Appendix E Social Economic
Appendix E Social & Economic Memorandum
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission Economic Development Analysis of Passenger Rail in the Knowledge Corridor DRAFT July 30, 2009
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission Economic Development Analysis of Passenger Rail in the Knowledge Corridor July 30, 2009 Technical Memorandum
HDR|Decision Economics List of Tables ● i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1
2 OVERVIEW OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS ..................................................2 2.1 Objective and Purpose .............................................................................
......................2 2.2 Relevant Data, Reports, and Information.......................................................................2 3 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW FINDINGS...........................
...................................................4 3.1 Greenfield .......................................................................................................................4
3.2 Northampton...................................................................................................................5 3.3 Holyoke........................................................
..................................................................5 3.4 Springfield....................................................................................................................
..6 4 METHODOLOGY, MODEL DEVELOPMENT, AND ASSUMPTIONS...................................8 4.1 Risk Analysis Framework .................................................................................
..............8 4.2 Model Development......................................................................................................10 4.3 Induced Growth Assumptions ..........................
............................................................15 5 RESULTS.............................................................................................................................18
5.1 Baseline Employment and Population Growth.............................................................18 5.2 Development Attributable to Rail......................................................
............................19 5.3 Summary Economic Development Results Results ..................................................................22 5.4 Results for Enhanced Service
Scenario.......................................................................23 5.5 Results for Commuter Service Scenario ......................................................................25
6 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS....................................................................................................29 APPENDIX A: LIST OF STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS.................................
.............................30 APPENDIX B: RAP SESSION PARTICIPANTS...........................................................................31 APPENDIX C: RAP COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
.................................................................32
HDR|Decision Economics List of Tables ● ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Framework to Estimate Economic Development Impacts ............................................... 3 Figure 2: Holyoke
Land Use Map.................................................................................................. 13 Figure 3: Baseline Population and Employment for Station Cities, 2030................
...................... 19 Figure 4: Shares of Development by Service Level and City, 2030.............................................. 20 Figure 5: Employment by Service Level, City,
and Land Use: 2030 ............................................. 22 Figure 6: Induced Employment and Population in the Enhanced Scenario: 2030........................ 24 Figure 7: Induced
Employment Impact in the Enhanced Scenario: 2015 and 2030 ..................... 24 Figure 8: Induced Employment and Population in the Commuter Scenario: 2030 .......................
26 Figure 9: Induced Employment Given Commuter Service: 2015 and 2030.................................. 27 Figure 10: Induced Employment, Enhanced and Commuter Service: 2030 .........................
........ 28
HDR|Decision Economics List of Tables ● iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Most Likely Population and Employment Estimates ....................................................... 12 Table 2:
Economic Development Model Inputs............................................................................. 14 Table 3: Enhanced Service Assumptions................................................
...................................... 15 Table 4: Commuter Service Assumptions ..................................................................................... 16 Table 5: Range
of Population and Employment Estimates........................................................... 19 Table 6: Square Footage of Development by Service Level, City, and Land Use, 2030..............
20 Table 7: Summary Induced Employment and Population Results by Scenario............................ 23 Table 8: Induced Employment and Population Attributable to Enhanced Service...................
..... 23 Table 9: Development Impacts of Enhanced Service as Percent of Baseline Numbers .............. 25 Table 10: Induced Employment and Population Attributable to Commuter Service
..................... 25 Table 11: Development Impacts of Commuter Service as Percent of Baseline ........................... 27
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 1 1 INTRODUCTION The realignment of rail service along the I-91 Knowledge Corridor in the Pioneer Valley of Massachusetts has the potential to provide economic
development impacts for the cities along the corridor that will have station stops as well as the broader region. In order to assess the economic development potential related to rail
improvements, a thorough examination of the conditions in the region, as well as the potential for development based on available land and other resources was considered. This document
provides a detailed explanation of the process and methodology undertaken to estimate economic development impacts in terms of employment and population within the region. The results
of the economic development analysis are for two forecast years and two service level scenarios. This economic development analysis covers each of the four station cities in Massachusetts
– Greenfield, Northampton, Holyoke, and Springfield – as well as the remaining areas of the the counties in the region – Franklin, Hampden, and Hampshire. The analysis was conducted
in terms of impacts on employment and population looking ahead to 2015 and 2030. The impacts presented are in terms of additional population or employment that would not be expected
without the presence of the rail service. Data was obtained from local/regional economic development professionals and publicly available sources, and the model assumptions, framework
and results were reviewed with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and refined based on their feedback. The remainder of this document is divided into the following sections: o Overview
of Economic Development Analysis o Stakeholder Interview Findings o Methodology, Model Development, and Assumptions o Results
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 2 2 OVERVIEW OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS This section of the technical memorandum covers an overview of the economic development analysis in terms
of key objectives for the study and the process and logic of the economic modeling. 2.1 Objective and Purpose There are two main objectives of the analysis: • Estimate economic development
induced by rail service improvement for input into ridership estimates. • Identify opportunities for economic development throughout the region related to the rail realignment and service
enhancement projects. This technical memorandum presents economic development results of realigning and enhancing Knowledge Corridor passenger rail in the Pioneer Valley. The estimates
represent incremental economic development impacts due to passenger rail, focused on Hampden, Hampshire and Franklin counties and the four proposed station areas for expanded rail service
in the Pioneer Valley (Springfield, Holyoke, Northampton, and Greenfield). Incremental in this analysis means additional economic and demographic growth beyond baseline growth forecasts
for the region. The results of this analysis are used to supplement baseline estimates of ridership for the passenger rail scenarios (i.e., additional residential and business development
leading to higher levels of ridership). 2.2 Relevant Data, Reports, and Information The following methodology was applied to estimate the economic development potential in the region:
1) Stakeholder interviews – HDR conducted interviews with 12 economic development organizations in the Pioneer Valley to assess the “real world” context for development opportunities
and to gather relevant data on development initiatives, land use, and real estate data. 2) Data collection and review of other studies – HDR gathered detailed data on historical and
projected employment and population trends, and reviewed other passenger rail and economic development studies including a recently completed analysis of the Downeaster rail service
from Portland to Boston. 3) Model development – Based on the data collected, the information from stakeholder interviews and reviews of other studies, HDR developed a modeling methodology.
The model is a risk-based analysis which explicitly accounts for uncertainty in a number of key variables and produces a range of estimates. 4) Results and risk analysis – HDR generated
an initial set of economic growth assumptions and risk factors that were presented to the TAC for review and scrutiny, leading to a refined set of economic development results.
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 3 The economic development estimates are presented in terms of: • Level of rail service – “Enhanced” rail service that would be similar in nature to the
current Portland-Boston Downeaster service (i.e., 5-6 trains a day in each direction), as well as “Commuter” rail service that would provide more frequent service for the morning and
evening commutes with particularly strong connections to Connecticut.1 • Geography – Estimates of economic development gains are presented for the four cities mentioned above (with emphasis
on development within 1 mile of the station locations) as well as the “rest of county” regions that reflect additional residential demand outside the four cities due to passenger rail.
• Timing – Reaching total economic development gains from rail or transit corridors typically takes multiple years and thus estimates are provided for 2015 and 2030 to account for the
time required to implement rail service and the lag effect of development. • Jobs and Population – The analysis captures residential and commercial /industrial development potential.
The employment and population metrics developed are then used as inputs to generate the comprehensive ridership estimates. The information and data gathered from this process are used
to generate a model based on the logic that providing rail service will lead to increased access to the station cities and mobility, which will in turn make the areas more appealing
for public, private, and non-profit investments, leading to development of currently vacant and underutilized properties. This development will lead to increased population and employment
which, in turn, is expected to generate additional rail ridership potential. This process can be seen below in Figure 1. Figure 1: Framework to Estimate Economic Development Impacts
Enhanced Rail Service Commuter Rail Service Mobility/Urban Access Attractiveness for Economic Development Private & Public Sector Investment Vacant and Underutilized Commercial Land
Development Vacant and Underutilized Residential Land Development Induced Employment Induced Population Rail Ridership 1 Less frequent passenger rail service in the Pioneer Valley could
also result in induced economic development but likely at significantly lower levels and thus was not estimated separately.
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 4 3 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW FINDINGS As part of the information gathering process, interviews were conducted with twelve economic development organizations2
Feedback was gathered for each of the potential station cities (Greenfield, Northampton, Holyoke, and Springfield) and the region as a whole. In general, the mix of industries in the
Pioneer Valley – with concentrations in healthcare, higher education, information technology, manufacturing, financial services and the creative economy – provides a relatively stable
economy with less volatile peaks and valleys through the business cycle. In addition to the stable economy, the relatively low cost of living and large presence of higher education add
to the draw of the region. Overall, the region has suitable physical infrastructure for further development but has lacked a true catalyst to accelerate growth. In particular, each of
the four station cities already has a downtown infrastructure suitable to TOD including dense development patterns, historically active downtown centers, and nearby mixed use development.
in the Pioneer Valley to assess development opportunities from a “real world” perspective, and gather relevant data on development initiatives, land use, and real estate. In order to
gather the most pertinent information, the questions focused on two main categories: 1) economic development potential; and 2) commuting patterns/transit-oriented development (TOD).
More specifically, economic development questions covered recent development trends, strengths of the region, and obstacles or constraints to growth. The TOD and commuting questions
served to establish the likely impacts of commuter service, the capacity for transit-oriented development in terms of available land, and development initiatives necessary to support
the rail service once implemented. While there is potential for induced development, there are also limitations including startup funding available in the region, a relatively stagnant
underlying growth rate of development and private sector investment, and construction costs in excess of market rates for real estate. Construction costs in excess of market rates pose
problems as it becomes exceedingly difficult to attract private investment and construct new buildings when the return on investment is not sufficient. While the broader regional concerns
are important to understanding the impact of rail service, it was critical to gather information on each of the potential station cities. These findings are presented in the sections
below. 3.1 Greenfield Greenfield is the first proposed station city in Massachusetts when traveling southbound by rail from Vermont. Greenfield’s strengths include an educated labor
force due to the presence of numerous colleges within the region, low housing prices, and a high quality of life. The affordability of the region makes the downtown area an attractive
place to live, and if rail is brought to the area the infrastructure to support TOD is present. The new Regional Transit Center, currently in the design process, will be located near
the rail line and will become Franklin County’s major bus hub providing synergy with the 2 See Appendix A for a list of organizations and interviewees.
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 5 proposed rail service. Operations at the Regional Transit Center should create 180-200 new jobs in the immediately surrounding area once completed. Greenfield
has experienced relatively slow growth and development in the past which is not surprising given the region’s initiatives toward preserving open space and agriculture uses. However,
these efforts tend to be at odds with economic development and attracting major companies to Greenfield. Many of the larger companies (e.g., manufacturing) that were in the area have
left Greenfield, but the remaining smaller companies are still thriving. The loss and lack of large employers, lack of high paying jobs, and limited access to public funding are constraining
growth in the area. Impacts from enhanced or commuter rail service in Greenfield are likely to be concentrated on: a) more residential development opportunities as Greenfield becomes
a more attractive place to live given rail connections to the south; and b) a modest boost to downtown development opportunities in a mix of retail, restaurant and other businesses.
3.2 Northampton The high level of environmental consciousness in Northampton makes it a strong candidate city for a rail station. The Sustainable Northampton Master Plan already calls
for Transit Oriented Development, and given the potential office and commercial development opportunities in the downtown area, rail could have a positive impact on these initiatives.
Northampton has a stable population and strong economy including a large retail and service sector with the presence of higher-end jobs. New developments are already taking place in
the downtown area, including a new Urban Outfitters store and a 100-room Hilton hotel. Additionally, since the arts and creative economy has a very large presence in Northampton, a strong
rail connection south to New York City has great potential. Northampton is also home to numerous cultural events as well as a vibrant nightlife which attracts a variety of visitors that
might take advantage of rail connections for increased visitation. Possible barriers to development related to rail include the relatively high cost of land compared to other areas in
the region, a relataive lack of developable land in close proximity to the station, and the lingering need for some infrastructure and broadband improvements. 3.3 Holyoke Holyoke’s economy
has long suffered from the loss of key companies, the abandonment of several mill buildings, and slow moving efforts to re-build and re-develop. Like Springfield, it has been identified
as a “gateway city” by the state of Massachusetts reflecting relative low per capita income, slow and declining growth, higher unemployment rates, and lower educational achievement.
There are, however, some promising revitalization efforts taking place, including the development of an urban renewal plan for Holyoke focusing on development in the downtown area. More
specifically: • The downtown Canalwalk project is expected to help revitalize areas along the canal and has broken ground on construction.
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 6 • The Open Square space serves as artist loft, live/work space, and potential condos. It represents a successful private developer initiative in downtown
Holyoke to attract a mix of uses and residents. • The long-planned multimodal transportation center in the downtown area is moving forward and should be completed in May 2010. It is
in relative proximity to the proposed rail station. This transportation center will bring Peter Pan bus service back to the city for the first time in 20 years and will also include
a child care facility to aid working mothers, and Holyoke Community College (HCC) is planning to hold classes and offer job training for the first time in a downtown location. • The
recently announced Green High Performance Computer Center and Advanced Computing Initiative is a cooperative agreement between MIT, the University of Massachusetts, Cisco, EMC and other
interested institutions to locate a world-class computing center in downtown Holyoke. The estimated $100 100 million facility is expected to create upwards of hundreds of jobs directly
at the Center as well as businesses located nearby. While these development plans advance in the downtown area, passenger rail could be a crucial component of fully achieving the revitalization
potential of the City. In particular, a passenger rail station in downtown Holyoke could be a major asset in the City’s efforts to direct future development back into the downtown area
rather than continuing recent trends of commercial development near the Holyoke Mall and away from downtown. Holyoke’s other strengths include low electric rates as the city produces
its own power resulting in the lowest commercial and industrial rates in the state – a major draw for the Computing Center initiative. In addition, the City has Chapter 43D sites, Tax
Increment Financing (TIFs) options, a foreign trade zone, and Industrial Park Zoning that should attract businesses to the area. Constraints to potential growth include relatively high
business tax rates, an education system with a poor perception and relatively weak test score performance, and lingering negative perceptions of the area. In addition, some recent projects
now underway (Canal and multimodal center) have been in the planning and development phase for a long-time which (even if no-fault of the City) has created a perception that it takes
a long time to achieve progress. Both a challenge and an opportunity, the abandoned mill buildings would need to be converted since manufacturing companies typically do not want to locate
on the second and third floors of buildings. Taking these factors into account, Holyoke presents both a relatively large potential opportunity given current initiatives, with a history
of slow revitalization and lagging economic performance that it is striving to overcome. 3.4 Springfield Springfield is the final station city in Massachusetts, and would provide the
connection south to Hartford, New Haven, and New York City. Springfield is the largest city in western Massachusetts and has both positive and negative attributes for potential development.
While there is currently rail service in Springfield, greatly enhanced service
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 7 to new locations north of the city could benefit Springfield. The strengths of Springfield include a fairly stable economy due to the mix of industries
present in the city, and low cost relative to other areas of the Commonwealth. Other potential strengths include a possible expansion of UMass-Amherst academic/research facilities into
downtown Springfield as well as the planned commuter rail connection to Hartford and New Haven. Main constraints to development include a lack of truly class A office space downtown,
and lingering concerns about the city’s fiscal stability, public safety and the education system. The level of activity downtown in terms of office workers and residents continues to
be a challenge as anecdotal evidence suggests that some tenants are moving out of downtown for other locations within the region. One essential piece to contribute to growth is the re-use
of the existing space as well as parking improvements. Since the area has construction costs that are generally above market lease or sales rates, private investment to build new or
restored buildings has been lacking in recent years. The redevelopment plan for the Union Station rail facility improves the practicality and feasibility of enhanced rail while potentially
providing a catalyst to development in the surrounding area. Further development in the area related to the Station renovation is possible, but likely not financially feasible without
public subsidies for the conversion of former office buildings to residential uses near the station. While the pieces seem to be falling into place for Springfield the catalyst to push
development forward is still missing.
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 8 4 METHODOLOGY, MODEL DEVELOPMENT, AND ASSUMPTIONS The applied methodology to estimate induced economic development due to improved rail scenarios in the
Pioneer Valley used a risk analysis framework (Section 4.1), a set of key development assumptions and data (Section 4.2), and residential, commercial and office growth assumptions (Section
4.3). 4.1 Risk Analysis Framework Forecasts traditionally take the form of a single “expected outcome” supplemented with alternative scenarios. The limitation of a forecast with a single
expected outcome is clear --while it may provide the single best statistical estimate, it offers no information about the range of other possible outcomes and their associated probabilities.
The problem becomes acute when uncertainty surrounding the forecast’s underlying assumptions is material. A common approach to bracket the central estimate is to create a “high case”
and “low case” scenario. This scenario approach can exacerbate the problem of dealing with risk because it gives no indication of likelihood associated with the alternative outcomes.
The commonly reported “high case” may assume that most underlying assumptions deviate in the same direction from their expected value, and likewise for the “low case.” In reality, the
likelihood that all underlying factors shift in the same direction simultaneously is just as remote as everything turning out as expected. Another common approach to providing added
perspective on reality is “sensitivity analysis.” Key forecast assumptions are varied one at a time in order to assess their relative impact on the expected outcome. The problem here
is that the assumptions are often varied by arbitrary amounts. A more serious concern with this approach is that, in the real world, assumptions do not veer from actual outcomes one
at a time. It is the impact of simultaneous differences between assumptions and actual outcomes that is needed to provide a realistic perspective on the riskiness of a forecast. Risk
Analysis avoids the problems outlined above and the remainder of this section explains the risk analysis process (RAP) applied in this study. It helps avoid the lack of perspective in
“high” and “low” cases by measuring the probability or “odds” that an outcome will actually materialize. This is accomplished by attaching ranges (probability distributions) to the forecasts
of each input variable. The approach allows all inputs to be varied simultaneously within their distributions, thus avoiding the problems inherent in conventional sensitivity analysis.
The approach also recognizes interrelationships between variables and their associated probability distributions. Each key factor or variable is assigned a central estimate and a range
(a probability distribution) to represent the degree of uncertainty. Special data sheets are used (see Assign Central Estimates and Conduct Probability Analysis
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 9 below) to record input from panelists. The first column gives an initial median (most likely) estimate while the second and third columns define an uncertainty
range representing a 90 percent confidence interval. This is the range within which there exists a 90 percent probability of finding the actual outcome. The greater the uncertainty associated
with a forecast variable the wider the range. Example Data Sheet for Gas Prices (in 2009 dollars) Year Most Likely Low Estimate High Estimate Years $2.50 $1.75 $5.00 Probability ranges
are established on the basis of both statistical analysis and subjective probability. Probability ranges need not be normal or symmetrical --that is, there is no need to assume the bell
shaped normal probability curve. The bell curve assumes an equal likelihood of being too low and being too high in forecasting a particular value. It might well be, for example, that
if a projected growth rate deviates from expectations; circumstances are such that it is more likely to be higher than the median expected outcome. The RAP model transforms the ranges
as depicted above into formal probability distributions (or “probability density functions”). This liberates the non-statistician from the need to appreciate the abstract statistical
depiction of probability and thus enables stakeholders to understand and participate in the process whether or not they possess statistical training. The next step of the RAP involves
the formation of an informed panel and the use of facilitation techniques to elicit risk and probability beliefs about: Conduct Expert Evaluation: The RAP Session a) The structure of
the forecasting framework; and b) Uncertainty attaching to each variable and forecasting coefficient within the framework. In a), the panel is invited to add variables and hypothesized
causal relationships that may be material, yet missing from the model. In b), panelists are engaged in a discursive protocol during which the frequentist-based central estimates and
ranges, provided to panelists in advance of the session, are modified according to panelist’s beliefs. The final probability distributions
are formulated by the risk analyst (HDR) based on input from the RAP session. These are combined using a statistical simulation technique (commonly known as Monte Carlo analysis) that
allows each variable and forecasting coefficient to vary simultaneously according to its associated probability distribution. The end result is a central forecast, together with estimates
of the probability of achieving Issue Risk Analysis
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 10 alternative outcomes given uncertainties in underlying variables and coefficients (see Figures below). Risk Analysis of Annual Average Daily Boardings,
an Illustration Risk Analysis of Annual Average Daily Boardings, an Illustration Projected Traffic Probability of Exceeding Value Shown at Left 105.3 0.01 98.4 0.05 94.9 0.10 91.0 0.20
88.2 0.30 85.8 0.40 83.5 0.50 81.2 0.60 78.5 0.70 75.2 0.80 71.3 0.90 65.0 0.95 53.5 0.99 82.9 Mean Expected Outcome 4.2 Model Development Several steps were taken to ensure that the
most reliable estimates of potential economic development along the Knowledge Corridor in the Pioneer Valley were generated. After 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%40 50 60
70 80 90 100 110 2020 Daily Ridership Probability of Exceeding
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 11 conducting interviews, gathering data and reviewing studies on similar projects, three broad scenarios were developed: 1) baseline population and employment
growth; 2) Enhanced service; and 3) Commuter service. Enhanced service would provide a level of service similar to the Portland-Boston Downeaster service (approximately 5-6 trains daily
in each direction) and Commuter service would provide more frequent service particularly in the morning and afternoon commutes. It is believed that the higher the level of service, the
more economic development would occur. In addition, the following factors were considered in the analysis: • The geographic location of the station and the proximity of the potential
development, • Planned development projects, • Land available for development by zoning, • The number of jobs and people per building square feet and use, • The relative size of a building
compared to the size of the available parcel, and • The results of similar studies to provide context and comparison for results generated in this PVPC rail study. First, the population
and employment forecasts for the region were examined to provide a baseline of projected growth to the year 2030, given no change in service. These estimates are then used as a level
of comparison for potential development attributable to different levels of service. Both the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission and the Franklin County Transportation Planning Organization
released Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) in 2007. These plans include forecasts of employment and population at the municipality level to 2030. For the purposes of this analysis,
seven different areas were examined: the four station cities -Greenfield, Northampton, Holyoke, and Springfield -and the three “rest of county” areas -Franklin, Hampshire and Hampden.
The “rest of county” areas do not include the station cities and while the impacts will not be as large as the municipalities with stations, similar studies show that there will likely
be some level of “spill over” development.3 Both the Pioneer Valley and Franklin County population forecasts used year 2000 Census data as the base for their projections. In order to
incorporate the most recently available data, the growth rates that were developed in the RTPs were applied to 2007 U.S. Census population estimations. Since the 2007 population estimates
are slightly lower than the 2000 populations for some of the municipalities, the projected 2030 populations that are presented in this report (see 3 See: “Economic Benefits of Amtrak
Downeaster Service”, February 2005.
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 12 Table 1) are actually lower than those presented in the RTPs. Table 1: Most Likely Population and Employment Estimates POPULATION EMPLOYMENT Geographic
Area 2007 2030 2007 2030 Greenfield 17,706 18,049 10,125 10,996 Rest of Franklin County 53,896 67,531 16,767 18,349 Northampton 28,411 28,752 18,374 18,619 Rest of Hampshire County 124,736
134,174 40,570 41,164 Holyoke 39,737 38,447 21,972 21,143 Springfield 149,938 152,289 75,896 71,112 Rest of Hampden County 268,233 284,420 100,840 104,568 TOTAL 682,657 723,662 284,544
285,951 Sources: US Census Bureau 2000 Census of Population & Housing; U.S. Census Bureau – 2007 Population Estimates, released July 2008; FRCOG Regional Population Projections 2000-2030;
Regional Transportation Plan for the Pioneer Valley MPO – 2007 Update; Pioneer Valley Regional Transportation Plan; Franklin County Regional Transportation Plan; Massachusetts Office
of Workforce Development ES-202; HDR Calculations. Similarly, the employment forecasts to 2030 use the year 2000 employment data as a base. The Pioneer Valley RTP uses 2000 Covered Employment
and Wage data and Franklin County uses U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics data from the year 2000 as the base. Again, to ensure that the projections are using the most
recently available data, 2007 employment data from the Massachusetts Office of Workforce Development was used as the base for calculations in this report. Similar to the population estimates,
the growth rates used in the RTPs were applied to this updated data to calculate employment projections to 2030. The results of the baseline employment forecast can be seen above in
Table 1. Once the growth rates for population and employment were calculated, a risk factor was applied to the growth rates in order to generate a range of feasible projection estimates.
These population and employment projections were also used to estimate impacts for increased service by calculating a percentage of the growth attributable to rail service for each of
the station and rest of county areas. A risk range was also applied to these “growth attributable to rail” scenarios to account for possible variations in the future. The percentage
of growth attributable to rail was greater in the commuter rail scenario than the enhanced rail scenario. The growth was tended to be larger in the station cities rather than in the
“rest of county” areas due to proximity to rail. These results were used as a basis for comparison in some cases, and in Greenfield and the “rest of county” areas were used as the final
projections of development and growth (given a lack of detailed, comprehensive land use data). Due to the additional land use data available in Northampton, Holyoke, and Springfield,
the baseline growth estimates were used as an input, along with other factors that are described below, to generate more detailed induced development results. For the more detailed analyses,
where possible the station cities were further broken down by proximity to the proposed station location. The planned development projects provided by each city and the assessor data
on available land was distinguished by parcels within a radius of ½ mile of the station, within 1 mile of the station, and more
HDR|Decision Economics Page 13 mile walking distance, there is still increased potential within 1 mile, and this diminishes in areas beyond 1 mile from the station consistent with a
gravity model approach. Figure 2: Holyoke Land Use Map Source: Holyoke Assessor’s Data Economic development professionals provided lists of planned development projects for the cities
of Greenfield, Northampton, and Holyoke. From these project lists, details were provided on the geographic proximity to the station location (within ½ mile, within 1 mile and beyond
1 mile), and the type of development (residential, office, retail, or industrial). This data, along with the number of jobs or population per 1,000 square feet and other factors entered
into the model to estimate the potential employment and population generation from the realization of these projects. The amount of jobs or population per 1,000 square feet was calculated
based on usage rates as shown in Table 2. While these projects are all planned, risk factors are applied to the data to estimate the potential development that is attributable to rail.
Data on vacant but developable land was provided for the cities of Northampton, Holyoke and Springfield. This data was analyzed similarly to that of the planned development projects:
it was first broken down by land use type and geographic proximity to the station, and then risk factors were applied to account for development attributable to rail, as well as the
ratio of the parcel size to the building square footage. Since the data provided were simply for the parcels and not planned buildings, it was necessary to create a ratio of building
square-footage to parcel size. Since zoning requirements are different for buildings of different usage types and in different locations – i.e. central business district or industrial
park – several ratios were calculated.
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 14 Since the data provided were simply for the parcels and not planned buildings, it was necessary to create a ratio of building square-footage to parcel
size. Since zoning requirements are different for buildings of different usage types and in different locations – i.e. central business district or industrial park – several ratios were
calculated. Generally, the farther away the parcel was from the station, the smaller the ratio. These ratios were then used to estimate the size of the building to be used as an input
for jobs or residents per 1,000 square feet of development. Further explanation of the risk analysis can be found in Section 4.1. Table 2: Economic Development Model Inputs Inputs Mean
Low High Baseline Population Growth Greenfield 2.0% 0.8% 3.0% Northampton 1.8% -0.5% 2.4% Holyoke -4.0% -5.8% 0.0% Springfield 1.7% 0.0% 3.0% Rest of Franklin County 25.3% 19.2% 31.4%
Rest of Hampshire County 8.0% 4.2% 10.5% Rest of Hampden County 6.1% 3.0% 9.0% Baseline Employment Growth Greenfield 10.0% 4.0% 12.0% Northampton 1.0% -1.0% 4.0% Holyoke -4.0% -7.3%
0.0% Springfield -7.0% -11.9% 0.0% Rest of Franklin County 10.1% 4.1% 14.1% Rest of Hampshire County 1.4% 0.0% 3.0% Rest of Hampden County 3.5% 1.2% 6.4% Jobs and Population per 1,000
Square Feet of Development Retail 1.7 1.2 2.5 Industrial 0.8 0.5 1.2 Office 2.8 2.0 3.5 Residential 1.5 1.2 1.8 Building Square Feet to Parcel Size Ratio Distance Less than 0.5 Miles
from Station Retail 1.1 0.9 1.5 Industrial 0.8 0.6 1.1 Office 1.1 0.9 1.5 Residential 1.6 1.3 2.3 Distance Between 0.5 and 1 Mile from Station Retail 0.8 0.7 1.1 Industrial 0.6 0.4 0.8
Office 0.8 0.7 1.1 Residential 1.4 1.2 2.0 Distance Greater than 1 Mile from Station Retail 0.7 0.6 1.0 Industrial 0.5 0.4 0.7 Office 0.7 0.6 1.0
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 15 Residential 0.7 0.5 1.0 Source: HDR Calculations based on information gathered and feedback from TAC. 4.3 Induced Growth Assumptions Risk analysis-based
estimates of jobs and population from the scenarios discussed above were then compared and contrasted (as available) to derive low, median and high development potential estimates. As
a point of comparison, the methodology from the Downeaster economic impact study4 was applied to the Knowledge Corridor study area to ensure that the results obtained from the analyses
were reasonable and not overly optimistic. After the draft results were generated, the key assumptions and risk factors were presented to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for review
(see Appendix B for participants in the Risk Analysis Process workshop). Revised risk factors were used to generate the final results presented in this document. The estimates that were
based on actual planned development projects in each city were lower than the total estimate when all available development opportunities were considered, and thus we consider the development
effects to be a composite of planned development projects as well as longerterm development of vacant and underutilized properties. The additional population and employment growth attributable
to rail based on differing service levels was used for Greenfield and the “rest of county” areas due to the data constraints. Since more specific land use data was available for Northampton,
Holyoke, and Springfield, these results were primarily based on the detailed land use data with comparison to the planned projects and employment and population growth attributable to
rail data. The assumptions on the percent of development of all vacant and developable land attributable to rail in terms of population and employment for both enhanced and commuter
service are presented in Table 3 and Table 4. Table 3: Enhanced Service Assumptions Enhanced Population Distance from Station Median Low High Greenfield 1.0% 0.5% 2.5% Northampton Less
than 0.5 miles 15.0% 15.0% 30.0% 0.5 to 1 mile 7.5% 7.5% 15.0% Greater than 1 mile 1.0% 1.0% 2.0% Holyoke Less than 0.5 miles 10.0% 10.0% 17.0% 0.5 to 1 mile 8.0% 8.0% 14.0% Greater
than 1 mile 1.1% 1.1% 2.0% Springfield Less than 0.5 miles 8.0% 8.0% 13.0% 0.5 to 1 mile 6.0% 6.0% 11.0% Greater than 1 mile 3.0% 3.0% 6.0% Rest of Franklin County 0.75% 0.5% 2.0% Rest
of Hampshire County 1.0% 0.5% 2.5% 4 “Amtrak Downeaster: Overview of Projected Economic Impacts” for the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority by the Center for Neighborhood
Technology, March 2008.
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 16 Rest of Hampden County 0.5% 0.25% 1.0% Enhanced Employment Distance from Station Median Low High Greenfield 1.0% 0.5% 2.0% Northampton Less than 0.5
miles 15.0% 5.0% 30.0% 0.5 to 1 mile 10.0% 2.5% 25.0% Greater than 1 mile 2.0% 1.0% 4.0% Holyoke Less than 0.5 miles 8.0% 3.0% 12.0% 0.5 to 1 mile 6.0% 3.0% 9.5% Greater than 1 mile
3.0% 1.0% 6.0% Springfield Less than 0.5 miles 9.5% 4.0% 17.0% 0.5 to 1 mile 7.5% 2.0% 14.0% Greater than 1 mile 1.0% 0.4% 1.2% Rest of Franklin County 0.7% 0.3% 1.5% Rest of Hampshire
County 1.5% 0.75% 2.5% Rest of Hampden County 0.3% 0.2% 0.5% Source: HDR Calculations. Table 4: Commuter Service Assumptions Commuter Population Distance from Station Median Low High
Greenfield 3.0% 1.5% 6.0% Northampton Less than 0.5 miles 20.0% 7.0% 35.0% 0.5 to 1 mile 12.0% 5.0% 25.0% Greater than 1 mile 1.3% 0.7% 2.0% Holyoke Less than 0.5 miles 22.0% 12.0% 30.0%
0.5 to 1 mile 20.0% 10.0% 27.0% Greater than 1 mile 2.5% 0.3% 3.5% Springfield Less than 0.5 miles 23.0% 12.0% 36.0% 0.5 to 1 mile 21.0% 10.0% 33.0% Greater than 1 mile 6.0% 3.0% 10.5%
Rest of Franklin County 2.5% 1.5% 4.0% Rest of Hampshire County 2.0% 1.0% 3.0% Rest of Hampden County 1.0% 0.5% 2.5% Commuter Employment Distance from Station Median Low High Greenfield
2.5% 1.25% 5.0% Northampton Less than 0.5 miles 20.0% 7.0% 35.0% 0.5 to 1 mile 12.0% 5.0% 25.0% Greater than 1 mile 3.0% 2.0% 5.0% Holyoke Less than 0.5 miles 20.0% 10.0% 27.0% 0.5 to
1 mile 18.0% 8.0% 22.5% Greater than 1 mile 8.0% 3.0% 12.0%
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 17 Springfield Less than 0.5 miles 17.0% 5.0% 25.0% 0.5 to 1 mile 11.0% 3.0% 22.0% Greater than 1 mile 3.0% 1.5% 5.0% Rest of Franklin County 2.0% 1.0%
3.5% Rest of Hampshire County 2.0% 1.0% 3.0% Rest of Hampden County 0.75% 0.5% 1.5% Source: HDR Calculations with input from the TAC. All of the factors presented above were reviewed
at the RAP workshop and refined, as appropriate, based on stakeholder feedback and data. Of note, the development growth differences for Northampton between the Enhanced and Commuter
scenarios is relatively small compared to the other cities reflecting the economic opportunities that are less tied directly to commuting markets, and more focused on the creative economy.
The risk ranges for Holyoke tend to be largest when taking into account recent and current economic market conditions balanced against the promising urban renewal initiatives currently
underway. Finally, it is worth repeating that for Springfield, Holyoke, and Northampton, the growth percentages only apply to vacant development parcels while the growth percentages
for the other areas are related to overall employment and population data.
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 18 5 RESULTS This section provides a detailed presentation of the anticipated future economic development induced by passenger rail in the Pioneer Valley.
Results are presented for three future scenarios: 1. A baseline scenario with no change to the current passenger rail alignment. 2. Enhanced Passenger Rail service, providing approximately
5-6 daily trains in each direction. 3. Commuter Service providing more frequent service, particularly during the morning and evening rush hours. For each scenario, results are presented
based on the risk analysis model discussed previously. Each set of results will indicate the “most likely” predicted result (50%) as well as 10% (Low) and 90% (High), which are the upper
and lower ends of the confidence interval. For the purposes of interpretation, the 10% or Low result means that there is a 10% chance that the growth in population or employment will
be less than the reported value (i.e., 90% chance that it will be at least that large). The 90% or High value means that there is a 90% chance that the population or employment growth
will not exceed that value. 5.1 Baseline Employment and Population Growth Regardless of whether or not the realignment and enhancement of passenger rail service along the Knowledge Corridor
occurs, there will be changes to both population and employment between now and 2030. Based on the information presented previously, forecast growth in both population and employment
are relatively flat throughout the region. While Massachusetts is generally a slow-growth state, the Pioneer Valley Region tends to grow even more slowly. In some areas, such as Holyoke
and Springfield, the actual forecast employment growth is negative. The results of the baseline analysis reflect the traditionally slow growth of the area as well as a range of options
that considers the potential benefits from planned projects in the area contributing to growth. The most likely results from the baseline growth scenario were presented earlier in Table
1 1 and below in Figure 3. Additionally, Table 5 below shows the results of the risk range accounting for uncertainty in the future.
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 19 Figure 3: Baseline Population and Employment for Station Cities, 2030 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 POPULATION EMPLOYMENT
Greenfield Northampton Holyoke Springfield Source: HDR Calculations based on Franklin County and Pioneer Valley Regional Transportation Plan Forecasts. Table 5: Range of Population and
Employment Estimates POPULATION EMPLOYMENT Geographic Area 2030 2030 Greenfield 17,848 -18,237 10,530 -11,340 Rest of Franklin County 64,243 -70,819 17,454 -19,131 Northampton 28,269
-29,093 18,190 -19,109 Rest of Hampshire County 129,974 -137,832 40,570 -41,787 Holyoke 37,432 -39,737 20,368 -21,972 Springfield 149,938 -154,436 66,863 -75,894 Rest of Hampden County
276,278 -292,372 102,050 -107,293 TOTAL 703,982 -742,526 276,025 -296,526 Source: HDR Calculations based on Franklin County and Pioneer Valley Regional Transportation Plan Forecasts
and Risk Analysis. 5.2 Development Attributable to Rail A critical step of the process of determining the development impacts attributable to rail was calculating the amount of square
footage to be developed in each of the station cities by land use type. The existing conditions parcel data was available for four usage types – retail, industrial, office and residential
– and the shares of development attributable to each use were calculated from this data. The level of development attributable to rail varies by the service level scenario and City.
The total square feet of development amounts shown in Table 6 and Figure 4 (below) were used as an input to calculate total employment and population impacts. Of note, the estimates
provided below represent the
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 20 median results with a low to high range used to generate the risk range of economic development impacts. Table 6: Square Footage of Development by Service
Level, City, and Land Use, 2030 Enhanced Service Commuter Service Northampton Holyoke Springfield Northampton Holyoke Springfield Retail 257,611 76,065 220,023 318,938 174,858 421,195
Industrial 129,732 110,074 80,180 158,980 247,815 224,031 Office 64,403 19,016 118,474 79,735 43,714 226,797 Residential 881,565 366,859 719,472 1,014,742 707,666 1,434,393 TOTAL 1,333,312
572,014 1,138,149 1,572,394 1,174,053 2,306,416 Source: HDR Calculations Figure 4: Shares of Development by Service Level and City, 2030 Enhanced Service Development N ortha mpton Holyoke
Springfield 19% 10% 5% 66% 13% 19% 3% 65% 19% 7% 64% 10% Commuter Service Development Northampton Holyoke Springfield 20% 10% 65% 5% 15% 21% 4% 60% 18% 10% 10% 62% Retail Industrial
Office Residential Source: HDR Calculations. As is shown in Table 6, the amount of induced development in terms of square footage varies by service level and city. Northampton is expected
to experience the most development in terms of square footage of building space due to the presence of Enhanced level service, with a most likely estimate of 1.3 million square feet
by 2030. While Commuter level service is expected to generate additional development in Northampton, the majority of the impacts will likely occur in the presence of Enhanced
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 21 service due to the nature of the area and the strong desire for transportation alternatives. It is also estimated that Springfield should experience
a fairly significant level of development due to enhanced level rail service, with more than 1.1 million square feet of total development attributable to rail. While the level of Enhanced
service development is substantial, Commuter level service is expected to approximately double development, generating about 2.3 million square feet of total development. These results
are generated from the development potential ranges found in Tables 3 and 4 above, and while the percentage development impacts in Springfield are relatively conservative (about 8 to
17 percent), it is worth noting that this long-term impact would represent a somewhat significant jump in office space absorption (in particular) compared to recent trends of about 20,000
square feet per year across Hampden County. It is expected that Holyoke will take a slightly higher level of service to fully trigger development, which results in only slightly more
than 0.5 million square feet of rail related development by 2030 for an enhanced service level. Similar to Springfield, Holyoke is expected to see greater benefits from Commuter level
service, with development approximately doubling in the presence of Commuter service, to approximately 1.2 million square feet of development. While development in each of the cities
is primarily residential, as Figure 4 shows, there is still expected to be a high level of commercial development in both Enhanced and Commuter scenarios. For both Springfield and Holyoke,
in particular, this analysis and the risk ranges used to derive overall development results attempts to balance the potential for re-development with recent market conditions. In other
words, the estimates are well within estimated impacts of development along the Downeaster rail corridor and other national case studies of transit-oriented development, but they also
assume that that the presence of rail service will be supplemented with other coordinated efforts to revitalize these cities, including public subsidies and public-private-university
initiatives like the Computing Center in Holyoke. The square footage of development is translated into population and jobs by using the population and jobs per 1,000 square feet factor
discussed in Section 4.2. This step generates the most likely estimates for population and employment level, and furthers understanding of potential employment opportunities based on
building and land use type. The differences in land availability across cities result in variation of types of employment as well, as demonstrated in Figure 5. Approximately two-thirds
of Northampton commercial development is expected to be in retail space, with approximately one-quarter office and the remainder industrial, regardless of rail service level. Holyoke
and Springfield are anticipated to each have about half of development in retail. Holyoke has more industrial space space and less office, with approximately one-third of development
anticipated to be industrial. Under an Enhanced service level Springfield can expect very little industrial development and a larger amount of office development. The composition of
development and employment is projected to change slightly with Commuter level service, with a slight reduction in the shares of retail and office jobs and a slight increase in industrial
employment.
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 22 Figure 5: Employment by Service Level, City, and Land Use: 2030 Enhanced Service Northampton Holyoke Springfield 100, 14% 439, 62% 169, 24% 128, 49%
83, 32% 49, 19% 377, 50% 64, 8% 313, 42% Commuter Service Northampton Holyoke Springfield 124, 14% 553, 62% 212, 24% 301, 49% 192, 32% 116, 19% 733, 48% 174, 12% 603, 40% Retail Industrial
Office Source: HDR Calculations from Northampton, Holyoke and Springfield Assessor Data. 5.3 Summary Economic Development Results The two scenarios examined for consideration of economic
development impacts were Enhanced and Commuter Service. Both of these scenarios are expected to generate induced economic development, and as can be seen in Table 7. Aggregate results
indicate a most likely result of about 2,700 jobs and 7,200 population in the Pioneer Valley by 2030 under the Enhance scenario with just over 5,500 jobs and 13,400 population in the
Commuter scenario. As shown, the economic development impacts are not immediate as the results are significantly lower for 2015, reflecting the time needed to fully realize and leverage
the economic development opportunities provided by rail. Almost 70% of the job impact is in the four station cities in the Enhanced scenario with 42% of the population effect, roughly
consistent with current development patterns. The Commuter scenario has a slightly lower share of jobs and population in the four station cities as the effects are felt a bit more broadly
throughout the region.
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 23 Table 7: Summary Induced Employment and Population Results by Scenario Enhanced Commuter Employment Population Employment Population 2015 2030 2015 2030
2015 2030 2015 2030 Greenfield 32 128 61 243 80 321 159 634 Northampton 177 707 307 1,227 222 889 361 1,444 Holyoke 65 260 131 522 152 609 256 1,022 Springfield 189 754 250 998 378 1,510
502 2,006 Rest of Franklin County 38 153 187 746 99 396 451 1,802 Rest of Hampshire County 88 352 452 1,806 206 823 671 2,682 Rest of Hampden County 87 349 416 1,662 242 967 959 3,837
TOTAL 676 2,703 1,804 7,204 1,379 5,515 3,359 13,427 Source: HDR Calculations 5.4 Results for Enhanced Service Scenario The employment and population impacts for the Enhanced scenario
are presented in Table 8 below for 2015 and 2030, including the low to high risk ranges. Additionally, Figure 6 provides a comparison with the most likely employment impacts for year
2030. In terms of most likely development, Northampton is expected to have the largest population impacts, partly due to the strong desire for alternative transportation in the area,
attracting a range of 558 to 2,210 new residents by 2030. Springfield is also expected to see a fairly large impact with nearly 1000 new residents under the most likely scenario, while
Holyoke and Greenfield are expected to experience slightly less population growth attributable to rail service. Considering the results of the risk analysis, Enhanced level rail service
is estimated to induce between 3,057 and 12,579 new residents for the Corridor region as a whole by 2030, and between 1,517 and 4,998 jobs. Table 8: Induced Employment and Population
Attributable to Enhanced Service Employment Population 2015 2030 2015 2030 10% 50% 90% 10% 50% 90% 10% 50% 90% 10% 50% 90% Greenfield 14 32 55 55 128 219 23 61 113 90 243 451 Northampton
91 177 306 365 707 1,224 140 307 553 558 1,227 2,210 Holyoke 29 65 122 114 260 486 55 131 229 221 522 915 Springfield 102 189 311 409 754 1,242 118 250 452 472 998 1,807 Rest of Franklin
County 14 38 69 55 153 274 84 187 338 337 746 1,353 Rest of Hampshire County 77 88 258 309 352 1,030 168 452 839 670 1,806 3,356 Rest of Hampden County 53 87 131 210 349
523 177 416 712 709 1,662 2,487 TOTAL 380 676 1,252 1,517 2,703 4,998 765 1,804 3,236 3,057 7,204 12,579 Source: HDR Calculations.
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 24 Figure 6: Induced Employment and Population in the Enhanced Scenario: 2030 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 Employment Population Greenfield Northampton
Holyoke Springfield Source: HDR Calculations. Figure 7 below presents the most likely job results in 2015 and 2030 for the four station cities. Northampton and Springfield are expected
to experience the highest increase in employment, with a most likely estimate of more than 700 new jobs in each city attributable to Enhanced rail service by 2030. Figure 7: Induced
Employment Impact in the Enhanced Scenario: 2015 and 2030 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Greenfield Northampton Holyoke Springfield 2015 2030 Source: HDR Calculations
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 25 Table 9: Development Impacts of Enhanced Service as Percent of Baseline Numbers Employment Population 2030 2030 Greenfield 1.2% 1.3% Northampton 3.8%
4.3% Holyoke 1.2% 1.4% Springfield 1.1% 0.7% Rest of Franklin County 0.8% 1.1% Rest of Hampshire County 0.9% 1.3% Rest of Hampden County 0.3% 0.6% TOTAL 0.9% 1.0% Source: HDR Calculations.
While the “rest of county” areas appear to substantial growth, when compared to the percentage of the baseline values, as shown in Table 9, the impacts for the station cities in their
respective counties account for a larger percentage of the baseline than the “rest of county” areas do. On a percentage basis, the impacts for the Enhanced scenario are clearly the largest
for Northampton with just impacts at about 4% of future levels. Impacts in the other areas are all approximately at or below 1.0%. 5.5 Results for Commuter Service Scenario This section
presents the results for the Commuter rail service scenario. In terms of most likely development, Springfield is expected to have the largest population impacts, due to its location
and connections, attracting more than 2,000 new residents by 2030 with a range between 1,080 and 3,432 (Table 10 and Figure 8). Northampton and Holyoke are also expected to see fairly
large impacts with more than 1,400 and 1,000 new residents respectively. While the anticipated 600 new residents seems relatively low compared to the other cities, this is considerable
growth for Greenfield. The impacts for the region are nearly double over the Enhanced service level, with a range of 6,379 to 22,405 new residents by 2030. Table 10: Induced Employment
and Population Attributable to Commuter Service Employment Population 2015 2030 2015 2030 10% 50% 90% 10% 50% 90% 10% 50% 90% 10% 50% 90% Greenfield 34 80 137 137 321 548 68 159 270
270 634 1,080 Northampton 124 222 360 496 889 1,440 198 361 590 792 1,444 2,360 Holyoke 76 152 264 305 609 1,057 117 256 423 469 1,022 1,691 Springfield 207 378 612 827 1,510 2,447 270
502 858 1,080 2,006 3,432 Rest of Franklin County 46 99 160 182 396 640 252 451 677 1,009 1,802 2,709 Rest of Hampshire County 103 206 309 410 823 1,234 334 671 1,007 1,337 2,682 4,026
Rest of Hampden County 131 242 393 523 967 1,570 356 959 1,777 1,422 3,837 7,107 TOTAL 721 1,379 2,235 2,880 5,515 8,936 1,595 3,359 5,602 6,379 13,427 22,405 Source: HDR Calculations
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 26 Figure 8: Induced Employment and Population in the Commuter Scenario: 2030 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 Employment Population
Greenfield Northampton Holyoke Springfield Source: HDR Calculations. In addition to considering the development impacts on population, the introduction of Commuter rail service is expected
to generate additional employment opportunities. The overall employment impacts in 2015 and 2030 can be seen in Table 8 (above) and Figure 9. Springfield is expected to experience the
largest growth in employment, with a 2030 most likely estimate of 1,510 new jobs and a likely range between 827 and 2,447. This is approximately double the number of jobs generated in
Springfield by the Enhanced level of rail service. In Northampton, the additional employment generated by Commuter service is slightly higher than in the Enhanced scenario but not as
large as that in Springfield. As a whole, the region is estimated to see between 2,880 and 8,936 new jobs by 2030 due to a Commuter level of service, slightly less than double the Enhanced
results.
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 27 Figure 9: Induced Employment Given Commuter Service: 2015 and 2030 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 Greenfield Northampton Holyoke Springfield
2015 2030 Source: HDR Calculations Table 11 presents the employment and population results as a percentage of baseline growth. While impacts compared to the baseline are still the largest
in Northampton, the other station cities are all expected to experience additional benefit with the upgrade to Commuter level of service, with a regional average impact of about 2.0%.
Table 11: Development Impacts of Commuter Service as Percent of Baseline Employment Population 2030 2030 Greenfield 2.9% 3.5% Northampton 4.8% 5.0% Holyoke 2.9% 2.7% Springfield 2.1%
1.3% Rest of Franklin County 2.2% 2.7% Rest of Hampshire County 2.0% 2.0% Rest of Hampden County 0.9% 1.3% TOTAL 1.9% 1.9% Source: HDR Calculations. For ease of comparison, Figure 10
demonstrates a side-by side comparison of employment impacts in 2030 for the Enhanced and Commuter scenarios with the most likely results.
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 28 Figure 10: Induced Employment, Enhanced and Commuter Service: 2030 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 Greenfield Northampton Holyoke Springfield
Enhanced Commuter Source: HDR Calculations.
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 29 6 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The economic development results presented above were based on multiple sources of information (economic and land use data, prior
studies, stakeholder interviews, etc.) and a risk analysis modeling approach that: 1) explicitly accounted for uncertainty and risk factors; 2) incorporated refinements and review by
local stakeholders and experts; and 3) generated most likely results along with a confidence-interval based range of low to high impacts. These impacts were developed to serve two key
objectives: providing induced development growth as an input to ridership estimates; and identifying and measuring the near-and long-term local and regional job and population effects
of rail development initiatives. A summary of key findings includes: • Enhanced service will most likely have the greatest impact in Northampton due to the characteristics of the city,
while the other station cities are expected to incur greater development impacts from Commuter level service. • The development impacts in 2015 are likely to be significantly smaller
than those in 2030, due to the amount of time it generally takes for development to occur as well as the necessary time for the region to overcome its broader development and growth
obstacles to fully leverage the benefits of rail. • While the impacts may seem relatively large, when they are compared to the expected baseline employment and population in each of
the cities and “rest of county” areas, the impacts attributable to the rail service are actually relatively modest, not exceeding 5% of the total for any area in the commuter scenario,
and are less for the enhanced scenario. These economic estimates are consistent with the region’s broader set of development initiatives (with rail being one component of broader plans).
The induced job and population growth potential related to rail could help the region become more in line with growth in the rest of Massachusetts, and is consistent with the state’s
efforts to boost economic opportunities in Gateway Cities. • The economic risk modeling estimates that there is a 90% chance that the region as a whole can expect development impacts
in terms of employment and population of at least 1,500 jobs and 3,000 new residents by 2030 under Enhanced service and at least 2,800 jobs and 6,300 residents under Commuter service.
The improved rail service along the Knowledge Corridor is anticipated to provide employment and population impacts, the level of which will depend upon many factors, including the level
of service, the timeframe in which the service is restored, and the region’s ability to leverage rail improvements.
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 30 APPENDIX A: LIST OF STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS Economic development interviews were conducted with: o Franklin Regional Council of Governments – Maureen
Mullaney and Peggy Sloan o Northampton Economic Development – Teri Anderson o Holyoke Office of Planning and Development – Kathy Anderson o Economic Development Council of Western MA
– Mike Graney o HCC Kittredge Center – Jeff Hayes o Springfield Office of Planning and Development – David Panagore o Congressman Olver’s Office – Natalie Blais and Kristin Wood o Hayes
Development Services – Maureen Hayes o O’Connell Companies – Francesca Maltese o Affiliated Chamber of Commerce of Springfield – Russell Denver o University of Massachusetts – John Mullin
o University of Massachusetts Research Liaison and Development – Marla Michel
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 31 APPENDIX B: RAP SESSION PARTICIPANTS TAC Subcommittee Teri Anderson Northampton Economic Development Stan Slater Amtrak Natalie Blais Office of Congressman
John Olver Kristen Wood Office of Congressman John Olver Matt Mann Windham Regional Syd Culliford Pan Am Railway Maureen Mullaney FRCOG Wayne Feiden Feiden Associates Kathleen Anderson
City of Holyoke Office of Planning and Economic Development Project Team Max Talbot-Minkin Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc. Dan Hodge HDR, Inc. Peter Mazurek HDR, Inc. Dana Roscoe
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission Marissa Witkowski HDR, Inc. Ronald O’Blenis HDR, Inc. Charlie Miller Vermont Agency of Transportation Jeff McCullough Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Tim Brennan Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 32 APPENDIX C: RAP COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Several changes have been made to the Induced Economic Development and Ridership models for the Knowledge Corridor
Passenger Rail study based on discussion among the Technical Advisory Committee at a meeting on January 29, 2009 as well as additional feedback from TAC members. These changes are documented
below. • The general consensus among the subcommittee was that the baseline population growth rates o Greenfield’s low population was reduced from 1.5% to 0.8% and the high end was raised
from 2.4% to 3.0% should be extended to account for larger variability. Additional feedback from Teri Anderson of Northampton and Kathy Anderson of Holyoke led to additional changes
for those two towns. All of the changes are as follows: o The rest of Franklin County low population growth was lowered from 20.2% to 19.2% and the high end was raised from 30.4% to
31.4% o Based on feedback from Teri Anderson regarding further trends, all values for Northampton were changed. The low was reduced from 1.6% to -0.5%, the most likely was reduced from
3.8% to 1.8% and the high end was lowered from 4.6% to 2.4% o The rest of Hampshire County low estimate was reduced from 6.4% to 4.2% and the high was raised from 9.6% to 10.5% o Holyoke’s
most likely population has been raised from -4.8% to -4.0% and the high population growth has been raised from -3.8% to 0.0% based on the feedback of Kathy Anderson o Springfield’s low
population growth was lowered from 1.4% to 0.0% and the high was raised from 2.0% to 3.0% o The rest of Hampden County area was lowered from 4.7% to 3.0% and the high was raised from
7.3% to 9.0% • Based on the consensus of the TAC and additional feedback from Teri Anderson and Kathy Anderson about their respective cities of Northampton and Holyoke, the following
adjustments have been made to Baseline Employment Growth Rates o Greenfield: low reduced from 8.0% to 4.0% to reflect the increased range and possible development in Northampton, Holyoke
and and Springfield. Additionally, the raw data from the 2007 ES-202 were used as the base 2007 employment numbers rather than the calculation that previously generated that year’s employment
numbers. o Rest of Franklin County: low from 8.1% to 4.1% and high from 12.1% to 14.1% o Northampton: Most likely adjusted from -1.5% to 1.0%, low from -1.9% to -1.0% and high from 2.3%
to 4.0% o Rest of Hampshire County: low reduced from 1.1% to 0.0% and high raised from 1.7% to 3.0% o Holyoke: Most likely increased from -6.1% to -4.0% and high raised from -4.9% to
0.0% based on the potential projects provided by Kathy Anderson o Springfield: most likely increased from -9.9% to -7.0% based on feedback at the RAP session about economic opportunities.
The high was also raised from
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 33 -7.9% to 0.0% o Rest of Hampden County: Low reduced from 2.8% to 1.2% and high raised from 4.2% to 6.4% • Trip Making Cost Variables o Based on feedback
at the RAP session, high rail fare was increased from $0.29 to $0.30 o Also based on the discussion, the most likely average fuel price was increased from $2.50 to $3.00 and the high
fuel price was raised from $5.00 to $6.00. • o Average speed on rail has been divided into two assumptions, one for intercity/enhanced and one for commuter Trip Making Travel Time and
Speed Variables o Average speed on highways high reduced from 60 to 55 based on discussion of the areas away from I-91 having lower speed limits. • Jobs and Population per 1000 Square
Feet of Development o Retail: most likely raised from 1.33 to 1.7, high raised from 1.5 to 2.5 : based on feedback from Teri Anderson with assumptions used for a study in Northampton,
the following adjustments were made: o Office: most likely lowered from 3.84 to 2.8, low reduced from from 3.51 to 2.0 and high lowered from 4.02 to 3.5 • Building Square Footage to
Parcel Size Ratio o Retail: increased from 1.27 to 1.5 : based on recommendations from Teri Anderson and the Northampton planning director, the ranges have been increased on the high
end as follows: o Industrial increased from 0.92 to 1.1 o Office increased from 1.27 to 1.5 o Residential increased from 1.90 to 2.3 • Building Square Footage to Parcel Size Ratio as
Distance from Station Changes o Distance between 0.5 and 1 mile : based on discussion at the RAP session, ranges have been added for distances between 0.5 and 1 mile from the station
as well as areas greater than 1 mile. They are as follows: Retail: 0.70, 0.80, 1.10 Industrial: 0.40, 0.60, 0.80 Office: 0.70, 0.80, 1.10 Residential: 1.2, 1.4, 2.0 o Distance
Greater than 1 mile Retail: 0.60, 0.70, 1.0 Industrial: 0.40, 0.50, 0.70 Office: 0.60, 0.70, 1.00 Residential: 0.5, 0.7, 1.0 • Northampton Economic Development Risk Factors o
Enhanced: Reduced from 1.5%, 3.0% and 6.0% to 0.5%, 1.0% and 2.0% : Residential growth rates greater than 1 mile from the station were reduced for both enhanced and commuter scenarios
o Commuter: Reduced from 2.0%, 4.0% and 6.0% to 0.7%, 1.3% and 2.0% • Holyoke Economic Development Risk Factors: Residential growth rates greater than 1 mile from the station were reduced
for both enhanced and commuter service scenarios due to the reduced impact of the service at this distance
HDR|Decision Economics Page ● 34 o Enhanced: Reduced from 3.0%, 5.0%, 10.0% to 0.1%, 1.1%, 2.0% o Commuter: Reduced from 6.0%, 10.0%, 15.0% to 0.3%, 2.5%, 3.5% • Springfield Economic
Development Risk Factors o Employment: : Employment and population estimates have been adjusted Enhanced: • For businesses within 0.5 miles: from 2.0%, 4.0%, 5.6% to 4%, 9.5%, 17.0%
• For businesses between 0.5 and 1 mile: from 0.75%, 2.50% and 4.0% to 2.0%, 7.5%, and 14% • For businesses farther than 1 mile: from 0.05%, 0.25% and 0.4% up to 0.4%, 1.0%, and 1.2%
Commuter: • For businesses within 0.5 miles: from 3.0%, 7.0% and 10.0% to 5.0%, 17.0% and 25.0% • For businesses between 0.5 and 1 mile: from 2.0%, 4.0% and 6.0% to 3.0%, 11.0% and
22.0% • For businesses farther than 1 mile: from 0.5%, 1.0% and 2.5% to 1.5%, 3.0%, 5.0% o Population: Enhanced: • Residential within 0.5 miles: from 2.4%, 5.6% and 8.0% to 5.0%, 8.0%,
and 13.0% • Residential between 0.5 and 1 mile: from 1.2%, 4.0%, and 6.0% to 3.0%, 6.0% and 11.0% • Residential farther than 1 mile: from 0.2%, 0.8% and 2.4% to 1.5%, 3.0%, 6.0% Commuter:
• Residential within 0.5 miles: from 6.0%, 10.0% and 13.0% to 12.0%, 23.0% and 36.0% • Residential between 0.5 and 1 mile: from 4.0%, 8.0%, and 10.0% to 10.0%, 21.0% and 33.0% • Residential
farther than 1 mile: from 2.5%, 5.0% and 8.0% to 3.0%, 6.0% and 10.5%