U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-28-2015, 12:04 PM
 
6,469 posts, read 5,713,811 times
Reputation: 1939

Advertisements

Not only is this good for Metro Atlanta, it will provide a much needed economic boost for Northwest Georgia.
Quote:
The Georgia Ports Authority and CSX Corp. signed an agreement Tuesday to open an “inland port” in Northwest Georgia that will reduce truck traffic in Atlanta by an estimated 40,000 vehicle moves a year.
Operated by the ports authority, the Appalachian Regional Port will provide direct rail access to the Port of Savannah, reducing the need to move goods by truck through metro Atlanta from North Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee and parts of Kentucky.

“This new inland terminal will open the door for economic opportunity and job creation for Northwest Georgia and the region,” Gov. Nathan Deal said. “The Appalachian Regional Port will create and expand international markets for businesses and further the economic success of the Southeastern U.S.”
When the terminal opens at a 42-acre site in Chatsworth, Ga., in 2018, it will become Georgia’s second inland port. The ports authority signed an agreement in 2013 that led to the opening of an inland rail terminal in South Georgia linking Cordele, Ga., with the ports.
Georgia Ports Authority, CSX partnering on 'inland port' - Atlanta Business Chronicle
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-28-2015, 12:15 PM
 
Location: Georgia
1,472 posts, read 1,538,231 times
Reputation: 1102
Sounds good. Wonder what this would do to our rail capacity though.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2015, 02:15 PM
 
947 posts, read 2,889,617 times
Reputation: 686
I wish the state would just pick elsewhere in northern Georgia for this. Many people including myself use US Route 411 to get to and from Tennessee and North Carolina.

I suppose this will bring much needed jobs to the Dalton-Cleveland-Chatsworth-Murphy area.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2015, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Downtown Marietta
1,204 posts, read 894,084 times
Reputation: 1701
Thanks for posting this. Sounds like a much needed project. The amount of truck traffic on the Westside Perimeter and I -75 is astounding. Any reduction would be most welcome.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2015, 02:52 PM
 
Location: Decatur, GA
5,983 posts, read 4,536,896 times
Reputation: 3421
Excellent news! I don't think rail capacity will be impacted that much. 40,000 containers per year is 109 per day or 54 each way each day which is about a third of a train at most.

Incidentally, here's another link showing quite the impressive setup, far more impressive than Cordele's little one-track spur.
Appalachian Regional Port announced in Murray County, expected to take 50,000 trucks off Georgia highways | Business - Around the Region | Times Free Press

Here's a site setup for the port itself: Appalachian Regional Port

I can't find the address of the location though, but it's a bit farther north of Chatsworth according to my first link.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2015, 04:19 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,800 posts, read 8,269,686 times
Reputation: 4814
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for this.... But....

The tilt to the article is probably some wishful thinking from a CSX/GDOT press release to get public opinion to tilt in favor for this easily and quickly without needing to explain much.

40,000 trucks a year is nothing. This isn't really a huge deal to road traffic.

The reason I like this has more to do with encouraging development in a stagnant region of our state that has had some trouble with a downturn in the carpet industry. This will make it cheaper to ship -heavier- goods to and from the area.

It will also encourage industry that wouldn't consider Georgia, because they need easy access to the industrial Midwest, the coal supplies from W. Virginia and the need to move heavier goods to the port more affordably.

The railroad industry is moving strongly in this direction to help stabilize downturns from their other consumers. They like the commitments from the state DOTs to help them invest in larger capital infrastructure that is otherwise too expensive for them to take on alone.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2015, 04:37 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
5,243 posts, read 4,973,523 times
Reputation: 2743
Nice post cwkimbro!

Sounds like a good idea. I guess I'm in the "get as many trucks off Atlanta highways as possible" camp.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2015, 06:53 PM
Status: "Trump - excepting Jorgensen, the least of multiple evils" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna. (birthplace)
13,822 posts, read 8,485,059 times
Reputation: 17891
Speaking as a Logistics/Transportation graduate, I wouldn't expect too much from this; the principle of "siding-to-siding" movement of freight in single railcars has been slowly dying since the 1940's, and the task has been essentially complete for decades. The movement from the local "intermodal" terminal to the shipper's and consignee's docks still has to be accomplished via a tractor-trailer rig. It might be worth noting, for example, that the delivery of carload rail freight in a consumer-driven region like Southern New England or Long Island is a shadow of what it once was. And the "car floats" that once moved railcars throughout New York harbor have, for the most part, been gone since the late Sixties -- replaced by local truckers who "offload" from as far away as Harrisburg and Albany.

The remaining major North American railroads (there are only seven big players left) do have an important date with a changing economy coming up; the impending widening and deepening of the Panama Canal is going to allow a lot more trans-Pacific merchandise traffic to be diverted from the Port of Los Angeles / Long Beach to Atlantic Seaboard ports -- and Savannah is a prime competitor. And the decayed, overbuilt, and labor-intensive physical plant with which the industry was saddled until extensive regulatory and work-rules reform took root in the 1980's is long gone. So, since the new facilities are already paid for, I do expect the rail carriers to alter their pricing strategy and seek shorter line-hauls once the excess capacity frees up. But not so much so that a line-haul of 200 miles or less will become rail-competitive.

Last edited by 2nd trick op; 07-29-2015 at 07:05 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2015, 11:51 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,800 posts, read 8,269,686 times
Reputation: 4814
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
Speaking as a Logistics/Transportation graduate, I wouldn't expect too much from this; the principle of "siding-to-siding" movement of freight in single railcars has been slowly dying since the 1940's, and the task has been essentially complete for decades. The movement from the local "intermodal" terminal to the shipper's and consignee's docks still has to be accomplished via a tractor-trailer rig. It might be worth noting, for example, that the delivery of carload rail freight in a consumer-driven region like Southern New England or Long Island is a shadow of what it once was. And the "car floats" that once moved railcars throughout New York harbor have, for the most part, been gone since the late Sixties -- replaced by local truckers who "offload" from as far away as Harrisburg and Albany.
I'm not doubting your experience or understanding of what happened historically, but I have the feeling you might not have noticed some recent trends the last several years.

There has been a large -increase-, not decrease, in the amount of intermodal freight taken directly off ships and sent via railroad to an intermodal yard to be loaded onto a truck. It has been a key strategy of the railroads, particularly in the Southern and Eastern US, to invest in their own intermodal yards. The key thing this is doing is trying to get some efficiencies by including this as part of the port itself.

This increase was actually listed as a direct reason CSX's revenue did not drop as much from the downturn in coal operations this past year.

It is all container based and nothing is loaded or unloaded, but the container is shifted. Of course it is the shipper's job to still transport the materials to the intermodal yard or in the this case the 'inland port.'
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2015, 11:38 AM
Status: "Trump - excepting Jorgensen, the least of multiple evils" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna. (birthplace)
13,822 posts, read 8,485,059 times
Reputation: 17891
Over fifty years ago, an MIT economics professor named Ann Friedlander tried to predict a "trade-off mileage", at which the lower costs of a rail-highway haul would be less than an all-highway routing. Dr. Friedlander's figure was surprisingly low -- less than 200 miles, but it never worked out that way in real life. All the intangibles -- everything from union work-rules to schedule reliability -- seemed to resolve in favor of the truckers.

During the years I was a student at nearby Penn State, the Penn Central closed its Altoona "piggyback" ramp; there was virtually nowhere on the entire Penn Central system where Trailer on Flat Car service was competitive save for points beyond the Chicago and St. Louis gateways, and those were served by trucking the load as far as Pittsburgh.

Admittedly, all this took place before both energy concerns and regulatory and work-rules reform restored the railroads' ability to compete in many markets. Back in the early Seventies, dressed meat -- primarily from Kansas City, Omaha and the Twin Cities to the East Coast -- was usually cited as the classic example of traffic the railroads lost through marketing ineptitude, and would probably never get back. But a few hours spent near the Norfolk Southern mainline in Pennsylvania will confirm that this trend has been reversed. Transcontinental fresh produce traffic is reportedly next on the list.

But the point I want to make here is simply that: (1) diversion of major components of freight traffic is never as simple as it looks and (2) cost is not the sole determinant; inability to predict when a carload would arrive at a terminal in a declining neighborhood such as Hunt's Point / Bronx (to which an unloading crew had to be assigned and dispatched), often far outweighed the simpler economic factors.

And the balance will shift again (if and) when the PANAMAX project, now a year behind schedule, is completed in -- 2016?? One thing that can be assured is that the contest between both modes and individual carriers will continue and intensify.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top