SlideServe
Télécharger Obtenir Pro
Menu
Accueil Pro
Préférences
ApparenceLight Aide et commentaires
© SlideServe · v2026

Intercity Passenger Rail: Success Factors and State Initiatives

gari avatar
gari
15 diapositives · 285 Views · Jan 03, 2014

The success of intercity passenger rail services in various states. Based on surveys and interviews with state and Amtrak officials, it identifies essential strategies, funding sources, and state-supported initiatives that have led to ridership growth. Highlighted state examples include California, Illinois, Washington, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, showcasing diverse funding models and operational improvements that have increased ridership and on-time performance.

#intercity passenger rail #success factors #state funding initiatives #ridership growth #ontime performance
Intercity Passenger Rail: Success Factors and State Initiatives - slide 1
01 / 15Intercity Passenger Rail: Success Factors and State Initiatives
1 / 17

Télécharger la présentation

Intercity Passenger Rail: Success Factors and State Initiatives
Une image / un lien ci-dessous est fourni (tel quel) pour télécharger la présentation

Politique de téléchargement : le contenu du site vous est fourni TEL QUEL pour votre information et votre usage personnel ; il ne peut être vendu, concédé sous licence ni partagé sur d’autres sites sans l’accord de son auteur.Le contenu vous est fourni TEL QUEL, pour votre information et votre usage personnel uniquement. Téléchargez la présentation en cliquant sur ce lien. Lors du téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à télécharger une présentation, l’éditeur a peut-être supprimé le fichier de son serveur.Pendant le téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à obtenir une présentation, le fichier a peut-être été supprimé par l’éditeur.

F I N

Plus de contenu associé

Transcription de la présentation

  1. R.L. Banks & Associates, Inc. State Success Stories Intercity Passenger Rail A Presentation To SCORT 2008 Ken Withers, P.E. August 2008

  2. 1 Purpose To determine success factors, where States have improved intercity passenger rail service.

  3. 2 Approach Survey States which have lesson to teach. Interview State and Amtrak officials. Attempt to understand reasons behind success.

  4. 3 Some Initial Findings • 14 states fund Amtrak. • Some States act to improve passenger rail without Amtrak. • Ridership growth varies widely. • Some States support commuter rail connecting cities; could be termed “intercity”. • Funding sources are many.

  5. 6 Ridership and On Time Performance

  6. 7 Selected State Examples California • Capitol Corridor (Sacramento-Oakland) • Pacific Surfliner (San Diego-Los Angeles-San Luis Obispo) • San Joaquin (Stockton-Bakersfield) • Direct State capital investment, $1.7 billion. • Annual State operating subsidy, $80 million. • Ten-fold growth over 30 years.

  7. 8 Selected State Examples Illinois • Hiawatha (Chicago-Milwaukee) • Lincoln (Chicago-St. Louis) • Illini and Saluki (Chicago-Carbondale) • Zephyr and Carl Sandburg (Chicago-Quincy) • State funding was $12 million per year in 2003-2005, rose to $24 million in 2006 and $28 million in 2007. • State supported addition of eight trains in 2006, doubling the number. Ridership grew significantly, e.g., a 122 percent increase on Chicago-St. Louis.

  8. 9 Selected State Examples Washington State • Cascades (Vancouver BC-Seattle-Portland-Eugene) • In 1994, Legislature instructed WSDOT to improve service. Ridership was less than 100,000. • State has invested $280 million since 1994. • 457,489 riders in 2007.

  9. 11 Selected State Examples Pennsylvania • Keystone Corridor (Harrisburg-Philadelphia) • Ridership up 483 percent over past 15 years. • 120-minute trip time reduced to 95 minutes following $140 million investment. • Maximum speed now 110 mph (2006). • OTP now 92 percent.

  10. 12 Selected State Examples Wisconsin • Hiawatha (Milwaukee-Chicago) • Recent-year funding: $6.4 million Wisconsin, • $2 million Illinois. • 7 trains per day in each direction. • OTP: 90s. • Annual riders: 618,000.

  11. 13 Selected State Examples Maine • Downeaster (Boston-Portland) • After 6 years of operation, service now attracts 345,000 annual riders. • Federal CMAQ dollars fund operation through 2009.

  12. 20 Selected State Funding Sources

  13. 21 Comparison Limitations No two corridors are alike. Differences in demographics, distances, freight traffic, track & signal, OTP incentives, funding, operating protocols, and in the host railroads themselves.

  14. 22 Conclusions What drives improvement in passenger rail service? Funding and perseverance. Funding directed at effective improvements. Binding agreements. Reliability (OTP) accompanies the most successful operations. No “one size fits all” success model. Improvement actions tailored to local situation. Where freight railroad owns the corridor, State must negotiate binding agreement to insure success. Funding sources limited only by the imagination. Funding net should be cast far and wide.

  15. Ken Withers, P.E. Vice President R.L. Banks & Associates, Inc. 2107 Wilson Blvd., Suite 750 Arlington, Virginia 22201 Phone (703) 276-7522 Fax (703) 276-7732 e-mail: kenwithers@rlbadc.com