Influence of Passenger Rail on the BosWash Megalopolis Corridor ...

<strong>Influence</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Passenger</strong> <strong>Rail</strong> on the BosWash Megalopolis Corridor 

Michelle Oswald 

University <strong>of</strong> Delaware 

Department <strong>of</strong> Civil Engineering 

Fall 2007 

Abstract: Megalopolis, defined by Jean Gottmann, refers to the interconnected “string <strong>of</strong> cities” 

from Boston to Washington D.C. resulting from overlapping suburban areas that connected to 

form one metropolitan corridor. This paper explores the relationship between the 

development/decline <strong>of</strong> the passenger rail system and the establishment <strong>of</strong> the BosWash 

Megalopolis corridor. In contrast to Gottmann, the regional structure and transportation spine <strong>of</strong> 

Megalopolis can be seen as a result <strong>of</strong> the strategically developed passenger rail system.


Overview 

In 1961, Jean Gottmann recognized the importance <strong>of</strong> the string <strong>of</strong> cities including 

Boston, Providence, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington D.C., and named the 

corridor “Megalopolis” (Gottmann, 1961). The northeastern United States had become an area 

<strong>of</strong> political, economic, and social supremacy (Gottmann, 1961). Characteristics such as high 

density, increased infrastructure, population growth, technological advancements, and intricate 

transportation systems enabled the northeastern corridor, specifically from Boston to 

Washington, to become a significant geographical region (Gottmann, 1961). 

Gottmann (1961) defined the Megalopolis corridor based on the overlapping suburban 

areas that connected to form one metropolitan corridor. The northeastern suburbanization was 

predominantly a result <strong>of</strong> the increase in automobile ownership and highway construction, after 

World War II. However, although Gottmann emphasized the role <strong>of</strong> the automobile in the 

development <strong>of</strong> Megalopolis, this paper argues that the initial regional structure and 

transportation “spine” <strong>of</strong> Megalopolis was established by the passenger rail system that dates 

back to the late nineteenth century. The Megalopolis corridor’s growth patterns were based on 

the transportation “skeleton” provided by the development <strong>of</strong> the passenger rail system. 

Moreover, the development <strong>of</strong> the passenger rail system in the northeast was a strategic decision 

made by the railroads to provide mobility to the public. As such, it also served as the backbone 

for the future development <strong>of</strong> the highway system. 

The growth <strong>of</strong> the Megalopolis corridor relied heavily on mobility and interconnectivity 

between the cities which was provided by the mid-nineteenth century development <strong>of</strong> passenger 

rail. <strong>Passenger</strong> rail was a success at first, providing opportunities for travel and expansion; 

however, by the 1920’s, the automobile and development <strong>of</strong> the highway system quickly 

1


overshadowed the rail system and decline was imminent (Von Eckardt, 1964). The development 

and regression <strong>of</strong> the passenger rail system in the northeastern United States greatly influenced 

the growth <strong>of</strong> the BosWash Megalopolis corridor and has allowed it to become one <strong>of</strong> the most 

productive regions on earth (Von Eckardt, 1964). 

Megalopolis, meaning “large city”, describes the 455-mile region stretching from 

northern Boston to southern Washington D.C. crossing the boundaries <strong>of</strong> ten states (Miller, 

1975). It represents a chain <strong>of</strong> northeastern metropolitan areas, that each grew around a 

substantial urban nucleus (DeCerreno, 2007). Figure 1 displays the six major cities that were 

defined as the urban nuclei for the Megalopolis corridor (Hanlon et al., 2007). 

Figure 1- Six major cities in the Megalopolis corridor (Hanlon et al., 2007) 

As the metropolitan areas grew around the urban nuclei, overlapping and expansion 

occurred leading to a continuous megapolitan region incorporating the following states: New 

Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 

2


Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia (Miller, 1975). Figure 2 is a map depicting the BosWash 

Megalopolis corridor. 

Figure 2- Map <strong>of</strong> BosWash Megalopolis corridor (University <strong>of</strong> Tampere, 2007) 

As shown in green, the corridor extends beyond the centralized cities and incorporates the 

surrounding suburbs. This coupled expansion and urbanization throughout the corridor was 

initially made possible via the development <strong>of</strong> the passenger rail system. 

Development <strong>of</strong> <strong>Passenger</strong> <strong>Rail</strong> in the Megalopolis Corridor Prior to 1920 

The development <strong>of</strong> the northeastern passenger rail system was a major contributor to 

establishing the initial “skeleton” <strong>of</strong> the BosWash Megalopolis corridor (Ward, 1986). 

Analogous to the development <strong>of</strong> a mammal, prior to the development <strong>of</strong> an entire skeleton, a 

spine must first be developed. As early as the 1830’s, a strategic transportation “spine” was 

developed as the backbone <strong>of</strong> the Megalopolis “skeleton” when individual states such as 

Massachusetts, Maryland, and Delaware constructed their first horse drawn rail lines (Houk, 

2006). Technological advances such as steam locomotives, steel wheel treads, headlights, and 

automatic air brake systems enabled the first American-built steam engine to go into an 

3


automated scheduled passenger service (Houk, 2006). In 1833, the Boston and Albany <strong>Rail</strong>road 

was developed as the first continuous track with automated signals, replacing the old-fashioned 

handwritten train orders (Condit, 1977). As the rail system continued to advance, the 

government began to implement regulations such as The Federal <strong>Rail</strong>way Safety Appliances Act 

<strong>of</strong> 1893 which required automatic air brakes, automatic couplers, and standardization <strong>of</strong> the 

location/specifications for employee-used appliances (Houk, 2006). In 1903, the state <strong>of</strong> New 

York prohibited the operation <strong>of</strong> steam locomotives on Manhattan Island forcing the rail 

companies to switch to diesel engines (Houk, 2006). Diesel powered locomotives enabled the 

trains to travel at maximum speeds <strong>of</strong> approximately sixty miles per hour providing passengers a 

safe yet efficient travel option (Houk, 2006). By the 1920’s the northeastern United States 

passenger rail service reached its peak as a fast, comfortable, and feasible mode for travel to and 

from the cities (Von Eckardt, 1964). 

As rail owners continued to build rail lines, the passenger train companies, separate from 

the owners, began to emerge within the Megalopolis corridor. The passenger train companies 

owned right-<strong>of</strong>-ways to the track, meaning their trains were allowed to travel on the designated 

rail lines. The American Locomotive Company (ALCO) was formed when eight individual 

locomotive companies merged to build an electric locomotive which <strong>of</strong>fered scheduled 

transportation services from New Jersey to New York (Houk, 2006). The Pennsylvania <strong>Rail</strong>road 

Company connected the state <strong>of</strong> Pennsylvania to New York and built the Pennsylvania Station in 

New York City. The New York Central <strong>Rail</strong>road added the largest train station in the world, 

Grand Central Station, located in Manhattan serving New York City and Connecticut as well as 

its western lines (Houk, 2006). These companies provided not only safe and comfortable rail 

4


services to the public, but also provided mobility and the opportunity for urbanization to emerge 

throughout the northeastern United States. 

In order to connect multiple centralized nuclei and achieve the goal <strong>of</strong> providing mobility 

to the public, the rail companies strategically constructed rail lines throughout the corridor from 

Boston to Washington D.C. (Ward, 1986). The train stations were built in regions where the 

majority <strong>of</strong> people either lived or worked and typically provided service to regions <strong>of</strong> similar 

characteristics. For instance in the 1934, the two most prominent cities in the nation, New York 

City and Washington D.C. were connected by the Pennsylvania railroad’s streamline electric 

locomotive GG-1 (Houk, 2006). In addition to providing service to these two cities, passengers 

also had the option <strong>of</strong> accessing cities such as Newark, Trenton, Philadelphia, Wilmington, and 

Baltimore along the route. These stops geographically “strung together like beads” by the rail 

lines were chosen based on demand for travel within the BosWash corridor (Miller, 1975). This 

rail connection between major cities formed the transportation “spine” from Boston to 

Washington D.C. and allowed for the Megalopolis corridor to flourish. 

<strong>Influence</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Development <strong>of</strong> <strong>Passenger</strong> <strong>Rail</strong> on Megalopolis Corridor 

The development and construction <strong>of</strong> the passenger rail service had a direct impact on the 

characteristics <strong>of</strong> the Megalopolis corridor (Gottmann, 1961). <strong>Passenger</strong> rail stimulated 

population growth, increased employment rates, and provided opportunities for mobility and 

interconnectivity throughout the BosWash corridor. These benefits spurred by the rail system 

began around the 1830’s and continued until the 1920’s when the passenger rail service peaked. 

Throughout this time, passenger rail allowed the corridor to advance politically, economically, 

and socially into one <strong>of</strong> the most dominant regions in the country (Gottmann, 1961). 

5


The implementation <strong>of</strong> the passenger rail service in the Megalopolis corridor was a 

major contributor to the continuous population growth within the BosWash region. As railroad 

services such as the New York <strong>Rail</strong>way Company and the Pennsylvania <strong>Rail</strong>road Company 

began to emerge in the northeast, accessibility to and from the major cities increased (Gottmann, 

1961). This accessibility encouraged people to reside near the railroad lines and stations which 

led to a clustered population growth. On a global level, the clustered urbanized areas, strung 

together by the rail lines, essentially formed one continuous “large city”. Figure 3 and Figure 4 

show the population density from 1880 to 1910 and the development <strong>of</strong> the “large city.” 

Figure 3- Population Density by Counties in 1880 (Gottmann, 1961) 

6


Figure 4- Population Density by Counties in 1910 (Gottmann, 1961) 

Figure 3 (1880) shows that individual cities, as represented by counties, began to grow and join 

together, but the interconnection between cities to form one “large city” didn’t develop until 

around 1910, as shown in Figure 4. In 1920, the most populated city in Megalopolis was New 

York City with a total population <strong>of</strong> approximately 5 million residents, followed by Philadelphia 

with approximately 1.5 million residents. Figure 5 compares the population <strong>of</strong> major cities <strong>of</strong> 

Megalopolis to the United States. New York City is not only the most populated within the 

Megalopolis corridor, but also, throughout the entire United States. The city with the second 

highest population in Megalopolis, Philadelphia, ranks third in the United States behind Chicago. 

7


Figure 5- Rate <strong>of</strong> Growth <strong>of</strong> Major Central Cities in 1790-1950 (Gottmann, 1961) 

In addition to population growth, the passenger rail service increased the Megalopolis job 

market. Prior to the 1830’s, northeastern urbanized areas were suffering from periodic 

unemployment, poverty, and continuous depression (Ward, 1986). The railroad improved the 

morale <strong>of</strong> the growing urban poor. <strong>Rail</strong> enthusiasts promised that railways would raise the level 

<strong>of</strong> national confidence and bring urbanized areas out <strong>of</strong> depression (Ward, 1986). Their promise 

held true when employment rates rose due to the increased opportunities for jobs within the 

railroad business. Careers ranging from railroad managers to construction workers helped to 

decrease the unemployment rates and dispel the depressed regions (Sussman, 2000). Figure 6 

displays the employment and economic characteristics <strong>of</strong> the Megalopolis corridor after the 

8


development <strong>of</strong> the passenger rail service. As shown, New York City is the most populated 

central city with the largest percent <strong>of</strong> white collar male employed residents (Gottmann, 1961). 

Figure 6- Economic Characteristics based on Data and Classification (Gottmann, 1961) 

The population growth and increased employment rates in the BosWash corridor were 

promoted by increased passenger mobility provided by the rail service. <strong>Passenger</strong> rail systems 

provided the opportunity for efficient, comfortable, and convenient accessibility to and from 

major cities. No longer did residents rely on horses to reach their work destinations located in 

the centralized business districts (Houk, 2006). They were able to take advantage <strong>of</strong> the 

transportation technology by living near the rail stations, and having the capability <strong>of</strong> regularly 

riding the train into nearby cites. This increased mobility encouraged people to live away from 

the poverty-stricken urban areas and, in turn, pay a small fee to travel by train to access the 

workplace. Travel capabilities improved through intermodal (train to train) and intramodal (train 

9


to alternative modes i.e. ship) transfers allowing for complete mobility throughout the northeast 

corridor (Sussman, 2000). The passenger rail system not only provided access into and out <strong>of</strong> 

the cities, but also provided mobility between cities which was the key to the growth <strong>of</strong> the 

Megalopolis transportation corridor. 

Causes <strong>of</strong> Decline in <strong>Passenger</strong> <strong>Rail</strong> in the Megalopolis Corridor Post 1920 

The passenger rail service was steadily increasing until the 1920’s when the number <strong>of</strong> 

passengers started declining due to a variety <strong>of</strong> factors. Generally, it was the inability <strong>of</strong> the rail 

service to adapt to the new conditions and attract the necessary investment needed to retain 

passenger traffic (Von Eckardt, 1964). However, the specific factors that led to the decline <strong>of</strong> 

passenger rail include, but are not limited to, the development <strong>of</strong> the automobile, shifts in 

residential patterns, modal competition, and changes in rail management. 

The passenger rail lines provided the initial transportation “spine” <strong>of</strong> the Megalopolis 

corridor which then expanded with the development <strong>of</strong> the automobile. Starting as early as the 

1920’s the development <strong>of</strong> the automobile began to alter the Megalopolis corridor by reducing 

passenger rail ridership. The automobile was more than a technological advancement; it was a 

means for personal travel, an agent <strong>of</strong> suburbanization, a motivation for highway construction, 

and a stimulant <strong>of</strong> modal competition with the passenger rail service. During the 1930’s and 

1940’s, the automobile became present in almost every household across America (Gottmann, 

1961). In 1940, there were approximately 27.4 million passenger cars registered in the United 

States and by 1957 there were approximately 55 million privately owned automobiles 

(Gottmann, 1961). The increase in motor transportation led to a high demand for a sufficient 

nationwide highway network (Gottmann, 1961). Figure 7 displays the average daily highway 

traffic in the United States in 1952 based on the established highway network (Gottmann, 1961). 

10


The thickness <strong>of</strong> the individual routes is representative <strong>of</strong> the traffic density on that particular 

highway. 

Figure 7- Highway Traffic Flow in United States in 1952 (Gottmann, 1961) 

The automobile is responsible for influencing transportation infrastructure which is 

coupled with shifts in residential patterns. It provided mobility and opportunity for Americans to 

live farther from the workplace causing population density rates to shift away from urbanized 

areas and into the suburbs (Van Eckardt, 1964). Unfortunately, the railroad service suffered 

because it was a restricted fixed route service which typically did not extend into the suburbs. 

The passenger rail service was no longer the most convenient, efficient, and popular means for 

travel throughout the Megalopolis corridor. 

11


After the 1920’s, the automobile, along with alternative modes (i.e. air travel), caused 

modal competition with the passenger rail service. The automobile was preferred for short 

intercity commutes while air travel began to dominate long distance travels, causing passenger 

rail ridership to decrease (Miller, 1975). Travel time, comfort, cost, and convenience caused the 

passenger rail service to be less desirable than other modes and there was little ability for the rail 

to compete with these modes (Sussman, 2000). For example in 1969, a trip from Boston to New 

York City takes fifty minutes by air versus four and a half hours by rail. The time differences (in 

hours) for rail versus air travel between five major cities in the northeast corridor can be seen in 

Table 1 (Miller, 1975). Air transportation is a more efficient travel mode when compared to rail 

in terms <strong>of</strong> trip duration (Miller, 1975). 

Table 1- Train and Air Travel Time between Megalopolis Cities in 1969 (Miller, 1975) 

Another factor that led to the decline <strong>of</strong> the passenger rail service was the economic 

organization <strong>of</strong> rail management (Hilton, 1975). Weaknesses within the management services 

such as a lack <strong>of</strong> accountability and transparency, financial and institutional instability, and the 

need for balance in governance forced the federal government to analyze the current rail 

structure (Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center, No Date). In 1976, the initiation <strong>of</strong> the 

<strong>Rail</strong>road Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act formed the Northeast Corridor Improvement 

Project (Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center, No Date). The regulation declared Amtrak as 

12


the dominant owner <strong>of</strong> passenger rail throughout the northeast corridor with the purpose <strong>of</strong> 

renewing the existing rail infrastructure (Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center, No Date). 

Figure 8 displays the proposed track and rail ownership from the Northeast Corridor 

Improvement Project. 

Figure 8- Ownership and Operations in Northeast Corridor Post 1976 (DeCerreno, 2007) 

Amtrak was granted the majority <strong>of</strong> track ownership with the exclusion <strong>of</strong> the MTA, CDOT, and 

MBTA owned track. This quasi-private monopoly management system was the result <strong>of</strong> the 

federal government’s goal to revive the rail system and prevent further decline in ridership (Alan 

M. Voorhees Transportation Center, No Date). 

<strong>Influence</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Passenger</strong> <strong>Rail</strong> Decline on Megalopolis Corridor 

The causes <strong>of</strong> decline in passenger rail previously discussed have directly influenced the 

current and future state <strong>of</strong> the Megalopolis corridor. The Megalopolis corridor, as a result <strong>of</strong> the 

13


declining rail service, has become a region that is a victim <strong>of</strong> congestion, urban decentralization, 

and socioeconomic inequity. From 1920 to the present, these issues have compounded, causing 

the Northeast <strong>Rail</strong> Corridor (NEC) to focus on ways to address these issues throughout the entire 

corridor from Boston to Washington D.C. (DeCerreno, 2007). 

The declining passenger rail system, which was brought on by the development <strong>of</strong> the 

automobile, has shifted riders from rail onto the road causing significant congestion. The typical 

trips that were once by train slowly turned into more convenient, accessible, yet congested 

automobile trips (DeCerreno, 2007). The passenger rail system’s inability to provide effective 

and reliable service continued to reduce ridership. Lack <strong>of</strong> funding also led Amtrak and the 

other owners to defer necessary maintenance, again decreasing ridership (Todorovich and 

Vallabhajosyula, 2007). Figure 9 shows changes in transportation modes based on US vehicle 

miles from 1994 to 2004. 

Figure 9- Index <strong>of</strong> U.S. Vehicle Miles 1994-2004 (DeCerreno, 2007) 

The two major travel modes that outpaced rail were air and highway (DeCerreno, 2007). Due to 

the increase in automobile trips, the highway system was being constructed at a rapid rate to 

14


accommodate growth. This highway growth was based on the pre-existing transportation 

skeleton provided by the rail lines. The highways began to extend in a radial pattern outward 

from the rail lines to accommodate the demand for suburbanization. Figure 10 is a map 

displaying the Megalopolis highway network in 1947. 

Figure 10- Megalopolis Highway System in 1947 

(Source data from Rand McNally and Company, 1947) 

This figure displays the interconnection between the major cities and when compared to Figure 

11, a highway map from 2006, implies the vast amount <strong>of</strong> growth that has occurred from 1947 to 

the present. Figure 11 displays the Megalopolis highway system in 2006, representative <strong>of</strong> the 

present growth in automobile travel. 

15


Figure 11- Megalopolis Highway System in 2006 

(Source data from BTS National Transportation Atlas Database, 2006) 

Although the highway system continues to expand, highway construction is always a reactive 

approach to congestion. Congestion is more than a traffic problem; it is a land use and 

environmental issue as well. Therefore the Megalopolis corridor will have to take an active 

approach in addressing this issue through improving the declining passenger rail service 

(Todorovich and Vallabhajosyula, 2007). 

As a result <strong>of</strong> the rapid highway development, population density shifted away from the 

centralized city and expanded into the suburbs triggering urban sprawl (Todorovich and 

Vallabhajosyula, 2007). No longer did people have to live near the train station for accessible 

mobility; in fact, they preferred to live away from the rail lines to avoid city life. As a result, the 

northeast corridor has become a mega-region that consists <strong>of</strong> continuous urban decentralization, 

16


long commutes, and a lowered quality <strong>of</strong> life (Todorovich and Vallabhajosyula, 2007). Figure 

12 displays the commutersheds that developed by 1975 due to suburbanization and the desire to 

live outside <strong>of</strong> the city, away from rail lines. 

Figure 12- Commutersheds <strong>of</strong> Megalopolis in 1975 (Miller, 1975) 

As shown in light gray, many people in 1975 were living in the suburbs and relying on their 

personal vehicles to access their workplace located within the centralized city (shown in dark 

grey) (Miller, 1975). These commutersheds are reflective <strong>of</strong> the highway system which grew as 

an extension <strong>of</strong> the corridor’s original railroad “spine”. Figure 13 shows a diagram <strong>of</strong> an 

interstate linking two commutersheds and the regions that develop due to this interconnectivity 

(Lang, 2006). 

17


Figure 13- Interconnectivity between Metropolitan Areas (Lang, 2006) 

As shown, the highways link the two central cities forming mid-metropolitan realms and 

extended urban areas (i.e. suburbs). 

As the metropolitan regions continued to expand based on the highway development, the 

definition <strong>of</strong> Gottmann’s original megalopolis region became outdated. Therefore, in 2006, 

Richard Morrill updated the megalopolis corridor based on suburban growth in his “Classic Map 

Revisited” shown in Figure 14 (Morrill, 2006). 

18


Figure 14- Revisited Megalopolis Map (Morrill, 2006) 

As depicted on the revisited map, the growth <strong>of</strong> the Megalopolis corridor continued to be based 

on the highway mobility in and around the centralized cities rather than limited by the original 

fixed passenger rail lines. 

In addition to congestion and urban sprawl, the decline <strong>of</strong> the passenger rail system in 

Megalopolis affected the social and economic structure <strong>of</strong> the corridor. Once the automobile 

was established as the new form <strong>of</strong> mobility, those that could afford a vehicle were able to live 

outside the city. However, those that couldn’t afford to buy a car were forced to remain within a 

close distance <strong>of</strong> their workplace, typically located in the urban districts, and relied heavily on 

the passenger train for mobility between cities (Hanlon et al., 2006). This relationship is still 

apparent today where the suffering passenger rail system provides service (mass transit) to riders 

that simply cannot afford personal vehicles (Todorovich and Vallabhajosyula, 2007). Due to the 

economic influence on transportation mobility, a formation <strong>of</strong> urban clusters within the 

19


Megalopolis corridor developed. Figures 15 and 16, shown below, display the current 

arrangement <strong>of</strong> urban clusters throughout the Megalopolis corridor. 

Wilmington 

Baltimore 

Figure 15- Urban Clusters in Southern Megalopolis (Hanlon et al., 2006) 

Camden 

Figure 16- Urban Clusters in Northern Megalopolis (Hanlon et al., 2006) 

20


Based on these maps it is apparent that there is a trend relating poverty stricken regions to 

centralized cities, such as Baltimore, Wilmington, and Camden. This socioeconomic issue is 

going to be a challenge for the future <strong>of</strong> the corridor along with the related problems <strong>of</strong> 

congestion and sprawl. 

Conclusion 

The passenger rail system has influenced the Megalopolis corridor since its development 

in the 1830’s to its decline starting in the 1920’s. The influence <strong>of</strong> the passenger rail system 

challenges Gottmann’s initial assumption that overlapping suburban areas formed the 

Megalopolis corridor. In contrast, it was the rail system that was responsible for strategically 

developing the corridor’s transportation “skeleton.” Megalopolis is a “transportation corridor” 

rather than a corridor that formed as a function <strong>of</strong> urban decentralization. 

The development <strong>of</strong> the passenger rail system provided mobility, interconnectivity, and 

encouraged growth within the major cities <strong>of</strong> Boston, Providence, New York, Philadelphia, 

Baltimore, and Washington D.C. It was the strategic placement <strong>of</strong> the rail lines that provided a 

transportation “spine” for which the future highway system developed. Since its decline, 

alternative modes such as the automobile and air travel have drastically increased. This caused 

the passenger rail system to continue to suffer from lack <strong>of</strong> funding and decreased ridership 

(Todorovich and Vallabhajosyula, 2007). Unfortunately, it is the reliance on these alternative 

modes that cause congestion, sprawl, global warming, socioeconomic clustering, and other 

Megalopolis corridor challenges for the future. 

These challenges <strong>of</strong> the Megalopolis corridor must be addressed to maintain an 

acceptable quality <strong>of</strong> life for its residents. In the future, the passenger rail system would be a 

21


viable service in order to reduce drivers on the road, promote infill development, and reduce fuel 

emissions. With adequate funding and increased ridership, the railroad “spine” could re-develop 

and influence the corridor as it did over a century ago. 

22


References 

Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center at the University <strong>of</strong> Rutgers. (No Date). 

Northeast Corridor Action Plan: A Call for a New Federal-State Partnership. 

Hamilton, Rabinovitz and Alschuler, Inc. 

Bell, Claiborne. (1966). Megalopolis Unbound. New York: Frederick Praeger. 

Birdsall, Stephen S. and John Florin. (1998). An Outline <strong>of</strong> American Geography: 

‘Regional Landscapes <strong>of</strong> the United States. United States Department <strong>of</strong> State, 

International Information Programs. Retrieved from http://usinfo.stat.gov. 

Browning, Clyde E. ed. (1974). Population and Urbanized Area Growth in Megalopolis 

1950-1970. Chapel Hill: University <strong>of</strong> North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

BTS National Transportation Atlas Database (2006). Highway System in 2006. U.S. Department 

<strong>of</strong> Transportation. Retrieved from 

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_atlas_database/2006/ on 

November 8, 2007. 

Condit, Carl W. (1977). The <strong>Rail</strong>road and the City. Ohio State University Press: 

Columbus. 

Dhavale, Dawn and Robert E. Lang. (2005). Beyond Megalopolis: Exploring America’s 

New “Megapolitan” Geography. Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech Census Report 

05:01. 

DeCerreno, Alison L. C. (2007). The Future <strong>of</strong> Transportation in the Northeast Corridor, 2007- 

2025: <strong>Rail</strong> Transportation. New York: NYU Wagner Rudin Center. 

Federal <strong>Rail</strong>road Administration. (1997). High Speed Ground Transportation for 

America. United States Department <strong>of</strong> Transportation. 

Fonseca J.W. and D.W. Wong. (2000) Changing Patterns <strong>of</strong> Population Density in the 

US. Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Geographer 52.3, p. 504-517. 

Gottmann, Jean. (1961). Megalopolis: the Urbanized Northeastern Seaboard <strong>of</strong> the US. 

Cambridge: MIT Press. 

Hanlon, Bernadette, Thomas J. Vicino and John Rennie Short. (2007). Megalopolis 50 Years 

On: The Transformation <strong>of</strong> a City Region. International Journal <strong>of</strong> Urban 

and Regional Research 31.2, 344-367. 

Henrie C.J., and Plane D.A. (2006). "Decentralization <strong>of</strong> the Nation's Main Street: New 

coastal-proximity-based portrayals <strong>of</strong> population distribution in the United 

States, 1950-2000.” Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Geographer. 58.4, 448-459. 

23


Hilton, George W. (1975). The Northeast <strong>Rail</strong>road Problem. Washington D.C.: American 

Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. 

Houk, Randy. (2006). <strong>Rail</strong>road History. Retrieved on November 4, 2007 from 

http://www.sdrm.org/history/timeline/. 

Lang, Robert E. and Arthur C. Nelson. (2007). Beyond the Metroplex: Examining 

Commuter Patterns at the “Megapolitan” Scale. Lincoln Institute <strong>of</strong> Land 

Policy. 

Miller, Delbert C. (1975). Leadership and Power in the Bos-Wash Megalopolis. New 

York: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 

Morrill R. (2006). "Classic map revisited: The growth <strong>of</strong> Megalopolis." Pr<strong>of</strong>essional 

Geographer. 58.2, 155-160. 

Rand McNally and Company. (1947). Road map United States. David Rumsey Map Collection: 

Cartography Associates. Chicago: Rand McNally. Retrieved on November 8, 2007 from 

http://www.davidrumsey.com/detailid=1-1-23824- 

920008&name=Road+map+United+States.. 

Sussman, Joseph. (2000). “Introduction to Transportation Systems.” Boston: Artech 

House. 

Stilgoe, John R. (1983). Metropolitan Corridor: <strong>Rail</strong>roads and the American Scene. New 

Haven: Yale University Press. 

Todorovich, Petra, and Sharath Vallabhajosyula ed. (2007). Northeast Megaregion 2050: A 

Common Future. Regional Plan Association. 

United States. General Accounting Office. (2004). Intercity <strong>Passenger</strong> <strong>Rail</strong>: Amtrak’s 

management <strong>of</strong> northeast corridor improvements demonstrates need for applying best 

practices: report to the Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, U.S. Senate. Washington D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office. 

University <strong>of</strong> Tampere. (2007). Regions, Belts, Megalopolis, and the Beltway. Retrieved 

on November 2, 2007 from 

http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US2/REF/MAPS/images/megalop.gif. 

Van Eckardt, Wolf. (1964). The Challenge <strong>of</strong> Megalopolis. Washington D. C.: The 

Macmillan Company. 

Ward, James A. (1986). <strong>Rail</strong>roads and the Character <strong>of</strong> America 1820-1887. Knoxville: 

The University <strong>of</strong> Tennessee Press. 

24

Influence of Passenger Rail on the BosWash Megalopolis Corridor ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?