DOCSLIB.ORG

Berkshire Flyer: Pittsfield to New York City

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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 ................................................................... 6 1.4 Existing Services .............................................................................................................. 6 1.4.1 Existing Amtrak Services ......................................................................................... 8 2 Alternatives ............................................................................................................................. 9 2.1 Potential Routes................................................................................................................ 9 2.1.1 Albany/Rensselaer Route ........................................................................................ 10 2.1.2 Schodack Subdivision Route .................................................................................. 13 2.2 Potential Services ........................................................................................................... 16 2.2.1 Option 1A- Empire Corridor Extension .................................................................. 17 2.2.2 Option 1B – Berkshire Flyer Express ..................................................................... 19 2.2.3 Option 2 – Schodack Subdivision Service .............................................................. 21 3 Capital Cost Estimates .......................................................................................................... 23 3.1 Required Capital ............................................................................................................. 23 3.1.1 Track Improvements ............................................................................................... 23 3.1.2 Station Improvements ............................................................................................. 24 3.1.3 Rolling Stock .......................................................................................................... 25 3.2 Capital Cost Estimate Summary .................................................................................... 25 4 Operating Cost Estimates ...................................................................................................... 27 4.1 Option 1A ....................................................................................................................... 27 4.2 Option 1B ....................................................................................................................... 28 4.3 Option 2 .......................................................................................................................... 28 5 Alternatives ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................ 29 5.1 Option 1A ....................................................................................................................... 29 5.2 Option 1B ....................................................................................................................... 29 3/26/2018 Berkshire Flyer: Pittsfield-New York City Feasibility Study 5.3 Option 2 .......................................................................................................................... 30 6 Fare Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 31 6.1 Existing Fares ................................................................................................................. 31 6.2 Berkshire Flyer Fares ..................................................................................................... 32 7 Market Analysis – market IDENTIFICATION AND Development .................................... 34 7.1 Travel Markets ............................................................................................................... 34 7.1.1 Berkshire County Attractions Market ..................................................................... 34 7.1.2 Second Home Market ............................................................................................. 35 7.1.3 Zero Car Households .............................................................................................. 35 7.2 Destination Transportation Options (Last Mile) ............................................................ 38 7.3 Peer Comparisons ........................................................................................................... 39 7.4 Travel Demand ............................................................................................................... 40 7.5 Amtrak Travel Model ..................................................................................................... 43 7.6 Regional Benefits ........................................................................................................... 43 7.6.1 Tourist Economy and Marketing ............................................................................ 43 7.6.2 Examples of Intercity Rail Service Marketing by Service Sponsors ...................... 45 7.6.3 Regional Market Benefits ....................................................................................... 45 8 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................. 47 8.1 Study Summary .............................................................................................................. 47 8.2 Implementation Actions ................................................................................................. 47 8.3 Next Steps ...................................................................................................................... 50 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Cape Flyer Route ............................................................................................................. 4 Figure 3: Cape Flyer Stations ......................................................................................................... 5 Figure 4: Cape Flyer Ridership ....................................................................................................... 5 Figure 5: Cape Flyer Amenities ...................................................................................................... 5 Figure 6: Albany/Rensselaer Station & Transit Center ................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 7: South view of Albany Bus Terminal ............................................................................... 8 Figure 8: Logos of Existing Amtrak Services................................................................................. 8 Figure 9: Berkshire Flyer Albany /Rensselaer Route ................................................................... 10 Figure 10: Berkshire Flyer Schodack Subdivision Route ............................................................. 13 Figure 11: Berkshire Flyer Schodack Subdivision Route – New Connection Track Aerial View 15 Figure 12: Berkshire Flyer Schodack Subdivision Route Environmental Resources ................... 16 Figure 14: Berkshire County Monthly Occupancy Rates ............................................................. 35 Figure 15: Berkshire County Second Home Owners from New York City Metropolitan Area... 36 Figure 16 Major Attractions in Berkshire County (Image Source: MassDOT) ............................ 44 3/26/2018 Berkshire Flyer: Pittsfield-New York City Feasibility Study LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Cape Flyer Schedule ......................................................................................................... 4 Table 2: Berkshire Flyer Alternatives Matrix ................................................................................. 9 Table 3: Contemplated Suggested Schedules - Option 1A ........................................................... 19 Table 4: Capital Cost Estimate Summary ..................................................................................... 25 Table 5: Option
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Master HSIPR Selection Sheet 030413 Updates.Xlsx
    FRA High‐Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program Updated 3/4/2013 Funding Selection Summary (Sorted by State Abbreviation, Funding Source, and Project Type) Funding Potential Estimated State Project Type Project Name Project Summary Source Funding* Alabama ‐ Total Funding Amount: $200,000 AL FY 2009 Planning Project New Passenger Rail Service in Alabama Completion of a feasibility study to restore intercity passenger rail service from Birmingham to Montgomery to Mobile, AL.$ 200,000 Amtrak ‐ Total Funding Amount: $449,944,000 This project will boost capacity, reliability, and speed in one of the most heavily used sections of the Northeast Corridor (NEC). The project will create a 24 mile segment of track between New Brunswick and Trenton, NJ capable of 160 mph train operations with high‐tension catenary, upgraded electric Amtrak ARRA Corridor Program NEC Power, Signal, Track, Catenary Improvements power facilities, and high‐speed rail interlockings that allow express trains to overtake and pass local trains, reducing delays that often affect this track $ 449,944,000 section. In addition, this project makes related track and interlocking investments between Trenton, NJ and Morrisville, PA and at New York Penn Station. The upgraded power facilities will reduce power failures, which are frequently experienced on this segment of the NEC. California ‐ Total Funding Amount: $4,243,143,231 This project encompasses the purchase of 15 passenger rail cars and 4 locomotives for use on the Pacific Surfliner, San Joaquin, and Capitol Corridors in California. These new cars and locomotives will be compliant with standards for equipment that can travel at speeds up to 125 mph established Next Generation Passenger Rail Equipment CA ‐ DOT ARRA Corridor Program pursuant to Section 305 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Vermont Rail Feasibility Study
    Vermont Rail Feasibility study Vermont Agency of Transportation Final Report March 1993 Submitted by LS Transit Systems, Inc. In association with R.L. Banks & Associates, Inc. Resource Systems Group, Inc. CGA Consulting Services VERMONT RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT Table of Contents Section Paae No. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Rail Services Considered Passenger Rail Feasibility Capital, Operating and Maintenance Costs Environmental lmpacts Evaluation of Options Shelburne Road Demonstration Project Synthesized Service Alternative Conclusions and Recommendations 1. INTRODUCTION Background Passenger Rail Service Freight Rail Service Policy Issues 2. PASSENGER RAIL FEASIBILITY Introduction Physical Inventory lntroduction Methodology Central Vermont Railway Washington County Railroad Vermont Railway Clarendon & Pittsford Railroad Green Mountain Railroad Operational Service Plans Commuter Service Shelbume Road Demonstration Service Amtrak Service Options Tourist Train Service Options Service Linkages Ridership/Patronage/Revenues Forecasting Rail Ridership Estimating Demand for Commuter-Type Service Estimating Demand for Inter-CiService Estimating Demand for Tourist Service Fares and Revenue Projections Ancillary Issues Economic and Environmental Impacts Short and Long-Term Facility and Rolling Stock Needs Train Control, Signaling and Communications Grade Crossings Safety Cost Estimates Capital Costs - Trackwork VERMONT RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT Table of Contents (continued) Section Paae No. Capital Costs - Train Control, Signaling and Communications .Capital Costs - Commuter Stations Capital Costs - Rolling Stock Operating and Maintenance Costs Funding Issues Shelbume Road Demonstration Project Investment in Upgrading the Core Railroad Network Action Plan Shelbume Road Demonstration Project Tourist Train Implementation Preliminary Market Plan Evaluation of Options Amtrak Connections Commuter Service Shelburne Road Demonstration Project Synthesized Service Alternative Synthesized Service Plan 3. FUTURE UTILIZATION OF RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE lntroduction .
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • No Action Alternative Report
    No Action Alternative Report April 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 2. NEC FUTURE Background ............................................................................................................................ 2 3. Approach to No Action Alternative.............................................................................................................. 4 3.1 METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTING NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS .................................................................................... 4 3.2 DISINVESTMENT SCENARIO ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 4. No Action Alternative ................................................................................................................................... 6 4.1 TRAIN SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6 4.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE RAIL PROJECTS ............................................................................................................................... 9 4.2.1 Funded Projects or Projects with Approved Funding Plans (Category 1) ............................................................. 9 4.2.2 Funded or Unfunded Mandates (Category 2) .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Berkshire Passenger Rail Station Location and Design Analysis, Draft for Public Comment—August 2014
    BERKSHIRE PASSENGER RAIL STATION LOCATION AND DESIGN ANALYSIS, DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT—AUGUST 2014 BERKSHIRE PASSENGER RAIL STATION LOCATION AND DESIGN ANALYSIS, DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT—AUGUST 2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Staff, Elected Officials, and Residents of the Berkshire Line Communities Karen Christensen and the Bring Back the Trains Campaign Bill Palmer, MassDOT Dustin Rhue, MassDOT Gary Sheppard, Berkshire Regional Transit Authority Bob Malnati, Berkshire Regional Transit Authority John R. Hanlon Jr., Housatonic Railroad Company Colin Pease, Housatonic Railroad Company Deborah Menette,Housatonic Railroad Company Berkshire Regional Planning Commission Nathaniel Karns, AICP, Executive Director Thomas Matuszko, AICP, Assistant Director Clete Kus, AICP, Transportation Manager Mark Maloy, GIS, Data and IT Manager Brian Domina, Senior Planner Patricia Mullins, Senior Planner Gwen Miller, Planner Jaclyn Pacejo, Planner BERKSHIRE PASSENGER RAIL STATION LOCATION AND DESIGN ANALYSIS Page 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This page intentionally left blank. BERKSHIRE PASSENGER RAIL STATION LOCATION AND DESIGN ANALYSIS Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary rail service. In some instances, the nearly significant challenge in locating a passen- Map 1: Locus Map The Housatonic Railroad Company (HRRC) century old historic passenger rail stations ger rail station in a downtown area was has proposed re-establishing passenger rail may meet these needs and in other instances, finding sites with sufficient room for park- service between Danbury, Connecticut and new locations may better serve them. ing. Thus, for the recommended down- Pittsfield, Massachusetts on the former town passenger rail stations a smaller To address this issue, the Berkshire Regional Berkshire Line. The passenger rail service amount of parking, compared to a regional Planning Commission (BRPC) partnered between these two locations last operated passenger rail station, will likely be availa- with HRRC to conduct this passenger rail in 1971 shortly after the Penn Central ble.
    [Show full text]
  • April 25, 2016 Volume 36 Number 4
    APRIL 25, 2016 ■■■■■■■■■■ VOLUME 36 ■■■■■■■■■ NUMBER 4 E8 #224 with the Toronto-Chicago train at Windsor, Ontario. Since discontinued. Amtrak #649, the last SDP40F built—Amtrak’s first brand-new power. Shown in Florida. E8 #4316, a one-of-a-kind paint job. Quickly-painted ex-PC unit for Amtrak’s inaugural May 1, 1971. Shown at Detroit’s station. The Semaphore David N. Clinton, Editor-in-Chief CONTRIBUTING EDITORS Southeastern Massachusetts…………………. Paul Cutler, Jr. “The Operator”………………………………… Paul Cutler III Cape Cod News………………………………….Skip Burton Boston Globe Reporter………………………. Brendan Sheehan Boston Herald Reporter……………………… Jim South Wall Street Journal Reporter....………………. Paul Bonanno, Jack Foley Rhode Island News…………………………… Tony Donatelli Empire State News…………………………… Dick Kozlowski “Amtrak News”……………………………. .. Russell Buck “The Chief’s Corner”……………………… . Fred Lockhart PRODUCTION STAFF Publication………………………………… ….. Al Taylor Al Munn Jim Ferris Web Page and photographer…………………… Joe Dumas Guest Contributors ……………………………… Savery Moore, Ron Clough …………... Rick Sutton The Semaphore is the monthly (except July) newsletter of the South Shore Model Railway Club & Museum (SSMRC) and any opinions found herein are those of the authors thereof and of the Editors and do not necessarily reflect any policies of this organization. The SSMRC, as a non-profit organization, does not endorse any position. Your comments are welcome! Please address all correspondence regarding this publication to: The Semaphore, 11 Hancock Rd., Hingham, MA 02043. ©2015 E-mail: [email protected] Club phone: 781-740-2000. Web page: www.ssmrc.org VOLUME 36 ■■■■■ NUMBER 4 ■■■■■ APRIL 2016 CLUB OFFICERS BILL OF LADING President………………….Jack Foley Vice-President…….. …..Dan Peterson Chief’s Corner.......……….3 Treasurer………………....Will Baker Contests .................….
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
    Public Document No. 12 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Report of the Attorney General for Fiscal Year 2004 July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004 PUBLICATION OF THIS DOCUMENT APPROVED BY ELLEN M. BICKELMAN, STATE PURCHASING AGENT. Publication Number CR1097-06/05-4.50−Docuprint Express THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ONE A SHBURTON PLACE THOMAS F. REILLY ATTORNEY GENERAL BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108-1698 In accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of Chapter 12 of the Massachusetts General Laws, I hereby submit the Annual Report for the Office of the Attorney General. This Annual Report covers the period from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004. Respectfully submitted, Thomas F. Reilly Attorney General TABLE OF CONTENTS ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL APPOINTMENTS ................................. i EXECUTIVE BUREAU ......................................................................................... 1 General Counsel’s Office ................................................................................... 2 Human Resource Management Office ............................................................... 4 External Affairs Office ....................................................................................... 6 Information Technology Division ...................................................................... 7 Budget Office ................................................................................................... 8 Operations Division .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Delaware & Hudson Was a Classy Railroad!
    SUMMER 2016 ■■■■■■■■■■■ VOLUME 36 ■■■■■■■■■■■■ NUMBERS 6 & 7 The Delaware & Hudson was a Classy Railroad! The Semaphore David N. Clinton, Editor-in-Chief CONTRIBUTING EDITORS Southeastern Massachusetts…………………. Paul Cutler, Jr. “The Operator”………………………………… Paul Cutler III Cape Cod News………………………………….Skip Burton Boston Globe Reporter………………………. Brendan Sheehan Boston Herald Reporter……………………… Jim South Wall Street Journal Reporter....………………. Paul Bonanno, Jack Foley Rhode Island News…………………………… Tony Donatelli Empire State News…………………………… Dick Kozlowski Amtrak News……………………………. .. Rick Sutton, Russell Buck “The Chief’s Corner”……………………… . Fred Lockhart PRODUCTION STAFF Publication………………………………… ….. Al Taylor Al Munn Jim Ferris Web Page and photographer…………………… Joe Dumas Guest Contributors ……………………………… The Semaphore is the monthly (except July) newsletter of the South Shore Model Railway Club & Museum (SSMRC) and any opinions found herein are those of the authors thereof and of the Editors and do not necessarily reflect any policies of this organization. The SSMRC, as a non-profit organization, does not endorse any position. Your comments are welcome! Please address all correspondence regarding this publication to: The Semaphore, 11 Hancock Rd., Hingham, MA 02043. ©2015 E-mail: [email protected] Club phone: 781-740-2000. Web page: www.ssmrc.org VOLUME 36 ■■■■■ NUMBERS 6 & 7 ■■■■■ JUNE-JULY 2016 CLUB OFFICERS BILL OF LADING President………………….Jack Foley Vice-President…….. …..Dan Peterson Chief’s Corner ...... …….….3 Treasurer………………....Will Baker Contests ................ ………..3 Secretary……………….....Dave Clinton Clinic……………..……….6 Chief Engineer……….. .Fred Lockhart Directors……………… ...Bill Garvey (’18) Editor’s Notes. ….……….11 ……………………….. .Bryan Miller (‘18) ……………………… ….Roger St. Peter (’17) Election Results ... ………..3 …………………………...Rick Sutton (Temp) Members .............. ……....11 Memories ............. ………..4 The Operator ........ ……….14 Potpourri .............. .……….6 On the cover: 1993 was the D&H’s Sesquicentennial Running Extra .....
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 — Background and Planning Context
    Chapter 1 1 BACKGROUND AND PLANNING CONTEXT 1 Background and Planning Context The West of the Hudson Regional Transit Access Study (WHRTAS) has been initiated by MTA Metro- North Railroad (Metro-North) in partnership with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority) and in cooperation with New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and New Jersey Transit (NJT) to improve mobility and accessibility in the West of Hudson region. Projected population and employment growth in Orange County, together with growth in ridership on Metro-North’s West of Hudson commuter service and a projected rise in Stewart International Airport (SWF) operations, necessitates the consideration of improved and expanded transit services for travelers in the region. WHRTAS evaluates alternatives for improving transit services between Central Orange County and Manhattan and access to SWF from the surrounding regions, Lower Hudson Valley and New York City. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is the lead federal agency for this study which is being conducted in accordance with FTA’s Alternatives Analysis requirements for New Starts program funds. The study also considered the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Extensive agency coordination and public outreach was implemented to obtain input and guidance throughout this study. This included the formation of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which reviewed study material, advised on technical issues, and coordinated with a broad array of elected officials, agencies, organizations, and the general public through direct communication, workshops, roundtable discussions, and open houses. WHRTAS is being conducted in two phases. Phase I is the initial Alternatives Analysis (AA) phase, which evaluates the benefits, costs, and impacts of broad range of transit alternatives with the potential to meet the project's goals and objectives and concludes with the recommendation of a short list of alternatives.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]