DOCSLIB.ORG

Ohio Passenger Rail News

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ohio Passenger Rail News Ohio Passenger Rail News Ohio cities to get train Amtrak would Three Rivers service to Ohio collapse under cities set to begin by May As a result of an action Jan. 16 by a state agency, Clinton budget the cities of Akron, Fostoria, and Youngstown will gain daily train service by May, if not sooner. WASHINGTON DC- "When it comes to Those cities are on the route of Amtrak's Three Amtrak, the nation's intercity rail passenger net­ Rivers-eastbound and westbound trains linking work, the Clinton Administration is all talk and Chicago, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New York no action," said Ross B. Capon, Executive Di­ City, and over a dozen smaller towns in between. rector of the National Association of Railroad The expenditure by the Ohio Rail Development Passengers (NARP). Commission (ORDC) marks the first time in re­ "Administration officials often say Amtrak's cent decades that the state has spent money on operating grants should end by 2002. But Presi­ physically improving rail passenger service. Pre­ dent Clinton's 1998 budget lacks the most cru­ viously, any dollars spent by the state on passen­ Ken Prendergast photo cial tool Amtrak must have to attain operational ger trains went to pay for studies which often self-sufficiency - a dedicated source of capital duplicated earlier studies. New in this issue: funding." While the amount that the state spent was very While we appreciate comments from readers "Congress now must set things right," Capon modest-$12,500 per city-it was enough to who have complimented OARP on the added. "Recognizing the high costs Amtrak's address a huge :blemish in the Amtrak system. newsletter's new format and the variety of news demise would .impose on the nation in terms of Since the Three Rivers began operation Nov. 10, articles, there is one area where we would like more spending on transportation alternatives, 1996, there were no station stops along the 373- to do more-news about the association itself. Congress must create dedicated capital funding mile segment between Nappanee, IN and Pitts­ So, in this issue, we introduce two additions: for Amtrak (such as from one half-cent of the burgh. The trains ran non-stop through Ohio­ "Coordinators' Corner" and "Internal Af­ existing federal gasoline tax), provide enough an intolerable situation. fairs". "Coordinators' Comer" will be comprised resources for Amtrak to survive fiscal1998, en­ Amtrak restored service on the route 14 months entirely of notes submitted by OARP's regional act legislative reforms aimed at Amtrak effi­ after the company stopped running its Chicago- coordinators. Submissions may constitute infor- ciencv and allow states to invest some nf tht>ir - ~~~;5-f>eganoperarion Nov. 1 o, artiCles, ttJ.tre iS one area 'Where. we' would like rnore ·spending on transportation alternatives, - ~ 1996, there were no station stops along the 373- to do more-news about the association itself. Congress must create dedicated capital funding mile segment between Nappanee, IN and Pitts­ So, in this issue, we introduce two additions: for Amtrak (such as from one half-cent of the burgh. The trains ran non-stop through Ohio­ "Coordinators' Corner" and "Internal Af­ existing federal gasoline tax), provide enough an intolerable situation. fairs". "Coordinators' Comer" will be comprised resources for Amtrak to survive fiscal 1998, en­ Amtrak restored service on the route 14 months entirely of notes submitted by OARP's regional act legislative reforms aimed at Amtrak effi­ after the company stopped running its Chicago­ coordinators. Submissions may constitute infor­ ciency and allow states to invest some of their New York Broadway Limited. The Broadway, mation about new, localized developments federal transportation funds on intercity passen­ which featured coach seating, lounge and diner prompted by, or at least observed by OARP co­ ger rail as part of ISTEA (lntermodal Surface service, plus sleeper compartments, was termi­ ordinators. "Coordinators Corner" will appear Transportation Efficiency Act) renewal. For pas­ nated west of Pittsburgh. Its remaining New York­ whenever material is submitted for it. senger rail to survive, Congress must provide the Pittsburgh segment was called the Three Rivers. "Internal Affairs" will detail the latest devel­ leadership that the Administration has not." Today, the Thri!e Rivers features coach seating, opments regarding the association, such as an­ Initially, President Clinton's Fiscal 1998 bud­ a lounge car, and mail-lots of mail. According nouncing and interpreting bylaw changes, OARP get included $767 million for Amtrak, intended to Amtrak, the train is carrying so much that it is policy, and member activity. as part of the ISTEA reauthorization bill the making a slight profit. On some days, the Three Send your information and stories to: Administration will send to Capitol Hill. But it Rivers is more than 15 cars long, but only 4- 6 of Ken Prendergast, Editor appears that the Administration has abandoned which can·y people. 12029 Clifton Boulevard #505 those plans. -See "CITIES", page five Lakewood OH 44107-2161 -See "COLLAPSE", page three Ohio Association of Railroad Passengers r ~ PRESORTED 479 Humiston Drive FIRST CLASS What's Inside ... A Bay Village OH 44140-3017 U.S. POSTAGE PAID "Y ·Train ofThought'" ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED Cleveland OH Permit# 2470 "Y IS TEA legislative update "Y Light-rail for Cincinnati "Y Coordinators' Corner William H. Hutchison Jr. OARP Vice President "Y Internal Affairs 3480 Kenlawn Ave. (:nlumhlJS, OH 4~{22·'1. "Y ODoT's Budget Crunch Printed on recycled paper with soy based inks . •••••••••••••••••••••••••• ' •• 0 ••••• ••••••••••••••••• 0 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 •••••• ' •••••••• ' •••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0. 0 ••••• 0 < •••••••••••••• , ••••••••••••••••••••••• , • ' , •• • < ~ Two Ohio Passenger Rail News, March 1997 Ohio Passenger Rail News Copyright © 1997, Ohio Association of Railroad Passengers Train of Thought Kenneth Prendergast, Editor from OARP Executive Director Mark Carlson, Production Marilyn Carlson, Distribution Kenneth Prendergast Board of Directors t's not often that you will see me offer commentary on an editorial. This, however, I is one of those rare occasions. Rarer still is a newspaper editorial which reads as Officers though it were written by OARP. Such enlightened writing appeared Dec. 31, 1996 in Mark Carlson President Bill Hutchison Vice-President The Cincinnati Post and is reprinted on the facing page. Meg Grey Secretary Tom Allen Treasurer In that edition of The Post, their editorial staff announced what type of transportation Directors investment it wanted in the Interstate 71 corridor between the airport in Covington KY, J. Howard Harding Past-President Jim Dingus 216/330/440 Director through downtown Cincinnati, to the Paramount Kings Island amusement park in War­ Ron Bergen Director At-Large Vacant 419 Director ren County. Why did The Post select light rail over several other alternatives? Folks, when 64 percent of your region's residents say they want something, you lis­ Bill O'Brien Director At-Large Frank Gordnier 513/937 Director ten. In Cincinnati, they want light rail. And now, The Post has gone on record as sup­ Bob Wickens Director At-Large .Bill Schuler 614 Director porting the construction of a light-railline. Any elected leader who ignores that kind of Executive Director support either has some special-interest agenda or just isn't a very good listener. Are Kenneth Prendergast you listening, Congressman Steve Chabot? Hello?!? Perhaps Cincinnati can overcome Chabot's anti-rail crusade, and still win federal funding for light rail. It would, however, be better if Chabot stopped pretending no one wants light rail and did what his constituents are asking of him. In reality, the best option isn't always selected, despite what the public wants. In this case, 64 percent of the people want light rail. They are the ones to whom Chabot and others in his minority should listen. ****** And what's the story on those monorails? There has been a rising murmur in both Cincinnati and Columbus about building monorails instead of more popular forms of fixed-guideway mass transit. Why? It appears the principal argument of those who support the construction of monorails is that this mode of transportation is "more modem", therefore more exciting, and there­ fore more capable of generating ridership. Let me make something clear right now. I don't hate monorails. I also don't hate light rail, automobiles, passenger trains, or airplanes. Each has its proper niche where it per­ forms most efficiently. What I do hate is the misapplication of a transportation technol­ ogy based on financial self-interest or love of image at the expense of practicality. Statements that the monorail is a decidedly modem form of technology are decidedly wrong. They date back to 1880 when France and Ireland first tried them. The first streetcar ran in Richmond, VA in 1888. Streetcars actually are newer than monorails. Still, who cares? When someone tries to use the age of something as a reason for or against it, it tells me that person is running out of arguments. Rational arguments for light rail over monorails are that they are less expensive to build and maintain, offer greater flexibility, are less obtrusive, and offer more stations. Because monorail trains must "wrap" around their rail, the rail must be elevated. "" <..:>- ------- --- -----·-- •• __ ...., ....... t"t"'-"• ._ u•._.. ...._.'-'lh~ll U~ll\_JII VI IIJVIIlJI UJJ:;o, is that this mode of transportation is "more modern", therefore more exciting, and there­ fore more capable of generating ridership. Let me make something clear right now. I don't hate monorails. I also don't hate light rail, automobiles, passenger trains, or airplanes. Each has its proper niche where it per­ forms most efficiently. What I do hate is the misapplication of a transportation technol­ ogy based on financial self-interest or love of image at the expense of practicality. Statements that the monorail is a decidedly modem form of technology are decidedly wrong.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • GAO-02-398 Intercity Passenger Rail: Amtrak Needs to Improve Its
    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Honorable Ron Wyden GAO U.S. Senate April 2002 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Amtrak Needs to Improve Its Decisionmaking Process for Its Route and Service Proposals GAO-02-398 Contents Letter 1 Results in Brief 2 Background 3 Status of the Growth Strategy 6 Amtrak Overestimated Expected Mail and Express Revenue 7 Amtrak Encountered Substantial Difficulties in Expanding Service Over Freight Railroad Tracks 9 Conclusions 13 Recommendation for Executive Action 13 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 13 Scope and Methodology 16 Appendix I Financial Performance of Amtrak’s Routes, Fiscal Year 2001 18 Appendix II Amtrak Route Actions, January 1995 Through December 2001 20 Appendix III Planned Route and Service Actions Included in the Network Growth Strategy 22 Appendix IV Amtrak’s Process for Evaluating Route and Service Proposals 23 Amtrak’s Consideration of Operating Revenue and Direct Costs 23 Consideration of Capital Costs and Other Financial Issues 24 Appendix V Market-Based Network Analysis Models Used to Estimate Ridership, Revenues, and Costs 26 Models Used to Estimate Ridership and Revenue 26 Models Used to Estimate Costs 27 Page i GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking Appendix VI Comments from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 28 GAO’s Evaluation 37 Tables Table 1: Status of Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions, as of December 31, 2001 7 Table 2: Operating Profit (Loss), Operating Ratio, and Profit (Loss) per Passenger of Each Amtrak Route, Fiscal Year 2001, Ranked by Profit (Loss) 18 Table 3: Planned Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions 22 Figure Figure 1: Amtrak’s Route System, as of December 2001 4 Page ii GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 April 12, 2002 The Honorable Ron Wyden United States Senate Dear Senator Wyden: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is the nation’s intercity passenger rail operator.
    [Show full text]
  • RAILROAD COMMUNICATIONS Amtrak
    RAILROAD COMMUNICATIONS Amtrak Amtrak Police Department (APD) Frequency Plan Freq Input Chan Use Tone 161.295 R (160.365) A Amtrak Police Dispatch 71.9 161.295 R (160.365) B Amtrak Police Dispatch 100.0 161.295 R (160.365) C Amtrak Police Dispatch 114.8 161.295 R (160.365) D Amtrak Police Dispatch 131.8 161.295 R (160.365) E Amtrak Police Dispatch 156.7 161.295 R (160.365) F Amtrak Police Dispatch 94.8 161.295 R (160.365) G Amtrak Police Dispatch 192.8 161.295 R (160.365) H Amtrak Police Dispatch 107.2 161.205 (simplex) Amtrak Police Car-to-Car Primary 146.2 160.815 (simplex) Amtrak Police Car-to-Car Secondary 146.2 160.830 R (160.215) Amtrak Police CID 123.0 173.375 Amtrak Police On-Train Use 203.5 Amtrak Police Area Repeater Locations Chan Location A Wilmington, DE B Morrisville, PA C Philadelphia, PA D Gap, PA E Paoli, PA H Race Amtrak Police 10-Codes 10-0 Emergency Broadcast 10-21 Call By Telephone 10-1 Receiving Poorly 10-22 Disregard 10-2 Receiving Well 10-24 Alarm 10-3 Priority Service 10-26 Prepare to Copy 10-4 Affirmative 10-33 Does Not Conform to Regulation 10-5 Repeat Message 10-36 Time Check 10-6 Busy 10-41 Begin Tour of Duty 10-7 Out Of Service 10-45 Accident 10-8 Back In Service 10-47 Train Protection 10-10 Vehicle/Person Check 10-48 Vandalism 10-11 Request Additional APD Units 10-49 Passenger/Patron Assist 10-12 Request Supervisor 10-50 Disorderly 10-13 Request Local Jurisdiction Police 10-77 Estimated Time of Arrival 10-14 Request Ambulance or Rescue Squad 10-82 Hostage 10-15 Request Fire Department 10-88 Bomb Threat 10-16
    [Show full text]
  • Northeast Corridor Chase, Maryland January 4, 1987
    PB88-916301 NATIONAL TRANSPORT SAFETY BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 20594 RAILROAD ACCIDENT REPORT REAR-END COLLISION OF AMTRAK PASSENGER TRAIN 94, THE COLONIAL AND CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION FREIGHT TRAIN ENS-121, ON THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CHASE, MARYLAND JANUARY 4, 1987 NTSB/RAR-88/01 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2.Government Accession No. 3.Recipient's Catalog No. NTSB/RAR-88/01 . PB88-916301 Title and Subtitle Railroad Accident Report^ 5-Report Date Rear-end Collision of'*Amtrak Passenger Train 949 the January 25, 1988 Colonial and Consolidated Rail Corporation Freight -Performing Organization Train ENS-121, on the Northeast Corridor, Code Chase, Maryland, January 4, 1987 -Performing Organization 7. "Author(s) ~~ Report No. Performing Organization Name and Address 10.Work Unit No. National Transportation Safety Board Bureau of Accident Investigation .Contract or Grant No. Washington, D.C. 20594 k3-Type of Report and Period Covered 12.Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Iroad Accident Report lanuary 4, 1987 NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Washington, D. C. 20594 1*+.Sponsoring Agency Code 15-Supplementary Notes 16 Abstract About 1:16 p.m., eastern standard time, on January 4, 1987, northbound Conrail train ENS -121 departed Bay View yard at Baltimore, Mary1 and, on track 1. The train consisted of three diesel-electric freight locomotive units, all under power and manned by an engineer and a brakeman. Almost simultaneously, northbound Amtrak train 94 departed Pennsylvania Station in Baltimore. Train 94 consisted of two electric locomotive units, nine coaches, and three food service cars. In addition to an engineer, conductor, and three assistant conductors, there were seven Amtrak service employees and about 660 passengers on the train.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Great Rivers Vision
    greatriverschicago.com OUR GREAT RIVERS A vision for the Chicago, Calumet and Des Plaines rivers TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments 2 Our Great Rivers: A vision for the Chicago, Calumet and Des Plaines rivers Letter from Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel 4 A report of Great Rivers Chicago, a project of the City of Chicago, Metropolitan Planning Council, Friends of the Chicago River, Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning and Ross Barney Architects, through generous Letter from the Great Rivers Chicago team 5 support from ArcelorMittal, The Boeing Company, The Chicago Community Trust, The Richard H. Driehaus Foundation and The Joyce Foundation. Executive summary 6 Published August 2016. Printed in Chicago by Mission Press, Inc. The Vision 8 greatriverschicago.com Inviting 11 Productive 29 PARTNERS Living 45 Vision in action 61 Des Plaines 63 Ashland 65 Collateral Channel 67 Goose Island 69 FUNDERS Riverdale 71 Moving forward 72 Our Great Rivers 75 Glossary 76 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT OUR GREAT RIVERS 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This vision and action agenda for the Chicago, Calumet and Des Plaines rivers was produced by the Metropolitan Planning RESOURCE GROUP METROPOLITAN PLANNING Council (MPC), in close partnership with the City of Chicago Office of the Mayor, Friends of the Chicago River and Chicago COUNCIL STAFF Metropolitan Agency for Planning. Margaret Frisbie, Friends of the Chicago River Brad McConnell, Chicago Dept. of Planning and Co-Chair Development Josh Ellis, Director The Great Rivers Chicago Leadership Commission, more than 100 focus groups and an online survey that Friends of the Chicago River brought people to the Aaron Koch, City of Chicago Office of the Mayor Peter Mulvaney, West Monroe Partners appointed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and a Resource more than 3,800 people responded to.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Rivers Water Trail Access • Row Boats Or Sculls Points Are Available for Public Use
    WHAT IS A WATER TRAIL? Is kayaking strenuous? Water trails are recreational waterways on lakes, rivers or Kayaking can be a great workout, or a relaxing day spent oceans between specific points, containing access points floating or casually paddling on the river. and day-use and camping sites (where appropriate) for the boating public. Water trails emphasize low-impact use and What should I wear? promote resource stewardship. Explore this unique Pennsylvania water trail. Whatever you’re comfortable in! You should not expect to get excessively wet, but non-cotton materials that dry quickly are Three Rivers WHAT TYPES OF PADDLE-CRAFT? best. Consider dressing in layers, and wear shoes that will stay on your feet. • Kayaks • Canoes How do I use the storage racks? • Paddle boards Water Trail The storage racks at many Three Rivers Water Trail access • Row boats or sculls points are available for public use. These are not intended for long term storage. Store “at your own risk.” Using a lock you FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: are comfortable with is recommended. Is it safe for beginners to paddle on the river? Flat-water kayaking, canoeing, or paddle boarding is perfect for beginners. It is easy to learn with just a Map & Guide few minutes of instruction. RUL THREE RIVERS E S & Friends of the Riverfront, founded in 1991, is WATER TRAIL dedicated to the development and stewardship of the Three Rivers Heritage Trail and Three R Developed by Friends of the Riverfront Rivers Water Trail in the Pittsburgh region. This EG PENNSYLVANIA BOATING REGULATIONS guide is provided so that everyone can enjoy the natural amenities that makes the Pittsburgh • A U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • $21.6 Million for NYC-Boston Track Work Metroliner to Carry 200 Congressmen
    Volume 1, No. 10 September 1, 1974 Metroliner To Carry 200 Congressmen The largest single movement of Members of Congress will take place on the afternoon of Friday, September 6th when an Amtrak Metroliner pulls out of Washington Union Terminal b?und for Philadelphia. Already more than two hundred legislators have signified their intent to make this trip and as we go to press the list is growing. Never before has Amtrak been asked to provide transportation for so large and so distinguished a group. It has been rumored that even the President or the Vice President designate may be among those traveling on this special train. Because of the special security precautions which prevail, it will not be known until departure time whether or not the President will be aboard. All of these dignitaries have been invited to travel to Philadelphia on Amtrak by Governor a·nd Mrs. Shapp of Pennsylvania on behalf of the present Governors of the Thirteen Original States for the Bicentennial re·convening of the First Continental Congress. Two hundred years ago on Continued on page 2, col. 1 $21.6 Million For NYC-Boston Track Work On Monday, July 22, the Secretary of Transportation . approved the purchase of seven turbine powered trains for operation between New York and Boston. This release was important not only because it would bring the new French Turboliner to the east coast corridor; but because it went on to say that Amtrak planning for the northeast corridor included a "sharp reduction" in travel time for that segment "better track" and the "three and one-half hour" time frame and "improvement in the roadbed." leads to but one conclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • RCED-98-151 Intercity Passenger Rail B-279203
    United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to Congressional Committees May 1998 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Financial Performance of Amtrak’s Routes GAO/RCED-98-151 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-279203 May 14, 1998 The Honorable Richard C. Shelby Chairman The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Transportation Committee on Appropriations United States Senate The Honorable Frank R. Wolf Chairman The Honorable Martin Olav Sabo Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives Since it began operations in 1971, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) has never been profitable and has received about $21 billion in federal subsidies for operating and capital expenses. In December 1994, at the direction of the administration, Amtrak established the goal of eliminating its need for federal operating subsidies by 2002. However, despite efforts to control expenses and improve efficiency, Amtrak has only reduced its annual net loss from $834 million in fiscal year 1994 to $762 million in fiscal year 1997, and it projects that its net loss will grow to $845 million this fiscal year.1 Amtrak remains heavily dependent on substantial federal operating and capital subsidies. Given Amtrak’s continued dependence on federal operating subsidies, the Conference Report to the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998 directed us to examine the financial (1) performance of Amtrak’s current routes, (2) implications for Amtrak of multiyear capital requirements and declining federal operating subsidies, and (3) effect on Amtrak of reforms contained in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997.
    [Show full text]
  • Boston-Montreal High Speed Rail Project
    Boston to Montreal High- Speed Rail Planning and Feasibility Study Phase I Final Report prepared for Vermont Agency of Transportation New Hampshire Department of Transportation Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Construction prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas with Cambridge Systematics Fitzgerald and Halliday HNTB, Inc. KKO and Associates April 2003 final report Boston to Montreal High-Speed Rail Planning and Feasibility Study Phase I prepared for Vermont Agency of Transportation New Hampshire Department of Transportation Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Construction prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas with Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Fitzgerald and Halliday HNTB, Inc. KKO and Associates April 2003 Boston to Montreal High-Speed Rail Feasibility Study Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... ES-1 E.1 Background and Purpose of the Study ............................................................... ES-1 E.2 Study Overview...................................................................................................... ES-1 E.3 Ridership Analysis................................................................................................. ES-8 E.4 Government and Policy Issues............................................................................. ES-12 E.5 Conclusion..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ms 711 Rg 1 National Railroad Passenger Corporation / Amtrak : James L
    MS 711 RG 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION / AMTRAK : JAMES L. LARSON OPERATIONS AND PLANNING FILES 1971-2003, bulk 1976-2003. 16.5 linear ft. Original order has been maintained. The James L. Larson files are arranged in the following series: 1. REPORTS 2. CHRONOLOGICAL FILES 3. LAWSUITS PROVENANCE Gift of Mrs. Mary Larson (387-2090), 2011. HISTORICAL INFORMATION James Llewellyn Larson was born on March 27, 1935 in Madison, Wisconsin to Ruth (Thurber) and LeRoy Larson. While attending high school, Mr. Larson spent many hours at the Chicago and North Western Railway Company's interlocking tower in Madison, Wisconsin where he learned telegraphy. He went to work for the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad in 1952 as an agent, telegrapher, and tower operator. In 1953, Mr. Larson began working for the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company as a telegrapher, then as a wire changer. During his 20-year tenure with C&NW, he worked in the Operating Department, was a Train Dispatcher from 1957 to 1959, and then spent eight years as an Assistant Trainmaster and a Trainmaster. He was a System Rules Examiner from 1966 to 1968, an Assistant Division Superintendent from 1968 to 1969, Assistant Superintendent -Transportation from 1969 to 1972, where he managed Operations Center in Chicago. From 1972 to 1973, he was an Assistant Division Master of Transportation on the Twin Cities Division. Mr. Larson was recruited by Amtrak in 1973. During his 25-year tenure with Amtrak he served as Manager of Station Operations, Director of Personnel, Assistant Vice President of Administrative Staff, and Assistant Vice President of Contracts.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania
    Pennsylvania ROUTE The Great American Rail-Trail route through Pennsylvania connects New York—from the shores of Lake Erie to the confluence of the several existing trails with one trail gap just west of Pittsburgh. Three Rivers in Pittsburgh and on to the Ohio River and Appalachian By connecting the trail through Pittsburgh, the Great American foothills. Rail-Trail also connects to the Industrial Heartland Trails Coalition (IHTC), a vision for a 1,500-mile network of trails that is part of RTC found and reviewed 22 plans in Pennsylvania to better RTC’s TrailNation™ portfolio. The IHTC network will stretch across understand the commonwealth’s trail priorities. A full list of these 51 counties in four states—Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and plans can be found in Appendix A. TABLE 6 GREAT AMERICAN RAIL-TRAIL STATISTICS IN PENNSYLVANIA Total Great American Rail-Trail Existing Trail Miles in Pa. (% of Total State Mileage) 161.3 (93.8%) Total Great American Rail-Trail Trail Gap Miles in Pa. (% of Total State Mileage) 10.6 (6.2%) Total Trail Gaps in Pa. 1 Total Great American Rail-Trail Miles in Pa. 171.9 TABLE 7 GREAT AMERICAN RAIL-TRAIL ROUTE THROUGH PENNSYLVANIA Existing Trail or Trail Gap Name Length in Pa. Along Great American Rail-Trail (in Miles) Great Allegheny Passage 124.3 Three Rivers Heritage Trail 3.6 TRAIL GAP 1 – Pittsburgh to Coraopolis 10.6 Montour Trail 17.5 Panhandle Trail 15.9 Total Miles 171.9 Existing Trail Miles 161.3 Trail Gap Miles 10.6 railstotrails.org 23 24 GREAT AMERICAN RAIL-TRAIL ROUTE ASSESSMENT MAP 3: PENNSYLVANIA greatamericanrailtrail.org GREAT AMERICAN RAIL-TRAIL ROUTE ASSESSMENT PENNSYLVANIA Great Allegheny Passage (gaptrail.org) in Pennsylvania GREAT ALLEGHENY PASSAGE The GAP enters Pennsylvania just north of Frostburg, Maryland, and it will continue to host the Great American Rail-Trail through Total Length (in Miles) 150.0 Pennsylvania for 124.3 miles through rolling hills and forestland Total Length Along Great to Pittsburgh.
    [Show full text]
  • Elegant Report
    Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee PENNSYLVANIA STATEWIDE PASSENGER RAIL NEEDS ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 2001 Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................................................4 1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................5 1.1 Study Background........................................................................................................................................5 1.2 Study Purpose...............................................................................................................................................5 1.3 Corridors Identified .....................................................................................................................................6 2.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................................7 3.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON CANDIDATE CORRIDORS .................................................14 3.1 Existing Intercity Rail Service...................................................................................................................14 3.1.1 Keystone Corridor ................................................................................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Intercity Passenger Rail System
    Appendix 3 Intercity Passenger Rail System Introduction passenger rail system, including: The Pennsylvania Intercity Passenger and Freight Rail Plan provides a High-Speed Rail Corridors (110 mph and above) – Corridors under strategic framework for creating a 21st-century rail network. The Plan 500 miles with travel demand, population density, and congestion on visualizes the passenger and competing modes that warrant high-speed rail service. freight rail network in 2035 Regional Corridors (79 to 110 mph) – Corridors under 500 miles, with and offers strategies and frequent, reliable service competing successfully with auto and air objectives to achieve its vision. travel. The purpose of Appendix 3 is Long-Distance Service – Corridors greater than 500 miles that provide to provide background basic connectivity and a balanced national transportation system. information on existing passenger rail service in In a report to Congress, Vision for High-Speed Rail in America, dated April Pennsylvania with a 2009, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) provided the following concentration on existing definitions: intercity passenger rail service and performance. High-Speed Rail (HSR) and Intercity Passenger Rail (IPR) HSR – Express. Frequent, express service between major population Intercity Rail Definitions centers 200 to 600 miles apart, with few intermediate stops.1 Top There are numerous interpretations of what constitutes “intercity speeds of at least 150 mph on completely grade-separated, dedicated passenger rail.” In a recent publication, Achieving the Vision: Intercity rights-of-way (with the possible exception of some shared track in Passenger Rail, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) urged Congress to enact a National Rail Policy that should address the development of a national intercity 1 Corridor lengths are approximate; slightly shorter or longer intercity services may still help meet strategic goals in a cost-effective manner.
    [Show full text]