DOCSLIB.ORG

Traffic Separation Study Norfolk Southern 'O' Line Charlotte to Mooresville

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Traffic Separation Study Norfolk Southern 'O' Line Charlotte to Mooresville TRAFFIC SEPARATION STUDY NORFOLK SOUTHERN ‘O’ LINE CHARLOTTE TO MOORESVILLE FINAL REPORT Prepared for ORTH F N CA O RO TE L A IN T A S D N E O P I A T R A T T M R E O N SP T OF TRAN Charlotte Area Transit System North Carolina Metropolitan Transit Commission Department of Transportation Rail Division Prepared by April 2004 Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES ___________________________________________________________ V LIST OF FIGURES _________________________________________________________ VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY _____________________________________________________1 I. FINDINGS ______________________________________________________________ 1 II. RECOMMENDATIONS ___________________________________________________ 2 A. Public Crossing Recommendations WITH Rail Passenger Service ________________________________2 B. Public Crossing Recommendations WITHOUT Rail Passenger Service____________________________3 C. Private Crossing Recommendations WITH Rail Passenger Service _______________________________4 III. ESTIMATED COSTS_____________________________________________________ 4 A. Charlotte - $2,757,650.00. _______________________________________________________________5 B. Huntersville - $2,783,500.00._____________________________________________________________5 C. Cornelius - $1,841,500.00. _______________________________________________________________5 D. Davidson - $310,000.00. ________________________________________________________________5 E. Iredell County - $1,168,000.00. ___________________________________________________________5 F. Mooresville - $523,000.00. ______________________________________________________________5 G. Estimated Costs WITHOUT Passenger Service_______________________________________________5 TRAFFIC SEPARATION STUDY_______________________________________________6 I. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ________________________________________________ 6 II. PREAMBLE _____________________________________________________________ 7 III. AGENCY PARTICIPATION AND ASSISTANCE ______________________________ 8 IV. THE ‘O’ LINE CORRIDOR ________________________________________________ 9 V. EVALUATION CRITERIA________________________________________________ 12 A. Accident History _____________________________________________________________________13 B. Truck Traffic ________________________________________________________________________13 C. Sight Obstructions ____________________________________________________________________14 D. Summary of Crossing Protection Devices __________________________________________________15 E. Crossings With The Highest Traffic Volume________________________________________________16 F. Humped Crossings ____________________________________________________________________17 G. Queue Distance ______________________________________________________________________18 VI. RATING CRITERIA_____________________________________________________ 20 A. Safety Devices _______________________________________________________________________20 ii B. Traffic Volume_______________________________________________________________________20 C. Accident History _____________________________________________________________________20 D. School Route ________________________________________________________________________21 E. Emergency Response Route_____________________________________________________________21 F. Humped Crossing_____________________________________________________________________21 G. Sight Obstruction _____________________________________________________________________21 H. Queue Distance ______________________________________________________________________22 VII. MENU OF AVAILABLE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS ______ 22 A. Grade Separation Structures_____________________________________________________________22 B. Crossing Protection Devices Upgrade _____________________________________________________23 C. Enhanced Crossing Protection Devices ____________________________________________________24 D. Crossing Closure/Crossing Consolidation __________________________________________________25 E. Street Improvements __________________________________________________________________25 F. Traffic Signals _______________________________________________________________________25 VIII. SAFETY AND MOBILITY ISSUES_________________________________________ 27 A. Vehicles Queuing Across Railroad Tracks__________________________________________________27 B. Traffic Signal Preemption ______________________________________________________________27 C. Humped Crossings ____________________________________________________________________27 D. Grade Crossing Condition ______________________________________________________________27 E. Vehicles Driving Around Automatic Gates _________________________________________________28 F. Improved Signs and Markings ___________________________________________________________28 G. Roadway Improvements________________________________________________________________28 H. Roadway Grade Separation _____________________________________________________________29 I. Other Mobility Factors_________________________________________________________________29 J. Thoroughfare Plan Considerations________________________________________________________30 K. Transportation Improvement Program/Capital Improvement Program Considerations________________31 IX. RECOMMENDATIONS AND ESTIMATED COSTS ___________________________ 32 A. Crossings Recommended for Closure _____________________________________________________33 B. New Public Crossings Recommended _____________________________________________________38 C. Crossings Recommended for New or Improved Automatic Warning Devices ______________________41 D. Other Recommended Street Improvements _________________________________________________43 E. Other Long -Term Recommendations _____________________________________________________48 X. RECOMMENDATIONS WITHOUT PASSENGER SERVICE____________________ 49 PRIVATE CROSSINGS ______________________________________________________52 XI. CROSSING SUMMARY__________________________________________________ 52 XII. PRIVATE CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS _______________________________ 52 XIII. COSTS SUMMARY _____________________________________________________ 60 A. Charlotte-All Crossings - $2,757,650.00.___________________________________________________60 B. Huntersville-All Crossings - $2,783,500.00. ________________________________________________61 C. Cornelius-All Crossings - $1,841,500.00. __________________________________________________61 D. Davidson-All Crossings - $310,000.00. ____________________________________________________61 E. Iredell County-All Crossings - $1,168,000.00. ______________________________________________61 iii F. Mooresville-All Crossings - $523,000.00. __________________________________________________61 XIV. COSTS SUMMARY BY IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE _________________ 62 XV. SUMMARY ____________________________________________________________ 62 iv List of Tables TABLE 1___________________________________________________________________ 10 TABLE 2___________________________________________________________________ 15 TABLE 3___________________________________________________________________ 17 TABLE 4___________________________________________________________________ 18 TABLE 5___________________________________________________________________ 19 TABLE 6___________________________________________________________________ 42 TABLE 7___________________________________________________________________ 44 TABLE 8___________________________________________________________________ 66 TABLE 9___________________________________________________________________ 68 TABLE 10__________________________________________________________________ 69 v List of Figures FIGURE 1 – SPRATT STREET, CHARLOTTE (BEGIN STUDY)............................................. 9 FIGURE 2 – PRIVATE CROSSING ........................................................................................... 10 FIGURE 3 – RURAL PUBLIC CROSSING................................................................................ 10 FIGURE 4 – END OF THE LINE, STATESVILLE AVENUE CROSSING, MOORESVILLE 11 FIGURE 5 – TRUCK ROUTE ..................................................................................................... 14 FIGURE 6 – SIGHT OBSTRUCTION – PRIVATE CROSSING............................................... 15 FIGURE 7 – SIGHT OBSTRUCTION –PUBLIC CROSSING .................................................. 15 FIGURE 8 – RURAL CROSSING WITH GATES, FLASHING SIGNALS & BELL............... 16 FIGURE 9 – GATED PRIVATE CROSSING - IREDELL CO. ................................................. 16 FIGURE 10 – HUMPED PUBLIC CROSSING - CHARLOTTE. .............................................. 17 FIGURE 11 – HUMPED PRIVATE CROSSING........................................................................ 18 FIGURE 12 – VEHICLES QUEUED OVER THE CROSSING – NC 73 .................................. 19 FIGURE 13 – INADEQUATE QUEUE DISTANCE - MOORESVILLE .................................. 19 FIGURE 14 – SCHOOL ROUTE................................................................................................. 21 FIGURE 15 – LONG GATE ARM .............................................................................................. 24 FIGURE 16 – MT. MOURNE VFD (NOW LOCATED AT LANGTREE ROAD & 115)........ 30 FIGURE 17 – PROPOSED HAMBRIGHT ROAD EXTENSION.............................................. 38 FIGURE 18 – CALDWELL STATION –
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Amtrak's Rights and Relationships with Host Railroads
    Amtrak’s Rights and Relationships with Host Railroads September 21, 2017 Jim Blair –Director Host Railroads Today’s Amtrak System 2| Amtrak Amtrak’s Services • Northeast Corridor (NEC) • 457 miles • Washington‐New York‐Boston Northeast Corridor • 11.9 million riders in FY16 • Long Distance (LD) services • 15 routes • Up to 2,438 miles in length Long • 4.65 million riders in FY16 Distance • State‐supported trains • 29 routes • 19 partner states • Up to 750 miles in length State- • 14.7 million riders in FY16 supported3| Amtrak Amtrak’s Host Railroads Amtrak Route System Track Ownership Excluding Terminal Railroads VANCOUVER SEATTLE Spokane ! MONTREAL PORTLAND ST. PAUL / MINNEAPOLIS Operated ! St. Albans by VIA Rail NECR MDOT TORONTO VTR Rutland ! Port Huron Niagara Falls ! Brunswick Grand Rapids ! ! ! Pan Am MILWAUKEE ! Pontiac Hoffmans Metra Albany ! BOSTON ! CHICAGO ! Springfield Conrail Metro- ! CLEVELAND MBTA SALT LAKE CITY North PITTSBURGH ! ! NEW YORK ! INDIANAPOLIS Harrisburg ! KANSAS CITY ! PHILADELPHIA DENVER ! ! BALTIMORE SACRAMENTO Charlottesville WASHINGTON ST. LOUIS ! Richmond OAKLAND ! Petersburg ! Buckingham ! Newport News Norfolk NMRX Branch ! Oklahoma City ! Bakersfield ! MEMPHIS SCRRA ALBUQUERQUE ! ! LOS ANGELES ATLANTA SCRRA / BNSF / SDN DALLAS ! FT. WORTH SAN DIEGO HOUSTON ! JACKSONVILLE ! NEW ORLEANS SAN ANTONIO Railroads TAMPA! Amtrak (incl. Leased) Norfolk Southern FDOT ! MIAMI Union Pacific Canadian Pacific BNSF Canadian National CSXT Other Railroads 4| Amtrak Amtrak’s Host Railroads ! MONTREAL Amtrak NEC Route System
    [Show full text]
  • Baker & Miller Pllc
    301783 ENTERED BAKER & MILLER PLLC Office of Proceedings March 19 2021 Part of 2401 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW S U I T E 3 0 0 Public Record WASHINGTON, DC 20037 ( 2 0 2 ) 6 6 3 - 7 8 2 0 ( 2 0 2 ) 6 6 3 - 7 8 4 9 William A. Mullins Direct Dial: (202) 663 - 7 8 2 3 E - M a i l : [email protected] March 19, 2021 VIA E-FILING Ms. Cynthia T. Brown Chief, Section of Administration Office of Proceedings Surface Transportation Board 395 E Street, S.W., Room 1034 Washington, DC 20423-0001 Re: FD 36472 CSX Corporation and CSX Transportation, Inc. – Control and Merger – Pan Am Systems, Inc., Pan Am Railways, Inc., Boston & Maine Corporation, Maine Central Railroad Company, Northern Railroad, Pan Am Southern LLC, Portland Terminal Company, Springfield Terminal Railway Company, Stony Brook Railroad Company, and Vermont & Massachusetts Railroad Company FD 36472 (Sub-No. 5) Pittsburg & Shawmut Railroad, LLC d/b/a Berkshire & Eastern Railroad – Operation of Property of Rail Carrier Pan Am Southern LLC – Pan Am Southern LLC and Springfield Terminal Railway Company Reply Comments of Norfolk Southern Railway Company Dear Ms. Brown: Norfolk Southern Railway Company (“NSR”) hereby submits the following comments in reply to the Application (the “Application”) filed by CSX Corporation (“CSX”) and CSX Transportation, Inc. (“CSXT”) (collectively, the “Applicants”). NSR supports the proposed transaction as submitted. Baker & Miller PLLC Ms. Cynthia T. Brown March 19, 2021 Page 2 of 4 NSR initially had some concerns about possible adverse anticompetitive effects that would arise from an unconditioned transaction,1 but CSXT and NSR have discussed and worked through those concerns.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 09-1212 in the NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
    No. 09-1212 IN THE NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Petitioner, BILLY GROVES, individually, d.b.a. Savannah Re-Load, SAVANNAH RE-LOAD, and BRAMPTON ENTERPRISES, LLC, d.b.a. Savannah Re-Load, Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT REPLY BRIEF PAUL D. KEENAN KEENAN COHEN & HOWARD P.C. One Pitcairn Place 165 Township Line Road Suite 2400 Jenkintown, PA 19046-3535 (215) 609-1110 [email protected] Attorney for Petitioner COUNSEt PRESS (800) 274-3321 . (800) 359-6859 Blank Page CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Petitioner’s Corporate Disclosure Statement was set forth at page iii of its Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, and there are no amendments to that Statement. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .. i TABLE OF CONTENTS .................... ii TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES .........111 INTRODUCTION .......................... 1 ARGUMENT ............................... 2 Brampton’s Response Rejects the Eleventh Circuit’s Recognition of a Conflict Among the Third, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits ..................... 2 Bo Brampton’s Response Minimizes the Adverse Impact of the Eleventh Circuit’s Ruling on the National Freight Rail Network ............................. 6 Brampton’s Argument Relating to Primary Jurisdiction Fails to Address the Eleventh Circuit’s Encroachment Upon the STB’s Exclusive Jurisdiction Regarding Interpretation of Tariff Provisions ............................ 8 Do The Eleventh Circuit’s Decision Imposes an Unclear and Unworkable Rule Upon the Interstate Rail Network ........... 10 CONCLUSION ............................. 13 TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES Page CASES Capitol Materials, Inc. - Petition for Declaratory Order - Certain Rates and Practices of Norfolk Southern Railway Company, 2004 STB LEXIS 227, STB Docket No.
    [Show full text]
  • Merchant Street Bridge Project Purpose and Need Statement
    Norfolk Southern Railway Company Merchant Street, Pittsburgh, PA Project Purpose and Need Statement June 2019 INTRODUCTION: The Merchant Street Bridge, located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania along the Fort Wayne Line, which is owned and operated by Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR), provides a grade separation from automobile traffic traveling below the rail line along Merchant Street. Merchant Street connects Ridge Avenue with Martindale Street under the Fort Wayne Line. The Fort Wayne Line serves rail freight traffic in interstate commerce and operates as a primary link through Pittsburgh between Chicago and the New York/New Jersey commercial markets. NSR is a common carrier and the Fort Wayne Line forms a critical component of NSR’s route between Chicago and the east coast, carrying a variety of commodities, both hazardous material such as chlorine, anhydrous ammonia, hydrogen fluoride, crude oil, and ethanol, as well as nonhazardous materials like coal, auto parts and finished vehicles, lumber, agricultural products, and intermodal containers and trailers. The line Fort Wayne Line also carries passenger traffic. The Merchant Street Bridge was constructed circa 1905 and consists of two skewed steel spans supported by stone masonry abutments and one intermediate steel bent. The ballast-deck superstructure is comprised of a concrete-filled riveted steel trough system that varies in length and width and carries four active railroad tracks, with capacity to carry up to 70 trains per day. There is extensive steel corrosion within the cross girders and columns comprising the intermediate bent as well as throughout the riveted trough system. These conditions will be considered safety concerns within a few years and may pose a safety hazard to the railroad and the traveling public and a potential liability to other transportation entities (e.g., City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County) if not addressed.
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan's Railroad History
    Contributing Organizations The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) wishes to thank the many railroad historical organizations and individuals who contributed to the development of this document, which will update continually. Ann Arbor Railroad Technical and Historical Association Blue Water Michigan Chapter-National Railway Historical Society Detroit People Mover Detroit Public Library Grand Trunk Western Historical Society HistoricDetroit.org Huron Valley Railroad Historical Society Lansing Model Railroad Club Michigan Roundtable, The Lexington Group in Transportation History Michigan Association of Railroad Passengers Michigan Railroads Association Peaker Services, Inc. - Brighton, Michigan Michigan Railroad History Museum - Durand, Michigan The Michigan Railroad Club The Michigan State Trust for Railroad Preservation The Southern Michigan Railroad Society S O October 13, 2014 Dear Michigan Residents: For more than 180 years, Michigan’s railroads have played a major role in the economic development of the state. This document highlights many important events that have occurred in the evolution of railroad transportation in Michigan. This document was originally published to help celebrate Michigan’s 150th birthday in 1987. A number of organizations and individuals contributed to its development at that time. The document has continued to be used by many since that time, so a decision was made to bring it up to date and keep the information current. Consequently, some 28 years later, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) has updated the original document and is placing it on our website for all to access. As you journey through this history of railroading in Michigan, may you find the experience both entertaining and beneficial. MDOT is certainly proud of Michigan’s railroad heritage.
    [Show full text]
  • Freight Tariff NS 6004-D Rules and Charges Cancels NS 6004-C and Supplements 1 Through 5
    Norfolk Southern Railway Company THE NS VISION: and Consolidated Subsidiaries BE THE SAFEST, MOST CUSTOMER-FOCUSED, AND SUCCESSFUL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY IN THE WORLD. One line, infinite possibilities Demurrage and Storage Freight Tariff NS 6004-D Rules and Charges Cancels NS 6004-C and Supplements 1 through 5 Applying at all NS points in the United States and other points as specifically provided herein. Also at points on other roads (See Item 40) Issued: January 15, 2019 ISSUED BY: Effective: February 15, 2019 Pricing Services Norfolk Southern Railway Company and Consolidated Subsidiaries Three Commercial Place Norfolk, VA 23510 Norfolk Southern Railway Company and Consolidated Subsidiaries | Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUBJECT ITEM CANCELLATION NOTICE 20 LIST OF PARTICIPATING CARRIERS 40 GENERAL TARIFF RULES 60 – 100 GLOSSARY OF TERMS 200 NOTIFICATION TO CUSTOMERS BY NS 300 NOTIFICATION TO NS 350 SITUATIONS WHEN RELIEF IS PERMISSIBLE 400 CARS AWAITING CUSTOMS INSTRUCTIONS, PAYMENTS OF DUTIES 450 CARS SUBJECT TO DEMURRAGE 500 CARS SUBJECT TO STORAGE 550 RULES GOVERNING CARS HELD FOR LOADING 600 RULES GOVERNING CARS HELD FOR UNLOADING 650 RULES GOVERNING CARS HELD FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN LOADING OR UNLOADING 700 RULES GOVERNING MERCHANDISE UNIT TRAIN DETENTION 750 RULES GOVERNING MERCHANDISE UNIT TRAINS STOPPED IN TRANSIT 760 RULES GOVERNING STORAGE OF ASSIGNED CARS 800 RULES GOVERNING ORIGIN TURNOVERS 850 STORAGE OF RAILWAY EQUIPMENT MOVING ON OWN WHEELS 900 DEMURRAGE / STORAGE RULES 950 DEMURRAGE / STORAGE CALCULATION 1000 DEMURRAGE /
    [Show full text]
  • Tank Car Committee Main Session Docket and Agenda
    Tank Car Committee Main Session Docket and Agenda April 18-19, 2018 Atlanta, GA MEETING SCHEDULE Wednesday April 18, 2018 Tank Car Committee The Whitney, Buckhead, GA 2:00pm – 3:30am Government Regulatory Update 3:30am – 5:00pm AAR M‐1002 Standards Thursday April 19, 2018 Tank Car Committee The Whitney, Buckhead, GA 8:00am – 11:00am AAR M‐1002 Standards/Standing Updates 11:00am – 12:00pm Tank Car Research Program April 2018 Tank Car Committee Main Session Agenda/Docket Page 2 of 114 AAR TANK CAR COMMITTEE MEMBERS Railroad: Affiliation Andy Ash (Chair) Railway Association of Canada Jim Kozey (Vice-Chair) Canadian Pacific Railway Ryan Miller Kansas City Southern Railroad John Birkmann Union Pacific Railroad Jorge Gallardo Ferrocarril Mexicano (FXE) Chris Machenberg CSX Transportation Anthony Ippolito Canadian National Railway Bruce Siebold BNSF Railway Company Alvaro Almaguer Kansas City Southern de México, S.A. de C.V. David Schoendorfer Hazmat Committee Liaison (Norfolk Southern Railway) Paul Williams Norfolk Southern Railway Allen Richter Consolidated Rail Corporation JR Gelnar ASLRRA Non-Railroad Shippers: Kevin Flahive The Fertilizer Institute (Koch Fertilizer) N. Scott Murray ACC (ExxonMobil Chemical Company) Robyn Kinsley The Chlorine Institute Mike Richardson U.S. Clay Producers Traffic Association Kirk Warner American Petroleum Institute (Consultant) Craig Jorgenson The Sulphur Institute Kelly Davis The Ethanol Shippers Non-Railroad Tank Car Builders: A.D. McKisic Trinity Industries Tony Sisto GATX Rail Corporation Joe Perez UTLX
    [Show full text]
  • Class I Railroad Annual Report
    OEEAA – R1 OMB Clearance No. 2140-0009 Expiration Date 12-31-2022 Class I Railroad Annual Report Norfolk Southern Combined Railroad Subsidiaries Three Commercial Place Norfolk, VA 23510-2191 Full name and address of reporting carrier Correct name and address if different than shown (Use mailing label on original, copy in full on duplicate) To the Surface Transportation Board For the year ending December 31, 2019 Road Initials: NS Rail Year: 2019 ANNUAL REPORT OF NORFOLK SOUTHERN COMBINED RAILROAD SUBSIDIARIES ("NS RAIL") TO THE Surface Transporation Board FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2019 Name, official title, telephone number, and office address of officer in charge of correspondence with the Board regarding this report: (Name) Jason A. Zampi (Title) Vice President and Controller (Telephone number) (757) 629-2680 (Area Code) (Office address) Three Commercial Place Norfolk, Virginia 23510-2191 (Street and number, city, state, and ZIP code) Railroad Annual Report R-1 NOTICE 1. This report is required for every class I railroad operating within the United States. Three copies of this Annual Report should be completed. Two of the copies must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and Administration, 395 E Street, S.W. Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20423, by March 31 of the year following that for which the report is made. One copy should be retained by the carrier. 2. Every inquiry must be definitely answered. Where the word "none" truly and completely states the fact, it should be given as the answer. If any inquiry is inapplicable, the words "not applicable" should be used.
    [Show full text]
  • Alabama Rail Directory
    Photo by WILLIAM MARTIN Alabama Rail Directory Bureau of Transportation Planning and Modal Programs June 2014 2013 Alabama Rail Directory Prepared for Alabama Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Planning and Modal Programs Prepared by J. R. Wilburn and Associates, Inc. June 2014 2013 Alabama Rail Directory Alabama Department of Transportation TABLE OF CONTENTS THE RAILROADS IN ALABAMA Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 Map of the Railroads in Alabama .................................................................................. 2 CLASS I RAILROADS IN ALABAMA Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. (BNSF) .......................................................... 4 Canadian National Illinois Central (CN/IC) ................................................................... 11 CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) ................................................................................ 14 Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) ............................................................................. 18 CLASS II (REGIONAL) RAILROADS IN ALABAMA Alabama & Gulf Coast Railway, LLC (AGR)^................................................................. 25 CLASS III (SHORTLINE/LOCAL) RAILROADS IN ALABAMA Alabama & Tennessee River Railway, LLC (ATN) ........................................................... 29 Alabama Railroad Co. (ALAB) ..................................................................................... 31 Alabama
    [Show full text]
  • Valued Norfolk Southern Customers and Partners, As the Spread of The
    Norfolk Southern Corporation Alan H. Shaw 1200 Peachtree Street NE Executive Vice President and Atlanta, GA 30309 Chief Marketing Officer Telephone (757) 629-2830 March 12, 2020 Valued Norfolk Southern Customers and Partners, As the spread of the coronavirus continues, Norfolk Southern is carefully monitoring this dynamic situation. We remain committed both to the safety of our employees and continuing service to our customers and supply chain partners. Communication and collaboration are key to the successful management of this situation. Permit me to update you on the actions we are taking. At Norfolk Southern, the safety of our employees and the communities we serve has always been the highest priority. Norfolk Southern’s Chief Medical Officer is closely monitoring guidance issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and health officials across our network, and Norfolk Southern will continue to cooperate with federal, state, and local health officials as this situation develops. Norfolk Southern has worked tirelessly to ensure that office locations, crew reporting locations, locomotives, and other operations buildings across the NS system remain supplied with cleaning and disinfecting products, and we are enhancing regular cleaning services. We have identified mission critical activities and essential employees that support those activities, and we are modifying those work areas to create additional spatial separation to ensure that those operations continue working smoothly and seamlessly for our customers. We are preparing our employees, systems, and communication infrastructure to work remotely when applicable and should the need arise. We are closely following all guidelines issues by the CDC and keeping our employees well informed as the COVID-19 situation evolves.
    [Show full text]
  • Statewide Shortline Railroad Improvement Plan Technical
    Statewide Shortline Railroad Improvement Plan Technical Memorandum November 2, 2009 Table of Contents A. Introduction......................................................................................................... 3 B. Existing Shortline Railroads in the Commonwealth........................................ 4 Bay Coast Railroad (BCR) ................................................................................. 4 Buckingham Branch Railroad (BB) .................................................................... 5 Chesapeake and Albemarle Railroad (CA) ........................................................ 6 Chesapeake Western Railroad (CHW) .............................................................. 6 Commonwealth Railway, Inc. (CWRY) .............................................................. 7 Deepwater Terminal Railroad (DWT) ................................................................. 7 Shenandoah Valley Railroad (SV) ..................................................................... 8 C. Benchmark Rail Grant Programs with Other State’s Programs ................... 12 New Jersey ...................................................................................................... 13 North Carolina.................................................................................................. 13 Ohio ................................................................................................................. 14 Wisconsin .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Project Purpose and Need Statements August 2018
    Norfolk Southern Railway Company Pittsburgh Vertical Clearance Projects Project Purpose and Need Statements August 2018 Purpose and Need Summary: The principal purpose of the Pittsburgh Vertical Clearance projects is to enhance the existing rail infrastructure on the main line through Pittsburgh and in southwest Pennsylvania in order to provide more efficient movement of freight from New York/New Jersey to Chicago and specifically through Pennsylvania. Federal and state freight rail transportation studies predict a substantial increase in freight and intermodal demand through 2045. To accommodate the increase in rail demand, as well as support national goals relating to greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency, the national freight rail system has been substantially modernized over the past decades to raise clearances, upgrade tunnels and modify rail lines throughout most of America’s 140,000-mile freight rail network to accommodate double-stacked intermodal trains. https://www.aar.org/article/6-milestones-intermodal-growth/. Rail service through Pittsburgh, especially as related to the service of sensitive intermodal freight, is currently constrained by the capacity and external disruptions on the Monongahela line (the Mon Line) and the clearance limitations on the Pittsburgh Line. The primary purposes of these clearance projects are to provide elevation clearances along Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR)’s Pittsburgh Line and Fort Wayne Line to facilitate a safe and reliable system of transportation and modernize the Pittsburgh Line and Fort Wayne Line to accommodate integration of modes of transportation (intermodal), and improve clearance, safety, transportation optimization, and efficiency to meet modern interstate freight rail traffic requirements, including double-stack intermodal trains.
    [Show full text]