Project History

In January 1987, Carnegie Mellon University established a High Speed Ground Transportation Center (HSGTC), funded by grants from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In completing a database and exploring different technologies, HSGTC recognized the potential of Maglev commercial systems. The following year, HSGTC initiated a working group of various entities with regional interests and ties to explore the concept of a high-speed ground transportation system in more detail. At the time, the working group included:

  • AEG Westinghouse Transportation Systems, Inc. (formerly Adtranz, now Bombardier)

  • Allegheny County

  • Michael Baker Corporation

  • Carnegie Mellon University

  • Duquesne Light Company

  • Reed Smith Shaw and McClay (Now Reed Smith LLP)

  • Tri-State Conference on Steel

  • Union Switch and Signal, Inc. (no longer a member of MAGLEV, Inc.)

  • United Steelworkers of America

  • Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh

  • USX Corporation

One of the first efforts of the working group was the completion of a preliminary feasibility study to determine the project's probability of success. Following the feasibility study, the working group incorporated into a consortium, MAGLEV, Inc. to pursue a demonstration project for the Pittsburgh Region. A Demonstration, Design, and Development (DD&D) Plan was released in May 1994. The DD&D Plan addressed manufacturing, building, and operating a regional Maglev system and the conceptual engineering and environmental aspects of a system demonstration project.

Through the mid-1990s the development of the technology evolved and political support for a high-speed Maglev system in the United States grew. Funding for a demonstration project was included in the TEA 21 legislation. As part of the funding initiative, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) sought applicants to participate in a demonstration project. MAGLEV, Inc. and the Pennsylvania High-Speed Maglev Project (which included the Port Authority of Allegheny County) were selected to compete with seven other cities to pursue the Maglev Demonstration Project for the Pittsburgh Region.

To support the effort for a Maglev Demonstration Project for the Pittsburgh region, the Pennsylvania High-Speed Maglev Project completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) in February 2000. Based on secondary source data, this EA identified preliminary alternatives for a Maglev system and the potential environmental consequences which could result from construction of such a system.

In April 2001, the FRA completed a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the Maglev Deployment Program. The purpose of any PEIS is to identify various alternative approaches for broad Federal actions that can meet overall program goals while identifying the environmental impacts associated with those alternatives. The specific purpose of the FRA's Maglev PEIS was not only to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), but also to demonstrate Maglev technology. It was the FRA's goal that the PEIS prepared for the Deployment Program would demonstrate the suitability of this alternative transportation technology by identifying a viable Maglev project in the United States and assisting with the proposed public/private partnerships needed to plan, finance, construct, and operate such a Maglev system. The technical basis for the PEIS was the information provided in the EA for the Pennsylvania High-Speed Maglev Project and the sister studies completed by the other six cities pursuing the Maglev Demonstration Project.

In July 2001, the FRA issued a Record of Decision which advanced the Pennsylvania High-Speed Maglev Project and the Baltimore-Washington High Speed Maglev Project into the site-specific Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) phase of the Deployment Program. The basis for the alternative alignments being studied as part of the site-specific EIS evolved from three sources, including the DD&D Plan completed in 1994, the EA completed in the year 2000 for the Pennsylvania High-Speed Maglev Project, and the PEIS completed in April 2001 for the Deployment Program.

The proposed alternative alignments for the Maglev system generally follow existing or proposed transportation corridors in the region as determined by the operating geometries of the maglev system. Each proposed alignment would connect the Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) in Allegheny County to the Greensburg area in Westmoreland County via Downtown Pittsburgh and Monroeville. The route would traverse a transportation corridor of approximately 75 kilometers (47 miles). Passengers would access the Maglev system at four locations known as MAGport™ Stations at, or near, Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT), Downtown Pittsburgh, Monroeville and Greengate Mall.

The proposed travel corridors between Pittsburgh International Airport and Downtown Pittsburgh were originally developed by MAGLEV, Inc., in collaboration with various local transportation and planning agencies for the DD&D Plan. The downtown to Monroeville and Monroeville to Greensburg corridors were proposed in the subsequent EA. These alternative alignments were developed in collaboration with local transportation and planning agencies, local government and based on public input during the EA public involvement process. The alternative alignments were completed to capitalize on system operational requirements and appear to be the most feasible and logical transportation corridors in these segments.

The Alternative Alignments were further refined as part of the site-specific EIS (i.e. this DEIS) in an effort to provide a full range of reasonable alternatives. Guidance prepared by the Council on Environmental Quality defines reasonable alternatives as "those that are practical or feasible" from a technical and economic standpoint (Questions and Answers about the NEPA Process, CEQ, March 16, 1981). In order to assure that a broad range of alternatives was examined for the proposed project, a reasonable alternative was further defined as any transportation improvement, or series of improvements, that could meet the project's purpose and need without creating serious adverse environmental impacts. The preliminary range of alternatives included both a No-Build Alternative and a series of build alternatives for a Maglev system.

Each preliminary alternative was initially examined to determine whether or not it could meet the project needs. Next, if an alternative was judged potentially capable of meeting the needs, an attempt was made to determine how well those needs could be met with that particular alternative. The process for determining an alternative's potential ability to meet the project needs was based on both objective and subjective criteria. The range of alternatives was established early in the planning process to guarantee that the same level of environmental analysis was conducted at each stage of the project. Although the level of analytical effort increased as the necessary studies advanced through the environmental process, and potential alternatives were either dismissed from further consideration or carried forward for more study, the level of technical effort remained constant during each individual stage of the analysis. This assured that comparisons of all alternatives still under consideration at any particular stage were consistently compared at the same magnitude, even though that magnitude increased as the project progressed.

The principal emphasis at the beginning point was to determine the practicality of the alternative under investigation without regard to environmental impact. Consequently, engineering considerations and the potential constructability of an alternative became critical factors during the early stages of the evaluation process. Specifically, there was a heavy demand to have each alternative meet the operational speed criteria established by TEA 21. If an alternative was shown to be a reasonable solution, it was then evaluated against each of the individual project needs, including the speed criteria, once again. When an alternative was determined to be capable of meeting all of the individual needs, it was advanced for further evaluation of its potential environmental impact.

Subsequently, more detailed engineering studies and environmental assessments were applied to those alternatives that were determined able to meet the project needs and found to be environmentally acceptable. Several factors were considered during the detailed studies, including further consideration of an alternative's ability to meet the project needs; engineering design; impacts to all environmental features; socioeconomic impacts; and, comments received from public officials, the general public and the resources agencies.

In August 2005, the United States Congress enacted the Safe Accountable Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Section 1307 of SAFETEA-LU, Deployment of Magnetic Levitation Transportation Projects provides for the allocation of 50 percent of the funds to be made available ($90 million) for a maglev project between Las Vegas and Primm, Nevada, and 50 percent for a project to be located east of the Mississippi River. Project eligibility to receive financial assistance shall – (1) involve a segment or segments of a high-speed ground transportation corridor; (2) result in an operating transportation facility that provides a revenue producing service; and (3) be approved by the Secretary based on an application submitted to the Secretary by a State or authority designated by one or more states.

In October 2005, the Federal Railroad Administration authorized the publication of the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project (PA Project) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for public review and comment through December 7, 2005.