DOCSLIB.ORG

High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements of Success-Part 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements of Success-Part 2 MTI Report 06-03 MTI HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES: IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS-PART 2 IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS-PART HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES: Funded by U.S. Department of HIGH-SPEED RAIL Transportation and California Department PROJECTS IN THE UNITED of Transportation STATES: IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS PART 2 Report 06-03 Mineta Transportation November Institute Created by 2006 Congress in 1991 MTI REPORT 06-03 HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES: IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS PART 2 November 2006 Allison L. C. de Cerreño, PhD Shishir Mathur, PhD a report cosponsored by the NYU Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy & Management a publication of the Mineta Transportation Institute College of Business San José State University San José, CA 95192-0219 Created by Congress in 1991 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA/CA/OR-2006/29 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the November 2006 Elements of Success-Part 2 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Authors 8. Performing Organization Report Allison L. C. de Cerreño, PhD, Shishir Mathur, PhD MTI 06-03 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Mineta Transportation Institute College of Business San José State University 11. Contract or Grant No. San José, CA 95192-0219 65W136 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered California Department of Research and Innovative Final Report Transportation Technology Administration Sacramento, CA 95819 400 7th Street, SW 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, DC 20590-0001 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract In August 2005, the Mineta Transportation Institute issued the report, High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements for Success. The report noted that since the 1960s, high- speed ground transportation (HSGT) has “held the promise of fast, convenient, and environmentally sound travel for distances between 40 and 600 miles.” After briefly discussing the different experiences with HSGT between the United States and its Asian and European counterparts, the report proceeded to review three U.S. cases—Florida, California, and the Pacific Northwest—as a means for identifying lessons learned for successfully implementing high-speed rail (HSR) in the United States. This report is, in essence, volume 2 of the previous study. Also using a comparative case study approach, this effort adds to the earlier work with three additional cases—the Chicago Hub, the Keystone Corridor, and the Northeast Corridor (NEC). As with the earlier report, the goal of this study is to identify lessons learned for successfully implementing HSR in the United States. Given the early stages of most of these projects, “success” is defined by whether a given HSR project is still actively pursuing development or funding. However, in the case of the Northeast Corridor, a fuller discussion of success is provided since HSR has been implemented on that corridor for some time now. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Government funding; Line extensions; Rail transportation; No restrictions. This document is available to the public Railroad construction; Railroad through the National Technical Information Service, transportation; High-speed rail Springfield, VA 22161 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 194 $15.00 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Copyright © 2006 by Mineta Transportation Institute All rights reserved Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2006935922 To order this publication, please contact the following: Mineta Transportation Institute College of Business San José State University San José, CA 95192-0219 Tel (408) 924-7560 Fax (408) 924-7565 E-mail: [email protected] http://transweb.sjsu.edu ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many individuals from around the country aided the authors in the creation of this report. Some provided their time for interviews and reviews of the different drafts, while others helped to find written documentation of historical and current facts. In particular, Allison C. de Cerreño would like to thank the following individuals for their contributions to the Northeast Corridor and Keystone Corridor cases: Charlie Banks, R.L. Banks & Associates; John Bennett, Amtrak; James Boice, Connecticut Department of Transportation; Eric Bugaile; Peter Cannito, MTA Metro-North; David Carol, Charlotte Area Transit System; Calvin Cassidy, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation; Mortimer Downey, PB Consult, Inc.; Toby Fauver, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation; David Gunn; Emmanuel “Bruce” Horowitz, ESH Consult; David Matsuda, Office of Senator Lautenberg; Richard Peltz, Appalachian Regional Commission; Catherine Popp- McDonough, SEPTA; Michael Saunders, Federal Highway Administration; Bill Schafer, Norfolk Southern Corporation; Peter Stangl; Brian Sterman, FTA; Louis Thompson, Thompson, Galenson and Associates, LLC; and Thomas Till, Discovery Institute. She also thanks Dan Leavitt, California High-Speed Rail Authority for his time in updating her on the current status of high-speed rail efforts in California. Special thanks are extended to George Haikalis, who provided a number of historical documents no longer easily found, including the summary report that Dr. de Cerreño in search of the Keystone Corridor’s earlier attempts at high-speed rail which were all but forgotten, and Steven Greenfield of Parsons Brinckerhoff, who managed to track down the full preliminary report on the feasibility of high-speed rail in the Keystone Corridor. And, finally to members of Amtrak’s Planning and Analysis and Government Affairs Departments who provided several documents and the speed restriction tables for the NEC, spent time with the author showing her how to interpret them, and arranged for additional discussions on numerous technical questions. Shishir Mathur would like to thank the following individuals for their contributions to the Chicago Hub case: John Bennett, Amtrak; David Carol, Charlotte Area Transit System; Emmanuel “Bruce” Horowitz, ESH Consult; Merrill Travis, Lower Cost Solutions, Inc,; John Schwalbauch, Illinois Department of Transportation; Ethan Johnson, Wisconsin Department of Transportation; Stuart Nicholson, the Ohio Rail Development Commission; John Hey, Iowa Department of Transportation; Ellis Tompkins, Nebraska Department of Roads; Rodney Massman, Missouri Department of Transportation; Mike Bedore, Michigan Department of Transportation; Drew Galloway, Amtrak; Joby Berman, Illinois State Toll Highway Authority; Emil Frankel, Parsons Brinckerhoff; Rick Harnish, Midwest High Speed Rail Coalition; and Rick Tidwell, Metra. Finally, both authors extend their thanks to Howard Permut, MTA Metro-North, for his thoughtful comments and suggestions during numerous rounds of the report. Thanks are offered also to MTI staff, including Research Director Trixie Johnson, Research and Publications Assistant Sonya Cardenas, Webmaster Barney Murray, and Graphic Artist Shun Nelson. Editing and publication services were provided by Catherine Frazier and Project Solutions Network, Inc. Table of Contents i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 KEY FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNED 2 THEMES FOR CONSIDERATION 6 INTRODUCTION 9 GOALS, DEFINITIONS, AND METHODOLOGY 9 UPDATE ON EARLIER CASES AND HSR INITIATIVES 10 THE CURRENT CASES 12 CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTING HSR IN THE STATES 14 OUTLINE OF THE REPORT 15 THE CHICAGO HUB AND MIDWEST REGIONAL RAIL INITIATIVE 17 HISTORY OF HSR IN THE MIDWEST 17 HSR EFFORTS WITHIN THE STATES 28 ASSESSMENT OF THE CASE 39 POSSIBLE ISSUES AND NEXT STEPS 50 THE KEYSTONE CORRIDOR 53 THE CONTEXT 54 HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CORRIDOR 56 CURRENT STATUS OF THE KCIP 78 ASSESSMENT OF THE CASE 82 THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR 87 DEFINITIONS AND CONTEXT 87 HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CORRIDOR 92 ASSESSMENT OF THE CASE 130 FINDINGS, LESSONS, AND THEMES 139 KEY FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNED 139 Mineta Transportation Institute Table of Contents ii THEMES FOR CONSIDERATION 143 ENDNOTES 147 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 169 BIBLIOGRAPHY 173 ABOUT THE AUTHORS 191 PEER REVIEW 193 Mineta Transportation Institute List of Figures iii LIST OF FIGURES 1. Map of Proposed Midwest Regional Rail System 24 2. Ohio Rail Hub 35 3. Ohio Rail Hub Lines 36 4. The Keystone Corridor, Philadelphia to Harrisburg 53 5. The Keystone Corridor, Philadelphia to Pittsburgh 54 6. Bypass of 30th Street Station 77 7. Example of Gauntlet Tracks 81 8. Ownership of and Operations on the NEC 89 9. NEC Weekday Revenue Passenger Train Movement, 2006 91 10. Recommended Time Line from Redirection Study 105 11. Status of NECIP Planning and Control Elements, 01/79 106 12. Appropriations for NECIP, FY 1976–1995 112 Mineta Transportation Institute iv List of Figures Mineta Transportation Institute List of Tables v LIST OF TABLES 1. Lines Comprising the Chicago Hub 21 2. MWRRS Plan: Train Travel Times 25 3. MWRRS Plan: Operating Revenues, Costs, and Operating Ratio 26 4. MWRRS Plan: Capital Investment by Corridor 27 5. Attributes Related to HSR Alternatives C, D, and E 60 6. Costs of SOGR and High-Speed Service (millions of 1996 $) 65 7. Service Alternatives under SOGR 65 8. Funding Share of KCIP Program Elements ($ millions) 69 9. Funding Schedule ($ millions) 70 10. KCIP Program Element Costs, 2002 vs. 2004 ($ millions) 73 11. Revised
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]
  • 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: $16,675,000 PROJECT LOCATION: Caln Township, Downingtown Borough, East Caln Township, West Whiteland Township, & East Whiteland Township in Chester County, Pennsylvania - 6th Congressional District No Federal Grant Application Previously Submitted for this Project Table of Contents I. Project Summary .................................................................................................................................. 1 II. Project Funding ..................................................................................................................................... 2 III. Applicant Eligibility ............................................................................................................................... 3 IV. NEC Project Eligibility ........................................................................................................................... 3 V. Detailed Project Description ................................................................................................................ 5 VI. Project Location .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sopkin to Lead '49 Drive; UJA Caravan Train Here
    ----- ·empl e Bt: th- EL. Broad & Gl cnh~m St$. Only An51lo-Jewi1h Serving 30,000 Newspaper in This State in Rhode Island VOL. XXXIV, NO. 5 FRIDAY, APRIL 8, 1949 PROVIDENCE. R. I . TWENTY-FOUR PAGES 7 CENTS THE COPY Sopkin to Lead '49 Drive; UJA Caravan Train Here Li'I Abner Creator, Miss America Here Sun. Speakers ·Stress Capacity Crowd Need of U. S. Aid Attends Rally The a ppointment of Alvin A. j know that you will not refuse. Sopkin as chairman of the 1949 ; ' "We have it within our power fund-ra ising campa ign of the I to make "Homecoming-1949" the General J ewish Committee of realization of our dreams and Providence was announced Tues­ hopes of the past decade." day during the visit of the "Cara- I Economy In Danger van of Hope" train to this city. The need of United States aid This will m ark the fifth straight i to Israel and the DP's was the year that Sopkin has headed the keynote of the addresses delivered GJC's annual drive, which will by the speakers at Tuesday even­ start on Labor Day. ing's rally. Max Lerner, noted In his acceptance address, made columnist , author and lecturer, Tuesd ay evening at the Rhode told the packed throng that the Island School of Design auditor­ DP camps of Europe must be ium, where the "Caravan of Hope" e m p t i e d this year. Terming program was held before a capa­ Europe a cemetery, Lerner asserted city audience, Sopkin urged all , that if we fail to get the DP's contributors to the 1948 campaign f out of the camps, "their blood to pay their pledges at once, in I ALVIN A.
    [Show full text]
  • Pioneering the Application of High Speed Rail Express Trainsets in the United States
    Parsons Brinckerhoff 2010 William Barclay Parsons Fellowship Monograph 26 Pioneering the Application of High Speed Rail Express Trainsets in the United States Fellow: Francis P. Banko Professional Associate Principal Project Manager Lead Investigator: Jackson H. Xue Rail Vehicle Engineer December 2012 136763_Cover.indd 1 3/22/13 7:38 AM 136763_Cover.indd 1 3/22/13 7:38 AM Parsons Brinckerhoff 2010 William Barclay Parsons Fellowship Monograph 26 Pioneering the Application of High Speed Rail Express Trainsets in the United States Fellow: Francis P. Banko Professional Associate Principal Project Manager Lead Investigator: Jackson H. Xue Rail Vehicle Engineer December 2012 First Printing 2013 Copyright © 2013, Parsons Brinckerhoff Group Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means—graphic, electronic, mechanical (including photocopying), recording, taping, or information or retrieval systems—without permission of the pub- lisher. Published by: Parsons Brinckerhoff Group Inc. One Penn Plaza New York, New York 10119 Graphics Database: V212 CONTENTS FOREWORD XV PREFACE XVII PART 1: INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH 3 1.1 Unprecedented Support for High Speed Rail in the U.S. ....................3 1.2 Pioneering the Application of High Speed Rail Express Trainsets in the U.S. .....4 1.3 Research Objectives . 6 1.4 William Barclay Parsons Fellowship Participants ...........................6 1.5 Host Manufacturers and Operators......................................7 1.6 A Snapshot in Time .................................................10 CHAPTER 2 HOST MANUFACTURERS AND OPERATORS, THEIR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES 11 2.1 Overview . 11 2.2 Introduction to Host HSR Manufacturers . 11 2.3 Introduction to Host HSR Operators and Regulatory Agencies .
    [Show full text]
  • Amtrak SMP 28603 Mechanical Standards for Operating Privately
    Amtrak Equipment Maintenance Department Standard Maintenance Procedure SMP NO.: 28603 ISSUE DATE: January 12, 1982 REVISION DATE: September 13, 2013 TITLE: Mechanical Standard for Operating Privately Owned Cars in Amtrak Trains EQUIPMENT TYPE MAINTENANCE TYPE All Passenger Trains L – Locomotive Locomotives Cars C – Cars All Locomotives All Cars X All Types C All Maintenance – L/C Acela HST Power Car Acela Baggage Daily – L/C AEM-7 Amfleet I Cafe 30 Day – C Cab Car: (Under Cars) Amfleet II Coach Quarterly –L/C Car Movers Auto Carrier Diner Semi-Annual – L/C Commuter Commuter Dinette Annual – L/C F59PHI Freight Lounge 720 Day – L GP38-3 Heritage HEP Sleeper COT&S – C GP15D Horizon Other: Initial Terminal – L/C HHP8 Material Handling Cars Intermediate Terminal – L/C MP15 X Private Cars Modification – L/C Non Powered Control Units Superliner I Overhaul – L/C P32-8 Superliner II Running Repair – L/C P32AC-DM Surfliner Seasonal – C P-40 Talgo Wheels – L/C P-42 Turboliner Facility SW1001 Viewliner Other: SW1200 X Other: Railroad Business Cars SW1500 Turboliner Talgo Other: 1.0 PURPOSE This document describes the Amtrak Mechanical Department requirements for the handling in Amtrak trains of privately owned passenger cars, as well as railroad-owned business cars of freight carriers which have an Amtrak operating agreement. For the purpose of this document, a passenger car is defined as a vehicle meeting Association of American Railroads (AAR) or American Public Transportation Association Standard S-034 for the construction of passenger equipment cars, or similar standard for older cars, for operation in passenger train service, and does not include caboose cars, freight cars, or maintenance of way equipment.
    [Show full text]
  • High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements of Success Part 2
    San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Faculty Publications, Urban and Regional Planning Urban and Regional Planning January 2007 High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements of Success Part 2 Allison deCerreno Shishir Mathur San Jose State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/urban_plan_pub Part of the Infrastructure Commons, Public Economics Commons, Public Policy Commons, Real Estate Commons, Transportation Commons, Urban, Community and Regional Planning Commons, Urban Studies Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Recommended Citation Allison deCerreno and Shishir Mathur. "High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements of Success Part 2" Faculty Publications, Urban and Regional Planning (2007). This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Urban and Regional Planning at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications, Urban and Regional Planning by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MTI Report 06-03 MTI HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES: IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS-PART 2 IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS-PART HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES: Funded by U.S. Department of HIGH-SPEED RAIL Transportation and California Department PROJECTS IN THE UNITED of Transportation STATES: IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS PART 2 Report 06-03 Mineta Transportation November Institute Created by 2006 Congress in 1991 MTI REPORT 06-03 HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES: IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS PART 2 November 2006 Allison L.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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: .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Course Descriptions
    Course Descriptions ACCOUNTING ACCTG 307 – Accounting Information Systems Prerequisites: ACCTG 202, CIS 101, CIS 102 ACCTG 201 – Accounting I: Financial Study and use of computerized general ledger, receivables, payables, A study of the fundamentals of accounting, with an emphasis on payroll, and inventory systems. Topics include the examination of a the use of economic data in the decision-making process. Topics variety of system design, implementation and control issues faced by covered include: forms of business organizations, financing contemporary business organizations. (3 credits) Fall options, and financial statement analysis. The ability to analyze ACCTG 308 – Federal Income Tax I: Individual financial statements is the overall goal of this course. Topics include Prerequisite: ACCTG 202 inventory, property (plant and equipment/natural resources/ Introduction to and survey of the Federal tax laws and the Federal intangibles), liabilities, stockholder equity, investments, statement of revenue system as they apply to individual taxpayers. Topics include cash flows. (3 credits) Fall, Spring calculation of gross income, exclusions, deductions, credits, and computations. (3 credits) ACCTG 202 – Accounting II: Managerial Prerequisite: ACCTG 201 ACCTG 309 – Federal Income Tax II: Partnerships and Corporations Continuation of ACCTG 201(101), with an emphasis on the Prerequisite: ACCTG 308 application of accounting principles to specific problem areas in Applies concepts and skills of the first semester to the special problems managerial accounting as well as accounting for manufacturing involved in business tax returns. Topics include capital gains taxation, operations, and cost-volume-profit analysis. (3 credits) Fall partnership, corporate, and specially taxed corporations. Introduction to “hands-on” tax research in the library.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 6-B: Chronology of Amtrak Service in Wisconsin
    Appendix 6-B: Chronology of Amtrak Service in Wisconsin May 1971: As part of its inaugural system, Amtrak operates five daily round trips in the Chicago- Milwaukee corridor over the Milwaukee Road main line. Four of these round trips are trains running exclusively between Chicago’s Union Station and Milwaukee’s Station, with an intermediate stop in Glenview, IL. The fifth round trip is the Chicago-Milwaukee segment of Amtrak’s long-distance train to the West Coast via St. Paul, northern North Dakota (e.g. Minot), northern Montana (e.g. Glacier National Park) and Spokane. Amtrak Route Train Name(s) Train Frequency Intermediate Station Stops Serving Wisconsin (Round Trips) Chicago-Milwaukee Unnamed 4 daily Glenview Chicago-Seattle Empire Builder 1 daily Glenview, Milwaukee, Columbus, Portage, Wisconsin Dells, Tomah, La Crosse, Winona, Red Wing, Minneapolis June 1971: Amtrak maintains five daily round trips in the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor and adds tri- weekly service from Chicago to Seattle via St. Paul, southern North Dakota (e.g. Bismark), southern Montana (e.g. Bozeman and Missoula) and Spokane. Amtrak Route Train Name(s) Train Frequency Intermediate Station Stops Serving Wisconsin (Round Trips) Chicago-Milwaukee Unnamed 4 daily Glenview Chicago-Seattle Empire Builder 1 daily Glenview, Milwaukee, Columbus, Portage, Wisconsin Dells, Tomah, La Crosse, Winona, Red Wing, Minneapolis Chicago-Seattle North Coast Tri-weekly Glenview, Milwaukee, Columbus, Portage, Wisconsin Hiawatha Dells, Tomah, La Crosse, Winona, Red Wing, Minneapolis 6B-1 November 1971: Daily round trip service in the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor is increased from five to seven as Amtrak adds service from Milwaukee to St.
    [Show full text]
  • RCED-95-71 Intercity Passenger Rail
    United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to Congressional Committees February 1995 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Financial and Operating Conditions Threaten Amtrak’s Long-Term Viability GAO/RCED-95-71 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-259656 February 6, 1995 Congressional Recipients This report assessing Amtrak’s deteriorating financial and operating conditions was conducted as part of our legislative responsibilities under the Rail Passenger Service Act (P.L. 91-518, 84 Stat. 1327 (1970)). The report addresses the likelihood that Amtrak can overcome its financial and operating problems and presents alternative actions that could be considered by the Congress in deciding on Amtrak’s future mission and on commitments to fund the railroad. On the basis of our review, we are making a recommendation to the Congress and several recommendations to the President of Amtrak. We are sending copies of the report to the Secretary of Transportation, the President of Amtrak, and interested congressional committees. We will also make copies available to others upon request. This work was done under the direction of Kenneth M. Mead, Director, Transportation Issues, who may be reached at (202) 512-2834 if you or your staff have any questions. Other major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. Sincerely yours, Keith O. Fultz Assistant Comptroller General Page 1 GAO/RCED-95-71 Amtrak’s Financial and Operating Conditions B-259656 List of Recipients The Honorable Larry Pressler Chairman The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings Ranking Minority Member Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation United States Senate The Honorable Trent Lott Chairman The Honorable Daniel K.
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri Blue Ribbon Panel on Hyperloop
    Chairman Lt. Governor Mike Kehoe Vice Chairman Andrew G. Smith Panelists Jeff Aboussie Cathy Bennett Tom Blair Travis Brown Mun Choi Tom Dempsey Rob Dixon Warren Erdman Rep. Travis Fitzwater Michael X. Gallagher Rep. Derek Grier Chris Gutierrez Rhonda Hamm-Niebruegge Mike Lally Mary Lamie Elizabeth Loboa Sen. Tony Luetkemeyer MISSOURI BLUE RIBBON Patrick McKenna Dan Mehan Joe Reagan Clint Robinson PANEL ON HYPERLOOP Sen. Caleb Rowden Greg Steinhoff Report prepared for The Honorable Elijah Haahr Tariq Taherbhai Leonard Toenjes Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives Bill Turpin Austin Walker Ryan Weber Sen. Brian Williams Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5 A National Certification Track in Missouri .................................................................................................... 8 Track Specifications ................................................................................................................................. 10 SECTION 1: International Tube Transport Center of Excellence (ITTCE) ................................................... 12 Center Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 12 Research Areas ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]