DOCSLIB.ORG

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study PHASE I REPORT Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TT AA BB LL EE OO FF CC OO NN TT EE NN TT SS Section 1 – Data Collection & Application 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Purpose 1.3 Overview of Data Required 1.4 Application Section 2 – Peer Group Analysis 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Purpose 2.3 Overview of Peer Group Analysis 2.4 Conclusion Section 3 – Institutional Issues 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Purpose 3.3 Overview of Institutional Issues A. Organizational Issues B. Process Issues C. Implementation Issues 3.4 Summary Institutional Recommendations Appendix • DDMA Rail Study – Peer Property Reference List Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TOC-1 List of Tables Table 1-1 Data Application Table 2-1 Peer Group Data Table 3-1 Procurement of Services Table 3-2 Virginia Railway Express Insurance Table 3-3 Commuter Rail Systems and Sponsors Table 3-4 Funding Sources Table 3-5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Existing Agencies as Sponsor of Proposed Rail Passenger Service List of Figures Figure 3-1 Risk, Liability and Insurance of Railroad Operations Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TOC-2 1 DD AA TT AA CC OO LL LL EE CC TT II OO NN && AA PP PP LL II CC AA TT II OO NN 1.1 INTRODUCTION The usefulness of virtually any study is directly related to the quality of the input or source material available. This is certainly true for the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study. The necessary source data must be accurate, reasonably current The majority of information required as and provided in a timely manner in order to be of use to the input to this study is study team. available through one or more of the participating 1.2 PURPOSE public organizations. The purpose of this section is to describe the types of source data required as input to this study, as well as the intended use or application of this data. Where and when data is not readily available, the study has identified a variety of “work-arounds” designed to minimize the adverse impacts of study findings due to a lack of source material. 1.3 OVERVIEW OF DATA REQUIRED The majority of information required as input to this study is available through one or more of the participating public organizations. As such information is generally in the public domain, the timeliness of the provision of such information will be more of an issue in terms of the production of accurate study findings than will be its actual availability. In some instances, information which may be deemed proprietary to one or more of the interested and affected private Information from one or railroads may also be required. This may necessitate the more of the interested execution of an agreement between the railroad(s) and the and affected private Study Team dealing with the protection (non-disclosure) and railroads may also be required. disposition of any such proprietary data. In any event, it must be understood that the actual availability of such information will be at the sole discretion of the railroad(s). Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-1 In general, the types of data required as input to this study fall into the following categories: · Related rail transit studies, · Aerial photography of the downtown Detroit to Metro Airport corridor, · Site plans, drawings and/or rendering of envisioned airport capital improvements, · Information related to the charter or mandate of each of the agencies currently providing or directly involved in the public transportation services throughout the study area, · Zonal demographic (population and employment) data, · Rail alignment and station location data, including field survey information, · Regional travel time/level of service information related to the condition of relevant highways and roads throughout the study area, · MDOT and/or Wayne County TIP capital program information, and · A variety of information related to the existing railroad One of the primary physical plant and operations, including timetables, “work-arounds” track charts, grade crossing and signaling inventories, available is the study team’s own extensive right-of-way valuation mapping or equivalent and database. traffic volumes and projections. In addition, information on peer properties will be required in order to perform the Peer Group Analysis inherent in Phase 1 of the study. Recognizing that the freight railroad(s) are limited in the amount of assistance they can offer, the PB Team will approach them only after other data sources have been exhausted or when there are apparent inconsistencies in the available information. Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-2 One of the primary “work-arounds” available is the Study Team’s own extensive database, compiled as the result of performing numerous similar studies through the nation. This database includes information on capital and operating costs and operational characteristics of rail transit properties throughout the nation. This database cannot however, deal with issues of unique local significance. 1.4 APPLICATION The chart on the following page summarizes the source(s) of data as well as its intended application to the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study. Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-3 TABLE 1-1 DATA APPLICATIONS DATA TYPE: SOURCE(S): INTENDED APPLICATION: Related Rail Transit Studies: All related rail transit studies will be made available by General background to assist coordinating the implications and § “Ad-Hoc Passenger Rail Task Force” Final Report, June 1998 SEMCOG. findings of the various studies. § Southeastern Michigan Regional Rail Study § Final Report “Lansing/Detroit Rail Service Survey” § Final Report “Detroit-Lansing-Grand Rapids Inter-City Passenger Rail Service Feasibility Study” § Lansing to Detroit Commuter Rail Study § Analysis of Passenger Rail Service Between Downtown Detroit and Metropolitan Airport, 1990, SMART, and § Rail Access to Airports: A Review and Discussion with Application to Metra’s Planned Service to Chicago O’Hare International Airport, Metra, July 1994 Agency Charter/Mandate Information Informational Charette General background to assist in developing recommendations related to Institutional Issues. Zonal Demographic Data SEMCOG Input to the Sketch Planning ridership model. Rail Alignment and Station Location Data Study Team, with assistance provided by SEMCOG and the Input to the Definition of Alternatives, Sketch Planning ridership Steering Committee model and cost estimates. Aerial Photography SEMCOG and Wayne County Input to the Definition of Alternatives, Sketch Planning ridership model and cost estimates. Site Plans, Drawings and/or Renderings Wayne County Input to the Definition of Alternatives, Sketch Planning ridership model and cost estimates. Regional Travel Time/Level of Service Information SEMCOG Input to the Definition of Alternatives and cost estimates. MDOT and/or Wayne County TIP Capital Program Information MDOT and/or SEMCOG Input to the Definition of Alternatives and cost estimates. Railroad Physical Plant and Operations Data Railroad(s), MDOT/UPTRAN, SEMCOG Input to the Definition of Alternatives and cost estimates. Railroad and road alignment field observation data Study Team members Determination of feasible alignments, available right-of-way and capital program requirements. Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study 1-4 2 PP EE EE RR GG RR OO UU PP AA NN AA LL YY SS II SS 2.1 INTRODUCTION A peer group analysis subtask was included in the first phase of the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study to ensure that current data on operating and planned airport rail links was available to the study team and Steering Committee members. 2.2 PURPOSE A total of 11 properties were included in the peer group analysis. This comparative data may assist the Committee members in reaching decisions on the markets to be served and other key planning aspects of a potential Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport rail line. 2.3 OVERVIEW OF PEER GROUP ANALYSIS A total of 11 properties, consisting of 12 airport rail lines, were included in the peer group analysis. Of these, seven are currently operating rail services to and from an airport while four are planned operations. The planned operations were included in the analysis to indicate the sort of preliminary planning that has been performed relative to airport The light and commuter operations. This also indicates the rail modes are most relative importance of providing rail relevant to potential links between a major airport and the Detroit service. corresponding central business district (CBD). For example, in the case of Map of Hiawatha light rail line Minneapolis, the airport is a major showing multiple on-airport traffic generator on that city’s initial stations. light rail line (as illustrated on the map to the right). The peer table is included as Table 2-1 at the end of this section. Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport 2-1 Rail Study Of the seven operating lines listed in Table 2-1, two are light rail, four are commuter rail, and one is a heavy rail system. All three technologies, or modes, carry passengers on trains operating on rail tracks. Briefly, they have the following general characteristics: Light rail transit (LRT) uses overhead wires to power trains operating on tracks. LRT can operate in its own right-of-way, share railroad right-of-way with freight operations where the two are separated in time or space, or it can operate in a street with other traffic. Because no power is in the tracks, LRT tracks are safe to cross and do not have to be separated from all other traffic (“grade-separated”), which makes LRT less expensive to construct than heavy rail systems. LRT is usually constructed in fully developed urban areas where more frequent stops to provide access are desired.
Recommended publications
  • (09/2019) to AIS-052 (Rev.1): Code of Practice for Bus Body Design Approval

    (09/2019) to AIS-052 (Rev.1): Code of Practice for Bus Body Design Approval

    Amendment No 11 (09/2019) To AIS-052 (Rev.1): Code of Practice for Bus Body Design Approval. 1.0 Page 34/99, Insert new clause 2.2.19.6 after clause 2.2.19.5 2.2.19.6 In case of buses with seating capacity exceeding 22 passengers excluding driver, requirements for Accommodation and Accessibility for Passengers of Reduced Mobility shall be as per clause 2.12 of AIS-153. PRINTED BY THE AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH ASSOCIATION OF INDIA P. B. NO. 832, PUNE 411 004 ON BEHALF OF AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY STANDARDS COMMITTEE UNDER CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES RULES - TECHNICAL STANDING COMMITTEE SET-UP BY MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS (DEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 18th September 2019 Amendment No 10 (8/2019) To AIS-052 (Rev.1): Code of Practice for Bus Body Design Approval. 1.0 Page 28/99, Insert new clause 2.2.16.1.1.3.1 after clause 2.2.16.1.1.3: 2.2.16.1.1.3.1 In case of Midi and Mini buses, if the structure, design or the operational use of the vehicle make it impossible to comply with requirements as specified in clause no. 2.2.16.1.1.3, the height and width of the driver door aperture excluding handles, measured from the bus floor in the driver’s area, shall be minimum 1050 mm at its highest point and minimum 650 mm at its widest point respectively. The driver should be able to ergonomically use the door opening for easy ingress and egress.
  • Ivecobus Range Handbook.Pdf

    Ivecobus Range Handbook.Pdf

    CREALIS URBANWAY CROSSWAY EVADYS 02 A FULL RANGE OF VEHICLES FOR ALL THE NEEDS OF A MOVING WORLD A whole new world of innovation, performance and safety. Where technological excellence always travels with a true care for people and the environment. In two words, IVECO BUS. CONTENTS OUR HISTORY 4 OUR VALUES 8 SUSTAINABILITY 10 TECHNOLOGY 11 MAGELYS DAILY TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP 12 HIGH VALUE 13 PLANTS 14 CREALIS 16 URBANWAY 20 CROSSWAY 28 EVADYS 44 MAGELYS 50 DAILY 56 IVECO BUS CHASSIS 68 IVECO BUS ALWAYS BY YOUR SIDE 70 03 OUR HISTORY ISOBLOC. Presented in 1938 at Salon de Paris, it was the fi rst modern European coach, featuring a self-supporting structure and rear engine. Pictured below the 1947 model. 04 PEOPLE AND VEHICLES THAT TRANSPORTED THE WORLD INTO A NEW ERA GIOVANNI AGNELLI JOSEPH BESSET CONRAD DIETRICH MAGIRUS JOSEF SODOMKA 1866 - 1945 1890 - 1959 1824 - 1895 1865 - 1939 Founder, Fiat Founder, Société Anonyme Founder, Magirus Kommanditist Founder, Sodomka des établissements Besset then Magirus Deutz then Karosa Isobloc, Chausson, Berliet, Saviem, Fiat Veicoli Industriali and Magirus Deutz trademarks and logos are the property of their respective owners. 05 OVER A CENTURY OF EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE IVECO BUS is deeply rooted into the history of public transport vehicles, dating back to when the traction motor replaced horse-drawn power. We are proud to carry on the tradition of leadership and the pioneering spirit of famous companies and brands that have shaped the way buses and coaches have to be designed and built: Fiat, OM, Orlandi in Italy, Berliet, Renault, Chausson, Saviem in France, Karosa in the Czech Republic, Magirus-Deutz in Germany and Pegaso in Spain, to name just a few.
  • Why Some Airport-Rail Links Get Built and Others Do Not: the Role of Institutions, Equity and Financing

    Why Some Airport-Rail Links Get Built and Others Do Not: the Role of Institutions, Equity and Financing

    Why some airport-rail links get built and others do not: the role of institutions, equity and financing by Julia Nickel S.M. in Engineering Systems- Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010 Vordiplom in Wirtschaftsingenieurwesen- Universität Karlsruhe, 2007 Submitted to the Department of Political Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Political Science at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY February 2011 © Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2011. All rights reserved. Author . Department of Political Science October 12, 2010 Certified by . Kenneth Oye Associate Professor of Political Science Thesis Supervisor Accepted by . Roger Peterson Arthur and Ruth Sloan Professor of Political Science Chair, Graduate Program Committee 1 Why some airport-rail links get built and others do not: the role of institutions, equity and financing by Julia Nickel Submitted to the Department of Political Science On October 12, 2010, in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Political Science Abstract The thesis seeks to provide an understanding of reasons for different outcomes of airport ground access projects. Five in-depth case studies (Hongkong, Tokyo-Narita, London- Heathrow, Chicago- O’Hare and Paris-Charles de Gaulle) and eight smaller case studies (Kuala Lumpur, Seoul, Shanghai-Pudong, Bangkok, Beijing, Rome- Fiumicino, Istanbul-Atatürk and Munich- Franz Josef Strauss) are conducted. The thesis builds on existing literature that compares airport-rail links by explicitly considering the influence of the institutional environment of an airport on its ground access situation and by paying special attention to recently opened dedicated airport expresses in Asia.
  • The Michigan Passenger Welcomes Submissions on Passenger Rail Vacant Issues for Publication

    The Michigan Passenger Welcomes Submissions on Passenger Rail Vacant Issues for Publication

    Th e Michigan Passenger Your Source For Passenger Rail News Since 1973 Spring 2012 Volume 39, Number 2 Study looks for speed savings between Detroit and Chicago By Larry Sobczak Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and cials, an important focus of the The U.S. Department of the Norfolk Southern Railway study will be reducing conges- Transportation (USDOT) is un- will contribute $200,000 each. tion by linking a double track Michigan Association dertaking a new $4 million study “This is an important part- passenger main to the 110 mph of Railroad Passengers to reduce passenger and freight nership in our efforts to reinvent service at Porter. The study will www.marp.org rail congestion between De- Michigan, specifi cally creating build on progress Michigan has troit and Chicago along the high an accelerated rail connection already made by achieving 110 speed rail corridor. between Detroit and Chicago for mph service from Porter to Ka- WHAT’S lamazoo. The USDOT announced both citizens and businesses,” INSIDE May 4 that it will contribute $3.2 said Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder. “This is an important step million towards the study while According to USDOT offi - (See STUDY, page 8) Passengers head “south of the border” See Page 3 Meeting highlights See Page 4 Rewarding Amtrak adventure See Page 5 Celebrate National Train Day See Page 6 Grade crossing crashes discussed See Page 7 Amtrak and Canadian National trains meet in the city of Detroit. This is one of three areas in Michigan Recall targets transit that Amtrak claims it is delayed by the freight train operator.
  • (Amtrak) PTC Implementation Plan Revised July 16, 2010

    (Amtrak) PTC Implementation Plan Revised July 16, 2010

    National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) PTC Implementation Plan Revised July 16, 2010 Revision2.0 Submitted in fulfillment of 49 CFR Part 236, Subpart I, § 236.1011 Revision History AmtrakPTCIP.doc Date Revision Description Author 4/12/10 0.1 Release for internal comments E. K. Holt 4/16/10 1.0 Release to FRA E. K. Holt Revised per FRA comments of 6/18/10 E. K. Holt PTCIP, Appendix A and Appendix B 7/16/10 2.0 revised i PTC Implementation Plan Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Amtrak Background.................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Overview of Amtrak Operations......................................................................... 6 1.2.1 Northeast Corridor ...................................................................................... 7 1.2.2 Northeast Corridor Feeder Lines ................................................................ 8 1.2.2.1 Keystone Corridor (Harrisburg Line) ......................................................... 8 1.2.2.2 Empire Connection ..................................................................................... 8 1.2.2.3 Springfield Line .......................................................................................... 9 1.2.3 The Michigan Line.......................................................................................... 9 1.2.4 Chicago Terminal.......................................................................................
  • A Downloadable

    A Downloadable

    GREATER CLEVELAND REGI0NAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY 2009 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET Hybrid Oil Transit + Redevelopment – x CO 2 = ∞ Good √ Technology ( Dependency ) Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority 2009 Adopted Budget Plan President - Board of Trustees George F. Dixon, III CEO/General Manager and Secretary-Treasurer Joseph A. Calabrese The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) presented an award of Distinguished Budget Presentation to the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority for its annual budget for the fiscal year beginning January 2008. In order to receive this award, a governmental unit must publish a budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, as an operations guide, as a financial plan, and as a communications device. The award is valid for a period of one year. We believe our current budget continues to conform to program requirements and we are submitting it to GFOA to determine its eligibility for another award. Acknowledgements Office of Management & Budget Executive Director Gale Fisk Manager of Budgets Michael Daugherty Manager of Budgets Floun’say R. Caver Coordinator of Financial Systems & Budgets Susanna Theofylaktos Senior Budget Management Analyst Sofya Linetsky Senior Budget Management Analyst James Teubl Budget Management Analyst Kay Sutula Budget Management Analyst Wesley Keshtkaran Budget Management Analyst Daniel Bobeczko Business Analyst (MDP) Anthony Henderson Executive Secretary Theresa Burrage Special thanks to the following individuals for their assistance: Printing/Reproduction - Carol Thomas, Gloria Wood, Bill Dietz & the RTA Print Shop Organization Charts - Mary Wilkins Cover Artwork/Tabs - Steve Bitto & Co. DIRECTORY OF THE GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY OFFICIALS BOARD OF TRUSTEES George F.
  • Critique of “Great Rail Disaster”

    Critique of “Great Rail Disaster”

    www.vtpi.org [email protected] 250-508-5150 Rail Transit In America A Comprehensive Evaluation of Benefits 1 September 2021 By Todd Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute Produced with support from the American Public Transportation Association Photo: Darrell Clarke Abstract This study evaluates rail transit benefits based on a comprehensive analysis of transportation system performance in major U.S. cities. It finds that cities with large, well- established rail systems have significantly higher per capita transit ridership, lower average per capita vehicle ownership and annual mileage, less traffic congestion, lower traffic death rates, lower consumer expenditures on transportation, and higher transit service cost recovery than otherwise comparable cities with less or no rail transit service. This indicates that rail transit systems provide economic, social and environmental benefits, and these benefits tend to increase as a system expands and matures. This report discusses best practices for evaluating transit benefits. It examines criticisms of rail transit investments, finding that many are based on inaccurate analysis. A condensed version of this report was published as, "Impacts of Rail Transit on the Performance of a Transportation System," Transportation Research Record 1930, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), 2005, pp. 23-29. Todd Litman 2004-2012 You are welcome and encouraged to copy, distribute, share and excerpt this document and its ideas, provided the author is given attribution. Please send your corrections,
  • February 2005 Bulletin.Pub

    February 2005 Bulletin.Pub

    TheNEW YORK DIVISION BULLETIN - FEBRUARY, 2005 Bulletin New York Division, Electric Railroaders’ Association Vol. 48, No. 2 February, 2005 The Bulletin MYRTLE AVENUE “L” STRUCTURE Published by the New York Division, Electric IS 90 YEARS OLD Railroaders’ Association, Incorporated, PO Box Trains started running on the new elevated private right-of-way on the surface from Wy- 3001, New York, New structure between Wyckoff Avenue and Fresh ckoff Avenue to Metropolitan Avenue. Electric York 10008-3001. Pond Road and the new ramp east of there operation began in August, 1895, probably 90 years ago, February 22, 1915. with trolley cars. A year later, August 20, For general inquiries, This line has an interesting history. On July 1896, Flushing-Ridgewood trolley cars were contact us at nydiv@ 20, 1889, trains started operating from also operated on this right-of-way. electricrailroaders.org or by phone at (212) 986- Broadway to Wyckoff Avenue on a two-track On October 1, 1906, the ramp at Wyckoff 4482 (voice mail structure with island platforms at Broadway, Avenue connecting the elevated tracks with available). ERA’s Evergreen Avenue, Central Avenue, Knicker- the trolley tracks was placed in service. Myr- website is bocker Avenue, and Wyckoff Avenue. A con- tle Avenue “L” service was extended to Met- www.electricrailroaders. org. tract delivered on July 22, 1914 provided for ropolitan Avenue on the existing right-of-way. the rebuilding of the above stations. Side All elevated trains were equipped with trolley Editorial Staff: platforms were built at Central Avenue and poles, which made contact with the trolley Editor-in-Chief: Knickerbocker Avenue, an express station wire when the trains ran on the surface.
  • Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA District 1964-Present

    Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA District 1964-Present

    Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA district 1964-2021 By Jonathan Belcher with thanks to Richard Barber and Thomas J. Humphrey Compilation of this data would not have been possible without the information and input provided by Mr. Barber and Mr. Humphrey. Sources of data used in compiling this information include public timetables, maps, newspaper articles, MBTA press releases, Department of Public Utilities records, and MBTA records. Thanks also to Tadd Anderson, Charles Bahne, Alan Castaline, George Chiasson, Bradley Clarke, Robert Hussey, Scott Moore, Edward Ramsdell, George Sanborn, David Sindel, James Teed, and George Zeiba for additional comments and information. Thomas J. Humphrey’s original 1974 research on the origin and development of the MBTA bus network is now available here and has been updated through August 2020: http://www.transithistory.org/roster/MBTABUSDEV.pdf August 29, 2021 Version Discussion of changes is broken down into seven sections: 1) MBTA bus routes inherited from the MTA 2) MBTA bus routes inherited from the Eastern Mass. St. Ry. Co. Norwood Area Quincy Area Lynn Area Melrose Area Lowell Area Lawrence Area Brockton Area 3) MBTA bus routes inherited from the Middlesex and Boston St. Ry. Co 4) MBTA bus routes inherited from Service Bus Lines and Brush Hill Transportation 5) MBTA bus routes initiated by the MBTA 1964-present ROLLSIGN 3 5b) Silver Line bus rapid transit service 6) Private carrier transit and commuter bus routes within or to the MBTA district 7) The Suburban Transportation (mini-bus) Program 8) Rail routes 4 ROLLSIGN Changes in MBTA Bus Routes 1964-present Section 1) MBTA bus routes inherited from the MTA The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) succeeded the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) on August 3, 1964.
  • Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation

    Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation

    Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 4 – Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Chapter 4 – Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation South Station Expansion October 2014 Massachusetts Department of Transportation Chapter 4 – Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report This Page Intentionally Left Blank October 2014 South Station Expansion Massachusetts Department of Transportation Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 4 – Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation 4. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION As presented in Chapter 3, MassDOT considered alternative concept designs on the track configuration, station concept, layover facility sites, and joint/private development elements of the project. These analyses identified concepts for consideration and provided refinements to designs. From this analysis, the Build Alternatives for the DEIR were refined and utilized as the basis for the environmental analysis. The four project alternatives developed and presented in this DEIR are: • No Build Alternative • Alternative 1 – Transportation Improvements Only • Alternative 2 – Joint/Private Development Minimum Build • Alternative 3 – Joint/Private Development Maximum Build The concepts developed for the track configuration, station design, and layover facility sites are the same in each Build Alternative and would result in no variations in environmental impacts across each alternative. Differences in the DEIR project alternatives stem from only the joint/private development
  • Michigan Crude Oil Production: Alternatives to Enbridge Line 5 for Transportation

    Michigan Crude Oil Production: Alternatives to Enbridge Line 5 for Transportation

    MICHIGAN CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION: ALTERNATIVES TO ENBRIDGE LINE 5 FOR TRANSPORTATION Prepared for National Wildlife Federation By London Economics International LLC 717 Atlantic Ave, Suite 1A Boston, MA, 02111 August 23, 2018 Michigan crude oil production: Alternatives to Enbridge Line 5 for transportation Prepared by London Economics International LLC August 23, 2018 London Economics International LLC (“LEI”) was retained by the National Wildlife Federation (“NWF”) via a grant from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, to examine alternatives to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (“Enbridge”) Line 5 for crude oil producers in Michigan. About sixty-five percent of the crude oil produced in Michigan currently uses Enbridge Line 5 to reach markets. This production is located in the Northern and Central regions of the Lower Peninsula. Oil production from the Southern region of the Lower Peninsula does not use Enbridge Line 5 to reach markets. LEI’s key findings are that the lowest-cost alternative to Enbridge Line 5 would be trucking from oil wells to the Marysville market area. LEI estimates that the increase in transportation cost to oil producers in the Northern region would be $1.31 per barrel based on recent oil production levels and recent trucking costs. For the Central region, the cost increase on average would be less, as these producers are located closer to markets. There would be no impact on Southern region producers. The $1.31 per barrel cost increase amounts to 2.6 percent of a crude oil price of $50 per barrel. It is much smaller than typical monthly swings in Michigan crude oil prices, which have ranged from $28 per barrel to over $100 per barrel from 2014 through 2017.
  • Commuter Rail Routes and Operating Plans

    Commuter Rail Routes and Operating Plans

    Northeast Ohio Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Phase II Chapter 3: Commuter Rail Routes and Operating Plans 3.1 Commuter Rail Service Assumptions 3.2 Rail Network Characteristics 3.3 Description of Each Route 3.4 Access to Downtown Cleveland 3.5 Access to Downtown Akron PARSONS Final Report BRINCKERHOFF December 2001 Northeast Ohio Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Phase II CHAPTER 3: TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.1 COMMUTER RAIL SERVICE ASSUMPTIONS................................................................................ 3 3.1.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS ................................................................................................... 3 Level of Service (LOS) 1– Minimum service with no reverse-peak .......................................................... 3 Level of Service (LOS) 2– Basic service with limited reverse-peak.......................................................... 4 Level of Service (LOS) 3 – Basic service with full reverse-peak............................................................... 4 3.1.2 TRAINSET REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................ 5 3.2 RAIL NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS............................................................................................ 6 3.2.1 RIGHT OF WAY OWNERSHIP.......................................................................................................... 6 3.2.2 RAIL FREIGHT TRAFFIC ................................................................................................................