CATS Long Term Transit Plan - Silver, Red Lines

[monsoon]

^The bigger gamble would be to build any TOD without the T.

If North Meck Towns see a bigger incremental increase with station-area development, why not tap into it?

This project's purpose is to solve transit issues. The excuse that it drives development is not selling up north with just cause. It doesn't.

[southslider]

^To the contrary, the rapid transit corridors are very key to land use and shaping Charlotte's growth. This is reflected directly in the City's Centers, Corridors, and Wedges Growth Framework.

Besides, to say commuter rail is only about transit is as laughable as saying I-485 in South Charlotte was really about building a by-pass.

[tozmervo]

Some of us got our wish with Google Maps - now featuring bus and rail stops!

[Spartan]

They have trolley stops on there too. Weird.

[InitialD]

They have trolley stops on there too. Weird.

Speaking of which, the trolley track going to Atherton has been roped off for a while - what's going on with that?

[orulz]

I found this image that depicts all the improvements planned in the "CRISP" program buried in the NCDOT rail stimulus request packet.

I thought this might be interesting because it shows the many improvements that are planned to rail lines in the Charlotte area. There are a couple parts of this plan that are new to me. Most notably, they apparently want to use the ACWR right-of-way so that passenger trains can bypass the freight yard. Freight trains will be relocated off the ACWR by a new connection to the NCRR somewhere south of Sugar Creek.

[southslider]

I believe that "passenger by-pass" is not on the AC&W but within the NCRR/NS railroad right-of-way through NoDa. That would explain what BLE planners have said about that corridor supporting freight, HSR and LRT tracks all within the same corridor between Matheson and Eastway.

Instead of branching off near Highland Mill, the AC&W would wye off this busy corridor in the far northern and more industrial section of NoDa north of Craighead/Anderson, yet still go under Sugar Creek Road as it does today near The Plaza. This relocation of the AC&W seems like a great opportunity for a greenway trail south of Anderson through the older and more residential sections of NoDa.

[InitialD]

Closing Craighead Rd.? Noes! How am I supposed to get from Graham St. to NoDa without having to ride on Tryon? It will be nice having Sugar Creek and 36th grade separated. Just a few days ago I was stuck at 36th waiting for a train that had stopped on the tracks for a while. I eventually had to go back out to Tryon and go down to Mathison..

[monsoon]

Closing Craighead is a non-starter. The local neighborhoods and businesses would never go for it.

[southslider]

Craighead is inevitably doomed by this corridor serving as the major eastern seaboard high-speed rail line, be it just Raleigh to Charlotte, or someday Boston to Atlanta. Fortunately, since Craighead is also a detour during construction to grade-separate Sugar Creek or 36th, it shouldn't close until at least one of those is grade-separated. However, I hope the City fights the railroad to keep Craighead open until at least both parallel routes are grade-separated.

[New Name]

Closing Craighead is a non-starter. The local neighborhoods and businesses would never go for it.

I don't know about that, Monsoon. I guess we will see.

The positives of closing Matheson might outweigh the negatives if a larger vision is in place. Right now, Craighead is one of 3 cut-through roads in/out of NoDa within 1 mile. And there is no density or neighborhood use for Craighead at this time - it's only for cut through traffic. My goal is to get people OUT of their cars in NoDa, not driving in as far as possible. So as far as NoDa residents - I see the positives being: a sealed corridor means that freight trains won't need to sound their horns when crossing 36th, Craighead, or Sugar Creek. That makes a big impact on my front porch!

We're already talking about this stuff in the neighborhood. I'd like to share some of our collective thoughts on it, but I wouldn't want to speak for the hood as a whole yet.

But the abandoning of the A&WC line between Anderson and Davidson (and if you look closely this even means the ROW behind Highland Mill and all the way out to the proposed LYNX station around 28th St.) is certainly on the radar.

Edited July 15, 2009 by The Escapists

[InitialD]

When you're talking about closing Mathison, do you mean Craighead? I'm confused.

The good thing about Craighead is that it provides a connection from the Graham St. area to North Davidson without having to turn onto Tryon. I like Craighead because it is relatively safe by bicycle and you don't have to get onto scary Tryon, which you do if you're going to use 36th St. Maybe Atando Ave. could be realigned in the future to meet up with 36th at Tryon or something.

Edited July 16, 2009 by InitialD

[Spartan]

Craighead is inevitably doomed by this corridor serving as the major eastern seaboard high-speed rail line,

That and the railroads have the final say on what they do within their ROW. Craighead is an unfortunate loss, but I think the benefits of having light rail outweigh the loss of this connection.

[monsoon]

That and the railroads have the final say on what they do within their ROW. Craighead is an unfortunate loss, but I think the benefits of having light rail outweigh the loss of this connection.

In the context of what we are discussing, that is not correct. What can happen to that land depends upon the conditions under which the railroad in question first acquired the ROW. Many times these agreements date back close to a century. A railroad cant retroactively close a RR crossing in which they have agreed to and is used by traffic such as the one on Craighead. This is a busy road and my guess a NCDOT owned road so I don't see them agreeing to this. CATS certainly has no authority to order it. This road is used a lot by people living on the West side of Tryon to get to shopping on The Plaza and cutting it off will affect that.

[staffer]

In the context of what we are discussing, that is not correct. What can happen to that land depends upon the conditions under which the railroad in question first acquired the ROW. Many times these agreements date back close to a century. A railroad cant retroactively close a RR crossing in which they have agreed to and is used by traffic such as the one on Craighead. This is a busy road and my guess a NCDOT owned road so I don't see them agreeing to this. CATS certainly has no authority to order it. This road is used a lot by people living on the West side of Tryon to get to shopping on The Plaza and cutting it off will affect that.

I've looked at a lot of the underlying land titles for much of the ROW from Charlotte to Morehead City, some was acquired by deed, some by easement, and some by charter rights. I think DOT is in favor of closing corridors, one would assume that since the project list

http://bytrain.org/arra/ncdot_arra_rail_pr...july_8_2009.pdf

specifically includes closing Craighead that DOT will go ahead and do that. It's in Item 12. Item 13 specifices 8 more grade crossing closures without specifying where. Item 12 is also Sugar Creek grade separation. Item 14 grade separates 36th Street. Item 15 closes two unnamed Charlotte grade crossings. Item 78 grade separates Back Creek Church Road out in the UC area.

This is going to be a sealed corridor folks.

Edited July 15, 2009 by staffer

[New Name]

When you're talking about closing Mathison, do you mean Craighead? I'm confused.

Yep sorry - I fixed the typo. Closing Craighead.

[New Name]

CATS certainly has no authority to order it.

CATS is not ordering it. In fact, if you look closely, you will notice that the LYNX tracks bridge over the NCRR tracks exactly over Craighead. This means that CATS is unaffected no matter whether it becomes a sealed corridor or not.

[tozmervo]

In this case, a railroad is no better than a freeway. Either of them kill connectivity across their respective ROWs. If anything, they should be stitching more roads across that corridor.

[southslider]

^At least stations are proposed at both 36th and Sugar Creek, where connectivity will be retained, thereby serving both sides of this potential barrier.

But speaking of connectivity, much of this transit corridor is lacking the street grid necessary to support TOD. For example, just across the tracks from NoDa on the Tryon side of the corridor, there is no way to get between 36th and Sugar Creek in the area between Tryon and the proposed stations.

[monsoon]

...I think DOT is in favor of closing corridors, one would assume that since the project list

http://bytrain.org/arra/ncdot_arra_rail_pr...july_8_2009.pdf

specifically includes closing Craighead that DOT will go ahead and do that. .....

I don't think this changes anything I said in my two posts on this matter. The first point was was to address the statements that railroads have authority to close road crossings. They don't. You have confirmed that part.

The second was my opinion about Craighead being closed. I said that there would be a huge protest and I stand by that argument. The point I made about the NCDOT is they own the road and would have a part to play in this, but not the only part. You are offering up your opinion they will agree with the railroad plan. It still isn't clear to me they will close it if there are any public hearings about it and a crowd shows up against it. Not that I agree with it, but the plan to spend $4B to build the HSR to Charlotte is already being derided in the local televised press so there are no guarantees there will be any support for it.

[southslider]

Just to clarify, Craighead is not State-maintained. Hence, NCDOT should only be involved via their Rail Division.

It's true that once an at-grade crossing is established that the relevant roadway authority (CDOT for Craighead) has more say as to whether it can be removed. However, the railroad interests (NCDOT-Rail, NCRR, NS, HSR) could easily condition their financial participation in nearby grade-separations (Sugar Creek and/or 36th) on Craighead's closure, thereby putting pressure on the local authority (CDOT) to go along with their demands.

[orulz]

I would say that the state's policy should be to eliminate every single grade crossing on the NCRR between Raleigh and Charlotte - bar none. This means that some of them should be closed, and others should be grade separated.

The simplest, cheapest option here that still maintains some degree of connectivity would probably be to build a new "north-south" connector between 36th and Sugar Creek to the "west" of the railroad. Call it Raleigh Street because I'm from Raleigh. Something like this.

I also have to think that building a grade separation at Craighead wouldn't be that difficult, as long as the NE LRT flyover isn't in the way. Just raise Craighead over the railroad and North Davidson, and connect it to Anderson south of there. For pedestrians, stairs leading up to the bridge would suffice. For cars, either build a new connection between the raised Craighead and Davidson (like Jordan between Matheson and Davidson) or let the existing Atmore/Norwell serve as the connector.

[southslider]

A bridge over the railroad would need much higher clearance for trains, and thus, longer approaches, than placing the road under the railroad. That's why Sugar Creek and 36th are each planned to go under, not over the railroad. Plus, Davidson at Craighead already sits down lower than the railroad.

However, since the grade-separations at Sugar Creek and 36th aren't even fully funded, you're talking about waiting a long time to fund yet another grade-separation at Craighead. Closing that funding gap on already-planned grade-separations with railroad participation (maybe only for Sugar Creek, since the map shows 36th as a CDOT responsibility) might also explain why the City would even entertain closing Craighead per the request of those same parties helping foot the bill.

[InitialD]

The simplest, cheapest option here that still maintains some degree of connectivity would probably be to build a new "north-south" connector between 36th and Sugar Creek to the "west" of the railroad. Call it Raleigh Street because I'm from Raleigh. Something like this

That's exactly what I was thinking. That would solve the issue of loosing Craghead. Also, I would like to see Atando Ave. rerouted to connect to 36th at Tryon (probably too expensive) or at least extended across Tryon to connect to Bernard Ave. that would provide a way for traffic to get from the Graham St. area to N. Davidson & 36th without having to get on Tryon. With the addition of light rail and grade seperation, I'd like to see some pedestrian improvements on Sugar Creek between Tryon and the Plaza, including wide sidewalk on both sides of the street and bike lanes.

[monsoon]

.....per the request of those same parties helping foot the bill.

I might be missing something but that would actually be the tax payers. If enough rucus is raised about closing all those roads between Sugar Creek and downtown, it simply won't happen.