DOCSLIB.ORG

Data Collection & Existing Conditions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Data Collection & Existing Conditions VERMONT FREIGHT & RAIL PLAN DATA COLLECTION & SUBMITTED BY CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS EXISTING CONDITIONS VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN, INC. MAY 2021 FITZGERALD & HALLIDAY INC. Data Collection & Existing Conditions TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 The Role of Rail in Statewide Transportation ............................................................................................ 3 2.1 Multimodal Transportation System Goals ...................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Rail Transportation’s Role within the State’s Transportation System ................................................................... 6 2.3 Institutional Governance Structure of State’s Rail Programs ............................................................................... 10 2.4 State’s Authority ................................................................................................................................................................... 11 2.5 Freight and Passenger Rail Services, Initiatives and Plans – Summary ............................................................. 12 2.5.1 Projects Since 2015 Vermont Rail Plan ............................................................. 12 2.5.2 Rail Projects in 2020-2023 State Transportation Improvement Program 17 2.5.3 Rail Projects in VTrans Capital Programs ......................................................... 18 2.5.4 Review of Rail Plans from Neighboring States .............................................. 18 3.0 The State’s Rail System – Existing Conditions .......................................................................................... 23 3.1 The State’s Existing Rail System: Description and Inventory ................................................................................ 23 3.1.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 23 3.1.2 Existing Passenger Services .................................................................................. 29 3.1.3 Vermont’s Tourist Trains ........................................................................................ 33 3.1.4 Abandoned, Out of Service, Rail-Banked, and Embargoed Lines ........... 33 3.1.5 Multimodal Connections ....................................................................................... 34 3.1.6 Intercity Passenger Service Objectives ............................................................. 38 3.1.7 Intercity Passenger Rail Performance Evaluation .......................................... 38 3.1.8 Public Financing of Rail .......................................................................................... 44 3.1.9 Safety and Security Programs and Projects .................................................... 51 3.1.10 Economic and Environmental Impacts ............................................................. 65 3.2 Trends and Forecasts .......................................................................................................................................................... 76 3.3 Rail Service Needs and Opportunities .......................................................................................................................... 77 3.3.1 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................. 77 3.3.2 Equipment................................................................................................................... 87 4.0 Highway Modal Profile .............................................................................................................................. 89 4.1 Inventory ................................................................................................................................................................................. 89 4.1.1 National Highway System ..................................................................................... 92 VERMONT FREIGHT & RAIL PLANS (05/11/2021) i Data Collection & Existing Conditions 4.1.2 National Highway Freight Network ................................................................... 94 4.1.3 Oversize/Overweight Trucks and Permits ....................................................... 96 4.1.4 Intelligent Transportation Systems .................................................................... 97 4.1.5 Truck Parking ........................................................................................................... 101 4.2 Volumes and Users ............................................................................................................................................................ 106 4.3 Infrastructure Condition .................................................................................................................................................. 115 4.3.1 Pavement Condition.............................................................................................. 115 4.3.2 Bridge Conditions .................................................................................................. 117 4.4 Safety ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 119 4.4.1 Highway Safety Overview .................................................................................... 119 4.4.2 Truck Involved Crashes ........................................................................................ 119 4.4.3 Autonomous Vehicles ........................................................................................... 121 5.0 Air Modal Profile ...................................................................................................................................... 126 5.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................ 126 5.2 Burlington International Airport and Rutland-Southern Vermont Regional Airport ................................. 128 5.3 Unmanned Aircraft Systems ........................................................................................................................................... 130 6.0 Water Modal Profile ................................................................................................................................ 132 VERMONT FREIGHT & RAIL PLANS (05/11/2021) ii Data Collection & Existing Conditions LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Vermont Freight and Rail Plan Elements ........................................................................................................................ 1 Figure 2.1 Goods Movement Service Spectrum ................................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 2.2 Vermont Population Within 10 Miles and 30 Miles of an Amtrak Station (2020) ............................................ 9 Figure 2.3 VTrans Policy, Planning and Intermodal Development Division Organizational Chart .............................. 11 Figure 3.1 Vermont Freight Rail Network ......................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 3.2 Vermont Passenger Rail Lines ......................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 3.3 Regional Freight Rail Network ......................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 3.4 Vermont Transload Facilities ............................................................................................................................................ 36 Figure 3.5 Amtrak Ridership (FFY2013-2019) ................................................................................................................................. 39 Figure 3.6 Amtrak Ridership by Station (FFY2013, 2017-2019) ................................................................................................ 40 Figure 3.7 Causes of Delay for Vermonter and Ethan Allen Express, Q3 FFY2019 .............................................................. 43 Figure 3.8 Vermont Transportation Budget Expenditure Plan .................................................................................................. 51 Figure 3.9 Vermont At Grade Crossing Protection Categories ................................................................................................. 55 Figure 3.10 Vermont Highway-Rail Crossings ............................................................................................................................ 56 Figure 3.11 Vermont At-Grade Crossing and Equipment Incidents (2015-2019) .......................................................... 57 Figure 3.12 Passenger Fatality Rates 2009-2018 – Fatalities per 100 Million Passenger Miles ................................ 67 Figure 3.13 Average Per-Passenger Fuel Economy by Travel Mode .................................................................................. 69 Figure 3.14 Vermont Regional Planning Commissions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • GAO-02-398 Intercity Passenger Rail: Amtrak Needs to Improve Its
    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Honorable Ron Wyden GAO U.S. Senate April 2002 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Amtrak Needs to Improve Its Decisionmaking Process for Its Route and Service Proposals GAO-02-398 Contents Letter 1 Results in Brief 2 Background 3 Status of the Growth Strategy 6 Amtrak Overestimated Expected Mail and Express Revenue 7 Amtrak Encountered Substantial Difficulties in Expanding Service Over Freight Railroad Tracks 9 Conclusions 13 Recommendation for Executive Action 13 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 13 Scope and Methodology 16 Appendix I Financial Performance of Amtrak’s Routes, Fiscal Year 2001 18 Appendix II Amtrak Route Actions, January 1995 Through December 2001 20 Appendix III Planned Route and Service Actions Included in the Network Growth Strategy 22 Appendix IV Amtrak’s Process for Evaluating Route and Service Proposals 23 Amtrak’s Consideration of Operating Revenue and Direct Costs 23 Consideration of Capital Costs and Other Financial Issues 24 Appendix V Market-Based Network Analysis Models Used to Estimate Ridership, Revenues, and Costs 26 Models Used to Estimate Ridership and Revenue 26 Models Used to Estimate Costs 27 Page i GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking Appendix VI Comments from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 28 GAO’s Evaluation 37 Tables Table 1: Status of Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions, as of December 31, 2001 7 Table 2: Operating Profit (Loss), Operating Ratio, and Profit (Loss) per Passenger of Each Amtrak Route, Fiscal Year 2001, Ranked by Profit (Loss) 18 Table 3: Planned Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions 22 Figure Figure 1: Amtrak’s Route System, as of December 2001 4 Page ii GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 April 12, 2002 The Honorable Ron Wyden United States Senate Dear Senator Wyden: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is the nation’s intercity passenger rail operator.
    [Show full text]
  • Vermont Public Transit Policy Plan
    Vermont Agency of Transportation Vermont Public Transit Policy Plan Final Report Submitted by: KFH Group, Inc. January 2012 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Study Advisory Committee /Vermont Public Transit Advisory Committee Joss Besse, DHCA Director of Community Planning and Revitalization, Secretary Designee representing the Agency of Commerce and Community Development Meredith Birkett, Acting General Manager, Chittenden County Transportation Authority Mollie Burke, Vermont House of Representatives Lee Cattaneo, Community of Vermont Elders Bill Clark, DVHA Provider and Member Relations Director, Secretary Designee representing Vermont Agency of Human Services Mary Grant, Rural Community Transportation, representing VPTA Jim Moulton, Addison County Transit Resources, representing VPTA Randy Schoonmaker, Deerfield Valley Transit Association, representing VPTA Matt Mann, Windham Regional Commission, representing VT Association of Planning and Development Agencies John Sharrow, Mountain Transit, representing private bus operators and taxis Bob Young, Premier Coach, representing Intercity Bus Vermont Agency of Transportation Executive Staff Brian Searles, Secretary of Transportation Sue Minter, Deputy Secretary of Transportation Chris Cole, Director of Policy, Planning and Intermodal Development Lenny LeBlanc, Director of Finance and Administration John Dunleavy, Assistant Attorney General Scott Rogers, Director of Operations Robert Ide, Commissioner of Motor Vehicles Richard Tetreault, Director of Program Development VTrans Working Group Scott Bascom,
    [Show full text]
  • Great Lakes Deliveries and Cruising
    Great Lakes Deliveries and Cruising Captains Roy Adler & Ken Hawes OUTLINE •Background •Cruise Planning •Great Lakes Pathways •Special Items •Route Selection •Q & A •Delivery Planning Atlantic Access Approximately 250 statute Miles to St. Lawrence Seaway Champlain Canal Lake Champlain Richelieu River Chambly Canal Great Lake Distances (in statute miles) Great Lake Length Width Lake Ontario 192 53 Lake Erie 240 38 - 57 Lake Huron 206 183* Lake Michigan 307 118 Lake Superior 350 160 *widest point HUDSON RIVERText ACCESS statute height Canal locks days miles restrictions Erie 363 57 15.5’ 5 Erie - 204 30 21’ 3 Oswego Champlain 64 12 15.5’-17’ 1 Chambly 12 9 29’ <1 Welland 27 8 N/A <1 to 2 Trent - 239 44 22’ 5 Severn ATLANTIC OCEAN ACCESS height Waterway statute miles locks restrictions Canso Strait 17 1 N/A St. Lawrence 2500 15 N/A Seaway* * Gulf of St.Lawrence to Lake Erie ANNAPOLIS TO CHICAGO Routes Approximate Statute Miles Erie Canal 1700 Erie -Oswego - Welland Canals 1700 Erie-Oswego-Trent-Severn 1600 Canals Champlain - Chambly - St. 2200 Lawrence -Welland Canals Champlain - Chambly - St. 2100 Lawrence -Trent-Severn Canso Strait - Welland 3900 Canso Strait - Trent-Severn 3800 ROUTE SELECTION Yacht Height Owners Requirements Weather Forecast Fuel Range Lock Crew Requirements Yacht Length and Weight CHICAGO DELIVERY PLANNING 52’ Carver Voyager’ Fuel Tank -- 800 gallons Cruise Burn Rate -- 50 gal./hour Cruise speed -- 25 knots Distance -- 1700 miles Boat Height -- 20’ *Plan Days -- 9 * assumes perfect weather ERIE CANAL ENT ERIE CANAL TOLL BUILDING ERIE CANAL TYPICAL LOCK ERIE CANAL Fender Arrangement ERIE CANAL REMOTE SECTION ERIE CANAL SCHENECTADY YACHT CLUB ERIE CANAL OLD BARGE ERIE CANAL ILION MARINA ERIE CANAL TYPICAL LINE WITH WEIGHTS LAKE ONEIDA BRIDGE ON WESTERN SIDE OSWEGO CANAL MOVING INTO OSWEGO, NY OSWEGO MARINA LAKE ONTARIO LAKE ONTARIO LEAVING OSWEGO, NY ST.
    [Show full text]
  • Concord Coach (NH) O Dartmouth Coach (NH) O Peter Pan Bus Lines (MA)
    KFH GROUP, INC. 2012 Vermont Public Transit Policy Plan INTERCITY BUS NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND POLICY OPTIONS White Paper January, 2012 Prepared for the: State of Vermont Agency of Transportation 4920 Elm Street, Suite 350 —Bethesda, MD 20814 —(301) 951-8660—FAX (301) 951-0026 Table of Contents Page Chapter 1: Background and Policy Context......................................................................... 1-1 Policy Context...................................................................................................................... 1-1 Chapter 2: Inventory of Existing Intercity Passenger Services.......................................... 2-1 Intercity Bus......................................................................................................................... 2-1 Impacts of the Loss of Rural Intercity Bus Service......................................................... 2-8 Intercity Passenger Rail.................................................................................................... 2-11 Regional Transit Connections ......................................................................................... 2-11 Conclusions........................................................................................................................ 2-13 Chapter 3: Analysis of Intercity Bus Service Needs............................................................ 3-1 Demographic Analysis of Intercity Bus Needs............................................................... 3-1 Public Input on Transit Needs .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Quarterly Report on the Performance and Service Quality of Intercity Passenger Train Operations
    Pursuant to Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-432, Division B): Quarterly Report on the Performance and Service Quality of Intercity Passenger Train Operations Covering the Quarter Ended June, 2019 (Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2019) Federal Railroad Administration United States Department of Transportation Published August 2019 Table of Contents (Notes follow on the next page.) Financial Table 1 (A/B): Short-Term Avoidable Operating Costs (Note 1) Table 2 (A/B): Fully Allocated Operating Cost covered by Passenger-Related Revenue Table 3 (A/B): Long-Term Avoidable Operating Loss (Note 1) Table 4 (A/B): Adjusted Loss per Passenger- Mile Table 5: Passenger-Miles per Train-Mile On-Time Performance (Table 6) Test No. 1 Change in Effective Speed Test No. 2 Endpoint OTP Test No. 3 All-Stations OTP Train Delays Train Delays - Off NEC Table 7: Off-NEC Host Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles Table 8: Off-NEC Amtrak Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles Train Delays - On NEC Table 9: On-NEC Total Host and Amtrak Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles Other Service Quality Table 10: Customer Satisfaction Indicator (eCSI) Scores Table 11: Service Interruptions per 10,000 Train-Miles due to Equipment-related Problems Table 12: Complaints Received Table 13: Food-related Complaints Table 14: Personnel-related Complaints Table 15: Equipment-related Complaints Table 16: Station-related Complaints Public Benefits (Table 17) Connectivity Measure Availability of Other Modes Reference Materials Table 18: Route Descriptions Terminology & Definitions Table 19: Delay Code Definitions Table 20: Host Railroad Code Definitions Appendixes A.
    [Show full text]
  • 20210419 Amtrak Metrics Reporting
    NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION 30th Street Station Philadelphia, PA 19104 April 12, 2021 Mr. Michael Lestingi Director, Office of Policy and Planning Federal Railroad Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Lestingi: In accordance with the Metrics and Minimum Standards for Intercity Passenger Rail Service final rule published on November 16, 2020 (the “Final Rule”), this letter serves as Amtrak’s report to the Federal Railroad Administration that, as of April 10, 2021, Amtrak has provided the 29 host railroads over which Amtrak currently operates (listed in Appendix A) with ridership data for the prior month consistent with the Final Rule. The following data was provided to each host railroad: . the total number of passengers, by train and by day; . the station-specific number of detraining passengers, reported by host railroad whose railroad right-of-way serves the station, by train, and by day; and . the station-specific number of on-time passengers reported by host railroad whose railroad right- of-way serves the station, by train, and by day. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jim Blair Sr. Director, Host Railroads Amtrak cc: Dennis Newman Amtrak Jason Maga Amtrak Christopher Zappi Amtrak Yoel Weiss Amtrak Kristin Ferriter Federal Railroad Administration Mr. Michael Lestingi April 12, 2021 Page 2 Appendix A Host Railroads Provided with Amtrak Ridership Data Host Railroad1 Belt Railway Company of Chicago BNSF Railway Buckingham Branch Railroad
    [Show full text]
  • Atlantic Coast Service
    ATLANTIC COAST SERVICE JANUARY 14, 2013 NEW YORK, VIRGINIA, the CAROLINAS, GEORGIA and FLORIDA Effective SM Enjoy the journey. featuring the SILVER METEOR ® CAROLINIAN SM SILVER STAR ® PALMETTO ® AUTO TRAIN ® PIEDMONT® 1-800-USA-RAIL Call serving NEW YORK–PHILADELPHIA WASHINGTON–RICHMOND–RALEIGH–CHARLOTTE CHARLESTON–SAVANNAH–JACKSONVILLE ORLANDO–KISSIMMEE–WINTER HAVEN TAMPA–ST. PETERSBURG–FT. MYERS WEST PALM BEACH–FT. LAUDERDALE–MIAMI and intermediate stations AMTRAK.COM Visit NRPC Form T4–200M–1/14/13 Stock #02-3536 Schedules subject to change without notice. Amtrak is a registered service mark of the National Railroad Passenger Corp. National Railroad Passenger Corporation Washington Union Station, 60 Massachusetts Ave. N.E., Washington, DC 20002. ATLANTIC COAST SERVICE Silver Silver Piedmont Piedmont Palmetto Carolinian Silver Star Train Name Silver Star Carolinian Palmetto Piedmont Piedmont Meteor Meteor 73 75 89 79 91 97 Train Number 98 92 80 90 74 76 Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Normal Days of Operation Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily R y R y R B R B R s R s R s R s R B R B R y R y l l y l å y l å r l r l On Board Service r l r l y l å y l å l l Read Down Mile Symbol Read Up R R R95 R93/83/ R82/154/ R R R 67 67 Mo-Fr 161 Connecting Train Number 174 66 66 66 9 30P 9 30P 6 10A 9 35A 0 Dp Boston, MA–South Sta. ∑w- Ar 6 25P 8 00A 8 00A 8 00A R9 36P R9 36P R6 15A R9 41A 1 Boston, MA–Back Bay Sta.
    [Show full text]
  • Downtown and Waterfront Revitalization Plan I V
    Downtown & Waterfront Revitalization Plan for the Village of Rouses Point Prepared for: Village of Rouses Point Clinton County, New York Submittal Date: June 22, 2006 Prepared by: This document was prepared for the Village of Rouses Point with funds provided by the New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources under Title 11 of the Environmental Protection Fund Act. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................1 II. DOWNTOWN AND WATERFRONT VISION.............................................................5 A. THE FUTURE OF DOWNTOWN ROUSES POINT........................................................ 5 B. THE PUBLIC VISION PROCESS..................................................................................... 6 C. VISION FOR DOWNTOWN ROUSES POINT................................................................ 8 D. COMMON THEMES/GUIDING PRINCIPLES............................................................... 8 III. DOWNTOWN AND WATERFRONT PROFILE .........................................................9 A. VILLAGE SETTING.......................................................................................................... 9 B. STUDY AREA PHYSICAL ASSESSMENT .................................................................. 10 C. EXISTING MARKET CONDITIONS............................................................................. 13 1. Retail Trade Area.........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • I-89 Commuter Transit Service Study FINAL REPORT April 2017
    I-89 Commuter Transit Service Feasibility Study FINAL REPORT Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission April 2017 I-89 Commuter Transit Service Feasibility Study AECOM Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 1 3. Previous Studies .......................................................................................................................................... 1 4. Existing Transit Services .............................................................................................................................. 3 4.1 Local Bus Transit ............................................................................................................................... 3 4.2 Commuter Bus Transit ....................................................................................................................... 5 4.3 Intercity Transit .................................................................................................................................. 6 4.4 Rideshare Services ........................................................................................................................... 6 4.5 Park-and-Ride Lots ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • RCED-98-151 Intercity Passenger Rail B-279203
    United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to Congressional Committees May 1998 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Financial Performance of Amtrak’s Routes GAO/RCED-98-151 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-279203 May 14, 1998 The Honorable Richard C. Shelby Chairman The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Transportation Committee on Appropriations United States Senate The Honorable Frank R. Wolf Chairman The Honorable Martin Olav Sabo Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives Since it began operations in 1971, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) has never been profitable and has received about $21 billion in federal subsidies for operating and capital expenses. In December 1994, at the direction of the administration, Amtrak established the goal of eliminating its need for federal operating subsidies by 2002. However, despite efforts to control expenses and improve efficiency, Amtrak has only reduced its annual net loss from $834 million in fiscal year 1994 to $762 million in fiscal year 1997, and it projects that its net loss will grow to $845 million this fiscal year.1 Amtrak remains heavily dependent on substantial federal operating and capital subsidies. Given Amtrak’s continued dependence on federal operating subsidies, the Conference Report to the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998 directed us to examine the financial (1) performance of Amtrak’s current routes, (2) implications for Amtrak of multiyear capital requirements and declining federal operating subsidies, and (3) effect on Amtrak of reforms contained in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rail Report
    NCDOT Rail Division The Rail Report @NC_By_Train facebook.com/NCByTrain ncbytrain.org 919-707-4700 Feb. 2019 The Piedmont and Northern Railway Proves to be a NCDOT Rail Corridor Preservation Program Success Story In 1991, the abandoned Piedmont and Northern Railway (P&N) corridor became the third line purchased by the State under NCDOT’s Rail Corridor Preservation Program. This rail line, located in Gaston County, held great promise for future economic growth in the region due to its strategic connections to both Norfolk Southern and CSX Transportation, and its proximity to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg region just 20 miles to the east. The 13-mile Piedmont and Northern rail line was returned to service in 2010, serving the communities of Mount Holly, Belmont, Ranlo, Lowell and Gastonia. In its early years P&N Transload Facility at Saxony Drive the P&N had two customers and moved about 12 carloads a month. In 2015, the contract to operate the railroad onboard, carloads on the P&N are anticipated to reach around was awarded to Progressive Rail Incorporated who has 1,600 carloads a year. aggressively marketed the railroad and worked with the This is the type of story that we like to share at the Rail Division, NCDOT Rail Division to transform a former Weyerhauser one where the State’s commitment to preserving corridors and warehouse into a supply chain hub. investing in revitalizing rail lines makes a difference by bringing Progressive Rail’s marketing efforts have paid off. The current more jobs to the community and growing the local economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Smart Location Database Technical Documentation and User Guide
    SMART LOCATION DATABASE TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION AND USER GUIDE Version 3.0 Updated: June 2021 Authors: Jim Chapman, MSCE, Managing Principal, Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. (UD4H) Eric H. Fox, MScP, Senior Planner, UD4H William Bachman, Ph.D., Senior Analyst, UD4H Lawrence D. Frank, Ph.D., President, UD4H John Thomas, Ph.D., U.S. EPA Office of Community Revitalization Alexis Rourk Reyes, MSCRP, U.S. EPA Office of Community Revitalization About This Report The Smart Location Database is a publicly available data product and service provided by the U.S. EPA Smart Growth Program. This version 3.0 documentation builds on, and updates where needed, the version 2.0 document.1 Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. updated this guide for the project called Updating the EPA GSA Smart Location Database. Acknowledgements Urban Design 4 Health was contracted by the U.S. EPA with support from the General Services Administration’s Center for Urban Development to update the Smart Location Database and this User Guide. As the Project Manager for this study, Jim Chapman supervised the data development and authored this updated user guide. Mr. Eric Fox and Dr. William Bachman led all data acquisition, geoprocessing, and spatial analyses undertaken in the development of version 3.0 of the Smart Location Database and co- authored the user guide through substantive contributions to the methods and information provided. Dr. Larry Frank provided data development input and reviewed the report providing critical input and feedback. The authors would like to acknowledge the guidance, review, and support provided by: • Ruth Kroeger, U.S. General Services Administration • Frank Giblin, U.S.
    [Show full text]