DOCSLIB.ORG

Two-Year Report on the Northeast Corridor

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

TWO-YEAR REPORT ON THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEBRUARY 1978 TWO-YEAR REPORT MANDATE The following is an extract from Railroad Revitaliza- New York, and Washington, District of Colum- tion and Regulatory Reform (4R) Act of 1976, PL bia, operating on a 2 1/2-hour schedule, in- 94-21 0. cluding appropriate intermediate stops. Such report shall include a full and complete ac- Section 703. The Northeast Corridor Improve- counting of the need for improvements in in- ment Project shall be implemented by the Sec- tercity passenger transportation within the retary in order to achieve the following goals: Northeast Corridor and a full accounting of the public costs and benefits of improving various (1) Intercity Rail Passenger Services. modes of transportation to meet those needs. If such report shows (i) that further improve- (E) Within 2 years after the date of enact- ments are needed in intercity passenger trans- ment of this Act, the submission by the Secre- portation in the Northeast Corridor, and (ii) that tary to the Congress of a report on the financial improvements (in addition to those required by and operating results of the intercity rail pas- subparagraph (A) (i) of this paragraph) in the - senger service established under this section, rail system in such area would return the most on the rail freight service improved and main- public benefits for the public costs involved, tained pursuant to this section, and on the the Secretary shall make appropriate recom- practicability, considering engineering and fi- mendations to the Congress. Within 6 years af- nancial feasibility and market demand, of the ter the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec- establishment of regularly scheduled and de- retary shall submit an updated comprehensive pendable intercity rail passenger service be- report on the matters referred to in this subpar- tween Boston, Massachusetts, and New York, agraph. Thereafter, if it is practicable, the Sec- New York, operating on a 3-hour schedule, in- retary shall facilitate the establishment of in- cluding appropriate intermediate stops, and tercity rail passenger service in the Corridor regularly scheduled and dependable intercity which achieves the service goals specified in rail passenger service between New York, this subparagraph. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Two-Year Report on the Northeast Corridor GENERAL PERSPECTIVES (NEC) analyzes the Northeast Corridor Improve- ment Project (NECIP), a major public investment in The Federal investment in rail passenger facili- improved intercity rail passenger transportation ser- ties in the NEC is very large. It includes both a large vice between Boston, Mass., and Washington, D.C. investment in capital facilities owned by Amtrak and The report presents the results of the National Rail- a substantial commitment to Federally financed road Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) operations in commuter rail facilities owned by local transit au- the NEC in 1976 and 1977, describes the physical thorities from Boston to Washington, D.C. In addi- components supporting NECIP service goals, and tion to this huge capital investment, the Federal discusses Amtrak projections for the NEC during the Government provides millions of dollars annually in period of construction. The balance of the rsport es- operating subsidies to Amtrak for intercity rail opera- tablishes and applies a conceptual framework for tions and in Urban Mass Transportation Administra- comparing service options after NECIP completion, tion subsidies for commuter operations along the describes the social and economic implications and NEC. As for freight, the Consolidated Rail Corpora- public costs and benefits of still further improve- tion (Conrail), which operates over Amtrak NEC ments in NEC transportation beyond the NECIP, and trackage, has received Federal loans and other fi- evaluates possible rail responses to such additional nancial assistance. These massive Federal invest- transportation needs. ments are justified not only by the high-population density and ridership levels - both present and tions for NECIP. First, the completion date for por- projected - along the NEC, but also by the rail net- tions of the NEClP construction will be delayed, al- work's important economic benefits to the north- though the introduction of some service meeting the eastern region of the country. trip-time goals is still a possibility by 1981. The pro- longed NEClP construction activities will also result To protect the Federal investment in rail passen- in higher costs; however, this delay is necessary to ger and freight transportation and to guarantee the insure that the NEClP decisions do not adversely af- system's future economic performance, all these fect the other NEC users. facilities must be operated in a coordinated fashion. There must be due regard for the specialized goals and needs of each separate service, but there must COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE NEC also be a recognition of the interdependence cre- OPERATIONS AFTER NEClP COMPLETION ated by the facilities themselves. Thus, if future This report examines, at varying cost and de- transport in the NEC is to reach its full potential, in- mand levels, a range of individual options for inter- tercity, commuter, and rail freight transportation im- city passenger train service, type of equipment, and provements should be coordinated to reinforce fare structures. Since the range of some of these each other, to insure that the investments made in variables requires further definition, more detailed the NEC bring optimum benefits to the intercity trav- examination is necessary before final decisions are eler, the commuter, and the shipper. made. Nevertheless, the work performed so far pro- vides valuable indications of the significance of each This represents a considerable change in the variable studied. concept of the NECIP. Most of the constituent ele- ments, such as track work, electrification, and main- Each option, with variations, was subjected to fi- tenance facilities, are certain to be a part of the final nancial analysis based on demand forecasts, capital improvements; but there will be some changes in cost assumptions, and operating cost-estimating NEC planning that will place a greater emphasis on relationships to give a yearly surplus or deficit. A net service to users and on the resolution of potential present value calculation measured the total results conflicts between intercity, passenger, commuter, for the period until the year 2000. and freight operations. Funds for improving rail passenger service in the IMPROVEMENTS IN INTERCITY NEC are limited, and there is no assurance at this PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION time that there will be any increase in the NEC bud- The report examines the direct and indirect so- get beyond the $1.75 billion already authorized. cial, economic, and environmental costs of expand- Nevertheless, current planning will assure that the ing various modes to bring about intercity transpor- doors are not closed on future options. tation improvements. To achieve substantial completion of the NEClP Intense urban development surrounding existing by February 1981, original NEClP planning was car- airport sites, environmental and financial con- ried out under the assumption that project funding straints, and citizen opposition make significant air- would peak at slightly over $600 million in FY 1979, port expansion problematical. The same factors with the remainder of the total authorization to be would limit the development of any new airport sys- budgeted for FY 1980. In developing a detailed pro- tem. Development of new or expanded highways gram plan for FY 1979, however, it became evident would be similarly expensive and involve substantial that selected project elements, such as vehicle environmental and community impacts. Costs for maintenance facilities, signaling, train control, and constructing the 452-mile 1-95 in the NEC have aver- electrification, would substantially benefit from fur- aged $6.5 million per mile, and for sections in urban ther coordination with user agencies, including Am- areas, the costs are considerably higher. The gen- trak, Conrail, and commuter operators. Accordingly, eral public has displayed a marked resistance in re- these elements will be delayed, with FY 1979 track, cent years to building new transportationfacilities as bridge, and tunnel work proceeding on schedule, opposed to improving and fully utilizing existing facil- and grade-crossing eliminations accelerating within ities. The rail mode in the NEC offers the most po- the $455 million called for in President Carter's FY tential for improved utilization to accommodate sub- 1979 budget. This action has two additional implica- stantial increases in travel demand. The NEClP will lead to an improved rail mode 2 hours, 30 minutes, New York to Washington, D.C. within an integrated transportation system; more- Such reductions could be achieved in several ways, over, in conjunction with improved management of separately or in combination: service options alone; existing airports and highways, improved rail service additional fixed-plant investments; or tilt-body vehi- will help to alleviate the congestion, environmental cles. A financial analysis of these alternatives has degradation, and social costs associated with trans- been performed. portation. Consistent with national policies on en- ergy conservation, environmental quality, and urban The third group comprises possible items of work development, rail improvements
Recommended publications
  • GAO-02-398 Intercity Passenger Rail: Amtrak Needs to Improve Its

    GAO-02-398 Intercity Passenger Rail: Amtrak Needs to Improve Its

    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Honorable Ron Wyden GAO U.S. Senate April 2002 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Amtrak Needs to Improve Its Decisionmaking Process for Its Route and Service Proposals GAO-02-398 Contents Letter 1 Results in Brief 2 Background 3 Status of the Growth Strategy 6 Amtrak Overestimated Expected Mail and Express Revenue 7 Amtrak Encountered Substantial Difficulties in Expanding Service Over Freight Railroad Tracks 9 Conclusions 13 Recommendation for Executive Action 13 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 13 Scope and Methodology 16 Appendix I Financial Performance of Amtrak’s Routes, Fiscal Year 2001 18 Appendix II Amtrak Route Actions, January 1995 Through December 2001 20 Appendix III Planned Route and Service Actions Included in the Network Growth Strategy 22 Appendix IV Amtrak’s Process for Evaluating Route and Service Proposals 23 Amtrak’s Consideration of Operating Revenue and Direct Costs 23 Consideration of Capital Costs and Other Financial Issues 24 Appendix V Market-Based Network Analysis Models Used to Estimate Ridership, Revenues, and Costs 26 Models Used to Estimate Ridership and Revenue 26 Models Used to Estimate Costs 27 Page i GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking Appendix VI Comments from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 28 GAO’s Evaluation 37 Tables Table 1: Status of Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions, as of December 31, 2001 7 Table 2: Operating Profit (Loss), Operating Ratio, and Profit (Loss) per Passenger of Each Amtrak Route, Fiscal Year 2001, Ranked by Profit (Loss) 18 Table 3: Planned Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions 22 Figure Figure 1: Amtrak’s Route System, as of December 2001 4 Page ii GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 April 12, 2002 The Honorable Ron Wyden United States Senate Dear Senator Wyden: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is the nation’s intercity passenger rail operator.
  • RAILROAD COMMUNICATIONS Amtrak

    RAILROAD COMMUNICATIONS Amtrak

    RAILROAD COMMUNICATIONS Amtrak Amtrak Police Department (APD) Frequency Plan Freq Input Chan Use Tone 161.295 R (160.365) A Amtrak Police Dispatch 71.9 161.295 R (160.365) B Amtrak Police Dispatch 100.0 161.295 R (160.365) C Amtrak Police Dispatch 114.8 161.295 R (160.365) D Amtrak Police Dispatch 131.8 161.295 R (160.365) E Amtrak Police Dispatch 156.7 161.295 R (160.365) F Amtrak Police Dispatch 94.8 161.295 R (160.365) G Amtrak Police Dispatch 192.8 161.295 R (160.365) H Amtrak Police Dispatch 107.2 161.205 (simplex) Amtrak Police Car-to-Car Primary 146.2 160.815 (simplex) Amtrak Police Car-to-Car Secondary 146.2 160.830 R (160.215) Amtrak Police CID 123.0 173.375 Amtrak Police On-Train Use 203.5 Amtrak Police Area Repeater Locations Chan Location A Wilmington, DE B Morrisville, PA C Philadelphia, PA D Gap, PA E Paoli, PA H Race Amtrak Police 10-Codes 10-0 Emergency Broadcast 10-21 Call By Telephone 10-1 Receiving Poorly 10-22 Disregard 10-2 Receiving Well 10-24 Alarm 10-3 Priority Service 10-26 Prepare to Copy 10-4 Affirmative 10-33 Does Not Conform to Regulation 10-5 Repeat Message 10-36 Time Check 10-6 Busy 10-41 Begin Tour of Duty 10-7 Out Of Service 10-45 Accident 10-8 Back In Service 10-47 Train Protection 10-10 Vehicle/Person Check 10-48 Vandalism 10-11 Request Additional APD Units 10-49 Passenger/Patron Assist 10-12 Request Supervisor 10-50 Disorderly 10-13 Request Local Jurisdiction Police 10-77 Estimated Time of Arrival 10-14 Request Ambulance or Rescue Squad 10-82 Hostage 10-15 Request Fire Department 10-88 Bomb Threat 10-16
  • Northeast Corridor Chase, Maryland January 4, 1987

    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.
  • $21.6 Million for NYC-Boston Track Work Metroliner to Carry 200 Congressmen

    $21.6 Million for NYC-Boston Track Work Metroliner to Carry 200 Congressmen

    Volume 1, No. 10 September 1, 1974 Metroliner To Carry 200 Congressmen The largest single movement of Members of Congress will take place on the afternoon of Friday, September 6th when an Amtrak Metroliner pulls out of Washington Union Terminal b?und for Philadelphia. Already more than two hundred legislators have signified their intent to make this trip and as we go to press the list is growing. Never before has Amtrak been asked to provide transportation for so large and so distinguished a group. It has been rumored that even the President or the Vice President designate may be among those traveling on this special train. Because of the special security precautions which prevail, it will not be known until departure time whether or not the President will be aboard. All of these dignitaries have been invited to travel to Philadelphia on Amtrak by Governor a·nd Mrs. Shapp of Pennsylvania on behalf of the present Governors of the Thirteen Original States for the Bicentennial re·convening of the First Continental Congress. Two hundred years ago on Continued on page 2, col. 1 $21.6 Million For NYC-Boston Track Work On Monday, July 22, the Secretary of Transportation . approved the purchase of seven turbine powered trains for operation between New York and Boston. This release was important not only because it would bring the new French Turboliner to the east coast corridor; but because it went on to say that Amtrak planning for the northeast corridor included a "sharp reduction" in travel time for that segment "better track" and the "three and one-half hour" time frame and "improvement in the roadbed." leads to but one conclusion.
  • RCED-98-151 Intercity Passenger Rail B-279203

    RCED-98-151 Intercity Passenger Rail B-279203

    United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to Congressional Committees May 1998 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Financial Performance of Amtrak’s Routes GAO/RCED-98-151 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-279203 May 14, 1998 The Honorable Richard C. Shelby Chairman The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Transportation Committee on Appropriations United States Senate The Honorable Frank R. Wolf Chairman The Honorable Martin Olav Sabo Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives Since it began operations in 1971, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) has never been profitable and has received about $21 billion in federal subsidies for operating and capital expenses. In December 1994, at the direction of the administration, Amtrak established the goal of eliminating its need for federal operating subsidies by 2002. However, despite efforts to control expenses and improve efficiency, Amtrak has only reduced its annual net loss from $834 million in fiscal year 1994 to $762 million in fiscal year 1997, and it projects that its net loss will grow to $845 million this fiscal year.1 Amtrak remains heavily dependent on substantial federal operating and capital subsidies. Given Amtrak’s continued dependence on federal operating subsidies, the Conference Report to the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998 directed us to examine the financial (1) performance of Amtrak’s current routes, (2) implications for Amtrak of multiyear capital requirements and declining federal operating subsidies, and (3) effect on Amtrak of reforms contained in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997.
  • ACELA EXPRESS Train Time Schedule & Line Route

    ACELA EXPRESS Train Time Schedule & Line Route

    ACELA EXPRESS train time schedule & line map ACELA EXPRESS Boston South Station Amtrak View In Website Mode The ACELA EXPRESS train line (Boston South Station Amtrak) has 3 routes. For regular weekdays, their operation hours are: (1) Boston South Station Amtrak: 6:15 AM - 3:50 PM (2) New York Penn Station: 6:00 AM - 8:00 PM (3) Washington Union Station Amtrak: 7:15 AM - 8:15 PM Use the Moovit App to ƒnd the closest ACELA EXPRESS train station near you and ƒnd out when is the next ACELA EXPRESS train arriving. Direction: Boston South Station Amtrak ACELA EXPRESS train Time Schedule 14 stops Boston South Station Amtrak Route Timetable: VIEW LINE SCHEDULE Sunday 8:50 AM - 3:50 PM Monday 4:50 AM - 3:50 PM Washington Union Station Amtrak 50 Massachusetts Avenue Northeast, Washington Tuesday 6:15 AM - 3:50 PM Baltimore Penn Station Amtrak Wednesday 6:15 AM - 3:50 PM 1500 North Charles Street, Baltimore Thursday 6:15 AM - 3:50 PM Wilmington Amtrak Friday 4:50 AM - 3:50 PM South French Street, Wilmington Saturday 7:50 AM - 12:50 PM Philadelphia 30th Street Station Amtrak Metropark - Iselin Amtrak Newark Penn Station Amtrak ACELA EXPRESS train Info Raymond Plaza West, Newark Direction: Boston South Station Amtrak Stops: 14 New York Penn Station Trip Duration: 435 min 258 W 31 St, Manhattan Line Summary: Washington Union Station Amtrak, Baltimore Penn Station Amtrak, Wilmington Amtrak, Stamford Amtrak Philadelphia 30th Street Station Amtrak, Metropark - 30 Station Pl, Stamford Iselin Amtrak, Newark Penn Station Amtrak, New York Penn Station, Stamford
  • Boston-Montreal High Speed Rail Project

    Boston-Montreal High Speed Rail Project

    Boston to Montreal High- Speed Rail Planning and Feasibility Study Phase I Final Report prepared for Vermont Agency of Transportation New Hampshire Department of Transportation Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Construction prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas with Cambridge Systematics Fitzgerald and Halliday HNTB, Inc. KKO and Associates April 2003 final report Boston to Montreal High-Speed Rail Planning and Feasibility Study Phase I prepared for Vermont Agency of Transportation New Hampshire Department of Transportation Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Construction prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas with Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Fitzgerald and Halliday HNTB, Inc. KKO and Associates April 2003 Boston to Montreal High-Speed Rail Feasibility Study Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... ES-1 E.1 Background and Purpose of the Study ............................................................... ES-1 E.2 Study Overview...................................................................................................... ES-1 E.3 Ridership Analysis................................................................................................. ES-8 E.4 Government and Policy Issues............................................................................. ES-12 E.5 Conclusion..............................................................................................................
  • Amtrak Schedule Boston to New London Ct

    Amtrak Schedule Boston to New London Ct

    Amtrak Schedule Boston To New London Ct Desmund passes his riggers platitudinize unseasonably, but carvel-built Kingsly never decerebrates so peristaltically. Is Madison psychosomatic or necrological when liked some Hussite standardizing someday? Tearfully arrestive, Tabby muddies postfixes and keel percipient. Can choose between new london is the schedule to amtrak boston new london are indirect subsidiaries of texas to What distance on cheap train steams into regular bedroom a new amtrak to london to. Thank you for the great website! At the time, costs passengers significant time. Thank you again for taking the time to write such an educational article. Please change them and try again. Text messages may be transmitted automatically. Unlike in Europe with keycards for entry, Mexico, LLC. Completed by painter Thomas Sergeant La Farge, Sharon and South Attleboro, as well as the office instigator of celebratory vodka shots. Registration was successful console. Both are indirect subsidiaries of Bank of America Corporation. Others enjoy the flexibility offered by connecting journeys. You will not have to do any transfers, and always strive to get better. PDF нижче длѕ ознайомленнѕ з нашими новими умовами прокату. Each of the following pages has route information. Cons: The conductor has no humor, CT? Each train has different equipment and loading procedures that dictate what service will be offered. Visit with the Athearn team and see our latest models.
  • Elegant Report

    Elegant Report

    Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee PENNSYLVANIA STATEWIDE PASSENGER RAIL NEEDS ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 2001 Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................................................4 1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................5 1.1 Study Background........................................................................................................................................5 1.2 Study Purpose...............................................................................................................................................5 1.3 Corridors Identified .....................................................................................................................................6 2.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................................7 3.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON CANDIDATE CORRIDORS .................................................14 3.1 Existing Intercity Rail Service...................................................................................................................14 3.1.1 Keystone Corridor ................................................................................................................................14
  • RCED-85-1 AMTRAK's Northeast Corridor Trains Operate with a One

    RCED-85-1 AMTRAK's Northeast Corridor Trains Operate with a One

    wss-rRI(7Eb - Hot to be released outside the Be- T mhg m + .cept on the basis of specific d&pFo*ai LT REPORTBY THE US. General Accounting Office Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor Trains Operate With A One-Person Locomotive Crew Since January 1983, Amtrak has operated trains in the Northeast Corridor, between Boston and Washington, D.C., with only one person in the locomotive cab, the engineer. Before, most locomotive crews consisted of two persons, an engineer and a fireman. This report discusses the safety systems that monitor the alertness of Northeast Corridor engineers and assure that they operate trains within the authorized speeds, The report also discusses engineer work schedules, the safety record for Amtrak trains operating in the corridor during the period from January 1979 through June 1984, the number of injuries to trespassers and Northeast Corridor track maintenance employees since 1979, and the cost to add a second person to each Northeast Corridor locomotive cab. GAO/RCED-85-1 APRIL 18,1985 UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTINQ OFFICE WASHINOTON, D.C. 20648 RISOURCEE, COMMUNITY, AN0 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DlUltlON B-197192 The Honorable James J. Florio Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce Transportation and Tourism Committee on Energy and Commerce House of Representatives The Honorable Bruce A. Morrison House of Representatives This report answers several specific questions you asked regarding the operation of Amtrak locomotives in the Northeast Corridor with one person in the locomotive cab. As a separate effort, we are also reviewing, at your request, a study of stress among Northeast Corridor locomotive engineers. As arranged with your offices, after 2 days, we will send copies of this report to interested parties and make it available to others upon request.
  • Crystal Mall

    Crystal Mall

    CRYSTAL MALL WATERFORD, CONNECTICUT The only regional mall within a 50-mile 4 radius, Crystal Mall features department 5 store favorites and an exciting mix of specialty 5 5 stores and eateries. Its convenient location CORPORATE between I-95 and I-395 is just minutes HEADQUARTERS from some of Connecticut’s top tourist attractions, including the Foxwoods and 2 Sonalysts Studios: Media/engineering/software Mohegan Sun casinos. solutions, 400+ employees* 2 3 Waterford Group: Hospitality management group, 2,400 employees 1 CRYSTAL MALL 5 Major Retailers: JCPenney, Macy’s, Sears, Bed Bath & Beyond, OTHER Christmas Tree Shops/And That Connecticut College: 750-acre campus, GLA: 783,000 Sq. Ft. 1,900+ students Foxwoods Resort & Casino: Largest resort casino in the world, more than 4.7 million square feet* 2 Mitchell College: 68-acre campus, HOTELS 3 1,000 students* Clarion: 133 rooms, 3 suites, meeting space I-95 Mohegan Sun Casino: Second-largest casino in the U.S., 10,000-seat arena Holiday Inn: 120 rooms, 4 suites, and convention center* 5,000+ square feet of meeting space* Mystic Aquarium & Mystic Seaport: Marriott Springhill Suites: 80 suites Popular family destinations* New London Union Station: Amtrak station serves 163,000+ passengers per year 3 U.S. Coast Guard Academy: 135-year-old 1 campus, 1,000 undergraduates RETAIL CENTERS Charter Oak Commons: 23,000 square feet, Jared The Galleria Of Jewelry, Eastern Mountain Sports, Miracle Ear New London Mall: HomeGoods, ShopRite, A.C. Moore, Marshalls 3 Waterford Commons: Best Buy, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Michaels, Babies “R” Us, Panera Bread RTE.
  • Response to Public Comments

    Response to Public Comments

    RECORD OF DECISION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION NATIONAL COAST GUARD MUSEUM PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT MMI #2247-06-9 November 2014 Prepared for: State of Connecticut Department of Economic & Community Development 505 Hudson Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 Prepared by: MILONE & MACBROOM, INC. 99 Realty Drive Cheshire, Connecticut 06410 (203) 271-1773 www.miloneandmacbroom.com Copyright 2014 Milone & MacBroom, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Scoping ....................................................................................................................1 1.2 Public Review ......................................................................................................................1 2.0 RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT...............................................................................2 2.1 Summary of Comments Received .......................................................................................2 2.2 Response to Department of Energy & Environmental Protection .......................................3 2.3 Response to Department of Public Health ...........................................................................4 2.4 Response to the City of New London ..................................................................................4 2.5 Response to New London Landmarks .................................................................................6