DOCSLIB.ORG

Cfs0997all2.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. Harrison System conceptual design and capital costing Kenneth B. Ullman John F. Burckardt Kenneth F. Briggs III GIS model development Steven S. Line Freight system analysis Paul H. Reistrup Stephen R. Pritchard Herbert T. Landow (Applied Geographics) Photo Credits [All photos are used by permission. Photo use does not re0present endorsement by the U.S. Department of Transportation of any particular design, product, or manufacturer.] Report Cover · RTL-2 Turboliner photo courtesy of the New York State Department of Transportation. · Maglev illustration courtesy of Florida Maglev Consortium, Inc. · American Flyer illustration courtesy of Bombardier/GEC Alsthom Consortium, Inc. · California Department of Transportation locomotive photo courtesy of Electro- Motive Division, General Motors. Section on “HSGT Technologies” in Overview Report · Metroliner photo courtesy of Amtrak, Washington, D.C. · British Intercity 225 photo courtesy of Intercity East Coast Ltd., York, England. · X-2000 tilt train photo courtesy of ABB Traction Inc., Elmira, New York. · TGV photo courtesy of Societé Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français, Paris, France. · Nozomi Shinkansen photo courtesy of Japan Railways Group, New York, New York. · Intercity Express photo courtesy of Clay Moritz, Silver Spring, Maryland. · Maglev photo courtesy of Thyssen Henschel. Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND....................................................................................1-1 CHAPTER 2: HSGT IN ITS INTERMODAL CONTEXT.......................................2-1 DEFINITION OF HSGT.....................................................................................2-1 IMPETUS FOR HSGT .......................................................................................2-1 Air Transportation...................................................................................2-2 Highway Transportation..........................................................................2-6 Summary: The Intermodal Context.........................................................2-9 CHAPTER 3: ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK .........................................................3-1 HSGT PROJECTION TYPES ............................................................................3-2 ANALYTICAL COMPONENTS AND THEIR USES.....................................3-3 System Requirements and Performance..................................................3-3 Comparisons of Benefits and Costs ........................................................3-5 PARTNERSHIP POTENTIAL DEFINED .........................................................3-7 ADDITIONAL MEASURES OF PARTNERSHIP POTENTIAL .....................3-8 Financial Measures..................................................................................3-9 Benefit/Cost Measures ............................................................................3-9 CASES ................................................................................................................3-9 Technologies ...........................................................................................3-9 Corridors ...............................................................................................3-13 Matrix of Cases .....................................................................................3-15 CHAPTER 4: GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS ...............................................................4-1 FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS...........................................................................4-1 NATIONAL TRENDS........................................................................................4-2 THE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT ..................................................4-3 Scope of Transportation .........................................................................4-3 Trends in Other Modes............................................................................4-3 HSGT System Concept Assumptions .....................................................4-6 CHAPTER 5: METHODOLOGY—SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS AND PERFORMANCE ..............................................................................................5-1 CAPITAL INVESTMENTS ...............................................................................5-1 Initial Investments...................................................................................5-1 Continuing Investments .......................................................................... 5-6 Areas of Uncertainty in Capital Cost Projections ................................... 5-7 TRAVEL DEMAND AND REVENUES........................................................... 5-7 Overview................................................................................................. 5-7 Step 1: Project Existing Modes Without HSGT ..................................... 5-8 Step 2: Apply Diversion Models........................................................... 5-10 Step 3: Develop Induced Demand ........................................................ 5-11 Steps 4 and 5: Total Demand and Transportation Revenue.................. 5-12 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES ....................................... 5-13 Maintenance of Way ............................................................................. 5-15 Maintenance of Equipment ................................................................... 5-15 Transportation....................................................................................... 5-15 Passenger Traffic and Services ............................................................. 5-16 General and Administrative Expenses .................................................. 5-17 ANCILLARY ACTIVITIES............................................................................. 5-17 Categories of Ancillary Activities......................................................... 5-18 Analytical Treatment............................................................................. 5-18 CHAPTER 6: METHODOLOGY— COMPARISONS OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ................................................................................................................ 6-1 TYPES OF BENEFIT/COST COMPARISONS ................................................ 6-1 “TOTAL BENEFITS” AND “OTHER IMPACTS”........................................... 6-3 USERS’ CONSUMER SURPLUS..................................................................... 6-5 BENEFITS TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE ....................................................... 6-6 Airport Congestion Delay Savings.......................................................... 6-6 Highway Congestion Delay Savings....................................................... 6-7 Emissions Savings .................................................................................. 6-8 OTHER IMPACTS: BACKGROUND INFORMATION.................................. 6-9 Transportation Items ............................................................................... 6-9 Economic Development Items.............................................................. 6-11 Environmental/Energy Items ................................................................ 6-12 CHAPTER 7: RESULTS .............................................................................................. 7-1 SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS AND PERFORMANCE..................................... 7-1 Investment Requirements........................................................................ 7-1 Demand and Revenues............................................................................ 7-3 Operating and Maintenance Expenses .................................................
Recommended publications
  • The California High Speed Rail Proposal: a Due Diligence Report

    The California High Speed Rail Proposal: a Due Diligence Report

    September 2008 THE CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PROPO S AL : A DUE DILIGENCE REPOR T By Wendell Cox and Joseph Vranich Project Director: Adrian T. Moore, Ph.D. POLICY STUDY 370 Reason Citizens Against Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation Government Waste Foundation reason.org cagw.org hjta.org/hjtf Reason Foundation’s mission is to advance Citizens Against Government Waste Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation a free society by developing, applying and (CAGW) is a private, nonprofit, nonparti- (HJTF) is devoted to promoting economic promoting libertarian principles, including education, the study of tax policy and san organization dedicated to educating the individual liberty, free markets and the rule defending the interests of taxpayers in the American public about waste, mismanage- of law. We use journalism and public policy courts. research to influence the frameworks and ment, and inefficiency in the federal govern- The Foundation funds and directs stud- actions of policymakers, journalists and ment. ies on tax and economic issues and works opinion leaders. CAGW was founded in 1984 by J. Peter to provide constructive alternatives to the Reason Foundation’s nonpartisan public Grace and nationally-syndicated columnist tax-and-spend proposals from our state policy research promotes choice, competi- Jack Anderson to build support for imple- legislators. tion and a dynamic market economy as the HJTF also advances the interests of mentation of the Grace Commission recom- foundation for human dignity and progress. taxpayers in the courtroom. In appro- mendations and other waste-cutting propos- Reason produces rigorous, peer-reviewed priate cases, HJTF provides legal repre- research and directly engages the policy als.
  • Mezinárodní Komparace Vysokorychlostních Tratí

    Mezinárodní Komparace Vysokorychlostních Tratí

    Masarykova univerzita Ekonomicko-správní fakulta Studijní obor: Hospodářská politika MEZINÁRODNÍ KOMPARACE VYSOKORYCHLOSTNÍCH TRATÍ International comparison of high-speed rails Diplomová práce Vedoucí diplomové práce: Autor: doc. Ing. Martin Kvizda, Ph.D. Bc. Barbora KUKLOVÁ Brno, 2018 MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA Ekonomicko-správní fakulta ZADÁNÍ DIPLOMOVÉ PRÁCE Akademický rok: 2017/2018 Studentka: Bc. Barbora Kuklová Obor: Hospodářská politika Název práce: Mezinárodní komparace vysokorychlostích tratí Název práce anglicky: International comparison of high-speed rails Cíl práce, postup a použité metody: Cíl práce: Cílem práce je komparace systémů vysokorychlostní železniční dopravy ve vybra- ných zemích, následné určení, který z modelů se nejvíce blíží zamýšlené vysoko- rychlostní dopravě v České republice, a ze srovnání plynoucí soupis doporučení pro ČR. Pracovní postup: Předmětem práce bude vymezení, kategorizace a rozčlenění vysokorychlostních tratí dle jednotlivých zemí, ze kterých budou dle zadaných kritérií vybrány ty státy, kde model vysokorychlostních tratí alespoň částečně odpovídá zamýšlenému sys- tému v ČR. Následovat bude vlastní komparace vysokorychlostních tratí v těchto vybraných státech a aplikace na český dopravní systém. Struktura práce: 1. Úvod 2. Kategorizace a členění vysokorychlostních tratí a stanovení hodnotících kritérií 3. Výběr relevantních zemí 4. Komparace systémů ve vybraných zemích 5. Vyhodnocení výsledků a aplikace na Českou republiku 6. Závěr Rozsah grafických prací: Podle pokynů vedoucího práce Rozsah práce bez příloh: 60 – 80 stran Literatura: A handbook of transport economics / edited by André de Palma ... [et al.]. Edited by André De Palma. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2011. xviii, 904. ISBN 9781847202031. Analytical studies in transport economics. Edited by Andrew F. Daughety. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. ix, 253. ISBN 9780521268103.
  • Chapter 2 Existing Conditions Summary

    Chapter 2 Existing Conditions Summary

    Final Report New Haven Hartford Springfield Commuter Rail Implementation Study 2 Existing Conditions Chapter 2 Existing Conditions Summary This chapter is a summary of the existing conditions report, necessary for comprehension of the remaining chapters. The entire report can be found in Appendix B of this report. 2.1 Existing Passenger Services on the Line The only existing passenger rail service on the Springfield Line is a regional service operated by Amtrak. Schedules for alternatives in Chapter 3 and the Recommended Action in Chapter 4 include current Amtrak service. Most Amtrak service on the line is shuttle trains, running between Springfield and New Haven, where they connect with other Amtrak Northeast Corridor trains. One round-trip train each day operates through the corridor to Boston to the north and Washington to the south. One round trip train each day operates to and from St. Albans, Vermont from New Haven. The trains also permit connections at New Haven with Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor (Washington to Boston) service, as well as Metro North service to New York, and Shore Line East local commuter service to New London. Departures are spread throughout the day, with trains typically operating at intervals of two to three hours. Springfield line services are designed as extensions of Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor service, and are not scheduled to serve local commuter trips (home to work trips). The Amtrak fare structure was substantially reduced in price since this study began. The original fare structure from November 2002 was shown in the existing conditions report, which can be found in Appendix B.
  • Railway Station Liège-Guillemins

    Railway Station Liège-Guillemins

    Reference report Railway station Liège-Guillemins A shining example of a European transport hub in the Wallonia region Designing clean entrances Liège-Guillemins: Liège‘s high-speed railway station The most important railway station in the Belgian city of Liège and in Fresh momentum for the city the Wallonia region as a whole, Liège-Guillemins was erected in Sep- This image of communication and transparency stands in sharp con- tember 2009 on the basis of designs by Santiago Calatrava. It is a stop- trast to the structure that preceded it. The old railway station, a 1958 ping point for Thalys and Intercity-Express trains, making the station a building that had fallen into disrepair, attempted to exert a sense of hub within the European high-speed network that runs between Lon- control over the growing numbers of railway services it saw – but the don, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam and Cologne/Frankfurt: the distance glass and steel work of art that replaces it exudes light and radiance between Cologne and Liège can now be covered in just under an hour. and has given fresh momentum to Belgium‘s third-largest city. Oth- A good 500 trains per day are accommodated by this through station, er projects involving the station are being planned and the recently whose monumental canopy transforms it into a real landmark. opened Médiacité shopping and media centre, designed by Ron Arad, has created another new highlight. The futuristic station complex has Guiding principles: Communication and transparency a pivotal role to play in all these developments. The steel and glass roof – at once powerful and delicate – hangs above the platform like a colossal wave and flows into the oscillating roof Daylight on every level that reaches up to 50 metres over the 33,000-square metre main hall.
  • Pioneering the Application of High Speed Rail Express Trainsets in the United States

    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 .
  • Northeast Corridor Chase, Maryland January 4, 1987

    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.
  • High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements of Success Part 2

    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.
  • Reservations PUBLISHED Overview 30 March 2015.Xlsx

    Reservations PUBLISHED Overview 30 March 2015.Xlsx

    Reservation Country Domestic day train 1st Class 2nd Class Comments Information compulsory € 8,50 n.a. on board only; free newspaper WESTbahn trains possible n.a. € 5,00 via www.westbahn.at Austria ÖBB trains possible € 3,00 online / € 3,50 € 3,00 online / € 3,50 free wifi on rj-trains ÖBB Intercitybus Graz-Klagenfurt recommended € 3,00 online / € 3,50 € 3,00 online / € 3,50 first class includes drinks supplement per single journey. Can be bought in the station, in the train or online: Belgium to/from Brussels National Airport no reservation € 5,00 € 5,00 www.belgianrail.be Bosnia- Regional trains compulsory € 1,50 € 1,50 price depends on distance Herzegovina (ZRS) Bulgaria Express trains compulsory € 0,25 € 0,25 IC Zagreb - Osijek/Varazdin compulsory € 1,00 € 1,00 Croatia ICN Zagreb - Split compulsory € 1,00 € 1,00 IC/EC (domestic journeys) recommended € 2,00 € 2,00 Czech Republic SC SuperCity compulsory € 8,00 € 8,00 includes newspaper and catering in 1st class Denmark InterCity / InterCity Lyn recommended € 4,00 € 4,00 InterCity recommended € 1,84 to €5,63 € 1,36 to € 4,17 Finland price depends on distance Pendolino recommended € 3,55 to € 6,79 € 2,63 to € 5,03 France TGV and Intercités compulsory € 9 to € 18 € 9 to € 18 FYR Macedonia IC 540/541 Skopje-Bitola compulsory € 0,50 € 0,50 EC/IC/ICE possible € 4,50 € 4,50 ICE Sprinter compulsory € 11,50 € 11,50 includes newspapers Germany EC 54/55 Berlin-Gdansk-Gdynia compulsory € 4,50 € 4,50 Berlin-Warszawa Express compulsory € 4,50 € 4,50 Great Britain Long distance trains possible Free Free Greece Inter City compulsory € 7,10 to € 20,30 € 7,10 to € 20,30 price depends on distance EC (domestic jouneys) compulsory € 3,00 € 3,00 Hungary IC compulsory € 3,00 € 3,00 when purchased in Hungary, price may depend on pre-sales and currency exchange rate Ireland IC possible n/a € 5,00 reservations can be made online @ www.irishrail.ie Frecciarossa, Frecciargento, → all compulsory and optional reservations for passholders can be purchased via Trenitalia at compulsory € 10,00 € 10,00 Frecciabianca "Global Pass" fare.
  • Intercity High-Speed Railway Systems • Economic Growth and Increased Employment

    Intercity High-Speed Railway Systems • Economic Growth and Increased Employment

    Low Carbon Green Growth Roadmap for Asia and the Pacific FACT SHEET If designed well, high-speed railway systems contribute towards: • Improved air quality and lower greenhouse gas emissions4 Intercity high-speed railway systems • Economic growth and increased employment Challenges to using high-speed railway High-speed railway explained • Estimating annual ridership during feasibility stage analysis (and thus returns, including greenhouse gas Definitions of a high-speed railway system vary, but a common one is a rail system designed for maximum train reduction) can be difficult, especially when developments in other transportation modes (air and auto speeds that exceed 200 km per hour for upgraded tracks and 250 km per hour for new tracks. High-speed rail is mobile) are uncertain generally used for intercity transport rather than urban transport. • High investment costs for buying the needed land and building the lines and trains • Long period of construction time and for reaping payback Performance, evaluated Limitations Capacity Approximately 1,000 persons per vehicle. Double-decker trains • High-speed rail lines, once built, are very inflexible. Corridors to be developed must be heavily studied to increase the capacity but also increase drag, and thus increase the determine if the return is likely to be eco-efficient. amount of energy needed. • Increasing train speed requires considerably more electricity. If power is sourced from polluting technologies and/or if load factors are low, high-speed rail can actually exacerbate rather than mitigate Geographical range There is no limit in expanding the line, as long as the demand is high. Generally, high-speed rail can compete with airplane trips of greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Why Some Airport-Rail Links Get Built and Others Do Not: the Role of Institutions, Equity and Financing

    Why Some Airport-Rail Links Get Built and Others Do Not: the Role of Institutions, Equity and Financing

    Why some airport-rail links get built and others do not: the role of institutions, equity and financing by Julia Nickel S.M. in Engineering Systems- Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010 Vordiplom in Wirtschaftsingenieurwesen- Universität Karlsruhe, 2007 Submitted to the Department of Political Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Political Science at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY February 2011 © Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2011. All rights reserved. Author . Department of Political Science October 12, 2010 Certified by . Kenneth Oye Associate Professor of Political Science Thesis Supervisor Accepted by . Roger Peterson Arthur and Ruth Sloan Professor of Political Science Chair, Graduate Program Committee 1 Why some airport-rail links get built and others do not: the role of institutions, equity and financing by Julia Nickel Submitted to the Department of Political Science On October 12, 2010, in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Political Science Abstract The thesis seeks to provide an understanding of reasons for different outcomes of airport ground access projects. Five in-depth case studies (Hongkong, Tokyo-Narita, London- Heathrow, Chicago- O’Hare and Paris-Charles de Gaulle) and eight smaller case studies (Kuala Lumpur, Seoul, Shanghai-Pudong, Bangkok, Beijing, Rome- Fiumicino, Istanbul-Atatürk and Munich- Franz Josef Strauss) are conducted. The thesis builds on existing literature that compares airport-rail links by explicitly considering the influence of the institutional environment of an airport on its ground access situation and by paying special attention to recently opened dedicated airport expresses in Asia.
  • Ricardo Supports Siemens Mobility on New ICE Trains for Deutsche Bahn

    Ricardo Supports Siemens Mobility on New ICE Trains for Deutsche Bahn

    Ricardo plc Shoreham Technical Centre, Old Shoreham Road, Shoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex, BN43 5FG, UK Tel: +44 (0)1273 455 611 • Fax: +44 (0)1273 794 556 • Web: www.ricardo.com • Registered in England: 222915 PRESS RELEASE 14 September 2020 Ricardo supports Siemens Mobility on new ICE trains for Deutsche Bahn Siemens Mobility has nominated Ricardo Certification in the role of Notified Body for its project to supply 30 new high speed intercity express (ICE) trains for German national railway operator Deutsche Bahn The new trainsets, based on the Velaro MS design and due to be delivered into service starting in 2022, are part of a one billion Euro investment by Deutsche Bahn (DB) to expand its mainline fleet. Ricardo Certification is accredited by the EU Agency for Railways as a Notified Body (NoBo). In this role, the company is accredited to provide conformity assessments of trains and subsystems against the relevant requirements of the European Interoperability Directives 2008/57/EC and 2016/797/EC. Specifically, Ricardo Certification will verify the new ICE trains in terms of compliance with the current European Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSI) regulations, including the quality management system of the production process. Preparing DB for the future The new ICE trains will initially run on routes between the state of North Rhine- Westphalia and Munich via the high-speed Cologne-Rhine-Main line, increasing DB’s daily passenger capacity on these mainline routes by 13,000 seats. DB is investing in a strong future proof rail system and plans to expand its fleet by over 20 percent in the coming years.
  • Empire Corridor

    Empire Corridor

    U.S. System Summary: EMPIRE CORRIDOR Empire Corridor High-Speed Rail System (Source: NYSDOT) The Empire Corridor high-speed rail system is an es- rently in the Planning/Environmental stage with a vision tablished high-speed rail system containing 463 miles of to implement higher train speeds throughout the corridor. routes in two segments wholly contained within the State The entire route is part of the federally-designated Em- of New York, connecting New York City, Albany, Syra- pire Corridor High-Speed Rail Corridor. Operational and cuse, Rochester, Buffalo, and Niagara Falls. High-speed proposed high-speed rail service in the Empire Corridor intercity passenger rail service is currently Operational in high-speed rail system is based primarily on incremen- small portions of each segment, with maximum speeds up tal improvements to existing railroad rights-of-way, with to 110 mph. The entire 463-mile Empire Corridor is cur- maximum train speeds up to 125 mph being considered. U.S. HIGH-SPEED RAIL SYSTEM SUMMARY: EMPIRE CORRIDOR | 1 SY STEM DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY System Description The Empire Corridor high-speed rail system consists of two segments, as summarized below. Empire Corridor High-Speed Rail System Segment Characteristics Segment Description Distance Segment Status Designated Corridor? Segment Population New York City, NY, to Albany, NY 141 Miles Operational Yes 13,362,857 Albany, NY, to Niagara Falls, NY 322 Miles Planning/Environmental Yes 4,072,741 The New York City, NY, to Albany, NY, segment is 141 Transportation Study, which determined that new tech- miles in length and includes major communities such as nology over a new dedicated right-of-way would be neces- Poughkeepsie and Rhinecliff-Kingston along the route.