DOCSLIB.ORG

Service Development Plan for the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Service Development Plan for the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor Program Service Development Plan for the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor Program FINAL UPDATE Service Development Plan For the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor Program FINAL UPDATE September 2017 Washington State Department of Transportation PO Box 47407 310 Maple Park Avenue SE Olympia, Wash. 98504-7407 PNWRC – Service Development Plan Page i Revision History Revision No. Status Date Notes 2009 HSIPR Track 2 Rev. 00 Initial Draft August 2009 application Draft Program Rev. 01 July 2011 Revised per FRA Deliverable Final Program Rev. 02 September 2017 Revised per FRA Deliverable PNWRC – Service Development Plan Page ii Table of Contents Revision History ................................................................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................................... iii Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Background ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Service Development Plan Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 2 FRA Service Development Plan Requirements ................................................................................................................... 2 Award Announcement for Washington State .................................................................................................................... 3 Existing Amtrak Cascades Service ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Locomotives and Rolling Stock ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Maintenance Facility ........................................................................................................................................................ 10 Existing Stations ............................................................................................................................................................... 10 Service Development Plan Rationale ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................................................ 11 Geography and Population of the Service Area ............................................................................................................... 12 Existing Corridor Transportation Options and Corridor Multimodal Connections ........................................................... 14 Transportation Demand Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 17 Identification of Alternatives ................................................................................................................................................. 21 No‐Build Alternative ......................................................................................................................................................... 22 Corridor Service Expansion Alternative ............................................................................................................................ 22 Chapter 2: Qualifications of the State of Washington to Implement and Maintain the Service ...................................... 1 Eligibility .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Agreements between the States and Enabling Legislation ..................................................................................................... 1 State Enabling Legislation ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 Legislative Directives and Plans .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Operating Subsidy ................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Financial Responsibility ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 Cost Sharing and Matching Funds Agreements ................................................................................................................. 6 Prior Experience with Large Transportation Projects and Rail Projects ............................................................................. 7 Understanding the Commitment ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Public Support and Public Involvement .................................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 3: Station Evaluation......................................................................................................................................... 1 Overview of Existing Stations .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Station Improvements ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 King Street Station - Seattle ............................................................................................................................................... 2 PNWRC – Service Development Plan Page iii Tacoma Station................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Tukwila Station ................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 4: Operations Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Route Selection........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 UP Portion of the Route ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 BNSF Portion of the Route ................................................................................................................................................. 5 BNSF Fallbridge Subdivision ............................................................................................................................................... 6 BNSF Seattle Subdivision .................................................................................................................................................... 7 BNSF Scenic Subdivision ................................................................................................................................................... 11 BNSF Bellingham Subdivision ........................................................................................................................................... 12 BNSF New Westminster Subdivision ................................................................................................................................ 13 Via Rail Canada Pacific Central Station ............................................................................................................................. 14 Tacoma Rail/ST Portion of the Route ............................................................................................................................... 15 Rail Traffic Controller Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 17 RTC Analysis – Methodology and Output ......................................................................................................................... 17 RTC Scenarios ................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Passenger Stations ........................................................................................................................................................... 40 Infrastructure Improvements Required to Support the New Service ...................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Oregon Passenger Rail Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact
    Appendix C Public and Agency Comments and Responses April 2021 Contents Section Page Introduction ...................................................................................................................................C-1 Attachments Attachment C1 Comment and Response Matrix Attachment C2 Comments Received During Public Comment Period Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement C-i APRIL 2021 APPENDIX C C-ii Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement APRIL 2021 APPENDIX C – INTRODUCTION Introduction The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) released the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Oregon Passenger Rail Project (Project) in October 2018. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register (FR) on October 19, 2018 (83 FR 53053). Stakeholders were encouraged to provide comments on the Tier 1 DEIS through various opportunities from October 18 through December 19, 2018. During the public comment period, ODOT and FRA received a total of 212 comments from members of the public and agency/organization representatives at five (5) public events, through the Project website, and by email and letter. This appendix includes two attachments: • Attachment 1: A matrix containing agency and public comments with responses from ODOT. The comments are organized in groups: agency, organization, and individual comments. • Attachment 2: The original comment submittals. Each comment has an index number which is reflected in the comment matrix and marked on the original comments. Tables C-1, C-2 and C-3 list the commenters along with the index number to find the comments with responses and the original format comments and in attachments 1 and 2, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Choices 3
    Transportation Choices 3 MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE | MOVEMENT OF FREIGHT AND GOODS Introduction Facilities Snapshot This chapter organizes the transportation system into two categories: movement of people, and movement of freight and goods. Movement of people encompasses active transportation, transit, rail, air, and automobiles. Movement of freight and goods encompasses rail, marine cargo, air, vehicles, and pipelines. 3 Three Airports: one commercial, two Community Consistent with federal legislation (23 CFR 450.306) and Washington State Legislation (RCW 47.80.030), the regional transportation system includes: 23 Twenty-three Fixed Transit Routes ▶All state-owned transportation facilities and services (highways, park-and-ride lots, etc); 54 Fifty-Four Miles of Multi-Use Trails ▶All local principal arterials and selected minor arterials the RTPO considers necessary to the plan; 2.1 Multi- ▶Any other transportation facilities and services, existing and Two Vehicles per Household* proposed, including airports, transit facilities and services, roadways, Modal rail facilities, marine transportation facilities, pedestrian/bicycle Transport facilities, etc., that the RTPO considers necessary to complete the 5 regional plan; and Five Rail Lines System ▶Any transportation facility or service that fulfills a regional need or impacts places in the plan, as determined by the RTPO. 4 Four Ports *Source: US Census Bureau, 2014 ACS 5-year estimates. Chapter 3 | Transportation Choices 39 Figure 3-1: JourneyMode to ChoiceWork -ModeJourney Choice to Work in the RTPO, 2014 Movement of People Walk/ Bike, Public Transit, 2.2% Other, 4.3% People commute for a variety of reasons, and likewise, a variety of 1.2% ways. This section includes active transportation, transit, passenger Carpooled, 12.6% rail, passenger air, and passenger vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • Passenger Rail Needs Assessment
    Oregon State Rail Plan Passenger Rail Needs Assessment draft report prepared for Oregon Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. March 31, 2014 www.camsys.com draft Oregon State Rail Plan Passenger Rail Needs Assessment prepared for Oregon Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 555 12th Street, Suite 1600 Oakland, CA 94607 date March 31, 2014 Oregon State Rail Plan DRAFT Passenger Rail Needs Assessment Table of Contents 4.0 Passenger Rail Needs Assessment ................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Existing Intercity Passenger Rail Service................................................. 4-1 4.2 Existing Passenger Rail System Performance ....................................... 4-10 4.3 Cascades Corridor Physical and Operational Needs .......................... 4-18 4.4 Other Potential Corridors ........................................................................ 4-22 4.5 Summary .................................................................................................... 4-29 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. i 8053-084 Oregon State Rail Plan DRAFT Passenger Rail Needs Assessment List of Tables Table 4.1 Oregon Intercity Passenger Rail Stations .............................................. 4-2 Table 4.2 Intercity Passenger Rail Ridership to and from Oregon Stations as a Percent of Total Ridership, FY 2012 ............................................... 4-6 Table 4.3 Destinations of Amtrak Trips Originating at Oregon Stations as a Percent of
    [Show full text]
  • WSK Commuter Rail Study
    Oregon Department of Transportation – Rail Division Oregon Rail Study Appendix I Wilsonville to Salem Commuter Rail Assessment Prepared by: Parsons Brinckerhoff Team Parsons Brinckerhoff Simpson Consulting Sorin Garber Consulting Group Tangent Services Wilbur Smith and Associates April 2010 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 3 WHAT IS COMMUTER RAIL? ................................................................................................... 3 GLOSSARY OF TERMS............................................................................................................ 3 STUDY AREA....................................................................................................................... 4 WES COMMUTER RAIL.......................................................................................................... 6 OTHER PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES IN THE CORRIDOR .................................................................. 6 OUTREACH WITH RAILROADS: PNWR AND BNSF .................................................................. 7 PORTLAND & WESTERN RAILROAD........................................................................................... 7 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY ..................................................................................................... 7 ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • June /July 2006
    Washington Rail News June /July 2006 www.washarp.org [email protected] Publication of the Washington Association of Rail Passengers A NotNot----forforforfor----profitprofit Consumer Organization “Moving forward...On Rail ."."." King Street Station’s 100 th anniversary Amtrak President David th Hughes speaks to the NARP celebration wraps up July 1 with start of 4 David Hughes, acting president and Seattle-Portland Amtrak Cascades roundtrip CEO of Amtrak, told the NARP board of th directors that Amtrak is on the right track The 100 anniversary celebration of Pullman Railroad Company, Railway after former President Seattle’s historic King Street Station Express Agency, and Sound Transit. David Gunn brought kicked off on May 10. The ongoing One honoree was Amtrak station agent the company back celebration will wrap up on July 1 with a Marlene Koob, who has followed in the from the brink of full day of festivities. Events will include footsteps of her father and grandfather bankruptcy and near- the launch of the fourth daily roundtrip in working at the station. certain liquidation in between Seattle and Portland. More One aspect of the centennial cele- 2002. Key positive in- information on centennial events hap- bration is the collection of oral histories David Hughes dicators include: from people that have special memo- • Revenue per ries of the station. Though it’s too late passenger mile is up 10% so far in to participate in the live interview pro- 2006 over 2005. gram, you can still provide your • Amtrak has had consecutive years thoughts via the station centennial of ridership growth, going from website Click on the Share Your 21.7 mill.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit-Oriented Development Map for Low Income Housing Tax Credit Allocations
    Transit-Oriented Development Map for Low Income Housing Tax Credit Allocations Kory Kramer and David Schmitz University of Washington Professional Master’s Program in GIS Geography 569 GIS Workshop August 23, 2013 2 Acknowledgments We would like to thank our project sponsor, Tim Parham, for the direction and guidance provided to us as we developed this project. He was quick to respond to tight deadlines and provided valuable feedback through early iterations of the TOD Walkshed Map. We would also like to thank Rebeccah Maskin and Stefan Coe of PSRC. Rebeccah’s thorough understanding of the land use data and its processing was invaluable in our efforts to arrive at defensible transit-supportive density numbers. Stefan provided the data necessary to get us started as well as the Python script used to create the 2012 slope-constrained walksheds. Dan Landes of Shelter Resources, Inc. provided valuable insight during the design considerations phase of the project, and important input after testing the penultimate version of the online TOD Walkshed Map. Contacts who provided transit data include Kit Na Davies and Jeff Anderson with Community Transit, Ruth Kinchen of Metro Transit, Erin Hunter and Teri Lapetino of Sound Transit, and Sabina Pope of Everett Transit. Thank you for going out of your way to figure out ways to send large datasets. Your help is greatly appreciated. We would like to recognize Ryan Curren and Elliott Barnett’s thoughtful comments on how the TOD Walkshed Map might be used by them and their colleagues. Thank you, Ryan and Elliott, for taking time out of your busy schedules to help us envision where our project will go after we hand it off.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C — Rail Needs List, Part 1 and 2
    DRADDRPart 1: Oregon FreightFr Rail Needs List Appendix C—RailNeedsList,Part1and2 Line Description of Need / Freight Mobility Issue Secondary Start End Miles Operator Owner Category Segment with the Facility Category Oregon Moody Gateway 899 BNSF BNSF VerticVeVertical clearance in 5 tunnels between the Capacity Safety and Trunk ColumbCoColumbia River and Madras preclude passage of (൶FLHQF\ Subdivision double-stadodouble-stack containers. However, improving these tunnels shoshould be done concurrently with improving verticalertical clearclearances in tunnels on the Gateway Subdivision bebetween Keddie, Calif., and Klamath Falls to achieve uuniform capacity enhancements. Oregon MP 13.4Z Chemult 54.4 BNSFF BNSF Between Bend and MP 13.4Z south of Lava, trains Capacity Trunk south of DUHDXWKRUL]HGE\&HDUHDXWKRUL]HGE\&HQWUDOL]HG7UD൶F&RQWURO Subdivision Lava (CTC)) but from MP 113.4Z to Chemult, 54.4 miles is "dark territory"territo with trains authorized by track warrants. ExtendEExtending CTC through this VHFWLRQZLOOVLJQL¿FDQWO\LQFVHFWLRQZLOOVLJQL¿VHFWLRQZLOOVLJQL¿FDQWO\LQFUHDVHWKHFDSDFLW\ of this line. Logically,L installinstallation of CTC here should be accompanied by instinstallation of CTC on AAFAFTapproximatelymately 90 miles of BNSFBNSF's Gateway Sub between Klamath Falls and BieberBieber, Calif. CTC has been installed from Bieber to KeKeddie on the Gateway Subdivision. Union MP 0.32 MP 1.0 0.68 UP UP When long freight trains are navigatingnavig twot 6 Capacity Safety and 3DFL¿F mphh curvesves just north of the StSteel Bridge, other (൶FLHQF\ (Kenton trains,s, includingluding passenger trains, can be dedelayed. line) Straighteninghteningng track and easing curvature wouwould permit moreore optimum speeds. This location wawas ¿UVWUHFRJQL]HGFLUFDDVDVLJQL¿FDQW3RUWODQGQL]HGFLUFDDVDVLJQL¿FDQW3RUWODQ area bottleneckeckFFT and has been included on a list of desirable Portlandland Triangle capacity improvement projects since then.hen.
    [Show full text]
  • View My List of Miscellaneous Material
    M1913 "Our Native American Legacy: Northwest Towns with Indian Names", by Sandy Nestor. 2001-00-00 20.00 Published 2001 by Caxton Press, Caldwell ID. Measures 6" x 9"; 287 pages, perfectbound. Excellent condition. Includes places in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska. M1900 "Apple City USA: Stories of Early Wenatchee (Washington)", by Bruce Mitchell. Published by 1992-00-00 10.00 The Wenatchee World. 7" x 9.75", folded and center-stapled, in heavy paper covers. 128 pages, illustrated, indexed. Twenty-two stories, including items of steamboat and railway interest. As new, still with original price tag on inside front cover. M1909 "An Album of Railways of Queensland, Volume 6". Published by the Australian Model Railway 2003-00-00 15.00 Association Queensland Branch. 8.25" x 11.75", center-stapled, 48 pages in cardstock covers. Two photos to most pages, most photos in color. Freight, passenger, steam, diesel, electric, old, new - it's all here. M1912 "Columbia River Gorge Volume 1: BNSF's Fallbridge Subdivision". Two-hour DVD published by 2005-00-00 20.00 Pentrex in 2005. Still wrapped in original plastic; never been opened. M1910 "United Railways of Oregon", by Harley K Hallgren and John F Due. Published by Pacific 1961-06-00 15.00 Railway Journal; first printing, June 1961. This is a good-quality XEROX COPY of this book. Additionally, an employee timetable that was just barely readable in the book (due to being printed size-reduced) has been mostly transcribed so that the information may be read without causing blindness. Includes illustrations, maps, car diagrams, timetables.
    [Show full text]
  • Multimodal Connectivity Analysis and Candidate Improvements
    WASHINGTON STATE RAIL PLAN 2019- 2040 | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: PASSENGER RAIL MULTIMODAL CONNECTIVITY ANALYSIS AND CANDIDATE IMPROVEMENTS Overview This memorandum presents a multimodal connectivity analysis, identification of gaps in the multimodal network, and candidate access improvements for the fourteen passenger rail stations that are served by Amtrak Cascades in Portland, Oregon; Washington; and Vancouver, British Columbia Canada. Additionally, system-wide candidate improvements are identified that are applicable to other Amtrak rail stations in Washington. Multimodal connectivity to these rail stations can enhance the passenger experience, may attract additional riders to intercity passenger rail, and increases the capacity for access to the stations without the need to increase the parking supply. This analysis focuses on alternatives to single-occupant vehicle (SOV) access and does not evaluate opportunities to increase the parking supply, manage parking demand, or make improvements to the roadway network for SOV access to intercity passenger rail. An analysis of existing conditions at these stations (summarized in the memorandum, 7.1.b Amtrak Cascades Rail Stations Existing Conditions Memo), served as the foundation for the connectivity analysis. Additionally, the results of an on-board survey of the travel behavior of Amtrak Cascades passengers provided insights to inform both the connectivity analysis and the candidate access improvements (summarized in the memorandum, 2.3.5 Final Amtrak Cascades Onboard OD Survey Memorandum). As used in this memorandum, “connectivity” refers to the collective influence of land use and transportation factors on the options for passengers to access or leave the rail stations. The connectivity analysis evaluates station area land use context, availability of transportation services, and station area transportation infrastructure to identify the strengths and weaknesses of existing station access.
    [Show full text]
  • Albany Transit Development Plan
    Albany Transit Development Plan Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 4 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9 2 Service Area Profile ................................................................................................................... 11 Planning Framework ................................................................................................................. 11 Albany Area MPO ................................................................................................................ 11 Transit Services in the Albany Area ..................................................................................... 12 Concurrent Planning Processes ............................................................................................. 12 Demographic Analysis .............................................................................................................. 13 Population and Employment ................................................................................................. 13 Transit-Dependent Populations ............................................................................................. 15 Travel Patterns .......................................................................................................................... 17 Mode Split ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Prn 199406.Pdf
    IL@�(Q)]]ID(Q)Ldiw® ��WC8ly lFrrce§®lfW@rCmCQ)]]l If you enjoy railroading, you should read L&RP. PACIFIC RAIL NEWS stern 16 ���r�c:t: !�nw:�� �!:�c�m�� John Leopard and� Andrew S. Nelson Oakland Nights 22 When darkness falis, railroading in the East Bay comes to life Eric Blasko 34 Focus Kansas: Paola A railroad paradise on this side of the rainbow Dan Schroeder 36 Focus Washington: Everett The busy junction where BN's "high" and "low" lines meet John C. Iliman Images: Prairie Railroading Burlington Northern 5045 64 11 leads No. 97 through 48 Everett Junction, Wash., on Oct. 1, 1979. John C. IIlman Endless miles, tali grasses, small towns and distant horizons PACIFIC RAIL NEWS and PACIFIC NEWS are registered trademarks of Interurban Press (a California I DEPARTMENTS I Corporation), a subsidiary of Pentrex, Inc. 4 EXPEDITER 42 CP RAIL SYSTEM PUBLISHER: Michael W. Clayton 6 SOUTHERN PACIFIC LINES 43 SHORT LINES EDITOR: Don Gulbrandsen 8 REGIONALS 44 TRANSIT ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Andrew S. Nelson ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Carl Swanson 9 BURLINGTON NORTHERN 45 UNION PACIFIC EDITORIAL CONSULTANT: Mac Sebree 11 CHICAGO NORTH WESTERN 46 KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN CONTRIBUTING EDITORS: Greg Brown. & 14 SANTA FE 48 IMAGES OF RAILROADING Elrond G. Lawrence, Dick Stephenson 34 FOCUS KANSAS 54 THE LAST WORD ART DIRECTOR: Tom Danneman 36 FOCUS WASHINGTON 55 PRN CLASSIFIEDS ADVERTISING MANAGER: Richard Gruber 40 AMTRAK/PASSENGER 55 PRN ADVERTISING INDEX COVER: A Southern Pacific B30-7 waits for its next assignment at the Oakland loco­ motive facility in November 1993. The East Bay's major city is a busy rail center around the clock, but the action really heats up when the sun goes down and a vari­ ety of locals, through freights and passenger trains begin to prowl the rails.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents 1 9 13 23 29 39 47 59 61 65 67 69
    TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 II. INTRODUCTION 9 III. EXISTING RAILROAD OPERATIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE 13 IV. STATIONS 23 V. SERVICE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES 29 VI. RIDERSHIP AND OPERATING COST ANALYSIS 39 VII. CAPITAL COSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS 47 VIII. IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE 59 IX. PUBLIC OUTREACH 61 X. PUBLIC BENEFITS 65 XI. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS 67 XII. EXHIBITS 69 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Background This report examines the feasibility of reinstating Amtrak’s Pioneer route, which operated from 1977 to 1997 between Chicago, Illinois and Seattle, Washington via Denver, Colorado and Salt Lake City/Ogden, Utah. Amtrak was directed to perform this study by the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) (Public Law 110‐432), which reauthorized Amtrak and tasked Amtrak, the Federal government, states, and other rail stakeholders to improve intercity passenger rail service. Section 224 of PRIIA requires Amtrak to undertake studies of reinstating the Pioneer route, and of reinstating or expanding service, or adding stops, on several other routes. Amtrak is to submit these studies to Congress by October 16, 2009. B. Route History When the Pioneer was established in June of 1977, it operated from Salt Lake City and Ogden to Seattle. At Ogden, Amtrak’s San Francisco Zephyr provided connecting service to/from Denver and Chicago for Pioneer route passengers. In 1980‐81, new bi‐ level Superliner equipment was placed in service on the Pioneer, which allowed the train to offer convenient “through car” service to Chicago via the Zephyr and eliminated the need for passengers to physically change trains in Ogden.
    [Show full text]