DOCSLIB.ORG

Rochester Amtrak Station Revitalization Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rochester Amtrak Station Revitalization Study ROCHESTER AMTRAK STATION REVITALIZATION STUDY MARCH 2002 Prepared for: Genesee Transportation Council 50 West Main Street Suite 8112 Rochester, NY 14614-1227 Prepared by: Bergmann Associates 200 First Federal Plaza 28 East Main Street Rochester, NY 14614 In conjunction with… Parsons Brinckerhoff Fisher Associates Flaum Management Aldaron, Inc. ROCHESTER AMTRAK STATION REVITALIZATION STUDY MARCH 2002 Prepared for: Genesee Transportation Council 50 West Main Street Suite 8112 Rochester, NY 14614-1227 Prepared by: Bergmann Associates 200 First Federal Plaza 28 East Main Street Rochester, NY 14614 In conjunction with… Parsons Brinckerhoff Fisher Associates Flaum Management Aldaron, Inc. …with the assistance of the Steering Committee John P. Cassellini, CSX Transportation Ed Doherty, City of Rochester Joan Dupont, NYSDOT Region 4 Robert Lenz, Empire State Passengers Association Sean Phelan, Rochester Downtown Development Corporation John Reed, NYSDOT Main Office, High Speed Rail Program Terry Rice, Monroe County DOT Michelle Robinson, Amtrak Bill Winslow, RGRTA Bergmann Associates March 2002 Rochester Amtrak Station Revitalization Study Table of Contents Title Page 1. INTRODUCTIONI NTRO D U CTI O N.................................................................................. 1 A. Purpose............................................................................................... 1 B. Community Involvement ..................................................................... 2 C. Interagency Coordination ................................................................... 2 2. TRAIN STATION HISTORY – LOOKINGL O O KI NG BACKBA CK..............................3 3. EXISTING STATION IISSUESSSUES ............................................................................... ............... 6 A. Location .............................................................................................6 B. Station Features................................................................................. 7 C. Train Service ...................................................................................... 8 D. Ridership .......................................................................................... 10 E. Amenities.......................................................................................... 11 4. STATIONSTA TI O N AALTERNATIVES L TE RNA TI VE S .................................................................. 13 A. Addressing the Assumption of Location .............................................. 13 B. Alternative 1....................................................................................... 16 C. Alternative 2....................................................................................... 16 5. EXISTINGE XI STI NG TRATRACK CK IISSUES SSU E S.................................................................. 22 A. Existing Track and Platform Design .................................................... 22 B. CSXT and Amtrak Requirements.......................................................... 22 6. LINKAGE TO DOWNTOWN TRANSPORTATION CENTER ANDA ND MAINMA I N STRESTREET E T ..............................................................................23 A. Pedestrian Link.................................................................................. 23 B. Shuttle Link ....................................................................................... 24 C. Bi-Directional Dedicated Lane........................................................... 24 7. PARKINGP A RKI NG............................................................................................... 25 A. Existing Parking................................................................................. 25 B. Future Parking................................................................................... 26 Rochester Amtrak Station Revitalization Study i Bergmann Associates March 2002 Rochester Amtrak Station Revitalization Study TitleTi t l e Page 8. DEVELOPMENTD E VE L O P ME NT OOPPORTUNITIES P P O RTU NI TI E S ................................................... 27 A. Economic Development Impacts....................................................... 27 9. RECOMMENDATIONSRE CO MME ND A TI O NS ....................................................................... 31 A. Station Location and Design ............................................................ 31 B. Passenger Access............................................................................... 32 C. Track Alternative................................................................................ 33 D. Gateway to the City of Rochester........................................................ 33 E. Implementation Options................................................................... 35 F. Operation and Maintenance Costs.................................................... 35 10. STRATEGIC PLAN FFORORO R FUNDINGF U ND I NG................................................. 37 A. Identification of potential funding sources ........................................ 37 B. Approaches to securing funding......................................................... 40 C. Funding Recommendations ............................................................... 41 11. NENEXT XT STESTEPS P S.......................................................................................... 45 Rochester Amtrak Station Revitalization Study ii Bergmann Associates March 2002 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 The first NY Central Station ............................................................ 3 Figure 2 The front of NY Central Station....................................................... 3 Figure 3 The Second New York Central Station ............................................. 3 Figure 4 The Bragdon Station....................................................................... 4 Figure 5 The Bragdon Station Waiting Room ............................................... 4 Figure 6 Lunch counter at the Bragdon Station............................................. 4 Figure 7 Existing Rochester Amtrak Station Exterior....................................... 5 Figure 8 Station Location Map..................................................................... 6 Figure 9 Looking south towards the City skyline from the Amtrak site............ 7 Figure 10 Existing Canopy............................................................................. 7 Figure 11 Existing Platform ............................................................................ 7 Figure 12 Rochester Amtrak Station Waiting Area ......................................... 11 Figure 13 Welcome to Rochester Information ................................................ 12 Figure 14 Line of Sight.................................................................................. 15 Figure 15 Alternative 1 ................................................................................. 17 Figure 16 Alternative 2 ................................................................................. 18 Figure 17 Conceptual Elevations and Plans.................................................. 20 Figure 18 Passenger Access........................................................................... 21 Figure 19 Amtrak Short-Term Parking............................................................ 25 Figure 20 Expansion of Parking .................................................................... 26 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 Empire Corridor Passenger Rail Service ........................................... 9 Table 2 October 2000 – August 2001 Ridership......................................... 10 Table 3 Ridership by Year for Northeast Corridor Trains............................... 10 Table 4 Parking Analysis............................................................................ 25 Table 5 Costs and Timings......................................................................... 36 Table 6 Funding Sources............................................................................ 44 Rochester Amtrak Station Revitalization Study iii Bergmann Associates March 2002 APPENDICES (Bound Separately) Appendix A – Public Participation Appendix B – Current Train Schedules Appendix C – Track Alternatives Appendix D – Strategic Plan for Funding Rochester Amtrak Station Revitalization Study iv Bergmann Associates March 2002 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE This study, led by the Genesee Transportation Council, provides a plan for effective and long-lasting improvements to the Rochester Amtrak Station, including capital improvements and innovative measures to manage and preserve the station and its environs. The primary purposes of this study are to position the greater Rochester area for the arrival of high-speed rail service through the functional and aesthetic redesign of the Rochester Amtrak Station, and to identify strategies to ensure its full integration with the downtown Rochester community and the transportation system. The revitalization of the Rochester Amtrak Station plays an important role in providing multi-modal access to greater Rochester and enhancing the local community. The following issues are important to any plan for revitalizing the station: • Cost-effective capital construction and facility operations; • Coordination with other transportation and distribution systems, including the highway network and other public transportation; • Integrated element of the Genesee Transportation Council Long Range Transportation Plan; • Reinforced
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Amtrak SMP 28603 Mechanical Standards for Operating Privately
    Amtrak Equipment Maintenance Department Standard Maintenance Procedure SMP NO.: 28603 ISSUE DATE: January 12, 1982 REVISION DATE: September 13, 2013 TITLE: Mechanical Standard for Operating Privately Owned Cars in Amtrak Trains EQUIPMENT TYPE MAINTENANCE TYPE All Passenger Trains L – Locomotive Locomotives Cars C – Cars All Locomotives All Cars X All Types C All Maintenance – L/C Acela HST Power Car Acela Baggage Daily – L/C AEM-7 Amfleet I Cafe 30 Day – C Cab Car: (Under Cars) Amfleet II Coach Quarterly –L/C Car Movers Auto Carrier Diner Semi-Annual – L/C Commuter Commuter Dinette Annual – L/C F59PHI Freight Lounge 720 Day – L GP38-3 Heritage HEP Sleeper COT&S – C GP15D Horizon Other: Initial Terminal – L/C HHP8 Material Handling Cars Intermediate Terminal – L/C MP15 X Private Cars Modification – L/C Non Powered Control Units Superliner I Overhaul – L/C P32-8 Superliner II Running Repair – L/C P32AC-DM Surfliner Seasonal – C P-40 Talgo Wheels – L/C P-42 Turboliner Facility SW1001 Viewliner Other: SW1200 X Other: Railroad Business Cars SW1500 Turboliner Talgo Other: 1.0 PURPOSE This document describes the Amtrak Mechanical Department requirements for the handling in Amtrak trains of privately owned passenger cars, as well as railroad-owned business cars of freight carriers which have an Amtrak operating agreement. For the purpose of this document, a passenger car is defined as a vehicle meeting Association of American Railroads (AAR) or American Public Transportation Association Standard S-034 for the construction of passenger equipment cars, or similar standard for older cars, for operation in passenger train service, and does not include caboose cars, freight cars, or maintenance of way equipment.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Hearings Before the Committee on Appropriations
    S. HRG. 111–983 Senate Hearings Before the Committee on Appropriations Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Fiscal Year 2011 111th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION H.R. 5850/S. 3644 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK) NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations, 2011 (H.R. 5850/S. 3644) S. HRG. 111–983 TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES AP- PROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 5850/S. 3644 AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF TRANS- PORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RE- LATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2011, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of Transportation National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) Nondepartmental witnesses Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 54–989 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011 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 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky BARBARA A.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 6-B: Chronology of Amtrak Service in Wisconsin
    Appendix 6-B: Chronology of Amtrak Service in Wisconsin May 1971: As part of its inaugural system, Amtrak operates five daily round trips in the Chicago- Milwaukee corridor over the Milwaukee Road main line. Four of these round trips are trains running exclusively between Chicago’s Union Station and Milwaukee’s Station, with an intermediate stop in Glenview, IL. The fifth round trip is the Chicago-Milwaukee segment of Amtrak’s long-distance train to the West Coast via St. Paul, northern North Dakota (e.g. Minot), northern Montana (e.g. Glacier National Park) and Spokane. Amtrak Route Train Name(s) Train Frequency Intermediate Station Stops Serving Wisconsin (Round Trips) Chicago-Milwaukee Unnamed 4 daily Glenview Chicago-Seattle Empire Builder 1 daily Glenview, Milwaukee, Columbus, Portage, Wisconsin Dells, Tomah, La Crosse, Winona, Red Wing, Minneapolis June 1971: Amtrak maintains five daily round trips in the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor and adds tri- weekly service from Chicago to Seattle via St. Paul, southern North Dakota (e.g. Bismark), southern Montana (e.g. Bozeman and Missoula) and Spokane. Amtrak Route Train Name(s) Train Frequency Intermediate Station Stops Serving Wisconsin (Round Trips) Chicago-Milwaukee Unnamed 4 daily Glenview Chicago-Seattle Empire Builder 1 daily Glenview, Milwaukee, Columbus, Portage, Wisconsin Dells, Tomah, La Crosse, Winona, Red Wing, Minneapolis Chicago-Seattle North Coast Tri-weekly Glenview, Milwaukee, Columbus, Portage, Wisconsin Hiawatha Dells, Tomah, La Crosse, Winona, Red Wing, Minneapolis 6B-1 November 1971: Daily round trip service in the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor is increased from five to seven as Amtrak adds service from Milwaukee to St.
    [Show full text]
  • All Aboard Indiana October 2018
    ALL INDIANA ABOARD The Official Newsletter of the Volume 5, Number 10 October 2018 IN THIS ISSUE: Nickel Plate Express—A New Page Three Central Indiana Excursion Train An Amtrak Trip to Virginia’s Shenandoah National Park By Dagny Zupin, Communications Coordinator, Nickel Plate Express Please come aboard Indiana’s newest passenger rail service! Operating from Atlanta, Indiana, the Page Four Nickel Plate Express provides excursions on 12.6 miles of the historic Nickel Plate Road. Update from Save the Nickel Plate What is Nickel Plate Express? The Nickel Plate Express provides year-round excursions based in Hamilton County. They are a Page Five non-profit managed by parent company Nickel Plate Heritage Railroad. In addition to operating Commentary: Indianapolis excursions, the organization manages a 150-year-old train depot in Arcadia, IN. The depot serves Complicity on Rail as an interactive humanities museum that pays homage to the history of Hamilton County. Nickel Abandonment Reveals a Void Plate Heritage Railroad handles marketing and programming for the Nickel Plate Express, while in Regional Transit Leadership partner organization Atlanta Pacific Railroad provides operational assistance. Page Six Mission: Nickel Plate Heritage Railroad will provide a moving entertainment and education experi- Train, Vehicle Collision ence for all generations Results in Fatality on US 12, County Line Road Atlanta Pacific Railroad, LLC. Atlanta Pacific Railroad, LLC. operates rail service for the Nickel Plate Express. Atlanta Pacific is Page Seven owned by long-time railroad operator, Tom Hoback. Hoback is well known for his ownership and Lafayette Amtrak Station— management of Indiana Rail- Updates road, one of the most successful Bullets from the Board regional railroads in the country.
    [Show full text]
  • RCED-95-71 Intercity Passenger Rail
    United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to Congressional Committees February 1995 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Financial and Operating Conditions Threaten Amtrak’s Long-Term Viability GAO/RCED-95-71 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-259656 February 6, 1995 Congressional Recipients This report assessing Amtrak’s deteriorating financial and operating conditions was conducted as part of our legislative responsibilities under the Rail Passenger Service Act (P.L. 91-518, 84 Stat. 1327 (1970)). The report addresses the likelihood that Amtrak can overcome its financial and operating problems and presents alternative actions that could be considered by the Congress in deciding on Amtrak’s future mission and on commitments to fund the railroad. On the basis of our review, we are making a recommendation to the Congress and several recommendations to the President of Amtrak. We are sending copies of the report to the Secretary of Transportation, the President of Amtrak, and interested congressional committees. We will also make copies available to others upon request. This work was done under the direction of Kenneth M. Mead, Director, Transportation Issues, who may be reached at (202) 512-2834 if you or your staff have any questions. Other major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. Sincerely yours, Keith O. Fultz Assistant Comptroller General Page 1 GAO/RCED-95-71 Amtrak’s Financial and Operating Conditions B-259656 List of Recipients The Honorable Larry Pressler Chairman The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings Ranking Minority Member Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation United States Senate The Honorable Trent Lott Chairman The Honorable Daniel K.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Indiana
    Amtrak Fact Sheet, Fiscal Year 2007 State of Indiana Amtrak Service & Ridership Amtrak operates three long-distance trains through Indiana: • The Capitol Limited (daily Chicago-Waterloo-Cleveland-Pittsburgh-Washington, D.C.) • The Cardinal (tri-weekly Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati-New York) • The Lake Shore Limited (daily Chicago-South Bend-Cleveland-Buffalo-Boston/New York) Amtrak also operates one corridor train, the Hoosier State (four days per week Indianapolis-Lafayette- Chicago), which operates on the days that the Cardinal does not. Additionally, the Chicago-Detroit Wolverine serves Hammond-Whiting and Michigan City with three daily round trips. During FY07 Amtrak served the following Indiana locations: City Boardings + Alightings Connersville 497 Crawfordsville 4,431 Dyer 1,723 Elkhart 11,718 Hammond-Whiting 6,457 Indianapolis 29,110 Lafayette 18,483 Michigan City 1,941 Rensselaer 1,630 South Bend 15,856 Waterloo 16,217 Total Indiana Station Usage: 108,066 Procurement/Contracts Amtrak expended $9,874,137 for goods and services in Indiana in FY07. Most of this money, $6,924,792 was spent in Indianapolis. Amtrak Government Affairs: January 2008 Employment At the end of FY07, Amtrak employed 780* Indiana residents. Total wages of Amtrak employees living in Indiana were $37,754,274* during FY07. *Due to a change in methodology, FY07 employment and wage figures are not directly comparable to those reported in prior years. Major Facilities Amtrak’s principal heavy maintenance facility is located in Beech Grove, southeast of Indianapolis. Here, approximately 550 employees rebuild and overhaul Amtrak’s Superliner, Viewliner, Surfliner, Hi-Level, Heritage, and Horizon car fleets. P32, P42, and F59 locomotives also are overhauled and rebuilt here for use across the Amtrak system.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Investment Plan for Amtrak Equipment
    CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM FOR AMTRAK EQUIPMENT DEPLOYED IN STATE SUPPORTED SERVICES FY2014 – FY2018 October 14, 2014 PRIIA Section 209 Equipment Capital Work Group of the Next Generation Equipment Committee Capital Investment Program FY2014 – FY2018 Acknowledgements The development of this first Capital Investment Program (CIP) for Amtrak Equipment Deployed in State Supported Services was a collaborative effort of Amtrak, its state funding partners, and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) through the Next Generation Equipment Committee’s (NGEC’s) Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) Section 209 Equipment Capital Work Group. Special thanks go to the members of the Work Group who worked to see the CIP through to completion. The members of the Work Group are: Ron Pate, WSDOT, Chair David Kutrosky, CCJPA Allan Paul, NCDOT Kerri Woehler, WSDOT Richard Jankovich, Jeff Mann, consultant to CTDOT NCDOT Jeremy Jewkes, WSDOT James Fox, CTDOT Michael Jenkins, ODOT Brent Thompson, WSDOT Jon Foster, CTDOT Andy House, AASHTO Mike Rowswell, WSDOT Marci Petterson, CTDOT LeAnna Wall, WiSDOT Mario Bergeron, Amtrak Eric Curtit, MDOT Arun Rao, WiSDOT Tom Butler, Amtrak Ray Hessinger, NYSDOT Holly Gierisch, FRA Max Johnson, Amtrak John Bell, NYSDOT Nico Lindenau, consultant Dan Ruppert, Amtrak to FRA Patricia Quinn, NNEPRA Darrell Smith, Amtrak Ashok Sundararajan, Brian Beeler II, NNEPRA consultant to FRA Nikki Rudnick, Amtrak 1 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ........................................ 1 Passenger Cars ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Investment Plan for Amtrak Equipment
    DRAFT September 8, 2017 Major Update For acceptance by the “514” Subcommittee of the NGEC “514” PRIIA Section 209 Equipment Capital Subcommittee of the CIP for Amtrak Equipment Deployed in State Corridor Service FY2018 – FY2022 Acknowledgements The development of this Capital Investment Plan (CIP) for Amtrak Equipment Deployed in State Corridor Service was a collaborative effort of Amtrak, its state funding partners, and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) through the Next Generation Equipment Committee’s (NGEC’s) Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) “514” Section 209 Equipment Capital Subcommittee. Special thanks go to the members of the Subcommittee who worked to see the CIP through to completion. The members of the Subcommittee are: Brian Beeler II, John Pagano, Mike Jenkins, NNEPRA for Maine DOT, Chair California DOT Oregon DOT John Dees, Brian Tsukamoto, Jennifer Sellers, North Carolina DOT, Vice Chair California DOT Oregon DOT Allan Paul, Tom Clark, Quentin Huckaby, North Carolina DOT CCJPA - California Texas DOT Paul Worley, David Kutrosky, Gil Wilson, North Carolina DOT CCJPA - California Texas DOT Ron Pate, Marci Petterson, Arun Rao, Washington State DOT, Past Connecticut DOT Wisconsin DOT Chair Jason Biggs, Al Johnson, Lynn Everett, Washington State DOT Michigan DOT Federal Railroad Admin. Brent Thompson, Jeff Martin, Beth Nachreiner, Washington State DOT Michigan DOT Federal Railroad Admin. Mario Bergeron, Ray Hessinger, Ashok Sundararajan, Amtrak New York State DOT FRA consultant Darrell Smith, John Bell, Shayne Gill, Amtrak New York State DOT AASHTO Tim Ziethen, Bryan Hong, Amtrak AASHTO All states are welcome and encouraged to participate in the CIP development provided that they either currently or have funded plans to use Amtrak equipment for the provision of intercity passenger rail service.
    [Show full text]
  • Amtrak Station Program and Planning Guidelines 1
    Amtrak Station Program and Planning Guidelines 1. Overview 5 6. Site 55 1.1 Background 5 6.1 Introduction 55 1.2 Introduction 5 6.2 Multi-modal Planning 56 1.3 Contents of the Guidelines 6 6.3 Context 57 1.4 Philosophy, Goals and Objectives 7 6.4 Station/Platform Confi gurations 61 1.5 Governing Principles 8 6.5 Track and Platform Planning 65 6.6 Vehicular Circulation 66 6.7 Bicycle Parking 66 2. Process 11 6.8 Parking 67 2.1 Introduction 11 6.9 Amtrak Functional Requirements 68 2.2 Stakeholder Coordination 12 6.10 Information Systems and Way Finding 69 2.3 Concept Development 13 6.11 Safety and Security 70 2.4 Funding 14 6.12 Sustainable Design 71 2.5 Real Estate Transactional Documents 14 6.13 Universal Design 72 2.6 Basis of Design 15 2.7 Construction Documents 16 2.8 Project Delivery methods 17 7. Station 73 2.9 Commissioning 18 7.1 Introduction 73 2.10 Station Opening 18 7.2 Architectural Overview 74 7.3 Information Systems and Way Finding 75 7.4 Passenger Information Display System (PIDS) 77 3. Amtrak System 19 7.5 Safety and Security 78 3.1 Introduction 19 7.6 Sustainable Design 79 3.2 Service Types 20 7.7 Accessibility 80 3.3 Equipment 23 3.4 Operations 26 8. Platform 81 8.1 Introduction 81 4. Station Categories 27 8.2 Platform Types 83 4.1 Introduction 27 8.3 Platform-Track Relationships 84 4.2 Summary of Characteristics 28 8.4 Connection to the station 85 4.3 Location and Geography 29 8.5 Platform Length 87 4.4 Category 1 Large stations 30 8.6 Platform Width 88 4.5 Category 2 Medium Stations 31 8.7 Platform Height 89 4.6 Category 3 Caretaker Stations 32 8.8 Additional Dimensions and Clearances 90 4.7 Category 4 Shelter Stations 33 8.9 Safety and Security 91 4.8 Thruway Bus Service 34 8.10 Accessibility 92 8.11 Snow Melting Systems 93 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Turboliner Modernization Project Delays
    ALAN G. HEVESI 110 STATE STREET COMPTROLLER ALBANY, NEW YORK 12236 STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER June 12, 2003 Mr. Joseph H. Boardman Commissioner Department of Transportation State Office Building Campus – Building #5 Albany, NY 12232 Re: Turboliner Modernization Project Project Delays Report 2002-S-52 Dear Mr. Boardman: Pursuant to the State Comptroller’s authority as set forth in Article V, Section 1 of the State Constitution, and Article II, Section 8 of the State Finance Law, we have audited the progress made by the Department of Transportation on the Turboliner Modernization Project (Project) for the period October 1, 1998 through October 31, 2002. This report is the first in a series of reports we plan to issue addressing activities related to the Project. Other reports will address such topics as Project monitoring and controls over contract payments. A. Background The Department of Transportation (Department) oversees the transportation systems in New York State. In one of these systems, rail transportation between New York City and Buffalo (the Empire Corridor) is provided to passengers by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, also known as Amtrak. To improve passenger rail transportation in the Empire Corridor, the Department is implementing the High Speed Rail Improvement Program. The Department and Amtrak have entered into a contract to support the objectives of the high-speed rail program. While this program was formally announced to the public in September 1998, some of the activities relevant to the program were initiated prior to the announcement. One of these activities was the Project, in which seven existing Amtrak trainsets were to be remanufactured so that they would be capable of traveling at 125 miles per hour, and meet current Federal safety and accessibility standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Factors Affecting Commuter Rail Energy Efficiency and Its Comparison with Competing Passenger Transportation Modes
    FACTORS AFFECTING COMMUTER RAIL ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND ITS COMPARISON WITH COMPETING PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION MODES BY GIOVANNI C. DIDOMENICO THESIS Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2015 Urbana, Illinois Advisers: Professor Christopher P.L. Barkan Senior Research Engineer C. Tyler Dick, P.E. ABSTRACT As concerns about the environmental impacts and sustainability of the transportation sector continue to grow, modal energy efficiency is a factor of increasing importance when evaluating benefits and costs of transportation systems and justifying future investment. Poor assumptions on the efficiency of the system can alter the economics of investment in commuter rail. This creates a need to understand the factors affecting commuter rail energy efficiency and the comparison to competing passenger transportation modes to aid operators and decision makers in the development of new commuter rail lines and the improvement of existing services. This thesis describes analyses to further understand the factors affecting the current energy efficiency of commuter rail systems, how their efficiency may be improved through implementation of various technologies, and how their efficiency compares to competing modes of passenger transportation. After reviewing the literature, it was evident that past studies often conducted energy efficiency analyses and modal comparisons using methods that favored one energy source or competing mode by neglecting losses in the system. Therefore, four methods of energy efficiency analysis were identified and applied to 25 commuter rail systems in the United States using data from the National Transit Database (NTD).
    [Show full text]
  • Elegant Report
    Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee PENNSYLVANIA STATEWIDE PASSENGER RAIL NEEDS ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 2001 Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................................................4 1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................5 1.1 Study Background........................................................................................................................................5 1.2 Study Purpose...............................................................................................................................................5 1.3 Corridors Identified .....................................................................................................................................6 2.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................................7 3.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON CANDIDATE CORRIDORS .................................................14 3.1 Existing Intercity Rail Service...................................................................................................................14 3.1.1 Keystone Corridor ................................................................................................................................14
    [Show full text]