DOCSLIB.ORG

Innovations in Freight Data Workshop

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Innovations in Freight Data Workshop TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH Number E-C255 October 2019 Innovations in Freight Data Workshop April 9–10, 2019 Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center Irvine, California TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2019 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS Chair: Victoria A. Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center; Assistant Dean, Centers and Institutes; and Professor and Director, Environmental Law Program, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C. Vice Chair: Leslie S. Richards, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg Division Chair for NRC Oversight: Chris Hendrickson, Hamerschlag University Professor Emeritus, Carnegie Mellon University Executive Director: Neil J. Pedersen, Transportation Research Board TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2018–2019 TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES COUNCIL Chair: Hyun-A C. Park, President, Spy Pond Partners, LLC, Arlington, Massachusetts Technical Activities Director: Ann M. Brach, Transportation Research Board David Ballard, Senior Economist, Gellman Research Associates, Inc., Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, Aviation Group Chair Coco A. Briseno, Deputy Director, Planning and Modal Programs, California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), State DOT Representative Michael Griffith, Director, Office of Safety Technologies, Federal Highway Administration, Safety and System Users Group Chair George Grimes, CEO Advisor, Patriot Rail Company, Denver, Colorado, Rail Group Chair Brendon Hemily, Principal, Hemily and Associates, Public Transportation Group Chair Nikola Ivanov, Deputy Director, Center for Advanced Transportation Technology Laboratory, University of Maryland, College Park, Young Members Council Chair C. James Kruse, Director, Center for Ports and Waterways, Houston, Texas, Marine Group Chair Mark Reno, Principal Engineer, Quincy Engineering, Inc., Rancho Cordova, California, Design and Construction Group Chair Elizabeth Rushley, Lawhon & Associates, Inc., Columbus, Ohio, Planning and Environment Group Chair Joseph Schofer, Professor and Associate Dean of Engineering, McCormick School of Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, Policy and Organization Group Chair William Varnedoe, Partner, The Kercher Group, Raleigh, North Carolina, Operations and Preservation Group Chair Fred R. Wagner, Partner, Venable, LLP, Legal Resources Group Chair TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CIRCULAR E-C255 Innovations in Freight Data Workshop April 9–10, 2019 Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center Irvine, California Rapporteur Catherine T. Lawson University at Albany, State University of New York Sponsored by Iowa Department of Transportation October 2019 Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, D.C. www.trb.org TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CIRCULAR E-C255 ISSN 0097-8515 The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Transportation Research Board is distributing this E-Circular to make the information contained herein available for use by individual practitioners in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research community. The information in this E-Circular was taken directly from the submission of the authors. This document is not a report of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Planning Committee Alison Conway, City College of New York, Chair Avital Barnea, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Chandra Bondzie, Federal Highway Administration Chester Ford, Bureau of Transportation Studies Sam Hiscocks, Iowa Department of Transportation Sherif Ishak, Old Dominion University Nikola Ivanov, University of Maryland CATT Laboratory Yatman Kwan, California Department of Transportation Catherine T. Lawson, University at Albany, State University of New York Donald Ludlow, CPCS Casey Wells, Texas Department of Transportation TRB Staff Thomas Palmerlee, Senior Program Officer Keyara Dorn, Associate Program Officer Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, D.C. www.trb.org Preface eeting in Irvine, California, on April 9–10, 2019, 127 freight community members— Mincluding transportation professionals from transportation planning agencies, consultants, industry experts, and academic researchers from across North America—participated in the second Innovations in Freight Data Workshop. Alison Conway from City College of New York chaired the planning committee for this workshop. The planning committee members were solely responsible for organizing the workshop, preparing the call for abstracts, reviewing the submitted abstracts, and developing topics for panel sessions. Catherine T. Lawson from the University at Albany, State University of New York served as the workshop rapporteur and prepared this document as a factual summary of what occurred at the workshop. In 2017, the first Innovations in Freight Data Workshop highlighted “big data” as a potential new data resource for freight planning, freight operations and mobility, and visualizations for communicating freight issues and solutions for decision-makers. The event brought together traditional freight-planning stakeholders with emerging technology innovators to look for opportunities to interact. Now, 2 years later, the 2019 event built upon these opportunities, bringing the stakeholders with recent experiences with big data for freight—and individuals, organizations, and agencies—to evaluate progress with new data sources and new methods and to discuss next steps to meet existing and future challenges. This workshop report follows the program agenda and includes summaries of the presentations made by each panel member, augmented with audience questions, comments, reflections on advances in data sources and methodologies, and new challenges. Audience participation varied in length and depth based on the interactions among audience members, the panelists, and the moderators. Topics covered in the various panels, interactive posters, and traditional posters included new uses of GPS trace data, new machine-learning techniques, new uses of existing freight data, and a variety of new approaches for collecting and analyzing freight data. A copy of the program with links to the presentations is available at http://onlinepubs.trb .org/onlinepubs/Conferences/2019/FreightData/Program.pdf. Special acknowledgments to the Transportation Research Board staff Tom Palmerlee, Scott Brotemarkle, and Mai Quynh Le for their support and organizational expertise. Special thanks to the Iowa Department of Transportation for their leadership of the pooled-fund study for this workshop and the seven other state departments of transportation pooled-fund members. The views expressed in this summary are those of individual workshop participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all workshop participants, the planning committee, or the Transportation Research Board. iv Contents Opening Session ............................................................................................................................ 1 Alison Conway, presiding, and Catherine T. Lawson, recording Welcome and Charge to Participants .......................................................................................... 1 Alison Conway Opening Remarks ........................................................................................................................ 2 Roger Millar and Chris Schmidt Key Takeaways ........................................................................................................................... 9 Mario Monsreal Novel Methods of Data Collection ............................................................................................. 10 Nikola Ivanov, presiding, and Sarah Hernandez, recording A Self-Sustaining, Self-Perpetuating Web-Scraping Appplication for Crude Oil Railroad Route Information ...................................................................................... 10 Chieh (Ross) Wang, Shih-Miao Chin, Ho-Ling Hwang, and Hyeonsup Lim Next-Generation Smartphone or Tablet-Based Commercial Vehicle Survey .......................... 12 Lynnette Cheah, Kyungsoo Jeong, and Alex Marach Leveraging the Crowd: The Application of Crowdsourced Data to Generate Truck Parking Insights ............................................................................................... 14 Alex Marach Key Takeaways ......................................................................................................................... 19 Jeff Short Developing Freight Data into Decision-Making Information ................................................. 20 Holly Cohen, presiding, and Julius Codjoe, recording Truck Empty Backhaul: A Florida Freight Story ...................................................................... 20 Joel Worrell Using Freight Data to Inform the 2018 Texas 100 Most-Congested Road Sections ................ 22 David Schrank and Bill Eisele Trucks and the Port of Virginia: Understanding Freight Patterns with Big Data ..................... 24 Robert Case and Catherine Manzo Key Takeaways ......................................................................................................................... 26 Mario Monsreal Developing Data Systems
Load more

Recommended publications
  • High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements of Success Part 2
    San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Faculty Publications, Urban and Regional Planning Urban and Regional Planning January 2007 High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements of Success Part 2 Allison deCerreno Shishir Mathur San Jose State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/urban_plan_pub Part of the Infrastructure Commons, Public Economics Commons, Public Policy Commons, Real Estate Commons, Transportation Commons, Urban, Community and Regional Planning Commons, Urban Studies Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Recommended Citation Allison deCerreno and Shishir Mathur. "High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements of Success Part 2" Faculty Publications, Urban and Regional Planning (2007). This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Urban and Regional Planning at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications, Urban and Regional Planning by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MTI Report 06-03 MTI HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES: IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS-PART 2 IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS-PART HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES: Funded by U.S. Department of HIGH-SPEED RAIL Transportation and California Department PROJECTS IN THE UNITED of Transportation STATES: IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS PART 2 Report 06-03 Mineta Transportation November Institute Created by 2006 Congress in 1991 MTI REPORT 06-03 HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES: IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS PART 2 November 2006 Allison L.
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri Blue Ribbon Panel on Hyperloop
    Chairman Lt. Governor Mike Kehoe Vice Chairman Andrew G. Smith Panelists Jeff Aboussie Cathy Bennett Tom Blair Travis Brown Mun Choi Tom Dempsey Rob Dixon Warren Erdman Rep. Travis Fitzwater Michael X. Gallagher Rep. Derek Grier Chris Gutierrez Rhonda Hamm-Niebruegge Mike Lally Mary Lamie Elizabeth Loboa Sen. Tony Luetkemeyer MISSOURI BLUE RIBBON Patrick McKenna Dan Mehan Joe Reagan Clint Robinson PANEL ON HYPERLOOP Sen. Caleb Rowden Greg Steinhoff Report prepared for The Honorable Elijah Haahr Tariq Taherbhai Leonard Toenjes Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives Bill Turpin Austin Walker Ryan Weber Sen. Brian Williams Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5 A National Certification Track in Missouri .................................................................................................... 8 Track Specifications ................................................................................................................................. 10 SECTION 1: International Tube Transport Center of Excellence (ITTCE) ................................................... 12 Center Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 12 Research Areas ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Final Alternatives Selection Report: Identification of Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail Alternatives
    Final Alternatives Selection Report: Identification of Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail Alternatives Milwaukee-Twin Cities High-Speed Rail Corridor Program Prepared for: Minnesota Department of Transportation Wisconsin Department of Transportation Prepared by: Quandel Consultants, LLC Version: October 26, 2011 Revised November 1, 2012 Alternatives Selection Report Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………...vi 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of Alternatives Selection Report .................................................................................. 1‐1 1.2 Background of Midwest Regional Rail Initiative ........................................................................ 1‐1 1.3 Background of Milwaukee‐Twin Cities High‐Speed Rail Corridor Program ............................... 1‐4 1.4 Project Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................... 1‐13 1.5 Route Alternatives Analysis ..................................................................................................... 1‐15 1.6 Public Involvement ................................................................................................................... 1‐16 1.7 Identification of Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives ............................................................ 1‐17 1.8 Technical Documentation .......................................................................................................
    [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]
  • The Benefits of Intercity Passenger Rail
    THE BENEFITS OF INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL (110–54) HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JUNE 26, 2007 Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 36–685 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:27 Feb 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 P:\DOCS\36685 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia JOHN L. MICA, Florida PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon DON YOUNG, Alaska JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina Columbia JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee JERROLD NADLER, New York WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland CORRINE BROWN, Florida VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan BOB FILNER, California STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JERRY MORAN, Kansas ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California GARY G. MILLER, California LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois RICK LARSEN, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts SAM GRAVES, Missouri JULIA CARSON, Indiana BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY H.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021-2022 Transportation Legislative Agenda
    Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments 2021-2022 Transportation Legislative Agenda of the Toledo Region Transportation Legislative Agenda of the Toledo Region [2021-2022] Federal Transportation Funding Brief As the infrastructure funding gap continues to grow, prudent investments are needed now to prevent further deterioration of our streets, highways, bridges, rail and transit systems, pedestrian and bikeway systems, airports, seaports, and waterways. The public sector has a responsibility to act to improve safety, support quality of life, increase employment opportunities, and enhance economic competitiveness. The strategies and recommendations included in the Toledo Region Transportation Legislative Agenda are the consensus view of the members of the Transportation Coalition. Consultative meetings held with coalition members between July 2020 and September 2020 produced a set of legislative policy recommendations and modal policy briefs for federal, state, and local leaders. FEDERAL Priorities • After 25 years of stagnation, increase the gas tax or pursue other reforms to ensure long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. Support the ability of state and local governments to plan, fund, and construct the projects that will rebuild our infrastructure and strengthen our economy. • Prefer user taxes and fees such as the motor fuel tax and other fuels taxes, vehicle miles traveled fee, freight waybill tax, shipping container fees, impact fees, tolling, and similar strategies. Design these fees with attention to the fee per unit, the means to adjust the fee over time (such as linking to Consumer Price Index), administrative costs, and privacy safeguards. • Where appropriate, attract private capital via public-private partnerships that feature transparent agreements and accountability through tightly monitored performance standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Calgary-Edmonton High Speed Rail Oliver Wyman Choice Modeling
    Presentation To HRTPO Steering Committee Agenda Item #2 HRTPO Strategic Campaign and Vision Plan for Passenger Rail Presentation By May 19, 2010 Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. Study Timeline TEMS, Inc. 1 Vision Plan Phase 1: Study Objectives 1. Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization – Resolution 2009-05 The Hampton Roads TPO endorses – designation of a “High-Speed Rail” corridor along the Norfolk Southern/Route 460 corridor. enhancement of the intercity passenger rail service along the CSX/I-64 corridor. 2. USDOT FRA Public/Private Partnership Potential – POSITIVE OPERATING RATIO POSITIVE COST BENEFIT RATIO TEMS, Inc. 2 Development Steps Max No. of Steps Route Infrastructure Station Speed Trains Shared Track Main Street I-64/CSXT 79 mph 2 Schedule Newport News Step 1 Enhancement (existing) Route 460/ Shared Track S tap le s M ill O n ly Norfolk 79 mph 1-3 NS Norfolk Southern Main Street I-64/CSXT 79 mph 3 Shared Track Newport News Step 2 (existing) (DEIS Route 460/ Alt 1) Norfolk 79 mph 4-6 Shared Track Main Street Southern Main Street I-64/CSXT 90 mph 4-6 Shared Track Newport News Downtown/Airport Step 3 Route 460/ Norfolk Dedicated Track Main Street 110 mph 8-12 Southern V Line B o w e rs H ill Main Street I-64/CSXT 110 mph 6-9 Dedicated Track Newport News Downtown/Airport Step 4 Route 460/ Dedicated Electric Norfolk Main Street 150 mph 12-16 Track Southern B o w e rs H ill V Line TEMS, Inc. 3 Vision Plan: Station Concept Map TEMS, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania Hyperloop Study Report
    Pennsylvania Hyperloop DR AF T REPORT June 2020 Image: Virgin Hyperloop One Pennsylvania Hyperloop — Draft Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents i List of Figures ii List of Tables ii Acronyms iii Executive Summary 1 Background 1 Next Steps 3 I. Background 4 Regional Hyperloop Studies 5 History of Transformational Technologies in Transportation 7 II. Hyperloop State of the Industry 8 Hyperloop Technology Background 8 Hyperloop Technology Providers 8 Technology Readiness 10 National Initiatives / NETT Council 10 Safety, Verification and Regulations 10 Independent Verification 11 European Committee for Standardization (CEN) 11 Governance 11 III. Defining Pennsylvania Hyperloop Scenarios 12 Drivers for Building Pennsylvania-Concept Scenarios 12 IV. Demand, Benefits and Costs 13 Passenger Demand 13 Pennsylvania Hyperloop Travel Times 14 Freight Movement 15 Economic Development 16 Capital Costs 17 V. Benefit-Cost Analysis 18 Overview 18 Key Findings from the All-Cities (Chicago to New York City Metropolitan Area) Scenario 18 Key Findings from the Pennsylvania-Only Scenario 19 Not Implementing Hyperloop in Pennsylvania 20 Scorecard Evaluation 20 VI. Business Case 22 Preliminary Business Case Results 22 Business Model Options 24 Project Funding Options 24 Key Business Case Elements 25 VII. Next Steps 26 Where Do We Go from Here? 27 i June 2020 Pennsylvania Hyperloop — Draft Report LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Potential Hyperloop Connectivity in Pennsylvania 4 Figure 2 – Regional Hyperloop Studies 5 Figure 3 – Goddard’s Vactrain (1904) and
    [Show full text]
  • Planes, Trains, & Automobiles
    WALD_4.24.20_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 8/22/2020 1:01 PM NOTE PLANES, TRAINS & AUTOMOBILES: REGULATING THE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES OF TOMORROW ADAM P. WALD* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 380 II. THE CURRENT STATE OF TRANSPORTATION INNOVATION ......................... 381 A. Lock-In: Transportation Innovation is Dictated by, and Limited to, Existing Platforms ....................................................................... 381 B. Congressional Attempts at Modernization of National Transportation Infrastructure Have Failed .......................................................... 382 C. The Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 and its Limits ...................................................................................... 389 III. THE NATURAL GAS ACT: A TEMPLATE FOR FOSTERING INNOVATION IN TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................... 394 A. Evolution of the Natural Gas Act .................................................... 395 B. Federal Preemption Under the Natural Gas Act ............................ 396 C. Eminent Domain as a Means of Facilitating Infrastructure Development ................................................................................ 399 D. The Public Good ............................................................................ 401 E. The “Hinshaw” Exemption and its Role in Preserving Balance Between State Sovereignty and Federal Oversight.....................
    [Show full text]
  • The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail Ohio Hub Study 2007
    Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail - The Ohio Hub Executive Summary Improving the capacity and efficiency of the railroad system will help ensure that the regional economy continues to be served by an effective transportation system. Intercity transportation in the Ohio and Lake Erie region, as in many other parts of the United States, is challenged by a rapidly changing travel market, forecasts of a substantial growth in traffic, a disparity between demand and available capacity, mounting costs for construction and fuel, and limited funding available for investment. Over the last twenty years, increasing highway congestion and inefficiencies in air travel have reduced the availability and utility of the transportation system, and in many cases these changes have affected local and state economic development activity and interstate commerce. As a result, state Departments of Transportation have recognized the potential for improving the railroad system in the region’s most densely populated intercity corridors. This Ohio Hub Study is part of an ongoing effort by the State of Ohio, led by the Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC), an independent commission within the Ohio Department of Transportation, and ODOT to further develop the concept of expanding transportation capacity by improving the railroad system for both passenger and freight trains. The initial Ohio Hub Study was released in 2004; this 2007 update culminates a multi-year effort to develop a feasibility-level business plan for the construction and operation of an intercity/interstate
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    RockyȱMountainȱRailȱAuthorityȱ DRAFT FINAL HighȱSpeedȱRailȱFeasibilityȱStudyȱ ExistingȱConditionsȱReportȱ Table of Contents Table of Contents........................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1 2 Market Analysis.......................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Demographics and Settlement Pattern of Colorado.................................................................... 8 2.3 Intercity Passenger Markets ...................................................................................................... 13 2.4 Preliminary Intercity Travel Market..........................................................................................26 2.5 Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 27 3 Technology Options ................................................................................................................28 3.1 Speed Options ........................................................................................................................... 28 3.2 Regulatory Requirements .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Major Railroads Support Ohio Hub Plan
    Major railroads support Ohio Hub Plan "Best New Year's present Ohio could get" says rail commission director COLUMBUS If a passenger rail plan can get a Hollywood movie- style review, the- Ohio Rail Development Commissiods (ORDC) Ohio Hub Plan just got "Two thumbs way up" from two major partners in the plan. "ORDC is to be commended for its work and vision in undertaking this ambitious initiative," said John M. Gibson, vice president of Operations Research & Planning, CSX Transportation Inc. "A good start. It outlines a bold approach to implementing regional passenger seryice." said Bill Schafer, director of Corporate Affairs, Norfolk Southern Corp. "This news is the best New Year's present Ohio could get," says ORDC Executive Director Jim Seney. "To have two of the nation's premier freight railroads make these statements is a powerful answer to those who ask'do the railroads support the Ohio Hub Plan?'But this support didn't come without laying a solid foundation in the planning process. The rail- roads have been a part of planniirg the Ohio Hub from the very start and they have helped make it one the strongest, most innovative regional rail plans in the nation." Mr. Seney says the two letters of support from NS and CSX doesn't mean there aren't still details to be worked out. o'this "After all," says Mr. Seney, is a little like building a swimming Ken Prendergast Photo pgol neighbor's back yard and inviting the rest of the llsing existing railroad righb of way for fast, frequent passenge r trains will requirc less , in your next-door hneighbors to swim in it.
    [Show full text]