DOCSLIB.ORG

DIFT Preferred Alternative Report Part 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DIFT Preferred Alternative Report Part 1 Section Description Section Description Section Description Table of 1.0 Executive Summary 6.0 Intermodal Terminal Design 9.0 Road Improvements "Outside the Terminal Contents 6.1 Introduction Fence" Improvements 2.0 Introduction 6.2 Terminal Layout 9.1 Existing Roads in Livernois-Junction Area 2.1 Project Description 6.2.1 Gates 9.1.1 Central Avenue 2.2 Purpose of the Project 6.2.2 Lighting 9.1.2 Lonyo Avenue 6.2.3 Lift Equipment & Operations 9.1.3 Dix/Central Intersection 3.0 Scope of Services 6.2.4 Drainage 9.1.4 North PerimeterRoad 3.1 Rail Improvements “Inside the Terminal Fence” 6.2.5 Terminal Operations 9.1.5 Wyoming Avenue 3.2 Rail Improvements “Outside the Terminal 6.2.6 Security Issues 9.1.6 Livernois Avenue Fence” 6.2.7 Noise & Aesthetics 3.3 Road Improvements "Outside the Terminal 6.2.8 Parameters for DIFT Design 10.0 Construction Staging Fence" 10.1 Rail Improvements "Inside the TerminalFence" 7. 0 Rail Improvements "InsideInside the Terminal Fence"Fence 10. 2 Rail Improvements "OutsideOutside the Terminal Fence"Fence 4.0 Existing Conditions 7.1 Preferred Alternative 10.3 Road Improvements "Outside the Terminal 4.1 Detroit Area Railroad Operations 7.1.1 Overview Fence" 4.2 Existing Primary Intermodal Yards 7.1.2 Projected Intermodal Traffic 4.2.1 Canadian National Moterm Yard 7.1.3 Projected Manifest Traffic 11.0 Cost Estimates 4.2.2 Canadian Pacific Expressway Yard 7.1.4 Projected Passenger Traffic 4.2.3 Canadian Pacific Oak Yard 7.1.5 Livernois-Junction Yard Layout Glossary 4.2.4 Livernois-Junction Yard 4.3 Existing Support Yards 8.0 Rail Improvements "Outside the Terminal 4.3.1 Conrail Lincoln Yard Fence" 4.3.2 Conrail River Rouge Yard 8.1 Improvements at Interlockings 4.3.3 Conrail North Yard 8.1.1 Beaubien 4.3.4 CSX Rougemere Yard 8.1.2 CN Coolidge & CP YD 4.3.5 Norfolk Southern Oakwood Yard 8.1.3 CP Mill 4.3.6 Norfolk Southern Delray Yard 8.1.4 CP Waterman & Dix 4.4 Existing Interlockings 8.1.5 Delray 8.1.6 Milwaukee Junction 5.0 Existing Rail Traffic 8.1.7 Oakwood Junction 5.1 IIdintroduction 8818.1.8 Schaefer S h f 5.2 Intermodal Traffic 8.1.9 New Rotunda 5.3 Manifest Traffic 8.1.10 Vinewood 5.4 Passenger Traffic 8.1.11 West Detroit 8.1.12 Trenton 1 1.0 Executive 1.0 Executive Summary Summary Introduction Engineering Evaluation Conclusions This report outlines the engineering requirements for the During the project, a number of key issues were identified and The selected site of the Livernois-Junction Yard is owned by creation of the Preferred Alternative selected for the proposed evaluated to assess the requirements of a terminal for each of Conrail. Only the eastern end of the facility is currently uti- Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal (DIFT) at the Livernois- the railroad participants. These issues included: lized by railroad trains. The rest of the yard is mostly vacant. Junction Yard. This work was undertaken by Benesch for The Conrail, NS and CSX utilize the eastern end for manifest train Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. (Corradino) as part of the • Current intermodal traffic and predicted growth; switching and container trains. Environmental Impact Statement involving the evaluation of • Current train operations and predicted growth, including the type, size and location of intermodal facilities. passenger rail operations; The Preferred Alternative presented within this report ad- • Type of equipment being used; dresses the requirements of each of the railroads wishing to During the project, a number of alternatives were evaluated • Train lengths and train routing; utilize the consolidated intermodal facility and the issues as- and assessed with input from the Michigan Department of • Ability to move trains into and out of a terminal and the sociated with getting trains and trucks to and from it. Transportation (MDOT), public meetings, discussions with surrounding railroad infrastructure; Corradino, and the railroads. There are four Class 1 railroads • Access requirements for trucks from the Interstate system; Included in the consolidated intermodal facility at the Liv- involved: CSX, Norfolk Southern (NS), Canadian National • Local roadway impacts; ernois-Junction Yard are terminals for: 1) NS Triple Crown (CN), and Canadian Pacific Railway (CP). In addition, Conrail • Gate and security requirements; and, trains; 2) NS, CP and CSX container trains; and, 3) Conrail Joint Assets (jointly owned by CSX and NS) and Amtrak oper- • Storage requirements. manifest trains. In addition, improvements to the yard and ate on the railroads around the DIFT project area. the signalized junctions between rail corridors (interlockings) Discussions on the requirements and conclusions of these have been evaluated and improvements to remove and/or The type of intermodal operations for each of these organiza- evaluations are presented within the body of the report. reduce conflicts are presented. These not only improve the tions revolves primarily around container movements. How- operational flexibility of the Livernois-Junction Yard, but of ever, NS operates both intermodal container trains made up of These evaluations led to a number of concepts and modifica- Amtrak and CN trains which pass along the mainline tracks container well cars and flats, and Triple Crown services, which tions thereof. Through the consultation process noted earlier, that border the Livernois-Junction Yard. are bimodal truck trailers. These trailers are designed to oper- consolidation at Livernois-Junction Yard was selected as the ate as a standard road trailer and a railroad freight car. These Preferred Alternative. services utilize different equipment types and have different requirements for their facilities. Both CSX and CP now oper- ate only container train well cars and flats. Taking into consideration the factors above, and the routes that the railroads operate radiating from the Greater Detroit Area, engineering assessments to improve freight and transportation opportunities were determined. 2 1.0 Executive Summary Livernois Junction Yard Looking East Livernois Junction Yard Looking North Livernois Junction Yard Looking West 3 2.0 2.0 Introduction 2.1 Project Description Introduction The Greater Detroit Area is one of the most dynamic inter- There is a lack of sufficient intermodal capacity in the Greater modal markets in North America for a number of reasons, Detroit Area. The Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Proj- including: ect (DIFT) looks to increase intermodal capacity by enhanc- ing intermodal operations of the four Class I railroads operat- • Because of the auto industry, Detroit leads the na- ing in the State of Michigan. A Class I railroad does at least tion in its use of "RoadRailer" technology, i.e., a truck $319 million (2007 dollars) of business annually. The four trailer becomes a rail car by placing rail wheels under- Class I railroads which operate in Michigan are CSX, Norfolk neath. Southern, Canadian National, and Canadian Pacific. • One-third of Detroit’s intermodal traffic is trucked to Presently, there are five primary intermodal terminals located and from other cities. This means it travels by rail to within the Greater Detroit Area: Chicago, Toledo, or Windsor for example, and then is trucked to Detroit. Better intermodal service could • Canadian National Moterm Yard result in a diversion of some of this intermodal activ- • Canadian Pacific Oak Yard ity to Detroit because of reduced transportation costs. • Livernois-Junction Yard (Both CSX & Norfolk South- This would eliminate some trucks from Michigan’s ern operate an intermodal facility at Livernois-Junc- roads, which could reduce congestion and help ease Intermodal Train Transporting tion Yard) Single & Double Stack Containers the need for added capacity on the roadway network. • Norfolk Southern Delray Yard • Norfolk Southern Oakwood Yard (Triple Crown) • The proposed improvement of the Detroit-Windsor rail tunnel and the construction of a new Port Huron- The intermodal terminal area located behind the Michigan Sarnia rail tunnel enhance intermodal access to/from Central Depot and operated by Canadian Pacific is no longer the Detroit area. in business. Mazda has an intermodal terminal at Flat Rock in Wayne County, but it is dedicated exclusively to Mazda and not available for commercial use (Exhibit 2.1). The CN Moterm terminal in Ferndale and the private use facility operated by CN for Mazda in Flat Rock, MI. will remain. 4 2.0 2.2 Purpose of the Project Introduction The purpose of the Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Project (DIFT) is to support the economic competitiveness of southeast- ern Michigan and the state by improving freight transportation opportunities and efficiencies for business and industry. The goal is that Southeast Michigan has a facility, or facilities, with sufficient capacity to provide for existing and future intermodal demand. It is the role of government (in this case MDOT) to ensure that the businesses and industries involved in the freight transpor- tation segment of the economy continue to have access to the market (i.e., customers, workers, shippers and the like). This, in turn, supports jobs and ensures maintenance of a high quality of life for the region's citizens. MDOT's role is served by engaging in the DIFT project to improve the connectivity between modes through provision of a better interface between the public road system and the private rail system; and, to facilitate the develop- ment of significant capacity at the region's intermodal facilities. In addition, the purpose of the Detroit Intermodal Freight Ter- minal Project (DIFT) is to support America’s national defense. National defense mobilization and deployment is increasingly reliant on intermodal connectors to project U.S. military power abroad to meet the challenges of regional conflicts. Detroit is one of the top intermodal markets in the nation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • March 2007 News.Pub
    WCRA NEWS MARCH 2007 AGM FEB. 27, 2007 WESTERN RAILS SHOW MARCH 18, 2007 WCRA News, Page 2 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING NOTICE Notice is given that the Annual General Meeting of the West Coast Railway Association will be held on Tuesday, February 27 at 1930 hours at Rainbow Creek Station. The February General Meeting of the WCRA will be held at Rainbow Creek Station in Confederation Park in Burnaby following the AGM. ON THE COVER Drake Street Roundhouse, Vancouver—taken November 1981 by Micah Gampe, and donated to the 374 Pavilion by Roundhouse Dental. Visible from left to right are British Columbia power car Prince George, Steam locomotive #1077 Herb Hawkins, Royal Hudson #2860’s tender, and CP Rail S-2 #7042 coming onto the turntable. In 1981, the roundhouse will soon be vacated by the railway, and the Provincial collection will move to BC Rail at North Vancouver. The Roundhouse will become a feature pavilion at Expo 86, and then be developed into today’s Roundhouse Community Centre and 374 Pavilion. Thanks to Len Brown for facilitating the donation of the picture to the Pavilion. MARCH CALENDAR • West Coast Railway Heritage Park Open daily 1000 through 1700k • Wednesday, March 7—deadline for items for the April 2007 WCRA News • Saturday, March 17 through Sunday, March 25—Spring Break Week celebrations at the Heritage Park, 1000—1700 daily • Tuesday, March 20—Tours Committee Meeting • Tuesday, March 27, 2007—WCRA General Meeting, Rainbow Creek Station in Confederation Park, Burnaby, 1930 hours. The West Coast Railway Association is an historical group dedicated to the preservation of British Columbia railway history.
    [Show full text]
  • Amtrak's Rights and Relationships with Host Railroads
    Amtrak’s Rights and Relationships with Host Railroads September 21, 2017 Jim Blair –Director Host Railroads Today’s Amtrak System 2| Amtrak Amtrak’s Services • Northeast Corridor (NEC) • 457 miles • Washington‐New York‐Boston Northeast Corridor • 11.9 million riders in FY16 • Long Distance (LD) services • 15 routes • Up to 2,438 miles in length Long • 4.65 million riders in FY16 Distance • State‐supported trains • 29 routes • 19 partner states • Up to 750 miles in length State- • 14.7 million riders in FY16 supported3| Amtrak Amtrak’s Host Railroads Amtrak Route System Track Ownership Excluding Terminal Railroads VANCOUVER SEATTLE Spokane ! MONTREAL PORTLAND ST. PAUL / MINNEAPOLIS Operated ! St. Albans by VIA Rail NECR MDOT TORONTO VTR Rutland ! Port Huron Niagara Falls ! Brunswick Grand Rapids ! ! ! Pan Am MILWAUKEE ! Pontiac Hoffmans Metra Albany ! BOSTON ! CHICAGO ! Springfield Conrail Metro- ! CLEVELAND MBTA SALT LAKE CITY North PITTSBURGH ! ! NEW YORK ! INDIANAPOLIS Harrisburg ! KANSAS CITY ! PHILADELPHIA DENVER ! ! BALTIMORE SACRAMENTO Charlottesville WASHINGTON ST. LOUIS ! Richmond OAKLAND ! Petersburg ! Buckingham ! Newport News Norfolk NMRX Branch ! Oklahoma City ! Bakersfield ! MEMPHIS SCRRA ALBUQUERQUE ! ! LOS ANGELES ATLANTA SCRRA / BNSF / SDN DALLAS ! FT. WORTH SAN DIEGO HOUSTON ! JACKSONVILLE ! NEW ORLEANS SAN ANTONIO Railroads TAMPA! Amtrak (incl. Leased) Norfolk Southern FDOT ! MIAMI Union Pacific Canadian Pacific BNSF Canadian National CSXT Other Railroads 4| Amtrak Amtrak’s Host Railroads ! MONTREAL Amtrak NEC Route System
    [Show full text]
  • C) Rail Transport
    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT WORKING DOCUMENT LOGISTICS SYSTEMS IN COMBINED TRANSPORT 3743 EN 1-1998 This publication is available in the following languages: FR EN PUBLISHER: European Parliament Directorate-General for Research L-2929 Luxembourg AUTHOR: Ineco - Madrid SUPERVISOR: Franco Piodi Economic Affairs Division Tel.: (00352) 4300-24457 Fax : (00352) 434071 The views expressed in this document are those of the author.and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation are authorized, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is informed in advance and forwarded a copy. Manuscript completed in November 1997. Logistics systems in combined transport CONTENTS Page Chapter I INTRODUCTION ........................................... 1 Chapter I1 INFRASTRUCTURES FOR COMBINED TRANSPORT ........... 6 1. The European transport networks .............................. 6 2 . European Agreement on Important International Combined Transport Lines and related installations (AGTC) ................ 14 3 . Nodal infrastructures ....................................... 25 a) Freight villages ......................................... 25 b) Ports and port terminals ................................... 33 c) Rail/port and roadrail terminals ............................ 37 Chapter I11 COMBINED TRANSPORT TECHNIQUES AND PROBLEMS ARISING FROM THE DIMENSIONS OF INTERMODAL UNITS . 56 1. Definitions and characteristics of combined transport techniques .... 56 2 . Technical
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation on the Minneapolis Riverfront
    RAPIDS, REINS, RAILS: TRANSPORTATION ON THE MINNEAPOLIS RIVERFRONT Mississippi River near Stone Arch Bridge, July 1, 1925 Minnesota Historical Society Collections Prepared by Prepared for The Saint Anthony Falls Marjorie Pearson, Ph.D. Heritage Board Principal Investigator Minnesota Historical Society Penny A. Petersen 704 South Second Street Researcher Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Hess, Roise and Company 100 North First Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 May 2009 612-338-1987 Table of Contents PROJECT BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 1 RAPID, REINS, RAILS: A SUMMARY OF RIVERFRONT TRANSPORTATION ......................................... 3 THE RAPIDS: WATER TRANSPORTATION BY SAINT ANTHONY FALLS .............................................. 8 THE REINS: ANIMAL-POWERED TRANSPORTATION BY SAINT ANTHONY FALLS ............................ 25 THE RAILS: RAILROADS BY SAINT ANTHONY FALLS ..................................................................... 42 The Early Period of Railroads—1850 to 1880 ......................................................................... 42 The First Railroad: the Saint Paul and Pacific ...................................................................... 44 Minnesota Central, later the Chicago, Milwaukee and Saint Paul Railroad (CM and StP), also called The Milwaukee Road .......................................................................................... 55 Minneapolis and Saint Louis Railway .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Transcontinental Railways and Canadian Nationalism Introduction Historiography
    ©2001 Chinook Multimedia Inc. Page 1 of 22 Transcontinental Railways and Canadian Nationalism A.A. den Otter ©2001 Chinook Multimedia Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution is strictly prohibited. Introduction The Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) has always been a symbol of Canada's nation-building experience. Poets, musicians, politicians, historians, and writers have lauded the railway as one of the country's greatest achievements. Indeed, the transcontinental railway was a remarkable accomplishment: its managers, engineers, and workers overcame incredible obstacles to throw the iron track across seemingly impenetrable bogs and forests, expansive prairies, and nearly impassable mountains. The cost in money, human energy, and lives was enormous. Completed in 1885, the CPR was one of the most important instruments by which fledgling Canada realized a vision implicit in the Confederation agreement of 1867-the building of a nation from sea to sea. In the fulfilment of this dream, the CPR, and subsequently the Canadian Northern and Grand Trunk systems, allowed the easy interchange of people, ideas, and goods across a vast continent; they permitted the settlement of the Western interior and the Pacific coast; and they facilitated the integration of Atlantic Canada with the nation's heartland. In sum, by expediting commercial, political, and cultural intercourse among Canada's diverse regions, the transcontinentals in general, and the CPR in particular, strengthened the nation. Historiography The first scholarly historical analysis of the Canadian Pacific Railway was Harold Innis's A History of the Canadian Pacific Railway. In his daunting account of contracts, passenger traffic, freight rates, and profits, he drew some sweeping conclusions.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Railroad Retirement Board
    FOM1 315 315.1 Supplemental Annuity Background 315.1.1 General In 1966 the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) began paying supplemental annuities, in addition to regular age and service annuities, to railroad employees who met certain criteria. At that time, eligibility for the supplemental annuity was limited to those employees who were age 65 or older with 25 or more years of railroad service and who were first awarded regular retirement annuities after June 30, 1966. The Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (RRA) extended supplemental annuity eligibility to those employees who were age 60 or older with 30 or more years of service and who were first awarded regular age and service annuities after June 30, 1974. The 1981 Amendments to the RRA began phasing out the supplemental annuity by adding the requirement that the employee must have at least one month of creditable railroad service before October 1, 1981 to be eligible for the supplemental annuity. Therefore, a supplemental annuity is not payable to an employee who does not have at least one month of service before October 1, 1981, even if they meet all other age and service requirements. 315.1.2 Earliest Supplemental Annuity Eligibility Dates Under 1937 and 1974 Acts A. Earliest Eligibility Dates The date an age and service annuity or disability annuity is awarded is the voucher date of the award, i.e., the date the award is processed for payment. Beginning in 1966, the employee’s age and service annuity had to be vouchered after June 1966 for them to be eligible for a supplemental annuity at age 65 with at least 25 years of service.
    [Show full text]
  • Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study
    Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study PHASE I REPORT Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TT AA BB LL EE OO FF CC OO NN TT EE NN TT SS Section 1 – Data Collection & Application 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Purpose 1.3 Overview of Data Required 1.4 Application Section 2 – Peer Group Analysis 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Purpose 2.3 Overview of Peer Group Analysis 2.4 Conclusion Section 3 – Institutional Issues 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Purpose 3.3 Overview of Institutional Issues A. Organizational Issues B. Process Issues C. Implementation Issues 3.4 Summary Institutional Recommendations Appendix • DDMA Rail Study – Peer Property Reference List Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TOC-1 List of Tables Table 1-1 Data Application Table 2-1 Peer Group Data Table 3-1 Procurement of Services Table 3-2 Virginia Railway Express Insurance Table 3-3 Commuter Rail Systems and Sponsors Table 3-4 Funding Sources Table 3-5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Existing Agencies as Sponsor of Proposed Rail Passenger Service List of Figures Figure 3-1 Risk, Liability and Insurance of Railroad Operations Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TOC-2 1 DD AA TT AA CC OO LL LL EE CC TT II OO NN && AA PP PP LL II CC AA TT II OO NN 1.1 INTRODUCTION The usefulness of virtually any study is directly related to the quality of the input or source material available. This is certainly true for the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study.
    [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]
  • Pa-Railroad-Shops-Works.Pdf
    [)-/ a special history study pennsylvania railroad shops and works altoona, pennsylvania f;/~: ltmen~on IndvJ·h·;4 I lferifa5e fJr4Je~i Pl.EASE RETURNTO: TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER DENVER SERVICE CE~TER NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ~ CROFIL -·::1 a special history study pennsylvania railroad shops and works altoona, pennsylvania by John C. Paige may 1989 AMERICA'S INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE PROJECT UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR I NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ~ CONTENTS Acknowledgements v Chapter 1 : History of the Altoona Railroad Shops 1. The Allegheny Mountains Prior to the Coming of the Pennsylvania Railroad 1 2. The Creation and Coming of the Pennsylvania Railroad 3 3. The Selection of the Townsite of Altoona 4 4. The First Pennsylvania Railroad Shops 5 5. The Development of the Altoona Railroad Shops Prior to the Civil War 7 6. The Impact of the Civil War on the Altoona Railroad Shops 9 7. The Altoona Railroad Shops After the Civil War 12 8. The Construction of the Juniata Shops 18 9. The Early 1900s and the Railroad Shops Expansion 22 1O. The Railroad Shops During and After World War I 24 11. The Impact of the Great Depression on the Railroad Shops 28 12. The Railroad Shops During World War II 33 13. Changes After World War II 35 14. The Elimination of the Older Railroad Shop Buildings in the 1960s and After 37 Chapter 2: The Products of the Altoona Railroad Shops 41 1. Railroad Cars and Iron Products from 1850 Until 1952 41 2. Locomotives from the 1860s Until the 1980s 52 3. Specialty Items 65 4.
    [Show full text]
  • 2004 Freight Rail Component of the Florida Rail Plan
    final report 2004 Freight Rail Component of the Florida Rail Plan prepared for Florida Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4445 Willard Avenue, Suite 300 Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815 with Charles River Associates June 2005 final report 2004 Freight Rail Component of the Florida Rail Plan prepared for Florida Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4445 Willard Avenue, Suite 300 Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815 with Charles River Associates Inc. June 2005 2004 Freight Rail Component of the Florida Rail Plan Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. ES-1 Purpose........................................................................................................................... ES-1 Florida’s Rail System.................................................................................................... ES-2 Freight Rail and the Florida Economy ....................................................................... ES-7 Trends and Issues.......................................................................................................... ES-15 Future Rail Investment Needs .................................................................................... ES-17 Strategies and Funding Opportunities ...................................................................... ES-19 Recommendations........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Michigan Passenger Welcomes Submissions on Passenger Rail Vacant Issues for Publication
    Th e Michigan Passenger Your Source For Passenger Rail News Since 1973 Spring 2012 Volume 39, Number 2 Study looks for speed savings between Detroit and Chicago By Larry Sobczak Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and cials, an important focus of the The U.S. Department of the Norfolk Southern Railway study will be reducing conges- Transportation (USDOT) is un- will contribute $200,000 each. tion by linking a double track Michigan Association dertaking a new $4 million study “This is an important part- passenger main to the 110 mph of Railroad Passengers to reduce passenger and freight nership in our efforts to reinvent service at Porter. The study will www.marp.org rail congestion between De- Michigan, specifi cally creating build on progress Michigan has troit and Chicago along the high an accelerated rail connection already made by achieving 110 speed rail corridor. between Detroit and Chicago for mph service from Porter to Ka- WHAT’S lamazoo. The USDOT announced both citizens and businesses,” INSIDE May 4 that it will contribute $3.2 said Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder. “This is an important step million towards the study while According to USDOT offi - (See STUDY, page 8) Passengers head “south of the border” See Page 3 Meeting highlights See Page 4 Rewarding Amtrak adventure See Page 5 Celebrate National Train Day See Page 6 Grade crossing crashes discussed See Page 7 Amtrak and Canadian National trains meet in the city of Detroit. This is one of three areas in Michigan Recall targets transit that Amtrak claims it is delayed by the freight train operator.
    [Show full text]
  • (Amtrak) PTC Implementation Plan Revised July 16, 2010
    National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) PTC Implementation Plan Revised July 16, 2010 Revision2.0 Submitted in fulfillment of 49 CFR Part 236, Subpart I, § 236.1011 Revision History AmtrakPTCIP.doc Date Revision Description Author 4/12/10 0.1 Release for internal comments E. K. Holt 4/16/10 1.0 Release to FRA E. K. Holt Revised per FRA comments of 6/18/10 E. K. Holt PTCIP, Appendix A and Appendix B 7/16/10 2.0 revised i PTC Implementation Plan Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Amtrak Background.................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Overview of Amtrak Operations......................................................................... 6 1.2.1 Northeast Corridor ...................................................................................... 7 1.2.2 Northeast Corridor Feeder Lines ................................................................ 8 1.2.2.1 Keystone Corridor (Harrisburg Line) ......................................................... 8 1.2.2.2 Empire Connection ..................................................................................... 8 1.2.2.3 Springfield Line .......................................................................................... 9 1.2.3 The Michigan Line.......................................................................................... 9 1.2.4 Chicago Terminal.......................................................................................
    [Show full text]