DOCSLIB.ORG

Table1:Transportation Statistics at a Glance Interim Update for 2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table1:Transportation Statistics at a Glance Interim Update for 2010 TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS AT-A-GLANCE update as of March 7, 2012 Demographic Data (2000 Census) Year Land Area 2010 47,214 sq mi (30th in the US) 62 counties, 62 cities, 931 towns, 555 villages, 328 Jurisdictions census-designated places (CDPs), 10 Indian Reservations Population 2010 19,378,102 Population Density (pop/sq mi) 2010 411.2 Urban 2000 16,603,000 Rural 2000 2,374,000 Housing Units 2010 8,108,103 Occupied 2010 7,317,755 Vacant 2010 790,348 Per-Capita Personal Income Statewide 2009 46,699 Metropolitan Portion 2009 47,748 Non-Metropolitan Portion 2009 32,121 Metropolitan Statistical Areas Albany-Schenectady-Troy 2009 42,206 Binghamton 2009 34,360 Buffalo-Niagara falls 2009 37,469 Elmira 2009 32,881 Glens Falls 2009 33,106 Ithaca 2009 33,684 Kingston 2009 36,519 New York, Northern New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ-PA 2009 52,037 Poughkeepsie-Newburg-Middletown 2009 39,070 Rochester 2009 39,036 Syracuse 2009 36,833 Utica-Rome 2009 33,269 Metropolitan Divisions Nassau-Suffolk 2009 54,912 New York-White Plains-Wayne NY-NJ 2009 51,203 Highway Centerline Mileage by Jurisdiction Pct Total Total State, Local, Other 2009 114,574 100.0% State DOT 2009 16,236 14.2% County 2009 20,257 17.7% City/Town/Village 2009 77,294 67.5% Other State Maintained 2009 787 0.7% Estimated Vehicle-Miles Traveled, All Roads Annual VMT (000) 2010 131,252,905 Annual Growth 2000-'2010 0.2% Bridge Ownership by Jurisdiction * Highway Other Total Pct Total Grand Total 2010 17,421 2,124 19,545 100.0% State 2010 7,644 202 7,846 40.1% Non-State: 2010 9,777 1,922 11,699 59.9% Local 2010 8,582 300 8,882 45.4% County 2010 6,056 64 6,120 31.3% Town 2010 1,335 27 1,362 7.0% Village 2010 143 21 164 0.8% City 2010 1,048 188 1,236 6.3% New York City 2010 595 118 713 3.6% Other Cities 2010 453 70 523 2.7% Railroads 2010 91 1,125 1,216 6.2% Authorities, Commissions, etc. 2010 1,104 497 1,601 8.2% * - SOURCE: Table M-19, NYSDOT Structures Division, 2010 Year Pct Total Total 2010 10,749,952 100.0% Automobiles 2010 9,032,293 84.0% Commercial Vehicles 2010 825,477 7.7% Trailers 2010 352,558 3.3% Motorcycle 2010 340,260 3.2% Moped 2010 12,232 0.1% Buses 2010 25,059 0.2% Taxis 2010 57,973 0.5% Ambulance 2010 3,932 0.0% Rentals 2010 92,524 0.9% Farm 2010 7,644 0.1% Per-Capita Vehicle Registrations Statewide 2010 0.55 New York City 2010 0.23 Remainder of State 2010 0.78 Licensed Drivers Pct Total Total 2010 11,285,831 100.0% Male 2010 5,816,064 51.5% Female 2010 5,469,767 48.5% New York City 2010 3,348,733 29.7% Remainder of State 2010 7,937,098 70.3% Journey to Work (Residents) 2010 NYS NYC NY County All workers 2010 8,723,526 3,615,588 823,612 Drive Alone 2010 54.4% 22.7% 6.7% Carpool 2010 6.9% 5.0% 2.0% Transit (excluding Taxi) 2010 26.7% 55.7% 59.0% Walk 2010 6.2% 10.1% 21.1% Other 2010 1.9% 2.4% 4.7% Work @ Home 2010 4.0% 4.1% 6.6% Mean Travel Time to Work 2010 31.3 39.2 30.1 National Household Transportation Survey US NY % US Person-Trips (billions) 2009 392.0 24.3 6.2% Person Vehicle Trips (billions) 2009 233.8 10.9 4.7% Person-Miles of Travel (billions) 2009 3,732.8 171.9 4.6% Person Vehicle-Miles Traveled (billions) 2009 2,245.1 5.8 0.3% Average Trip Length (miles) 2009 9.8 7.5 76.9% Average Vehicle Occupancy (persons) 2009 1.7 1.5 89.8% Population (5 years or older, millions) 2009 283.1 18.2 6.4% Total Licensed Drivers (millions) 2009 212.3 12.8 6.0% Workers in Households (millions) 2009 151.4 9.8 6.5% Total Households (millions) 2009 113.1 7.1 6.3% Total Vehicles in Households (millions) 2009 210.8 9.1 4.3% Year Public Transportation Systems 2010 63 Public Transportation Providers 2010 134 Public Buses 2010 10,825 Public Rail Cars 2010 8,727 Commuter Rail Tracks 2010 NA Passenger ferry service routes 02/2012 54 Pct Total Revenue Passengers (1) 2010 2,751,613,650 100.0% Bus 2010 983,100,681 35.7% Subway/Light-Rail 2010 1,601,551,829 58.2% Commuter Rail 2010 137,903,899 5.0% Ferry 2010 20,280,929 0.7% Paratransit 2010 8,776,312 0.3% Revenue Vehicle Miles of Service (1) 2010 784,388,680 100.0% Bus 2010 225,365,127 28.7% Subway/Light-Rail 2010 353,332,651 45.0% Commuter Rail 2010 111,147,624 14.2% Ferry 2010 165,746 0.0% Paratransit 2010 94,377,532 12.0% (1) SOURCE: NYSDOT Transit Bureau, providing query from STOA database. New York State Aviation Facilities by Type Commercial Service Airports 2010 18 General Aviation Public Use Airports 2010 106 Private Airports 2010 199 Public Private Total Airports 2010 124 199 323 Heliports 2010 5 118 123 Seaplane Bases 2010 6713 Ultralights 2010 033 Gliderports 2010 022 Total 2010 135 329 464 NYS Air Passenger Enplanements 2010 43,595,939 {Annual Passengers ~= 2 * Enplanements} Estimate 87,191,878 SOURCE: NYSDOT Aviation Bureau New York State Rail Passenger Service Total 2 2010 1,650,396 Adirondack 1 2010 118,673 Empire 3 2010 1,531,723 Empire South (Penn Station to Albany) 2010 981,241 Empire West Maple Leaf 4(A,B,C) 2010 386,361 Lakeshore Limited (New York Penn - Chicago) 4(A,D,E) 2010 164,121 Ethan Allen Express - (Albany - Rutland, VT) 5(A,B,C) 2010 38,780 Penn Station (Boardings + Alightings) 6(A,B) 2010 8,377,944 Ridership 1. Adirondack includesridership between NYC and Montreal with at least one endpoint in NYS. 2. Ridership doesn’t include NYS portion of Ethan Allen service 3. 1980-2001: Assume ridership totals for Empire include Lakeshore Ltd. 4A. Starting with Federal Fiscal Year 2002, Empire West/Maple Leaf and Lakeshore Limited ridership data are listed separately. 4B. 2006-2011 Empire West/Maple Leaf ridership excludes Canadian ridership for: FFY 06, 164; FFY 07, 150; FFY 08, 123; FFY 09, 77; FFY 10, 69; and FFY 11, 101 4C. 2002-2005 Empire West/Maple Leaf ridership excludes estimated Canadian ridership for: FFY 02-05, 175 per year (estimated based on FFY 06-11 data) 4D. 2007-2011, NYS portion of Lakeshore ridership calculated based on OD Matrices. (% in NYS for 2007 = 53.6%; 08 = 49.6%; 09 = 48.2%; 10 = 45.0%; 11 = 45.8%) 4E. 2002-2006 NYS portion of Lakeshore ridership estimated by multiplying total Lakeshore ridership by 54.0% (based on FFY 07-11 data) 5A. Starting with FFY 2002, ridership data for the NYS portion of the Ethan Allen is included 5B. 2007-2011: NYS portion of the Ethan Allen ridership calculated using OD matrices. (% in NYS for 2007 = 78.2%; 08 = 79.3%; 09 = 81.0%; 10 = 80.7%; 11 = 80.6%) 5C. 2002-2006: NYS portion of the Ethan Allen ridership estimated by multiplying total Ethan Allen ridership by 78.0% (based on FFY 07-11 data) New York Penn Station 6A. Amtrak carried NJ Transit multi-ride commuters on its trains to and from NY Penn Station until October 31, 2005, when NJ Transit took over the remaining Amtrak Clocker trains (New York-Trenton-Philadelphia) and converted them into New York-Trenton only commuter trains. 6B. NY Penn Station passenger data; 2004-11 Amtrak Fact Sheet(s), FFY(s) 04-11, State of New York; e.g., FFY10 amtrak.com/pdf/factsheets/newyork10.pdf SOURCE: New York State Department of Transportation, High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Bureau; 2011: Domestic Shipment: Within, From, and To U.S. States by Mode: 2007 Data from the Freight Analysis Framework Version 3.1.2; Unit of measure is thousand tons; http://faf.ornl.gov/fafweb/Extraction1.aspx Within State From State To State State Weight Percent Weight Percent Weight NEW YORK Truck 396,682 90.6% 120,603 69.6% 120,546 Rail 4,246 1.0% 18,740 10.8% 20,521 Water 0.0% 127 0.1% 1,692 Air (include truck-air) 1,018 0.2% 197 0.1% 301 Multiple modes & mail 985 0.2% 5,441 3.1% 16,428 Pipeline 20,478 4.7% 27,086 15.6% 31,822 Other and unknown 14,640 3.3% 1,045 0.6% 4,861 Total 438,049 100.0% 173,240 100.0% 196,170 Domestic Shipments: Top Commodities Within, From, and To State by Value: 2007 369,410 Data from the Freight Analysis Framework Version 3.1.2; Unit of measure is million U.S. dollars; http://faf.ornl.gov/fafweb/Extraction1.aspx Within State From State To State State Rank Commodity Value Commodity Value Commodity Value NEW YORK 1 Machinery $67,250 Misc. mfg. prods. $43,738 Electronics $41,629 2 Misc. mfg. prods. $62,270 Textiles / leather $40,242 Textiles / leather $40,836 3 Mixed freight $38,229 Pharmaceuticals $33,286 Mixed freight $33,448 4 Electronics $30,134 Electronics $28,616 Misc. mfg. prods. $32,719 5 Pharmaceuticals $27,537 Machinery $23,529 Machinery $28,249 6 Motorized vehicles $25,594 Mixed freight $22,586 Motorized vehicles $26,211 7 Textiles/leather $17,671 Base metals $21,933 Pharmaceuticals $22,869 8 Other foodstuffs $16,219 Motorized vehicles $17,499 Plastics / rubber $15,722 9 Unknown $15,003 Plastics / rubber $16,052 Base metals $15,565 Precision 10 Articles - base metal $14,805 instruments $15,378 Chemical prods.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • GAO-02-398 Intercity Passenger Rail: Amtrak Needs to Improve Its
    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Honorable Ron Wyden GAO U.S. Senate April 2002 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Amtrak Needs to Improve Its Decisionmaking Process for Its Route and Service Proposals GAO-02-398 Contents Letter 1 Results in Brief 2 Background 3 Status of the Growth Strategy 6 Amtrak Overestimated Expected Mail and Express Revenue 7 Amtrak Encountered Substantial Difficulties in Expanding Service Over Freight Railroad Tracks 9 Conclusions 13 Recommendation for Executive Action 13 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 13 Scope and Methodology 16 Appendix I Financial Performance of Amtrak’s Routes, Fiscal Year 2001 18 Appendix II Amtrak Route Actions, January 1995 Through December 2001 20 Appendix III Planned Route and Service Actions Included in the Network Growth Strategy 22 Appendix IV Amtrak’s Process for Evaluating Route and Service Proposals 23 Amtrak’s Consideration of Operating Revenue and Direct Costs 23 Consideration of Capital Costs and Other Financial Issues 24 Appendix V Market-Based Network Analysis Models Used to Estimate Ridership, Revenues, and Costs 26 Models Used to Estimate Ridership and Revenue 26 Models Used to Estimate Costs 27 Page i GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking Appendix VI Comments from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 28 GAO’s Evaluation 37 Tables Table 1: Status of Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions, as of December 31, 2001 7 Table 2: Operating Profit (Loss), Operating Ratio, and Profit (Loss) per Passenger of Each Amtrak Route, Fiscal Year 2001, Ranked by Profit (Loss) 18 Table 3: Planned Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions 22 Figure Figure 1: Amtrak’s Route System, as of December 2001 4 Page ii GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 April 12, 2002 The Honorable Ron Wyden United States Senate Dear Senator Wyden: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is the nation’s intercity passenger rail operator.
    [Show full text]
  • July 26, 2020
    JULY 26, 2020 HOME OF THE $3 MILLION ALL AMERICAN FUTURITY RaceRuidoso.com 2002 Sudderth Dr., Ruidoso NM 88345 RHONDA ROMACK-BURNS 575-937-3000 [email protected] OFFICE 575-257-3000 31ST DAY OF RACING • SUNDAY, JULY 26, 2020 • POST TIME 1:00PM Weekend Preview It’s time for the Zia Festival at Ruidoso Downs Race Track, and the race card features a great line-up of trials and stakes races all weekend that celebrate New Mexico-bred Quarter Horses and Thoroughbreds. F RI DAY SUNDAY RIO GRANDE SENORITA FUTURITY TRIALS ZIA FUTURITY (GI) 5 ½ Furlongs | 2-year-old fillies Purse = $392,547 | 400 Yards | 2-year-olds RIO GRANDE SENOR FUTURITY TRIALS ZIA QH JUVENILE 5 ½ Furlongs | 2-year-old colts & geldings Purse = $50,000 | 400 Yards | 2-year-olds SATURDAY ZIA 870 CHAMPIONSHIP SIERRA STARLET Purse = $50,000 | 870 Yards | 3-year-old & up Purse = $50,000 | 5 ½ Furlongs | 3-year-old & up fillies ROAD RUNNER HANDICAP ZIA HANDICAP (RG2) Purse = $50,000 | 5 ½ Furlongs | 3-year-old fillies Purse = $50,000 | 400 Yards | 3-year-old & up LINCOLN HANDICAP ZIA QH DERBY (GII) Purse = $50,000 | 6 Furlongs | 3-year-old fillies & mares Purse = $183,073 | 400 Yards | 3-year-olds LAND OF ENCHANTMENT STAKES Purse = $50,000 | 7 ½ Furlongs | 3-year-old & up SIERRA BLANCA HANDICAP Purse = $50,000 | 5 ½ Furlongs | 3-year-old & up Remember while you are here with us, we kindly ask that everyone do their part to adhere to the COVID-Safe Practices (CSPs) that have been put into place as part of our plan that allows us to have fans here in attendance.
    [Show full text]
  • Monthly Performance Reports
    * All Financial Data is Preliminary and Unaudited * MonthlyMonthly PerformancePerformance ReportReport forfor SeptemberSeptember 20112011 November 2, 2011 Table of Contents Page # A. Financial Results 1. Summary Performance Report versus Budget Operating Results - Month A-1.1 Operating Results - Year to Date A-1.2 Capital Spend Summary - Month A-1.3 Capital Spend Summary - Year to Date A-1.4 ARRA Capital Program Summary A-1.5 2. Metrics Metrics A-2.1 Inventory Turns / Balance A-2.9 3. Ridership and Revenue Ticket Revenue and Ridership Summary A-3.1 Ridership and Ticket Revenue by Route Current Month A-3.4 Year to Date A-3.5 Ridership and Revenue - Sleeper Class A-3.6 4. Actual and Forecast Results Income Statement by Business Lines Month, YTD vs. Budget and Prior Year A-4.1 Capital Project Overview Regular Projects A-4.8 ARRA Projects A-4.10 Mechanical Production Report A-4.13 Engineering Production Report A-4.15 5. Actual Analysis to Prior Year Consolidated Income Statement A-5.1 Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows A-5.4 Balance Sheet A-5.5 B. Legislative Report Legislative Updates B-1 C. Route Performance Report – Fully Allocated Summary YTD Route Results C-1 D. Workforce Statistics Headcount Data D-1 Other Employee Costs D-3 E. Performance Indicators Delay Minutes Summary Report E-1 Host Railroad Delay Minutes Report E-2 On-Time Performance E-7 i IINNAANNCCIIAALL EESSUULLTTSS Operating Results for the Month of September 2011 ($ millions) September September Fav/(Unfav) FY11 Budget to Budget Comments Revenues: Adjusted Ticket Revenue $150.7 $147.0 $3.7 Acela and Corridor routes partially offset by effects of weather and host railroad track work.
    [Show full text]
  • Ce1999116.Pdf
    NOTE: Following this is the Executive Summary to the Report on the 1999 Assessment of Amtrak's Financial Needs Through Fiscal Year 2002 (Report No. CE-1999-116). Due to the extensive length of the full report, we have not placed it on the OIG Web page. Copies of the full report will be available on Friday, July 23rd, 1999, 10 a.m. Please call Robin Redd-Miller in the Communications Office of the Inspector General at (202) 366-6872 to obtain a copy of the full report. Executive Summary 1999 Assessment of Amtrak’s Financial Needs Through 2002 In 1971, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) was created by Congress to ensure that modern, efficient intercity passenger rail service would remain an integral part of the national transportation system. Since its creation, Amtrak has received $22.7 billion in Federal operating and capital subsidies. Despite this assistance, Amtrak has made only moderate progress in its attempts to eliminate dependence on Federal operating support. In 1997, Congress passed the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act (ARAA), which established certain limits on Amtrak’s liability exposure, revised the bargaining relationship between Amtrak and its employees with respect to contracting out and labor protection, and eliminated most statutory constraints on Amtrak’s ability to restructure train routes. These changes eased constraints on Amtrak’s ability to improve its financial condition. ARAA also established a deadline of 2002 for Amtrak to improve operations sufficiently to eliminate its need for further Federal operating subsidies.1 After 2002, no funds authorized for Amtrak can be used for operating expenses,2 except for expenses associated with liabilities for Amtrak’s railroad retirement taxes that exceed the amount needed for the benefits of Amtrak retirees (“excess RRTA payments”).
    [Show full text]
  • Northeast Corridor New York to Philadelphia
    Northeast Corridor New York to Philadelphia 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................2 2 A HISTORY..............................................................................................3 3 ROLLING STOCK......................................................................................4 3.1 EMD AEM-7 Electric Locomotive .......................................................................................4 3.2 Amtrak Amfleet Coaches .................................................................................................5 4 SCENARIOS.............................................................................................6 4.1 Go Newark....................................................................................................................6 4.2 New Jersey Trenton .......................................................................................................6 4.3 Spirit or Transportation ..................................................................................................6 4.4 The Big Apple................................................................................................................6 4.5 Early Clocker.................................................................................................................7 4.6 Evening Clocker.............................................................................................................7 4.7 Northeast Regional ........................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Planning for the Philadelphia–Harrisburg “Keystone” Railroad Corridor
    VOLUME I Executive Summary and Main Report Technical Monograph: Transportation Planning for the Philadelphia–Harrisburg “Keystone” Railroad Corridor Federal Railroad Administration United States Department of Transportation March 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, they 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-04/05.I 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Technical Monograph: Transportation Planning for the March 2004 Philadelphia–Harrisburg “Keystone” Railroad 6. Performing Organization Code Corridor⎯Volume I: Executive Summary and Main Report 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Options for Improving Amtrak's
    U.S. Department EVALUATION OF OPTIONS FOR of Transportation Federal Railroad IMPROVING AMTRAK’S PASSENGER Administration ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM Office of Research and Development Washington, DC 20590 DOT/FRA/ORD-05/06 Final Report This document is available to the public through the National December 2005 Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161. This document is also available on the FRA Web site at www.fra.dot.gov. Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. Notice The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED December 2005 Final Report December 2005 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Evaluation of Options for Improving Amtrak’s Passenger Accountability System RR93/CB043 6.
    [Show full text]
  • TWO DAYS with NEW YORK's CROSS HARBOR RAILROAD Belt Lines: EJ&E
    TWO DAYS WITH NEW YORK'S CROSS HARBOR RAILROAD Belt Lines: EJ&E .. IHB .. B&OCT • Mainline action on the Elgin Joliet & Eastern, Indiana Harbor Belt, and the former Baltimore & Ohio Chica­ go Terminal (now CSX). • See over 70 trains from: EJ&E, IHB, CSX, Up, C&NW, CP Rail, Conrail, Wisconsin Central, BN, ATSF, CN, look at the mainline action on some of the GTW, Sp, Norfolk Southern, Chicago Chicago area and northwest Indiana belt lines. Short Line, Amtrak, and more. This program focuses on some of the mainline action on the Elgin Joliet & Eastern (EJ&E), Indiana Har­ • Locations include Rondout cross­ Abor Belt (IHB) and CSX's former Baltimore & Ohio Chi­ ing, Leithton, Hawthorne Hills, ca-go Terminal (B&OCT). The EJ&E is the outermost Belt West Chicago crossing, Eola cross­ line around the Chicago area and crosses every major railroad coming into Chicago! The IHB and former ing, Aurora, Walker Junction, B&OCT intersect with most of the major railroads closer Plainfield, Des Plaines River to and in Chicago. The EJ&E and IHB are heavy steel crossing, Joliet, Griffith crossing, haulers as well as providers of transfer service among Van Loon crossing, Gary, Whiting, the other railroads. Many of the major roads run road Hammond crossing, State Line trains and transfers on these belt lines and we capture the action. In addition we capture several crossing (lUIN), Blue Island Junction, EJ&E and IHB trains with their well-maintained classic EMD power and cabooses! There are seven ac­ tive tower junctions shown in this program! Video captured from 1995 through late 1997.
    [Show full text]
  • Northeast Corridor Through-Ticketing Study
    Northeast Corridor Through-Ticketing Study November 2018 Prepared by the Northeast Corridor Commission with support from: Foursquare ITP High Street Consulting Mathew Coogan RSG WSP Northeast Corridor Commission 1 CONTENTS Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Models for Through-Ticketing .................................................................................................................................... 2 Market Demand for Through-Ticketing .................................................................................................................... 2 Technical Challenges Associated with Through-Ticketing ..................................................................................... 3 Results and Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 3 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 5 1.1 What is Through-Ticketing? ........................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Study Background............................................................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Study Methodology and Organization .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Cost Savings on Amtrak's Long-Distance
    ANALYSIS OF COST SAVINGS ON AMTRAK’S LONG-DISTANCE SERVICES Report Number: CR-2005-068 Date Issued: July 22, 2005 Memorandum U.S. Department of Transportation Office of the Secretary of Transportation Office of Inspector General Subject: ACTION: Report on Date: July 22, 2005 Analysis of Cost Savings on Amtrak’s Long-Distance Services Report No. CR-2005-068 From: Kenneth M. Mead Reply to Attn. of: JA-50 Inspector General To: The Secretary Deputy Secretary General Counsel National Railroad Passenger Corporation Board of Directors Long-distance intercity passenger rail service in the United States has sparked widespread controversy, in large part because of its heavy subsidies. In fact, Congress directed Amtrak to be operationally self-sufficient by 2002 and currently there is no authorization for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). Meanwhile the subsidy has grown. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2004, long- distance trains (those with routes over 500 miles) cumulatively incurred operating losses of more than $600 million.1 There is no sign that this trend of large losses from long-distance service can be reversed by engaging in business as usual. Although one approach to reducing the losses posted by Amtrak is to simply eliminate long-distance service, this report considers a less drastic measure, namely to selectively reduce costs while continuing to provide basic long-distance service to meet the mobility needs of rural communities that may not have access to other transportation alternatives. Many of those who advocate retaining Amtrak’s long-distance routes argue that Amtrak service along those routes is needed to meet basic transportation needs of communities that are far from major metropolitan areas.
    [Show full text]
  • SMART Transportation Division News
    SHEET METAL | A I R | R A I L | T R A N S P O R T A T I O N Transportation Division News International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers Volume 49 • Number 7/8 • July/August 2017 National negotiations update: Unions say contract negotiations take a step backward As part of our ongoing effort to conclude dations that could come from a Presidential https://static.smart-union.org/worksite/Contract - national contract negotiations, the Coordinat - Emergency Board appointed by President Neg/NCCC_2017-06-29_Synopsis_and_Pro - ed Bargaining Group (CBG) met with the Trump, and ultimately be imposed on the posal.pdf or by visiting www.smart-union.org/td. nation’s freight rail Carriers (NCCC) for three employees by a Congress that already has More information will be forthcoming after the days during the week of June 26. These enacted or is pushing for changes in longstand - next mediation sessions in July and August. efforts were part of our ongoing mediation ing labor laws that protect employee rights. We appreciate your continuing support. process, mandated by the Railway Labor Act We of course are frustrated by the Carriers’ when the parties have been unable to reach hard-line attitude. But we will not let this FEMA appoints SMART TD’s a voluntary agreement, and managed by the stand in our way. In spite of this latest turn of National Mediation Board. events, the CBG will not give up its efforts to Hayes as rail labor rep. Despite the CBG’s best efforts to achieve a voluntary settlement reach a fair agreement with the that is fair and protects our NCCC, the mediation process members’ best interests.
    [Show full text]
  • Monthly Performance Report for September 2013
    Monthly Performance Report For September 2013 * All Financial Data is preliminary and unaudited * November 8, 2013 Table of Contents Page # A. Financial Results 1. Summary Performance Report versus Budget Executive Summary A-1.1 Operating Results – YTD A-1.3 Capital Spend Summary – YTD A-1.4 2. Metrics Metrics A-2.1 3. Ridership and Revenue Ticket Revenue and Ridership Summary A-3.1 Ridership and Ticket Revenue by Route Current Month A-3.4 Year to Date A-3.5 Ridership and Revenue - Sleeper Class A-3.6 4. Actual and Forecast Results Income Statement by Business Lines Month, YTD & Forecast vs. Budget and Prior Year A-4.1 Capital Project Overview Regular Projects A-4.6 Mechanical Production Report A-4.8 Engineering Production Report A-4.10 5. Actual Analysis to Prior Year Consolidated Income Statement A-5.1 Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows A-5.4 Balance Sheet A-5.5 B. Legislative Report Legislative Updates B-1 C. Route Performance Report – Fully Allocated Summary YTD Route Results C-1 D. Workforce Statistics Headcount Data D-1 Other Employee Costs D-3 E. Performance Indicators Delay Minutes Summary Report E-1 Host Railroad Delay Minutes Report E-2 On-Time Performance E-7 i IINNAANNCCIIAALL EESSUULLTTSS Performance Summary for the Year to Date Period Ending September 2013 Executive Summary: The preliminary and unaudited results for September year to date are favorable to the budget due to lower benefits, train operations and materials. Reimbursable revenues are substantially favorable, but they are offset by increased Reimbursable expenses.
    [Show full text]