DOCSLIB.ORG

Northern Indiana Ohio Passenger Rail Corridor Feasibility Study And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Northern Indiana Ohio Passenger Rail Corridor Feasibility Study And NORTHERN INDIANA/OHIO PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY AND BUSINESS PLAN 1.1 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING TRAVEL MARKET ............................................................................ 1-1 1.2 STUDY PROCESS ........................................................................................................... 1-8 1.3 REPORT STRUCTURE .................................................................................................... 1-10 2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 2-1 3.1 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING TRAVEL MARKET ........................................................................... 3-1 3.2 BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE COMPASS™ TRAVEL MARKET FORECAST MODEL .............................. 3-1 3.3 ZONE DEFINITION ........................................................................................................ 3-3 3.4 SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE AND PROJECTIONS ..................................................................... 3-4 3.5 EXISTING TRAVEL MODES ............................................................................................... 3-6 3.6 ORIGIN-DESTINATION TRIP DATABASE .............................................................................. 3-9 3.7 FUTURE TRAVEL MARKET STRATEGIES ............................................................................. 3-11 3.7.1 FUEL PRICE FORECASTS ..................................................................................... 3-11 3.7.2 VEHICLE FUEL EFFICIENCY FORECAST .................................................................... 3-13 3.4.3 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC CONGESTION ......................................................................... 3-14 3.8 CORRIDOR TRAVEL MARKET FORECASTS WITHOUT PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE ........................... 3-15 3.9 CORRIDOR TRAVEL MARKET FORECASTS WITH PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE ................................. 3-17 4.1 CONTEXT OF THE ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT ....................................................................... 4-1 4.2 HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR THE STUDY .............................................................................. 4-2 4.3 INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT CATEGORIES AND UNIT COSTS .............................................. 4-4 4.4 INFRASTRUCTURE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................ 4-8 4.4.1 COLUMBUS TO CP MOUNDS .................................................................................. 4-8 4.4.2 CP MOUNDS TO DUNKIRK .................................................................................. 4-14 4.4.3 DUNKIRK TO FORT WAYNE ................................................................................. 4-18 Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2012 | Page ii NORTHERN INDIANA/OHIO PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY AND BUSINESS PLAN 4.4.4 FORT WAYNE TO TOLLESTON .............................................................................. 4-28 4.4.5 130-MPH ENHANCEMENTS TO THE FORT WAYNE TO TOLLESTON SEGMENT .................... 4-34 4.4.6 COMPARISON TO 2007 OHIO HUB PLAN ............................................................... 4-36 4.5 ROLLING STOCK COST ................................................................................................. 4-37 4.6 CAPITAL COST SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 4-38 4.7 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ................................................................................................ 4-38 5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 TRAIN TECHNOLOGY ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................. 5-2 5.3 TRAIN PERFORMANCE AND SCHEDULE – DIESEL – 110 AND DIESEL 130 .................................... 5-3 5.4 TRAIN TIMETABLE AND CYCLING ...................................................................................... 5-5 5.5 OPERATING COSTS ........................................................................................................ 5-8 5.5.1 VARIABLE COSTS .............................................................................................. 5-11 5.5.2 FIXED ROUTE COSTS ......................................................................................... 5-14 5.6 2030 OPERATING COST RESULT .................................................................................... 5-19 6.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................ 6-1 6.2 FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES ............................................................................. 6-2 6.2.1 KEY ASSUMPTIONS .............................................................................................. 6-4 6.2.2 ESTIMATE OF ECONOMIC BENEFITS .......................................................................... 6-5 6.3 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 6-9 6.3.1 FINANCIAL RESULTS ............................................................................................ 6-9 6.3.2 ECONOMIC RESULTS .......................................................................................... 6-15 6.4 DIESEL 130 SHARED INFRASTRUCTURE COST SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ..................................... 6-30 7.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 7-1 7.2 THE CHARACTER OF THE OVERALL ECONOMY ...................................................................... 7-1 Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2012 | Page iii NORTHERN INDIANA/OHIO PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY AND BUSINESS PLAN 7.3 ASSESSING SUPPLYSIDE BENEFITS ..................................................................................... 7-4 7.4 DATA SOURCES AND STUDY DATABASE ............................................................................. 7-6 7.5 SUPPLY SIDE ANALYSIS RESULTS: DERIVING ECONOMIC RENT ELASTICITIES ................................ 7-7 7.5.1 CALCULATING SENSITIVITIES ................................................................................. 7-7 7.5.2 PRELIMINARY RESULTS ...................................................................................... 7-10 7.5.2.1 JOB TYPE CREATION ........................................................................... 7-11 7.5.3 INCOME BENEFITS ............................................................................................ 7-12 7.5.4 PROPERTY VALUES ........................................................................................... 7-13 7.6 TRANSFER PAYMENT ANALYSIS RESULT ........................................................................... 7-13 7.6.1 FEDERAL AND STATE INCREASED INCOME TAX BASE ................................................. 7-13 7.7 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 7-14 7.7.1 ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO THE ECONOMY (SUPPLYSIDE ANALYSIS) ................................. 7-14 8.1 OVERALL FINDINGS ....................................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 FINANCIAL BENEFITS ...................................................................................................... 8-4 8.3 BENEFIT COST .............................................................................................................. 8-4 8.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (SUPPLYSIDE) ........................................................................ 8-5 Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2012 | Page iv NORTHERN INDIANA/OHIO PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY AND BUSINESS PLAN The purpose of this Feasibility Study and Business Plan is to evaluate the case for developing high- speed rail operations in the Northern Indiana/Ohio Passenger Rail Corridor between Chicago, Fort Wayne, and Columbus. The Chicago-Fort Wayne-Columbus corridor (Exhibit 1-1) was initially proposed in the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI) 2004 (Phase 5) which is federally approved and was incorporated into the Ohio and Lake Erie Regional Rail: Ohio Hub Study (2007) as an incremental corridor. These proposals were for 110 mph Diesel technology service linking Chicago with Northwest Indiana, Northeast Indiana, and Central Ohio (Exhibits 1-2 and 1-3). Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2012 | Page 1-1 NORTHERN INDIANA/OHIO PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY AND BUSINESS PLAN Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2012 | Page 1-2 NORTHERN INDIANA/OHIO PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY AND BUSINESS PLAN Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2012 | Page 1-3 NORTHERN INDIANA/OHIO PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY AND BUSINESS PLAN The proposed service parallels some of the most congested highway corridors in the US including I-80, I-94 and I-90 in the Chicago, Northwest Indiana (Gary) area, where all the east-west connections for the northern part of the country are forced together by Lake Michigan. This creates a major bottleneck, which will only become more congested in the future. In addition, the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pioneering the Application of High Speed Rail Express Trainsets in the United States
    Parsons Brinckerhoff 2010 William Barclay Parsons Fellowship Monograph 26 Pioneering the Application of High Speed Rail Express Trainsets in the United States Fellow: Francis P. Banko Professional Associate Principal Project Manager Lead Investigator: Jackson H. Xue Rail Vehicle Engineer December 2012 136763_Cover.indd 1 3/22/13 7:38 AM 136763_Cover.indd 1 3/22/13 7:38 AM Parsons Brinckerhoff 2010 William Barclay Parsons Fellowship Monograph 26 Pioneering the Application of High Speed Rail Express Trainsets in the United States Fellow: Francis P. Banko Professional Associate Principal Project Manager Lead Investigator: Jackson H. Xue Rail Vehicle Engineer December 2012 First Printing 2013 Copyright © 2013, Parsons Brinckerhoff Group Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means—graphic, electronic, mechanical (including photocopying), recording, taping, or information or retrieval systems—without permission of the pub- lisher. Published by: Parsons Brinckerhoff Group Inc. One Penn Plaza New York, New York 10119 Graphics Database: V212 CONTENTS FOREWORD XV PREFACE XVII PART 1: INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH 3 1.1 Unprecedented Support for High Speed Rail in the U.S. ....................3 1.2 Pioneering the Application of High Speed Rail Express Trainsets in the U.S. .....4 1.3 Research Objectives . 6 1.4 William Barclay Parsons Fellowship Participants ...........................6 1.5 Host Manufacturers and Operators......................................7 1.6 A Snapshot in Time .................................................10 CHAPTER 2 HOST MANUFACTURERS AND OPERATORS, THEIR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES 11 2.1 Overview . 11 2.2 Introduction to Host HSR Manufacturers . 11 2.3 Introduction to Host HSR Operators and Regulatory Agencies .
    [Show full text]
  • Project Purpose and Need Statement June 2019
    Norfolk Southern Railway Company Pittsburgh Vertical Clearance Projects Project Purpose and Need Statement June 2019 INTRODUCTION: These proposed projects are railway improvement projects on the Pittsburgh and Fort Wayne Rail Lines (together referred to as the Pittsburgh Line), owned and operated by Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR). The proposed projects consist of addressing freight capacity and delay constraints through the City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The Pittsburgh Line serves rail freight traffic in interstate commerce and operates as a primary link through Pittsburgh between Chicago and the New York/New Jersey commercial markets. NSR is a common carrier and the Pittsburgh Line forms a critical component of NSR’s route between Chicago and the east coast, carrying a variety of commodities, both hazardous material such as chlorine, anhydrous ammonia, hydrogen fluoride, crude oil, and ethanol, as well as nonhazardous materials like coal, auto parts and finished vehicles, lumber, agricultural products, and intermodal containers and trailers. The six overhead clearance projects [North Avenue Bridge, Pittsburgh (PC-1.60); Pennsylvania Avenue Bridge, Pittsburgh (PC-1.82); Columbus Avenue Bridge, Pittsburgh (PC-2.17); Ohio Connecting (OC) Bridge Flyover, Pittsburgh (PC-3.38); Washington Avenue Bridge, Swissvale (PT-344.91); and Amtrak Station Canopy (PT-353.20)] have vertical obstructions along the Pittsburgh Line and prevent efficient movement of freight, especially time-sensitive intermodal freight, by rail between Chicago and New York/New Jersey, and specifically through Pennsylvania. Unused capacity exists on the Pittsburgh Line and these clearance projects will allow the line to accommodate anticipated freight growth while allowing for double-stack intermodal freight to use the Pittsburgh Line in lieu of the Mon Line.
    [Show full text]
  • High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements of Success Part 2
    San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Faculty Publications, Urban and Regional Planning Urban and Regional Planning January 2007 High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements of Success Part 2 Allison deCerreno Shishir Mathur San Jose State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/urban_plan_pub Part of the Infrastructure Commons, Public Economics Commons, Public Policy Commons, Real Estate Commons, Transportation Commons, Urban, Community and Regional Planning Commons, Urban Studies Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Recommended Citation Allison deCerreno and Shishir Mathur. "High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements of Success Part 2" Faculty Publications, Urban and Regional Planning (2007). This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Urban and Regional Planning at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications, Urban and Regional Planning by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MTI Report 06-03 MTI HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES: IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS-PART 2 IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS-PART HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES: Funded by U.S. Department of HIGH-SPEED RAIL Transportation and California Department PROJECTS IN THE UNITED of Transportation STATES: IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS PART 2 Report 06-03 Mineta Transportation November Institute Created by 2006 Congress in 1991 MTI REPORT 06-03 HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES: IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS PART 2 November 2006 Allison L.
    [Show full text]
  • Merchant Street Bridge Project City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS July 27, 2020
    Merchant Street Bridge Project City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS July 27, 2020 1. What is the purpose and need for this project? The purpose of the Merchant Street Bridge Project is to maintain safe freight and passenger rail operations along the Fort Wayne Line to continue the efficient transportation of goods and people between Chicago and the New York/New Jersey commercial markets, as well as within local markets. The bridge structure has reached the end of its useful life and engineering inspections have identified a need to address these problems in order to maintain safe interstate rail transportation along the Fort Wayne Line. The bridge carrying the Fort Wayne Line over Merchant Street has safety deficiencies that have the potential to create risks to current rail traffic and forecasted rail traffic increases throughout the United States and within Pennsylvania and the Pittsburgh region in particular. The project need for the Merchant Street Bridge project is to address safety, reliability, and facility deficiencies. Additionally, the City of Pittsburgh has requested the roadway profile at Merchant Street be lowered to allow emergency vehicles to pass under the bridge. 2. How will the Merchant Street Bridge Project affect air quality, noise, and vibration in the area? The Merchant Street Bridge Project would not result in any significant effect on air quality, noise, or vibration. The on-alignment replacement of the Merchant Street Bridge would not significantly affect air emissions. Minor temporary emissions will result for a short duration relating to construction equipment for the bridge replacement work. According to the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, adopted by Federal Railroad Administration, the reconstruction of facilities that occupy substantially the same geographic footprint and do not result in a change in functional use, such as improvements to existing bridges, would not require noise impact analysis because the project would not change the noise source.
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri Blue Ribbon Panel on Hyperloop
    Chairman Lt. Governor Mike Kehoe Vice Chairman Andrew G. Smith Panelists Jeff Aboussie Cathy Bennett Tom Blair Travis Brown Mun Choi Tom Dempsey Rob Dixon Warren Erdman Rep. Travis Fitzwater Michael X. Gallagher Rep. Derek Grier Chris Gutierrez Rhonda Hamm-Niebruegge Mike Lally Mary Lamie Elizabeth Loboa Sen. Tony Luetkemeyer MISSOURI BLUE RIBBON Patrick McKenna Dan Mehan Joe Reagan Clint Robinson PANEL ON HYPERLOOP Sen. Caleb Rowden Greg Steinhoff Report prepared for The Honorable Elijah Haahr Tariq Taherbhai Leonard Toenjes Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives Bill Turpin Austin Walker Ryan Weber Sen. Brian Williams Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5 A National Certification Track in Missouri .................................................................................................... 8 Track Specifications ................................................................................................................................. 10 SECTION 1: International Tube Transport Center of Excellence (ITTCE) ................................................... 12 Center Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 12 Research Areas ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Issue #84 — August 1989
    • AUGUST 1989 OHIO ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD PASSENGERS ISSUE #34 CONFRONTING THE END OF A LINE by OARP President Tom Pulsifer Fort Wayne 20,000, Lima 16,000, Canton 13,000, Crestline 8,000. These four stations handled some 57,000 Amtrak passengers last year. Now, through no fault of the train users, their trains may be taken away--probably for good! Amtrak and Conrail are presently locked in off-and-on ne­ gotiations upon which rests the future of the Fort Wayne Line, the direct former mainline of the Pennsylvania Rail­ road between Pittsburgh and Chicago and today's route of Amtrak's BROADWAY and CAPITOL LIMITED passenger trains. At the core of the matter is a segment of 19.2 miles of line between Gary and Valparaiso. Conrail claims Amtrak should bear the full cost of all maintenance expense on this portion of line because Conrail says they no longer run freights over this segment. Conrail has been sending Amtrak a monthly bill of $30,000 for track maintenance and has done this since March of 1988. Thus far, Amtrak has refused to pay these bills and claims Conrail HAS used the track for freight trains, and therefore why should Amtrak pay for all the maintenance costs. Although Conrail con­ tinues to bill Amtrak, the bill collectors have not yet been sent. Amtrak firmly maintains it will reroute its passenger trains onto other lines before it will pay Con­ rail one dime of disputed line maintenance costs. Amtrak and Conrail may get what they want -- but the Fort Wayne Line passengers may get left at the end of the line.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Alternatives Selection Report: Identification of Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail Alternatives
    Final Alternatives Selection Report: Identification of Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail Alternatives Milwaukee-Twin Cities High-Speed Rail Corridor Program Prepared for: Minnesota Department of Transportation Wisconsin Department of Transportation Prepared by: Quandel Consultants, LLC Version: October 26, 2011 Revised November 1, 2012 Alternatives Selection Report Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………...vi 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of Alternatives Selection Report .................................................................................. 1‐1 1.2 Background of Midwest Regional Rail Initiative ........................................................................ 1‐1 1.3 Background of Milwaukee‐Twin Cities High‐Speed Rail Corridor Program ............................... 1‐4 1.4 Project Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................... 1‐13 1.5 Route Alternatives Analysis ..................................................................................................... 1‐15 1.6 Public Involvement ................................................................................................................... 1‐16 1.7 Identification of Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives ............................................................ 1‐17 1.8 Technical Documentation .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail Ohio Hub Study
    The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail Ohio Hub Study TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM & BUSINESS PLAN July 2007 Prepared for The Ohio Rail Development Commission Indiana Department of Transportation Michigan Department of Transportation New York Department of Transportation Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Prepared by: Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. In association with HNTB, Inc. The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail - Ohio Hub Study Technical Memorandum & Business Plan Table of Contents Foreword...................................................................................................................................... viii Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................................x Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................1 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 System Planning and Feasibility Goals and Objectives................................................... 1-3 1.2 Business Planning Objectives.......................................................................................... 1-4 1.3 Study Approach and Methodology .................................................................................. 1-4 1.4 Railroad Infrastructure Analysis...................................................................................... 1-5 1.5 Passenger
    [Show full text]
  • Merchant Street Bridge Project Purpose and Need Statement
    Norfolk Southern Railway Company Merchant Street, Pittsburgh, PA Project Purpose and Need Statement June 2019 INTRODUCTION: The Merchant Street Bridge, located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania along the Fort Wayne Line, which is owned and operated by Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR), provides a grade separation from automobile traffic traveling below the rail line along Merchant Street. Merchant Street connects Ridge Avenue with Martindale Street under the Fort Wayne Line. The Fort Wayne Line serves rail freight traffic in interstate commerce and operates as a primary link through Pittsburgh between Chicago and the New York/New Jersey commercial markets. NSR is a common carrier and the Fort Wayne Line forms a critical component of NSR’s route between Chicago and the east coast, carrying a variety of commodities, both hazardous material such as chlorine, anhydrous ammonia, hydrogen fluoride, crude oil, and ethanol, as well as nonhazardous materials like coal, auto parts and finished vehicles, lumber, agricultural products, and intermodal containers and trailers. The line Fort Wayne Line also carries passenger traffic. The Merchant Street Bridge was constructed circa 1905 and consists of two skewed steel spans supported by stone masonry abutments and one intermediate steel bent. The ballast-deck superstructure is comprised of a concrete-filled riveted steel trough system that varies in length and width and carries four active railroad tracks, with capacity to carry up to 70 trains per day. There is extensive steel corrosion within the cross girders and columns comprising the intermediate bent as well as throughout the riveted trough system. These conditions will be considered safety concerns within a few years and may pose a safety hazard to the railroad and the traveling public and a potential liability to other transportation entities (e.g., City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County) if not addressed.
    [Show full text]
  • Cfs0997all2.Pdf
    Acknowledgements United States Department of Transportation Secretary Federico F. Peña; Rodney E. Slater Deputy Secretary Mortimer L. Downey Federal Railroad Administration Administrator Jolene M. Molitoris Deputy Administrator Donald M. Itzkoff Associate Administrator for Railroad Development James T. McQueen Deputy Associate Administrator for Railroad Development Arrigo P. Mongini Study manager; general editor; principal writer Neil E. Moyer System benefits; financing; Alice M. Alexander Magnetic levitation John T. Harding contract administration James L. Milner Transportation analysis Bruce Goldberg Chapter 1; liability; State Gareth W. Rosenau Helen Ng opportunities Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Senior study advisor; Volpe Center project manager Ronald A. Mauri Travel demand forecasting Simon P. Prensky System concept definition Michael N. Coltman David M. Nienhaus Leonore I. Katz-Rhoads Sarah J. Lawrence* Robert P. Brodesky* Model implementation: Todd C. Green* Energy and emissions model Howard M. Eichenbaum* projections of operating results David L. Skinner implementation and investment needs *EG&G/Dynatrend Argonne National Laboratories Charles River Associates Energy and emissions model Donald M. Rote Demand model development Dan Brand development Zian Wang Thomas E. Parody Mark R. Kiefer DeLeuw, Cather & Co. and Associated Firms DeLeuw, Cather project manager Michael Holowaty Operating expense model Duncan W. Allen Ancillary activities model Steven A. LaRocco development Winn B. Frank development Richard L. Tower (Wilbur Eric C. MacDonald Smith) Charles H. Banks (R.L. Banks) Public benefits model design and Guillaume Shearin Liability Charles A. Spitulnik implementation Robert J. Zuelsdorf (Wilbur (Hopkins & Sutter) Smith) Kenneth G. Sislak (Wilbur Anne G. Reyner (Wilbur Smith) Smith) Jeffrey B. Allen Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Parsons, Brinckerhoff project manager John A.
    [Show full text]
  • Cincinnati 7
    - city of CINCINNATI 7 RAILROAD IMPROVEMENT AND SAFETY PLAN Ekpatm~d Tra tim & Engineering Tran~~murnPlanning & Urhn 'Design EXHIBIT Table of Contents I. Executive Summary 1 Introduction 1 Background 7 Purpose 7 I. Enhance Rail Passenger Service to the Cincinnati Union Terminal 15 11. Enhance Freight Railroad Service to and Through Cincinnati 21 111. Identify Railroad Related Safety Improvements 22 RlSP Projects 26 Conclusions 26 Recommendations 27 Credits List of Figures Figure 1 Cincinnati Area Railroads Map (1965) Figure 2 Cincinnati Area Railroads Map (Existing) Figure 3 Amtrak's Cardinal on the C&O of Indiana Figure 4 Penn Central Locomotive on the Blue Ash Subdivision Figure 5 CSX Industrial Track (Former B&0 Mainline) at Winton Road Figure 6 Cincinnati Riverfront with Produce Companies Figure 7 Railroads on the Cincinnati Riverfront Map (1976) Figure 8 Former Southwest Connection Piers Figure 9 Connection from the C&O Railroad Bridge to the Conrail Ditch Track Figure 10 Amtrak's Cardinal at the Cincinnati Union Terminal Figure 11 Chicago Hub Network - High Speed Rail Corridor Map Figure 12 Amtrak Locomotive at the CSX Queensgate Yard Locomotive Facility Figure 13 Conceptual Passenger Rail Corridor Figure 14 Southwest Connection Figure 15 Winton Place Junction Figure 16 Train on CSX Industrial Track Near Evans Street Crossing Figure 17 Potential Railroad Abandonments Map Figure 18 Proposed RlSP Projects Map Figure 19 RlSP Project Cost and Priority Executive Summary Introduction The railroad infrastructure in Cincinnati is critical for the movement of goods within the City, region, and country. It also provides the infrastructure for intercity passenger rail.
    [Show full text]
  • Purpose and Need for Action
    2. Purpose and Need for Action 2. Purpose and Need for Section PURPOSE AND NEED 2 FOR ACTION 2.0 Purpose and Need for Action This chapter describes the purpose and need for improved high speed passenger rail on the Chicago to St. Louis HSR Corridor. In addition, this chapter describes the proposals and provides information on its history, previous and current rail studies along the corridor, and existing and future corridor conditions. Finally, this chapter identifies major authorizing laws and regulations; discusses the relationship of the proposal to statutes, regulations, policies, programs, and plans; and lists federal permits, licenses, and other requirements for program implementation. An overview map of the proposed program is shown on Exhibit 2.0‐1. 2.1 Background 2.1.1 History For more than two decades, IDOT has pursued improvements to passenger rail service between Chicago and St. Louis. The Chicago to St. Louis HSR Corridor is part of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative program’s intent to develop and implement a 21st‐ century regional passenger rail system. 2.1.1.1 Previous Studies High‐speed rail in the Chicago to St. Louis corridor was first studied in 1979, when a system consisting of a 150 mph, electrified, double tracked network on a new alignment was evaluated. At the end of the study, it was concluded that the potential cost of new alignment high‐speed rail service was unaffordable, and that efforts should be concentrated on improving existing passenger train service along existing alignments. In 1992, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation designated the Chicago to St.
    [Show full text]