DOCSLIB.ORG

301896 ENTERED Office of Proceedings April 5, 2021 Part Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
301896 ENTERED Office of Proceedings April 5, 2021 Part Of 301896 ENTERED BEFORE THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD Office of Proceedings DOCKET NO. FD 36496 April 5, 2021 ______________________________________________ Part of Public Record APPLICATION OF THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION UNDER 49 U.S.C. § 24308(e) – CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. AND NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION ______________________________________ CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. AND NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISMISS ___________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. .................................................................................. 1 AMTRAK’S APPLICATION DOES NOT PRESENT A RIPE DISPUTE FOR THE BOARD’S REVIEW. .......................................................................... 7 1. An RTC Study Is Essential To Understanding What Infrastructure is Needed to Support Gulf Coast Service. ............ 8 2. Amtrak, CSXT, and NSR Committed to Stakeholders To Complete the RTC Study, and Amtrak Has No Good Reason to Refuse to Do So. ....................................................................... 10 AMTRAK HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND HISTORIC REPORT WITH ITS APPLICATION ........................................... 17 AMTRAK’S REQUEST FOR AN “INTERIM” ORDER ALLOWING IT IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO CSXT AND NSR RAIL LINES SHOULD BE DENIED WITH PREJUDICE .......................................................................... 22 AMTRAK’S PROPOSED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE IS NOT APPROPRIATE. ................................................................................................ 26 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 27 EXHIBITS i ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Amtrak’s Application should be dismissed for three reasons. First, Amtrak asks the Board to rule on a dispute that is not ripe, because (1) CSX Transportation, Inc. (“CSXT”) and Norfolk Southern Railway Company1 (“NSR”) have not refused to accommodate Amtrak’s proposed service—they have simply asked Amtrak to live up to the commitments it made to complete a joint Rail Traffic Controller (“RTC”) modeling study to determine the infrastructure that will be required to support such service and (2) Amtrak lacks important state support to ensure success. Second, Amtrak asks that the Board take major federal actions with significant environmental consequences, but it fails to submit an Environmental and Historic Report as required by 49 C.F.R. Part 1105. Third, Congress did not give Amtrak any cause of action that could support its extraordinary demand for an “interim order” allowing Amtrak to enter other railroads’ lines to perform “preparations” for new service before the Board issues any decision on whether the new service will be allowed.2 Congress created an avenue, in 49 U.S.C. § 24308(e), for Amtrak to seek relief from the Board if a railroad “does not agree to provide, or allow Amtrak to provide, for the operation of additional trains over a rail line of the carrier.” But the prerequisite for a §24308(e) action is a railroad’s refusal to allow additional service. 1 While Amtrak names Norfolk Southern Corporation in its Application, Norfolk Southern Railway Company is the proper party. 2 49 U.S.C. § 24308(e)(1). Amtrak is a party to separate operating agreements with CSXT and NSR, both of which contain forum selection clauses that provide for resolution of passenger service issues before the National Arbitration Panel. CSXT and NSR have elected to waive those forum selection clauses for purposes of this proceeding only. These contracts also contain provisions setting forth standards that govern passenger service modifications and their impact on freight service. CSXT and NSR reserve the right to enforce those standards in binding arbitration. 1 Here, CSXT and NSR have not said no to Amtrak’s request. On the contrary, last year CSXT and NSR agreed with Amtrak to engage HDR Engineering, Inc. (“HDR”) to conduct a joint RTC study to determine the infrastructure needs required to accommodate the proposed Gulf Coast passenger service over the rail lines of CSXT and NSR between New Orleans, Louisiana and Mobile, Alabama (the “Gulf Coast service”). That study was nearing completion when Amtrak unilaterally decided to end it and subsequently refused to consent to CSXT and NSR completing the study at their own expense. It is fundamentally unfair for Amtrak to refuse to allow a standard impact study to be performed—one that Amtrak agreed to co-sponsor in 2020—and then assert that it is entitled to an order imposing service anyway because the freight railroads supposedly “refuse to agree.” Not only have CSXT and NSR not refused to agree to provide for Gulf Coast service—they entered into a joint operational modeling study to be completed prior to the commencement of new passenger service so that the parties can determine what infrastructure is required to support that service. For over a year, CSXT and NSR relied on Amtrak’s involvement in the study. Rather than permit completion of the study and reserve the right to challenge the study’s findings, Amtrak is now attempting to withhold this valuable information from the Board entirely. Given that this is a case of first impression under § 24308(e), it is important that the parties provide the most complete record possible to the Board. Indeed, there needs to be a rigorous operations modeling study in this first case to set the standard for future cases as Amtrak has 2 announced its plans to “connect new city pairs,” like New Orleans to Mobile, throughout the country.3 It is well settled that Amtrak’s right to use a freight carrier’s rail lines for passenger service is conditioned on the payment of reasonable compensation.4 But Amtrak appears to be trying to avoid its financial obligations by pushing for hastily conceived passenger service without adequate study. The Board may investigate a freight carrier, on its own initiative or at Amtrak’s request, for failing to achieve an 80% on-time performance (“OTP”) standard and “remit the damages awarded under [§ 24308(e)] to Amtrak.”5 And those damages “shall be used for capital or operating expenditures on the routes over which delays or failures to achieve minimum standards were the result of a rail carrier’s failure to provide preference to Amtrak over freight transportation.”6 If passenger service were ordered to begin on January 1, 2022 without the presence of sufficient infrastructure to ensure 80% OTP is attainable without unreasonably degrading rail service, CSXT and NSR (and ultimately their freight customers) could be made to subsidize the very infrastructure necessary to support the proposed Gulf Coast service. Amtrak should not be permitted to pass the buck for the full costs of its requested new service. CSXT and NSR urge Amtrak to stand by its commitment to complete the joint study. Once that study is finished, it may be that CSXT, NSR, and Amtrak do 3 Ex. J. – Statement From Amtrak CEO On President Biden’s American Jobs Plan, Amtrak Press Release (Mar. 31, 2021), https://media.amtrak.com/2021/03/ statement-from-amtrak-ceo-on-president-bidens-american-jobs-plan/. 4 The Board may order a freight railroad to make available facilities and provider services to Amtrak in exchange for “reasonable terms and compensation” and “Amtrak’s right to use the facilities or have the services provided is conditioned on payment of the compensation.” See id. § 24308(a)(2)(A)(ii), (3). 5 Id. § 24308(f)(4). 6 Id. 3 not agree on the infrastructure necessary for the new service, and that a Board decision is needed. But right now Amtrak’s Application does not satisfy the fundamental prerequisite for a § 24308(e) case—refusal by a prospective host freight railroad to “agree to provide, or allow Amtrak to provide, for the operation of additional trains.” The Board should dismiss the Application without prejudice so the parties can pursue completion of the RTC study or an equivalent study, including an engineering analysis of any infrastructure recommended by the study. A completed study and engineering analysis will enable the parties to determine whether there is actually a disagreement that requires Board review—at which time Amtrak is free to refile its Application. Amtrak’s Application is also premature because the proposed Gulf Coast service lacks important state support to be successful. The proposed Gulf Coast service will operate over less than 200 miles of track across three states: Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. At least one of these states, Alabama, has not yet committed to providing any funding for this state-supported route. Alabama has long insisted that there must be a thorough study of the impact of new Gulf Coast service on the quality of freight rail transportation in the region, in large part because of the ever growing importance of the Port of Mobile to Alabama’s economy. Amtrak’s failure to obtain the support of key stakeholders—such as the Governor of Alabama, a member of the City Council for the City of Mobile, Alabama, and the Alabama State Port Authority—further underscores why the Application is not yet ready for the Board’s review.7 A second, independent reason why Amtrak’s Application should be dismissed 7 See Letter from Governor Kay Ivey, Doc. No. 301867 (filed April 1, 2021); Letter from Mobile Councilman Joel Daves, Doc. No. 301878 (filed April 2, 2021); Letter from Alabama State Port Authority, Doc. 301883 (filed April 5, 2021); see also Letter from Senator Richard Shelby, Doc. No. 301856 (filed March 31, 2021). 4 is that
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 '10' Mile TT - J10/1 (Chapel By-Pass)
    Sett Valley Cycles is the High Peaks premier lightweight stockist 9 Union Road, New Mills, High Peak, Telephone (01663) 742 629 [email protected] Promoted for and on behalf of Cycling Time Trials under their Rules and Regulations 2011 '10' Mile TT - J10/1 (Chapel by-pass) Sunday 26th June 2011 Course HQ -Dog and Partridge Pub, Bridgemont, Whaley Bridge, High Peak, Derbyshire, SK23 7PB Event Promoter – Cian O’Leary, c/o Sett Valley Cycles, 9 Union Road, New Mills, SK22 3EL – 07594 845473 Timekeepers - Judith Soden & Tony Millington Prize List: (Prizes have been kindly donated by Sam Clark at Sett Valley Cycles) 1st - £18 plus - pair of Bio Racer Gloves 4th - £5.00 – Retro Mavic Cap 2nd - £12 plus - pair of BBB Winter Gloves 3rd - £10 plus a pair of BBB Winter Gloves Lantern Rouge – Bio Racer Cap In the interest of safety, Cycling Time Trials and the event promoters STRONGLY advise you to wear a HARD SHELL HELMET that meets with an internationally accepted standard. In accordance with Regulation 15, ALL JUNIOR competitors must wear protective HARD SHELL HELMETS. It is recommended that a working rear light, either flashing or constant is fitted to the machine in a position visible to following road users and is active whilst the machine is in use Course : J10/1 - 10 Miles Start in the lay-by on the A6 approximately 2.5 miles from the HQ heading towards Buxton. Proceed east to Boden Lane island (Chapel roundabout) Turn and retrace, heading west along the A6 to Bridgemont island (Whaley Bridge roundabout) Turn and head east back to Boden Lane island.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer 2007 TOD Sketchbook
    Central Florida Commuter Rail Summer 2007 Central Florida Commuter Rail On the Inside: page Introduction ........................................ 1 DeLand Station................................... 5 Fort Florida Station ............................ 7 Sanford Station................................... 9 Lake Mary Station ............................ 11 Longwood Station............................. 13 Altamonte Springs Station................ 15 Maitland Station............................... 17 Winter Park Station.......................... 19 Florida Hospital Station ................... 21 LYNX Central Station......................... 23 Church Street Station........................ 25 Orlando Amtrak Station ................... 27 Sand Lake Road Station................... 29 Meadow Woods Station .................... 31 Osceola Parkway Station .................. 33 Kissimmee Station............................ 35 Poinciana Station.............................. 37 The Central Florida Commuter Rail project will provide the opportunity not only to move people more efficiently, but to also build new, walkable, transit-oriented communities around some of its stations and strengthen existing communities around others. In February 2007, FDOT conducted a week long charrette process, individually meeting with the agencies and major stakeholders from DeLand each of the jurisdictions along the proposed 61-mile commuter rail corridor. These The plans and concepts included: Volusia County, Seminole County, illustrated in this report Orange County,
    [Show full text]
  • Block Roads/ Pavings 110/115 Conventional Concrete Block Paving Overlay
    The product information below is from the NBS Plus library of product clauses offered in NBS specification products. It has been created by NBS for Acheson & Glover Ltd. The clause is authored in NBS format and is intended for inclusion in project specifications. The clause can be copied and pasted into your project specification document. Please note that NBS product guidance is not a replacement for the manufacturer's literature and it is recommended that Acheson & Glover Ltd be consulted before specifying SPECIFICATION FOR SLAB/BRICK/SETT/COBBLE PAVINGS SECTION Q24/Q25 Q24 INTERLOCKING BRICK/ BLOCK ROADS/ PAVINGS 110/115 CONVENTIONAL CONCRETE BLOCK PAVING OVERLAY To be read with Preliminaries/General conditions. GENERALLY 120 UN-BOUND SUB BASE DETAIL (To be considered in event of services etc. requiring access) Granular sub-base: Highways Agency Specification for Highway Works Type 1. - Thickness: 120mm to 150mm. Base/ bedding: 3mm bedding grit or to engineers detail - Thickness: 50mm. Paving units: As detailed below 120 BOUND SUB BASE DETAIL (Pedestrian, Vehicular traffic and Services allowed for) CBM sub-base: Highways Agency Specification for Highway Works. - Thickness: 120mm to 150mm reinforced concrete slab Base/ bedding: BS 7533 recommended pure hydraulic bedding mortar which must include up to 70% crushed igneous rock, free of polymer & resin. Flexural strength 7N/mm2 - Thickness: 40mm. (can be 30mm to 70mm depending on engineer detail) Refer to Alan Smyth Consultancy 00353 86 1730156 Design Standard: BS 7533-1:2001 (Heavy Traffic) or BS 7533-2:2001 (Light Traffic) Laying Standard: BS 7533-3:2005 390 UNBOUND PAVING JOINTING MATERIAL Standard: To BS 7533-4, Kiln dried jointing material brushed to joints of paving.
    [Show full text]
  • Courtenay House 16 Esplanade Road, Pentire Headland, Newquay, Cornwall
    COURTENAY HOUSE 16 ESPLANADE ROAD, PENTIRE HEADLAND, NEWQUAY, CORNWALL COURTENAY HOUSE 16 ESPLANADE ROAD, PENTIRE HEADLAND, NEWQUAY, CORNWALL Located directly beside the internationally renowned Fistral surfing beach. A truly exceptional, contemporary coastal residence with over 5,000sq.ft. of beautifully proportioned accommodation. Commanding sensational unobstructed and unobstructable panoramic views encompassing Fistral Beach and across Fistral Bay to Towan Head and far along the north Cornish coastline to Trevose Head, a truly remarkable and everchanging vista. Having undergone a comprehensive schedule of remodelling/refurbishment, the property boasts excellent eco- credentials and includes 5 bedroomed, 5 reception roomed accommodation plus integral double garage and private gated access to its large garden plot of just over ½ an acre. One of Cornwall’s finest beachside homes. SUMMARY OF ACCOMMODATION Ground Floor: entrance hall, boot room, wc, triple aspect lounge (23’8” x 20’3”), kitchen/dining room (24’9” x 20’2”), full width balcony, music room, office, steps to lower ground floor. First Floor: landing, master bedroom with en-suite bath/shower room plus private sea facing balcony. Bedroom 2 with en-suite shower room, bedroom 3 with private sea view balcony, 4th double bedroom, family bathroom. Second Floor: bedroom (29’6” x 20’7”) with incredible apex window en-suite shower room, eaves storage cupboards. Lower Ground Floor: games room, boiler room, utility room, surfers shower room, wc. Integral double garage. Outside: electrically operated gated entrance with winding tarmacadam driveway with parking for numerous vehicles, sheltered granite sett terrace, lawned gardens and terrace, sunken trampoline. In all 0.55 of an acre.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT of INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION in Re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMEN
    USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3279 filed 03/22/19 page 1 of 354 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION ) Case No. 3:05-MD-527 RLM In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE ) (MDL 1700) SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT ) PRACTICES LITIGATION ) ) ) THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ) ) Carlene Craig, et. al. v. FedEx Case No. 3:05-cv-530 RLM ) Ground Package Systems, Inc., ) ) PROPOSED FINAL APPROVAL ORDER This matter came before the Court for hearing on March 11, 2019, to consider final approval of the proposed ERISA Class Action Settlement reached by and between Plaintiffs Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Berry, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O’Brien, Neal Bergkamp, and Dominic Lupo1 (collectively, “the Named Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and the Certified Class, and Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (“FXG”) (collectively, “the Parties”), the terms of which Settlement are set forth in the Class Action Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) attached as Exhibit A to the Joint Declaration of Co-Lead Counsel in support of Preliminary Approval of the Kansas Class Action 1 Carlene Craig withdrew as a Named Plaintiff on November 29, 2006. See MDL Doc. No. 409. Named Plaintiffs Ronald Perry and Alan Pacheco are not movants for final approval and filed an objection [MDL Doc. Nos. 3251/3261]. USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3279 filed 03/22/19 page 2 of 354 Settlement [MDL Doc. No. 3154-1]. Also before the Court is ERISA Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees and for Payment of Service Awards to the Named Plaintiffs, filed with the Court on October 19, 2018 [MDL Doc.
    [Show full text]
  • Municipal Security Disclosure
    MUNICIPAL SECURITY DISCLOSURE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2019 For the City of Miami Beach, Florida and The Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency (A Component Unit of the City of Miami Beach, Florida) MUNICIPAL SECURITY DISCLOSURE City of Miami Beach, Florida For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Prepared by: The City of Miami Beach Finance Department 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida • 33139 Tel: (305) 673 – 7466 • Fax: (305) 673 – 7795 Last updated July 13, 2020 City of Miami Beach, Florida Report of Annual Financial Information For Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 This Report of Annual Financial Information is being filed with the Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA), a service of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB). The following is a list of all outstanding bonds and other obligations for the City of Miami Beach at September 30, 2019, in accordance with provisions regarding continuing disclosure set forth in: Outstanding Bonds Original Description Resolution Resolution Commitment Amount Number Date Date $22,500,000 Gulf Breeze Fixed Rate Loan, Series 1985E No. 2001-24500 June 26, 2001 August 1, 2001 (used to repay a portion of the outstanding principal from the Sunshine State Loan and renovation and improvement of two City owned golf courses and their related facilities), (“2001 Gulf Breeze Loan”) $62,465,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2003 (used No. 2003-25240 June 11, 2003 July 22, 2003 to improve neighborhood infrastructure in the City, consisting of streetscape and traffic calming measures, shoreline stabilization, Fire Safety Projects and Beaches Projects) (Note: The outstanding balance on the above City of Miami Beach, General Obligation Bonds, Series 2003 were fully refunded by the Series 2019 bonds at September 30, 2019.) $13,590,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, No.
    [Show full text]
  • March 25, 2019 Volume 39
    MARCH 25, 2019 ■■■■■■■■■■■ VOLUME 39 ■■■■■■■■■■ NUMBER 3 13 The Semaphore 17 David N. Clinton, Editor-in-Chief CONTRIBUTING EDITORS Southeastern Massachusetts…………………. Paul Cutler, Jr. “The Operator”………………………………… Paul Cutler III Cape Cod News………………………………….Skip Burton Boston Herald Reporter……………………… Jim South 24 Boston Globe & Wall Street Journal Reporters Paul Bonanno, Jack Foley Western Massachusetts………………………. Ron Clough Rhode Island News…………………………… Tony Donatelli “The Chief’s Corner”……………………… . Fred Lockhart Mid-Atlantic News……………………………. Doug Buchanan PRODUCTION STAFF Publication…………….………………… …. … Al Taylor Al Munn Jim Ferris Bryan Miller Web Page …………………..………………… Savery Moore Club Photographer……………………………. Joe Dumas The Semaphore is the monthly (except July) newsletter of the South Shore Model Railway Club & Museum (SSMRC) and any opinions found herein are those of the authors thereof and of the Editors and do not necessarily reflect any policies of this organization. The SSMRC, as a non-profit organization, does not endorse any position. Your comments are welcome! Please address all correspondence regarding this publication to: The Semaphore, 11 Hancock Rd., Hingham, MA 02043. ©2019 E-mail: [email protected] Club phone: 781-740-2000. Web page: www.ssmrc.org VOLUME 39 ■■■■■ NUMBER 3 ■■■■■ MARCH 2019 CLUB OFFICERS BILL OF LADING President………………….Jack Foley Vice-President…….. …..Dan Peterson Treasurer………………....Will Baker Book Review ........ ………12 Secretary……………….....Dave Clinton Chief’s Corner ...... ……. .3 Chief Engineer……….. .Fred Lockhart Contests ................ ……….3 Directors……………… ...Bill Garvey (’20) ……………………….. .Bryan Miller (‘20) Clinic……………..………3 ……………………… ….Roger St. Peter (’19) Editor’s Notes. ….….....….12 …………………………...Gary Mangelinkx (‘19) Members ............... …….....12 Memories .............. ………..4 th Potpourri ............... ..…..…..5 ON THE COVER: March 9-10 Show Running Extra....... .….……13 and Open House memories. (Photos by Joe Dumas) 2 FORM 19 ORDERS Fred Lockhart MARCH B.O.D.
    [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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Wednesday, May 9, 2018
    951 Martin Luther King Boulevard, Kissimmee, FL www.tohowater.com 407.944.5000 AGENDA Thomas White WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2018 Chair, Ex-officio Clarence L. Thacker Secretary 1. Meeting called to order LeRue “Skip” Stellfox Supervisor #6 2. A. Moment of Silent Reflection Domingo Sanchez B. Pledge of Allegiance Supervisor #1 3. Approval of the Agenda John A. Lambert Supervisor #4 4. Awards and Presentations: Brian L. Wheeler Executive Director 4A. RECOGNITION OF 2018 DROP SAVERS WATER Michael W. Sweeney CONSERVATION POSTER CONTEST WINNERS (COX) Deputy Executive Director 5. Public Hearing VACANT General Counsel 6. Hear the Audience Nilsa C. Díaz Executive Assistant 7. Consent Agenda The Consent Agenda is a technique designed to expedite handling of routine and miscellaneous business of the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors in one motion may adopt the entire Agenda. The motion for adoption is non-debatable and must receive unanimous approval. By request of any individual member, any item may be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed upon the Regular Agenda for debate. 7A. REQUEST APPROVAL OF THE TWA BOARD OF SUPERVISOR MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 2018 (DIAZ/WHEELER) 7B. REQUEST APPROVAL OF THE TWA BOARD OF SUPERVISOR MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 2018 (DIAZ/WHEELER) 7C. REQUEST APPROVAL OF THE TWA BOARD OF SUPERVISOR MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 11, 2018 (DIAZ/WHEELER) 7D. REQUEST APPROVAL TO SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE MIEX RESIN FOR HARMONY WTP FROM IXOM WATERCARE, INC. (SS-18-071) (HOLMES) 7E. REQUEST APPROVAL OF A $495,370.97 CHANGE ORDER WITH GARNEY COMPANIES, INC. FOR THE AUDUBON ROAD AND DOVE COURT EMERGENCY GRAVITY SEWER REPLACEMENT (MATOS) 7F.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol 58, Number 4
    Florida Historical Quarterly Volume 58 Number 4 Florida Historical Quarterly, Volume Article 1 58, Number 4 1979 Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol 58, Number 4 Florida Historical Society [email protected] Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/fhq University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Full Issue is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida Historical Quarterly by an authorized editor of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Society, Florida Historical (1979) "Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol 58, Number 4," Florida Historical Quarterly: Vol. 58 : No. 4 , Article 1. Available at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/fhq/vol58/iss4/1 Society: Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol 58, Number 4 Published by STARS, 1979 1 Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol. 58 [1979], No. 4, Art. 1 COVER The Chautauqua Movement which began in 1874 in upper state New York as a Sunday school assembly spread rapidly throughout the South. A Chautauqua group was founded at DeFuniak Springs, Florida, in 1884, and large crowds assembled annually to hear inspirational and scientific lectures, dramatic readings, and musical performances. This is a photograph, ca. 1913, of the train arriving in DeFuniak Springs with the visitors for the Florida Chautauqua. The original photograph is owned by Mrs. Mary Harris of DeFuniak Springs, and the copy was loaned by the John C. Pace Library, University of West Florida, Pensacola. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/fhq/vol58/iss4/1 2 Society: Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol 58, Number 4 The Florida Historical THE FLORIDA HISTORICAL SOCIETY Volume LVIII, Number 4 April 1980 COPYRIGHT 1980 by the Florida Historical Society, Tampa, Florida.
    [Show full text]