Charlotte Gateway Station and Railroad Improvements

[atlrvr]

This is very exciting.  I assumed the greenfield route would be prohibitively expensive because of the cost of right-of-way acquisition, but maybe not?

 

I'm maybe most excited about a station at CLT airport.  I think serving CLT-Gateway with a combo HSR and commuter train (to Gastonia?) makes the most sense, much more so than streetcar/CityLYNX.  This is how Newark Airport-Penn Station is served (Amtrack and NJ Transit). 

 

Imaging Gateway serving veryHSR between Raleigh and Atanta, and mediumHSR to W-S/GSO and Columbia, as well as commuter rails serving those arterials as well in addition to the North (Red) line and somehow out to Union Co is an amazing vision. 

 

Question, is there any reason that a Bus lanes on Independence couldn't be used as heavy rail commuter train ROW to Union Co instead of the CSX line? 

[orulz]

Question, is there any reason that a Bus lanes on Independence couldn't be used as heavy rail commuter train ROW to Union Co instead of the CSX line? 

The bridges aren't built to support such heavy loads, future expansions of Independence won't have the double-barrier bus lanes,  plus how would you build the connection without shutting down Independence for a year?

[Desert Power]

Any word on what will happen with the current NS intermodal yard off N. Brevard once they move out to the airport?

[MilZ]

I'm maybe most excited about a station at CLT airport.  I think serving CLT-Gateway with a combo HSR and commuter train (to Gastonia?) makes the most sense, much more so than streetcar/CityLYNX.  This is how Newark Airport-Penn Station is served (Amtrack and NJ Transit). 

 

 

I like that idea as well, but would the frequency between center city and the airport be enough to accomidate all the traffic that would travel only between those two stops?

[DEnd]

MilZ, on 05 Jun 2013 - 2:49 PM, said:

I like that idea as well, but would the frequency between center city and the airport be enough to accomidate all the traffic that would travel only between those two stops?

No, it wouldn't be "enough." The point of the airport stop is to make the airport connect for regional users, not uptown users. That said with appropriate scheduling some form of commuter rail should be able to share those tracks with more stops between the gas house and uptown.

Edited June 5, 2013 by DEnd

[MilZ]

^ that's what I was thinking... It wouldn't be able to serve the same purpose as streetcar would try to accomplish.

[mallguy]

 

Study web page

 

There are six alternatives:

1. Norfolk Southern
2. I-85
3. Greenfield HSR via SC Upstate region
4. CSX via Athens and Rock Hill
5. CSX via Augusta and Columbia
6. I-20/I-77

 

Thanks for posting; very interesting.

 

Of the 6 alternatives, only #1 has any chance.

 

First, NO high-speed or higher-speed system in the US has been built from scratch.  Ever. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the routes in the US that has train speeds over 79 mph (mostly 110-mph track in the Midwest and 160-mph track in the Northeast) has simply involved incremental upgrades to existing conventional track, with service frequencies and speeds increasing bit by bit.  In somewhere like SC, with more or less zero state support for passenger rail, a system being built from the ground up just isn't going to happen.

 

The exception to the prior paragraph is California, but who knows what'll happen with its HSR plans.

 

Second, CSX CEO Michael Ward has stated (as I post above) that he wants nothing to do with HSR. 

 

So that narrows the options down to Norfolk Southern. 

 

It would be nice if rail planners would simply focus on what works in building HSR in the US: incrementally adding frequencies and faster segments of track on existing routes (as NC has done between Charlotte and Raleigh), rather than spending time and money on studies and whatever for other plans.

[DEnd]

^ that's what I was thinking... It wouldn't be able to serve the same purpose as streetcar would try to accomplish.

 

Nope, but it may be worth examining if a commuter train could run along the same tracks.  That may provide adequate service to the airport, and provide commuting needs to Belmont, Lowell and Gastonia.  Since the airport would then be served, it might make sense to run a street car instead down Freedom or Tuckaseegee.

[15895]

Or streetcar could use the ROW that the trains would.

Streetcar or LRT would best serve the Wilkinson and Charlotte community.i don't think Charlotteans or Meck Co. In general gains anything from commuter rail to Gaston

[DEnd]

It would be nice if rail planners would simply focus on what works in building HSR in the US: incrementally adding frequencies and faster segments of track on existing routes (as NC has done between Charlotte and Raleigh), rather than spending time and money on studies and whatever for other plans.

 

In this case building from scratch might be the better alternative.  It should be looked at carefully and not eliminated just because it hasn't ever been done before.  That part of SC is pretty unpopulated.  The main concern I have with it is it does not connect with the central business districts of Greenville and Spartanburg, that said it would be best for those cities to decide what they want. 

 

Or streetcar could use the ROW that the trains would.

Streetcar or LRT would best serve the Wilkinson and Charlotte community.i don't think Charlotteans or Meck Co. In general gains anything from commuter rail to Gaston

 

What do you mean?  Charlotte is Gastonia's largest suburb.  Traffic on 85 is almost as bad as traffic on 77.  It would definitely be more beneficial to Gaston county than Charlotte, but better regional connections are generally a good thing.

 

I also agree that street car or LRT best serves Charlotte's needs but neither one of them will be able to operate in the HSR ROW.  And HSR is most likely going to the airport.  If commuter rail can share that line and hit a few places as well as Gastonia, that service may be all the airport really needs, freeing up money for a streetcar alignment that better serves West Charlotte.

Edited June 6, 2013 by DEnd

[15895]

In this case building from scratch might be the better alternative. It should be looked at carefully and not eliminated just because it hasn't ever been done before. That part of SC is pretty unpopulated. The main concern I have with it is it does not connect with the central business districts of Greenville and Spartanburg, that said it would be best for those cities to decide what they want.

What do you mean? Charlotte is Gastonia's largest suburb. Traffic on 85 is almost as bad as traffic on 77. It would definitely be more beneficial to Gaston county than Charlotte, but better regional connections are generally a good thing.

I do Gastonia - Concord 5 days a week and always cruise 10 miles over (even between New Hope to to Belmont) and rarely ever hit traffic at all. And usually it's a wreck that's caused traffic.

[kermit]

move along now, nothing to see here......

 

(site of a former fauxpas)

Edited June 6, 2013 by kermit

[DEnd]

Preserved because it made me LOL.

 

(I am not trying to pick on you, I do know what you mean.)

 

I said it for the LOL, it's an old, old joke.

[DEnd]

I do Gastonia - Concord 5 days a week and always cruise 10 miles over (even between New Hope to to Belmont) and rarely ever hit traffic at all. And usually it's a wreck that's caused traffic.

 

It's a lot better since they sort of fixed 321 that's for sure...  That said when I go into work (Shelby to Charlotte) at about 6:00pm or so it almost always seems like there is very heavy traffic leaving Charlotte.  Maybe its deceptive going the opposite way.

[mallguy]

In this case building from scratch might be the better alternative.  It should be looked at carefully and not eliminated just because it hasn't ever been done before.

I agree with you that building from scratch might be the better alternative.  But unfortunately true HSR, built from scratch, is a pie-in-the-sky dream that is completely unrealistic in the US and especially in places such as SC. 

 

The recipe for successful HSR (which is usually really "higher-speed rail", above 79 mph) in the US is the incremental approach like NC has done with its trains between Charlotte and Raleigh, not the start-a-HSR-line-from-scratch approach. Bit by bit, additional frequencies need to be added, and trackwork needs to be done bit by bit, as funds are available, as NC is doing between Charlotte and Raleigh.  That's the tried and true approach for higher-speed rail in the US.

 

SC won't even spend a dime for an additional daytime train on the Charlotte-Atlanta route.  The chances of SC spending anything for true HSR from scratch are zero.  Even California, which funds plenty of conventional trains, is having problems getting its HSR system funded.

Edited June 6, 2013 by mallguy

[orulz]

I agree with you that building from scratch might be the better alternative.  But unfortunately true HSR, built from scratch, is a pie-in-the-sky dream that is completely unrealistic in the US and especially in places such as SC. 

 

The recipe for successful HSR (which is usually really "higher-speed rail", above 79 mph) in the US is the incremental approach like NC has done with its trains between Charlotte and Raleigh, not the start-a-HSR-line-from-scratch approach. Bit by bit, additional frequencies need to be added, and trackwork needs to be done bit by bit, as funds are available, as NC is doing between Charlotte and Raleigh.  That's the tried and true approach for higher-speed rail in the US.

 

SC won't even spend a dime for an additional daytime train on the Charlotte-Atlanta route.  The chances of SC spending anything for true HSR from scratch are zero.  Even California, which funds plenty of conventional trains, is having problems getting its HSR system funded.

I see what you're saying, to a degree, but Norfolk Southern has gone on record saying that they will never let trains run on their tracks faster than 90mph. Though the Atlanta-Greenville and Atlanta-Charlotte distance might be a reasonable train ride at 90mph, you only realize the true economies of scale for High Speed Rail when you have more ambition. For example, with a true high speed rail line with an average speed of 140mph, Atlanta-New York starts to become competitive with flying. The trip time would be about 6 hours, compared to about 2.5 hours flying - not a great comparison at first glance, but when you weigh the hassle of airport security, cramped quarters on a plane, plus the time and difficulty of reaching Manhattan from the airports, you can begin to understand.

 

So if you're only hoping to be competitive in the Atlanta-Greenville and Atlanta-Charlotte market, then yes 90mph on the NS line works. If you're hoping to capture Atlanta->(the entire eastern seaboard) market, which is exponentially larger, it may be worth the larger initial investment.

[Guest]

The trip time would be about 6 hours, compared to about 2.5 hours flying - not a great comparison at first glance, but when you weigh the hassle of airport security, cramped quarters on a plane, plus the time and difficulty of reaching Manhattan from the airports, you can begin to understand.

 

So if you're only hoping to be competitive in the Atlanta-Greenville and Atlanta-Charlotte market, then yes 90mph on the NS line works. If you're hoping to capture Atlanta->(the entire eastern seaboard) market, which is exponentially larger, it may be worth the larger initial investment.

I can definitely agree with this. I live in Brooklyn and work 3 blocks from Penn Station. I make monthly trips down to DC and typically it takes less time to get there by train, because of travel to and from each airport, having to arrive early for security, and etc. Its 3 hours by train vs. 4+ total by plane.

[carolinagarnet]

Two things:

 

1. SC hates funding everything (especially education), but there is a huge focus right now on state competitiveness. Last year there was a scandal that involved Nicki Haley exchanging campaign contributions from Georgia businessmen for SC's approval of Georgia's plan to dredge the Savannah River (in order to accommodate the megaships that will pass through the Panama Canal en route to the port of Savannah). Politicians were so afraid that it would weaken SC's competitive position that the SC legislature immediately pushed through $300M of funding to deepen the port of Charleston. Couple that with the decision to open an inland port in Greer (Greenville) and I think SC might consider funding part of the HSR as a means of economic development.

 

2. On an unrelated note, there is an article about the streetcar proposal to the airport in which Carlee basically flips out and says the airport will descend into a state of chaos. I doubt this will happen since leadership is the same, but it called into question whether an airport authority would kick in funding for any mass transit connecting the city to the airport:

 

The authority push has new urgency, supporters said, because of a draft of the Charlotte Area Transit System’s possible plans to make up for funding shortfalls. The draft, released last month, said Charlotte could save on streetcar costs “from locating maintenance and storage facilities ‘inside the fence’ on the airport property,” and suggested the airport could subsidize riders using the streetcar to reach the airport.

 

That language isn’t in the final report, which only says CATS could use “coordination/financial cooperation from airport on West Corridor Streetcar.”

 

“The fact they’re looking to scam money out of the airport shows how important it is to get it out of the hands of these guys,” said former City Council member Stan Campbell.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/06/05/4088143/carlee-house-bill-will-put-airport.html#storylink=cpy

 

It never occurred to me that the airport would not want to improve access to the city. With the proposed authority including such a rural/exburban contingent, funding for a streetcar, commuter, or light rail line might be in jeopardy.

[kermit]

While I agree that a greenfield route is fiscally unlikely (impossible) in the current political environment I'll suggest that the economic returns of the route might actually justify the expense.

 

No one questions the value of the Northeast Corridor connections between DC-NYC-Boston. Well a Greenfield route from Atlanta to CLT (plus the reminder of the SEHSR improvements would make Atlanta-NYC the same distance as DC-Boston. Only a Greenfield route could accommodate the speed (140mph, slightly slower than the NEC's fastest portions now) and frequency (two trains an hour each way) necessary to make the Southern Piedmont an extension of the NEC. 

 

It would not hurt that Charlotte would be at the heart of the NEC South.

[mallguy]

This is still all completely ridiculous.

 

HSR consists of passenger trains traveling at speeds of 125 mph or higher, by the traditional definitions.  That requires dedicated tracks and usually requires electrification, which basically doubles the cost of the rail line.  That's not happening, sad to say.

 

No brand-new HSR system is being built in the Carolinas.  CSX doesn't want anything to do with it, and Norfolk Southern says that it won't allow trains at speeds above 90 mph as per the post above.

 

So all that we could get, realistically, is a few more trains between Atlanta and Charlotte, traveling at speeds up to 90 mph, using diesel-powered locomotives.  (With a top speed of 90 mph, the average speed will be far lower- maybe 65 mph).  Compared to what we have today (just one train in each direction that passes through at night), a few more trains at speeds of up to 90 mph would be a huge improvement and would fuel massive growth in ridership.

 

What rail planners and advocates should focus on is getting the system in the paragraph right above done.  Why not focus planning meetings on the times and track improvements (to build capacity) that are needed to make that happen?  Why not focus on building the political will for that?  That would be a much more practical approach, and it would have direct benefits for a lot of people who now cannot take the train since it travels at bad hours. 

 

For rail planners to be speaking of "HSR" and discussing brand-new systems is just not realistic, and it sets people up for disappointment--for example, when Amtrak launched its new Acela service, some people took conventional Amtrak trains along the route and criticized Amtrak for its service as not true HSR, when in fact the improved service was much better than what Amtrak had before.

[skymiler]

Cross posted from the NC passenger rail thread.

 

The southern extension of the SEHSR from Charlotte to Atlanta is getting some attention lately thanks to funding from the feds and Georgia DOT.

 

Study web page

 

There are six alternatives:

• Norfolk Southern
• I-85
• Greenfield HSR via SC Upstate region
• CSX via Athens and Rock Hill
• CSX via Augusta and Columbia
• I-20/I-77

I think Alternatives 4-6 lose out pretty badly based on the extra distance.

 

The Greenfield HSR route scores the highest, but also has the worst station locations at intermediate cities. The Norfolk Southern route has the best station locations, going through every downtown along the way, but is also curvy and slow and would presumably be expensive to straighten. I-85 is Not as fast as a greenfield route, and the stations don't make it downtown, but at least the stations aren't way outside Greenville and Spartanburg.

 

All routes terminate at Gateway in Charlotte, and 1-3 also have stations at CLT.

 

In my opinion the ideal route would be the greenfield route, with a diversion that gets as close as possible to downtown Greenville, whether by I-85, some railroad alignment, or something else, like I-185 to I-385..

 

But in honesty, the greenfield route would only make sense if high speed rail north of Charlotte is also built to a pretty high standard. There was some talk of a future straight line greenfield route between Charlotte and Raleigh, and we all know the route from Raleigh to Richmond is being designed for speeds in excess of its original planned operating speed of 110mph.

 

There is a meeting tomorrow at 2327 Tipton Drive in Charlotte from 3-6pm about this study.

Not sure what you mean about option 4. CSX doesn't run through or anywhere near Rock hill.

[DEnd]

This is still all completely ridiculous.

 

What rail planners and advocates should focus on is getting the system in the paragraph right above done.  Why not focus planning meetings on the times and track improvements (to build capacity) that are needed to make that happen?  Why not focus on building the political will for that?  That would be a much more practical approach, and it would have direct benefits for a lot of people who now cannot take the train since it travels at bad hours. 

 

For rail planners to be speaking of "HSR" and discussing brand-new systems is just not realistic, and it sets people up for disappointment--for example, when Amtrak launched its new Acela service, some people took conventional Amtrak trains along the route and criticized Amtrak for its service as not true HSR, when in fact the improved service was much better than what Amtrak had before.

 

Because it is still very early in the process, as such a close look must be taken at all options. 

 

The greenfield route may be the most cost effective option, but if we focus on just the improvement option we would never know. At this stage to not include a greenfield option for each of the routings would be negligent. The reason the greenfield routings may be the most cost effective option is because a true HSR option may produce better returns, may have a lower cost of use (per passenger) than using the freight lines, provide more safety, possibly have lower construction costs (greenfield construction in rural areas is often cheaper or only slightly more expensive than a major retrofit, and has no service disruptions)  the N/S routing means that only 90mph service is feasible (http://www.sehsr.org/reports/MACCLTrept2004.pdf page es-9) as such it will never be able to support true HSR, it may make sense to go ahead and secure a new right of way while the land is cheap. 

 

That said the greenfield route may also be too expensive to do, but it needs to be looked at, and this is the stage in the planning process to do it.

[mallguy]

Because it is still very early in the process, as such a close look must be taken at all options. 

 

The greenfield route may be the most cost effective option, but if we focus on just the improvement option we would never know. At this stage to not include a greenfield option for each of the routings would be negligent. The reason the greenfield routings may be the most cost effective option is because a true HSR option may produce better returns, may have a lower cost of use (per passenger) than using the freight lines, provide more safety, possibly have lower construction costs (greenfield construction in rural areas is often cheaper or only slightly more expensive than a major retrofit, and has no service disruptions)  the N/S routing means that only 90mph service is feasible (http://www.sehsr.org/reports/MACCLTrept2004.pdf page es-9) as such it will never be able to support true HSR, it may make sense to go ahead and secure a new right of way while the land is cheap. 

 

That said the greenfield route may also be too expensive to do, but it needs to be looked at, and this is the stage in the planning process to do it.

 

The costs and benefits of various levels of service and routings have already been studied ad nauseam for the Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor.  The best cost/benefit tradeoff has been found to be frequent "higher-speed" rail on existing tracks.  The studies are out there.  See http://www.sehsr.org/reports.html and elsewhere.

 

Building a new HSR system costs around $50 million per mile.  (Source: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/running-the-numbers-on-high-speed-trains/) Again, I certainly think that the investment is worth it.  But South Carolina hasn't expressed any interest in spending even one cent on passenger trains.  So until there appears to be any interest by GA, SC or NC in spending that amount ($12.5 billion for Atlanta-Charlotte), focusing on new HSR systems is a waste of time that will result in zero improved rail service. 

 

We should focus on realistic projects (like those underway in Washington, Oregon, Michigan and Illinois) that can achieve significant benefits for people instead, as I've outlined above.

Edited June 7, 2013 by mallguy

[orulz]

Not sure what you mean about option 4. CSX doesn't run through or anywhere near Rock hill.

It looks like the map shows the route switching from the CSX line to the NS line in Chester. 

[southslider]

Too many stations on all options, including Greenfield.  And the GSP station adds significant mileage to the Greenfield route.

 

Follow the TGV model in France--  Build the most direct alignment between major cities, placing only minimal stations in-between to serve any smaller cities.