United States Northeast corridor
Existing NEC New HS line
New portal bridges Secaucus New tunnel Newark NEW JERSEY
New York Moynihan/ Penn
MANHATTAN
NEW MASSACHUSETTS YORK
CONNECTICUT Danbury Waterbury New Haven New London
New Rochelle New York
Newark PENNSYLVANIA
Newark Airport Trenton
Philadelphia Airport Wilmington
MARYLAND Baltimore BWI Airport VIRGINIA
Washington DC IRJ
Amtrak forecasts the increase in
revenues would provide an annual surplus of $US 1.65bn by 2040, much of which would be reinvested in infrastructure. Amtrak has also proposed measures to limit upfront costs, including deferring $US 57bn in capital expenditure by 2040 by delaying some segments of the high-speed line and construction of new stations until later phases. Access fees are another means of raising additional funds for construction, particularly when existing users of the line will benefit from the proposed improvements. Gaining private sector support is also considered vital to the programme’s success. Early involvement is expected through design-build arrangements whereby some delivery risk is transferred to the private sector. And while Amtrak admits that it might take until 2030 to attract sufficient private support for a PPP funding model, this could become an increasingly useful tool after the Washington - New York phase is complete. Working with local and state governments to generate funds is another option. The plan suggests tapping into sales and petrol taxes, and vehicle registration fees. Setting up a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district around the new or redeveloped corridor where taxes on new businesses moving into the area are used to improve its surrounding infrastructure is also under consideration. Increasing taxes is always highly contentious, particularly during a period of austerity when the public is feeling the
IRJ September 2012 Philadelphia NEW JERSEY N North East Corridor
No upgrading required Next Generation High Speed
Proposed HS line
pinch. Yet the appetite for improvements to the NEC corridor is strong in communities throughout the region. Newspaper editorials resoundingly back the Amtrak plan, while local and state politicians praise the potential job boost the investment will bring in areas suffering from high unemployment. Significantly-reduced journey times also have politicians and property agents in towns and cities previously considered beyond the commutable region drooling at the prospect of attracting big- spending city commuters to their neighbourhoods. While there is strong support for the
project locally, the situation at the federal level is a lot more volatile. Like any high-speed or rail infrastructure project, the NEC is heavily reliant on central government support. Amtrak projects that 50-80% of funds should come from the federal government as they do for equivalent road, transit and aviation projects, and is naturally keen to avoid the partisan political bickering over continued funding that has plagued President Obama’s high-speed rail programme since it was announced as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Republican governors in Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin all returned funds allocated to their states for high-speed rail projects in the stimulus bill, while subsequent funding for the programme included in Obama’s budget proposals have been used by House Republicans and Democrats as a bargaining chip in recent struggles to pass the federal government budget. No funds at all were allocated in 2011 or 2012 despite
111
Stair steps 1 & 2 by 2020 Stair steps 3 & 4 by 2025
Stamford LONG ISLAND Atlantic Ocean Hartford Boston
Route 128 Providence
R I
Hackensack River
Hudson River
East River
DELAWARE
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126