Jump to content

Charlotte Gateway Station and Railroad Improvements


dubone

Recommended Posts


^ Airport lines don't typically generate high levels of ridership, but they do have outsized political appeal since most wealthy folks can imagine using the link a few times a year. I do think the line would have OK ridership if it runs all the way to Gastonia (via Belmont).

 

Ridership aside, Norfolk Southern (who owns the tracks between N Tryon and the Airport) is unlikely to consent to more passenger trains without substantial $ for upgrades (like a third track). They invested a lot in their new intermodal terminal and they don't want to see it constrained by rail congestion. Its not unlikely that new ROW LRT service to the airport would be cheaper to build than the necessary upgrades for the existing NS tracks.  NS's protectiveness about their tracks is one of the reasons why Gateway station has been put on the back burner (and one of the reasons why a N Tryon station is actually realistic since that would be on NCRR property and tracks)

 

Can you define "high levels of ridership" ? I taken trains from a number of airports in various cities (even in the south) and I feel like there are always a decent amount of riders. Or is it "low" relative to lines that tend to serve work trips?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you define "high levels of ridership" ? I taken trains from a number of airports in various cities (even in the south) and I feel like there are always a decent amount of riders. Or is it "low" relative to lines that tend to serve work trips?

 

 

I think the big question is who would want to walk half a mile outside with luggage from the station to the airport?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CATS has done plenty of studies of ridership levels between Uptown and the airport.  All of them fall short.  Most riders would be people who work at the airport.  Despite the airport's size, most of its traffic is connecting traffic since it's a hub, and since it doesn't draw as much from Charlotte for passengers as its size would indicate at first glance, there just isn't enough traffic to justify a rail line (using formulae for funding that have been required from time to time).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CATS has done plenty of studies of ridership levels between Uptown and the airport.  All of them fall short.  Most riders would be people who work at the airport.  Despite the airport's size, most of its traffic is connecting traffic since it's a hub, and since it doesn't draw as much from Charlotte for passengers as its size would indicate at first glance, there just isn't enough traffic to justify a rail line (using formulae for funding that have been required from time to time).

 

I would venture to say that most of the ridership projections typically quoted as the basis for such a claim are fundamentally flawed for several reasons:

 

a) The last known projections that I can find are from 2005-2006 timeframe when-

    1) The Blue Line had not started service.  According to a high level CATS engineer, most ridership algorithms prior to Lynx have been replaced based on the success of the Blue Line 

    2) O&D at the airport was significantly lower (by an estimated 1-2 million pax per year)

 

b) The projections are based on a technology choice of streetcar which is not a rapid transit technology.

 

If you look at the potential market for a rail corridor to the airport, you must consider that such a line would connect two of the largest centers of employment in Charlotte (CBD~100,000 workers; airport~20,000 workers).  Also, while you are correct to say that most passengers are connecting, there is still a significant amount of passengers in terms of raw numbers that originate or terminate their trips in Charlotte.  There are approximately 11 million pax per year O&D (int'l + domestic) which is roughly 25,000-30,000 pax per day.  Finally, you must also consider that nearly 26,000 people commute to Mecklenburg from Gaston each day.

 

If you look at SLC the parallels between their airport light rail line and a hypothetical line to CLT you will find some striking similarities, most notably, that both corridors are the same length and both airports have approximately the same O&D.  SLC's green line is expected to have 10,000 pax per day by next year and 14,000 by the time the line matures compared to CLT's projections which max at 4,200 riders per day.

 

Taking into account all this info, I asked the same senior engineer to which I referred earlier about a hypothetical light rail line to the airport.  He said such a line would probably garner ridership levels of 10,000+ pax per day which is very similar to the Lynx Blue Line on a per mile basis.

Edited by cltbwimob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If going with LRT for the Airport, I think Freedom Drive would be easier to "diet" than Wilkinson Blvd. Freedom also has more TOD potential, including a stop near Pinkie's to support more infill near Wesley Heights. Following Freedom to 85 would also allow for a better sited park and ride station, thereby also improving ridership. Let the Airport build the people mover between the Terminal and I-85.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If going with LRT for the Airport, I think Freedom Drive would be easier to "diet" than Wilkinson Blvd. Freedom also has more TOD potential, including a stop near Pinkie's to support more infill near Wesley Heights. Following Freedom to 85 would also allow for a better sited park and ride station, thereby also improving ridership. Let the Airport build the people mover between the Terminal and I-85.

While you are correct that Freedom Drive would be a better candidate for a road diet, I do not think it is any more suitable for TOD than Wilkinson.  Wilkinson is begging for TOD.  For in-commuters, CATS could simply put a park and ride near the interchange of Wilkinson and 485.

 

Also if a light rail line were to traverse along the Wilkinson ROW, a significant portion of the funding could potentially come from FAA funding (this idea was proposed by the Airport Advisory Committee around 2009).  Assuming CATS planned the route such that it traveled from Uptown to Boyer Street along Wilkinson then shifted the ROW to parallel the NS tracks, several miles of the line would be located on airport property which would make that portion of the line potentially eligible for FAA funding.  A Freedom Drive line would have little if any portion of it's tracks located on airport property meaning that such a hypothetical line would be ineligible for such funds.  If Freedom Drive is to be served by transit to capture it's TOD potential, it would be best served by streetcar in exclusive lanes and connected to the Gold Line.  The airport line should be viewed as an extension of a notional Silver Line LRT to Matthews via Wilkinson and downtown. 

Edited by cltbwimob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.google.com/maps/d/view?mid=zQvAxm09eQis.koBVcTX4iApl

 

I added a hypothetical "Lynx Green Line" to the airport, using the current right of way along Routes 74/29, adding stations at the Airport, Billy Graham Pkwy, Old Steel Creek Rd, Remount Rd, and S Mint St/Bank of America Stadium, before joining the current Blue Line at Stonewall.

 

These stations are only to give a general idea of the routing along the right of way.

 

I also added a AirTrain connecting the station with parking and the main terminal, and a people mover within the secure area of the airport.

 

Edit: I can't get the link to work on here. I can get it to work on my PC, just not on the site.

Edited by LKN704
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TOD is most successful when building off existing urban fabric. South End had Dilworth. Optimist Park will have NoDa. Enderly Park or FreeMoreWest could have Wesley Heights. Wilkinson just seems too far isolated for significant redevelopment. Bryant Park has been very slow moving and it's just outside Uptown.

Edited by southslider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While you are correct that Freedom Drive would be a better candidate for a road diet, I do not think it is any more suitable for TOD than Wilkinson.  Wilkinson is begging for TOD.  For in-commuters, CATS could simply put a park and ride near the interchange of Wilkinson and 485.

 

Also if a light rail line were to traverse along the Wilkinson ROW, a significant portion of the funding could potentially come from FAA funding (this idea was proposed by the Airport Advisory Committee around 2009).  Assuming CATS planned the route such that it traveled from Uptown to Boyer Street along Wilkinson then shifted the ROW to parallel the NS tracks, several miles of the line would be located on airport property which would make that portion of the line potentially eligible for FAA funding.  A Freedom Drive line would have little if any portion of it's tracks located on airport property meaning that such a hypothetical line would be ineligible for such funds.  If Freedom Drive is to be served by transit to capture it's TOD potential, it would be best served by streetcar in exclusive lanes and connected to the Gold Line.  The airport line should be viewed as an extension of a notional Silver Line LRT to Matthews via Wilkinson and downtown. 

 

Rail lines to airports are eligible for FAA Funding?  I thought the FAA cannot fund "landside" operations (hence the fact there are no private operators of airports in the US like the rest of the world.  Takeoff/landing fees cannot fund landside operations according to FAA statute if I'm not mistaken).

Edited by ChessieCat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rail lines to airports are eligible for FAA Funding?  I thought the FAA cannot fund "landside" operations (hence the fact there are no private operators of airports in the US like the rest of the world.  Takeoff/landing fees cannot fund landside operations according to FAA statute if I'm not mistaken).

 

http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/federal_register_notices/media/pfc_69fr6366.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If going with LRT for the Airport, I think Freedom Drive would be easier to "diet" than Wilkinson Blvd. Freedom also has more TOD potential, including a stop near Pinkie's to support more infill near Wesley Heights. Following Freedom to 85 would also allow for a better sited park and ride station, thereby also improving ridership. Let the Airport build the people mover between the Terminal and I-85.

 

While you are correct that Freedom Drive would be a better candidate for a road diet, I do not think it is any more suitable for TOD than Wilkinson.  Wilkinson is begging for TOD.  For in-commuters, CATS could simply put a park and ride near the interchange of Wilkinson and 485.

 

Also if a light rail line were to traverse along the Wilkinson ROW, a significant portion of the funding could potentially come from FAA funding (this idea was proposed by the Airport Advisory Committee around 2009).  Assuming CATS planned the route such that it traveled from Uptown to Boyer Street along Wilkinson then shifted the ROW to parallel the NS tracks, several miles of the line would be located on airport property which would make that portion of the line potentially eligible for FAA funding.  A Freedom Drive line would have little if any portion of it's tracks located on airport property meaning that such a hypothetical line would be ineligible for such funds.  If Freedom Drive is to be served by transit to capture it's TOD potential, it would be best served by streetcar in exclusive lanes and connected to the Gold Line.  The airport line should be viewed as an extension of a notional Silver Line LRT to Matthews via Wilkinson and downtown. 

 

^OK, since the FRA will amend its rules in 2015 allowing DMU's on freight tracks and the FAA will allow PFC funding for rail access to CLT, there are now multiple options for an Airport Line:

 

1) The NS ROW to the airport using DMU's.  

-- The opportunities for development along the corridor are probably the most limited of all the options.  NS would definitely require triple- or quadruple-tracking, but it won't require electrification.  Thankfully the ROW in front of the airport was widened when they built the Intermodal Terminal.  The line could eventually run to Belmont or even Gastonia.

-- NCDOT has plans to eventually build a wye between Morris Field and Old Steele Creek so east-bound NS trains can connect to the "R" Line going southward.  That opens the possibility of double-tracking the "R"-Line to Tyvola Station and opening a second DMU route to provide riders from the southern suburbs a two-seat ride to the airport.    

https://www.google.com/maps?q=clt&hl=en&ll=35.221029,-80.909028&spn=0.010255,0.021136&sll=35.201937,-80.904865&sspn=0.041029,0.084543&dirflg=w&doflg=ptk&t=m&z=16

 

 2) LRT along Wilkinson

-- Development opportunities abound along the corridor.  CATS already mapped this route before the downturn.  The prelim cost of less than $500 Million is low IMHO.  We all know the $1Billion+ cost of the BLE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LYNX_West_Corridor

 

3) LRT along Freedom Drive

-- This corridor could be most ripe for development according to some

-- Should it be one-seat ride uptown that follows Freedom Drive to 85, then goes along Tuckaseegee and finally turns left at Little Rock to the airport terminal?  

-- Or should it be a two-seat ride: LRT to 85 with the airport building a people mover? 

 

4) Little Rock People Mover meets the old P&N

-- This is the most pie-in-the-sky of all the possible routes, but what if say Lakewood Trolley succeeds in launching a Trolley along ALL of the old P&N?  (l know, I know, they would have to deal with CSX and separating LRT from freight).

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/09/05/5152350/trolley-car-85-may-turn-on-its.html#.VHXuu_nF8WY

-- I did notice on the map that Little Rock goes north all the way to Paw Creek.  A people mover along Little Rock would have a terminus at the intersection of Little Rock, Freedom, and Moores Chapel.  Anyone notice the old P&N Thrift Station in the top left with the copper roof?  It's still standing from the old P&N days.   :)

https://www.google.com/maps?q=28203&hl=en&ll=35.275466,-80.936151&spn=0.005124,0.010568&sll=33.62228,-112.172828&sspn=0.041811,0.084543&dirflg=w&doflg=ptk&hnear=Charlotte,+North+Carolina+28203&t=h&z=17

 

Choose an option and answer this question: should an Airport Line be a tool for development, or getting people from uptown to the airport as quickly as possible?

Edited by ChessieCat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure it's been covered in this thread or another and I just can't find it, but what are the details on the property for the former NS intermodal yard? Isn't it getting swapped to the City of Charlotte in exchange for the land at the airport for the new facility? I figured that would be done by now, but it looks like NS still owns it.

Also, what impact would the construction of the maintenance facility have on relocating Gateway to the former intermodal yard from its proposed location? It's supposed to begin construction next year, and I'm sure proximity to Gateway was a big factor. Although the Capital Yard maintenance facility in Raleigh isn't exactly close to the current station, and there don't seem to be any issues, but there is a lot less freight traffic in Raleigh. Can you imagine a northbound train departing Charlotte late because it's stuck on the other side of the diamond waiting on CSX to pass and can't even get to the station?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Did anyone get a chance to see this report yesterday? Very interesting and exciting. Thoughts?

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/nc-resuming-efforts-build-new-train-station-uptown/njQjP/

From your article:

"Brawley admits that money once set aside for the project has now been allocated elsewhere and no new funding source has been settled upon"

My thoughts? It's a slow news day and nothing has changed and this is far from reality

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From your article:

"Brawley admits that money once set aside for the project has now been allocated elsewhere and no new funding source has been settled upon"

My thoughts? It's a slow news day and nothing has changed and this is far from reality

I can see your point.  But I'm optimistic that funding will be found soon enough.  Officials really seem to want this and Charlotte really needs something like this to happen.  If we are approved for the streetcar extension, I feel a stop at the Gateway will make that project a lot more successful.  Here's hoping.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not even news, and it is not correct in any way.  

 

The project would also free up hundreds of acres where the Amtrak station is now and allow new development in north Charlotte. 
 
"This will allow the railroads to redevelop the North Tryon site which will connect downtown to NoDa," Brawley said.

 

 

This is the most idiotic and uninformed statement, and the fact that it came from someone in our government that ought to be informed on the subject that he is pushing in the press.

 

The current Amtrak station is on the edge of the Norfolk Southern rail yard which is completely independent of the passenger rail system.   Moving the train station does not do away with the rail yard.   

 

I despise TV news for that reason, it is always sensationalized either in a hyper-booster way or a hyper-critical way with very limited facts and very shallow analysis.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did a story on Atlanta to Charlotte high speed rail at the same time and they seemed to cross reference the interview with Brawley for both pieces. Both were poorly done.

The fact I don't understand from the HSR article was that trains could travel up to 220mph linking Charlotte and Atlanta in 2 and 1/2 hours. Isn't ATL only roughly 250 miles away? Shouldn't travel times be lower, even with station stops in between, if a true high speed rail system was built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did a story on Atlanta to Charlotte high speed rail at the same time and they seemed to cross reference the interview with Brawley for both pieces. Both were poorly done.

The fact I don't understand from the HSR article was that trains could travel up to 220mph linking Charlotte and Atlanta in 2 and 1/2 hours. Isn't ATL only roughly 250 miles away? Shouldn't travel times be lower, even with station stops in between, if a true high speed rail system was built.

I don't think the trains will go 220 mph. I think the speeds would be closer to 100 mph. That speed also makes the math work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Southeast High Speed Rail corridor is completely misnamed.  No true HSR is coming to the Southeast, even if the corridor were fully built- which it won't be.  HSR requires extensive infrastructure improvements, such as electrification of the rail line, which isn't happening.  All that'll happen, at most, will be modest upgrades to the existing freight-focused rail lines and maybe some more trains, and modest increases in speeds.

 

For all those who worship government and its alleged wisdom, that idiotic article about moving the train station should dispel any legends.  Plus the quality of the facts in the article is poor.  "Norfolk and Southern Railroad"? No such thing exists.

Edited by mallguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, this is a fluff piece and silly to even discuss.

 

The details are clear on official sources that because of the high cost of true HSR, the plans in the SouthEast are to match the quality of the Acela in the northeast, where it is HighER speeds, and by fixing a number of major problems, crossings, etc., they can increase max speeds and average speeds to be competitive with interstate driving on regional trips.   That is the point where passenger rail can be effective in this country.   We are not as small and dense as Europe, so true HSR is not warranted in that many places outside of California and NE corridor and maybe central FL.    

 

Charlotte to Atlanta will come after NC and VA improvements, and budgeting for those have been put into real plans by NC and VA.   SC and GA have are far behind on planning.    It will maybe be 220 KILOMETERS/h maximum, but really they have goals to average about 90mph to simply beat drive-times.      It is a very reasonable and attainable plan and necessary as a start to get rail part of our transportation culture again.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buenas tardes y'all!

I just got back from 10 days in Spain and was fortunate enough to take HSR on four separate trips, the highlight being Madrid-Barcelona in 2 hours and 30 minutes (see photo). During the fastest stretch, I was standing by the door mesmerized at watching the countryside pass by at 300 km/h (186 mph)!

I learned some VERY important lessons from rail-friendly Spain about why HSR works over there and may NEVER be possible in our region, the southeast United States:


1) There must be political consensus that RAIL MUST KILL every other form of transportation. Madrid-Barcelona used to be the busiest traveled air corridor in the world as recently as 2007 with over 100 flights per day in each direction. In the US, we've seen Amtrak's Acela steal a huge amount of traffic from the airlines in the Northeast Corridor. The airlines and airport authorities have invested too much (and been subsidized too heavily with yes, taxpayer dollars) that they won't let HSR pass without a fight. Spain has the most extensive HSR network in Europe but the Madrid-Barcelona corridor is the ONLY consistently profitable route. I don't know if that will fly politically in the conservative South.


2) The cost of getting a Driver's License in Spain is over €1,000. Over here, it's a birthright for 16 year-olds. The Spanish government makes owning a car expensive on purpose because Spain and most of Europe imports the vast majority of its Crude Oil. They haven't experienced a fracking miracle like the US and never will. HSR requires electrification over vast distances which makes sense for countries that produce no petroleum but our country is already exporting Light Sweet Crude Oil. Also, Toll roads dominate in the most developed parts of Spain as a further disincentive to get people off the roads and into trains.

Sadly, I agree with Dub1 that HSR will only work in the Northeast Corridor, California, and Florida which has the population density and constrained geography to support it. With North America swimming in crude oil for the far foreseeable future, long-distance electrified passenger rail of any kind is not gonna happen in the Southeast :(

post-29688-0-72001400-1418764548_thumb.j

Edited by ChessieCat
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.