Full RFP available here

INTENT

The Capitol Region Council of Governments (CRCOG) intends to hire a consultant(s) to conduct an economic impact study of proposed rail improvements in the region and connecting to the region. Following the opening of the Hartford Line rail service, the region gained a frequent commuter rail link to New York City. Proposed track and station improvements would provide frequent commuter rail service between Hartford and Springfield. A study is underway in Massachusetts to analyze the feasibility of providing commuter rail service between Springfield and Worcester (where an existing rail line connects to Boston). While standard benefit-cost analyses have been conducted for previous rail investments, and one will be conducted for new investments, no study has looked at the potential for broader economic benefits, such as increased development in station areas or greater attraction to the labor force. An understanding of such benefits is essential to fully assessing which investments will be the most impactful.

CRCOG will procure consultant services in accordance with the established policy of CRCOG. The project will commence upon selection of a consultant and issuance of a notice to proceed.

II. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Capitol Region Council of Governments (CRCOG) is the largest of Connecticut’s nine regional planning organizations. We are established under the Connecticut General Statutes as a voluntary association of municipal governments serving the City of Hartford and 37 surrounding communities. In 2014, due to a reorganization of regional planning agencies by the State of Connecticut, CRCOG grew from 30 member municipalities representing over 770,000 residents in an 806 square mile area to its current 38 municipalities, representing nearly one million residents in a 1,047 square mile area.

The recent (2018) implementation of the Hartford Line regional commuter rail service between New Haven, Hartford and Springfield (a $769 million investment) demonstrates a viable ridership market and growing interest in passenger rail in the CT-MA Knowledge Corridor area. The mix of CTrail and Amtrak service has led to an increase from 6 to 17 roundtrip trains per day between Hartford and New Haven, and an increase from 6 to 12 connecting further north to Springfield. The service attracted 634,000 rides in its first year, ahead of initial year ridership projections.

As documented by the Capitol Region Council of Governments (CRCOG), this initiative (along with CTfastrak) has already led to a series of transit-oriented development (TOD) investments and plans in communities along the north-south Hartford Line. To fully realize the economic potential of the region’s rail system, there are three interrelated rail concepts (at different stages of approval, implementation and funding) that are critical to advance:

1. Hartford Line investment between Hartford and Springfield – this infrastructure improvement would create double-tracking and sidings along this heavily used rail segment, along with new or enhanced stations in Enfield, Newington, West Hartford, Windsor, and Windsor Locks. This investment (roughly 50/50 split between rail corridor and stations) would allow faster, more reliable travel north of Hartford and enable greater frequency of trains.  Approximately $500-600 million is needed to complete this work (depending on I-84 and the Hartford station future).
2. East-west rail improvements in Massachusetts – this is currently being studied by MassDOT, with focus on the Worcester-Springfield corridor which is particularly slow and windy for rail travel along with freight rail (CSX) conflicts. The current study is focused on connecting Boston to Springfield and Pittsfield with alternatives being studied that vary travel time (speed), alignment, stations, etc. A recent study called the Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative (NNEIRI) also examined Boston-Springfield rail, recommending eight roundtrips with most of these trains continuing onto the Hartford Line to realize the idea of an Inland Route rail alternative to connect Boston and New York City via Springfield and Hartford. Among other benefits, this route would provide a viable backup for the Northeast Corridor, which is prone to flooding and struggles with capacity issues.
3. Enhanced rail services (train frequency) – beyond the rail corridor infrastructure improvements noted above, an enhanced regional rail system requires increased train services and trip frequencies. Accomplishing this requires a closely related but separate focus on operations, service providers, funding sources, etc. For example, north of Springfield, the infrastructure was largely in place to expand rail frequency but it took over two years to implement a modest pilot project to expand service to Holyoke, Northampton and Greenfield (initiated on August 30, 2019). This aspect of rail planning can be just as complex as it defines:  a) trip frequencies, stations and key markets served (e.g., Hartford to Boston, Worcester/Boston to New York via Inland Route); b) mix of rail operators (Amtrak, CTrail, MBTA), cost sharing and financing sources; and c) operational capacities, timetables, and shared freight corridors.

III. CONSULTANT SCOPE OF WORK

Respondents to this RFP will represent a firm, company, team, or individual possessing experience and expertise in preparing economic impact studies, especially as they relate to transportation infrastructure. The East-West rail study being conducted by MassDOT is scheduled to be delivered in March 2020. A goal for this RFP is to have at least preliminary results available when the East-West study is released.

The following is a description of project tasks to be undertaken by the chosen planning consultant:

Mapping and narrative of current & future rail system. 

Clear, easy to visualize mapping and narrative about the current and potential future regional rail system (consistent with the 3 items above), with emphasis on key markets connected, infrastructure that needs to be enhanced (and what is already “ready to go”), and service alternatives.

• This task should identify and analyze multiple rail service alternatives for key elements of the system, such as:  a) speed and trip frequency between Springfield and Boston; b) phasing in of the up to 25 roundtrips on the Hartford Line; c) bi-state rail connections like travel time and number of one-seat trains that would serve markets like Hartford-Boston and Worcester-New York; and) d) other New England/New York alternatives like increased rail frequencies north of Springfield to Northampton, Vermont and beyond.
• Different service scenarios are likely to have measurably different impacts on local development. A suggested start would be to look at both half-hour and hourly service along each line. An alternative would be to follow Governor Lamont’s proposal of having 30-minute service between each of the major links (Hartford to Springfield, Springfield to Worcester, Worcester to Boston, etc.).

Estimate and document TOD impacts realized to date. 

This task would conduct research and gather evidence on the development impacts to date from key rail and BRT improvements – this could include metrics such as private investment, housing units built, jobs added, SF of mixed use development, and market characteristics (e.g., occupancy and sales prices of new residential properties that demonstrate market strength). This task could focus on the Hartford Line and CTfastrak (staring from CRCOG analysis) as well as the growing TOD in Worcester with lots of private development within ½ mile of that station. For example, a presentation from 2018 identified over $400 million of investment in the CTfastrak corridor and over $300 million in the CTrail corridor. The goal of this task is to demonstrate that TOD is “real” and that our small-mid size cities are experiencing economic development benefits when they have a substantial level of rail/transit services and complementary development policies.

Economic business case to finish Hartford Line build-out. 

This task would focus on the economic impacts, benefits and costs of the $500-600 million investment needed to build-out the Hartford Line from Hartford to Springfield, including more reliable travel times, increased capacity for growth in rail service frequencies, new stations added, and the Windsor Locks station enhancement connection to Bradley Airport. The current thinking is to reuse and refine recent analyses on ridership, train operations, and costs to develop a high-level but credible economic impact assessment that includes ranges (e.g., X to Y jobs, A to B private investment generated). For example, one potential approach would be to reuse the model that was used in the NEC Future project, and pivot off ridership and TOD estimates based on the Hartford Line experience thus far.

Alternative economic assessment of Inland Route rail. 

Going back to the NNEIRI report and the Dan Hodge analysis of the ridership and benefit-cost analysis, there are a lot of reasons to try to re-do that work, especially in light of the current MassDOT east-west rail study that no longer is focused on seamless rail connections to and from the Hartford area. Key topics to examine with fresh eyes and a more economic market perspective include:

• Travel times and trip frequencies between key markets – these have varied in different studies and have not always been reasonable or competitive with auto travel (e.g., it was 2 hours 45 minutes in the NNEIRI study between Hartford and Boston), but a key outcome of this work could be to define travel times and frequencies that can support meaningful economic development benefits. As noted above, this study should look at multiple service scenarios, including both 30 and 60 minute headways.
• Ridership between key markets – for example, the ridership between Hartford and Boston in the NNEIRI study was less than 50 per day, and the overall ridership was relatively low compared to the size of the markets served in the corridor (e.g., when compared to the Downeaster). In contrast, the Hartford Line, in its first year, attracted 634,000 rides, roughly 50,000 more than projected.
• Costs for infrastructure, equipment and operations – this would integrate the most recent cost estimates but also be thoughtful about what costs need to be attributed to the region. For example, the NNEIRI study included very substantial train equipment capital costs that stretched credibility. Other train services, like the Downeaster, have heavily utilized value engineering to trim station costs while preserving overall service.
• Economic development and TOD impacts – central to this task would be new estimates of economic development benefits, including potential for TOD, impacts on vacancy rates, as well as business productivity gains from enhanced workforce accessibility and connectivity to commercial markets and suppliers. TOD is usually estimated on a “ground-up” basis for key markets/stations based on development potential, market strength, and transport improvements, whereas broader economic/productivity gains are typically best measured using sophisticated tools like TREDIS or REMI. CRCOG does not currently have a preference for which tools are used.

A key element of this analysis will be the assessment of market strength, market potential and the expected level of development. This will need to be a thoughtful analysis that looks at market strength, opportunity and ridership under various service scenarios (as noted above). The ability of each service scenario to attract different kinds of development should be assessed, as well as the attractiveness of new developments to different kinds of riders.

• Develop Benefit-Cost Analysis and/or Return on Investment (ROI) findings – Based on the ridership, costs, and economic development impacts, the results can be compiled into benefit-cost metrics to demonstrate the magnitude of sustained benefits compared to costs. This could be in the form of traditional benefit-cost analysis methods but may be better suited for customized ROI findings that place the economic development impacts in context to costs and other geographic or per capita features. This component would help make the ‘business case’ of the rail investments.
• Summarize and communicate key findings in concise, visually appealing deliverables – To make this work as effective possible across a wide range of audiences, the key results and findings should be summarized in concise and visually appealing deliverables. This could include: a) a short summary report; b) a two-page summary; c) PowerPoint presentation; and d) (potentially) a short video.