DOCSLIB.ORG

Hydrogeochemical Cause of Y G Pavement Subsidence in The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hydrogeochemical Cause of Y G Pavement Subsidence in The Hyygdrogeochemical Cause of Pavement Subsidence in the Cumberland Gap Tunnel , Kentucky/Tennessee Jim Dinger, Jim Currens, Randy Paylor, and Steve Fis her Water Resource Section Kentucky Geological Survey University of Kentucky and Brad Rister Kentucky Transportation Center University of Kentucky October 18, 1996 SITE LOCATION Visual slab settlement at CP 3 (water pooling after tunnel washing, 2001) Survey of tunnel with ground penetrating radar (GPR) EiEquipmen t 900 MHz. antenna Approx. depth 3 ft. Data collection location 3 passes per lane CWP, RWP LWP Data collection density 1 scan every inch Data collection speed 5 m.p.h. (3 hrs.) Void area beneath concrete pavement southbound tunnel GPR signal has negative amplitude (noted as black space) because it doesn’t have anything to bounce off of (namely air). GPR Data • Since 2002, 6 major void area detected in both the Northbound and Southbound bores ( 10 to 116 ft in length ) • Grow th o f surf ace area i s 100 ft 2/th/ month Shale, Sandstone Limestone, Sandstone, Mudstone, Shale Chert, and Siltstone Siltstone Black Shale, Dolomite PENNSYLVANIAN MISSISSIPPIAN DEVONIAN/ SILURIAN HENSLEY FM. DARK RIDGE FM. PINNACLE SS. NEWMAN LS. CHATTANOOGA SH . FT. PAYNE and HANCOCK DOL and MIDDLESBORO FM. CHADWELL FM. PENNINGTON FM. GRAINGER FM. ROCKWOOD FM. Shale, Sandstone Limestone, Sandstone, Mudstone, Shale Chert, and Siltstone Siltstone Black Shale, Dolomite 120.00 125.00 130.00 135.00 140.00 145.00 150.00 PENNSYLVANIAN MISSISSIPPIAN DEVONIAN/ SILURIAN = Void = Cave Cumberland Gap Tunnel, Groundwater Flow Conceptual Model Northbound Southbound Impermeable Seal Impermeable Seal 84 ft Schematic Cross-section is at Station 122+30 with no annular space between tunnel components and bedrock. Flow net is tilted 45°± away from viewer. Scale is approximately 20 ft. per 1 in. Porosity is inter-granular and fracture. KGS Activities at CGT - Groundwater tracingg( (dy e, p article, and spore) - Core borings - Packer tests in core borings - Video logg ing in core bor ings - Pavement/aggregate excavation - Monitoring well installation and water chemistryy( (50 wells) - GW flow: Quality and Quantity monitoring Groundwater Tracing Objectives (May, 2006) 1. Determine if there is a net loss of water from the GW collection system: DYE TRACING 2. Determine flow velocity in the aggregate roadbase: DYE TRACING GLASS BEADS AND LYCOPODIUM SPORES 3. Assess vertical and horizontal EROSIVE flow conditions: GLASS BEADS (0.5 mm diameter; red and green) Cumberland Gap Tunnel Southbound Lane Dye Receptor and Plankton Net Locations Junction Box at CP-1 Junction Box Junction Box Junction Box Junction Box ISCO Auto-sampler at CP-2.5 at CP-3 at CP-4 at CP-5 CP-1.5 CP-2 CP#3.5 CP#4.5 15” Groundwater Collector Auto Sampler, Bug, and Net attht the mmmm Guillotine Gate 123+00 128+75 Concrete Da Da Concrete Concrete 1,056 ft. 250mL 100 gm RWT, 500 fluoresce in 118 ft 452 ft 575 ft gm spores, 688 gm beads 688gm beads 12” Roadway Drain 114.0 ft 178.8 ft. 149.2 ft. 150.2 ft. 134.8 ft. 135.5 ft. 149.5 ft. 150.0 ft. = detector = plankton net Tracer Injection Schematic Drive point Mid-line Junction Box groundwater drain Groundwater Collector drain Plankton Net at GG The other locations were CP-3, CP-2, CP-1 and two at CP-2 1/2 Quantitative Trace Results as Routed Through the Groundwater Collection System Cumberland Gap Tunnel Discharge Velocity Estimate The Fluorescein and Rhodamine WT flow routes have been routed through the groundwater collection syyqstem based on the qualitative results and the assum ppption that the first peak on the breakthrough curve represents the first interception by the plume by the mid-line under drain. Revision of Nov. 21, 2006 CP-1 CP-1.5 CP-2 CP-2.5 CP-3CP-3.5 CP-4 CP-4.5 CP-5 1”G15” Groun dwater CllCollector 1024ft. 578 ft ? ? amam DDDD Concrete Concrete Concrete 123+00 128+7 118 ft 452 ft 575 ft 5 1056 ft 12” Roadway Drain 114.0 ft 178.8 149.2 ft. 150.2 134.8 ft. 135.5 ft. 149.5 ft. 150.0 ft. ft. ft. Not to scale N GW dra inage junc tion box Dye Receptor SbidSubsidence Areas 6” Perforated Underdrain 6” cross dra in Fluorescent dye Concentrations Sampled at Guill oti ne Ga te Beads were recovered, but not ours 1 mm The plankton nets were functioning effectively. X-ray Diffraction of sample CP-3 003 quartz calcite M. mica dolomite Results of the Groundwater Traces ¾ No tracer beads or lycopodium were recovered. ¾ From the qqyg,yguantitative dye tracing, velocity averages 0.02 ft./sec (0.49 cm/sec) ¾ This average is too slow to move 2.6 gm/cm3, 0.5 mm, glass spheres. ¾ Groundwater is NOT lost via “unknown” pathways. Coring Activities, June , 2006 • 5 core boringgys done by the FHWA Technical Group out of Sevierville, TN Depth range from 24.7 to 49.7 ft • Video logging by KGS • Packer tests by KGS • Detailed core descriptions by KGS Scheme for CORE HOLE placement LEGEND CORE HOLE NthBNorth Boun d Existing pavement hole CBH#3 138+90 CBH#2 138+60 South Bound 139+01 DIP ~ 42 degrees * Numbered holes are planned sampling sites. One existing pavement, two existing core holes, and three new pavement holes. 138+50 139+80 122.60 123.13 H2O Fl ow 15–50 gpm VOID VOID >100gpm 122.00 122.32 122.50 122.75 123.00 123.16 123.35 Highway 122.78 Spr. Box Pavement Constr ucts 122.60 123.13 H2O Fl ow 15–50 gpm >100gpm VOID VOID CB-1 CB-4 122.00 122.32 122.50 122.55 122.75 122.85 123.00 123.16 123.35 Highway 122.78 Spr. Box Pavement Constructs 6.6 Rock 6.3 Rock Fracture w/ Qtzite VID disaggregate mat’l 10.3 Southbound 13.9 VOID sm. particles rising or swept horiz. } VID: camera horiz. 10 ft 17.9 VOID 18 Ss VID: Abundant fractures 20.9 Dip ~ 42º 10 ft 23.6 VOID VID: Intense fractures; sm. particles moving up 63% core 25.2 recovery 29 VOID 31.6 VOID 33.5 VOID 37.0 37.0 Rubble 44.6 44.4 122.60 123.13 H2O Flow 15–50 gpm >100gpm VOID VOID CB-1 CB-4 122.00 122.32 122.50 122.55 122.75 122.85 123.00 123.16 123.35 Highway 122.78 Spr. Box Pavement Constructs 6.6 Rock 6.3 Rock Fracture w/ Qtzite VID disaggregate mat’l 10.3 Southbound 13.9 VOID sm. particles rising or swept horiz. } VID: camera horiz. 10 ft 17.9 VOID 18 Ss VID: Abundant fractures 20.9 Dip ~ 42º 10 ft 23.6 VOID VID: Intense fractures; sm. particles moving up 63% core 25.2 recovery 29 VOID 31.6 VOID 33.5 VOID 37.0 37.0 Rubble 44.6 44.4 Upwelling (station 138+90).wmv STRADDLE – PACKER SYSTEM 122+80 123+15 Roadbe d Packer Position No. 4 Packer Position No. 3 Packer Position No. 2 Groundwater movement Packer Position No. 1 ( 7-foot interval ) Head Values for CGT Bore Holes: CB3 and CB4 Depth below Pavement to Top of Water, feet 0246 0 5 Core Boring 4 d by d by Packe r l eak ee Core Boring 3 10 3.1 3.04 5.83 val Isolat feet rr 15 2.61 20 er of inte e Packer, tt hh t 2.22 2952.95 25 30 pth to cen 2.19 De 35 CORE OBSERVATIONS • Groundwater INFLOW is involved at ALL LOCATIONS where voids found (BEC tunnel bore mapping or Video (CB -3, 139.15, damp to < 1 gpm reported, BUT upward particle movement)) • Inflow ranges from 5 to > 100 gpm (BEC tunnel bore mapping) • Lower range of flows are surrounded by “dry” areas (C(BEC tunnel bore mapping ) (cont’d) Observations cont’d • Stratigraphic Zones of FLOW can be wide (CB-1 = 16 ft), BUT more narrow (CB-5 = 0.7 ft) • Groundwater-head distribution indicates upward flow from bedrock into roadbase aggregate (packer testing). • Groundwater velocities in void zones sufficient to move sand ppparticles upward and horizontal across borehole (CB-3 and CB-4 video). June –July, 2007 Boil Coarse Size Reduction Standard specification # 57 Loss of Fine Size MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION August-September, 2007 To characterize the groundwater quality in each of the 6 major void zones 27 wells in SB bore; 23 wells in NB bore In 2007, 50 Monitoring Wells installed to the Invert (SB = 27, NB = 23) LEGEND •Existing pavement hole •Existing cored hole; labeled NthBNorth Boun d •Proposed pavement hole •Station Number 185+60* CBH#3 138+90 CBH#2 138+45 139+33 139+90 138+60 South Bound 139+01 GW FLOW * Numbered holes are planned sampling sites. 138+50 One existing pavement, two existing core holes, 139+80 and three new pavement holes. Void depth beneath 10 inch concrete pavement CP 5 Southbound Sta. # Lane Void depth (inches) 128+67 L cwp 40 Groundwater geochemistry at MWs NB01, NB02 and NB03 October and November 2007 (low flow) April 2008 (high flow) Water-Quality Sampling • 144 samples taken on monitoring wells • Most pH > 7.0 BUT < 8.4 • SB: 25/25 wells undersaturated wrt calcite 65/75 samples undersaturated wrt calcite • NB: 22/23 wells undersaturated wrt calcite 53/69 samples undersaturated wrt calcite TQtiTwo Questions 1. What is the MASS FLUX coming out of each bore in the groundwater system? 2. What is the VOLUME LOSS of dissolved aggregate coming out of each bore? Groundwater discharge: 0.4 to 1.3 mgd 1.5 1 1.4 0.9 1.3 1.2 0.8 hes/hour 111.1 Discharge at cc North Bound CP-1 Weir 0.7 1 0.9 0.6 /sec.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cumberland Gap National Historical Park Foundation Document Overview
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Foundation Document Overview Cumberland Gap National Historical Park Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia Contact Information For more information about the Cumberland Gap National Historical Park Foundation Document, contact: [email protected] or (606)248-2817 or write to: Superintendent, Cumberland Gap National Historical Park, 91 Bartlett Park Road, Middlesboro, KY 40965 Purpose Significance Significance statements express why Cumberland Gap National Historical Park resources and values are important enough to merit national park unit designation. Statements of significance describe why an area is important within a global, national, regional, and systemwide context. These statements are linked to the purpose of the park unit, and are supported by data, research, and consensus. Significance statements describe the distinctive nature of the park and inform management decisions, focusing efforts on preserving and protecting the most important resources and values of the park unit. • Crossing the Great Appalachian Barrier. The Cumberland Gap represents a turning point in American history as the Gap witnessed nearly 300,000 settlers pushing through the Appalachian barrier during the late 18th to early 19th century. Today some 40 million Americans can trace their history to crossing through the Gap. • Geology. Cumberland Gap National Historical Park protects an extensive array of geologic features formed over the course of hundreds of millions of years in the wake of numerous Appalachian orogenies (mountain-forming periods). The park’s notable concentration of caves and The purpose of Cumberland Gap karst formations, cliffs, pinnacles, and other geologic national HistoriCal park is to features provide a valuable window into the dynamic nature preserve, protect, and interpret the of the landscape and the impact of geology on human geologic “doorway to the west”—the migration and culture.
    [Show full text]
  • Cumberland Gap Master Plan and Trailhead Development Plan
    Cumberland Gap Master Plan and Trailhead Development Plan Community Development Partners Cumberland Gap Master Plan and Trailhead Development Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Community Vision ............................................................................. 33 Executive Summary ............................................................................. 1 Steering Committee ........................................................................ 33 The Historic Town of Cumberland Gap .......................................... 2 Cumberland Gap Master Plan Survey ......................................... 33 Community Need................................................................................. 3 Public Meetings .............................................................................. 35 What is the Cumberland Gap Master Plan? ..................................... 5 Vision Statement ............................................................................ 36 How Will the Plan Be Used? .......................................................... 6 Mentor Communities ......................................................................... 37 Plan Consistency .............................................................................. 7 Banner Elk ....................................................................................... 37 Project Area ...................................................................................... 8 Damascus .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appalachian Cultural Resources Workshop Papers
    Appalachian Cultural Resources Workshop Papers NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Appalachian Cultural Resources Workshop Papers APPALACHIAN Cultural Resources Workshop Papers Papers presented at the workshop held at Owens Hall, University of North Carolina- Asheville on April 1 and 2, 1991 Edited by Ruthanne Livaditis Mitchel 1993 National Park Service, Southeast Regional Office Office of Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Planning Division TABLE OF CONTENTS appalachian/index.htm Last Updated: 30-Sep-2008 http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sero/appalachian/index.htm[7/12/2012 8:13:52 AM] Appalachian Cultural Resources Workshop Papers (Table of Contents) NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Appalachian Cultural Resources Workshop Papers TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover Cover photo from the Blue Ridge Parkway Archives. A 1941 view of Mabry Mill during restoration work. An Overview Of The Workshop Proceedings Ruthanne Livaditis Mitchell Historical Significance Of The Blue Ridge Parkway Ian Firth The Peaks of Otter And The Johnson Farm On The Blue Ridge Parkway Jean Haskell Speer Identification And Preservation Of Nineteenth And Twentieth Century Homesites In The Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests Rodney J. Snedeker and Michael A. Harmon Rural Historic Landscapes And Interpretive Planning On Our Southern National Forests Delce Dyer and Quentin Bass Fish Weirs As Part Of The Cultural Landscape Anne Frazer Rogers Southern Appalachia And The New South Ideal: Asheville As A Case Study In Development Kent Cave Cumberland Homesteads, A Resettlement Community Of
    [Show full text]
  • Cumberland Gap Master Plan and Trailhead Plan
    Cumberland Gap Master Plan and Trailhead Development Plan Community Development Partners Cumberland Gap Master Plan and Trailhead Development Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Steering Committee ........................................................................ 33 Executive Summary ............................................................................. 1 Cumberland Gap Master Plan Survey ......................................... 33 The Historic Town of Cumberland Gap .......................................... 2 Public Meetings .............................................................................. 35 Community Need................................................................................. 3 Vision Statement ............................................................................ 36 What is the Cumberland Gap Master Plan? ..................................... 5 Mentor Communities ......................................................................... 37 How Will the Plan Be Used? .......................................................... 6 Banner Elk ....................................................................................... 37 Plan Consistency .............................................................................. 7 Damascus ........................................................................................ 37 Project Area ...................................................................................... 8 Jonesborough .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cumberland Byway Cumberland Gap
    Cumberland Byway Cumberland Gap Jellico Celina Byrdstown Corridor ManagementOneida Plan Winfield for: Standing Stone Alliance for the Cumberlands State Park Jamestown Huntsville LaFollette Allardt Livingston Jacksboro Rugby Robbins Caryville Charrette: August 19-22, 2013 December 18, 2013 Alliance for the Cumberlands, c/o Extended Services, TTU, Box 5073, Cookeville, TN 38505 Introduction Acknowledgements The Cumberland Historic Byway Corridor Management Plan has been prepared for the Alliance for the Cumberlands by Farmer | Morgan, L.L.C. The funding was provided by the Tennessee Department of Transportation through Kwill Consultants. The Cumberland Historic Byway Corridor Management Plan is intended to serve as a guide for future development and redevelopment of the Cumberland Historic Byway in Claiborne, Campbell, Scott, Morgan, Fentress, Pickett, Overton, and Clay counties in the State of Tennessee. The project components that are proposed in this Benjamin Farmer document are results of a public visioning session and design Principal- Managing Partner [email protected] charrette conducted by Farmer | Morgan with the help of 334-444-2893 PM Environmental, Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research, Mollie Henry Marketing, Ben Johnson Illustrations, and students from the Auburn University Landscape Architecture John Hargraves, P.G. program. PM Environmental, Inc. Regional Manager [email protected] Alliance for the Cumberlands 423.468.1105 Dawn Kupferer Ted Karpynec Project Coordinator TVAR- Sr. Planner [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Cumberland Gap National Historic Park
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Cumberland Gap National Historical Park Natural Resource Report NPS/CUGA/NRR—2013/620 ON THE COVER Pinnacle Overlook Photograph by D. McPherson Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Cumberland Gap National Historical Park Natural Resource Report NPS/CUGA/NRR—2013/620 Gary Sundin, Luke Worsham, Nathan P. Nibbelink, Michael T. Mengak, Gary Grossman Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources University of Georgia 180 E. Green St. Athens, GA 30602 January 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received formal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise put them on par technically and scientifically with the authors of the information.
    [Show full text]
  • Compendium of Regulations
    CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS TITLE 36, CHAPTER 1 2021 Compendium of Designations, Closures, Request Requirements, and Other Restrictions Imposed Under the Discretionary Authority of the Superintendent In accordance with regulations and the delegated authority provided in Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 1, Parts 1 through 7, authorized by Title 16, United States Code, Section 3, the following regulatory provisions are established for the proper management, protection, government and public use of the portions of Cumberland Gap National Historical Park under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. Unless otherwise stated, these regulatory provisions apply in addition to the requirements contained in 36 CFR, Chapter 1, and include the justifications and reasoning behind the use of the Superintendent's discretionary authority in setting forth the various closures, designations, etc., as listed in the Compendium required in Section 1.7(b). __________________________________________________________________ Authorized by Charles D. Sellars, Superintendent Date 1 SECTION 1.5 CLOSURES AND PUBLIC USE LIMITS (a)(1) -- VISITOR CENTER Hours: The visitor center is open 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. daily. The visitor center is closed on Christmas Day. Parking Lot: The visitor center parking lot is open to motor vehicles from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. (a)(1) -- BARTLETT PARK Bartlett Park Road and Picnic Area: Bartlett Park Road and Picnic Area is open from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm daily. (a)(1) -- WILDERNESS ROAD CAMPGROUND The Wilderness Road Campground is open on a year-round basis. Only the C loop and D loop will be accessible from the Tuesday following Thanksgiving to March 14th.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of Kentucky's Highway Incident Management Strategic Plan
    Research Report KTC-05-08/SPR 288-05-01F KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CENTER College of Engineering DEVELOPMENT OF KENTUCKY’S HIGHWAY INCIDENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIC PLAN Our Mission We provide services to the transportation community through research, technology transfer and education. We create and participate in partnerships to promote safe and effective transportation systems. We Value... Teamwork -- Listening and Communicating, Along with Courtesy and Respect for Others Honesty and Ethical Behavior Delivering the Highest Quality Products and Services Continuous Improvement in All That We Do For more information or a complete publication list, contact us KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CENTER 176 Raymond Building University of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky 40506-0281 (859) 257-4513 (859) 257-1815 (FAX) 1-800-432-0719 www.ktc.uky.edu [email protected] The University of Kentucky is an Equal Opportunity Organization Research Report KTC-05-08/SPR288-05-01F DEVELOPMENT OF KENTUCKY’S HIGHWAY INCIDENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIC PLAN by Monica L. Barrett Joseph D. Crabtree Jerry G. Pigman Jennifer R. Walton Kentucky Transportation Center University of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky in cooperation with Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Commonwealth of Kentucky The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the University of Kentucky or the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The inclusion of manufacturer names and trade names is for identification purposes and is not to be considered an endorsement. May 2005 1. Report Number 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Kentucky Corridor
    I-66 Southern Kentucky Corridor between the Louie B. Nunn (Cumberland) and Daniel Boone Parkways Pulaski and Laurel Counties Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Six Year Highway Plan Item # 11-66.00 Prepared for: Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Division of Planning Frankfort, Kentucky Prepared by: WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS — PLANNERS Lexington, Kentucky June 2000 SOUTHERN KENTUCKY CORRIDOR (I-66) Somerset to London Planning Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1. Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1-1 A. Project Background ................................................................................................. 1-1 B. Previous Studies...................................................................................................... 1-1 C. Purpose ................................................................................................................... 1-1 D. Project Study Area................................................................................................... 1-5 E. Report Contents....................................................................................................... 1-5 2. Study Area Conditions........................................................................................................ 2-1 A. Socioeconomics and Land Use ............................................................................... 2-1 B. Existing Study Area Characteristics........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Louisville and Nashville Railroad
    Louisville and Nashville Railroad LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD. Spec. act of KY, March 5, 1850 Spec. act of TN, December 4, 1851 Spec. act of VA, March 30, 1887 Copies of charter also filed in: AL, FL, OH, MS, NC and TN under general laws of those states Trackage, June 30, 1917: 4005.307 mi. First main track 339.288 mi. Second main track 1982.017 mi. Yard track and sidings Equipment Steam locomotives Passenger 218 Freight 643 Switching 224 Freight cars 50,927 Passenger cars 647 Work equipment 2,253 Miscellaneous 39 Equipment, leased Steam locomotives Passenger 1 to The Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry Freight 3 to The Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry Switching 4 to The Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry Freight cars 127 to The Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry Freight cars 276 from the Mather Stock Car Company Passenger cars 11 to The Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry Passenger cars 10 from the Ponchartrain Railroad Work equipment 93 to The Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry Louisville and Nashville Railroad controls and operates the following companies: Company: Percent of control: South East and St. Louis 100.00 Nashville and Decatur 55.12 Owensboro and Nashville 100.00 Henderson Belt Railroad 100.00 Morganfield & Atlanta 100.00 Maysville and Lexington, North Division 100.00 Maysville and Lexington, South Division 98.78 Swan Creek Railway 100.00 Long Branch Coal Railroad 100.00 Bay Minette and Fort Morgan 100.00 Ponchartrain Railroad 100.00 Louisville and Nashville jointly controls the following independently operated companies: Company: Percent of control: Atlanta and West Point Railroad 25.21 with Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Augusta and Summerville Railroad 12.50 with Southern Ry, Central of Georgia Ry, Charleston & Western Carolina Ry, and Atlantic Coast Line RR Augusta Belt Railway 50.00 with Atlantic Coast Line RR and Southern Ry Augusta Union Station Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Kentucky - the Land of Tomorrow (From the United States Series) - Yahoo Voices
    Kentucky - the Land of Tomorrow (From the United States Series) - Yahoo Voices Statehood: One with the 4 Commonwealths with the United States, Massachusetts, Virginia, as well as Pennsylvania getting the other three, your Upland Southeastern, and also Appalachian horse country, State of Kentucky had become the 15th State in June 1, 1792. Bluegrass: Bordered through West Virginia, Tennessee, Virginia, Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, the actual Ohio River, and in addition the Mississippi River, together with offical borders nonetheless set up as these were formed by both rivers in 1792, although their particular programs get changed, and also well identified since the Bluegrass State because regarding the countless pastures full of Smooth Meadow-grass along with blue flower heads found there, Kentucky is renowned for breeding leading high quality Thoroughbred Racehorses, the Mammoth-Flint Ridge Cave System inside Edmunson, Barren, along with Hart Counties, your world's longest known cave system, the 2 largest man-made lakes east with the Mississippi River, probably the actual most productive American cornfield, bourbon whiskey, tobacco, bluegrass music, the actual largest deer and also wild turkey populations for each capita in the Country, and also being home of your largest free-roaming elk herd east associated with Montana. Name: Believed to always be able to mean "the darkish along with bloody ground," although which remains constantly debated, Canetuckee, Cantucky, Kaintuckee, along with Kentuckee are generally previously acceptable spellings regarding Kentucky's name, which might actually have got occur from your Iroquois Indian word "kentahten" meaning "meadow," as well as "prairie," or in the George Rogers Clark suggestion the identify implies "the river associated with blood," resulting from the 13th Century Iroquois Wars where that they drove various other Indian tribes out with the area, or even it could result from any Wyandot Indian title meaning "the terrain involving tomorrow".
    [Show full text]
  • Pascal Costanzo and the Renovation of United States Route 25-E Middlesboro Lies in the Extreme Southeastern Corner of the State
    Pascal Costanzo and the Renovation of United States Route 25-E1 Middlesboro lies in the extreme Southeastern corner of the state of Kentucky. It is nestled up against the Cumberland Gap, which provides a natural border between the states of Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee. It is squarely situated in the heart of the Appalachian region of the United States. Its remote location in a heavily mountainous area makes it difficult to reach, and because of that, the area has suffered greatly. Floods from mountain runoff, chronic unemployment, and chaotic swings in the coal mining industry made the area “susceptible to more severe economic and population shifts than the rest of the nation.2” When the Interstate Highway system began development after the signing of the 1956 Federal Highway Aid Act by Dwight Eisenhower, no plans were in place to bring the highway through Middlesboro, Kentucky. This left roads through and over the mountains near Middlesboro treacherous and underdeveloped, keeping the town as a remote Appalachian location. In the early 1960s, towns vied for access to the new Interstate Highway system and its promise of economic development to the areas which it passed. A local resident of Middlesboro by the name of Pascal Costanzo led a grass roots campaign for road development. He was a local businessman in the area who had the foresight to acknowledge that the town could not develop economically without a four lane road granting easier access.3 1 I would like to thank all of those who helped me in this project, as I traveled on site to Middlesboro, Kentucky.
    [Show full text]