2020 HYPERLOOP

FEASIBILITY STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................1

1.0 OVERVIEW...................................................................................................2

2.0 HYPERLOOP TECHNOLOGY ROUTE NEEDS...................................... 4

2.1 Right-of-Way Requirements
2.2 Route Planning Goals

3.0 CORRIDOR ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES........................................... 5

3.1 Route Alternatives – Evaluation Criteria
3.2 Route Alternative 1 – Existing Rail Corridors
3.3 Route Alternative 2 – Hyperloop Technology Feasibility
4.0 ECONOMIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS.................................................... 8
4.1 Ridership Volumes by Travel Mode
4.2 Travel Time Savings – Hyperloop and Conventional Modes
4.3 Quantifying Hyperloop Benefits for Road Freight

5.0 ECONOMIC OUTCOMES.........................................................................11

5.1 Travel Time Savings
5.2 Vehicles Miles Traveled Avoided
5.3 Safety Outcomes
5.4 Operational Cost Savings
5.5 Safety
5.6 Environmental Sustainability
5.6 State of Good Repair
5.7 Freight Benefits

6.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK........................................................... 14

6.1 Planning and Environmental Process
6.2 Safety Regulation Processes

7.0 NEXT STEPS..................................................................................... 16

 HYPERLOOP FEASIBILITY STUDY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this study was to determine if a Chicago-Columbus-Pittsburgh corridor is feasible for hyperloop technology at
optimal average speeds of 500 miles per hour. This included considerations for route alignments that needed to have limited
curves since the technology needs straight alignments to achieve the desired speeds.

AECOM was the consultant that led the technical work of this study. The first task was to analyze the existing rail corridor
between the three anchor cities to determine if a hyperloop route could be constructed within existing rail corridors. Hyperloop
technology experts worked with the study team to determine that, while some portions of the route could be built within existing
rail corridors, the route would also need new right-of-way in order to achieve optimal speeds.

Once technical feasibility was confirmed, the study team completed preliminary screenings of the best route and station locations.
For route screening, the study looked at environmental constraints, engineering complexity, and right-of-way ownership. For
station location screening, the study focused on local preference from community officials, population centers, and adjacent land
uses. Potential stations in Ohio were identified in Lima, Marysville, Dublin and Columbus. This does not mean other stations
are not feasible – rather, that for this initial study, station locations were limited to those communities which have been working
and funding projects under MORPC’s Rapid Speed Transportation Initiative.

The study also focused on demonstrating the freight benefits and economic impacts of a hyperloop corridor between Chicago,
Columbus and Pittsburgh. These were the findings:
• There is currently no passenger rail service connecting the Fort Wayne-Lima-Columbus-Pittsburgh market. Columbus is
currently the second largest metro area in the United States with no passenger rail service.
• Strong ridership market: The study analyzed current (year 2015) and forecasted (year 2040) population and employment
for the cities of Chicago, Fort Wayne, Lima, Columbus and Pittsburgh only. Fort Wayne and Pittsburgh are expected to grow
in population by at least 10 percent between 2015 and 2040, with Chicago and Columbus seeing the highest increase of
over 20 percent population growth. All five cities are expected to grow in employment, with at least 12 percent employment
growth in Lima and Pittsburgh, and over 15 percent employment growth in Chicago, Fort Wayne and Columbus.
• The study found that, over 30 years, a hyperloop route would result in the following:
– 1.9 billion autos shifted to hyperloop passengers
– 2.4 million tons of reduced CO2 emissions (over $126 million in emissions savings)
– 450 million commercial truck vehicle hours traveled will be eliminated
– $300 billion in overall economic benefits (nearly $19 billion of that in direct transportation benefits)
Lastly, the study identified next steps of: collaborating with stakeholders to advance a certification corridor segment for Virgin
Hyperloop One technology in Central Ohio; creating a travel and economic demand advisory panel to improve and further
refine the high-level analyses developed under the feasibility study; and working with state and federal transportation officials to
advance a regulatory framework for hyperloop technology.
1
 HYPERLOOP FEASIBILITY STUDY

1.0 OVERVIEW:
RAPID SPEED TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVE (RSTI)
In 2018, the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) launched the Rapid Speed Transportation Initiative (RSTI).
This initiative seeks to find better, faster connections between Columbus and the cities of Chicago and Pittsburgh. The RSTI
considers two modes-passenger rail and hyperloop-for potential intercity services.

The first phase of the RSTI involved the completion

of two studies. One study, relevant to hyperloop WHAT IS HYPERLOOP?
and passenger rail, evaluates initial elements of • An automated, ultra-high-speed transportation mode for
a Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a passengers and lightweight, palleted freight
federal environmental approval process required
for all federally funded infrastructure projects per • Operates in a low-pressure tube environment, on a fixed-
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). guideway
This NEPA evaluation is guided by a document
known as the Purpose and Need Statement, which • Operates in long-distance corridors between major
identifies why the federal agencies are responding metropolitan areas at cruising speeds in excess of 500
to the project being proposed and provides the MPH
foundations of a defensible NEPA analysis process.
• Provides point-to-point service between major metropolitan
The first study resulted in separate draft Purpose areas, international airports and transportation centers
& Need Statements for the hyperloop and
• Different from other mass transportation – designed for
passenger rail projects.The second study, the
Midwest Connect Hyperloop Feasibility Study, is individual origin-destination travel. A main hyperloop
summarized in this report. This feasibility study tube (or express line) is accessed by portal connector
also informed the draft Purpose & Need Statement lines, similar to how highway access ramps connect local
for the hyperloop project. communities to the main highway system.
• Designed to be integrated with other modes of
transportation to enhance the existing multimodal freight
and passenger transportation system.

2
 HYPERLOOP FEASIBILITY STUDY

HOW DOES HYPERLOOP WORK?

Hyperloop involves magnetic levitation (or Maglev)
conveyance and propulsion vehicles in a tube/conduit
guideway that allows for a semi-vacuum travel-way
environment to reduce air resistance. It is not vacuum
propelled, such as bank teller transport tubes. The
tube is typically configured as an elevated structure,
although it can also be configured near ground level, in
an open cut or in an underground tunnel configuration.
The tube needs to be grade-separated or barrier
protected from other transportation modes.

The Midwest Connect Hyperloop Feasibility Study identifies and evaluates potential hyperloop routes for goods movement and
passenger transport between Chicago, Columbus and Pittsburgh. This study included collaboration with hyperloop technology
experts and includes the use of proprietary hyperloop technology information that has influenced route alignments and right-of-
way requirements based on the technology needs.

WHY CHICAGO, COLUMBUS, PITTSBURGH?

The RSTI evolved from the Chicago-Fort-Wayne-Columbus passenger rail project. As such, communities between Columbus
and Chicago spearheaded the creation of the RSTI and were all included as route criterias. Future phases will prioritize
engaging communities between Columbus and Pittsburgh. While hyperloop portals between Columbus and Pittsburgh
were not considered in this study, it should not be interpreted that portals in these communities are not feasible.

The first task in this feasibility study was to understand the technology needs for the right-of-way so the consultant team,
AECOM, could determine if the existing rail corridor was feasible for an optimal speed hyperloop route of 500 miles-per-hour
or more. If the rail corridor was found to be unsuitable, the consultant team was tasked with finding a feasible hyperloop route
that can sustain the desired optimal hyperloop speeds. The feasibility study also includes travel demand and economic analysis
of the feasible route. Finally, this study reviews conditions under which an intercity hyperloop service could be implemented.
Figure 1 shows the largest cities with proposed hyperloop stations (portals). When Chicago O’Hare and downtown Pittsburgh
are included, the corridor extends roughly 525 miles across five states.

WHAT IS A HYPERLOOP PORTAL? WHAT IS A HYPERLOOP POD?

Hyperloop portals are passenger/freight access points with Hyperloop pods are on-demand vehicles that move
station-like features. Portals allow hyperloop passengers to and from passenger portals or freight intermodal
and cargo shippers to have the advantage of direct travel to facilities with freight portals that link to a mainline via
individual destinations, instead of stopping at each community branches. These branches are sometimes referred to
along the corridor, the way air and rail travelers do. as on/off ramps.

3
 HYPERLOOP FEASIBILITY STUDY

Figure 1: Major Markets in the RSTI Hyperloop Feasibility Study Corridor

2.0 HYPERLOOP TECHNOLOGY ROUTE NEEDS

Hyperloop technology is designed for mainline speeds comparable to commercial airliners. Therefore the technology necessitates
specific route conditions to operate at optimal speeds. In ideal conditions where the horizontal and vertical curvature of the
corridor does not constrain vehicle speed, vehicles glide at high cruising speeds for long distances due to ultra-low aerodynamic
drag. With both friction and air resistance greatly reduced, the vehicles are projected to travel up to 670 mph (1,080 km/h). While
the mainline is designed to maintain optimal speeds, the local access branch lines are designed for travel at slower speeds and
offer more flexibility for vertical and horizontal curvature. Given these technology and system characteristics, the sections below
describe how route alternatives were analyzed relative to hyperloop technology needs.

2.1 RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENTS

The hyperloop guideway will be configured so that the exterior of the tube is
accessible for routine maintenance with the exception of tunneled segments,
where maintenance access is typically provided by vertical shafts that descend
to the tunnel. The following primary right-of-way types are anticipated in the
Midwest Connect corridor:
• Highway Alignment, either in a median or edge configuration. The guideway
is preferred to be configured near ground level on short leveling structures.
Roadway barriers would protect hyperloop structures from highway traffic.
• Railroad Alignment, parallel to or configured above active railroad. Project
partners will need to reach agreements with rail right-of-way owners and
operating railroads in order to share right-of-way.
• Greenfield Alignment, along acquired right-of-way between urbanized
areas.
• Tunnel Alignment, which may be required to navigate through hills or under
urbanized communities.

All right-of-way design will require safety and technical considerations, which
will involve input from technical experts for any alignment that shares a right-
of-way with another mode (such as highways or railroads).

4
 HYPERLOOP FEASIBILITY STUDY

2.2 ROUTE PLANNING GOALS

To assist in the selection of route alternatives, the study team identified the overarching goals for the route planning. These goals
include the following:
• Connect the communities previously engaged in the Chicago-Fort Wayne-Lima-Marysville-Columbus passenger rail project,
and extend the terminus to Pittsburgh;
• Connect potential portals (stations or freight access points) using a straight-line path to the extent possible;
• Provide a mainline designed for average speeds of 500 MPH, and provide point-to-point service along the entire corridor,
with local access branches or “ramps” required to access portals;
• Maximize opportunities for fast travel times and system efficiencies by minimizing elevation changes and alignment curves,
particularly along the mainline;
• Minimize impact on neighborhoods and businesses;
• Minimize impact to potential environmentally sensitive areas;
• Choose alignments that will minimize infrastructure costs, including minimizing the need for tunneling and complex
construction methods. Elevated and near at-grade guideway configurations are generally preferred;
• Identify opportunities for using existing public rights-of-way.

The route planning goals above informed discussions as the study team and hyperloop technology experts assessed possible
corridor alignments. Section 3 below details how these goals were incorporated into the corridor alternatives analysis.

3.0 CORRIDOR ALIGNMENT

ALTERNATIVES
The initial alternatives identification followed specific requirements of the scope of work, including
the directive to analyze two potential route alternatives for the entire proposed corridor and to
include system access in the following cities: Chicago, Fort Wayne, Lima, Marysville, Columbus
and Pittsburgh. One of the key objectives of this study was to determine if the existing rail
corridors between the Midwest Connect communities are feasible for a hyperloop route. The
railroad corridors analyzed are shown in Figure 2.

Other right-of-way opportunities explored for the alignment alternatives include highway corridors,
abandoned railroad alignments, utility rights-of-way, and greenfield alignments. Straight-line
alignments through urbanized areas were assumed to require tunneling.

3.1 ROUTE ALTERNATIVES – EVALUATION CRITERIA

As background to the route planning, descriptive information provided by a prominent hyperloop technology company on
engineering and operational characteristics and performance levels was needed to ensure that system design criteria were
met in the route analysis. An iterative process with hyperloop engineering experts included the use of proprietary design tools
to model operations along a small set of identified alternatives. The evaluation criteria used to reduce the large set of initial
alternatives included:
• Geographic Alignment: Is the alignment compatible with the mainline hyperloop requirement of gentle horizontal and
vertical variation in order to provide premium passenger comfort at very fast travel speeds? Is the alignment reasonably
accessible to the partner cities, major transportation and/or logistics centers, and preferred portal locations?
• Comparative Cost: Capital cost estimates are not prepared for each of the initial alternatives. Engineering complexity will
make the cost of an alternative relatively high compared to less complex alignments.
• Engineering Complexity: Is it likely the alignment can fit with relative predictability within a host/public right-of-way (such
as in a highway median area or within railroad right-of-way), or is a complex mix of engineering features such as tunnel
segments, high bridges or water crossings required?
• Public Right-of-Way: Does the alignment generally follow public right-of-way, or would property acquisition, railroad
agreements or similar be required?
• Environmental Constraints: Potentially impacted environmental resources would include not just communities, parklands,
natural features, endangered species and historic resources, but also transportation facilities (public and private) and other
vulnerable resources. The environmental review for this study is very high-level. A thorough identification of environmental
resources will be required along the preferred general alignment and will lead to refinements to that alignment. That level
of detail is documented in a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or other necessary National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) Class of Action for the for the environmental review of the corridor. Further conceptual engineering of a
hyperloop alignment will be required before the corridor is ready for NEPA environmental review.
5
 HYPERLOOP FEASIBILITY STUDY
The sections below describe how the preferred route was developed – starting with an analysis of the existing rail corridor (Route
Alternative 1) and ending with Route Alternative 2, which allows for hyperloop optimal average speeds of 500 miles per hour.

3.2 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 1 – EXISTING RAIL CORRIDORS

For Route Alternative 1, existing rail corridors were analyzed to determine if optimal hyperloop speeds were possible (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Route Alternative 1 - Alignment Within Existing Rail Corridors

The study team found that the rail corridor in its entirety is not feasible for optimal hyperloop speeds. However, portions of the
rail corridor, in combination with road rights-of-way, tunneling and some greenfield alignment, would allow for optimal speeds of
500 MPH or more.

Having concluded that a hyperloop corridor within the existing rail right-of-way was not feasible for the technology to achieve
optimal speeds, the study team determined which portions of the rail corridor were suitable for hyperloop and analyzed other
potential alignments as described in the next section.

3.3 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 2 –

HYPERLOOP TECHNOLOGY FEASIBILITY
For Route Alternative 2, the study team used an iterative alignment evaluation review
with the assigned engineering lead from a prominent hyperloop technology company.
Project team members agreed Alternative 1 alignments provided an appropriate basic
framework for a preferred mainline alignment, though further revision was required,
including:
• Identification of both mainline segments and portal access ramps;
• Right-of-way acquisition or tunneling to reduce curvature at strategic locations,
particularly for the mainline alignment;
• Emphasis on greenfield straight-line alignment options for the entire corridor
between Fort Wayne and Marysville, with the least complex alignment passing
Lima just south of the city limits;
• Mainline tunneling through Columbus, roughly between I-270 in the west
outerbelt and Alum Creek. Such an alignment is not required until a full network
is completed between Chicago and Pittsburgh and market for trips through
Columbus established; and
• A straight-line greenfield alignment between the Panhandle Line near the
Muskingum River (village of Adams Mills, Ohio) and Pittsburgh International
Airport.

6
 HYPERLOOP FEASIBILITY STUDY
Figure 3 shows the preferred hyperloop alignment and highlights the hyperloop corridor portions that are rail rights-of-way.

Figure 3: Route Alternative 2 - Feasible Corridor for Hyperloop Optimal Speeds

Figure 4 is a corridor-wide representation of the preferred alignment, and presents one of the key findings in the study: The
hyperloop route is not feasible to be built entirely on existing rail corridors for optimal hyperloop speeds of 500+ MPH. The
mainline alignment proposed in this study is a combination of existing rail and road/highway corridors, as well as some tunneling
and greenfield portions for which right-of-way will need to be acquired.

Figure 4: Recommended Feasibility Study Alignment

Based on hyperloop technology alignment modeling, the recommended alignment is expected to have the following performance
characteristics:
• Point-to-point, on-demand service between portals, with no intermediate stops;
• Chicago O’Hare to Pittsburgh mainline express travel time of roughly one hour;
• Average mainline cruising speeds throughout the corridor slightly higher than 500 MPH;
• Downtown Columbus to the John Glenn Columbus International Airport vicinity in roughly two minutes;
• Travel times between Columbus portals and other metro area destinations:
– Chicago (downtown or O’Hare) in less than 45 minutes
– Pittsburgh in less than 30 minutes
7
 HYPERLOOP FEASIBILITY STUDY

4.0 ECONOMIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS

This section summarizes how economic benefits were quantified for this study. This analysis was conducted in accordance with
the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT’s) 2019 Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) Guidance for a 38 year assessment period
beginning with capital outlays in 2022 through to 2029 and 30 years of operations from 2030 to 2059. In terms of transportation
benefits as calculated under DOT BCA methodology, the development and operation of the Midwest Connect Hyperloop project
is estimated to generate approximately $19.1 billion in current-year dollars at a 3% discount rate, and $300 billion in wider
economic benefits, as calculated outside of traditional BCA limitations.

As with all surface transportation projects, this study analyzed ridership volumes and travel behavior as the basis of this
economic analysis. Travel choice changes in user behavior are largely related to mode shift to hyperloop from traditional modes
of transportation (auto, commercial truck, air, passenger rail). These in turn generate traditional user benefits that are monetarily
quantified using formulas as determined by DOT, including:
• Travel time savings
• Operating cost reductions
• Accident/injuries/fatalities reduction
• Emissions reduction
• Residual value of the infrastructure

4.1 RIDERSHIP VOLUMES BY TRAVEL MODE

Ridership volumes were estimated for each origin and destination pair (“metro pair’) within the proposed alignment for a 2015
base year and for the year 2040. Estimates were developed for both a no-build scenario (“baseline scenario”) and a build
scenario. The ridership projections for the hyperloop scenario include induced demand, which is estimated to greatly increase
ridership given the affordability of hyperloop and the travel time, which would induce travelers to switch to hyperloop and take
more frequent trips.

An overview of the ridership estimates for the Midwest Connect corridor by mode of travel is shown in Figure 5. Data tables for
this figure can be found in Appendix A.

Figure 5: Ridership by Mode

Ridership by Mode
2,500,000

2,000,000
Total Ridership

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0
2015 2040 (without Hyperloop) 2040 (with Hyperloop)

Existing Rail Air Auto & Truck Hyperloop

Ridership volumes for the 2040 base and build scenarios were used to quantify how much auto traffic would be diverted to
hyperloop. This helped the study team determine safety, operations, state of good repair (i.e. costs savings associated with less
vehicles on existing road systems), and emissions reductions. These variables were quantified using DOT standard formulas to
translate these benefits into an economic (dollar) unit.
8
 HYPERLOOP FEASIBILITY STUDY

4.2 TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS – HYPERLOOP AND CONVENTIONAL MODES

Travel time savings associated with the use of hyperloop in place of other conventional modes of transportation were estimated
utilizing a variety of sources. Travel times using hyperloop were estimated by AECOM’s travel demand team in concert with
inputs from hyperloop experts, and they are shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Travel Time by Mode*

* Air mode includes security and gate clearance time. Hyperloop mode only includes main trunk line time travel. Security time
and pod boarding/offloading time is not included in this comparison.

Table 1: Travel Time Savings: Hyperloop vs. Conventional Modes

METRO PAIR HYPERLOOP TRAVEL TIME TRAVEL TIME TRAVEL TIME

LINE HAUL: SAVINGS: AUTO SAVINGS: RAIL SAVINGS:
TRAVEL TIME AND TRUCK (MINUTES) AIR (MINUTES)
(MINUTES) (MINUTES)

Entire Corridor 61 406 520 149

Chicago-Fort Wayne 22 127 158

Chicago-Columbus 38 292 157

Chicago-Pittsburgh 56 369 525 154

Fort Wayne- 19 128

Columbus

Fort Wayne- 37 258

Pittsburgh

Columbus- 20 151
Pittsburgh

*Average of the bi-directional travel times between Chicago and Pittsburgh

Source: AECOM, Amtrak, American Airlines, United Airlines
9
 HYPERLOOP FEASIBILITY STUDY

4.3 QUANTIFYING HYPERLOOP BENEFITS FOR

ROAD FREIGHT
The type of freight that will be moved through hyperloop is expected to be high-
value, time-sensitive goods that would traditionally be moved by air or truck.
For the Midwest Connect corridor, only road freight was considered. Freight
Analysis Framework (FAF) data from the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) was used to identify current and forecast road freight movements
between the four anchor metro pairs of Chicago, Fort Wayne, Columbus
and Pittsburgh. The study team used the estimated growth rate between the
2015 and 2045 FAF volumes to extrapolate out the freight estimates to 2060
to allow for an examination of the freight movements during the first 30 years
of operation of the proposed hyperloop-type system.

The blue line in Figure 7 shows the gross tonnage of the time sensitive
freight moved by road along the proposed alignment in a scenario with no
hyperloop corridor to provide a “no build” comparison. To estimate the total
weight of time-sensitive freight that could be moved throughout the corridor
in a scenario in which hyperloop is built, the study team incorporated the
rate at which these goods would be diverted to hyperloop from commercial
truck, and estimated the number of truck trips that would be diverted each
year from road freight to the Midwest Connect Hyperloop system, including
additional time-sensitive freight movements that may be induced as a result
of more construction of a hyperloop freight service. The orange line in Figure
7 represents the road freight that would be diverted to hyperloop, including
induced demand, which accounts for a drastic increase in freight being
moved across the corridor.

Figure 7: Truck Trips - No-Build Scenario vs. Hyperloop Scenario

Hyperloop significantly increases freight capacity in region

90,000
Thousands of Tons of Freight Transported

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0
2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2059
Year

Freight Capacity (without Hyperloop) Freight Capacity (with Hyperloop)

10
 HYPERLOOP FEASIBILITY STUDY

5.0 ECONOMIC OUTCOMES

5.1 TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS
Travel time savings estimations were derived from forecasts from the ridership modelling and from travel times for traditional modes
of transportation as discussed in the previous section. Over the first 30 years of operations, approximately, the implementation
of the Midwest Connect Hyperloop is expected to generate approximately 240 million hours of travel time savings across modes
of transportation, including commercial road freight. The travel time savings were then converted to a dollar amount based on
DOT’s Value of Time guidelines. Table 2 summarizes the travel time savings analysis for this project.

Table 2: Economic Competitiveness Benefits Summary (2024-2043)

SOURCE OF SAVINGS ESTIMATED SAVINGS

(MILLIONS)
Travel Time Savings (Auto) $1,461.4M

Travel Time Savings (Commercial Trucks) $96.6M

Travel Time Savings (Air) $1,291.3M

Travel Time Savings (Train) $219.9M

Travel Time Savings (Induced) $1,659.8M

Operating Costs Savings (Auto) $354.2M

Operating Costs Savings (Induced) $628.9M

Operating Costs Savings (Commercial Trucks) $150.4M

Source: AECOM

11
 HYPERLOOP FEASIBILITY STUDY

5.2 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED AVOIDED

User travel time savings are generated by the avoidance of vehicle hours traveled, while some of the user operating costs
savings and emissions savings are generated by the avoidance of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). In relation to road travel,
the proposed Midwest Connect Hyperloop alignment between any given metro pair is significantly shorter than the distance
using established highway and interstate routes, resulting in a reduction of VMT travelled when mode shifting to hyperloop. Air
emissions avoided are calculated on passenger air miles avoided. VMT avoided during the assessment period due to mode shift
to hyperloop, as well as induced travel, were factored into this analysis.

5.3 SAFETY OUTCOMES

Safety outcomes comprise the reduction in the incidence of road
crashes, injuries and fatalities within the assessment corridor due to
the implementation of the Midwest Connect Hyperloop project and
the associated mode shift away from automobile and commercial
truck travel. No safety benefits were calculated related to mode shift
to hyperloop from air travel or passenger rail. In this early stage of
the project, the hyperloop safety outcomes assume no incidents via
hyperloop travel. Under this assumption, the avoidance of crashes
associated with the first 30 years of operation of the proposed
Midwest Connect Hyperloop project were factored into this study.

5.4 OPERATING COST SAVINGS

Operating Cost Savings – Automobiles
Operating costs savings for automobiles was calculated by multiplying the total Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) avoided through
both mode shift and induced demand and the operating cost savings per mile, as identified in Section 2. Operating cost savings
for automobile users within the assessment corridor total $983 million at a 3% discount over the assessment period.

Operating Costs Savings – Commercial Trucks

Operating costs savings for commercial trucks was calculated by multiplying the total Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) avoided
by commercial trucks with the average truck operating costs per hour (as per the Department of Transportation Benefit-Cost
Analysis methodology). Operating costs for commercial trucks within the assessment corridor total $150 million at a 3% discount
over the assessment period.

5.5 SAFETY
The safety benefit represents the monetization of the reduction of crashes, injuries, and fatalities along the assessment corridor
roadways as a result of the implementation of the Midwest Connect Hyperloop project and the reduction in VMT associated with
mode shift from automobiles and commercial trucks. The net present value of the safety benefits generated by the build scenario
is approximately $845M at a 3% discount rate.

5.6 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

The emissions reductions generated by the implementation of the Midwest Connect hyperloop project was quantified through
evaluation of reduced vehicle miles traveled and reduced operating hours of automobiles, commercial trucks, airplanes,
and passenger rail. Apart from VMT emissions, these were then monetized against the National Highway Traffic and Safety
Administration’s (NHTSA) CAFÉ standards for Model Years (MY) 2021-MY2026 and adjusted to 2019 dollars. CO2 emissions
were monetized following current international pricing of the social cost of carbon at a rate of $40 per ton, which is a divergence
from current DOT guidelines. The total benefit of environmental sustainability benefits associated with the implementation of
the Midwest Connect Hyperloop project was estimated at approximately $127M at a 3% discount rate across the assessment
period.

12
 HYPERLOOP FEASIBILITY STUDY

Table 3: Environmental Sustainability Benefits – Midwest Connect Hyperloop Project (2030-2059)

ESTIMATED SAVINGS
SOURCE OF SAVINGS
(MILLIONS)
Mode Shift Emissions Savings (Auto to HL)
$113.9M

Mode Shift Emissions Savings (Air to HL)

$0.3M

Mode Shift Emissions Savings (Train to HL)

$7.8M

Mode Shift Emissions Savings (Comm Truck to HL)

$4.6M

Source: AECOM

5.6 STATE OF GOOD REPAIR

The state of good repair benefits comprise the residual value of the infrastructure of the Midwest Connect Hyperloop project
after the end of the 30-year assessment period. This benefit, by far the largest of all benefit categories assessed, is estimated
at $11.1 billion at a 3% discount rate.

5.7 FREIGHT BENEFITS Table 4: Freight Benefits –

In the larger economic analysis of this study, it is assumed that Midwest Connect Hyperloop (2030-2059)
portions of both air freight (belly cargo) and commercial truck freight
(road freight) across specific industries would shift to hyperloop
FREIGHT BENEFITS: ESTIMATED
for shipment throughout the region. Only freight that has been SAVINGS
classified as time sensitive is assumed to have the potential to shift COMMERCIAL TRUCKS
(MILLIONS)
to hyperloop. For this reason, freight moved by traditional rail is
not considered as shifting to hyperloop. Time-sensitive freight was Travel Time Savings $96.6M
defined as being composed of the following industry categories:
Operating Cost Savings $150.4M
• Precision instruments
• Electronics Safety Savings from $84.6M
• Meat/seafood VMT Avoidance
• Live animals
Emissions Savings from $4.6M
• Pharmaceuticals Mode Shift to Hyperloop
• Textiles
Total Freight Benefits $336.2M

Sources: AECOM, WSP, DOT, FHWA, EPA

The benefits-costs analysis only quantifies and derives benefits from road freight that would shift modes to hyperloop. Air freight
is not assessed in the benefits-costs is used in the rest of the report analysis because much of the intraregional air freight is
belly cargo within passenger planes, and the mode shift of this freight would not necessarily entail the avoidance of flights that
would otherwise carry this freight.

Freight benefits assessed in this analysis total approximately $336 million over the 30-year assessment period. A summary of
these freight benefits is shown in Table 4.

13
 HYPERLOOP FEASIBILITY STUDY

6.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

The Midwest Connect Hyperloop project is among the first hyperloop projects in the world,
and will entail complex processes similar to those of any other large-scale transport project
constructed in the United States. It is important to note that certain milestones must be met
before a system can be developed, such as certification of the technology itself, as well as
system development regulations. For the purposes of proving feasibility, this study assumes
the corridor is developed and service is in place by 2030, but the actual construction year of
the Midwest Connect Hyperloop corridor is subject to milestones that have not been met at
the conclusion of this study.

This section discusses key regulatory and approval decision-making processes that are likely
to be encountered as the project moves forward. As Midwest Connect Hyperloop advances
from planning, through more detailed development, on to procurement and eventually
into its implementation phase (final design, construction, commissioning and testing, and
operations), the advancement of the project through these phases is dependent on a number
of key elements.

In order to advance as a commercially viable transportation alternative, hyperloop will require

further development, demonstration, testing and certification. Given Central Ohio’s interest
in participating in this ultimate certification process, Figure 8 shows generalized hyperloop
project delivery steps.

Figure 8: Hyperloop Project Delivery Steps

Source: AECOM, 2019

14
 HYPERLOOP FEASIBILITY STUDY

6.1 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS

Planning and environmental processes are fundamental in defining the overall feasibility, extent of environmental impact,
and clearances necessary to advance a project. The first step in project development is typically a feasibility study for the
specific technology, which identifies the parameters through which it would operate (physical location, operating characteristics,
regulatory oversight, applicable policies, finance structure and other conditions). Following the initial feasibility study phase,
additional planning studies may be initiated, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activities may be launched if the
project has a federal nexus (i.e. federal funding or safety certifications). Parallel to this phase, the funding and finance structure
is vetted, and a financial plan is initiated. NEPA activities apply to a specifically defined project and project area.

The context of and jurisdiction over the project right-of-way would influence the lead agency and cooperating agencies involved.
Assumptions regarding intercity passenger or multi-state freight project oversight are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5: Potential Intercity Environmental Process Lead Agencies

SURFACE
FEDERAL HIGHWAY FEDERAL RAILROAD
AGENCY TRANSPORTATION
ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION
BOARD
DESCRIPTION The Office of Environmental Lead federal agency or cooperating Lead federal agency or
Analysis (OEA) is responsible for agency for NEPA projects. cooperating agency for NEPA
directing the environmental review projects. Oversees the Railroad
process, conducting independent FHWA generally serves as the lead Rehabilitation & Improvement
analysis of all environmental federal agency for highway projects. Financing (RRIF) program. Under
data, and making environmental The FHWA has been a lead federal this program, the FRA administrator
recommendations to the STB. agency for a variety of transportation is authorized to provide direct loans
Follow rules: 49 CFR 1105. projects, traditionally for projects and loan guarantees up to $35
located within a highway corridor. billion to finance development of
railroad infrastructure. Use of RRIF
requires NEPA. Follows CEQ for
NEPA (40 CFR)

APPLICABILITY May oversee NEPA process if Could serve in lead agency or Could serve in Lead Agency
TO STB concurs that the technology cooperating agency role, depending or Cooperating Agency role,
type/ function falls within their on project context. Likely would serve depending on project context. FRA
HYPERLOOP
purview (typically oversee new rail as lead agency if project is generally implements safety certification
construction/ expansion). Must located within roadway right-of-way. (Tiers I-III for transit).
prove financial viability.

It is important to note that in March 2019, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao announced the formation of the Non-
Traditional and Emerging Transportation Technology (NETT) Council, which aims to explore the regulation and permitting of
hyperloop technology, among other technologies, to bring this new form of mass transportation to the United States. This
includes assisting in defining the appropriate agency to take the lead on NEPA and other, similar federal approvals.

6.2 SAFETY REGULATION PROCESSES

Safety regulation processes determine whether a proposed high-speed technology system is safe to operate, and hence if it
can achieve the appropriate safety certifications to move forward into development. Safety certification is required for new high-
speed transport systems to operate in the United States. The safety certification process will likely differ by technology depending
upon the geographic context of the project and agency jurisdiction. It is important to note that human safety certification will also
be required in order to transport passengers at high speeds.

If a new intercity technology, such as hyperloop, were to fall under the purview of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),
consumer protection will be required in the form of a Rule of General Applicability (RGA) or a Rule of Particular Applicability
(RPA). FRA has typically led oversight of high-speed intercity rail initiatives that operate independently from the conventional
freight rail network, and this has included technologies such as maglev. An RPA would need to be petitioned to the FRA if
hyperloop was to fall under the purview of the FRA. An RPA is necessary to cover safety requirements not addressed by current
safety standards. If more hyperloop alignments are to be constructed in different locations, then the process would likely be
simpler. An RGA could then be developed for hyperloop in the future.

Ultimately, safety regulation procedures will need to be developed along with all other regulatory needs in the development of
this new transportation mode.
15
 HYPERLOOP FEASIBILITY STUDY

7.0 NEXT STEPS

For the hyperloop project, the Rapid Speed Transportation Initiative project partners have identified the following as the next
steps upon conclusion of this study:

1. Collaboration with Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission: The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is undergoing a rapid
speed transportation feasibility study between Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and New York that includes hyperloop technology.
Findings of this feasibility study are being used for the transportation demand and economic impacts analysis. MORPC will
continue to collaborate with Pennsylvania to advance planning for these two hyperloop projects.
2. Hyperloop Certification Center Proposal: MORPC, in collaboration with JobsOhio, One Columbus, the Ohio Department
of Transportation (ODOT), and the Transportation Research Center, has submitted a proposal to a prominent hyperloop
technology company to acquire the world’s first hyperloop technology certification center. As of the conclusion of this study,
Ohio is competing with nine other states in its bid to bring this facility to the region.
3. Columbus International Airport-Downtown Columbus-Dublin Maglev Proposal: In response to the Request for
Proposals issued by the FRA in fall 2019, MORPC consulted with ODOT, the Ohio Rail Development Commission and Virgin
Hyperloop One to submit a proposal for a hyperloop maglev corridor between John Glenn Columbus International Airport,
downtown Columbus, and the City of Dublin. This proposal requests $5 million for planning work leading up to detailed
design and construction. In the proposal, MORPC recognized that this project could serve as a pilot to create corridor
approval frameworks for future system development and would be informed by the work to take place at the Hyperloop
Certification Center (HCC). As of the conclusion of this study, MORPC is awaiting response from FRA.
4. Federal Regulatory Framework: Project proponents will continue to monitor activities of the New Emerging Transportation
Technologies (NETT) Council to seek opportunities for collaboration with their work (ideally, NETT would use the HCC as a
“pilot” to refine regulatory frameworks for hyperloop technology as it pertains to safety, environmental considerations, etc).

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONACT:

Dina Lopez
Strategic Projects Manager | Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission
T: 614.233.4149 | C: 614.603.0947
111 Liberty Street, Suite 100 | Columbus, OH 43215

16