DOCSLIB.ORG

Gulf Coast Working Group Report to Congress

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gulf Coast Working Group Report to Congress Gulf Coast Working Group Report to Congress Prepared for: Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation of the Senate and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives Submitted by: The Gulf Coast Working Group Final Report July 2017 Table of Contents 1 OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................. 1 2 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ................................................................................................. 1 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF GCWG SCOPE OF WORK ...................................................................... 1 2.1.1 THE FAST ACT AND RESPONSE TO CONGRESS ............................................................... 1 2.1.2 GOALS .............................................................................................................................. 2 2.1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION .................................................................................................. 2 2.2 HISTORY .......................................................................................................................... 2 2.2.1 PREVIOUS PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE TO THE GULF COAST ........................................... 2 2.2.2 RECENT HISTORY OF LOCAL SUPPORT TO RESTORE PASSENGER SERVICE .................... 4 2.3 REGIONAL ECONOMIC SUMMARY .................................................................................... 4 2.3.1 POTENTIAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS .................................................................................... 4 2.4 DESCRIPTION OF PARTIES INVOLVED ............................................................................... 5 2.4.1 GULF COAST WORKING GROUP STRUCTURE & MEMBERSHIP ........................................ 5 2.4.2 GCWG INTERACTION WITH CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS ............................................... 5 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 6 3.1 EXISTING RAILROAD INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................................... 6 3.1.1 ELEMENTS OF RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................ 6 3.1.2 EXISTING GULF COAST CORRIDOR RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................... 6 3.1.2.1 OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................................ 9 4 PROPOSED RESTORATION PLAN .......................................................................................... 10 4.1 PREVIOUSLY STUDIED OPTIONS ..................................................................................... 10 4.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED SERVICE OPTIONS .............................................................. 12 4.2.1 ALTERNATIVE A ............................................................................................................ 12 4.2.2 ALTERNATIVE A1 .......................................................................................................... 13 4.2.3 PREFERRED OPTION ....................................................................................................... 14 4.3 PASSENGER SERVICE SCHEDULE COMPARISON .............................................................. 14 4.4 OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................... 15 4.4.1 TERMINALS .................................................................................................................... 15 4.4.1.1 NEW ORLEANS ............................................................................................................... 15 4.4.1.2 MOBILE .......................................................................................................................... 15 4.4.1.3 ORLANDO AREA AND SUNRAIL OPERATIONS ................................................................ 15 4.4.1.4 ROLLING STOCK EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................ 16 4.5 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS............................................................................................... 16 4.5.1 STATION REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 16 4.5.1.1 APPROACH TO DEFINING INCREMENTAL STATION IMPROVEMENTS ............................. 16 4.5.1.2 HIGHLIGHTS/SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT FINDINGS ..................................................... 17 4.5.1.3 ORDER-OF-MAGNITUDE CAPITAL COST SUMMARY...................................................... 18 4.5.2 RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................................. 19 4.5.2.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 19 4.5.2.2 ASSESSMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS .................................................... 20 4.5.2.3 FRA IDENTIFIED IMPROVEMENTS .............................................................................. 23 4.5.2.4 FRA IDENTIFIED IMPROVEMENTS FOR CSX LINE AND ORDER OF MAGNITUDE CAPITAL COSTS .............................................................................................................................. 29 Gulf Coast Working Group Report to Congress i 5 IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................................ 30 5.1 FRA IDENTIFIED PROGRAM OF IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................ 30 5.1.1 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS ......................................................... 31 5.1.2 SUMMARY OF STATION, INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHER IMPROVEMENT COSTS .............. 31 5.2 FUNDING ........................................................................................................................ 32 5.2.1 LOCAL FUNDING ............................................................................................................ 32 5.2.1.1 LOCAL MATCH TO FRA GRANTS .................................................................................. 32 5.2.1.2 OTHER LOCAL FUNDING INITIATIVES ........................................................................... 33 5.2.1.3 BP OIL SPILL SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS .......................................................................... 33 5.2.2 THE FAST ACT .............................................................................................................. 33 5.2.2.1 CONSOLIDATED RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (CRISI) PROGRAM ....................................................................................................................................... 33 5.2.2.2 RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT (REG) PROGRAM ................................................. 33 5.2.2.3 FASTLANE GRANTS ........................................................................................................ 33 5.2.3 TIGER GRANTS ............................................................................................................... 34 5.2.4 HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS ............................................................................. 34 5.2.4.1 ALABAMA DOT ............................................................................................................. 34 5.2.4.2 LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & DEVELOPMENT (DOTD) .............. 34 5.2.5 RRIF/TIFIA PROGRAMS ................................................................................................ 35 5.3 NEXT STEPS ................................................................................................................... 35 5.3.1 VERIFY RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ..................................................................... 35 5.3.2 CONFIRM PTC REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................... 35 5.3.3 EVALUATE SAFETY AT GRADE CROSSINGS ................................................................... 35 5.3.3.1 PROPOSED GRADE CROSSING STUDY ............................................................................ 35 5.3.3.2 MISSISSIPPI RAILROAD CORRIDOR WORKING GROUP .................................................. 35 5.3.4 NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ................................................................................. 36 5.3.5 EXECUTE NECESSARY AGREEMENTS ............................................................................ 36 5.3.6 APPLICATION OF POTENTIAL FUNDING ......................................................................... 36 5.3.6.1 REQUEST FOR FUNDING: ................................................................................................ 37 5.3.7 IDENTIFICATION OF REAL ESTATE REQUIREMENTS & DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES 37 5.3.8 OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 37 5.3.8.1 EXTEND LONG-DISTANCE SERVICE TO TAMPA, FL ...................................................... 37 5.3.8.2 ASSESSMENT OF EXTENDING STATE-SUPPORTED SERVICE TO ATMORE, AL ............... 37 6 CLOSING STATEMENT ........................................................................................................... 38 Gulf Coast Working Group Report to Congress ii List of Tables TABLE 1 – EXISTING GULF COAST RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE ......................................................... 7 TABLE 2 – SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Load more

Recommended publications
  • GAO-02-398 Intercity Passenger Rail: Amtrak Needs to Improve Its
    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Honorable Ron Wyden GAO U.S. Senate April 2002 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Amtrak Needs to Improve Its Decisionmaking Process for Its Route and Service Proposals GAO-02-398 Contents Letter 1 Results in Brief 2 Background 3 Status of the Growth Strategy 6 Amtrak Overestimated Expected Mail and Express Revenue 7 Amtrak Encountered Substantial Difficulties in Expanding Service Over Freight Railroad Tracks 9 Conclusions 13 Recommendation for Executive Action 13 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 13 Scope and Methodology 16 Appendix I Financial Performance of Amtrak’s Routes, Fiscal Year 2001 18 Appendix II Amtrak Route Actions, January 1995 Through December 2001 20 Appendix III Planned Route and Service Actions Included in the Network Growth Strategy 22 Appendix IV Amtrak’s Process for Evaluating Route and Service Proposals 23 Amtrak’s Consideration of Operating Revenue and Direct Costs 23 Consideration of Capital Costs and Other Financial Issues 24 Appendix V Market-Based Network Analysis Models Used to Estimate Ridership, Revenues, and Costs 26 Models Used to Estimate Ridership and Revenue 26 Models Used to Estimate Costs 27 Page i GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking Appendix VI Comments from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 28 GAO’s Evaluation 37 Tables Table 1: Status of Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions, as of December 31, 2001 7 Table 2: Operating Profit (Loss), Operating Ratio, and Profit (Loss) per Passenger of Each Amtrak Route, Fiscal Year 2001, Ranked by Profit (Loss) 18 Table 3: Planned Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions 22 Figure Figure 1: Amtrak’s Route System, as of December 2001 4 Page ii GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 April 12, 2002 The Honorable Ron Wyden United States Senate Dear Senator Wyden: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is the nation’s intercity passenger rail operator.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT of INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION in Re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMEN
    USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3279 filed 03/22/19 page 1 of 354 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION ) Case No. 3:05-MD-527 RLM In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE ) (MDL 1700) SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT ) PRACTICES LITIGATION ) ) ) THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ) ) Carlene Craig, et. al. v. FedEx Case No. 3:05-cv-530 RLM ) Ground Package Systems, Inc., ) ) PROPOSED FINAL APPROVAL ORDER This matter came before the Court for hearing on March 11, 2019, to consider final approval of the proposed ERISA Class Action Settlement reached by and between Plaintiffs Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Berry, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O’Brien, Neal Bergkamp, and Dominic Lupo1 (collectively, “the Named Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and the Certified Class, and Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (“FXG”) (collectively, “the Parties”), the terms of which Settlement are set forth in the Class Action Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) attached as Exhibit A to the Joint Declaration of Co-Lead Counsel in support of Preliminary Approval of the Kansas Class Action 1 Carlene Craig withdrew as a Named Plaintiff on November 29, 2006. See MDL Doc. No. 409. Named Plaintiffs Ronald Perry and Alan Pacheco are not movants for final approval and filed an objection [MDL Doc. Nos. 3251/3261]. USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3279 filed 03/22/19 page 2 of 354 Settlement [MDL Doc. No. 3154-1]. Also before the Court is ERISA Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees and for Payment of Service Awards to the Named Plaintiffs, filed with the Court on October 19, 2018 [MDL Doc.
    [Show full text]
  • Municipal Security Disclosure
    MUNICIPAL SECURITY DISCLOSURE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2019 For the City of Miami Beach, Florida and The Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency (A Component Unit of the City of Miami Beach, Florida) MUNICIPAL SECURITY DISCLOSURE City of Miami Beach, Florida For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Prepared by: The City of Miami Beach Finance Department 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida • 33139 Tel: (305) 673 – 7466 • Fax: (305) 673 – 7795 Last updated July 13, 2020 City of Miami Beach, Florida Report of Annual Financial Information For Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 This Report of Annual Financial Information is being filed with the Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA), a service of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB). The following is a list of all outstanding bonds and other obligations for the City of Miami Beach at September 30, 2019, in accordance with provisions regarding continuing disclosure set forth in: Outstanding Bonds Original Description Resolution Resolution Commitment Amount Number Date Date $22,500,000 Gulf Breeze Fixed Rate Loan, Series 1985E No. 2001-24500 June 26, 2001 August 1, 2001 (used to repay a portion of the outstanding principal from the Sunshine State Loan and renovation and improvement of two City owned golf courses and their related facilities), (“2001 Gulf Breeze Loan”) $62,465,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2003 (used No. 2003-25240 June 11, 2003 July 22, 2003 to improve neighborhood infrastructure in the City, consisting of streetscape and traffic calming measures, shoreline stabilization, Fire Safety Projects and Beaches Projects) (Note: The outstanding balance on the above City of Miami Beach, General Obligation Bonds, Series 2003 were fully refunded by the Series 2019 bonds at September 30, 2019.) $13,590,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, No.
    [Show full text]
  • March 25, 2019 Volume 39
    MARCH 25, 2019 ■■■■■■■■■■■ VOLUME 39 ■■■■■■■■■■ NUMBER 3 13 The Semaphore 17 David N. Clinton, Editor-in-Chief CONTRIBUTING EDITORS Southeastern Massachusetts…………………. Paul Cutler, Jr. “The Operator”………………………………… Paul Cutler III Cape Cod News………………………………….Skip Burton Boston Herald Reporter……………………… Jim South 24 Boston Globe & Wall Street Journal Reporters Paul Bonanno, Jack Foley Western Massachusetts………………………. Ron Clough Rhode Island News…………………………… Tony Donatelli “The Chief’s Corner”……………………… . Fred Lockhart Mid-Atlantic News……………………………. Doug Buchanan PRODUCTION STAFF Publication…………….………………… …. … Al Taylor Al Munn Jim Ferris Bryan Miller Web Page …………………..………………… Savery Moore Club Photographer……………………………. Joe Dumas The Semaphore is the monthly (except July) newsletter of the South Shore Model Railway Club & Museum (SSMRC) and any opinions found herein are those of the authors thereof and of the Editors and do not necessarily reflect any policies of this organization. The SSMRC, as a non-profit organization, does not endorse any position. Your comments are welcome! Please address all correspondence regarding this publication to: The Semaphore, 11 Hancock Rd., Hingham, MA 02043. ©2019 E-mail: [email protected] Club phone: 781-740-2000. Web page: www.ssmrc.org VOLUME 39 ■■■■■ NUMBER 3 ■■■■■ MARCH 2019 CLUB OFFICERS BILL OF LADING President………………….Jack Foley Vice-President…….. …..Dan Peterson Treasurer………………....Will Baker Book Review ........ ………12 Secretary……………….....Dave Clinton Chief’s Corner ...... ……. .3 Chief Engineer……….. .Fred Lockhart Contests ................ ……….3 Directors……………… ...Bill Garvey (’20) ……………………….. .Bryan Miller (‘20) Clinic……………..………3 ……………………… ….Roger St. Peter (’19) Editor’s Notes. ….….....….12 …………………………...Gary Mangelinkx (‘19) Members ............... …….....12 Memories .............. ………..4 th Potpourri ............... ..…..…..5 ON THE COVER: March 9-10 Show Running Extra....... .….……13 and Open House memories. (Photos by Joe Dumas) 2 FORM 19 ORDERS Fred Lockhart MARCH B.O.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Quarterly Report on the Performance and Service Quality of Intercity Passenger Train Operations
    Pursuant to Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-432, Division B): Quarterly Report on the Performance and Service Quality of Intercity Passenger Train Operations Covering the Quarter Ended June, 2019 (Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2019) Federal Railroad Administration United States Department of Transportation Published August 2019 Table of Contents (Notes follow on the next page.) Financial Table 1 (A/B): Short-Term Avoidable Operating Costs (Note 1) Table 2 (A/B): Fully Allocated Operating Cost covered by Passenger-Related Revenue Table 3 (A/B): Long-Term Avoidable Operating Loss (Note 1) Table 4 (A/B): Adjusted Loss per Passenger- Mile Table 5: Passenger-Miles per Train-Mile On-Time Performance (Table 6) Test No. 1 Change in Effective Speed Test No. 2 Endpoint OTP Test No. 3 All-Stations OTP Train Delays Train Delays - Off NEC Table 7: Off-NEC Host Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles Table 8: Off-NEC Amtrak Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles Train Delays - On NEC Table 9: On-NEC Total Host and Amtrak Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles Other Service Quality Table 10: Customer Satisfaction Indicator (eCSI) Scores Table 11: Service Interruptions per 10,000 Train-Miles due to Equipment-related Problems Table 12: Complaints Received Table 13: Food-related Complaints Table 14: Personnel-related Complaints Table 15: Equipment-related Complaints Table 16: Station-related Complaints Public Benefits (Table 17) Connectivity Measure Availability of Other Modes Reference Materials Table 18: Route Descriptions Terminology & Definitions Table 19: Delay Code Definitions Table 20: Host Railroad Code Definitions Appendixes A.
    [Show full text]
  • 20210419 Amtrak Metrics Reporting
    NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION 30th Street Station Philadelphia, PA 19104 April 12, 2021 Mr. Michael Lestingi Director, Office of Policy and Planning Federal Railroad Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Lestingi: In accordance with the Metrics and Minimum Standards for Intercity Passenger Rail Service final rule published on November 16, 2020 (the “Final Rule”), this letter serves as Amtrak’s report to the Federal Railroad Administration that, as of April 10, 2021, Amtrak has provided the 29 host railroads over which Amtrak currently operates (listed in Appendix A) with ridership data for the prior month consistent with the Final Rule. The following data was provided to each host railroad: . the total number of passengers, by train and by day; . the station-specific number of detraining passengers, reported by host railroad whose railroad right-of-way serves the station, by train, and by day; and . the station-specific number of on-time passengers reported by host railroad whose railroad right- of-way serves the station, by train, and by day. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jim Blair Sr. Director, Host Railroads Amtrak cc: Dennis Newman Amtrak Jason Maga Amtrak Christopher Zappi Amtrak Yoel Weiss Amtrak Kristin Ferriter Federal Railroad Administration Mr. Michael Lestingi April 12, 2021 Page 2 Appendix A Host Railroads Provided with Amtrak Ridership Data Host Railroad1 Belt Railway Company of Chicago BNSF Railway Buckingham Branch Railroad
    [Show full text]
  • Adding Passenger Service
    A Modeler’s Aid Clinic Passenger Operations Conducted By Bruce Knapp How to integrate Passenger Trains into your operating sessions or How the Santa Fe Operated Passenger Service Why Passenger Service? Period and Equipment 1830 to 1850 Revenue Wood cars - usually stage coach bodies Advertising 1850 to 1870 Show off your modeling skills Wood cars built for railroad use Introduce sleeping cars Add interest Introduce air brakes & knuckle couplers Visitors like passenger trains 1880 to 1900 Introduce dining cars You make Walthers and Rapido very happy Introduce steam heat You also make local hobby dealers happy Introduce electric lighting Introduce vestibules and diaphragms Two Typical Wood Cars Period and Equipment 1900 to 1930 steel cars become standard air conditioning introduced All-reserved “name trains” 1930 to 1970 streamlining introduced “passenger specific” color schemes common high speed steam and diesels introduced 1971 to Present Amtrak formed Types of Passenger Service Mixed Train Combine Premier Class [Named Trains] Normal Service [Named or numbered] Local Service [locomotive & cars] Local Service [single unit] Commuter Service Mail & Express Trains Mixed Train Service Fan Trip [especially steam] Famous “Name Trains” Assigned Locomotives Chief, El Capitan, Super Chief: ATSF Steam [1940’s to 1960’s] th 20 Century Limited, Ohio Limited: NYC First Class: 4-6-2, 4-6-4, 4-8-2, 4-8-4 Broadway Limited: PRR The Hummingbird: L&N Local Service: 4-4-2, 4-6-2, 4-6-4 City of Los Angeles, City of San Francisco: UP Mixed Train: 2-8-0, 4-6-0,
    [Show full text]
  • INDEX to VOLUMES 1 and 2
    INDEX TO VOLUMES 1 and 2 All contents of publications indexed © 1999, 2000, and 2001 by Kalmbach Publishing Co., Waukesha, Wis. TRAINS CLASSIC 1999 (1 issue) CLASSIC TRAINS Spring 2000 – Winter 2001 (8 issues) 932 pages HOW TO USE THIS INDEX: Feature material has been indexed three or more times—once by the title under which it was published, again under the author’s last name, and finally under one or more of the subject categories or railroads. Photographs standing alone are indexed (usually by railroad), but photographs within a feature article are not separately indexed. Brief items are indexed under the appropriate railroad and/or category. Most references to people are indexed under the company with which they are easily identified; if there is no easy identification, they may be indexed under the per- son’s last name. Items from countries from other than the U.S. and Canada are indexed under the appropriate country. Abbreviations: TC = TRAINS CLASSIC 1999, Sp = Spring CLASSIC TRAINS, Su = Summer CLASSIC TRAINS, Fa = Fall CLASSIC TRAINS, Wi = Winter CLASSIC TRAINS, 00 = 2000, 01 = 2001. Colorado and Beyond, with Dick Kindig, Su00, 50 Tom o r row ’ s Train … Tod a y , Fa00, 80 A Di s p a t c h e r ’s Dilemma, Wi01, 29 Bu f falo Switch, Fa00, 95 Ab b e y , Wallace W., article by: E8 1447 at Grand Central Station, Chicago, Sp00, 106 Bullock, Heaton L., articles by: Class by Itself, TC 14 EM D ’ s Shock Troops, Wi01, 74 Rutland: A Salesman’s Vie w , Wi00, 60 ACF Talgo, Fa00, 86 Ends passenger service on Old Main Line, Wi00, 88 Bumping Post: ACL No.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Passenger Trains
    SOUTHERN PACIFIC PASSENGER TRAINS Dcdication 1.tt, tt/!nt tr. tr.,....,,, t.\1,:1.r., 1,',.\ll{l I'1,.. Orrhe6rcl(cndpipt^: \/r'.r" l']t tti,\ ),,n\,tt "l " ,,,.,r'-ll ..\'' !l''.\l\ tr't.; s e,R n,t 7'\lin rl,l;n'rt uri'trtrn I'ri rrt''' i i J.l {' L\rtrlror Lrb^ t|, tt! Ln \Lt.' r"n\, ]'// r 1.rP sfi " Bnct covea main: r,rl{/ /rrr. s,t ) | u 1)i n; }'t1') i I I t t nrn ) qt t $ttr l,\li.{}! t'ta t" Wirf nrr.r!rlnD..J Llu!,n!lrrrcl,)i*r!s J;r rhr I),\11!ht l.llq!l ,rt,l' ',1 1l', t.tt, ltit rll .\ll rish. ,c{1.(l /i'' n'r,,,,, ,, '| ,| h: s;".;--h R.tti" K, .tt tt: , t;lht nt|lttt, tht nr\'] tith"! Rlr.t &t 1)rrru (;r/r,d; Ilrnn SrJ'irnl srli ,t r"r,',, !rtr\,' t , rl lll'lrl r fit.iD nlI nFcr: ri 7ri7. J'a/ t.ru li;lit r\,l|lt' rh,t\'r't o l. 'lr . Bi.Lcovcr, 'r' ' \n r t Li u t' l b rt r t\, r t't' rt lnr\vl(lsr '\llr(nn nh.o.' r. nrklr..rNrtr rnrA!'ril" 'ri lh ti! n, tl,r',l i'rr " oi rtn,pl trt ,'\trnrtr nn[1ni l.' ."1,'."J .'lr', ""r' r,tt/,r ! r t j r,- r,, ,,,, t.. ,. .t .t Krl,L'run, 'll,i. ml,li..ti,", hA n,n lJ.c.
    [Show full text]
  • Steel Wheels 4Q20 Web.Pdf
    Arizona News All Aboard Arizona Todd Liebman, President For well over a hundred and rail corridor between Los Angeles-Phoenix-Tucson and even thirty years, passenger trains further east to El Paso would be an economic driver for have been a daily fixture Arizona. Arizona’s congested transportation system diminishes of life in Northern Arizona, the quality of life for Arizonans increasing air pollution, literally building communities congestion related delays, and negatively impacting the state’s like Flagstaff and Winslow, economy. Conversely, for a relatively small investment, Amtrak bringing economic activity could return to Phoenix, the Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle to the cities served along Route 66. That came to an end in could operate daily, and the Southwest Chief could return October when Amtrak reduced the Southwest Chief route to to daily service across Northern Arizona. It is often in rural three day per week service, along with all long-distance train communities, like Yuma and Winslow, where passenger rail service in the United States. This cutback is expected to create has the biggest impact. These communities have fewer public economic losses of $239 million in the first nine months to transportation options, and the train serves as a vital lifeline for the communities served from Chicago to Los Angeles. These residents and visitors alike. cuts will not help Amtrak’s bottom line and may do permanent The outlook does not have to be bleak. We can achieve our damage to ridership and the financial health of passenger rail in goals related to daily Amtrak service on routes across Arizona America, and to the communities served by rail.
    [Show full text]
  • RCED-98-151 Intercity Passenger Rail B-279203
    United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to Congressional Committees May 1998 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Financial Performance of Amtrak’s Routes GAO/RCED-98-151 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-279203 May 14, 1998 The Honorable Richard C. Shelby Chairman The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Transportation Committee on Appropriations United States Senate The Honorable Frank R. Wolf Chairman The Honorable Martin Olav Sabo Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives Since it began operations in 1971, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) has never been profitable and has received about $21 billion in federal subsidies for operating and capital expenses. In December 1994, at the direction of the administration, Amtrak established the goal of eliminating its need for federal operating subsidies by 2002. However, despite efforts to control expenses and improve efficiency, Amtrak has only reduced its annual net loss from $834 million in fiscal year 1994 to $762 million in fiscal year 1997, and it projects that its net loss will grow to $845 million this fiscal year.1 Amtrak remains heavily dependent on substantial federal operating and capital subsidies. Given Amtrak’s continued dependence on federal operating subsidies, the Conference Report to the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998 directed us to examine the financial (1) performance of Amtrak’s current routes, (2) implications for Amtrak of multiyear capital requirements and declining federal operating subsidies, and (3) effect on Amtrak of reforms contained in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997.
    [Show full text]
  • MSC Newsletter 4-2017
    The Mid-South Flyer Spring 2017 A Publication of the Mid-South Chapter of the Railway & Locomotive Historical Society, Inc Spring Meeting Boyhood memories of a special steam engine Back in the day, most young boys developed a fascination for trains from playing with their first toy train set, or in more recent times, from watching Thomas the Tank Engine on TV. But in the case of MidSouth member Warren Jones, a childhood infatuation for a certain steam engine ignited a life-long love for trains, and steam engines in particular. That special steam engine was Gainesville Midland #301, a 2-8-0 Consolidation-type locomotive built in 1920 by Baldwin Locomotive Works. No. 301 was a familiar sight Gainesville Midland #301 around Warren’s childhood home in Gainesville, Georgia, where the railroad literally ran through his back yard. Warren recounts growing up in a railroad family and his love affair with the Gainesville Midland in an article ap- pearing in Good Old Days Magazine. He will reprise his story with personal anecdotes and photographs at the next meeting of the MidSouth Chapter on Saturday, April 22, at 2 PM in the historic Leeds Depot. The following article excerpts provide a preview of Warren’s presentation. “The year was 1952 in Gainesville, Georgia. I was ten years old, and the location was a small Southern Railroad section house with the Gainesville Midland Railroad New Holland branch forming the boundary of the back yard, a short stone’s throw from the house. The house faced the Southern double track mainline, a long stone’s throw away.
    [Show full text]