DOCSLIB.ORG

Committee of 100 Comments on DEIS 09-28-2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Committee of 100 Comments on DEIS 09-28-2020 September 28, 2020 Mr. David Valenstein Office of Railroad Policy and Development USDOT Federal Railroad Administration (MS-20 RPD-10) 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Founded 1923 Dear Mr. Valenstein, Chair Kirby Vining We are pleased to provide the following comments on the Washington Vice-Chair Union Station DEIS. Alma Gates We thank you for the opportunity to comment and look forward to Secretary working with you throughout this process. Please contact Monte Edwards at Erik Hein [email protected] or Erik Hein at [email protected] if you Treasurer have specific questions or other concerns. George R. Clark Sincerely, Trustees Charlie Bien Larry Hargrove Naima Jefferson Aidan Jones Nancy MacWood Kirby Vining, Chair Meg Maguire Committee of 100 on the Federal City David Marlin Sheldon Repp Cc: Phil Mendelson Andrea Rosen Mary Cheh Marilyn Simon Charles Allen Jim Smailes Marcel Acosta Pat Tiller Andrew Trueblood James Wilcox Jeff Marootian Evelyn Wrin Anna Chamberlin Stephen Hansen, Emeritus David Maloney Andrew Lewis Rebecca Miller 945 G Street, N.W. Betsy Merritt Washington, D.C. 20001 Drury Tallent 202.681.0225 www.committeeof100.net [email protected] A beautiful and livable Washington, DC for all. Comments Concerning the Union Station Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Released June 12, 2020) September 28, 2020 The Union Station Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) proposes an expansion plan that will cost between 5.8 and 7.5 billion dollars1 and require 11 to 14 years to build2. The plan focuses on bus and automobile parking, station concourses, platforms and retail. But the plan does not adequately address Union Station’s role as a train station. The expansion plan needs to be substantially revised to address that deficiency. Union Station is first and foremost a train station—a critical piece of the nation’s transportation infrastructure and an indispensable asset to help our region solve our transportation challenges: vehicle congestion and parking caused by automobile commuters. Two-thirds of the daily trips to and from the District are by car, leading to congestion and costly travel delays, compromised air quality and increased carbon emissions. Commuter and passenger rail are essential in providing pragmatic alternatives to automobile commuting. 213 passenger trains pass through, depart, or arrive in the District on a typical weekday3, resulting in many economic and social benefits for the District. • In FY 2015, Amtrak’s headquarters at Union Station employed 235 DC residents with wages totaling over $18.5 million. Amtrak also spent $24.2 million on goods and services in DC during that same year. • VRE and MARC carry commuters who add a combined $1.64 billion to the District economy each year.4 1 DEIS, Executive Summary, page ES-34. 2 Id, page ES-1. 3 DC Rail Plan, page 3-34 https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/page_content/attachments/DC%20S RP%20FinalReport.pdf. 4 Id, pages 3-70 thru 3-71. 1 Summary Recommendations Because of outdated assumptions and projections, the Preferred Alternative fails to provide adequate trackage and adjustments to trackage to meet known needs even within the Draft Environmental Impact Statement timeframe. The DEIS falls short of meeting the needs of rail passengers and the project stakeholders. The Committee of 100 on the Federal City has repeatedly emphasized that rail transportation must be prioritized in any plan for the proposed Union Station Expansion Project. Major changes are needed in the DEIS to accomplish this. As explained in these comments, the Preferred Alternative and DEIS need to be revised to: • Take into account the increased number of trains that will operate south of Union Station within the planning horizon of this expansion project due to separation of passenger and freight rail operations south of Union Station and the ability to electrify the passenger tracks south of Union Station. • Update the trackage required to accommodate a much larger number of trains than the projections in this DEIS. • Take into account the need for high-speed rail south of Union Station. • Take into account VRE thru-running to Maryland and MARC thru-running to Virginia. • Revise the trackage configuration to accommodate high-speed rail south of Union Station and electrification of the tracks south of Union Station. • Reduce the size of the proposed parking garage to accommodate only the needs of Union Station. • Address the need for an income stream for USRC during the proposed construction timeframe when the parking garage will not provide that income. Erroneous Assumptions and Projections The rail network that uses Union Station is operationally and physically fragmented among several service providers and owners. Likewise, the planning is fragmented, with three different plans for the rail system south of Union Station that will affect Union Station operations in the years encompassed by this DEIS:5 1. The plan that resulted from the December 2019 Agreement between CSX and the Commonwealth of Virginia that the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) would build, own and operate the new two-track Long Bridge river-crossing as well as substantial CSX trackage in Virginia.6 5 These plans or projects do not address the need for a fourth rail track between 3rd and 2nd Streets, SW, the entrance to the First Street rail tunnel. Apparently this was not accomplished as a part of the Virginia Avenue Tunnel project and has been overlooked in the L’Enfant Station Expansion plans Four tracks are essential from the Long Bridge to the First Street Tunnel to separate freight and passenger operational controls by providing two tracks for freight and two tracks for passenger rail. 6 The Long Bridge EIS ROD states at page 2-1: “It is anticipated that the Project will become the responsibility of the new Virginia Passenger Rail Authority, which formed on July 1, 2020, once 2 2. The Long Bridge FEIS plan to add a fourth track between the Long Bridge and 12th Street SW (FEIS issued September 2, 2020) that designates DRPT as Project Sponsor, responsible for designing and constructing the Project as presented in the Long Bridge FEIS. 3. The L’Enfant Station Expansion Plan will add a fourth track between 12th Street and 3rd Street, SW. It is projected to be completed in 2029 7. These three plans will result in separation of passenger and freight rail operation south of Union Station. This momentous change in rail operation will transform our rail system into a more modern, efficient and inclusive rail network that will better serve the DC region and the East Coast rail network. But this dramatic change in rail operations is completely ignored in the Union Station DEIS. In fact the DEIS clearly states the contrary – that passenger and commuter rail operations south of Union Station will continue to be controlled by CSX (Appendix B, page 23): The 2040 simulation retains operating variability for trains arriving from the south, given assumed continued ownership and dispatch by freight railroads in the future. [emphasis added] This assumption is wrong and the planning projections that result from it grossly understate the number of trains that will operate south of Union Station. The Virginia/DRPT and Long Bridge expansion projects are projected to be completed in five years (FEIS, page 1-7) and the VRE L’Enfant Station expansion by 2029. All three projects will be in service before the 11-14 years required for the Union Station expansion and must be taken into account in plans for the Union Station Expansion. The Benefits of Separating Passenger and Freight Rail The plans and projects now in progress to separate passenger from freight rail operations south of Union Station will allow a very large increase in the number and frequency of passenger trains because they can operate faster and be spaced more closely if passenger and freight operations are not intermixed and controlled by CSX as is now the case on these SW tracks. New York City’s Penn Station illustrates the benefits of separating passenger from freight operations. The track arrangement for Penn Station is similar to our rail operations south of Union Stations, and like our First Street rail tunnels, is served by two tunnels (the North River Tunnels) under the Hudson River. In both cases, there are two tunnels with one rail track in each tunnel. The contrast is clear: DC’s 1st Street tunnels carry a total of that body has the staff capable of administering the Project. Should there be a change in Project sponsorship, the new Project Sponsor will assume DRPT’s responsibilities.” 7 The L’Enfant Station Expansion was originally planned for completion in 2023 (Long Bridge DEIS, page 3-16), but the completion date has been extended to 2029. 3 about 6 trains per peak hour under the control and scheduling of CSX8, whereas NYC’s North River Tunnels accommodate up to 24 trains per hour in each direction, a total of 48 trains in a peak hour, requiring very precise scheduling and control. Achieving this configuration south of Union Station would allow a substantial increase in passenger and commuter rail traffic south of Union Station. Passenger Rail Projections Are Not Credible A foundational element of the Union Station DEIS is anticipating and responding to predicted growth in passenger and commuter rail traffic over the next 20 years. Forecasting accurately that increase is critical. The estimates of number of trains found on pages 24-25, Appendix A3 [Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report] are broken out among Service Providers (Amtrak, MARC, VRE) and further between Peak Hours and Full Day Totals. These projections are critical—underlying most every future physical and service decision covered by this important document.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Virginia Railway Express Strategic Plan 2004-2025
    VRE STRATEGIC PLAN Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................V Current State of the Railroad ..............................................................................................................v The Strategic Planning Process..........................................................................................................vi The VRE Ridership Market................................................................................................................vii Strategic Plan Scenarios and Recommendations .............................................................................viii Core Network Needs...........................................................................................................................ix Potential Network Expansion ..............................................................................................................x Phased Service Improvement and Capital Investment Plan ..............................................................xii Financial, Institutional and Organizational Issues ..........................................................................xiii VRE Moving Forward ......................................................................................................................xiv 1. CURRENT STATE OF THE RAILROAD..........................................................................................1 VRE SYSTEM OVERVIEW .........................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Long Bridge Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Alternatives Development Report
    Long Bridge Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Alternatives Development Report June 19, 2018 Long Bridge Project EIS Draft Alternatives Development Report Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. NEPA Requirements for Alternatives Development ..................................................................... 1 1.2. Purpose of this Report .................................................................................................................. 1 1.3. Project Background ...................................................................................................................... 3 1.4. Concept Screening Process ........................................................................................................... 4 1.5. Organization of this Report .......................................................................................................... 4 2.0 Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................... 6 2.1. Why is the Project needed? .......................................................................................................... 6 2.2. Will the Long Bridge consider bicycle and pedestrian access? .................................................... 8 3.0 Alternatives Development Process ................................................................................ 9 3.1. Pre-NEPA Alternatives Development
    [Show full text]
  • CAPITAL REGION RAIL VISION from Baltimore to Richmond, Creating a More Unified, Competitive, Modern Rail Network
    Report CAPITAL REGION RAIL VISION From Baltimore to Richmond, Creating a More Unified, Competitive, Modern Rail Network DECEMBER 2020 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 EXISTING REGIONAL RAIL NETWORK 10 THE VISION 26 BIDIRECTIONAL RUN-THROUGH SERVICE 28 EXPANDED SERVICE 29 SEAMLESS RIDER EXPERIENCE 30 SUPERIOR OPERATIONAL INTEGRATION 30 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM 31 VISION ANALYSIS 32 IMPLEMENTATION AND NEXT STEPS 47 KEY STAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATION ROLES 48 NEXT STEPS 51 APPENDICES 55 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The decisions that we as a region make in the next five years will determine whether a more coordinated, integrated regional rail network continues as a viable possibility or remains a missed opportunity. The Capital Region’s economic and global Railway Express (VRE) and Amtrak—leaves us far from CAPITAL REGION RAIL NETWORK competitiveness hinges on the ability for residents of all incomes to have easy and Perryville Martinsburg reliable access to superb transit—a key factor Baltimore Frederick Penn Station in attracting and retaining talent pre- and Camden post-pandemic, as well as employers’ location Yards decisions. While expansive, the regional rail network represents an untapped resource. Washington The Capital Region Rail Vision charts a course Union Station to transform the regional rail network into a globally competitive asset that enables a more Broad Run / Airport inclusive and equitable region where all can be proud to live, work, grow a family and build a business. Spotsylvania to Richmond Main Street Station Relative to most domestic peer regions, our rail network is superior in terms of both distance covered and scope of service, with over 335 total miles of rail lines1 and more world-class service.
    [Show full text]
  • Railroad Emergency Response Manual
    Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Railroad Emergency Response Manual Approved by the COG Fire Chiefs Committee Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Second Edition May 2020 MWCOG Railroad Emergency Response Manual 2nd Edition – May 2020 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This manual could not have been written without the assistance of many Dedicated rail safety personnel and members of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments regional emergency response agencies that have spent many hours providing the material for the creation of this manual. We thank all emergency responders from all jurisdictions, including our federal agency partners that shared their firsthand experiences of recent commuter railroad incidents. Many of their experiences were incorporated into sections of this manual. Many Railroad representatives, private industry and governmental organizations provided their invaluable technical assistance. This committee would like to thank Steve Truchman formerly of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), Greg Deibler from Virginia Railway Express (VRE), David Ricker from the Maryland Rail Commuter (MARC), Paul Williams of Norfolk Southern Railway Corporation and Mike Hennessey of CSX Transportation, all of whom provided the specific diagrams, illustrations and other technical information regarding railroad equipment. We recognize Elisa Nichols of Kensington Consulting, LLC for her contributions to this manual as well as representatives from many Federal Agencies who also provided information on the technical accounts of railroad equipment and their integrity on past railroad incidents. The members of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) Passenger Rail Safety Subcommittee gratefully presents this manual to both Fire and Rescue Service and Railroad organizations in an effort to instill readiness within our own personnel that they might effectively and collaboratively respond to a railroad incident.
    [Show full text]
  • CSX Baltimore Division Timetable
    NORTHERN REGION BALTIMORE DIVISION TIMETABLE NO. 4 EFFECTIVE SATURDAY, JANUARY 1, 2005 AT 0001 HOURS CSX STANDARD TIME C. M. Sanborn Division Manager BALTIMORE DIVISION TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS DESCRIPTION PAGE INST DESCRIPTION PAGE 1 Instructions Relating to CSX Operating Table of Contents Rules Timetable Legend 2 Instructions Relating to Safety Rules Legend – Sample Subdivision 3 Instructions Relating to Company Policies Region and Division Officers And Procedures Emergency Telephone Numbers 4 Instructions Relating to Equipment Train Dispatchers Handling Rules 5 Instructions Relating to Air Brake and Train SUBDIVISIONS Handling Rules 6 Instructions Relating to Equipment NAME CODE DISP PAGE Restrictions Baltimore Terminal BZ AV 7 Miscellaneous Bergen BG NJ Capital WS AU Cumberland CU CM Cumberland Terminal C3 CM Hanover HV AV Harrisburg HR NI Herbert HB NI Keystone MH CM Landover L0 NI Lurgan LR AV Metropolitan ME AU Mon M4 AS Old Main Line OM AU P&W PW AS Philadelphia PA AV Pittsburgh PI AS.AT Popes Creek P0 NI RF&P RR CQ S&C SC CN Shenandoah SJ CN Trenton TN NI W&P WP AT CSX Transportation Effective January 1, 2005 Albany Division Timetable No. 5 © Copyright 2005 TIMETABLE LEGEND GENERAL F. AUTH FOR MOVE (AUTHORITY FOR MOVEMENT) Unless otherwise indicated on subdivision pages, the The authority for movement rules applicable to the track segment Train Dispatcher controls all Main Tracks, Sidings, of the subdivision. Interlockings, Controlled Points and Yard Limits. G. NOTES STATION LISTING AND DIAGRAM PAGES Where station page information may need to be further defined, a note will refer to “STATION PAGE NOTES” 1– HEADING listed at the end of the diagram.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington, DC to Richmond Third Track Feasibility Study HOUSE
    REPORT OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Washington, DC to Richmond Third Track Feasibility Study TO THE GOVERNOR AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA HOUSE DOCUMENT NO. 78 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND 2006 Third Track Feasibility Study December 2006 WASHINGTON, D.C. TO RICHMOND THIRD TRACK FEASIBILITY STUDY PREFACE This study was requested by the 2006 General Assembly session in HB 5012. In addition to an analysis of the feasibility of constructing a third track, this study responds to the General Assembly’s direction to expand the scope to: (i) Identify needed right-of-way parallel to existing tracks, including right-of-way owned by CSX or by other parties; (ii) Identify major environmental issues; (iii) Develop an implementation plan based on the most optimal options, including the schedules for each phase of the project as well as financing for the project; (iv) Review legal and regulatory issues; and (v) Estimate the cost of powering passenger trains by electricity for a Third Track from Washington, D.C. to Richmond. The Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) is charged with ensuring that the Commonwealth of Virginia achieves the highest public benefit for the dollars invested in our rail programs. There is no doubt that this is a high priority freight and passenger rail corridor that will require significant investment in order to maintain and improve mobility for people and goods. DRPT is taking a strategic approach in studying this high priority corridor. Our new approach is based on establishing public benefits, identifying public/private partnership opportunities, and providing realistic cost estimates based on a comprehensive plan that identifies all of the improvements and issues that need to be addressed in the provision of reliable, sustainable, expandable, and efficient freight and passenger rail operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Control Point Virginia Tower
    GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK OR HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION New Designation __X___ Amendment of a previous designation _____ Please summarize any amendment(s) _______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ Property name _Control Point (CP) Virginia Tower_______________________________________ If any part of the interior is being nominated, it must be specifically identified and described in the narrative statements. Address __Southeast Corner of 2nd Street SW and Virginia Avenue SW, Washington, DC_________ Square and lot number(s) __0582 0856_________________________________________________ Affected Advisory Neighborhood Commission ______ANC 6D_____________________________ Date of construction __1904-1906____ Date of major alteration(s) __1930s___________________ Architect(s) __Unknown______________ Architectural style(s) ____________________________ Original use _Railroad Interlocking Control Tower_ Present use ___Railroad Infrastructure Property owner _CSX Transportation, Inc._____________________________________________ Legal address of property owner _500 Water Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202 ________________ NAME OF APPLICANT(S) _CSX Transportation, Inc.____________________________________ If the applicant is an organization, it must submit evidence that among its purposes is the promotion of historic preservation in the District of Columbia.
    [Show full text]
  • DC State Rail Plan Website
    STATE RAIL PLAN: FINAL REPORT 2017 State Rail Plan Table of Contents Contents Chapter 1 The Role of Rail in District Transportation ............................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Federal Authority For States ...................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Institutional Governance Structure of The District’s Rail Programs .......................................... 1-2 1.4 Multimodal Transportation System Goals .................................................................................. 1-3 1.5 Rail Transportation’s Role within The District’s Transportation System ................................... 1-5 1.5.1 Role of Freight Rail ................................................................................................................ 1-5 1.5.2 Role of Commuter Rail .......................................................................................................... 1-6 1.5.3 Role of Intercity Rail ............................................................................................................... 1-6 Chapter 2 Approach to Public and Agency Participation ...................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Stakeholder Roundtables ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Howard Street Tunnel Finding of No Significant Impact
    Federal Railroad Administration Howard Street Tunnel Project FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT June 2021 Prepared Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(c) By the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration and Maryland Department of Transportation Maryland Port Administration Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................1 2. Study Area .................................................................................................................................2 2.1. Maryland ....................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2. Delaware ....................................................................................................................................... 4 2.3. Pennsylvania ................................................................................................................................. 4 3. Purpose and Need Statement .....................................................................................................5 3.1. Purpose of the Project .................................................................................................................. 6 3.2. Need for the Project...................................................................................................................... 6 4. Alternatives ...............................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Potential Improvements to the Washington-Richmond Railroad
    Report to Congress VOLUME I Potential Improvements to the Washington⎯Richmond Railroad Corridor National Railroad Passenger Corporation May 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I TABLE OF CONTENTS . TC-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . ES-1 . CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION . 1 CHAPTER 2: THE CORRIDOR TODAY . 5 CHAPTER 3: SERVICE GOALS . 24 CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGIES . 29 CHAPTER 5: INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS . 37 . CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION . 56 List of Tables TABLE 1: Existing Railroad Services on the Washington-Richmond Corridor . ES-5 TABLE 2: Railroad Services Envisioned for 2015 on the Washington-Richmond ES-10 Corridor . TABLE 3: Description of Project Groups . ES-14 TABLE 4: Preliminary Listing of Projects for the Washington-Richmond Corridor . ES-15 TABLE 5: Potential Improvements by Category . ES-16 TABLE 2-1: Track Ownership and Operating Control . 7 TABLE 2-2: Station Ownership and Use . 11 TABLE 2-3: Existing Railroad Services on the Washington-Richmond Corridor . 13 TABLE 2-4: Amtrak Train Service in the Washington-Richmond Corridor . 14 TABLE 3-1: Railroad Services Envisioned for 2015 on the Washington-Richmond 24 Corridor . TABLE 3-2: Projected Train Movements by Direction Between Washington and 25 Alexandria Between 3:30PM and 7:30PM, Year 2015 . .. TABLE 5-1: Preliminary Listing of Projects for the Washington-Richmond Corridor . 54 TABLE 5-2: Description of Project Groups . 55 TABLE 5-3: Potential Improvements by Category . 56 List of Figures FIGURE 1: Washington-Richmond Corridor . ES-3 FIGURE 2: Southeast Corridor . ES-3 FIGURE 3: Demand for Intercity Corridor Train Services, Washington-Richmond ES-11 FIGURE 4: Selected Rail Lines in Washington, D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shipping Container and the Globalization of American Infrastructure by Matthew W. Heins
    The Shipping Container and the Globalization of American Infrastructure by Matthew W. Heins A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Architecture) in the University of Michigan 2013 Doctoral Committee: Professor Robert L. Fishman, Chair Associate Professor Scott D. Campbell Professor Paul N. Edwards Associate Professor Claire A. Zimmerman © Matthew W. Heins 2013 Acknowledgments I wish to express my sincere and heartfelt thanks to my advisor, professor Robert Fishman, who has provided such valuable guidance and advice to me over the years. Ever since I arrived at the University of Michigan, Robert has been of tremendous assistance, and he has played a vital role in my evolution as a student and scholar. My deepest gratitude also goes out to the other members of my dissertation committee, professors Claire Zimmerman, Scott Campbell and Paul Edwards, who have all given invaluable help to me in countless ways. In addition I would like to thank professor Martin Murray, who has been very supportive and whose comments and ideas have been enriching. Other faculty members here at the University of Michigan who have helped or befriended me in one way or another, and to whom I owe thanks, include Kit McCullough, Matthew Lassiter, Carol Jacobsen, Melissa Harris, María Arquero de Alarcón, June Manning Thomas, Malcolm McCullough, Jean Wineman, Geoffrey Thün, Roy Strickland, Amy Kulper, Lucas Kirkpatrick and Gavin Shatkin. My fellow doctoral students in architecture and urban planning at Taubman College have helped me immensely over the years, as I have benefited greatly from their companionship and intellectual presence.
    [Show full text]
  • Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan Fiscal Years 2020-2024
    Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan Fiscal Years 2020-2024 March 2019 Congress established the Northeast Corridor Commission to develop coordinated strategies for improving the Northeast’s core rail network in recognition of the inherent challenges of planning, financing, and implementing major infrastructure improvements that cross multiple jurisdictions. The expectation is that by coming together to take collective responsibility for the NEC, these disparate stakeholders will achieve a level of success that far exceeds the potential reach of any individual organization. The Commission is governed by a board comprised of one member from each of the NEC states (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland) and the District of Columbia; four members from Amtrak; and five members from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). The Commission also includes non- voting representatives from freight railroads, states with connecting corridors and several commuter operators in the Region. Contents Letter from the Co-Chair 1 Executive Summary 2 1. Introduction 5 2. FY20-24 Capital Investment Plan 7 Project Information Appendix 19 A. Capital Renewal of Basic Infrastructure 20 Figure A-1. Amtrak FY20-24 Baseline Capital Charge Program 22 Figure A-2. Metro-North Railroad FY20-24 Baseline Capital Charge Program 23 Figure A-3. Connecticut DOT FY20-24 Baseline Capital Charge Program 24 Figure A-4. MBTA FY20-24 Baseline Capital Charge Program 26 B. Special Projects 28 Figure B-1. Summary of special project funding requirements 29 Figure B-2. Special project listing by coordinating agency 34 Letter from the Co-Chair The Northeast Corridor is the nation’s busiest and most complex passenger railroad.
    [Show full text]