DOCSLIB.ORG

DRPT Draft Rail Plan 2C.Qxp

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DRPT Draft Rail Plan 2C.Qxp Chapter 4 Potential Improvements to the Rail System ased on current conditions and anticipated :: Improving passenger rail by enhancing system :: TransDominion Express (TDX) Update Report trends, this chapter presents potential rail performance and adding capacity (2007) Binvestments in the Commonwealth. They are :: I-81 Corridor Improvement Study Tier I Final presented in four categories: The total rail needs identified also provide the Environmental Impact Statement (2007) :: Class I and Shortline Railroad Improvements, foundation for a six year funding plan, which in turn :: Roanoke Region Intermodal Facility Summary including the Norfolk Southern Heartland Corridor supports the long-range vision for rail in Virginia Report (2008) and CSX National Gateway Corridor through the 2035 planning horizon. :: Opportunities for Truck to Rail Diversion in :: Rail Improvements to Virginia Ports Virginia’s I-81 Corridor (Ongoing) :: Passenger Rail Improvements for VRE and Amtrak Methodology :: Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor Tier II EIS :: Southeast High-Speed Rail Rail improvement needs have been identified by the (Ongoing) Commonwealth through previous and ongoing :: Richmond/Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Tier I Figure 4-1 shows the location of these major investment studies, including: Environmental Impact Statement (Ongoing) improvements throughout the Commonwealth. :: I-95 Corridor Coalition: Mid-Atlantic Rail :: Richmond Area Rail Improvement Project Operations Study - MAROPS Phase I (2002) Environmental Assessment (Ongoing) All improvements address one or more of the :: Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor – Tier I following: Environmental Impact Statement (2002) Summaries of the above reports and studies are :: Reducing passenger car and truck freight traffic to :: The Northeast – Southwest – Midwest Corridor available on the DRPT website at alleviate highway congestion, reduce energy Marketing Study (2003) http://www.drpt.virginia.gov. Also reviewed were demands and reduce pollutants :: Governor’s Commission on Rail Enhancement for strategic plans developed by the Virginia Port :: Increasing freight capacity throughout the the 21st Century Report (2004) Authority, Amtrak, VRE, the Heartland Corridor Commonwealth to support greater demand for :: Washington, DC to Richmond Third Track Initiative and DRPT’s Public Transportation and freight rail shipping, growth in the coal industry Feasibility Study (2006) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. and improved capacity at Virginia’s ports Virginia Statewide Rail Plan - DRAFT Potential Improvements to the Rail System 49 Figure 4-1 POTENTIAL RAIL INVESTMENT LOCATIONS M Passenger Rail Corridor Initiatives A R Y L Virginia Port Improvements A N D D Washington, DC E NS Heartland Corridor L Arlington A W CSX National Corridor Haymarket Alexandria Gainesville A Powell’s Creek R Southeast High-Speed Rail Manassas E Cherry Hill VRE Station Arkendale A I Fredericksburg N I G R I V T Doswell S E W Richmond K Y Lynchburg Centralia U C K E N T Roanoke Newport News VPA/VIT Kilby E S E N O R T H CAROLINA E S T E N N 50 Potential Improvements to the Rail System Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation The freight railroads are private, for-profit businesses The cost estimates are in 2008 dollars unless The total cost estimate includes long term rail needs and, in accordance with federal policies concerning otherwise noted. Cost estimates include capital costs that contain significant public benefits associated competitiveness, do not release certain information. only. No operating or equipment costs are included; with improving passenger rail, reducing highway The Statewide Rail Plan provides general information they will be identified in the State Action Rail Plan. congestion and fostering economic development. about Class I freight rail improvement projects. Some needs could be met within current state Project cost estimates for Norfolk Southern and CSX In the information that follows, project needs are funding streams consistent with the development of have been provided by the respective railroads and presented in two ways: 1) as part of major the Six Year Improvement Plan. These projects will are being evaluated by the Commonwealth. Commonwealth transportation that serves corridor represent the short-term needs that will be identified initiatives for multimodal networks in accordance in the Rail Action Plan, with all or some portion of In the case of shortline railroads, DRPT assisted in with Virginia’s long range transportation plan; and the remaining projects to be programmed into the the development of cost estimates for future capital 2) as an industry project associated with the Class I 2035 long range plan based on public benefits and needs and projects. For passenger rail projects, DRPT railroads (Norfolk Southern and CSX), the 10 available funding. This document does not address and North Carolina are conducting separate but shortline railroads, passenger rail operators (Amtrak the allocation of costs among public (federal, state, coordinated detailed planning and engineering and VRE) and the Ports of Hampton Roads. Due to local) and private potential project partners. The analysis that, while not yet complete, provides the their significant impact on rail traffic and potential allocation of costs will also be determined through best estimate of costs to date. economic development in connecting Virginia to the State Rail Action Plan, scheduled for publication global markets, the ports were considered as a in fall 2008. Due to market uncertainties and significant recent separate category in determining rail improvement cost increases associated with railroad construction, needs. these are conservative cost estimates. It is the Commonwealth’s standard practice to execute Corridor improvements are those projects within project agreements with the railroads that allocate identified transportation corridors that will increase 100 percent of the risk of cost escalation to the the freight shipments to and from ports, improve private sector in delivering capital projects. Any rail commuter and intercity rail within regions of the project that receives public funding from the Commonwealth and other freight improvement Commonwealth must represent the best value for projects identified by Class I and shortline railroads the taxpayer’s dollar and procurement of design and in Virginia. The total cost for all rail transportation construction services must be in accordance with corridor improvements is approximately $5 billion Commonwealth policies. This requires the bidding of using the upper end cost estimates for projects that construction contracts to insure competitiveness and are presented within a range. This total cost opportunities for small, woman and minority owned represents an average annual expense of businesses (SWaM) to participate. approximately $185 million for the 27-year period beginning 2009 through 2035. All costs are stated in 2008 dollars without escalation to potential year of expenditure. Virginia Statewide Rail Plan - DRAFT Potential Improvements to the Rail System 51 Class I and Shortline Railroads CSX National Gateway Corridor (I-95, I-295 stack clearance projects, construction of a rail yard The projects described in this section total $1.8 and I-495) and funding to support clearance of the Virginia billion for both Class I and shortline railroads. Project Cost: $ 48 million Avenue Tunnel in Washington, DC Some rail Freight rail improvements on the CSX multi-state improvements within the National Gateway corridor Class I and Shortline Railroad National Gateway (I-95) Corridor are shown in in Virginia provide dual benefits to improve passenger Project Costs Figure 4-2. and freight rail operations in categories such as on- time performance by separating passenger and The National Gateway project is designed to freight rail operations in congested areas. Project Costs improve the efficiency of freight rail shipping for the NS Class I $ 1.7 billion Mid-Atlantic ports of Baltimore, MD, Virginia, and Annual Benefits for Virginia CSX Class I $ 48.0 million Wilmington, NC and the markets in Pennsylvania, Shortline Railroad $ 68.0 million West Virginia, Ohio and other Midwestern states. Total Costs $ 1.8 billion The project extends through six states and the District of Columbia and consists of approximately $700 million in projects to expand capacity and Removes Saves over Saves 61,705 provide clearance for double-stack intermodal trains, 130,000 trucks 31.9 million tons of CO2 from I-95 gallons of fuel emissions improving the flow of international and domestic corridor freight between these regions. Included in the National Gateway are the expansion of several Project Status existing intermodal facilities and construction of new facilities to manage current and projected demand CSX National Gateway Corridor Project for freight movement along the corridor. At CSX’s Development Status request, Cambridge Systematics conducted a cost Proposed benefit analysis for the project and estimates that Task Completion Dates the diversion of truck traffic to rail will range from Planning and Analysis 2008 186,000 (moderate scenario) to 375,000 truckload Preliminary Engineering 2009 equivalents (aggressive scenario) on an annual basis if the improvements are implemented. Final Design 2010 Construction 2013 Virginia’s portion of the CSX National Gateway Operation 2013 improvements is estimated at $48 million. The CSX proposal for National Gateway improvements assumes
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Impact of Jumbo Covered Hopper Cars on Kansas Shortline Railroads
    Report No. K-TRAN: KSU-04-3 FINAL REPORT THE IMPACT OF JUMBO COVERED HOPPER CARS ON KANSAS SHORTLINE RAILROADS Michael W. Babcock James Sanderson Kansas State University Manhattan, Kansas SEPTEMBER 2004 K-TRAN A COOPERATIVE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PROGRAM BETWEEN: KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS 1 Report No. 2 Government Accession No. 3 Recipient Catalog No. K-TRAN: KSU-04-3 4 Title and Subtitle 5 Report Date THE IMPACT OF JUMBO COVERED HOPPER CARS ON KANSAS September 2004 SHORTLINE RAILROADS 6 Performing Organization Code 7 Author(s) 8 Performing Organization Report Michael W. Babcock and James Sanderson No. 9 Performing Organization Name and Address 10 Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Kansas State University Department of Economics; 317 Waters Hall 11 Contract or Grant No. Manhattan, Kansas 66506-4001 C1401 12 Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13 Type of Report and Period Kansas Department of Transportation Covered Bureau of Materials and Research Final Report 700 SW Harrison Street June 2003 - July 2004 Topeka, Kansas 66603-3754 14 Sponsoring Agency Code RE-0338-01 15 Supplementary Notes For more information write to address in block 9. 16 Abstract Class I railroads have been replacing 263,000-pound (loaded weight) covered hopper cars capable of handling 100 tons of grain with 286,000-pound covered hopper cars that can handle 111 tons. While these heavier cars provide a decrease in railroad cost per ton-mile for the Class I (Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe) Railroads; they will cause a significant increase in operating and maintenance costs for the shortline railroads in the state of Kansas.
    [Show full text]
  • INRD's Major Moves
    Entrepreneurial Railroading SM Vol. 28 No. 2 Summer 2014 "New" INRD INRD’s Major Moves: Key White River Ballast Cars Add Bridge Replacement Gets Underway Safety, Speed to The year that Indiana Rail Trackwork Road’s bridge over the White River near Elnora, Ind., was Indiana Rail Road’s Engi- constructed, the following hap- neering department has scored a pened: The U.S.S. Maine mys- “win-win-win” with a new and teriously exploded in Havana heavily-rebuilt fleet of ballast cars (Cuba) Harbor, a catalyst for the in use across the system this year. Spanish-American War; jockey Not only do the bright-yellow cars Willie Simms won the 24th(!) distribute rock-ballast along the Kentucky Derby aboard Plaudit; right-of-way faster than ever be- and on December 18, in France, fore, but their air-actuated control the world’s first automobile land system is much safer and easier for speed record – 39 mph – was re- employees to use. corded. (Some background: Well That was 1898, and back at over a century ago, railroads dis- Elnora, crews built a 450-foot covered that rock ballast is the best Pratt-style pin-connected steel The INRD is replacing the 1898 White River Bridge with a new structure, way to keep the wooden crossties truss bridge to carry the Southern allowing for greater train capacity and speed. (or in some cases today, more ex- Indiana Railway across the White pensive concrete ties) in place. The River, eventually reaching Terre Haute. Through more to 263,000 pounds. Since the rail industry standard steel rails are firmly connected to than a century and thousands of train movements car- maximum weight is 286,000 pounds, the bridge puts the crossties with steel spikes or rying millions of tons of Indiana commerce, this rail southern Indiana businesses at a competitive disad- other fasteners; rock ballast poured line changed hands several times until 2006, when vantage.
    [Show full text]
  • Genesee & Wyoming Inc. 2016 Annual Report
    Genesee & Wyoming Inc. 2016 Annual Report Genesee & Wyoming Inc.*owns or leases 122 freight railroads worldwide that are organized into 10 operating regions with approximately 7,300 employees and 3,000 customers. * The terms “Genesee & Wyoming,” “G&W,” “the company,” “we,” “our,” and “us” refer collectively to Genesee & Wyoming Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliated companies. Financial Highlights Years Ended December 31 (In thousands, except per share amounts) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Statement of Operations Data Operating revenues $874,916 $1,568,643 $1,639,012 $2,000,401 $2,001,527 Operating income 190,322 380,188 421,571 384,261 289,612 Net income 52,433 271,296 261,006 225,037 141,096 Net income attributable to Genesee & Wyoming Inc. 48,058 269,157 260,755 225,037 141,137 Diluted earnings per common share attributable to Genesee & Wyoming Inc. common stockholders: Diluted earnings per common share (EPS) $1.02 $4.79 $4.58 $3.89 $2.42 Weighted average shares - Diluted 51,316 56,679 56,972 57,848 58,256 Balance Sheet Data as of Period End Total assets $5,226,115 $5,319,821 $5,595,753 $6,703,082 $7,634,958 Total debt 1,858,135 1,624,712 1,615,449 2,281,751 2,359,453 Total equity 1,500,462 2,149,070 2,357,980 2,519,461 3,187,121 Operating Revenues Operating Income Net Income Diluted Earnings ($ In Millions) ($ In Millions) ($ In Millions) 421.61,2 Per Common Share 2 2,001.5 401.6 1 $2,000 2,000.4 $400 394.12 $275 271.3 $5.00 1 2 4.79 1 374.3 1 380.21 384.3 261.0 4.581 1,800 250 4.50 350 1,639.0 225.01 225 2 1 1,600 233.5 4.00 2 3.89 1,568.6 4.10 2 300 2 200 213.9 213.3 2 3.78 2 1,400 1 3.50 3.69 289.6 183.32 3.142 250 175 1,200 3.00 211.
    [Show full text]
  • Unique Uses for Emissions Inventories in Maryland
    Unique Uses for Emissions Inventories in Maryland Roger Thunell, Chief AQ Planning Division, MDE – EPA EI Conference – August 2017 Welcome to Baltimore • During Your Visit • Crab Cakes • Microbrews • Burger Cookies • Camden Yards Focus on Three Topics • Use of CAMD data as a Regulatory Mechanism • Locomotive Survey • Temporal Improvements for Small EGUs in Modeling Inventories 3 CAMD Data as a Regulatory Mechanism • Focused on coal-fired EGUs with SCR or SNCR post-combustion controls • Baseline Starting Point - The year with the lowest recorded NOX emission rate for an entire ozone season • Using Daily CAMD data, compute the 123 30-day rolling averages for that ozone season. – (Ozone Season = 153 Days) 4 CAMD Data as a Regulatory Mechanism • Selected the highest maximum 30-day rolling average from this 123 value dataset. • This max 30-day rolling NOX emission rate represents an “achievable” emission rate for the unit – Some have referred to this as “optimization” of the unit. We would disagree and refer to it as “achievable” – Since the unit has demonstrated that it is capable of hitting this rate over an entire ozone season 5 CAMD Data as a Regulatory Mechanism • What can you do with this unit-specific “achievable” NOX rate – Design/Set permissible NOX rates per Unit • MDE has done this by setting “Indicator Rates” within our latest NOX regulation for coal-fired EGUs • The “Indicator Rates” are not identical to the “Achievable” rates but they are similar • Requires EGU owner/operators to explain why they were unable to meet the “Indicator
    [Show full text]
  • MDOT Michigan State Rail Plan Tech Memo 2 Existing Conditions
    Technical Memorandum #2 March 2011 Prepared for: Prepared by: HNTB Corporation Table of Contents 1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................1 2. Freight Rail System Profile ......................................................................................2 2.1. Overview ...........................................................................................................2 2.2. Class I Railroads ...............................................................................................2 2.3. Regional Railroads ............................................................................................6 2.4. Class III Shortline Railroads .............................................................................7 2.5. Switching & Terminal Railroads ....................................................................12 2.7. State Owned Railroads ...................................................................................16 2.8. Abandonments ................................................................................................18 2.10. International Border Crossings .....................................................................22 2.11. Ongoing Border Crossing Activities .............................................................24 2.12. Port Access Facilities ....................................................................................24 3. Freight Rail Traffic ................................................................................................25
    [Show full text]
  • Rail Plan 2005 - 2006
    Kansas Department of Transportation Rail Plan 2005 - 2006 Kathleen Sebelius, Governor Debra L. Miller, Secretary of Transportation Kansas Department of Transportation Division of Planning and Development Bureau of Transportation Planning – Office of Rail Affairs Kansas Rail Plan Update 2005 - 2006 Kansas Department of Transportation Division of Planning and Development Bureau of Transportation Planning Office of Rail Affairs Dwight D. Eisenhower State Office Building 700 SW Harrison Street, Second Floor Tower Topeka, Kansas 66603-3754 Telephone: (785) 296-3841 Fax: (785) 296-0963 Debra L. Miller, Secretary of Transportation Terry Heidner, Division of Planning and Development Director Chris Herrick, Chief of Transportation Planning Bureau John Jay Rosacker, Assistant Chief Transportation Planning Bureau ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Prepared by CONTRIBUTORS Office of Rail Affairs Staff John W. Maddox, CPM, Rail Affairs Program Manager Darlene K. Osterhaus, Rail Affairs Research Analyst Edward Dawson, Rail Affairs Research Analyst Paul Ahlenius, P.E., Rail Affairs Engineer Bureau of Transportation Planning Staff John Jay Rosacker, Assistant Chief Transportation Planning Bureau Carl Gile, Decision Mapping Technician Specialist OFFICE OF RAIL AFFAIRS WEB SITE http://www.ksdot.org/burRail/Rail/default.asp Pictures provided by railroads or taken by Office of Rail Affairs staff Railroad data and statistics provided by railroads 1 Executive Summary The Kansas Rail Plan Update 2005 - 2006 has Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1654 et seg). Financial been prepared in accordance with requirements of the assistance in the form of Federal Rail Administration Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) U.S. Department (FRA) grants has been used to fund rehabilitation of Transportation (USDOT), as set forth in federal projects throughout Kansas.
    [Show full text]
  • Freight Rail B
    FREIGHT RAIL B Pennsylvania has 57 freight railroads covering 5127 miles across the state, ranking it 4th largest rail network by mileage in the U.S. By 2035, 246 million tons of freight is expected to pass through the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, an increase of 22 percent over 2007 levels. Pennsylvania’s railroad freight demand continues to exceed current infrastructure. Railroad traffic is steadily returning to near- World War II levels, before highways were built to facilitate widespread movement of goods by truck. Rail projects that could be undertaken to address the Commonwealth’s infrastructure needs total more than $280 million. Annual state-of-good-repair track and bridge expenditures for all railroad classes within the Commonwealth are projected to be approximately $560 million. Class I railroads which are the largest railroad companies are poised to cover their own financial needs, while smaller railroads are not affluent enough and some need assistance to continue service to rural areas of the state. BACKGROUND A number of benefits result from using rail freight to move goods throughout the U.S. particularly on longer routes: congestion mitigation, air quality improvement, enhancement of transportation safety, reduction of truck traffic on highways, and economic development. Railroads also remain the safest and most cost efficient mode for transporting hazardous materials, coal, industrial raw materials, and large quantities of goods. Since the mid-1800s, rail transportation has been the centerpiece of industrial production and energy movement. Specifically, in light of the events of September 11, 2001 and from a national security point of view, railroads are one of the best ways to produce a more secure system for transportation of dangerous or hazardous products.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Michigan Biomass Transportation Systems
    Michigan Economic Development Corporation Forestry Biofuel Statewide Collaboration Center Task B1 Evaluation of Michigan Biomass Transportation Systems Final Report Authors: Pasi Lautala, Ph.D., P.E. Richard Stewart, Ph.D, CTL Robert Handler, Ph.D Hamed Pouryousef Final Report January, 2012 Table of Contents Disclaimer and Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. 7 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 8 Transportation Definitions and Terminology .................................................................................. 20 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 23 1-1. Statewide Evaluation of Michigan Biomass Transportation Systems ................................. 23 1-2. Limitations of the Study ...................................................................................................... 25 1-3. Outline and Structure of Report ........................................................................................... 26 1-4. Literature Review ................................................................................................................ 27 1-4-1- Transportation .............................................................................................................. 27 1-4-2- Multimodal (Intermodal) Transportation ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2 Million Square Feet of Distribution Center Space
    2 MILLION SQUARE FEET P OF DISTRIBUTION CENTER SPACE ORT S READY FOR YOU TORAGE & T RAN SP ORTATION We Offer Our Clients: Foreign Trade Zone, Vendor Compliance Management, Inventory Control, Vendor Managed Inventory, Order Fulfillment and Product Modification. Now what can we do for your business? Givens.com 67 PORT STORAGE & TRANSPORTATION Cold Storage ................................................................. 67 Warehousing ................................................................. 68 Air Services and Airports ...................................................... 77 Motor Carrier Services ........................................................ 82 Passenger Cruise Service ...................................................... 82 Railroad Services ............................................................. 83 Towing and Barge Services .................................................... 87 ORTATION SP RAN T & Beyond Distribution TORAGE S CrossGlobe works in partnership with the Port of Virginia, which handles ORT containerized cargo and break-bulk [notably project cargo, machinery, P pulp and paper, and steel). We provide drayage and local intermodal transportation services to and from all the Port's marine terminal facilities, rail yards, and customs exam stations. CrossGlobe is a premier logistics service provider. We specialize in transportation and warehousing solutions for the mid-Atlantic region. www.logistec.com . · ·I PORT StoragE & Transportation StoragE/WAREHOUSE COLD STORAGE n LINEagE Logistics Lineage Logistics
    [Show full text]
  • Report Template
    PREFACE This Draft Environmental Assessment for the Expansion of the Wallops Flight Facility Launch Range has been developed by URS Group, Inc. (URS) and EG&G Technical Services (EG&G) for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center’s (GSFC) Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS). URS/EG&G have prepared this report for the exclusive use of WFF in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500- 1508), NASA’s regulations for implementing NEPA (14 CFR Subpart 1216.3), and the NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) for implementing NEPA and Executive Order 12114 (NPR 8580.1) (NASA, 2001). Executive Summary DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EXPANSION OF THE WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY LAUNCH RANGE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY WALLOPS ISLAND, VA 23337 Lead Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Cooperating Agency: Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space Transportation Proposed Action: Expansion of the Wallops Flight Facility Launch Range on Wallops Island For Further Information: Joshua A. Bundick NEPA Program Manager Code 250.W Goddard Space Flight Center’s Wallops Flight Facility National Aeronautics and Space Administration Wallops Island, VA 23337 (757) 824-2319 Date: April 2009 ABSTRACT This Environmental Assessment addresses the proposed expansion of the launch range at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), which is located on the Eastern Shore of Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning Context
    1. Preface This plan serves as the update to Chapter 12, the transportation plan element, of the 2003 Cumberland County Comprehensive Plan. Background information and specific statistics on the modes of transportation in the county can be found in Chapter 11 of the comprehensive plan and in the Harrisburg Area Transportation Study (HATS) Long Range Transportation Plan1. 2. Introduction Cumberland County is home to a variety of transportation resources ranging from interstate highways to sidewalks in local neighborhoods. The transportation infrastructure found in the county supports the national, state and local economies and the high quality of life in our communities, alike. The value of our transportation system warrants the county’s involvement in its planning, design, construction and maintenance. Cumberland County’s transportation planning authority emanates from Article III of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), Act 247 of 1968. The MPC requires county comprehensive plans to include a plan for the “movement of people and goods” that includes all modes of transportation. Under this planning authorization the county’s actual role in planning and implementing improvements for all modes of transportation must be carefully managed. This plan identifies the salient transportation issues and needs facing the county and recommends a series of county-based strategies and action steps aimed at addressing the identified needs and issues. 3. Highways and Bridges Issues and Needs Cumberland County has an extensively developed highway network that provides for local, regional, and national transportation. All roads in the county are owned and maintained by municipalities, the state, or the federal government. The rich hydrologic resources of Cumberland County are spanned by 438 bridges that are over 20’ in length2.
    [Show full text]
  • HATS Regional Freight Plan Update Followed the Following Primary Tasks
    Harrisburg Area TransportaƟ on Study REGIONAL FREIGHT PLAN Thursday, June 29, 2017 September 2017 This page intentionally left blank Harrisburg Area Transportation Study Regional Freight Plan Prepared for: Harrisburg Area Transportation Study 112 Market Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234‐2639 www.tcrpc‐pa.org/hats/ By: Michael Baker International, Inc. 4431 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 213‐2900 September 22, 2017 The preparation of this publication was financed in part through the United States Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. 4 Harrisburg Area Transportation Study Regional Freight Plan Message from the MPO Chairman Dear reader – Whether you are a municipal official, major shipper/receiver, or freight carrier, we all share a common objective: to keep our regional freight infrastructure operating at peak condition. We all recognize that having good freight infrastructure is a vital part of maintaining our economy. The Greater Harrisburg area has historically served as a freight hub – that distinction has only grown, even as our economic base has transitioned from one of manufacturing to one of transportation and logistics. The Harrisburg Area Transportation Study continues to work with PennDOT and its many partners in investing in our freight transportation system. This includes notable, high‐profile projects such as the widening of Interstate 81 between PA 581 and PA 114, and improvements to Interstate 83 in Dauphin County. More are on the way. The formal update of the regional freight plan over the past year has provided us with an opportunity to take a closer look at the freight concerns our region faces.
    [Show full text]