Jump to content

CATS Long Term Transit Plan - Silver, Red Lines


monsoon

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, kermit said:

Sustain Charlotte is requesting that the MTC perform preliminary engineering on the Trade Street tunnel as well as the "preferred" North End route:

https://www.sustaincharlotte.org/silverlinealignment

This seems like a good idea to me. If the Trade St Tunnel is the “best” option, but CATS isn’t moving forward due to cost, I’d want to know what that incremental cost would be.  

If it’s >$1B more expensive probably not worth it but if it’s less than that there might be an argument.

Also, here is the detailed staff recommendation for the different routes and plans (not sure if this has been posted):

https://charlottenc.gov/cats/transit-planning/Documents/CATS-MTC-2030-System-Update.pdf

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


The low end cost would be about $500 million. that represents a level of cost that is likely unachievable.  Basically Boring Company tunneling cost of 10 million per mile (per tunnel 2 are needed), and Paris station costs of 110 million per station, plus some inflation costs.  That said I don't think we can build that cheaply .  The Boring Company tunnels are basically London Tube Width  which would not meet smoke ventilation requirements and would also force us to use London equipment, I also doubt we have a great Idea on what the Geology in Uptown is actually like.  We also have zero clue about what the heck we are doing.  

The likely actual cost would be 2 to 10 times higher, and it would likely kill the streetcar.  That said it could also allow us to interline some trains as well, possibly allowing 2 minute headways on that part of the line, you could conceivably run blue line level of service (approximatly 6-8 minute headways) on 3 or 4 lines all hitting the same through uptown tracks.  

Edited by DEnd
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hushpuppy321 said:

Thanks!  Can anyone (like me) just walk in and attend?

Yes, they are open to the public. You can also sign up to speak for a minute at the beginning of the meeting if you like. I believe all city and county committees/boards are open to the public.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, kermit said:

So another year long wait????? No rail tracking????????? WTF???????

While it wasn't spelled out, John Lewis set the stage for cutting off the current replica GoldLine service sooner than initially planned. He basically said that he does not want to maintain the vehicles any longer so watch out. The original plan was to open phase 2 in December 2020 (IIRC). They had planned on a 6 month shutdown of Phase 1 to modify platforms for the new vehicles and the line will need to be tested. Given all that (along with Lewis' remarks) I would not be surprised to see Phase 1 shutdown completely sometime between June and December of this year. From page 7:

The West and Silverline maps show that the Belmont extension and a Stallings extension have been recommended for further study.

Thanks Kermit.  The lack of rail  or bus tracking this late in GPS development is absurd.  I can track my freaking luggage for $100.  They could just buy an iPhone 5 and plug it into the cigarette lighter on each bus...boom GPS tracking.

Any chance they could shutdown the Gold Line when the new cars get delivered and reopen prior to the Hawthorne bridge being completed?  Seems to me this might be a viable option and the bets way to salvage some respect for the Gold Line.  While it would be a huge miss to not have it connected to PM on day one, it would be nice to get faster more reliable service on the rest of the line.

I assume it is too far out to consider a stop at the USNWC, right?  It would be pretty cool to be able to bike over to light rail and hop a train to the USNWC for the day even if it took a line transfer at CTC.  I might be too old to bike by the time this ever happened.

Edited by pgsinger
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of town transit  bloggers have begun to weigh in on the North End alignment for the Silver Line:

http://transitcenter.org/2019/02/26/put-charlottes-new-rail-line-where-people-will-use-it-not-in-the-middle-of-a-freeway/

I’ll admit to not being a fan of the route through uptown, but the criticism of the choice being bad because it runs along a freeway is complete BS. Bypassing the bulk of uptown employment is the bigger concern IMO. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. Remind me again, what's the reason for not sharing the Blue Line tracks through Uptown? Surely that right of way can handle being a trunk line? What's the maximum frequency its signal system can support?

Here is my suggestion:
Join the Blue Line at 12th Street.

Follow the Blue Line tracks through uptown to MLK.

Turn left on MLK which would be turned into a transit mall west of Brevard.

Put a station west of Graham Street, which would be a modest walk from Gateway Station.

Curve south at the RR tracks, and cross under them at the old P&N underpass.

Continue on the old P&N right of way under 77.

Immediately after going under 77, curve south to Morehead.

Follow Morehead to Wilkinson and the rest is the same.


Benefits:
This leverages the blue line right of way through Uptown which.is just phenomenally well located.

It covers much of the same area as the Stonewall idea

It is possible to connect to the Blue Line because of the at grade crossing at MLK

It gets closer to Gateway Station (500 feet from the southern end of the platforms) than the Stonewall option, without requiring a Trade Street tunnel

Downsides:
Loss of a street to cars (not a big deal IMO)

Have to figure out a way to keep access to the parking deck entrances, loading docks, and driveways on MLK. Tricky but not impossible: east of Church they are almost all on the north side; west of church they are all on the south side. Need a two way street on the north side between College and the tracks, but the street is wide enough so it's okay. A one way one lane westbound street from College to Church north of the tracks, and then a one way one lane eastbound street south of the tracks from Graham to Church.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, tozmervo said:

I also don't think it's asking to much to make one simple rail transfer to get to Stonewall station from the silver line, for example.

I agree in principle but in practice (current CATS frequencies) this is a deal breaker. Waiting up to 15 minutes to transfer between lines in uptown is going to stop an awful lot of potential riders.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to tend to agree that running along a highway isn't the best.  While it can help start growth in the area I feel like it will mainly only get people and growth from inside of 277. The highway will act as a wall, though at this point I just want a connection to plaza. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Desert Power said:

We're probably not building this Silver Line anyways, but we certainly won't fund a tunnel through uptown.

It is so much more fun to draw a new alignment every couple years and debate the stations rather than talk about how we are actually going to fund it and find a billion+ dollars. 

Given the MTC has voted on alignments and types of transportation (rail vs bus) multiples times since 2002 in the Independence Corridor, I'm holding my breath until they find money. Otherwise it is all talk and new drawings, which we've been doing for almost 20 years. Release new drawings to show your job is justified.... then say there is no money but you'll do another study. Release new drawings to justify job.... then say there is no money but you'll do another study. Then get an even better idea and rather than find money for one line, do even MORE studies on a 2030 master plan to bump it up to multiple lines you have no clue how to fund, but cut some nice checks to consultants.

Edited by CLT2014
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In their study of interlining with either the blue line or the gold line, the determination is that capacity limits made either of those options unviable. Maybe there's enough capacity today, but not in the future.
While I don't think the North end routing is ideal, I do like it as an opportunity to effect change in that area. I also don't think it's asking to much to make one simple rail transfer to get to Stonewall station from the silver line, for example.
What are the minimum headways supported by the blue line in terms of signal systems? Typically this would be something like 2 minutes, which probably means 2.5-3 minutes is attainable in practice which gives just enough buffer for recovery from schedule disturbances. This means 20-24 trains per hour uptown and 10-12 trains per hour/5 minute headways on the branches. That, plus three car trains, would probably be enough for 50 years worth of ridership growth. Next step after that: 4 car trains? Would this be possible? This is a can that could be kicked way, way down the road.

If growth exceeds this, the it's time to think about relief lines: regional/commuter rail along the same corridors to augment the light rail and serve longer distance trips, siphoning off some of the park-and-ridership from outlying stations.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, orulz said:

What are the minimum headways supported by the blue line in terms of signal systems? Typically this would be something like 2 minutes, which probably means 2.5-3 minutes is attainable in practice which gives just enough buffer for recovery from schedule disturbances. This means 20-24 trains per hour uptown and 10-12 trains per hour/5 minute headways on the branches. That, plus three car trains, would probably be enough for 50 years worth of ridership growth. Next step after that: 4 car trains? Would this be possible? This is a can that could be kicked way, way down the road.

If growth exceeds this, the it's time to think about relief lines: regional/commuter rail along the same corridors to augment the light rail and serve longer distance trips, siphoning off some of the park-and-ridership from outlying stations.

But the problem with those headways is that you've then crippled Uptown's road infrastructure. MLK, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th street crossings would effectively be impassable because the gates would be down almost continuously. 

1 hour ago, CLT2014 said:

It is so much more fun to draw a new alignment every couple years and debate the stations rather than talk about how we are actually going to fund it and find a billion+ dollars. 

Given the MTC has voted on alignments and types of transportation (rail vs bus) multiples times since 2002 in the Independence Corridor, I'm holding my breath until they find money. Otherwise it is all talk and new drawings, which we've been doing for almost 20 years. Release new drawings to show your job is justified.... then say there is no money but you'll do another study. Release new drawings to justify job.... then say there is no money but you'll do another study. Then get an even better idea and rather than find money for one line, do even MORE studies on a 2030 master plan to bump it up to multiple lines you have no clue how to fund, but cut some nice checks to consultants.

TBH I'm not sure that's a fair assessment. With each iteration the plans have become more and more refined. Instead of a generic cost-per-mile they can start getting more detailed cost estimates pulled together, begin securing/protecting ROW, etc. They are also responding to public demand: BRT and streetcar was heavily utilized in the 2030 plan, but now everyone wants light rail so the plans have to be updated accordingly. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, tozmervo said:

But the problem with those headways is that you've then crippled Uptown's road infrastructure. MLK, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th street crossings would effectively be impassable because the gates would be down almost continuously. 

TBH I'm not sure that's a fair assessment. With each iteration the plans have become more and more refined. Instead of a generic cost-per-mile they can start getting more detailed cost estimates pulled together, begin securing/protecting ROW, etc. They are also responding to public demand: BRT and streetcar was heavily utilized in the 2030 plan, but now everyone wants light rail so the plans have to be updated accordingly. 

I agree that my assessment is a bit harsh however, it seems with each iteration we are just making the plans more refined and get no corresponding update on funding plans. Right now, they are getting pretty granular on the routing and plans, but are at a 60,000 foot view on funding. I think if we were at a 10,000 foot view on the planning stage, we should at least be at a 20,000 foot view on funding. I agree the funding will lag behind the planning, but the gap is pretty big right now with CATS CEO John Lewis basically having pie in the sky ideas on how to fund stuff, but no evidence he has taken steps to make that a reality. 

Edited by CLT2014
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thought on interlining - there's more built in risk to system resiliency. For example, the blue line was disrupted by the NBA All Star game due to its adjacency to the arena. If interlined, you then have two lines that will be disrupted. Any impacts along the shared portion of rail affect more riders and become harder to recover from.

You can see that hell played out regularly in the NYC Subway, when a delay at 7 Ave, for example, ripples out and causes mass delays on multiple lines

13 minutes ago, CLT2014 said:

I agree that my assessment is just a bit harsh however, it seems with each iteration we are just making the plans more refined and get no corresponding update on funding plans. Right now, they are getting pretty granular on the routing and plans, but are at a 60,000 foot view on funding. I think if we were at a 10,000 foot view on the planning stage, we should at least be at a 20,000 foot view on funding. I agree the funding will lag behind the planning, but the gap is pretty big right now with CATS CEO John Lewis basically having pie in the sky ideas on how to fund stuff, but no evidence he has taken steps to make that a reality. 

I agree that CATS (and Charlotte/Meck staff) have been slow to bring funding scenarios to the table. They are supposed to present a "value capture" plan very soon.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it now appears that duke university has single-handedly killed off Durham-Orange Light Rail (for completely BS reasons, you can read about them in the Triangle Transit thread if interested).  There is talk of eminent domaining them for the land that they need, but duke is the biggest powerplayer in the region so I think its dead.

There are a couple of implications for us. First, the state may be slightly more willing to contribute to our plans since they now have a budget line freed up (but who knows what the RWNJs will do). Second, the elimination of rail transit to the Durham Amtrak station will slightly reduce Piedmont ridership and the usefulness of intercity rail to Gateway (not a huge impact, but it will be an impact).

While the DOLRT project did have some problems (its a very low density place), but this is really a blow to knowledge industry development and urban walkability in NC.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, kermit said:

So it now appears that duke university has single-handedly killed off Durham-Orange Light Rail (for completely BS reasons, you can read about them in the Triangle Transit thread if interested).  There is talk of eminent domaining them for the land that they need, but duke is the biggest powerplayer in the region so I think its dead.

There are a couple of implications for us. First, the state may be slightly more willing to contribute to our plans since they now have a budget line freed up (but who knows what the RWNJs will do). Second, the elimination of rail transit to the Durham Amtrak station will slightly reduce Piedmont ridership and the usefulness of intercity rail to Gateway (not a huge impact, but it will be an impact).

While the DOLRT project did have some problems (its a very low density place), but this is really a blow to knowledge industry development and urban walkability in NC.

 

 

Duke's letter to GoTriangle detailing there position. 

Dear Jeff,

Significant efforts by many people from Duke and GoTriangle have been made over the past year to resolve a number of critical issues connected to the proposed Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit (DOLRT) project. Notwithstanding these many good-faith efforts, it has unfortunately not been possible to complete the extensive and detailed due diligence, by the deadlines imposed by the federal and state governments, that is required to satisfy Duke University’s, legal, ethical and fiduciary responsibilities to ensure the safety of patients, the integrity of research, and continuity of our operations and activities.

 

The DOLRT is a complex undertaking that has only become more complicated as we have mutually sought to address the numerous technical and financial challenges that come from attempting to place an elevated electric rail line within 150 feet of the most densely concentrated corridor of patient care and biomedical research facilities in the state.

I know you understand that Duke’s highest priority is the health and safety of patients who have entrusted us with their care at the most perilous times of their lives. The acceptable tolerance for risk in these circumstances must be as close to zero as possible, and we have an obligation to our patients and the community to uphold that standard.

The unresolved challenges include:

Electromagnetic interference (EMI). It is clear that the DOLRT will create EMI that will interfere with current and future patient care and research devices. It is also clear that there have been inconsistencies in the information that has been generated to date, and we appreciate the continued efforts of GoTriangle to work with Duke to develop accurate, reliable data that can be evaluated by independent experts. As you know, EMI is not a new or unique problem for urban rail systems. Indeed, similar studies done in other cities turned out to be incorrect in their estimation of negative impact on research devices. Since the Erwin Road corridor at Duke contains numerous patient care devices for which any deviation could be catastrophic and potentially fatal, we are not yet able to determine with confidence whether the new study we received last week can adequately address this risk. If anything, the new data and our independent expert’s review of them have heightened our concerns.

 

Vibration. The proposed elevated rail line in front of Duke Hospital and the Duke Eye Center will require excavating at least nine 40-foot deep holes in Erwin Road. This excavation will cause vibrations over a construction period of years and is far beyond the acceptable levels we impose on any public or private construction project in the vicinity of our hospital and clinics. Duke surgeons perform some of the most complicated and delicate operations done anywhere, at all hours of the day and night. Even seemingly imperceptible vibrations can be dangerous. The data that Go Triangle has provided require further analysis and independent review to give us confidence that the highly sensitive patient diagnostic and clinical care devices will be unaffected.

Potential disruption to power and other utilities. The current DOLRT plan calls for the widening of Erwin Road and further burying the main lines that supply all electric power to the Duke campus, hospital, clinics and laboratories. Even a temporary interruption in this service would be devastating. While there continues to be an exchange of information and discussions between Duke University, GoTriangle and Duke Energy, we have yet to confirm a plan that adequately eliminates the risk of disruption and damage during what is likely to be a lengthy construction process. In addition, the proposed route will require the relocation of other utility infrastructure, including data and water. We do not know where or how to do this, but it will impose yet-undetermined costs to Duke University.

 

Liability. As a private institution, Duke does not have sovereign immunity like the State of North Carolina, City of Durham, Durham County or GoTriangle itself. In the event of a major disruption to our operations, or in the worst-case, a tragedy as a result of construction or operation of the DOLRT, Duke would likely be solely liable for damages. For that reason, we would require insurance or indemnification in an amount high enough to protect Duke University’s ability to operate as an ongoing entity. We have been unable to agree on the form or amount of that coverage.

The current DOLRT Erwin Road alignment consequently bears extremely high risk for the critical research we do and the patients we are sworn to protect. We’ve tried very hard to make this work, doubling down on those efforts over the past several months; but the imposed deadline leaves us without the time needed to determine with confidence that the risks can be mitigated to an acceptable degree.

Duke remains dedicated to working with GoTriangle and our community to advance sustainable and workable public transit solutions that serve the needs of all citizens, especially those who depend on public transportation. We commit to working closely with the public and private sectors to find a way forward – to innovate and to lead.

 

You have our personal pledge that Duke will maintain – indeed, deepen – our mutual partnership and shared engagement with the community. We are unwavering in our commitment to address our shared challenges. Together, we can be a force for even greater good.

Sincerely,

Vincent E. Price

President

A. Eugene Washington

Chancellor for Health Affairs

President and CEO, Duke University Health System

Tallman Trask III

Executive Vice President

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.