DOCSLIB.ORG

Kansas City-Wichita-Oklahoma City-Fort Worth Corridor Passenger Rail Service Development Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kansas City-Wichita-Oklahoma City-Fort Worth Corridor Passenger Rail Service Development Plan Kansas City-Wichita-Oklahoma City-Fort Worth Corridor Passenger Rail Service Development Plan Prepared for: With the cooperation and assistance from: Texas Department of Transportation Missouri Department of Transportation BNSF Railway Company AMTRAK Federal Railroad Administration Prepared by: November 2011 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. v 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 FRA Passenger Rail Development Process ................................................................................. 1 1.2 History of Passenger Rail in the Corridor ................................................................................... 2 1.3 Discussions Related to Potential Rerouting of the Southwest Chief ......................................... 3 1.4 Speed of Operation .................................................................................................................... 4 2. Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Recent History of Rail Passenger Efforts .................................................................................. 10 3. Rationale ................................................................................................................................. 13 3.1 General Costs, Benefits, Risks, Impacts ................................................................................... 13 3.2 Synergies with Established Plans and Goals ............................................................................ 14 4. Identification of Alternatives and Base Case ........................................................................... 19 4.1 Base Case ................................................................................................................................. 19 4.2 Alternatives .............................................................................................................................. 25 5. Planning Methodology ............................................................................................................. 31 5.1 Stakeholder Participation ........................................................................................................ 31 5.2 Public Involvement .................................................................................................................. 35 5.3 Service Descriptions ................................................................................................................. 35 6. Demand and Revenue Forecasts ............................................................................................. 41 7. Infrastructure and Operations Analysis ................................................................................... 45 7.1 Infrastructure Characteristics .................................................................................................. 46 7.2 Operations Analysis ................................................................................................................. 50 7.3 RTC Outputs of Base and Alternatives ..................................................................................... 51 7.4 Equipment Consists.................................................................................................................. 60 7.5 Terminal, Yard, and Support Operations ................................................................................. 63 8. Station and Access Analysis ..................................................................................................... 65 8.1 Station Location Analysis ......................................................................................................... 67 8.3 Intermodal Connectivity .......................................................................................................... 90 9. Capital Programming ............................................................................................................... 91 i 9.1 Costing Methodology Summary .............................................................................................. 91 9.2 Project Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................ 91 9.3 Preliminary Project Schedule and Annual Expenditures ....................................................... 100 10. Operating and Maintenance Costs and Capital Replacement Forecast ................................ 103 10.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 103 10.2 Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 103 10.3 Existing Heartland Flyer Service ............................................................................................. 105 10.4 Heartland Flyer Extension ...................................................................................................... 107 10.5 KC-OKC-FW Daytime Service (stand alone) ............................................................................ 109 10.6 KC-OKC-FW Daytime Service and Heartland Flyer Extension (Combined Services) ............... 111 10.7 Summary Financial Projections .............................................................................................. 113 10.8 Long-Term Financial Projections ............................................................................................ 113 11. Economic Impact Analysis ...................................................................................................... 115 11.1 Key Analytic Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 116 11.2 Economic Benefits Included ................................................................................................... 119 11.3 Excluded Economic Benefits .................................................................................................. 124 11.4 Economic Costs Included and Assumptions ........................................................................... 126 11.5 Key Benefit-Cost Evaluation Measures .................................................................................. 127 11.6 Benefit-Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 128 11.7 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 132 12 Program Management ........................................................................................................... 133 12.1 Marketing ............................................................................................................................... 133 12.2 Passenger Rail Service Promotion Models............................................................................. 134 12.3 Rail Service Management Models ......................................................................................... 134 12.4 Program Delivery Requirements ............................................................................................ 136 12.5 Organization Options for Coordinating a Multi-State Corridor ............................................. 141 Appendix A .......................................................................................................................................... 145 Appendix B .......................................................................................................................................... 149 ii List of Figures Figure 1: FRA Passenger Rail Development Process Elements ........................................................ 2 Figure 2: KC-Wichita-OKC-FW Corridor Bus Routes ....................................................................... 22 Figure 3: Midwest Gasoline Prices 1999-2011 ............................................................................... 25 Figure 4: KC-Wichita-OKC-FW Route Alternatives ......................................................................... 26 Figure 5: Heartland Flyer Extension Proposed Schedule ............................................................... 36 Figure 6: KC-OKC-FW Daytime Service Proposed Schedule ........................................................... 38 Figure 7: RTC Rail Operations Simulation Network ....................................................................... 45 Figure 8: Stringline Chart - Existing Rail Operations for 24 Hours ................................................. 52 Figure 9: Stringline Chart - Added Heartland Flyer Extension ........................................................ 53 Figure 10: Stringline Chart -KC-OKC-FW Daytime Service .............................................................. 54 Figure 11: Infrastructure Requirements for Heartland Flyer Extension ........................................ 56 Figure 12: Infrastructure Requirements for KC-OKC-FW Daylight Service .................................... 58 Figure 13: Infrastructure Requirements for Combined Services .................................................... 59 Figure 14: Projected
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 40Thanniv Ersary
    Spring 2011 • $7 95 FSharing tihe exr periencste of Fastest railways past and present & rsary nive 40th An Things Were Not the Same after May 1, 1971 by George E. Kanary D-Day for Amtrak 5We certainly did not see Turboliners in regular service in Chicago before Amtrak. This train is In mid April, 1971, I was returning from headed for St. Louis in August 1977. —All photos by the author except as noted Seattle, Washington on my favorite train to the Pacific Northwest, the NORTH back into freight service or retire. The what I considered to be an inauspicious COAST LIMITED. For nearly 70 years, friendly stewardess-nurses would find other beginning to the new service. Even the the flagship train of the Northern Pacific employment. The locomotives and cars new name, AMTRAK, was a disappoint - RR, one of the oldest named trains in the would go into the AMTRAK fleet and be ment to me, since I preferred the classier country, had closely followed the route of dispersed country wide, some even winding sounding RAILPAX, which was eliminat - the Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1804, up running on the other side of the river on ed at nearly the last moment. and was definitely the super scenic way to the Milwaukee Road to the Twin Cities. In addition, wasn’t AMTRAK really Seattle and Portland. My first association That was only one example of the serv - being brought into existence to eliminate with the North Coast Limited dated to ices that would be lost with the advent of the passenger train in America? Didn’t 1948, when I took my first long distance AMTRAK on May 1, 1971.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Planning Documentation
    Project Planning Documentation Overview of Project Project funding will be used to complete necessary preliminary engineering and NEPA for a new 250 mile high-speed core express service between Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston. Based on the preliminary planning summarized in this document, the Dallas-Fort Worth to Houston route could utilize one of three routes analyzed, consisting of a BNSF route through Teague, a UPRR route through College Station, or a new green field route that parallels I-45. Additionally, all three of the routes include segments of the UPRR Terminal and West Belt Subdivisions in order to connect to the existing passenger rail station in downtown Houston and a small portion of the UPRR Dallas Subdivision to connect to the existing passenger rail station (Union Station) in Dallas. Purpose and Need The purpose of the Dallas/Fort Worth to Houston core express service preliminary engineering and NEPA documentation is to prepare the project for the next stage of final design and construction. The Dallas/Fort Worth to Houston corridor has been included in the Texas Rail Plan as well as a research study performed by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), and the America 2050 report as a key corridor with need for high speed rail service. Texas Rail Plan TxDOT completed and published the Texas Rail Plan in November 2010, which included a short term and long term program for passenger rail. The Dallas to Houston corridor was included in the short term program for preliminary planning and in the long term program for further development of the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Eagle® Heartland Flyer®
    2009 ® 26, TEXAS EAGLE OCTOBER And HEARTLAND FLYER® Effective SM journey. the Enjoy TEXAS EAGLE® serving CHICAGO - ST. LOUIS - LITTLE ROCK DALLAS - FORT WORTH - SAN ANTONIO 1-800-USA-RAIL LOS ANGELES Call And intermediate stations HEARTLAND FLYER® serving OKLAHOMA CITY - FORT WORTH And intermediate stations AMTRAK.COM Visit NRPC Form P21–200M–10/26/09 Stock #02-3670 TEXAS EAGLE HEARTLAND FLYER Chicago • St. Louis • Little Rock • Dallas • Oklahoma City • Fort Worth Fort Worth • San Antonio • Los Angeles 821 ᮤ Train Number ᮣ 822 21/421 ᮤ Train Number ᮣ 22/422 Daily ᮤ Days of Operation ᮣ Daily ᮤ ᮣ As indicated ᮤ ᮣ As indicated ® y On Board Service ® y in column Days of Operation in column ReadDown Mile ᮢ Symbol ᮡ Read Up ᮤ ᮣ ® s r On Board Service ® s r 8 25A 0 Dp Oklahoma City, OK (CT) 0h Ar 9 39P Read Down Mile ᮢ Symbol ᮡ Read Up b Tulsa, Kansas City—see back 0h 1 45P Daily 0 Dp Chicago, IL–Union (CT) 8s Ar 1 52P Daily 8 49A 20 Norman, OK 8 55P Hq 9 06A 35 Purcell, OK 0h 8 38P R 2 40P Daily 37 Joliet, IL 8H D12 56P Daily 9 31A 57 Pauls Valley, OK 0h 8 12P 3 27P Daily 92 Pontiac, IL 0H 11 39A Daily 10 23A 102 Ardmore, OK 0h 7 23P 4 04P Daily 124 Bloomington-Normal, IL 8s 11 08A Daily 11 05A 141 Gainesville, TX 0h 6 42P b Davenport, Hq 12 39P 206 Ar Fort Worth, TX (CT) 8hq Dp 5 25P Indianapolis—see back 4 37P Daily 156 Lincoln, IL 0H 10 25A Daily 5 14P Daily 185 Springfield, IL &¶8s 9 55A Daily Service on the Heartland Flyer® hq ® Coaches: Reservations required.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Bill Policy Committee Analysis
    SJR 30 Page 1 Date of Hearing: August 23, 2018 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Jim Frazier, Chair SJR 30 (McGuire) – As Introduced August 9, 2018 SENATE VOTE: 33-0 SUBJECT: Amtrak National Network. SUMMARY: Urges the Congress and the President of the United States to support the retention of, and investment in, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) National Network of passenger trains and for Congress to reject the President’s proposed budget cuts to Amtrak. Specifically, this resolution: 1) Makes findings and declarations including the history of Amtrak in the United States and its importance to the State of California that WHEREAS: a) Amtrak was created in 1970 to assume the common carriers’ obligations of the private railroads and provide intercity passenger rail service throughout the United States; and, b) Amtrak’s mission is to deliver intercity transportation that helps move people, the economy, and the nation forward; and, c) Amtrak operates a nationwide rail network, serving more than 500 destinations in 46 states, the District of Columbia, and three Canadian provinces, in addition to serving as a contractor in various capacities for several commuter rail agencies; and, d) Amtrak National Network trains are often the only form of public transportation available to thousands of small communities nationwide, and are a vital link between urban and rural America; and, e) The State of California has a vested interest in the continued success of the local and national Amtrak network as it is home to three of the
    [Show full text]
  • From Heimburger House America'shh Greatest Circus Train Garratt Locomotives by Bruce C
    Heimburger House Publishing Company 2014 A Message from the Publisher Contents New Books ......................................................3 Favorite Heimburger House Titles .....................4 Dear Friends, “With a book in my hand, I feel as though I am Cookbooks .....................................................7 holding something special,” I heard someone say the other day. Construction Equipment..............................7, 31 At Heimburger House we feel the same way: books are great and have a special feel to them, they’re easy to hold in your Model Railroading .....................................7, 31 hand, you can quickly turn back to a page for reference, and the size of a book makes it spectacular for viewing photography and illustrations. Let’s face it, books have a lot going for them Railfan Titles ...................................................8 that Kindles do not. - You can count on Heimburger House to provide the finest Children’s Railroad Books ..............................28 books available on your favorite railroad transportation sub jects. And we’ve just released America’s Greatest Circus Regional History ...........................................31 Train and Garratt Locomotives, a 1925 reprint of the Garratt catalog. Bruce Nelson has gathered detailed information and photographs for years for his new circus book, and the Garratt Model Magazines ............................................32 catalog depicts what this United Kingdom firm once offered in their line-up of “stretch-limo” locomotives. Also, our children’s railroad book line continues to grow, and has become very, very popular: it’s a way to get young children involved with trains! Sincerely, Don Heimburger Publisher HH Heimburger House Publishing Company • Phone: (708) 366-1973 • Fax: (708) 366-1973 • E-mail: [email protected] • Mail: 7236 W. Madison St., Forest Park, Illinois 60130 USA See our entire book selection at www.heimburgerhouse.com New Books From Heimburger House America'sHH Greatest Circus Train Garratt Locomotives By Bruce C.
    [Show full text]
  • January 22, 2021 Board Meeting San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority
    January 22, 2021 Board Meeting San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority ITEM 1 Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance, Roll Call San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority ITEM 2 Consent Calendar 2.1 Approve Minutes from November 20, 2020 Board Meeting 2.2 Appoint New Members to San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee 2.3 Next Board Meeting Location 2.4 SJJPA Operating Expense Report 2.5 Blue Ribbon Task Force Letter 2.6 Washington Update 2.7 Administrative Items San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority ITEM 3 Public Comments Please use the GoToMeeting chat function to alert staff if you wish to make a Public Comment. Alternatively, you may write in your public comment to [email protected] and staff will read the comment aloud. Public comments should be limited to approximately two minutes and no more than 240 words per comment. San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority ITEM 4 Approve a Resolution of the Board of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Adopting the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Final IS/MND) for the Madera Station Relocation Project (Project), Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, Approving the Madera Station Relocation Project, Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute and File a Notice of Determination Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Project, and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Documents Related to the Project (Dan Leavitt) Madera Station Relocation Project Background . Existing Madera San Joaquins Station located in vicinity of Madera Acres . Proposed Station located just north of Avenue 12 along the existing BNSF tracks CEQA Process Schedule .
    [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]
  • The Status of Passenger Rail Improvements in the Region and Plans for the Future
    9/23/15 Working to implement a 21st century passenger rail system by adding the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative network and additional state-supported corridors to the region’s existing passenger rail infrastructure. MIPRC 2015 Annual Meeting September 23, 2015 St. Paul, Minnesota The Status of Passenger Rail Improvements in the Region and Plans for the Future 1 9/23/15 State Reports Illinois Indiana Kansas Michigan Minnesota Missouri North Dakota Wisconsin IDOT Report On Passenger Rail Infrastructure MIPRC September 23‐24, 2015 2 9/23/15 AMTRAK • Operates 56 trains in and through Illinois. • Serves nearly 5 million riders at Illinois stations. • Illinois subsidizes 30 state‐sponsored trains that provide service in 4 regional corridors, with 2 million annual riders. AMTRAK Illinois Amtrak Corridors: • Chicago – Milwaukee (Jointly supported with Wisconsin) • Chicago ‐ St. Louis • Chicago ‐ Quincy • Chicago ‐ Carbondale 3 9/23/15 Illinois HSR Project • The Chicago‐St. Louis High Speed Rail (HSR) Project involves upgrading the existing railroad corridor between Chicago and St. Louis to accommodate passenger train speeds of up to 110 mph. • The project includes reconstruction of main track, new and rebuilt sidings, grade crossing improvements, new fencing, new and rebuilt structures, upgraded stations and installation of Positive Train Control. • Construction activities along the corridor began in 2010 and are scheduled to be largely complete in 2017 (some activities continuing into 2018). Illinois HSR Project • The overall benefits of the project can be summarized as follows: • Overall travel time between Chicago & St. Louis ‐ reduced by 1 hour; • New passenger cars and high efficiency diesel locomotives; • On time performance at 85% and above, compared to the current 75%; • Four quadrant gates, fencing, and related improvements will significantly improve safety at crossings.
    [Show full text]
  • Sounder Commuter Rail (Seattle)
    Public Use of Rail Right-of-Way in Urban Areas Final Report PRC 14-12 F Public Use of Rail Right-of-Way in Urban Areas Texas A&M Transportation Institute PRC 14-12 F December 2014 Authors Jolanda Prozzi Rydell Walthall Megan Kenney Jeff Warner Curtis Morgan Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 8 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. 9 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 10 Sharing Rail Infrastructure ........................................................................................................ 10 Three Scenarios for Sharing Rail Infrastructure ................................................................... 10 Shared-Use Agreement Components .................................................................................... 12 Freight Railroad Company Perspectives ............................................................................... 12 Keys to Negotiating Successful Shared-Use Agreements .................................................... 13 Rail Infrastructure Relocation ................................................................................................... 15 Benefits of Infrastructure Relocation ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Steel Wheels 4Q20 Web.Pdf
    Arizona News All Aboard Arizona Todd Liebman, President For well over a hundred and rail corridor between Los Angeles-Phoenix-Tucson and even thirty years, passenger trains further east to El Paso would be an economic driver for have been a daily fixture Arizona. Arizona’s congested transportation system diminishes of life in Northern Arizona, the quality of life for Arizonans increasing air pollution, literally building communities congestion related delays, and negatively impacting the state’s like Flagstaff and Winslow, economy. Conversely, for a relatively small investment, Amtrak bringing economic activity could return to Phoenix, the Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle to the cities served along Route 66. That came to an end in could operate daily, and the Southwest Chief could return October when Amtrak reduced the Southwest Chief route to to daily service across Northern Arizona. It is often in rural three day per week service, along with all long-distance train communities, like Yuma and Winslow, where passenger rail service in the United States. This cutback is expected to create has the biggest impact. These communities have fewer public economic losses of $239 million in the first nine months to transportation options, and the train serves as a vital lifeline for the communities served from Chicago to Los Angeles. These residents and visitors alike. cuts will not help Amtrak’s bottom line and may do permanent The outlook does not have to be bleak. We can achieve our damage to ridership and the financial health of passenger rail in goals related to daily Amtrak service on routes across Arizona America, and to the communities served by rail.
    [Show full text]
  • RCED-86-140BR Review of Amtrak's Study of Rail Service Through
    United States General Accounting Office Briefing Report to Congressional Requesters ” April 1986 AMTRAK Review of AMTRAK’s Study of Rail Service Through Oklahoma ill1Ill11IIIll1 II 129775 035;30\ GAO/RCED-86-140BR I ’ UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548 I1F:~OtJHCt:, C~MMIJNITY, NLI FLON~JMIL, [,I Vf LOPMENT April 14, 1986 I,IVISION B-222749 To Congressional Requesters On July 23, 1985, we briefed Representative Bob Whittaker and staff from offices of interested Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri members of Congress on the results of our review of Amtrak's analysis of seven proposed passenger rail routes through Oklahoma. This briefing was in response to a May 30, 1984, request from interested members of Congress that we evaluate the methodologies Amtrak used to analyze the market potential for reinstating passenger rail service through Oklahoma. As we agreed Ft the time of the briefing, this report provides a written summary of our result;. Our work assessed whether the revenue and cost projection models and supporting data bases that Amtrak used for the Oklahoma route analyses reasonably represented actual market conditions and costs for the proposed Amtrak routes. On the basis of our review of the models and data bases, we also evaluated the supportability of Amtrak's conclusions regarding the financial and ridership Qerformance of the seven Oklahoma route options. This report is based largely on information obtained from Amtrak and on interviews with Amtrak officials directly responsi- ble for the development and operation of the revenue and cost orojection systems and data bases we evaluated. Although there were some problems with the documentation of the revenue model and its data bases that precluded us from fully applying appropriate model evaluation methods, the information did allow us to provide iqnificant observations regarding Amtrak's current methodologies or estimating revenues on proposed passenger service routes.
    [Show full text]