DOCSLIB.ORG

Tracks to Tom Or Row

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tracks to Tom Or Row Tracks to Tom or row A renaissance for rail Alstom’s vision for the future Proposed North American High Speed Rail Corridors 9 3 8 6 2 7 1 10 11 5 4 1 California Corridor: 7 Northeast Corridor: Sacramento, Bay Area, Los Angeles, San Diego Boston, Providence, New Haven, New York City, 2 Chicago Hub Network: Newark, Trenton, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas Washington, D.C. City, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, 8 Northern New England Corridor: Indianapolis, Louisville Montreal, Boston, Portland/Auburn 3 Empire Corridor: 9 Pacific Northwest Corridor: Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester, Utica, Albany, New York City Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, Eugene 4 Florida Corridor: 10 Southeast Corridor: Tampa, Orlando, Miami Jacksonville, Savannah, Columbia, Raleigh, 5 Gulf Coast Corridor: Macon, Atlanta, Greenville, Charlotte, Richmond, Houston, New Orleans, Mobile, Meridian, Birmingham, Hampton Roads, Washington, D.C. Atlanta 11 Texas T-Bone and Brazos Express Corridor: 6 Keystone Corridor: San Antonio, Austin, Waco, Fort Worth-Dallas, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Philadelphia Killeen-Temple, Bryan-College Station, Houston Source: U.S. Department of Transportation ALSTOM Transportation Inc. National Geographic Custom Publishing 353 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1100 631-757-8300 New York, NY 10016 Editorial Services Directed by .................. Wendy Murphy Tel. (212) 557-7262 Art and Design Services Directed by ...... Bruce McGowin www.transport.alstom.com Project Direction by .................................... Bret Barasch © ALSTOM 2008. ALSTOM, the ALSTOM logo and any alternative versions thereof are trademarks and service marks of ALSTOM. The other names mentioned, registered or not, are the property of their respective companies. The technical and other data contained in these documents is provided for information only. ALSTOM reserves the right to revise or change this data at any time without further notice. 102008 OPI President of the American Public Transportation Association A message from William Millar rom early roads and canals, The need for such a national through the growth of railroads transportation strategy is a clarion F and electric street railways, call to public officials at all levels through the automobile age, and the and to America’s business leadership. jet age, transportation systems have The need to connect America’s always been at the center of American economic centers through fast, efficient progress. And that progress helped and sustainable networks has created America become the most prosperous the necessity of a high-speed rail society in history. system, comparable to the national But the transportation system today commitment to create the interstate does not provide nearly the mobility highway network. In this framework, options that America will need to face rail should become the preferred option the challenges of the future. While over the last for trips of 500 miles or fewer, with links to airports 30 years the number of urban rail systems has for longer distance trips and for international travel. grown significantly, America continues to have a Revitalization and transformation of America’s relatively small supply of superior urban transport transportation system will require a bold, and high-speed rail services that provide efficient comprehensive and aggressive national strategy. mobility for its communities and keep America’s It will require all partners — federal, state, economic centers attractive, productive and local and private — to sharpen their policy connected. With a new era of economic, perspectives and financial commitments. It will environmental and transportation policy on require a broad coalition of advocacy partners the horizon, we know that new innovations in including business, labor, community leaders, transportation are needed once again to propel environmental champions, and leaders from the economy forward and shape the nation. within the transportation industry itself to Current trends all point to a robust future for commit themselves to accomplish this vision. urban transport and high-speed rail. With 3-4 Economic conditions are right for a new era of million new residents added each year, the United growth for urban transport and high-speed rail. States has one of the highest growth rates in the Just as transportation policy over the last half industrial world. As has been the case throughout century focused on building a system of interstate American history, population growth follows roads to connect the nation, so should the vision economic opportunity. This has led to continuing for the next 50 years focus on travel options which growth in North America’s top metropolitan connect people and enable prosperity in America’s areas. Economically, these metropolitan regions bustling economic growth centers. have become the engines of American prosperity. The geography of these areas will make transit and I commend Alstom for its vision and leadership, the optimum use of high-capacity rail corridors and look forward to our working together in a a necessity for accommodating growth and mutual quest for better transportation service addressing mobility needs on a mega-region scale. and the economic vitality it will spawn. 2008 | TRACKS TO TOMORROW | 3 The Locomotion Evolution: Spurring Growth and Service Seven out of every 10 barrels of oil consumed in the United States are used for transportation, and highways account for 72 percent of that large share. xperts say that fuel efficiency offers the The evolution of rail systems greatest and most immediate potential in Europe and the U.S. E for reducing CO 2 emissions from the transportation sector over the next three decades. In Europe, several factors contributed to the According to data from the Department of Energy’s dominance of passenger rail, including high fuel Oak Ridge National Laboratory, existing U.S. prices in comparison to electric power and a passenger rail is 17 percent more efficient than concerted effort to control urban development and air travel and 21 percent more efficient than auto preserve the form and function of historic cities. The travel. Today, transportation policy places too much strong national and regional governments in Western emphasis on those modes of transportation that are Europe were able to coordinate policies governing the least fuel efficient — which means higher land use and the planning that emphasized rail over carbon emissions and a greater dependence on highways. Urban, regional and inter-city passenger foreign oil. A strong transportation system depends rail has thrived in Europe ever since. on various modes of transportation, a balance not Americans were leaders in the introduction of rail reflected in current American transportation policy. solutions as early as the middle of the 19 th century. For this reason, some legislators have suggested The first transcontinental railroad was built across that America’s transportation policy should focus North America in the 1860s, linking the railroad on more energy efficient modes of transportation network of the eastern U.S. with California on the that will help achieve today’s challenges. Policy Pacific coast. The railroad had a large impact on the makers are too focused on highways and have American transportation system and economy during ignored alternatives including high-speed the second half of the 19 th century. Even without passenger rail which may be part of the solution government subsidies, 70,000 additional miles of to addressing other key policy issues. track were laid in the 1880s, linking increasing The most successful implementation of high-speed numbers of towns and cities. Passenger rail travel trains has been in Europe, where the specially tripled between 1896 and 1916, and trains carried engineered tracks required for this technology “95 percent of all intercity transportation through 1 have been rolled out over the past 25 years. These 1910 .” Rail travel’s peak in the U.S. was 1920, with O S trains carrying 1.2 billion passengers. In that year S A successes have been the result of consumer demand, S . C fares were increased by 20 percent, and the decade - fueled by effective government policies and funding A M saw an almost threefold increase in automobile O T to support the vision that rail is a vital alternative / T registrations. As a result, intercity transportation R to alleviate the gridlock caused by excessive volume O P S by trains had fallen by 18 percent by 1929. N of automobiles and trucks on the highways. A R 1 Itzkoff, Donald M. Off the track: the decline of the intercity passenger train in the United States. T M O Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1985 T S L 4 | ALSTOM | 2008 A POLICIES AND TECHNOLOGY AGV prototype driver car at Aytré depot. La Rochelle, France. 2008 | TRACKS TO TOMORROW | 5 Long-distance rail transport continued with the Long-distance travel is currently dominated by streamliners that criss-crossed the United States airlines, but given continued population growth and from the 1930s, to 1950s. However, rail passenger congestion at airports and on highways, there has transport stagnated in the U.S., just as Europe and been a resurgence of interest in high-speed rail in Japan were pushing forward with new technologies. the U.S. in recent decades. Several corridors are being One major factor has been a lack of investment in examined for potential high-speed service, either passenger inter-city rail infrastructure. In the at the federal or state level. North America offers Northeast Corridor, rail travel is time and price various high-density passenger corridors, which are competitive with air travel, but infrastructure restricts uniquely suited for the implementation of dedicated other routes to highway speeds, putting rail in direct high-speed rail, which has so successfully been competition with buses and private automobiles. implemented in similar corridors in Europe and Asia. H S I V O H Y R R A L / T R O P S N A R T Alstom’s assembly M O T S line for R160 cars, L A Hornell, NY 8 0 0 2 The largest passenger rail facility in the U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Transportation Planning for the Richmond–Charlotte Railroad Corridor
    VOLUME I Executive Summary and Main Report Technical Monograph: Transportation Planning for the Richmond–Charlotte Railroad Corridor Federal Railroad Administration United States Department of Transportation January 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 as of the date of publication, the references 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-04/02 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date January 2004 Technical Monograph: Transportation Planning for the Richmond–Charlotte Railroad Corridor⎯Volume I 6. Performing Organization Code 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. Performing Organization Name and Address 10.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Georgia State Rail Plan
    State Rail Plan Georgia State Rail Plan Final Report Master Contract #: TOOIP1900173 PI # 0015886 State Rail Plan Update – FY 2018 4/6/2021 State Rail Plan Contents 1. The Role of Rail in Statewide Transportation ......................................................................................... 1-7 1.1. Purpose and Content ...................................................................................................................... 1-7 1.2. Multimodal Transportation System Goals ...................................................................................... 1-8 1.3. Role of Rail in Georgia’s Transportation Network .......................................................................... 1-8 1.4. Role of Passenger Rail in Georgia Transportation Network ......................................................... 1-16 1.5. Institutional Governance Structure of Rail in Georgia ................................................................. 1-19 1.6. Role of Federal Agencies .............................................................................................................. 1-29 2. Georgia’s Existing Rail System ................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1. Description and Inventory .............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2. Trends and Forecasts ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Author's Personal Copy
    Author's personal copy Journal of Transport Geography 22 (2012) 288–291 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Transport Geography journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jtrangeo Viewpoint Accessibility impacts of high-speed rail David M. Levinson Networks, Economics, and Urban Systems Research Group, University of Minnesota, Department of Civil Engineering, 500 Pillsbury Drive SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA article info abstract Keywords: High-speed rail Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Accessibility Hub-and-spoke Network structure Economic development 1. Introduction The reason for the hub-and-spoke architecture is to achieve economies of density in track usage and network effects at the High-speed rail lines have been built and proposed in numer- hub city which enable frequent service to multiple destinations. ous countries throughout the world. The advantages of such lines Multiple paths between origins and destinations would diffuse are a higher quality of service than competing modes (air, bus, the network effects and result in less frequent service, and therefore auto, conventional rail), potentially faster point-to-point times reduce demand. The hub-and-spoke architecture, while benefitting depending on specific locations, faster loading and unloading the network as a whole when demand is insufficient to enable times, higher safety than some modes, and lower labor costs. frequent point-to-point service, clearly serves the hub cities the The disadvantage primarily lies in higher fixed costs, potentially most, as they gain from all the incoming flows which create addi- higher energy costs than some competing modes, and higher noise tional demand, and thus greater service.
    [Show full text]
  • Advancing High-Speed Rail Policy in the United States
    MTI Advancing High-Speed Rail Funded by U.S. Department of in the United States Advancing High-Speed Rail Policy Transportation and California Policy in the United States Department of Transportation Report Number 11-18 MTI Report 11-18 May 2012 MINETA TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE MTI FOUNDER Hon. Norman Y. Mineta The Norman Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies (MTI) was established by Congress as part MTI BOARD OF TRUSTEES of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. Reauthorized in 1998, MTI was selected by the U.S. Department of Transportation through a competitive process in 2002 as a national “Center of Excellence.” The Institute is funded by Con- Honorary Co-Chair Rebecca Brewster Steve Heminger Stephanie Pinson gress through the United States Department of Transportation’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration, the Califor- Hon. James Oberstar ** President/COO Executive Director President/COO nia Legislature through the Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and by private grants and donations. Chair American Transportation Metropolitan Transportation Gilbert Tweed Associates, Inc. House Transportation and Research Institute Commission New York, NY Smyrna, GA Oakland, CA Infrastructure Committee The Institute receives oversight from an internationally respected Board of Trustees whose members represent all major surface Hans Rat House of Representatives Donald H. Camph Hon. John Horsley # Secretary General transportation modes. MTI’s focus on policy and management resulted from a Board assessment of the industry’s unmet needs Washington, DC President Executive Director Union Internationale des and led directly to the choice of the San José State University College of Business as the Institute’s home.
    [Show full text]
  • Amtrak CEO Flynn House Railroads Testimony May 6 20201
    Testimony of William J. Flynn Chief Executive Officer National Railroad Passenger Corporation Before the United States House of Representatives House CommiFee on Transportation & Infrastructure SubcommiFee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials When Unlimited Potential Meets Limited Resources: The Benefits and Challenges of High-Speed Rail and Emerging Rail Technologies Thursday, May Q, RSRT TT:SS a.m. Rayburn House Office Building, Room RTQU Amtrak T MassachuseFs Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC RSSST-TYST (RSR) \SQ-]\T^ WHEN UNLIMITED POTENTIAL MEETS LIMITED RESOURCES: THE BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF HIGH-SPEED RAIL AND EMERGING RAIL TECHNOLOGIES Introduction Good morning, Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Crawford, and Members of this SubcommiFee. Thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing on behalf of Amtrak. My name is William Flynn, and I am Amtrak’s Chief Executive Officer. I am particularly honored to be representing Amtrak at this hearing. It takes place six days after Pres- ident Biden traveled to Philadelphia to join us in celebrating Amtrak’s fiftieth anniversary. The American Jobs Plan he has proposed, which would provide $^S billion for Amtrak and high- speed and intercity passenger rail, is an important first step in developing an improved passenger rail system that would enhance mobility by serving more communities; provide more frequent and more equitable service; generate significant economic benefits; and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Amtrak has accomplished a great deal since we began service on May T, T\UT with a mandate to transform unprofitable intercity passenger rail services operated by private railroads into “a modern, efficient intercity railroad passenger service”1 – with an initial appropriation of only $YS million.
    [Show full text]
  • Cfs0997all2.Pdf
    Acknowledgements United States Department of Transportation Secretary Federico F. Peña; Rodney E. Slater Deputy Secretary Mortimer L. Downey Federal Railroad Administration Administrator Jolene M. Molitoris Deputy Administrator Donald M. Itzkoff Associate Administrator for Railroad Development James T. McQueen Deputy Associate Administrator for Railroad Development Arrigo P. Mongini Study manager; general editor; principal writer Neil E. Moyer System benefits; financing; Alice M. Alexander Magnetic levitation John T. Harding contract administration James L. Milner Transportation analysis Bruce Goldberg Chapter 1; liability; State Gareth W. Rosenau Helen Ng opportunities Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Senior study advisor; Volpe Center project manager Ronald A. Mauri Travel demand forecasting Simon P. Prensky System concept definition Michael N. Coltman David M. Nienhaus Leonore I. Katz-Rhoads Sarah J. Lawrence* Robert P. Brodesky* Model implementation: Todd C. Green* Energy and emissions model Howard M. Eichenbaum* projections of operating results David L. Skinner implementation and investment needs *EG&G/Dynatrend Argonne National Laboratories Charles River Associates Energy and emissions model Donald M. Rote Demand model development Dan Brand development Zian Wang Thomas E. Parody Mark R. Kiefer DeLeuw, Cather & Co. and Associated Firms DeLeuw, Cather project manager Michael Holowaty Operating expense model Duncan W. Allen Ancillary activities model Steven A. LaRocco development Winn B. Frank development Richard L. Tower (Wilbur Eric C. MacDonald Smith) Charles H. Banks (R.L. Banks) Public benefits model design and Guillaume Shearin Liability Charles A. Spitulnik implementation Robert J. Zuelsdorf (Wilbur (Hopkins & Sutter) Smith) Kenneth G. Sislak (Wilbur Anne G. Reyner (Wilbur Smith) Smith) Jeffrey B. Allen Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Parsons, Brinckerhoff project manager John A.
    [Show full text]
  • Cincinnati 7
    - city of CINCINNATI 7 RAILROAD IMPROVEMENT AND SAFETY PLAN Ekpatm~d Tra tim & Engineering Tran~~murnPlanning & Urhn 'Design EXHIBIT Table of Contents I. Executive Summary 1 Introduction 1 Background 7 Purpose 7 I. Enhance Rail Passenger Service to the Cincinnati Union Terminal 15 11. Enhance Freight Railroad Service to and Through Cincinnati 21 111. Identify Railroad Related Safety Improvements 22 RlSP Projects 26 Conclusions 26 Recommendations 27 Credits List of Figures Figure 1 Cincinnati Area Railroads Map (1965) Figure 2 Cincinnati Area Railroads Map (Existing) Figure 3 Amtrak's Cardinal on the C&O of Indiana Figure 4 Penn Central Locomotive on the Blue Ash Subdivision Figure 5 CSX Industrial Track (Former B&0 Mainline) at Winton Road Figure 6 Cincinnati Riverfront with Produce Companies Figure 7 Railroads on the Cincinnati Riverfront Map (1976) Figure 8 Former Southwest Connection Piers Figure 9 Connection from the C&O Railroad Bridge to the Conrail Ditch Track Figure 10 Amtrak's Cardinal at the Cincinnati Union Terminal Figure 11 Chicago Hub Network - High Speed Rail Corridor Map Figure 12 Amtrak Locomotive at the CSX Queensgate Yard Locomotive Facility Figure 13 Conceptual Passenger Rail Corridor Figure 14 Southwest Connection Figure 15 Winton Place Junction Figure 16 Train on CSX Industrial Track Near Evans Street Crossing Figure 17 Potential Railroad Abandonments Map Figure 18 Proposed RlSP Projects Map Figure 19 RlSP Project Cost and Priority Executive Summary Introduction The railroad infrastructure in Cincinnati is critical for the movement of goods within the City, region, and country. It also provides the infrastructure for intercity passenger rail.
    [Show full text]