Raleigh Union Station

[ChiefJoJo]

Everything is sort of up in the air until SEHSR and rail transit get reasonably set in stone in terms of their respective station locations. There isn't much point to establishing a center for all modes if the inter-city & intra-city rail & bus facilities are not set. I think everyone agrees on two things: (1) The MTC will be located somewhere in the Wye area, and (2) the blocks surrounding the Wye in the Warehouse District will eventually be redeveloped at higher densities such that development at a "downtown scale" is extended westward.

[orulz]

Back to the subject of grade crossings in Downtown Raleigh and environs. SEHSR has now posted track charts for the entire line, Richmond to Raleigh, and it gives you an idea of what they'd like to do about grade crossings.

There are basically 2 alternatives in play.

1. CSX route. SEHSR proposes to close both Harrington and West, while bridging Jones and Hargett over the tracks.
   
2. NS route. SEHSR proposes to close Fairview (near five points), Jones, and Hargett.
   

In either case, the only other closure planned in Raleigh is at Wolfpack Lane.

First off, I doubt they'll give a single inch on allowing grade crossings. If they allow a single grade crossing in Raleigh, even so close to a station where trains will be slow, and in such a dense urban area, that will opens the floodgates for all the podunk towns and villages along the line to fight the proposed crossing closures that really are essential to the line.

For the NS route:

I can see why they have to close Jones. Not ideal, but understandable, and doesn't hurt things too badly given that the crossings at Hillsborough and North will remain open. I'd at least like to see a pedestrian connection at either Jones or Lane though.

As for Fairview and Hargett, I think it's ridiculous that they couldn't come up with a solution for building a grade separations there. Seems to me that there is plenty of space, and both are essential for connectivity.

For the CSX route

I still don't see why they have to close West, though Harrington I can understand. I suspect that if they sacrifice their engineering standards slightly, allowing 10% grades instead of 8%, or allowing somewhat greater vertical curvature, West could be tunneled under the tracks safely without modifying North Street at all. Bear in mind that West Street already has a 10% grade at its steepest point, and there are a number of places downtown that even steeper than that.

I'd like to see their design for the overpass at Jones. If it's what I expect, it would actually start at Boylan, bridge over Glenwood AND the tracks, and come back down somewhere past Harrington. If they can keep West open as I suggest above, I'd rather they just closed Jones to vehicles (opting for a less intrusive pedestrian over/underpass instead) rather than building such a monstrosity.

[Jones_]

Back to the subject of grade crossings in Downtown Raleigh and environs. SEHSR has now posted track charts for the entire line, Richmond to Raleigh, and it gives you an idea of what they'd like to do about grade crossings.

There are basically 2 alternatives in play.

1. CSX route. SEHSR proposes to close both Harrington and West, while bridging Jones and Hargett over the tracks.
   
2. NS route. SEHSR proposes to close Fairview (near five points), Jones, and Hargett.
   

Forgive my cluelessness but does bridging the rail over the road or the road over the rail? At Jones I am concerned about impact to existing structures and pedestrian environment in either case. Closing both Harrington and West is a horrible blow to the area regarding connectivity, as I have noted earlier, the area is already barely connected to the rest of downtown. As Fayetteville Street demonstrates, road access and the ability of an area to develop in any manner are closely tied. We can theorize about carless communities or the ideals of massive density that could exist here, but high speed rail impacts through a community can be as disruptive as an interstate or 4-lane expansion of an existing road. I believe both scenarios ignore impacts to livability intra-city while trying to improve livability inter-city.

[Spatula]

Seems like the only real alternative is to make the tracks completely subterranean. Otherwise they're too disruptive to the connectivity of downtown. (or completely elevated, whichever one is easier to engineer.)

I'm of the opinion that Jones is the most important connection there, and I'd be willing to lose anything else in order to keep it.

I'd also point out that one business will have to relocate because its entrance is directly over the tracks. This building happens to sit directly over a closed street (Lane st), which could be reopened as a bridge if the grade were lowered to protect Jones, or it could be connected to West underneath the tracks if we ditched Jones to protect West. Either way, it does appear we could gain a street connection because of this, so it's not entirely a bad thing that we have to separate the grades for all these streets.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Spatula

[ChiefJoJo]

To see an example of what type of facility could be in our future, albeit probably larger, and with more modes served, take a look at the Tempe Transit Center. There's a lot to like here...

[kdub1]

On the options through Raleigh:

SEHSR Alternative 1

I have mixed feelings on this option. While the route stays on the CSX S-Line the entire time it's in Raleigh, the two platform solution sets up its own benefits and drawbacks.

Benefits: Having separate platforms can reduce congestion that would otherwise be caused by HSR, Amtrak, freight, or regional trains. For a through track station, two different areas for boarding would be an innovative concept.

Drawbacks: The platforms are about 1

Edited June 18, 2009 by kdub1

[orulz]

I have to say that I'm not a big fan of any of the plans.

The big reason is that, other than the plan with two platforms a mile and a half apart, which as you correctly point out has its own drawbacks, all the plans call for only one platform. I mean seriously - one platform? With all that land? The boylan wye is HUGE, so they can't possibly think that one platform is enough to accommodate all the passenger rail that will serve Raleigh for the next 50+ years.

I guess that maybe they are just planning to build the minimum needed for SEHSR and leave the rest of the station to some other project, but they clearly need to plan ahead for expansion. A poorly placed platform or column or whatever could throw a wrench in the whole plan for a multimodal center.

How big do these platforms need to be? The platforms in Greensboro are about 40 x 1200 feet. That seems maybe a bit excessive to me but let's go with that for now. Here's a diagram of what could be done. Four platforms each 1200 feet long:

2 platforms 4 tracks for the SEHSR/Silver Star route

1 platform 2 tracks for the Carolinian / NCRR commuter route

1 platform 2 tracks for the Eastrans route.

This plan would probably require rebuilding the Morgan Street bridge (which was built just 10 years ago) but I don't see that as a big deal.

[DwnTwnRaleighGuy]

I have to say that I'm not a big fan of any of the plans.

The big reason is that, other than the plan with two platforms a mile and a half apart, which as you correctly point out has its own drawbacks, all the plans call for only one platform. I mean seriously - one platform? With all that land? The boylan wye is HUGE, so they can't possibly think that one platform is enough to accommodate all the passenger rail that will serve Raleigh for the next 50+ years.

I guess that maybe they are just planning to build the minimum needed for SEHSR and leave the rest of the station to some other project, but they clearly need to plan ahead for expansion. A poorly placed platform or column or whatever could throw a wrench in the whole plan for a multimodal center.

How big do these platforms need to be? The platforms in Greensboro are about 40 x 1200 feet. That seems maybe a bit excessive to me but let's go with that for now. Here's a diagram of what could be done. Four platforms each 1200 feet long:

2 platforms 4 tracks for the SEHSR/Silver Star route

1 platform 2 tracks for the Carolinian / NCRR commuter route

1 platform 2 tracks for the Eastrans route.

This plan would probably require rebuilding the Morgan Street bridge (which was built just 10 years ago) but I don't see that as a big deal.

In this picture, are you building a new Hargett st? Looks like a new bridge over the old Hargett st which sounds wonderful!

[orulz]

In this picture, are you building a new Hargett st? Looks like a new bridge over the old Hargett st which sounds wonderful!

Yeah. Since all the platforms span Hargett, the options are either to close the street or turn it into a bridge. I chose bridging it.

Maybe one of these days when I have a spare day or two (which realistically won't happen) I'll draw this up in 3d on Sketchup.

[DwnTwnRaleighGuy]

Yeah. Since all the platforms span Hargett, the options are either to close the street or turn it into a bridge. I chose bridging it.

Maybe one of these days when I have a spare day or two (which realistically won't happen) I'll draw this up in 3d on Sketchup.

Great, thank you!

Please, please, please do a Sketchup!!! I am so ready for the HDR Group to release something!!!!

Do you foresee Raleigh closing a lot of streets, rather than building bridges or going underground? I was wondering, considering all of the possible,(now and future), heavy-rail lines, light-rail lines that may be needed.

I just think that the local lawmakers are more likely to close a road/save money then to build what makes sense and also happens to look good and work well,(imagine that)!

[orulz]

Here are some quick, incomplete sketchup renderings. I used this as an opportunity to learn sketchup since I'd never used it before.

This is mostly to show how much space there is in the Wye, and how it would be a complete, ridiculous waste to put ONE platform there and say "SCREW IT that's all we can do!"

I didn't draw the light rail line (don't know how to go below the terrain yet), but I did leave space for it. You will notice that the ramps to the new Hargett bridge seem a little steep. Firstly, I did not make it a smooth climb as that would have taken forever. Secondly, the topography is such that the slopes will be more gradual. But I couldn't figure that out in Sketchup.

[beyonce245]

Is all of this just speculation or have they finalized plans? How much will it cost?

[Jones_]

I think thats a pretty slick drawing and represents a useful buildout of the wye.

[Gard]

Is all of this just speculation or have they finalized plans? How much will it cost?

Speculation. Nothing is finalized yet. Orulz created the drawings you see.

[orulz]

Is all of this just speculation or have they finalized plans? How much will it cost?

This is pure speculation. This is a rendering that I came up with off the top of my head, with the intention of (as I said before) proving that space absolutely is not a constraint when designing a station for the Wye area.

Some issues that may complicate things:

-Do the platforms as I drew them curve too sharply? (but then, look at Selma...)

-Where to fit the buses? (Would it be possible to get them to access the middle of the wye? Should they be elsewhere?

-How to accommodate for mixed use development? Just build the station and say "we can deck over it later"? Or should the whole station complex be a big public/private partnership from the outsed? In either case, would the configuration need to change?

-What about parking?

[kdub1]

This is pure speculation. This is a rendering that I came up with off the top of my head, with the intention of (as I said before) proving that space absolutely is not a constraint when designing a station for the Wye area.

Some issues that may complicate things:

-Do the platforms as I drew them curve too sharply? (but then, look at Selma...)

-Where to fit the buses? (Would it be possible to get them to access the middle of the wye? Should they be elsewhere?

-How to accommodate for mixed use development? Just build the station and say "we can deck over it later"? Or should the whole station complex be a big public/private partnership from the outsed? In either case, would the configuration need to change?

-What about parking?

Good plan there, at least that plan utilizes the Wye correctly.

For the first question, maybe passing tracks would be needed for freight trains on the NCRR side. As far as sharpness, maybe it's the right degree curve. The HSR side, the Norfolk Southern NS-Line would have to be changed a bit to avoid conflict with other trains.

Secondly, I would think that the buses would fit inside the Wye on Martin Street.

Not sure how to answer the third question. For the final question, turn Glenwood at Morgan or Morgan at West into a parking deck for trains and development. Parking for buses would be handled on Martin with a kiss and ride for Greyhound, Triangle Transit, and special CAT services.

I just think that the local lawmakers are more likely to close a road/save money then to build what makes sense and also happens to look good and work well,(imagine that)!

I have never gotten the cheap nature of this city. I'm not saying burn money on needless things, but it wouldn't hurt them to at least beautify this city up a bit. The entire time I was in college, signs at traffic lights (unless I looked on the side of the intersections) were hard to come by, and some of those lights looked as though they were from the 1970s.

Edited June 20, 2009 by kdub1

[vitaviatic]

I have never gotten the cheap nature of this city.

Amen to that one. My complaint for a long time. Before I go off on my rant here, Orulz, I really do hope to see your plans, or some logical derivation thereof, come to fruition. But from even recent history, notably Raleigh going "retro Mayberry" with Fayetteville Street when they had a chance to do something really unique with it, I fear that your collective anguish and civic suffering will continue. If anything, Raleigh seems to be disassembling the very urban components that it needs to make transit work. I've heard that they now have a jitney running around downtown (for the benefit of the convention center no doubt), and that's a start I suppose, so hope springs eternal.

This is a strange project for a city with as disgraceful a transit system as Raleigh has. (Again, I know some of you work with or for CAT, the main target of my disdain, and again my disgust is not with you -- it is with the city's (non)stewardship of the whole debacle.) If the city won't even let advertising agencies put bus shelters to keep the suffering patrons of CAT, TTA, Wolfline, or whatever agency from dropping from heatstroke, that the city is even bothering with such a project in the first place makes me highly suspicious. The suspicion is this: I think Raleigh leaders are publically giving lip service to this MMTC for the reason that Greensboro (a smaller city) has already built one of these, and that Charlotte has a fully functional mass transit system; privately I think Raleigh's leaders couldn't give a rat's hiney about the whole thing. It's simply a "me too" political face saving action.

Have patience here. I am not about to teach any old geezers like myself here anything new. And if I stray from the point here, be sure that I will return to it in short order. This particular paragraph is for the younger and more idealistic of UP bloggerdom that are scratching their heads as to why nothing gets done, when so many people think something -- like mass transit -- is a good idea.

For all of the hype that Raleigh is run by "liberals" -- largely fiction perpetuated by local AM radio -- the city's track record at providing public amenities belies that completely. The "liberals" of Raleigh's city council are what would be termed in New York or Beverly Hills as "limousine liberals" (although I doubt any of these yahoos get their mobility freak on in limos), who are as obstructionistic as any of the most rabid Rove/Norquist disciples. For example, LA can thank "liberals" in Beverly Hills for the "Subway to the Sea" not being built on time, and for decades-long, and exponentially millions of dollars in delays and replanning expenses, for the reason that they did not want hordes of the Great Unwashed from surfacing onto Wilshire Blvd. near the tony environs of Rodeo Drive. The game works like this. Politicos and other high profile people of "liberal" persuasion, assume the liberal mantle, and congregate on the fund-raising circuit for anything from repeal of capital punishment to save the whales to organizing soup kitchens for the poor. And while they may be espousing noble causes, the main point of all this is to stay connected both socially and politically. Not unlike conservatives at a Chamber of Commerce function, just different venues with a readily apparent difference in themes. However, notice that when these folks are elected, even on the most progressive of platforms, the use the same old, tired arguments against, or "voice their concerns about" a given project on the same angles as conservatives: "it may not be viable", "there is no money at this time for it" (which by the way are arguments that are true of all projects until they are decided upon, designed, and vested into). Because at the end of the day, even a "liberal" will seek to protect his or her own interest. There may very well be more trash to be found on the ground around a heavily used bus shelter, and you can be assured that a mass transit system will spawn copious amounts of graffiti since it caters to young people, giving them far enhanced mobility (and guess what?, young people like to scribble their names and cryptic messages all over stuff everywhere, from time immemorial). And so that "liberal" politician in Boylan Heights may not want to see McTrash all over the ground or extra graffiti through the side window of his or her Lexus or Volvo. And God forbid his or her property taxes go up a mil or two to pay for the cleanup.

Now back to the MMTC. I've said this before. You can't plan facilities for a system that doesn't exist yet -- in this case, even on paper. You don't know what the livery is yet, therefore you can't effectively dimension it, or flow the thing out. I'm not knocking your efforts here, O -- envisioning effective land use is quite sensible. But for the city to actually plan on a facility like this without any of this information, or any input from an up and functioning carrier (except for the the ultra-limited Amtrak service), you are not building an asset for the future. In fact, you are building an obstruction for the future! Which makes me think the whole thing is a red-herring in the first place. Plan the thing to death, which is exactly what TTA was allowed to do with the quondam transit effort for the Triangle.

Now, let me put on my positive hat for a minute. Say the thing gets done. OK, first suggestion from me is that 65% of this terminal needs to be subgrade -- including the support facilities, utilities, and the staging area for buses -- in order to be effective. Which is expensive. And considering Raleigh's notoriously skinflint tendencies, almost unthinkable. Back in the mid-nineties I posted a missive to the editorial page of the N&O, which ran the op, along with an image much like these, sans the Google Earth technology and satellite imagery for a template of course. Mine mainly had to do with connecting the terminal with DT Raleigh effectively, and featured an underground concourse below Martin St. providing a subgrade pedestrian connection to Nash Square, which was the historical focus center for transportation in DT Raleigh back in the day (and for good reason, if you look at the siting). The concourse would have dove under the tracks and under West, Harrington, and Dawson streets, and been lined with c-stores, cafes, eateries, and newsstands to actually provide rental income to offset the operational expenses of the terminal, and by God, make the whole thing an interesting and a hospitable place for commuters. The redesigned businesses fronting Martin would have been served by "sleeve streets" skirting the open air concourse. Martin would have effectively served as a bisecting mall, that would have intersected at Fayetteville redesigned as a transit mall, as opposed to a pedestrian mall, and served by overhead gondolas. Well, the whole thing got a more visceral response than even my sacrilegious attempts to scuttle Central Prison in favor of a Crystal Cityesque mixed use high-rise complex. Some were Flat Earthers of course, but even knowledgeable people pooh-poohed it with a great deal of animation.

I still think that the whole footprint of the project needs to expand eastward toward the heart of the city and the convention center (even if it is expensive), be separated from the street grid, and have income generating features to support the facility, lest the whole shebang becomes a financially strangled sump with minimal upkeep. There is quite a bit of room in the Wye, yes, but not enough to spare on putting these kinds of things in. A PPP, encompassing the entire four-block area east of the terminal, would make the most out of the site.

But my admonition to you, good visionaries, is this. This project needs to be stripped completely from city control for it to work. It should be folded into a special district, similar to the Airport Authority, or the TTA itself, and have a high degree of self-determination. As with many things under the control of Raleigh's city managers, an effort to build a thoroughbred racehorse almost always begets a jackass.

[orulz]

V: I'm going to focus on the "positive" part of your post

As far as the actual configuration of the station is concerned: As you note, having much of the facility below grade is beneficial. The fact that the tracks are already in a gulch, and that I have included bridging Hargett street over the tracks, serves to make part of the facility "below grade" already, in the same sense that Union Station in Chicago is "below grade", or that Underground Atlanta is "below grade": all the streets are on viaducts above it. But several other functions - light rail, bus circulation and access, etc, would likely need to go one level further down.

As for the blocks surrounding the station: I would definitely agree that the area east of the station, towards Nash Square, should be redeveloped- and that the redevelopment should have the goal of tying the station in with Nash Square and the rest of downtown. Underground passageways are indeed one way of addressing that, but there are others that are superior. Maybe a new, mid-block ground level street between Hargett and Martin extending from the station to Nash Squared, with wide sidewalks. I am also inclined to think that the blocks between the station and Nash Square should be considered as "ancillary developent" rather than extending the station complex itself that far (again, because I think having all the transportation functions in a compact, tightly integrated are is better.)

In any case, I'm planning on adding much more detailed terrain to the map, and then I'll include the below ground portions as well as some more of the neighborhood to my rendering. This will take some time though since I have to take the flat, 2-dimensional topographic details published on the city's website (which is basically flat lines) and turn it into 3 dimensional polygons.

Now the question is: How do we make this happen? I'm not too concerned if it doesn't all happen right now, right away. Patience, as you say. But a vision and a plan like this should be in place, and anything that is built should be built so as to not interfere with the plan in the future.

[jumboman]

Check out the proposed Transbay Terminal in San Fran for some cool ideas. http://www.transbaycenter.org/transbay/

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/upl...iBoards-All.pdf ... interesting how they put the buses on the top (well the park is on top, but then the buses are on the third level). Just goes to show that possibilities are endless, especially with a large clean slate to work with like Raleigh's warehouse district and wye.

Edited June 26, 2009 by jumboman

[vitaviatic]

V: I'm going to focus on the "positive" part of your post

As for the blocks surrounding the station: I would definitely agree that the area east of the station, towards Nash Square, should be redeveloped- and that the redevelopment should have the goal of tying the station in with Nash Square and the rest of downtown. Underground passageways are indeed one way of addressing that, but there are others that are superior. Maybe a new, mid-block ground level street between Hargett and Martin extending from the station to Nash Square, with wide sidewalks. I am also inclined to think that the blocks between the station and Nash Square should be considered as "ancillary development" rather than extending the station complex itself that far (again, because I think having all the transportation functions in a compact, tightly integrated are is better.)

Now the question is: How do we make this happen? I'm not too concerned if it doesn't all happen right now, right away. Patience, as you say. But a vision and a plan like this should be in place, and anything that is built should be built so as to not interfere with the plan in the future.

O...Again, emphatically, I was not knocking your vision at all. It's very helpful, and we all wish there were more of it. My concern was what Raleigh would do -- their history with half-baked cakes is legendary; e.g., Moore Square Station, which was almost obsolete from the time that it opened, and the old Coggins-era Convention Center that you just had to tear down, and was unlovable from the start as well -- and last, but certainly not least, the FSM, which just went retrograde with a car-hugging, neo-Mayberry motif, instead of addressing the perennial problem there, which was the lack of mobility up and down the thing. The danger, as always, is planning and building with incomplete information. By all means O, your concepts are great, and keep 'em coming. They can always be modified and built onto. And hopefully somebody listens to you.

As for my admonitions about the connectivity from the MMTC to the rest of downtown, that is a major factor that is too often given short shrift in the scheme of transit planning. The pleasantry of getting to and from the station is a much bigger part of the equation of attracting riders than some planners consider. For instance, if I get off of a train, take the steps down to street level, and then proceed to have to battle traffic lights and cars at six or seven different intersections, walking around semis backed into docks and halfway into the street to get to where I'm going, to say nothing of a lack of amenities like coffee along the way, then the entire experience becomes less attractive by half. Yes, I saved money, perhaps, by taking the train to work and surely saved on parking, but in return I got to deal with potholes, splashing water, near misses from irate drivers who are going to get dinged $20 for parking and just endured yet another miserable commute. Whereas, an uncontested walk to the commercial center (whether it's sub- or supergrade matters not much) filled with stop, browse, and taste -- interesting stuff -- makes a stronger appeal. Rail, more than any other characteristic, helps make a city a city, with unique and defined neighborhoods. But it's unlikely to do so with a lack of connectivity to it's stations. (And that applies to all stations, not just downtown.) Absolutely, it should be considered as part of "ancillary development" -- logically you're not going to run a finger of the station itself into Nash -- but that is what I am afraid the whole project will lack if Raleigh jumps the gun without an established carrier operating into it, and thus having a lack of feedback from riders who will demand (from the market) that these types of amenities be in place.

As for my knowledge of the land characteristics of the site, that is very much lacking, so your judgment is undoubtedly more dependable in that arena.

Check out the proposed Transbay Terminal in San Fran for some cool ideas...Interesting how they put the buses on the top (well the park is on top, but then the buses are on the third level). Just goes to show that possibilities are endless, especially with a large clean slate to work with like Raleigh's warehouse district and wye.

Actually those drawing a little dated. As fas as I know, "The Needle" on top of that concept got shot down by neighborhood groups and The City. (And who can blame them? If the Earth starts to move, as it often does there, and that thing comes down sideways, it would take out everything halfway to Golden Gate Park!) Another issue was the fact that buses were thrown back on top of the new structure. The Transbay today has that same feature, which has created a lot of problems -- the main one being that the bus staging areas (where people wait of course) are separated from street level (thus from the cops), and as such suffers from taggers, panhandlers, muggers, and a generally chaotic atmosphere around both the transit and Greyhound levels. Once you put buses over or under the grade, you get into the realm of security guards rather than police, which reduces the effectiveness of law enforcement by a lot. And who are some of the first employees to get canned in a budget crunch? Yep, the guards. Not that they get paid much in the first place -- their interest level often reflecting that.

That design came almost by accident. It was a feature of the Transbay when that terminal was actually the destination for trains coming in from Oakland and the East Bay before the lower level of the Bay Bridge was reclaimed for cars. They threw the buses up top because there was essentially nowhere else to put them, since the trains themselves were at grade. The park at the top of the new complex is a nice touch on the renderings, but unlikely to come about considering the fiscal mess out there. None of this is to say that you shouldn't raise or bury the buses to save space, but rather that you have to be careful when you do, since you run into problems of this ilk.

I'm going to try to make a posting on the Transit Vision topic (time permitting before a trip next week) concerning RailRunner in New Mexico, and its progress. Both the Santa Fe and Albuquerque downtown terminals are extremely walkable, although very basic. The commercial marketplace recognizes the effect of train commuters and stuff begins to organically fill in around such facilities. But, you have to plan for that. You have to till the garden before anything will grow in it, right? Maybe they can use some of the existing warehouse structures between the Wye and Nash Square for the kinds of places that I am talking about. I wouldn't know. But it has to be a concerted effort to get all that stuff moved first, before the station gets into place, or else it becomes a battle royal to put into place once the people are there and the land gets really expensive from the foot traffic.

[orulz]

WRAL is reporting that some possible plans and renderings for what the Raleigh multimodal station might look like are due to be released some time this month.

[DwnTwnRaleighGuy]

WRAL is reporting that some possible plans and renderings for what the Raleigh multimodal station might look like are due to be released some time this month.

April 23rd is the day!

[orulz]

April 23rd is the day!

Curious to know where you got that date. I also wonder if it will coincide with release of the draft EIS for the Petersburg-Raleigh segment of SEHSR. That is due out sometime very soon.

[DwnTwnRaleighGuy]

Curious to know where you got that date. I also wonder if it will coincide with release of the draft EIS for the Petersburg-Raleigh segment of SEHSR. That is due out sometime very soon.

No problem...I have been badgering Mr.. Mitch Silver,(Sr Raleigh Planner), Mayor Charles Meeker and Mr.. James Brown/with HDR...

HDR had an idea of the date but only Mr.. Silver had the exact date for both release date and down loadable date from Raleigh's website...

[DwnTwnRaleighGuy]

Here is the latest news...

April 16, 2010

Special Meeting To Focus On Multimodal Center And Rail Service The Raleigh City Council will meet from 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., April 23 to discuss the proposed multimodal center and passenger rail service. The meeting will be held at the City of Raleigh’s Walnut Creek Wetland Center, 950 Peterson St.