DOCSLIB.ORG

Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan Fiscal Years 2021-2025

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan Fiscal Years 2021-2025 October 2020 Congress established the Northeast Corridor Commission to develop coordinated strategies for improving the Northeast’s core rail network in recognition of the inherent challenges of planning, financing, and implementing major infrastructure improvements that cross multiple jurisdictions. The expectation is that by coming together to take collective responsibility for the NEC, these disparate stakeholders will achieve a level of success that far exceeds the potential reach of any individual organization. The Commission is governed by a board comprised of one member from each of the NEC states (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland) and the District of Columbia; four members from Amtrak; and five members from the U.S. Department of Transportation. The Commission also includes non-voting representatives from four freight railroads, states with connecting corridors, and several commuter operators in the region. Contents Letter from the Co-Chairs 1 Introduction 3 FY21-25 Capital Investment Plan 6 NEC Investment Summary 6 NEC Infrastructure Investments with Funding Available in FY21-25 8 NEC Infrastructure Investments with Funding Needs in FY21-25 16 Funding Needs beyond FY21-25 21 Project Information Appendix 22 Capital Renewal 22 Special Projects 152 Newarkiv Penn| NEC Station Capital Investment Plan: FY21-25 Letter from the Co-Chairs We are enduring the most difficult times any of our agencies have experienced. The COVID-19 pandemic has cost so much for Northeast Corridor stakeholders: fewer customers, lost revenue, and less certainty for our futures. Most grievously, we have lost staff members to the virus. Despite these hardships, our agencies and their employees have carried on, keeping systems running as safely as possible, in particular to support the movement of the essential workers who have kept our healthcare system and our economy as functional as possible. Although the pandemic has created tremendous uncertainty for our industry, it has not changed the imperative to bring the Northeast Corridor to a state of good repair and lay a foundation for growth once the current crisis eases and life returns to normal. Capital plans have always played—and will continue to play—a key role in advancing these goals, yet they also represent a snapshot in time and can be challenging to prepare under normal circumstances. This document, the FY21-25 NEC Capital Investment Plan, was developed during the first six months of the pandemic; as such, it reflects the Commission’s best available information during an extremely volatile and dynamic period where stakeholders have even less clarity than usual on what funding might be available to support our operations and capital programs. The Commission approved the Capital Investment Plan mindful of these uncertainties and will report adjustments to plan through its quarterly reporting process. It is our hope and expectation that the advancement of NEC capital investments will play an important role in supporting the industry’s recovery and energizing the regional economy. Looking beyond the five-year time frame, the Commission has been hard at work on CONNECT NEC 2035, a planning process that will provide a roadmap for implementing phase one (i.e., the first 15 years) of the Federal Railroad Administration’s long-term vision for the corridor established in the 2017 NEC FUTURE Record of Decision. Key to this planning process will be an unprecedented project delivery analysis—an assessment of the track outage and workforce requirements to build all identified infrastructure projects by 2035 while maintaining, at minimum, pre-COVID-19 service levels. When CONNECT NEC 2035 is completed by the fall of 2021, the Commission will begin using it as a roadmap for the annual NEC Capital Investment Plan. As these planning efforts progress and mature, much work remains to improve capital planning, reporting, and plan adherence at NEC stakeholder agencies, but the commitment to make those improvements remains strong. During these difficult times, Commission members are committed to working together and with Congress to maintain essential operations, spend capital dollars as efficiently as possible, and plan for our future. We look forward to continued partnership and brighter days to come. Ronald Batory Kevin S. Corbett Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration Executive Director, NJ TRANSIT Co-Chair, Northeast Corridor Commission Co-Chair, Northeast Corridor Commission Northeast Corridor Commission | 1 2 | NEC Capital Investment Plan: FY21-25 Introduction The Northeast Corridor Each day, the Northeast Corridor—both the NEC main line and connecting corridors to Harrisburg, PA; Spuyten Duyvil, NY; and Springfield, MA—hosts the passenger rail operations of eight commuter railroads and Amtrak’s intercity services. The 457-mile main line railroad still includes many bridges and tunnels that date back to the period between the Civil War and the New Deal. Located in the most densely populated region of the United States, the NEC is a vital transportation asset. Between fiscal years 2016 and 2019, the NEC hosted over 800,000 average daily trips. However, fiscal year 2020 presented significant challenges to its riders and operating agencies due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since March 2020, NEC commuter and intercity passenger rail, like other transportation modes across the United States, has experienced steep ridership declines as the nation used social-distancing, telework, and travel advisories to slow the spread of the disease. As a result of these measures, a global recession is on-going without a clear end in sight. Unemployment in the metro areas along the Northeast Corridor alone rose by 10 percentage points during the third quarter of federal fiscal year 2020 compared to the same period last year.1 When the economy returns to full strength in the coming years, the NEC rail system will continue to serve as a vital transportation asset and driver of economic growth. Capital investment in the NEC will ensure a well-functioning railroad to enable workers to commute to jobs, people to connect with family and friends, and the region to attract businesses in a globally competitive economy. 1 Local Area Unemployment Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020 Northeast Corridor Commission | 3 The Northeast Corridor Commission Congress established the Northeast Corridor Commission to develop coordinated strategies for improving the Northeast’s core rail network in recognition of the inherent challenges of planning, financing, and implementing major infrastructure improvements that cross multiple jurisdictions. The expectation is that by coming together to take collective responsibility for the NEC, these disparate stakeholders will achieve a level of success that far exceeds the potential reach of any individual organization. The Commission is governed by a board comprised of one member from each of the NEC states (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland) and the District of Columbia; four members from Amtrak; and five members from the U.S. Department of Transportation. The Commission also includes non-voting representatives from freight railroads, states with connecting corridors, and several commuter operators in the region. The NEC Commuter and Intercity Rail Cost Allocation Policy In September 2015, the Commission adopted the NEC Commuter and Intercity Rail Cost Allocation Policy. The Policy outlines a partnership built on three pillars. First, it established a framework for allocating approximately $1.3 billion annually in shared operating costs and capital normalized replacement values among the NEC’s four right-of-way owners and nine passenger rail operators. The agencies’ financial obligations are calculated annually through the NEC Commission’s Cost Allocation Model and are based on agencies' relative use of NEC infrastructure. Right-of-way owners use agencies’ capital obligations, referred to as Baseline Capital Charges, to fund capital renewal investments associated with right-of-way basic infrastructure assets, such as track, structures, electric traction systems, and communication and signal systems. Second, the Policy established a framework for transparency, collaboration, and accountability, including a first-ever corridor-wide capital planning and reporting process. The NEC Capital Investment Plan is a key component of that NEC-wide process and is required by the most recent federal transportation law, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (49 U.S.C. §24904(a)(1)). The final pillar of the Policy outlines a stable federal partnership framework from the perspective of Amtrak, NEC states, and Commuter Authorities, which, if implemented, should provide dependable and adequate funding to help restore the NEC to a state-of-good-repair, beyond the vital funds appropriated by Congress annually. 4 | NEC Capital Investment Plan: FY21-25 The NEC Capital Investment Plan The NEC Capital Investment Plan (CIP) integrates NEC infrastructure investments planned by each NEC owner and operator over a five-year period into a single planning document to develop a complete picture of corridor activities. The plan combines anticipated investments based on available funding with capital investments that could occur with additional funding given available resources. Year One of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • GATEWAY PROGRAM OVERVIEW and UPDATE John D
    January 12, 2017 GATEWAY PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND UPDATE John D. Porcari, Interim Executive Director Gateway Program Development Corporation 1 GATEWAY PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION » Incorporated in the state of New Jersey under Title 15A:2-8 New Jersey Domestic Nonprofit Corporation Act. » For coordinating, developing, operating, financing, managing, owning or otherwise engaging in activities to effectuate the transportation project between Penn Station, Newark, New Jersey, and Penn Station, New York, New York currently referred to as the “Gateway Program.” » Four trustees appointed by US DOT, Amtrak, NJ TRANSIT, and NYS DOT, respectively. Gateway Program Development Corporation 2 HOW IT WILL WORK Federal NJ Other/ Amtrak PANYNJ Grants TRANSIT Private Federal Gateway Program Development Loans Corporation Project Delivery NJ Amtrak TRANSIT PANYNJ Consultants/ Contractors Gateway Program Development Corporation 3 WHAT IS THE GATEWAY PROGRAM? » Hudson Tunnel Project » New Hudson River Tunnel » Rehabilitation of Existing North River Tunnel » Replacement of Portal Bridge » Expansion of Penn Station, New York » Capacity and Renewal Projects in New Jersey » Sawtooth Bridges/ Harrison » Portal South Bridge » Secaucus Station and Loops » Operating Rail Yard in NJ » Newark-Secaucus Improvements Gateway Program Development Corporation 4 WHY DO WE NEED GATEWAY? »Existing North River Tunnel, Completed in 1910 Gateway Program Development Corporation 5 SUPERSTORM SANDY CAUSED IRREPARABLE DAMAGE » Superstorm Sandy forced 4-day closure of the NEC in October 2012. » Ongoing damage to internal components requires complete renewal of inundated tunnels. » Tunnel reconstruction requires closure of each tube for outages of ~1.5 years. » Without new tunnel in place, closure would devastate service. » Rebuilding of the existing North River Tunnel will not begin until the new Hudson Tunnel is built and commissioned.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Investment Plan
    2021 Capital Investment Plan This page intentionally left blank 2021 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................. 1 This format of the Capital Investment Plan provides a text- Letter from Secretary Pollack ............................................... 1 only alternative to the Story Map presentation available Non-Discrimination Protections ............................................ 3 through https://www.mass.gov/cip. For the full version, Glossary of Terms ................................................................ 7 please see the linked website. Introduction ........................................................................ 13 Program Investments by Division.................................... 14 Priorities → Programs → Projects .................................. 15 Funding .............................................................................. 17 Investment Priorities........................................................... 25 Reliability Investments .................................................... 25 Modernization Investments ............................................. 26 Expansion Investments ................................................... 27 Selected Major Investments & Programs ........................ 28 Equity Analysis ................................................................... 30 Public Comment and Engagement ..................................... 33 2021 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN This page intentionally left
    [Show full text]
  • Staff Presentation October 1, 2013 Meeting Agenda
    Adhoc Planning Commission Committee Review of the Virginia Square Sector Plan Virginia Square Site Staff Presentation October 1, 2013 Meeting Agenda • Introductions • Analysis of Office Uses in Virginia Square • Arts/Cultural Facilities in Virginia Square • Discussion of Transportation Concerns • Draft Matrix of Sector Plan Guidance • Discussion & Next steps Analysis of Office Use on Virginia Square Site • Determination that Virginia Square Site is not a critical office location • From a market perspective, Virginia Square neighborhood not a primary office cluster • Residential/mixed-use character • Large institutional presence • In between two existing/emerging primary office clusters – Ballston and Clarendon/Courthouse Analysis of Office Use on Virginia Square Site Analysis of Office Use on Virginia Square Site Analysis of Office Use on Virginia Square Site • Determination that Virginia Square Site is not a critical office location • Sufficient site capacity exists to support future expansion of primary demand driver – large institutions Analysis of Office Use on Virginia Square Site • Determination that Virginia Square Site is not a critical office location • Sector plan use guidance for this site driven in some part by assumption that office use more compatible with potential theater/cultural use • Significant cultural facility that would benefit from office use above accomplished at 3901 N Fairfax • Building form of office building would limit ability to meet other sector plan goals, as compared to a residential building • Plaza size and connectivity • Affordable housing Consideration of Office Use on Virginia Square Site Did Not Consider Short- Term Market Conditions Projections based on known vacancies and deliveries. Source: AED; CoStar Impact of Longer Term Trends for Office Market Demand • Changing Nature of Federal Presence • Off Shoring • Changing Nature of How We Work • Teleworking, Hoteling, Etc.
    [Show full text]
  • HO Scale Price List 2019
    GAUGEMASTER HO Scale price list 2019 Prices correct at time of going to press and are subject to change at any time Post free option is available for orders above a value of £15 to mainland UK addresses*. Non-mainland UK orders are posted at cost. Orders to non-EC destinations are VAT free. *Except orders containing one or more items above a length of 600mm and below a total order value of £25. Order conforming to this exception will be charged carriage at cost (not to exceed £4.95) Gaugemaster Controls Ltd Gaugemaster House Ford Road Arundel West Sussex BN18 0BN Tel - (01903) 884321 Fax - (01903) 884377 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Printed: 06/09/2019 KEY TO PRICE LISTS The following legends appear at the front of the Product Name for certain entries: * : New Item not yet available # : Not in production, stock available #D# : Discontinued, few remaining #P# : New Item, limited availability www.gaugemaster.com Registered in England No: 2714470. Registered Office: Gaugemaster House, Ford Road, Arundel, West Sussex, BN18 0BN. Directors: R K Taylor, D J Taylor. Bankers: Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, South Street, Chichester, West Sussex, England. Sort Code: 16-16-20 Account No: 11318851 VAT reg: 587 8089 71 1 Contents Atlas 3 Magazines/Books 38 Atlas O 5 Marklin 38 Bachmann 5 Marklin Club 42 Busch 5 Mehano 43 Cararama 8 Merten 43 Dapol 9 Model Power 43 Dapol Kits 9 Modelcraft 43 DCC Concepts 9 MRC 44 Deluxe Materials 11 myWorld 44 DM Toys 11 Noch 44 Electrotren 11 Oxford Diecast 53 Faller 12
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded and Analyzed the Vehicle Monitoring Data for This Event
    WMSC Commissioner Brief: W-0034 – Fatality at Farragut West Station December 9, February201 2019 Prepared for Washington Metrorail Safety Commission meeting on August 4, 2020 Safety event summary: A customer jumped from the Farragut West platform to the track bed as outbound Blue Line Train 406 entered the station on Track 2 on December 9, 2019 at approximately 12:53 p.m. Upon report of the collision, Metro Transit Police and D.C. Fire EMS were called and third rail power was de- energized on Track 2 at 12:55 p.m. Power was de-energized to Track 1 at 1:07 p.m. Service resumed after 3 p.m. Probable Cause: The customer intentionally placed themselves in front of oncoming train. Corrective Actions: None planned in specific response to this event. Train 3166 broken TWC antenna repaired. Staff recommendation: Adopt final report. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Department of Safety & Environmental Management FINAL REPORT OF INVESTIGATION A&I E19675 SMS 20191209#84904 Date of Event: 12/09/2019 Type of Event: Collision (Fatality) Incident Time: 12:54 hrs. Location: Farragut West Station, Track 2 Time and How received by SAFE: 12/09/2019 - 12:55 hrs. - SAFE on-call phone WMSC Notification: 12/09/2019 - 13:09 hrs. WMSC on-call phone Responding Safety officers: WMATA SAFE: Yes, SAFE 203 WMSC: No Other: N/A Rail Vehicle: (L) 3166.3167 x 3114.3115 x 3156.3157 Injuries: Fatal Injury Damage: Car 3166 Broken TWC Antenna Emergency Responders: Metro Transit Police Department (MTPD), Office of Car Maintenance (CMNT), Office of Rail Transportation (RTRA), DC Fire and EMS (DCFD), Safety and Environmental Management (SAFE), Track and Structure (TRST).
    [Show full text]
  • Providence-Boston-En
    FINAL DRAFT To: RIDOT Date: July 15, 2019 Office of Transit Project #: 72895.05 From: VHB and RKG Associates Re: PVD-BOS Phase I Enhanced Rail Service Economic Impact Analysis 1 PURPOSE To strengthen economic links between Providence and Boston, a short-term initiative is under evaluation that includes the implementation of faster and more frequent rail service between the cities. The Providence-Boston trip time of greater than one hour compares unfavorably with other primary-secondary city pairs on the Northeast Corridor (NEC), though this is primarily due to infrastructure and operational constraints on the NEC. This longer trip time psychologically increases the mental distance between the two markets and hinders economic growth that affects integration of education, healthcare, business, cultural and recreation opportunities between the two cities. This memorandum summarizes the preliminary ridership estimate, traveler benefit assessment, and economic analysis for faster passenger rail service between Providence and Boston along the NEC. This analysis assumes a 45-minute travel time from Providence to Boston with stops in Providence, Route 128, Back Bay, and South Station. Two service scenarios were considered: six round trips per day (two AM peak round trips, two PM peak round trips, two off-peak round trips); and nine round trips per day (three AM peak round trips, three PM peak round trips, three off-peak round trips). 2 CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions were reached: • Enhanced rail service will benefit both cities by increasing the locational value for many types of business activities and for residents, resulting in increased productivity in existing industries and helping to attract new firms.
    [Show full text]
  • NEC One-Year Implementation Plan: FY17 Contents
    Northeast Corridor One-Year Implementation Plan Fiscal Year 2017 September 2016 Congress established the Northeast Corridor Commission to develop coordinated strategies for improving the Northeast’s core rail network in recognition of the inherent challenges of planning, financing, and implementing major infrastructure improvements that cross multiple jurisdictions. The expectation is that by coming together to take collective responsibility for the NEC, these disparate stakeholders will achieve a level of success that far exceeds the potential reach of any individual organization. The Commission is governed by a board comprised of one member from each of the NEC states (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland) and the District of Columbia; four members from Amtrak; and five members from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). The Commission also includes non-voting representatives from four freight railroads, states with connecting corridors and several commuter operators in the Region. 2| NEC One-Year Implementation Plan: FY17 Contents Introduction 6 Funding Summary 8 Baseline Capital Charge Program 10 1 - Boston South Station 12 16 - Shore to Girard 42 2 - Boston to Providence 14 17 - Girard to Philadelphia 30th Street 44 3 - Providence to Wickford Junction 16 18 - Philadelphia 30th Street - Arsenal 46 4 - Wickford Junction to New London 18 19 - Arsenal to Marcus Hook 48 5 - New London to New Haven 20 20 - Marcus Hook to Bacon 50 6 - New Haven to State Line 22 21 - Bacon to Perryville 52 7 - State Line to New Rochelle 24 22 - Perryville to WAS 54 8 - New Rochelle to Harold Interlocking 26 23 - Washington Union Terminal 56 9 - Harold Interlocking to F Interlocking 28 24 - WAS to CP Virginia 58 10 - F Interlocking to PSNY 30 25 - Springfield to New Haven 60 11 - Penn Terminal 32 27 - Spuyten Duyvil to PSNY* 62 12 - PSNY to Trenton 34 28 - 30th St.
    [Show full text]
  • New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN %FDFNCFS
    New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN %FDFNCFS Table of CONTENTS Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the Author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Federal Highway Administration. New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN Page left blank intentionally. Table of CONTENTS Acknowledgements The New Jersey Department of Transportation’s Division of Multimodal Services thanks the many organizations and individuals for their time and contribution in making this document possible. New Jersey Department of Transportation Nicole Minutoli Paul Truban Genevieve Clifton Himanshu Patel Andrew Ludasi New Jersey Freight Advisory Committee Calvin Edghill, FHWA Keith Skilton, FHWA Anne Strauss-Wieder, NJTPA Jakub Rowinski, NJTPA Ted Dahlburg, DVRPC Mike Ruane, DVRPC Bill Schiavi, SJTPO David Heller, SJTPO Steve Brown, PANYNJ Victoria Farr, PANYNJ Stephanie Molden, PANYNJ Alan Kearns, NJ TRANSIT Steve Mazur, SJTA Rodney Oglesby, CSX Rick Crawford, Norfolk Southern Michael Fesen, Norfolk Southern Jocelyn Hill, Conrail Adam Baginski, Conrail Kelvin MacKavanagh, New Jersey Short Line Railroad Association Brian Hare, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation David Rosenberg, New York State Department of Transportation Consultant Team Jennifer Grenier, WSP Stephen Chiaramonte, WSP Alan Meyers, WSP Carlos Bastida, WSP Joseph Bryan, WSP Sebastian Guerrero, WSP Debbie Hartman, WSP Ruchi Shrivastava, WSP Reed Sibley, WSP Scudder Smith, WSP Scott Parker, Jacobs Engineering Jayne Yost, Jacobs Engineering
    [Show full text]
  • Shuttle Services at Metro Facilities August 2011
    Shuttle Services at Metro Facilities August 2011 Shuttle Services at Metro Facilities Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Office of Bus Planning August 2011 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Office of Bus Planning Jim Hamre, Director of Bus Planning Krys Ochia, Branch Manager 600 5th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Parsons Brinckerhoff Brian Laverty, AICP, Project Manager Nicholas Schmidt, Task Manager 1401 K Street NW, Suite 701 Washington, DC 20005 Contents Executive Summary ES-1 Existing Conditions ES-1 Policies and Procedures ES-2 Future Demand ES-3 Recommendations ES-4 Introduction 1 Study Process 3 Coordination 3 On-Site Observations 3 Operating Issues 3 Future Demand 4 Permitting and Enforcement 4 Existing Conditions 7 Key Observations 8 Operating Issues 9 Policies and Procedures 17 Permitting 17 Enforcement 19 Future Demand 25 Methodology 25 Results 28 Recommendations 33 Facility Design 34 Demand Management 37 Permitting 39 Enforcement 42 Contents | i Figures Figure ES-1: Future Shuttle Demand Estimate ES-4 Figure 1: Location of Peer U.S. Transit Agencies 4 Figure 2: Study Stations 7 Figure 3: Vehicles in Tight Turning Areas May Block Bus Bay Entrances (New Carrollton Station) 11 Figure 4: Long Kiss & Ride Queue (New Carrollton Station) 11 Figure 5: Pedestrian Shortcut (Southern Avenue Station) 11 Figure 6: Shuttle Blocking Kiss & Ride Travel Lane (King Street Station) 12 Figure 7: Shuttle Blocking Bus Stop (Anacostia Station) 13 Figure 8: Typical Signs Prohibiting Non-Authorized Access to Station Bus Bays
    [Show full text]
  • DOT/FRA/ORD-09/07 April 2009
    DRAFT DOT/FRA/ORD-09/07 April 2009 Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED April 2009 Final Report April 2009 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS The Aerodynamic Effects of Passing Trains to Surrounding Objects and People BB049/RR93 6. AUTHOR(S) Harvey Shui-Hong Lee 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration DOT-VNTSC-FRA-04-05 John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Cambridge, MA 02142-1093 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration DOT/FRA/ORD/09-07 Office of Research and Development 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, D.C. 20590 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
    [Show full text]
  • Notice of Meeting
    Bill Shuster Peter A. DeFazio Chairman Ranking Member Mathew M. Sturges Katherine W. Dedrick Staff Director Democratic Staff Director September 29, 2017 SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER TO: Republican Members, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials FROM: Majority Staff, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials RE: Subcommittee Hearing on “Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America: Rail Stakeholders’ Perspectives” PURPOSE The Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, will meet on Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., in 2167 Rayburn House Office Building, to receive testimony related to “Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America: Rail Stakeholders’ Perspectives”. The purpose of this hearing is to receive the views of the railroad industry’s stakeholders regarding infrastructure in the 21st Century. The Subcommittee will hear testimony from the railroad industry, a railroad supplier, and rail labor. BACKGROUND The railroad industry in the United States is largely comprised of private freight carriers and the National Rail Passenger Corporations, or Amtrak, which was created by Congress in 1970 to assume money-losing passenger operations from the freight railroads. Operations began on May 1, 1971. This hearing will gather opinions of rail stakeholders and seek information on infrastructure expansion opportunities, opportunities for public-private partnerships, regulatory reforms, ways to make grant programs more accessible, and ways to enhance safety through the use of performance based regulations. Freight Rail The freight rail industry consists of seven large Class I railroads, line haul freight carriers with operating revenues of $453 million or more in 2016, and approximately 600 much smaller Class II and Class III railroads, which own and operate nearly one-third of the national rail mileage.
    [Show full text]
  • Existing Conditions
    Regional Monorail Exploratory Study Final Report 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS This section describes the major characteristics of the study area, lists recent studies performed in the region and describes the regional goals and objectives. 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA The project study area encompasses the portions of New Castle County, north of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal and into neighboring Maryland. As a practical matter, potential monorail corridors are being considered in a corridor approximately 3 to 5 miles north and south of I-95. The area of influence of any future transit connection would have an impact beyond this area and so a broader geographic area is considered as necessary. At the same time, the territory directly affected by any future monorail is encompassed in the more limited area shown in Figure 2.1-1. The subsections that follow provide study area highlights and a more detailed discussion is contained in the Task 2 Feasibility Analysis Technical Memorandum. 2.1.1 Major Roads The State of Delaware is mostly rural, resulting in few limited-access highways. The exception to this is northern New Castle County. Here, major highways connect Delaware to regional, national, and even international destinations. Starting at the highest tier, I-95 is one of the most traveled interstates in the United States, linking Miami to Maine and the Atlantic Provinces of Canada. On the regional level, New Castle County is considered part of the Philadelphia tri-state area (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware). Interstates and limited-access highways provide linkages within this metropolitan area.
    [Show full text]