The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 112-132

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 112... ... 112 Background The Port of Baltimore is planning to relocate the existing on-dock rail transfer facility from its Seagirt Terminal (Figure 7-1) inland. Read the entire page →
From page 113... ... Baltimore Case Study 113 The Port's overall purpose is to provide freight transportation infrastructure that promotes the growth of business in Maryland. In 2009, Ports America Chesapeake signed a 50-year lease with the Maryland Transportation Authority to operate Seagirt Terminal (Figure 7-1) Read the entire page →
From page 114... ... 114 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers Two key elements of the project are the major new sorting hub in Northwest Ohio, which will forward and receive cargo to/from cities in the Midwest and West, and a new Baltimore area international terminal. Other aspects include bridge and tunnel projects to create double-stack clearances along the route. Read the entire page →
From page 115... ... Baltimore Case Study 115 operations. About 90% of Baltimore intermodal movements served by CSX are associated with domestic shippers. Read the entire page →
From page 116... ... 116 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers The number of trucks moving over the highway system between Seagirt and Mount Clare would remain relatively small until business levels increase. CSX is obligated by agreement to operate a single-stack rail service between the two locations through the Howard Street Tunnel when cargo activity generates a 3000-foot train, about 120 TEU or 60 40-foot containers. Read the entire page →
From page 117... ... Baltimore Case Study 117 Figure 7-6. Potential terminal sites (approximate only) Read the entire page →
From page 118... ... 118 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers Initial Candidate Sites Initially, CSX and MDOT were considering the location for the facility in Howard, Anne Arundel, and Prince George's counties, south of Baltimore. The cost estimate for building a suburban site was between $140 million and $325 million, which was much more than had been planned and budgeted. Read the entire page →
From page 119... ... Baltimore Case Study 119 The residents living in the CSA have higher rates of age-adjusted mortality and heart disease, all cancer and lung cancer deaths, and deaths linked to chronic diseases of the lower respiratory system (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma) compared with City of Baltimore and Maryland residents as a whole. Read the entire page →
From page 120... ... 120 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers the 2007 EPA engine standard. The program rules require the scrapping of the truck being replaced, thus ensuring that it will be permanently removed from service. Read the entire page →
From page 121... ... Baltimore Case Study 121 • Modernizing the State's rail infrastructure to compete with other mid-Atlantic states. • Creating economic growth and jobs by supporting local business growth and development. Read the entire page →
From page 122... ... 122 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers which is inherently more efficient than an off-dock intermodal rail solution. Near-dock solutions are not possible in Baltimore because of the physical constraints of the Howard Street Tunnel. Read the entire page →
From page 123... ... Baltimore Case Study 123 Evaluation Criteria Performance Criteria Operational Criteria. In this instance, the minimum technical container transportation system performance requirements have been defined by contract. Read the entire page →
From page 124... ... 124 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers Environmental Criteria. Environmental criteria would include standard measures of anticipated PM, SOx, and NOx emissions at key locations within the community. Read the entire page →
From page 125... ... Baltimore Case Study 125 choice. MDOT would therefore likely support any transport option that would allow the terminal project to proceed, advance the state's freight plan goals, and not require direct state investment over $30 million. Read the entire page →
From page 126... ... 126 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers A similar evolution is occurring in the rail industry. Post 2015, diesel locomotives manufactured or remanufactured in the United States will use high-efficiency catalytic after-treatment technology to meet mandated "Tier III" standards. Read the entire page →
From page 127... ... Baltimore Case Study 127 Advanced Fixed-Guideway Scenario The research team used a generic fixed-guideway system concept for the Baltimore case study because there have been no actual fixed-guideway proposals. Features of the concept were compiled from the data assembled in the LA/LB case study and presented in Appendix C Read the entire page →
From page 128... ... 128 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers The first and easiest option available to stakeholders is to seek to accelerate drayage technology adoption ahead of EPA standards. This will likely require continued funding of programs such as the Port of Baltimore's "Clean Diesel" conversion effort. Read the entire page →
From page 129... ... Baltimore Case Study 129 associated with an electrified system without impeding the rest of the rail traffic that uses the tunnel. The cost would include fencing the electrical right-of-way to mitigate the safety risks. Read the entire page →
From page 130... ... 130 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers terminal service, Baltimore and the Chesapeake Bay present formidable barriers. In addition, the 3,200 acre Baltimore Washington International Airport is a major barrier south of the city. Read the entire page →
From page 131... ... Baltimore Case Study 131 Capacity Utilization. The nominal capacity of most conceptual fixed-guideways is 60 containers per hour in each direction (1-minute headways) Read the entire page →
From page 132... ... 132 Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers With only one reasonable candidate solution for the problem, there was no need to rank or rate alternatives. Findings Based on the information available and on the established positions and policies of the stakeholders and decisionmakers, there is no new technology or transport system that can by itself reduce community impacts to a point where the Mount Clare terminal development would be clearly acceptable to the community. Read the entire page →

From page 112...

... 112 Background The Port of Baltimore is planning to relocate the existing on-dock rail transfer facility from its Seagirt Terminal (Figure 7-1) inland.