NYMTC Regional Freight Plan Update 2015-2040 Interim Plan
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The ESPA EXPRESS NEWS from the EMPIRE STATE PASSENGERS ASSOCIATION
The ESPA EXPRESS NEWS FROM THE EMPIRE STATE PASSENGERS ASSOCIATION http://www.esparail.org WORKING FOR A MORE BALANCED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Vol. 35 No. 6 November/December 2011 Amtrak to Lease 85 Miles of Empire possibly changing the Lake Shore Limited schedule by departing Corridor from CSX Chicago 3 hours earlier and also departing New York about an hour earlier. One improvement considered would extend the In an extremely welcomed announcement, it was confirmed hours of the Diner to encourage more purchases, and to make on October 18 that Amtrak intends to enter into a long-term the Diner cashless (Debit/Credit cards only), which would save lease with CSX to gain full operational control of the 85 route time counting and tracking cash. Forty seven percent of the miles of the Empire Corridor between Control Point 75 north Diner guests are coach passengers, which is very high compared of Poughkeepsie (the north end of Metro-North territory) and to other Amtrak routes. Upgrading the food in the lounge car CP 160 at the Schenectady station. Amtrak already controls the also will be considered. Of interest in the report was that 62% 9 mile segment west of Schenectady to Hoffmans at CP 169 of the Lake Shore’s passengers are female and that 61% of where the CSX freight line from Selkirk Yard joins the main passengers are traveling alone. The top three city pairs on the line heading west. CSX will retain full freight rights on the Lake Shore Limited are: New York-Chicago, Buffalo-Chicago, leased line. and Syracuse-Chicago. -
SRPP Report Shell Ver 3A
2008 New York State Rail Plan State of New York Working Draft June 2008 New York State Department of Transportation DAVID A. PATERSON, Governor ASTRID C. GLYNN, Commissioner THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 2008 New York State Rail Plan Working Draft June 2008 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 CHAPTER 1 – STATE RAIL VISION, GOALS, OBJECTIVES 1 AND STRATEGIES 1.1 Role of Railroads in New York State 1 1.2 Vision of Rail Transportation in New York State 4 1.3 Goals, Objectives and Strategies for Rail Service in New York State 7 CHAPTER 2 – PLAN PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY 15 2.1 Purposes of the State Rail Plan 15 2.2 State and Federal Legislative and Planning Requirements 16 CHAPTER 3 – THE RAIL SYSTEM IN NEW YORK STATE 23 3.1 Overview of New York State’s Rail Network 23 3.2 Summary History of Railroads in New York State 26 3.3 National Rail Industry Developments 26 3.4 Recent Rail System Changes Impacting New York 29 3.5 Rail Freight System Needs 31 CHAPTER 4 – FREIGHT RAIL 35 4.1 The Freight Rail Network in New York State 35 4.2 Freight Activity, Traffic Density, and Service Description 39 4.3 Freight Terminals, Intermodal Facilities, and Major Yards 53 4.4 Rail System Asset Condition: Freight Rail Service 56 4.5 Rail Line Abandonments: Recent, Proposed, and/or At-Risk Lines 59 4.6 Corridor and Freight Planning Efforts 61 4.7 Rail Freight System Issues and Needs 66 CHAPTER 5 – INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL 79 5.1 The Intercity Passenger Rail Network in New York State 79 5.2 Existing Passenger Rail Services, Stations, and Routes 80 5.3 Passenger -
Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Headquarters Assigned Accident Investigation Report HQ-2009-08
Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Headquarters Assigned Accident Investigation Report HQ-2009-08 Amtrak (ATK) Russell, MA March 8, 2009 Note that 49 U.S.C. §20903 provides that no part of an accident or incident report made by the Secretary of Transportation/Federal Railroad Administration under 49 U.S.C. §20902 may be used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FRA FACTUAL RAILROAD ACCIDENT REPORT FRA File # HQ-2009-08 FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 1.Name of Railroad Operating Train #1 1a. Alphabetic Code 1b. Railroad Accident/Incident No. Amtrak [ATK ] ATK 111316 2.Name of Railroad Operating Train #2 2a. Alphabetic Code 2b. Railroad Accident/Incident No. N/A N/A N/A 3.Name of Railroad Operating Train #3 3a. Alphabetic Code 3b. Railroad Accident/Incident No. N/A N/A N/A 4.Name of Railroad Responsible for Track Maintenance: 4a. Alphabetic Code 4b. Railroad Accident/Incident No. CSX Transportation [CSX ] CSX R00057726 5. U.S. DOT_AAR Grade Crossing Identification Number 6. Date of Accident/Incident 7. Time of Accident/Incident Month 03 Day 08 Year 2009 02:48:00 AM PM 8. Type of Accident/Indicent 1. Derailment 4. Side collision 7. Hwy-rail crossing 10. Explosion-detonation 13. Other Code (single entry in code box) 2. Head on collision 5. Raking collision 8. RR grade crossing 11. Fire/violent rupture (describe in narrative) 3. Rear end collision 6. Broken Train collision 9. Obstruction 12. Other impacts 01 9. Cars Carrying 10. HAZMAT Cars 11. -
Feasibility Study
BERKSHIRE FLYER: PITTSFIELD TO NEW YORK CITY CITYFEASIBILITY STUDY DEVELOPED IN SUPPORT OF THE BERKSHIRE FLYER WORKING GROUP March 26, 2018 Berkshire Flyer: Pittsfield-New York City Feasibility Study Berkshire Flyer: Pittsfield to New York City Feasibility Study Developed by: MasssDOT Transit & Rail Division In support of: The Berkshire Flyer Working Group Study Support Provided by: STV Inc. HMMH Inc. TPRG 3/26/2018 Berkshire Flyer: Pittsfield-New York City Feasibility Study TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction and Background ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Study Goals ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Development Process ............................................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Berkshire Flyer Working Group ............................................................................... 2 1.2.2 Working Group meetings .......................................................................................... 3 1.3 Potential Passenger Rail Service ...................................................................................... 3 1.3.1 Cape Flyer Rail Service ............................................................................................ 4 1.3.2 Framework for Berkshire Flyer Service ................................................................... 6 1.4 Existing Services ............................................................................................................. -
Cape FLYER Crew Makes Qualifying Run, May 22
THE NEWSLETTER OF THE NATIONAL RAILWAY HISTORICAL SOCIETY AUGUST 2020 Cape FLYER Crew Makes Qualifying Run, May 22 By DOUG SCOTT, Director, District 1 NRHS Yes, the Cape FLYER summer weekend service from [recently rebuilt at MPI] F40PH-3C #1032 from South Station, Boston, to Hyannis was supposed to Middleboro MA to Hyannis, MA. start on May 22, 2020. Ever since the service began, it has started on the Friday night of Memorial Day The Cape Cod Chapter operates the West Barnstable Weekend. Such was not the case this year. Due to the Train Station & Museum. Some of us were at the Covid-19 virus, service was rescheduled to begin on station on May 22, practicing social distancing and Friday night, June 26. The crews have to be qualified cleaning in preparation for opening when Cape Cod to run to the Cape every year, and must refresh that if Central Railroad begins its Coastal Excursion trains they have run this route in previous years. On May 22, for the season. Then, a KEOLIS Cape FLYER crew KEOLIS made up a bit for not running the Cape qualifying extra ran past us. Although our baggage FLYER by running a crew-qualifying extra train led by cart was ready, the train did not stop. PHOTO COURTESY OF DOUG SCOTT CAPE FLYER, June 22, 2020 – KEOLIS runs the Cape FLYER, and the Cape Cod Central Railroad provides the Coastal Excursion trains. While making a crew qualifying run, the KEOLIS Cape FLYER passed the West Barnstable Train Station & Museum. Looks like some baggage missed its connection. -
Operating Plan
REDACTED - TO BE PLACED ON PUBLIC FILE BEFORE THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD ___________________________ DOCKET NO. FD 36472 ___________________________ CSX CORPORATION AND CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., ET AL. —CONTROL AND MERGER— PAN AM SYSTEMS, INC., PAN AM RAILWAYS, INC., BOSTON AND MAINE CORPORATION, MAINE CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, NORTHERN RAILROAD, PAN AM SOUTHERN LLC, PORTLAND TERMINAL COMPANY, SPRINGFIELD TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY, STONY BROOK RAILROAD COMPANY, AND VERMONT & MASSACHUSETTS RAILROAD COMPANY ___________________________ EXHIBIT 13 ___________________________ Operating Plan Verified by Mr. Jamie Boychuk APP-298 REDACTED - TO BE PLACED ON PUBLIC FILE OPERATING PLAN VERIFIED BY JAMIE BOYCHUK Table of Contents I. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3 II. Data Sources and Methodologies ....................................................................... 5 A. Traffic Data Sources ...................................................................................... 5 B. Operating Data Sources ................................................................................ 5 C. Methodology ................................................................................................... 5 III. Summary ............................................................................................................. 6 IV. Pre-Transaction Operations ............................................................................. 10 A. Train Operations -
Appendix B Long Range Service and Investment Program for Passenger Rail
Appendix B Long Range Service and Investment Program for Passenger Rail APPENDIX B LONG RANGE SERVICE AND INVESTMENT PROGRAM FOR PASSENGER RAIL (2009 – 2013) Introduction This Appendix describes the Long Range Service and Investment Program (LRSIP) required by the Federal Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008. These are the projects that the state expects to undertake or support, in whole or in part, to improve intercity passenger rail service in the future. The ultimate decisions on costs and funding of these projects are subject to future discussions with the involved rail partners. This investment program was developed from the comprehensive inventory of rail system needs described earlier in this report, specifically those projects that improve intercity rail passenger service. This Appendix presents the list of projects contained in the LRSIP. These include projects that solely benefit passenger rail service, as well as projects that benefit passenger rail service and improve infrastructure of the owning railroads, which can be either commuter railroads or freight railroads. Improvements are presented on each New York’s passenger rail corridors, including the Empire Corridor from Albany south to New York City, (Hudson line), Empire Corridor west from Albany to Niagara Falls (Empire Corridor West) and on the Adirondack line from Albany north to the Canadian border. The combination of projects on each segment of the corridor provide significant benefits to the passenger rail traveling public. These projects will improve rail infrastructure including track, control signals and passenger stations across the state and will result in significant improvements to intercity passenger rail service. These investments address critical capacity and bottleneck constraints as well as operational improvements that will improve the fluidity of the multi-purpose rail network. -
Appendix C – Public Correspondence
Appendix C – Public Correspondence Van Kacoyannakis From: Sheila McElwaine <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 11:14 AM To: Clark, Michael (DOT) Subject: Correction: Elevator connecting to skybridge over Railroad Tracks in Springfield In the report which reviews options for the I-91 viaduct in Springfield, I note the following: "It should be noted that this ramp system does include an exterior elevator system; however, the elevator, although recently repaired, has been inoperable for several years and requires significant maintenance." This statement is incorrect and should be updated. In fact, this elevator has been working during warm weather months, as was intended, since 2013 when the City, under pressure from the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board, finally repaired it. Please correct this statement. Thank you very much. Sheila McElwaine 1 From: Dave Broer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2018 11:53 AM To: Clark, Michael (DOT) <[email protected]> Subject: I-91 Viaduct Replacement Study Hello, I commute to Springfield on a daily basis and I wanted to comment about the I-91 Viaduct Replacement Study conclusions. I believe that the conclusion to do nothing but recommend some remediation due to the fact that the railroad tracks will not be relocating is short-sighted at best. Doing nothing leaves the existing infrastructure in place and provides none of the improvements that replacing the viaduct would bring. Regardless of where the railroad tracks are, the city and the region would benefit from having the additional developable land that would be created if the viaduct was removed, not to mention improved traffic flow through the area. -
NYS Senate HSR Task
January 4, 2006 Dear Senator Bruno and Task Force Members, On June 29, 2005, we were challenged to “develop an adequate high speed rail system that can effectively move people and products between cities in New York State and the nation’s economic centers in order to grow businesses and create jobs and opportunities.” The action plan was to be completed in six months or less. While the task was formidable, the potential rewards were compelling and in the public interest. The accompaniment of our report with this letter is the result of a collaborative effort between private sector and public officials. Working from temporary offices at the Albany-Rensselaer Railroad Station, the group drew expertise from many transportation professionals as well as a cross section of railroad officials. This team of industry experts spent many productive hours examining existing conditions, agreements, and overall governance to determine options for both short- and long-term improvement to New York State’s rail system. I am proud of the enthusiasm, professionalism, and commitment of this group and on their behalf I thank you for your confidence. We are available for further discussion or follow through on implementation of our recommendations. Sincerely, John C. Egan Executive Director New York State Senate High Speed Rail Task Force Intentionally blank Empire Corridor Action Program Summary Program A B C D E Total Phase 2006 2009 2013 2013 2015 Improvements and Benefits NYC to • Initial • Additional • New • 3 non-stop • Double 46% Albany Express Express -
Berkshire Flyer: Pittsfield to New York City
BERKSHIRE FLYER: PITTSFIELD TO NEW YORK CITY CITYFEASIBILITY STUDY DEVELOPED IN SUPPORT OF THE BERKSHIRE FLYER WORKING GROUP March 26, 2018 Berkshire Flyer: Pittsfield-New York City Feasibility Study 3/26/2018 Berkshire Flyer: Pittsfield-New York City Feasibility Study Berkshire Flyer: Pittsfield to New York City Feasibility Study Developed by: MasssDOT Transit & Rail Division In support of: The Berkshire Flyer Working Group Study Support Provided by: STV Inc. HMMH Inc. TPRG 3/26/2018 Berkshire Flyer: Pittsfield-New York City Feasibility Study 3/26/2018 Berkshire Flyer: Pittsfield-New York City Feasibility Study TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction and Background ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Study Goals ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Development Process ............................................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Berkshire Flyer Working Group ............................................................................... 2 1.2.2 Working Group meetings .......................................................................................... 3 1.3 Potential Passenger Rail Service ...................................................................................... 3 1.3.1 Cape Flyer Rail Service ............................................................................................ 4 1.3.2 Framework for Berkshire Flyer Service -
Chapter 2.4 Rail Network and Operations
I-87 Multimodal Corridor Study RAIL NETWORK AND OPERATIONS Existing Corridor Conditions & Opportunities 2.4. RAIL NETWORK AND OPERATIONS 2.4.1. Rail Network Analysis Areas New York State Railroads An extensive railroad network runs through the I- 87 Corridor study area, supporting both passenger and freight service between New York City, Albany and Montreal, as well as markets east and west of Albany. While the rail network somewhat parallels the highway network and in some ways handles similar transportation functions, there are stark differences in what railroads do, how they operate, and how they have to manage costs. Highways are generally public facilities, owned and operated by public agencies. As such, they are used and shared by both commercial (trucks and buses) and non-commercial users (cars). In addition, the cost of highway maintenance and capital improvements are typically provided for through public funding sources, although some facilities generate revenues through toll collection and user fees (e.g., the NYS Thruway portion of the I-87). In contrast, railroads are generally private facilities owned and operated by private companies. While railroads are also used for the movement of both people and goods, the vast majority of the costs must be borne directly by the users, since public funding is not typically available for operating and maintenance costs. This is particularly true for rail freight operations Most of the railroad rights-of-way and infrastructure in the study area are owned and operated by the freight railroad companies. The freight railroads are privately owned companies that are in business to move goods by rail to earn revenues and make a profit. -
I-95 Corridor Coalition
I-95 Corridor Coalition Northeast Rail Operations Study, Phase II Summary of Potential Rail Improvement Projects Technical Memorandum #1 August 2009 Northeast Rail Operations Study, Phase II Summary of Potential Rail Improvement Projects Technical Memorandum #1 Prepared for: I-95 Corridor Coalition Sponsored by: I-95 Corridor Coalition Prepared by: Cambridge Systematics August 2009 This report was produced by the I-95 Corridor Coalition. The I-95 Corridor Coalition is a partnership of state departments of transportation, regional and local transportation agencies, toll authorities, and related organizations, including law enforcement, port, transit and rail organizations, from Maine to Florida, with affiliate members in Canada. Additional information on the Coalition, including other project reports, can be found on the Coalition’s web site at http://www.i95coalition.org. Northeast Rail Operations Study, Phase II Table of Contents 1.0 Objective...............................................................................................................1-1 2.0 NEROps Background.........................................................................................2-1 2.1 NEROps Phase II Objective.......................................................................2-2 2.2 Project Approach ........................................................................................2-2 3.0 Approach ..............................................................................................................3-1 4.0 Overview of Rail Network