DOCSLIB.ORG

Commuter Rail System Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Commuter Rail System Study COMMUTER RAIL SYST EM ST UDY FINAL REPORT • MAY 2010 MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM STUDY FINAL May 2010 SUBMITTED BY: 7720 NORTH 16TH STREET SUITE 100 PHOENIX, AZ 85020 TABLE OF CONTENTS ES.1.0 Commuter Rail System Study Overview _____________________________ ES-1 ES.1.1 How does this Study Relate to Previous Studies? ________________________ ES-1 ES.2.0 Description of Commuter Rail _____________________________________ ES-2 ES.2.1 Why is there a Need for a Commuter Rail System?_______________________ ES-2 ES.2.2 What Type of Rail Vehicles Would be Used?____________________________ ES-2 ES.2.3 Where Would Passenger Stations be Located?__________________________ ES-3 ES.3.0 Description of System Study Alternatives ___________________________ ES-4 ES.3.1 What Stand-Alone Alternatives Were Considered? _______________________ ES-4 ES.3.2 How Many Riders Would Each Stand-Alone Alternative Carry in 2030? _______ ES-4 ES.3.3 What is the Cost of Each Stand-Alone Alternative? _______________________ ES-7 ES.3.4 What Interlined Alternatives Were Considered? _________________________ ES-7 ES.3.5 How Many Riders Would Each Interlined Alternative Carry in 2030? _________ ES-8 ES.3.6 What is the Cost of Each Interlined Alternative? _________________________ ES-9 ES.4.0 Comparison of Sytsem Study Alternatives __________________________ ES-10 ES.4.1 What Evaluation Factors Were Used to Compare Alternatives? ____________ ES-10 ES.4.2 How Did the Stand-Alone Alternatives Rank in Comparison to Each Other? __ ES-11 ES.4.2.1 Total Daily Ridership Forecast ____________________________________ ES-12 ES.4.2.2 Travel Time Savings____________________________________________ ES-12 ES.4.2.3 Cost Effectiveness _____________________________________________ ES-13 ES.4.2.4 Implementation or Constructability _________________________________ ES-14 ES.4.3 How Did the Interlined Alternatives Rank in Comparison to Each Other? _____ ES-15 ES.4.3.1 Total Daily Ridership Forecast ____________________________________ ES-16 ES.4.3.2 Capital Cost per Mile ___________________________________________ ES-17 ES.4.3.3 O&M Cost per Rider ____________________________________________ ES-18 ES.5.0 System Study Alternatives Phasing Recommendations _______________ ES-19 ES.5.1 Which Segment of the Commuter Rail System Should be Implemented First? _ ES-19 ES.5.2 Which Segment of the Commuter Rail System Should be Implemented Second? ___ ______________________________________________________________ ES-23 ES.5.3 In What Order Should the Remaining Segments of the Commuter Rail System be Implemented?___________________________________________________ ES-24 i ES.6.0 Implementation Steps ___________________________________________ ES-25 ES.6.1 What Type of Agreement with the Railroads Would be Needed to Operate Commuter Rail Service? ___________________________________________________ ES-25 ES.6.2 Who Would Operate the Commuter Rail Service?_______________________ ES-25 ES.6.3 How Would Regional Commuter Rail Service be Governed? ______________ ES-25 ES.6.4 What Governance Structures Have Peer Cities Established for Commuter Rail Systems? ______________________________________________________ ES-28 ES.6.5 What Funding Options are Available to Implement Commuter Rail? _________ ES-28 ES.6.6 How Have Peer Cities Funded Commuter Rail Systems? _________________ ES-31 ES.6.7 What Near-Term Implementation Steps are Needed? ____________________ ES-32 ES.6.8 What Long Term Implementation Steps are Needed? ____________________ ES-34 1.0 Study Overview _______________________________________________________ 1-1 1.1 Introduction_______________________________________________________ 1-1 1.2 Background ______________________________________________________ 1-1 1.3 Purpose of the System Study_________________________________________ 1-2 1.4 Need for a Commuter Rail System_____________________________________ 1-2 1.5 Potential Benefits and Goals of Commuter Rail ___________________________ 1-4 1.6 System Study Process ______________________________________________ 1-5 1.7 Organization of the System Study _____________________________________ 1-6 2.0 Existing and Future Conditions__________________________________________ 2-1 2.1 Introduction_______________________________________________________ 2-1 2.2 Summary of Findings _______________________________________________ 2-5 2.2.1 Demographics ___________________________________________________ 2-5 2.2.2 Land Use _______________________________________________________ 2-5 2.2.3 Railroad Characteristics ___________________________________________ 2-5 2.2.4 Highway Characteristics ___________________________________________ 2-5 2.2.5 Transit Service __________________________________________________ 2-5 2.2.6 Travel Patterns __________________________________________________ 2-6 2.3 Grand Avenue Corridor _____________________________________________ 2-7 2.3.1 Demographics ___________________________________________________ 2-7 2.3.2 Land Use _______________________________________________________ 2-8 2.3.3 Railroad Characteristics __________________________________________ 2-13 2.3.4 Highway Characteristics __________________________________________ 2-17 2.3.5 Transit Service _________________________________________________ 2-23 2.3.6 Travel Patterns _________________________________________________ 2-27 ii 2.3.7 Summary ______________________________________________________ 2-27 2.4 Yuma West Corridor_______________________________________________ 2-29 2.4.1 Demographics __________________________________________________ 2-29 2.4.2 Land Use ______________________________________________________ 2-30 2.4.3 Railroad Characteristics __________________________________________ 2-35 2.4.4 Highway Characteristics __________________________________________ 2-39 2.4.5 Transit Service _________________________________________________ 2-43 2.4.6 Travel Patterns _________________________________________________ 2-47 2.4.7 Summary ______________________________________________________ 2-47 2.5 Southeast Corridor ________________________________________________ 2-49 2.5.1 Demographics __________________________________________________ 2-49 2.5.2 Land Use ______________________________________________________ 2-51 2.5.3 Railroad Characteristics __________________________________________ 2-55 2.5.4 Highway Characteristics __________________________________________ 2-59 2.5.5 Transit Service _________________________________________________ 2-63 2.5.6 Travel Patterns _________________________________________________ 2-67 2.5.7 Summary ______________________________________________________ 2-67 2.6 Tempe Corridor __________________________________________________ 2-69 2.6.1 Demographics __________________________________________________ 2-69 2.6.2 Land Use ______________________________________________________ 2-70 2.6.3 Railroad Characteristics __________________________________________ 2-75 2.6.4 Highway Characteristics __________________________________________ 2-79 2.6.5 Transit Service _________________________________________________ 2-83 2.6.6 Travel Patterns _________________________________________________ 2-87 2.6.7 Summary ______________________________________________________ 2-87 2.7 Chandler Corridor_________________________________________________ 2-89 2.7.1 Demographics __________________________________________________ 2-89 2.7.2 Land Use ______________________________________________________ 2-90 2.7.3 Railroad Characteristics __________________________________________ 2-95 2.7.4 Highway Characteristics __________________________________________ 2-99 2.7.5 Transit Service ________________________________________________ 2-103 2.7.6 Travel Patterns ________________________________________________ 2-107 2.7.7 Summary _____________________________________________________ 2-107 2.8 Future Extensions _______________________________________________ 2-109 iii 3.0 Alternatives Development and Evaluation _________________________________ 3-1 3.1 Introduction_______________________________________________________ 3-1 3.2 Development of Alternatives _________________________________________ 3-2 3.2.1 Assumptions ____________________________________________________ 3-4 3.3 Description of Alternatives ___________________________________________ 3-8 3.3.1 Round 1: Preliminary “Maximum Service” Alternatives ____________________ 3-8 3.3.2 Round 2: Stand-Alone Base Alternatives and Combined Base Alternatives____ 3-9 3.3.3 Round 3A: Interlined Alternatives ___________________________________ 3-11 3.3.4 Round 3B: Alternate Interlined Alternatives ___________________________ 3-12 3.4 Ridership Forecasting Results _______________________________________ 3-12 3.4.1 Round 1: Preliminary “Maximum Service” Alternatives Ridership Forecasting Results _______________________________________________________ 3-13 3.4.2 Round 2: Stand-Alone Base and Combined Base Alternatives Ridership Forecasting Results______________________________________________ 3-13 3.4.3 Round 3A: Interlined Alternatives Ridership Forecasting Results___________ 3-28 3.4.4 Round 3B: Alternate Interlined Alternatives Ridership Forecasting Results ___ 3-33 3.5 Cost Estimates ___________________________________________________ 3-35 3.5.1 Round 1: Preliminary “Maximum Service” Alternatives Cost Estimates ______ 3-35 3.5.2 Round 2: Stand-Alone and Combined Base Alternatives Cost Estimates ____ 3-36 3.5.3 Round 3A: Interlined Alternatives Cost Estimates_______________________ 3-36
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bus and Shared-Ride Taxi Use in Two Small Urban Areas
    Bus and Shared-Ride Taxi Use in Two Small Urban Areas David P. Middendorf, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company Kenneth W. Heathington, University of Tennessee The demand for publicly owned fixed-route. fixed-schedule bus service are used for work and business-related trips to and was compared with tho demand for privately owned shared-ride taxi ser­ within CBDs and for short social, shopping, medical, vice in Davenport. Iowa, and Hicksville, New York, through on-board and personal business trips. surveys end cab company dispatch records and driver logs. The bus and In many small cities and in many suburbs of large slmrcd·ride taxi systems in Davenport com11eted for the off.peak-period travel market. During off-peak hours, the taxis tended to attract social· metropol.il;e:H!:i, l.lus~s nd taxicabs operate within tlie recreation, medical, and per onal business trips between widely scattered same jlu·isclictions and may compete for the same public origins and destinations, while the buses tended 10 attract shopping and transportation market. Two examples of small commu­ personal business trips to the CBD. The shared-ride taxi system in Hicks· nities in which buses and ta.xis coexist are Davenport, ville, in addition to providing many-to·many service, competed with the Iowa, and Hicksville, New York. The markets, eco­ counlywide bus system as a feeder system to the Long Island commuter nomic characteristics, organization, management, and railroad network. In each study area, the markets of each mode of public operation of the taxicab systems sel'Ving these commu­ transportation were similar.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Rail Service the Vermont Way
    DRAFT Regional Rail Service The Vermont Way Authored by Christopher Parker and Carl Fowler November 30, 2017 Contents Contents 2 Executive Summary 4 The Budd Car RDC Advantage 5 Project System Description 6 Routes 6 Schedule 7 Major Employers and Markets 8 Commuter vs. Intercity Designation 10 Project Developer 10 Stakeholders 10 Transportation organizations 10 Town and City Governments 11 Colleges and Universities 11 Resorts 11 Host Railroads 11 Vermont Rail Systems 11 New England Central Railroad 12 Amtrak 12 Possible contract operators 12 Dispatching 13 Liability Insurance 13 Tracks and Right-of-Way 15 Upgraded Track 15 Safety: Grade Crossing Upgrades 15 Proposed Standard 16 Upgrades by segment 16 Cost of Upgrades 17 Safety 19 Platforms and Stations 20 Proposed Stations 20 Existing Stations 22 Construction Methods of New Stations 22 Current and Historical Precedents 25 Rail in Vermont 25 Regional Rail Service in the United States 27 New Mexico 27 Maine 27 Oregon 28 Arizona and Rural New York 28 Rural Massachusetts 28 Executive Summary For more than twenty years various studies have responded to a yearning in Vermont for a regional passenger rail service which would connect Vermont towns and cities. This White Paper, commissioned by Champ P3, LLC reviews the opportunities for and obstacles to delivering rail service at a rural scale appropriate for a rural state. Champ P3 is a mission driven public-private partnership modeled on the Eagle P3 which built Denver’s new commuter rail network. Vermont’s two railroads, Vermont Rail System and Genesee & Wyoming, have experience hosting and operating commuter rail service utilizing Budd cars.
    [Show full text]
  • Board of Directors J U L Y 2 4 , 2 0
    BOARD OF DIRECTORS JULY 24, 2015 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY BOARD ROSTER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY County Member Alternate Orange: Shawn Nelson (Chair) Jeffrey Lalloway* Supervisor, 4th District Mayor Pro Tem, City of Irvine 2 votes County of Orange, Chairman OCTA Board, Chair OCTA Board Gregory T. Winterbottom Todd Spitzer* Public Member Supervisor, 3rd District OCTA Board County of Orange OCTA Board Riverside: Daryl Busch (Vice-Chair) Andrew Kotyuk* Mayor Council Member 2 votes City of Perris City of San Jacinto RCTC Board, Chair RCTC Board Karen Spiegel Debbie Franklin* Council Member Mayor City of Corona City of Banning RCTC Board RCTC Board Ventura: Keith Millhouse (2nd Vice-Chair) Brian Humphrey Mayor Pro Tem Citizen Representative 1 vote City of Moorpark VCTC Board VCTC Board Los Angeles: Michael Antonovich Roxana Martinez Supervisor, 5th District Councilmember 4 votes County of Los Angeles, Mayor City of Palmdale Metro Board Metro Appointee Hilda Solis Joseph J. Gonzales Supervisor, 1st District Councilmember County of Los Angeles City of South El Monte Metro Board Metro Appointee Paul Krekorian Borja Leon Councilmember, 2nd District Metro Appointee Metro Board Ara Najarian [currently awaiting appointment] Council Member City of Glendale Metro Board One Gateway Plaza, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012 SCRRA Board of Directors Roster Page 2 San Bernardino: Larry McCallon James Ramos* Mayor Supervisor, 3rd District 2 votes City of Highland County of San Bernardino, Chair SANBAG Board SANBAG Board
    [Show full text]
  • Sounder Commuter Rail (Seattle)
    Public Use of Rail Right-of-Way in Urban Areas Final Report PRC 14-12 F Public Use of Rail Right-of-Way in Urban Areas Texas A&M Transportation Institute PRC 14-12 F December 2014 Authors Jolanda Prozzi Rydell Walthall Megan Kenney Jeff Warner Curtis Morgan Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 8 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. 9 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 10 Sharing Rail Infrastructure ........................................................................................................ 10 Three Scenarios for Sharing Rail Infrastructure ................................................................... 10 Shared-Use Agreement Components .................................................................................... 12 Freight Railroad Company Perspectives ............................................................................... 12 Keys to Negotiating Successful Shared-Use Agreements .................................................... 13 Rail Infrastructure Relocation ................................................................................................... 15 Benefits of Infrastructure Relocation ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Rail
    STATION LOCATIONS CONNECTING SERVICES * SATURDAYS, SUNDAYS and MAJOR HOLIDAYS PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TERMINALS E and F 37, 108, 115 )DUH 6HUYLFHV 7UDLQ1XPEHU AIRPORT INFORMATION AIRPORT TERMINALS C and D 37, 108, 115 =RQH Ê*Ë6WDWLRQV $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 $0 D $LUSRUW7HUPLQDOV( ) TERMINAL A - EAST and WEST AIRPORT TERMINAL B 37, 108, 115 REGIONAL RAIL AIRPORT $LUSRUW7HUPLQDOV& ' D American Airlines International & Caribbean AIRPORT TERMINAL A EAST 37, 108, 115 D $LUSRUW7HUPLQDO% British Airways AIRPORT TERMINAL A WEST 37, 108, 115 D $LUSRUW7HUPLQDO$ LINE EASTWICK (DVWZLFN Qatar Airways 37, 68, 108, 115 To/From Center City Philadelphia D 8511 Bartram Ave & D 3HQQ0HGLFLQH6WDWLRQ Eastern Airlines PENN MEDICINE STATION & DDWK6WUHHW6WDWLRQ ' TERMINAL B 3149 Convention Blvd 40, LUCY & DD6XEXUEDQ6WDWLRQ ' 215-580-6565 Effective September 5, 2021 & DD-HIIHUVRQ6WDWLRQ ' American Airlines Domestic & Canadian service MFL, 9, 10, 11, 13, 30, 31, 34, 36, 30th STREET STATION & D7HPSOH8QLYHUVLW\ The Philadelphia Marketplace 44, 49, 62, 78, 124, 125, LUCY, 30th & Market Sts Amtrak, NJT Atlantic City Rail Line • Airport Terminals E and F D :D\QH-XQFWLRQ ² ²² ²² ²² ² ² ² Airport Marriott Hotel SUBURBAN STATION MFL, BSL, 2, 4, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, DD)HUQ5RFN7& ² 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 44, 48, 62, • Airport Terminals C and D 16th St
    [Show full text]
  • Clyde Railway Station, Recreation Reserve, Clyde
    Review of existing conservation plans for the Clyde Museums Feasibility Study Project Clyde Railway Station, Recreation Reserve, Clyde. Date Plan Published: December 2011 Commissioned by Central Otago District Council Prepared by Robin Miller MNZIBS MRICS Origin Consultants Ltd August 2018 Architecture Heritage Archaeology Origin Consultants Ltd Rear of 38 Buckingham Street, Arrowtown & Level 4, Security Buildings, 115 Stuart Street, Dunedin Review of existing conservation plans for Clyde Museums Project Building: Clyde Railway Station Date of conservation plan: December 2011 Brief history: • Opened on 2nd April 1907 as a Troup Type B station. • Construction of the railway began on 7th June 1878 with an estimated construction duration of 6 years to reach Wanaka – the line actually reached Cromwell in 1921 where it stopped. • The station serviced the fruit industry and the demand for excursion trains, but suffered from competition from road transport, particularly from 1960 onwards. The 1980 station on the outskirts of the town was built to serve the construction of the Clyde dam; the engineering works to which closed the line to Cromwell and the 1907 station. After that, the line between Middlemarch to Clyde was abandoned completely in 1990. • Apart from the station and a short section of line, a few former railway houses remain nearby, together with the goods shed that was relocated to the adjacent Briar Herb Factory Museum site. • In 1997, the station was registered as a Category II Historic Place (Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga) and it is also a protected building in the CODC District Plan. Summary of findings: • The station building has high heritage significance on both a local & regional basis.
    [Show full text]
  • Commuter Rail Safety Study November 2006
    U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Commuter Rail Safety Study Prepared by: Federal Transit Administration, Office of Safety and Security FTA OFFICE OF SAFETY AND SECURITY NOVEMBER 2006 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction.........................................................................................................................1 Background ...........................................................................................................................1 Commuter Railroads..............................................................................................................2 Sources of Data.....................................................................................................................4 FRA Accident/Incident Definitions .........................................................................................4 2.0 Commuter Railroad Accident and Incident Safety Trends .............................................7 Other Information...................................................................................................................9 3.0 In-depth: Commuter Railroad Fatalities..........................................................................13 Number of Fatalities ............................................................................................................13 Causes of Fatalities .............................................................................................................17 Conclusion -- Fatalities ........................................................................................................20
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5: Freight Rail
    Chapter 5: Freight Rail Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Wisconsin’s Rail Freight Network ............................................................................................................. 3 History of freight rail in Wisconsin ........................................................................................................ 3 WisDOT’s response to changes in statewide freight rail service .......................................................... 4 Milwaukee Road ................................................................................................................................... 4 Rail Transit Commissions ...................................................................................................................... 4 Wisconsin’s current freight rail network .............................................................................................. 5 Freight rail classifications ...................................................................................................................... 5 Commodities moved ............................................................................................................................. 6 2030 freight shipments forecast ........................................................................................................... 8 Wisconsin’s intermodal facilities .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Light Rail and Tram: the European Outlook November 2019
    STATISTICS BRIEF LIGHT RAIL AND TRAM: THE EUROPEAN OUTLOOK NOVEMBER 2019 INTRODUCTION Tram and light rail systems are available in 389 cit- evolution of light rail transit (LRT) in Europe since ies around the world, with more than half of them 20151, and provides a snapshot of the situation in (204) in Europe. This Statistics Brief describes the 2018. BALTIC/ NORDIC BENELUX REGION BRITISH 12 cities GERMANY 10 cities ISLES 482 km 49 cities 645 km 9 cities 375 m pax/y. 2,966 km 700 m pax/y. 356 km 2,908 m pax/y. 196 m pax/y. POLAND 15 cities 979 km FRANCE 1,051 m pax/y. 28 cities 827 km 1,104 m pax/y. SOUTH- EASTERN WESTERN CENTRAL EUROPE MEDITERRANEAN 29 cities 29 cities EUROPE 992 km 23 cities 809 km 1,277 m pax/y. 1,240 km 623 m pax/y. 2,188 m pax/y. 1 UITP collects rail data according to a three-year cycle (Metro, LRT and Regional & Suburban Railways) 1 A REMARKABLE RENAISSANCE 180 LRT has experienced a renaissance since the new millen- 160 nium, with no less than 108 new cities (re)opening their 140 first line, of which 60 are from Europe. This does not in- 120 Asia-Pacific clude new lines in existing systems and line extensions. 100 Eurasia Europe 80 40 450 South America 60 35 400 MENA & Africa 7 40 350 North America 30 +56% 20 6 300 25 3 2 250 0 2 4 20 2 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 10 1 5 200 15 1 6 1 150 1 1 Figure 3: Evolution of LRT development (km) 2 10 1 19 19 5 100 4 2 15 11 1 5 50 2 7 5 3 0 0 RIDERSHIP pre-1985 1985-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000-04 2005-09 2010-14 2015-19 Europe North America South America With a total annual ridership in Europe of 10,422 million Eurasia Asia-Pacific MENA & Africa in 2018, LRT carries as many passengers as metros and Cumulative # systems regional/commuter rail, and 10 times more passengers 2 Figure 1: LRT system opening per half-decade, 1985-2019 than air travel in Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Introduction
    1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 CONTEXT OF THE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) intends to expand regional transit service in the North Corridor, connecting the existing regional transit system from the planned interim terminus of Link light rail in the Northgate neighborhood of Seattle to the city of Lynnwood in southern Snohomish County. Approved by voters as part of the Sound Transit 2 (ST2) Plan in 2008 (Sound Transit 2007a), the North Corridor Transit Project would connect to and build on the Link light rail line that opened for service between downtown Seattle and Sea-Tac Airport in 2009, and would extend northward to serve north Seattle, Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace, and the city of Lynnwood in southern Snohomish County. Construction is currently underway on a light rail extension to the University of Washington scheduled to open in 2016, followed by service to Northgate targeted in 2021. Voter-approved additions over the next few years will bring 36 new miles of service to the north, south, and east, creating a 55-mile light rail system serving the region. The North Corridor project connecting Northgate to Lynnwood is an incremental step in the implementation of the Puget Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC’s) VISION 2040 (PSRC 2009) and the Sound Transit 2005 Regional Transit Long-Range Plan (Sound Transit 2005a), both of which call for the eventual extension of high capacity transit (HCT) service north to Everett. Figure 1-1 shows the Regional Transit System plan map adopted by Sound Transit in 2008 as well as the North Corridor.
    [Show full text]
  • Passenger Rail Primer
    Passenger Rail Primer Thurston Passenger Rail Workgroup November 2005 Passenger Rail Characteristics This document is intended as a primer introducing and familiarizing the reader with the basic definitions of passenger rail and providing a comparison of common transit services in 2005. It was developed to facilitate a discussion of passenger rail and other transit options in the Thurston Region, in preparation of a regional rail plan. In the next section, Passenger Rail Overview, the fundamental characteristics of light rail, commuter rail and intercity rail are covered. Complementary and Alternative Transit Options (primarily common bus transit choices) provides a wider transit context within which the passenger rail modes coordinate and compete. After investigating transit options individually, they are compared and contrasted in a chart of their characteristics, Summarizing the Continuum of Services. Other Rail Transit Technologies provides a brief overview of less extensively used rail options and the Appendices provide additional details and information. Additional resources the reader may want to consult include: • The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) website at www.apta.com • The Victoria Transportation Policy Institute (VTPI) website at www.vtpi.org • Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) website at www.bts.gov Passenger Rail Overview Introduction Passenger rail modes may be distinguished from one another based on a variety of characteristics – level of service, technology, right-of-way and operations. These characteristics are discussed in more detail in the other sections of this chapter. Like other transit services, however, in the most basic sense passenger rail modes break down by three distinct geographies – local, regional, and statewide or interstate.
    [Show full text]
  • CAPITAL REGION RAIL VISION from Baltimore to Richmond, Creating a More Unified, Competitive, Modern Rail Network
    Report CAPITAL REGION RAIL VISION From Baltimore to Richmond, Creating a More Unified, Competitive, Modern Rail Network DECEMBER 2020 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 EXISTING REGIONAL RAIL NETWORK 10 THE VISION 26 BIDIRECTIONAL RUN-THROUGH SERVICE 28 EXPANDED SERVICE 29 SEAMLESS RIDER EXPERIENCE 30 SUPERIOR OPERATIONAL INTEGRATION 30 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM 31 VISION ANALYSIS 32 IMPLEMENTATION AND NEXT STEPS 47 KEY STAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATION ROLES 48 NEXT STEPS 51 APPENDICES 55 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The decisions that we as a region make in the next five years will determine whether a more coordinated, integrated regional rail network continues as a viable possibility or remains a missed opportunity. The Capital Region’s economic and global Railway Express (VRE) and Amtrak—leaves us far from CAPITAL REGION RAIL NETWORK competitiveness hinges on the ability for residents of all incomes to have easy and Perryville Martinsburg reliable access to superb transit—a key factor Baltimore Frederick Penn Station in attracting and retaining talent pre- and Camden post-pandemic, as well as employers’ location Yards decisions. While expansive, the regional rail network represents an untapped resource. Washington The Capital Region Rail Vision charts a course Union Station to transform the regional rail network into a globally competitive asset that enables a more Broad Run / Airport inclusive and equitable region where all can be proud to live, work, grow a family and build a business. Spotsylvania to Richmond Main Street Station Relative to most domestic peer regions, our rail network is superior in terms of both distance covered and scope of service, with over 335 total miles of rail lines1 and more world-class service.
    [Show full text]