1. CHEME 6660
Analysis of Sustainable Energy Systems
Term Project
Inter-City Mass Transit in the Northeast Corridor
Group 20
Pablo Alvarez (jpa67)
Emad Masroor (sem289)
Alankar Sharma (as3428)
Fall 2015

2. Abstract
This report outlines the costs, energy consumption, and emissions associated with current modes
of inter-city travel in the northeast corridor, on the route between Boston, New York and
Washington, D.C. The energy intensity, carbon emissions, and costs of road, conventional rail,
and air transport are quantified and compared with a proposed mass transit system using maglev
trains. The proposed system is based on successful implementations of inter-city mass transit
around the world, including Japan, China and Europe. The benefits of such a system - in terms of
energy saved, costs reduced, time-value added, and emissions avoided - are quantified in order to
make the case for a scheme of mass transit in the northeast corridor.

3. Table of Contents
1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................1
2. Objectives and Approach.............................................................................................................3
3. Existing Mass Transit Systems....................................................................................................4
4. Current Modes of Transport in the NEC.....................................................................................7
4.1. Road..............................................................................................................................8
4.2. Rail..............................................................................................................................10
4.3. Air...............................................................................................................................13
5. Maglev System Proposal...........................................................................................................15
6. Comparison to Current Transportation Modes..........................................................................17
6.1. Energy and Emissions Analysis..................................................................................17
6.2. Time and Value Analysis............................................................................................18
7. Gross Annual Savings with the Maglev System vs. Status Quo in 2030..................................19
8. Sustainable Power......................................................................................................................21
8.1. Maglev System Power Requirements.........................................................................21
8.2. Offshore Wind............................................................................................................22
9. Economic Analysis....................................................................................................................26
10. Conclusion...............................................................................................................................28
11. References................................................................................................................................30
12. Appendix..................................................................................................................................34

4. 1
1. Introduction
The Northeast Corridor (NEC) region, also known as the Northeast Megalopolis, from Boston to
Washington D.C., is home to 17% of the population and 21% of the GDP of the United States,
despite covering just 2% of the nation’s land area.1
The NEC region hosts a diverse range of
transportation options, including an extensive highway network, many airports, and easily the
busiest rail network in the country. But fast population growth has led to increased strain on these
transportation systems; the airports have the nation’s worst delays, the highways have some of the
nation’s worst congestion, road conditions are often poor, and frequent construction to repair the
aging infrastructure is obtrusive. These and other issues lead to significant losses in both the
economic productivity of the region and in personal quality of life. The region is in need of a
transportation system that can not only handle the growing population, but also spur the growing
economy. Added on to this is the issue of moving NEC transportation to more sustainable and
environmentally-friendly sources of energy, away from the fossil-fuel-dominated energy mix seen
today.
Energy is one of the essential needs of a developed society, with quality of life and energy
consumption having high correlation. In recent years, concerns about the sustainability of energy
have risen across the world, due to the rapid depletion of nonrenewable resources, the negative
impacts of emissions on the global environment, and global instabilities caused largely by the
contestation of access to energy.2
In the United States, 28% of all energy use - and a similar
percentage of emissions release - originates from transporting people and goods, with over 70%
used for personal transportation.3
Road transport is also a major contributor to local smog and air
pollution and has other social costs like noise pollution and road crashes. To achieve a ‘green’
future, increasing the sustainability of transportation is a necessary step.
There are several approaches to achieving more sustainable travel, including using ‘cleaner’
energy sources like biofuels or increasing the efficiency of engines, but one sure way is to reduce
the amount of cars on the road. In the NEC region 80% of travel between cities is done in
automobiles.4
The energy intensity (energy per person per mile) of driving is higher than that of
flying and much higher than traveling by train, which means that in terms of energy use cars are
also the most inefficient form of personal travel.5
This together with the fact that the NEC region’s

5. 2
highways are highly congested and in disrepair means that offering an alternative form of travel
would greatly improve transportation sustainability and productivity.
There are currently no existing funded plans that fully address the transportation needs of the
region for the future, only constantly ongoing repairs and expansion as needed of the current
networks. There are also no existing plans that address the growing issue of energy sustainability,
mostly just improvements in engine technology by manufacturers. This study proposes a maglev
high speed rail to serve the northeastern corridor in order to address the aforementioned issues
while effectively meeting the transportation needs of the region for the medium-term future.
High speed rail is fast, clean, comfortable, timely, safe, and sustainable. Maglev - a specific
technology of High Speed Rail (HSR) - is all of these and even quiet as well. When airport lines
and average delays are taken into account, a maglev train traveling at over 300mph can make a
trip between any two NEC cities faster than a commercial airliner. In terms of sustainability, the
energy intensity of maglev is less than 1/10 that of cars6
and the fact that it is electric powered
means that the requisite energy can come from renewable resources like wind or solar, unlike
automobiles which are still overwhelmingly fossil-fuel powered. High speed rail also makes a lot
of sense for the geography of the NEC region. As the name suggests and as seen in Figure 1, the
region is like a corridor, with all the cities in a nearly straight line path, meaning that the rail
network does not need any branches and can take anyone from point A to point B as efficiently as
possible. Maglev would create jobs, increase the economic productivity of the region, reduce
congestion, and increase sustainability.
Figure 1. The NEC7

6. 3
2. Objectives and Approach
Objectives
The objective of this report was to analyze the current transportation systems in place in the NEC
region in terms of productivity and sustainability and then propose a new system to improve upon
those conditions. The overall goal of the study was to determine whether the new proposed system
should be implemented considering its economic feasibility and comparative energy efficiency
with respect to the current transportation modes.
Approach
Existing mass transit systems in other locations around the world were studied, with information
collected such as the type of technology, average speed, capital cost per km, end-user cost, energy
usage, and carbon dioxide emissions. This information was used to determine the best technology
to be implemented in the NEC, along with estimates of the costs to build the system, and the likely
end user costs for the riders. The technology ultimately chosen as this report’s proposal was maglev
high speed rail.
Information, including traffic volume, energy usage, emissions, user costs and economic costs,
was then collected for the three main existing modes of passenger transport in the NEC region:
automobile, airplane, and train. It was determined that the majority of the travel in the region for
a mass transit system would be between the major city centers like Washington D.C., New York
City, and Boston, so research and data collection was focused on trips between these metropolitan
areas. However, data on general use of airports, commuter rail and the highway systems was also
important for quantifying issues such as congestion and delays. Transportation trends were used
to predict the travel demands of the NEC in the year 2030, the estimated year that maglev could
be implemented63
. This ‘status quo’ scenario was to be compared to the scenario where the new
mass transit system is implemented, and compared on the bases of productivity and sustainability.
An economic analysis was performed to determine the financial viability of the proposal and the
types of funding that would be needed to build it. A decision on the viability of the proposal was
then made, taking into account the sustainability and financial feasibility. Also studied were
possible renewable energy options that could potentially provide the power for the system and
make it less reliant on the electricity grid.

7. 4
3. Existing Mass Transit Systems
Around the world, high-speed rail – defined as a railway system with average speeds above 200
km per hour – is fast overtaking automobiles, airplanes, and conventional trains as the preferred
mode of travel between cities. A railway system which facilitates daily commute between cities,
not just within them, has the potential to dramatically transform regional economies. This
transformation was pioneered in 1964 by the Central Japan Railway Company with the opening
of Tokaido Shinkansen, bringing the journey from Tokyo to Osaka – 500 kilometers – down to just
3 hours. Since then, high-speed rail has expanded in both ridership and footprint around the world.
Table 1. Mass Transit Systems
Name Year
Length
(km)
Speed
(km/h)
Annual
Ridership
(million)
Project
Cost
Cost / km
One-way
ticket cost
Tokaido
Shinkansen
1964 553 208 155 13 $7.6
billion
$13,700,000 $7514
Beijing –
Tianjin
2008 117 330 36 15 $2.3
billion
$19,600,000 $816
Madrid –
Barcelona
2008 621 225 18 17 $10.1
million
$10,100,000 $9518
Tours –
Bordeaux
2017 340 320 -
€ 7.2
billion
$25,300,000 -
Chuo
Shinkansen
phase 1
2037 363 505 -
$46
billion
$128,000,000 -
Extent of the World’s High-Speed Rail Network
In 2009, Europe had more than 6,100 km8
of high-speed railway tracks on which trains could run
in excess of 250 km per hour. This represents a consistent increase in the proportion of railway
lines in Europe which are high-speed: from 16% in 2001 to 25%9
in 2009. The European
Commission is providing financial support to support plans10
to upgrade 15,000 km of
conventional railway lines between member countries to high-speed by 2030. Spain alone has
plans to build 10,000 km8
of domestic high-speed lines by 2020, bringing 90 percent of the
population to within 50 km of a station. Japan’s high-speed rail network, the Shinkansen, has today
expanded to a total of approximately 2,600 km11
of tracks with maximum speeds exceeding 240
km per hour. In 2014, the Tokaido Shinkansen’s lines alone transported 48 billion passenger-
kilometers between Tokyo and Osaka, bringing in more than $8 billion in revenue for the last

8. 5
fiscal. However, the undisputed leader of high-speed rail is China, which in 2014 had 16,000 km12
of high-speed rail tracks, more than the rest of the world's network combined.
Emissions, Energy Use and Cost
High-speed rail offers a unique opportunity to reduce the enormous environmental footprint
associated with most modes of transportation. Unlike road, air, and sea travel, which continue to
depend heavily on fossil fuels, high-speed rail runs mostly on electricity. This allows trains to
benefit from the diversity of the energy mix which feeds into the national grid, rather than solely
using hydrocarbon fuels. Gone are the days when trains represented pollution and inefficiency;
with the advent of electric trains, this form of transport is as efficient as the national grid of the
country.
A report9
by the European Commission has found that greenhouse gas emissions by railways in
Europe have dropped by more than 60 percent since 1990 levels. On the other hand, emissions
from road travel have increased 20 percent, and air travel by 80 percent over the same period.
Figure 2. Percentage change of emission levels for transportation methods
The reasons for this reduction are not hard to decipher: it is no secret that the energy mix of most
national grids has seen considerable increase in the share of clean, renewable energy. For example,
Spain’s railways had an energy mix in 2005 consisting of 60% fossil fuels, with the rest coming

9. 6
from nuclear and renewable energy. In France, 90% of the energy used by trains came from non-
fossil fuel sources. When compared with road travel, where the overwhelming majority of
automobiles are still gasoline- or diesel-based, it becomes clear that railways have a much smaller
greenhouse-gas footprint.
Part of the reduction in emissions is due to the intrinsic energy efficiencies associated with high-
speed rail compared to conventional trains. As more and more of Europe’s lines are switched to
high-speed, trains benefit from a more standardized speed profile and a lower number of curves
and stops. Thus, high-speed trains consume 29% less energy than conventional trains per passenger
transported over the same distance19
.
The Tokaido Shinkansen, arguably the torch-bearer of innovation in the high-speed rail industry,
is an ideal example of the advantages in cost, energy use and emissions reported by high-speed
rail when compared to other modes of travel. The Tokyo-Osaka route reports an average energy
use of 90 MJ20
per passenger travelling one-way from Tokyo to Osaka, compared to the 740 MJ
per passenger used by a Boeing 777 for the same journey. The Tokaido Shinkansen is responsible
for 4.2 kg of CO2 per passenger, compared with a Boeing 777 which emits 50 kg of CO2 per
passenger. When compared with driving on a route of the same length, the benefits of high-speed
rail become even more apparent.
In the following table, the Tokaido Shinkansen’s performance on three metrics – energy use,
emissions, and end-user cost – is compared with air travel on the same route, as well as road travel
by an average U.S. automobile operating at 21.6 miles per gallon, the average fuel efficiency of
the American fleet of light-duty passenger vehicles reported by the Federal Highway
Administration. On every metric, the Shinkansen performs better, thus justifying the enormous
global investment in high-speed rail.
Table 2. Statistics of present modes per Passenger-mile (PM)
Journey
Distance
(miles)
Energy Use
(J/PM)
Emissions (kg
CO2 /PM)
Average Cost
($/PM)
Tokaido
Shinkansen
310 2.90E+05 1.35E-0221
$0.2322
Flight from Tokyo
to Osaka
310 2.41E+06 1.61E-01 $0.13 - $.4323
Drive Boston -
Philly
310 3.05E+06 2.06E-0124
$0.4225

10. 7
4. Transportation in the NEC Region
The NEC region has several travel options, including an extensive highway network, many
airports, and the busiest rail network in the country. The region is also home to many large
metropolitan areas with frequent travel between as shown in the figure below. This section of the
report summarizes the three main transportation modes in the region, cars, trains, and planes in
terms of costs and sustainability measures.
Figure 3. Popular Trips in the NEC Region26
In order to comprehensively evaluate the comparative value of different modes of transportation,
this report quantifies the value of speed. If one mode of transportation costs more than the other,
but also operates at a greater average speed, then how does one make an economic decision
between the two? Research shows that people value time at an average of about $12.50 per hour
of traveling28
, though this number varies greatly depending on income. Importantly however, this
is only the value of time actually spent in motion, i.e. in the air or cruising along an uncongested

11. 8
highway. Time spent waiting, such as at the security line at the airport or stuck in traffic is
perceived much slower and thus the value of a person’s time is assumed to double in these cases.28
4.1. Road
Road travel by car in the northeast corridor is by far the most voluminous mode of transport in the
northeast, accounting for 81% of all person-trips in the Northeast Corridor36
. The interstate system
running through the region, primarily connecting Boston, New York and Washington DC – the I-
90, I-84, and I-95 among others – remains choked for several hours of the day, and it is a common
sight to see cars lined up bumper-to-bumper on interstates during rush hours. New highways are
often proposed to alleviate the problem of congestion, but it is common for any new routes to be
clogged at peak hours within 10 years of opening37
.
Figure 4. Passenger miles travelled by cars in NEC (a) 2007-13, (b) 1960-2000
The number of passenger-miles travelled in cars on US highways has actually decreased
significantly compared to 2007 levels. As figure x shows, automobile trips sharply dropped in
2008-09, and have only picked up very slowly since then. The significance of this decrease and
slowdown is best grasped by comparing it with figure y, which shows how automobile travel on
US highways increased over the past few decades. Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics38
.
In 2014 alone, the public sector of the United States spent $165 billion to build, operate and
maintain highways across the country39
. While these costs are not directly visible to people using
automobiles to travel between cities in the United States, public spending on the highways is
inevitably paid for by taxpayers, and specifically by users of highways through taxes on gasoline
and automobiles.
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
TrillionPassenger-Miles
Year
2007-2013
Passenger-Miles in cars
0
1
2
3
4
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
TrillionPassenger-Miles
Year
1960-2000
Passenger-Miles in cars

12. 9
For some forms of transport, such as trains and flights, it is possible to use ticket prices as a measure
of ‘how expensive’ that mode of transportation is. The cost of servicing and operating the vehicle
itself is incorporated in the price of the ticket, because trains and flights are operated by
corporations which recover all of their costs. Since automobiles are overwhelmingly owned by the
passenger, it makes sense to include the costs of ownership (i.e. operation and maintenance) along
with the
$
𝑔𝑎𝑙
÷
𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑠
𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛
fuel costs.
Each year, the federal government publishes a ‘per-mile rate’ for business miles driven. This is
‘based on an annual study of the fixed and variable costs of operating an automobile, including
depreciation, insurance, repairs, tires, maintenance, gas and oil 34
The
$
𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛
rate used in this
study is taken from this source, which provides a more comprehensive comparison with other
modes of transport than just the price of gas. For the current fiscal, this has been set at 57.5 cents
per vehicle-mile, which is significantly more than the average price of gasoline over the past two
years, which, at $2.94 per gallon, yields a fuel cost of 13.6 cents per vehicle-mile35
.
The difference between fuel costs and total costs may partially explain the propensity of passengers
to choose driving over other forms of transportation: they only have to face one quarter of the
actual cost of driving upfront as fuel costs; the rest manifests itself as operation and maintenance
costs over time. It is clear that road travel by personal automobile is the most expensive mode of
transportation between cities, amounting to at least $5.9 billion of spending on travel between
Boston and Washington DC every year.
The contrasting historical trends – strong, consistent growth followed by a short-term plateau –
make it difficult to predict how car travel between cities will change over time. For this study, we
adopt the modest view that total passenger-miles on cars will continue to increase at the same rate
at which they have been growing since 2010 – 0.7%.

13. 10
Table 3. Car Travel in the NEC Region
Route
Distanc
e (miles)
Annual
Passengers
Daily
Passengers
Annual
Energy
Use
(Joules)
Total Emissions
(Annual)
Bos - NY 231 2.13E+08 5.83E+05 1.73E+16 1.71E+06
NY - DC 225 2.54E+08 6.95E+05 2.58E+16 2.54E+06
Bos - DC 456 4.67E+08 1.28E+06 4.31E+16 4.24E+0640
Total Money
Spent (not incl.
time) (Annual)
One
way
cost
Time
(min)
Money
value of
time
Total cost
including
time
Total
Emissions
(Annual)
One way
cost
$2,386,126,313.06 $126.50 230.00 $47.92 $174.42 1.71E+06 $126.50
$3,545,009,932.04 $138.00 240.00 $50.00 $188.00 2.54E+06 $138.00
$5,931,136,245.10 $264.50 470.00 $97.92 $362.42 4.24E+0640
$264.50
4.2. Rail
The NEC line serviced by Amtrak runs from Boston via major metropolitan areas of New York
City, Philadelphia, and Baltimore to Washington D.C. Various Amtrak commuter rails operate on
the corridor tracks, these include the intercity trains, long-distance trains operated by Amtrak and
other private entities. According to a recent study published by the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, US Department of Transportation, the energy intensity of the Amtrak system has been
recorded as 1561 BTU per passenger mile. The calculation was arrived at by considering 138,700
Btu/gallon for Amtrak’s diesel consumption and 3412 BTU/kwh for the electrified lines.41
A more
detailed analysis for energy intensity and costs associated with rail travel is conducted for the NEC
in our study.
Table 4. Rail Ridership Growth in the NEC Region42
Ridership Ticket Revenue
Train % change vs % change vs
FY 13 FY 12 FY 12 FY 13 ($) FY 12 ($) FY 12
Acela
Express
3,343,143 3,395,354 -1.5 530,820,821 508,080,29 4.5
Northeast
Regional
8,044,216 8,014,175 0.4 568,744,563 535,700,003 6.2
Data: Northeast Regional and Acela Express performance

14. 11
Figure 5. Amtrak rail network with corresponding passenger density distribution
Figure 6. The Northeast Corridor (NEC)
For our study, we focus on replacing the present Acela express which typically caters to the
business class commuters and only has a niche commuter base. A typical trip on the Acela express
costs three times as that of the North East Regional and hence practically does not benefit the mass
population residing in the city centers of NYC, Washington DC and Boston. According to the
Amtrak’s report of 2010 43
, the Boston to New York Penn station journey (B-NYC) covers 231

15. 12
miles and carried approximately 664 thousand passengers annually. The New York Penn station
to Washington D.C. journey (NYC-DC) covers 225 miles and carried approximately 1.7 million
passengers. The Boston DC (B-DC) route carried 3.2 million passengers on the total route length
of 456 miles. Keeping the energy consumption by rail to be constant at 1745 BTU per passenger
mile44
, the total energy consumed along the routes turn out to be (in BTUs) 267 million for B-
NYC route, 683 million for NYC-DC route and 2.5 billion for B-DC route. The recorded carbon
dioxide emissions45
for the routes are 3220, 82237, 308251 metric tons respectively. Assuming a
passenger has to wait for half an hour and a dollar value associated with the waiting time to be $25
and the dollar value associated with the time lost in travel to be $12.5, it is estimated that the rail
users accumulate a cost of $59, $53, $100 for the respective routes. Assuming the one way ticket
prices of Acela for the respective routes to be $150, $160 and $240, the actual cost of travel to the
user weighs in at $209, $213, $340 for the routes.
Table 5. Rail Travel in the NEC Region43, 55, 56
Route Distance
Annual
Passengers
Daily
Passengers
Total Energy
Consumption
(Annual)
Joules
Total
Emissions
(Annual)
Metric Tons
Bos–NY 231 663919 1819 2.82E+14 32,206.71
NY–DC 225 1740474 4768 7.21E+14 82,237.40
Bos–DC 456 3219000 8819 2.70E+15 308,251.44
Total Money
Spent (not incl
time) (Annual)
Cost (one
way)
Time
(journey)
Time
(waiting)
Total
Time of
Journey
Money
value of
time
Total cost
including
time
$99,587,850.00 $150.00 225 30 255 $59.38 $209.38
$278,475,840.00 $160.00 195 30 225 $53.13 $213.13
$772,560,000.00 $240.00 420 30 450 $100.00 $340.00
Projecting the current ridership count base of 15406 passengers per day into 2030 figures with an
assumed growth of 5% year over year, the Amtrak would Acela Express would carry
approximately 32000 passengers a day in 2030. Assuming a consumption of 1.5 MJ per passenger
mile, this would result in consumption of 286 GJ daily and emissions of 16.47 kg of Carbon
dioxide (considering 0.095 kg CO2 per passenger mile) daily.

16. 13
The introduction of the Maglev system would migrate 25% of all the vehicular commuters, 40%
of all flyers and all of the Acela express commuter base, servicing approximately 1.1 million
passengers a day by 2030.
4.3. Air
Air travel within the NEC region accounts for roughly 5% of intercity travel.4
Airports in the region
are among the most congested in the world, and despite having only 17% of the US population,
the regions airports account for 30% of all U.S. air travelers.27
Unlike car travel, air travel in the
region is growing fast, with 18% growth between 2000 and 2011, projecting ahead means roughly
30% growth by 2030, the year that maglev could be completed if construction started today. Seven
of the region’s major airports are in the top ten in the nation for worst on-time flight percentage
and have an average delay of about 30 minutes.27
This combined with security line queues which
can often last an hour or longer leads to an extremely slow and frustrating experience for many
fliers, especially those who are flying within the region and thus do not even have to go very far.
Longer and longer wait times, and unexpected delays, are even more frustrating and the value of
time lost due to waits and delays of thirty minutes or more causes the value of time to increase
even further.29
Airports in the NEC region have notoriously long lines and frequent delays, which
counteracts much of the value gained by the rapid travel. Air passengers typically arrive at the
airport an hour early and experience an extra 30 minute delay, added to the time and money spent
getting to and from the airport and the discomfort of airplanes in general, and flying the short
distances in the NEC region becomes unappealing to most people. Accordingly, air traffic between
NEC cities is far lower car traffic and about equal to train travel, and the largest volume of flights
in the region are between Boston and D.C., the two furthest cities.27
Overall, flying is the fastest option in the NEC region by a significant margin between Boston and
D.C., and by a slight margin between Boston and NYC and NYC and D.C. In terms of cost,
including the value of time, flying is marginally the cheapest option between Boston and D.C., and
a distant second to driving between Boston and NYC and NYC and D.C. In terms of energy, the
energy intensity of flying is 2.6 MJ per passenger mile, which is less energy intensive than driving,
but more energy intensive than Amtrak train travel in the region.5
It is also far more than the 0.4
MJ per passenger mile of the maglev.32
The table below shows the findings for air travel in the
NEC region, just as the rail and road travel tables.

17. 14
Table 6. Air Travel in the NEC Region5,27,30,31
Route Distance
Annual
Passengers
Daily
Passengers
Annual
Energy
consumption
(Joules)
Total
Emissions
(Annual)
Total Money
Spent (not
incl time)
(Annual)
Bos–NY 190 1.30E+06 3569.863 6.44E+14 4.33E+04 $104,240,000
NY–DC 210 1.16E+06 3178.082 6.33E+14 4.26E+04 $92,800,000
Bos–DC 400 8.10E+05 2219.178 8.42E+14 5.67E+04 $64,800,000
Route Cost
Journey
(min)
Waiting
(min)
Delay
(min)
Total
Time of
Journey
Money
value of
time
Total cost
including
time
Bos–NY $80 60 105 30 195 $73.25 $153.25
NY–DC $80 60 105 30 195 $73.25 $153.25
Bos–DC $80 90 105 30 225 $90.50 $170.50
Table 6 summarizes the three main modes of transport in the NEC – passenger car (sometimes
referred to as ‘road’), airline, and train – and compares them with each other on cost, time, energy
use and carbon emissions. The data have been normalized for the volume of traffic on each of
these modes, which, as shown by the first entry, Annual Passenger-miles, varies by multiple orders
of magnitude across different modes of transportation.
Table 7. Summary of NEC Transportation Modes
Mode Annual PM Joules/PM
Tonnes of
CO2 / PM
$/PM
(without
time)
Aggregate
time (minutes)
$/PM (with
time)
Road 1.41E+10 3.05E+06 3.00E-04 0.42 470.00 0.64
Air 8.15E+08 2.60E+06 1.75E-04 0.18 200.00 0.37
Train 2.01E+09 1.84E+06 2.10E-04 0.53 450.00 0.75
The resulting numbers give a clearer picture of the inefficiencies associated with the transport
system in the northeast corridor. For example, road travel by passengers in the northeast corridor
uses the most amount of energy, creates the most carbon dioxide emissions, and costs the most,
even when normalized for its high volume. When a person decides to drive from New York City
to Boston, rather than fly or take the train, he or she uses more energy per person than another
traveler who chose to catch a flight or a train.

18. 15
These energy- and carbon- inefficiencies speak nothing of the fact that in Japan, it is possible make
the ~300 mile journey from Tokyo to Osaka in under two and a half hours, while spending one-
eighth the energy per passenger compared to a flight between the two cities. When the money
value of time is incorporated into the analysis, as has been done in this study for each mode of
transport, inter-city mass transit systems such as the Maglev emerge quite clearly as the winner for
all long-distance travel in the Northeast.
5. Maglev
The proposed mass transit for the NEC region is maglev high speed rail. Maglev has many
advantages over the current transportation modes, including energy consumption, emissions,
speed, safety, reliability, and comfort. The maglev system induces movement through magnetic
levitation of the train on the maglev tracks. The guideways create a lift and the propulsion required
for the train to achieve very high speeds and keep friction resistance to a minimum. This ability
makes the maglev trains move much more smoothly and reduce noise generated to a great extent
compared to conventional wheeled mass transit systems. Most of the power required by the Maglev
system is utilized to overcome the drag forces acting on the vehicle while the levitation system
itself requires a very small fraction of the vehicle power. The power required by the Maglev to
overcome the air drag increases with the cube of the velocity. The energy needed per unit distance
varies by the square of the velocity whereas the time required for transportation decreases linearly.
Hence, an optimal velocity for operations should be used to maintain a balance between power
requirement and the velocity of transport. The maglev system can recover some lost energy when
the train slows down through the regenerative braking system. A typical maglev system running
at 400 km/h would require 2.5 times the power required for a 300 km/h system.
Advantages of maglev over conventional rail systems:
● Speed: Maglev allows can achieve higher top speeds than conventional rail.
● Maintenance: Maglev systems require minimal maintenance due to negligible wear and tear
of guideways.
● Weather: Maglev trains are minimally affected by weather conditions.
● Efficiency: The maglev trains do not experience any rolling resistance due to a lack of physical
contact between the tracks and the train. Only the air resistance and electromagnetic drag

19. 16
forces need to be overcome for operations which greatly increases the power efficiency of the
maglev system.
● Noise: The noise originates from the displaced air rather than frictional contact between tracks
and rail as on conventional systems.
● Terrain: Maglev trains can ascent greater elevations and offer flexibility of route selection
and minimize tunneling requirement.
Maglev holds many of the same advantages over road transport, including speed, maintenance,
safety and reliability. Over air transport, maglev has advantages in reliability, comfort, weather,
and even trip time for trips within the NEC region due to the long waits and delays at airports. In
terms of energy and emissions, maglev holds a clear advantage over any of the three studied
transportation modes.
In 2030, the proposed maglev system will be a track connecting Boston and D.C., with stations at
various cities including Providence, Hartford, New York City, Newark, Philadelphia, and
Baltimore The system will have an expected capacity of 350 thousand people per day, a number
estimated using the current ridership of the Tokaido Shinkansen (Table 1), a region of similar size
and population as the NEC. That ridership is about 60% of current inter-city trips in the region26
,
but our proposal estimates that due to the ease and the value of riding the maglev, overall travel in
the region was estimated to grow by 30% by 2030. This is compared to the status quo where travel
is estimated to increase by 12%, which is similar to the population growth.1
Thus, maglev will
account for slightly less than 50% of inter-city trips in the NEC region in 2030. In terms of taking
other transportation modes offline, the maglev system proposal is to completely replace current
inter-city rail transport (Acela and Amtrak), reduce inter-city flights by 50%, and reduce inter-city
car trips by 33%.

20. 17
6. Direct Comparison to Current Transportation Modes
The maglev system holds significant advantages in sustainability and value over the current
transportation modes in the NEC region, summarized in the following table.
Table 8. Energy Consumption, CO2 Emissions, and End-User Value between Transportation
Modes for a Select Trip from Boston to Washington D.C.
Mode Annual PM Joules/PM
Tonnes of
CO2 / PM
$/PM
(without
time)
Aggregate
time (minutes)
$/PM (with
time)
Road 1.41E+10 3.05E+06 3.00E-04 0.42 470.00 0.64
Air 8.15E+08 2.60E+06 1.75E-04 0.18 200.00 0.37
Train 2.01E+09 1.84E+06 2.10E-04 0.53 450.00 0.75
Maglev - 4.00E+0532
negligible 0.22 165.00 0.36
6.1. Sustainability
Twenty-eight percent of energy consumption in the United States goes towards the transportation
of people and goods. Almost all of this energy is produced through the burning of fossil fuels,
which introduces CO2 and other harmful pollutants into the atmosphere. The great majority of
transportation energy is used on road transportation, which is also the most inefficient mode. The
internal combustion engine of the average car is extremely inefficient in its energy use, only 15%
of the energy from the fuel in the tank gets used to move the car33
. Fossil fuels are not an endless
resource at the current rate of consumption, and the emissions caused by the burning of these fossil
fuels has detrimental effects on the environment and on quality of life. In short, the transportation
of the NEC region today is unsustainable. Fortunately maglev is a sustainable solution.
The electric linear motor of a maglev is 90% efficient6
, and unlike the other studied transportation
modes maglev does not require any fossil fuels to run, only electricity. So as long as the consumed
electricity comes from a renewable source like wind or solar, and not from the fossil fuel powered
grid, emissions are negligible compared to the other modes. From table 8, maglev uses an order of
magnitude less energy per passenger mile than the other transportation modes, so even if electricity
was received from the grid it would be a far more efficient and sustainable travel method. And if
powered through endless renewable resources, maglev becomes a fully sustainable system with
negligible emissions.

21. 18
6.2. Time and Value Analysis
In addition to being more sustainable, maglev also large amounts of time and money over the
current transportation modes. In regards to trip time alone, Figure 8 below demonstrates that for
any trip between about 70 and 550 miles, maglev is the fastest transportation mode. Conventional
rail is not included in the diagram as it is not the fastest option among the four studied for any
distance.
Figure 7. Distance vs. Trip Time for Select Transportation Modes. Assuming an average speed of
65 mph for cars, 550 mph for planes, and 220 mph for maglev.
The table below shows actual savings for popular select trips in the region, assuming a reasonable
ticket price for the maglev. Highlighted are the lowest trip times and total costs, including costs of
time. For every trip, maglev outperforms every other mode. In costs, including costs of time,
maglev would be the best choice for trips between about 70 and 500 miles. Below 70 miles cars
are the cheapest, and above 500 miles travel by air is the cheapest.

22. 19
Table 9. Summary of Time and Costs for Select Trips in the NEC Region
Time (min) Costs ($)
Trip
Travel
method
Distance
Direct
Travel
Wait Delay
Total
time
Cost
of
time
Hard
Costs
Total
cost
Cost
/mile
NYC
to
Boston
Car 215 198 32 0 230 54.49 90.24 144.72 0.67
Plane 215 45 105 30 180 73.13 80.00 153.13 0.71
Train 215 225 30 0 255 59.38 150.00 209.38 0.97
Maglev 215 60 45 0 105 31.25 80.00 111.25 0.52
NYC
to D.C.
Car 225 208 32 0 240 56.73 94.43 151.17 0.67
Plane 225 45 105 30 180 73.13 80.00 153.13 0.68
Train 225 195 30 0 225 53.13 160.00 213.13 0.95
Maglev 225 60 45 0 105 31.25 80.00 111.25 0.49
Boston
to DC
Car 440 406 64 0 470 111.22 184.67 295.89 0.67
Plane 440 65 105 30 200 90.83 80.00 170.83 0.39
Train 440 420 30 0 450 100.00 240.00 340.00 0.77
Maglev 440 120 45 0 165 43.75 120.00 163.75 0.37
Maglev creates significant savings in both time and money between virtually any two points in the
NEC Region, and with the grand volumes of traffic in the region, the gross savings turn out to be
impressive ones.
7. Gross Annual Savings with the Maglev System vs. Status Quo in 2030
Using data gathered from reports on inter-city travel in the NEC region26,27
and information from
Amtrak64
, travel information on all inter-city trips in the NEC region was gathered, rather than just
trips between select cities as in the previous tables. Data on daily, yearly and percentage of trips
by mode can be seen in Table A1, in Appendix A. Projecting ahead with past growth rates,
estimates for travel by mode were made for 2030, the estimated year that a maglev system could
be fully implemented, in Table A2. Total travel demand was projected to grow by 12.8%. Notably,
these projections are based on travel demand, whether or not the infrastructure can keep up with
this demand is uncertain. Already, the aging infrastructure of the region has been hard pressed in
dealing with the growth of the region, as evidenced by the frequent construction and the high
congestion on the roads and at the airport, issues that are a detriment to economic productivity and
quality of life. But with the proposed maglev system in 2030, Table A3, it is assumed that the ease,
speed, convenience, and the great value of the maglev would cause greater travel demand, both for

23. 20
business and pleasure. With maglev implemented, overall travel was projected to grow by 15.3%
vs. the status quo in 2030, or 30.0% over today.
The system will also reduce airport traffic in the region by 2.4% vs. the status quo situation, which
would still be a 27% increase over today’s airport traffic, not a significant change over the expected
30% growth. The maglev system will reduce total highway traffic by 9.3% vs. the status quo in
2030, or no net change over today’s traffic. This is significant as it means that highways should
require no significant expansion to keep up with demand.
Data from tables A2 and A3 along with known values for energy, emissions, and trip time for each
mode of transportation, were used to compare the two 2030 scenarios and collect estimates of the
gross annual savings with the maglev new system. Table A4 shows the daily energy consumption,
carbon dioxide emissions and time spent traveling in 2030 without the maglev system
implemented, and table A5 shows the same but with the maglev implemented. Table 10, below,
summarizes the savings with the maglev system.
Table 10. Savings With the new Maglev System
Annual Energy Savings (million GJ) 58.35
Annual Energy Savings (million BOE) 9.95
Annual CO2 Emissions Savings (million tonnes) 4.56
Annual Time Saved (million hours) 103.48
Productivity Saved27 (million dollars) 2129
Productivity Gained (million dollars) 2565
Even with 15% more travel overall, the savings with the maglev are immense. The 58.53 million
GJ of energy annually is equivalent to a power output of 1.85GW, or nearly two nuclear power
plants of energy output. It is also 0.2% of U.S. energy consumption for transportation46
, significant
due to the inefficiency of transportation energy use. The CO2 savings are about equal are equal in
magnitude, and are the equivalent of planting 390 million trees47
. And even with the large increase
in travel, 84 million hours equates to 11% less total time spent traveling. The productivity saved
with this time, together with the productivity gained by the additional travel comes out to $4.66
billion, or .14% of the NEC economy1
, a huge boost to the economy which is not quantified in the
economic analysis of the system.

24. 21
8. Sustainable Power
8.1. Power Requirements
The current Amtrak’s 25 Hz Northeast corridor is powered by seven generation/conversion
facilities. The total nameplate capacity nears 354 MW with the electricity peaking during rush
hours and time of the day with afternoon being the highest 225 M W mornings at 210-220 MW in
2009.48
The load is recorded to have risen very significantly in the last two decades, the peak load
in 1997 was recorded as 148 MW, since then the capacity of the Amtrak power supply has been
extended to incorporate loads of upto 350 MW.49
The following table summarizes the current
Amtrak energy generators and their capacities, the figure below shows their locations along the
Amtrak route.
Table 11. Amtrak Energy Generators
Location
Capacity
(MW)
In-service Comments
Sunnyside Yard (Long Island) 30 c. 1996 Static Inverter
Safe Harbor 81 1938
(2) Water turbines; (1) Motor
Generator
Richmond 180 2002 Static Inverter
Metuchen 25 1933 Motor Generator
Lamokin 48 1928 (3) Motor Generators
Jericho Park 20 1992 Static Cycloconverter
System Total Capacity 354
Source: Amtrak’s 25 Hz traction system, Wikipedia

25. 22
Figure 8. Amtrak Power Generators. Red Pins depict Amtrak’s power generators and the blue path
is the Acela Express’s right of way
8.2. Offshore Wind
Due to the exponential growth of commuter base and added electrical requirements of the present
systems, electricity requirements are bound to rise exponentially too with the peak loads in 2030
expected to exceed the 350 MW capacity. As a contingency measure, an independent renewable
power source would be the most beneficial option for the proposed maglev system. This would
provide an integrated, reliable and sustainable solution to the problems of energy-inefficiency
plaguing the northeast corridor inter-city travel system. By deploying a dedicated source of electric
power for the future maglev trains, we are able to propose a more sustainable and cleaner energy
mix than simply ‘the national grid’ would be. It would also release the current power supplies to
operate other local, regional and privately operated trains.
Another motivation for the use of renewable options to power the maglev system comes from the
fact that if the grid is used to power the system, maglev has CO2 emissions of 0.49 pounds per
passenger miles.50
With the projected 350000 daily passenger count, carbon emissions would
amount to nearly 90 metric tons of CO2 daily. According to table 3, the entirety of automobile

26. 23
traffic between Boston and Washington DC produces 11,600 metric tons of CO2 per day. Thus, if
an offshore wind farm is built to supply all the energy needs of the maglev, negligible CO2
emissions can be expected.
One renewable option is wind, offshore wind in particular. There is great offshore wind resource
off the coast of the NEC region, and wind energy is among the cleanest and most efficient forms
of energy available.
Figure 9. Correlation of wind power generation and rapid transport use (a) power output from
wind turbines in the German Ampiron TSO region on April 28, 2012. (b) Average frequency of
metro use by time of day in Washington (WMATA)

27. 24
Since wind speeds peak during afternoon, with afternoon also being the time of peak commuter
traffic (Figure), it would provide a perfect energy source. Low running frequency during night will
be covered by relatively lower but still existent wind power over the oceans. The Greater Gabbard
wind farm in the UK can be taken as a base case for our system. The Greater Gabbard system is a
504 MW (nameplate) offshore wind farm in the North Sea off of England commissioned in 2012.
140 turbines were installed resulting in the cost of the Gabbard farm to be 2.3 billion USD (with
grid connection)51
which comes to $4.5 million per MW and each turbine capable of 3.5 MW
power generation (nameplate).51
Using data of peak vs average loads for the current Amtrak
system57
it was determined that peak load would be four times greater than the average load. This
means that the offshore wind facility will produce four times more electricity than actually needed,
the excess electricity will be sold and added to the revenue of the maglev system. Calculations for
the below table are found in the Appendix.
Table 12. Power Consumption of Maglev System and Cost of Offshore Wind Installation
Maglev
energy
consumption
(MJ/PM)
Average
Power
Need
(MW)
Peak
Power
Need
(MW)
Wind
Farm
Capacity
(MW)
Cost of
turbine
installation
per MW
Installation
cost
0.4 325 1300 1300 $4,500,000 $5.85 billion
Figure 10. Wind speed profiles along the east coast

28. 25
Figure 11. Proposed area for wind farm siting (area with wind speeds greater than 10 mps)
Power generation by a wind turbine
𝑃 = 0.5 ∗ 𝐶 ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝐴 ∗ (𝑣)^3
Where, P = power (W), ρ = density of air (kg/m3
), A = area wind passing through perpendicular
to the wind (m2
), v = wind velocity (m/s), C = capacity factor of turbine (0.25 - 0.6)
Therefore, assuming a capacity factor of 0.4 (40% efficiency of wind turbine), 1.225 kg/m3
density
of air, turbine blade diameter approximately 80 m and the wind speed prevalent in the area as 10
m/s, the energy that can be obtained is 5 MW per turbine. An average requirement of 324 MW by
the maglev system would require the design of the wind farm to accommodate 4 times the average
value for peak demands, i.e. 1300 MW. 260 wind turbines of 5 MW capacity each would be needed
to be installed. Offshore New York has 1,817 km2 of nautical area that lies 12-15 nautical miles
away from the shoreline within the 30 to 60 m water depth category and availability of more than
10 mps of wind speed.52
The Hyosung 5 MW wind turbine is a commercially available option for the project. The turbine
operates at a cut in wind speed of 4 m/s and rated wind speed of 11.5 m/s with a rotor diameter of
139 m.53
260 counts of the model would be deployed in a 20 x 13 grid with average spacing of

29. 26
seven times the rotor diameter between each turbine, i.e. 973 m. The wind farm will hence take up
an area of 19.5 km x 12.5 km in the ocean-front from of Long Island, N.Y.
Since wind isn’t always reliable, the system will still rely on the current Amtrak power supply in
case of emergencies, and connect to the grid during the worst case scenario.
9. Economic Analysis
Table 13. Economic Statistics for the Maglev System
Capital ($) Annual ($)
Building58 122,432,000,000 0
Operating costs32 - 876,000,000
Offshore wind farm59 5,850,000,000 117,000,000
Employees60 - 566,487,680
Total Cost 128,282,000,000 1,559,900,000
Table 14. Passenger Statistics for Maglev, 2030 Level
Daily passengers 350,000
Average ticket cost ($) 80
Electricity Revenue ($)61,62 2,226,600,000
Total Revenue ($) 12,447,000,000
Computing the payback period from the above figures with the capital costs and annual operating
costs for the Maglev and the offshore wind farm using a prescribed discount rate of 2.5%54
, the
system pays itself back in the 19th year of its operation. The huge revenue generated from the large
daily passenger count coupled with ticket price almost half of the current rail ticket price and at
par with the current domestic airline ticket price which proves to be an effective tool for making
the system accessible to the passengers. The US transportation budget for financial year 2015
provides for a total of $91 billion for resources for the Department of Transportation. With an
estimated 2.2% increase in GDP and using the same growth percentage for the transportation
budget with an assumption that a quarter of the whole budget can be attributed to offset the initial
cost of capital starting 2015, the capital costs can be paid back fully in 2019.

30. 27
Table 15. Department of Transportation Project Budget
Year
DoT budget ($
billion)
Dedicated to Project
(quarter of budget) ($
billion)
Value of project
(Capital cost-
Dedicated Budget)
2015 91 22.75 101,932,400,000
2016 93.002 23.2505 78,681,900,000
2017 95.04804 23.76201 54,919,890,000
2018 97.1391 24.28478 30,635,110,000
2019 99.27616 24.81904 5,816,070,000
2020 101.4602 25.36506 -19,548,990,000
2021 103.6924 25.92309 -45,472,080,000
The issue of implementing the Maglev is very clear from the magnitude of the initial cost required
and the sources which could possibly fund the system. The combined maglev and the offshore
wind farm system could provide a cheap mode of transportation to the commuter base and pay
itself back in the fifteenth year of its operation considering a 2.5% discount rate and the forecasted
passenger count and ticket revenues (Table 16). This possible investment could present profitable
to pursue with possibilities of good profits in ensuing years. These numbers do not even include
the added boost to the economy from saved time calculated in section 7.
Table 16. Net Present Value of Maglev System
Year of
operation
Net Present
Value ($)
10 -32997831425
11 -24700287288
12 -16605122276
13 -8707400313
14 -1002305715
15 6514859747
16 13848679709
17 21003626014
18 29983842106
19 38745028538
20 47292527496

31. 28
10. Conclusion
The northeast corridor is a site of enormous economic activity, and its rising economic output
continues to drive national growth. However, a world-class economy needs world-class
infrastructure, and it is becoming increasingly clear that the U.S. no longer leads the world in
terms of transportation infrastructure. The exponential growth in the footprint of high-speed rail
lines around the world, as well as the rise in average speed of these trains, is not matched by
even a single such project in the United States. Even the fastest trains in the northeast (and the
country) deliver speeds far below and command a far smaller share of the transportation market
than the state of the art HSR lines do around the world. It is no coincidence that the fastest-
growing and soon-to-be-largest economy in the world, China, also has the world’s largest HSR
network, churning out faster and faster average speeds every few years.
As this report has shown, transportation in the northeast corridor is beset with crippling
inefficiencies. The highest share of passenger-miles is taken by the most energy-inefficient, the
most polluting, and the most costly form of inter-city transport, the passenger car. On the other
hand, a mass transit system would present significant advantages not only over road travel, but
also over airlines and conventional rail. The incrementally rising levels of engine efficiency in
the road and air sector are more than offset by the tremendous growth in the aggregate number of
passenger-miles, which is clear evidence that a radical approach to energy efficiency in the
transport sector is the need of the hour.
The greatest question in the debate about high-speed rail in the United States has been that of
funding and economic viability. The preliminary investigation of a possible cost-recovery model
explored in this report establishes the fact that high-speed rail can be economically viable if the
initial capital investment costs are committed. In short, this report shows that even though $128
billion is an incredibly high price tag, the money value of time saved by traveling faster, and the
decrease in the carbon footprint and energy use of the transportation sector are sufficient
justification for this expense. Hence, high-speed rail in the northeast is both affordable and
viable, even before considering the domino effect it is likely to have on the region’s economy.
The public sector in the United States spends upward of $150 billion in highway maintenance, a
large proportion of which is spent in the northeast, in order to sustain the most inefficient,
wasteful and polluting form of inter-city travel. Today it is common to take 4-hour car trips

32. 29
between Boston and New York City or New York City and Washington D.C., or time-
consuming and expensive flights between Washington D.C. and Boston, all of which can be
effectively replaced by maglev trains. A move to sustainable mass transit in the northeast
corridor would not only significantly reduce the energy use and carbon footprint of the
transportation sector in the region, but would also signal a generational shift in the United States
from the age of highways to the age of high-speed rail, a transition already underway in many
parts of the world.

33. 30
11. References
1) State of the Northeast Corridor Region Transportation System. Rep. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 18 Feb.
2014. Web. http://www.nec-commission.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/12/NECC_transportation_background_report_2014-02-18.pdf.
2) Jefferson W. Tester, Elisabeth M. Drake, Michael J. Driscoll, Michael W. Golay, and William A. Peters.
Sustainable Energy: Choosing among Options. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2005. Print.
3) "How We Use Energy - Transportation." The National Academies of Sciences - Engineering - Medicine.
2015. Web. http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/energy-use/transportation/.
4) O'Toole, Randal. Intercity Buses - The Forgotten Mode. Rep. Policy Analysis, 29 June 2011. Web.
https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/58485523.
5) "Energy Intensity of Passenger Modes (Btu per Passenger-mile).” Bureau of Transportation Statistics. April
2015. Web.
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table
_04_20.html.
6) James Powell, Gordon Danby. Energy Efficiency and Economics of Maglev Transport. Stony Brook
University. November 19-20, 2008. Web.
7) Northeast Corridor Highspeed Rail Map, Allover Albany
http://alloveralbany.com/images/northeast_corridor_high_speed_rail.png.
8) High-Speed Europe, Directorate General for Mobility and Transportation, European Union, 2010, ISBN
978-92-79-13620-7 doi: 10.2768/17821.
9) Transport, The European Union Explained, Directorate-General for Communications, 2014, ISBN 978-92-
79-42777-0 doi: 10.2775/13082
10)” €11.9 billion to improve European connections” Infrastructure, TEN-T Connecting Europe, Sept 2014.
Web. Accessed December 3, 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/news/corridors_en.htm
11) Kozo Fujita, High Speed Rail & Shinkansen, Japan International Transport Institute, April 30, 2015
12)” China boasts world's largest highspeed railway network”, Xinhuan Net, Jan 2015. Web. Accessed
December 3, 2015. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/photo/2015-01/30/c_133959250.htm
13) “Summary of Company Performance”, Central Japan Railway Company. Web. Accessed Dec 2, 2015.
http://english.jr-central.co.jp/company/company/achievement/financeandtransportation/transportation2.html
14) “Tokaido Shinkansen fare chart”, Central Japan Railway Company. Web. Accessed December 2, 2015.
http://english.jr-central.co.jp/info/fare/_pdf/hikari_kodama.pdf
15) Richard Bullock, Andrew Salzberg, and Ying Jin, High Speed Rail – The First Three Years: Taking the
Pulse of China’s Emerging Program, China Transport Topics No. 04, Feb. 2012
16)”How China builds high-speed rail for less”, International Railway Journal, October 2014. Web. Accessed
December 2, 2015. http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/high-speed/how-china-builds-high-speed-rail-for-
less.html

34. 31
17)”Fares cut triggers 20% increase in AVE ridership”, International Railway Journal, Feb 2014. Web.
Accessed December 2, 2015. http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/europe/fares-cut-triggers-20-increase-in-
ave-ridership.html
18) “Venta Renfe transport booking service”. Web. Accessed on November 29, 2015.
https://venta.renfe.com/vol/search.do
19) Plataforma SINC. (2010, December 14). High speed trains: The AVE pollutes 29% less than traditional
trains. ScienceDaily. Retrieved November 28, 2015
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101214085541.htm
20) Central Japan Railway Company, Annual Report 2013. http://english.jr-
central.co.jp/company/ir/annualreport/_pdf/annualreport2013.pdf
21) Central Japan Railway Company, Annual Report 2014. http://english.jr-
central.co.jp/company/ir/annualreport/_pdf/annualreport2014.pdf
22) http://english.jr-central.co.jp/info/fare/_pdf/hikari_kodama.pdf Web. Accessed December 3, 2015.
23) Estimated from travel websites, Skyscanner flight search
24) Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a typical passenger vehicle, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S
EPA. May 2014. http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f14040a.pdf
25) https://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/New-Standard-Mileage-Rates-Now-Available%3B-Business-Rate-to-
Rise-in-2015 Web. Accessed November 29, 2015.
26) NEC Intercity Travel Summary. Rep. Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory
Committee. September 14, 2015. Web. http://www.nec-commission.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2015-
09-14_NEC-Intercity-Travel-Summary-Report_Website.pdf.
27) State of the Northeast Corridor Region Transportation System. Rep. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 18 Feb.
2014. Web. http://www.nec-commission.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/12/NECC_transportation_summary_report_2014-02-18.pdf.
28) Ricardo A. Daziano. Transportation Demand. Lecture, November 12, 2015.
29) ACRP Report 55 - Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals. Rep.
Transportation Research Board, 2011. Web. http://www.nap.edu/read/14589/chapter/8.
30) “The Economic Landscape of the Northeast Corridor Region.” Real Transit. Web.
http://www.realtransit.org/nec6.php.
31) “Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefficients.” February 14, 2013. Web.
https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.cfm.
32) Stathis Ilonidis. Maglev Energy Budget. Novermber 28, 2010. Web.
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/ilonidis2/.
33) “Energy Losses in a Vehicle.” Consumer Energy Center California Energy Commission. 2015. Web.
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/consumer_tips/vehicle_energy_losses.html.

35. 32
34)”New Standard Mileage Rates Now Available; Business Rate to Rise in 2015”, Internal Revenue Service.
Web. Accessed November 29, 2015. https://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/New-Standard-Mileage-Rates-Now-
Available%3B-Business-Rate-to-Rise-in-2015
35) Appendix Calculations
36) Northeast Corridor Intercity Travel Study, Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory
Commission, September 2015 (http://www.nec-commission.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2015-09-
14_NEC-Intercity-Travel-Summary-Report_Website.pdf)
37) Jefferson W. Tester, Elisabeth M. Drake, Michael J. Driscoll, Michael W. Golay, and William A. Peters.
Sustainable Energy: Choosing among Options. Chapter 15. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2005. Print.
38) Table 1-40: U.S. Passenger-Miles, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Accessed November 29, 2015.
(http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table
_01_40.html)
39) Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure, Congressional Budget Office, March 2015.
(https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/49910-Infrastructure.pdf)
40) Federal Highway Performance Management System | Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical
Passenger Vehicle, Environmental Protection Agency | Publication 17, Inland Revenue Service
41) National Transportation Statistics Table 4-20, Updated April 2015
(http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table
_04_20.html)
42) Amtrak New Release, “AMTRAK SETS RIDERSHIP RECORD AND MOVES THE NATION’S
ECONOMY FORWARD” America’s Railroad helps communities grow and prosper) Oct 14, 2013
(http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/730/658/FY13-Record-Ridership-ATK-13-122.pdf)
43) NEC 2010 infrastructure master plan, The NEC Master Plan Working Group, May 2010.
44) "Table 4-20: Energy Intensity of Passenger Modes". Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Archived from
the original on October 7, 2010. Retrieved October 25, 2010
45) Amtrak Energy efficiency and Environmental benefits report, 2007. Web.
(http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/216/645/CriticalLink2007_5.pdf)
46) Estimated U.S. Energy Use in 2014. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Web.
https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/.
47) “Carbon & Tree Facts." Arbor Environmental Alliance. Web.
http://www.arborenvironmentalalliance.com/carbon-tree-facts.asp.
48) Forczek, Stanley R.; Coles, Lynn R. (February 5, 1999)."Testimony before the Public Service Commission
of Maryland, In The Matter Of The Baltimore Gas And Electric Company’s Proposed: (a) Stranded Cost
Quantification Mechanism; (b) Price Protection Mechanism; And (c) Unbundled Rates [Case Nos.
8794/8804]". Retrieved August 31, 2015.
49) Eitzmann, M.A.; Paserba, J.J.; Undrill, J.M.; Amicarella, C.; Jones, A.L.; Khalafalla, E.B.; Liverant, W.
(March 1997)."Model Development and Stability Assessment of the Amtrak 25 Hz Traction System from New

36. 33
York to Washington DC". Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE/ASME Joint Railroad Conference: 21–
28.doi:10.1109/RRCON.1997.581348.
50) How Big Are the Environmental Benefits of High-Speed Rail? A Cost-Benefit Analysis of High-Speed
Rail replacing automobile travel in the Georgetown-San Antonio corridor. Kevin Scott. 2011
51) http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/greater-gabbard-united-kingdom-uk05.html Web. Accessed
November 28, 2015.
52) Mark Schwartz, Donna Heimiller, Steve Haymes, and Walt Musial, Assessment of offshore wind energy
resources for the United States, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2010, Page 19
53) “Hyonsung Wind Turbine Specifications” http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/turbine-hyosung-
hyosung-5-mw-tid25.html Web. Accessed November 28, 2015.
54) “Discount Rates in Transportation Methods” http://bca.transportationeconomics.org/calculation-
issues/discounting Web. Accessed December 2, 2015.
55) Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 34 Released September 30, 2015, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory.
56) Table 4-20: Energy Intensity of Passenger Modes". Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Archived from the
original on October 7, 2010. Retrieved October 25, 2010.
57) “Amtrak Fuel Consumption and Travel.” Bureau of Transportation Statistics. July 2013. Web.
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table
_04_18.html.
58) Ron Nixon. Jonathan Soble. Backers of a Maglev Train Hope to Outpace Acela in the Northeast Corridor.
The New York Times. October 22, 2014. Web. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/23/business/backers-of-a-
maglev-train-hope-to-outpace-acela-in-the-northeast-corridor.html?_r=0.
59) “Operational and Maintenance Costs for Wind Turbines.” Wind Measurment International. Web.
http://www.windmeasurementinternational.com/wind-turbines/om-turbines.php.
60) Central Japan Railway Company Annual Report 2014. Rep. JR-Central. March 31, 2014. Web.
http://english.jr-central.co.jp/company/ir/annualreport/_pdf/annualreport2014.pdf.
61) Jess Jiang. “The Price of Electricity in Your State.” October 28, 2011. Web.
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/10/27/141766341/the-price-of-electricity-in-your-state.
62) “Rising Electricity Costs: A Challenge for Consumers, Regulators, and Utilities.” Edison Electric Institute.
May 2006. Web.
http://www.eei.org/whatwedo/PublicPolicyAdvocacy/StateRegulation/Documents/rising_electricity_costs.pdf.
63) “Chuo maglev project endorsed.” Railway Gazzette. May 27, 2011. Web.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/policy/single-view/view/chuo-maglev-project-endorsed.html.
64) Northeast Corridor, Amtrak. 2015. Web.
http://nec.amtrak.com/sites/default/files/Amtrak_05_Infographics_4_0.png.

37. 34
12. Appendix
Methodology
In order to estimate the number of people who currently use the interstate system to travel between
cities in the northeast, a Google Maps search was carried out to determine which routes appear as
options. A search was carried out for Boston to New York City, as well as for New York City to
Washington, D.C. (via Philadelphia).
Route 1a: Boston – New York via I-90, I-84, I-91, local roads and I-95
Route 1b: Boston – New York via I-90, I-84, and I-684
Route 2a: New York – Washington, DC via I-78, I-95, I-276, local roads, I-95, and I-895
Route 2b: New York – Washington, DC via I-78, I-95, and I-895
The Federal Highway Performance Monitoring System publishes a detailed list of vehicle-miles
travelled on each interstate highway in each state. This number is aggregated in the data for the
total length of that highway present in that state.
For example, a trimmed sample of data from the HMPS reads:
Annual
Vehicle-miles
traveled
(millions)State
Route
No
Length
Connecticut 84 98 2,971
91 58 2,260
95 112 3,889
Delaware 95 23 819
295 6 181
495 11 2631
For each segment of highway on each of the four routes studied, we used Google Maps to
determine the length of that highway which ‘participates’ in the route. If a segment is split over
two states – for example, in traveling from Boston to New York, I-84 is partially located in
Massachusetts and partially in Connecticut – then the length within each state was also noted.
1
Full data from Highway Performance Management System

38. 35
Now, the HMPS database was used to determine, for example, what fraction of the I-95 in
Connecticut lies on the New York – Boston route. This fraction, when applied to the annual vehicle-
miles recorded for the I-95 in Connecticut, should yield the annual traffic in vehicle-miles on that
section of the route. Such an analysis was then carried out for all four routes in order to find an
estimate of the total traffic on this corridor.
The Bureau of Transportation Statistics also records the proportion of highway vehicles which are
passenger cars, which is used to then calculate a number for passenger car – miles travelled on the
route. This number was then used in later models.
Jou
rne
y
Miles of
total
length
Vehicle-
Miles)
Vehicle-
miles
attributable
to route
Vehicle-
miles w/o
double
counting
Vehicles
attributable
Vehicles
w/o
Double
counting
Of which
passenger
cars
Boston - New York
Route 1 I-90 (Mass) 55 140 3.27E+09 1.29E+09 1.29E+09 2.34E+07 2.34E+07
I-84 (Mass) 9 9 1.68E+08 1.68E+08 1.68E+08 1.87E+07 1.87E+07
I-84 (CT) 41 98 2.97E+09 1.24E+09 1.24E+09 3.03E+07 3.03E+07
I-91 (CT) 17 58 2.26E+09 6.62E+08 6.62E+08 3.90E+07 3.90E+07
local roads 1 1 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
I-95 (CT) 31 112 3.89E+09 1.08E+09 1.08E+09 3.47E+07 3.47E+07
I-95 (NY) 14 23 1.02E+09 6.19E+08 6.19E+08 4.42E+07 4.42E+07
Route 2 I-90 (Mass) 55 140 3.27E+09 1.29E+09 0.00E+00 2.34E+07 0.00E+00
I-84 (Mass) 9 9 1.68E+08 1.68E+08 0.00E+00 1.87E+07 0.00E+00
I-84 (CT) 98 98 2.97E+09 2.97E+09 0.00E+00 3.03E+07 0.00E+00
I-684 (NY) 28 28 7.01E+08 7.01E+08 7.01E+08 2.50E+07 2.50E+07
Total for Boston - NY 5.76E+09 2.15E+08 1.55E+08
New York - DC
Route 1 I-78 (NJ) 8 68 2.24E+09 2.63E+08 2.63E+08 3.29E+07 3.29E+07
I-95 (NJ) 53 98 4.84E+09 2.62E+09 2.62E+09 4.94E+07 4.94E+07
I-276 (PA) 33 33 9.80E+08 9.80E+08 9.80E+08 2.97E+07 2.97E+07
local roads 1 1 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
I-95 (MD) 34 110 5.99E+09 1.85E+09 1.85E+09 5.44E+07 5.44E+07
I-895 (MD) 11 12 2.35E+08 2.15E+08 2.15E+08 1.96E+07 1.96E+07
Route 2 I-78 (NJ) 8 68 2.24E+09 2.63E+08 0.00E+00 3.29E+07 0.00E+00
I-95 (NJ) 53 98 4.84E+09 2.62E+09 0.00E+00 4.94E+07 0.00E+00
I-95 (PA) 51 51 1.81E+09 1.81E+09 1.81E+09 3.54E+07 3.54E+07
I-95 (DW) 23 23 8.19E+08 8.19E+08 8.19E+08 3.56E+07 3.56E+07
I-95 (MD) 51 110 5.99E+09 2.78E+09 0.00E+00 5.44E+07 0.00E+00
I-895 (MD) 11 12 2.35E+08 2.15E+08 0.00E+00 1.96E+07 0.00E+00
Total for NY - DC 8.55E+09 2.57E+08 1.85E+08

39. 36
Table A1. Intercity Trips in the NEC Region
Mode Annual Trips Daily Trips
Percent of
Trips
Train, 11628000 31858 5.45%
Plane 11680000 32000 5.48%
Car 180000000 493151 84.39%
Other 10000000 27397 4.69%
Total 213308000 584405 100.00%
Table A2. Intercity Trips in the NEC Region in 2030, no Maglev27
Mode Annual Trips Daily Trips
Percent of
Trips
Train 17442000 47786 7.25%
Plane 15184000 41600 6.31%
Car 198000000 542466 82.29%
Other 10000000 27397 4.16%
Total 240626000 659249 100.00%
There is a 5.2% increase in trips from today
Table A3. Intercity Trips in the NEC in Region in 2030 with Maglev
Mode Annual Trips Daily Trips
Percent of
Trips
Train 0 0 0.00%
Plane 7592000 20800 2.74%
Car 132006600 361662 47.60%
Other 10000000 27397 3.61%
Maglev 127750000 350000 46.06%
Total 277348600 759859 100.00%
There is a 25% increase in trips from today, 18.7% over no maglev in 2030

40. 37
Table A4. Daily Energy Consumption, CO2 Emissions, and Time Spent Traveling in 2030, no
Maglev System
Mode
Energy
use
(MJ/PM)
2030 Energy
Consumption
(GJ)
2030
Emissions
(kgCO2/PM)
Emissions
(Tonnes CO2)
Time Spent
(million min)
Train 1.65 15769 0.0950 908.14 11.86
Plane 2.60 21632 0.1747 1453.75 6.52
Car 4.46 483879 0.3014 32702.00 115.93
Total - 521281 - 35063.89 134.31
Table A5. Daily Energy Consumption, CO2 Emissions, and Time Spent Traveling in 2030, with
Maglev System
Mode
Energy
(MJ/PM)
2030 Energy
Consumption (GJ)
2030
Emissions
(kgCO2/PM)
Emissions
(Tonnes CO2)
Time Spent
(million
min)
Train 1.65 0 0.0950 0 0
Plane 2.60 10816 0.1747 726.88 3.26
Car 4.46 322602 0.3014 21802.42 77.29
Maglev 0.40 28000 - - 36.75
Total - 361418 - 22529.30 117.30
Turbine Power Calculation
Average Power = Daily energy consumption / seconds in a day
Annual energy consumption = 350000 daily trips * 200 mile average trip length * 0.4 MJ/PM =
28 million MJ
Average power = 28000000MJ / (3600*24)s = 324MW
Net Present Value
NPV = ∑ {Net Period Cash Flow/(1+R)^T} - Initial Investment