. farebox as up shows producer the to transferred is that benefit economic of portion The consumer. and producer benefits, economic because is This value concernedoverall with theonly ofis theThus, analysis fare. a charging system. by therevenue into transformed of is that Cost surplus revenues consumer merely are the revenues Generalized with parity the on value by that measured Benefit as framework. reliability) frequency service the of aspects (quality, other but savings, time of only not result a as train, i the that value fare additional Users
-
ot nlss ae a oil esetv b atiuig cnmc aus to values economic attributing by perspective social a takes analysis cost Estimate of Economic Benefits Economic of Estimate = = = =
f h sse ejy cnue srls eei ta rfet the reflects that benefit surplus consumer a enjoy system the of -
Time Rateref Interest years flow t Cash for value Present projectof the benefitscosts or (e.g., revenue) usersof system:the
- o te itiuin f hs bnft bten the between benefits those of distribution the not ot nlss eonzs osmr surplu consumer recognizes analysis cost
lecting costopportunity ofcapital
PV ∑ C ∑ PV
-
termmarkets. bond ndividual would be willing to pay for riding theriding for pay to willing be would ndividual
tended to reflect the real cost of money in money of cost real the reflect to tended t and
/ (I + r) + (I /
, uh s eue infrastructure, reduced as such s,
t
rsurplus.
ad places and s
the between oftravelindividuals. benefit to consistency ensures This the economic evaluationof the and model demand characteristicsthe behavioral of etc. frequency, reliability, time, travel attribu important other also but fare, the generalized includes which of travel, of terms cost in represented is curve demand A analyses. transportation 3 Figure t fare the and service the use to pay to willing be would can delta (or difference surplus the considered be also consumer Classically, fare. the in for) paid (and represented actually reliability greater convenience, greater as such trip, rail the from value more obtains user a when realized are surpluses Consumer 3.4.4.3 life system year presentvaluesusingnet at real interestrates (3%).ofthree percent a over cash aggregated are benefit results the the guidelines, (OMB) with overall Budget and Management together an calculations develop these to of benefits results the merges o and calculations benefits the describes sections following The
diverted from the highway and air to the rail, and benefits to society as a as society resulting fromwhole airto of reduction pollution reducedfromemissions. benefits and rail, the to air and highway the from diverted motoring the to benefits measures analysis The rail. to air and higher the from diversion ofresult a as quality air improved and congestion reduced from benefit who Non User Benefits Benefits User - 21 - lutae te ocp o Cnue Srls s yial ue in used typically as Surplus Consumer of concept the illustrates User
benefits are for people who continue to drive their cars or fly, but fly, or cars their drive to continue who people for are benefits ulc rm eogsin ht s pout f travelers of product a is that decongestion from public –
Consumer Surplus Consumer
- ot seset Floig fie of Office Following assessment. cost Δ
) between the maximum fare the rider the fare maximum the between ) r eue tae tm, hn was than time, travel reduced or tee diinl non additional these f hat was actually charged. charged. actually was hat tes such as such tes -
cash 30 -
1 - 93 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 94 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
streamlining Consumerfor the Surplus calculation (refer to legitim a as this recognized Program Deployment Maglev 2005 FRA The literatures. planning transportation the in documented well is cost generalized of terms in the curve demand the of definition of This system. the to benefit attracted users re new economic B Area the whereas reflects users; A existing to Area improvement service curve. demand the under B) area (areaand areas A two these sumof the being as Surplus, ofConsumer definition a in 3 T1 increasingtravelto from responds by demand Figure from seen (fromGC2),GC1 oftravel to cost generalized thatthe reduces system transportation be can As Figure Figure 3 - 21 : Economic Measure: Consumer of Surplus
- 22 we a ipoeet s ae o the to made is improvement an when ,
T2. In economic terms, this results economicterms, this In T2. Figure3 rsns h bnft to benefit the presents - ate methodology ate 22 ).
sys rail the to diverted trips of B auto Appendix cost to and saved due emissions saved auto of emissions tons miles, vehicle diverted estimated the (Marc VMT Trucks summary of A pollutants. valuethe estimatedmonetary for obtainan to equivalent Light the and from Cars resulting MY2011 for Passenger Economy volume Fuel Average Corporate pollutant the from reduced obtained were reduction the for applied amounts eva for in below shown as emissions in shown as rates emission with (VMT) traveled miles vehicle diverted multiplying by calculated feasibility their from rail to diverted trips auto on data using estimated were benefits emission and congestion Highway EmissionsReduction congestion savingsairport emissionsavings. and non airport for assessment The reduction. congestions and non highway of categories Non 3.4.4.4 - sr eeis nld hgwy n arot non airport and highway include benefits user
uto i etmtn te oeta eisos aig au. h dollar The value. saving emissions potential the estimating in luation Non Figure Figure .
- User Benefits User Appendix 3 - 22
Source: USDOT/FRA Maglev Depl : Consumer : CalculationSurplusas shown Maglev in the . h VT ee hn utpid y ot e tn of ton per cost by multiplied then were VMT The B. - user benefits that were assessed were emissions savings emissions were assessed were that benefits user
Table 3 Table Deployment Program Deployment - level forecast. Tons of emissions savi emissions of Tons forecast. level - 25 . Several critical pollutants were included were pollutants critical Several .
h 2009) and were inflated to a 2010 2010 a to inflated were and 2009) h oyment Program, 1999 oyment Program,
- sr eeis To major Two benefits. user
- user benefits includes benefits user
e i poie in provided is tem ngs were ngs
1 - 95 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 96 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
60,Table VIII 17 the generalized cost components and is embedded in the consumer surplus results. surplus consumer the in embedded is and components cost generalized the in included already is cost fuel base the because component consumed fuel actual reductio componentinreduction overalldue congestion onto Another highwayis the system HighwayCongestionSavingsFuel in shown (as equation technologies todevelop congestionhighway benefits:the factor delay adjustment time (BPR) Appendix Roads Public the of using system Bureau rail the to parallel corridors highway along times travel average volume the using estimated capacity, were savings occupants time The automobile highway savings. time remaining the an the monetizes Applying to time times. of travel value overall regional shorter average in results which uses, road remaining spee operating improved to leads congestion less that is assumption The usersthathighway result diversionfrom ofauto rail userstothe system. remaining the to savings time the of consists savings delay congestion highway The HighwayC oprt Aeae ul cnm fr Y01 asne Cr ad ih Tuk (ac 20) pg VIII page 2009), (March Trucks Light and Cars Passenger MY2011 for Economy Fuel Average Corporate
Highway growth patterns onStateHighwayare based Highway growth projects. Authority corridors include Major I freeway capacityvehiclesAverage 2,000perlane; of non users; business for 1.5 and users business for 1.2 of rates occupancy vehicle Average Table xes ul xedtr. h xes ul opnn i ue ised of instead used is component fuel excess The expenditure. fuel excess n
- 5 “Economic Values Benefits for Computations(2007$) pe ad ie rfl aayi ta eautd h epce cag in change expected the evaluated that analysis profile time and speed ongestion Time Savings ongestionTime B).
3 - h following The 25 :Cost PollutantTon per CO,(VOC,of NO
Pollutants PM VOC NO CO CO
- 10 2 x
ulns h mi asmtos sd o al three all for used assumptions main the outlines
-
16, I 16,
- 20,I Cost perCost Ton (2010$) - 65,I $176,400 - $510.33 75and I $27.6 $4,200 $1,785
0
- 95; and 95; x
17 , PM10, andSO
ds for the for ds x )
- - -
relevant the by multiplied value, This air option yeardivertedtorail trips each yields the 30 trip. air diverted per $5.38 as estimated diversi The 30 the yields discount benefit. year each rail to diverted trips air of number the by multiplied value, This (2010$). $13.40 were trip air diverted per benefits carrier air calculate air to the to cost benefits average ofthe by delay hours the aircraft of estimated number the in study reduction projected FRA the multiplying the by carriers corridors, study its For travelers. reduced atairports congestion are from resulting savings costs operating of terms in carriers air to Benefits discount benefit. 30 theyieldsyear each rail divertedto millions)(in tripsair option relevant the F 1997 the from Southeastcorridor the on based (2010$), $24.60 at estimated were trip air diverted per benefits delay passenger Air reduced timespenton additional taxiwaythe or enroute. to due rail) to diverted not conges (those passengers air by saved time travel calculated study FRA The details). additional for report this of section Revenue and pas Study Feasibility Commercial FRA 1997 the on based were benefits reduction emissions and congestion Airport AirportCongestionandReduction Emissions for corridors.cost study the apply by estimated then were consumption fuel excess reduced the from savings cost total The relationship. speed vehicle and usingeconomy fuel by the generated values consumption fuel excess average using estimated was diverting from resulting savings fuel excess The fuel less and times travel overall consumption. the shorter for in speeds results operating which users, improved road to remaining leads congestion traffic less in that sitting is fuel assumption while actual consumed the to fuel unrelated the is and to congestion refers consumed fuel excess The levels consideredfuel anfora added can trip be ofthe benefit system. ex the only such, As senger air trips and air trips diverted to rail (refer to each corridor’s Ridership Ridership corridor’s each to (refer rail to diverted trips air and trips air senger in, eitos rm ceue fih arvl n dprue ie, and times, departure and arrival flight scheduled from deviations tions, on of travelers to rail from air also generates emissions savings savings emissions generates also air from rail to travelers of on
cess congestion fuel over and above the normally consumed normally the above and over fuel congestion cess
calculated the same waycalculated same timesavings the toairthe benefit as
Ar ogsin rjcin wr etmtd using estimated were projections congestion Air .
airlines for each hour of delay. For this study, the study, this For delay. of hour each for airlines
RA study. This value, multiplied by by multipliedvalue, This study. RA
consumed by each traveler. The The traveler. each by consumed vehicular travel to the rail system rail the to travel vehicular - year discount benefit. ing an average fuel average an ing
- - year year
1 - 97 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 98 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
corridor studies. diesel corridor Use Shared for made rail corrido highnational speed regional and of review on apeer 180 18 determine the determine operatingcorridor foreach andratios evaluation range: operator. and investor for risk operating the reduces and subsidies operating need to likely less self strong, a of evidence gives ratio operating positive A surplus. operating an generates 1.0 than greater ratio operating positive ser A costs. operating by divided revenues of ratio” “operating the uses benefits. private and public both public FRA the of element key A 3.4.4.5 sals te nemdae n Otmsi Scenarios. Optimistic and to Intermediate corridors Use the Dedicated for establish increased were estimates revenue and typically ridership estimates cost operating revenue and capital revenue, feasibility a in encountered ridership, of range a evaluation, the up setting In 3.4.5 onforecast based benefit the NPV, for rate discount (3%) percent three a with time high multiple an desirable benefit a ratio, operating the to Similar ratio. cost benefit a calculates then and monetized be can that resources) external and surplus main a project, a project. of benefit the of costs overall the to relate public benefits public overall the how show to performed the to respect With
Ridership adjustments for I for adjustments Ridership - 220 mph electrified, steel electrified, mph 220 eac) n bnft (ae eeus on revenues, (fare benefits and tenance)
E
, Public and Private Benefit Private and Public
VALUATION The FRA benefit FRA The capital and operating operating and capital
te ai cn e sd o opr te eaie oil eiaiiy of desirability social relative the compare to used be can ratio the d - speed rail projects. In order to capture the benefits and costs over costs and benefits the capture to order In projects. rail speed s from(a to2050 2021 30
- R ntermediate and Optimistic Scenarios were only made for Dedicated Use corridor Use Dedicated for made only were Scenarios Optimistic and ntermediate wheel and Maglev technologies (Maglev in Atlanta in (Maglev technologies Maglev and wheel ANGES - cost methodology identifies costs (capital, operating and operating (capital, costs identifies methodology cost
The following equation was used in this analysis to to analysis this in used was equation following The
- - level analysis. Unadjusted Unadjusted analysis. level lcrc ehooy eut bsd n pe rve o ohr shared other of review peer a on based results technology electric three scenarios were developed to show to developed were scenarios three
costs
- To test the “franchisability” of a corridor, the FRA the corridor, a of “franchisability” the test To private partnership analysis is the assessment of assessment the is analysis partnership private
Estimations
were used for the C the for used were
-
year period). discounting - r studies. No ridership scenario r studies.
supporting operating system that is that system operating supporting -
or srie eeu, consumer revenue, service board
- cost ration greater than 1.0 is 1.0 than greater ration cost
base forecasts for forecasts base
onservative 18 b
enefit
prtn css were costs Operating - Louisville corridor only) based based only) corridor Louisville
-
c
- ost cost analysis was analysis cost
Scenario.
the impact of impact the analysis was was analysis
adjustment was was adjustment
the owner, owner, the vice with a with vice ridership, ridership,
Base - use
3.4.5.3 3.4.5.2 3.4.5.1 revenues ridership, evaluati further feasibility the at estimates of range wide relatively illustratethe and capture to intended are scenarios three The in downward adjusted were estimates cost Capital drivers. ridership appropriate the by adjusted
Capital Costs = estimatesDirectCapital onunit costsbased contingencywithout a costs unit on scenario drivers and based estimates Direct = Costs Maintenance and Operating the sophisticatmore and detailed from high regional increase and national of review peer percent 100 Dedicated “optimistic” for Scenario Conservative An = Ridership/Revenue contingency percent 15 a including costs unit on based estimates Direct = Costs Capital costs unit on scenario drivers and based estimates Direct = Costs Maintenance and Operating sophisticatedand detailed ridership forecasts. the peer high regional a and from national of on review Based increase only. corridors percent Use Dedicated for 75 Scenario Conservative “intermediate” An = Ridership/Revenue contingency includ costs unit on based estimates Direct = costs Capital costs unit on scenario drivers and based estimates Direct = Costs Maintenance and Operating assumptions with forincreased costscongestion.fuel and countya based mar include which model demand travel on based estimates Direct = Ridership/Revenue Intermediate Scenario Intermediate Scenario Conservative Optimistic the IntermediateOptimisticandthe Scenarios forall technologies. on ftr suis w studies future ,
and costs, Scenario
- narrowing ofestimates. range the study of level
ket assessment and demographic forecasts alongforecasts and assessment demographic ket edridership forecasts. ill rvd getr detail greater provide
. . - - speed rail studies that em that studies rail speed Use corridors only. Again, based on a on based Again, only. corridors Use
As - corridors are deemed feasible deemed are corridors speed rail studies that employed that studies rail speed
n h aayi of analysis the in
ing a 30 percent 30 a ing ployed more ployed
for
1 - 99 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
1 - 100 Section I: Background Information and Methodologies
SECTION II: ATLANTA TO BIRMINGHA M
or
BirminghamCorrid
- Section II: Atlanta SectionII:
Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
can beseeninarea study the in included counties Alabama and Georgia all of map A benefit. will rail speed 100 r a the Further, with consistent be to chosen was area study size This within. counties the and area study this on based Use Dedicated 100 A population include conditions transportationpatterns, environmentally and systems, criticalareas. existing use land the patterns, employment characteristics, study, socioeconomic and demographics feasibility this ho of characteristics; and purposes factors of variety a include can conditions Corridor Birmingham order In to estimate improvementsthe that high - ie wi mile de study area was established around three three around established was area study de - evaluated ie ordr los o cnetn opruiy ra ta high that areas opportunity connecting for allows corridor mile , a baseline of existing conditions was established. Existing Existing established. was conditions existing of baseline a , routes Figure1 1
drhp n rvne oeatn cthet area. catchment forecasting revenue and idership
. The basis of the existing conditions existing the of basis The . E - 1 XISTING ,below .
C ONDI - speed rail willrail speed tothebring TIONS AND hrd s ad one and Use Shared
ee, o the for wever,
B assessment ACKGROUND Atlanta
is - -
2 - 1 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 2 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
Figure Figure 1 - 1 : Atlanta - Birmingham
Study Area Study
total the with connecting and Anniston NS the move to AL Anniston, in opportunity is There trails. bike by abandoned with minutes Atlanta between found route lim Class This Birmingham. the second alternative The corridor aboutis this 16 corridor the day, per trains software. AutoCAD and GISusing corridors freight gathered was 41 or miles 67.5 to equates This minutes. of radius a exceed that curves 355 are there that reveals analysis 1 approximately the follows alternative first The representative route project C Appendix i seen be can options three All infrastructure. rail passenger and freight abandoned 90 rail three are There 1.1.1 determine is corridor todetermine analysis a preferred route through the process. NEPA this alternatives an conduct Ifto future, the in necessary, be will it route, representative corridor. the of feasibility represent overallcan route the that a is rather, but corridor, thefor route preferred analyses. study best the throughout the utilize determine to technologies Use Dedicated and The 1.1 Fgr 1 Figure n -
it the one degree, 30 minute curvature, for a total of 49 miles (29 miles 49 of total a for curvature, minute 30 degree, one the it 110 mph technology. These These technology. mph 110 Crescent Crescent NS study
). This track carries an average of 17.5 trains per day, most of which can be be can which of most day, per trains 17.5 of average an carries track This ). route 1, E
route VALUATED VALUATED 3, 4 3, study 90
evaluated a number of potential potential of number a evaluated - . 2
. The estimated The . s 7 mls ih cmiain f bnoe ad ls 1 3 ad 4 and 3, 1, Class and abandoned of combination a with miles 174 is -
with Eachof proposed these Adtoal, h caatrsis o tee corridors these for characteristics the Additionally, . 110 ro
for Atlanta to Rockmart and the the and Rockmart to Atlanta for b n vrg sed f 0 p. lre oto o the of portion large A mph. 60 of speed average an CSXT s el s nu fo ky oa saeodr t dtrie the determine to stakeholders local key from input as well as a ute y measuring the radius of each individual curve along the existing the along curve individual each of radius the measuring y 76
daily daily some abandoned some
MPH
route
miles and is a single Class 4 track with sidings. A preliminary preliminary A sidings. with track 4 Class single a is and miles i a aadnd rc bgnig n Jacksonville in beginning track abandoned an via
routes
in the 1980s and has since been converted to the Chief Ladiga Chief the to converted been since has and 1980s the in for corridor. the weighted average weighted in 6 A S GA ,
is 169 miles and consists of a single track with section with track single a of consists and miles 169 is
minutes with anaverage minutes speed of 6 consideration is the Seaboardconsiderationthe is Route; HARED LTERNATIVES
that were considered fo considered were that
passenger n Austell and NS U
NS sections SE
route routes
and
line in Piedmont in line travel time travel It should be noted that this route is not a not is route this that noted be should It C
density density GA ,
ORRIDORS stoa was reviewsubject technical the by percent route The corridor. crescent Amtrak
. There are 306 curves that exceed the exceed that curves 306 are There . route s a obnto o eitn and existing of combination a use
Te siae tae tm i 169 is time travel estimated The . CSXT of 26.3 of
service alternatives for both Shared Use Shared both for alternatives of the corridor. corridor. the of In addition to the two passenger passenger two the to addition In based on the track geometry geometry track the on based r the Atlanta to Birmingham for Birmingham to Atlanta the
ebad rm okat to Rockmart from Seaboard , AL ,
freight trains per day per trains freight
from the Seaboard to the to Seaboard the from
ersnaie route representative . Using this this Using . 4 fail fo this from feasible d
mph. this
route This information This
one a b se in seen be can
percent AL ,
degree, 30 degree, co route route
nsists of nsists through
of the of
, the , uses uses was s
for
to of is
2 - 3 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 4 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
estimatedThe miles). traveltimeis minutes174 anaverage speed with of60 mph. 11 or miles (2.86 minutes 30 degree, one than greater radius a tracks . The connection is appr is connection The .
oximately 25 miles and encompasses 14 curves with curves 14 encompasses and miles 25 oximately
percent
of the total the of
Figure Figure 1 - 2 :Atlanta - Birmingham SharedUse Evaluated Alternatives
2 - 5 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 6 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
It should be noted that while there is not a preferred alignment alternative as a as impact an alternative have will routes basic these in alignment variations but study, feasibility the preferred of part a not is there while that noted be should It high the adjust 30’, than right greater were highway curves highway the interstate within lane right highway purchased within routes: outside basic the three of alongside one on be to are corridors high viable that assumed study The 1.1.2 1 approximately is time travel estimated The about to equal is This radius. curvature This corridorinterstate tothe ( high the for necessary extent right interstate the where areas spee interstate the of shoulder the use to necessary with be will hour per Douglasville near miles also and Birmingham 65 and 6 55 a between to transitions corridor The median. 45 a least at and limit Use most For minutes. 30 than greater of curvature a exceed cannot 180 For corridor. proposed The co on ihn h I the within 17
mph. route d rail track. track. rail d route stand environmentalconsiderations. ed to leave the immediate highway corridor if justified by travel time savings.time travel by justified if corridor highway immediate the leave to ed
180
, the interstate is a is interstate the ,
F s prxmtl 1 approximately is igure1 - - 220 285 eiae Use Dedicated - of -
In some instances, some In - - 3
a ajcn t te iha right highway the to adjacent way 2 mh high mph 220 MPH perimeter)
illustratesthis - ot ein alwn fr h tan t ue h interstate the use to trains the for allowing median, foot NS D EDICATED
corridortoconnect tothe proposed four
51
-
pe tan ehooy Na dwtw Atlanta downtown Near technology. train speed - route the
of - ie wt 2 cre ta ece h 0 minute 30 the exceed that curves 24 with miles
- lane, rural facility with a 70 mile 70 a with facility rural lane, - pe ri, o anan o sed, h track the speeds, top maintain to rail, speed representative - way corridor corridor way speed rail operations along interstate highway interstate along operations rail speed eiae Use Dedicated
the the , GA , eeal flos h Itrtt 2 (I 20 Interstate the follows generally U seven SE - route
ae aiiy ih pe lim speed with facility lane
just west of Atlanta. In these areas, it areas, these In Atlanta. of west just 78 C ra cross urban ORRIDORS
miles (five miles minutes with an average speed of speed average an with minutes
utilizes a utilizes geometry geometry D edicated
route route - of
percent true - -
cannot be eased to the to eased be cannot
sections a. hr selected Where way.
- h hgwy median, highway the rniin fo the from transitions U high the construct to pe ri rue was route rail speed secorridor greenfield MMPT ) of the the of -
of the corridor. the of per -
of both - - a, r in or way, . hour speed hour
t varying its Dedicated
route route e s of ast - . 20)
in -
Figure Figure 1 - 3 :Atlanta - Birmingham DedicatedUse Evaluated Alternative
2 - 7 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 8 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
c afrom aggregated and reviewed was data population, assessing of purpose the For population’sthe propensityride to transit. impact can this as considered be must race and age as such characteristics, Other employment and high for order In 1.2.1 1.2 Birmingham. and population Atlanta and of rural high is destinations corridor and for the need (18), of potential much Coosa a that (27), exhibits indicates This Cleburne (28), Counties. (39) Clay Randolph (47), Cherokee including Counties, DeKalb Count in mile square above per from persons range densities 2,000 These Georgia. in higher generally are but corridor, isloca (70%) population this of majority a Alabama, within lies area study the of most that fact the Despite 5,913,667. is area corridor study mile 100 the in counties 41 ounty level from the 2010 U.S. Census. The total existing (2010) population of the of population (2010) existing total The Census. U.S. 2010 the from level ounty ted in Georgia. As illustrated in illustrated As Georgia. in ted
D y
GA , EMOGRAPHICS EMOGRAPHICS T OTAL s
andpopulation density o un to - P
speed rail to be feasible, it must serve areas of high population high of areas serve must it feasible, be to rail speed density e 5 pros e sur ml i mn o te ua Alabama rural the of many in mile square per persons 50 der OPULATION in order to to order in
AND ,
D ENSITY by county.by
- Figure 1 Figure S speed produce produce OCIOECONOMICS
, rvl ewe te ao oii and origin major the between travel County - R 4
, population densities vary along the along vary densities population , marke a ACE AND Appendix GA , t
for high for 250 ad ob (2,023) Cobb and (2,580) A D GE
rvds 00 total 2010 provides
- speed rail service rail speed .
Figure Figure 1 - 4 : Atlanta
- Birmingham PopulationDensity
2 - 9 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 10 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
provides the 2010 racial and the racial provides ethnic 2010 and bydistribution county. minority. the are Clayton asof exception Alabama, than population Caucasian in lower illustrated slightly and Georgia to patterns populations, Caucasian the majority levels, of trend general a HispanicAfricanand populations. smaller American by followed follow corridor the along in shown is corridor the along race of distribution The
Other Asian/PacificNative American Indian Hispanic or Latino American Black/African White
Race
Table
itiuin f ae n ehiiy ln te ordr elc similar reflect corridor the along ethnicity and race of distribution al 1 Table
1
- 1
iue 1 Figure :
Atla County Population (2010) - Percent ofPercent Total 1 . nta oee, ot f h cute i Goga wt the with Georgia, in counties the of most However, 30.9% 56.4% - 1.7% 2.9% 0.2% 7.7% - , D , 5 Source: U.S. Bureau (2010) Census Birmingham
lutae te itiuin f minority. of distribution the illustrates eKalb
County
Statewide Georgia RaceofStudy Area Population Population (2010) Percent ofPercent Total
and Fulton and 30.5% 59.7% 2.2% 3.2% 0.3% 8.8%
County Table 1 Table
–
, African Americans African , Statewide Alabama - Compared to state to Compared Population (2010) – 1
. Most counties Most . Percentof Total 26.2% 68.5% 3.6% 1.1% 0.6% 3.9% Appendix
D
Figure Figure 1 - 5 : Atlanta
- Birmingham Minority
Populations
2 - 11 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 12 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
o srie sc a mdcl ramn ad shopping. and treatment medical as such services city for major a to area rural more a from perhaps or cities, two the between travels dependent transit are seniors these of Many alternatives. transportation many for ridership in popul the approximately up seven make Georgia and Alabama a in older) and trends 65 (ages aging populations similar with seen As for2009. county Counties. Shelby and Jefferson in area, Fulton and DeKalb Clayton, Cobb, 16 Another of counties Atlanta metropolitan the in (55 half Over Alabama. GA Fulton in mile square per jobs 1,000 over from range in illustrated as corridor, trips. study the along medical significantly or trips, shopping trips, school trips, work are they whether trips most for destination the as serve centers employment E 1.2.2 2010 pomn itiuin s important is distribution mployment
to less than 10 jobs per square mile in some of the rural ofthe some mile in square jobs per 10 than less to 41
aging aging populationby co ation is slightly higher at higher slightly is ation
percent - ony td ae o te tat t Briga crio, h senior the corridor, Birmingham to Atlanta the of area study county E MPLOYMENT AND
percent n wud oetal rl o ti high this on rely potentially would and
and
six of the corridor’s employment is located within th within located is employment corridor’s the of
percent
percent unty.
eight and half and eight
E of the total population, re population, total the of ) of the total employment in the corridor is located is corridor the in employment total the of ) MPLOYMENT
rs te ntd tts te 2010 the States, United the cross to understand potential trip patterns patterns trip potential understand to Appendix
percent C ENTERS D
. Seniors can play a major role major a play can Seniors . provides employment data by data employment provides
-
pe ri crio fr their for corridor rail speed Figure 1 Figure
County mlyet este vary densities Employment Appendix spectively. However, in However, spectively.
counties in Georgia andin Georgia counties -
6 and DeKalb Count DeKalb and . The distributions The . D
e Birminghame rvds the provides
senior GA , since y , .
Figure Figure 1 - 6 : Atlanta
- Birmingham EmploymentDensity
2 - 13 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 14 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
regional scale and it may, in turn, enhance the attractiveness of the cities to major to cities the of attractiveness the enhance turn, in may, it and scale regional a on viability and activity economic the increase potentially can distances greater f opportunity the Opening cities. inner to suburbs from make currently workers over just of destinations 1 of is there speed mentioned, average previously As major centers. to commutes employment quicker reliable, more offering by populations to advantage centers. hospital activity other and bases military malls, shopping include centers employment Major Cherokee ($68,627) in Georgia and Shelby ($71,785) in Alabama. Similarly, several Similarly, Alabama. in ($71,785) Shelby and Georgia in ($68,627) Cherokee (30 average this S $46,152). (averaging lower significantly are Alabama in those while nationally) $51,425 toare compared ($51,833 area nation the of study that to thesimilar within counties Georgia for incomes Average area. study the transit. ride to propensity individual’s an of indicator good a often is income age, to Similar 1.2.3 internationalairportssoutheastern inthe United nearly served Airport Birmingham Finally, a have Birmingham. all in Companies presence Insurance major Farm State and Inc., Sports, Hibbett Industries, corporations Books Other Belk, Power, Alabama Birmingham. as such in headquarters its houses #293) 500 (Fortune H are There presence. large a have University Stamford and Birmingham Alabama of University Birmingham, In States, ( annually passengers United the in airport internationalAtlant Finally, and Atlanta. national in represented major firms of branches and companies small of multitude Newell companies Parts 500 Genuine Fortune to to home Company/Enterprises limited is not Atlanta but including, Atlanta. of Hospital Children’s Midtown Emory Hospital, Piedmont Hospital, Grady hospitals: major University, State Georgia universities major are there Atlanta, cente employment major of number a are there general, In businesses.industriesand sia ad hlrns optl f imnhm Rgos iaca Corporation Financial Regions Birmingham. of Hospital Children’s and ospital
- S Rubbermaid Figure 1 Figure OCIOECONOMIC
(#215) -
7 percent
shows the average annual ho annual average the shows
17 (#397) H
three , -
(#70)
JAIA First Data (#236), (#236), Data First ie pr or yedn tae tms b times travel yielding hour, per miles
Emory University and the Atlanta University System; University Atlanta the and University Emory
n hu. hs s iia t te uooie commutes automobile the to similar is This hour. one
r oe, nldn Fyte $268, ob ($69,728), Cobb ($82,678), Fayette including more), or two major hospitals including the University of Alabama of University the including hospitals major two
, and and , C million passengers in 2010, making 2010, in passengers million 2010). , Dla Airlines Delta , HARACTERISTICS
H h Hm Depot Home The - oak nutis (#427) Industries Mohawk JAIA
- A
wih comdts lot 0 million 90 almost accommodates which , - uh as such Millio uTut Bank SunTrust a is home to the busiest international busiest the to home is a
n, CVS Caremark Corporation, EBSCO Corporation, Caremark CVS n, (#88) , ag ofc prs universities, parks, office large s, , usehold income for counties withincounties for income usehold States. eri Isiue f Technology, of Institute Georgia -
I
Suhr Company Southern , NCOME (#30) - htlsot International Shuttlesworth
everal counties far exceed far counties everal
UPS , High
rs within both cities. In cities. both within rs
(#244)
Frhr tee s a is there Further, . potnt t reach to opportunity
- it one of the largest the of one it speed rail offers an offers rail speed
(#48) ten h two the etween AGCO , Hospital, and Hospital, Coca ,
(#340) (#147) - Cola four or , ,
2009. Alabama. in Talladega ($35,487) and ($34,185) Randolph ($35,614), Chambers and Meriwether Georgia and in ($35,566) ($34,249) Chattooga including average, national the than lower than more are which incomes household annual average have counties
Appendix Appendix
D
provides the income distribution by county for county by distribution income the provides
30
percent
2 - 15 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 16 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
Figure Figure 1 - 7 : Atlanta - Birmingham
Average Average IncomeAnnualHousehold
2009
considered are state 1 met.thresholds Table the than counties. income EJ median potential lower a househ showed median statewide that the Counties median to county compared the was state Additionally, income the household counties. exceeded EJ populations potential considered minority are whose average counties Those populations. comp was corridor the along county each Atlanta the corridor. the along surface may issues beg can study However, feasibility the study. NEPA I Tier a for necessary be will analysis environmental full A 1.2.4
E NVIRONMENTAL - imnhm ordr Te ecnae f ioiy ouain within populations minority of percentage The corridor. Birmingham
The detailed demographics foreach are county in Appendix D. J n o dniy ra wee niomna justice environmental where areas identify to in USTICE
- ilsrts h ptnil J onis n the and counties EJ potential the illustrates 2
Minority populations were identified along identified were populations Minority ared to the state percentages of minority of percentages state the to ared old income. income. old
(EJ)
2 - 17 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 18 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
Cullman Coosa Cleburne Clay Chilton Cherokee Chambers Calhoun Alabama Troup Spalding Polk Meriwether Henry Heard H Gordon Floyd Fulton Floyd Douglas DeKalb Clayton Chattooga Carroll Georgia Tallapoosa Talladega Randolph Marshall Jefferson Etowah DeKalb aralson Table
County
1
-
2 : : Atlanta
Source: U.S. Bureau,2010 Census - BirminghamEJ Potential Race/Ethnicity
Thresholds
Household Income
by County by
surrounding its and Atlanta the from trips attract to suburbs. expected is it as region, County Paulding I until rural remain Anniston) Alabama through route County Jefferson the outside just rural to urban from transition uses land east, traveling Birmingham, From corridor. 1 Figure the and communities areas. corridor, the along for cities center these residential Between and employment an cities, as major two serves these Anniston Between centers. city the near development residential Birmingha and Atlanta (U.S mile square per people 500 least at of density overall an have that blocks census surrounding and mile square per people bloc census core of consist which territory, settled “densely as defined are areas urban Census, T 1.3 e td ae cnit o bt ubn n rrl ra. codn t te U.S. the to According areas. rural and urban both of consists area study he
L AND AND - 8
A te ot cnius at no eri, h sronig ad uses land surrounding the Georgia, into east continues route the As . ill gop o bok ta hv a ouain est o a lat 1,000 least at of density population a have that blocks or groups k srts h lcto o census of location the ustrates U , GA , SE - . The study area encompasses a majority of the metro Atlanta metro the of majority a encompasses area study The . 20 reaches the suburbs suburbs the reaches 20
–
, r mjr iis ih es cmeca, fie and office commercial, dense with cities major are m, U
ih h ecpin f ahu County Calhoun of exception the with RBAN VS RBAN
AL ,
odr n rmis ua fr uh f the of much for rural remains and border .
R . Census, 2000). The two terminal two The 2000). Census, . URAL - eie ubn ra aog h study the along areas urban defined f metropolita of e s mx f uubn n rural and suburban of mix a is re
n Atlanta, specifically specifically Atlanta, n central AL ,
Alabama. Ct of (City
points, points,
2 - 19 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 20 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
Figure Figure 1 - 8 : Atlanta
- Birmingham UrbanizedAreas
air 7,310 Birmingham were there and canbeseenin volumes that Atlanta determined between survey The travelling passengers cities. study the of one for eit at transfers include not DB1B Airline The corridor. study the within airports r travel air Local 1.4.2 33,460 25,963 to percent 1.71 by increased has figures definitive not are these cities, major be can indi counts an give can traffic counts traffic while Therefore, that noted be because should It misleading interstates. the along volumes als were counts Traffic roundtrips The between can becities seenin Birminghamannually. and Atlanta between roundtrips vehicular (1,174,715) million available. data survey travel intercity estimation T 1.4.1 consistently moderate have travelto highbetween major cities. the be therefore, will and travel, majorcities. between travel High 1.4 he ridership and r and ridership he -
speed rail feasibility is partially determined by the success of other modes o modes other of success the by determined partially is feasibility rail speed T
Table RAVEL PATTERNS RAVEL A A IR UTOMOTIVE f Source: FHWA Airline Origin and Destination Survey Database, 2010 (Q1 2010 SurveyDatabase, Destination and Airline Origin FHWA Source: o the rom provided 1 T - 3 RAVEL efers to air passenger volumes passenger air to efers , daily : Originating City Originating City Atlanta Birmingham Birmingham evenue forecasting methodology utilizes utilizes methodology forecasting evenue Atlanta Atlanta 1995 they
). volumes for 2010. It should be noted that these figures do figures these that noted be should It 2010. for volumes
Table 1 o observed between 1995 and 2010 to understand total total understand to 2010 and 1995 between observed o T Table -
her end of corridor, only trips originating in and destined and in originating trips only corridor, of end her Birmingham RAVEL
T c ATS nld bt long both include High
more successful in corridors where air and auto travel travel auto and air where corridors in successful more
-
1 4
e ya bten tat ad imnhm (from Birmingham and Atlanta between year per
- . - 4 speed rail competes with both air and automotive and bothair railwith competes speed nutd y h BS BTS. the by onducted
Source: Source:
: Local : Air Tripsin 2010 Annual Person Trip Annual Person Trip (Round Trips) The survey found that there were over one one over were there that found survey The Intercity Auto (ATS Table Trip1995) ATS eea Hgwy diitain ( Administration Highway Federal , 1995 , intercity travel intercity
Table1 cation on the demand between the the between demand the on cation - on direct flights flights direct on itne rvl n lcl travel. local and travel distance 479,181 695,534
3,350 3,960 - 3 . s
(Round Trips)
hs s h ms recent most the is This
. On average, th average, On . n 2010 in ann between the major the between ual auto round auto ual
. These total total These .
- Q4)
e traffic e
FHWA - trip ) f
2 - 21 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 22 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
flight, and averageand flight, Q4passenger flight per 2009for Q3 2010. to per in sets average table frequency, daily average The departures, scheduled seats, scheduled consideration. under market air connect Birmingham airport rail high speed as consideration into taken be should passengers These function. airport’s connecting corridor, the along cases many also are connections Air counties (displayed in (displayed counties in found be can species of list full A Alabama. in counties Talladega and Clair, St. Shelby, Jefferson, Pauldi Haralson, Fulton, Douglas, (U county” the in occur to believed basis county a on review were corridors U.S. the by maintained are lists species endangered and Threatened 1.5.1 aspects these analysis, are moreappropriateduring the process.NEPA g but studies, future in considered be should aspectsthat environmental additional are mentionedthere previously As resulting property use. from the to harm minimize to planning possible all includes actions prudent and feasible no is there 1) conditions following andapply: sites public historicalthe unless private or refugees, from land Act USDOT the on listed properties as such potential Environment 1.5 ATL City Pair
- E BHM
. NVIRONMENTAL NVIRONMENTAL T ly contain ly
al 1 Table Source: FHWA Airline Origin and Destination Survey Database, 2010 (Q1 2010 SurveyDatabase, Destination and Airline Origin FHWA Source:
HREATENED AND
ol ptnily ev t r to serve potentially could of 1966. 1966. of - ulcy we prs rcetoa aes wllf ad waterfowl and wildlife areas, recreational parks, owned publicly ally sensitive areas for the purposes of this study include include study this of purposes the for areas sensitive ally Shuttlesworth Airport pair which provides a reliable estimate for the for estimate reliable a provides which pair Airport Shuttlesworth Passengers Table 257,423 - Appendix . The county reports “contain s “contain reports county The . 5
threatened and endangered species and species endangered and threatened hw segment shows 1
F -
ed for the potential of threatened and endangered species endangered and threatened of potential the for ed Table 1 Table 5 RA
:
Atlanta
an important important an must comply with Section 4(f) guidelines for the use of use the for guidelines 4(f) Section with comply must 324,154 Seats E. -
E 6 I ) SSUES hr ae urnl 2 species 27 currently are There NDANGERED -
that are are that Birmingham NRHP g n Pl i Goga n Clon Cleburne, Calhoun, and Georgia in Polk and ng
. S - alternative to the use of the land the of use the to alternative vn h high the iven . ee tr level Departures
Scheduled FWS). These counties include Carroll, Cobb, Carroll, include counties These FWS).
pae fih cneto link connection flight a eplace or or 4,745 oprsn to comparison
listed as endangered, 13 species that are that species 13 endangered, as listed htae ulnd n eto () f the of 4(f) Section in outlined are that affic information for the the for information affic lgt play flights
Air Ser S
PECIES pecies that are known to or are or to known are that pecies - Flights/ ee aayi i ti feasibility this if analysis level Day vicesSummary 13
high
n motn rl i the in role important an lds oa passengers, total cludes - /or speed rail travel. In In travel. rail speed Seats/ Flight
68
ihn td area study within cultural resources cultural
FWS.
-
Q4) ;
Passengers
H to and 2) the 2) and those that those / Flight/
-
JAIA The The 54 an
other
four and
-
review environmental further into survey field to proximity close a within located route representative be will properties these of some only While Within at looks the study the screening, species endangered the as counties same the Using 1.5.2 endangered. threatened, considered Flattened turtlemush Flatpebblesnail Tulotoma snail Plicaterocksnail Cahaba shiner Watercressda Cherokee darter Blueshiner Pygmy sculpin pigtoeDark Alabama moccasinshell Orangeacre mucket shinyrayed pocketbook Gulf moccasin Southern pigtoe Coosa moccasinshell Triangular kidneyshell Southern clubshell Ovateclubshell Finelined pocketbook Upland comb shell Southern acornshell woodpecker Red Table - NRHP cockaded
the 1 Species C - oudrtn temgiue fhsoi rsucs wi resources historic of magnitude the understand to
6 study area, there are a total of 573 places that are listed on the on listed are that places 573 of total a are there area, study
ULTURAL that are considered eligible for inclusion for eligible considered are that :
Atlanta rter
s, -
Birmingham additional resources additional R ESOURCES three Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Threatened Threatened Threatened Endangered T Threatened Endangered Endangered Endangere Endangered Endangered Endangered Thr Endangered Endangered Endangered Threatened hreatened eatened Status
Threat pce ae addts ad n i potentially is one and candidates, are species Source: U.S. Study .
d
rpris ht nesc te high the intersect that Properties
enedSpecies Area Counties Area FWS Tennessee yellow White fringeless orchid Green pitcher Mohr’s Barbara button Etowah darter Rush darter Vermilion darter Goldlinedarter Lacy elimia Rough hornsnail Round rocksnail Cylindrical lioplax Painted rocksnail batGray Indiana bat Alabama leather flower Georgia aster Gentian pinkroot rockcressGeorgia Little amphiantus Michaux’s sumac grass could potentially be identified be potentially could , 2011 ,
Species
if the project moves forward moves project the if
-
plant KnownEndangered and
-
eyed
hnte corridor. the thin Endangered Considered Endangered Threatened Endangered Endangered Potentially Endangered Threatened Th Endangered Threatened Endangered Threatened Endangered Endangered Endangered Considered Endangered Considered Threatened Endangered - pe rail speed reatened Status during a during NRHP
.
2 - 23 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 24 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
oeta bnft a wl a osals to obstacles as Opportunities concerns. political and barriers, operational well impacts, environmental as benefits potential prev the in noted As 1.6 countiesthesecanfor in befound before route stakeholderthrough interviewswellas in described opportunities, on operating services freight to benefits and savings time travel populations, and facilities key serve to potential the include success for 110 mph Shared Use Corridors Birmingham) Rockmartto Seaboard Rockmart, Atlantato Route (NS Seaboard Crescent NS Alternative /Amtrak
I will need need will SSUES AND AND SSUES making a pref a making
Existin travel times Direct Jacksonville State University Anniston/Fort McClellan/ Could directly serve Utilizesexisting NS right operatedby shortlines much route of is abandoned or Low Piedmont University stationvia i McClellan/Oxford/ Jacksonville Potential to serveAnniston/Fort Utilizesexisting right further exploration to determine if there are any adverse impacts adverse any are there if determine to exploration further train volumesbecause erred
g Amtrak route route os etos ec o te high the of each sections, ious O Table Opportunities
PPORTUNITIES
resulting inshorter route Table 1 Table
1 - 7
: : OpportIssues and recommendation. A list of the National Register National the of list A recommendation. Appendix - - of
7 n or near
, were identified through technical analysis as analysis technical through identified were , - - way
of (refertoChapter 2) - way
E
.
mlmnain Ise include Issues implementation.
corridor to Class 6, especiallyon replacement needed to upgrade Major improvements/track Atlantato Rockmart improvements NSon linefrom Would require capacity in longertravel times Relatively Anniston multimodal center Route would not s passengerservice Atlantato Austell to accommodate improvements NSon linefrom Will require major capacity increased passengertrain delay High freightvolumes could cause freighttraffic inthefuture Corridor result will in increased Development NS Crescentof trains/day) High train vol number curvesof minutes at 60due mph) to high Relatively long travel time (166 minutes (41%/68 miles) curvature greaterthan de1 High percentage of miles with unities
these lines. These issues and issues These lines. these - pe ri atraie has alternatives rail speed . indirect routeresulting
umes (averages26 Issues
erve planned
gree, 30
Alternative Sub (Anniston NS Seaboard/ Alternative
Route -
)
Seaboard route reduced freight traffic theon by reducing train delays dueto Opportunity to benefitAmtrak Amtrak freightcapacity by rerouting Opportunity to benefitNS NS/Amtrakroute miles) compared to the degree, 30 minute curvature greaterthan 1 percentageLower of miles with train delay potential Less for passenger Rockmart) m (averages 18 trains/day which is freightcapacity by rerouting Opportunity to benefitNS Piedmont) between Rockmart and trains per mile segment on segment (averagesless than 5 trainLow volumes Seaboardon Utiliz UniversityState Directly passesJacksonville Fort McClellan) Serves Anniston area (including Atlanta) Corridor between Anniston and by reducing train delays (on NS Oppo between Anniston and Atlanta) Amtrak (on NS Corridor ainlyfrom Atlantato es existinges right rtunity to benefitAmtrak
Opportunities
s (30%/49 - of
- way
and ChiefLadiga Trails) existing biketrails (SilverComet May require the relocation of upgraded a to Class facility6 require Seaboard portion of track would potential stop inAnniston increase infreight volumes and a Increased travel timedue to the (11% of miles) exceeding degree, 1 30 minutes additional 2.86 miles curvesof AnnistonThe connection has an Birmingham trains/day)between Anniston an (averagesbetween 18 and 26 delay due higherto traffic volumes Morepotential for passengertrain Birmingham 174 minutes) travel timefrom Atlantato additional 25 miles and an overall between endpointslonger (adds an Anniston make the travel ti Additional milesand stop in route between the Seaboard and NS accessible not by the connection CurrentAnniston Amtrak station is and ChiefLadiga Trails) existing biketrails (Silver May require the rel Cedartown to Well the abandoned corridor from area notDoes directly serveAnniston
s
major improvementsto be
Issues ington ocation of
Comet
me me
d
2 - 25 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 26 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
Gr 20/ Interstate 220 mph Dedicated Use Corridor Alternative eenfield NS
or nearor Oxford UniversitState McClellan/Oxford/Jacksonville Anniston/Fort Potential to serve minutes exceed curvelimit of 30 Less than 5% of miles (7 miles) Shared routes Use Travel timeis 60% that of times resulting inshorter travel Directroute (1
Opportunities
50
y y stationvia in
miles)
required through Anniston Reduced speeds due to curves environmental impacts takings and associated social Will require significantland and Birmingham urban areas Atlanta,of Anniston areassome especially inthe Limited available right Shared alternative Use Significantly highercost than Issues
-
of
-
wayin
and
these of each at presented packet handout and meetings. agenda stakeholder the for to back the of a Issues the develop to data technical with eachcombine to along opportunities and ( alternatives potential issues weaknesses, strengths, identified route a Use under Dedicated were a that represent to alternative alternatives best the determine potential to review the technical and corridor study the described introd to stakeholders 201 May in place took the for meeting each p study The stakeholder organizations the For highdetermine the that ensured also sectio determine to corridor route alternative of development the in consideration for opportunities and issues local Corridor Birmingham the of purpose The effort. study two encourage to designed techniques targeted identifying Plan Involvement Public th of part a As study
s ns outline the major input of the stakeholders). stakeholders). the of input major outlinethe ns . In some cases, the the cases, some In . Regional Planning Commission Regional Planning ofGreater Birmingham RegionalAlabama East PlanningCommission Birmingham; of City of Anniston; City Birmingham The ofDepartmentAlabama (ALDOT); Transportation ofDepartment andAlabama Community(ADECA); Economic Affairs oes rocess. Table 1 Table
Atlanta
held three rounds of stakeholder involvement activities throughout the throughout activities involvement stakeholder of rounds three held AtlantaRegionalCommission
Refer - - e speedrail feasibility. 6 al 2 Table -
) and, ultimately, the ultimately, and, ) imnhm Corri Birmingham High
- outreach JeffersonCounty TransitAutho to
s. The The s. uce them to the study project scope and schedule. The The schedule. and scope project study the to them uce study reflect study 1 nomd f h suy rcs ad results and process study the of informed - Figure 2 Figure the best the Atlanta pe Ri Faiiiy Study Feasibility Rail Speed Appendix
- in which the which in 1 :
hw tetre ons f etns n tedtis of details the and meetings of rounds three the shows
effort study - - imnhm Corridor Birmingham
study 1 representative route representative ). The ).
A s
was to keep key stakeholder key keep to was
eevd oa ipt n ehdlge fr the for methodologies on input local received for the Public Involvement Plan in its in Plan Involvement Public the for to available data accurate and recent most the dor
study als - representative route representative study way communication for the d the for communication way the ,
peetd ordr as ulnn all outlining maps corridor presented o (ARC)
met with representatives of each of the of each of representatives with met
gathered input from the stakeholders the from input gathered ; study
stakeholder 2
rity (BJCTA);rity
(EARPC) .
effort S s for the corridor (subsequent corridor the for s okd with worked Input from local stakeholderslocal from Input nd Opportunities table (refer table Opportunities nd The first round of meetings meetings of round first The TAKEHOLDER
the , a wl as well as s s. Refer to Refer s. ; and ;
(RPCGB)
s along the Atlanta the along s study
ad o iden to and , S hared h following the uration of the of uration
.
eeoe a developed Appendix Appendix O
outreach entirety. U UTREACH se and se study tify tify A -
2 - 27 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 28 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
ALDOT ADECA RPCGB BJCTA City Annistonof / EARPC Round One,Stakeholder Meetings heard comments across corridor. the feedback main the of few a are below, Outlined services. Use Dedicated and Use opport and the assist to issues corridor into insight valuable provided Stakeholders MajorStakeholder Input City Birminghamof City Annistonof / EARPC ARC ALDOT ADECA RPCGB BJCTA RoundS Three, All Stakeholders Round Two, Corridor Webinar ARC
Stakeholder
from Birmingham. from and to commuting for ridership of portion good a generate could Anniston Figurewasfromeliminated 2 studyactive an longer no is There this if further pursuing in thatlinedeterminesconnection interestedto befeasible. be would Anniston that line multi a for potential is There important obstacle an movingfor The forpassengercorridor rail. difficult be will importan an is Trail LadigaChief The
Talladega National Forest is a is Forest National Talladega takeholder Meetings
Table study
with
November 30 November November November November December13, 2011 December13, 2011 September 8, 2011 2
- in developing the developing in
May May 2 May 1 May May May May 16, 2011 1 ulc novmn ad niomnal t ue this use to environmentally and involvement public
: StakeholderOutreachMeetings
Date 16 16 16
7 20116, , 2011 , 2011 , 2011 , 2011 14 14 14 military base in Anniston (this opportunity area opportunity (this Anniston in base military 14 - -
1). modal station along the Anniston connection Anniston the along station modal , 2011 , 2011 , 2011 , , 2011
2011
ward in ward environmentalstudies.
major environmental concern that will be will that concern environmental major
t rails to trail to rails t
11:00 AM 11:00 AM 1 representative route representative 1:00 10:00 10:15 9:00 8:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 2:30 4: 1:30 3:30 Time 3
AM 0 ------10:00 AM -
9:45 AM9:45 11:00 3 4:00 5:00 3:30 5: 2:30 PM 4:30 11:00A :00 PM
- - - (EST) 3 12:00 12:00 1 s 0 0 PM 2:00 PM
project in Alabama, and itand Alabama, in project
P PM PM PM
AM M
M
PM PM
nte aog the along unities s for the Shared the for s Montgomery, AL Montgomery, AL Montgomery, AL Montgomery, AL Birmingham, AL Birmingham Birm Birmingham, AL Birmingham, AL Anniston, A Anniston, AL Atlanta Atlanta,GA Location
On ingham, AL - Line , GA
,
L AL
Figure Figure 2 - 1 :Atlanta - Birmingham Iss ues and Opportunities uesand
2 - 29 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 30 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
MajorStakeholder Input forward. moving strategies and options funding federal the on update an gave and corridor the Additionally, the both for revenue and capitalcosts, on results preliminary 201 call conference September and webinar virtual a was meetings of round second The MajorStakeholder Input to presentation. Refer forward. moving corridor Corridor Birmingham analys surplus consumer the Additionally, revenue. and ridership and costs study thi The
presented the final estimates for capital costs, costs, capital for estimates final the presented interest in interest estimates, genera ridership were Stakeholders and cost feasibility estimates. the a with that understanding pleased were Stakeholders corridor. option forthe Stakeholders in speeds to be place for thangreater79 mph. The corridors. freight study the on speeds higher allow would owners railroad inqu Stakeholders developmentof capitalin the andcost estimates technology alternatives. Stakeholders d n fnl on o meig w meetings of round final and rd
Referto
stated that worked with railroad owners, and agreements would need would agreements and owners, railroad with worked that stated
1
next steps.next study Appendix o rvd a udt o te ordr rges n present and progress corridor the on update an provide to
participants in the webinar session webinar the in participants agreed that a Dedicated Use alternative would be the better the be would alternative Use Dedicated a that agreed
n md fnl bevtos n rcmedtos o the for recommendations and observations final made and
rsne a ait o tcnlg cnieain fr the for considerations technology of variety a presented rd bu fegt alod gemns n wehr the whether and agreements railroad freight about ired s o eemn te vrl faiiiy f the of feasibility overall the determine to es S A
hared hared
for webinaragendathefor and presentation. l ecuae wt te eut, and results, the with encouraged lly U operating and maintenance operatingand e and se Appendix - as ee suy ol poue high produce would study level
D ed n oebr 201 November in held edicated edicated A
o te etn aed and agenda meeting the for study
prtn ad maintenance and operating U showed an overall interest overall an showed se
ran operating ratio and ratio operating ran ersnaie route representative
costs, andcosts, ri 1
n hc the which in
Atlanta
showed dership held - level
in s. -
route operations. freight forecasted and existing the in segments the of each sid passing with track single currently are corridors segment All feet). 100 at (assumed 90 Atlanta infrastructure for the required in improvements operations capacity identifying In 3.1 environmental d Final preferred locally a represent to intended not is and feasibility, determining inpu stakeholder as well as factors service and cost physical, of analysis an on based selected were high for corridor the of feasibility fore revenue Atlanta Representative ns Te rpsd hrd s C Use Shared proposed The ings.
U 90 Table in detail. Capacity and Geometry Track Frequency Train Capacity Train Station Stops) Station Including Time (Schedule Estimations Travel Time -
ecisions on on ecisions Birmingham SE - 110 3 ) casts, capital costs, and operating and maintenance costs to assess the assess to costs maintenance and operating and costs, capitalcasts,
- 1
improvements could be be could improvements
study : : Atlanta Figure3
hrd s ad eiae Use Dedicated and Use Shared t. t. MPH
ah s n illustrative an is Each phases if Corridor routes and and routes - - 1 Birmingham E order to accommodate new passenger service as well as as well as service passenger new accommodate to order illustrates the Shared Use MERGING MERGING - imnhm Corridor, Birmingham
41 Corridor: Total day per trips 6round frequency: passenger Proposed 52.6 Future: Existing Class 4 iscorridor the determined 2 hours curves minute o rvd a ai fr eeoig iesi and ridership developing for basis a provide to Atlanta %
of corridor / of corridor specific - speed rail service. The representative routes routes representative The service. rail speed - , 46 minutes 46 , : 26
Single track with Sidings with track Single Shared UseShared route rio ws sue t b dul tak for track double be to assumed was orridor made within made - .3 Birmingham freight trains per day (average) day per trains freight
freight freight H
176.0 route alignments IGH 67.5
Table 3 Table trains per day per trains route miles route
miles exceed 1 degree, 30 30 degree, 1 exceed miles
3 - o te ordr o proe of purposes for corridor the for S
route the existing freight right freight existing the representativeroute PEED PEED the the R -
1 Characteristics EPRESENTATIVE ROUTE will s tobe
describes the describes study -
ee dniid n the in identified were 1 mh hrd Use Shared mph 110 (average)
R e ae n future in made be feasible. feasible.
AIL AIL sue ta all that assumed
(S
Shared Use Shared
. HARED HARED
- of route - way . S
2 - 31 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 32 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
Figure Figure 3 - 1 :Atlanta - Birmingham SharedUse
Representative R Representative oute
and Stations
elevated 2011dollars to Consumer the and using added Price(CPI), a30percent contingency. Index 19 are threestationsThere major alongterminal the 3.1.1.1 Chapter3 I:details) forSection documented is stations estimate cost these sum lump of each for the costs Additionally, capital the of source The and studies plans. previous by outlined designsas and costs locations, assumes maj to refer stations Major costs. capital also and schedule plan operating the of part a as evaluated were stations of types Two 4station forChapter they as operating scheduledetails thepertain and plan connections, transit the locations, station the developing In
MT ot siae ae ae o Cnrl tat Pors 19 etmts f $1 of estimates 1992 Progress Atlanta Central on based are estimates Cost MMPT
MMPT, Atlanta GA H Potential Stations Table
Douglasville Birmingham Multimodal Birmingham Station. Atlanta MMPT H Birmingham, AL - JAIA Major Terminal Stations Terminal Major - Anniston, AL JAIA , AtlantaGA 3 ; -
2 : : Atlanta study , GA
major downto major ; and
developed an developed
that w that - Macon
. as used for used as Estimated Cost
- $350 $350 million $100 million $7.2 million $7.2
Jacksonville SharedUse StatioProposed $30 million wn areas and minor cities and suburbs. and cities minor and areas wn
million Intermediate
study all other, smaller other, all
or city stations in which the the which in stations city or
took into consideration airports, airports, consideration into took Atlanta
station station Feasibility Study Estimate Feasibility Study Estimate Feasibility Study Estimate Feasibility Study Estimate Source of Cost Estimate - BirminghamCorridor plan plan - scale stations scale BJCTA and an associated associated an and 65,650,000. This was was This 65,650,000.
ns
(refer to (refer Refer to Refer
below 19
study
:
.
2 - 33 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 34 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
as line rail million. Jackson NS the and 19/41) Highway in illustrated (US Avenue II Ford Henry and the and terminal corner southwest atthe located site, This terminals. railairport the between constructed be potentially could connections The Hartsfield
H - JAIA
- JacksonAt
station is proposed on a site adjacent to the airport in which intermodalwhich in airport the adjacentto site a on proposed is station Figure3 lantaInternational Airport - 2 . Figure Figure The cost of this station is estimated at approximately $100 at estimated is station this of cost The
3 - 2 : H - JAIA
StationLocation
of the intersection I intersection the of - 75
costs elevated to2011 addedcontingency. and dollars track and station t the into for on based million $350 are study feasibility cost incorporated estimated was The that study. infrastructure this of purposes the for determined, yet not metropolit Atlanta the for hub Th Atlanta. The AtlantaMulti A MT s n on an is MMPT e MMPT e - ModalPassenger Terminal Figure Figure
Figure 3 Figure is proposed as a major high major a as proposed is - on pbi piae partnership private public going 3 - - 3
3 :MMPTAtlanta Station an area. Although the exact location of the MMPT is MMPT the of location exact the Although area. an displays the study area for the MMPT that was used used was that MMPT the for area study the displays
estimates from Central Atlanta Progress, Atlanta Central from estimates he capital cost estimates for this this for estimates cost capital he - speed
Location ,
commuter rail commuter initiative
in downtown downtown in
and transit and
2 - 35 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 36 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
3 complet be and 2012 in begin to estimated is construction now, of As downtown. in station BJCTA existing the replace will facility The service. rail Amtrak current the and taxis bus, including a provide as well as anda intermodal build new design facility will forthe This BJCTAfacility City. house workingconsultingis BJCTA ofBirminghamwith City with private firms to along The BirminghamTransportation Intermodal Facility
- 4 outlinesthe locationproposedthe intermodal of new transportation facility Figure Figure 3 - transportation hub for various modes of ground transportation ground of modes various for hub transportation 4 :Birmingham TransportationIntermodal Facility ed in 2014 and has an estimated cost of $30 million. $30 of cost estimated an has and 2014 in ed
Figure
Intermediate Corridor Birmingham stati per million these for cost estimated The platform. foot linear 2,000 and building station foot square 6,600 a with stations “medium” outline As terminals. destination Sec major as large as not are and populations Atlanta Intermediate 3.1.1.2 in I: tion
- Anniston Douglasville imnhm Corridor Birmingham Int hpe 3 Chapter ermediate
stations: ttos r lctd ewe mjr iy etntos ln the along destinations city major between located are stations ,AL n ih n de 3 pret otnec. o the For contingency. percent 30 added an with on ,GA .
, the ,
, the the , Stations
and study
Intermediate
. These stations serve smaller city and suburban suburban and city smaller serve stations These .
identified two potential small city and/or suburban and/or city small potential two identified Intermediate
stations are characterized as Amtrak Amtrak as characterized are stations
stations is approximately $7.3 approximately is stations Atlanta d
in in -
2 - 37 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 38 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
h proe o dvlpn te prtn pa ad siaig iesi fr the for ridership estimating and corridor. plan operating the developing of purposes the downtown. in Atlanta. or Alabama site either MMPT Atlanta the port a capture than would that station this station those Additionally, for this suburbs to Atlanta travel northern rather and southern would the of portion a as well Dougl in located was station A Douglasville,Georgia
Figure Figure
3 - 5 Figure 3 Figure :Douglasville
asville , GA , - 5
illustrates the proposed station location for location station proposed the illustrates
to capture the western Atlanta suburbs as suburbs Atlanta western the capture to Intermediate ion of western Georgia travelling to travelling Georgia western of ion
Station
proposed and specifications. station the Therefore, service. corridor Crescent the for station Amtrak an houses currently Anniston addition, In Georg the and between Birmingham located is Anniston areas. surrounding the and Anniston from ridership the Douglasville, to Similar Anniston , Alabama , Intermediate
Figure Figure Figur study ia state line providing a good area for a for area good a providing line state ia
3 high e 3 e study -
6
:Anniston - prdd h eitn sain o the to station existing the upgraded 6 - speedrail station. shows the location of the existing Amtrak station station Amtrak existing the of location the shows
rpsd sain n Anniston in station a proposed Intermediate
Station
centrally AL , Intermediate
to capture capture to
station. station.
2 - 39 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 40 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
maximize system efficiency. The Dedicated Use alternative is alternative Use Dedicated The efficiency. system maximize c mile” “last (Atlanta city major each into miles few last r highway interstate Th 3.2 trackUseDedicated characteristics. 100 and areas urban double wheel, Atlanta e
(D 180 Stops) I Time (Schedule Estimations Travel Time Capacity and Geometry Track Frequency Train Capacity Train ncluding Station Station ncluding EDICATED EDICATED Table - -
220 imnhm 180 Birmingham rios tl fly eaae asne ad rih oeain to operations freight and passenger separate fully still orridors - track 3
-
3
MPH : : Atlanta
oute system - fee 1 4.9 miles route 150.7 Corridor: Total day per trips round 10 Frequency: Proposed with track Double U
hour i rrl areas. rural in t that utilizes existing freight corridor right corridor freight existing utilizes that E % of corridor % corridor of SE . The The . XPRESS XPRESS - ,
BirminghamUse Dedicated Characteristics - 18 2 mh eiae Ue lentv i a greenfield a is alternative Use Dedicated mph 220 )
Atlanta
minutes required required
/ 7.0
universal crossover every 50 miles 50 every crossover universal -
Birmingham H
miles exceed 30 minute curves minute 30 exceed miles
IGH right , GA , Table -
- of and Birmingham and S
3 -
way PEED PEED - 3 n Fgr 3 Figure and is
assumed to be 60 be to assumed R
AIL AIL an , AL ,
electrified
- - of 7 ). The shared The ). - ulns the outlines way for the for way
- , steel , feet in feet -
Figure Figure 3 - 7 :Atlanta - Birmingham DedicatedUse
Representative R Representative oute
andStations
2 - 41 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 42 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
inillustrated new a assumed Use Dedicated The the for locations the For 3.2.1 3.2.1) section right rail freight existing locations station other The xsig mrk tto i Anso i apoiaey . mls ot o the of north miles 3.2 approximately is Anniston in station Amtrak existing
Atlanta P ROPOSED Figure3 Figure Figure outlines potentialthe station - ersnaie route representative Birmingham Intermediate Dedicated Use route Use Dedicated Anniston Station Anniston 3 - - 8 Proposed Proposed 8 S . :Anniston, UseAL Station Dedicated Location
- TATIONS of - way as the as way
Anniston Amtrak Amtrak Anniston Corridor
ee ah eind o aiie acsiiiy to accessibility maximized to designed each were station just south of the existing Amtrak station, as station, Amtrak existing the of south just station
Station
teeoe fr h Ddctd Use, Dedicated the for therefore, ; , the ,
with the exception of the the of exception the with route study and associated their costs s entered urban areas. areas. urban entered s
utilized utilized an i an dentical set of station of set dentical Anniston .
Table 3 Table
the the
station. study - 2
( in
A the for speed average and time travel cumulative time, travel scheduled distance, rail 4 Table with mph, peaks in The 4.1.1 4.1 simulatedadded runningto the times toproduce suggested schedules. the train was allowance time slack (5%) percent five A simulated. were trains electric mph the over simulated were diesel tilting Shared option, the for Use report, the of I Section in discussed As corridor. the for identified wer Timetables
Speed(mph) 4 Figure 100 120 20 40 60 80 Birmingha 0 study 0.000
tlanta 90
B
- 1 S
- m
illustrates a typical travel time table outlining the outlining table time travel typical a illustrates - ran a speed profile for the Atlanta the for profile speed a ran
110 PEED - 1 Birminghamcorridor.Use Shared . The average speed along the 176 the along speed average The . Figure Figure 20.000 e developed for each of the speed options and each of the the of each and options speed the of each for developed e Speed Speed Profile
near or mph. 100above MPH MPH P 4 ROFI - 40.000 1 :Atlanta S LE AND - existing existing electric HARED HARED -
60.000 Birmingham Birmingham to Atlanta - Birmingham SharedUse SpeedProfile
NS T ris ih mxmm pe lmt f 1 mph 110 of limit speed maximum a with trains IMETABLE
rail U 4 80.000 SE
route Milepost
O
PERATING
- Birmingham Shared Use as illustrated as Use Shared Birmingham 100.000 . For the Dedicated Dedicated the For .
- mile corridor was approximately 64 64 approximately was corridor mile - MWRRS 120.000 P route - LAN AND Bscales 140.000
station segments, station U se option, 220 option, se Maximum Attainable Speed Attainable Maximum Speed Allowable Maximum
160.000 H B S - JAIA CHEDULE
route 180.000
s
2 - 43 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 44 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
would berequired sets tocover Sharedrotation.equipmentthe Use train. per seats 250 with day, per trips round six run to projected are operations Use Shared b to results revenue and ridership initial after adjusted were sizes train and frequencies train eachresult a As compatibility.corridor for size, that train same theutilize could for corridor so adjustments frequency forecast in resulting another, ridership one to compared the were of assessment Use Shared initial Birmingham an develop to frequencies train prospective the with conjunction in used were times running The 4.1.2 end two destinations.the tilt train’s indicates the taking table s minutes, even The less, or account. mph 79 into to capability train the restrict would line rail existingthe on curves ormph better, at 110 ofoperating capable wouldbe train above the in seen As Total Atlanta Airport Atlanta MMPT Douglasville Anniston Birmingh Shared Use Shared Use Table Scenario Segment
Table O
Given the combination of train frequencies and running times, four train four times, running frequenciesoftrain combination and the Given average the than lower
am PERATING 4 lne lne tan aaiy gis rdrhp o te corridor the for ridership against capacity train planned alance -
4 1
: : Atlanta -
2
: : Atlanta Round Trips per Day Distance Figure 4 Figure 176.0 P - 26.7 76.4 63.7 Rail Rail Birmingham 9.0 0.0 LAN -
C BirminghamUse Shared Train Frequency rio. n diin te eut o te he corridors three the of results the addition, In orridor.
6
- 1
and auto d auto Travel Time 2:4 0:08 0: 1:19 0:56 0:00 Shared UseShared 23 Table 4 Table 6
riving time (2 hours 26 minutes) between minutes) 26 hours (2 time riving # of# Seats per Train Cumulative Travel - 1
, although the tilting diesel tilting the although , tae tm o 2 or ad 46 and hours 2 of time travel a SpeedandTravelTime Table 250 Time 2:4 2:47 2:38 2:15 0:56 0:00
6
Average Speed # of# Train
and Size
(mph) h Atlanta the 64 65 67 58 68 0 4
- -
Sets electric
T .
, the ,
NS he - -
Atlanta the for speed average and time travel cumulative time, travel scheduled distance, rail 4 Table with 117consistent wasapproximately mph, segments ornear150 above mph. route The 4.2.1 4.2 Speed(mph) 100 150 200 250 Birmingham 50 0 0.000 study
B 180 as illustrated as
- 3 S illustrates a typical travel time table outlining the outlining table time travel typical a illustrates
Figure Figure PEED - developed - Birmingham Speed Speed Profile 220 20.000 P 4
- MPH ROFILE AND 2 in Figu in :Atlanta 40.000 sed rfl fr h Atlanta the for profile speed a Dedicated - Birmingham Birmingham to Atlanta D re 4 re EDICATED EDICATED
- Birmingham - 2 60.000 . The average speed along the 15 the along speed average The . T
Use corridor.Use IMETABLE Milepost 80.000 U Dedicated SE
-
RMRA
100.000
- UseSpeedProfile - imnhm eiae Use Dedicated Birmingham 220 Electric Electric Loco 220 route 120.000
station segments, station 1 140.000 - Maximum Attainable Speed Attainable Maximum Speed Allowable Maximum mile corridor mile B H -
JAIA
160.000
2 - 45 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 46 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
option. Use train five times, running and frequencies with day, per trips round the result, a As corridor. the and revenueridership results to bala corridor for size, train same compatibility. the utilize could corridor each that so adjustments threeof thecorridor results ridership the Atlanta of the assessment for initial forecast an develop to frequencies train prospective Simila 4.2.2 18time of 1 minutes, compared hour, toauto travelat a the with comparison time running the on curvature I following above the in seen As Total Atlanta Airport Atlanta MMPT Douglasville Anniston Birmingham Dedicated Dedicated Table Scenario Table t Sae Ue t Use, Shared to r
Segment O 4
-
- PERATING Use 20 would achieve higher speeds, although as the speed profile shows, profile speed the as although speeds, higher achieve would 20
3 4 Use
: : Atlanta -
4
: : Atlanta
T e ri feunis n tan ie wr ajse atr initial after adjusted were sizes train and frequencies train he route Round Trips per Day - Birmingham Table 4 Table P
- would would Distance BirminghamUse Dedicated FrequencyTrain andSize LAN - 150.7 Birmingham e unn tms ee sd n ojnto wt the with conjunction in used were times running he 20.8 59.4 63.0 Rail Rail 7.4 0.0 s were comparedwere another,s resultingto one infrequency 265 10
-
2
Dedicated of speeds maximum allow
et pr train. per seats and DedicatedUse nce againstplanned capacity ridershipfortrain
utomobile is favorable with an average travel average an with favorable is utomobile Table 4 Table Travel Time 1:18 0:06 0:12 0:28 0:32 0:00
Dedicated
- Use operations are projected to run run to projected are operations Use sets # of# Seats per Train
- 3
would be needed for the Dedicated the for needed be would
the proposed proposed the
265 Travel Time Cumulative Use ie te obnto o train of combination the Given SpeedandTravelTime Table
1:18 1:18 1:12 1:00 0:32 0:00 2 C hours, 26minutes. hours, rio. n diin the addition, In orridor.
150 mph. However, the However, mph. 150
Dedicated Use route Use Dedicated # of# Train Average Speed (mph) 5 117 101 12 116 76
0
6 -
Sets
ten
the being dominant Atlanta with employment, of centers major the also are Birmingham) and (Atlanta in shown as Similarly, the in density low of cities. areas the between with Birmingham), and (Atlanta corridor the of end each The E on forecasts year future produce also methodologies. revenue Poole and Woods demographics Similarly, data. Cen U.S. on based are which 2011 Forecasts Economic Poole and Woods (2020 years future in presented and information demographic (2010) historical base the both for corrid presented on information revenue, and ridership to back (refer section conditions existing the upon This 5.1 XISTING Atlanta Atlanta
chapter C Figure Figure ORRIDOR - ( - Birmingham Corridor 2010 imnhm Corridor Birmingham
presents information on the demographic characteristics and builds builds and characteristics demographic the on information presents . 5 - ee bc t Scin : hpe 3 o dtie rdrhp and ridership detailed for 3 Chapter I: Section to back Refer 1 : Source: and Forecasts, Economic Woods Poole 2011 )
Atlanta
employment hubcorridor. in the Figure 5 Figure D iue 5 Figure
EMOGRAPHICS - Birmingham - 1
presents a county a presents - .
2
has two main centers of of centers main two has , the two two the , Base(2010) Year Map Population
erpltn ttsia aes (MSA) areas statistical metropolitan r ouain n epomn is employment and population or - 5 Section Section level population map focused on focused map population level Chapter
R IDERSHIP AND
5.1.1
1 ouain lctd at located population, ). For the purposes of purposes the For ).
- w 00. l o the of All 2040). as
obtained from obtained sus Bureau sus
R EVENUE
2 - 47 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 48 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
20
Birmingham and employment in increase no negative experiencing growthemployment over lastfivethe years. almost observing Atlanta with se employment the hit recent has the downturn However, economic modest. more been has Birmingham in growth population experienced has Atlanta Orga Planning Metropolitan 5 Table RPC ARC CompoundGrowth Annual Rate (CAGR) GB
Figure Figure - MPO 1
Table Table Table 5 Table
5 - 5 2 - - : 1 2 Atlanta Source: and Forecasts, Economic Woods Poole 2011 :HistoricalPopulation Trendfor MPO Areas Coverage show the historical population and employment trends for the for trends employment and population historical the show Source: and Forecasts, Economic Woods Poole 2011
2005 2005 Population rapid rapid 4,934,314 - Birmingham 831,393 nization (MPO) coverage areas for the ARC and RPCGB. and ARC the for areas coverage (MPO) nization
population growth over the past five years, while the while years, five past the populationgrowth over
Base(2010)Map Year Employment 2010 2010 Population 5,566,062 865,070 tr f oh ein significantly regions both of ctor
05 - 10 10 CAGR 0.80% 2.44%
20
suburbthe in highest The populations. 2010 to compared similar essentially remain will level county the at population of 2035 and 2020 The 5.1.1 RPCGB ARC
MPO Table F UTURE
anareas sur 5 - Figure Figure 2 : Historical : Y Source: and Forecasts, Economic Woods Poole 2011 ( Figure 5 Figure EAR Source: and Forecasts, Economic Woods Poole 2011 2005 2005 Population 5 - rounding
3 projected (2020 3,013,970 : 558,737 Atlanta -
3 Employment MPO Trend for Coverage Areas
and -
20 Atlanta and BirminghamAtlantaand seeninas
Figure
- population growths in the region are observed observed are region the in growths population Birmingham 35
)
5 D - 4 EMOGRAPHICS 2010 2010 Population ,
respectively) geographic distribution geographic respectively) 3,012,811 518,476 2020 Population 2020
05 Figure 5 - - - 10 10 CAGR 1.48% 0.01%
- 5
.
2 - 49 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 50 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
healthy growthsuntilexperience population 2035. 3 decade past the over observed growth population rapid the to compared nationwide, forecast growth population The hw ta te ra cvrd y oh h AC n RCB r epce to expected are RPCGB and ARC the both by covered areas the that shows Figure Figure predicting a slower annual population growth in in growth population annual slower a predicting 5 Figure Source: and Woods Poole Source: and Forecasts, Economic Woods Poole 2011 - 5 : Atlanta 5 - 4 : Atlanta - Birmingham follow -
Economic Forecasts, 2011 Birmingham
the latest trends observed in the region and region the in observed trends latest the 2020 - 2035Population Growth 2035 Population 2035
uue er as years future
. . Table 5 Table -
Source: and Forecasts, Economic woods Poole 2011 inBirmingham observed toAtlanta. compared growthpopulationslower a with level,population the at observed is what to trends em The 2035. and 2020 between while respectively; 2035, Figure RPCGB ARC MPO
5
- 6
an Population 4,934,314 831,393 d Figure5 d Table 2005 2005 Figure Figure 5
- Source: and Forecasts, Economic Woods Poole 2011
3
: Population : forecastsCoverage MPOAreas for - 5 7 - Population
6 Figure 5 Figure 5,566,062 show the county level employment for the years 2020 and years levelcounty the for employment2020 the show 865,070 : 2010 2010 Atlanta
-
8
ployment growth forecasts are following similar following are forecasts growth ployment
-
and Birmingham
Population 6,523,568 943,910 Table 5 Table 2020 2020
-
4
2020 Employment2020 present the employment growths growths employment the present Population 1,067,896 7,997,611 2035 2035
0 2.44% 05 CAGR .80%
- 10
0.83% 1.37% 20 CAGR - 35 35
2 - 51 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 52 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
Figure Figure 5 Figure Figure - 8 Source: and Forecasts, Economic Woods Poole 2011 : Source: and Forecasts, Economic Woods Poole 2011 Atlanta 5 - 7 : Atlanta - Birmingham - Birmingham
2020 - 2035EmploymentGrowth 2035 Employment2035
theto nearest vehicles thousand 21 origin the endpointsection one from other.tothe not and section, road designated the on volumes these that note to important is It Birmingham. and Atlanta traffic daily average (annual cities these connecting data count Traffic Birmingham. and predominant the is Automobile 5.2.1.1 inter which Atlantaand between Birmingham: by modes travel four are There 5.2.1 air connect market. corridor this in discussed As 5.2 RPCGB The traffic counts should not be interpreted as the volume of trips between these cities. AADTs a AADTs cities. these between trips of volume the as interpreted be not should counts traffic The MPO A RC
Birmingham I - M
20 between20 Atlanta and
Rail service. service; Air and service;Bus travel;Automobile T
ARKET ARKET Automobile Travel Automobile HE Table I in Section I: Chapter 3 Chapter I: Section in 2005 2005 Em NTER 3,013,970 Table Location 558,737
–
5 h inter the A
- - 5 4 U NALYSIS p. - : : Employment Coverage MPOForecastsAreas for Source: http://aldotgis.dot.state.al.us/atd/defaul
5 Source: and Forecasts, Economic Woods Poole 2011
RBAN
. .
:
Atlanta Table 5 Table
-
2010 2010 Em ra tae mre; h lcl rvl akt ad the and market; travel local the market; travel urban 3,012,811 518,476 [
M AADT ARKET - - 5 Birmingham oe f tr of mode
sets out some recent relevant traffic count data count traffic relevant recent some out sets , three main travel markets have been identified been have markets travel main three , AADT 30,000 ] p. ) on I on )
is
available on major roadways and interstates and roadways major on available
21 2020 2020 Emp. 3,545,633 585,062
-
20, the 20, nprain utilized ansportation Selected Traffic Counts - ra tis a crety e made be currently can trips urban Year and CountSite Reference 2011, I20 @Alabama line 143
main intercity highway between highway intercity main 2035 2035 Emp. 4,425,027 681,173 t.aspx 0126
represent
-
etnto demand destination
- 1
- - ewe Atlanta between CAGR 05 1.48 0.01 -
10 % %
total traffic total
re rounded rounded re -
1.02 1.49 CAGR 20 - 35 35 % %
2 - 53 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 54 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
ordr Te aa s ore fo cmeca juny lnig software planning journey commercial route. each from sourced is (Mapquest.com) data The corridor. 5 Table Atlantaand between Birminghamsince (asin 1995 seen traffichistorical anThe counts averageshow data annualgrowthof Louisville Outside the Birminghamto Atlanta Corridor (for comparison purposes): Atlanta Within the Birminghamto Atlanta Corridor: Table - 6 - Corridor
5 Birmingham – the in times travel and distances travel automobile end to end shows -
7 Atlanta Tab : : AutoObserved (inTraffic Growth 1995AADT) between and2010 Atlanta
le
and reflects speed limits and representative congestion levels on levels congestion representative and limits speed reflects and
5 - - 6
Route Birmingham : : DistancesTimesTravel Pairsbetweenand City
Location
I I - - 75 20
Source: Mapquest.com Distance (miles) Traffic Count
57,100 25,963 147 1995
Table5 Traff Time (min) 62,527 33,460 2010 151 ic Count - 7
and
1.71 percent
Figure 5 0.61% 1.71% CAGR 95 - 10 - 9
).
22 in presented is 5 Table Birmingham and Atlanta between services bus the of summary A 5.2.1.2 Birmingham Atlanta Birmingham Atlanta Birmingham Atlanta Figure Figure Full sta or City Pair
2010Counts Traffic Counts 1995 Traffic 5
- – – – 8 -
Bus Service Bus ndard weekday fares, weekend and 9 .
:
Atlanta Source: www.grehound.com, www.amtrak.com, www.theairportexpress.com City toCity city Airportto Airportto Table Airport Route city - Birmingham
5
- Source: http://aldotgis.dot.state.al.us
8
: Atlanta Greyhound Greyhound Operator Express Airport
Observed Auto Auto Observed (inAADT) Traffic in 1995 and 2010 - Birmingham
Rounded to nearest dollarRounded nearest to
33,460 25,963 #1 2h 55m (w 5h 10m 2h
Travel time
30m (direct) 3h 30m
Bus Summary Service - 7h 20m / 62,527 57,100 #2 /atd/default.aspx stops)
M Frequency S - - 2x/day 5x/day S 2x/day F 3x/day
Full fare $35 $35 $9 - - $39 $39
22
2 - 55 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 56 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
supin o 5 sas e bs n la fa load and above, and table bus the per in seats out set 50 frequencies of service were assumptions the factors on load and Based capacity bus prepared. on based estimates ridership approximate numbers. ridership release Neverthel to reluctant generally are operators bus Commercial congestionpatterns, stopping and/ortransfer times. reflect and variable highly are times Travel low. generally are frequencies Service o services bus of variety a are there that shows table The h tbe hr i there table, the origin true many too not are thereairports, two these between distance short relatively the Given diagonal. the left the to shown volumes passenger outbound with direction, by airports area study of pair 5 Table BHM ATL many longer for point connection a as well as destinations, international and domestic numerous to flights to connect to southeast the throughout passengers for gateway a as serves area, study the in airport airport busiest world’s hub large the is importance particular Of per enplanements and enpla airport, departure. passenger the at domestic operating 2010 carriers passenger of departures, terms in among airports ranking airport’s U.S. the airports. includes table large The two airports. these by of characteristics served is area study The 5.2.1.3 have operations exclu been these however, operators; bus charter some be also may There substantiallysmaller than the market.potential auto one 45,000 potentially Code
H Airport Shuttles Birmingham - 10 Direct Air Service Air Direct - JAIA s, n h asne f n ifrain rm hs operators, these from information any of absence the in ess, Airport
ded ded thefrom analysis. Table of the diagonal and inbound passenger volumes shown to the right of right the to shown volumes passenger inbound and diagonal the of shows the total number of true origin true of number total the shows
worth - distancetrips. 5
ol bu 800 on opitartis ewe Alna and Atlanta between trips air point to point 8,000 about only s - - 9 : Atlanta
- Rank and a major hub for Delta and AirTran airl AirTran and Delta for hub major a and way trips being made per year (in each direction), which is which direction), each (in year per made being trips way 73 1 Source: www.bts.gov Airport Snapshotsfrom
- - Birmingham Major destination air trip made in this corridor. As seen in seen As corridor. this in made trip air destination Enplanements
38,362,000 Passenger 1,434,000
2010 2010
Departures Scheduled 429,258 24,794 2010 2010 Airport CharacteristicsAirport tr o 5 pret tee are there percent, 50 of ctors - destination trips between each between trips destination
al 5 Table
perating in the corridors. the in perating Passenger
Carriers 2010 2010 21 31 - eet, scheduled nements, 9
rsns h key the presents ines. This airport This ines.
Enplanements per Departure H
- JAIA 58 89
the ,
and data Work to Journey Census 2000 the from information using calculated Anniston 20 in and made been Birmingham have to estimated were trips communing 149,000 Atlanta the w trips Local are threeThere maintypesoflocal trips: 5.2.2 and BirminghamAtlanta to be negligible. of focus likely the trips, and service longer of towards service frequency this for low marketing Amtrak’s the mode, auto the to compared signi the Given reservations. suggests long Amtrak’s on provided facilities one Birmingha and Atlanta between service this for time running schedule The Louisiana. Orleans, New and York New York New between direction each in train daily a includes service Crescent The ser Crescent Amtrak’s 5.2.1.4 corridor between two the a under later (described trips air connect of number significant a are of presence the However,given annually. Birmingham - way fare quoted on the Amtrak website is $32. The service offers the typical the offers service The $32. is website Amtrak the on quoted fare way
Table
not not is itself trip longer the where and corridor study the outside is destination ultimate the (where trip longer a of part as airport, the access to trips Local tripLocal centers);city the in terminate and suburbs the in originate to likely (most work to Journeys L Rail Service Rail OCAL study - expected 5 Chattanooga ere estimated using the U.S. Census 2000 Journey to Work data and data Work to Journey 2000 Census U.S. the using estimated ere - 10
estimated the mode of mode the estimated T :Origin s for leisurefors andpurposes; iat rvl ie iavnae f mrks rset service Crescent Amtrak’s of disadvantage time travel ficant RAVEL BHM ATL Dest
to shift toshift the new
ie urnl srie te tat t Briga corridor. Birmingham to Atlanta the services currently vice
ination -
Destination by Air DirectionTrips (Q4 2009 HSGT Tier I Tier HSGT M Source:Market DB1B Data (www.bts.gov) irports. AL , ARKET / Origin/ m is approximately 4 hours, 10 minutes. The adult The minutes. 10 hours, 4 approximately is m and ,
-
distance trains and the online journey planner journey online the and trains distance EIS study. In the In study. EIS high
ogavle n Atlanta and Douglasville share of conventional rail for trips between trips for rail conventional of share
-
speed
3,790 ATL
railservice). - distance (or even end even (or distance Atlanta H 4,330 BHM -
JAIA
-
BirminghamCorridor as a major hub, there major hub, a as GA , - Q32010) Chapter Ti was This . 15
between - to
5.2.3 -
end) City ) , ,
2 - 57 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 58 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
T 5.2.3 Atlanta the form adjustments appropriate with directly taken were area metro Atlanta the for toaccess trips Local Census. 2000 the identified in trips multiples as calculated then was trips local of number total The socio Poole and Woods using forecasting system.rail speed to/from get can they to Birmingham in consider travelers air for plausible is it airports, the between miles) 150 share ofconnecting relativ and high thetraffic Given in presented pairs origin airport demonstrat true same the the with on routes traffic these on counts passenger Comparing which onshortservice aircraft, regional using operated are flights the of many Atlanta for sizes aircraft average small relatively the by illustrated As pe passenger averageand flight, per averagesets frequency, averagedaily departures, scheduled seats, scheduled passengers, total includes table The consideration. under market Shutt Table other to destinations. flightsconnectinginclude not doesand Birmingham, and Atlanta between traveling market travel air connect The the from differs airports. two the between travelers air connect Birmingham the and ATL he proposed high proposed he City Pair Source - BHM ewrh ipr ar hc poie a eibe siae o h cnet air connect the for estimate reliable a provides which pair Airport lesworth 5
C - 11 : T H ONNECT
-
- 100 segment forpassengers ATL Q4 scheduled data Q3 corridorfrom/to 2009to for 2010, in shows segment shows - JAIA s ht lot l o te i taees n hs akt r connecting. are market this in travelers air the of all almost that es Chattanooga Passengers r flightr forQ3 2009 Q4 2010. to 257,423
-
as a possible alternate origin/destination of their air trips as long as trips air long as oftheir origin/destination alternatepossible a as haul routeshaul betweenmedium data shown in shown data
- A speed rail service may provide a viable service between between service viable a provide may service rail speed - IR Shuttlesworth Airport, which may result in attracting current attracting in result may which Airport, Shuttlesworth
H
M - Table JAIA HSGT TierHSGTI 324,154 ARKET - level tr level Seats
n rltvl qik ie sn te rpsd high proposed the using time quick relatively a in 5
Table 5 Table -
11
affic information for the for information affic :Air Services Summary
Departures www.bts.gov EIS study.EIS Scheduled 4,745 - 10
- on page 2 page on cnmc n dmgahc forecasts. demographic and economic
-
sized citieslargesized and hubs.
Flights/ al 5 Table ely shorter distance (ATLdistance shorter ely Day 13 - 55
H
shows just the passenger the just shows - JAIA
H - 0 Table 10, - JAIA Seats/ Flight
and other local trips other local and 68
of the communing the of
yial provides typically and and
- Birmingham Birmingham, - 5 Passengers destination -
/ Flight/ 11 54
H - above BHM:
- JAIA
- -
23 results of The sensitivity analyses these arepresented in directly contribute that factors in increases ridership revenue,towards and the unforeseen for account to order In the toassumptions) and basecaseaddition fare other bothforservice levels. bases the of part a as 2035 and 2015 the and costs operating auto of doubling the use to decided was it study, feasibility a of estimates broad the and othe against benchmarks on Based services. rail Use Dedicated and Use Shared proposed the both for forecasts the sections, subsequent the In section 3.3alsowithin and graphically 3 inFigure Cha 1, Section in detail more in explained is approach forecasting The level. high several test to study the enables models diversion the in attributes service of level modes high new to theexisting the the by multiplied then are mode year probabilities future The attributes. service of level mode’s high choose would probability the model, current and segment market purposes, trip high div binary uses methodology forecasting demand The inlater presented and base the for scenarios forecasts revenue and ridership the presents section This 5.3 $0.28 - -
D speed rail service frequencies and to accordingly adjust them to the ridership ridership the to them adjust accordingly to and frequencies service rail speed of combination each for computes, model diversion Each ridership. rail speed /mile with $5 boarding fee for S /mile with $5boardingfor fee F edicated Effect of Effect congestion.higher of Effect higher of Effect auto (e.g., higher operatingcosts prices); fuel ORECASTS 23
(refer back to Section I: Chapter 3) Chapter I: Section to back (refer U e high se - thischapter pcfc rvl oue t cluae h dvre vlms from volumes diverted the calculate to volumes travel specific - speed rail over its current mode of travel as a as travel of mode current its over rail speed
- socioeconomic forecastbetween 2035; and and 2015
- pe ri srie. fr sniiiy nlss s also is analysis sensitivity fare A services. rail speed
hared four rgoa high regional r .
study
U percent increase in highway congestion between between congestion highway in increase percent
- se $0.40/mile $5boarding and fee with for study speedsystem.inclusionTherail ofeach
presents the base case ridership and revenue revenue and ridership case base the presents cases for a total of 28 percent increase (in (in increase percent 28 of total a for cases
studiedt - pe gon tasotto studies transportation ground speed for both the proposed the both for - 18. hefollowing:
rin oes o calculate to models ersion Table 5
- 12
function of each of function below: D
that a traveler a that edicated S hared hared ae fare case
U mode’s
se. pter 3 pter
U se
2 - 59 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 60 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
Corridor Birmingham (2021 revenue ridershipand total wellas as and 2040 2021, 2030 revenue and for ridership annual during expected are (annually) $ be will ridership service assu the During 5.3.1 46.1
ilo. y 00 2. 2040, By million. increase increase approximate an in result would ridership on congestion of impact resulting base the percen 11 of assumption case from increase percent 14 additional an by increase would times the Then, 2035. and 2015 between scenarios the case base the by from time travel reported the in increase and percent 11 an Atlanta to translated in growth congestion in trends an in result Growth: Congestion would Higher This 2035. and 10percentincrease. additional 2015 ab between percent annually, 0.5 forecast, additional an by population Growth: Population Higher to relativelythe highersensitivity cost in thatto metropolitan region. due Atlanta in prominent more is costs operating higher of impact The $0.10/mile were non costs for $0.55/mile and auto average where case base the to compared is This revenue. and ridership in increase percent 24 a a as much as add is would two of factor a by costs increasing operating advances, efficiency fuel continuing with coupled but possible, Costs: Operating Auto Doubling F 90 forecasts) between 2015 and 2035 aboveSDG Highercongest 0.5% annually aboveW&P forecasts) Higherpopulation growth (additional Doubling auto operating costs ORECASTS - 110 - 2040), rounded to the nearest thousand, nearest the to rounded 2040), of med first year of operation in 2021, the proposed the 2021, in operation of year first med
MPH four Scenario .
ion (additional 14% Table percent in ridershipand percent revenue. (202 S HARE 1. 6
T 5 1 1 million - ested - business and business travel purposes, respectively. purposes, travel business and business -
12 2040) D tay tt oeain operation. state steady ilo rdr ad $ and riders million
:FactorExternal Analyses U
SE
o te ae ae the case, base the For t growth for a total growth of 25 percent. The percent. 25 of total a growth growthfor t
The ih n soitd ikt eeu fgr of figure revenue ticket associated an with
R
ihr nrae i fe pie cud be could prices fuel in increases Higher study IDERSHIP AND
etd seai ta increases that scenario a tested luil seai. hs scenario This scenario. plausible % Increase in R v te od ad Poole and Woods the ove 61.7 study
expected for the for expected al 5 Table
R +10% +24% +4% ilo tce revenue ticket million
EVENUE
study sue ta travel that assumed
idership - 13
S sd historical used
hared hared illustrates t illustrates
T. This TTI.
Atlanta U se rail se he -
as fare basecasethe shared But, use service. more than significantly the attract riders the Hence, service. Use to Shared the of compared those pairs station all between times running lower and frequency higher high Use Dedicated proposed The $ of revenue ticket with operation, state steady during basis annual an on expected are the o of fee, boarding $5 with $0.40/mile Corridor Birmingham of assumption fare base a With 5.3.2 or end to Atlanta downtown end are flows ridership the of most stati at place take boardings the of majority the that table the from high use shared the for volumes 5 Table Table sumption for the Dedicated Use service is also significantly higher compared to compared higher significantly also is service Use Dedicated the for sumption 96.7 peration (2021) and ticket revenue of $ of revenue ticket and (2021) peration ons Table
F 180 - 5
Total Annual Bo AtlantaAirport AtlantaMMPT Douglas Anniston Birmingham 14 million. H ORECASTS - 13 - 5 JAIA - rsns h poetd bi projected the presents - :90 14 220 :UseShared Base 2035 Birmingham and MMPT Atlanta ,
-
Station 110 mph110Use Shared
MPH MMPT.
would attract approximately 1. approximately attract would Total 2040 2030 2021
Year (202
ardings D
EDICATED
1 Volumes (BiVolumes -
2040) - 2035 2035 Boardings 2040 in2010$) 2040 pe ri i te corridor the in rail speed 37,177,000 2,087,000 1,847,000 1,613,000 Ridership - 1,966,819 pe ri srie prtn pa assume plan operating service rail speed 444,853 888,210 476,253
94,704 62,799 U Base - AnnualStation Boardings and Segment direction SE - Directional)
83.8 AnnualRevenue Ridership and R
D
IDERSHIP AND edicated
al million. By 2040, 2. 2040, By million.
H $1, tto badns n segment and boardings station emnl Station Terminal - 2035 Segment2035 Volumes $61,731,000 $53,480,000 $46,054,000 JAIA 9 077,851
Revenue
million riders in the first year first the in riders million U
se service would naturally naturally would service se ipr acce airport 889,706 940,663 995,880 952,627
,000 n 2035 in
R -
the three larger city city larger three the
EVENUE
Additionally, . 5 I i evident is It .
ss trips from from trips ss million riders million
(2021 Atlanta a s - -
2 - 61 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 62 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
than the ridershipthan advantage than more are service use Shared the over service Use Dedicated the of advantages revenue ticket The figures. revenue ticket higher for assumption fare base all for service Use 5 This $0.28/mile). to over service Use opposed as ($0.40/mile service Dedicated the of advantage time travel and frequency the offset has fare increased Use Shared the of that ri about be to expected are services Use Dedicated and Use Shared the Overofoperation, 20ridership years 2040.(andrevenue) these theand accrual for highUse Dedicated and UseShared proposed the 5 Figure 5.3.3 follow same thosethe trend as Use Shard of the se service Use Dedicated the for pairs station the between segments various 5 Table Table Table - ders (and ders $ 15
that the ridership advantages of the Dedicated Use service over over service Use Dedicated the of advantages ridership the that 5
R 5 - - - 16 - 16 10 15 IDERSHIP AND :DedicatedUse AnnualBase Case2035 BoardingsStation and Segment :180 presents presents Total Annual Boardings AtlantaAirport AtlantaMMPT Douglas Anniston Birmingham hw ta te tto badns n rdrhp flows ridership and boardings station the that shows 1.1
billion) andbillion) - the Shared Use serviced a large extent. This can be seen in seen be can This extent. large a serviced Use Shared the 220 mph220 DedicatedUse y
ears are only in the order of 16 of order the in only are ears
total Total 2040 2030 2021 Year Station
R
ridership and revenue for revenue and for ridership h Ddctd s srie a rsle i significant in resulted has service Use Dedicated the EVENUE 46.2
) Volumes (bi Volumes for all for
million(and$1. riders
44,270 2, 2,199,000 1, Ridership
years asyears in presented in 2010$) in 481,000 946,000 F ORECAST ,000 - Base directional) Boardings 2,340,017 rvice. 550,295 964,474 114,782 650,917 59,549
2035 2035
RidershipandRevenue
- speed rail services between 2021betweenservices rail speed $
C
36 1,
$96,693,000 $84,113,000 $83,791,000
the percent. However, the higher the However, percent. OMPARISON 694,837 Revenue
percent 8
base case scenariobasecase billion), respectively.
2035 Segment2035 Table5 1,100,590 1,265,197 1,303,8 1,301,940 Volumes ,000
(
considerably higher considerably -
- 15. 83 (
2021
(in 2035) 2035) (in
(2021 38.7 the Shared the - for bothfor 2040
million -
2040 Table for )
those areand flying that important tocapture.also non on impact positive have can service rail passenger receive only not to order revenues in farebox revenue in and ridership detail both in maximize to described important is increasing far which thus maximizing levels, Surplus, ridership revenue Consumer higher the generates below fare is $0.28/mile the service However, Use Shared the of fare for base the to that $0.28/mile suggests compared This case. increases base the revenue including scenarios generates fare lower $0.40/mile even to fares increasing years separate high Use three Shared the for fee) boarding $5 with ($0.28/mile case base the into addition fees) $5boarding with both $0.40/mileand ($0.20/mile thousand) 5 Table 5.4.1 high Use Dedicated and Shared the both for first presented is revenue and ridership on fares of effect The analysis. sensitivity the of results the present sections following 3 Chapter In 5.4 Figure Figure
addition to the base case and earlier sensitivity analyses discussed discussed analyses sensitivity earlier and case base the to addition -
speedrail services. S
S 5 - ENSITIVITY ENSITIVITY 17 - HARED 10 , additional sensitivity tests on the effects of fares was performed. The performed. was fares of effects the on tests sensitivity additional ,
ubr fr the for numbers : rsns h ttl iesi ad revenue and ridership total the presents Atlanta , but also provide a valuable service to consumers. Additionally, consumers. to service valuable a provide also but , U SE -
Birmingham Corridor 22, 00 n 2040) and 2030 (2021, F A
ARE NALYSIS
Atlanta S ( 2021 ENSITIVITY - - 2040 Birming
in in 2010$)
Total Total
a Corridor ham I i evid is It . Ridership and Revenue Forecasts andRevenue Ridership
- users such as auto motorists motorists auto as such users eto I Catr 3 Chapter I: Section
(rounded to the nearest nearest the to (rounded ent from the table that that table the from ent
o to ae scenarios fare two for - pe ri srie for service rail speed in Section I: Section in I is It . e.
2 - 63 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 64 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
consequentlyand public loss loss. benefits ridership significant with associated also are levels fare higher the However, case. base the with compared level fare $0.70/mile the with generated be can revenue) rev ticket additional substantial fact, In levels. maximizing revenue the than lower are fares base casethe that indicating service base the Use Dedicated thefor revenues higher generates to of$0.40/mile fare base the above addition in Sha the to Similar years. separate fees) three boarding $5 high Use Dedicated the for fee) boarding $5 with with ($0.40/mile both $0.70/mile and the for numbers 5 Table 5.4.2 Table
T
5 - able 18 - D 17 2040 2030 2021 2040 20 2021 Year Year EDICATED presents the total ridership and revenue and ridership total the presents : Fare forUseSensitivity Shared High 30 5
-
18 : Fare forSensitivityUse Dedicated High Atla nta U Scenario 1 Scenario 1 $0.40/mile $0.20/mile 2,353,000 2,083,000 1,840,000 2,481,000 2,199,000 1, SE - $ $84.1 $ $ $ $ imnhm Corridor Birmingham 946,000 96.7 72.8 53.3 46. 40.0 F 3 M 3 ARE
M M M M M
- - Annual Volume and Revenue Annual Volume and Revenue
S ENSITIVITY 2010$) enue (in the order of 20 percent additional percent 20 of order the (in enue red Use service sensitivity, increasing fares increasing sensitivity, service Use red
Scenario 2 Scenario 2 $0.28/mile $0.55/mile 2,087,000 1,847,000 1,613,000 2,102,000 1,862,000 1,647,000
$109.5 M $ $5 $ $95.1 M $82.2 M 61.7 46.1
3.5 o to ae cnro ($0.55/mile scenarios fare two for - Speed Rail Speed Service
M M M
(rounded to nearest thousand) nearest to (rounded
- -
- SpeedRail Service
- speed rail service for service rail speed Scenario 3 Scenario 3 $0.40/mile $0.70/mile 1,760,000 1,558,000 1,375,000 1,818,000 1,612,000 1,427,00 $117.0 $ $70.0 $ $ $ 101.7 60.5 51.9 87.8
(2021
M M M M
M M 0
- -
- 2040 in2040
corridor studies. diesel Sharedcorridor Use for made was studie corridor rail speed high national and regional of review peer a on 180 24 in downward IntermediateOptimisticandthe Scenarios forall technologies. adjusted were estimates cost Capital drivers. ridership appropriate the by adjusted Inter to corridors the Use Dedicated establish for increased were estimates revenue and ridership typically estimates cost operating revenue and capital revenue, encountered ridership, of range a evaluation, the up setting In 5.4.4 assumed the year of2021opening Shared andUseforthein Dedicated starting operations of years 20 over accrued be will that revenue 5 Table 5.4.3
Ridership adjustments for Intermedi for Ridershipadjustments Table - 220 mph electrified, steel Table
Scenario 3 Scenario 2 Scenario 1 Scenario 3 Scenario 2 Scenario 1 E - , 19 5
S S VALUATION capital and operatingand capital - 5 20 HAREDAND UMMARY - and 19
:DedicatedUse Ridership andRevenueTotal (2021Summary Years 2021 Years 2021 in a feasibility a in :UseShared Total Ridership Summaryand Revenue (2021 Table 5 Table ------
$0.70/mile $0.55/mile $0.40/mile $0.40/mile $0.28/mile $0.20/mile eit ad piitc Scenarios. Optimistic and mediate
-
S wheel and Maglev technologies (Maglev in Atlanta in (Maglev Maglevtechnologies wheel and - - - 2040 2040 20 CENARIOS D
EDICATED - below summar below level analysis. Unadjusted Unadjusted analysis. level
three scenarios were developed to show the impact of of impact the show to developed were scenarios three
ate and Optimistic Scenarios were only made for Dedicated Use corridor corridor Use Dedicated for made only were Scenarios Optimistic and ate
- electric technology results based on a peer review of other sharedother of reviewpeer a basedon results technology electric costs
were used for the C the forused were U 31,353,000 38,792,000 41,928,000 32,448,000 37,487,000 46,188,000 Ridership Ridership SE
ize the total number of passengers and passengers of number total the ize T OTAL
R s. No scenario ridership adjustment adjustment ridership scenario No s. base forecasts for forecasts base IDERSHIPAND U onservative 24 serespectively.services, Revenue (2010$)
Revenue (2010$) $ prtn css were costs Operating - Louisville corridor only) based Louisville corridoronly) based 932.8 $2.1 $1. $1.8 $1.2 billion $ 1.1 9
billion billion billion billion
million Scenario. Base Scenario.
R
- 2040) ridership, EVENUE
- 2040)
- use use
2 - 65 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 66 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
capital cost estimates for the operating ratio and benefit and ratio operating the for estimates cost capital Conservative 5.4.4.1 revenues ridership, evaluation further feasibility the at estimates of c to intended are scenarios three The increased by 100 percent to become comparable to other peer studies within the within studies peer other to comparable become to percent 100 by increased the for scenario This 5.4.4.3 the feasibility in evaluation scenario ( costs capital and costs maintenance leve revenue and ridership These thousand. nearest 2040 and 2030 2021, for estimates the than 5 Table higher percent estimates. 75 approximately are estimates revenue Optimistic The 5.4.4.2 forecasts. revenue add for 3 methodology. Chapter I: Section to Table
Intermediate
Atlan - Intermediate Conservative Optimistic based based 5
- scen 21
ta scenario estimates use base case ridership case base use estimates scenario uses uses : Intermediate - ro, aacn bt rdrhp n cs rss Te iesi and ridership The risks. cost and ridership both balancing arios, operating ratios and benefit and ratios operating imnhm Corridor Birmingham al 5 Table
ftr suis w studies future , higher ridership and revenue and a lower capital cost estimate cost capital lower a and revenue and ridership higher
Scenario Scenario and costs, - scenario represents a balance between between balance a represents scenario 2 ulns the outlines 22
Total 2040 2030 2021 Year Scenario Scenario Scenario Estimates Scenario - 5 n ae 2 page on 15
.
Scenario AnnualScenarioRidership Estimates andRevenue Estimates - narrowing level of study of level (2021 Estimates 77,473,000 4, 3,849,000 3,406, Ridership s i cnucin ih forecast with conjunction in ls, toa dtis n the on details itional 341,000
- Intermediate 2040 in 2010$) apture and illustrate the relatively wide range wide relatively the illustrate and apture s el s oa (2021 total as well as Te iesi ad eeu etmts are estimates revenue and ridership The . ill refer to to refer
- 000
rvd getr detail greater provide 0 umrzs ae ae iesi and ridership case base summarizes 60 the range of estimates. ofestimates. range the
Dedicated Use
- . .
cost ratios ( ratios cost As Chapter $ corridors are deemed feasible deemed are corridors $169,213,000 $147,198,000 $
2,965,965 127,384,000 cnro iesi ad revenue and ridership scenario Revenue
6 refer to to refer
- and revenue and , ee used were ), cost analysis cost ,000 - Conservative
00 rudd o the to rounded 2040)
n h aayi of analysis the in Chapter Conservative
operati Conservative
. Refer back Refer . forecast and forecast o calculate to
7 estimate )
ng for use for
and and
for s
estimates region southeast Table 5 - 22 (tothe nearestthousa : Optimistic
n nationally and Total 2040 2030 2021 Year
Scenario Annual RidershipScenario Revenue Annual Estimates and
nd) . 2040 in2010$) 2040 88,540,000 al 5 Table 4,961,000 4,399,000 3,893,000
Ridership for the for Dedicated Use - Optimistic 21
ulns h rdrhp n revenue and ridership the outlines
$3,532,740,000 $193,386,000 $ $ 168,226,000 145,582,000 Revenue
scenario.
(2021 -
2 - 67 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 68 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
sub by costs moreby For a capital major SCC category. breakdowndetailed ofcapitalcosts system. electrified on is which technology, Use Dedicated mph 220 180 the than less are costs capital overall the Therefore, infrastructure. track and equipment operating electric 90 The 6.1.1 a upon dependent be will corridor the for preferred costs actual and costs, preliminary and routes 90 both for corridor rail Atlanta the for costs capital total the outlines chapter This SCC. FRA illustrates these categ cost +/ a with level) design the Bi costs The mnhm high rmingham
study study
- data data category, refer to - 90 0 mh hrd s, s outlin as Use, Shared mph 100
route ories ( ories prepared capital costs at the the at costs capital prepared
100 FinanceCharges 90 Unallocated Contingencies 80 Profes Vehicles70 60 Electric Traction Communications50 & Signaling Sitework,40 Right Support30 Facilities: Yards, Shops, Administration Buildings Stations,20 Terminals, Intermodal 10 - ahrd einl n national and regional gathered 110 o siae oa dsg ad cons and design total estimate to ehoois It technologies. Track Structures & Track FRA StandardFRA Cost Categories for Capital Projects/Programs
and which study technology, this determine. not does SCC MPH - pe al ordr A aoeetoe i Scin I: Section in aforementioned As corridor. rail speed sional Services )
al 6 Table Table as required by required as S -
30 percent level of accuracy. The The accuracy. of level percent 30 HARED Appendix - 1 mh hrd s ad 180 and Use Shared mph 110
- 6 of
- -
1 - 2
Way, Land, Existing Improvements
: Standard: FRA Categories Cost n wl sae xsig rih rira right railroad freight existing share will and
hud e oe ta tee nt ot ae only are costs unit these that noted be should rvds h oeal Atlanta overall the provides
U SE F
FRA grant applications. To recap, the recap, To applications. grant FRA at end the ofthisre
conceptual engineering level (5 level engineering conceptual d n rvos hpes will chapters, previous in ed
nrsrcue n equipment and infrastructure rcin ot fr h Atlanta the for costs truction dedicated a port. port. 6 - 2 mh eiae Use Dedicated mph 220 study
- Birmingham high Birmingham F -
Birmingham corridor corridor Birmingham
ORECASTED route
used
FRA n i a fully a is and
- s diesel use 10 percent 10 hpe 3 Chapter Table 6 Table standard
- of - capital speed speed - way C - 1 - - OSTS - ,
2 - 69 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 70 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
the in included not were and costs, capital costs. segment corridor total the in for accounted only were costs vehicle Additionally, located. is facility maintenance and/or station facilit maintenance andstation notedthat be shouldIt boundaries. state as suchcorridor the in breaks naturaland location station on based developed wereSegments segment. by costs 6 Figure the of costs SCC detailed the understand further To TOTAL COST PER MILE (174.6 MILES) 100 Table 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
- 6 FinanceCharges Unallocated Cont Professional Services Vehicles Electric Traction Signaling Communications & Improvements Land, Existing Sitework, Right Buildings Shops, Administration SupportFacilities: Yards, Intermodal Stations, Terminals, StructuresTrack & Track 1 - Costing Category 2 throu : : Atlanta
gh gh
Figure 6 Figure css ee ny cone fr n h sget n hc the which in segment the in for accounted only were costs y - Birmingham Total
- TOTAL COST of
ingencies -
Way, -
5
and
Table 6 Table
$2,383,128 Allocated Cost $130,000,000 $339,569,000 $276,874,000 $308,987,000 $755,913,000 $535, $35,980,000 (2010$) Shared Use Shared - N/A N/A N/A 805,000 3 through
, 000
CapitalCategoryCost by SCC Table 6 Table $554, $101,871,000 $226,77 Contingency $39,000,000 $83,062,000 $10,794,000 $92,696,000 Atlanta (30%) N/A N/A N/A N/A 197,000 - 4,000 7 -
Birmingham Corridor Birmingham
illustrates the capital the illustrates
$2,937,32 $169,000,000 $441,440,000 $359,936,000 $401,683,000 $982,687, $535,805,000 $16,821, $46,774,000 Total Cost N/A N/A N/A
4 000 000 ,000
,
Cost PerCost Mile (8.5 M Total Cost FinanceCharges Unallocated Contingencies Professional Services Vehicles Electric Traction Communications Signaling& Sitework, Administration B SupportFacilities: Yards, Shops, Stations, Terminals, Intermodal StructuresTrack & Track Segment1: 90 Table
6 R/W
- 3 Figure Figure : , Land - Atlanta 110 mph Shared Use
uildings 6 iles
- 1 - BirminghamUse Total CapitalCost Shared SegmentOne : )
Atlanta
- Birmingham SharedUse Segment One $462,817, $110,060,000 $279,156, $18,005,000 $29,77 $25,819,000 – Allocated
Atlanta A N/A N/A - - -
7,000
000 000
irport (
Contingency (30%)
$105,828,000 H $83,74 $5,402,000 $8,933,000 $7,746,0 - JAIA N/A N/A N/A - - -
) ) to Atlanta MMPT 7,000
00
$568, $110,060,000 $362,903,000 $66,899, $23, $38,710,000 $33,5 Total Cost
N/A N/A 407,000 645,000 65,000 - - -
000
2 - 71 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 72 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
Cost PerCost Mile (17.9 Miles Total Cost FinanceCharges Unallocated Contingencies Professional Services Vehicles Electric Traction Communications Signaling& Sitework, R/W Administration Buildings SupportFacilities: Yards, Shops, Stations, Terminals, Intermodal StructuresTrack & Track Segment2: 90 Table
6
- 4 Figure Figure : : Atlanta , Land - 110 mph Shared Use
6
- 2 - BirminghamUse Total CapitalCost Shared SegmentTwo :Atlanta
)
- Birmingham SharedUse Segment Two $261, $62,071, $29,106, $90,237, $79,603, – Allocated
Atlanta MMPT to Austell N/A N/A 017,000 - - - -
000 000 000 000
Contingency (30%)
$59,684, $27,071, $23,881,0 $8, 732,000 N/A N/A - - - - -
000 000 , GA 00
$320, $117,308, $1 $17, $62, $37,838, Total Cost Total
03, N/A N/A 916,000 072,000 703,000 485,000 - - - -
000 000
Cost PerCost Mile (49.9 M Total Cost FinanceC Unallocated Contingencies Professional Services Vehicles Electric Traction Communications Signaling& Sit Administration Buildings SupportFacilities: Yards, Shops, Stations, Terminals, Intermodal StructuresTrack & Track Segment3: 90 Table ework, R/W
6 harges -
5 Figure Figure : : Atlanta
- Land 110 mph Shared Use
6
-
3 iles - BirminghamUse Total CapitalCost Shared SegmentThree :Atlanta
)
- Birmingham SharedUse Segment Three $395, $105,043, $168,615,000 $94,170,000 $22,560,000 $5,610,000 – Allocated
Austell N/A N/A 998,000 - - -
000 , GA
to GA Contingency (30%)
$90,548, $31,513,000 $50,584, $6,768,000 $1,683,000 /AL State Line N/A N/A - - - -
000 000
$486,546, $136,556,0 $219,199, $94,170,000 $29,328,000 $9, $7,293,000 Total Cost
750,000 N/A N/A - - -
000 000 00
2 - 73 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 74 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
Cost PerCost Mile (37.2 M Total Cost FinanceCharges Unallocated Contingencies Professional Services Vehicles Electr Communications Signaling& Sitework, Administration Buildings SupportFacilities: Yards, Shops, St StructuresTrack & Track Segment4: 90 ations, Terminals, Intermodal Table ic Traction
R/W
6 - 6 Figure Figure : : Atlanta , Land - 110 mph Shared Use
6 iles - 4 -
BirminghamUse Total CapitalCost Shared SegmentFour :Atlanta )
- Birmingham SharedUse Segment Four $326,591, $152, $77, $69,730,000 $21, – $5,610,000 Allocated GA/AL State Line to Anniston N/A N/A 665,000 410,000 176,000 - - -
000
Contingency (30%) $74, $20,919, $45, $6, $1,683,000 423,000 N/A N/A 678,000 653,000 - - - -
000 , AL
$401, $197, $10, $77, $90, $27, $7,293,000
Total Cost N/A N/A 786,000 665,000 650,000 833,000 270,000 829,000 - - -
Cost PerCost Mile Total Cost FinanceCharges Unal Professional Services Vehicles Electric Traction Communications Signaling& Sitework, Administration Buildings SupportFacilities: Yards, Shops, Stations, Terminals, Intermodal StructuresTrack & Track Segment5: 90 Table located Contingencies
6 R/W
- 7 Figure Figure : : Atlanta
(61.2 Miles) , Land - 110 mph Shared Use
6
- 5 - BirminghamUse Total CapitalCost Shared SegmentFive :Atlanta
- Birmingham SharedUse Segment Five
$806, $191, $117,684,000 $142, $329, $18,610, $6, – Allocated
Annisto 204,000 N/A N/A 703,000 838,000 667,000 700,000 - -
000 n
, AL
Contingency (30%) to Birmingham $184,459, $35,305, $42,800,0 $98, $1,861,0 $5,583, N/A N/A 910,000 - - -
000
000 000 00 00
, AL
$991, $191, $152,989, $185, $428, $16,195, $24, $8, Total Cost
065,000 N/A N/A 194,000 163,000 838,000 467,000 610,000 - -
000 000
2 - 75 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 76 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
Atlanta relocations and acquisition land vehicles, track, the electrified of electrification the to due Use Shared than costs higher capital are total Use The Dedicated traffic. freight with interfere not will and operations route interstate,line and rail utilizing 180 The 6.1.2 the in included not were and costs, capital costs. segment corridor total the in for accounted and station that only were costs vehicle Additionally, located. is facility maintenance and/or station noted be should it wer costs costs, facility maintenance segment Use Shared the to similar Again, boundaries. state as such corridor the in breaks natural and location station t illustrates corridor, Use Atlanta the of costs SCC detailed the understand further To Total PerCost Mile FinanceCharges Unallocated Contingencies Professional Services Vehicles Electric Traction Communications Signaling& Sitework, Buildings Shops, Administration SupportFacilities: Yards, Intermodal Stations, Terminals, StructuresTrack & Track Table
Costing Category right freight with shared is
180 - BirminghamUseDedicated costscorridor SCC.by
-
2 mh eiae Use Dedicated mph 220 R/W, Land 6 e aia css y emn. emns ee eeoe bsd on based developed were Segments segment. by costs capital he - - 220 8 : : Atlanta iue 6 Figure
Total Cost MPH
(153.8 M
- -
6 D Birmingham TotalDedicated Cost Use Capital
EDICATED through
iles
$6, $1,564, $1,643, $1,906, Allocated Cost ) $217,250,000 $257,181, $828, $30
ol acutd o i te emn i wih the which in segment the in for accounted only e g $43,424, reenfield rightreenfield 796,505 - of 8 iue 6 Figure N/A N/A ,987,000 647,000 - route 481,000 369,000 166,000 way. The track will be separated from freight from separated be will track The way. U
000 SE 000 ,000
n fly eaae, dedicated separated, fully a on
-
11
- of and $1,569, $571,944, $492, $248, Contingency $13,027, $92,696,0 $65,175,000 $77,154, - way. Within urbanway.corridors,the Within (30%) al 6 Table Tbe 6 Table . N/A N/A N/A 980,000 594,000 570,000
000 000
000 00 - - Birmingham Dedicated Birmingham
9
- 8 through
ulns h total the outlines $2,478, $2,136, $1, $8, $401, $282,425,000 $334, $56, $54, $1, Total Cost 077,240,000 322,896,000
(2010$) 556,220 N/A N/A 452,000 126 al 6 Table 683,000 336,0 425,000 116,000
,000 00 route
- for 14
Cost PerCost Mile (8.5 M Total Cost FinanceCharges Unallocated Contingencies Professional Servic Vehicles Electric Traction Communications Signaling& Sitework, Administration Buil SupportFacilities: Yards, Shops, Stations, Terminals, Intermodal StructuresTrack & Track Segment1: 90 Table
6 - R/W
9 Figure Figure : : Atlanta , Land - 110 mph Shared Use
es 6 dings -
iles
6 - :Atlanta Birmingham TotalDedicated CostUse Capital )
- Birmingham DedicatedUse Segment $892, $212,2 $195, $279,156, $90, $ $37, $61, – 16, Allocated
Atlanta Airpo N/A N/A 399,000 711,000 221,000 249,000 602,000 601,000 - 65,000
000
rt rt ( Contingency (30%)
H $204 $27, $58,680, $11,166, $83, $18, $5,013, - JAIA N/A N/A ,101,000 120,000 747,000 375,000 - - ) ) to Atlanta MMPT
000
000 000
SegmentOne
One $1,096, $129, $212, $117,518,0 $254, $362,903, $21, $48,387,0 $79, Total Cost
N/A N/A 724,000 624,000
023,000 265,000 281,000 - 70
1 000 ,000 00 00
2 - 77 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 78 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
Cost PerCost Mile (10.2 Miles Total Cost FinanceCharges Unallocated Contingencies Professional Services Vehicles Electric Traction Communications Signaling& Sitework, R/W Administration Buildings SupportFacilities: Yards, Shops, Stations, Terminals, Intermodal StructuresTrack & Track Interchange Segment2: 90 Table 6
- 10
Figure Figure
:Atlanta , Land - 110 mph Shared Use
6 -
7 - :A Birmingham Dedicated Total UseTwo CapitalCost Segment
) tlanta
- Birmingham DedicatedUse SegmentTwo $735, $174,935, $108, $254,611, $172,767, $24, – Allocated
Atlanta MMPT to Fulton Industrial Blvd N/A N/A 642,000 626,000 671,000 - - -
000 000 000
Contingency (30%)
$168, $32,601, $76,383, $51,830,000 $7,392, N/A N/A 206,000 - - - -
000
000 000
$903, $174,935,000 $141, $330, $224,597, $88, $32, Total Cost
N/A N/A 611,000 034,000 833,000 272,000 995,000 - - -
000
Cost PerCost Mile (48.5 Total Cost FinanceCharges Unallocated Contingencies Professional Services Vehicles Electric Traction Communications Signaling& Sitework, R/W Administration Buildings SupportFacilities: Yards, Shops, Stations, Terminals, Intermodal StructuresTrack & Track Segment3: 90 Table 6 -
11
Figure Figure :Atlanta , Land - 110 mph Shared Use
6 - Miles 8
- :Atlanta Birmingham Dedicated Total UseThree CapitalCost Segment
)
- Birmingham DedicatedUse SegmentThree $1,624,277, $386,261, $518,135, $138,352,000 $501,341, $74, $5,610,000 – Allocated
Fulton Industrial Blvd to GA/AL State Line N/A N/A 578,000 - -
000 000 000 000
Contingency (30%)
$371, $155, $150,402, $22,373, $41, $1,683,000 N/A N/A 506,000 405,000 441,000 - - -
000 000
$1, $ $673, $ $651, $ $96, 381,873 161,576 $7,293,000 Total Cost 40,689,000 973,013
N/A N/A 951,000
576,000 7 - - 44
,000 , ,000 000 , 000
2 - 79 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 80 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
Cost PerCost Mile (30.7 M Total Cost FinanceCharges Unallocated Contingencies Professional Services Vehic Electric Traction Communications Signaling& Sitework, R/W Administration Buildings SupportFacilities: Yards, Shops, Stations, Terminals, Intermodal StructuresTrack & Track Segment4: 90 Table les 6
- 12
Figure Figure :Atlanta , Land - 110 mph Shared Use
6 -
9 iles - :Atlanta Birmingham Dedicated Total Use Ca
)
- Birmingham DedicatedUse SegmentFour $979, $233, $327,864, $310, $47, $55,384,0 $5,610,000 – Allocated GA/AL State Line to Anniston N/A N/A 186,000 819,000 006,000 769,000 - -
000 00
Contingency (30%)
$224, $98,359, $14, $16,615, $93, $1,683,000 N/A N/A 156,000 231,000 044,000 - - -
pital Cost Segment Four pital Cost Segment
000 000 , AL
$1, $ $426,223, $403, $39, $61, $ 231,752,000 $7,29 Total Cost 66,776,000 197,385,000
N/A N/A 028,000 342,000 999,000 - - 3,000
000
Cost PerCost Mile (48.3 Total Cost FinanceCharges Unallocated Contingencies Professional Services Vehicles Electric Traction Communications Signaling& Sitework, R/W Administration Buildings SupportFacilities: Yards, Shops, Stations, Terminals, Intermodal StructuresTrack & Track Segment5: 90 Table 6
-
13 Figure Figure :Atlanta , Land - 110 mph Shared Use
6
Miles -
10 - Birmingham Dedicated Total UseFive CapitalCost Segment : Atlanta
)
- BirminghamUse Dedicated Segment Five
$1,960, $466, $516,675, $ $803, $74,362, 100,117, – Allocated
Anniston N/A N/A 262,000 275,000 - - - 693,000
000 000 000
, AL
to Bi Contingency (30%) $448, $155, $240,982, $22, $30,035, rminghamShared Use N/A N/A 309,000 329,000 003,000 - - - -
000 000
$2, $1,044, $ $671, $ $49, $96, 463,755,000 119,706,000 Total Cost
396,066,000
N/A N/A 557,000 671,000 678,000 - - - 257,000
2 - 81 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 82 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
Cost PerCost Mile (7.6 M T FinanceCharges Unallocated Contingencies Professional Services Vehicles Electric Traction Communications Signaling& Sitework, R/W Administration Buildings SupportFacilities: Yards, Shops, Stations, Terminals, Intermodal StructuresTrack & Trac Segment6: 90 otal Cost Table
6 -
14 Figure Figure :Atlanta , Land - 110 mph Shared Use
6
- iles
11 - k : : Atlanta Birmingham Dedicated Total UseSix CapitalCost Segment )
- BirminghamUse Dedicated Segment Six $385,358, $110, $91,640, $81, $19, $18,610, $57,080, $6,203, – Allocated BirminghamShared to Use BirminghamStation N/A N/A 423,000 704,000 698,000 -
000
000 000 000 000
Contingency (30%)
$88,115 $24, $33,209, $17,124, $5,911,0 $1,861,0 $5,583 N/A N/A 427,000 - -
,000 ,000
000 000 00 00
$473, $105, $143,907,0 $62, $91,640, $25,6 $24, $74, $8, Total Cost
065,000 N/A N/A 299,000 194,000 205,000 47 850,000 15,000 -
5
000 ,000
0
0
analysis.feasibility variable and costs fixed into costs. separated were costs Maintenance and Operating 6.2 realistictounderstand future levels funding at the federa the in necessary be will analysis funding additional however, sources; financing and Section opportunities. financing and fe the determine will that item last The (refer backtoChapter 5) is revenue and ridership Use Dedicated the Use, Dedicated than less far is cost total eviden is it While technologies. Use Dedicated and Use Shared 6 Table 6.1.3
O
- al 6 Table PERATING AND MAINTEN AND PERATING 15 C Cost per Cost Mile Total Cost OMPARING and - 16 iue 6 Figure Table
ulns h fxd n vral cs ctgre ue fr this for used categories cost variable and fixed the outlines
Figure Figure
C 6 - - APITAL 12 15 substantially 6 :TotalCapital byCost
illustrate the total capital cost differences between between differences cost capital total the illustrate - 12 : Total Capital : Total Cost by Technology C OSTS $2,937, V, Chapter Chapter V, $16,821, Share higher. asibility of the of asibility
ANCE 324,000 d Use 000
3
outlines some potential funding potential some outlines
Route C OSTS
capital cost capital l,andstate local levels. $8, Dedicated Use / $54, Technology 322,896,332
125,618 t that Shared Use Shared that t
will be funding funding be will
2 - 83 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 84 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
Total O&M Costs Fixed O&M Costs Variable O&M Costs the provides maintenanceoperatingand costs ridership. higher as well as maintenance electrification Use track the to due Shared than higher are costs maintenance and operating Use Dedicated The 6.2.2 Total O&M Costs Fixed O&M Costs Variable O&M Costs (feasibility planninghorizon) for estimates cost maintenance and operating costs). variable lower creating (thus levels ridership lower and main inspection, required less to due Use Dedicated Use Shared the for costs variable and fixed The 6.2.1
Administration and Management andTrack Electrification Maintenance Stations Ta
Table Table ble
180 90
6 Fixed Cost Categories - 6 18 6 - - - 17 110 - 16 :Atlanta 22
:Atlanta
:Atlanta
0 MPH
MPH - BirminghamUse Dedicated millions)O&M (2010$Costs S - - BirminghamUse Shared O&M millions) (2010$ Costs D HARED BirminghamandCost FixedVariable Categories EDICATED $43.4 $22.5 $20.9 $79.4 $44.4 $35.0 2021 2021 .
U
SE
U SE $81.0 $44.3 $44.4 $36.6 $22.5 $21.8 2030 2030
CreditCard/Travel Agency Commissions Call Center Insurance Fuel/Energy Equipment Maintenance On Board Service Train Crew for
C
00 (tr up (start 20201 orridor are substantially less than than less substantially are orridor
2021 Variable Cost Categories
eac ad ear n track on repair and tenance
, 2030
$82.5 $45.2 $44.4 $38.1 $22.5 $22.7 2040 2040 s
and 2040. Table 6 Table
) 2030 ,
- (2021 (2021 17
Table 6 Table and and $930.3 $1,700 $932.4 $767.9 $472.5 $457.8
Total Total provides - - 2040) 2040) 2040
-
18
corridor studies. ridership scenario for made was No studies. corridor rail speed high national and regional of review peer a on 180 25 O and Intermediate the establish to corridors Use Dedicated for increased were estimates revenue and ridership Base Scenario. estimates cost operating ridership, and capital revenue, feasibil a in ridership, encountered typically of range a of impact setting In from extended was year 2 horizon the analyses, feasibility the of purposes the Therefore, for years. 30 to 25 is flows cash discounted assessing for period standard s It a desirable ratio, operating the to Similar benefit a determineratio. to each of value the monetizes and resources) external and benefit The the reduces and subsidies operating operatingriskinvestorforthe andowner, operator. need to likely less evide is that gives system ratio operating operating operating an positive generates A 1.0 than greater surplus. ratio operating positive a with service the of “franchisability” the test To benefits. the of element key A 3detailed for Chapter methodologyinformation measures. on these Sha both for done was Corridor The 7.1 040 to205040
Ridership adjustments for Intermediate and Optimistic Scenarios were only made for Ded for made only were Scenarios Optimistic and Intermediate for Ridershipadjustments - hould be mentioned that for both operating ratios and benefitandratios operating both for that mentioned be hould 220 mph electrified, steel analysis uses the “ the uses analysis l bnft (ae eeus on revenues, (fare benefits all
study F EASIBILITY EASIBILITY
. (
up the up prtn rto ad benefit and ratios operating Shared Use corridor diesel Sharedcorridor Use revenue
- 0 toaccount three the for
tlzd w faiiiy esrmns o the for measurements feasibility two utilized ot analysis cost feasibility ,
aia ad operating and capital feasibility analysis is an is analysis feasibility -
wheel and Maglev technologies (Maglev in Atlanta in (Maglev Maglevtechnologies wheel and red Use and Dedicated Use routes. routes. Use Dedicated and Use red operating ratio operating M dniis l css cptl oeaig n maintenance) and operating (capital, costs all identifies EASUREMENTS evaluation, evaluation,
- electric technology results based on a peer review of other sharedother of reviewpeer a basedon results technology electric ity - or srie eeu, osmr upu and surplus consumer revenue, service board -
level analysis. Unadjusted Unadjusted analysis. level (3%) ” three scenarios were developed to show the show to developed were scenarios three
- ot calculations cost of revenues divided by operating costs. A costs. operating by divided revenues of
a corridor a benefit percent percent discountrate. costs
assessment of both public and private and public both of assessment ptimistic Scenarios. ptimistic
- cost ratio of greater than than greater of ratio cost c o a tog self strong, a of nce ee sd o te C the for used were
as a public a as 7
) C . ORRIDOR Refer back to Section I: Section to back Refer The feasibility analysis analysis feasibility The - Louisville corridor only) based Louisville corridoronly) based - Atlanta private partnership private - base forecasts for for forecasts base 25 cost analyses,the cost
Operating costs Operating
icated Use corridor corridor Use icated - Birmingham onservative -
supporting E
adjustment adjustment VALUATION 1.0 - cost - use use
is ,
2 - 85 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 86 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
eto I Catr fr oe eald nomto o h eeomn o these of development the on information detailed more for 3 Chapter I: Section revenues ridership, evaluation further feasibility the at all estimates of for Scenarios il and capture to intended are scenarios three The Optimistic and Intermediate the technologies. in were downward estimates cost Capital adjusted drivers. ridership appropriate the by adjusted were contingency. contingency. c T 7.1.1.2 providingrevenue surplusa 1.0 allfor years forecast route 2040 and 2030 2021, ratio operating and surplus/deficits operating costs, Revenues, rou “ Use Shared the for developed 6). Chapter to back costs (refer variable and fixed both include costs maintenance and Operating revenue. route 7 Table 7.1.1.1 7.1.1 scenarios. evaluation ost Conservative he he Table
study analysis . The The . Ope .
Operating Ratio Operating Surplus (Deficit) Variable Operating Costs Fixed Operating Costs Total Operating Costs On AncillaryRevenues Farebox Revenues Total Operating Revenue
- Operating Ratio Operating Benefit 1 90 7 -
- Board Services include rvds h oeaig ai fr h Atlanta the for ratio operating the provides 1 - 110 mph 110 aig eeus nld bt frbx eeu ad n or service board on and revenue farebox both include revenues rating : : Atlanta , since , 110 scenario ” Table 7 Table
- Cost
s Shared Use route Use Shared s MPH ftr suis w studies future , base
and costs, costs, and
- -
BirminghamUse Shared Operating route Use Shared 2 o nesad h oeal performanc overall the understand to S
-
outlines outlines case
HARED
sn base using eaae iesi ad eeu seais ee not were scenarios revenue and ridership Separate -
capital costs are substantial and include a include and substantial are costs capital level of study of level
arwn te ag o range the narrowing
the U SE
e Therefore, te.
b ill capital cost capital enefit $20.9 $22.5 $43.4 $46.0 $
2021 - 1.15 $ $3.6 $0.5
case 50 generates an generates rvd getr detail greater provide 6.7 . 1
. .
- c
As ost iesi ad revenue and ridership corridors are deemed feasible deemed are corridors
lustrate the relatively wide range wide relatively the lustrate results for each for results scenarios for use in the in use for scenarios . $14.0 $21.8 $22.5 $44.3 $53.5 $58.3 al 7 Table 2030
1.32 $4.3 $0.5 operating ratio operating f estimates. Refer back to to back Refer estimates. f - Ratio(2010$ millions)
Birmingham
- o the of e ol peet the presents only 1
n h aayi of analysis the in are scenario $22.1 $22.7 $22.5 $45.2 $61.7 $67.3 2040 1.49 $4.9 $0.6 estimated greater than greater hrd Use Shared
hrd Use Shared 30 percent 30
forecasts
b .
enefit
More
for for - .
thanscenagreater1.0 forall the to Similar high other with study feasibility this benchmarking on based developed were scenarios associated their and revenues inc operati The scenarios. the for methodologies routes. Use Dedicated route 7 Table 7.1.2.1 7.1.2 benefit the System a of feasibility Hub Atlanta larger a improve of part a as operated benefit wi The capitalcostthe estimates. t and percent, 15 a revenue contingency. and ridership (base) included are details h n nemdae au o 0.88 of value Intermediate an th Table esn rvne and revenue reasing - Shared Use Shared Conservative speedground studies bothtransportation within the andregion nationally. .
-
ng and maintenance costs. The The costs. maintenance and ng ot ai aoe 1.0 above ratio cost - Shared Use . iesi, eeu, a revenue, Ridership, 3 Operating Ratio Operating 7
180 Table - 2
ee t Sect to Refer ipas prtn rto fr the for ratios operating displays : : Atlanta n - Shared Use route Use Shared The The 2040 2030 2021 220 integrated 7 service alternative alternative service
- he he
3
Intermediate scenario
: : Atlanta
MPH Optimistic - n pedx G Appendix in BirminghamUse Shared Chapter V: ion Conservative
D
Conservative operating high
EDICATED ee bc t Scin : hpe 3 o detailed for 3 Chapter I: Section to back Refer - uses riosforecastand years. . However, However, . Birmingham Dedi 1.41 1.25 1.10 Conservative
- d aia cs seais ee eeoe fr all for developed were scenarios cost capital nd , the Dedicated Use Dedicated the ,
scenario removes the contingency the removes scenario speedrail system. operating scenario
0.80 base wl a cptl ot wt te 0 percent 30 the with costs capital as well s Dedicated Use has Te is seai icue the includes scenario first The .
.
ot; and costs;
-
, case T a U Intermediate he he
the capital cost contingency is reduced to reduced is contingency cost capital the Intermediate Intermediate 2 benefit f h Atlanta the if SE
ot. The costs.
o mr dtie ifrain n the on information detailed more for
hrd s route Use Shared
rider Intermediate 2.00 1.86 1.72
Benefit catedUse Operati Atlanta
- 0.88 cost ratio between ratio cost
ship and revenue forecasts and and forecasts revenue and ship Optimistic route route
- scenario includes moderately includes scenario -
Intermediate Cost imnhm eiae Use Dedicated Birmingham - imnhm ordr were Corridor Birmingham and
produces op produces
Analysis Optimistic
Optimistic lutae aggressive illustrates 2.12 2.00 1.87
Optimistic i nt eeae a generate not did ngRatio 0.95
completely
-
( an cost ratio will will ratio cost 0.80 2021
erating ratios erating Conservative d
Optimistic
sensitivity and - 2050)
0.95 from from
,
2 - 87 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 88 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
piitc cnro nrae rdrhp n rvne y 0 pret vr the over percent 100 by revenue and ridership increases and scenario ridership in Optimistic increase percent 75 a on revenues based is scenario Intermediate The as well as revenue and calculations. the in included also were costs capital in Variations 7.1.2.1. section in outlined scenarios three the 7 Table 7.1.2.2 siae. mr dtie crio aayi wt mr dfntv study definitive more with analysis c and corridor benefit models, detailed demand travel more boundaries, high A very includes study feasibility estimates. this that noted be should It show 180 Use Dedicated the of exception the with benefit capital The priv for spark years likely will future ratios in operating interestininvestment the corridor, additional providing funding opportunities. Positive investment less costs. maintenance requiring fund”, maintenance rel reduced “rail a finance to may basis debtannual an on lead surpluses down operating Additionally, subsidies. can pay to and ability bonds, an and indicate services ratios operating Positive operators. and owners to risks associated lower with operations strong indicates This scenarios. re analysis, ratio operating the under Use Dedicated and Use Shared The 7.1.3 potentialthe fora Atla integrated studies engineering Corridor Birmingham feasible potentially a The scenario Conservative n Table
Intermediate Dedicated Use route Use Dedicated s a benefit a s
K -
- 7 costevaluation with Dedicated Use 4 outlines the three benefit three the outlines 4 Benefit EY - and a capital cost contingency of 15 percent rather t rather percent 15 of contingency cost capital a and 4 : : Atlanta - ot eut d nt xed . fr n o te representative the of any for 1.0 exceed not do results cost F INDINGS nta - - cost cost of1.13ratiofor the Cost
nAtlanta value of 0.92. This indicates that that indicates This 0.92. of value - Hub System. System. Hub
- . Birmingham
in the the in should
and eliminatesand the capitalcost contingency. uue tde sol as cnie te eeis f an of benefits the consider also should studies Future
base produces - hub a narrow rangeofestimates continue to be evaluated in future environmental and environmental future in evaluated be to continue Optimistic - Conservative ae aia ad prtn ad aneac costs maintenance and operating and capital case h Conservat The
high Refer to Section V: Chapter Chapter V: Section to Refer Dedicated 0.48
b - route and technology technology and route cost scenarios for the Dedicated Use route androute Use Dedicated the for scenarios cost - enefit speedrail system.
sulting in ratios well above 1.0 for all three all for 1.0 above well ratios in sulting
ae wih ugss ht the that suggests which case, Optimistic
- c ost Use Intermediate v seai uses scenario ive s etmts cud il a better a yield could estimates, ost - 2 mh ehooy pin which option, technology mph 220
ratios between 0.48 and 1.13, with 1.13, and 0.48 between ratios Benefit 0.92
scenario aiiy n ulc investment public on iability
- . high Cost
alternatives perform well perform alternatives
. -
2 pe ri serv rail speed Analysis
han 30 percent 30 han
Optimistic base for more details on details more for 1.13
- ee dt and data level - case
202 t sector ate
ridership 1 Atlanta - route 2050 2050 c is ice . The .
s,
- .
corridor cost posit and costs capital initial reduce to potential the has detail in The highspeed that rail service feasibleis in the benefit used and s be analysis ratios this of results operating the that the recommends account into Taking ae lnig n crio dvlpet activities development corridor and planning tate study analysis .
in
developed an additional “Hybrid” High Performance High “Hybrid” additional an developed Chapter 8 Chapter
hl mitiig h aiiy o civ hge sed aog the along speeds higher achieve to ability the maintaining while
that further supports the above conclusions. conclusions. above the supports further that
Atlanta - BirminghamCorridor
In particular, this study finds finds study this particular, In o e pirte fr future for priorities set to ively impact the benefit the impact ively - cost ratios, the the ratios, cost scenario This alternative This , discussed discussed , .
study -
2 - 89 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 90 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
1). 8 (Table Birmingham to Atlanta from interstate by travel auto than faster minutes route approximately study 180 the to Performance the compared for assumed costs technology capital the lower of benefits significantly main the of One mphof220speeds years, T Tilt technology, shared no grade fully utilizing Use, Dedicated and Use Shared Performance High Hybrid The includedin a be future analyNEPA Performance High Hybrid the if determine to ratios Use Dedicated Benefit estim these From Usethe during Shared and analyses.UseDedicated estimatesThese include: scenario Performance High Hybrid the of concept the High introduce to intends Hybrid study feasibility the regarding details financial Performance and performance more Therefore, Performance High scenario Hybrid benefit the for and completed were ratio analyses some operating While the analysis. impacting positively thus Use), Shared the the speeds travel was the improving while analyses Use) Dedicated the Use to (compared Dedicated and Use “hybrid” a Shared of the introduction from results the of One
echnology initially, and and initially, echnology . The 130 mph Hybrid High Performanc High Hybrid mph 130 The . siae ta the that estimated h service the - Operating and Operating MaintenanceCosts. Costs;and Capital revenue;and Ridership Operationalestimates; ot ai t cmae gis te rvosy dniid hrd s and Use Shared identified previously the against compare to ratio Cost completed. be to analysis full a for available data insufficient was there , and provid and - s fegt operations. freight use
the scenario scenario 2 iue lne ta te electrified the than longer minutes 22 Hybrid High Performance High Hybrid
ts te td cluae te high the calculates study the ates,
a be can or more. or e a high a e
s il ed o e xlrd hog te EA rcs. This process. NEPA the through explored be to need will t ill has the potential to reach speeds of up to to up of speeds reach to potential the has ill
upgrad scenario yrd ih Performance High Hybrid when -
level feasibility estimates based on the results found found results the on based estimates feasibility level
8
eiae Ue route Use Dedicated scenario
ed sis. H ridership and revenue increase in later operating later in increase revenue and ridership
YB to offset a portion of the initial capital costs costs capital initial the of portion a offset to
oee, ahr hn lcrfe high electrified than rather However, Hybrid o a to
RID ht rvds lvl f evc between service of level a provides that
scenario fully
e ih Performance High H scenario - electr IGH
would implement would - separated track geometry with geometry track separated fe sse, bann travel obtaining system, ified P .
oee, h Hbi High Hybrid the However, ri o th on train ERFORMANCE is approximately 1 hour, 16 hour, 1 approximately is - scenario ee oeaig ai and ratio operating level - 2 mh electrified mph 220
scenario ol ol take only would e scenario eiae Use Dedicated 130 D (compared to (compared iesel mph. The mph.
include - S
Electric
- should speed CENARIO - cost s -
2 - 91 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 92 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
PerformanceHigh G) Appendix decrease Performance High Hybrid the for revenue the time, travel corridor The profiles werespeed and frequencies as adjustedtrain necessary. Dedicate the to compared as speed vehicle in decrease the on the revenue, and ridership estimate To 8.1 later in upgrade the years. warrant revenue and ridership if incurred be only will costs corridor,of theupgrade thoseto electrification as the incorporate not do estimates Performance High Hybrid high the outlines chapter This Frequency (round trips/day) Average Speed (mph) Travel Time (hr : min) Rail Distance (miles) Travel Time Estimated Auto Time(hr : min)
study R
IDERSHIP AND AND IDERSHIP
by approximately by
siae bsd n h dces i aeae pe a ices in increase an speed average in decrease the on based estimated Segment . . – Table
Table Table 8 Table Auto Time Train Train Capacity T Travel Time scenario rain Frequency 8
8 -
- 1 - 2 3 shows the estimated ridership and revenue for the Hybrid the for revenue and ridership estimated the shows 3 : : Atlanta : : Atlanta
scenario
for 2021,forand 2030, 2040. 7.3 percent from the Dedicated Use forecasts Use Dedicated the from percent 7.3
R
EVENUE - - ee rvne cs, n faiiiy eut o the of results feasibility and cost, revenue, level - Birmingham Operations Comparison
Birmingham HybridOperatingPlan Shared Use Hwvr i sol b mnindta these that mentioned be should it However, . + 176.0 2:56 2:46 0:10 64 6 250 seatsper train round10 trips perday hour,1 S Performance High Hybrid
study
cenario
calculated high calculated 40 Dedicated Us
minutes 150.7 - 2:56 1:18 117 1:3 10
8
e
- level estimates based estimates level d Use. Travel time, Travel Use. d
Performance Hybrid High scenario
150.7 - 2:56 1:40 1:16 10 90
(refer to (refer
would
maintenance. and inspection track required Use less Dedicated to the from due reduced estimates be also will costs maintenance and Operating Use Dedicated the uses sub detailed alternative this Again, route representative SCC. FRA major by estimates Table lessarealso vehicles Thi electrification. track the than less significantly be will previous As 8.2 TOTAL COST PER MILE ( TOTAL COST FinanceCharges Unallocated Contingencies Professional Services Vehicles Electric Traction Communications Signaling& Sitework, Administration Buildings SupportFacilities: Yards, Shops, Stations, Terminals, Intermodal StructuresTrack & Track Table Total 2040 2030 202 Year Table
1
C 8 8 8 Costing Category
- - OSTS 41,043,000 - 4 4 Conservative 2,300,000 2,039,000 1,805,000 3 R/W Ridership : : Atlanta 8 Table : : Atlant
ly mentioned, the capital costs, costs, capital the mentioned, ly - category coststhefor , Land
-
a
4
-
- Birmingham TotalHybridCapital CostCategory by SCC
Birmingham
the outlines
expensive Revenue Scenario and diesel, steel diesel, and 153.8 Miles $1,571
$89.6 $78.0 $67.5
Revenue s also results in in results also s
than fully electrified than vehic 71,825,000 ) 4,025,000 3,568,000 3,158,000 Ridership HybridHighPerformance Dedicated Use route Use Dedicated
$ $1, $1,817, Intermediate Allocated Cost
yrd ih Performance High Hybrid $ $257,181, $ $308 (in millions (in and 2010$) 4,456,957, Hybrid High Hybrid Performance $43,424, 217,250,000 832,505,000 016,855,000 - wheel technology. technology. wheel N/A N/A N/A ,987,000 054,000
000 operating 000 decrease 000
Revenue Scenario
$2,966 $156.9 $136.5 $118.1
$ $ 545,116,$ $ d 1,030,714, Contingency $77,154, $13,027, $92,696,0 $
249,752,000
cost due to the elimination of the of elimination the to due 65175,000
n eil cs sne diesel since cost vehicle in (30%) N/A N/A N/A N/A les. les.
s, 82,085,000 Appendix Scenario 4,600,000 2,353,000 3,609,000
Ridership and maintenance costs costs maintenance and
scenario 000 000
000 scenario Optimistic 00 000
Ridership and
$ $1, $1, $
. F $ $334, $401,
5, 2,362,170,0 $ $56,
282,425,000 Total Cost 36,003,000 includes the includes 536,177,000 016,85 082,257,000 aia cost capital
Scenario Revenue al 8 Table N/A N/A N/A 452,000 $3,143 $179.3 $156.0 $135.0 336,000 683,000
(2010$)
5,000
00
-
5
2 - 93 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 94 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
Total O&M Costs Fixed O&M Costs Variable O&M Costs costs (startupmaintenance year)for2021(horizon 2040 and year). estimate the illustrates analysis.operatingratio Intermedi and and ratio the Use, Dedicated and Use Shared the to Similar 8.3 al 8 Table
F EASIBILITY EASIBILITY Table ate b enefit - 7
8 and and lutae h rsls f hs aaye fr h three the for analyses these of results the illustrate -
5 : : Atlanta - c
ost Optimistic
ratio
E $66.2 $31.8 $34.4 2021 - VALUAT Birmingham HybridO&MCosts millions)(2010$ yrd ih Performance High Hybrid
for the Hybrid the for
scenarios ION $67.6 $31.8 $35.8 2030 .
High Performance Performance High
pedx otie mr detailed more outlines G Appendix study $69.0 $31.8 $37.2 2040 scenario
d eveloped
scenario
prtn and operating
Conservative (2021 n operating an . . $1,420 $667.8 $751.8 Total Table 8 Table -
2040)
- 6 ,
while maintaindemands capital reasonable cost expenditure. high implement effectively and efficiently to order in phased be also can costs capital the corridor, the phasing By improvemeservice for demand ridershipand higher in results trends population corridor as serviceUse Performance high This 8.4 integrated an systemV (refer hub toSection with combined if especially implementation, for potential best the a with The operatingcosts lower associated with(10 fewer frequencies round day).pertrips avoid the and tracking single This
- Hybrid High Performance High Hybrid positive discussion focuses on reducing capital costs for the initial implementatio initial the for costs capital reducing on focuses discussion Table pe ri wti te Atlanta the within rail speed Dedicated Use Hybrid High Performance P n
HASING HASING Intermediate 8 -
7 operating performance is largely due to lower operating cost due to to due cost operating lower to due largely is performance operating scenario Table : : Atlanta 2040 2030 2021 2040 2030 2021
nts.
S 8 -
6 CENARIOS FOR FOR CENARIOS
case of 1.28. Th 1.28. of case a b iceetly mrvd o 180 to improved incrementally be can
- : Atlanta Birmingham Hybrid Conservative
1.41 1.25 1.10 1.51 1.34 1.18
Hybrid High Performanc ne o ance : Chapter: scenario - - C Birmingham HybridOperatingRatio
pe ri i odr o et urn ad future and current meet to order in rail speed onservative Dedicated Use 0.48 0.72 eetiiain aneac css s el as well as costs maintenance electrification f
- imnhm ordr Te yrd High Hybrid The Corridor. Birmingham
e produce 2
). Intermediate Hybrid High Performance High Hybrid
Benefit C
2.00 1.86 1.72 2.13 2.00 1.85 APITAL APITAL s Intermediate
b
enefit - 0.92 1.28 e Cost
-
Analysis c C ost Optimistic
OSTS
ratios of 0.72 to 1. to 0.72 of ratios 2.12 2.00 1.87 2.26 2.14 2.02 - 2 mh Dedicated mph 220
Optimistic (2021
sc 1.13 1.62
enario
-
2050)
shows
n of n
6 2
2 - 95 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 96 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
H and right Southern Norfolk the utilize would right H approximately H of distance a the GA, Douglasville, to connect JAIA to proposes service rail passenger the of implementation I Phase Atlanta PhaseI: segment introductionthe forthe ofintercity high fu the in service commuter some provide could corridor the of segment Anniston to Birmingham the Alabama, in service rail Additionally, service. rail passenger speed long as well as suburbs Atlanta western to benefits commuter provide would that Douglasville p However, Georgia. specifi no are Atlanta the implementing in step first a as serve could and Birmingham and Atlanta both in exist opportunities rail Commuter citie 8.4.1 major two the segment between final connection this of Birmingham. full completion be the the could with corridor allowing significantly the increase along Ridership to expected Birmingham. downtown in station the segme final This Birmingham. and Anniston between connection the providing by Birmingham and Atlanta between high the complete would process implementation the of III Phase PhaseIII:Anniston challengesenteringand exit I the follow to continue would route This Anniston. in station the include will and miles Doug high connect the of implementation II Phase Douglasville,PhaseII:GA transportin Rail, ridershipalonginitial corridor. the Passenger Intercity with paired boost wouldhelp which city, the into suburbs Atlantawestern the from commuters be potentially could I Phase - AA AlnaMP adDulsil. Ti hs wud olw piaiy I primarily, follow, would phase This Douglasville. and MMPT Atlanta JAIA, - - of 0 right 20 -
JAIA. A - way, with the exception of the route through downtown Atlanta in which itwhich Atlantain routedowntown through ofthe exception the with way, DDITIONAL
-
term intercity ben intercity term c plans for commuter service from Atlanta to the western portion of portion western the to Atlanta from service commuter for plans c - avle o onon nitn A, dsac o apoiaey 76 approximately of distance a AL, Anniston, downtown to lasville of - Dougl - a crio ad ol fc sm tpgahc n curvature and topographic some face would and corridor way –
Birmingham,AL I sil cmue opruiis xs bten tat and Atlanta between exist opportunities commuter ossible asville, GA asville, MPLEMENTATION –
Anniston,AL ing ing city the of Anniston. efits, if constructed on the same route as the high the as route same the on constructed if efits,
nt is approximately 64 miles, and would include would and miles, 64 approximately is nt
- pe psegr al evc pooe to proposes service rail passenger speed
- ture, potentially elevating ridership within ridership elevating potentially ture, of O - - while there are no plans for commuter for plans no are there while Birmingham Corridor. Corridor. Birmingham way to access both the Atlanta MMPT Atlanta the both access to way PTIONS - speedservice.passenger
36 miles with station stops at stops station with miles 36 –
C OMMUTER - , tat and Atlanta s, Currently, there Currently, speed rail route rail speed R AIL
- 2 0 g - -
the within rail passenger Corridor Birmingham for alternative technology viable a as analysis Performance Performance High Hybrid the of feasibility the regarding conclusions definitive make to needed is alternative High Hybrid The requirement increasingbenefitand Atlanta high to approach incremental Performance High Hybrid the into investigation Initial 8.5 study
C - imnhm Corridor Birmingham ONCLUSION
sd high used
Performance scenario . -
ee etmts o rvne n css soitd ih the with associated costs and revenue for estimates level be i be
ncluded in the next phase of the passenger rail planning rail passenger the of phase next the in ncluded scenario scenario
-
speed rail speed oh n em o rdcn iiil aia cost capital initial reducing of terms in both . The The . - . Therefore, a more detailed analysis of this this of analysis detailed more a Therefore, . cost cost ratios
may provide significant advantages in the in advantages significant provide may study .
eomns ht h Hbi High Hybrid the that recommends scenario
niae ta an that indicates Atlanta -
2 - 97 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
2 - 98 Section II: Atlanta-Birmingham Corridor
S E C T I O N V: CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS
t Steps t Section V: Conclusions Sectionand V: Nex
Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
55 lowest the operatingratio driven relatively lowby revenueridershipand res has and speed average lowest the shows but costs, maintenances and operating and ratios operating revenue and ridership highest the shows also but mile, per cost capital ratio. cost w others the to compared Atlanta the table, the on Based 1 Table 1.1 Benefit Operating Ratios Total O&M Costs Totalper Cost Mile Total Capital Cost Total Revenue Total Ridership Average Speed Travel Time (hour : minute) Route Length (miles)
Operating the the ratiosonlyScenario for prepared were for 110mph Conservative Shared routes. Use Optimistic Intermediate Conservative
Table S
Conservative - - 1 HARED HARED Cost
compares the three study corridors and their respective Shared Use Shared respective their and corridors study three the compares 1 2040 2030 2021 -
1 Scenario Atlanta
: Corridor: Study
Scena Scenario
.
Atlanta U 55
-
rio Chattanooga SE
- ith the lowest capita lowest the ith
imnhm ordr lo a rltvl lw aia costs capital low relatively has also Corridor Birmingham $2,937,324,000 $1,
$930,300,000 $16,821,000 Birmingham s 37,177
077,851 110 mph Diesel 110 Atlanta 64 64 mph 176.0 - 2:46 0.95 0.88 0.80 1.49 1.32 1.15 - Macon Nashville ,000
- ,000
-
Jacksonville
- Louisville Atlanta $ $ $ l cost per mile per cost l 2,067,000,000 4,966,849,000 2,704,983 - $11,49 Jacksonville Electric 47,430 77 77 mph 408.6 1 1.07 1.00 0.92 1.73 1.48 1.25 5:19 -
Macon
2,000 ,000 Corridor Corridor
C
Shared Use Comparison Shared
,000
ORRIDOR
-
and the highest benefit highest the and Atlanta perf elcs h highest the reflects Nashville $ $ $ 11,589,054 2,780,000,000 4,277,336 $26,316,000 101,962 orm 72 72 mph - C 48 Chattanooga
6:5 0.85 0.78 0.71 2.01 1.74 1.49 s well when when well s and the best the and - OMPARISONS 9. Louisville 5 8 ,000 ults. ults.
,000
, 0 routes
00
- - .
5 - 1 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
5 - 2 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
Louisville Corridor has the highest operating ratio of any technology in any corridor any in technology any of ratio operating highest the has Corridor Louisville benefit lowest Chattanooga ratio cost T 1.0. than greater Corridor technologies 1 Table 1.2 ratio. cost corridors other the as well as perform not low to due but costs, maintenance and operating and Atlanta steel electrified or highest the speed has average Corridor Jacksonville The speed. average the highest the technology, has Corridor Maglev of use the With Optimistic Intermediate Conservative Operating Ratios O&M Costs per Cost Mile Capital Cost Revenue Ridership Avg. Travel Time Length Corridor 2030 2021 2040 2030 2021 2040 2030 2021 Speed Ta
D
ble - - B EDICATED
. 2
irmingham
largely s
oprs h tre td crios n ter eiae Use Dedicated their and corridors study three the compares
1 gi, l tre td crios n tcnlge hv oeaig ratios operating have technologies and corridors study three all Again,
-
- 2 Nashville : Corridors: Study nldn Mge i te Atlanta the in Maglev including $ $8,36 - $ the in technology Maglev The technologies. all for ratios cost 1,700,000,000 $54, Birmingham 1 44,270 694,837 117 mph
Atlanta u to due 150.7 1:18 2.00 1.87 2.00 1.86 1.72 1.41 1.25 1.10 4 he he 399 180 , 997 - U ,000 Louisville Corridor has the best operating ratios, but also the also but ratios, operating best the has Corridor Louisville Atlanta ,
000 -
,000 , - 220 mph Dedicated Use service provides service Use Dedicated mph 220 SE 000
t hvn h lowest the having its
- Steel Macon $16,144, Atlanta $ $ 4,090,000,000 4, $41,32 Jacksonville 55,330 411,712 - 131 mph he tcnlg. technology. wheel - 368.1 Wheel/Maglev 2.17 2.04 2.15 2.00 1.83 1.56 1.35 1.14 2:48 - - Jacksonville Corridor Jacksonville Macon 0 3 ,000 36 ,
000
,000 ,
000 for either the either for
Atlanta
-
aia cs pr ie mile. per cost capital
$ Atl $ $ 32,675 5,814,000, 6,494,937 - - $ 110,677 Chattanooga Chattanooga Dedicated Use Comparison Dedicated 76,304 - 122 mph Chatt er 428.2 Louis 2.45 2.16 2.40 2.23 1.95 1.62 1.39 1.21 3:33
ridership and revenue, does revenue, and ridership iia t Sae Ue the Use, Shared to Similar ,809
operating ratio operating - , ,000 Nash
000
shows the best benefit best the shows , 000 000 ,
000
-
- -
Nashville Nashville
the lowest capital lowest the $47, Atl $ $ Louis $ 4,449,000 6,818,684 116,189 100,490 - 143 Chatt h At The 030,000 428.2 ots and routes 2.49 2.35 2.51 2.38 2.23 2.06 1.91 1.75 3:02
or (Maglev) - -
Louisville Louisville mph
benefit - ,000 Nash
,000
,000 ,000 lanta ,000
-
- - - .
developmentthe o percent, 16.0 and percent II 19.2 Section to back Refer of respectively). (decrease revenue and ridership in reductions Chattan Atlanta the whereas, percent); 7.3 of (decrease Use Dedicated the to compared as ridership projected in decrease small the to due is This Birmin the corridors, three the of that shows comparison benefit this However, scenarios. positive a and scenarios Atlanta scenario 1 Table 1.3 Optimistic Interm Conservative Benefit Operating Ratios Total O&M Costs Totalper Cost Mile Total Capital Cost Total Revenue Total Ridership Average Speed Travel Time (hour : minute) Corridor Length (miles)
2040
H gham Corridor gham ediate
Conservative - - - ooga Cost Chattanooga YBRID
3
efrs el n l tre corridors three all in well performs
2040 2030 2021 compares the three study corridors and the the and corridors study three the compares
-
Nashville
Birmingham
H
Atlanta f the f
Table 1.13 0.92 0.48 2.12 IGH IGH -
Nashville Hybrid
- Louisville Hybrid High Hybrid Performance
- 1
P - 3
ERFORMANCE ERFORMANCE High Performance High : Corridors: Study Comparison Hybrid $ $ $5, - Louisville 1,420,000,000 1, Birmingham $35, 41,043 Atlanta
487,672 571,284 Atlanta 90 Jacksonville Corridor - 150.7 1.51 1.34 1.18 1: ot ai a the at ratio cost 688
mph 40 1.12 0.93 0.49 2.29 - ,000 IV: Chapter 8 for more detailed description on description detailed more for 8 Chapter IV:
, -
000 Macon
- , ,000
show a positive operation ratio for all three all for ratio operation positive a show 000
hs infcnl hge estimated higher significantly has s
Te Atlanta The . - reflects the highest benefit highest the reflects Atlanta $ $8, $3, S scenario 3,541,000 $22, Atl Jacksonville 48,414 CENARIO - 904,349 564,222 Macon 94 94 mph - 3 Chatt 3:55 1.41 1.21 1.03 7 68.1 Intermediate Louis 92 -
0.96 0.78 0.40 2.58 Macon ,000 , .
000 yrd ih Performance High Hybrid
- ,000 , , -
Nash
000 000 - Jacksonville and and Jacksonville
Macon
-
-
Nashville $ - $ $
16, akovle and Jacksonville Chattanooga Atl 5,429,000,000 5, $ Louis and 92,925 38,366 453,149 Atlanta 428,173 85 - Chatt 428.2 1.41 1.21 1.03 5:02
- 0.80 0.65 0.34 2.61
mph - Optimistic (Maglev) cost ratio. cost Louisville ,000 , Atlanta Atlanta
000 -
Nash -
,000
, 000
-
-
- -
5 - 3 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
5 - 4 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
all technologies and havegreateroperatingratios than 1.0. corridors all that recognized be should it Performance, High Hybrid the and Maglev, diesel mph three the comparing When 1.4 Benefit Optimistic Intermediate Conservative
K Maglev technology has the best operating ratios of any technology, but the benefit worst but technology, any of ratios operating best the has technology Maglev 180 the inall ratio technologies, other diesel mph 110 the outperforms technology to regard With benefit the of terms engineeringand further analysis requiredis ridership confirm theseto results. in strongest corridors the all shows in alternative performance technology Performance High Hybrid The weakestthe performancehas measuredas theby operatingratio. Atlant The themeasured as by benefit performance worst the but ratio, operating the by measured as performance Atlanta The by measured Atlanta The Intermediate - EY EY Cost Optimistic 2040 2030 2021 2040 2030 2021 - electric Shared Use Shared electric
C Scenario
ONCLUSIONS Scenar
Scenario t a
hree corridors,hree but trail - -
Macon Birmingham Corridor has the second best benefit best second the has Corridor Birmingham
- the benefit
- cost performance. io Chattanooga
- Jacksonville Corridor has the best relative performance as performance relative best the has Corridor Jacksonville study study
, 180 , Birmingham - cost ratio secondcost hastheand operatingratios. best Atlanta
corridors and corridors - - costratio. 1.62 1.28 0.72 2.26 2.14 2.02 2.13 2.00 1.85 Nashville - 220 mph electrified steel electrified mph 220
- s whens measured the by benefit
-
oivle ordr a te best the has Corridor Louisville - the four operating technologies: 110 technologies: operating four the electric technology by the operating the by technology electric Atlanta Jacksonville 1.48 1.21 0.63 2.39 2.17 1.86 2.18 1.95 1.66 -
Macon
- -
2 mh steel mph 220 wh - - co eel (Dedicated Use (Dedicated eel t ai; however, ratio; st Nashville Chattanooga - cost ratio, but but ratio, cost Atlanta
2.46 2.16 1.86 2.22 1.93 1.66 1.43 1.16 0.59 - costratio. - Louisville
- - wheel -
,
(footnote continued) Corridor, could 30percent. contributesystem 10to additional of in ridership range the study (previou 57 and2004”. Management Economics Prepared bySystems Transportation andCorporation HNTB the Inc. 56 the for evaluated only was evaluation Maglev since perspective, system a from assessed not steel electrified, diesel Use Shared mph 110 basis: benefit the data,ridership this Using Macon Atlanta Birmingham, an of benefits ridership system the estimated r Using Midwest. the in South, the of hub rail historic and current the as functions Atlanta substantially willbe greater than sumthe ofindependently operated corridors. cross seamless individual with or the of through each with others MMPT, the to ridership proposed feed can corridors the at hub interconnected an providing corridor given a when benefits ridership system significant are there that known well is it hand, other free separate feasibili initial The 2.1
I “Midwest Regional Rail System Rail Regional “Midwest t should be noted that a fourth Georgia corridor, the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) route to Charlotte, NCCharlotte, to route (SEHSR) SpeedRailHigh Southeast the Georgiacorridor, fourth a that noted should be t
siae ta te diinl onciiy rvdd y ht s n fet a etnin f the of extension an effect, in is what by provided connectivity additional the that estimates
S sly studied by Volpe Center in 2008) was not included in the system analysis. If it were included, the the included, were it If analysis. system the in included not was 2008) in Center Volpe by studied sly - ige rc wt psig iig eey 5 ie. 2 pret nrae in increase percent 20 A miles. wasestimated ridership thisincrementalfor approach. 25 with every corridor sidings dedicated passing same with track the single uses Rail Performance High Hybrid The technologyUseDedicatedreceive a would 30pe the factors, other and 2x) (nearly Use Shared over frequencies in increase significant the on Based technology. rail utilize Use Dedicated The ona based hub, Atlanta the through corridors the connecting scenario this for increase l rail Seaboard and GCR CSXT, NS, existing the utilizes system Use Shared The Atlanta ines and tilting diesel technology. The The dieseltechnology. tilting and ines system a on developed were scenarios technology Three ratios. cost YSTEM YSTEM - tnig evc oeaig neednl o ohr ordr. n the On corridors. other of independently operating service standing - Chattanooga
- service operates as part of an interconnected network. With AtlantaWith interconnected network. of an part operatesas service wheel technology, and the 13 the and technology, wheel ty analysis of the three study corridors examines each corridor as a as corridor each examines corridors study three the of analysis ty I Conservative NTEGRATION NTEGRATION - akovle n Chattanooga and Jacksonville
- p idership demand model results from the MWRRS the from results model demand idership latform transfers. In essence, coordinated system ridership system coordinated essence, In transfers. latform –
A Transportation Network for the 21 the for Network Transportation A - Nashville study
evaluation evaluation ofthe systemMidwestresults. model s a double a s -
electric technology, 180 technology, electric es timated resulting “system” operating ratios and ratios operating “system” resulting timated - Louisville A NALYSIS 2 -
tracked, dedicated corridor using electric using corridor dedicated tracked, S 0 mph Hybrid technology. Maglev was Maglev technology. Hybrid mph 0 study study
Corridor YSTEM
estimated a 10 percentridership 10 a estimated
estimated the ridership for the for ridership the estimated - Nashville st rcent increase.rcent
- - C . trips across the Atlanta hub Atlanta the across trips u sse cnetn the connecting system hub
entury, Executive Report, September Report, Executive entury, I NTEGRATION - 220 mph Dedicated Use Dedicated mph 220 57
-
oivle Corridors. Louisville
similar to Chicago to similar
56 , the , A
Northeast Northeast
NALYSIS - study
wide
5 - 5 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
5 - 6 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
ais o tre sensitivity three for ratios the corridors, three the to Similar stations. H and MMPT Atlanta between primarily area, Atlanta the within infrastructure H and MMPT Atlanta the structure, administrative fixed the of cost the share to ability the has system the example, For costs. maintenance and costs operating cost, capital of burden the share also would ridership the sharing to addition In and benefit system positive have alternatives using 1.0 to sy 3 Table capital own their costs. 1.0 above well ratios operating show alternatives three All Hybrid. and Use Dedicated Use, Shared for 3 Table no were there since Use variations Shared revenue The benchmarks withcomparable as the Dedica or ridership costs. include as not well did as calculations revenue and ridership in variations reflecting stem for the three technologies. The Shared Use system benefit system Use Shared The technologies. three the for stem Hybrid Dedicated Use Shared Use
capitalcost assumptions. - - 1 outlines the comprehensive operating ratios for the high the for ratios operating comprehensive the outlines 1
ilsrts h cmrhnie benefit comprehensive the illustrates 2
Table
Conservative
2 - 1 : High :
2040 2030 2021 2040 2030 2021 204 2030 2021
- 0 Speed Rail SpeedRail System Operating Ratios
iesi ad aia cs asmtos Al technology All assumptions. cost capital and ridership
scenarios: scenarios:
indicating the ability to contribut to ability the indicating study
Conservative benefits, the Atlanta the benefits, - J AIA infrastructure in addition to the track and track the to addition in infrastructure AIA 2.72 2.54 2.27 2.62 2.50 2.39 2.24 1.94 1.66
Conservative - calculated operating ratios and benefit and ratios operating calculated cost ratios using the using ratios cost ted Use ted Hybrid. and
- ot ais o te high the for ratios cost , Intermediate Intermediate - hub high hub 2.57 2.36 2.09 2.51 2.36 2.24 2.24 1.94 1.66
Intermediate (
2021 e at least in part to part in least at e
- - - speed rail system rail speed speed rail system rail speed cost ratio is close is ratio cost
- 2040 and Optimistic very strong very - ) 1.76 1.53 1.31 2.04 1.78 1.56 2.24 1.94 1.66 Optimistic pe rail speed
ridership
- - JAIA cost
associated likethat with rail speed highsystemsnational inAsia. Europeand commitment funding national a require would system a such of magnitude the and ove out staged be to have clearly would system a Such system. Use Dedicated $23. to system, from range system a such for estimates cost will system out built fully a for required investment capital benefit and ratios operating Atlanta should an that be noted while It Table Hybrid Dedicated Use Shared Use 2 4 - 2
ilo fr Hbi sse ad $ and system Hybrid a for billion
: High :
- Speed Rail SpeedRail System Benefit - cost ratios and ultimately passes the feasibility tests, the tests, feasibility the passes ultimately and ratios cost Conservative
0.78 0.5 0.91 8
- hub high hub
$15.0 Intermediate - speed rail speed system producespositive 1.46 1.09 1.01
- billion for a 110 mph Shared Use Shared mph 110 a for billion Cost Ratios 43.5
ilo fr 180 a for billion be be Optimistic
(2021 signifi 1.78 1. 1.11 24 -
2050) cant. Capital cant.
- 2 mph 220
r time r
5 - 7 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
5 - 8 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
t during Further, to vehicle a as used be can owners railroad private and/or advertising. Amtrak with negotiations targeted development and station Public joint agreements through pursued risks. be also revenue can sector opportunities public partnership reduce and service the of operation public Additionally, amenities. traveler and pricing aggressive service, of levels high through revenues and ridership maximizes that plan service a develop to is requirements, funding support operating country,state across a limited funding f the federal the With and OperatingFunding and taxes, public transportation specialized local financing, incremental tax as such tools expa tax interest federal and high for costs capital guarantees,loans, loan direct low interest include financing options These programs. fund where help to states instances to and development opptocapitalgrant addition In station to limited typically coincideinfrastructureimprovements with freightoperations. is funding private and Local funds. state with matched usually are sources grant federal These financingand avenuesgrant capitalto fund improvements including: sector public uses typically U.S. the in service rail passenger for funding Historically, CapitalFunding operatingsupport as tosupplement revenue.fare study the research, its iss In strategies. and opportunities feasibility funding local and state federal, financial of the the U.S, understand Southeastern the in rail speed high better implementing to order In
- examined sources of capital funding for infrastructure and infrastructure for funding capital of sources examined private partnerships. facilities Acquisition andofoperating constructionequipment maintenance of construction Infrastructure (track, stations), signals, and engineering preliminary final and (PE)(FD), design Project
developmentactivities(i.e., environmental planning, compliance,
.
- privatepartnershipopportu
nsions. In some areas, there are specialized financing specialized are there areas, some In nsions. ortunities, there is also federal loanthere isortunities, federal financingalso available nities can be pursued to franchise the tofranchise bepursued can nities - pe ad nect psegr rail passenger intercity and speed 3
F UNDING
Study
e lnig process, planning he
e ascae with associated ues irstinstep managing
examined a variety a examined equipment, as well as equipment, O
PPORTUNITIES - private
5 - 9 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
5 - 10 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
3.1 fedthe at opportunities financing and funding current of inventory an provides chapter This pr effectively and/or service cost debt capital when fundsfor provide future infrastructureand maintenance replacement. reduce to service, used be of can that levels profits operating high generate that been has Asia and Europe in experience international and National costs. operating minimize help to Division B of the Department of Defense and Full and Defense of Department the of B Division to pursuant Grants Discretionary TIGER in million $526.9 award to authorized is DOT US in 2010 appropriated for IITIGERDiscretionary the Program. Grant funding federal percent Discretionary 80 in million (TIGER) $600 another then, Since Recovery Program. Grant Economic Generating Investment Transportation in percent multi 100 flexibleprovided $1.5 billion ARRAalso state on focuse and PRIIA by provided framework statutory the on based is program high for assistance “capital Act Reinvestment and Recovery (A American the passed Congress 2009, February In 3.1.2 bottlenecks. Grants High Congestion 302 for Section greater. grants or mph 110 capital of speeds planned with corridors designated provides federally for Development 501 Section Assistance. p Act the of 301 Section authorized. amounts the appropriate to year each required is action Congressional interstateofstates,groups compacts, agencies,public insomeand Amtrak. cases au legislation PRIIA The high grants.capitalfederal/state U.S. develop and the passed addition Congress 2008, ( Act Improvement of October In 3.1.1 R) hc aporae $ blin n 0 pret eea fnig providing funding federal percent 100 in billion $8 appropriated which RRA)
F
eral,andstate local levels Study thefor three Corridors. EDERAL EDERAL - , provides a new statutory framework for a federal/state partnership to fund to partnership federal/state a for framework statutory new a provides , spons E (ARRA) A (PRIIA) P ASSENGER CONOMIC MERICAN
ored projects.
PRIIA C AND R APITAL APITAL thorizes $3.4 billion in capital grants over five years to states, to years five over grants capital in billion $3.4 thorizes R R ECOVERY ) Ti legislat This . CVR AND ECOVERY oie gat fr nect Psegr al evc Capital Service Rail Passenger Intercity for grants rovides AIL - pe ad nect psegr evc uig 80/20 using service passenger intercity and speed
- pe crios n itriy asne srie” This service.” passenger intercity and corridors speed T
I RANSPORTATION NVESTMENT AND G RANTS (TIGER) o ratoie fnig o Amtrak, for funding reauthorizes ion
are focused on relieving rail congestion congestion rail relieving on focused are
R
EINVESTMENT asne Ri Ivsmn and Investment Rail Passenger I MPROVEMENT I - NVESTMENT Year Continuing Appropriations Continuing Year - modal funding under the - pe Ri Corridor Rail Speed
A
A CT OF OF CT G
CT OF ENERATING vdd can ovided, d
funding 2008 n in and 2009
was
equipment, operate to necessary high infrastructure, of acquisition and construction the manner, comprehensive a in address, generally will and project individual each of sum the than greater benefits produce collectively will projects These SDP. range g (or phase distinct a or entirety the constitute which inter applicationwillGranttypicallysets An SDP of contain approval. and 80/20 percent federal/statebasis in an servic existing upgrading substantially or services passenger high new developing on focus Grants SDP Program. HSIPR FRA new long “the is (SDP) Programs Development Service in Investment 3.1.3.1 FY provided forHSIPRin 2011 features below. basic outlined The are Grants. program Planning each for provided was million $50 and Projects, Pro Development for provided Service was billion $2.1 programs, these for appropriation 2010 FY the Under for framework PRIIAwellthe as programgrant as funding futurefor programs. few HSIPR the for regulations and guidance final develop will FRA 80/20 for appropriations 2010 threegrants areas:federal/stateprogram under FY for (NOFA) availability funding of notices recent Rai the for structure a appropriations, PRIIA subsequent under offered grants as well as grants ARRA for guidance developing In 3.1.3 a or area metropolitan 31,2011Octoberregion. was the d a nation, the on impact significant a forhave will basis competitive that a projects on awarded be to are program TIGER FY2011 the for funds Appro 2010 FY the under program II” “TIGER or Investments Infrastructure National the and ARRA to pursuant implemented and authorized program “TIGER” the for appropriation the to identical (Pub. 2011 Act, l (HSIPR) Program (HSIPR) l
years
PlanningGrants GrantsIndividual Project 2010 Service DevelopmentProgram Grants Se H however, ; rvice Develop Program Grants Program Develop rvice IGH ;
-
S . 112 L. PEED AND
has evolved. The current structure is best reflected in the most the in reflected best is structure current The evolved. has hs itrm udne ouet wl poie h basic the provide will documents guidance interim these
- issued in the Federalin the Register on issued April1, 2010. 1, p. 5 21) Ti aporain s iia, u not but similar, is appropriation This 2011). 15, Apr. 010, - speedintercityservice.and passenger rm rns $4 mlin a poie fr Individual for provided was million $245 Grants, gram rain At A wt te IE ad IE I programs, II TIGER and TIGER the with As Act. priations
or or 2012 I NTERCITY
also issued onJulyissued 1,also 2010
eadlineforsubmissionofapplications. t hud e oe ta no that noted be should It .
R’ Hg Sed n Itriy Passenger Intercity and Speed High FRA’s P - kindcontributions allowable are FRA with
ASSENGER issued issued
inRegister Federal the on July 1, orpi scin o a long a of section) eographic R ;
and AIL es. A SDP Grant provides Grant SDP A es. ttos ad facilities and stations, Program Program , - (HSIPR)
term interest” of the of interest” term e appropriations new - speed or intercityspeed or - relatedprojects,
over the next the over
of -
5 - 11 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
5 - 12 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
other requirements agreed upon by FRA and the grantee grantee the and FRA by upon agreed requirements other program entire the of cost the Major HSIPR proven with applicants by experience.implementation submitted are and technology, proven primari requirements grant two are There tto rhbltto) eeiig n o mr eitn high existing more or services. passenger one discrete benefiting fund rehabilitation) to is or station operation intent in The result stage. that projects FD/construction individual the the into for move necessary documentation to the of project all in result should hav activities grant the of already p of projects completion or documentation; or FD/construction Awards approval. FRA with allowable are contributions Grants high existing of costs capital improving the with applicants assist to intended are Grants Project Individual 3.1.3.2 preliminary all and documents NEPA application. project compon requires project for (PE) FRA engineering (FD), into design directly advance final to intended applications For issues. NEPA Service minimum, must applicant The components. and completed have project individual and issues service both cover Standard are eligible activities forfunding. site engineering, preliminary project’s with requirement a NEPA” “Service submitted FRA’s satisfying document and NEPA completed have must applicant an grant, SDP Major a for eligible r review environmental project site address to (CE) Exclusion Categorical or (EA), Assessment Environmental EIS, 2 Tier a by followed document); NEPA” (“Service issues service broad address to requir typically will SDPs Major funding availablegranteeswith made a to reimbursableon basis agreement” “cooperative traditional a is SDP Standard the for instrument award The agree will Funding funds. of disbursement any to prior ments and disbursed to grantees as the agreed upon milestones are achieved. are milestones upon agreed the as grantees to disbursed and ments SDP’s
y eei itriy asne ri srie ih o sed o 7 mh use mph, 79 of speeds top with service rail passenger intercity benefit ly Individual Project Grants Project Individual r poie o a 8/0 ecn fdrlsae ai ad in and basis federal/state percent 80/20 an on provided are SDP’s
are unique unique are
SDP can utilize a “non a utilize can
categories: ,
submitted with with submitted and 2) Standard Standard 2) and because - pe o itriy asne srie Idvda Project Individual service. passenger intercity or speed
e a “two a e 1) Major S Major 1)
which
the award instrument will be a “Letter of Inte of “Letter a be will instrument award the - qieet (poet EA dcmn) T be To document). NEPA” (“project equirements tiered” NEPA approach where one EIS or EA would EA or EIS one where approach NEPA tiered”
roject NEPA and PE documentation. Completion documentation. PE and NEPA roject the ns o e opee ad umte wt the with submitted and completed be to ents
- will contain milestones, grant conditions and conditions grant milestones, contain will specific -
tiered” NEPA approach: utilizing a Tier 1 EIS 1 Tier a utilizing approach: NEPA tiered” application an EIS or EA that addresses, at a at addresses, that EA or EIS an application Ds which SDPs DPs , which is the default category for SDP for category default the is which ,
ing EA fnl ein ad construction and design, final NEPA, te tnil ipoeet ( improvements tangible other
be obligated through cooperative through obligated be opee site completed
ot es hn 10 million, $100 than less cost are
for projects for which .
- pe o intercity or speed
the ut e fulfilled be must - pcfc NEPA specific
application. which
-
specific involve project nt” for nt” - kind e.g., A
ofnotice the availability. funding include:These in included requirements specific and requirements PRIIA meet must Plans Rail State a require tiered approach. programs corridor Simple can corridor. entire the for effects environmental likely and questions broader addresses also that review environmental project a alternatively, or documents), and reviews tiered (using review environmental 1 least programmatic/Tier at as NEPA service defined has FRA requirements. NEPA service FRA satisfy Corridor and assessment; approach. benefits management public program forecast; financial assessment; need investment rational; program development corridor a include: must SDPs that accepted have toreceivedocumentgrant a tocompleteremaining the component(s). must FRA documents, these of one completed has application Documentatio Environmental Corridor and SDPs both include must Plans Investment Corridor Rail Passenger in and approval. basis federal/state Rail percent Passenger 1) HSIPR: under projects Pla Investment planning Corridor eligible of types two are There 3.1.3.3 withbenefits noadditional investment. be must will provide project measurable implementation; independence the operational upon gran work project individual All PE/NEPA approach. NEPA “tiered” for of a for commencement requirement Grants immediate PE. support to as sufficiently developed well const as completed and documentation design Final document. a in addressed be must projects individual All
be addressed with a project NEPA approach while more complex programs will programs complex more while approach NEPA project a with addressed be
coordination as other transport wellwith as participation stakeholder and public of Description anassessment andwith ofpublic private benefits, and 5 Vision ofexistingrail Discussion proposals, of environmental effects rail, and economic the of analysis and program rail state existing the of Discussion ofthesystemDescription its existingrail and performance, multimodal State - Planning Grants Planning
and 20 and
forrail transportation, - year service and investment program for passenger and freight rail freight and passenger for program investment and service year ns and 2) State Rail Plans. Grants are provided on an 80/20 an on provided are Grants Plans. Rail State 2) and ns
goalsaddressing the roleofrail,
ationprograms. meig ir srie EA eurmns I an If requirements. NEPA service 1 Tier meeting n
- id otiuin ae loal wt FRA with allowable are contributions kind uto poet ms hv poet NEPA project have must projects ruction
-
ie niomna Dcmns must Documents Environmental Wide SDP
, State Rail Plan, or similar planning similar or Plan, Rail State ,
evc pa; capital plan; service
FD
Tee s no is There . s ut have must ts - Wide
a
5 - 13 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
5 - 14 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
Funds from the FHWA Section 130 Program can be used for freight for used be can Program 130 Section FHWA the from Funds rail linesor highways gradecrossings. to eliminate and structures; crossing grade railroad s existing of reconstruction includes: This highway safety. of improvement the provides for program Crossing grants Safety Grade Railroad Highway 130 Section FHWA The 3.1.4 projects fo funding innovative provide to order Section in USC 1991 in 23 created (Title was 149) (CMAQ) Program Quality Air and Mitigation Congestion The 3.1.6 projects rail passenger routing freight operations accessto provide service. passenger for for useful be can program This project. is development economic or $20 to exceed 90 per percent, million fundsis not federaltheseThesharefor eligible. life, of quality community flow, traffic vehicle motor safe on traffic rail of effects adverse the mitigating of purpose the for is out 2) carried theor line, rail the of for portion any of relocation vertical million or lateral a involves $34.5 1) and appropriated Congress 2010, program FY For projects. relocation Improvement and Relocation Program financial to provide assistancelinefor rail local ( Users for Legacy of 9002 Section 3.1.5 the devices, warning active Federal withfunding percent the rests individual States. markings, pavement an hazards, of elimination signing, projects: following the for percent 100 to amount sharemay federal Therailroad. the and/or authorities s federal grade for funds Federal reconstruction ofroadsor affectedbridges and byproject a would beeligible. a should stat hazards crossing of elimination for used be also road may Funding of equipment. improvement surfaces, signal safety crossing other of installation and gates/flashers, of new of installation approaches, replacement include also may Work at of elimination devices, warning of at installation as such safety methods, of variety improve a include projects the that provided projects - rd cosns y rd sprto o cnoiain ad lsn o cros of closing and consolidation, or separation grade by crossings grade e choose to use the funds for this purpose. For example, any repair, construction,repair, any example, For purpose. this for funds the use chooseto e
. Anyproject construction FHWA P R P S which ae wt te eann 1 pret o e ad y tt ado local and/or state by paid be to percent 10 remaining the with hare, ECTION ROGRAM ROGRAM AIL
L mrv ar ult ad ep civ cmlac wt ntoa air national with compliance achieve help and quality air improve INE
ae Acutbe Feil, fiin Tasotto Eut Act: Equity Transportation Efficient Flexible, Accountable, Safe, C SAFETEA ONGESTION 130
R ELOCATION AND -
crossing safety improvements are available at a 90 percent 90 a at available are improvements safety crossing H prto o poeto o gae a cosns the crossings; at grades of protection or eparation d crossing closures. The decision on whether to allow 100 allow to whether on decision The closures. crossing d IGHWAY - LU )
uhrzd 30 ilo pr er o te al Line Rail the for year per million $350 authorized M which - ITIGATION AND R AIL
improvesrailstructurea lineroute or the of
I MPROVEMENT G railroad grade crossings crossings grade railroad RADE
C A ROSSING IR
- rd cosns Ti may This crossings. grade Q C UALITY APITAL I
MPROVEMENT , which
h eoain of relocation the
r transportation r which and passenger and G RANT
eur re require
enhance
sings. ty,
A -
highway corridors. at hazards eliminate or the over million $50 authorized High Administration Railroad Federal The 3.1.9 is share grant federal The trails). transportation to less generally not than 80percent. corridors historic rail of abandoned of operation conversion (e.g. and rehabilitation and facilities or for structures, buildings, used be Program Enhancement can Transportation funds environment. the protect and experience, Enhancement l Transportation the the strengthen for STP FHWA theallow towhich communities projects to fund is program ofthis purpose The Program. under available are Funds 3.1.8 rail double abandoned accommodate of to preservation freightand trains, transferyards. increases include clearance projects bridge freight corridors, Eligible facilities. and terminals bus intercity and/or intracity and investments, capital transit roads, public Federal onany projects for funding flexible provides (3),140) The 3.1.7 alsois percent availablecertainfunding circumstances.under share cost federal The area. attainment non a in is corridor the of portion a where corridors for eligibility include regulations re through standard quality air the of maintenance or attainment to contributes first project the (for expenses operating as well r they if area maintenance or nonattainment a in located projects passenger intercity regulations goals.Federal quality air program’s the accomplish that projects passenger and freight Act for used be may Air funding CMAQ Clean federal meet help and and congestion requireme projects traffic encompasses reduce program that The programs standards. quality air ambient national programs or projects transportation for pays CMA The standards. quality air national meeting not areas in projects for is CMAQ through authorized Funding Act. Air Clean the by forth set standards quality educe emissions and meet the program’s other eligibility criteria. Capital costs, as costs, Capital criteria. eligibility other program’s the meet and emissions educe duction in vehicle miles traveled, fuel consumption or through other factors. The factors. other through or consumption fuel traveled, miles vehicle in duction FHWA
H FHWA FHWA IGH
nts. nts. ufc Tasotto Program Transportation Surface - S
PEED
cl cnm, mrv te ult o lf, nac te travel the enhance life, of quality the improve economy, ocal T S RANSPORTATION URFACE R AIL C T ROSSING RANSPORTATION period of SAFETEA of period
- al rd cosns n eintd high designated in crossings grade rail
rsrain f bnoe riwy corridors railway abandoned of preservation E is typically 80 p 80 typicallyis - NHANCEMENT Spee I MPROVEMENT three
(STP) which d Rail Crossing Improvement Program,Improvement Crossing Rail d indicate
er) ae lgbe s og s the as long as eligible are years),
- ( LU, P Title 23 USC Section 133, 104(b) 133, Section USC 23 Title
will contribute to attainment of attainment to contribute will ROGRAM to to ercent
CMAQ funds may be used forused be may fundsCMAQ fund projects fund P P ROGRAM - aidhighw ROGRAM , although one hundre one although ,
- tc interm stack
ay, bridges on ay, bridges which
Q program Q
reduce - speed odal d -
5 - 15 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
5 - 16 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
3.2.1 a require necessarily local or matchstate not do and bonds private than interest lower have programs high aforem As 3.2 ( U pr applicant the however, make to stream revenue terms; viable a identify must favorable on financing provides program RRIF The intend ventures governments, local 100 to to equal rates up fund can loans project railroad Direct a of percent agency. public rating credit significant recognized nationally a one after least at from stream rating grade investment an obtain must assistance credit RIFF receiving revenue substantial typically a is investment provide forecasts to cost potential operating and revenue grade In projects, rail int new establishing or developing for as well as above listed purposes the for incurred shops. rail or and intermodal buildings, rehabilitate yards, bridges, or components, track track, improve, including facilities, acquire, or equipment to used be may funding The is billion $7 to Up billion. $35 to projects forreserved benefitingfreight rail up guarantees loan and loans railroad direct authorizes of development finance ( of 1998 Century to guarantees loan establi wasprogram The infrastructure. and loans federal Program Financing direct Improvement and Rehabilitation Railroad The OMB S
ogram is administered by the FRA, and final award decisions are overseen by the by overseen are decisions award final and FRA, the by administered is ogram DOT Credit Council and the the and Council Credit DOT facilities. railroad or ermodal the case of passenger projects, RRIF funding is only workable where investment where workable only is funding RRIF projects, passenger of case the -
pe ri crios a tk avnae f n iu f eea gat. These grants. federal of lieu in of advantage take may corridors rail speed F )
ing .
EDERAL EDERAL (RRIF) R
which toconstruct entioned, there are a number of federal financing and loan programs that programs loan and financing federal of number a are there entioned, AIL n diin te funding the addition, In Passenger railPassengerare projects also eligible
the U.S. Treasury rate. Treasury U.S. the R
nld a least at include EHABILITATION AND TE
A . F
-
government INANCING AND AND INANCING 21 aconnection. rail new made in in in made )
and amended SAFETEA by and , with repayment periods of up to 35 years and interest and years 35 to up of periods repayment with ,
While the program has been used largely for freight for largely used been has program the While ht Hues fie f aaeet n Budget and Management of Office House’s White
n r one - frastructure and/or equipment. and/or frastructure pnoe atoiis n croain, joint corporations, and authorities sponsored
Eligible borrowers include railroads, state and state railroads, include borrowers Eligible a b ue t ref to used be can shed by by shed ira, n lmtd pin rih shippers freight option limited and ailroad, I MPROVEMENT roads thanClassI carriers. other L
OAN OAN
Transportation Equity Act for the 21 the for Act Equity Transportation payments over the loan period. period. loan the over payments demonstrate .
- P LU. Under this program,this LU.Under FRA the ROGRAMS F INANCING nne usadn debt outstanding inance
h poet a the has project the Typically, projects Typically, RI) provides (RRIF)
P ROGRAM
This st
local or state a method, financing the approve not notifymustgovernment willbeFHWA they using bonds. GARVEE do they funding, appr must federal FHWA While funds. federal anticipated using funds detail project the and funding pro transportation federal receiving projects for used for be only Thesemay bonds GARVEE mode. Code. transportation used States United be the of can 23 Title bonds of 122 Section in guidelines the under ( Bond Vehicle Revenue Anticipation Grant 3.2.3 investment and/or an infrastructure obtain in must assistance rating atfromleastgrade one nationally recognizedcredit agencyrating made credit typically TIFIA receiving is Projects investment equipment. public significant a after subst a provide to potential the has project the show forecasts financing RRIF projects, passenger ofcase Inthe borrowing. assisted through projects financing to Similar revenues. uncertain or complexity, size, of because deferred or large delayed qualified, advance help can TIFIA projects to restricted is and cost project's a of percent 33 flexible m debt the and rate markets, Treasury capital intere similar to for favorable markets capital more access potentially improved and terms, provides repayment assistance credit TIFIA shops. and buildings yards, bridges, track, facilities, equipment, include can and eligible are projects infrastructure rail and intermodal of variety wide A projects. program’s passenger and freight both for used creditbe can TIFIA system. transportation TIFIA The non other significance. by funds federal leverage national to is goal fundamental of projects transportation public to directly provided is assistance financial TIFIA flexiblewascreated program TIFIA in 199 on assistance credit in guarantees loan loans, secured of billion form the in terms $10.6 authorizes FRA, the by administered The 3.2.2
USDOT’s
(GARVEE) FHWA I US
NNOVATION s ny okbe hr ivsmn gae eeu ad prtn cost operating and revenue grade investment where workable only is the RRIF program above, TIFIA is not a fun a not is TIFIA above, program RRIF the - f drl netet n rtcl mrvmns o h nto’ surface nation’s the to improvements critical in investment ederal
DOT
Transporta
T G RANSPORTATION RANT
A CT in nrsrcue iac ad noain c (TIFIA) Act Innovation and Finance Infrastructure tion
instruments. instruments. (TIFIA) ust be repaid within 35 years. 35 within repaid be ust ms b apoe b te FHWA. the by approved be must s A 8 NTICIPATION
by by TEA the
The interest rate for TIFIA loans is the U.S. U.S. the is loans TIFIA for rate interest The - I scale projects projects scale NFRASTRUCTURE GARVEE - 21 and amended21 and SAFETEA by et wt n sae lmttos on limitations stated no with jects R trcig usata rvt and private substantial attracting ) , and standby lines of credit. credit. of lines standby and , EVENUE
od cn e sud y states by issued be can bonds ding source, but a method of method a but source, ding - rvt sosr o surface of sponsors private
which costing at least $50 million. $50 least at costing ,
t ae ta i private in than rates st including including TIFIA can support up to up support can TIFIA antial revenue stream revenue antial
F y vr h tmn of timing the over ty tews mgt be might otherwise
V v te rjc for project the ove INANCE AND EHICLE
tts ea the repay States passenger rail, passenger .
- LU. B
OND The
5 - 17 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
5 - 18 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
al rga cn rvd a ai fr ouetn t ivsos h ava the investors to documenting for basis a provide can Program Rail PassengerIntercity and Speed High FRA the of provisions Intent” of “Letter PRIIA The the sometimes longasbut as to years. two three to typically are offsets Bonds short Anticipation meet to provide intended Grant financing. delay debt of with costs interest associated additional benefits development economic o than quickly bonds GARVEE a project receives an allocation and the schedule agreed upon in the application is application withdrawn. met, the allocation not be may the in upon agreed schedule the and allocation an receives schedule, project a project description, project funding 23/49 Title of description a and structure, financial information, financing/development issuance, borrower bond information, of team date proposed include application the each for established PAB’s on cap federal the basis annual an on required is allocation funding for application An this of premise The assistance. willprojectsencourage equitymore private investment to transportation. credit TI bringing TIFIA that receiving is requirement also are projects these as long as vehicles and facilities rail includes This 2010). (FHWA, Code” States United transportation surface “any include projects Qualified others. among Authorities, Development Downtown Authorities, Development include issuance bond for conduits as serving traditionally loca and State capita$95 receive per ormillion, $277.8 whichevergreater. is to state each for allows budget 2011 the Agencies, Finance Development of Council USD the by administered is program The issued. been have transportationfor limit billion $15 a to up PABs, for eligible already were mph) 150 (over facilities rail speed highway (including facilities transfer SAFETEA Code. Revenue Internal the of 142 Section of amendment the through projects transportation for eligibility bonding activity private introduced Congress firms. private of activities the finance tax federally are (PABs) Bonds Activity Private 3.2.4 of sources other use or rates securityas revenue onthe federalofportion the bonds. interest high carry either to elect may State the and will government federal The financing. expected the the provide guarantee not do States the and government federal funding. grant federal future of commitment
IRS
T hrie ol b psil. nlto, nrae cneto, n lost and congestion, increased Inflation, possible. be would therwise l governmental authorities must issue the bonds and the authorities the and bonds the issue must authorities governmental l are useful when it is desirable to bring a project to construction moreconstruction to project a bring to desirable is it when useful are AX E XEMPT - related PABs. As of August 2010, more than $2b than more 2010, August relatedof PABs.As - rjc wih eevs eea assac udr il 23, Title under assistance Federal receives which project term
P funding needs, usually less than one year to maturity, to year one than less usually needs, funding RIVATE I ad As oehr n ufc transportation surface on together PABs and FIA - U de PB lgblt fr iha and highway for eligibility PAB added LU S - tate’s share of the bond is backed by the St the by backed is bond the of share tate’s al rnfr. as rni poet ad high and projects transit Mass transfer). rail A CTIVITY
These state. - exempt bonds bonds exempt
B bonds are not guaranteed by the by guaranteed not are bonds R ONDS equirements to be included in included be to equirements
received by the project. project. the by received O (PAB)
T, and T, which , and is and ,
according to the to according
can be used to used be can illion of PABs illionof lblt and ilability
subject to subject
freight ate I f -
and models capacity sophisticated kinds ofoperationsother analysis. of use the involve typically will and time consuming be can arrangement an such in railroad freight the with involved negotiations the be continuous might performance rail, whichreduce welded can maintenance costs an higher and example reliable more Another with rail service. jointed of passenger replacement additional the by consumed benefit capacity the Here line. main freight providescongestedsingle a on track double a addinginclude might example An benefits. project the where railroad host the from funding capital obtain to shared in projects rail Passenger 3.3.3 passenger a of case advantagesovermany revenue bonds. the have bonds in GO source, revenue marketable and dedicated or a obtaining in challenges tax sales dedicated transp a specific a as from revenues such of pledge the source by backed are bonds revenue state hand, General resultingimpact stateThe onthe is budget relat thus peri time long over benefits continuing with projects funds. grant federal state of source a as advantages many has bonding state and have states the of Most 3.3.2 to be available are appropriations fund general the of percentage small a only Therefore, infrastructure. bridge and road towards obligated only are and projects transit or rail acquir is funds general DOT state the of portion large a states, southeastern the of many In appropriations. state c politicala budgetary or in obtained fundi of amount significant a of terms in flexibility most the offers App Fund General a of use The 3.3.1 3.3 high
splitamongall otheralternative transportation projects. S - ed through motor fuel taxes. In some cases, these funds may not be used for used be not may funds these cases, some In taxes. fuel motor through ed
rain rjc, ikt revenues. ticket project, ortation speed rail speed S TATE AND AND TATE O r bce wt te legal the with backed are GO F S TATE REIGHT TATE G
G project, like other transportation infrastructure projects, is that the that is projects, infrastructure transportation other like project, ENERAL ENERAL R
AILROAD odn alw a tt t sra fnig o lre capital large for funding spread to state a allows Bonding L
OCAL OCAL the ability to issue state bonds for transportation purposes transportation for bonds state issue to ability the O g yial rqie over required typically ng F
BLIGATION AND UND - C orain o a for ropriation C u
se freight rail corridors may have the opportunity opportunity the have may corridors rail freight se ONTRIBUTIONS APITAL APITAL s to the freight railroad may exceed the capacity the exceed may railroad freight the to s A ycle the use of state tax revenues. tax state of use the PPROPRIATIONS
pledge of all state revenues. revenues. state all of pledge given the many other recurring other demands thefor many given
ie te oiia ad underwriting and political the Given M G ATCH ATCH ENERAL high d increase d speeds.freight rail The
ively small d (yial pt 2 years). 20 to up (typically ods - speed multiple
F R UNDING capital fundin capital EVENUE passenger
in any inany year. one
er i nt easily not is years The downside for downside The
n h other the On B ONDS rail g to match to g
ground project
- track
5 - 19 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
5 - 20 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
petroleum used in these modes of transportation. The budget for for budget the The on transportation. tax of sales modes a these in by used collected petroleum is revenue The modes. transportation waterway fund a developed has DOT the Tennessee, In the ofTennessee. exception with programs, grant such developed not have states most However, sources. funding state allows larger opens and programs that transportation alternative fund programs to state the grant state specialized have may states study these of Some 3.3.4 Assessments are taxes that capture “tools” value as five known are tax There jurisdictions. local tax multiple to cross that limited improvements are tools capture are value that note They stations. as such improvements local for appropriate to most are and jurisdictions important is It U.S. the in popular more become is but countries, American South and Asian in prevalent is infrastructure transportation for This costs cover taxes”. to capture capital obtaining “value of as method classified are and value to added mean this a of as some created capture been have tools is Multiple value. it added believethis of infrastructure some capture this of development the leading entities public and substantial quite be can increase this cases, some In properties. adjacent infrastructuresuch Transportation as same 3.3.7 the has improvements similar and stations stateas considerations discussedbonding above. for funding bond obligation future with repaid be fun federal for match local the as bonds high as same L the has 3.3.6 improvements similar and stations stateas considerations gener for appropriations fund to county the from received improvements make match help deve or to funds general funds their using federal of option the have municipalities Local 3.3.5 amount onthe based of collected revenue forthat mode. ocal municipalities may issue bonds for transportation improvement projects such projects improvement transportation for bonds issue may municipalities ocal
eeal nt esbe o itriy passenger intercity for feasible not generally lopments. This capital must be budgeted ahead of time and approval must be must approval and time of ahead budgeted be must capital This lopments.
V L - speed ALUE OCAL L T OCAL RANSPORTATION eeomn Ipc Fe, n Ar Rights Air and Fees, Impact Development ,
and intercity passenger ground transportation. transportation. ground passenger intercity and C B APTURE G ONDING ENERAL
revenue or general tax money. money. tax general or revenue
commissioners and/or councils. councils. and/or commissioners T AXES alappropriationsfund above.discussed F - E
UND these Q UITY
A
passenger rail passenger include Land Tax Increment Financing, Special Financing, Increment Tax Land include PPROPRIATIONS F ds. ds. UNDS The bonds, similar to the state bonds, will bonds, state the to similar bonds, The
yial ue fr vain ri, and rail, aviation, for used typically
transit
stations can increase can valueofstations the rud transportation ground
. Each Each .
ttos n surrounding and stations
h ue f oa general local of use The h ue f oa general local of use The is allowed under the under allowed is hy a ue these use may They
each necessary to to necessary
mode corridor
more
is
non residents, However, fees. and/or taxes additional the pay to required are created,and is owners withindistrict all If theapproved district property the districts. these create to authority the government local each grant must legislature state the Further, district. a creating of be favor must in are It businesses CID. of a majority a for that petition determined to businesses local upon relies CID a of creation The marketing.and the within improvements fund Usually, district. to fees or where taxes areas additional pay defined to are agree CIDs businesses districts, improvement business as to referred Also 3.3.7.3 levels funding their ever tothe due once25 the addition, In finances. owner property impacting significantly without projects tax the issued back pay to 25 “banked” this Once then bonds. is funds tax of surplus The created. was district le same the receives government local the tax period, time this property During years. increased 25 of place period a for to funds earmarked agrees an into revenues district the created, is project TIF a When whic developments required passenger the fund to for used be can appropriate particularly is that mechanism financing issue incremental tax bondThe improvements. local a amortize to and used Georgia and both in to potential governments a set arethen revenues tax “incremental”These time. over the revenues tax increase have local that developments by and improvements finance used to Tennessee is financing incremental Tax for (Center distortion” economic 3.3.7.2 little in resulting rate higher Studies, Transportation of University Minnesota, 2009). a than rather at land it the taxing of taxation the for c buildings Allowing network. the to accessibility Land buildings. and land to rate a tax around same the applying than rather value land its Land 3.3.7.1 follows: Geo current v - alue in increase significant a see will government local the expired, has period year -
re od. h slig f od provides bond of selling The bonds. free Special Assessments Assessments Special rud rnprain corridor transportation ground Local Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) and TaxAllo and (TIF) Financing TaxIncremental Local Taxes Value Land ets netvs o dvlpet eas “h spl o ln fixed, land of supply “the because development for incentives reates t axes are a type of property tax where property is assessed based on ju on based assessed is property where tax property of type a are axes ga n/r ense statutes. Tennessee and/or rgia
these funds provide services such as security, capital improvements, capital security, as such services provide funds these rud transportation ground htendtoincrease surrounding property values. - year period is complete, the banked money is used to pay back pay to used is money banked the complete, is period year
-
Community Improvement Districts (CID) Districts Improvement Community - increasing
ttos n ohr tast friendly” “transit other and stations n/r tto wl ices de o the to due increase will station and/or vel of funding as it does in the year the year the in does it as funding of vel
propert bif ecito o te methods the of description brief A y revenue.tax meit fnig o costly for funding immediate
cation Districts (TAD) Districts cation
- profits, side st
5 - 21 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
5 - 22 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
and and community, the to business more bring station, rail finda fund to may opportunity an as stations this proposed around authorities development Local developments. project that possible is It The contributions. these from governments. exempt owners, property by usually created board a on falls CID the are of governance agencies government and a SPLOST can be im be can SPLOST a t at purposes of variety a for used be may and food/beverages and fuels of sales the Sales Option Local Purpose Special 3.3.8 statelocal either or government officials. such for burden a be can which Where station, the for responsibilities management property all developments. housing for funding of and source i improvements station significant a hotel be can financing and developer exist, opportunities stores, retail machines, and restaurants include can opportunities development on additional for passenger a of establishment The 3.3.7.6 at de higher land develop to want may developers values, property of increases in result can the as long allow could commerc as such development for highways access are DOTs state Some 3.3.7.5 i developer impose to surrounding stations’ the location. ordinances their enact may located is within station the which in jurisdiction local the The parks. off and that for schools, used be costs may and service costs service public public on based additional cover to impose will completed, jurisdictions. when development, intended local by are developments charges new on These charges are Fees Impact Developer 3.3.7.4 he municipalities’ discretion. discretion. municipalities’ he spurr
S
o ep ud passenger fund help to Joint Development Joint Rights Air PECIAL nsitie ealestate growth. and economic Developer Impact Fees Impact Developer transportation air rights to be leased to developers above above developers to leased be to rights air
s arounds stations. these a CID could be created along this high this along created be could CID a P
- plemented with voter approval. Typically, t Typically, approval. voter with plemented URPOSE ie eeomn beyo development site
authorized to lease air rights over existing or proposed limited proposed or existing over rights air lease to authorized n addition to public sources. public to addition n
line and statio and line
L On a Metropolitan Planning Organization or Organization Planning Metropolitan a On OCAL transportation
ground transportation ground
Tax (SPLOST) is a is (SPLOST) Tax O
PTION
n is within DOT right DOT within is n
. The impact fees are typically calculated typically are fees impact The . d ut h sain facility. station the just nd S
ttos n pooe surrounding promote and stations ALES pc fe fr developments for fees mpact tax increase tax may developer The activities. or enterprises ial -
speed ground trans ground speed - T
food service kiosks, vending kiosks, service food ie evcs uh s roads, as such services site station offers opportunities offers station AX transportation (SPLOST) - hes of - t way. e SPLOSTs only last only SPLOSTs e hat
businesses, and businesses, is applicable to applicable is Since stations Since also take on take also
ttos as stations l ocal level, ocal
portation Other This -
ext and service of level the maintain to used be must funds funds for of the portionCounties use their may and percenta the on based allocated are for used be to state the throughout counties im t Tennessee of State The 3.3.9.2 continue SPLOSTSto with local forschoolsother and infrastructure. public all. not but Georgia bill this 2011.Therefore, fall in finalized be will which region, each for list project the upon heavily depend will 2012. of election the during TSPLOST the pass will regions which in lies issue The existing and phases acquisition or construction the in will besystems given over priority new capacity projects to given be will wi s include and projects boundaries region, Atlanta the Within percent Strategic Region. Statewide Atlanta the the within of policies 10 the between with t consistent and Plan be Transportation and/or must plans existing from and be must studies funding for selected be will that projects The allowing forfederal funds andstatespent local funds tobe onother proje high as such projects transportation multimodal for allow would funding this tax, gas the 12 percent 1 of increase among divided be would state deci to voters allows and the Boundaries) Commission (Regional regions which in (TSPLOST) Tax Sales Option Local LegislatureGeorgiaState a proposed The has 3.3.9.1 3.3.9 counties,a some mustproject list be published topublicprior referendum. tax sales the with including money fund to projects which decide to able be will authority local The voter to be put to referendumagain. few a ransportation project funding. funding. project ransportation - speed
years and if funds are needed beyond beyond needed are funds if and years
S
allocationcapital, transit for operation, maintenance.and Georgia Regional TSPLOST Regional Georgia T PECIALIZED ennessee: Gasoline Tax for Local Transportation Funding Transportation Local for Tax Gasoline ennessee:
ground transportation projects. transportation ground - 40
percent ground transp ground Further, many communities will have to make decisions whether decisions make to have will communities many Further,
for 10 years t years 10 for L
for capital and 0 and capital for
OCAL a alw o tasotto fnig n s in funding transportation for allow may os ihn utpe counties. multiple within tops e tat Rgo’ PA 2040. PLAN Region’s Atlanta he usd o te tat rgo, hr i bten 0 between is there region, Atlanta the of Outside lmns h Mtr n Dee Fe Tx o local for Tax Fuel Diesel and Motor the plements ortation F A portion of these funds is transferred to cities and cities to transferred is funds these of portion A UNDING o fund transportation projects. transportation fund o
ge of popul of ge stations and othe and stations - ll be given priority if they cross county county cross they if priority given be ll 10 P the expiration date expiration the
These funds can also be used to match to used be also can funds These ROGRAMS percent r local transportation projects. transportation local egional Transportaegional projects. ation in the latest US Census. US latest the in ation public transportation transportation public service.
for operation and maintena and operation for
usd o Alna priority Atlanta, of Outside r infrastructure projects. infrastructure r end the areas presently areas the end loain o tast is transit for Allocation , the SPLOST will have SPLOSTwill the , tion SpecialPurpose tion
Rathe
de on a sales tax tax sales a on de m r ome r than raising than r cts.
The funds The gos of egions
Cities
This The nce -
10 In
5 - 23 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
5 - 24 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
ye o P srcue, hc va which structures, P3 of types finan and delivery a both from participation sector ventu new relatively a projects. are (P3s) partnerships private Public 3.3.10 station.toa systems fund to used be could served. standard demonstrate Qualit be Air and Mitigation Congestion (CMAQ)”. Program the for Projects Rail Speed Notice Register Federal 2002 16, January the in clarified are provisions These ( Quality Air and Mitigation Congestion O 3.4.2 in changes costs. factor the potentialand process budgetary state adjust the with associated uncertainty the manage to to difficult be may pr appropriations it labor, or fuel lead long the of as because level appropriations such costs factor in increase a in year each made be revenues. process appropriations operating by covered lines. freight existing that appropriations. where Natio 3.4.1 3.4 P3 of financing techniques. examples some are Credit Act Innovation and Finance Infrastructure Transportation p the including by funding project. flexible more for allow P3s The Lease DevelopmentLease, Operate, and Private Fee Services.Contract Term Long Operate, Finance Build Design Operate, Build Design Build, Design include eaig xess o itriy passenger intercity for expenses perating
only Amtrak has a f a has Amtrak only nally S F
UNDING UNDING
UPPORT
revenues do not cover operating costs is the use use the is costs operating cover not do revenues It may not be used for per for used be not may It C S Equit Private investors and public entities join together to allow for more private more for allow to together join entities public and investors Private hog rdcin n eil mls rvld ul osmto r through or consumption fuel traveled, miles vehicle in reduction through ,
TATE ONGESTION P h peoiae ore o poiig ulc etr prtn support operating sector public providing for source predominate the UBLIC , od, As feil mth bn las Scin 2 las and loans, 129 Section loans, bank match, flexible PABs, bonds, y,
Most states Most A a ocess. PPROPRIATIONS contribut
S The project must be located in a non a in located be must project The P
OURCES AND AND OURCES RIVATE mrk hn hre ec sae o ay prtn css not costs operating any for state each charges then Amtrak ground transportation ground
to fund high fund to The use of multi of use The M drl ih o acs t poie asne al serv rail passenger provide to access of right ederal dvance of actual expenditure. expenditure. actual of dvance
ITIGATION AND ion currently P
to the attainment or maintenance of the air quality air the of maintenance or attainment the to ARTNERSHIP y n epniiiy n risk. and responsibility in ry son - speed
h calne n sn te nul state annual the using in challenge The contract with Amtrak to provide service provide to Amtrak with contract e wti te uidcin jurisdiction. the within nel CMAQ - S year operating contracts is one mechanism one is contracts operating year TRATEGIES FOR FOR TRATEGIES passenger service is that estimates must estimates that is service passenger A
- station improvements or transit feeder transit or improvements station ) time requ time IR
S funding for three years of operation. of years three for funding rail
(P Q
UAL cing standpoint. cing 3 evc are service )
ired by the state budget and budget state the by ired ITY - f hr i a unforeseen an is there If attainment area and must and area attainment F UNDS iae etr no the into sector rivate oe f the of Some e n trans in re
lgbe o FHWA for eligible O f nul state annual of funds Therefore, There are many are There (CMAQ) Improvement y PERATING PERATING
portation options , “High , , ice on ice
given
seasonal and passenger week sponsored of State day considered. day, of time including strategies state underprice often and strategy pricing ticket their in flexibility have generally States bus intercity bike/ped transit, Otherlocal for ridership. connectivity increase intermodal to encourage to method approaches risk low cost, low another is trains departing co same the the until times decreasetravel and frequencies increase to improvements equipment and infrastructure ridership and increasing marginal that involves point the revenues to features service maximize other and to speeds frequencies, service of level appropriate an Setting and advertising marketing campaigns. a networks, bus feeder connectivity, revenue start a in consideration through continues and process servic rail passenger element key a be should strategy maximization revenue a source, funding direct a not While 3.4.4 mitigating highway.interstate with associated is project the whether on dependent corridor. where highways interstate multi major to applicable the of part or constructionmostoptionis funding This of the project. duringlife costs the operating all subsidize to used be can funding highway Federal co traffic passenger intercity enhanced or new (TMP), Plan give cost a Where in J). activities construction Subpart from 630 CFR (23 Rule Mobility and Safety Zone Work the under corridor resulting highway highway congestion eligible address federally to to available projects is funding project Mitigation Traffic FHWA 3.4.3 1 although non a in is corridor the of portion a where corridors for eligibility include regulations The factors. other
resulting revenues equal marginal operating costs. Generally, this means adding means this Generally, costs. operating marginal equal revenues resulting - upre psegr al evcs Arie ye rvne il maximization” yield “revenue type Airline services. rail passenger supported
ngestionmitigationmeasure. of any state approach to minimizing state operating subsidies for int for subsidies operating state minimizing to approach state any of R FHWA The federal cost share cost federal The 00percent available is funding under circumstances.certain EVENUE rridor. An integrated feeder bus network scheduled to meet arriving and arriving meet to scheduled network bus feeder integrated An rridor. ,
an - fetv a dcmne i a rjc Tasotto Management Transportation project a in documented as effective d air ared important. also
T
RAFFIC - attainment area. The federal cost share share cost federal The area. attainment M e. se components se AXIMIZING hs taey eis n h srie eeomn planning development service the in begins strategy This passenger rail passenger - maximization strategy include include strategy maximization er iha ipoeet pro improvement highway year M ITIGATION can be either 80 or 90 percent 90 or 80 either be can S
ggressive ticket pricing, traveler amenities, and amenities, traveler pricing, ticket ggressive TRATEGIES are substantially less than auto travel times in times travel auto than less substantially are
- p n on and up
service operates in paral in operates service rail F UNDING
evc i utmtl a uies and business, a ultimately is service
rail - on oeain Eeet for Elements operation. going
service can be considered as a as considered be can service service levels, intermodal levels, service is typically 80 80 typically is et o high on jects
with the higher figure higher the with
rcn cn lo be also can pricing lel to the highway highway the to lel congest
asne rail passenger o o an on ion - percent estrian volume ercity n ,
5 - 25 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
5 - 26 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
an aggressive advertising and on and advertising aggressive an oth are travelers considered. by used devices enhancement productivity Wi on service, food room, foot ample and seats pro the by attracted also are Travelers long its insure to maximization ridership over preferred is pricing maximization revenue te poies a are o u tee ot outs costs these put to agree may providers other car. ope than cheaper be can service food sale of point for carts of use the and cost low at machines vending by offered be can service food Limited activities. cleaning service, food equipment out contracting the as by well as services manufacturer, maintenance equipment operating of delivery include Th operator. the through than cheaply more state the by provided services of variety a for out contracting consider can states Finally, flexibility rangethe a forto budgetcosts offuel out high a accepting to advantageous this find may outs States costs these put to agree may providers other car. ope than cheaper be can service food sale of point for carts low at machines vending by offered be can service food Limited costs. cent call information and reservations for responsibility the t used be also can contract operating an developing in operators other Amtrak or with Negotiations the by equipment operations, station and otheractivities. operating of maintenance operators, manufacturer other or Amtrak with include operation. going s through continues and process planning development service the in minimiz A 3.4.5 effective n operating cost control strategy should be a key a be should strategy control cost operating n - i ces n 110 and access Fi - uig eid o uwr (r onad ucrany n ul ot, Amt costs, fuel in uncertainty downward) (or upward of periods During or Amtrak costs, fuel in uncertainty downward) (or upward of periods During term viability. financial term Other statesOther servicehave reservedeliminated
ing state operating subsidies. An subsidies. operating state ing competitive bidding for the state operating franchise, careful negotiations negotiations careful franchise, operating state the for bidding competitive O vehiclemaximizeridership. to
PERATING Passenger rail o control specific cost items. cost specific control o or other outside vendor outsourcing of food service, cleaning services, cleaning service, food of outsourcing vendor outside other or
lmns o cnieain n n operating an in consideration for Elements C - ot plug volt OST
travel is a travel experienceis new manyfor potential travelersand
C ONTROL - going marketing program is an important and cost and important an is program marketing going - n ces o lpos cl poe ad other and phones cell laptops, for access in
iin f on of vision operating cost control strategy also begins also strategy control cost operating S For example, For TR - board video and audio programming. audio and video board ATEGIES sideofa fixedcost contract. element cut contractcut costs.Amtrak d o a oeaig agreement. operating an of ide operating an of ide - or amenities board - end contract cost if they have they if cost contract end
some states have taken on taken have states some
of a state’s approach to approach state’s a of rating a dining or bistro or dining a rating bistro or dining a rating r t rdc contract reduce to ers ot oto strategy control cost r mnte t be to amenities er cost and the use of use the and cost services, and other and services, ese services ese wh tart ,
uh s wide as such ich - agreement. up and up
might be might a or rak
can on - -
Government Review, 58 Fee Contract Private Services. and Operate, Development Lease Lease, Term Long Operate, Desig include: options the of 58 long the that of failure the objectives, While benefits. potential these capture long some to capacity government’s upon depends cost Ho effectiveness. and quality project improve to potential the offer P3” or partnerships private “public labeled often projects, infrastructure manage and/or finance, build, design, Long 3.5.2 foreitherburden state governmentorlocal officials. a be can which station, the for responsibilities management property all on take also of source significant f a be can financing developer exist, opportunities such Where machines, vending kiosks, andhotelstores, and housing developments. service food and restaurants include beyo development site passenger a of establishment The 3.5.1 3.5 activities. equipment the by services manufact maintenance equipment operating of delivery include Th operator. the through than cheaply more state the by provided services of variety a for out contracting consider can states Finally, flexibility rangethe a forto budgetcosts offuel out high a accepting to advantageous this find may States unding for station improvements i improvements station for unding
There are many types of P3 structures, which vary in responsibility and risk. Some Some risk. and responsibility in vary which structures, P3 of types many are There e Pml Bomil ad . ail hr, r, “Long Jr., Ahern, Daniel F. and Bloomfield Pamela See -
t P r cmeca cnrcs ewe gvrmns n piae opne to companies private and governments between contracts commercial erm RIVATE RIVATE
P J rr a wl a cnrcig u od evc, cleaning service, food out contracting as well as urer,
- OINT term infrastructure contracts have met their performance and cost and performance their met have contracts infrastructure term UBLIC - term viability of these complex arrangements is far from guaranteed. from far is arrangements complex these of viability term
Volume 43, No. 1, 2011, pages 2011, Volume No.1, 43, D wever, the success of these contracts from the public’s perspective perspective public’s the from contracts these of success the wever, P EVELOPMENT S RIVATE ECTOR ECTOR
d ut h sta the just nd te high other P
Bid Dsg Bid prt, ein ul Finance Build Design Operate, Build Design Build, n ARTNERSHIPS A LTERNATIVES
rail n addition to public sources. sources. public to addition n - iiiiy nrsrcue otat demonstrates contracts infrastructure visibility
station offers opportunities for additional on additional for opportunities offers station 49 in aiiy D facility. tion - 59.
-
em nrsrcue Partnerships…” Infrastructure term
sideofa fixedcost contract
vlpet potnte can opportunities evelopment - end contract cost if they have they if cost contract end The developer may developer The services, and other and services, a rental, car ese services ese which State and Local Local and State
might be might - . saving
retail
can - - -
5 - 27 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
5 - 28 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
oenet hv etnie xeine n udn ad managin and funding in State experience sector. extensive public the by have assumed be governments would otherwise that risk” on “revenue takes operator private the Here service. a rail speed high providing has in public interested a which is opportunity service, a partnership operate to private “franchise” a operator sector private a Offering the into sectorloans, and 129Section TIFIA areCredit some examplesof P3 financing techniques. private act the private including bonds, by Equity, funding project. flexible more for allow P3s The likely be adequate for the major capi major the for adequate be likely n side, capital the On risk. non of use the maximize 1) fundi state general a to precepts two are There 3.6 operatingcosts use for ofhost railroad infrastructure.track cost. without corridor existing use can Amtrak statute, pri to access of right exclusive the Amtrak gives PRIIA, by amended as 1971, of Act Service Passenger Rail National advantages distinct has sector. public the by controlled fully and owned be will that corridor use dedicated a on service rail speed w will approach franchise The will equipment have tobeprovidedby sources. public and infrastructure for required funding capital initial the of majority the experience, the implementto required investment capital the of portion a finance to surplus revenue usewillingthe be may franchisee 1.0,the greater than substantially is ratio operating public least proposal the to go would franchise state. the to costs reducing th further of likelihood the greater has process bidding competitive is a of use The ratio revenues operating forecast the where where i.e. exists costs agreement operating forecast franchise exceed a for potential The profits. future capture to opportunity the for return in service the operating with associated future the on takes operator private the agreement, franchise a Under business and operations railroad in management. expertise and experience have do generally They not involved. risks the understand and projects infrastructure transportation evc. t hud e eonzd ht ae o ntoa ad international and national on based that recognized be should It service.
F UNDING UNDING
udn cnrbto. contribution. funding
Under this approach, the state award of a passenger passenger a of award state the approach, this Under S For shared For UMMARY o
eod ht Ata i ol olgtd o a incremental pay to obligated only is Amtrak that, Beyond single source of federal, local or private sector funding funding sector private or local federal, of source single wh ich - state capital funding sources and 2) minimize revenue minimize 2) and sources funding capital state
ork best in situations where the state is pursuing high pursuing is state the where situations in best ork make competition f competition make - aey we fegt railroads. freight owned vately use operations on existing freight corridors, Amtrak corridors, freight existing on operations use available capacity on any privately owned owned privately any on capacity available
vt bns PB) feil mth bn loans, bank match, flexible (PABs), bonds ivity which tal investment required for a state to initiate a initiate to state a for required investment tal o eape i crusacs hr the where circumstances in example, For
has the has ng strategy for high speed rail service:rail speed high for strategy ng vnae t a tt governments state a to dvantages rom other operators difficult. operators other rom greatest operating surplus or th or surplus operating greatest
ne ti federal this Under revenue risk revenue rail major g
n 1.0. an service freight
The
will e -
transportation federal the program. for levels funding ultimate regarding continues Debate while offeringadditionalset statesflexibility programs, modal to to funding priorities. tran federal re existing of Several consolidation stalled. be to continues the level. federal the m seen is question this over Debate activity. economic stimulate to tool regarding h that recession f Regardless, operating of fundsas above.discussed sources sector private and federal innovative other of use the with along franchising mini be can risk revenue sector public side, operating the On otherthe sourceslisted state to minimize above contributions. of more or one from supplemented be to have likely will program this from funding th implement successfully to used that like partnership funding federal/state 80/20 an offers it that in significant is Act Improvement and Investment Rail Passenger The service. rail speed high implement feder significant system, highway essential. is sources funding and grants of s nimble A service. rail speed high new
multi
- h rl o gvrmn investment government of role the er uhrzto o the of authorization year inancial planning planning inancial s hlegd oiy aes A hehl decision threshold A makers. policy challenged as In
spite of well documented transportation improvement needs, improvement transportation documented well of spite
at the state level state the at l udn wl b esnil o sae t fully to states for essential be will funding al e interstate highway program. However, capital However, program. highway interstate e prain rgas no lmtd ubr of number limited a into programs sportation - uhrzto pooas nld a significant a include proposals authorization olution that mixes and matches a broad array broad a matches and mixes that olution
F ederal As with the development of the interstate the of development the with As
n rnprain infrastructure transportation in is complicated by a global economic global a by complicated is S urface urface T ransportation mized by private sector private by mized
ut e made be must o st clearly at clearly st P rogram s a as
5 - 29 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps
5 - 30 Section V: Conclusions and Next Steps