This Is to Acknowledge Receipt of Your February 22, 2019 Letter Requesting

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

This Is to Acknowledge Receipt of Your February 22, 2019 Letter Requesting NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION 1 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20001 Tel: (202) 906-3971 March 6, 2019 Garrett D. Urban General Attorney Norfolk Southern Corporation Law Department Three Commercial Place Norfolk, VA 23510 Dear Mr. Urban: This is to acknowledge receipt of your February 22, 2019 letter requesting that Amtrak “refrain from further statements from its Twitter account.” First, thank you for following the @AmtrakAlerts Twitter account. Our customers really appreciate these explanations about when and why they are being delayed by a freight train. Amtrak loses over $140 million dollars a year due to delays caused by host railroads and our customers lose thousands of minutes of their lives waiting to arrive at their destinations. These numbers have considerably increased over the last decade and Norfolk Southern, and its terrible service to Amtrak customers, bears significant responsibility for this increase. As a Norfolk Southern customer, Amtrak demands that Norfolk Southern meet or exceed 80% on-time performance at all stations on all Amtrak routes as required by law. Your letter is surprising mostly because it focused on just a single tweet about train 20(15) from the @AmtrakAlerts Twitter feed. While train 20(15) was initially delayed by a mechanical issue, the subsequent 198 minutes of delay due to Norfolk Southern compounded this problem, which is sadly all too common. While you complain this was due to the train being “off plan,” the thousands of severe delays to Amtrak passengers caused by Norfolk Southern make clear there is no Norfolk Southern “plan.” In 2018, Norfolk Southern delayed Amtrak trains for 464,342 minutes, the equivalent of 322 days. For many Amtrak customers, enduring severe delays caused by Norfolk Southern are the norm. In 2018, each Crescent train was, on average, delayed nearly 2.5 hours by Norfolk Southern freight trains alone, in addition to many other Norfolk Southern- caused delays. In just the first two months of 2019, a single Norfolk Southern freight train (Train 21M) was responsible for over 1,346 minutes of delay to Amtrak trains on Norfolk Southern territory. In 2018, this same freight train caused 9,786 minutes of delay to Amtrak trains and the customers on board. This consistent pattern of delays caused by a single Norfolk Southern freight train demonstrates a clear violation of 49 U.S. Code § 24308, which requires Norfolk Southern to provide Amtrak trains with preference over freight transportation. Moreover, each and every violation of Amtrak’s preference right and resulting delays to our passengers are causing irreparable injury to Amtrak’s business and public reputation. Our passengers have every right to know why they are being delayed, and Amtrak is duty-bound to tell them. We wish that this pattern of delays was limited to a single train, or a single route so we could work together to remedy the situation, but instead, this dreadful level of service is found 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION 1 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20001 Tel: (202) 906-3971 throughout the Norfolk Southern system. Let me draw your attention to just a few of the thousands of instances where Norfolk Southern robbed Amtrak’s customers of their valuable time: On April 12, 2018, Piedmont Train 74, operating on a line where the Federal government invested $494 million to improve passenger rail service, departed Charlotte on-time and then incurred 2 hours of delay caused by Norfolk Southern freight trains, most of which was spent following a single freight train. On November 5, 2018, Piedmont Train 74, operating on the same line that received millions of taxpayer dollars, departed Charlotte on-time and then incurred more than 1.5 hours of delay caused by Norfolk Southern freight trains. On November 22, 2018, Pennsylvanian Train 42 departed Pittsburgh on-time and then incurred over 2 hours of delay caused by Norfolk Southern freight trains. On January 2, 2019, Crescent Train 20 departed New Orleans on-time and then incurred nearly 3.5 hours of delay caused by Norfolk Southern freight trains. On January 17, 2019, Pennsylvanian Train 43 entered Norfolk Southern territory at Harrisburg 4 minutes late, then incurred 1.5 hours of delay caused by Norfolk Southern freight trains, including following a single freight train for nearly 50 miles. On February 7, 2019, Capitol Limited Train 30 departed Chicago on-time and then incurred 4 hours of delay caused by Norfolk Southern freight trains, including holding near Cleveland for 1.5 hours to allow two Norfolk Southern trains traveling in the opposite direction to pass. On February 14, 2019, Wolverine Train 352 departed Chicago on-time and then incurred 1.5 hours of delay caused by Norfolk Southern freight trains. On February 21, 2019, Capitol Limited Train 30 departed Chicago on-time and then incurred nearly 2.5 hours of delay caused by Norfolk Southern freight trains, a portion of which included following a single freight train for more than 100 miles in double-track territory. On February 22, 2019, Capitol Limited Train 29 arrived at Norfolk Southern territory at Pittsburgh early, then incurred 2 hours of delay caused by Norfolk Southern freight trains, including following a single Norfolk Southern train for more than 100 miles in double- track territory. On February 24, 2019, Capitol Limited Train 30 departed Chicago 8 minutes late and then incurred 5 hours of delay caused by Norfolk Southern freight trains, including two hours following a single Norfolk Southern freight train in double-track territory. On February 24, 2019, Lake Shore Limited Train 49 entered Norfolk Southern territory at Cleveland 30 minutes late, then incurred 2.5 hours of delay caused by Norfolk Southern freight trains, including following a single Norfolk Southern freight train for 96 miles in double-track territory. As you are aware, Amtrak regularly reports to Norfolk Southern all delays experienced by Amtrak and its customers on Norfolk Southern territory. When Amtrak customers are forced to sit idle while Norfolk Southern gives preference to their freight trains, we think it is important that our customers know that Norfolk Southern is responsible for that decision. We will continue to provide our customers with the facts. We wholeheartedly agree that it is in your interest to focus on the events that delay Amtrak trains, and we look forward to learning how Norfolk Southern will change its practices to end the continuous violation of Amtrak’s preference rights. We note that 2 NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION 1 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20001 Tel: (202) 906-3971 among the six Class I freight host railroads, Norfolk Southern is ranked last in performance – and in 2018 was responsible for 30% more delays than even the next-to-last host railroad. In your letter, you indicated if Amtrak fails to cease tweeting information regarding delays, Norfolk Southern “will be forced to consider further action.” We urge Norfolk Southern to live up to that promise by taking immediate action to improve the on-time performance of Amtrak trains on your railroad. Respectfully, William Herrmann Vice President, Sr. Managing Deputy General Counsel & Assistant Corporate Secretary C: Jay Fox, Senior Director – Host Railroads, Amtrak Joseph Carpenter, General Counsel – Markets & Regulation, Norfolk Southern John Edwards, General Director Passenger Policy, Norfolk Southern Randall Hunt, Senior Director – Interline Management, Norfolk Southern Michael McClellan, Vice President – Strategic Planning, Norfolk Southern Vanessa Sutherland, Vice President – Law, Norfolk Southern 3 .
Recommended publications
  • CAPITOL LIMITED Train Time Schedule & Line Route
    CAPITOL LIMITED train time schedule & line map Capitol Limited View In Website Mode The train line Capitol Limited has 2 routes. For regular weekdays, their operation hours are: (1) Chicago Union Station: 4:05 PM (2) Washington Union Station: 7:40 PM Use the Moovit App to ƒnd the closest CAPITOL LIMITED train station near you and ƒnd out when is the next CAPITOL LIMITED train arriving. Direction: Chicago Union Station CAPITOL LIMITED train Time Schedule 16 stops Chicago Union Station Route Timetable: VIEW LINE SCHEDULE Sunday 4:05 PM Monday 4:05 PM Union Station 50 Massachusetts Avenue Ne, Washington Tuesday 4:05 PM Rockville Amtrak Wednesday 4:05 PM 250 Rockville Pike, Rockville Thursday 4:05 PM Harpers Ferry Amtrak Friday 4:05 PM 182 Potomac St, Harpers Ferry Saturday 4:05 PM Martinsburg Amtrak Station 229 East Martin Street, Berkeley County Cumberland Amtrak Station 200 Park St, Cumberland CAPITOL LIMITED train Info Direction: Chicago Union Station Connellsville Amtrak Stops: 16 Trip Duration: 1060 min Pittsburgh Amtrak Station Line Summary: Union Station, Rockville Amtrak, 1100 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh Harpers Ferry Amtrak, Martinsburg Amtrak Station, Cumberland Amtrak Station, Connellsville Amtrak, Alliance Amtrak Pittsburgh Amtrak Station, Alliance Amtrak, Cleveland, Elyria Amtrak, Sandusky Amtrak Station, Cleveland Toledo, Waterloo Amtrak Station, Elkhart Amtrak 200 Cleveland Memorial Shoreway, Cleveland Station, South Bend Amtrak Station, Chicago Union Station Elyria Amtrak 410 East River Road, Elyria Sandusky Amtrak Station
    [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]
  • Administrator's Letterhead Stationery
    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, 2014 (Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2014) Federal Railroad Administration United States Department of Transportation Published September 2014 Table of Contents (Notes follow on the next page.) Page Financial Table 1 (A/B): Short-Term Avoidable Operating Costs (Note 1) 1 – 2 Table 2 (A/B): Fully Allocated Operating Cost covered by Passenger-Related Revenue 3 – 4 Table 3 (A/B): Long-Term Avoidable Operating Loss (Note 1) 5 – 6 Table 4 (A/B): Adjusted Loss per Passenger- Mile 7 – 8 Table 5: Passenger-Miles per Train-Mile 9 On-Time Performance (Table 6) Test No. 1 Change in Effective Speed 10 Test No. 2 Endpoint OTP 10 Test No. 3 All-Stations OTP 10 Train Delays Train Delays - Off NEC Table 7: Off-NEC Host Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles 11 – 12 Table 8: Off-NEC Amtrak Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles 13 Train Delays - On NEC Table 9: On-NEC Total Host and Amtrak Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles 14 Other Service Quality Table 10: Customer Satisfaction Indicator (CSI) Scores 15 Table 11: Service Interruptions per 10,000 Train-Miles due to Equipment-related Problems 16 Table 12: Complaints Received 17 Table 13: Food-related Complaints 18 Table 14: Personnel-related Complaints 19 Table 15: Equipment-related Complaints 20 Table 16: Station-related Complaints 21 Public Benefits (Table 17) Connectivity Measure 22 Availability of Other Modes 22 Reference Materials Table 18: Route Descriptions 23 Terminology & Definitions Table 19: Delay Code Definitions 24 Table 20: Host Railroad Code Definitions 25 Appendixes A.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation
    People Before Freight On-time trains on host railroads 3 LATEST REPORT CARD SIGNALS NEW GOLDEN AGE OF ON-TIME TRAINS 1 Canadian Pacific A 2 BNSF A 3 Union Pacific A 4 CSX A 5 Canadian National A 6 Norfolk Southern A Average grade for all host railroads: A 4 Amtrak National Network Passengers Continue to Experience Poor On-Time Performance 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 5 Grading National Network routes on OTP 17 of 28 State-Supported Services Fail 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% Capitol Corridor UP 89% New York ‐ Albany (other hosts) 89% Carl Sandburg / Illinois Zephyr BNSF 88% Ethan Allen Express CP 87% PASS Pere Marquette CSX, NS 84% 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% FAIL New York ‐ Niagara Falls CSX 70% Vermonter (other hosts) 67% Cascades BNSF, UP 64% Maple Leaf CSX 64% Wolverine NS, CN 60% Heartland Flyer BNSF 58% Carolinian CSX, NS 51% Illini / Saluki CN 37% 6 Grading National Network routes on OTP 14 of 15 Long Distance Services Fail Class I Freight Percentage of trains on‐time Long
    [Show full text]
  • Elegant Report
    Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee PENNSYLVANIA STATEWIDE PASSENGER RAIL NEEDS ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 2001 Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................................................4 1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................5 1.1 Study Background........................................................................................................................................5 1.2 Study Purpose...............................................................................................................................................5 1.3 Corridors Identified .....................................................................................................................................6 2.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................................7 3.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON CANDIDATE CORRIDORS .................................................14 3.1 Existing Intercity Rail Service...................................................................................................................14 3.1.1 Keystone Corridor ................................................................................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Intercity Passenger Rail System
    Appendix 3 Intercity Passenger Rail System Introduction passenger rail system, including: The Pennsylvania Intercity Passenger and Freight Rail Plan provides a High-Speed Rail Corridors (110 mph and above) – Corridors under strategic framework for creating a 21st-century rail network. The Plan 500 miles with travel demand, population density, and congestion on visualizes the passenger and competing modes that warrant high-speed rail service. freight rail network in 2035 Regional Corridors (79 to 110 mph) – Corridors under 500 miles, with and offers strategies and frequent, reliable service competing successfully with auto and air objectives to achieve its vision. travel. The purpose of Appendix 3 is Long-Distance Service – Corridors greater than 500 miles that provide to provide background basic connectivity and a balanced national transportation system. information on existing passenger rail service in In a report to Congress, Vision for High-Speed Rail in America, dated April Pennsylvania with a 2009, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) provided the following concentration on existing definitions: intercity passenger rail service and performance. High-Speed Rail (HSR) and Intercity Passenger Rail (IPR) HSR – Express. Frequent, express service between major population Intercity Rail Definitions centers 200 to 600 miles apart, with few intermediate stops.1 Top There are numerous interpretations of what constitutes “intercity speeds of at least 150 mph on completely grade-separated, dedicated passenger rail.” In a recent publication, Achieving the Vision: Intercity rights-of-way (with the possible exception of some shared track in Passenger Rail, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) urged Congress to enact a National Rail Policy that should address the development of a national intercity 1 Corridor lengths are approximate; slightly shorter or longer intercity services may still help meet strategic goals in a cost-effective manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Amtrak Plans Reroute of Capitol Limited and Broadway Limited
    the 6:53 December 1989 OHIO ASSOCIATION Of RAILROAD PASSENGERS Issue • 86 '* '* '* SPECIAL ED I!ION '* '* '* AMTRAK PLANS REROUTE OF CAPITOL LIMITED AND BROADWAY LIMITED Debated over a long period, rumored for a number of years, cheered by many, lamented by some, and eagerly awaited by others: that would describe reaction by OARP members, newspapers, TIJ newscasts, and the pub! ic to the announcement of the pre! iminary agreement which vJas reached by AMTRAK with Conrail and CSX to reroute these two trains, probably within a year, and perhaps as early as next summer. The BROADWAY LIMITED operates from N~~ York to Chicago via Philadelphia, Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. The CAPITOL LIMITED operates from Washington to Chicago via Cumberland and Pittsburgh. West of Pittsburgh both trains currently operate over Conrail tracks through Canton, Crestline, and Lima Ohio, and Fort Wayne, Warsaw, and ~Ja l parai so, Indiana, tracks which are being down-graded by Conrail because of limited freight usage. The n~" route for the BROADWAY wou I d taV.e the train from Pittsburgh through Youngstown and AV.ron, Ohio, and Auburn, Indiana over CSX tracks. The CAPITOL will be rerouted from Pittsburgh through Alliance, Cleveland, and Toledo, Ohio, and South Bend, Indiana, using Conrail tracV.s (same route as the LAKE SHORE west of Cleveland). AMTRAK says that it will continue to serve Fort Wayne via a direct bus connection to the CAPITOL at Water 1oo, Indiana ( 30 mi 1e,s away) and the BROADWAY at Auburn, Indiana (20 miles away). This change will place both trains on mainline tracks which will continue to be maintained for higher speeds.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 West Virginia State Rail Plan
    West Virginia State Rail Plan DECEMBER 2020 The West Virginia State Rail Authority appreciates the effort, energy, and engagement of our partners who helped make the 2020 West Virginia State Rail Plan possible. As committed members of the Steering Committee, the following individuals provided critical guidance, advice, information and vision throughout the plan development. Key rail champions and community members, committed to advancing rail in the state, provided enthusiasm and feedback from community and users perspectives. 2020 State Rail Plan Steering Committee Cindy Butler Executive Director, West Virginia State Rail Authority Byrd White Secretary of Transportation, West Virginia Department of Transportation Jimmy Wriston Deputy Commissioner, Division of Highways, West Virginia Department of Transportation Ira Baldwin Deputy Director, Transportation Division West Virginia Public Service Commission David Cramer Director, Commissioner’s Office of Economic Development, West Virginia Department of Transportation Jordan Damron Communications, Governor’s Office Randy Damron Information Core, West Virginia Division of Highways Jessie Fernandez-Gatti Community Planner, Federal Railroad Administration Alanna Keller Engineering Advisor, West Virginia Department of Transportation Chris Kinsey Statewide Planning Section Head, Planning Division, West Virginia Division of Highways Ryland Musick Deputy State Highway Engineer, West Virginia Division of Highways Elwood Penn Division Director, Planning Division, West Virginia Department of Highways John Perry Manager, Railroad Safety Section, West Virginia Public Service Commission Nathan Takitch Project Manager, West Virginia Department of Commerce Ann Urling Deputy Chief of Staff, Governor’s Office 2020 State Rail Plan Advisory Committee Sean D. Hill Director, West Virginia Aeronautics Commission William “Bill” Robinson Executive Director, Division of Public Transit, West Virginia Department of Transportation Robert C.
    [Show full text]
  • 3C+D Corridor
    3C+D Corridor Amtrak’s vision to connect communities across Ohio Amtrak's Vision Frequency Initial Trip Time Host Railroads Annual Economic Impact 3 daily round trips 5:30 CSX, NS $129.6 million AmtrakConnectsUS.com 1 3C+D Corridor Corridor Growth Despite being less than 250 miles apart, the last time Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati were connected directly by rail was in 1967. The three cities, commonly referred to as the “Three C’s," are the largest in the state of Ohio. Columbus’ metropolitan area is home to over two million residents, making it the second-largest metropolitan area in the country without Amtrak service. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, since 2000, Columbus has added over 200,000 jobs to its economy, and Cincinnati has added over 100,000 jobs in the same time period. Amtrak’s vision would turn both Cincinnati and Cleveland into new hubs for Amtrak service. In addition to the existing Long Distance trains that operate through Ohio – the Capitol Limited, Cardinal, and Lake Shore Limited – the following improved services are included in Amtrak’s vision: • Cincinnati - Chicago: +4 daily roundtrips • Cleveland - Detroit: +3 daily roundtrips • Cleveland - New York City: +2 daily roundtrips These new rail connections would improve mobility for underserved communities and provide reliable and efficient transportation to education and employment opportunities along the route. Connections would be available to Cleveland’s RTA Light Rail System, Columbus’ COTA system, and Cincinnati’s Metro system. The proposed route would serve dozens of colleges and universities and connect 18 Fortune 500 companies.
    [Show full text]
  • TRAINS. MORE CITIES. Better Service
    MORE TRAINS. MORE CITIES. Better Service. Amtrak’s Vision for Improving Transportation Across America | June 2021 National Railroad Passenger Corporation 1 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 Amtrak.com 01 Executive Summary 4 02 Introduction 8 03 The Challenges Expansion Will Address 13 04 The Solution Is Passenger Rail 20 05 The Right Conditions For Expansion 24 06 Analysis For Supporting Service Expansion 33 07 Implementation 70 08 Conclusion 73 Appendix Amtrak Route Identification Methodology 74 01 Executive Summary OVERVIEW As Amtrak celebrates 50 years of service to America, we are focused on the future and are pleased to present this comprehensive plan to develop and expand our nation’s transportation infrastructure, enhance mobility, drive economic growth and meaningfully contribute to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. With our seventeen state partners we provide service to forty-six states, linking urban and rural areas from coast to coast. But there is so much more to be done, from providing transportation choices in more locations to reducing highway and air traffic congestion to addressing longstanding economic and social inequities. This report describes how. To achieve this vision, Amtrak proposes that the federal government invest $75 billion over fifteen years to develop and expand intercity passenger rail corridors around the nation in collaboration with our existing and new state partners. Key elements of Amtrak’s proposal include: Sustained and Flexible Funding Paths Federal Investment Leadership Amtrak proposes a combination of funding mechanisms, including Following the successful models used to develop the nation’s direct federal funding to Amtrak for corridor development and Interstate Highway System and our aviation infrastructure, Amtrak operation, and discretionary grants available to states, Amtrak proposes significant Federal financial leadership to drive the and others for corridor development.
    [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]