DOCSLIB.ORG

ANNUAL REPORT 2019 SPRC Membership and Mission

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ANNUAL REPORT 2019 SPRC Membership and Mission Wisconsin’s Hiawatha Service States for Passenger Rail Coalition, Inc. ANNUAL REPORT 2019 SPRC Membership and Mission The States for Passenger Rail Coalition, Inc. (SPRC) is an alliance of 24 State and Regional Transportation Officials and Passenger Rail Authorities from across the United States. The Coalition Member agencies includes: California Missouri Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) Nevada Connecticut New York Illinois North Carolina Indiana Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA) Iowa Oregon Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency (LOSSAN) Pennsylvania Louisiana San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) Maine Vermont Massachusetts Virginia Michigan Washington Minnesota Wisconsin and we would like to welcome our newest member – Southwest Chief & Front Range Passenger Rail Commission – State of Colorado. SPRC’s Mission is to promote the development, implementation and expansion of Intercity Passenger Rail as part of an integrated national transportation network. It accomplishes this by working together with a non-partisan approach to: • Promote research, planning, development, implementation, operation, sustainability, and expansion of publicly supported intercity passenger rail service throughout the United States, • Facilitate coordination and cooperation among state officials and between the public and private sector at all levels (federal, state and local), • Advocate and assist in the pursuit of state and federal funding to support on-going development of America’s passenger rail system, and • Support current efforts and projects managed by state transportation departments. The Coalition offers a centralized forum to interact with decision makers, stakeholders and advocacy groups to share information and offer direction in support of intercity passenger rail. s4prc.org SPRC and Passenger Rail in the United States Intercity passenger rail is a key component of our Nation’s transportation network and represents a viable, energy efficient, and economically attractive transportation option. Each day, millions of passengers travel on our network of intercity passenger rail, long distance trains, and commuter rail. States and intercity passenger rail operating agencies are the primary entities responsible for the initiation, implementation, oversight and/or operation of intercity passenger rail service. The SPRC Member States and Rail Authorities are a vital part of Amtrak’s three principal business lines: 1) the Long Distance trains that provide intercity passenger rail transportation on 15 routes of more than 750 miles between endpoints; 2) the State Supported trains that provide intercity passenger rail service along shorter-distance corridor routes of not more than 750 miles between endpoints; and, 3) the Northeast Corridor (NEC) service operating between Boston, New York City, and Washington, DC. Our members sponsor a combined 29 intercity passenger rail routes serving 296 communities across America. Last year State Supported trains carried nearly 15½ million passengers, representing over 47% of Amtrak’s total ridership, the largest source of ridership among the three Amtrak business lines. They also contributed over $750 million directly to Amtrak through passenger ticket revenue and contract payments. 1 States/Regional Rail Authorities Stand Ready to Advance Passenger Rail Clearly, the Coalition’s member agencies are well-positioned projects that receive grant awards. Please note that to advance the development, implementation and expansion the list and project costs cited above do not include many of Intercity Passenger Rail as part of an integrated national projects that are in states that are not yet SPRC Members or transportation network. To that end, significant advance projects that are in the earlier phases of planning. The most planning is taking place within the states and passenger rail current list can be found on the SPRC website at https:// authorities. tinyurl.com/SPRC-Project-List. In an ongoing survey, SPRC Members have provided details It is important to reflect upon what such an investment in on prospective intercity passenger rail projects either ready rail would mean for the nation. Intercity passenger rail is for construction or at or near the final design stage. The an integral part of our Nation’s transportation network and Members also provided information on those projects that represents a safe, reliable, energy efficient, and economically are in the initial stages of the project development, “scoping attractive, transportation option. Completed, these projects phase” stages. could result in 65 additional daily round trips, more than As of the time of printing, we have received project lists 30 new cities being served by passenger rail, significant from 20 of the 24 SPRC states and rail authorities. To date, improvements to nearly 60 stations, at least 150 new or our Members have identified well over 100 projects with a refurbished locomotives and passenger rail cars, and total project cost of over $12.4 billion. There are 49 “ready upgrades or closures of 350 grade crossings with safety, for funding” projects valued at close to $8.2 billion with an positive train control, capacity and reliability improvements. additional 58 scoping phase projects making up over $4.2 These are significant benefits that not only provide positive billion. The lists are continually updated to reflect both the improvements for passenger rail but also for freight rail addition of new projects as they are developed and those traffic. SYSTEM SAFETY PROGRAM = “STATES AS RAILROADS” An ongoing issue of critical importance to the future of This rule would not absolve existing railroad operators from intercity passenger rail deals with the Federal Railroad ensuring the safety of their operations, but it would in fact Administration’s (FRA) proposed passenger rail “System add an unneeded and potentially contradictory layer of Safety Program” regulation. SPRC’s 24 Member States and oversight. The additional burdens imposed by the rule could Passenger Rail Authorities continue to voice deep concern on cause multiple States to cease supporting intercity passenger the ramifications of the adoption of a pending FRA action. rail service altogether. In 2016, the FRA published a final rule requiring commuter While SPRC hoped the FRA would heed the advice of its and intercity passenger railroads to develop and implement Member agencies, the FRA’s proposed revisions in June have a system safety program (SSP) to improve the safety of not addressed the major issue of designating the “States as their operations. In response to concerns first raised by the Railroads.” Subsequently, in August 2019, SPRC, collectively, SPRC, the FRA held the effective date of the rule in abeyance along with several of its individual Member organizations, and subsequently issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking submitted detailed and well-substantiated comments to the (NPRM) on June 12, 2019. FRA. In order to consider these comments and others, the The safety and security of passengers, employees, host FRA extended its stay of the effective date of the SSP rule railroads, and our communities are our collective top until March 4, 2020. priority. However, SPRC analyzed the final rule and While this extension allows for further discussion of this determined that it would require the States to shoulder new matter, the SPRC continues to work collaboratively with its operational and fiscal responsibilities that are well beyond Members and federal officials to ensure that appropriate their abilities, expertise, and resources. As currently drafted, language is included that will achieve the highest level the rule would force States to become railroads, impose of passenger rail safety for our nation without imposing obligations outside of the States’ statutory mandate and redundant, unworkable demands and potentially, extensive legal liability exposure that could be detrimental to States fiscal liabilities upon the States. and its citizens. 2 SPRC FAST Act Reauthorization Principles The authorizing legislation for federal surface transportation programs, including intercity passenger rail, is set to expire in October 2020. It is imperative for Congress to enact reauthorizing legislation to build upon the success of this five-year landmark legislation. SPRC members have worked together to develop principles that we believe should be considered during the development of the next federal surface transportation bill. These principles are as follows: • Amtrak Board members charge must include • The Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety consideration of all service lines, including the interests Improvements (CRISI) Grant Program, State of Good of State-Supported and Long-Distance Routes. Repair Grant Program (SOGR), and the Restoration and • A dedicated capital funding program should be Enhancement Grant Program should be reauthorized established for intercity passenger rail. at no less than FY18 funding levels and support cross border investment. • Clear and timely mandates should be established for the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) in • The eligibility of the State of Good Repair Program the award and deployment of grant programs. beyond “publicly owned assets” should be expanded to allow for funding for non-public assets with Projects with over 50% match should not automatically • the requirement that such funding results in some receive priority selection preference in the award
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Capitol Corridor Service Performance
    CAPITOL CORRIDOR SERVICE PERFORMANCE In July 2016, the Capitol Corridor had one of its best months in the history of the service. Ridership was the highest ever, with a total of 128,655 passengers, a 1.7% year‐over‐year (YOY) increase. Revenue was up 4.6% compared to July 2015. Compared to June 2016, On‐ Time Performance (OTP) slipped slightly from 96% to 95%, yet was still above the FY16 standard of 90%. The Year‐To‐Date (YTD) results continue to be in positive territory. Compared to FY15, FYTD16 ridership and revenue are up 5.5%, with the System Operating Ratio at 55%, five percentage points above the 50% standard. YTD OTP is 94%, which keeps the Capitol Corridor in the #1 spot for service reliability in the national Amtrak intercity passenger rail network. The FYTD16 customer satisfaction scores (through June 2016) are at 89% “Highly Satisfied”, one point above the FY16 standard of 88%. The following are ridership highlights for July 2016: Average weekend ridership for July was down 7% versus July 2015. To address these continued decreases in weekend ridership, the CCJPA is modifying the weekend/holiday train schedule effective August 22, 2016, to slot trains at times that align with typical weekend travel patterns. Average July weekday ridership yielded a 9% increase thanks to continued growth on the trains serving San Jose/Silicon Valley and Placer County stations. Amtrak has sent detailed performance results (see attached) for June 2016 and provided below is a summary of the attached tables: OTP: June 2016 system end‐point OTP was a stellar 96% compared to 93% for May 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Surfliner-San Luis Obispo-San Diego-October282019
    PACIFIC SURFLINER® PACIFIC SURFLINER® SAN LUIS OBISPO - LOS ANGELES - SAN DIEGO SAN LUIS OBISPO - LOS ANGELES - SAN DIEGO Effective October 28, 2019 Effective October 28, 2019 ® ® SAN LUIS OBISPO - SANTA BARBARA SAN LUIS OBISPO - SANTA BARBARA VENTURA - LOS ANGELES VENTURA - LOS ANGELES ORANGE COUNTY - SAN DIEGO ORANGE COUNTY - SAN DIEGO and intermediate stations and intermediate stations Including Including CALIFORNIA COASTAL SERVICES CALIFORNIA COASTAL SERVICES connecting connecting NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Visit: PacificSurfliner.com Visit: PacificSurfliner.com Amtrak.com Amtrak.com Amtrak is a registered service mark of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. Amtrak is a registered service mark of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Washington Union Station, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Washington Union Station, One Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20001. One Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20001. NRPS Form W31–10/28/19. Schedules subject to change without notice. NRPS Form W31–10/28/19. Schedules subject to change without notice. page 2 PACIFIC SURFLINER - Southbound Train Number u 5804 5818 562 1564 564 1566 566 768 572 1572 774 Normal Days of Operation u Daily Daily Daily SaSuHo Mo-Fr SaSuHo Mo-Fr Daily Mo-Fr SaSuHo Daily 11/28,12/25, 11/28,12/25, 11/28,12/25, Will Also Operate u 1/1/20 1/1/20 1/1/20 11/28,12/25, 11/28,12/25, 11/28,12/25, Will Not Operate u 1/1/20 1/1/20 1/1/20 B y B y B y B y B y B y B y B y B y On Board Service u låO låO låO låO låO l å O l å O l å O l å O Mile Symbol q SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA –Cal Poly 0 >v Dp b3 45A –Amtrak Station mC ∑w- b4 00A l6 55A Grover Beach, CA 12 >w- b4 25A 7 15A Santa Maria, CA–IHOP® 24 >w b4 40A Guadalupe-Santa Maria, CA 25 >w- 7 31A Lompoc-Surf Station, CA 51 > 8 05A Lompoc, CA–Visitors Center 67 >w Solvang, CA 68 >w b5 15A Buellton, CA–Opp.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 Existing Conditions Summary
    Final Report New Haven Hartford Springfield Commuter Rail Implementation Study 2 Existing Conditions Chapter 2 Existing Conditions Summary This chapter is a summary of the existing conditions report, necessary for comprehension of the remaining chapters. The entire report can be found in Appendix B of this report. 2.1 Existing Passenger Services on the Line The only existing passenger rail service on the Springfield Line is a regional service operated by Amtrak. Schedules for alternatives in Chapter 3 and the Recommended Action in Chapter 4 include current Amtrak service. Most Amtrak service on the line is shuttle trains, running between Springfield and New Haven, where they connect with other Amtrak Northeast Corridor trains. One round-trip train each day operates through the corridor to Boston to the north and Washington to the south. One round trip train each day operates to and from St. Albans, Vermont from New Haven. The trains also permit connections at New Haven with Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor (Washington to Boston) service, as well as Metro North service to New York, and Shore Line East local commuter service to New London. Departures are spread throughout the day, with trains typically operating at intervals of two to three hours. Springfield line services are designed as extensions of Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor service, and are not scheduled to serve local commuter trips (home to work trips). The Amtrak fare structure was substantially reduced in price since this study began. The original fare structure from November 2002 was shown in the existing conditions report, which can be found in Appendix B.
    [Show full text]
  • Northeast Corridor Chase, Maryland January 4, 1987
    PB88-916301 NATIONAL TRANSPORT SAFETY BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 20594 RAILROAD ACCIDENT REPORT REAR-END COLLISION OF AMTRAK PASSENGER TRAIN 94, THE COLONIAL AND CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION FREIGHT TRAIN ENS-121, ON THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CHASE, MARYLAND JANUARY 4, 1987 NTSB/RAR-88/01 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2.Government Accession No. 3.Recipient's Catalog No. NTSB/RAR-88/01 . PB88-916301 Title and Subtitle Railroad Accident Report^ 5-Report Date Rear-end Collision of'*Amtrak Passenger Train 949 the January 25, 1988 Colonial and Consolidated Rail Corporation Freight -Performing Organization Train ENS-121, on the Northeast Corridor, Code Chase, Maryland, January 4, 1987 -Performing Organization 7. "Author(s) ~~ Report No. Performing Organization Name and Address 10.Work Unit No. National Transportation Safety Board Bureau of Accident Investigation .Contract or Grant No. Washington, D.C. 20594 k3-Type of Report and Period Covered 12.Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Iroad Accident Report lanuary 4, 1987 NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Washington, D. C. 20594 1*+.Sponsoring Agency Code 15-Supplementary Notes 16 Abstract About 1:16 p.m., eastern standard time, on January 4, 1987, northbound Conrail train ENS -121 departed Bay View yard at Baltimore, Mary1 and, on track 1. The train consisted of three diesel-electric freight locomotive units, all under power and manned by an engineer and a brakeman. Almost simultaneously, northbound Amtrak train 94 departed Pennsylvania Station in Baltimore. Train 94 consisted of two electric locomotive units, nine coaches, and three food service cars. In addition to an engineer, conductor, and three assistant conductors, there were seven Amtrak service employees and about 660 passengers on the train.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Bill Policy Committee Analysis
    SJR 30 Page 1 Date of Hearing: August 23, 2018 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Jim Frazier, Chair SJR 30 (McGuire) – As Introduced August 9, 2018 SENATE VOTE: 33-0 SUBJECT: Amtrak National Network. SUMMARY: Urges the Congress and the President of the United States to support the retention of, and investment in, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) National Network of passenger trains and for Congress to reject the President’s proposed budget cuts to Amtrak. Specifically, this resolution: 1) Makes findings and declarations including the history of Amtrak in the United States and its importance to the State of California that WHEREAS: a) Amtrak was created in 1970 to assume the common carriers’ obligations of the private railroads and provide intercity passenger rail service throughout the United States; and, b) Amtrak’s mission is to deliver intercity transportation that helps move people, the economy, and the nation forward; and, c) Amtrak operates a nationwide rail network, serving more than 500 destinations in 46 states, the District of Columbia, and three Canadian provinces, in addition to serving as a contractor in various capacities for several commuter rail agencies; and, d) Amtrak National Network trains are often the only form of public transportation available to thousands of small communities nationwide, and are a vital link between urban and rural America; and, e) The State of California has a vested interest in the continued success of the local and national Amtrak network as it is home to three of the
    [Show full text]
  • Reservations PUBLISHED Overview 30 March 2015.Xlsx
    Reservation Country Domestic day train 1st Class 2nd Class Comments Information compulsory € 8,50 n.a. on board only; free newspaper WESTbahn trains possible n.a. € 5,00 via www.westbahn.at Austria ÖBB trains possible € 3,00 online / € 3,50 € 3,00 online / € 3,50 free wifi on rj-trains ÖBB Intercitybus Graz-Klagenfurt recommended € 3,00 online / € 3,50 € 3,00 online / € 3,50 first class includes drinks supplement per single journey. Can be bought in the station, in the train or online: Belgium to/from Brussels National Airport no reservation € 5,00 € 5,00 www.belgianrail.be Bosnia- Regional trains compulsory € 1,50 € 1,50 price depends on distance Herzegovina (ZRS) Bulgaria Express trains compulsory € 0,25 € 0,25 IC Zagreb - Osijek/Varazdin compulsory € 1,00 € 1,00 Croatia ICN Zagreb - Split compulsory € 1,00 € 1,00 IC/EC (domestic journeys) recommended € 2,00 € 2,00 Czech Republic SC SuperCity compulsory € 8,00 € 8,00 includes newspaper and catering in 1st class Denmark InterCity / InterCity Lyn recommended € 4,00 € 4,00 InterCity recommended € 1,84 to €5,63 € 1,36 to € 4,17 Finland price depends on distance Pendolino recommended € 3,55 to € 6,79 € 2,63 to € 5,03 France TGV and Intercités compulsory € 9 to € 18 € 9 to € 18 FYR Macedonia IC 540/541 Skopje-Bitola compulsory € 0,50 € 0,50 EC/IC/ICE possible € 4,50 € 4,50 ICE Sprinter compulsory € 11,50 € 11,50 includes newspapers Germany EC 54/55 Berlin-Gdansk-Gdynia compulsory € 4,50 € 4,50 Berlin-Warszawa Express compulsory € 4,50 € 4,50 Great Britain Long distance trains possible Free Free Greece Inter City compulsory € 7,10 to € 20,30 € 7,10 to € 20,30 price depends on distance EC (domestic jouneys) compulsory € 3,00 € 3,00 Hungary IC compulsory € 3,00 € 3,00 when purchased in Hungary, price may depend on pre-sales and currency exchange rate Ireland IC possible n/a € 5,00 reservations can be made online @ www.irishrail.ie Frecciarossa, Frecciargento, → all compulsory and optional reservations for passholders can be purchased via Trenitalia at compulsory € 10,00 € 10,00 Frecciabianca "Global Pass" fare.
    [Show full text]
  • 20210419 Amtrak Metrics Reporting
    NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION 30th Street Station Philadelphia, PA 19104 April 12, 2021 Mr. Michael Lestingi Director, Office of Policy and Planning Federal Railroad Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Lestingi: In accordance with the Metrics and Minimum Standards for Intercity Passenger Rail Service final rule published on November 16, 2020 (the “Final Rule”), this letter serves as Amtrak’s report to the Federal Railroad Administration that, as of April 10, 2021, Amtrak has provided the 29 host railroads over which Amtrak currently operates (listed in Appendix A) with ridership data for the prior month consistent with the Final Rule. The following data was provided to each host railroad: . the total number of passengers, by train and by day; . the station-specific number of detraining passengers, reported by host railroad whose railroad right-of-way serves the station, by train, and by day; and . the station-specific number of on-time passengers reported by host railroad whose railroad right- of-way serves the station, by train, and by day. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jim Blair Sr. Director, Host Railroads Amtrak cc: Dennis Newman Amtrak Jason Maga Amtrak Christopher Zappi Amtrak Yoel Weiss Amtrak Kristin Ferriter Federal Railroad Administration Mr. Michael Lestingi April 12, 2021 Page 2 Appendix A Host Railroads Provided with Amtrak Ridership Data Host Railroad1 Belt Railway Company of Chicago BNSF Railway Buckingham Branch Railroad
    [Show full text]
  • Performance Report FY19 Rider Profile CAPITOL Corridorticket JOINT Type POWERS AUTHORITY WORK/ BUSINESS 67%
    Performance Report FY19 Rider Profile CAPITOL CORRIDORTicket JOINT Type POWERS AUTHORITY WORK/ BUSINESS 67% Ticket WithWelcome FY2019, the Capitol Corridor Aboard! celebrated five straight years of Type record-breaking ridership and revenue, with a new all-time high of 10-RIDE 1,777,136 riders and $38.03 million in revenue. ThisWORK/ growth is reflected 18% FAMILY/ BUSINESS OTHER 1% 67% REC/in the FareboxFRIENDS Ratio, which reached a previously unattained 60%. SCHOOL 3% LEISURE 15% 12% ROUND-TRIP/ To build upon this success, and to ensure the Capitol Corridor’s place as ONE-WAY a premier travel choice, the CCJPA is making progress on infrastructure 50% improvements, safety upgrades, customer service enhancements, MONTHLY and service expansion projects. These efforts aim to maintain Capitol 32% Corridor as a quality, convenient,OTHER 1% cost-effective, and flexibleFAMILY/ option for REC/ FRIENDS years to come. SCHOOL 3% LEISURE 15% Rider Profile Ticket Type 12% SHOP/VACATION 2% WORK/ BUSINESS 21 Years of Improvement* 67% SERVICE REVENUE-TO- LEVEL RIDERSHIP REVENUE COST RATIO +275% +284% +508% +100% Rider Customer Satisfaction Profile 10-RIDE WORK/ 18% FAMILY/ BUSINESS OTHER 1% 67% FY 2019 FY 2019 FY 2019 REC/ FYFRIENDS 2019 30 DAILY 1,777,136SCHOOL 3% $38.03MLEISURE 60%15% TRAINS 12% ROUND-TRIP/ ONE-WAY 50% MONTHLY 90% 87% 90% 91% 89% 89% 87% 89% 88% 85% 90% 32% OTHER 1% FAMILY/ FY 1998 REC/ FRIENDS 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 SCHOOL 3% 2018 2019 (PRE-CCJPA) FY 1998 FY 1998 FY 1998 LEISURE 15% 8 DAILY (PRE-CCJPA) (PRE-CCJPA) (PRE-CCJPA) SHOP/VACATION 2% 12% TRAINS 463,000 $6.25M 30% *CCJPA assumed management of the service in 1998.
    [Show full text]
  • Intercity High-Speed Railway Systems • Economic Growth and Increased Employment
    Low Carbon Green Growth Roadmap for Asia and the Pacific FACT SHEET If designed well, high-speed railway systems contribute towards: • Improved air quality and lower greenhouse gas emissions4 Intercity high-speed railway systems • Economic growth and increased employment Challenges to using high-speed railway High-speed railway explained • Estimating annual ridership during feasibility stage analysis (and thus returns, including greenhouse gas Definitions of a high-speed railway system vary, but a common one is a rail system designed for maximum train reduction) can be difficult, especially when developments in other transportation modes (air and auto speeds that exceed 200 km per hour for upgraded tracks and 250 km per hour for new tracks. High-speed rail is mobile) are uncertain generally used for intercity transport rather than urban transport. • High investment costs for buying the needed land and building the lines and trains • Long period of construction time and for reaping payback Performance, evaluated Limitations Capacity Approximately 1,000 persons per vehicle. Double-decker trains • High-speed rail lines, once built, are very inflexible. Corridors to be developed must be heavily studied to increase the capacity but also increase drag, and thus increase the determine if the return is likely to be eco-efficient. amount of energy needed. • Increasing train speed requires considerably more electricity. If power is sourced from polluting technologies and/or if load factors are low, high-speed rail can actually exacerbate rather than mitigate Geographical range There is no limit in expanding the line, as long as the demand is high. Generally, high-speed rail can compete with airplane trips of greenhouse gas emissions.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Capitol Corridor Performance Report
    Capito l Co rr idor Performance Rep ort THE CAPITO L CORRIDO R JOIN T POWER S AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fiscal Year 2009 was a year of mixed results for the Capitol Corridor. The challenging economic climate affected all sectors of the travel and transportation industry, including intercity passenger rail. Although our performance in FY 2009 was not as strong as FY 2008 – when high gas prices and a stronger economy drove record ridership – we continued the positive growth trend from FY 2007 and years past, and reinforced our record of prudently managing public funds to deliver a high- quality passenger rail service. In FY 2009: • Overall ridership fell 5.5%, revenue was flat, and our revenue-to-cost ratio fell to 47% primarily due to increased labor expenses and revenues that were below projections. • On-time performance reached an all-time high of 93% thanks to our capitalized maintenance program (now unfunded) and improved Union Pacific Railroad dispatching. This makes the Capitol Corridor the most reliable multi-frequency train service in the Amtrak national system. • Customer satisfaction scores continued to improve, despite poor economic conditions and extensive job losses. Over the past 11 years under CCJPA management, the Capitol Corridor’s service frequency has quadrupled, ridership and revenue have more than tripled, and our revenue-to-cost ratio improved by 56%. The CCJPA achieved these gains with very modest increases in State subsidy by constantly improving efficiency and reinvesting cost savings and revenues back into the service. Although ridership declined due to the slow economy we have continued to improve our service delivery, reliability, and customer satisfaction, which consistently tops the rankings of all Amtrak-operated services.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Area Regional Rail Plan, Chapter 7
    7.0 ALTERNATIVES DEFINITION & Fig. 7 Resolution 3434 EVALUATION — STEP-BY-STEP Step One: Base Network Healdsburg Sonoma Recognizing that Resolution 3434 represents County 8 MTC’s regional rail investment over the next 25 Santa years as adopted first in the 2001 Regional Trans- Rosa Napa portation Plan and reaffirmed in the subsequent County Vacaville 9 plan update, Resolution 3434 is included as part Napa of the “base case” network. Therefore, the study Petaluma Solano effort focuses on defining options for rail improve- County ments and expansions beyond Resolution 3434. Vallejo Resolution 3434 rail projects include: Marin County 8 9 Pittsburg 1. BART/East Contra Costa Rail (eBART) San Antioch 1 Rafael Concord Richmond 2. ACE/Increased Services Walnut Berkeley Creek MTC Resolution 3434 Contra Costa 3. BART/I-580 Rail Right-of-Way Preservation County Rail Projects Oakland 4. Dumbarton Bridge Rail Service San 1 BART: East Contra Costa Extension Francisco 10 6 3 2 ACE: Increased Service 5. BART/Fremont-Warm Springs to San Jose Daly City 2 Pleasanton Livermore 3 South Extension BART: Rail Right-of-Way Preservation San Francisco Hayward Union City 4 Dumbarton Rail Alameda 6. Caltrain/Rapid Rail/Electrification & Extension San Mateo Fremont County 5 BART: Fremont/Warm Springs 4 to Downtown San Francisco/Transbay Transit to San Jose Extension 7 Redwood City 5 Center 6 & Extension to Downtown SF/ Mountain Milpitas Transbay Transit Center View Palo Alto 7. Caltrain/Express Service 7 Caltrain: Express Service Sunnyvale Santa Clara San San Santa Clara 8 Jose 8. SMART (Sonoma-Marin Rail) SMART (Sonoma-Marin Rail) Mateo Cupertino County 9 County 9.
    [Show full text]