RosenbergOilAlternativesResearchAnnotation4

Hagler, Yoav, and Petra Todorovich. // Where High Speed Rail Works Best //. // America 2050 //. Regional Plan Association, 11 Jan. 2011. Web. 13 Apr. 2011.   2. Where does the author work, what else has s/he written about, and what are her/his credentials? ** Both of the listed authors are employed by America 2050, with Yoav Hagler listed as the Associate Planner, and Petra Todorovich as the Director. As a member of the Regional Plan Association, America 2050 purports to bring together regional planners, scholars, and policy makers to “develop a framework for the nation’s future growth…” ( []). It is supported by such partners as The Rockefeller Foundation, The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, The William Penn Foundation, and The Ford Foundation. According to the biography provided on the website ( []), Yoav holds a B.A. in Economics from Wesleyan University, and a Master in Urban Planning from Columbia University. In addition, he is the coordinator of the Business Alliance for Northeast Mobility, which is a coalition that promotes improving transportation in the Northeast, and has organized infrastructure forums on national transportation policy. In the past, he has written for the organization on high-speed rail funding, and has compared European high-speed rail projects to what may be expected in the Northeast Corridor. Petra Todorovich, according to her biography ([]), holds a B.A. from Vassar College, and a Masters in City and Regional Planning from Rutgers University. As the director of America 2050, she has coordinated workshops and seminars with partners, and has written and spoken on transportation/infrastructure policy and planning. She has been employed by the Regional Plan Association since 2001, and has been involved in the Civic Alliance to Rebuild Downtown New York after September 11, 2001. Additionally, Todorovich is an Assistant Visiting Professor at the Pratt Institute Graduate Center for Planning and the Environment, and is on the Board of Advisors at the Eno Transportation Foundation. 3. What is the main topic or argument of the text? ** The piece argues through an analysis of 27,000 city pairs in the United States that high-speed rail projects are most feasible in the Northeast, California, and the Midwest. 4. Describe at least three ways that the main topic or argument is fleshed out. ** To reach this assessment, pairs of cities are first classified on the basis of six criteria: size of metropolis, distance, transit connections, congestion, and integration with a “megaregion.” Each of these factors is justified through charts and maps which depict variation between many of the cities considered in the study, with discussion presented regarding the usefulness of the metrics chosen in the process of measuring these criteria. For instance, high speed rail is suggested to be most useful between 100 and 500 miles due to airport security measures and the usefulness of automobiles at lower mileage, while high-speed rail services are argued to be more likely utilized in megaregions which are integrated with light rail and other local transit networks. The top 50 city pairs, according to the formula generated from these variables, are then presented in a table following this analysis, in which four of the top five combinations are located along the mid-Atlantic/Northeast corridor. These results are then applied to an analysis of the most feasible corridors to finance in the coming years, with the viability of these operations divided into three phases of implementation. 5. What three quotes capture the critical import of the text? **  1)   “Given the long lead time and inherent risk in high-speed rail investments, it is essential that the FRA select corridors where the conditions exist to support strong passenger demand for high-speed services.”      2)   “Metropolitan area size is a necessary prerequisite for high-speed rail, but not a sufficient indicator on its own of a successful corridor. Distance to other major metropolitan centers, richness of local transit service, economic activity, and existing travel demand are all important factors in identifying optimal corridors.” 3)  “It is no surprise that the nation’s four largest cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston) are all represented near the top of the list as part of city pairs with potential demand for high-speed rail. These are the places that not only contain a critical mass of population to support these systems, but also a large percentage of the nation’s economic productivity, existing travel markets, and metropolitan congestion.”    6. Explain how the argument and evidence in the text supports your research focus.   **  Since there may be limited funding available to finance high-speed rail projects, it is vital that it is directed at the projects which may see the most potential benefit. Of particular note amongst these results is that while California’s project is among one of the most useful according to the analysis, the ones in the Southeast Corridor, such as the Washington-Charlotte line and the Tampa-Orlando, are classified instead as “phase two” routes. In this sense, it is suggested that the first lines to be developed run from Washington-Boston, Minneapolis-Chicago-St. Louis-Detroit, and Los Angeles-San Francisco. In areas in which high-speed projects are not as feasible, perhaps it would be more useful to simply upgrade existing lines, rather than laying down new track such as would be the case in California. 7. List at least two details or references from the text that will be useful to other members of your research group  ** 1) The top ten city pairs according to the scoring criteria utilized in the analysis are (from first to tenth):  · New York-Washington   · Philadelphia-Washington   · Boston-New York   · Baltimore-New York   · Los Angeles-San Francisco   · Boston-Philadelphia   · Los Angeles- San Diego   · Los Angeles- San Jose   · Boston-Washington   · Dallas-Houston  The rest of the top fifty is provided on page 6, with the score of each pair listed in parentheses next to the name. Additionally, the scale factors utilized in the calculations are given in the technical appendix on pages 9-10.   2) In Figure 3 on page 7, a map is provided which lists the proposals for the various “phases” of the implementation of high-speed rail in the United States. Among the proposed phase two lines are Albany-New York, Los Angeles- Las Vegas, Detroit-Cleveland, and Miami-Orlando. Other extensions from Albany, such as to Buffalo, Montreal, or Boston are proposed as phase three plans instead.
 * 1. Full citation. **
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 