DOCSLIB.ORG

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Merchant Street Bridge Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Merchant Street Bridge Project SEPTEMBER 2019 Identification of Historic Properties Report Norfolk Southern Railway Company/ Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Merchant Street Bridge Project City of Pittsburgh Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Prepared by Prepared for Norfolk Southern Railway Company Atlanta, Georgia Michael Baker International, Inc. Moon Township, Pennsylvania IDENTIFICATION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES REPORT NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY/ PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MERCHANT STREET BRIDGE PROJECT City of Pittsburgh Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Prepared for Norfolk Southern Railway Company Atlanta, Georgia Prepared by Michael Baker International, Inc. Moon Township, Pennsylvania September 2019 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ABSTRACT Norfolk Southern Railway Company (Norfolk Southern), in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), proposes to rehabilitate or replace the ca. 1905 Pennsylvania Railroad: Main Line (Pittsburgh to Ohio State Line): Bridge (Merchant Street). The bridge carries the Pennsylvania Railroad: Main Line (Pittsburgh to Ohio State Line), also known as the Fort Wayne Line, rail corridor over Merchant Street. The bridge and the associated railway are part of the Pittsburgh and Fort Wayne Rail Lines (together referred to as the Pittsburgh Line), which is owned and operated by Norfolk Southern. The project assessed in this study is located in the City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (Figure A‐1). The purpose of this report is to present to the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer (PA SHPO) the results of the historic resources survey and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility assessment that was conducted to identify historic properties within the project’s area of potential effects (APE). All properties within the APE that were forty‐five (45) years of age or greater (constructed prior to 1973) were surveyed and evaluated for NRHP eligibility, if no previous eligibility determination existed. This report is submitted for the purpose of consultation and compliance with Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Act 120 of P.L. 356 (Act 120), amended Section 2002, Act No. 1978‐273 (as amended as Act No. 1988‐72), as codified at Title 37 of the Pennsylvania Code, 37 Pa.C.S. § 101 et seq. (History Code), as applicable. All work was conducted by Michael Baker International, Inc. (Michael Baker) of Moon Township, Pennsylvania, on behalf of Norfolk Southern. Architectural historians surveyed all historic‐age resources within the APE in April 2018. The intensive‐ level survey conducted for this report identified two previously recorded historic resources and one newly identified historic resource, for a total of three resources within the APE. Of the previously recorded historic resources, one was listed in the NRHP and appeared physically unchanged since the time of determination (Allegheny Commons Historic District). An updated Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey Form (HRSF) was not created for this resource. One previously recorded historic resource was previously determined NRHP eligible (Pennsylvania Railroad: Main Line [Pittsburgh to Ohio State Line]: Pittsburgh City Segment, MP PC‐1.20), though the documentation did not articulate contributing features. Therefore, project historians resurveyed the portion of the Pennsylvania Railroad: Main Line within the APE, identified contributing features, and prepared an updated HRSF, including an updated recommendation of NRHP eligibility. Finally, project historians identified one additional historic resource within the APE, the Pennsylvania Railroad: Main Line (Pittsburgh to Ohio State Line): Bridge (Merchant Street). The bridge is recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP as a contributing element to the NRHP‐eligible railroad corridor historic district. Merchant Street Bridge Project Identification of Historic Properties Report i ABSTRACT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Merchant Street Bridge Project Identification of Historic Properties Report ii TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 A.1 Project Description .................................................................................................................... 1 A.2 Statement of Purpose and Need ............................................................................................... 1 A.3 Purpose of Study ....................................................................................................................... 2 A.4 Project Location & Determination of the Area of Potential Effects ......................................... 5 B. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 7 B.1 Background Research Methodology ......................................................................................... 7 B.2 Historical Research Methodology ............................................................................................. 7 B.3 Field Survey Methodology ........................................................................................................ 7 B.4 Documentation Methodology .................................................................................................. 7 B.5 Archaeological Resources Methodology ................................................................................... 8 C. Results of Background Research ................................................................................................... 9 C.1 Use of Historical Maps for Locating Historic Resources ........................................................... 9 C.2 Previously Recorded Historic Resources ................................................................................. 10 D. Context & Property Types .......................................................................................................... 13 E. Field Results ............................................................................................................................... 15 E.1 All Historic Resources Recorded on HRSFs ............................................................................. 15 F. National Register Eligibility Recommendations ........................................................................... 17 F.1 Resources Recommended Eligible .......................................................................................... 17 F.2 Resources Recommended Not Eligible ................................................................................... 20 G. Summary .................................................................................................................................... 21 G.1 Resource Count ....................................................................................................................... 21 G.2 Eligibility Count ....................................................................................................................... 22 H. Sources ...................................................................................................................................... 23 I. Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 25 I.1 Qualifications of Preparers I.2 Updated HRSFs and HRSFs for Newly Identified Historic Resources I.3 Agency Coordination I.4 List of Invited Consulting Parties and Proposed Consulting Party Meeting Schedule Merchant Street Bridge Project Identification of Historic Properties Report iii TABLE OF CONTENTS, FIGURES, AND TABLES LIST OF FIGURES Figure A‐1: Project Location Map, showing the approximate location of the Merchant Street BridgeProject on USGS mapping. ........................................................................................ 4 Figure A‐2: Merchant Street Bridge APE as depicted on the Pittsburgh West, PA, 1:24,000 quadrangle map, (USGS 1997). ........................................................................................... 5 Figure C‐1: Merchant Street Bridge Project APE showing previously recorded historic resources. .......................................................................................................................... 11 Figure C‐2: The Pennsylvania Railroad Main Line, at Merchant Street............................................... 12 Figure C‐3: Allegheny Commons Historic District from near Merchant Street. .................................. 12 Figure E‐1: Aerial photograph of the Merchant Street Bridge Project APE, showing previously recorded and newly identified historic resources. ........................................................... 16 Figure F‐1: Pennsylvania Railroad Main Line near Merchant Street. ................................................. 18 Figure F‐2: A stone retaining wall along the southwest edge of the rail corridor is recommended as a contributing element of the railroad corridor historic district. ........ 18 Figure F‐3: The Merchant Street Bridge is recommended as a contributing element of the railroad corridor historic district. ...................................................................................... 18 Figure F‐4: Wrought‐iron fencing is recommended as a contributing element of the railroad corridor historic district. ..................................................................................................
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]
  • Records Relating to Railroads in the Cartographic Section of the National Archives
    REFERENCE INFORMATION PAPER 116 Records Relating to Railroads in the Cartographic Section of the national archives 1 Records Relating to Railroads in the Cartographic Section of the National Archives REFERENCE INFORMATION PAPER 116 National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC Compiled by Peter F. Brauer 2010 United States. National Archives and Records Administration. Records relating to railroads in the cartographic section of the National Archives / compiled by Peter F. Brauer.— Washington, DC : National Archives and Records Administration, 2010. p. ; cm.— (Reference information paper ; no 116) includes index. 1. United States. National Archives and Records Administration. Cartographic and Architectural Branch — Catalogs. 2. Railroads — United States — Armed Forces — History —Sources. 3. United States — Maps — Bibliography — Catalogs. I. Brauer, Peter F. II. Title. Cover: A section of a topographic quadrangle map produced by the U.S. Geological Survey showing the Union Pacific Railroad’s Bailey Yard in North Platte, Nebraska, 1983. The Bailey Yard is the largest railroad classification yard in the world. Maps like this one are useful in identifying the locations and names of railroads throughout the United States from the late 19th into the 21st century. (Topographic Quadrangle Maps—1:24,000, NE-North Platte West, 1983, Record Group 57) table of contents Preface vii PART I INTRODUCTION ix Origins of Railroad Records ix Selection Criteria xii Using This Guide xiii Researching the Records xiii Guides to Records xiv Related
    [Show full text]
  • Project Purpose and Need Statement June 2019
    Norfolk Southern Railway Company Pittsburgh Vertical Clearance Projects Project Purpose and Need Statement June 2019 INTRODUCTION: These proposed projects are railway improvement projects on the Pittsburgh and Fort Wayne Rail Lines (together referred to as the Pittsburgh Line), owned and operated by Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR). The proposed projects consist of addressing freight capacity and delay constraints through the City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The Pittsburgh Line serves rail freight traffic in interstate commerce and operates as a primary link through Pittsburgh between Chicago and the New York/New Jersey commercial markets. NSR is a common carrier and the Pittsburgh Line forms a critical component of NSR’s route between Chicago and the east coast, carrying a variety of commodities, both hazardous material such as chlorine, anhydrous ammonia, hydrogen fluoride, crude oil, and ethanol, as well as nonhazardous materials like coal, auto parts and finished vehicles, lumber, agricultural products, and intermodal containers and trailers. The six overhead clearance projects [North Avenue Bridge, Pittsburgh (PC-1.60); Pennsylvania Avenue Bridge, Pittsburgh (PC-1.82); Columbus Avenue Bridge, Pittsburgh (PC-2.17); Ohio Connecting (OC) Bridge Flyover, Pittsburgh (PC-3.38); Washington Avenue Bridge, Swissvale (PT-344.91); and Amtrak Station Canopy (PT-353.20)] have vertical obstructions along the Pittsburgh Line and prevent efficient movement of freight, especially time-sensitive intermodal freight, by rail between Chicago and New York/New Jersey, and specifically through Pennsylvania. Unused capacity exists on the Pittsburgh Line and these clearance projects will allow the line to accommodate anticipated freight growth while allowing for double-stack intermodal freight to use the Pittsburgh Line in lieu of the Mon Line.
    [Show full text]
  • Merchant Street Bridge Project City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS July 27, 2020
    Merchant Street Bridge Project City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS July 27, 2020 1. What is the purpose and need for this project? The purpose of the Merchant Street Bridge Project is to maintain safe freight and passenger rail operations along the Fort Wayne Line to continue the efficient transportation of goods and people between Chicago and the New York/New Jersey commercial markets, as well as within local markets. The bridge structure has reached the end of its useful life and engineering inspections have identified a need to address these problems in order to maintain safe interstate rail transportation along the Fort Wayne Line. The bridge carrying the Fort Wayne Line over Merchant Street has safety deficiencies that have the potential to create risks to current rail traffic and forecasted rail traffic increases throughout the United States and within Pennsylvania and the Pittsburgh region in particular. The project need for the Merchant Street Bridge project is to address safety, reliability, and facility deficiencies. Additionally, the City of Pittsburgh has requested the roadway profile at Merchant Street be lowered to allow emergency vehicles to pass under the bridge. 2. How will the Merchant Street Bridge Project affect air quality, noise, and vibration in the area? The Merchant Street Bridge Project would not result in any significant effect on air quality, noise, or vibration. The on-alignment replacement of the Merchant Street Bridge would not significantly affect air emissions. Minor temporary emissions will result for a short duration relating to construction equipment for the bridge replacement work. According to the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, adopted by Federal Railroad Administration, the reconstruction of facilities that occupy substantially the same geographic footprint and do not result in a change in functional use, such as improvements to existing bridges, would not require noise impact analysis because the project would not change the noise source.
    [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]
  • Pa-Railroad-Shops-Works.Pdf
    [)-/ a special history study pennsylvania railroad shops and works altoona, pennsylvania f;/~: ltmen~on IndvJ·h·;4 I lferifa5e fJr4Je~i Pl.EASE RETURNTO: TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER DENVER SERVICE CE~TER NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ~ CROFIL -·::1 a special history study pennsylvania railroad shops and works altoona, pennsylvania by John C. Paige may 1989 AMERICA'S INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE PROJECT UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR I NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ~ CONTENTS Acknowledgements v Chapter 1 : History of the Altoona Railroad Shops 1. The Allegheny Mountains Prior to the Coming of the Pennsylvania Railroad 1 2. The Creation and Coming of the Pennsylvania Railroad 3 3. The Selection of the Townsite of Altoona 4 4. The First Pennsylvania Railroad Shops 5 5. The Development of the Altoona Railroad Shops Prior to the Civil War 7 6. The Impact of the Civil War on the Altoona Railroad Shops 9 7. The Altoona Railroad Shops After the Civil War 12 8. The Construction of the Juniata Shops 18 9. The Early 1900s and the Railroad Shops Expansion 22 1O. The Railroad Shops During and After World War I 24 11. The Impact of the Great Depression on the Railroad Shops 28 12. The Railroad Shops During World War II 33 13. Changes After World War II 35 14. The Elimination of the Older Railroad Shop Buildings in the 1960s and After 37 Chapter 2: The Products of the Altoona Railroad Shops 41 1. Railroad Cars and Iron Products from 1850 Until 1952 41 2. Locomotives from the 1860s Until the 1980s 52 3. Specialty Items 65 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Republished in Milepost June 2019: A
    June 2019 in this issue... 3 Curator’s Corner: Only Vol. 37, No. 2, June 2019 Mad Dogs and Mailmen Go Out In The Midnight Pennsylvania Historical Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania Gloom & Museum Commission Advisory Council by Daniel Sohn 8 News & Views Governor ...........................The Honorable President ...........................Mr. Douglas Watts Tom Wolf Secretary ...........................Ms. Deborah Reddig 13 MARC Madness Chairman ..........................Ms. Nancy Moses Members ...........................Mr. Ronald T. Bailey by Stephen B. Ferrell Executive Director............Ms. Andrea Lowery Mr. Rudy Husband Ms. Marilyn Jamison 16 American Steam Museum Director .............Mr. Patrick C. Morrison Mr. Kevin Jurgelewicz Mr. Bennett Levin Locomotives: Design and Members ...........................Ms. Ophelia M. Chambliss Mr. Jeffrey J. Majersky Mr. Linn Moedinger Development, 1880-1960, Sen. Andrew E. Dinniman Mr. William V. Lewis Dr. Jeremy F. Plant Mr. Alfred Sauer Mr. Eric Winslow by William L. Withuhn Mr. Andrew E. Masich Rep. Robert F. Matzie Mr. Fredrick C. Powell Mr. Robert M. Savakinus Book Review by Ronald T. Bailey Honorary Sen. Joseph B. Scarnati III Dr. David Schuyler Mrs. Donna L. Kreiser Mr. Charles W. Moorman IV 20 Bridging The Railroad: Mr. Kenneth C. Turner Rep. Parke Wentling Mr. Paul Quinn Mr. Bill Schafer The Wheatsheaf Lane Mr. Phillip D. Zimmerman Pedestrian Bridge And Ex Offi cio ..........................Dr. Pedro Rivera Supporting Mr. James Alexander Jr Dr. John H. Bowman The Grade Crossing The Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania is administered Mr. Patrick C. Morrison Separation Movement by the Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission by Lynn M. Alpert with the active support of the Friends of the Railroad Milepost Museum of Pennsylvania. Managing Editor .
    [Show full text]
  • Issue #84 — August 1989
    • AUGUST 1989 OHIO ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD PASSENGERS ISSUE #34 CONFRONTING THE END OF A LINE by OARP President Tom Pulsifer Fort Wayne 20,000, Lima 16,000, Canton 13,000, Crestline 8,000. These four stations handled some 57,000 Amtrak passengers last year. Now, through no fault of the train users, their trains may be taken away--probably for good! Amtrak and Conrail are presently locked in off-and-on ne­ gotiations upon which rests the future of the Fort Wayne Line, the direct former mainline of the Pennsylvania Rail­ road between Pittsburgh and Chicago and today's route of Amtrak's BROADWAY and CAPITOL LIMITED passenger trains. At the core of the matter is a segment of 19.2 miles of line between Gary and Valparaiso. Conrail claims Amtrak should bear the full cost of all maintenance expense on this portion of line because Conrail says they no longer run freights over this segment. Conrail has been sending Amtrak a monthly bill of $30,000 for track maintenance and has done this since March of 1988. Thus far, Amtrak has refused to pay these bills and claims Conrail HAS used the track for freight trains, and therefore why should Amtrak pay for all the maintenance costs. Although Conrail con­ tinues to bill Amtrak, the bill collectors have not yet been sent. Amtrak firmly maintains it will reroute its passenger trains onto other lines before it will pay Con­ rail one dime of disputed line maintenance costs. Amtrak and Conrail may get what they want -- but the Fort Wayne Line passengers may get left at the end of the line.
    [Show full text]
  • Get on Board! New Freedom, Pa
    GET ON BOARD! NEW FREEDOM, PA Recently re-branded from www.NorthernCentralRailway.com VISION Northern Central Railway aspires to be the most unique railroad experience in the Eastern United States. MISSION Northern Central Railway will enhance the economic engine of York County by delivering historical, educational and entertaining experiences on an excursion railroad. CASE FOR SUPPORT & GOAL Northern Central Railway (originally Steam into History) was founded by William “Bill” Simpson, a deeply involved NORTHERN CENTRAL RAILWAY WILL CONTINUE TO ENHANCE York community business leader and philanthropist. For THE ECONOMIC VITALITY OF YORK COUNTY BY: ten years prior to his death in 2012, Bill and his life-long ➣ Sharing family experiences on memorable themed rides friend, Reed Anderson combined their vision, love of York like our holiday Tannenbaum and Santa Express excursions, beautiful Fall Foliage rides, the annual Pennsylvania Cowboy County, and passion for trains to rally businesses and Weekend, and other experiences for kids of all ages such as major donors to develop and launch Steam into History. Easter Bunny, Princess, and Superhero events Steam Into History grew over the next seven years, offering ➣ Offering a truly unique experience for railroad aficionados much more than the original historical vision. The organization riding authentic steam and diesel trains on a beautiful, historic recently updated the brand to Northern Central Railway rail line that played an important role in our Nation’s history in order to more closely reflect
    [Show full text]
  • Philadelphia Division of the Pennsylvania Railroad, Main Line Bridge Photographs2012.237
    Philadelphia Division of the Pennsylvania Railroad, Main Line bridge photographs2012.237 This finding aid was produced using ArchivesSpace on September 14, 2021. Description is written in: English. Describing Archives: A Content Standard Audiovisual Collections PO Box 3630 Wilmington, Delaware 19807 [email protected] URL: http://www.hagley.org/library Philadelphia Division of the Pennsylvania Railroad, Main Line bridge photographs2012.237 Table of Contents Summary Information .................................................................................................................................... 3 Biographical Note .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Scope and Content ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Administrative Information ............................................................................................................................ 4 Controlled Access Headings .......................................................................................................................... 4 Collection Inventory ....................................................................................................................................... 5 - Page 2 - Philadelphia Division of the Pennsylvania Railroad, Main Line bridge photographs2012.237 Summary Information Repository: Audiovisual Collections Creator:
    [Show full text]
  • The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail Ohio Hub Study
    The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail Ohio Hub Study TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM & BUSINESS PLAN July 2007 Prepared for The Ohio Rail Development Commission Indiana Department of Transportation Michigan Department of Transportation New York Department of Transportation Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Prepared by: Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. In association with HNTB, Inc. The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail - Ohio Hub Study Technical Memorandum & Business Plan Table of Contents Foreword...................................................................................................................................... viii Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................................x Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................1 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 System Planning and Feasibility Goals and Objectives................................................... 1-3 1.2 Business Planning Objectives.......................................................................................... 1-4 1.3 Study Approach and Methodology .................................................................................. 1-4 1.4 Railroad Infrastructure Analysis...................................................................................... 1-5 1.5 Passenger
    [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]