DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

RockyȱMountainȱRailȱAuthorityȱ DRAFT FINAL HighȱSpeedȱRailȱFeasibilityȱStudyȱ ExistingȱConditionsȱReportȱ Table of Contents Table of Contents........................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1 2 Market Analysis.......................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Demographics and Settlement Pattern of Colorado.................................................................... 8 2.3 Intercity Passenger Markets ...................................................................................................... 13 2.4 Preliminary Intercity Travel Market..........................................................................................26 2.5 Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 27 3 Technology Options ................................................................................................................28 3.1 Speed Options ........................................................................................................................... 28 3.2 Regulatory Requirements .......................................................................................................... 31 3.3 Rail Tractive Effort Capabilities................................................................................................ 33 3.4 Maglev Capabilities................................................................................................................... 37 3.5 Train Performance Acceleration and Curving........................................................................... 38 3.6 Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 43 4 Existing Conditions along theCorridor..................................................................................43 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 43 4.2 Denver to Trinidad .................................................................................................................... 45 4.3 Denver to Cheyenne .................................................................................................................. 80 4.4 I-70 Corridor: Denver Internation Airport to Grand Junction ................................................. 108 Appendices Appendix A - Detailed Rail Technology Data....................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B - Transrapid System Parameters........................................................................................ B-1 Appendix C - Calculation of Train Balancing Speed on Grade............................................................. C-1 Appendix D - Review of Ongoing Studies ............................................................................................ D-1 TEMS,ȱInc.ȱ/ȱQuandelȱConsultants,ȱLLCȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱOctoberȱ2008ȱ ii RockyȱMountainȱRailȱAuthorityȱ DRAFT FINAL HighȱSpeedȱRailȱFeasibilityȱStudyȱ ExistingȱConditionsȱReportȱ 1 Introduction Theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ thisȱ reportȱ isȱ toȱ provideȱ aȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ existingȱ conditionsȱ fromȱ aȱ market,ȱ technology,ȱandȱengineeringȱperspectiveȱforȱtheȱIȬ25,ȱIȬ70ȱandȱsecondaryȱcorridorsȱbeingȱassessedȱasȱpartȱ ofȱtheȱRockyȱMountainȱRailȱAuthorityȱHighȱSpeedȱRailȱFeasibilityȱStudy.ȱExhibitȱ1Ȭ1ȱdefinesȱtheȱprimaryȱ andȱ secondaryȱ corridors.ȱ Theȱ reportȱ assemblesȱ theȱ basicȱ dataȱ andȱ informationȱ beingȱ gatheredȱ forȱ theȱ study,ȱ andȱ providesȱ theȱ initialȱ inputȱ andȱ buildingȱ blockȱ forȱ theȱ Interactiveȱ Analysisȱ andȱ evaluationȱ assessmentsȱthatȱwillȱbeȱusedȱtoȱidentifyȱtheȱmostȱeffectiveȱroutes,ȱtechnology,ȱoperatingȱapproaches,ȱandȱ marketsȱforȱaȱhighȱspeedȱtrainȱoperation.ȱȱ Exhibitȱ1Ȭ1:ȱRMRAȱHighȱSpeedȱRailȱFeasibilityȱStudyȱCorridorsȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ TEMS,ȱInc.ȱ/ȱQuandelȱConsultants,ȱLLCȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱOctoberȱ2008ȱ 1 RockyȱMountainȱRailȱAuthorityȱȱ DRAFT FINAL HighȱSpeedȱRailȱFeasibilityȱStudyȱ ExistingȱConditionsȱReportȱ 2 Market Analysis ȱ 2.1ȱIntroductionȱȱ TheȱstateȱofȱColoradoȱrepresentsȱtheȱboundaryȱbetweenȱtwoȱofȱtheȱmostȱsignificantȱgeographicȱregionsȱofȱ theȱU.S.ȱItsȱeasternȱsideȱreflectsȱtheȱwesternȱedgeȱofȱtheȱ“greatȱplains”ȱwithȱitsȱ“seasȱofȱgrasslands,”ȱandȱ itsȱ strongȱ agriculturalȱ traditionȱ forȱ raisingȱ cattleȱ andȱ growingȱ wheat,ȱ alfalfaȱ andȱ “cash”ȱ crops.ȱ Theȱ westernȱsideȱreflectsȱtheȱeasternȱedgeȱofȱtheȱRockyȱMountainsȱorȱtheȱeasternȱmostȱfringeȱofȱtheȱ“Westernȱ Cordilleras”.ȱȱ ȱ Inȱtheȱopeningȱupȱofȱtheȱcountryȱ(state),ȱtheȱRockiesȱhadȱbeenȱaȱregionȱtoȱavoidȱwithȱwestwardȱboundȱ wagonȱtrainsȱheadingȱnorthȱorȱsouthȱonȱtheȱOregonȱandȱSantaȱFeȱtrailsȱratherȱthanȱtryingȱtoȱpenetrateȱtheȱ veryȱhighȱmountainȱrangesȱthatȱsuddenlyȱconfrontedȱtheȱwestȱboundȱwagonȱtrains.ȱSeeȱExhibitsȱ2Ȭ1ȱandȱ 2Ȭ2.ȱȱ ȱ Exhibitȱ2Ȭ1:ȱOldȱOregonȱTrailȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oregontrail_1907.jpg TEMS,ȱInc.ȱ/ȱQuandelȱConsultants,ȱLLCȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱOctoberȱ2008ȱȱ2 RockyȱMountainȱRailȱAuthorityȱ DRAFT FINAL HighȱSpeedȱRailȱFeasibilityȱStudyȱ ExistingȱConditionsȱReportȱ ȱ Exhibitȱ2Ȭ2:ȱSantaȱFeȱTrailȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Source: http://www.santafetrailresearch.com/mileagecharts/santa-fe-trail-map-00.jpgȱ ȱ TEMS,ȱInc.ȱ/ȱQuandelȱConsultants,ȱLLCȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱOctoberȱ2008ȱ 3 RockyȱMountainȱRailȱAuthorityȱ DRAFT FINAL HighȱSpeedȱRailȱFeasibilityȱStudyȱ ExistingȱConditionsȱReportȱ Evenȱwithȱtheȱadventȱofȱtheȱrailroads,ȱtheȱRockiesȱremainedȱaȱbarrierȱgivenȱtheȱsteepnessȱofȱtheȱgradientsȱ andȱtheȱnarrownessȱandȱcurvesȱofȱtheȱcanyonsȱthatȱhaveȱtoȱbeȱfollowed.ȱTheseȱsameȱproblemsȱfaceȱevenȱ theȱ modernȱ highway,ȱ andȱ theȱ ongoingȱ IȬ70ȱ PEISȱ studyȱ isȱ stillȱ confrontingȱ theseȱ issues.ȱ Itȱ isȱ onlyȱ onȱ reachingȱGlenwoodȱSpringsȱbeyondȱtheȱGlenwoodȱCanyonȱthatȱtheȱIȬ70ȱcorridorȱopensȱupȱasȱitȱfallsȱtoȱ underȱ6,000ȱfeetȱandȱfollowsȱtheȱColoradoȱRiverȱwest.ȱSeeȱExhibitȱ2Ȭ3.ȱ ȱ Exhibitȱ2Ȭ3:ȱRockyȱMountainȱProfileȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Source: TEMS, Inc. ȱ Asȱaȱresultȱofȱitsȱdifficultȱterrain,ȱtheȱRockyȱMountainȱregionȱwasȱslowȱtoȱdevelop.ȱAfterȱanȱinitialȱperiodȱ asȱ aȱ furȱ andȱ huntingȱ area,ȱ itȱ wasȱ goldȱ findsȱ thatȱ finallyȱ attractedȱ peopleȱ toȱ thisȱ mountainousȱ region.ȱ Eventually,ȱtheȱregionȱbecameȱfamousȱforȱgold,ȱsilver,ȱcopper,ȱandȱrareȱoresȱlikeȱzincȱandȱmolybdenum.ȱ Asȱaȱconsequence,ȱDenverȱandȱtheȱFrontȱRangeȱcitiesȱbecameȱaȱstagingȱcenterȱforȱminingȱactivitiesȱinȱtheȱ RockiesȱasȱnarrowȱgaugeȱrailroadsȱandȱtrailsȱwereȱbuiltȱintoȱtheȱRockies,ȱandȱasȱanȱagriculturalȱcenterȱforȱ theȱeasternȱagriculturalȱareas.ȱDenverȱbecameȱaȱtransportation,ȱwholesalingȱandȱadministrativeȱcenter.ȱByȱ 1950ȱsevenȱrailroadsȱconvergedȱonȱtheȱcityȱfromȱChicago,ȱSt.ȱLouis,ȱKansas,ȱMemphis,ȱandȱFortȱWorthȱinȱ theȱ east,ȱ andȱ fromȱ Losȱ Angelesȱ andȱ Seattleȱ onȱ theȱ Pacificȱ Coast.ȱ Seeȱ Exhibitȱ 2Ȭ4.ȱ Theseȱ railroadsȱ eventuallyȱmergedȱintoȱtheȱUPȱandȱBNSFȱrailroadsȱthatȱserveȱtheȱcityȱtoday.ȱDenverȱalsoȱbecameȱaȱmajorȱ transcontinentalȱtruckingȱcenterȱactingȱasȱaȱsubdistributionȱcenterȱforȱKansasȱCityȱandȱChicago.ȱȱ ȱ TEMS,ȱInc.ȱ/ȱQuandelȱConsultants,ȱLLCȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱOctoberȱ2008ȱ 4 RockyȱMountainȱRailȱAuthorityȱ DRAFT FINAL HighȱSpeedȱRailȱFeasibilityȱStudyȱ ExistingȱConditionsȱReportȱ ȱ Exhibitȱ2Ȭ4:ȱCityȱofȱDenver’sȱConnectivityȱtoȱMarketsȱandȱPortsȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Source: TEMS, Inc.ȱ TEMS,ȱInc.ȱ/ȱQuandelȱConsultants,ȱLLCȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱOctoberȱ2008ȱ 5 RockyȱMountainȱRailȱAuthorityȱ DRAFT FINAL HighȱSpeedȱRailȱFeasibilityȱStudyȱ ExistingȱConditionsȱReportȱ Finally,ȱsinceȱtheȱ1960’sȱtheȱmountainsȱthatȱhadȱprovidedȱsuchȱaȱbarrierȱtoȱtheȱwesternȱpartȱofȱtheȱstateȱ beganȱ toȱ developȱ asȱ aȱ significantȱ economicȱ engineȱ withȱ theȱ adventȱ ofȱ theȱ touristȱ industry.ȱ Whileȱ Coloradoȱ Springsȱ withȱ theȱ loftyȱ Pikesȱ Peaksȱ (14,000ȱ ft.),ȱ andȱ theȱ Gardenȱ ofȱ Godsȱ hasȱ longȱ beenȱ anȱ importantȱtouristȱcenter,ȱtheȱopeningȱofȱskiȱandȱsummerȱresortsȱinȱtheȱRockiesȱattractedȱaȱnewer,ȱyoungerȱ touristȱanxiousȱtoȱski,ȱmountainȱbike,ȱhike,ȱkayak,ȱfish,ȱandȱenjoyȱtheȱlocalȱenvironment.ȱȱ ȱ Todayȱtheȱtouristsȱareȱdrawnȱfromȱoutȱofȱstateȱasȱwellȱasȱfromȱinȱstate.ȱTouristsȱcomeȱfromȱCalifornia,ȱ Texas,ȱFlorida,ȱandȱNewȱYorkȱasȱwellȱasȱMidwestȱandȱwesternȱstates.ȱOverȱ28ȱmillionȱovernightȱvisitorsȱ andȱ21ȱmillionȱdayȱtrippersȱenjoyȱtheȱstate’sȱamenitiesȱeachȱyear.ȱȱSeeȱExhibitȱ2Ȭ5.ȱȱ ȱ Exhibitȱ2Ȭ5:ȱOvernightȱandȱDayȱTripsȱtoȱColoradoȱinȱ2007ȱ ȱ ȱ Total Colorado Overnight Trips (1-way) = ȱ 28.0 Million ȱ ȱ Overnight Business ȱ 4.0 Million ȱ (16%) Overnight Leisure ȱ 24.0 Million ȱ (84%) ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Total Colorado Day Trips (1-way) = 21.5 Million Denver Metro 6.1 Million (28%) Other Colorado 15.4 Million (70%) Source: Longwoods International Colorado Travel Year 2007 ȱ ȱ ȱ Ofȱtheȱ28ȱmillionȱovernightȱtrips,ȱonlyȱ33ȱpercentȱareȱbyȱColoradoȱresidents,ȱwhereasȱ81ȱpercentȱofȱtheȱ
Recommended publications
  • Mezinárodní Komparace Vysokorychlostních Tratí

    Mezinárodní Komparace Vysokorychlostních Tratí

    Masarykova univerzita Ekonomicko-správní fakulta Studijní obor: Hospodářská politika MEZINÁRODNÍ KOMPARACE VYSOKORYCHLOSTNÍCH TRATÍ International comparison of high-speed rails Diplomová práce Vedoucí diplomové práce: Autor: doc. Ing. Martin Kvizda, Ph.D. Bc. Barbora KUKLOVÁ Brno, 2018 MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA Ekonomicko-správní fakulta ZADÁNÍ DIPLOMOVÉ PRÁCE Akademický rok: 2017/2018 Studentka: Bc. Barbora Kuklová Obor: Hospodářská politika Název práce: Mezinárodní komparace vysokorychlostích tratí Název práce anglicky: International comparison of high-speed rails Cíl práce, postup a použité metody: Cíl práce: Cílem práce je komparace systémů vysokorychlostní železniční dopravy ve vybra- ných zemích, následné určení, který z modelů se nejvíce blíží zamýšlené vysoko- rychlostní dopravě v České republice, a ze srovnání plynoucí soupis doporučení pro ČR. Pracovní postup: Předmětem práce bude vymezení, kategorizace a rozčlenění vysokorychlostních tratí dle jednotlivých zemí, ze kterých budou dle zadaných kritérií vybrány ty státy, kde model vysokorychlostních tratí alespoň částečně odpovídá zamýšlenému sys- tému v ČR. Následovat bude vlastní komparace vysokorychlostních tratí v těchto vybraných státech a aplikace na český dopravní systém. Struktura práce: 1. Úvod 2. Kategorizace a členění vysokorychlostních tratí a stanovení hodnotících kritérií 3. Výběr relevantních zemí 4. Komparace systémů ve vybraných zemích 5. Vyhodnocení výsledků a aplikace na Českou republiku 6. Závěr Rozsah grafických prací: Podle pokynů vedoucího práce Rozsah práce bez příloh: 60 – 80 stran Literatura: A handbook of transport economics / edited by André de Palma ... [et al.]. Edited by André De Palma. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2011. xviii, 904. ISBN 9781847202031. Analytical studies in transport economics. Edited by Andrew F. Daughety. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. ix, 253. ISBN 9780521268103.
  • High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements of Success Part 2

    High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements of Success Part 2

    San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Faculty Publications, Urban and Regional Planning Urban and Regional Planning January 2007 High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements of Success Part 2 Allison deCerreno Shishir Mathur San Jose State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/urban_plan_pub Part of the Infrastructure Commons, Public Economics Commons, Public Policy Commons, Real Estate Commons, Transportation Commons, Urban, Community and Regional Planning Commons, Urban Studies Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Recommended Citation Allison deCerreno and Shishir Mathur. "High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements of Success Part 2" Faculty Publications, Urban and Regional Planning (2007). This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Urban and Regional Planning at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications, Urban and Regional Planning by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MTI Report 06-03 MTI HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES: IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS-PART 2 IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS-PART HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES: Funded by U.S. Department of HIGH-SPEED RAIL Transportation and California Department PROJECTS IN THE UNITED of Transportation STATES: IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS PART 2 Report 06-03 Mineta Transportation November Institute Created by 2006 Congress in 1991 MTI REPORT 06-03 HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES: IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS PART 2 November 2006 Allison L.
  • Missouri Blue Ribbon Panel on Hyperloop

    Missouri Blue Ribbon Panel on Hyperloop

    Chairman Lt. Governor Mike Kehoe Vice Chairman Andrew G. Smith Panelists Jeff Aboussie Cathy Bennett Tom Blair Travis Brown Mun Choi Tom Dempsey Rob Dixon Warren Erdman Rep. Travis Fitzwater Michael X. Gallagher Rep. Derek Grier Chris Gutierrez Rhonda Hamm-Niebruegge Mike Lally Mary Lamie Elizabeth Loboa Sen. Tony Luetkemeyer MISSOURI BLUE RIBBON Patrick McKenna Dan Mehan Joe Reagan Clint Robinson PANEL ON HYPERLOOP Sen. Caleb Rowden Greg Steinhoff Report prepared for The Honorable Elijah Haahr Tariq Taherbhai Leonard Toenjes Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives Bill Turpin Austin Walker Ryan Weber Sen. Brian Williams Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5 A National Certification Track in Missouri .................................................................................................... 8 Track Specifications ................................................................................................................................. 10 SECTION 1: International Tube Transport Center of Excellence (ITTCE) ................................................... 12 Center Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 12 Research Areas ...................................................................................................................................
  • Final Alternatives Selection Report: Identification of Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail Alternatives

    Final Alternatives Selection Report: Identification of Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail Alternatives

    Final Alternatives Selection Report: Identification of Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail Alternatives Milwaukee-Twin Cities High-Speed Rail Corridor Program Prepared for: Minnesota Department of Transportation Wisconsin Department of Transportation Prepared by: Quandel Consultants, LLC Version: October 26, 2011 Revised November 1, 2012 Alternatives Selection Report Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………...vi 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of Alternatives Selection Report .................................................................................. 1‐1 1.2 Background of Midwest Regional Rail Initiative ........................................................................ 1‐1 1.3 Background of Milwaukee‐Twin Cities High‐Speed Rail Corridor Program ............................... 1‐4 1.4 Project Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................... 1‐13 1.5 Route Alternatives Analysis ..................................................................................................... 1‐15 1.6 Public Involvement ................................................................................................................... 1‐16 1.7 Identification of Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives ............................................................ 1‐17 1.8 Technical Documentation .......................................................................................................
  • The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail Ohio Hub Study

    The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail Ohio Hub Study

    The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail Ohio Hub Study TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM & BUSINESS PLAN July 2007 Prepared for The Ohio Rail Development Commission Indiana Department of Transportation Michigan Department of Transportation New York Department of Transportation Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Prepared by: Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. In association with HNTB, Inc. The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail - Ohio Hub Study Technical Memorandum & Business Plan Table of Contents Foreword...................................................................................................................................... viii Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................................x Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................1 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 System Planning and Feasibility Goals and Objectives................................................... 1-3 1.2 Business Planning Objectives.......................................................................................... 1-4 1.3 Study Approach and Methodology .................................................................................. 1-4 1.4 Railroad Infrastructure Analysis...................................................................................... 1-5 1.5 Passenger
  • Cfs0997all2.Pdf

    Cfs0997all2.Pdf

    Acknowledgements United States Department of Transportation Secretary Federico F. Peña; Rodney E. Slater Deputy Secretary Mortimer L. Downey Federal Railroad Administration Administrator Jolene M. Molitoris Deputy Administrator Donald M. Itzkoff Associate Administrator for Railroad Development James T. McQueen Deputy Associate Administrator for Railroad Development Arrigo P. Mongini Study manager; general editor; principal writer Neil E. Moyer System benefits; financing; Alice M. Alexander Magnetic levitation John T. Harding contract administration James L. Milner Transportation analysis Bruce Goldberg Chapter 1; liability; State Gareth W. Rosenau Helen Ng opportunities Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Senior study advisor; Volpe Center project manager Ronald A. Mauri Travel demand forecasting Simon P. Prensky System concept definition Michael N. Coltman David M. Nienhaus Leonore I. Katz-Rhoads Sarah J. Lawrence* Robert P. Brodesky* Model implementation: Todd C. Green* Energy and emissions model Howard M. Eichenbaum* projections of operating results David L. Skinner implementation and investment needs *EG&G/Dynatrend Argonne National Laboratories Charles River Associates Energy and emissions model Donald M. Rote Demand model development Dan Brand development Zian Wang Thomas E. Parody Mark R. Kiefer DeLeuw, Cather & Co. and Associated Firms DeLeuw, Cather project manager Michael Holowaty Operating expense model Duncan W. Allen Ancillary activities model Steven A. LaRocco development Winn B. Frank development Richard L. Tower (Wilbur Eric C. MacDonald Smith) Charles H. Banks (R.L. Banks) Public benefits model design and Guillaume Shearin Liability Charles A. Spitulnik implementation Robert J. Zuelsdorf (Wilbur (Hopkins & Sutter) Smith) Kenneth G. Sislak (Wilbur Anne G. Reyner (Wilbur Smith) Smith) Jeffrey B. Allen Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Parsons, Brinckerhoff project manager John A.

  • Disabled Person's Protection Policy

    Disabled Person’s Protection Policy February 2011 eastcoast.co.uk Contents 1. Introduction 8. At the station and on the train 2. Our commitment to disabled customers 8.1 Assistance 8.2 Automatic ticket gates 3. East Coast services 8.3 Getting on and off the train 3.1 Where we operate 8.3.1 Ramps 8.4 Seats on trains 4. Planning your journey 8.5 Wheelchair and priority seating areas 4.1 Plan ahead 8.6 Scooters and wheelchairs 4.2 Assisted travel team 8.7 Assistance dogs 4.3 At our ticket offices 8.8 Assistance during the journey 4.4 Online 8.9 On-board announcements 4.5 National Rail Enquiries 8.10 Accessibility features of our trains 4.6 Live travel updates 9. Onward travel 5. Assistance 9.1 Interchange with other forms of 5.1 Booking Assistance transport or onward rail connections 5.2 Assistance with luggage 9.2 Assistance with onward rail 6. Getting to and from the station connections 6.1 By car 9.3 Information about other modes 6.1.1 Pick ups and drop off of transport 6.1.2 Parking 10. Service disruption 6.2 Buses 10.1 How we will assist you during 6.3 Taxis service disruption 6.4 On foot 10.2 Assistance for disabled customers 7. Buying your ticket during emergencies 7.1 The Disabled Persons Railcard 10.3 Changes to station access 7.2 Concessionary fares available without a 11. Communicating this policy Disabled Persons Railcard 7.3 Season Tickets for blind or visually 12.
  • The Benefits of Intercity Passenger Rail

    The Benefits of Intercity Passenger Rail

    THE BENEFITS OF INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL (110–54) HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JUNE 26, 2007 Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 36–685 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:27 Feb 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 P:\DOCS\36685 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia JOHN L. MICA, Florida PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon DON YOUNG, Alaska JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina Columbia JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee JERROLD NADLER, New York WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland CORRINE BROWN, Florida VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan BOB FILNER, California STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JERRY MORAN, Kansas ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California GARY G. MILLER, California LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois RICK LARSEN, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts SAM GRAVES, Missouri JULIA CARSON, Indiana BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY H.
  • 2021-2022 Transportation Legislative Agenda

    2021-2022 Transportation Legislative Agenda

    Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments 2021-2022 Transportation Legislative Agenda of the Toledo Region Transportation Legislative Agenda of the Toledo Region [2021-2022] Federal Transportation Funding Brief As the infrastructure funding gap continues to grow, prudent investments are needed now to prevent further deterioration of our streets, highways, bridges, rail and transit systems, pedestrian and bikeway systems, airports, seaports, and waterways. The public sector has a responsibility to act to improve safety, support quality of life, increase employment opportunities, and enhance economic competitiveness. The strategies and recommendations included in the Toledo Region Transportation Legislative Agenda are the consensus view of the members of the Transportation Coalition. Consultative meetings held with coalition members between July 2020 and September 2020 produced a set of legislative policy recommendations and modal policy briefs for federal, state, and local leaders. FEDERAL Priorities • After 25 years of stagnation, increase the gas tax or pursue other reforms to ensure long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. Support the ability of state and local governments to plan, fund, and construct the projects that will rebuild our infrastructure and strengthen our economy. • Prefer user taxes and fees such as the motor fuel tax and other fuels taxes, vehicle miles traveled fee, freight waybill tax, shipping container fees, impact fees, tolling, and similar strategies. Design these fees with attention to the fee per unit, the means to adjust the fee over time (such as linking to Consumer Price Index), administrative costs, and privacy safeguards. • Where appropriate, attract private capital via public-private partnerships that feature transparent agreements and accountability through tightly monitored performance standards.
  • Appendix 1 FINAL , Item 56. PDF 274 KB

    Appendix 1 FINAL , Item 56. PDF 274 KB

    BACKGROUND TO THE EAST COAST MAIN LINE AND INTERCITY EAST COAST FRANCHISE 1 The East Coast Main Line 1.1 The East Coast Main Line (ECML) is one of two high-capacity north-south trunk routes that run between Scotland and London. Whilst not formally defined, it is broadly accepted as being the rail line from Edinburgh southwards via Newcastle, York, Doncaster, and Peterborough to London Kings Cross. The mainline from Leeds to Doncaster via Wakefield Westgate (often referred to the West Riding section) is also regarded as part of the East Coast Main Line. 1.2 Whilst the route serves an important function for long-distance Anglo-Scottish inter-city passenger trains, the InterCity East Coast franchise operates fewer than half the trains on the route. It is a multi-functional railway, accommodating many other local and regional services, together with freight traffic along various parts of its length. For the City Region this includes: TransPennine Express services on the route north of York to Middlesbrough, Newcastle, and in future, Edinburgh; InterCity Cross Country services north of York to the north east and Scotland, and also south of York and Leeds towards Sheffield, the midlands and south west; open access operators: . Grand Central services between West Yorkshire, Doncaster and London; . Grand Central services between the north east, York and London . Hull Trains services between Hull, Selby, Doncaster and London. Local services between Leeds and Doncaster / Sheffield via Wakefield Westgate. 1.3 The route’s role in the “heavy-lifting” of commuter traffic into Leeds itself, and increasingly into Wakefield, Doncaster and York too, is vital to the economic success of the region, and to providing socially inclusive and sustainable access to work and education opportunities.
  • Calgary-Edmonton High Speed Rail Oliver Wyman Choice Modeling

    Calgary-Edmonton High Speed Rail Oliver Wyman Choice Modeling

    Presentation To HRTPO Steering Committee Agenda Item #2 HRTPO Strategic Campaign and Vision Plan for Passenger Rail Presentation By May 19, 2010 Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. Study Timeline TEMS, Inc. 1 Vision Plan Phase 1: Study Objectives 1. Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization – Resolution 2009-05 The Hampton Roads TPO endorses – designation of a “High-Speed Rail” corridor along the Norfolk Southern/Route 460 corridor. enhancement of the intercity passenger rail service along the CSX/I-64 corridor. 2. USDOT FRA Public/Private Partnership Potential – POSITIVE OPERATING RATIO POSITIVE COST BENEFIT RATIO TEMS, Inc. 2 Development Steps Max No. of Steps Route Infrastructure Station Speed Trains Shared Track Main Street I-64/CSXT 79 mph 2 Schedule Newport News Step 1 Enhancement (existing) Route 460/ Shared Track S tap le s M ill O n ly Norfolk 79 mph 1-3 NS Norfolk Southern Main Street I-64/CSXT 79 mph 3 Shared Track Newport News Step 2 (existing) (DEIS Route 460/ Alt 1) Norfolk 79 mph 4-6 Shared Track Main Street Southern Main Street I-64/CSXT 90 mph 4-6 Shared Track Newport News Downtown/Airport Step 3 Route 460/ Norfolk Dedicated Track Main Street 110 mph 8-12 Southern V Line B o w e rs H ill Main Street I-64/CSXT 110 mph 6-9 Dedicated Track Newport News Downtown/Airport Step 4 Route 460/ Dedicated Electric Norfolk Main Street 150 mph 12-16 Track Southern B o w e rs H ill V Line TEMS, Inc. 3 Vision Plan: Station Concept Map TEMS, Inc.
  • Organizing for Collective Development in Pluralistic Settings: Theory and Evidence from Planning the Uk’S High Speed 2 Railway

    Organizing for Collective Development in Pluralistic Settings: Theory and Evidence from Planning the Uk’S High Speed 2 Railway

    ORGANIZING FOR COLLECTIVE DEVELOPMENT IN PLURALISTIC SETTINGS: THEORY AND EVIDENCE FROM PLANNING THE UK’S HIGH SPEED 2 RAILWAY A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities 2017 Rehema Sophia Msulwa Alliance Manchester Business School TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 11 1.0. SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 20 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 22 2.0. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 22 2.1. OVERVIEW: THE MEGAPROJECT META-ORGANIZATION ................................................. 23 2.2. WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT DESIGNING ORGANIZATIONS ................................................... 25 2.2.1 THE DIVISION OF LABOUR AND INTERDEPENDENCE.............................................................. 25 2.2.2. THE INTEGRATION OF EFFORT ............................................................................................... 28 2.3. DESIGNING SELF-GOVERNING ORGANIZATIONS FOR COLLECTIVE ACTION .................. 38 2.3.1. DESIGNING ROBUST SELF-GOVERNING ORGANIZATIONS ..................................................... 40 2.4. SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................