DOCSLIB.ORG

RUN Newsletter Spring 2016V3.Indd

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
RUN Newsletter Spring 2016V3.Indd NEWSLETTER Spring 2016 Vol. 13, Issue 2 Will Privatization Save The Northeast Corridor? Individual By Richard J. Arena Transportation Bill, known as the NEC infrastructure is Highlights the FAST (“Fixing America’s a millstone. If full annual The Northeast Corridor is an Surface Transportation”) Act, maintenance and state-of-good- expensive piece of real estate, the major changes were to repair costs (estimated to be in snaking along the coast from reauthorize Amtrak and to excess of $2 billion/year) were Boston to Washington, DC. split Amtrak into two separate included in Amtrak’s NEC profit Rail Commuting in While less than 2% of America’s financial accounts—the and loss statement (which they Ventura County p. 2 land mass, it is home to over 50 Northeast Corridor (NEC) and cannot because they are capital), million residents and responsible the National Network (NN). the net result would be an NEC Brooklyn-Queens for 20% of the nation’s GDP. The purpose for this split was loss in the billions. Light Rail? p. 3 Every day over 2,000 trains from to keep the “profits” from NEC Amtrak, commuter rail agencies, operations there, and not use Second concern: FAST does not and freight lines share the tracks, them to subsidize losses on NN differentiate between operating VIA Rail and Canadians’ making it the world’s busiest trains. Simple? Not quite. expenses and infrastructure Mobility Needs p. 4 rail corridor. Plans have been costs. Clearly, a much preferred proposed to upgrade the NEC First concern: Amtrak’s NEC outcome would have been Enhancing Hoosier to true high speed rail, but there does not actually realize a separating Amtrak into three State Service p. 6 is not enough funding even for profit. While the trains may financial accounts: NN, maintenance. Is there a solution? make money on operations, NEC Operations, and NEC often called “above-the-rail,” Infrastructure. RUN Statements on Perhaps. In the latest Surface the capital cost of maintaining (Continued on page 8) NEC, Amtrak’s On-Time Performance p. 9 It’s Time to Register!!! By Richard Rudolph, Ph.D. improving the quality and level Manager of the MBTA; Gerald RUN to Boston! p. 11 Chair, Rail Users’ Network of services currently provided. Francis, General Manager, Keolis Commuter Rail Amtrak’s Florida “Who’s Looking Out for You? Thanks to the generosity of Services; Stephanie Pollack, Service p. 12 The State of Rail Advocacy in our sponsor, the event is free Massachusetts Secretary of New England” conference is and open to the public. People Transportation; and Rina taking place Friday, April 29, planning to attend, however, Cutler, Amtrak’s Senior New Rail Starts 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 need to register in advance on Director for Major Station In 2015 p. 14 p.m. at the Boston Foundation, the RUN website (railusers.net), Planning and Development. 75 Arlington St., 10th floor in for the conference room can Boston. Sponsored by the Rail only accommodate 75 people. Mr. Depaola will provide an Users’ Network, this regional update on MBTA services conference will examine The day will begin with brief including the purchase of new current actions in New England remarks from Richard Rudolph, cars for both the Red and regarding passenger rail/transit RUN Chair; and Paul Grogan, Orange Lines, the latest plans issues. The focus will also be President and CEO of the for extending service on the on how transit/commuter rail Boston Foundation (invited). Green Line to Somerville and riders can have a greater voice in Featured speakers include Medford and proposed fare planning new services, as well as Frank DePaola, the General (Continued on page 10) RAIL USERS’ NETWORK NEWSLETTER Page 2 of 16 Rail Commuting Between Ventura County and Santa Barbara an Impending Reality, Thanks to Stalwart Activists and Officials By Dana Gabbard Dennis Story of Coastal Rail Now, the to make the schedule change a reality final recommendations approved by the (Union Pacific, Metrolink, Amtrak, the Savvy rail advocates are far too familiar SBCAG Board in October 2005 included California Dept. of Transportation, with the daunting complications to commuter rail. the Ventura County Transportation achieving rail improvements. This is a Commission, and SBCAG). The joint status report about one such effort that is 101 in Motion was the basis for the project powers authority that previously just making progress despite the hurdles often list in Measure A, the Santa Barbara advocated for better service but now also encountered in rail advocacy. County transportation sales tax passed directly manages the Pacific Surfliner, the in 2008. It allocated $25 million (over 30 Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Sometimes, as in this case, the impetus years) for Commuter and Passenger Rail Rail Corridor (LOSSAN) Agency, is a behind a rail proposal is geographic. Santa Planning and Service Improvements. The central party in these talks. Barbara, a picturesque coastal community rail portion of the $1-billion Measure A north of Los Angeles, is hemmed in by program is overseen by Scott Spaulding, An extensive and growing list of mountains on one side and the Pacific Principal Transportation Planner at stakeholder organizations and elected Ocean on the other. As a result, the space SBCAG. officials are providing leadership to the available for housing is limited and often effort. Dennis Story has for years tirelessly unaffordable. Many who work in Santa Per the Measure A website, “Eligible worked to build this coalition along Barbara live to the south in Ventura expenditures are capital and operating with putting on an annual event tied to County, which is about 30-40 miles away, costs including developing new schedules National Train Day with a demonstration and commute to their jobs on the 101 and service plans, obtaining environmental round-trip train ride between Santa freeway, which is the only road connecting clearances, negotiating agreements, operating Barbara and Carpinteria along with a the two areas and understandably is highly subsidies, rolling stock and related equipment, press conference attended by key elected congested during peak commute times. promotions and marketing, maintenance, officials supporting the proposal. connecting transit service, track improvements, The 101 corridor is paralleled by the rail station facilities, train and grade crossing The stakeholders include: right-of-way owned by the Union Pacific controls.” Initial efforts have focused on and used by two Amtrak routes, the adjusting the Surfliner’s schedule to make it • Rail Passengers Association of California intercity Pacific Surfliner (which operates convenient for the use of commuters between & Nevada (RailPAC five daily round trips between San Diego Ventura County and Santa Barbara and • Coalition for Sustainable Transportation and Santa Barbara, with two extending other communities in Santa Barbara County (COAST) to San Luis Obispo) and long-distance (including Goleta and Carpinteria) with hopes • Alliance for Sustainable and Equitable Coast Starlight route (which operates one of eventually augmenting this at a later time Regional Transportation (ASERT) daily round trip between Los Angeles and with dedicated commuter train service. • Coastal Rail Now (CRN) Seattle). Logically, interest arose among residents in the effected areas to seek a rail A change in the Surfliner schedule involves The officials include: option for weekday commuting between cooperation from Metrolink, whose Ventura County and Santa Barbara. commuter service in Orange, Los Angeles, • State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, and Ventura Counties uses the same rail chair of the Senate Select Committee on In the early part of the last decade, a right of way as the Surfliner, and right of Passenger Rail planning effort was undertaken to address way owner Union Pacific, which operates • State Assemblymember Das Williams congestion along the corridor under freight service throughout California and • First District Supervisor Salud Carbajal the aegis of the Santa Barbara County the western United States. Slots in the who also is a LOSSAN Board member Association of Governments (SBCAG), busy coastal rail corridor served by both • Santa Barbara Mayor Helene Schneider a regional planning agency. 101 in Amtrak, Metrolink, the Coaster (in San • Santa Barbara Councilman Gregg Hart Motion involved extensive outreach to Diego County), and freight railroads are • Goleta Councilmembers Paula Perotte stakeholders over more than two years. at a premium. Negotiations are underway and Michael Bennet Through the efforts of advocates like among the key entities to work out a plan (Continued on page 5) RAIL USERS’ NETWORK NEWSLETTER Page 3 of 16 Mayor Bill de Blasio proposes Brooklyn-Queens Light Rail By Andrew Albert The Mayor extolled the virtues of “one would bring transit service to some hard New York,” and how some low-income to reach public housing developments, it In his recent State of the City address, communities don’t have the transportation isn’t that far to existing subway stations, Mayor de Blasio proposed a 16-mile-long opportunities of more well-to-do and of course, many bus lines already light rail line, running along the East River neighborhoods. It is the Mayor’s boldest make the trip. Anti-development groups waterfront (or close by) from Astoria in transportation initiative, but one that are already blasting the proposal, as Northwestern Queens to the Sunset Park definitely deserves some important scrutiny. another giveaway to developers, who will area of Brooklyn, at a proposed cost of raise rents, and drive them out of their $2.5 billion. The line would connect the First of all, the proposed light rail line neighborhoods. neighborhoods of Astoria, Ravenswood, would run much of the way paralleling Long Island City, Greenpoint, existing subway lines, although not for Transportation advocates are saying that Williamsburg, DUMBO, Downtown the entire route. Another hitch is it is the idea should be studied further, and Brooklyn, Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, unknown at this point who would run the talks with the MTA should begin.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On the Brink: 2021 Outlook for the Intercity Bus Industry in the United States
    On the Brink: 2021 Outlook for the Intercity Bus Industry in the United States BY JOSEPH SCHWIETERMAN, BRIAN ANTOLIN & CRYSTAL BELL JANUARY 30, 2021 CHADDICK INSTITUTE FOR METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AT DEPAUL UNIVERSITY | POLICY SERIES THE STUDY TEAM AUTHORS BRIAN ANTOLIN, JOSEPH P. SCHWIETERMAN AND CRYSTAL BELL CARTOGRAPHY ALL TOGETHER STUDIO AND GRAPHICS ASSISTING MICHAEL R. WEINMAN AND PATRICIA CHEMKA SPERANZA OF PTSI TRANSPORTATION CONTRIBUTORS DATA KIMBERLY FAIR AND MITCH HIRST TEAM COVER BOTTOM CENTER: ANNA SHVETS; BOTTOM LEFT: SEE CAPTION ON PAGE 1; PHOTOGRAPHY TOP AND BOTTOM RIGHT: CHADDICK INSTITUTE The Chaddick Insttute does not receive funding from intercity bus lines or suppliers of bus operators. This report was paid for using general operatng funds. For further informaton, author bios, disclaimers, and cover image captons, see page 20. JOIN THE STUDY TEAM FOR A WEBINAR ON THIS STUDY: Friday, February 19, 2021 from noon to 1 pm CT (10 am PT) | Free Email [email protected] to register or for more info CHADDICK INSTITUTE FOR METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AT DEPAUL UNIVERSITY CONTACT: JOSEPH SCHWIETERMAN, PH.D. | PHONE: 312.362.5732 | EMAIL: [email protected] INTRODUCTION The prognosis for the intercity bus industry remains uncertain due to the weakened financial condition of most scheduled operators and the unanswerable questions about the pace of a post-pandemic recovery. This year’s Outlook for the Intercity Bus Industry report draws attention to some of the industry’s changing fundamentals while also looking at notable developments anticipated this year and beyond. Our analysis evaluates the industry in six areas: i) The status of bus travel booking through January 2021; ii) Notable marketing and service developments of 2020; iii) The decline of the national bus network sold on greyhound.com that is relied upon by travelers on thousands of routes across the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • South Station Expansion Project
    On page 2 of the WWTR, the Proponent reports in the Boston Water & Sewer Commission's (BWSC) assessment that there is adequate capacity in its sewer mains to collect and convey the Project's new wastewater flows, which could increase wastewater fl ow contribution from the site by as much as 453,150 gallons per day (gpd) at the South Station site, an increase of 122% from existing conditions, according to the WWTR. This may be true for 5.1 dry weather flow conditions, but downstream BWSC and MWRA sewer systems serving South Station and the other project areas can surcharge and overflow during large storms, due to large volumes of stormwater entering combined sewer systems. Any increase in sanitary flow, if not offset with infiltration/inflow ("III") or stormwater removal from hydraulically related sewer systems can be expected to worsen system surcharging and overflows. The WWTR separately describes local and state regulations requiring I/I removal at a ratio of 4 gallons III removed for every new gallon of sanitary flow to ensure the mitigation of these potential impacts. The Proponent commits to 4: 1 I/I removal to offset new wastewater flows generated at the South Station site. I/I removal from hydraulically related systems may occur remote from the project site. It is imperative that the Proponent evaluate how the local sewers to which the project's flows will be connected will perform with the large added flows from the project and the III reduction that may occur far afield. Connections to the BWSC sewer 5.2 pipes should be carefully selected to ensure that any local sewer surcharging is not worsened by the new flows in a way that causes greater CSO discharges at nearby CSO regulators and outfalls,.notwithstanding the removal of extraneous flows elsewhere.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft – Massdot Capital Investment Plan 1
    DRAFT – MASSDOT CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN 1 To our customers ­ I am pleased to present the Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s (MassDOT) draft five-year Capital Investment Plan (CIP). Over the coming weeks, we look forward to your feedback on the proposed projects that are funded. This document, in many respects, is the outcome of both Governor Patrick and the Legislature’s seven year effort to deliver on transportation reform and investment. In 2007, an immediate transportation needs bond bill was passed and signed into law, and the Governor created the first ever Mobility Compact to enable the historically siloed transportation agencies to work together to improve our system. One year later, the Patrick Administration worked with the Legislature to enact the $3.0 billion Accelerated 1 Secretary of Transportation Richard Davey offering remarks at the 2013 Bridge Program to address hundreds of crumbling bridges in Transportation Day on the Hill event at the State House. Massachusetts. In 2009, Governor Patrick and the Legislature delivered landmark transportation reform legislation that eliminated bureaucracies, improved safety and the customer experience, saved the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars and created MassDOT. In 2011 and 2012, the Patrick Administration launched a series of statewide conversations to hear the public’s vision for the future of transportation in the Commonwealth and ideas for how to equitably pay for it. This past July, new transportation reforms and additional resources became available to invest in transportation. And now, we are publishing the first consolidated transportation capital plan in the Commonwealth’s recent history. This CIP is designed to be a transparent, comprehensive plan that describes how MassDOT is funded and provides a roadmap for balancing in our statewide transportation needs with fiscally constrained transportation resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Replacing Amtrak: Privatization, Regionalization, and Liquidation
    P o l i c y S t u d y N o . 2 3 5 , O c t o b e r 1 9 9 7 RReeppllaacciinngg AAmmttrraakk:: A Blueprint for Sustainable Passenger Rail Service by Joseph Vranich EXECUTIVE SUMMARY mtrak is a failed national experiment. By its own admission, Amtrak is headed for bankruptcy unless Washington provides another multi-billion-dollar bail-out. Another federal rescue is A unjustified considering that federal and state subsidies to Amtrak since its inception in 1971 are nearing $22.5 billion, an amount out of proportion to Amtrak’s usefulness in most of the nation. The federal government does not run a national airline. It doesn’t operate a national bus company. There’s no justification for a national railroad passenger operation. America needs passenger trains in selected areas, but doesn’t need Amtrak’s antiquated route system, poor service, unreasonable operating deficits, and capital investment program with low rates of return. Amtrak’s failures result in part because it is a public monopoly—the very type of organization least able to innovate. This study reveals an Amtrak credibility crisis in the way it reports ridership figures, glosses over dwindling market share, understates subsidies, issues misleading cost-recovery claims, offers doubtful promises regarding high-speed rail, lacks proper authority for the freight business it recently launched, and misrepresents privatization as its applies to Amtrak. It’s time to liquidate Amtrak, privatize and regionalize parts of it, permit alternative operators to transform some long-distance trains into land-cruise trains, and stop service on hopeless routes.
    [Show full text]
  • September 28, 2007
    Vol. 65, No. 39 Publishedished inin thethe interinterest of Division West, First Army and Fort Carson community Sept. 28, 2007 Visit the Fort Carson Web site at www.carson.army.mill Building the team 2nd BCT trains at AF Academy Story and photos by Cpl. Rodney Foliente 2nd Brigade Combat Team Public Affairs Office, 4th Infantry Division Soldiers from 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, conducted team-building training in Jacks Valley at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs Sept. 7. Leaders from Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2nd BCT, coor- dinated the event and opened the training up to their Soldiers and Soldiers from Company A, 204th Brigade Support Battalion, cooks from the Warhorse Dining Facility and medics from 1st Squadron, 10th Cavalry Regiment. “Overall, the Jacks Valley event was geared to provide a different training setting as well as to promote team spirit and team accomplishment,” said Sgt. 1st Class Erin Langes, training Soldiers from Company A, 204th Brigade Support Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, noncommissioned officer-in-charge, dig their way beneath an electrical fence at the Air Force Academy’s Leadership Reaction Course Sept. 7. HHC, 2nd BCT. He said Soldiers had a lot of fun and learned quite a bit. the day and saw the event as a “hugely their destinations. Soldiers had to accomplish their missions with limited “It was a chance for (Soldiers) to beneficial team-building exercise.” locate each point and then use that supplies, limited time and a whole get out, see a different part of Colorado Soldiers separated into squads, spot as reference to finding the next lot of teamwork.
    [Show full text]
  • Fairmount Indigo Planning Initiative Corridor Plan Appendices
    FAIRMOUNT INDIGO PLANNING INITIATIVE CORRIDOR PLAN APPENDICES CORRIDOR PLAN FAIRMOUNT INDIGO PLANNING INITIATIVE SEPTEMBER 2014 WWW.FAIRMOUNTINDIGOPLANNING.ORG FAIRMOUNT INDIGO PLANNING INITIATIVE CORRIDOR PLAN APPENDICES Appendices Contents 1 Process and Meetings 2 Existing Conditions Analysis 3 Growth Strategy Methodology PROCESS AND MEETINGS PROCESS AND MEETINGS The Fairmount Indigo Planning Initiative was over a 2 5. CAG Discussion year long process that involved extensive community 6. Suggested Case Studies of Corridors outreach, participation and conversation. The Planning 7. Community Forum Preparations Initiative involved separate, but parallel processes for 8. Next Steps Corridor-wide planning and Station Area planning. The City of Boston appointed members of a Corridor Corridor Advisory Group Meeting #4 Advisory Group (CAG) to be a consistent voice of the October 10, 2012 Corridor community and neighborhoods throughout 1. Welcome and Introductions the process. 2. Summary of Previous Meeting 3. Department of Neighborhood Development The CAG Members dedicated over a year of meetings 4. Community Forum and discussion to the Corridor and the City is grateful 5. Corridor Case Studies for their contributions. All Corridor Advisory Group 6. Next Steps meetings were open to the public, held in locations throughout the Corridor and attended by members of Corridor Advisory Group Meeting #5 the community. The following is a list of meetings and November 13, 2012 agendas that were a part of this community planning 1. Overview of Community Forum process: 2. CAG Member Roles at Forum 3. Virtual Corridor Tour and CAG Speakers Corridor Advisory Group Meeting #1 4. Discussion of Break-out Group Questions June 14, 2012 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Hearings Before the Committee on Appropriations
    S. HRG. 107–395 Senate Hearings Before the Committee on Appropriations Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Fiscal Year 2002 107th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION H.R. 2299/S. 1178 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (Amtrak) NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations, 2002 (H.R. 2299/S. 1178) S. HRG. 107–395 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELAT- ED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 2299/S. 1178 AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANS- PORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2002, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Department of Transportation General Accounting Office National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) Nondepartmental witnesses Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 70–867 PDF WASHINGTON : 2002 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 1 TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C.
    [Show full text]
  • Perimeter Secure
    Vol. 75, No. 19 May 12, 2017 Perimeter secure Photo by Spc. Anthony Bryant From left, Pfc. Michael E. Sherman, Sgt. Michael C. Brew and Staff Sgt. Christopher Maneuver Site (PCMS) April 25. Soldiers with 1st SBCT were at PCMS from April 18 L. Rogers, infantrymen, Company B, 1st Battalion, 38th Infantry Regiment, 1st to May for peration Raider Focus the brigade’s certification and alidation Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, establish a guard position and exercise in preparation for the brigade’s upcoming rotation to the National Training pull security to enable squads to push forward to clear an objective at Piñon Canyon Center. See story on pages 16-17. Army chief: Future warfare requires ‘disciplined disobedience’ By C. Todd Lopez Milley said he expects Soldiers to know when it’s time in garrison, during peacetime, but it’s “the opposite of Army News Service to disobey an order. what we are going to need in any type of warfare — but “I think we’re over-centralized, overly bureaucratic in particular, the warfare I envision,” he said. WASHINGTON — Following every order to and overly risk-averse,” Milley said May 4 at the Army During the Association of the U.S. Army symposium the letter is largely understood to be a way of life in the and Navy Club in Washington, D.C., as part of the in October, Milley laid out exactly what his vision of Army, but that may not always be the best course of Atlantic Council Commanders Series. action. In fact, Chief of Staff of the Army Gen.
    [Show full text]
  • JUNE 1975 TOM PULSIFER Editor OFFICIAL NEWSLETTER of OARP
    • THE • A$OCtliON OF A41l..R040 96ENGERS Post Office Box 653 • Xenia, Ohio 45385 issue #6 JUNE 1975 TOM PULSIFER editor OFFICIAL NEWSLETTER OF OARP OHIO SITUATION UPDATE by David s. Marshall Ohio continues to move toward active involvement in OFFICIAL rail passenger service. The legislation initiated mainly by Rep. Art Wilkowski to establish an Ohio rail ANNOUNCEMENT authority outside the Ohio DOT (HB 64) has passed the of the House and moved on to the Senate Transportation Com­ mittee for review. OARP testified before Wilkowski's MID-SUMMER Committee and before the Senate Committee. At press G ETING time the bill is being reported out of committee and is given a good chance of passing the Senate. of the The other matter, critical to the State involvement, OHIO ASSOCIATION of is the constitutional amendment legislation to allow RAILROAD PASSENGERS Ohio to use state funds in support of rail activities. This bill is House Joint Resolution 47. As firstwrit­ in CINCINNATI, OHIO ten it failed a House vote due a lack of Republican ••• see the insert backing. This prompted an urgent plea from OARP for at center of issue communications to Republican legislators. A motion to rehear the question passed with bi-partisan support and joint committee activity between the houses has been ironing out wrinkles in the proposal. As we go to press HJR 47 is on the calendar for a House vote and is given excellent chances of making it this time. LATE-BREAKING ITEMI We are told that the constitutional amendment it car­ The Freedom Train ries is designed to allow Ohio to participate finan­ schedule in Ohio cially in support of corporations set up by Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Amtrak Operations, Part Iii: Examining 41 Years of Taxpayer Subsidies
    A REVIEW OF AMTRAK OPERATIONS, PART III: EXAMINING 41 YEARS OF TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES (112–107) HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ( Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 76–148 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Aug 31 2005 13:41 Feb 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\9-20-1~1\76148.TXT JEAN COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey Columbia GARY G. MILLER, California JERROLD NADLER, New York TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois CORRINE BROWN, Florida SAM GRAVES, Missouri BOB FILNER, California BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas TIMOTHY H.
    [Show full text]
  • April 2016 All Aboard Indiana
    ALL INDIANA ABOARD The Official Newsletter of the Volume 3, Number 4 April 2016 IN THIS ISSUE: Page Two-Three IPRA Calls for Grassroots Effort IPRA Calls for Grassroots Effort, continued To Enhance Hoosier State Service By Phillip Streby Page Four Strengthening Hoosier State Editor’s Note: The following article was originally writ- Service Meeting Topic ten for the spring issue of the Rail Users’ Network (RUN) INDOT, Iowa Pacific Taking quarterly newsletter. It is being republished with their Steps to Boost Ridership permission. Two leading Midwest passenger rail advo- Hoosier State Amenities cates—Ken Prendergast, executive director, All Aboard Featured on Two Videos Ohio, and Steve Coxhead, president, Indiana Passenger Rail Alliance—assisted Mr. Streby in providing material Page Five or editing assistance. February On-Time Performance for Hoosier Members of passenger rail advocacy groups seem to Two girls enjoy a ride on the Hoosier State at 93.9 Percent have to approach their local issues at the basic grass State. What Business Class Is Like roots level on each occasion, reinventing the path to on Amtrak’s Cardinal either improving existing service levels or instituting new services. The Indiana Passen- ger Rail Alliance (IPRA) was formed to bring advocates affiliated with several groups to- Page Six gether in order to create a more effective voice with which to engage with both the Indi- Wait Nearly Over for Lafayette ana General Assembly and Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT). Page Seven Let us be very clear about why this is necessary. IPRA does not advocate for im- Framework To Improve “On proved passenger rail service either out of a sense of nostalgia for the old days or for Time” Performance Deserves a an antipathy to the automobile.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District REQUEST for QUALIFICATIONS for DESIGN BUILD SERVICES NICTD WEST LAKE CORRIDOR
    Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR DESIGN BUILD SERVICES NICTD WEST LAKE CORRIDOR PROJECT NICTD RFQ NO. 1901 March 22, 2019 I\14127189.4 I\14127189.7 Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 NICTD Project Website ................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Instructions to Proposers ............................................................................................... 2 1.3 Glossary of Definitions (Exhibit 1)............................................................................... 3 2 GENERAL INFORMATION AND PROJECT DETAILS ................................................ 3 2.1 Project Description and Site Plan ................................................................................. 3 2.2 Improvement Highlights ............................................................................................... 4 2.3 NICTD Project Goals and Objectives ........................................................................... 6 2.4 NICTD Project Team and Role..................................................................................... 7 2.5 Key Project Stakeholders ..……………………………………………………………7 2.6 Project Schedule............................................................................................................ 8 2.7 Project Budget .............................................................
    [Show full text]