DOCSLIB.ORG

Protecting and Preserving Rail Corridors Against Encroachment of Incompatible Uses

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Protecting and Preserving Rail Corridors Against Encroachment of Incompatible Uses Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA/TX-09/0-5546-1 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Protecting and Preserving Rail Corridors Against Encroachment September 2007; Rev. January 2008 of Incompatible Uses 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Lisa Loftus-Otway, C. Michael Walton, Lynn Blais, Nathan 0-5546-1 Hutson 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Center for Transportation Research 11. Contract or Grant No. The University of Texas at Austin 0-5546 3208 Red River, Suite 200 Austin, TX 78705-2650 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Technical Report Research and Technology Implementation Office September 2006–August 2007 P.O. Box 5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, TX 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Project performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. 16. Abstract Rail Corridor preservation and planning for the purpose of reducing or restricting incompatible development is an area of growing importance. This report provides an overview regarding encroachment and the elements that contribute to potentially incompatible development along rail corridors. The report reviews the legal tools that currently exist within Texas for corridor preservation and provides recommendations for new legislation, including draft legislation. The report then reviews the state of practice of corridor planning and preservation with mitigation against encroachment both in Texas and in selected other states around the country. The report pays special attention to incidents in which rail corridors are envisioned to host both freight and passenger services and the implications on land use. Finally, the report provides a review of costs associated to deal with encroachment, whether by planning, preservation, collaboration, or mitigation. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Corridor Preservation, Encroachment, Transit Oriented No restrictions. This document is available to the Development, Incompatible Land Use, Shared Track, public through the National Technical Information Rail Relocation Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161; www.ntis.gov. 19. Security Classif. (of 20. Security Classif. (of 21. No. of pages 22. Price report) this page) 194 Unclassified Unclassified Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized Protecting and Preserving Rail Corridors Against Encroachment of Incompatible Uses Lisa Loftus-Otway C. Michael Walton Lynn Blais Nathan Hutson CTR Technical Report: 0-5546-1 Report Date: September 2007; Revised January 2008 Project: 0-5546 Project Title: Protecting Rail Corridors Against Encroachment Sponsoring Agency: Texas Department of Transportation Performing Agency: Center for Transportation Research at The University of Texas at Austin Project performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Center for Transportation Research The University of Texas at Austin 3208 Red River Austin, TX 78705 www.utexas.edu/research/ctr Copyright (c) 2007 Center for Transportation Research The University of Texas at Austin All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America iv Disclaimers Author's Disclaimer: The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official view or policies of the Federal Highway Administration or the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Patent Disclaimer: There was no invention or discovery conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the course of or under this contract, including any art, method, process, machine manufacture, design or composition of matter, or any new useful improvement thereof, or any variety of plant, which is or may be patentable under the patent laws of the United States of America or any foreign country. Engineering Disclaimer NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION, BIDDING, OR PERMIT PURPOSES. Project Engineer: C. Michael Walton Professional Engineer License State and Number: Texas No. 46293 P. E. Designation: Research Supervisor v Acknowledgments The authors express appreciation to Wilda Won, TxDOT Project Director; Jennifer Moczygemba, P.E., TxDOT Project Coordinator; the TxDOT Project Management Committee Mark Werner, P.E., John Ewald, Gil Wilson, Jack Heiss, Peggy Thurin, P.E., Rich O’Connell, Sarah Stroman, and Cady North. The authors would also like to acknowledge the contributions from Duncan Stewart, P.E. and Loretta Brown from RTI. The author’s also express their appreciation to Dennis Kearns—Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, Ron Olson—Union Pacific Railway, Craig Lewis—Norfolk Southern Railway, Craig Rockey—Association of American Railroads, Phil Hooser—Industrial Acoustics Company, Lance Meister—Harris Miller Miller Hanson, Bob Deeds—City of Littleton and Kathryn Pett—Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll LLP who provided valuable input, information and insight to the project. The authors also want to thank Graduate Research Assistants, Kate Flanagan, Eric Larson, and Matt Swinehart who provided assistance to this project. vi Table of Contents Chapter 1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Overview of Potentially Incompatible Encroachment ........................................... 3 2.1 Problems Caused by Incompatible Encroachment ................................................................4 Chapter 3. Survey of Effective Corridor Protection Strategies .............................................. 11 3.1 Discussion ............................................................................................................................11 3.2 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................15 Chapter 4. Existing Legal Tools in Texas for Implementing Effective Rail Corridor Protection Strategies ................................................................................................................... 17 4.1 Overview ..............................................................................................................................17 4.2 State Authorities: The Texas Transportation Commission and the Department of Transportation ............................................................................................................................17 4.3 Regional Transportation Authorities ...................................................................................20 4.4 Regional Mobilitfy Authorities ............................................................................................21 4.5 Freight Rail Districts ............................................................................................................22 4.6 Intermunicipal Rail Districts ................................................................................................22 4.7 Rural Rail Transportation Districts ......................................................................................22 4.8 Municipal Land Use Authority ............................................................................................23 4.9 County Powers .....................................................................................................................25 4.10 80th Texas Legislative Update ..........................................................................................28 Chapter 5. The Texas Rail Context ........................................................................................... 31 5.1 Overview ..............................................................................................................................31 5.2 Current Authority .................................................................................................................31 5.3 The Texas Rail Network ......................................................................................................32 5.4 Freight Rail ..........................................................................................................................34 5.5 Passenger Rail ......................................................................................................................45 5.6 Future Corridors ...................................................................................................................59 Chapter 6. U.S. Rail Corridor Practices ................................................................................... 63 6.1 Rail Inventories and Planning Activities .............................................................................65 6.2 Legislation before the U.S. Congress Regarding Rail Development ..................................66 6.3 High-Speed Rail Corridor Planning .....................................................................................66 6.4 Amtrak Rail Planning ..........................................................................................................69 6.5 Arizona .................................................................................................................................70 6.6 Indiana .................................................................................................................................71
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]
  • Union Station Conceptual Engineering Study
    Portland Union Station Multimodal Conceptual Engineering Study Submitted to Portland Bureau of Transportation by IBI Group with LTK Engineering June 2009 This study is partially funded by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. IBI GROUP PORtlAND UNION STATION MultIMODAL CONceptuAL ENGINeeRING StuDY IBI Group is a multi-disciplinary consulting organization offering services in four areas of practice: Urban Land, Facilities, Transportation and Systems. We provide services from offices located strategically across the United States, Canada, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. JUNE 2009 www.ibigroup.com ii Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................... ES-1 Chapter 1: Introduction .....................................................................................1 Introduction 1 Study Purpose 2 Previous Planning Efforts 2 Study Participants 2 Study Methodology 4 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions .........................................................................6 History and Character 6 Uses and Layout 7 Physical Conditions 9 Neighborhood 10 Transportation Conditions 14 Street Classification 24 Chapter 3: Future Transportation Conditions .................................................25 Introduction 25 Intercity Rail Requirements 26 Freight Railroad Requirements 28 Future Track Utilization at Portland Union Station 29 Terminal Capacity Requirements 31 Penetration of Local Transit into Union Station 37 Transit on Union Station Tracks
    [Show full text]
  • Tacci7 Centuries
    North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office David L. S. Brook, Administrator Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director June 12, 2001 MEMORANDUM To: William Gilmore Project Development & Environmental Analysis, NCDOT From: David Brook Ple___1:51,-Stur.A.Cinc)clz_ Re: Improve NC 24 from 2.8 miles east of 1-95 to 1-40, R-2303, Multi County, ER 01-9171 Thank you for your letter of May 4, 2000, transmitting the survey report addendum by Marvin A. Brown for the above project. We apologize for the delay in our response. The report addendum is eloquently written and meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior. For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the following property is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under .the criterion cited: Stedman Historic District under Criteria A and C as an intact example of a rural Cumberland County town that arose, along with a railroad line and depot, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth tacCI7 centuries. The boundaries shown are appropriate. oc' There are two additions to the report which would be helpful to the reader and ensure that the report, as outlined in our guidelines, serves as a stand-alone document. These are the addition of a map that shows the relationship of the Stedman Historic District to the area of potential effect for the improvement of NC 24 and the former rail lines' being shown on Figure 2.
    [Show full text]
  • North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office David L
    North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office David L. S. Brook. Administrator Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Historical Resources Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary David J. Olson, Director Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary May 23, 2003 MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch NCDOT Division of Highways FROM: David Brook SUBJECT: Flistoric/Architectural Resources Survey Report, Widen US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to 1-40 in McDowell County, R-2597, Rutherford and McDowell Counties, CH02-10510 Thank you for your letter of April 29, 2003, transmitting the survey report by Frances P. Alexander of Mattson, Alexander and Associates. For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the following properties are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under the criterion cited: William Monteith House, Gilkey, Rutherford County Albert Weaver Farm, Thermal City, Rutherford County B. G. Hensley House, Glenwood vicinity, McDowell County ; The William Monteirkliouse, west side of US 221, 0.1 mile north of SR 1351, Gilkey, RutherfasnaCounty,is-eligible,for the National Register ,under Criterion C for architecture. The Monteith _House is an especially fine expression of the Queen Anne style in Rutherford County-,.. We concur with the proposed National Register boundaries as described and delMeated.in the report. - The Albert Weaver Farm, west side of SR 1321-, 0.1 mile west of, US 221; Thermal City, Rutherford County, is eligible for the National Register underCriterion A for agriculture and Criterion C for .architecture-. The farmhouse and its collection of intact and in-place .
    [Show full text]
  • The Trainmaster the Oregon Rail Heritage Center Opens
    The Trainmaster The Official Publication of the Pacific Northwest Chapter October 2012 National Railway Historical Society Portland, Oregon The Oregon Rail Heritage Center Opens Photo by Arlen Sheldrake October 2012 Pacific Northwest Chapter National Railway Historical Society The Trainmaster Page 1 Photos by Trent Stetz Over 160 enthusiastic ORHF volunteers welcomed and hosted over 6,300 excited guests (with 3,622 on Saturday 22nd and 2,737 on Sunday 23rd) at the opening weekend of the Oregon Rail Heritage Center near the new Portland Streetcar Central Loop extension stop at OMSI. Oregon rail history was brought alive by the three historic steam locomotives, the 1941 Southern Pacific 4449, the 1938 Spokane, Portland and Seattle 700, and the 1905 Oregon Rail and Navigation 197 which were all on display in their new engine house accompanied on site by two diesel locomotives, a PA-1 and RSD-5, and six heritage passenger cars outside. The 4449 was steamed up with its head poked out the engine house door and gave an occasional toot to the delight of the attendees. The weekend visitors got to view the cabs of both 4449 and 700. A very extensive Lego exhibit included a model of the Portland Customs house as well as Portland Union Station. The Operation Lifesaver trailer was on hand to educate the guests. The kids enjoyed a Chuggington Station play area. Tours were given of three heritage passenger cars including the 1941 SP "James J. Gilmore" parlor/lounge round end observation, the 1954 SP "Gordon Zimmerman" Baggage Car, and the 1950 SP&S Mount Hood Sleeper-Lounge Car.
    [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]
  • Oregon Electric Locomotive
    Volume 22 Issue 2 Spring 2017 Reminder to members: Please be sure your dues are In This Issue Oregon Electric #21 has Arrived …………….……………………............. 1 up to date. 2017 dues were due Jan 1, 2017. If it has Oregon Electric Railway Historical Society News…………………..……. 2 Save the Dates……………………………………………………..…………4 been longer than one year since you renewed, go to What’s New in the Gift Shop Carolyn Vernon…………..………………….4 our website: oergontrolley.com and download an WST News Jan Zweerts……………………………..……………………….5 Donations and Bequests Making a Difference………………………….…5 application by clicking: Become a Member. PCC’s in Kenosha Mark Kavanagh…………….………………………..….6 OERHS Member Kevin Reilly…………………………………………….....8 Donation Request…………………………………………………………...10 YOU Brought It Home To Oregon Oregon Electric – As Museum Director Greg Bonn put it, “For Locomotive #21 months it was a steady diet of stomach acid and adrenaline but thanks to everyone involved and our own By Multiple Authors well-trained crew, it turned out to be one of the most successful projects.” The museum’s largest and most expensive equipment acquisition project to date was completed, physically, after the OE #21 was successfully set on home rails at the museum on Wednesday, March 1st. Scheduling the move began in early February and after a couple of equipment and personnel issues, the lift began early morning Feb. 27th, just as it began to snow, and finished early in the afternoon, still snowing. Setting a wheelset on the trailer at FVHRS. Lifting the body at FVHRS. The body left shortly after loading, crossed the border and spent the night in Marysville, WA.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Planning for the Richmond–Charlotte Railroad Corridor
    VOLUME I Executive Summary and Main Report Technical Monograph: Transportation Planning for the Richmond–Charlotte Railroad Corridor Federal Railroad Administration United States Department of Transportation January 2004 Disclaimer: This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation solely in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof, nor does it express any opinion whatsoever on the merit or desirability of the project(s) described herein. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Any trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. Note: In an effort to better inform the public, this document contains references to a number of Internet web sites. Web site locations change rapidly and, while every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of these references as of the date of publication, the references may prove to be invalid in the future. Should an FRA document prove difficult to find, readers should access the FRA web site (www.fra.dot.gov) and search by the document’s title or subject. 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FRA/RDV-04/02 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date January 2004 Technical Monograph: Transportation Planning for the Richmond–Charlotte Railroad Corridor⎯Volume I 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Authors: 8. Performing Organization Report No. For the engineering contractor: Michael C. Holowaty, Project Manager For the sponsoring agency: Richard U. Cogswell and Neil E. Moyer 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10.
    [Show full text]
  • The Western North Carolina Railroad, 1855-1894
    THE WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD, 1855-1894 A thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Graduate School Western Carolina University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts by William Hutson Abrams, Jr. August 6, 1976 PREFACE The Western North Carolina Railroad was the instrumental force in opening up the isolated communities of Western North Carolina. This paper will deal primarily with the construction of this railroad which left Salisbury, climbed the mountains to Asheville, and continued to ter.ninal points of Paint Rock and Ducktown, on the Tennessee Line. The difficulties encountered during construction will be emphasized along with the political aspects that went along with construction. Emphasis will be placed on the time between the State's acquisition of the Railroad in 1875 and the completion to Murphy in 1891. An introductory chapter will briefly cover the start of the railroad in 1855, its role in the Civil War, and the delays in construction caused by the scandals of the Reconstruction Period. Starting with 1875, a vital element in the construction, convict labor, will be dealt with. The management of the railroad varied between state and private ownership. It suffered the financial pains that many early lines endured. Most of all, it was hindered by the ever present problem presented by nature as the track was built through so~e of the roughest terrain east of the Rocky Mountains. This was really the significant feature of the railroad because at many times its further construction seemed to be impossible. Political, financial, managerial, and labor problems testify to the trying task that was accomplished and to the desire of the people of the western part of the state to have their railroad.
    [Show full text]
  • The Trainmaster
    The TRAINMASTE�R Official Publication of the Pacific Northwest Chapter, National Railway Historical SOCiety. SEPTEMBER 1991 The Days of Wine and... Dateline: Salem area, Memorial Day 1991. REGULAR RUNS The Mission: To explore strange new worlds of Oregon vintages, to seek out new grapes and new taste BOARD OF DIRECfORS MEETING,Thursday, September 12, 7:00pm, at the Colum­ bia Gorge Model Railroad Club on the corner of N. Vancouver Ave. and Russell Street. All sensations, to boldly go where we Chapter members are welcome. had never gone before... the Wil­ lamette Valley Wine Country! MONTHLY MEMBERSHIP MEETING, Friday, September 20, 7:30pm, at Portland What a glorious day it was! We General Electric auditorium on SE 17th Avenue between Powell and Holgate. The business meeting will start promptly at 7:30, with the newsreel and program following after a short break. knew we wanted to do something Refreshments will beavailable; please bring some money to feed the "kitty" so Kitty cancontinue different. The wine country to feed you. The programis listed below. seemed a perfect setting for this Memori.al Day to remember. My WEEKLY NO·HOST LUNCHEON, every Saturday, 12:00 noon, at the Semaphore mind was envisioning the pic­ Restaurant at SE 17th Avenue and Holgate Blvd. Our group sits in the back. Come on down! turesque drive to the towns of Dun­ ROLLING STOCK WORK SFSSIONS, every Tuesday and Saturday, at the Chapter's dee and Lafayette, the breathtaking tracks in Brooklyn Yards. Working hours are 9am to 3-4pm on Tuesday, lOam to late afternoon glassware I had seen at the antique on Saturday.
    [Show full text]
  • Amtrak Station Program and Planning Guidelines 1
    Amtrak Station Program and Planning Guidelines 1. Overview 5 6. Site 55 1.1 Background 5 6.1 Introduction 55 1.2 Introduction 5 6.2 Multi-modal Planning 56 1.3 Contents of the Guidelines 6 6.3 Context 57 1.4 Philosophy, Goals and Objectives 7 6.4 Station/Platform Confi gurations 61 1.5 Governing Principles 8 6.5 Track and Platform Planning 65 6.6 Vehicular Circulation 66 6.7 Bicycle Parking 66 2. Process 11 6.8 Parking 67 2.1 Introduction 11 6.9 Amtrak Functional Requirements 68 2.2 Stakeholder Coordination 12 6.10 Information Systems and Way Finding 69 2.3 Concept Development 13 6.11 Safety and Security 70 2.4 Funding 14 6.12 Sustainable Design 71 2.5 Real Estate Transactional Documents 14 6.13 Universal Design 72 2.6 Basis of Design 15 2.7 Construction Documents 16 2.8 Project Delivery methods 17 7. Station 73 2.9 Commissioning 18 7.1 Introduction 73 2.10 Station Opening 18 7.2 Architectural Overview 74 7.3 Information Systems and Way Finding 75 7.4 Passenger Information Display System (PIDS) 77 3. Amtrak System 19 7.5 Safety and Security 78 3.1 Introduction 19 7.6 Sustainable Design 79 3.2 Service Types 20 7.7 Accessibility 80 3.3 Equipment 23 3.4 Operations 26 8. Platform 81 8.1 Introduction 81 4. Station Categories 27 8.2 Platform Types 83 4.1 Introduction 27 8.3 Platform-Track Relationships 84 4.2 Summary of Characteristics 28 8.4 Connection to the station 85 4.3 Location and Geography 29 8.5 Platform Length 87 4.4 Category 1 Large stations 30 8.6 Platform Width 88 4.5 Category 2 Medium Stations 31 8.7 Platform Height 89 4.6 Category 3 Caretaker Stations 32 8.8 Additional Dimensions and Clearances 90 4.7 Category 4 Shelter Stations 33 8.9 Safety and Security 91 4.8 Thruway Bus Service 34 8.10 Accessibility 92 8.11 Snow Melting Systems 93 5.
    [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]