DOCSLIB.ORG

Comments Concerning Final Environmental Impact Statement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Comments Concerning Final Environmental Impact Statement Regarding Virginia Avenue Tunnel Reconstruction August 14, 2014 The Committee of 100 on the Federal City1 offers the following comments and recommendations concerning the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) regarding enlargement of the Virginia Avenue Tunnel (VAT). The Committee of 100 has previously submitted comments about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the Draft Memorandum of Agreement Under Section 106, and Supplemental Comments concerning erroneous and misleading information contained in the DEIS. The FEIS falls short in several areas; The EIS Refuses to Consider Commuter and Passenger Rail Commuter and passenger Rail are very much in the public interest of the District of Columbia. The DC Office of Planning, the National Capital Planning Commission and Amtrak have prepared the Maryland Avenue Plan, the SW Ecodistrict Plan, and the Union Station Plan that need to be implemented to advance the interests of commuter and passenger rail. Those plans, as well as the expansion plans of VRE and MARC, have been ignored in the FEIS Expanding the Virginia Avenue Tunnel Will Adversely Impact Commuter Rail The FEIS ignores the impact that the proposed expansion of the tunnel will have on the ability of commuter and passenger rail to serve the needs of the Washington Area. This Proceeding Needs to Address Limitations of the SW Tracks and the Long Bridge By limiting the FEIS to addressing only the tunnel, the physical constraints that limit the ability to expand the SW Tracks and the Long Bridge to accommodate increased freight, 1 The Committee of 100 on the Federal City is a 90-year-old nonprofit organization dedicated to safeguarding and advancing Washington’s historic distinction, natural beauty and overall livability, advocating for responsible planning and land use in Washington, D.C. Our work is guided by the values inherited from the L’Enfant Plan (1791–92) and the McMillan Commission (1901–02), while responding to the challenges, needs and opportunities of the 21st century city. 1 passenger and commuter traffic are ignored. Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts Are Not Addressed The FEIS limits the Area of Potential Effects to the immediate space surrounding the construction activity that would occur if the tunnel were rebuilt and enlarged, and limits the time frame to the projected completion of construction. The NEPA Process Was Not Objective CSX and DDOT entered into agreements well before the NEPA process began that committed resources and prejudged the NEPA Process The Norfolk Southern Route Should be Reevaluated Using Correct Information The Supplemental Comments that the Committee of 100 provided on February 27, 2014 described the fact that the DEIS did not reflect the current condition of those tracks, but rather, the conditions that existed in 2005. The FEIS continue to rely on this erroneous information as justification for rejecting that option The Shepherds Branch Route Needs to be Evaluated as a Rerouting Option The FEIS fails to even consider the Shepherds Branch right-of-way that CSX owns, that is located in the City, and that has a long history of use by freight railroads. The EIS Refuses to Consider Commuter and Passenger Rail The basic problem with the FEIS is that it forecloses evaluation of essential considerations by refusing to consider them. The FEIS claims that: This is a private project that requires permits from FHWA, DDOT and other federal and District agencies as appropriate. Therefore, expansion of passenger and commuter rail service is outside the scope of this project [emphasis added].2 The failure of the FEIS to consider the implications of commuter rail isn't neutrality -- it is foreclosure of options without ever having considered them. The fact that this is a private project, pursued by a profit-making entity with no interest in commuter rail,3 argues for -- not against -- including commuter rail in the statement of 2 In the FEIS response to the DEIS Comments of the Committee of 100 on the Federal City, this formulation appears first as Comment 20-5, page L-105 of Appendix L. The same disclaimer of responsibility appears several times in responding to the Committee of 100’s DEIS Comments (Comment 20-6, p. L-106: Comment 20-7, p. L-106; Comment 20-20, p. L-112; Comment 20-22, p. L-114; Comment 20-24, p. L-118; Comment 20-40, p. L-130). 3 Both locally and nationally, CSX’s leadership has been quite vehement that it will resist any passenger rail proposals that threaten its own bottom line (Mark Szakonyi, “CSX CEO Ward rejects high-speed rail,” Jacksonville Business Journal, April 7, 2011 http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/blog/trade_trucks_trains/2011/04/csx-ceo-ward-rejects- high-speed-rail.html): 2 Purpose and Need and in clearly articulating indirect effects and cumulative impacts on passenger and commuter rail, (See 40 C.F.R. § 1508). Both the NEPA process and approvals from FHWA, DDOT, and other federal and District agencies are necessary because governments have recognized and acknowledged that this is precisely the kind of situation in which the public interest is likely to be sacrificed unless there is a robust process in which it is represented and the public interest is carefully considered. Commuter and Passenger Rail are Very Much in the Public Interest of Washington DC. Two-thirds of the cars on DC’s streets during rush hour are from out of state and those cars impose increasing demands on parking and pressures on congestion. Of US cities with more than 100,000 residents, DC has the highest daytime percentage increase in population due to commuters, and in terms of absolute numbers of people coming into the city each workday, DC is second only to Manhattan.4 DC’s car problem is largely a commuter problem; the major challenge is getting large numbers of people in and out of the city efficiently. This is a problem that will only get bigger in the future. As the Metrorail system reaches capacity and starts to lose riders due to crowded conditions and unreliability, commuter rail has been gaining ridership.5 In terms of the percentage of those commuters using cars, trucks or vans, DC again has the highest percentage at 54%, compared to Manhattan at 13% and Boston at 50%. DC is the lowest in the use of commuter rail: DC, 2.8%; Manhattan, 11%; and Boston, 8%. Manhattan has just under three times the number of commuters coming in each day as DC, but more than 12 times as many traveling by commuter rail.6 Our regional transportation CSX Corp. CEO, President and Chairman Michael Ward told Bloomberg News yesterday that he “can’t be part of” President Barack Obama’s push for high- speed rail. Ward said high-speed passenger rail service won’t make enough money and freight rail systems can’t withstand trains moving as fast as 110 mph. Class I railroads have expressed concern over high-speed rail’s impact on their freight rail systems, but Ward’s recent criticism takes a more aggressive stance. “I’m a corporation. I exist to make money, OK?” Ward said. “You can’t make money hauling passengers, so why would I want to do that? That wouldn’t be fair to my shareholders.” 4 DC has 773,635commuters each day and Manhattan has 2,334,100 (US Census Bureau, 2007- 2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates) 5 Kytja Weir, “Commuter trains attract riders even as numbers flag on Metro,” May 29, 2013 http://washingtonexaminer.com/commuter-trains-attract-riders-even-as-numbers-flag-on- metro/article/2530789. 6 US Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: 3 priorities must include a serious focus on how to expand passenger and commuter rail service through MARC and VRE, as well as Amtrak. The Expansion Plans and Capabilities of MARC and VRE Need to Be Evaluated The quotation that appears several times in Appendix L emphasizes the refusal to consider the expansion of commuter rail: This is a private project that requires permits from FHWA, DDOT and other federal and District agencies as appropriate. Therefore, expansion of passenger and commuter rail service is outside the scope of this project [emphasis added]. The potential to expand commuter rail through MARC and VRE are considerable and could significantly reduce crowding and congestion of other forms of transit. VRE’s ridership growth has averaged 6 percent annually between 2002 and 2012 and VRE is predicted to grow between 60 and 85 percent by 2025.7 By 2020, Phase I of the VRE System Plan calls for maximizing the number of trains VRE can operate under existing agreements, which effectively limits VRE capacity to about 25,000 weekday passengers. Railroad capacity investments proposed for Phases II and III will provide the additional capacity needed to enable VRE to carry up to 50,000 weekday passenger trips by 2040, which is consistent with identified demand.8 MARC’s plan shows that ridership has doubled in the last 15 years to 36,000 daily riders and will increase to 75,000 daily riders by 2040. MARC has instituted reverse commute and weekend service. In the future, MARC plans to "thru-run" trains from Maryland, through Union Station to L’Enfant Station and on to Virginia.9 Commuter rail is the most efficient and cost-effective means of providing practical alternatives to automobile commuting. Two-thirds of the cars on DC streets during the day are non-DC residents. As a result of this commuter traffic, the bridges that bring Metrobuses, commuter buses, intercity buses and private vehicles in from Virginia are badly congested during rush hour.
Recommended publications
  • Virginia Railway Express Strategic Plan 2004-2025

    Virginia Railway Express Strategic Plan 2004-2025

    VRE STRATEGIC PLAN Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................V Current State of the Railroad ..............................................................................................................v The Strategic Planning Process..........................................................................................................vi The VRE Ridership Market................................................................................................................vii Strategic Plan Scenarios and Recommendations .............................................................................viii Core Network Needs...........................................................................................................................ix Potential Network Expansion ..............................................................................................................x Phased Service Improvement and Capital Investment Plan ..............................................................xii Financial, Institutional and Organizational Issues ..........................................................................xiii VRE Moving Forward ......................................................................................................................xiv 1. CURRENT STATE OF THE RAILROAD..........................................................................................1 VRE SYSTEM OVERVIEW .........................................................................................................................1
  • Long Bridge Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Alternatives Development Report

    Long Bridge Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Alternatives Development Report

    Long Bridge Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Alternatives Development Report June 19, 2018 Long Bridge Project EIS Draft Alternatives Development Report Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. NEPA Requirements for Alternatives Development ..................................................................... 1 1.2. Purpose of this Report .................................................................................................................. 1 1.3. Project Background ...................................................................................................................... 3 1.4. Concept Screening Process ........................................................................................................... 4 1.5. Organization of this Report .......................................................................................................... 4 2.0 Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................... 6 2.1. Why is the Project needed? .......................................................................................................... 6 2.2. Will the Long Bridge consider bicycle and pedestrian access? .................................................... 8 3.0 Alternatives Development Process ................................................................................ 9 3.1. Pre-NEPA Alternatives Development
  • CAPITAL REGION RAIL VISION from Baltimore to Richmond, Creating a More Unified, Competitive, Modern Rail Network

    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.
  • Railroad Emergency Response Manual

    Railroad Emergency Response Manual

    Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Railroad Emergency Response Manual Approved by the COG Fire Chiefs Committee Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Second Edition May 2020 MWCOG Railroad Emergency Response Manual 2nd Edition – May 2020 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This manual could not have been written without the assistance of many Dedicated rail safety personnel and members of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments regional emergency response agencies that have spent many hours providing the material for the creation of this manual. We thank all emergency responders from all jurisdictions, including our federal agency partners that shared their firsthand experiences of recent commuter railroad incidents. Many of their experiences were incorporated into sections of this manual. Many Railroad representatives, private industry and governmental organizations provided their invaluable technical assistance. This committee would like to thank Steve Truchman formerly of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), Greg Deibler from Virginia Railway Express (VRE), David Ricker from the Maryland Rail Commuter (MARC), Paul Williams of Norfolk Southern Railway Corporation and Mike Hennessey of CSX Transportation, all of whom provided the specific diagrams, illustrations and other technical information regarding railroad equipment. We recognize Elisa Nichols of Kensington Consulting, LLC for her contributions to this manual as well as representatives from many Federal Agencies who also provided information on the technical accounts of railroad equipment and their integrity on past railroad incidents. The members of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) Passenger Rail Safety Subcommittee gratefully presents this manual to both Fire and Rescue Service and Railroad organizations in an effort to instill readiness within our own personnel that they might effectively and collaboratively respond to a railroad incident.
  • CSX Baltimore Division Timetable

    CSX Baltimore Division Timetable

    NORTHERN REGION BALTIMORE DIVISION TIMETABLE NO. 4 EFFECTIVE SATURDAY, JANUARY 1, 2005 AT 0001 HOURS CSX STANDARD TIME C. M. Sanborn Division Manager BALTIMORE DIVISION TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS DESCRIPTION PAGE INST DESCRIPTION PAGE 1 Instructions Relating to CSX Operating Table of Contents Rules Timetable Legend 2 Instructions Relating to Safety Rules Legend – Sample Subdivision 3 Instructions Relating to Company Policies Region and Division Officers And Procedures Emergency Telephone Numbers 4 Instructions Relating to Equipment Train Dispatchers Handling Rules 5 Instructions Relating to Air Brake and Train SUBDIVISIONS Handling Rules 6 Instructions Relating to Equipment NAME CODE DISP PAGE Restrictions Baltimore Terminal BZ AV 7 Miscellaneous Bergen BG NJ Capital WS AU Cumberland CU CM Cumberland Terminal C3 CM Hanover HV AV Harrisburg HR NI Herbert HB NI Keystone MH CM Landover L0 NI Lurgan LR AV Metropolitan ME AU Mon M4 AS Old Main Line OM AU P&W PW AS Philadelphia PA AV Pittsburgh PI AS.AT Popes Creek P0 NI RF&P RR CQ S&C SC CN Shenandoah SJ CN Trenton TN NI W&P WP AT CSX Transportation Effective January 1, 2005 Albany Division Timetable No. 5 © Copyright 2005 TIMETABLE LEGEND GENERAL F. AUTH FOR MOVE (AUTHORITY FOR MOVEMENT) Unless otherwise indicated on subdivision pages, the The authority for movement rules applicable to the track segment Train Dispatcher controls all Main Tracks, Sidings, of the subdivision. Interlockings, Controlled Points and Yard Limits. G. NOTES STATION LISTING AND DIAGRAM PAGES Where station page information may need to be further defined, a note will refer to “STATION PAGE NOTES” 1– HEADING listed at the end of the diagram.
  • Washington, DC to Richmond Third Track Feasibility Study HOUSE

    Washington, DC to Richmond Third Track Feasibility Study HOUSE

    REPORT OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Washington, DC to Richmond Third Track Feasibility Study TO THE GOVERNOR AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA HOUSE DOCUMENT NO. 78 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND 2006 Third Track Feasibility Study December 2006 WASHINGTON, D.C. TO RICHMOND THIRD TRACK FEASIBILITY STUDY PREFACE This study was requested by the 2006 General Assembly session in HB 5012. In addition to an analysis of the feasibility of constructing a third track, this study responds to the General Assembly’s direction to expand the scope to: (i) Identify needed right-of-way parallel to existing tracks, including right-of-way owned by CSX or by other parties; (ii) Identify major environmental issues; (iii) Develop an implementation plan based on the most optimal options, including the schedules for each phase of the project as well as financing for the project; (iv) Review legal and regulatory issues; and (v) Estimate the cost of powering passenger trains by electricity for a Third Track from Washington, D.C. to Richmond. The Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) is charged with ensuring that the Commonwealth of Virginia achieves the highest public benefit for the dollars invested in our rail programs. There is no doubt that this is a high priority freight and passenger rail corridor that will require significant investment in order to maintain and improve mobility for people and goods. DRPT is taking a strategic approach in studying this high priority corridor. Our new approach is based on establishing public benefits, identifying public/private partnership opportunities, and providing realistic cost estimates based on a comprehensive plan that identifies all of the improvements and issues that need to be addressed in the provision of reliable, sustainable, expandable, and efficient freight and passenger rail operations.
  • Control Point Virginia Tower

    Control Point Virginia Tower

    GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK OR HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION New Designation __X___ Amendment of a previous designation _____ Please summarize any amendment(s) _______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ Property name _Control Point (CP) Virginia Tower_______________________________________ If any part of the interior is being nominated, it must be specifically identified and described in the narrative statements. Address __Southeast Corner of 2nd Street SW and Virginia Avenue SW, Washington, DC_________ Square and lot number(s) __0582 0856_________________________________________________ Affected Advisory Neighborhood Commission ______ANC 6D_____________________________ Date of construction __1904-1906____ Date of major alteration(s) __1930s___________________ Architect(s) __Unknown______________ Architectural style(s) ____________________________ Original use _Railroad Interlocking Control Tower_ Present use ___Railroad Infrastructure Property owner _CSX Transportation, Inc._____________________________________________ Legal address of property owner _500 Water Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202 ________________ NAME OF APPLICANT(S) _CSX Transportation, Inc.____________________________________ If the applicant is an organization, it must submit evidence that among its purposes is the promotion of historic preservation in the District of Columbia.
  • Committee of 100 Comments on DEIS 09-28-2020

    Committee of 100 Comments on DEIS 09-28-2020

    September 28, 2020 Mr. David Valenstein Office of Railroad Policy and Development USDOT Federal Railroad Administration (MS-20 RPD-10) 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Founded 1923 Dear Mr. Valenstein, Chair Kirby Vining We are pleased to provide the following comments on the Washington Vice-Chair Union Station DEIS. Alma Gates We thank you for the opportunity to comment and look forward to Secretary working with you throughout this process. Please contact Monte Edwards at Erik Hein [email protected] or Erik Hein at [email protected] if you Treasurer have specific questions or other concerns. George R. Clark Sincerely, Trustees Charlie Bien Larry Hargrove Naima Jefferson Aidan Jones Nancy MacWood Kirby Vining, Chair Meg Maguire Committee of 100 on the Federal City David Marlin Sheldon Repp Cc: Phil Mendelson Andrea Rosen Mary Cheh Marilyn Simon Charles Allen Jim Smailes Marcel Acosta Pat Tiller Andrew Trueblood James Wilcox Jeff Marootian Evelyn Wrin Anna Chamberlin Stephen Hansen, Emeritus David Maloney Andrew Lewis Rebecca Miller 945 G Street, N.W. Betsy Merritt Washington, D.C. 20001 Drury Tallent 202.681.0225 www.committeeof100.net [email protected] A beautiful and livable Washington, DC for all. Comments Concerning the Union Station Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Released June 12, 2020) September 28, 2020 The Union Station Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) proposes an expansion plan that will cost between 5.8 and 7.5 billion dollars1 and require 11 to 14 years to build2. The plan focuses on bus and automobile parking, station concourses, platforms and retail. But the plan does not adequately address Union Station’s role as a train station.
  • DC State Rail Plan Website

    DC State Rail Plan Website

    STATE RAIL PLAN: FINAL REPORT 2017 State Rail Plan Table of Contents Contents Chapter 1 The Role of Rail in District Transportation ............................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Federal Authority For States ...................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Institutional Governance Structure of The District’s Rail Programs .......................................... 1-2 1.4 Multimodal Transportation System Goals .................................................................................. 1-3 1.5 Rail Transportation’s Role within The District’s Transportation System ................................... 1-5 1.5.1 Role of Freight Rail ................................................................................................................ 1-5 1.5.2 Role of Commuter Rail .......................................................................................................... 1-6 1.5.3 Role of Intercity Rail ............................................................................................................... 1-6 Chapter 2 Approach to Public and Agency Participation ...................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Stakeholder Roundtables ...........................................................................................................
  • Howard Street Tunnel Finding of No Significant Impact

    Howard Street Tunnel Finding of No Significant Impact

    Federal Railroad Administration Howard Street Tunnel Project FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT June 2021 Prepared Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(c) By the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration and Maryland Department of Transportation Maryland Port Administration Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................1 2. Study Area .................................................................................................................................2 2.1. Maryland ....................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2. Delaware ....................................................................................................................................... 4 2.3. Pennsylvania ................................................................................................................................. 4 3. Purpose and Need Statement .....................................................................................................5 3.1. Purpose of the Project .................................................................................................................. 6 3.2. Need for the Project...................................................................................................................... 6 4. Alternatives ...............................................................................................................................7
  • Potential Improvements to the Washington-Richmond Railroad

    Potential Improvements to the Washington-Richmond Railroad

    Report to Congress VOLUME I Potential Improvements to the Washington⎯Richmond Railroad Corridor National Railroad Passenger Corporation May 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I TABLE OF CONTENTS . TC-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . ES-1 . CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION . 1 CHAPTER 2: THE CORRIDOR TODAY . 5 CHAPTER 3: SERVICE GOALS . 24 CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGIES . 29 CHAPTER 5: INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS . 37 . CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION . 56 List of Tables TABLE 1: Existing Railroad Services on the Washington-Richmond Corridor . ES-5 TABLE 2: Railroad Services Envisioned for 2015 on the Washington-Richmond ES-10 Corridor . TABLE 3: Description of Project Groups . ES-14 TABLE 4: Preliminary Listing of Projects for the Washington-Richmond Corridor . ES-15 TABLE 5: Potential Improvements by Category . ES-16 TABLE 2-1: Track Ownership and Operating Control . 7 TABLE 2-2: Station Ownership and Use . 11 TABLE 2-3: Existing Railroad Services on the Washington-Richmond Corridor . 13 TABLE 2-4: Amtrak Train Service in the Washington-Richmond Corridor . 14 TABLE 3-1: Railroad Services Envisioned for 2015 on the Washington-Richmond 24 Corridor . TABLE 3-2: Projected Train Movements by Direction Between Washington and 25 Alexandria Between 3:30PM and 7:30PM, Year 2015 . .. TABLE 5-1: Preliminary Listing of Projects for the Washington-Richmond Corridor . 54 TABLE 5-2: Description of Project Groups . 55 TABLE 5-3: Potential Improvements by Category . 56 List of Figures FIGURE 1: Washington-Richmond Corridor . ES-3 FIGURE 2: Southeast Corridor . ES-3 FIGURE 3: Demand for Intercity Corridor Train Services, Washington-Richmond ES-11 FIGURE 4: Selected Rail Lines in Washington, D.
  • The Shipping Container and the Globalization of American Infrastructure by Matthew W. Heins

    The Shipping Container and the Globalization of American Infrastructure by Matthew W. Heins

    The Shipping Container and the Globalization of American Infrastructure by Matthew W. Heins A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Architecture) in the University of Michigan 2013 Doctoral Committee: Professor Robert L. Fishman, Chair Associate Professor Scott D. Campbell Professor Paul N. Edwards Associate Professor Claire A. Zimmerman © Matthew W. Heins 2013 Acknowledgments I wish to express my sincere and heartfelt thanks to my advisor, professor Robert Fishman, who has provided such valuable guidance and advice to me over the years. Ever since I arrived at the University of Michigan, Robert has been of tremendous assistance, and he has played a vital role in my evolution as a student and scholar. My deepest gratitude also goes out to the other members of my dissertation committee, professors Claire Zimmerman, Scott Campbell and Paul Edwards, who have all given invaluable help to me in countless ways. In addition I would like to thank professor Martin Murray, who has been very supportive and whose comments and ideas have been enriching. Other faculty members here at the University of Michigan who have helped or befriended me in one way or another, and to whom I owe thanks, include Kit McCullough, Matthew Lassiter, Carol Jacobsen, Melissa Harris, María Arquero de Alarcón, June Manning Thomas, Malcolm McCullough, Jean Wineman, Geoffrey Thün, Roy Strickland, Amy Kulper, Lucas Kirkpatrick and Gavin Shatkin. My fellow doctoral students in architecture and urban planning at Taubman College have helped me immensely over the years, as I have benefited greatly from their companionship and intellectual presence.