DOCSLIB.ORG

High-Speed Rail Jim Anglin and Gene Skoropowski

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
High-Speed Rail Jim Anglin and Gene Skoropowski Peter Gertler, Randy Wade, Peter Denitz, High-Speed Rail Jim Anglin and Gene Skoropowski All States and agencies sign up to receive their share of aboard high-speed rail funding FRA has received applications from 34 California: Th e Golden State has states totaling $7 billion for specifi c applied for more than $4.7 billion in projects and planning work. Th e FRA federal funding for an ambitious high- has indicated that they are likely speed rail system. to have multiple rounds of awards, California wants to build high-speed meaning that the $8 billion will not be rail connecting northern and southern distributed all at once but spread out California with trains traveling at 220 over time. mph fi rst with the backbone of the system Th e criteria for grants include job between San Francisco and Anaheim and creation, how soon projects can get with extensions to Sacramento and San under way and the sustainability Diego in the future. Th e state’s ongoing of the projects. Matching funding battles with traffi c congestion and the commitments are not required, but the nation’s most aggressive carbon emission ones that are on the table are sure to reduction requirements highlight its need attract positive attention. for the travel alternative off ered by high- Th e $57 billion in requests will have speed rail. to get whittled down to $8 billion, At the same time, California’s inally, after decades of and the conventional wisdom is that recession-battered economy would no state is likely to get 100% of their welcome the 127,000 jobs that high- advocacy and admonition, original request, at least in the fi rst speed rail is expected to bring. America is buying a ticket round of funding to be announced in Th e American Recovery and F early 2010. Reinvestment Act of 2009 high-speed for high-speed rail. As New York Congressman Maurice rail grants do not require local fund It’s high time. Our nation is Hinchey said recently, investing matching. But California has pledged a struggling to maintain a viable in high-speed rail lines “would be match of nearly $9 billion to be derived transportation system amid a “perfect the most signifi cant infrastructure from a high-speed rail bond passed by storm” of congested highways, backed- investment in the future since the voters in November 2008. In addition, up airports, global warming and creation of the Interstate Highway the bond included $1 billion for local addiction to fossil fuels. System a half-century ago.” transit connections to the high-speed Nearly everyone agrees that building No one can predict how much rail network. a high-speed rail system can help solve money the various states will receive or Depending on what happens with these problems and create much- for which projects. But amid this swirl the approval process, California hopes needed jobs. It holds the potential of applications, a group of colleagues at to begin construction in 2012 on the to revolutionize our transportation HNTB thought it would be helpful to backbone of the system between San infrastructure as much as the Interstate outline the details of some of the most Francisco and Anaheim. Highway System did. signifi cant applications, along with Washington has set aside $8 billion some contextual background. Th e Midwest: Th e buzz about high- in stimulus money for the High-Speed speed rail is reaching a crescendo in the Intercity Passenger Rail Program. Sign-up sheet crossroads of America. Twenty-four states are asking the While it’s too early to predict which Amtrak and nine Midwestern states Federal Railroad Administration corridors will open up fi rst, timetables started working on the Midwest (FRA) for a combined total of about mapped out by the states give us some Regional Rail Initiative in 1996. Th e $50 billion to establish high-speed rail possible scenarios. So, moving from plan calls for a 3,000-mile network corridor programs. In addition, the west to east . hubbed in Chicago. WWW.TMEMAG.COM | TM&E 9 In July, the eight Midwestern Regional Rail System would create two Talgo train sets into service and governors and the mayor of more than 57,000 permanent new jobs establish new Wisconsin facilities for Chicago signed a memorandum of across the Midwest as the system is the assembly and maintenance of high- understanding to emphasize their built out over 10 years. speed trains. support for this undertaking. High-speed rail would accelerate Th e agreement provides an option “We are determined to take full rapidly growing demand for rail travel to buy two additional train sets if advantage of federal recovery funds and in Illinois. Th e state’s four Amtrak Wisconsin obtains federal stimulus bring high-speed rail to Illinois and the routes have experienced some of the funding to develop an $817 million Midwest,” the governors said. fastest growing ridership increases in high-speed passenger rail line between Th e system would off er service in key the country. Th e Chicago-St. Louis Milwaukee and Madison. 100- to 500-mile corridors through route achieved a record-breaking 57% Th e new assembly and maintenance densely populated areas, providing increase in ridership in 2007-08. facilities could set up shop in city-center to city-center connections Illinois is asking for $4.36 billion Milwaukee or a nearby area of that commercial air service does not to establish high-speed rail between southeastern Wisconsin, which has provide. Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago- Chicago and St. Louis and $1.47 taken a beating from the recession Milwaukee-Madison and Chicago- billion for a Chicago-Rockford- and job losses. Besides the benefi ts Detroit-Pontiac have been designated as Dubuque line. Illinois is expected to to Wisconsin, the plants will support Phase 1 corridors. chip in an estimated $1.8 million in the delivery of trains throughout the Th e trains would ride on existing matching funds, and freight railroads Midwest and the country. freight rail rights-of-way. Track may commit as much as $84.8 million Michigan, whose economy has improvements made for high-speed for speed, capacity and/or reliability been devastated by the recession and passenger rail also would increase improvements that will help passenger auto-industry contraction, is seeking freight system capacity. And routing rail attain high-speed standards $993.6 million for improvements to the high-speed rail over existing tracks in Illinois. Chicago-Detroit-Pontiac corridor. New provides a big cost advantage over Another lead state in the Midwestern train stations would be built in Troy developing new track. eff ort is Wisconsin, which is pursuing and Dearborn, and a station in Battle Th e economic boost would bring high-speed rail on multiple fronts. In Creek would be rehabilitated. welcome relief from recessionary woes. July, Wisconsin signed a deal with Minnesota’s applications include On an aggregate basis, the Midwest Spanish train maker Talgo to put $135.8 million to build a multimodal A major accomplishment is Florida’s attainment of federal environmental approval for the Tampa-Orlando segment. The Florida DOT envisions a public-private partnership in which private entities would operate and maintain the system in exchange for ridership revenue. 10 JANUARY 2010 | TM&E aimed at Washington, the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) Pensacola Tallahassee Jacksonville renewed its commitment to an improved, expanded Northeast Gainesville Rail Network. Th e network includes: Ocala Daytona Beach • Th e Northeast Corridor; Orlando • Th e Downeaster linking Boston to Cocoa/ Disney Airport Port Canaveral Portland, with a proposed extension Tampa Lakeland to Brunswick, Maine; St. Petersburg • Th e Boston-Montreal Corridor, a Bradenton Fort Pierce proposed new service that would Sarasota eventually link Boston to Concord Phase 1 − Tampa to Orlando and Montreal, Quebec; Phase 2 (I-95) − Orlando to Miami Fort Myers West Palm Beach • Th e Knowledge Corridor linking Phase 2 (Turnpike) − Orlando to Miami the Connecticut River Valley Naples Proposed Routes Fort Lauderdale communities between Hartford, Miami Conn., Springfi eld, Mass., and Possible Stations White River Junction, Vt., with the Boston-New Haven and Boston- Montreal segments of the Northern New England High Speed Rail Corridor, with connection to the Florida’s geography and growing population densities are well-suited for high-speed rail. Empire Corridor; International visitors also might welcome high-speed travel. • Th e Keystone Corridor linking Harrisburg and Philadelphia to the Northeast Corridor; and transit hub at the St. Paul Union Depot With the sought-after stimulus • Th e Empire and Adirondack and $1.2 million for engineering and funds, the Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago- Corridors that span New York state environmental work in the Twin Cities- Milwaukee-Madison and Chicago- and link New York City and Albany Milwaukee segment of the Chicago- Detroit-Pontiac corridors could open with destinations to the west in Milwaukee-Twin Cities corridor. to high-speed rail service between 2012 Buff alo-Niagara Falls and Toronto Missouri’s applications include 11 and 2014. and to the north in upstate New York rail projects worth $201.3 million. Th e and Montreal. state’s plan is to speed up service on Th e Northeast: Th e Northeast is the existing Union Pacifi c line faster home to the nation’s only existing high- New York, which is seeking $5.3 over time as funding becomes available. speed rail service, the Acela Express, billion for high-speed rail, has In conjunction with Wisconsin’s bid, which runs along the Northeast recommended that the fi rst major the state is seeking $50 million for the Corridor between Boston and project to be implemented will be the purchase of two new sets of locomotives Washington, D.C.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail Ohio Hub Study
    The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail Ohio Hub Study TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM & BUSINESS PLAN July 2007 Prepared for The Ohio Rail Development Commission Indiana Department of Transportation Michigan Department of Transportation New York Department of Transportation Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Prepared by: Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. In association with HNTB, Inc. The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail - Ohio Hub Study Technical Memorandum & Business Plan Table of Contents Foreword...................................................................................................................................... viii Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................................x Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................1 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 System Planning and Feasibility Goals and Objectives................................................... 1-3 1.2 Business Planning Objectives.......................................................................................... 1-4 1.3 Study Approach and Methodology .................................................................................. 1-4 1.4 Railroad Infrastructure Analysis...................................................................................... 1-5 1.5 Passenger
    [Show full text]
  • Amtrak CEO Flynn House Railroads Testimony May 6 20201
    Testimony of William J. Flynn Chief Executive Officer National Railroad Passenger Corporation Before the United States House of Representatives House CommiFee on Transportation & Infrastructure SubcommiFee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials When Unlimited Potential Meets Limited Resources: The Benefits and Challenges of High-Speed Rail and Emerging Rail Technologies Thursday, May Q, RSRT TT:SS a.m. Rayburn House Office Building, Room RTQU Amtrak T MassachuseFs Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC RSSST-TYST (RSR) \SQ-]\T^ WHEN UNLIMITED POTENTIAL MEETS LIMITED RESOURCES: THE BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF HIGH-SPEED RAIL AND EMERGING RAIL TECHNOLOGIES Introduction Good morning, Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, and Members of this SubcommiFee. Thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing on behalf of Amtrak. My name is William Flynn, and I am Amtrak’s Chief Executive Officer. I am particularly honored to be representing Amtrak at this hearing. It takes place six days after Pres- ident Biden traveled to Philadelphia to join us in celebrating Amtrak’s fiftieth anniversary. The American Jobs Plan he has proposed, which would provide $^S billion for Amtrak and high- speed and intercity passenger rail, is an important first step in developing an improved passenger rail system that would enhance mobility by serving more communities; provide more frequent and more equitable service; generate significant economic benefits; and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Amtrak has accomplished a great deal since we began service on May T, T\UT with a mandate to transform unprofitable intercity passenger rail services operated by private railroads into “a modern, efficient intercity railroad passenger service”1 – with an initial appropriation of only $YS million.
    [Show full text]
  • Cfs0997all2.Pdf
    Acknowledgements United States Department of Transportation Secretary Federico F. Peña; Rodney E. Slater Deputy Secretary Mortimer L. Downey Federal Railroad Administration Administrator Jolene M. Molitoris Deputy Administrator Donald M. Itzkoff Associate Administrator for Railroad Development James T. McQueen Deputy Associate Administrator for Railroad Development Arrigo P. Mongini Study manager; general editor; principal writer Neil E. Moyer System benefits; financing; Alice M. Alexander Magnetic levitation John T. Harding contract administration James L. Milner Transportation analysis Bruce Goldberg Chapter 1; liability; State Gareth W. Rosenau Helen Ng opportunities Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Senior study advisor; Volpe Center project manager Ronald A. Mauri Travel demand forecasting Simon P. Prensky System concept definition Michael N. Coltman David M. Nienhaus Leonore I. Katz-Rhoads Sarah J. Lawrence* Robert P. Brodesky* Model implementation: Todd C. Green* Energy and emissions model Howard M. Eichenbaum* projections of operating results David L. Skinner implementation and investment needs *EG&G/Dynatrend Argonne National Laboratories Charles River Associates Energy and emissions model Donald M. Rote Demand model development Dan Brand development Zian Wang Thomas E. Parody Mark R. Kiefer DeLeuw, Cather & Co. and Associated Firms DeLeuw, Cather project manager Michael Holowaty Operating expense model Duncan W. Allen Ancillary activities model Steven A. LaRocco development Winn B. Frank development Richard L. Tower (Wilbur Eric C. MacDonald Smith) Charles H. Banks (R.L. Banks) Public benefits model design and Guillaume Shearin Liability Charles A. Spitulnik implementation Robert J. Zuelsdorf (Wilbur (Hopkins & Sutter) Smith) Kenneth G. Sislak (Wilbur Anne G. Reyner (Wilbur Smith) Smith) Jeffrey B. Allen Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Parsons, Brinckerhoff project manager John A.
    [Show full text]
  • High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact
    Chapter 1 – Introduction and Purpose and Need Tier 1 Draft EIS 1. Introduction and Purpose and Need 1.1. Introduction The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) are preparing a tiered Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate proposed system improvements to intercity passenger rail services along the 463-mile Empire Corridor, connecting Pennsylvania (Penn) Station in New York City with Niagara Falls Station in Niagara Falls, New York (refer to Exhibit 1-1). In April of 2010, NYSDOT received a $1 million grant from FRA to conduct analyses of potential Empire Corridor improvements, including preparation of a Service Development Plan, Tiered EIS, and other necessary studies.1 In addition, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) contributed $1.8 million to the Tier 1 EIS preparation, and New York State provided matching funds in the amount of $3.5 million (New York State rail funds). The Empire Corridor connects New York City with the largest cities in New York State, extending north through Yonkers and Poughkeepsie, and turning west at Albany to extend through Schenectady, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, and terminating at Niagara Falls. The Empire Corridor consists of three main segments: • Empire Corridor South, extending 142 miles north from Penn Station to just north of Albany- Rensselaer Station; • Empire Corridor West, extending 294 miles west from approximately one mile north of the Albany-Rensselaer Station to just east of the Buffalo-Exchange Street Station; and the • Niagara Branch, extending 27 miles west from a point located just east of Buffalo-Exchange Street Station to Niagara Falls.
    [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]
  • High Speed Passenger Rail Corridor Conference
    'I·. > High Speed Passenger Rail Corridor Conference U.S. Departme11t Federal Railroad of Transportation Administration March 26 & 27, 1996 Washington, DC Table: fpf Q Program Agenda List of Attendees FY 1997 Budget Request HSGT Outreach Overview Status Of State Programs 0 HSGT Safety And Research And Development Section 1010/1036 Grade Crossing Program Next Generation High-Speed Rail Technology Development Program High Speed Ground Transportation (HSGT) Planning Funds Notice 0 Railroad Safety Program WGB SPEED PASSENGER RAU, CORRIDOR CONFERENCE March 26 & 27, 1996 , FRA&FHWA Room 2230, NASSIF Building Tuesday. March 26 o Purpose of the Conference o 1997 Budget Request o HSGT Commercial Feasibility Study I HSGT Policy Status o Next Generation Program - Status o Description of Corridor Plan o Status of Improvements o Funding Strategy o Legislative Authority/Needs (DOT/PUC) e.g. Private Grade Crossings o Discussion III. BREAK- 15 minutes IV. STAIE BY STAIE STATUS REPORT (Contd.) 10:30 a.m. to 11: 15 a.m. VII Lunch Break - 12 to 1 p.m. 2 o Passenger Rail Equipment o Other Safety Requirements for HSGT o HSGT Safety R&D - Orth o Questions and Answers IX. BREAK - 15 Minutes o Overview - Smailes o HSGT Grade Crossing Issues o FHWA Program - Louick/Winans XI. BREAK - 15 Minutes o Next Generation Technology Development o Questions and Answers Wednesdqy. March 2 7 o HSGT Commercial Feasibility Study/National Policy - Mongini o State Infrastructure Banks - Program Status/Applications - J. Basso o Innovative Financing Projects - Cooper o IS TEA Reauthorization - Cooper XIV. BREAK 15 Minutes XV. ROUND TABLE· HSGT FUNDING (Contd.) 9:45 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right Track: Building a 21St Century High-Speed Rail System
    The Right Track Building a 21st Century High-Speed Rail System for America U.S. PIRG Education Fund The Right Track Building a 21st Century High-Speed Rail System for America U.S. PIRG Education Fund Written by: Tony Dutzik and Siena Kaplan, Frontier Group Phineas Baxandall, Ph.D., U.S. PIRG Education Fund Acknowledgments U.S. PIRG Education Fund thanks the following individuals for their review and insight- ful suggestions: Scott Bernstein, president of the Center for Neighborhood Technology; John Robert Smith, president and CEO of Reconnecting America; and Kevin Brubaker, deputy director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center. Thanks also to Susan Rakov and Elizabeth Ridlington for their editorial support. The generous financial support of the Rockefeller Foundation made this report possible. The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of U.S. PIRG Education Fund. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review. © 2010 U.S. PIRG Education Fund With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pursuing their own narrow agendas, U.S. PIRG Education Fund offers an independent voice that works on behalf of the public interest. U.S. PIRG Education Fund, a 501(c)(3) organiza- tion, works to protect consumers and promote good government. We investigate prob- lems, craft solutions, educate the public, and offer Americans meaningful opportunities for civic participation. For more information about U.S. PIRG Education Fund or for additional copies of this report, please visit www.uspirg.org.
    [Show full text]
  • High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Volume I – Executive Summary
    Executive Summary Tier 1 Draft EIS ES Executive Summary ES-1. Introduction The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) are preparing a tiered Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate proposed system improvements to intercity passenger rail services along the 463-mile Empire Corridor, connecting Pennsylvania (Penn) Station in New York City with Niagara Falls Station, in Niagara Falls, New York. The Empire Corridor is one of eleven designated high-speed rail corridors nationwide, initially authorized under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and supplemented by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998 (TEA-21). In December 1998, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation announced the official designation of the TEA- 21-authorized Empire Corridor as a high-speed rail corridor. On April 16, 2009, President Obama announced a Vision for High-Speed Rail in America and committed to funding this program through the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). To achieve this vision, the FRA launched the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program in 2009,1 and Congress funded $8 billion through ARRA. Congress continued to fund annual appropriations totaling $2 billion for fiscal years 2009 and 2010,2 using the framework developed by the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIAA).3 The EIS has been developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and its implementing regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508); FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 Federal Register [FR] 28545); and the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) and its implementing regulations (6 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations [NYCRR] Part 617).
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Planning for the Philadelphia–Harrisburg “Keystone” Railroad Corridor
    VOLUME I Executive Summary and Main Report Technical Monograph: Transportation Planning for the Philadelphia–Harrisburg “Keystone” Railroad Corridor Federal Railroad Administration United States Department of Transportation March 2004 Disclaimer: This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation solely in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof, nor does it express any opinion whatsoever on the merit or desirability of the project(s) described herein. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Any trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. Note: In an effort to better inform the public, this document contains references to a number of Internet web sites. Web site locations change rapidly and, while every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of these references, they may prove to be invalid in the future. Should an FRA document prove difficult to find, readers should access the FRA web site (www.fra.dot.gov) and search by the document’s title or subject. 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FRA/RDV-04/05.I 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Technical Monograph: Transportation Planning for the March 2004 Philadelphia–Harrisburg “Keystone” Railroad 6. Performing Organization Code Corridor⎯Volume I: Executive Summary and Main Report 7. Authors: 8. Performing Organization Report No. For the engineering contractor: Michael C. Holowaty, Project Manager For the sponsoring agency: Richard U. Cogswell and Neil E. Moyer 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Optimal Planning of Running Time Improvements for Mixed-Use Freight and Passenger Railway Lines
    OPTIMAL PLANNING OF RUNNING TIME IMPROVEMENTS FOR MIXED-USE FREIGHT AND PASSENGER RAILWAY LINES BY BRENNAN MICHAEL CAUGHRON THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2017 Urbana, Illinois Advisers: Professor Christopher P.L. Barkan, Adviser Mr. C. Tyler Dick, Co-Adviser ABSTRACT In recent years, the United States has seen a renewed focus on developing improved intercity passenger railway lines and services. With the political sensitivity of public investment in rail infrastructure and accompanying shortage of state and federal funds, it is important that the most cost effective investments are selected. Many of these endeavors, including high-speed-rail projects with new, dedicated segments, involve infrastructure investments targeted at improving the speed, capacity, and reliability of existing railway lines. In most cases, these existing lines support the operation of commingled passenger and freight traffic on the same trackage. These shared trackage arrangements introduce numerous engineering and operating challenges to successfully planning and executing improvement projects. Freight, commuter, and intercity rail traffic types have inherently different performance and service characteristics that further complicate the planning of infrastructure improvements. This thesis is focused on enhancing the planning methodology of intercity passenger rail service in the United States. Chapter 1: Background of American Intercity Passenger Rail The past decade has seen substantial increases in ridership and revenue for Amtrak services. Even with the increases outlined in this chapter, there remain differences in the level of rail service between different regional corridors.
    [Show full text]
  • High-Speed Rail Pre-Feasibility Study
    I-87 Multimodal Corridor Study HIGH SPEED RAIL PRE- FEASIBILITY STUDY: NEW YORK CITY TO MONTREAL Prepared for: New York State Department of Transportation Prepared by: Parsons - Clough Harbour A Joint Venture February 2004 High-Speed Rail Pre-Feasibility Study TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Study Overview 1.2. High Speed Rail Corridors 1.3. Study Purpose and Approach 2. EXISTING RAIL TRAFFIC AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE CORRIDOR 2.1. Existing Passenger and Freight Train Traffic 2.2. Existing Railway Alignment 2.3. Track Configuration 3. EQUIPMENT: ROLLING STOCK AND TRAIN CONTROL SYSTEMS 3.1. Existing Passenger Train Service Equipment 3.2. Other Potential Equipment 3.3. Technology Assumptions in this Report 4. RUNNING TIMES ON EXISTING CORRIDOR ALIGNMENT 4.1. Train Performance Calculator Runs 4.2. Description of Train Performance Output Tables 4.3. Summary of TPC Results 4.4. Analyzing Trip Time Attainment Utilizing PAD 4.5. Summary of Travel Time Benefits by Improvement Scenarios 4.6. Potential for DMU Train Sets in Corridor 5. HIGH-SPEED ALIGNMENT (150 MPH, SUSTAINED OPERATIONS) 5.1. Limitations of Existing Alignment 5.2. Conceptual Design of a Potential New High Speed Alignment 5.3. Impact of New Alignment on Running Times 5.4. Projected Time Saving: Montreal to US/Canada Border 5.5. Overall Change in Running Time: New York City to Montreal 6. CONSTRUCTION COSTS 6.1. Construction Costs Associated with Existing Alignment 6.2. Construction Costs Associated with New High-Speed Alignment 6.3. Increased Operating and Maintenance Costs 6.4. Potential Ridership 6.5.
    [Show full text]