productivity in the future. Finally, comparisons of results across the cases of analyses were difficult, and there were tradeoffs between qualitative and quantitative analyses: The qualitative analysis allowed us to infer the behavior of several SFP metrics, but did not provide specific values. In contrast, the quantitative analysis gave specific results, but restricted the analysis due to lack of data to just two SFP metrics on the demand side of rail transportation: revenue SFP and ridership SFP, both with respect to operating cost. Naturally, there is room for major improvements in the analysis. The introduction of available seat-miles SFP or any other metric on the supply side will allow us not only to understand the supply side of the services, but also to understand the implications for profitability and further growth when compared to the demand side. Additional cases of analysis could be included, e.g., cases with substantial ridership changes, or cases based upon the preliminary alternatives report of the NEC FUTURE. Another improvement would be the development of a way to allocate operating costs at the route level, which would permit a comparison of performance between regional and express services, and perhaps the refinement of a strategy to mix those services. Finally, more disaggregate data at the specific route-level or O-D-level, or additional information on the way in which Amtrak made the forecasts (which might be available in the “NEC Business and Financial Plan”), would allow a direct comparison between future and past productivity, and expand the analysis of the future productivity of the NEC. Recommendations Recommendations for the Prospects of HSR in the NEC Amtrak set forth a myriad of short-, medium-, and long-term goals and objectives to advance its vision for HSR in the NEC. In addition, the ongoing NEC FUTURE planning process frequently receives public input. Thus, there are some ways in which the current prospects for HSR in the NEC could be enriched by the findings of this thesis, in order to reduce risk and to take advantage of the opportunities of the corridor: The projections of ridership and revenue should be revised, given that they might be underestimated. This is in line with Amtrak’s short-term (6-12 months) goal to “Further refine and develop program alternatives as part of the capital expenditure re-profiling efforts…” (Amtrak 2012).
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations In alphabetical order: 4R Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act AADA Amtrak Authorization and Development Act ALF Average Load Factor ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ASM Available Seat-Miles ATM Available Train-Miles CLIOS Complex, Large-Scale, Inter-Connected, Open, Sociotechnical (system or process) CFS Commercial Feasibility Study CPI Consumer Price Index EIS Environmental Impact Statement FAA U.S. Federal Aviation Administration FRA U.S. Federal Railroad Administration GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office, previously known as U.S. General Accounting Office GDP Gross Domestic Product HSGT High-Speed Ground Transportation HSR High-Speed Rail ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act LD Long-Distance (Trains) LOS Level of Service MBTA Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority MFP Multi Factor Productivity NEC Northeast Corridor NECIP NEC Improvement Program NECMP NEC Master Plan NEC-UP NEC Upgrade Program NEC NextGen HSR NEC Next Generation High-Speed Rail NR Northeast Regional (Service) O-D Origin-Destination OLS Ordinary Least Squares OPEB Other Post-Employment Benefits PRIIA Passenger Rail Investment and Improvements Act RPM Revenue Passenger-Miles RPSA Rail Passenger Service Act RT Route
2002-2003 1% -2% -4% Acela Express, Year-To-Year SFP Growth, FY 2002-2005 Acela Ridership SFP Total Revenue SFP Ticket Revenue SFP 2004-2005 4% 8% 4% 2003-2004 8% -3% 1% 2002-2003 --- -2% Metroliner, Year-To-Year SFP Growth, FY 2002-2005 Metroliner Ridership SFP Total Revenue SFP Ticket Revenue SFP 2004-2005 18% 8% 21% 2003-2004 -6% -1% -13% 2002-2003 --- -10% ---
Moreover, the NEC VISION lacks ambition in some ways, since projected cumulative productivity growth is low in comparison to the growth of the past decade (20-40% in the next 30 years vs. 20% in the past 10). Also, the plan to improve management is not explicitly mentioned, but improved management within Amtrak and coordination with other major travel modes may reveal a greater potential for productivity improvements. Thus, we offer the following recommendations to decision-makers: revise projections of ridership and revenue; involve the FAA in the planning process and consider air/rail cooperation explicitly; consider the possibility of improved management practices within Amtrak and other stakeholders of the NEC; prioritize stages of the implementation that promise the highest productivity improvements, e.g., the Gateway Program; and use scenario planning and design flexibility in the investment alternatives. References [1] The NEC Master Plan Working Group (MPWG) (2010). The Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan. [2] Archila, A. F. (2013). Intercity Passenger Rail Productivity in the Northeast Corridor: Implications for the Future of High-Speed Rail (S.M. in Transportation, MIT) [3] Amtrak (2012). The Amtrak Vision for the Northeast Corridor: 2012 Update Report. The authors would like to thank NURail, the Speedwell Foundation and Shelter Hill Foundation for sponsoring this research.