Jump to content

North Carolina Intercity Rail Transit


Noneck_08

Recommended Posts

national summary at

http://www.fra.dot.g...nger/2243.shtml

SEHSR: http://www.fra.dot.g..._FINAL_1027.pdf

Summary of Corridor Investments

Richmond – Washington, D.C.: Through FY 2010 awards, a $44.3 million grant will fund environmental studies and preliminary engineering for the

Richmond – Washington, D.C. segment of the corridor. is investment will build on prior Recovery Act awards that are supporting the construction

of a new, 11-mile high-speed rail track between Richmond and Washington, D.C. Uupgrades to this route will improve on-time performance and

lay the groundwork for future high-speed rail service in the region.

Charlotte – Raleigh: Through FY 2010 awards, a $22 million grant will help eliminate grade crossings and relocate Charlotte’s rail station to the city’s

central business district. these improvements will reduce congestion, increase transit connectivity, and enhance safety in Charlotte. these investments

build on prior Recovery Act awards that are purchasing and rehabilitating locomotives and cars, upgrading tracks, and improving station facilities.

These projects will increase top speeds to 90 miles per hour and add two additional daily round trips between North Carolina’s two largest cities,

serving three million people.

Raleigh – Richmond: Through FY 2010 awards, a $1.2 million grant will fund the completion of preliminary engineering for a new bridge over the

Appomattox River, which will remove a severe bottleneck on an extremely congested segment of the Southeast Corridor.

---

$68 million in FY 2010 awards will continue laying the groundwork for the long-term vision of the corridor, which will reach top speeds of 110

miles per hour and reduce trip time by one-third between Washington, D.C. and Richmond and between Richmond and Charlotte.

Eventually, the Southeast Corridor is expected to use Atlanta as a regional hub, with connections from Atlanta east to Charlotte, south to Macon and

Jacksonville, north to Nashville and Louisville, and west to Birmingham and New Orleans. Additionally, Virginia is planning for high-speed rail

service between Richmond and Hampton Roads, one of the fastest growing areas in the country.

detailed project description for the $22m is at page 5 of

http://www.fra.dot.g...ojects_1010.pdf

Eliminate eight busy grade crossings, improve safety and reliability on the corridor, and relocate the Charlotte station

to the city’s central business district where it will connect with local transit and a transit-oriented development

community and be in close proximity to a new maintenance facility currently being constructed under the FY09 ARRA

award. Completes an incremental phase of a larger capital program that will improve capacity and reliability and

eventually lead to a fifth intercity passenger rail frequency between Raleigh and Charlotte.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


So the $22 million that NC is receiving gets nowhere close to completely moving Gateway Station downtown or closing 8 grade crossings. Given that it is an 80/20 match, I think it will achieve the first item in the Piedmont 5th Frequency list of projects:

Maybe. But what about project 31a and b, the 7th item, listed as CRISP Northend Phase I, which is about acquiring the ROW to move the ACWR connecting track from Tryon to Graham, and then relocating it?

"CRISP Northend Phase I - Relocate ACWR connecting track in Charlotte and close 8 atgrade crossings."

That's only a $17.6 million project, and closes 8 at grade crossings. The $22 million could be for that and some of the other Charlotte area improvements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make sense, I had just assumed that all the additional capacity on the SEHSR the late night (and slow) train would disappear, I have absolutely no inside information.

I can't imagine the Crescent disappearing when:

1) Virginia just started funding a Lynchburg to DC and beyond train that uses the Crescent tracks, there are towns in Virginia that would want to maintain service, and

2) The Crescent will still be plenty fast for getting from DC to Greensboro and points south, because it's just a straighter path. Right now Washington Union Station to Greensboro is scheduled regularly 7:32 on the Carolinian but 5:45 on the Crescent. Even a fully built out SEHSR will be roughly 5 hours for DC to Greensboro-- the Crescent will be closer in travel time to the SEHSR than the Carolinian is to the Crescent right now. The Greensboro to Charlotte improvements will help the Crescent as well, too.

What I would expect is that some times change under a built out SEHSR. The Silver Star will undoubtedly take the restored S-line to save an hour or two in travel time itself, and I would expect the time savings to be used to make the station times more convenient for Columbia, SC and less so for Raleigh (what with all the other SEHSR trains going Raleigh to DC)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the $22 million that NC is receiving gets nowhere close to completely moving Gateway Station downtown or closing 8 grade crossings. Given that it is an 80/20 match, I think it will achieve the first item in the Piedmont 5th Frequency list of projects:

CRISP - Charlotte Southend Improvements - Wye at Charlotte Junction and NS mainline improvements, including third mainline.

Provides track for turning intercity and high speed trains returning north and capacity for meets and overtakes. Required to meet scheduled departures. Improves safety.

Provides connecting track for trains from Charleston Port track to new Intermodal Facility at Charlotte Airport and use of third mainline

track.

Total cost: $27,935,120 $27,935,120

The 8 grade crossings it's talking about are probably the 8 that will be closed as a result of CRISP once it is complete:

Donald Ross Road (Replaced by Clanton Road extension, unfunded)

Berryhill Road (Redundant crossing closed during 3rd mainline construction - newly funded)

9th Street (CSX/NS grade separation - funded by ARRA)

10th Street (CSX/NS grade separation - funded by ARRA)

N Church Street (CSX/NS grade separation - funded by ARRA)

36th Street (Unfunded)

Craighead Road (Unfunded - included with Sugar Creek grade separation)

Sugar Creek Road (Unfunded)

I am still puzzled about the complete lack of media attention to the double tracking project in Cary and Morrisville. Seems this would warrant an article somewhere, or at least an NCRR press release?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe. But what about project 31a and b, the 7th item, listed as CRISP Northend Phase I, which is about acquiring the ROW to move the ACWR connecting track from Tryon to Graham, and then relocating it?

"CRISP Northend Phase I - Relocate ACWR connecting track in Charlotte and close 8 atgrade crossings."

That's only a $17.6 million project, and closes 8 at grade crossings. The $22 million could be for that and some of the other Charlotte area improvements.

An interesting point, and possible, but I still say unlikely, for one reason: the ACWR relocation wasn't in the $290 million list of projects submitted by NCDOT for this round of funding. The only place I've been able to find that has this list and the costs of each of the components is this News & Observer article:

Here are the new rail projects included in the $290 million request:

Raleigh: Blue Ridge Road grade separation and local closure of Powell Drive (and possibly Beryl / Royal Road) - $55 million.

Lexington: new town station and platform - $15 million.

Charlotte: Gateway Station construction - $38 million.

Charlotte: Gateway Station track improvements including new bridges and modification to existing bridges at 4th, 5th, 6th and Trade streets and Morehead Avenue - $53 million.

Charlotte: Northend grade to separate 36th St. - $30 million.

Charlotte: Northend Sugar Creek Road grade separation and Craighead Road closure - $42 million.

Charlotte: Southend improvements, Wye at Charlotte Junction and Norfolk Southern mainline improvements, including third mainline - $27 million.

Program management - $15 million.

The astute among you will note that this only adds up to $275 million. I suspect that the missing $15 million are for the station in Hillsborough, which was reported to be a part of this project in the NCDOT press release, although I have to admit it's feasible that the missing $15 million could be for the ACWR project.

You will also notice that the third mainline / new wye (project 25) comes at the top of the list under the projects for the 5th Piedmont frequency in the NCDOT's prioritized capital plan. Presumably, the FRA would have read this as meaning "Among the batch of projects necessary for the 5th frequency, this is the top priority." Also, assuming the $22 million is 80% of the cost of the work that is funded, the 20% funded by the state would therefore be $5.5 million, for a total of $27.5 million, which is very close to the estimated cost of $27.9 for the third mainline / wye.

Nonetheless the ACWR relocation is certainly a worthy project, and is also a prerequisite for the blue line extension. I wonder how folks here feel about North Davidson street getting cut off though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will also notice that the third mainline / new wye (project 25) comes at the top of the list under the projects for the 5th Piedmont frequency in the NCDOT's prioritized capital plan. Presumably, the FRA would have read this as meaning "Among the batch of projects necessary for the 5th frequency, this is the top priority."

That's true, but at the same time if you look at the original project master list from August 24, 2009, the ACWR project is actually at the top of the list for the 5h Piedmont frequency list. (Well, getting the ROW for the ACWR project is first, relocation is third.)

The argument against it is that in that same more detailed list, the actual relocation of the ACWR has a later time by which the NEPA documentation would be done.

It's also possible that the FRA simply copied that "8 grade crossings closed" from the ACWR relocation and the entire application package, even if the money isn't sufficient to get to that part. They can say that it's a "phase" towards that. Certainly the FRA hasn't been stopped in the past from touting speed and other benefits beyond what will actually be accomplished with the current money. (Especially when planning is involved; someone who didn't realize what was going on might think that some of these planning projects would actually achieve some of the benefits that they're just figuring out the EIS and PE for.)

Speaking of low priority, the Fetner-Clegg double tracking was the absolutely last item on the prioritized capital plan. I guess perhaps it's more important to the NCRR for freight and possible commuter rail than it is to NCDOT for SEHSR, but it's still interesting that they (according to reports here) chose to fund that first, over some of the Greensboro to Durham H line double tracking mentioned under the 5th frequency section.

Edited by John Thacker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's true, but at the same time if you look at the original project master list from August 24, 2009, the ACWR project is actually at the top of the list for the 5h Piedmont frequency list. (Well, getting the ROW for the ACWR project is first, relocation is third.)

The argument against it is that in that same more detailed list, the actual relocation of the ACWR has a later time by which the NEPA documentation would be done.

It's also possible that the FRA simply copied that "8 grade crossings closed" from the ACWR relocation and the entire application package, even if the money isn't sufficient to get to that part. They can say that it's a "phase" towards that. Certainly the FRA hasn't been stopped in the past from touting speed and other benefits beyond what will actually be accomplished with the current money. (Especially when planning is involved; someone who didn't realize what was going on might think that some of these planning projects would actually achieve some of the benefits that they're just figuring out the EIS and PE for.)

All good points. Who knows what they're going to do. In any case, it won't be too long before NCDOT issues a press release and tells us the scope of the work that this $22 million will fund.

Speaking of low priority, the Fetner-Clegg double tracking was the absolutely last item on the prioritized capital plan. I guess perhaps it's more important to the NCRR for freight and possible commuter rail than it is to NCDOT for SEHSR, but it's still interesting that they (according to reports here) chose to fund that first, over some of the Greensboro to Durham H line double tracking mentioned under the 5th frequency section.

Ha! Good point. Yes, I guess this is probably much more important for freight and commuter rail than it is for high speed rail. I suspect that this is probably the largest segment of new double track between Durham and Raleigh that can be built without significant bridge work.

However, to tell the truth, I'm of the opinion that this project should be done right the first time; I'd rather them hold back on construction to compile money from a few sources, if it means they could also incorporate at least one new grade separation. There are a few places along the line where separations are needed, such as Morrisville-Carpenter Road, Airport Boulevard, and McCrimmon Parkway. Airport Boulevard and McCrimmon Parkway both have extensions planned, so the grade separations could be built then rather than now. But nothing is planned at Morrisville-Carpenter road, and that's the worst offender as far as safety and congestion, so a grade separation there should DEFINITELY be included in this double tracking project.

As for how this could be accomplished, allow me to apply my "armchair engineering" expertise. Since the elevation at Morrisville Carpenter is so low, there's likely no possibility to lower anything. This is right next to Crabtree Creek, which is a primary tributary of the Neuse, so there's no probably nowhere to divert stormwater anywhere nearby. So either the road or the railroad has to be raised. Raising Morrisville Carpenter would be an ugly solution, since it would severely impact the historic railroad village atmosphere and would either involve raising NC54, or constructing an interchange, neither of which is pedestrian friendly or consistent with the village character of Morrisville.

So that basically leaves raising the railroad. This could be done simultaneously with the double tracking, and would also make it possible to widen Morrisville-Carpenter and NC54. I propose three phases:

1. Build a new raised double track alignment to the west of the existing track (set back further from NC54.) The existing track could remain in place during construction, alleviating the need for costly shoofly tracks. Since the Crabtree Creek bridge would need to be replaced to accommodate a second track anyway, just build the new bridge on the new raised alignment, west of the existing bridge.

2. Remove the old tracks when done

3. Widen NC54 into the space formrely occupied by the tracks. Morrisville Carpenter could also be widened too since the grade crossing would be gone.

Given the multi-faceted nature of this project and the number of stakeholders, it could potentially leverage funding from NCRR, NCDOT Rail, NCDOT Highways, as well as the town of Morrisville.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, to tell the truth, I'm of the opinion that this project should be done right the first time; I'd rather them hold back on construction to compile money from a few sources, if it means they could also incorporate at least one new grade separation. There are a few places along the line where separations are needed, such as Morrisville-Carpenter Road, Airport Boulevard, and McCrimmon Parkway. Airport Boulevard and McCrimmon Parkway both have extensions planned, so the grade separations could be built then rather than now. But nothing is planned at Morrisville-Carpenter road, and that's the worst offender as far as safety and congestion, so a grade separation there should DEFINITELY be included in this double tracking project.

Oh, I agree that the Morrisville-Carpenter/Aviation Parkway/NC54 intersection is crazy complicated, but note that in the service development plan track charts NCDOT didn't think that leaving it alone (after last year's changes) would prevent 79mph service, and don't have it marked for a future separation.

I just think it's unlikely, then. After all, when doing the Cox-Hoskins Greensboro-High Point double-tracking, they didn't do the Oakdale Ave and Scientific Street grade separations and curve straightening in Jamestown (which are on the SEHSR capital plan in the last category, unlike Morrisville-Carpenter) at the same time, even while adding the second main track to those crossings. And those changes are necessary to raise from 65mph to 79mph.

And there are other sorely needed grade separations on the track charts, like the two times Ellis Road in Durham crosses the tracks. The western crossing is even worse, because it's in the siding between the D&S Junction and the East Durham rail yard, making for absolutely ridiculous train movements and blockages.

It's nice to do it right, but I think that the incremental upgrade strategy has been pretty effective for NCDOT and NCRR over the last decade, in contrast to those states waiting for the perfect storm of funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the situation in downtown Raleigh, things have been quiet lately. Opposition to NC3 was pretty vocal in five points. The city government and Glenwood South didn't like NC1/2.

A couple alternatives were proposed by members of the public. Notably, one called NC4 seems promising. It calls for abandoning the current CSX alignment, and replacing it with a three-track viaduct about a block further north. It does impact some property, but mostly low density industrial buildings that are "redevelopment fodder" anyway.

20100910_GIS_5_5_degree_viaduct_cropped_773width.jpg

Presumably it's under review by DOT.

This solves the biggest weakness of NC1/2, namely the closing of West and Harrington streets. It leaves one blaring problem, though: the Edgeton Diamond where the CSX and HSR tracks will cross the NS at grade. However, a quick glance at topo maps reveals that this could be grade separated as well. The tracks would wind up a few feet higher at Whitaker Mill Road, making the grade separation there more complicated. Whitaker Mill would probably need to be tunneled under the tracks instead of bridged over it.

Another benefit of this plan is that the street grid between West and Capital could be expanded. If Triangle Transit puts their light rail line elsewhere (such as Salisbury and Wilmington Streets--where it belongs, IMO) the land currently occupied by CSX could then be sold and redeveloped.

I made a google map to give an idea of what would be involved.

3 properties assessed at $1.3 million would probably be needed for the CSX+HSR / NS grade separataion.

10 or 11 properties assessed at $15.7 million would have to be acquired for construction of the viaduct. Several street connections could be achieved with this land alone. (Johnson Street connection, Tucker Street extension to Harrington, and a long curving extension of North Street over the existing CSX bridge to Peace Street). Eliminating the

By acquiring 5 additional properties valued at $5.7 million, the street grid could be completed by extending Lane westward from Harrington to West, and extending Harrington north to Peace.

It's a lot of properties and a lot of money, but IMO worth it for eliminating the grade crossings, and setting the stage for the future development of Glenwood South.

I'll say this, NC4 is by far the best route that has been proposed. While I have never been on board TT's plan to convert its rail line from DMU to LRT, putting part of their route on surface streets like Salisbury and Wilmington would be a good idea because 1) there'd be little conflict among who--Amtrak, CSX, NS, Eastrans, and the future operator of the Jacksonville leg of SEHSR--gets to run their trains on the the rail lines and when and 2) Triangle Transit would complement CAT's R-Line along downtown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think grade separating Morrisville-Carpenter Road is an incremental project, really. If double tracking Clegg to Fetner is a $42 million project, then double tracking it with a grade separation at Morrisville-Carpenter would probably be about a $70 million project. That's a far cry from the $40 billion that California is hoping to spend on their first increment.

I suspect the railroad would probably have to be moved anyway to achieve a meaningful widening of NC54. If you're going to be widening NC54 soon, and therefore moving the tracks soon, and also double tracking soon, and therefore replacing the bridge over Crabtree Creek soon, certainly some savings can be achieved by doing it all at once. Plus, if you eventually want to grade separate Morrisville Carpenter, why do all those things mentioned before only to rip it up and build it all over again in 10 or 20 years, when railroad infrastructure like this is usually built with a design life of 75+ years.

I think I've heard that CAMPO is already moving forward with a traffic separation study for the entire NCRR from the Durham County line to Boylan. So if it takes an extra year to circle the wagons, get the MPO to prioritize the grade separation, and the widenings of NC54 and Morrisville Carpenter Road, therefore getting NCDOT to commit resources, then so be it.

Further armchair analysis.

The NCRR is 340 ft at Morrisville Parkway, -4600 ft from Morrisville Carpenter

There is a nearly constant, slightly less than 1% downward grade from between Morrisville Parkway and Morrisville Carpenter.

The NCRR is 300 ft at Morrisville Carpenter.

There is 1000ft of flat ground followed by a 1% grade for 7000 feet followed by 1000 feet of flat between Morrisville Carpenter and McCrimmon Parkway.

The NCRR is 370 ft at McCrimmon Parkway, +9000 ft from Morrisville Carpenter.

For a railroad elevation of 20 feet above Morrisville Carpenter Road, assuming zero-length vertical curves (a simplifying assumption), and a slope of 1% leading up to the grade separation on either side, that would mean about 1000 feet of new fill to the south of Morrisville Carpenter and 1500 feet to the north. Because of vertical curves assume a fudge factor adding 1000 feet to the total length. That's 3500 feet of fill. Not a small amount of earth to move, but shouldn't cost more than a few tens of millions of dollars to build, and given that there are no other existing roads or grade separations, and only the Crabtree Creek bridge (which needs to be replaced anyway) in the way, seems logical to include this project.

Consider, for example, the Graham to Haw River siding, which includes 2 miles of double tracking, half of which is on a new alignment with plenty of fill (though there are no bridges), is budgeted at just $17 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, reading all the posts here and at the Charltote board leads me to the conclusion that NC applied for $250m+ and got $22m+, but FRA in its annoucnement highlited things that could not all be done for the 22m, e.g. "relocate AMTRAK to Gateway station and remove 8 at grade crossings", that part of the project alone was probably 90m+. So NCDOT will have to pick and choose what to do. I'm going to guess that they emphasize the parts of the project that will complement funding the Red Line project from Gateway north through Huntersivlle to Davidson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll say this, NC4 is by far the best route that has been proposed. While I have never been on board TT's plan to convert its rail line from DMU to LRT, putting part of their route on surface streets like Salisbury and Wilmington would be a good idea because 1) there'd be little conflict among who--Amtrak, CSX, NS, Eastrans, and the future operator of the Jacksonville leg of SEHSR--gets to run their trains on the the rail lines and when and 2) Triangle Transit would complement CAT's R-Line along downtown.

I agree that NC4 is the best alternative, particularly when you look at the side benefits:

1. Grade-separates existing crossings

2. Allows for numerous street extensions in Glenwood South

3. If it's built with three tracks as the proposal shows, it might allow for the NS line to be bypassed entirely in the future, if NS ever moves their yard to somewhere directly on the NCRR. This would then leave tracks on

A combination of commuter rail and LRT will probably be a much better system. For one, the DMU line had way too few stations within Raleigh because it tried to serve both long distance commuters and local transit markets. Except for the two stations downtown, stations were placed every 2 miles along the DMU line. LRT planning seems to indicate a stop spacing of was Planning for the light rail line indicates that there would be a station every half mile from Peace Street to NCSU and every mile outside of that range. For two, a light rail line allows trains to move on-street. The DMU line, stuck in the NCRR corridor, could get no closer than 1/2 mile to the center of downtown. Going to the courthouse? Expect a five-block, half mile walk. The convention center? 8 blocks, 3/4 mile. To that, many people would say "No thanks."

I was reluctant to support on-street LRT at first because I thought it would be too slow, but I guess with full signal priority it wouldn't be too bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think grade separating Morrisville-Carpenter Road is an incremental project, really. If double tracking Clegg to Fetner is a $42 million project, then double tracking it with a grade separation at Morrisville-Carpenter would probably be about a $70 million project. That's a far cry from the $40 billion that California is hoping to spend on their first increment.

Sure, but as I said, the Scientific St. and Oakdale Ave grade separations actually are on the Prioritized Capital plan for a cost of $3.5 and $5 million respectively (and actually costing less in incremental dollars because of the $2 million in federal dollars available for a grade separation), and despite the Cox-Hoskins double track being added to those very intersections, NCDOT and NCRR didn't do the grade separations.

Given that precedent, I think it's unlikely to expect that any grade separations not in the prioritized capital plan be performed right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but as I said, the Scientific St. and Oakdale Ave grade separations actually are on the Prioritized Capital plan for a cost of $3.5 and $5 million respectively (and actually costing less in incremental dollars because of the $2 million in federal dollars available for a grade separation), and despite the Cox-Hoskins double track being added to those very intersections, NCDOT and NCRR didn't do the grade separations.

Given that precedent, I think it's unlikely to expect that any grade separations not in the prioritized capital plan be performed right now.

I do see your point, but there is nothing to be gained by doing the grade separations at Oakdale or Scientific at the same time as the double tracking. It is simple and completely logical to treat them as independent projects. Oakdale and Scientific will require absolutely no modification to the railroad alignment whatsoever. The streets will simply be bridged over the railroad. The work to connect the second track to the gates and flashers and to build the grade crossing for the second track is the only thing that would have to be torn up when the streets are separated at a later date. That work probably totals an absolute maximum of $200,000. No heavy engineering work would have to be re-done.

In the case of Morrisville-Carpenter, simply bridging Morrisville Carpenter over the RR isn't really a satisfactory option because of the proximity to NC54 and the historic center of Morrisville. The impacts to the highway network and to the historic properties probably would be too great. Given that, and also the topography that Morrisville Carpenter road is at a low spot on the railroad, I say that elevating the railroad above the road is the most probable and desirable outcome here.

They will presumably be spending $5 million or more to replace the Crabtree Creek bridge to accommodate a second track. If they build it first on a vertical alignment that retains the grade crossing at Morrisville-Carpenter, they will have to tear up and rebuild it on a different vertical alignment in the future in order to raise the railroad over the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I count well over $3 billion in HSR I and II grant money (not counting the $3 billion in federal ARC tunnel cash) that was spent in states that now have governors who have campaigned on a pledge to not spend state money on HSR. Since HSR II had the requirement of a 20% state match (if memory serves) then a substantial portion of this $3 billion should be coming back to the federal govt (unless the local match rules are relaxed). For example:

Florida: $2 billion. Governor elect pledged not to spend any state money on HSR. Tampa transit tax initiative failed as well (removing some last mile service from one end of the line)

Ohio: $400 million Governor elect pledged to return the money to the federal government -- does not support train.

Wisconsin: $822 million Governor elect campaigned against HSR and seeks to use the money for roads (would require congressional action). Current office holder has moved to sign construction contracts making termination of the program more difficult. This will be a battle.

Meanwhile North Carolina has plenty of nearly shovel ready projects on its state owned (and revenue generating) line. How can the state position itself to attract some of the money that will (almost certainly) be coming back to the federal agency which granted it?

Edited by kermit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The results of this election raises a different question in my mind. With the Republicans now in control of both houses of the NC legislature, what will happen with state-level spending on public transportation and passenger rail here in NC? We have a $4 billion deficit going into next year, and it's extremely unlikely that taxes will be raised to fill any of that gap. Passenger rail and transit have historically been one of the GOP's big targets for cuts. While historically, support for passenger rail in NC has been somewhat bipartisan (North Carolina's state funded Amtrak routes started while Martin was governor, and the 2008 Republican candidate, McCrory, was also a supporter of transit and rail) there's no guarantee that that's how the political landscape will fall this time.

Could the legislature defund the operations of the Carolinian and Piedmont? Sell off NC's rolling stock? Sell the NCRR to the highest bidder? Who knows. Not likely it will go that far, but you can bet that the state government in NC will become at least somewhat less friendly to passenger rail and transit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ I don't disagree with your more sober characterization of local politics for NC HSR. I was mostly wondering if the state match for (potential future) grants might come from some investments that are already in place (such as the Cary double tracking discussed above) and the NCRR (semi-public) revenue stream. Perhaps the unusual fiscal status of the state-owned NCRR could allow NC rail projects to be a bit less politically controversial than projects in other states. I will admit that I am stretching to be optimistic about the new political landscape.

Mary Newsome of the Charlotte Observer has a little information on NC rail and the legislative shift from Patrick Simmons here: http://marynewsom.blogspot.com/2010/11/high-speed-rail-plans-going-off-track.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile North Carolina has plenty of nearly shovel ready projects on its state owned (and revenue generating) line. How can the state position itself to attract some of the money that will (almost certainly) be coming back to the federal agency which granted it?

The new House Transportation Committee chairman Rep. John Mica (R-FL) is relatively pro-rail (especially for a Republican), but he's been an enormous critic of the HSR selections made so far, because he thinks that money should be going to areas with high density that can support rail-- specifically the NEC but possibly also CA. He's been very down on the Midwestern and other grants that he thinks are wasting lots of money for incremental upgrades routes that still won't be competitive with rail-- and he puts the Orlando to Tampa route in his own state in that same basket, though he thinks a "Orlando Airport to the theme parks" HSR would be profitable. He has spoken favorably in the past of upgrading a connection from the NEC down the East Coast to Florida, though.

What that means for NC is SEHSR really needs to sell the point of the synergy of connecting into the NEC. Remember that the SEHSR documents don't really show the Raleigh to Charlotte line being profitable until the full SEHSR is restored with the S-line and the service on it. Nor do the Raleigh to Charlotte upgrades look on the surface like they're providing a lot of bang for the buck, either. Sure, those capacity improvements are necessary, but compared to the speed increases for the state-funded improvements it doesn't have the wow factor. The trains are 35+ minutes faster since 2001 with the state spending on low-hanging fruit, but the $600+ million in federal spending doesn't seem to outside observers like it's getting that much. What we need to sell is the fact that once the full SEHSR is up and running, it's more profitable than any of the other HSR corridors (outside the NEC), according to the FRA. Give us all that Ohio and Wisconsin money, and instead of spending money on three or four money-losing routes, the Feds will have invested in one profitable route.

North Carolina also needs to sell the point that the state has been willing to put its own money on the line for improvements in a way that other states have not. A lot of those states talking about returning money are the ones that only applied for "free" Phase I money, where no match was required.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's keep in mind 2 things:

(1) The GOP ran Congress from 1995 until 2007 (with 2001-2007 also with a very anti-Amtrak GOP President)- during which time the Acela Express was started, Amtrak got some pretty large grants in the early 2000s and other good things happened to Amtrak. Amtrak also survived 1981-1987, with a GOP President and Senate. Conversely, Amtrak's worst year ever, 1979, was during an era of a Democratic President and Congress.

Basically, the GOP has a track record of coexisting with Amtrak; a GOP Congress doesn't necessarily mean cuts. Nor does a Democratic government mean Amtrak growth.

(2) Transit grants from the Federal government (such as for LYNX) are doled out to projects that meet very strict cost and benefit criteria; there are formulae that projects have to meet (such as for additional ridership per amount invested) and the like that lead to "good"/effective projects getting funded, but other less-beneficial programs not getting funded. (And transit fared very well under the last GOP Congress, with its funding increased dramatically.)

Conversely, the initial Obama HSR grants were doled out without regard to economic cost/benefit calculations [ETA: although some lines would probably have meet economic benefit criteria, if there were any]. Heavily "blue" states in the Northeast [ETA: which will go for Obama in 2012 without question] got very little, even though investment in the Northeast Corridor would have been very beneficial. Swing states [ETA: like Florida] got lots of HSR grants. Heavily red states (Texas, Georgia, etc.) got very little.

If government funds HSR like Obama did with his initial grants, allocated on the basis of political calculation rather than economic calculation, investments in HSR will be poorly-allocated- yielding trains that will be great targets for anti-transit advocates [ETA: and could do significant damage to long-term transit prospects, if the program is seen as just a means to allocate political favors]. Is that what we want? Surely not, and the GOP will not go for that.

Edited by mallguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

LaHood is indicating that NC is likely to get some more HSR money redirected from Wisconsin and Ohio. This is an additional $1.2 billion.

I'm hoping that we'll get at least another $72 million, which would be enough when combined with a 20% NCDOT match to build Gateway Station in Charlotte and all the track/bridge improvements required to move the station downtown. That's a fairly modest investment that would yield big returns as far as passenger convenience.

It's certainly possible that we'll get less than this, and I guess it's also possible that we'll get more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LaHood is indicating that NC is likely to get some more HSR money redirected from Wisconsin and Ohio. This is an additional $1.2 billion.

I'm hoping that we'll get at least another $72 million, which would be enough when combined with a 20% NCDOT match to build Gateway Station in Charlotte and all the track/bridge improvements required to move the station downtown. That's a fairly modest investment that would yield big returns as far as passenger convenience.

It's certainly possible that we'll get less than this, and I guess it's also possible that we'll get more.

How much is required to do something with the Raleigh station? I mean, it's the busiest station in the system with the smallest parking lot and interior space. I know the Union Station idea is still in the planning stage, but I for one am not impressed with the current design and think it should be a multi-platform, multi-layer station that's connect on all three sides of the wye..

But alas, any money is good money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much is required to do something with the Raleigh station? I mean, it's the busiest station in the system with the smallest parking lot and interior space. I know the Union Station idea is still in the planning stage, but I for one am not impressed with the current design and think it should be a multi-platform, multi-layer station that's connect on all three sides of the wye..

But alas, any money is good money.

This (reallocation) is great news. I eagerly await the announcement.

Just out of curiosity. Has the creation of station pull-out tracks and high platforms (on the new sidings not the mainline) ever appeared on any improvement lists for the NCRR?

I have no doubt it would be ridiculously expensive (if not logistically impossible in a few locations) but it sure would speed up all kinds of pax service (like future commuter rail)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding high platforms, that's a really good question. I agree that platforms in NC should be high level, for compatibility with the NEC. Looking at the track layout for Gateway Station in Charlotte, I would say that high platforms are definitely possible there since freight will have two dedicated bypass tracks. However, given that every other station has already been built with low platforms (including elevators and/or escalators in High Point and Greensboro) the cost of upgrading to high platforms might be prohibitive. The benefits of having high platforms only at Charlotte, which is mostly a terminus station anyway, are dubious.

There is a recent ADA requirement for level boarding for the entire length of the platforms now, though, so that might change things.

A more likely outcome is that NCDOT would use bi-level cars that enable level boarding at both high and low platforms.

Regarding the redirected funds, my first wish is $90 million for NC to serve downtown Charlotte. After that, I actually hope Virginia gets a big chunk of the rest, for improvements in the Richmond/Petersburg area. First priority is the Acca Yard Bypass. Next is the northern approach to Main Street Station. Third is the new Appomattox River bridge in Petersburg. Last is the southern approach to Main Street Station so all trains can stop there. All told that would probably account for at least half the available funds, probably more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For high-level platforms- I always thought that the point of them was to speed up boarding at highly-used stations, mainly to speed up train trip times. There are some commuter lines around NYC that don't even have them- at least 2 NJ Transit lines and one Metro-North branch that I've been on don't have them. Seems like the best use of funds for building high-level platforms would be for commuter lines like those- and the proposed CATS commuter line.

Similarly, has any NC passenger rail line proposed electrification- such as the CATS commuter train line? That allows trains to accelerate faster, saving time, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LaHood is indicating that NC is likely to get some more HSR money redirected from Wisconsin and Ohio. This is an additional $1.2 billion.

I'm hoping that we'll get at least another $72 million, which would be enough when combined with a 20% NCDOT match to build Gateway Station in Charlotte and all the track/bridge improvements required to move the station downtown. That's a fairly modest investment that would yield big returns as far as passenger convenience.

It's certainly possible that we'll get less than this, and I guess it's also possible that we'll get more.

So I really don't like pulling information from overtly political sites but I stumbled across this interesting tidbit on an anti-HSR article at real clear politics:

On Wednesday, he {LaHood] got Charlotte, N.C., all excited about reallocated rail money. It turns out he was talking about other cash North Carolina already got, but for the purposes of making Wisconsin voters feel regret, it worked for a while.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/19/trains_of_the_future_politics_of_the_kennel_108006.html

This is the first I have heard about this "other cash we already recieved" business. Anyone have some insight here?

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.