Maglev Environmental Process Strategies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS STRATEGIES FOR A NEW TECHNOLOGY:
THE BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT
Byline
Corresponding Author
Mark A. Cheskey
Senior Associate
and
Environmental Project Director
Baltimore-Washington Maglev Project
KCI Technologies, Inc.
10 North Park Drive
Hunt Valley, MD 21030
(P) 410-316-7805
(F) 410-316-7895
mcheskey@kci.com
Co-Author
Jack Kinstlinger, P.E.
Chairman Emeritus
KCI Technologies, Inc.
10 North Park Drive
Hunt Valley, MD 21030
(P) 410-316-7803
(F) 410-316-7817
jkinstlinger@kci.com
Length of Manuscript: 3,029 words plus 10 figures
Mark A. Cheskey
Jack Kinstlinger, P.E.
i
Abstract
This paper describes the strategies used to complete a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for a 40- mile Magnetic Levitation Project in a variety of land uses between
Baltimore, Maryland and Washington, DC in just 24 months. The process involved a total
of 20 participating agencies. Included is a description of the technical processes and
public and community outreach efforts that are unique to this innovative propulsion and
levitation technology.
Approaches covered by the paper are:
1. Developing a NEPA process flowchart using streamlining and agency concurrence
2. Conducting a comprehensive scoping process
3. Understanding and ability to present details of the new technology with particular
emphasis on electromagnetic forces, electromagnetic interference, noise and vibration,
and interaction of operations with wildlife.
3. Performing a robust Alternatives Analysis, including early identification of all
reasonable and feasible alternatives, an iterative screening process, evaluation of critical
factors, and comparison of impacts, ending with a relative ranking based on best and
worst case in each class.
4. Conducting extensive and innovative public outreach and agency coordination efforts
throughout the process.
Mark A. Cheskey
Jack Kinstlinger, P.E.
1
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Baltimore - Washington Maglev
Project was the first such document signed and circulated under the Federal Railroad
Administration’s Maglev Deployment Program. The DEIS, under the direction of the Maryland
Transit Administration, was signed in October of 2003, and seven public hearings were held.
The work was conducted over a period of 24 months and included the study of numerous
alignments for the 40-mile corridor between downtown Baltimore, Maryland and Washington,
DC. The project team employed several nontraditional studies and innovative approaches during
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance process. The new maglev
transportation technology was unfamiliar to most public and agency stakeholders, and this
necessitated not only additional technical studies and analyses, but proactive public and agency
education and outreach. The revolutionary nature of the magnetic levitation technology required
the examination of impacts due to the ultra high speed (up to 300 mph) of the system,
electromagnetic forces, electromagnetic interference and interaction with adjacent federal
reservations and an international airport, as well as impacts to natural and human communities
along the route.
Figure 1 shows the projects throughout the U.S. that are competing for additional maglev
funding with particular emphasis on the desire to be the first in the U.S. and the second in the
world following the successful implementation of a commercial maglev operation in Shanghai,
China that began in 2003. While the Baltimore-Washington project is the only one with an
approved DEIS, the Pittsburgh project is not far behind, and both of these have been designated
as candidates for environmental clearance and start of design and construction. However,
several other projects have continued in their planning efforts and are making progress towards
preparation of Environmental Impact Statements, including Las Vegas and southern California.
A project between Atlanta and Chattanooga is also under active consideration for environmental
and feasibility studies. Projects in New Orleans and Cape Canaveral have been abandoned.
FIGURE 1 Candidate locations of projects in the Maglev Deployment Program.
Mark A. Cheskey
Jack Kinstlinger, P.E.
2
AN IDEAL DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
By connecting two major city centers and one of the nation’s fastest growing airports, the
Baltimore-Washington Maglev Project is an ideal location for the deployment of this ultra highspeed transportation technology. Figure 2 shows the study area along with the three primary
corridors under study, terminating on the south at Union Station in Washington, D.C. and on the
north at Camden Yards in downtown Baltimore. The preferred alignment passes under runways
at Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) Airport and extends roughly parallel to the Amtrak
Railroad Penn Line south of the Airport through to Union Station.
FIGURE 2 Potential Maglev corridors between
Washington DC and Baltimore, MD.
The planned operation of the maglev line is 20 hours a day, seven days a week, with peak
headways of ten minutes. Three underground stations are planned, one at each terminus and one
at BWI Airport. Travel simulation studies have indicated that the 40- mile distance between
termini would require a trip time of 18 minutes, a top speed of 250 miles an hour, with an
average speed of 126 miles per hour. With one-way fares between Baltimore and Washington,
D.C. estimated at $27.60, and with monthly commuter tickets costs reduced to $13.80 per trip
resulted in an estimate of 27,200 daily riders by the year 2010.
Mark A. Cheskey
Jack Kinstlinger, P.E.
3
CREATING A “ROAD MAP” FOR THE NEPA PROCESS
The initial step towards success in the navigating the NEPA process was the establishment of a
process flowchart that was customized for the maglev project (Figure 3). This flowchart was
based on a process called “Maryland’s Streamlined Environmental Regulatory Process for
Transportation Projects” that was developed by the Maryland State Highway Administration and
numerous regulatory agencies often involved in their projects. The key process feature is agency
concurrence points at several critical stages of the NEPA process. Specifically, these are the
Purpose and Need, Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study (ARDS), and Preferred Alternative
and Conceptual Mitigation (PACM).
FIGURE 3 Baltimore –Washington Maglev Project NEPA process flowchart.
For the Baltimore –Washington Maglev Project, this flowchart was presented to the
cooperating agencies, interested parties and public stakeholders. Importantly, the regulatory
agencies agreed to the process and the overall schedule at the outset of the DEIS. Having a clear
process flowchart linked to an actual calendar enhanced the ability of the large, diverse project
team to stay on task of the overall objective, which was to achieve a signed DEIS and hold
public hearings.
Concurrence on the maglev project’s purpose and need was achieved in writing early in
the schedule, and laid the groundwork for all subsequent alignment studies and negotiations with
the agencies. Agreement on the need to achieve high speeds (the Maglev Deployment Program
requires projects to reach at least 240 mph) was a major element of the purpose and need and
was critical to the subsequent development of alignments.
Mark A. Cheskey
Jack Kinstlinger, P.E.
4
AN INCLUSIVE SCOPING PROCESS WITH ALL STAKEHOLDERS
A comprehensive public and agency scoping process was conducted in 2001 and lasted nearly
six months. Numerous federal, state and local agencies were invited to attend pre-scoping (held
prior to the issuance of a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS) and scoping meetings where the
Maglev technology was presented both by video and by expert presentations from the
manufacturer. Also, an initial project purpose and need statement was circulated and discussed.
The flowchart described above was also distributed and agreed upon as the “roadmap” for the
process. Eleven federal agencies and District of Columbia Department of Transportation signed
on as official cooperating agencies for the DEIS as a result of the scoping process.
Subsequently, public scoping meetings were held at several locations in which the project
was introduced to the communities and input solicited from the public and elected officials.
Additional early public outreach was conducted to community associations, civic groups and
neighborhood group meetings and a project website was developed. Overall, the scoping phase
“touched” hundreds of interested parties and went beyond merely fulfilling a NEPA process
requirement. It was an important first step in formally establishing agency partners and their
expected review roles, identifying key community groups and starting a project mailing list.
AN EMPHASIS ON THE TECHNOLOGY
It was very critical for the NEPA team of planners, engineers, scientists and public involvement
specialists to have a strong understanding of the maglev technology and the numerous required
elements to actually construct and operate the system in the United States. This included not
only the obvious understanding of the guideway, vehicles and passenger stations, but the power
substations, security elements, emergency stopping areas, and the required maintenance facility.
This presented challenges because at the time, the only full-scale maglev system was the
Transrapid Test Facility in Lathen, Germany. In response to the need to fully understand the
system, a contingent of planners, engineers and architects from the NEPA team traveled to
Germany to experience the maglev system first hand. The experiences from this visit later
proved invaluable when discussing and describing the system with local stakeholders.
Figures 4 and 5 show a photo and a cross-sections diagram of the maglev system. For the
Baltimore –Washington Maglev Project, the TR 08 of Transrapid International owned by
Siemens and Thyssen- Krupp of Germany was the selected technology.
FIGURE 4 TR-08 Maglev system on German test track.
Mark A. Cheskey
Jack Kinstlinger, P.E.
5
The TR-08 is currently the only commercially available technology and the one utilized
in Shanghai. A competing technology is being developed by the Japanese using low temperature
electro-magnetism, but to-date it is still under research and development and the Japanese
government has not made it available for commercial applications.
FIGURE 5 Cross section of TR-08 Maglev vehicle on guideway beam.
The world’s first and only maglev commercial operation is in Shanghai, China (Figure 6).
Shown is a maglev train operating on a dual guideway, which is recommended in its entirety
between Baltimore and Washington, D.C. The need for a continuous or partial access road to
support the construction and maintenance of the system and for emergency evacuation and its
potential environmental impact was studied and discussed with the regulatory agencies. This is
because maintenance and construction access roads affect the ‘limit of disturbance’ of the
project, thus affecting the impact quantifications presented in the DEIS.
FIGURE 6 Commercial Maglev operation in Shanghai, China.
Mark A. Cheskey
Jack Kinstlinger, P.E.
6
Another issue was the elevation of the Maglev guideway. Normally an elevated system
enhances safety and avoids impact on communities and crossing transportation facilities, but
during the DEIS studies it became apparent that at many locations, the Maglev guideway
elevation had to be brought down to almost ground level in order to accommodate resistance to
visual intrusion on communities and historical features (Figure 7).
FIGURE 7 Elevated guideway on Shanghai Maglev.
To fully understand and develop mitigation concepts for environmental impacts, the team
also carefully evaluated construction issues, such as staging areas and delivery of components to
the site during the preparation of the DEIS (Figure 8).
FIGURE 8 Maglev guideway construction in Shanghai.
Mark A. Cheskey
Jack Kinstlinger, P.E.
7
Thorough identification and documentation of environmental impacts required not only a
command of the magnetic levitation technology but the ability to present it to the laymen in
understandable terms. There was a particular emphasis on the electro-magnetic fields and related
health issues, as well as the electro-magnetic interference with power lines and communication
lines of nearby federal facilities, BWI Airport, the Light Rail, and Amtrak. Independent fieldtesting of EMF, noise and vibration was performed at the German test track while the DEIS was
underway. This work yielded voluminous reports with highly technical information. These
reports were then summarized by the NEPA team into much more understandable narrative for
the DEIS and display at public meetings.
ENGAGING THE REVIEW AGENCIES
The new maglev technology captured the imagination and interest of many of the reviewing and
regulatory agencies such as the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US EPA, the US Fish and
Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Maryland and DC Historic Preservation Offices
and state and local natural resource agencies. Overall, the agency reaction was positive to the
concept of a high-speed transit system in lieu of building more highways in an already congested
corridor. However, there were problematic design areas and some unavoidable impacts to
important resources and federal and state properties, causing the agency scrutiny to be high. The
NEPA team took extra steps to work very closely with the agencies in an effort to increase
everyone’s understanding of possible impacts and the “must avoid” areas. Since the project’s
purpose and need was agreed to early in the NEPA process, the need to maintain a suitable plan
and profile to reach the required high speed was acknowledged during agency discussions on the
alignment location and resource avoidance.
A password protected website was established that housed an interactive Geographic
Information System (GIS) that included all the study’s base mapping, alignments, station and
maintenance facility footprints, and environmental constraints. This allowed custom map
production from anyone on the team – at his or her office- and allowed ongoing alignment
modifications to be viewed by all participants virtually in “real time”. Also, numerous field
views and site visits were conducted as interagency groups and the team’s engineers would often
adjust the design based on these visits. Regular Interagency Meetings were held throughout the
DEIS preparation and often concluded with a group field view to the corridor to solve design
issues as a team.
A ROBUST ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Early in the NEPA process a full array of alternative alignments were identified in part from
results of a prior Baltimore-Washington Maglev Feasibility Study conducted in 1994. These
alignments were adjusted and updated based on public and agency comments and concerns and
more current land use and development information (Figure 9). However, there was a need to
systematically winnow down the number of alignments to a reasonable number in a fair and
unbiased manner.
Mark A. Cheskey
Jack Kinstlinger, P.E.
8
FIGURE 9 Full array of alignments initially
under consideration.
Initial Screening Analysis
An initial screening analysis resulted in identification of three alternative alignments; one along
the Amtrak line, one along the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and a third along Interstate 95.
Several sub-alternatives were identified in the vicinity of BWI Airport. These resulted from
engineering studies and design refinements to optimize travel speed and minimize travel time, as
a result of groundtruthing of environmental constraints and the identification of new constraints.
Further refinements resulted from bi-weekly meetings considering environmental and
engineering issues and coordination with local, state and federal agencies. A number of
screening criteria were developed to apply to each of the alternatives in an effort to rank them
and to identify the best and most appropriate alternative.
Minimize Impacts to Natural and Human Resources
A number of features were evaluated including wetlands, streams, protected species habitat, and
parkland in an effort to minimize impacts. Additionally, there were efforts to minimize impacts
to social and economic resources, including residential developments, commercial and industrial
areas, minority and lower income communities, and noise sensitive places, such as schools,
churches and hospitals.
Finally, there was an effort to minimize impacts to historic and archeological resources
utilizing information available through the National Register of Historic Places that shows both
Mark A. Cheskey
Jack Kinstlinger, P.E.
9
listed and eligible properties, known archeological sites, and areas requiring archeological
testing.
Efforts were made to maximize ridership and revenue potential by locating stations at
population and employment areas and reducing the length of the alignment in order to reduce
travel time. Connectivity and accessibility to intermodal connections were enhanced by locating
rail stations at either end with the BWI Airport located near the mid station. Avoiding circuitous
alignments, as well as extreme changes in elevation minimized travel time and distance. Tunnels
were required to gain access to underground stations at either end and to extend the alignment
under the runways at BWI Airport. Efforts were made to minimize construction impacts by
providing maximum construction access and avoiding difficult excavation areas. Alignments
were also designed to maximize compatibility with existing and planned development and to
assure that the location of the guideways and traffic generated at stations would be compatible
with land use and protect the visual quality. The elevation of the guideway was particularly
critical to the visual quality issue.
Figure 10 shows the matrix used in comparing the three alternatives under consideration
and indicating the values of each alternative with regard to features deemed critical to the study,
including natural and human features, historical and archeological features, engineering features,
operational features and public and agency input.
Screening Results
As a result of the matrix evaluation of alternatives and the features, it was possible to identify the
best and worst of each of the three alternatives in each class (Figure 10). This analysis was done
to make comparisons to alternative alignments and identified qualitatively the degree of impact
in terms of acreage and number of sensitive features near each alignment. A total of 30
categories were ranked for each alignment and the most desirable alternative would have scored
best in all 30 categories. Obviously, no such perfect candidate was identified.
Mark A. Cheskey
Jack Kinstlinger, P.E.
FEATURES
10
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
I-95 Parallel
BW Parkway
Parallel
Amtrak
Parallel
Capital Beltw ay Station
Location (if built) near
Greenbelt Metro
Capital Beltw ay Station
Location (if built) near
Greenbelt Metro
Capital Beltw ay Station
Location (if built) near New
Carrollton
Metro
# of
occurrences
Acreage
# of
occurrences
Acreage
30.6
6
8
5 bisect /
12 edge
94.1
9
7.2
1
30
8 bisect /
6 edge
15
8 bisect /
21 edge
3
1 bisect
13
2 bisect /
1edge
10
3 edge
8
1
Stream Crossings
-
41 Bisect /
16 Edge
34
3
34
2
-
32 Bisect /
23 Edge
-
39 Bisect /
5 Edge
Residences (within 100' of either side)
-
153
-
78
-
47
Commercial, Industrial and all Other Buildings (within 100' of either side)
-
Minority and Low Income Communities (within 250' of either side)
-
182
-
50
-
78
20
-
12
-
12
Noise Sensitive Places (Homes, Churches, Schools within 300' of either side)
-
489
-
434
-
155
-
7
-
7
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
1
-
52
-
40
-
16
Acreage
# of
occurrences
Natural and Human Features (1)
Parks (within 100' of either side) - Protected by Federal Regulations
MDNR Mapped Wetlands (within 50' of either side) - Protected by Federal Regulations
Wetlands of Special State (MD) Concern (within 100' of either side) - Protected by Federal
Regulations
Protected Species Habitat (within 100' of either side) - Protected by Federal and State
Regulations
Historical & Archeological Features (1)
Places on the National Register of Historic Properties (within 250' of either side) - Protected
by Federal Regulations
Places Known to be Eligible for the National Register of Historic Properties (within 250' of
either side) - Protected by Federal Regulations
Places on the Maryland/DC Inventory of Historic Properties Pending Determinations of
Eligibility or Previously Determined not Eligible (within 250' of either side)
Known Archeological Sites Pending Further Study (within 100' of either side)
-
3
-
4
-
2
237
38 study
areas
236
23 study areas
274
33 study
areas
Speed
-
achieves
240 mph
-
achieves
240 mph
-
achieves
240 mph
Utilities
-
low
-
low
-
high
Construction Complexity
-
high
-
low
-
medium
Areas Requiring Archeological Testing (within 100' of either side)
Engineering Features (2)
Special Structures
-
high
-
low
-
low
Impacts to Roads, Ramps, and Bridges
-
high
-
medium
-
high
Length
-
38.4 miles
-
36.3 miles
-
37.5 miles
Ridership
-
high
-
high
-
high
Intermodal Connectivity
-
high
-
high
-
high
Operation and Maintenance Costs
-
low
-
low
-
low
-
medium
-
high
-
low
-
to be
determined
-
to be
determined
-
to be
determined
Operational Features (3)
Public and Agency Input
Public
Agencies
FIGURE 10 Screening matrix for the three primary alignments.
Mark A. Cheskey
Jack Kinstlinger, P.E.
11
REFINING THE ALIGNMENT WITH THE AGENCY STAKEHOLDERS
A major DEIS agency review meeting was held in October of 2002 in order to receive formal
agency comments on the alternatives analysis outcome. The team agreed that the alignment that
closely paralleled the Amtrak Northeast Corridor and the several options around BWI Airport
should be advanced to detailed study in the DEIS. This was the second of three pre-decided
concurrence points according to the “roadmap” flowchart that was agreed to during the scoping
phase.
Some issues still remained with the specific location of this preferred build alternative
and certain agencies participated in detailed field views and interactive design sessions on the
remaining sensitive design areas. After reviewing constraints in the field, an interagency team
met to further refine the alignment. Using a laptop computer and projector, the project aerial
photography, wetland and forest delineations and other constraints, and detailed engineering data
were displayed on a large screen for the team to examine and suggest modifications. An
engineer then used design software to adjust and refine curve radii and elevations in real time
while the group viewed and discussed the ramifications. This technique was particularly
effective where the preferred alignment ran along and just inside of the Patuxent Research
Refuge operated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
PROACTIVE OUTREACH AND WIDELY AVAILABLE FINAL DOCUMENTS
As the DEIS process was concluding, it was more critical than ever to continue reaching out to
the communities and to establish a comprehensive strategy for disseminating the final documents
and other material over a 40- mile corridor that included two major metropolitan areas.
In addition to numerous advertised public information meetings, dozens of community
meetings were held with community associations, civic groups, and neighborhood groups to
share with them of the results of the alternatives analysis and their expected impacts.
Additionally, informational fliers were sent to homes, homeowner associations and schools.
Staffed information tables were set up at local grocery stores on the weekends in an effort to
reach out to citizens residing in minority or low-income areas. This “environmental justice”
outreach was done as these populations are often unable or reluctant to attend a conventional
public meeting, and therefore may never even hear of a possible major project in or near their
community.
Following a thorough review and comments by federal and state agencies and signature
by the Maryland Transit Administration and Federal Railroad Administration, the DEIS was
distributed to over 20 repositories making them fully available to communities and interested
citizens. A total of 14 technical reports were delivered at three key locations, six public hearings
were held, and a large number of executive summaries of the report were distributed, both in
printed form and CDs. In addition, a copy of the full DEIS and its summary was available
through PDF for downloading on the project website (www.bwmaglev.com), which was
advertised thoroughly to communities and citizens.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Acknowledgement is due to the projects sponsors, including the Maryland Transit
Administration, a division of the Maryland Department of Transportation, and the Federal
Mark A. Cheskey
Jack Kinstlinger, P.E.
12
Railroad Administration that provided federal oversight over the project and in whose name the
environmental documents were prepared. Agencies also sponsoring this effort were the City of
Baltimore, the District of Columbia, and Baltimore County.