DOCSLIB.ORG

Transportation Planning for the Richmond–Charlotte Railroad Corridor

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

VOLUME I Executive Summary and Main Report Technical Monograph: Transportation Planning for the Richmond–Charlotte Railroad Corridor Federal Railroad Administration United States Department of Transportation January 2004 Disclaimer: This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation solely in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof, nor does it express any opinion whatsoever on the merit or desirability of the project(s) described herein. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Any trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. Note: In an effort to better inform the public, this document contains references to a number of Internet web sites. Web site locations change rapidly and, while every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of these references as of the date of publication, the references may prove to be invalid in the future. Should an FRA document prove difficult to find, readers should access the FRA web site (www.fra.dot.gov) and search by the document’s title or subject. 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FRA/RDV-04/02 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date January 2004 Technical Monograph: Transportation Planning for the Richmond–Charlotte Railroad Corridor⎯Volume I 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Authors: 8. Performing Organization Report No. For the engineering contractor: Michael C. Holowaty, Project Manager For the sponsoring agency: Richard U. Cogswell and Neil E. Moyer 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Engineering Contractor: Parsons Transportation Group Sponsoring Agency (see below) 11. Contract or Grant No. DTFR53-98-D-00004 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report or Period Covered U.S. Department of Transportation Technical monograph on transportation Federal Railroad Administration planning Office of Railroad Development 1120 Vermont Avenue N.W., Mail Stop 20 Washington, DC 20590 14. Sponsoring Agency Code See (1) Report No. 15. Supplemental Notes 16. Abstract Should the States of North Carolina and Virginia desire to upgrade the railroad corridor between Richmond and Charlotte for improved passenger service that meets a specific travel time goal, a number of infrastructure improvements would be needed. This monograph enumerates, describes, and costs a set of improvements that could, in combination, support a trip time goal of 4 hours, 25 minutes between Richmond and Charlotte. The operational implications of such a service are discussed. As the corridor contains a variety of operating conditions, this monograph may be of technical assistance to other States that are contemplating similar rail passenger service projects. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Railroad corridors, transportation planning, rail passenger This document is freely available through service, high-speed rail, Southeast Corridor the FRA’s web site, www.fra.dot.gov. A limited printing will be available from the Sponsoring Agency at the address shown. 19. Security Classification 20. Security Classification 21. No of Pages 22. Price (of the report) (of this page) Vol. I: 165 See (18) Distribution Unclassified Unclassified Vol. II: 251 Statement Contents of Volume I Executive Summary Main Report Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION Chapter 2: THE CORRIDOR TODAY Chapter 3: SERVICE GOALS Chapter 4: METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS OF OPERATIONS Chapter 5: CORRIDOR-WIDE INVESTMENTS AND DESIGN STANDARDS Chapter 6: SITE-SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS Chapter 7: COST ESTIMATES AND CONCLUSIONS Glossary Supplement: Background Material A list of tables and figures in Volume I begins on the following page. Contents of Volume II Appendixes Appendix A: Curve Analysis Richmond–Charlotte Appendix B: Train Performance Calculator Analysis To Support Project Goals Appendix C: Operations Analysis To Support Project Goals Appendix D: Track Charts Appendix E: Ownership and Operating Rights Appendix F: Projected 2020 Schedules for Intercity Passenger, Freight, and Commuter Trains Appendix G: Descriptions of Individual Projects Tables and Figures in Volume I Tables in Executive Summary Table ES-1: Projected Daily Train Movements by Service Type and Segment .................................... page ES-3 Table ES-2: Contemplated Station Program...................................................................................................ES-7 Table ES-3: Summary of Cost Estimates for Projects Contemplated for the Richmond– Charlotte Corridor ...............................................................................................................................ES-11 Figures in Executive Summary Figure ES-1: Schematic of Richmond–Charlotte Corridor ............................................................................ES-1 Figure ES-2: Mileages as Percent of Corridor Total......................................................................................ES-2 Figure ES-3: State Travel Time Goals for Improved Corridor Passenger Service .......................................ES-2 Figure ES-4: Percentage of Single Track Territory by Line, 2001 ................................................................ES-6 Figure ES-5: Contemplated Disposition of Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossings .......................................ES-8 Figure ES-6: Contemplated Disposition of Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossings......................................ES-8 Tables in Chapter 2 Table 2-1: City-Pair Markets and Mileages Within the Richmond–Charlotte Corridor ....................................2-2 Table 2-2: Track Ownership and Operating Control .........................................................................................2-7 Table 2-3: Existing Highway-Rail Grade Crossings in Richmond–Charlotte Corridor...................................2-10 Table 2-4: Station Ownership and Use ............................................................................................................2-12 Table 2-5: Existing Railroad Services on the Richmond–Charlotte Corridor..................................................2-14 Table 2-6: Inventory of Operations in “Areas of Special Complexity” ...........................................................2-19 Figures in Chapter 2 Figure 2-1: The Southeast Corridor in Context..................................................................................................2-1 Figure 2-2: Southeast Corridor Portion Addressed in This Study (Assumed “S Line” Route is Shown)..................................................................................................................................................2-2 Figure 2-3: Spatial Distribution of Population in the Richmond–Charlotte Corridor........................................2-3 Figure 2-4: Intercity Rail Passenger Service Through North Carolina ...........................................................2-13 Figure 2-5: Typical Amtrak Schedules in the Richmond–Charlotte Corridor ................................................2-15 Figure 2-6: On-Time Performance of Carolinian and Piedmont, 1998-2001.................................................2-17 Tables in Chapter 3 Table 3-1: Railroad Services Envisioned for 2020 in the Richmond–Charlotte Corridor .................................3-2 Tables in Chapter 4 Table 4-1: Pad Requirement for Reliable Richmond–Charlotte Service .........................................................4-21 Table 4-2: Simulated Run Times and Available Pad for Selected TPC Model Runs ......................................4-22 Figures in Chapter 4 Figure 4-1: Example of Three-Train Maneuver (Long Siding With Intermediate Crossover) .......................4-18 Figure 4-2: Siding Options in Double-Track Territory....................................................................................4-19 Figure 4-3: Time Sequence of Moves – Northbound Passenger Train Overtaking Northbound Freight in Center Siding “B to A,” Southbound Passenger Train on Opposing Track...........................................4-20 Tables in Chapter 5 Table 5-1: Curve Adjustment Program..............................................................................................................5-6 Table 5-2: Curve Relocation Program ...............................................................................................................5-6 Table 5-3: Contemplated Stations on the Richmond–Charlotte Corridor ........................................................5-10 Table 5-4: Contemplated Disposition of Public Grade Crossings ...................................................................5-15 Table 5-5: Contemplated Disposition of Private Grade Crossings ..................................................................5-16 Table 5-6: Inventory of Highway-Rail Grade Crossings in Richmond–Charlotte Corridor Upon Completion of the Contemplated Improvements....................................................................................5-16 Figures in Chapter 5 Figure 5-1: Schematic of Gantlet Track..........................................................................................................5-11 Tables in Chapter 6 Table 6-1: Sidings and Relocations Contemplated Between Burgess and Norlina............................................6-9 Table 6-2: Track Additions and Relocations Contemplated Between Norlina and Henderson .......................6-13
Recommended publications
  • Relative Train Length and the Infrastructure Required to Mitigate Delays from Operating Combinations of Normal and Over-Length F

    Relative Train Length and the Infrastructure Required to Mitigate Delays from Operating Combinations of Normal and Over-Length F

    Original Article Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 0(0) 1–12 Relative train length and the ! IMechE 2018 Article reuse guidelines: infrastructure required to mitigate sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0954409718809204 delays from operating combinations journals.sagepub.com/home/pif of normal and over-length freight trains on single-track railway lines in North America C Tyler Dick , Ivan Atanassov, F Bradford Kippen III and Darkhan Mussanov Abstract Distributed power locomotives have facilitated longer heavy-haul freight trains that improve the efficiency of railway operations. In North America, where the majority of mainlines are single track, the potential operational and economic advantages of long trains are limited by the inadequate length of many existing passing sidings (passing loops). To alleviate the challenge of operating trains that exceed the length of passing sidings, railways preserve the mainline capacity by extending passing sidings. However, industry practitioners rarely optimize the extent of infrastructure investment for the volume of over-length train traffic on a particular route. This paper investigates how different combinations of normal and over-length trains, and their relative lengths, relate to the number of siding extensions necessary to mitigate the delay performance of over-length train operation on a single-track rail corridor. The experiments used Rail Traffic Controller simulation software to determine train delay for various combinations of short and long train lengths under different directional distributions of a given daily railcar throughput volume. Simulation results suggest a relationship between the ratio of train lengths and the infrastructure expansion required to eliminate the delay introduced by operating over- length trains on the initial route.
  • GAO-02-398 Intercity Passenger Rail: Amtrak Needs to Improve Its

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

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

    Harrisburg Line Capacity Improvements Upgrade of Track 2 from Glen Interlocking to Thorn Interlocking

    HARRISBURG LINE CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS UPGRADE OF TRACK 2 FROM GLEN INTERLOCKING TO THORN INTERLOCKING FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIP FOR STATE OF GOOD REPAIR PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION Lead Applicant: Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) Joint Applicant: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) FEDERAL FUNDING REQUESTED: $8,337,500 (50%) PROPOSED NON-FEDERAL MATCH: $8,337,500 (50%) TOTAL PROJECT COST: $16,675,000 PROJECT LOCATION: Caln Township, Downingtown Borough, East Caln Township, West Whiteland Township, & East Whiteland Township in Chester County, Pennsylvania - 6th Congressional District No Federal Grant Application Previously Submitted for this Project Table of Contents I. Project Summary .................................................................................................................................. 1 II. Project Funding ..................................................................................................................................... 2 III. Applicant Eligibility ............................................................................................................................... 3 IV. NEC Project Eligibility ........................................................................................................................... 3 V. Detailed Project Description ................................................................................................................ 5 VI. Project Location .................................................................................................................................
  • Tacci7 Centuries

    Tacci7 Centuries

    North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office David L. S. Brook, Administrator Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director June 12, 2001 MEMORANDUM To: William Gilmore Project Development & Environmental Analysis, NCDOT From: David Brook Ple___1:51,-Stur.A.Cinc)clz_ Re: Improve NC 24 from 2.8 miles east of 1-95 to 1-40, R-2303, Multi County, ER 01-9171 Thank you for your letter of May 4, 2000, transmitting the survey report addendum by Marvin A. Brown for the above project. We apologize for the delay in our response. The report addendum is eloquently written and meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior. For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the following property is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under .the criterion cited: Stedman Historic District under Criteria A and C as an intact example of a rural Cumberland County town that arose, along with a railroad line and depot, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth tacCI7 centuries. The boundaries shown are appropriate. oc' There are two additions to the report which would be helpful to the reader and ensure that the report, as outlined in our guidelines, serves as a stand-alone document. These are the addition of a map that shows the relationship of the Stedman Historic District to the area of potential effect for the improvement of NC 24 and the former rail lines' being shown on Figure 2.
  • The Railroad Depot: a Photographic Essay

    The Railroad Depot: a Photographic Essay

    Tampa Bay History Volume 6 Issue 1 Article 6 6-1-1984 The Railroad Depot: A Photographic Essay R. Randolph Stevens Tampa Electric Company Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/tampabayhistory Recommended Citation Stevens, R. Randolph (1984) "The Railroad Depot: A Photographic Essay," Tampa Bay History: Vol. 6 : Iss. 1 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/tampabayhistory/vol6/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Access Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tampa Bay History by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Stevens: The Railroad Depot: A Photographic Essay THE RAILROAD DEPOT: A PHOTO ESSAY by R. Randolph Stevens From 1830 through the 1950s railroads were the tie, the sinew, that bound our country together. Pioneers first traveled by using the lakes and streams. Eventually, roads were cut, canals dug, and finally track was laid to connect the seaboard towns and cities with the interior of the country. This transportation revolution had little effect on Florida until after the Civil War when two Yankee railroad builders, Henry Bradley Plant and Henry Morrison Flagler changed the landscape of central and south Florida. Their investments and foresight brought ribbons of track down the west and east coasts over the next few years, sparking an economic boom. In 1883, Plant’s South Florida Railroad came into Tampa, and the west coast began to grow in earnest. Before long twin rails extended down to Venice, Boca Grande, Naples and Everglades City.
  • C&O Has Good Ideas In

    C&O Has Good Ideas In

    Siding thrown over to locate main track signal between main and siding C & 0 Has Good Ideas in CTC Sheet-metal houses not only at switches but also at interme­ diate signals and use of hold-out signals are features of this project. Well organized construction requires no work trains. TO INCREASE TRACK CAPAC­ portant freight line. Numerous Windsor, Ont., and Blenheim, Ont. ITY, facilitate train movements industries , including large, automo­ Previously no signaling was in and reduce operating expenses, the bile factories, are located at Plym­ service on the single track between Chesapeake & Ohio has installed outh , Flint and Saginaw. Also the Plymouth and Kearsley interlock­ centralized traffic control on 55 Plymouth-Saginaw section is part ing at Flint. Two tracks extend miles of single-track between Plym­ of an important route to and from north from Plymouth 1.0 mile to a outh, Mich., and Mount Morris, Ludington, Mich., which is the port power switch which is included in Mich. This project connects with for C&O car ferries, operated all the new CTC. At Wixom there are CTC previously in service on 24 year, across Lake Michigan to and two sidings with power switches miles between Mt. Morris and from Wisconsin ports of Milwau­ included in the CTC. Other sidings Saginaw, Mich., the entire 79 miles kee, Manitowoc and Kewaunee. with power switches included in between Plymouth and Saginaw the CTC are at Clyde and Newark. now being controlled from a ma­ Twenty Trains Dally These sidings were lengthened to chine at Saginaw. hold 112 and 133 cars respectively .
  • North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office David L

    North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office David L

    North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office David L. S. Brook. Administrator Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Historical Resources Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary David J. Olson, Director Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary May 23, 2003 MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch NCDOT Division of Highways FROM: David Brook SUBJECT: Flistoric/Architectural Resources Survey Report, Widen US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to 1-40 in McDowell County, R-2597, Rutherford and McDowell Counties, CH02-10510 Thank you for your letter of April 29, 2003, transmitting the survey report by Frances P. Alexander of Mattson, Alexander and Associates. For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the following properties are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under the criterion cited: William Monteith House, Gilkey, Rutherford County Albert Weaver Farm, Thermal City, Rutherford County B. G. Hensley House, Glenwood vicinity, McDowell County ; The William Monteirkliouse, west side of US 221, 0.1 mile north of SR 1351, Gilkey, RutherfasnaCounty,is-eligible,for the National Register ,under Criterion C for architecture. The Monteith _House is an especially fine expression of the Queen Anne style in Rutherford County-,.. We concur with the proposed National Register boundaries as described and delMeated.in the report. - The Albert Weaver Farm, west side of SR 1321-, 0.1 mile west of, US 221; Thermal City, Rutherford County, is eligible for the National Register underCriterion A for agriculture and Criterion C for .architecture-. The farmhouse and its collection of intact and in-place .
  • Union Depot Tower Interlocking Plant

    Union Depot Tower Interlocking Plant

    Union Depot Tower Union Depot Tower (U.D. Tower) was completed in 1914 as part of a municipal project to improve rail transportation through Joliet, which included track elevation of all four railroad lines that went through downtown Joliet and the construction of a new passenger station to consolidate the four existing passenger stations into one. A result of this overall project was the above-grade intersection of 4 north-south lines with 4 east-west lines. The crossing of these rail lines required sixteen track diamonds. A diamond is a fixed intersection between two tracks. The purpose of UD Tower was to ensure and coordinate the safe and timely movement of trains through this critical intersection of east-west and north-south rail travel. UD Tower housed the mechanisms for controlling the various rail switches at the intersection, also known as an interlocking plant. Interlocking Plant Interlocking plants consisted of the signaling appliances and tracks at the intersections of major rail lines that required a method of control to prevent collisions and provide for the efficient movement of trains. Most interlocking plants had elevated structures that housed mechanisms for controlling the various rail switches at the intersection. Union Depot Tower is such an elevated structure. Source: Museum of the American Railroad Frisco Texas CSX Train 1513 moves east through the interlocking. July 25, 1997. Photo courtesy of Tim Frey Ownership of Union Depot Tower Upon the completion of Union Depot Tower in 1914, U.D. Tower was owned and operated by the four rail companies with lines that came through downtown Joliet.
  • Kannapolis Station Connectivity Study

    Kannapolis Station Connectivity Study

    KANNAPOLIS STATION CONNECTIVITY STUDY Submitted To: Rail Division North Carolina Department of Transportation Submitted By: WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff March 18, 2016 Kannapolis Station Connectivity Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Study Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Study Process ................................................................................................................................ 3 1.3 Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 4 2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Train Service .................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Transit Service ............................................................................................................................... 5 3 City of Kannapolis ................................................................................................................................
  • Interaction of Lifecycle Properties in High Speed Rail Systems Operation

    Interaction of Lifecycle Properties in High Speed Rail Systems Operation

    Interaction of Lifecycle Properties in High Speed Rail Systems Operation by Tatsuya Doi M.E., Aeronautics and Astronautics, University of Tokyo, 2011 B.E., Aeronautics and Astronautics, University of Tokyo, 2009 Submitted to the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Engineering Systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology June 2016 © 2016 Tatsuya Doi. All rights reserved. The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. Signature of Author: ____________________________________________________________________ Institute for Data, Systems, and Society May 6, 2016 Certified by: __________________________________________________________________________ Joseph M. Sussman JR East Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Engineering Systems Thesis Supervisor Certified by: __________________________________________________________________________ Olivier L. de Weck Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics and Engineering Systems Thesis Supervisor Accepted by: _________________________________________________________________________ John N. Tsitsiklis Clarence J. Lebel Professor of Electrical Engineering IDSS Graduate Officer 1 2 Interaction of Lifecycle Properties In High Speed Rail Systems Operation by Tatsuya Doi Submitted to the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society on May 6, 2016 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Engineering Systems ABSTRACT High-Speed Rail (HSR) has been expanding throughout the world, providing various nations with alternative solutions for the infrastructure design of intercity passenger travel. HSR is a capital-intensive infrastructure, in which multiple subsystems are closely integrated. Also, HSR operation lasts for a long period, and its performance indicators are continuously altered by incremental updates.
  • 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 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: .........................................................................................................
  • Buzzards Bay Commuter Rail Progresses — Slowly New CTPS Study May Delay Town Meeting Vote; 2014 Capeflyer Ridership, Revenue Down

    Buzzards Bay Commuter Rail Progresses — Slowly New CTPS Study May Delay Town Meeting Vote; 2014 Capeflyer Ridership, Revenue Down

    Dear All: October 10, 2014 Please note: There will be no eblast next week as we ALL will be at York (I hope). It seems every time I walk into a store there is a new theme being displayed, it’s gone from the Fourth of July to Christmas, not sure where the time has gone! We hope you will visit the WB&A table at York (by the registration counter). The hours will be posted on the table so that you can stop by and say hello, pay your 2015 dues (then have a chance at the $100 drawing), take a chance on the drawing (see below) and let us know how we’re doing. The attached flyer reminds us that we have warriors coming home and many (too many) still abroad who defend and protect the U.S.A. No matter what your political views may be, I hope you can take the time to partake in this event. As a reminder, the eblasts and attachments will be placed on the WB&A website under the “About” tab for your viewing/sharing pleasure http://www.wbachapter.org/index.html. The attachments are contained in the one PDF attached to this email in an effort to streamline the sending of this email and to ensure the attachments are able to be received. TRAIN STORIES BY CLEM CLEMENT I hope you have been enjoying Clem’s York stories, attached is another story from Clem regarding STOMPER. Enjoy! Also, as those of us who know Clem and for those of who don’t, I KNOW you have heard of the mighty STOMPER – in Clem’s words: From time to time, the truthful stories about STOMPER’s exploits come to life from his hideout on goiunkland 34.1(Located in the shadows of history, just past the time/speed location of Eve’s first words...).