Analysis of the Impact of Coal Trains Moving Through Morehead City-1982

OCM LIBRARY
r.
Analysis of the Impact of
Coal Trains
Moving Through
Morehead City, North Carolina
Wang Engineering Co., Inc.
119 West Maynard Road
I Cary, NC 27511
DCM COPY DCM COPY
lease do not remove!!!!!
OCTOBER 1982
Division of Coastal management
0North Carolina
Coastal Energy Impact Program
Office of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
CEIP REPORT NO.25

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

ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF COAL TRAINS
MOVING THROUGH MOREHEAD CITY, NORTH CAROLINA
BY
WANG ENGINEERING CO., INC.
119 West MaynardRoad
Cary, North Carolina 27511
The preparation of this report was financed through a
Coastal Energy Impact Program grant provided by the
North Carolina Coastal Management Program. The CEIP
grant was part of NOAA grant NA-81-AA-D-CZ124.
Project No. 81-06
Contract No. C-6105
October 1982
CEIP REPORT NO. 25

ACKNO14LEDGEMENT
This report is the results of a study funded by Coastal Energy
Impact Program (CEIP) which is managed by the Office of Coastal Manage-
ment, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development. The in -kind service match was provided by the staff
members of the Town of Morehead City.
We would like to extend our appreciation to Honorable Edward S.
Dixon, Mayor of Morehead City, and the Council members for their
encouragement and direction; Mr. Donald T. Davis, Administrator of
Morehead City, and his staff members at the Police Department, Utility
Department and Building Permit Department for their vital assistance in
data collection and field measurements.
Our special thanks to Mr. George Sherrill, Coordinator of N. C.
Noise Control Program for his efforts in conducting the noise measure-
ments at the Town of Morehead City. We are grateful for the assistance
from Jim Smith, CEIP coordinator.
ii

ABSTRACT
At the present time 3 million tons of coal is transported by trains
through Morehead City each year. This is projected to rise to 15
million tons per year by 1984. As the tonnage of exported coal
increases, the possible adverse effects on the Town of Morehead City are
likely to be observed.
This report examines the possibility of any adverse effects to the
Town and its citizens caused by the coal train transportation. Traffic
delay, noise and vibration, and business effect studies were conducted,
analyzed, and conclusions drawn from these studies to assess the impacts.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT............................................... ii
ABSTRACT...................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................ vi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................... vii
LIST OF MAPS .................................................. vii
SUMMARY....................................................... viii
MITIGATION AND ALTERNATIVES ................................... ix
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................. 1
II. NORMAL TRAFFIC DELAY ...................................... .. 7
II.1. Traffic Counts at Designated Locations ................ 3
II.2. Seasonal Traffic Adjustments Analysis for
Designated Locations .................................. 3
II.3. Train Log Data and Delay Time ......................... 11
II.4. Discussion ............................................ 13
III. EMERGENCY TRAFFIC DELAY ......................................•. 17
III.1. Fire Emergency Traffic ................................ 17
III.2. Police Emergency Traffic .............................. 18
III.3. Rescue Squad Emergency Traffic ........................ 18
III.4. Discussion .........................................•.. 19
IV. NOISE IMPACT STUDY ............................................ 20
IV.1.
Noise Level
Measurements ..............................
20
IV.1.1.
Background
Noise Levels ...............................
20
IV.1.2.
Train Noise
Levels ....................................
20
IV.2.
Noise Level
Data Analysis .............................
22
IV.2.1.
Background
Noise Levels ...............................
22
IV.2.2.
Train Noise
Levels ....................................
22
IV.3.
Discussion ............................................
22
V. VIBRATION IMPACT STUDY ........................................ 26
V.1. Location of Vibration Measurements .................... 26
V.2. The Analysis of Vibration Measurements
and Results ........................................... 26
iv

Page
V.3.
Impact and Considerations of Vibration
Attributed to Train Transportation ...................
33
V.3.1.
The Weight of Train Cars .............................
33
V.3.2.
The Train Speed ......................................
33
V.3.3.
The Train Braking and Acceleration' ...................
33
V.3.4.
The Railroad Bed .....................................
34
V.3.5.
Soil Conditions ......................................
34
V.3.6.
Distance from the Train Tracks .......................
34
V.3.7.
Train Frequency in Morehead City .....................
35
V.4.
Water and Wastewater Lines Adjacent to
the Railroad Tracks ..................................
35
V.S.
Emergency Repair Materials for Water
and Wastewater Systems ...............................
38
M.
Discussion ...........................................
39
VI. BUSINESS EFFECTS ............................................. 42
VI.1. General Business Background .......................... 42
VI.2. Business Impact at Morehead.City..................... 43
VII. REFERENCES ...................................................
VIII. APPENDIXES --Available on request to Office of Coastal Management,
Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611.
A. 1981 Train Log - Reported by Morehead
City Police Department. (9 pages)
B. Selective Fire Calls - Reported by Morehead
City Fire Department. (3 pages)
C. Selective Wrecks - Reported by Morehead
City Police Department. (4 pages)
D. Selective Rescue Squad Calls (Date, Time,
Location in the Town of Morehead City).
(2 pages)
E. Vibration Data. (5 pages)
v
45

LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Traffic Survey of Railroad Crossing at 4th Street,
Morehead City ..................................................
5
2.
Traffic Survey of Railroad Crossing at 18th Street,
Morehead City ..................................................
6
3.
Traffic Survey of Railroad Crossing at 20th Street,
Morehead City ..................................................
7
4.
Traffic Survey of Railroad Crossing at 24th Street,
Morehead City ..................................................
8
5.
Traffic Survey of Railroad Crossing at 30th Street,
Morehead City ..................................................
9
6.
Traffic Survey of Railroad Crossing at 35th Street,
Morehead City ..................................................
10
7.
Calculation of Coal Trains Passing Through the Town
of Morehead City ...............................................
14
8.
Train Time Delay Per Day .......................................
15
9.
Estimated Number of Vehicles Delayed Per Train
Movement Through Morehead City .................................
16
10.
Sound Levels and Human Response ................................
24
11.
Location and Description of Soil Particle Wave
Velocity Measurements Due to Vibration.... o ....................
28
12.
Average Particle Velocities Calculated from
Vehicular Traffic Vibration Data ...............................
31
13.
Average Particle Velocities Calculated from
Train Vibration Data ...........................................
31
vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. Average Daily Traffic at North End Atlantic Beach Bridge....... 12
2. Calculation of Source Noise Level from Total and
Background Noise Levels ........................................ 23
3. Calculated Peak Particle Velocity Versus Accumulated
Probability Derived from Vibration Measurement Along
the Railroad ................................................... 30
4. The Delineation of Peak Particle Velocity Due to
Vibration Versus Distance from Vibration Source ................ 32
5. Relationship Between Particle Velocity and Residential
Structure Damage ............................................... 40
6. Effect of Vibration Upon Humans ................................ 41
LIST OF MAPS
Index Map
1. Location of Emergency Service Stations and Traffic Counters
2. Location of Noise Measurement Stations
3. Location of Vibration Measurement Stations
4. Location of Water Lines Adjacent to the Railroad
5. Location of Wastewater Lines Adjacent to the Railroad
vii

1r�: Cam'
Through the detailed study of normal traffic delay, emergency
traffic delay, noise and vibration impacts, and business effects for
coal train movements through the Town of Morehead City, the following
summary was derived:
1. The schedule of train movements through Morehead City will
have a critical impact to the normal and emergency traffic
delay. For example the 15 million coal tons per year will
delay 482 vehicles daily at 24th Street in July, if the
trains are scheduled to pass through Morehead City during
the daytime. Under the same conditions, 158 vehicles will be
delayed if the trains are scheduled, to pass during the
nights. Up to 30 minutes of traffic delay has been
experienced at 4th Street crossing attributed to rearrangement
of train cars near the State Port. -
2. No significant impact to the emergency traffic except limited
effect to rescue squad was found for train transporting
million tons of coal through Morehead City, but the impact
may increase as the coal tonnage increases.
3. The average noise levels from train movements are substantially
higher than those from highway vehicles; 59 dBA to 76.3 dBA
from the train movements comparing to 47 dBA to 67 dBA at
normal time. The existing train noise does not exceed the
annoying level of 80 dBA which was established by the EPA.
The increase of train frequency and therefore prolongation of
train noise could cause an unpleasant atmosphere for local
residents.
4. The train contributed ten times more peak soil particle
velocity than that from the normal highway vehicles within 100
feet from the vibration source. No serious impact to the
safety of above ground structures is observed, but long range
effects to the uneven settlement of soil underneath the water
and wastewater lines could cause the increase of bending force
on the lines and joints with eventual water leakage. More
frequent train transportation will accelerate this process.
5. The effects of train vibration upon residence along Arendell
Street range from just perceptible to easily noticeable.
The combination of noise and vibration will increase the
resident's annoyance,especially at night.
viii

MITIGATION AND ALTERNATIVES
To reduce the transportation impact, the arrangement of train
schedules is very critical. To allow the train to pass through the Town
of Morehead City during rush hours should definitely be avoided. The
further improvements of rail beds, and control of train speeds will have
a positive effect to the mitigation of noise and vibration impacts
attributed to the coal train movements.
The substantial increase of coal train movement frequency through
the Town of Morehead City will have a great impact to the local traffic,
quality of living conditions, safety of water and wastewater lines
adjacent to the railroad, and local and tourist business.
Consequently, studies have been conducted by the N. C. Department of
Transportation, and UNC Institute for Transportation Research and
Education to evaluate the various alternatives for increasing coal
exportation:
1. Build the railroad tracks around the Town of Morehead City with
several prospective routes.
2. Use belt conveyors through the Town of Morehead City.
3. Develop rail cars on barge system around the Town of Morehead
City.
4. Establish coal on barge system around the Town of Morehead
City.
5. Adopt pulverized coal slurry pipeline through the Town of
Morehead City.
6. Build barge particle coal slurry pipeline through the Town of
Morehead City.
7. Use pneumatic coal transporting pipeline through the Town of
Morehead City.
The technical and economic feasibility of these alternatives are under
evaluation, which is beyond the scope of work for this contract.
ix

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 coali 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.
inities in Eastern Nortli C
(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.
is of the Impact of Coal Trains Moving through Morehead City (CEIP
Report NO. L.))
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 traffic. 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 through the City of Wilmington (ChIP 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 reprent the
full array of socio-economic patterns found along the rail line. Public
policy actions are recommended to reduce adverse impacts.
New Bern Coal Train Studv (CEIP Report No. 24)
Thisoject'— , whl h'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.

I. INTRODUCTION
The United States did not export any steam coal in 1978 and
exported 2.5 million tons in 1979. However, the National Coal Associa-
tion projects that steam coal exports will reach 25 to 53 million tons
annually by 1985, and 60 to 79 million tons annually by 1990. (NCDOT
report, June 1982). The UNC Institute for Transportation Research and
Education (ITRE) reported that various projections indicated the United
States will export about 39.1 million tons of steam coal annually by
1990.
It was estimated that a certain tonnage of this coal would be
exported through North Carolina ports, especially through the Town of
Morehead City and City of Wilmington.. A contract was signed between
Alla-Ohio Valley Coals, Inc. and N. C. State Port Authority to export 3
million tons of coal annually through the Morehead City Port. In
October 1981, the Coastal Resources Commission voted to reclassify Radio
Island from a "Rural" to "Rural Port" classification, subject to
satisfactory findings from two study reports.
The existing mass transportation system for Morehead City Port is
the railroad train passing through the center of the Town of Morehead
City.
This report is the results of a study funded by Coastal Energy
Impact Program with the in -kind service assistance from the Town of
Morehead City. To evaluate the environmental safety and economical
impact attributed to the existing and possibly increasing coal train
movements through the Town of Morehead City, this study consists of the
following analysis:
1. Traffic Impact
2. Emergency Traffic Impact
3. Noise Impact
4. Vibration Impact
5. Business Effects
6. Mitigation and Alternatives
The study area for this report is the 3 mile railroad track with 27
street crossings and the adjacent areas within Morehead City Limits.
The general location of the study area is shown on the Index Map.

17
\ A
I•/ t r e o • o° x e
VIIN—,
♦ r +° j °ate\ fi 0 11.
f
� G
Morehead City
Base MapTrj
°• %\� � .:� �y'��Y •.ti. <.. o • -�:.o ... f .r - C-'firms �'�. `t m'>.•. �j^-'. �, jj , (r
r •� �� j ,���`' �" f'__� -<' ,% %"/ INDEX MAP
°--: "a����--t..�==�' - � •y . ;.:. CARTERET COUNTY
, _ ° �;� • • ♦* oY9.�V NORTH CAROLINA
• /° L A N T t o 0 o E t' .. °,as, /' v JULY 1982

II. NORMAL TRAFFIC DELAY
The coal train movements through the Town of Morehead City could
have a significant impact on traffic movements as the frequency increases.
A combination of seasonal traffic data, train log data, hourly traffic
data, and train delay times were used to assess the delay of traffic
caused by increased coal train.
II.1. Traffic Counts at Designated Locations
A traffic survey was conducted in May of 1982 to determine the
number of vehicles per hour crossing the railroad at designated loca-
tions between 4th and 35th Streets. The exact locations of these
crossings are shown on Map 1 and the data is listed in Tables 1 - 6. It
was found that the railroad crossings at 24th, 4th, and 35th Streets are
the most crucial because of the heavy volumes of traffic flow and hos-
pital access interruption.
The heaviest volume of traffic crossing the railroad occurred at
24th Street. On a Sunday afternoon between 4:30 and 6:00 p.m.,
approximately 1,566 vehicles per hour crossed the railroad tracks
(Table 4). It is assumed that this traffic would predominantly be
tourists from Atlantic Beach. The highest weekday traffic flow of 1,019
vehicles per hour was observed in the late afternoon, while the least
amount of traffic at the 24th Street crossing was in the late evening and
early morning hours, as expected, with a volume of 230 vehicles per hour.
At the 4th Street railroad crossing, the peak traffic volume was
742 vehicles per hour (Table 1) on a weekday afternoon. The least volume
was in the late evening and early morning hours when a volume of 154
vehicles per hour was recorded crossing the railroad.
The crossing at 35th Street has less traffic than that at 4th and
24th Streets, but it is a significant crossing due to its access to the
hospital. During the traffic survey, the heaviest traffic occurred on a
Friday afternoon when547 vehicles crossed the railroad per hour; the
least amount of traffic crossing this intersection was in the late evening
and early morning hours with an average of 50 vehicles per hour. The
interruption of normal traffic at this intersection is not as serious.as
the 4th and 24th Street crossings, but rather the disruption of emergency
medical vehicle access to the hospital is more of a concern. This will
be discussed in more detail in emergency traffic analysis.
II.2. Seasonal Traffic Adjustment Analysis for Designated Locations
Morehead City, being a center for recreation, has its highest
amount of traffic in the summer months, due to increasing tourists
activities. In a traffic study conducted in 1981 by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, the highest seasonal peak occurred in June
with a weekend volume of about 27,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and a
weekday peak of about 22,000 ADT (Figure 1). A significant traffic
3

^ R —
r—�.
v
CARTERET
— — GE N. Has,.
��I�NAl10N-\\/ COMP GLENN
. AL GUAaD\J\\ ELEM.
M W Z �SCH.
F ARMED
FORCES z � iar LOR
ST.
T ^��
COR T EFEi �I I�a
COUN7Y � I
TECH. INST. t
MOREHEAD CENTRAL 11jit
MIDDLE
SCH.
70
:-5
JMP
2 R 1�1
SWAMP
raUPDH > /�I�
--1 GREENWOOD TER
SL �� PARK CEM. SIZ � CgLICO UR.
)je
MOOR"S
4�� EEK
c�M
� rvnrr---"I
MUNICIPAL 1176 \ `I \
\\� I❑� CEM. \ �_ AD
/
SOY �-'� \ MORE RE AD \
POR \ 'j'�1 ICEMI FEN-I11R[I�- ��Fe��11�DHT RI L rn ❑ S��I
OMOREHEAD CITY
6 MUNICIPAL CITY
PARR LIMIT
r.
70
1182 v lO sH cC L-Fpa ^�IT
I
\ LIM
\ CITY /
MOREHEAD CITY
NORTH CAROLINA
Rescue Squad Station
• Fire Station
m Police Station
Hospital
OTraffic Counter
LOCATIONS OF EMERGENCY
SERVICES AND TRAFFIC
SURVEY COUNTERS
7
I
'� �) o• a DATE juiy 1982
PONL
pR `Se4
•, �• I 1000
I
I RlNsroN AVE. k 1182 I S C A L E
I � I
BOwEN • sNonso I MAP 1 of 5
2000 ft
T

Ln
Tablei. Traffic Survey of Railroad Crossing at 4th Street, Morehead City
Date
Time
Counter #1
Reading*
Counter #2
Reading**
Calculated
Vehicles
Crossing R.R.
Calculated Vehicle
Traffic per hr.
Crossing R.R.
5/13/82
Thursday
7131 A.M.
8:38 A.M.
4:23 P.M.
5.53 P.M.
4,584
5,938
15,155
17,456
22,057
23,211
339436
41,262
41,908
49,813
51,355
57,168
57,826
639666
I 64,927
447
658
1,495
19570
-
1,972
.29150
3,050
39627
3,662
39970
49030
4,399
4,436
4,655
1 4,697
572
512
4,190
541
1,113
742
20100
154
5/14/82
Friday
7:30 A.M.
8:35 A.M.
4:45 P.M.
488
450
4,663
571
3,625
235
5/15/82
Saturday
8:10 A.M.
9:15 A.M.
4.30 P.M.
6:oo P.M.
3o6
282
3,799
524
741
494
2,722
202
5/16/82
Sunday
7:30 A.M.
9:30 A.M.
4:35 P.M.
6:15 P.M.
311
155
2,811
397
610
366
# 4th Street & Arendell Street, Eastbound lane
## State Port Road & Arendell Street

1-3
Table 2. Traffic Survey of Railroad Crossing at 18th Street, Morehead City
Date
Time
Counter #3
Reading*
Calculated
Vehicles
Crossing R.R.
Calculated Vehicle
Traffic per hr.
Crossing R.R.
5/9/82
Sunday
7:35 A.M.
8130 A.M.
4133 P.M.
6:o8 P.M.
517
540
19129
19215
10471
1,530
2,219
2,367
2,669
2,706
39243
39377
3r652
3,712
49197
4,315
12
13
295
37
43
�7
128
10
5/10/82
Monday
7:22 A.M.
8230 A.M.
4:35 P.M.
5:56 P.M.
30
26
345
43
74
55
151
it
5/11/82
Tuesday
7:29 A.M.
8:30 A.M.
4:31 P.M.
5:54 P.M.
19
19
269
34
67
48
138
10
5/12/82
Wednesday
7:40 A.M.
8:31 A.M.
4:27 P.M.
5:49 P.M.
30
35
243
31
59
4
9
71
*18th Street & Arendell Street

Table 3• Traffic Survey of Railroad Crossing at 20th Street, Morehead City
Date
Time
Counter #4,
Reading*
Calculated
Vehicles
Crossing R.R.
Calculated Vehicle
Traffic per hr.
Crossin
5/9/82
Sunday
7:28 A.M.
8:25 A.M.
4:31 P.M.
6:05 P.M.
875
914
1,799
29019
2,722
29863
4,o69
4,344
4,988
5,163
6,261
6,651
7,401
7,543
89946
9,26o
20
20
443
55
uo
69
352
27
5/10/82
Monday
7:19 A.M.
8:28 A.M.
4:32 P.M.
5153 P.M.
71
62
603
75
138
ioz
322
24
$/12/82
Tuesday
7:27 A.M.
8s27 A.M.
4:29 P.M.
5:52 P.M.
88
88
549
68
150
108
420
31
5/12/82
Wednesday
7138 A.M.
8:29 A.M.
4:25 P.M.
5:43 P.M.
71
84
702
89
157
121
*20th Street & Arendell Street

Table-4. Traffic Survey of Railroad Crossing at 24th Street, Morehead City
Date
Time
Counter #7
Reading*
Counter #8
Reading"
Calculated
Vehicle
Crossing R.R.
Calculated Vehicle
Traffic per hr.
Crossing R.R.
4/30/82
Friday
4:20 P.M.
6:0o P.M.
0
970
5,557
9,121
90886
14,463
149727
181110
18,566
201272
2091.1•72
239675
249501
26,247
29,251
0
4,367
8,492
24,730
299597
47,650
48,711
67,859
739013
83,009
849239
97,441
100,602
1089557
1 121,194
1,699
1,019
Traffic counter was out of order
5/1/82
Saturday
10.30 A.M.
4:30 P.M.
6:oo P.M.
69337
1,056
2,051
1,367
6,738
499
5/2/82
Sunday
7:30 A.M.
8:50 A.M.
4:30 P.M.
6:oo P.M.
399
299
79883
1,028
29349
1,566
4,145
303
5/3/82
Monday
7:40 A.M.
8:30 A.M.
4:30 P.M.
6:oo P.M.
515
618
5,000
625
1,168
778
3,105
230
5/4/82
Tuesday
7:3o A.M.
3230 P.M.
4,817
602
#Arendell Street at Dairy Queen, left -turn, West bound
##24th Street & Arendell Street

n.
Table 5. Traffic Survey of Railroad Crossing at 30th Street, Morehead City
Date
Time
Counter #5
Reading*
Calculated
Vehicles
Crossing R.R.
Calculated Vehicle
Traffic per hr.
Crossing R.R.
5/4/82
Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
1,155
2046
4,939
6,242
7,432
79591
10,219
11,409
12,208
129320
149366
15,290
16:363
16,561
19,439
596
37
5/5/82
Wednesday
8:30 A.M.
3:30 P.M.
6:oo P.M.
1'�97
185
652
261
595
44
5/6/82
Thursday
7:30 A.M.
8:30 A.M.
4:50 P.M.
6:00 P.M.
80
80
1,314
158
595
510
400
30
5/7/82
Friday
7:30 A.M.
8:30 A.M.
3:30 P.M.
5136 P.M.
56
56
i,o23
146
462
220
537
39
5/8/82
Saturday
7:30 A.M.
8:30 A.M.
3100 P.M.
99
99
1r439
221
*30th Street & Arendell Street

0
Table 6. Traffic Survey of Railroad Crossing at 35th Street, Morehead City
Date
Time
Counter #6
Readin #
Calculated
Vehicles
Crossing R.R.
Calculated Vehicle
Traffic per hr.
Crossing R.R.
/42
Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
631
1,921
4,258
5,439
69789
7,143
9,596
11,o66
129366
12,752
16,377
18,364
18,545
21,362
645
40
5/5/82
Wednesday
8130 A.M.
3:30 P.M.
6:00 P.M.
1,169
167
591
236
675
50
5/6/82
Thursday
7:30 A.M.
8:30 A.M.
3:30 P.M.
6:00 P.M.
177
177
1,227
175
735
294
650
48
5/7/82
Friday
7:30 A.M.
8:30 A.M.
4:36 P.M.
193
193
1,211
173
602
547
5/8/82
Saturday
7:30 A.M.
8:30 A.M.
3:00 P.M.
994
67
1,409
217
*35th Street & Arendell Street

decline was observed from summer to winter. The least volume of flow
occurred in December and January when the average weekday flow was about
7,200 ADT. Consequently, the traffic delay and congestion attributed to
the summer heavy traffic and train movements could have a significant
impact to the tourist and downtown business activities.
By using the peak and off-peak flows from the traffic survey
conducted in May of 1982 and the seasonal traffic survey collected in
1981, projections were made to determine the heaviest and lowest traffic
volumes during the peak traffic season expected to occur in July of 1982.
From Figure 1 an increase of 8.3% is expected in the weekend traffic from
May to July. An increase of 37.5% weekday traffic is projected to occur
from May to July. Using these projected increases in traffic, mainly due
to increased tourists, the traffic volume crossing the railroad at 24th
Street would increase to 1,690 vehicles per hour during peak flow on
weekends, 1,375 vehicles per hour during the peak weekday flow, and 316
vehicles per hour during off-peak flow periods.
At the 4th Street railroad crossing, the peak traffic flow was
assumed to increase 8.3% on weekends and 37.5% on weekdays from May to
July. Based on this assumption, this would increase the peak flow in
July to 1,030 vehicles per hour on weekdays and 569 vehicles per hour on
weekends. The least traffic volume expected to cross the railroad would
be 169 vehicles per hour at night. By using these projected increases
due to seasonal change, the traffic delay can thereafter be analyzed
under the busiest conditions.
II.3. Train Log Data and Delay Time
The Morehead City Police Department provided data on train move-
ments through the City for 1981 (Appendix A). This data gave the
location, time, number of cars per train, and speed of the trains. The
overall average speed of the trains passing through the City was 12.6
m.p.h. while at the crossings of 24th and 4th Streets the average speeds
were 15 m.p.h. and 10•m.p.h., respectively. These train speeds were
used to calculate the number of cars delayed at these crossings.
By using the traffic survey collected for the peak traffic season,
the busiest conditions for traffic delay were examined. These in
combination with train data on speed and length of the train, and yearly
coal tonnages were used to calculate the time and number of vehicles
delayed per day.
The number of unit trains required to transport 3 million, 5
million, 10 million, and 15 million tons of coal per year were estimated
and is presented in Table 7.
The average train was assumed to be 80 cars in length with an
estimated 100 tons of coal per car. The time delay caused by a train
11

Figure 1. Average Daily Traffic North
End Atlantic Beach Bridge
27
26
25
24
23
22
p 14
LLJ 13
Q
W 12
E
10
9
8
7
• Average Weekday
o Average Saturday
/ X Average Sunday
� 1
/ � 1
r /
1 � 1
1 / 1
r 1
1
Al �
YI 1 \\
1 I \
r 1
t
d
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
MONTH , 1981
I I
l
ii
9 10
II
12
12

crossing an intersection was calculated for assumed yearly tonnages and
is shown in Table 8. Train speeds of 5, 10, 15, and 20 m.p.h. were used
to calculate the delays.
With a volume of 3 million tons of coal being transported through
;Sorehead City per year, which is equivalent to about one train per day in
each direction, the traffic delay per day would be 6 minutes for the
trains moving at a speed of 15 m.p.h. This delay would increase for
slower trains and is represented in Table 8. A speed of 15 m.p.h. is the
maximum allowable velocity for trains under the Morehead City Code from
24th Street eastward.
At speed of 15 m.p.h. at the 24th Street intersection a train
during the peak flow of 1,690 vehicles per hour in July would cause a
delay of 85 vehicles. During normal mid -day traffic of approximately
860 vehicles per hour, a train would delay 43 vehicles; while in the
off-peak flow period of 316 vehicles per hour, only 16 vehicles would be
delayed. The delay at the 4th Street railroad crossing caused by a train
moving at 10 m.p.h., which is the average speed determined from train
data provided by the Morehead City Police Department, would be 86
vehicles during peak flow, 46 vehicles during mid -day traffic, and 14
vehicles would be delayed during off-peak flow. The number of vehicles
delayed was calculated for one train with 80 coal cars. Since 3 million
tons are to be transported through the city, two trains per day are
required to pass these intersections. If both trains crossed these
intersections during peak traffic hours, the maximum number of vehicles
that could be delayed per day is 170 vehicles at the 24th Street inter-
section and 172 vehicles per day at the 4th Street intersection. The
estimated number of vehicles which will be delayed by each train movement
at 4th, 24th, and 35th Streets for projected months of January and July
are presented in Table 9. The average train speed at 4th Street crossing
was estimated to be 10 m.p.h., and 15 m.p.h. at 24th and 35th Street
crossings were assumed.
While only 3 million tons of coal per year are moving through the
City, the vehicle delay is insignificant, but as the tonnage of coal per
year increases, a significant increase in delay occurs. With an
estimated 15 million tons of coal to be transported through the City per
year, or 5 trains per day in each direction by 1984, as projected by the
University of North Carolina Institute for Transportation Research and
Education (ITRE), the traffic delay would increase 5 times to 30 minutes
per day.
II.4. Discussion
Currently, the train passes two times a day, once in each direction
through the Town of Morehead City. With an increase of train movements
above 2 trains per day, the increase could have a significant impact on
the traffic delay. However, if train movements through the City could be
scheduled for off-peak traffic hours, particularly at nights and early
13

Table 7. Calculation of Coal Trains Passing Through
the Town of Morehead City
Assumed Coal
Tonnage per year
(million tons)
3
5
10
15
Coal Tonnage
Per Car
100
100
100
100
No. Cars
Per Train
80
80
80
80
Average Length
of Train (ft.)
4240
4240
4240
4240
Calculated Trains
Per Day
(Both Ways)
2
4
6
10
Assumptions
1) average length coal train car 53ft.
2) 100 tons of coal per car
3) each train 80 cars long
14

Table 8. Train Time Delay Per Day
3 million tons
10 million tons
15 million
per year
per year
per year
Speed of
Number
Time
Total
Number
Time
Total
Number
Time
Total
Train (mph)
trains
delay
time
trains
delay
time
delay/
trains
delay
per
time
delay/
per
day*
per
train
delay/
day_da
per
per
train
day
per
day*
train
da
5
2
10min.
20min.
7
10min.
70min.
10
10min.
100min.
10
2
5min.
10min.
7
1 5min.
35min.
10
5min.
50min.
i5
2
3min.
6min.
7
3min.
21min.
10
3min.
30min.
20
2
2,5min.
.5min.
7
2,5min.
175min.
10 2,5min. 25min.
*number of trains both ways

Table 9, Estimated Number of Vehicles Delayed Per Train
Movement Through Morehead City
Location
and time
Month and Day
January
July
Weekday
Saturday
Weekday
Saturday
Rush hour
36
18
86
47
*4th
Street
Daytime
27.
15
64
42
Night
7
5
18
14
Rush hour
29
31
69
85
##24th
Street
Daytime
19
20
45
54
Night
7
7
16
20
**35th
Street
Rush hour
16
No
Data
Recorded
38
No
Data
Recorded
Daytime
5
12
Night
1
3
* Average speed of train - 10 mph
## Average speed of train - 15 mph
16

mornings, the impact of traffic delays could be greatly reduced. As
transporting coal tonnages and the train frequency increase, the
scheduling of train movements for off-peak traffic periods will become
more critical. For example, when 15 million tons of coal per year are
transported through the City with the assumption of 5 trains during nor-
mal mid -day traffic and 5 trains moved through the City during the
night and early morning hours, the vehicles delayed in July would be 294
vehicles per day at the 24th Street crossing and 300 vehicles per day at
the 4th Street railroad crossing. However, if the train movements are
scheduled during peak traffic hours, the delayed vehicles will be
substantially higher.
By discussing with the Morehead City officials, we found one of
the major traffic delays at 4th Street is due to the switch of train cars
and make up of the train near State Port.. The delay can last as long as
30 minutes at one time.
III. EMERGENCY TRAFFIC DELAY
The delay of emergency traffic by train movements through the Town
of Morehead City may have an adverse impact to the life and property
protection of the local community. To assess the impact of emergency
service delay, such as fire, police, and rescue squads, the 1981
emergency calls data prepared by the Morehead City Emergency Services
were collected and analyzed. The date, time, and locations of
emergency events are listed in Appendix B, C, and D. The emergency
traffic impact attributed to train movement was thereafter studied.
III.1. Fire Emergency Traffic
Since there is a fire station on each side of the railroad, the
interruption and delay of fire services are the least affected emergency
traffic by coal trains passing through the City. The location of fire
stations is shown on Map 1. Data supplied by the Morehead City Fire
Department for the months of April and September of 1981, showed that a
large majority of fires occurred north of the railroad tracks and were
usually consisting of brush fires or small fires in residential homes.
If a fire did occur that required both fire stations to respond while a
train was in the area, the fire equipment that must cross the railroad
tracks could use an alternate route around the train, while the other
fire station's equipment responded to the fire. For example, if fire
equipment was dispatched from the fire station south of the railroad
tracks to the Morehead City Recreation Center while a train is eastbound
and blocking the 8th Street intersection, it would be necessary for the
emergency vehicles to detour behind the train. The normal route for the
fire trucks would be 8th Street, Arendell Street to 16th Street to Fisher
Street. If the fire trucks average speed is 30 m.p.h., the response time
would be approximately 1.8 minutes; with the moving train, the detour
route could be 8th Street, to Evans Street, to 16th Street, and to Fisher
17

Street. This would also result in an approximate response time of 1.9
minutes, thus uneffecting emergency fire services.
If the train was westbound and blocking 8th Street and the fire
equipment was making the same response as before there are two choices of
action. The equipment.could detour behind the train and possibly wait at
the 4th Street crossing for the train to pass or the fire equipment could
try to outrun the train and detour ahead of the train. Trying to outrun
the train would be the quickest route to take, with a response time of
approximately 2 minutes, but attempting to detour in front of the train
would risk the safety of the firemen as well as the normal traffic.
III.2. Police Emergency Traffic
Another possible effect trains could have on emergency services is
the delay of police traffic. The police station is located one block
south of Arendell Street on 8th Street (Map 1). To reduce the adverse
impact of train movements, it is suggested to have the police patrol the
City and provide emergency aid on both sides of the railroad tracks.
According to the data supplied by the Morehead City Police Department
on responses to wrecks, 73% occurred north of the railroad tracks. The
availability of police aid at these emergencies should not be effected
by trains if policemen are constantly patrolling on both sides of the
railroad tracks. In the event of a wreck, the more important issue is
the transportation of injured persons to the hospital by rescue squads.
III.3. Rescue Squad Emergency Traffic
Trains moving through the City while a rescue squad is en route to
an emergency center or to the hospital could cause victims to lose
valuable time in receiving emergency aid. The Morehead City Rescue Squad
provided data for the month of September of 1981, giving the locations
of emergency aid responses (Appendix D). The location of the rescue
squad station is shown on Map 1. From a total of 40 responses for that
month, 75% were north of the railroad tracks. These responses will be
unaffected by trains since the hospital is also located north of the
railroad tracks (Map 1).
If an accident occurred on the southern side of 24th Street at the
Atlantic Beach Bridge, the rescue squad must cross the tracks en route to
the emergency and to the hospital. From the rescue squad station on 256
Street, the quickest route to the emergency would be Bridges Street to
23rd Street to Evans Street and 24th Street. However, it should be noted
that the Evans Street to 24th Street is blocked by barricades in some
months of the year. For the rescue squad speed averaging 35 m.p.h., the
response time would be approximately 1.3 minutes. If a westbound train
was blocking the 23rd Street intersection the safest detour would be
behind the train. Detouring tol6th Street from the rescue squad
station to cross the tracks would result in a response time of 3.4
minutes.
110

Transporting the victim to the hospital from the Atlantic Beach
Bridge would also cause the rescue squad to cross the railroad tracks.
An assumed route to the hospital could be to cross the tracks at 24th
Street, resulting in a response time to the hospital of approximately
2.6 minutes for the rescue squad speed averaging 35 m.p.h. If we assume
the train is westbound, detouring in front of the train and attempting
to cross the tracks at 35th Street would not delay the emergency vehicle,
but would depend on whether the vehicle could outrun the train without
causing an accident with normal traffic. The safest route to the
hospital would be to detour behind the train until a clear crossing is
found. If the emergency vehicle crossed the tracks at 17th Street, the
response time to the hospital increases 2 minutes. An increase of
approximately 2 minutes to either the emergency or the hospital may not
be an excessive delay.
The safety of a rescue squad detouring to avoid delay by trains
depends on the traffic volume at the time. If the response is made in
the early morning hours.while the traffic volume is low, almost any
intersection could be used to cross the railroad tracks. When the
response is made in the late afternoon when the traffic volume is at a
peak, heavily traveled intersections such as 4th and 24th Streets should
be avoided. An emergency vehicle could make motorists nervous, making
it necessary for the rescue squad to reduce speed to avoid accidents.
The intersections of 18th, 20th, 30th, and 35th Streets have
considerably less traffic than those of 4th and 24th Streets and if used
by rescue vehicles would avoid heavy traffic and reduce the time delay.
III.4. Discussion
The analysis indicates that no significant impact is observed
for fire and police emergency services under the existing condition (3
million tons of coal shipment per year, two trains a day). However,
some delay of rescue vehicles (4 minutes for both directions) was
recognized for victims located south of railroad tracks near the Atlantic
Beach Bridge. To avoid the emergency traffic delay, it is important to
schedule the train movements through the City during off-peak traffic
hours.
IV. NOISE IMPACT STUDY
Excessive noise levels due to increased coal train movements is
one of the major concerns of local officials and residents. To assess
the extent of noise impact caused by coal trains, noise studies were
conducted. These studies were compared with federal regulations on rail-
road noise emission for compliance with other studies on noise and
possible noise related health problems.
19

The Southern Railroad rebuilt the railroad bed in early 1982.
Consequently, substantial reduction of noise levels from train movements
has been observed. The railroad improvements have been highly praised by
local officials and residents.
IV.1. Noise Level Measurements
Noise level measurements were conducted in June of 1982 with the
assistance from the Noise Control Program of the N. C. Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development.` Background noise level
measurements were taken during the daytime and night hours when there
were no trains in the area, and readings were also recorded when trains
were moving through the City. The noise level was measured by decibel (dB).
The decibel of the quantity A relative to (re) the quantity A
is defined as
decibel = 10 Log (A/Ao) dB re A
The decibel is used in environmental noise pollution as a measure of
sound power level, sound intensity level, and sound pressure level.
IV.1.1. Background Noise Levels
For the background sound level measurements, Metronsonics dB-306
Metrologger Integrating Sound Level Meter (Serial No. 1110) was used. The
meter was set at the designated locations free of structure interference.
The duration of sound recording at each location was 15 minutes.
The locations of the monitoring sites and integrated average
background levels during daytime and night are shown on Map 2. Sound
level monitoring was conducted at the intersections of llth, 19th, and 34th
Streets. Readings were taken on each side of the tracks approximately
100 feet and 300 feet from the tracks at all three intersections.
IV.1.2. Train Noise Levels
Because the low daily frequency of train passing through the Town
of Morehead City, four monitoring stations were established at the
designated locations and measured the sound levels simultaneously as the
train passed by. In addition to the Metronsonic dB-306 Integrating Sound
Level Meter, three manually recording meters were used; two Quest
Electonics Model 215 Sound Level Meters Type II (Serial No. m 808011 and
m 9080122), and one set of General Model 1565-C Sound Level Meter Type II
(Serial No. 063421). For the manual meters, the sound levels in decibels
average (dBA) were recorded every 10 seconds starting at the train's
arrival at the monitoring station. The weighted averages of the recording
data are listed on Map 2 at the corresponding stations.
20

MOREHEAD I
CENTRAL I p,
MIDDLE �V SWAMP RRELL
If\ SCH. 1243
r 1
s 1
W /
SWAMP f
u CCC
�—=�-- n I —1 i CE'4,�i GREENWOOD
Simi LIP. ; O wYRTLE SG
I = er ST CARTERET oo I ]IC
a243 I NORRI$
�\ i -, ..`
\�S1.
a
i1 1176 \ 1 � NATION' CAMP GLENN a \
■ ALGUA RD O ELEM. m... RIs eay
B W rSLH. Q v Si. PAw \
U�F °P 1176 ❑�f )11 : ARMED \ L
„FORCES 2 vLDR !^ I 1 NRYON
BANKS $T. IIIUJ/I AVE. 51 �aoa�
<RF NDELL O
T HOMES
I ❑70 DR. IBZ
I CART as ARENDELL r
COUNTY - m EVAnS L
wE ST TECH. INST. s 2 s
CAMPUS ' -- n r SUNSET DR.�7 I$T.
MOREHEAD CITY
MUNICIPAL CITY
PARK LIMIT
Noise Levels (dBA)
Day-ine
Night
Si.e
Ave.
:.lax.
AvE.
:,lax.
63
81
67
80
2
5p
4-
49
--
3
65
84
58
78
74
5
6L.
80
548 5
6
56
74
47
65
7
64
83
6o
79
6
58
73
54
73
6o
1
67
10
611
78
57
76
11
66
85
6o
78
12
67
88
55
78
-- No
data
recorded
'Train /%11
Avg. :,:ax.
O Noise monitoring sites
74.5 80
65.0
1 1�
76.3 80 ST. w�p
- - - - MOON- DR 1 /
72.0 -- ST. GHT n I
6o.5 71
73.4 81 D
59.3 66
72. 82
0
70.4 76 R
AvE 1182 1
m
\
ei
CREEK
MUNICIPAL
CEM.
1176
/
/MOREHEAD \ \
\
ST ILEMI
CEN-
ITRAIL A
HEAD
x
70
\ _SN4C=L=FOR ` - 1 1�5 II I�
1182 � \ sr.
LIMIT
\ CITY
MOREHEAD CITY
NORTH CAROLINA
LOCATIONS AND READINGS
OF
NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
• 1000 2000
�I

IV.2. Noise Level Data Analysis
The location, weighted average dB, and maximum dB of each noise
level measurement station are presented in Map 2. The data analysis for
noise levels of background and train movements are followed.
IV.2.1. Background Noise Levels
At a distance of 100 feet from the railroad tracks the average
noise levels were 64 dBA in the daytime and 59.5 dBA at night. The
average noise levels at 300 feet from the tracks were 58.3 dBA in the day-
time and 51.7 dBA at night. In general, the average noise levels, during
daytime and night, are higher near Arendell Street than those 300 feet
away from the railroad due to the heavier traffic. The daytime average
noise levels averaged about 5 dBA and 7 dBA higher than that at night at
100 feet and 300 feet from the railroad, respectively. Noise levels
recorded during the daytime and night were affected by cars, trucks,
motorcycles, and jet planes. By using Figure 2 to calculate the source
noise level, it is found that the daytime traffic noise levels
contributing to the increase of total noise level increase are 62.2 dBA
and 57.3 dBA at 100 feet and 300 feet from the railroad, respectively.
There is no particular trend for the maximum noise levels being recorded
at 100 feet and 300 feet from the railroad. However, the high noise
levels are generated more often along Arendell Street due to heavier
traffic.
IV.2.2. Train Noise Levels
The average train noise levels were measured as 73.2 dBA and 61
dBA at 100 feet and 300 feet from the railroad, respectively. The
increases of average noise level attributed to train movement are about
9 dBA at 100 feet and 2.7 dBA at 300 feet from the railroad during the
daytime; the respective increases are 13.7 dBA and 9.3 dBA at night.
Therefore, the increase of noise levels due to train movements is more
noticeable at nights than that during the daytime. It was observed in Map
2 that the instantaneous maximum noise level being generated by train
movements is not always greater than that during the daytime and night.
IV.3. Discussion
The relationship of sound levels versus human response was
developed by the EPA and is listed in Table 10. The sound levels having
been measured in the Town of Morehead City are: 50 dBA to 67 dBA during
the normal daytime, 47 dBA to 67 dBA at nights and 59 dBA to 76.3 dBA dur-
ing the train movements. Comparing to Table 10 neither the average nor
the maximum noise levels being measured at designed stations, with or
without the train movements, has exceeded the hearing damage level of 90
dBA.
22

Figure 2. Calculation of Source Noise Level From Total and
Background Noise Levels
In
dB
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 io
(Ls+ri Ln) dB
1. Measure the total noise level (Ls+n) with the machine
running.
2. Measure the background noise level (In) with the
machine turned off.
3. Find the difference between the two readings. If
less than 3 dB, the background noise level is too high
for an accurate measurement. If between 3 and 10 dB,
a correction will be necessary. No correction is n
necessary if the difference is greater than 10 dB.
4. To make the correction, enter the bottom of the chart
with the difference value from step 3, go up until
you intersect the curve and then go to the left to
the vertical axis
5. Subtract the value on the vertical axis ( L ) from
the total noise level in step 1. This given the noise
level of the machine.
Examples
1. Total Noise a 60 dB
2. Background Noise = 53 dB
3. Difference = 7 dB
4. Correction (from chart) = 1 dB
5. Noise of Machine = 60 - 1 = 59 dB
23

Table 10 Sound Levels and Human Response
Noise
Level
Common Sounds
(dB)
Effect
Carrier deck jet operation
140
Painfully loud
Air raid siren
130
Jet takeoff (200 feet)
Thunder clap, Discotheque
120
Maximum vocal effort
Auto horn (3 feet)
Pile drivers
110
Garbage truck
100
Heavy truck (50 feet)
90
Very annoying
City traffic
Hearing dama e 8 hours
Alarm clock (2 feet)
80
Annoying
Hair dryer
Noisy restaurant
Freeway traffic
70
Telephone use difficult
Man's voice (3 feet)
Air conditioning unit
60
Intrusive
(20 feet)
Light auto traffic (100 feet)
50
Quiet
Living room, Bedroom,
40
Quiet office
Library, Soft whisper (15 feet)
30
Very quiet
Broadcasting studio
20
10
Just audible
0
Hearing -begins
Information from "Noise and its Measurement." Environmental
Protection Agency OPA 22/1, January, 1981.
24

In accordance with the EPA's report published in the Federal
Register on Wednesday, January 14, 1976 entitled "Railroad Noise
Emission Standards" stated that no train should produce noise levels in
excess of 88 dBA for rail cars moving 45 m.p.h. or less and 93 dBA for
rail cars moving greater than 45 m.p.h. Since the maximum allowable
speed of a train moving through the Town of Morehead City is 20 m.p.h.,
which is specified in the Morehead City Code, the maximum noise level
for any train in the City is 88 dBA measured at 100 feet from the
tracks. The maximum noise level recorded by the noise study was 76.3
dBA which is well below the maximum EPA permissible level of 88 dBA.
The noise study is thought to be a representative sample of all trains
that would be within the City and no train is expected to produce the
noise levels equal to or greater than 88 dBA.
Exposure to high noise levels can effect the general public in
two ways; extreme noise levels can result in hearing loss, while
moderately high levels will cause community complaints and annoyance.
The EPA report entitled "Identification of Maximum Exposure Levels to
Avoid Significant Adverse Effects" specified a noise level of 70 dBA
as the noise level to which hearing loss could occur. This noise level
is an average level for a 24 hour period. The noise study shows that at
100 feet from the tracks the noise level caused by a train will be 70
dBA or greater. While only 2 trains per day move through the City, the
frequency of the noise will not be great enough to cause an average noise
level for 24 hours of 70 dBA to occur, but as the frequency of the train
increases the possibility of more complaints from local residents are
expected.
Although hearing loss would be the most detrimental, the
possibility of having resident's annoyance and complaints about noise is
the more probable. The EPA report gives a noise of 55 dBA as the outdoor
noise level in residential areas to which any noise level above 55 dBA
would have an effect on public health and welfare due to interference
with speech or other activity.
From the noise study most of the noise readings, in daytime and
night, were higher than 55 dBA. This is the result of cars, trucks,
motorcycles, and jet plane movements in the area. Since this level of
noise is common to the area, most residents probably are accustomed to a
noise level of 55 dBA. Complaints about increased noise levels due to
train movements are expected to become more popular as the train moves
more frequent through Morehead City.
Although the entire area near the tracks will be affected by the
noise caused by trains, residents from 18th Street westward will tend to
have higher noise levels and more complaints can be expected from this
area. This is because more residential houses are located in the west
of 18th Street and the higher speeds as the trains pass this area. Lower
train speeds were observed near the port as the trains are moving toward
and away from the State Port.
25

As it stands today with 2 trains per day moving through the City,
residents have become accustomed to the trains and the noise being
generated. As yearly coal tonnages increase the frequency of trains per
day and the occurrance of the noise will increase. It is likely that
more complaints about the trains noise will be expressed by local
residents.
Less increase of noise level was observed for trains moving through
the Town of Morehead City during the daytime, the train noise is
expected to be less noticeable if it is scheduled to pass through the Town
during the day.
V. VIBRATION IMPACT STUDY
In accordance with the contract, a vibration study was conducted
to assess the possible impact that could result from increased coal train
movements through Morehead City. The town officials of Morehead City are
concerned about the possible adverse effects that train vibration could
have to the water and wastewater lines near the railroad.
V.1. Location of Vibration Measurements
Vibration measurements were collected in June of 1982 by North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Wang Engineering.
These measurements recorded the ground soil particle velocity as an
indicator of the vehicular traffic and train vibrations at various loca-
tions and distances from the railroad tracks. Vehicular traffic and
train vibration measurements were taken so that a comparison could be
made in order to reach a conclusion about the possible adverse effects
of coal transportation through the City. The location and description
of these measurements are shown on Map 3 and in Table 11. A total of 12
tapes were collected for the field vibration measurements. However,
because the poor quality of records for tapes 1, 2, 3, 4, S, and 11,
these tapes were not analyzed. The calculation of peak particle
velocities for tapes 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 is shown in Appendix E. The
vibration at designated locations was measured by Engineering
Seismograph Model VS-1100.
V.2. The Analysis of Vibration Measurements and Results
The ground particle wave velocity measurements due to vibration
were recorded on photographic paper called motion traces. These traces
sketched the amplitude of vibration wave velocities for transverse (t),
vertical (v), and longitudinal (1) motions. The maximum amplitudes of
the traces were measured in inches with adjustable gains. The peak
particle velocity (Vp) is calculated by following equation:
VP = Vt + V2 + V2 in./sec.
26

\ d
_ AD CENTRAL
I
CENTRALMID
SCHOLE I V SWAMP
1243 O
A I
W I Z
W
1 SWAMP ,F .UPON
I iCFMrGREENW000 tERR•
----� �„ PARK CEM.
STMI pIR. ' ; MrgTLE ST. /
5r CARTERET O I
--� GEN. HOSP. Oa I MORN,
:�`--- I243
----- — GE0j--=-- I sl.I
sRRIDDES
\ JIU NAT ION-D CAMP GLENN i\� CEMICIPAL
AL GUARD ELEM. MORRIS 1176 N Rnr
a� sT
ARMED ICEMI
$� PP a
F : w �v � Si. DR� 1176 I ❑
I � =RRDN � I FISHER
^FORCES
n RNR$ Si. I I AVE. ST `��� ST.
ARE NO
O IR HOME`'
1'
I CARTEAET ❑H ARENDELL x 70 1162
COUNTY II'��� - I''� EVANSw o x N F _ ST
WEST TECH. INSf. I I II $O1I o �z z
CAMPUS�� f' - - _ D n^I n SUNSET DR.I i���S
MOREHEAD CITY
MUNICIPAL CITY
PARK LIMIT
\
\
M
C,
C
O c\jY
`\
� /MOREHEAO
IITRAL
TRAL II
JI_ SCH.
CRf:EK
BAY
E-
D
70
\ ``=I=FORD i uMlr ��
\ CITY i
i
MOREHEAD CITY
NORTH CAROLINA
�
N. SHpRE
�i - I �1 Vibration Measurement Station
LOCATIONS OF
VIBRATION MEASUREMENT
STATIONS
r M. r r �rrrr

Table it Location and, Discription of Soil .Particle Wave Velocity Measurements Due to Vibration
Vibration
Measurement
Approx.
Station
Time
of
See map
Ta e#
Location
Date
Gain
Tape
Remarks
2
1
55' N.
of R.R. Tracks
6/22/82
5
120
sec.
Train Vibration
Inside
school yard
1
2
100' N.
of R.R. Tracks
6/22/82
20
120
sec.
Train Vibration
Inside
school yard
2
3
55' N.
of R.R. Tracks
6/22/82
5
40
sec.
Traffic Vibration
Inside
school yard
1
4
100' N.
of R.R. Tracks
6/22/82
20
40
sec.
Traffic Vibration
Inside
school yard
4
5
88' from
R+R. Tracks
6/22/82
20
40
sec.
Train Vibration
Arendell
& 21th St.
°o
- -
- at Mayor's
house -
-
3
6
11' N.
of outside rail oY RJR:,"
6/23/82
1.
130
sec.
Train Vibration
19' S.
centerline of Arendell St.
529' W.
of Bonner St.
3
7
Same as
Tape #6
6/23/82
20
78
sec.
Traffic Vibration
2
8
Same as
Tape #1
6/23/82
20
38
sec.
Traffic Vibration
1
9
Same as
Tape #2
6/23/82
20
'17
sec.
Traffic Vibration
1
10
Same as
Tape #2
6/23/82
20
14
sec.
Traffic Vibration
1
11
Same as
Tape #2
6/23/82
20
29
sec.
Traffic Vibration
5
12
60' N.
of outside rail of R.R.
6/23/82
5
120
sec.
Train Vibration
S.E. corner
City Hall

The particle peak velocity, V , was calculated from the values of Vt,
V , and V which were measure at different distances from the rail
tracks with different traffic conditions. Various types of traffic were
monitored, such as cars, semi -tractor trailer trucks, and trains. The
average V for cars at 11 ft. from the railroad was 0.003 in./sec.,
0.0022 in?/sec. at 55 ft. from the railroad, and 0.0018 in./sec. at 100
ft. from the railroad. The measurements of semi -tractor trailer
trucks were at distances of 11 ft. and 55 ft. from the railroad in
which average readings of 0.0161 in./sec. and 0.0096 in./sec.
respectively,were collected. The average levels of vibration caused by
trains were 0.3590 in./sec. and 0.0390 in./sec. at 11 ft. and 60 ft.
respectively from the railroad. The summary of calculated average peak
particle velocity is shown in Tables 12 and 13. To compare the
difference between traffic and train vibrations, the results of the data
were graphed. Figure 3 shows a plot of peak particle velocity versus
accumulated probability. This graph shows a distinct difference in the
magnitude between traffic and train vibrations; most of the peak particle
vibration velocities due to train movements is above 0.02 in./sec. At
11 ft. from the railroad tracks 80 percent of probability is for the peak
particle velocity in the range of 0.2 in./sec. to 0.8 in./sec. For
vibration due to highway traffic, there is no significant difference of
peak particle velocities between 11 ft. and 55 ft. from the railroad
tracks. This is because the fact that 11 ft. from the tracks is
actually 19 ft. from the centerline of the highway (southside), while 55
ft. from the tracks is 25 ft. from the centerline of the highway (north -
side). At 100 ft. from the railroad track, or 70 ft. from the highway
centerline, the peak particle velocity does not exceed 0.002 in./sec.,
The equation of V - kD 7n was reported by Wiss, where V is the
peak particle velocity (in./sec.), D is the distance in ft., and k and
n are constants. Figure 4 shows the relationship between the peak
particle velocity and the distance from the vibration source.
Theoretically, a linear relationship on log - log paper was observed
(Wiss). The actual measurement data indicate that a linear log - log
relationship was found for trains and particularly the highway traffic
causing vibration.
In general, the average and maximum peak particle velocities
attributed to train movements are more than ten times greater than those
of traffic vehicles. The approximate peak particle velocity beyond 100
ft. from the railroad can be estimated by extrapolating the existing
lines.
The amount of energy the vibrating waves possess is also a log -
log linear function with dthe peak particle velocity. Wiss reported a
typical form of V - C(E) , where V is the peak particle velocity, E is
the vibration energy, and C and d are constants. The closer to the
vibrating object, the more vibration and energy impact the wave will
have, but as the wave travels through the earth, some of the energy will
be dissipated by the soil. This is a major factor in assessing the
29

Figure 3 Calculated Peak Particle Velocity Versus
Accumulated Probability Derived
from Vibration Measurements
Along the Railroad
1.0
0.1
0.01
- -o - 11
ft.
from
R.R.
(Train)
- -x- -60
ft.
from
R.R.
(Train) �O
—o-11
ft.
from
R.R.
(Traffic) o'
—X-55
ft.
from
R.R.
(Traffic) p'
-100
£t.
from
R.R.
(Traffic) p
O -
o/
0.001 L
1
10
Accumulated Probability
M
i
100
30

Tablel2 Average Particle Velocities Calculated
from Vehicular Traffic Vibration Data
Type of
Distance from centerline of Arendell St.
19 ft.
25 ft.
89 ft.
vehicle
Cars
0.003
0.0022
0.0019
Semi -
tractor
0.0161
0.0096
No Data
trailer
Recorded
trucks
Table 13 Average Particle Velocities Calculated
from Train Vibration Data
Type of train
car
Distance from railroad
11 ft.
60 ft.
Engine
0.5546
0.0421
Loaded hopper
(coal)
No Data
Recorded
0.0269
Empty hopper
0.3418
No Data
Recorded
Loaded tank
and box
0.4104
No Data
Recorded
31

Figure 4. The Delineation of Peak Particle Velocity Due to
Vibration Versus Distance from Vibration Source
1.0
0.1
0.01
0.001
1 10 100
Distance
(ft.)
32

possible impact due to the train vibrations. The closer a structure is
to the railroad, the more energy it will be subjected to, thus giving
the structure a higher chance of encurring damage.
V.3. Impact and Considerations of Vibration Attributed to Train
Transportation
Several factors can affect the magnitude and impact of train
vibrations; the weight of the train cars, speed of the trains, braking
and acceleration of the trains, condition of the railroad bed, thickness
of the railroad bed, nature of the soil underlying the railroad bed,
distance from the railroad bed to the structure where vibrations are
experienced, and the frequency to which the vibrations occur. These are
important aspects to consider in assessing the possible effects of the
train vibrations.
V.3.1. The Weight of Train Cars
The trains that were monitored for the vibration study usually
consisted of an engine, hopper cars used for coal transportation, tank
cars, and box cars. From analysis of the vibration study, the magnitude
of the vibrations due to coal hopper cars exceeded that of tank and box
cars, although the engines caused the highest amount of vibration due to
the weight of the engines used to power the trains. The increase in
vibration of hopper cars over that of tank and box cars is observed.
This is due to the increase of train car weight when loaded with coal.
The impact difference is shown in Table 13. Thus, as more coal is
exported through Morehead City, the trains will begin to consist of
more coal hopper cars and an increase in vibration can be expected.
V.3.2. The Train Speed
The speed of the train also influences the amount of vibration
it produces. When the train encounters a bump or unevenness in the
track, the faster the speed of the train the more the train will jump on
the tracks. As the train jumps or bounces on the rails, it imparts
energy to the ground causing vibration. The more the bounce the greater
the transmission of energy to the ground and increased amplitude of
vibration. To decrease the amount of vibration, trains could be required
to go through the City at slower speeds, but this will result in more
traffic delays and emergency services delays as mentioned previously.
V.3.3. The Train Braking and Acceleration
Braking and acceleration of trains will effect the amount of
vibration caused much in the same as the speed does. When a train is
accelerating, the vibration from the train will be less than or no more
than when the train is free running at higher speed. When the train is
braking, vibration should also be reduced, unless while braking the train
brakes are applied too vigorously, causing the train to jerk the wheels
33

to a stop. If the wheels are suddenly stopped the momentum of the train
will cause it to bounce on the track, thus resulting in more vibration
than when the train is brought smoothly to a stop.
V.3.4. The Railroad Bed
The condition of the railroad bed is a major factor influencing
train vibration. If the rails are uneven and cause the train to bounce
on the track, an increase in vibration will occur. Southern Railroad
rebuilt the railroad going through Morehead City in early 1982. The
rails were welded together to make the railroad bed much smoother. Com-
ments from local officials and residents have stated that vibration
caused by the trains has been substantially reduced.
Sutherland reported that the thicker the railroad bed, the less
the vibration was observed. When Southern Railroad rebuilt the railroad
bed in early 1982, more gravel was added to the railroad, helping
reduce the vibration caused by the trains. In the future when further
repairs of the railroad bed are made, thickening the railroad bed with
trenches along both sides of the road bed could be considered to further
reduce the vibration.
V.3.5. Soil Conditions
The nature of the underlying soil around the railroad effects
the impact of vibration because different soils transmit vibration in
different ways. Listed are the natural vibrating frequencies of earth
materials (Wiss and Steffens).
Earth Material
Natural Frequency (Hz)
Loose, Alluvium, Peaty and Silty Soil ................... 5 to 10
Clay, Soft to Stiff ..................................... 15 to 25
Sand ...............................................:.... 30 to 40
Rock .................................................... 40 to 90.
Morehead City, located in the coastal zone, has sandy loam as its pre-
dominant soil with a natural frequency of 30 to 40 Hz.
In a recent study it was reported that rail traffic has a vibra-
tion frequency between 10 and 100 Hz (Northwood). Comparing this
frequency to that of the sandy soil shows that usually train frequencies
will be equal to or higher than that of the soil. Thus the soil will be
able to attenuate the vibration, and reduce the adverse effects of the
train vibrations.
V.3.6. Distance from the Train Tracks
Due to the sandy soils ability to attenuate the train vibrations,
the further the distance away from the railroad the less the vibration
34

energy will be received. This is a crucial factor in assessing the
damage the train vibrations could cause to the water and wastewater
lines. Thus, the water and wastewater lines which are placed parallel
to the railroad and the portion of the lines directly underneath the
railroad will be the most effected. The relationship of peak particle
velocity and the distance from the vibration source is shown in
Figure 4.
V.3.7. Train Frequency in Morehead City
As it stands today with 3 million tons of coal per year being
transported through Morehead City, or two coal trains per day passing
through the City, the frequency to which the train vibrations occur is
considered to be low and combined with the attenuating effect the sandy
soil has on the vibrations, the effect of the vibrations on the water and
wastewater lines which have a certain distance from the railroad tracks
is limited. However, the water and sewer pipes and joints adjacent to
the railroad tracks will receive significant impact from the vibration
due to train movement. As the frequency of the trains increases so does
the vibrations. Therefore, with an increase in the frequency of the
vibrations, the energy from these vibrations could be more frequently
imparted to the pipes and joints of the water and sewer system. This
could eventually cause pipes to crack and joints to loosen, resulting in
a failure in the water and wastewater systems. The detailed analysis
will be followed in the subsequent sections.
V.4. Water and Wastewater Lines Adjacent to the Railroad Tracks
The data of location, size, and depth of the water and wastewater
lines near the railroad tracks was collected from the Town of Morehead
City. The location and sizes of the water and wastewater lines are
shown on Maps 4 and 5.
Water lines which are located under Arendell Street and parallel
to the railroad tracks are listed as follows: 100 ft. of 1 1/4 in. line,
7700 ft. of 1 1/2 in. line, 12,300 ft. of 6 in. line, 3,450 ft. of 8 in.
line, and 8,300 ft. of 12 in, line.
There are 25 locations where the water lines cross the railroad
tracks. Five water lines which cross the railroad tracks are encased in
steel culverts, 4 of which are 8 in. line and one 12 in. line. These
water lines average 6 feet in depth. The other water lines which cross
the railroad tracks are listed as follows: 3 of 1 1/4 in. lines, 4 of
1 1/2 in. lines, 2 of 2 in. lines, 7 of 6 in. lines, and 4 of 8 in.
lines. These water lines average 3 feet in depth. All the water lines
in Morehead City are either copper, galvanized, asbestos cement, cast
iron, or ductile iron pipes.
35

ii
CARTERET
GEN. HOSP.
NATION-VffclA;MP EM.
ALGUARDELEM.SCLrASTORE
s*.
CARTERET
COUNTY
TECH.INST.
F' M-MOREHEAD CITY
MUNICIPAL
PARK
19
MOREHEAD
CENTRAL
MIDDLE I 1 SWAMP
scH. 1243
V I
A
OMYRTLE ST.
I�o1243
IGES ❑ � \
\\
IRIS �P
1011 F.M. Illy ARKOR
BAH[C � 1 11 4I y�
GREENWOOD
PARK CEM.
T
ERR.
h < `
4RREll
OR.
EMEI IRE ij AO'
Rl
S up
]L
-J
CIPq��c
T^ MUNIAL II76 Q
11 II I� CEM. II
ICEMI
CREEK
TRAIL
sCH.
EAD
E � FISHER
N. M E
�a �
70
IpIIF.M.
IT
CITY /
/ r
\
\
MOREHEAD CITY
NORTH CAROLINA
I
i N. iDR /r Sewer lines adjacent to
I - n 1 and crossing railroad
LOCATIONS OF SEWER LINES
I zxo sr. LOCATIONS
roox-GR= �\ F.M. Forced Main IST ADJACENT TO AND
qT LIGHT
c CROSSING THE RAILROAD
1 �II
' � DATE Jul 1982 rJ
PoxG DR
s� 0 1000 2000 ft.
\ I
I Klxsron Av� 1182 I SCALE
I — ' I
I tr
BOWEN SxORg\'I I MAP 5 of 5

BAY
I ��II IIH I LENTRALD hs
CI�C R
li wl
211 T t II
CARTERET 6
COUNTY
TECH. INST.
_
MIDDLE
SCH.
SWAMP
�CFM� D PARK CEM.
f
NORRIS
f ST
MOREHEAD CITY
MUNICIPAL CITY PARK LIMIT
4 ggfll
DR, .
fYEUNE 2F�.
Ar
SWAMP t
MUNI
Ja CIPAL
MUNI
Sr. iCEMI
�FISnEA
CREEK
1176 �. C0
�MDREHEAD ` ' \
�L SCH. n �'�
TRAIL
L
L
DN �f FISNE-JL
I1 N fll
Ls" 2s' O*
ST
LIMIT /
\\ ctrr
i
\
1%A,
Water lines adjacent to
lllJff( and crossing railroad
O Reinforced c o n c r e I
cover
MOREHEAD CITY
NORTH CAROLINA
LOCATIONS OF WATER LINES
ADJACENT TO AND
CROSSING THE RAILROAD
<I I bq
DATE' July 1982
t
� � f o l000
f SCALE
SwORfi� f MAP 4 of 5
2000 ft
T

The wastewater lines are shown on Map 5. These wastewater lines
consist of clay pipes for gravity flow, and asbestos cement for
pressurized lines.
Wastewater lines which are located under Arendell Street and
parallel to the railroad tracks are listed as follows: 1,000 ft. of 12
in. gravity flow line, 600 ft. of 10 in. gravity flow line, 600 ft. of 8
in. gravity flow line, and 1,200 ft. of 10 in. pressurized line. ,
There are 14 locations where the wastewater lines cross the rail-
road tracks. Two of these lines are pressurized lines and are shown on
Map 5 as 10 in. Forced Main (F.M.). The other 12 wastewater lines which
cross the tracks are 8 in. lines made from clay. The average depth of the
wastewater lines is about 6 feet.
V.5. Emergency Repair Materials for Water and Wastewater Systems
The engineering analysis indicates that the frequency of coal
trainmovements will definitely generate higher vibration impact to the
water and wastewater lines adjacent to the railroad tracks..
In the event of a broken water or wastewater line, it will be
time consuming to obtain the appropriate parts and material from
suppliers for repairment purposes. Joe Clayton, the Director of the
Department of Utilities in Morehead City has suggested purchasing
emergency repair materials to reduce the mitigation time. The following
list of repair materials has been suggested:
Water Lines
200 ft. of 6 in. Ductile Iron pipe
30 ft. of 8 in. Ductile Iron pipe
20 - 6 in. Bell Joint Clamps
5 - 8 in. Bell Joint Clamps
Wastewater Lines
60 ft. of 14 in. Ductile Iron pipe
60 ft. of 10 in. Ductile Iron pipe
4 Asbestos Cement to Ductile
Iron Trans Couplings
2 - 8 in. Clay to Ductile Iron.
Fernco Adapters
1 - 10 in. Repair Clamp
38

If the water or wastewater lines fail, particularly for those underneath
the railroad, the train movements could be delayed. It would be
advantageous to the'train transportation if the emergency repair parts
can be purchased and stored to save the repair time. Consequently, it
is conceivable to receive the financial aid to purchase these repair
materials from the resources derived from coal exportation or other
train transportation related activities.
V.6. Discussion
Through the comprehensive field data collection and engineering
analysis, the following observations and conclusions are derived:
1. The peak soil particle velocity attributed to vibration from
train movement is substantially higher than that generated
from vehicular traffic. The train engine generates higher
vibration than loaded hoppers which also produce higher
vibrations than box cars and empty hoppers.
2. The train vibration impact to above ground structures is
minimal (Figure 5). Nevertheless, the effects of train
vibration upon residence adjacent to Arendell Street range
from just perceptible to easily noticeable (Figure 6).
3. No historical evidence indicates the train vibration will
have direct cracking effects to the existing water and
wastewater lines. Further study should be conducted. How-
ever, the higher vibration peak particle velocity in
combination with water table changes could cause the uneven
settlement of soil underneath the water and wastewater
lines in a gradual fashion; a bending force can be created at
the joints and along pipes. The more frequent train
movements can accelerate this process. Eventual failures at
some points could be experienced.
4. The improvement of railroad beds by Southern Railway should
have had a positive impact to the impairment of train
vibration. The slower train speeds, smooth rails, and thick
rail bed will reduce the vibration magnitude.
5. It is conceivable to purchase and store the parts and
materials for emergency repair purposes, in case the water or
wastewater line or joint fails.
6. With the attenuation of vibration by the soil, the impact of
coal train vibration to water and wastewater lines located
outside of Arendell Street is very limited.
39

Figure 5. Relationship Between Particle Velocity
10
FZ'
M
d 7
6
H 5-
0
0
r
im
If
and Residential Structural Damage
SERIOUS
CRACKING
MAJOR DAMAGE
(FALL OF PLASTER,
SERIOUS CRACKING)
CRACKING
MINOR DAMAGE
(FINE PLASTER
FINE CRACKS
CRACKS, OPENING
&
OF OLD CRACKS)
FALL OF LSE PLASTER
CAUTION
CAUTION
NO NOTICEABLE
DAMAGE
SAFE
LANGEFORS
(SWEDEN)
BUMINES
(U.S.A.)
bliss, John F., Journal of the Geotechnical En ineerin
Division. 19 0
40

Figure 6. Effect of Vibration Upon Humans
10
5
1
0.5
0.1
0.05
0.01
0.005
0.001
In
olerable
Ext
To
emer
erab
unpleasant
e for 1,min.
npleasant
ery
o
erab
e for 10 min
T
s1rongly
Unpleasant
lera
le for 1 hr.
noticeable
V
ry
over
leasant
1 hr.
E
sily
Bearable
noticeable
perceptible
Just
Easily
bearable
Imperceptible
1 5 10
Frequency - HZ
50 100
41

VI. BUSINESS EFFECTS
The existing and increasing coal movements through Morehead City
and exportation through Morehead Port have significant impact on the local
business. The generation of job opportunities due to coal shipment and
exportation at the Port, and coal train passing through the downtown of
Morehead City will affect the business activities at the Town of Morehead
City.
VI.1. General Business Background
At present, Morehead City is the largest town and retail trade
center in Carteret County. The Town contains over 50 percent of the
county's apparel and accessory stores. A Gross Retail Sales Chart for
Carteret County, prepared by N. C. Department of Budget and Management is
shown as follows:
1978 - 1979
1980 - 1981
1% Retail
$ 1,028,562
$ 1,706,522
2% Auto, Planes, Boats,
11,740,201
10,204,757
Apparel
3,065,955
3,397,879
Automobile
22,650,706
27,355,503
Food
58,193,859
77,876,509
Furniture
8,117,888
10,081,558
General Merchandise
26,483,868
34,234,233
Building Materials
11,512,447
12,111,085
Unclassified Group
31,398,236
38,081,705
TOTALS
$174,191,722
$215,049,751
The Town also serves as a tourist center for many visitors that
travel to the coast each year. The Carteret County Economic Development
Council developed a travel expenditure chart to show the growing
tourist business in Carteret County.
42

Travel Expenditures
1973
$ 8,607,000
1974
$ 9,117,000
1975
$ 9,714,000
1976
$ 1,007,000
1977
$15,200,000
1978
$16,937,000
1979
$17,038,000
1980
$18,685,000
1981
$22,362,000
The Morehead State Port business has a direct and.important
impact on the local economy. The business statistics for the Morehead
Port indicated that the total revenue has increased steadily during
recent years:
General Cargo Asphalt and
Import Export Petroleum Military Total
1974 $538,683.74 $559,680.80 $252,537.28 $5,623.28 $1,356,525.50
1975
395,133.36
610,823.58
1976
718,409.66
764,535.07
1977
160,087.54
871,251.36
1978
275,308.36
947,665.29
156,375.39
3,192.84
1,165,525.17
141,388.36
11,594.03
1,635,926.92
708,604.22
4,962.70
1,744,905.82
771,218.42
23,380.97
2,017,573.04
Substantial increase of business revenue for the Morehead Port is
expected due to the addition of coal exportation.
VI.2. Business Impact at Morehead City
The coal export activities have a definite positive impact to the
coal company, railroad company and Morehead State Port Authority. However,
both positive and negative business effects to the Town of Morehead City
are observed. The positive effect includes the job opportunities being
generated at the Morehead City Port and adjacent areas, and the
construction, daily operation requirement, business associated with the
coal exportation. However, the negative impact consists of the traffic
delay, noise and vibration effects on the downtown and tourist business.
In accordance with a report prepared by Sam Holcomb of Alla -
Ohio Valley Coals, Inc., additional revenue of $1.12 million for 1981,
$2.76 million for 1982 and 1983 can be generated for Morehead City Port due
to the lease agreement and coal ship charges. Fifty-three new jobs
43

associated with steam coal exportation have been created at State Port
Authority, Morehead Coal Terminal, Inc., Hampton Roads Testing, and Alla-
Ohio Valley Coals, Inc., in the Morehead City Port area. $2.75 million
of construction and supply related businesses have been brought to North
Carolina companies and enterprises. According to a study conducted by
Paul Tschetter, each ton of coal shipped from North Carolina generated
approximately $5.55 for the local community and $0.87 for the Morehead
City Port in 1981. In 1982 and 1983, those per tons benefits are $2.31
and $2.27 respectively for the local community and $0.92 each year for the
Morehead City Port.
The train has been passing through Morehead City one or two
times a day since the local residents can remember. The existing
condition of 3 million tons per year, particularly with arrangement of
mix trains, does not seem to have a significant negative impact to local
business. If the tonnages substantially increase, for example 15 million
tons per year, there will be 50 minutes daily traffic delays assuming
average train speed of 10 m.p.h. (Table 8). The downtown and tourist
related independent shops located along Arendell Street on the east side
of the City could suffer serious losses of business because of the
increased coal train traffic. Before a substantial increase of coal
trains is allowed to pass through Morehead City, a detailed study of the
impact to downtown businesses should be performed.
44

VII. REFERENCES
Barton-Aschman Asso., R. L. Banks Asso., and Ernst and Whinney.
"Alternative Solutions to Railroad Impacts on Communities."
Minnesota Department of Transportation, North Dakota State Highway
Department. Phase II Technical Report: Case Studies. June 1980.
Brower, McElyer, Godschalk, and Lofaro. "Outer Continental Shelf
Development and the North Carolina Coast: A Guide for Local
Planners." North Carolina Coastal Energy Impact Program, North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
August 1981.
Cribbins, Paul D. "Coastal Energy Transportation Study: An Analysis of
State and Federal Policies in North Carolina's Coastal Zone." UNC
Institute for Transportation Research and Education. Phase II,
Volume 3. August 1981.
Cribbins, Paul D. "Coastal Energy Transportation Study: A Study of OCS
Onshore Support Bases and Coal Export Terminals." North Carolina
Coastal Energy Impact Program, North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development. August 1981.
Delon Hamton Asso. "The Environmental Impact of Coal Transfer and
Terminal Operations." U. S. Department of Commerce: National
Technical Information Service. October 1980.
Dym, Clive L. "Attenuation of Ground Vibration." Sound and Vibration.
pp. 32-34, April 1974.
Hauser, Cribbins, Tschetter, and Latta. "Coastal Energy Transportation
Needs to Support Major Energy Projects in North Carolina's Coastal
Zone." North Carolina Coastal Energy Impact Program, North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
December 1980.
Kinner, Liu, and Yegian. "Ground Vibrations." Sound and Vibration.
pp. 26-32, October 1974.
N. C. Department of Transportation. "Additional Coal Shipments Through
Morehead City and New Bern. An Investigation of Alternative Methods
and Routes." June 1982.
N. C. Department of Transportation. "Coal Train Movements Through the
City of New Bern." Transportation Planning Division, March 1981.
N. C. Department of Transportation. "Impact of Coal Train Movements on
Vehicular Circulation in Morehead City Area." Thoroughfare Planning
Unit, December 1981.
45

N. C. Marine Science Council. "North Carolina and the Sea: Planning
Report for the Development of North Carolina's Coastal Area
Resources." June 1980.
Northwood, T. D. "Isolation of Building Structures from Ground Vibra-
tion." ASME Design Engineering Conference, Isolation of
Mechanical Vibration Impact and Noise, September 1973.
Roberts and Eichler Asso. "Area Development Plan for Radio Island."
North Carolina Coastal Energy Impact Program. North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
June 1982.
Rogers, Golden, and Halpern. "Mitigating the Impact of Energy
Facilities: A Local Air Quality Program for the Wilmington, North
Carolina Area." North Carolina Coastal Energy Impact Program,
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development. January 1981.
Sawada and Tanigughi. "Attenuation with Distance of Traffic Induced
Vibrations." Soils and Foundations, Volume 19, pp. 15-28, June 1979.
Steffens, R. J. "Some Aspects of Structural Vibration." Symposium
Vibration in Civil Engineering, London. 1966.
Sutherland, Hugh B. "A Study of Vibration Produced in Structures by
Heavy Vehicles." University of Glasgow, Scotland.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Information on Levels of
Environmental Noise Requiste to Protect Public Health and Welfare
with Adequate Margin of Safety." March 1974.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Railroad Noise Emission
Standards." January 1976.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Background Document for Railroad
Noise Emission Standards." December 1975.
Wiss, John. "Construction Vibration: State of the Art." Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division. ASCE. pp. 167-179, April 1980.
Wiss, John. "Damage Effects of Pile Driving Vibration." Highway
Research Project Report No. 155, 1967.
46

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 O1. 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 U5. 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 U6. 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. D. CEIP Report 09. 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 3 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. Mugs, 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 033. 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.