Evaluating the Current State of BOSFOLK
Transportation Corridor and Indicators of
Resiliency
By David Ames, Sue McNeil, Michelle Oswald, Rebekah Gayley
A report submitted to the University of Delaware University
Transportation Center (UD-UTC)
June, 2009
UDUTC Final Report
Page 1
DISCLAIMER:
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who
are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information
presented herein. This document is disseminated under the
sponsorship of the Department of Transportation University
Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information
exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the
contents or use thereof.
UDUTC Final Report
Page 2
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4
OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................................... 4
OUTLINE OF THE REPORT ................................................................................................................... 4
2.
The BOSFOLK Corridor .............................................................................................. 6
DEFINING THE CORRIDOR ................................................................................................................... 6
CHALLENGES ................................................................................................................................... 6
3.
Defining Resiliency .................................................................................................. 12
4.
Evolution of the Structure of a Multimodal Layered Transportation Spine ........... 15
5.
Modal Vehicular Use Trends ................................................................................... 20
6.
Land Use Trends and Context ................................................................................. 23
7.
Environment and Emissions .................................................................................... 30
8.
Economic Character and Impact ............................................................................. 31
9.
Physical Structural Resiliency.................................................................................. 34
10.
Community Impact, Planning Processes and a Regional Perspective .................... 37
11.
Data Needs .............................................................................................................. 38
12.
Conclusions and Next Steps .................................................................................... 40
13.
Acknowledgments................................................................................................... 41
14.
References .............................................................................................................. 42
15.
Appendix A- Data Sources ...................................................................................... 44
16.
Appendix B – Regional Workshop........................................................................... 47
UDUTC Final Report
Page 3
1. Introduction
Corridors of highly concentrated transportation networks are not a new phenomenon.
As an overview of the history of the Northeast corridor reveals, transportation infrastructure,
specifically rail lines and highways, have taken decades to develop, facing many challenges
along the way. The Northeast corridor is a multimodal and multi-generational network
connecting Boston, Massachusetts to Washington D.C. The corridor is also referred to as the
BOSWASH corridor and more recently the BOSFOLK corridor, recognizing the extension of the
corridor to Norfolk, Virginia.
Objectives
The objective of this research is to evaluate the resiliency of the BOSFOLK corridor’s.
Investigating the evolution and development of the corridor provides insight into future growth
and land use impacts in order to address challenges and improve management practices
throughout the corridor. The objectives in analyzing the resiliency of the BOSFOLK corridor
include:






Determine historical impacts and challenges faced throughout the growth of the
BOSWASH corridor
Review existing models, theories, and projections behind mega-regions
Define resiliency in a way that pertains to regional transportation infrastructure
Discuss existing and future challenges faced by transportation practitioners in managing
the corridor’s infrastructure
Apply the concept of resiliency to the corridor by analyzing the relationship between
route redundancy and population growth in the Northeast corridor
Determine future steps towards improving the Northeast corridor’s regional
infrastructure management practices
Outline of the Report
This report evaluates the BOSFOLK corridor and the indicators of resiliency through the
following sections:





The BOSFOLK Corridor- the corridor is defined geographically and the challenges are
discussed
Defining Resiliency- the term resiliency is discussed in relation to the regional context
and defined based on
Evolution of Structure of Multimodal Layered Transportation Spine- the stages and
physical characteristics in the development of the multimodal transportation system are
discussed including water-based, roads from colonial to the Interstate, rail and others.
Place especial emphasis on how systems adapted over time.
Modal Vehicular Use Trends- the trends related to modal context are explored
Land Use Trends and Context- land use trends characterizing the corridor are
discussed with emphasis on influenced by changing modal characteristics of corridor.
UDUTC Final Report
Page 4








The changes in corridor boundaries and land use sequences within corridor after road
construction are explored.
Environment and Emissions- environmental characteristics of the corridor and
influences of the character of the transportation system and modes are described.
Economic Character and Impact- the character of economic activities and development
within the corridor and relationship to larger economy is explored.
Physical Structural Resiliency- physical infrastructure growth as well as population
growth are used as examples of indicators of resiliency and are explored in the context
of the corridor.
Community Impact- the impact on surrounding communities is evaluated especially
looking at continuum of settlement/communities from high density cities to suburban
and rural agricultural as well special community types like resorts.
Planning Process- planning and design assumptions are examined with respect to the
extent to which these conditions promoted or hamper resiliency.
A Regional Perspective- connections and interdependencies throughout the region are
considered.
Data Needs –areas identified that required additional investigation and research to
improve the planning process throughout the corridor are listed.
Conclusions and Next Steps-summary of the key issues and future analyses required are
addressed.
UDUTC Final Report
Page 5
2. The BOSFOLK Corridor
Defining the Corridor
The BOSFOLK corridor extends from Boston, Massachusetts to Norfolk, Virginia. The
oldest transportation corridor in the United States, the BOSFOLK is multimodal and multigenerational in land transportation systems, Focusing on highway, transit, and freight
corridors, the corridor faces several issues such as changing metropolitan and land use
structure, congestion, safety, aging infrastructure, and competing demands of transporting
individual travelers and freight while protecting the environment. The scale of the research
includes problems of regional and national importance while focusing specifically on unique
issues within the state of Delaware.
We define the corridor as a structural region organized around an evolving multi-modal
transportation system. Many definitions of megalopolis tend to be static ones using land-use
and defining the as the extent of urban/suburban development from transportation spine. A
transportation corridor is a linear area resulting from accessibility to land from the
transportation spine and from the higher speed of interaction possible between locations along
the spine than away from it. The transportation spine unifies the corridor. Thus, in timedistance places along the spine are closer together – shorter travel times – than places off the
transportation spine. The history of the corridors is then the dynamics of its growth.
Challenges
Corridors of highly concentrated transportation networks are not a new phenomenon.
As an overview of the history of the Northeast corridor will reveal, rail lines and highways have
taken decades to develop. However, as the density of these transportation networks continues
to increase within the corridor, planning professionals find themselves at a loss for how to
effectively manage it. The result is increased traffic congestion, environmental degradation,
structural impairment, and social injustices due to limited mobility. In the past, management of
complex transportation corridors has been piecemeal, relegated to scattered and shattered
jurisdictions that are not always inclined to seek collaboration. The challenges to managing the
Northeast’s transportation infrastructure continue to grow; a new planning model is
desperately needed. The basis of this new planning model is found in the 1961 work of French
geographer Jean Gottmann and is expanded upon by current-day geographers and planners.
Gottmann’s ideas regarding the mega-region he referred to as “Megalopolis,” will be fully
discussed in the second section of this paper. First, it is crucial to understand the how and why
the transportation corridor in the Northeast became what it is today.
Societal changes in mobility have evolved over time, resulting in significant
transformations to the Northeast corridor. Already by the 1830s, the corridor was highly
industrialized and the development of a rail network throughout the region became possible
(Von Eckardt, 1964). Individual states such as Massachusetts, Maryland, and Delaware had
begun to construct their first rail lines which were initially pulled by horses (Houk, 2006), laying
the foundation for a regional rail network. By the 1850s, the Massachusetts railroad system
UDUTC Final Report
Page 6
(the only state required to publicly report ridership) was well-established and reported
ridership of 40 million passengers between 1838 and 1847 (Pell, 1966). When locally operated
railroads consolidated with the regional system, the number of passengers grew to 200 million
passengers between 1861 and 1870 in Massachusetts (Pell, 1966). As ridership increased, the
rail network became one of the densest transportation systems in the nation (Von Eckardt,
1964).
With the goals of providing mobility to the public and maximizing profit in mind, rail
companies strategically placed rail lines from Boston to Washington D.C. in order to connect
multiple centralized nuclei with sizable populations (Ward, 1986). The train stations were built
in and around cities where the majority of people either lived or worked and typically provided
service to regions of similar characteristics. The strategic planning of the rail system throughout
the corridor connected pairs of cities such as Baltimore to Philadelphia or Philadelphia to New
York City (Pell, 1966). This pattern developed the initial interconnected “string of cities” in the
northeast, from Boston to Washington D.C., that forms the spine of Gottmann’s Megalopolis.
The corridor developed based on the strategically placed rail lines rather than as a result
of the overlapping suburban areas. The transformation from the rail line network is analogous
to the development of a mammal. Prior to the development of an entire skeleton, a spine must
first be developed. The railroad “spine” served as a backbone for future development of the
highway system leading to the overlap in suburban regions. The highway system is
representative of the “skeleton” which strengthened the established transportation network
and promoted interconnectivity.
Interconnectivity between metropolitan regions became stronger with the development
of alternative modes of transportation including automobile and air travel. These alternative
modes began to increase by the 1920s causing rail ridership to slowly decline (Gottmann, 1961).
Modal competition between air and rail, as well as automobile and rail had a significant impact
on the corridor. No longer did residents have to rely on fixed rail lines for mobility to and from
the major cities of the corridor. The automobile was preferred for short intercity commutes
while air travel began to dominate long distance travel, leading to a decrease in rail ridership. In
terms of convenience, travel time, and accessibility, the rail system could not compete with the
alternate modes.
Within the next two decades almost every household across America owned an
automobile (Gottmann, 1961). In 1940, there were approximately 27.4 million passenger cars
registered in the United States and by 1957 there were approximately 55 million privately
owned automobiles (Gottmann, 1961). This increase in motor transportation led to a demand
for a nationwide highway network (Gottmann, 1961). The National Interstate and Defense
Highway Act of 1956 prioritized federal subsidy of highway construction across the country. As
a result, the highway system grew and the expansion created an additional increase in
automobile ownership. Federal spending on interstate highway systems within the Megalopolis
served to strengthen the spine of multi-modal interconnection between cities.
UDUTC Final Report
Page 7
However, the transition from rail to automobile was not without consequences in the
Northeast corridor. With increased mobility through the highway network, residents were
willing to live further away from the inner cities. Suburban home construction, bolstered by
federal subsidy through the Federal Housing Act of 1947, grew more appealing to city residents
tired of overcrowded housing and crime. Highways that led into cities were also highways that
led out of cities and created suburban areas where people could avoid the disadvantages of city
life. The Megalopolis corridor arose from well-developed transportation networks and rapid
suburbanization. Today, the northeast corridor is a mega-region that consists of continuous
urban sprawl, long commutes, and a lowered quality of life (Todorovich and Vallabhajosyula,
2007). Figure 1 displays the commutersheds that had developed by 1975 due to
suburbanization and the desire to live outside of the city, away from rail lines.
Figure 1- Commutersheds of Megalopolis in 1975 (Miller, 1975)
UDUTC Final Report
Page 8
As shown in light gray, many people in 1975 were living in the suburbs and relying on
their personal vehicles to access workplaces located in the centralized city (shown in dark grey)
(Miller, 1975). These commutersheds created the overlapping urbanized regions that connect
the major cities of the Northeast into one continuous corridor (Miller, 1975). Figure 2
illustrates how continuous decentralization in Megalopolis has generated gradually increasing
commute times from 1990 to 2000. The challenge to engineers and planners alike is that
decentralization in the corridor, which manifests as longer commute times, results in greater
dependence on personal automobiles for trips of all purpose. In turn, this results in increased
traffic congestion and demand on infrastructure systems that affects quality of life, response to
emergencies, public expenditure on infrastructure, and the environment.
Figure 2- Commute Duration for 1990-2000 (Regional Plan Association, 2007)
The resulting impact of geographical shifts from urban to suburban development to the
environment in the corridor is immense. As was stated, longer commute times increase
demand on highways and caused severe congestion (Von Eckardt, 1964). Congestion however,
is more than a traffic problem; it is a land use and environmental issue as well. The
environmental cost of cars caught in severe highway congestion is an increase in fuel emissions
that negatively impacts air quality. Environmental and political costs related to the reliance on
fossil fuels in the US are also problems. Poor air quality emissions, coupled with the land use
impacts of highway construction, have created significant environmental degradation
throughout the Megalopolis corridor (Regional Plan Association, 2007).
Urban decentralization has resulted not only in congestion – and its related problems of
traffic and environmental degradation – but also social and economic restructuring of the
corridor. Once the automobile was established as the new form of mobility, those that could
UDUTC Final Report
Page 9
afford a vehicle were able to live outside the city. However, those that could not afford to buy
a car were forced to remain within a close distance of their workplace, typically in urban
districts where passenger train was heavily relied upon for mobility between cities (Vicino et al.,
2006). This relationship is still apparent today where the suffering passenger rail system
provides service (mass transit) to riders that simply cannot afford personal vehicles (Todorovich
and Vallabhajosyula, 2007). Limited mobility traps poverty within certain areas in the
Megalopolis corridor. Figures 3 and 4, shown below, display the current arrangement of urban
clusters overlaid with income information, throughout the Megalopolis corridor.
Figure 3- Urban Clusters in Southern Megalopolis (Vicino et al., 2006)
Based on these maps, it is apparent that there is a trend relegating poverty stricken
regions to centralized cities, such as Baltimore, Wilmington, and Camden. This socioeconomic
issue will be a challenge for the future of the corridor, along with the related problems of
congestion and sprawl.
UDUTC Final Report
Page 10
Figure 4- Urban Clusters in Northern Megalopolis (Vicino et al., 2006)
UDUTC Final Report
Page 11
3. Defining Resiliency
When addressing future concerns of a corridor its resiliency, or “ability to recover from
or adjust easily from change,” must be analyzed (Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, 2008).
Resiliency, the inverse of vulnerability, is a term that holds multiple applications and refers to
more than simply the recovery of a system after a catastrophic event (Cova and Conger, 2004).
It can be viewed as a performance measurement of how adaptable a system is to internal and
external changes. Therefore, resiliency comes in two different connected forms: resilience as
preparation and resilience as performance (Foster, 2006). Preparation resilience includes the
ability to assess the system in order to be ready for change. Performance resilience refers to
the ability of the system to respond and recover from change. Figure 5 displays the framework
of how preparation resilience and performance resilience are interrelated.
Figure 5- Performance Resilience vs. Preparation resilience (Foster, 2006)
This research focuses primarily on the connection between the two forms in order to identify
the key factors that determine a corridor’s regional resilience.
Resilience, when applied to a transportation corridor, can be viewed at multiple scales.
A corridor can be viewed as a whole system where resiliency is achieved at a regional level.
However, resiliency can also be achieved at the local level where the individual system
elements such as the infrastructure can be assessed (Foster, 2006). These two scales are
strongly interrelated due to the fact that regional resilience is only as strong as the weakest link
UDUTC Final Report
Page 12
within the system. Therefore, resiliency must be achieved at the local level in order to
successfully achieve regional resiliency.
Regional resiliency addresses the corridor as part of a broader scope and relates to the
interrelationship between various changes relating to land use, transportation, weather, and
other unexpected events. Michel Bruneau (2003) and others developed a framework for
assessing resiliency at the regional scale. He identifies four properties that are used for
assessing regional resiliency:




robustness: the strength of a system and its elements to withstand disruption without
suffering degradation or loss of function
redundancy: the extent to which a system or its elements have substitutes to ensure
functioning in the event of a disruption
resourcefulness: the capacity within a system to identify problems, establish priorities
and mobilize and apply resources in face of disruption
rapidity: the capacity to meet priorities and achieve goals in a timely manner to contain
losses and thwart future disruption
These properties of resiliency were originally developed for the assessment of
communities. However they can be equally applied to the regional resilience of a transportation
corridor.
In contrast to regional resiliency, local resiliency refers to the ability of the individual
infrastructure parts to be able to adapt and recover to stresses both internal and external. In
terms of a transportation corridor, traffic oriented measurements can be used to assess the
resiliency of the roadway. The following list includes general resiliency measurements focusing
on transportation management:





Route redundancy- number of alternative routes available for travel to a designated
destination
Reversibility- ability of the directional flow of traffic to be reversed in order to
accommodate additional capacity
Connectivity- number of access points that the road is connected to adjacent routes
Continuity- ability of a roadway to continuously provide access to adjacent land uses
Travel Time Reliability- ability to estimate the predicted travel time duration on a
roadway
In addition to these general measurements, there are episodic and continuous resiliency
measurements. Episodic measurements are ones that occur at random and are typically
unpredictable such as the ability to recover from weather related incidents or traffic accidents.
Continuous measurements occur on a daily basis and are predictable such as daily traffic
congestion, road degradation, and the effects of scheduled construction. In general, these
measurements are all interrelated and cannot be isolated when determining resiliency of a
transportation system.
UDUTC Final Report
Page 13
Corridor Resiliency – Practitioners’ Perspectives
In order to understand the practical applications of the concept of corridor resiliency, a
workshop was held involving transportation practitioners within the Mid-Atlantic region of the
Megalopolis corridor. Feedback involving their personal definitions of resiliency was received
as well as a general consensus of how to view resiliency from a corridor perspective.
The first question posed to the practitioners was how they individually define the term
“resiliency” with respect to the corridor. Varieties of responses were given and are listed
below:







Having the ability to recover
Being able to maximize capacity and having an alternative support network
Recovering from an incident
Connection between transportation and land use, specifically identifying the difference
between recurring and nonrecurring congestion
Ability to “bounce back” meaning responding and recovering from all modal changes
Ability of the driver to adapt and respond to changes
Ability of the economy to support the changes in the corridor
As listed above, a variety of definitions were provided however, a consensus was made
regarding how to measure resiliency. The participants concluded that resiliency must be
determined through performance measures such as travel time reliability, similar to the list of
general traffic oriented measurements listed prior.
Once the individual definitions were discussed a general conclusion was made that
there are multiple types of corridor resilience. The following three types were defined:



Functional resiliency- ability of the corridor as a whole to be able to adapt, respond, and
recover to change at the regional scale
Behavioral resiliency- ability of the individuals living within the corridor to be able to
adapt, respond, and recover to change (example- using real time traffic data to
determine which routes to use)
Economic resiliency- ability of the economy to support change within the corridor
In general, the workshop provided insight to how corridor resiliency is viewed in
practice. The main point that was significant throughout the entire meeting was the
importance of monetary support. Without adequate funding the necessary measures to
promote resiliency throughout the corridor cannot successfully be achieved.
UDUTC Final Report
Page 14
4. Evolution of the Structure of a Multimodal Layered
Transportation Spine
Our research into the evaluation of the structure of the corridor as a multi-modal
transportation spine identified four distinct phases:




Phase I – 1730’s to 1840’s
Phase 2 – 1840’2 to 1920’s
Phase 3 – 1920’s to 1940’s
Phase 4 – 1940’s to present
Phase 1, from the 1730s to the 1840s, focuses on water-based ports, oceans, rivers and
canals. The primary transportation spine is linear coastal shipping and canals to much lesser
extent. Water-based transportation is more efficient, smoother, and cost effective than land
especially for freight and heavy bulk items. Land is very secondary. In terms of land use cities
where concentrated walking cities as joint locales of commerce, industry and residences with a
sharp division between cities and towns and rural hinterlands. Phase 1 establishes the basic
linear structure along the coast. Rivers and construction of westward canals (Erie,
Pennsylvania, B&O) see the beginning of a lattice pattern and making the corridor the focus of
western goods.
Phase 2, from the 1840s to the 1920s, focuses on railroads and telegraphs, the
Metropolitan Corridor Phase. Introduced from the 1830s, railroads created a strong linear
organization and what has been called the “string of pearls” pattern with cities as the pearls.
Able to move heavy freight and many people, railroads brought cities closer together in timedistance and created the first commuting zones. This allowed daily interactions between the
cities from Baltimore to Boston and promoted the development of both economic
specializations and interdependencies among cities. Paralleling and replacing canals, railroads
extended west at right angles to north south lines strengthening the western lattice with the
NY Central, Pennsylvania and B&O Railroads. Much of this was made possible by advances in
bridge engineering with technical breakthroughs such as the Eads Bridge in St. Louis.
It was a period of the booming industrial revolution and most industrial growth in the
United States. With that and high immigration, the population of the corridor exploded and
become largest urban industrial concentration in the world. At the same time rail gave rise to
early suburbs first as railroad suburbs for the wealthy such as the Main Line west from
Philadelphia and the Hudson Valley following NY Central. Streetcars, created closer in, formed
contiguous suburbs for middle class. Since these fixed-rail transportation modes focused on
cities the nodal structure of corridor was reinforced with larger urban concentrations,
contiguous middle density suburbs with sharp division between that and rural areas.
With the introduction of the telegraph in the 1870s and the telephone in the 1890s, a
communications revolution its network became part of the spine of the corridor. A major
impact of the telegraph and telephone was that management of manufacturing firms could be
UDUTC Final Report
Page 15
separated from the production facilities. This led to movement of corporations headquarters to
major cities especially New York. As second impact, allowed larger skyscraper because it
facilitated communications between floors. Finally, telegraph and telephone allowed
concentrations of financial institutions because the could trade remotely while having the
needed face-to-face contact. It promoted the growth of Wall Street and financial districts in
other cities in the corridor.
The third phase from 1920s to 1940s is the early automobile and radial and national
highways phase. The following are key milestones in the chronology:

















1919 – Army cross-country truck convoy –Capt. Dwight Eisenhower impressed by need
for transcontinental highways
1922 – Pershing map for national system of defense highways
1922 to 1938 – “Golden Age of Highway Building”
1925 – Corbusier Paris plan with high-speed highway system – Plan voisin pour Paris
1926 -- Numbered US Highway system implemented
1932 – Mumford Thomas Debate New Republic Regionalist vs Metropolitanist
(Fishman)
1935-1940 – First part of Pennsylvania Turnpike constructed (BPR opposed because of
lack of demand – estimated 750 cars a day.
1937 – Roosevelt Interstate Proposal of Grid of Six Highspeed Transnational Roads (hand
drawn map lost)
1938 Highway Act proposing spoke and wheel plan for metropolitan area; feasibility
study of FDRs proposal
1939 – Free Roads and Toll Roads by BPR – proposes metropolitan roads finds
transcontinental route un feasible because of lack of demand -- recommended a 26,700
mile non-toll interregional network following existing roads wherever possible to
preserve earlier investment.
1939 – General Motors Futurama at NY World’s Fair
1941 Roosevelt continued to press for a national system of super highways and in 1941,
appointed a National Interregional Highway Committee to investigate the need for a
limited system of national highways.
1943 report, Interregional Highways, recommended an interregional highway system
of 39,020 miles was designed to accommodate traffic 20 years from construction. The
report emphasized urban freeways arguing that they would “exert a powerful force on
the shape of the future city.”
1944 Highway Act
1944 – Eisenhower impressed by advantages and resiliency of autobaun over railroads
for military logistics
1954 Housing Act Authorizing Urban Renewal
UDUTC Final Report
Page 16
The fourth phase from 1956 to the 1980s can be characterized as the Interstate
Highway and Automobile Phase. The Interstate Era of BOSFOLK is from 1956 to 1970. The
construction of Interstate Highway system from 1956 to the present has had the greatest
influence on the development of BOSFOLK corridor – not only because of the interstates alone
but other communications and transportation events that occurred during the same period –
the introduction of commercial jet travel in 1958 and the PC computer in 1980 which led to IT
networks and telecommunications.
The literature makes two conclusions the BOSFOK corridor that may seem
contradictory. On the one hand Gallis, Moll and Millar (2007) argue that northeast corridor
evolved through three stages to reach what the call its present configuration as “Northeast
Urban Lattice”. On the other hand, recent analysis of the ten megalpolitan areas in the US, Lang
and Dhavale classify it as an extreme form of a linear corridor. Gallis, et.al call their first stage
“traditional” Northeast which is the pre -interstate conditions before 1956.
The second stage from 1970 to 1990, starting with the Gottmann (1961) megalopolis
base line, is called the Northeast Corridor created by combination of I-95, New Jersey Transit
and Amtrak. This period is subdivided into two sub-periods the first from 1960 to 1975, when
the transportation improvements promoted a linear corridor. They mark the second phase of
the network as 1975 with the introduction of urban beltways which provided a broader
framework for both suburbanization and connectivity.
“The Lattice” is stage three evolving from 1990-2007. In this stage the linear pattern
begins to reconfigure into a parallel set of north-south growth points connected by a set of
east-west interstates evolving into “a pattern of multiple nodes and connections , each with an
increasingly specialized role in the urban, economic, and transportation structure of the
northeast.” This transformation has been the result of global integration, formation of the
North America trading block, the breakup of Conrail and rise of e-commerce. It is producing a
pattern of urbanization across a broader landscape.
Another trend associated with the Northeast Corridor is that it has been the prototype
for the growth of nine other mega-urban areas in the US that are being called megapolitan
areas. In the examination of ten of these areas, Lang and Dhavale found that they vary in
spatial form with “some showing a clear corridor (or linear) form while others spread out in vast
galaxies.” They concluded that the megalpolitan areas fall along a continuum of metropolitan
spatial form from “Galactic” to “Corridor.” The cluster of metro areas forming the research
Triangle in North Carolina typifies the Galactic form and the Northeast Corridor is on the
“Corrdior” end of the continuum.
When the geographer Lewis first coined the term metropolitan galaxies he was referring
to the enormous influence of the interstate highways system of the pattern of urbanization in
the United States. The most important aspect of which was the points of new urban
development were no longer traditional urban location characteristics but points of
intersection in the national interstate system. A prime example of this are Edge Cities which
tend – like Tysons Corner in Virginia around the intersection of radial and circumferential
interstates – I-495 and I-66. The lattice grid is creating a set of development points and as the
UDUTC Final Report
Page 17
Northeast Corridor has evolved to a grid or lattice the major source of development are the
”galactic” type interstate intersections.
The evolution of the corridor can be characterized by the following observations:


It has retained a corridor structure because it is anchored by a series of ports along the
coast (the C&D Canal makes Baltimore coastal). With globalization and shift to freight
transportation these ports have become more important . Unlike the flat Midwest, the
northeast corridor is also limited to a coastal plain hemmed in by the Piedmont.
At the same time the basic lattice structure of a core north-south corridor at right angles
western extensions was laid out from the being as the ports developed transportation
to their hinterlands and inland US.
o First canals – Erie, PA, C&O
o Railroads – NYCent, Pennsy, B&O
o Federal Highways
o The Interstate.
Stage 1: I-95 Linear Interstate Corridor and Framework for Lattice 1956-1975
The first linear multilane lane highway corridor was built from Washington, D.C. to
Boston as I-95 . It was not a continuous road until the 1970’s when the New Jersey Turnpike
connected it to Interstate 295 across the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Land uses attracted along
the route formed a corridor with nodes at major interchanges. It also stimulated
suburbanization outward form major cities. The construction of the interstate from 1956 to the
1980’s occurred at the same time that central city populations were declining and
decentralization was taking place. Planning was very primitive.
In 1960, metropolitan planning councils were formed to undertake the regional
transportation play. At the same time, OMB I-95 regional planning agency was established to
coordinate federal assistance including federally assisted transportation planning. Also, the
parallel and radial interstates were being built in eastern New Jersey and western Pennsylvania
that would become the skeleton for the latest Galactic Lattice Development.
Stage 2: 1975 to 1980 Interstate Beltway of Circumferential
The original interstate was planned as a national defense highway to move
material across the country. To speed transportation, it avoided many cities. In the 1970’s, the
Interstate Act was modified to connect cities and to provide beltway and circumferential
around cities.. It also required comprehensive transportation planning and stunted the
development of metropolitan transportation methods.
From the 1973 Highway Act, circumferential interstates were planning a built
around nearly all major American cities and thou in megalopolis I-495 and 695 around
Baltimore/Washington and Baltimore, respectively. Although thecities were still declining, the
circumferential along with some new radial interstates stimulated suburbanization in a new
UDUTC Final Report
Page 18
way. While the land area covered by development greatly exceeded the population growth
urban sprawl occurred. It also changed the nature of traffic forecasting, whereas earlier
forecasts assumed a constant relationship between land and type of trip generation, it soon
became realized the new roads generated more trips and vehicle miles traveled and origins and
destinations became too dispersed.
Thus the megapolitan corridor of beads on a string became more like overlapping
donuts with development along beltways surrounded a declining central city.
Stage 3: 1980s to 2008 Growth of Galactic Lattice
What is called ‘Galactic Growth’ occurs when new development shifts from cities to the
intersections of the interstate network – the pattern of urbanization follows the pattern of the
interstate. Growth at these points of intersection led to a new type of urban concentration
called ‘Edge Cities’ – first ‘discovered’ in 1988. All of this occurred as a part of a larger
metropolitan trend in which suburbs were growing larger and more economically mature than
their former central cities. In this ‘post-suburban’ phase, suburbs were breaking away from
central cities. New Castle County, Delaware is an excellent example of a suburban area many
times larger and economically mature than its history urban city parent of Wilmington.
In the BOSFOLK CORRIDOR, Edge Cities, north of Washington, the corridor maintained
its linear orientation – the first stage of Galactic Development. Where interchanges became
major points of new development such as Cherry Hill and Princeton, New Jersey were early
1980’s examples of Edge Cities. A number grew in the New York metropolitan area into
Connecticut. By the 1990’s also BOSFOLK had developed become utterly suburbanized and was
organized a much around Edge Cities or traditional cities. It has become a much broader
corridor.
Development occurs along a continuum from Galactic to Corridor, from a spread
pattern, to a more linear one. Among 10 megapolitan areas they found the Northeast
megapolitan area to be the second most defined in corridor form – behind the I-35 corridor in
the mid-west. Although this may seen to contradict the conclusion of BOSWASH has a Galactic
pattern, the essential trait of the Galactic pattern is that need development centers on
interstate exchanges so from planning potential view the area major points of origin and
destination.
The second point that does support the Galactic Phase is the work of Gallis, Moll and
Millar who argue that after 1990 BOSWASH development moved west along the interstate
network and incorporated older industrial cities and transportal hubs.
Specifically they write:
After 1990, global integration, the forma of the North American trading block,
the breakup of Conrail and e-commerce resulted in a new construction in the pattern of the
network. (People-Nature – p.6)
The two new rail systems – CSX and Norfolk Southern – developed new system of hubs
and the older cities in eastern Pennsylvania began to play important roles as inland hubs. At
the same time, e-commerce integrated them into a unified system.
UDUTC Final Report
Page 19
5. Modal Vehicular Use Trends
The passenger rail lines provided the initial transportation “spine” of the Megalopolis
corridor which then expanded with the development of the automobile. Starting as early as the
1920’s the development of the automobile began to alter the Megalopolis corridor by reducing
passenger rail ridership. The automobile was more than a technological advancement; it was a
means for personal travel, an agent of suburbanization, a motivation for highway construction,
and a stimulant of modal competition with the passenger rail service. During the 1930’s and
1940’s, the automobile became present in almost every household across America (Gottmann,
1961). In 1940, there were approximately 27.4 million passenger cars registered in the United
States and by 1957 there were approximately 55 million privately owned automobiles
(Gottmann, 1961). The increase in motor transportation led to a high demand for a sufficient
nationwide highway network (Gottmann, 1961). Figure 6 displays the average daily highway
traffic in the United States in 1952 based on the established highway network (Gottmann,
1961). The thickness of the individual routes is representative of the traffic density on that
particular highway.
The automobile is responsible for influencing transportation infrastructure which is
coupled with shifts in residential patterns. It provided mobility and opportunity for Americans
to live farther from the workplace causing population density rates to shift away from
urbanized areas and into the suburbs (Van Eckardt, 1964). Unfortunately, the railroad service
suffered because it was a restricted fixed route service which typically did not extend into the
suburbs. The passenger rail service was no longer the most convenient, efficient, and popular
means for travel throughout the Megalopolis corridor.
After the 1920’s, the automobile, along with alternative modes (i.e. air travel), caused
modal competition with the passenger rail service. The automobile was preferred for short
intercity commutes while air travel began to dominate long distance travels, causing passenger
rail ridership to decrease (Miller, 1975). Travel time, comfort, cost, and convenience caused
the passenger rail service to be less desirable than other modes and there was little ability for
the rail to compete with these modes (Sussman, 2000). For example in 1969, a trip from
Boston to New York City takes fifty minutes by air versus four and a half hours by rail. The time
differences (in hours) for rail versus air travel between five major cities in the northeast
corridor can be seen in Table 1 (Miller, 1975). Air transportation is a more efficient travel mode
when compared to rail in terms of trip duration (Miller, 1975).
More recently, air transportation continues to dominate long distance trips when
compared to transit, rail, or automobile. This is apparent in Figure 7 which shows vehicle miles
traveled by mode from 1994 to 2004.
UDUTC Final Report
Page 20
Figure 6- Highway Traffic Flow in United States in 1952 (Gottmann, 1961)
UDUTC Final Report
Page 21
Table 1- Train and Air Travel Time between Megalopolis Cities in 1969 (Miller, 1975)
Figure 7-Index of U.S. Vehicle Miles 1994-2004 (DeCerreno, 2007)
UDUTC Final Report
Page 22
6. Land Use Trends and Context
The Northeast corridor in the United States is an area of political, economic, and social
supremacy due to its composition of continuous urbanized areas. One solution to managing
this intricate web of continuous urbanized areas lies in the research of a French geographer,
writing over forty years ago – well before the problems associated with transportation and
infrastructure were deemed a “crisis.” In 1961, French geographer Jean Gottmann saw the
pattern of cities strung along the Eastern Seaboard, including Boston, Providence, New York,
Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C., recognized this pattern as important, and
termed this unique area “Megalopolis.” (Gottmann, 1961). According to Gottmann,
characteristics such as high density, increased infrastructure, population growth, technological
advancements, and intricate transportation systems had enabled the Megalopolis corridor to
become a significant geographical region (Gottmann, 1961). Figure 8 displays “Megalopolis” as
defined by Jean Gottmann.
Figure 8- Megalopolis Corridor (Vicino et al., 2007)
Megalopolis, meaning “large city,” describes the four hundred and fifty five mile region
that stretches from northern Boston to southern Washington D.C. and crosses the boundaries
of ten states (Miller, 1975). Gottmann believed that rather than viewing each city in
Megalopolis as its own entity, the region as a whole ought to be viewed as new form of city.
UDUTC Final Report
Page 23
The corridor was created when the expanding suburbanized areas around each of the cities
caused traditional commutershed boundaries to blur (DeCerreno, 2007).
Since 1961, metropolitan growth within this corridor has been extreme.
Suburbanization and urban sprawl have both increased in occurrence since 1961, which, in
turn, has led to increased population density within and around the major Megalopolis cities.
Geographer Richard Morrill (2006) updated Gottmann’s map based on population growth in the
Figure 9- Megalopolis Revisited (Morrill, 2006)
corridor from 1950 to 2000, proving the continual relevancy of the corridor. Figure 9 shows
growth in twenty year increments from 1950-1990 of the expanding Megalopolis region.
Population growth for the year 2000 is also included in Morrill’s map (Morrill, 2006).
Population densities that were once limited to the eastern-most sections of states like
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, have crept westward and cities such as Harrisburg,
PA, and Springfield, MA, are now part of Megalopolis.
Though Gottmann’s theories held potential to reorganize the scale at which decisions
were made in the Northeast corridor, planning professionals – transportation and/or land use –
have failed to incorporate the idea of the mega-region or mega-corridor into planning and
decision making. Despite demonstrable economic dependencies between cities and/or
counties in the Megalopolis corridor, planning at that scale has yet to be organized. For this
reason, among others, Gottmann’s Megalopolis concept failed to take hold among the general
UDUTC Final Report
Page 24
public. Recently, however, as the I-95 corridor becomes increasingly congested and state DOT’s
find themselves overwhelmed with the costs of maintenance and new construction, some
geographers and urban planners are returning to Gottmann’s transportation corridor concept,
with the intention of adapting it to respond to today’s areas of concern and a growing
infrastructure crisis.
In 2005, geographers Lang and Dhavale (2005) expanded Gottmann’s definition of
Megalopolis and wrote that the idea of a transportation/metropolitan corridor was not unique
to Megalopolis in the northeastern United States; rather, megapolitan corridors – a 2005 take
on Gottmann’s 1961 Megalopolis - are present in ten different locations within the United
States. Lang and Dhavale wrote that the Megalopolis characteristics of interconnectivity,
population density, distinct regional identity, and long historical background deign
“megapolitan” status to the following regions: Northeast, Midwest, Piedmont, Gulf Coast,
Pennisula, I-35 Corridor, Valley of the Sun, Norcal, Southland, and Cascadia (Lang and Dhavale,
2005). These ten megapolitan regions cover thirty-five states throughout the United States
and are predominantly located along the east and west coasts. In terms of population density,
the megapolitan corridors either currently posses or have the potential to possess ten million
residents by 2040 (Lang and Dhavale, 2005). Figure 10 displays the ten megapolitan corridors in
their respective locations throughout the country.
Lang and Dhavale predict that as the current megapolitan corridors continue to grow in
population, the total number of megapolitan corridors will also grow – doubling from ten to
twenty by 2040 (Lang and Dhavale, 2005). Approximately thirty-three trillion dollars towards
these regions will be spent on Megapolitan growth (Lang and Dhavale, 2005). Table 2 provides
a comparison between megapolitan and national growth from 2005 to 2040.
Lang and Dhavale’s definition of megapolitan areas has gained credibility because it uses
data and geography collected by the US Census Bureau to create standards for designation.
The researchers use census-designated statistical areas to identify and label the megapolitan
areas, with the county as the most basic unit of analysis. Counties, as units of analysis, then
combine to form metropolitan statistical areas (MetroSAs), micropolitan statistical areas
(MicroSAs), or Non-core Based Areas – all recognized by the US Census Bureau (2009).
Megapolitans must consist of at least two – but sometimes as many one or two dozen –
metropolitan statistical areas (MetroSAs), as defined by the US Census Bureau (2009).1 Censusdesignated “micropolitans”2 are also incorporated into megapolitans so long as they are
contiguous to the metropolitan area and share a pre-determined level of linked economic
activity. Other criteria determined by Lang and Dhavale for identifying Megapolitan areas are
as follows:
1
Metropolitans Statistical Areas: An “urbanized area” or “principal city” with at least 50,000 people plus
surrounding counties with a 25% “Employment Interchange Measure” (EIM) in 2000.
2
Micropolitan Statistical Areas: Meaningful core-based areas with populations between 10,000 and 50,000 but
whose central cities are too small to qualify as MetroSAs. MicroSAs are recognized as self-contained settlements
outside of MetroSAs whose boundaries are determined by commuting patterns.
UDUTC Final Report
Page 25
Figure 10- Map of Megapolitan Corridors (Lang, 2005)
Table 2- Megapolitan vs. National Growth (Lang and Dhavale, 2005)
UDUTC Final Report
Page 26






Constitutes an “organic” cultural region with a distinct history and identity.
Occupies a roughly similar physical environment.
Links large centers through major transportation infrastructure.
Forms a functional urban network via goods and service flows.
Creates a usable geography that is suitable for large-scale regional planning.
Lies within the United States.
Figure 11- Interconnectivity between Metropolitan Region
(Lang and Dhavale, 2005)
Figure 11 displays a diagram of interconnected metropolitan areas and the designated
areas that form as a result of transportation connections. As shown, urban realms develop
around the central cities while micropolitan areas exist outside the urban realm, or
metropolitan area.
The true promise for Lang and Dhavale’s megapolitan identification lies within the fifth
bullet point listed above. Many benefits will arise from large-scale regional planning at the
megapolitan level, once locations with megapolitan areas recognize their economic, cultural,
and geographic dependency. This conclusion is not so far from what Gottmann originally
proposed in Megalopolis. Lang and Dhavale have attempted in “Beyond Megalopolis” to
harness the ideas of Gottmann’s Megalopolis and package it in a practical way that will be
useful to researchers, policy makers, geographers, and residents. Since 2005, Lang has worked
to further refine the definition of megapolitans in an attempt to make America’s new urban
form relevant to those making decisions about the regions. In Beyond the Metroplex:
Examining Commuter Patterns at the “Megapolitan” Scale (2007), Lang and Nelson more
narrowly define megapolitan areas than did Lang and Dhavale (2005). For Lang and Nelson,
megapolitan areas are “big, but not enormous and can easily be traversed by car in a day,
UDUTC Final Report
Page 27
round-trip… [megapolitan areas have] economic linkages as demonstrated by commuter
patterns. The ‘anchor urban cores’ of megapolitans lie at least 50 miles, but no more than 180
miles, apart.” Beyond the Metroplex is a further attempt to resolve what people often
intuitively sense about a place – “metros that were once distinct places now merging into urban
complexes” – with how these places are classified by governments, policy makers, and
researchers. Lang and Nelson use the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex as an starting point for how
other megapolitan areas might grow and develop in the future; however, they emphasis that
the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex is just a starting point for research as today’s megapolitan areas
cast a shadow over the original metroplex in their enormity. Megapolitans, as defined by either
Lang and Dhavale (2005) or Lang and Nelson (2007), will continue to grow in terms of
population and physical space for the coming decades and the US must formally recognize this
dominant urban geography.
Although corridors as a whole are increasing in population, a pressing question remains
where within the corridors are people residing? Largely, growth within megapolitan corridors is
suburban. According to Vicino, Hanlon, and Short (Megalopolis 50 years on: the
Transformation of a City Region, 2007), the overall growth of the BOSWASH/Megalopolis
corridor masks the decline of major cities such as Baltimore, Boston, Philadelphia, and
Washington D.C. Urban decentralization was the original impetus for the rise of megapolitan
corridors, but it has come at the cost of population loss in the central cities within metropolitan
regions (Vicino et al., 2007). Because the birth rate in the United States has remained relatively
constant for the past several decades, growth in one area generally requires decline in another.
In the megapolitan corridors defined by Lang et al, growth of the megapolitan as a whole has
created decline in central cities. The exception to this trend is New York City which continues
to retain its population and remain a centralized force (Vicino et al., 2007). Table 3 displays the
suburban versus urban trends within the Megalopolis corridor over a span of fifty years.
Though the Megalopolis corridor remains densely populated at 931 people per square
mile, population dispersion away from central cities has occurred. However the nature of that
dispersion is unique because of Megalopolis’ overall growth rate: “[In 1950] more than one in
five of the total population lived in the central cores of the five large cities of Baltimore, Boston,
New York, Philadelphia and Washington. Fifty years on, less than one in 10 lived in these same
areas. In 1950, less than one in five lived in the suburbs. By 2000, two out of three lived in the
suburbs. The urban cores had virtually no population increase during the 50-year period while
the suburbs grew by almost 400%” (Vicino, et al., 2007).
The population redistribution trend within Megalopolis has led many geographers such
as Vicino et al. (2007) and Morrill (2006) to revisit Gottmann’s original description of the
Megalopolis corridor and expand its area of influence. For example, population changes
illustrated in Richard Morrill’s (2006) “Megalopolis Revisited” map shown previously in Figure 2
illustrates the growing physical expanse of the Megalopolis corridor. Though population
decentralization has caused parts of Megalopolis to decline, it is the very force that has given
rise to Megalopolis-like megapolitan areas across the US.
UDUTC Final Report
Page 28
Table 3- Population Change and Distribution in Megalopolis (Vicino et al., 2007)
UDUTC Final Report
Page 29
7. Environment and Emissions
Throughout the corridor air quality has been a perennial issue. Furthermore, much of the
corridor crosses or is adjacent to environmental sensitive coastal areas, wetlands, estuaries. A
detailed analysis of this facet of the corridor is beyond the scope of this report.
UDUTC Final Report
Page 30
8. Economic Character and Impact
Prior to the 1830’s, northeastern urbanized areas were suffering from periodic
unemployment, poverty, and continuous depression (Ward, 1986). The railroad improved the
morale of the growing urban poor. Rail enthusiasts promised that railways would raise the
level of national confidence and bring urbanized areas out of depression (Ward, 1986). Their
promise held true when employment rates rose due to the increased opportunities for jobs
within the railroad business. Careers ranging from railroad managers to construction workers
helped to decrease the unemployment rates and dispel the depressed regions (Sussman, 2000).
Figure 12 displays the employment and economic characteristics of the Megalopolis corridor
after the development of the passenger rail service. As shown, New York City is the most
populated central city with the largest percent of white collar male employed residents
(Gottmann, 1961).
Figure 12- Economic Characteristics based on Data and Classification (Gottmann, 1961)
The population growth and increased employment rates in the BOSWASH corridor were
promoted by increased passenger mobility provided by the rail service. Passenger rail systems
provided the opportunity for efficient, comfortable, and convenient accessibility to and from
major cities. No longer did residents rely on horses to reach their work destinations located in
the centralized business districts (Houk, 2006). They were able to take advantage of the
UDUTC Final Report
Page 31
transportation technology by living near the rail stations, and having the capability of regularly
riding the train into nearby cites. This increased mobility encouraged people to live away from
the poverty-stricken urban areas and, in turn, pay a small fee to travel by train to access the
workplace. Travel capabilities improved through intermodal (train to train) and intramodal
(train to alternative modes i.e. ship) transfers allowing for complete mobility throughout the
northeast corridor (Sussman, 2000). The passenger rail system not only provided access into
and out of the cities, but also provided mobility between cities which was the key to the growth
of the Megalopolis transportation corridor.
Beyond the recognition and labeling of a new geographical pattern of urbanization he
called ‘Megalopolis’, Gottmann claimed it had the strongest regional economy to U.S. and,
almost as significant as the concept of Megalopolis, he was among the first to recognize the
emerging advanced service economy would transform the American economy by the end of the
century. To capture Megalopolis’s important in the national economy he called it the “Main
Street of the United States.” Since then Megalopolis has maintained and expanded this role
and attained singular national prominence in areas such as financial services being home to 80
percent of national employment in that sector. Indeed, in 2000, if Megalopolis was a country, it
would have ranked fourth among national economies just after the United States -- and that on
just seven percent of American land area.
Its economic strength and resiliency is tied to its namesake pattern as a dense network
of interconnected cities that have developed reinforcing economic specializations facilitated by
the ease of interactions by transportation and communication. While it has rapidly
suburbanized outward, much of its economic strength lies with its major cities which also
experienced economic resurgence in recent years with activities such as finance, entertainment
and communications that value and require face-to-face contacts facilitated by large dense
cities.
Because proximity and ease of interaction between locations are critical to this
economy, transportation is an especially influence on economic productivity in Megalopolis.
Several trends, however, have made maintaining efficient transportation difficult. The first
challenge is simply the sheer size of population growth and the associated demand for travel
that has occurred. Demand for passenger travel has outstripped the earlier traffic projections
because shrinking household sizes in a larger- than-expected population has translated into
more residential points of origin but with a simultaneous increase in vehicles per household.
Moreover, as home and job destinations have become more dispersed, the number of
commuting trips have both increased and become longer. Thus the population and travel
projections made in the 1960’s and 1970’s to design the highway capacities needed in the
1990s, fell far short of the amount and pattern of actual growth. As result today roads are
being stretched beyond their capacity resulting in extreme congestion. Nor did planner predict
the amount and dispersed pattern of sprawl as it has evolved.
The situation has become more difficult in the late 1970s and 1980s because in addition
to dramatically under forecasting rubber-based passenger travel derived from population
projections while, at the same time, being caught unawares by the exploding numbers of
vehicle and vehicle miles traveled, planners also not did foresee the significant shift in travel
UDUTC Final Report
Page 32
mode of freight. With need to serve more dispersed destinations, freight shifted dramatically
from rail to trucks, greatly increasing highway traffic. Moreover, as the economy globalized in
the 1980’s and especially in the 1990’s, containerized freight was invented to increase the
amount and speed of freight movement and the tonnage received at ports in Megalopolis
increased by an order of magnitude. Major container ports were built at Port Elizabeth (New
Jersey), and Norfolk. The containerized freight systems shifted freight directly from ships to
trucks to move commodities to scattered locations inland. While some containers traveled by
rail, the containers, by definition, move to their final destination by truck.
Ironically with the advent of the personal computer the 1980’s and the growth of
information technology and the internet in the 1990’s, the system of freight delivery could be
integrated among modes and remotely managed by computer leading to “just in time” delivery
systems in which containerized freight rarely left the road from the port to the loading dock of
the destinations. In this, much freight never saw a warehouse but was continuously on the
road. Being able to manage and control trucks by GPS also increased the numbers on the road.
UDUTC Final Report
Page 33
9. Physical Structural Resiliency
The Megalopolis corridor has gone through a significant transformation from 1890 to
2006 in regards to population, highway, and railway density. Using population growth and
route redundancy as resiliency measurements, GIS (Geographic Information System) was used
to map the changes in the Northeast corridor from 1890 to 2006. The Northeast corridor’s rail
network density (Figure 13), road network density (Figure 14), and population density (Figure
15), were each graphed for four time periods from 1890 to 2006. They were then compared
(Figure 16) to determine the relationship between route redundancy and population growth.
The figures provided were selected based on the earliest and most recent time periods
for each measurement. It is apparent that as population increased, the networks quickly
developed to support the growth. In 1890, the average county population was approximately
100,000 people and the transportation network consisted of minimal fixed route rail lines. By
the 1920’s, the development of the automobile spurred highway development continuing
through 1947. The most significant population and network growth occurred from 1947 to
2006 in terms of highway interconnectivity within and between the major metropolitan areas.
This route redundancy has evolved simultaneously with the growing average county population
of approximately 500,000 as shown in the 2006 comparison map (Figure 6). Although in the
past, highway/railway networks have been developing at a rate to support the growing
capacity, this relationship has started to weaken since 1990 and initiates the question will this
interdependency be able to continue throughout future years? The next step would be to
evaluate population projections and evaluate how the future transportation networks will have
to adapt and respond to the growing population within the Megalopolis corridor.
UDUTC Final Report
Page 34
Figure 13-Northeast Corridor Rail Network Density from 1890 to 2006
Figure 14-Northeast Corridor Road Density from 1920 to 2006
UDUTC Final Report
Page 35
Figure 15-Northeast Corridor Population Density from 1890 to 2006
Figure 16-Comparison of Northeast Corridor Population, Rail Network, and Road Network Density from 1890 to 2006
UDUTC Final Report
Page 36
10.
Community Impact, Planning Processes and a
Regional Perspective
As illustrated in Figures 13 through 16, the settlement patterns have evolved such that there is
a continuum of development throughout the corridor. Superimposed on this is a variety of
planning processes as documented by Beauchamp and Warren (2009).
UDUTC Final Report
Page 37
11.
Data Needs
The following section addresses information and issues that would allow for a more
complete assessment of the BosFolk corridor. The data needs listed take into account both the
academic and practitioner perspectives of transportation planning in the northeast
Megalopolis. The list includes both specific data as well as general planning concepts that
require further evaluation, development, or management. In general, the data needs were
gathered based on unavailability of the information, difficulty in applying theories, or lack of
concept implementation. The data needs listed below suggests that continuing research in this
topic would be valuable to obtaining a more comprehensive perspective of the BosFolk corridor
and its resiliency.







Current maps of commutersheds and freightsheds- Miller (1975) provides a very
detailed commutershed map of the northeastern corridor (see page XXXX) for 1975
showing population % that work in the central cities. A more up to date version would
be beneficial as well as a similar map showing freightsheds.
Availability of MPO/local plans- Individual MPO/ local plans should be available and
accessible for all jurisdictions throughout the corridor and formatted in order to easily
share and combine data. For example, if an MPO has a 20 -year plan, it should relate
and correspond to the adjacent MPO’s long range plans and reflect each other’s goals.
Prioritization of planning philosophies- Throughout the northeast corridor, jurisdictional
planning philosophies should be aligned and prioritized on the similar scales through
balancing issues such as health and safety, environmental preservation, and economic
development. The priorities of each jurisdiction should be evaluated and compared to
understand fluctuations in planning goals throughout the region.
Operationalize resiliency- The term resiliency should be operationalized through the
development of a matrix of resiliency measures in order to support implementation
through DOT and MPO plans. Currently the term “resiliency” is difficult to implement
from the practical perspective and therefore needs to be broken down into a set of
design measurements that can be utilized by practitioners throughout the region.
Further resiliency analysis of past incidents- Past incidents such as I-95 shut down in
Philadelphia and WI-35 Minneapolis Bridge collapse should be further analyzed from a
resiliency perspective. The analysis of past incidents serve as examples of how to better
prepare DOT’s and MPO’s for similar events as well as promote more efficient recovery.
Failure assessment- An assessment should be performed of how close the northeast
corridor is to failure from a transportation planning perspective. Measures such as
congestion, travel time, route redundancy, and structural degradation should be used to
measure the failure rate of the corridor.
Evaluation of jurisdictional collaboration- Jurisdictions (both MPO’s and DOT’s) should
be assessed based on how much collaboration between them and other jurisdictions is
currently used throughout the northeast corridor. This current collaboration should be
compared to how much is necessary to make significant advancements in regional
planning.
UDUTC Final Report
Page 38


Classify regions based on typology- Regions throughout the corridor should be organized
based on typological themes such as urban/rural/ suburban or interstate/ noninterstate. This typological classification is helpful in avoiding implementation of plans
that may be affective in one location but may fail in another.
Economic assessment- An economic assessment of the corridor should be evaluated to
determine current economic conditions. In addition, current funding throughout
jurisdictions should be compared in order to determine funding priorities.
UDUTC Final Report
Page 39
12.
Conclusions and Next Steps
The challenges facing all highly developed megapolitan corridors must be recognized
and addressed. The problems of congestion, environmental degradation, structural
deterioration, and social inequities resulting from the current form of urban development in
the US have not been adequately resolved through past approaches of delegating authority of
sections of the corridor to state DOT’s or local MPO’s. The problems facing the megapolitan
corridors that increasingly come to shape the landscape of the future know no boundaries such
as state lines, watersheds, or city limits. Therefore, responses must encompass regional action.
The theories of Gottmann, revisited by Lang, Dhavale, Morrill, Pell, Todorovich et al, Van
Eckardt, Vicino et al, and others, hold potential for addressing today’s transportation and
infrastructure needs, as well as tomorrow’s.
Visually, the development that spans continuously from New Hampshire to Northern
Virginia is remarkable. The physical development of the Northeast corridor combines with the
corridor’s political, economic, and social supremacy to enable the region to attain a worldly
importance. “No other section of the United States has such a large concentration of
population, with such a high average density, spread over such a large area. And no other
section has a comparable role within the nation or a comparable importance in the world”
(Gottmann, 1961). Though Gottmann wrote this in 1961, the same largely remains true today
for the corridor. Politically, it is a center of government for both the nation and world including
facilities such as the White House, the Pentagon, and the United Nations Headquarters (Pell,
1966).
Economically, the corridor has the greatest concentration of financial power and its
residents receive the nation’s highest average income (Pell, 1966). Socially, the corridor leads
the country in higher learning institutions as well as book publishing, radio, and TV broadcasting
(Pell, 1966). These factors, true in 1961 and 2007, are just some of the reasons that Gottmann
(1961) claimed Megalopolis as one of the most influential corridors in the world. For these
reasons, the region continues to be a subject of much research today. Though the region is
proving unmanageable and unsustainable, the value of the resources found in Northeast
corridor are too great to be given up on. Rather, continued research in how best to manage
this complex corridor is vitally needed.
UDUTC Final Report
Page 40
13.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the University Transportation Center for sponsoring this
research.
UDUTC Final Report
Page 41
14.
References
Beard, Charles A. and Mary R. Beard. (1921). History of the United States. Macmillan
Company: New York. Retrieved from www.gutenberg.org/files/16960/16960-h/19690-h.htm on
November 8, 2007.
Bruneau, Michel, Stephanie E. Chang, Ronald T. Eguchi, George C. Lee, Thomas D. O’Rourke,
Andrei M. Reinhorn, Masanobu Shinozuka, Kathleen Tierney, William A. Wallace and Detlof von
Winterfeldt. (2003). “A Framework to Quantitatively Assess and Enhance the Seismic Resilience
of Communities.” Earthquake Spectra 19(4): 737-38.
Cova, Thomas and Steven Conger. (2004). “Transportation Hazards” in Transportation
Engineers Handbook, M. Kutz (ed.), in press.
DeCerreno, Alison L. C. (2007). The Future of Transportation in the Northeast Corridor, 20072025: Rail Transportation. New York: NYU Wagner Rudin Center.
Gallis, Michael, Gary Moll, and Heather Millar. (2007). People – Nature: The Natural Network,
ARCNews Online, Fall.
Gottmann, Jean. (1961) Megalopolis: the Urbanized Northeastern Seaboard of the US.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Houk, Randy. (2006). Railroad History. Retrieved on November 4, 2007 from
http://www.sdrm.org/history/timeline/.
Kathryn Foster. (2006). A Case Study Approach to Understanding Regional Resilience.
University of California Berkeley. Retrieved on May 2, 2006 from
http://repositories.cdlib.org/iurd/wps/.
Lang, Robert E. and Arthur C. Nelson. (2007) Beyond the Metroplex: Examining Commuter
Patterns at the “Megapolitan” Scale. Lincoln Institue of Land Policy.
Lang, Robert E. and Dawn Dhavale. (2005). Beyond Megalopolis: Exploring America’s New
“Megapolitan” Geography. Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech Census Report 05:01.
Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary. (2008). Resiliency. Retrieved on June 12, 2008 from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resilience.
Miller, Delbert C. (1975). Leadership and Power in the Bos-Wash Megalopolis. New
York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Morrill Richard. (2006). "Classic map revisited: The growth of Megalopolis." Professional
Geographer. 58(2) 155-160.
Pell, Claiborne. (1966). Megalopolis Unbound. New York: Frederick A. Praeger.
Regional Plan Association. Northeast Megaregion: 2050. Retrieved on December 15, 2007
from http://www.rpa.org/pdf/Northeast_Report_sm.pdf.
Sussman, Joseph. (2000). “Introduction to Transportation Systems.” Boston: Artech
House.
UDUTC Final Report
Page 42
Todorovich, Petra, and Sharath Vallabhajosyula ed. (2007) “Northeast Megaregion 2050: A
Common Future” Regional Plan Association.
U.S. Census Bureau. Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas. April 2009.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/metroareas/metroarea.html. Accessed on May 10,
2009.
Van Eckardt, Wolf. (1964). The Challenge of Megalopolis. Washington D. C.: The Macmillan
Company.
Vicino, Thomas J., Bernadette Hanlon and John Rennie Short. (2007) Megalopolis 50 Years On:
The Transformation of a City Region. International Journal of Urban
and Regional
Research 31.2 344-367.
Ward, James A. (1986). Railroads and the Character of America 1820-1887. Knoxville:
The University of Tennessee Press.
Beauchamp, David and Robert Warren, “Transportation Policy and Governance in the Northeast
Corridor: An Overview of Major Public Agencies” Final Report University of Delaware,
University Transportation Center, August, 2009.
UDUTC Final Report
Page 43
15.
Appendix A- Data Sources
The data sources used in this research were divided into two categories: general data sources and area specific. The general
data sources (Table A-1) consist of population statistics, rail and highway networks, commute data, census statistical designations,
and MPO jurisdictions. These general data sources can be applied across a variety of the nine aspects of the corridor addressed in
this report. Table A-2 displays the area specific data sources which are categorized based on the nine areas researched in relation to
the BosWash corridor. Table A-2 is incomplete and as such is merely illustrative.These sources were collected with the intention of
addressing a specific research area related to the corridor.
Table A.1- General Data Sources
Population
Statistics
NHGIS
National Historic Geographic Information Systems. (2007) Historic Population Data. Retrieved from
www.nhgis.org on November 22, 2007.
Historic (18901960)
Census
United States Census Bureau. (2006). Population, Retrieved on November 21, 2007 from
http://www.census.gov/.
Current
Lang, Robert. E, and Dawn Dhavale. (2005). Beyond Megalopolis: Exploring America’s New
“Megapolitan” Geography. Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech Census Report 05:01.
Megalopolis
Population Changes/
10 Megaregions
Statistical Areas by
Year
Metro/Micro
Statistical
Regions
Metropolitan
Planning
Organization
Census
Highway
Network
BTS
BTS
Rand McNally
Rand McNally
UDUTC Final Report
Department of Commerce Census Bureau. (2008) Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas.
Retrieved on July 17, 2008 from
http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metroarea.html.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics National Transportation Atlas Database (2006).Metropolitan
Planning Organizations. Retrieved from
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_atlas_database/2006/ on November 8,
2007.
BTS National Transportation Atlas Database (2006). US Interstate Highway System. Retrieved from
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_atlas_database/2006/ on November 8,
2007.
Rand McNally and Company. (1947) Road map United States. David Rumsey Map Collection:
Cartography Associates. Chicago: Rand McNally. Retrieved from
http://www.davidrumsey.com/detail?id=1-1-23824-920008&name=Road+map+United+States. on
November 8, 2007.
Droz, Robert (2004). Maps from History. Rand McNally. Retrieved from
http://www.geocities.com/rvdroz/maps.htm on November 8, 2007.
GIS shapefile of
MPO regions and
labels
2006 Road Network
1947 Road Network
1928, 1938,1953,
1957 Road Network
Page 44
Rail Network
BTS
BTS National Transportation Atlas Database (2006). US Railway Network. Retrieved from
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_atlas_database/2006/ on November 8,
2007.
Rand McNally and Company. (1947) U.S. Rail and Canals. David Rumsey Map Collection:
Cartography Associates. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Retrieved from http://www.davidrumsey.com/detail?id=1-1-23823-920007&name=United+States
on November 8, 2007.
Beard, Charles A. and Mary R. Beard. (1921). History of the United States. Macmillan Company:
New York. Retrieved from www.gutenberg.org/files/16960/16960-h/19690-h.htm on November 8,
2007.
Mitchell, Samuel Augustus. (1890) Railroad map U.S. David Rumsey Map Collection: Cartography
Associates. Philadelphia: John Y. Huber and Co.
Retrieved from http://www.davidrumsey.com/detail?id=1-1-305571140084&name=Railroad+map+U+S+ on November 8, 2007.
Regional Plan Association. Northeast Megaregion: 2050. Retrieved on December 15, 2007 from
http://www.rpa.org/pdf/NortheastReport.sm.pdf
2006 Rail Network
Miller, Delbert C. (1975). Leadership and Power in the Bos-Wash Megalopolis. New
York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
DeCerreno, Alison L. C. (2007). The Future of Transportation in the Northeast Corridor, 20072025: Rail Transportation. New York: NYU Wagner Rudin Center.
Commutersheds
MDSHA
Haley, Michael. Chief Regional and Intermodal Planning Division, Office of Planning and Preliminary
Engineering at MD State Highway Association
I-95 Projects
MDSHA
Thompson, Jim. Assistant Division Chief at MD State Highway Association
Chronology of MD
Roads
Rand McNally
Travel/
Commute
Data
MD Highways
RPA
1947 Rail Network
1918 Rail Network
1890 Rail Network
Commute Durations
Miles Traveled by
Mode
http://www.uppermidwestfreight.org/files/finalreport.pdf
UDUTC Final Report
Page 45
Table A.2- Area Specific Data Sources
Area
Evolution of
Structure and
of
Multimodal
Transportatio
n Spine
Modal
Vehicular Use
Trends
Operations
and Capacity
Land Use
Trends and
Context
Environment
and Emissions
Economic
Character and
Impact
Physical
structural
resiliency
Name
Source
Literature
Notes
Link Volumes – Freight Analysis Framework
HPMS data
Data Dictionary:
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_atlas_database/2007/html/hpms.html
Includes
PSR and
number of
lanes
Local data
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2002inventory.html#inventorydata
HPMS data
Data Dictionary:
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_atlas_database/2007/html/hpms.html
Includes
PSR
NBI
Structurally Deficient Bridges
http://www.bts.gov/programs/geographic_information_services/maps/structurally_deficient_bridges_on_the_
national_highway_system/
Not a good
measure
Community
Impact
Planning
Process
UDUTC Final Report
Beauchamp and Warren (2009)
Page 46
16.
Appendix B – Regional Workshop
The following notes are gathered from the regional workshop held on May 15, 2008 at
University of Delaware, as well as follow up meetings with members of the Maryland State
Highway Association. The workshop was held with the intention of understanding the
perspectives of transportation practitioners in planning for corridor resiliency. The workshop
participants provided valuable input regarding their personal views as well as their professional
thoughts on the current and future state of the BosWash corridor.
General Key Issues:
1. Role of I-95 Coalition: connects areas of high density, as well as low density. The
coalition is trying to address administrative issues. Two purposes:
 Recognize what's happening throughout the corridor
 Have stakeholders extend beyond the question of “so what?” and to engage
them
2. Inclusion of Norfolk/Richmond VA in Megalopolis to make up the BosFolk corridor
(heavy freight movement between Norfolk and points north)
3. Demand for intelligent transportation systems (ITS) particularly within the I-95 corridor
coalition
4. Population forecasting and determining projections (over vs. under)
5. The definition of “urban” areas has drastically changed from 1950 to the present
6. Improve park and ride facilities in terms of their location and effectiveness
7. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) issues: for some land uses to function requires VMT to
increase (Not certain how high it will go before trends change)
8. Definition of resiliency must be determined through performance measures (travel
time, travel speed)
9. Redundancy of road networks- redundancy may be present however due to missing
connections alternative routes are not accessible
Definitions of Resiliency:
-
Having the ability to recover
Having a back-up in an emergency situation, with different back-ups for commuter vs.
through traffic
Being able to maximize capacity and having an alternative support network
Recovering from an incident (example: I-95 in Philadelphia shut down) but all based on
cost (funding is the major issue) and it is hard to predict replacement costs
Distinction between recurring and nonrecurring congestion. In terms of recurring many
people are so used to congestion that they don’t even know anything else. For
nonrecurring, we need to improve incident management (quick clearance) including
UDUTC Final Report
Page 47
effective emergency service vehicles. In addition, the disconnect between
transportation and land use agencies causes a lack of resiliency
-Reoccurring vs. non-recurring traffic problems


-
-
NJ is the matrix state, arterials carry lion-share of traffic
Frog in boiling water metaphor... land uses and congestion creep up and we
don't realize the trouble that we're in. “It took three generations to get to this
point, will take three generations to resolve it.”
 Non-recurring: episodic, small strategies to apply that provide some relief.
Bridges represent a real weak point in terms of improving resiliency. PA's section of I-95
is riddled with bridges... (200 bridges on 50 miles of I-95 in the state). It will cost in the
billions to maintain the infrastructure
Ability to respond and recover from all modes (“bounce back”). Truck VMT is growing
faster than vehicle VMT. Is there any hope for freight in the future?
Driver resiliency: for recurring they can survive but they can’t handle nonrecurring due
to not enough ITS/ real time information
Long term issues should be the focus including the ability to weather the changes in the
economy (economic resiliency)
Types of Resiliency
-Behavioral resiliency: human perspective and people’s ability to respond to ITS and
other information when given
-Regional resiliency: being part of a larger scope and connecting the individual
jurisdictions together
-Economic resiliency: is there enough economic support to allow for the corridor to
change and adapt in the future
Major Key Issues (By Organization):
-
Wilmapco
1. Knowledge of problems
 MAVOPS/MATOPS- projects needed along corridor
 Wilmapco’s inter-regional report
2. Global Freight Impacts
 Short sea shipping
 Which parts will be ready for added cargo?
 Ports open 24/7?
 Panama canal widening by 2014
3. Funding… “who pays?”
 Local, state, federal
 Example: Howard Tunnel in MD
 How to fund large projects that cross over multiple states and benefit
multiple organizations
UDUTC Final Report
Page 48
4. Coordination
 Are there too many coalitions working on the same topics (I-95 coalition,
UDUTC, GIFT model)
5. Legislation
 How to convince them of the significance of an efficient transportation
network
6. Education/ Outreach
 Telling success stories
 Freight as a good neighbor (how did it get there?)
 Link between transportation and the environment
-
DVRPC
1. Funding for maintenance and operations
2. Coordination between agencies
-
DelDOT
1. Public process doesn’t capture people most effected
2. No coordinated planning for gridlock (non recurring)
 Transportation management system determines issues but people
involved aren’t aware
 How to alert people
3. Funding
 Without tolls and onramp fees I-95 is a free ride (used as a main street)
4. Long term borrowing and short term demands increase
 Hard to predict future demands
5. ITS “double edge sword”
 Good for maintenance but then the trouble is having drivers follow what
the ITS information is telling them
 GPS units needed?
 Real time traffic information
6. Maintenance
 Limited windows for work times (night shifts)
7. Operations
 No regional proactive plan and training
8. Need for regional operation
 Hard to give information/control to different organizations
9. Security
 Immediate response versus long term recovery
 How we react to problems and efficiency
 Coordination of emergency response with traffic control
10. Legislation
 How to collaborate without giving up control (no legislation would ever
authorize losing authority)
UDUTC Final Report
Page 49
-
MDSHA
1. Chronology of MD I-95 development (lattice development however the “ladder”
approach to increasing redundancy is imperfect)
 Route 40
 NE Expressway
 BW Parkway (extreme congestion)
 1971- link between Harbor Tunnel and Wash DC
 Fort McHenry Tunnel ($75 million)
2. Multiple Jurisdiction on I-95
 Toll authorities
 Pressures for urban development
3. Land use interference
4. Expense of operating facilities
5. Bridge expansions- $1.3 billion
6. Truck traffic
7. Capacity- 22,000 AADT on I-495 around DC (road was not built to handle this
capacity)
8. Peak hours- different peak hours around Cecil County (Fri/Sun PM) due to long
distance travel
9. Network
 Consensus to build connectors (I-95, Route 1, BW Parkway)
-
NJDOT
1. Capital
 Tolling
2. Operating
 Truck rest stops
 Difficulties with inspection and weighing
 ITS and congestion relief… ITS is more a congestion causer than a reliever
because reading takes time
3. Capacity
 Congestion pricing methods
 Can’t build anymore and we are already at capacity
 Multi-million dollar expansion
 GW bridge nearly at capacity- can’t build anymore (not under NJDOT
jurisdiction)
4. Multimodality and Inter-modality
 Passenger rail options such as high speed rail and Maglev
 Funding based on changing economy
5. Tiered corridor structure
 There are three to four different facilities that all serve different purposes
but are in parallel
6. Bicycle connection
 East coast greenway
UDUTC Final Report
Page 50
7. Disconnections
 Within the corridor itself
 Between land use and transportation
8. Privatization of roads
 Consequence that DOT’s can no longer help along smart growth concepts
on roadways by attaching funding to certain standards
-
PennDOT
1. Funding
 Secure and establish a plan to reconstruct I-95
 Tolling (I-80)
 Align funding with needs
2. ITS
 Need complete coverage of the corridor
 $80 million to finish mainlining with ITS
 Variable message signs…good and bad
3. Priorities and scope of reconstruction projects
 Only give attention to structurally deficient bridges or just focus on
improvements?
 Asset management plans
 Factors that matter in the economic sense are hard to quantify
How Academic Research can Benefit DOT’s/MPO’s
-
-
-
-
Layout dimensions of resiliency and operationalize the concept
 Deep uncertainty
 Matrix of resiliency measures
Why is this concept of resiliency important?
 Incidents serve as examples (Philadelphia I-95 shutdown and Minneapolis
bridge collapse I-35)
 Influences of growth and economy
Economic impacts of transportation
 Economic indicators that will fail due to lack of funding for infrastructure
and how do we predict this?
 Land use influence
 What happens to the economy if transportation improvements don’t
happen?
 Housing
 Jobs
 Change business structures (telecommuting)
How can you manage freight for the future?
 Trucking to rail
How close are we to paralysis?
UDUTC Final Report
Page 51

-
-
7:30 AM – we are one flat tire away from morning chaos …how can we
prevent this
Cooperation between jurisdictions
 Team effort is necessary to operate an interstate and huge advances
have been made but need to continue
Organizing theme of areas by typology
 Urban, rural, suburban
 Interstate and non-interstate roads
 Things that work in PA may not work in MD
MD I-95 Background (MDSHA)
-MTA owns from south side of Beltway (695 south) up to DE
-SHA Baltimore City Beltway to VA line

Chronology
-Route 7 built to connect Baltimore to Philly
-Route 40 then replaced Route 7 and became known as NE Expressway ( later renamed after
JFK)
-1963: I-95 opened
-BW Parkway was built to accommodate the truck traffic
-1971: opened Harbor Tunnel through to Washington beltway (25 miles long and cost $79
million)
-1977: I-95 was supposed to go through DC but renamed Capitol Beltway (I-495)
-Old Harbor Tunnel thruway was 4 lanes
-1985: Baltimore Harbor Tunnel opened (most expensive transportation project until Big Dig$750 million)
-Current Project: Woodrow Wilson Bridge, 12 lanes with 5 interchanges ($1.5 billion)- almost
complete
*I-95 : 110 mile interstate in MD

Reconstruction/Improvement Projects
-Interchange spacing standards:
-2-9 miles on I-95
-1-3 miles on roads similar to I-395
-Current reconstruction project: I-895 to White Marsh, just north of Baltimore-rebuilding
express toll lanes and bridges being reconstructed, completion in 2010, cost $1.2 billion
-Interchange 543 project in Harford County for economic redevelopment
-Potential interchange at MD 213 in Cecil County at Elkton
UDUTC Final Report
Page 52
-Black base realignment on Stewart Property in Aberdeen: Susquehanna Bridge to NE both
sides of I-95 are being redeveloped where they are taking out mineral plants and replacing with
commercial, office development along river (Between interchanges 222-272)
- Intercounty Connector (ICC) in Montgomery County: interchange south of 198 in Laurel
-current improvement is widening (major widening project at I-695 interchange) however,
eventually won’t be able to widen anymore so must look towards alternatives such as the
following:
-toll roads= limit capacity through a demand responsive approach (reducing the number
of cars on the road)…demand responsive is the opposite of supply responsive
-High Occupancy Vehicle lanes= more of a policy standpoint because need to address
funding (hard to enforce)
-High Occupancy Toll lanes= again hard to enforce and until technology improves
(automation) not full proof
-example of HOT currently I-270 and US 50

Redundancy
-Another term used for redundancy is “laddering” where you increase the number of
alternative routes
-Alternative routes to I-95
-North of Baltimore: Route 40
-North: Route 1
-Perring Parkway serves as an alternative to Route 1
-South Baltimore-Washington: BW Parkway, MD 29 North, Route 1
-East-west: MD 100, MD 175, MD 32, MD 198, MD 301

Congestion
-north of 22 in Harford and Cecil County witnesses NON-normal peak hours
-peak hours in this location is Friday night and Sunday PM due to long distance travel
commutes (east coast travel)

Funding
-Based on prioritization of projects during project planning phase
-Balance between state and federal funding towards corridor projects (state roads = state
funding), (regional corridors = federal funding)
-6 year capital program
-land use planning is covered specifically by local agencies however there is a strong connection
with state and federal transportation planning

Gas Prices
UDUTC Final Report
Page 53
-forcing people to look towards alternative modes
-currently MD is witnessing the following changes based on Haley’s perspective:
-increase in commuter bus ridership
-increase in MARC
-increase in park and ride
-light rail service

Resiliency and Sustainability
-hard to plan for future due to funding which is typically put towards present day problems due
to their immediacy (there is a strong demand to fix current issues and funding is short term)
-requires a lot of interconnection between jurisdictions throughout the corridor (horizontal
through which the road runs) and each one is set up differently in terms of departments
-sustainability is slowly being incorporated into design
-Green Highways Partnership (www.greenhighways.org)
-assessment of impacts and ways to go above and beyond standards

Jurisdictional Framework
-Maryland Department of Transportation serves as the umbrella to the following departments.:
-State Highway Administration
-Maryland Transit Authority
-Aviation
-Port Authority
-Motor Vehicle Association
-On a separate statute is the MD Transportation Authority
-oversee toll roads such as Key Bridge, Harbor Tunnel, Fort McHenry Tunnel, and
eventually ICC project
-Metropolitan Planning Organization: WashCOG (MD, DC, and VA)
UDUTC Final Report
Page 54