DOCSLIB.ORG

Northwest Corridor Regional Transportation Authority of Middle Tennessee Transit Study SUMMARY of FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS | October 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Northwest Corridor Regional Transportation Authority of Middle Tennessee Transit Study SUMMARY of FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS | October 2017 Northwest Corridor Regional Transportation Authority of Middle Tennessee Transit Study SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS | October 2017 For a copy of the appendices of the Northwest Corridor Transit Study report, please contact Felix Castrodad at 615-862-5626 or [email protected]. Northwest Corridor Transit Study | FINAL REPORT | 10.2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) of Middle Tennessee would RTA BOARD TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION like to thank the following for their contributions to the development Chair: Mayor Kim McMillan, City of Clarksville Commissioner John Schroer of the Northwest Corridor Transit Study: Vice Chair: Mayor Randall Hutto, Wilson County Secretary: Paula Mansfield, Rutherford County GOVERNOR’S APPOINTEES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Cheatham County Cheatham County - Daryl Phillips Mayor Kim McMillan, City of Clarksville Ashland City - Mayor Rick Johnson Davidson County - Ed Cole Mayor Rick Johnson, City of Ashland City Cheatham County - Mayor David McCullough Dickson County - Scott England Mayor Megan Barry, Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County Montgomery County - Mike Evans Davidson County Mayor Billy Paul Carneal, City of Springfield Rutherford County - Paula Mansfield Belle Meade - Mayor James Hunt Mayor Jim Durrett, Montgomery County Sumner County - Lee Zoller Davidson County/Metro Nashville - Mayor Megan Barry Mayor David McCullough, Cheatham County Williamson County - Kelly Dannenfelser Goodlettsville - Mayor John Coombs Mayor Howard Bradley, Robertson County Wilson County - Ken Davis Commissioner John Schroer, Tennessee Department of Transportation Dickson County Mr. Stephen Bland, Chief Executive Officer MTA/RTA Dickson City - Mayor Don Weiss, Jr. NORTHWEST CORRIDOR TRANSIT STUDY Mr. Bill Drunsic, President NERR/N&W Railroad Dickson County - Mayor Bob Rial CONSULTANT TEAM COL David Dellinger, Garrison Commander, Fort Campbell Representative Courtney Rogers, Vice Chair Transportation Montgomery County Committee/House District 45 Clarksville - Mayor Kim McMillan Senator Jim Tracy, Chair, Transportation Committee/Senate District 16 Montgomery County - Mayor Jim Durrett Congressman Jim Cooper, Tennessee House District 5 Robertson County Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee House District 7 Robertson County - Mayor Howard R.a Bradley in association with Mayor Perry Keenan, City of Pleasant View Springfield - Mayor Billy Paul Carneal Representative Mary Littleton, House District 78 Rutherford County STEERING COMMITTEE La Vergne - Mayor Dennis R. Waldron Murfreesboro - Mayor Shane McFarland Ms. Tanisha Hall, Director, TDOT Long Range Planning Division Rutherford County - Mayor Ernest Burgess CSR Engineering Ms. Liza Joffrion, Director, Division of Multimodal Transportation Resources Smyrna - Mayor Mary Esther Reed Ms. Michelle Lacewell, Interim Director, Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Sumner County Dr. David Ripple, Director, Clarksville-Montgomery County Regional Gallatin - Mayor Paige Brown Planning Commission Hendersonville - Mayor Jamie Clary Mr. Chris Brown, Community Planner, Fort Campbell Directorate of Public Works Portland - Mayor Ken Wilber Michael Briggs, Senior Transportation Planner, Nashville Metropolitan Sumner County - County Executive Anthony Holt Volkert Engineering Panning Department Westmoreland - Mayor Jerry Kirkman Mr. Grant Green, Planning Director, Springfield Planning and White House - Mayor Michael Arnold Development Department Williamson County Mr. Mark Sturtevant, Director of Infrastructure, Mayor’s Office Brentwood - Mayor Regina Smithson Ms. Erin Hafkenschiel, Director of Transportation & Sustainability, Mayor’s Office Franklin - Mayor Ken Moore Lose & Associates Ms. Mary Beth Ikard, Transportation and Sustainability Manager, Mayor’s Office Spring Hill - Mayor Rick Graham Mr. Felix Castrodad, Director of Planning & Grants, MTA/RTA Williamson County - Mayor Rogers Anderson Ms. Billy Higgins, Capital Grants Administrator, MTA/RTA Ms. Cortnye Stone, MTA/RTA Wilson County Mr. Dan Freudberg, Director of Service Quality, MTA/RTA Lebanon - Mayor Bernie Ash Mr. Eric Beyer, Legislative Liaison & EasyRide Program Manager, MTA/RTA Mt. Juliet - Mayor Ed Hagerty Varrallo Public Relations Mr. Justin Curatolo, Planning Analyst, MTA/RTA Wilson County - Mayor Randall Hutto Ms. Patricia Harris-Morehead, Director of Communications & Marketing, MTA/RTA Ms. Shontrill Lowe, Transit Planner, MTA/RTA Mr. Stan Williams, Transportation Director, Clarksville Urbanized Area © 2017 Northwest Corridor Transit Study. All rights reserved. Metropolitan Planning Organization i Regional Transportation Authority of Middle Tennessee Contents Executive Summary . ES-1 6 .0 Tier 2 Screening / LPA Selection . 31 1 0. Introduction . 1 6.1 Alternatives ............................31 1.1 Study Background ........................ 1 6.2 Screening Measures .......................31 1.2 Study Area ............................. 1 6.3 Analysis Summary ........................31 1.3 Report Organization ...................... 1 6.4 Locally Preferred Alternative Selection and Actions ..33 2 .0 Existing Conditions . 3 6.4.1 Short Term (0 to 5 years) ....................33 2.1 Data Sources ........................... 3 6.4.2 Medium Term (5 to 10 years) .................33 2.2 Corridors .............................. 3 6.4.3 Long Term (15 or more years) .................34 2.2.1 Interstate 24 Corridor ...................... 3 7 .0 Public and Stakeholder Involvement . 35 2.2.2 State Route 12 (Ashland City Highway) Corridor .... 5 7.1 Open House Meetings .....................35 2.2.3 CSX/R.J. Corman Rail Corridor ............... 9 7.1.1 Round 1 ...............................35 2.2.4 Nashville and Western Railroad Corridor .........12 7.1.2 Round 2 ...............................35 2.2.5 State Route 112 (US Route 41 Alternate) Corridor ...15 7.1.3 Round 3 ...............................35 3 .0 Alternatives Development and Summary . 19 7.2 Social Media ...........................35 3.1 Corridors ..............................19 7.3 Project Website ..........................36 2 3. Modes ................................19 8 .0 Transit-Oriented Development and Land Use . 37 3.2.1 No Build ..............................19 8.1 Principles of Transit-Oriented Development ........37 3.2.2 Express Bus ............................19 8.2 Barriers to TOD ..........................38 3.2.3 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)/ 8.3 Station Area Workshops ....................39 High Occupancy Toll (HOT) ..................20 9 .0 Funding and Finance . 41 3.2.4 Bus on Shoulder (BOS) .....................20 9.1 Summary of Funding Options. 41 3.2.5 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) .....................20 9.1.1 Federal Funding .........................41 3.2.6 Streetcar ..............................20 9.1.2 State Funding ...........................43 3.2.7 Light Rail Transit (LRT) ......................20 9.1.3 Local Funding. 44 3.2.8 Commuter Rail ..........................20 9.1.4 Public-Private Partnership (P3) ................45 3.3 Evaluation Framework .....................20 9.2 Conclusions ............................46 4 0. Pre-Screening . 23 10 .0 Next Steps . 47 5 .0 Tier 1 Screening . 27 10.1 Short Term (0 to 5 years) ....................47 5.1 Operations .............................27 10.2 Medium Term (5 to 10 years) .................50 5.2 Stations, Environment and Employment ..........27 10.3 Long Term (15 or more years) .................51 5.3 Population and Employment Near Stations ........27 5.4 Costs and Ridership Potential .................27 5 5. Ridership ..............................29 5.6 Summary ..............................29 ii Northwest Corridor Transit Study | FINAL REPORT | 10.2017 List of Tables List of Figures Table 2-1: I-24: Natural, Cultural, and Environmental Features ................ 5 Figure ES-1: Northwest Corridor Study Area ..............................ES-2 Table 2-2: I-24: Existing Land Use Plans ................................ 6 Figure ES-2: Existing Coach Used for 94X Service ..........................ES-2 Table 2-3: I-24: Planned Improvements ................................ 6 Figure ES-3: Example of Bus on Shoulder Operations ........................ES-2 Figure ES-4: Example Commuter Rail Station . .ES-3 Table 2-4: SR 12/Ashland City Highway: Natural, Cultural, and Environmental Features ................................. 8 Figure ES-5: Potential Commuter Rail Stations .............................ES-3 Table 2-5: SR 12/Ashland City Highway: Existing Land Use Plans ............. 9 Figure 1-1: Northwest Corridor Study Area .............................. 2 Figure 2-1: Study Corridors ......................................... 3 Table 2-6: SR 12/Ashland City Highway: Planned Improvements .............. 10 Figure 2-2: I-24 Corridor ........................................... 3 Table 2-7: CSX/R.J.Corman: Natural, Cultural, and Environmental Features. 11 Figure 2-3: I-24 Corridor in Clarksville and Montgomery County. 4 Figure 2-4: I-24: Natural, Cultural, and Environmental Features ................ 5 Table 2-8: CSX/R.J.Corman: Existing Land Use Plans ...................... 12 Figure 2-5: SR 12 (Ashland City Highway) Corridor ........................ 7 Table 2-9: Nashville and Western: Natural, Cultural, Figure 2-6: SR 12 (Ashland City Highway) in Northwestern Davidson County ...... 7 and Environmental Features ................................. 14 Figure 2-7: SR 12 (Main Street) in Downtown Ashland City ................... 8 Table 2-10: Nashville
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Interpretation of Cumberland Escarpment and Highland Rim, South-Central Tennessee and Northeast Alabama
    Interpretation of Cumberland Escarpment and Highland Rim, South-Central Tennessee and Northeast Alabama GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 524-C Interpretation of Cumberland Escarpment and Highland Rim, South-Central Tennessee and Northeast Alabama By JOHN T. HACK SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 524-C Theories of landscape origin are compared using as an example an area of gently dipping rocks that differ in their resistance to erosion UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1966 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page Page Abstract___________________________________________ C1 Cumberland Plateau and Highland Rim as a system in Introduction_______________________________________ 1 equilibrium______________________________________ C7 General description of area___________________________ 1 Valleys and coves of the Cumberland Escarpment___ 7 Cumberland Plateau and Highland Rim as dissected and Surficial deposits of the Highland Rim____________ 10 deformed peneplains _____________________ ,... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 Elk River profile_______________________________ 12 Objections to the peneplain theory____________________ 5 Paint Rock Creek profile________________________ 14 Eastern Highland Rim Plateau as a modern peneplain__ 6 Conclusions________________________________________ 14 Equilibrium concept
    [Show full text]
  • Commuter Rail System Study
    TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS Commuter Rail System Study Transit Committee March 11, 2010 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS Study Purpose Study Requested by MAG Regional Council in 2008 Commuter Rail Study Funding in 2004 RTP Study Feasibility of Commuter Rail Service in MAG Region Ridership Forecasting and Cost Effectiveness Capital and Operating Cost Estimates Vehicle Technology Recommendation Implementation Requirements Copyright © 2009 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS Peer Regions ~ Commuter Rail Systems WHAT IS COMMUTER RAIL? Peak Period, Peak Direction Service. Traditionally caries less daily riders than light rail, but for longer distances. Similar market and characteristics with Bus Rapid Transit / Express. SOUNDER-Seattle CALTRAIN-San Francisco ALTAMONT COMMUTER EXPRESS – San Jose Can share ROW and track with freight railroads and can operate concurrently (does not require exclusive right-of-way) . Typically longer station spacing (every 3-7 miles on average) than light rail (1-2 miles) with emphasis on park-and-rides and traditional city CBDs. Locomotive technology (diesel or clean/green hybrid Genset). Passenger coaches (push-pull). Engines and cars meets federally mandated structural requirements for rolling stock crash resistance Larger, heavier profile than light rail vehicles. METROLINK – Los Angeles COASTER – San Diego FRONT RUNNER – Salt Lake City-Ogden Higher max.speed (79mph), slower acceleration and deceleration than light rail. Average speed approx 44mph. Lower capital cost per mile ($10-$20M) due to existing right of way use / reuse. Light
    [Show full text]
  • General Index
    GENERAL INDEX See also separate Stratigraphic Index and Chestnut Ridge anticline, 144 Authors' Index Chimney (Candle Stick) rocks, PIs. LXVII, LXVIII Agawam Station section, 29 Chinn calcite mine, 390 Allegheny-Cumberland structural front, 137 Cincinnati arch, 34, 97,132, 137,155, PIs. II, Allegheny peneplain, 156, 183 VIII, XXXI, XXXIII, XXXVI . Alluvium-filled valleys of western Ken- Claxton Station section (Caldwell Co.), 151 tucky, 161,164,203, PI. LUI Clay, 396, PI. CXVI, (tests and analyses), Barite, 388, 389, PI. XXXIV 404 Barrens (Pennyroyal), 187; (Purchase), 205 Cloverport salt industry, 429 Between the Rivers, 205 Coal, 250. See under mineral resources. Big Black Mountain, 180, PI. XXIV Conglomerate uplift, 355. See Paint Creek Big Bone Lick, 241,425, PI. LXX uplift. Big Bottoms (Purchase), 205 Creek Bottom Settlements (Eastern Coal Big Sandy River, 161, 162, 258, PI. LXXVI Field),175 Blue Grass, 166,167, 170, 231, 237, 389, CreelsboroNatural Bridge, 221, PI. LX 391, PIs. XXXV, XXXVII, Cryptovolcanic structures, 151, 393 XXXVIII, XXXIX, XL, XLIX, LI Cumberland arch, 152 Blue Lick, 245, 429, 431 Cumberland Falls, 238, PI. LXIX Boone's Cave, 231 Cumberland Gap, 143, 216, PIs. XLIII, LIX Bowling Green Is., 409, 412 Cumberland Gap topographic sheet, PI. Breaks of the Sandy, 182, 238, PIs. XLIV, XLIII LXIX Cumberland Mountain, 141,180, PIs. II, Breaks of the Tennessee, 205, 207, PI. II XXXVI, XLIII, LIX, LXIX Brines, 425, 430 "Cumberland Mountains," 175, 180 Brush Creek Hills, 189, 201 Cumberland overthrust (Pine Mountain Building Stone, 408, 409 fault, Cumberland thrust block, etc.), Burdett Knob, 135, 149, 174, 197, 390, 395, 140, 141, 142, 155, 347, PIs.
    [Show full text]
  • ETT COLLECTION New.Xlsx
    Current Employee Timetable Summary - September 2021 Page 1 of 12 RAILROAD RR DIVISION CURRENT CURRENT ETT ETT DATE ADIRONDACK ADIX SYSTEM 10 6/1/2021 ADRIAN & BLISSFIELD ADBF SYSTEM 3 2/1/2006 ALABAMA & FLORIDA AFLR SYSTEM 3 1/1/2011 ALASKA ARRC SYSTEM 140 6/6/2016 ALEXANDER ARC SYSTEM 2 1/1/1992 ALLEGHANY VALLEY/ SOUTHWEST AVR SYSTEM 2 7/1/2009 PENNSYLVANIA/CAMP CHASE ALTON & SOUTHERN ALS SYSTEM 6 11/1/2017 AMTRAK AMTK AIR BRAKE & TRAIN HANDLING RULES & 7/31/2019 INSTRUCTION (AMT-3) AMTRAK AMTK CHICAGO SUBDIVISION 5 8/11/2014 AMTRAK AMTK MICHIGAN SUBDIVISION 5 4/8/2019 AMTRAK AMTK NEW ORLEANS UNION PASSENGER 4 6/16/2013 TERMINAL AMTRAK AMTK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR 8 12/2/2019 AMTRAK AMTK SAFETY INSTRUCTIONS FOR 1/5/2009 TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEES ON OR ABOUT LOCOMOTIVES, CARS or EQUIPMENT (AMT-5) AMTRAK AMTK SERVICE STANDARDS FOR TRAIN 9/23/2019 SERVICE & ON-BOARD SERVCE EMPLOYEES ANGELINA & NECHES RIVER ANR SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS 8 1/1/2000 APACHE APA SYSTEM 4/26/1996 APPALACHIA & OHIO AO SYSTEM 1 3/25/2005 APPANOOSE COUNTY COMMUNITY APNC SYSTEM 3 1/1/2013 ARCADE & ATTICA ARA SYSTEM 2 3/17/2001 ARIZONA CENTRAL AZCR SYSTEM 18 1/1/2013 ARKANSAS & MISSOURI AM SYSTEM 7 4/5/2009 ASHLAND ASRY SYSTEM 2 9/1/2008 ATLANTIC RAILWAYS ATL B&H RAIL BH SYSTEM 2 3/15/2003 BALDWIN CITY & SOUTHERN LLG (LEAVENWORTH, LAWRENCE AND GALVESTON) BAY COLONY BCLR SYSTEM 10 7/7/1998 BC RAIL BCOL PORT SUB 5 8/1/2019 BEECH MOUNTAIN BEEM SYSTEM 2 2/1/2006 BELPRE INDUSTRIAL PARKERSBURG BIP BELT RAILWAY OF CHICAGO BRC TIMETABLE & SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS 7 4/1/2020 BELT RAILWAY
    [Show full text]
  • East and Central Farming and Forest Region and Atlantic Basin Diversified Farming Region: 12 Lrrs N and S
    East and Central Farming and Forest Region and Atlantic Basin Diversified Farming Region: 12 LRRs N and S Brad D. Lee and John M. Kabrick 12.1 Introduction snowfall occurs annually in the Ozark Highlands, the Springfield Plateau, and the St. Francois Knobs and Basins The central, unglaciated US east of the Great Plains to the MLRAs. In the southern half of the region, snowfall is Atlantic coast corresponds to the area covered by LRR N uncommon. (East and Central Farming and Forest Region) and S (Atlantic Basin Diversified Farming Region). These regions roughly correspond to the Interior Highlands, Interior Plains, 12.2.2 Physiography Appalachian Highlands, and the Northern Coastal Plains. The topography of this region ranges from broad, gently rolling plains to steep mountains. In the northern portion of 12.2 The Interior Highlands this region, much of the Springfield Plateau and the Ozark Highlands is a dissected plateau that includes gently rolling The Interior Highlands occur within the western portion of plains to steeply sloping hills with narrow valleys. Karst LRR N and includes seven MLRAs including the Ozark topography is common and the region has numerous sink- Highlands (116A), the Springfield Plateau (116B), the St. holes, caves, dry stream valleys, and springs. The region also Francois Knobs and Basins (116C), the Boston Mountains includes many scenic spring-fed rivers and streams con- (117), Arkansas Valley and Ridges (118A and 118B), and taining clear, cold water (Fig. 12.2). The elevation ranges the Ouachita Mountains (119). This region comprises from 90 m in the southeastern side of the region and rises to 176,000 km2 in southern Missouri, northern and western over 520 m on the Springfield Plateau in the western portion Arkansas, and eastern Oklahoma (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Railroad Administration Office of Railroad Safety Accident and Analysis Branch
    Federal Railroad Administration Office of Railroad Safety Accident and Analysis Branch Accident Investigation Report HQ-2019-1365 CSX Transportation (CSX) Derailment Smyrna, Tennessee September 25, 2019 Note that 49 U.S.C. §20903 provides that no part of an accident or incident report, including this one, made by the Secretary of Transportation/Federal Railroad Administration under 49 U.S.C. §20902 may be used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report. U.S. Department of Transportation FRA FACTUAL RAILROAD ACCIDENT REPORT FRA File # HQ-2019-1365 Federal Railroad Administration SYNOPSIS On September 25, 2019, at approximately 2:59 p.m., CDT, a southbound CSX freight train M97225 (Train 1) derailed at CSX Milepost (MP) J22 on the CSX Nashville Division, Chattanooga Subdivision in Smyrna, Tennessee. Train 1 was making a shoving movement with 85 loaded autoracks at a recorded speed of 6 mph, when the train coupled with a boxcar at an excessive speed. The excessive speed coupling caused the 33rd autorack in the train to derail. The Engineer and Conductor were unaware of the derailed equipment and proceeded northbound causing 31 additional autoracks to derail. All autoracks remained upright and parallel to the track. At the time of the derailment, it was daylight, cloudy and the temperature was 85 ºF. No injuries were reported initially; however, the Conductor reported being injured two days after the derailment. Damages reported by CSX were estimated to be $102,883 for equipment and $251,200 for track, totaling $354,083. FRA determined the probable cause of the derailment was H601 – Coupling speed excessive.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Henderson, Kentucky Board of Commissioners Tuesday, March 26, 2019
    City of Henderson, Kentucky Board of Commissioners Tuesday, March 26, 2019 Municipal Center Third Floor Assembly Room 222 First Street 5:30 P.M AGENDA 1. Invocation: Dr. Tim Hobbs, Community Baptist Church 2. Roll Call: 3. Recognition of Visitors: 4. Appearance of Citizens: 5. Proclamations: 6. Presentations: Service Award Pin, Owen Reeves 20 Years 7. Public Hearings: 8. Consent Agenda: Minutes: February 19, 2019 Called Meeting February 19, 2019 Work Session Resolutions & Municipal Orders: Resolution Authorizing Submission Grant Application for Crumb Rubber/Tire Derived Products Grant for Waste Tire Market Development Resolution Authorizing Submission of a Joint City/County Grant Application for a Kentucky Pride Recycling Grant Resolution Granting Property Reassessment Moratorium for 117 N. Main Street Municipal Order Accepting Stormwater Management System Maintenance Agreement at 2810 Highway 41 North Municipal Order Awarding Bid for Purchase of Pickup Truck to Gillie Hyde Chrysler, Inc. of Glasgow, Kentucky Municipal Order Awarding Bid for Purchase of Polyamide Natural Gas Pipe to Teel Plastics, Inc. of Baraboo, Wisconsin Please mute or turn off all cell phones for the duration of this meeting. Municipal Order Awarding Bid for Purchase of Limestone, Rock and Sand Municipal Order Awarding Bid for Purchase of Cement Concrete to Irving Materials, Inc. of Henderson as the Primary Supplier and Meuth Construction Supply, Inc. of Henderson as an Alternate Supplier Municipal Order Awarding Bid for Concrete Labor for Various City Projects to Hazex Construction Co. of Henderson as the Primary Supplier and Rivertown Construction LLC of Newburgh as an Alternate Supplier 9. Ordinances & Resolutions: Second Readings: First Readings: Ordinance Amending Chapter 7, Buildings and Building Regulations – Commercial Range Hood Inspection Fees Resolutions: Resolution Declaring Property Located at 1228 Helm Street Surplus and Authorizing Sale by Evaluated Sealed Bids 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Description of a Land Classification System and Its Application to the Management of Tennessee’S State Forests
    DESCRIPTION OF A LAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF TENNESSEE’S STATE FORESTS Glendon W. Smalley, S. David Todd, and K. Ward Tarkington III1 Abstract—The Tennessee Division of Forestry has adopted a land classification system developed by the senior author as the basic theme of information for the management of its 15 state forests (162,371 acres) with at least 1 in each of 8 physio- graphic provinces. This paper summarizes the application of the system to six forests on the Cumberland Plateau. Landtypes are the most detailed level in the hierarchical system and represent distinct units of the landscape (mapped at a scale of 1:24,000) as defined by physiography, climate, geology, soils, topography, and vegetation. Each of the 39 landtypes are described in terms of geographic setting, dominant soils, parent material, depth to bedrock, soil texture, soil drainage, relative soil water supply, relative fertility, and forest type. Additional information includes species suitable, site productivity, and operability for management activities. The maps aid the delineation of stands, streamside management zones, and “conservation” and other special use areas; the location of rare, threaten and endangered (RTE) species; the design of harvests; and the modeling of future forest conditions. The landtypes are an integral element in modeling wildlife habitat, in siting game food plots, and planning other wildlife management activities, particularly on forests that are dual wildlife and forest management areas. The maps are excellent training devices and extremely useful in explaining management plans to legislators and the public. INTRODUCTION The five levels of Smalley’s system proceeding from the least- The Tennessee Division of Forestry (TDF) has adopted a land detailed to the most-detailed are: physiographic province, classification system developed by the senior author (Smalley region, subregion, landtype association, and landtype.
    [Show full text]
  • By Nevin M. Fenneman DEPARTMENT of GEOLOGY, UNIVERSITY of CINCINNATI Communicated by W
    GEOLOGY: N. M. FENNEMAN 17 PHYSIOGRAPHIC SUBDIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES By Nevin M. Fenneman DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Communicated by W. M. Davis, November 24, 1916 Various attempts at subdivision of the United States into physio- graphic provinces have been made, beginning with- that of Powell.' The Association of American Geographers, recognizing the fundamental importance of this problem, appointed a committee in 1915 to prepare a suitable map of physiographic divisions. The committee consists of Messrs. M. R. Campbell and F. E. Matthes of the U. S. Geological Survey and Professors Eliot Blackwelder, D. W. Johnson, and Nevin M. Fenneman (chairman). The map herewith presented and the ac- companying table of divisions constitute the report of that committee. The same map on a larger scale (120 miles to the inch) will be found in Volume VI of the Annals of the Association of American Geographers, accompanying a paper by the writer on the Physiographic Divisions of the United States. In that paper are given the nature of the bound- ary lines and those characteristics of the several units which are believed to justify their recognition as such. Though the above-named com- mittee is not directly responsible for the statements there made, many of them represent the results of the committee's conferences. The paper as a whole is believed to represent fairly well the views of the committee, though in form the greater part of it is a revision of a former publication.2 The basis of division shown on this map, here reproduced, is physio- graphic or, as might be said in Europe, morphologic.
    [Show full text]
  • Ground-Water Resources in the Cumberland River Basin, I Kentucky-Tennessee
    GROUND-WATER RESOURCES IN THE CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, I KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE I U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS t OPEN FILE REPORT 80- 202 1 I I I I '.m I i Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey for the Ohio River Basin Commission's study of the Cumberland River basin. i i i i GROUND-WATER RESOURCES IN THE • CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN • KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE I U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY • WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS OPEN FILE REPORT 80-202 I I I I I I • Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey for the Ohio River Basin Commission's study of the Cumberland River Basin I I I I I I I I UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR I CECIL D. ANDRUS, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY I H. William Menard, Director • I I I I I I I I Open-File Report • For additional information write to: U.S. Geological Survey | A-413 Estes Kefauver Federal Building U.S. Courthouse _ Nashville, Tennessee 37203 I I I I I I CONTENTS I Page Conclusions...................................................... 1 I Introduction..................................................... 3 Geologic setting................................................. 3 I Major aquifers and their water-bearing properties................ 4 I Aquifers in the alluvium...................................... 6 Aquifers in the Pennsylvanian rocks........................... 7 I Aquifers in the Mississippian rocks........................... 8 Aquifers in the Ordovician rocks. ............................. 9 I Potential for development........................................ 11 I Selected references.............................................. 13 I ILLUSTRATIONS I Plate 1. Map showing generalized geology of the Cumberland River basin....................................... In back I of report 2. Map showing potential availability of large I ground-water supplies in the Cumberland River basin......................................
    [Show full text]
  • CSX Nashville Division Timetable
    NASHVILLE DIVISION TIMETABLE NO. 3 EFFECTIVE SATURDAY, JANUARY 1, 2005 AT 0001 HOURS CSX STANDARD TIME J. M. Dyer General Manager . NASHVILLE DIVISION TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL INFORMATION DIVISION SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS PAGE INST DESCRIPTION PAGE Table of Contents Timetable Legend 1 Instructions Relating to Operating Rules Sample Subdivision 2 Instructions Relating to Safety Rules Region and Division Officers Instructions Relating to Company Policies 3 Region and Division Telephone Numbers and Procedures Emergency Assistance Instructions Relating to Equipment 4 Train Dispatchers Handling Rules Instructions Relating to Air Brake and Train SUBDIVISIONS 5 Handling Rules NAME CODE DISP PAGE 6 Equipment Restrictions Bruceton BC AY 7 Miscellaneous CE&D CP SB Chattanooga C8 AJ Danville DA IB Decatur DC SB Evansville Terminal EV SB Henderson HE SA Memphis Terminal MX AY Memphis MP AY Nashville NV AH Nashville Terminal NA AJ O&N ON SA S&NA North SN AH St. Louis SL SB CSX Transportation Effective January 1, 2005 Nashville Division Timetable No. 3 © Copyright 2005 TIMETABLE LEGEND GENERAL F. AUTH FOR MOVE (AUTHORITY FOR MOVEMENT) Unless otherwise indicated on subdivision pages, the The rules under which the subdivision is operated (CSX Rules Train Dispatcher controls all Main Tracks, Sidings, or NORAC Rules) are listed in a shaded, bordered box at the Interlockings, Controlled Points and Yard Limits. top of this column. The authority for movement rules applicable to the subdivision are listed below this box. STATION LISTING AND DIAGRAM PAGES G. NOTES 1 – HEADING Where station page information may need to be further The subdivision is identified by name and by 2 letter defined, a note will refer to “STATION PAGE NOTES” listed at identifier the end of the diagram.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of U.S. Commuter Rail
    AN OVERVIEW OF U.S. COMMUTER RAIL Timothy J. Brock, MA Reginald R. Souleyrette, PhD, PE KTC-13-18/UTCNURAIL1-12-1F This research was sponsored by: The NuRail Center National University Transportation Center and The Kentucky Transportation Center University of Kentucky Cover Photo: Tri-Rail System in Miami, Florida By: Timothy J. Brock Date: April, 2011 Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank Dr. Ted Grossardt and Dr. Len O’Connell for their comments on earlier drafts. They would also like to thank the participants in the Cities, Transportation and Sustainability session at the Association of American Geographers annual meeting for the thoughtful discussion and comments on this research. Disclaimer: The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Kentucky Transportation Center or of the NuRail Center. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. ii AN OVERVIEW OF U.S. COMMUTER RAIL Timothy J. Brock, M.A. Research Associate Kentucky Transportation Center University of Kentucky and Reginald R. Souleyrette, Ph.D., P.E. Professor of Transportation Engineering and Commonwealth Chair College of Engineering University of Kentucky FINAL REPORT May 2nd, 2013 © 2013 University of Kentucky, Kentucky Transportation Center Information may not be used, reproduced, or republished without our written consent. iii 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No KTC-13-18/UTCNURAIL1-12-1F 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date May 2013 AN OVERVIEW OF U.S.
    [Show full text]