Clarkdale Transportation Study 2011 02 17 Final Report I Final Report February 2011

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Clarkdale Transportation Study 2011 02 17 Final Report I Final Report February 2011 CCllaarrkkddaallee TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn SSttuuddyy ADOT MPD Task Assignment 15-10 PGTD 0440 Contract # T08-49-U0001 Final Report Prepared by: Prepared for: ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TOWN OF CLARKDALE February 2011 091374034 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................ 1 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 6 1.1 Study Objectives ......................................................................................... 6 1.2 Study Area .................................................................................................. 8 2 CURRENT AND FUTURE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS ..... 10 2.1 Summary of Completed Plans and Studies in the Clarkdale Area ............... 10 2.2 Summary of Stakeholder Interviews .......................................................... 11 2.3 Land Use ................................................................................................... 14 2.3.1 Current Land Use ............................................................................ 14 2.3.2 In-Progress Developments ................................................................... 17 2.3.3 Future Land Use ............................................................................. 17 2.3.4 Demographics and Socioeconomics ........................................................ 21 2.3.5 Housing and Employment Density ........................................................ 21 2.3.6 Current demographics and socioeconomics ............................................... 23 2.3.7 Future demographics and socioeconomics ................................................ 25 2.4 Streets and Roadways ............................................................................... 29 2.4.1 Street Inventory ............................................................................... 29 2.4.2 Functional Classification ................................................................... 31 2.4.3 Crash History .................................................................................. 33 2.5 Travel Data ............................................................................................... 37 2.5.1 Existing Traffic ............................................................................... 37 2.5.2 Future Traffic Data .......................................................................... 41 2.6 Alternative Transportation........................................................................ 48 2.6.1 Transit .......................................................................................... 48 2.6.2 Proposed Transit and Travel Demand Strategies from the VVMTS ................ 51 2.6.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .......................................................... 52 3 NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES ....................................................... 58 3.1 General Needs and Deficiencies .................................................................. 58 3.2 Roadway Needs and Deficiencies ............................................................... 58 3.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Needs and Deficiencies .......................................... 62 3.4 Transit Needs and Deficiencies .................................................................. 64 4 RECOMMENDED PROJECTS ...................................................... 65 091374034 Clarkdale Transportation Study 2011 02 17 Final Report i Final Report February 2011 4.1 Recommended Roadway Projects .............................................................. 65 4.2 Recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects ......................................... 86 4.2.1 Recommended Bicycle Projects ............................................................. 86 4.2.2 Recommended Pedestrian and Trail Projects ............................................ 94 4.3 Recommended Transit Projects ............................................................... 102 5 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND PROJECT PRIORITIZATION .. 108 5.1 Criteria for Prioritizing Roadway Improvements ..................................... 108 5.2 Project Phasing and Implementation – Short Term Projects ................... 108 5.3 Project Phasing – Mid-Term Projects ...................................................... 111 5.4 Project Phasing – Long Term Projects .................................................... 115 5.5 Project Phasing – Studies ........................................................................ 117 6 REVENUE SOURCES ................................................................. 118 6.1 Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) .................................................. 118 6.2 Federal Aid Funding................................................................................ 118 6.2.1 Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (BR) ................ 118 6.2.2 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) ..................................... 119 6.2.3 Transportation Enhancement (TE) Grant Funding ................................. 119 6.2.4 Safe Routes to School Program ........................................................... 120 6.3 Community Development Block Grant Programs .................................... 120 6.4 Other Sources Consistent with the General Plan ...................................... 120 7 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................... 122 7.1 Public Open Houses ................................................................................. 122 7.2 Stakeholder Interviews ............................................................................ 122 7.3 Technical Advisory Committee ................................................................ 123 091374034 Clarkdale Transportation Study 2011 02 17 Final Report ii Final Report February 2011 INDEX OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Study Area ......................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2 – Town of Clarkdale Zoning .............................................................................. 16 Figure 3 – Land Use Plan (2002) ...................................................................................... 20 Figure 4 – TAZ Structure in Clarkdale Area .................................................................... 22 Figure 5 – 2030 Housing Unit Density ............................................................................. 26 Figure 6 – Comparison of 2007, and Projected 2015 and 2030 Employment .................. 28 Figure 7 – Number of Crashes by Year ............................................................................ 34 Figure 8 – Crash Severity ................................................................................................. 34 Figure 9 – Crash Types ..................................................................................................... 35 Figure 10 – Proportion of Crashes by Location ................................................................ 35 Figure 11 – Crash Locations, 2004-2008 .......................................................................... 36 Figure 12 – Traffic Counts ................................................................................................ 39 Figure 13 – Recommended Roadway Improvements from the VVMTS ......................... 45 Figure 14 – Clarkdale Future Growth Areas ..................................................................... 47 Figure 15 – Route Map for Cottonwood Area Transit ...................................................... 49 Figure 16 – Ridership Trends for Cottonwood Area Transit, FY 2009-2010 .................. 50 Figure 17 – Ridership Trends, CAT Demand Responsive System, FY 2009-2010 ......... 51 Figure 18 – Sidewalks and Bicycle Routes....................................................................... 53 Figure 19 – Trails .............................................................................................................. 55 Figure 20 – Summary of Multimodal Transportation Needs ............................................ 59 Figure 21 – 2050 Recommended Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Study, Roadway Plan in Clarkdale Area ...................................................................................... 63 Figure 22 – Recommended Roadway Projects ................................................................. 68 Figure 23 – Recommended Bicycle Projects .................................................................... 88 Figure 24 – Recommended Pedestrian and Trail Projects ................................................ 95 Figure 25 – Recommended Transit Projects ................................................................... 103 INDEX OF TABLES Table 1-1 – Study Objectives and Key Activities ............................................................... 7 Table 2-1 – Regional, Local, and ADOT Plans and Programs Completed 1999 - 2010 .. 10 Table 2-2 – Comments Received from Stakeholder Interviews ....................................... 12 Table 2-3 – Population Growth in Clarkdale .................................................................... 23 Table 2-4 – 2007 Housing Units by Traffic Analysis Zone .............................................. 23 Table 2-5 – 2007 Number of Employees by Employment Sector .................................... 24 Table 2-6 – Projected 2015 and 2030 Housing Units and Occupied Housing Units ........ 25 Table 2-7 – 2015 Number of Employees by
Recommended publications
  • Verde Connect Project Draft EIS, Public Meeting Reporter's
    In The Matter Of: Verde Connect Project Draft EIS, Public Meeting Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings May 11, 2020 Additional Public Comments Original File VC051120 VM.txt Min-U-Script® with Word Index Verde Connect Project Additional Public Comments Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings Draft EIS, Public Meeting May 11, 2020 Page 3 (Voicemail dated 05/11/2020 at 2:36 p.m.) JANET WALTHER: Hi, my name is Janet Walther. My phone number is (760) 271-8506. And I have a comment for the court reporter. I do wish to remain anonymous. My comment is -- or my question is: What are the estimates or likely additional costs to Yavapai County for the Verde Connect project for hiring of the additional environment monitoring personnel that they have listed and all the mitigation requirements to address the environmental impacts of this project? Are there similar past projects that these costs can be estimated? Again, my question, and I do wish to remain anonymous is: What are the estimates or likely additional costs to Yavapai County for the Verde Connect project for hiring of the additional environment monitoring personnel listed and all the mitigation requirements to address the environmental impacts of this project? Are there similar past projects that these costs can be estimated? Thank you. (End of audio.) Page 2 Page 4 PUBLIC COMMENTS (Voicemail dated 05/16/2020 at 9:20 a.m.) FRANCES JUDD: Hi, my name is Frances Judd. SPEAKER: PAGE: I live at 1495 Abbey Road South in Clarkdale, Arizona, and Janet Walther................................. 3 I am very much against this Verde Connect road.
    [Show full text]
  • TD1 00:AZ11-RA/Ex -1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Q Arizona Transportation Research Center N Library ~ 206 South 17Th Avenue, #075R V- Phoenix, AZ
    TD1 00:AZ11-RA/ex -1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Q Arizona Transportation Research Center N Library ~ 206 South 17th Avenue, #075R v- Phoenix, AZ. 85007 <'\l lntroduc ·on development patterns. Commuter rail, conventional intercity rail, and ultimately high-speed rail all have roles Arizona's economy needs an efficient and competitive rail to play in Arizo na's multimodal transportation system . network to compete globally. A healthy rail network must provide a reliable, accessible, and cost effective service As the State of Arizona continues to grow in population to shippers and customers across the State. In add ition, there will be a need for urban and rural communities to a fast, frequent and reliable passenger ra il se rvice expand their existing transportation systems to support between population centers and tourist destinations the add itional population. Transportation infrastructure across the State that is competitive with automobile and can be used as a t oo l to focus growth and plan for more air travel times is important to the State's economic and sustainable built communities that incorporate all environmental well-being and overall quality of life. transportation modes. Arizona's economy needs an efficient and competitive rail network to compete globally Benefits of Rail for Arizona Arizona's railroads have historically played a crucial role in the State's transportation system, and continue to do so today. Rail provides a cost-effective and efficient mode of transportation for moving large quantities of freight over Transportation infrastructure can be used as a tool long distances. Of all modes of transportation, railroads to focus growth and plan for more sustainable bu ilt cause the least air pollution per unit of freight carried.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona State Rail Plan March 2011
    Arizona State Rail Plan March 2011 Arizona Department of Transportation This page intentionally left blank Acknowledgements The State Rail Plan was made possible by the cooperative efforts of the following individuals and organizations who contributed significantly to the successful completion of the project: Rail Technical Advisory Team Cathy Norris, BNSF Railway Chris Watson, Arizona Corporation Commission Bonnie Allin, Tucson Airport Authority Reuben Teran, Arizona Game and Fish Department Zoe Richmond, Union Pacific Railroad David Jacobs, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office Jane Morris, City of Phoenix – Sky Harbor Airport Gordon Taylor, Arizona State Land Department Patrick Loftus, TTX Company Cathy Norris, BNSF Railway Angela Mogel, Bureau of Land Management ADOT Project Team Jack Tomasik, Central Arizona Association of Governments Sara Allred, Project Manager Paul Johnson, City of Yuma Kristen Keener Busby, Sustainability Program Manager Jermaine Hannon, Federal Highway Administration John Halikowski, Director Katai Nakosha, Governor’s Office John McGee, Executive Director for Planning and Policy James Chessum, Greater Yuma Port Authority Mike Normand, Director of Transit Programs Kevin Wallace, Maricopa Association of Governments Shannon Scutari, Esq. Director, Rail & Sustainability Marc Pearsall, Maricopa Association of Governments Services Gabe Thum, Pima Association of Governments Jennifer Toth, Director, Multi-Modal Planning Division Robert Bohannan, RH Bohannan & Associates Robert Travis, State Railroad Liaison Jay
    [Show full text]
  • Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study Technical Background Report September 2014
    Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study Technical Background Report September 2014 Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 What is a Multi-State Rail Plan? ................................................................................................................ 7 1.3 Why the Southwest?.................................................................................................................................. 8 1.4 Geographic Scope of Study ........................................................................................................................ 9 1.5 Study Stakeholders .................................................................................................................................. 10 1.6 Guiding Principles for Southwest Multi-State Rail Network Planning ..................................................... 11 Chapter 2. Planning Context ................................................................................................................................. 12 2.1 Overview of the Study Area ..................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Population and Travel Demand ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • FINAL REPORT SR 179/SR 89A/ SR 260 Corridor Profile Study
    FINAL REPORT SR 179/SR 89A/ SR 260 Corridor Profile Study Junction I-17 to Junction I-17 PREPARED FOR MARCH 2018 ADOT WORK TASK NO. ADOT CONTRACT NO. MPD 0041-17 18-177731 Prepared by SR 179/SR 89A/SR 260 CORRIDOR PROFILE STUDY SR 179: I-17 TO SR 89A SR 89A: SR 179 TO SR 260 SR 260: SR 89A TO I-17 ADOT WORK TASK NO. MPD 0041-17 ADOT CONTRACT NO. 18-177731 FINAL REPORT MARCH 2018 PREPARED FOR: ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PREPARED BY: This report was funded in part through grants from the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data, and for the use or adaptation of previously published material, presented herein. The contents do n ot necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’ names that may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S. government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers. Table of Contents 6.3 Policy and Initiative Recommendations ...........................................................................67 6.4 Next Steps..........................................................................................................................70 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Gcorgeneral Code of Operating Rules
    GCORGeneral Code of Operating Rules Eighth Edition Eff ective April 1, 2020 These rules govern the operation of the adopting railroads and supersede all previous GCOR rules and instructions. © 2020 General Code of Operating Rules Committee, All Rights Reserved i-2 GCOR—Eighth Edition—April 1, 2020 Bauxite & Northern Railway Company Front cover photo by William Diehl Bay Coast Railroad Adopted by: The Bay Line Railroad, L.L.C. Belt Railway Company of Chicago Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway BHP Nevada Railway Company Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad B&H Rail Corp Acadiana Railway Company Birmingham Terminal Railroad Adams Industries Railroad Blackwell Northern Gateway Railroad Adrian and Blissfield Railroad Blue Ridge Southern Railroad Affton Terminal Railroad BNSF Railway Ag Valley Railroad Bogalusa Bayou Railroad Alabama & Gulf Coast Railway LLC Boise Valley Railroad Alabama Southern Railroad Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad, Inc. Alabama & Tennessee River Railway, LLC Burlington Junction Railway Alabama Warrior Railroad Butte, Anaconda & Pacific Railroad Alaska Railroad Corporation C&J Railroad Company Albany & Eastern Railroad Company California Northern Railroad Company Aliquippa & Ohio River Railroad Co. California Western Railroad Alliance Terminal Railway, LLC Camas Prairie RailNet, Inc. Altamont Commuter Express Rail Authority Camp Chase Railway Alton & Southern Railway Canadian Pacific Amtrak—Chicago Terminal Caney Fork & Western Railroad Amtrak—Michigan Line Canon City and Royal Gorge Railroad Amtrak—NOUPT Capital Metropolitan Transportation
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Rail Safety and Security Guide
    State of Arizona Rail Safety & Security Resource Guide November 2007 Disclaimer This guide is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be an all-inclusive resource. The guide is a compilation of information from many sources and entities. The information contained herein is subject to amendment and change without notice and therefore the accuracy of the contents cannot be guaranteed. Readers are cautioned not to rely solely on the guide and should do further research to ensure accuracy of the information. Legal advice should be sought as appropriate. i Acknowledgement of Participants Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Arizona Operation Lifesaver (AZOL) BNSF Railway (BNSF) Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA-USDOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA-USDOT) Federal Motors Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Governor’s Office of Highway Safety (GOHS) METRO (Light Rail) Transportation Safety Administration (TSA-DHS) Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) ii Preface This plan will focus on targeted areas of railroad safety with emphasis on data driven, state specific needs identified by the “USDOT Highway-Rail Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention Action Plan” developed by the United States Department of Transportation. Initially, the plan was developed to help guide efforts by federal and state governments, rail industry and public rail safety organizations to reduce train- vehicle collisions and trespass incidents. While the action plan does highlight specific programs and activities, it is intended to provide flexibility to the railroads, highways, public transit and communities in responding effectively to real world conditions. The action plan emphasizes a multi-modal approach for improving safety at the nation’s 277,722 highway-rail crossings, and preventing trespassing along more than 145,000 miles of track and right of way.
    [Show full text]
  • History of the Verde Mining District, Jerome, Arizona
    History of the Verde Mining District, Jerome, Arizona David F. Briggs Geologist March 2018 CONTRIBUTED REPORT CR-18-D Arizona Geological Survey azgs.arizona.edu | repository.azgs.az.gov Arizona Geological Survey Phil A. Pearthree, Director Manuscript approved for publication in March 2018 Printed by the Arizona Geological Survey All rights reserved For an electronic copy of this publication: www.repository.azgs.az.gov For information on the mission, objectives or geologic products of the Arizona Geological Survey visit azgs.arizona.edu This publication was prepared by a department of the University of Arizona. The Univer- sity of Arizona, or any department thereof, or any of their employees, makes no warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this report. Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the University of Arizona Arizona Geological Survey Contributed Report series provides non-AZGS authors with a forum for publishing documents concerning Arizona geology. While review comments may have been incorpo- rated, this document does not necessarily conform to AZGS technical, editorial, or policy standards. The Arizona Geological Survey issues no warranty, expressed or implied, regarding the suitability of this product for a particular use. Moreover, the Arizona Geological Survey shall not be liable under any circumstances for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to claims by users of this product. The author(s) is solely responsible for the data and ideas expressed herein.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Rail Fast Facts for 2019 Freight Railroads …
    Freight Railroads in Arizona Rail Fast Facts For 2019 Freight railroads ….............................................................................................................................................................11 Freight railroad mileage …..........................................................................................................................................1,759 Freight rail employees …...............................................................................................................................................2,837 Average wages & benefits per employee …...................................................................................................$126,970 Railroad retirement beneficiaries …......................................................................................................................9,700 Railroad retirement benefits paid ….....................................................................................................................$245 million U.S. Economy: According to a Towson University study, in 2017, America's Class I railroads supported: Sustainability: Railroads are the most fuel efficient way to move freight over land. It would have taken approximately 7.3 million additional trucks to handle the 131.6 million tons of freight that moved by rail in Arizona in 2019. Rail Traffic Originated in 2019 Total Tons: 3.1 million Total Carloads: 65,100 Commodity Tons (mil) Carloads Metallic Ores 0.6 6,900 Intermodal 0.5 37,300 Glass and Stone 0.4 4,200
    [Show full text]
  • Part 225 Reporting Railroads.Pdf
    Part 225 Reporting Railroads Total Records: 771 Report Created on: 4/30/2019 Notes: A railroad may be represented in multiple regions of the country. Region Railroad Reporting Railroad Name Code 1 ADCX Adirondack Scenic Railroad 1 APRR Albany Port Railroad 1 ARA Arcade & Attica Railroad Corporation 1 ARDJ American Rail Dispatching Center 1 BCRY BERKSHIRE SCENIC RAILWAY MUSEUM, INC. 1 BDRV BELVEDERE & DELAWARE RIVER RWY 1 BHR Brookhaven Rail, LLC 1 BHX B&H Rail Corp 1 BKRR Batten Kill Railroad 1 BSOR BUFFALO SOUTHERN RAILROAD, INC. 1 CDOT Connecticut Department Of Transportation 1 CLP Clarendon & Pittsford Railroad Company 1 CMQX CENTRAL MAINE & QUEBEC RAILWAY 1 CMRR Catskill Mountain Railroad 1 CMSX Cape May Seashore Lines, Inc. 1 CNYK Central New York Railroad Corporation 1 COGN COGN Railroad 1 CONW Conway Scenic Railroad 1 CRSH Consolidated Rail Corporation 1 CSO CONNECTICUT SOUTHERN RAILROAD INC. 1 DESR Downeast Scenic Railroad 1 DL DELAWARE LACKAWANNA RAILROAD 1 DLWR DEPEW, LANCASTER & WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, INC. 1 DRRV Dover and Rockaway River Railroad 1 DURR Delaware & Ulster Rail Ride 1 EBSR East Brookfield & Spencer Railroad LLC 1 EJR East Jersey Railroad & Terminal Company 1 EMRY EASTERN MAINE RAILROAD COMPANY 1 FGLK Finger Lakes Railway Corporation 1 FRR FALLS ROAD RAILROAD COMPANY, INC. 1 FRVT Fore River Transportation Corporation 1 GMRC Green Mountain Railroad Corporation 1 GRS Pan Am Railways/Guilford System 1 GU GRAFTON & UPTON RAILROAD COMPANY 1 HRRC HOUSATONIC RAILROAD COMPANY, INC. 1 LAL Livonia, Avon & Lakeville Railroad Corporation 1 LBR Lowville & Beaver River Railroad Company 1 LI Long Island Rail Road 1 LRWY LEHIGH RAILWAY 1 LSX LUZERNE & SUSQUEHANNA RAILWAY 1 MBRX Milford-Bennington Railroad Company 1 MBTA Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 1 MCER MASSACHUSETTS CENTRAL RAILROAD CORPORATION 1 MCRL MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL RAILROAD, LLC 1 ME MORRISTOWN & ERIE RAILWAY, INC.
    [Show full text]
  • Verde Valley Regional Land Use Plan
    VERDE VALLEY REGIONAL LAND USE PLAN ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Verde Valley Regional Land Use Plan was developed through citizen determination and input received at community meetings. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met on a regular basis to refine the Plan. The Verde Valley Regional Land Use Plan was officially adopted by Yavapai County Board of Supervisors on November 20, 2006. YAVAPAI COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Carol Springer, District 1 Thomas Thurman, District 2 A.G. “Chip” Davis, District 3 COUNTY STAFF Ken Spedding, Development Services Director Enalo Lockard, Assistant Director Beth Escobar, Planner Terri Nelson, Yavapai County GIS VERDE VALLEY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Nancy Buckel Town of Camp Verde Will Wright Town of Camp Verde Sherry Bailey Town of Clarkdale Steve Brown Town of Clarkdale Normalinda Zuniga Town of Clarkdale Tim Costello City of Cottonwood George Gehlert City of Cottonwood Charlie Scully City of Cottonwood Kathy Levin City of Sedona Mike Raber City of Sedona Renee Tavares Town of Jerome Lillian Moodey ASLD Michelle Flaherty ASLD CONSULTANTS Richard F. Counts, Vice President Community Sciences Corporation 3900 East Camelback Road, Suite 403 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Dava Z. Hoffman, Dava & Associates Peter M. Lima, P.E., Lima & Associates ACK - i VERDE VALLEY REGIONAL LAND USE PLAN CITIZEN PARTICIPANTS During the Regional Land Use Plan process, numerous citizens participated in workshops, providing insights into their particular community. Residents from several Valley communities (Sedona, Cottonwood, Camp Verde, Clarkdale, Jerome, Big Park, Cornville, Lake Montezuma, Verde Village, as well as the Beaver Creek and Red Rock/Dry Creek areas) attended planning events in their neighborhood. There are more than 150 residents we'd like to thank for participating in the process; but, these select few followed the process from inception to adoption -- providing input, photos, community profiles, draft Plan refinement and the like.
    [Show full text]
  • Total Employment by State, Class of Employer and Last Railroad Employer Calendar Year 2013
    Statistical Notes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | U.S. Railroad Retirement Board Bureau of the Actuary www.rrb.gov No. 2 - 2015 March 2015 Total Employment by State, Class of Employer and Last Railroad Employer Calendar Year 2013 The attached table shows total employment by State, class of employer and last railroad employer in the year. Total employment includes all employees covered by the Railroad Retirement and Railroad Unemployment Insurance Acts who worked at least one day during calendar year 2013. For employees shown under Unknown for State, either no address is on file (2.0 percent of all employees) or the employee has a foreign address such as Canada (0.2 percent). TOTAL EMPLOYMENT BY STATE, CLASS OF EMPLOYER AND LAST RAILROAD EMPLOYER CALENDAR YEAR 2013 CLASS OF 1 STATE EMPLOYER RAILROAD EMPLOYER NUMBER Unknown 1 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY 1,803 Unknown 1 CSX TRANSPORTATION INC 1,889 Unknown 1 DAKOTA MINNESOTA & EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION 2 Unknown 1 ILLINOIS CENTRAL RR CO 12 Unknown 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORP (AMTRAK) 532 Unknown 1 NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION 12 Unknown 1 SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY 3 Unknown 1 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 2 Unknown 2 CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY 152 Unknown 2 FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY, LLC 47 Unknown 2 IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD LTD 44 Unknown 2 MONTANA RAIL LINK INC 1 Unknown 2 SPRINGFIELD TERMINAL RY CO VERMONT 21 Unknown 3 ARCELORMITTAL CLEVELAND WORKS RAILWAY, INC 9 Unknown 3 ARCELORMITTAL SOUTH CHICAGO & INDIANA HARBOR RAILWAY, INC 4 Unknown 3 BELT RAILWAY COMPANY OF CHICAGO 8 Unknown 3 BOMBARDIER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES USA CORPORTATION 7 Unknown 3 CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY INC - NOYES DIVISION 438 Unknown 3 CHICAGO TERMINAL RAILROAD COMPANY 34 Unknown 3 CLOQUET TERMINAL RAILROAD COMPANY INC 10 Unknown 3 COAST BELLE RAIL, LLC 4 Unknown 3 COLORADO AND WYOMING RAILWAY COMPANY 8 Unknown 3 CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION 1 Unknown 3 COPPER BASIN RY INC 6 Unknown 3 DAKOTA MISSOURI VALLEY & WESTERN RR INC 6 Unknown 3 DELTA SOUTHERN RAILROAD, INC.
    [Show full text]