Charlotte Gateway Station and Railroad Improvements

[Matthew.Brendan]

Too bad it’s a goner, just like this guy. No saving it! Nope just can’t do it. GG Charlotte. 

[SgtCampsalot]

9 minutes ago, Matthew.Brendan said:

 

//Seinfeld bass line

Edited April 6, 2018 by SgtCampsalot

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Matthew.Brendan said:

Too bad it’s a goner, just like this guy. No saving it! Nope just can’t do it. GG Charlotte. 

This building isn't a goner.

[QCxpat]

On 4/6/2018 at 3:08 PM, ricky_davis_fan_21 said:

This building isn't a goner.

Clayton Sealey has conceived a masterful design that could save the 1927 Builders Building at 312 West Trade Street and revitalize the entire block on which it stands, i.e., First Presbyterian's "Port Chop Lot."  Here's his proposal:

 

Rendering by Clatyon Sealy

First Presbyterian “Pork Chop Lot”

"On the corner of Poplar and Trade sits one of the largest undeveloped and most underutilized parking lots in the city. The block, spanning about 2.25 acres, is lucky enough to feature two historic buildings: The Builders Building (1926) and Bagley-Mullen House (1890)."

"The bulk of the land is owned by First Presbyterian Church. Peg Robarchek, the Director of Communications for the church, said the church is seeking input from neighborhood partners on what to do with the property."

“We hope this property will be significant in transforming center city Charlotte,” she said. “We’re an urban church and we recognize that how we serve our neighborhood will evolve as Charlotte continues to change.”

"My vision for the land would be a development oriented in such a way that The Builders Building and the Bagley-Mullen House would go untouched."

– 200+ units worth of residential, 30-50 units set aside for mixed income.
– 350,000 square feet of office space in an 15-17 floor building.
– A three-floor base at the corner of Poplar and Trade that would include updated community space for the church, and retail that focuses on the Uptown community-at-large.
– Community roof space for church events and public events.
– An integrated parking deck that would include free parking to the church on weekends and after business hours.

"Uptown is on the verge of greatness, and will continue to get even better as we lose each surface parking lot."

Links:

(1) https://www.charlottefive.com/uptown-charlotte-parking-lot-fixes/  -- "Two Parking Lots are Holding Uptown Back.  Here's How I'd Fix It" by Clayton Sealey,  Charlotte Five, June 14, 2017.

(2) http://www.cmhpf.org/S&Rs Alphabetical Order/surveys&rbuildersbuilding.htm -- Survey and Research Report on the Builders Building, Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, 08/09/2004.

(3) https://www.charlotteagenda.com/27072/should-this-1920s-uptown-building-be-saved/ --  "Should This 1920s Uptown Building be Saved" by Andrew Dunn, Charlotte Agenda, 11/20/2015.

                                  

 

[PuppiesandKittens]

Keep in mind that First Presbyterian is a pretty large church with a relatively tiny sanctuary, and it may need additional space for building.  I could see it becoming a much larger church than it is now (perhaps it'll have a growth spurt in the future), and in that case the current sanctuary would not work at all; a much larger brand-new one would need to be built, and the only place that is feasible for that would be across on the parking lot block.  First Presbyterian is also a pretty affluent church and likely doesn't need the money from selling or developing the parking lot block.  So I could see that block staying undeveloped for a long time to come.

Edited April 8, 2018 by PuppiesandKittens

[AuLukey]

Keep in mind that First Presbyterian is a pretty large church with a relatively tiny sanctuary, and it may need additional space for building.  I could see it becoming a much larger church than it is now (perhaps it'll have a growth spurt in the future), and in that case the current sanctuary would not work at all; a much larger brand-new one would need to be built, and the only place that is feasible for that would be across on the parking lot block.  First Presbyterian is also a pretty affluent church and likely doesn't need the money from selling or developing the parking lot block.  So I could see that block staying undeveloped for a long time to come.

That actually makes it easier for a developer to swoop in. “Hey, let me buy that land from you for a reasonable price and I’ll reserve parking and build meeting/community space for you as part of the development.”

[PuppiesandKittens]

14 minutes ago, AuLukey said:

That actually makes it easier for a developer to swoop in. “Hey, let me buy that land from you for a reasonable price and I’ll reserve parking and build meeting/community space for you as part of the development.”

Sorry, I wasn’t clear.  I’d think that any new construction on the site could be a brand-new sanctuary- meaning that the core of the church would be located there.  I don’t think that the church would let part of the site be developed then because it would be more important to have the most prominent part of the church complex there.

Given how Presbyterian the Charlotte area is, I find it odd that the largest Presbyterian church is not at a high profile location uptown; its sort of hidden away in Myers Park.

 

[15895]

15 minutes ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

Sorry, I wasn’t clear.  I’d think that any new construction on the site could be a brand-new sanctuary- meaning that the core of the church would be located there.  I don’t think that the church would let part of the site be developed then because it would be more important to have the most prominent part of the church complex there.

Given how Presbyterian the Charlotte area is, I find it odd that the largest Presbyterian church is not at a high profile location uptown; its sort of hidden away in Myers Park.

 

 

Maybe I’m wrong, but the church is prodevelopment and would work to get a good project on the lot as long as it has space for church parking. 

[PuppiesandKittens]

29 minutes ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

 

Maybe I’m wrong, but the church is prodevelopment and would work to get a good project on the lot as long as it has space for church parking. 

I don't think so.  It's not an impoverished, dying church that needs to sell assets to raise funds.  It's a stable, affluent church in a tight space.  The church I grew up in (in another city, but like First Presbyterian) suddenly exploded in size and had to build a new sanctuary, and a church I'm a member of now (also in an urban area) also suddenly exploded in size.  The same could happen to First Pres and it's probably wanting to hold onto the property in case of something like that.  The PCUSA.org website shows First Pres membership as growing somewhat.

Hopefully a better use (for Christian purposes) could be found, instead of parking.  Maybe another urban ministry center?

Edited April 8, 2018 by PuppiesandKittens

[kermit]

41 minutes ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

I don't think so.  It's not an impoverished, dying church that needs to sell assets to raise funds.  It's a stable, affluent church in a tight space.  The church I grew up in (in another city, but like First Presbyterian) suddenly exploded in size and had to build a new sanctuary, and a church I'm a member of now (also in an urban area) also suddenly exploded in size.  The same could happen to First Pres and it's probably wanting to hold onto the property in case of something like that.  The PCUSA.org website shows First Pres membership as growing somewhat.

Hopefully a better use (for Christian purposes) could be found, instead of parking.  Maybe another urban ministry center?

First Pres was at the vanguard of Charlotte's uptown redevelopment. Dennis Rash (and I believe Hugh McColl and Rolph Neil) were parishioners (is that the right word?) and they were able to get the entire membership to become some of the earliest and most vocal supporters of Charlotte's urban change. Based on this history I would bet the church is very pro-center city growth.

[PuppiesandKittens]

2 hours ago, kermit said:

First Pres was at the vanguard of Charlotte's uptown redevelopment. Dennis Rash (and I believe Hugh McColl and Rolph Neil) were parishioners (is that the right word?) and they were able to get the entire membership to become some of the earliest and most vocal supporters of Charlotte's urban change. Based on this history I would bet the church is very pro-center city growth.

I was a member at First Presbyterian, and an elected official in the congregation.  There were plenty of "big shots" back then (people high up at BofA, and others), but I must not have been there when those three were there, as I never heard of them being there and never met them there.  It's been a while since I've been there, and I can't speak for the church now, but I stand by what I said.  People at church back in my day there were glad to see uptown growing, but it's not going to just give up a lot to a developer if it doesn't need the funds (it doesn't) and if it is concerned about its own capacity (which it was), which is the approach that any organization in its shoes would take.

Like every Presbyterian church, First Presbyterian probably has a long-term plan for the congregation, carefully vetted by at least one committee, and that long-term plan probably addresses what the church expects for the site.   

Edited April 8, 2018 by PuppiesandKittens

[kermit]

Was down at the Carson off ramp today to take a look at the service yard (top pic) and the tracks which connect it to NS and Gateway (bottom pic). I discovered something about the track layout that I did not previously realize: passenger equipment will not need to move on the NS main between Gateway and the service yard. 

Thanks to the old, unused, Southern main line which is still in place between 4th street and Charlotte pipe it appears that the service yard  can connect to the Gateway station tracks without traveling on the freight main.  This separate ROW appears to be different than the track plan provided in the project EIS so this may be a case of wishful thinking.

(photo above) Passenger equipment storage yard. Building at left is the new crew building  for the yard and on train crews. Summit street is at the back of the frame (not visible)

Photo (above) is from Carson ramp bridge adjacent to 277  (overpass at top of frame). Tracks at bottom right are new tracks leading into the service yard. Tracks at top right (other side of overpass) are the original (now unused) Southern tracks which parallel the current main) and run to 4th street (the site of Gateway) -- there is currently a gap between these two sections of track (area beneath overpass). Tracks in middle (adjacent to grass) were the tracks that connected the old main back to the current main, they have been pulled out and are awaiting removal. Two tracks on left are the current NS mainline.

In a geographically separate case of wishful thinking (but maybe not) is that the North yard passenger bypass tracks (from Sugar Creek to the CSX grade crossing) appear to be under construction (at least from Sugar Creek to the yard entrance).  I am very glad to see what appears to be thoughtful planning and progress being made on the Gateway project.

 

Edited April 24, 2018 by kermit

[cowboy_wilhelm]

On 4/22/2018 at 5:24 PM, kermit said:

Was down at the Carson off ramp today to take a look at the service yard (top pic) and the tracks which connect it to NS and Gateway (bottom pic). I discovered something about the track layout that I did not previously realize: passenger equipment will not need to move on the NS main between Gateway and the service yard. 

Thanks to the old, unused, Southern main line which is still in place between 4th street and Charlotte pipe it appears that the service yard  can connect to the Gateway station tracks without traveling on the freight main.  This separate ROW appears to be different than the track plan provided in the project EIS so this may be a case of wishful thinking.

 

Passenger equipment storage yard. Building at left is the new crew building  for the yard and on train crews. Summit street is at the back of the frame (not visible)

 

Photo is from Carson ramp bridge adjacent to 277  (overpass at top of frame). Tracks at bottom right are new tracks leading into the new passenger equipment service yard. Tracks at top right (other side of overpass) are the original (unused) Southern tracks which parallel the current main) and run to 4th street (the site of Gateway) -- there is currently a gap between these sections of track. Tracks in middle (adjacent to grass) were the tracks that connected the old main back to the current main, they have been pulled out and are awaiting removal. Two tracks on left are the current NS mainline.

Another case of wishful thinking (but maybe not) is that the North yard passenger bypass tracks (from Sugar Creek to the CSX grade crossing) appear to be under construction (at least from Sugar Creek to the yard entrance.  I am very glad to see what appears to be thoughtful planning and progress being made on the Gateway project.

 

Plans are available from NCDOT for Gateway Station (proposed let date is 5/15/2018). You may find an answer in the Rail Plans.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2018 Highway Letting/05-15-18/Plans and Proposals/MECKLENBURG_P5705BA_BB_C204058/
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2018 Highway Letting/05-15-18/Plans and Proposals/MECKLENBURG_P5705BA_BB_C204058/Standard PDF Files/120 Rail Plans.pdf
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2018 Highway Letting/05-15-18/Plans and Proposals/MECKLENBURG_P5705BA_BB_C204058/Standard PDF Files/120 Rail Plans2.pdf

[kermit]

36 minutes ago, cowboy_wilhelm said:

Plans are available from NCDOT for Gateway Station (proposed let date is 5/15/2018). You may find an answer in the Rail Plans.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2018 Highway Letting/05-15-18/Plans and Proposals/MECKLENBURG_P5705BA_BB_C204058/
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2018 Highway Letting/05-15-18/Plans and Proposals/MECKLENBURG_P5705BA_BB_C204058/Standard PDF Files/120 Rail Plans.pdf
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2018 Highway Letting/05-15-18/Plans and Proposals/MECKLENBURG_P5705BA_BB_C204058/Standard PDF Files/120 Rail Plans2.pdf

^ Those are pretty fantastic, thanks for digging those out. My quick look didn't uncover any track diagrams that went west of Morehead st so its tough to know for sure. The diagrams do suggest that the old main will be the primary platform track at Gateway.

[orulz]

Wow, fantastic. Thanks for bringing those up

Comments after looking at this for a few minutes: The platform has four points of access. One is for passengers to access the platform via stairs, elevators, and escalators from the station near Trade Street, one is a baggage ramp, and the other two are labeled as "emergency egress", with gates and "panic hardware" - one to 5th street and the other to a tunnel that will be built near 4th street.

Why do those platform access points have to be blocked off like that?  It's probably because they want to treat the platforms as a "restricted area". I hate it when train stations try to keep passengers off of the platforms until a station employee literally unlocks the door about a minute or two before the train arrives. There's something relaxing about just waiting on the platform, where you can see the tracks, see the train coming, and be absolutely certain that you won't miss your train. Waiting rooms are great when you have a half hour to kill, but somehow it makes me anxious to be forced to stay there, dependent on the station employee to open the doors for the passengers to all scramble to the platform at the last possible moment.

Is this "security theater," reminiscent of airports? Are they afraid that somebody might accidentally fall onto the tracks or get hit by a train if there isn't a station employee on the platform too? (Nevermind that millions of unsupervised people go onto train platforms around the world all the time.)

[Scribe]

9 minutes ago, orulz said:

Why do those platform access points have to be blocked off like that? 

 

9 minutes ago, orulz said:

Is this "security theater," reminiscent of airports? Are they afraid that somebody might accidentally fall onto the tracks or get hit by a train if there isn't a station employee on the platform too?

I think it is for security, liability and crowd control.

Why does this bother you so much?

[orulz]

Being forced to walk an extra block or two to get where I'm going is pretty annoying. Say I'm at the front of the train, headed south, and I'm trying to get somewhere on the south side of fourth street. When I get off the train, I'm right next to the fourth street "emergency" stairs. I have to get off the train and have to walk back north to the Trade Street stairs, walk through the station, then double back south, walk to a crosswalk at Graham or Cedar, etc. In the worst case scenario, this could be literally almost a half mile of extra walking. Now imagine yourself as a commuter who has to do this twice a day, EVERY DAY.

If you've ever been on the NYC subway you'll be familiar with the damn infernal BUZZ that happens when people use the emergency exits to get out of the station. Loud, annoying, awful - but people do it ALL. THE. TIME. At some stations, the buzz seems to literally never stop. Why do they have to be emergency exits? Why can' they just be... exits?

I have a similar complaint with how the platform access is handled at the brand-new Raleigh Union Station. Rather than just walking straight from the platform to downtown, you have to walk way to the access tunnel, then walk away from downtown to the very back of the station, and then double back towards downtown. Similarly, there will be an emergency exit that would dramatically cut the distance, but I'm pretty sure it will be protected with "panic hardware." Seemingly insignificant human factors like this can really add up. They can add 'slip ramps' and right turn lanes all over the place to let drivers move around with less friction, but they can't throw train passengers a bone? Come on.

[Scribe]

8 minutes ago, orulz said:

Why can' they just be... exits?

Based on the design in the PDF files above, you would need to change these exits to have a turnstile (so that a door can't be propped open) but it would still need to take care of emergency exits.

If this was a commuter line (like the original proposed Red Line) or a light rail, I would agree. But this is an Amtrak station... they do things "differently".

[SgtCampsalot]

36 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

I think it is for security, liability and crowd control.

Why does this bother you so much?

I agree. Even at the existing Amtrak station, I get anxiety when I have 15 mins until my train is supposed to arrive and I'm expected to stay in the main building (most people stand/sit along the wall in the hallway waiting for the door to be opened, likely for the same reason).

I get the Amtrak differences, but it is frustrating at times. 

[CLTranspo]

Lots of Amtrak stations don’t have these restrictions though. Denver’s Union Station (which handles Amtrak) is gloriously accessible with no barriers to any of the platforms. 

[Scribe]

Looking at my posts above, it looks like I am defending Amtrak. That's not the intent.

On another note, the CityLYNX update has a little nugget on the Charlotte Gateway Station:

Specifically, the center pier for the platform bridge is under construction now...

[Scribe]

One more confirmation that the canopy is still set to be the sail (cable) system....

[15895]

The sails over Catawba (Cornelius exit) look so great at night. Assume this is pretty much the same thing 

[Norm2]

1 hour ago, AirNostrumMAD said:

The sails over Catawba (Cornelius exit) look so great at night. Assume this is pretty much the same thing 

I have never seen the sails at night, but they look quite hideous to me during the day.

[Matthew.Brendan]

At least they are trying? Hey at his point I’ll take any attempt at ornamentation.