CATS Long Term Transit Plan - Silver, Red Lines

[Seaboard Fellow]

2 hours ago, kermit said:

Part 1:

 

 

Part 2:

In other words, freight traffic and passenger traffic must be dispatched together.  There will be no passenger only operating windows if commuter rail is allowed. With the appropriate track and signal infrastructure improvements I don’t see this as an issue. This arrangement is not uncommon.  

Edited February 9, 2021 by Seaboard Fellow

[BarrenLucidity]

6 hours ago, Seaboard Fellow said:

In other words, freight traffic and passenger traffic must be dispatched together.  There will be no passenger only operating windows if commuter rail is allowed. With the appropriate track and signal infrastructure improvements I don’t see this as an issue. This arrangement is not uncommon.  

Yeah, right of way and freight bypass of stations occurs all over PA, NJ, NY, CT, etc. No reason it wouldn't work here. I can't see the red line operating more than every 20 minutes during the busiest of times so plenty of wiggle room.

[Hushpuppy321]

On 2/8/2021 at 11:10 PM, Seaboard Fellow said:

In other words, freight traffic and passenger traffic must be dispatched together.  There will be no passenger only operating windows if commuter rail is allowed. With the appropriate track and signal infrastructure improvements I don’t see this as an issue. This arrangement is not uncommon.  

Its so frustrating because CATS lays parallel Track for Regional/Commuter Rail & Stations at their own cost, I don't understand NS resistance to sharing their ROW

[ChessieCat]

On 2/8/2021 at 8:48 PM, kermit said:

Part 1:

 

 

Part 2:

I think what NS really wants is double-trackage along the old AT&O corridor (Red Line) from Gateway to Mooresville, and all of it paid for with tax dollars.  Whether ridership can justify the price tag is another story...

Edited February 11, 2021 by ChessieCat

[kermit]

4 minutes ago, Hushpuppy321 said:

Its so frustrating because CATS lays parallel Track for Regional/Commuter Rail & Stations at their own cost, I don't understand NS resistance to sharing their ROW

1) The ROW is constrained and quite narrow in places. As I understand it there are quite a few encroachments in North Meck and many of them will be tricky to resolve.

2) NS's current lease on the NCRR ends in 23 years. They need to be able to _pretend_ that they can return the O-Line route to mainline status so they can have some leverage when they negotiate their new lease agreement with the NCRR. Nobody who understands Class 1 railroad operations sees the O-Line as a viable replacement to the NCRR (there are very urban sections through North Meck and Winston) but the negotiations will have a political component to them.

4 minutes ago, ChessieCat said:

I think what NS really wants is double-trackage along the old AT&O corridor (Red Line) from Gateway to Mooresville, and all of it paid for with tax dollars.  Whether ridership can justify the price tag is another story...

I am not even sure that double track would be enough for NS. I think they want to act like the O-Line has as much potential capacity as the NCRR, if they commit to 20 (or whatever) number of commuter trains per day then that becomes a tougher sell.

I suspect that CATS has found some political connections that have brought the NCRR into the discussion about the Red Line. Perhaps CATS has found a way to encourage the NCRR and NS to renegotiate the current lease which might allow NS to relax about the O-Line.

[tozmervo]

The silver line "open house" has been updated with the locally preferred alternatives. You can view the route in quite a bit more detail and, as always, leave feedback. This is in addition to the upcoming virtual meetings on each focus area. 

Projects & Transit Planning > Silver Line (charlottenc.gov)

 

[ChessieCat]

18 hours ago, kermit said:

1) The ROW is constrained and quite narrow in places. As I understand it there are quite a few encroachments in North Meck and many of them will be tricky to resolve.

2) NS's current lease on the NCRR ends in 23 years. They need to be able to _pretend_ that they can return the O-Line route to mainline status so they can have some leverage when they negotiate their new lease agreement with the NCRR. Nobody who understands Class 1 railroad operations sees the O-Line as a viable replacement to the NCRR (there are very urban sections through North Meck and Winston) but the negotiations will have a political component to them.

I am not even sure that double track would be enough for NS. I think they want to act like the O-Line has as much potential capacity as the NCRR, if they commit to 20 (or whatever) number of commuter trains per day then that becomes a tougher sell.

I suspect that CATS has found some political connections that have brought the NCRR into the discussion about the Red Line. Perhaps CATS has found a way to encourage the NCRR and NS to renegotiate the current lease which might allow NS to relax about the O-Line.

NCRR's double-tracking years ago was one of their best moves and maybe it is them who is pushing NS to the table.

NS's shutoff of the O-line at Cornelius along with the abandonment between NGK Ceramics and Statesville decades ago is sad.

Edited February 12, 2021 by ChessieCat

[Seaboard Fellow]

Simple solution here, NS leases the line out to CATS or NCDOT. NS retains exclusive freight trackage rights. CATS or NCDOT takes on all maintenance and liability for the leased line. The line is upgraded with long sidings and double track where appropriate. NCDOT or CATS eliminate unsafe and redundant road crossings. NCDOT or CATS fund the necessary PTC upgrades. NS retains all longitudinal utility leases.  
 

A 50 year renewable lease under these conditions is more than reasonable. NCDOT (and NCRR) is already geared to work with local governments to add new freight rail customers. This arrangement would be a win-win. 

Edited February 13, 2021 by Seaboard Fellow

[tozmervo]

4 minutes ago, Seaboard Fellow said:

Simple solution here, NS leases the line out to CATS or NCDOT. NS retains exclusive freight trackage rights. CATS or NCDOT takes on all maintenance and liability for the leased line. The line is upgraded with long sidings and double track where appropriate. NCDOT or CATS eliminate unsafe and redundant road crossings. NCDOT or CATS fund the necessary PTC upgrades. NS retains all longitudinal utility leases.  

I have no interest in public money being used in that way, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to greatly improve a rail line that someone else owns outright.

[tozmervo]

SUMMER. 

Mark it on your calendar. 

That's when Half Life 3 comes out. 

No wait, I mean a CATS real-time app AND fully functioning mobile payment-pass app. They should both hit the app stores at the same time in June-July. The functionality should be similar to Dallas's DART Go Pass app. There will be two apps for a period of time, but their road map is to roll it together into one app as soon as some back-of-house work is complete (should be a period of months, not years). Go Pass uses Google Maps as it's backbone - yes, that means CATS should be pushing real-time bus and train location info into Google Maps. The road map also includes last-mile integration with car and bike share apps. 

You will note how many times I said "should," as in, "this should have happened years ago." 

[Nick2]

On 2/9/2021 at 5:56 AM, BarrenLucidity said:

Yeah, right of way and freight bypass of stations occurs all over PA, NJ, NY, CT, etc. No reason it wouldn't work here. I can't see the red line operating more than every 20 minutes during the busiest of times so plenty of wiggle room.

That's a great point. But I've done a case study on the rail system of Chicago where all 8 of the biggest rail cargo operators in the USA and Canada have lines going through. They have to wait for passenger rail because it takes precedence over them. It will be extremely expensive to fix but they're planning on bypassing the city altogether for thru freight traffic because it's collectively costing the industry billions of dollars each year in increased wait times due to them having to bow to the passenger rail.

That's why NS is so against sharing rail and if they do, they'll definitely stipulate that the red line would have to form its schedule around the freight moving on the lines or they just have to double line it.

[Nathan2]

Anyone else feel like there is a big gap in the first ward area of uptown on the silver line alignment? The 11th street and 10th street areas have a lot of housing that won't really be within walking distance of a station. It would be a shame to leave that whole area out.

[TCLT]

Anyone else feel like there is a big gap in the first ward area of uptown on the silver line alignment? The 11th street and 10th street areas have a lot of housing that won't really be within walking distance of a station. It would be a shame to leave that whole area out.

Agreed! I think there needs to be a station at McDowell and 10th. Would serve that side of first ward and the developments around Seigle.

[Hushpuppy321]

Been studying the Portland Lightrail, Streetcar & Aerial Tram System.  They are\were incredibly forward thinking when it comes to transportation.  

[ChessieCat]

45 minutes ago, Hushpuppy321 said:

Been studying the Portland Lightrail, Streetcar & Aerial Tram System.  They are\were incredibly forward thinking when it comes to transportation.  

The great thing is Portland didn't wait for the established Railroads to play ball in order to build their network.  They followed the phrase of their most famous apparel company, "JUST DO IT"!!!

[KJHburg]

Atlanta moving forward with Bus Rapid Transit lines first intown then out  south to Clayton County.  Still think Charlotte needs to do more BRT it is cheaper and can be built out quicker.  

MARTA moves forward on new bus rapid transit line (ajc.com)

[orulz]

Freight trains that do not stop, roughly match the average speed of a passenger train that stops every few miles. If you have a passenger train that tops out at 60mph but makes a stop every 2 or 3 miles, its average speed might wind up as 30 or 35mph.

Places that are competent at operating trains take advantage of this quite often, even in the context of passenger trains running on a frequent clockface schedule. Saw it all the time on the Sanyo Main Line when I lived in Hiroshima, which has 15 minute mid-day frequency.

JR East even does this through Shinjuku, the busiest train station in the world (by passenger count), on a double-track line with no bypass tracks or sidings. They don't do this at rush hour (when the schedule has over 20 passenger trains per hour) but they do manage to thread them through in the 5-6 minute gaps during the midday period when they are running 12 trains per hour.

The video below shows a four-track line - but it's actually operated as two independent two-track lines: The Yamanote Line (which is a dedicated, passenger-only loop line) and the Yamanote Freight Line (which is the one I'm talking about, which shares its tracks with the Saikyo and Shonan-Shinjuku passenger lines).

Now doing this requires upgraded infrastructure such as very short signal blocks and electrification so the passenger trains can accelerate quickly, as well as years of work optimizing and refining schedules and operating procedures. But what's needed on the O-line is nowhere near the level of precision necessary to thread freight trains into 5 minute gaps between passenger trains. The idea that dedicated tracks are needed in order to allow freight operations to continue on a potentially double-tracked O-line in spite of the interference caused by a passenger train running every half-hour or so is just positively laughable.

 

 

[kermit]

So while CATS is in the process of planning an airport route that avoids airport property, this change of heart from the FAA on allowed uses of passenger facilities charges (PFCs) comes out....

 

I am certainly no expert but I believe this means that, if CLT wanted to, they could contribute to the costs of CATS owned tracks running on and through (on to Gaston county) airport property. (I am not saying they would want to, or that a reroute of the Silver onto the airport property would be better, just that it now appears to be kosher)

Edited February 18, 2021 by kermit

[JeanClt]

So while CATS is in the process of planning an airport route that avoids airport property this change of heart from the FAA on allowed uses of passenger facilities funds comes out....
 
I am certainly no expert but I believe this means that, if CLT wanted to, they could contribute to the costs of CATS owned tracks running on and through (on to Gaston county) airport property. (I am not saying they would want to, or that a reroute of the Silver onto the airport property would be better, just that it now appears to be kosher)

Are you refering to something like this?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DEnd]

12 hours ago, kermit said:

I am certainly no expert but I believe this means that, if CLT wanted to, they could contribute to the costs of CATS owned tracks running on and through (on to Gaston county) airport property. (I am not saying they would want to, or that a reroute of the Silver onto the airport property would be better, just that it now appears to be kosher)

I would think that they would need to actually service the airport, not just run stops adjacent to it.  But yeah, it's mostly just a removal of a regulatory obstacle so that two governmental agencies or companies can work more closely together.  While the above example might not be deemed kosher something like this might be.  While my example probably isn't ideal from a commuter point of view, CLT could use it to basically double the number of trains going by their parking spots, basically allowing CLT to say well this is what we were going to spend on people movers and busses to those lots so we'll give CATS that money in exchange for their trains to hit these stops.  

[tozmervo]

My chief concern with a route like that is it dedicates an enormous length of the line to a single purpose: airport service. The opportunity with the Little Rock Road station is that you get airport service AND access to local bus routes, redevelopment at the airport gateway, etc.

Unless they could put the light rail station right at the terminal, there will always be some kind of people-mover connector necessary - once you have that element, there's no point in forcing the station to be in the middle of the airport parking decks. 

[tozmervo]

Also, think how cool this bridge could be as a gateway when you're arriving in to Charlotte. (Little Rock station is the white dot to the left)

[#1Son]

@tozmervo beat me to the punch. The airport owns the majority of the property along Little Rock and Wilkinson already and the long term plan is to develop that as a gateway to the airport, so the remaining land will be purchased sooner or later.  Shifting the light rail station closer to the terminal makes developing that area more difficult imo.  

[Seaboard Fellow]

9 hours ago, tozmervo said:

Also, think how cool this bridge could be as a gateway when you're arriving in to Charlotte. (Little Rock station is the white dot to the left)

I agree with you. If the station isn’t at the terminal there are not many benefits to moving the station away from the Wilkerson Blvd alignment. The airport gateway has tons of potential and light rail can certainly act as a catalyst with good planning. 
 

One unknown factor is whether the People Mover frequency provides an attractive connection to light rail. I’ve seen long headways at various airports. 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Seaboard Fellow

[ertley]

22 hours ago, Seaboard Fellow said:

I agree with you. If the station isn’t at the terminal there are not many benefits to moving the station away from the Wilkerson Blvd alignment. The airport gateway has tons of potential and light rail can certainly act as a catalyst with good planning. 

At first I wasn't sure, but now I think moving the line back down to be fully aligned with Wilkinson is the smartest move, because, most immediately, it shortens the length (distance and thus obvs time) for people to be on the 'people mover', and the only city street the airport will have to construct a bridge or tunnel across is Wilkinson. It looks to me like the old right of way from the now disused secondary car rental avenue would be preserved for the people mover's entrance to the airport. This places the station a more equitable distance between its two primary areas of service, and simply means the locus of the new airport district development, its tallest, most dense elements, will be lower, focused on Wilkinson and North Josh Birmingham, rather than closer to 85, which is also probably better.

But I also think having the Silver Line aligned right by Wilkinson will inhibit intensive development--e.g. big box stores, etc.--directly on the boulevard where it's present (I realize the rail line shifts to the median as you go east and then goes a block south of the street), and instead focus development on the adjacent blocks, encouraging TOD characteristics within them, of course including the airport's planned new district. I also think it will help minimize (as much as that will be possible) Wilkinson's congestion, if drivers are having to turn off Wilkinson to secondary streets to get to their destinations, helping keep Wilkinson more of a thoroughfare at least to the west of Boyer.