DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual Report on Funding Recommendations Fiscal Year 2000

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Annual Report on Funding Recommendations Fiscal Year 2000 Annual Report on Funding Recommendations Fiscal Year 2000 Report Number FTA-TBP10-99-01 Report of the Secretary of Transportation to the United States Congress Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5309(o)(1) 1999 Prepared by: Federal Transit Administration Available from: Federal Transit Administration Office of Policy Development, TBP-10 400 7th Street, SW, Room 9310 Washington, DC 20590 http://www.fta.dot.gov Foreword This report is prepared annually for submission to the United States Congress by the Secretary of Transportation. Title 49, United States Code, Section 5309(o)(1) requires the Secretary of Transportation to submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate, a report that includes a proposal on the allocation of amounts to be made available to finance grants and loans for capital projects for new fixed guideway systems and extensions to existing fixed guideway systems ("new starts") among applicants for those amounts. In addition to those committees, this report is also formally submitted to the Appropriations Committees of both the House and Senate. It is also provided to transit operators, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), State departments of transportation, and made generally available to the public at large. This report is a companion document to the President’s annual budget request to Congress. It details the Administration’s recommendations for allocating new starts capital investment funding for Federal Fiscal Year 2000. The report is organized into two sections: the main body of the report, which details the specific funding recommendations by project and provides background information on both the projects and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) program and processes; and a series of appendices that provide more detailed information on the background, status and evaluation of each proposed project. Appendix B briefly describes each proposed project that is undergoing early development and alternatives analysis. Upon request, this report will be made available in alternative formats. It is also available via the Internet at the FTA site on the World Wide Web. Introduction This report provides the U.S. Department of Transportation's recommendations to Congress for allocation of funds to be made available under 49 U.S.C. §5309 for construction of new fixed guideway systems and extensions (major capital investments or "new starts") for Fiscal Year 2000. Section 5309(o)(1) requires an annual report to Congress "that includes a proposal on the allocation of amounts to be made available to finance grants and loans for capital projects for new fixed guideway systems and extensions to existing fixed guideway systems among applicants for those amounts." The Annual Report on New Starts is a collateral document to the President's annual budget submission to Congress. It is meant to be a constructive element in the administration of the Federal transit assistance program, enriching the information exchange between the Executive and Legislative branches at the beginning of an appropriations cycle for the next Fiscal Year. The President's budget for FY 2000 proposes that $980.40 million be made available for the §5309 major capital investment program. After setting aside a percentage of these funds for oversight activities as specified in §5327, and for ferry capital projects in Alaska or Hawaii as required by §5309(m)(5)(A), $962.725 million is available for project grants. This report recommends funding for 25 projects in FY 2000; of these, 14 have existing Federal funding commitments in the form of Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGA), seven are expected to be ready to negotiate FFGAs by the end of FY 2000, and four are nearing the final stages of preliminary engineering. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) On June 9, 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105- 178, which reauthorizes Federal surface transportation programs through 2003, was enacted. For new starts, TEA-21 leaves prior Federal law and policy largely intact, including the basic project justification criteria and the multiple-measure method of project evaluation. However, a number of significant changes were introduced to the Federal Transit Administration's New Starts Program. Among the provisions of TEA-21 affecting FTA’s new starts program was language revising §5309(e) to codify many of the principles of FTA's New Starts Policy, which was published in the Federal Register on December 19, 1996 (61 FR 67093) and amended on November 12, 1997 (62 FR 60756). Aspects of the new starts policy which are now written as law, but which remain the same as past policy and practice, include the following: • Proposed new starts projects must be based on the results of alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering. • FTA must approve entry into preliminary engineering. • FTA must find that proposed projects are "justified," based on a "comprehensive review" of several criteria (cost-effectiveness, operating efficiencies, mobility improvements, and environmental benefits) which remain unchanged; a variety of additional considerations that must be taken into account (including congestion relief, air quality, energy consumption, the mobility of transportation dependent persons, economic development, and transit supportive land use policies and patterns) are also unchanged. • FTA must find that projects are supported by an acceptable degree of local financial commitment; the basis for making this finding (stable and dependable financing sources to construct, maintain, and operate the project) is not changed, and the considerations which are to be taken into account are also largely unchanged. • Projects are to be funded using Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGAs), which specify the project to be constructed and the maximum amount of Federal funds which will be made available for the project. • The criteria do not apply to projects which require less than $25 million in §5309 funds, or which are completely funded with flexible Title 23 (highway program) funds. • FTA's recommendations to Congress regarding projects must be presented in an Annual Report produced in concert with the President's annual budget. In addition to these, however, TEA-21 introduced a number of important changes to the way FTA manages and implements the new starts program. Among the most significant changes are the following: • Integration of the Major Investment Study (MIS) concepts into the joint planning and environmental regulations issued by FTA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (23 CFR Part 450 and 23 CFR Part 771), elimination of the MIS as a separate requirement, and streamlining of the environmental process. • A requirement for FTA to establish overall project ratings of "highly recommended," "recommended," or "not recommended." • A requirement for FTA approval before a project can advance from preliminary engineering to final design (in addition to the existing requirement for approval to initiate preliminary engineering). • A requirement for FTA to publish regulations on the manner in which proposed projects will be evaluated and rated. Other important changes include: • The addition of several statutory "considerations" to the project evaluation process, including the cost of sprawl, infrastructure cost savings due to compact land use, population density and current transit ridership in a corridor, and the technical capacity of the grantee to undertake the project. • A provision expressly prohibiting FTA from considering the dollar value of mobility improvements. • The elimination of the exemptions from the project evaluation process for proposed projects that require less than one-third of the project funding from 49 USC §5309 or are part of a State Improvement Plan for air quality. The exemption remains for projects requiring less than $25 million in 49 USC §5309 funding. (Projects for which FFGAs are already in place are not subject to re-evaluation.) • For evaluating local financial commitment, the consideration of local funding beyond the required non-Federal share has been incorporated into statute. • A second annual report to Congress, in addition to the existing "report on funding levels and allocations of funds," is now required. This new "Supplemental Report on New Starts," due each August, will include updated ratings for projects that have completed the alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering stages of development since the date of the last Annual Report on New Starts. • A provision limiting the amount of funds made available every year for proposed projects in alternatives analysis or preliminary engineering to 8 percent of total new starts funding for that year. • A requirement for an annual review of FTA’s project evaluation and rating process and procedures by the General Accounting Office. Implementation of TEA-21 The majority of the changes to the new starts program noted above will be implemented through the rulemaking process. Under 49 USC §5309(e)(5), as added by TEA-21, FTA is required to publish "regulations on the manner in which [FTA] will evaluate and rate" proposed new starts projects. This rule will define the summary project ratings of "recommended," "highly recommended," and "not recommended," as required by TEA-21, implement the revisions to the multiple measures for project justification, describe how FTA will use the summary ratings to approve
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Railroad Emergency Response Manual
    Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Railroad Emergency Response Manual Approved by the COG Fire Chiefs Committee Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Second Edition May 2020 MWCOG Railroad Emergency Response Manual 2nd Edition – May 2020 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This manual could not have been written without the assistance of many Dedicated rail safety personnel and members of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments regional emergency response agencies that have spent many hours providing the material for the creation of this manual. We thank all emergency responders from all jurisdictions, including our federal agency partners that shared their firsthand experiences of recent commuter railroad incidents. Many of their experiences were incorporated into sections of this manual. Many Railroad representatives, private industry and governmental organizations provided their invaluable technical assistance. This committee would like to thank Steve Truchman formerly of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), Greg Deibler from Virginia Railway Express (VRE), David Ricker from the Maryland Rail Commuter (MARC), Paul Williams of Norfolk Southern Railway Corporation and Mike Hennessey of CSX Transportation, all of whom provided the specific diagrams, illustrations and other technical information regarding railroad equipment. We recognize Elisa Nichols of Kensington Consulting, LLC for her contributions to this manual as well as representatives from many Federal Agencies who also provided information on the technical accounts of railroad equipment and their integrity on past railroad incidents. The members of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) Passenger Rail Safety Subcommittee gratefully presents this manual to both Fire and Rescue Service and Railroad organizations in an effort to instill readiness within our own personnel that they might effectively and collaboratively respond to a railroad incident.
    [Show full text]
  • CSX Baltimore Division Timetable
    NORTHERN REGION BALTIMORE DIVISION TIMETABLE NO. 4 EFFECTIVE SATURDAY, JANUARY 1, 2005 AT 0001 HOURS CSX STANDARD TIME C. M. Sanborn Division Manager BALTIMORE DIVISION TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS DESCRIPTION PAGE INST DESCRIPTION PAGE 1 Instructions Relating to CSX Operating Table of Contents Rules Timetable Legend 2 Instructions Relating to Safety Rules Legend – Sample Subdivision 3 Instructions Relating to Company Policies Region and Division Officers And Procedures Emergency Telephone Numbers 4 Instructions Relating to Equipment Train Dispatchers Handling Rules 5 Instructions Relating to Air Brake and Train SUBDIVISIONS Handling Rules 6 Instructions Relating to Equipment NAME CODE DISP PAGE Restrictions Baltimore Terminal BZ AV 7 Miscellaneous Bergen BG NJ Capital WS AU Cumberland CU CM Cumberland Terminal C3 CM Hanover HV AV Harrisburg HR NI Herbert HB NI Keystone MH CM Landover L0 NI Lurgan LR AV Metropolitan ME AU Mon M4 AS Old Main Line OM AU P&W PW AS Philadelphia PA AV Pittsburgh PI AS.AT Popes Creek P0 NI RF&P RR CQ S&C SC CN Shenandoah SJ CN Trenton TN NI W&P WP AT CSX Transportation Effective January 1, 2005 Albany Division Timetable No. 5 © Copyright 2005 TIMETABLE LEGEND GENERAL F. AUTH FOR MOVE (AUTHORITY FOR MOVEMENT) Unless otherwise indicated on subdivision pages, the The authority for movement rules applicable to the track segment Train Dispatcher controls all Main Tracks, Sidings, of the subdivision. Interlockings, Controlled Points and Yard Limits. G. NOTES STATION LISTING AND DIAGRAM PAGES Where station page information may need to be further defined, a note will refer to “STATION PAGE NOTES” 1– HEADING listed at the end of the diagram.
    [Show full text]
  • BA-3105 Hubbard's Run Masonry Arch Railroad Bridge, Bridge 8-B
    BA-3105 Hubbard's Run Masonry Arch Railroad Bridge, Bridge 8-B Architectural Survey File This is the architectural survey file for this MIHP record. The survey file is organized reverse- chronological (that is, with the latest material on top). It contains all MIHP inventory forms, National Register nomination forms, determinations of eligibility (DOE) forms, and accompanying documentation such as photographs and maps. Users should be aware that additional undigitized material about this property may be found in on-site architectural reports, copies of HABS/HAER or other documentation, drawings, and the “vertical files” at the MHT Library in Crownsville. The vertical files may include newspaper clippings, field notes, draft versions of forms and architectural reports, photographs, maps, and drawings. Researchers who need a thorough understanding of this property should plan to visit the MHT Library as part of their research project; look at the MHT web site (mht.maryland.gov) for details about how to make an appointment. All material is property of the Maryland Historical Trust. Last Updated: 09-25-2012 MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST NR Eligible: yes DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FORM no Property Name: Hubbard's Run Masonry Arch Railroad Bridge Inventory Number: BA-3105 Address: CSXT Milepost BAA 6; HDR Sta. 698+25; Bridge 8-B City: Zip Code: 21227 County: Baltimore USGS Topographic Map: Relay Owner: CSX Transportation Is the property being evaluated a district? no Tax Parcel Number: Tax Map Number: Tax Account ID Number: Project: CSXT Capital
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland State Rail Plan
    Larry Hogan, Governor Boyd Rutherford, Lt. Governor Pete K. Rahn, Secretary of Transportation April 2015 www.camsys.com Maryland Statewide Rail Plan prepared for Maryland Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4800 Hampden Lane, Suite 800 Bethesda, MD 20814 date April 2015 Maryland Statewide Rail Plan Table of Contents 1.0 About the Plan ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Plan Development ...................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Plan Organization ....................................................................................... 1-3 1.3 Purpose of the Rail Plan ............................................................................. 1-3 1.4 Federal Compliance .................................................................................... 1-4 2.0 Maryland’s Rail History .................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Amtrak and Conrail ................................................................................... 2-3 2.2 MARC ........................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Short Lines ................................................................................................... 2-4 2.4 Summary ...................................................................................................... 2-5 3.0 Mission, Vision, and Goals ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Control Point Virginia Tower
    GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK OR HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION New Designation __X___ Amendment of a previous designation _____ Please summarize any amendment(s) _______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ Property name _Control Point (CP) Virginia Tower_______________________________________ If any part of the interior is being nominated, it must be specifically identified and described in the narrative statements. Address __Southeast Corner of 2nd Street SW and Virginia Avenue SW, Washington, DC_________ Square and lot number(s) __0582 0856_________________________________________________ Affected Advisory Neighborhood Commission ______ANC 6D_____________________________ Date of construction __1904-1906____ Date of major alteration(s) __1930s___________________ Architect(s) __Unknown______________ Architectural style(s) ____________________________ Original use _Railroad Interlocking Control Tower_ Present use ___Railroad Infrastructure Property owner _CSX Transportation, Inc._____________________________________________ Legal address of property owner _500 Water Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202 ________________ NAME OF APPLICANT(S) _CSX Transportation, Inc.____________________________________ If the applicant is an organization, it must submit evidence that among its purposes is the promotion of historic preservation in the District of Columbia.
    [Show full text]
  • DC State Rail Plan Website
    STATE RAIL PLAN: FINAL REPORT 2017 State Rail Plan Table of Contents Contents Chapter 1 The Role of Rail in District Transportation ............................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Federal Authority For States ...................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Institutional Governance Structure of The District’s Rail Programs .......................................... 1-2 1.4 Multimodal Transportation System Goals .................................................................................. 1-3 1.5 Rail Transportation’s Role within The District’s Transportation System ................................... 1-5 1.5.1 Role of Freight Rail ................................................................................................................ 1-5 1.5.2 Role of Commuter Rail .......................................................................................................... 1-6 1.5.3 Role of Intercity Rail ............................................................................................................... 1-6 Chapter 2 Approach to Public and Agency Participation ...................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Stakeholder Roundtables ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Potential Improvements to the Washington-Richmond Railroad
    Report to Congress VOLUME I Potential Improvements to the Washington⎯Richmond Railroad Corridor National Railroad Passenger Corporation May 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I TABLE OF CONTENTS . TC-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . ES-1 . CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION . 1 CHAPTER 2: THE CORRIDOR TODAY . 5 CHAPTER 3: SERVICE GOALS . 24 CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGIES . 29 CHAPTER 5: INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS . 37 . CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION . 56 List of Tables TABLE 1: Existing Railroad Services on the Washington-Richmond Corridor . ES-5 TABLE 2: Railroad Services Envisioned for 2015 on the Washington-Richmond ES-10 Corridor . TABLE 3: Description of Project Groups . ES-14 TABLE 4: Preliminary Listing of Projects for the Washington-Richmond Corridor . ES-15 TABLE 5: Potential Improvements by Category . ES-16 TABLE 2-1: Track Ownership and Operating Control . 7 TABLE 2-2: Station Ownership and Use . 11 TABLE 2-3: Existing Railroad Services on the Washington-Richmond Corridor . 13 TABLE 2-4: Amtrak Train Service in the Washington-Richmond Corridor . 14 TABLE 3-1: Railroad Services Envisioned for 2015 on the Washington-Richmond 24 Corridor . TABLE 3-2: Projected Train Movements by Direction Between Washington and 25 Alexandria Between 3:30PM and 7:30PM, Year 2015 . .. TABLE 5-1: Preliminary Listing of Projects for the Washington-Richmond Corridor . 54 TABLE 5-2: Description of Project Groups . 55 TABLE 5-3: Potential Improvements by Category . 56 List of Figures FIGURE 1: Washington-Richmond Corridor . ES-3 FIGURE 2: Southeast Corridor . ES-3 FIGURE 3: Demand for Intercity Corridor Train Services, Washington-Richmond ES-11 FIGURE 4: Selected Rail Lines in Washington, D.
    [Show full text]
  • Railroad Emergency Response Manual
    National Capital Region Council of Governments RAILROAD EMERGENCY RES PONS E MANUAL Not to be reproduced without written consent of NCR COG Passenger Rail Safety Sub-Committee First Edition May 2008 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This manual could not have been written without the assistance of many dedicated people. Members of the District of Columbia Fire and EMS Department, namely BFC Damian A. Wilk, that have spent many hours providing the material for the creation of this manual. We thank the emergency responders from other jurisdictions and federal agencies that shared their first hand experiences of recent commuter railroad incidents. Many of their experiences were incorporated into sections of this manual. Railroad representatives provided their invaluable technical assistance. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) CSX Transportation, Maryland Rail Commuter (MARC) and Virginia Railway Express (VRE) provided the specific diagrams and illustrations. Representatives from many Federal Agencies also provided information on the technical accounts of railroad equipment and their integrity on past railroad incidents. The members of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) Passenger Rail Safety Subcommittee gratefully presents this manual to both Fire and Rescue Service and Railroad organizations in an effort to instill readiness within our own personnel that they might effectively respond to a railroad incident. SCOPE AND UPDATES This Manual provides specific information on rail equipment and procedures. Due to the size and diversity of the National Capital Area, only general information on tracks and facilities is provided. Each jurisdiction should create appendices to this manual covering the unique rail lines, stations, yards, tunnels, and bridges, in their area.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Part I (“Challenges”) Traces the Development, Current Condition, and Utilization Levels of Baltimore’S Rail Network
    Main Report Part I: Challenges Chapter One INTRODUCTION A. Committee report direction In November 2001, after the railway infrastructure of Baltimore, Maryland had attracted public attention due a catastrophic fire in CSX Transportation’s tunnel under Howard Street, the Congress made the following request: Baltimore, Maryland freight and passenger infrastructure study.⎯The conference agreement includes $750,000 to conduct a comprehensive study to assess problems in the freight and passenger rail infrastructure in the vicinity of Baltimore, Maryland. FRA shall carry out this study in cooperation with the state of Maryland, Amtrak, CSX Corporation and Norfolk Southern Corporation, as outlined in the Senate bill (Sec. 351). The Administrator of FRA shall submit a report, including recommendations, on the results of the study to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees not later than 24 months after the date of enactment of this Act.1 [Section 351 of the Senate bill reads as follows:] SEC. 351. (a) Of the funds appropriated by title I for 16 the Federal Railroad Administration under the heading "Railroad Research and Development," up to $750,000 may be expended to pay 25 percent of the total cost of a comprehensive study to assess existing problems in the freight and passenger rail infrastructure in the vicinity of Baltimore, Maryland, that the Secretary of Transportation shall carry out through the Federal Railroad Administration in cooperation with, and with a total amount of equal funding contributed by, Norfolk Southern Corporation, CSX Corporation, and the State of Maryland. (b)(1) The study shall include an analysis of the condition, track, and clearance limitations and efficiency of the existing tunnels, bridges, and other railroad facilities owned or operated by CSX Corporation, Amtrak, and Norfolk Southern Corporation in the Baltimore area.
    [Show full text]
  • North Terminal Midday Storage Site Investigations
    NORTH TERMINAL MIDDAY STORAGE SITE INVESTIGATIONS May 23, 2016 Virginia Railway Express North Terminal Midday Storage Site Investigations This page intentionally left blank Virginia Railway Express North Terminal Midday Storage Site Investigations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and Virginia Railway Express (VRE) are collaborating on the master planning effort for train storage and maintenance at Amtrak’s Ivy City terminal facility. An early determination of that effort was that the forecasted demand for train storage and maintenance functions within the existing facility on the west side of the Northeast Corridor exceeds available space. Amtrak recommended that VRE consider relocating its midday storage function to vacant Amtrak property on the west side of the Northeast Corridor as: 1. Relocating Amtrak train storage to that location would separate its trains from Amtrak’s maintenance facilities; 2. VRE does not perform any significant maintenance function on its trains during midday storage; and 3. Locating VRE train storage on the east side of the Northeast Corridor would reduce present operating conflicts through C and K interlockings. Recent changes in the Amtrak-VRE Operating Agreement empower Amtrak to start reducing VRE storage in the present Ivy City facility beginning in July 2018. VRE engaged AECOM to investigate other potential sites in the vicinity of Washington DC to locate possible sites for new train locomotive and rail car midday storage yards for VRE trains. New storage locations are required due to limited capacities in the near future at the present storage locations. The site should be capable of housing up to twenty VRE 10-car passenger trains (or a total of 174 units) during the primary middle hours of the weekday.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment Transportation and Transit
    Transportation and Transit Assessment Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning – January 2020 Route 1 Transportation and Transit Assessment ROUTE 1 TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT Master Plan into the General Plan Update allows for a more comprehensive evaluation of the corridor I. INTRODUCTION and an opportunity to evaluate Route 1 in a wider The Route 1 Corridor serves the easternmost part context relative to Howard County as a whole. of Howard County, which runs parallel to I-95 (Map These papers will be used as resources by the 2, pg. 5). Before the Interstate system was general plan consultant team. The content of these constructed, Route 1 served as the main papers is based on the work of RKG and its north/south highway serving the eastern U.S. from consultant team, Howard County staff, the HoCo By Maine to Florida. As such, the land use patterns Design consulting team, and input from citizen along this historic highway are typically engagement. The Transportation and Transit characterized by vintage motels and hotels, II. PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENTS assessment will address transportation and transit roadside restaurants, trucking terminals, infrastructure needs in the corridor. warehouses and various other uses. The roadway Transition from the Corridor Plan Transportation-related policy considerations are was designed to support the movement of goods In 2018, a Route 1 Corridor Master Plan was presented to support the vision for economic and people. initiated to develop recommendations on development, and case studies provide precedents revitalization strategies specific for Route 1 and was from other areas in Maryland that are located along Over many decades, Route 1 has become a anticipated to be an amendment to the current State Highway Administration (SHA) roads and that secondary corridor to the interstate highway General Plan, PlanHoward 2030.
    [Show full text]
  • DC2RVA Tier II Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(F)
    APPENDIX F REFINED OPERATIONS ANALYSIS MODELING TECHNICAL MEMOS MEMO Date: November 7, 2017 To: Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation From: DC2RVA Project Team Subject: Results of DRPT’s Refined Operations Analysis to Satisfy FRA Requests and Enable FRA Support for Issuance of the DC2RVA Project Tier II Draft Environmental Statement 1.0 SUMMARY This report describes the approach, assumptions, and results of a refined operations analysis undertaken by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) for the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in support of the Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail Tier II Environmental Impact Statement and Service Development Plan (the DC2RVA Project). Table 1 contains a summary of the modeling results from the refined operations analysis simulations undertaken by DRPT (see table on page 2). 2.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The DCRVA Project proposes to increase track capacity between Arlington, Richmond, and Centralia, Virginia, to improve passenger rail service frequency, reliability, and travel time in a corridor shared by increasing volumes of passenger, commuter, and freight rail traffic. The DC2RVA Project is part of the larger Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) corridor, which extends from Washington, D.C. through Richmond and continues east to Hampton Roads (Norfolk and Newport News), VA and south to Raleigh, NC, and Charlotte, NC, and then continues west to Atlanta and south to Florida. The DC2RVA Project connects to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
    [Show full text]