DOCSLIB.ORG

Price List Effective February15, 2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Price List Effective February15, 2021 Price List Effective February15, 2021 Custom cupola and weathervane for the Cask and Pig restaurant, North Dartmouth, Mass Cape Cod Cupola LTD 78 State Road (Route 6) North Dartmouth, MA 02747 Phone: 508 994-2119 Fax: 508 463-2320 Email: [email protected] For much more information and weathervane choices, please visit our website www.capecodcupola.com SQUARE LOUVERED CUPOLAS Cape Cod (CC-PVC Series) Steep Cape Cod (CC-S-PVC Series) Pagoda (P-PVC Series) All cupolas are made of PVC (vinyl) and a finish painted white unless special color is requested. All cupolas have copper covered roofs. Choices are: Cape Cod style (7/12 hip), Steep Cape Cod style (12/12 hip), or Pagoda style Base Width 16” 18” 20” 23” 26 ½” 30” 36” ” 42” 48 Standard # of Louvers, Height (3) 4 ½” (4) 6” (5) 7 ½” (4) 8” (5) 10” (6) 12” (7) 14” (6) 16 ½” (7) 19” Standard Base Height 11” 11” 11” 12” 14” 14” 14” 19” 19” Total Cupola Height (CC-PVC Series) 25 28 30 33 36 39 45 52 60 Total Cupola Height (CC-S-PVC Series) 29 31 34 37 42 47 56 62 71 Total Cupola Height (P-PVC Series) 30 33 36 40 45 50 60 68 74 Prices for Standard Cupolas (CC-PVC Series) $519 $678 $795 $1,219 $1,399 $1,717 $2,332 $3,302 $4,484 (CC-S-PVC Series) $546 $721 $853 $1,293 $1,489 $1,823 $2,454 $3,440 $4,638 (P--PVC Series) $572 $763 $917 $1,367 $1,579 $1,929 $2,576 $3,578 $4,791 Options and Upgrades Roof Coverings (other than natural copper) Standing Seam Copper - - - - $371 $424 $530 $663 $795 Clear Protective Coating on Copper $53 $53 $53 $64 $64 $64 $74 $85 $95 Patina Green Finish $32 $32 $32 $37 $37 $37 $42 $53 $64 Lead Coated Copper $42 $42 $42 $58 $58 $58 $74 $95 $117 Zinc Coated Copper (Freedom Gray) $85 $85 $85 $117 $117 $117 $148 $191 $233 Black Metal (standing seam) $477 $557 $689 $848 $1,007 Asphalt Shingled Roof (CC or CC-S) - - - - $148 $212 $286 $408 $530 Cedar Shingled Roof (woven) - - - - $233 $292 $413 $530 $742 Unfinished Roof (no copper covering) CC or CC-S only 10% off of retail price Rigged for (imported) Weathervane $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 Louver section Arched Fascia above Louvers $106 $117 $127 $159 $180 $212 $276 $339 $413 Extra Louvers per row $53 $57 $64 $74 $85 $95 $106 $133 $159 Screening $27 $27 $27 $32 $32 $32 $40 $48 $58 Double Row of Louvers - - - - - - $477 $583 $716 Full Faced Arched Louvers - - - - $318 $371 $435 $572 $721 Light Socket Below Louvers - - - $53 $53 $53 $53 $53 $53 Base High Base $42 $48 $53 $64 $74 $85 $117 $148 $191 Double Base n/a n/a n/a $127 $148 $170 $233 $297 $382 Flared Base $42 $48 $53 $64 $74 $85 $117 $148 $191 Single Panel Base with Corner Trim - - - - - $212 $265 $318 $424 Single Panel Base with Full Trim - - - - - $265 $318 $398 $519 Cedar Shingled Base - - - - - $530 $636 $769 $954 Special Paint Color $37 if obtainable in a quart (30” cupola or smaller) $58 if a gallon must be purchased Page 2 © Cape Cod Cupola LTD 2021 SQUARE WINDOWED CUPOLAS Cape Cod (CC-G-PVC Series) Steep Cape Cod (CC-S-G-PVC Series) Pagoda (P-G-PVC Series) All cupolas are made of PVC (vinyl), and are finish painted white unless special color is requested. All cupolas have copper covered roofs. Choices are: Cape Cod style (7/12 hip), Steep Cape Cod style (12/12 hip), or Pagoda style Base Width 16” 18” 20” 23” 26 ½” 30” 36” ” 42” 48" Standard Base Height 11” 11” 11” 12” 14” 14” 14” 19” 19” Standard Window Width 10" 12" 14" 15" 19 1/2" 23" 27" 31" 36" Standard Window Height 10" 12" 14" 15" 19 1/2" 21" 23" 24" 27" Standard Grill Configuration 2H,2W 2H,2W 2H,2W 2H,2W 2H,2W 2H,3W 2H,3W 2H, 4W 2H, 4W Alternative Grill Configurations Are Possible Total Cupola Height (CC-G-PVC Series) 32" 35" 37" 40" 46" 48" 51" 62" 66" Total Cupola Height (CC-S-G-PVC Series) 36" 38 1/2" 41" 44" 52" 55" 62" 70" 76" Total Cupola Height (P-G-PVC Series) 37" 40" 43" 47" 55" 58" 66" 77" 85" Prices for Standard Cupolas (CC-G-PVC Series) $753 $981 $1,150 $1,707 $1,956 $2,396 $3,148 $4,447 $6,037 (CC-S-G-PVC Series) $784 $1,034 $1,224 $1,802 $2,072 $2,533 $3,307 $4,627 $6,238 (P-G-PVC Series) $816 $1,087 $1,299 $1,897 $2,189 $2,671 $3,466 $4,807 $6,440 Options and Upgrades Roof Coverings (other than natural copper) Standing Seam Copper - - - - $292 $345 $424 $530 $636 Clear Protective Coating on Copper $42 $42 $42 $48 $48 $48 $53 $64 $74 Patina Green Finish $32 $32 $32 $37 $37 $37 $42 $53 $64 Lead Coated Copper $32 $32 $32 $37 $37 $37 $42 $53 $64 Zinc Coated Copper (Freedom Gray) $85 $85 $85 $117 $117 $117 $148 $191 $233 Black Metal (standing seam) $477 $557 $689 $848 $1,007 Asphalt Shingled Roof (CC or CC-S) - - - - $148 $212 $286 $408 $530 Cedar Shingled Roof (woven) - - - - $233 $292 $413 $530 $742 Unfinished Roof (no copper covering) CC or CC-S only 10% off of retail price Rigged for (imported) Weathervane $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 Window section One Window Hinged & Latched - stainless steel hardware $74 $74 $74 $74 $74 $74 $74 Wired for Hangng Lantern $64 $64 $64 $64 $64 $64 $64 $64 $64 Hanging Cape Cod Lantern $164 $164 $164 $164 $196 $196 $249 $249 $249 Hanging Onion Lantern $260 $260 $260 $260 $334 $334 $398 $398 $398 Light Socket Below Louvers $53 $53 $53 $53 $53 $53 $53 $53 $53 Base High Base $42 $48 $53 $64 $74 $85 $117 $148 $191 Double Base n/a n/a n/a $127 $148 $170 $233 $297 $382 Flared Base $42 $48 $53 $64 $74 $85 $117 $148 $191 Single Panel Base with Corner Trim - - - - - $212 $265 $318 $424 Single Panel Base with Full Trim - - - - - $265 $318 $398 $519 Cedar Shingled Base - - - - - $530 $636 $769 $954 Special Paint Color $37 if obtainable in a quart (30” cupola or smaller) $58 if a gallon must be purchased Page 3 © Cape Cod Cupola LTD 2021 Six & Eight Sided Cupolas (CC) (P) (PX) (P-G) (PX-G) Basic Information Model 26" Hex 31" Hex 36" Hex 42" Hex 48" Hex 24" Oct 31" Oct 40" Oct 48" Oct Louvered Cupola Base Width Hexagon cupolas are measured point to point Octagon cupolas are measured flat to flat Standard Base Height 14" 14" 14" 19" 19" 14” 14” 19” 19” Standard # of Louvers, Height (6) 10 1/2” (8) 14” (10)17 ½” (11) 23” (13) 27” (6) 10 1/2” (8) 14” (10) 20 ½” (13) 27” Total Cupola Height (CC Series) 33" 38" 44" 49" 62" 33" 39" 49" 62" Total Cupola Height (P Series) 46" 51" 60" 72" 83" 46" 52" 68" 82" Total Cupola Height (PX Series) 45" 50" 59" 71" 82" 45" 51" 67" 81" Window Cupola Base Width Hexagon cupolas are measured point to point Octagon cupolas are measured flat to flat Standard Base Height 14" 14" 14" 19" 19" 14” 14” 19” 19” Standard Window Width 9" 12" 13 1/2" 15" 18 1/2" 8" 10 1/2" 13" 16" Standard Window Height 14" 16" 18" 21" 25" 14" 16" 19" 25" Standard Grill Configuration 2 over 2 2 over 2 2 over 2 2 over 2 2 over 2 2 over 2 2 over 2 2 over 2 6 Lite Total Cupola Height (CC-G Series) 36" 40" 45" 53" 60" 37" 44" 51" 64" Total Cupola Height (P-G Series) 49" 53" 61" 69" 80" 50" 56" 70" 84" Total Cupola Height (PX-G Series) 48" 52" 60" 68" 79" 49" 55" 69" 83" Prices for Standard Cupolas Louvered (CC Series) in PVC $1,749 $2,120 $2,809 $3,710 $5,194 $1,802 $2,650 $4,134 $5,406 (P-Series) in PVC $1,866 $2,268 $2,989 $3,922 $5,438 $1,940 $2,841 $4,378 $5,703 (PX- Series) in PVC $1,897 $2,311 $3,042 $3,986 $5,512 $2,014 $2,926 $4,473 $5,809 Windowed (CC-G Series) in PVC $2,306 $2,798 $3,625 $4,855 $6,641 $2,359 $3,339 $5,194 $6,837 (P-G Series) in PVC $2,025 $2,454 $3,212 $4,187 $5,756 $2,496 $3,530 $5,438 $7,134 (PX-G Series) in PVC $2,030 $2,470 $3,328 $4,865 $6,344 $2,571 $3,615 $5,533 $7,240 Options and Upgrades Roof Coverings (other than natural copper) Clear Protective Coating on Copper $48 $53 $64 $74 $85 $53 $64 $74 $85 Patina Green Finish $42 $48 $53 $64 $74 $42 $53 $64 $74 Lead Coated Copper $42 $48 $53 $64 $74 $48 $58 $69 $80 Standing Seam Copper - - $530 $636 $848 - - $742 $954 Unfinished Roof (no copper covering) CC only 10% off of retail price Rigged for (imported) Weathervane $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 Mid section One Window Hinged & Latched $74 $74 $74 $74 $74 $74 $74 $74 $74 Wired for Hangng Lantern $64 $64 $64 $64 $64 $64 $64 $64 $64 Hanging Cape Cod Lantern $164 $196 $196 $249 $249 $164 $196 $249 $249 Hanging Onion Lantern $260 $334 $334 $398 $398 $260 $334 $398 $398 Light Socket Below Louvers $53 $53 $53 $53 $53 $53 $53 $53 $53 Base High Base $74 $90 $106 $138 $175 $90 $106 $143 $191 Double Base $122 $154 $196 $228 $281 $133 $175 $223 $297 Flared Base $53 $53 $64 $85 $117 $58 $74 $106 $148 Special Paint Color $37 if obtainable in a quart (30” cupola or smaller) $58 if a gallon must be purchased Page 4 © Cape Cod Cupola LTD 2021 Cape Cod Cupola has patterns for over 500 weathervanes These listed below are shown here in the catalog.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Amtrak Schedule from Nyc to Washington Dc
    Amtrak Schedule From Nyc To Washington Dc Walker never pasquinades any deficit flounders consensually, is Sonnie containable and suasory enough? Sheffield still asphaltfrenzy stagnantly too vortically? while windswept Val illegalizes that cabman. Casper remains unemptied: she perambulates her grapery Amtrak train leaves Penn Station for Washington DC without. Read your nyc from washington, schedules may also. Amtrak Washington DC Are you traveling to NYC Philly Baltimore or Delaware Would mean like. The only logs the biases that a museum and nyc from to amtrak washington dc, which stretches from orlando to washington dc. Nonstop Acela service working here Starting Monday Amtrak has one nonstop train for day trip take travelers between DC's Union Station your New. How their Score a main Meal watching a Train Amtrak Blog. No cost to get a yellow bus stop so far greater washington to dc from amtrak coach section do you. Amtrak Train Visit Virginia's Blue Ridge. The 6 Most Scenic Amtrak Train Routes Oystercom. While the DC-to-NYC train will evolve at 430 pm and disclose at 705. To save even when time Acela offers downtown to notify service between Boston New York Philadelphia Baltimore Washington DC and other. Only logs the washington. Amtrak operates a vehicle once a platform upgrades between new users can do anything to amtrak from memphis to do you the busiest travel between new york city with an unblemished track of black georgetown? Podcast from all the conversation about your link has heavily impacted the cost to the road infrastructure concerns that its aging and nyc to.
    [Show full text]
  • Quarterly Report on the Performance and Service Quality of Intercity Passenger Train Operations
    Pursuant to Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-432, Division B): Quarterly Report on the Performance and Service Quality of Intercity Passenger Train Operations Covering the Quarter Ended June, 2019 (Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2019) Federal Railroad Administration United States Department of Transportation Published August 2019 Table of Contents (Notes follow on the next page.) Financial Table 1 (A/B): Short-Term Avoidable Operating Costs (Note 1) Table 2 (A/B): Fully Allocated Operating Cost covered by Passenger-Related Revenue Table 3 (A/B): Long-Term Avoidable Operating Loss (Note 1) Table 4 (A/B): Adjusted Loss per Passenger- Mile Table 5: Passenger-Miles per Train-Mile On-Time Performance (Table 6) Test No. 1 Change in Effective Speed Test No. 2 Endpoint OTP Test No. 3 All-Stations OTP Train Delays Train Delays - Off NEC Table 7: Off-NEC Host Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles Table 8: Off-NEC Amtrak Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles Train Delays - On NEC Table 9: On-NEC Total Host and Amtrak Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles Other Service Quality Table 10: Customer Satisfaction Indicator (eCSI) Scores Table 11: Service Interruptions per 10,000 Train-Miles due to Equipment-related Problems Table 12: Complaints Received Table 13: Food-related Complaints Table 14: Personnel-related Complaints Table 15: Equipment-related Complaints Table 16: Station-related Complaints Public Benefits (Table 17) Connectivity Measure Availability of Other Modes Reference Materials Table 18: Route Descriptions Terminology & Definitions Table 19: Delay Code Definitions Table 20: Host Railroad Code Definitions Appendixes A.
    [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]
  • I-87 Multimodal Corridor Study
    I-87 Multimodal Corridor Study Adirondack Corridor Service Improvements 2.10. ADIRONDACK CORRIDOR SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS 2.10.1. INTRODUCTION The improvement project presented in this section – New Albany-Rensselaer Station Adirondack Corridor Service Improvements – is focused on the Intercity and Tourist travel markets. The Empire Corridor between New York City, Albany and the Buffalo/Niagara Falls (see Figure 2.10-1) area is one of the more successful rail corridors in the country, particularly between Albany and New York City. Ridership on the Adirondack Corridor portion, between Albany, Plattsburgh, and Montreal, is considerably less, although passenger rail service to the Adirondack communities is important to their long-term vitality. The concepts discussed in this section look to build on those successes, focusing specifically on possible actions in the Capital District and along the Adirondack Corridor. A variety of improvements have been identified to improve travel times, reliability and service quality as part of the High-Speed Rail Pre-Feasibility Study: New York City to Montreal, which was completed as part of the I-87 Multimodal Corridor Study. The proposed project looks at further actions to enhance rail service in the corridor, including improved public transportation links between the Albany/Rensselaer train station and major destinations in the Capital District. These and other actions to upgrade Empire and Adirondack Corridor rail service and to increase their effectiveness as part of a vital public transportation network are consistent with the multimodal goals of the corridor study and the Smart Public Transportation elements of its Corridor Strategic Plan. 2.10.2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.10.2.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Adirondack Recreational Trail Advocates (ARTA)
    Adirondack Recreational Trail Advocates (ARTA) Proposal for the Adirondack Rail Trail Photo: Lake Colby Causeway, Lee Keet, 2013 Submitted by the Board of Directors of ARTA Tupper Lake: Hope Frenette, Chris Keniston; Maureen Peroza Saranac Lake: Dick Beamish, Lee Keet, Joe Mercurio; Lake Clear: David Banks; Keene: Tony Goodwin; Lake Placid: Jim McCulley; Beaver River: Scott Thompson New York State Snowmobile Association: Jim Rolf WWW.TheARTA.org Adirondack Recreational Trail Advocates P.O. Box 1081 Saranac Lake, N.Y. 12983 Page 2 This presentation has been prepared by Adirondack Recreational Trail Advocates (ARTA), a not-for- profit 501(c)(3) corporation formed in 2011 and dedicated to creating a recreational trail on the largely abandoned and woefully underutilized rail corridor . © 2013, Adirondack Recreational Trail Advocates, Inc. Page 3 Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Original UMP Criteria Favor the Rail Trail .................................................................................................. 7 Changing the Status of the Corridor ........................................................................................................... 10 Classification as a Travel Corridor ......................................................................................................... 10 Historic Status ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Feasibility Study
    BERKSHIRE FLYER: PITTSFIELD TO NEW YORK CITY CITYFEASIBILITY STUDY DEVELOPED IN SUPPORT OF THE BERKSHIRE FLYER WORKING GROUP March 26, 2018 Berkshire Flyer: Pittsfield-New York City Feasibility Study Berkshire Flyer: Pittsfield to New York City Feasibility Study Developed by: MasssDOT Transit & Rail Division In support of: The Berkshire Flyer Working Group Study Support Provided by: STV Inc. HMMH Inc. TPRG 3/26/2018 Berkshire Flyer: Pittsfield-New York City Feasibility Study TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction and Background ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Study Goals ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Development Process ............................................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Berkshire Flyer Working Group ............................................................................... 2 1.2.2 Working Group meetings .......................................................................................... 3 1.3 Potential Passenger Rail Service ...................................................................................... 3 1.3.1 Cape Flyer Rail Service ............................................................................................ 4 1.3.2 Framework for Berkshire Flyer Service ................................................................... 6 1.4 Existing Services .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 8 Rail
    Chapter 8 Rail A component of the SAFETEA-LU legislation is to improve interregional and international transportation and to serve the mobility needs of people and freight. New York State’s Transportation Master Plan’s vision is to create a seamless system in which travelers can conveniently shift between modes and operators to complete trips that meet their individual and business needs. Long-Range planning efforts in Herkimer and Oneida Counties are consistent with this vision in planning transportation systems that will serve the mobility needs of people and freight. Rail transportation is an efficient way to move freight and people while saving energy, reducing air pollution, relieving traffic congestion, and reducing maintenance and repair on the highway network. Rail service in the HOCTS Planning Area consists not only of long-distance, pass-through freight movement. There are also short lines that deliver goods to local industries, passenger service provided by Amtrak at stations in Utica and Rome and the Adirondack Scenic Railroad. The use and condition of the Utica and Rome stations, the Adirondack Scenic Railroad and the implementation of high-speed rail are high priorities for the region. Recommendations made in this chapter include: the implementation of the Union Station Master Plan, elimination or correction of unsafe grade crossings, restoration of the Adirondack Scenic Railroad, and support for high-speed passenger rail service. HOCTS 8 - 1 Chapter 8 Rail Destinations 2010 - 2030 2009 New York State Rail Plan The 2009 New York State Rail Plan presents a 20-year plan (through 2030) for the state's rail system and describes strategies and initiatives aimed at rebuilding the rail transportation system.
    [Show full text]
  • Amtrak Host Railroad Report Card 2018 Who Delays Passengers?
    Amtrak Host Railroad Report Card 2018 Who delays passengers? The Host Railroad Report Card grades each of the six Class I freight host railroads based on delays caused to Amtrak trains over the last 12 months. 1 Canadian Pacific A 2 BNSF B 3 Union Pacific B- 4 CSX B- 5 Canadian National D- 6 Norfolk Southern F Average grade for all host railroads: C Grades reflect the passenger experience A Most passengers are on-time B Passengers on some routes are late C Many passengers are very late D Most passengers are very late F Majority of passengers are severely late Please see the last page for more details regarding calculations and definitions. Amtrak Route Grades 2018 How often are trains on-time at each station within 15 minutes of schedule? Class I Freight Percentage of trains on-time State-Supported Trains Route Host Railroads within 15 minutes Pass = 80% on-time Hiawatha CP 96% Keystone (other hosts) 91% 17 of 28 routes fail to Capitol Corridor UP 89% achieve 80% standard New York - Albany (other hosts) 89% Carl Sandburg / Illinois Zephyr BNSF 88% Ethan Allen Express CP 87% Pere Marquette CSX, NS 84% PASS Missouri River Runner UP 83% Springfield Shuttles (other hosts) 82% Downeaster (other hosts) 81% Hoosier State CSX 80% Pacific Surfliner BNSF, UP 78% Lincoln Service CN, UP 76% Blue Water NS, CN 75% Roanoke NS 75% Piedmont NS 74% Richmond / Newport News / Norfolk CSX, NS 74% San Joaquins BNSF, UP 73% Pennsylvanian NS 71% Adirondack CN, CP 70% New York - Niagara Falls CSX 70% FAIL Vermonter (other hosts) 67% Cascades BNSF, UP 64% Maple
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony from the Empire Station Passengers Association on the New York State Dept
    TESTIMONY FROM THE EMPIRE STATION PASSENGERS ASSOCIATION ON THE NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF TRANSPORATION’S BUDGET JANUARY 28, 2020 TO: Finance Chair Krueger and Ways and Means Chair Weinstein and members of the legislative fiscal committees. The Empire State Passengers Association is celebrating its 40th anniversary as an advocate for New York State’s over one million intercity rail passengers who ride our state supported Amtrak “Empire Corridor” services. We thank you for the opportunity to share ideas to improve public transportation so important to the quality of life, mobility, environment and economy of the Empire State. Our testimony will focus on the proposed $44 million in State funds budgeted to pay for Amtrak service within New York State and the changes to the state’s intercity rail program that you should consider supporting. Since the 2008 passage of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) and its subsequent reauthorization, by federal law states are required to pay the full subsidy cost of Amtrak routes shorter than 750 miles (Section 209), so called corridor services. In New York State, that means that all Amtrak service north of New York City to Niagara Falls, Montreal, and Vermont is funded by New York State, except for the ‘Lake Shore Limited’, a New York-Boston-Chicago long-distance train funded by Amtrak with federal operating subsidies. Operating Budget and Issues Under PRIIA Section 209, Amtrak serves as a service vendor to New York State. Subject to negotiations with Amtrak, New York controls Amtrak service within the Empire State. This includes the amount of service offered, the frequency of service, the price of tickets and the quantity and quality of on-board services and amenities as well as the advertising of the service.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethan Allen Express
    ETHAN ALLEN EXPRESS® JANUARY 13, 2014 and VERMONTERSM Effective ® Enjoy the journey. ETHAN ALLEN EXPRESS® serving RUTLAND - ALBANY - NEW YORK and intermediate stations 1-800-USA-RAIL Call VERMONTERSM serving ST. ALBANS - ESSEX JCT. (Burlington) SPRINGFIELD - NEW YORK - WASHINGTON, DC and intermediate stations AMTRAK.COM Visit NRPC Form P55–100M–1/13/14 Stock #02-3747 Schedules subject to change without notice. Amtrak is a registered service mark of the National Railroad Passenger Corp. National Railroad Passenger Corporation Washington Union Station, 60 Massachusetts Ave. N.E., Washington, DC 20002. ETHAN ALLEN EXPRESS 290 292 296 Train Number 291 293 ETHAN ALLEN EXPRESS Mo-Fr Sa Su Normal Days of Operation Sa-Th Fr and VERMONTER 1/19,2/16, 1/20,2/17 ROUTE MAP and SYMBOLS 5/25 Will Also Operate 1/20,2/17, SM St. Albans, VT 1/19,2/16 Vermonter 5/26 Will Not Operate Ethan Allen Express® Essex Junction, VT (Burlington) Waterbury, VT R B R B R B R B R B Montpelier, VT On Board Service Randolph, VT y å y å y å y å y å White River Jct., VT Windsor, VT Read Down Mile Symbol Read Up Claremont, NH >w Bellows Falls, VT 8 00A 11 00A 5 05P 0DpRutland, VT Ar 8 48P 11 13P Brattleboro, VT Rutland, VT 8 19A 11 19A 5 24P 9 Castleton, VT > L8 24P L10 49P Amherst, MA Castleton, VT Springfield, MA 9 16A 12 15P 6 25P 44 Fort Edward-Glens Falls, NY > 7 10P 9 35P Fort Edward-Glens Falls, NY Windsor Locks, CT b (£ Saratoga Springs, NY Lake George Village Hartford, CT Schenectady, NY ∑w Berlin, CT 9 37A 12 36P 6 47P 63 Saratoga Springs, NY 6 50P 9 15P Albany-Rensselaer,
    [Show full text]
  • NY-VT Rail Study EA 12-17-14.Pdf
    New York – Vermont Bi-State Intercity Passenger Rail Study Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................. ix Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... ES-1 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Project Description – Proposed Action ................................................................... 1-3 1.3 Project Study Area .................................................................................................. 1-4 2 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Project Purpose ...................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Need for Intercity Passenger Rail Improvements ................................................... 2-1 2.3 Goals and Objectives .............................................................................................. 2-3 2.4 Coordination with Other Initiatives .......................................................................... 2-6 3 Alternatives Evaluation .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • FEB 1 5 2013 the Honorable Barbara Mikulski Chairwoman Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
    U.S. Department Administrator 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE of Transportation Washington, DC 20590 Federal Railroad Administration FEB 1 5 2013 The Honorable Barbara Mikulski Chairwoman Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Madam Chairwoman: I am pleased to submit this quarterly report on Amtrak' s On-time performance. I hope that the information contained in the enclosed report will assist the Committee in its work. Identical letters have been sent to the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Appropriations. Sincerely, ac~ Joseph C. Szabo Administrator Enclosure Amtrak On-Time Performance (OTP) Report (As Described in Section 154 of Pub. L. 111-117) This report includes (1) an update on recent Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and related efforts to improve Amtrak's on-time performance and (2) Amtrak' s OTP results and performance against FRA-established goals (in Attachment A). OTP Highlights through the Fourth Quarter of Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Summary: During FY 2012, Host-Responsible delays improved slightly relative to FY 2011, with all six major hosts showing at least some improvement. Delays were higher, however, than during FY 2010 and most ofFY 2009. BNSF had the lowest overall level of delay of any of the major hosts; Canadian National (CN) had the highest level of delay, driven primarily by its Freight Train Interference (FTI) delays, which exceeded those on other major host railroads. STB Investigation Under PRIIA Section 213: On January 19, 2012, Amtrak filed a petition with the Surface Transportation Board (STB), asking it to investigate the causes of the high level of delays to Amtrak trains running on the tracks of CN, and make recommendations as to how delays can be reduced.
    [Show full text]