Coal Train Movements-1982

i
®CIA LIBRARY
t
1 1985
Coal Train Movements
Through_ the City of Wilmington,
North Carolina
Anderson & Associates, Inc.
Blacksburg, VA
OCTOBER 1982
DCM COPY DCM COPY
lease do not remove!!!!!
Division of Coastal Management Copy
CEIP REPORT NO.26

To order:
Residents of North Carolina may
receive a single copy of a
publication free upon request.
Non-residents may purchase
publications for the prices
listed. Because of the
production costs involved, some
of the publications carry a
minimal charge regardless of
residency. Prices for these are
indicated in the price list as
being "for all requests".
When ordering publications
please provide the publication
number. and title and enclose a
check made payable to DNRCD. For
a complete list of CEIP
publications - or to place an
order - contact:
Coastal Energy Impact Program
Office of Coastal Management
N.C. Department of Natural
Resources and Community
Development
Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Series Edited by James F. Smith
Cover Design by Jill Miller

Coal Train Movements
Through the City of Wilmington
The preparation of this report was financed through a Coastal
Energy Impact Program grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the
Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. This CEIP grant was part of NOAA
grant NA-81-AA-D-CZ124.
Project No. 81-05
Contract No. C-6104
Anderson & Associates
Consulting Engineers
Blacksburg, Virginia
J.N. 2790

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract
i
List of Figures
and Maps
i
List of Tables
Introduction
v
Summary of
Findings and Policy Recommendations
1
Section 1 -
Coal Export Market Demand
12
Section 2 -
Public Economic Impacts of Coal
Export Demand
20
Section 3 -
Belt Line Track Inspection
28
Section 4 -
Unit Train Impacts on Street Traffic
Flows
36
Section 5 -
Emergency Vehicle Impacts
53
Section 6 -
Railroad Noise Impacts
73
Section 7 -
General Vibration Impacts
80
Section 8 -
Vibration and Loading Impacts on
Utilities
88
Section 9 -
Unit Train Air Pollution Impacts
95
Section 10 -
Neighborhood Impacts
97
Appendix A
107
Appendix B
109
Bibliography
111
Glossary
114

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to identify and analyze the
potential economic, transportation and environmental impacts to
the City of Wilmington caused by the exportation of coal through
the State Port. Primary attention focuses on the effects of unit
train movements. Public policy actions are recommended to reduce
adverse impacts.
i

LIST OF FIGURES AND MAPS
Figure
1 Existing and Potential Effective Capacity
for Handling Export Coal at U.S. Ports
2 FRA Inspection Standards
3 Rail Ground Vibrations 25 Feet from
At Grade Tie and Ballast Track
4 Thresholds of Perception for Vibration
and the Resulting Noise in Buildings
Map
1 Study Area
2 Property Value Impact Corridor,
3 Track Inspection Location
4 Major Rail and Street Intersections
5 Fire Department Service Zones
6 Rescue Squad Zones
7 Noise Impact Corridor
8 Vibration Impact Corridor
9 Major Utility Crossings
.10 Neighborhood Assemblies
Page
16,
29
85
vi
25
30
39
54
55
79
87
89
98

LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1
Employment and Population Impacts for 9,000,000
Annual Export Tons
21
2
PM - Peak Hourly Flow Rates at the Railroad
Crossings
44
3
The Changes in the Vehicular Delays of Scenario.l...
for the PM -Peak Hour (4:30-5:30 p.m.) at the
Railroad Crossings
.45
4
The Changes in the Vehicular Delays of Scenario 2
for the PM -Peak Hour (4:30-5:30 p.m.) at the
.Railroad Crossings
46
5
The Changes in the Vehicular Delays of Scenario 3
for the PM -Peak Hour (4:30-5:30 p.m.) at the
Railroad Crossings
47
6
Vehicular Delays for the PM -Peak Hour (4:30-5:30 p.m.)
at the Critical Intersections on Both Sides of the
Railroad Crossings
48
7
Incremental Delay Results .(Vehicle. Minutes) for.the PM -
Peak at the Major Railroad Crossings Due to Increasing
Train (4,000=foot) Speed
49
8
The Change in the Total Vehicle Delays (Vehicle Minutes)
of the Three Scenarios of the Off -Peak Hours at the
Railroad Crossings
.50
9
Incremental Total Delay Results (Vehicle -Minutes)
for.the Off -Peak at the Major Railroad Crossings
due to Increasing Train (4,000 foot) Speed
51
10
Total Change in Network Delay (Vehicle -Minutes) for
the Peak -Hour and Single Off -Peak Hour
52
11
Average Daily Delay of the Total System for the Three
Scenarios Based on Train Arrival -Probabilities
52
12
Responses of the Fire Engines for a Three -Year Period
in Wilmington, North Carolina
62
13
Number of Fire Alarms Classified by Zones
63
.14
Probability of a Rail Crossing Conflict and Corresponding
Expected Delay for the Fire Service Zones from the Primary
Station
64
iii

Table
15 Probability of Rail Crossing Conflict and the
Corresponding Expected Delay for the Fire Service
Zones from the Secondary Station
16 Number of Rescue Squad Calls Classified by Zone
17 Probability of a Rail Crossing Conflict and the
Corresponding Expected Delay of Zone 1 for the
Rescue Squad from the Primary Station
18 Probability of a Rail Crossing Conflict and the
Corresponding Expected Delay of Zone 1 for the
Rescue Squad from the Secondary Station
19 Probability and Expected Stopped Delay Figures of
Zone 2 for Primary Rescue Squad Station
20 Probability and Expected Stopped Delay Figures of
Zone 2 for the Secondary Rescue Squad Station
21 School Impact Data
22 Load Analysis
iv
Page
65
66
67
68
69
70
76
90

COAL TRANSPORTATION -IN COASTAL NORTH CAROLINA
In 1980 and 1981 the State of North -Carolina was faced with
numerous proposals for large-scale facilities for shipping coal
from North Carolina.ports. Transportation of this coal through
the coastal zone would affect many communities along the rail lines.
It would also affect the terminal cities -Morehead City and Wilmington --
through both rail traffic and port development. In order to prepare
state and local agencies for dealing with these impacts, a major
effort was organized under the sponsorship of the Coastal Energy Impact
Program to discover these impacts, quantify and analyze them, and to
propose mitigation measures. This present report is one of four reports
which have resulted from this effort. In addition, closely related reports
have been prepared on port development at Radio Island near Morehead City,
alternative technologies for moving coal; and the alternative of wide -beam
shallow -draft colliers for Wilmington. Those reports are listed in the
list of CEIP Publications in the back of this report.
.Impacts of Increased Rail Traffic on,Communities in Eastern.Nortii'Carolina
CEIP Report No. 17
This study estimates the positive and negative impacts of increased
rail traffic on communities in eastern North Carolina. The positive impacts
include estimates of rail and port -related employment and payroll increases
that could be expected if major increases in the annual volume of any bulk
commodity, such as coal, were to be exported from Morehead City or Wilming-
ton. The negative impacts focus on vehicle/train, at -grade crossing conflicts,
such as traffic delay, emergency vehicle delay, accidents, fuel use, and
pollution. Alternative solutions are suggested for the problems various
specific communities may encounter.
A case study approach has been taken in this study, with ten local
communities providing data for analysis. Seven "problem specific" solutions
to increased rail traffic in these communities were analyzed: rail by-pass,
grade separation, street widening, emergency services/railroad communications,
fire/medical services for isolated neighborhoods, grade crossing warning
devices, and city ordinances. Needs for these types of improvements in the
towns of New Bern and Morehead City alone total about $90,0000000. In the
other eight case study communities, needs for capital improvements to accom-
modate increased rail traffic total approximately $16,000,000. These needs
are based on an assumed 20 million tons of export commodities annually through
either of the two port cities (Morehead City or Wilmington). On the basis of
these results, major commodity flows in the Wilmington rail corridor would
fewer vehicle/train impacts than rail traffic in the Morehead City corridor.
All other factors being equal, it is recommended that priority be given to
promoting rail traffic in the Wilmington corridor.
Analysis of the Impact of Coal Trains Moving through Morehead City (CEIP
Report No. 25
This report examines the possibility of any adverse effects to the
town of Morehead City and its citizens caused by the coal train transpor-
tation. Impacts are estimated for tonnages of three million and 15 million
tons of coal per year. Field measurements -under current conditions (coal
- trains at about a one million ton per year rate) -were made of vibration

and traffie. Traffic delay and business effect studies were also
conducted. Special attention was given to the impacts of train —
caused vibrations on utility lines buried under or near the tracks.
Coal Movements throw h the City of Wilmington (CEIP Report No. 26)
This study identifies and analyzes the potential economic, trans—
portation, and environmental impacts to the City of Wilmington caused
by the export of coal through the State Port. Primary attention focuses
on the effects of unit train movements. Special attention is given
to effects on several neighborhoods which were chosen to reprentthe
full array of socio—economic patterns found along the rail line. Public
policy actions are recommended to -reduce adverse impacts.
New Bern Coal Train Study (CEIP Report No. 24)
This project, which is still underway, studies the impacts of coal
trains on historic structures in New Bern. Extensive vibration Atudies
and engineering analyses of historic buildings have been undertaken.
Protective measures are expected to be.recommended.

Introduction
At some point in the near future Wilmington will again be a
focus of the coal export industry, as indeed was the case before
the present general economic slump. There is no question that coal
will be one of the most important sources of energy in the future
and that,, unlike oil, it will probably continue to require loading
at conventional, on -shore facilities. This means that practically
all ports will attract some level -of coal exports.
The development of a coal export facility within Wilmington
raises many questions concerning the transport of coal to a
possible site at the State Port. The port is served by track
owned by the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad. This track crosses at
grade through the majority of the city's residential areas,
commercial periphery and over major traffic arteries. Unit coal
trains, approximately 4000 feet, in length would be required to
supply a coal export operation.
The purpose of this study is to assess the city's potential
for coal export operations and, from this, evaluate the potential
economic, transportation and environmental impacts of coal
transport through the city. The report focuses primarily on the
State Port as a site for coal exports. The study area and related
information is shown in Map 1.
A summary of major findings and policy recommendations
preceeds the. individual analyses of impacts. The summary is
followed by Section One, which investigates the world market for
U.S. coal, Wilmington's competitive position in this market and
the share of coal exports that appears likely for the city. In
Section Two, the economic ,impacts of coal exports through the:city
are evaluated. Section Three reports the results of an inspection
of the Wilmington Belt Line. In Section Four, an analysis is made
of unit train impacts on street traffic flows. The traffic study
is extended in Section Five to an analysis of the probabilities of
unit train conflicts with emergency vehicles at street crossings.
Sections Six through Nine investigate the environmental impacts of
railroad noise, vibrations, subsurface loadings and air pollution.
Finally, in Section Ten a summary is provided of impacts at the
neighborhood level.
v

... .. ....... .
STUDY AREA
Wl LM I NGTON COAL TRAIN STUDY
SCALE: 1 3200'
0 16 32
X,
SEABOARD COAST LINE
.. . .......
RAILROAD (BELT LINE)
TYPICAL SCL UNIT TRAIN
-
LENGTH4000'
X
A if
MAP 1

�.
s

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
In this section, a summary of major findings and policy
recommendations is presented for each of the studies conducted in
this investigation. Reference should be made to the individual
.analyses for detailed explanations of findings.
Section One - Coal Export Market Demand
The announcement of intentions by private industries during
the past two years to develop coal exporting facilities in
Wilmington and subsequent cancellations of plans raised much doubt
about the growth of the U.S. coal export market. A determination
of what can be considered realistic expectations of this market,
and Wilmington's competitive position as an exporting site for
coal, is presented in Section One. The analysis involved a review
of major international studies that have been conducted by various
governments on probable world market demands for coal through. the
turn of the century. The results of this analysis produced, the
following findings:
1. The current stagnation of coal market growth will not
persist indefinitely. There is practically no disagreement
among energy economists that coal will increasingly be used
as a major energy source in all countries. The present market
decline is a very temporary condition brought on by general
economic recession, over -production of limited oil resources
and the simultaneous application of conservation measures.'
2. The increase in world demand for coal will be largely for
steam coal used in power generation. By the turn of the
century, this market is expected to increase by five times
over current levels, to approximately 500 million short tons
(2000 pounds) annually.
3. The U.S. market share will be substantial but it will
face strong competition due to development of large reserves
in other countries (notably South Africa and Australia) and
also the expected tendency of importing countries to
diversify supply sources. Given these constraints, the U.S.
annual market share is forecast to rise to roughly 190
million tons.
4. The potential. coal export volumes at ports in this
country will follow a split between eastern and western U.S.
coal reserves. The eastern market share is forecast at
roughly 140 million tons.
1

5. When present export facility capacities are subtracted
out, there remains a need for new facilities amounting to
approximately 67 million tons.
6. The competition among eastern U.S. ports for a market
share of the 67 million ton export deficit will be intense.
Planned expansions at ports other than Wilmington account for
some 85 percent of the facility needs.
7. An objective view of the competitive environment for coal
exports leads to the conclusion that the probable market
share of most ports has been exaggerated. This clearly seems
the case in Wilmington since export facility plans for sites
on the Cape Fear River would have accounted for nearly half
of.the available market expansion. Nonetheless, Wilmington's
location, its service by Seaboard Coast Line, which is
affiliated with the Family Lines network, and the
availability of export sites will continue to attract
investors. in coal export facilities. The temporary setback of
coal market growth provides a valuable opportunity for the
city to evaluate the impacts of coal export trade and develop
the appropriate courses of action. This study is a step in
that regard.
Section Two: Public Economic Impacts of Coal Export Operations
The economic impact analysis investigated potential
employment generated benefits from coal export facilities as
compared to negative financial impacts on property values, traffic
delays and public facilities. The employment generated benefits
were based on studies conducted by the State Bureau of Economic
Analysis for coal export operations at Morehead City.' Interviews
were also made with railroad and State Port Authority officials to
determine how many new jobs would be required to service a
9,000,000 ton coal export facility at the State Port. The major
findings of this analysis were as follows:
1. Approximately 70 new jobs would be created if a coal
export facility were put into operation at the State Port. It
is expected that most of these jobs .,would be filled by
persons presently living in Wilmington.
2. A coal export facility would have very few links to the
local economy and require no specialized services from it.
Thus, it is unlikely that the facility would in any way
create job opportunities other than those for its own
operation.
3. The economic benefits to the service sector of the
Wilmington economy would also be small. Retail sales might be
2

expected to rise by roughly $600,000 per year from purchases
made by job holders at a coal export facility. This amount
would return roughly $6,000 to the city's tax base.
4. On the negative side, -the increased train movements that
would be needed to serve a coal export facility will create
substantial costs. Property values may decline by
approximately $1,045,000 due to noise and vibration effects.
Increased vehicle delays could add $679,800 to $1,095,000
annually to the cost figures. Also, it is expected that
reconstruction of various underground utilities would be
needed to support train loads. The latter two cost figures
are explained in other parts of this summary.
Section Three: Belt Line Track Inspection
The Wilmington Belt Line, which is owned by Seaboard Coast
Line Railroad, was inspected to determine its general condition
and suitability for unit train operations. This inspection was
conducted according to Federal Railroad Administration standards
for Class I track. This is the designated class of the Belt Line
and implies a maximum permissible operating train speed of 10
miles per hour. In addition to a general finding that the track
will need extensive upgrading to handle unit coal trains, a number
of serious problems were found that should be given immediate
attention. The results of these findings are listed below:
1. The crossties of the Belt Line are generally in poor
condition throughout its length. At least 75 cases were noted
in the inspection that indicated tie defects. These defects
can cause the track to deflect, spread, or break under the
weight of a train, possibly leading to derailment.
2. The sections of the track which seem to contain the most
prevalent tie problems are found from Covil Avenue to Market
Street and 30th Street to King Street. Nearly all track
sections, however,.need extensive tie replacements, probably
as many as 700-800 ties per mile.
3. Four gage defects (i.e., the permissible space between
left and right tracks) were noted at 5th and Martin Streets,
between 5th and 6th Streets, at the point of the track curve
between Covil Avenue and Market Street and near the McRae
Street overpass. These defects are very serious derailment
hazards.
4. In many of the sections of the track, the joint bars (the
devices that bolt together sections of track) were found to
be loose. There, are also numerous quarter breaks in these
bars.
3

5. Except for a short track section in' the area of the old
Atlantic Coast Line switching yard, there is no rail on the
Belt Line which can support the impact of unit coal trains.
The inspection simply confirms the very marginal use the Belt
Line track presently has. Extensive track upgrading would be
required before any unit trains could be put on regular schedules.
Furthermore, even for existing trains, the track needs immediate
repairs to allow safe movements.
Policy Recommendation: The city should encourage the Seaboard
Coast Line to upgrade the Belt Line in its entire length, whether
or not coal transport develops. The findings of this study should
be brought to the attention of Seaboard officials.
Section Four: Unit Train Impacts on Street Traffic Flows
A comprehensive analysis was undertaken to determine the
traffic impacts that would be caused by increased train movements
over the Belt Line. This analysis involved a computer simulation
of city traffic flows based on traffic counts conducted by the
Wilmington Planning Department. Sixteen critical railroad and
street intersections plus major feeder streets were investigated
in detail against three conditions of train, operations. These
scenarios took into account what is considered to be practical
variations in train speeds, train lengths and operating
frequencies to transport 9,000,000 tons, of coal annually. Based on
the computer simulations, figures were derived to show total daily
hours of vehicle delays and from these, an estimate was made of
public costs due to increased driving times for motorists. The
major findings of the analysis were as follows:
1. If unit trains are placed on the Belt Line, 453.20 to
730.00 delay hours will be added daily to existing traffic
flow conditions, depending on train speeds, lengths and
frequencies tested in the operating scenarios.
2. The intersections of Market and 30th Streets and 16th and
Dawson Streets, which are traffic bottlenecks under existing
conditions, will be severely affected by unit train
movements.
3. If it is assumed that the value of time while driving is
at least $6.00 per hour to drivers and passengers, the public
costs due to increased traffic delays from train movements
will range annually from $679,800 to $1,095,000. Additional
expenses can also be assumed due to increased periods of
engine idling, starting and stopping.and related operations.
These costs may range from approximately $84,839 to $136,656.
4

4. The higher ranges of potential public costs will result
if unit trains are operated at 10 mile per hour averages. An
increase to 20 miles per hour average speeds for the trains
on the Belt Line will reduce traffic delays from train
movements by approximately 40 per cent.
The results of the traffic simulations indicate a substantial
yearly cost in vehicle delays to the public if unit train
movements are made over'the Belt Line. The speed of.the trains is
critical to minimizing delays in the traffic network.
Policy Recommendations: If unit trains are placed in service,.the
c,ty should encourage the Seaboard Coast Line to make improvements
necessary to increase operating speeds to 20 miles per hour. Any
increment over 10 miles per hour should not be overlooked in
importance to reducing street traffic delays. The city also should
work with the railroad toward avoiding train movements during
street rush hours.
Section Five: Emergency Vehicle Impacts
Section Five contains an analysis of potential conflicts
between fire and rescue squad emergency vehicles and unit train
operations. A probability model was used to evaluate the
likelihood of conflicts. This model required a historical trend
analysis of fire and rescue squad calls, destinations and total
response times by service zones. Historical records were prepared
by the Wilmington Fire Department. Detailed probabilities for
conflicts and expected delay times for each service zone are
presented in the texts. The general findings were as follows:
1. Due to geographic locations of fire stations in zones
serving the neighborhoods of Sunset Park, South Wilmington,
East Greenfield and the University area, Fire Department
vehicles do not have to cross Belt Line tracks and thus,
conflicts are not an issue.
2. For the remaining fire service zones in the city which
require Belt Line crossings, the probability of a conflict
with a unit train (assuming 10 one-way train movements) will
range from .0008 to .010 per call (i.e., approximately 1 to
10 times per thousand calls).
3. When a fire vehicle and train conflict does occur at a
Belt Line crossing, given the chances of such an occurrence,
the delay per conflict will average 136 seconds. When
averaged over all yearly responses, this delay will be .23 to
2.81 seconds per response.
5

4. One neighborhood area, Love Grove, should be of concern
for both fire and rescue squad service since the Belt Line
crosses the single street that provides access to the
neighborhood. If a derailment were to occur at this crossing,
the neighborhood could be isolated completely for some period
of time from emergency vehicles.
5. For the rescue squad vehicles, conflicts, with train
movements could be expected to be higher since calls
typically require trips to the accident as well as to a
hospital. For Zone 1, which serves the western and downtown
areas of the city, conflict probabilities were estimated to
be .0179 to .116 per trip (roughly l8 to 116 conflicts per
1000 trips). When a conflict occurs, the average delay for a
rescue vehicle will be 136 seconds and, in unusual cases
could be twice this amount (272 seconds) if a train is
encountered both on the trip to the accident and on the
return to a hospital. When averaged over all expected yearly
trips, the average delay for any response will range from
4.87 to 31.77 seconds. The upper range indicates a serious
delay time although, as noted in the detailed analysis, the
chances are small for this amount of delay.
6. For Zone 2, which serves the eastern part of the city,
the conflict probabilities were found to range from .0017 to
.029 per trip (i.e., approximately 2 to 29 conflicts per 1000
trips). The average delay time for an actual conflict between
a. rescue squad vehicle and a train is the same as in Zone 1
(i.e., 136 to 272 seconds). However, due to differences in
rescue squad locations, the expected delay in Zone 2 for any
response, averaged over all calls, will be much lower,
ranging from .48 to 4.14 seconds.
7. The rescue back-up service provided by Empie station to
Section 1 of Zone 1 (the Brooklyn area) has to cross the Belt
Line twice on the response trip and twice again if a return
is made to a hospital. This is the only service that has a
large delay factor (delays could average 31 seconds per
response) but the probabilities of the delays occurring are
small.
As a general finding, the emergency ;vehicle conflicts posed by
unit train operations are low relative to many other possible
delays that may block the timely arrival of these vehicles.
Nonetheless, even small increments of-- time are critically
important in fire and rescue operations, and unit train movements
will add in some measure to delay times.
Policy Recommendations: No changes in response in fire or rescue
service patterns wouTFappear necessary for unit train movements
at the levels discussed with the possible exception of Empie
station back-up service to the Brooklyn area. The city should
investigate a back-up service that minimizes Belt Line crosses for
this service area. An alternative entry should be developed into
the Love Grove neighborhood in case of derailments.
6_

.Section Six: Railroad Noise Impacts
An analysis was made in section six of the effects unit
trains would have on existing noise levels in areas adjacent to
the Belt Line. The analysis provides noise level data for single
train movements and for average total effects over a 24-hour day.
The findings were as follows:
1. Disturbing noise levels could be expected to extend to
approximately 1,000 feet from either side of the Belt Line:
2. Within the 2,000 foot corridor, noise levels from four
additional round trip movements will change community noise
levels significantly. On a 24-hour day, perceived noise
levels will be approximately :double those of existing
conditions.
3. The train noise would not be expected to have detectable
effects on the physical health of residents living along the
Belt Line, but hearing and, communication will be disrupted
during train movements.
4. Changes in the level of community noise may be expected
to have adverse effects on property values. An estimated loss
value of $1,045,137 could occur as a result of increased
noises (this figure is derived in section two on Economic
Impacts).
5. Train movements can be expected to cause disruption in
hearing and speech communication in schools located near the
Belt Line. Comprehension during lectures or other classroom
work would be a particular problem for children with learning
disabilities.
The significant increases in noise are a normal function of
train operations and there is little the city can do on a public
level to reduce noise impacts. Private property can be.retrofitted
by owners with various sound absorption materials, such as door
and window gaskets. These types of improvements are highly
effective in reducing exterior noise but are not inexpensive. A
noise control ordinance for train movements would not be
enforceable. The Federal Noise Control Act controls standards for
locomotive noises. -
Policy Recommendation:
maintain track so as
noise control ordinance
enforcement authority
retrofit school doors
intrusion from train
service.
The city should encourage the railroad to
to minimize noise from train movements. A
is not recommended because of lack of
at the local level. The county should
and windows with gaskets to retard noise
movements if unit trains are placed in
7

Section Seven: General Vibration Impacts
An analysis was made in Section Seven to determine the
effects of unit train induced vibrations in areas of the city next
to the Belt Line. Vibrations from train movements are represented
primarily by surface waves which leave the track area much like
the movement of water waves across the surface of a pond. Humans
cannot feel vibrations produced by a passing train unless they are
standing next to the track. These waves; however, will cause
perceptible movements in houses or other building structures. The
analysis in Section Seven produced the following findings:
1. Significant vibration waves from passing trains can be
expected to largely dissipate at 600 feet from the Belt Line
track. It is estimated that 31121 residents are located
within this distance.
2. Perceptible movements from vibration wave action on
houses and other buildings will occur within the 600 foot
distance -from the Belt Line. Structural damage to buildings
is not considered likely although it is possible that
hairline cracks in old plaster or similar materials could
occur over time.
3. Residents within the 600 foot distance will sense
vibrations as rumbling sounds due to building movements.
These sounds may be highly annoying in some buildings and
will vary according to building construction characteristics.
4. The intensity of the sounds caused by vibrations will
decrease by approximately 6 dB per doubling of distance from
the track. The most annoying sound levels would be within the
first 400 foot distance from the Belt Line. At this point,
vibration waves will produce decibel levels ranging from 61
dB to 85 dB, which is roughly twice the present sound level
for Belt Line neighborhoods.
As a practical matter, there is no:. inexpensive physical
improvement that can effectively reduce expected vibrations on
existing structures. These impacts must simply be viewed as a
public cost of Belt Line service.
Policy Recommendation: No policy action other than encouraging
e railroad's proper maintenance of the track is recommended.
8

Section Eight: Vibration and Loading Impacts on Underground
Utilities
The Belt Line track is crossed underground by numerous
utilities in the city's water, sewerage and storm drainage
systems. The analysis in Section Eight investigated whether or not
the increased loads and subsurface vibrations of unit coal trains
pose possible structural damages to these utilities. Eighty-one
utilities were identified by the city's Public Works Department.
Of this number, 52 were selected for more detailed investigation
based on preliminary indication of possible structural problems.
It was necessary to make a number of assumptions concerning the
installation methods` for the buried pipe. The results of the
analysis are summarized below:
1. It was found that twenty-rsix utilities may have loading
problems 'from unit,trains that significantly exceed allowable
standards. These include fourteen sewer mains, ten storm
drainage mains and one water main
2. The exceeding of the allowable loads can be expected to
cause the development of significant structural cracksand
may result in complete pipe failures.
3. If further analysis confirms the suspected overloads, it
is likely that the pipes will have to be replaced. It is
roughly estimated that a conservative replacement cost would
be at least $315,000, excluding engineering, project
administration and various other costs.
The results of the analysis in Section Eight indicate that
unit train loads should be of serious concern. It is recommended
that a detailed structural analysis be undertaken to determine
precisely the extent of loading problems.
Policy Recommendation: The city should conduct detailed site
investigations of utilities identified as having potential loading
problems for unit train service. If the problems are confirmed and
the railroad places unit trains in service, the city should pursue
a cost recovery from the railroad.
Section Nine: Unit Train Air Pollution Impacts
The potential impacts of coal dust particulates and engine
exhaust emissions from unit coal trains were investigated in
Section 9. The analysis reported research conducted by the
Department of Energy for dust loss. A plume model was used to
determine "worst" case emission levels. These levels were then
evaluated in terms of.coal transport distance to Wilmington, train
9

speeds . on the Belt Line and the effects of local climate
conditions. The findings were as follows:
1. Under "worst" case conditions, the transported coal will
have a dust loss factor of approximately .25 percent of coal
transported. Given annual transports of nine million tons for
a State Port facility, with four daily unit train movements,
it can be estimated that as much as one pound of dust per
mile could be emitted daily from train movements over the
Belt Line. This rate of emission is below particulate
maximums allowed under Environmental Protection Agency
standards.
2. Several significant mitigating factors indicate that in
actual operating conditions, coal dust loss in Wilmington
from passing trains will be far less than suggested in item 1
above. This reduction is due to: 1) an assumption that most
coal dust will blow out _during early stages of the trip from
the mine; 2) the unit trains will travel at slow speeds on
the Belt Line; and 3) regional climate conditions are
favorable to minimizing emissions.
3. The number and time intervals between unit train
operations on the Belt Line indicates that federal air
quality standards will not be exceeded in Wilmington.
As indicated in the findings above, the coal dust and engine
exhaust emissions from unit trains on the Belt Line would not be
expected to be a serious concern. It is expected that dust
concentrations from any single passing .. train will not be
detectable. At this level of air pollution; methods for further
reduction are not practical.
Policy Recommendation: No policy actions are recommended at the
levels of projected -unit coal train movements.
10

Section Ten: Neighborhood Impacts
The final section of the report provided a quantitative
summary of those neighborhood populations that will be directly
affected by unit train noise, vibrations and property
depreciations. The estimates of population were made using 1980
Census block statistics developed by the Planning Department. The
total neighborhood populations affected by unit train impacts were
found to be as follows:
Persons living in 1,000 foot, 60 d6A noise corridor: 6,273
Persons living in 600 foot vibration corridor: 3,121
Persons affected by dust pollution: No Measurable Effect
Housing units in 1,000 foot noise/vibration corridor: 2,579

COAL EXPORT MARKET DEMAND
The recent behavior of the international coal market -- its
steep rise followed by collapse -- points to the problem of making
predictions on future demands of export products. During the past
two years, six firms announced plans to develop coal shipping
facilities along the Cape Fear River; most have canceled the plans
or at best are much more uncertain about following through on
investments.
In the long run, there seems to be no disagreement that the
demand for coal will grow far in excess of any other energy
commodity. The problem for investors in today's market of tight
money and extremely high interest rates is that the timing of
investments leaves little margin in which to work. Thus,
Wilmington and other port cities, which are served by coal hauling
railroads or barge lines, became the focus of a great deal of
investment activity two years ago when it appeared that declining
but steeply priced oil supplies would break open the coal market.
In fact, combinations of economic recession in Europe, energy
conservation measures, and over -production of present oil
supplies, have put strong restraints on the growth of the coal
market at the present time.
For Wilmington the questions of when and how the coal market
will develop are important because coal trade has long-term
implications on such matters as land use, rail and highway
conflicts, the local economy and the nature of channel traffic and
development. This section will present a broad overview of major
elements that are shaping the coal market, including: (1) the
developing demand for coal; (2) factors influencing the U.S. share
of the market; and (3) the competitive position of Wilmington in
this market and potential tonnage projections relative to coal
transport movements through the city.
World Coal Demand
During the last five years there have been a number of
comprehensive studies of the international coal market, as for
example, the reports by the U.S. Department of Energy, Interagency
Coal Export Task Force, the International Energy Agency study on
the European steam coal market, and the World Coal Study (WOCOL).
These and similar studies have been in agreement that the world
demand for coal will increase several. times over the present
market by the turn of the century.
12

In the past,, the . U.S. Market was dominated primarily by
metallurgical coals used in making iron and steel. While this
market will continue modest growth, it is expected that it will be
overshadowed by a vastly increased demand for steam coal. The
various export facility plans that have been proposed for
;Wilmington are designed for the steam coal market. This type of
'coal is used primarily in the electric utility industry. The
market has been stalled temporarily, however, by excess oil
production and world industrial stagnation. Neither of these
conditions are expected to persist. Oil reserves.are limited and,
even. in a glutted market, the prices per BTU exceed those of coal.
Further, the electric utility industry will continue to convert
existing oil fired plants to coal, though the timing of these
conversions.is influenced by government policy as well as energy
economics.
As time passes, it can be expected that cost and production
factors in, petroleum supplies will create conditions that are
.increasingly favorable to a widespread conversion to coal use. By
the late 1990's, according to the various international studies
cited above, it can be projected that steam coal demand may rise
by as much as five times over its present 100 million ton market.
Factors Influencing the U.S. Market Share
Despite the anticipated growth of both the steam and
metallurgical coal markets, there is a great deal of uncertainty
about how much of this market the U.S. will capture. A number of
factors are contributing to.this uncertainty, as 'explained below.
First, U.S. coal will have to compete against other
suppliers, notably South Africa and Australia, which together have
the capacity to supply the entire world steam coal market into the
next century. It appears that the price per ton of coal supplied
by these countries can undercut the U.S. price by $5-15 per ton,
(in 1982 dollars) depending on destination. The price advantage in
both countries is due primarily to lower inland transportation
costs.
A factor that should mitigate to some.�extent the price
advantage of South African and Australian coal is that these and
other supplying nations may be willing to let U.S. coal capture a
large 'share of the market in order that U.S. prices can set the
standard for international coal trade. , Still, the price
disadvantage and the abundance of coal in South Africa and
Adstrialia means that the U.S. cannot control the market.
13

-The reliability of the U.S. market to supply other nations
consistently with needed quantities of.coal is an issue that is
also foremost in figuring market share. Rail strikes, mine
strikes, dock worker strikes, the harbor facilities themselves and
demurrage costs, are all factors that the international buyer must
try to account for in establishing long-term relationships. Of
course, other supplying nations have similar disruptive supply
factors. The strategy that coal importing countries are likely to
follow to reduce the threat of disruptions in the supply line is
to spread their buying over a large number of supplying countries.
The lesson of dealing with single suppliers in oil who could
easily shut down production has not been lost on European or other
buyers and reinforces the strategy of diversification. The result
of this strategy will assure_ the U.S. a -strong market but not
domination of that market.
Finally, a very uncertain element in determining U.S. share
is the role of technology.. Under this heading may be lumped the
diverse issues.relating to such factors as shipping size, channel
depths, loading facilities, rail hauling, off -shore technology,
and the development of liquid or hybrid coal fuels which will
require liquid handling facilities, such as the slurry pipeline
concept. Major break-throughs in the use of these technologies,
which are as much problems of legislation as engineering design,
could dramatically change the U.S. position in the market.
Taken as a whole, the previously cited international studies
that have looked in detail at coal market forces indicate a world
steam coal market by the turn of the century of some 500 million
tons, and a U.S. share of the market ranging from 25-50 percent
for the European market and 10-25 percent for the Pacific Rim
market. It is further projected by these studies that.European and
Pacific Rim coal use will be roughly equivalent. These assumptions
indicate that the market share for the U:S. should fall between
about 90 million tons on the low side to some 190 million tons on
the high side. The higher figure will be used as a basis for
analysis in this report.
U.S. Coal Market Split and Export Facility Needs
The need and/or investment attractiveness of coal export
facilities in.Wilmington and the Cape Fear area can be considered
a subset of the international factors that affect the U.S. market
share. In addition, there are State and local factors that
directly affect Wilmington's potential market share of U.S. coal
exports. These are discussed below.
It must be -considered first that Wilmington's location on the
eastern seaboard strongly directs its potential export market to
14

Europe. (Although Japan ships large tonnages, out of eastern ports,
primarily Hampton Roads, this has been out of necessity for its
metallurgical coal needs. Future Japanese steam coal demand from
U.S. sources will probably be satisfied by western U.S. coal
reserves). The share of the U.S. market that Wilmington may
capture will be only that part concerned with European demands (or
similar Atlantic countries).
The Interagency Coal Export Task Force assumes that roughly
74 percent of the split (or 140 million tons) of the anticipated
190 million ton steam coal market will be taken by eastern coal
exports. This figure can be considered the annual upper limit coal
tonnage that will be shipped through eastern U.S. ports toward the
end of the century. As pointed out earlier, various intervening
market forces could reduce this figure substantially.
The 140 million ton projected eastern export market total can
be viewed as a "pie" from which some slices have already been
taken by ports with existing coal facilities (or facilities under
expansion). The remaining.portions are potentially available to
Wilmington or other ports that have not previously exported coal.
Figure 1 shows the existing and potential effective
capacities for eastern ports. Effective capacity refers to the
operating capacity of the port that can be sustained over long
periods of time rather than the absolute amount of tonnage that.
can be accommodated under special circumstances. As indicated by
the, totals of effective capacities (113.8 million tons), plus
expansions underway (18 million tons), U.S. eastern ports without
further development are able to handle nearly 132 million tons of
coal, of which some 59 million is metallurgical coal. Thus,
present steam coal effective capacity at eastern ports is 73
million tons, leaving an expansion need of 67 million tons if the
140 million ton future U.S. market is to be accommodated by the
turn of the century.
As indicated in Figure 1, efforts to remove under -capacity
have already gone through at least the planning stages for ports
shown. In fact, if all the planned expansions shown in Figure 1
were carried out, there would be 57 million tons of effective
capacity added at eastern U.S. ports (118 million tons absolute
capacity).
The figures above . indicate some measure of the competitive
nature of the projected coal export market within the U.S. The
market is large, at least from the standpoint of. -bulk tonnage, but,
it is not so large that eastern ports will.have"more coal exports
than they can handle.
3 It is also instructive to note that Wilmington is not listed
in the ports shown. However, if the facilities `announced for the
i
i
15

(millions of short tons)
- -
_
.O-al Kmod tO -
- - -
Long Term* -
Vessel
Size
Existing Capacity
Capacity
9cpansion
Effective
(DWT)
(10
tons)
(10
tons)
Capacity, 1985
Port/.esninal
Existing
Pr000sed
Designed
Effective
Planned
-'Underway
(10� tons)
East Coast
New'.York. New York (P)
80,000
5.0
S.0
Philadelphia -Pier 124 (£)
60,000
5.0
2.5
6.S
9.0
Camden, New Jersey (P)
35,000
2.0
2.0
Wilmington, Delaware (7)
30,000
7.S
7.5
Lower Delaware Day (P)
100,000+
10.0
10.0
Baltimore (E)
70,000
100,000+
27.2
16.6
1}.0
6.5
34.1
Norfolk-Pier-6-North (E)
80,000
100,000+
58.0
29:0
7.3
36.3
Pier-S-South (E)
8.0
4.0
1.0
5.0
Newport News -Pier 14 (E)
60,000'
100,000+
33.0
16.5
16.5
Pier 15 (E)
14.6
5.3
S.0
10.3
Pier* 9 (£)
5.0 _
S.0
Portsmouth (P)
50,000
100,000+
10.0
10.0
Morehead City (P)
50,000
100,000+
5.0
5.0
Charleston (P)
40,000
50,000
5.0
5.0
Savannah (P)
50.000
70,000
7.5
7.5
Brunswick (P)
30,000
43,000
S.0
5.0
Total East Coast
145.8
73.E _
81.3
18.0
173.2
Gulf Coast
Mobile (E)
60,000
100,000+
11.0
S.5
5.0
10.5
New Orleans-Davant (£)
60,000
100.000+
14.0
7.0
3.0
10.0
Myrtle Grove (E)
60,000
100,000+
6.0
3.0
9.0
12.0
Mile 119 (P)
60,000
100,000+
4.0
4.0
Baton Rouge (Burnside) (£)
60.000
100,000+
5.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Port Arthur (P),
60,000
100,_000+
_
2.0
2.0
Galveston (P)
55,000
100.000+
10.0
10.0
Corpus Clristi (P)
75.000
100,000+
0.5
0.5
Total Gulf Coast
36.0
17.5
32.5
5.0
55.0
M Existing Facility
(P) Potential Facility
Source: 11aric!me 11dat.nistration.
The columns showing capacity
expansion and effective
capacity
are not
dependent .upon the
deepening of channels at
the respective
ports;
however, the column shovin;
proposed vessel size is dependent
upon the
completion
of dredging
projects.
Based on survey of U.S.
ports. uslAS 1995 ap nominal date for aid- to long term coal port develop=ent.plans.

Wilmington area had been built as planned, they. would have had a
total effective capacity ranging from 25 to 37 million tons
annually. This total would account for nearly half of the entire
capacity that eastern ports will need to develop by the .turn of
the century. Considering the many factors that are shaping the
future coal market, it is unlikely that Wilmington or any single
port will capture that much of the future market. What is
happening generally, and may be presumed for coal export
development in Wilmington, is that investors are speculating on
the coal market in a very uncertain and uncoordinated environment.
In anticipation of a coal market upswing they have been "testing
the water"-- taking options on export sites; developing plans; in
most cases, drawing back. The process has raised a lot of issues
prematurely in U.S. ports but it is likely to continue until the
future growth of the coal market is better defined .
Projected Wilmington Coal Export Potential
As suggested above, the real potential coal export market for
Wilmington between now and the turn of the century is probably.far
:less than indicated by promoters of export facilities during the
:past several years. Determining that market involves a great deal
:of uncertainty, since for any particular port international market
forces are beyond any practical manipulation and; even in the case
of the country as a whole, are not, for reasons cited earlier,
subject to the types of business forecasts associated with
products for purely domestic consumption. With this uncertainty in
mind, there remain some factors that help ..define the City's
potential as a location for coal exports, as explained below.
First, the Seaboard Coast Line, which provides all rail
service to Wilmington, is affiliated with the Family Line System,
a major coal carrier. The Family Line System provides service to
about 60 percent of the available central Appalachian coal
reserves. As a general rule of thumb, the rail service percentage
has traditionally been closely related to the share of coal export
trade that can be captured by a railroad. This share, in turn,
filters down to the various ports in which . the railroad has
facilities, as in Wilmington.
A second factor that influences venture interest in
Wilmington is the availability of coal export."sites. The western
side of the Cape Fear River is virtually undeveloped, although
constrained by environmental factors at many .locations. The east
side of the Cape Fear River has few remaining sites but among
these is the State Port (see map 1) which. has substantial
investments in shipping facilities and could be adapted for coal
export trade. At the present time, potential storage and loading
facilities are organized primarily for container -trade and related
internal traffic patterns and by wood pulp shipping operations.
17

The wood pulp -operations have recently been added and occupy �a 15
acre site for which a coal export company announced preliminary
development plans in 1981, prior to later dropping negotiations
with the Port Authority on the site. The potential future
development of the State Port for coal exports would require
either substantial rearrangements of existing container trade
operations or the vacating of other presently occupied sites.
While there are 60 undeveloped acres at the northern end of the
Port Authority land, this site is underlain by peat, material and
would require costly infilling to support coal unloading and
storage for shipping.
A second potential coal export site within Wilmington on the
east side of the Cape Fear River is located near the downtown
district on Nutt Street (see map 1). This site is served by a rail
spur to the Wilmington Belt Line and was recently proposed for
coal export operations of approximately three million tons per
year. District zoning regulations do not permit coal operations at
this location.
Given the direct rail link to central Appalachian coal
fields, and potential coal export sites in the city, a third
factor which defines market potential is the adequacy of channel
depth in the Cape Fear River for coal colliers. The Cape Fear
River has a 38-foot draft which is the minimum necessary for
accommodating smaller coal colliers (50,000 dead weight tons or
less) now being used in international trade. Geologic studies
conducted by the Corps of Engineers in Wilmington have established
that further deepening of the present channel is not feasible due
to bedrock strata and consequent excavation expense.
The long-term future f
be determined by presently
shipping efficiencies and
receiving ports in other
increasing interest in the
larger colliers ranging up t
substantial financial cos
involved to improve chan
international ports and the
Suez Canal to accommodate
continuation of a significan
next century. Thus, despi
Wilmington will likely cont
coal export shippers.
Site and Tonnage Capacity
or the use of the smaller colliers will
unresolved questions concerned with
the channel accommodations made at
countries. Although there has been
shipping industry toward the use of
o 400,000 dead weight tons (DWT), the
ts, environmental constraints, time
nel depths at virtually all major
unsuitability of the Panama Canal and
the larger colliers, indicates the
t market for smaller colliers into the
to the 38-foot channel limitation,
inue to attract the interest of smaller
The State Port is the only facility within Wilmington proper
that will have direct environmental impacts on the city and is not

constrained by local restrictions against development. The zoning
restrictions on the Nutt Street site are assumed to be long-term;
however, as the growth in the coal market picks up momentum, there
will obviously be developer interest in this site for coal
exports. For this reason, some limited attention is given to the
Nutt Street site in various analyses presented'in this report.
Previous studies conducted by the State Coastal Management
Program estimated coal storage and loading capacities at the State
Port to have a range of 4-9 million tons. Site visits conducted
during this research generally confirmed the upper limit of this
range unless costly improvements are made to develop the 60 acre
site at the Port which was identified above. as having severe
environmental constraints for the storage of coal.
The development of a 9 million ton facility would require a
substantial increase in train operations on the- Belt Line track
operated by the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad.- Officials of the
railroad have indicated that their operations would involve the
use of 70 car unit trains having a hauling capacity of 100 tons
per car (or 7,000 tons per train). Four diesel engines would be
required for power. The trains would be operated seven days per
week, averaging four trains per day (eight one way trips). The
trains would enter the Wilmington Port from the.Navassa Switching
Yard on the west side of the Cape Fear River, thus moving through
the city on the entire length of the Belt Line.
The potential Nutt Street terminal would average a single
unit train daily (two one-way trips) with approximately the same
number of cars. Annual exports from the facility could range as
high as 3 million tons. Trains entering this terminal would come
in on a spur track leading from the Belt Line near the Hilton
Bridge (see Map 1). This track is not a major factor in automobile
traffic conflicts but would cause noise and vibration impacts.
Although this report will focus on the State Port and
downtown terminal impacts, it should be emphasized that the market
for these facilities can be satisfied by a number of other
locations on the Cape Fear or Brunswick Rivers. By the same token,
if the downtown terminal and State Port are developed for coal
exports, these facilities may largely capture the potential coal
export market for the city.
19

t

Public Economic Impacts of Coal Export Operations
This section investigates public economic impacts that can be
expected to result from the development of coal exporting
facilities at the State Port. The major findings of this section
indicate that benefits would likely be marginal to the city, with
relatively the same impact in New Hanover County. Financial
benefits to the State will be substantially greater.
Methods of Analysis
The determination of benefits for a nine -million ton coal
export facility at the State Port is based primarily on an
analysis of employment that the facility will create, including a
multiplying effect on service jobs within the city's economy. An
estimate of potential jobs needed to operate a nine -million ton
facility was developed through interviews with coal industry
economists and State Port officials. Railroad employment estimates
were provided by the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad. The job
multiplying effect (i.e., secondary jobs generated) was derived
from estimates supplied by the State Bureau of Economic Analysis
for similar coal exporting operations in Morehead City. Other
benefits and negative impacts were developed from investigations
made for the impact analyses in this report.
Employment Impacts
Projected population and employment impacts that may be
generated by annual coal exports of nine -million tons at the .State
Port are shown in Table 1. Figures for the previously proposed
Nutt Street terminal site have not been entered into benefit
estimates because of recently enacted zoning restrictions at this
site.
As shown in Table 1, an estimated 70 port and railroad jobs
would be created by development of a coal exporting facility at
the. State Port. These jobs, in turn, could possibly generate as
many jobs again in the SMSA for support services. Based on the
State Bureau of Economic Analysis figures, Wilmington could
capture one-half the total employment impact and associated
economic benefits.
As a practical matter, there are a number of factors that
suggest that the employment benefits in Table 1 are optimistic,
particularly in respect to the population increase. For example,
unlike a highly.specialized industry, it is very unlikely that a
coal storage and handling facility will require skills that are
not available in the Wilmington labor force. It can also be

Table 1. Employment and Population Impacts
for 9,000,000 Annual Export Tons
Description
Rate
Tons shipped per year
91000,000
Tons shipped per day (360 days/year)
25,000
Tons per Train (100 tons/car;
70 cars/train)
7,000
Trains per day
4
Required increase in RR employment
20-30
Increased RR employment in
5-day week equivalent
30
Increased employment in port in
5-day week equivalent
40
Total direct employment,
5-day week equivalent,
70
SMSA multiplier
2.0
Total increase in SMSA labor force
140
Share of labor force increase in
Wilmington
70
Labor force participation rate
.45
Increase in Wilmington population
155
Increase in households in Wilmington
55
21

expected that _there is probably enough slack in the local economy
.to allow local residents, rather than outsiders, to take most of
these jobs.
The multiplying effect is also likely to be overstating ' job
creations since coal loading operations have few links to the
Wilmington's economy and will make few demands on it. The coal
wi l l be mined in other states and will not be processed in any way.
in Wilmington. Its handling does not appear to require,, -either
locally produced goods or services.
Some question may also be raised as to whether the assumed
split between Wilmington and the rest of the county, regarding
potential population increases does not also exaggerate .the city's
potential share. Although annual housing starts in the city
.account for approximately one-half of the combined city and county
total, the city's proportion has, as in most metropolitan areas,
been declining relative to the County and the SMSA.
Based on the reasons cited, the employment benefits and .
related job and population multiplying effects are not expected to
be as significant for a coal loading facility as might be expected
for a more specialized industry that uses local resources.
Nonetheless, even if the figures in Table 1 are accepted as
presented, economic benefits for a nine -million ton level of
exports will be nearly undetectable in the city's total economy.
For example, the estimated population increase would be three
tenths of one percent of the City's present population.. The
increase in employment relative to total . employment in
Wilmington would fall in the same range.
Although increased employment will 9enerate some direct
effects on retail sales, these effects will again be relatively
insignificant. Retail sales in Wilmington, as measured by the 1977
census of retailing, were approximately $275 million. A
conservative estimate for 1982 would be $400 million. If the total
increase in employment in the county rose by 140 persons, as shown
in Table 1, with an average wage of $15,000 per year, total retail
sales in the county might be expected to rise by about $840,000
(assuming a typical per capita expenditure of 40 percent of gross
income for retail purchases). Currently, about 72 percent of all
retail sales in the county occur in Wilmington (as shown in City
and County figures from the 1977 Census of Retailing). If this
same ratio holds for additional sales, .then retail sales in
Wilmington may rise by roughly $600,000, which is approximately
0.15 percent of the total $400 million in sales cited above. Sales
tax receipts in Wilmington for fiscal year 1981-82 were estimated
at $1.66 million. An increase of $600,000 in retail sales would
return roughly $6,000 in .tax.receipts to the city, an amount.which
is too small to produce any noticable effect on the city's tax
base.

Retailing Trade Patterns
One possible concern regarding train traffic in Wilmington is
.the effect that vehicle delays caused by passing trains may have
on retailing activity. As background, Wilmington contains about
42 percent of the total population of Hanover County.
Wilmington per capita income is slightly below the county average.
Yet in 1977, the last year for which comprehensive data is
available, 72 percent of all retail sales in the county occurred
in Wilmington. Thus, Wilmington is obviously the retailing center
.of the county. If the city had only its proportional share of
.trade based on personal income, retail sales in the city would be
,only about 55 percent of what they now are.
The loop configuration of the Belt Line from the railroad
bridge across the Cape Fear River to the State Port encompasses
the central business district but does not include the major
shopping centers built on larger properties in the peripheral
,parts of the city. The effect of periodic interruptions of
vehicular traffic by trains along this route would be similar to
increasing the physical distance between the part of the city
inside the Belt Line and that outside the loop. This model
reflects the traffic engineering view that the motorist considers
time as one cost of travel. As estimate of private costs due to
vehicular delays is provided in the section on delay impacts.
It can be assumed that based on geographic locations of
retail businesses in Wilmington (particularly the large shopping
centers and.highway strips), the absence of major retailing chains
in the downtown area, and travel times, that purchases made in
Wilmington by non -city residents tend to occur in areas outside of
the Belt Line. Within the city, peripheral shopping centers will
probably increase their share of sales to city residents who live
outside of the Belt Line because these residents will tend to
develop travel patterns to avoid being delayed by trains as they
drive to or from stores in the loop. Conversely, stores within the.
Belt Line may increase their share of sales to residents who' also
live inside for reasons comparable to those advanced above. For
city revenues as a whole, any redistribution of retail sales is
likely to be a zero sum gain --a redistribution of sales within the
city boundaries.
Property Values
The addition of unit trains to Belt Line traffic will cause
negative impacts on property values in the city primarily due to
increased noise and vibrations. As explained in the noise and
vibration analyses, the effects will be most apparent in.areas of
the city within 1,000 feet of the Belt Line. The determination of
23

property decline assumes that as average noise levels in a
neighborhood rise above.ambient levels (50 dBA), there is aAi,rect
and ' perceived effect on the quality of life in that neighborhood
In.a detailed study concerning this relationship in Springfield,
Virginia it was found that property values declined approximately
M3 percent per dBA above ambient levels. As discussed in the
section on noise impacts, the expected noise level increase -from
unit train movement in.Belt Line neighborhoods will be rough1y.14
dBA. If the .23 percent decline.factor is applied to this decibel
figure, a value -.results of 3.2 percent or $32 per $1000 of
property value for residences in the 1,000 foot zone.'
Based on housing statistics developed in the section on
neighborhood impacts, it is estimated that total property..'value
declines could amount to $1,045,137. Average value losses'.per.
housing unit would be approximately $405.00 which is a
considerable cost for individual property owners. In terms of the
tax impacts on the city, the losses involved will not be very
significant, amounting to approximately $9,9289 and ,it is
unrealistic to assume that lowered values would be promptly
reflected in assessments. -On the other hand, this figure.. -,does -not.
acount for`the recurrent nature of tax.losses from year to; year::
Travel Delay Costs
As shown in the section. on Traffic . Impacts, unit : train
movements on the Belt Line; could delay driving times on city
streets by approximately 509 to 809 hours per day. depending on
.train lengths and operating speeds. It is estimated that: these
delays would have a negative economic value to drivers and
passengers ranging. from $679,800 to $1,095,000 annually.
Additional allowance for fuel operating costs incurred during
delays indicates a range of $84,839 to $136,656 annually, again
depending on train lengths and frequencies. Reference. should: be.
made to.the Traffic Impacts section for estimation methods.
Public Facility Costs
An analysis made in the section on unit train impacts on
underground utilities indicates that there may be substantial
utility replacements required.to upgrade the loading capacities of
various water, sewerage and storm drainage mains located beneath
sections of the Belt Line track. Calculations presented in .that,
section indicate:a conservative replacement cost of.'$315-,000 if
loading' problems are:. conf i rmed for pipe shown.
24

6
PROPERTY
VALUE
IMPACT
CORRIDOR
ill
10,
7
Wl LM I NGTON COAL TRAI N STUDY
SCALE: 1" = 3200'
0 16
32
CORRIDOR BOUNDARY
aro
q'o
..... .. ......
�T
. . ........ .......... .
r
711
T" .1 1
a
MAP 2

Comparsion Summary of Beneficial and Negative Impacts
Based on the analysis presented above, economic factors
related to a State Port coal facility may be summarized ';as
follows. All factors shown reflect upper .limit impacts` where a
range of impacts were presented in the analysis
Beneficial Impacts
1. Creation of 140 new jobs in facility and local. economy
service section..
2. Population increase of 155 persons.
3. Formation of 55 new households.
4. Private wages -of $2,100,000.
5. Increase in retail sales of $840,000.
Negative Impacts
1. Property value declines along Belt Line of $1,0451137.
2. Annual traffic delay costs of $1,095,000.
3. Annual increase in fuel operating costs of $136,656.
4. Public utility replacement costs of $315,000.
The economic impacts should not be considered as comparible
in relative effects. The positive impacts, for example, would
accrue to some extent to persons presumably not living. in
Wilmington. Negative impacts, by contrast, will occur only to
existing residents.
A Note on the Economy of the State
For North Carolina, coal trade through the port of Wilmington
can be considered economically desirable although further
investigation might reveal other port development projects that
would be more beneficial. Since coal is not produced in any
sizable quantities in the state, it has no direct benefits as an
export other than port transport fees. Also, it should be
26

considered that it is a one-way commodity.
Revenues accruing to the state include dockage fees, land
rental at the state port, a charge per ton on coal loaded at the
port, corporate income taxes paid by the railroad and a franchise
tax on railroad property. Precise figures on the facility in
Wilmington are not available but figures quoted by the North
Carolina Department. of Natural Resources and Community Development
for Morehead City furnish an order of magnitude estimate. The
figures cited include dockage fees of $4,000 per day. At 25,000
tons per day, a ship would be loaded in about two days. About 180
ships a year would thus each pay an $8,000 dockage fee. A charge
of $.50 per ton for the first two million tons per year and $.25
above that were also quoted for Morehead City. In addition a land
rental at the state port in the range of $1 million annually was
quoted. Increases in the yield from corporate income tax paid by
the railroad and increased franchise tax resulting from higher
assessed values on railroad property cannot now be estimated.
27

BELT LINE TRACK. IN

BELT LINE TRACK INSPECTION
A visual track inspection of the Wilmington Belt Line was
made on April 17, 1982 in accordance with standards prescribed in
the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 as amended. The general
findings are summarized in this section. A more detailed listing
follows with defect areas identified by general location using
street intersection references.
Description of Study Area and General Approach
The Belt Line inspection included track beginning at the
Front Street entry to the Port area and proceeding over the entire
Belt Line loop back to the Hilton Bridge. The 'inspection was made
on foot. The standards applied to the inspection were for -Class I
track as summarized in Figure 27.
The inspection standards have been developed by the railroads
and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). FRA standards are
considered minimums. In many cases, railroads have internal
standards that are more strict than the FRA minimums.
The determination of track class is made by the railroad and
it is this designation that governs maximum permissible operating
speeds. The lower the track class, the less rigorous are the
standards by which it is judged. If a railroad designates a
section of track at a higher track class, and it is found on
inspection that the track does not meet the requirements of that
class, the railroad must either initiate physical improvements and
operating modifications prescribed in FRA standards or it must
re-classify the track to a lower class in which .it meets the
minimum standards. Again, if the track class is lowered, the
maximum allowable operating speed is reduced.
General Findings
The Wilmington Belt Line is classified by Seaboard Coast Line
as Class I track. The maximum permissible operating speed for.
Class I track is 10 miles per hour.
The general condition of the Belt Line is not unusual for
older track in urban areas but, as noted below, there are some
dangerous defects which can lead to derailments. The avoidance of
derailment conditions area main consideration of FRA standards.
It should be emphasized that the findings of a failure to
meet certain prescribed standards does not mean that operations

Refer to Subject
Class Track,
1
2
3
4:
5'
6
213.9(a) Operating
Speea L1mit3__-
a';les per how i Freight
, 1 Passenoer
10
to -
25
30
40
- 60
60
- 80
80
- so
110
- - / 13
213.53(b) Gage
At least 4' 8" (
Tangents
4' 9Ya"
4' 9Ya"
4' 9'h"
4' 9Ya"
4' 9"
4' 83'4
but not more than j
Curves
4' 91'4"
4' 9`4"
4' 9Y4"
4' 9Ya"
4' 9K"
4' 9"
213.55 Alinement .
Tangent --Deviation of mid -offset of 62' line,
not more than
5"
3"
134"
Ti
1 %"
V. T� N
Y41.
Curve —Deviation of mld-ordinate of 62' chord,
not more than
5"
3"
13'4"
1 Ya"
2:3.63 Traci Surface
Runoff In any 31' of tall at end of a raise,
not more than
3%'
3"
2"
1 Ya"
1"
Ya "
Deviation from uniform profile, either rail,
mid, ord. of 62' chord, not more than
3"
23'4"
2Y4"
2"
1Y4"
Va"
Deviation from designated elev. on spirals,
not more than
1114"
IWO
1V4"
1"
3'a"
Ya"
Variation in cross level on spirals In any 31',
not more than
2"
1�Va"
1Y4"
1v
34"
%.
Deviation from 0 cross -level at any pt. on tangent
or from designated elev, on curves between
3"
2"
11'4"
1 Y,"
1"
Ya"
spirals, not more than
Difference In cross -level bet. any 2 pts. less than
62' apart on tans. d curves bet. spirals,
3"
2"
13'4"
1 Y4 ".
not more than
21 .109(c) Crossties Minimum no. non -defective timber ties per
39 ft. of track
5
8
8
12
12
14
Maximum distance between non -defective ties,
center -to -center
100"
70"
70"
48"
48"
48'
213.109(d) Crossties Minimum No. of non -defective ties under a
rail Mnt
1
1
1
2
2
2
Required position of Supported joint
non -defective ties t Suspended joint
X,YorZ
X or Y
Y
X or Y
Y
X or Y
X&Yor
X& Y
X&Yor
X 3 Y
X&Yor
X& Y
O O O O
O
O O
O
Supported
Suspended
'
X
joint
Y
Z
X_
joint
Y
ris.1 ra Not more than { Gage side of rail ends N4" 3/16" 311V . Na" Ya
Mismatch Mis
213.127(a) Spikes
Total number per rail per tie Incl, plate -holding
spikes, at least:
Tangent and curves not more than 2°
2 2 2
2 2 2
Curves, more than 20 not more than 40
2 2 2
2 3 —
Curves, more than 40 not more than 60
2 2 2
3 —
Curves, more than 6" _
_2_ " 3 3
213.143 Frog guard
_
Guard check gage, not less than
4' 6% 4' 6Y4" 4' 634 ".
4' 6%0 4' 6Va" 4' 6Y4"
rails 3 guard
Guard face gage, not more than
4' 5Y4" . 4' 5W" 4' SYs"
4' 5%" 4' 5Yi" 4' 5"
faces• gage
2;3.233(c) Track
cd = calendar day Interval between Inspections.
Main track 3 sidings:
Inspection
at least
Weekly (3 cd) or
i
Schedule
Before use, It used less
than weekly, or
Twice weekly, It has psgr
trains or more than
All track
10 MGT last cal. year
Twice weekly (1 cd)
Other than main track
and sidings:
Monthly (20 cd)
Figure L FRA Inspection Standards.
29
i

RZ
4
I
TRACK
INSPECTION
LOCATION
MAP
WILMINGTION COAL TRAIN STUDY
SCALE: 1" = 3200' F--7
0 16 32
MAP 3

must cease until a defect is corrected. Generally, a railroad can
continue to operate traffic during times when track is in the
process of being restored as long as the track is under ..the
continuous supervision of railroad personnel who are qualified .to
pass judgement on track conditions.
The most prevalent problem found.in the visual inspection is.
the poor condition of the crossties. There are three basic
conditions that constitute a non -effective tie situation for Class
I track. First, there should not be more than five non -effective
ties in each 39-foot section of jointed track. Second, the maximum
distance between non -effective ties should not exceed 100-inches
from center to center. Third, standards allow no more than one
non -effective tie per track joint (i.e., where track lengths are
joined). Non -effective ties that exceed standards can cause the
track to deflect, spread, or break under the weight of a train.
Any of these conditions can cause derailments.
At least seventy-five cases were noted during the inspection
that indicated non -effective tie problems. The areas where these
defects occur most prevalently (proceeding from Front Street near
the Port area) are found from 7th Street to Forest Hills Drive,
Covil Avenue to Market Street and 30th Street to King Street. It
should be emphasized, however, that except for a short stretch of
.track between 13th Street West and McRae Street, in the area of
the old Atlantic Coast Line switching yard, the tie conditions on
the entire Belt Line are generally in poor condition. Based on
visual inspection, it is estimated that renewal will require
replacement of approximately 700-800 ties per mile of track. This
figure translates to roughly 25 percent of the existing ties.
There a number of track problems that should be of particular
concern. The mention of these, however, should not detract from
the correction of other problems noted in the detailed inspection
notes.
In several instances gage defects were found. Gage is
measured between the heads of the rails, beginning at a point
five -eighths of an inch below the top of the rail head. In other
words, it is a specified range of separation between the two
tracks that support a train. For Class I track, the gage must be
at least 56 inches but not more than 57.75 inches. If a gage
failure is not corrected, a derailment will eventually occur.
Four gage defects were noted on the Belt Line. At 5th and
Martin Streets, gage was measured at 58.25 inches at the street
crossing. Approximately 156 feet east of 5th Street a second gage
defect of 58 inches was found. Between Covil Avenue and Market
Street, approximately 156 feet into the track curve from the point
of the switch, the track is moving roughly one-half inch under
load, which causes the gage at that point (57.25 inches) to exceed
31

the maximum. Immediately east of the McRae Street overpass, a gage
defect of 58 inches was found (the rail is worn out in this area).
In addition to gage problems, there are other defects that
need immediate attention. Approximately 312 feet east of Forest
Hills Drive a broken rail in the joint area was noted. This could
quickly develop into a derailment hazard. The tie conditions are
very poor around the 30th Street intersection, at the entry of the
Creekwood neighborhood. Joint bars (the devices that are used to
bolt sections of track together) are generally loose along this
area of track and there are numerous quarter breaks in the joint
bars. The Burnt Mill Creek bridge also has extremely poor tie
conditions If a derailment occurred near the bridge, it could
tear into large exposed concrete pipe sections of the city
sewerage system.
Track Upgrading
Most of the conditions noted above can be corrected quickly
by track crews. Complete tie renewal can be made at a rate of
1,200 to 1,500 ties per day.
A much more extensive program would be required for the Belt
Line to accommodate unit coal train traffic. Almost all of the
.existing rail would have to be replaced with 132-pound rail. Under
present conditions, improvements cannot be made to the existing
track to allow regular unit train service.
The Seaboard Coast Line has indicated its intention to
install the heavier :rail if coal export. trade develops. The
railroad intends to renew ties during the 1982 summer months.
Detailed Inspection Notes
Proceeding from Front Street near the SCL entry point at
North Carolina State Port.
1. Front Street to 2nd Street
Frog point is hitting. Indicates train is not being.routed
smoothly onto desired track section, possibly leading to
misdirection and derailment.
2. 5th Street and Martin Street
Gage failure. Gage at 5th Street crossing is 58-1/4 inches.
Maximum allowable gage is 57-3/4 inches for Class I track.
Gage failure is extremely hazardous and will result in
derailment if not corrected.
32

3. 5th Street to 6th Street
Non -effective tie failure.
Gage Failure approximately 156 feet east of 5th Street.
Gage is 58 inches. Maximum allowable is 57-3/4 inches. Gage
failure is extremely hazardous and will result in derailment
if not corrected.
4. 5th Street to 7th Street
Drainage culvert is plugged with sand and debris.
5. 7th Street to 13th Street
Six non -effective tie failures.
6. 13th Street to 16th Street
Four non -effective tie failures.
7. 17th Street to Wrightsville Avenue
Three non -effective tie failures.
8. Wrightsville Avenue to Colonial Drive
Two non -effective tie failures.
9. Colonial Drive to Forest Hills Drive
Two non -effective tie failures.
10. Forest Hills Drive to Mercer Avenue .
Broken rail in joint area approximately 312 feet east of
Forest Hills Drive may develop into a derailment hazard.
Non -effective tie failure east of trestle.
33

11. Mercer Avenue to Covil Avenue
Track washout is developing near Covil intersection.
Not serious yet, but will worsen if track drainage is not
corrected.
12. Covil Avenue to Market Street
Between Covil and south point of -railroad curve, at least
eight non -effective tie failures.
Gage defect four rails north from point of switch at curve.
Track gage is 57-1/4 inches but is moving under load an
additional one-half inch.
Between north point of curve and Market Street, two
non -effective tie failures.
13. Market Street to Sycamore Street
Four non -effective tie failures.
14. Evans Street and Princess Place Drive
Indication of non -effective ties below soil cover.
15. Evans Street to 30th Street
Tie conditions are very poor around 30th Street intersection.
Joint bars are generally loose along this entire section.
16. 30th Street to 23rd Street
Twenty-one non -effective tie failures.
Gage side chip at rail joint, approximately 12 rails from
battery box on north rail.
17. 23rd Street to King Street
Eighteen non -effective tie failures.
Ties on and near the railroad bridge over Burnt Mill Creek
are in extremely poor condition. A derailment is likely in
34

this area, particularly extending' west from the bridge
approximately two rail lengths (78 feet).
18. King Street to Hilton Bridge
Gage failure (58 inches) in track immediately east of McRae
Street overpass. Rail worn out near overpass.
Two non -effective tie failures.
35

Unit Train Impacts on Street Traffic Flows
The introduction of unit trains on the Wilmington Belt Line
will substantially increase the amount of rail traffic through the
city, causing traffic delays that are not presently factors in
street traffic flow. Currently, there is only a single train per
day that travels the entire Belt Line loop, from the Navassa
switching yard to the State Port. Four additional trains, each
roughly two to three times the length of the present single train,
will be required to move coal tonnage for a 9 million ton facility
at the State Port.
The analysis of train and street traffic conflicts requires a
complicated modeling procedure using computer simulation. While
the procedure used is explained in more detail below, the main
consideration required of the simulation is that the Belt Line
crosses many city streets, many of which extend over significant
portions of the Belt Line loop. This means that blockage of any
crossing will affect not only the street crossed by the train but
traffic patterns on numerous feeder streets as well.
Three operating scenarios for train lengths and speeds were
evaluated to determine probable unit train impacts on traffic
flows. These included 2,000 foot and 4,000 foot train lengths and
differences in maximum operating speeds of 10 and 20 miles per
hour.
The resulting analyses that follow and related tables showing
traffic flow impacts are necessarily complex due to the large
amount of traffic data investigated. The analyses are further
complicated by accounting for possible variations in train
lengths, speeds, and frequencies of operation.
The data presented in the tables should be used by persons
concerned with specific impacts on particular streets or areas of
the city. Some of the more important findings of the detailed
investigations are listed below:
1. The length of the Belt Line, its single track
construction, and the loop configuration and consequent speed
restrictions allow under the "worst" conditions the
possibility of no more than one train during the morning or,
during the evening rush hours.
2. The intersections of Market Street and 30th Street and
16th Street and Dawson Street will be the.areas most severely
affected in terms of vehicle delays.
3. The neighborhood area that should be of particular
36

concern is the Love Grove section of Brooklyn Assembly since
residents have no alternative entry or departure except by
King Street. The Belt Line crosses King Street at the
street's immediate point of entry into the neighborhood. As
noted in the report section on Emergency Vehicle Impacts, the
Love Grove access constraint also raises serious problems
related to public safety should a derailment occur at King
Street.
4. On a daily basis, during the Monday through Friday work
week, unit train operations can be expected to cause total
traffic delays ranging from 433.20 to 730.00 hours, depending
on train speeds, lengths, and frequencies.
5. The public costs of the delays are assumed to involve, at
a minimum, a value for the driver's time and an increased
vehicle operating expense, due to engine idling. For purposes
of analysis, a $6.00 per hour value is used for driving time.
This reflects an average of minimum wage and typical skilled
labor compensation in the labor force. It is recognized that
individual values of time may vary substantially. Given this
value the annual increase in driving time costs can be
expected to range from $679,800 to $1,095,000, again
depending on train speed, length, and frequency. Public costs
due to engine idling during delays can be expected to range
annually from $84,839 to $136,656, assuming fuel costs of
$1.30 per gallon.
6. The city's legal authority to regulate unit train
operations is limited to train speeds and then, -only insofar
as operating safety is not violated, as determined by the
railroad. The matter of scheduling, train lengths and other
operating procedures must be accomplished by negotiation with
Seaboard officials. The variations in train operations
considered in the . analyses take into account a practical
range of options.
Detailed Explanation of Methodology and Traffic =Flow Analyses
The Network Simulation Model (NETSIM)
The evaluation of street traffic flow impacts of unit coal
train operations was accomplished through the use of a
specialized adaptation of the NETSIM traffic model. This program
is used widely in highway planning studies since it has the
capacity to make system -wide evaluations of city traffic flows.
Given street designs and traffic counts, the model computes, for
individual vehicles, their movement through the street network
based on type of vehicle (e.g. automobile, bus, or truck),
37

average speed, acceptable distance between other vehicles,
probable lane switching behavior, build-up of lines of traffic
and discharge of these queues as, for example, acceleration
after signal clearance at a street intersection.
The adaptation of the NETSIM model to Wilmington was
accomplished by treating a unit train as a vehicle which -Always
has a "green light" when it crosses any part of -the city;'s
street network. Thus, in the case of a 4,000-foot train
traveling at 10 miles per hour, the train will occupy a rail and
street intersection 272 seconds, which has the same effect as a
red light which lasts 272 seconds (4.5 minutes). Since it will
take a unit train traveling at 10 miles per hour over one-half
hour to cover the 'Belt Line distance, it can be assumed that no
more than one train per hour will be in operation on the Belt
Line (also considering the track capacities at the State Port).
An increase in train speeds to. 20 miles per hour does not
significantly affect this assumption. Once the train clears the
intersection after the 4.5 minute delay, the intersection
vehicle traffic flow is treated as though it has a "green"
signal for the remaining 55.5 minutes (3228 seconds) of the
hour. Using this general concept, the computer model is then
able to simulate traffic effects if train speeds or lengths are
changed.
Description of Network Traffic Data and Assumptions
Train Characteristics
As mentioned in earlier report sections, operating
procedures of the Seaboard Coast Line indicate that a 70 car
unit train (i.e., a train having identical car types and
freight) will be the typical equipment used to serve a coal.
export facility. Each car will have 100 tons capacity. The total
train length, including four diesel engines and an allowance for
slack, would be 'approximately 4,000 feet. Given the physical
configuration of the Belt Line loop and assuming necessary track
upgrading to accommodate the heavier unit train, it is estimated
that speeds are limited to 10-20 miles per hour over the seven
mile length from the Hilton Bridge to the State Port (see Map
4). The use of .70 car trains would require an average of four
%gains per day to serve a 9 million ton (annual) coal export
facility at the State Port.
Street Traffic Characteristics
The street traffic data used in the NETSIM models
concentrates on major arterials in the city identified by the
Wilmington Planning Department as the most critical to street

N
Z U)
of ,
t�
�,
3
1
wZW W o W
`4 �4
04 z A l
-, oc
a W CM)
J
Q liti
> U X 1,
\\'
a s
''#`\� �S ,a✓! rr ¢fit ,i^ '} "x
S F�
aa.,t _ t t s t✓1,
;E�F -1
idv
jig
f i `Z
l!
�• _,M)SF t"_` .� pule l } , �} ,. 1 -.:.k"i:'r. f r
F �
� i'
I \ c
� �, p
S ^.�'. ti '� s °L^ , 3 $ a ;_ _O ,� t ai5 _ ...._.,
d l ia, J� "pet _ �2S -
_ if
FKok PA
es^ O ?�
131
"r,,; • # t .�---�. ..��- - ,.. �> f , a > a. s .;c w tom. � _ -»� �.. � �. z. ._"'� �� I,� � � t
sty
39
i
R
S`'�'
Y�;

traffic flows. These are shown on Map 4.
For each rail and street intersection, data was collected. by
the Planning Department on approach lengths, number of street'
lanes, lane configurations, speed limits, signal timings, and
turning percentages. Daily traffic counts were made by. the
Planning Department f or each of the primary streets that cross the
Belt Line and for feeder streets.
The traffic counts indicate that the morning peak hour (7:30
- 8:30 a.m.) and afternoon peak hour (4:30 5:30 p.m.) traffic
together constitute approximately 24 percent of the total daily
.traffic from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Each off peak hour from 6 a.m. to
10 p.m. accounts for approximately 5.5 percent of daily, traffic.
The hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. are considered the normal traffic
day (i.e., the times most critical to timely business and
residential journeys) and are used to calculate delay times for
unit train movements.
Operational Scenarios
Three operational models were designed to evaluate the effect
of unit train impacts on street traffic flows. These options,
listed below, provide a reasonably comprehensive testing of
traffic effects due to numbers of trains, lengths and speeds,
given the physical characteristics of the Belt Line. Each scenario
assumes the continued operation of the present 2,000 foot mixed
freight train that travels daily on the Belt Line from the Navassa
switching yard to the State Port.
Scenario 1: Daily operation of four 4,000 foot unit
trains traveling at 10 miles per hour for a
total of 10 one-way trips. It is assumed
that a single trip will occur in the
morning and in the evening rush hours.
Scenario 2: Daily operation of one 2,000 foot train
(i.e., a split unit train), at a speed of
20 miles per hour during the morning and
evening rush hours. The remaining trips per
day will consist of two 2,000 foot trains
and three 4,000 foot trains, traveling at
speeds of 10 miles per hour. This operation
will require a total of 12 one-way trips.
Scenario 3: Daily operation of four 4,000 foot trains
traveling at speeds of 20 miles per hour,
40

for a total of 10
that a single trip
the afternoon rush
Delay Results
one-way trips. It is assumed
occurs in.the morning and in
hours.
The total vehicular delay, average delay per vehicle, and
changes in total delay were provided from the NETSIM runs for 16
streets crossed by the railroad. The results are shown in Tables
3, 4, and 5 for each scenario of train operations.
The analysis was extended to an evaluation of the effects of
the operating scenarios on the nine other critical intersections
that are connected to the major streets crossing the railroad. The
vehicular flow rates, total delay and average delay per vehicle
for these intersections are shown in Table 6. The intersection of
Market Street and 30th Street and the intersection of 16th Street
and Dawson Street were found to be two bottlenecks in the system
under the existing conditions. The introduction of a unit train on
the Belt Line would substantially worsen these traffic flows.
To evaluate what would happen to traffic delays if trains
,speeds are increased, , an incremental analysis was conducted
between scenarios 1 and 3 as shown in Table 7. The results
indicated that for most intersections, even a 10 mile per hour
increase in train speeds would result in very significant
decreases in traffic delays.
The results of the off-peak traffic simulation delays are
shown in Tables 8 and 9. A comparison between the increase in
total delay for the P.M. -peak (Tables 3, 4, and 5) and the
off-peak (Table 8) shows that the peak delay will be much greater
than would expected solely on the basis of differences in traffic
volumes during the two travel periods. This is due to differences
in the traffic dispersal rates of shorter and longer lines of
traffic.
The delay impacts for Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 are the same
for off-peak traffic flows since train lengths and speeds for
these scenarios were varied only during the .peak traffic hours.
The incremental total delay results for off-peak traffic due to a
strategy of increasing train speeds are shown in Table 9.
The delay figures of Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 would be the
same during the off-peak hours, since in both. -cases the trains
operated during these hours will be the same',length (4,000 foot)
and operate at the same speed (10 miles per hour). The incremental
total delay results for the off-peak period due to increasing
trains speeds are shown in Table 9. It is important to point out
that the observed percentage decrease in total delay due to the
41

strategy of speed increase from 10 miles per hour to 20 miles per
hour, for the off-peak hours are higher than those for the peak
hours. This conclusion was reached by comparing Table 7 versus
Table 9 results.'This finding may be attributed to the differences
in size of queues during the peak and off-peak hours.
To evaluate the three operational scenarios, it was found
necessary to estimate the total vehicle delays on a network -wide
basis, and combine the peak and off-peak hour results to produce
daily delay results. The total traffic network delay statistics
for the peak and off-peak hours were generated by the NETSIM
computer model. These are shown in Table 10. The calculations are
much higher than the sum of the individual intersection values
shown in -Tables 3, 4, 5, and 8 because the delay due to vehicle
acceleration on the links ;leaving the intersections were not
accounted for in the- above mentioned tables. The average daily
delays are shown in Table 11 for each scenario. In the section
below, these delays are translated into public costs. The average
delays assume that the probability of any train arriving to the
Belt Line is the same for all hours of the day.
Travel Delay Costs
As discussed in the section on economic benefits, the loss in
travel times due to vehicle delays will generate both direct and
indirect public costs. Various measures to translate delays into
tangible dollar amounts have been used in transportation studies;
however, since people value their time differently, it is
impossible to assign a value that precisely accounts for each
person's delay costs.
A general conversion factor of $6.00 per hour is currently
being used in highway research to account for travel delay costs.
This figure was applied to delays in Wilmington. A vehicle
occupancy factor of 1.37 was used to account for average passenger
loads (as developed from city traffic surveys). Annual delay costs
were restricted to delays for the five-day work week, (excluding
Saturday and Sunday delays) and, thus, may be considered a
conservative accounting of costs.
In addition to costs of time, train induced traffic delays
will also cause an increase in fuel consumption due to greater
engine idling time and starting and stopping operations. According
to the U.S. Department of Transportation of Highway Statistics
Division, the increased fuel consumption would be expected to
average .576 gallons per hour of vehicle delays. Average fuel
costs can be figured at $1.30 per gallon.
The grand totals for daily traffic delays and projected
annual costs follow for each scenario of train operations.
42

Scenario 1:
Total daily traffic delay hours = 730.00
Annual Driving Time Costs = $1,095,000
Annual Costs for Increased Fuel Consumption = $136,656
Scenario 2:
Total daily traffic delay hours 549.34
Annual.Driving Time Costs = $846,300
Annual Costs for Increased Fuel Consumption = $102,836
Scenario 3:
Total daily traffic delay hours = 453.20
Annual Driving Time Costs = $679,800
Annual Costs for Increased Fuel Consumption = $849839
The totals indicate that unit train operations will result in
substantial public driving time costs on a yearly basis. Given
these costs, if plans are developed that lead to coal export
operations at the State Port, then it is clearly,in the city's
interest that track speeds be increased over, estimated 10 miles
per hour minimums.
43

Table 2.{ PM -
Peak Hourly Flow Rates at the Railroad
Crossings.
Street Name
In -Bound
Out -Bound
King Street
52
52
23rd
616
420
30th*
250
282
Princess Place
347
522
Market
75f
1 1A7
Covil*`
93
93
Forest Hills*
240
240
Colonial*
706
100
Wrightsville
541
974'
Oleander
1340'
17th **
1002
_
16th
13th*
220
220
5th*
130
130
3rd
484
616.
Front
301
502
*Peak Hour Counts were not available and a fixed
percentage
of the
Average Dai. '1'i�affic was assumed.
**One-way
streets.
44

Table 3. The Changes in the Vehicular Delays of Scenario 1* for the
PM -Peak Hour (4:30-5:30 p.m.) at the Railroad Crossings
Existing
'Conditions
Scenario 1
Increase
Intersection
in
Total
of
Total Delay
Avg. Delay .
Total Delay Avg. Delay
Delay
RR Crossing
9
( Vehicle
per Vehicle
P
Vehicle per Vehicle
( P
(Vehicle
.and
Minutes)
(Seconds)
Minutes) (Seconds)
Minutes)
King Street
1.80
1.00
17.37
9.65
15.57
23rd Street
401.90
19.36
893.80
43.07
491.90
30th Street
18.40
2.33
161.00
20.42
142.60
Princess Place
Drive
72.00
4.86
223.80
15.12
151.80
(Market Street
242.40
8.31
902.06
30.94
659.60.
Covil Avenue
17.40
5.49
44.90
14.17
27.50
Forest Hills
Drive
43.70
4.61
206.40
21.06
162.70
Colonial Drive
10.40
2.66
43.70
11.20
33.30
Wrightsville Avenue
84.60
3.55
450.20
18.91
365.60
Oleander Drive
213.30
.6.40
859.20
25.78
645.90
17th Street
15.40
0.88
222.60
12.72
207.20
16th Street
--42.00
3.82
192.10
17.51
150.10
13th Street
25.50
3.11
129.60
15.83
104.10.
5th Street
10.40
2.73
72.30
18.22
61.90
3rd Street
8.30
0.45
166.80..
9.21
158.501.
Front Street
27.90
2.10
178.70
13.48
150.80
* A 4000-foot. train travelling at 10 miles per hour.
45

Table 4. The Changes in the Vehicular Delays of
Scenario 2* for the PM -Peak Hour
(4:30-5:30 p.m.) at the
Railroad Crossings.
Existing
Conditions
Scenario
2
Increase
Intersection
in
of
Total Delay
Avg. Delay
Total Delay
Avg. Delay
Total
RR Crossing
(Vehicle
per Vehicle
(Vehicle
per Vehicle
Delay
and
Minutes)
(Seconds)
Minutes)
(Seconds)
(Vehicle
Minutes)
King Street
1.80
1.00
3.60
.00
1.80
23rd Street
401.90
19.36
540.20
26.00
138,.30
30th Street
18.40
2,33
78.70
10.13
60.30
Princess Place Drive
72.00
4.86
109.30
7.49
37.30
Market Street
242.40
8.31
431.90
14.63
189.50
Covil Avenue
17.40
5.49
21.20
6.50
3.80
Forest Hills Drive
43.70
4.61
83.10
8.82
39.40
Colonial -Drive
10.40
2.66
16.00
4.19
5.60
Wrightsville Avenue
84.60
3.55
123.70
5.23
39.10
Oleander Drive
213.30
6.40
401.90
12.04'
188.60
17th Street
15.40
0.88
32.20
1.84
16.80
16th Street
42.00
3.82
50.70
4.71
8.70
13th Street
25.50
3.11
33.00
4.03
7.50
5th Street
10.40
2.73
16.70
4.21
6.30
3rd Street
8.30
0.45
42.20
2.32
31.80
Front Street
27.90
2.10
60.10
4.52
32.20
* A 2000-foot train travelling at 20 miles per hour only during the peak hour
46

Table„5'_. The Changes in the Vehicular Delays
of
Scenario 3* for the
PM -Peak Hour,
(4:30-5:30 p.m.) at
the Railroad Crossings
Increase
Existing Conditions
Scenario
3
in
Intersection
Total
of
Total Delay Avg.. Delay
Total Delay
Avg. Delay
Delay.
RR
Crossing
(Vehicle per Vehicle
(Vehicle
per Vehicle
(Vehicle
and
Minutes) (Seconds)
Minutes)
(Seconds)
Minutes)
King
Street
1.80 1.00
4.23'-
2.35
2.43
23rd
Street
401.90 19.36
589.80
28.42
187.90
30th
Street
18.40 2.33
91.60
11.61
73.20
Princess Place
Drive-.
72.00
4.8b
161.90
10.93
89.90
Market Street
242.40
8.31
587.76
20.16
345.30
Covil Avenue
17.40
5.49
29.20
9.22
11.80
Forest Hills
Drive '
43.70
4.61
118.66
12.52
74.90
Colonial Drive
10.40
2.66
17.5.
4.48
7.10
Wrightsville Avenue
84.60
3.55
194.20
8.15
109.60
Oleander Drive
213.30
6.40
521:60
15:63
308.30
17th Street
15.40
0.88
76.80_
4.38
61.46
16th Street
42.00
3.82
79.20
.7.22
37.26
13th Street
.25.50
m l
58.40
7.13
32.90
5th Street
10.40
2.73
34.40
9.05
24.00
3rd Street
8.30
0.45
135.50
7.48
127.20
Front Street
27.90
2.10
129.10
9.74
101.26
* A 4000-foot train travelling at 20 miles.per hour.
47

Table 6.
Vehicular
Delays for the PM -Peak
Hour (4:30-5:30 p.m.)
at the Critical
Intersections on
Both Sides
of the
Railroad
Crossings
Existing Conditions
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Flow
Total
Average
Flow
Total
Average
Flow
Total
Average
Flow
Total
Average
Intersection
Rate
Delay
Delay
Rate
Delay
Delay
Rate
Delay
Delay
Rate
Delay
Delay
(Vph)
(Veh-Min)
(Seconds)
(Vhp)
(Veh-Min)
(Seconds)
(Vph)
(Veh-Min)
(Seconds)
(Vph)
(Veh-Min)
(Seconds)
Princess Place
and 23rd
1952
3094.70
95.12
1920
4544.30
142.00
1977
3297.80
100.00
1951
4782.40
147.07
Princess Place
and 30th
1330
516.10
23.28
1290
522.70
24.31
1319
524.00
23.83
1322
542.70
24.63
� Market & 30th
2038
7098.40
208.98
1867
22097.00
710.13
1997
15662.30
708.00
1973
16466.60
500.75
Forest Hills
and Colonial
701
81.70
6.99
702
209.86
17.93
693
164.90
14.27
701
171.6
14.64
Wrightsville
and Colonial
1606
173.30
6.47
1603
299.60
11.21
1604
257.30
9,62
1605
289.10
10.80
Oleander and
Columbus Cir.
2026
258.10
7.65
2020
629.40
18.64
2093
468.70
i3.80
2050
593.70
17.40
Oleander
Dawson
939
.55.9
3.57
946
305.72
19.40"
941
80.20
5.61
961
122.60
7.65
17th and
Marsteller
1047
87.00
4.98
1056
398.10
22.61
1047
346.30
19.84
•1046
326.20
18.71
16th and Dawson
1536
4514.40
176.34
1509
12472.10
495.90
1510
12283.40
488.08
1568
11466.40
438.76

Table' 7:
Incremental Delay Results (Vehicle Minutes)for the.
PM -Peak at the Major
Railroad Crossings
Due to Increasing Train (4,000 foot) Speed
Intersection
Decrease
Percentage
of
in Total Delay
Decrease
RR Crossing
Due to Train
in Total
and
Speed Increase*
Delays (%)
King Street
13.14
75.65
23rd Street
304.00
34.00
30th Street
69.40
43.10
Princess Place Drive
61.90
27.65
Market Street .
314.30
34.84
Covil Avenue
15.70
34.96
Forest Hills Drive
87.80
42.53
Colonial Drive
26.20
59.95
Wrightsville Avenue
256.00
56.86
Oleander Drive
337.60
39.29
17th Street
145..80
65.49
16th Street
112.90
58.77
13th Street
71.20
54.93
5th Street
37.90
52.42.
3rd Street
31.30
18.76
Front Street.
49.60
27.75
* Total Vehicular Delay
of Scenario l - Total
Vehicular Delay of Scenario 3
49

Table 8. The Change in the Total Vehicle Delays (Vehicle Minutes)
of the Three Scenarios for the Off -Peak Hours at the
Railroad Crossings
Scenario 1
Increase in
Scenario
2* Increase in
Scenario 3
Increse in
Street
Existing
Conditions
Total
Delay
Total Delay
for Scenario-1
Total
Delay
Total Delay
for Scenario 2
Total
Delay
Total Delay
for Scenario
3
23rd
153.40
334.50
181.10
r334.5.0
181.10
210.40
57.00
30th
9.40,
68.90
59.50
68::9.0
59.50
31.70
22.30
Princess P1.
33.00
116.70
83.70
]T6.70
83.70
-56.30
23.30
Market
119.60
494.80
375.20
'.f494.80
375.20
235.10
115.50
Covi l
10.90
33.20
22.30
33.:,2_0
22.30
13.00
2.10
Forest. Hills
20.50
86.30
65.80
86.30
65.80'
44.40
23.90
b Colonial
5.40
25.40
20.00
:25.40
20.00
9.10
3.70
Wrightsville
34.90
175.20
140.30
175 20
140.30
68.60
33.70
Oleander
90.60
378.70
268.10
378•70
268.10
194.50
103:90
17th
4.10
131.20
127.10
.13T.20
127.1.0
36.0
31.90
16th
32.30
134.70
102.40
134.'70
102.40
58.80
26.50
13th
11.60
65.10
53.50
..,65.d0
53.50
23.50
11.90
5th
5.60
21.10
15.50
21.10
15.50
12.00
6.40
3rd
3.60
103.90
100.30
103A.0
100.30
57.20
53.60
Front
13.20
107.00
93.80
T07:00
93.80
60.20
47.00
* Scenario 2 is.identical to Scenario 1 during the off-peak hours
Negligible off-peak impacts at King Street.

Table 9. Incremental Total Delay Results (Vehicle -Minutes)
for the Off -Peak at the Major Railroad Crossings
Due to Increasing Train(4,000 foot) Speed
Decrease
Intersection of in.Total Delay Percentage.Decrease
RR Crossing Due to Train in Total Delay (%)
with Speed Increase*
23rd Street
124.10
37.10
30th Street
37.20
53.99
Princess Place Drive"...
60.40
51.75
Market Street
259.70
.52.48
Covi 1 Avenue
20.20
60.84
Forest Hills Drive
41.90
48.55
Colonial .Drive. =:
16.30
64.17
Wrightsville Avenue,'.'..-
106.60
60.84
Oleander Drive.
.177.50
48.64
17th Street
95.20
75.56
16th Street
75.90
56.34
13th,Street
41.60
63.90
5th Street
9.10
43.12
3rd Street
46.70
44.94
Front Street
46.80
- 45.60
* Total Vehicular Delay of Scenario 1 - Total Vehicular Delay of Scenario 3
Negligible off-peak impacts at King Street.
51

Table 10. Total Change in Network Delay -(Vehicle -Minutes) for` -the
PM Perk Hour and Single Off -Peak Hour During Train Movements.*
Existing Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Condition Total Change Total Change Total Change
PM -Peak 23,712.1 5.4.,307.2 30,595:1 42,077.8- 18,365.7 44,780.5 21,068.4
Off -Peak 2,854.1 5215.3 2,361.2 5,349.8- 2,495.7 4,024.2 1,170.1
*Numbers shown represent single PM Peak (the highest traffic
volume hour per day) and single Off -Peak hours.
Table 11. Average Daily Delay of the Total System for the
Three Scenarios Based on Train Arrival Probabilities*
Scenario
1
2
3
Average Total Delay
(Vehicle-Hours/Day).
730.00
549.34
453.20
*See Appendix A for calculations. This table
takes into account situations.in which one
train may be .exiting the Belt Line while another
enters. It is not a sum of Table 10.
52

EMERGENCY VEHICLE IMPACTS

Emergency Vehicle Impacts
The evaluation of unit train impacts on fire department . and
rescue squad services involves determining probabilities for
conflicts at rail and street intersections. The findings in this
section generally indicate that delays will not be substantial'in
terms of probabilities, due in part to the geographic location of
fire and rescue. facilities and because, unlike general 'street
traffic, there is simply far less chance that an emergency vehicle
will be on a particular street being crossed by a train. Still, a
discussion of probabilities should not overlook the fact that
where delays do occur, these situations are usually far more
significant to individuals than might be expected in cases
involving work, shopping or other daily trips. Thus, even when the
chances of conflict are very small (for example, less than .004
times in each response), it remains that the chance conflict
could occur at any time, although statistically it is unlikely.
As with general traffic impacts, the determination of the
emergency vehicle impacts requires a complex modeling of traffic
patterns. Separate analyses are provided for fire and rescue
vehicles. The findings summarized below highlight the detailed
investigations which follow. Reference should be .made to Maps.. 5
and for service zone locations.
Fire Department Vehicle Conflicts
1. .Due to geographic locations of the fire stations, Zones 1, 4,
5 and 10 can be served directly without conflict with Belt Line
rail traffic. These zones cover the central business district and
the neighborhoods of Sunset Park, South Wilmington, East
Greenfield, and the University area.
2. Zones 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9 and a small portion of Zone 6 require
at least one crossing of the Belt Line. Neighborhoods served by
these zones include Brooklyn, Love Grove, Northside-Market, part
of Old Wilmington, the Bottom, Southside, Dry Pond, Oleander,
North Lakeside, Chestnut, Wrightsville Avenue, Forest Hills, and
East Wilmington. Zone 7, serving the Wrightsville Avenue area and
Forest Hills, requires two crossings over the Belt Line. when
served.by the Wellington Station back-up.
3. The maximum calculated delay for all conflicts is estimated to
be 272 seconds (4.5 minutes). This time interval assumes a 4,000,_.
foot train traveling at 10 miles per'hour and the movement.of fire
trucks to the front of traffic lines.
4. The probability of a conflict in parts of the city covered by
Fire Zones 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9 will range from .004, to .010 per
53

ONE T1,11""i
0
FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE ZONES
Wl LM i NGTON COAL TRAIN STUDY
SCALE: 1 3200'
0 16 32
MAP 5

i'.ONE.
4
h RESCUE SQUAD
ZONE
ZONES
R3
'%Z
Z�` 0NEj§\
Wl LM I NGTON COAL TRAI N STU DY
SCALE: 1 3200-
F=l
0 16 32
,z
Poo
RESCUE SQUAD
HOSPITAL
ION E R
ZON V E i 1 4
-
ap
h, -'l,
PF
MAP 6

response (i.e., from 4 to 10 times per 1,000 calls) given average
response speeds of 30 miles per hour and selection of the most
direct routes from station to caller. Expected conflicts for Zone
6 are nearly insignificant - a probability of .0008 or less than 1
conflict per 1000 calls.
5. When a conflict occurs, the delay for a fire vehicle will
average 136 seconds. Given the probabilities of conflicts the
average delay for any fire vehicle responding to a call will range
from 1.10 to 2.81 seconds.
6. The Love Grove neighborhood is the only area of the city that
has no alternative entry streets for fire vehicles apart from the
King Streetaccess. A derailment at this street would leave the
neighborhood isolated from fire vehicles, thus posing a
potentially serious situation to public health.
Rescue Squad Vehicles
1. As with fire department vehicles, the maximum delay time is
estimated at 272 seconds for all rescue vehicle conflicts.
2. The probability of train conflicts with rescue vehicles are.
generally higher than with fire vehicles because rescue. service
may require a trip both to the accident site and then to a
hospital. The rescue zones_ affected by rail crossings are Zones 1
and 2 which include all neighborhoods in Wilmington except those
south of Greenfield Lake and on the extreme peripheries of the.
city.
3. For Zone 1, serving the western and downtown areas of the
city, the conflict probabilities will range from .0179 to .116 per
trip (i.e., roughly 18 to 116 conflicts per 1,000 trips). When a
conflict occurs, the average delay for a rescue vehicle will be
136 seconds and, in unusual cases, could be twice this amount (272
seconds) if a train is encountered both on the trip to the
.accident and on the return to a hospital. When averaged over all
expected yearly trips, the average delay for any response will
range from 4.87 to 31.77 seconds. The upper range indicates a
serious delay time although, as noted in the detailed analysis,
the chances are small for this amount of delay.
4. For Zone 2, serving the eastern areas of the city, the
conflict probabilities range from .0017 to .029 per trip (i.e,
.roughly 2 to 29 conflicts per 1000 trips). The average delay time
for an actual conflict between a rescue squad vehicle. and a train
is the same as in Zone 1 (i.e., 136 to 272 seconds). However, due
to differences in rescue squad locations, the expected delay in
Zone 2 for any response, averaged over all calls, will be much
lower, ranging from .48 to 4.14 seconds.
56

Methods of Analysis
The general procedure for determining conflict probabilities
for both fire department and emergency vehicles involved
identifying coverage zones for each function, determining the
primary and secondary (i.e., backup service) responsibility and
establishing an estimate of future demand and average response
times based on past records of operations. This information was
supplied by fire department officials.
The calculation of train movement conflicts was made using
the assumptions of increasing Belt Line traffic from the present
single train to four additional 4000 foot unit trains. Average
running speeds for the. unit trains and present single train were
assumed to be 10 miles per hour. These assumptions conform to the
"worst" case scenario discussed in the preceding report section on
traffic impacts.
Average operating speeds for the fire and rescue squad
vehicles are estimated at 30 and 35 miles per hour respectively.
These speeds take into account street design speeds, number of
lanes, differences in fire and rescue vehicle driving requirements
and passing priorities in an emergency. It is also assumed that if
a fire or rescue vehicle is stopped in a line of traffic that is
delayed at a rail crossing, the vehicle will pull to the front of
the line Of necessary, in an opposing lane).
Detailed Analyses: FIRE STATION SERVICES
Five fire stations serve the city. These are :
1) Headquarters, 2) Willard, 3) Wellington, 4) Empie and
5) Princess Place. Each of these stations serve at least one of
ten designated fire zones. At least two pumpers respond to alarms
when there is a significant fire. Response is according to "the
following schedule:
Station from which Pumpers
Zone
Respond
1
Headquarters
2
Headquarters
3
Headquarters, Willard
4
Willard, Wellington
5
Willard, Wellington
6
Willard, Wellington
7
Empie, Wellington
8
Empie, Princess Place
9
Headquarters, Princess Place
10
Empie, Princess Place
57

The locations of the stations and the service zones are shown
in Map 5. The total number of responses by the fire engines, for a
three-year period, are shown in Table 12. While the table
indicates that the total number of responses is experiencing a
downward trend, the analysis assumes that responses will not be
any lower than 1981 levels. The number of fire � alarms and the
average service time per call are listed in Table 13.
Examination of the coverage of each zone and the location of
the station that serves the zones, respective . to the Belt- Line,
shows that Zones 1, 4, 5, and 10 can be served directly with no
conflict with rail traffic in the area. The remaining Zones, 2, 3,
6, 7, 8, and 9 will have probabilities of conflicts, as explained
below.
VEHICLE CONFLICT ANALYSIS -- Zones 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9
Almost all routes in fire service Zones 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9
have at least one railroad crossing. A small portion of Zone 6
requires a crossing. Zone 7 requires two crossings over the Belt
Line for back-up service from the Wellington Station. Access to
the Love Grove neighborhood is severely restricted because of the
single entry At King Street.
Analysis of Zone 2 .conflict probabilities -required dividing
the zone into two sections since the southern part of the zone is
accessible to Headquarters without need to cross the Belt Line.
For the northern section, it was assumed for purposes of
establishing average travel conditions that the fire alarms are
generated from the geographical center of the section. Further, it
was assumed that the alarms will be distributed equally through
the total area and that the estimated number of alarms per
section can be determined by considering the ratio of the
approximate section area to the total zone area. The center of the
northern section is estimated to be at the intersection of Howard
Street and 7th Street, with the.shortest path to Headquarters
being 7th to Howard to 6th to Dock. The distance between the
origin and destination was measured from the maps to be 7,500
feet. Average running speed is estimated at 30 miles per hour with
travel time amounting to 2.83 minutes. This:: travel time is
considered unconstrained by other traffic since -fire engines have
priority in an emergency.
For Zone 2, probability of a rail crossing conflict is
calculated to be 0.00457 and the expected delay per response,
averaged over all yearly responses, is 1.25 seconds. It is
important to emphasize that the minimum delay is zero, and the,
possible maximum delay is equal to the train crossing time (272
seconds) in which case the probability is equal to unity (or
100%). This emphasizes the significance of train speed and train
58

length on the expected delay per fire engine at crossings
Tables 14 and 15 contain all the data for the remaining fire
service zones (Zones 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9) from the primary and
secondary stations. This information includes: 1) section
description; 2) station name serving this section; 3) the
locations of the geographical center of the section under
evaluation; 4) the shortest path and the required travel time; 5)
the probability of a rail conflict; and . 6) the expected delay per
fire engine. Almost all fire service routes have one railroad
crossing. except for a section in Zone 7 served by the secondary
station (Princess Place) where the path crosses the Belt Line
twice and a resulting relatively high probability value occurs.
In Zone 2 an alternate route was considered that crosses the
Belt Line once but has a longer travel time. The resulting
conflict probability value is half that of the shorter alternative
requiring two crossings. This alternate route is recommended over
the original route in spite of the longer travel time.
As a general conclusion, it appears that overall the
probabilities of unit trains and fire engine crossing conflicts
would be very small. At the higher range of probability,
approximately 10 responses per 1000 might experience delays
ranging from one to 272 seconds. When averaged over all calls, the
delay per fire department response is not expected to be greater
than 4.42 seconds.
Detailed Analyses: RESCUE SQUAD SERVICES
Rescue squad vehicles are dispatched from the Sheriff's
Department. These vehicles are stationed at: 1) The Fire
Department Headquarters Building, 2) Empie Fire Station, 3) US 17
and Military Cutoff Road (Ogden Rescue Squad), and 4) US 421 South
(New Hanover Rescue Squad). The city is divided into four service
zones. Two hospitals, New Hanover Memorial Hospital and Cape Fear
Memorial Hospital, receive. dispatched vehicles. Primary and
secondary zones responses are according to the followingschedule:
59

Rescue Squad Station
Zone Primary Secondary
1 Headquarters Empie
2 Empie Headquarters
3 Ogden City
4 New Hanover City
5 New Hanover Ogden
Ogden
New Hanover
The number of rescue squad calls and the average service time
per call, as provided by the Wilmington Fire Department, are shown
in Table 16 by classification of fire alarm zones. It was assumed
generally that a rescue squad call results in a trip to the
nearest hospital; therefore, the analysis of rescue squad service
is different from the fire service, since a second trip path is
added to the analysis and increases the probabilities of conflict
with trains. The rescue squad zones affected by additional trains
on the Belt Line are Zones 1 and 2, which cover the city extending
from the downtown area. The procedure of estimating the
probability figures and the expected stopped delay is the same as
that of the fire service, as shown in Appendix B.
The conflict probabilities for Zones 1 and 2 for the primary
rescue squads are shown in Tables 17 and 19. Zone 1 was divided
into three sections; a northern section located north of the Belt
Line, a middle section located within the Belt Line, and a
southern section outside of the Belt Line on the southern side.
The. probability of railroad conflicts and the expected stopped
delays are for a total of 2,814 annual calls (the highest number
of calls during 1979-1981).
As shown in Table 17, the rescue squad conflict
probabilities, for Zone 1, are higher than those of the fire
stations. Section 1 rescue squad route has three railroad
crossings. Section 2 and.3 routes have a single crossing. The
corresponding probability figures and expected stopped delay per
rescue squad from the Empie station are shown in Table 18. The
results of the probability analyses and the expected delay
calculations for Zone 2 are shown in Tables 19 and 20 for the
primary and secondary rescue squads respectively. Average travel

speeds are estimated, at 35 miles per hour.
The analyses indicate that rescue squad vehicles would
probably have very few crossing conflicts with unit trains, at
least at the level of four additional trains per day. An
exception to this finding, however, is in the case of the Empie
back-up responsibilities to Zone 1 rescue operations in the
Brooklyn neighborhood area (Section 1 of Zone 1). A response from
Empie station to the Brooklyn area requires two crossings of the
Belt Line, both in proceeding to an accident and in the case of
returning to a hospital. While this back-up service is rarely
used and, conflict probabilities, thus, are very low, the average
expected delays to rescue squad vehicles may be as high as
one-half minute. This' delay time could be critical in certain
emergency situations. It should also be emphasized again that
access to Love Grove for rescue squad vehicles, as with fire
vehicles, could be a critical problem due to lack of more than, one
street entry into the neighborhood.
61

Table 12. Responses of the Fire Engines for a
Three -Year Period in Wilmington, North.Carolina
1979 1980 1981
1) Headquarters
Engine 1 543 426 477
Engine 7 1033 759 689
2) Empie Station
Engine 2
419
418
364
3)
Princess Place
Station
Engine 3
745
480
482
4)
Wellington Station
Engine 5
418
471
442
5)
Willard Station
Engine 6
991
592
538

Table 14. Probability of a Rail
Crossing Conflict and
Corresponding
Expected uelay
for the Fire
Service Zones from the
Primary Station
—
Estimated
Total
Expected
Center of
Path from Station
Total,
Travel
Probability
Stopped
Zone Section Station Zone or
to Center Location
Distance
Time
of a
Delay
Number Description Name Section
(Minimum Path)
(feet)
(Minutes)
Conflict
(Seconds)
2
North of the RR
Intersection.
Dock 5th
Crossing. Smith
of
Nixon 6th
7,5�0
2.83
O.G0783
2.13
Creek to the
Headquarters
Howard and
north and Cape
7th
Howard
Fear River to
west
3
South to the RR
On East
Dock 5th
Crossing. Cape
Lake
Fear River to the
Headquarters
Shore
Greenfield
10,800
4.08
0.01031
2.81
west and Green-
Drive
East Lake Shore
CA
field Lake, to
Drive
south
6
Business Triangle
3rd Dawson
Bounded by 17th St.,
Willard
N/A
Oleander
9.600
3.63
0.0008
0.23
Oleander Dr. and SCL
RR
7
North of RR Cross-
ing. Covil St. to
Empie
On Colonial
Park Ave. Country
7,400
2.80
0.00506
1.38
the east
Drive
and Market Street
Club Colonial
to the north. -
8
North of the Semi-
On
4th Market
closed Loop South
Empie
Greenway .
South Kerr
20,800
6.73
0.00402
1.10
Kerr to the West
Avenue
Greenway Avenue
9
North of the Semi -
closed Loop. Low-
income Development
Headquarters
On
Stewart
30th Emory
16,000
5.18
0.00537
1.46
on 30th Street.
Circle
I . Stewart Circle

Table
14. Probability of Rail Crossing Conflict and the Corresponding Expected Delay
for the
Fire Service Zones from the Secondary Station
Zone
Section
Station
Center of Path from Station
Zone
Estimated
Total
Total
Travel
Probability
Expected
Stopped
Number
Description
Name
or to Center Location
Section (feet)
Distance
(feet) feet
Time
of
Delay
(Minutes)
Confli
ict
(Seconds)
3
North of RR Cross-
ing. Dawson St. to
the north and Cape
Willard
Intersecton of 3rd Greenfield
8th and Mearse
4,000
1.50
0.00446
1.21
Fear River to the
Streets 8th
west.
6
Business Triangle
Bounded by 17th St.,
Oleander Dr. and
Wellington
N/A Wellington to
SCL RR.
17th Street
11,200
4.23
0.0009
0.24
7
South of RR Cross-
rn
ing. South Kerr
On On Hawthorne *Princess Place Market
Ln
to the east and
Oleander to the
Road E. Forest Hill
12,000
4.00
0.01623
4.42
south.
Wrightsville Wilshire
Hamlock
7 (Alternate
Same
Same Princess Place
Route)
as
Above
Wellington
as. Market South Kerr
16,000
5.18
0.00821
2.24
Above Wilshire
Haminrk
7 North of RR Cross-
ing. Covil to East Wellington
Market St. to the
north.
On Colonial
Drive
Princess Place 30th 7,200 2.72 0.00506 1.38
Market
Colonial Dr.
8 North of the Semi- princess
closed loop. South
On Greenwa y
Princess Pl. Market
Kerr to the west Place
Avenue
South Kerr 7,200 2.72 0.000943 0.26
.
Greenway
9 South of the RR Princess
Crossing. Market St. Place
On Kenwood
Princess Place 5,800 2.19 0.00080 2.18
to the south and 17th
Avenue
Kenwood Ave.
St. to the west
* Crossing the railroad track twice.

Table _16. Number of Rescue Squad Calls
_Classified by Zone
Rescue Squad
Zone # Calls
1 247
2 1752
3 815
4 266
5 2
6 211
7 417
8 217
9 401
10 46
The average time per call is 23 minutes.
M.

Table 17.' Probability of a Rail
Crossing
Conflict and the
Corresponding
Expected Delay of Zone
1
for the Rescue Squad from the
Primary Station
From Station to Caller
From Caller to the
Nearest Hospital
Proba-
Expected
Travel
Travel
bility
Stopped
Distance
Time
Distance
Time
of
Delay
Section Description Station
Path
(feet)
(minutes)
Path (feet)
(minutes)
Conflict
(seconds)
Section
# Center
Dock
Howard
1
Howard & 7th
5th
6th
2
3
Orange & Eighth 1
East Lake Shore
7,500
2.43
21,400
6.93
0.0920
25.03
Nixon
Market
rn
6th
16th
17th Street
Howard Hospital
ai (NHMH)
4; 4th Orange
&-2,000 0.75 13,600 4.40 0.0510 13.87
l 2 3. 16th
v 2 Orange
a _ Hospital
Cape Fear CM (NHMH)
River
Dock
East
10,800 4.08
Lake Shore 9,600 3.11
0.01793 4.87
5th
3
Greenfield
Section 1 Area %
Greenfield
16th
1 32.67
East
50.5
Lake Shore
Hospital
3
0-T 0.60

Section Description.
Table 18. Probability of a Rail Crossing Conflict and the Corresponding Expected Oelay of Zone 1
for the Rescue Squad from the Secondary Station
From Station to Caller From Caller to the
Nearest Hospital
Proba-, Expected
Travel Travel bility Stopped
Distance Time Distance Time of Delay
Station Path (feet) (minutes) Path (feet) (minutes) Conflict (seconds)
Section # Center Howard -
20,600 6.67 . 21,400 6.93 0.1168 31.77
1 Howard & 7th. Park Avenue 6th
2 Orange & Eighth
3 East Lake Shore 17th Market
1 Market 16th
17th Street
ki
Section #
1
2
3
Cape Fear
River
Area %
32.67
50.50
16.83
0�0. 00
6th Howard Hospital
(NHMH)
d
Y
rt
J
Orange
13,000 4.21 13,600 4.40 0.0944 25.67
3
CL
c ,
Park Avenue
Market
W
F
17th
16th
co
Orange
Hospital•
(NHMH)
East Lake Shore
15,200
4.92
9,600 3.11
Park Avenue
Greenfield
3
Dawson
16th
16th-
Hospital
(NHMH)
Greenfield
East Lake.Shore
0.01793 4.87•

rn
to
Table 19. Probability ana Expected Stopped Delay Figures of Zone 2
for Primary Rescue Squad Station
From Station to Caller
From Caller to the
Nearest Hospital
Proba-
Expected
Travel
Travel
bility
Stopped
Section Description
Station
Distance
Path (feet)
Time
(minutes)
Distance
Path (feet)
Time
(minutes)
of
Conflict
Delay
(seconds)
Zone 7: (fire service zones)
Colonial Or.
1.
North of'RR Crossing
Park Avenue
Market
.(Center at•Colonial Drive)
7,400
_
2.80
189000
5.83
0.0102
2.780
o
Country Club
16th
Colonial Dr.
Hospital
(NHMH)
2..
South of the RR Crossing
NO CONFLICTS
NO CONFLICTS
NO CONFLICTS
Zone
9:
Park Avenue
Stewart Circle
1.
North of RR Crossing
E. Forest Hill
30th
(center located Stewart
11400
4.38
•22,800
7.38
0.0298
8.11
-on
Circle)
!
Mercer
Market
a
69
Market
16th
30th
Hospital
(NHMH)
2.
South of RR Crossing
Park Avenue
Kenwood
(center located,on
Kenwood Avenue)
E. Forest Hill
Market
5.31.
0.0152
4.14
12,200
3.95
.16,400
Market
16th
Kenwood
Hospital
(NHMH)

V
0
Table 20. Probability and Expected Stopped Delay Figures of Zone 2
for the Secondary Rescue Squad Station
From Station to Caller
From Caller to the
Nearest
Hospital
Proba-
Expected
Travel
Travel
bility
Stopped
Distance
Time
Distance
Time
of
Delay
Section Description
Station
Path
(feet)
(minutes)
Path
(feet)
(minutes)
Conflict
(seconds)
Zone 6
Dock
Independence
Headquarters
15,400
5.0
4,800.
1.55
0.00811
2.21
Center on .Independence
16th
Canterbury .
Boulevard
Oleander
Glen Meade
Hospital
Zone 7
Dock
Wilshire
Headquarters
15,600
5.05
16,000
5.18
0.00610
1.85
1. South of RR Crossin
Wrightsville.—
Wrightsville
(Center on Wilshire}q
Wilshire
16th
Hospital
2. North of RR Crossin
Headquarters
NO CONFLICTS
NO
CONFLICTS
(Center on Colonial
Zone 8
4th
Greenway
Center on Greenway
Headquarters'
Market
21,060
6.80
South Kerr
23,400
7.58
0.00833
2.26
South Kerr
Park Avenue
Greenway
Independence
Hospital

Table 19. (continued)
From
Station to Caller
From Caller to the
Nearest
Hospital
Travel
Travel
Proba-
bility
Expected
Stopped
Section
Description
Station
Path
Distance
(feet)
Time
(minutes)
Path
Distance
(feet)
Time
(minutes)
of
Conflict
Delay
(seconds)
Zone 9
4th
Stewart
Headquarters
14,000
4.53
22,800
7.38
0.01821
4.95
1. North of
RR Crossing
Market
30th
(center on Stewart Circle
30th
Market
Stewart
16th
Hospital
2. South of
RR Crossing
Kenwood
(center on Kenwood Avenue
4th
Headquarters
10,400
3.37
Market
16,400
5.31
0.00923
21.51
Market
16th
Kenwood
Hospital

V
N
Table 19. (concluded)
From Station to Caller
From Caller to the
Nearest Hospital
Proba- Expected
Travel.
Travel
bility Stopped
Distance Time
Distance Time
of Delay
Section Description
Station
Path (feet) (minutes)
Path .(feet) (minutes)
Conflict (seconds)
Zone 10
4th
UNC
32,000 10.36
Wilmington 16,000 5.18
0.001784 0.485
Center of the University
Market
of North Carolina at
Headquarters
NC 132
Wilmington
Road
Wrightsville
New Center
Avenue
Drive
Cape Fear
Memorial
Hospital
NC 132 Col lege
Road
UNC
Wilmington

RAILROAD NOISE IMPACTS _
The impacts of unit train noise on human activities has been
the subject of very little research. Although this section
attempts to bring together some major work on train noise, the
figures that are cited should be considered as general rather
precise indicators of possible impacts.
Based on the general findings of this analysis, the primary
effects of disruptive noise levels from passing trains will occur
in a corridor extending 1,000 feet from either side of the Belt
Line track. Within this corridor, the unit train movement may
cause changes in perceived noise levels that are nearly double
those under existing conditions.
i
Methods of Analysis
Since unit trains are not presently being operated on the
Belt Line, the range of expected increases in noise levels for
various train activities was taken from noise measurements in
other communities. The determination of existing noise levels
along the Belt was based on similar studies of average community
noise levels.
The noise measurement scale used in this analysis is the
decible unit (dB) which provides a numerical relationship between
relative sound intensities. Since the effect on human hearing is
the only concern of this analysis, a modified measurement
technique, the dBA scale, is used which identifies sound pressure
in terms of human hearing abilities. A third index, the. LDN scale
is used to designate average noise level conditions for a
community during the 24-hour day. As explained in the analysis,
LON values of 50 dBA or greater indicate that community noise
levels are at levels disruptive to such human activities as speech
and hearing.
Factors Influencing Propagation of Noise from Coal Unit Trains
The noise level from a single coal unit train varies with the
track type, size and type of train, and operating conditions. This
analysis assumes that the Wilmington Belt Line will be extensively
upgraded if unit trains. are placed in operation.
Generally, most rail noise is caused by defective train
wheels and roar, due to wheel -rail roughness. Excessive impact and
roughness can increase sound baseline levels by 8-10 dBA,
respectively. Since substantial improvements are to be made on
73

the�-Belt Line, no correction factors are used in this study for
impact or roughness. The presence of curved track also contributes
to wheel squeal and howl, which are high and low frequency noises,
respectively. For the curve in the Belt Line between Market Street
and Covil Avenue, the noise level may increase between 10-20 dBA.
It should be noted that these correction factors are not additive
but logarithmic. For example, two noise sources each producing 65
dB may generate noise levels together of 68 dB, not 130 dB.
Generally, only the largest conversion factor for rail -wheel noise
is added to the base level of noise propagation.
Other sources of coal train noise are engine sounds and
warning bells and horns. The level of motor noise varies slightly
with the type and manufacture of the locomotive, depending on such
factors as the exhaust system, engine casing, and cooling fans.
Grades also can affect noise levels but are not significant
factors in Wilmington. Warning whistles and horns at crossings can
produce annoying blasts of around 100 dBA within fifty feet of the
tracks.
Terrain and the presence of buildings affect train noise. A
hill can reduce noise levels by 10 dBA to 25 dBA. Due to
reflection, a large building can cause noise levels from passing
trains to increase 3-6 dBA on the side of the building facing the
train, while levels behind the building can be reduced by 10-20
dBA. The reduction of noise level within a building -depends upon
wall construction.
Noise Impacts from Individual Unit Coal Trains
A typical Seaboard Coast Line unit coal train consists of
approximately seventy cars of 100-ton capacity and four
locomotives. On the Belt Line, upper limit operating speeds are
assumed to be 20 miles per hour.
Although a certain amount of work has, been performed for use
in estimating noise impacts of single train movement, noise
contour prediction is not definitive. In an open area, it has been
estimated that the peak dBA for a coal unit train pass -by at 100
feet from the track is approximately 85-100 dBA, at 1,000 feet
70-75 dBA, and at 3,000 feet 55-60 dBA. At 1,000 feet, the peak
may last only 10-20 seconds, primarily as a function of locomotive
noise (EPA, 1977; DOE, 1980). It should be noted that these peak
noise levels are for an open area and do not reflect the
significant reduction in the noise levels that can be caused by
buildings and vegetation. Peak noise levels do not increase
significantly with an increase in the number of cars. Although
locomotive noise does not vary appreciably with speed, car noise
exposure increases both with speed and with the duration of time
for passage. Since faster trains tend to have shorter passing
74

times, the two components of noise tend to compensate each, other
in terms of predicting total noise exposure.
The passage of individual trains normally disrupts speech
communications out-of-doors as a function of distance from the
track, loudness of voice, and distance between the speaker `and
listener. Speech communication within houses and other bui.ldings
may also be disrupted, although the potential noise reduction in
buildings, can range between 36-63 dBA, not allowing for windows.
Normal indoor activities may be disrupted in noise environments
above 45 dBA. Thus, it is likely that a train pass -by. will
probably interfere with normal activities inside residences and
buildings near the Belt Line.
A major concern is disruption of speech communication within
the schools near the'track. Noise levels in classrooms, regardless
of train noise, average around 56 dBA. Normal children generally
can handle the ordinary background noise of classrooms with no
impact on learning, although an increase in background noise of 7
dBA has been shown to reduce learning ability. Children with
learning disabilities in communication or hearing show a more
severe reduction in comprehension.
Table 21 lists Wilmington schools that would be subject to
noticeable sound impacts from passing trains. The walls of the
schools likely can be expected to reduce the peak sound level of
the train pass -by by approximately 25 dBA, assuming window areas
no greater than 50 percent. Schools 1,000 feet or farther from the
track likely will receive minimal impact from noise.- Schools -
within 1,000 feet, particularly Blount School, possibly will incur
some disruption to speech communication within the classroom..
Multiple Train Movement Noise Impacts
Multiple train movements increase the 24-hour average
day -night sound level (LDN). Sounds that occur between 10 P.M. and
7 A.M. are assigned an added weight of 10 dBA in LDN calculations
due to the increased annoyance potential. of night-time noises.
The determination of LDN values for neighborhoods near the track
was made by comparing existing train noise effects against the
introduction of multiple train movements.
Present train traffic consists of two pass-bys (one round
trip) of a freight train along the Belt Line. Assuming baseline
LDN levels of less than 50 dBA without the presence of any rail
traffic, the present two daily train pass-bys should measure LDN
values of. 50 dBA at approximately 290 feet from- the track,
75

Table,21. School Impact Data
Principal/Res.
Principal's
How many
Response/Does
pupils cross
Distance
School Find
tracks to
Age/
from
Wall Construction
Present Train
attend
School
Enrollment
Grades
Age Additions
Stories
Belt Line
Material
Disturbing?
school?
Blount
425
K-4
30 yrs.
1
200 feet
Brick/Blocks/
Metal Windows
No
A Few
Forest Hills
400
K-4
52/42%32yrs.
2
600 feet
Brick/Plaster &
Block/Metal and
No
Larger
Wood Windows
Number
Howe
174
K-4
22 yrs.
1
600 feet
Brick/Blocks/
Metal Windows
No
Majority
Hooper
130
K-12
68 yrs
3
1000 feet
Brick/Plaster/
Serve
Wood Windows
No
Entire City
D.C. Virgo
525
7,8,9
18 yrs
2
700 feet
Brick/Block/
Metal Windows
No
A Few
Sunset Park
553
798,9
40 yrs.
2
1000 feet
Brick/Plaster/
Block/Metal and
Wood Windows
No
Many

increasing to 57 dBA at 100 feet from the track.
The addition of unit trains to Belt Line traffic will change
neighborhood noise levels significantly. With an increase of
eight trains daily (four round trips), it is estimated that the
community LDN value will equal 60 dBA as far away as 1,000 feet
from the track and will be as high as 68 dBA at 100 feet from the
Belt Line. These values convert to a perceived loudness level that
is approximately double that of the existing condition.
For the area along the tracks leading to the proposed private
terminal downtown, LDN levels will be 50 dBA at approximately 290
feet from the track and 57 dBA at 100 feet from the track. In the
wedge-shaped.area where the individual noise contours of the Belt
Line overlap the contours of the track leading to the private
terminal, the composite LDN levels will be slightly higher than
either individual noise contours. It should be noted that the
return trips of empty unit trains may be slightly noisier than
full unit train trips due to vibration of various metal parts on
empty cars that would normally be dampened when full. Also, LDN
figures may be overstated due to such factors as attenuation of
noise of buildings or understated in a area such as the curve
between Covil Avenue and Market Street, the crossings at affected
intersections due to warning whistles and horns and at the.two
bridge crossings over Burnt Mill Creek. The steel structure with
wood ties crossing the Cape Fear River will also generate
increased noise but is removed sufficiently from residential
areas. In addition, the depicted . LDN levels will vary slightly in
certain areas due. to differences in background LDN levels. The
train movement, however, will be a dominant factor in projecting
future LDN levels.
The increased LDN noise levels are not expected to cause
hearing or other detectable physical damage to residents along the
Belt Line. However, the train noise will clearly be disruptive to
various daily events, such as conversation, activities requiring
mental concentration and sleeping for areas of the city located
within 1,000 feet of the Belt Line. Although individual reactions
to train noise can be expected to vary significantly, economic
research has shown that property values could be negatively
effected by noise level increases of the magnitude of unit trains.
These and other property costs are investigated in the section of
this report on Economic Impacts..
Means of Reducing Noise Levels
In practice, there are few means to significantly reduce sound
levels generated by passing trains The single most effective
77

noise reduction measure would
Line . track, preferably to
discussed in the section on the
it is absolutely necessary that
before any regular movements of
be upgrading of the present Belt
a continuously welded rail. As
track inspection of the Belt Line,
extensive improvements to be made
unit trains can be accommodated.
Other physical measures include artificial barriers and
building retrofitting. Sound barriers along track can reduce
noise propagation in residential areas by 10-20 dBA. Types of
barriers may range from plantings to fences. Earth berms seem to
be the most effective because they both absorb the noise and
reflect it up and appear more aesthetic than artificial barriers.
However, such berms require much land for installation. Vegetation
is largely ineffective for absorbing noises.
In the in -doors environment, building retrofittings, such as
door gaskets, double windows, wall insulation and other noise
absorbing or buffeting materials can substantially reduce
air -borne noise although noises caused from train vibrations are
not affected by these improvements. Retrofitting would be a
private cost to property owners and may vary substantially from
house to house.
The development of a city noise control ordinance would not
be enforceable for unit train operations. Section 17 of the
Federal Noise Control Act of 1972 provides that stationary and
moving locomotives cannot surpass at 30 meters 73 dBA.at idle or
90 dBA under maximum load. Rail car noise, which includes
wheelrail noise, cannot surpass 88 dBA for trains moving less than
45 miles per hour. The Federal standards represent maximum noise
levels for unit trains engaged in interstate commerce.

I
NOISE
IMPACT
CORRIDOR
WILMINGTON COAL TRAIN STUDY
SCALE: 1 3200'
0 16 32
CORRIDOR BOUNDARY
SCHOOLS:
1, BLOUNT 4, HOWE
2, FOREST HILLS 5, HOOPER
3, D.C. VIRGO 6, SUNSET PARK
1.
MAP 7

GENERAL VIBRATION IMPACTS
All trains, regardless of length, cargo, speed or. track
conditions, generate vibrations. While the measurement of train
vibrations is neither well understood in theory or application,
research is sufficient to enable a general assessment of the
magnitude of community effects. Based on the analysis presented in
this section, unit train traffic is not expected to cause
significant structural damage to residences or other buildings.
Vibrations, however, will be perceptible to occupants of
structures and may, in some cases, be highly annoying.
Vibrations are generated by forces between the train wheels
and rails as a train travels over railroad tracks. These forces
are transmitted into ground motions that move away from the tracks
in waves similar in manner to the movement of waves across the
surface of a pond. About 70 percent of the perceptible vibrations
from surface grade railroads result from surface waves (most of
which are classified by Rayleigh waves). The remaining subsurface
waves enter the ground beneath the track structure. These are
shear waves (about 23%) and dilatational waves (about 6%).
It is possible for people to. feel rail induced vibrations if
they are very near a passing train under certain operating
conditions. However, in most cases, humans do not actually feel
surface vibrations. Rather, they sense the vibrations as rumbling
noises that result from wave action on walls and floors of
residences or other buildings. Rail vibrations, thus, intrude on
the privacy of a home or other building because construction
techniques and materials are sensitive to surface waves. In an
out-of-doors environment, humans are sensitive to the train
vibration waves only in rare instances.
Measurement Index
As in the case of noise, surface vibrations are measured in
terms of decibel (dBA) levels (i.e., the pressure of the waves)
and their Hertz frequency (i.e., how many wavelengths occur over a
period of time as expressed in the number of cycles per second). A
large range of combinations of various decibel levels and Hertz
frequencies are within the range of human perceptibility.
Prediction Model
Since coal unit train activity in Wilmington has not yet
developed, a prediction model must be based on research reported
elsewhere rather than on -site measurement and projection of
.M

vibration effects.. Factors peculiar to the Seaboard Belt Line in
Wilmington have been taken into account so as to adapt findings in
other communities to the local situation.
Rail vibration waves are influenced by such factors as track
condition, track construction, equipment running condition,
locomotive weight, and soil type. It is likely that numerous other
factors contribute to.wave characteristics; however, research at
this time is extremely limited and largely inconsistent in results
beyond the factors mentioned.
The general index of train induced vibrations on at -grade tie
and ballast track ranges from 85 dB at 8 Hz to 45 dB at 250 Hz, at
25 feet from the track and at maximum speeds of 60 miles per hour
on continuously welded rail. This range is shown in Figure 3. The
upper limit can be considered a "worst case" situation in which
vibration surface waves can be felt directly as well as heard from
the effects on other objects. As the range proceeds to lower
levels,. the vibration becomes noticeable only to the ear. The wide
range of possible decibels and frequencies is simply a function of
the thousands of possible mechanical interactions and variations
that a passing train can produce on various sections of track.
Two intervening train variables, speed and locomotive weight,
can significantly affect the range of vibration levels; however,
in the case of Wilmington, they will tend to cancel out each
other. Ordinarily, decreased vehicle speed will reduce vibration
levels. It is assumed that the average upper limit operating speed
of unit trains in Wilmington will be approximately 20 miles per
hour. This speed is lower than those in which vibration research
has been performed (about 60 mph is the usual measured speed),
thus, a reduction amounting to roughly 10 decibels must be
factored into the Wilmington model (calculated as 20 LOG V/60,
where V=train and 60=basis of model speed from other com unity
train vibration research). On the other hand, unit train
locomotives are somewhat heavier than those reported in vibration
research, the measured difference amounting to approximately 10
dB.
It should also be emphasized that vibration increases or
reductions in the range of 20 dB over average conditions can
result from the general condition of the rail.. As mentioned in the
Belt Line inspection analysis of this report, the present rail
tracks cannot support coal unit trains; thus,.,it is assumed that
the rail would have to be upgraded and would more closely fit the
"normal" operating conditions that have been used in rail
vibration research. Seaboard Coast Line officials have indicated
that continuous welded rail and associated. tie and roadbed
improvements would be made if unit train activity develops.
91

I
9C
m
` eC
com
x
in
rc
m.
z60
_J
W
W
.J
0 50
Q
0:
m
p 40
Z
Q"
m
I
W
�a. 30
v
O
20
CORRECTIONS
FOR RAIL CONDITIONS
WHEEL FLATS +10to+ 2OdB
ROUGH WHEELS
NMA
AVA
'Al
ADD ONLY ONE CORRECTION
FACTOR - THE LARGEST
APPLICABLE
"soon
son
a 16 32 64 125 250 500 1000
FREQUENCY IN HERTZ
RANGE OF LEVELS FOR OPERATION AT 60 mph
AND AT 25 FT ON SMOOTH CONTINUOUSLY -
WELDED RAIL
Figure 3. Rail Ground Vibrations 25 feet from At Grade Tie and
Ballast Track.
82

Two very important variables concerning wave strength and
energy dissipation should be noted. First, amplitude of surface
waves (Rayleigh) drops as a function of surface distance but also
due to the nature of the surface and surface objects. Obviously,
surface characteristics have substantial variations.
The second variable relates to soil damping properties. There
is very little research on this subject, but it is known that the
strength of ground waves diminishes least rapidly (i.e., is -least
absorbed) by soils that are predominately composed of sand, silt,
gravel, or loess. Soils under the Belt Line are characterized by
these materials.
Effect on City Residents
The general thresholds of perception for feeling vibration or
hearing building noise caused by vibrations are shown in Figure 4,.
As indicated by the figures, the threshold for sensing surface
vibrations in the form of rumbling noises ranges from 78 dB at 12
Hz to 35 dB at 175 Hz. The threshold for feeling surface
vibrations ranges from 80 dB at 10 Hz to 68 dB at 100 Hz.
Referring to Figure :T- on the range of train vibrations, it
can be seen that in a "worst case" situation these vibrations may
be felt. directly by residents in the city, provided they are in
close proximity to the Wilmington Belt Line. However, this
threshold limit is just barely reached, and, for more average
operating conditions, the vibration impacts will be confined to
rumbling produced by surface wave action on buildings.
As a very general rule, it has been estimated that surface
vibrations will drop approximately 6 dB with each doubling of
distance from the primary twenty-five foot zone of impact at the
tracks (as shown in Figure 3). This drop is independent of Hertz
frequency.
If this rule is applied to the Belt Line, ­at the "worst" case
vibration impact (85 dB at 8 Hz), the range of 'decibel levels will
decline as follows

25 feet (from track) - 85 dB
50 feet (from track): - 79 dB
100 feet (from track) - 73 dB
200 feet (from track) - 67 dB
400 feet (from track) - 61 dB
800 feet (from track) - 55 dB
The figures do not account for shear waves and dilatational
waves, which decline at approximately 12 dB per doubling of
distance from the track source. The impacts of these waves,
however, are considered too small as to be measurably significant.
The surface wave figures indicate that the impacts of rail
vibrations from the Belt Line will be only in the form of waves
that cause rumbling noises in houses and that these will be
largely attenuated at distances of 400 to 800: feet from the
tracks. An average 600 feet impact corridor is shown on Map 8.
Mitigation Measures
The only measures that have been successful in significantly
reducing rail vibrations involve structural modifications to track
structures and on land adjacent to roadbeds. Changes in operating
procedures, such as speed or equipment, are less effective but are
already taken into account in the calculations made .in this
section.
In most cases, the rail vibrations will be perceived by
residents in the vibration corridor as simply part of the overall
noise caused by a passing train. While this may add to the
annoyance of living in close proximity to the Belt Line, and will
possibly contribute to lowered property values, the vibrations are
not expected to be Significantly large., to require extensive
mitigation measures. If exceptions do arise, as for example in
houses or other buildings where structural characteristics
exaggerate vibration impacts, it may be possible to reduce these
effects by the use of ground trenches. The precise design of a
trench (i.e., its width and length) must be made on_ a site basis.
Generally, however, the necessary depth will range from 8 to-18
feet, in sandy soil. They can be filled with crushed rock but must
be protected from the accumulation of water.
Structural modifications to the Belt Line track to reduce
vibration would require complete reworking of the roadbed (e:g.

100
90
so
4C
30
THRESHOLD
FEELING
FOR
VIBRATION
THRESHOLD FOR HEARING THE
NOISE DUE TO WALL AND FLOOR
VIBRATIONS IN BUILDINGS WITH
A LOW BACKGROUND
NOISE
10 20 50 100 200 500 loon
FREQUENCY IN HERTZ
Figure--41. Thresholds of Perception for Vibration and the Resulting
Noise in Buildings.
85

the installation of floating concrete slabs) and is not considered
practical given the traffic volume that is projected.

0
V
VIBRATION
I M PACT
CORRIDOR
WILMINGTON COAL TRAIN STUDY
SCALE: 1 " = 3200'
0 16 32
CORRIDOR BOUNDARY
MAP 8

Vibration and Loading Impacts on Underground Utilities
This section investigates the capability of existing
underground water, storm drainage and sewerage pipes to withstand
increased train loadings and vibrations on the Belt Line.
Eighty-one utilities are crossed by this track. It appears on the
basis of the analysis, that loads on 26 of the utilities should be
of serious concern. These findings are explained below.
Utilities Investigated
The locations, sizes and depths of the city's underground
water, storm drainage and.sewerage utilities were provided by the
Public Works Department. The general locations of the utilities
are shown on Map 9. Records of the Department indicate that 29 of
the pipes crossing under the. Belt Line are surrounded by steel
casings. These pipes should be capable of carrying the increased
loads and vibrations.
The remaining 52 underground utilities are not protected by
casings. Loading abilities recommended by the American Railway
Engineering Association have been calculated for each of these
pipes. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 22.
Methods of Analysis
The factors that are entered into determination of loads
include the weight of the locomotives, the impact of these engines
while in motion, the track structure and the soil types supporting
the track through which the underground pipe is located.
Recommended loadings are expressed in pounds per linear foot of
pipe surfaces. The length of a train and the weight of individual
cars are not important since the engine weight represents the
heaviest load concentration on an underground pipe.
A number of assumptions about the utilities under the.Belt
Line are necessary in order to calculate. projected loads. These
include the following:
1. No significant adhesive qualities are assumed for the
soils under the Belt Line. (i.e., it is not assumed that the
soils support any of their own weight above underground
pipe).
2. It is assumed that the underground pipes were installed
by .boring or at least are supported in the ground similarly
to construction by boring.

M _ t,
MAJOR
.
UTILITY
CROSSINGS
WI LM I NGTON COAL TRAIN STUDY
Alk
r n
'
SCALE: 1' = 3200'
SEWER MAIN
t
A WATER MAIN
�� ,�,
O �,.r < �,� .�� �
■ STORM
AM 3
4
®A''��.
A
A■
y
n
�t
4
m
r Y g o-ae4
MAP 9

Table 22: LOAD ANALYSIS
Pipe
Pipe
Installation
Acceptable
Projected
Facility
Location
Material
Depth
Bore
Load (lbs.)
Load (lbs.)
8"
Sewer
Main
8th.St.
TCP
3'
14"
2,000
2,701*
8"
Water
Main
9th St.
CIP
3'
11.96"
10,000
2,243
24"
Storm
Drain
9th St.
RCP Class IV
6'
30"
3,000
4,530*
6"
Water
Main
10th St.
CIP
3'
9.48" -
11,800
1,778
24"
Storm
Drain
loth St.
RCP Class IV
4'
30"
3,000
5,445*
12"
Water
Main
12th St.
CIP
3'
16.46" -
8,300
3,087
24"
Storm
Drain
12th St.
RCP Class IV
7'
30"
3,000
3,823*
8"
Water
Main
13th St.
CIP
3'
11.96"
10,000
2,243
8"
Sewer
Main
13th St.
TCP
4'
14"
2,200
2,398*
12"
Water
Main
Marsteller St.
CIP
4'
16.46
8,300
2,741
ko 8"
Sewer
Main
Marsteller St.
TCP
5'
14"
2,200
2,044
CD 24"
Storm
Drain
13th St.
RCP Class IV
4'
30"
3,000
5,445*
.15"
Storm
Drain
16th St.
RCP
7'
24"
3,000
2,873
8"
Sewer
Main
17th St.
VCP
4'
14"
2,200
2,398*
18"
Storm
Drain
17th St.
RCP
6'
24"
3,000
3,284*
12"
Water
Main
Oleander Dr.
CIP
4'
16.36"
8,300
2,741
12"
Sewer
Main
Wrightsville
Ave.
TCP
4'
19"
2,600
3,164 *
6"
Water
Main
Colonial Dr.
CIP
3'
9.48"
11,800
1,778
8"
Sewer
Main
Colonial Dr.
TCP
4'
14"
2,200
2,398*
6"
Water
Main
Forest Hills
Dr.
CIP
.3'
9.48"
11,800
1,778
18"
Sewer
Main
Forest Hills
Dr.
TCP
5'
28"
3,300
4,431*
24"
Sewer
Main
Forest Hills
Dr.
RCP
5'
30"
3,300
4,803*
8"
Sewer
Main
Mercer Ave.
VCP
4'
14"
3,300
2,398
* Exceeds Acceptable. Load

Table 22. LOAD ANALYSIS
Pipe
Pipe
Installation
Acceptable
Projected
Facility
Location
Material
Depth,.::Bore
Load (Ibs.)
Load-(Ibs.)
8"
Sewer
Main
Burnett Blvd.
VCP
5'
14" -
2,200
2,044
30"
Storm
Drain
Polk & Central
k
Blvd. RCP
6'
37.25"
3,000
5,710*
15"
Storm
Drain
Polk & Northern
Vlvd. RCP
4'
24"
3,000
4,136*
12"
Water
Main
Front St.
CIP
21'
13.32"
8,300
2,821
6"
Water
Main
Martin St.
CIP
2'
9.48"
11,800
2,008
8"
Sewer
Main
Front St.
TCP
4'
14"
2.,200
2,398*
8"
Water
Main
2nd St.
CIP
4'
11.96"
10,000
1,998
8"
Sewer
Main
2nd St.
TCP
4'
14"
2,200
2,398*
48"
Storm
Drain
2nd St.
RCP
8'
58"
3,000
7,577*
54"
Storm
Drain
2nd St.
RCP
8'
65"
3,000
7,577*
6"
Water
Main
3rd St.
CIP
3'
9.48"
11,800
1,778
to8"
Sewer
Main
3rd St.
TCP
4'
14"
2,200
2,398*
36"
Storm
Drain
3rd St.
RCP
5'
45.5"
3,000
7,781*
12"
Water
Main
4th St.
CIP
2'
16.46"
8,300
3,482,
8"
Water
Main
4th St.
TCP
3'
14"
2,200
2,701.*
8"
Sewer
Main
Martin St.
TCP
3'
14"
2,200
2,701*
6"
Water
Main
5th Ave.
CIP
3'
9.48"
11,800
1,778
6"
Sewer
Main
5th Ave.
TCP
3'
10.38"
2,000
1,947
6"
Water
Main
6th Ave. -
TCP
4'
9.48"
11,800..
1,579.
8"
Sewer
Main
6th Ave.
TCP
4
14"
2,200
2,398*
6"
Water
Main
7th'St. -
CIP
4'
9.48"
11,800
1,579 .
8"
Sewer
Main
7th St.
TCP
4'
14"
2,200
2,398*
18"
Storm
Drain
7th St.
RCP
6'
24"
3,000
3,284*
Class".IV
(continued)
* Exceeds Acceptable Load

Table 22, LOAD ANALYSIS
(concluded)
Pipe
Pipe
Installation
Acceptable
Projected
Facility
Location
Material
Depth
Bore .
Load (lbs.)
Load (.lbs.)
8"
Water Main
Covil Ave.
DIP
3'
11.96"
10,000
2,243
8"
Sewer Main
Covil Ave.
VCP
7'
14"
2,200
1,548
12"
Sewer Main
Colwell Ave.
TCP
7
19"
2,600
.2,100
8"
Sewer Main
Princess Place Drive
CIP
6'
11.96"
10,000
1,537
8"
Sewer Main
Brunswick St.
TCP
4'
14"
2,200
2,398*
20"
Sewer Force
Main
Brunswick St.
DIP
4"
25.39
6,500
4,228

3. Unless otherwise specified, the reinforced concrete pipes
(RCP) shown in Table 22 are assumed to be Class III design,.a
common standard for concrete pipe.
4. Equal loading abilities are assumed for cast iron and
ductile iron pipes. Cast iron pipe is no longer manufactured
but has loading qualities that are similar to ductile iron
pipe•
It is emphasized that changes in the assumptions could affect
load estimations significantly. Detailed site investigations, such
as soil sampling, precise depth studies, and similar analyses may
be required to establish precisely the effects of increased train
loadings.
Findings
Within the assumptions noted, the addition of unit train
loads (i.e., four diesel locomotives per unit train at
approximately 82,000 pounds per locomotive) will cause loadings
that exceed allowable pressures in 26 of the major utilities that
are crossed by the Belt Line. These are designated by asterisks in
the Table.
Exceeding allowable loads implies that the pipes noted in
Table 22 may develop significant structural cracks. These defects
could further lead to complete pipe failures.
The findings raised. by this analysis indicate that the
utility loadings may represent one of the more significant impacts
that the city should consider in evaluating the public costs of
coal export facilities at the State Port. As emphasized earlier,
detailed site investigations of soils, pipes and installation
characteristics will be required to determine precisely how severe
loading problems will be if unit trains are placed in service on
the Belt Line.
If further analysis confirms the loading problems indicated
in this section, a substantial cost would be required to correct
the loading deficiencies. To give some measure of this cost, a
rough analysis was made to determine replacement values for the 25
underground utility crossings where loading .problems are
suspected. The following assumptions were made in the analysis:
1. It was assumed all pipes suspected of having loading
problems would be replaced.
93

2. Steel casings would be required for replacement pipe at
average costs per linear foot based on $5.00 per inch of
diameter. Each pipe location is assumed to require a casing
extending on each side of the railroad 25 feet from the
center -line.
3. Carrier pipe replacement lengths are assumed to average
80 feet per location. Line replacement costs are estimated to
range from $20 (for 8-inch pipe) to $75 (for 54-inch pipe)
per linear foot.
4. Each pipe replacement location was assumed to.require the
installation of four man -holes for connections with existing
lines. The construction costs of the man -holes are estimated
at $125.00 to $200.00 per vertical foot, depending on
diameters and depths. A cost of $200.00 per man -hole is
assumed for frame and cover expenses.
Based on the assumptions above,. it is estimated that
replacement costs,for lines that may not be capable of bearing
unit train loads could amount to roughly $315,000. This amount
does not include engineering design, project inspection, project
administration and various other costs.
It may be possible in certain cases to use recently developed
reinforcement techniques for existing lines and thus, reduce the
cost figures. Still, until more detailed studies are undertaken
the potential loading effects of unit trains on underground
utilities should be viewed as a significant negative impact.
s2

UNIT TRAIN AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS
Emissions from coal unit trains include coal dust
particulates and gaseous air pollutants, from engine exhaust.
Given sizeable unit. train movements, .potential impacts from
particulates can range from respiratory illnesses to aesthetic
impacts. The potential for coal dust to cause respiratory stress
varies greatly from individual to individual, depending primarily
on age and overall health. The major potential aesthetic impact is
discoloration of the landscape adjacent to the tracks. Gaseous air
pollutant emissions contribute. to smog, acid rain, and local
pollutant concentrations.
Impacts of Coal Unit Trains in Wilmington
A general method of estimating potential dust has been
reported by the U.S Department of Energy in a study of an eastern
unit coal train. The study estimated a loss of .25% of coal
transported over the 700-mile journey due to dust blowing and
handling. Potential coal unit train traffic in Wilmington is
projected to range up to approximately 28,000 tons per day on the
Belt Line. Using the above loss factor of .25% for a 700-mile trip
from the Appalachian coalfields, it can grossly be estimated that
as much as one to two pounds of coal dust per mile of track per
day along the track to the State Port, and one-half pound of coal
dust per mile along the track leading to the private terminal
could be deposited daily. Assuming that the dust would settle in
accordance with the conventional plume modelling, the impact would
decrease with distance from the track. These rates of particulate
emission, however, would fall below both EPA primary and secondary
particulate standards (40 C.F.R. 50, 1976). The secondary
standards include considerations of public health and also
consideration of aesthetic impacts and vegetation impacts.
Coal dust in large quantities potentially may damage building
surfaces in ways ranging from soiling to sulfide staining and
damage due to sulfuric acid. These latter types of damage occur
only if the coal is sulphur -bearing and has not been cleaned of
sulphur prior to train transport. Permanent damage would most
likely occur to old masonry buildings where soft and crumbling
brick and sand -lime mortar cannot withstand frequent cleaning of
blackened surfaces.
. As a practical matter, the potential for coal dust emission
and related impacts are probably far less than the estimates made
above. First, because of the considerable transport distance from
the mine, it is reasonable to assume that the coal will settle
well before arriving in Wilmington and most dust will have blown
95

out in the early stages of the trip. Second, the coal unit train
will travel at slow speeds on the Belt Line, which will further
reduce the potential for coal dust loss. Third, regional climate
studies based on precipitation and temperature for the United
States indicate that the Wilmington area has a climate that will
minimize emissions.
Gaseous air pollutants from diesel -locomotive operations
include sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon
monoxide, and aldehydes. Studies performed concerning the
potential emissions and impacts from locomotive emissions indicate
that short-term ambient concentrations would not exceed Federal
ambient air quality standards. Locomotive emissions for train
operating personnel meet Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) and National Institute of Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) standards.
Impact Reduction
Based on the research that is available, the impacts from
coal dust in Wilmington are expected to be at such minimal levels
that it seems unnecessary to pursue any mitigation measures.
Several can be noted, however, that can eliminate practically all
emissions. Among these is the use of latex sprays on the dust.
These are applied at the mine. These sprays have been shown to be
cost-effective because they retard coal freezing as well as reduce
coal loss. The unit cars can also be sprayed with water after
unloading to reduce emissions on the return trip. Neither of these
measures could be required as a City regulatoryfunction since the
estimated emissions are not expected to exceed federal air quality
standards for interstate commerce. Spraying the cars with water
would eliminate practically all dust emissions on return trips
after unloading at the State Port; however, this level of dust
control seems excessive for the assumed tonnage figures. Residual
coal dust in the rail cars after unloading is also not expected to
be of any significance. Unloading operations are no longer made
from the underside of cars, but involves tilting the car over on
its sides and top. Nearly complete removal of coal is
accomplished.
9.1

r':=

Neighborhood Impacts
This section identifies the city population most affected by
unit coal train environmental impacts due to residential
.locations. The Belt Line track passes through a majority of city
neighborhoods but negative environmental impacts, mainly from
increased noise and vibration, will have primary: effects on
residences within 1,000 feet of the track. At the least,
experiences in other communities indicate that nuisance factors
from unit trains may lower property values (see .section on,
Economic Impacts). The neighborhood areas that have residences
within 1,000 feet of the Belt Line include Brooklyn, Chestnut,
East Wilmington, Forest Hills, Wrightsville Avenue, Oleander,
Southside, North Lakeside, Dry Pond, Sunset Park, and South
Wilmington.
The population figures derived for the various neighborhoods
are from 1980 Census block enumerations for neighborhood areas
located within 1,000 feet of the Belt Line. Average property
values for these neighborhood areas were derived by the Planning
Department from city tax assessment records. Potential losses are
estimated at $32.00 per $1,000 assessed value (see section. on
Economic Impacts for explanation of value loss methodology).
The neighborhood summaries indicate that 6,273 persons reside
within the primary noise impact corridor as shown below. Of
this number 3,121 persons may be subject to further increases in
noise due to. unit train vibrations. A total of 2,597 residences
are occupied by the affected populations. Potential property value
losses -caused by unit train operations are estimated to' total
$ 1,045,137, given assumptions noted in the section on Economic
Impacts. The grand totals for all neighborhoods -are shown below.
Individual neighborhood analyses follow.
Impact Summary: All Neighborhood Assemblies
Persons living in 1,000 foot 60 dBA noise corridor: 6,273
Persons living in 600 foot vibration corridor: 3,121
Persons affected by dust pollution: No Measurable Effect
Housing units in 1,000 foot noise/vibration corridor: 2,579
Estimated property value loss: $ 1,045,137
97

NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSEMBLIES
0 16 32
OLEANDER _= -
,
_WRIGHTSVILLE�,
AVENUE 1 ..
7-7—
-7
P
M
._ " ...
i
�•� � rin � �- NORTH •�•
' BROOKLYN :� NORTH � LAKESIDE'.
. 1
SIDE
.�
.. MARKETr. a
:. r- �� = SOUTH3ID ��
r r
r b
SOUTH _
�� •�.�s �� DRY POND SUNSET PARK
x
- � ` ,�.: -. ° � �.. � � ���� • � 1 � >� .ter � , ._. ' ,. 1",'�r•�....f--�-- _ � �
t
-4 �""�.'c`! "++.:.�� - .. .. ....: .,y�,?w,,,,..,.. _...,.f/J -. �p'^ q, �.r•y`.xsw. aa'j �0.......✓ ..-,
MAP 10

Brooklyn Assembly
Neighborhoods in Brooklyn Assembly include Red Cross, Robert
Taylor Homes, Brooklyn and Love Grove. Average assessed
residential property value is $5,883. Approximately 6,200 feet of
Belt Line track is located in the neighborhood assembly. A typical
4,000 foot unit train traveling at 10 miles per hour on the Belt
Line will require 11.56 minutes passing time through the assembly
(1.92 hours per day per 10 one-way trips).
The Love Grove neighborhood will be particularity affected by
unit train operations since the Belt Line crosses the only street
(King Street) providing access to this area. Both residences and
industries are located in the neighborhood. Although blocking
conflicts with emergency vehicles are expected to be very low in
typical train operations, access could develop into a serious
problem if a derailment ever occurs across King Street.
Impact Summary: Brooklyn Assembly
Persons living in 1,000 foot 60 dBA noise corridor: 211
Persons living in 600 foot vibration corridor: 84
Persons affected by dust pollution: No Measurable Effect
Housing units in 1,000 foot noise/vibration corridor: 103
Estimated property value loss
$ 13,947
In addition to the Belt Line, Brooklyn Assembly is crossed in
the vicinity of Robert Taylor Homes by a spur line leading to the
Nutt Street terminal. Although the Nutt Street terminal site is no
longer zoned to allow coal export facilities, the continued
presence of track could again lead to coal facility development
pressures at some future point in time. For this reason, potential
impact figures have been provided in this analysis, but these
impacts are not included in the overall summary of neighborhood
effects.
a•

Private Terminal (Nutt Street) Branch Line Impacts
Impact Summary: Brooklyn Assemb v.
Persons living in 1,000 foot 60 dBA noise corridor: 531
Persons living in 600 foot vibration corridor: 252
Persons affected by dust pollution: No Measurable Effect
Housing units in 1,000 foot noise/vibration corridor: 153
Estimated property value loss: $ 20,702
Chestnut Assembly
Neighborhoods in Chestnut Assembly include Arcadia,
Belvedere, Brookwood, Carolina Heights and Willowdale. Assessed
residential property values average $ 26,555. Chestnut is
predominately residential except for a large industrial area north
of the Belt Line on 23rd Street. This street also serves as a
major access to the New Hanover County Airport. Approximately
5,800 feet of Belt Line track is located in the assembly. Typical
train passing time through the assembly is'estimated at 11.13
minutes per train or .1.85 hours per day, assuming 10 one-way
trips.
Impact Summary: Chestnut Assembly
Persons living in 1,000 foot 60 dBA noise corridor: 772
Persons living in 600 foot vibration corridor: 432
Persons affected by dust pollution: No Measurable Effect
Housing units in 1,000 foot noise/vibration corridor 308
Estimated property value loss:
East Wilmington Assembly
$ 188,116
Neighborhoods in East Wilmington include Barclay Hills,
Fairlawn, Greentree Apartments, Maids Park, North Kerr Avenue, and
Rosemont Avenue. Assessed residential property values average
$ 8,995. Market Street, a major traffic artery, bisects the
assembly. This street was identified in the Vehicle Impact
analysis to be most severely affected by traffic delays if unit
100

coal trains are added to the Belt Line.
East Wilmington contains approximately 4,200 feet of Belt
Line track. Typical train passing times through the assembly will
average 9.31 minutes or 1.55 hours per day assuming 10 one-way
trips.•Since this section of the Belt Line curves through.much of
its length, noise levels may be significantly higher due to wheel
friction.
Impact Summary: East Wilmington Assembly
Persons living in 1,000 foot 60 dBA noise corridor: 963
Persons living in 600 foot vibration corridor: 207
Persons affected by dust pollution: No Measurable Effect
Housing units in 1,000 foot noise/vibration corridor: 435
Estimated property value loss: $ 90,005
Forest Hills Assembly
Forest Hills Assembly neighborhoods include Beaumont, Camden
Circle, Forest Hills, Mercer Avenue and Creek Apartments. Most of
the land uses are residential with assessed housing values
averaging $ 60,140. Residential streets in Forest Hills carry
substantial traffic loads as feeder streets between Market Street
and southern portions of the city. Projected unit train traffic
delays will increase delay problems significantly.
Approximately 3,150 feet of Belt Line track runs through
Forest Hills Assembly. Typical train passing time over this track
section will average 8.12 minutes per train or a total of 1.35
hours per day, assuming ten one-way trips.
Impact Summary: Forest Hills Assembly
Persons living in 1,000 foot 60 dBA noise corridor: 593
Persons living in 600 foot vibration corridor: 347
Persons affected by dust pollution: No Measurable Effect
Housing units in 1,000 foot noise/vibration corridor: 232
Estimated property value loss:
101
$ 3209907

Wrightsville Avenue Assembly
Wrightsville Avenue neighborhoods include Carolina Place,
Pinehurst, and Spofford Mills. Assessed housing values average
$ 20,166. Substantial traffic enters the neighborhood on the major
traffic arteries of Wrightsville Avenue and Oleander Drive. A
major traffic back-up problem on Dawson Street immediately south
of the assembly near 16th Street is expected if unit trains are
placed in service on the Belt Line (see section on Vehicle
Impacts).
Approximately 4,200 feet of Belt Line track traverses the
assembly. Average passing times per unit train' are estimated to be
9.31 minutes. For ten one-way trips daily, passing times will
total 1.55 hours.
Impact Summary: Wrightsville Avenue Assembly
Persons living in 1,000 foot 60 dBA noise corridor: 149
Persons living in 600 foot vibration corridor: 37
Persons affected by dust pollution: No Measurable Effect
Housing units in 1,000 foot noise/vibration corridor:. 58
Estimated property value loss: $ 26,901
Oleander Assembly
Oleander Assembly includes the neighborhoods of Country Club,
Glen Meade, Highland Hills, Lincoln Forest, Oleander, South
Oleander, Chateau Terrace Apartments and Oleander Court
Apartments. Primary noise and vibration impacts are confined to
the Country Club and Chateau Terrace areas. Assessed housing
values average $ 20,166. Traffic delays in Oleander Drive, which
bisects the neighborhood, are estimated to double in the vicinity
of the Belt Line.
. The Belt Line track in Oleander Assembly is approximately
2,100 feet in length. Average passing time per unit train would be
6.93 minutes. Daily pass -by times for ten one-way unit trains will
total approximately 1.16 hours.
102

Impact Summary: Oleander Assembly
Persons living in 1,000 foot 60 dBA noise corridor: 284
Persons living in 600 foot vibration corridor: 146
Persons affected by dust pollution: No Measurable Effect
Housing units in.1,000 foot noise/vibration corridor: 119
Estimated property value loss: $ 55,194
North Lakeside Assembly
North Lakeside Assembly is composed of Lake Forest, Lake
Village and Houston Moore neighborhoods. The vast proportion of
the assembly land area is occupied by multi -family housing, much
of which was constructed for ship -workers in World War II.
Assessed property values average $ 11,380.
Approximately 1,200 feet of the Belt Line passes near the
northern, bonder -of North Lakeside Assembly. Average neighborhood
passing times per unit train will be approximately 5.90 minutes.
Daily passing times for ten one-way trains will be 1.00 hourl'
The Lake Village area of North Lakeside Assembly should be
given particular attention in the evaluation of unit train
neighborhood impacts. This area contains a large number of vacated
frame duplexes that were built during World War II. Attempts to
rehabilitate these structures have not been successful, but the
neighborhood clearly would benefit if the units could again serve
as useful housing. The addition of negative impacts from increased
train traffic on the Belt Line may further constrain private
developer interest.
Impact Summary: North Lakeside Assembly
Persons living in 1,000 foot 60 dBA noise corridor: 263
Persons living in 600 foot vibration corridor: 58
Persons affected by dust pollution: No Measurable Effect
Housing units in 1,000 foot noise/vibration corridor: 159
Estimated property value loss: $ 41,617
103

Southside Assembly
Southside Assembly contains the neighborhoods of Hillcrest,
Jervay Homes and Southside, each of which have residences within
1,000 feet of the Belt Line tract. Assessed values for the
residential units average $ 11,380. Two local traffic arteries,
16th and 13th Streets, carry large traffic volumes through the
neighborhoods and will have substantial increases in vehicle
delays if unit trains are added to the Belt Line.
Approximately 4,000 feet of the Belt Line is located in
Southside Assembly. A unit train will require 9.09 minutes transit
through the assembly, totaling 1.51 hours for ten one-way trips.
Impact Summary: Southside Assembly
Persons living in 1,000 foot 60 dBA noise corridor: 979
Persons living in 600 foot vibration corridor: 535
Persons affected by dust pollution: No Measurable Effect
Housing units in 1,000 foot noise/vibration corridor: 348
Estimated property value loss: $ 91,086
Dry Pond Assembly
Dry Pond Assembly includes the neighborhoods of Dry Pond,
Solomon Towers, Nesbitt Courts, and Greenfield. Property value
assessments average $ 11,380. Third, Fifth and Front Streets carry
high traffic volumes through the assembly and will experience
increased traffic delays and congestion during unit train
movements.
Approximately 7,200 feet of the Belt Line track pass through
the Dry Pond Assembly. Average passing times through the Assembly
per unit are estimated at 12.72 minutes (10 miles per hour
speeds). Daily passing times for ten one-way trips will require
2.12 hours. These totals may be considerably. higher since the
trains will enter the State Port area shortly after passing
through the assembly. It can be expected that train noise levels
will be higher than usual due to curved track and braking
operations as the train proceeds toward the State Port area.
104

Impact
Summary:
Dry Pond
Persons
living in
1,000 foot 60 dBA noise corridor:
908
Persons
living in
600 foot vibration corridor:
638
Persons
affected
by dust pollution: No Measurable
Effect
Housing
units -in
1,000 foot noise/vibration corridor:
458
Estimated
property value loss:
$ 119,87.7.
Sunset Park Assembly
Sunset Park, which lies opposite the State Port, includes the
neighborhoods of Sumner Hill, Summer Hill Apartments, Sunset Park
and Woodland. Assessed housing values average $ 14,904. Unit train
conflicts with street traffic will not cause traffic back-ups in
the assembly but convenient access to or from the downtown and
other areas north of Sunset Park will be effectively blocked
during train pass-bys.
The Belt Line.parallels the western border of Sunset Park
Assembly for 6,200 feet as its enters the State Port area (through
Optimist Park below Front Street). Trains along this section will
be braking for entry to the State Port. Those leaving the State
Port for the return trip will, of course, be accelerating. Transit
times for unit trains will vary considerably in this area, with
movements involving braking operations, start-ups, engine idling,
backing up, uncoupling and unloading operations.
Impact Summary: Sunset Park
Persons living'in .1,000 foot 60 dBA noise corridor: 443
Persons living in 600 foot vibration corridor: 293
Persons affected by dust pollution: No Measurable Effect
Housing units in 1,000 foot noise/vibration corridor: 156
Estimated property value loss: $ 53,476
South Wilmington Assembly
South Wilmington Assembly includes the neighborhoods of Long
Leaf Park, Riverside Apartments, Sunset Hills and South
105

Wilmington. Primary unit coal train impacts would be confined to
Sunset Hills. Assessed property values in the neighborhoods
average $ 14,904.
The State Port areas serves as the western border of South
Wilmington. At this location, the Belt Line track is on State Port
property (rail tracks on this property are owned by the state) and
will have no influence on local street traffic. Unit train
movements in the State Port area will require approximately 2.5
to 3 hours per train for unloading and turn around operations.
Impact Summary: South Wilmington Assembly
Persons living in 1,000 foot 60 dBA noise corridor: 177
Persons living in 600 foot vibration corridor: 92
Persons affected by dust pollution: No Measurable Effect
Housing units in 1,000 foot noise/vibration corridor: 68
Estimated property value loss: $ 23,309
106

APPENDIX A
The average total delay is calculated for the high level of forecasted
train traffic (5 trains).
5 trains per day. = 10 one-way trips/day
16 hours of vehicular traffic daily
average number of.trains per hour = m = 16 = 0.625
Poisson Probability Distribution:
P(X) = e-m mx
X!
P(X >1) = 0.4647 = probability of more than one train*
arriving in any given hour..
Change in peak -hour delay = + 30595.1 Vehicle -Minutes
Change in off-peak delay = + 2361.2 Vehicle -Minutes
Average Delay/Day
= (30595.1) (2) (0.4647) + (2361.2) (14) (0.4647)
= 43,796 Vehicle-Minutes/day = 7.30.0 Vehicle Hours/Day
Scenario 2: (follow procedure outlined in Scenario 1 above)
trains per day=12'"one-way trips/day. P(X >1) = 0.4723
Average Delay/Day
(18365.7): (2) (.4723) + (2495.7) (14) (.4723).
= 32,960 Vehicle-Minutes/Day = 549-.34 Vehicle Hours/Day
*ihis�probability calculation accounts for cases in which part of
.."..one train may still.be clearing the Belt Line at the State Port
entry -while another train is entering the Belt Line east of.
Hilton Bridge.
107

Scenario 3: (follows procedure outlined in Scenario 1 above)
Average Delay/Day
= (21,068.4) (2) (.4647) + (1170..1) 414) (.4647)
= 27,192 Vehicle-Minutes/Day
= 453.2 Vehicle-Hours/Day
W•

APPENDIX B
Total Annual number of alarms for Zone 2 = 885
Average daily alarms = 2.42
Area north of railroad crossing = 25.0% of the total Zone.2 area
Average daily alarms from the north section = 0.560
Average hourly alarms from the north section = .0233
Assuming that the calls follow a pois son statistical distribution of:
P (X) = e-m mx
X!
where:
m = average number of hourly crossings
_ (average number of hourly calls) (Number of times the
fire engine crosses the semi -closed loop on its
way to the destination
m = .0233 x 1 .0233
Probability of more than one call per hour = P (X 1)
= 1 - P (x = 0) = 1 - e-.0233 = .02330
There are 10 train round trips per day.
m = 24 = .4166
Probability of one or more trains per hour occupying the crossing*
= 1 - e--4166 = 0.3407 = P2.
* It is assumed though that no more than one train will occupy the
semi -closed loop in any given hour.
109

Appendix B (concluded)
The probability of more than one fire engine approaching the crossing
while a train is already there = (PI) (P2) = .00783
For a 4000 train travelling at 10 mph, the average crossing
time = 272 seconds.
The expected delay per engine = (272) (.00783) = 2.13 seconds
(see Zone 2, page 64).
110

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boole, R. A. "Hearing Damage Risk -Criteria and Their Measurement." Sound
and Vibration, Vol. 6, 1972.
Borsky, P. "Effects of Noise on Community Behavior." Noise as a Public
Health Hazard, Proceedings, 1969.
Botsford, J. H. "Theory of Tempory Threshold Shift." Journal of the
Accoustidal Society of America, 1971.
Broadbent, D. and E. LittlP. "Effects of Noise Reduction in a Work Situation."
Occupational Psychology, 1960.
Bryan, M. and I. Colyer. "Noise, Intellectual Tasks, and Intelligence."
Acoustica, Vol. 29, 1973.
Cambridge Collaborative. 'Prediction and Control of Rail Transit Noise
and Vibration.' Prepared for the Urban Mass Transportation
Administration, Washington, U.C.: NTIS, 1974.
Cantrell, R. "Biochemical Effects of Intermittent Noise." Internoise 74
Proceedings ed. by J. C. Snowden, International Conference.on
Noise Control Engineering in Washington, D.C., 1974.
Caccavari, C. and Garb, S. "Railroads and Urban Noise." Noisexpo, 1973.
Cohen, A., et al. "Sociocusis - Hearing Loss from Non Occupational Noise
Exposure." Sound and Vibration, Vol. 4, 1970.
Dym, Clive L., Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc."Some Aspects of Ground Vibration
Transmission." Noisexpo, 1976.
Galloway, W. et al. Population Distribution of the U.S. as a Function of
Outdoor Noise Level. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency, 1974.
Garrison, Charles. "The Impact of New Industry: An Application of the
Economic Base Multiplier and Small Rural Areas." Land Economics, 1972.
Gorig, A. "Medical Aspects of Noise Control." Technical Association of the
Pulp and Paper Industry, 1972.
Gorig, A. "Non -Auditory Effect of Noise Exposure." Sound and Vibration, 1971.
Grootenhuis, P. "The Attenuation of Noise and Ground Vibrations From Railways."
The Journal of Environmental Sciences, Vol. 10, 1967.
ill

Guski; R. "An Analysis of Spontaneous Noise Complaints." Environmental
Research, 1977.
ICF Incorporated. Potential Role of Appalachian Producers in the Steam
Coal Export Market. Prepared for the Appalachian Regional
Commission, 1981. Washington, D.C.: ARC, 1981.
Interagency Coal Export Task Force. Coal Exports: Inland Transportation.
Report of the Inland Transportation Working Group, 1980.
Langley, James. Adverse Effects of Limited Access Highways as Reflected
by Property Value Changes. An unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation
on file at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
McCrupley, R. and Devens, J. "Effects of Noise Upon Student Performance
in Public School Classroom." Noisexpo, 1977.
Moreira, N. and Bryan M. "Noise Annoyance Susceptibility." Sound and
Vibration, Vol 21, 1972.
Mulligan, Paul and Collins R. Report of Impact of the North Carolina
Ports on the State Economy. Prepared for North Carolina
Department of Transportation and Highway Safety, 1975.
1974.
National.Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Local Climatological Data -
Wilmington, N.C. National Climatic Center, Asheville, N.C., 1980.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. Coal
Export in North. Carolina: A Review of the Issues. Raleigh, N.C.:
NC Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, 1981.
Patton, Edwin P. and Langley, John, Jr. Handbook for Preservation of Local
Railroad Service. Prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation.
Washington, D.C.:, U.S. DOT, 1977.
Pedco, Inc. Survey of Fugitive Dust from Coal.Mines. Prepared for Environ-
mental Agency. Washington, D.C.: EPA, 1977.
Rosen, A. "Noise, Hearing, and Cardiovascular Functions." Physiological
Effects of Noise. New York: Plenum Press, 1970.
Swing, J. and Inman, D. "Noise Levels in Railroad Operation." American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1974.
Swing, J. "Simplified Procedure for Developing Railroad Noise Exposure
Contours." Sound and.Vibrations, 1975.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington Harbor, Northeast Cape Fear River:
Final Environmental Impact Statement. Wilmington, NC.: U.S. Army
Engineer District, 1979.
U.S. Department of Energy. Interim Report of the Interagency Coal Export
Task Force. Washington, D.C.: NTIS, 1981.,.
112

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to the President and Congress
on Noise. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Background Document for Railroad
Noise Emission Standards. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1975.
University of'Wales Institute of Science and Technology. Conference on
Noise and Vibration Control, Cardiff: University of Wales, 1973.
Wilmington -New Hanover Planning Department. emulation & Economic Growth
and Future Land Use Needs 1980-1990. Technical Report No. 7., 1980.
Wilmington, N.C.: Wilmington -New Hanover Planning Department, 1980.
Wilmington, N.C. Budget 1980-1981. Wilmington, N.C.: Office of the City
Manager, 1981.
Wilson, George Paul. Rail Mass Transportation System Planning and Noise.
International Conference on Transportation and the Environment,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation DOT Conference
Proceedings, 1972.
113

GLOSSARY
Collier: A ship that is used to transport coal.
Casing: A cylindrical steel pipe which surrounds and protects 'a
carrier pipe placed in its interior.
Decible: A unit for expressing the relative intensities of sounds
on a scale from zero, for the average least
perceptible sound, to about 130, for the average pain
level.
Frog: A railroad track switching device that allows a train to be
directed from one track section to another 'or to cross an
intersecting track.
Multiplier: In economics, a number which expresses an economic
relationship as a mathematical function.
Pipe Boring: A lengthwise cylindrical cavity made by a rotary
excavating machine.
Plume Modelling: A technique used to predict the dispersion
of particulates when released into the
atmosphere.
Queue: In street traffic, a line of cars that forms when a delay
in movement occurs.
Rail Head: The upper part of the railroad track_ which forms the
running surface for the train wheels.
Track Class: A precise designation of rrailroad track design
and condition which is used to specify operation
procedures for train movements, including maximum
allowable speeds. The lower the track class is,
the lower is the maximum operating speed.
Track Gage: A measure of the distance between the left and
right tracks which support a train.
Track Joint: The location at which two sections of railroad track
are joined.
Unit Train: A train in which cars are all the same types and
dimensions and are restricted to transporting a
single commodity.
114

CEIP Publications
1. Hauser, E. W., P. D.-Cribbins, P. D. Tschetter, and R. D. Latta.
Coastal Energy Transportation Needs to Support. Major Energy Projects
in North Carolina's Coastal Zone. CEIP Report # 1. September 1981. $10.
2. P. D. Cribbins. A Study of OCS Onshore Support Bases and Coal Export
Terminals. CEIP Report #2. September 1981. $10.
3. Tschetter, P. D., M. Fisch, and R. D. Latta. An Assessment of
Potential Impacts of Energy -Related Transportation Developments on
North Carolina's Coastal Zone. CEIP Report.#3. July 1981. $10.
4. Cribbins, P. S. An Analysis of State and Federal Policies Affecting
Major Energy Projects in North Carolina's Coastal Zone. CEIP Report
A. September 1981. $10.
5. Brower# David, W. D. McElyea, D. R. Godschalk, and N. D. Lofaro.
Outer Continental Shelf Development and the North Carolina Coast:
A Guide for Local Planners. CEIP Report M August 1981. $10.
6. ,Rogers, Golden and.Halpern, Inc., and Engineers for.Energy and the
Environment, Inc. Mitigating the Impacts of Energy Facilities: A
Local Air Quality Program for the Wilmington, N. C. Area. CEIP
Report #6. September 1981. $10.
7. Richardson, C. J. (editor). Pocosin Wetlands: an Integrated Analysis
of Coastal Plain Freshwater Bogs in North Carolina. Stroudsburg (Pa):
Hutchinson Ross. 364 pp. $25. Available from School of Forestry,
Duke University, Durham, N. C. 27709. (This proceedings volume is for
a conference partially funded by N. C. CEIP. It replaces the N. C.
Peat Sourcebook in this publication list.)
8. McDonald, C. B. and A. M. Ash. Natural Areas Inventory of Tyrrell
County, N. C. CEIP Report #8. October 1981. $10.
9. Fussell, J., and E. J. Wilson. Natural Areas Inventory of Carteret
County, N. C. CEIP Report #9. October 1981. $10.
10. Nyfong, T.-D. Natural Areas Inventory of Brunswick County, N. C.
CEIP Report #10. October 1981. $10.
11. Leonard, S. W., and R. J. Davis. Natural Areas Inventory for Pender
County, N. C. CEIP Report #11. .October 1981. $10.
12. Cribbins, Paul D., and:Latta, R. Daniel. Coastal Energy Transporta-
tion Study: Alternative Technologies for Transporting and Handling
Export Coal. CEIP Report #12. January 1982. $10.
13. Creveling, Kenneth. Beach Communities and Oil Spills: Environmental
and Economic Consequences for Brunswick County, N. C. CEIP Report
#13. May 1982. $10.

CEIP Publications
14. Rogers, Golden and Halpern, Inc., and Engineers for Energy and the
Environment. The Design of a Planning Program to Help Mitigate Energy
Facility -Related Air Quality Impacts in the Washington County, North
Carolina Area. CEIP Report #14. September 1982. $10.
16. Frost, Cecil C. Natural Areas Inventory of Gates County, North
Carolina. CEIP Report #16. April 1982. $10.
17. Stone, John R., Michael T. Stanley, and Paul T. Tschetter. Coastal
Energy Transportation Study, Phase III, Volume 3: Impacts of Increased
Rail Traffic on Communities.in Eastern North Carolina. CEIP Report #17.
August 1982. $10.
19. Pate, Preston P., and Jones, Robert. Effects of Upland Drainage on
Estuarine Nursery Areas of Pamlico Sound, North Carolina. CEIP
Report #19. December 1981. $1.00.
25. Wang Engineering Co., Inc. Analysis of the Impact of Coal Trains Moving
Through Morehead City, North Carolina. CEIP Report #25. October 1982.
$10.
26. Anderson & Associates, Inc. Coal Train Movements Through the City of
Wilmington, North Carolina. CEIP Report #26. October 1982. $10.
27. Peacock, S. Lance and J. Merrill Lynch. Natural Areas Inventory of
Mainland Dare County, North Carolina. CEIP Report #27. November 1982.
$10.
28. Lynch, J. Merrill and S. Lance Peacock.} Natural Areas Inventory of
Hyde County, North Carolina. CEIP Report #28. October 1982. $10.
29. Peacock, S. Lance and J. Merrill Lynch. Natural Areas Inventory of
Pamlico County, .North Carolina. CEIP Report #29. November 1982. $10.
30. Lynch, J. Merrill and S. Lance Peacock. Natural Areas Inventory of
Washington County, North Carolina. CEIP Report #30. October 1982.
$10.
31. Muga, Bruce J. Review and Evaluation of Oil Spill Models for Applica-
tion to North Carolina Waters. CEIP Report #31. August 1982. $10.
33. Sorrell, F. Yates and Richard R. Johnson. Oil and Gas Pipelines in
Coastal North Carolina: Impacts and Routing Considerations. CEIP
Report #33. December 1982. $10.
34. Roberts and Eichler Associates, Inc. Area Development Plan for Radio
Island. CEIP Report #34. June 1982. $10.
35. Cribbins, Paul D. Coastal Energy Transportation Study, Phase III,
Volume 4: The Potential for Wide -Beam, Shallow -Draft Ships to Serve
Coal and Other Bulk Commodity Terminals along the Cape Fear River.
CEIP Report #35. August 1982. $10.