Program Development Committee

Charter

• Develop programs as requested by the Board. Maintain the Position Papers.

Status

• Ad-Hoc Committee

Composition

• As appointed by the Board.

Meeting Notes.

15 August, 1998

The Program Development Committee (composed of Rob Bohannan, Roy Burris, Pete Glass, Rob Lindley, William Lindley, Sam Morse, Betty Nelson, Marc Pearsall) approved a Vision Statement for National and Arizona Intercity Passenger Rail.

21 June, 1997

Committee met immediately after the Board of Directors. Attending:

Michael Garey
Rob Bohannan
Rob Lindley
Gene Caywood
Earl Eisenhower
Robert Hart
Tony Haswell
Bill Lindley
Richard Malcolm
Mark McLaren
Sam Morse
Judy Eisenhower

At this meeting, the Committee revised the Position Papers. The National paper was the foundation for ARPA's 4 September letter to Senator McCain.

14 September, 1996

In conjunction with a relatively brief Board meeting on 14 September, the first Program Development meeting was held. In this session, we broke into three subcommittees to discuss several forms of passenger rail transportation:

• Inter-state (Subcommittee composed of Liz Garey, Dick Malcolm, Tony Haswell, Rob Bohannan, Bill Lindley)
• Intra-state (Jay Myers, Mike Garey, Pete Glass, Earl Eisenhower, Marc Pearsall)
• Urban (encompassing commuter rail and light rail). (Gene Caywood, Sam Morse, Bob Barber, John Gale)

The idea was to develop an ARPA policy on each of these; each subcommittee being tasked with creating a short statement. Then the full committee reconvened and hammered out the following policies:

Inter-State.

Conclusion: That ARPA should…

1. Support improved passenger rail service between Nogales, Tucson, Phoenix, and Los Angeles.
2. Support efforts to place Arizona under the jurisdiction of Amtrak West
3. Stimulate consideration by NARP to regionalize rail passenger service
4. Advocate striking the Amtrak monopoly clause, 49USC§24701. (Additional reference: Search the United States Code for "AMTRAK" to find Title 49 Section 24701.)
5. Support expansion beyond current levels of interstate passenger service.

Intra-State.

Conclusion: ARPA supports the development, implementation, and sustainment of an Intra-State Passenger Rail System.

What:

• A multi-county passenger rail system that exists within Arizona.

Why:

• Links population centers
• Encourages tourism
• Encourages economic development
• Reduces highway improvement requirements
• Improves Air Quality
• Improves Quality of Life
• Increases Inter-modalism

How:

• Utilizes existing conventional rail systems
• Interfaces with other rail systems and other transportation modes
• Environmentally friendly equipment
• Moves large groups at high speeds

Who:

• Administrator: State or Regional Authority
• Operator: Operate on host railroads. Operate by a contract operator.
• Users: Passengers. Express.

Urban.

Conclusions:

1. Any new rail line which does not use an existing rail corridor must connect major regional activity centers.
2. Any new use of existing rail
3. rights-of-way should not impede the continued use of conventional rail (e.g., Light Rail should impede Inter-State or Intra-State rail passenger service).
4. There are four types of fixed guideway: Busway, grade-separated, at-grade, and conventional rail. ARPA supports at-grade (Light Rail) and Conventional (commuter rail). We support grade separated where it is a cost-effective choice. We support buses where rail cannot be built, and as feeders to a rail system. ARPA supports demonstration trains under the following conditions: A) Brief service. B) Associated with some "special event" C) Associated with an effort to convince the public to support a permanent system.
5. Any new rail project must maximize passenger carrying capacity and have expansion capability built in.

Committee Page

ARPA Home Page