DOCSLIB.ORG

October 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
October 2017 May 2017 Error! No text of specified style in document. fff October 2017 September 2016 E r r o r ! No text of specified style in document. | i Indiana State Rail Plan Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ S-1 S.1 PURPOSE OF THE INDIANA STATE RAIL PLAN .................................................................................................. S-1 S.2 VISION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................. S-1 S.3 INDIANA RAIL NETWORK ............................................................................................................................ S-3 S.4 PASSENGER RAIL ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES, PROPOSED INVESTMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS ................................... S-7 S.5 SAFETY/CROSSING ISSUES, PROPOSED INVESTMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................... S-9 S.6 FREIGHT RAIL ISSUES, PROPOSED INVESTMENTS, AND IMPROVEMENTS .............................................................. S-9 S.7 RAIL SERVICE AND INVESTMENT PROGRAM ................................................................................................ S-12 1 THE ROLE OF RAIL IN STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION (OVERVIEW) ................................................ 1 1.1 PURPOSE AND CONTENT .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM GOALS ............................................................................................... 2 1.3 ROLE OF FREIGHT RAIL IN THE INDIANA TRANSPORTATION NETWORK .................................................................... 3 1.4 FREIGHT RAIL SERVICES, INITIATIVES, AND PLANS ............................................................................................ 4 1.4.1 Federally Funded ................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.4.2 State Funded ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.4.3 Privately Funded .................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.5 ROLE OF PASSENGER RAIL IN INDIANA TRANSPORTATION NETWORK ..................................................................... 6 1.6 PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES, INITIATIVES AND PLANS ......................................................................................... 8 1.6.1 Passenger Rail Services ........................................................................................................................................ 8 1.6.2 Intercity Passenger Rail Initiatives and Plans ...................................................................................................... 8 1.6.3 Commuter Rail Initiatives and Plans .................................................................................................................... 9 1.7 INSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OF RAIL IN INDIANA ............................................................................. 9 1.7.1 INDOT’s Legislative Rail Authority and Organization ........................................................................................... 9 1.7.2 Institutional Governance Structure of Rail Programs beyond INDOT ...............................................................12 1.8 PUBLIC FUNDING AND FINANCING OF RAIL PROJECTS ...................................................................................... 13 1.8.1 State Rail Funding in Indiana .............................................................................................................................14 1.8.2 Federal Funding Sources ....................................................................................................................................16 1.8.3 Federal Financing Programs ...............................................................................................................................20 1.8.4 Local Funding of Rail Projects ............................................................................................................................22 1.8.5 Alternate Funding and Financing Options .........................................................................................................22 1.8.6 Uncertainty in Rail Funding and Financing ........................................................................................................24 2 THE STATE’S EXISTING RAIL SYSTEM ............................................................................................25 2.1 DESCRIPTION AND INVENTORY .................................................................................................................... 25 2.1.1 Capacity and Usage of Rail Lines in Indiana .....................................................................................................25 2.1.2 Height and Weight Capacity of Rail Lines in Indiana ........................................................................................30 2.1.3 Railroad Companies in Indiana ..........................................................................................................................32 2.1.4 Strategic Rail Corridor Network ..........................................................................................................................37 2.1.5 Inactive and Abandoned Rail Lines in Indiana ..................................................................................................38 2.2 FREIGHT MULTIMODAL CONNECTIONS .......................................................................................................... 41 2.2.1 Intermodal Terminals ..........................................................................................................................................42 2.2.2 Automotive Terminals .........................................................................................................................................43 2.2.3 Transload Terminals ............................................................................................................................................44 2.2.4 Grain Elevators and other Agricultural Facilities ...............................................................................................44 2.2.5 Ports and Waterways ..........................................................................................................................................44 2.3 IMPACT OF FREIGHT RAIL IN INDIANA ........................................................................................................... 45 2.3.1 Congestion Mitigation .........................................................................................................................................45 2.3.2 Safety ...................................................................................................................................................................46 2.3.3 Trade and Economic Development ....................................................................................................................46 2.3.4 Environmental: Energy Use and Air Quality .......................................................................................................47 2.3.5 Land Use and Community Impacts ....................................................................................................................47 2.3.6 Preservation of Road and Bridge Infrastructure................................................................................................47 2.3.7 Case Studies ........................................................................................................................................................48 2.4 PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES IN INDIANA ........................................................................................................ 49 2.4.1 Intercity Passenger Rail ......................................................................................................................................49 2.4.2 Commuter Rail .....................................................................................................................................................53 P a g e | i Indiana State Rail Plan 2.4.3 Excursion/Tourist Railroads ...............................................................................................................................53 2.5 PASSENGER RAIL STATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 54 2.5.1 Intercity Passenger Rail Stations........................................................................................................................54 2.5.2 Commuter Rail Stations ......................................................................................................................................54 2.6 PASSENGER RAIL RIDERSHIP AND PERFORMANCE .......................................................................................... 55 2.6.1 Intercity Passenger Rail Ridership and Performance .......................................................................................55 2.6.2 Hoosier State Ridership and Performance
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reporting Marks
    Lettres d'appellation / Reporting Marks AA Ann Arbor Railroad AALX Advanced Aromatics LP AAMX ACFA Arrendadora de Carros de Ferrocarril S.A. AAPV American Association of Private RR Car Owners Inc. AAR Association of American Railroads AATX Ampacet Corporation AB Akron and Barberton Cluster Railway Company ABB Akron and Barberton Belt Railroad Company ABBX Abbott Labs ABIX Anheuser-Busch Incorporated ABL Alameda Belt Line ABOX TTX Company ABRX AB Rail Investments Incorporated ABWX Asea Brown Boveri Incorporated AC Algoma Central Railway Incorporated ACAX Honeywell International Incorporated ACBL American Commercial Barge Lines ACCX Consolidation Coal Company ACDX Honeywell International Incorporated ACEX Ace Cogeneration Company ACFX General Electric Rail Services Corporation ACGX Suburban Propane LP ACHX American Cyanamid Company ACIS Algoma Central Railway Incorporated ACIX Great Lakes Chemical Corporation ACJR Ashtabula Carson Jefferson Railroad Company ACJU American Coastal Lines Joint Venture Incorporated ACL CSX Transportation Incorporated ACLU Atlantic Container Line Limited ACLX American Car Line Company ACMX Voith Hydro Incorporated ACNU AKZO Chemie B V ACOU Associated Octel Company Limited ACPX Amoco Oil Company ACPZ American Concrete Products Company ACRX American Chrome and Chemicals Incorporated ACSU Atlantic Cargo Services AB ACSX Honeywell International Incorporated ACSZ American Carrier Equipment ACTU Associated Container Transport (Australia) Limited ACTX Honeywell International Incorporated ACUU Acugreen Limited ACWR
    [Show full text]
  • Annual List of Obligated Projects
    Annual Listing of Obligated Projects Fiscal Year - 2018 6100 Southport Road Portage, IN 46368 www.nirpc.org Annual Listing of Obligated Projects – FY 2018 Introduction The Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission (NIRPC) is a regional council of local governments serving the citizens of Lake, Porter, and LaPorte counties in Northwest Indiana. It is organized under the provisions of Indiana Code 36-7-7.6. NIRPC also serves as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for these three counties. The FAST Act (Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act) was signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2015. This act provides long term funding certainty for surface transportation infrastructure planning and investment. The act continues (from the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century- MAP 21) the requirement that Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO’s) prepare an annual list of projects in which federal funds have been obligated for in the preceding year (23 U.S.C. of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53). The Act further states that this list must be published within 90 days of the close of the preceding year. In Indiana, the fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30. This Act is intended to increase the transparency of federal government spending on transportation projects within a Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA). Lake, Porter and LaPorte Counties constitute this MPA. This report fulfills this requirement for the fiscal year 2018. The term obligation in this report is the federal government’s legal commitment to pay the federal share of a project’s eligible costs. An obligated project is one that has been authorized by the Federal Highway Agency (FHWA) or the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as meeting certain eligibility requirements for federal funds.
    [Show full text]
  • States' Support of Non-Highway Modes of Transportation
    States’ Support of Non-Highway Modes of Transportation: Investigation and Synthesis by Chuck Knowles Research Coordinator Candice Wallace Research Associate Ben Blandford Research Associate Tim Brock Research Associate Andrew Martin Research Associate Kentucky Transportation Center College of Engineering University of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky The contents of this report reflect the view of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the University of Kentucky. November 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... ..................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................ ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1: STUDY RATIONALE, OBJECTIVES, AND METHODOLOGY ............................................... 11 CHAPTER 2: AVIATION ..................................................................................................................................... 15 KENTUCKY .................................................................................................................................................... 18 ILLINOIS ........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • FLAT ROCK MASTER PLAN CITY of FLAT ROCK CITY COUNCIL Resolution 03-20-05
    MASTER PLAN 2017 CITY OF FLAT ROCK, MICHIGAN MARCH 2017 Master Plan 2017 City of Flat Rock, Michigan Prepared by: 235 East Main Street, Suite 105 Northville, Michigan 48167 Telephone: (248) 596-0920 Facsimile: (248) 596-0930 www.mcka.com RESOLUTION OF ADOPTION CITY OF FLAT ROCK MASTER PLAN CITY OF FLAT ROCK CITY COUNCIL Resolution 03-20-05 Motion by Martin Supported by Wrobel RESOLVED, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing upon the expiration of the deadline for comment by the required entities to review the proposed Master Plan on January 23, 2017, pursuant to Public Act 33 of 2008, the Michigan Planning Enabling Act, MCL 125.3801 et. seq., and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved the Master Plan by adopting a resolution by the affirmative vote of at least 2/3 of its members on February 27, 2017, and WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission has now submitted a copy of the Master Plan to the Flat Rock City Council, and WHEREAS, the City Council asserted its right to approve or reject the Master Plan by adopting Council Resolution 10-03-09, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is now requesting that the City Council approve the Master Plan as submitted; therefore be it RESOLVED, that a statement recording this approval shall be signed by the City Clerk and shall be included on the inside of the front or back cover of the Master Plan and Future Land Use Map; be it further RESOLVED, that the Secretary of the Planning Commission is hereby authorized to submit copies of the adopted Master Plan to the required entities in accordance with the law; be it further RESOLVED, that this resolution is given immediate effect.
    [Show full text]
  • Railroads in Muncie, Indiana Author Michael L. Johnston May 1, 2009
    Railroads in Muncie 1 Running Head: RAILROADS IN MUNCIE Railroads in Muncie, Indiana Author Michael L. Johnston May 1, 2009 Copyright 2009. M. L. Johnston. All rights reserved. Railroads in Muncie 2 Running Head: Railroads in Muncie Abstract Railroads in Muncie, Indiana explains the evolution of railroads in Muncie, and Delaware County, Indiana. Throughout the history of the United States, the railroad industry has been a prominent contributor to the development and growth of states and communities. Communities that did not have railroads did not develop as competitively until improvements in roads and highways gave them access to an alternative form of transportation. This manuscript provides a brief overview of the history and location of the railroads in Muncie and their importance to the growth of the community. Copyright 2009. M. L. Johnston. All rights reserved. Railroads in Muncie 3 Running Head: Railroads in Muncie Railroads in Muncie, Indiana Evolution of the U.S. Railroad Industry The U.S. railroad industry started around 1810 in the East. After the Civil War, railroad construction was rampant and often unscrupulous. Too many railroad lines were built that were under-capitalized, poorly constructed, and did not have enough current business to survive. Monopolistic and financial abuses, greed and political corruption forced government regulations on the railroads. From 1887 until 1980 the federal Interstate Commerce Commission strictly regulated economics and safety of all railroads operating in the U.S. Until 1980 the various states, also, regulated economics and safety of railroad companies within their individual state boundaries. Railroads are privately owned and the federal government considers them to be common carriers for the benefit of the public.
    [Show full text]
  • AECOM CSB SSL Feasibility Study Presentation
    South Bend Station Alternatives Feasibility Study Findings April 19, 2018 AECOM Scope for City of South Bend Four Station Locations Four Tasks 1. Chocolate Factory (SWC 1. Technical / Physical US 20 & US 31) feasibility analysis 2. Honeywell Site a. Capital Costs 3. Amtrak Station Site b. O&M Costs 4. Downtown South Bend – 2. Ridership / Schedule near Union Station analysis 3. Economic Impacts analysis a. TOD / Real Estate potential b. Economic impacts 4. Final report / presentation materials April 19, 2018 2 Alternative Station Sites April 19, 2018 3 Travel Times and Ridership Comparative Travel Times, Fastest Train to Millennium Station 140 120 115 100 82 82 82 84 84 80 60 40 20 0 Chocolate Honeywell Amtrak Downtown Proposed Current Factory Realigned Airport Airport Station Station (Alt G) April 19, 2018 5 2040 Forecasted Daily Boardings by Station Location 800 729 731 735 727 698 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Chocolate Honeywell Amtrak Downtown Proposed Factory Realigned Airport Station (Alt G) April 19, 2018 6 Capital and O&M Costs Capital Costs by SCC Category (in thousands of 2017 $) Proposed Realigned Airport Chocolate Station FTA Cost Category Factory Honeywell Amtrak Downtown (Alt G) 10 Guideway & Track Elements $7,537 $3,434 $3,552 $27,579 $4,424 20 Stations, Stops, Terminals $7,040 $7,040 $7,040 $7,040 $2,640 30 Support Facilities: Yards, Shops $776 $0 $3,559 $3,785 $0 40 Sitework & Special Conditions $5,324 $3,056 $4,115 $10,213 $3,854 50 Systems $7,636 $4,358 $5,759 $11,928 $7,949 CONSTRC SUBTOTAL (10-50) $28,312 $17,888 $24,024 $60,544 $18,866 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements $91 $200 $225 $5,400 $3,000 80 Professional Srvs.
    [Show full text]
  • It's a Great Time to Be in the Railroad Business, but If You're a Short Line That's Going to Make It, You've Got to Lear
    SHORT TAKES Caddo Valley Railroad Co. Headquarters: Glenwood, Ark. Route: 52.9 miles from Gurdon to Bird Mill, Ark. Interchange: Gurdon, with UP PREX GP16 1610 cuts through the piney woods near Gurdon, Ark. It’s a great time to be in the railroad business, but if you’re a short line that’s going to make it, you’ve got to learn how to add big-time value by Roy Blanchard riters such as Archie Robertson, Lucius road, or about 30 percent of the U.S. rail sys- Beebe, and William S. Young prepared us tem. They handle more than 12 million revenue Wfor short lines of an unhurried nature. Far units a year.* from the hustle and bustle of big-city commerce, Of the short lines operating today, 16 are these railroads went about their business in a lei- owned by Class I railroads, and they fall into two surely way. Robertson captured such lines in categories: switching and terminal railroads, and 1945’s Slow Train to Yesterday; Beebe immortal- actual short lines like the Winston-Salem South- ized them in his 1947 classic Mixed Train Daily; bound (a joint property of Norfolk Southern and and Young kept TRAINS readers informed about CSX, and a holdover from joint control of Norfolk the little roads well into the 1950s with his & Western and Atlantic Coast Line) or the Texas monthly column, “Short Lines.” Mexican (Kansas City Southern). The three best The 1980 Staggers Act [page 10], the subse- known are probably the Belt Railway of Chicago quent deregulation of railroad rates, and Wall (owned by six Class Is), probably the biggest Street have combined to end all that.
    [Show full text]
  • Chicago-South Bend-Toledo-Cleveland-Erie-Buffalo-Albany-New York Frequency Expansion Report – Discussion Draft 2 1
    Chicago-South Bend-Toledo-Cleveland-Erie-Buffalo- Albany-New York Frequency Expansion Report DISCUSSION DRAFT (Quantified Model Data Subject to Refinement) Table of Contents 1. Project Background: ................................................................................................................................ 3 2. Early Study Efforts and Initial Findings: ................................................................................................ 5 3. Background Data Collection Interviews: ................................................................................................ 6 4. Fixed-Facility Capital Cost Estimate Range Based on Existing Studies: ............................................... 7 5. Selection of Single Route for Refined Analysis and Potential “Proxy” for Other Routes: ................ 9 6. Legal Opinion on Relevant Amtrak Enabling Legislation: ................................................................... 10 7. Sample “Timetable-Format” Schedules of Four Frequency New York-Chicago Service: .............. 12 8. Order-of-Magnitude Capital Cost Estimates for Platform-Related Improvements: ............................ 14 9. Ballpark Station-by-Station Ridership Estimates: ................................................................................... 16 10. Scoping-Level Four Frequency Operating Cost and Revenue Model: .................................................. 18 11. Study Findings and Conclusions: .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ERTAC Rail Emissions Inventory Part 3: Class II and III Locomotives
    ERTAC Rail Emissions Inventory Part 3: Class II and III Locomotives Michelle Bergin, GA Environmental Protection Division Matthew Harrell, IL Environmental Protection Agency Mark Janssen, Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium Acknowledgments: Steve Sullivan, American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association David Powell, Genesee & Wyoming Inc. Dennis McGeen, Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality Lisa Higgins, Maine Dept. of Environmental Protection Laurel Driver, US EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Support Byeong Kim, GA Environmental Protection Division Introduction Air protection agencies from twenty-seven states, coordinated through the Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Committee (ERTAC) and headed by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO), identified a need to better quantify and characterize rail-related emissions inventories. Traditional locomotives utilize large diesel engines, resulting in emissions of NO x, diesel PM, hydrocarbons, greenhouse gases, and other air pollutants. These emissions are sometimes concentrated in areas exceeding National Ambient Air Quality Standards. No cohesive nationwide railroad emission estimates based on local operations are known to have been made previously. Inventory development methods for locomotive emissions estimates vary from state to state and, in general, lack the spatial or temporal resolution needed to support air quality modeling and planning 1-5. The ERTAC Rail Subcommittee (ERTAC Rail) was established with active representatives from twelve member states, three regional planning offices, and the US EPA. The subcommittee’s goals are to (1) standardize agencies’ inventory development methods through a collaborative effort, (2) improve the quality of data received and the resulting emission inventories, and (3) reduce the administrative burden on railroad companies of providing data.
    [Show full text]
  • CP's North American Rail
    2020_CP_NetworkMap_Large_Front_1.6_Final_LowRes.pdf 1 6/5/2020 8:24:47 AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Lake CP Railway Mileage Between Cities Rail Industry Index Legend Athabasca AGR Alabama & Gulf Coast Railway ETR Essex Terminal Railway MNRR Minnesota Commercial Railway TCWR Twin Cities & Western Railroad CP Average scale y y y a AMTK Amtrak EXO EXO MRL Montana Rail Link Inc TPLC Toronto Port Lands Company t t y i i er e C on C r v APD Albany Port Railroad FEC Florida East Coast Railway NBR Northern & Bergen Railroad TPW Toledo, Peoria & Western Railway t oon y o ork éal t y t r 0 100 200 300 km r er Y a n t APM Montreal Port Authority FLR Fife Lake Railway NBSR New Brunswick Southern Railway TRR Torch River Rail CP trackage, haulage and commercial rights oit ago r k tland c ding on xico w r r r uébec innipeg Fort Nelson é APNC Appanoose County Community Railroad FMR Forty Mile Railroad NCR Nipissing Central Railway UP Union Pacic e ansas hi alga ancou egina as o dmon hunder B o o Q Det E F K M Minneapolis Mon Mont N Alba Buffalo C C P R Saint John S T T V W APR Alberta Prairie Railway Excursions GEXR Goderich-Exeter Railway NECR New England Central Railroad VAEX Vale Railway CP principal shortline connections Albany 689 2622 1092 792 2636 2702 1574 3518 1517 2965 234 147 3528 412 2150 691 2272 1373 552 3253 1792 BCR The British Columbia Railway Company GFR Grand Forks Railway NJT New Jersey Transit Rail Operations VIA Via Rail A BCRY Barrie-Collingwood Railway GJR Guelph Junction Railway NLR Northern Light Rail VTR
    [Show full text]
  • 20210419 Amtrak Metrics Reporting
    NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION 30th Street Station Philadelphia, PA 19104 April 12, 2021 Mr. Michael Lestingi Director, Office of Policy and Planning Federal Railroad Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Lestingi: In accordance with the Metrics and Minimum Standards for Intercity Passenger Rail Service final rule published on November 16, 2020 (the “Final Rule”), this letter serves as Amtrak’s report to the Federal Railroad Administration that, as of April 10, 2021, Amtrak has provided the 29 host railroads over which Amtrak currently operates (listed in Appendix A) with ridership data for the prior month consistent with the Final Rule. The following data was provided to each host railroad: . the total number of passengers, by train and by day; . the station-specific number of detraining passengers, reported by host railroad whose railroad right-of-way serves the station, by train, and by day; and . the station-specific number of on-time passengers reported by host railroad whose railroad right- of-way serves the station, by train, and by day. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jim Blair Sr. Director, Host Railroads Amtrak cc: Dennis Newman Amtrak Jason Maga Amtrak Christopher Zappi Amtrak Yoel Weiss Amtrak Kristin Ferriter Federal Railroad Administration Mr. Michael Lestingi April 12, 2021 Page 2 Appendix A Host Railroads Provided with Amtrak Ridership Data Host Railroad1 Belt Railway Company of Chicago BNSF Railway Buckingham Branch Railroad
    [Show full text]
  • INDOT – INDIANA STATE RAIL PLAN Passenger Rail User Group Interview Questions
    INDOT – INDIANA STATE RAIL PLAN Passenger Rail User Group Interview Questions GENERAL INFORMATION Date of Interview: October 16, 2020 Subject Name: Indiana Passenger Rail Alliance Location: Indianapolis (Interview via webex) Subject Representative: Steven Coxhead, President QUESTIONS 1. What does your organization do? How many employees and/or members does your organization have? We’re a volunteer nonprofit organization. We reach about 1,800 people through our publications. Our mission is to persuade the state to embrace passenger rail, and expand passenger rail travel options, including city to city, intrastate, commuter, and transit services. Our focus is on promoting corridors using conventional technology with travel speeds of 80 to 100 miles per hour. That’s an easier lift, technologically and financially, than establishing bullet train-type high speed rail services. Our goal is to encourage the state to support and establish modern passenger rail systems similar to those found in other parts of the United States. Our initial focus is on reinstating the Hoosier State corridor between Indianapolis and Chicago. We don’t get involved in political campaigns. We like to publicize what’s possible and what’s happening, and get support for public policy initiatives. 2. What makes people in Indiana decide to take a passenger train instead of driving or taking a bus or something else? What conditions would be necessary to convert more trips to passenger rail trips? Highway volumes continue to grow on I-65. Whenever new lanes are added, they fill up and congest immediately. Truck traffic is heavy on I-65. The traffic continues to grow and create constraints and inconveniences for drivers.
    [Show full text]